Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 11

Denovo's recent edits

Your insistence is growing and your recent edit to the "Warning" was just plain silly. I understand your position and I choose a different approach than the one you are proffering. You seem to be taking it personal and are resulting to inappropriate behavior. You will find that you will more often get your way by cooperating with others and seeking concensus, offering alternatives that are well thought out, and by listening to others. You have a good eye for editing and your continued efforts will be appreciated. However, if you continue to make silly edits that show a rather immature attitude you will not get far on WIKI. Oh, by the way, don't take the last comment personal; just look at my edit history and you will notice that I am quite capable of immature behavior also. It does not mean that we are idiots, but that we both are just very human. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate for you to be characterizing my edits as silly or me as immature. In the spirit of compromise, I'm certainly willing to remove the "editorial warning" rather than rephrase it. In fact, I've done so before, and it keeps reappearing, despite the fact that it is clearly no longer universally consented to. So far, most of those editing this article seem to feel any attempt to edit it without their approval is inappropriate; that the article should be done their way, or else, and that they have no reason to discuss their continual reversions to their preferred version, because they were "here" first. That's where the combative conduct has originated, and not with me. We'll see how the "no warning" version fares, and go from there. To repeat my points from the "revised" warning: The discussion of Smith's polygamy cannot be relegated to a "teachings" section, but must be approached chronologically, as it developed throughout Smith's life, and motivated many of the reactions to him and his followers. To treat Smith's polygamy as an "addendum" rather than an organic part of his life is a distortion, and far from a neutral presentation. - Denovo 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Get serious Denovo - have you read the change you made – you changed it to say "Some other editors feel you should not add refer to polygamy in this section..." when 4 paragraphs later (in “this section”) it says "Quinn alleges that it was during the building of the Kirtland temple that Joseph Smith first practiced polygamy (1833 - see Polygamy discussion below)." You can't persuade the editors that the approach you want to take, which is disruptive to a quick narrative of JS life, so you accuse those editors in the warning of a conspiracy to suppress the information.

Summary of archive

Since you seem unwilling to put forth the effort here is my summary of the consensus that has been reached on the talk page, of course you will probably not trust that my summary is fair, so I again encourage you to read through the archives to verify the reliability of my summary:

• One main issues with this article is length - there is so much to discuss and so many viewpoints to present. The consensus viewpoint on resolving that issue was to:
  • Divide the biography portion into 4 articles
  • Present an overview narrative of JS life in the main JS article
  • Identify notable teachings/theology and include a brief description of them topically
  • Provide obvious links (e.g. "Main article: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr." at the introduction to different sections so readers can quickly get to more in depth information
  • Present disputed information as succinctly as possible while retaining the key points of dispute - cover details of the dispute in the detail articles
  • Identify, where possible, clear consensus views, focus on them in the main article, include small minority alternate viewpoints (by this I mean viewpoints rejected by most critical scholars but still held by some group or individual historian) in the detail article.
• Another main issue is controversial nature of Joseph Smith where some believe he is a prophet called by God, and others believe he is a charlatan focused on fulfilling his base desires through polygamy and the subjection of large numbers of people to his authority by claiming to be a prophet. The resolution of this was to review Wikipedia policies, namely:
  • Verifiability: assertions of fact should clearly identify references for other editors to verify the information
  • Reliability: included sources should be reliable i.e. they should have professional respect amongst historians, and information they claim should be reasonably verified or supported by contemporaneous documents
  • Neutral presentation: assertions of fact should identify the source and describe the assertion using language that is sympathetic to the source
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: The purpose of the writing should be to present a encyclopedic view of JS life - focusing on what makes him notable (i.e. why we even have an article about him); thus, no soapbox, debates, or original viewpoints.

Application to your edits

You made an edit. The edit was removed and a note on the talk page was made to identify any information that could reach concensus that it should be included in the Kirtland section.

Discussion ensued, an insertion of Quinn's allegation was made in the Kirtland section along with a reference to the more detailed information. You reverted that proposed consensus view, other editors restored the proposed consensus view, thus voicing their support for the proposed modification.

You continue to revert those editors, and suggestions that your edit does not of the support of other editors, and to come "up to speed" on the organization of the article and the viewpoints reached through consensus (which is necessary because of the controversial and complex of Joseph Smith's life) appear to be ignored.

Finally you take pot shots though editing the comment about keeping polygamy info together. Then you claim that the reversion is motivated by a "we were here first so we control the article" accusation. When the truth is that this issue has been discussed before, a general consensus was reached, information or arguments you have made influenced enough editors to make a change to the wording, the change was made, and the change is supported by multiple editors; thus reaching a new consensus on the wording.

Additionally, you accuse the editors of combative conduct, when you are the one who continued to reinsert your language without support. --Trödel 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for at last clarifying what you meant when you said "read the discussion" without further specification, though it is completely unfair of you to attribute my inability to discern this to "lack of effort" - at least, lack of effort on my part, rather than your effort to clarify what you were saying. Of course, you still don't state which of the points you think my edit conflicted with - in fact, none of the points in the summary figures in your "application to your edits" section. You and your supporters here seem to think that consensus is formed by multiple reversion rather than discussion, and should not be at all surprised when your multiple reversions recieve more of the same in response. - Denovo 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Haun's Mill

Soon after the "Extermination Order" was issued, vigilantes attacked an outlying Mormon settlement and killed seventeen people; an event that was later identified as the Haun's Mill Massacre.

How is this material relevant to the life of JSJ? He wasn't there, and it didn't directly affect his life in any way, shape or form.

The way it is written the information is not made to provide information about Joseph Smith, how it may have affected his decision making or his thoughts about the safety of his people. The information should be reviewed and rewritten to conform specifically how it affected Joseph or I think the whole section could be deleted. Do you feel comfortable doing so or would you prefer that others handle that? Good review and point. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... you're right. The first 3 paragraphs (out of four) in this subsection deal with the Mormon population at large. I think they should be revamped so that they only deal with the effects on the Mormon community at large (and thus Smith), or Smith directly. Hopefully cut it down to two paragraphs at most. This isn't the place for a synopsis of the conflict. There's a reason that there's a link to Mormon War. Actually, I'm gonna put a {{Main}} template up there, so that there's no obligation to discuss it in the article.

And as for the rest of my plan: discussion plz. Comments? Questions? Concerns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs)

Hello? Anybody there? Alright, I'll work on that, but if you don't like it, plz discuss before reverting. Thx.

'Death' section

(Mostly) to Ju66l3r:

My main goal with my edits was to reign in the size of this section, and removing details that were, in my eyes, extraneous. I double checked that anything that I removed was contained in the "Death of Joseph Smith, Jr." article, and in fact I added a fact or two to it, from this article. But the simple fact of this is that this section was (and now is) not succienctly summarized. "Details and quotations" which I removed were all (as far as I felt) not useful for the reading of the article. Smith has a lot of detail in his life, which, to the average reader of Wikipedia, it can get tedious to read all 66kb of it. Thus, I HIGHLY suggest that we streamline, basically to the barebones, this article. Kind of like I had done, but apparently you took exception to it.

I admit that the {{fact}} template may have been overboard, but a refernce there would still be nice - where could we find the text of that quotation? But even as it is, since it is included in the main article, then the simple statement "Violent threats were made against Smith and the Mormon community." should be sufficient, and then a hyperlink to the text of the Warsaw signal could be referenced. Or maybe the text itself should be referenced. Suggestions here?

For the general reference, here is my edit, and here is your revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs)

This is exactly what this article needs - on all the sections - I support the edit as it summarizes the events and includes the major POVs involved. --Trödel 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Subarticle for 'major teachings' section

Seeing as the "Major teachings" section is near one third of this article's total length, I feel that it should be broken out into a subarticle, with references left to his most basic teachings, and his most controversial teachings. Perhaps:

• Nature Of God
• The Book of Mormon
• Great Apostasy
• Priesthood

• Smith's own prophetic calling

• Polygamy
• Temples

and leave the rest for anyone curious enough to visit the subarticles.

Any thoughts? Support? Disagree? Different choices for teachings to reference?

207.175.48.45 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I like it.

I am a bit torn by the proposition. On one side it seems appropriate. It would allow this article to focus on who Joseph Smith was and the major events of his life. On the other hand it would seem to remove much of his significance and controversy. The fact that he founded a church or movement would not exist without the doctrine he taught.

I would also add the Plan of Salvation to your list. Very few denominations within Christianity provide any type of answer as to why humanity exists. This was a major teaching and a stepping stone to the need for temples, priesthood, and the rest of the list. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... so we have

1. Nature Of God
2. Plan of Salvation
3. The Book of Mormon
4. Great Apostasy
5. Priesthood
6. Smith's own prophetic calling
7. Polygamy
8. Temples

and a paragraph or two in the main section about how many of these teachings were considered controversial - good?

Good? That depends on who is evaluating each issue. All of them were controversial because they conflicted with Orthodoxy. Trinitarianism and Mormon concepts of the Godhead conflict. Very few denominations believe that our spirits existed prior to coming to this earth. Many do view mortality as trial, but do not explain why and some will agree there are different degrees of glory (in my Father's house are many mansions), but are not as firm or as explicit of what that means. Further, Theosis or exaltation is not a concept in some denominations, but LDS take it to a literal level. Additional books of scripture has some understanding given the presence of the apocrypha, but an entire book supposedly written about Christ's dealings with other people is near anathema. Apostasy is taught by many groups, but not nearly as complete as that believed by Mormons. Priesthood is a difficult concept for many Christians. Protestants believe in the priesthood of the believer and the Orthodox have a definite priesthood which they believe is just imitated by Mormons. Most Christians do not believe the heavens are open today and that God speaks to prophets. Polygamy goes without saying it is controversial. Temples are foreign to concepts to present day Orthodox Christianity. The that Mormons perform ordinances that are sacred and viewed as secret. Yes, I would say they are all controversial.

If this article was created, it would quickly evolve into a repeat of an already overloaded arena: Mormonism and Christianity, Criticism of Mormonism, Exmormonism, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon further review and given the plethora of articles that attempt to juxtapose Christianity and Mormonism and its doctrines, I would not support breaking this article out. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with separating out an article, as long as (1) this article contains a fair, NPOV summary of Smith's major teachings, and (2) there is no distinction, or different treatment, made between the teachings considered "controversial" and those considered "non-controversial". Any separation between the two invites NPOV violations, and is itself an NPOV violation. Indeed, I think there are very few reasons in this article or the split-off to even comment on the controversy of the teachings. There's plenty of room for that kind of thing in Mormonism and Christianity, etc. The only controversies that should be discussed within the scope of this article and the split-off are historical controversies about whether Smith did or didn't teach some particular doctrine. Or, controversies might be relevant if, during Smith's lifetime, opposition to the teaching had a historical effect on Smith's life. COGDEN 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... Storm Rider: Sorry - I wasn't clear. I think that all of the text that is in the main article now should be in the subarticle - that's the purpose of creating subarticles. When I said "good?", I didn't mean to ask if the doctrine was good doctrine or bad doctrine. I was simply wondering if you agreed with my choice of topics to leave in the main article, as in, "does this look like a good selection to you?" What I listed was meant to be a list of what we would put in the main, Joseph Smith, Jr., article.

Cogden: I imagine that this article, and the subarticle could probably include reference to the fact that a particular doctrine was particularly controversial (for example, polygamy), but it would not be dealt with as a major piece of the (sub)article. At least, that's how I had envisioned it.

But I figure that since this section currently contains 2,297 words, out of a 65kb article with ~6,750 words (in the main body of the article), I really think that we need to bring this article size down by breaking this part out. Is there any reason that we need sections on Christianity, Families, The Book of Mormon, The Word Of Wisdom, and The Law of Consecration in this article?

Chauncey court records

I just removed the following from the text pending a review of its verifiability and reliability. Normally I would just use {{fact}}; however, once this is put out on the wikipedia mirrors it will make online research much more difficult.

...collapsed four weeks after its opening and three months prior to a nationwide banking crisis. Many critics leveled accusations that Smith was actively misleading KSS members from the beginning of the financial enterprise as it was operating without an official Ohio bank charter and required specie reserves. On March 24, 1837 he was convicted in a Chardon, Ohio court of operating an illegal bank (Chardon, Ohio court records, Vol U, p. 362).

A quick serach of for this returned hundreds of hits, but none seemed related to Joseph Smith. I doubt its authenticity primarily because with the number of websites that normally come up when searching for negative information about Joseph Smith is normally very high. And since this purports to be such a irrefutable source (court records) I would expect it to be widely used. Any research assistance would be appreciated. --Trödel 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the following relevant contemporaneous references that should mention it if there was a conviction:

• Naked Truth about Mormonism - Claim of poisoning to protect KSS - doesn't mention the conviction
• Painesville Republican - Although full of complaints about KSS - doesn't mention the conviction, and article in July, 1837 claims to have attended a different trial the friday before, claimes JS has never been convicted of a crime including the latest trial, "The trial again came on before the County Court, on Friday last, and resulted in the entire acquital of Joseph Smith jr., of the charges alledged against him."
• Cleveland Herald and Gazette - records the conviction of Mrs. Sarah Cleveland, in the July 17, 1837 addition "for passing $390 of the "Kirtland Safety Society Bank," with intention to defraud." No mention of conviction of JS
• I. Riley, Woodbridge The Founder of Mormonism - p 313-314 use failure of KSS to show JS not a prophet - but don't mention conviction
• Whitsitt, William H. Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism Lists allegation that JS misappriated funds but does not mention a conviction.
• Google - Kirtland Safety Society search on Uncle Dale's Readings in Early Mormon History.

That's about all I could find for now. --Trödel 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Did you think to actually call the Chardon (not Chauncey, what is that?) court?. I can think of no more authoritative way to cite a court decision. Better than anything you'll find searching on a single site, sidneyrigdon.com, which is the source of 5 of the 6 citations you give that omit this fact. If it helps, it was mentioned in Brodie 1971, pg. 198. Please restore this text. --Kbrewster 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Trodel: Masonry, First Vision POV??

(Mostly) to Trodel: I'm sorry, but I can't see how you see my edits regarding Masonry and the First Vision as POV. I'm quite confused. I assure you that it is not my intention to insert POV material in this article. WOuld you explain to me please why you chose to revert my edits on a POV basis?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs)

This should be referenced to the person/people who claim that Joseph Smith was introduced to Masonry by John C Bennett - as it is not a universally held claim. Additionally, I may have acted more rashly than I normally would have because of the reference to Bennett since lately there has been sprinkling of the POV that Bennett was the true source of mormonism added to many of the Latter Day Saint movement articles over the last 6 weeks. --Trödel 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

OK then. That makes sense. Although I was only rephrasing what was already in the article - your revert didn't take that tidbit out of the article, because it had already been there for quite some time. I think that carefully checking the "show changes" log would show that these edits hold up to the standard of NPOV, as well as having tightened the prose considerably. I also include my statements in regards to the first part on early life and family.

For the general reference, here is the sum of my edits, and here is your revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs)

Thx - just as an FYI - for me - I sometimes don't notice something is really not neutral until it changes because I generally don't reread the entire article periodically. So I am mostly just looking at diffs and there are days I miss my wikipedia fix - so I miss the original diffs - and there are also things in an article that I don't consider neutral, but I don't have alternative language to suggest yet - or my suspicions about lack of neutrality may need to be researched, etc. Thus it may be in there a long time and still not be neutral.

-As to the changes you reference:

"(Smith recorded several accounts of this theophany, with several details that are apparently contradictory. These details have been taken from Smith's final and most familiar account, written in the late 1830's, while writing a formal history of Mormonism.)"

I see this as less neutral than before - it is not universally held that the details contradict, thus that should be attributed as "X says they are apparently contradictory," or better yet, "Smith recorded several accounts of this theophany, each account including different details.<ref>Smith's version of the events is from the 1838 account (the [[First Vision]]) written as part of Smiths efforts to record a formal history on Mormonism." </ref> or something like that

"According to Smith, he was confused over which church was right, and..."

This was changed from "In the late 1830's, while writing a formal history of Mormonism he wrote his final and most familiar account. Confused over which church was right..." While both attribute the version of the events to Smith - the prior version provides less detail, and no context for where the version of events came from - but moves this context to the end of the paragraph.

"Smith was introduced to Masonry (possibly by John C. Bennett); on March 15, 1842, he was initiated as a Freemason, as an Entered Apprentice Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge. The next day, he was initiated as a Master Mason; the usual month-long wait between degrees was waived by the Illinois Lodge Grandmaster, Abraham Jonas. Smith attended less than a half-dozen Masonic meetings."

now that I look at it with fresh eyes - I think this change is better than what was there before. --Trödel 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... seeing as we have reached consensus on the masonry paragraph, I have put it back in, with a {{fact}} by the Bennett fact, as well as the following at the end:

"Some commentators have noted similarities between portions of temple ordinance of the endowment and the Royal Arch Degree of Freemasonry."

If you don't think that it strengthens the article, feel free to take it out.

I still want to reach consensus on the First Vision aspect, but I don't have time right now. I'll come back to this later...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs)

sounds good - I'll see if I can propose soemthing too. --Trödel 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Alright, here's my edit. I'll look for the citations later, but it should do for now; I know that I've seen the citiation for the second {{fact}} somewhere before, but the first one might not be right. I really feel that they ought to be in there, seeing as it is an important arguement of anti-Mormons (to my knowledge).

As always, please discuss on the talk page before reverting me, so I know what I did wrong. Thanks.

Look ok to me - you should really get a user name - reverting anons without explanation, while inpolite and probably wrong, is frequent on wikipedia because of the vandalism. --Trödel 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article, revisited

Alright, seeing as the previous discussion has gone inactive, and I would really like to see this happen, I would like to continue to discuss splitting the article.

We currently have in the article the following:
5 Major teachings

5.1 Christianity

5.2 Nature Of God

5.3 Priesthood

5.3.1 Smith's own prophetic calling

5.4 Plan of Salvation

5.5 Families

5.6 The Book of Mormon

5.7 The Word Of Wisdom

5.8 The Law of Consecration

5.9 Temples

5.10 Major prophecies

5.11 Polygamy

5.12 Great Apostasy

My proposal is as follows: Step 1) Create new article, titled Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.. It would be as follows:
Introduction (consisting, for now, of what is listed under the main section in Major Teachings)
1 Christianity
2 Nature Of God
3 Priesthood

3.1 Smith's own prophetic calling

4 Plan of Salvation
5 Families
6 The Book of Mormon
7 The Word Of Wisdom
8 The Law of Consecration
9 Temples
10 Major prophecies
11 Polygamy
12 Great Apostasy

Basically, a copy of what's here now.

Of course, that would be for starters; the point of making the new article is to allow greater expansion of content. Also, the order in which they are in doesn't seem logical to me, so we might want to reorder them.

Step 2) Leave in the current article as follows:

5 Major teachings (main section should consist of what there is now, probably minus the sentence on Wentworth letter, also probably plus a sentence explaining that herein lies much of his significance and controversy)

5.1 Nature Of God

5.2 Plan of Salvation

5.3 Great Apostasy

5.4 Priesthood

5.4.1 Smith's own prophetic calling

5.5 The Book of Mormon

5.6 Temples

5.7 Polygamy (I don't mean to give this a short-shrift by putting it at the end, but it is the only thing that, in my mind, doesn't follow logically in some form or another from something before, and would kind of be an interruption. Others may disagree with me.)

Because they are short enough (with the possible exception of polygamy), the text that is there now would remain on all of these sections.

My reasoning is as follows: this article is too long. Most people, looking for info on Smith, will not get to the bottom. We've tried to summarize his biography, but that can only go so far down. I think that we need to move these sections out.

According to WP:SIZE:

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles...:

> 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

(This article is 66kb.)

5 subsections (Christianity, Families, The Word Of Wisdom, Major Prophecies, and The Law of Consecration) and ~625 words would be removed from an article of ~6,750 words. (Note: In word counts, I have only counted the body of the article.)

There, I'm done. Now what do you guys (or girls too) think?

Seeing as noone has responded, I have taken the liberty of doing this myself.

Sounds good to me. Seems like a teachings article is ripe for splitting, although the remaining summary article here will require some careful scrutiny. COGDEN 06:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Codgen, I think that your complete removal of all of that was a little overzealous. Hmm... I'll at least add in a subsection on polygamy; I can only imagine bcatt's ghost (and other POV/NPOV warriors) going ballistic when we give Smith a single sentence about one of the most controversial topics in Smith's entire life.

I wasn't trying to eliminate mention of polygamy. There are still ample places to discuss his polygamy in the historical sections of the article. It was an undoubtedly a significant part of his life and history. But as far as it being one of his teachings, it's only one of many, and I think a short summary, together with a reference to the split-off article, should cover the doctrinal aspect of his polygamy. As far as the historical aspect of his polygamy, we just haven't gotten into much detail, yet, about his later life. COGDEN 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

3 & 8 witnesses paragraph

I have moved it to the "1827 - 1831" section of the article, seeing as it was orignially published with the BoM in 1830. If anyone could point to source saying exactly when it occurred (please?), then it could be put in the appropriate section chronologially. But Smith didn't even meet Cowdrey until 1829, so it is unlikely that the vision was before then!

Anonymous Recent Edits

I apologize to anyone I may have offended by adding some silly remarks to this article. I did so simply to see what would happen, as I'm new to this type of dynamic content. I did, however, make one change which I felt was wholly appropriate. I removed the category link to Category:Christian martyrs. There is already an appropriate category link to Category:Mormon martyrs.

Mormonism is considered heresy by mainstream Christian doctrine. Additionally, there are scores of martyrs throughout history who died for their unwavering commitment to traditional Christian doctrines. I cannot see how Smith's rejection of traditional Christianity would keep him in the category of "Christian Martyrs". If a Mormon rejected Mormonism to become Baptist, then died in a fight with some angry Mormons, I don't think you would consider him a Mormon martyr. By the same token, how can you consider the opporsite to be true?

Also, I don't believe one can make the case that Smith's death in a shootout with federal employees constitutes the death of a martyr, especially when one considers that it was Smith's practice of polygamy that drew the ire of the federal government in the first place. Smith's death transpired as a result of his commitment to this practice, rather than his commitment to Mormonism. Even if one were to argue that Mormonism is "true" Christian doctrine, I don't believe that Smith's death wouldn't qualify as a martyr's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk • contribs) .

I have not formed an opinion on what category is best. I think there is a consensus that Mormons are Christians. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good topic Anon, but you might want to review history. Joseph Smith was in the upper floor of a jailhouse that was attacked by a mob made up of various local malitias. I have never heard someone classify such a group as Federal Employees. The movtivations for his murder was not limited to polygamy. Many have come up with various reasons, but it is without question that from boyhood Joseph was persecuted for his beliefs and his religious convictions.

There are many Christian martyrs that were also labeled as heretics at the time of their martyrdom. I was only after many years had passed that "mainstream" Christianity decided they were in fact Saints. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole thing is one of the reasons I'm starting to hate Wikipedia categories. It's almost impossible to make them NPOV. Whether or not anyone is a martyr is completely subjective. We might as well have categories called "Category:People who are doctrinally correct" and "Category:People who are going to hell". COGDEN 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I Completely agree with Storm Rider and COGDEN - the other thing to keep in mind here is that he didn't convert from being a baptist to being a Mormon. He wanted to reform or restore christianity, which is the same as many other christian martyrs - from Ignatius of Antioch to George Blaurock - both of which started their own denominations, if you will. These and others were seen as heretics at the time, but their ideas lived on and changed christianity. Smith is still seen as a heretic for the time being, but his ideas have changed christianity already. That said, for the purpose of wikipedia perhaps it is too close to his death to classify him as such - but he will someday - time will rule in his favor, IMHO. Even american history is starting to acknowledge his influence on law, slavery, settlement and city planning and more.

This is probably a talking point for a bigger discussion, however, there are a number of people listed in the christian martyrs category that probably shouldn't be there at all - for example - the Bonhoeffer family - they were killed not for their beliefs in Christianity, but because they joined an anti Nazi movement. Joan of Arc was killed for her military endeavors and for her claiming to have personal communion and revelation from God - which is still considered heretical by most non-catholic christians (and yet very similar to the reasons for Smith's death. Both claimed to be told by God to teach and say things that are still considered heretical). Dorothy Kazel was a missionary who was killed in a violent crime - not for her beliefs, but because she was giving support to guerrillas - her alleged rape and death was highly political in nature, not for her being a christian or her beliefs in christ.

What about to a non-Christain - how would they percieve it? If you are going to be universal about applying the term - it should be by the definition given in wikipedia - "a martyr is a person who dies for their convictions or religious faith." Add to that the wikipedia definition of a Christian: "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven. These beliefs are held by the vast majority of Christian denominations." Using those basic wikipedia definitions - he qualifies.

Since Smith's teachings fully agree with that ("The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).), although some thought that his "deeper" interpretation of the bible was heretical, and he was killed for his religious convictions of how to practice what he deemed true christianity, then he probably qualifies more as a christian martyr than half of the people in the category. Or perhaps we should change the definitions of Christian and Martyr? Then again, as I stated above, it may be too soon to categorize him as such for another 50 years, but by the 200th anniversary of his death, I believe that the bulk of "christians" will consider him as such, especially if they consider folks like John Forrest (martyr), Charles Garnier (missionary) or others who died for political reasons, not for their religion. -Visorstuff 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the real issue is not whether Smith is considered a martyr, but whether or not he is considered a Christian. Of course, now we have a Category:Mormon martyrs category that has its own problems, listing Parley P. Pratt, who was killed in a domestic dispute with one of his plural wives' ex-husbands, and David W. Patten, who was killed in a military conflict as a member of a militia. COGDEN 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it stated that Smith died in a shootout with federal marshalls, as well. I'm not certain of the authenticity of the claim, but I was told this by a Mormon missionary. He also stated that the Smithsonian had found direct evidence that Native Americans were one of the original tribes of Israel. This has proven to be completely false, so I'm not certain that the young man knew what he was talking about.

In terms of Smith's place in Christian history, I agree with the first anonymous poster concerning the category. Though there were true martyrs of the faith that were deemed heretics by other sects of Christianity, there were also legitmately labeled heresies that are still considered heresy by modern Christian scholars. The final call on this subject does not rest on the majority opinion, even the majority opinion of Christians, but upon the opinions and doctrines expressed in the Bible. As long as LDS doctrine stands in contradiction to these, it cannot be considered "Chrstian", regardless of what label the LDS church puts on it. I understand that Mormon belief does not consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God. But, it is the only source of Christian doctrine for nearly two millennia before Smith's birth. Stark contradictions to it cannot be deemed a legitimate part of it. By the same token, I would have a hard time describing Smith as a Christian martyr.

I understand that some of the Mormon readers are going to read this and say, "Whoa, our beliefs are not in contradiction to the Bible." But, they really are. Few Mormon missionaries or believers ralize how very, very far their beliefs are from Christian teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.50.190 (talk • contribs)

Exactly which books of the Bible would we be discussing: the Apochrapha, the books mentioned in the Bible, but are missing, or the KJV text most Protestants (and LDS) recognize? Contradiction to the Bible? That is all a matter of opnion and interpretation. There is very little, if anything, that the LDS people believe that is not built upon the Bible. As a restorationist I would say that the promised apostasy foretold in the Bible was real and it took place as foretold. Though many beautiful truths are found within broader Christianity outside of the church, they also have many missing truths and have many teachings created by man; this is a fundamental belief of Mormonism.

Regardless, WIKI is no a place to state which is true, but a place to provide information. It is not for the majority to say, "We don't believe that therefor it must be omitted". We report both sides and it is fine to dispute it, but the fact remains Joseph fundamental teaching was that Jesus was the Christ, that He died for our sins, that His church was restored to the earth, and that these teachings contributed to Joseph's murder. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

24, I understand where you are coming from on some items, but in true religious practice, I don't think there is that big of a difference. Perhaps in doctrine, which, as has been stated elsewhere, it a growing thing within mormonism, not a dogma as in other denominations. If the majority of governments classify mormonism as christian for census reasons, then that is a probable safe bet. Lets say for arguments sake that Christ and his atonement are the central items to being christian or not. Other doctrines really don't matter - even for mormons - they are appendages to christ-worship.

I can go through from Arian heresies to luthers heresies and show how mormonism picked up most of the "heretical" parts of those beliefs - from god and jesus being seperate beings to the role of works and faith in grace to pre-mortal beliefs. It is interesting that by your standards these heretics are allowed if they only have two or three heresies, but when you combine mutliple heretics beliefs into one belief system, such as the Moonies, Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons, then it is considered unchristian. Interesting that one of the female catholic missionaries taht is listed on the martyr page beliefed god was female. However, still a christian.

Back to my suggestion then, is the solution to change the wikipedia definition of Christian, so as to dis-include smith? The term martyr is already in question for other folks. We must apply to all universally and equally. If you apply this way, we expect you to remove others from the category who do not fit that mold. -Visorstuff 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Sans SouthPark

'Sansifying' the South Park links. Completely irrelevant for an encyclopedia article (well, mayber other than 'SouthPark').

--Coldblackice 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I must question your choice of 'Sansifying' (what the heck does that mean? I take it to mean, in this case 'deletion of inappropriate material') the paragraph on South Park. The section is on Smith "In the Modern Media", and this was indeed about Smith, "In the Modern Media". It is not inappropriate, nor out of place, seeing as these episodes are pretty much all of the knowledge that many have of Smith.

I'm sorry you were confused over my new word. It was the only knowledgeable word I had to explain my desires. Maybe I should start a Wiki article on it. As shown in South Park's various episodes, their material is based on the inappropriate mockery of various religions, races, and stereotypes. Religious pornography. --Coldblackice 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the original poster meant "sans"-ifying. Sans is French for without. So I assume the poster was making a play on words with the title - "Without Southpark" by calling it sansifying the links :) --Trödel 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the South Park material is inappropriate for this article. Encyclopedic doesn't mean high-brow. Eventually, there will probably be a split-off article for Media portrayals of Joseph Smith, Jr.. COGDEN 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I support the removal of the so-called fancruft as discussed here - while a full episode focused on an encyclopedic topic is different than "Chandler from Friends made reference to Ghandi in episode 'The one with Indian Food'" being included in Ghandi's article - they are not much different - and, IMHO, should have an article i.e. no problem with article on All About Mormons - but referencing it from JS is fancruft and not encyclopedic becaues it does not help one understand the topic. --Trödel 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I say keep the South Park reference. South Park is a significant cultural critic, and they devoted considerable resources to an exposition of Joseph Smith's life. You may think their analysis biased or otherwise flawed, but they certainly deserve a bullet under the heading "In the modern media." I'm going to try to figure out how to revert it back in. --Skidoo 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a history of cultural phenomenon - the SP references should link here - but there is absolutely no reason to insert fancruft into historical articles -please read the thread I referenced above again. --Trödel 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse last Post

I deleted the contents of this page; due to the fact that I do not wish to create any controversy. I respect this human experience we are all having and do not wish to appear as one who discounts individuals who work hard discovering what good really is and how to; make the most from the least, and not as I was taught; to make the least from the most.Kisida 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if there are no references then the information does not meet wikipedia's verifiability standards. And to report his results here would violate the ban on no original research. I suggest that you work on getting the information published by a reputable journal, then it can be easily included in the article. --Trödel 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Keep up the great work!

Hey all, great to see the progress that this article has made since I left. It looks like it's approaching FA status, although there is still definately more work to be done. I notice, with chagrin, that the 1831 to 1844 section is stupendously disjointed and difficult to catch the flow of, and missing various important parts, and has several less important parts. And at least half of the references section is probably obsolete. And the "Bibliography" section and subarticle (Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.) need work to look good. (Is it advisable to have a subarticle for the bibliography?? I don't think so.)

But beyond those glaring dificulties, this article looks incredible! If you don't see how far it's come, check out http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-smith, http://www.theowiki.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&redirect=no, or any other inactive Wiki mirror sight. You may be astounded at how primitive this article used to look.

Although I have stated that I would not edit this wiki, I do feel that these things are important, so I'll update the to-do list with what I see as necessary things to do here.

I am heartened by the progress which has been made in my absence, and hope that it is able ot continue. Please continue to work to improve this encyclopedia, and this article in particular. The world needs more truth regarding this great man. --Trevdna 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Report of vandalism

Also see near the mob quote: "f... a...."

See the quote on the page about Joseph Smith:

"This theophany, Smith said in most of his accounts of the vision, included the voice and appearance of your mom, who forgave him of his sins."

Your mom?

I believe it's been fixed. Mak (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Smith wasn't controversial?

(Mostly) to Zarahemlite: Your edit removed the word "controversial" in describing Smith in the first sentence of the article, with the edit summary "Don't agree with controversial wording". Would you please explain your reasoning? Because I was under the impression that the accepted consensus, both within this article, and the population at large was that Smith was VERY controversial.

From dictionary.com: "con‧tro‧ver‧sial  –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical"

and

"con‧tro‧ver‧sy  –noun 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."

He claimed that he had seen the Father and the Son at 14 years old. Claimed he had been called of God to reestablish the truth of Christanity. Claimed that he recieved revelations in direct opposition with mainstream Christian teachings, (which he called "abominations"). His character and integrity have been assaulted, both during and after his life. I could go on and on, but this is quite a lot. I would say that Smith fits this definition of "controversial" quite well.

For reference, here is your edit.

Ok, but who was controversial -- Joseph Smith, or those that opposed his experiences with tar and feathers and the like? Joseph stated what he saw. Just because no one else personally saw it, doesn't mean he was controversial. The controversy started when others were appalled at the supposed impossibility of God and Christ appearing to a farm boy.--Coldblackice 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the controversial nature of Joseph Smith is appropriate to address in the article. The question is was he known most for being controversial or something else? I think the "something else" would take precedence. WIKI articles strive to achieve not only NPOV, but also balance. Joseph was known for a movement that has had a worldwide impact primarily and he was controversial; not the other way around. Further, the article addresses his controversial perception by other Christians throughout the article; the article is balanced. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I politely retract my arguement for two reasons: 1) his controversy already has a sentence dedicated to it in the intro, and 2) the controversy isnt the main focus in this article, so it probably shouldnt come first.

Whether you believe in him or not, Smith is probably one of the most controversial figures in modern history. He went against much of the traditions of modern Christianity and for that alone becomes a figure of controversy. "Controversial" isn't automatically a negative word and it hardly impacts the article one way or the other to include it.Primalscreamtherapy 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for POV tag

I believe this article is in need of substantial neutrality review. Pro-Joseph Smith editors have deleted virtually every edit that is critical of JS. The bottom line is that 99.5% of the world believes that JS was a con artist and fraud, but this page reads like he is a genuine religious leader. There is no mention of his arrest, no mention of his joining the Methodist church, very little mention of polygamy and his treatment of women and dissenters in the LDS movement, etc. Even if Mormons do not believe in many of the facts about JS, the fact these controversies should be discussed in a neutral fashion. A scroll through the history of the pages reveals that neutral-izing edits are quickly reverted, and most of the editors dedicated to the page spend all their time on Mormon-related pages. Put simply, this article needs substantial editing to present both points of view about Joseph Smith. Masonuc (20:33, 16 October 2006)

I moved Mosonuc's edit down to bottom of page and added title. Masonuc, you might want to review the article in detail. Everything you mentioned above is either in the article or has a separate article focused on it. You might also want to look at Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; it is a terrible article, but it is a good list of all the articles on WIKI with a "negative" presentation of Mormonism. Would you please review these items and then determine if you think your tag is legitimate? Given that your reasoning for the tag is already addressed, I think it should be removed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the reference for Smith joining the Methodist Church? When I click on the link, it doesn't work. I hadn't heard of that before, so I want to check it out. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There wouldn't be a reliable one, as it doesn't exist. HOWEVER, there is a enrollment list or a list of enrollees (or what in the LDS church would be called a 'roll') that includes Smith's name for a Methodist sunday school that is being referred to. Attendance in most churches is how they count adherents and members, not baptism date as in the LDS church. -Visorstuff 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, Mosonuc may want to look at the sub-articles that go into much more detail on Smith's life. -Visorstuff 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation link was broken. It is the (Lewis & Lewis 1879) reference. I've fixed it, however, and you can follow the link to the text. I wasn't aware, Visorstuff, that someone located the Methodist roll in Harmony showing Smith's name on it. Do you know if anybody republished it? COGDEN 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Mob persecution part

I have taken the liberty of removing the part on mob violence from this article, and moving it to the subarticle. My reasoning is twofold:

• It was completely unnessicary to Smith's life, especially while this article is already far too long.
• I felt that the POV was too strong in favor of Smith. Bcatt brought this very point up a long while ago, but no concensus was reached. In light of the POV discussion preceding this, I felt that it was only prudent.

Despite these, however, this did include factual information which one could argue belongs in an encyclopedia. Thus, I chose to put it in the subarticle, rather than delete it entirely.

Deleting it from the article is removes an important feature of the life of Joseph Smith...the fact that he was prosecuted severely and often by his foese. Further, this is an important incident to include because of some of the mythology (read fabrications) created around it by critics. Martyrdom is one of the reasons for many religious movements and it is significant to the story of Joseph Smith and, from a secular position, adds reasons why there was such a thing as the Latter Day Saint movement. Persecution was a common occurance during much of the beginning 50 years of the church. I have reverted your deletion prior to your adding your reasoning. I still think it appropriate and necessary to retain this information. Let's wait for other comments from other editors prior to do anything further. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Persecution was an important feature of Joseph Smith's life; this was one of the significant events of such. Further, the reason "I don't like it because it makes Smith look positive" is not a worthy position. The facts are important; this was an unquestioned event in Joseph's life. I see that you have offered no further explanation and reverted my edits. Deletion is not the first recommended course, but rather than enter into a senseless edit war, I will revert again. Maintain the article as it is until you gain support for your disputed position. Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Storm Rider. I was unsure if your reversion of my deletion was accidental or not. (As there had been vandalism before me that was also reverted.) As it is now apparent that your reversion was not accidental, I will not edit the section in question until it is resolved here, on the talk page. I had no intention of beginning an edit war.

I felt that this section was not a central theme to Smith's life when I took it out. It would appear that you disagree with me. This boils down to a matter of perspective. Therefore, I would request other perspectives from other editors be voiced here, in order to help establish consensus. If it appears that other editors strongly favor the inclusion of the material in question, then I will gladly let this issue go. But if the consensus is that the section in question should be removed from the main article, then I hope that we can all accept the wishes of the majority.

I believe that the issue is best treated in a subarticle. Further, the section, as it now stands, refers to one particular instance of mob persecution, rather than the persecution that he suffered as a whole. And, while the persecution as a whole would probably be appropriate for the main article, I think that two paragraphs dealing with a single instance is excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.171.66 (talk • contribs)

Difficult issue. Not sure what sub article that this could be discussed in. Agree that persecution was a central ideal in Smith's life - statements of his acknowledged that he felt he would be persecuted and even killed as part of his life as many - including the two quotes below. It was a core part of his persona, and that culture of being persecuted was promulgated in the LDS church for well over a century, if not nearly two of them.

• "I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last." (History of The Church Volume 6, page 408-9)

• "I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women--all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304).

I do think that it is significant enough to keep on Wikipedia. It gives us insight into his personality. -Visorstuff 00:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To Visorstuff: The way the moved text reads, it doesn't address any of the things which you brought up. It simply talks about one attack on him at one place, at one time.

But even if it was rewritten to include these things, I still think that Smith's "ideal"s, "persona", and "personality" belong in subarticles. As far as I can tell, this article deals (for the most part - the sections that are summarized well) deal only with the cold hard facts. Also, I feel that the cold hard facts are more encyclopediac.

why are there different reference types?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.137.188 (talk • contribs)

FYI, I have already put the text in the subarticle "Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844" - it fits there as is written.

Accusation of bais by Anon 158.135.12.160

This article is totally biased in every way. Not only are the headlines slanted towards Smith and the Church, all of your sources come from LDS material or from biased sources. How about we rewrite this article in an UNBIASED slant, telling only historical facts both good and bad, not only the good things. You only added a few bad things that he was envolved in, and when you did you biasly slanted the report in a defense of Smith. Why are you so biased in everything, not everyone is perfect, and slanting Smith in this way is not only un-historical, but unethical. If you truly are a scholar, why not present things in an unbias manner? User:158.135.12.160

I moved this ANON's comments down and signed her/his edits. First, you are a very new editor and unfamiliar with the plethora of articles on Joseph Smith, Jr. and related articles. Please do some investigating before you blindly make accusations that are unfounded.

You also need to get some ground rules down: 1) when you exceed three reverts in a single day you will be blocked. You haved exceeded that today. 2) When editing the discussion page, sign your edit by using four tildes (~~~~). This way everyone understands who is editing and leads to greater cooperation. 3) You have been using several different computers at Sam Houston State University: the IP address already mentioned, 158.135.197.124, and 158.135.25.117; this is known as using a sockpuppet and is strongly frowned upon. If you desire to edit I encourage you to register and sign in every time. 4) you insist on adding data that is erroneous; READ my last edit that included your allegations and expanded upon them. If there is a dispute, you bring it to the discussin page, make an edit at the bottom and then enter into a discussion. 5) When making a claim such as yours be specific. It will assist others in understanding your position and understanding of the issues. Editors here are skilled and highly knowledgable about these topics and will be able to correct problems or point you to more sources quickly. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider you really should take a break. Spend time with your children or something. Do your home teaching etc. There are serious issues with this article and will always be as long as people like you hover over it. Please try not and take that personal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.26.109 (talk • contribs)

Deletion based on outlining style??

At first I thought I would just help people get editing right. Now I am more curious than anything else how much energy and time people will put it to go after me instead of just fixing the outlining and editing it correctly. I guess some people have stamp collecting and others have monitoring wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.244.193 (talk • contribs)

Please refrain from blanking text, that is considered vandalism. If you have a problem with the page, fix it yourself or discuss it on the talk page. --Lethargy 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The proper thing to do if you feel that strongly about it is to fix it - not remove content from the article - as none of the other editors on this article seem to share your concern, it is up to fix the outline style. Do not continue to remove content --Trödel 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally pretending you are two people by using an IP address from Clemson University and then from a ISP in Clemson is frowned up on wikipedia. If you continue to delete the content rather than doing somthing useful like integrating the content in a way that would avoid your outline style issue, I will be forced to block you from editing --Trödel 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I now go into oblivion. Mormons and anti-mormons will now be that much closer to learn how to write peer reviewed articles. Cheers mate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.134.249 (talk • contribs)

1826 trial

Why is there no mention of the 1826 trial in New York state? Like it or not, this is part of Smith's history that appears to be being ignored here. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the alledged trial reported in the book "Ashamed of Joseph: Mormon Foundations Crumble" by Charles Crane and Stephen Crane (It is often mentioned in anti-Mormon genere of lower academic research). Crane jumped to conclusions based on the opinions of Wesley P. Walters. Crane stated that a court document discovered by Walters is "positive proof . . . that Joseph Smith was involved in money digging and other questionable practices" (p. 51). Crane presented that the document discovered by Walters declares that Joseph Smith was tried and convicted of "money digging and other questionable practices." However, the document makes no such claim. The document specifies that fees were paid for the examination of an accusation of glass-looking. No mention is made in this document of a conviction or even a trial in the glass-looking case, although some evidence does suggest that a trial might possibly have taken place. One study by Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting," BYU Studies 30/2 (1990): 106, concludes that "in 1826 Joseph Smith was indeed charged and tried for being a disorderly person and that he was acquitted."

Was this the trial you are talking about? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"In the late winter of 1826, according to an early account, Peter Bridgeman, a nephew of the wife of Josiah Stowell, presented a written complaint against Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge, New York, which led to his arrest and trial as a "disorderly person." Since the time that Fawn Brodie in her biography of Joseph Smith accepted as authentic the account of the trial published in the Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1883), it has been a source of sharp conflict among the students of early Mormonism. Perhaps the primary reason for Mormon opposition to the record is the alleged admission it contains made by Joseph Smith that he had been searching for lost treasure by means of a stone". [1] Duke53 | ^Talk 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be an event that some people think is significant. This is the main article and has several subarticles. This event, and the allegations (for and against) are covered in the fifth paragraph (of seven) in the subarticle of this portion of his life. Val42 18:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly; it should be mentioned here, otherwise some people researching Smith might not click on the link for the subarticle, regardless of all the other events that are mentioned here. I can add it here if nobody else wants to do it. Duke53 | ^Talk 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone is "researching" Joseph Smith, it would be logical to assume they will actually research and not just briefly read a single article. If you add it, then add both pro and con; it is not an open and shut case. Of course, then you defeat one of the reasons for subarticles and just "listing it" would only seem to taint the image. Your choice to add or not. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Beg to differ, the case seems pretty open and shut to me: Joseph Smith Jr. was an imposter. Please read: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htmApostle12 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Church of Christ

How can the wording "Church of Christ" be fixed in this article. The Church of Christ (Campbell) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Smith) are two very separate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrilpet (talk • contribs)

By linking to the disambiguated article Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). COGDEN 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage

The subsection entitled Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage is adequately covered in detail in Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and need not be repeated here verbatim. This is a very minor point, and this summary article cannot afford the bloat involved in going into such detail. Moreover, there are some NPOV problems. Therefore, I'm deleting it. COGDEN 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah!! Please delete the reference in the prior paragraph if you will - as there is no reason to introduce this minor controversy in the main article. --Trödel 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, the reason that it is there is because of the high number of times ANON's and others continuously bring up that Joseph shot two men. No amount of editing will succeed without providing the evidence why this belief is errant. You should review edit history to see the number of times such language has been edited and the different number of editors. I think it best for the entire section to stay until enough people understand that it is a myth. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

COgden, you edit sounds like you state the John Taylor said that Joseph killed two men; didn't his statement say that he heard that two men were killed? Do you equate hearing that two people were killed with two people being dead? In your research, have you found a preponderance of evidence that two people died from Joseph shooting through the door? Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really looked into it, but my impression is Taylor was just recounting a rumor that many Mormons wanted to believe. I don't think we can definitely say it is a myth, though, because lots of people believe it, and you can't quite prove affirmatively that nobody died.COGDEN 04:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern SR - lets see if the comment helps any or if it keeps getting put back. --Trödel 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If applying a "myth or not", history or not, standard to this, why not rigorously apply the same standard to the BoM's entire version of history? CyberAnth 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

CyberAnth, the major reason is that there is no current history that conflicts with the Book of Mormon for that time period. There exists archeological evidence and DNA discussion that lead some to doubt the history. However, nothing that says the cities or the people did not exist. There are arguments both pro and con, but nothing that is completely definitive.

In the topic at hand there is historical evidence that no one died from Joseph's gun. A myth, in this context, is more akin to a rumor than reality. Taylor repeated a rumor, but just because he repeated it does not make it true. More importantly, it does not mean that others, which has been done repeatedly, can take his statement and then say, "John Taylor, apostle of their church, said that Joseph Smith killed two men when he was attacked." The importance of the topic is not a value judgement, but just attempting to report history. If 200 hundred men were attacking me, I suspect I would be be very prompt in using whatever means available to protect myself. Given that they were at point blank range, my question is how were only two people wounded?

Trodel, I am comfortable with your comment and deleting the section. Let's just observe how the ANON's react to it. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"CyberAnth, the major reason is that there is no current history that conflicts with the Book of Mormon for that time period." --By that same token there is no history which contradicts the existence of unicorns and centaurs.

Yeah, but in the article about Jason and the Argonauts, we would hardly need to go out of our way to state that cyclops don't exist.Primalscreamtherapy 09:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Polygamy

To lead with Smith being described as a religious leader and polygamist is NOT a POV violation. It is fact, and is well cited later in the article. It is no more POV to call him a polygamist than to call him a religious figure or an American or any other factual descriptive term. Smith is well known for being a polygamist and therefore it is perfectly legitimate to describe him as such. To call it a POV violation is to express a bias. Who is to say that polygamy is negative thing? It doesn't even necessarily paint Smith in a negative way - it all depends on your opinion of polygamy. But to deny that this is an accurate term to describe Smith is ludicrous, especially since it is fully explained later on in the article. It is not leading in any way towards any POV or bias. For example, if someone views religion as negative, then to call someone a "religious figure" could be construed as a leading-POV, and thus using the logic of some people on here, should be eliminated. Facts are facts - good or bad, Smith is known to many as a polygamist. This is an irrefutable fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but although there is a consensus among historians that Smith was a polygamist, there are still those claiming that he was not. Wherever one stands on the issue, placing the polygamy monicker in the header has been discussed many times over the last couple of years and I believe the consensus was to keep it within a separate section, with appropriate references. It is certainly debatable whether Smith has notoriety for this reason, or as an American religionist. I can see from your recent edit to the Mormon church page that you have specific POV thoughts on the matter of the LDS. I would mention, for the record, that I'm not a Mormon nor have I any affiliation with their religion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

If the standard for removal is merely based on the fact that there are "still those claming that he was not," then nothing in any article on wikipedia could stay up for long. Of course, there's always disagreement on every issue. So call it "alleged polygamist" or something like that. But to hide it away at the bottom of the article just smacks of deceit and is misleading. What is the motivation to hide it at the bottom of the article, if not to sanitize a controverisal figure? Because, as you state, the consensus amoung historians is that he was a polygamist. Because some people deny historical fact, doesn't mean something should be removed from wikipedia. As for my edit on the Mormon churchpage, I think the only thing that can be judged from that is that I seek accuracy. Judging from your recent edits, I have a hard time believing that a person who spends so much time reverting edits on this particular page is not doing it without any POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversial matters on articles is left to the consensus of regular editors, according to Wikipedia policy. Smith certainly did not achieve notoriety due to being an 'alleged polygamist', so there doesn't seem to be a point in placing that in the header - this is why you'll find there are other users who will revert your edit other than just me. As for me, I edit only within a small number of articles for which I have some knowledge. My only concern is neutrality and keeping things encyclopedic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The first section of any Wikipedia article is intended to be a summary of the material to follow. We place what is most notable about the individual/topic at the top. Joseph Smith, Jr. was notable for many things -- establishing a revolutionary religious movement that has persisted into the 21st century, claiming to be prophet/returning revelation from God to the earth, translating, publishing and drafting new scripture, etc. Despite recent publicity, polygamy is just one of many more minor things in his life - i.e. city planner, mayor, candidate for the U.S. presidency - that are covered in the lower article sections. As for reversions, sigh :-(. Regular editors here all spend much of their time reverting vandalism and POV edits from almost all the articles on our watchlists. Almost all of these reversions are done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and are due to the fact that more casual contributors prefer to damage material or assert their opinions rather than work with others, "consensus" is the wiki term, to create as neutral a presentation as is possible for the flawed humans who work here. And 142.161.230.111, please sign your posts or join Wikipedia and get a user name. That will help us all know who you are and improve communication. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Amen to WBardwin's comments, which are informative and should put this issue to rest, for now... Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Again

As an avid Wikipedia reader, I was surprised to read the paragraph below in an Enclyclopedia article. This makes the visit from the prophe Moroni sound like a proven fact, as well as the existence of a set of metal plates coming straight from God. I certainly find this shocking as a neutral observer, and suggest that editors rethink the wording of these and other paragraphs in this article to reflect the uncertainty of such claims and the leap of faith required to consider them authentic.

"In 1823 visitation from a resurrected prophet named Moroni[8] led to his finding and unearthing (in 1827) a long-buried book, inscribed on metal plates, which contained a record of God's dealings with the ancient Israelite inhabitants of the Americas. The record, along with other artifacts (including a breastplate and what Smith referred to as the Urim and Thummim), was buried in a hill near his home. On September 22, 1827, Smith's record indicates that the angel allowed him (after 4 years of waiting and preparation) to take the plates and other artifacts. Almost immediately thereafter Smith began having difficulties with people trying to discover where the plates were hidden on the Smith farm.[9]"

Charlie 81.107.35.207 (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I was also surprised to read the passage below (from the 1827-1930 section), which seems to have the same issues. While it does cite the source, the statement itself does not follow the same POV as the rest of the article, which takes care to point out when something is as stated or written by those involved, including Smith. What I mean to say is, the article's POV doesn't seem consistent. I realize this may be difficult, as much of the information seems speculative or biased in nature.

"Before publication, Joseph was permitted to show the ancient record to other men. These men have recorded their personal witnesses of seeing an angel show them the record (plates), seeing the record, handling the plates, hearing the voice of the Lord command them to bear witness of the veracity of the record."

On another note, it seems strange that there is a separate article dedicated to this period of time in Smith's life. Should this be merged with the existing article? It only covers three years and this article seems to summarize it well, for the most part. If this issue has been addressed already I apologize, as I see there is an extensive archive and I'm relatively new as far as involvement in Wiki.

Garonyldas (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the POV seems to be a bit slanted (although I for one agree with it). My suggestion is to change "...Joseph was permitted to show the ancient..." to "...Joseph showed the ancient...". I think the rest of the passage is NPOV since the record of their witness is a historical document, whether you believe their witness or not.

As for the passage describing the visit of Moroni, how about "Joseph Smith recorded in his journal a 1823 visitation by a resurrected prophet...". Again this makes it a statement from a historical record.

Cambene (talk) 03:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene

I apologize. I see that someone has made a change to the account of Moroni's visitation that says the same thing, in effect, as my comment.

Cambene (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene

This is article is by no means a neutral piece. The "leap of faith" mentioned above by "Charlie" is further compounded by scientific fact and historical records available on the Wikipedia. If factual articles disagree with this religion's beliefs, why does this article present them as fact? (See The History of Steel and Indigenous peoples of the Americas) 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Citation style

The unusual citation style used in this article makes it incredibly difficult to read. Why can't the normal WP <cite> tag be used? Fragglet 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Early Life

Does anyone know if Joseph Smith was ever baptised into another denomination before his "revelations"? I seem to recall mention that there was a baptismal record entered for him in the Methodist Church when he was an infant, but I can't recall the source.

It is Anti-Mormon folklore based on a misreading of source documents. Smith was enrolled in a methodist sunday school class - classes that typcially led to the enrollee being baptized, however Smith withdrew from the class before baptism. Because his name was on the sunday school roles, critics claim that he "joined" the methodist sect, however, there are no records of any methodist ordinance, nor of Smith being baptised prior to May 1829 (when he was baptized by Oliver Cowdery - see D&C Section 13). Most churches consider baptism the gate into membership of a church, although nowadays people may or may not particpate in such ordinances to join a denomination. It was common, and still is for investigators of religious denominations to attend church meetings (and even sign roles, etc.) prior to joining a church. he simply attended their meetings - as he did with the presbyterians - baptists and others (although he didn't sign their roles or enroll in one of their sunday school classes). For more references on this, visit Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Smith.27s religious background.

Smith's mother was presbyterian which does perform infant baptism, but she joined when he was in his early teens, and didn't belong to an organized religion before that time. If I remember correctly from her memiors and biography of her son, she was told that one of their children would be dammed as it died before it was able to be baptized - which led to Joseph Smith Seniors dissafection with organized religion the lasted until his son organized the church. None of the Smtih children were baptized by any records I've found until they were old enough to request it. For more information, refer to The History of Joseph Smith, Jr. by his Mother, Lucy Mack Smith [2]. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. He did, apparently join a "probationary class" in Palmyra in his teens but after a while he announced he was quitting because all churches were false, and then he attempted to join a similar class in Harmony (as Visorstuff discusses). But he never actually joined the Methodist church. There is one statement by a man named Fayette Lapham who interviewed Smith's father in 1930, who claimed years later that Joseph, Jr. was baptized in the Baptist church in Palmyra. But Lapham's memory of the facts may have been distorted over time. Somebody else, a guy named Mitchell Bronk, does corroborate that Smith attended a Baptist church for a while in Palmyra, but Lapham is the only one who said he was actually baptized there. COGDEN 21:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read in the Book of Mormon, apparently he wanted to be baptised by a priest of sorts from a non-mormon church. However he told him he had no intentions of joining that church.--Animasage 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This was actually a man named Wilford Woodruff, who eventually became the fourth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. While studying the Bible he found that baptism was a spiritual necessity. Although he asked a local minister to baptize him, he refused to join his congregation because many other Biblical principles he had found did not match what the minister's denomination professed. Layne1975 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Layne1975

The Book of Mormon says nothing about Joseph Smith's baptism; in fact, it does not recount any of the events of Joseph Smith's life, but rather the history of some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. Maybe you are talking about some other book? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I reverted and thus deleted a quote supposedly from Hale today. It was just plopped into the article without any introduction. If one is going to introduce a quote, then it may easily be appropriate but taking a quote and introducing it, particularly when it is controversial, when be best. Additionally, why is Hale appropriate or worthwhile. Did he know any of the subject firsthand? No. Was it hearsay? Yes. What is the value of the quote? Possibly to describe how inidividuals felt about Joseph Smith. It is not, however, a quote about facts or reality, which the editor appeared to be using it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

New time periods

Any comments on how I divided the time periods? It seemed the most logical division to me, but we can always fiddle with the year boundaries. COGDEN 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith was shot before the Latter Day Saits Settled in Utah. So I don't know how he was a military force in the west. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.142.226 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 16 January 2007.

Illinois was considered the west at that time. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I am new to WIKI so you can take this for what it's worth. I have also looked through some of the archives and have seen that there have been some heated debates over NPOV issues, so I will go ahead and say some of you might not like what I have to say. Here it goes anyway. In the initial summary of Joseph Smith I don't think it is a very NPOV to say that his "teachings were similar...to other false movements of his time". That is saying his teachings were false and you can not prove that with facts, anymore than anyone else can prove it is true. Saying it is false is very much a slanted point of view, as well as saying he was a con man with the statement "his ability to con what was to eventually become millions". Who can prove it was a con? You either believe him or you don't, So state the facts, but leave the opinions out. it is fine to say he was a contraversial figure, that is true. you can say he started a religion that would come to be known as mormons, that is also true and unbias. But some of these other statements are bias with the intent on pursuading readers, which I believe is not the intent of WIKI. I also would hesitate with the frequent use of the word "cult". I know the defenition of the word, and that technically there is nothing wrong with that statement, but there is an inherently negetive connotation in that word, again that would try to persuade the unbias reader. In the interest of NPOV I would suggest removing the "false" and "con" statements, and try to use a diferent word than cult. CHEERS! mookkick 04:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think you stumbled across a vandalized version of the article. This article is watched by several stout LDS wikipedians who work hard to keep it accurate and NPOV. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, his teachings can be stated to be false. The whole story of The Book of Mormon relies on the narrative that Mayans and Native Americans are actually of Jewish descent and traveled via boat from Israel to the New World. But genetic testing has proved Native Americans are of Mongolian descent. Therefore, Smith's teachings are FALSE. There are other instances of Smith's teaching not lining up with fact, like the diet of the Nephites and Lamanites, and that they had horses.---Talmage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.230.120 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 30 April 2007

Who performed this so called genetic testing? The Nephites and Lamanites in the Book of Mormon are descendants of the tribe of Joseph, not Judah. For some reason, people equate anyone from the 12 tribes of Israel as being Jewish when 'Jewish' literally means descent from the tribe of Judah. I see you making some base claims here with no citations. In the first book of Nephi, Nephi plainly states that "we had gathered together all manner of seeds of every kind". So why would these peoples' diets even come into play? If you would actually study the issue, instead of relying on what you've been told about Mormonism, the archaeological record is verifying the temporal facts of the Book of Mormon more and more.Layne1975 16:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Layne1975

"For some reason, people equate anyone from the 12 tribes of Israel as being Jewish when 'Jewish' literally means descent from the tribe of Judah" That is just factually incorrect. The religious definition of "Jew" aside, the ethnic or national term "Jew" refers to descendants of those who lived in Judea. --99.226.246.180 (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, the archaeological record and just about every other scientific fact you can accumulate that bears on the Book of Mormon shows it to be pretty much wrong. However, the same can be said about many parts of the Bible, so it's kind of a non-issue, as far as I'm concerned. I'm more concerned about the use of words like false as they are used to describe things that cannot be either true or false in an objective sense. The facts of the Book of Mormon should be discussed in their own article, with at most a gloss here, something along the lines of "The Book of Mormon was claimed by Joseph Smith to be a history of the American Indians." I don't believe anything beyond that belongs here, especially since it would detract from the task of bringing together the facts that bear on Smith's biography, which is plenty controversial enough. 155.101.189.194 (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like us to not get into the truth or falsehood of Smith's teachings simply because we are talking about a theology, and there is no known objective way to decide the truth value of a statement that concerns the supernatural. That's the very nature of the supernatural. After all, we can have a similar heated argument on the facts behind many bits in the Bible. (I'm an atheist, so don't go there. ^_^) If you like you can characterize Smith's theology as a kind of Gnostic Arianism. Smith taught that the trinitarian doctrine held by all mainstream Christian sects was wrong, as well as the statement "man is saved by grace alone," which I believe is a paraphrase of one of the articles of the Nicean creed. However, these doctrines are not false in the objective sense that we'd like to see it in the Wikipedia. Hmoulding 19:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the article could do with more attention to fact. I began to reread the article today and I found several instances of conjecture and misstatement of fact. I am dismayed that we have not been more diligent about reviewing this article. The current article is not factual and carries with it a tone best left to religious tracts, but not for an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I am new to WikipediA, but in reading this article I found it some what biased towards trying to prove that Joseph Smith was a Christian reformer. It also seemed to gloss over facts about why his followers killed him. If this article is to be encyclopedic in nature then it should not claim Joseph Smith as an early Christian restorationist, unless there is proof that Mormonism is a Christian movement, which it is not generally accepted as. Also the article really needs to provide details on why his followers had become so disaffected that they killed him. Finally I hope I don't offend anyone, because that is not my intent. My only intent is to see an article that is NPOV and not biased 19th Century History-for-12 14:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You make some interesting claims. I would be interested to know where you get some of your "facts" that you think should be proven. Although some Christians may not consider Mormons Christians, it would be difficult for them to prove that fact, since the definition of a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Christ. As for Smith being killed by his followers, I have never heard such a claim. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We all appreciate your committment to NPOV, which is a guiding principal for Wikipedia. Your perspective is novel and, like WRP, I have never heard an allegation that the mob that killed Joseph Smith was made of of Mormons. You might also want to provide a definition of "Christian". I think your answer will provide a foundation for discussion about bias. It is interesting to provide a definition based upon the Bible and then a definition as created by man.

Also, Wikipedia does not define truth for readers; rather facts, as identifed by expersts, are reported. You might want to discuss your proposed edits to improve the article here before you begin. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there were some former associates of Joseph Smith who were reportedly with the mob. I think these claims are based on another incident in which Joseph Smith was taken from his home, severely beaten and tarred and feathered. The next morning he gave a sermon and claimed that some people that were in the congregation had taken part in the incident the previous night. Layne1975 16:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Layne1975

Wow is the a bad article. The history of Joesph Smith is presented from only his reports, and he being a confivited felone. While most sentences at least have a "reportedly" or some such, other don't, leaving readers to believe statements made only by this man as factual. I think its a good example of the corrosive power of faith. Without faith, people search honestly for the truth, with it, people, well, write articles like this. ^(Talk)

Welcome! Feel free to make any NPOV edits you feel necessary. Any article could stand improvements so please contribute. Have a little more faith in readers (no pun intended) though; the article doesn't need to hit them over the head with a 2 x 4 (metaphorically speaking) every sentence with the "reportedly" adverb. You may also be interested in the Criticism of religion article. --TrustTruth 04:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"This article is watched by several stout LDS wikipedians who work hard to keep it accurate and NPOV." Does anyone else read irony in this statement? I think I'd like to watch a little more myself, never having being affiliated with Mormonism in any way. There's a long list of sources at Talk:Criticism of Mormonism that require their own articles to establish notability. Thought I'd give a headsup. ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On the issue of the relation of of Mormons with other Christians( Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox) is that the all the other Christians believe the Mormons are not true Christians, and Mormons think they are the only true Christians. Saying a Christian is a person who believes Jesus is Christ, is overlooking the fact that many of these disagreements is who Jesus is, and what Christ is. A Christian is a follower of Christ, if someone worships a false god and calls him Jesus, he is not a Christian. Rds865 (talk) 02:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Joseph Smith's last words

I deleted an edit of today that stated the following:

"Smith's last words from the window are reported as being: "Is there no help for the Son of a Widow?" This is also known as the Master Mason's secret call for help, which other Mason's must respond to. Due to this report, speculations have arisen that Smith believed the mob to be organized by the Masonic Order in order to punish him for disobedience."

First, it is unfortunate that the editor is either creating a myth or repeating it. Joseph's final words as he fell to the ground outside the jail were, "O Lord, my God!" (HC 6:618). When making edits of this caliber, editors would do well to document or reference their edits. It will clear up their own misunderstandings before making edits and it will also ensure that your edit has a much stronger probability of contributing something worthwhile. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

This is untrue. Joe Smiths last words were, "To hell with you dogmatic dumbasses! Let a man work a decent scam for a change!" I know this because Joe Smith was all about complete BS,and whatever he was thinking was his true words and it simply had to be something along those lines. Good Luck Dogmatic Sheeple!

As an aside, the probable misunderstanding comes from a lack of understanding of Masonry and fabriation of what Joseph Smith said. Both Taylor and Richards' accounts both report that as Smith fell from the window, he called out "Oh Lord, my God!" Some have noted this is similar to "Oh, Lord, My God, is there no help for the widow's son?", a traditional Masonic call for aid from fellow Masons (see Hiram Abif). These last recorded words have led to speculation that his statement was a call for assistance from any Masons that may have been in the mob, particularly by anti-Mormons. The problem I see with the allegation is how does calling out to one's God turn into a much larger statement. I recall reading even one Mormon woman that supported this allegation. Personally, I find it lacking. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another interpretation I've heard was that Smith was taunting any members of the mob that were Masons, possibly making them feel guilty for killing a fellow Mason. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider :)

That edit that you deleted was my edit. I read it in two books at the Masonic Library in San Francisco. The only reason I said it wasn't verified is because I don't have the cite handy. But I intend to go back and get them. I'm totally new to this, but couldn't you just have contested or asked for cites instead of deleting my contrib? Also if anyone happens to be in San Francisco before me, the Library is at the top of Knob Hill and has an entire historical section on the ties between Mormons and freemasonry. Captain Barrett 19:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Captain, when making an edit on the discussion page just click the "~" key four times; it will sign and date your entry. Also, using a colon will indent your edit. Each new edit in a thread will have one additional colon to ensure that each is easily identified as a new edit.

When there is something controversial it can either be cited for needing a reference. However, when someone has a degree of expertise in a given field it is acceptable to delete it. Some editors may not bring the deleted statement to the dicussion page, but I generally do so. I would encourage you to go back to the texts you read to make sure. What we know from those in attendance is what I have stated above. In addtion, there is another article that goes into more depth than this main article, Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Articles become overly long and when sections get too large they are broken off into their own article such as the section in question. You may want to read it and edit that one instead of this one. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Another good habit to prevent your edits from getting deleted like that is to use the edit summary and explain your reasoning. An unexplained edit from a new editor is often assumed to be a test edit (or worse). wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The Latter Day Saints Biographical Encyclopedia also says that his last words were "Is there no help for the widow's son?" (Unsigned by anonymous editor)

His last words indeed were "O Lord My God," as demonstrated by nearly every Mormon and non-Mormon source I've read. The theory of the widow's son and masonic connection was promulgated by Young, Taylor and other early mormon leaders, and was used to blame the local Masonic lodge as participants in his death, which they were. More information can be found on line here, which states in part: "Joseph Smith, Master Mason and widow's son, went to the window and with upraised hands, commenced giving the Masonic distress call to fraternal Masons who were present in the mob: "Oh, Lord, My God." He was unable to complete his plea and fell out of the window to his death." But unfortunately, it is unproven what his intent was as he stated this, as some accounts have him standing at the window with uplifted hands, while others have him jumping out the window before saying anything, and still others have him climbing out the window, or jumping out after he said what he did. Let's stick to the known facts, not the theories of men. -Visorstuff 17:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the most biased pages I have come across on wiki. There is nothing that can be proven about any of these outrageous claims. http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm Several REAL sources exist that are in stark contrast to the puffed up claims on this site. Without a balanced presentation of the evidence, then NPOV is very obvious, imo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.127.176 (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you like me to prove it to you? Joseph Smith said as he was shot and fell out the window "O Lord My God"! ---Matoro183^{(Talk | Contributions)} 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC) yes, I want a video tape of his death, with a recording of his words. they have to be submitted to a lab for verification. otherwise it is not proven. Rds865 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah!

I leave for a few months, and I come back to look things over, and this article looks incredible! Great job everybody!

I really think that this article is almost ready for peer review, followed by a FAC.

A few things I see:

• Pruning the references section of anything that's obsolete
• Including, under 'family' section, a subsection on his parents and ancestor's family, and also tightening the prose in the plural marriages section
• Further summarization, if possible, of the biography section: it's still a little too long, in my opinion.

But seriously, great job everyone. A lot of the lingering issues that were present when I took my leave have been addressed, and I'm highly encouraged by what I see. Although I won't be actively working much on improving the article myself, I will be checking up more often on things.

--Trevdna 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• sigh*... I see now, to my regret, that my lavish praise was preemptive... --Trevdna 03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Racism

I am not sure if this issue has been taken up before but it seems only right to me that since Joe Smith wrote a lot of stuff about the people of America that were here before the Europeans that those people's view of him and what he said about them should me mentioned somewhere. As a Native American who believes myself to be resonabley well educated I would like to mention that most of what came from the hand of Joe Smith is considered by many in the tribe as very racist and ethnocentric. Almost the entirety of the Book of Mormon is dedicated to telling Native Americans about ourselves as if we did not already know. There is no Liturgical material to be found. Why isn't this mentioned in the article. It is a major issue from where I stand.--Billiot 06:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be fine to include it if we have material to cite. Otherwise, it is original research, strictly prohibited on Wikipedia. — Frecklefoot | Talk 11:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

LoL! Wikipedia wouldn't know original research it it stared it in the face! Who would give a PhD for this? Mike0001 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a friend who is both Native American and LDS. She and her family don't consider the Book of Mormon to be racist. There is no clear connection between the people in the BoM and your specific tribe(s). It was a common belief during that time that Native Americans were part of the lost tribes of Israel. There certainly were (and still are) racist attitudes of the "whites" towards natives, but I don't think you would find it limited to Mormons. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

a website offering an explanation of some of Billiot's misgivings. http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm

still reading thru it so i haven't checked any of the notes. The Jackal God 00:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

that website is certainly not a "neutral" one by any stretch of the imagination. Try this one to balance it out: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai086.html. --TrustTruth 05:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Remember that WP:NPOV doesn't require us to limit ourselves by any stretch to neutral sources. It only requires us to be unbiased in our reporting of all significant perspectives. Tom Haws 14:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You could certainly find plenty of material from the Book of Mormon to cite directly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.37.236 (talk • contribs)

Its not as if the site that "TrustTruth" posted was neutral either, it is just as biased, only on the opposite view point.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillinInTheNameOf (talk • contribs) 14:48, 9 June 2007.

Uh, that was the point. --TrustTruth 16:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am very conserned about some of these responces. One of the websites you pointed me to tells me that the reason I am not white is because I commited a SIN that will damn me to hell unless I become a Mormon. Excuse me!!! I followed a link from that site to another one that tells me that if I am a good enough Mormon I may miraculously change from Indian to White in the middle of service and gave accounts that some people had seen just this sort of thing happening. I do not want to be white. If becoming white is a side effect of Mormonism then there is clearly something wrong and very RACIST about the whole thing. Why is it not ok for me to not be White? Why is White good and not white bad? This seems to fit the definition of Racism to a tee. I began by asking simply about the book of Mormon penned by Smith but now I find myself with very deep conserns indeed. I had thought myself well versed in Mormon theology as it is something that I have studied at great length but this is outragous. When did this type of belief begin with the Mormons. If it began with Smith is definatly needs to be included in the article and exposed to the world.--Billiot 04:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have come to this article already with concerns; it seems a little disingenuous to clothe yourself in surprised indignation about what you supposedly just hvae come to learn. I am not aware in any teaching today where LDS believe a person's skin will become white. I am aware that the white is often used as an analogy for righteouness or purity in scripture; all scripture including the Bible. If you want to call that RACIST, then that would be a personal viewpoint and I would suggest a personal blog where you might rail against those piggish western European imperialists who degrade the pure Native American race that dwelt in supreme peace before they defiled these fair shores. Of course, you might want to consider that "peace" would be a relative term at that point. The noble savage is a farce and to begin to attempt to say that Native Americans were the "first" residents of these lands is the stuff of fairy tales we tell to ensure that the injustice of "the man" is condemned. That first group or people has yet to be identified or known by history. However, current archeology would say that Native Americans may simply be transplants from Asia. Given that perspective the concept of "original" inhabitants loses its primacy and legitimacy.

Yes, this is a bit of a rant, but I tire of hypocrisy and self-righteous indignation. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 13:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What kind of reply is that? One ready made at Stromfront.com? Attacking me for asking a legitimate question is silly. Your response has no place in an area where we want to get to the factual base of things. How can you possible say that the Indians were not the first people of the Americas? What is wrong with you? I mean personally. It is true that the Indians did enjoy peace before the white man came. Now we have whites and with them Pollution, crime and disease. Why would I need to go to a blog to ask about a factual question of high importance that might should and might should not be included in this article? I know that many whites of Smith's time were very big racist but the point I am asking is was Joseph Smith. Many things in the book of mormon penned by Smith seem very racist to Indians, and then I see these site that go much farther into the racism. If mormons are racist and that is part of their religion then I see no reason why they would hide it or be ashamed of it. Catholics don't get divorced no matter how much hate is thrown at them. The reason is that Jesus who founded the Catholic Church taught that you can not get divorced. End of story for the Catholics. Now a days divorce is very popular but Catholics won't do it come what may. If the mormon church has recieved racism as a teaching from Smith and it is part of what they believe then why don't they show it to the world? If they really believe it to be right then they should show it to the world. I have studied mormon doctrine for a long time but it looked like they were going to put that kind of stuff behind them but now I see it coming back up. So tell me I am wrong. This noble savage is quite noble but isn't the same kind of savage that the whites have pictured and told all across history. I will not deal with those that will wrongly accuse me of being righously indignate. You are just plain wrong. I say for you to answer my request or stay out of a factual discusion. On another point, How dare you even begin to speak of primacy. I bed you don't even know what the word means and certainly couldn't decline it to from a reasonable sentence. I then ask again, what is wrong with you? I mean personally.--Billiot 14:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please present your reputable sources that indicate that the peoples we recognize today as Native Americans were the very first inhabitants of these lands. In addition, it would be appropriate because you postulate that they were a peace loving people to provide that reference.

Personally, the whole concept of the noble savage is fanciful and we love to think of it as such, but history shows it was not like that. History dictates that the Native Americans, the majority, came over from Asia; they certainly did not originate here. Now if you are saying that it is a belief, I have no problem you presenting it as such, but never state it as fact becasue there is no evidence for such a statement. Further, they were just as violent, if not more so, than every other culture upon the face of the earth. This is all rather common knowledge and it has nothing to do with Mormon doctrine, beliefs, or anything else.

Primacy is the thought of being first in order or importance...which does not apply to Native Americans, Europeans, Asians, Africans or any other segment of the human race. I reject all thoughts of anything have any degree of racial primacy upon this continent. Nice bit of trolling this morning Billiot; I hope I accomodated your need for argument, but it is time to move on. Your position is specious. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

However, this particular branch of this discussion is decidedly off-topic, so this is where it should end. If there is something to say concerning this article, then this could be continued here. — Val42 17:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I will no longer address the blatant racist that has so far seen fit to put messages on this site. I instead address anyone else who may come this way and ask them to read the above messages and judge accordingly. The Indians as a matter of pure, unequivical historical FACT were the first people to inhabit BOTH north and south America. Period. Period. Period. It is not a believe, it is a Fact. The Racist above has accused me of Trolling when he is the one throwing racial slurs at people. He hates me because I am not white and because I dare ask question that he does not want answered. Here is a sample of something else he has said.

----See comment by Storm Rider below----

"You must be right. I and everyone else in the world is Racist while the Native American people are pure and holy. This kind of drivel is intellectually repugnant. Of course I don't think Native Amercans were the "first" settlers of this continent. There is no archeological evidence of such a thing. No, I will not kowtow to such silliness nor agree with the noble savage syndrome so prevalent in our society. The various cultures of Native Americans ran from blood thirsty to peaceful...just like every other culture upon the earth. They are no better nor worse than anyone else's, particularly that of those dreaded Western Europeans you want to demonize. If it makes you feel better to take your frustrations out on me, please go ahead. It is better directed at me than other editors here on Wikipedia. However, I would caution you to limit these little diatribes to me because they violate all our standards. Just in closing, I could not care any less what another human thinks of my salvation or the hereafter, I firmly believe that is solely an issue between me and God. I hope your day gets better. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) "

In so writing he shows that he thinks all Indians to be blood thirsty savage beast unworthy of grace. I ask the Wikipedia community to centure this person. I will not address him. Notice that in all of this, he still refused to simply state up or down the racist character of Joseph Smith or the book of mormon which is what started all of this in the first place. If Smith and the book of mormon are not racist he had only to state it as such. It they are then why not state that as well. What does it really matter except a BETTER and MORE ACCURATE article which is WHY we are HERE in the first place. I found the additional information about racism in the mormon church by following one of the sited links above. It would seem that this really is a big issue with the mormons. If this is wrong and not really part of the mormon church then why not just say it. I leave it for everyone else to judge. I say it is blatant Racism. I will no longer have anything to do with this page and simply mark it off as always being inaccurate beyond my help. I now ask the community to judge who exaclty is violating standards. Is it the one who ask a question and didn't really get a satisfactory answer or the one who spouts racial slurs at another just for asking a question in the first place. How dare this person caution me or anyone else is my opintion. oh, and just so everyone knows, Primacy comes from Primus-a-um which is a Latin adjective that can be used as a substantive. Anyone who knows the correct use of the word would know that it need not belong in this argument. Go ask any historian or Indian who was in America first and you will get the same answer no matter who you talk to. Go ahead, think of it as a test. Only 100% RACIST do not accept that Indians were here first. --Billiot 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite what Billiot has said, I suspect that he hasn't really stopped reading this discussion. I have read this topic and found out that both Billiot and Storm Rider have gone off-topic. Without saying who went off topic first, the discussion about primacy in America is off-topic for this article. I have now pointed this out twice. Trying to blame others for continuing an argument is also off-topic. — Val42 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This comment by Storm Rider was made 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC). Another editor reverted a very similar edit previously because it was an inline addition to Billiot's comments. I have moved it here so that it isn't removed again, possibly inducing an edit war inside this discussion page. I think that this is the best compromise. These comments follow my signature here. — Val42 04:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC):

To gain context of my comment below taken from my talk page, I am posting Billot's diatribe. I had added this previously but it was deleted by my dear friend, Duke53, I am adding it back for perspective:

I ask this as a personal challenge. You insult my race here on a website for putting up factual information with this racist, really really racist garbage. You accuse me of hipocracy. No No no No NOOOO. I challenge you. I call you a racist and a hypocrite and I say you are just plain wrong. Not only are you wrong but you are a lier that has willfully given false testemony for the sole purpose of trying to hurt poeple that ask legitimate questions. You are sick. You are a monster. I challenge you to say that I am wrong. You go and read what you wrote then even try to say that I am wrong. So, just in case you didn't know or were refusing to admit it to yourself, you are a bonafide racist. That is that last thing I should ever have to say to you as I am sure I will not be meeting your kind in the here after.--Billiot 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)--Billiot 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)--Billiot 16:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"You must be right. I and everyone else in the world is Racist while the Native American people are pure and holy. This kind of drivel is intellectually repugnant. Of course I don't think Native Amercans were the "first" settlers of this continent. There is no archeological evidence of such a thing. No, I will not kowtow to such silliness nor agree with the noble savage syndrome so prevalent in our society. The various cultures of Native Americans ran from blood thirsty to peaceful...just like every other culture upon the earth. They are no better nor worse than anyone else's, particularly that of those dreaded Western Europeans you want to demonize. If it makes you feel better to take your frustrations out on me, please go ahead. It is better directed at me than other editors here on Wikipedia. However, I would caution you to limit these little diatribes to me because they violate all our standards. Just in closing, I could not care any less what another human thinks of my salvation or the hereafter, I firmly believe that is solely an issue between me and God. I hope your day gets better. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) "

In so writing he shows that he thinks all Indians to be blood thirsty savage beast unworthy of grace. I ask the Wikipedia community to centure this person. I will not address him. Notice that in all of this, he still refused to simply state up or down the racist character of Joseph Smith or the book of mormon which is what started all of this in the first place. If Smith and the book of mormon are not racist he had only to state it as such. It they are then why not state that as well. What does it really matter except a BETTER and MORE ACCURATE article which is WHY we are HERE in the first place. I found the additional information about racism in the mormon church by following one of the sited links above. It would seem that this really is a big issue with the mormons. If this is wrong and not really part of the mormon church then why not just say it. I leave it for everyone else to judge. I say it is blatant Racism. I will no longer have anything to do with this page and simply mark it off as always being inaccurate beyond my help. I now ask the community to judge who exaclty is violating standards. Is it the one who ask a question and didn't really get a satisfactory answer or the one who spouts racial slurs at another just for asking a question in the first place. How dare this person caution me or anyone else is my opintion. oh, and just so everyone knows, Primacy comes from Primus-a-um which is a Latin adjective that can be used as a substantive. Anyone who knows the correct use of the word would know that it need not belong in this argument. Go ask any historian or Indian who was in America first and you will get the same answer no matter who you talk to. Go ahead, think of it as a test. Only 100% RACIST do not accept that Indians were here first. --Billiot 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reminder

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal.) Duke53 | ^Talk 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Criminal record?

Wasn't Joseph Smith either convicted or tried for some sort of magic/con artist type stuff? (Sorry if this seems flippant, but I read it on a website and can't remember the details.)

The answer is probably. Details are in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Work as a treasure seeker and marriage to Emma Hale. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

He was tried but not convicted (No Man Knows My History) by Fawn M. Brodie. He got in more trouble with the law later on for other things, like all the business in Missouri, but never was actually convicted of anything related to the treasure hunting. 171.66.37.236 21:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"He was tried but not convicted ..." The record on his conviction is documented in some old court papers which are now owned by the LDS church; to say that he was not convicted is a statement that can be challenged from other available documents. Duke53 | ^Talk 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Truman Madsen (mormon historian - source: joseph smith lectures) the notion that he was never found guilty is not accurate. He was found guilty on one occasion of casting out devils, but, as the judge noted, since there was no statute against that he would have to be set free. Perhaps another article "the legal trials of Joseph Smith" would be better here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.214.17.17 (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This entire article looks like it was written by Mormons. It's organized into epochs, rather than by points of inquiry. There's no critique, no mention of important discrepancies between what Mormon leaders claim and what the facts show, etc., etc. Smith was a charlatan, and a con artist, and it's quite likely that starting the Mormon religion was just his most successful con game. These aren't just opinions; they're facts, backed up by the evidence. Someone needs to do a major re-write, and then lock this article down before the entire state of Utah has a chance to attack it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.172.104 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see this "Proof" and "Evidence" -Matoro183^{(Talk | Contributions)} 02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

We can't lock the article forever. So we have to strive for neutrality and palatability. It isn't easy! Your concerns may be valid. But you would have to stay and help resolve them. Tom Haws 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sidney Rigdon - Greensburg or Monongahela?

This article states that Rigdon formed his church in Greensbug, but I believe it was actually in Monongahela. The current headquarters is in Greensburg, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't where it was originally formed. The article on Sidney Rigdon states the headquarters in Monongahela, which is what I originally heard. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Rigdon's organization was never in monongahela or greensburg. His organization was based out of Pittsburgh. You are confusing Rigdon's organization with that of The Church of Jesus Christ which is currently headquarted in Monongahela, Pa. and has it's world conference center in Greensburg, Pa. JRN 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Presidential Run

Wasn't his running mate Brigham Young?

Answer: NO

It was Sidney Rigdon. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Confidence tricksters

Very telling and relevant information was for some reason taken out of the article here: [3]. The above category has also been added to reflect the majority prevailing assessment of the subject from historians and the testimony of many of his 'marks' - including the statements referenced above and his numerous temporary female sexual partners (see other wiki articles on his polygamy).

It does seem rather unbalanced to not at least have this included alongside more questionable categorisations such as Category:Prophets

Any other ideas how we can broaden the coverage to be representing all the perspectives that are notable on this subject? The 'Stafford Testimonials' witness statements should not have been taken out, but rather summarised and referred to in the appropriate place in the article as well as its sub-articles. Please see to that. Otherwise we lay ourselves open to the charge of being 'dogmatic sheeple' on this subject.

The category seems to be a well-populated one to which this biographical subject. It would probably lack completeness to exclude him from it.Danby2007 10:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The "facts" are disputed, so unless there is a category for "those accused of being a confidence man / trickster", the current category is pov and isn't appropriate. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's quite widely accepted that he deceived persons with his fruitless 'money digging' enterprise schemes amd occult practices (seer stones, communication with supernatural beings, disappearing golden plates, etc). For that (first) reaspm he was brought to court and made accountable by a judge in New York. I admit the existence of a vocal element that is in denial about those aspects, and which is very much a minority of those who have formed a view - especially outside the member of LDS church tradition. So, better to reflect a prevailing/majority assessment by inclusion than be seen to be dignifying a more fanciful and less credible (and minority) view by exclusion.

One of my reactions to originally reading this article was: 'why isn't the aspect of his running the confidence schemes as a younger man reflected in the article categorisation?' Worth reflecting on.Danby2007 14:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Overcategorization. This article already has too many categories without adding non-defining characteristics from his youth. He doesn't have an article on wikipedia because he dug for gold. Cool Hand Luke 15:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Any lies he told as a child would be important for this article. If his earlier "stories" look to be first drafts of his later teachings, these should be included (seer stone, treasure hunting, paranormal information, etc.) 138.163.0.41 (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

D & C 132 Quotation

The below is my response to a new editor, User:Écrasez l'infâme placed on his/her talk page. I will now revert, once again. WBardwin 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted your recent edit on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. I chose to revert for a couple of reasons. Stating that the revelation came from "Jesus Christ, himself" may be true (!) but it is clearly quite POV, stating the faithful LDS belief, by Wikipedia standards. In addition, this article is very long, and as it grows we editors extract material into other more specific articles. Any large addition, such as the D&C quote, should be carefully considered and discussed on the talk page. Sections of this quote, for example, might be better suited to the plural marriage article. Nonetheless, thank you for your interest in the article. You might want to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and look over our project guidelines and objectives. Best wishes. WBardwin 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well said. --TrustTruth 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation—I'll leave out the long D&C quote, but add the reference and clarify a few points that are unnecessarily vague in this important section. Écrasez l'infâme 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I added the following, which includes these important historical facts, is NPOV and thoroughly cited:

Such claims that he didn't teach or practice plurality of wives are further called disputed through the official publication in Utah of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, although this did not take place until almost a decade after Smith's death when the revelation was made public and published. This revelation, in which Jesus Christ states through Smith that "a new and an everlasting covenant" of plural marriage is given, contains numerous Biblical references to and justification of polygamy, as well as the demand that Smith's first wife, Emma, accept all of Smith's plural wives, and warns of damnation if the new covenant is not observed.

Écrasez l'infâme 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk-page discipline

Just a note to involved editors to pay attention to basic talk-page discipline:

• Discuss the article and not the subject
• Discuss the edit and not the editor
• If you feel attacked, do not attack back
• Don't misrepresent other people
• If you feel the need, you can chat with about this topic on their user talk pages. Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.

Follow these simple guidelines, and you will not only be more productive, you will have more fun as well.

See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

After reading a recent edit in the article there is one question that I have: is 'Reformed Egyptian' recognized as a legitimate ancient language? Duke53 | ^Talk 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on who you ask and what your definition of "legitimate" is. I imagine most language scholars would say no, because apart from the claims surrounding the Book of Mormon, there's no evidence the language exists or existed. Ask a language researcher who believes Joseph Smith's story and you might get a different answer. Ask non-experts and you will get different answers again. In other words, it depends on your POV and from what angle you approach the question. See Reformed Egyptian. –SESmith 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So, is it "Reformed Egyptian" or "reformed Egyptian"? The Reformed Egyptian article seems to use the latter, at the moment. Wesley 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

From what I can see, the article Reformed Egyptian is fairly consistent in its use of "reformed Egyptian". –SESmith 04:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct use is as Sesmith has presented, "reformed Egyptian". Joseph Smith was not stating there was an actual language called Reformed Egyptian, but that the language of the authors of the BofM had changed or was not pure like the original language of their forefathers; thus reformed. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable sources

After reading the highly entertaining article about the adventures of Joe Smith and his amazing success with the credulous - one question remains - where did Smith, with no apparent education or overseas travel- manage to find these apochraphyl documents? Did he journey to anywhere even remotely likely to contain documents in any form of middle eastern/egyptian provenance. Is it plausible to still believe, in the absence of any physical evidence at all - that anyone could 'find' golden plates under a hill in Pennsylvania - plates which contain references to previously unknown ancient languages? I thought we were supposed to try and have some sort of scientific/encyclopaedic detachment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelia (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bushman as sole reference?

I have problems with the recent changes to this article. Besides the POV tone of the edits, all citations point to Bushman. It seems that the article is being shaped only by that source, which will result in an unbalanced article. Is it just me, or do others have the same thoughts? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I humbly apologize. Bushman was the only "scholarly" reference I had/have available to me. (Even that, I'm borrowing from a friend, and so won't be able to keep for much longer.) Except for the citations which he gives (which, by the way, are numerous), I really didn't have anything else to go on when I got to a point that it looked like it needed an intext citation (for something that could be debated or such). I figured a Bushman citation was better than nothing, or subsequently, a "citation needed" marker, or perhaps even a wholesale deletion at worst. However, I do believe that the sections are stronger after my edits, and I didn't/don't want to stymy the flow of thought or leave out pertinent information only because I am limited in my choice of references. Any suggestions to help with this would be appreciated. Maybe others could do me a favor and find corresponding citations? I kind of doubt it though...

Regarding, however, your assertation that my edits were POV. I must ask: How so? Would you say my POV in writing is Pro-Smith? Anti-Smith? And if so, where is it apparent? The biggest reason that I made the edits (my first, on the First Vision, available here, and my other, on the Kirtland Safety Society & departure from Kirtland can be found here) was that I felt those sections in particular were poorly-written, and, in the case of the section on the First Vision, was also highly Pro-Mormon POV. I feel that my edits were justified, but I will refrain from making any more on the page of a similar nature until we get these straightened out.

Cheers! --Trevdna 00:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The biggest deletion I made when I said correcting pov was about the First Vision: "the versions differ significantly in their message, scope, and intensity." All will agree the the various accounts differ from the others, but "significantly" is a loaded word. The four Gospels differ - that is a fact, but stating that the differ "significantly" is POV (IMHO). Apologists think the differences are minor, while critics might argue the differences are significant. You will notice that I changed "version" to "account". We had a discussion about that on Talk:First Vision, and concluded that "account" was less POV than "version". -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although, as it reads now, that pararaph seems bare to me. Is there any way we could work out what it should say without wholesale deletions?

Also, do you have any other POV concerns with my edits, or was that the only one?

And finally, do you have any suggestions on how I might remedy your concern regarding citations? --Trevdna 18:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't keep track of who edits what, so I'm not sure if you had any other edits that I might consider POV. In general, the more different citations that are used the better. Virtually every source is POV and biased. By selecting a variety of sources, a more NPOV article emerges.

As for the paragraph, I would have no problems with a comment about the differences being considered significant by critics, but minimal by apologetics. IMHO, the biggest differences involve the interpretations of the various accounts rather than the actual differences in the text. (For example, the Bible has plenty of cases where the LORD is described as a man or as an angel. The fact that one version of the FV talks about an angel fits into that type of representation.) Also, I'm not convinced that the 1842 account is the best known and most read. I would consider the 1838 version, which has been canonized by the LDS church, better known. Whatever is done, it should be brief. Remember that those who are interested in learning more about the First Vision can read that article. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My only other edit to this article since I've come back (AKA, in the past year or more) was the one on the Kirtland Safety Society. It can be found here. Let me know what you think.

Also, that's my bad: I had thought that the LDS-canonized version was from 1842. I guess I'll double check that one before I fix it.

Also, do you know if it's considered academically honest to use material that Bushman got from primary source documents (and cited), and then put in the citations to the primary source if I haven't actually looked at/fact checked the primary source myself?

Because (like I've said, I think), there's a lot of quality info in Bushman's work; it's much more non-biased and well-written than this article currently stands. I'd like to be able to incorporate more of it into this article, but I don't have any more works to cite. --Trevdna 00:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is frowned upon to use the references supplied by another researcher as if you had reviewed and verified them yourself. It is considered sloppy work and the way a lot of bad information gets handed down from one researcher to another. Others may have a equally acceptable position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. This is one way that much of the Anti-Mormon material keeps getting propagated - people don't bother to check the references, which in many cases are totally bogus. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Smith image

I have reviewed the talk archives and I don't see any consensus for having changed the photograph and best likeness portrait to the current sculpture image. Can somebody enlighten me or support me in changing bach to the discussed images? The real ones aren't even in the article any more. Sigh. Tom Haws 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I found it here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&oldid=144838556 (Cleaned up language, edited for readability and clarity.) Oh, yeah. And changed main picture.  :-).

Fixing. The painted portrait would be fine by me. But not any other fanciful rendition. Tom Haws 23:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 1. Tom Haws 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I say either the photograph or the RLDS painting, which have the best claims to realism (though I think the jury is still out on whether the photograph is a photo of Smith or a retouched photo of the RLDS painting). COGDEN 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In a way, I think the authenticity of the supposed photograph doesn't matter. We should use either just because they're public domain and iconic. Cool Hand Luke 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, realism should trump artistic merit or iconography when depicting real people. I'd go with the photgraph. –SESmith 01:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be a significant issue for some people. As for me, I guess I do not have a strong preference; however, I like the picture of the sculpture. The depiction is common to me and I have a personal preference to sculpture over paintings or photography. It is surprising that one strives for "reality" when there is confusion about the reality. It would seem that we seek something that does not exist; in truth, one is not more pure or accurate than the other; they are simply representations of what the man. At the end of the day it is personal preference. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Haws, given your rather strong feelings in this situation and the fact that you already made a unilateral decision, how about putting the sculpture picture in the table at the end of the article? It currently has a rather repugnant drawing of poor quality. Then we don't have this penchant for wanting a pseudo realism taking over the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. That particular image is already in the article body. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Repugnant? Poor quality? Why, gentlemen, that artwork was done contemporaneously by none other than the illustrious wife of "Saint George" George A. Smith, and 4th president of the LDS Relief Society, Bathsheba Smith.  :-) Tom Haws 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my preference is the painted portrait because it is a bit prettier and because JS III, who was 11 when his dad died, said it was the best likeness. That kind of cited reference is as real as you are going to get. Thoughts? Tom Haws 16:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I also like it because it is less likely to incite controversy. Tom Haws 18:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can support the groups choice. My personal preference is more based upon medium; I prefer sculpture to painting. I have never focused on the controversy between "real" likeness or not; I don't think I know what controversy it may incite; what might it be? In addition, I will replace the picture identified above with the picture of the sculpture to add balance and just because I think it is a more interesting piece of art. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the photograph isn't the prettiest thing you ever saw. And when LDS folks come by who are accustomed to modern renditions, I suspect the first reaction for some of them is: "Anti! That's not the likeness of The Prophet. And even if it is, what a shady-looking face to have at the top of the article." And the second reaction of the Wiki capable might be to replace it with something prettier. That's what I want to avoid. Inciting POV edits does no good. If I'm inciting POV edits, I'm probably not achieving NPOV. Tom Haws 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the painting better as well, rather than the photograph. I'm not convinced that the photograph is anything other than a photograph of the painting anyway, so why not have the original painting, rather than a touched-up photo of the painting? COGDEN 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent Revert by Warp103

Bill recently undid a "bot" revert of a recent edit. I would urge us to reconsider that revert and look over the material involved. Some of the potentially deleted/changed material has long been in the article and has been heavily discussed. Some material removed or altered presents aspects of Smith's life that are open to criticism so, IMO, removing the material reduces the article's neutral POV. If I were to choose, I would initially revert back to my edit on August 18th and follow up with a solid review by several pairs of eyes. The article has received a lot of traffic in recent weeks with a lot of accumulated changes. Best............ WBardwin 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles of Faith

I have taken the liberty of inserting the actual wording from the Times and Seasons (1842) Aof as a substitution for the LDS edited version. I thought it was in better keeping with NPOV to use Smith's original wording. A Sniper 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is really no point in using the modern LDS Church version when we have access to Smith's actual words. –SESmith 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. By the way SESmith, I didn't mean to chop off that ref on my edit - I thought the ref was tied to the latter part I'd just lobbed off, and not the former about Emma...sorry. A Sniper 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's OK; it happened twice and so I started to think it was deliberate vandalism. –SESmith 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to state something like, "Joseph Smith, Jr. a brief statement of beliefs known in the LDS movement as the Articles of Faith." There is no need to repeat them in their entirety in this article. Then you won't have to worry about which version to use in this article and Articles of Faith — Val42 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is done now - it is historically letter-perfect and in Smith's own words (as reflected by the Times and Season's account). As a statement of purpose & belief, what better way than to spell things out on the JSJr page? A Sniper 13:59, 01 September 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the entire Articles of Faith section of the Wentworth letter is inappropriate. First of all, Wikipedia articles shouldn't include copies of primary sources. Second, the Articles were never intended as a comprehensive summary of Smith's major beliefs and teachings. They are a list of beliefs intended for proselytism and public consumption, which grew in importance only long after Smith's death, and are not a good description of what he spent most of his time teaching his close followers. For example, they don't mention polygamy, the Endowment, temples, the law of consecration, new scriptures other than the Book of Mormon, or even the Apostasy. COGDEN 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Alleged

An anon user just came in and added several instance of "it is claimed" and "it is alleged" to the article. Isn't this really implied? Of course, all of what happened is what is alleged happened by Smith and his followers. So do we need this wording in the article? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, that wording should be reverted; please see words to avoid for policy regarding this type of wording. Said is the correct verbage. I will revert it now. Good catch. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted it; however, we need to make sure that there are enough statements that indicate that Joseph Smith (or anyone else) said something rather than stating it as fact. Some articles are edited so heavily that it is helpful to read them from beginning to end to remove redundancy and to ensure that wikipedia is always neutral. We do not take a stand for truth, rather we report facts as indicated by experts. Also, we need to monitor tone; are we leading or guiding the reader to come to a specific conclusion by the style of our writing. If so, it needs to be neutralized so that there is as little "spin" as possible. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the expulsion of 'alleged', but there still must be a distinction with what is historically clear-cut (i.e. Smith was born in 1805; Smith organized a church on April 6, 1830 called Church of Christ; Smith claimed a First Vision; Smith was killed in 1844; etc.) and areas of contention, challenge, debate, etc. (i.e. Smith secretly did this or that; Smith told so and so this; Smith ordained his son as successor; Smith chose BY to succeed him; etc.). I don't care if someone reverts an edit of mine - happens often - but the way it reads now gives the unacquainted student the impression that areas in historic dispute (or, to be fair, not necessarily as one group of historians or believers project an incident) are actually fact. I respect all of the editors who regularly contribute, and I try to be balanced and encyclopedic in my edits. My great-grandmother was a great-granddaughter of JS, and at our JSSr family reunions I, as a CofC background person, am surrounded by my LDS cousins - we have learned to respect each other. I was merely trying to give more of a NPOV and I apologize if I failed. A Sniper 10:32, 05 September 2007 (UTC)

Sniper, your point is valid and is often overlooked by members of the LDS church. They (we) often speak and write as if our beliefs of Joseph Smith are the only beliefs about him. Many new editors or Anons will make edits that limit or reverse statements allow for a broader range of beliefs. In this instance it would be helpful if when you found a statement that does not lead to a NPOV, that you either mark it or, better yet, add a reference so that it reads in a more neutral, referenced manner.

If Joseph "said" somthing it should be supported by references. All words similar to "alledged" or "claimed" should be removed/replaced as directed by wikipedia policy. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

SHAME SHAME

THIS ARTICLE has been written by a non-neutral party shame on you wiki please use all avaliable information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.246.111 (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

You know, you could be more helpful. There are wiki editors, with accounts, who think that this article is biased toward Joseph Smith's accounts, and ones who think that this account is biased against Joseph Smith's accounts. Without you being more specific, we can do nothing useful with your comments, so they will be ignored. Please be specific. — Val42 16:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It is bad enough that wiki allows a cult to post whatever they want but to also censor the talk page ia an absolute disgrace!!SHAME SHAME —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azzy777 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your preferred revision of this article appears to be this, which is a blatant violation of the neutral point of view policy. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 03:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is completely absurd for anyone to mention NPOV in defense of this article. The entire thing is slanted. I presented 2 verifiable sources that show that the hieroglyphics Smith claim to have translated were incorrect. These sources are factual and you are trying to censor them because they expose the golden plates as fraud. The truth is neutral. Facts are FACTS ! I agree 100% : SHAME!! SHAME!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk) 05:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We are not here to make a statement about whether or not Joseph Smith was a false prophet. We report on others' opinions, but the article must not support one side or the other. Please read WP:NPOV. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I did!

"Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ."

Where is the word opinion given in the wiki definition of NPOV?? Maybe this is the trouble, no one here has read the real definition. That Joe Smith was a false prophet is a significantly expressed VIEW, one that I agree with and found ample supporting references. By and large Jews admit Jesus was a prophet, they argue about divinity, so this comparison is a red herring and not a real argument. If wiki editors decided some of these rant pages deserved entry, then they should go in. CARM is a significant source and not some rant page, imo. I am not aware than anyone has claimed any of Buddha's prophecies can be proven false, so again we have apples and oranges. My post conformed to Wiki's NPOV, imo, yet this article does not. Where is an editor's suggestion about how to make it NPOV? The simple fact is that I see no way that any mention of these 2 very valid and accepted references can be put here without bias deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk • contribs)

Apparently, we don't report on other's opinions. In fact, if we were to go only by the information presented in the article, there's no significant number of people who believed that Smith was a false prophet. The reader never encounters that term. That's not NPOV, that's bias. The article is quite clearly written from the Mormon point of view, and systematically excludes not only other viewpoints, but known facts that are apparently uncomfortable. - Juden 09:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Juden are you arguing that the article needs to say that other did not believe he was a prophet? It seems rather obvious. Do we have to say that Budda was a false prophet/teacher because we do not follow his teachings? Do we have to state in the Jesus article that he was a false prophet because Jews and all non-Christians in the world don't believe in him?

When speaking about a figure of religion we necessarily speak about the individual as presented by the respective religion. It goes without saying that the beliefs held regarding the individual are those of their adherents and not the public at large. I think readers are quite clear about this point. Go back and read the article again as a whole; you will find it has more than just a mild negative presentation about Smith. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It may seem to you that the negative response to Smith is adequately presented; it does not seem so to me, or to the many others who have left their comments on the article's talk page noting it to be quite biased: in general, these comments are dismissed, ignored, and archived, rather than actually listened to. And no, generally we do not, and should not, discuss religious individuals only from the perspective of their particular sect, since that is quite clearly a violation of the NPOV policy. - Juden 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to represent the information differently, then begin by stripping out all of the negative information and placing it in a Criticism section. Doing so should make those few editors see, but not read, the article to feel more comfortable. Though I think the article reads better having criticism throughout the article, I have no problem with your proposal to move everything to a single section. Go for it. However, if you proposal is make the article into a puff piece of anti-Mormonism, then I would strongly decline to support such an endeavor. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section is a bad idea. I certainly haven't suggested one. My suggestion was that the article stop being a puff-piece, not that it become anti-Mormon. It is unfortunate that some people can't distinguish between "not a puff-piece" and "anti-Mormon". A major problem with the article is that statements that take any point of view other than a faith-enhancing Mormon position are immediately rewritten so that the views are filtered through the eyes of Mormon apologists instead of allowing those with other views to speak for themselves. If this would stop, the article could be improved; until it stops, no one can muster the tenacity to try and bring the article into NPOV compliance. - Juden 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

We seem to get comments like this on a consistent basis. However, every time I read the article I come away thinking that the critic must not have read the article. The claims are baseless because all of the criticism/information is already in the article. What seems to gall them most is that there is an acknowledgement that Joseph Smith is not solely a con man. Any iota of positive information or anything remotely similar to something praiseworthy is taken as an offense and needs to be stomped out immediately. Puff piece?; please identify one publication by the LDS church that comes close to this article! That is an unwarranted criticism and will always make the editors that have contributed for years on the this article to conclude the one making the allegation has an axe to grind and is more interested in their POV than in contributing to a great article. This conversation does not seem to be focused on improving the article; let's move on. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you get comments like this all the time because you always fail to act on them. The critics have clearly read the article, so you should begin to recognize that your judgement of its fairness is not dispositive. Perhaps it's time to actually accord some importance to the opinions of someone other than yourself. What galls people is not that opinions other than "Joseph Smith was a con man" prevail, but that opinions like "Joseph Smith was a con man"--which were certainly held--are actively, vigorously suppressed or minimized. Fortunately, the side insisting that the article filter all opinions about Smith through a Mormon lens doesn't get to make the call that it's time for others to "move on". - Juden 05:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It is important to remember that everyone is an editor here. If you believe that an aspect of the topic is not present, then you are welcome to add it to the article. As long as the addition is WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc. it will be allowed to stand. What many critics seem to miss is that there are a number of Mormon editors who add critical views to many Mormon articles, as well as remove many pro-Mormon POV entries. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Experience shows that, unfortunately, even additions that are consistent with all WP policies are repeatedly removed, or reworded so that they reflect the views of Mormon apologists rather than the actual originators of the ideas. What the "critics" of this article have not missed is that the end result is an unbalanced, POV article - that you can point to individual editors who are not to blame doesn't matter, as the preponderance of the editors excise and obsfuscate information they don't like, simply because they don't like it. - Juden 14:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

my two cents For what its worth, I have been a now & then contributor to this page (and others in the portal) for a long time and I find the regular crowd (and I know whom I assume is LDS) fair and reasonable. I am not LDS, and as a direct descendant of JSJr I may have CoC-ish family perceptions but, other than the occasional Brighamite or anti zealot, I never feel overwhelmed by POV. As opposed to what could be the different end of the spectrum of either the LDS or the anti mindset, mine is coming from another one entirely in that we would tend to stress the human element (warts & all) of JSJr while at the same time turning different colors at the mention of the subject of plural marriage. My point being that scholarship, neutrality and the Wiki ethos have to be paramount for all editors and my experience has been that the usual suspects here, whatever their background or interests, stick to the middle ground of accuracy. Best, A Sniper 9:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yet the article we have wound up with excludes noteworthy points of view. I suspect your perceptions, then, are in need of reevalution, or we are in need of editors in addition to the "regular crowd". - Juden 16:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Juden you could tone down the abrasiveness and get a lot further with the other editors. --TrustTruth 16:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. Their agendas existed long before I was here. But if you'd like to explain how your last edit was warranted, I'm willing to listen. You excised Compton's point (there is no explicit or convincing evidence that Joseph had any marriages in which there were no sexual relations), and misstated Bushman's. In what sense was that a clarification? What motivated that edit? That section needs to be returned to its state before your recent intervention. - Juden 16:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's your tone. I'll put it this way: If you worked for me and exhibited the tone you bring across in your posts (and edit comments), regardless of the quality of your work, I would probably let you go. Your tone contributes to an overall hostile environment. It IS possible to have differences of opinion and a tone of civility at the same time. I recommend you work on that. Open your eyes. I'm not the only one with this view. And try taking that tone to another, non-Mormon-related article. You would face the same response. As to my recent edits, they do clarify things in my view, as does your most recent edit to clarify Bushman's point. I think that in a case like Smith's polyandrous marriages, it is warranted to specifically name the historians and their view point, as there is no consensus at this point. Notice that I EXPANDED on your contributions by creating a stub article on Compton. You said you are willing to listen. I now challenge you to work towards a more-civil tone. --TrustTruth 17:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying things you don't want to hear is quite different from being uncivil. It's the hostile environment that necessitates my tone; it's not my tone that creates the hostile environment. This article has long been hostile to disparate viewpoints. And, of course, I'm not your employee. - Juden 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

One other thing -- Compton's point that there is no evidence Smith's other marriages had no sexual relations is true, but Compton implicitly concedes that these marriages may have been an early version of the later-practice of "adoption by a high leader" which obviously did not involve sexual relations. That this could be an early version of this practice shifts the burden of proof a bit, so one can't simply state that no evidence exists that his other (non-polyandrous) marriages did not involve sexual relations. One has to at least put these marriages into the context of the later practice of individuals sealing themselves to high leaders. Compton's point (of view) is valid, but it's not the only way to look at it. Here we're striving for a neutral point of view, so I see no reason why Compton's point of view should rule the day. We need other points of view for context. Hence my inclusion of the Bushman quotes. I suggest an additional discussion of the "adoption by a high leader" practice. --TrustTruth 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you concede that Compton's point (that there is no evidence Smith's other marriages had no sexual relations) is true, why did you remove it? It's true, it's sourced, it belongs. Its removal was inappropriate. Including it doesn't make it "rule the day", it merely includes it. Excluding points of view that you disagree with is the problem here, and I'm anxious to hear your solution. Mine would be restoration of Compton's point; I'm anxious to hear why you think otherwise. The issue is not your addition of Bushman, it's your censorship of Compton. - Juden 17:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I was aiming for a succinct paragraph. I'm fine with re-including Compton's point as long as the other points I mentioned are included as well, and succinctly. --TrustTruth 20:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a plan then. If everyone would stop censoring opinions, or rewriting them from the opposite viewpoint, and simply let all points of view be expressed, the article could be vastly improved. I hope that will happen - Juden 22:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of tone, I would say that Juden has shown great restraint. Lecturing someone on wiki about "if I was your boss" is condescending at best. Claiming that someone could get more done by being nicer, when I see no impolite words or actions, also violates any defintion of proper tone that I am aware of. The simple fact is that Smith would not be a figure suitable for wiki entry if he did not buy those plates from an Irishman and tell people that he had translated the words of Abraham from them. Everything else is puff compared to reporting the truth about this incredible, unbelievable claim.

The very fact that these links (http://www.carm.org/lds/ldspapyri.htm + http://www.irr.org/mit/Book-of-Abraham-page.html ) started such a firestorm of discussion is proof that references to them and an explanation of their major points belong in the main article. There is proof that the so called translations of hieroglyphics were nothing of the sort. Smith did not say he was inspired by the scribbles to tell a story, he claimed to have TRANSLATED them. Then the LDS tried to claim they did not exist once the rosetta stone was found and translation was possible. How can any NEUTRAL party claim that deleting any reference to these FACTS does not prove a NPOV violation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk • contribs)

Unsigned: Feel free to add a nice, succinct, npov summary about the papyrus (not plates by the way) Smith bought in the 1830s. I doubt such a thing would be modified much by other editors. Remember though that it has to be factual and, if you include opinions, you need to strive to include both sides of the table. You might also add to the discussion at this article. --TrustTruth 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

???? I already did that 3 times. I did not come here to be patronized. I used the most credible references and provded a toned down version of both references. http://www.watchman.org/cults/prophets.htm Here is a page which compares your hero to David Koresh with 10 striking similarities. There are 5 pages of google references BEFORE you get to the wiki page with completely sourced false prophesies!! Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

He is also a star of another wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_prophet

The point is that this belongs here, in any NEUTRAL article about his life. To insist I should edit it some more is to blame me for it not being posted and to give legitimacy to all these biased deletions. I tried 3 versions of the same references and all were deleted without comment, as was my 1st comments here, in the obvious hope I would get the message and go away. Guess again. It was only after I made a complaint to the wiki editorial board itself that any comments survived. Am I to think this is coincidence? I have been through more than 1 wiki deletion debate and I am not afraid to defend what is right. Wiki is no one's personal sandbox. One group does not get to keep deleting the truth because it is inconvenient and to repeat the title to this discussion, that is it happening on WIKI is a SHAME!!!

Though both sides need to be included, they should not be given equal weight, but rather weighted according to the extent to which they are held. Those who believe in the authenticity of the Book of Abraham do so from the standpoint of their faith, and represent the smaller community; those who believe it has nothing to do with the papyrus it purportedly translates believe so on the basis of evidence (history, linguistics and Egyptology): this opinion is factually based, and more widely held and should therefore be the one which is emphasized. - Juden 22:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Juden, if the same standard were applied to notability, then, because relatively few people have even heard of Joseph Smith (let along the "Jr." part), then the whole article would have to be deleted because of lack of notability. You have also highly implied that (in your opinion) this entire article is so biased that it should be nominated for deletion for this reason as well. — Val42 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Notability and NPOV are quite different things. You should read up on them if you're confusing them. I haven't stated anything novel about giving opinions their proper weight, merely restated what is already in the NPOV policy. And please: I don't need you to put your words in my mouth; I am quite capable of stating my own opinion without your help. We don't nominate biased articles for deletion here, we work to make them unbiased. Do you propose to be part of the solution, or part of the problem? - Juden 02:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else on here who thinks that constantly quoting from the same historian (Bushman) isn't exactly 'encyclopedic'? A Sniper 10:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Juden, find a mirror and ask your question again. — Val42 05:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that pretty much answers my question. - Juden 08:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken Juden's logic above is that because the majority of people in the world are not Christian, then Christianity should be presented primarily from the stand point of being the false, misguided beliefs of a group that wants to make a god out of guy who lived 2000 years ago.

This is an encyclopedia; it is NOT a record of what the majority thinks! Please, spend significantly more time reviewing the purpose of Wikipedia because you have so completely lost all sense of its purpose as to become a hindrace to the objectives of Wikipedia. This is not about what the majority thinks; the majority has nothing to with it. It is about reporting facts regarding a given topic. That is very different from identifying "truth" as a individual might see things. Truth is a judgment call that editors do not make here.

It is too bloody obvious when talking about a given religion that only the adherents believe in said religion. Conversely, to state in the article that nonadherents don't believe in the religion is absurd. To state the obvious demonstrates one's stupidity. To insist that you "know" what is right repeatedly and yet no one listens to you is a sign of a problem. You might also want to spend some time review guide to writing articles. Regardless, thanks for the laugh tonight; this is almost too choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Storm Rider (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Again we have a misuse of statistics in some effort to claim what is happening here is the same as what could happen to Christianity in general. At its worst, another attempt to equate Joe Smith Jr in the same situation as Christ. Christianity is the largest religion in the world and Wiki comes from a continent with 75% Christians (http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm) . When a religion and its views are in the minority, they can correctly be called a cult (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cult). That is what I see here, especially definiion 6, where Mormons still try to adhere to polygamy 6. a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. Jesus started the only real church. This is the only fact that will remain on the last day. No one else will get to lecture people about who works for them and what kind of tone to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

res ipse loquitur. You should, of course, follow your own advice. To systematically exclude historical reactions to Smith, or to Mormonism, because you disagree with them - as is happening in this article - is biased and unacceptable. - Juden 08:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Enough with with accusations; either demonstrate, show, prove where we did that or cease with silliness. It amounts to personal attacks using a broad brush stroke; stop it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You evidently need to look up the definition of the word "personal" - perhaps "attack" as well. Pointing out that people are intentionally excluding significant points of view from this article is not a personal attack. - Juden 15:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a need for more evidence? We are discussing the bias deletion of 3 of my posts, and 1 is linked at the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Compton information

The following sentence in the article seems to obfuscate what it is saying:

No certain evidence exists as to whether Joseph had sexual relations with any of these polyandrous wives, just as there is no explicit or convincing evidence that Joseph had any marriages in which there were no sexual relations.

Juden reverted my simplification with:

restore Compton's actual statement. The "simplification" is inadequate, as discussed on the talk page.

So, I've created this specific subsection to discuss not the information, but the way that it is presented.

First of all, this sentence is rather long to say, "There is no compelling evidence that Joseph Smith had had sexual relations with any of these wives." Notice now my simplification is much more succinct.

Second of all, if this is meant as a quotation, there are standard ways in the modern English language to designate this, as shown above. Since this sentence does not use either one, then it is assumed that this is not a direct quotation and is therefore subject to editing, simplification in this case.

Noticed how long sentences are used to be more appealing to the editor to whom this discussion is directed. — Val42 16:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The "simplification" doesn't say the same thing at all. The exact Compton quote, from page 21, is: "Therefore there is no good evidence that Joseph Smith did not have sexual relations with any wife, previously single or polyandrous. On the other hand, there is evidence that he did have relations with at least some of these women, including one polyandrous wife, Sylvia Sessions Lyon, who bore the only polygamous offspring of Smith for whom we have affadavit evidence." If you'd prefer to replace the paraphrase by incorporating this quotation, I'm sure it could be arranged. - Juden 16:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Then at least suggest a simplification that conveys this information because the text that appears in the article doesn't convey the same (basic) information as in the quotation you have given above. What about, "There is evidence that he did have relations with at least some of these women." The first part is stating that there is no evidence that something didn't happen. To state this would be like me stating that we have no evidence that you don't beat you spouse, or that you have not lied about not having a spouse. If you don't like my summary, please provide one of your own. — Val42 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I did provide one of my own; it was "No certain evidence exists as to whether Joseph had sexual relations with any of these polyandrous wives, just as there is no explicit or convincing evidence that Joseph had any marriages in which there were no sexual relations." Your alternative, "There is evidence that he did have relations with at least some of these women" is not a fair summary of Compton's statement. "There is evidence that he did have relations with at least some of his polyandrous wives, and no good evidence that he didn't have sex with all of them" would be a fair summary. The reason the second part of the statement is apposite is that some people have claimed he didn't have sex with any of these women. The statement points out that their position is supported by wishful thinking, not evidence. - Juden 20:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

And we have no good evidence that you didn't stop beating your spouse. — Val42 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Which would be rather important to mention if someone were claiming I had. Marriage is an institution in which sex is an expected occurrence. (Violence, however, is not). A marriage in which sex does not occur is unusual, and an explanation is in order. Those who claim there were dozens of marriages in which sex did not occur should not be surprised when others ask them for evidence that this is true, or be surprised that those others mention this lack of evidence when it is not forthcoming. - Juden 21:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there were no apparently children out of over a dozen polyandrous marriages in an era before birth control. I think that Val42's construction is justified in these circumstances. A lot of these comments read very uncivil; tone it down please. Cool Hand Luke 02:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That there are no children is not true; the difficulty is in establishing the paternity of these children, since the women were married to more than one man. Don't worry, I'm used to the incivility here. - Juden 06:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

sounds like you're starting to do your own research on here. "That there are no children is not true". Really? That's a POV if I ever heard one. Where is the evidence? You start with the premise, and then try and build your case, like you're a prosecutor...Yawn. A Sniper 00:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are not familiar with the facts. The statement "there were no children out of over a dozen polyandrous marriages" is factually wrong. The Josephine Lyon Fisher affidavit states that her mother Sylvia told her she was Joseph Smith's daughter; Zina Huntington gave birth 7 months after her polyandrous marriage to Smith; Presendia Huntington had a son, John Hiram Buell, after having married Smith and continuing to live with her 1st husband Normann Buell. Mary Rollins had a son, George Algernon Lightner, born one month after marrying Smith, and another, Florentine Matthias Lightner, the following year. These are but a few instances of polyandrous wives of Smith giving birth following their marriages to Smith; there are others. If you actually read Compton, you will find them, and you won't continue to claim that facts are just a point of view. - Juden 07:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, the affidavit cited above, but I think it's at least a little problematic to use this to make idle, sweeping inferences about over a dozen other marriages that apparently did not bear fruit. Val42's synopsis delivers the essential fact (that he did have sexual relations) without the verbose sensationalism. Cool Hand Luke 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No inferences were drawn, and there's no sensationalism involved. You seem to have confused the issue of whether Smith's polyandrous wives bore children (they did) with whether Smith was the father of those children (no one knows). Fortunately, you are not the arbiter of what is essential. - Juden 18:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If there are no inferences being drawn—if this statement is the equivalent of "we don't know what we don't know," then Val42's version is an appropriate summary. Cool Hand Luke 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not the equivalent of "we don't know what we don't know": that précis omits the fact that there is no evidence supporting the claim that Smith did not have sex with his wives. It's unfortunate that Val42 and you are uncomfortable with mentioning this fact, but it belongs in the article. - Juden 22:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop speculating about the maladies of other editors. I'm not uncomfortable with it. It just says there's no evidence supporting a hypothesis that the article doesn't promote (or even mention). You yourself think that marriage obviously entails sex, so this statement is superfluous. Cool Hand Luke 01:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does, indeed mention the theory. See footnote 58. In any case, I'm glad you're comfortable with the inclusion of the more comprehensive and accurate statement. - Juden 01:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is currently in the article.

There is, on the other hand, no convincing evidence suggesting he entered into marriages without sexual relations.

This is an unnecessary sentence. It is simply a rephrasing of the previous unnecessary sentence. If you want to include Compton's actual quotation, that is fine. But if we rephrase it it only makes Wikipedia look silly, rather than Compton himself. — Val42 06:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a perfectly reasonable statement, and including it makes no one look silly. It's not unnecessary, as detailed in the foregoing discussion. And it's footnoted and properly attributed. - Juden 06:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Juden, first give us the well-rounded references to demonstrate polyandry, then lay out a referenced foundation demonstrating Smith had sex with these women. I still have to wonder allowed with Cool Hand Luke why none of these relationships brought forth fruit, either via polygamy or polyandry - unless one historian, constantly quoted, is enough for an encyclopedia. Best, A Sniper 22:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given the reference. Why should I demonstrate Smith had sex with these women? I haven't suggested that the article state that. What needs to be said is that many people believe that Smith had sex with his wives, the same way the article says that some people believe Smith didn't. - Juden 06:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

lead

An article's lead should summarize it so well that it could stand along as a concise article in its own right, but lots of WP leads fail to meet this standard. This lead says: "Smith was, and remains, a controversial and polarizing figure within Christianity because of his religious and social innovations" Really? Which religious and social innovations? That information belongs in the lead. Could someone summarize what's in the body and put it here? Even a single sentence would do. Leadwind 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, jr. – Mormonism founder and Free Mason

There exists as far as I have surveyed an abundance of documentation of the fact that Joseph Smith was also a Free Mason. This is not even mentioned, let alone discussed, in the article. Should this issue not be addressed properly? __meco 09:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Something ominous appears to be working behind the scenes with regards to this issue. The issue of Joseph Smith's masonic activities was raised already four years ago in the fourth section since the inception of this talk page. Then the article's lack of mention of this was seen as a NPOV issue. The issue was discussed again in May of 2006 (here). At that point some mention of this apparently was part of the article but has since been deleted. Freemasonry is again the subject in August 2006. In my preliminary probings into this complex I have also made inquiries on the Talk:History of the Church and Talk:John A. Widtsoe discussion pages. __meco 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The topic is covered in the article in the section 1842 and 1844; you must have missed it. It is also covered in Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1838 to 1842, Endowment (Latter Day Saints), and Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement.

As an aside, from a historical perspective his activity as a Mason is insignificant. He attended less than a half dozen meetings. He is an important character in history for founding the Mormon religion and the article focusrd on that activity. I am not sure being a Mason has any historical import; why do you think it was important?

Ominous? That is an unusual term to apply to this situation; I think you might mean something else. You might want to review policy on assuming good faith in other editors. Mountains can be made out of mole hills depending upon one's perspective, but at the end of the day it is still just a mole hill. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ominous if my assumption that it had been removed was correct. Which it wasn't. I appreciate your pointing out to me what I had missed. As I haven't become familiar with the accusations levelled at Joseph Smith and several others among the early Mormon leaders I am still a little surprised at the little mention this has received. There seems to have been written a considerable deal on the subject, not all of it agreeing with your appraisal of the (in)significance of this. As Captain Barrett reports in the section Joseph Smith's last words above, there's a library in San Francisco that "has an entire historical section on the ties between Mormons and freemasonry." To me this suggests more than a casual mention of him having been a mason, more like a full section with a headline clearly indicating that this is a contentious issue, and with a prominent link to the article which you mention (Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement) which I hadn't discovered either (I had looked for such an article). __meco 17:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The most significant tie-in between Joseph Smith and Free Masonry is the allegation that the temple rituals of the LDS church are directly correlated to Free Masonry. Also, there have been statements that Joseph's last words were actually a Mason Call for help; however, that remains conjecture.

I think as you study the issue you will find that Joseph was a Mason and did attend a few meetings, but his relationship with the Free Masons was short-lived. You will also find that anti-Mormon websites appear to think that being a Mason is something heinous; many of the founding fathers of the US constitution were Masons as well as other significant figures in history. I guess I don't quite understand the concern, but it is certainly an issue that anti-Mormon websites seem excited about, but I just don't understand why. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

His association with Freemasonry certainly deserves mention. I don't think it deserves a whole section, though, because it was just one of many significant developments in his life in 1840s Nauvoo, and this can be better explored at Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement. COGDEN 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

But this is more or less the official church position, isn't it? Since a significant lobby does appear to highlight this connection, I think that merits a more thorough discussion. Now it is, in my view, subdued. It remains my position at least that this merits its own section, and with a leading main article referrer to Freemasonry and the Latter Day Saint movement. If you take a look inside Category:Freemasonry and religion you will notice that the only other article in there is Christianity and Freemasonry, and then there's a whole sub-category about the Roman Catholic church's masonic links. This suggests that this IS an important issue, in particular in relation to Mormonism's founder. __meco 19:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, why? Freemasonry is today little more than a charitable fraternity with a strong Christian affiliation. It seems to me that any significant highlighting of this association has more to do with the urban legendish reputation of the Freemasons than with any relevant facts on Smith's life. Hmoulding 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes and References

I have been looking at the Notes and References sections and have started to think, maybe it should be cleaned up. the Notes section seems to be acting as the Reference Section... What is the clarity on this? Dbchristensen 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:GTL discusses this somewhat, although I don't know that you'll get clarity. ;-) Anyway, it overall does need cleanup. For example, external links to book sales are discouraged, using the ISBN automatic linking is the preferred method, so maybe someone can/should cleanup all the book refs, at least the ones that have ISBN numbers in them. Also some of the sources like www.irr.org and www.lightplanet.com don't seem to qualify as WP:RS and should be replaced with better sources. Arthur 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Book of Abraham

I'm reluctant to edit this article noting how even the smallest change can get heated opposition, so I'll bring it up here instead. I just read the recently edited "Translation of the Book of Abraham" section. While everything said there is factual, as far as I can tell, it is rather one-sided (and, therefore, not NPOV). Wouldn't it be appropriate to trim maybe one of the quotes (we get the idea after a couple) and add a short paragraph on the Church's position on the whole issue? I found this from the Ensign. Being an official Church publication, it probably does a good job of stating their position. Would it be appropriate to add this, or would it ruffle too many feathers? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Adding an apologetic explanation of why the Book of Abraham turns out not to be an accurate translation of the Smith papyri would be perfectly fine, as long as it is represented as a religious rather than scientific opinion. Removing quotations because you disagree with them, however, does not seem to be a good idea, especially in an article plagued by editors who diligently seek to suppress critical opinions. - Juden 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to remove the quotes "because [I] disagree with them". I just thought there were a few too many. There are no fewer than five quotes, and all basically say the same thing, that it and Joseph Smith are frauds. I just think the same point can be made just as effectively with three or four quotes. Thank you for your response. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added the paragraph. Keeping it to a paragraph, however, was hard since there was so much material that I didn't want to just glance over. I think I made it clear that the counter-arguments come from the Church and not outside scientists (or researchers). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The entire section looks balanced, but to me it looks like something that should be under Book of Abraham, not Smith's biography. It looks out of place, both in size and topic, in this article. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just added the counter because the section is there. I have no idea why it is in the main article at all, except as an attempt to discredit him (see the quotes in the first paragraph, pretty vehement). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Book of Abraham article and it discusses everything this little section in this article does, but to an even greater extent. It doesn't have the quotes, but those can be moved over if anyone feels strongly about it. I vote we nix the whole section. It is out of place in this article and the information is already present in an entire other article. Anyone object? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no objection to you moving the quotations to the Book of Abraham article, or to you moving the section into its chronological place in the article. But I would object to [1] deleting the quotations without moving them; or [2] deletion of the section. It seems appropriate that this article should mention all the scripture originating from Joseph Smith's pen. Rather than deletion, the section should be summarized (along the lines of "Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham, saying he had translated it from papyrus scrolls. The text, one of the scriptures of the LDS Church, is the basis for many of the church's distinctive doctrines, including the exaltation of humanity, the plurality of gods, pre-mortal existence, and the existence of other inhabited worlds in the cosmos. Egyptologists have determined that the text Smith published is unrelated to the hieroglyphics actually found on the scrolls in question," with an appropriate link to the Book of Abraham article, where details can be discussed. Of course, that article is a complete morass, but it will hopefully be cleaned up eventually. - Juden (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Book of Abraham article isn't in the best condition right now, but I would still rather move the section's contents to that article (and maybe clean it up in the process) than summarize it and leave it in. The article already mentions that he translated (or made up, depending on your POV) The Book of Abraham. Having a callout for it in the article just seems unbalanced. I'm not opposed to the contents of the section, but just the fact that it seems awkward in the article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The quote from the Ensign article states that there is no red ink in the Joseph Smith papyri, which is clearly false, if you look at the images posted in the Book of Abraham article. The red texts are rubrics, according to [4], cited in the same article. While it's fine to record someone's opinion, clear factual errors in a quote should be noted. JoeFink (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Book of Abraham section is unbalanced and should be removed. The Book of Abraham is hardly a major teaching of Joseph Smith, a fairer treatment would include major teachings such as: open canon and revelation, priesthood, the Book of Mormon and the first vision. This section could fairly be moved into an article on the Book of Abraham but does not belong under the major teachings of Joseph Smith. 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Mormon bias

this whole article is replete with mormon bias (ESPECIALLY JS's sexual relationships). they (LDS) must have full time staff and church members dedicated to lying/twisting the truth about JS and his antics............I"m really disappointed. You can try and change things, but only in vain. They're VERY powerful, and seem to have won the day, on wikipedia at least.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2007

It is really an army of third and fourth wives of all the apostles that monitors wikipedia articles. After Sunday School they all go to a special class called "Twisting the truth for stupid people". Indeed, they are powerful; it is so unfortunate that that they observe Wikipedia policy, use reputable references, and write well. Damn them; if they did not have their army of mindless robotic women we anti-Mormons could rule the day and have such a better world. I am glad that we have you here to point the finger of enlightened truth!--Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm, I dont see any latter-day saints slamming your religion! Show some respect, please. -Matoro183^{(Talk | Contributions)} 02:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, damn the facts. I would much rather have bias, ignorance, vitriol and half-truths rule the day! --TrustTruth (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't you all think that sarcasm is about as bad as slamming? Hmoulding 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

sarcasm sure isn't helpful, and LDS have insulted my religion. Rds865 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Omission?

I see the bit above that seemed to be a dicussion the went nova. I find it strange that anyone would question the idea that JSjr was a racist. I thought that was a universally held fact. Doing a search for Smith or mormons with the word racist or racism gives me a ton of hits. They are not crazy hits either. I thought most of the racism issues were about blacks but after reading what that guy wrote about indians it seems to just heep hay on the fire. The question is, is the above racist comment there because the editor, who I assume is a mormon, was taught it as a teaching of Smith or is he just a racist on his own with out the help of Smith. I know this looks like a personal attack but I mean go read what he wrote. I am quite surprised that the dicussion was even allowed to stay on the page. Way to go WIKI. At any rate, there is an issue here in regards to racism and it seems extremely notable to me to warrent inclussion in the article even more so then the huge section on plural wives. Islam has plural wives and most people do not treat that as a big deal. Racism is far outside of our modern day culture and ethics and many regard just the holding of racist thoughts as and act of terrorism or violence in and of itself. Something on the issue needs to be commented on even if it is to exhonorate Smith. There are facts out there all over the place. Let us get some and put them here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

All I can tell you is that there are a lot of African-American and Native-American Mormons that don't consider him a racist. I am sure there are many people who believe he was one, so you could add a statement about that, provided you use a WP:RS. That doesn't mean he was a racist, only that some people think he was. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For a compromise, you all might consider avoiding use of the word racist and discuss Smith's opinions on the matter of race in an NPOV fashion. These would be facts, and the word racist doesn't need to be added to them. After all, Smith's attitudes were hardly unusual for his times. They were shared by most whites, even many of those who are today held in general high esteem. I mean, take a visit over to Abraham Lincoln and see if the word appears there, and yet Lincoln's expressed attitude towards blacks was not exactly non-racist. Hmoulding 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Mormons during Joseph Smith's era, including Smith himself, considered themselves anti-slavery, some even were professed abolitionists. Others, converts from Southern states, were pro-slavery and some wealthy members were slave owners. However, by all modern standards, white Americans of this period, including Mormons, were racists. They believed that "whites" were the crown of creation, that Africans, Asians, and Native Americans were lesser peoples and were available for their "use." Many believed, well into the 20th century, that the Bible condoned slavery and the racial class system. Smith saw black people as "free" children of God, but that doesn't mean he saw them as his equals. However, during his tenure, blacks were baptized into the church and several black men were ordained to some level of priesthood authority. However, and this is strictly my opinion, others in the church would not have accepted any "oversight" by blacks within the priesthood heirarchy. This attitude probably led to the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood/temple rites during Brigham Young's administration. WBardwin (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Less Creepy Picture

Just a little note, I was going to read this article, but then this creepy picture from screen right started staring at me. It turned me off reading the article. Does anyone have a less creepy pic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Smith is a creepy character, charlatan, false prophet, so the picture probably fits. Mike0001 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this image is definitely unsettling. Though it is supposedly the "most accurate likeness" according to Smith's children. -- Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 04:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

The recent edits by Renderdog have resulted in an unbalanced non-neutral presentation, and the article has been tagged accordingly. - Juden (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted many of the edits by reverting to an earlier version; however, the NPOV tag was kept. At this point it would be appropriate to see Juden's specific issues with the article. I do not think that FamilySearch is an ideal source; there is no peer review and information can be loaded into the database by anyone. Given that number of references from better sources, it would seem appropriate to improve this source. Renderdog, please do not return to your editing until you cooperatively work your proposal out here. Let's get the NPOV tag removed promptly when the article is acceptable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your feelings about FamilySearch are irrelevant; that was not the only source cited for the information you have now, once again, removed. Nor is your restoration of the characterization of Brodie's quotation of Smith as "false" appropriate. More once those are resolved. I'll check back tomorrow to see if they have been. - Juden (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you seeing my efforts as assisting you in your edit war with Renderdog; it speaks well of you.

You will note that I kept the NPOV tag because I was not attempting to speak for you nor was I certain how far back to go. Agreed, Brodie's claim should not be noted as false; it should simply be supported by reference. I see that Renderdog has already made an edit to that section without discussing it here. Render, are you sure that no reputable source supports that claim as you state in the article? Do you have a reference for an expert that says the same thing? That statement should be supported by reference or deleted.

Lastly, Juden, my feelings regarding FamilySearch are irrelevant; however, policies about reputable references for Wikipedia are absolutely relevant and they are what declare this source unacceptable; it is not peer reviewed, it is not an expert, and is open to anyone. If you are unfamiliar with policies, I would be more than happy to direct you to them. If you are capable of reading it on your own, then may you continue to be a light to our community. Always a pleasure. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure Renderdog appreciates your assistance even more, as you managed to revert to a version that supports his "vision" of the article. I'm - how shall we say - every bit as cognizant of you as to what constitutes an appropriate reference; however, apparently unlike you, I realize that the statement removed first by Renderdog and now by you was supported by such a reference. Again, I'll check back to see what progress, if any, has been made here; so far Renderdog has continued to edit the article without bothering to discuss matters on the talk page, and has inserted yet more of his opinion without supporting citations. - Juden (talk) 05:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Renderdog, I do not have access to the reference cited, I found the following: "During Joseph Smith's lifetime in particular, the prevailing views of Islam and Muhammad were also less than complimentary. An example of this can be found in an incident that occurred in October 1838. According to the Prophet, "Thomas B. Marsh, formerly president of the Twelve, having apostatized, repaired to Richmond and made affidavit before Henry Jacobs, justice of the peace, to all the vilest slanders, aspersions, lies and calumnies towards myself and the Church, that his wicked heart could invent."18 In this affidavit Marsh states, "I have heard the Prophet say that he would yet tread down his enemies, and walk over their dead bodies; and if he was not let alone, he would be a second Mohammed to this generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky mountains to the Atlantic ocean; that like Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was, 'the Alcoran or the Sword.' So should it be eventually with us, 'Joseph Smith or the sword.'" Marsh's statement directed at Joseph Smith serves as an indirect polemic against Islam."

I doubt you are going to find a source that says this is not supported, given that this souce states Joseph Smith himself repeats what Marsh said in affidavit. I think your position is on shaky ground; unless you can provide some definitive evidence your edit should be deleted. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Since in the month since this interchange, no effort was made to correct the errors introduced by Renderdog and reinstated by Storm Rider, I have undertaken to correct them myself. - Juden (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire entry reads like a sermon. How about a dissenting view? How about deleting passages that describe "glorious" encounters with God and Jesus? How about a little more objectivity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinylanach (talk • contribs) 20:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you addressing unreferenced wording or referenced wording. It would help if you were more specific. The more specific you are the easier it would be to respond to your request. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"death" section

It looked really shoddy. I tightened up the prose, condensed it into summary style. There was also a paragraph of other material, all of which was to be found elsewhere, and didn't belong in the death section at all. Finally, I moved the eulogies into their own section, as that really wasn't actually anything to do with his death, persay.

Actually, i think those eulogies reek of NPOV, but POV seems to be a touchy subject around here. Would anyone mind if I deleted them entirely? Storm Rider in particular, I'd like your opinion on this one.

--Trevdna (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, what do you guys think we should do with the part about his body? That one kind of has me stumped. --Trevdna (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Has anybody noticed that when one plugs the phrase "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" into the search tool, one is redirected to Joseph Smith's page? This is clearly a reference to the "All about Mormons" South Park episode, and I'd say it constitutes vandalism. I won't change it because things like this usually turn into an argument and frankly, I'd love to see where this goes. :D DDF Deepdesertfreman (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Changing redirect to All About Mormons, but it might be worth nominating at RfD. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Plural Marriage

I haven't made any contributions to this page in at least six months and I could not believe the evolution that took place in the polygamy section. Of the several paragraphs presenting evidence and references re: Smith's polygamous adventures, gone was the single paragraph that presented the alternate Joseph Smith III/RLDS/CofC perspective, with references. Now even Emma Smith's public and private statements that run contrary to the LDS line have been 'spun'. If Bushman is a reference, so should Joseph Smith III, etc. be included. In all fairness, what happened? With respect, A Sniper 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sniper, good to see you back to editing again. In reality, all articles need to go through a solid readjusting at least twice a year. Remember that articles are open to the public; the controversial topics are edited often from all sides. You will see this article move from the very pro to very con and back again with all of the horizontal changes from the respective Latter Day Saint groups included. Equilibrium is difficult to maintain because there are so few objective editors that are capable of daily maintenance. What results is new editors, often anonomyous, visit make a few edits and are gone; the edits are not caught, and time rolls on. If you feel something is out of whack you may want to review history and simply copy back the deleted material. One thing that is guaranteed is that nothing stays the same very long here. Cheers.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have appreciated your comments in the past & glad to see you're keeping watch. Will try and find time to inject something back into the mix. Best, A Sniper 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy and Criticism

Joseph Smith started a highly criticized movement. He has been accused of being a cult leader/false prophet, and is thought such by a significant amount of people. yet there is no mention of it in the article. Also, much of the article is confusing, and seems contradictory Rds865 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Where would you suggest that we add this information. Also, would you be more specific as to what is confusing and contradictory? — Val42 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A criticism section should be added to the Smith article, instead of weasel words, implications, objections to every sentence before it... example: "In 1826, Smith was convicted of being a "disorderly person" and an "impostor" in a court in Bainbridge, New York.[11] However, details surrounding the case are still disputed by some historians.[12]" while some of this is fine, having to much 'Thing happened. People dispute that thing happened. Another thing happened. Historians dispute this too.' makes the whole article skew one way for pro-mormons and another for anti and to neutral people it seems like the article is unreliable. Building a criticism section, keeping all of the biography neutral and reserving negative views for that section should resolve these problems.Sanitycult (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Some of the less-salient facts included in the main article could be segregated into a criticism section. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the Latter-day Saint Movement the same as "Mormonism"?

The opening line of the article says the "Latter-day Saint Movement" is also known as "Mormonism". Are the other groups that trace their origin to Joseph Smith, namely the Community of Christ" comfortable with that? The term Mormon is usually associated with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I'm a member of the latter but I want to be fair. Cambene (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)CamBene

It should say "Latter Day Saint movement"; the one you cited above is an ongoing problem. We are attempting to first name it the more inclusive Latter Day Saint movement. It is also known as Mormonism at large and then latter, after the death of Joseph Smith, the term Mormon began is fall out of favor with specific groups. I don't think there is a single group that uses it as a preferred term today. Does this make sense to you? I will go and change the term now. Let me know if you have additional thoughts. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and it is stated correctly. Latter Day Saint movement is the academic term for the entire movement begun by Joseph Smith. This is different from the way you wrote it above, "Latter-day Saint Movement"; that would be the LDS church. Yes, it is also called Mormonism even though that term is really best suited for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as you inferred above. Are you thinking that Mormonism should not be mentioned at all? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Number of members

The online newspaper article that quotes something said at a speech is not the best information available. The CIA factbook, for example, only lists 1.7% of the US as LDS. That's 5.1 million. See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html If we add the rest of the world using a 3rd party source and get 13 million, I'm OK with that. But the source we have now is not reliable. Greenw47 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a reference from the church's most recent statistical report. I also clarified the statement to read "reported membership". --TrustTruth (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Persecution Edits

There has been some back-and-forth over use of the word "persecution" to describe treatment of Smith. Let's keep in mind that he used this word himself [5]; it is not a modern interpretation or invention. It is perfectly fine to personally refute Smith and his teachings, but this article is about him and about his perceptions of his own life. It seems to me we can do no better than to report what he actually wrote down. Isaacsf (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why this article should be about Smith's perception of his own life. Is that how we write other bios? I don't think so. A personal account will inherently be POV. We report the facts, and nothing about the facts. The words "difficulties" or "troubles" are NPOV and are preferable over the POV "persecution". Just my $.02... — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am the person that keeps changing that term, and I think it violates NPOV. The reason for this is that the term persecution here is being used to reference legal issues that may or may not be related to his religious beliefs. As the facts surrounding this are not presented in the article for these incidents (ie that they are based on religious persecution) it is IN THIS PARAGRAPH AND CONTEXT (capitalization for emphasis on my point) a violation of NPOV to use the word "persecution" here. If you want to use that word at this point in the article, rewrite it to flesh out the paragraph and provide evidence of persecution other than to say "well that is what Joseph Smith said" in reverting an edit. Of course he suffered religious persecution by its wikipedia definition, but the use of that word at this point in the article is not NPOV. Hollowsphere (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon reading the paragraph over again, I would lean slightly towards the use of 'difficulties' or troubles' as opposed to 'persecution' in this context. As the user points out, this is in regards to legal disputes during a specific time period, therefore it would preserve the NPOV. If it were a latter time (Far West, Nauvoo), 'persecution' would be highly appropriate as it pertains to hatred, mob violence and the like. Conrad Black claims that his legal woes have been persecution, which is certainly subjective. However, if the federal court sent out militias to tar & feather him, it could then be claimed by any observer that he was being persecuted. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else should change this then as it has been reverted to persecution based on 3RR (which I was not aware of as I never edit anything on wikipedia generally but do not really want to violate further at this point). Hollowsphere (talk) 19:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

He suffered religious persecution, but we can't include it in the article until a later point in his life than when it occurred? I have trouble with that bar. None of us was there, so why is removing it more correct than leaving it? We at least have his claim in support of it.

I have no particular axe to grind here, other than NPOV. Clearly we disagree on this point :-) To put forth an admittedly imperfect analogy, when physicists postulate a phenomenon or particle that has not yet been proven to exist, should we avoid including it in an article? There's no independent verification of it, but there's also no refutation of it. So do we leave it out? It is the same with Smith. Perhaps his account is POV - unavoidable, as you point out. But do we have other references disputing it? If not, and the cites are valid, I think there's a good case for leaving it in. Even if there are cites that refute it, I would say that both sides should be included. But lack of ability to find a opposing POV shouldn't mean we exclude the info. Isaacsf (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel that persecution should not be included in the article, I just did not feel it was used appropriately in the context of that particular paragraph. I am satisfied with the current edit of that paragraph for its correction of that issue but agree that the current version could use some work to further increase its neutrality as it does tend to draw conclusions that are not necessarily factual as pointed out by others. I am not a partisan or a vandal, I just think that NPOV is important for credibility as a whole. Hollowsphere (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the paragraph. There is no need for a qualifying statment here; just let the facts speak for themselves. One thing that seems to be missing from this episode is the fact that the records that speak to this cliam were "lost" i.e. left in a basement, then discovered, then removed from the courthouse, then returned with the claim of a lawsuit. The paragraph does alledge that the claim is disputed, but the way this paragraph is written is makes a statement of fact; which is disputed. Maybe it should be written differently, but I could not immediately think of it. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider's edit correctly deals with Hollowsphere's issue re: the word 'persecution'. However, SR is also correct that the way the paragraph is written leads to a conclusion that is not necessarily factual. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollowshpere, don't worry about being perceived as a vandal. Typically it is better when you see one or two reverts to immediately go to discussion page and state your case. Too many of us, me included, make snap judgments without reading fully what is being done. This is an excellent example of just such a case. You were correct in your editing in the sense that something was wrong with language, but the solution was not as effective as it could of been. That solution is often attainable through use of the discussion page. Good luck and I hope to see more of you on this page. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

The "To do" list at the top suggests pruning the categories. I removed the category "Christian missionaries", but WBarwin reverted it. I presume both of us are acting in good faith. I expect that most Wikipedia readers will have a concept of "missionary" that would exclude a person who stayed within his own nation, language, and culture to propogate his religion. Also, in the minds of many readers, the use of the word "Christian" in this category would have other associations. I will not enter in to a cycle of reverts, but this seems like a category that could be pruned with no harm. Pete unseth (talk) 21:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A further clarification to my comment just above-- Compared to Smith, a more prototypical example of "missionary" from the early LDS community would be by Marion Shelton, who went to the Shoshoni in 1859 to introduce his religion to them, crossing language and culture lines. I repeat my suggestion to prune this category from the long list of categories under for this aritcle. Pete unseth (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Pete, I don't have a horse in this race, i.e. I am neutral on this issue, but maybe a few comments can assist you in this proposal. Missionary to me is anyone who fulfills the command of Jesus Christ to preach the gospel to all people. I suspect your definition is appropriate, but it is a narrow definition in that it assumes that there are not anyone in one's own country that does not need to be evangelized. I wonder if there are many Christians who assume that their neighbor does not need to hear about the Good News? Did Joseph Smith spread what he felt was the Good News? He apparently converted whole congregations and a movement that became the 4th largest church in the US. Conversely, I don't think of Joseph Smith as a missionary, but more as a founder and prophet of a religious movement. One can call him a missionary, but he seems to be more than that.

Your second point concerns who is a Christian and who is not. There is certainly a definition of Christianity that demands that one accept the Nicene Creed or the doctrine of the Trinity before one can be called Christian. This also is a narrow definition that is only espoused by believers in the Trinity. However, no secular dictionary uses that definition and the definitions used, a follower of Jesus Christ fits what the Joseph Smith was; someone who professed a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, born of the virgin Mary, that he lived a perfect life, was crucified for our sins, that he rose the third day, he ascended to the Father and sits on his right hand, and will one day return again; in brief, there is no other way to Heaven except through Jesus Christ.

If I was to vote I would probably not support using the category because I think Joseph Smith was more than a missionary, but I can understand why some would support having it. WBardin, what are you most concerned about if it was deleted? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

After a couple weeks of no objections by others, I am deleting the category "American Christian missionaries". If any want to revert this, I will let it stand, having no desire to make an issue of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete unseth (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)