Talk:Golden plates/Archive 4

Split into "Official version" and variants
A third one! As much as I love filling up talk pages, I felt it necessary to split this one off as well.

I was beginning to make the changes I described above when something occurred to me to bring up here. To make for a cleaner, easier to read account of Smith's story, it may be better to split it into two sections: one describing the story that is generally agreed upon the modern Church as the "official" story (i.e. something similar to that which is taught by CoJCoLDS missionaries), and a section describing the many deviations from that account. Care would need to be taken to emphasize that the "official" account was not implicitly the most accurate, or that properly attributed variant accounts were somehow less truthful.

As it reads now, to the casual reader, it's a difficult story to follow, something along the lines of "this event happened, but it may have also gone this way, included this detail, that detail, or this third one, and may have even happened in reverse." I don't see any content jumping out at me as unessential — on the contrary, I'm pleased with the wide range of views on the subject — but combining them all into one unified story makes a difficult read.

This also may have been suggested before. Rather than continue editing, I'd like to hear input from other editors. Let 'em rip.  Tijuana Brass  23:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree on this one. Introducing any sort of privilege for an "official" story is not NPOV. For example, if we chose a particular story as the "official" one, which story would that be? There is what amounts to an "official" anti-Mormon evangelical version, as well as an "official" LDS missionary discussion version (which lacks sufficient detail for an encyclopedia article anyway). Understandably, each of these two versions emphasizes or de-emphasizes particular facts, depending on their respective prosoletyzing goals. Moreover, splitting the story into multiple parallel stories seems redundant and prone to create NPOV problems down the road. It's generally not a good idea to split points of view on a factual topic into separate parallel "position" sections, because articles quickly degrade into a sequence of rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, and then people start disagreeing about whose "official" position is more "official".  CO GD EN  23:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what I'm saying — we'd use care to not imply some sort of stamp of approval on what would be, as Gldavies puts it, the "orthodox version." I'm fairly certain that there is a version which the CoJCoLDS deems the most accurate, and we present it as just that — their preferred version. Then, present the variations, and let the reader draw their own conclusions.
 * I follow what you're saying about parallel texts, but I'm thinking that there may be other ways to break up the information into a more readable text without resorting to going over the entire story twice. Even if there aren't, it may be a necessary evil; presenting the "official" version and that of the critics separately wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. It's hard to weave together two sides of a story into a unified text when they're as conflicting as these are. And as much as I'd like to avoid the future possibility of POV evangelizing from both sides, it's going to happen anyway, just as it does on seemingly ever other LDS article. It's not likely there would be any version of an article like this on which both sides will agree completely.  Tijuana Brass  08:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You say "both sides", but there are really far more than two sides we're talking about here. This period of history is extremely complicated, and the way it's described by such Mormon apologists as Richard Bushman, Dean Jessee, and Richard L. Anderson, on the one hand, and more secular historians like D. Michael Quinn, Jan Schipps, and Dan Vogel on the other hand, aren't really that far apart. Of course, each of these historians has their unique emphases, and none of them would tell the story anywhere close to either an LDS missionary or a garment-desecrating anti-Mormon evangelist. My point is, there is no "official" version of the story, and there are far more than two versions.  CO GD EN  17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that something needs to be done about the "obtaining the plates" section. It's very muddled and difficult to read. There are definitely two sides to this story, and I think splitting it up would be much cleaner and easier than attempting to combine the two (what's happening now).  It's obvious when statements are coming from anti-mormon (and questionable) sources to editors, but to someone with little previous knowledge of the subject... the whole bit becomes muddled (like statements from Smith in the same sentence as stuff from Chase's affidavit). There are some deeper underlying reference standard problems that we've attempted to address in the past but were unable to reach a consensus (I believe that sources such as Chase's affidavit should absolutely not be used as "references" or a "primary source" when specifically referring to this story, since, beyond his obvious bias, he was not involved or present in the events he talks about.). Consolidating the "orthodox" story and its references separate from the "what Joe Smith really did" story what with all it's black horses and toads... that seems like a valid solution to me, even considering the article extension this will inevitably cause. gdavies 06:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no justification for cutting out Chase simply because he was biased. He's still cited by historians, both Mormon and non-Mormon, and much of what he said was corroborated by Mormon-friendly witnesses. I'm not trying to defend him, but he's an often-cited primary source, and not to include him would be a conspicuous absence.  CO GD EN  17:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with Cogden here, and yet he's a Mormon and I'm not. That's a pretty good indication that a two-way division of this article doesn't make sense.--John Foxe 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As a LDS, I believe there ample ways of handling the issues discussed. Chase may be quoted by Mormons, but he is certainly not the Walter Cronkite of the Mormon restoration. His bias should be noted when he is quoted (This is beginning to sound like Johnny Cochran). An obvious bias may be used, but not identifying the bias is dishonest. His motivations are suspect. White stove pipe hat, and dressed in black, on a horse with no markings, traveling north as the sun sets over the left shoulder...this is just poppycock and is only appropriate to be found in standard anti-Mormon rubbish. It is not encyclopedic, unless you note the obvious bias where it can be listed as a collection of anit-Mormon stories. I don't see anyway other than presenting the sides juxtaposed. I have continued to bide my time while much "tweaking" has been going on, but eventually I would like to start editing with a collegial approach. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, Chase's stuff should definitely be included, but it's even more important that his stuff is not included without pointing out it is biased (there are no corroborating accounts, and absolutely no reason to believe that he got his info from Smith Sr., why didn't Smith Sr. give a similar account?). A lot of people citing Chase does not lend his account any more credibility or affect the truth of his statements. gdavies 23:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * All good points. The way it reads now, I believe it's giving the impression that each version of the story is given equal weight. I'm not as familiar with the sources as some of the others involved here seem to be, but I'm pretty sure that's not the case. Of course, we're running into the same problem Cogden pointed out — we can't really narrow down one version as "better"; that's something for the reader to decide. And it's difficult to even select a version which is the preferred account by a certain group... there are diverse opinions among non-Mormon scholars and critics, and even the CoJCoLDS stance can vary, as discussed above.
 * So, that raises a few more questions, I think: Are there criteria in addition to WP:V that should be used to objectively identify a source (LDS or not) as "more legitimate"? If there are, and such a decision could be made (after lots of arguing, I'm sure), how should sources then be identified without cluttering the article further? Would doing so be worthwhile? Would it give undue weight to any "side"? And why would we keep any source that was considered less than legit anyway? It seems that this path may lead to the same circular controversy over sources that has been here before...
 * One last idea, and it may not go over any better than the parallel articles: would things be easier if a controversy article (i.e. Controversy regarding the Golden Plates) were created? I can already predict some of the objections to the concept, but I'm throwing out ideas here, seeing where we can take this.  Tijuana Brass  01:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that creating a criticism article would be necessary, (I'm not a fan of "criticism of..." pages at all) and I think there is a solution. Although there isn't one accepted and universal CoJCoLDS story, we can be very safe by just quoting Joseph Smith's Account, and labeling it as such (as opposed to "orthodox" or "what Mormon's think" etc.). Then we could have "critical accounts" or something to that effect... Since this is an often caricatured subject that has been taken to the extreme since Anti-Mormon literature began (even beyond what Chase said)... I think that this deserves a note and perhaps general synopsis of what these caricatures typically include.  That's how I see it... of course there are NPOV concerns with this last paragraph, but I think we can easily put together an account from Joseph Smith (perhaps straight from JSH). gdavies 05:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As much as I appreciate Tijuana Brass 's thoughtfulness and energy, I think this suggestion is a "bridge too far" and will emesh us in a host of problems down the line.  Let's leave well enough alone.--John Foxe 14:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although you would like to give Chase's account as much credence as Joseph Smith's and try to mesh it all into the same story, we end up with the mess we have now. Certainly the present state could not be considered "well enough" by quite a stretch... gdavies 16:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I trust Chase not as much as but more than I trust Joseph Smith.--John Foxe 16:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that's the result of your own POV rather than an honest and unbiased consideration of the source; angry Chase saying he heard all this from someone who heard it all from Smith, that's a contemporary tertiary source (very biased and dishonest at that) compared to Smith's own first hand primary account. gdavies
 * I have no problem with annotating sources with an indication of their particular point of view. I would certainly improve NPOV, and probably improve the article (though I think the original concern was readability, which this would actually probably make worse). Perhaps these annotations can be put in the footnotes. For example, we could point out in the footnotes that the part about the toad was found in an account by Willard Chase, who heard the story from Joseph Smith, Sr. in 1827 but was hostile toward Smith, as well as Benjamin Saunders, who heard the story from Joseph Smith himself in 1827 and defended the Smiths' reputation. The part about riding a black horse was by Chase and by Lorenzo Saunders, who heard the story in 1823 and said he had "nothing against the Smiths" but did not believe Smith actually had a set of golden plates. That kind of thing. That would complicate things, of course, and there may be some disagreement about each witness's point of view, but it seems doable. Is this a good solution?  CO GD EN  18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it. It sounds like my original suggestion of breaking things into different sections would just make it even more difficult to sort through, but with this, readers would be able to weigh the merit behind each version without introducing favoritism into the article. It may make for a couple of long footnotes, but I think it'd be an acceptable trade off. Plus, it may have the added benefit of reducing the likelihood of argument-counterargument edits due to their location — security through obscurity, if you will.  Tijuana Brass  19:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On gdavies' suggestion that we can just quote Joseph Smith's account, that's not really a solution either, even apart from the NPOV concerns, because there are essentially four: his 1832 handwritten account, his 1838 dictated account, and the Wentworth letter account (including some variants from about that time period). Smith also worked closely with Cowdery in 1835 when Cowdery published Smith's biography in the official church newspaper. These accounts do not always agree. For example, Cowdery and the 1832 account say Smith was surprised he couldn't receive the plates on the first visit to the hill. Smith's 1838 account says the angel had already told him during the nights' visions that he wouldn't get the plates for four years.  CO GD EN  18:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess annotating could work... but I think we still need to be careful to qualify the statements in the actual body (not just the notes). Chase saying he heard from Smith Sr. who heard from Joseph Smith (gossipy sounding, eh?) shouldn't get as much credence as Smith Jr.'s own account in my book (regardless of POV). If we could say something to the effect of "a contemporary critic said that..." I don't think we have enough evidence to state that Smith Sr. really told Chase what Chase said he did, or else we'd have similar accounts from Smith Sr. himself... either way, we need to be careful not to accept these types of questionable and gossipy accounts as fact without qualifying them adequately. gdavies 20:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly Smith's testimony should receive the greater credence since he got his information straight from an angel while the others conversed only with mere mortals.--John Foxe 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I detect a hint of sarcasm ;) But I get your point that if we do this, it shouldn't be just comments about people like Willard Chase who had a beef against Smith, but also comments about people who had a motive to portray Joseph in the best possible light, like Lucy Mack, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Knight, and Emma Smith. I'm not sure, however, what we would say about such people as Martin Harris and David Whitmer, who had a motive to portray Smith as a true, but eventually fallen, prophet. There could be NPOV problems that arise here, too.  CO GD EN  00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I get it. The account of Paul is compromised because we only have his word that not just an angel spoke to him, but rather Jesus Christ. John, to be a true critic is to be just as capable of criticizing one's own beliefs as the beliefs of others. There should can only be one standard; if you are going to employ one standard for your own personal beliefs, but have a much higher standard for everyone else, what are we to think of your criticism? It begins to lose its impact and value and borders on being hypocritical. Virtually all Evangelical's base the vast majority of what they believe about Jesus Christ on Paul's writings, yet Paul only knew Jesus through the workings of the Spirit. I have always found it peculiar that Christians who deny the value of "that burning in one's bosom" can completely swallow that Paul's vision that is built upon the same principle.

As an aside, I believe we have to start somewhere and that would necessarily shoul be with the founder. We begin with what Joseph said and juxtapose that with what others say. Chase is not a source I would use in serious reserach, unless I am attempting to show how outlandish things became. If Joseph Sr. had said any of the things Chase states, you can bet you sweet behind that it would have been recorded by more reputable sources than Chase. It would be like telling the story of Jesus Christ by quoting primarily from Caiaphas; how balanced a story would that be? --Storm Rider (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I just made an extensive edit in an effort to conform to NPOV and just generally clarify things. I hope I didn't make any very controversial changes, but the direction this section was headed in seemed to lean too much on a skeptical POV. We also need to mention Joseph Smith getting attacked right after he obtained the plates. (I might have messed up some of the citations in moving things from footnotes to body and vice versa... sorry about that) Thanks! gdavies 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Critics"
Please do not use the word "critics" in this article.--John Foxe 21:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to establish the fact that the people sourced for these statements were outspoken critics of the church or had extremely harsh feelings towards Smith at the time they reported the alleged statements. The fact that Martin Harris referenced the rumors that he had denied his testimony and said that he never made such a statement is enough to cast doubt on these tertiary biased sources. gdavies 21:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the word "critics" is that its opposite is "believers," and we don't want to head in that direction.--John Foxe 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed... does "some who were dissolusioned with Smith" work? It's long... but I believe it's accurate and NPOV (which is a higher priority than being succinct). gdavies 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A good compromise.--John Foxe 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was a hasty reference to Harris' statement, I replaced the citation... gdavies 21:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I know lots of critics that are members of religious groups; I would therefore disagree that the opposite of a believer is critic. The opposite of believe is nonbeliever. Catholics have many, many critics who are also believing Catholics that partake of the Eucharist weekly. Mormons have many critics who participate actively in the church. You would find very few people in my ward or stake who would think of me as an "orthodox" Mormon. Critic is much better than anti-Mormon, which has definite connotations not found with the term critic. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither do we want to go down a route that is either postmodern, schizophrenic, or cowardly. As much as possible we just need to avoid characterizing statements. Every day people are sent to jail on the basis of "courtroom truth," and we should be able to do at least that well here.--John Foxe 11:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we need to cut back on characterizing statements. However... a critic is someone who speaks critically about someone... whether or not there are connotations with the word itself depends on your background... I wouldn't mind being called a critic of a variety of things. I think a bigger concern is (not directly relating to the passage at hand here, but just in general) using "critics" to balance out "LDS scholars" in a POV back and forth type way. Although it's necessary to point out someone's affiliation (in the case of LDS scholars) or leanings (in the case of critics) in a lot of circumstances, it's often better to avoid statements that need these types of qualifiers.  The problem with this is often it's an LDS scholar (who has an interest in LDS topics) who make a supporting statement and critics (who are not scholars in the area) who attempt to refute it, resulting in a "scholars say... but critics respond" type structure.  Of course this is somewhat of a generalization, but in many cases I don't see a problem with this structure.  "Critics" is better than "others" because it tells more about their position and isn't a weaselish phrase. Also, when the only scholar cited is an LDS Scholar, it's shouldn't be necessary to qualify them as "LDS" (it looks like an attempt to refute what they say). gdavies 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One problem with your definition is that I will always be tagged a "critic" and never a "scholar." Perhaps the difficulty would be more easily perceived if I should write "Believers say...but scholars repond."  Then you would always be the "believer," and I could assume the perpetual mantle of "scholar."--John Foxe 22:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think your misinterpreting my point, certainly a scholar in a field should always be considered a scholar, regardless of it being a "scholar vs. critic" or "scholar vs. believer" type situation. Of course, given the nature of what we're talking about, LDS scholars (and consequently those who tend to agree with "believers") comment much much more often than critical scholars. I agree that this might create NPOV problems, but I still believe that when it's a critical argument made by people who are just that, critics, and not scholars it should be adequately noted.  Scholars, regardless of affiliation (but dependent on relevant experience), should be given priority over critics when critical arguments are not maintained by critical scholars. This certainly doesn't apply in all cases, but take the Tanners' comments on Nahom for instance.  They are definitely critics, and definitely not scholars.  They make an embarrassing argument that NHM or nihhim can't be the Nahom spoken of in the Book of Mormon because of the difference in number of letters. Although an intellectually laughable argument, it still is noted as a critical argument and balanced by a scholarly fact in its article. This shouldn't occur in all instances, but I don't think usage of the word "critic" should be outlawed entirely. gdavies 23:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

In the context of editing this article none of us would be classified as scholars unless we were quoted from published material. If that is the case, I would hope we would have the decency to state that we are quoting our own works. John, of course you would be classified as a critic, but so would Cogden. In other articles I would be classified as a critic of Mormonism. I honestly admit that I will have a tendency to lean to present a positive POV, just as you should admit that you have a tendency to lean to the negative. It does not prevent us from editing, but it should at least make us expect a higher standard of ourselves when editing. We should seek balanced, neutral editing. Now, if we have a personal agenda and will only edit in such a way to as to meet that agenda, it would be best to simply admit it. Sometimes we don't know we don't know and can be excused, but when it is pointed out to us, we need to be intellectually honest. After all the intent is to write articles that are an asset to readers and not simply another tract that anyone can find at the corner church. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Men of good will should be able to reach agreement on neutral wording in an encyclopedia article.  Those in possession of truth have neither reason nor excuse for promoting lies.--John Foxe 14:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Witnesses
The last sentence in this section reads "Even after Smith returned the plates to the angel, other early LDS Church members testified that an angel had also showed them the plates." The reference is to Palmer's book, although there is no date, quotation or primary document referenced (presumably it is in Palmer's book). Could we get some background and more information on this? I added a comment that this wasn't a testimony endorsed by Joseph Smith or the church. The placement is POV, it's obviously just trying to cast doubt on the other (numerous and consistent) witnesses to the plates. The fact that Joseph Smith never said he would or did show the plates to anyone else (in fact he often said the opposite, that no one else would be allowed to) seems essential in this situation. gdavies 23:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * These men testified to having seen the plates in the 1830s after they had been baptized into the Church. The originals are apparently in the LDS Archives. But Brigham Young mentions the vision of one of them (Luke or Lyman Johnson) and says that the man saw the plates and the angel. Journal of Discourses 7: 164 (June 5, 1859).--John Foxe 14:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright... biggest problem was the phrasing ("even"). I still think we can work on this, and it'd be great if we could get a quote from the originals. gdavies 08:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Cumorah
In the obtaining the plates section it states
 * "Moroni told him that the plates could be found in a prominent hill near his home (which Smith later identified as Cumorah, a location in the Book of Mormon)."

This isn't strictly accurate, the Book of Mormon's Cumorah (in Mesoamerica) is where Mormon hid the majority of the records (which the Book of Mormon plates were abridged from) and where several battles took place (see | Mormon 6 and | Mormon 8.). He than gave the abridged record to Moroni, who wandered for 40 years before burying the plates in some location (plausibly as far as New York, where the modern "Cumorah" is). They are more likely than not two completely different locations. Joseph Smith (or Oliver Cowdery) named the hill Cumorah after the Book of Mormon "Cumorah" but never said that they were the same hill... gdavies 08:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's nothing about Mesoamerica in the BoM. That notion's simply a modern interpretation to cover an archaeological embarrassment.--John Foxe 21:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what "archeaological emabarassment" you're referring to. Smith absolutely never said that it was the same Cumorah that Moroni hid up the bulk of the records.  Smith did make comments about Guatemalen ruins being related to the Book of Mormon account though. The assumption that the LGM was adopted later for the purpose of explaining the Book of Mormon archaeology exhibits remarkable ignorance of historical LDS scholarship. Reading the Book of Mormon makes it clear that Mormon abridged, hid up the rest and gave the abridgement to Moroni who wandered for 40 years. There's no indication that he was anywhere near the same location (in fact just the opposite) when he hid up the record. gdavies 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What you are describing is a fairly recent FARMS idea referred to as the "Two-Cumorah Theory." Any significant discussion of this subject probably belongs in the Cumorah article, because a lot can be said on this issue. The Two-Cumorah Theory is one particular POV, and there are many others, such as those of Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, and most other early Mormons writers who believed the New York Cumorah was the Book of Mormon Cumorah. Since this is really off-topic for this article, we should probably eliminate the "a location in the Book of Mormon" phrase.  CO GD EN  21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Various edits by Gdavies
Gdavies, can I just request that you put comments on this talk page rather than as inline comments? I think that make it easier to discuss. Here is a summary of these comments:
 * "September 22 was listed in a local almanacs as the autumnal equinox, which has led to the suggestion that Smith considered the date had astrological significance" (Gdavies: "this implies that Smith was the major deciding force in the date of this occurrence, which endorses an unverifiable POV")
 * I think it's already clear in the text that this is a POV, and it's verifiable. I've verified that the POV exists in the Quinn reference, although I don't have the Owens reference.  CO GD EN  21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * One issue is that we're citing someone about what Smith thought. Unless we can get a statement from Joseph Smith indicating that he thought it was astrologically significant we shouldn't comment on what he might or might not have thought.  gdavies 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The thing that's verifiable is not Smith's unspoken thoughts, but the fact that there are theories about Smith's thoughts, which is verifiable. The article isn't saying that Smith thought a certain thing, it's saying that there exist notable published theories about Smith's thoughts, based on the historical background.  CO GD EN  21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it'd be very difficult to find a source... there are a variety of theories about a variety of different things, and we really do need to be a bit more picky in which theories we include. This is absolutely a side issue that I personally don't think needs to be discussed in this article... gdavies 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The leading source of this theory is Quinn, Mormonism and the Magic Worldview, which is easily on the list of most prominent and cited secondary sources about this time period.  CO GD EN  00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * " however, other accounts say or suggest the angel may have appeared a year earlier in 1822 " (Gdavies: "it seems the only solid evidence that Joseph Smith said it happened on the 22nd is a typographical error corrected by another statement (and some village gossip) - this doesn't seem like enough for mention in the body")
 * Without introducing a POV, there is no way to determine whether the date was 1822 or 1823. The Smith family and many others of the time had a well-documented propensity to confuse "xth year of age" with "x years of age", so here's one plausible theory (which I'm not necessarily endorsing): in 1832 (when his memory was the freshest), Smith gave September 22, 1822 as the exact date on which the angel appeared, when he would have been in his "17th year of age" (meaning 16), but he mistakenly said he was "seventeen years of age". Then, when Cowdery wrote Smith's history in 1835, Smith told him the angel appeared in his "17th year of age" (meaning 16, or 1822), and Cowdery correctly repeated that age which Smith gave him, but mistakenly said Smith was that age in 1823. Then in 1838, while Smith was writing his autobiography, he refreshed his memory using Cowdery's 1834-35 history and used Cowdery's 1823 date. Then, in 1845 when Lucy Mack wrote her history, she had access to Smith's 1838 history and accepted the 1823 date, but she remembered that there had been two trips to the Hill Cumorah prior to Alvin's death in November 1823, so she mistakenly said Alvin died in 1824 after the second trip. Basically, Smith, Cowdery, and Lucy Mack all made at least one miscalculation in their dates, and whether or not the date was 1822 or 1823 depends on which of the two mutually inconsistent dates for each of them you accept as true, and which date you believe is mistaken. (Also, as a side note, Fayette Lapham said that Smith first saw the angel "about two years" after 1820 (that is, 1822), although he didn't tell his father about it until the following year (1823). Also, Lorenzo Saunders, who said he first heard the story directly from Smith before Alvin died in 1823, said the angel first visited "a year or two" before Alvin died.)  CO GD EN  21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It still looks to me like the more reasonable date would be 1822, and I don't see a compelling reason to put 1823 in body... what do you think is the best solution?
 * I think the reference to 1822 in the main text is really minimal. Most of the discussion is in the footnotes already, and the 1822 date is put in parentheses with a "possibly" qualifier. I don't think the main text can ignore something as important as an arguable uncertainty as to the year the angel appeared, but it's about as minimal of a mention as can possibly be made.  CO GD EN  21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with what's in the body (as long as it's a brief "or possibly 1823" although I'd rather have it all in the notes...) gdavies 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * " There is no record of Smith seeing the angel in 1826 " (Gdavies: "no account of him returning to the hill" isn't strictly correct)
 * The text said there was no record of him returning in 1826 only, and that's true. As to the other years, there is at least some record.  CO GD EN  21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It also said that "there are no independent accounts..." or something to that effect, which is completely inappropriate in this context... my problem is the implications that come with "there is no record of him..." because it is implying that he didn't go that year, while he says that he did. Rewording could make this fine, but it has "claim" and "no independent"... just very POV in my mind.  Maybe "Smith did not give specific details about his visit in 1826, although he did say that he visited the hill and received instruction each year" or something to that effect. gdavies 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In his 1838 account, he didn't necessarily say he visited the hill every year on precisely September 22. For 1826, he might have been a few months late, and we know that he visited the hill during a trip to Palmyra in January 1827 after he married Emma, and was then chastized by the angel for neglecting "the work of the Lord". There is also no record he made the long trip from Harmony/Colesville to Palmyra between his trial in mid-1826 and the time he began working for Joseph Knight in Colesville in November 1826. He may well have made the trip, but there's just no record. In fact, Lucy Mack's account seems to suggest otherwise. She said Joseph returned to Palmyra in 1825 until the issue regarding ownership of their property was settled (in December 1825), "he then took leave for Pennsylvania, on the same business as before mentioned [i.e., treasure-seeking], and the next January [1827] returned with his wife." (p. 99). It was immediately after this that Smith visited Cumorah and was severely chastized by Moroni for not being "engaged enough in the work of the Lord." (p. 100).  CO GD EN  21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that he likely went at times other than the yearly intervals, it seems clear to me that there was significance as to the day he was to visit (his yearly "appointment") although other events took place. JS-H says...
 * 53 "I... was again informed that the time for bringing them forth had not yet arrived, neither would it, until four years from that time; but he told me that I should come to that place precisely in one year from that time, and that he would there meet with me, and that I should continue to do so until the time should come for obtaining the plates."
 * 54 "Accordingly, as I had been commanded, I went at the end of each year, and at each time I found the same messenger there, and received instruction and intelligence from him at each of our interviews, respecting what the Lord was going to do, and how and in what manner his kingdom was to be conducted in the last days."
 * There's nothing to imply that there was a monthly variance (or even daily) other than these other events mentioned (which were not mentioned as one of these specific visits)... to the contrary, he said it was "precisely" 1 year from that time and talked about the continuity of this for four years... it seems clear to me... gdavies 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * He said he went to the hill "precisely" one year after the first visit, but as to the remaining three yearly visits he only said "at the end of each year", which is arguably consistent with having been late one year, particularly when one source says it definitively and another (his mother, who, one might argue, ought to have seen him in 1826 if he came within two miles of her home) strongly implies it. I think that's enough at least for a mention.  CO GD EN  00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I still disagree... look at it this way. He was to go "to that place precisely in one year from that time... and that he should continue to do so [implying coming in precisely one year, not "visiting yearly" or something of the like]... Accordingly, as I had been commanded I went at the end of each year..."  The "as I had been commanded" also refers to his first visit (accordingly...) which was to happen precisely after one year.  The "end of each year," then can only be interpreted to be the end of each year interval between visits (including the first interval), and "continuing to do so" means visiting every year (precisely).  As to your referencing his mother... are you referring to a statement by her that she never saw him at that point in 1826? (because if she didn't make a statement it's still possible he visited home...) gdavies 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Joseph certainly was supposed to return to the hill every year on the equinox, but that doesn't necessarily mean he did. He didn't always air all his embarrassing moments in his 1838 account: there is some spin there, like in any autobiography. No matter how saintly the person is in real life, their autobiography is always going to contain some spin, just like portraits usually make the person look better than photographs. For example, in another place he implied (but didn't say outright, as that would be a lie) that his being a "money digger" was a just a rumor, even though earlier that year he openly admitted in a church magazine that he was once a "money digger". As far as Lucy Mack's history, anyone can read what she said and come to their own conclusions, but I read it and understand she is saying he left after helping deal with their house troubles (Dec. 1825, based on property records) and didn't return until the following January after he was married.  CO GD EN  07:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Smith dispatched his father to spy on the house of Samuel T. Lawrence, where Smith thought Josiah Stowell and others were plotting to get possession of the plates."
 * Josiah Stowell was not one of the plotters. Stowell was on Smith's side, and in fact had come to Palmyra with Joseph Knight in 1827 to be there when Smith made his final attempt to get the plates.  CO GD EN  21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey you're right, sorry about that! I remember reading that there were some people who had worked with Stowell that came with intentions to steal the plates... maybe I'm wrong... gdavies 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You might be right, but I can't remember. The group trying to get the plates in 1827 was a treasure-seeking company led by Samuel T. Lawrence in Palmyra that included Willard Chase, his sister the seer, a Beaman, and a few others, and I think they brought in a out-of-town rodsman at one point. I'm not sure which of those might have worked with Stowell, too, but it's pretty likely.  CO GD EN  21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, that sounds right. I think Lawrence worked with Stowell as well as 2 or 3 others that came with him and his sister.  The rodsman is referred to in a "close encounter" where he located the plates in Joseph's house (as told by Knight if I remember right...) gdavies 07:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're going to have "skeptics," then we also need "believers." (I'm too polite to suggest "gullibles," "the credulous," or "the superstitious.")--John Foxe 22:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's very polite of you. My intention was to point out which details (such as the toad) were only mentioned by those who had a vendetta against Smith. The wording you keep placing in there implies that Smith (and his supporters) changed the story or "left out" parts about the toad, clothing, etc.  I changed it so that their accounts were mentioned, but also made the distinction that Smith or his supporters didn't mention these elements. That's all, the reason I did these edits without discussing here is I honestly didn't believe that any of them would be controversial.  I still think that "Skeptics of Smith's story" is better than "Non believers." What is your aversion to "skeptics?" gdavies 23:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In my AHD, "skeptic" is defined as one who "instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions." "Non-believer" is a more awkward but more accurate designation here.--John Foxe 11:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Skeptic seems neutral to me, but I'm just thinking of people who heard the story of the plates and were "skeptical" in the sense that they didn't believe it. As far as people who had vendettas against Smith, I think it's really hard to make that distinction in a NPOV way. There are lots of witnesses who simply didn't believe, and didn't think highly of the Smiths, but weren't necessarily "out to get" Joseph Smith. The only people I can think of who you could say had a demonstrable anymosity were Willard Chase, who aparently believed Smith was a seer, but thought he stole his the seer stone, and Abner Cole, who got upset when Smith tried to enforce his copyright to the Book of Mormon and started publishing parodies. Most everybody else simply didn't believe.  CO GD EN  21:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, I agree mostly, but I think it's demonstrable that the mob of people who killed Joseph Smith had some sort of animousity towards him... but I digress. Sure, it's difficult to make the distinction between non-believers and vitriolic Mormon-haters, but I dont' think that that should devolve the neutral "skeptical" to an untelling "some."  There may be a better solution out there, but I think that it's absolutely necessary for a distinction to be made between Chase's and, for instance, Knight's recollections (even if that distinction is made with the softer "skeptics")... Either way, "some" needs to be elaborated on for sure. gdavies 01:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay, that's very true. Certainly by the end of his life there were lots of people "out to get" him, but I was talking about primary sources from New York and Pennsylvania. (Knight, by the way, was never a skeptic. He was a true believing Mormon whom Smith later said was one of the "faithful few" who always stood by him) Personally, I think "skeptic" and "skeptical" are neutral, but I don't have a problem with "non-believer" either. Maybe you could call Chase and Cole "skeptics", and most others "non-believers" or "non-Mormons".  CO GD EN  01:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (right, I was contrasting Knight with Chase to show their differing viewpoints affected their stories) I'm glad you agree, I'm not very picky as to what word we use (it seems easier to say "skeptics of Smith's story" than "non-believers in..."), as long as it's not left at "some." Unless Foxe can explain his aversion to the term "skeptic"... That's the most concise and NPOV way to describe his stance.
 * As off topic as this is, I'm kind of interested in how many people had a vendetta against Smith. It's evident that someone was acting rather overtly against Smith early on (or offering false information) as evident in several papers in that time period.  The articles are almost comical in their anti-mormon attributes, and the breadth of the disinformation disbursed during the early years of the church is staggering - giving rise to false stereotypes lasting even until today. I'm not nearly as well read as you are, but does this notion gain any credence in your mind? (i.e. several people with vendettas, although not as overt as Chase or Howe, whose influence is apparent in contemporary sources such as newspapers) gdavies 06:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you might be referring partly to Abner Cole, who wrote a series of parodies in his newspaper after trying to serialize the Book of Mormon and being confronted by Smith for copyright violation. Cole then published what he called the Book of Pukei that was a mix of fact, gossip, and pure fiction set in the language style of the Book of Mormon. Then a bit later there was Hurlbut, who was a Mormon for a while, then had a falling-out with Smith in 1834 and worked with Howe to establish the "Spalding manuscript theory" for the publication of the Book of Mormon, and to gather affidavits that the Smith family were a bunch of low-life, dishonest, lazy drunkards. I don't think the Spalding theory ever held any water, and I don't think the Smiths drank more than anybody else of the day (just because they owned a beer shop and were poor doesn't make them drunkards). I also don't think the Smith's were lazy or dishonest, although they likely had difficulty saving money and paying back their debts. Looking back from the 1830s (after Christian folk magic started going out of style), I simply think that many of the Palmyra neighbors began to associated folk magic with dishonesty, much as bigoted people in Europe came to view "Gypsies" as lazy, dishonest, and intoxicated because they didn't have a stable home, told fortunes, and practiced magic. (By the way, I thought of another person who had a demonstrable personal grudge against Smith: Lucy Harris.)  CO GD EN  00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As to your definition, Foxe, I know that "skeptic" sometimes refers to one with a habit to be mistrustful of a variety of things, I don't think that's the most prevalent definition in common usage. Dictionary.com...
 * 1.	a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.
 * 2.	a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.
 * 3.	a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.
 * I think we're definitely safe to call Chase a skeptic, especially if we include the phrase "of Smith's story" or something like that... no problems there. gdavies 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Chase is an odd duck, a money digger and a Methodist preacher, who really seems most irritated at Joseph Smith for taking his seer stone. (Get over it, Willard; it's just a rock.) My biggest problem with Chase as a witness is not that he disbelieves in Smith but that he does believe in money digging.
 * My solution to the labeling question would be to ban labels in the text but to allow editors to expostulate to their heart's content in the notes. With a lot of people in early LDS history whether or not they "had a vendetta against Smith" is a matter of dates.--John Foxe 23:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * While it's true that their vendetta/(or not) was often a function of time, the only time period we need to worry about when citing a statement is the time that the statement was made. Chase (through all of his statements) was demonstrably against Joseph Smith, and that affected his actions.  Consequently, it needs to be noted that he had a bone to pick with Smith (probably didn't try to put him in the best light possible, eh?) which might have lead him to falsify or exaggerate elements of his story.  Without getting into that whole discussion, I think it's fairly obvious that some sort of qualifier needs to be made when it's a tertiary source, especially when they're very critical (and they went to all the trouble to make an affidavit to defame Smith). As we've said before, the notes are for side-issues... since Chase's stand towards Smith could have demonstrably affected his statements, it's very important to point this out as briefly but accurately as possible in the body.  Putting references to Chase's skepticism in the notes would be an effort to bury his obvious bias and place his story on equal footing with Smith and his supporters.  Rather than endorsing either side, we should briefly mention their stand in the article... I thought I did an alright job of that when I made this edit in the first place... gdavies 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * But I believe Chase's statements should have equal footing with Smith's. Joseph Smith was a liar, deceiver, and serial adulterer. To privilege Smith's testimony is simple LDS bias.--John Foxe 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't forget "never worked a day in his life," "lazy," "good natured, but unintelligent," "superstitious," "devilish" etc. (we must be thorough here, right). I don't flatter myself with the notion that we will ever agree on this, you have your beliefs and I have mine. However, we both should be able to realize that a primary source claiming to have almost exclusive experience with the subject of an article should have precedence over a tertiary contemporary critic with vendetta in hand. gdavies 05:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept no such thing. Many criminals claim "exclusive experience" and have the clearest of recollections, while those who testify against them in court have fuzzy memories and make the most confused statements. Smith had more reason to lie than did many of his opponents.  (In passing, I have the highest regard for Smith's intelligence, charisma, and—when he chose to exercise it—industry.  I've tried to imagine myself saying to a pretty eighteen-year-old, "God told me...." No woman I know would scream; she'd laugh.)--John Foxe 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... interesting comparison... So, Smith is the "criminal" with a clear recollection... and (well meaning and innocent) contemporary critics are witnesses who give questionable testimony... a variety of assumptions (i.e., Smith is a criminal, he's "on trial" for some "crime") that lead you to discredit Smith's testimony and accept that of anyone who disagrees. I'm not seeing a lot of value in this analogy. The fact is there were no "witnesses" (only angry people who claimed to have heard from someone who heard from someone) regarding Smith's account other than his own stories. Accordingly, his story should be stated as "Smith said that..." and the differences in his account and those who wished him dead duly noted and labeled (if included at all). Also, your judgment of Joseph Smith's motives and actions is based on a prior assumption of what really happened (seemingly based on the stories of his critics).  For instance, what reason to lie would Smith have if he was actually telling the truth?  I think we can both agree that he understood that his claims were at least partly the impetus for mobbings, tar and featherings, social ostracizing and danger to himself and his family.  If we're assuming he "made the whole thing up," why didn't he just "quit while he was ahead"/once things started getting ugly.  What I'm saying is that your assumptions are based on unprovable and arbitrary premises (which is fine, your POV is welcome here), but that it is also leading you to state things that others (who agree with you) say as fact, despite their premise being no more sure than your own. Why should your POV determine which testimonies have value? gdavies 08:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: Even more entertaining than Mormon history is the history of those who attempt to discredit him. This evolution is delineated quite clearly in this article.  Joseph is a complete ignoramus and fool, then a clever imposter, than a ruthless plagiarist, then a charismatic leech off those around him, then a religious genius, than a bumbling fool again.  Of course, those who accept a value judgment of his character and abilities never agree with associate critics, and oftentimes oscillate between theoretical "smith's" as their current explanation for the Book of Mormon and LDS movement necessitates. gdavies 08:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The logic here is almost boggling to the mind. I wonder how things would have changed if we had Caiaphas' writings explaining Jesus. I am sure that story would look drastically different than the story we have today. However, based upon your logic, Caiaphas' statements would be just as "true" or of "importance" as that of any of the writers of the New Testament. As my mother used to say, "Right, when pigs fly". John, you would get so much farther if you just acknowledged the fact that you have a axe to grind, a specific spin that you want to provide the world regarding Joseph Smith. This is not an encyclopedic article for you, but a religious tract that you are writing.

The article is entitled Golden Plates; supposedly a simple article to explain the term. It has been turned into a diatribe of innuendo and rumor. Third party yammerings are given the weight of first hand experience. Since when does, "I heard someone say such and such, but the party in question was never recorded by other people of saying such a thing become fact". That's right, only when we are writing religious tracts for Evangelicals and Muslim extremists. I can't even begin to edit this article because it needs to scraped. This has been chosen to be expanded in such a way because no one pays attention to it. It needs to be merged into Book of Mormon. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to this article, I am, and I have been, a servant of truth. Where I have erred in a matter of fact, I have confessed my error, as you yourself can testify.  I have made no secret of my personal beliefs, and you have made no secret of yours. Nevertheless, as men of good will we should be able to work together toward neutral wording for an encyclopedia article.
 * As for merging this article with another, I think you need to check with your fellow Mormon  CO GD EN . Two-thirds of the current article is his handiwork, and—despite its unnecessary length—quite respectable handiwork.--John Foxe 19:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cogden may be LDS, but that does not mean that all LDS think alike. He has tangents and he makes conclusions differently than I would or have. I still believe that the purpose of this article is simply to state what the gold plates were; however, it has evolved into to a smorgasbord of innuendo. The vast majority of it should be merged into the Book of Mormon article.
 * On another note, Cogden and I have had discussion before about trivia and its value or lack thereof. This article is a collection of Mormon trivia and I have yet to understand its purpose. Tidbits do not make a history of a man or a people. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think merging this material with Book of Mormon is realistic or doable. The Book of Mormon article is already rather large, but nowhere near the size it should be. Given the amount of things that can be said about the Book of Mormon, it makes much more sense for all the information about the Golden Plates to be in a separate article, with the main article summarizing this material in summary style. Moreover, there are some Golden Plates topics that are not directly related to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is not quite the same thing as the Golden Plates.
 * As to the inclusion of "trivia", I see nearly the same objection coming from Storm Rider and John Foxe, except that each of them has the opposite position on what is central and what is trivial. The goal is not to create a streamlined article that contains only information that, according to some objective standard, is central. Rather, the goal is to include all information that, according to any significant viewpoint, is considered important.  CO GD EN  01:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Mormon / Non-Mormon
Okay this doesn't work for me...it reads about as smooth as a sawblade, and there's a logic problem too...Joseph Smith himself technically wasn't a Mormon in any sense of the term when being visited by the angel. But I digress...we have it multiple times:

"according to a non-Mormon critic who heard the story from Smith's father in 1827"

"A skeptical non-Mormon hearing the story from Smith's father in 1830"

"A non-Mormon neighbor who heard the story from Smith in 1823" (by the way the entire world was "non-mormon" in 1823)

Can we figure out some wording here, I think it would be better to directly name the person we are referring to, then state their intentions/affiliations/POVs, than have this amorphous wording we have. If Willard Chase said it, quote him, then state any criticisms about the quote or POV he/she may or may not have had. As written it's just as bad as my most hated phrase in all journalism: "sources say". Grr...just name them and get on with it. And, just as by-the-way, the LDS church itself has suggested abandoning the term "non-mormon" because of the divisiveness implied.

P.S. Can we agree on a place to slice this discussion page and create another archive? As of this post it's 170kb long, yikes. Twunchy 04:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree... as to the length of the talk page, I'd love to see it shortened, most of the topics are done being discussed, however they're also all very recent. (the other archives are 2 years and 1 years of talk, most recently two months ago)... I wouldn't be against archiving up till contradictory descriptions or somewhere thereabouts, but that's material that's only one month ago... anyone else? gdavies 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources say, "Critics, believers, and critical believers unite in a request to archive this talk page."--John Foxe 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are the charcol etchings, the photographs?
why werent any attempts made to reporduce these supposed plates?Karaveks voice 20:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what your asking... they LDS church has a full scale model, and a picture of that is in the body of the text. gdavies 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably they're asking what physical evidence supports the assertion that the topic of this article actually existed. For a similar artifact such as the Shroud of Turin, there's detailed discussion of chemical analyses carried out on the object and references to who now has it. For the Golden Plates, the whole evidence for their existence seems to be the testimony of Smith and the eleven witnesses, with the artifact said to have been supernaturally removed from the world so that it cannot be subjected to scientific analysis. Is that description correct? If so, it's worth mentioning, else we leave out a basic point about the article's topic. -Kris Schnee (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1842b
There are three references that have "1842b" in them. Since when did years come in a/b/... versions? Or is this some other reference that I don't know about? Please explain. Val42 05:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is just standard Harvard referencing. Since it's an author-year system, when the author does two things in the same year there is an ambiguity.  CO GD EN  21:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Missing 116 pages" info missing
The information about the missing manuscript AKA "Book of Lehi" is only briefly mentioned in just one sentence. I think it should be expanded upon, since it is is significant event during the translation of the plates, most importantly the interruption of the translation afterwards...there is an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_116_pages) on wikipedia devoted solely to it but I feel it is of enough merit to at least have a subsection in this article about this event. Twunchy 06:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish
I have never seen such a concentrated conglomeration of innuendo, rumor, and referenced junk history in all my life. I award Cogden and John Foxe two stars for cooperating on producing the most referenced collection of "history facts" award. It completly puts me over the top to read this article. I can't even begin to edit it because it is so full of minutae that I just want to delete everything and start from scrath. References about hearsay is still hearsay, just because it is referenced does not make it worthy of inclusion. This takes frustration to an all new level.

You turn an article that should be simply an explanation of the term Golden Plates into a monstrosity. This is the equivalent of Brown's Da Vinci Code, The Jesus Seminar, and the "new" burial place of Jesus rolled into a single Mormon myth. I tip my hat to you two! I know of no other duo that could have produced an article of such quality. --Storm Rider (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The purpose of this article, like any Wikipedia article, is to capture all the information that is important to scholars in the field, and to represent all notable viewpoints neutrally. What scholars of one perspective may consider minutiae may actually be very significant to scholars from other perspectives. Thus, for example, the reference to the "toad-like creature" which Willard Chase and Benjamin Saunders said was part of the plates story circa 1827. This is very significant both to Mormon scholars such as D. Michael Quinn, and non-Mormon scholars such as H. Michael Marquardt. Indeed, when it was thought, wrongly it turned out, that Mark Hofmann had discovered a third independent source for the "toad-like creature" element of the story, it was in all the newspapers, and was considered important enough for commentary by LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks. All that attention easily passes the threshhold for inclusion of the item in Wikipedia.  CO GD EN  19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I really enjoy this page. I constantly read this page for entertainment, as it never fails to produce a few laughs and lighten my day, and it provides me with a constant source of inspiration. A few of my favorites:
 * "Although Smith's contemporary followers do not mention a toad-like creature, they agree with several non-believers that..." (Sure, they all know about it but they deliberately don't mention it. I myself must continually suppress the urge to talk about the toad whenever I talk with someone about this subject...Wait!...must...not...mention...toad! :-) )
 * "Smith said he was told to return the next year with the "right person," but the angel did not tell Smith who that person might be." (In other words: this was one of the more stupid angels.)
 * "Smith may have attempted unsuccessfully to bring his treasure-hunting associate Samuel T. Lawrence." (May have attempted unsuccessfully??? Perhaps Smith may have attempted unsuccessfully to bring a frog instead of a toad. ;-))
 * The interweaving of portions of various JS histories coupled with doses of the Hurlbut affidavits from Mormonism Unvailed produces an uneven narrative that could be improved quite a bit if each set of source of statements was addressed separately. For example, if you want to talk about the JS 1832 history, try preserving more of its context:
 * “A History of the Life of Joseph Smith, Jr.,” 1832: "It was on the 22d day of Sept[ember] AD 1822. Thus he appeared unto me three times in one night and once on the next day. Then I immediately went to the place and found where the plates was deposited as the angel of the Lord had commanded me and straightway made three attempts to get them. Then being exceedingly fritened I supposed it had been a dreem of a Vision, but when I consid[e]red I knew that it was not. Therefore I cried unto the Lord in the agony of my soul, “Why can I not obtain them?”
 * Behold the angel appeared unto me again and said unto me, “You have not kept the commandments of the Lord which I gave unto you. Therefore you cannot now obtain them, for the time is not yet fulfilled. Therefore thou was left unto temptation that thou mightest be made acquainted with the power of the advisary (sic). Therefore repent and call on the Lord [and] though shalt be forgiven. And in his own due time thou shalt obtain them.”
 * For now I had been tempted of the advisary and saught the Plates to obtain riches and kept not the commandment that I should have a eye single to the glory of God. Therefore I was chastened and saught dilegently to obtain the plates and obtained them not untill I was twenty one years of age."
 * If you want to talk about what Willard Chase said, then put Chase's complete comments into the article in context without fragmenting them and explain when, where and why he said them:
 * Affidavit of Willard Chase from "Mormonism Unvailed": In the month of June, 1827, Joseph Smith, Sen., related to me the following story: "That some years ago, a spirit had appeared to Joseph his son, in a vision, and informed him that in a certain place there was a record on plates of gold, and that he was the person that must obtain them, and this he must do in the following manner: On the 22d of September, he must repair to the place where was deposited this manuscript, dressed in black clothes, and riding a black horse with a switch tail, and demand the book in a certain name, and after obtaining it, he must go directly away, and neither lay it down nor look behind him. They accordingly fitted out Joseph with a suit of black clothes and borrowed a black horse. He repaired to the place of deposit and demanded the book, which was in a stone box, unsealed, and so near the top of the ground that he could see one end of it, and raising it up, took out the book of gold; but fearing some one might discover where he got it, he laid it down to place back the top stone, as he found it; and turning round, to his surprise there was no book in sight. He again opened the box, and in it saw the book, and attempted to take it out, but was hindered. He saw in the box something like a toad, which soon assumed the appearance of a man, and struck him on the side of his head. --  Not being discouraged at trifles, he again stooped down and strove to take the book, when the spirit struck him again, and knocked him three or four rods, and hurt him prodigiously. After recovering from his fright, he enquired why he could not obtain the plates; to which the spirit made reply, because you have not obeyed your orders. He then enquired when he could have them, and was answered thus: come one year from this day, and bring with you your oldest brother, and you shall have them. This spirit, he said was the spirit of the prophet who wrote this book, and who was sent to Joseph Smith, to make known these things to him. Before the expiration of the year, his oldest brother died; which the old man said was an accidental providence!
 * I learned more from the two quotes mentioned above than I did from the article.
 * Well, that was fun. Oh no!...must...suppress...urge...to...mention...TOAD...it's OK, I'm better now. Carry on! Bochica 15:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That deletion was sheer vandalism, and I'm confident the community will not support it.--John Foxe 16:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Bochica, regarding your suggestion to just quote Smith and Chase en masse in the article, I disagree. This is not the place for long quotes, which would belong in Wikisource. Also, we are dealing with far more narratives than just those of Smith and Chase. There are also very extensive narratives by Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Knight, and Oliver Cowdery on the Mormon side and Fayette Lapham on the non-Mormon side, as well as numerous other smaller accounts. Just quoting them all is not make for a proper Wikipedia article.  CO GD EN  19:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate it, I realize this is going to be sort of a mish-mash of varying/contradictory stories no matter what we do (since we ruled out splitting it into two sections). However, I think the improvement that can be made at this point is perhaps organizing the comments better and clearly pointing out where the source is questionable or obviously biased. It's a little bit difficult to tell at this point... For instance, the bit about Smith Sr. weighing the plates cleverly throws a "reportedly" in the middle of the sentence, which supposedly accounts for the fact that it was a hit piece in a news article that made many sensational (and completely false) comments about the Mormons in general and Smith, Jr. specifically. The article has no real basis in reality, but is given the same amount of credence as if "Smith, Sr. said..." it. gdavies 07:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single primary source here has some degree of bias, except arguably for some of the Palmyra neighbors who knew Smith and were friendly to the Smith family, but just didn't believe (Benjamin Saunders is the only source that I know that fits that category). I don't think it helps to point out that sources were biased. It does help, possibly, to identify which sources were Mormon and which were non-Mormon. But this adds complexity, rather than diminishes it.
 * John and Cogden, that is nonsense. Some "facts" are more important to some historians depending upon perspective??? Please! You both understand clearly the value of reputable sources and yet you both ignore it in order to give all sources equal footing. It is like quoting the National Enquirer and The Economist in a single article and acting as if they are both of equal validity. You have turned neutrality on its head. This is not neutrality that you have written; this is called disinformation.
 * Based upon your logic because someone printed that the youngest wife of Brigham Young, a 14 year old girl, vociferous in her rejection of polygamy, she climbed to the top spire of the SL temple where she was imprisoned, jumped into the Great Salt Lake and swam to freedom (after she walked 800 miles to civilization, it must be included in all articles about Brigham Young. When a story is obviously outlandish, if not a bald lie, I don't care how many anti-Mormons repeat it, it does not gain validity or credence. I don't know why this is so hard to understand. I can not be accused of trying to hide historical facts about Mormonism; I have a long history of encouraging keeping the story limited to the facts. But this really is a monstrosity. You have attempted to gain credibility by referencing almost every single phrase. However, as the old saying goes, when junk goes in only junk comes out. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In theory, I hear what you're saying. But the problem is, what you think is outlandish or a monstrous lie is actually accepted by reputable historians and experts as more truthful than the events of the story accepted as Mormon gospel truth. There is nothing in the article as it now stands, that I'm aware of, that has not received treatment ad nauseum in the literature by people with pretty high academic credentials. It's not like putting the National Enquirer and The Economist on equal footing: it's more like putting Mother Jones Magazine on equal footing with National Review.  CO GD EN  00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cogden, I understand what you are saying and I'm not actually advocating wholesale inclusion of huge quotes in the body of the article in this case - I included them only to demonstrate the context from which a number of small citations in the article were drawn from. My point is simply that it appears the the article has gone too far in the other direction, with quotes being cut out of context in such tiny pieces that the meaning is buried...kind of an editorial food processor. It seems like there ought to be a happy medium in which all sources are addressed and their context preserved. Personally, (and I am aware that others will disagree with me) I don't believe in excluding quotes from any documented source at all (that includes Mormonism Unvailed, the Tanners and even the Godmakers, but not blogs or personal web sites per Wikipedia policy), as long as the context and motivation of the source is adequately explained. Otherwise, who draws the line? In the example that Storm Rider uses above, rather than having the article point out that this is a fabricated story, we would end up with an article with statements like "she may have unsuccessfully attempted to jump from the temple into the Great Salt Lake" and "some non-believers agree that she may have been imprisoned in the Salt Lake Temple." Bochica 18:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with identifying sources. Yet, although I would not care to put Willard Chase in front of a modern jury, he's as least as trustworthy as Joseph Smith, Jr.--right down to the toads. It's not fair to label Chase without doing the same to JS, a fellow who kept sneaking around Emma.--John Foxe 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness our individual character judgments of people who died 160 years ago don't affect reality or standards for inclusion. We state facts, circumstances, and statements, then let people come to their own conclusions. Joseph Smith is obviously inextricably connected to this article, Chase's relevance is less clear. gdavies 19:59, 9 March 2007(UTC)
 * All the more reason to question the veracity of Smith.--John Foxe 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bochica, I agree with what you are saying. If we can do a better job of including context in the article, I'm for that. Its just difficult, given the large number of sometimes-conflicting, sometimes-agreeing sources, particularly since sometimes Mormon sources agree with non-Mormon sources, but disagree with other Mormon sources, and vice versa. It really is a tangled mess. Take, for example, the issue of whether or not Smith set the plates on the ground prior to being struck with a supernatural force. Mormon sources Lucy Mack Smith and Joseph Knight agree with non-Mormons Willard Chase and Fayette Lapham that he did. On the other hand, Mormons Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery agree with non-Mormons Joseph & Hiel Lewis that he did not.  CO GD EN  00:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a comment regarding what John Foxe mentioned. You will note that I didn't say "let's call Willard Chase an untrustworthy liar" or "let's call Joseph Smith a trustworthy saint" or "let's make sure that we mention magic as much as possible and that some of us think that JS was a sneaky cheating lying adulterer" in an article which is supposed to be about the gold plates. I advocate acknowledging that there are discrepancies between accounts of Smith's activities regarding the plates, and I would like to illustrate them in a manner which fairly gives time to all sides of the issue without attempting to draw the reader to any particular conclusion. Marvin S. Hill acknowledged this duality in perceptions regarding Smith in his book "The Essential Joseph Smith" (Signature Books, 1995) when he said:
 * "Like other great Americans Joseph Smith (1805-44) was not exempt from such disparagement. He had friends who spoke well of him, and he had critics who were often embittered. The result was broad disagreement as to his character and personality. If we consider such traits as his personal appearance the first impressions he made on others, his treatment of people, his linguistic and oratory skills, and his financial integrity, we find much controversy among his acquaintances."
 * The purpose of this article is not to "question the veracity of Smith." It is also not to "question the veracity of Chase." It's purpose is definitely not to point out our personal opinions regarding the characters of any of these individuals. The purpose should be to illustrate for normal readers the story of the recovery of the plates and point out that there are variations in the accounts from different sources. It is entirely fair to include all of the sources that you have quoted and say that "Smith and his friends said" or "others said" or "everyone said." It is also entirely possible to write this article in a manner which includes all of the cited information already used without spinning it in either direction. (FYI, this is one reason I even bother to spend time working on Wikipedia - I'm fascinated by the collaboration efforts of LDS, non-LDS on articles such as these...its like watching Bushman and Vogel try to write an article together. ;-)) Also, FYI, in my opinion you are all highly skilled editors. I may (sarcastically) challenge the contents of an article - I do not challenge the knowledge or skill of the editors involved. The current form of the article is simply the natural result of an attempt to reconcile conflicting points-of-view. Bochica 15:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have spoken wisely and well. COgden has one of the deeper grasps of Mormon history of all of the editors on Wiki; however, I have also felt that he runs into information overload and minutiae become the feature rather than the actual history. This is contrasted with Foxe who frankly admits that he edits to achieve an objective...to make it clear to the world that his belief that Joseph Smith was a lecherous fraud. Though I think the problems with this article are many, the first thing that would help is to put objective aside and write facts. Second, an understanding of reputable would help. When an author is quoted, did they have an obvious objective, a la Chase for example. Hearsay is hearsay and should never be given the credence of first hand witnesses. COgden, you know that I have never backed down from included historical facts; it does not matter if it is positive or negative. However, there are some sources I simply do not use because it is obvious the source has lost objectivity. That applies to Mormons and nonMormons alike. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Bochica, I too am fascinated with reconciling conflicting points-of-view in articles like this one. My editing objective is not to convince the world that Joseph Smith was "a lecherous fraud"—although he was. But I continue to argue that there is no reason to privilege Smith's testimony over that of Chase.  Each had his own fish to fry.--John Foxe 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Chase's objective in giving his affidavit is as obvious, Storm Rider, as you are saying. It's not very clear, to me at least, what his motives were&mdash;I can only speculate. In the 1820s, he had been a firm believer that Smith had the power of seership and that he had the gold plates, but it appears that by 1834 he had become convinced there were no gold plates, although he still apparently believed in the powers of Smith's stone, which he though Smith wrongfully took. Who knows what his motivations for giving the affidavit were? He could have been embarrassed for once being, in essence, a proto-Mormon, and wanted to make a public apologia. He could have been jealous that Smith, and not he, benefited from the powers of the stone taken from his family's property, and wanted to publicly take credit for finding the stone. Who knows? We do know that his testimony wasn't a complete fabrication, because most of what he said is corroborated by Mormon witnesses such as Lucy Mack Smith, Martin Harris, and Jesse Knight, although Chase related those corroborated facts in a way that made Smith appear manipulative and self-serving. But there is no principled way I can see, consistent with NPOV, not to cite Chase's affidavit.  CO GD EN  09:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality
This article is one of the most bizzare pieces I've ever seen on the Golden Plates. And where is it found, in some paranormal/psychic tabloid? No, it's right here on Wikipedia! Problem is, this topic cannot be addressed neutrally by anyone. If Joseph Smith was right, then God sent him and you need to join his church to be saved in the kingdom of God. If people don't like that idea, it creates a serious pressure for them to try to naysay the religion. You will never get a neutral article together on this subject when the method is "anybody can edit". It's interesting that the Angel Moroni himself said this to Joseph Smith on his first visit - one of the very first things he said to him.Friendly Person (talk) 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with you. I don't see how any article that is fundamentally about statements of belief can ever be considered neutral or objective.  Speculating about the composition of the plates is tendentious because it assumes the existence of the items in question -- it's like trying to debate whether the wine served at the Last Supper was a Cabernet or a Merlot.  I was astonished to see that the article gives no space to the controversy surrounding Smith's account, or the possibility that the whole thing might have been a hoax.  If the authors of this article want to assert the authenticity of the Golden Plates, as a matter of faith or opinion, that is their privilege.  But to do so in a scholarly environment, excluding any conflicting evidence or alternate points of view, is ridiculous.  Since the central assumption -- the authenticity of the plates -- cannot be falsified (thanks a bunch, Moroni), the controversy cannot be resolved by consensus.  Probably it's best to label this as a religious statement, and leave it in the provenance of believers.Namekal (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * They are a historical foundation of a major world religion, therefore they meet the notability requirement of wikipedia for article status. It's really simple...no Golden plates, no Mormons.  There is plenty of criticism in this article if you read through it you will find it, and if you don't see it in the main text it's in the footnotes.  We aren't speculating, we are quoting people, whether you believe them or not is a different story. Twunchy (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides, this article doesn't assert the authenticity of the plates; its subject is the assertion of the plates - which is very different. Kaiguy (talk) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think it's quite easy to write an article in an NPOV way. Just take the controversay out of the equation.  Pretend Mormonism is a long dead religion, like greek Mythology, or Noah's ark.  Hard to do on both sides I know, but if you just present the facts as if you are not emotionally involved in the subject it is much easier to do.  Do you write articles about Greek Mythology saying they were all stupid for worshiping Hera?  Do you think they were silly for building temples to her?  or believing that they will take a boat across a river to hell?  No.  Because you don't really care. You just want the information on the subject. Bytebear (talk) 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Compare this article to other Wikipedia entries on the True Cross, the Tablets of stone, or the Ark of the Covenant. In each case, you have descriptions of items which are considered fundamental artifacts of their respective faiths -- but whose existence cannot currently be authenticated.  The articles therefore rightly acknowledge that the cross, the tablets, and the ark are matters of faith and religious tradition, not fact.  Although the article on the Golden Plates is objective in the sense that it accurately quotes the statements of believers, it is nonetheless constructed in such a way as to presume the existence of the items in question.  I also think Friendly Person makes the excellent point that it's difficult to debate such a matter without turning it into a religious controversy.  If the validity of a faith is based on the validity of its artifacts, then any doubts raised about the existence of the Golden Plates are bound to be interpreted as an attack on LDS.  Which is not a productive way to hold an objective debate.Namekal (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

External links/Further reading
For well-cited article such as this, I generally oppose the creation of "further reading"-type sections. Such sections, in my view, are only helpful in stub articles where people need pointers to begin their search for content and citable sources. In an article that already has near-comprehensive content and dozens of primary and secondary sources, this type of section typically serves as an ash-bin for partisan, polemical websites whose commentary is too non-scholarly and unverifiable to be cited the normal way in the footnotes. You have to ask yourself, is there anything essential in these websites that is not already discussed in the article? If so, can the web-site's material be incorporated into the article? If the answer to either of these questions is "no," the website should be deleted. If the material can properly be incorporated into the article, it should be, and then the link deleted.  CO GD EN  23:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. gdavies 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree. While Wikipedia is not paper, there is a reasonable length consideration to articles (and this one is already too long). Further reading is useful for that explicit purpose and for directing people to more detailed information and in the case of controversial topics showing examples of the various POVs involved. Of course, this is just my opinion. Feel free to help yourself to some salt with it. Vassyana 10:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Vassyana. The problem with the current article is not its accuracy--in that regard, it's first rate--but its length. The casual investigator of Mormonism will benefit from having links to "partisan, polemical websites" that are easily read and point up POV.--John Foxe 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The length of this article isn't indicative of how much content is being covered, but just that a lot has been rehashed needlessly. We've covered everything I can think of that's relevant to the subject at hand, plus a whole lot that isn't. gdavies 19:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The best remedy for length is to bud-off subarticles. If this article is really too long (which I don't think it is yet, but it has the potential to be), we could consider using summary style and then creating articles like "Structure of the Golden Plates", "Translation of the Golden Plates", or "Sealed portion of the Golden Plates".  CO GD EN  23:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ideas for improvement
Aside from what I mentioned above, I think this article could benefit from some trimming... should be very easy because we're repeating information (restated a little differently) all over the article, sometimes with a little spin... we can make this a lot more concise and add supporting or repetitive info to notes in a lot of cases. gdavies 07:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Move? : A minor point
Should this page be moved to Golden plates, with a small p? If no, what is the rationale for referring to them as the Golden Plates? Curious ... Thanks -SESmith 09:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've wondered about this. In the literature, it's usually not capitalized. I think it's probably a good idea.  CO GD EN  17:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't have a problem with a redirect to "Golden plates" with a small p. The reason why the title has an upper case P is that back in 2004 the creator of the first rudimentary article used one, and no one has bothered with it since.--John Foxe 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dumb mistake
I tried to change the spelling of "Etruskian" on the picture file to "Etruscan" and then quickly realized that this was a dumb move since the picture had been uploaded as "Etruskian." I then tried to revert to an earlier version, but I still can't see the picture file.--John Foxe 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, anonymous. I like the Pyrgi Tablets better anyway.--John Foxe 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I just fixed a few more little mistakes and did a little copyediting. I hope I didn't step on anyone's toes here, but the article is a little cleaner now. Twunchy 06:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for catching those mistakes. I could quibble about the U&T but won't. All the best, John Foxe 19:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nemelka
In my opinion, Christopher Nemelka needs more of a following before being allowed out of the footnotes here.--John Foxe 10:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fake Golden Plates
The Bulgarian "Etruscan" golden book plates mentioned in section 6.3 are considered by specialists in Etruscology to be fake, or, at least, not Etruscan. However, as far as I am aware, none of them has actually bothered to put this in writing, probably because they are so obviously not Etruscan, and because the Bulgarian museum authorities refuse to co-operate with anybody to verify the item.

As for the real Pyrgi tablets being on display in the Villa Giulia: there is another glass cabinet in the next room, in addition to the one in the picture, also displaying the "gold Pyrgi Tablets". My guess is that the real Pyrgi tablets are in neither of these display cabinets, but in a bank vault somewhere. Bofoc Tagar 15:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Golden Bible
An anon editor seems to like to take issue with the usage of this descriptor. I have twice reverted but see his point, so I have inserted a clarifier into the main text. Yes I know it's in the foot notes but if my clumsy(?) attempt at clarification smooths out some things I guess it don't hurt things too bad. But I could be wrong. :) Twunchy 05:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

a golden plate experiment
Has anyone ever tried to make replicas of the golden plates for the purpose of estimating how big all the Book of Mormon plates would have had to be to contain all the text "translated" into English? We don't know what "reformed Egyptian" should look like or how many characters its words might average. What we do know is that the Book of Mormon contains more than 250,000 words in English. I'd like to see someone manufacture gold leaves that match the estimated dimensions of the BOM plates and see how many English words can be legibly inscribed on them. My guess is that a golden-plate BOM in English would bulk up to a size far greater than that estimated for Smith's golden plates in historical descriptions. And if that were the case, it would certainly throw more doubt on Smith's claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.231.152 (talk) 21:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you then willing to say that if someone could make such plates that it is therefore true? No?  I didn't think that you would agree to that.  We have accounts of the outside dimensions of the plates, but we don't know other things.  We don't know what the original text would have been.  We don't know the size of the individual characters.  We don't know how thick each individual plate was.  Without this information, we wouldn't be able to reconstruct anything like the original for the experiment. &mdash; Val42 01:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the replicas at the Museum of Church History and Art in Salt Lake City (not the one pictured in the article) is "heftable," and despite the fact that it's not made of gold, it's clear that it would be impossible to carry it one-handed while running through the woods dodging assailants.--John Foxe 11:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Now if we had someone reputable who said that, I'd say, put it in! Sethie (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Obtaining the Plates
Good progress on the 'Obtaining the Plates' section since I last looked at it months ago -- It flows much better. Brykupono 23:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
This is a terrific article. It is well-written, and superbly researched, and also comes across as being very neutral. The only issue I have with the article involves its formatting. There are a large amount of footnotes, and due to the perhaps-controversial nature of this article, is not a problem. However, a number of the footnote numbers appear before the quote, the period, or after a space following the period. All the numbers must appear after all punctuation and must not have a space before them. Apart from this minor formatting issue, the article fulfills all the GA requirements, and I would encourage those who have worked on the article nominate it for FA status. I'm sorry that the article has taken so long to review. Zeus1234 16:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing the article, Zeus1234. I've reformatted all the problem footnote numbers that I could see.  Is this good enough?--John Foxe 19:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good article!!
Thanks to all who have contributed to this article, including John Foxe, Cogden, et al., Shall we shoot even higher? Let's look and see if this is a **Featured Article** candidate, any input? Twunchy 17:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was amused to read the earliest comments on this article, which included: "There is no need for this article. It is redundant with the Book of Mormon article or articles dealing with Book of Mormon controversies." Dec 30, 2003 (UTC) "Completely agree. We are getting some weird pages popping up." 31 Dec 2003 (UTC). If Cogden can contribute some non-billable minutes, I think this could very well be a featured article.--John Foxe 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support a nomination for FA. In my opinion, this is probably the best quality GA article I have ever reviewed, and I have reviewed a lot. Zeus1234 19:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following the article for a while, and the FA nomination caught me off-guard. I actually came back to this article because I figured it was probably time to get it into FA shape, if it's not there already. I see that there are no comments yet (since Oct. 15). Do we want to advertise this, for example on the LDS Wikiproject or somewhere? CO GDEN  00:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing I was concerned about, the article's size, turns out not to be much of a concern. If you count just readable prose, I got about 34 kb, which is pretty acceptable. The footnotes expand the article size by a factor of almost 3. CO GDEN  01:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem with notes??
I have been fiddling with the article and ran into something a bit odd...there are apparently 171 notes numbered in the article, but only 145 notes are actually listed in the notes section. I thought this may be just because of multiple referencing but when you click on a note above 145 it just reloads the page instead of taking you to the note. Is this a problem with my computer or does everyone get this? Also when you point to some of the notes the link doesn't match the number you point at i.e. you point to note 153 and it shows a link to note 152. This is way too technical of a thing for me to figure out on wikipedia but maybe someone else has a clue. Anyone? Twunchy 05:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm computer challenged, but what you're seeing is also what I'm seeing.--John Foxe 09:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo in quote?
I just want to check this: in the "sealed portion" section of the article it has a quote that says "as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated" --either it's awkward english or there's a typo. I cannot easily check the quote because of the above problem with the notes that I'm running into. It should be note 153. Twunchy 05:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Huge problem with references
The reference page at the bottom only goes to a number 145 yet the article quotes refernces up to the number 164, which meants that there are 19 remarks that have no refrences-- This is not what should be expected by a featured article canidate-- all that stuff about the Strangites is also massively biased in favor of them, and as noted earlier there are no refrences to support these claims. If you look at wikipedias article Lucy mack smith in the succesion crisis 4 par. you will see that Smith supported the saints going west, she did not support the strangites. Some massive clarifacation must be made here. CP TTD 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about the technical problem, being computer challenged, but LMS did indeed support the Strangites. In a letter of 11 May 1846 she wrote: "I am satisfied that Joseph appointed J. J. Strang." The same day William Smith said, "James J. Strang has the appointment and we have evidence of it. The whole Smith family excepting Hyrum's widow uphold Strang." (Palmer, 211) (Wow, do you trust Wikipedia?)-- John Foxe 00:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅. The footnote problem was just a minor HTML glitch, which I fixed. I didn't notice that before. It just shows you how little formatting problems can make a big difference. CO GDEN  00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not my only source. I know that Lucy mack intended to go west but couldn't because of health problems I am going to insert that into the article to neutralize it.CP TTD 01:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I neutralized it and its pretty good but it may be a bit rough-- it is neutral now though. CP TTD 01:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the important piece of evidence in the footnote along with the Palmer reference. It's not legitimate to cast doubt on the support of the Smith family for Strang; the evidence is there.  What Brigham Young would have done if LMS had gone to Utah is irrelevant; she didn't go—and her health problems are only one possible interpretation of why she didn't. Of course, neither did she support Strang for very long either.--John Foxe 11:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Once agian it is how it was, it is no longer neutral-- The references you got were from the strangite homepage, we need to neutralize it. I suggest leaving the entire LMS thing out of the article (it doesn't have anything to do with the golden plates) and either creating another article about other Plates or Just totally simplifying it. I will work on the Latter. CP TTD 08:49, 3 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.187.82 (talk)
 * The connection between Strange and the Smith family is relevant because it demonstrates how important the golden plates were in the early Mormon church. The Smiths followed Strang (at least partially and temporarily) because he had discovered and translated another set of plates.
 * It's fine to dispute the accuracy of the material cited, but where the references came from is immaterial. We're just interested in their accuracy.--John Foxe 11:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Italics for religious works
From the MOS: "Italics are not used for major revered religious works (for example the Bible, the Koran, and the Talmud)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor2020 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, my bad. Thanks for correcting me. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)