Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 5

Fawn Brodie
Thanks for the POV clean-up - however, please note that most serious historians don't take her work on Smith seriously - they believe she pre-meditated the attack in great detail.

The Tanners (Anti-Mormons) acknowledge problems with her work, so does Brent Metcalfe (Anti-Mormon), D. Michael Quinn (Former Mormon) and others both within and without the Mormonism community.

Thomas F. O'Dea, author of an Anti-Mormon book called “The Mormons (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957)” stated, “one might say that Fawn Brodie's regard for irony -- or her subjective lack of sympathy which it discloses -- has betrayed her into an reinterpretation unwarranted by her facts”

Marvin Hill (religion unknown), Fellow at Yale University states that he wonders "whether Brodie was very objective in formulating her thesis" as she did not deal with all the evidence, and formulated her thesis before examining the evidence, using only the evidence that supported her thesis. He also states, "I am inclined to think, however, that it falls short of greatness because of fundamental weaknesses which no amount of patching in a later edition can correct."

Other scholars, historians and even Brodie’s mentor, Dale Morgan, have been quoted as saying they disagreed with the way she did her research and with her objectivity. However, all that have read it, acknowledge that is preserves some important pieces of Latter Day Saint history that are not available in other ways. This is similar to how many historians are grateful to the Tanners for their preservation of historical documents, although they disagree with their veracity and methodology in attacking the Church. I believe they are called by most Non-Mormon scholars as "amateur historians."

Other historians demonstrate that Brodie was too dependent on leading "vogue" theories to discredit Smith (she attacked the Spalding theory, but relied on sources that are now considered unreliable – like Hulburt and Howe.

Just a few references, but I could go on and on and on if you’d like – and I won’t even venture into FARMS references that go into even greater detail on discrediting her, as they are written for a completely different audience. However, you should get my point. And then there is all of the recent controversy regarding her Thomas Jefferson book... -Visorstuff 19:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * It's telling that more sophisticated anti-Mormons (the Tanners), about every apologist and revisionist historian out there, Dale Morgan, and other mainstream historians view the work as biased. It was a premeditated attack; both Morgan and Brodie's (Jewish) husband found drafts of the book so vitriolic as to make Smith's popularity incomprehensible. However, Nauvoo might be right about needing to cite specifics. I think the Nibley mention almost doesn't give the right impression about how broad the base of critics is, so maybe we could include a couple of others. Quinn and the Tanners are good. Didn't Jan Shipps write about this too? Or maybe cite an outside historian. That would cover all the bases: Mormon, ex-Mormon, anti-Mormon, non-Mormon: all critics of Brodie's interpretation. On the other hand, this is a bit tangent to Smith, so perhaps more detail should go into Fawn Brodie with a synopsis here: that her conclusions are generally discredited. Cool Hand Luke  19:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, Brodie was tendentitous, but she was writing history not scripture...historical opinions are routinely reexamined and that opinions currently differ doesn't alter the significance of prior publications in the process of successive reassessment through which a clearer grasp of truth is reached. It's unsurprising that her opinions haven't been universally endorsed. I've changed "controversial" to "iconoclastic" because it seems a more pertinent description - but feel free to change it back if you like it not. I would think a description of precisely which conclusions have been rejected would be more informative than a blanket statement that "they" have been rejected, as would a description of whose opinion said rejection is. - Nauvoo 02:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Historical opinions are never equated with truth...they are opinion. Brodie's problem, as alleged by historians on both sides of the issue, was and is her lack of objectivity. That would not make her an iconoclast, but rather controversial and not a preferred source. I support reversing it, but will defer to others actions. Although information on exactly which of her many issues would be helfpul, that subject would best be covered in an article on Ms. Brodie. Storm Rider 21:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nauvoo - your comment above about "history not scripture" cracked me up. Thanks for the gentle reminder. However - Brodie did not write a history - she wrote an attack. She wrote Anti-Mormon propaganda - and clearly stated that fact in her book - this is why Morgan (one of the most respected western historians and her mentor) and others disagree with her research methodology and objectivity. She selectively chose material to support her conclusions, and disregarded 75-80 percent of the sources that disagreed with her. Have any of you read it (don't - not worth it, the commentaries are adequate - and seriously do it justice/convey her messages/points)? Based on the scholar's comments I mentioned above, I don't see how anyone can take her work as a serious history. Yes, it preserves many sources about Smith and the early church, but not even close to a neutral/objective manner. That was not her stated point/purpose. It is important because it deals with sources not dealt with, and preserves them, but does not offer explanations by Smith and other contemporary sources. Not balanced. Not objective. Not accurate. Just like most of today's marketing/advertising - very one sided and not peer supported. No sir - she didn't write a history... -Visorstuff 16:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Iconoclastic is the word, all right--smashing idols is what she was trying to do. Very good descriptive word.  V, you bring up an interesting side point.  I think it would be good to get a resource list of the classic books each of us has read so we can have "go-to" guys on various subjects.  Maybe we could have that on the project page.  It is for example, interesting to me to know that you have read Brodie's book.  And I think it would be useful to list together our collective exposure.  I have read Mountaim Meadows Massacre, John D. Lee's last testimony, and Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses.  Tom - Talk 16:37, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Would be interesting, but I doubt I could list all the books I've read on Mormonism subjects. They are like popcorn to me - very addicting. Plus, I wouldn't exacly call Brodie's work "a classic." Nibley's response is much better and you get a balanced look at her research by reading it. On a personal note - the Lee works you've referenced - my wife is a decendant of Lee and Jacob Hamblin. I'm sure both would roll over in their graves knowing that their children married, but those are much more interesting than most works - although I'm not a big fan of Brooks writing either. She is fair at least, but definitely a crusader. Any news on the upcoming MMM book? -Visorstuff 17:27, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about it other than it's coming. In thinking about the idea of a list, I thought it might be nice to have a "Reading Wish List".  We could list the books we would like to read for this or that article, then put our names by the ones we have already read.  But I know what you mean about having a hard time getting all your books.  I sure wouldn't want to try to make a comprehensive list!  Another thought I had was that when I welcome anon editors of the Mormonism articles, it would be neat to tell them, "I invite you to join the Mormonism project and tell us what you have read at our Research Books List". Tom - Talk 18:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Although I'm sure this will just earn me suspicion, I've read almost every Quinn book my library system has, but I think my favorite is Leonard J. Arrington (Great Basin Kingdom and Brigham Young: American Moses). I kinda enjoy economic history and prefer Utah history to that of the earlier LDS movement: it's more tangible to me, and I'm a very proud Salt Laker. I'm meaning to read Thomas G. Alexander's Mormonism in Transition. There's also apparently a collections of essays on Brodie (ISBN 0874212146). Never read her myself, though. I've furthermore read very little doctrine, almost exclusively history. Cool Hand Luke  19:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No suspicion here. So have I. I do tend to try to stay with primary sources as often as I can. Its one thing to read in original context, another to read someone else's interpretion (especially with an agenda such as Quinn). My personal specialty is 1860-1877 Utah/Mormonism history and doctrines, but that is another story altogether. The books list is probably a good idea for people getting ready to create pages. -Visorstuff 21:36, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ya know, even general categories like you've described would be helpful. It is nice to know where our expertises are. Tom - Talk 17:55, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

However, No Man Knows My History has to be included in the references. It is a seminal history, and for years was the most important Joseph Smith history, in spite of its flaws. Also, Nibley's response is in the references, therefore Brodie's book needs to be there as well. Feel free to add a description of the books flaws, either here or under the Fawn Brodie's article. Look at Arrington's article on Mormon history from quite a few years ago. He complains about Brodie, but admits that pro-Mormon biographies are worse. Nereocystis 14:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article Creeping
Incidentally, this article is unconsciously creeping. An anon editor keeps adding more Quinn, which I initially thought was appropriate, but I think it's gotten perhaps excessive. Also, I think we're including extraneous information when a Lighthouse Ministry claim is added and then rebutted (even though this edit made me laugh out loud). All things considered, an obviously baseless claim by an anti-Mormon probably does not belong in the primary article on Smith. On a related note, it might be nice to have an article devoted to interpretations and claims about Joseph Smith&mdash;there would certainly be enough material. Cool Hand Luke  19:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed. I wasn't sure of the point of the original edit, since it was obviously made by Foster to show how bad Mormons were even though it was completey unsubstantiated and proven wrong historically (plus I try to explain before going back and deleting it - which will likely happen). Tomorrow is Smith's B-day - please review the article today if you can to make sure it is clean as possible from errors - and too much Quinn - we can expect higher volume on his birth date. -Visorstuff 19:33, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we need to reclaim this article. After looking it over more thoroughly and making some edits last night, I noticed a whole lot more of an anti-Mormon spin than I had before. It needs some real upheaval. Another anon edited several times today with more UTLM stuff. Boo. We need to wake up and realize that a lot of these guys aren't trying to do anything except tear Joseph down. We must be a lot more vigilant than we have been. Cookiecaper 00:09, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the following for the second time:
 * It's also been suggested that Smith had been "intimate" with a woman who's family objected, and that the threatened "castration may have been considered appropriate       punishment for sexual misconduct."

and


 * Smith probably knew of the Danites--several contemporary diaries report his attending Danite meetings--but ...

First of all, it has also be suggested that castration is a sign in many cultures that the person should be dedicated to God or the Gods or even his King, however, just because one man suggests that this is a likely punishment, doesn't make it reliable in this context. I wouldn't introduce this as evidence in this artilce, although Compton has added it in his work in a similar way. There is no further evidence of this motive in any contemporary accounts. It wasn't until more than 50 years later (1884) that this charge was made, by someone who wasn't present, about a future wife of Smith, making it highly suspect within its context. In fact, who made the claim that Smith was nearly castrated? I don't see any primary evidence of this. It is most likely unfounded anti-Mormon speculation.

Second. "contemporary diaries report his attending Danite meetings?" You may want to read the accurate account at Danites, which I have included some excerpts from the article below:


 * Doctor Sampson Avard was arrested and tried in Missouri and testified at length regarding the Danites. Avard claimed that he organized the group in 1838, but that it was directed by Smith. Some have argued Avard's testimony was opportunistic, falsified in order to point blame at Smith. Avard was later excommunicated.


 * These court documents, not journals or other accounts, is the primary source of information about the Danites. Available journal entries are typically second- or third-hand accounts by those not present at alleged events, and are therefore not considered reliable frst-hand accounts.

What happened to editors who actually read primary sources, who take a balanced view of things? I'm not perfect, but some of these recent edits are incredible for people who are supposed to know about Smith enough to edit an article about him. -Visorstuff 23:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hagiographic?
User:4.227.142.180, you are wearing me out with the mis-use of words and misleading edits -

First - not only does Hagiographic mean that the literature work is about a religious figure (which Smith was), but non-hagiographic would mean that the person was a historical figure that was un-tied in any way to religion. Smith, whether you like it or not, was a religious figure. Therefore any work about him would be considered hagiographic by very nature. It could be argued that most work about figures including Sollog and Nostradamus would be hagiographic because of what they or others claim to them be. Second you draw conclusions which are called theories, not "offer conclusions." In the same vein, you don't "offer claims," you make them. You offer opinions. If you'd rather, we can say "she offered new opinions..."

I've removed "especially as arguably the first academicly-minded study of Smith from a critical perspective." I think she thouroughly stated - and documented - that this was not an academic excercise, but a way for her to vent her frustrations, attack the Church and give a differing view of Smith who is often set up on idealistic pedestal (see my dialogue above with User:Nauvoo). There was only gratuitous objectivity in her work (self-admitted), and therefore cannot truly considered to be a critical academic work. However, I would grant that it was perhaps the best-researched Anti-Mormon published at the time.

I've also removed dead links - no need to create links to pages that aren't there. If you'd like to create the page, please do and then add back in the link.

I've added in a sentence about Quinn's work. Although I don't like it - it IS what Anti-Mormons claim the Brodie work purports to be. It is a naturalistic, look at Smith, and although it draws stretching conclusions without supporting evidence in many cases, it a much more balanced and neutral look at smith than Brodies' work. Even moderate secondary sources are better than fringe secondary sources - on both sides. -Visorstuff 16:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Significant content removals
I compared the Dec 29 Visorstuff version with today's version, and I found significant and troubling content removals. Can somebody please explain what is going on? Tom - Talk 19:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

Need to revert with explanation - want the honors? - Visorstuff 19:53, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

tsm26's deletions were a little drastic...but then again, the addition of Quinn's opinions may not have added a lot of value. An reconstructionist's opinion gathered from third party comments are not "history", at least in my opinion. My bias against Quinn does not make me an ideally suited person to make a value judgement so I tend not to make changes to these areas. However, I do not feel a wholesale reversion is appropriate given the number of complaints about Quinn's introduction to the article.

We all need to remember the purpose of this article is to inform. It is not a platform on which individuals get to spout their specific opinions (even those of other "notable" people), but rather a place used as a reference and a factual recount of Joseph Smith's life. Storm Rider 20:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know my deletions seemed drastic, but most of Quinn's quotes were of little value. The removals help the article flow, and since the to-do list already listed removing the saturation of his work, it seemed appropriate. There was also major disagreement on the section Studies, and after reading it, I felt it was entirely filled with POV and provided no substance or value to the article. More sources should be found for the article, as there seems to be only three good sources on Joseph Smith. As Storm Rider stated, this is a factual article, not an agenda or an ode to Quinn. I think the article would be better served by taking information gleened from more sources and then written as a coherent piece rather than choppy pseudofacts from one or two places and boosted by POV.--Tsm26 21:31, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that much of the deleted material has to be re-inserted into the text. But I agree that the original material has to be rewritten. The way it was before the deletions, the article was largely a tertiary source about Joseph Smith via Quinn. We need to make it, as much as possible, into a secondary source, bypassing Quinn, unless Quinn has performed some complicated synthesis that cannot be concisely and adequately conveyed by reference to primary sources. CO GDEN  00:11, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cogden and Visorstuff. Tom - Talk 15:03, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I, Tom, am biased against Quinn; his conclusions about homosexuality in the Joseph Smith days are warped. But we all have our blind spots, I suppose. Tom
 * 1) All articles are full of POV, and that is fine and good; please read Neutral point of view again for an explanation. Tom
 * 2) The deletions had relevant content that helped understand Joseph Smith. Tom
 * 3) I am currently reading Lucy's book, a fine and full historic assembly and analysis of the Lucy Mack Smith book; perhaps I will be helpful as I proceed, since that book gives not only original Lucy Mack Smith, but also a perspective into respected interpretations and historians. Richard L. Anderson of Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses fame is frequently mentioned.  Quinn is mentioned.  Jan Shipps is prominently mentioned. Tom


 * When I originally deleted much of the Quinn additions, I purposely left in the topics that were recently deleted. I agree it needs cleaning up, however, those ideas are important. Perhaps, Tsm26, since you have a fresh perspective on this, could you add back in many of the details you've removed, but try to give different sources. As Latter Day Saint editors, we've erred on the side of allowing "Anti", Naturalistic or alternaltive explanations of what happened in the text - although in most cases we dislike the inclusion of the information. In my opinion, it needs to have this context - I believe COgden once told me (very paraphrased) that the best way to combat "hidden" and controversial material is to make it public and accessible and then explain why or why not that is a plausible alternative. Although this is not the place for Apologetics, the topics should be addressed, and then using our expertise both sides of the argument addressed. This will help seekers of true information to see both sides of the argument and realize how complex some of the answers can be with religious topics. I cringe at saying the above, because I think the official accounts are the most accurate, but they stay away from any form of controversial infomration whether it is true of not (by controversial I do not mean bad/good, but rather how accurate is the source - can it be supported by multiple sources - a good example is the quote everyone hears that smith said the Telestial kingdom was so good that if we saw it we'd kill ourselved to get there, or his thought about there may be humans on the moon. Both of these are quoted in seperate journals that cannot be verified by other accounts. There is no evidence outside a single entry in both cases that he really said or that they were his opinions or the official word on the matter. The first comment about the tel. may be true to that one individual or others, and is not a bad comment, but is controversial because it is unverified. The other is just unexplainable. Did they appear in Church-published materials prior to correlation? Yes.) This is one purpose of correlation, to make sure the doctrine taught and the accounts given are accurate and authoritative. Is it a perfect system? Nope. But it is getting clsoer. Some feel this presents a watered down version of the gospel, however, to the contrary, it presents a more accurate view of what was and is taught by the Church.


 * Bottom line. Need to add it back in, because this is not a correlated work. It is a Encyclopedia entry and as such needs to present both sides of arguments, whether we like it or not. Let's just make sure that Open-ness prevails and not run from history, but rather do our best at interpreting it as accurately as possible - from an accurate, doctrinal, cultural, conextual, Naturalistic and even anti POV as possible. In this way the truth about the history will prevail. In any other forum, I think I'd agree with some of the deletions. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 18:42, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First Visor you seem to infer that what I took out was anti or information I don't want open. That is entirely not the case. I am honestly amazed that you cannot see that the information was either off topic, or repetitive. The Quinn quote on the masonry call repeated what was already said three times. Since my childhood I have read encyclopedias. Call me a nerd, but my parents bought one specifically for me, and I would just sit down and read it straight through. I realize that Wiki is different than the standard encyclopedia, but this entry has just too many problems. I am looking at this article in a stylistic perspective, because in fact I do not care how much "anti-mormon" things people receive. I just think if you want a good article, all my deletions were fair, and I believe there could be many more made. I suspect the average reader will not get past the first paragraph of the article, which is probably fine as in my opinion the remainder is very poorly done. Many of the topics in this article need to be put in seperate entries. It is turning into an expose on the history of the church and theories on Mormonism, NOT Joseph Smith. The Book of Mormon page is having this same problem. We do not need a novel here, people want quick information and then they want to leave or reference more specific articles. Below is an explanation of every one of my deletions. I have shown my deletions to several individuals, including an English teacher, and a fellow employee, and they not only agreed on the deletions being appropriate, but made some corrections on the article themselves.


 * Some of the information may have been off topic, but not irrelevant. The context of Smith's teachings, life, and other is important in understanding him, just as an understanding of Mormon culture is important to understand Latter-day Saints. I agree that this has many entries, but your removal of many controversial topics led me to believe you like many others before had an agenda. That is why this discussion is taking place. We didn't simply revert edits, but rather want to understand your thinking. Thank-you for providing that below.


 * You cannot seperate Joseph Smith and Mormonism. You cannot seperate his teachings from a biographical sketch in my mind. I agree the Book of Mormon page is a loss for now. It is ugly. It has had too much theory and speculation added in by both sides and is a mess. (but a topic for another time). You should invite your friends to join and edit as well. -V

-Studies Section: This was just a complete disaster. It was like one person offended everyone by listing Brodie's then to appease threw in Hugh's book. Leave the sources in the references section, the rest is just blather.


 * No problems on this deletion. I was thinking it needed to go as well. However, we should probably state that studies on Smith fall into one of three categories: Faith-promoting; Anti-Mormon and Naturalistic (meaning, in this case, seperating the man from the religion or seperating Smith from the supernatural - which is stupid and impossible in my mind). Since each are biased, we can put that here. -V

-Succession quote by Quinn: First of all I still added a sentence that reads "During this time there were several members of the church hierarchy who claimed to be the rightful leader of the church after Smith." That in a nutshell is what Quinn said in about four times the number of words. The information is still there. This isn't the history of the church, we don't need to list all the apostles. People not members of the church do not know their names, nor will they care. It distracts and adds no value.


 * I think succession information, although better suited for Latter Day Saint movement is needed on this page. Something short and to the point, but you have to talk about "after" because he embodied Mormonism during his life. Even those who killed him thought Mormonism would fail after his death. But that was part the genious of Smith's (or the Lords) way of how things were/weren't set up. -V

-Masonic Call quote: It states before this quote about Smith being a freemason, and the masonic call for distress then it quotes Quinn which says the exact same thing. No information was added, no details are missed, just more filler.


 * We need to move this around to more appropriate locations within the article. I believe addressing this during his death is the right place. -V

-Destruction of objects before death of Joseph Smith: This is one that I believe you may be able to rewrite, but the whole thing as was written reads as follows. Speculation is thus, but experts question the speculation. Rumors are this, but it may not be true. After reading it you go, 'Why did they even tell me?'


 * Agree with removal. -V

-I removed a sentence that made me laugh, "By most accounts, Smith's wife Emma was troubled by plural marriage, and though her concerns may have caused tension in the marriage, she remained faithful to her husband and his calling as prophet of the restored church of Christ." Well duh it would cause tention. I removed that second part, and corrected it to say "his calling as prophet of the church." I made that change because it sounds like the writer is confirming that it is the restored church of Christ. There are also changes that need to be made in saying things like "Joseph Smith translated...", when it should say that According to Joseph Smith, he translated... As you can see they are needed for NPOV.


 * Okay. -V

-I changed this "Although there is some disagreement as to the precise figure, there is strong evidence that Joseph Smith was married to at least a dozen women, however some estimates say he had about 33 wives during his life." to this "There is some disagreement as to the precise figure, but estimates are that Joseph Smith was married to at least a dozen women during his lifetime." I feel that the change is appropriate, and no information is missed. It makes the sentence more knowledgable and less speculative, and leaves the reader knowing he could have had many more than a dozen.


 * I disagree with this one. You are removing content and information.  See www.wivesofjosephsmith.org where 34 are listed by name.  The main difference intended between Wikipedia and any other encyclopedia is that Wikipedia has no space limitation.  We can truly include all human knowledge.  No, not redundantly, but the names of the contending successsors and the number of wives are important pieces of "knowledge".  Tom - Talk 05:43, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Needs to be there. -V


 * Where did the 33 come from then if 34 are listed on that page? We can add that back in, we just might want to check our sources closer.  As far as space limitation, I realize that there is none, but look at Thomas Jefferson (who has some controversial things in his life) on here, or other big historical figures.  This article is much, much longer and goes off on tangents.  We should break it up as Cool Hand Luke says below.  There still needs to be organization, otherwise you could just have an entry called history of the world and you just go from there with a million pages.  Perhaps we can put things like successor information in without a quote from Quinn, or put it in a seperate article about church history/hierarchy/succession which seems more relevant, or perhaps even Brigham Young, as it involved him more than anyone else. Tsm26 19:46, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have some additional thoughts about this (some of which I've included above -V). I think I understand more about your thinking. I agree that new pages need to be added addressing succession, and more - for now is probably most appropriate at Latter Day Saint movement. Quinn's work on succession is one of those rare cases where he is likely the foremost scholar in the area, and should be quoted. But again, we should decide where it best fits.


 * I agree with your tangent comments. Let's start from scratch. How about one of us share an outline we think would be appropriate to cover on this talk page and then use available content to fill in the blanks. Thoughts? Tsm26, are you up for it?


 * I'm glad for the freshness you've brought to this article. Don't feel like we are ganging up on you, just when someone we are unfamiliar with starts hacking away, we question the intent. We'd like to, of course, ask you to join the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. Glad to have you aboard. -Visorstuff 20:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been gone for a while, but most of the changes look good. I still think we should have a page devoted to Joseph Smith historiography. It's a full and interesting topic in it's own right, and makes these controversies more transparent (as per Tom/COGDEN's suggestion). It also has some precedent: Jesus has a similar page. Cool Hand Luke  17:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would love to see a Joseph Smith historiography article. There is certainly enough information for a robust and interesting article. I can't think of a more challenging article to write, however. CO GDEN  22:04, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

LOOK AT THIS!!!
I came across this page a while ago when I was looking for Joseph Smith pictures. This one seems kind of suspicious to me, but I think it'd be cool if it's real (although it doesn't seem likely that it is). What do you guys think? Cookiecaper 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know. He looks kinda creepy in that pic. Kinda hope it's not him.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

First I've seen of this. Highly skeptical due mainly to period dress/hair style (type of suit material), which appears to be closer to the 1875-1900 period (I'd actually say 1888-1900). However, the scarring on his left cheek and chin, hairline and prominent nose structure could lead one to believe it is the same person. However, the lack of scarring on the upper lip, shape and position of the eyes, as well as use by the RLDS/LDS historians in literature are detractors. Joseph's hair was blonde and more full, so the hair may or may not be consistent, depending on how the photo was taken. Very skeptical. Tom - wanna check with RLDS sources on the accuracy of the claim that RLDS/CoC believe it was him? I rather think he looks young for a 1843 photograph, and would place the age of this individual at 28 - remember, they looked older at a younger age then due to environmental influences. I was amazed at the resemblence to a photo of one of my Nauvoo-ancestors. -Visorstuff 17:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've seen this one before, but don't know much about it. One thing I notice is that the hairline is different. In the "1843" photo, the hairline on his left temple is receded more than in the 1844 photo. In those days, from what I understand, they didn't have Rogaine yet. It could be an artifact of the lighting or the angle, but I doubt it. CO GDEN  18:00, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anybody would have a hard time convincing me it was an authentic JS photo. Just compare it with all these (Rare and obscure pictures of Joseph Smith) noting that he died in 1844 and so presumably the best likenesses may have been the earlier ones. I chose the Bathsheba Smith 1843 profile for this article, though I imagine the Maudsley 1842 and Bennett 1842 as well as the unknown 1844 are also worthwhile representations for comparison. Tom H. 03:52, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Boggs shot
The following taken from the section "Controversy in The City Beautiful"

Does this belong here? Maybe it should be moved to Missouri. (Boggs was shot well after most Latter Day Saints had left Missouri and relocated to Nauvoo, was he not?)


 * KellyCoinGuy Sure he was, however it was rumored at the time that Porter Rockwell was the trigger man. Porter denied the claim stating something to the effect, "If I had shot Boggs, he'd be dead. He's still alive isn't he?"

Article Too Long
Wikipedia doesn't like articles longer than 32k, or at least the software is complaining. So perhaps this article is ripe for dividing up. Just how to do this for a figure that so many people want to contribute to is interesting... perhaps one approach would be to move all the pro LDS material to an article on Joseph Smith apologies, and the anti-LDS stuff to Joseph Smith detractions... Leaving only the REALLY REALLY NPOV stuff here, like his birth date, and well, there must be SOMETHING else that's not controversial ;-) ... Just a thought. I'm sure there are other ways the article could be divided as well. Any suggestions? KellyCoinGuy.

I don't think dividing up teh article as suggested is the right answer. However, removing sections not essentiall pertinent to the article may be wise - the "succession" info could probably become it's own article or moved to the Martyrdom page. Some of the Polygamy could be moved to somthing like Joseph Smith and Polygamy. But a pro/con disucssion would be meaningless without a side-by-side comparison. -Visorstuff 17:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup. Tom H. 04:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of having an article on Joseph Smith historiography that would cover the current "studies" heading. We've had debates about single words under this heading because of how stingy we are about adding material not directly related to Smith, but this could be a very full topic on its own. (Sadly, as COGDEN points out, an article on Joseph Smith historiography would be difficult to write.) Also note that there's a new Succession Crisis (Mormon) article (not capitalized correctly?) that can bear some of this. Cool Hand Luke  08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't begin to pretend to know the right way to divide up the article... a Polygamy (Mormon) article could be interesting for sure. KellyCoinGuy


 * Each settlement section needs to be cut in half, the large paragraph on treasure digging needs to be reduced, and Smith's death section needs to be edited down. I could go on...  I just think as it is presently, only church members and anti-mormons will ever take the time to read it.  --Tsm26 03:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where are the gold plates?
An anonymous user asked the following, but deleted significant portions of the page in the process. I've reverted to previous versions but re-inserted his comment below: (-V)

SO, "SHOW ME" THE GOLDEN PLATES! We have the Dead Seas scrolls. God always left evidence for the people who are the "Doubting Thomas" types. Don't tell me "Faith." Some people have "faith" in governmnet that does not even use God's Law of Moses and of Liberty. (Psalm 119:45 and James 1:20-25.) - 63.26.155.157


 * Thank you for asking for assistance at the Wikipedia. You may find the information you were looking for at our articles on Golden Plates, Reformed Egyptian, and Three Witnesses.  Feel free to ask any further questions you may have by clicking the Discussion tab at any article. Tom Haws 05:56, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I want to thank Wikipedia for saving my question and restoring what I lost in your discussions. This is a remarkable place to ask questions. I have asked them for thirty years and was told Moroni hid the plates in heaven. I knew this was impossible because tangible things cannot enter a spiritual realm. Our bodies turn to dust and we receive bodies that won't decay to enter into the Spiritual Jerusalem. (Zech. 2:5) This does not mean America or Independence, Missouri or the Earthly Jerusalem. Your information tells us that LDS members believe the plates were returned to Hill Cumorah. Well, then dig them up. I have to be shown the evidence as if the Mormon faith is put on trial today by the angels. SJB


 * I believe the only information we have is contained in the three articles I directed you to. If you come across any better information than that, we would ask that you please let us know so that we may add it to the encyclopedia.  Meanwhile, be sure you have checked those three articles thoroughly for links to other articles and external links.  And as always, we would love to have you stay on as a contributor in any areas of your own expertise. Tom Haws 17:07, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that our articles state that many members believe Moroni returned the plates to the Hill Cumorah, we don't know it for a fact. And if we did desire to "dig 'em up," we wouldn't know exactly where to start since Joseph Smith didn't give a more specific location other than "the Hill Cumorah" (he was probably prohibited to).  Peace. :-)   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 17:23, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, no one really knows where the original Hill Cumorah is. Smith stated that he returned the plates to Moroni, who has "them in his charge." -Visorstuff 18:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Whether Joseph Smith, Jr. was prohibited to do it or not, my inner spirit is asking me to find the evidence. Archeologists dug for years in the caves where they found the Isaiah scrolls. Unless you don't believe they are in Hill Cumorah yourself, then start finding the evidence. A Judge would not say, "Oh well, that's okay. We don't need evidence." Furthermore, we had two witnesses for the Bible, John the Baptist and Christ but they killed both messengers. What do the Gold Plates have to offer that the Bible did not give to us? If there is nothing new, why do we need it? It tells us that religions are no good if they don't help the widow, inflicted and fatherless. (James 1:25-27 and Zech 7:9-10) SJB


 * I'm sorry, but your reasoning is illogical. There is no historical evidence that either Jesus Christ or John the Baptist ever lived: no historical evidence.  Yet thousands of people believe in Him.  Despite this lack of evidence for the Bible, you demand it for The Book of Mormon.


 * You say your "inner spirit" is telling you to look for evidence. Why not then use your inner spirit and read The Book of Mormon, pray about it and get that evidence.  That that is what you should do is directly from the book you reference: James 1:5-6.


 * Furthermore there were at least eleven witnesses of the Gold Plates and their testitmonies appear right at the beginning of the Book of Mormon. Though some of them later left the church, they never&mdash;never&mdash;recanted their testimony of the gold plates.


 * Why do we need The Book of Mormon? The Bible was translated dozens of times.  In their original forms (the books that comprise the Bible), they contained the wholeness of the everlasting gospel.  Through the various translations and edits, much of it was lost.  The Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the everlasting gospel as it was translated via inspiration.  There is plenty within to "help the widow, inflicted and fatherless."  Peace. :-)   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 18:13, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I would also echo this sentiment. The "evidence" for biblical archealogy is very circumstantial as it is at best. Of the earliest known NT Gospel mss, only a couple of dozens of statements/paragraphs/sentences (take your pick) are consistent. Later mss, agree, but this is one evidence of tampering that Muslims cite for a corrupt book. As you probably know, they believe in the bible too, but believe it has lost many important and clarifying parts due to early Christian leaders, prior to the end of the second century. Even Martin Luther believe everything past James in the new testament was not authentic. Growing up in a family where my father did a great deal of archaeology (both in America and in Israel) i've seen so-called "evidences" and can tell you, that if you belief is based on the physical, then it can be easily shaken. Suppose the vatican came out tomorrow and said the Bible was a fabrication based on other documents? That would destroy most of Christianity, but not Christian Mormonism - because it does not rely solely on the Bible for a knowledge of Jesus Christ. Physical evidnences change accoriding to our world view and interpretation. Does the existence of the Dead sea scrolls "prove" that Christ died for our sins? Do Muslims believe that the Koran cannot be true because there is no evidence that Gabriel appeared to Muhammad? These are circular arguements, but thought I'd add my two cents. You may want to visit Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, John Whitmer Historical Association, Mormon History Association, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, Golden Plates, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Reformed Egyptian, Anti-Mormonism, Arguments for the existence of God, Transcendental argument for the existence of God, Arguments against the existence of God, List of dubious historical resources, History of Christianity, Second Council of Nicaea, Sacred Texts, and Religious conversion for some good arguments of this topic in more depth. -Visorstuff 18:40, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I Know the existence of God because I felt the Spirit of God come upon me in 1976. In 1966, my mother had all of us baptized members of the LDS. I left when you did not help me and my children when we were without food, without shelter, without medical needs and without counsel in our unjust courts. My brothers and my son went to prison when they did not sin. You don't help the least of us today, so you are still not helping Christ. (Matt. 15:42-46) The adversary who takes you to the judge who sends you back to the officer and back to prison will have to pay back every cent in our unjust courts. (Luke 12:58-59, I Cor. 6:1, I Cor. 16:9, Psalm 109:6) Lucifer would not free the prisoners. (Is. 14:17) Christ told us to free the prisoners. (Luke 4:18, Is. 61:1-2) No sir, you do not help the stranger, the needy, the inflicted, the widow, the fatherless or Christ. Even the Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, and Catholics have "good" intentions but where is our help? You don't help the needy. You kicked us aside, too. (Amos 4:1)

Dude - I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you always helped a stranger on the side of the road when his car is broken down? No one is perfect - I'm sorry about your experience, but having been involved in many welfare cases, I find your story unusual. Of course I don't know all the facts, nor do I need to, but if you had a problem, you should have asked for help and understood that people (or churches) cannot to everything for you. I am unaware of any bishop who is not willing to help, but the help may not come exactly how you expect or want. The Church is not in the habit of paying legal expenses for everyone who has legal problems, but they will make sure that you don't go hungry and will often give food, etc. As for the felt the spirit comment, that is a circular argument against your earlier arguemtn about evidence. I'm getting dizzy with the logic. Again, I'm sorry about your experience, wish I could help. In my experience it it not typical. -Visorstuff 21:47, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You can help the poor, inflicted and those in prison by telling our lawmakers who write Draconian laws and sentencing guidelines that they are not doing God's Will following the Law of Moses like John Wilkes did when people changed "Wilkes, Liberty and 45" that referred to Psalm 119:45 and James 1:20-25. When Joseph Smith, Jr. wanted to free the slaves during an election campaign, it was probably unpopular at the time. Fighting a ruler is unpopular but we can do it according to Psalm 119:46. We can tell them to use the Laws of Moses and not the unrighteous laws of mankind.

As for my poverty situation. God put me here to show you and other self righteous religions that they are not doing what God told them to do. Making a religion is not what God told us to do. He told us to free the prisoners through Christ's message. (Luke 4:18) I feel sorry for you. I was in homeless shelters and a Bishop did not want to help my children and me in the Beloit Ward, so don't tell me what I experienced. Don't argue about something you know nothing about if it never happened to you. I know it happened to other Mormons and strangers of religious groups. Woe to you lawmakers, scribes and Pharisees who write your own laws and doctrines. (Matt. 23:9-39) I did not write this but I know why it was written first hand. And, I am not a dude. I am a Christian woman. If the plates existed, find them. If you know so much about archealogy, it should be easy for you. I am not here to get angry with you. I am here to help you. Even the house of Joseph gets consumed with fire. (Amos 5:6) Finding the Gold Plates is nothing compared to seeking the Lord anyhow. I just needed to know if your religion had true prophets of God with physical evidence. SJB


 * Thank you for using the Wikipedia, and may God bless you in your spiritual journey. If you have any questions about the articles we have suggested, always feel free to ask. Tom Haws 04:55, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - Heretic?
I'm very interested in maintaining the NPOV of this page... so I thought it would be valid to discuss this before going ahead. Many of the greatest religious leaders in history have been branded as heretics by those they sought to reform. Martin Luther, Calvin, etc. While I am personally a great fan of Joseph Smith, I also believe he was a heretic in the sense that he taught new stuff that was in direct contradiction to some of the old stuff. Obviously the anti-LDS crowd would not have a problem calling JS a heretic, the question is, would the pro-LDS community have a cow if he were added to that category? KellyCoinGuy


 * I think Heretic would be a small stretch here. Many Heretics did, as you claim, seek reform within their religion and were forcibly removed for it. Smith, however, wasn't a large component of any church, and didn't so much try to reform a church so much as start a new one. I find Smith and Christianity comparable to St. Paul and Judiasm. If Paul's counted as a heretic I wouldn't be opposed to the broad definition being applied to Smith. If not, I'm not sure it applies. Cool Hand Luke  20:36, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose that the fact that Joseph hadn't firmly attached himself firmly to any given Christian Sect of the time (even though he says he was leaning towards the Methodists) would mean he wasn't committing heresy against the Methodists, the Calvinists, etc. He did seem to be clearly pre-associated with Christianity, since it was the Bible he was reading to try and answer his questions. I don't think that being prominent in a religion is necessary to be a heretic. Most of the Jews tortured during the inquisition were branded heretics, but were definitely not outstanding members of the Christian movement they were committing heresy from. KellyCoinGuy


 * I think that the concept of heresy might come in if someone can find contemporary sources where somebody actually called him a heretic. I agree with Cool Hand, though, that Smith wasn't really viewed (at least by the public) as a heretic, because he wasn't part of a solid Protestant orthodoxy against which he could commit heresy. Christianity, from what I understand, was much more fluid and experimental during Smith's time. Lots of people of that time period who had very unusual ideas weren't thought of as heretics. CO GDEN  19:19, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting question. I would be totally shocked if Joseph were NOT labelled a heretic by his contemporaries. However, I don't have any evidence at this point that he was. This is an interesting point for researchers. A quick google on the subject certainly lends credence to the idea that there are a lot of people these days who consider Joseph Smith a heretic, and Mormonism heresy. However, they might not be as careful as us in defining exactly what heresy entails. KellyCoinGuy


 * I have finally managed to get a response from a bona fide expert on Joseph Smith, and it turns out that insofar as this expert's knowledge extends he was NOT called a heretic per se by his contemporaries. However, he was referred to in his day by the related terms 'fanatic' and 'false prophet' (doubtless among other epitaths). Whether or not Joseph Smith should be included in the category of heretics on Wikipedia remains something of an open question, I suppose, but I appreciate that your question led me to seek an answer on this specific issue COGDEN. Very interesting. My personal viewpoint remains that Joseph would be accurately described as a heretic and a reformer. Looking at our sister site Wiktionary a heretic is defines as "a person who holds unorthodox views." Certainly by that definition Joseph meets the criteria. Perhaps there are better definitions out there. KellyCoinGuy

This is interesting. Are we to believe that if we start a religion from dust, we aren't making heresies of another religion's view? As one person posed the thought that if someone from the Vatican said what if all of the information came from false doctrine, it would destroy all of Christianity. The moment you link onto the Bible as your original basis of religion, wouldn't it be heresy against the original scripture? I suppose this is where the atheists start to spring up. Too many cooks spoil the stew. Too many religions that sprung out in the late 1800s might have spoiled the stew creating satire and non-religious philosophers. The Mormon religion now has many spin-offs who teach the Book of Mormon but not all of the doctrines and covenants of the origional group. When will it end? SJB


 * No man knows the hour ;-) KellyCoinGuy

I just received a letter from a prison inmate today who was like a confirmation of my comments above. Angels whisper into the ears of the most unlikely people. Prisoners today are like Paul, Peter, John, and other disciples of Christ's day. Shone wrote: "Sandra, in James 3:1 it states 'My brethren be not many masters (teachers), knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.' The reason I stated this text is because when teaching others the Word of God, we have to be sure that we are teaching it correctly. Because sometimes man can put so much of his opinions in with the Word and misguide many.  When this happens, then you have not only planted seeds of anarchy, but you have also taken the Word of God and misguided people with opinions of man.  We know that the wisdom of God is far beyond the wisdom of man.  We can't try to bring God on our level, but what we must do is try to get closer to Him and ask for the wisdom to understand the Word." He listed some verses about heretics in James 1:5-8; Rom. 16:17; Titus 3:10; 2 John 10; Acts 15:1, 18:24-28; and John 21:18. Look up a word search on www.bibles.net to find anything on any subject in several different Bible translations. Angels and Saints speak through people on Earth. You can tell by the good fruit they bring us. SJB

SJB (User:63.26.95.124) - Although we appreciate your comments, they seem to be irrelevant to the improving the article that is linked to this talk page. As Wikipedia policy states that it is not a place to "witness," a more appropriate forum to share these views may be found at or a similar group. We wish you the best in your spiritual journey and hope you decide to contribute content to Wikipedia. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 19:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plural marriage
I am concerned about the factual accuracy, the content removal, and the POV removal of Storm Riders edits today: It is not with any delight that I question these edits. But I think I must do it. Tom Haws 20:07, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Accuracy. JS never publically acknowledged plural marriage.  It was announced to the world from Utah in 1851 or 1852 (???).
 * Content removal. The list of JS's wives is nowhere else in the encyclopedia.  Removing it seems severe.
 * POV removal. I think it is accurate to keep the report that some church members felt JS was deluded or evil regarding plural marriage.

The list of names of Joseph Smith's wives is an attempt to demonstrate fact and it isn't; at best it may even be incomplete and it most certainly is not "well documented". The allusion of "well documented" is a quote from Todd Compton's work and is an opinion and not fact. Brodie, Smith, and Quinn put the number of wives at between 43 and 48 wives; why lesson the lot? The objective of listing wives in an attempt to demonstrate fact; and it is not fact, it is supposition. The important statement is that Joseph had many wives, but to go farther than that is to proceed to unsubstantiated ground and unworthy of an objective article. Specifically, his "marriages" were often simply sealings and did not result in living in a physical relationship. Anderson and Faulring have argued that approximately only a quarter of this wives were known to have sexual relationships with him and for society at large that is really the definition of being a "wife". Some members may have felt he was deluded or evil, but that is a point of fact not in evidence. How many felt that way? Since the majority followed Brigham should one assume the majority supported polygamy? Suffice it to say that it was practiced and there were those who supported it and those who did not. To say more is indeed POV and certainly not objective. Storm Rider 20:43, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the 33 number came from Compton's well researched article (see below), I agree with Tom, we need to present the factual information that we have - see these for resources:
 * Compton, Todd A Trajectory of Plurality: An Overview of Joseph Smith's Thirty-three Plural Wives Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1996,
 * Joseph Smith special issue, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Fall 2002, unfortunately the Univ of Utah archive has only ToC
 * That Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage is clear - the list of which of those sealed to him he actually had relations with is unclear (the clear implication from those that want to increase the number is all of them) - and IMHO a private matter. I think we should rely on these references to produce an NPOV edit of this information. Trödel| talk  21:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't think other LDS SCholars have second-guessed Compton's work - as it seems accurate. However, his research is very accurate, it is still not acknowledged by either of the big two LD Churches or other historical associations as fact. It should be included, but stated as "demonstrated as many as..." or stated that it is theory.

My beef with the edits is that Smith never did acknowledge publicly or did he?. With over 100 people knowing, what is public knowledge? He certainly alluded to it in multiple sermons, letters and statements, but to my knowledge never came out and said it to the body of the Church. Phrases such as "the wife of my youth" seem quite empty to say when she was still alive... This public acknowledgement is a confusing statement and can mislead either way - it needs to be re-written. -Visorstuff 21:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree - the need for secrecy because of the threat to his life complicates matters. What is public is a good question there is evidence that 10% of the members were participating in Plural Marriage to some extent (officiating, marrying, etc.). Additionally, there is also some allegation that Joseph was also sealed to men - this should be included as some felt that being sealed to Joseph provided special eternal blessings. Compton's work is now over 8 years old and it has withstood the test of that time :) Trödel| talk 21:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Careful with the "sealed to men" comment - some readers may think this is in a "marriage"-type or homosexual relationship, when it was done as a "father-son" relationship They were sealed to him (and in many cases Emma) as if he would have been their father. It was common until the 1880s for a man whose parents would not accept the gospel to request to be sealed to Brigham Young or Joseph Smith as a father so that the "chain" would be unbroken all the way back to Adam. For example, John D. Lee was sealed as a "son" to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. -Visorstuff 21:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry - forgot who my audience was and didn't clarify that - too easy to just talk assuming the common experience. "Everyone knows that." Thanks for the reminder. Trödel| talk 21:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's self-evident, or should be, that a biographical article ordinarily includes details of the subject's marriages. I've restored the list. - Nunh-huh 21:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Er, with this level of audience participation, I think it would have been polite to wait a bit. Regarding all these comments, they are really good, and are giving me new ways to think about this.  As VS says, I guess we can and need to do better.  Tom Haws 21:51, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * It would have been "polite" not to remove the list in the first place, and there is no reason to have the list absent from the article while this discussion continues. Wives belong in the articles of their husbands, and vice versa. - Nunh-huh 22:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * :-D No problem.  We'll work it out.  Tom Haws 22:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree that Compton's work has withstood the test of time simply because of its age. Four of the "well documented wives": Lucinda Morgan Harris, Elizabeth Durfee, Sarah Cleveland, and Nancy Maria Winchester are disputed. Information and lists are not necessary required in this article unless we would like for it to be book length. Again, what is important to state is that Joseph practiced and had plural marriages and the article clearly stated that. No one has stated why 33 is the accurate number and not another. No evidence has been presented to support that it is, it was simply stated that it was "well documented". The article, as I edited it, maintained a reference to a site that listed all the wives (and the grievances they had with their plural marriage without any of the multitude of evidence stating their support...i.e. one of those wonderful "anti" websites). To restate the information here is misleading. and Yes, it would have been polite to discuss it before ever adding the names in the first place and stating where the documentation for the information! Also, clarifying sealing and marriage would also be helpful. Those with a critical stance would want to say that Joseph was out there sleeping with any loose skirt in the many communities he visited. When in reality, I suspect the truth is differnt than that. Without clarification readers are left with false assumptions. I will delete the list after I hear more conversation and convinced otherwise. Storm Rider 22:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to not restate the information would be misleading. The list is thoroughly attributed. I don't know what site was eliminated; why not add that back as well? And if anyone wrote "Joseph was out there sleeping with any loose skirt in the many communities he visited" it would be removed. That's not true, it's not what's written in his article now, or as far as I can tell at any other time. - Nunh-huh 22:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nunh, I am not sure you are reading before you are commenting. What I clearly said above was that the site was left in! You state that the list is thoroughly attributed. Please elaborate and by what standard. Please do not quote Compton because he uses the same antagonistic sources used by Brodie, but have been deemed unreliable; mysteriously Compton now finds them credible. His exhaustive work "In Sacred Lonliness" is well documented, unfortunately he does not write as a historian, but already with the concept that the whole issue of plural wives was a mistake for the Church and thus for Joseph. So, please explain how including information that is disputed is appropriate for an article that is supposed to "Objective"? Storm Rider 23:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm reading it. Your use of the past tense misled me. The list of wives is attributed to Compton. That's all that's needed. Take a look at NPOV to see how this applies. Wikipedia states what other people have stated, rather than what Wikipedia has concluded is the "truth". It's the only possible way to build an encyclopedia, and it's a non-negotiable principle upon which Wikipedia is based. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The direction this discussion is headed doesn't look nice. Storm Rider, you know how many of us there are here who have zero desire to make Joseph Smith look bad.  But at the same time, we realize we can't write the article based on what we suspect to be true.  It appears you have a concern that the article might make Joseph Smith look worse than you beleve it should.  For example, you are not sure that it is fair for the article to say "there are 33 documented wives of Joseph Smith, though some have estimated there may have been 48."  Is that right?  It would be nice, it is always nice, to start with agreed on facts and then build an NPOV statement of disputes around them.  Perhaps the article needs to simply say that Compton's book, accepted by many as good scholarship and pointed to by the LDS Church as an improvement on Krakauer, says P, but some are more comfortable with Q.  I don't know.  Tom Haws 23:44, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think he is looking at a different issue than the reputation of Smith. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a place for primary research. I've been able to find evidence of Smith being 'sealed' or 'married' to at least two dozen (26) women during his lifetime. Some, as was suggested, was to unite families or ensure a sealing link between father (smith) and daughter (the sealed), rather than as spouses - and unfortunately the type was not recorded very specifically. Others were actual marriages - if Emma was present and a certificate was handed out, it is pretty reliable (hence Zina, Eliza and others were this way) as a formal marriage. The issue is where the lines fall and where they do not. The term "Sealing" was not as defined as it is now. The disputed ones you suggest could fall into a number of these categories. The other issue is that Compton's list - not his book - is found as reliable of sealings (his book has many mistakes). This is likely one reason why the church does not comment on the matter as it is so gray. Finally, what about the hundreds of people sealed to him after death. How many of them are considered wives and how many as sons/daughters? Questions such as these need to be explored and I feel that this discussion is too fast moving on deciding absolutes. Let's slow down and look for more evidence, not just on the internet such as the "factual" compton's work being referenced. Let's look around to find what we can and not jump to conclusions on either side. The issue is complex enough, and when you start adding in absolute statements it causes additional issues. This may be one item that User:Vegasbright may add some value to as he looks at it from a "naturalistic" POV. I'm not sure he's that familiar with all the research, but understands how Mormon terminology is splitting hairs and could offer a fresh perspective on Marriages versus sealings. -Visorstuff 23:57, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is without question that Joseph had a plurality of wives and that information is included in the article and it should be. However, to provide a list and state it is documented is misleading. They may be documented, but by what standard? Compton's list is debatable and therefore, I think a list appears to lend credence to a position that is questionable. For an article that is supposed to objective, I believe it fails the test and is POV. Visor, I agree that this article is not appropriate for primary reserach, but to state information without any qualification is misleading. As we discussed when all of Quinn's information was initially included in the article, it may be stated by a historian, but it certainly does not make it right. In this instance, Compton is quoted, but intially was not attributed. Compton uses John C. Bennett as a source for some on his list. Historians on both sides of the issue have deemed him to not be truthful. My main disagreement is with anything that is presented as fact, but in reality is opinion regardless of it being pro or con. Joseph is who he is, but to purposely attempt to color the conversation is unacceptable. Storm Rider 00:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. My statement about primary research was in reference to my own findings. I can't state them, as that would introduce primary research into the article. Unfortunately, until the Bushman book comes out later this year, I don't think we'll be able to find a secondary source. Quinn's is too problematic and he acknowledges it, and Brodies includes anyone who breathed and was near to Smith. Perhaps we should wait until Rough Stone Rolling comes out. Thoughts? -Visorstuff 00:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chiming in per visorstuffs suggestions - It seems to me that thsi section needs to point out several facts that are not covered.
 * Emma did not approve of the relationships. Any of them.  Those who say otherwise should look to her destraught nature when she caught fanny and smith "rollin in da hay".
 * "Marriage" was used by smith to legitamize what constituted affairs, and this was done out of recognizing the social needs of that day and age, especially when joe went to the fathers of young girls to obtain their daughters "goodies".
 * Smith "married" the wives of missionaries who were away preaching, being previously sent away by smith. While away smith "prophesied" the death of the husband and suggested the marriage.  When their husband returned to the utter shock of the now consumated wife of joe, it goes without saying they were not happy.
 * Polygamy has nothing to do with widows who lost their husbands while crossing the plains. This is made more evident by joes behavior.  This needs to be included in his bio due to the perception most LDS members have that joe never "double dipped".  http://www.i4m.com/think/polygamy/polygamy_widows.htm
 * It should be elaborated that polygamy is concretely linked to the endowment. Without the endowment joe did not have a ceremony to "set apart", both literally and figuratively those he let into the secretive practice of polygamy in Nauvoo and Kirtland.

More to come from the pesky exmormon --Vegasbright 11:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping for more comments on the listing issue, but some good points raised ;^). A couple of thoughts to your bullets. If you have more insight on the list specifically and if it can be supported by additional research; or on the term sealing versus marriage, please let us know. That was more along the lines of what I was hoping for. -Visorstuff 15:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Emma was present for at least five marriages. She chose Eliza (some accounts say cause she thought Eliza Snow was homely) personally to wed Smith. Most research I've read and journal accounts support this. I think the proper statement is that "Emma publicly opposed polygamy until the end of her life."
 * Second. Fanny Alger's relationship with Smith is based on two-four statements about an "improper" relationship with Smith - Oliver alludes later in life that he was meaning she was in the home alone with Smith, but this could be revisionary, and the statement is ususally dismissed or glossed over by historians. We'll never know.
 * "While away smith "prophesied" the death of the husband and suggested the marriage." Can you provide a source for such prophecies?
 * No one here claims to deny that smith was sealed to already married women. The question remains was the sealing consumated or in a father-daughter relationship? It has been argued that the Kimbal sealing was understood to be a marriage by Heber, but the daughter thought it was only a sealing. Big mess and never fully explained. REgardless, she was later sealed to someone else, and she denied consumation.


 * Currently in Cultural Anth, waiting for my teacher to stop lecturing about war being a production of City States. Visor, I find your responses to be focused on apologist arguments and not conclusions drawn from history.  Do you have an objective mind?  Accept for awhile that what I have written is true.  I have at one time would have accepted everything you say as true.  That being said, heres my response to the Fanny disagreement.


 * Your statements concerning the ambiguity of our ever knowing is rather incorrect in the proper eyes of historical analysis. We can prove historically that there was an improper relationship between Joe and Fanny.


 * First lets get some social concepts down - Taking into account the social currency theories of why polygamy occurs, the favor returned by a polygamous relationship to smith has no substance. To the contrary, the currency of the exchange between smith and the father accepting/blessing the affair makes more sense.  Occam is satisfied and so is joe, sexually.  But I digress.  To say that joe did all this to "help young ladies feel closer to him" without any sexual exchange is unlikely.


 * About Fanny, Oliver Cowdery, who supports the idea of a sexual relationship btw smith and fanny stated about the affair "A dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and fanny algers was talked over in which I strictly declared that I have never deviated from the truth". Those who wish to denounce this must recognise it as a statement made by someone extremely close to joe who left the church because of this and other improprieties he observed.


 * Lets turn to the comments and observations by Martin Harris - Harris is quoted as saying smith made "Improper proposals to her, which created quite the talk amongst the people" ("Mormon Polygamy: A history" P. 6, ISBN 0-941214-79-6). This quote is from one of the definitive works on Mormon polygamy.  Later Harris was sought out by Joe to get advice concerning all this gossip.  Harris told him to buzz off and deal with it "the best way he knew how".  Following joes former behavior he handed out targeted "revelations" to the parties involved to put the fear of Kolob into those who questioned and then married Fanny.  The "god made me do it" excuse began to evolve from here, flaming sword and all.


 * If reason is given that this view is invalid, one has to invalidate any statement made by other leaders of the church. I repeatedly see an attempt to not accept statements made by supposed "disaffected" parties.  So in an attempt to further prove my point of joe-fanny boinking examine the behavior of Heber C Kimball.  He had introduced a member of fanny's family as the brother of Joe's first plural WIFE.  This was quoted by Benjamin Johnson - He goes on to say that there was no doubt in his mind she was present at Kirtland as the prophets first plural WIFE and not joes first "Ritualistically-linked-party affectionately tied to smith".  As there is no real construct made for denoting such people, it is unlikely that this state of "spiritual sealing" evolved for women who felt soooo close to joe as to psychically call out to joe and without their knowledge have joe go ask their father for their hand in bigam...I mean marriage.


 * Furthermore, Why did Joe need to initiate the relationship to a teenaged girl if it was a platonic relationship? There is no real reason besides sexual appetite for someone to go out of his way to ask the father "if I could screw your daughter" under the auspices of a bigamous marriage.  The Victorian act of marriage is an agreememt to provide sexual acts for material support, not emotional attachment.  Emotional attachment comes secondary.


 * Now, what am I saying when I say Wife? There is a difference between being sealed and being someones wife.  To be a wife in the bastardised victorian values we have adopted from English culture, one must connsumate the marriage and not merely be 'sealed'.  Impropriety can be avoided when a marriage takes place before or sometimes slightly after a sexual act.  Living in Sin meant that you were not married, therefore joe fornicated with fanny, got caught and scrambled to marry Fanny.  The marriage ceremony might have occured before the bigamy but this does not really matter, as we are talking about wether the marriage was consumated and more specifically did joe screw a young girl while married to Emma.  To say that Fanny was sealed but not consumated is ignoring several facts.  Thats OK, I have overcome cognitive dissonance that led me to deny any impropriety by Joe.  Others can overcome it as well and there is hope for everyone. ;)


 * One only has to look to statements of former branch davidians, j-dubs, etc to see the fallacy in the argument against acceptance of disaffected mormons. It angers me to see valid opinions disqualified by the faithful due to ones lack of membership among an excluding body.  This is a fortress mentality and should be avoided at all costs.  It is the act of a weasel to accept one apostates words if one is not a member of said persons sect in order to invalidate opposing sect but deny anothers words if they are an apostste of that persons sect.


 * Thanks, Vstuff. You got me hitting the books here so give me some time for more.  Could you at least make it difficult?  Hehe, just kidding.  --Vegasbright 17:34, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

I completely don't understand the last post.

I was not countering what you said above, but rather, deomonstrating that it is much more complex issue in regard to your blanket statement that emma "disapproved," what the term "sealed" means (was he married or were some people -men and women - sealed to him, and sometimes emma, in a father-daughter/father-son relationship like I am "sealed" to my parents). For example, it is argued (aside from the Kimball sealing) that Lucinda Morgan Harris and Elizabeth Durfee may have been sealed to Smith - as if they were his daughters (Again like I am sealed to my parents). Compton says that the "sealing" meant they were wives. I cannot confirm this and there is frankly no historical document available that can confirm one way or the other (even the tanners refuse to go down this path post-1990s). Even the sealing documents I've seen argued look suspicious (created post-death of smith) and thus the controversy over their inclusion. Third, I know of no more controversial issue within polygamy than if Fanny and Joseph were married/sexually active/or what. There are so many unknowns there, and old quotes by someone claiming to be her brother (the castration quote) when she was an orphan do not prove substantial, but rather are thus proven false. I frankly don't know, nor claim to know, nor care to know. I do know that that is one name that I refuse to confirm in my own research.

The issue we are trying to find out is whether or not the list of wives from compton's work should be included. -Visorstuff 17:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * First you want to talk about it, then you dont and tell me that no one will ever know, yada yada yada. And you were directly countering what I was saying in my bullets contrary to your idea that you were doing...what? Whistling Dixie?.  What is this, an IRC mormon Vs christian board?And As I originally stated there IS more to my edits forthcoming. Visor, your getting defensive and unable to have an open discussion.  I quite enjoyed looking up all that material and to now be told you can supposedly denounce it with a flippant comment stating that it does not matter, thats not what were discussing, etc is screaming of an inability to accept historical quotations and worse, an inability to respond to a discussion of points raised by you.  You should not have denounced something if you did not want to be shot down with the howitser of historical documentation vs the squirt gun of your Ad Populum arguments.


 * Also, I do not get where you can come off saying that I did not discuss the issue of Marriage vs "spiritual sealing". I spent several paragraphs lining up my findings on the difference, evidence and opinions.  Please consider that instead of firing off blankly into opinion-driven denouncements it would behoove you to respond to the points I raise.  I have laid out the intricacies of the "marriage vs spiritual-linking how I see fit, using the xontext of Anthropology and quotes from past LDS personages directly involved in the semantics of the situation.  I see the pattern that you are unable to hold it togetheronce someone lays out specifics.  I hope this will not predispose me to not respond to your edits and additions to the talk pages.  --Vegasbright 18:04, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think your research is useful and valuable, Vegasbright, and I'm glad you are energized to do it. Perhaps if we can put to rest the question of Storm Rider's edits we can move on to the the bigger matter of expanding the plural marriage section to more fully comply with our absolute and non-negotiable NPOV policy including the perspectives you are presenting.  I hope that Visorstuff didn't intend to squelch respectful inquiry.  But even if he did, you are welcome, VB, to prepare improvements to the article in addition to the issue at hand.  I would suggest you prepare your improvements and contribute them to the article, and we can discuss from there if there are questions about what you do.  Since all versions of all articles are always available, your contributions will not be lost.  Tom Haws 18:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tom, and also vstuff. Just want to let you know that I was aware I was creating a new thread of conversation/debate for this topic.  Is this a no-no?  --Vegasbright 19:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I guess I misunderstood - a new thread typically goes under a new heading. I was trying to figure out how your comments above related to the list. Now I understand. I look forward to the research you are working on. THe comments just didn't seem to match up. -Visorstuff 20:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I agree with Storm Rider on this one. A list of women Joseph was sealed to is unnecessary (and too sticky to mess around with anyone, as shown here). It's sufficient to simply state that Joseph practiced plural marriage. It might, however, be good to include some of the discussion here -- mentioning that Joseph has been sealed to hundreds of people over the years and the intentions of those sealings were not all exactly clear and that there isn't really a reliable list out there.
 * But that doesn't matter anyway, a list isn't needed. Cookiecaper 17:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

WHat about creating a separate page for The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith Jr.? --Vegasbright 19:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this might be a very good idea. This article could not only list notable wives according to various research (some of which are almost universally agreed upon), but it could discuss the disputes in more detail than this article can. It could also summarize scholarship about documenting his wives which itself is controversial. The article name should not have a leading "the" though. Cool Hand Luke  20:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea Vegasbright. This could provide some very good discussion. -Visorstuff 20:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Plural Wives of Joseph Smith Jr.  Should there be a comma before Jr.?


 * I would say yes, sticking with this pages current convention. --Vegasbright 21:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.?

Based upon this proposal, I will delete the names from this article. I will leave it to those who are creating the article on Plural wives to tie it in. Further, I hope the new article can address the difference between sealing and marriage, polygamy in general in the LDS community, persecution for taking this position, and genesis of polygamy in ancient Isreal. Storm Rider 22:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've placed a request for comments on the proposal to hide the list away in a separate article. - Nunh-huh 23:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Additional outside opinion won't hurt. Tom Haws 23:43, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

As I understand it, many of Joesph Smith's "wives" were simply naive young women Joseph had seduced and hastily arranged for Hiram his brother to be nearby to perform the ceremony since pre-martial sex was rather taboo in those days. Few ever lived with Joseph Smith or did the things genrally associated with being a wife. Out of respect for the innocent and naive, Remove. Nobs 23:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The page has been created, and I believe User:Vegasbright will take lead. This is what I had in mind a few months ago when we discussed breaking many of the Joseph Smith complicated topics into seperate topics. This is a good thing to do during his 200 year birth celebration since there will undoubtely be additional interest in him as it gets closer to his birth date. -Visorstuff 03:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would hope that the article can be about polygamy in general; it is a much greater subject than simply limiting it to the wives of Joseph Smith. Certainly, it should begin with Joseph, but it should proceed to discuss the topic for the LDS Church in general. How does everyone else feel? Storm Rider 05:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I think this should be a sort of sub-page for Joseph Smith. We have plural marriage, which should cover the topic for the Latter Day Saint movement (or at least the LDS Church) in general. This article should only cover polygamy related to Joseph Smith, although it could certainly cover his Biblical and other justifications. Cool Hand Luke  06:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the list of Joseph Smith's wives should be kept in the article, with any qualifications necessary to establish what level of certainty we have in the veracity of the data. &mdash; Phil Welch 08:43, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you guys think this a little like overkill? Under the Polygamy article there already is a listing for Joseph's wives (without the listing of names, which could be added); is there something unique to Joseph Smith practicing polygamy that is inherently different from Brigham Young are any of the other LDS members that had plural wives? Phil, I am not sure you read the lengthy discussion thta preceeded your comment; if not it might be helpful to understand what the group has decided. Given the difficulty of providing a list that is without question accurate, we provide credibility to possibily inaccurate information. It would be similar to sharing a rumor with your friends and then saying, but what do I know it may not be true? It just seems like the motivation for including it is not objective or fair. Storm Rider 16:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tom's Edits in May
I made several edits to this section. Tom Haws 15:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Removed the word "unsupported" from the definition of polygamy. Was unclear what that meant.
 * Put the discussions of plural marriage's legacy together in the same paragraph and made it more NPOV, referring in context to the CofC, LDS church and other smaller churches.

Infobox Prophet
I have been working with friends at Infobox pope to get a standard Infobox proposed for religious leaders. I have implemented it on this page for everyone to take a look. To edit the infobox go here: Template:Infobox prophet or comment at the talk page. I am implmenting on Joseph Smith, Jr. and Brigham Young since there is lots of activity on JS right now. Trödel| talk 02:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this supposed to be specific to Mormonism? Cookiecaper 13:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. The infobox for religious leaders is a proposed standardization (with some fighting about styles, etc) for all religious leaders. Individual Infoboxes would probably need to be created for different denominations - like Mormonism could have all prophets automatically include information about call to the 12, etc. I am trying to figure out a way to include information about callings in the 70, presideing bishopric, etc for those cases where it needs to be. The nice thing is the format that goes on the article page - just the name, facts, and image - no formatting codes. Trödel| talk 15:55, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to move it to Template:Infobox LDSGA or Template:Infobox General Authority or something like that. Can you clarify what prophetic calling is supposed to be? As you see, I changed it from the date the Church was organized to the window of the First Vision. I believe that's correct as the time Smith received his "prophetic calling". It'd probably be smarter to change that to Title or Position or something and just keep the dates ordained, as that's really all we know for most of the people this will be applied to. There are many non-GA prophets (namely anyone with a testimony of Christ or any other knowledge acquired via the Holy Ghost) and many GA's were prophets before they were called to their position. But I like the box overall. Good job.Cookiecaper 17:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Good points - I am not sure how to handle Joseph Smith because he is different than his successors since he was establishin the structure and it came in pieces - not all at once. I will move the page but am trying to think of a good name - and still figuring out if I can use one box for all General Authorities similar to the way that Infobox pope uses the Infobox pope/dead subpage for including death information only for those that are actually dead. JS may just not fit into a template - I am thinking that a subpage might work better for him - since that would hide the ugly table formatting codes from being on this page but allow specialized customization for him.
 * I am trying to think of some short words (since it needs to be concise on the infobox) like "Called to Twelve" for the "Call as Presiding High Priest". Assension would be the easy word to use but it is not in the lexicon or usage of LDS. Maybe "Sustained President", or "Became President" or something of that nature. Any thoughts - we should probably move this discussion to the Template talk:Infobox prophet since we are getting a little of topic hear (copying) Trödel| talk 18:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I noticed some concerns were brought up re the use of an Infobox with Joseph Smith on Template talk:LDSInfobox but when I came here to remove it until a consensus was reached, I found what I think is a good compromise by WBardwin Acglass. Is the current description acceptable? Trödel| talk 04:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the credit -- but I think the idea of three dates originates with our newest anon. Aaron C Glass who has been working with us for a couple of days. So, thank you, Aaron. Hope the compromise holds.  WBardwin 04:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected - Thanks Aaron! Trödel| talk 12:02, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

"Unsupported Marriage"
I think the author's intent (me) was trying to convey that bigamy is illegal in most US States (if not all), but polygamy is not - the legal definition is different. One of the major differences is in the support of the family and the knowledge of the other partner of the other - hence a man can have an "unsupported" wife, which is bigamy and supported spouses would be polygamy - co-habitation is another issue. Is there a better way to state this? -Visorstuff 21:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Can we say polygamy is having multiple wives with the authorization of the first? Nah, I guess not.  I don't know.

President of the Church
Somebody placed the JS portrait into a box that includes the title President of the Church. This seems a bit ambiguous in the context of a world encyclopedia. Is there a way this can be clarified? Tom Haws 14:50, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I did this - I created the Template:LDSInfobox to put together the vital info (birth/death) succession information into a single box. However because JS was the restorer he was not first called as an apostle like subsequent presidents, so there is a similarly styled box for Joseph Smith at Joseph Smith, Jr./Infobox. As I was trying to come up with concise titles I choose President of the Church as the best one line only description I could think of. Since we should make this change for all the Presidents - this discussion should probably continue on the template talk page - I will update the JS infobox with whatever consensus arrives at. Trödel| talk 16:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

IMO it would be better to clarify the importance of his status, like say "LDS Church Founder". Sam Spade 19:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed - "LDS Church Founder." WBardwin 19:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

President Titles and Dates
There is a problem with terms and dates:

I recevied the message, "noticed your update to the Joseph Smith's info box. "The church was not formed until April 6, 1930, until then there was no church to be a prophet of." The definition of Prophet is the issue here. If he was a Prophet of God -- no church organization is required for the title. The use of the title by later Presidents of the Church, and the Quorum of the Twelve, may only be loosely tied to the existance of the church as well. Gets tricky, huh. Let's see how others react to your edit. Please place your opinions on the talk page as Tom suggest above. Comments always welcome. WBardwin 19:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC"

The correct information follows:


 * - Joseph Smith was called as a Prophet at the First Vision in 1820. He received a vision and a commission to wait until further guidance comes.


 * - Joseph was called as the First Elder of the church and an Apostle (Section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants).


 * - Sustain in General Conference as Seer, Translator and Prophet (Section 21 of the Doctrine & Covenants, given April 1930).


 * - Finally, in 1832 (Section 75 of the Doctrine & Covenants) Joseph was called as the President of the High Priesthood and this is when he was officially sustained as the President of the church.

If we say Prophet of God, it is spring, 1820. If we say First Elder or the newly founded church (or founder) it is April 6, 1830. So if we say President of the Church it is Jan 25, 1832.

As a side note; this also affects the Succession Crisis, because Joseph was not called to be the President of the church until after he was called as an Apostle. This has followed through from Brigham Young on to today. None of the other canidates were called as Apostles. If you go backwards in time, this applies to the ancient Apostle Peter, who became the “President” of the church following the Ascension of Christ. Aaron C. Glass 15:15 MST, 23 May 2005"


 * But now the box is getting too detailed for its own good. I think the intent of the infobox (and I am ambivalent about the wisdom of applying it to JS) was to have the date of ascension to the Presidency of the LDS Church.  And for JS, the answer to that is "He didn't ascend; he was the founder".  So I would put simply Founder for that date.  We are getting into nuances that are problematic.  Prophet vs. prophet vs. Elder vs. elder vs. President.  It is too much to try to foist on a little box.  Can't we just say Ordained -- Founder (in other words, not ordained) ?  By the way, regardless of the LDS usage, I think it would communicate the intent of the box better if it said "Ascension" instead of ordination, since the intent seems to be the date they ascended to the leadership of the church. Tom Haws 19:07, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

No. Ascension is even worse than ordination. I assume that ascension occurs after the president's death. Perhaps we get to see him go up to heaven. Please, look at Pope John Paul II. "Presidency began" and "presidency ended" work very well, with a separate category for death. This solves the Joseph Smith case easily. Most popes remain pope until death; hence popes need a separate entry for both end of papacy and death. Mormon presidents should probably do the same. This makes it obvious to the casual non-Mormon viewer that the date of death and end of presidency are the same. Likewise, don't make someone struggle to figure out whether ordination is the same as beginning of presidency. Nereocystis 22:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the entry as it stands is long and bulky, and for any successor (e.g. Brigham Young, Gordon B. Hinckley) it would be as simple as "ordained" or "sustained" but I believe the way to present correct information in the case of Joseph Smith may be as it currently stands. He was "Sustained the President of the church" in 1832, that is the pertanant information but most people who already have a working knowledge of this would be confused becuase they were expecting to hear the dates 1820 (called as prophet) or 1830 (church founded). Let me know what you think. acglass


 * It looks okay to me. Tom Haws 14:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is perfect now. acglass

D. Michael Quinn, critical historian
In Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr., StormRider removed the link for Quinn, and reverted the word "critical" so that Quinn is called a "critical historian". The word critical doesn't add any content here. It seems redundant. All historians are critical, as opposed to a purely dogmatic critic. Perhaps you mean one of these definitions:


 * 1) Characterized by thoroughness and a reference to principles, as becomes a critic; as, a critical analysis of a subject.
 * 2) Inclined to make nice distinctions, or to exercise careful judgment and selection; exact; nicely judicious.

The word critical should not be used here alone. Something needs to be added to suggest what this instance of critical means.

And please don't remove the link. Nereocystis 01:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Nereo, I use the term critical as in, not approving and tending to find fault with a particular person or thing. Quinn is a respected historian, does prodigious amounts of research, but his writings always conform to his thesis statement. For example, if Quinn were to attempt to explain why the sky is red, he would only seek information supporting his thesis and ignore any information to the contrary. Thus, Quinn is a critical historian because of his many disagreements with the LDS church and his work is critical of it. It is appropriate to identify the perspective of an writer; without doing so readers may make assumptions about the attributed statements that may be inaccurate.

However, my revert of your edit was more a reflection of the inaccuracy of your edit (although I still believe it appropriate to indicate to the reader Quinn writes from a position of finding fault and is not objective). Your edit stated Quinn is LDS. Unfortunately, that is not an accurate statement. Quinn is an excommunicated member of the LDS church. Storm Rider 05:55, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

The word historian by itself works better. I was attempting to indicate that he is an historian who specializes in Mormon history, but that isn't really necessary in an article about Joseph Smith, Jr. Nereocystis 06:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mormon Historian can be a bit misleading. It may be important to clarify that as a historian he has written extensively about Mormon history. I will make an edit to reflect that.

Mørmøn, you keep editing without explanation. The statement being quoted by Quinn is that Brigham Young felt "terror" at Joseph Smith's passing. I have read extensively about Young and him feeling "terror" about Joseph's passing is not a descriptive I would have ever used. Qualifying Quinn's perspective of events allows the reader to understand that a historian with a critical perspective is writing. Without the qualificationi the quoted statement is POV, somthing we all try to avoid. Does this make sense to you? If not, what would you propose? Storm Rider 10:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

What I'd propose is that we simply state the facts without attempting to put any "spin" on them. Historian Quinn wrote X. That's not a POV statement, it's a statement of fact. "I think Historian Z wrote Q because T", on the other hand, is simply a statement of your POV, and must be avoided. - Mørmøn 11:11, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can evidence-based historian. Claiming that Brigham Young felt terror without a source might be POV, if there is controversy on the topic. Mørmøn is right, stating that Quinn claims terrors is not POV. And again, saying that Quinn writes from a critical perspective doesn't really add information anyway, because critical has many meanings. It might mean that Quinn is careful to cite evidence in reaching conclusions. I suspect that Storm Rider means that Quinn finds errors in Mormonism, but he doesn't say that. Next, is Brigham Young's terror objectionable. In fact, it sounds quite reasonable under the circumstances. If you don't think that Young had terror, cite some sources. Nereocystis 17:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is reasonable to give some context for Quinn. It is useful, for example, to know that he also suggests a permissive attitude in the early LDS movement toward homosexuality based on evidence such as Joseph Smith's talking of lying down with a brother.  We have an article about Quinn.  It would seem to me that referencing him in this article with a link to his own article should be adequate.  If necessary, it would be NPOV to state that Quinn "has been often accused (by Q?) of extrapolations that don't fit the historical context" or some such non-judgemental statement.  Nereo is right, though, we can't take a stand on any controversial matter, even the status of Quinn.  Tom Haws 19:04, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

The main article on Quinn is still a bit sparse. If one is careful, there might be room for adding some of the controversies about Quinn in the Quinn article. By the way, his conclusions about homosexuality in early Mormon history are really not that conclusive. Hence the title of Same-Sex Dynamics Among 19th Century Americans: A Mormon Example, rather than Early Gay Mormons. The relationships would be considered unusual by 20th century Utahns, or perhaps even straight Californians, but Quinn was, for the most part, not describing gay relationships. Nereocystis 19:28, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I've not had a chance to respond to this yet. WE HAVE to give context to Quinn. He is too controversial in his speculations. He draws conclusions where the majority of historians do not. To say that Brigham "felt" one way is not professional or scholarly, and to say "one historian, D. Michael Quinn said X" is giving that "feeling" too much credence, when, frankly, no one knows how Brigham felt at the time, as it wasn't recorded in his journal or stated to others. If we don't place him into context, then we need to remove his attributes, which would be unfortunate as he has made some new ground. If not, we might as well quote my papers or lay historian or a novel or dan vogel or an ezra booth as being the expert. Yes each of us have written about Mormon historical topics, but our audiences and purposes are different, and should be contextualized properly. Quinn writes for a completely different audience than most, and as such he is trying to raise questions, not make conclusive points, although he makes his point through the use of "psuedo-factual" statements.


 * Let me give an example from teh following statement - There was a woman who died at age 28 in 1800 in Richmond, who had a two-year old child. Quinn would spin this into a story - similar to the following:


 * We know that people in 1800 often died from a number of causes some of which include disease and abuse. Since this lady, we'll call her Mary, had a child, it is reasonable to assume she had an affair with John (as john was a common name of the time), resulting in this child. John was liekly married, because there is no record of Mary being married to him. John also must have been abusive, as we can see that Mary was in good health because she had a child, and survived child birth two years previously. Beascue mary lived alone with her child, she was probably poor. Poor people in 1800 often blackmailed others - as we can see from two or three lawsuits in the Richmond dispatch newspaper. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude taht John beat mary to death to cover the affair that Mary was blackmailing him to keep his idendity secret.


 * You see, there is a wonderful story that could be elaborated on and this is the type of research findings that Quinn does.


 * His paper on same-sex dynamics is just like this. We know that women danced together, men slept int he same bed at the time. Let's bring every evidence of this together and show that becuase in today's society this means you are gay, that they must have had similar feelings. We have to put him and other historians into context. Critical, controversial, mormon, naturalistic or anti. -Visorstuff 20:41, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Visorstuff's example above may be a stretch, but it is true that Quinn has always liked to extract a winning story from materials and his perspective is more modern (or retrospective) than point in time. Quinn's career as a historian has a pattern that matches the events in his personal life.  When he was an "active" LDS member and teaching at BYU, his history tended to be a little pro-Mormon, although he always liked to touch on controversial issues (see his bio of J. Reuban Clark).  Since his excommunication, he is more anti-Mormon and focuses more on controversial issues (I suspect they sell better).  His presentation may even out over time, but he will always like drama.  How to make the reader understand his point of view, without discounting his considerable gifts as a historian and writer, could be a real challenge. WBardwin 21:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that VisorStuff read a different book on same-sex dynamics than I did. He provides evidence that women danced together and men slept in the same bed. These are same sex relationships. However, he doesn't claim that they are gay relationships, and warns the reader about not jumping too far. He differentiates between homosocial, homotactile, homopastoral, homoemotional, and homoromantic relationships. Some of the behavior, while not explicitly gay, would be looked on by many Mormons as odd as behavior today, but that does not make the behavior gay, and Quinn does not so claim in most of the described relationships. There are a handful of relationships which are more suggestive of being homosexual. Quinn provides more information here, but still has to stop short of claiming proof. Visorstuff is putting words in Quinn's mouth in the same way he is accusing Quinn of putting words in others' mouths. Perhaps this discuss can move to Quinn's site. Nevertheless, I should look up Quinn's quote on Young, along with the references, as should Visorstuff. Nereocystis 21:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think "controversial historian" title fits him best. WE need to do a better job and making sure what is in this article is factual rather than suspect - such as the "feelings" comment. It should be removed. By the way Wbardwin, i've tracked down some of his sources from footnotes, etc., and what I have above is not very far of a stretch on at least a half-dozen occasions (probably more if I had time to search them out). He is a gifted researcher, a wonderful story-teller, but he, like many Mormons, speculates far too much. That is why there is a growing backlash against the so-called "new Mormon history" becuase it realizes the speculative nature of naturalistic history.


 * Nereocystis - you are right - i stand corrected on putting words in quinn's mouth, but not his intent. His point of the same-sex (which has nothing to do with this article), is to show through his worldview that homoemotional/homoerotic relationships in early mormonsism was not uncommon. The title and abstract of hte work does the damage and gets the paying readers he wants. He freely admits this. he does research from his worldview, which makes him more controversial instead of attempting to get at non-bias. Nothing wrong with that, it is how WE use the information that he writes. we have to place it into context, especially when he is stretching. He often stops short, but allows teh reader to use his support to draw their own conclusions. But he's already shown his bias and his point. There is not need to draw a conclusion when the support has been given - and most wrongfully do. The same as becoming a "god" - doesn't mean you can create your own worlds - that has never been spelled out, but most Mormons draw that conclusion - whether it is right or wrong. Quinn lets his readers do the same, tells them what the end result is, but let's tehm speculate what that really means. Obviously you are wise enough to differentiate that he does not (always) draw conclusions (although sometimes he does) but he still speculates and draws conclusions on other connected points where there is no conclusion to make - such as his magical world view work. I hope I am making sense, but there it is not right to say you know how a person or group of people "felt" when there is little of no evidence for it. Vegasbright does this as well - he assumes that all mormons felt the same way he did growing up with the same doubts about mormonism and that a mission is only a "right of passage" in order to be able to marry the woman you want. It was not that way to me, nor did I share his same doubts. But he and quinn try to make universal statements about the thoughts and feelings and intents of another. -Visorstuff 22:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Visorstuff, I wasn't critisizing your example so much as saying that Quinn's tendency to elaborate is often done a little more "carefully" than you imply. He does "select" his sources, tell "carefully" crafted stories, and he does assume a modern worldview on controversial issues.  These things make him a popular teacher and help him make a living as a writer.  Sadly, these characteristics aren't that unusual in popular history (Mormon or otherwise), which is probably the perspective of most of our readers.  These guys call this "relevance."  I'm old fashioned in my approach, in that the "new" schools of history and archaeology are always suspect, at best.  But -- how do we explain to readers that "new" and "interesting" material is likely to be less reliable than "old" and "boring?"


 * As for Mormon's being emotional -- guilty as charged. I think faith and religious allegiance often have an emotional component.  And emotions are certainly a motivator for religious actions.  But the historian, in addressing emotions, must tie them to actions in a clear and understandable way.  This is an issue I'm struggling with in writing about the dissentions that fractured Mormonism during the last years of J.Smith's life and after his death.  People took actions (like joining the church, moving west step by step, and choosing church leaders to follow) based primarily on emotions rather than doctrine and logic, and these actions had emotional ramifications for others as well.  The psychology of the "mob" is primarily based on emotion and manipulation.  So -- even if I don't think Quinn's attributing emotions to Brigham or other individual church leaders is at all justified  -- I do find myself doing the same type of thing.  I'm afraid we just have to be careful about it and try to tie into actual primary sources which deal with or indicate an emotional or "spiritual" state, such as journals, public speeches, or published writings. WBardwin 22:34, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Completely agree. And I didn't think you were criticizing :^) - sorry if it came across that way. I do think that we all have that tendancy, but in writing history, one must be overly careful, which quinn is not. You wrote: I'm old fashioned in my approach, in that the "new" schools of history and archaeology are always suspect..."new" and "interesting" material is likely to be less reliable than "old" and "boring..." I'm not as conservative in my views as you seem to be - I think there is much left to find about many of the things we know little about. I think that in both old and new history, people are too quick to jump to conclusions where there are none to be made. Yes, new (and old) theories work in many cases, and not so well in others, but why do we have to feel like we nave to have a difinitive answer on things? As I wrote at Talk:Kolob, too many lay historians and psuedo-scholars (and scholars for that matter) "insist on forcing a showdown to demand a once and for all official statemement that will be forever without dispute or discussion...new theories...are put forth to foster continued discussions, not to settle an issue. The purpose of theories are not to put forth a final statement...but to put forth an idea or model that fits a situation, to see if it can be applied in other situations and then to question and examine that theory."


 * This is what I am referring to when I discuss the backlash on "new Mormon history." People are too set at knowing what they will never know. They are looking beyond the mark by trying to settle something that cannot be settled. This is why a naturalistic approach will not work in presenting Mormon history. Unfortunately, most believe those who have the strongest voice (be it Quinn, an Anti-Mormon or a member who doesn't know any better), not who is the most accurate. -Visorstuff 22:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I still have not heard an explanation as to why it is inappropriate to qualify a historian's perspective. Tom, Mørmøn, and others just state it is "spin". If I write an aritcle on Mormonism and quote Decker, Martin, or any other anti-Mormon without qualifying their perspecitive I purposely attempt to "spin" the subject. My agenda is to be critical, as in finding fault, with Mormonism. However, if I quote the same authors and state that these writers all are recognized as anti-Mormons then readers are empowered to understand perspective and give proper weight to the comment. If one wishes to describe Quinn as controversial rather than critical that works for me. Whatever the adjective one uses Quinn must be qualified, without it the passage is most definitely POV. Some may feel that becuase they are quoting a "historian" the statment is neutral, but all that is happening is one's POV is hiding behind the POV of Quinn. Storm Rider 15:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * An appropriate qualifying word for Quinn is in order; I don't dispute that. I am not sure it should be "critical".  I like the idea of "controversial".  That is in compliance with our standards and is NPOV.  He is controversial.  Tom Haws 16:05, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Controversial" might be better than "critical", I think; though a one word description doesn't explain why he is controversial. Now add a pause, and consideration. Is a faith-promoting Mormon historian considered controversial if he takes uses the standard version of the First Vision, without mentioning well-documented alternative versions? The faith-promoting historian deserves some adjective, perhaps "apologist". Then we have "controversial" and "apologist" historians. I suggest 2 changes:

Nereocystis 17:03, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Quinn's article should be expanded to explain his areas of controversy in a fair method, including many POVs.
 * 2) Emphasize the controversial aspect of the historian's quote, rather than the historian as a whole.


 * I agree partially and disagree partially. Most wiki editors who add things in do not qualify anything (which I believe is a mistake) with context. Therefore it is up to us to go back and re-read the quotes and afind out if htey are legitimate, addressing your point number 2 (which allows for all kinds of out-of-context statements and has contributed to Wikipedia's credibility issues). However, by saying "Mormon scholar" you are saying the same thing as "apologist." Controversial Mormon historian is completely appropriate. Anti-Mormon historian/scholar is appropriate. Christian scholar or Hebrew scholar or 19th century American scholar are all proper descriptors. It gives the context for their treatement of the work. We need to expand the Quinn article taking data points from the arthcive of this page, and available biographies/review of him and his work to expand his article and then let the wiki link let readers go to his page to find out why he is controversial. Nereocystis - this may be a good project for you as you seem to have a much more neutral view of his work than I do. You may want to enlist the help of User:COGDEN who is very well read in Quinn's work and favorable toward much of his conclusions. I would help, and will offer thoughts, but I'm in the midst of a re-write on Anti-Mormon and creation of Hypocephalus.


 * Incidentally, what is your background on Mormonism, Nereocystis? I've never seen a defined statement of your religious beliefs - not that it is important, but just curious. We'd also like to invite you to join the WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement as we need more non-biased-thinking editors in the project. -Visorstuff 18:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, Tom, I concurr that controversial is a better term. The intial edit I made was so that the quote from Quinn that Brigham Young was in a state of "terror" could be understood to come from an individual that had an agenda. Quinn is many things, but he is certainly not objective in his research. In this article he either needs to be qualified or his statement on the feelings of Brigham Young should be deleted. I also agree that Quinn's article needs to be expanded to explain why he is controversial. Btw, Nereo, do you find it strange that a historian begins with a context of qualifying social interactions into groups of Homo(name your suffix)? Then does a wealth of research that is limited to data supporting his thesis. In his book on Same Sex Dynamics, he throws so many "dots" surrounding homosexuality and then attempts to cloak himself in innocence by warning us not to go too far in connecting them. Then stating that the LDS church has an exaggerated intolerance towards homosexualty in today's world based on his research. I find Quinn to be in the same vein as Brodie; state your thesis and then only research data that supports it...and that is not the definition of an objective historian. Storm Rider 23:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to look up Quinn's reference for this quote. I'm guessing that Quinn discusses this area in "Origins of Power", a very detailed book. Unfortunately, this book, and others, are now in my basement, in a pile somewhere. In the next month or two, or tomorrow, I'll look it up. I'm surprised that people's terror at Smith's death is considered controversial. It seems like a scary time. The leader was assassinated by a brutal mob. There were rumors of the entire city being slaughtered. If controversial is used for this sentence, someone should state an opposing view. I don't even know what the opposing claim would be, perhaps "many rejoiced with Brigham Young when they realized that Joseph Smith was dead and that God would choose a new leader." I don't expect to see this. I would prefer to use the word controversial when the claims are controversial.

What was Quinn's agenda? He studied same sex relationship, including but not limited to sexual relationships, in early Mormon history. Life was different then. His book analyzes some of the differences. Sure, he was interested in the topic because of his own sexuality, but he wasn't finding explicit gay sex in every journal. Mormons are a good source for a study of this type, because of their record-keeping. The book would have been more exciting if he had. There were a few relationships mentioned in the book which sound like they have a stronger likelihood of being gay, whether they involved sex or not, eg, Mormon Tabernacle Choir Director Evan Stephens, Patriarch Joseph Fielding Smith, and Primary Counselor and President May Anderson & Louie Felt. The reaction of the Mormon leadership varied. It would be biased to claim that all Mormons were like this, but it isn't biased to look for examples to indicate that Mormon weren't allows as anti-gay as they are today. Of course, you don't need much research to show the current intolerance towards gays in the Mormon church. Official Mormon publications will do the job. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a refutation of Quinn's research. That would be good to see; do you have a reference?

Now for my background and POV. There's a little bit of it described in Talk:Polygamy. I'll work on more in my user space, perhaps soon perhaps not. Nereocystis 22:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, the same evidence that Quinn uses in regard to JFS and Stephens to me is a stretch. I can see similar evidences in my own life - and believe me I am far from gay. I think, again, that he draws too much from evidence that is not there. But this is irrelevant to the topic at hand. -Visorstuff 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nereo, my personal reaction to Quinn's use of "feeling terror" is two fold. How does a historian know what one felt 170 years ago? Secondly, the use of tone has an impact on reader. Terror is a very strong word that connotes weakness. As stated earlier, Brigham did and said many things, but to characterize him as a simpleton struck down by terror at the loss of the prophet seems an exaggeration. I would really prefer to delete the whole statement from Quinn. How about stating that the loss of the prophet was a trying time for the Saints. They had been almost continuously persectuted from the founding of their church, their leaders tarred and feathered, beat, and jailed, their members murdered and raped, and now their beloved prophet murdered. In the midst of this trial of faith, no clear plans existed for the appointment of a new leader and prophet. In closing, when we stick to facts and resist bringing opionion, even that of scholars, into the conversation, we will have a more objective article. Storm Rider 17:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

OK. I add some description of my background and POV to my page. Now for the Quinn quote. It is from The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power by D. Michael Quinn, p. 149. Here's the complete paragraph:


 * The Smith brothers' death threw an unprepared church into confusion.A revelation seven yers earlier specified that the priesthood keys given to Smith "shall not be taken from him" until the second coming of Jesus Christ (D&C 112:15). Many shared Brigham Young's terror upon learning of the martyrdom: "The first thing which I thought of was, whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth." [30] That possibility was too horrible to accept. Mormons then began to grope for a means of succession to guarantee the church's survival.

Where [30] is from "History of Brigham Young,", Latter-day Saints' Millenial Star 26 (3 June 1964):359; reprinted in Elden Jay Watson, ed., Manuscript History of Brigham Young, 1801-1844, also Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses''. Other sections of Quinn's writing supports the word "terror" in more detail. I don't think of Young's terror as being the sign of a simpleton. It was confusing times. There wasn't a clear rule for deciding who should lead the Church next. The Mormons might have lost all contact with god. Sure, why not have some terror at the prospect for the future. You might use a different word. By the way, Quinn was an active Mormon at the time he wrote this book, and still believe in Mormon teachings.

My questions:
 * 1) Is this relevant to the article?
 * Yes, this section is discussing the reaction to Smith's death.
 * 1) Is this accurate?
 * Probably, but I'm willing to listen to arguments on the other side.
 * I don't think it is accurate. Or at least the use of the term Terror. Look at the rest of Brigham's statement - they were having a melancholy day when they found out and wept at hearing about Smith's death. He thought did the keys go with Smith and immediately slapped his hand down to his knee and exclaimed out loud that Smith had bestowed the keys on the Twelve. The immediateness of his response is anything but "terror." If you have a leader die, your first thoughts after grief and sadness would be the transition, the succession plan - what is it. But according to Youngs account, it was near-instantaneous that the answer came. That is not what I'd call "terror" -V


 * 1) Is this sentence controversial?
 * I don't think so.
 * See above. -V


 * 1) Is the sentence useful.
 * I'm not sure. The Mormons were troubled by Smith's death.  That should be mentioned.
 * But most were not worried about succession - they knew it would come, they just had to wait for the Lord to "reveal" it. Very few worried about if the keys were still around. The major offshoots during the succession crisis happened many months if not years after the famous speech of Rigdon and Young. William Smith and Rigdon were probably the first to claim the leadership role, aside from the Twelve. Later comes Strang and Whitmer and Bickerton and RLDS and others. There was no terror only disagreement with the twelve on succession. -V


 * 1) Does it have anything to do with same-sex dynamics?
 * Sorry, I had to add this one.
 * Nice. -V

My conclusions, drop controversial from this sentence, because the conclusion is pretty simple. Save controversial for sections which are controversial -- different stories of First Vision, for example. Stating "controversial" in this sentence is similar to saying "Bill Clinton, who lied about adultery, said that George Washington was the first US President". The statement may be true, but suggests controversy where there isn't any. Mentions Clinton's adultery, and Quinn's controversies where it is appropriate, not every time you mention their names. Quinn has controversial conclusions, and fairly run-of-the mill conclusions. Save the "controversial" label for controversial conclusions, don't wear it out on every conclusion of his.

Quinn had access to LDS archives for 15 years, archives which are currently extremely restricted because the LDS hierarchy has since restricted access. ([http://www.signaturebooks.com/reviews/hier1.htm AP review of Origins of Power). This is unfortunate, and it reduces the ability of anyone else to give other interpretations. Quinn, however, gives references to publicly available versions of the documents whenever they are available. Quinn tries to remain responsible. When someone disagrees with him, it is reasonable to present contradicting evidence. Nereocystis 21:18, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, most of what Quinn had access to, You and I have access to. It is not unusual to see the Tanners at the Church historians office. The archives are even easier to get access to documents. In addition, for quinn, most of his sources came from BYU collections, as it was convienent for him, adding to my suspicion of his work. Not that the documents are fautly, but he tended to use convienent sources and, in my opinion, twist the meanings where none are given. If Young gave an order for all young men of the age of 18 in parowan to get married or risk church discipline, Quinn would look (and rightfully so) for the reasons behind this. The problem is he would cite fornication, or something similar, when there may be no reason, other than Young felt he had a revelation for those men, given in historical record. I've read many of the same sources as quinn, but come to radically differing conclusions as he does. -Visorstuff 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Still not buying it; however, you bring up good points. I will always fall back on the facts in these types of articles. If you want to state, "The first thing which I thought of was, whether Joseph had taken the keys of the kingdom with him from the earth." [30], that would really add something to the article because it appears to be a quote from Brigham himself. In fact, please make the change because it does add to the article whereas the current Quinn quote is personal opinion and not fact!

I am highly suspicious of any historian that purports to know the feelings of those who have lived before. It can only be subjective and would be much better to say, "Well, if I had been Brigham I would have felt terrified". But to project feelings onto another is inappropriate regardless of how much better it helps the historian sell books. Does my position make sense to you? I also am not as confident as you that Quinn tries to be responsible. He seems to be more concerned with finding copious amounts of research that supports this personal objectives for each book (i.e. write the thesis statement and then seek for supporting documentation). There are too many times in which he excludes contradicting information; thus the moniker of controversial is so a propos. I would agree that with most historians it is possible to state their names, but some it seems we do an injustice to not mention their perspective. For example, if we quote a FARMS historian, it might be best to attribute his position; just as it would be helpful to do so for someone with a position against the Chruch. Now that we have had this homoemotional moment to commune with one another (lol), I hope we can make the edit and move on. Storm Rider 22:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. Let's stick to as many primary sources as we can.

Please modify this sentence as described. I don't think that it really adds any information here. We should discuss Quinn in areas which really matter. I admit that I tend to discount FARMS publications, which really do avoid any evidence which contradicts official teachings. Nereocystis 00:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why you discount FARMS? I'm not a big reader, but they are very well respected for what they do in the academic community. The archeologists are world-renown and have recieve many awards outside of the Mormon community. Just curious in the thinking behind your opinion here. Its like discounting all BYU scholars because they are from BYU. Using this logic, should we discount medical and computer-related advances that come from BYU? Should we discount Wilf Griggs work with Egyptian scholars and early christian findings? Should we discount the cultural influences from Napolean Dynamite movie, literature written by english teachers, the Kennedy Center's influence on the CIA World Fact Book, and political theory that has come out of the university? This is only a sampling, but could it not all be influenced in the same way as the ancient research and mormon studies center of the university? The logic puzzles me, although I'm not a huge fan either...but for different reasons. As for their not sharing things that "contradicts" official church teaching, there are very few "official" church teachings. If you want to get technical, isn't FARMS one of the biggest proponents since BH Roberts and Joseph Smith himself to push the "limited geography model" of the book of Mormon? Twenty years ago, this was very much against mainstream teachings, but FARMS pushed the envelope. They do share MANY things with are controversial. Perhaps you need more exposure to the research. "Official church teaching" would dissolve FARMS, as the church does not believe that Archeaology SHOULD be used to PROVE the book of Mormon. -Visorstuff 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My mind was obviously carrying on a conversation with itself. What I meant to say is let's use the quote from Brigham Young that Quinn states, it is factual, does not interpret history, and does add without using Quinn's spin on his interpretation of history. If you think it best to qualify FARMS or any other "pro" LDS scholar, then what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Storm Rider 00:40, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think all scholars mentioned should, when possible, be labelled. -Visorstuff 17:47, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How often is FARMS research used as a reference outside of the world of Mormonism? I would like to see a few references. I tend to discount FARMS because it seems to be impossible to disprove anything which FARMS published. They just limit the research so that the refutation no longer applies. I will agree that archaelogy should be used to evaluate the claims of the Book of Mormon. I will give them credit in that area. They are right that the only way that the Book of Mormon could be true is to use the "limited geography" theory. Mostly, this is a case of being unable to disprove the "limited geography" theory, rather providing evidence to support it. Using these methods, Bigfoot may exists, alien abductions may happen, etc. This could be true, but there isn't any evidence to support them. Nevertheless, I'll try to give FARMS another look. Nereocystis 23:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question - I'll have to dig around to see if FARMS publications are referenced elsewhere - the problem is there is not a lot of others doing Mormon-studies outside of the LDS Church. I'm sure the Whitmer historical association and the few univeristies (santa clara, etc.) who do mormon studies would reference them. The FARMS researchers themselves are quoted frequently - john clark and sorenson for example are respected archeologists, but their findings are afterward suited for a Mormon audience. Of course, the purpose of FARMS is not to be quoted. I disagree that research is limited. You seem to be thinking of their book reviews by what I can read into what you are saying. Speaking of archeological evidences, you may want to look into the Libary of Congress Smith symposium on that is linked to at LDS.org. One archeologist says that we are well over 2/3 there in book of mormon archeaological evidence. While his nearly 3/4 of the way there comment is probably a stretch in my mind, based on my arch. background, it is interesting to note that how well the cities match up with his theory, and what is available. It really is more remarkable than coincidental. It is interesting, but not "proven." Aliens and bigfoot are much more problematic than Book of Mormon geography based on current research and findings given. I don't think book of mormon archeologists are that far off. Even Joseph Smith supported the limited geography theory in the T&S, and said it needed to be explored. But most rejected his statements and just assumed panama. It is an unfortunate situation. A good non-FARMS reference for Book of Mormon archeaology may be found here . and is worth a read/listen. I think FARMS gets acused of doing apologetics(meaning faith-defending), when instead, they are on the leading edge of research in many Mormon studies areas. Yes, they do engage in book reviews that by very nature are apologetic and defensive. Try reading one of their more advanced works, rather than the free content on the web, which tends to be written by junior folks who are apologetic in nature. Once you do, email me and lets talk, i'd be interested in your thoughts. You know I have issues with FARMS for completely different reasons, which we can discuss at that time. -Visorstuff 00:18, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Polygamy, polygyny
I realize that polygyny is the more precise term -- marginally -- but polygamy is the more usual descriptor in context. Is there any strong reason to prefer the less common term? Alai 06:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I only reverted rather than originally wrote the phrase. But, the polygyny article is quite clinical and NPOV, dealing with the anthro term and social structure while the polygamy article is in a constant state of dispute and flux.  And the dispute isn't due to the LDS/Mormon tie to polygamy, but primarily to various aspects of polygamy in modern (mostly American) society.  So, perhaps our uninformed reader is better off getting the clinical description first before wading into a swamp.  Plural marriage is the place that we can present the LDS/Mormon experience and would be ultimately the better pointer, but the three articles should (ideally) complement each other.  The choice is hard.  WBardwin 18:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good analysis, W. Tom Haws 18:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to clean up the polygamy article, with an opinion from 3rd opinion. I'm hoping that some changes hold. Feel free to join in, but read the disputed section before making too many changes. I hope to add more sociobiology references, as well as separating opinion from fact. I agree that polygamy is a theoretically better link. Nereocystis 21:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you are interested in cleaning up the polygamy article, please see Talk:Polygamy. There is a poll aimed at resolving the conflicts in polygamy, which may result in a more clinical article. Please join the poll if you are interested. Nereocystis 02:38, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hyrum killed instantly?
In the martyrdom section, the article reads: "Ultimately, Hyrum was shot five times and killed. (The first bullet severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly; the remainder hit his corpse.)"

How does this square with John Taylor's first-hand account that indicates Hyrum called out "I am a dead man!" after being hit? (See D&C 135:1.)

I'd like to see a source cited for the claim, and some reference to the Taylor account (and Willard Richards' as well, which confirms Taylor's). MrWhipple


 * I did some additional research on this. Probably the best resource is Shannon Tracy, In Search of Joseph (Orem, Utah: KenningHouse, 1995, ISBN 157636009). As part of his research, Tracy examined the Willard Richards' firshand account of the martyrdom, the Huntingtons' report after they cleaned the bodies, and the clothing worn by Hyrum at the jail. All of these indicate Hyrum was shot six times: left side of face; under jaw; right chest (grazed); right back, through kidney; right side hip; and left knee. The only shot serious enough to be nearly instantly fatal was in his face. The current statement that Hyrum was shot in the spine is incorrect. I will modify it accordingly. MrWhipple 04:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Phrophecies"
None of the alleged "Phrophecies" mentioned in the book of smiths creation have come true as of yet, which some beleive does not bode well for smith's credibillity. (edit by User:Gabrielsimon)


 * Contribution moved from article for discussion. WBardwin 23:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Phrophecies": None of the alleged "Phrophecies" mentioned in the book of smiths creation have come true as of yet, which some beleive does not bode well for smith's credibillity."


 * Second contribution moved from article for discussion. WBardwin 00:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not revert your edit, only moved it to the talk page for discussion. This article is very long and is often expanded quite casually. Many of the issues these editors bring up have been discussed and resolved on the talk page, and then information has been added to the article. Your edit seems to be on a unique subject and would probably benefit from discussion. I myself have a number of questions about your statement, and would like to see you expand and clarify your opinion. I believe others who frequent the page will have questions too. Citing sources and weeding out simple opinion on a religious subject is important in maintaining NPOV, as per Wikipedia protocol. So, thank you for your interest in Joseph Smith, and please feel free to use the talk page. Peace. WBardwin 00:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

while i dont agree with the followins confrontional attitude, reading this has raised interesting points, and does give exmaples quite w ell, so please rad.

http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/bomproblems.php

Gabrielsimon 07:46, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I'm glad to see you contributing here. There are Problems sections in Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon that may be ideal places for the problems you are referring to. Please look into contributing to those. If you have other ideas for improving this article in particular, feel free to think them out carefully and contribute again as often as you like. I will be pleased to support any high-quality and careful contributions you make. Tom Haws 15:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

General Joseph Smith prophecies don't really fit into either of these categories. Joseph Smith prophecies unrelated to the Book of Mormon may belong here. In order to fit here, I would like to see the section rewritten a bit:

Nereocystis 21:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove the quotes around "prophecies". They are prophecies, whether or not they came true.
 * Fix spelling errors; write in complete sentences.
 * List the prophecies, perhaps in a list like this.
 * Claiming that none of the prophecies came true is not likely to be correct. Perhaps prophecies which were sufficiently specific didn't come true. Perhaps the title should be "Results of prophecies".
 * Provide references, chapter and verse, so to speak.
 * What is "this text"


 * did you bother to read what i posted as a link? if not, here. http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/bomproblems.php   once you have rad this page, then  try again with commenting on what i have to say about "smith the prophet". Gabrielsimon 23:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Gabriel, my good fellow. We must be kind to each other here at Wikipedia and avoid issuing challenges like that.  We are aware that there is a significant point of view (most of the world) that Smith was not the one and only true prophet of the 1830s.  However, we also know we must talk diplomatically with each other and present these issues in a neutral way.  As WP:NPOV explains to us, that means letting people have their say.  I am sure that as soon as you can find an encyclopedic way to contribute the perspective you have in mind, the Wikipedia community will gladly accept it.  Meanwhile, the community will gladly assist you to develop it.  Please rather than directing us offsite to something we don't dispute, use a new approach every time you edit the article, and discuss here how you would like to imporve the article when you are stumped.  "If at first you don't succeed, try another approach."  Tom Haws 23:25, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, having some troubles today, got me a short fuse... a[pologies... any hoo, heres a point, prophets visions comne true, false prophets dont. since the phrophecies emtnioned in the patge i have cited did not come to pass, tht doesnot bode well for smiths credibllity, wouldnt you say? Gabrielsimon 23:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You might say, all right. So how are you going to make something encyclopedic out of that, and where are you going to put it?  Here's one suggestion: "Many of Smith's critics say the following of his prophecies were not fulfilled, and that he was therefore a false prophet." Tom Haws 23:42, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

lets take the temple idea as an example, since here is not temple and was no such duringthe annointed time limit,  it is defiantly something that didnt come true, weather or not your one of his detractors. this is why i choose the phrasing i did. Gabrielsimon 23:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Or even say "Here are some of Joseph Smith's prophecies". Then list a bunch of prophecies, with a success rate.  Degree off specificity should be noted.  See James Randi for concepts for testing a prophet.  Predicting a big war in the indefinite future isn't much of a prophecy, for example. Predicting the exact date of Lincoln's assassination would be a more specific prophecy, if you weren't involved in carrying it out, of course. Also, remember that prophetic failure doesn't make him a false prophet in everyone's eyes, and I suppose prophetic failure doesn't prove that he didn't communicate with god, merely that he couldn't predict the future. Nereocystis 23:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh. By the way. There actually is a Latter Day Saint temple in Independence. Tom Haws 01:27, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, please edit the text here. With some work, you can make a good paragraph out of it, but your information needs to be well written. We'll make suggestions here, and stop the reverting, but only when the text is in a good, readable form. Don't write it in the main article until it is ready. Nereocystis 01:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I don't like where this is going. We have an individual who reads a second rate, anti-mormon site and now wants to quote it on WIKI. However, to respond I end up being an apologist and that is not my idea for the purpose of this article. I think it is a valid subject, Joseph Smith and prophesy, but I do not think it is appropriate for this article. Questions: Do we turn this into a critique and counter/apologist? Is there a way of enrolling our new contributors into the concept of a new article that is effective, but does not offend? Further, the edits create an enormous amount of work for the rest of us due to the lack of proper spelling, coherent thought, and an overall lack of understanding of Mormon history, doctrine, and belief. Storm Rider 06:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * SR, I think we all agree on that. But we must be welcoming.  I suppose we are hoping that eventually newer editors will realize that producing an encyclopedia takes a lot more thought, care, and effort than producing Slashdot or your local Forum or BB.  Only by being cordially welcomed and guided through the process do new editors make the transition instead of being turned away and made into enemies, trolls, and vandals.  Yes, it is hard work.  But it is true love.  :-D  Tom Haws 16:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, to quote from Foul Play, "I think we can only take Christian Charity so far." Try to urge compliance nicely, but if the user keeps re-adding content that we've deemed unsuitable (by Wiki standards, not our own biases), it's time to get a little more harsh.


 * As far as Gabrielsimon goes, I think we've been patient enough with him. It looks like he started to cooperate, but then just started adding his stuff again over and over, after it was consistently reverted.  I think it's time to ban him.  See my comment also on the Book of Mormon talk page.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 16:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Well, of course I personally will uphold the standards by banning him if he reverts more than 3 times on any article in a day (though I think he has learned to avoid that) or gets mean. But even though you know you are right and you are experienced, these are simple content disputes that we must try to turn into improvements. Despite his inexperience and lack of proper orientation, Gabrielsimon is not a nincompoop; he is bound to have valid concerns and ideas; we just have to find them. For me, Christian charity goes all the way, and I mean that from the heart. In other words, ministering to Gabrielsimon is more important than my stressing over this article, or any ten articles. His only personal attack against me was quite benign, he is young, he is motivated, and there is ample hope for grooming him into a fine editor. But of course you don't have to look at it that way if you don't want to. :-) Tom Haws 17:54, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I did some significant reorganizing of this section, added links and some additional information. I also tried to move toward NPOV. Unfortunately I somehow got logged out, so the changes are credited to my IP address. I invite comment and additional enhancement. --MrWhipple 18:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time to split the Article!
This article is way too big. Let's split: Any more ways to split the article? Jgardner 06:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Joseph Smith, Jr. should be about the major events in his life. References should be made abundantly to where they are documented elsewhere. (For instance, Zion's Camp, Kirtland Safety Society, Mormon War, etc...) We can also keep bits of Joseph's life in the biographies of those he had contact with.
 * Let's create an article called Prophecies of Joseph Smith where we can record a thumbnail sketch of all of this prophecies. Here we will discuss whether he was a prophet according to Deut. and present both sides.


 * Why do you say too big? It has a nice table of contents.  Is there a limit? Tom Haws 15:59, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a limit. After about 30kB, it takes a lot of work to manage the article. Besides, who would want to read a book when all they want is an encyclopedia article. I split the prophet stuff out. It probably doesn't belong on the biography page anyway. Jgardner 20:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So what did you name it? Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith as a Prophet, Prophet Joseph Smith??  WBardwin 20:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)  Found it! WBardwin 20:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smith's Death
Anon contribution moved here for discussion:
 * One account even mentions that Smith was stabbed multiple times after landing on the ground.

They provided no sources -- anyone have any information on this twist? WBardwin 30 June 2005 06:38 (UTC)


 * The claim is incorrect. Shannon Tracy's book, In Search of Joseph (ISBN 157636009) has a diagram with the wounds on Joseph and Hyrum's bodies. Joseph was shot multiple times, but were no stab wounds. --MrWhipple 30 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)


 * I believe the claim comes from an incorrect reading of the "beheading account" - which the author said that a man raised up Joesph to behead him and the man was struck dead. The same account alludes the the fact that they used a bayonet to prop him up against the well before firing additional shots and alludes to a bayonet being used to confirm his death.


 * Incidentally, Shannon Tracy's research cannot be confirmed, in my opionion, as it would be nearly impossible to determine this far after his death, exactly where the wounds were/what type of wounds existed. They would have to be treated from a number of evidences, such as holes in his clothes, oozing or blood stains in burial clothes, depending on how he was prepared for burial and firsthand accounts. It would work for his death mask, but it is pretty apparent that he was shot multiple times at the well after he fell/jumped out the window and that his chest was exposed. The shots-by-the-well wounds are not fully accounted for in her research, are they? Agree with the removal, but I wouldn't jump to any conclusion quickly as for my own understanding. -Visorstuff 30 June 2005 20:03 (UTC)


 * Tracy relied on the Huntington brothers' description of Joseph's body (they did a rudimentary autopsy) as well as an examination of the clothing worn by Joseph at Carthage. The number of holes in his clothing line up with descriptions of him being shot twice in the upstairs room (once from outside and once from the doorway, almost simultaneously), and then shot four additional times by the well, for a total of six balls received. I don't have the book in front of me; I'll have to check it when I get home. Unfortunately it was printed in a limited run and is long out of print. Tracy used to have a web site with some of his research, but it has since been taken down. (And BTW, Shannon Tracy is a "he".) --MrWhipple 1 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I'd harldly call the cleaning/dressing an autopsy -Visorstuff 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have Tracy's book now. The Huntingtons identified the wounds in Joseph and Hyrum's bodies when they cleaned them. Joseph received five balls (not six, as I had stated from memory): right collarbone, right chest, below heart, lower bowels, and the back of the right hip. According to Willard Richards' account, Joseph was shot twice from behind and once from below as he approached the window. The shot from outside was in the right chest; the ones from behind probably included the right hip and one other. This means he received two other shots when at the well (I'm speculating the heart and bowels). --MrWhipple 2 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)


 * OK. Time to revisit the shooting, with references.  It is not clear that Smith was shot in the jail cell.  According to Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, page 374, under footnote 197, describes the different stories of the shooting.  History of the Church 6:618 states that Smith received all of his bullet wounds within the jail.  This description was provided by Willard Richards.  However, according to the physician who attended Taylor's wounds, Richards was unable to tell when the wounds were received. He was standing behind the door near the hinges. On the other hand, several of the vigilantes said that Smith escaped injury until after his jump, when the mobbers propped him against the water-well of the jail and hot him. Nathan Cheney wrote "he fell to the ground [and] the mob run him throug[h] with their baynet [bayonets] a number of times and fired him through a number of times". This is from Cheney to Charles Beebe, 28 June 1844 at Nauvoo, LDS archives, according to Quinn. Smith's secretary, William Clayton, accepted this account. This is from Clayton's 1839-45 journal, where he says "Joseph jumped through the window and was immediately surrounded by the mob. They raised him up and set him against the well-curb; but as yet it appears he had not been hit with a ball. However, four of the mob immediately drew up their guns and shot him dead." However, Clayton wasn't there at the time of the shooting.


 * In short, Smith's death is far from clear. The section needs to be rewritten a bit, with references, but I'm not ready to do it right now. Nereocystis 06:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering that he received two of thefour balls in his back, I think it's unlikely that all of the shots were at the well (how could someone shoot him from behind if his back was against the well?). Although there are conflicting accounts, Willard Richards was the only one in the room in a position to see what happened and who left a written testimony. Perhaps if the article were to just note this? --MrWhipple 17:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Quinn's point is that Richards was not in a good position to see the killing, since he was behind a closed door. Stressful situations like that also produce poor quality memories; see Elizabeth Loftus, for example. That doesn't mean that he is wrong, just that his memory is questionable. The testimony from the mob might not have know that he was shot, even if he were. Noting that there are conflicting accounts is a good idea. Resolving them is too difficult. Nereocystis 17:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

One thought is to keep it simple; Joseph Smith was killed by being shot five times. It would be appropriate to cite where he was shot as noted above, but to attempt to state exaxtly when and in where he was positioned when shot seems like overkill. The point is Joseph Smith was killed by a mob. It is impossible to refute that statement.

I have a personal distate for historians who attempt to reconstruct history; finding conflicts where none exist. Quinn is particularly noteworthy in his vast reserach, but succeeds in nothing but muddying waters sufficiently enough to produce his own personal objectives. Is it noteworthy that Richard's recounting conflicts with others? How does Quinn know that Richard's was behind the door the entire time? When did Richard's state he did not know when Joseph was hit? How does one argue with the fact Joseph was hit in the back? Keeping it simple evades all the supposed conflicts. Storm Rider 19:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You all know my feelings on Quinn. This article still overly relies on his research. Let's look at other sources, if we decide to get this granular. While I don't think quinn is making a doctrinal point, he does the same thing over and over and over again - 'we don't know how it happened, so this is how it could have.' For a professional historian whose income is in selling, the sensational makes money, not the safe and known facts - which are too dry to sell. New sources are needed. -Visorstuff 19:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Visorstuff in some areas. Let's keep it simple. The specifics are worth mentioning in certain books, or if there was an article devoted to Smith death, but not here.


 * Much of history is not cut and dried. Muddying the water is often appropriate. Let's try to keep to established facts, and note conflicting version where appropriate. Include Quinn as a reference; also include other sources. The conflict is noteworthy if we publish one person's version and ignore anther persons.


 * I'll check for answers to Visorstuff's other questions later. Nereocystis 20:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * From Quinn, above:


 * According to a statement of of Richards to the physician who tended the wounded John Taylor immediately afterward, Richards was unable to see whether the wounds in Joseph Smith's corpse came before or after his fall from the window: "He stood next to the hinges of the door...so when they [the mob] crowded the door open it shut him up against the wall and he stood there and did not move till the affair was over." See Dr. Thomas Barnes to his daughter Miranda Barnes Haskett, 6 Nov. 1897, in Mulder and Mortensen, Among the Mormons, 151 and in Keith Huntress, ed., Murder of the American Prophet... (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1960), 152-53.


 * The letter was written many years after the incident, but does explain Richards small level of injuries. Quinn further says that Richards's


 * written account shows that Richards depended on later examination of Hyrum Smith's corpse to reconstruct how the patriarch was shot, and similar reconstruction undoubtedly occurred after Richards examined the bullet wounds in Joseph Smith's corpse.


 * Nereocystis 14:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to be cynical here, but is anyone seriously suggesting that we take a third-hand account written 53 years after the martyrdom over Willard Richards' own first-hand account written immediately afterward? And even if Richards was behind the door, the door is opposite the window, so he would have a clear view of Joseph Smith at windowsill. The mark of a good historian is the ability to fairly judge the value of various historical accounts; if Quinn is arguing that Barnes' letter casts serious doubt on Richards' testimony, then he is a poor historian indeed. --MrWhipple 16:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree MrWhipple. Nereocystis, let's look at Quinn's last statement you quote - this demonstrates perfectly why we should not rely so much on his work for this article:


 * First: the "witten account shows that Richards depended on later examination of Hyrum Smith's corpse to reconstruct how the patriarch was shot." Not neccessarily. This is opinion. Richards did not state that he depended on it. Rather, Quinn is attempting to show that Richards testimony was influenced by it. However, there is no direct support, only this speculation tying the two together. Unless we have Richard's thought process and proof that his testimony changed, and that he examined the body and that that examination changed his testimony then it is speculative. It is conjecture. It is theory. It is not evidence and would be thrown out in a court of law as evidence, but as "possible" motive it may stand.


 * Second: "smilar reconstruction undoubtedly occurred after Richards examined the bullet wounds in Joseph Smith's corpse" - undoubtedly occurred. Wow. That is a stretch. It may have occured, and would have with Quinn's mindset, or in modern-day mindset, or in hindsight, but we don't know - there is no record of this. Theorizing again. Quinn places fact where there is no evidence, but rather some liklihood.


 * Let's try to branch out from Quinn and provide more references. 75 percent of this article is based on Quinn's research, not from any other source. That is sad. Let's try to at least act balanced by throwing in a nugget or two from other sources. -Visorstuff 16:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * We're getting off base here. Our job is not to decide which historian is correct, it is to make sure that different views are represented.  Quinn is an historian, reasonably respected in some areas, considered controversial in others.  We shouldn't do our own research in determining correctness of his conclusions. Let's work on a rewrite which allows for either interpretation. The references should conform to our standard, here's my first draft, please suggest changes.


 * John Taylor was shot four times and severely injured, but survived the attack. Willard Richards escaped unscathed.


 * Joseph Smith may have been shot several times as he made his way towards the window. One report [need reference here, perhaps HoC] says that Smith arrived at the sill, but as he prepared to jump down, he was shot twice in the back and a third bullet, fired from a musket on the ground outside, hit him in the chest. Other reports state that Smith was uninjured when he jumped from the window (Quinn, 1994).


 * Nereocystis 18:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I missing something??? Joseph Smith was killed by a mob.  Why are we putting so much energy into discussing different aspects.  Visor has stated several times it would be appropriate to use other sources and not give so much importance to Quinn.  Nereo seeks balance also.  You both are essentially saying the same thing; present a balanced article.


 * What exactly are we trying to portray to the reader...isn't it that Joseph was killed by a mob? Sometimes we choke on the simplest of things; let's move on.  State it simply and forget about when and exactly where Joseph was standing when he was shot; it needn't be referenced at all.  The differences discussed are differnces without any value to the reader.  Storm Rider 18:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you don't like my alternate wording, please suggest another one. I tried to state it simply, but it still sounds awkward to me. Simple is good, but we need the wording. It does need a reference, perhaps a few, even if the fact is agreed upon (Cite sources). Nereocystis 18:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the martyrdom portion of the article is fine how it stands. The External Links have references to the official account (D&C 135) and Richards' testimony, so cite those. There is no need to cite every possible alternative theory -- part of the job of Wikipedia editors (contrary to what you said above) is to determine which facts are relevant and put them into a concise article. There are probably people who believe Joseph Smith was murdered by space aliens -- does that mean we need to put that in this article? When "other reports state that Smith was uninjured," and those reports come half a century later and third-hand, I don't see any reason to include them in here. It doesn't matter if Quinn thought it was relevant -- he wrote a huge book that brought in every single account, no matter how credible (which I consider a flaw in his methodology). This is a brief encyclopedic article. I say leave it as is. --MrWhipple 20:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's leave as is. Although Quinn may be respected in some areas of Mormon reasearch, no other scholar has given his support to the theories set forth in you quotes. They may have supported Quinn's findings in other areas of research, but not this one. Until peer review validates Quinn's "new findings" it is left solely as a new, untested theory. I am unaware of any validation of this particular arguement, and agree it fits into the space alien category McWhipple mentioned above. WE have got to get beyond Quinn for this article to be a solid and a candidate for a featured article. The bottom line is that we weren't there and don't know, and primary first-hand accounts don't perfectly match up, but the secondary, tertiary and time-removed accounts are even worse in agreements. Let's simplify as Storm Rider suggests, and lets try to find another source than Quinn. He is not omniscient. He wasn't there either. -Visorstuff 21:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Is any of this really important? I mean, all this stuff is important when you're discussing the Kennedy assassination, but I think the precise details about where Smith was standing when bullet X hit him are bordering on the non-notable. If we included that much detail on every aspect of Joseph Smith's life, this would be a full book, rather than an encyclopedia article. The only things I think that are really important about Smith's death are who killed him, why, how (roughly), and any information that might reveal his composure (or arguable lack thereof), and his thinking, when facing death (which are notable because they relate to his status among Mormons as a martyr). CO GDEN  22:43, August 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we are currently including very specific information, where it is unneeded. We should add sources in addition to Quinn (not to replace him). Please, find some. Quinn stays as a source, but other sources should be added. In the interest of simplification, how about:


 * Joseph Smith was shot multiple times and killed.


 * Nereocystis 23:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to change the language regarding Joseph Smith's death than what is already written. It is already referenced and has ample detail.  It is balanced and does not shed either negative or positive light on either party than what is already known.  Nereo, I am not sure I understand how you would want to change it or why, but if you think you can improve it, go for it.  However, we all will judge what you wrote and this time we will allow consensus to guide the community.


 * As an aside, I can understand why you and I might disagree on Quinn; He is a historical reconstructionist and I put little value in any historian that appreciates the label. You apparently think some fellow who has lived 170 years after Joseph's death has soemthing to say of merit and heretofore unknown.  Quinn believes he is capable of putting himself in the room and "knowing" what happened.  He makes people feel good; particularly those who already have his mindset.  If a historian takes his hypothesis, researches widely, and then only includes data that supports his hypothesis; that individual is not a historian, but something wholly different.  Storm Rider 00:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * So far, I do not see any footnotes in the section on his death. See Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1. Could you point me to the footnotes? You may know what the references are, but they are not in the text. I haven't added any either; I am equally guilty. We're stuck being people who are alive 170 years after Smith's death.  Someone has to write the article.  Smith won't do it himself. Please, let's not evaluate his accuracy; that's not our job.


 * I have written a few alternative texts. I followed your StormRider's advice of simplifying.  Are any of the alternatives acceptable? Nereocystis 00:19, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

What are the imbedded, linked references 5 and 6 in the sectin "Smith's Death"? I am not sure a footnote is needed when a reader can go directly to the sources and read for themselves. Storm Rider 00:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Nereocystis - you wrote: "Please, let's not evaluate [Quinn's] accuracy; that's not our job." Unfortunately, we have to evaluate if he is a trusted source on this - and he is not until his work is peer reviewed. It has not been substantiated, and is therefore suspect. If we don't evaluate the truth of references, who will? We'll get funky references that Smith didn't even die, as someone claimed it at one time. It's a ludicrious argument. No offence intended, just doesn't make sense to me or hold any water. I repeat, we have to expand our source materials to additional sources and if possible primary documents, not tertiary ones that Quinn uses. -Visorstuff 00:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What are your peer-reviewed sources on Smith's death? Nereocystis 00:44, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Children of Plural Marriage

 * "Recent DNA tests have not found that any of these disputed children were genetically related to Joseph Smith."

Anon contribution moved here for discussion and possible documentation. Has anyone heard of this "recent" occurence? Who would have organized such a study? Would be interesting reading. WBardwin 05:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, some genetic research was recently conducted by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation on some possible children of Joseph Smith. But the above statement is a bit misleading. The SMGF has ruled out three men (out of who knows how many?) as being children of Joseph Smith. But the test has only been tried thus far on those particular three. CO GDEN  23:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

An Anon edited the Plural Marriage portion fairly significantly. The problem is that he referred to two children that have been confirmed by DNA testing. However, when I went to the link which stated the confirmed children, it linked to an article the Deseret News which did not state that two sons had been confirmed, but that 3 of 9 children had been proven not to be Joseph's children. Further, it stated that Josephine Rosetta Lyon's paternity has been analyzed for over five years and $100,000 of reserach and it is still inconclusive. The source is wrong and the Anon's strident position as to its truth is inappropriate; so I reverted. Storm Rider 00:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, so what are you trying to do with the [number] things? There is a footnote function which uses some version of  .  I never remember so I go look at the Hunter Thompson page to see how it's done.  FYI.  Wikibofh 00:16, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not so certain that there is a confusion about the number of children, but rather, is it known that he fathered any children from his plural wives. It is too early to know what position DNA evidence will support.  The Anon editor may acutally be correct, but as of now and using his sources, he is incorrect and is inappropriate in taking such a strident position.  The site he uses states that there are two sons that have been proven to be descendants, but they both refer to an article that does not support the claim.  The scientists in question will be forthcoming with information that may clarify the position on this possible descendants, but now it is simply not known today.  Storm Rider 00:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider: From anon edit referenced above:  "Historians have previously identified eight children that fit time and place requirements as possible children of Joseph Smith. Dr. Scott Woodward and others are conducting DNA research of possible descendants of Joseph Smith. To date, two of these eight possible chilren (sic) have proved not to be fathered by Joseph Smith."   Note that "he" says that two of the eight have been eliminated as Smith's children.  Since one of the referenced articles says that two sons have been eliminated and the other says three  -- the editor's "error" may be in which source to use.  This is a breaking story - and interesting.  Perhaps a restoration of some of "his" edit is in order?   WBardwin 02:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

W, my issue is that that this is not worthwhile, but that it is too early. As you say, it is breaking news. It is inappropriate to take either position. What we know today is the Joseph Smith was married to several women. We also know that there have been some who alledge to be children of Joseph Smith, but according to the sources used none have proven their legitimacy though some have gone through extensive review. When the scientists finally make their case, then it would be appropriate to state what they have found; everthing else is premature. Storm Rider 06:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You said above that the anon. editor was asserting these people were proven children of JSmith, but he actually never said that in the edit. He simply stated and referenced public material.  By removing his edit, with the edit summary assertion that he should look at his source for errors, you excluded him from both the editing and discussion process.


 * Yes, I do believe the discussion belongs here on the talk page, but I don't believe it is premature to mention that modern techniques are being applied to this history problem. Is there any danger in acknowledging that the question exists and that people are looking into it in a new way?  Are we afraid our readers will misinterpret the study?  As for taking "either position" -- stating the findings to date is a relatively neutral position.  If there is anything that is "true" in history, it is that viewpoints and evidence are always in flux.  Very rarely is a historical case actually considered 100% solved -- and certainly there will be a margin of error in this case, even though we are used to thinking of DNA testing as infallible (thank TV for that!).  So -- I would restore at least a mention of the study and invite the anon to help us out on this page.  WBardwin 06:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

W, I am not disagreeing with anything you are saying. My position is with the Anon's tone of his edits. For him everything was cystal clear; the outcome was a fait accomplis. Of course it is appropriate to state that there have been DNA studies of alleged Joseph Smith offspring for at least the past five years. As of today, no offspring have been identified though as many as nine have been identified as potential offspring. We believe some type of answer is imminent, but until then it is not known if Joseph Smith bore offspring from any of his plural wives. I hope you have already invited the Anon to come back and edit to his heart's content, but if he wishes to be strident it might be helpful to encourage reading some of the counsel on NOPV and POV. Storm Rider 07:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Smith as a featured article
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement concerning a drive toward featured article status for this page. This post is merely a notification; please continue discussion there. Cookiecaper 04:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


 * See Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 for the peer review. Nereocystis 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether JS denied practicing polygamy
- I believe that the 2nd to last paragraph is worded incorrect and is not,in its context, correct. Where it states that "Smith publicly denied plural marriage", it should be excluded, and in its place read something such as "Joseph Smith praticed polygyny (NOT POLYGAMY- otherwise everything is misunderstood in Morminism, look up the two word to know the difference in meaning) in secret when he was first commanded to do so, later on he introduced a small number of selected individuals (those mainly stronger in faith) into the practice".

-Added by Mormon follower and believer: GP (Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 - 11:16 AM ET) -


 * On the issue of whether or not Joseph Smith actually denied practicing polygyny, I don't think there is any historical doubt, is there, that Joseph Smith denied practicing polygyny? I know of some theories that used to be held by the Community of Christ, that he never actually practiced polygyny, but is there really any doubt that he publically denied it? After all, his denial is in History of the Church:


 * "I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclemation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives....This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs"-Joseph Smith (History of The Church 6:410-411)


 * Now, maybe someone would argue that this was actually a legalistic Clintonesqe non-denial denial. But I don't think so. If there is an actual controversy here, I would suggest just quoting his denial, and avoiding any interpretation. CO GDEN  17:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with CO GDEN  here. The statement by GP is POV. Polygamy includes polygyny, of course, so polygamy is not incorrect. Furthermore, Joseph Smith married some already-married women, so polygyny really isn't quite sufficient for Smith. The current statement does not need to be changed. Nereocystis 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

First Vision
This is what the article reads now in the opening paragraph:


 * Raised during an era of Christian innovation, at the beginning of the Restorationism movement, Smith built his ministry upon claims of divination, revelation, visits from angels, the discovery and translation of ancient writings, and the introduction of novel social, economic, and doctrinal ideas. Smith's call began, he later said, with a first vision, a theophany, in his adolescent years, where he received a forgiveness of his sins in a clearing of the woods near his home. Later, he claimed the influence of angels, who led him to restore what he claimed was the original Church of Christ, as he believed it existed in the 1st Century.

I would rewrite this:


 * Smith claimed to be a prophet, receiving his charge in the first vision, a theophany, where he claimed he saw and conversed with God the Father and Jesus Christ. He built his ministry upon claims of divination, revelation, angelic visitations, discovery of and translation of ancient writings by former prophets, and the divine authority to restore the original church that Jesus Christ established while he lived on the earth.

I don't believe the current paragraph accurately reflects what Smith claimed. It doesn't even agree with the section below on the First Vision. Plus, it doesn't flow well. Jgardner 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * First, thanks for bringing it here first for discussion. Definitely better than revert wars.  :)  A few comments.  I think the first part of the original sentence "Raised ... movement ..." is good because it provides a context.  For most of the rest of it I prefer your version with the exception of "God the Father".  This sounds to me like a circular definition, as it would normally be simply "God", and that perhaps JS said "God the Father".  This is addressed in the article on God and I would propose that both that and Jesus Christ simply be wikified. Wikibofh 20:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

J, I really like your proposed language and feel Wikibofh raises a good point to set context. I am torn on the God the Father and Jesus Christ labels. For Christians there is great meaing to "God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, which I prefer to the way it is written now. To non-Christians, I see how they might not understand the importance of the statement.  That fact that Joseph claimed to see two individuals is remarkable and is deserving of making a distinctive statement in this regards.  However, after stating it once then using Wiki protocol is appropriate. Storm Rider 22:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I like the rewrite. I have pretty much the same suggestions as these guys: keep the good parts of the lead-in section and show or link to an article that shows the distinction between God the Father and God the Son. Cookiecaper 09:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Slavery
Cookie Caper - you took out reference to Smith and the saints being anti-slavery, however, it mentions boggs was pro-slavery. I think this needs to be addressed, as it was on of two major issues in the Missouri era - including Missouri becoming a state and until the Civil war. Not sure how you think it would best fit, but needs to be in there prior to boggs info. -Visorstuff 23:58, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Do you mean that we should distinguish Boggs as pro-slavery? The church was not officially abolitionist. See some place where it's written "we do not believe in setting the negroes free". I don't see what Boggs's position on slavery has to do with anything. Cookiecaper 00:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No - Missourians tended to be slaveholders and Mormons were northerners who tended to be abolitionists. Lilburn Boggs was pro-slavery. Smith ran on an Anti-slavery platform for public offices. There had to be natural emnity between the two. The article already states that boggs was pro-slavery. but to understand the missouri conflicts, one must also understand the mindset of the time in the state - which was "why is the state being flooded with northern abolistionists." There were fighting and mobbings against northerners moving to the state (mark twain's works mention some of this) other than the saints. Its just the saints were a large bloc of voters that were easily targeted. We need to say that Smith himself was anti-slavery, as he was. -Visorstuff 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Review notes
I looked at the article a little more seriously, but only a little, after the peer review request was made. I'll mention some problems, with solutions if possible.

First mention of First Vision
Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr. states:
 * Over the years, beginning in 1820, Smith described this experience many times using varying details.

This conflicts with First Vision, which states that the first allusion to the first vision was in 1830. Options:


 * 1) Change 1820 to 1830
 * 2) Remove the phrase "beginning in 1820" completely. It's less POV, but it might remove important information.

Danites
Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr. states:
 * Smith disapproved of the group [the Danites]

This statement is questionable as the Danite article states, especially in Danites. We could cut just the quoted passage, but that would suggest that Smith disapproved, without saying it. I'm not sure how to handle the controversy here, but I want to make it clear that Smith may have know about the Danites. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Expositor outrage
Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr. states:
 * In response to public outrage generated by the paper, the Nauvoo City Council passed an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers.

Please provide a citation for the council's reaction being in response to public outrage. My impression is that it was due to Smith's outrage, but I have to look up references myself. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/nauvoo_expositor_eom.htm says that " One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding." Cookiecaper 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

This citation says that The Expositor caused a furor and that there was a city council meeting, but it doesn't estabish cause and effect, though it comes close. It does add:
 * Church members demanded that something be done.

and then leads into the city council meeting. I'll look through my paper references when I get a chance. Nereocystis 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Cite your sources
This is a common problem in wikipedia, but let's cite sources in as many places as possible. Everyone should get their favorite Smith resources together and start references comments. I admit that I'm not very good at this either. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Did Joseph Smith testify about the first vision, or state it?
Joseph_Smith, Jr. states:
 * In his 1838 account he testified

I prefer states to testifies, based upon NPOV_tutorial. Testify has a much different connotation than states, which is rather POV to my eyes. Nereocystis 19:19, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Really? I think "testify" is more POV than "states."  In fact, I think states is inherantly NPOV.  But I don't oppose to the change.   &mdash; Frecklefoot | Talk 20:01, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Frecklefoot, I think you are saying the same thing as Nereo: you both believe that states is better than testify. Joseph Smith professed to be a prophet. The definition of testify is: to make a statement based on personal knowledge or belief; bear witness, to serve as evidence or proof, to express personal conviction, to make a solemn delcaration under oath for the purpose of establishing a fact (as in a court of law). In the context of an encyclopedic article Joseph Smith testified to his first vision; he made a statement based on personal knowledge. Given the context of the article, I still believe that testify is more appropriate and is in keeping of the "spirit" (no pun intended) of WIKI. Storm Rider 22:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Liar. You intended that pun.  :)  Wikibofh 23:03, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider as "testify" makes people who believe in Joseph happier and doesn't mean that he's right. But I'm fine with either one. Cookiecaper 00:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I did word that carelessly. I prefer states which is less POV. How does History of the Church lead into Smith's statement? Does anyone have the paragraph or two before what is quoted in this article? Nereocystis 00:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The quoted account is part of Joseph Smith-History. Cookiecaper 00:59, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't find the word testify in this chapter. My opinion stands. Let's go with "states". Nereocystis 01:09, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Nereo, you have stated your opinion above, but have not explained it other than it is your opinion. You have stated you feel testify is more POV than states. I would agree with you if you testified in the article, or anyone else, but it is Joseph's testimony of what happened. I believe the definition of testify is precisely what Joseph was doing, I believe it is accordance with WIKI policy, so I need to hear more support. That is not to say your opinion is not valid, but please elaborate if possible. This is not a big deal, but you changed it to states and I want something more rather than a personal prefrence. Storm Rider 02:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It's simple. The word testify introduces a POV and a connotation inappropriate for wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial says:
 * Whenever "said", "wrote", or "stated" are options, they are usually the safest.

Read the whole section for more information. Testify has a different connotation from states; this connotation may be appropriate for a religious tract, but is inappropriate for wikipedia.

Mormons may be happy with testify, but don't need it. States does not suggest a negative bias against Smith. I don't any non-Mormon would use the word testify in this context.

The references do not support the use of the word testify. In 'Times and Seasons', as well as the more modern version in Joseph Smith-History, I can't find the word testify around this description, though the word appears elsewhere in 'Times and Seasons'. In fact, Smith starts out saying:
 * In this history I will present the various events in relation to this church, in truth and righteousness, as they have transpired, or as they at present exist, being now the eighth year since the organization of the said church.

No use of the word testify.+


 * Then let's keep it "states" rather than testify; no big. However, I find your logic faulty.  If you think Joseph's account of his first vision is not a testimony, then I would say your understanding of the term's definition sadly lacking.  One does not need to say "I testify" to have testified.  You are using such a narrow understanding that very few things could ever be construed as appropriate for the use of the term.  In addition, I think you have misunderstood context of WIKI's counsel.  Based upon my reading and rereading of the policy you have cited, I continue to see no conflict in this situation where Joseph Smith testifies to what he experienced.  In this instance you are using such a broad understanding that any mention of a term is inappropriate.  I am not interested in offending your sensibilities, but we have already spent enough time on this minor edit.  This one goes to you, not by consensus, but by accomodation.  Let's see what happens in the future. Storm Rider 05:00, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

If I'm the only complaining, I won't insist on it. I would be surprised if the issue doesn't come up again with more review, but I have been surprised before. Oops, I wrote this before noticing that it had been changed. Do whatever seems appropriate. Nereocystis 15:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sentences and things
The peer review mentions that we need to flesh this out some. I agree, particularly about the section "Early Life". Much more can and should be included and expanded on here and it's out of order, so it needs to rearranged to match the chronology of the events. Cookiecaper 21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Independence, Missouri
I removed the new claim from the intro that JS established Independence.

Independence was already a thriving town on the western frontier when the first Mormon missionaries arrived in late 1830. When the Saints came to Independence in the summer of 1831, most of them established small communities to the west of town. The Church established a print shop and general store in town, and some of the Saints lived there.

JS had a direct hand in significantly building up Kirtland, Ohio. Mormons also established Far West, Missouri, although JS was not there at the time. --MrWhipple 17:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. Thanks. CO GDEN  20:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)