Talk:List of prophecies of Joseph Smith/Archive 1

Untitled
I invite more people to criticize Joseph's prophetic claims in this article. I would extend that invitation to non-Christians and non-Jews as well, and would encourage them to use whatever method they desire that makes sense. Jgardner 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea to move the page, Jgardner. Thanks. --MrWhipple 23:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References for all prophecies needed
If a prophecy is listed here, a reference and exact wording of the prophecy must be listed. Many of the items listed under "Other prophecies" are missing the reference and exact prophecy. If you can't list both, then the prophecy should be deleted. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted?
This article seems to exist to further a religious debate, and nothing more. There is already a comprehensive Joseph Smith article. Is there a Jesus as a Savior page? Is there any way for an article like this to be NPOV? Does this type of article have any place in an encyclopedia? Gregmg 29 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

this page was creaed becasue people did not like me mentioning how the phrophecies of smith  did not, by and large, come true, and kept deleting things. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

What's the point? Why even debate whether or not his prophecies came to fruition? Most controversial articles on Wikipedia simply present the facts, then describe what group A and group B believe. His alleged prophecies should be added to the Joseph Smith page, if they really are that important. I don't see any reason for this article to exist. Gregmg 29 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)

This page was broken out from Joseph Smith because the page was getting too long. Perhaps the subject of this article should be The Prophecies of Joseph Smith, rather than the current focus on Joseph Smith as a Prophet. -- MrWhipple 29 June 2005 21:09 (UTC)

That seems like the right approach. Present his 'prophecies' as a matter of fact, and then present the supporter and detractor positions. The biased language needs to be stripped out as well. Gregmg 29 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)

The problem is that Joseph Smith has made numerous prophecies. Documenting them all here would be impossible. There are volumes of published works containing various prophecies that he has made. I think a better approach would be to show the claim, and then consider individual prophecies that are relevant to the case, or at least the prophecies that are discussed. Jgardner 29 June 2005 23:09 (UTC)

I don't see any way to create a neutral and totally objective article centered on the claim of Joseph Smith as a prophet. From the very start that's just an invitation to an argument. Further, how can one prove or disprove the status of an individual as a prophet? If I spell out in very concise terms a very specific event that will take place tomorrow, and that event happens exactly as I described, then maybe some will call me a prophet. Others might say that I got lucky in my prediction. Still others might suggest that I somehow caused that event to happen through my actions, thereby creating a self-fullfilling prophecy. Instead, as MrWhipple has suggested, I think the focus must be on his Joseph Smith's prophecies with supporting and counter viewpoints presented point by point. After carefully reviewing the past edits, I'll start making some minor tweaks in the next day or so. Gregmg 30 June 2005 00:24 (UTC)

Let's start from the beginning and move towards what we have. There was a boy who was born in 1805 who founded a religion. That in and of itself isn't that special. Lots of people started their own religions and churches. But he is different. He isn't just any religionist because he claims that he actually speaks with God face-to-face like prophets anciently. He claims that he received Golden Plates and he translated them by the power of God into the Book of Mormon. He claims to hold the keys to salvation. He claims that his is the only church that acts with real authority from God, and that all the other churches are imposters. Aren't you interested in what arguments have been made about whether or not he is a real prophet? If Joseph Smith merely claimed to be able to predict a few things, that would be one thing. But when a young boy claims incredible visions and revelations, comparable only to a handful of previous prophet's experiences, that is something else. Jgardner 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)

I think you're starting out on the right track. This article should state the facts as they are widely accepted, then present opposing viewpoints. In a quick read of the article and the ensuing discussion, it seems that everyone, both pro and con, is greatly influenced by their own Judeo-Christian traditions. Try to take for a moment the viewpoint of an Atheist, or perhaps that of a polytheist with no belief in prophecy. For them the presupposition that there are in fact 'real' prophets, which further presupposes that there is a (one) god, would be terribly troubling. Therefore, I think the whole jist of this article needs to change from one of "Was Joseph Smith a Prophet?" to one of "The Prophecies of Joseph Smith". It's important to note that "prophecies" in this context does not necessarily convey that his prophecies came to fruition. Most dictionaries only define prophecy as a prediction of the future. 'Prophet', on the other hand, implies the existance of a god. Gregmg 30 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)

Yes, the word "Prophet" does imply the existence of God, but so did Joseph Smith's life. Perhaps rather than trying to make this sound more neutral (because Joseph Smith certainly was never neutral or compromising on his claims), we should keep the focus on this article as only being relevant to those who worry about Judeo-Christian claims of prophethood. We can preface it with words such as: "Those who deny the existence of God or the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition of prophecy find these claims absurd." Would that help to show that this article is only relevant to a particular subject, much like an article on whether Ewoks are Wookies is relevant only to Star Wars? Jgardner 30 June 2005 17:45 (UTC)

I just don't think that an article that presumes the existance of a god has any place in an encyclopedia. The articles on Ewoks and Wookies state quite clearly that they are fictional characters. I'm taking back my previous offer to help. Lacking a concensus on the need to take this article in a new direction, I just don't see any positive outcome. Gregmg 30 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see that you don't want to contribute. I can't change your mind on that. However, if you don't believe that the existence of a god has any place in an encyclopedia, then I don't think you are being neutral. Do you want to erase all the articles that mention god or gods or the supernatural? Should we do this yet keep all the articles about Star Wars? What about articles that question your beliefs outside of religion, which probably include a belief in evolution, global warming, or the big bang theory? Should we throw away all the work that has been done in those areas? Jgardner 30 June 2005 19:55 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. If it matters, I'm Catholic. I don't see a problem with articles that pertain to religion or discuss how a particular group believes in a particular god. It's one thing though for an article to discuss how the people of Northern Elbonia worship the god Besheva. It's totally another to use Wikipedia as a forum to debate the authenticity of Dogbert as a prophet of the god Besheva. Gregmg 30 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)

It's easy to write it off by comparing this to Dogbert. But this doesn't compare. Has there been a significant amount of research and writing done on Dogbert's claims? Has Dogbert inspired a religion that is one of the more important religions in the USA and world? Do you see why one is trivial and the other is not? And Wikipedia is not the debate forum. We are merely going to represent the debate that is occurring. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)

IMO, this article probably can't turn out useful, and should be deleted. JS's predictions are too numerous to analyze, as has been pointed out. I think it would just amount to fighting, anyway. Even in the best case, it may only amount to collaborative original research, which still isn't appropriate. In many cases with prophesy, things are too subjective to lend themselves to NPOV. Those who've drank the kool-aid will find the prophesies true, others will generally find them false. Debates below rage on, I see no reason to believe they'll arrive at a consensus. Friday 5 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

Friday, how can the article be deleted? I concurr with your opinion that the article will only create debate and adds nothing to Wiki. Debate is useless in the current situation because there is no recognition that a different opinion can exist and I see no possibility of improvement. Storm Rider 5 July 2005 05:27 (UTC)

Criticisms of Civil War and Missouri temple
I removed two notes from 82.3.32.73 because they were improperly formatted and not NPOV. I'm putting them here for discussion.

Civil War prophecy: NOTE: Wars have been happening very frequently before the Civil War as well as after, thus Smith has been very vague here, its like claiming that fruit shall fall from trees as though they didn't already do that before.

Missouri temple prophecy/commandment: ''NOTE: So God is Semetic all of a sudden? Wether Jonah, Isaiah and Jeremiah were wrong doesn't justify Smith's errors. Its like comparing the Budha (exampli gratia) to the Bible, he stands on his own merits not on those of others.''

--MrWhipple 29 June 2005 03:47 (UTC)

I tire of Anti-Mormons coming in making wholesale changes to fit their individual POV. Prior to changes, how about talking about issues and then let's discuss them on the talk page before we get into petty edit wars that benefit no one! Storm Rider 29 June 2005 06:48 (UTC)

I tire of people who think anything that doesn't conform to their viewpoint is "antimormon" and that editing requires prior discussion while reversions don't. That's backwards. Other than "I don't like the changes", do you have a substantive point, or is this page going to be "bullied" into reflecting only your own point of view? - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Well, is that the kettle calling the pot black? I assume it is your version of sarcastic humor.
 * you suppose wrongly. Everything in that paragraph was meant in earnest seriousness. Editing requires little explanation: the thing speaks for itself. Reverting requires explanation: what you think is so wrong about the statements that it can't be edited to a better formulation, but is so bad that you want to censor it.--Mørmøn 29 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)

I suspect you are aware of the copious edits that occured prior to breaking this article out unto itself. It started with an individual quoting typical and standard Anti-Mormon, a term I do not use loosely, critiques. Care from mulitple editors went into the creation of the article.
 * Actually, what seemes to me is that a throng cooperated to keep the two wrong prophesies out of the article on JS,Jr., first by pretending that they had to be removed because of bad spelling. When that didn't work, a several paragraph rebuttal was written to the original two sentence contribution an incredibly unbalanced response. And when even that profoundly biased rendition proved too much for the faith-promoting-crowd to tolerate, they moved it out of the article, shunting it away here, where it's less likely to be seen. This is a similar treatment to that given to JS,Jr's list of wives, which was too uncomfortable to be in his main biograophy (as everyone else's wives are), so that list was moved to a more out-of-the-way article. The multiple editors (2 or three) to whom you allude all wrote from an apologetic viewpoint, and minimized any intimation that there might exist other - and far more popular - viewpoints on the failed prophecies. - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Then you, Mørmøn (a cute moniker for someone with undoutedly a very objective viewpoint given the subject matter at hand),
 * Well thanks, Storm Trooper is a somewhat less lovely nickname....

enters the fray with wholesale changes and edits to reflect your narrow viewpoint.
 * The changes I made were of three sorts: to accurately reflect that the division here is between Mormons and non-Mormons, not "critics" and "advocates" of Smith; to accurately describe the viewpoints of those who feel these two predictions were false; and to whittle down the unnecessarily word parts, especially the long strings of weasel words. In addition, the list of wars after the Civil War is an unnecessary paragraph: by itself it proves nothing, not even that there were more wars after than before, which even if true would be irrelevant, as the prediction was that the Civil War would turn into a world ward. - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)
 * The division on Smith is not between Mormon and non-Mormon. There are many people who admire Smith as a prophet who do not consider themselves Mormon, and many Mormons who do not respect Smith as a prophet. Admittedly, these are minority populations. (People who tend to belive Smith as a prophet tend to become Mormon; likewise those who don't believe Smith as a prophet tend to leave the Church.) The division is between apologetics who are trying to prove that Smith was a prophet, and critics who are trying to show he is not. Go look up those two words in the dictionary and you will see that those are the exact appropriate words. Jgardner 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * There is no appreciable number of people who consider Smith a prophet who are not Mormon. It's bizarre that you think there are. The division on Smith is Mormon and non-Mormon. One who does not happen to believe that all of Smith's prophesies came to pass is not a "critic". That is an incorrect characterization, which assumes that the default position is that Smith is a prophet. Apologetics is, of course, the correct who use a defensive method of argumentation in behalf of what they consider sacred truth. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)
 * On the contrary - there is a growing number of folks who fit in this category - who study Mormonism for other reasons that religion. This is evidenced, not only by the growing historical interest in SMith by biblical scholars, academicians, Americana historians, but by two non-Mormom editions of the Book of Mormon (doubleday and university of illinois press) and multiple "mormonism" history emphasis of studies set up by non-LDS colleges. Even historial associastions like the one Jan Shipps (who is not Mormon) and our own Jon Hammer is involved in have great interest in the topic of Smith. However, this is ancilliary to the argument at hand. -Visorstuff 1 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

The hypocrisy of requiring everyone else to explain why your edits are inappropriate is astounding. You get to make all the edits you wish to fit your viewpoint and then we have to explain why they are inappropirate??? Ya think that is acceptable or fair?
 * What's fair is you respond to edits by proposing alternatives that seem fair to all parties. What's not at all fair is for you to come by and revert all changes without explanation.--Mørmøn 29 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)
 * You apparently don't understand Wikipedia's policy regarding reverts. If someone makes a change I disagree with, we are encouraged to discuss it on the talk page and revert it. If there are three reverts in a day, the article gets locked until the discussion is resolved. Jgardner 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it's you who do not understand that reverts are a slap in the face, an indication that the person whose opinion has been reverted just doesn't matter. It's an inappropriate response to anything but vandalism. It is not an appropriate response to content disputes. The appropriate response to an edit that you disagree with is to propose a change by editing the points you disagree with. A revert is not an appropriate response, especially when accompanied by a snarky edit summary. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Look, you understand the controversial nature of a religious article. When you want to make wholesale changes just discuss it first.
 * This was not an established article that had achieved a delicate balance that might be disturbed. It was a screed written by one side. I wanted to make appropriate changes in a very new and evolving, and thus far one-sided article. We don't usually require permission to add in neglected, marginalized, or ignored points of view, especially when they are the actual majority point of view. - Mørmøn
 * The number of people who hold a view is irrelevant to whether the view is correct or not. Jgardner 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * The number of people who hold a view is relevant as to how much space in the article should be taken up by it. We don't devote a lot of space to flat earth theory in the earth article: it gets its own. What's not appropriate is (as your draft did) saying "some people believe this is false, and here are two paragraphs arguing why they are wrong." - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)

Reading this talk page specifically invites your comments and questions prior to making such drastic changes, which were several, diverse, and POV, prior to making them. You would be surprised at how balanced the article will evolve. Even better, we are all assured of an article that does not fit one sides specific view. Storm Rider 29 June 2005 07:12 (UTC)
 * Do you have any intent ever of discussing the reason for your revert? - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)
 * We already have the article that fits one sides' view, and you have repeatedly reverted to it rather than permit another side to be included. You should be profoundly ashamed of your actions. Yes, I will be very surprised if you and your cronies "permit" this article to become balanced.- Mørmøn 29 June 2005 09:00 (UTC)
 * The only side the article is supposed to fit is documented fact. If you'd like to bring in evidence that contradicts material presented here and documented thoroughly elsewhere, you are more than welcome to do so. I'd like you to examine the bulk of the articles on Mormonism and decide for yourself whether it is overrepresenting one side or the other, or whether the articles are well-researched. Jgardner 29 June 2005 15:00 (UTC)
 * I don't think you actually want that: the Mormon articles are pretty tightly controlled by the Mormon interest group on Wikipedia. Non-faith-promoting opinions are systematically excluded, and any review would be a futile effort. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:06 (UTC)


 * Mørmøn, you obviously have an axe to grind or you would not have chosen the moniker you possess. You happen to enjoy limiting the conversation to only those points that support your viewpoint.  That is fine, but it is not appropirate for Wiki.  When someone states "Ole Joe was not a prophet and these are the prophesies that are false", others will necessarily respond with opposing information.  You do not get to decide what Joseph Smith meant in his prophecy nor do you get to decide what is an appropriate response or how long of a response is acceptable.  What you do get to do is state your facts and allow others to do the same.  When I initally reverted your edits it is because you changed so much of the article that it did not have any semblance to the original.  I therefore reverted your profuse edits and encouraged you to discuss your edits first.  You then took it personally; "a slap in the face", oh please.  Don't take it personally, but do take it to mean you were too drastic in your edits and need to discuss your position first.  Don't be so thin skinned.  You have a viewpoint, Wiki should hear it, but that does not mean you are "right"; there is no right or wrong.  State the facts and allow others to do the same.  Move on; this is getting tedious. Storm Rider 30 June 2005 16:22 (UTC)
 * No, I will not move on. Your reversion was inappropriate, and you continue to insult me. You tell me to state the facts, yet when I touch the article, you revert every change. That is not appropriate, it is bullying, it is obnoxious, it was wrong. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)


 * M0rm0n, are you accusing us of intimidating you? I can't believe this is true. I have invited you to contribute, and I have even added a section below so that we can discuss your edit proposals. Please comment on your individual contributions and please rebut my comments and defend yourself, rather than blaming an imagined conspiracy. If you would like, please encourage people with your POV to look at this article and rebut my comments in your stead. This is an open invitation and I really do want to make the article more NPOV. Jgardner 30 June 2005 19:58 (UTC)
 * You don't intimidate me, though you do seem to work through intimidation. Your technique appears to be to create such an unwelcoming atmosphere for editors who dare to differ with your opinions that they find it too unpleasant to edit, with a result that other points of view are given scant recognition. Look at Storm Rider's comments again and tell me what an open, respectful atmosphere prevails here. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:49 (UTC)
 * No comment. Let the reader decide. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:38 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This article would certainly benefit from more readers, and more editors. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

NPOV?
M0rm0n, (or however you spell it,) would you kindly describe what is not NPOV in this article? I think I fairly represented both sides as near as I could determine from articles I've read. Did I not represent the claims made by both sides accurately? Would you care to respond to the points made by FAIR and FARMS about the prophecies fulfilled by Joseph Smith? I can't for the life of me find any response to the valid points, nor any counter-response to the Civil War and Missouri Temple arguments. Jgardner 29 June 2005 15:21 (UTC)


 * Surely you jest. Your version states in 12 words that the Civil War didn't spread to all nations and then takes two paragraphs in explaining that the prophesy is true anyway? You can't believe that that is a fiar presentation, can you? - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)


 * There was the point of the critics and then I added the counterpoint by the apologists. The counterpoint is that war indeed did spread to all nations. If this isn't clear, I'll edit it. Jgardner 29 June 2005 19:44 (UTC)


 * My point was that you did not represent the viewpoints proportionately: you used the "failed" only as a peg to hang a long discourse espousing a "didn't fail" diatribe upon. And no, a list of wars subsequent to the Civil War doesn't mean the Civil War "spread" to become those wars: for any such list one merely need back up a war or two, and one could claim (with equal illogic) that all wars spread from the Revolution, or the War of Austrican Succession, or the Pelopenesian Wars. - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)


 * You are invited to elaborate and add why the apologetic's view is not appropriate or does not apply. Jgardner 29 June 2005 20:48 (UTC)
 * When I attempted to do so I was repeatedly reverted. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:08 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as far as proportions: Please, please fill in whatever facts or figures you want to cite. I can't be expected to understand the opposing side fairly (I have no sympathy for their position), so please represent them. Jgardner 29 June 2005 20:50 (UTC)
 * When I attempted to do so I was repeatedly reverted. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:08 (UTC)


 * Mørmøn, You were reverted because you made drastic deletions and edits without any discussion. You have an objective in your edits, that is obvious, however, Wiki is not a great place for people with agendas.  State your case using facts and allow others the same.  You will be amazed when it is done without emotion how fun it is.  You are not right and neither am I, but I respect your opinion and look forward to seeing your facts. 30 June 2005 16:45 (UTC)
 * At wikipedia we edit boldly. Discussion is called for when people disagree with edits. Instead of discussion of the edits which (you? I can't tell, as the statement is unsigned) disagreed with, reversion followed. I have stated my case using facts, and it has been reverted. You now impute emotion to me, though it is unclear on what basis you do that. Let me tell you that I do not feel that my opinion has been respected in any way. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:42 (UTC)


 * Mørmøn, the point is that you came in and did wholesale deletes.
 * I deleted one paragraph: the irrelevant list of wars, and reworded other sections. Both were improvements. You reverted all of them.


 * You did not discuss them you simply did them. Then you responded, as if it is totally unfair, for someone else to do a wholesale delete on your comments.  The point is, if you are going to do wholesale deletes or edits, discuss it and don't just change it.
 * That's the way it works. Changes are made, and if undisputed remain. If discussion is needed, discussion ensues. The proper response to a change you disagree with is discussion, or a compromise wording, not a revestion. Reversion is a way of saying "screw you, your opinion doesn't count". - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)


 * Gabriel, please explain how Joseph Smith caused his prophesies that you deleted. How did he control others from killing him in Liberty Jail?; he couldn't possible know they would allow his escape after being held for many weeks?  How did Joseph have a hand in settling the church in Utah; he was dead?  How did Joseph control the value of his name; other poeple control that?  How did he control Stephen Douglas'election?  How did he control the eventuality of stakes in Boston and New York; he had been dead for many years when that took place?  How did he fulfill the prophesy of Elijah; that was not fulfilled until later when baptisms for the dead were done in great numbers due to genealogy research?  How did he control a mob that murdered him in Carthage jail; he could not possible control the hearts of those wonderful "christian" people?  How did he control Dan Jones' survival and mission; he was dead?


 * Both of you have an axe to grind and anything factual that remotely appears to shed a positive light on Mormonism is anathema to you and needs to be deleted regardless. Take a breath, discuss and then edit. Storm Rider 29 June 2005 17:10 (UTC)


 * You need to shine a bright light on yourself and examine your own censorious behavior. You need to stop viewing people whose views differ from yours as enemies, and begin to appreciate that all views must be represented in Wikipedia, not just those you share. - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)


 * Where are we being censorious? Look back to the edits. It is GabrielSimon who has been censoring contributions by removing them. Please respond to your edit proposals below. I certainly don't want to silence any side of the debate. I invite them to add their pov so we can make a balanced article. I don't view you as an enemy, and if you feel that way, let me know what I have done so I can remedy it. Jgardner 30 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)


 * when incarserated, if i were to say " ill be okay, ill get out of here unharmed" and it ha[ppens, does that make me a prophet??  nope.  therafore it doesnt make him one either.  in that spirit i deleted that and other "prophecies" of such nature. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 17:14 (UTC)


 * The simple answer is "yes, it does" -- if Joseph Smith prophesied in the name of God that he would get out alive (Liberty Jail) or would be slaughtered (Carthage Jail), and it came to pass as he prophesied, then he's a prophet, Q.E.D. Your wholesale edits are not welcome or proper for the Wikipedia community. If you want to correct spelling, add new information, or alter a minor point to make it more correct, that's fine; but major changes and deletions need to be discussed first. (And checked for spelling, which does not seem to be your strong suit.)--MrWhipple 29 June 2005 17:17 (UTC)


 * Gabe, I appreciate your answer, but you need to answer why you deleted each item. When you are imprisoned you are not in control of whether you will be free or not.  Neither you nor I claim to be a prophet nor do we have people who wish to kill us.  Joseph may have desired to escape, but he was not in control.  Although I agree that this is a very minor issue, it does support Joseph's claim.  Please answer why the other prophesies are not worhty of inclusion.  It will help us gain a better understanding of your position. Storm Rider 29 June 2005 17:23 (UTC)


 * then bow your head o the phrophet Gabrielsimon, as i have said in the name of that which is holy to me that i would be spared from death when struck by a car, and lo, it has come to pass. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)


 * Gabrielsimon, regardless of your feelings, you do not have the right to deface or make sweeping deletions to articles simply because you disagree with them. If you don't stop your defacement of the article, I will report you to Wikipedia administrators and request you be banned from editing. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)


 * regardless of your feelings, you must present FACTS, of which you have not with your reversions.  i, however, do present facts. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 17:34 (UTC)


 * No, you're presenting your opinions which you think are facts. That's why this discussion page exists -- for people to hash out what's wrong with an article and come to a consensus on the best approach. If you'd like to discuss specific problems with the article, please list them here, but do not simply change what you don't agree with.


 * Someone needs to have an admin ban Gabrielsimon from editing. This is getting ridiculous. I've requested a page protection.


 * No, what needs to happen is you need to begin editing cooperatively instead of imperiously. --Mørmøn 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)


 * as i have said, youer changes are not inthe advancement of kmnowledge, and your anger seemsonly to stem from my not agreeing with your opinions.  please stop wasting everyones time. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 18:13 (UTC)

(Comment deleted by the author.) --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)


 * Personal insults don't really enhance the persuasiveness of your argument, Mr. Whipple.. - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 19:23 (UTC)

mr. Mørmøn, please read my edits, before the reverter got at them, what do you think? would you please put some of them back please? Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 19:28 (UTC)


 * All my edits seem to be being reverted by a group of censors at present. They've done the same to you, using the excuse of your spelling. Perhaps they will relent and allow all views to be represented, as the NPOV policy demands. But perhaps not - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 20:15 (UTC)

Start Over
Okay folks. I tried to organize the above section based on comments. Let's lay the framework here for a discussion. Obviously, myself, MrWhipple, and StormRider are apologists for JS as a Prophet. GabrielSimon and M0rm0n are critics. If we are going to have a discussion we need to do it without attacking one another.


 * You can start by not labelling me, thank you. I don't think that not believing that the Civil War spread to all nations makes one in any way a "critic". - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)


 * I mean "critic" here only in terms of "You don't believe Joseph Smith was a Prophet". It has nothing to do with any other meaning of the term. In fact, being "critical" is a good trait in an intellectually honest and scientifically thinking person. "Critical thinking" is a valued ability in lawyers, judges, scientists, and engineers. Don't think that "critic" is only attached to negative words like "criticize". Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)


 * You have no basis on which to evaluate my stance on "was Joseph Smith a Prophet". I merely tried to place the viewpoint of those who don't believe that the Civil War was "poured out upon all nations". That's a pretty pitiful basis on which to assign me a label. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 04:12 (UTC)

First things first: What is a valid criteria for determining if someone is a prophet?


 * No, we don't need to decide this: we need to report what others has used as criteria, not make up our own. - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The criteria I put on the main page represents the only criteria I have seen. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:11 (UTC)

The criteria we have been working on is whether the person prophesies and that prophecy comes true. (The Deut scripture). I think all Christians and Jews agree on this because both Christians and Jews consider this scripture, and also because all of the accepted prophets in Christianity at large and Judaism at large meet the criteria.

Other people will present other criteria or exceptions to the above criteria - we must document these and analyze whether the criteria itself is fair. We may run into completely different criteria, and I'd like to see those listed as well.

The task at hand, once we've agreed to a criteria, is to analyze Smith's actions. What prophecies did he make? Which ones came true? Which ones did not? All we can do is present the facts and explain why each other's presented facts are not appropriate for the criteria. We will leave the reader to decide for themselves based solely on our presented and argued evidences.

Now, I thought the original article did most of that. However, over time we have lost this flow and I want to restore it. Let's get a discussion about the facts themselves. No more attacking one another or trying to ban one another. I think we can come to an agreement at least to how we would like to argue it.

Regardless, this isn't an article about how myself, MrWhipple, or GabrielSimon would argue the point. It is an article about how OTHERS have argued it. So let's rely solely on what arguments other people have made. For the advocate side, we have arguments made by FAIR and FARMS. For the other side, I think there are a few organizations that have put together things, including Lighthouse Ministries and the Watchtower folks. Let's present arguments THEY have made and leave ourselves out of it. Does this sound fair?

The second proposal is to leave the page as it originally was. If you want to make a change to the original page, let's discuss it here first, and let's show the outside research to support the change. Is this fair? Jgardner 29 June 2005 20:02 (UTC)


 * A third proposal would be to leave the page as I edited it, with the view of those who don't believe the Civil War spread to all nations stated fairly. What's so special about the "original"? - Mørmøn 29 June 2005 20:21 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the page to hopefully include all the points that have been made so far. I also tried to separate out as much as possible the critical and apologetical views. Would you like to expand the civil war critical paragraph to include whatever it is missing? Jgardner 29 June 2005 20:35 (UTC)


 * I like your most recent edit, Jgardner. The intent here should be to increase the depth of the article and refine the facts and arguments (pro and con). Simply cutting out 90% of the material and replacing with with "Joseph Smith said X, but it didn't happen" (as Gabrielsimon seems to be insisting) doesn't contribute to anyone's understanding. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 21:09 (UTC)


 * heres a thought, just a thought, but considering the timeline that the book of mormon speaks of, why is it then that none of the native american , (ir incan area peoples) legdends speak of a place such as the lands described in said book? surely they would have been noticed, but as far as i have researched native american mythology and oral history ( extensively, might i add, i quite enjoy that topic) i find no mention  oif any lands even remotely resembling  the described localities in the book of mormon. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)


 * That's a nice thought, but it's totally irrelevant. I am sure you can find other articles that deal with that topic. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:21 (UTC)


 * how is the simple fact that this sup[p[osed land didnt even seem to exist be irrelevent to smiths credibillity?? Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:23 (UTC)


 * Because this article isn't about Smith's credibility. It is about Smith's claims as a prophet. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:26 (UTC)


 * I'd like to jump into the fray. As someone with no interest in this topic I think I'm in a good position to help arbitrate some of the contentious issues. I see a lot of room for improvement in this article, at least in the area of NPOV. Gregmg 29 June 2005 23:19 (UTC)


 * cool... o and jgardener, this article is as much about smiths credibbillity as it is about his claims, becasue without credibillity anyone can start a religion. --Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 23:24 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Joseph Smith was credible is left up to the individual to decide. This article should show his claims, what believers make of his claims, and what detractors make of his claims. Unfortunately, your deletions have removed most of that (as Bishonen wrote, below). I encourage Gregmg to restore Jgardner's last edit and start his NPOV edits from there. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Caution
I was about to protect this page for revert warring and disruption, but since civil discussion and constructive editing seems to be going on at this moment, I'll wait. Please everyone stay civil. I would particularly caution MrWhipple, who has made some extremely rude comments and personal attacks, both on this page and in edit summaries. Several people have broken the 3RR, please don't do it again. I hope a consensus version can now be worked out, but please contact me if a new need for page protection or other intervention arises. Bishonen | talk 29 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)


 * My apologies to Gabrielsimon for the personal attacks. There is no excuse for my behavior. I've deleted the worst one from the previous section, and ask his forgiveness. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 21:09 (UTC)


 * s'ok, i am used to it. --Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)

I would just like to point out here that Gabrielsimon continues to delete major portions of the original article simply because he disagrees with them (he tells us "'all people' is laughable", and so forth). This is against the 3 revision policy in Bishonen's caution, above. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 22:01 (UTC)

GabrielSimon's edits
GabrielSimon, please don't unedit all that work. You are deleting claims made by apologetics on other websites and literature. It is very rude to do what you have done.

Also, by supposing that the only examination possible is the Christian and Jewish one is to imply that only Christians and Jews can make the examination. Certainly, other religions (Hindu, Buddhist, Islam) have different criteria for prophets. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:15 (UTC)


 * i deleted lawyer speach, such as " it depends on the definition of the word generation" give me a break, dude, that sort of talk shouldnt be taken setriously...  if it was, people like clinton wouldnt have had to be impeached...  the other deleteions are summed up in the edit summaries. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:18 (UTC)


 * But the definition of "generation" does matter in the context of Joseph Smith as a prophet! If his prophecy says the Independence, Missouri temple would be "reared in this generation", then understanding what he meant by "generation" will validate or invalidate the prophecy! Jgardner's last edit examined both sides of the issue (generation = lifespan of those in Joseph Smith's time vs. generation = age or dispensation). Your removal doesn't contribute toward understanding, it dumbs the article down. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 21:27 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether it is "lawyer speach" (sic), it is a point that the apologists make. I'm reverting that edit. Please don't revert it without discussing it here. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)


 * people try to squirm through thier inaccuracies by trying to claim interpretation of wording, this doesnt really sit well with me, so i dont personally respect such practises much. i do hope you can see why.  and regardless of the generation,  of people in which this temple was supposed to be built, it still didnt hapen, even if the "temple of indipendace" was supposed to be the white house, it wasnt built in missouri. see?

Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)


 * Your opinion of their points is irrelevant, just as my opinion is irrelevant. The question is: What arguments are apologists making to support Smith's claim as a prophet? If they seriously claimed that "since the moon was made out of cheese, and since the Twin Towers are still standing after 9/11, Smith is a prophet" I would include it, even though it makes apologists look absurd. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)


 * btw, i deleted the words christian  and jewwish from examnmination to open things up a little without going crazy with new, repetitious sections. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:20 (UTC)


 * Please don't do that. I wanted to leave it open for other faiths to present the facts and their criteria. I'm reverting that edit. Please don't revert it back without discussing it here. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)


 * leaving out words like christian and jewish in the Section title seems  to leave it open for new additions, at least it seems that way to me. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:30 (UTC)


 * Okay, so we disagree on how the wording is interpreted. let's get a vote going on this page. I've added a new section. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)

please note however that i am largely keeping my opinions ou of this, ( otherwise i would have tried to recategorize like smith as phrophet and smith as challetan) Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:43 (UTC)


 * I think the overwhelming evidence of your conversation here is that you won't keep your opinions out of this and you think that because something sounds like "lawyer speach" (sic) it shouldn't be included, despite the fact that it is an argument made by apologists. Jgardner 30 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)

Vote: "Christian and Jewish Examination" vs. "Examination"
Would you rather see "Christian and Jewish Examination" or "Examination" (or something else) as the title of the section?


 * I vote "Christian and Jewish Examination". I think it will allow us to distinguish this from other examinations that may be added later. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:36 (UTC)


 * i thought that since it was mentioned in the pharagraphs whos opinon it was, then itwas extranious to mention it in the category header, conidering then we migtrh have to end up with many sections, baed on whos view it is, instead of havintg one well written section on many points of view. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:39 (UTC)


 * If you're going to vote against the proposal, please be explicit. Jgardner 29 June 2005 21:46 (UTC)


 * Since Joseph Smith himself claimed to be a prophet in the Judeo-Christian tradition, I vote for the former. --MrWhipple 29 June 2005 21:47 (UTC)

I hope contributors will find it possible to come to consensus by arguing and listening to each other, rather than by voting. Putting the argument in the form of a poll is all right, I suppose, as long as the votes are accompanied by some reasoning, but please bear in mind that NPOV can't be determined by majority vote. Wikipedia policy is opposed to polls about content--to most polls, really. A better alternative IMO is to try to get more editors to look at the disagreement over this page, by listing it on Requests for comments. Please consider doing so! Anyone can list the page there, and note that it's supposed to be done in a neutral way--save arguing your case for this talk page, please. Anyway, I don't have any opinion about the "Christian and Jewish Examination" vs. "Examination" matter. But looking at the latest edits generally, as a disinterested person pretty ignorant of the subject, I have to say that GabrielSimon's first edit of Jgardner's new version removed material that was helpful and informative for a reader like me, and that told me who makes various claims, just as an article on a controversial subject should. In other words, the removal made the text more POV. Please avoid removing useful text! Bishonen | talk 29 June 2005 21:54 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bishonen and would like to see Gabrielsimon's deletions restored and discussed individually. (But if I revert, Gabrielsimon will simply delete them again.)


 * examin the edit summaries, and then compare the content of each to the definition of the word phrophecy, and youll see. --Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 23:01 (UTC)


 * Gabrielsimon, we have examined your edit summaries, and Bishonen and I have both come to the conclusion that your deletions made the article worse, not better. In fact, I think they show prejudice against arguments in support in Joseph Smith's prophecies. It's extremely frustrating to work with you when you simply delete things you think are "laughable." Just because you think it's "laughable" doesn't mean that there are some who believe it, and that fact alone means it should be included in the article. --MrWhipple 28 June 2005 23:07 (UTC)


 * I've reverted all of GabrielSimon's recent changes as it appears that Myself, MrWhipple, and Bishonen are all in agreement that that is the best version to work from. GabrielSimon, please do not edit unless you discuss your proposed changes and get a consensus first. Jgardner 30 June 2005 00:18 (UTC)


 * Gabrielsimon wasted no time and reverted my reverts. I seconded the motion to lock the page. We can't work with Gabrielsimon unwilling to debate and unwilling to concede to consensus. Jgardner 30 June 2005 00:47 (UTC)

im not the one who was reverting edits without speaking of them, and i am not the one who tries to protect my own opinions through what i add. as it happens, i wasted no time becasue ytour talk article addition did not show up to me before i did what i did, i might have spoken had i seen. Gabrielsimon 30 June 2005 00:50 (UTC)


 * If you claim that you didn't see my talk post before you reverted, would you kindly revert your revert? Thank you. Jgardner 30 June 2005 00:53 (UTC

Gabrielsimon, I'm afraid you leave me no choice but to block you for 24 hours for 3RR violation. Other people on this page have broken the rule, too, but you're the only one as far as I can see who reverted again after my caution. You're welcome back after the block, but do please consider making allowance for the points of views and the contributions of other editors. Bishonen | talk 30 June 2005 01:30 (UTC)

M0rm0n's edits
M0rm0n was complaining that we weren't taking his edits seriously. I wanted to document his edits and allow people the chance to comment or to improve upon his edits. (The last edit M0rm0n has made is here.)

Lead Paragraph
Lead paragraph before:
 * Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed to be a prophet in the tradition of the ancient prophets recorded in the Bible. There is much controversy surrounding this claim. This page examines the arguments surrounding this claim, and presents viewpoints from critics who claim that Joseph Smith was not a prophet or was a false prophet, and supporters who believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet

After M0rm0n:
 * Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, claimed to be a prophet in the tradition of the ancient prophets recorded in the Bible. Mormons believe this: non-Mormons don't.

Jgardner's comment: This paragraph introduces the intent of the article. M0rm0n has eliminated this with a broad statement about what all Mormons and non-Mormons believe. I personally know non-Mormons who believe in Joseph Smith but who can't join the church because they can't live up to the standards. I also know of practicing Mormons who don't accept Joseph Smith as a prophet. There is an entire sect of Mormonism that was founded on the premise that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet. So M0rm0n's statement is not true, and it eliminates useful content.


 * "There is much controversy surrounding this claim. This page examines the arguments surrounding this claim, and presents viewpoints from critics who claim that Joseph Smith was not a prophet or was a false prophet, and supporters who believe that Joseph Smith was a true prophet" is verbose drivel, and says nothing more than "some believe and some don't". It's better off gone. And while there is no belief so improbable that someone doesn't hold it, in broad general terms, Mormons accept Smith as a prophet and non-Mormons don't. I'm not sure why you have trouble with presenting that basic fact. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:27 (UTC)


 * I'm flattered you think my writing is "verbose drivel". And my English teacher said I couldn't even write! ;-) Seriously, this paragraph has these points that must be made:
 * That Joseph Smith claimed he was a prophet.
 * That there is considerable controversy (as opposed to, say, Moses claiming he was a prophet.)
 * That this page cannot present a decision, and instead, will expose the arguments made by critics and apologetics.
 * In general, yes, Mormons do, non-Mormons don't, but that isn't a precise term and misleads the readers. In general, American support the war in Iraq. In general, the world is Chinese. We would hardly say that because it gives the wrong impression. America is divided on the war in Iraq. Chinese are the largest population, but not the majority.


 * Drivel was unduly harsh and I apologize. It does, however, take too mamy words to say little. I think it's wrong to say there's "controversy": some people believe it, some don't, and they don't bother much with trying to persuade the other group they're right or wrong. It's a difference of opinion, it's not a controversy. And those groups are: Mormons and non-Mormons. A few exceptions don't make that generalization untrue. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I understand your argument, but sending over 50,000 missionaries into the world is a pretty strong committment to spreading the word. I may be wrong, but it does seem like bothering to persuade (not a term I would normally use) others that the church of Christ has been restored through a prophet. Storm Rider 1 July 2005 06:41 (UTC)


 * I don't think that word means what you think it means. If controversy is not the right word, what word would you use? I don't think "difference of opinion" is quite right because it doesn't represent the intensity of the claims and the passion of the disagreement. Is there a different phrase or word you would prefer? Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)

Civil War
Before M0rm0n:
 * Smith predicted that the American Civil War would "be poured out upon all nations" (D&C 87). Critics would claim that wars were not poured out upon all nations. However, it is interesting to note that during and after the Civil War, wars have spread globally, and their impact has been significantly worsened by advancing military technology. Also, a portion of Smith's prophecy was fulfilled in that Confederate States of America did indeed ask for aid from Great Britain, which seriously considered openly supporting them.


 * Further, Bernard Grun lists some of the conflicts in his book, The Timetables of History: A Horizontal Linkage of People and Events. Focusing between 1861 and 1961 the Italian struggles for unification took place (1866-71), as did the Franco-Prussian War (1870-71); the Ashanti War in Africa (ended in 1874); the Russian-Turkish War (1877-78); the Zulu War (1879); the Chinese-Japanese War (1893-95); the Spanish-American War (1898); the Boer War (1899-1902); the Russo-Japanese War (1904-5); the Turkish-Italian War (1911); the Chinese revolution (1911); World War I (1914-18); the Spanish Civil War (1931-39); World War II (1939-45); the Korean conflict (1950-53); Israeli conflicts (1955-56); and the Cuban Revolution (1959), not to mention the countless revolutions, coups d'etat, and skirmishes.

After M0rm0n:
 * Smith predicted that the American Civil War would "be poured out upon all nations" (D&C 87). Most non-Mormons find it self-evidently true that this did not come to pass: the Civil War did not spread beyond the United States to distant, or even neighboring, nations. Mormon apologists, however, note that after the Civil War, wars have spread globally, and their impact has been significantly worsened by advancing military technology. They also claim that "a portion" of Smith's prophecy was fulfilled in that Confederate States of America did indeed ask for aid from Great Britain, which seriously considered openly supporting them: however, no part of Smith's prophesy concerned "consideration of intervention".

JGardner's comments: Not only does he eliminate an entire paragraph that supports the claim that apologists make (and is frequently cited), but he rewords the original paragraph to use non-Mormon and Mormon distinction, rather than apologist and critic. And Mormons do not claim a "portion" - they claim the full prophecy was fulfilled, so it is incorrect.


 * You misread what I said. Asking for aid was a portion of the prophecy. Only some Mormons believe the "full" prophecy was fulfilled. Others believe some portion has not been fulfilled but will be in the future. The paragraph that I eliminated is bad argumentation. You can't prove that "wars have increased since the Civil Wars" by listing only wars that occurred after the Civil War. You must also prove that these were more numerous than those that occurred before the Civil War (which, of course, they are not). - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:31 (UTC)
 * Huh, I didn't know you knew what Mormons believed or thought. I can tell you based on my observations on what is preached and what is generally believed, that Mormons do believe the Civil War prophecy has been fully fulfilled. Go read the articles and documents listed and tell me that those writers aren't trying to show that the prophecy was fully fulfilled. It's nice that you can't prove something by only proving part of it, but that's not what the Apologists are doing. Go read what they are writing and then you can feel confident in stating what they are stating. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)
 * I know what some Mormons say they believe, and take them at their word. There are Mormon websites that claim that the final portion of this particular prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. I agree that many more apologist sites claim that it has been fulfilled in all particulars. But not all do. Some call it an as-yet-uncompleted rather than a fulfilled prophecy. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 02:12 (UTC)
 * Would you provide links to those websites that claim the prophecy has not been fulfilled? Thanks. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)

by the way jgardener, by definitoon, the most population IS te majority, so your comment about china is really Wrong. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 02:11 (UTC)
 * You got me. I should've said, "Chinese may be the majority, but they do not represent the entire population of the earth." Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:41 (UTC)

Temple in Independence, MO
Before:
 * In Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5, Smith prophesied that a temple would be built in Independence, Missouri, "which temple shall be reared in this generation." Critics claim that since there is no man alive from that generation today, and since there is no temple in Independence, that the prophesy is not fulfilled. Latter-day Saints bring up several points in response:

After:
 * In Doctrine and Covenants 84:4-5, Smith prophesied that a temple would be built in Independence, Missouri, "which temple shall be reared in this generation." Since there is no man alive from that generation today, and since there is no temple in Independence, most non-Mormons who hear about this prophecy consider it unfulfilled. Latter-day Saints bring up several points in response:

JGardner's comments: Again, he is distinguishing incorrectly between Mormon and non-Mormon. He eliminated the "Critics claim" and replaces it with words that make it sound like a fact. He assumes that "most non-Mormons who hear about this prophecy consider it unfulfilled" rather than the more explicit and less weaselly and more factual "Critics claim ... that the prophesy is not fulfilled."


 * Yes, "he" is. That is the proper distinction. "Most non-Mormons who hear about this prophecy consider it unfulfilled" is quite true, and not at all weaselly. "Critics" is not an appropriate characterization. What's being "criticized"? Nothing. A statement is being evaluated, and found false. There's no "criticism" there. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:33 (UTC)


 * Alright, I am losing patience. Go read the dictionary about what a critic is. A CRITIC IS CHALLENGING THE CLAIM THAT JOSEPH SMITH WAS A PROPHET. His points are his criticisms. This has NONE of the connotation that "criticism" does when used without this context. "Most" is weaselly. Go look it up in the list of weaselly words. I also haven't heard a critic that makes a claim that most non-Mormons don't believe this. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)


 * I understand what a critic is: I know the definitions of the word, and it should be clear to you that referring me to a dictionary is an insult rather than a helpful suggestion. The issue is that you choose to conceptualize the default position as "Joseph Smith was a prophet"; that is not a neutral formulation, and to disagree with that statement doesn't put one in the category of "critic", anymore than disagreeing with the statement "Joseph Smith was not a prophet" makes one a "critic". - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 02:17 (UTC)


 * The claim is "Joseph Smith was a prophet". Critics are the ones who don't believe the claim. Apologists are ones who do. What is so complicated about that? Why do you refuse to group people into those two categories based on how they feel about the claim? Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)


 * im not a critic, ima realist, none of the "phrophecies" thata re claimed to have come to pass can strictly be called suh, for his involvement was to close to them.  as for war wpilling out into all nations,  THWE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR DID NOT, and that was the only war he was referring to, hence it did not come to pass.  no wiggle room there.  same for the EXACT wording of this temple nonesense.  it WASNT and still ISNT built.

Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 01:52 (UTC)


 * You said, in summary, "I am not a critic, but I am". Contradicting yourself isn't a good way to win arguments. Do you agree with the statement that Joseph Smith was a Prophet? Obviously not. That makes you a critic of that claim. I believe the statement. That makes me an apologist. You are also trying to convince me of the fact that the Civil War prophecy said that the Civil War would be poured out on the nation. I don't agree with that interpretation of the prophecy. Read the article, it says so quite clearly. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Revoked
Before:
 * Some Latter-day Saints also argue that it is important to remember that other canonical prophets in the Jewish and Christian traditions have made prophecies that were not fulfilled or were revoked by the Lord:

After:
 * Some Latter-day Saints note that several Biblical prophets in the Jewish and Christian traditions made prophecies that were not fulfilled:

JGardner's comments: I have no problem with "note" versus "also argue" - not an issue, not significant. However, dropping the part about prophecies revoked is an important and central claim that apologists make. One of the rebuttals to the Independence Temple prophecy is that the Lord revoked it. Apologists must prove that the Lord can do such a thing and historically has done such a thing.


 * Since M0rm0n hasn't responded, I'm assuming he agrees with the way it is. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Genealogy
Before:
 * He predicted that the prophesy of Elijah would be fulfilled, in that the hearts of the children be turned to their fathers. Latter-day Saints see that fulfilled as people have become interested in genealogy.

After:
 * He predicted that the prophesy of Elijah would be fulfilled, in that the hearts of the children be turned to their fathers. Latter-day Saints believe this predicts an interest in genealogy.

Again, apologists don't claim that this is merely a prediction yet unfulfilled. Apologists claim that it already has been fulfilled, and often cite the number of and formation of the genealogical societies as evidence. Rewording in this is misrepresenting the apologists.


 * Since M0rm0n hasn't responded to this, I am assuming he agrees with its current form. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:49 (UTC)

Liberty Jail
Before:
 * He predicted that he and his companions would be unharmed in Liberty Jail, despite overwhelming evidence that his captors intended to kill him.

After:
 * He predicted that he and his companions would be unharmed in Liberty Jail, despite evidence that his captors intended to kill him.

I can see the elimination of "overwhelming" as reducing NPOV. However, I believe this word is justified. Their captors sentenced them to death by firing squad the day they were captured. As they were loaded into wagons, four men tried to shoot them but their guns jammed or they were not loaded properly. Perhaps we should state the evidence that made everyone believe they were going to die rather than use POV word like overwhelming? Perhaps also we should state the way that Joseph Smith prophesied about their eventual escape? I know that some people here would like to see less words for the apologists, but in the interests of NPOV perhaps we need more.

I'm sorry I wrote so much, but I think M0rm0n is entitled to a fair discussion of his edits. Jgardner 30 June 2005 17:39 (UTC)


 * That I should have to fight over whether "overwhelming" is an appropriate word is quite telling. Of course it doesn't belong here, nor does reams of special pleading by apologists. State the facts and move on. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:37 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's state the facts. Here's a proposal.
 * After Joseph Smith and other Church leaders were captured by the Missouri State militia, they were put on trial and sentenced to be executed by a firing squad the next morning. Althought they weren't executed, when they were loaded into wagons to be moved to Liberty Jail, four men raised their rifles to shoot them, and pulled the trigger. However, no guns fired. Joseph Smith told his companions that he had received assurance from the Lord that no one would be killed by the Missourians. After being held in Liberty Jail for several months, they were allowed to escape, fulfilling the prophecy he made.
 * Is that factual? Is it void of NPOV statements? Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)


 * Choosing to present such detailed information implies that it's particularly important, and it isn't for this particular article. Just do without the very leading word "overwhelming". - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 02:21 (UTC)


 * This is particular important because it supports the apologists' claims. You would want an argument that supports the claims in the article, right? Either I can summarize the situation and point the reader to the details, or I can show the details. Which would you rather have? Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)


 * this liberty jail can not be included as a prpohecy, id call it dumb luck.  no one has ever NOT said " itll be all right"  does that fact htat, say,  anyone says that, and it comes true make them phrophects? nope. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)


 * That's great that you feel that way. But it doesn't change the fact that this is an argument that apologists make. And Joseph Smith didn't say, "We're going to be alright." He said, "The Lord told me we are going to be alright." There's a huge difference. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Ancient Prophets / God can Revoke
The section on Mormon's Criteria of prophethood being slightly different from many Jews and Christians should be at the beginning of the apologists claims, I think. Jeff Lindsay on his site starts by clarifying supposed contradictions between accepted prophets and their prophecies that on the surface appear to contradict Moses' criteria. This sets the tone for the argument against the Independence Temple prophecy. One of the arguments apologists frequently make is that God can command and God can revoke, and so the Independence Temple prophecy was revoked. (There is also the argument of "generation", but that's a different matter. Jgardner 30 June 2005 17:49 (UTC)


 * "revoked" phrophecies is a loop hole so that if it doenst come true its not thier fault. pathetic. Gabrielsimon 1 July 2005 01:55 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a loop hole. And it's a loophole that apologists rely on. If you'd like to point me to critics who argue that it is an invalid loophole while simultaneously calling Jonah and Isaiah a prophet, I'd love to see it. Where can you point me to this? As far as I can see, no one had dared argue against this loophole because the way the apologists have set it up they would have to do so carefully, so that Isaiah and Jonah are still prophets. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

NPOV terms and labeling
I know there are enough problems to deal with already, but I'd like to bring up the article's use of terms to describe those who believe or do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the term "apologist" to describe the pro-Smith side. I know the term comes from the Greek word for "defense", but in modern English it has something of a negative connotation -- as if Smith's supporters were having to "apologize" for what he did. And, in any event, not all Smith supporters are apologists (defenders), but simply believers.

I would suggest a more neutral term, such as supporter, believer, or proponent (or perhaps a mixture, scattered throughout the article).

For those who do not believe Smith was a prophet, critics is perhaps a little harsh. I don't have many good ideas on this one (detractors?), so I'd like to hear ideas from others (especially those who are non-believers).

Thoughts? --MrWhipple 30 June 2005 18:08 (UTC)


 * As far as the term "apologist", it has been used consistently throughout the pages to represent those who do more than just believe but actively defend the beliefs of the Church with logical arguments. For the vast majority of the members of the Church, the fact that they had an answer to their prayer is enough, and they don't pretend to go into the logical reasons. As far as "critics", I think it is far less harsh and more NPOV than other terms proposed like "Anti-Mormon". (Do Joseph Smith critics oppose everything Mormons do? I don't think so.) Non-Mormon is not a correct term because the vast majority of Non-Mormons don't even care about the issue. "Critics" is also found throughout the pages here at wikipedia.
 * I think the audience we are trying to target is not those who refuse to look up a word that they don't know the meaning of, or those who read things that aren't there. It is intended for those who know that "strait" and "straight" are not the same word, just as "feint" and "faint" are not. Jgardner 30 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)


 * Critics is clearly not the correct term. If I don't believe Jgardner is a prophet, does that mean I'm a Jgardner critic? Of course not. It makes me a non-believer. The correct term with regard to Joseph Smith would be non-Mormon. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)


 * No, because I don't claim to be a prophet, so you and I are actually in agreement on that point. If someone else claimed I was a prophet and you and I both challenged their claim, then we would both be considered critics of the claim that I am a prophet. And we never said that critics mentioned here are "Joseph Smith" critics, only that they are critics of Joseph Smith's claims to being a prophet. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)


 * By your definition, apologists are critics of the claim that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. Why is the default position "Joseph Smith was a prophet"? Why is that even a question to be "answered" by the article. What is true: Joseph Smith prophesied. Some people feel all his predictions were correct. Some people feel that some of his predictions were not correct. Neither set of people are more properly termed "critics" than the other. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 01:59 (UTC)


 * Very good. Yes, apologists of the claim that Joseph Smith is a prophet would have to be critics of the claim that Joseph Smith is not a prophet. There is no "default position". There is a claim that Joseph Smith made. There are those who argue for it and those who argue against it. If you'd like to negate the entire tone of the article, I would like to see how you would write it. But keep in mind, if the entire debate of the article is to prove that Joseph Smith was not a prophet, the assumption would be that Joseph Smith was a prophet. The whole point is that you cannot simultaneously believe that all his prophecies were correct and that some were wrong. The central claim that both parties are making is in opposition to one another. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

Civil War critical claim
Currently this reads:
 * Smith predicted that the American Civil War would "be poured out upon all nations" (D&C 87). Critics claim that wars were not poured out upon all nations, thus Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.

Critics seem to think that section 87 is interpreted to mean that the Civil War would spread to every nation, rather than what apologists read in that wars (not necessarily related to the Civil War) would be poured out on all nations. We should quote the prophecy first. Let me know what you think of this text.


 * Smith predicted on December 25, 1832 that there would be an American Civil War. (see D&C 87) Critics cite a passage of this prophecy to show that Joseph Smith was not a prophet. Smith wrote:
 * Verily, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls; And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place. For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.
 * Critics interpret this to mean that the American Civil War would spread to all nations, because of the phrase "war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place". Although there have been many wars since the Civil War, there were many wars before the Civil War, and the Civil War was certainly not the starting point of the subsequent wars.


 * Apologists point out that a strict reading of the passage does not mean that the Civil War itself would spread to all nations. Instead, the prophecy states that the American Civil War would preceed the time when war will be poured out upon all nations. It also states that the actions of the Southern States in calling on Great Britain for aid would trigger a chain reaction that would lead to warfare world-wide. They claim that although clear historical evidence does not exist that shows that the actions of the South asking for assistance from Great Britain led to the subsequent warfares, there is also no clear evidence that shows it did not.

What do you think? Is this fair?


 * I like it. You might want to mention that the interpretation hinges on the phrase "war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place." That could mean the spread of the Civil War (con) or the Civil War as the first in a series of wars that would spread globally (pro). --MrWhipple 30 June 2005 19:04 (UTC)


 * I've edited the passage above. Does it sound better? Jgardner 30 June 2005 20:10 (UTC)

It seems Authr has made some significant edits that I tried cleaning up. I think it looks a lot better. Jgardner 1 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)


 * Thank you Jgardner. I started working on that section a few days ago. I think what I already had basically contained everything mentioned above. Often, I think, differences between the views of Mormons and others is actually based on different interpretations of scripture. I think clearly distinguishing both interpretations is an easy way to reduce POV.


 * I like your edits in the second paragraph, but am not sure about the reason for the first one. I am working on the next section as well. Help me make sure it is NPOV, ok? Authr July 2, 2005 00:46 (UTC)


 * Regarding the "in particular" edit, I thought it didn't add anything and actually distracted from the point you were trying to make. I think the "In reality" leads readers to believe that it represents reality. But we are really representing the apologists' views of reality. Also, the "his" edit was done because it made it sound like only the apologists understood Smith's intent when in fact both parties are allowed to try and divine that. Adherents have no monopoly on the interpretation of Smith's claims.
 * I've noticed one minor point. It seems the apologist position you were trying to represent is slightly different from the apologist position I was trying to represent. I thought that some apologists actually argued that war was poured out starting at South Carolina and continued as a chain reaction from that point. I may be wrong. I'll reread the information in the links below again and try to be more precise. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

Changing the name of the article; Administrator overview; Emotional Topic
You guys are doing admirable work, but I am concerned that the two most recent, for lack of a better term, critics are not as interested in having an article that gives both sides a fair representation, but rather they are convinced of the "truth" of their position and anything that is contrary to their view is unacceptable and needs to be deleted at all cost. I am coming to more of the opinion that the basis of this article is wrong and the article should simply be delted. The premise is defining Joseph Smith as a prophet; anathema to our friendly anti-mormons and music to the ears of the faithful. This is a no-win proposition that is too easily painted in black and white. It invites too easily the virulent anti-mormonism most of us have come to despise. I think the title needs to be changed to something that does not invite such an emotional response and the article should be strictly controled so that emotions from both sides are kept to a bare minimum. For the next little while we need an administrator, someone empowered with the ability to block those committed to mischief, to monitor the "progress". Storm Rider 30 June 2005 19:39 (UTC)


 * This is an obnoxious little addition to this talk page. You sneeringly suggest that I am not interested in having an article that presents all points of view. That is wrong, you are wrong, and it is improper of you to suggest it. It is you who acted to censor the article, not me. Our Mormon articles will continue to be a POV disgrace as long as you despise and disparage those who disagree with you. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)


 * Q.E.D. Let the reader decide. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)


 * I've added a title to this talk section that hopefully represents your general points. If it's not to your liking please change it. As far as a new article title name, I think in the deletion section above we began to discuss this. The original purpose of this article was to extract a section of the Joseph Smith page because the JS page was too long and because this was a topic that was causing a revert war there. I'm open to new titles for the article. If you think this should be deleted, I would argue that it should not because it will invite new critics to further deface the JS page. That's my opinion on the subject. As far as inviting administrators to monitor this page, there are other pages that are far more contentious than this one in Wikipedia. I think it's good for us to try and meet a consensus and leave our emotions out of it. Jgardner 30 June 2005 20:07 (UTC)


 * Moving controverial sections out of articles has been generally disappointing as a way of dealing with controversies at Wikipedia. Such "forked" articles tend to be remerged with the original article eventually, or to be added back in a shortened form, with the end result that the material someone decided was "objectionable" gets repeated in two places. - Mørmøn 30 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)


 * We don't have room to consider this in detail on the Joseph Smith page. Jgardner 1 July 2005 00:57 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of room there. There's no reason this should become shored down in minutiae or be lengthy. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 02:19 (UTC)


 * Would you like to propose some writing that is small enough and agreeable to both parties? I certainly can't do it. Jgardner 1 July 2005 06:47 (UTC)

J, you are going to great lengths to make this work and it is admirable. However, this appears to be a very personal subject for Mørmøn. Though he may try, I am just not sure he can hear your position. For him it is Mormon and Non-Mormon; a readily identifiable position, but a very us vs. them position. To transition to a pro/con discussion may require too much of a sacrifice of his position of "truth". I suspect that he will view this as another one of my "snarky" comments, which it is not, but rather an opening to a proposition. Give this article some time and let each side take a break to read over all the comments/discussions. A question: Is this really the best we can do together? It amazes me that this can not be a factual article. Joseph claimed to be a prophet. Critics of Mormonism claim he is not and state the reasons. Proponets (Apologists is not quite a proper term here, not yet) state he is and why. Neither side gets to be the sole source to quantify what Joseph meant and how much of an explaination is merited. Granted, neither party should be verbose, but they should each adquately cover the subject and their position. Initially, for now, just focus on your (I use this to identify all parties) your respective sides. The objective is to have an article where both sides have presented their side of the issue in a factual manner. After that, move on. Storm Rider 1 July 2005 07:27 (UTC)


 * It seems rather personal to a lot of people, doesn't it? You ask whether this is the best we can do together, but you show no signs of working together. As for leaving the article alone, I haven't touched it since your double reversion. And you still have made no substantive comments on the talk page regarding, for example, why you changed "Most non-Mormons find it self-evidently true that this did not come to pass: the Civil War did not spread beyond the United States to distant, or even neighboring, nations" to " Critics would claim that wars were not poured out upon all nations" You seem quite intent on not letting those who do not believe that this particular prediction has "come true" say so in their own terms. When you thwart all attempts at balance, you should not be surprised that the article is, correctly, labeled as biased.  - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)


 * Okay, let me put this in as direct a manner as possible. You have an axe to grind.  This is not the place for it.  You were reverted becuase you changed and deleted the article so that it was a show piece for your particular point of view.  Further, you are petty and take every edit, comment, and discussion as a personal affront.  This articel is not about you.  The article is biased becuase you are unrelenting in your pursuit of anti-mormonism!!!  It does not matter if I personally respond to your position, others have done excellently in that regard.  This article, and Wiki in general, is not the place for you to prove your POV is "right".  There is not a "right" position.  There are facts that both sides can present and after that we can shut-up and move on.  Storm Rider 1 July 2005 15:31 (UTC)


 * Let me put this in as direct a manner as you: You have an axe to grind. You seem not to recognize this, and it's the source of your inability to cooperatively edit. I was reverted because you disagreed with the content I added. You are not supposed to delete material from articles because you disagree with it. It does matter if you explain your reversion, because that is expected behavior from those who revert. Even now, days later, you refuse that minimal courtesy, preferring personal attack. I remind you that this is not the place for you to prove your POV is "right". Additionally, I remind you this is not the place where you can exclude other POV because they are not yours. That is fundamentally against Wikipedia principles, and you ought to stop. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, I have to agree with you. Consensus is impossible. We should just section off the article and agree not to edit each other's parts. Let the apologists (or proponents as you say) have their piece, and then let the critics have theirs. M0rm0n, this is your chance to change whatever you want, as long as it does not affect the proponent's arguments at all. I agree simultaneously to not edit the opponent's arguments. Remember, we're trying to make a factual representation of things that people have said or written. M0rm0n, this means you can't write about what Mormons believe, despite your name. Jgardner 1 July 2005 18:02 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia. Everyone can edit anything. Concensus isn't impossible: it hasn't been tried. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

One possibility I previously suggested was changing the title of the article to Prophecies of Joseph Smith. This would allow for a listing of prophetic statements he made, while minimizing (or even eliminating) arguments for and against them. I think this would be a somewhat less informative article, but it could take away much of the rancor this article has produced. --MrWhipple 1 July 2005 19:47 (UTC)

I strongly support changing the title to your proposal and your reasoning. Storm Rider 1 July 2005 21:28 (UTC)


 * I do not see a winning solution to this page. The title does need to be fixed - agree with Prophecies of Joseph Smith - however, we need to be careful on interpretating if they "came true" or not. As with most prophecies, many are dualistic - such as the Jackson County prophecy. I think we should list all prophecies but not offer conclusion on whether or not they "occured" thus letting our educated readers see if they think the prophecy of the civil war and the others meet their views. I agree with Mormon that we need to not overly interpret his propheicies. I think a good list of them - using his wording would be best. This way we will not engage in apologetics or Anti-Mormon dialogues. Let the reader judge for himself.


 * That said, I must warn you all that this bickering is not helpful and needs to be controlled better by all of us. WE have got to make a better effort at being more neutral in our editing. Not more naturalistic, but more neutral. I also agree that the SMith article needs to be branched out, and that the sub-articles need to be prominently placed on the Joseph Smith Jr. page - we have listed a "Related articles" section that contains links to History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Controversies regarding Mormonism but not to his wives page, and such. They need to be added in and placed properly in a more prominent position. -Visorstuff 1 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)


 * The process of consigning "controversial" material to separate articles and hiding the links is part of the process of the "purification" of the Wikipedia Mormon articles. The Mormon community on Wikipedia is the worst set of bullies I've seen in these pages. They systematically exclude information, references, websites that they don't like for one reason or other. They "get away" with it because - basically - no non-Mormons are particularly interested in Mormon articles. As a result, the articles look like they were written by or approved by the Church of LDS. No attempt is made to include all points of view. Occasionally, someone will suggest letting loose the reins of control on a talk page (as above), but strangely, the mob still rides herd on the articles themselves. I don't forsee any loosening f this control happening. - Mørmøn 1 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

Visor, I agree with your comments, but want to make sure I understand your position on the purpose of the article. Are you recommending that the article consist of a list of the prophecies of Joseph Smith without any comment as to their fulfillment? I can support that, but I suspect that many will feel the article would not be satisfactory without the ability take a position pro or con. Storm Rider 1 July 2005 22:12 (UTC)

I also agree with Visorstuff, although a sentence or two on possible fulfillment and criticism would be preferrable to give the reader some context for understanding.

Mørmøn, I'm not trying to be harsh, but you continue to state that the LDS articles are not NPOV and are controlled by Mormons, but I have yet to see you point to a specific sentence in this article and make a suggestion on how it could be improved. Evidence will sway where assertion will not. --MrWhipple 1 July 2005 23:26 (UTC)


 * When I've edited anything, it gets reverted. That's why you don't see it. -Mørmøn 2 July 2005 01:37 (UTC)

WE should just list them - no commentary on possible fulfilment - letting people give opinions on the matter just creates NPOV issues - therefore let's take the high road and just address the prophecies and leave them as such. Then this won't be an apologist forum or a combative zone. Plus, when you get into the dualistic nature of most biblical (and modern) prophecies, you can get into theological issues when saying this prophecy meant this - when it in fact meant four of five things. And then there is the NPOV issue of saying it was fulfilled or not. So I disagree with you on this, MrWhipple. We have to do this in order to preserve NPOV. This is not an apologetic forum, or an anti forum, which is what listing "results" will do.

Now, Mormon to address your concern - we've been wanting to split the JS Jr. page for months - it is too long to address the complexities of the man. While I don't love the idea of this particular page, and urge a re-defining as I have, the main js page should be a simple bio of birth death and significant events - then sub-pages addressing the major themes in more detail.

A good model is Ronald Regan - not all of his movies are not listed, nor are details about "controversial issues such as the Iran-Contra Affair and October Surprise; and the article lists many sub-pages such as Reagan Administration, Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan - and there could be more. I use him as a good example, but other notable Americans like John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon or Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its not that the information is controversial, but most controversies are ancilliary to the accomplishments of the individual. It is standard wikipedia M-O, and if you branch out side of the Mormon topics, you'll realize that us in the project are not as bullying as others on the wiki. Yes we have our problems, but no more than others on the wiki. But thanks for keeping us honest. Believe it or not, most of us are grateful for it - at least I know Tom, COGDEN and I are.


 * I must have missed it when this article was split off from the Joseph Smith, Jr. article. I think it's fine to have a separate article, if there is a consensus, although I have no problem with huge book-like articles. (Brittanica does it, sometimes, so why can't we?) I do agree that if this article is kept, the name of the article should be changed to something like Prophecies of Joseph Smith. This article cannot possibly hope to resolve by consensus the question of whether or not Joseph Smith was a prophet, or whether his prophecies have "come true". For our purposes here, those questions are irrelevant. What the Wikipedia audience is interested in is what are his prophecies? And how are they interpreted and re-interpreted over time? CO GDEN  July 6, 2005 01:46 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly obvious that the general consensus is to change the name of the article to "Prophecies of Joseph Smith" or something along that line. If someone would like to do that, I wouldn't mind. Jgardner 6 July 2005 07:17 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I think the only way to end this ongoing religious war, and to make this into a useful, encyclopedic article is to change both the name and the tone of this article. It should be an article on his prophecies, with both pro and con viewpoints fairly represented. It's not necessary for all of his prophecies to be covered; the ones currently included are probably a good starting point. Encyclopedia articles on larger and more controversial subjects rarely cover every aspect of the subject matter; they usually just cover the main points. There is no need for this one to be any different. Further, as I've said before, I find it troubling that this article assumes as a foregone conclusion that there are 'real' and 'false' prophets in the Judeo-Christian tradition. As a Catholic, I don't have an issue with this, but it just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. I know I would find it odd for an article on shinto or jainism to consider some basic precept of either religion to be an absolute and universally accepted fact. It just doesn't seem very 'neutral' for this article to do that. So, my vote is for changing the name and re-structuring the article. Gregmg 6 July 2005 23:43 (UTC)

I agree with Gregmg. Both pro and con view on each prophecy need to be included. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)

I've actually gone back and forth on this. At present I'm slightly in favor of just leaving any pro or con viewpoints out. If they are to be included, the Wikipedia style guides indicate that references for each viewpoint need to be provided. That is, you really shouldn't just say "his followers believe this and his detractors state that". At least that's how I read the style guides. Gregmg 02:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV objections
I'd like to remove the NPOV header. Will people please cite specific passages and wordings that make this article non-NPOV and proposals to fix them? Jgardner 1 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)


 * Well, let's see.... could it be that linking only to "apologist" websites seems a little biased? Perhaps there should be some links added to non-apologist websites. How's that for a proposal? - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)


 * Please provide links to the critics websites. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the fact that a non-Smith prediction of impending war was published in a local paper four days before his "revelation" could be added to the article. Perhaps the fact that the prognostication followed a piece of legislation that was detrimental to the South's interests could be added. Perhaps those who believe that the prophesy is invalid because the Civil War did not cause any wars could be allowed to express themselves in their own words. There are many, many, many changes that this article needs before it could possibly dream of being considered NPOV. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)


 * M0rm0n, please provide text that we can include, and cite your sources here at least. Beyond that, no discussion is necessary. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


 * You can find the reference to the legislation and the prior published predictions, and to other interesting facts and arguments in the sites found by the Google search I've provided for you below. When the threatening and bullying here has stopped, and if you still require my assistance in formulating these arguments, I will be more than happy to help. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)


 * Finally, something substantive. This is a good start. Can you please come up with the newspaper name and date? And details on the legislation? And explain why you believe D&C 87:3 means that the Civil War caused other wars, as opposed to simply being the first in a series of wars? Details here will make the article better. I look forward to hearing from you. --MrWhipple 2 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)


 * Careful, MrWhipple. We're not here to debate, only to present sides of the debate. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


 * Finally, something that's less overtly hostile. Of course I can come up with the paper and legislation (you could, too, if you wanted to do a Google search, as could anyone else interested in an at least minimally balanced article), and of course I can re-explain that when something is "poured out" it starts from the place it is poured out from and pours out into the place it is poured into. If I do so, do I have anything other than repeated reversion to look forward to? Because it would be rather rude to ask me to do it and the once again ignore it. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)


 * Since you are familiar with the newspaper article and legislation&#8212;and since you are the one who believes they have bearing on the Civil War prophecy&#8212;I would recommend that you be the one to bring these forward.
 * And from a Biblical scriptural tradition (in which the D&C is rooted), liquid is always poured from above, not beside. The metaphorical allusion in D&C 87:3 is that war is being "poured out [from heaven] upon all nations." The same usage appears in Exodus 9:33; 2 Chronicles 12:7; Psalm 77:17, 79:6; Isaiah 32:15, 42:25, 45:8; Jeremiah 6:11, 7:20, 10:25, 42:18, 44:6; Lamentations 2:4; Ezekiel 7:8, 14:19, 20:8; 1 Nephi 14:15; and over 200 other passages. The ancient worldview was that the sky was a rigid structure with doors or windows, through which God could cast down blessings or cursings (hence the Lord's challenge to "prove me now herewith...if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing&#8212;Malachi 3:10). Your interpretation of the Civil War "pour[ing] out" to other nations ignores the rich (and consistent) scriptural metaphor. --MrWhipple 2 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)


 * MrWhipple, please cite your source for that argument. I haven't seen it. Original research isn't allowed here. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


 * The difference, then, is between the plain sense of the words, and the application of selected Biblical imagery to that plain sense. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)


 * No, the difference is between the consistent scriptural imagery&#8212;even among scriptures Smith himself is said to have written (see the 1 Nephi reference, above)&#8212;and the inconsistent usage you wish to place upon it because it supports your position. The Bible and modern LDS scripture need to be read in context and as a whole. The metaphorical tradition is consistent throughout them, and merely saying it isn't doesn't make it so. Please read and understand them before you opine. Now, off to vacation. --MrWhipple 2 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)


 * I think the conversation has been lost from the original point at this time. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


 * Well, that's a very nice exposition of your opinion, but of course there are numerous references to blood being poured out at the bases of altars, and of drink offerings being poured out, and of meal being poured out of a pot, and libations of blood being not poured out; of hearts, souls, indignation, anger, arrogant words, complaints, thoughts, folly, wrath, wickedness, and spirit being poured out, none of it particularized as coming from Heaven. So if you have chosen to restrict the interpretation to those which confom to your presupposed imagery, that is your choice, and a point of view, rather than the only possible meaning of the words. Your assertion that the metaphorical tradition is consistent is another interesting point of view, but certainly not the only one that needs to be presented. Thanks for the condescending admonition to "read and understand" before opining. It's an excellent demonstration of the standard response to views which dare to differ with yours. Nonetheless, I hope you have a pleasant vacation. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I'm on vacation until 13 July, so you (all) will have to hash this out without me. --MrWhipple 2 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)


 * I shall be happy to discuss it with you further then. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 05:39 (UTC)

Oh come on Whipple, you quibble with insignificant issues. It is apparent that Mørmøn has come to place of serene balance and possesses the sole understanding of Joseph Smith's prophecy. Anyone else with anything remotely divergent is obviously devoid of all intelligence. And to whit, I could have achieved this position of nirvana by a mere Google search. I can't tell you how impressed I am with his completely objective POV. Please don't wait another moment; this is too rich to withold. Pour out wisdom on us now!!! Cathølic 2 July 2005, aka Storm Rider 2 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)

I apologize in advance, yes I know it is childish, but just reading his comments blows my mind. I am tired and I plead fatique. Storm Rider 2 July 2005 05:17 (UTC)


 * An insincere apology is worse than none. The dismissive tone is entirely expected. The question directed at you is whether it is your intention to continue your campaign of reversion. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)


 * I am completely overwhelmed by you, please edit to your hearts content. However, should you continue to delete wholesale pieces of the of article as you have consistently done when you simply don't like it, yes I will continue to revert.  GET THIS - YOU HAVE AN AXE TO GRIND AND CONSISTENTLY SEEK TO ONLY ALLOW YOUR POV ON THE SITE.  THERE ARE DIVERGENT OPINIONS TO YOURS.  THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO STATE AND YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO DELETE THEM.  For goodness sakes, don't delay, edit to your hearts content.  I am sure that I will join with others to provide additional information.  Storm Rider 2 July 2005 05:47 (UTC)


 * And so we see the bully boy spring into action. And in capital letters, no less. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)


 * Ignore him. It's irrelevant what he's saying. M0rm0n, please provide the text you want to include here or the modifications you want to make. I'd like to see the list of websites and the references to the arguments you're making here. Thanks in advance. Jgardner 2 July 2005 07:32 (UTC)


 * It's only irrelevant when you're not the one being reverted, but I'm happy to oblige your request. A Google search on "Joseph Smith prophecy unfulfilled Civil War" yields some [4080 hits]. Some of them in fact are Mormon sites, providing the apologist point of view; most are non-Mormon; some you will probably consider anti-Mormon. I leave it to you what to do with them, and the arguments contained within. Some more or less representative sites of the second or third variety might be   For a comparison of Ellen White's prophecy of the Civil war to Smith's, see here. For an orthodox but not-too-strident negative evaluation of the Civil War prophecy, see here. For the specifics of the timing of a prediction similar to Smith's: (On December 21,1832, four days before Smith's statement, the Painesville Telegraph printed a story from the New York Courier and Enquirer entitled "The Crisis" which spoke of the "probabilities of dismemberment" stemming from discontent in South Carolina and Georgia over states rights.) one may find various references; one decent one is ; a smorgasbord of others here. I'm reticent to actually edit the article under threat of reversion. I think that the article would benefit from having the full text of the "Revelation and Prophecy on War" as well, from Verily to Amen. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)


 * Please add these links to the main article as you desire. I'm reading the articles and I'm going to provide commentary on what's there that I see.
 * - Sounds like a repeat of what other more reputable organizations have argued. This is one guys opinion. He doesn't address the apologetics' points at all.
 * . The point about Oliver Granger is odd, but if you want to put it in the article, go ahead. I don't think any apologists have taken the point seriously. There is the David W. Patten prophecy, which I believe should be in the article. I am pretty sure I've seen apologetic responses to this particular one (along the lines of him being able to proselyte among the dead.) The article addresses this counterclaim quite well. There is also the same Civil War claim. This is definitely deserving of a link because it summarizes quite well four arguments that I have heard, and actually addresses a counterclaim.
 * This one is by Ed Decker. For those of you who don't know, this guy is WAY out there, and he lives not far from where I live. I think he's the famous author of the God Makers. Talk about your apostates! This article, put simply, is full of lies, false accusations, and gross misrepresentations. I could tear it apart point by point, but his assertions have already been torn to pieces by people far more eloquent and patient than myself. (Just for starters, if you "slip into a Fast & Testimony meeting", you'll note that almost every single person has something important to say about Jesus. The only reason they wouldn't talk much about Him is because it is taken for granted that they love & worship Him. And the thing about brainwashing and hypnotism? Do I sound like I am brainwashed and hypnotized?) If you want to include a link to Ed Decker's work, by all means, go ahead. Just realize that it will strengthen the apologetics claims and weaken yours because he is lunatic and divorced from reality. If I were you, I'd stay far away from this man, and stay close to those who are more fair and sane yet disagree with the Mormons.
 * mentions Smith briefly, but the article is focused on White, who made a similar prophecy in 1861. Id on't know what relevence this has.
 * Remarkable, someone actually attempts to rebut the apologists claims! Thank you for finding this. Please note that he points just because a prophet has clues to his prophecy in the news of the day and common observation doesn't make him any less a prophet. So he is arguing for the apologetic in that point. But he effectively destroy's Lindsay's arguments about conditions at the time, and attempts to destroy any prophetic prescience on the account of Smith. (This is a really odd argument he makes - he proceeds to make a point he claims is moot?) His arguments are overall weak, and he actually admits to at least two instances of genuine prophecy as most likely being a legitimate case of prophecy. If you'd like to include this link, go ahead. I could use it to show the power of the apologetics' arguments. His conclusion is interesting - without being able to prove the negative, and admitting to proving the positive on two occasions, he concludes with uncertainty. Fascinating.
 * Probably the best written critique of the Civil War prophecy, but they are missing several good points others have made. They mention the Ohio newspaper article, which in and of itself doesn't prevent Smith from being a prophet, but hints that the prophecy itself wasn't that prophetice.
 * In summary, you've turned up some interesting links, and I think the majority of them would help if you posted them to the article. One of them would hurt because its author is a nut. Another would hurt because it doesn't support your claim but strengthens the apologetics claims. Another seems to be irrelevent. I'm surprised you haven't turned up the JW's literature or Lighthouse Ministry's work. I think we are actually getting somewhere now. Jgardner 2 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
 * If you have sources you think would be better, why haven't you added them? It's nice that you have cast yourself in the role of having to approve what's added, but less nice that you won't add balancing information yourself. As I've said, if the bullying and back-room plotting seen here and elsewhere die down, I may ultimately feel motivated to help you edge this article towards some semblance of fairness. In the meantime, there's nothing preventing you from trying to write from a neutral point of view. What's preventing me, of course, it the behavior and threatened behavrior of other editors. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)


 * I don't have sources that I think would be better. Why do you think that I do? I've told you multiple times I can't be expected to represent the critical point of view because I have no sympathy with their position. I think they are flat out wrong. They might as well be arguing the world is flat or there is no sun as far as I care. If you are relying on my to represent the critics, prepare to be disappointed. It's up to you and your friends to represent

your position. Jgardner 3 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)


 * I assumed that you thought the sources you mentioned were better or you wouldn't have mentioned them. - Mørmøn 3 July 2005 05:30 (UTC)

Mørmøn, I reverted you twice. Initially, because you deleted entire paragraphs, attempted to phrase this as a Non-Mormon and Mormon argument which causes an "us vs. them" argument (not something beneficial or acceptable on Widi), and you were using weasle words such as "self-evidently true". The revert was not personal, but it was appropriate. In addition, my revert specifically requested that you discuss your changes before further wholesale edits. You have yet to present any discussion as to why you feel your comments had merit. Don't stop editing, but when you going to delete whole paragraphs, just discuss it first. Storm Rider 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)


 * You seem not to have realized yet that a revert is not the appropriate response to differences over content. I'm not surprised; you're too personally invested in defending your actions to actually take a dispassionate look at them. "Self-evidently true" is in no sense a "weasel word": it is the very opposite. It was an attributed statement of a point of view, and it was inappropriate of you to revert it. If you questioned it, the proper response was to question it on the talk page, and propose a rewording on the article page. If you can't be bothered to do anything more than revert, leave it alone. Continued harassment and inappropriate ganging up on those whose points of view you wish to suppress is not appropriate behavior at Wikipedia: comments posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and elsewhere make it rather difficult to view your actions as either sincere, or aimed at creating a fair article. Belief in Joseph Smith as a prophet, and belief in the authenticity of the scripture produced by him, is the essential difference between Mormons and non-Mormons, and I'm not sure why that embarasses you. - Mørmøn 2 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)


 * M0rm0n, there is an entire section above discussing every single edit you made. What more can we possibly do to accomodate you? Please stop complaining about the reverts and get up to that section and comment and involve other people in the commentary. This is your chance to prove us all wrong, so stop wasting it and stop inventing conspiracy theories to explain your lack of ability to discuss rationally. I know you are capable of doing more than criticize people who disagree with you. The links you produced were promising and I encouraged you to add them to the article. I will do the same with your edits if you are willing to explain yourself and engage in a sincere rational discussion. Jgardner 3 July 2005 05:18 (UTC)

Mørmøn, I still love your moniker; its very name denotes the type of objectivity you possess, but I digress. I consider your intial edit to be vandalism of the article and thus I reverted it. Further, you added, but you deleted whole paragraphs. I found that unacceptable. WIKI does not allow us to pick and choose which pieces are acceptable and given your far ranging diatribe I found it easier to revert the entire article while indicating if you wanted to do a wholesale rewrite of the article...discuss first. That is an appropriate action for WIKI articles and you will see numerous examples of such a process. When all else fails recreate history; the typical strategy of the Anti-Mormon.

Your specific edit was: "Most non-Mormons find it self-evidently true that this did not come to pass: the Civil War did not spread beyond the United States to distant, or even neighboring, nations." Self-evidently true is not attributed a specific person or a quote, rather you attempt to attribute the statement to every person on the earth that is non-Mormon; this is what known as an exaggeration or a weasel word because you are attempting to add credibility to a statement that is patently false.

You were requested multiple times to discuss your wholesale edits, both additions and deletions on the discussion page and you have yet to do so. Instead, you have chosen to whine incessantly about being reverted (twice, once as a revert to your intial edit and then you reverted mine and I again returned it to the original article with another invitation to discuss your edits first.) You take everything personally, everything is an affront or a "slap in the face".

My personal beliefs are just that, personal. I do not parade them or discuss them with strangers. I remain unwilling to accept any article that attempts to divide the world in Catholics and non-Catholics, Protestants and non-Protestants, or Mormons and non-Mormons not because of any embarassement for the respective religions, but because I have more respect for Wikipedia. This is not a place to take sides, it is a place where we as a community assist others in learning.

I refuse to address further your petty whinings. I will not continue to explain myself to an individual who is determined to never hear anything but his own rantings. This conversation is final and ended. Storm Rider 2 July 2005 21:35 (UTC)


 * The conversation can be over any time you choose. You have only to not respond. But for those reading along, there are differences between Catholics and non-Catholics (such as their acceptance of the Pope as head of the Christian church), between Protestant and non-Protestant denominations (their historical origins), and Mormons and non-Mormons (such as their acceptance of Joseph Smith as Revelator and Prophet). These are defining differences. There's no reason these actual differences should be obscured. - Mørmøn 3 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)


 * i tend to agree with Mørmøn on that one, also, why if theres nothingwrong with the view do they call themsleves apologists if theres nothing to apologize for?? Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:20 (UTC)
 * Go find a dictionary, look up these words, and read the definitions carefully.
 * apology : Something said or written in defense or justification of what appears to others wrong, or of what may be liable to disapprobation; justification; as, Tertullian's Apology for Christianity.
 * apologist : One who speaks or writes in defense of a faith, a cause, or an institution
 * critic : Anyone who expresses a reasoned judgment of something
 * Can we just drop this criticism of "critic" and "apologist"? If someone would like to propose two new words, propose them. Otherwise, stop discussing this. Jgardner 3 July 2005 05:11 (UTC)


 * your just saying that becaue you cant come up with a suitible replacement. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 05:13 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely correct. I cannot think of any better replacements that are more suitable. This is one of those situations where we have to settle with what we have because there isn't anything better that we know of. Until someone proposes better words, we'll have to stick with apologist and critic. Jgardner 3 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

GabrielSimon's edits
GabrielSimon, I think after getting banned for a day on 3 separate occasions in as many days you would be more careful. Please stop editing the main article and discuss every edit you would like to make on the talk page first. I have no problem reverting your edits, and I think there are about 5 other people here who love to do the same. I am also going to report you for violating the 3 revert rule. Jgardner 6 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
 * I guess I should document exactly what you are doing. You are editing the apologist point of view by removing legitimate points that have been made. You won't discuss your edits. I don't know why you think you are an authority on the apologist point of view in the debate. You are arguing against the point of view rather than documenting the point of view. This violates NPOV. GS, if you want to make a change, please discuss it here first rather than just doing it. You've been reverted several times already by several different people. Jgardner 6 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)


 * I agree with your summation, Jgardner. However, we need to remove "sides" from this article. See my comments above and at the WP:LDS - we have to make an effort to move away from interpretations of prophecies. -Visorstuff 6 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)


 * I tried to discuss this issue with GS as well. He's been removing comments I post to his talk page, and continuing to insist his POV edits are not POV.  If he doesn't clean up his act and it gets as far as an RFC, I can document this behavior in the appropriate place.  I'm still a newbie and don't really know if he warrants an RFC, so I'm not doing anything to start that rolling myself. I can't tell if he really doesn't understand NPOV or if he's being intentionally antisocial. Friday 6 July 2005 22:46 (UTC)

you need to learn how to let things go, fridayt. i know how to do that. just go do something usefuill. Gabrielsimon 6 July 2005 22:48 (UTC)

GabrielSimon, removing items from the page is only valid if you can show that JS never made those specific predictions. Whether or not they came to fruition is irrelevant to including them in this article. Gregmg 8 July 2005 04:47 (UTC)

We have a new name, now we need new content
It's time to totally rewrite the article because it has a new name and new focus. Instead of discussing whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, we should list the prophecies he made. We may want to include limited discussion of the interpretation of some of the more controversial prophecies (the Independence temple, the Civil War). We should leave commentary on whether Joseph Smith was really a prophet or not out and only show the facts. Does someone want to make a first attempt at this? Jgardner 7 July 2005 15:15 (UTC)

J, I attempted to realign the article with the new title. Obviously it is rough and all of the prophecies need to be further documented. My objective was to delete all language pro or con that attempted to determine if a prophecy was actualized; that is outside the parameters of the article. Storm Rider 7 July 2005 17:10 (UTC)

I think we're off to a great start. Storm Rider's edits seem spot-on. Considering how devisive this subject is, it might be best to continue to exclude pro and con discussion of fullfillment. Other articles for hot-button topics like abortion include a good deal of for and against discussion, which might be helpful to someone doing research on the subject. However, pages like these are frequently locked down due to NPOV disputes. What do you all think? Should there be some measure of pro and con discussion, or should this article just stick with the facts? Gregmg 7 July 2005 19:51 (UTC)

I didn't notice until re-reading the 'Other Prophecies' section that there were some residual 'pro' references. I have removed or revised them. Upon further consideration, I really don't see a problem with including supporter and detractor positions. It is a matter of fact that his followers believe his prophesies came to fruition, and it's a matter of fact that many others don't. I'd still like to find out what the concensus is on this issue. On another note, I would really like to see the term apologist go away. Some sources define this term as "one who seeks to justify a cause". Other sources fall just short of describing it as pejorative. Can we just call these people 'followers', 'supporters', 'LDS', or 'Mormon'? Gregmg 8 July 2005 02:54 (UTC)

Analyze Prophecy or Not?
What is going on here? There is a list of prophecies, some of which can be tested. The analysis should listed. This article started out as an analysis of prophecies. The writing needed improvements, as did the POV. Much of this has been done, by the analysis needs to come back. Whenever testable claims are made, there should be analysis, otherwise, this appears to be just a pro-Mormon page. Nereocystis 8 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I disagree that analysis needs to take place. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research and even Latter Day Saints disagree to some of the interpretations of the prophecies. Some are quite obvious, but we should let the reader decide. Incidentally Gregmg - "Mormon" not "Morman" :^) -Visorstuff 8 July 2005 22:52 (UTC)

I can see where some of the prophecies could have pro and con positions. However, is it our place to perform analysis for the reader. Those prophecies, such as the Civil War, are easily readable and are not confusing. A reader can make his own decision what was a legitamate prophecy. We are not the arbitrators of truth here, but rather a place where people come for facts. As we go beyond facts we enter the waters of POV and quickly begin to sink. Storm Rider 9 July 2005 06:39 (UTC)

Without an analysis, or an easy method of analyzing the results, this page looks like a Mormon propaganda page. The links are all apologist links now, though labeled as such. It looks bad. How does a person evaluate the accuracy of a prophecy without links to the history of the prophecy. Who is Dan Jones and how does one find out whether he served a mission to Wales? Many of the prophecies are open-ended, and cannot have negative results. A prediction for opening stakes in Boston does not have an end date; it could never be disproved, and in fact, took over 100 years to happen. Many of the prediction are plans more than predictions. Opening a stake is a plan; the LDS Church eventually implemented the plan. The prophecies should be limited to items outside the control of the LDS Church. If I prophecy that I will give $5 to a homeless person, would anyone be surprised if that prophecy came true? Many of the prophecies are impossible to evaluate. "the hearts of the children shall turn to their fathers" is meaningless. Prophecies should be limited to testable matters. Nereocystis 18:37, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Analyzing the prophecies in any detail will only bring a return of the religious war that we just stopped. His prophecies are a matter of fact (at least I assume they are). Any attempt to prove or disprove them takes us right back into the murky waters of POV, and of course, original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I guess I could have just said "ditto" to Storm Rider or Visorstuff's comments. :-) Gregmg 19:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the links, I think it would be appropriate to include critical analysis links. I agree with the sentiment Gregmg expressed. Let's list the prophecies and let the reader decide. Jgardner 19:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Many prophecies are incorrectly described, not really prophecies
Some of the prophecies listed are incorrectly described. I would like to work on a minimum standard for a listed prophecy. On the other hand, if the marginal prophecies are listed in apologist pages, maybe they should be listed here. Many of the prophecies are of the standard Sylvia Browne/Edgar Cayce indefinite, impossible to disproof, grasping at straws type of prophecy. Nereocystis 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. Let the reader decide. Jgardner 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Douglas
This prophecy doesn't have a reference which corresponds to the summary:
 * That Stephen A. Douglas, a prominent politician at the time, would run for the presidency. He also predicted that if Stephen Douglas slandered the Church then he would lose the election. (HC 5:394) [1]

The reference does not say that Douglas would lose, only that


 * you will feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon you; and you will live to see and know that I have testified the truth to you

There really isn't enough information to be able evaluate this part of the prophecy. I would prefer to drop the second sentence. Otherwise change it to reflect the real words of the prophecy.


 * He also predicted that if Stephen Douglas slandered the Church then he would feel the weight of the hand of the Almighty upon him. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good work. Please correct that entry. Jgardner 18:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Church settled in Utah
I suspect that this is incorrect:
 * The settling place of the church in Utah, and that they would be free from their current persecutors there. (HC 6:225)

I remember, perhaps correctly, that the church was supposed to move to the Rocky Mountains, not specifically Utah. Was this really a prophecy, or was it just the next planned move. I prophecy that I will go to work today, perhaps I will visit Australia this year. Neither of these counts as a prophecy any more than Smith's next plans count for moving count as a prophecy. I want the complete text included here, or a link to the complete text. Even then, I'm not sure that it should be included. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Go look it up if you want the complete text. I can't do all the work for you. Yes, this is an important prophecy because at the time no one thought they would cross the great plains. Indeed, few thought it was even possible to bring women and children across the plains and settle in an unknown place in Indian territory under the rule of Mexico and still thrive. Imagine being one of the first settlers, seeing the desolate place, and being told by Brigham Young that "this is the place". I don't know how I would've handled the news that I left the lush green landscapes of Illinois, Ohio, and Missouri to come to a desert where even coyotes could barely live. Whether or not a prophecy is self-fulfilling or not is irrelevant. It is still a prediction of future events. And your "prophecies" don't count because you don't claim to be prophesying in the name of the Lord. And you don't know for certain that you'll be going to work tomorrow. What if you get fired, sick, or injured? What if one of your close relatives passes away, and you are called to attend the funeral? Jgardner 18:47, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it is your job to look it up if you provide text. Remember "cite your sources". It isn't my source, it's yours (or someones). Without a quotation, it should be deleted. A quick look around found a reference that the church would move, but that was about it. Is there really more? Nereocystis 20:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Here, I found a reference, but it doesn't say what our page says:


 * "Zion shall flourish upon the hills and rejoice upon the mountains, and shall be assembled together unto the place which I have appointed" (D&C 49:25). It is sometimes stated by critics that Joseph Smith's Rocky Mountain Prophecy was not significant because trouble in Nauvoo would make it inevitable that the Mormons could not stay there much longer. Nevertheless that prophecy (HC 5:85) was specific and far- reaching on those points. In any case the above revelation, given a year after the Church was organized and over fifteen years prior to its fulfillment, is significant. And it was February 1844 that Joseph stated that within five years the Church would be out of the power of its old enemies (HC 6:225).

My new version is:


 * Zion will assemble where it is told to assemble.

but I suspect that there is more somewhere. Nereocystis 20:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Another reference. This one says that HC6:225 states that Mormons will escape their enemies. Much different from a claim of settling in Utah. Unfortunately, this reference doesn't provide a complete quote, so I have doubts about it as well. Has anyone actually read the citation? Does anyone have a copy of the citation? Nereocystis 21:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

After looking for information on the Rocky Mountain Prophecy, I discovered that the Smith's issuance of the prophecy is in doubt. Jerald and Sandra Tanner have some references on the subject. 

Another source suggests that Dean C. Jessee of the Church Historical Department declared that the prophecy is a forgery. I can't find a solid reference for Jessee's statements. However, Utah is out, Rocky Mountain is in, unless someone can provide another source. I'm considering how to write this for the article. Whether or not the prophecy's fulfillment is analyzed on this page, the possible forgery of the prophecy must be mentioned, if the source is plausible. A quick read makes me think that the doubt is plausible here, though not proven. Nereocystis 06:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Name known for good and evil
This prophecy is marginal:
 * That his name would be known for good or bad among "all people."
 * He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people (Joseph Smith — History 1:33)

When was it recorded? By 1830, his name was already known for good and evil locally. It sounds like something which was already true when it was prophesied. This prophecy is borderline for being included. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This was a revelation he received via the Angel Moroni. This is an important prophecy. At the time, who would believe that the little obscure boy would one day be a name had in reverence and derision everywhere in the earth? He was barely known in the community he lived in, and most opinions of him were typical of boys his age. It must stay. Jgardner 18:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

When was the prophecy first published? This is relevant. If it was only published when HC was published, it doesn't mean much, and the date should be specified. Nereocystis 20:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Conspiring forces related to Word of Wisdom

 * He prophesied about conspiring forces in the last days with regards to alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea (D&C 89:4).

This section talks about conspiracies which already exist, as well as ones in the future. Wasn't the time of Smith considered the last days? This is why the church is called Latter-Day Saints. I should double check on this. This prophecy doesn't say anything specific. I suggest that it be deleted. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Nope, this is a keeper. This is an important prophecy. At the time of Joseph Smith, there were no massive corrupt corporations that peddled these drugs. That came later. Jgardner 18:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. See British East India Company, for example.  Barno 18:01, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he did say that the conspiracies already exist. I insist on changing coffee and tea to hot drinks and alcohol to strong drink and wine. However, the prophecy isn't that clear. McDonalds super-size may be considered part of the evil plans, allowing consumption of meat unsparingly, and in summer as well as winter. Or perhaps a conspiracy involving preserved foods which would allow people to eat herb and fruit outside of their season. Or perhaps the conspiracy involves humans eating corn, oats, and rye.

My first pass at a rewrite is:


 * There are and will be conspiring men in the last days.

Perhaps the verse should be explicitly quoted, rather than allowing someone to interpret it with modern knowledge:


 * In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation

Nereocystis 20:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Boston and New York
This sounds like a plan rather than a prophecy:
 * In the great cities, as Boston, New York, etc., there shall be stakes" (HC 6:319)

It's open-ended, and thus impossible to ever prove wrong. It doesn't count in my book. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a prophecy he made. So it stays. Jgardner 18:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Does someone have the complete context here? I would like to see more than one sentence. Nereocystis 20:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Hearts of children
What does this mean:
 * That the prophesy of Elijah would be fulfilled, in that the hearts of the children be turned to their fathers. (D&C 2:2)

Is he just repeating Elijah's prophecy, which really doesn't say anything anyway. It's also open-ended. Let's delete it. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it's a keeper even though he is repeating a previous prophet. What he is doing is saying that such-and-such a prophecy hasn't been fulfilled yet and it will be fulfilled soon. Jgardner 18:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Dan Jones
I think that the descriptive lead sentence is misleading.
 * That Dan Jones, one of those who stayed with him in Carthage, would survive and serve a successful mission in Wales.
 * Soon after Dr. Richards retired to the bed ... and when all were apparently fast asleep, Joseph whispered to Dan Jones, "are you afraid to die?" Dan said, "Has that time come, think you? Engaged in such a cause I do not think that death would have many terrors." Joseph replied, "You will yet see Wales, and fulfill the mission appointed you before you die" (HC 6:601)

Does it mean that Jones will serve a mission in Wales or that he will fulfill some unstated mission before he dies. I suspect the latter. If this passage stays, perhaps it should be reworded to:


 * That Dan Jones, one of those who stayed with him in Carthage, would survive and see Wales. Nereocystis 14:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I've always interpreted it to mean his mission in Wales because Dan Jones was famous for converting thousands there. (See the new missionary guidebook - they have a painting of Dan Jones on one of the first pages.)

Has the article been largely deleted?
Can someone please explain what is going on here?

I don't see any discussion in the article as written of whether any of his prophecies were fulfilled or partially fulfilled or failed. As the article currently stands, it lists prophecies without commenting on their status.

Has the article been substantially edited to delete its content since the RfC was posted? Robert McClenon 22:07, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith for a discussion of this topic. The analysis was deleted before the RfC. I also think that it is the wrong direction to go. Nereocystis 22:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Text of promise needed or prophecies will be deleted
The following prophecies are still missing the exact text of the prophecy. Many of the prophecies with exact text required a rewrite after the text was discovered. If the exact text is not written within 1 week, I will feel free to delete the prophecy as unsubstantiated.

I can probably find the last one, since it is included in Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith. The other are up for being deleted, or just moved to the talk page if the text is not include. Nereocystis 18:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith
 * Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith
 * Prophecies_of_Joseph_Smith

Major NPOV issue: Different versions of history
The LDS, RLDS, Community of Christ, Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Temple Lot, Restoration Branches and other factions all have different versions of church history. Most of the "prophecies" in this article are from the LDS version of events -- and no examination is made of who believes in specific "prophesies" and who doesn't.

One humorous note: the prophesy that Smith's name would be had for good and for evil in all nations may arguably have come true merely because of the existance of this particular article on Wikipedia.

Quite simply, the whole thing needs a huge accuracy check -- if LDS sources are being cited, it should mention that, if RLDS sources are being cited, it should mention that. Instead, we just have the names of books, with no information as to which faction published them. --Nerd42 23:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK then ... if nobody complains I'm going to start to categorize and sort these by sources. --Nerd42 03:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

move to Prophecies of Joseph Smith Jr.
Joseph Smith III also made prophesies. --Nerd42 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Did have better luck with them than his deranged daddy?? 65.69.81.2 22:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's already "Prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr." That seems clear enough. -SESmith 00:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Added POV tag
I read a new edit today that was highly POV; the edit stated the deduction of a false prophecy was error. I reverted this new edit of today, but then in reading the balance of the section and article that it is full of WP:OR, violates WP:NPOV, and is not well written.

The policy we follow is to present a balanced discussion about the prophecies of Joseph Smith, Jr. It is not to present an article designed to disprove, which it currently has the tone, and intent of a critic. Every section needs to be supported by reputable references to state the prophecy and the deductions of those reputabel experts. If there are no references, then it is unacceptable for Wikipedia to present an opinion. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything looks referenced. Why is there still a NPOV tag? Feel free to add any prophecies of his that did come true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.95.219 (talk) 02:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Related article
Can someone help out on Unfulfilled religious prophecies? People are removing the Joseph Smith section because it's "conditional" and therefore fulfilled. — Omegatron 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead Sentence
I wound up here on a tangent, but found the opening sentence to be really confusing. It was recently changed to say Joseph Smith "brought back the once lost" LDS movement (with the reason given being that he wasn't the "founder"). The only way I make sense of this statement, is to assume it's meant to posit a literal belief in the Book of Mormon, and the existence of the church in pre-colonial Americas, which obviously isn't a neutral statement.

I'm reverting it back to "founder," as that is how the Joseph Smith page refers to him. Also, in both cases, it refered to him as founder of the "movement" not the Church. So if the objection is that you believe the Church previously existed, that's not what the sentence is saying. It just says he founded the LDS movement, which is modern. If you can think of a better, objective, and logically sound way of expressing it, by all means, be my guest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.127.191 (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)