Talk:Zion's Camp

neutrality and sources
This article strikes me as exceedingly friendly to later Mormon interpretations of Zion's Camp. Historians, including Fawn Brodie, commonly treat Zion's Camp as military foolhardiness on Joseph Smith's part. Right or wrong, this article needs to discuss specific historians and the evidence in question. The final paragraph is particularly inappropriate. The language "The purpose of Zion's Camp has often been misunderstood, even by friendly historians." gives away the article's apologetic point of view. Katapul 00:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In fact a quick Google finds it to be lifted verbatim from here - The Story of the Church by Inez Smith Davis, a highly sympathetic officially endorsed history. Gordonofcartoon 18:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The purpose of Zion's Camp has often been misunderstood, even by friendly historians. This "camp," which was not military, except in the sense that not all western immigrations of the day were made in such orderly fashion, was not for the purpose of seizing and holding the possessions of the Saints in Jackson County. The facts were that the attorneys for the Saints had been advised by State authorities, notably the attorney general, that it would be useless to restore these lands to their owners unless some steps were taken to secure the safety of both settlers and property. He suggested, emphatically seconded by Alexander Doniphan, attorney, that if enough of the Saints were concentrated in Missouri to form a regiment of militia, to be known as "Jackson Guards," and given state arms and an arsenal, they would not be molested. Complying with this suggestion, Zion's Camp was organized, but it soon became apparent to the originators of the plan, that more trouble, and not less, would result. Convinced of the futility of the plan, they made known their fears to the church representatives, who promptly disbanded the camp.


 * With that final paragraph apparently stricken, does the article still appear exceedingly friendly to later Mormon interpretations of Zion's Camp. If not then I think the Disputed Neutrality disclaimer should be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.81.109 (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

speaking of neutrality, are there any sources for this being a "paramilitary" group? paramilitary is has very negative connotations, and i see no sources in this article that support this characterization that Zion's Camp was a group of armed men intent on a military attack. 98.202.199.142 (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Reverted content from Joseph Smith, Jr. article
A rightfully reverted addition to the Joseph Smith, Jr. article regarding Zion's Camp may have some place here. While I don't like the wording (too much POV), I am just going to paste the reverted content here, since the specific numbers and the quotation may be of use.

''

After the group arrived in Missouri, they began negotiations with state officials, but these attempts at peaceful resolution failed. When armed conflict seemed inevitable, Joseph Smith prayed for guidance and, on June 22, 1834, received a revelation disbanding the camp and declaring that Zion could not be redeemed at that time (see D&C 105). Concerning the members of the camp Smith recorded the following guidance from God: “I have heard their prayers, and will accept their offering; and it is expedient in me that they should be brought thus far for a trial of their faith” (D&C 105:19).

Zion’s Camp did not accomplish its political objectives, but it had long-lasting spiritual and leadership results. In February 1835, when the Prophet (Joseph Smith) organized the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the Quorum of the Seventy, nine of the Twelve Apostles and all of the Seventy had served in Zion’s Camp. As recalled by Joseph Young, one of the original members of the Seventy, the Prophet explained to a group of these brethren: “God did not want you to fight. He could not organize His kingdom with twelve men to open the Gospel door to the nations of the earth, and with seventy men under their direction to follow in their tracks, unless He took them from a body of men who had offered their lives, and who had made as great a sacrifice as did Abraham.”).

''

Cheers. ...but what do you think? ~B F izz (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, B. I've put this article on my mental checklist for revision when I have time to think it through.--John Foxe (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

On BYU-related and other recently added sources
I don't think we can throw out the text because not all of the citations fail WP:RS. Here is my assessment of the cited sources: There are two questions that arise relative to the last two sources - is there some kind of peer-review or editorial oversight? and are the statements for which they are being cited are not unduly affected by the sources' bias. Since I believe the last three sources do satisfy RS for the limited statements, I am reinserting part of the text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Familysearch is user-generated content and therefore not a reliable source.
 * "Journal of Discourses" is really a primary source and, while not expressly forbidden by WP:RS, is discouraged. It should be easy to find a secondary source that mentions these quotes and puts them in context. They also seem out of place in lede - if a secondary source is found, I'd recommend placing the quotes later in the article with less peacock language.
 * Bushman's "Rough Stone Rolling" is a reliable source - it's used elsewhere in the article even.
 * BYU Studies, based on a previous discussion at WP:RSN can be an acceptable RS in some cases. I believe the statement for which it is cited here falls within the acceptable limits described in that discussion.
 * Sperry Symposium probably falls under a similar limitation as BYU Studies since all it is being used to support is how many early church leaders came through Zion's Camp and not for an absolutist or doctrinal/religious statement.
 * I certainly have no problem with Bushman, so I reworded the paragraph to put more emphasis on his description. John Foxe (talk) 01:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In passing, if someone knows what's up with the errors in the footnotes, would you fix them? John Foxe (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)