# Talk:Joseph Smith

I think it would be a beneficial addition to the article to add what Nicene/Mainstream Christianity views on Joseph Smith like I did here with this revision: Old revision of Joseph Smith. Perhaps it would be more accurate to change 'mainstream' to 'Nicene' to be more specific to the sources but I think the fact that his prophethood is refuted in the overwhelming majority of Christian denominations is an important fact to mention in the lead (the most read part of an article). Thoughts? Invincible767 (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be lede-worthy, and we can't suggest all non-Mormon Christians regard Smith as a "false prophet".   Certainly, some fraction say that, but even Muhammad only has a single historic sentence suggesting he was regarded as a false prophet, and whole wars were built on demonizing him as a goat-man monster. Feoffer (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
What about it doesn't seem lead worthy? And why can't we suggest all non-Mormon Christians regard Smith as a "false prophet"? Isn't that true? To be clear I'm not saying that we need to use those exact words, but something to that effect seems due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The discussion was in the context of using those exact words per this edit. "Mainstream" aka Nicene Christianity has all kinds of different views of Smith, but false prophet is a minority.   Just not recognizing Smith as a prophet is not the same as regarding him as a "False Prophet" -- a technical theological term that suggests someone is an agent of evil.  "Most" American Christians regard Smith as a  charismatic preacher (perhaps flawed) whose followers are nonetheless fully Christian. Feoffer (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Overall
All PRIMARY need good secondary RS
Replace Vogel video refs with print refs
Trim extended primary quotes, move to quote field in citations when possible
This is an article on a mainstream American religion, we need to make sure we don't butcher their teachings.  I'm not an "in universe" expert like I was over at Roswell Incident. Need an editor with specialized knowledge to double-check.

Lede
Map has modern state boundaries  -- a map without with 1840s boundaries would be better
 Crop failure in lede?  why???
Because it helps establish the setting and context for the poverty that defined Smith's early years. ~Awilley (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Merge second great awakening into Western New York.  Mention burned over district?
First Vision is complex -- two personages and 1820 dating isn't only version.   Putting it early in lede makes it harder to understand where in Smith's ministry it became widespread.
All accounts are clear at Sept 21/22 1823 is a big date. Good.   Unclear if 'angel' at this point, first known (to me) instance of deceased spirit called an angel. 
Departures from Ohio and Missouri maybe split into two sentences? Recenter on Joseph
"anti-Mormon" is extremely unhelpful, almost tautological in this time period.
IFF justified, mention unique theological teachings in lede?  Eternal families & baptism for the dead, triune heaven, exaltation & Adam-God?   All seem more important that an 1810s crop failure.
Early life
"Smith's parents disagreed about religion" mention Lucy was the Presbyterian, Joseph Sr. was the universalistic (or whatever RS said)
 First Vision interpretation relayed here (2 personages ided as God the Father and Jesus) is anachronistic to point in the narrative, not sure precisely what to do about that atm, def belongs here in the narrative
"Smith was said to have an ability to locate lost items"  -- we know who started this claim, and it wasn't Joseph, it was Luman Walters.   Should we mention?   On one hand, don't want to give UNDUE weight to harmless treasure hunts which were very common, on the other hand, helps make it clear the role of seer was thrust on him.  
Move seer reputation and treasure seeking to to before first learning of golden plates.   Treasure digs clearly precede Sept 21/22 1823.
Gotta mention Alvin's exhumation about here, so Smith's departure from the PA Methodist class makes sense to readers
"The result of the proceeding remains unclear"  We can do better.  True we don't know precisely what happened, but Smith went free and returned to the county many times -- he was clearly wasn't imprisoned and didn't become a fugitive. 
"Isaac Hale, objected; he believed Smith had no means to support his daughter.  Hale also considered Smith a stranger who appeared "careless" and "not very well educated""   True, but also, failed treasure dig and animal sacrifices to appease evil spirits?  
"last visit" really?
Merge with "he said he recovered"
"Angel commanded", Jewish Indians, "reformed Egyptian'?   Is that contemporary to fall 1827? check on this.
Founding a church
Mention the use of hat and stone in translation process
very minor issue: "rapid-fire translation" feels a little jarring in the text, both a little militaristic and anachronistic?  polish someday
Navuoo
 Poisoning claim
to be continued

First vision is shared early but depicted in final form.  Need to unfold.
Map of Zion Camp's march? Feoffer (talk) 06:34, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Views and teachings
Needs to be in chronological order
for editing convenience, using more headings than will likely be involved in final version.  Will condense after sorting by chronology.
Whole section needs revision on tone with more RS commentary
Not sure views on black people and slavery merit this weight --  not innovation, Curse of Ham and pro-slavery were mainstream in milieu
'Temple' anachronistic to Ohio?   "House of the Lord" instead?
Zion is section-worthy
Background on Universalism vs Restorationism and JS teaching?  tie in Curse of Ham and other things JS inherited?
Obviously, there's a tension between the Life narrative and the Teachings narrative.   I inherited this schism in what's already a GA, and it's mirrored in numerous other high-quality bios of movement founders.  The advatange of such a split is to move more "in-universe" content to the later section so that reader can first learn a basic biographical skeleton of the subject.   An argument could be made that the two sections should be merge, but at present I'm not seeing  any neat integration in RSes between the two narratives of the form "because of event A, Smith taught doctrine B".
Three witnesses, Eight Witnesses, and why the ultimate split
Legacy
Move later, split from family
Elias in Kirtland, shift from 3rd to 1st person
Big picture: Contrast the three 'main' responses to Smith:  Bushman, Brodie and the Vogel (and obviously, Brodie is by far the weakest in the RSes)
Smith in LDS theology:  Oath of vengeance
"seeking after Monarchal power and authority" accusation in 1833
Feoffer (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

I'd add to this, though I'm sure you're already aware, that there's a whole load of primary-sourced material in the article, particularly in "Views and teaching".  There are a few missing / broken references left too: Fielding (1957), Chase (2014), Brodie (1945) and some of the 19th century sources too. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Absolutely.  Primary sources copied from subarticles are essentially just reminders to go find better/best modern source on that topic.  It's even possible final article could be cited to Bushman with occasional assists from Vogel. Feoffer (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Lede is literallly the last thing to be worrying about, but since it was on my mind:  
Short term -- do we need to mention the "series of crop failures in 1816" in the lede? 
Longer term -- how do we help the reader coming to the lede to understand that original readers of the Book of Mormon in 1830 wouldn't have heard about the first vision or the 1823 events.  Feoffer (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Because it helps establish the setting and context for the poverty that defined Smith's early years  -- saw this above.   Okay!  I get why now.  Is there some way we could make this clearer to readers?  When I intitially read it, I personally didn't understand it to mean that crop failures implied/led to Smith's family poverty.    Feoffer (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
"how do we help the reader coming to the lede to understand that original readers of the Book of Mormon in 1830 wouldn't have heard about the first vision or the 1823 events." why would we want to prioritize helping readers understand that? That seems to be a rather esoteric point which doesn't actually matter when it comes to Smith himself, no? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
why would we want to prioritize helping readers understand that?   Without a 'key' of what ideas came in what order, a reader who's new to the topic (myself included) has a hard time making sense of how it evolved over time.   Smith's ministry didn't begin with his account of meeting Jesus and the Father, that's a doctrine Smith revealed only quite late in his ministry. Feoffer (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Also the thing in a wikipdia article is a lead, not a lede. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

On the "overview" part of the article, there are no citations? Is this because they are mentioned later on? Knotsworth (talk) 21:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, per MOS:LEADCITE, we don't always include citations in that section when they can be found in the body.   Feoffer (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! Knotsworth (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)