Talk:Thomas B. Marsh

message: "He later left the church over a dispute involving cream"? Please explain. Meelar (talk) 02:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
----
Please see the paragraph about his wife's dispute over cream.
I also removed the following until I can draft out both cause and effect.
:This in turn led to the death of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in Carthage Jail. Shortly afterwards, Brigham Young led the saints to Salt Lake Valley, Utah due to the intense persecution.  WBardwin 04:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cream

message: The article states:
"Years later, in 1864, George A. Smith claimed in a sermon that Marsh..."
The date of George A. Smith's sermon about the milk and cream was 1856, not 1864.
The Leaven of the Gospel, Etc. Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp. 280-291, 4/6/1856 
.  
Index of George A. Smiths discourses is at . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.20.160.251 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of George A. Smith sermon 

message: To all...As for the "Modern Opinion" this section should not be included, putting the silly disclaimer on it does not change the fact the "Modern Opinion" is entirely unsupportable and as a matter of fact someones personal non-authoritative opinipn. Any Mormon male "could be" the Prophet of the Mormon Church some day. Also IF and that's a VERY BIG IF, Mormons do hold the opinion supposedly expressed in the "Modern Opinion" section, then there is a reliable source to cite; some credible source to refer....otherwise for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity keep personal opinions elsewhere. Lastly please update yourselves on Wiki verifiable requirement for content.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdem (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that since no BLP issue is involved, it would be appropriate to ask for a reference and provide a period of time to allow for that before deleting the section outright. I agree that the section needs referencing; however, I also agree that it's not appropriate in this case to delete it outright without first requesting a source and providing a reasonable amount of time for one to be provided (or not). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hardly an edit war!  I'm not even particularly attached to the modern section -- as it was created as part of a discussion with another editor long long ago.  But, I do object to deletions of sections, on any article, without discussion.  The ability to delete without question is the ability to censor -- which is inappropriate for Wikipedia.  I do remember some references to Marsh in recent LDS Relief Society/Priesthood lessons which might support some of this material.  Other ideas on sources welcome.  WBardwin (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would consider 5 deletions and 5 restorations of a complete paragraph within 2 days to be an edit war. Whatever you call it, the back and forth needs to stop while we have a reasonable period of time to get sourced information. I have a few ideas for sources; I will post them if I find anything. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The section has been up for a few years, how much more time is needed?  (Rtdem (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the "old" days, when this particular section was created, Wikipedia was not source obsessive.  Under the established policy at the time, editors cited sources only when we directly quoted or when the issue was, by acclimation in discussion, considered very controversial.  The obsession with citing a source for almost every line is quite recent -- and was probably based on some bad press Wikipedia received a while back.  Many older articles are filled with material that needs sourcing under the new guidelines, and there are not so many of us "older" editors still around.  Catching up on this material is a big job.  So, if I can suggest, rather than just deleting when you come across such a section or article, place a source template on it and try to notify a couple of original editors who are still around.  Then be patient - there is a reason why the templates are dated, and a group of editors review the dates regularly.  Or do a little research and source the material yourself.  Deletion may ultimately occur, but most often sources are found or the material is altered.  Your input on the content discussion below would be welcome.  WBardwin (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern section

message: There is an image claiming to be Marsh at OliverCowdery.com -- The Premier Web-Site for Early Mormon History.  I have my doubts are the LDS Church History people have never claimed to have an image of Marsh, something they would want.  What do you all think?  Is it Marsh?--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one of Dale R. Broadhurst's many websites. I'd suggest contacting him to find out what evidence he has that this is in fact Marsh; it's an intriguing lead, but the info currently available on his website is not enough to establish provenance. We don't need an issue like we had with Elijah Abel a few years ago, where we repeated a mistake that Dialogue had made, misattributed a drawing as Abel (see this for details). —Asterisk*Splat→ 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I can't see any verifiable source for the quotes from and references to 'Document p.57.'  Oops.  Sorry.  Found it in the references.  But the link to the complete text is broken. Jenglish02 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Document p.57' source? 

message: I wanted to start a new section here so the discussion in the "milk and strippings" section above can stay focused around that subject. Here's how I understand this issue: Thomas B. Marsh left/withdrew/disassociated himself from the church in the fall of 1838. From primary sources this is clearly seen in the 1838 affidavit. He was excommunicated in absentia in 1839. The question as I see it (correct me if I'm wrong) is what year do we use for the end of his term as member and as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Certainly he was no longer a member of the quorum once he was excommunicated, but what about the time between the affidavit and the excommunication? I can see arguments for both possibilities, and it's not clear to me which would be correct. For example, if he had changed his mind after the affidavit but before the excommunication and came back to the church, would he still have retained his membership or position in the quorum or not? On the other hand, he left pretty definitively in 1838, swore out the affidavit against Smith and the church, and didn't come back for ~19 years. That's not simply going inactive, to use modern vernacular. My problem is that for me to make either argument, I have to engage in some extrapolation from the primary sources, which we aren't supposed to do as WP editors. IMO, the best way to clear this up would be a secondary source that either says something like "Marsh was in the quorum until 1838/1839" or, better yet, discusses this exact question. That's where I'm coming from on this question. Did I miss anything in the summary of the question? Does anyone have a secondary source that would help? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1838 or 1839 as last year in Quorum of 12