Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 5

message: User:4.227.142.180, you are wearing me out with the mis-use of words and misleading edits - 
First - not only does Hagiographic mean that the literature work is about a religious figure (which Smith was), but non-hagiographic would mean that the person was a historical figure that was un-tied in any way to religion. Smith, whether you like it or not, was a religious figure. Therefore any work about him would be considered hagiographic by very nature. It could be argued that most work about figures including Sollog and Nostradamus would be hagiographic because of what they or others claim to them be. Second you draw conclusions which are called theories, not "offer conclusions." In the same vein, you don't "offer claims," you make them. You offer opinions. If you'd rather, we can say "she offered new opinions..." 
I've removed "especially as arguably the first academicly-minded study of Smith from a critical perspective." I think she thouroughly stated - and documented - that this was not an academic excercise, but a way for her to vent her frustrations, attack the Church and give a differing view of Smith who is often set up on idealistic pedestal (see my dialogue above with User:Nauvoo). There was only gratuitous objectivity in her work (self-admitted), and therefore cannot truly considered to be a critical academic work. However, I would grant that it was perhaps the best-researched Anti-Mormon published at the time. 
I've also removed dead links - no need to create links to pages that aren't there. If you'd like to create the page, please do and then add back in the link. 
I've added in a sentence about Quinn's work. Although I don't like it - it IS what Anti-Mormons claim the Brodie work purports to be. It is a naturalistic, look at Smith, and although it draws stretching conclusions without supporting evidence in many cases, it a much more balanced and neutral look at smith than Brodies' work. Even moderate secondary sources are better than fringe secondary sources - on both sides. -Visorstuff 16:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagiographic?

message: I came across this page a while ago when I was looking for Joseph Smith pictures. This one seems kind of suspicious to me, but I think it'd be cool if it's real (although it doesn't seem likely that it is). What do you guys think? Cookiecaper 12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't know.  He looks kinda creepy in that pic. Kinda hope it's not him. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
First I've seen of this. Highly skeptical due mainly to period dress/hair style (type of suit material), which appears to be closer to the 1875-1900 period (I'd actually say 1888-1900). However, the scarring on his left cheek and chin, hairline and prominent nose structure could lead one to believe it is the same person. However, the lack of scarring on the upper lip, shape and position of the eyes, as well as use by the RLDS/LDS historians in literature are detractors. Joseph's hair was blonde and more full, so the hair may or may not be consistent, depending on how the photo was taken. Very skeptical. Tom - wanna check with RLDS sources on the accuracy of the claim that RLDS/CoC believe it was him? I rather think he looks young for a 1843 photograph, and would place the age of this individual at 28 - remember, they looked older at a younger age then due to environmental influences. I was amazed at the resemblence to a photo of one of my Nauvoo-ancestors. -Visorstuff 17:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: LOOK AT THIS!!!

message: Wikipedia doesn't like articles longer than 32k, or at least the software is complaining. So perhaps this article is ripe for dividing up. Just how to do this for a figure that so many people want to contribute to is interesting... perhaps one approach would be to move all the pro LDS material to an article on Joseph Smith apologies, and the anti-LDS stuff to Joseph Smith detractions... Leaving only the REALLY REALLY NPOV stuff here, like his birth date, and well, there must be SOMETHING else that's not controversial ;-) ... Just a thought. I'm sure there are other ways the article could be divided as well. Any suggestions? KellyCoinGuy.
I don't think dividing up teh article as suggested is the right answer. However, removing sections not essentiall pertinent to the article may be wise - the "succession" info could probably become it's own article or moved to the Martyrdom page. Some of the Polygamy could be moved to somthing like Joseph Smith and Polygamy. But a pro/con disucssion would be meaningless without a side-by-side comparison. -Visorstuff 17:58, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. Tom H. 04:57, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)
I'm still in favor of having an article on Joseph Smith historiography that would cover the current "studies" heading. We've had debates about single words under this heading because of how stingy we are about adding material not directly related to Smith, but this could be a very full topic on its own. (Sadly, as COGDEN points out, an article on Joseph Smith historiography would be difficult to write.) Also note that there's a new Succession Crisis (Mormon) article (not capitalized correctly?) that can bear some of this. Cool Hand Luke 08:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I realize that polygyny is the more precise term -- marginally -- but polygamy is the more usual descriptor in context.  Is there any strong reason to prefer the less common term?  Alai 06:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I only reverted rather than originally wrote the phrase.  But, the polygyny article is quite clinical and NPOV, dealing with the anthro term and social structure while the polygamy article is in a constant state of dispute and flux.  And the dispute isn't due to the LDS/Mormon tie to polygamy, but primarily to various aspects of polygamy in modern (mostly American) society.  So, perhaps our uninformed reader is better off getting the clinical description first before wading into a swamp.  Plural marriage is the place that we can present the LDS/Mormon experience and would be ultimately the better pointer, but the three articles should (ideally) complement each other.  The choice is hard.  WBardwin 18:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good analysis, W. Tom Haws 18:54, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying to clean up the polygamy article, with an opinion from 3rd opinion.  I'm hoping that some changes hold.  Feel free to join in, but read the disputed section before making too many changes. I hope to add more sociobiology references, as well as separating opinion from fact. I agree that polygamy is a theoretically better link. Nereocystis 21:05, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polygamy, polygyny 

message: In the martyrdom section, the article reads: "Ultimately, Hyrum was shot five times and killed. (The first bullet severed his spinal cord, killing him instantly; the remainder hit his corpse.)"
How does this square with John Taylor's first-hand account that indicates Hyrum called out "I am a dead man!" after being hit? (See D&C 135:1.)
I'd like to see a source cited for the claim, and some reference to the Taylor account (and Willard Richards' as well, which confirms Taylor's). MrWhipple
:I did some additional research on this. Probably the best resource is Shannon Tracy, In Search of Joseph (Orem, Utah: KenningHouse, 1995, ISBN 157636009). As part of his research, Tracy examined the Willard Richards' firshand account of the martyrdom, the Huntingtons' report after they cleaned the bodies, and the clothing worn by Hyrum at the jail. All of these indicate Hyrum was shot six times: left side of face; under jaw; right chest (grazed); right back, through kidney; right side hip; and left knee. The only shot serious enough to be nearly instantly fatal was in his face. The current statement that Hyrum was shot in the spine is incorrect. I will modify it accordingly. MrWhipple 04:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyrum killed instantly? 

message: There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Joseph Smith as featured article concerning a drive toward featured article status for this page. This post is merely a notification; please continue discussion there. Cookiecaper 04:16, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 for the peer review. Nereocystis 20:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph Smith as a featured article 

message: -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I believe that the 2nd to last paragraph is worded incorrect and is not,in its context, correct.  Where it states that "Smith publicly denied plural marriage", it should be excluded, and in its place read something such as "Joseph Smith praticed polygyny (NOT POLYGAMY- otherwise everything is misunderstood in Morminism, look up the two word to know the difference in meaning) in secret when he was first commanded to do so, later on he introduced a small number of selected individuals (those mainly stronger in faith) into the practice".
-Added by Mormon follower and believer: GP  (Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 - 11:16 AM ET)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
:On the issue of whether or not Joseph Smith actually denied practicing polygyny, I don't think there is any historical doubt, is there, that Joseph Smith denied practicing polygyny? I know of some theories that used to be held by the Community of Christ, that he never actually practiced polygyny, but is there really any doubt that he publically denied it? After all, his denial is in History of the Church:
::"I had not been married scarcely five minutes, and made one proclemation of the Gospel, before it was reported that I had seven wives....This spiritual wifeism! Why, a man does not speak or wink, for fear of being accused of this....What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs"-Joseph Smith (History of The Church 6:410-411)
:Now, maybe someone would argue that this was actually a legalistic Clintonesqe non-denial denial. But I don't think so. If there is an actual controversy here, I would suggest just quoting his denial, and avoiding any interpretation. COGDEN 17:45, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with COGDEN here.  The statement by GP is POV.  Polygamy includes polygyny, of course, so polygamy is not incorrect.  Furthermore, Joseph Smith married some already-married women, so polygyny really isn't quite sufficient for Smith. The current statement does not need to be changed. Nereocystis 18:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether JS denied practicing polygamy 

message: This is what the article reads now in the opening paragraph:
:Raised during an era of Christian innovation, at the beginning of the Restorationism movement, Smith built his ministry upon claims of divination, revelation, visits from angels, the discovery and translation of ancient writings, and the introduction of novel social, economic, and doctrinal ideas. Smith's call began, he later said, with a first vision, a theophany, in his adolescent years, where he received a forgiveness of his sins in a clearing of the woods near his home. Later, he claimed the influence of angels, who led him to restore what he claimed was the original Church of Christ, as he believed it existed in the 1st Century.
I would rewrite this:
:Smith claimed to be a prophet, receiving his charge in the first vision, a theophany, where he claimed he saw and conversed with God the Father and Jesus Christ. He built his ministry upon claims of divination, revelation, angelic visitations, discovery of and translation of ancient writings by former prophets, and the divine authority to restore the original church that Jesus Christ established while he lived on the earth.
I don't believe the current paragraph accurately reflects what Smith claimed. It doesn't even agree with the section below on the First Vision. Plus, it doesn't flow well. Jgardner 19:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the rewrite. I have pretty much the same suggestions as these guys: keep the good parts of the lead-in section and show or link to an article that shows the distinction between God the Father and God the Son. Cookiecaper 09:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Vision 

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

message: I looked at the article a little more seriously, but only a little, after the peer review request was made.  I'll mention some problems, with solutions if possible.
===First mention of First Vision===
Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.#The_First_Vision states:
:Over the years, beginning in 1820, Smith described this experience many times using varying details.
This conflicts with First Vision, which states that the first allusion to the first vision was in 1830.  Options:
#Change 1820 to 1830
#Remove the phrase "beginning in 1820" completely.  It's less POV, but it might remove important information.
===Danites===
Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.#Missouri states:
:Smith disapproved of the group [the Danites]
This statement is questionable as the Danite article states, especially in Danites#Relationship_to_Joseph_Smith_and_the_church. We could cut just the quoted passage, but that would suggest that Smith disapproved, without saying it.  I'm not sure how to handle the controversy here, but I want to make it clear that Smith may have know about the Danites. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to public outrage generated by the paper, the Nauvoo City Council passed an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers.
Please provide a citation for the council's reaction being in response to public outrage.  My impression is that it was due to Smith's outrage, but I have to look up references myself. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/nauvoo_expositor_eom.htm says that " One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding." Cookiecaper 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Church members demanded that something be done.
and then leads into the city council meeting. 
I'll look through my paper references when I get a chance. Nereocystis 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Review notes

message: Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.#Missouri states:
:Smith disapproved of the group [the Danites]
This statement is questionable as the Danite article states, especially in Danites#Relationship_to_Joseph_Smith_and_the_church. We could cut just the quoted passage, but that would suggest that Smith disapproved, without saying it.  I'm not sure how to handle the controversy here, but I want to make it clear that Smith may have know about the Danites. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Danites

message: Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.#Smith.27s_death states:
:In response to public outrage generated by the paper, the Nauvoo City Council passed an ordinance declaring the newspaper a public nuisance designed to promote violence against Smith and his followers.
Please provide a citation for the council's reaction being in response to public outrage.  My impression is that it was due to Smith's outrage, but I have to look up references myself. Nereocystis 17:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/1831_1844/nauvoo_expositor_eom.htm says that " One month later, on June 7, the first and only issue of the Nauvoo Expositor appeared and caused an immediate furor in the community. Nauvoo residents were incensed at what they saw as its sensational, yellow-journalistic claims about Nauvoo religion, politics, and morality. They were also struck with sharp foreboding." Cookiecaper 20:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Church members demanded that something be done.
and then leads into the city council meeting. 
I'll look through my paper references when I get a chance. Nereocystis 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Expositor'' outrage

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

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