Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 11

message: (Mostly) to Ju66l3r:
My main goal with my edits was to reign in the size of this section, and removing details that were, in my eyes, extraneous. I double checked that anything that I removed was contained in the "Death of Joseph Smith, Jr." article, and in fact I added a fact or two to it, from this article. But the simple fact of this is that this section was (and now is) not succienctly summarized. "Details and quotations" which I removed were all (as far as I felt) not useful for the reading of the article. Smith has a lot of detail in his life, which, to the average reader of Wikipedia, it can get tedious to read all 66kb of it. Thus, I HIGHLY suggest that we streamline, basically to the barebones, this article. Kind of like I had done, but apparently you took exception to it.
I admit that the  template may have been overboard, but a refernce there would still be nice - where could we find the text of that quotation? But even as it is, since it is included in the main article, then the simple statement "Violent threats were made against Smith and the Mormon community." should be sufficient, and then a hyperlink to the text of the Warsaw signal could be  referenced. Or maybe the text itself should be referenced. Suggestions here?
For the general reference, here is my edit, and here is your revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs) 
:This is exactly what this article needs - on all the sections - I support the edit as it summarizes the events and includes the major POVs involved. --Trödel 12:49, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Death' section 

message: I deleted the contents of this page; due to the fact that I do not wish to create any controversy.  I respect this human experience we are all having and do not wish to appear as one who discounts individuals who work hard discovering what good really is and how to; make the most from the least, and not as I was taught; to make the least from the most.Kisida 16:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if there are no references then the information does not meet wikipedia's verifiability standards. And to report his results here would violate the ban on no original research. I suggest that you work on getting the information published by a reputable journal, then it can be easily included in the article. --Trödel 17:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excuse last Post 

message: Hey all, great to see the progress that this article has made since I left. It looks like it's approaching FA status, although there is still definately more work to be done. I notice, with chagrin, that the 1831 to 1844 section is stupendously disjointed and difficult to catch the flow of, and missing various important parts, and has several less important parts. And at least half of the references section is probably obsolete. And the "Bibliography" section and subarticle (Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.) need work to look good. (Is it advisable to have a subarticle for the bibliography?? I don't think so.)
But beyond those glaring dificulties, this article looks incredible! If you don't see how far it's come, check out http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-smith, http://www.theowiki.com/index.php?title=Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.&redirect=no, or any other inactive Wiki mirror sight. You may be astounded at how primitive this article used to look.
Although I have stated that I would not edit this wiki, I do feel that these things are important, so I'll update the to-do list with what I see as necessary things to do here.
I am heartened by the progress which has been made in my absence, and hope that it is able ot continue. Please continue to work to improve this encyclopedia, and this article in particular. The world needs more truth regarding this great man. --Trevdna 21:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow! Keep up the great work! 

message: Also see near the mob quote: "f... a...."
See the quote on the page about Joseph Smith:
"This theophany, Smith said in most of his accounts of the vision, included the voice and appearance of your mom, who forgave him of his sins."
Your mom?
:I believe it's been fixed. Mak (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Report of vandalism 

message: I believe this article is in need of substantial neutrality review.  Pro-Joseph Smith editors have deleted virtually every edit that is critical of JS.  The bottom line is that 99.5% of the world believes that JS was a con artist and fraud, but this page reads like he is a genuine religious leader.  There is no mention of his arrest, no mention of his joining the Methodist church, very little mention of polygamy and his treatment of women and dissenters in the LDS movement, etc.  Even if Mormons do not believe in many of the facts about JS, the fact these controversies should be discussed in a neutral fashion.  A scroll through the history of the pages reveals that neutral-izing edits are quickly reverted, and most of the editors dedicated to the page spend all their time on Mormon-related pages.  Put simply, this article needs substantial editing to present both points of view about Joseph Smith.  Masonuc (20:33, 16 October 2006)  
:I moved Mosonuc's edit down to bottom of page and added title.  Masonuc, you might want to review the article in detail.  Everything you mentioned above is either in the article or has a separate article focused on it.  You might also  want to look at Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; it is a terrible article, but it is a good list of all the articles on WIKI with a "negative" presentation of Mormonism.  Would you please review these items and then determine if you think your tag is legitimate?  Given that your reasoning for the tag is already addressed, I think it should be removed.  Storm Rider (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the reference for Smith joining the Methodist Church?  When I click on the link, it doesn't work.  I hadn't heard of that before, so I want to check it out. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There wouldn't be a reliable one, as it doesn't exist. HOWEVER, there is a enrollment list or a list of enrollees (or what in the LDS church would be called a 'roll') that includes Smith's name for a Methodist sunday school that is being referred to. Attendance in most churches is how they count adherents and members, not baptism date as in the LDS church. -Visorstuff 00:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, Mosonuc may want to look at the sub-articles that go into much more detail on Smith's life. -Visorstuff 00:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The citation link was broken. It is the (Lewis & Lewis 1879) reference. I've fixed it, however, and you can follow the link to the text. I wasn't aware, Visorstuff, that someone located the Methodist roll in Harmony showing Smith's name on it. Do you know if anybody republished it? COGDEN 01:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for POV tag

message: This article is totally biased in every way. Not only are the headlines slanted towards Smith and the Church, all of your sources come from LDS material or from biased sources. How about we rewrite this article in an UNBIASED slant, telling only historical facts both good and bad, not only the good things. You only added a few bad things that he was envolved in, and when you did you biasly slanted the report in a defense of Smith. Why are you so biased in everything, not everyone is perfect, and slanting Smith in this way is not only un-historical, but unethical. If you truly are a scholar, why not present things in an unbias manner?  User:158.135.12.160  
:I moved this ANON's comments down and signed her/his edits.  First, you are a very new editor and unfamiliar with the plethora of articles on Joseph Smith, Jr. and related articles.  Please do some investigating before you blindly make accusations that are unfounded.
:You also need to get some ground rules down:  1) when you exceed three reverts in a single day you will be blocked.  You haved exceeded that today.  2) When editing the discussion page, sign your edit by using four tildes (~~~~).  This way everyone understands who is editing and leads to greater cooperation.  3) You have been using several different computers at Sam Houston State University:  the IP address already mentioned, 158.135.197.124, and 158.135.25.117; this is known as using a sockpuppet and is strongly frowned upon.  If you desire to edit I encourage you to register and sign in every time.  4) you insist on adding data that is erroneous; READ my last edit that included your allegations and expanded upon them.  If there is a dispute, you bring it to the discussin page, make an edit at the bottom and then enter into a discussion. 5) When making a claim such as yours be specific.  It will assist others in understanding your position and understanding of the issues.  Editors here are skilled and highly knowledgable about these topics and will be able to correct problems or point you to more sources quickly.  Storm Rider (talk) 00:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusation of bais by Anon 158.135.12.160

message: At first I thought I would just help people get editing right. Now I am more curious than anything else how much energy and time people will put it to go after me instead of just fixing the outlining and editing it correctly. I guess some people have stamp collecting and others have monitoring wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.139.244.193 (talk • contribs) 
:Please refrain from blanking text, that is considered vandalism. If you have a problem with the page, fix it yourself or discuss it on the talk page. --Lethargy 01:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The proper thing to do if you feel that strongly about it is to fix it - not remove content from the article - as none of the other editors on this article seem to share your concern, it is up to fix the outline style. Do not continue to remove content --Trödel 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally pretending you are two people by using an IP address from Clemson University and then from a ISP in Clemson is frowned up on wikipedia. If you continue to delete the content rather than doing somthing useful like integrating the content in a way that would avoid your outline style issue, I will be forced to block you from editing --Trödel 01:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion based on outlining style?? 

message: How can the wording "Church of Christ" be fixed in this article.  The Church of Christ (Campbell) and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Smith) are two very separate entities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marrilpet (talk • contribs) 
:By linking to the disambiguated article Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). COGDEN 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Church of Christ

message: To lead with Smith being described as a religious leader and polygamist is NOT a POV violation.  It is fact, and is well cited later in the article.  It is no more POV to call him  a polygamist than to call him a religious figure or an American or any other factual descriptive term.  Smith is well known for being a polygamist and therefore it is perfectly legitimate to describe him as such.  To call it a POV violation is to express a bias.  Who is to say that polygamy is negative thing?  It doesn't even necessarily paint Smith in a negative way - it all depends on your opinion of polygamy.  But to deny that this is an accurate term to describe Smith is ludicrous, especially since it is fully explained later on in the article.  It is not leading in any way towards any POV or bias.  
For example, if someone views religion as negative, then to call someone a "religious figure" could be construed as a leading-POV, and thus using the logic of some people on here, should be eliminated.
Facts are facts - good or bad, Smith is known to many as a polygamist.  This is an irrefutable fact.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but although there is a consensus among historians that Smith was a polygamist, there are still those claiming that he was not. Wherever one stands on the issue, placing the polygamy monicker in the header has been discussed many times over the last couple of years and I believe the consensus was to keep it within a separate section, with appropriate references. It is certainly debatable whether Smith has notoriety for this reason, or as an American religionist. I can see from your recent edit to the Mormon church page that you have specific POV thoughts on the matter of the LDS. I would mention, for the record, that I'm not a Mormon nor have I any affiliation with their religion. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If the standard for removal is merely based on the fact that there are "still those claming that he was not," then nothing in any article on wikipedia could stay up for long.  Of course, there's always disagreement on every issue. So call it "alleged polygamist" or something like that.  But to hide it away at the bottom of the article just smacks of deceit and is misleading.  What is the motivation to hide it at the bottom of the article, if not to sanitize a controverisal figure?  Because, as you state, the consensus amoung historians is that he was a polygamist.  Because some people deny historical fact, doesn't mean something should be removed from wikipedia.  As for my edit on the Mormon churchpage, I think the only thing that can be judged from that is that I seek accuracy.  Judging from your recent edits, I have a hard time believing that a person who spends so much time reverting edits on this particular page is not doing it without any POV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.230.111 (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversial matters on articles is left to the consensus of regular editors, according to Wikipedia policy. Smith certainly did not achieve notoriety due to being an 'alleged polygamist', so there doesn't seem to be a point in placing that in the header - this is why you'll find there are other users who will revert your edit other than just me. As for me, I edit only within a small number of articles for which I have some knowledge. My only concern is neutrality and keeping things encyclopedic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first section of any Wikipedia article is intended to be a summary of the material to follow.  We place what is most notable about the individual/topic at the top.  Joseph Smith, Jr. was notable for many things -- establishing a revolutionary religious movement that has persisted into the 21st century, claiming to be prophet/returning revelation from God to the earth, translating, publishing and drafting new scripture, etc.  Despite recent publicity, polygamy is just one of many more minor things in his life - i.e. city planner, mayor, candidate for the U.S. presidency - that are covered in the lower article sections.  As for reversions, sigh :-(.  Regular editors here all spend much of their time reverting vandalism and POV edits from almost all the articles on our watchlists.  Almost all of these reversions are done in accordance with Wikipedia policies and are due to the fact that more casual contributors prefer to damage material or assert their opinions rather than work with others, "consensus" is the wiki term, to create as neutral a presentation as is possible for the flawed humans who work here.  And 142.161.230.111, please sign your posts or join Wikipedia and get a user name.  That will help us all know who you are and improve communication.  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen to WBardwin's comments, which are informative and should put this issue to rest, for now... Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Polygamy

message: The unusual citation style used in this article makes it incredibly difficult to read.  Why can't the normal WP  tag be used? Fragglet 00:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Does anyone know if Joseph Smith was ever baptised into another denomination before his "revelations"?  I seem to recall mention that there was a baptismal record entered for him in the Methodist Church when he was an infant, but I can't recall the source.
:It is Anti-Mormon folklore based on a misreading of source documents. Smith was enrolled in a methodist sunday school class - classes that typcially led to the enrollee being baptized, however Smith withdrew from the class before baptism. Because his name was on the sunday school roles, critics claim that he "joined" the methodist sect, however, there are no records of any methodist ordinance, nor of Smith being baptised prior to May 1829 (when he was baptized by Oliver Cowdery - see D&C Section 13). Most churches consider baptism the gate into membership of a church, although nowadays people may or may not particpate in such ordinances to join a denomination. It was common, and still is for investigators of religious denominations to attend church meetings (and even sign roles, etc.) prior to joining a church. he simply attended their meetings - as he did with the presbyterians - baptists and others (although he didn't sign their roles or enroll in one of their sunday school classes). For more references on this, visit Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Smith.27s religious background. 
:Smith's mother was presbyterian which does perform infant baptism, but she joined when he was in his early teens, and didn't belong to an organized religion before that time. If I remember correctly from her memiors and biography of her son, she was told that one of their children would be dammed as it died before it was able to be baptized - which led to Joseph Smith Seniors dissafection with organized religion the lasted until his son organized the church. None of the Smtih children were baptized by any records I've found until they were old enough to request it. For more information, refer to The History of Joseph Smith, Jr. by his Mother, Lucy Mack Smith . Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. He did, apparently join a "probationary class" in Palmyra in his teens but after a while he announced he was quitting because all churches were false, and then he attempted to join a similar class in Harmony (as Visorstuff discusses). But he never actually joined the Methodist church.  There is one statement by a man named Fayette Lapham who interviewed Smith's father in 1930, who claimed years later that Joseph, Jr. was baptized in the Baptist church in Palmyra. But Lapham's memory of the facts may have been distorted over time. Somebody else, a guy named Mitchell Bronk, does corroborate that Smith attended a Baptist church for a while in Palmyra, but Lapham is the only one who said he was actually baptized there. COGDEN 21:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've read in the Book of Mormon, apparently he wanted to be baptised by a priest of sorts from a non-mormon church. However he told him he had no intentions of joining that church.--Animasage 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was actually a man named Wilford Woodruff, who eventually became the fourth President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  While studying the Bible he found that baptism was a spiritual necessity.  Although he asked a local minister to baptize him, he refused to join his congregation because many other Biblical principles he had found did not match what the minister's denomination professed.  Layne1975 16:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Book of Mormon says nothing about Joseph Smith's baptism; in fact, it does not recount any of the events of Joseph Smith's life, but rather the history of some of the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.  Maybe you are talking about some other book?  --Storm Rider (talk) 01:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: I reverted and thus deleted a quote supposedly from Hale today. It was just plopped into the article without any introduction. If one is going to introduce a quote, then it may easily be appropriate but taking a quote and introducing it, particularly when it is controversial, when be best. Additionally, why is Hale appropriate or worthwhile. Did he know any of the subject firsthand? No. Was it hearsay? Yes. What is the value of the quote? Possibly to describe how inidividuals felt about Joseph Smith. It is not, however, a quote about facts or reality, which the editor appeared to be using it. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes

message: Any comments on how I divided the time periods? It seemed the most logical division to me, but we can always fiddle with the year boundaries. COGDEN 22:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Illinois was considered the west at that time. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 23:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New time periods 

message: I leave for a few months, and I come back to look things over, and this article looks incredible! Great job everybody!
I really think that this article is almost ready for peer review, followed by a FAC.
A few things I see:
* Pruning the references section of anything that's obsolete
* Including, under 'family' section, a subsection on his parents and ancestor's family, and also tightening the prose in the plural marriages section
* Further summarization, if possible, of the biography section: it's still a little too long, in my opinion.
But seriously, great job everyone. A lot of the lingering issues that were present when I took my leave have been addressed, and I'm highly encouraged by what I see. Although I won't be actively working much on improving the article myself, I will be checking up more often on things.
--Trevdna 00:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *sigh*... I see now, to my regret, that my lavish praise was preemptive... --Trevdna 03:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh, yeah! 

message: * Stay objective: <B>Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues</b>.  They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikibate proposal.)   Duke53 | Talk 04:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: Wasn't Joseph Smith either convicted or tried for some sort of magic/con artist type stuff?  (Sorry if this seems flippant, but I read it on a website and can't remember the details.)
:The answer is probably.  Details are in Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Work as a treasure seeker and marriage to Emma Hale. Cool Hand Luke 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>"He was tried but not convicted ..."</I> The record on his conviction is documented in some old court papers which are now owned by the LDS church; to say that he was not convicted is a statement that can be challenged from other available documents. Duke53 | Talk 07:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I would like to see this "Proof" and "Evidence"  02:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We can't lock the article forever.  So we have to strive for neutrality and palatability.  It isn't easy!  Your concerns may be valid.  But you would have to stay and help resolve them.  Tom Haws 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal record? 

message: This article states that Rigdon formed his church in Greensbug, but I believe it was actually in Monongahela.  The current headquarters is in Greensburg, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't where it was originally formed.  The article on Sidney Rigdon states the headquarters in Monongahela, which is what I originally heard. wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 21:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidney Rigdon - Greensburg or Monongahela? 

message: Wasn't his running mate Brigham Young?
Answer: NO
:It was Sidney Rigdon. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presidential Run 

message: The below is my response to a new editor, User:Écrasez l'infâme placed on his/her talk page.  I will now revert, once again.  WBardwin 19:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted your recent edit on the Joseph Smith, Jr. article.  I chose to revert for a couple of reasons.  Stating that the revelation came from "Jesus Christ, himself" may be true (!) but it is clearly quite POV, stating the faithful LDS belief, by Wikipedia standards.  In addition, this article is very long, and as it grows we editors extract material into other more specific articles.  Any large addition, such as the D&C quote, should be carefully considered and discussed on the talk page.  Sections of this quote, for example, might be better suited to the plural marriage article.  Nonetheless, thank you for your interest in the article.  You might want to visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement and look over our project guidelines and objectives.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 19:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well said. --TrustTruth 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the explanation—I'll leave out the long D&C quote, but add the reference and clarify a few points that are unnecessarily vague in this important section. Écrasez l'infâme 20:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  I added the following, which includes these important historical facts, is NPOV and thoroughly cited: Such claims that he didn't teach or practice plurality of wives are further called disputed through the official publication in Utah of Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, although this did not take place until almost a decade after Smith's death when the revelation was made public and published. This revelation, in which Jesus ChristThe Doctrine and Covenants, 132:24. states through Smith that "a new and an everlasting covenant" of plural marriage is given, contains numerous Biblical references to and justification of polygamy, as well as the demand that Smith's first wife, Emma, accept all of Smith's plural wives, and warns of damnation if the new covenant is not observed.Joseph Smith's 12 July 1843 polygamy revelation on plural marriage with the demand that Emma Smith, the first wife, accept all of Joseph Smith's plural wives; The Doctrine and Covenants, 132:1–4, 19, 20, 24, 34, 35, 38, 39, 52, 60–62. Écrasez l'infâme 20:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  D & C 132 Quotation 

message: Just a note to involved editors to pay attention to basic talk-page discipline:
* Discuss the article and not the subject
* Discuss the edit and not the editor
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back
* Don't misrepresent other people
* If you feel the need, you can chat with about this topic on their user talk pages. Talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article.
Follow these simple guidelines, and you will not only be more productive, you will have more fun as well. 
See also: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk-page discipline 

message: After reading a recent edit in the article there is one question that I have: <I>is 'Reformed Egyptian' recognized as a <U>legitimate</U> ancient language</i>? Duke53 | Talk 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on who you ask and what your definition of "legitimate" is. I imagine most language scholars would say no, because apart from the claims surrounding the Book of Mormon, there's no evidence the language exists or existed. Ask a language researcher who believes Joseph Smith's story and you might get a different answer. Ask non-experts and you will get different answers again. In other words, it depends on your POV and from what angle you approach the question. See Reformed Egyptian. –SESmith 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So, is it "Reformed Egyptian" or "reformed Egyptian"? The Reformed Egyptian article seems to use the latter, at the moment. Wesley 02:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

text: From what I can see, the article Reformed Egyptian is fairly consistent in its use of "reformed Egyptian". –SESmith 04:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the correct use is as Sesmith has presented, "reformed Egyptian". Joseph Smith was not stating there was an actual language called Reformed Egyptian, but that the language of the authors of the BofM had changed or was not pure like the original language of their forefathers; thus reformed. --Storm Rider (talk) 05:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformed Egyptian

message: After reading the highly entertaining article about the adventures of Joe Smith and his amazing success with the credulous - one question remains - where did Smith, with no apparent education or overseas travel- manage to find these apochraphyl documents? Did he journey to anywhere even remotely likely to contain documents in any form of middle eastern/egyptian provenance. Is it plausible to still believe, in the absence of any physical evidence at all - that anyone could 'find' golden plates under a hill in Pennsylvania - plates which contain references to previously unknown ancient languages? I thought we were supposed to try and have some sort of scientific/encyclopaedic detachment.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fidelia (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable sources

message: I have reviewed the talk archives and I don't see any consensus for having changed the photograph and best likeness portrait to the current sculpture image.  Can somebody enlighten me or support me in changing bach to the discussed images?  The real ones aren't even in the article any more.  Sigh.  Tom Haws 23:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I say either the photograph or the RLDS painting, which have the best claims to realism (though I think the jury is still out on whether the photograph is a photo of Smith or a retouched photo of the RLDS painting). COGDEN 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, I think the authenticity of the supposed photograph doesn't matter. We should use either just because they're public domain and iconic. Cool Hand Luke 00:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This seems to be a significant issue for some people. As for me, I guess I do not have a strong preference; however, I like the picture of the sculpture. The depiction is common to me and I have a personal preference to sculpture over paintings or photography. It is surprising that one strives for "reality" when there is confusion about the reality. It would seem that we seek something that does not exist; in truth, one is not more pure or accurate than the other; they are simply representations of what the man. At the end of the day it is personal preference. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Haws, given your rather strong feelings in this situation and the fact that you already made a unilateral decision, how about putting the sculpture picture in the table at the end of the article? It currently has a rather repugnant drawing of poor quality. Then we don't have this penchant for wanting a pseudo realism taking over the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. That particular image is already in the article body. Cool Hand Luke 18:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Repugnant?  Poor quality?  Why, gentlemen, that artwork was done contemporaneously by none other than the illustrious wife of "Saint George" George A. Smith, and 4th president of the LDS Relief Society, Bathsheba Smith.  :-) Tom Haws 20:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I can support the groups choice. My personal preference is more based upon medium; I prefer sculpture to painting. I have never focused on the controversy between "real" likeness or not; I don't think I know what controversy it may incite; what might it be? In addition, I will replace the picture identified above with the picture of the sculpture to add balance and just because I think it is a more interesting piece of art. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the photograph isn't the prettiest thing you ever saw.  And when LDS folks come by who are accustomed to modern renditions, I suspect the first reaction for some of them is: "Anti!  That's not the likeness of The Prophet.  And even if it is, what a shady-looking face to have at the top of the article."  And the second reaction of the Wiki capable might be to replace it with something prettier.  That's what I want to avoid.  Inciting POV edits does no good.  If I'm inciting POV edits, I'm probably not achieving NPOV.  Tom Haws 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the painting better as well, rather than the photograph. I'm not convinced that the photograph is anything other than a photograph of the painting anyway, so why not have the original painting, rather than a touched-up photo of the painting? COGDEN 20:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith image

message: Bill recently undid a "bot" revert of a recent edit.  I would urge us to reconsider that revert and look over the material involved.  Some of the potentially deleted/changed material has long been in the article and has been heavily discussed.  Some material removed or altered presents aspects of Smith's life that are open to criticism so, IMO, removing the material reduces the article's neutral POV.  If I were to choose, I would initially revert back to my edit on August 18th and follow up with a solid review by several pairs of eyes.  The article has received a lot of traffic in recent weeks with a lot of accumulated changes.  Best............ WBardwin 21:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Revert by Warp103

message: I have taken the liberty of inserting the actual wording from the Times and Seasons (1842) Aof as a substitution for the LDS edited version. I thought it was in better keeping with NPOV to use Smith's original wording. A Sniper 14:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that there is really no point in using the modern LDS Church version when we have access to Smith's actual words. –SESmith 23:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. By the way SESmith, I didn't mean to chop off that ref on my edit - I thought the ref was tied to the latter part I'd just lobbed off, and not the former about Emma...sorry. A Sniper 17:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That's OK; it happened twice and so I started to think it was deliberate vandalism. –SESmith 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it be better to state something like, "Joseph Smith, Jr. a brief statement of beliefs known in the LDS movement as the Articles of Faith." There is no need to repeat them in their entirety in this article. Then you won't have to worry about which version to use in this article and Articles of Faith — Val42 04:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, it is done now - it is historically letter-perfect and in Smith's own words (as reflected by the Times and Season's account). As a statement of purpose & belief, what better way than to spell things out on the JSJr page? A Sniper 13:59, 01 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Inclusion of the entire Articles of Faith section of the Wentworth letter is inappropriate. First of all, Wikipedia articles shouldn't include copies of primary sources. Second, the Articles were never intended as a comprehensive summary of Smith's major beliefs and teachings. They are a list of beliefs intended for proselytism and public consumption, which grew in importance only long after Smith's death, and are not a good description of what he spent most of his time teaching his close followers. For example, they don't mention polygamy, the Endowment, temples, the law of consecration, new scriptures other than the Book of Mormon, or even the Apostasy. COGDEN 20:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles of Faith

message: An article's lead should summarize it so well that it could stand along as a concise article in its own right, but lots of WP leads fail to meet this standard. This lead says: "Smith was, and remains, a controversial and polarizing figure within Christianity because of his religious and social innovations" Really? Which religious and social innovations? That information belongs in the lead. Could someone summarize what's in the body and put it here? Even a single sentence would do. Leadwind 14:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead 

message: I have been looking at the Notes and References sections and have started to think, maybe it should be cleaned up. the Notes section seems to be acting as the Reference Section... What is the clarity on this? Dbchristensen 15:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:GTL discusses this somewhat, although I don't know that you'll get clarity. ;-) Anyway, it overall does need cleanup. For example, external links to book sales are discouraged, using the ISBN automatic linking is the preferred method, so maybe someone can/should cleanup all the book refs, at least the ones that have ISBN numbers in them. Also some of the sources like www.irr.org and www.lightplanet.com don't seem to qualify as WP:RS and should be replaced with better sources. Arthur 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes and References 

message: I'm reluctant to edit this article noting how even the smallest change can get heated opposition, so I'll bring it up here instead.  I just read the recently edited "Translation of the Book of Abraham" section.  While everything said there is factual, as far as I can tell, it is rather one-sided (and, therefore, not NPOV).  Wouldn't it be appropriate to trim maybe one of the quotes (we get the idea after a couple) and add a short paragraph on the Church's position on the whole issue?  I found this from the Ensign.  Being an official Church publication, it probably does a good job of stating their position.  Would it be appropriate to add this, or would it ruffle too many feathers? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding an apologetic explanation of why the Book of Abraham turns out not to be an accurate translation of the Smith papyri would be perfectly fine, as long as it is represented as a religious rather than scientific opinion.  Removing quotations because you disagree with them, however, does not seem to be a good idea, especially in an article plagued by editors who diligently seek to suppress critical opinions.  - Juden 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to remove the quotes "because [I] disagree with them".  I just thought there were a few too many.  There are no fewer than five quotes, and all basically say the same thing, that it and Joseph Smith are frauds.  I just think the same point can be made just as effectively with three or four quotes. Thank you for your response. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, I added the paragraph.  Keeping it to a paragraph, however, was hard since there was so much material that I didn't want to just glance over.  I think I made it clear that the counter-arguments come from the Church and not outside scientists (or researchers). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire section looks balanced, but to me it looks like something that should be under Book of Abraham, not Smith's biography.  It looks out of place, both in size and topic, in this article. Alanraywiki (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree.  I just added the counter because the section is there.  I have no idea why it is in the main article at all, except as an attempt to discredit him (see the quotes in the first paragraph, pretty vehement). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I looked at the Book of Abraham article and it discusses everything this little section in this article does, but to an even greater extent.  It doesn't have the quotes, but those can be moved over if anyone feels strongly about it.  I vote we nix the whole section.  It is out of place in this article and the information is already present in an entire other article.  Anyone object? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection to you moving the quotations to the Book of Abraham article, or to you moving the section into its chronological place in the article. But I would object to [1] deleting the quotations without moving them; or [2] deletion of the section. It seems appropriate that this article should mention all the scripture originating from Joseph Smith's pen. Rather than deletion, the section should be summarized (along the lines of "Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham, saying he had translated it from papyrus scrolls. The text, one of the scriptures of the LDS Church, is the basis for many of the church's distinctive doctrines, including the exaltation of humanity, the plurality of gods, pre-mortal existence, and the existence of other inhabited worlds in the cosmos.  Egyptologists have determined that the text Smith published is unrelated to the hieroglyphics actually found on the scrolls in question," with an appropriate link to the Book of Abraham article, where details can be discussed. Of course, that article is a complete morass, but it will hopefully be cleaned up eventually. - Juden (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that the Book of Abraham article isn't in the best condition right now, but I would still rather move the section's contents to that article (and maybe clean it up in the process) than summarize it and leave it in.  The article already mentions that he translated (or made up, depending on your POV) The Book of Abraham.  Having a callout for it in the article just seems unbalanced.  I'm not opposed to the contents of the section, but just the fact that it seems awkward in the article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Book of Abraham

message: this whole article is replete with mormon bias (ESPECIALLY JS's sexual relationships). they (LDS) must have full time staff and church members dedicated to lying/twisting the truth about JS and his antics............I"m really disappointed. You can try and change things, but only in vain. They're VERY powerful, and seem to have won the day, on wikipedia at least.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ToyotaPanasonic (talk • contribs) 07:52, 17 November 2007
:It is really an army of third and fourth wives of all the apostles that monitors wikipedia articles. After Sunday School they all go to a special class called "Twisting the truth for stupid people". Indeed, they are powerful; it is so unfortunate that that they observe Wikipedia policy, use reputable references, and write well. Damn them; if they did not have their army of mindless robotic women we anti-Mormons could rule the day and have such a better world. I am glad that we have you here to point the finger of enlightened truth!--Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmmmm, I dont see any latter-day saints slamming  your  religion! Show some respect, please.  02:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, damn the facts. I would much rather have bias, ignorance, vitriol and half-truths rule the day! --TrustTruth (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't you all think that sarcasm is about as bad as slamming? Hmoulding 19:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sarcasm sure isn't helpful, and LDS have insulted my religion. Rds865 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mormon bias 

message: I see the bit above that seemed to be a dicussion the went nova.  I find it strange that anyone would question the idea that JSjr was a racist.  I thought that was a universally held fact.  Doing a search for Smith or mormons with the word racist or racism gives me a ton of hits.  They are not crazy hits either.  I thought most of the racism issues were about blacks but after reading what that guy wrote about indians it seems to just heep hay on the fire.  The question is, is the above racist comment there because the editor, who I assume is a mormon, was taught it as a teaching of Smith or is he just a racist on his own with out the help of Smith.  I know this looks like a personal attack but I mean go read what he wrote.  I am quite surprised that the dicussion was even allowed to stay on the page.  Way to go WIKI.  At any rate, there is an issue here in regards to racism and it seems extremely notable to me to warrent inclussion in the article even more so then the huge section on plural wives.  Islam has plural wives and most people do not treat that as a big deal.  Racism is far outside of our modern day culture and ethics and many regard just the holding of racist thoughts as and act of terrorism or violence in and of itself.  Something on the issue needs to be commented on even if it is to exhonorate Smith.  There are facts out there all over the place.  Let us get some and put them here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.127.251.137 (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I can tell you is that there are a lot of African-American and Native-American Mormons that don't consider him a racist.  I am sure there are many people who believe he was one, so you could add a statement about that, provided you use a WP:RS.  That doesn't mean he was a racist, only that some people think he was. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle)  (Talk) 01:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: For a compromise, you all might consider avoiding use of the word racist and discuss Smith's opinions on the matter of race in an NPOV fashion. These would be facts, and the word racist doesn't need to be added to them. After all, Smith's attitudes were hardly unusual for his times. They were shared by most whites, even many of those who are today held in general high esteem. I mean, take a visit over to Abraham Lincoln and see if the word appears there, and yet Lincoln's expressed attitude towards blacks was not exactly non-racist. Hmoulding 19:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of Mormons during Joseph Smith's era, including Smith himself, considered themselves anti-slavery, some even were professed abolitionists.  Others, converts from Southern states, were pro-slavery and some wealthy members were slave owners.  However, by all modern standards, white Americans of this period, including Mormons, were racists.  They believed that "whites" were the crown of creation, that Africans, Asians, and Native Americans were lesser peoples and were available for their "use."  Many believed, well into the 20th century, that the Bible condoned slavery and the racial class system.  Smith saw black people as "free" children of God, but that doesn't mean he saw them as his equals.  However, during his tenure, blacks were baptized into the church and several black men were ordained to some level of priesthood authority.  However, and this is strictly my opinion, others in the church would not have accepted any "oversight" by blacks within the priesthood heirarchy.  This attitude probably led to the exclusion of blacks from the priesthood/temple rites during Brigham Young's administration.   WBardwin (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Omission?

message: Just a little note, I was going to read this article, but then this creepy picture from screen right started staring at me. It turned me off reading the article. Does anyone have a less creepy pic?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnyj (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that Smith is a creepy character, charlatan, false prophet, so the picture probably fits. Mike0001 (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less Creepy Picture 

message: It looked really shoddy. I tightened up the prose, condensed it into summary style. There was also a paragraph of other material, all of which was to be found elsewhere, and didn't belong in the death section at all. Finally, I moved the eulogies into their own section, as that really wasn't actually anything to do with his death, persay.
Actually, i think those eulogies reek of NPOV, but POV seems to be a touchy subject around here. Would anyone mind if I deleted them entirely? Storm Rider in particular, I'd like your opinion on this one.
--Trevdna (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "death" section 

message: Has anybody noticed that when one plugs the phrase "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" into the search tool, one is redirected to Joseph Smith's page?
This is clearly a reference to the "All about Mormons" South Park episode, and I'd say it constitutes vandalism. I won't change it because things like this usually turn into an argument and frankly, I'd love to see where this goes. :D
DDF
Deepdesertfreman (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Changing redirect to All About Mormons, but it might be worth nominating at RfD. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb 

message: I haven't made any contributions to this page in at least six months and I could not believe the evolution that took place in the polygamy section. Of the several paragraphs presenting evidence and references re: Smith's polygamous adventures, gone was the single paragraph that presented the alternate Joseph Smith III/RLDS/CofC perspective, with references. Now even Emma Smith's public and private statements that run contrary to the LDS line have been 'spun'. If Bushman is a reference, so should Joseph Smith III, etc. be included. In all fairness, what happened? With respect, A Sniper 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Sniper, good to see you back to editing again. In reality, all articles need to go through a solid readjusting at least twice a year. Remember that articles are open to the public; the controversial topics are edited often from all sides. You will see this article move from the very pro to very con and back again with all of the horizontal changes from the respective Latter Day Saint groups included. Equilibrium is difficult to maintain because there are so few objective editors that are capable of daily maintenance. What results is new editors, often anonomyous, visit make a few edits and are gone; the edits are not caught, and time rolls on. If you feel something is out of whack you may want to review history and simply copy back the deleted material. One thing that is guaranteed is that nothing stays the same very long here. Cheers.--Storm Rider (talk) 06:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have appreciated your comments in the past & glad to see you're keeping watch. Will try and find time to inject something back into the mix. Best, A Sniper 17:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plural Marriage

message: Joseph Smith started a highly criticized movement. He has been accused of being a cult leader/false prophet, and is thought such by a significant amount of people. yet there is no mention of it in the article. Also, much of the article is confusing, and seems contradictory  Rds865 (talk) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would you suggest that we add this information.  Also, would you be more specific as to what is confusing and contradictory? — Val42 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Some of the less-salient facts included in the main article could be segregated into a criticism section. --TrustTruth (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy and Criticism 

message: The opening line of the article says the "Latter-day Saint Movement" is also known as "Mormonism".  Are the other groups that trace their origin to Joseph Smith, namely the Community of Christ" comfortable with that?  The term Mormon is usually associated with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I'm a member of the latter but I want to be fair.
Cambene (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should say "Latter Day Saint movement"; the one you cited above is an ongoing problem. We are attempting to first name it the more inclusive Latter Day Saint movement. It is also known as Mormonism at large and then latter, after the death of Joseph Smith, the term Mormon began is fall out of favor with specific groups. I don't think there is a single group that uses it as a preferred term today. Does this make sense to you? I will go and change the term now. Let me know if you have additional thoughts. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just checked and it is stated correctly. Latter Day Saint movement is the academic term for the entire movement begun by Joseph Smith. This is different from the way you wrote it above, "Latter-day Saint Movement"; that would be the LDS church. Yes, it is also called Mormonism even though that term is really best suited for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as you inferred above. Are you thinking that Mormonism should not be mentioned at all? --Storm Rider (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Latter-day Saint Movement the same as "Mormonism"? 

message: The online newspaper article that quotes something said at a speech is not the best information available. The CIA factbook, for example, only lists 1.7% of the US as LDS. That's 5.1 million. See: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2122.html If we add the rest of the world using a 3rd party source and get 13 million, I'm OK with that. But the source we have now is not reliable. Greenw47 (talk) 21:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference from the church's most recent statistical report. I also clarified the statement to read "reported membership". --TrustTruth (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of members