Talk:Danite

message: Information about the Danites that came out at Avard's court appearance must be a matter of public record. Characteristically, we hear that "Some have argued Avard's testimony was oportunist and his testimony was false" but we don't hear what Avard testified. To the cautious reader, this says as much about the Mormons as anything else in this extremely cautious article. Wetman 09:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Avard's testimony

message: BoNoMoJo, I think that Smith's condemnation is integral to a NPOV article, but now the article is a lengthy excerpt of Smith himself writting. I think that only the most powerful statements should be quoted from the history, probably, "When a knowledge of Avard's rascality came to the Presidency of the Church, he was cut off from the Church, and every means proper used to destroy his influence, at which he was highly incensed and went about whispering his evil insinuations, but finding every effort unavailing, he again turned conspirator, and sought to make friends with the mob." 
A lot of the rest can be dealt with in a quick paraphrase. "Joseph Smith condemned Avard in the official History of the Church, and claims the ill-concieved group disappeared almost as soon as it came into being, ect, ect." This is especially sensible because much of the material in the passage doesn't relate to Smith's condemnation. The first few paragraphs instead give background speculations of why Avard might have had this dangerous idea, something that can be elaborated on without quoting Smith. CHL 02:56, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I just haven't put time to it yet. Have at it if you'd like. —B|Talk 13:27, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excerpt from ''History of the Church'' 

message: As part of my general upgrade to Mormon War and related articles, I'm going to be expanding this article.  I've attended a panel discussion between the leading scholars on Danites --- Bill Hartley, Steven LeSueur, Alex Baugh and D. Michael Quinn --- I'm going to outline points of agreement and dispute among them.  Give me a sec, while I'm working on this.  Thanks.  --John Hamer 16:53, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that was a bunch of work. --John Hamer 02:27, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanding 

message: I'm sorry to return to see a mass of biased changes to this article.  The tone of the apologetic changes is set with the reference:  "(For more information and discussion on the Danites (and comparison of the different historical accounts' integrity), see Jeff Lindsay's analysis."  Jeff Lindsay is not a historian; he is an amateur apologist whose work is extremely biased.
I can list the rest of the errors at length, but overall, I'd propose that we revert this article to its Sept. 2005 state. --John Hamer 03:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Changes 

message: The article currently states in the Background section, "Kirtland Safety Society Bank; if the shareholders had paid in full their true share amount to the Society, it probably would have been successful." What is the basis for claiming that it would have been successful? Pooua 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement is not wise to have in the article, even if it were true - as it is a judgement call. Perhaps instead the sentence should say it "failed because of speculation and credit issued to shareholders not being backed with hard collateral or funds" or something like that. -Visorstuff 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What Is The Basis For Claiming the KSSB Would Have Succeeded?

message: The section titled, "Background" gives an account of the Kirtland Safety Society anti-bank fiasco and the resulting tensions between so-called apostates and Mormon leadership, but absolutely nothing in the article anywhere draws a definite connection between those unfortunate events and the formation of the Danites. What are we being told in "Background"? That the Danites were specifically for the purpose of preventing dissent among Mormons, even when (or especially when) the leaders screwed up? I doubt that very many here would agree with that association. I have not read anything that suggests that the Danites existed specifically because of the events in Kirtland. Rather, the Danites formed to enforce Mormon law, first on Mormons, then on non-Mormons. The events in Ohio provided Joseph Smith with important lessons, but were only part of the motivation behind the formation of the Danites. The Danites were not merely for the purpose of enforcing church discipline amongst the Mormons, but for the purpose of physically attacking any threat to the will of the Mormon leadership, whether from Mormons or non-Mormons. Pooua 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How Does Background Fit?

message: I am planning to add a few more quotations to the section about rumour involving the Danites and blood atonement.  These are a variety of quotations from Brigham Young in which he publicly and privately denied the existence of the Danites.  These quotations add to the article in that they are said within months before and after of his comments about a "vigilance committee" and Danites "on the horses heels."  What they show more than anything else is that Young's mentioning of Danites in this context is sarcasm.Panbobor (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed most of your edits because all you did was add a bunch of POV mormon propaganda.  I'm away from my personal library now on a public computer, but I am going to do more extensive work on the section because anyone who reads anything outside of Deseret publishing knows that facts, and obviously you don't see a need to think for yoruself.  I will cite the changes when I return home.  157.182.98.27 (talk) 19:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately wikipedia is not a place to write your own conclusions.  No one here is really interested in what you think.  If you want to use published research that is fine, but coming to your own conclusions, even if it is based on published sourcs does not fly here.  I suggest you become more familiar with wikipedia policies, specifically No Original Research before you ocntinue to do anymore extensive editing.157.182.99.75 (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes in Blood Atonement Section 

message: I have tagged this page because of serious POV errors.  I have been editing as an anon at school (I don't sign in on public computers) to try and clear some up but it is quite a large amount of POV, so I have tagged to draw multiple viewpoints in and better this article.  I don't feel that me trying to edit the whole thing myself will do any good because it probably won't solve much.  There needs to be different minds working on this to make it a better article.  As of now it reads much like a pro-mormon stance and only gives one side of the story.  As Panbobor mis-stated above, it is not the decision of anyone here what facts should or shouldn't be included.  We are not to input our "own conclusions" but to state the facts from all sides of the story and let the reader decide for theirself.  As of right now that is not being done and the page reads like a poor pro-mormon essay on the danites.  I hope this draws in other editors to help contribute to this article.  JRN (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: JRN, this is not a topic in which I possess a high degree of knowledge. However, I can always support the ongoing effort to achieve and/or maintain a neutral article. I will continue to observe the article and assist as I can. I would encourage all editors to use reputable references. If you think your edit is going to be controversial, then talk about first on the discussion page. Be knowledgeable about the references used; are they peer reviewed, worthy of being cited, etc. Mormonism can be a highly controversial topic with a plethora of material, both pro and con. However, both sides suffer from bad material. It is difficult to find actual historians that have written about topics rather than apologists and polemics; both should only be used judiciously. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mormonism controversial??? Surely you jest.  I never would have guessed...JRN (talk) 13:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I knew you would be surprised even astonished with this bit of news. However, now that you know, won't it be fun. However meager my contributions, I take heart in that even small gestures are appreciated by others. G'day mate. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Tag 

message: This seems contradictory to us.
:"Thomas B. Marsh, former President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, was excommunicated when he wrote and spoke against the church after he had left the church."
How can someone be excommunicated after he has already left the church.  Isn't that like firing someone who has quit.  I think this needs to be changed but I wanted a different POV on it.  Thanks JRN (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch; this is poorly worded. I suspect that Marsh ceased to worship with the saints and then became openly hostile to Joseph Smith and the church, which then resulted in his excommunication. Do you know the history well enough to confirm that and then edit the article so that the statement is more logical? If not, I may be able to do it later this week, it will take some checking of references. Good work. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not that familiar offhand but I'll check my sources.  I suspect that you are probably right though.  JRN (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excommunication 

message: I propose changing this sentence: 
"They began as a group of zealots determined to drive out internal dissension among the Mormons — the so called 'dissenters' which group included former high ranking Mormons including the Three Witnesses — but progressed to becoming involved in militia and paramilitary conflicts with U.S. forces and both civilians and law enforcement of Missouri." 
to this:
"They began as a group of zealots determined to drive out internal dissension among the Mormons — dissenters which included former high ranking Mormons including the Three Witnesses — but progressed to becoming involved in militia and paramilitary conflicts with U.S. forces and both civilians and law enforcement of Missouri."
The first and current version seems biased in using "so called 'dissenters'" because it questions (without citations or deference to NPOV) whether or not they should be called dissenters. My proposed change does not alter the content of the sentence, only the tone.  M3I5K7E  15:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small POV Edit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Danite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195038/https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5574 to https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=5574
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060923063139/http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/041094.html to http://historytogo.utah.gov/salt_lake_tribune/in_another_time/041094.html
*Added  tag to http://byustudies.byu.edu/shop/pdfsrc/26.2LeSueur.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified