Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 10

message: In the paragraph containing the sentence.....
"Rigdon suffered a severe concussion after being dragged on the ground. According to some accounts, Rigdon was delirious for several days. The reasons for this attack are disputed."
This is the first mention of Sydney Rigdon and yet he is referenced only by his last name. Some other mention of him needs to be made prior to this paragraph or this sentence should be removed.
: Good catch. Why don't you just delete that sentence? I don't see how it contributes much to the article. Wadsworth 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rigdon needs earlier reference in article 

message: :"All people who prefer history over mythology know that Smith practiced "plural marriage". We already note that Smith denied it, and that some of his followers believed that lie" - User:Hoboken as a justification for editing Joseph Smith Jr.
Anyone else notice someone who doesn't know what NPOV means? --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: edit comments don't have to be NPOV, nor do comments made here on the Talk page. Only the articles themselves do. Was there a problem with Hoboken's actual edit, or just the comment? Wesley 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: edit comments don't have to be NPOV" - True but I was trying to make the point that the sentiment behind this comment is not one that can appear in a Wikipedia article. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  14:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what the problem is with him not being neutral, the whole article is written from one aspect of the LDS viewpoint and doesn't address a NPOV. There is no mention of him requesting membership in the Methodist Church in 1828, or the multiple versions of the First Vision account. 11 at my last count. Of course, one is from a detractor, but at least 6 are from Joseph Smith himself. They completely gloss over Joseph Smiths claim (In the official First Vision account) that he got interested in religion after a revival in 1820, then after 10 documented years he had the book published. However documents from the area place that revival in 1824, making his story fallacious. GameJunkieJim 02:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's silly. The "revival" may refer to the Second Great Awakening in general. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Incorrect, since he directly refers to the Church revival that took place after his brother died (in 1823). GameJunkieJim 14:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah the Second Great Awakening was still happening (though perhaps in a more subdued way) in 1823 wasn't it? --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments of [[User:Hoboken]] 

message: Many of you were screaming of the inaccuracies of one particular scene in the episode, where Joseph Smiths translations were hidden in order to prove him a faker. YES THIS IS TRUE. I will link you to the confirmation from Joseph Smith himself. Preface to 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon So for future reference, don't claim to know something you don't. Thank you, I'll go have my cup of tea now. GameJunkieJim 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, your edits consist of Video Game commentaries and your supposed to support a claim by South Park by referencing an anti-Mormon web site?  My question is, why should we believe YOU?--Asams10 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't ask you to. I provided a scan directly from the book, that allows you to take it at face value. this is supposed to be NPOV, so I would assume you would actually want all the facts.  Nothing from that anti-mormon site is factually incorrect, quite the opposite. With the exception of the "testimonials" from that site, most of it can be taken as NPOV. I happened across most of this information doing research on various religions. As to the videogame talk sections I contribute to, gee, you would think that the name would explain that... At any rate, one does generally have the ability to have more than one interest. Contrary to what your obvious opinion is of me, I have no problems with members of the LDS church on an individual level, as they are generally very lovely people. However, on a site such as this, NPOV and fact should always take precedence.The claim from South Park referenced was that someone hid the original translation (Lehi) and in response Joseph Smith translated a new version. This is factually accurate. Remember that the creators were once Mormon themselves and probably had a lot to draw on. Not that I advocate South Park for your research, it just so happened that they made a pretty accurate scenario in that instance. If I could have found the scan on a pro-mormon site, I would have done so. As it was, that was handy, as the site in question provides scans of original material that the LDS church generally makes difficult to obtain, although most of it is in their archives. Why they do this is anyones guess. Go ahead and find the information on your own. I don't care if you believe me or not, but it's silly to call into question veracity based on what I've contributed, unless you've found fault or POV somewhere that it shouldn't be? I don't think you will.GameJunkieJim 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: LEHI??  really?  Moroni was the custodian of the plates.  WBardwin 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on which version you read really. -- GameJunkieJim 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, let me put it another way. It was harder for me to find the information through LDS sources (Even to the point of asking the nice missionaries who come here every Wednesday) and the information was readily availiable elsewhere. I didn't mean to slight the church, as I have no problem with most of it's practices (Especially with the rumor that the blood oaths thing has been done away with) my goal was accurate reporting, and as you see from the link that's all I did. However, I stand by that the LDS church is at the least evasive when, shall we say an 'outsider' attempts to gain information that may be contradictory to the way the church currently functions. GameJunkieJim 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No arguement.  But, the issue is -- can South Park's presentation of the "116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon" and other elements related to Mormonism be considered accurate enough to be included in the article?  I vote "no."  For example, the use of Lehi in association with the plates, referenced above.  I'm afraid not -- not Lehi.  A single printing/copying error associated Nephi with the plates and this was picked up by a couple of secondary sources.  But Moroni has always been the name used in association with the plates.  I would urge that we remind ourselves that South Park's writers specialize in parody and satire, and they do a good job.  But parody and satire in any medium thrives on exaggeration of character and events and the creative development and use of outrageous detail.  As such, in my opinion, South Park cannot be considered an accurate primary, secondary or terciary source for any encyclopedic work - outside of articles on satire or animation, of course. WBardwin 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh goodness no! Putting a direct reference to South Park would bring a maelstrom of POV antagonism that the site could do without.However, this would be a decent candidate for Criticism, provided it's properly NPOV. As I recall Matt Stone and Trey Parker are ex-LDSaints, and this is probably the reason for that particular show having an accurate parody. However, the point that the show addressed can certainly be brought up in a different context.  GameJunkieJim 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Archive 9 - Is South Park quote Accurate? 

message: The article states, "In March 1842, Smith was initiated as a Freemason (as an Entered Apprentice Mason on March 15, and Master Mason the next day—the usual month wait between degrees was waived by the Illinois Lodge Grandmaster, Abraham Jonas)".  The actual order of Masonic degrees is Entered Apprentice (1st degree), Fellowcraft (2nd degree), and Master Mason (3rd degree).  One cannot skip degrees...when was Smith made a Fellowcraft?
:: I had understood that 1) One cannot skip degrees, and that 2) Joseph Smith skipped degrees anyway. Go figure. Wadsworth 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Masonry

message: Can someone throw a link to Joseph Smith diaries? I heard that he was clarifying a lot of misconceptions about mormon religion, polygamy, Book of Mormon origin,  etc right there.
Sincerely, Enormousdude 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An anti-Mormon book that is not taken seriously by the academic community? ...no. We've already gone over in other aticles why this source in unacceptable, please stop trying to add it in. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joseph Smith diaries

message: Editor, ANON 68.91.80.153, insists on deleting material from Bushman that must contradict their POV.  On WIKI we strive for balance.  Brodie is no more an "expert" historian than every other historian that is quoted and used as a refernece.  ANON, you may want to do some reserach on Brodie's work and her methods.  She wrote for a specific, conciously stated objective:  to disprove Joseph Smith's statements of his history.  She openly ignored all information and data that disproved her POV.  She is still valued, but all scholars take her work for what it is, a one sided exposé.  Storm Rider (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean exposé though - it looks like, contrary to my thought, your spelling is an acceptaped alternative :() Trödel 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fawn Brodie & Bushman

message: Reading the introductory paragraph was becoming painful. What had started as a concise comma-delimited list of controversial doctrines turned into a monster. :) Hopefully this list will allow easier assimilation of the concepts enumerated. What do you guys think? Wadsworth 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bullet point lists are usually changed to paragraphs, rather than the other way around. It's especially bad form in the opening paragraphs. - Hoboken 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it needs to be A) a bullet list, or B) a CONCISE comma-delimited list. The problem with the concise comma-delimited list is that people keep wanting to expand/clarify points, and so it get's unwieldy. They are, after all, controversial points (and identified as such). Do you think the bullet-list is appropriate here, given the circumstances? If not, I would be happy to convert it to a concise list; perhaps put a section lower in the page to expand it some. Wadsworth 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullet-list in introductory paragraph - thoughts? 

message: I took this out - as this is too broad of a statement - as not all members of his family did not support Strang. And the support of strang varied over time - couldn't think of a good way to summarize it so I thought I would mention my concerns here in case someone wants to take another stab at summarizing that. Trödel 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His family supported Strang 

message: The succession boxes are screwed up.  Joseph Smith III cannot succeed in 1860, a man who died in 1838.  There should be some way to fix this and make it sensible.  Did Joseph Smith III split off another split ?  As it is, it's confusing. Wjhonson 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing Joseph Smith III, the son, with Joseph Smith, Jr., his father.  These are two separate people...father and son.  Storm Rider (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Basically, Joseph Smith III did not take a leadership post in what later bacame the Community of Christ until 1860 - between 1844 and 1860 there were various factions and "The Midwestern or Prairie Saints began to call for the need to establish a "New Organization" of the church and many likewise believed that Joseph Smith III should be at its head. Elders repeatedly visited Smith and asked him to take up his father's mantle, but his reply was that he would only assume the church presidency if he were inspired by God to do so. Finally in 1860, Smith said that he had received this inspiration and at a conference in Amboy, Illinois on 6 April 1860, he was sustained as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." from Joseph Smith III#The Reorganization of the Church - see also Succession crisis (Mormonism) for more information. Trödel 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not confusing them.  I am saying the *succession boxes* are themselves confusing.  Making it appear as if JS III took over directly from his grandfather.  They should be cleaned up to make the years smoothly connected instead of discontinous as they are now.Wjhonson 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added (with a bit of trouble) the Quorum as a successor.  It should be cleaned up a bit, but basically it was Strang and the Quorum who lead for 3 years and THEN there was another split.  That should be made a little more clear in the boxes.  Probably eventually move the other splits to later pages, and mention them in notes, not in succession boxes. Wjhonson 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Let me correct the impression I just made.  I don't mean to say the Strang led the whole congregation, just his part.  So Strang vs the Quorum should be one split at 1844 ish. Wjhonson 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're going to do it that way (I have no real preference either way), we should remove Brigham Young, JS III, and Bickerton as successors. From this perspective, the only significant immediate successors to Joseph Smith were the Twelve, Sidney Rigdon, and James Strang. COGDEN 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I agree with that.  The other's should hang off the later successors, more in-line with how the succession boxes are used on the pages for royalty, etc. Wjhonson 16:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession boxes 

message: It's a bit annoying to see three different forms of citation used.  I've changed several to the "ref" form to make the article look better, and not have a cite [5] followed by a cite [11]. Wjhonson 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I deleted the following sentence:
:According to neighbors and friends, the young Joseph Smith, with his father and brother, began to practice crystal gazing around the year 1820. 
This kind of sentence definitely need to be referenced to be kept in the article.  The sentence is written to sound as if old Joe, Dad and brother (which one?) got together in the evening set up shop gazing into crystals.  Sort of like a traveling freak show a la Smith family.  Enough with an attempt at levity. 
I have never read or heard an allegation that Joseph or his father put in together to "work" crystals together or at the same time.  I have read, it seems like in Bushman's book, where Joseph Sr. did have dreams or visions, but off hand I don't recall a crystal.  I get the impression that someone has melded thoughts together and created whole cloth.  Let's substantiate and then either permanently delete it or re-insert it with references.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crystal gazing sentence removal

message: We have a mixture of m:Cite.php and Template talk:Harvard reference here on this page - I think we should pick one and use it througout the article. My personal preference would be to leave the Reference section as is, merge it with the Bibliography section, and then use footnotes to refer to cites in the biblography as in the example below:
Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont (what is today South Royalton), the fourth surviving child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After attempting to establish roots in various towns in Vermont, but being forced out by three successive years of crop failures,Smith 1853, p. 66. the Smith family settled in western New York, and began working a farm just outside the border of the town of Palmyra.Berge 1985. In town, the family opened a "cake and beer shop", where the adolescent Joseph sometimes worked selling concessions at local Palymra events.Tucker 1867, pp. 14–15.
References
Bibliography
:See also Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.
* .
* .
* .
* .
</div>
That way we can use the good alphabetical bibliography and easily reference the specific cites. It also follows a more scholarly approach. --Trödel 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References