Talk:Eldred G. Smith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
The issue of including/excluding the commonly-held reason for Smith's "release" from duties in 1979 has bounced back and forth and it needs to be addressed by a talk page.
I am an active Latter-day Saints, and I have always been aware that many--if not most--people who are familiar with the events of 1978-79 in the Church believe that the reason Smith was given "Emeritus status" is that he did not whole-heartedly endorse the 1978 revelation on the priesthood (which allowed men of African descent to hold the priesthood).
I did not make this up, and I am not trying to spread innuendo and false "rumor" or taint someone's good name--this is a legitimate issue and many Latter-day Saints believe that this was the reason for the release. For this reason I believe that it should be included. The fact that someone else has not heard the "rumor" until reading Wikipedia should not lead that person to immediately delete it. Check my profile--I've worked on the articles for many past and present LDS General Authorities and other LDS topics and I am not one to post false anti-Mormon screeds that have no basis.
As with most "rumors" that circulate in the Church, the Church has not confirmed or denied the "rumor".
Smith's son E. Gary Smith has denied the "rumor" and said that Eldred welcomed the revelation. I have added his statement to the article to add balance. (I would point out that he did not directly address why Eldred was given Emeritus status, though. Surely he knows more than he has said.)
I believe that the article now addresses both sides of the story--the commonly-held belief is acknowledged, but so has his son's denial of the "rumor". Unless the Church or Smith himself comes out and outright denies the "rumor", I think it is worthy of inclusion.
Interestingly, "rumors" like this that the Church chooses not to confirm or deny often end up being true. (See the article on Joseph Fielding Smith and his homosexual affair while he was Presiding Patriarch--this too was rumored and not confirmed or denied by the Church, but it was proven to be true after his death.)
Cheers, SESmith 01:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- This revision is slightly better, but the undocumented information still doesn’t belong. We’ve got to do better than just saying that everybody knows about it and sometimes rumors turn out to be true.
- SESmith asserts that the information is “common knowledge,” held by “many—if not most—people,” that it is a “commonly held belief,” that it has “long been suspected,” and that the information has been “reported” by an unknown and undisclosed source.
- None of this has any documentation. It doesn’t even qualify as a rumor. It’s a rumor of a rumor. I have searched the internet using various combinations of Eldred G. Smith, patriarch, priesthood revelation, 1978, black, African, reasons for emeritus, official declaration, etc. Aside from the Wikipedia article, there is not a single mention in the entire internet of Eldred G. Smith’s alleged opposition to the 1978 revelation, or suggesting any connection to his emeritus status. For something that’s supposed to be so widely known for so long, its complete absence from the internet is striking. As far as can be documented, there is exactly one person who claims to have heard the allegation before reading it in the Wikipedia biography. It can’t be much of a rumor if it hasn’t even made it to the internet.
- I have searched several Dialogue articles, including those published in the book Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church by Bush and Mauss. None of the authors is shy about mentioning church leaders who resisted the change in priesthood policy. Yet there is no mention of any opposition from the church patriarch. If the 1978 revelation was a factor in the retirement of the office of patriarch, then why is such an important event not mentioned in any published analysis of the issue?
- On the other hand, SESmith could be correct, and I am the last known human to hear about this. But if the allegation has been known by nearly everyone but me, it is puzzling that after nearly 30 years, SESmith is now the very first person to mention it on the internet--especially given that the internet has no shortage of people willing to mention potentially embarrassing rumors about LDS general authorities. It is puzzling that after nearly 30 years of analysis of the 1978 revelation, not a single scholar, commentator, or critic has published any mention of the patriarch’s alleged opposition.
- I’m not a historian or any kind of an expert, but I have had an interest in the office of Presiding Patriarch for many years. I have the Bates and Smith book (cited in the article) on my shelf and I read it when it was first published. I had previously read a preliminary article in Dialogue, and I heard Bates and Smith give a presentation many years ago in the Mormon History Association meetings. I’m open to the possibility that I may have missed something everyone else knew, but I don’t think I just fell off the turnip truck.
- The basis the presiding patriarch’s emeritus status involves tensions that date back to the 19th century and are quite thoroughly discussed by Bates and Smith. The fact that no new patriarch was (or will be) called strongly suggests that the primary issue was with the office, not the person occupying it.
- Wikipedia has strict rules regarding biographies of living persons: “Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion.”
- In the end, it really doesn’t matter whether one person or a million have heard the allegation. It still requires documentation. Note that the disputed sentence (“However, it has long been suspected that Smith's reported opposition to the Church's 1978 decision to allow Latter-day Saints of African descent to hold the Priesthood played a role in his release from duties”) is an assertion with no documentation. Suspected by whom? Reported by whom? If we claim that such a thing has been reported, there must be documentation of the report. If all we have are alleged suspicions based on a report from an undisclosed source, the information falls far short of Wikipedia standards. If the information were as widely known and reported as claimed, there would be no difficulty providing documentation. Cite the source of the report claimed in the article, and provide evidence of the long-held suspicions, and then we’ll talk. LeftField 15:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough--I agree that under the Wikipedia guidelines this should be excluded until some sort of concrete evidence exists that can be referenced. I was not as familiar with the guidelines as I should have been and I apologize for that, and you put forward a compelling case which militates strongly against inclusion.
I stand by my statements, though. I think it just highlights the more general problem of "how does one provide documentation for a rumor"? Of course, in most cases, the answer would be easy--that you simply don't even reference a rumor because it is just that--a rumor. But I can't help but think that when the rumor is as pervasive in the minds of Latter-day Saints as this one is (at least where I live--things must be different where you are from), at least some oblique mention of it in a discussion of a matter as significant as being released from the duties of Presiding Patriarch might be appropriate. (And no, I can't explain why you can't find it on the internet. Suffice it to say it's out there--I'm not going to point to where because I the site it is on is full of half-truths, hate and bile, which probably wouldn't affect you, but I don't want to be the means of pointing others in that direction.) Maybe this is one of those half-truths too, and we may not find out the whole story until future generations can examine the papers of Patriarch Smith. For now, though, it must be excluded. I'll make the edit, and you can adjust as you see appropriate. SESmith 21:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That looks fine; I'm happy with the result. LeftField 03:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
