Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Denovo's recent edits

Your insistence is growing and your recent edit to the "Warning" was just plain silly. I understand your position and I choose a different approach than the one you are proffering. You seem to be taking it personal and are resulting to inappropriate behavior. You will find that you will more often get your way by cooperating with others and seeking concensus, offering alternatives that are well thought out, and by listening to others. You have a good eye for editing and your continued efforts will be appreciated. However, if you continue to make silly edits that show a rather immature attitude you will not get far on WIKI. Oh, by the way, don't take the last comment personal; just look at my edit history and you will notice that I am quite capable of immature behavior also. It does not mean that we are idiots, but that we both are just very human. Storm Rider (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not really appropriate for you to be characterizing my edits as silly or me as immature. In the spirit of compromise, I'm certainly willing to remove the "editorial warning" rather than rephrase it. In fact, I've done so before, and it keeps reappearing, despite the fact that it is clearly no longer universally consented to. So far, most of those editing this article seem to feel any attempt to edit it without their approval is inappropriate; that the article should be done their way, or else, and that they have no reason to discuss their continual reversions to their preferred version, because they were "here" first. That's where the combative conduct has originated, and not with me. We'll see how the "no warning" version fares, and go from there. To repeat my points from the "revised" warning: The discussion of Smith's polygamy cannot be relegated to a "teachings" section, but must be approached chronologically, as it developed throughout Smith's life, and motivated many of the reactions to him and his followers. To treat Smith's polygamy as an "addendum" rather than an organic part of his life is a distortion, and far from a neutral presentation. - Denovo 07:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Get serious Denovo - have you read the change you made – you changed it to say "Some other editors feel you should not add refer to polygamy in this section..." when 4 paragraphs later (in “this section”) it says "Quinn alleges that it was during the building of the Kirtland temple that Joseph Smith first practiced polygamy (1833 - see Polygamy discussion below)." You can't persuade the editors that the approach you want to take, which is disruptive to a quick narrative of JS life, so you accuse those editors in the warning of a conspiracy to suppress the information.
Summary of archive
Since you seem unwilling to put forth the effort here is my summary of the consensus that has been reached on the talk page, of course you will probably not trust that my summary is fair, so I again encourage you to read through the archives to verify the reliability of my summary:
  • One main issues with this article is length - there is so much to discuss and so many viewpoints to present. The consensus viewpoint on resolving that issue was to:
    • Divide the biography portion into 4 articles
    • Present an overview narrative of JS life in the main JS article
    • Identify notable teachings/theology and include a brief description of them topically
    • Provide obvious links (e.g. "Main article: Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr." at the introduction to different sections so readers can quickly get to more in depth information
    • Present disputed information as succinctly as possible while retaining the key points of dispute - cover details of the dispute in the detail articles
    • Identify, where possible, clear consensus views, focus on them in the main article, include small minority alternate viewpoints (by this I mean viewpoints rejected by most critical scholars but still held by some group or individual historian) in the detail article.
  • Another main issue is controversial nature of Joseph Smith where some believe he is a prophet called by God, and others believe he is a charlatan focused on fulfilling his base desires through polygamy and the subjection of large numbers of people to his authority by claiming to be a prophet. The resolution of this was to review Wikipedia policies, namely:
    • Verifiability: assertions of fact should clearly identify references for other editors to verify the information
    • Reliability: included sources should be reliable i.e. they should have professional respect amongst historians, and information they claim should be reasonably verified or supported by contemporaneous documents
    • Neutral presentation: assertions of fact should identify the source and describe the assertion using language that is sympathetic to the source
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: The purpose of the writing should be to present a encyclopedic view of JS life - focusing on what makes him notable (i.e. why we even have an article about him); thus, no soapbox, debates, or original viewpoints.
Application to your edits
You made an edit. The edit was removed and a note on the talk page was made to identify any information that could reach concensus that it should be included in the Kirtland section.
Discussion ensued, an insertion of Quinn's allegation was made in the Kirtland section along with a reference to the more detailed information. You reverted that proposed consensus view, other editors restored the proposed consensus view, thus voicing their support for the proposed modification.
You continue to revert those editors, and suggestions that your edit does not of the support of other editors, and to come "up to speed" on the organization of the article and the viewpoints reached through consensus (which is necessary because of the controversial and complex of Joseph Smith's life) appear to be ignored.
Finally you take pot shots though editing the comment about keeping polygamy info together. Then you claim that the reversion is motivated by a "we were here first so we control the article" accusation. When the truth is that this issue has been discussed before, a general consensus was reached, information or arguments you have made influenced enough editors to make a change to the wording, the change was made, and the change is supported by multiple editors; thus reaching a new consensus on the wording.
Additionally, you accuse the editors of combative conduct, when you are the one who continued to reinsert your language without support. --Trödel 14:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, thank you for at last clarifying what you meant when you said "read the discussion" without further specification, though it is completely unfair of you to attribute my inability to discern this to "lack of effort" - at least, lack of effort on my part, rather than your effort to clarify what you were saying. Of course, you still don't state which of the points you think my edit conflicted with - in fact, none of the points in the summary figures in your "application to your edits" section. You and your supporters here seem to think that consensus is formed by multiple reversion rather than discussion, and should not be at all surprised when your multiple reversions recieve more of the same in response. - Denovo 05:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haun's Mill

Soon after the "Extermination Order" was issued, vigilantes attacked an outlying Mormon settlement and killed seventeen people; an event that was later identified as the Haun's Mill Massacre.

How is this material relevant to the life of JSJ? He wasn't there, and it didn't directly affect his life in any way, shape or form.

The way it is written the information is not made to provide information about Joseph Smith, how it may have affected his decision making or his thoughts about the safety of his people. The information should be reviewed and rewritten to conform specifically how it affected Joseph or I think the whole section could be deleted. Do you feel comfortable doing so or would you prefer that others handle that? Good review and point. Storm Rider (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... you're right. The first 3 paragraphs (out of four) in this subsection deal with the Mormon population at large. I think they should be revamped so that they only deal with the effects on the Mormon community at large (and thus Smith), or Smith directly. Hopefully cut it down to two paragraphs at most. This isn't the place for a synopsis of the conflict. There's a reason that there's a link to Mormon War. Actually, I'm gonna put a {{Main}} template up there, so that there's no obligation to discuss it in the article.
And as for the rest of my plan: discussion plz. Comments? Questions? Concerns? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs).

Hello? Anybody there? Alright, I'll work on that, but if you don't like it, plz discuss before reverting. Thx.

[edit] 'Death' section

(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 {{fact}} 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] Subarticle for 'major teachings' section

Seeing as the "Major teachings" section is near one third of this article's total length, I feel that it should be broken out into a subarticle, with references left to his most basic teachings, and his most controversial teachings. Perhaps:

  • Nature Of God
  • The Book of Mormon
  • Great Apostasy
  • Priesthood
  • Smith's own prophetic calling
  • Polygamy
  • Temples

and leave the rest for anyone curious enough to visit the subarticles.

Any thoughts? Support? Disagree? Different choices for teachings to reference?

207.175.48.45 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I like it.
I am a bit torn by the proposition. On one side it seems appropriate. It would allow this article to focus on who Joseph Smith was and the major events of his life. On the other hand it would seem to remove much of his significance and controversy. The fact that he founded a church or movement would not exist without the doctrine he taught.
I would also add the Plan of Salvation to your list. Very few denominations within Christianity provide any type of answer as to why humanity exists. This was a major teaching and a stepping stone to the need for temples, priesthood, and the rest of the list. Storm Rider (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... so we have
  1. Nature Of God
  2. Plan of Salvation
  3. The Book of Mormon
  4. Great Apostasy
  5. Priesthood
  6. Smith's own prophetic calling
  7. Polygamy
  8. Temples
and a paragraph or two in the main section about how many of these teachings were considered controversial - good?
Good? That depends on who is evaluating each issue. All of them were controversial because they conflicted with Orthodoxy. Trinitarianism and Mormon concepts of the Godhead conflict. Very few denominations believe that our spirits existed prior to coming to this earth. Many do view mortality as trial, but do not explain why and some will agree there are different degrees of glory (in my Father's house are many mansions), but are not as firm or as explicit of what that means. Further, Theosis or exaltation is not a concept in some denominations, but LDS take it to a literal level. Additional books of scripture has some understanding given the presence of the apocrypha, but an entire book supposedly written about Christ's dealings with other people is near anathema. Apostasy is taught by many groups, but not nearly as complete as that believed by Mormons. Priesthood is a difficult concept for many Christians. Protestants believe in the priesthood of the believer and the Orthodox have a definite priesthood which they believe is just imitated by Mormons. Most Christians do not believe the heavens are open today and that God speaks to prophets. Polygamy goes without saying it is controversial. Temples are foreign to concepts to present day Orthodox Christianity. The that Mormons perform ordinances that are sacred and viewed as secret. Yes, I would say they are all controversial.
If this article was created, it would quickly evolve into a repeat of an already overloaded arena: Mormonism and Christianity, Criticism of Mormonism, Exmormonism, Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Upon further review and given the plethora of articles that attempt to juxtapose Christianity and Mormonism and its doctrines, I would not support breaking this article out. Storm Rider (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with separating out an article, as long as (1) this article contains a fair, NPOV summary of Smith's major teachings, and (2) there is no distinction, or different treatment, made between the teachings considered "controversial" and those considered "non-controversial". Any separation between the two invites NPOV violations, and is itself an NPOV violation. Indeed, I think there are very few reasons in this article or the split-off to even comment on the controversy of the teachings. There's plenty of room for that kind of thing in Mormonism and Christianity, etc. The only controversies that should be discussed within the scope of this article and the split-off are historical controversies about whether Smith did or didn't teach some particular doctrine. Or, controversies might be relevant if, during Smith's lifetime, opposition to the teaching had a historical effect on Smith's life. COGDEN 20:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... Storm Rider: Sorry - I wasn't clear. I think that all of the text that is in the main article now should be in the subarticle - that's the purpose of creating subarticles. When I said "good?", I didn't mean to ask if the doctrine was good doctrine or bad doctrine. I was simply wondering if you agreed with my choice of topics to leave in the main article, as in, "does this look like a good selection to you?" What I listed was meant to be a list of what we would put in the main, Joseph Smith, Jr., article.
Cogden: I imagine that this article, and the subarticle could probably include reference to the fact that a particular doctrine was particularly controversial (for example, polygamy), but it would not be dealt with as a major piece of the (sub)article. At least, that's how I had envisioned it.
But I figure that since this section currently contains 2,297 words, out of a 65kb article with ~6,750 words (in the main body of the article), I really think that we need to bring this article size down by breaking this part out. Is there any reason that we need sections on Christianity, Families, The Book of Mormon, The Word Of Wisdom, and The Law of Consecration in this article?

[edit] Chauncey court records

I just removed the following from the text pending a review of its verifiability and reliability. Normally I would just use {{fact}}; however, once this is put out on the wikipedia mirrors it will make online research much more difficult.

...collapsed four weeks after its opening and three months prior to a nationwide banking crisis. Many critics leveled accusations that Smith was actively misleading KSS members from the beginning of the financial enterprise as it was operating without an official Ohio bank charter and required specie reserves. On March 24, 1837 he was convicted in a Chardon, Ohio court of operating an illegal bank (Chardon, Ohio court records, Vol U, p. 362).

A quick serach of for this returned hundreds of hits, but none seemed related to Joseph Smith. I doubt its authenticity primarily because with the number of websites that normally come up when searching for negative information about Joseph Smith is normally very high. And since this purports to be such a irrefutable source (court records) I would expect it to be widely used. Any research assistance would be appreciated. --Trödel 00:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the following relevant contemporaneous references that should mention it if there was a conviction:
  • Naked Truth about Mormonism - Claim of poisoning to protect KSS - doesn't mention the conviction
  • Painesville Republican - Although full of complaints about KSS - doesn't mention the conviction, and article in July, 1837 claims to have attended a different trial the friday before, claimes JS has never been convicted of a crime including the latest trial, "The trial again came on before the County Court, on Friday last, and resulted in the entire acquital of Joseph Smith jr., of the charges alledged against him."
  • Cleveland Herald and Gazette - records the conviction of Mrs. Sarah Cleveland, in the July 17, 1837 addition "for passing $390 of the "Kirtland Safety Society Bank," with intention to defraud." No mention of conviction of JS
  • I. Riley, Woodbridge The Founder of Mormonism - p 313-314 use failure of KSS to show JS not a prophet - but don't mention conviction
  • Whitsitt, William H. Sidney Rigdon, The Real Founder of Mormonism Lists allegation that JS misappriated funds but does not mention a conviction.
  • Google - Kirtland Safety Society search on Uncle Dale's Readings in Early Mormon History.
That's about all I could find for now. --Trödel 01:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you think to actually call the Chardon (not Chauncey, what is that?) court?. I can think of no more authoritative way to cite a court decision. Better than anything you'll find searching on a single site, sidneyrigdon.com, which is the source of 5 of the 6 citations you give that omit this fact. If it helps, it was mentioned in Brodie 1971, pg. 198. Please restore this text. --Kbrewster 01:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trodel: Masonry, First Vision POV??

(Mostly) to Trodel: I'm sorry, but I can't see how you see my edits regarding Masonry and the First Vision as POV. I'm quite confused. I assure you that it is not my intention to insert POV material in this article. WOuld you explain to me please why you chose to revert my edits on a POV basis?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs).

This should be referenced to the person/people who claim that Joseph Smith was introduced to Masonry by John C Bennett - as it is not a universally held claim. Additionally, I may have acted more rashly than I normally would have because of the reference to Bennett since lately there has been sprinkling of the POV that Bennett was the true source of mormonism added to many of the Latter Day Saint movement articles over the last 6 weeks. --Trödel 05:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
OK then. That makes sense. Although I was only rephrasing what was already in the article - your revert didn't take that tidbit out of the article, because it had already been there for quite some time. I think that carefully checking the "show changes" log would show that these edits hold up to the standard of NPOV, as well as having tightened the prose considerably. I also include my statements in regards to the first part on early life and family.
For the general reference, here is the sum of my edits, and here is your revert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs).
Thx - just as an FYI - for me - I sometimes don't notice something is really not neutral until it changes because I generally don't reread the entire article periodically. So I am mostly just looking at diffs and there are days I miss my wikipedia fix - so I miss the original diffs - and there are also things in an article that I don't consider neutral, but I don't have alternative language to suggest yet - or my suspicions about lack of neutrality may need to be researched, etc. Thus it may be in there a long time and still not be neutral.
-As to the changes you reference:
"(Smith recorded several accounts of this theophany, with several details that are apparently contradictory. These details have been taken from Smith's final and most familiar account, written in the late 1830's, while writing a formal history of Mormonism.)"
I see this as less neutral than before - it is not universally held that the details contradict, thus that should be attributed as "X says they are apparently contradictory," or better yet, "Smith recorded several accounts of this theophany, each account including different details.<ref>Smith's version of the events is from the 1838 account (the [[First Vision]]) written as part of Smiths efforts to record a formal history on Mormonism." </ref> or something like that
"According to Smith, he was confused over which church was right, and..."
This was changed from "In the late 1830's, while writing a formal history of Mormonism he wrote his final and most familiar account. Confused over which church was right..." While both attribute the version of the events to Smith - the prior version provides less detail, and no context for where the version of events came from - but moves this context to the end of the paragraph.
"Smith was introduced to Masonry (possibly by John C. Bennett); on March 15, 1842, he was initiated as a Freemason, as an Entered Apprentice Mason at the Nauvoo Lodge. The next day, he was initiated as a Master Mason; the usual month-long wait between degrees was waived by the Illinois Lodge Grandmaster, Abraham Jonas. Smith attended less than a half-dozen Masonic meetings."
now that I look at it with fresh eyes - I think this change is better than what was there before. --Trödel 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... seeing as we have reached consensus on the masonry paragraph, I have put it back in, with a {{fact}} by the Bennett fact, as well as the following at the end:
"Some commentators have noted similarities between portions of temple ordinance of the endowment and the Royal Arch Degree of Freemasonry."
If you don't think that it strengthens the article, feel free to take it out.
I still want to reach consensus on the First Vision aspect, but I don't have time right now. I'll come back to this later...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.121.173.56 (talk • contribs).
sounds good - I'll see if I can propose soemthing too. --Trödel 19:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright, here's my edit. I'll look for the citations later, but it should do for now; I know that I've seen the citiation for the second {{fact}} somewhere before, but the first one might not be right. I really feel that they ought to be in there, seeing as it is an important arguement of anti-Mormons (to my knowledge).

As always, please discuss on the talk page before reverting me, so I know what I did wrong. Thanks.

Look ok to me - you should really get a user name - reverting anons without explanation, while inpolite and probably wrong, is frequent on wikipedia because of the vandalism. --Trödel 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Splitting the article, revisited

Alright, seeing as the previous discussion has gone inactive, and I would really like to see this happen, I would like to continue to discuss splitting the article.

We currently have in the article the following:
5 Major teachings

5.1 Christianity
5.2 Nature Of God
5.3 Priesthood
5.3.1 Smith's own prophetic calling
5.4 Plan of Salvation
5.5 Families
5.6 The Book of Mormon
5.7 The Word Of Wisdom
5.8 The Law of Consecration
5.9 Temples
5.10 Major prophecies
5.11 Polygamy
5.12 Great Apostasy

My proposal is as follows: Step 1) Create new article, titled Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.. It would be as follows:
Introduction (consisting, for now, of what is listed under the main section in Major Teachings)
1 Christianity
2 Nature Of God
3 Priesthood

3.1 Smith's own prophetic calling

4 Plan of Salvation
5 Families
6 The Book of Mormon
7 The Word Of Wisdom
8 The Law of Consecration
9 Temples
10 Major prophecies
11 Polygamy
12 Great Apostasy

Basically, a copy of what's here now.

Of course, that would be for starters; the point of making the new article is to allow greater expansion of content. Also, the order in which they are in doesn't seem logical to me, so we might want to reorder them.

Step 2) Leave in the current article as follows:

5 Major teachings (main section should consist of what there is now, probably minus the sentence on Wentworth letter, also probably plus a sentence explaining that herein lies much of his significance and controversy)

5.1 Nature Of God
5.2 Plan of Salvation
5.3 Great Apostasy
5.4 Priesthood
5.4.1 Smith's own prophetic calling
5.5 The Book of Mormon
5.6 Temples
5.7 Polygamy (I don't mean to give this a short-shrift by putting it at the end, but it is the only thing that, in my mind, doesn't follow logically in some form or another from something before, and would kind of be an interruption. Others may disagree with me.)

Because they are short enough (with the possible exception of polygamy), the text that is there now would remain on all of these sections.

My reasoning is as follows: this article is too long. Most people, looking for info on Smith, will not get to the bottom. We've tried to summarize his biography, but that can only go so far down. I think that we need to move these sections out.

According to WP:SIZE:

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles...:
> 50 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)

(This article is 66kb.)

5 subsections (Christianity, Families, The Word Of Wisdom, Major Prophecies, and The Law of Consecration) and ~625 words would be removed from an article of ~6,750 words. (Note: In word counts, I have only counted the body of the article.)

There, I'm done. Now what do you guys (or girls too) think?

Seeing as noone has responded, I have taken the liberty of doing this myself.
Sounds good to me. Seems like a teachings article is ripe for splitting, although the remaining summary article here will require some careful scrutiny. COGDEN 06:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Codgen, I think that your complete removal of all of that was a little overzealous. Hmm... I'll at least add in a subsection on polygamy; I can only imagine bcatt's ghost (and other POV/NPOV warriors) going ballistic when we give Smith a single sentence about one of the most controversial topics in Smith's entire life.
I wasn't trying to eliminate mention of polygamy. There are still ample places to discuss his polygamy in the historical sections of the article. It was an undoubtedly a significant part of his life and history. But as far as it being one of his teachings, it's only one of many, and I think a short summary, together with a reference to the split-off article, should cover the doctrinal aspect of his polygamy. As far as the historical aspect of his polygamy, we just haven't gotten into much detail, yet, about his later life. COGDEN 05:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 & 8 witnesses paragraph

I have moved it to the "1827 - 1831" section of the article, seeing as it was orignially published with the BoM in 1830. If anyone could point to source saying exactly when it occurred (please?), then it could be put in the appropriate section chronologially. But Smith didn't even meet Cowdrey until 1829, so it is unlikely that the vision was before then!


[edit] Anonymous Recent Edits

I apologize to anyone I may have offended by adding some silly remarks to this article. I did so simply to see what would happen, as I'm new to this type of dynamic content. I did, however, make one change which I felt was wholly appropriate. I removed the category link to Category:Christian martyrs. There is already an appropriate category link to Category:Mormon martyrs.

Mormonism is considered heresy by mainstream Christian doctrine. Additionally, there are scores of martyrs throughout history who died for their unwavering commitment to traditional Christian doctrines. I cannot see how Smith's rejection of traditional Christianity would keep him in the category of "Christian Martyrs". If a Mormon rejected Mormonism to become Baptist, then died in a fight with some angry Mormons, I don't think you would consider him a Mormon martyr. By the same token, how can you consider the opporsite to be true?

Also, I don't believe one can make the case that Smith's death in a shootout with federal employees constitutes the death of a martyr, especially when one considers that it was Smith's practice of polygamy that drew the ire of the federal government in the first place. Smith's death transpired as a result of his commitment to this practice, rather than his commitment to Mormonism. Even if one were to argue that Mormonism is "true" Christian doctrine, I don't believe that Smith's death wouldn't qualify as a martyr's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.53.128.158 (talk • contribs) .

I have not formed an opinion on what category is best. I think there is a consensus that Mormons are Christians. Tom Harrison Talk 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good topic Anon, but you might want to review history. Joseph Smith was in the upper floor of a jailhouse that was attacked by a mob made up of various local malitias. I have never heard someone classify such a group as Federal Employees. The movtivations for his murder was not limited to polygamy. Many have come up with various reasons, but it is without question that from boyhood Joseph was persecuted for his beliefs and his religious convictions.
There are many Christian martyrs that were also labeled as heretics at the time of their martyrdom. I was only after many years had passed that "mainstream" Christianity decided they were in fact Saints. Storm Rider (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This whole thing is one of the reasons I'm starting to hate Wikipedia categories. It's almost impossible to make them NPOV. Whether or not anyone is a martyr is completely subjective. We might as well have categories called "Category:People who are doctrinally correct" and "Category:People who are going to hell". COGDEN 22:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I Completely agree with Storm Rider and COGDEN - the other thing to keep in mind here is that he didn't convert from being a baptist to being a Mormon. He wanted to reform or restore christianity, which is the same as many other christian martyrs - from Ignatius of Antioch to George Blaurock - both of which started their own denominations, if you will. These and others were seen as heretics at the time, but their ideas lived on and changed christianity. Smith is still seen as a heretic for the time being, but his ideas have changed christianity already. That said, for the purpose of wikipedia perhaps it is too close to his death to classify him as such - but he will someday - time will rule in his favor, IMHO. Even american history is starting to acknowledge his influence on law, slavery, settlement and city planning and more.

This is probably a talking point for a bigger discussion, however, there are a number of people listed in the christian martyrs category that probably shouldn't be there at all - for example - the Bonhoeffer family - they were killed not for their beliefs in Christianity, but because they joined an anti Nazi movement. Joan of Arc was killed for her military endeavors and for her claiming to have personal communion and revelation from God - which is still considered heretical by most non-catholic christians (and yet very similar to the reasons for Smith's death. Both claimed to be told by God to teach and say things that are still considered heretical). Dorothy Kazel was a missionary who was killed in a violent crime - not for her beliefs, but because she was giving support to guerrillas - her alleged rape and death was highly political in nature, not for her being a christian or her beliefs in christ.

What about to a non-Christain - how would they percieve it? If you are going to be universal about applying the term - it should be by the definition given in wikipedia - "a martyr is a person who dies for their convictions or religious faith." Add to that the wikipedia definition of a Christian: "A Christian is a follower of Jesus of Nazareth, referred to as Christ. Christians believe Jesus to be the Son of God, who lived a life befitting that of the creator of the universe, free of sin, who at the end of his earthly life was crucified, and then on the third day, rose from the dead, and later ascended into heaven. These beliefs are held by the vast majority of Christian denominations." Using those basic wikipedia definitions - he qualifies.

Since Smith's teachings fully agree with that ("The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" -Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).), although some thought that his "deeper" interpretation of the bible was heretical, and he was killed for his religious convictions of how to practice what he deemed true christianity, then he probably qualifies more as a christian martyr than half of the people in the category. Or perhaps we should change the definitions of Christian and Martyr? Then again, as I stated above, it may be too soon to categorize him as such for another 50 years, but by the 200th anniversary of his death, I believe that the bulk of "christians" will consider him as such, especially if they consider folks like John Forrest (martyr), Charles Garnier (missionary) or others who died for political reasons, not for their religion. -Visorstuff 22:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the real issue is not whether Smith is considered a martyr, but whether or not he is considered a Christian. Of course, now we have a Category:Mormon martyrs category that has its own problems, listing Parley P. Pratt, who was killed in a domestic dispute with one of his plural wives' ex-husbands, and David W. Patten, who was killed in a military conflict as a member of a militia. COGDEN 22:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it stated that Smith died in a shootout with federal marshalls, as well. I'm not certain of the authenticity of the claim, but I was told this by a Mormon missionary. He also stated that the Smithsonian had found direct evidence that Native Americans were one of the original tribes of Israel. This has proven to be completely false, so I'm not certain that the young man knew what he was talking about.

In terms of Smith's place in Christian history, I agree with the first anonymous poster concerning the category. Though there were true martyrs of the faith that were deemed heretics by other sects of Christianity, there were also legitmately labeled heresies that are still considered heresy by modern Christian scholars. The final call on this subject does not rest on the majority opinion, even the majority opinion of Christians, but upon the opinions and doctrines expressed in the Bible. As long as LDS doctrine stands in contradiction to these, it cannot be considered "Chrstian", regardless of what label the LDS church puts on it. I understand that Mormon belief does not consider the Bible to be the infallible word of God. But, it is the only source of Christian doctrine for nearly two millennia before Smith's birth. Stark contradictions to it cannot be deemed a legitimate part of it. By the same token, I would have a hard time describing Smith as a Christian martyr.

I understand that some of the Mormon readers are going to read this and say, "Whoa, our beliefs are not in contradiction to the Bible." But, they really are. Few Mormon missionaries or believers ralize how very, very far their beliefs are from Christian teachings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.50.190 (talk • contribs).

Exactly which books of the Bible would we be discussing: the Apochrapha, the books mentioned in the Bible, but are missing, or the KJV text most Protestants (and LDS) recognize? Contradiction to the Bible? That is all a matter of opnion and interpretation. There is very little, if anything, that the LDS people believe that is not built upon the Bible. As a restorationist I would say that the promised apostasy foretold in the Bible was real and it took place as foretold. Though many beautiful truths are found within broader Christianity outside of the church, they also have many missing truths and have many teachings created by man; this is a fundamental belief of Mormonism.
Regardless, WIKI is no a place to state which is true, but a place to provide information. It is not for the majority to say, "We don't believe that therefor it must be omitted". We report both sides and it is fine to dispute it, but the fact remains Joseph fundamental teaching was that Jesus was the Christ, that He died for our sins, that His church was restored to the earth, and that these teachings contributed to Joseph's murder. Storm Rider (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
24, I understand where you are coming from on some items, but in true religious practice, I don't think there is that big of a difference. Perhaps in doctrine, which, as has been stated elsewhere, it a growing thing within mormonism, not a dogma as in other denominations. If the majority of governments classify mormonism as christian for census reasons, then that is a probable safe bet. Lets say for arguments sake that Christ and his atonement are the central items to being christian or not. Other doctrines really don't matter - even for mormons - they are appendages to christ-worship.
I can go through from Arian heresies to luthers heresies and show how mormonism picked up most of the "heretical" parts of those beliefs - from god and jesus being seperate beings to the role of works and faith in grace to pre-mortal beliefs. It is interesting that by your standards these heretics are allowed if they only have two or three heresies, but when you combine mutliple heretics beliefs into one belief system, such as the Moonies, Jehovah Witnesses or Mormons, then it is considered unchristian. Interesting that one of the female catholic missionaries taht is listed on the martyr page beliefed god was female. However, still a christian.
Back to my suggestion then, is the solution to change the wikipedia definition of Christian, so as to dis-include smith? The term martyr is already in question for other folks. We must apply to all universally and equally. If you apply this way, we expect you to remove others from the category who do not fit that mold. -Visorstuff 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sans SouthPark

'Sansifying' the South Park links. Completely irrelevant for an encyclopedia article (well, mayber other than 'SouthPark').

--Coldblackice 02:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I must question your choice of 'Sansifying' (what the heck does that mean? I take it to mean, in this case 'deletion of inappropriate material') the paragraph on South Park. The section is on Smith "In the Modern Media", and this was indeed about Smith, "In the Modern Media". It is not inappropriate, nor out of place, seeing as these episodes are pretty much all of the knowledge that many have of Smith.
I'm sorry you were confused over my new word. It was the only knowledgeable word I had to explain my desires. Maybe I should start a Wiki article on it. As shown in South Park's various episodes, their material is based on the inappropriate mockery of various religions, races, and stereotypes. Religious pornography. --Coldblackice 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the original poster meant "sans"-ifying. Sans is French for without. So I assume the poster was making a play on words with the title - "Without Southpark" by calling it sansifying the links :) --Trödel 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the South Park material is inappropriate for this article. Encyclopedic doesn't mean high-brow. Eventually, there will probably be a split-off article for Media portrayals of Joseph Smith, Jr.. COGDEN 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I support the removal of the so-called fancruft as discussed here - while a full episode focused on an encyclopedic topic is different than "Chandler from Friends made reference to Ghandi in episode 'The one with Indian Food'" being included in Ghandi's article - they are not much different - and, IMHO, should have an article i.e. no problem with article on All About Mormons - but referencing it from JS is fancruft and not encyclopedic becaues it does not help one understand the topic. --Trödel 18:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I say keep the South Park reference. South Park is a significant cultural critic, and they devoted considerable resources to an exposition of Joseph Smith's life. You may think their analysis biased or otherwise flawed, but they certainly deserve a bullet under the heading "In the modern media." I'm going to try to figure out how to revert it back in. --Skidoo 00:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia not a history of cultural phenomenon - the SP references should link here - but there is absolutely no reason to insert fancruft into historical articles -please read the thread I referenced above again. --Trödel 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse last Post

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)

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)

[edit] Wow! Keep up the great work!

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)



[edit] Report of vandalism

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)

[edit] Smith wasn't controversial?

(Mostly) to Zarahemlite: Your edit removed the word "controversial" in describing Smith in the first sentence of the article, with the edit summary "Don't agree with controversial wording". Would you please explain your reasoning? Because I was under the impression that the accepted consensus, both within this article, and the population at large was that Smith was VERY controversial.

From dictionary.com: "con‧tro‧ver‧sial  –adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of controversy; polemical"

and

"con‧tro‧ver‧sy  –noun 1. a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion."

He claimed that he had seen the Father and the Son at 14 years old. Claimed he had been called of God to reestablish the truth of Christanity. Claimed that he recieved revelations in direct opposition with mainstream Christian teachings, (which he called "abominations"). His character and integrity have been assaulted, both during and after his life. I could go on and on, but this is quite a lot. I would say that Smith fits this definition of "controversial" quite well.

For reference, here is your edit.

Ok, but who was controversial -- Joseph Smith, or those that opposed his experiences with tar and feathers and the like? Joseph stated what he saw. Just because no one else personally saw it, doesn't mean he was controversial. The controversy started when others were appalled at the supposed impossibility of God and Christ appearing to a farm boy.--Coldblackice 22:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the controversial nature of Joseph Smith is appropriate to address in the article. The question is was he known most for being controversial or something else? I think the "something else" would take precedence. WIKI articles strive to achieve not only NPOV, but also balance. Joseph was known for a movement that has had a worldwide impact primarily and he was controversial; not the other way around. Further, the article addresses his controversial perception by other Christians throughout the article; the article is balanced. Storm Rider (talk) 23:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I politely retract my arguement for two reasons: 1) his controversy already has a sentence dedicated to it in the intro, and 2) the controversy isnt the main focus in this article, so it probably shouldnt come first.
Whether you believe in him or not, Smith is probably one of the most controversial figures in modern history. He went against much of the traditions of modern Christianity and for that alone becomes a figure of controversy. "Controversial" isn't automatically a negative word and it hardly impacts the article one way or the other to include it.Primalscreamtherapy 09:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for POV tag

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Mob persecution part

I have taken the liberty of removing the part on mob violence from this article, and moving it to the subarticle. My reasoning is twofold:

  • It was completely unnessicary to Smith's life, especially while this article is already far too long.
  • I felt that the POV was too strong in favor of Smith. Bcatt brought this very point up a long while ago, but no concensus was reached. In light of the POV discussion preceding this, I felt that it was only prudent.

Despite these, however, this did include factual information which one could argue belongs in an encyclopedia. Thus, I chose to put it in the subarticle, rather than delete it entirely.

Deleting it from the article is removes an important feature of the life of Joseph Smith...the fact that he was prosecuted severely and often by his foese. Further, this is an important incident to include because of some of the mythology (read fabrications) created around it by critics. Martyrdom is one of the reasons for many religious movements and it is significant to the story of Joseph Smith and, from a secular position, adds reasons why there was such a thing as the Latter Day Saint movement. Persecution was a common occurance during much of the beginning 50 years of the church. I have reverted your deletion prior to your adding your reasoning. I still think it appropriate and necessary to retain this information. Let's wait for other comments from other editors prior to do anything further. Storm Rider (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Persecution was an important feature of Joseph Smith's life; this was one of the significant events of such. Further, the reason "I don't like it because it makes Smith look positive" is not a worthy position. The facts are important; this was an unquestioned event in Joseph's life. I see that you have offered no further explanation and reverted my edits. Deletion is not the first recommended course, but rather than enter into a senseless edit war, I will revert again. Maintain the article as it is until you gain support for your disputed position. Storm Rider (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, Storm Rider. I was unsure if your reversion of my deletion was accidental or not. (As there had been vandalism before me that was also reverted.) As it is now apparent that your reversion was not accidental, I will not edit the section in question until it is resolved here, on the talk page. I had no intention of beginning an edit war.

I felt that this section was not a central theme to Smith's life when I took it out. It would appear that you disagree with me. This boils down to a matter of perspective. Therefore, I would request other perspectives from other editors be voiced here, in order to help establish consensus. If it appears that other editors strongly favor the inclusion of the material in question, then I will gladly let this issue go. But if the consensus is that the section in question should be removed from the main article, then I hope that we can all accept the wishes of the majority.

I believe that the issue is best treated in a subarticle. Further, the section, as it now stands, refers to one particular instance of mob persecution, rather than the persecution that he suffered as a whole. And, while the persecution as a whole would probably be appropriate for the main article, I think that two paragraphs dealing with a single instance is excessive. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.99.171.66 (talk • contribs).

Difficult issue. Not sure what sub article that this could be discussed in. Agree that persecution was a central ideal in Smith's life - statements of his acknowledged that he felt he would be persecuted and even killed as part of his life as many - including the two quotes below. It was a core part of his persona, and that culture of being persecuted was promulgated in the LDS church for well over a century, if not nearly two of them.
  • "I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me so curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last." (History of The Church Volume 6, page 408-9)
  • "I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women--all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304).
I do think that it is significant enough to keep on Wikipedia. It gives us insight into his personality. -Visorstuff 00:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
To Visorstuff: The way the moved text reads, it doesn't address any of the things which you brought up. It simply talks about one attack on him at one place, at one time.
But even if it was rewritten to include these things, I still think that Smith's "ideal"s, "persona", and "personality" belong in subarticles. As far as I can tell, this article deals (for the most part - the sections that are summarized well) deal only with the cold hard facts. Also, I feel that the cold hard facts are more encyclopediac.


why are there different reference types?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.137.188 (talk • contribs).

FYI, I have already put the text in the subarticle "Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844" - it fits there as is written.

[edit] Accusation of bais by Anon 158.135.12.160

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)

Storm Rider you really should take a break. Spend time with your children or something. Do your home teaching etc. There are serious issues with this article and will always be as long as people like you hover over it. Please try not and take that personal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.234.26.109 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Deletion based on outlining style??

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
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)
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)

I now go into oblivion. Mormons and anti-mormons will now be that much closer to learn how to write peer reviewed articles. Cheers mate! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.134.249 (talk • contribs).

[edit] 1826 trial

Why is there no mention of the 1826 trial in New York state? Like it or not, this is part of Smith's history that appears to be being ignored here. Duke53 | Talk 07:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you are talking about the alledged trial reported in the book "Ashamed of Joseph: Mormon Foundations Crumble" by Charles Crane and Stephen Crane (It is often mentioned in anti-Mormon genere of lower academic research). Crane jumped to conclusions based on the opinions of Wesley P. Walters. Crane stated that a court document discovered by Walters is "positive proof . . . that Joseph Smith was involved in money digging and other questionable practices" (p. 51). Crane presented that the document discovered by Walters declares that Joseph Smith was tried and convicted of "money digging and other questionable practices." However, the document makes no such claim. The document specifies that fees were paid for the examination of an accusation of glass-looking. No mention is made in this document of a conviction or even a trial in the glass-looking case, although some evidence does suggest that a trial might possibly have taken place. One study by Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting," BYU Studies 30/2 (1990): 106, concludes that "in 1826 Joseph Smith was indeed charged and tried for being a disorderly person and that he was acquitted."
Was this the trial you are talking about? Storm Rider (talk) 07:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
"In the late winter of 1826, according to an early account, Peter Bridgeman, a nephew of the wife of Josiah Stowell, presented a written complaint against Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge, New York, which led to his arrest and trial as a "disorderly person." Since the time that Fawn Brodie in her biography of Joseph Smith accepted as authentic the account of the trial published in the Schaaf-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (1883), it has been a source of sharp conflict among the students of early Mormonism. Perhaps the primary reason for Mormon opposition to the record is the alleged admission it contains made by Joseph Smith that he had been searching for lost treasure by means of a stone". [1] Duke53 | Talk 09:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
This seems to be an event that some people think is significant. This is the main article and has several subarticles. This event, and the allegations (for and against) are covered in the fifth paragraph (of seven) in the subarticle of this portion of his life. Val42 18:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly; it should be mentioned here, otherwise some people researching Smith might not click on the link for the subarticle, regardless of all the other events that are mentioned here. I can add it here if nobody else wants to do it. Duke53 | Talk 21:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
If someone is "researching" Joseph Smith, it would be logical to assume they will actually research and not just briefly read a single article. If you add it, then add both pro and con; it is not an open and shut case. Of course, then you defeat one of the reasons for subarticles and just "listing it" would only seem to taint the image. Your choice to add or not. Storm Rider (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Beg to differ, the case seems pretty open and shut to me: Joseph Smith Jr. was an imposter. Please read: http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/ny_js.htmApostle12 08:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Christ

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marrilpet (talk • contribs).

By linking to the disambiguated article Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints). COGDEN 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage

The subsection entitled Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage is adequately covered in detail in Death of Joseph Smith, Jr. and need not be repeated here verbatim. This is a very minor point, and this summary article cannot afford the bloat involved in going into such detail. Moreover, there are some NPOV problems. Therefore, I'm deleting it. COGDEN 21:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah!! Please delete the reference in the prior paragraph if you will - as there is no reason to introduce this minor controversy in the main article. --Trödel 22:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the reason that it is there is because of the high number of times ANON's and others continuously bring up that Joseph shot two men. No amount of editing will succeed without providing the evidence why this belief is errant. You should review edit history to see the number of times such language has been edited and the different number of editors. I think it best for the entire section to stay until enough people understand that it is a myth. Storm Rider (talk) 22:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
COgden, you edit sounds like you state the John Taylor said that Joseph killed two men; didn't his statement say that he heard that two men were killed? Do you equate hearing that two people were killed with two people being dead? In your research, have you found a preponderance of evidence that two people died from Joseph shooting through the door? Storm Rider (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really looked into it, but my impression is Taylor was just recounting a rumor that many Mormons wanted to believe. I don't think we can definitely say it is a myth, though, because lots of people believe it, and you can't quite prove affirmatively that nobody died.COGDEN 04:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concern SR - lets see if the comment helps any or if it keeps getting put back. --Trödel 03:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
If applying a "myth or not", history or not, standard to this, why not rigorously apply the same standard to the BoM's entire version of history? CyberAnth 07:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
CyberAnth, the major reason is that there is no current history that conflicts with the Book of Mormon for that time period. There exists archeological evidence and DNA discussion that lead some to doubt the history. However, nothing that says the cities or the people did not exist. There are arguments both pro and con, but nothing that is completely definitive.
In the topic at hand there is historical evidence that no one died from Joseph's gun. A myth, in this context, is more akin to a rumor than reality. Taylor repeated a rumor, but just because he repeated it does not make it true. More importantly, it does not mean that others, which has been done repeatedly, can take his statement and then say, "John Taylor, apostle of their church, said that Joseph Smith killed two men when he was attacked." The importance of the topic is not a value judgement, but just attempting to report history. If 200 hundred men were attacking me, I suspect I would be be very prompt in using whatever means available to protect myself. Given that they were at point blank range, my question is how were only two people wounded?
Trodel, I am comfortable with your comment and deleting the section. Let's just observe how the ANON's react to it. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"CyberAnth, the major reason is that there is no current history that conflicts with the Book of Mormon for that time period." --By that same token there is no history which contradicts the existence of unicorns and centaurs.

Yeah, but in the article about Jason and the Argonauts, we would hardly need to go out of our way to state that cyclops don't exist.Primalscreamtherapy 09:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/o/s/Talk%7EJoseph_Smith%2C_Jr._Archive_11_e6a4.html"