Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This page shows an archived portion of the discussion at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. Archives help keep pages fast, accessible, and more usable. To see recent or active discussion, or to get a complete index of this discussion's archives, visit Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

Contents

Unresolved questions

Some questions to resolve:

  1. Did Smith ever claim that God authorized/commanded Mormons to have multiple spouses?
  2. Did Smith ever have more than one wife at the same time?
  3. Did Smith ever marry any "underage" wives?
  4. What was the age of consent in those days in the United States?
  5. When, if ever, did Mormons clarify/change their doctrines on polygamy/polygyny/whatever it's called?
  1. Did Joseph Smith ever produce offspring by any of the wives he reportedly had?
  1. Did Joseph ever live in an openly polygamist relationship? Storm Rider

--Ed Poor

[Expletive], I'm getting [expletive, angry]. Twice now I've gone in to add/change substantial info and some one posts while I'm in the middle of editing and I lose my edits.

Ed, here are my answers to your questions.

Yes, but that does not exclude that God may have also commanded various individuals in addition to JS.

Yes, obviously or it would not be polygamy.

"Underage" is a loaded term. As i tried to explain in my edit on this talk page before you posted and i lost it. Marriage at age 12 in the 1800s was legal if not uncommon. And even today marriage at a young age (14-16 and younger under special circumstances like parental approval, pregnancy, etc.) is legal today. Bigamy is illegal. RK's post about pedophila today is just not particularly enlightening.

Interesting; from what you say it looks like RK has been introducing bias and stacking the deck on this religious article too. He seems to have a thing about attacking any religion other than his own when he thinks he can get away with it. --Clutch 00:45 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
Clutch, I'm sure you've experienced nothing much more irritating than some one who is NOT a member of your religion, but is going to tell YOU what that religion is about. Outsiders help keep things honest, but bigoted folks just don't get what this site is about. -Randy

The doctrine of "plural marriage" (polygyny) has remained relatively unchanged (see D&C 132) although its initial practice was not normative. JS NEVER taught polyamory of polyandry although technically he could be said to have been a participant. RK's lines about multisexual relations imply interactions and motives which are merely SPECULATIVE and most importantly: not NPOV.

I had many other comments about the changes that I made to RK's post (who also started editing my original piece moments before I was finished with it) but I have to leave and I am not about to type all that stuff again. Bye for now.

-Randy

Randy, I always recommend clicking on "Show Preview" before doing a "Save Page", that way, if you get into an edit conflict, you can go Back one page and your changes will still be there. -- Zoe

Ed, I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, so I hope I can help clarify some of the church doctrine/history for you:
  1. Yes, he claimed that god command a small number of the members of the church to pratice "Plural Marriage". Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young said that the doctrine of "Plural Marriage" was a doctrine that they struggled with. see http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-114-3,00.html
  2. this question is answered well enough by randy
  3. ditto
  4. ditto
  5. 1890, see http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1
Is is important to note that members were choosen to pratice "plural marriage" by (according to church doctrine) God through the prophet. Not all members practice it; only those choosen were permited to practice that doctrine.
—Noldoaran (Talk) 19:28, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Smith image

Would it be bad to include the painted portrait of Joseph Smith along with the photograph shown? Benefits I see include:

  • Promote the understanding among JS adherents that the likeness of Joseph Smith is not a matter of mystery. Having two separate images would bear witness.
  • Promote the understanding among Latter Day Saints that the likeness of JS was as shown in the photograh and portrait.
  • Give a nod to the fact that in 1840, painted portraits were still the preferred mode of likeness representation.

Would it be worthwhile to have a section in the article on the Likeness or Appearance of Joseph Smith? I think the subject of the popular loss of the JS likeness is a most interesting one. Why does the LDS populace, including artists, fail to use his true likeness? Is it not handsome enough? Is it too beady-eyed for their tastes? Is it not enough like the death mask? I will cc these remarks and questions to the article talk. Tom 18:26, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I understand that the painting was based directly on the photograph. I tend to favor photographs when they are available, but the painting is also very nice, and might be worthy of inclusion. I also think that it could be useful to have a section or even an article on Smith's appearance. There has been a lot of scholarly work on the subject. Except, if it is a separate article, I don't know what it would be called. COGDEN 02:41, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Probably a section would be enough. Is it correct that no other paintings/artwork have been based on the appearance given in the photo and portrait? I am beginning to wince increasingly every time I see a new entirely fanciful painting or article illustrated by an older, less true (?) painting. Tom 05:10, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The "painting" is a copy of the daurregotype that has been chalked (colored in) - pretty common prior to the 1960s. There are only a few painting of smith done during his life with him as a live subject. We should look at linking to them. There is a image of smith in nauvoo legion military uniform that was done by shadow -- one reason why the image is "smooshed" (he seems short and "stubby" and a bit chunky) the image from the side of his face is very much his likeness - may be good to include, since it is his "likeness." I would like a section on his looks (and what changed his appearance - tarring, burns, limps) - chipped tooth, blonde hair, slim(er), deep blue eyes (not beady by any means), scarred face with burn marks, etc. there was a book written about this and a BYU studies (and Ensign article) on this same topic (tons of info). Does not warrant its own article. -Visorstuff 22:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Definitely not beady by any measure. My mistake. But why don't the Saints like it? A little background on the painting. It was owned by Joseph Smith III, who was 11 when Joseph Smith, Jr. died. He said it was the most accurate painting of his father as "sustained" by the daguerrotype. As to how it was produced, I have no information. Are you saying, V, that the below is a "chalked in" version of the daguerrotype? And for a bonus, here is a great collection of early depictions of Joseph Smith Rare and obscure pictures of Joseph Smith. Tom 21:37, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Cookiecaper added a couple of nice images. I think the Carthage rendition is probably explanatory and a nice addition to the article. But the "painting of Joseph Smith" is nothing more than a fanciful rendition in a period reminiscent suit. Since there are known contemporary images of Joseph Smith, including the actual daguerrotype (which has, by the way, been very carefully analyzed for authenticity and, to my estimation, been shown very likely authentic), I think it detracts from the article to display fanciful images "of Joseph Smith" unless they are part of a section on "the likeness of Joseph Smith" as examples of how Mormons have for some interesting reason largely ignored Smith's true likeness in favor of their own fancy. BTW, I was down at Seagull Book looking at paintings today with my wife and children, and sure enough, not a single framed piece of art showed the photographed likeness of Joseph Smith. The only place in the store I could find the true likeness was on the covers of a couple of books. Tom 05:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know, I think the painting looks a lot like the daguerrotype. Just because he's in a "period reminiscent suit" doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate portrait. But if you think it needs to be removed, that's fine, you're a lot more seasoned than I am. Cookiecaper 17:04, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for speaking indelicately. I have been dismayed recently to find oh so few art works that attempt to portray the historic likeness, and oh so many that seem merely fanciful. It hadn't occurred to me that the painting might have actually been based on the photo. I'll tell you what. Take a look at this very early portrait that was copied from the daguerrotype and pronounced a "true" likeness by Joseph Smith III. Tell me if perhaps it might be a better candidate for inclusion. Also, can you maybe explain to me why in the church the historic likeness is largely ignored? I would love to see a good artist try to do some action art based on the historic evidence. The portrait of his son is also enlightening as a comparison. Tom 21:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Image:Joseph Smith, Jr. portrait owned by Joseph Smith III.jpg

Image:Joseph Smith III.jpg

I put that one in the section "After Smith's Murder". Is that okay? Cookiecaper 03:30, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

After a lot of careful thought, and hopefully with some delicate explanation, I am going to remove or replace the "painting of Joseph Smith". For the record, these are the reasons:

  • It isn't a careful likeness of JS. If you put me in a period suit and fixed my hair just right, I would likely be pronounced (and have often been pronounced) just as much a likeness as that painting.
  • It isn't a part of an important, otherwise unavailable, action scene, like the Carthage martyrdom illustration.

Tom 16:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

By the way, a little background on my interest in this subject. I'm a Joseph Smith cousin (isn't everybody?) through Jesse N. Smith. All my life, various people have told me I look like Joseph Smith. I initially thought it was because I resemble Stewart Peterson, who played JS in the vintage The First Vision. Now I don't know. But I am still interested in the whole idea of why the Joseph Smith likeness is such a mystery to the 11 million LDS. When we see a picture of Brigham Young, Martin Harris, or David Whitmer, we immediately know whether or not it is a likeness. But our internal conception of Joseph Smith, like some other early figures, is blurry. Perhaps it is because our first illustration of some of these figures was via actors in modern films. When I conceptualize JS, Parley Pratt, and Oliver Cowdery, I tend to see faces from The First Vision, The Restoration of the Priesthood, How Rare a Possesion, The Three Witnesses, etc. I would like to see the historic likenesses elevated to public consciousness over the substitute likenesses that have prevailed for decades. Tom 16:29, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Disputed edits

172.197.34.224's latest edit and the insertion that the article is disputed with absolutely no comment is a procedural error. 172.197.34.224 must first state his issues and generate discussion before styling an article like that. B 02:39, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Neutrality

This page is far from neutral. In its present form I'd dispute its neutrality. It presents what might be called a "faith promoting story," (an "official" LDS version) without discussing or even mentioning other research and viewpoints.

The article seems to overlook or ignore potentially unflattering or controversial elements of Smith's life, including:

  • Smith's apparent polygamy
  • Smith's Masonic activities
  • Charges of fraud associated with Smith's "Treasure Digging" Trial
  • Apparent inconsistencies in Smith's "First Vision."
  • Dawn Brodie's important biography "No Man Knows My History." Wakajwaka
Wakajwaka, you need to do some homework, catch up with current research, get your facts straight, read and pay attention. The article has room for lots more info, but instead of whining about it, get to it. Fawn Brodie...and her speculative psychobiography published many decades ago is not considered reliable even by sophisticated anti-Mormons now-a-days. "Apparent" polygamy? Mormons do not dispute that Joseph et al early Chuch leaders practiced polygamy. This article specifically refers to its practice and links to an entire article written about it: Plural Marriage (Mormonism). As far as this article being "far from neutral", that is false. The article does not take a position on the views presented in the article, it merely presents those views with proper attribution as required by the NPOV policy. I can agree that it is not quite balanced yet, but if you think something is missing and want to contribute to Controversies regarding Mormonism then please go ahead and start adding the bigoted-anti-Mormon-propogandizing POVs with proper attributions. Otherwise [no more complaints]. B 21:46, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the kick in the pants. I [messed] up in more than one way.

Wakajawaka

Has anyone considered that there are many splinter churches from the "mormon" religion, and that their viewpoints might also be mentioned in here? Although Mormons are by far the largest group in numbers, there is at least one other major church which claims Mr. Smith as it's founder: The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. And they do argue the calim of polygamy very strongly. There are POVs in here that seem to be completely mormon and not historical. Hidden marragies and multiple wifes for Mr. Smith cannot be proven anywhere but from mormon sources. -NeonElf

Thanks for your interest in NPOV. Actually, the article is very neutral not from an LDS POV, but a historical POV from all available resources. As a Mormon, there are a number of things Ithat are historically accurate, but not Pro-LDS. There are a number of sources that cite Smith's plural relationships, including diaries, meeting minutes, public records and so forth. Even the CoC (formerly RLDS - the second largest Mormon group) have said that he probably did - based on historical evidence. They also have told a tradition about Emma saying if she caught Smith truly practicing plural marriage with women, then she'd get additional husbands. You may want to check out http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm. I believe the external link that was removed was a .com, rather than a .org. However, I do agree that a section explaining differences in how the splinter groups view Smith would be beneficial. More balance is still needed in the article. -Visorstuff 23:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

I seem to find a different standard of NPOV from one area of Wikipedia to another. It appears in other areas that opposing views are stated in separate areas and labeled as such; specifically the treatment of Free Masonry. This seems a better way of doing things and may remove this consistently thorny issue in this subject. Readers would then be able to read both views. For example, in earlier discussions above some people really beleive that Fawn Brody's work is reliable. Hoever, most critics of the Mormon church have moved beyond her work and do not put much stock in it. This article seems to want to include everything from great critical work to that work of little merit, but is sensationalistic. I'm rambling; in effect I recommend an article structure that describes the evolution of the churches resulting from the work of Joseph Smith followed by an article that has all the opposing material people feel inclined to include. Michael 20:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you read Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View and Mormonism and Christianity? Tom - Talk 22:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe this page actually doesn't include enough. Yes, it does have Fawn Brodie, but really there are many more accounts, so there's a strong case to be made about bias there, but the solution (in my view) is adding more, not taking away. In truth, Smith is such an important person, his page would probably have to be much longer than this to be complete. However, I feel the page is not very biased, and certainly not against Smith. The most significant contributers to this page are LDS.
At any rate, when the controversy is about history itself, there's no NPOV way to seperate the claims and counterclaims. We should no more put the LDS account on top followed by criticisms then lead with Brodie's interpretation. Cool Hand Luke 23:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Luke, I don't know if you meant your last sentence literally. But I can see how you might have. I sometimes tend to think thoughts like that. But as I step back and think about this, it becomes quite clear to me that we first of all should tell why this person is notable. And the chief reason he is notable is all those things he said he did to found the LDS movement. You see, there is a real reason not to put Brodie first; she doesn't explain why he is notable. I think two short words for this concept are content and respectability. Put Brodie first and you lose both. Just picture it. Q. "Who's Joseph Smith?" A. "Well Brodie says X" Q. "But I though he was the Mormon prophet". A. "Oh, yeah. That too." (Tom)
Right, and notability is sumarized in the leading block, but Joseph Smith is a historical figure, not merely the doctrinal curiosity of one church headquartered in Salt Lake City. There's not even agreement within the faiths he inspired about his life. Thus, no one account should be givin a monopoly. Putting one version at the top and leaving opposing claims as footnotes is obviously POV to me—no matter what one account is chosen. If the claims have a factual, evidentiary basis and are reasonably credible, they have a place in this article. Little here seems too outlandish, certainly not enough to strip it from the biography and put it into a new section. Cool Hand Luke 05:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yeah. It sounds like we pretty much agree. It could be improved. And what you say is true. And it isn't too bad right now. Tom - Talk 05:16, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, most of Brodie's work has been discounted and deemed uncredible, by most scholars (both mormon and non-mormon) and historians of Mormonism. Although it should be mentioned in the article, it should be pointed out that it is not taken seriously by anyone studying the subject. -Visorstuff 16:14, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People, it comes to the same question: what is the purpose of the article? So many of the above comments are excellent and I support...stated simply, state what makes this subject important from a historical viewpoint. Stating that Joseph Smith wrote that he had a vision and saw God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ does not make it a tract for proselytizing to others, but a statement of fact, Smith did this. However, by stating that he did there seems to be a knee jerk reaction to counter with "Some People" (Gees, I hate that type of intro!)say that Smith was a womanizer, bamboozler, shyster, and cheat. Surprisingly, as I originally stated, in other parts of Wikipedia subjects seem to be treated without so much rancor and judgements. Look at the article on Lourdes and St. Bernadette Soubirous or regarding Free Masonry. These are just two of many subjects that are treated without the need to include judgement calls from others. It does not serve NPOV to attempt to state who Joseph Smith was historically while interjecting a broad range of religious judgement calls to satisfy those determined not to allow anything remotely positve to be stated about those evil, cultish Mormons. In fact, I believe that this subject is where NPOV is distorted on this site as we bend over backwards in a misplaced attempt to appease those with an axe to grind. Treat if from a historical point of veiw and let all religious judgement be removed. Michael 00:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite see what you mean. I've looked over the article again, and the main problems I see are in the end (not mentioning the low regard that Brodie is held in, nor any other biographies—as if hers was monolithic), citing polygamy statistics from the Utah church well after his death, and perhaps the poisoning claim. The article seems very well structured to me, and to a large extent it's impossible to understand his death without getting a sense of the visceral hatred some hold against him. There's a half dozen LDS eyeballs on this article, and the anti-POV bias doesn't seem obvious to me. Could you cite some passages that are out of place? Cool Hand Luke 04:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Luke, I would take issue with the following areas: 1) What importance does "money digging" have to the story of Joseph Smith and his position of a founder of a church? It does serve to disparage him, but what is its purpose in the article? 2) The reasons stated for his being tarred and feathered would be completely different if this was asked of a member of LDS church; again a wonderful way to disparage his character. However, Smith and most members of the church were persecuted consistently for their beliefs. Was that not the reason for this incidence of persecution? 3) Rigdon's illness and delirium causing him to speak of killing Smith; exactly what purpose is this comment to the story. Another way of disparaging character and masqarading a compliance to NPOV (yes, I have read it). 4) The Kirtland Safety Society, I believe, violates NPOV because it appears to infer the majority of the Saints were so dissolutioned thta they separated themselves and whatever remained joined the other Saints in Missouri. This again has that slant of negativism. 5) The alleged poisoning of Joseph by Emma. Tell me people, how many of you really believes that a husband is going to stay with a woman after he really believes that he was poisoned by his wife? Exactly when was this alleged story recounted...after a dispute, years later, between the church in Utah and those who stayed in Illinois. Again, so many of these these stories are hearsay, but are simply not documented but through additional hearsay. The problem is they are given the weight of fact in this article. 6) The article consistently quotes Quinn without introducing him or identifying him as a subjective source who is committed to "leading those misguided members of the cult of Mormonism to Christ". Why do we want to quote Quinn and not LDS speakers. Friends, this is a bit of rant; forgive me. I am just a bit more hesitant of doing any large edits after being too proactive in the past. I desire to run some of my thoughts by you because each of us can begin to "smell our own ether" a little too often and need to hear comments from others. I do appreciate what I read on this discussion page; thank you all. Michael 15:17, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I believe treasure-digging and the Safety Society have a place in the article discussing his early life, and Kitland (1&4). However, I guess we should be open to non-chronilogical telling of his life (re 1). The Quinn references (6) were almost exclusively added in the last night. Tarring and feathering should have an orthodox account, and credible source for the current version (2). I missed that detail, and think you're right about it. Ditto the poisoning (5, as I said above).

You have a good eye, I think, and fully support fixes, but I just don't see the need to radically restructure the article. Cool Hand Luke 01:22, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will attempt to make changes over the next little while working within the current structure of the article. My objective is to make this a historical article that answers the question why Smith was important to American history. I will be sensitive to those comments that I think are the comments of religious zealots who attempt to "save" mankind from the scourge Mormonism.

I would also request that if someone is committed to interjecting those kinds of comments, please look at other areas on the site that address religious topics and follow their lead. Be respectful and understand that no one will be spiritually contaminated by reading something about Joseph Smith's role in American history. Michael 04:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

216.213.195.188 Vandalized the page, and the "Snizzle" info was removed, and will go unreported this time. Visorstuff 17:00, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)