Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 9 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 9:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

An interesting quote

:While I hold no particularly strong opinion one way or the other on polygamy, and wish "Jenny" all the best, I must confess that at the present time and for the foreseeable future, I do not have 2 wives.--Jimbo Wales 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

-from User talk:Jimbo Wales

Is The South Park Episode Accurate?

In a South Park episode they claimed that Smith put the gold tablets and the seer stone into a hat and had someone else translate what he saw. One of the translator's took the translated papers to his house and his wife suggested saying they were lost and seeing if he could translate that section again and say the exact same thing. Smith told the translator that he could no longer translate it b/c God was angry that he lost the translation so they had to start working on one of the other sections. You can find that episode on Youtube http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qn6ziT36lwA --151.213.155.3 21:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is all accurate (except that the supposed "gold plates" did not actually go into the hat, just the stones did). In fact, Smith was never able to reproduce this section, but used the excuse that this inability was the result of God's anger, and continued to deny that he was fabricating the whole thing. bcatt 22:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not all accurate, bcatt has no idea what she's talking about. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 00:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, history says different. bcatt 00:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Taking Bcatt's word about anything to do with Mormonism is like seeking to understand watch making by going to the butcher. The butcher might say something, but it will surely have nothing to do with watch making. Bcatt knows something of astrology, in which she finds come confidence. Note her words on the Talk:Astrology page, "in my own experience, which shows that astrology is indeed quite valid." Astrology can be valid, but Mormons are idiots to put their faith in the restored gospel returned to the earth by Joseph Smith? Somehow Mormons are not allowed the same dignity she demands for herself. Can you say hypocrite? Bcatt states that Joseph was "never able to reproduce this section". The answer is not that he was ever incapable, but that he was commanded not to. State just the facts and leave the editorializing for anti-Mormon literature. It is okay to be anti-Mormon; in fact it really does not matter. However, to parade around like you are neutral is a farce and dishonest. Stick to the facts; period. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikistalking me now? A little obsessed are we? Astrology at least has some basis in reality for belief, to paraphrase my statement "in my experience, it has shown potential", as opposed to the Mormon "it doesn't matter that all the evidence shows that it is wrong, and nothing that has been predicted by it has come true, and it has no physical basis in reality to support the logic of believing in it, but you are a retard if you don't believe in it". Show me where I said that "everyone who does not believe in astrology is an idiot"...you won't find it because I don't have a MPOV. That Smith was "commanded not to" is not a fact, it is a belief with zero basis in reality and no evidence to back it up. Yes, stick to the facts. bcatt 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your statement noted in my comment above is a direct quote, please let's not recreate history when the evidence is on the talk page. It is great that you think that astrology can guide your life (I would love to see the evidence of any thinking person who believes in this attempt at science; so far it resides in the minds of the simple and ignorant; first ladies included. Further, it doesn't begin to state the other side except for some gibberish that common readers can't understand; to state it simply there is not scientific fact backing it up!).

Mormonism happens to guide the lives of other people. You might find it to be false---great don't be a Mormon---, I and many others have felt the promptings of the Holy Spirit testify of its truth and attempt to follow its precepts. We are not here to mollify your pathetic attacks; nor are we here to allow your ignorant attempts at editing something that you obviously know very little about. At best you are a parrot; garbage in and garbage out. Worse, you don't even use anti-Mormon literature correctly. You misquote and you misapply to the wrong circumstances. If you insist on editing have the decency to reference your diatribes. In doing so, you might learn something about anti-Mormon literature and at least others will know your true colors. No more wrapping yourself in NPOV verbage. You have an axe to grind and you are absolute in your attempts to grind it. We accept that, but don't play as if you are neutral. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, and I am such a "hypocrit" that on the astrology talk page, I wrote: "In the interest of NPOV, the opposition does need to be properly represented", when other editors were interested in only preserving the SPOV...oh yes, so very hypocritical of me. (note: in psychology, when a person accuses another of doing things that the accuser is actually doing themselves, not only is it hypocrisy - imagine, being a hypocrisy hypocrit! - but is also a mark of the disturbed). And by the way, I did notice your edits to astrology (and recognized it as a likely trolling attempt), and that many of them are factually incorrect (which is the result of editing a page just to try to piss someone off when you actually have no experience with the topic). bcatt 01:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

bcatt, I see in you "a mark of the disturbed", then. It is incomprehensible how you can come in here and accuse everyone else of the very things you do, all the time pretending not to do them, and then continue to attempt to tarnish the reputations of an entire community of valuable, well-respected, and proven editors. The things you have posted on this talk page demonstrate a knowledge of Mormonism no deeper than that which would be accrued from skimming any of the trite circulars regularly distributed by anti-Mormon organizations. You cannot accuse Storm Rider of trolling when his good-faith edits were designed to improve the overall accuracy of Wikipedia and when your edits on this page are designed solely to promote your point-of-view that followers of Smith are "brainwashed". You are not interested in NPOVing this article, you are interested in evangelizing. There are places where you are welcome to do that. Wikipedia is not one of them. Get it together or go away, this is seriously annoying. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone here needs to chill out a second and be civil. WP:CIVIL ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Swatjester is correct. For starters, article Talk pages like this one are for discussing how best to improve the related article, and not for discussing fellow editors. In particular, we all need to be careful to avoid personal attacks; and to avoid using a fellow editor's beliefs to discredit them personally. Personally, I've found it helpful at times to take an hour off or a day or two off after reading something that upset me, before I responded to it. Maybe others would benefit as well. Wesley 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd suggest that you guys file for Formal mediation. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cookiecaper and StormRider, these are BLATENT PERSONAL ATTACKS. This is DISGUSTING, UNETHICAL, DISHONEST and CHILDISH behavior. You are warned, AGAIN. This is being documented. This is not how to conduct a Wiki discussion. --FreedominThought 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Please no threats. Wikepedia is not the place for that, nor is your authority greater than other editors. -Visorstuff 16:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI to editors helping try to mediate this dispute: Freedominthought (talk · contribs) has less than 50 edits and more than 1/2 of them are on this article. I accused him of being a sock (one of the references that bcatt has made to our unwelcomeness - though if review the history - there are many cases of welcoming new users) since he was experienced enough to know how to change his signature in preferences to eliminate any link to his userpage and jumped into the middle of the discussion fully versed in wikipedia terms of art. Trödel 11:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I never stated anything above my authority Visor. Your insinuation is specious. And talk about calling the kettle black. Your libelous statements about me are an abuse of your authority. Trodel, your continued besmirching of my character is duly noted. You can consider yourself warned as violating Wiki policy as well. The volume of my posts and what I post in and my sophistication is irrelevant. I am a frickin genius, what can I say. This bullying and sophomoric character assasination to protect the Pro-Mormon POV is completely unethical and against everything the Wiki stands for. And FYI, your assertion that I did some expert magic to modify my signature is also specious.--FreedominThought 01:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Be civil FreedominThought. Stop throwing around the term "Libel"...the term Libel as applies to Wikipedia does not apply in this situation. Cease your personal attacks. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI, libel is a term in the English language, not just applying to Wikipedia. And my context of the word was quite clear. The written comments about me have been deliberately defamatory and an attack on my character in a childish attempt to silence my voice. That is clearly against Wiki policy but you don't mention that, do you. I don't see how objecting to blatant personal defamation is a personal attack I am simply defending myself. I will continue to defend myself with vigor as is my right. Pointing out violations of policy, however embarrassing to the guilty, is not a personal attack. --FreedominThought 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, Libel is a type of civil defamation tort involving written word, and wikipedia has a policy of No Legal Threats. This is not YOUR article, This is not YOUR talk page, this is not YOUR server. you do not have a "right". Using words like "childish" and "blatant personal defamation" is uncivil. Stop it, now.⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 19:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, your mischaracterization of my comments is a red herring argument. I never made a legal threat and you know it. The term is used in legalese because of its precision. What needs to stop are the personal attacks on users supporting a NPOV. I have every right to defend myself in public when I am attacked and defamed in public. That is what is uncivil and I am not going to roll over to such bullying. This is not YOUR talk page either. If you want uncivility to stop, then stop the users making repeated personal attacks, not me for defending myself against them. --FreedominThought 21:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was talking to you in this section, dude. :) cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 08:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

And your point is? Does that excuse the behavior? Nope. Loved your comment below about not "being mean". Deeds, not words. --FreedominThought 16:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, you wrote about me: "Your libelous statements about me are an abuse of your authority." I've had multiple admins double check my behavior in this heated debate. Not only have I not abused any authority I may have, andt my attempts to help mediate this discussion were well-intentioned. I'm actually suprised that you followed that portion of the debate of this page. I'm also suprised that you have attacked Swatjester, who has been very civil on this page and whose help is much appreciated by most in this debate. Please, once again, be civil. Thanks in advance. -Visorstuff 22:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My point is you had no personal attacks to defend yourself against, as nobody even mentioned you here. And I wasn't being mean, I even used a little happy face. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 22:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks don't just have to be against me for me to point them out. Swatjester likewise interjected himself in the mix (but you didn't call him out on that, did you), not to warn those who originally made the comments I referred to, but to warn me, here AND on my talk page. I didn't "attack" him (what drama!), I corrected his mistaken assertions. And Cookiecaper, I didn't mean you were being mean in this instance, but just noting I found your previous posts inconsistent with your comment. Visor, I am surprised that you think continuing to label me a "sock puppet" and thus insinuating I am a fraud and a liar in order to discredit my voice here is appropriate in the slightest for an admin. And then you act so shocked when I take umbridge with it all. --FreedominThought 23:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Swatjester likewise interjected himself in the mix (but you didn't call him out on that, did you)" Remember FreedominThought: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia ANYONE can edit: not just you. Nobody owns any article, talk pages, etc. Everyone here just needs to chill out and be civil with each other. ⇒ SWATJester

^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You said "I have every right to defend myself in public when I am attacked and defamed in public", although you were not defamed. And yeah I'm trying to be nice now wanna fight about it? cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 23:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So you define nice as upholding your bias. Webster's would contradict. A fight? Oh dear, I wouldn't dream of taking advantage of you ;-P --FreedominThought 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Tag revisited

This tag has been on for quite some time, in my opinion, without justification. While not perfect, the language here generally reflects careful editing and discussion over some time - and the reasoning for the NPOV is still lost on me mostly since it seems to advocate for an even more advesarial POV than that which already exists. As already indicated, this article is substantially more attacking of JS than other similarly controversial religious leaders, and while I think this possibly violates the NPOV policy; the reason the NPOV tag was put on the article (and the list of items the tagger would like addressed) would make the article violate the NPOV policy even more and definately not present the information in the sympethetic way as NPOV requires. I would just remove the tag but last time I did so created controversy. Trödel 23:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm concerned that this may end up as a "permanent NPOV issue" article, a la George W. Bush. This article portrays Smith in the eyes of both his followers and his detractors well; most remaining complaints, it seems to me, are by those who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of any opposing information. Being uncomfortable with certain issues about an article is not reason for an NPOV tag, however.

Maybe, just to make it painfully clear after wading through so many talk pages full of "this is what's wrong with this article," we can draw up a concise list of what still remains to be addressed, if anything, and get it taken care of already. I hate that tag. Tijuana Brass 03:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of long talk pages, this one is probably ready for an archive. Tijuana Brass 03:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like two good plans to me. Alai 03:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The NPOV tag was added because opposing views are not given appropriate weight in this article, and many are being completely censored. Another note, on the trolling and vandalism...cookiecape mad a bad edit intentionally (vandalism) with the purpose of antagonizing me (trolling). I realize I eventually lost my temper, but it was only after numerous personal attacks (intended to provoke me and derail the discussion); the tactic here is to bite newcomers if they are not willing to accept the pro-POV status quo and, if that does not make them go away, to attack and prevent discussion in the hope that they will eventually give up. I'm not the type to bend to strongarm tactics, and so the attacks escalate; each time someone shows up that has a similar opinion that this article very badly needs to be worked over for NPOV, the attacks increase even more. Alai, as to your comment to me on my talk page, it is the ignoring of these behaviours by Visorstuff that I have taken issue with; if you look in the last archive under NPOV dispute!!!/This article is quite biased, you will see that after many personal attacks, I finally said something back and Visorstuff jumped down my throat while making excuses for the others. Sure, I shouldn't have retaliated, but if you look, you will see that I made a lot of effort not to in spite of the attempts to incite my anger. Perhaps if these behaviours were properly addressed, constructive discussion could take place, this article could actually be worked on, and the tag could be removed. bcatt 09:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

psst ... my edits weren't vandalism. I made them because I believed they would make the article better. And they did. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 09:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get up to speed here... could someone list some specific facts they believe are missing from the article, and at least some specific views that seem to have 'insufficient weight'? Wesley 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a good look at the intro. This is what it said before I edited it:

<Name> <Birth Date> <Reason for notability> Smith's followers revere him as a latter-day prophet 1-1. <Size of faction and sub-factions and links to articles on different groups>.

Though many people were converted to the message of the gospel restoration 1-2 taught by Joseph Smith, he likewise was actively opposed throughout his ministry. Smith's teachings were not welcomed by the existing 1-3 Christian community. This rejection 1-4 was later compounded by other detractors 1-5 who felt he possessed too much political and military power for a religious leader 1-6.

Now my edit and cookiecaper's edit side by side for easy comparison:

bcatt's edit	cookiecaper's edit
<Name> <Birth Date> <Reason for notability> <Size of faction and sub-factions and links to articles on different groups>.	<Name> <Birth Date> <Reason for notability> Many people have been converted to the restorationist message taught by Smith and his followers. 3-1 <Size of faction and sub-factions and links to articles on different groups>.
Though many people were converted to the restorationist message taught by Smith and his followers revere him as a latter-day prophet 2-1, these teachings are opposed in mainstream Christianity as heretical or apostate (see Mormonism and Christianity) 2-2. Smith was eventually seen as having too much political and military power for a religious leader by many ex-Mormons - both those who left voluntarily, such as William Law and associates, and those who were excommunicated for dissent, like Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer 2-3. Conversely, most of the non-Mormon public and many politicians considered Smith as having too much influence as a religious leader to fairly represent the people as a government official 2-4. Both non-Mormons and ex-Mormons alike criticized Smith for his endorsement and practice of polygamy (see Mormon publication Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 132:61-62) 2-5.	Smith was opposed by most of his contemporaries 3-2; the doctrines he taught were considered heretical and were rejected by other 3-3 Christian clergy. Many people 3-4 criticized Smith because of his political power — during his ministry he was mayor 3-5, an opponent of slavery 3-6, and the commander of at least two militias (Zion's Camp and the Nauvoo Legion) 3-7. Smith's practice of plural marriage 3-8, a form of polygyny 3-9 he introduced, was also highly controversial 3-10. Tensions with his enemies 3-11 continuously escalated until June 27, 1844, when Smith and his brother Hyrum were shot and killed by a large mob while incarcerated at Carthage, Illinois 3-12.

Notes

1-1: Having this inserted here serves to insinuate that "since many people were converted, Smith must be right". It is used out of context in a way that creates POV

1-2: POV statement that Smith's message is the restored gospel.

1-3: Makes the assertion that Mormonism is a Christian religion, when one would be hard pressed to find a Christian, either then or now, who would agree with this. Does not address the fact that Mormonism rejected and/or changed many fundamental aspects of Christianity in such a way that it no longer resembles Chritianity when one has all the facts.

1-4: Makes it sound like "Poor Smith, he was rejected"...eliciting sympathy from the reader.

1-5: Insinuates that anyone disagreeing with Smith is libelous.

1-6: Who thinks this?

2-1: Describes the supportive point of view, who holds it and why

2-2: Describes the views held by the Christian community in regard to Smith's teachings and provides a link to an article that goes into detail on this topic

2-3: Describes the views held by those who were once supportive of Smith but changed their minds, and why they changed their minds

2-4: Describes the views of the non-Mormon community

2-5: Describes a major view held by more than one of the above groups

3-1: Views of Smith's followers are again used out of context to insinuate that his teachings must be right

3-2: Leaves out the fact that he is still opposed to this day, implying that his opposition has changed their minds in favour of his teachings

3-3: Leaves out part of the view of the Christian community, elicits sympathy (he was rejected), and asserts that Mormonism is a Christian religion

3-4: Who criticized him?

3-5: There is not space in the intro to go into detail that he was a self-appointed mayor, and that this self-appointment was only accepted because practically the entire community under his mayoral jurisdiction was comprised of his followers...this should be saved for later in the article where it can be put in proper context

3-6: I ask again, how can someone be an abolitionist if they are racist? Non-whites were not allowed into the "priesthood", and this fact did not change until 1978...as far as I can tell, people of colour still can't make it very high up in the hierarchy (correct me if I am wrong - with proof, please)...also, racism still runs rampant in Mormon communities today, particularly towards African Americans

3-7: Although this describes part of the reason he was considered as too politically powerful, it needs more explaination, so it would probably be a good idea to have an article concentrating on Smith's role in politics and military and link it to the appropriate places in this intro as well as in other articles (this could help greatly with the size problems in many of the larger articles)

3-8: Use of a specifically Mormon term where there is not space to go into describing what it means, also falsely asserts that Smith did not consummate these marriages, when there is proof that he did consummate many of them

3-9: Misleading because polyandry was also a result of these teachings, polygamy is the appropriate term to use here

3-10: To who?

3-11: Inflammatory and characterizes those who oppose Smith as wrong and unjustified in their opposition...not neutral language.

3-12: This topic already has much space in the article, as well as having it's very own article...there is also not space in the intro to put it in proper context

NPOV says:

As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. bcatt 19:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... actually you raise some good points here. The intro isn't perfect. You should change what you disagree with. The ex-Mormon stuff in your version is inappropriate for an introduction and accusatory in tone. The other stuff is cool though, and I tried to retain some of it, and most of that retention you noted as not NPOV. Bummer.

3-1 serves the same purpose it does in your intro and is a topic sentence for the following paragraph. You're right that 3-2 doesn't mention present-day opposition but I don't believe this implies that there is none. 3-2 and that whole paragraph is clearly oblivious of the present, and makes no attempt to describe it, for or against. What is left out in 3-3 and how does saying that somebody was rejected elicit sympathy? It doesn't, that isn't changing. As 3-4 states, many people criticize him. People from all over. It wasn't limited to non-Mormons or politicians. 3-5 Yeah there is. 3-6 our definition of racist has evolved; as Wesley states below, many abolitionists still believed that blacks were inferior. That assertion might be asserted here [1] , I don't know I didn't read it very closely. And Smith wasn't racist even by our present definition. 3-7 Yeah that might be a good idea. 3-8 Interwiki links exist for just this reason; if a reader doesn't understand a term, he can follow the link and learn more about it. It's explained enough for the reader to know what we mean here anyway. 3-9 Wrong, see archived discussions. Everyone disagrees with you. 3-10 Everyone? Mormons weren't really jumping for joy when they heard of this either. 3-11 Not inflammatory, this is addressed above. This term is no different than the use of "opposition", as they mean the same thing [2], and "enemies" isn't likely to be interpreted differently by the majority of readers. 3-12 I think it's cool.

It should also be noted that an introduction similar to the one I've installed existed in the article for quite a long time without much complaint. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 02:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to see how this one example addresses Wesley's question for a summation of arguments. Can you clarify? Also, you state that Smith was "a self-appointed mayor." As Smith was elected as a replacement for Bennett in Nauvoo, I fail to see how he was self-appointed.

Second, your questions about polyandry and polygamy and polygny have been addressed elsewhere. You may want to discuss with the folks at the polygamy page and get their take on term usage. They have finally come to an agreement on usage.

Lastly, you wrote:

"I ask again, how can someone be an abolitionist if they are racist? Non-whites were not allowed into the "priesthood", and this fact did not change until 1978...as far as I can tell, people of colour still can't make it very high up in the hierarchy (correct me if I am wrong - with proof, please)...also, racism still runs rampant in Mormon communities today, particularly towards African Americans

Again, you may want to actually research this. When Smith was president of the church, blacks were ordained to the priesthood. He ordained one in particular as a seventy - the third ranking body "equal in authority to" the twelve and first presidency. The ban went from 1846-1978 (initated after his death). Since 1978, there have been other blacks as general authorities and as area seventies - one of the best-known is Helvicio Martins (http://www.gapages.com/menu.htm), who served as a general authority until he turned 70 years old - at which time all Seventies are placed on "emeritus status." There are literally hundreds of blacks that are bishops, stake presidents and in other leadership positions currently. Some sites to read: [3], [4].

Some context - prior to the 1970s most Mormons were democrats. They were, as a whole, sympathetic to civil rights issues. You may want to read Smith's views as a presidential candidate about using land sales to free all slaves. He was an abolishonist, as were most northererners of the time. This is a main reason for the "extermination order" in Missouri by republican/whig governor Boggs - as Mormons tended to vote as a bloc and were against slavery. The church's "racist" past is just as complex as some baptist conventions (who allowed black ministers officially in 1972) and penecostals (who changed the rules on the books in 1998), however, those negative racial histories are not emphasized as much as Mormon histories as it took a "revelation" to change mormon policy, as opposed to a vote. Again, most of this information is out there, you should easily be able to find it. A good place to start would be Curse and mark of Cain and Curse of Ham for sources and discussion about the american theo-cultural doctrines against blacks. -Visorstuff 21:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, bcatt's answer does address my question in that it lists specific wordings considered less than neutral, with suggestions for improved language. Let me pick and choose just a couple things from the list that we might be able to agree on. Saying that Smith converted many followers seems almost redundant when the article already says he founded the Latter-day saint movement. But if it is worth mentioning that in particular, then it's probably also worth at least mentioning that were some ex-Mormons who became disenchanted with his teachings after a time. The intro probably isn't the place to list examples by name though. And when mentioning the opposition by Christian clergy, a link to Mormonism and Christianity seems appropriate, as (if I recall) that article is intended to present actual distinctions between Mormonism and Christianity. As far as being abolitionist and racist, I'm just speculating but I would guess that a number of Northern abolitionists may have been reluctant to seek employment at a business owned by an African American. It seems possible to consider another race inferior while still not believing they are subhuman or deserving of slavery. So, it seems at least plausible that Smith could have been both abolitionist and racist; but the question should be settled by historical references, not by my speculation or anyone else's speculation. Wesley 22:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is what makes the situation difficult and frustrating for me. Smith and the Mormons were kicked out of Missouri primarily because of political power - and what political power was feared - the overturning of slavery. There is only speculation of racism - while there is documentation that Smith treated African American's well. Trödel 23:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy

Regarding the controversy over using the word "polygamy," I reviewed the articles polygamy, polygyny and plural marriage. At the moment, the polygamy and polygyny articles say that polygyny and polyandry are both subsets of polygamy, the chief distinction being that polygyny and polyandry are about multiple sexual partners and polygamy adds that these multiple partners are married. The plural marriage article seems to use both terms, but favors "polygamy." As far as putting Smith in a better or worse light, it would seem that using the term that puts the relationships into some sort of marriage context would be more favorable, and would be more compatible with the plural marriage article's suggestion that he may not have consummated the marriage to his 14 year old wife. Also, the plural marriage article says that some of Smith's wives remained also married to their previous husbands, which if true would be cases of polyandry. That would make using a term that encompasses both more fitting and more concise. Wesley \

So, did I just happen to catch one of these articles in an edit war so that I've been grossly misled? Or does this fairly capture the distinctions between these terms? If I'm describing the different terms correctly, what exactly are the objections to saying "polygamy" instead of "polygny?" Wesley 13:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me go back from the talk page discussions at Polygamy - This was part of a discussion about Group marriage, and whether or not it qualifies as polygamy:

I can understand why and how someone might make that simple mistake. "Group marriage" does not meet the definition of polygamy, as it is neither polygyny nor polyandry. Instead, it is a unique concept completely on its own and separate from polygamy. Just as monogamy means one with one, polygamy means one with many. Hence, in polygamy, there is either one husband with many wives (polygyny) or one wife with many husbands (polyandry). [5].

I'm all for using the term plural marriage. However, it's not a term that would be widely understood. As 90 percent dictionaries include a definition for polygyny as "The condition or practice of having more than one wife at one time." [6], Polygamy as "The condition or practice of having more than one spouse at one time." [7] and Polyandry as "The condition or practice of having more than one husband at one time." [8]. Interstingly enough, this particular entry on Polygamy does include "Also called plural marriage." To a mormon who believes that marriage will last after this life, eternal polyandry is not typically believed to be possible. Smith taught eternal polygyny, not eternal polyandry, and not eternal polygamy. Those women who were legally married to more than one man (smith and someone else) would have been "sealed" to smith for "eternity," and married for "time" to their current husbands. In most of those cases, the evidence is that he did not consumate the marriage with those already married to others (always disputable). So smith taught polygyny after this life, not other forms of polygamy. Just my thoughts from a cultural perspective within mormonism. Currently, in Mormonism if a man is married and his wife dies, he may remarry and be sealed to another woman (who has not been sealed to another). Thus in the afterlife, he would have two wives. However, a woman whose husband dies, when she remarries she may not be sealed to another man, but is married for time only. she therefore will not have more than one husband. This gets more complicated by new policy on the sealing of deceased ancestors (where both are dead and were married to others), but as a whole the cultural belief within mormonism is that men may have multiple wives in the afterlife, but women may only have one husband. There is no official doctrine on this within Mormonism, only speculation, but that's the cultural belief. -Visorstuff 23:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that what Smith practiced was not polygamy but "group marriage" or "plural marriage" meaning a marriage between ( or among?) two or more men and two or more women. If the marriage were of one man to multiple women, or one woman to multiple men, then and only then it would qualify as polygamy. Is that a fair summary? If it is, I would point out what both you and others on Talk:Polygamy said about how most dictionaries actually define these words, and consequently how most people understand them. Even if your definitions are technically correct in anthropology circles, "polygamy" as commonly defined and understood is still a fair description, meaning simply a marriage that encompasses more than two spouses. If you really want to push for using more specialized definitions, is there any reference to support them, like perhaps a dictionary of anthropology? Wesley \

The distinctions about marriage for "time" and "eternity" are certainly interesting and deserving of explanation, since they seem unique to Mormonism. That "current cultural understanding" should only go in this article if it reflects what Smith himself taught and practiced on the subject. Any doubts or controversies about which or how many of Smith's marriages were consummated is probably relevant. Wesley 18:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just something kind of funny to note... The top of the page has a note about how this page is a continuing source of heated debate, then it suggests that we all sit down and have a cup of tea! I just find it kind of ironic on a page about all them Mormon non-tea-drinkers. Anyway, about plural marriage, there is no conclusive evidence that he consummated any of them, simply because he has no progeny from any of them (there is one that has been suspected, but dna tests seem to be saying no). His only descendents are from Emma.

The dispute history (abridged version

I'm puling this from archive 7 and current talk page - I also put in specific issues with my alleged abuse of admin powers (two main interactions with Bcatt) - I apologize in advance for including them, but that is a serious accusation in my mind (and should be discussed at my talk page, not here):

An anon stated that "Reviewing the editing history, it appears any changes actively maintain the pro-Church bias a la FARMS and other Church publicity machines" Bcatt agreed with this summation.
Bcatt had an issue with "this article needs some neutralizing and I am personally looking at it. I am particularly bothered by the repeated reference to Mormons as the "Saints" - that in itself is a heavy POV assertion that Mormon belief is indisputable" and "Use of the term "Saints" in reference to Mormons, is only in use by those who are religious, it is NOT a universally used term, and therefore, it's use in the article is misleading"
Storm Rider suggested that Bcatt study and understand Mormon terminology - as a group they are referred to as Latter-day Saints. He stated, "BCATT, before you go editing an article please make sure you understand and have a deep understanding of the topic. Without knowledgable editors, edits create massive amounts of work for everyone who does have in-depth expertise in a given field. This article is the result of many editors from both sides." This appears to be exactly what happened.
Bcatt stated "very little is mentioned about the more controversial topics related to Joseph Smith. I was not out of line in adding the NPOV notice, as I did state my biggest concern, and am now stating more of my concerns."
Her concern that "The article is also very misleading as to JS's alleged "visions" speaking of them as though they are proven fact, whereas they are actually no more than a claim made by JS himself."
Bcatt stated "it is NOT customary for religious articles to be written from the point of view of the people who hold those beliefs." This is not in accordance with presedence set on religious articles for the past four years, which are written from the point of view of believers...and detractors.
"There are many opposing views regarding mormonisn not expressed here, and therefore the article is heavily biased and I am going to restore the NPOV tag"
Storm Rider stated that the above was not specific NPOV objections: "Notice BCATT that you have not followed proper procedure; most importantly you have not clearly and exactly explained which part of the article does not see to meet NPOV policy and WHY"
The following phrases are NPOV according to Bcatt:

Smith was not allowed to receive the plates until 1827. (because the angel told him so)
Four years had passed since Moroni, the angel that had told Smith about the plates, first appeared, with periodic visits occurring in the interim. Finally, in September 1827, Moroni allowed Smith to take the gold plates, but had strictly forbidden him from showing them to any person without authorization.
Soon after Smith recieved the Golden Plates, his focus turned to getting the engravings on them translated.
Smith began transcribing characters engraved on the plates
Smith returned to Harmony and dictated to Emma his first written revelation, which rebuked him for losing the manuscript pages, but assured Smith that all was not lost, because if Smith repented of what he had done, God would "only cause thee to be afflicted for a season, and thou art still chosen, and wilt again be called to the work"
Smith's translation was sporadic.
the work he was dictating from the Golden Plates was a revolutionary and "marvelous work" of religion
Cowdery, like Smith, had the "gift" of translating ancient documents, as well as the "gift" of working with the "rod of nature", which would allow him to discern God's will much as Smith had been doing by looking through his seer stones and Urim and Thummim.
Cowdery acted as Smith's scribe for the majority of Smith's dictation
They baptized each other immediately thereafter, exercising their new authority.
Peter, James, and John also came to them during either May or June 1829 and ordained them to the Melchizedek Priesthood.
When translation was complete, Smith published his dictated work

- Side note: I personally believe that the article was up until this point very stable. It was a featured article candidate, it clearly stated that the above were what Mormons/LDS believe took place and personally, I don't think we need qualifying statements such as "allegedly" or "claims" every time a statement is made. It also spun out articles about smith for different time periods of his life (see Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1831, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844, Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.) - so this article should have only been a brief overview. This seems to be where things derailed into a edit conflict. The next edit is where LDS editors were accused of "owning" the article
Trodel pointed out the other articles as a in-depth place to address these issues: "This article can not cover every detail but needs to focus on an overview of JS life in order to stay encyclopedic i.e. a well written succinct article"
Storm Rider fixed some edits - translated to dictated, etc. Bcatt wanted the qualifiers such as "claimed" added in.
Bcatt wanted "I can't see anyone being able to argue with the use of "Joseph Smith said" or, "wrote" or "According to Smith" or any similar form of attribution" in most paragraphs and that without it would "present a NPOV to the average reader" that would be confused that the events actually happened. Same with Saints. She suggested it is solely a Catholic word: "another thing that'll probably be hard for y'all to take is that Catholicism has been around a LOT longer and this use of "saint" is WAY more ingrained in humanity's head than the mormon reference to themselves as saints"
FyzixFighter suggested that we change the term Saints to Latter-day Saints (actually, we'd have to use both "Latter-day Saints" and "Latter Day Saints" to stay NPOV, which would seem wordy)
Storm Rider suggested that the article "intially define the term Saint"
Cogden and FyzixFighter stated that they thought the use of Saint is a non-issue: "Requiring LDS articles to disclaim the use of the word saint would be like requiring Catholic articles to disclaim the term catholic: after all, some people don't agree that the Catholic Church is really catholic in the uncapitalized sense" All instances of Saints were changed to Latter-day Saints.
Bcatt stated that the term ""Latter Day Saints" is too ambiguous" and "Cogden...how on earth is the term catholic not the same as Catholic? This really makes no sense. "
There was discussion between Storm Rider and Bcatt on the use of the words Polygamy and Polygyny. Bcatt felt that Polygamy was more appropriate: "plural marriage is polygamy, polygyny does not necessarily include marriage."
This deteriorated into a long rants and personal attacks.
Alienus (a non-Mormon editor) asked Bcatt: "What specific changes do you suggest to balance this article?"
This is her response:

The first thing that needs to happen is that there needs to be a ban (from this article only) of any number of pro-LDSers that is greater than the number neutrals and anti-LDSers, and the LDSers need to be regulated as to their OWNing behaviour of the article and their attacks on anyone who attempts to inject neutrality into it. I am seriously at the end of my rope with this and will do whatever it takes to see that the mormon wikipedia presence stops lording over this article.

After that, there really wasn't anything substantive - just petty fighting. From Mormon mobbing, to polygamy being used, to sourcing information, to the use of Southpark as a reference, to LDS editors and Bcatt being trolls, to sock puppeting. Bcatt left an alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. As the article is of interest to me (and I know a thing or two about the topic), it was at this Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr./Archive_7#Stepping_in point that I stepped in and offered to mediate and suggested a wikiholiday for all involved. Storm Rider and I discussed via email and he agreed to wikiholiday the page. Bcatt mentioned that I treated her unfairly during the exchange. Cookiecaper apologized and The Scurvy Eye suggested that my help was a good idea. I stated to Bcatt that "some of your arguments do not make sense" (ie Polygyny/Polygamy, Saints/saints/Latter-day Saints, limiting mormon editors on the page), and suggested reaching a consensus. She said that would only lead ato "approval by a faction controlling an article" and that "As an admin, you should be well aware that this is not an acceptable way to conduct things" As you know, I take my admin duties seriously, so at this point I backed down from helping for a time. I will not make that mistake again, however, as I've not abused my status at that point, nor the second time she accused me of this - see my talk page for the accusations. The rest is on this page -- I'll run through quickly -- basically issues with the term "extermination order" (which now appears in many US history text books), issues with the Three Witnesses (who actually have their own article, and really shouldn't be in this one) which Alienus (non-lds editor) made some great suggestions on and were accepted by everyone but Bcatt, because of supposedly contradictory accounts by Harris as to what he "saw" with his "spiritual eyes." (again, not appropriate for discussion on this page). However, Alienus suggested that we use these sources, which was disagreed with by Val42 and StormRider. Alienus is right, however, that is already done at the appropriate article, not here whwere it is not appropriate (this article is about Joseph Smith, not to critique the three witnesses testimonies). Freedom in thought then joined the discussion, and was accused of being a sock puppet, and made initial threats to Storm Rider "Note that you may be blocked for disruption" Bcatt was accused of not understanding the issues she is editing, and therefore really shouldn't be editing the article because she stated "book of mormon is JS's interpretation of the bible" which some editors took to mean that she doesn't understand any of the basics of Mormonism. (and to be honest, shows ignorance as to the contents of the book of mormon) The rest of her issues may be found here And this is again where I stepped in to suggest finding out who a sock puppet is and being accused of abusing admin powers and here is where we are.

I do have to say, Alienus and Cookiecaper have done a fairly good job at trying to build consensus and stay positive. Freedom in thought and its Mormonlicious both appear to be sock puppets - of whom, and why, doesn't matter as it is to no-ones benefit or harm in this case.

There is a history of issues. Hope it helps. -Visorstuff 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about me are complete lies. I am not a "sock puppet". You have NO RIGHT to continue this barrage of INSULTS against me and everyone else who takes a NPOV. Your assertion that I made a "threat" is equally a complete fabrication. I simply delivered the warning as defined by Wiki Policy. Openly attempting this assasination of my character without any evidence whatsoever IS a BLATENT abuse of priviledges. Yes that IS SERIOUS. This level of DISGUSTING HARRASSMENT has placed me in the inevitable position to bring this to higher levels of administration. --FreedominThought 01:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Seconded, all the way! bcatt 02:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

FreedominThought, you say that VisorStuff's comments are complete lies. Does this mean you deny that you were ever accused of being a sock puppet? That's essentially what he said above. Assuming for the moment that you have been unjustly accused of being a sock puppet, I completely fail to see how that is an "abuse of privileges," since making such an accusation does not require the exercising of any particular privilege, aside from the privilege of editing a Wikipedia page, one that's granted to everyone. Shouting in ALL CAPS doesn't help. The other claim, that you 'threatened' or 'delivered a warning', the only disagreement seems to be as to how best to characterize that warning. I would advise you on how to bring this to 'higher levels of administration', but you seem well enough informed as to such procedures already. If I'm mistaken, I apologize in advance. And again, everyone, let's try to return this page to a discussion of how to improve the article. Wesley 20:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a partial history of issues. How about the actual history including parts left out above (parts in parentheses are my comments):

Prior to my involvement, there was a comment left regarding neutrality issues, specifically, stating unproven things as facts. This comment was ignored, but was later agreed with by another editor, who was also ignored (my guess is that since they made no move to edit the article, they weren't seen as a threat)
The anon expressed concerns regarding bias.
Storm Rider tells anon that only Mormons have an objective view and therefore anon must have "an axe to grind".
I agreed with anon's points for why the article needs some work, and noted also my issue with use of "Saints".
Storm Rider puts inflammatory emphasis on my name, then dictates who may and may not edit the article...through the "discussion", it is eventually revealed that knowledgeable means "Mormons or anyone who is willing to write the way Mormons want the article written", while unknowledgable means "anyone who wants to add information to the article that Mormon editors don't like people finding out about or any author whose works do not cast Mormons in a positive light". Storm rider falsely claims that I haven't given any reasons for disputing the neutrality of the article
- In the meantime, Storm Rider leaves a message on my talk page, again putting inflammatory emphasis on my name, again falsely accusing me of not giving reasons for the npov tag, again attacking me as unknowledgable, and tells me that the article should be written in language that Mormons approve of.
I listed more reasons for disputing neutrality (controversial topics, or details on such topics, left out; unproven topics, such as first vision, represented as fact; opposing views not represented or represented only in passing). Reminded Storm ider that I am not the only person questioning the neutrality. Pointed out that religious articles were not exempt from the rules of NPOV. (although Visorstuff states that I am wrong on this point, I will not accept that without being shown official policy that states that religious articles do not need to adhere to NPOV). Said I believed that there were probably many NPOV concerns similar to mine in archived discussions and suggested the possibility that some may have even been deleted (this very last bit may have been a questionable move on my part, but when new editors are immediately met with hostility, it is a very real possibility that comes to mind...also not that I did not say that any particular person may have done this (nor used Storm Riders tactic of equivocation - implying a specific person, while trying to avoid responsibility for accusing that person), and I certainly did not say that it had been done.
FyzixFighter makes a compromise suggestion of using "Latter Day Saints" in place of "Saints", agrees that all views should be represented with weight appropriate to their significance, and agrees that more should probably be mentioned about opposing views within the context of how they relate to Smith, addressed his opinion that I had made a veiled accusation (regarding the possibility of deleted comments) - his characterization blew it out of proportion, but he was otherwise extremely reasonable so I did not pursue this comment with him. He asks that good faith be assumed.
Storm Rider uses the weasel words: "I must assume good faith, but" before launching into a personal attack accusing me of "witch hunting" and calling me "ignorant", claims to know what I have and have not read and implies that anything not written by pro-Mormon authors should not be used...he then seems to try to justify these attacks by saying that there are lots of Mormon related articles and makes reference to vandalism and anonymous users (though I don't see how this relates to the issues at hand, unless it is itself a "veiled accusation"). He then continues to make veiled attacks like "we all look forward to your enlightened thoughts" and refers me to the portion of the NPOV policy that Fyzix referred to (which was actually the one that I had originally referred to - so he was telling me I should read something which I had already read and was actually using to back my arguments), as though I must not be familiar with it...then continues with more attacks that I have "limited knowledge", am "spouting off", characterizing my genuine and legitimate concern about the way npov disputes are handled (as seen above) as thinking there is a "dark, evil cabal", attempts to imply that there is no attempt to control the article, then attacks me again by calling me "disingenious", than accuses me (just like the anon) of having "an axe to grind". He then tells me that I am not allowed to make any edits based on information from non-supportive literature and admits that these attempts have already been prevented in the past.
- Storm Rider then leaves another message on my talk page. Again, he falsely accuses me of not giving reasons for the npov tag, falsely accuses me of making "broad accusations" (as though he hasn't been making broad accusations all along), then threatens that if I don't do it the way he directs me to, it will be reverted (but I subsequently did it his way, and it still got reverted), claims that he assumes good faith (which is obviously not true) then implies that I have somehow proven myself unworthy of good faith (a broad accusation not supported by facts)
Storm Rider quotes from the NPOV tutorial on how to start an NPOV dispute and claims that I have not followed these instructions, puts inflammatory emphasis on my name again, but even moreso this time, again falsely accuses me of not giving reasons, and justifies this claim by saying that my reasons must be exhaustive, again claims that I have made broad accusations. Threatens that if I do not do this to his satisfaction, he will again delete the npov tag.
- Storm Rider leaves another message on my talk page telling me that "Saint is a term used by everyone who has a modicum of understanding about Mormonism", told me to "put my axe down", admitted that I obviously have a good enough mind to bring a lot of good to this article, but told me again that I didn't know what I was talking about anyway.
- Storm Rider leaves another message on my talk page, agan putting excessively inflammatory emphasis on my name, and copied most of the message from this talk page into the message on my talk page.
I respond that while an article should describe the views of supporters, it should not be written from that view, and I provide an analogy using an imaginary "religion" based on the healthiness of fruit, giving summarized examples of what would and would not be acceptable ways to represent supportive and opposing views. I then give an exhaustively detailed list of every instance in the first two sub-sections of the article that were written from a supportive POV, rather than describing the views in neutral language. I then summarized why I had issues with these examples and pointed out that the list did not include the rest of the article or any of the sub-articles. I again described why I had an issue with the use of the term "Saints", and also pointed out that the article did not touch on the important subject of Smith being charged with fraud not too long before beginning to write the BoM.
Regretfully, I retaliated to Storm Rider's inflammatory name emphasis and did the same in my next message, in which I addressed Storm Rider's owning behaviour, pointed out that he was not giving the impression of interest in NPOV because of his "nit-picking silly things" (instead of facilitating and engaging in constructive discussion), and addressed his attempts to demean me (through personal attacks). I then quoted several points from NPOV policy that supported my position.
- I responded to the messages left on my talk page by Storm Rider: I asked why he insisted on putting the excessive on my name and pointed out that this was unnecessary and inflammatory. Pointed out that although Storm Rider doesn't agree with the reason, use of "Saints", for the npov tag, it is still a reason and also pointed out that in addition to this reason, I was also agreeing with the reasons given by the anon as to why the article does not meet NPOV, which is the same as giving reasons. I pointed out that not only can a person recognize POV without a deep understanding of a subject, but Storm Rider has no basis for questioning my understanding of the topic in the first place. Pointed out that having an issue with the use of "Saints" instead of "Latter day Saints" did not indicate lack of understanding (as Storm Rider claimed), it only demonstrated my interest in using non-ambiguous terms that all readers can understand. Pointed out that the "average reader" is the target audience of wikipedia articles, which is why NPOV is important, and that such a reader is very likely to read "Saints" as the catholic meaning rather than the Mormon meaning, and quoted the meaning given in the Saint article. I listed all the other reasons I had given for adding the npov tag, and pointed out that these issues, while not being "nit-pickingly specific", were not "broad accusations" either. Pointed out that I was quite sure he was aware of how inappropriate his behaviour in regard to this article is, and that he is not the final word on what can and cannot go into articles, but that he saw himself as such. Suggested that he read WP:DNFT (as a soft suggestion that his behaviour could be seen as trolling). I addressed his claim that I had somehow shown myself as not deserving of good faith treatment by raising NPOV concerns, pointing out that having NPOV concerns does not indicate bad intentions. Pointed out the fault in the logic that "anyone who understands Mormonism calls Mormons "Saints". Pointed out that he cannot very well accuse me of having an "axe to grind" when he is the one attacking and patronizing people interested in NPOV this article. Asked him for proof that I do not have an understanding of Mormonism, sarcastically requesting non-Mormon sources. Pointed out that I was not actually that far off on the procedure that he demanded be used to start an NPOV dispute and that he was simply nit-picking for excuses to prevent me from having this issues addressed. Pointed out that I had, by then, indeed added a very exhaustive list of all the issues in the first two sub-sections of the article (I now write my article edits and talk page comments in two tabs and post them simultaneously to avoid being accused of not supporting my edits within seconds of making them), I told him that his "watchdog routine" was unnecessary. Pointed out that it was Storm Rider himself who was not adding content to the discussion, but just throwing around accusation and insults. I suggested that he spend more time making sure he does not abuse policy (such as telling me I didn't follow proper procedure because I continued the NPOV dispute under the previous heading "This article is quite biased" instead of putting it under a new heading called "NPOV dispute") and less time trying to discredit valid concerns.
Trodel characterizes this article and the sub-articles as mostly "rumour and innuendo" against Smith, then contradicts himself by saying that it follows NPOV, then contradicts himself again by saying that is uses sympathetic language with regard to the opposition (though this last point is clearly untrue, sympathetic language is used towards Smith and followers while the opposition is characterized as doing nothing but wrongs toward Smith and his followers); he also excused the absence of opposing views by saying those details should stay in the sub-articles. This was his reasoning for removing the npov tag (edit summary said that the tag was unsupported)
- I wrote a message on Trodels talk page at the same time that he was leaving the above message (he had not previously left reasons in discussion, so I assumed he wouldn't this time, and maybe should have waited a few minutes); I suggested that he may not have read the reasons given on the talk page and pointed out that I had given reasons for the npov tag; I pointed out that he did not discuss removing it before doing so, and also questioned how this behaviour (all of the above "discussion", plus the repeated removal of the npov tag when there is clearly an ongoing npov dispute) was supposed to show that there wasn't a hidden agenda
I then saw the message on this talk page and responded by asking if he had read the list of examples of POV in the article where Smith's claims (visions, etc) are stated as facts, I pointed out that since these things are not proveable, they need to be represented poperly (so as to not mislead the reader), I also pointed out that since these claims are represented as proven facts when they aren't, that this is POV, which is against policy, which is why the npov tag is supported
- I then left a message on Trodel's talk page (note: at this time, I had recalled reading something about "sympathetic treatment" in the NPOV policy, and instead of looking it up again, I had good faith that Trodel wasn't misrepresenting the policy, and so was going on the understanding that "sympathetic treatment" was the same as not characterizing a view as wrong), I said that there was a difference between sympathetic treatment and POv, with sympathetic treatment being the statement that "so and so has this view", while POV is saying "this is a fact" (when it is actually a view), I pointed out that nearly every paragraph of this article contains POV through the representation of views as facts, I asked him to reread my reasons on this talk page and consider reinserting the npov tag
Trodel left a message here that using "claim(s/ed)" to distinguish between fact and opinion is POV against Smith, and that if "described" is used earlier in the paragraph, that NPOV is established (however, he was talking about the description of two different (though related) events, and I personally don't see "described" as properly establishing that it is an opinion, "said" or "wrote" or something similar, sure, but "described" still gives the impression that it is fact); Trodels opinion is that a source needs only be identified once (even if it is in relation to more than one point (feel free to ask for further clarification if you don't undersstand why I take issue with this). He says that establishing each opinion as an opinion makes Smith's relation of events look like teenage fantasy, therefore, only the first opinion should be identified as such and the reader will then be able to know from there which of the following parts are opinions.
- Trodel left a message on my talk page that the article uses strong language both for and against Smith (though didn't give any examples of strong language on the opposing side, and I personally don't see how this is true)
- I responded on Trodels talk page that if this was the case then the opposite POV also needed changing, and pointed out that his description of how things were did not make the article non-POV, it just made it POV in both directions, and therefore had twice as much reason for the npov tag
- Trodel responded on my talk page that the npov tag should only be used when the article needs "wholesale changing"
I left a message on this talk page that it was not necessary to use "claim" in particular, that lots of other articles use this word and lots of other articles use alternatives. I pointed out that establishing what is opinion/belief and what is fact is not POV, but rather is adherance to NPOV, and supported this with quotes from NPOV policy. I pointed out that the issues I had raised were examples of where opinions are stated as facts in the article, that this did not follow policy. I asked him to clarify if representation of opinions/beliefs as opinions/beliefs (rather than stating them as though they are facts) was what he meant by POV going both ways. I pointed out that nobody can help or change what is fact and what is opinion/belief and that each needs to be representated for what it is, that it is inappropriate to blur or distort the lines between facts and opinions. I pointed out that if Trodel thought that proper identification of what parts were opinion made Smith look so bad, then it was possibly a reason for him to rethink his beliefs, but it wasn't a reason to state opinions as facts, stressing that it's not my fault or wikipedia's fault, or anyone's fault that many of Smith's claims cannot be proven to have actually happened. I asked him to read Wikipedia:Information suppression, with the explaination that non-Mormon views were not being properly represented. I also raised the issue that non-Mormon sources were not cited in the article
FyzixFighter responded constructively to my list of problem areas in the article, and pointed out one that I had listed erronously, he very clearly demonstrated willingness to make compromises by saying that while he believed "Saints" was ok, he also had no opposition to using a less ambiguous term and suggested "Latter Day Saints", but also advocated confining the topic of Smith's fraud charges to a sub-article (this is an important fact in regard to Smith's visions and his "revelations" in writing the BoM, so I don't agree with this point), he also agreed that more non-Mormon sources should be used to avoid an implied POV but said there were a few
I thanked FyzixFighter for responding constructively to the issues I raised and continued the discussion, I agreed that I had listed one erronously, I agreed that "Latter Day Saints" was definitely acceptable as a substitute for "Saint", and suggested "LDS" and "Smith's followers" as other possible alternatives (to avoid repetition), and said I was fine with anything that was non-ambiguous, I clarified that my mention of the lack of non-Mormon sources was not intended to discredit the current sources, just that I was seeking a balance (as per NPOV policy) between Mormon and non-Mormon sources, I said that I hadn't seen any non-Mormon sources and asked if he could point out any that I missed
FyzixFighter constructively continued the discussion on the points I had raised, and on one point he made a suggestion but said that it might not work because it makes it POV in the opposite direction; he also agreed with using alternatives to "claim" that still properly establish what parts are opinion, and showed me the two sources that he didn't think were Mormon sources, and said that it probably wouldn't be appropriate to "throw out" any sources. He asked if any other editors had objections to using "Latter Day Saints" in place of "Saints", and said that although he didn't understand my objections, he was willing to compromise
- I asked on Trodel's talk page if he could show me where the policy says that an article must be "a certain amount of POV" in order to warrant the npov tag
Nerd42 says that while "Saints" is not NPOV, "saints" is (however, the style guide says that names of groups should be capitalized - and I don't see how one is less ambiguous than the other, which was my concern with its use), he admits that using the term saints would look weird to Catholics, but justifies this by saying that it is not intended to imply anything (although the actual point is to not use ambiguous terms in ways that a reader is unlikely to understand).
I responded to FyzixFighters suggestions, including agreeing that he was probably correct that his tentative suggestion would change the part from POV for Smith to POV against Smith, and suggested we find a way to change it without having that effect; I was also very clear that I was not intent on using "claim(s/ed)" in particular, and that any words showing attribution was quite fine with me as long as opinions were not represented as facts; I stressed that I had not suggested throwing out any sources, only that more non-Mormon sources needed to be added, and that the same was true for external links; I explained my objections to the use of "Saints" (out of respect FyzixFighters efforts, so that he would understand the change he was agreeing to): the majority of non-Mormons associate "Saint" (and "saint") with Catholicism, and in Catholicism it is a value judgement of a particular persons character, and so when the average non-Mormon reads "Saints" in this article, they are likely to read it as such a judgement of character, and summarized that "Saint" is ambiguous while "Latter Day Saint" is a clear reference that doesn't apply to anyone/thing else. I also pointed out again (not to FyzixFighter, but in general) that the npov tag needed to be be reinserted because there was still ongoing issues
I responded to Nerd42s comment by pointing out that wikipedias purpose was to provide information to the average reader, not to Mormons in particular, and explained that the average reader would not read "Saints" or "saints" as Mormons would read it, instead, they would be most likely to read it in it's Catholic meaning, or alternatively, to read it in a general meaning as "saintly, unreproachable people", I also pointed out that the Catholic meaning has been around much longer and is way more ingrained in poeple's heads than the Mormon meaning.
Storm Rider advocates the continued use of "Saints" by saying that it should be defined once then used thereon throughout the article. He admitted that since I have an issue with the term, others were likely to have an issue with it also. He said that there was a problem with using the term "member" (which I don't recall suggesting and can't find any place where I suggested this term) and "other similar terms" (presumeably referring to "Latter Day Saints", "LDS", and "Smith's followers") because these are somehow ambiguous while "Saints" is not ambiguous, and justified this with reference to the current day (even though this article relates to Smith's life and the state of things then)
COgden says that "Saint" and "Latter Day Saint" are different terms with different meanings (which supports my argument), then says that the reader can look them up if it occurs to them to want to know the difference (apparently advocating using "Saints" as a reference to "Latter Day Saints"), he then says that wanting to use a term other than "Saints" is like not wanting Catholic articles to use the term "catholic" and that "catholic" sometimes has meanings other than a reference to Catholicism (which doesn't make any sense to me...can anybody explain this?)
FyzixFighter describes his changes in relation to the issues I raised, says it shouldn't be a problem to use "Latter Day Saints" in place of "Saints", because this is just as easy as defining "Saint" at the outset, and points out that from a technical standpoint, using "Latter Day Saints" is the better alternative anyway
- Trodel leaves a message on my talk page saying that the npov tag is not appropriate because it implies that the article is not neutral instead of implying that different viewpoints are worded in the best way possible (I don't understand this argument because the whole point of the issues that I raised was that they were not worded in the best way possible); he admits that the article could not get featured status because of the way things are worded, and admits that it is difficult for the major editors of this article to draft without bias; he then says he suggested I make edits (which isn't true), and also says that I did not make any suggestions for improving the article (which is only partly true, I was attempting to make suggestions, which was difficult when the discussion was being bogged down by Storm Rider's attacks), and implies that I am being lazy in this regard
Storm Rider acknowledges FyzixFighters efforts, then characterizes me and another new editor (presumeably the anon at the beginning of this discussion) as "demanding", as says that new editors tend to give the impression that "anything that is remotely positive" about Smith should be left out of the article (though nothing was suggested to be left out of the article, so this is presumeably referring to wanting to clearly represent opinions as opinions). He admits that he overreacts to appropriate concerns, but justifies this by saying that it "remains to be seen" whether the concerns are actually appropriate
FyzixFighter describes his edits
I responded to Storm Rider and COgden's defense of "Saints", pointing out contradictions in their arguments. Questioned COgden about how "catholic" could "not relate to "Catholic"". I pointed out that a search on "saint" takes one to the article on the Catholic term, and that this article capitalizes the word. I explained that if a search for "saint" took one to an article related to Mormonism, I would not have taken issue with it's usage. Used the goole test to show that a search of "catholic" yeilds only Catholic results, and that a search for "Saint" also returns predominantly Catholic results, with many ambiguous results such as cities, colleges, etc, and no Mormon results on at least the first four pages of results (I didn't look past the first four pages, so this does not mean that there were Mormon results on the fifth page). I agreed with FyzixFighter that "Saints" was not a good choice in the technical sense, and also pointed out that it was not positive points about Smith that were being disputed, but rather the suppression of opposing views and the representation of Smith's claims as facts.
I left another message telling FyzixFighter that things were looking much better since his edits
I left another message suggesting that since the same image was used twice on the page, that the image in one of the info boxes be changed (this suggestion was completely ignored)
- I responded to Trodel on his talk page saying that I found it pointless to communicate with him regarding the NPOV concerns because he did not respond directly to what I say and does not make logical arguments. I said it was a waste of my time trying to be logical with someone who is too influenced by their bias to be logical in return. Suggested that he read up on NPOV.
Storm Rider characterizes my response as a "diatribe" (this is a word he uses repeatedly to characterize any argument he cannot produce a counter-argument for), while ignoring the fact that I was responding to previous arguments (but I suppose I'm not allowed to do this, I should just let them make faulty arguments, so the article can be based on those arguments); then, (after previously insisting that I am not allowed to edit the article, and must get permission through the talk page first, and this being demonstrated through the reversion of every edit I attempt to make) Storm Rider tells me I should be editing the article instead of trying to propose changes on the talk page; says that I "like to gripe" and that I am on a "self-righteous high horse", and characterizes me as lazy for trying to accomodate the demands previously made of me (namely, going through a proposal process for changes I would like to see...also, I had been trying to be careful not to "step on any toes" while still trying to affect change in the article); tells me to add into the article the things I think are not covered (I did this, with sources attributed, and it was promptly reverted); then justifies his attacks by saying that I "whine incessantly on the Talk page and do nothing to ameliorate the situation" (again, it is important to point out that every edit I have ever made to this article has been wholesale reverted, save for the latest addition of the npov tag (which had been reverted three or four times previously))
I was fed up at this point and said that Storm Rider needed "a big, fat reality check"
Storm Rider defends the use of polygyny, quoting from the polygyny article (which, to Storm Rider's (partial) credit, erronously defined polygyny as specifically a marriage relationship), that polygyny was marriage to more than one woman (I had changed it to polygamy because polygyny may not involve marriage, plus I was also researching whether this also resulted in polyandry, which turned out to be the case); then he says that I have done nothing to improve the article "but rather you sit back and say what is wrong. THAT IS A REALITY CHECK, BIG AND FAT!"
- Trodel vandalizes my talk page and censors his own
- I restore the material deleted from my talk page and leave a message on Trodel's talk page that I don't appreciate the vandalism
I responded to Storm Rider by showing the etymology of polygamy and polygyny: "poly=many, gynos=woman, gamos=marriage - simple etymology - one can be with many women without actually marrying them. Thus, the fundamental difference between polygyny and polygamy"; I pointed out that my last comment regarding the use of "Saints" was only in response to his "incessant whining" (term used only because that is how he characterized my concerns, though still not acceptable, I know) in defense of using the term; I said that he was upset that I provided arguments that could be backed up, whereas he only made arguments based on his own POV and was unable to back them with impartial sources; I pointed out that I don't "sit back", and that I have made many valuable contributions to wikipedia and that I didn't see the same level of contribution from him (not to say that he should do more, just to point out that he can hardly accuse me of doing nothing when I have made more contributions to the project than he has); I pointed out that he didn't have much basis for calling me self-righteous because I have raised specific and valid issues, while he has "sat back and "lorded" over this article, arbitrarily deciding what can and cannot be done to it", linked to WP:OWN, and pointed out that he attempts to derail discussions to prevent unwanted editors (like myself) from editing the article. I pointed out that it actually does take work to go through and identify the areas that need work, and pointed out that his attempts to derail these attempts at discussion was trolling. Pointed out that his comments to me were hypocritical.
Cookiecaper then jumps in and reprimands me in regard to civility and personal attacks (but ignores Storm Rider's antics); he defends the use of "Saints" and implies that some opinions can be stated as facts because "claimed, purported, and similar words can only be used so many times"
FyzixFighter requests that the discussion get back on track and contributes some constructive discussion
- Storm Rider says on my talk page that I have not contributed anything valuable to wikipedia. he says that I "do not use sources" I "just whine", and that I do not review the sources used by others, I just "blather on as if they don't exist"; he says that he has not said anything that is his opinion (a blatant lie), and says he has "consistently referred to other WIKI articles" (apparently, doing something once indicates regular practice); he then makes a comment regarding my personal life.
- I responded: "Read the conversation on the JS talk page again...you will se that I have in fact provided wikipedia POLICY to support my suggestions of the changes needed, whereas you have done nothing but whine that you don't want anybody changing anything because the proposed changes don't fit with your POV. I'm sorry that it upsets you that your pain-in-the-rear techniques have not worked in deterring me from seeking NPOV on ALL wikipedia articles, I'm sure it works with many people, but it won't work with me. So suck it up, don't try to own the article, and allow the subject to be represented in a manner that equally reflects both pro- and anti- JS views...that is what wikipedia is all about."
- Trodel leaves a message on my talk page implying that by telling him not to vandalize my talk page, I was "not being true to my word" that I did not see a point in discussing the article with him (which seems to be an attempt to incite argument)
I try to address why I am having difficulty staying on track with the discussion: addressing Storm Rider's behaviour, particularly the fact that he is intentionally inflammatory, and point out that this is trolling; I point out that once Storm Rider is successful in "pissing off" another user, that user (me) is reprimanded, while Storm Rider's behaviour is ignored; I also pointed out that aside from the behaviour on this talk page, I had received harrassing, and trolling messages on my talk page and that my talk page had also been vandalized; pointed out that while Storm Rider quotes wikipedia policy, he refuses to follow it himself; I said that the article needs more non-Mormon editors, as this inequality was why the article was biased, and that I would bring in others to acheive this end (which I attempted to do by listing the article as a request for comment)

Alienus asks for suggestions on how to balance the article

I replied that the only way I saw to acheive this was to regulate the amount of people on each "side" of issue, by ensuring that there were no more Mormon editors than non-Mormon editors; also, that Mormons needed to be stopped from trying to own the article, and needed to have their attacking behaviour addressed

Cookiecaper says that he didn't violate any policy by reprimanding me and ignoring Storm Rider's behaviour (which is technically correct, but not fundamentally correct - he didn't violate policy, but he did selectively ignore it); said that my "requests suck"; he continues on to misrepresent my position to suit his argument

FyzixFighter describes some more of his edits and asks if there are any further concerns about the article

I said that "Trodel needs to stop changing my edit specifically because it's mine" and addressed his faulty reasoning for changing polygamy back to polgyny (he says that polygamy can mean something other than multiple marriages), and also questioned why I was being characterized as "unknowledgable" when Trodel is making comments like "polygamy doesn't necessarily mean marriage". Also commented that based on the behaviour so far, that this specific reversion of every edit I make was a personal attack; mentioned censorship

Cookiecaper says that since my edit summary said that I expected changes to my edits discussed on the talk page, just like I was expected to discuss changes I wanted to make, that I am trying to own the article. Then he claims that "Trodel is knowledgeable". Then he says that polyandry was not practiced (which is not true) as a defense of changing polygamy to polygyny

I pointed out that I was not trying to own the article, I was simply trying to be treated the same as other editors, and that Trodel was changing my edits specifically because I was the one who made them. Questioned why, if Trodel is so knowledgable, he would say something like "polygamy can mean non-marriage relationships".

Cookiecaper avoided the question regarding Trodels knowledgeability, but asserted that Trodel is indeed knowledgeable anyway. he admitted that he did not even bother finding out what the issue was before siding with Trodel. Then said that although they shouldn't revert edits specifically because they are mine, he isn't convinced that this is the case (although he already admitted that he sides with Trodel by default without actually knowing what is involved in an issue first), and stated that he desn't care anyway. he then claims again that polyandry was not practiced by Mormons in Smith's time (which is false), and this is his "reason" for supporting Trodel's edit

That is the first section of the argument, it is clear that Visorstuff conveniently left out all the stuff from his summary that does not reflect well on Storm Rider et. al. I am going to stop here, as the rest of the arguments go very much the same way and this is already long. I think Visorstuff needs to rethink his approach to this, by paying more mind to not allowing himself to be influenced by his biases. bcatt 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

bcatt, did you forget to summarize this part of the dispute history, from your post of February 24th?

"When I engaged in discussing the testimony of the three, I did not interpret, I used their exact words with all the fluff removed (everything that did not speak of who showed them the plates and how)...funny though, that you should accuse me of that when the book of mormon is JS's interpretation of the bible."

If you did, I missed it. But I suspect that it was missed because it casts a bad light on you. You can go and read it yourself, but "I did not interpret, I used [your] exact words." You can learn more by reading one page, the title page. If you don't care to learn enough about what the Book of Mormon is, it does not speak well of your efforts to learn anything else about subjects related to this book, such as Joseph Smith, Jr. Val42 07:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read the note at the end, I said that I only summarized the first section, that was not in the first section. And if you actually read through the summary, you will see that I do not leave out the negative things that I said, I am quite up front about them. In fact, the BoM borrows much from the Bible. Kindly refrain from falsely characterizing my actions and read more carefully from now on, it helps prevent the derailing of discussion. bcatt 08:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt, thanks for filling in the holes. I saw most of the things that I left out that was on the talk pages as sub-topics of the major ones above. I'm not excusing Storm Rider's or your behavior (as both are heated), but was merely giving what I saw as the issues. Clearly, you felt other things were issues that I didn't see as issues, but bringing them to this summary is helpful. I also think my summary pointed to fault on both sides.

One thing espcially of help that you included above was the interactions you had with editors away from this talk page. It helps bring context otherwise missed. Thanks again. This will help improve the article. Keep up the good work. -User:Visorstuff 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Improved

I know things have been tense on here lately, but I want to echo the sentiment of Trevdna when he mentions that the article has been vastly improved over recent weeks. I think a lot of this is due to bcatt's involvement. Thank you bcatt. : ) I think we all just need to relax, cool the inflammatory language, respect one another and recognize that we all have a common goal for the article. If we can do that, we'd all be able to get along quite well, I think. So let's be nice, everyone. Please please let's be nice to each other now. It's not nice to be mean. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 14:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I completely agree that the article has improved (readability due to the edit wars has left choppy sentences, etc.) but we are on our way. Keep up the good work. As other admins have now said that I have not abused any admin powers, I will continue to help guide the discussion, if Bcatt is okay with my offer? (my help will be in conjuntion with other admins that I've asked to help) - and I will try to keep out of the editing/suggesting realm. My goal is to help you all find a solution, not suggest or be a part of the solution. After it is done, I'll hop in and double check historical facts. -Visorstuff 22:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not okay with it so long as you continue to turn a blind eye to Storm Rider's behaviour. Also, it sure sounds like you are describing acting in the capacity of an admin rather than an editor; and this "guiding" role is exactly the same role you were acting in at the genesis of my issue with you; yet, the argument has been that you did not abuse your admin powers because you were supposedly acting in the capacity of an editor, not as that of an administrator...which contradicts the first two points. Personally, I'm not comfortable having discussion guided by someone who is unwilling to be responsible for their mistakes, nor by someone who is either unwilling or incapable of keeping their biases in check. bcatt 06:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your lack of comfort with my help - that's fine. I really hope that I'm willing to keep my biases in check, but if not, my apologies. I do try.

You may want to read Wikipedia:Admin to properly understand what an Administrator's duties and powers are. I've been an admin twice as long than you've edited on Wikipedia, and have not abused any of my admin powers, as has been stated by other admins in this discussion and on my talk page, and elsewhere. I take that role very seriously, as hopefully you can see. Suggestions of my abuse in that area are unfounded, but I can see how you could think that, not completely understanding the role of an Sysop.

My offered role above would be to act as a non-official mediator (see Wikipedia:Mediation) in this dispute. I will not deal with either of your behaviors, except to remind you both that personal attacks are not appropriate, but rather would like to help guide the discussion on improving the article, help you and storm rider and the others figure out the best edits, rather than editing myself. Since I've published on this topic, I could always edit the article, but I don't think that wouldn't help at this point, as my edits would be a complete re-write of this page. I'd really rather not have to deal with behavioral issues, as I believe we are adults here. I'd like to work with two other admins - User:Wesley and User:Alai - both of other religions - to help guide discussion only, as I cannot monitor every day, and the hope was that between the three of us, we could help guide discussion for improving the article. (sorry for the run-on sentence).

I apologize that I could not be on Wikipedia 24/7 to help, but I generally do not edit on Sunday/Early Monday (and thus couldn't help mediate during those times) when you [9] and Storm Rider [10] both edit the most on this page. In addition, due to the birth of a son, I took a wikiholiday during some of the dispute, and was MIA when you both needed the role I wanted to do. I do feel that my lack of guiding during this time added to the problem. My apologies. At this point, I'd really like to get the disputes over with so we can clean up the spelling/sentence structure/grammar and fact-check sources in the article.

I do need clarification from you, Bcatt. Are your comments above a refusal to work with my offered help? That's okay, I can respect that. No hard feelings on my part for this. Please clarify.

With that said, I if you don't want to accept my offered help, I think that only other solution is official Wikipedia:Mediation and then Wikipedia:Arbitration. I'd like to clarify from you, if the comments above show a "no" vote to added help via mediation? If so, do the other editors agree that arbitration is needed? Typically arbitration is not a pretty process where no-one likes the end result, from my experience. Please clarify. -Visorstuff 16:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

bcatt, I fail to understand how inaction (turning a blind eye to Storm Rider's behaviour) can be construed as an abuse of admin power. Anyone has the right to do nothing. If you really think an admin needs to do something about someone else's behaviour, don't just depend on one admin to handle it, post a notice on WP:AN (or one of the related pages it recommends, depending on the specific complaint), where admins with time to deal with such things watch for notices and respond. Personally, although I'm an admin, I rarely exercise any actual admin powers, except maybe using the Rollback button on actual vandals, and that's just a convenient shortcut for what anyone can do. I'm going to try to participate here mainly as an editor. Wesley 17:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, would like to help as an old editor and admin, but simply cannot be as involve as I would need to be. I have pulled way back on my Wikipedia efforts. I do, however, urge you both to be patient, be nice, and take things slowly. bcatt, your presence here will be for good if you can remember these admonitions. Tom Haws 18:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read here, bcatt is an eloquent writer, with lots of time to dedicate to Wikipedia. She is also outspokenly anti-mormon, and her writings show this. I think she should recognize her own bias, and leave the Mormon prophet's article to others that don't care as much. (This goes for LDS Wikipedians as well; lay off, and let more neutral writers stabilize the article.) Wadsworth 20:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bcatt's comments. An admin, one should be interested in upholding all Wiki Policy. Splitting hairs on whether Visorstuff violated a small subset reserved for admins seems to miss the point entirely. Selective application of policy by an admin seems just as problematic. Also, being that there is some acknowledgement of StormRider's personal attacks, I don't think it is appropriate for an admin to echo and continue such attacks as occurred in my case. --FreedominThought 22:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

FreedominThought, you are missing the point. Here is a history of my statements about/to you:

"Please no threats. Wikepedia is not the place for that, nor is your authority greater than other editors."
"Freedom in thought then joined the discussion, and was accused of being a sock puppet, and made initial threats to Storm Rider "Note that you may be blocked for disruption""
"Freedom in thought and its Mormonlicious both appear to be sock puppets - of whom, and why, doesn't matter as it is to no-ones benefit or harm in this case."

Foregive me, but can you explain which of these was an attack? The first is a reminder of wikietiquette, the second was a summary and the third is my opinion that you were a sock puppet - and that it really doesn't matter if you are - as it does not affect things one way or the other, so tracking down if you are or not is irrelevant. Bottom line - I don't care if you are and its not worth my time to find out.

If you want to bring my actions before the Arbcom or others, by all means do (please be kind enough to notify me). I truly believe that they will see my efforts in this discussion as trying to help the situation, not attack anyone. I've tried to help, but I, like others, cannot be here to defend both sides at every second. I have a good record and have worked hard to build a good reputation on Wikipedia, and I believe they will clear me of any wrongdoing. I'm truly sorry that you feel this way. I can't understand why you do. But I'm fine with a formal request for a review of my conduct. We've got three admins who have said I've done nothing wrong, aside from not being here enough. Let's do it.

Now, back to the original question, is my proposed solution then rejected by you and Bcatt? If so, let's get the formal mediation process going. I'm tired of the back and forths on both sides and want to get this fixed. This article is well-read and readers don't deserve the degredation of the article that has occurred in regard to grammar, sentence structure, etc. -Visorstuff 22:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point, no, spinning it. All of them were attacks, how about that? I didn't threaten anyone, you chose to IGNORE the repeated personal attacks on me by those favorable to your beliefs and then proceed to warn me for simply giving the policy prescribed warning when one is personally attacked! Then you repeat the false characterization, making it sound again like I was making threats while repeating the personal attack on my character, not once, but twice, trying to legitimize it. That kind of spin is not worthy of an admin and apparently there is no acknowledgement on your part as the spin continues. --FreedominThought 00:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind that this is an article talk page. It's here to discuss the content of the article, in a civil manner, and with a presumption of good faith on the parts of other editors. FreedominThought (and btw, can you use a properly linked signature?), if you have on-going issues with Visorstuff, use the dispute resolution process to resolve them. This is not the place, especially if it's going preclude discussion of the article. Alai 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey I totally agree. However I have been on the receiving end of public uncivil behavior since my first post here. I don't think making false accusations and calling me a fraud and dishonest qualifies as treating me with a presumption of good faith, that is bullying. This behavior has not only been extended to me but to others as well. I have the responsibility as a member of the community to advocate for others who are being mistreated. These comments have not been retracted, instead all I have seen is outrage at my gall for not rolling over or going away. Discussion of this article is totally dependent on preserving a welcoming, neutral environment which has not existed here. It is not Visor, but a concerted effort to maintain an exclusionary environment here that I have a problem with.

As far as my sig, I am simply using the sig button when I edit. Isn't it supposed to put that link in automatically? I haven't done anything to stop it. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated. --FreedominThought 04:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You agree this isn't the place to further an interpersonal dispute, but then go on to discuss nothing but the interpersonal dispute. FWIW, I don't think it's reasonable to characterise any of those statements Visorstuff quotes himself as making as "attacks"; OTOH, I can see why you might feel offended at the "sockpuppet" speculation. But these are not issues for this page, even in the first instance, and most especially not after this number of iterations. If you can't settle these issues directly with the editors concerned (i.e., on their talk pages), follow the steps in dispute resolution. Repeatedly protesting here is disruptive to discussion of the issues in the article, and if by your own logic, the "resident" editors here are seriously biased, is going to be counterproductive. Alai 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since my initial issue (and the core of all my issues at this article) was/is the massive effort made by Storm Rider to derail all my attempts at discussing the article (or all attempts made by anyone who agrees with any point I make), I certainly have no issue with, and moreover prefer, to just get on with discussing and editing this article. I have no objection to mediation itself, however, I do not like the idea of the discussion being "mediated" by someone who says I "have a history of controversy and antagonism towards personal beliefs" - a faulty and defamatory characterization based on the simple fact that I am an honest individual who doesn't feel the need to hide my personal biases. Show me one person who does not have biases, and I will show you a bald-faced liar. The only thing that is important in regard to my personal beliefs and opinions is that I do not go around telling people that "what I believe is true" and therefore "this article should reflect my beliefs". The tone I get from Visorstuff's message is that if I don't agree to him, and those he chooses, as mediators, he is going to try to achieve ends through arbitration that I "won't like". It reads as a veiled threat to me - and an unwarranted one at that. please don't point out to me that this is the discussion page for the article, I realize that...this discussion has to do with the article, namely, how to get on with regular discussion devoid of the intentional disruption previously used to prevent NPOVing this article. For those who took Storm Rider's (and others who attempted to falsely characterize me) representation of my "stand" on beliefs at face value, and based on that regard me as influenced by my personal biases, allow me to put my comments from the astrology (a belief I personally support) talk page into the proper context (ie: without "rewriting history"):

"the introduction...should describe briefly what the subject is, and, if applicable (which it is in this article) briefly mention if there are any detractors, who they are, and, if it can be kept brief, a general reason...briefly describe what the subject is, and then, if it is a subject that involves different views, put a brief introduction to any major detractors (and their reasons if it can be kept brief)...In the interest of NPOV, the opposition does need to be properly represented...There is an NPOV policy that all views on a subject must be represented.

and:

I would like nothing more than to just discuss astrology in this article...my own experience shows that astrology is indeed quite valid...but, I can't very well insist on NPOV over at Joseph Smith, but turn a blind eye to it here.

Oh my goodness, I have some very awful double standards happening here, don't I? Why is it that Visorstuff has been the one to choose who should mediate this discussion? bcatt 08:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this talk page is about improving the article, but the editors here are at a stalemate. We are not getting anywhere. We need outside help.

Bcatt, you make a suggestion on what to do, if you don't like my suggestions. As an experienced editor, I was offering help. We need a third party, we all recognize that. I've made suggestions. I've invited in other admins who have been around and respected since this project first began, as they are trusted admins by nearly everyone on Wikipedia. Now, according to WP:DR there are two options left, IMO. 1- Mediation (which I've suggested and you don't agree with/won't agree to) or 2 - Arbitration.

You wrote: "The tone I get from Visorstuff's message is that if I don't agree to him, and those he chooses, as mediators, he is going to try to achieve ends through arbitration that I "won't like"."

I'm sorry you feel that way, that was not my point. What I mean is I don't think anyone likes the outcome of arbitration. Neither side wins, but I'm open to your suggestion which still needs to be given. If you see another solution, please suggest it? -Visorstuff 14:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bcatt, please let's not go down the "defamation" line of argument again. You may well have reason to be annoyed, but as I said to FiT, use of that sort of terminology just escalates matters. Visor, I disagree with your reasoning that it's mediation, arbitration, or bust. There's firstly, the option of just getting on with discussing the article; I gather that the original disagreement was about whether to include various criticisms of JS. Can we discuss these individually, with specific reference to whether they're i) notable, ii) verifiable, and iii) particular and appropriate to this article? Secondly, there's the option of getting further outside input: an article content RFC might be useful, or simply approaching other editors who you think will be neutral on this issue, or have a "balancing" POV. Thirdly, note that if you do seek formal mediation, the procedure is to post a request on the MC page, and see if someone "takes" the case: neither party "picks" a mediator. BC, if you're concerned about the people V. contacted, such as myself, let me state that I don't consider myself to be "mediating", just throwing in my two eurocents as requested, as anyone else is perfectly entitled to (as an editor; much as nerves have obviously because frayed here, I nevertheless don't see anything that requires immediate admin action as such: there's no out-of-control edit war, and the civility level isn't entirely out of control). (And it must be said, that if he were looking for someone guaranteed to agree with him, and uphold his view no matter what, I doubt it'd have been me.) Alai 16:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is my issue with you, Visorstuff, in a nutshell: you take my words

"I have no objection to mediation itself"

and change that statement into something that suits you:

"Mediation (which...you don't agree with/won't agree to)"

This is not the first time you've twisted what I say to suit you. And, yes, you say nobody likes the outcome of arbitration, but your method of "suggesting" it centres around telling me that I should be doing things your way otherwise you will initiate arbitration...which changes the tone from something general to something specific to me...and, clearly, you have no compunction with misrepresenting things, which would undoubtedly lead to unfair and undesireable results. What do I suggest? You need to remove yourself from this issue, you really aren't helping.

Alai, what terminology do you suggest? I have given clear examples of how Visorstuff has represented me as something which I can prove I am not...yet, you are telling me that I should not describe this for what it is. I do however second your sentiment that there are many alternatives to arbitration, or at least steps that can be taken before using that as a lst resort. Let's get on with discussing the changes needed in the article. bcatt 18:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That assumes that it really is defamation, a characterisation which is only pertinent if you're contemplating some sort of legal redress, which firstly, I think is unlikely to be possible for a number of reasons, not least the problematic nature of suing for libel of an essentially anonymous Wikipedia user id, and secondly, gets us into the realm of legal threats again. Assuming that's not in fact the case, a more accuate characterisation would be "insulting", though that's not necessarily a huge step forward. What I suggest is as little terminology being used to describe past disputes in such a way as to suggest an on-going interest in continuing them. But more to the point, I suggest we pursue your latter suggestion, and ask all concerned to enumerate their "issues" with the article as it currently stands, and then discuss them one by one. The article itself seems not to be undergoing heavy editing at present, but it's not clear to me if that's indicative of broad consensus, or of simmering discontentment. Alai 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I really think everyone inlved in this lengthy disscussion should just "forgive and forget".205.121.111.60

Seconded. Alai 19:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My apologies Bcatt - I interpreted your statement: "Personally, I'm not comfortable having discussion guided by someone who is unwilling to be responsible for their mistakes, nor by someone who is either unwilling or incapable of keeping their biases in check" to mean you didn't agree with mediation. Sorry for any confusion. My intent was not to twist your words - I do hope you believe me and realize my intent is to help, not to make you feel attacked.

I'm curious to know why you don't think I should edit, and you still should? I'll gladly recuse myself from this page if you will as well. No hard feelings, no questions asked.

In the mean time, I'm going to move on from the interaction about this (I'm still trying to decide whether or not to RFC my own admin conduct to be cleared of misuse of admin charges, but that's another topic).

For now, and in the spirit of moving on, I will pull out my sources and start editing the article itself, something I have not done up to this point in the dispute. Bcatt, I cannot in good concience "remove [myself] from this issue," as I am published as an academecian on this topic. My knowledge and expertise in this area is respected by my peers - both Mormon and not. I'd like to move the page past the basic items others are seemng to have an issue grasping. All - if you have issues with my edits, please let me know - they will be correct and documented - but I'll likely cut out superfluous stuff that is unsourced both pro and con. I'll source everything I do and add a {{fact}} in other places that need it. My credentials is what has led me not to edit this particular page, as I don't always see things in exactly the same light as other Mormon editors.

I'm moving on. Bcatt, I hope you don't have hard feelings. No offense from me has been meant. -Visorstuff 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes good. I think things are starting to look up in this dispute. Perhaps mediation will not be necessary. I agree with the users above who suggest forgiving and forgetting. I'm sorry for the inflammatory words I've used and I regret them, truly. bcatt, I hope you'll forgive me for using the word "suck" in unnice places : ( . I don't mean to do so again. Let's all be nice to each other and edit in good faith from now on. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 10:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Quotation Marks

It seems like there is a problem with quotations on this page. Is it acceptable to change quotes to make them more palatable to editors? That seems dishonest to me when using quotation marks. Either quit using quotes and references in the article or only use opinions of editors...of course then I would ask what the purpose of this site is if it turns into opinion pieces. 71.1.12.169

Please refer to this user's talk page for a resolution of this issue, as it deals with a misunderstanding of quoting convention rather than an actual POV issue. Tijuana Brass 17:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What we are talking about is change the words "our religion" to "Mormonism". It is a quote from Joseph Smith. The article is about his history and relationship in founding the Mormon religion. Do you really think there is a problem with readers mistaking what "our religion" means? What is the objective of the change of this quote? Dor you really think there is confusion on behalf of readers or are we trying to be condescending? 71.1.12.169

I don't think anybody is seeing this as condenscending other than yourself. Following the edit history, the change has been supported by someone who tends to take — if you can forgive the over-generalization — an critical stance (bcatt, the original editor), a sympathetic stance (myself), and a neutral party (Swatjester). None of us, along with other editors who have been very exacting on the wording of the article (see above for ample evidence of that), seem to find any problem with the clarification. Keep in mind that while a quote may seem painfully clear to you, it may not be to every reader — as an outsider born outside of Mormon culture, the religion can be complicated and confusing to understand. The concept is not to make the quotation "more palatable to editors," but to make it clearer to readers without changing the original meaning. Tijuana Brass 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As a Southern Baptist I don't find anything difficult to understand about the quote. I am very committed to factual reviews of all religions. This does not change the meaning, but changing a quote seems wrong. Maybe I am not as educated as you and the others, but I have never seen that done anywhere. Is it acceptable to change quotes whenever one chooses? It would seem easier to just remove the quote marks and then change the sentence however you wish to suit your needs. 71.1.12.169

Personally, I also don't see the pressing need for the paraphrase in this instance, and agree that it's probably clear from context. But I see no harm in it, either: it's not "changing" the quote (and please, the "to suit your needs" part seems to imply some bad faith intent), it's a noted paraphrase, for which as TB says, square brackets are a well-known convention (and indeed, the standard one). See for example, here. Alai 20:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's quite common — take a look through nearly any resource that quotes others (for example, an academic textbook), and you'll see it used extensively... but again, it's not at the author's whim, but when useful for clarification. To give an example, were I to write a biography about your experience on Wikipedia and choose to quote your comment above, I may quote you as, "I don't find anything difficult to understand about the quote [concerning Joseph Smith, Jr.]", were it necessary for clarification. The original meaning is not changed, and the inclusion of brackets indicates that the words were actually a paraphrase included by the editor.

One last example... this one is from an article picked at random from the LDS website. Open it up, and do a search for the phrase "I went home and threw out my cigarettes." Take a look at the next sentence. Notice how, even though it is a quote by the author, the phrase "who was not a member" appears in brackets. This is because, while not actually said by the author, the editor felt the phrase was a necessary clarification.

Hope that helps to clear things up for you. Tijuana Brass 20:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Other examples where you might see this kind of paraphrasing is if someone using a quote where "he", "she", "they", or some similar potentially ambiguous or confusing reference, is used. In these cases, and in cases like the example given above by Tijuana Brass, it is perfectly acceptable, and even preferred, to use a paraphrase to clarify who or what is being referred to. Thus the quote "He gave a presentation to describe recent progress" might be changed to "[Mr. Doe] gave a presentation [on technology] to describe recent progress". bcatt 21:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Visorstuff, could you explain how your edits improved the article? Here are the problems I see with it:

"Religious branch of Christianity" is redundant
That Mormonism is even a branch of Christianity is one of the primary areas of dispute; that traditional Christianity does not accept Mormonism as a Christian religion is a very good reason why this assertion is POV; moreover, this debate is referenced later in the intro, so this addition lends even more redundancy and unnecessary wordiness
"Faction" served very well as an accurate description of the "banding" phenomenon that is a hallmark of Mormonism, perhaps an article can be created that relates specifically to factions in religion, but in the meantime, political faction describes what is meant quite well
The intro now refers to Smith's death in two seperate instances, again redundant, unnecessarily wordy, and introducing topics which are more appropriate to be saved for the body of the article
"Most" is more accurate than "many" when describing Smith's opposition, particularly in regard to Christian clergy
"At the time" is inaccurate, as it implies that Christianity now accepts Smith's teachings, which is not the case
"Tenure" does not seem applicable at all
The sentence mentioning mayorship and militias is generally structured badly

What I have done:

Added in his nationality and restructured the opening sentence to accomodate this
This restructuring also made the debate between using "religious faction" or "religious branch of Christianity" moot (these points can be discussed in more appropriate spots)
Condensed that it is a restoratioist teaching into this sentence as well, this should assist in shortening the intro (note: I think that the word "belief" could possibly be replaced with a better word...but perhaps it works)
With the restorationism part moved, the sentence previously containing it is unnecessary...the statistics that follow convey this point just fine
"(often called the "Mormon" Church)" isn't needed, as this is already said in the leading sentence
Removed the factoid addition about being the only presidential candidate killed during a campaign...trivia belongs elsewhere than in the introduction, especially in an article with size warnings. All kinds of info on opposing views is rejected for this article because "details belong in the sub-articles"...if this is occuring only for opposing views, it is called information suppression, so I am applying it to supportive views, trivia, and anything else which is not a major point.
I cannot imagine why the part that Smith's followers "revere him as a latter-day prophet" was removed. It is a valid comment that works toward describing the supportive viewpoint, which is important when describing the opposing viewpoint(s)...I have reinserted this part.
It is misleading to say that Smith's teachings were only opposed by his contemporaries (same issue applies to saying "at the time"), and he was/is also opposed by followers of Christianity, not just the clergy...I have reworded this sentence to accurately sum up the information found in the Mormonism and Christianity article
As I have been told repeatedly that I must attribute anything I add (not that I wouldn't anyway, without being told), and since this is the method outlined in the policies and guidelines I have attributed the opposition of his "too much political power for a religious leader" to those who I have found to be identified with this view. However, I will leave off the names, as I recall this being mentioned by someone as unnecessary detail (though, I consider these details to be rather important to context myself).
Also removed the references to mayorship and militias, as these details would be better explained in an article dedicated to the subject (a suggestion which seemed to be accepted when I first made it). Any suggestions for an article name? I've put this part within a comment in the article, pending a decision on the name.
Added back in the reverse view of those who considered Smith as too religiously involved for politics, these two views, though related, are quite different and held by different groups
Information relating to slavery would probably be most appropriately described in detail in the pending article dedicated to his political role, as the introduction should only cover the major opinions (in the interest of correcting the size problem)
I have used the term polygamy because the controversy related nearly exclusively to the "for time" marriages; and because these marriages resulted in both polygyny and polyandry

What still needs work:

The transition between the opinion of Smith's followers and that of Christians...as it stands, it is a sudden and surprising transition, but I was trying to avoid using words such as "however" or "although", as these can be construed as "weasel words"...anyone have any other suggestions for how to deal with this?
Flow can probably be improved in other ways as well

My basic approach here was to write the introduction in answer to the questions "what is Smith best known for? If you mentioned his name to the average person, what points would this be most likely to conjur up, or what points would be conjured most commonly?" The answer is: founder/leader of Mormonism, controversial person, controversy related to differences from mainstream Christianity, and polygamy. The average person today would probably not be likely to think of Smith in terms of his political position...however, I do think this is an important point that should be touched on anyway as part of the reason for his notability. This inner dialogue is the primary basis for the flavour of my edit (what was included and what wasn't).

References:

bcatt 09:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty good edit, actually. Good work. : ) I have a bit of a concern with this paragraph, though:

Smith was eventually seen by many ex-Mormons as having too much political and military power for a religious leader. Conversely, most of the non-Mormon public and many politicians considered Smith as having too much influence as a religious leader to fairly represent the people as a government official.

I think more than just ex-Mormons saw Smith as having too much political or military power for a religious leader, and the following sentence about non-Mormons is redundant and does not illustrate an objectively converse point, as it claims to. Perhaps we can consolidate these two statements? I've left polygamy alone for now, someone else can change it if they want. It's really not that big of a deal. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 10:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see how this part might present as confusing, but there is a difference and I will try to explain it. In the opinion of ex-Mormons, they had looked up to Smith as a religious leader and saw his political power as interfering with his religious role; whereas the opposite opinion was from those who were not Mormon, who were concerned about the affect Smith would have in government because of his control over a voting bloc. To use a bad analogy, it would be like if one person doesn't like the colour red because, when made darker, it becomes burgundy; while another person doesn't like the colour red because, when made lighter, it becomes pink...these two people are opposed to the same thing, on similar grounds, but for opposite reasons. By the way, I appreciate your recent efforts at making peace and wanted to acknowledge that. bcatt 11:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of my beginning edits are for readability only. I changed things in favor of Mormonism not being a Christian denomination as discussed here - this is why I used "Branch of Christianity" as opposed to Chsitian denomination. Would you like me to revert to what it was previously? I did not think that a "political faction?" was proper as teh church has had a strong position of staying neutral politically. Yes they take political stands, but as to the parties. The bottom line is that it is a religious organization that claims it is christian. Can we at least add that in? (Interestingly that Some baptist groups deem that Penecostals are not christian, nor that Catholics are christian, however, those articles go from the point of view of the adherent - in the past, this has been the MO for religious articles).

You wrote, "*"Most" is more accurate than "many" when describing Smith's opposition, particularly in regard to Christian clergy" Statistically this is incorrect. When looking at how many clergy who met smith converted (studies have been done, and I'll source), Smith was very successful in converting clergy he met. A good example are ministers of other groups including John Taylor, Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, Wilford Woodruff. When Smith came to Kirtland Ohio for example nearly 2000 of its just over 3000 residents converted to Mormonism. The issue is those who didn't get to know the church didn't understand it and of course had issues with it.

The point about his death mentioned twice being redundant is a good suggestion.

In my understanding someone cannot be opposed posthumously. Their teachings can, but they cannot. I cannot be opposed to historical figures such as Ramses II, Balaam, Pope Gregory IX, Cain or others. I can be opposed to what they stand for.

Tenure is a word meaning that he would not likely be removed from office. From Dictionary.com:

Tenure is 1. The act, fact, or condition of holding something in one's possession, as real estate or an office; occupation. 2. A period during which something is held. 3. The status of holding one's position on a permanent basis without periodic contract renewals: a teacher granted tenure on a faculty.

My point is that Smith held a position and that removing him from office would have been nearly impossible, which I'm sure you'd agree with as the town was nearly 75 percent LDS. Tenure is used to descibe Bloomberg's mayoral position in New York as well (top three google hits - here: [11] [12] [13]

You wrote: ""what is Smith best known for? If you mentioned his name to the average person, what points would this be most likely to conjur up, or what points would be conjured most commonly?"

If you pull up a high school text book on the matter (or at least one in arizona, Smith's candidacy for president comes up. Hense, just because you don't know him best for this, doesn't mean others do.

In fact, the most important Non-LDS biography on Smith since No man knows my history is written by by professor Remini [14] - it is published in 2003. It cites that Smith's political ambitions and his death as a candidate for president of the US is one of the most important things in understanding Smith. From a current scholarship point of view, his death as a presidential candidate is much more important than what this article, and the others allude to. If you want current scholarship, it needs to stay.

You wrote: "I think more than just ex-Mormons saw Smith as having too much political or military power for a religious leader"

The "I think" shows this is your opinion. It needs documentation. The historical facts show that it was the Non-Mormons, combined with former Mormons (Ex-mormon wasn't any a term then, and should not be used, per academic writing styles such as chicago or apa) and current political leaders who saw his rise to power as a threat (such as illinios state legistlature members higbee and missouri leaders, who are numerous to document). For example, dunklin not taking smith back to Nauvoo when he was killed was a political manuever asked for by the local state representative accusing dunklin of siding with smith and using his popularity to further his political ambitions and so forth. Another is stephen douglas' views on Smith's popularity. This is the leading consensus among historians as opposed to common belief. If you can document this, great. If not, let's go back to documented facts by historians.

Finally, I am curious as to why you removed sources? I'm trying to add in documentation - if you'd read my sources you'd understand as to why the additions are being made. Pls explain. The first paragraph was only to improve readability and sourcing unsourced material - which is now unsourced again. Let's use sources folks. -Visorstuff 16:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It didn't seem very readable to me, that is a big reasonwhy I changed it. To the average reader, "branch of Christianity" reads the same as "Christian denomination". Are you threatening to revert any edits I make? What it was previous to my edit was a selective use of information that was not exactly cohesive and certainly not balanced, and it contained a lot of information not appropriate for an intro. From the faction article:

"...an informal grouping of individuals...with some kind of political purpose. It may also be referred to as a power bloc, or a voting bloc. The individuals within a faction are united in one common goal or set of common goals for the broader organisation. They band together as a way of achieving these goals and advancing their own position...political factions are not limited to political parties; they can and frequently do form within any group that has some sort of political aim or purpose."

And from politics:

"...a process by which collective decisions are made within groups...politics is observed in all human group interactions, including...religious institutions. Politics is also observed, to varrying degrees, in certain Mammal species. (this last is included to demonstrate that politics does not necessarily apply to government politics).

Additionally, in it's beginnings, mormonism was specifically a governmental faction as well, as they were all dictated to as to how they were to vote. Besides, it no longer says faction now, so I don't see why you are bringing this up. That Mormonism considers itself a Christian religion is discussed in the referenced article, but if you are insitant on adding it in, it should go in as an introduction or end to the sentence that refernecs the "Mormonism and Christianity" article...and in that case, it will be almost unavoidable to use "however" or "although". I would also guess that many other religious articles have many of the same problems as this article. Wikipedia policies and guidelines say that all articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, not the point of view of the subject.

This paragraph already deals with what Smith's followers views were, converts are Smith's followers. The next point discusses why non-converts of the Christian religion disagree with Mormonism. And your opinion that those who didn't convert only didn't because "they did not get to know the church" is not applicable to the article...that same thing could be said about any teaching on any subject...and that does not make the assertion true.

We're getting into semantics here. And moot ones at that...the rticle currently says that it is his doctrine that was/is opposed...except for the issues that had to do with then only, which are written in the past tense...I don't see why you are arguing about this.

"Tenure" was linked to the article here on wikipedia, which did not describe it that way, and instead provided information that would have confused the reader. In any case, the paragraph has been dealt with without needing to use the word or a substitute, so again it is a non-issue.

I didn't ask myself "what is most commonly written in American school textbooks", I asked myself "If you mentioned his name to the average person, what would they think of"...and besides, I already pointed out that I thought it important to mention his political power anyway, and mentioned it...the details of it, like all the other points, should be deal with either in the body of the article, or, as is ready to be done with this point, to link to a dedicated article which describes this point in detail (as with "Mormonism and Christianity")

Again, his death is related to his political role and would be best served by having sufficient space dedicated to it in an article which describes in detail this part of his life...I am giving it importance, in an appropriate area that does not compromise the space restrictions of this article...do you want this article to be readable, or do you want a large majority of people to not finish eading it because it is too long and has too much information in one place? That he had a role in politics is mentioned, and I have proposed having a dedicated article linked to straight from the introduction.

Cookiecaper wrote "I think more than just ex-Mormons saw Smith as having too much political or military power for a religious leader". Are you even reading the changes in the article and the commentary describing the changes, or are you simply trying to argue with every edit I make? Actually, the term used today is "exmormon", which is exactly why I used ex-Mormon...practically everybody who speaks english understands ex- to mean "previously". Also, I see a distinction between those who were disappointed because they saw Smith's religious leadership as suffering because of his political ambitions (ex-mormons), and those who saw him as dangerous as a political leader because of his control over a large group of people (non-Mormons). If you really have an issue with it, why not just make it read "previous Mormons"?

Your sources were in reference to his death, which would be great to have in an article dedicated to his political ambitions...I tried to keep the intro to common knowledge (ie: the most major points...which would be the major opinions regarding Smith's role as a religious leader), this improves readability and keeps the information nicely organized. There is currently no information in the intro that is in need of citation, so there is no "unsourced material" there anymore. bcatt 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How did you get " Are you threatening to revert any edits I make?" out of my discussion on this talk page. If I was going to revert I would. I was simply trying to help you see why I was doing the edits I did. You obvisouly don't agree. To me, I followed your rules. The editing of the paragraph was a test to see how you'd respond. I felt I even erred on the side of supporting your views. You call some edits semantics, yet to me they carry a strong POV. Joseph Smith and Mormonism are not topics that you are knowlegeable about in any stretch of the imagination, however, I do appreciate your writing expertise - which I thanked you for in my post, but yet you still responded and defended yourself, when there was no need. I'm posting an request for outside help. Expect a notice on your talk page shortly. -Visorstuff 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

How did I get that you were making a threat? Because you said: "Would you like me to revert to what it was previously?" Your characterization of "my rules" is faulty...I follow the rules set out in wikipedia policy and guidelines...those are not "my rules".

"The editing of the paragraph was a test to see how you'd respond." Isn't that called trolling? And how exactly did I respond? I explained exactly why I had issues with the edits and I explained exactly why I made the edits I did. What an awful thing to do!

You are specifically arguing against a portion of my edit that does exactly what you say it should: you say it should describe that Smith's teachings were opposed, and that's exactly what it says...yet you are going on about how it carries a strong POV. How is the fact that Christians do not regard Mormonism as Christian POV? It is true, and it is attributed. Now, if I had written "Most people don't think that Mormonism is Christian" or "Mormonism isn't Christian" or even "Mormonism isn't Christian because Christians say so", then you would have a point...but I didn't, so you don't.

Well, I'm glad that someone appointed you dictator of who is and is not knowledgeable in Storm Rider's absence...but frankly, based on the faults in your arguments and your attempts to simply oppose everything I say simply on the basis that I say it, I don't give too much weight to what you deem my level of knowledge to be. And please, stop congratulating yourself for things you haven't done, just like you didn't previously "help" me in any way, you likewise did not thank me for my writing ability (or anything else for that matter). bcatt 19:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

By stating "Would you like me to revert to what it was previously?" was not a threat - it was asking if you thought it was better prior to my change.

I am serious about my offer to never edit this page again if you do the same for the sake of ending these arguments. It is not fair to readers of wikipedia or other editors. I'm sure I can convince Storm Rider to do the same. As it stands now, we are getting nowhere. -Visorstuff 20:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

As is my responsibility as a member of the Wiki community I am pointing out YET ANOTHER personal attack on Bcatt now. I thought after all of this hullaballoo people would be cognizant of their violations of policy, but apparently not. Visorstuff, an admin, wrote: "Joseph Smith and Mormonism are not topics that you are knowlegeable about in any stretch of the imagination..." I don't think you are qualified to opine negatively on the degree of anyone's personal education, especially when said opinion is based on POV. --FreedominThought 01:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I hope you stick around. Your edits have been very valuable to this page and I don't think losing you would help any.

Freedominthought, using CAPITAL LETTERS and things like that in your statements isn't nice because it's perceived as yelling, and that isn't nice either. We don't need to be yelling at one another.

bcatt, you probably aren't going to like this, but please be aware of how you read things. Assume good faith. Visorstuff's comment was not implicit of a threat in my eyes, and whenever possible let's assume the best of our fellow editors. If you think someone's making a threat but you can see some alterior motivations please go with the alterior motivations. Of course this applies to everyone else as well.

Many non-Mormon Christians do believe Mormonism is Christian. Only those who considered Trinitarianism an inherent principle of Christian theology disregard Mormonism (and Jehova's Witnesses, etc). The statement that "mainstream" Christians don't accept Mormonism as a branch thereof is borderline, in my opinion. It's not really preferable language but I guess it's acceptable, in my opinion still. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Capital letters were appropriate in this case due to emphasizing the endless repeating of the offenses (which I would do to raise my voice in talking). Funny how you don't come to Bcatt's defense, as is good form in the Wiki Community, to comment on a public personal attack. Instead you chose to nitpick on the capital letters of the one defending Bcatt. I guess not so funny, but predictable. --FreedominThought 04:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding how "many" non-Mormon Christians think Mormonism is Christian, I'm very confident that the largest Christian denominations do consider Trinitarianism an inherent principle of Christian theology, and consequently would not view Mormonism as a "fellow denomination" or what have you; enough to easily represent a majority of self-described Christians world wide. You could probably still come up with "many" Christians out of the remaining minority, but such would appear to misrepresent the actual extent of their acceptance. Wesley 04:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not like this is a one-time thing. ALMOST EVERY TIME you've posted you've AGGRAVATED the SITUATION with INFLAMMATORY WORDS and FAILURE TO ASSUME GOOD FAITH. These EXAGGERATED DRAMATICS (sry Trodel : ) ) do NOT help the article IN ANY WAY. And please spare me before you come back claiming this is a personal attack. Just chill out. bcatt has not satisfied Visorstuff that she is knowledgeable and has in many instances made changes at the behest of the community. His statement could have been phrased more benevolently but we're all just people, we all could do a lot of things better. It is not your responsibility to call someone out every time they make a minor or technical or repetitive infraction of Wiki policy, especially when it disrupts productive discussion and/or is conducive to a tense and factionalized editing enviornment. If it really bothers you, go complain at WP:AN/I. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 09:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Wesley, for pointing that out.

Cookiecaper, I am hoping to be able to work civilly with you on this project, but I feel it necessary to address your approach here. You are telling FreedominThought to assume good faith, but you are not assuming good faith by responding in the way you did above. My guess is that FreedominThought has spent most of his/her time on wikipedia reading, mostly policy, and for whatever reason ended up here and is interested in the article. Due to the fact that s/he is a new editor, it is not surprising that s/he may be unfamiliar with some conventions...even seasoned editors are not familiar with every convention. A suggestion to use bold and italicized text in place of caps, wherever possible, with an explaination of how to do this would have been more along the lines of assuming good faith.

Please also note that an editor is not expected to assume good faith where another editor has shown bad faith...and in the case of Visorstuff misrepresenting events (among many other things), he has displayed bad faith...and these things continue. WP:AGF says: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring."

Creating faulty characterizations of people so as to cast them in a falsely bad light in order to further one's own interests is a subtle form of personal attack, but a personal attack nonetheless. In fact, subtlety is frequently more damaging and certainly more dishonest than being straightforward.

FreedominThought...please don't hesitate to contact me either on my talk page, through email, or on messenger if you would like assistance with anything. bcatt 10:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cookiecaper, if you read WP:CIVIL you will note that Personal Attacks are listed as a "Serious" violation. It is not a "minor infraction". I hope you are joking about a "technical infraction". Also you will note under prevention section, the method - Apply peer pressure (voicing displeasure each time rudeness or incivility happens). That is what I am doing. I don't appreciate being criticized incessantly for trying to uphold Wikipedia Policy in the face of such disregard for it. Sorry, his statement feigning superiority and implying the inferiority of Bcatt could not (better?) have been "phrased more benevolently". It has no place on Wikipedia. Bcatt doesn't have to "prove" anything or qualify her credentials to him. There is no such requirement, that is absurd. Also she and everyone has a right to edit, regardless of what the "community", which I take to mean Church Members, thinks, "behests" or presumes to dictate. --FreedominThought 01:29, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited a part of the opening paragraphs to better explain the Apostasy. The explaination given was incomplete (did not mention a loss of Christ's teachings, and that priesthood authority pertains to more than simply baptism) and the external links were insufficient (comprised of two links, one to the dark ages and one to the word apostasy, not referring to the specific form of apostasy believed in by Smith's followers). I replaced the links with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy#The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints

If anyone knows how to turn the tool text for my link into a brief explanation of what it says, such as "Latter-Day Saint doctrine of the Apostasy" I would appreciate it. Better yet, If someone could tell me how to turn it into an internal link and still have it point directly to the portion of wikipedia's "Great Apostasy" page directly dealing with Latter-Day Saint beliefs on the subject, that would be great. User:Jerubaal 6:02 PST 3/28/06

Smith's wives and children

Since the detailed articles regarding the relevant periods of Smith's life, as well as the plural marriage article seem to agree that Smith had multiple wives, it seems appropriate that Emma be introduced here as Smith's first wife. Otherwise the article leaves the mistaken impression that he had just the one. That's why I'm restoring that word to the picture caption. Wesley \

On a related note, the article now says that Smith's first child was stillborn, but I was unable to find any mention of other children, by any of his wives. If he had other children, shouldn't his biography mention them, at least to say that he had X sons and Y daughters? If I'm not mistaken, one of his sons led one of the smaller LDS branches following the succession crisis; that fact is probably worth mentioning either with the succession crisis or in the Legacy section. If no one beats me to it, I'll add it later. Wesley 18:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You're correct about his namesake son leading the RLDS faction, but I don't believe there are any other verified live-born children among any of his wives. In some cases, this is because he was married to them posthumously or because he simply never had sex with them. Of course, many of the women he married already had husbands, which complicates matters a bit. I vaguely remember some attempt to use DNA to check if he was the father of any of these women's children, but it came up empty. Perhaps he had impaired fertility

In any case, you're quite right to list Emma as his first wife. Anything else would be misleading to the point of whitewashing. Alienus 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Emma should be listed as his first wife. However, I don't believe that any of Joseph's other wives were married to other men. Do you have a reliable source for that information? I don't think you do. Wadsworth 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a rather insulting approach. I think he does, and I think you would too if you performed a diligent search for such a source. Restricting ourselves to the first five wives named in In Sacred Loneliness: Fanny Alger separated from Smith and married Solomon Custer; Lucinda Pendleton remained with her polyandrous first husband, George Harris, married Smith by proxy in Nauvoo temple and only later divorced Harris; Zina Huntington remained with her first husband Henry B. Jacobs, underwent a polyandrous proxy marriage to Smith, left Jacobs and became Brigham Young's connubial wife; Presendia Huntington remained with her first husband Norman Buell, married Smith, later became a wife of Heber C. Kimball. The list goes on. - Cole Slaw 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cole, thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up something that I thought was pretty much common knowledge. These details were mentioned extensively in NMKMH, for example, an even touched on in UtBoH. Alienus 23:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I should have shot down the "shooting blanks" question while I was at it...Emma Hale was pregnant eleven times while married to Smith; I think only one of these was stillborn, and certainly at least five children lived to adulthood. Josephine Rosetta Lyon, born to Sylvia Porter Sessions Lyon, who was simultaneously married to Joseph Smith and Windsor P. Lyon, was told by her mother that she was Joseph Smith's daughter - of course, this could have been a "Jerry Springer" moment without the paternity test for denouement.... - Cole Slaw 23:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for sounding insulting. No insult intended. I's just that I'd never heard of Joseph Smith having married women who already had husbands, and the "of course" sounded odd to me (for whom it wasn't an "of course"). I found this: [15] which is what you were referring to. Now I understand how it worked, as explained in that document: Brigham Young taught that “if the woman preferred a man higher in authority, and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up-there is no Bill of divorce required...it is right in the sight of God”. Brigham also explained that the woman, “...would be in a higher glory”. This may help shed light on Sylvia’s complex marriage arrangement. Wadsworth 00:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that first wife is a good addition. You may want to read archived talk pages about Josephine - initial DNA tests were inconclusive (they basically said it was "unlikely"), and more extensive testing is still (to my knowlege) underway. Some out-of-date soure is found here [16]. I believe that this was in Tom Haws and Storm Rider's area of expertise. Mine is more with the historical and doctrinal. As for children, you may want to read [17], Emma miscarried or had stillborn children numerous times - nearly always related to mob action or other stressful situation (such as the loss of the 116 pages)

Incidentally, NMKMH does not cover this in the way you describe, but Todd Compton's "In sacred lonliness and Wives of JS.com does. The site above is loosely based on both of these sources, however, has since been proven out of date. OF the eight possible children listed on wives of joseph smith, DNA evidence has been conclusive in all but Josephine's case (which initial results were unknown but unlikely as stated above.

Wadsworth, I've discussed this with Todd Compton. He is of the opinion that most of SMith's sealings to other women were marriage relationships, but has stated that other historians believe they were "sealings" in order to bind their families with the prophet (especially in the case of Helen Mar Kimball, who was explained this by Smith personally, but not understood the same way by her father, heber). Please realize that the early brethren didn't quite understand what sealings were, hence there was additional revelation to Woodruff, Young and Taylor (and the discontinueing of the "adoption ordinance" where folks were sealed to Smith or Young or others instead of their parents so they could have claim on their temple blesssings. Hope this helps. -Visorstuff 00:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but of course, it must have been the evil non-Mormons who "caused" Emma to miscarry (and also see habitual abortion) all those times or have all those stillbirths...it couldn't possibly have anything to do with things that cause these things today, or even with the comparatively poor care available then. I personally experienced extreme amounts of stress during my pregnancy, yet my daughter was not miscarried or stillborn. But, I bet the non-Mormons probably planned it out too...they probably kept tabs on when Emma was pregnant and scheduled their actions against Smith for those times. That totally makes sense! *Heavy sarcasm* This brings the assertion in the article that the adopted twins died from exposure related to the tarring and feathering into a highly suspect light, and I will remove it until such time that it can be proven that these events are indeed related. bcatt 04:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Again, you misunderstand. Every one of Emma's pregnancies was around a major church event. Miscarriages were common then - espcecially due to stressful situations. My only point is that they were often within days of mob action - which can be proven.

As for the removal of the statement in the article - if a door is broken in winter weather by a mob who takes smith from his home and takes a child out of his arms and tosses him across the room onto a bed, and the child gets pneumonia within a few days and develops a fever immediately from the cold, don't you think that it would be related to the exposure? That's what the doctor believed, what John Murdock believed and what the Smith's were told. This is much more documented than most other church history events, as many people spent the night with smith, removing the tar so he could preach the next morning. -Visorstuff 14:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Since every one of Emmas pregnancies was around a major church event, that doesn't really allow much opportunity to miscarry at any other time, does it? Yes, miscarriages were common then...they are still very common now, which means they were probably even more common then. You say they often occured in close proximity to mob action, which indicates that many didn't, which indicates that Emma had a high likelihood of miscarriage anyway...particularly when taking into account the stillbirths. You really should read the articles I provided, as they describe the causes of miscarriage, including repeated miscarriage, and stillbirth...this sort of history points to some underlying problem. Again, using myself as an example, I could easily use coincidence to claim that my daughter's heart condition was caused by the stress I was under (which was particularly high during the time of fetal heart development), but the plain fact is that there really is no connection...it is mere coincidence. Note that coincidences of this nature become much more likely when an individual is frequently pregnant and also lives in a high stress environment...in Emma's case, the coincidences were practically impossible to avoid. And again, I point out the reapeated stillbirths in combination with the miscarriages...this combination and the frequency makes it much more likely that the cause was related to uterine abnormalities, fetal abnormalities, environmental exposure (to some kind of chemical), domestic expectations (housework, etc.), and even domestic abuse is a much more likely factor.

As for the child's death...I can't find a single thing linking exposure (the first entry under biology) to low temperatures and pneumonia. Of course, I neurotically assumed at first that I simply was not using the right search terms, until I found this. The only medical condition that I can find as being linked to exposure to low temperatures in hypothermia, whereas pneumonia is caused by virus infection, bacterial infection, etc. Medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds in the past hundred years and has dramatically changed due to these advances.

On a side note...you would think that these people would have been more concerned about the child's exposure than with making sure Smith could preach the next day...but, to answer your question, no, based on modern medical knowledge, I don't think the child developed pneumonia as a result of exposure. Kindly remove the erronous implication from the article. bcatt 19:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

What this passage needs is clarity about what notable sources are being reported, in a verifiable way. It's not up to us to speculate about why the miscarriage occurred, or equally, to speculate about why such speculation might be mistaken. In either case, it is appropriate to report either contemporary or modern sources (again, subject to N&V) giving an opinion on such matters. Let's equally remember that this is a top-level summary article: might not some of this detail be more appropriate to the "Death..." sub-article? Alai 20:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, that the finer details need to be reserved for sub-articles, while this article should mention major points as an overall view. But, in regard to the rest of your message, I really hope you are not suggesting that it is acceptable in an encyclopedia article to include views which are proveably incorrect just because they have previously been published? Is it adviseable, or moral for that matter, to knowingly mislead the reader into believing something that is untrue? Smith was bled in an attempt to cure him of his leg infection in his childhood...so should we also misinform the reader that bloodletting is something that should be attempted in treating infection? Or, since most physicians in Smith's time resented the idea that not washing their hands before assisting in childbirth appeared to cause infection in the mother which often led to death (a theory which was later proven to be true), and so refused to wash their hands (and therefore allowed their ignorance to infect and kill mothers), should we misinform the reader that hygenic practices during childbirth are not really important? This same principle applies to the outdated medical opinions published by members of Smith's family. bcatt 22:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

WIKI is not the place for original research. It is a place to report historical fact without introducing personal opinion regardless of personal expertise. Find sources, quote, and reference. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's called common knowledge. And since it would be wholly inappropriate to put into the article "pneumonia isn't caused by exposure to cold" for no apparent reason (since, with that knowledge, it can't be put into the article that the child got pneumonia from exposure to cold in the first place), the burden is on those who want to put in this faulty information to first provide proof that pneumonia is caused by exposure to cold. Same goes with trying to say what caused Emmas miscarriages and stillbirths. Good luck with that. bcatt 03:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, some of the comments may be valid today, but were not in 1832. You stated that, "you would think that these people would have been more concerned about the child's exposure than with making sure Smith could preach the next day." This proves that you haven't read an in-depth account of the events that transpired, and are not qualified to discuss them. A doctor was summoned for the child, who was treated immediately and "warmed." Symptoms from exposure of this kind was not something that can be treated ahead of time. Once exposed to the elements or a virus, the damage was done. And yes, stress is still a high factor of miscarriages. It may be a coincidence, but so are fevers, according to doctors, when a child gets an immunization or gets new teeth. But it has happened in the case of every one of my children, all of my six siblings chilren and in all of the children of my six in-laws. Sometimes "coincidences" add up to be evidence, although it is not supportable or explainable by scientific explanation. Circumstantial evidence does hold up in a court of law. -Visorstuff 19:54, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Several of Joseph Smith's plural wives were pregnant by their (and still married to their) first husbands at the time Smith married them. Here's a necessarily incmplete précis of Smith's marital and paternal history. (addition of missing death dates for Smith's children would be especially appreciated) - Cole Slaw 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Birth Date:     23 December 1805
Birth Place:    Sharon, Vermont
Death Date:     27 June 1844
Death Place:    Carthage, Illinois
Occupation:     Mormon prophet
Father: Joseph Smith
Mother: Lucy Mack

Misc. Notes
descendant of Robert Smith who came to Massachusetts in 1638 and John Mack in 1669.
 
Spouses
—————————————————————————————————————————————
1:      Emma Hale
Birth Date:     10 July 1804
Death Date:     1879
Father: Isaac Hale (1763-1839)
Mother: Elizabeth Lewis (1767-1842)
Marriage Date:  18 January 1827 [1]
Marriage Place: South Bainbridge, New York
Children:       Alvin (1828-)
        Thaddeus (1830-)
        Louise (1830-)
        Joseph Murdoch (1831-1832)
        Julia Murdoch (1831-1880)
        Joseph (1832-1914)
        Frederick Granger Williams (1836-1862)
        Alexander Hale (1838-1909)
        Don Carlos (1840-1841)
        [?] (1842-1842)
        David Hyrum (1844-1904)

—————————————————————————————————————————————
2:      Fanny Alger
Birth Date:     20 September 1816 [2]
Birth Place:    Rehoboth, Bristol Co., Massachusetts
Death Date:     after 27 March 1885
Father: Samuel Alger
Mother: Clarissa Hancock
Marriage Date:  1833 [3]
Marriage Place: Kirtland, Ohio

—————————————————————————————————————————————
3:      Lucinda Pendleton
Birth Date:     27 September 1801
Birth Place:    Washington Co., Virginia
Father: Joseph Pendleton
Mother: Betsey Riley
Marriage Date:  about 1838

—————————————————————————————————————————————
4:      Louisa Beaman
Birth Date:     7 February 1815 [4]
Birth Place:    Livonia, Livingston Co., New York
Death Date:     15 May 1850 [5]
Cause of death: breast cancer
Father: Alvah Beaman (~1775-1837)
Mother: Sarah “Sally” Burtts (-1840)
Marriage Date:  5 April 1841 [3]
Marriage Place: Nauvoo

Misc. Notes
she married Joseph Smith in a grove near Main Street in Nauvoo, disguised as a man

No Children:    

—————————————————————————————————————————————
5:      Zina Diantha Huntington [6], [7]
Birth Date:     31 January 1821
Birth Place:    Watertown, Jefferson Co., New York
Death Date:     1909
Burial Place:   Salt Lake City, Utah
Death Date:     28 August 1901
Father: William Huntington Jr. (-1846)
Mother: Zina Baker (-1839)
Marriage Date:  27 October 1841

Misc. Notes
she married Joseph Smith when seven months pregnant with her first child by Henry Jacobs.
she was sealed for eternity to Joseph Smith on 2 Feb 1846 after he was already dead.


—————————————————————————————————————————————
6:      Presendia Lathrop Huntington
Birth Date:     7 September 1810
Birth Place:    Watertown, Jefferson Co., New York
Death Date:     1 February 1890
Death Place:    Salt Lake City, Utah
Burial Date:    3 February 1890
Cause of death: erysipelas
Father: William Huntington Jr. (-1846)
Mother: Zina Baker (-1839)
Marriage Date:  11 December 1841 [8]

Misc. Notes
sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity on 4 Feb 1846


—————————————————————————————————————————————
7:      Agnes Moulton Coolbrith [9]
Birth Date:     9 July 1808
Birth Place:    Scarborough, Cumberland, Maine
Death Date:     26 December 1876 [10]
Father: Joseph Coolbrith
Mother: Mary Hasty Foss
Marriage Date:  6 January 1842 [11]

Misc. Notes
this was a plural marriage of Joseph Smith to his brother’s widow [9]


—————————————————————————————————————————————
8:      Sylvia Porter Sessions
Birth Date:     31 July 1818
Birth Place:    Andover Surplus, Maine
Death Date:     13 April 1882
Father: David Sessions (-1850)
Mother: Patty Bartlett (1795-1892)
Marriage Date:  8 February 1842 [3]
Children:       Josephine Rosetta (1844-) (paternity uncertain)

—————————————————————————————————————————————
9:      Mary Elizabeth Rollins
Birth Date:     9 April 1818
Birth Place:    Lima, Livingston Co., New York
Death Date:     17 December 1913 [12]
Father: John Porter Rollins (-1820)
Mother: Keziah Keturah Van Benthuysen (-1877)
Marriage Date:  February 1842

Misc. Notes
at the time of the marriage she was pregnant with Adam Lightner’s third child.


—————————————————————————————————————————————
10:     Patty Bartlett
Birth Date:     4 February 1795
Birth Place:    Bethel, Oxford Co., Maine
Death Date:     14 December 1892 [13]
Death Place:    Bountiful, Utah
Father: Enoch Bartlett (~1762-1825)
Mother: Anna Hall

Misc. Notes
a Mormon midwife

Marriage Date:  9 March 1842
Marriage Place: Nauvoo

Misc. Notes
this marriage is thought to have been purely religious without cohabitation. Smith had already been sealed to Patty’s daughter Sylvia about a month earlier. This was the first marriage of Smith to an older woman.


—————————————————————————————————————————————
11:     Marinda Nancy Johnson
Birth Date:     28 June 1815 [14]
Birth Place:    Pomfret, Windsor Co., Vermont
Death Date:     24 March 1886 [15]
Father: John Johnson (-1843)
Mother: Alice  (Elsa) Jacobs (-1870)
Marriage Date:  April 1842

—————————————————————————————————————————————
12:     Elizabeth Davis
Birth Date:     11 March 1791
Birth Place:    Riverhead, Suffolk Co., New York
Father: Gilbert Davis
Mother: Abigail Reeves
Marriage Date:  before June 1842

—————————————————————————————————————————————
13:     Sarah Maryetta Kingsley
Birth Date:     20 October 1788
Birth Place:    Becket, Berkshire, Massachusetts
Father: Ebenezer Kingsley
Mother: Sarah Chaplin
Marriage Date:  before 29 June 1842 [16]

—————————————————————————————————————————————
14:     Delcena Johnson
Marriage Date:  before July 1842

—————————————————————————————————————————————
15:     Eliza Roxcy Snow [17]
Birth Date:     21 January 1804
Birth Place:    Becket, Berkshire, Massachusetts
Death Date:     5 December 1887
Death Memo:     Lion House
Occupation:     poet
Father: Oliver Snow
Mother: Rosetta Leonora Pettibone

Misc. Notes
Angus Cannon, her stake president, reported a conversation in which Eliza affirmed that her marriage to Smith had a sexual dimension. [18]
It is said that Emma Smith, Joseph Smith’s first wife, confronted Eliza violently when she discovered her relationship to her husband, and in the process caused her to miscarry Joseph Smith’s child.

Eliza Snow wrote the lyrics to “O My Father”, one of the most popular Mormon hymns.

Marriage Date:  29 June 1842

Misc. Notes
married “for time and eternity” on 29 June 1842
sealed for eternity on 3 February 1846

No Children:    

—————————————————————————————————————————————
16:     Sarah Ann Whitney
Marriage Date:  27 July 1842

—————————————————————————————————————————————
17:     Martha McBride
Marriage Date:  August 1842

—————————————————————————————————————————————
18:     Ruth Vose
Marriage Date:  February 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
19:     Flora Ann Woodworth
Marriage Date:  spring 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
20:     Emily Dow Partridge
Father: Edward Partridge
Mother: Lydia
Marriage Date:  4 March 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
21:     Eliza Maria Partridge
Father: Edward Partridge
Mother: Lydia
Marriage Date:  8 March 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
22:     Almera Woodward Johnson
Marriage Date:  April 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
23:     Lucy Walker
Marriage Date:  1 May 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
24:     Sarah Lawrence
Birth Date:     13 May 1826 [19]
Birth Place:    Pickering Township, Ontario, Canada
Death Date:     28 November 1872
Death Place:    San Francisco, California
Cause of death: uterine cancer
Father: Edward Lawrence (-~1840)
Mother: Margaret (-<1853)
Marriage Date:  May 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
25:     Maria Lawrence
Birth Date:     18 December 1823 [19]
Birth Place:    Pickering Township, Ontario, Canada
Death Date:     1847
Father: Edward Lawrence (-~1840)
Mother: Margaret (-<1853)
Marriage Date:  May 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
26:     Helen Mar Kimball
Birth Date:     22 August 1828 [20]
Birth Place:    Mendon, Monroe, New York
Death Date:     15 November 1896 [21]
Father: Heber Chase Kimball (1801-1868)
Mother: Vilate Murray (-1867)
Marriage Date:  May 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
27:     Hannah Ells
Birth Date:     1813
Birth Place:    New Castle, Northumberland, England
Death Date:     1845
Father: Thomas Ells
Mother: Hannah
Marriage Date:  before mid-1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
28:     Elvira Annie Cowles
Birth Date:     23 November 1813 [22]
Birth Place:    Unadilla, Otsego Co., New York
Death Date:     10 March 1871 [23]
Death Place:    Farmington, Utah
Father: Austin Cowles (-1872)
Mother: Phoebe Wilbur (-1826)
Marriage Date:  1 June 1843

Misc. Notes
sealed to Joseph Smith on June 1, 1843 in Heber C. Kimball’s house, with Heber officiating and Vilate Kimball and Eliza Partridge standing as witnesses.
Sealed to Joseph Smith for eternity on 6 July 1845 with her husband Jonathan standing proxy; Jonathan was then sealed to his deceased wife, Marietta Carter, for eternity with Elvira standing proxy.


—————————————————————————————————————————————
29:     Rhoda Richards
Birth Date:     8 August 1784
Birth Place:    Framingham, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts
Death Date:     17 January 1879 [24]
Father: Joseph Richards (~1762-)
Mother: Rhoda Howe (~1762-)

Misc. Notes
Joseph Smith’s 28th wife, approximately.
Brigham Young’s 22nd wife, approximately.

Marriage Date:  12 June 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
30:     Desdemona Fullmer
Birth Date:     6 October 1809 [25]
Birth Place:    Huntington, Luzerne Co., Pennsylvania
Death Date:     9 February 1886 [26]
Death Place:    Salt Lake City, Utah
Death Memo:     Sixth Ward
Father: Peter Fullmer (-1857)
Mother: Susannah Zerfass (-1856)
Marriage Date:  July 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
31:     Olive Grey Frost
Birth Date:     24 July 1816 [27]
Death Date:     6 October 1845 [28]
Father: Aaron Frost
Mother: Susannah Grey
Marriage Date:  summer 1843

—————————————————————————————————————————————
32:     Melissa Lott
Birth Date:     9 January 1824 [29]
Death Date:     13 July 1898 [30]
Death Place:    Lehi, Utah
Burial Place:   Salt Lake City, Utah
Father: Cornelius Peter Lott (-1850)
Mother: Permelia Darrow (~1805-1882)
Marriage Date:  20 September 1843
No Children:    

—————————————————————————————————————————————
33:     Nancy Maria Winchester
Birth Date:     10 August 1828
Birth Place:    Black Rock, Erie Co., Pennsylvania
Death Date:     17 March 1876 [31]
Death Place:    Salt Lake City, Utah
Father: Stephen Winchester (-1873)
Mother: Nancy Case
Marriage Date:  about 1843
No Children:    

—————————————————————————————————————————————
34:     Fanny Young
Birth Date:     8 November 1787
Birth Place:    Hopkinton, Middlesex Co., Massachusetts
Death Date:     11 June 1859
Cause of death: cancer
Father: John Young (1763-1839)
Mother: Abigail Nabby Howe (1766-1815)
Marriage Date:  2 November 1843


Sources
1. Nevell, Linda King and Valeen Tippetts Avery, Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2nd edition, Univeristy Of Illinois Press, Chicago, 1994., p. 2.
2. Compton, Todd, The Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997., p. 26.
3. Ibid. p. 4.
4. Ibid. p. 56.
5. Ibid. p. 69.
6. Roberts, Gary Boyd & William Addams Reitwiesner, American Ancestors and Cousins of The Princess of Wales, Genealogical Publishing Co., Baltimore, Maryland, 1984, p. 60; see #250-(2).
7. Compton, Todd, The Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, 1997., p. 71.
8. Ibid. p. 122.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid. p. 169.
11. Ibid. p. 153.
12. Ibid. p. 227.
13. Ibid. p. 203.
14. Ibid. p. 229.
15. Ibid. p. 254.
16. Ibid. p. 277.
17. Ibid. p. 307.
18. Ibid. p. 313.
19. Ibid. p. 474.
20. Ibid. p. 613.
21. Ibid. p. 533.
22. Ibid. p. 544.
23. Ibid. p. 556.
24. Ibid. p. 576.
25. Ibid. p. 577.
26. Ibid. p. 584.
27. Ibid. p. 586.
28. Ibid. p. 592.
29. Ibid. p. 596.
30. Ibid. p. 603.
31. Ibid. p. 608.

—————————————————————————————————————————————

Nice list. It does seem that, although my memory was a bit fuzzy, there are no confirmed children of Smith and anyone but his first wife. Not quite sure how to account for that, although I'm vaguely remembering something potentially relevant, from Card's historical novel, Saints. I seem to remember that there was this gynocologist who was excommunicated. Alienus 00:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Cole Slaw's list is generally accepted? If so, a summary of it would seem appropriate for this article. It's too long to reproduce entirely in this article, but perhaps in yet another "branch article"? Wesley 14:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

See Plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. This should article should be added to see also. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, the gynecologist you are likely referring to is John Cook Bennett, who was for a time mayor of Nauvoo, and while Sidney Rigdon was ill aided Joseph in some of the running of the church as temporary acting assistant president of the church(not sure of the official title). Bennett's life is documented in detail in the biography, "The Saintly Scoundrel: The Life and Times of John Cook Bennett" (I'm new, I don't know how to underline). Also, the list of wives is disputed, seeing as Compton's book was published by Signature Books, widely recognized as being grossly anti-mormon (see Article on Signature Books by Brigham Young University's Foundation for Ancient Reasearch and Mormon Studies). It is believed that many of Joseph's wifes were married to him after his death. Also, I know of no reliable documentation of Joseph marrying a woman who was already married, save it were that the woman was either a widow, a divorcee, or currently separated from her husband (but not yet officially divorced). Any such documentation and sources to support or discredit this would be appreciated. Oh, and I'm still not sure how to get all that fancy stuff at the end of each of my edits... User:Jerubaal 5:02 PM Pacific Time 3/28/06

Not liking a source, or rejecting it because you feel it is "antimormon" is not at all the same as disputing facts: it's a way of avoiding disputation by resorting to ad hominem argumentation. Rejecting a book because you don't like its publisher is just a little silly! It's quite clear that several of Smith's wives were married to other men at the time Smith married them, and Compton's book makes the dates of marriages and sealings quite clear and does not confuse sealings made after Smith's death with those made during his lifetime. Those listed were during his lifetime, not after his death. - Cole Slaw 01:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerubaal, you can make a signature at the end of your posts here by typing four "tilde" characters in a row. A tilde is the shift-reverse-single-quote key to the left of the number 1 on your keyboard, most likely. And welcome to Wikipedia! I encourage you to look text other editors have written (click "edit this page", read the formatting code, then choose "Cancel" at the bottom) to learn how to do many formatting tricks. Wadsworth 14:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Eldest son dying

I have avoided all vestiges of the dispute on this page, relying on eventuality to result in a properly sourced and notable article; however, I just can't stand by while sourced and notable material is removed because the editor disagrees with the conclusions of the doctor of the day, "As for the child's death...I can't find a single thing linking exposure (the first entry under biology) to low temperatures and pneumonia."[18] It doesn't matter what we think - it only matters what is in the source we are quoting. Carry on with your little war - but please don't removed sourced notable material (unless you are properly forking of course) Abeo Paliurus 11:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What matters is facts, and the fact is that pneumonia is not caused by exposure to cold. The source used is outdated and wrong, as is proven by advances in modern medicine. It is not me, but the entire modern medical community that disagrees with this diagnosis. Inaccurate and misleading material has no place in an encyclopedia. bcatt 17:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

You've disagreed with bcatt, so, like it or not, you're now a part of the "little war". ;) Wadsworth 20:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is circumstantial evidence that the child's death is related to exposure to cold during this incident. I think the paragraph as it stands already shows that it's a circumstantial connection, and that the child could hypothetically have contracted an illness, or even been exposed to the cold again, during the weeks between this incident and the eventual death. Since it doesn't overstate the case, I think we should leave this bit as it is. Also, even viewing the incident through the eyes of modern medicine, it seems plausible that exposure (and the surrounding stress among family members following the incident) could have at least weakened the child's immune system, making him more susceptible to infection and disease. Wesley 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

It says "the child died from exposure", after stating that the exposure was caused by this incident. How exactly does that not mislead the reader? bcatt 23:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I'll reference that doctors that doctors treating the child believed this was the cause along with sources. As the child was left in the doorway of his home for an extened period of time without his mother or anyone caring for it (or allowed near the home which was guarded by the mob) in the March weather after midnight, readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. Circumstantial or not, I wonder how it would hold up in today's courtroom (merely circumstantial evidence that is dismissed, manslaughter, murder or merely an unfortunate event)? It sure would be an interesting legal battle in today's world. But then again, this is now, that was then, and IANAL. Thanks for pushing me for more sources. It makes the article stronger. -Visorstuff 16:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Edited introductory paragraph

Working on the TODO list, this paragraph had NPOV issues. Here's what I added. I think it's pretty good NPOV. What other doctrines offended mainstream Christianity? I think I covered the most important ones.

Smith's followers revere him as the first latter-day prophet, called by God to restore the pure gospel of Jesus Christ to the earth, bring forth the Book of Mormon, restore priesthood authority [19], build temples [20], and form a nucleus for the Kingdom of God on Earth (Zion)[21].

Smith taught doctrines that were considered heretical by mainstream Christians (see Mormonism and Christianity), especially the Godhead, a dark age apostacy where Christianity lost authority to baptize, the Bible corrupted, polygamy, and his own prophetic calling in which capacity he received revelations from God and visited occasionally with angel messengers. Smith was eventually seen as having too much political and military power and influence to fairly represent the people as a government official.

The former paragraph was all negative, and was fragmented. I worked on this paragraph (which became two paragraphs) for almost two hours, so don't just revert the whole thing if you think I did a terrible job of it. Tell me here what you don't like first, please. Wadsworth 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty good. However on the heretical teachings you missed some big ones, the degrees of heaven, marriage in heaven, that God was once a man, and that man can become Gods in their own right. --FreedominThought 16:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll add those shortly. It's what I was looking for. Wadsworth 17:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Eternal marriage is unique to Mormonism. Three degrees much less so. (Swedenborg, Gnostics and others taught this, so it is not unique to Smith). That God is an exalted man is unique ("if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God"). But you seem to misunderstand the concept of "god in embryo" by stating "man can become Gods in their own right". So do many LDS church members. You may want to read Talk:Common_Latter-day_Saint_perceptions and Talk:Gordon_B._Hinckley#Hinckley False Statements and [User_talk:Visorstuff#God_was_once_a_man.3F] for partial discussions on this "doctrine." May even want to go back and read the king follet discourse [22] -Visorstuff 17:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I added Deification to the list. That article has a section on Mormonism in it, which I think is appropriate. I think this is an umbrella that includes "God was once a man", "man can become Gods", and almost "marriage in heaven". Though it really goes under the heading "Eternal Progression", I suppose. I also made a quickie page called "Degrees of Glory", which needs to be fleshed out. I just linked to Celestial Kingdom, etc, in it. As for eternal marriage, I need to find a link for that to connect to before I put it in the list. As to understanding the doctrine, to me (as a Mormon) it seems fairly simple on one level: We are the Children of our Father in Heaven, and as such, eventually, sometime in the distant eternities, we hope to "grow up". To take it to another level: Similarly, our God was once like us, and has now reached a state wherein his Glory increases by the progression of His children, us. How to reconcile this view of deity with the scriptures that blatantly contradict it (only one God, the same forever, etc)? To understand this doctrine, where it's coming from, you must have an open mind on the subject of *time*. I mean really open. Like, we're in a time bubble in our universe, and within this time bubble, God is eternal and unchanging in his justice, etc. But the eternities may include lots of time bubbles, and at some point in what one will probably refer to as the "past", the glorious being we call the Father wasn't quite so advanced as he is now. When you consider these "heretical" ideas of Joseph Smith and many Mormons, keep in mind that these people may be picturing a larger, much more complex universe than is traditional in Christianity. I hope this clears things up a little bit. Wadsworth 17:47, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed the Deification link to point to Exaltation (Mormonism), which seems more exclusively devoted to the doctrine as it is in Mormonism. I think you just put your finger on one of the big differences between Mormons and orthodox Christians. When most Christians say that God is "eternal" and "all-powerful" etc., or that there is one God, they mean it in an absolute sense, whereas Mormons use the same language but mean it in only a relative sense, relative to our own "time bubble." This can make some confusing discussions, until both parties realize they're using different working definitions. I'm still grateful to the LDS editors that explained this to me a couple years ago. Wesley 18:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Visor, regardless of whether the teachings were unique, they are part of what is used by Christianity to point to mormonism as heretical. And no, I have no misunderstanding or lack of reading on the doctrne of Exaltation, trust me. I simply was trying to avoid jargon. --FreedominThought 03:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Most both inside and outside the church misunderstand the doctrine, and then the exmormons say that President Hinckley denied the teaching in the wallace interview - rather he was very straight down the line on the answer. Most think it means Mormons get to create their own worlds and have purple dinosaurs - something not taught by Smith and is not doctrinal, nor supported by scripture - pure speculation. Anyways...sorry if seemed condescending - it was not meant to be that way.

I do have an issue with the following sentence:

"Smith was eventually seen as having too much political and military power and influence to fairly represent the people as a government official."

Who "eventually" saw him as having too much power? This sounds like everyone thought this. Obviously not all of his followers felt this way... And I'm not sure that it can be supported by contemporary (to smith) references. Can we just strike the sentence? I'm not sure it adds to the article. Thoughts?

I also changed to the correct spelling of apostasy, clarified his teachings, but the sentence structure is still struggling of that sentence - sorry to mess it up, but wanted it to be accurate. For example, there is a big doctrinal difference between christianity losing the priesthood and the priesthood being taken from the earth. Sentence needs help, and my brain is fried on trying to fix it. Help? -Visorstuff 04:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

It would seem better to present the concept of the apostasy in the preceeding paragraph. It stills seems more appropriate to present the teachings of Smith before stating the problems other religions have with the doctrine. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, the Bible is full of the names of other gods and I am not certain that historical Christians simply gloss over those parts. Rather, I beleive they state that they are false gods and unworthy of worship; stronger yet, ancient Israel was forbidden to worship other Gods (Interesting that God would condemn something that supposedly does not exist).

In my discussions with ministers and teachers of religion of many different denominations, the overriding principle is the worship of the one, true God. Mormonism takes the same approach. It acknowledges that there may be other gods, but that we worship God the Father through the Son, Jesus. In fact, the Father will be our God throughout the eternities; there will never be another God for us.

When these concepts are discussed in anti-Mormon literature, they are invariably taken out of context. They would make it seem that Mormons teach that we will be the equivalent of the Father. This is not true as I stated above. What scripture says is that we will be co-inheritors with Christ; whatever he inherits will be ours also. Should this concept be talked about? Of course it should, but we must be sure we are stating what is indeed doctrine and not he speculations of Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I must say that I have been mightly impressed at how well this article is progressing the last few days. I think a huge acknowledgement must be given to Wadsworth, Wesley, and Visor. Freedom's comments have also been helpful in pointing out areas of needed improvement. I thank each of you for bringing much needed progress to this article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that progress is being made, we still have not addressed specific issues in the mediation request. We'll need to get through those issues before we can address those specific concerns. All active wikipedians have agreed that the mediation needs to happen, except for Bcatt and Freedominthought. Will you both be joining? -Visorstuff 08:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment should be understood to focus on the very short, last few days. It should not be thought to endorse or present that mediation is unnecessary. I believe firmly that it is. With Bcatt's abscence and Freedom's participation, things have begun to improve. However, without mediation we would be left where we ended up...a very unpleasant place where long time editors would prefer to stop editing WIKI and this article in particular. Mediation is a cooperative process and it would be a shame if Freedom and Bcatt are unwilling to participate. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Storm Rider. :) This intro section is the most important. I think it should be short, too. Just skim the surface, in as few words as can hint at the depth below. Combining the doctrines that Joseph Smith taught with the fact that mainstram Christianity deems them heretical seems a concise way to accomplish this; The interesting information is not the doctrines that he taught that are the same as Christianity (Sabbath worship, prayer, ordinance of the bread and wine, atonement, baptism, etc etc).

Pardon me for injecting a personal viewpoint into this discussion, but it seems to me that if Jesus Christ did call a prophet in modern times to restore his gospel, etc, he would certainly cause a stir among the traditional institutions and make a lot of people very angry. See, for example, Jesus Christ among the Jews. So I have no qualms, VisorStuff, about emphasizing how much Joseph Smith was, and still is, hated by many people. :) Wadsworth 16:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Smith's Death

Recent edits have framed this very POV with inflammatory language, unsupportable assertions and omitted facts. The citation from ""Author Ryan Richards Warner" is extremely biased. One cannot assert the charges were false. One cannot make assertions assertions about thoughts. Also, the fact that Joseph Smith was armed in jail and shot several people was not mentioned. Neither was his coded plea to Masons mentioned before he fell. The use of the term "Massacre" to describe the incident is biased. --FreedominThought 16:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That is treated in more depth at Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.. Remember this is a summary and to point readers to the sub-page. I agree with your concern, however, that key facts need to be quickly stated and are currently missing. Massacre is not an appropriate word here, in my opinion, either. However, the charges are a point of dispute by nearly all historians, as he was served a Double jeopardy warrant before he even left the courtroom in Carthage, which was prohibited under the then illinois state law, the Nauvoo charter and the Fifth Ammendment. Technically, the statement is correct, but may not be with today's laws, where lawyers are much more cautious about double jeapordy crimes in legal proceedings.

Also, the masonic call is a point of dispute among non-Mormon/Mormon historians. A good percentage of the LDS camp actually supports Smith giving the masonic call. Quinn (who was LDS at the time he wrote the book/papers you are "referencing) supports the belief (as does john taylor and brigham young), but Remini, Brodie (both not mormon) and others don't neccessarily agree that it was a distress call, rather they say it may have been (many lds historians believe this as well), or it could have been a group for the Mormon hierarchy to place blame (masons) on. Other Non-LDS historians say that Mormons needed a scapgoat to place blame on. In other words, it is historical speculation, as if it was, he didn't finish it, and it could have been just as easily a misconstructed event. As we'll never know, I'm not sure that properly fits in this article, but in a more-in-depth discussion at Death of Joseph Smith, Jr.

In addition, words like "smith was incarcerated" are misleading. Incarcerated denotes that he was held against his will. When reading the historical docucments, smith's habeas corpus allowed him to leave the jail and return to nauvoo at any time (which he should have done had governor ford's promise been kept) to be reviewed by a court within the city of Nauvoo. Rather he stayed in the jail for "protection" and as good faith for the legistlature who was reviewing the conduct of the city council and the destruction of the press and had sent the governor to investigate. Remember, the nauvoo charter placed the city in equality with the legistlature - as a city-state - the only check was the revocation of the nauvoo charter. This is much more complex issue than belongs in this page, but it would be a good to do task to expand the death of js article with this information. -Visorstuff 17:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Did the habeas corpus also allow Smith to have a gun in jail? Any reason not to briefly mention that Smith shot three people as the jail was being stormed? I agree that the bulk of details about his death should go in the article devoted to the topic, to cover the more complex parts like whether he tried to use a Masonic distress call, but the part about his returning fire doesn't seem that complex. Wesley 18:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Good queston - and I agree that the returning fire should be in this article. As he wasn't a "prisoner" or incarcerated, per se (meaning he was free to come and go, but stayed on good faith, etc.), having a gun in the building was not illegal or unusual. Using the word, "smuggled" although popular, however, to describe how Smith got the gun in the jail is not an appropriate term. It was given to him and the historical evidence suggests that the jailers were fully aware that he was given it inside the jail - one court document and account suggests this was done so the jailers could be vindicated - knowing in advance that they were to leave the building ungarded at 5 pm (again, not unusual that they would leave the building as Smith and folks were not incarcerated), and now Smith would be able to defend himself, the jailers thinking it was going to be a small group entering the Carthage Jail. The same document suggests this was one reason the jailers suggested that Smith and his party move to the upper rooms, as their would be a window for escape if needed. The smith's party was free to come and go from room to room - the jail being empty except for them "for their protection."

Now, I'm guessing that someone will suggest or ask if the terms "gunfight" and "shootout" should be used. I do not believe they are appropriate terms. Both terms denote that some equality in odds (think OK Corral - both sides equally armed or "high noon" shootouts where it was one-on-one duels - those are gunfights and shootouts). The Smith party had only one gun and a cane to defend themselves against 250+ fully-armed-with-guns-bayonets-and-swords mobbers. To me the event and odds could be equated to the Mountain Meadows massacre where there were at least three-to-five guns that returned fire and some alledged fighting back against the Mormons and indians who killed the 120 unarmed men and women of fancher party by a partial militia brigade of less than 50 men and indians. If massacre is to be the term used in the mountain meadows case, then a similar term could be used here - neither party had much of a chance for survival, but both tried to protect their lives. In any case, we should seek for equality between the events with terminology. The term "murdered" is fine with me, as that was the term used in the "plan" circulated among the Warsaw militia and clearly the intent of the mob. In addition, there was a trial for the "murder" of Smith, where it was stated that it would be nearly impossible to determine who exactly shot the Smith brothers. CSI could probably prove who in the first fifteen minutes of an episode with today's investigation techniques, which were not available in 1844. -Visorstuff 19:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether there is a subpage, what is presented here should be in NPOV, not an obviously biased presentation. Regardless of whether there is a dispute about the warrant that served, the charges can't be asserted as "false". "Murdered" has a different connotation than "lynched" which I believe is the appropriate term. This was clearly an act of the community taking an action they believed was necessary for justice that was not being obtained through the court system. This is certainly not a "massacre" and not comparable to the Meadows Mountain incident cited. I am just looking for a fair presentation without the connotation that Smith was completely innocent of contributing to his own downfall. --FreedominThought 20:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion a while back, pertaining to the article on the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., about which term should be used. The gamut ran from "martyred", "murdered", "assassinated", "killed", "lynched" and others. It was eventually agreed that "martyred" is out of the questions (NPOV), as is "lynched" (It's a term that takes respect from the person who died. You don't refer to the "Lynching of Abraham Lincoln" while addressing congress). They finally agreed on "assassinated by a mob". Let's stick with that, shall we? Wadsworth 20:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Abraham Lincoln was not repeatedly in prison so I don't see the comparison. The definition of Lynch is: to put to death by mob action without legal sanction. I don't see how that takes respect from the person. Neither does it try to instill respect. The definition of Assasinate is: to murder by sudden or secret attack usually for impersonal reasons. That seems much less accurate than Lynch for this situation. --FreedominThought 21:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Neither was Smith "repeatedly in prison." Smith only served a prison sentence once - one given without a trial but by order of court marshall for being a Mormon (and Mormon leader), which was against Missouri state law at the time. Smith was held in only two jails during his lifetime - Richmond and Liberty - both for the same offense of being a Mormon. Carthage, as explained before was not an incarceration. By that standard, Abe also stayed in jails visiting his clients - he was as free to come and go as Smith was from Carthage. You are correct there is no comparison - but many similarities (yet in another strain) both were political and public figures, both presidential candidates from illinois, both killed for their ideology, both deeply affected and moved by the "slave question." -Visorstuff 21:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've been reading the section on the death of Joseph Smith. It's terrible! The last paragraph, and part of the previous one, appear to be a single quote... but it has wiki links in it, and it is not in a quotation block. I tried to find the quote on google, no luck. What's the source? I was moments away from just nuking both last paragraphs, and rewriting them appropriate for an encyclopedia, but then I decided that since you guys are talking about it in here, I should check here first.

What do you think? Shall I take a crack at it? I think I did a reasonable NPOV job of the intro paragraphs, I think I can do justice to this portion also. I'll prepare some text, and unless there are objections to my little rewrite project, I'll make the change later tonight. Wadsworth 21:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I put my changes in. This doesn't have as much information, but I think it's NPOV, and only includes items that I hope are accepted as facts. If the reader wants more information, they can see the main article on the subject. This section is now pretty straightforward, not nearly as confusing as it was. We could put tons of additional details in here, as we are discussing in this thread, but I think it's best to leave that stuff for the main article. And I avoided all the words "murdered", "killed", "lynched", "assassinated", etc. I just used the word "shot", and "last words". I should mention that this topic is not an easy one for me to write on, as a man who believes in Joseph Smith. Compare with a member of Martin Luther King Jr.'s congregation writing about his assassination, or a disciple of Jesus writing about the Crucifixion, or a U.S. Citizen writing about the assassination of their beloved president, Abraham Lincoln. My vision did get blurry as I pondered what words to use. I urge editors to be sensitive on the topic of the death of this man. Wadsworth 22:32, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dude that is way better! And your choice of "shot"...simple and effective, thank you. --FreedominThought 02:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading other articles such as St. Peter. It refers to to Peter having been martyred. Does the St. Peter article meet NPOV standards and should the same standards be applied on the Joseph Smith article? I reject double standards on WIKI and am seeking comments. Thanks. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that there aren't very many anti-Christians who care about Peter's repuation, at least ones who edit WikiPedia. And if an anti-Christian guy started a smear campaign on Peter, people would just look at him funny. Old news. But all anti-Mormons care about Joseph Smith's reputation, and lots of them edit WikiPedia. Since people care, we have to be more NPOV sensitive. As Joseph Smith said, "... God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people." Wadsworth 22:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I accept your opinion that a double standard seems acceptable on WIKI, but that does not make it right. I have found nothing in policies that say a double standard is acceptable. Wesley, I would be curious to hear your opinion; I have always held it in high regard. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not start with the mormon persecution complex. I think NPOV should be applied equally. I don't regard Peter with any more reverence. I read the article and yes it is pretty heavy Catholic POV and avoids any of the contrary research. Thank you for pointing that out, I'll put it on my list. I looked for references to martyrdom and only found "The Gospel of John may be interpreted as suggesting that Peter was martyred by crucifixion", which actually is pretty NPOV. Joseph Smith wasn't killed for his religious beliefs, he was killed for his negative actions and the negative actions he directed. That is not martyrdom. Peter's death seems to be more speculative. Romans, at one point, did have a penchant for doing in Christians so it would not be out of the question that Peter was killed for that. On the other hand, maybe he stirred up too much trouble. --FreedominThought 05:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Heheh that Saint Peter talk page is nearly as entertaining as this one! "Catholic bullies", "Born-Again Agendas" it's all there and hilarious. The discussions here are more black and white. --FreedominThought 05:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Persecution complex would be applicable if there was not a double standard. As you have stated, you saw a double standard; therefore my position was a statement of fact. This goes in line with how Muhammad, Russell, and Luther articles are also written. All were controversial individuals and yet their articles are written from the perspective of their greatest accomplishments without much critique.

The difference between stating someone was shot and someone was murdered is significant. I don't see how anyone could say Smith was not murdered. On the other hand, when reading that statement in context I think the paragraph does have a stark impact. WIKI is used more and more as a reference. The concern would be if some takes just the sentence Joseph Smith was shot, quotes it, and thinks that is the whole story.

Smith's was persectuted from the beginning of the church. It is impossible to separate the motives for the persecutions from his beliefs and his church. His order to destroy the printing press was gasoline to the fire of hate that already existed. Let's not whitewash his death to the point that he is presented as someone who just got caught in the crossfire and happened to have been shot. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think Wadsworth's version suggested that he was caught in any crossfire, or shot accidentally during a hunting expedition or something. In general, I've often found that short, bare summaries can make for good NPOV compromises, and I think this might be a good approach here. Looking at Saint Peter, it at least ascribes his "martyrdom" to church tradition. In similar fashion, I think it would be fine for this article to say something to the effect that Mormons or the LDS movement see Smith's death as a martyrdom. AT the moment I'm undecided as to whether to call it a "murder;" it almost sounds like an act of a mini-war, in that he was returning fire, both he and his opponents had and used private militias... I really don't know. He was certainly shot deliberately; from what I gather, no one was formally charged with murder, hence no one was convicted, whether or not they should have been. Freedominthought said earlier, "The definition of Lynch is: to put to death by mob action without legal sanction." Assuming that definition is correct, that strikes me as a good description if we wanted to get more descriptive than "shot," but I think we'll have a better chance of reaching agreement the simpler we keep it. Wesley 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The crossfire was a bit of sarcasm and not meant as a honest depiction of Wadsworth's edits. An equivalent statement would be, "Lincoln attended the play with his wife. While sitting he was shot." Factual? Of course, but is it descriptive of the event? No.

I would agree that sometimes keeping it minimalist does have impact and that referring to it as a martyrdom elsewhere is acceptable.

Let's make sure we all undertand the facts, three men were accused of murdering Joseph Smith; they were found not guilty because the judge felt given the number of people involved it would be impossible to condemn just these three men. Further, I find it difficult to refer to this as a mini-war when you have a few men, in the top of a jail house, attacked by 120 men in black-face, and the Nauvoo legion was back in Nauvoo whereas there was only one mob was made up of at least two different militias. Joseph Smith blindly fires a single gun through a crack in the door that is being broken down while the mob is firing several weapons. That is anything but a war. Given the legal action for murder against the three men; murder is an appropriate term, but as you say, given the feelings of those who oppose Joseph Smith it may be best to ignore the facts and stick with what does not offend.

It has been alledged that three men were killed by Joseph Smith; however I have never seen a reputable source support that action. As I recall one of the men accused of being killed by Smith was one of the men acquitted of murder. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote we keep it as-is. The main purpose with this article at this point is to stabilize it in such a way that both parties are not offended enough by the wording to change it. Thus, nobody will really be content with the result, but hopefully not hate it so much they have to get the pendulum swinging again. Words like "lynch" and "martyr", while arguably technically appropriate, only push on the pendulum. Wadsworth 17:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that we're talking about the summary of his death that goes in this article, and the article on his death will go in to a lot more detail. I think that it would be better to say, "A large mob had gathered outside of the jail. Some members of the mob rushed up the interior stairway and attempted to break in to the room occupied by the prisoners. Hyrum and Joseph Smith Jr were both shot to death in the melee. John Taylor was wounded. Accounts differ as to whether some of those storming the room were wounded and/or killed." How's that for a summary without adding any POV? Val42 05:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Stormrider wrote: "It has been alledged that three men were killed by Joseph Smith; however I have never seen a reputable source support that action." It is cited in the History of the Church. --FreedominThought 04:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - the three men are not mentioned in the history of the church, unless in a footnote in the comprehensive history. The "legends" come from the Smith murder trial records, and interviews with RLDS leaders later. -Visorstuff 13:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Reading through all of this, Stormrider, you are operating under the assumption that all regard the Church version of history of the "victimized" mormons as true and accurate. The fact is all do not. In fact, many find it to be a deliberate re-writing of history to whitewash some very unseemly beginnings which would not be congruent with a Church of God. That is why there is resistance to present these events in a framework of victimization. He was certainly killed outside of the judicial system, but further assertions breach the line into POV. --FreedominThought 04:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

For the summary in the article, let's it simple and short. Leave the controversial material for the sub-article. Wadsworth 14:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Freedom, where did reputable sources become "the Church version of history". You would be mistaken to project that position on me. From the beginning of my editing on WIKI I have restated a few things very often: state the facts and move on. My intention is not to sugar coat history nor project today's morals on yesteryear. I reject reconstructionist historians because they are often guilty of those things. The LDS church has been guilty of sugar coating history or more often, simply never talking about some things that took place. On the other hand, anti-Mormon historians have often simply created whole cloth from nothing...they invented history, repeated it, and then repeated it again as if they were facts.

In closing, WIKI has double standards for treating religious historical figures. The double standard is particularly evident, by your own admission, on historcial Christian articles and Mormon related articles. If there is going to be a standard, then make every article meet that standard. Otherwise we simply get the story from the majority opinion and that is not history. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I did not say there were double standards. Standards implies a modus operandi. I stated the article you pointed out also reflected POV which will be addressed and is being addressed if you look in their talk page. Let's not misstate me. And I agree with you, I'll take fact over majority opinion anyday. However, in the opinion of many, church sources are inherently suspect and not de facto "reliable sources". The label of "Anti-Mormon" is conveniently applied to dismiss anything contrary to Church POV, that is equally disturbing. --FreedominThought 18:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

A reputable source does not have an objective to support or critique Mormonism. A reputable source is one based upon historical fact. A reputable source may just as easily be LDS as being a Catholic or an atheist; their personal beliefs are secondary. Do they focus on facts is what is important. Unlike your rejection of all LDS sources, I am not prepared nor do I encourage discounting a specific group of scholars because of their personal beliefs. However, if a group's objective is to disprove or destroy the beliefs of another group, It is appropriate to suspect the veracity of their "literature". By their own choice they have chosen to forfeit factual history in order to achieve their objectives. For example, Fawn Brodie can be an good resource, but one must remember that her admitted objective is to demonstrate that Joseph Smith is a fraud.

The label of "Anti-Mormon" is not appropriately used for someone who simply provides negative facts. An anti-Mormon is, IMHO, appropriately used only for those who's objective is to destroy the Mormon faith and ridcule its adherents. I do not use the term lightly, but when I use it I have become convinced that an individual or a group has demonstrated an unwillingess to allow any positive facts to be presented and prefers to misrepresent history in order to achieve their objectives.

For our purposes on WIKI we seek reputable sources to demonstrate current reserach and factual history. We reject original research and opinion. To reduce conflict, keep to the facts and use references. This has now been exhausted. Let's get back to editing rather than discussing the article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider seems very reasonable. Wadsworth 20:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well unreasonable when he deliberately misquotes me, but this is not new. His comments are fine sentiments, placed into action is something I will applaud when seen. --FreedominThought 01:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing section "1827 to 1831"

I did a little cleanup in this section. I think it was already pretty good. Hope it meets the approval of the other editors here. Wadsworth 22:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Polygamy: Cultural or relgious heresy?

Was Joseph Smith's teaching and practicing of plural marriage (polygamy) considered "heretical" by the traditional Christians of his time? Certainly the practice is well documented in the Bible. As I recall, even today some Arabs legally maintain multiple wives. I think that technically, it is not heresy, but rather a cultural taboo. A law of God was not broken, it was a violation of a social custom. But to the Christians of Joseph Smith's time and place, they considered it heretical. Should it belong in this list? If not, where?

To repeat something I said earlier: Pardon me for injecting a personal viewpoint into this discussion, but it seems to me that if Jesus Christ did call a prophet in modern times to restore his gospel, etc, he would certainly cause a stir among the traditional institutions and make a lot of people very angry. See, for example, Jesus Christ among the Jews. So I have no qualms about emphasizing how much Joseph Smith was, and still is, hated by many people. :) Wadsworth 13:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think most other Christians may have felt polygamy was immoral. I don't think many thought of polygamy in the context of being heretical. The conflict of statements in the BofM and polygamy were of latter origin. Conversely, the church and its doctrines were thought of as heretical by historical Christians of the time. The fact that Joseph practiced plural marriage was viewed as futher evidence that he was a moral degenerate as well as a false prophet. However, we are talking about two separate issues and should not confuse being immoral with being a heretic.

There are many examples of true prophets of God not being welcomed by society, but that is not an absolute. Individuals who bring change are seldom welcomed by society regardless of being true prophets. Joseph is unusual in that some people truly hate the man and his "religion". I have never quite understood the animosity, but it is apparent nonetheless. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that what he was refering to a heretical is teaching that plural marriage is doctrine from God. It wouldn't be the only teachings that contemporary religious leaders (not just christians) would have thought were heretical. This topic (plural marriage) is something to mention in this article (and I think that it is), but the in depth discussion is (and should take place on) Plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr.. (This article will soon be renamed to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy once there is one more vote for it.)

SR, if there were some 100% reliable gold standard oracular test as to who was or wasn't a "true prophet", there might be something perplexing about being being opposed to them (and likewise, people following those who weren't). If we bear in mind that Ultimate Truth is jolly hard to objectively determine at the best of times, and furthermore isn't eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia, we might all be better off. Alai 18:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the context of my comment was that there are many examples in scripture, i.e. the Bible, that prophets of God are not welcomed by society at large. Further, I expect that many examples of "prophets" being rejected could also be found. In other words, to be rejected does not mean being a true prophet. One could just as easily be a false prophet and be rejected by society. Alai, I am not sure that I have said anything upon which we disagree.

In my study polygamy always came across more as moral critique and not heretical. Even today polygamists are attacked for being immoral, not heretical. Regardless of which point is emphasized, it needs tob e referenced. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

1 Timothy 3 could easily have been interpreted to mean that church leaders should be "the husband of one wife." Is the passage alone enough for a reference, or should we find an example of it being used this way? In principle, an example of it being used this way would be better, to avoid this sort of original research, so let me ask this question intead. Would an example of this passage being used to criticize Mormonism in general on doctrinal grounds be a sufficient reference, or would a direct reference to Smith be required? Wesley 17:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll throw my $0.02 into the discussion. :) The heart of the question is, "What does God think?" He didn't seem upset with Abraham (3 wives), David (8 wives + some concubines), or Solomon (1000 wives and concubines) for their multiple marriages. So it's obviously not always a sin, as adultery always has been. From a Mormon perspective, the word of God from His prophet trumps social and cultural traditions. When the subject of polygamy is raised, the mind of a carnal man immediately conjures up lewd fantasies involving many women and one man, and when the polygamist claims to be a "Saint", some offence is usually taken. Wadsworth 19:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually the real question is whether or not we can find credible verifiable quotes that "Joseph Smith's teaching and practicing of plural marriage (polygamy) considered 'heretical' by the traditional Christians of his time." My expectation is that this is original research and/or too broad of a claim to be verifiable from contempory writings of the time. Abeo Paliurus 19:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I would think it would be enough to just have a reference to critical source of Mormon polygamy; not necessarily one of Joseph Smith and polygamy. I would shy away, in this context, from quoting scripture. As can be seen by Wadsworth comment above it easily could turn into citing scripture on both sides. I think it is better to reference some reputable source that condemns polygamy as heresey.

Paliurus, brings a good point in. From memory I don't recall a critique that polygamy was heretical, but rathe that it was immoral. But, I am only speaking from memory. If there was writing from a credible religioius entity condemning polygamy as practiced by Mormons as heretical it would be great to take that position. However, if not, I think it is quite easy to produce muliple sources that condemns the activity as immoral. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)