Talk:Joseph Smith: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:31, 29 June 2008 editJuden (talk \| contribs)383 edits →Marriage to Emma Smith ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:37, 29 June 2008 edit undoStorm Rider (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,015 edits →Marriage to Emma Smith: and so it goesNext edit →
Line 148:		Line 148:
	::::::::::That ends this discussion, I wager. Best, ] (]) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)		::::::::::That ends this discussion, I wager. Best, ] (]) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
	:::::::::::Ah, I thought that last comment was from Storm Rider. I am very sorry that I failed to read the signature. It's Storm Rider who has inserted the most recent misspelling in the article, and he who has been uncivil and used edit summaries for invective, not you. - ] (]) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)		:::::::::::Ah, I thought that last comment was from Storm Rider. I am very sorry that I failed to read the signature. It's Storm Rider who has inserted the most recent misspelling in the article, and he who has been uncivil and used edit summaries for invective, not you. - ] (]) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

			(new indent) Civility is an odd beast that is harped upon by the self righteousness. Oh, how they squeal when their way is not obtained. Fingers sharp against the sky proclaim how they have been slighted by every passer-by. Wronged they proclaim as they continuously demand recompense for treatment undeserved they feign. All that is needed is to stare once more into the glass and see the timber sticking from their eye. Twas not the other where offense most lay, but in their own unbearable, constant, disruptive behavior so common to the barbarian. --] ] 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:37, 29 June 2008

Joseph Smith is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 11, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 14, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Former featured article candidate

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Latter Day Saint movement Top‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Missouri

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2025-01-09

Per discussions with experienced Wikipedians in preparation for FAC:

~~Trim article size to 45-50 kB (readable prose)~~
~~Remove or integrate most/all efn's - high quality writing that I hate to lose, can we move them to subarticles in many cases?~~
~~Research and resolve concerns from Hog Farm on the Missouri section~~
~~Prune references that no longer have citations based on them~~

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

Translation of the Book of Abraham

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but why is the "Translation of the Book of Abraham" section still in the article? We discussed this above, but it was never resolved. All the issues brought up in this section are already discussed in the Book of Abraham article. Can't we just remove it? We shouldn't have to discuss one issue in two places. If it's decided we really need the section, one paragraph should summarize the dispute with a link to the main article for the details. I'd do it myself, but I'm afraid my edit would just be reverted, so I'd like to discuss it first. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is major teachings of Joseph Smith, but the translation subsection is completely out of balance in the section. Someone went a little overboard. I will delete it entirely unless someone can demonstrate why this single issue is so significant that it should be the total focus of Joseph Smith's teachings. --Storm Rider 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Storm Rider, I also feel this is appropriate. A fairer treatment on Jospeh Smith's translative work would of necessity require a more thorough discussion on how the Book of Mormon came to be. For starters, it is a far more noteworthy topic - a 532 page book that skips forward and back in time, include chiasmus, includes multigenerational references to characters and their interactions across multiple tenses, includes names noone had ever heard of, and then those names were discovered on clay tablets in the 20th century, I could go on... but you get the picture, all of this was written from scratch in 60 days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremydmarshall (talk • contribs) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. Do you have a source that talks about these clay tablets that are considered to validate the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? —Remember the dot 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I always hesitate to suggest a new article -- but Translations of Joseph Smith, Jr. is always a possibility. Jeremydmarshall might be interested in contributing a translation methodology subsection to Origin of the Book of Mormon. WBardwin (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am glad to get such a quick response! Thanks guys. I am more than happy to gather my sources and contribute in a meaningful way if the opportunity exists for such. I was compelled to comment when I read the Book of Abraham article section specifically, especially when all the quotes that declare Smith an "impudent fraud" are taken from a raging anti-mormon source. This is hardly neutral.

In regards to the names on clay tablets: http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_05.pdf.

Daniel C Peterson, a BYU professor lectures on specific Book of Mormon evidences and has produced volumes on the subject. I will do some more reading before I begin to produce content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"... are taken from a raging anti-mormon source." A point to ponder: Are articles from 'raging PRO-mormon sources' (F.A.R.M.S. ) supposedly more credible than those from anti-mormon sources ? F.A.R.M.S. also can hardly be considered neutral. Duke53 | 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Duke53, FARMS is pro-mormon, CARM is specifically anti-mormon. The Book of Abraham references are anti-mormon. If you hold neutrality up as a guiding virtue why do the anti-mormons get to dictate the dialogue of almost the entire article? So much is that the case that the contents of this article are largely unrecognisable to those who are devout in the Latter-Day Saint faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 60.242.98.188 (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this section is still in the article. Can we remove it (since it is redundant) or do we need to leave it in (for what reason, I can't imagine)? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the section this morning; how it became the majority of the major teachings section is surprising. We should be more diligent about how things are written in the article.

I did not reread the entire article, but the Pearl of Great price does need to be mentioned and the information in this deleted material should be stated concisely with a link to the subarticle. I did not summarize this section but thought we should do it here. I will add the material in a new section below with the objective that a collaborative effort takes place and the resulting information is added to the article.--Storm Rider 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy Section

I have added a line noting Smith's February 1844 denunciation of polygamy in the Times & Seasons - it was immediately reverted. The user stated that my edit was 'controversial' and possibly 'misinformation'. After placing it back in, instead of merely listing the T&S reference, I provided a link to the reliable T&S online transcript. Hopefully this will suffice. Best, A Sniper (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Article tag

Does this article need a tag over the entire thing? The article incorporates tons of citations; if citations are needed, this should be indicated in the appropriate spots within the body of the article. --Eustress (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Eustress that the tag is unnecessary. There has been a lot of work that has gone into adding citations and keeping the NPOV. Of course, if specific citations are lacking, that should be flagged at the place of concern...but that is what is being done presently anyway. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been no objections, so I'm removing the tag. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job, Eustress - it was about time. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

AofF / Wentworth Letter

An anonymous user is re-inserting the LDS version of the AofF. I don't want to end up violating WP:3RR and would appreciate if regular contributors can again discuss why it has not been included in the JSJr article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the anon's latest edit, good job watching yourself to avoid 3RR! The one thing is I couldn't find the original discussion on the subject, if you could link it for me and the anon's sake that would be helpful. Boccobrock•T 21:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which archive the discussion is in, but I know the last time it occurred was in the last half year. By the way: it appears from what has been written to me that the anon is editing as Pangeanet as well as the IP address. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Polygamy and Christianity

I removed a parenthetical statement under the 1842 to 1844 section which stated:

(although Christians, as a whole, believe in the Bible and most all the ancient prophets of the Old Testament had multiple wives and or concubines, see Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, etc.)

This statement gives the impression that Christians are somewhat hypocritical in denouncing "plural marriage" when they believe in the Bible and "ancient prophets of the Old Testament had multiple wives". Yes, Christians believe in the Bible and understand that God allowed multiple wives in the Old Testament, however there is no hypocrisy concerning the denunciation of polygamy, the New Testament prohibits it clearly... 1 Corinthians 7:2 "each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband" and 1 Timothy 3:2 "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..."

There are many practices in the Old Testament that are no longer relevant (sacrifices) or allowed for Christians. For example, divorce, in the Old Testament a man was allowed to give his wife a certificate of divorce (for whatever reason), but Christ changed that saying that a man may not divorce his wife for any reason except adultery. There are many other such examples (oaths, sacrifices, and so on). Most Christians believe that polygamy was *tolerated* by God, much as divorce was: Matt 19:8 "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning". The reason why many believe that polygamy was like divorce —in the sense that it was tolerated and not the way it should be— is because "in the beginning" the way was one man, one woman (Adam and Eve), and Jesus clearly changed the rules of polygamy in the same way He did divorce.

If someone wants to include such a statement, then a proviso should be included. However, I think this would be inadvisable on the page, because an explanation would have to be given, such as I have provided above, and the article is no place for such machinations. That type of distinction belongs on a page contrasting the difference between Christianity and Mormonism, or the page on plural marriage. The statement as it is was, however, is misleading and offensive. Supertheman 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Pearl of Great Price rewrite

This is the subsection that was deleted:

Translation of the Book of Abraham

Main article: Book of Abraham

Smith stated that he translated the Book of Abraham from papyrus rolls. Although it is accepted that Smith bought the papyri from an Irishman named Michael Chandler in 1835, these hieroglyphics were not able to be translated at the time until the discovery of the Rosetta stone . The originals were thought by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to have been destroyed in a Chicago fire. Fragments of the papyri turned up in one of the vault rooms of the New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art. In November of 1967 the Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported the rediscovery of the papyri. Egyptologists have pointed out that Smith's purported translation is not, in fact, a translation. Dr. Archibald Sayce noted, "It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud....Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham." (For a counter to this assertion, see Abraham in Egypt, Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book Company, 1981, pp. 133-141). James H. Breasted wrote, "To sum up, then, these three fac-similies of Egyptian documents in the 'Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the mortuary religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith's interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian Writing and civilization." Arthur C. Mace, assistant curator of the Department of Egyptian Art of the Metropolitan Museum of Art wrote, "The 'Book of Abraham,' it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication....Joseph Smith's interpretation of these cuts is a farrago of nonsense from beginning to end." Samuel Alfred Brown Mercer, of the Western Theological Seminary, and author of an Egyptian grammar, stated, " knew neither the Egyptian language nor the meaning of the most commonplace Egyptian figures....the explanatory notes to his fac-similes cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination".

In the Ensign, an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michael D. Rhodes, a researcher in ancient scriptures from Brigham Young University counters the assertions made by various experts regarding the translation of the Book of Abraham. He asserts that Egyptians "often placed vignettes next to texts that bore no relationship to them" and that it was not uncommon for all of the illustrations on a scroll to appear at the beginning, with the text following in a distant portion of the document. "Thus, the text that gave rise to the book of Abraham could have been located elsewhere on the same papyrus" and has yet to be found. However, this hypothesis ignores the fact that the papyrus from facsimile 1 has been conclusively shown to have originally adjoined several other fragments in the collection and bear no resemblance to the writings of Abraham (they are portions of the Book of the Dead).

Lastly, Rhodes states that several accounts of Abraham's life have been recovered since Smith's time and that The Book of Abraham compares favorably with them. According to LDS scholar Hugh Nibley, one non-Mormon scholar, E.A.W. Budge, stated that Smith's Book of Abraham was "clearly based on...some Old Testament apocryphal histories." As Nibley points out, the Old Testament apocryphal histories to which the document so closely corresponds were not available in Joseph Smith's time, and were available in the British Museum only to Budge himself nearly eighty years later. Critical scholars have noted that LDS researchers have succumbed to "parallelomania" in finding parallels to prove their points, and largely dismiss the explanations given by Rhodes and Nibley.

What needs to take place now is that this information needs to be restated in a concise manner and linked to the article that treats the information more fully. Additional information should also be written that encompasses the Pearl of Great Price, which is actually the major topic to this section and not the Book of Abraham. Further, the major teachings derived from the Pearl of Great Price is the focus of the total section.

We should also look that the entire section entitled major teachings. This may currently be adequate, but we should determine if all major teachings are covered here. Someone want to take thte first stab? --Storm Rider 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Article edits

I made two major changes. Both were for form; I personally have no particular opinion on the subject, and believe I did not change any of the substance. I cut most of the section on polygamy, because there is a separate article. The section before I cut it was totally unclear, with contradictions, duplications, and poorly selected miscellaneous references. It was so hard to read and understand I decided to edit this article. I discovered the separate article discussed the subject in a similar way, but was organized in a far better fashion.

I also cut the section of eulogies. I respect the desire of some to praise Smith, but I believe this section added little to the substance to the article. It's clear from the article that many held Smith in great respect, making the praise in this section redundant. Many, many of the profiles in Misplaced Pages could be extended with respectful praise like this, but I believe that would lengthen many articles while adding few facts. I make no judgment on the accuracy of what was said, but do not think such comments improve Misplaced Pages articles. The merits of the person discussed are better established by the substance of the article. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As I was writing the note above, someone reverted my changes as "unexplained." I think if he or others look at my suggestions you'll find them appropriate. A long, confused section had conflicting claims about Smith's views on polygamy. I replaced it with a much shorter section with the most persuasive item on each side and referred to the (far better) separate article on the subject. I removed the "eulogy" section because I believe it an unnecessary addition to the article. You cannot read the article without relaizing many held Smith in great respect, so I think the eulogy adds length but little substance. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Returned here because reading the article suggested a better way to express my thoughts. Someone knowledgeable who expanded on Smith's teachings, as suggested, would be adding to and improving the article. I think that a far better use of space then heartfelt praise that adds few facts. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

DaveBurstein, FWIW, your signature belongs at the end of your post, not the beginning. Also, use the "Show preview" button before you hit the "Save page" button so you can see what your post looks like first. Two line breaks are required for new paragraphs. I reformatted your posts above to what I think you intended. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Marriage to Emma Smith

Some edits have been going back and forth regarding the mention of other wives in the marriage and family section. If the intent is to focus on the marriage with Emma, may I suggest that the section heading be changed to Marriage to Emma Smith (or something similar)? The intent of the section can be worked out here on the talk page. Just a thought. Alanraywiki (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome idea Alanray! Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's an "awesome idea" if your purpose is to minimize mention of Smith's polygamy. Not so awesome if you're trying to organize the article logically, by keeping wives and children in one place. - Juden (talk) 06:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Except if your POV purpose is to use speculation to suppose Smith had more children than has been proven historically. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not "speculation". At present, the article suffers from your attentions, as you seek to give a minority POV undue emphasis. What the article needs is a clear statement such as, "Historians, on the basis of contemporaneous documentation and testimony, agree that Smith married about two dozen women in his lifetime. Some Mormon denominations (<insert names here>), on the basis of the Smith family's denials, believe Emma Hale was Smith's only wife." It's clearly POV pushing to talk about only one wife and ignore the others and the possibility of other children. - Juden (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

What is POV speculation is to insert something alluding to Smith fathering more children than is verifiable with his legal (i.e. supported by the laws of the church at the time, and the monogamy law of the state) spouse. As someone interested in the historical record, you are certainly aware that titillating gossip about Smith bastard children has graced tell-alls since the 1850s, and even eager apologists have been unable to prove it using modern science - in fact, it has been disproved, one alleged kid at a time. Fawn Brodie herself illustrated the uncertainty of historical research as she was certain that Oliver Buell was the 'smoking gun' proof of extramarital Smith progeny. Oops. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again: it's not speculation to say that the possibility of other children was suggested during Smith's lifetime and examined by historians since - indeed, you yourself have just said it. What's POV is trying to keep that fact out of the article, or seeking continually to minimize it. The article still suffers from undue emphasis on the minority POV of Smith's polygamy.- Juden (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sniper is correct; significant effort, money, and research has gone in to prove that Joseph Smith fathered other children than with Emma; every one of them have been disproved. It is a shame we can't make this the typical anti-Mormon screed, full of titillating lies, innuendo, and half-truths while ignoring facts and the conflicting problems with reality. But unfortunately, it is Misplaced Pages and we have to stick to facts as discussed by experts. Old junk that has been disproved is not acceptable, even that it does meet the desires of POV editors. It is just tough luck I guess. Juden, you might want to consider a blog; I am sure tons of people would be drawn to your enlightening editorials. Cheers! --Storm Rider 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please consult WP:Civility. - Juden (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I know - I had to check it to see if it applied to the quip about my misspelling of 'Smith'. ;) A Sniper (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Quip? I simply included what I changed in my edit summary - which is what they are for, rather than your use of them to insult me. By the way, your recent edit also contains a significant misspelling. - Juden (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That ends this discussion, I wager. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I thought that last comment was from Storm Rider. I am very sorry that I failed to read the signature. It's Storm Rider who has inserted the most recent misspelling in the article, and he who has been uncivil and used edit summaries for invective, not you. - Juden (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) Civility is an odd beast that is harped upon by the self righteousness. Oh, how they squeal when their way is not obtained. Fingers sharp against the sky proclaim how they have been slighted by every passer-by. Wronged they proclaim as they continuously demand recompense for treatment undeserved they feign. All that is needed is to stare once more into the glass and see the timber sticking from their eye. Twas not the other where offense most lay, but in their own unbearable, constant, disruptive behavior so common to the barbarian. --Storm Rider 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:236
Rhodes, Michael (July 1988), "I Have A Question", Ensign: 51{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
Abanes, Richard (2003). One Nations Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church. New York, NY: Thunder's Mouth Press/Avalon. pp. 450–1. ISBN 987-1-56858-283-2. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid prefix (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |chapterurl= (help)
^ I Have a Question: Why doesn’t the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price? from Ensign, July 1988, Rhodes, Michael D.
Quoted in Abraham in Egypt, Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book Company, 1981, p. 2.
Abraham in Egypt, Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book Company, 1981, p. 2.

Categories:

Revision as of 23:37, 29 June 2008

Archives

Translation of the Book of Abraham

Polygamy Section

Article tag

AofF / Wentworth Letter

Polygamy and Christianity

Pearl of Great Price rewrite

Article edits

Marriage to Emma Smith