| Revision as of 21:31, 29 June 2008 editJuden (talk | contribs)383 edits →Marriage to Emma Smith← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:07, 18 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,033,222 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 12 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
|action1date=17:01, 11 August 2005 |
|
|action1date=17:01, 11 August 2005 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 |
| Line 12: |
Line 15: |
|
|action2oldid=31360425 |
|
|action2oldid=31360425 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
|currentstatus=FFAC |
|
|
|
|action3date=02:13, 3 May 2010 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive2 |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes |
|
|
|
|action3oldid=359733278 |
|
|1= |
|
|
{{WPBiography |
|
|
|living=no |
|
|
|class=B |
|
|
|priority= |
|
|
|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{LDSproject|class=B|importance=top|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Missouri |
|
|
|class=B |
|
|
|importance= |
|
|
|nested=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States presidential elections|class=B|nested=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{todo|small=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=GAN |
|
''An event in this article is a ]'' |
|
|
|
|action4date=06:06, 2 June 2010 |
|
|
|action4link=Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA1 |
|
|
|action4result=failed |
|
|
|action4oldid=365564352 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=GAN |
|
==Archives== |
|
|
|
|action5date=11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
This is an index of archived portions of the discussion at this page. Archives help keep pages fast, accessible, and more usable. Scroll down to see current discussion for this article. |
|
|
|
|action5link=Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./GA3 |
|
|
|action5result=failed |
|
|
|action5oldid=417390340 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
*] - <small>includes sections "Unresolved questions", "Joseph Smith image", "Disputed edits", "Neutrality", and "Vandalism"</small> |
|
|
|
|action6date=07:15, 25 October 2012 |
|
*] - <small>includes sections "Moroni's Visit", "Succession Crisis", "Succession Crisis", "Plural Marriage", "Importance of First Vision", "Using the words some and claimed", "Images", "Title", "POV edits", and "Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject".</small> |
|
|
|
|action6link=Talk:Joseph Smith/GA4 |
|
*] - <small>includes section "President Box".</small> |
|
|
|
|action6result=listed |
|
*] - <small>includes sections "Quinn" and "Plural Marriage removal".</small> |
|
|
|
|action6oldid=519681238 |
|
*] - <small>includes sections about Danites, JS as feature article.</small> |
|
|
*] - <small>includes sections about "Smith's Death", "Featured Article", "Comments from 66.87.28.66", "Plural Marriage/DNA testing", "Brigham Young transfiguration legend.", "Interesting question", "Introductory paragraphs", "References and footnotes", "Family and Marriage(s)", "King Follett Discourse needs detail", "Infobox problems", "New Bushman biography", "Proposed new public domain image of Moroni and Joseph", "Newsweek Cover Story", "More info on the jailing / lynching", "About featured status", "New split-off article covering Smith's early history", "Company seeking their share", "Nominating Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. for peer review", and "Nominating Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr as a Featured Article Candidate". This is every section (since the last archive) that was created before December 2005.</small> |
|
|
*] - <small>includes sections: Urim & Thummim, Dradamh, City Beautiful controversy, Spinoff articles, ...,Biased article, NPOV disputes, Plural wives section, Nancy Johnson, additional NPOV concerns.</small> |
|
|
*] - <small>includes sections: FreedominThought's NPOV concerns, Reverting edits by anonymous editors, Life In Missour section, Changes, good luck, Witnesses, Life in Missouri subsection, Jesus Christ to Jesus, Gathering of Israel subsection, Quotes that Mormons were considered abolitionsists, Inclusions by 67.9.135.139 and 65.70.157.104, Intro edits, NPOV dispute (Ongoing NPOV concerns), Sock puppetry accusations, Issue with Mormonlicious edits, NPOV: Mission Impossible?, More intro edits, In before bcatt reverts me, That's right, it needs reverting, No other Religious Leader is treated with such a negative POV</small> |
|
|
*] - <small>includes sections: "An interesting quote, Archives, Is The South Park Episode Accurate?, NPOV Tag revisited, The dispute history, Improved, Quotation Marks, Recent edits, Joseph Smith, Smith's wives and children, Eldest son dying, Edited introductory paragraph, Edits on Smith's Death, Editing section "1827 to 1831" |
|
|
</small> |
|
|
*] - <small>includes sections: Polygamy: Cultural or religious heresy?, Was it Moroni or Nephi that gave the plates?, Rigdon needs earlier reference in article, Comments of User:Hoboken, Re: Archive 9 - Is South Park quote Accurate?, Masonry, Joseph Smith diaries, Removed paragraph, Polygyny, Fawn Brodie & Bushman, Bullet-list in introductory paragraph?, His family supported Strang, Succession boxes, Citations, Crystal gazing sentence removal, References, Recent edit on D&C 111:4"</small> |
|
|
*] - <small>includes sections:Haun's Mill, Death, Masonry, First Vision, Splitting the article, witnesses, Media section, SouthPark, Reasonss for POV tag, Mob persecution, 1826 trial, Church of Christ, Myth of Joseph Smith killing two men at Carthage, Polygamy, Early life, Quotes, Last words, Racism, Criminal record, Reformed Egyptian, Image, Mason, Abraham, Persecution, Missionary category</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=PR |
|
==Translation of the Book of Abraham== |
|
|
|
|action7date=00:52, 16 August 2013 |
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith/archive1 |
|
|
|action7result=not reviewed |
|
|
|action7oldid=568731131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=FAC |
|
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 ] 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. — ] | ] 15:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action8date=10:01, 06 October 2013 |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith/archive1 |
|
|
|action8result=not promoted |
|
|
|action8oldid=575820559 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=FAC |
|
: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. --] ] 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9date=10:02, 27 December 2013 |
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith/archive2 |
|
|
|action9result=not promoted |
|
|
|action9oldid=587536173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|topic=Philrelig |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2005-01-12 |
|
: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? —] <sup>(])</sup> 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|otd1oldid=9686163 |
|
|
|otd2date=2006-01-12 |
|
|
|otd2oldid=34907269 |
|
|
|otd3date=2007-01-12 |
|
|
|otd3oldid=99901144 |
|
|
|otd4date=2008-01-12 |
|
|
|otd4oldid=183347223 |
|
|
|otd5date=2009-01-12 |
|
|
|otd5oldid=263560788 |
|
|
|otd6date=2011-01-12 |
|
|
|otd6oldid=407464143 |
|
|
|otd7date=2013-01-12 |
|
|
|otd7oldid=532602308 |
|
|
|otd8date=2015-01-12 |
|
|
|otd8oldid=641961939 |
|
|
|otd9date=2020-12-23|otd9oldid=995792032 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Smith, Joseph|blp=no|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Missouri|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low|VT=Yes|VT-importance=Low|UT=yes|UT-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=top|American=yes |American-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|Biography=yes|Spanish=yes|US=yes|Canadian=yes|British=yes|African=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
:::I always hesitate to suggest a new article -- but ] is always a possibility. Jeremydmarshall might be interested in contributing a translation methodology subsection to ]. ] (]) 06:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| author=Michael De Groote |
|
|
|
|
|
| title=Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Misplaced Pages |
|
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. |
|
|
|
| org=] |
|
|
|
|
|
| url=https://www.deseret.com/2011/1/30/20170574/wiki-wars-in-battle-to-define-beliefs-mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-wikipedia#jimmy-wales-from-the-us-co-founder-and-promoter-of-wikipedia-attends-the-intelligence-on-the-world-europe-and-italy-economic-forum-at-villa-deste-in-cernobbio-on-the-como-lake-italy-friday-sept-3-2010 |
|
In regards to the names on clay tablets: |
|
|
|
| date=30 Jan 2011 |
|
http://farms.byu.edu/jbms/pdf/9_1_2000_05.pdf. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Daily pageviews}} |
|
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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
:"<i>... are taken from a raging anti-mormon source.</I>" A point to ponder: <I><B>Are articles from 'raging PRO-mormon sources' </B></i> (<U>F.A.R.M.S. )</U> <I><B> supposedly <u>more</u> credible than those from anti-mormon sources ?</B></I> F.A.R.M.S. also can hardly be considered neutral. <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|
|
|
|counter = 24 |
|
: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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> ] (]) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
::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)? — ] | ] 12:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive %(counter)d |
|
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. |
|
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
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.--] ] 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, ] (]) 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. --] (]) 15:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:I would agree with ] 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, ] (]) 15:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::There have been no objections, so I'm removing the tag. Thanks. --] (]) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Good job, ] - it was about time. Best, ] (]) 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 ] and would appreciate if regular contributors can again discuss why it has not been included in the JSJr article. Best, ] (]) 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. ]•] 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 ] as well as the IP address. Best, ] (]) 22:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Polygamy and Christianity == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Church of Christ == |
|
I removed a parenthetical statement under the ] section which stated: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the section titled, "'''Joseph Smith Jr.",''' 2nd paragraph, is this sentence, '''"'''The same year he organized the ], calling it a ] of the ]." |
|
<blockquote> (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.)</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: add a sentence clarifying that the church name was subsequently changed to the current title, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints", based on this recorded statement in April 26, 1838 |
|
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, <b>the husband of but one wife...</b>" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", ''Doctrine and Covenants 115:4'' |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/115?id=p4&lang=eng#p4 |
|
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. ] <sup><font color="darkblue">(</font>]<font color="darkblue">)</font></sup> 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The name of the church was reitterated by the current president of the church: |
|
== Pearl of Great Price rewrite == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Correct Name of the Church" |
|
This is the subsection that was deleted: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng |
|
::Translation of the Book of Abraham |
|
|
::{{Main|Book of Abraham}} |
|
|
::Smith stated that he translated the ] from papyrus rolls.<ref>B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:236</ref> 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 ] {{Fact|date=February 2008}}. 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 ]. In November of 1967 the Deseret News of Salt Lake City reported the rediscovery of the papyri.<ref> {{Citation| last = Rhodes | first = Michael | title = I Have A Question | journal = Ensign | pages = 51 | date = July 1988 | year = 1988 }}</ref> Egyptologists have pointed out that Smith's purported translation is not, in fact, a translation. Dr. ] 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). ] 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".<ref>{{cite book |last=Abanes |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Abanes |title=One Nations Under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church|year=2003 |publisher= Thunder's Mouth Press/Avalon|location=New York, NY |language= |isbn= 987-1-56858-283-2|oclc= |doi= |id= |pages=450-1 |chapter= |chapterurl= |quote= }}</ref> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The emphasis on the correct name has eclipsed "Mormon church" or other popular references. |
|
::In the '']'', an official publication of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Michael D. Rhodes, a researcher in ancient scriptures from ] 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"<ref name="mikerhodes"> from '']'', July 1988, Rhodes, Michael D.</ref> 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 ]). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: tie hyperlinks to the name of the church to that churches official website, which offers comprehensive historical records |
|
::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.<ref name="mikerhodes" /> According to LDS scholar ], one non-Mormon scholar, E.A.W. Budge, stated that Smith's Book of Abraham was "clearly based on...some Old Testament apocryphal histories."<ref>Quoted in ''Abraham in Egypt'', Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book Company, 1981, p. 2.</ref> 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.<ref>''Abraham in Egypt'', Hugh Nibley, Deseret Book Company, 1981, p. 2.</ref> Critical scholars have noted that LDS researchers have succumbed to "]" in finding parallels to prove their points, and largely dismiss the explanations given by Rhodes and Nibley. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/books-and-lessons/church-history?lang=eng ] (]) 01:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' name, and the various names of the church organization Smith founded, are : |
|
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? --] ] 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:* {{tq|The religion he founded is followed to the present day by millions of global adherents and several churches, the largest of which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} |
|
|
:* {{tq|In Missouri, the church also took the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"}} |
|
|
:The phrase "Mormon Church" never appears on the page. For the recorded consensus on forms like "LDS Church", see ], a link to Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. It looks like last time the use of the phrase "LDS Church" was discussed, a preponderance of editors came out in favor of using "LDS Church" as the preferred shorthand for pages in mainspace, and the discussion closed with that as consensus. ] (]) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 == |
|
==Article edits== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Joseph Smith|answered=yes}} |
|
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. |
|
|
|
The statement in quotes below is not accurate there is no LDS Church, and members of the church have always referred to one another as Saints. They did for a period of time accept being called Mormons, but it was derogatory and often used to imply the members were not Christian, or that they were non member sympathizers of the church in general. |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Mormons generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the LDS Church and the Community of Christ." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should read |
|
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. ] (]) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
"Saints generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commonly referred to as the LDS Church, and the Community of Christ." ] (]) 22:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:When you're writing for a global audience (as we are), a ] is typically understood to be a dead person who has been ]. In that light, it's unlikely that "Saints generally regard Smith" at all. Also, see ]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I suggest we use Jason Wasden's edit, but with "Saints" changed to "Latter-day saints" or at least "Latter-day saints (Mormons)." ] (]) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024 == |
|
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. ] (]) 02:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Joseph Smith|answered=yes}} |
|
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. ] (]) 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I suggest that note b should be changed to include the fact that the vast majority of Latter Day Saints followed Brigham Young. ] (]) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] | ] 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of children == |
|
:], 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. — ] | ] 13:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article mentions the children he had with Emma, but does not mention if he had children with the other women he was involved with. Is there a hard and fast number and can we get that included in the article? ] (]) 10:36, 27 November 2024 (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. ] (]) 04:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
:Children with other women have been suggested but many that can be checked via genetics have been disproven. A table of a few of the suggested and disproven candidates is included at ]. --] (]) 13:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:'''Awesome idea''' ]! Best, ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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, ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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, ] (]) 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.- ] (]) 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! --] ] 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Please consult ]. - ] (]) 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'. ;) ] (]) 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. - ] (]) 21:24, 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) |
|
Suggestion: add a sentence clarifying that the church name was subsequently changed to the current title, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints", based on this recorded statement in April 26, 1838
"For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", Doctrine and Covenants 115:4
The emphasis on the correct name has eclipsed "Mormon church" or other popular references.
Suggestion: tie hyperlinks to the name of the church to that churches official website, which offers comprehensive historical records
The statement in quotes below is not accurate there is no LDS Church, and members of the church have always referred to one another as Saints. They did for a period of time accept being called Mormons, but it was derogatory and often used to imply the members were not Christian, or that they were non member sympathizers of the church in general.
"Mormons generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the LDS Church and the Community of Christ."
It should read
"Saints generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commonly referred to as the LDS Church, and the Community of Christ." Jason Wasden (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The article mentions the children he had with Emma, but does not mention if he had children with the other women he was involved with. Is there a hard and fast number and can we get that included in the article? JustAChurchMouse (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)