Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 2

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

Moroni's visit

In LDS Pearl of Great Price, Smith says Moroni visited him first on September 21, 1822, not September 22. Why do we say September 22 here? Hawstom 15:00, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

According to the Official Church History, the visitations by the Angel Moroni took place place the late evening of the 21 and early morning of the 22. Also it was five visits, not three - well, three times during the night of 21-22, and twice more during the day of the 22. See Joseph Smith-History in the Pearl of Great Price. I'm going to touch up that section of the article. --Beolach 11:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Succession Crisis

I removed the following from the part about succession:

, though most of Smith's own famly did not

As we've hashed out on other pages, Smith's family did not have an issue with accepting Young's succession at the time he took leadership. EMma was present when Young was unanimously sustained. She however, refused to come to utah - an entirely seperate issue. JS III did refute the leadership of young - but not until he took control of the RLDS (NOW COC). Smith's mother was coming to utah, but was asked to stay by Emma. Mary Fielding SMith came. Samuel Smith accepted. William accepted, but was later excomm. The sisters accpeted, but didn't come west. anyway... it's been removed again.

Succession Crisis

I removed the following from the part about succession:

, though most of Smith's own famly did not

As we've hashed out on other pages, Smith's family did not have an issue with accepting Young's succession at the time he took leadership. EMma was present when Young was unanimously sustained. She however, refused to come to utah - an entirely seperate issue. JS III did refute the leadership of young - but not until he took control of the RLDS (NOW COC). Smith's mother was coming to utah, but was asked to stay by Emma. Mary Fielding SMith came. Samuel Smith accepted. William accepted, but was later excomm. The sisters accpeted, but didn't come west. anyway... it's been removed again.

Plural Marriage

B, I think your recent edits on plural marriage are a fine bit of contribution, but I think they are getting a bit peripheral to the article at hand. To tell the truth, I was not even entirely comfortable with the amount of peripheral discussion I left in from the anomymous contribution I massaged. Would you agree to setting a boundary to at least discussing plural marriage only during Smith's lifetime in this article? The rest can be relegated to a reference to the plural marriage or the Brigham Yong article, don't you think? Tom (hawstom) 17:10, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that my latest edits are tangential. Some of my edits are often just to make a point to help the article progress. A lot of my recent edits here should be moved to the already existing article on Plural Marriage. B 17:28, May 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll see who holds out the longest on doing it :-D. Tom (hawstom) 18:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Importance of First Vision

In the 1998 October conference of the Church, Pres Hinckley stated the following:

"Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration." (Ensign Mag., Nov. 1998, pp.70-71)

This reference does not exactly support what Wadsworth's recent edits are conveying, and taken in the context of the theology of the Church, all that this reference supports is the primacy or primary importance of the First Vision. The doctrines are not amenable to being ranked in order of importance and efforts to do so are weak. The line that "many of the devout consider it the second most important event in world history" overstates how "many of the devout" would express their views on the importance of the FV; it is sufficient to state it's primacy without overdoing it. Moreover, (like my latest plural marriage" edits), in depth coverage on the FV belongs properly to the article on that subject, not in this article. I'm editing the article in line with my comments here. If anyone objects, at the very least the topic needs to be considered in the FV article, not here. —B|Talk 22:22, May 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am new to the discussion (and to the Wiki experience) but I would like to contribute. User:RustedB

Using the words some and claimed

This article seems to use the words some and claimed far too much. For example, in the section Translation, it says

• Some accounts state that Smith would place a stone he claimed had divine powers into an upturned hat, then place his face into the hat and dictate what he claimed were translations or visions induced by the stone.
• Some accounts state that Smith wore a breastplate and Urim and Thummin.
• Some accounts state that Smith did not use (especially in his later translating) any medium, but rather studied the plates or a paper copy of characters and gave the translation to various scribes.

I don't know about anyone else, but I think this could be improved-any ideas? — Braaropolis | Talk 07:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think in many cases you can just remove the superfluous "claim" words as long as the resulting tone doesn't end up promoting a POV. In the examples you give, I think the way the senetences start is probably good enough:

• Some accounts state that Smith would place a stone he with divine powers into an upturned hat, then place his face into the hat and dictate translations or visions induced by the stone.

I am very uncomfortable with the usage you have identified. It appears to be used mostly to reveal rumor and gossip that has been around for decades, but without any basis in fact. More than anything it attempts to present a negative POV in a benign manner. I equate this to talk of Christ couching it in similar language: "It has been said that Jesus was a homosexual". Yes it has been said, but there is no basis in fact. It is conjecture, rumor, and unadulterated gossip. --- Storm Rider

Hi, Storm Rider. I think your points are fair. And I think it is fair to ask for a little attribution. As you know, the NPOV policy doesn't require we give equal weight to pseudo-scientific claims, only that we mention them. This is a tough area to deal with, and I am glad you have noticed it. Keep with it little by little and I'm sure we will all learn a thing or two. By the way, you might check at the bottom of this page to see if there is a discussion that might involve you. Tom - Talk 04:23, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Images

Some of the images used in this article don't have the proper tags and will be deleted with the next upgrade of the software. Using images on the 'pedia is tricky and I don't think just scanning a picture in and claiming "fair use" is sufficient. Two images used in the article are public domain (their copyright expired) and I added the appropriate {{PS-US}} tag to them. Two, however, don't have any tags and will be deleted as I mentioned unless the appropriate tags are added:

• Image:Firstvisionjosephsmith.jpg
• Image:Joseph_smith_paintingg.jpg - has the {{fairuse}} tag, but I contest that just placing that tag makes it so
• Image:Themartyrdomoftheprophet.jpg

To whoever uploaded the images, add the appropriate tags or have them deleted with the upgrade. Peace. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:44, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Funny, I was wondering the same thing - some of the images are not in public domain and their approved use is contested. Please provide written permission or source of fair use here. -Visorstuff 16:33, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Title

I don't know if this has been discussed and decided before, but is there any particular reason why the article is at Joseph Smith, Jr. instead of the more common Joseph Smith? It's not as though the latter is a disambig page, it's just a redirect presently. Everyking 20:14, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know. I guess there is just one famous Joseph Smith? Tom 22:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting question, because the title of the article in the Encyclopædia Britannica is just "Joseph Smith". In fact, I remember reading some other encyclopedia (I'm not sure where) that began "Joseph Smith (formerly Joseph Smith, Jr.)...". I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, but I can see some advantages of making the change. The name is so prominently associated with Joseph Smith, Jr. that any other famous person named Joseph Smith is going to have to use a middle name or initial. COGDEN 01:55, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

All right, if no one objects in the next day or so I'll delete the redirect and move it there. Everyking 10:04, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I object - there are a number of other Notable Joseph Smith's in history - most recently a basketball player and a kidnapper. Perhaps since a disambig page is needed at JS., but let's keep the same. I like the re-direct, and allows for more than one smith, but for Wikipedia consistency sake it should be Joseph Smith (1803-1844).

Yes, but I think that this particular Joseph Smith's fame is so great that a disambig page might be merely an annoyance, considering that a vast majority of readers will probably be looking for this article. Often in a case like this we would simply put a notice at the top linking to the disambig page for other people with the same name. Everyking 22:12, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like it how it is. ^_^ Cookiecaper 03:59, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I object. I think there is good reason for the current name. The Community of Christ usually refers to him Joseph Smith, Jr. because they have to differentiate between him and Joseph Smith III. Latter-day Saints almost never speak of Smith's son or father, so we see the title as useless. Although it could be argued that including "Jr." serves their POV, I don't think it does. It is his name, and striping it would rather be serving the LDS POV, I think. Cool Hand Luke 06:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All right, that's enough opposition for me, we'll leave it where it is for now. Everyking 10:32, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV edits

Some recent anon POV edits contained much content, but had to be reverted wholesale. I added an invitation < ! - - Comment - - > to the article to help head off future POV edits while still inviting participation. Let's educate new users they can help us do this right. Tom - Talk 19:55, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The anon has made another, similar edit. I left a note on his talk page. Everyking 21:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like your comment; looks good. It's unfortunate that they're doing this because the edits obviously took them some time. It would be better if people familiar with Mormonism help fill other potential articles like our stubs instead of plunging headfirst into a carefully balanced consensus work. Even if the articles have to be un-POV'd, we're at least making progress instead of simply re-reverting. Cool Hand Luke 06:10, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Propose we make a Mormonism WikiProject

The to-do list on Joseph Smith suggests we possibly make a Mormonism welcoming committee. I think one of the best ways to do this is make a WikiProject devoted to Mormon issues. There's now quite a few regular contributors to these issues—over ten, I think—and it would be good to have one clearinghouse for these topics.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mormonism would be:

• A mini-requests for comment page. There are a lot of discussions littered on talk pages I wish I'd known about when they were actually in progress. We could post live discussions on the project to get more comments.
• A to-do list. LDS stubs are good, but we should have a place to list requested articles.
• Peer review. This is particularly important because of the many groups and perspectives in Mormonism. As someone sympathetic to New Mormon History, I think any history I write ought to be looked over by traditionalists, and vice versa.
• For large-scale direction. There aren't good ways to discuss things like category organization, but a project could provide a forum.

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism for what I have in mind.

Looking at other WikiProjects, I see a number of unilatteral efforts have become ghost projects, so I'd like to get some support before doing this. If there's a rough consensus for it, I think we ought to create a WikiProject and alert all the regulars. Cool Hand Luke 00:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd support it. I've never really been involved with a Wikiproject before (last night was the first time I ever really looked at one in-depth), but I think that sounds like something I'd like to do. I support it. Cookiecaper 01:17, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, but my time is limited. I'm a bit involved in three other projects! — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:21, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

I need to think about this more - but initial thoughts are to go ahead with it - but it is my opinion it should be a Latter Day Saint project, and include non-LDS folks. I think it would implode if POV becomes a problem. -Visorstuff 00:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would be for it, assuming there is enough support. If it's created, I agree with Visorstuff that it should be a Latter Day Saint project, as more people call themselves Latter Day Saints than would admit to practicing Mormonism--and we want as many people involved as possible. (Of course, I've never yet come across a Wikipedian from one of the smaller denominations that is active in the Wikipedia community on religious issues.) My only concern is the level of support. There has to be enough people interested so that doesn't stagnate. We've had some community-based efforts regarding LDS articles in the past, including the Naming Conventions, the List of articles about Mormonism (which is becoming obsolete now that we have a category system), and the categories, but not many of us users have been involved in keeping these coherent and up-to-date. But I think it's probably worth a try. Maybe we could pique the interest of some other Wikipedians and make them converts (to the joys of editing Mormonism articles, that is). COGDEN 01:34, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

With luke-warm support (including an offer from a Mormon issues outsider who replied on Gilgamesh's talk page), I went ahead and created a WikiProject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint. To give the project something to start with, I wrote several scripts to identify potential work such as a list of "red links" from articles related to Mormonism. This should help identify areas to expand, but it also illuminates a number of mistaken links in articles.

I need to go to bed now. Cool Hand Luke 08:36, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Kudos. I am not too great with the technology, but I like the concept. Maybe you all can explain any techno-questions I come up with. Good work. Tom - Talk 20:08, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I also like the concept, however, it is not accurate. He was the fouding leader of the Latter Day Saint Movement, yes. That is accurate. BUT he was president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. there is a difference, and that needs to be added on. Remember, there was a church at the time of Joseph's death, and that Church as a whole came west. There were others that did not recognize the legitimacy of the church, which is fine (and not argued), but the fact remains that his title was "President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." He wasn't sustained as "Founder" or as a "movement" head. He had a title, and the box needs to reflect that. We could however, say in the box, that other groups claim him as their founder, including CoC, Etc. But his proper title needs to be respected. To me, this has been the issue all along. I love the concept of the box, but it needs to be factually, and historically, accurate. -Visorstuff 14:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - I would like to contribute

I would like to be a regular contributor of this topic. User:RustedB