Joseph Smith is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. 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

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Latter Day Saint movement B‑class Top‑importance 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Missouri B‑class 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 articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections Unassessed 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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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.

An event in this article is a January 12 selected anniversary

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.

• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 1 - includes sections "Unresolved questions", "Joseph Smith image", "Disputed edits", "Neutrality", and "Vandalism"
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 2 - 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".
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 3 - includes section "President Box".
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 4 - includes sections "Quinn" and "Plural Marriage removal".
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 5 - includes sections about Danites, JS as feature article.
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 6 - 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.
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 7 - includes sections: Urim & Thummim, Dradamh, City Beautiful controversy, Spinoff articles, ...,Biased article, NPOV disputes, Plural wives section, Nancy Johnson, additional NPOV concerns.
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 8 - 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
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 9 - 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"

• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 10 - 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"
• Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr./Archive 11 - 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

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 20:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"... are taken from a raging anti-mormon source." A point to ponder: Are articles from 'raging PRO-mormon sources' (F.A.R.M.S. [1]) supposedly more credible than those from anti-mormon sources ? F.A.R.M.S. also can hardly be considered neutral. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 15:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^(talk) 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1] 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 ^{[citation needed]}. 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.^[2] 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 [Isis] 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, "[Smith] 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".^[3]

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"^[4] 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.^[4] 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."^[5] 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.^[6] 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 ^(talk) 15:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia articles. The merits of the person discussed are better established by the substance of the article. DaveBurstein (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 ^(talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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 ^(talk) 23:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you think alluding to me rather than specifically using my name exempts you from the need to be civil. It doesn't. - Juden (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise everyone here to tone down the rhetoric a notch. It doesn't help to build a better article. As I look at the history, I also see a lot of edit-warring, and possible 3RR violations. Myself, I have no opinion on this question, other than that it is an interesting one. But in any case, I think it'd be best for all involved to treat each other with respect; there seem to be legtitimate points of disagreement here, but they are all in good faith, as far as I can see. IronDuke 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iron, you might want to review Juden's history before you start claiming good faith. A long history of interaction leads only to one conclusion: he is unequivically committed to his POV. When you are going to ride to the rescue at his petty request, always, ALWAYS, look at contribution history. You can see the quality of his edits. Then enter the fray. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current section on Smith's Polygamy is filled with weasel words, and the title itself "Other Marriages" is itself a weasel word because it really refers to Smith's polygamous marriages. Also, it seriously misrepresents or suppresses the history of Smith's polygamy, and generally presents a POV denial of Smith's polygamy. This section must represent Smith's polygamy with concise, direct, and NPOV language that presents this subject honestly. There is a much fuller article on the Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy, but at the very least the most relevant facts from that article and the sources supporting them must be represented in this article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the whole idea of having the other pages was to present the details, not to have it duplicated on the JSJr. page. If you want to re-write the current paragraph, go ahead, but adding all of that defeats the purpose of the other pages. And what weasel words are you referring to? Why not fix them? Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not discussing duplicating details, but representing the most relevant facts about Smith's polygamy and the sources supporting these facts with honest, concise, direct, and NPOV language. My attempt at this takes about 4K characters, versus about 50 KB at Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy, so in no way can this section be represented as "duplication." Weasel words: "Other Marriages" (as explained above), 2/3 sentences in original devoted to denying Smith's polygamy, relying entirely on Smith's and Emma's testimony. These are details that belong in the other article not here. Weasel problems to be specifically avoided are "implicit endorsement of faulty logic," "repetition," and "partisan opinions," which all can to said to be present in the brief POV section "Other Marriages." This original section is frankly laughable when weighed against the facts stated in the reliable sources provided. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Écrasez please feel free to rewrite the paragraph, and we can work to get it more concise, but keep it one paragraph. It certainly should be a summary of the key ideas of the the main article at Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy. The sources can simply be made as references, I don't think direct quoting is necessary. cheers! Boccobrock•T 19:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work to get the 4K doen to half that in a single paragraph, though I would not characterize a 4K section of a 65 KB article as undue weight. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you're not referring to JSJr. and Emma's own words as 'weasel'. Regardless of how much data is included in the paragraph, it must be relevant to an article on Smith that he denied the polygamy in church publications, as did his wife. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like weasel words are in the eye of the behold at this juncture. You will not find any argument from LDS that Joseph Smith had plural wives or participated in polygyny. However, you will find a significant majority of CofC and others who completely reject that position. In their opinion it was all Brigham. What we can not do is present it as fact; Wikipedia does not make deductions we simply quote the statements of experts. Do you understand this distinction? Some would say polygamy is a weasel word; the accurate term is plural wives or polygyny. "Other marriages" does not deny Joseph's participation in polygyny or any thing else. Are you saying that it does deny that Smith had other marriages? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that's why Wiki must rely upon reliable sources to decide what to include in an article. "Other Marriages" is clearly weasel when it is, in fact, Smith's polygamous marriages that are being discussed. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to completely miss the point. Who gets to decide what section titles to use when reputable references conflict? Are you that fellow or is anyone else allowed to particiapte? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only conflict here is that a very small sectarian POV believes that Smith did not have Polygamous Marriages. Calling this section anything other than "Polygamous Marriages," when Polygamous Marriage is itself the very nature of the conflict, is especially weasel, whether or not one agrees with the sect's POV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to Emma Smith and her family as a sect? It appears from your writing that you yourself are pushing a POV based on your own 'sect'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am referring to Emma Smith and her family as a sect. Even today, the CoC has 250K members, while the LDS has 13 million. The CoC is a sect. My own POV and 'sect' is to use words like sect and polygamy simply as they are defined and commonly used. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Sniper has deleted the following text, based upon the reviewed work of authoritative historians, comparing it to a "National Enquirer article." A Sniper's emotional response to these facts notwithstanding, these are verifiable facts from reliable sources, and a brief representation of these facts should appear in this article:

The question of Smith's progeny from his polygamous marriages has been raised since his death. Y-DNA genetic testing for non-male is not possible, complicating the search for Smith's descendants from polygamous marriages. Also, Smith purportedly had Dr. John C. Bennett perform abortions for his polygamous wives to conceal the relationship.^{[7][8][9][10]}

(refs here, with links to the original sources). I will listen to what others have to say before editing again. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the references you gave to support the abortion, etc. claims and ended up deleting three references. One did not even apply; if Joseph Smith has accused Bennett of aborting pregnancies resulting from Bennett's extra-marital affairs, that does not mean Smith used his services. It is not even close; it is a total misuse of the reference. The first one I deleted had nothing to do with the topic. The last one was the same reference as the last remaining one. We do not repeat references in an attempt to make the case that there is any case. This is another example of gross abuse of referencing, which seems to be a common problem when you use references. Please make a more concerted effort to use references properly.--Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read them again, this time more carefully:

• Newell 1994 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's children on page 111, link. Newell even goes on to say that when the women refused the abortion, "Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval."
• Smith 1971 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's children on page 113, link.
• Sarah Pratt, supported by the recollection of others in the cited references, says that Smith had John C. Bennett perform abortions to conceal Smith's relationship with his (single) polygamous wives, as recounted in a discussion with Smith's son Joseph Smith III (by Emma),

  "I saw that he was not inclined to believe the truth about his father, so I said to him: 'You pretend to have revelations from the Lord. Why don't you ask the Lord to tell you what kind of a man your father really was?' He answered: 'If my father had so many connections with women, where is the progeny?' I said to him: 'Your father had mostly intercourse with married women, and as to single ones, Dr. Bennett was always on hand, when anything happened. (Wyl 1886, pp. 60–61 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWyl1886 (help))

These references are reliable and support the text; I'm restoring them, as I see that you've deleted them for spurious reasons. If you have reliable sources that rebut the ones provided here, please include them. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with this particular accusation, but if we mention this in the article, we need to be careful about how it is framed. At least one of these sources (Sarah Pratt) appears to just be a recounting of a rumor. There is no reason to believe that Sarah Pratt had first hand or specific hearsay knowledge of this. We should check the other sources as well. If none of them were in a position to have first-hand or at least specific hearsay knowledge, and it seems they are just recounting a rumor, then we should say something like "Several witnesses recount rumors that John C. Bennett performed abortions for some of Joseph Smith's plural wives." Does somebody have access to the actual passages cited? The links above do not include these cited pages. COGDEN 22:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Écrasez l'infâme - Have you stopped beating your wife? Bennett is talking about Joseph's implicit approval of Bennett's polygamy (or attempted liaisons) in the first two references you cite; there is no implication of Joseph Smith and abortion; I don't understand the context of your third reference, but given the mushy conclusion from the first two, I assume it too can be dismissed. I'm sorry, but I have to call you out on this. If this is an example of the logical basis with which you have been editing articles in this polygamy series, I am seriously questioning the integrity of those edits. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the first two, but I think the third one is, clearly, a reference to Bennett performing abortions for Smith's plural wives. However, it appears to be a recounting of a rumor, and if so, we should at least frame it as such. COGDEN 22:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are links above to the Google Books versions. I'm gone for the weekend, but check them yourself. They belong in the John C. Bennett article, if anything. As far as JS abortions, see WP:SOURCES -- this is clearly based in rumor. --TrustTruth (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Google excerpts do not include the cited pages, at least when I accessed them. Looking a bit into this, I'm not totally sure about Sarah Pratt's allegation being a rumor. It may be, or may not, I can't tell. Pratt and Bennett were accused by upstanding Mormons who say they saw them at least reach "second base", who say they had an affair over several months in Nauvoo while Orson was away on a mission, and it might be that Pratt could have been in a position to observe Bennett's clandestine medical procedures, but I don't know. I think what we need here is some guidance from recent scholars. Does Bushman mention this in Rough Rolling Stone, or is this in any of the other prominent Mormon or non-Mormon biographies? COGDEN 23:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an online source for the third citation. Apparently, the author says he interviewed Sarah Pratt, who recounted a story where Bennett told her he was on his way to do "a little job for Joseph" because "one of his women was in trouble.".[2] So that answers the question of whether or not this was a rumor. Aparently it was not. Wymetal appears to be a reliable source for Pratt's allegations. So we can probably say something like: "Smith has been accused of allowing his then-closest associate John C. Bennett, a medical doctor, to perform abortions for Smith's Nauvoo wives who were officially single." COGDEN 00:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay folks, for those of you who cannot access these links (Google books lets you skip to the specified page, you know), or claim that they do not say as represented above, here are fair-use screen shots of the most relevant portions (below). Newell 1994 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's polygamous children on page 111, link. Newell even goes on to say that when the women refused the abortion, "Bennett stated that he came with Joseph's approval." Smith 1971 cites Bennett's abortion of Smith's children on page 113, link. As discussed in Smith 1971, the Saints worked hard to counter these charges and discredit Bennett, but to little effect. The fact remains that there are credible (to historians writing in reliable sources) charges that Smith used Dr. John C. Bennett for abortions, at least to conceal his relationships with single women. A biographical article requires a section on offspring, and Smith's requires one on polygamous offspring, for which this charge is highly relevant. It would be POV and biased to omit it, for then Joseph Smith III's question "where are the progeny?" carries greater weight. I am comfortable with the language suggested by COGDEN above. This charge requires only a single sentence in the article, and perhaps a single sentence rebuttal if someone wishes to compose one. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These fair-use screen shots were auto rm'd because they don't appear in an article. To see the text, just click the links Newell 1994 and Smith 1971, then either go to pages 111 and 113, or simply search the text for "abortion." Also, there is Wymetal 1886, as COGDEN points out. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{Subscript text}== Please stop attempted POV suppression of facts==

please stop with the POV crusade - what's next: using 1860s pulp fiction as sources? A Sniper (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you may fervently wish that this were rumor or "pulp fiction" or POV, these are eyewitness accusations appearing in reliable source histories. This is obvious to another editor above, who writes "Apparently it was not [rumor]. Wymetal appears to be a reliable source for Pratt's allegations." Here are the links once again again (expressed as trivial Google searches anyone may perform), that point you directly to the pages cited:

• Newell 1994, p. 111
• Smith 1971, p. 113
• Wymetal 1886, p. 61

Newell 1994 and Smith 1971 have been used as a reliable source on several Smith and Saints-related history pages. It is revealing that you characterize this scholarship as "pulp fiction" and "National Enquirer" on this single point. Please stop your POV campaign of deleting and attempting to suppress these highly relevant facts reported in numerous reliable sources. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. A Sniper, I just see on another page where you say that you're a Smith descendant. On a personal level, I'm sorry if this subject is a painful or difficult one. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not the only user who believes you're using 'facts' based on rumor and titillating nineteenth century gossip. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Sniper, it looks like you are questioning the validity of the cited sources that are being used here and are accepted elsewhere; unless you are able to prove that they are not valid sources, then you must accept them. 'Believing' that these facts are not valid is simply not enough reason to ignore or debunk them. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 16:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As other users have pointed out, this user is using supposition, POV and information based on rumor to create facts where none actually exist. It has nothing to do with belief. I am only interested in what is documented as fact, not interesting tales based on nineteenth century gossip. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(new indent) Though I would prefer to see these sources studied more, I have not yet finished reviewing the line of research that Wyl seems to be the source. It does not matter that the same things are cited by different individuals when they all come from the same source. Andrew J. Smith just repeats what others have said, but I do not find any reputable historians, pro or con, that even begin to discuss this issue. I have read accusations of hearsay particularly regarding Pratt's accusations, and thus one cannot say fact. We can say that so and so said this, but...and then qualify the statement as not being reliable for whatever reason as stated by historians. I remain surprised that more significant historians have not made these accusations of abortions, etc. the centerpiece of their critique of Smith and the church. They go against everything that is believed about the purpose of polygyny. There is nothing that would support the position in LDS theology. The only purpose for polygyny is to raise up righteous children. Something does not seem right about any of this, but I have not been able to find anything in reputable sources to shed light on this. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The only purpose for polygyny is to raise up righteous children." Huh? I can't find that qualifier in any of the definitions [3] I have read. Most reasonable WP editors can think of a myriad of reasons for polygyny other than 'raising up' righteous children. Sheesh ! Duke53 | ^Talk 21:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What reasons have your heard about the polygyny? The only reason is to have more children; there is no other. Have you even read Joseph Smith's writings? How about Brigham Young? Sheesh indeed --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, one that pops to mind immediately would be the pleasure of having sex with several women. Unlike you, most people do NOT take either Smith's or Young's writings as gospel; just because they gave a 'reason' for doing it does NOT mean that is why they WERE doing it. Blind Faith in their 'declarations' simply doesn't work for the majority of people on this planet. Indeed: SHEESH ! Duke53 | ^Talk 02:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, it looks like you have yet to get the point I was making! BIG SURPRISE. The point of the teaching on polygyny was to raise up righteous children. There was never a teaching as you outline above, just for sex. Of course, many of the prophets of the OT I guess were just doing the same thing; don't you love it that Christians and Jews all revere a bunch of perverted old men? Oh, that's right...that type of criticism is not acceptable because it hits too close to home. Well, it is not surprising when only those who are not interested in anything but their own POV play games. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So, the stated purpose of polygamy was to beget children, yet Smith wasn't having sex with his polygamous wives? Is that the official point of view then? - Juden (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have the trio all together! It is such a pleasure to work with such enlightened, open minds such as you three display; and all in one place nonetheless!

You might recall that not all things with the restoration started all at once. The church, just like the church founded by Jesus Christ in his day, did not come out of the womb fully formed. Though we are certainly talking about a topic of faith, it is evident that the restoration of the church moved step by step.

So then, at the beginning, polygamy wasn't, despite your previous assertions, for procreation? - Juden (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will also recall that Smith was commanded to not defer the practice of polygyny any longer at his peril. Of all the accusations of having children, not one case has ever been proven though many have tried to prove their relationship. That is not to say that Smith did not have sexual relations with any of the women; nor do I think that all of the relationships were platonic. It simply means he did not have progeny from them. It may also indicate tthat he did not have many sexual relationships with his plural wives. Given Smith's love of his own children and his overwhelming sense of family, which all reputable historians acknowledge, it is preposterous to think that he was causing the alledged abortions of his progeny willy-nilly as proposed by Wyl. Nothing in Smith's history or character has lead any reputable historian to make such an allegation. In summary, he is thought that Smith had sexual relations with some of his plural wives, but it is supposition to point one which one(s). There is not factual, supportable evidence. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no factual supportable evidence for the assertion that he didn't have sex with all his wives. Your point? - Juden (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Before this escalates further, in my opinion the problem is with sources. Three recent works that point to one rather flimsy original source does not history make. If there is proof, bring it on - but if it is the same tired (as in 150 years +) innuendo, Wikipedia has to steer clear unless it is qualified with information as to the sketchy nature of the original source. However, the user is presenting things wholesale as if it is without challenge - this becomes POV if there is a motive to digging the dirt and finding nothing more than an old gossip rag and proclaiming it as a fact. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sniper, I have not made a final decision on this and I am still researching it. It does look like fringe "history" at best. I find nothing that addresses the wild claims, which would only exist if it is so preposterous no one uses it any more and his little pamphlet died with time. HOWEVER, what is surprising is that I also have not found anything that rebuts the claims made. I have found that statements that state that he was such a vitriolic anti-Mormon journalist that historians doubt what he says, but the context was only in his statements in regards to Pratt alleged statements and not the pamphlet.

I did see above where COgden thinks it is reputable, but I can't begin to go that far. It is NOT scholarly, there appears to be no peer review, and the printer is hardly reputable. What I think is needed is to find some reputable historian's review of his work before it can be deemed "reputable". It is not surprising to find others who have quoted him, but they are not what one would call reputable either, certainly not in a religious context (here I am thinking of Andrew Smith).

What is finally determinned will cover all the articles that have been edited with the same things. It is almost comical how fast this type of stuff spreads, but the kid found a new treat and he had to share, I guess. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem appropriate to repost something that I, and others, may be helped if remembered. Those edits that do not address the question posed, ignore all efforts to achieve cooperation, are best ignored. Eventually trolls move on when starved of the attention they are desperate to receive. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove; this is appropriate notice which you might want to check out before you remove from talk page. ALWAYS, ALWAYS understand policy before you delete anything from a discussion page. This is a warning. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 08:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]