Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 10

Polygamy: Cultural or religious heresy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Storm Rider, I agree that just quoting scripture verses isn't the best approach; that's why I shied away from it. I'll see what other sources I can dig up. Wadsworth, we can agree to disagree about what God thought of Abraham's and David's wives, and whether Smith was a prophet of God. Wesley 17:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL, of course we can agree to disagree on the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith. :) If I wasn't able to do that, I wouldn't get very far editing Wikipedia entries, now would I? Every once in a while I just have to toss in my own personal $0.02, but only on discussion pages. Wadsworth 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This interview with Brigham Young at least strongly implies that the interviewer considered 1 Timothy to limit leaders to one wife: http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/sermons_talks_interviews/brighamgreeleyinterview_july131859.htm. In his defense of polygamy in 1856, James Strang wrote, "18. The injunction that a Bishop shall be the husband of one wife, (1st Tim. iii, 2,) has been frequently offered as evidence that God disapproved of Polygamy. This is absurd. The rule is not that he shall be the husband of but one, but that he shall be the husband of one." [1] This would seem to show that this was cited as a reason against polygamy then, just as it is now. Wesley 12:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Wesley, I like the conversation between Green and Young. It does evidence that the specific scripture you brought was at least used to counter leaders having more than one wife. Visor, are you a aware of a specific quote from a Mormon critic that could be used. A conversation seems a weak reference for a statement...but it could still work if one is not readily available. Strang is not a source I would use to represent Mormon thought. However, I have never read his writings and have only a peripheral understanding of his history. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. This is a very interesting discussion, and I apologize in advance of the length of my response. The Strangite site that Wesley points to, discusses instances in the Bible where Polygamy was commanded. I think we can agree that it was commanded by God in some instances (or, according to this source there would be no such thing as Onanism).

A couple of thoughts. Below are the scriptures in question:

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Tts 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.

The LDS Church leaders have long interpreted these to mean that celebicy was not endorsed by the primitive church.

Looking at [2], the authorized version uses the word translated into "one" in the follwoing ways (note it is not the same "one" as used in describing the Godhead, or the "oneness" of Marriage. Rather it is a term that means "a one" or "another" or "a certain" or "someone" or in some cases "first." But that is just the word.

Alternative translations do and do not agree on the word choice of what to do with "one" in these versus (see [3] and [4] for example).

I did a quick database search of critical statements against the church using the verse, but none are very consistent either. Most come from a Greek interpretation (which is one reason why Wesley, who is Orthodox would interpret this way), rather than a Catholic interpretation, and Protestants are mixed on the useage - except with discussing the "twin relice of barbarism" during the height of the anti-polygamous movement led by Senator Edmunds in the US in the late 1800s.

That said, the argument has been a used by critics - but mostly during the edmunds act and then again in the 1980-present time period. I think that the following statements from Church leaders could be used to show that others challenged in this vein. Here's a couple (bear through them and read my thoughts on the McConkie quote):

There is an opinion in the breasts of many persons, who suppose that they believe the Bible, that Christ, when he came, did away with plural marriage, and that he inaugurated what is termed monogamy; and there are certain arguments and quotations used to maintain this view of the subject, one of which is found in Paul's first epistle to Timothy (3 chap. 2 v.), where Paul says: "A bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife." The friends of monogamy render it in this way: "A bishop should be blameless, the husband of but one wife." That would imply that any one but a bishop might have more. But they will say, "We mean a bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife only." Well, that would also admit of the construction that other people might have more than one. I understand it to mean that a bishop must be a married man...A short time ago, [a minister from Greece] called on President Young. I inquired of him in relation to the religion of his country, and asked him if the clergy were allowed to marry. It is generally understood that the Roman Catholic clergy are not allowed to marry. How is it with the Greek clergy? "Well," said he, "all the clergy marry, except the bishop." I replied, "You render the saying of Paul differently from what we do. We interpret it to mean--a bishop should be blameless, the husband of one wife at least," and "we construe it," said he, "directly opposite." (Journal of Discourses, Vol.13, p.38 - p.39, George Albert Smith, October 8, 1869)

On the subject of the other twin relic, there appears no such division. Both the North and the South and religious sects of whatever name or belief, are united in the denunciation of the Latter-day Saints, and the system of marriage introduced by the Prophet Joseph Smith... The Christians of our time claim the prevailing system of marriage in modern Europe and in the United States, as the result of Christianity. To this I reply, that neither Christ nor his Apostles ever uttered one word in condemnation of that system of marriage that was in vogue in their days, and that had been recognized and acknowledged in the house of Israel from the days of Abraham until Christ... The only passage of Scripture that I have ever heard quoted as appearing to limit the early Christians to single marriage was the saying of one of the Apostles, St. Paul to Timothy, in which he said that a Bishop should be the husband of one wife, having faithful children and one who knows how to govern his own house, for, said he, if he knows not how to rule well his own house, how shall he rule the Church of God. Now this scripture, taken as a whole, evidently shows that his object was not to intimate that a Bishop should have one wife only, but he intended to make this impression, that he must be a man of family, one who has had experience in household affairs, one that understood all those tender relations existing between husband and wife and parent and child, one who had shown himself a wise and discreet father; one who was capable of guiding his own house and of leading his family in the ways of rectitude and of controlling them in the fear of God; for except he is able to govern his own house, how could it be expected that he could govern the Church of God. Now, if in this respect a Bishop had proved himself a wise and discreet father and husband, a man who knew how to rule well his own family, this was a qualification recommending him as a suitable person to be trusted with the office of a Bishop. And how much more suitable would he be for that position if he were perfectly able to govern two or more wives, and to rear their children in the fear of God? The very fact that a Bishop must be the husband of one wife, it we admit the correctness of the views of our Christian friends in this regard (which, however, we do not by any means) the logical inference is, that any other officer or member in the Church but a Bishop was at liberty to have more than one wife. For if he intended it to be a general prohibition, why should he confine it to the Bishop, why did he not make it general? It is sheer sophistry on the part of our sectarian friends and groundless assertion that monogamy, to the exclusion of polygamy was introduced into Europe by the primitive Christians; for that system of marriage was introduced prior to the establishment of Christianity in Europe, by the Roman empire....(Journal of Discourses, Vol.23, p.297 - p.298 - p.299 - p.300, Erastus Snow, October 7, 1882)

Then, from 1890 to present, I can't find much of anyone using this argument, aside from one source during the Smoot hearings.

This one more recent however, allows for the Greek interpretation of the scripture - interestingly enough comes from Bruce R. McConkie. In a footnote to the term "Husband of one wife," he writes the following:

2. (Husband of one wife) From the day of Adam to the present, and from this hour to the end of the peopling of the world, the law of God has been, is, and shall be that man should have one wife at a time and one wife only, except when God by revelation specifically directs otherwise. Thus in March of 1831, the Lord said to Joseph Smith: "It is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; And that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (D. & C. 49:16-17.) Thus also "the word of the Lord" in the day of Nephi was: "There shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts . . . For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jac. 2:27-30.) At proper and appointed times the Lord has, of course, given the revelation and issued the command directing certain persons to enter plural marriage in the new and everlasting covenant. (D. & C. 132.) (Bruce R. McConkie, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, Vol.3, p.82)

It almost reads that during Paul's time, or by Paul's intstruction, one wife was the law under the church of his time. In any case, the second, and longer source could be used as an example. It does seem to come from an orthodox interpretation.

Sorry Storm and Wesley, I can't find much in the way of critical until the internet era in this vein, and then it seems much more psuedo-academic apologetics, rather than authoritative and sourceable. -Visorstuff 20:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, Plural wives of Joseph Smith, Jr. has now been changed to Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy. -Visorstuff 23:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

On the polygamy page here on wikipedia it gives several quotes by religious leaders. one is from luther saying that a man can have multiple wives because the bible does not forbid it. it also quotes some archbishop or something who was in support of it. it says calvin was opposed to it. real;ly, just check the polygamy page. and to the real question, was it accepted by society at large in smith's own time? the violent reaction to it after it was made public (in 52 after smith's death, i know) would seem to say no. Jerubaal 06:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh oh, I have a few minutes, and I feel like sharing my opinion on this subject... All in the spirit of a good discussion!

That's what I was saying, Jerubaal, people care more about man-made cultural traditions than about God's laws. Even today, gay marriage is gaining a degree of cultural acceptance (despite being explicitly forbidden by God in the Bible), while polygyny is still seen as culturally unacceptable, even by consenting adults. It seems to me that the difference is that gay marriage is "far left", practiced by liberal types, and polygyny is "far right", practiced by conservative types. And what is the norm? I seems to be becoming more common for people to either give up completely on marriage ("let's just live together"), or practice a form of serial monogamy, in which people get married for a year or two, until they get tired of it, then divorce and remarry. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now, of course I'm biased, but I think that traditional marriage, where the husband and wife take the institution seriously, is the best for society. I got married at age 22, more than a dozen years ago. We're still married, and we both plan on remaining married to each other. And none of our eight siblings, our parents, grand-parents, great grandparents, and as far as I know, great-great grandparents were ever divorced. When my first son was born, he had fourteen grandparents living. That sort of thing makes for a strong family and a strong society.

And you know what hasn't Western helped society in general? The romantic concept of "falling in love." The idea that "love" is involuntary, you can fall into it, and if it's gone one Thursday morning while you're getting ready for work and your wife is trying to pack a screaming two-year-old into a carseat, it's not your fault! You "fell out of love". Time for a divorce, because, of course, your happiness is paramount.

Now, I do believe in "falling into infatuation". A dozen years ago, I asked a girl to marry me after knowing her for only five weeks; that was infatuation! Thankfully, she said yes. But love is something more than that, and it takes conscious effort and work. Love is where you are best friends with your spouse. Where you are fully aware that someday you'll both be old and wrinkly, but you'll still love each other.

How about turning this around full circle... how does this concept of love and marriage fit in with plural marriage as practiced by Mormons so many years ago? This is somewhat close to home, as I have an ancestor (John D. Lee) who had nineteen wives. I have never thought of this before... Maybe infatuation is exclusive, and love is not? I know that women generally seek stability in life, and if her provider also provides for other families, they can still love each other, I think. Anyway, food for thought. Time's up, gotta go to work. Been nice chatting. Wadsworth 14:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the Strangite quote indicates that a number of people included the 1 Timothy passage in their objections to polygamy in 1856, even if we don't have many separate quotes. It's what I think would be called a secondary source that such objections existed, which is why he spends time answering them. Whether he's representative of the LDS is beside the point; I'm attempting to cite him as evidence of others' objections at that point in time. Also, if it's true that Smith publically preached against it even in the year of his death, that would say something about the practice's general acceptance.

A couple short notes on interpretation. I'm not sure the OT actually records God commanding anyone to marry multiple times, except perhaps Hosea, and that was more to show an example of what not to do if I recall. Abraham's union with Hagar is specifically shown as an example of Abraham's lack of faith. Most of the other references suggest implicit approval, presumably because the earth didn't open and swallow them when they took a second wife. Regarding the 1 Timothy passage, it gives a list of requirements for both bishops and deacons; taken as a whole, they're widely viewed I think as being at the very least a "good idea" for all Christians; no one would argue that only bishops should avoid drunkenness or not be "lovers of money" or manage their households well, but the rest of us should feel free to disregard these since we're not bishops. As for bishops needing to have at least one wife, Paul himself evidently chose to remain single by all accounts. If he thought that's what he meant, he certainly didn't practice it, although he defends Peter's right to marry. The Orthodox practice of having single bishops has a long history and I think is generally thought to be a good idea, out of kindness and respect for the demands placed on a bishop, but I don't think it's an unchangable dogma. Priests and deacons are allowed to marry before their ordinations, but not afterwards. If a priest or deacon is widowed, he can only remarry if he resigns his office as priest or deacon. The practice of celibate bishops probably arose with the rise in monasticism, and the greater availability of qualified celibate candidates for bishop that came with it. The East has never forbidden its priests to marry to my knowledge; that was one of a number of smaller issues that gradually divided the East from the West in the centuries leading to the Great Schism.

For the record, I do greatly respect the emphasis the LDS place on strong families. It's probably one of the religion's greatest strengths. Wesley 17:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks like a good scholarly book on the subject, if anyone has access to it: http://uncpress.unc.edu/books/T-4674.html. It at least doesn't appear to be apologetic or argumentative. Wesley 17:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been told this book is a bit more on the legal effects of "Mormon polygamy" than on polygamy itself, but UNC has a pretty decent track record with dealing with Mormonism studies.

You know what is amazing to me as I re-read this thread - is the power of tradition and culture in religious dogma. Both other Christians who oppose polygamy and Mormons who oppose it, and Mormons who accept it and other Christians who accept it all claim tradition and culture as reasons for and against. Pretty powerful thing when you really think about it. When you look at these groups, you can't remove that cultural bias very easily. Wow I think that would make a great dissertation.... -Visorstuff 21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well Wadsworth, not sure what you said has to do with the matter at hand, but I agree with you. I wish my Mormon ancestors had had stronger family ties. Despite Mormon pioneer ancestry, my father is a convert. My great-great-great-great grandfather, Ruben (or Reuben, the historical records are unclear) McBride, was the first man baptized for the dead in the font in the Nauvoo Temple. I contrast, my great grandfather left the church and took my 16 year old grandfather with him. To this day my grandpa is antagonistisc towards the church and wasn't even planning on coming to my sister's upcoming temple wedding until my (very authoritarian) sister called him up and gave him an earful. Sadly, most of the McBrides have fallen away from the church. On a vacation to Utah, we had chance encounters with several distant relatives who are no longer members of the church. Well, I'm done talking about that. To keep with the topic of discussion, I don't have any polygamists in my direct ancesty, but I know that my great-grea-great-great uncle, and perhaps a few other 1st degree relatives were.

Wait a minute here folks, remember what I said on Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy when you edit articles. --Nerd42 13:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Was it Moroni or Nephi that gave the plates?

Someone edited the article, bringing this discrepancy up. I reverted the edit. Here is why: [5] Wadsworth 00:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this issue was also discussed at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. in preparation of December's feature article. -- see talk page. WBardwin 01:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn't find it on the talk page there. I agree that the reference should be reverted until it's worked out, but, without wanting to delve into any Mormon/Anti-Mormon debates, I think it still seems suspect that the first journal entry referred to Nephi and may merit a mention. The link which Wadsworth provided seems a good explanation for its repetition in other sources, but it doesn't really get at a reason of why Nephi was listed in the journal (at least that I saw, correct me if I missed it). Tijuana Brass 01:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies -- I've been looking at Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. and checked the achives of this page too. I know the group talked about it. Anyone remember where? WBardwin

Rigdon needs earlier reference in article

In the paragraph containing the sentence.....

"Rigdon suffered a severe concussion after being dragged on the ground. According to some accounts, Rigdon was delirious for several days. The reasons for this attack are disputed."

This is the first mention of Sydney Rigdon and yet he is referenced only by his last name. Some other mention of him needs to be made prior to this paragraph or this sentence should be removed.

Good catch. Why don't you just delete that sentence? I don't see how it contributes much to the article. Wadsworth 13:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments of User:Hoboken

"All people who prefer history over mythology know that Smith practiced "plural marriage". We already note that Smith denied it, and that some of his followers believed that lie" - User:Hoboken as a justification for editing Joseph Smith Jr.

Anyone else notice someone who doesn't know what NPOV means? --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  19:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

edit comments don't have to be NPOV, nor do comments made here on the Talk page. Only the articles themselves do. Was there a problem with Hoboken's actual edit, or just the comment? Wesley 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

edit comments don't have to be NPOV" - True but I was trying to make the point that the sentiment behind this comment is not one that can appear in a Wikipedia article. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  14:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what the problem is with him not being neutral, the whole article is written from one aspect of the LDS viewpoint and doesn't address a NPOV. There is no mention of him requesting membership in the Methodist Church in 1828, or the multiple versions of the First Vision account. 11 at my last count. Of course, one is from a detractor, but at least 6 are from Joseph Smith himself. They completely gloss over Joseph Smiths claim (In the official First Vision account) that he got interested in religion after a revival in 1820, then after 10 documented years he had the book published. However documents from the area place that revival in 1824, making his story fallacious. GameJunkieJim 02:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's silly. The "revival" may refer to the Second Great Awakening in general. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  14:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect, since he directly refers to the Church revival that took place after his brother died (in 1823). GameJunkieJim 14:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

yeah the Second Great Awakening was still happening (though perhaps in a more subdued way) in 1823 wasn't it? --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Archive 9 - Is South Park quote Accurate?

Many of you were screaming of the inaccuracies of one particular scene in the episode, where Joseph Smiths translations were hidden in order to prove him a faker. YES THIS IS TRUE. I will link you to the confirmation from Joseph Smith himself. Preface to 1830 printing of the Book of Mormon So for future reference, don't claim to know something you don't. Thank you, I'll go have my cup of tea now. GameJunkieJim 02:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, your edits consist of Video Game commentaries and your supposed to support a claim by South Park by referencing an anti-Mormon web site? My question is, why should we believe YOU?--Asams10 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to. I provided a scan directly from the book, that allows you to take it at face value. this is supposed to be NPOV, so I would assume you would actually want all the facts. Nothing from that anti-mormon site is factually incorrect, quite the opposite. With the exception of the "testimonials" from that site, most of it can be taken as NPOV. I happened across most of this information doing research on various religions. As to the videogame talk sections I contribute to, gee, you would think that the name would explain that... At any rate, one does generally have the ability to have more than one interest. Contrary to what your obvious opinion is of me, I have no problems with members of the LDS church on an individual level, as they are generally very lovely people. However, on a site such as this, NPOV and fact should always take precedence.The claim from South Park referenced was that someone hid the original translation (Lehi) and in response Joseph Smith translated a new version. This is factually accurate. Remember that the creators were once Mormon themselves and probably had a lot to draw on. Not that I advocate South Park for your research, it just so happened that they made a pretty accurate scenario in that instance. If I could have found the scan on a pro-mormon site, I would have done so. As it was, that was handy, as the site in question provides scans of original material that the LDS church generally makes difficult to obtain, although most of it is in their archives. Why they do this is anyones guess. Go ahead and find the information on your own. I don't care if you believe me or not, but it's silly to call into question veracity based on what I've contributed, unless you've found fault or POV somewhere that it shouldn't be? I don't think you will.GameJunkieJim 15:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

LEHI?? really? Moroni was the custodian of the plates. WBardwin 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends on which version you read really. -- GameJunkieJim 01:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what you guys are debating about, nor what South Park said or didn't say, and have no desire to know. However the info on the preface linked to by Jim the Game Junkie is perfectly legitimate. If you want a more favorable site to cooberate it, behold: http://deseretbook.com/personalwritings/10. It's pretty indisputable that there was a fracas involving 116 pages being lost (and yes, WBardwin, they were called the Book of Lehi) and that the 1830 edition did indeed contain an explanatory preface. Many (most?) of the original 5000 copies are still extant and can be checked if you're skeptical beyond all reason. Also, facsimile 1830s editions are sold at temple visitors' centers, LDS historical sites, etc., but I'm not 100% sure whether these contain the original preface (I would imagine they do). So Jim, when you say, "the LDS church generally makes [this original material] difficult to obtain", you are, well... wrong.

Of course, this is not news to most Mormons (other than the preface part), as the sections in the D&C (particularly Section 3) are still intact and the whole story is periodically covered in the Sunday School curriculum. Novel-Technology 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me put it another way. It was harder for me to find the information through LDS sources (Even to the point of asking the nice missionaries who come here every Wednesday) and the information was readily availiable elsewhere. I didn't mean to slight the church, as I have no problem with most of it's practices (Especially with the rumor that the blood oaths thing has been done away with) my goal was accurate reporting, and as you see from the link that's all I did. However, I stand by that the LDS church is at the least evasive when, shall we say an 'outsider' attempts to gain information that may be contradictory to the way the church currently functions. GameJunkieJim 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

No arguement. But, the issue is -- can South Park's presentation of the "116 lost pages of the Book of Mormon" and other elements related to Mormonism be considered accurate enough to be included in the article? I vote "no." For example, the use of Lehi in association with the plates, referenced above. I'm afraid not -- not Lehi. A single printing/copying error associated Nephi with the plates and this was picked up by a couple of secondary sources. But Moroni has always been the name used in association with the plates. I would urge that we remind ourselves that South Park's writers specialize in parody and satire, and they do a good job. But parody and satire in any medium thrives on exaggeration of character and events and the creative development and use of outrageous detail. As such, in my opinion, South Park cannot be considered an accurate primary, secondary or terciary source for any encyclopedic work - outside of articles on satire or animation, of course. WBardwin 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh goodness no! Putting a direct reference to South Park would bring a maelstrom of POV antagonism that the site could do without.However, this would be a decent candidate for Criticism, provided it's properly NPOV. As I recall Matt Stone and Trey Parker are ex-LDSaints, and this is probably the reason for that particular show having an accurate parody. However, the point that the show addressed can certainly be brought up in a different context. GameJunkieJim 04:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Masonry

The article states, "In March 1842, Smith was initiated as a Freemason (as an Entered Apprentice Mason on March 15, and Master Mason the next day—the usual month wait between degrees was waived by the Illinois Lodge Grandmaster, Abraham Jonas)". The actual order of Masonic degrees is Entered Apprentice (1st degree), Fellowcraft (2nd degree), and Master Mason (3rd degree). One cannot skip degrees...when was Smith made a Fellowcraft?

I had understood that 1) One cannot skip degrees, and that 2) Joseph Smith skipped degrees anyway. Go figure. Wadsworth 18:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Joseph Smith diaries

Can someone throw a link to Joseph Smith diaries? I heard that he was clarifying a lot of misconceptions about mormon religion, polygamy, Book of Mormon origin, etc right there.

Sincerely, Enormousdude 00:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

An anti-Mormon book that is not taken seriously by the academic community? ...no. We've already gone over in other aticles why this source in unacceptable, please stop trying to add it in. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed paragraph.

Smith taught doctrines that were considered heretical by mainstream Christians (see Mormonism and Christianity), especially regarding the Godhead, an apostasy in which much of the pure doctrine of Christianity was lost and the authority to perform ordinances such as baptism was taken from the earth, that many "plain and precious truths" were missing from the Bible including, Degrees of Glory, Deification, and his own prophetic calling in which capacity he received revelations from God and was visited occasionally by angelic messengers. In addition, most historians generally believe that Smith taught and practiced a form of polygyny.

Some of the denominations alluded to in the preceding paragraph do not accept the version of church history put forward by the LDS church that says that Smith taught all of those things. This paragraph needs to be completely rewritten to clarify this. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Nerd42, you know I've supported your viewpoints in the past and feelings on some doctrines, such as polygamy, which I can agree some disbelieve he taught, as it was private teaching. However, you have too many contemporary accounts and contemporary news articles that support the following items: Godhead, Apostacy, priesthood authority, degrees of glory and deification, and his own prophetic calling - the King Follett sermon was published and approved by Joseph Smith prior to his death in multiple publications. Had he not been "editor" of Times and Seasons at the time it was published there this would be an issue. That one talk discusses his views on nearly ever topic in the above section: God, Apostacy, priesthood authority, degrees of glory and deification, and his own prophetic calling. These doctrines are also published in the same journal under his direction as the history of joseph smith (or what later was edited by others and became the history of the church). The only item missing is Polygny, which is properly addressed in the paragraph. I can show similar publication of ideas from the Warsaw Signal, tracts, presidential tracts, letters from Smith and more published by the church's press prior to Smith's death that also support the doctrines being taught, but being publicly published under his direction is strong enough evidence. And then we have journal entries, Strangite publications, hedrickite publications and even Smith's own diary (owned by the RLDS/CoC) and Joseph Smith III's own research is trying to disporove some of the items (which he fought on polygamy) but ceded on the rest, which was published in the . The historical accounts are too overwhelming on this matter. Your reasoning is fine, but the evidence is too sstgrong - I've not found anyone aside from smaller restorationist branches who disbelieve Smith's own writings, but most of the time they claim him as a fallen prophet rather than not teaching it. Evidence is too strong. I'm afraid we'd have to go with consensus on this, and consensus would support keeping this in. Sorry to go against you on this, as I've tried to support your belief systems, but there is too much evidence on the others by his own hand. -Visorstuff 18:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I'm really only bringing up issues to do with exaltation - not those other things you named, so just give me a few minutes here and I think I can fixit in a manner people can be happy with. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ok that particular part should be fine now, sorry to knock you up about it heheh --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  19:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem - I would encourage you to keep your point of view, and also to be a bit more open to evidences. It is fine if you consider some things as non-authentic, however, look deeper into who wrote, published and signed of on the doctrine taught. It is a fine line that I'm not sure any historian has mastered - we all have a good deal to learn in that regard. But the more I study certain issues, the more I realize I don't understand the "why's" and in many cases the events, but am left to interpret them as others have done. For example, it is very well documented in several places the Heber C. Kimball story. Where Smith told Heber that the lord wanted Smith to marry Heber's wife, but after Heber agreed to do 'whatever it takes' Smith sealed Heber and his wife for eternity. That can be coraberated by multiple non LDS sources as well as Heber's own accounts. This was done during the height of the polygamy scandals. Historians can say that "evidences" of polygamy were done by Smith to test to see who was true to Smith, they can say that it is evidence that Smith practiced it, they can see it as a teaching opportunity by smith or any countless other viewpoint. I am undecided on what it means, and I take it as an event that occured. The evidence from multiple sources, both in and out of the LDS church and restorationist branches confirm it. I guess my point is lets try to treat more event such as this - there are marriage certificates for polygamous marriages. There are printed sermons that state men can become gods. There are are evidences for the black policy being started by smith, but they are evidences only and there are just as many evidences against. Each on both sides should be stated as such, rather than placing our own world view and interpreting the events in this forum. That is the job of religions and the various denominations. Wikipedia is not that place. Hope this makes sense - not trying to change your point of view, but am thinking we can all do a better job of sticking to the facts, rather than the interpretation thereof. -Visorstuff 19:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The evidence from multiple sources, both in and out of the LDS church and restorationist branches confirm it.

The Restoration Branches confirm what? That some people got together and signed a paper saying Joseph was married to so-and-so? Nobody disputes that. It's Smith's own involvement and/or consent that is disputed. Nobody disputes whether an event occured "by proxy", only whether Smith himself taught, said or did certain things. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  18:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry let me clarify - I have in my possession mutitple statements from people who joined the restorationist branches - specificically from the historical RLDS and Hedrickite groups who claimed to have heard Smith teach the doctrine of sealings to multiple women - or the law of sarah or the law of plural marriage (never a phrase he used himself, for sure). I've cited one on the polygamy page, and handwriting experts have confirmed his signature on marriage licences - the issue is whether or not it was a "test" or not.

As we've already discussed, LDS folks typically claimed he taught the doctrine, but so did William Smith (accepted and promoted in the warsaw signal then denouned, then accepted again, then denounced and then admitted to denying it later although it was taught "'We would as well cut off our right hand as to have taught that there was any legitimacy in polygamy, in the early days of the church."), Jason Briggs, James Strang, William Marks, William Law, John C. Bennett and Zenos H. Gurley (none who became Brighamite). I added in the Briggs quote as it was a public affidavit, and not a personal writing, and thought it more credible. However, I can pull more direct quotes on the matter, if you'd like, but not sure it will matter.

I don't have much time, but here are a few readily handy samples without going through my polgyny quotes. COC admit Smith practiced it(http://www.cofchrist.org/seek/faq.asp). Even Emma quoted joseph as saying "Well, such a system might possibly be, if everybody was agreed to it." (from the saints herald). From Joseph Smith III: "If it be true that Joseph Smith did teach and practice polygamy contrary to the law of the Church, he was most certainly a transgressor. Nor would his sanction of the doctrine make it a legitimate ordinance in the Church of Christ. In proof that Joseph Smith did teach and practice such a doctrine I should want more reliable testimony than can be had from the polygamous wives of Brigham Young."

Isaac Sheen, and early RLDS leader (and author of dozens of tracts including, The Plan of Salvation, 1864) wrote: "Joseph Smith repented of his connection with this doctrine, and said it was of the devil. He caused the revelations on that subject to be burned, and when he voluntarily came to Nauvoo and resigned himself into the arms of his enemies, he said that he was going to Carthage to die. At that time he also said, if it had not been for that accursed spiritual wife doctrine, he would not have come to that. By his conduct at that time he proved the sincerity of his repentance, and of his profession as a prophet." RLDS "Bishop R. C. Evans" left the RLDS church because they denied that Smith taught plural marriage.

And then there is sidney rigdon - his daughter alledgedly was sealed to smith. He stated multiple times that is why he left to go to philidelphia and pittsburgh - especially due to the warsaw signal publishing his daughters connection, the Nauvoo expositor and other Nauvoo publications saying she was married to smith. It was the first and most public exposure of the practice and was scandal. However, the girl, Nancy Rigdon, later said she never heard anything about polygamy until 1860 - But with her case as highly publicized as it was in 1844, her testimony is doubful, as she would have definitly heard something about it, unless she was illeterate, locked in her room and not allowed contact with anyone. She WAS the center of national attention on the matter. In addition its amazing that sidney could recall details about Smith's "seduction" of his daughter, and details from the meetings of the council of fifty, and admitted his daughter was sealed in person to Smith, but that she couldn't. Not disputing either one, just think its interesting. The issue is obviously complicated, and am happy to support your POV as evidence is on both sides, but I stand by my statement that early Restorationist branches, such as RLDS and Hedrickites, beleived and said that smith taught the doctrine of having multiple wives. -Visorstuff 21:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Um ... I think we are talking somewhat at cross-purposes with reguards to the question of "who disputes it". A Restoration Branch is a bit different from a Restorationist denomination. I think you are referring to is "early Restorationist denominations" rather than "early restoration branches". When I say "branch", the definition of that term is somewhat different from, but close to the term "congregation". The Restoration Branches then, are a group of congregations (they are called branches under church law) which together form a Restoration Branches movement or denomination. The main "Restorationist denomination", the Community of Christ - once called the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints - has all but admitted that the LDS version of history is correct. The Restoration Branches on the other hand, which split from them in the 1980s, are the "restoration" I am referring to mostly when I say that the "Restoration Branches" dispute an interpretation of history. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Polygyny

Visorstuff seems to be removing the explanation that "polygyny is a form of polygamy". I see no reason to do this. The statement is certainly true, and polygyny is not a well-known word, whereas polygamy is. Why should we not explain this word to our readers? DJ Clayworth 16:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

DJ, nice to see oyu again, you've responded during my explanation - I'm fine with it for the first reference, but for me it breaks up the readability, as explained below, and with other non-LDS editors involvment including Alai and Wesley on the matter.

There has been some debate back and forth between User:Hoboken and User:WBardwin about the use of polygamy versus polygamy. First of all, if the word polygyny is used, it should be linked (which it is) so the reader can clearly understand that Polygyny is a form of polygamy. Stating that polygyny is polygamy in the same sentence over and over is redundant and not helpful to readers - it causes more confusion and breaks up the readability of the page. Second, both of you are close to violating the 3RR, causing a temporary block in your editing ability. As an admin, I'm warning both not to cross that line.

There are historical reasons why Polygyny is used, rather than polygamy. These deal with the sealings that smith did of men to men, children to women, and more. I'm not sure how much you've actually researched the history of polygamy under smith and young, but the issue gets very complicated. Smith taught polygyny (male has more than one female partner), not polyandry (female with more than one male partner) and definitely did not teach Bigamy (second marriage without one partner knowing), or polyamory (you get the idea) - each of which are forms of polygamy. Thus to say that Smith taught polygamy is incorrect, he only taught one small aspect of it, which is now called polygyny or plural marriage. I won't go into the church and latter day saint movement doctrinal reasons why polygamy is not correct.

You can look back into this very page's archives to see the arguments, the discussions, the invovlemeent of non-LDS editors (which we couldn't have reached a consensus without) and more. The consensus and standard we've adopted as part of the WP:LDS is to refer to the practice as polygyny or plural marriage. We've even thought about coming up with a terminolgy guide, similar to the mormonism naming coventions and style guide used at the wikipedia of NPOV terms and usage such as this. Perhaps this dialogue will re-spur the idea into action. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 16:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

DJ Clayworth, if you think its worth opening back up the debate, that's fine, but we've been through it twice before with the same outcome. I'll leave in the first reference, but the issue is complicated to a Latter Day Saint as it is. To some it is like saying that Christ teach a form of cannibalism called transubstantiation. Most would scoff at the idea today, but in 200 AD it was a big issue (and is still mentioned in the transubstantiation article). Today the LDS church is young, and the connotation of polygamy, polyamory is a big deal. Sealing of men to multiple women is very different than other forms of polygamy, and the teaching of it in Mormonism was a very different thing. It is just as offensive to many in the movement, whether LDS or not. -Visorstuff 16:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a series of misrepresentations above, none of which is particularly worth going into, except for the idea that "polygyny" is historically used in preference to "polygamy". In fact, the opposite is true. And Visorstuff's bizarre analogy indicates he simply doesn't understand the words or concepts involved. "Transubstantiation" is not a subclass of "cannibalism", it's a doctrine regarding the nature of the materials of the eucharist. On the otherhand, "polygamy" is simply a subclass of polygamy. Further, what was practiced by Mormons under Smith's tutelage is quite clearly more truthfully described as "polygamy". "Polygyny" asserts only men married more than one spouse, and it's quite clear that many Mormon women involved in the practice of Plural Marriage also married more than one spouse. That's "polygamy", not "polygyny". Furthermore, "polygamy" has the advantage of being a much better-known word than polygyny, which seems to be unnecessarily obscure. It's unfortunate that you want to dictate terminology, but if we want to be neutral, we should use the terms actually used by people, not our own, and the term most frequently used for Smith's practice is "polygamy". "Plural marriage" is more or less a translation of "polygamy"; the same can't be said for "polygyny". - Hoboken 22:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoboken, I'm well aware of what transubstantiation is - and unless you've studied Catholic/early Christian history more than I have, I doubt you have a better understanding - let's simply not go there. I used it as an example of an early christian teaching that received similar scrutiny as the polygamy/polygyny debate - as it was used as a justification to kill early christians. Suffice it to say, even some church fathers said that with communion, you are literally eating the flesh of Christ and in some cases used derivitives of the canibbalistic concept to describe it. You can read arguments on this elsewhere on you own time (although I would suggest the council of trent as a starting point.

My point is that many Mormons find the term Polygamy offensive and not descriptive of what Smith taught. Yes it has been used historically, but it is not accurate as to what smith taught. I find the term polygamy offensive and too broad and not descriptive enough for an encyclopedia that is trying to be accurate. None of the new mormon historians - from Jan Shipps to the Tanners currently use polygamy to my knowledge - they also have adopted the individual terms.

Smith taught that men could have more than one wife. Look back at his teachings. He didn't teach women should have more than one husband. Was polyandry practiced? Yes, but he did not teach it. BIG difference. As I mentioned before, you should study this debate out a bit more before going down this path. It hurts (slows down) readability (see comprehension) to every time (meaning instance) the word polygyny (a form of polygamy) is written to immmediately (directly after) add "a form of polygamy." People are not idiots. Once polygyny is mentioned in an article as a form of polygamy, we don't need to do it again. We may as use the phrase "Mormons, which are adherents to the Book of Mormon" every time we use the word Mormon.

You wrote: ""Transubstantiation" is not a subclass of "cannibalism", it's a doctrine regarding the nature of the materials of the eucharist." In exactly the same vein, Plural marriage is not a subclass of polygamy - it is a doctrine about marriage in which the practice of polygyny, a form of polygamy is utilized. Please go back and read the previous debates rather than me even beginning to address them here. -Visorstuff 23:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't try to win by mistating what I've said, especially a paragraph below where I've said it. It is you who have placed plural marriage as a subclass of polygamy, not me. I wrote about "polygamy" and "polygyny", which have exact meanings, which can be determined by looking in any dictionary, and the latter is a subclass of the former. Since Smith was the second living husband of several of his wives, he clearly was no opponent of the practice of polyandry, as long as it included him. And though some may be offended when polygamy is called polygamy, that's nonetheless what it is called. We don't unilaterally rename things here because someone is offended, because nearly everything offends someone, and we don't privilege the viewpoint of the offended over that of the truthful. - Hoboken 23:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is awfully tiresome. The discussions are in all of the archivese ad nauseaum. No new ground is being covered or discussed. Hoboken, you have a wonderful little axe to grind, but that axe has been handled, discussed and agreed upon by a long line of editors before you. The objective is no to rename things, but to use precise terminology to describe the activity. We have done that in this case. Yes, I know all the anti-Mormon literature and sites say differently; yes, they using the definition imporperly and not understanding the differnce between "sealing" and "marriage". Move on; this issue has been chummed enough. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If it tires you, you needn't participate. No one has referenced any anti-Mormon literature: it is history, not anti-Mormon literature that terms Smith's practice of Plural Marriage a form of polygamy. If prior discussion has led to a situation where accurate terminology has been sacrificed for sectarian doctrinal concerns, it is an unseemly state of affairs indeed, and can't be maintained. The idea that prior discussion meets these objections is mistaken, and the idea that something is immutable once decided by a cadre of interested parties is also completely untenable. Feel free to "move on" yourself. - Hoboken 11:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

How about if we go back and hash out the same stuff in the archives. There is enough evidence to dispute if Smith even practiced multiple marriages - see for example the debate at Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy. So lets go with actual sources and evidence and get this cleared up. The only example we have of Smith's words teaching polygamy is D&C 132 [6] (and that is even disputable, as it was "made public" in 1852, 8 years after Smith's death). The examples of sealings to more than one women were done in some cases the same day as Smith was sealed as "father" to male church leaders including Brigham Young and others. Since he was sealed as a father to Young, and only sealed to Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs on the same day, we are left to judge that it was or was not a marriage sealing or a daughter to father sealing. Zina claimed later that it was a marriage sealing, however, if you can produce a marriage licence or certificate such as is available for non-married women that Smith married, that would be new ground. Do I believe that they were married? Probably so, but there is enough to doubt the evidence. Certificates exist for Elixa Roxcy Snow, but not for women who were concurrently married. And then there is the Helen Mar Kimball debate. She is listed as a wife, was treated as a wife, but denied that she was married to him, but that she was sealed to him - but not as a wife. This is a discussion that I've had with Todd Compton, the person who probably knows more about it than anyone else in the world. We cannot prove anymore than Smith taught Polygyny and the law of adoption - where people can be sealed to others for eternity as a father/mother relationship in order to keep the sealing line unbroken [7]. We can surmize that other forms of polygamy were practiced, but there is only circumstantial and non-contemporary evidence for it. So, if you have proof that smith practiced other forms of polygamy, then lets include it. If not, lets stick with the more exact term, and to the actual evidence provided in D&C 132 and the available facts. If you want go and rehash all of these already-decided upon arguments, lets go back to the actual facts. These are some the "historical" reasons I was discussing above - the evidence is circumstantial and very "he said, she said" in nature. It would never hold up in a court of law, let alone other forums. If you want to be a historian, you've got to be exact and supported by the facts. In this case, we are on shaky ground, hence the use of the term. I've studied the primary documents, and doubt you have. The term should be polygyny which is why the sentence is phrased as it is.

Trodel, I like your compromise. You are correct with the amount of times the word "polygamy" shows up in the article, its not hiding the fact, but trying to be more precise about what type he did teach. -Visorstuff 16:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It is quite clear from the context of the article (Trodel's revision) exact what flavor of plural marriage was taught. There's no need to oversimplify / overexplain things. Frankly, this has been a proposed change of such minor importance that I'm surprised by the vigor of the debate. Tijuana Brass^E@ 21:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I am more than a little surprised to hear Todd Compton invoked as justification for calling Plural Marriage polygyny. He wrote that 33 per cent of Joseph's documented wives "were married to other husbands and cohabiting with them when Smith married them....I use the term polyandry--which means one woman being married to two men simultaneously--to describe this marital triangulation... Polyandry is one of the major problems found in Smith's polygamy and many questions surround it... A common misconception concerning Joseph Smith's polyandry is that he participated in only one or two such unusual unions. In fact fully one-third of his plural wives, eleven of them, were married civilly to other men when he married them....Of Smith's first twelve wives, nine were polyandrous. So in this early period polyandry was the norm, not the anomaly. None of these women divorced their "first husbands" while Smith was alive and all of them continued to live with their civil spouses while married to Smith". The whole point of Wikipedia's NPOV policy is that it should not be possible for one person, or one group of persons with an agenda, to exclude all views other than their own. Yet privileging the point of view that Plural Marriage is to be called "a form of polygyny" and that alone, is actually what the LDS group of editors has set about to do, and thus far enforced. So if the "person who probably knows more about it than anyone else in the world" uses the term polygamy because it includes Smith's polyandry as well as his polygyny, why should the judgement of a small, less-informed Wikipedian interest group be permitted to completely suppress his opinion and supplant it with their own? Polygamy is the more common, more correct, and more neutral term. - Hoboken 04:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Some important things for you to note, Hoboken:

1. We are not all LDS — I'm an ex-Mormon, myself — so your assertion that this is a group dominated by some sort of LDS thinking is wrong.

2. In my months here, I've seen very little evidence that any of the other editors involved in this discussion have ever pushed any sort of "agenda" other than Wikipedian standards of NPOV and verifiability.

3. If Todd Compton were to be an editor at Wikipedia, he would be welcome to join the discussion — and would be subject to the same expectations of reaching a consensus as everyone else.

4. Speaking of consensus, it is not, nor has it ever been considered unamity, at least not on Wikipedia. And it is clear that consensus is opposed to the use of polygamy as you have suggested. If you feel the continued need to debate this, you may always open an request for comment, however, I doubt that it will be succesful, given the trivial nature of the change you propose. I strongly suggest that you dedicate your editing interests here into something more meaningful than a change that is shorter than a sentence in length; you clearly have an interest in LDS topics and we could use the help on the articles here. This discussion, however, is not likely to produce any further change; rather, to continue to beat this dead horse is more antagonistic than anything else. Tijuana Brass^E@ 05:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

In order, then (1) I didn't say any person was LDS, I referred to the "LDS group" here, echoing Visorstuff's terminology. (2) Nonetheless, they are pushing the "polygyny" POV here. (3) Wikipedia is meant to reflect all significant opinions, not a single opinion labeled as "consensus", whether or not those holding them are editors. In fact, if a position seems to be primarily the point of view of editors rather than cited authorities, it's original research... The "polygyny" terminology is perilously close to this. When a Google query returns mostly Wikipedia hits, it's a sign that non-standard terminology may be involved. (4) Yes, I know Wikipedia uses its own idiosyncratic redefinition of "consensus". (5) Clearly this horse is not dead, and saying it is isn't going to make it so. Please cite the authorities (not the Wikipedia editors) that claim that "polygyny" is the correct term, and we'll insert them along with Todd Compton on "polyandry" and most of the rest of the world on "polygamy". Clearly the change is not trivial, which is why certain people seem to consider it their sacred duty to resist it. Again: Polygamy is the more common, more correct, and more neutral term. - Hoboken 05:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Tijuana Brass. Hoboken, we could use the help with content if you are willing. By the way - Jan Shipps is one that is big into terminology. Her usage and distinguishing of terms is much more exact especially in cases about polygyny (as opposed to polygamy), Latter Day Saint (as opposed to Latter-day Saint and more is what we've sort of adopted on wikipedia as she is a trusted non-Mormon Mormonism historian (I belive she is methodist). If you want to go down the terminology path, lets use the terminology Smith used in D&C 132 to be the most accurate from a doctrinal perspective, so we don't interpret if it was polygyny or polyandry or whatever. Might as well use direct quotes as it has been done in other places on the wiki when it gets heated. Let's then use his terminology. This way Polygamy, Polygyny, Polyandry nor Plural marriage won't be used, but marriage would be similar terms that would describe it just as clearly.

The fact remains that smith taught plural marriage and evidence of polyandry as well as polygyny could be interpreted multiple ways depending on the historian. Hence Comptons 33 number. My count is in the mid-twenties (note that I don't cite my own research), and the church's official is is even lower (I believe 20?). Then you have Brodie who places the number near 50. Each historian has to guess as marriage certificates exisst in some cases, but not in many, if not most others. The evidence of polyandry is even less when you consider that by definition polyandry would have to include sexual relations (by its very definition) - obviously in most of Smith's cases it did not, by admission of the sealed/wives. We could go on, but won't. Please continue to add content, the compromise at present is fine. The doctrinal foundation is multiple wives, not multiple husbands as demonstrated above. Lets move on to better things - thanks for the reminder Tijuana Brass. -Visorstuff 06:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that "polygyny" is not the only intrepretation given to Smith's practice of polygamy. Representing it as the only possible conclusion, as the article currently does, is a substantial misrepresentation, and is misinformative. Since it is only one point of view, it must be attributed to someone, and other significant points of view, such as Compton's (and every real historian who's looked at the question!), need to be included in the article. I leave it to you to add the citation to someone who has characterized Smith's practice of polygamy as "polygyny". I suspect part of the problem here has been a concentration on dogma rather than practice. As for further help with content, it would be more likely if changes that should be completely non-controversial didn't have to be fought over. (BTW, the idea that polyandry must involve sexual relations is mistaken, and would, even were it correct, apply equally to polygyny. All the more reason to use the term polygamy, which clearly refers to marriage.) - Hoboken 09:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hoboken, I never said there was only one way to interpret what smith did. You probably think he originated the term plural marriage. Uggh. you really need to read current research on the matter, and more research than you have. The more recent research does distinguish between teachings and practice, and between polyandry and polygyny. For example, the center for religious tolerance states: [8]

Complaint 3: "Polygyny" should be spelled "polygamy:"

The word "polygyny" looks like a typo, but is not. "Polygyny" means a marriage between one man and multiple wives. This is what the essays discuss, and what the entire Mormon movement originally practiced, prior to the late 19th century.

Polygamy can mean:

• polygyny: a marriage among one man and multiple women;
• polyandry: a rare practice involving marriage among one woman and multiple men; or
• group marriage: a marriage among multiple men and multiple women.

Of these three practices, only polygyny is currently promoted by certain fundamentalist Mormon denominations. Only polygyny was promoted by Joseph Smith. Only polygyny was promoted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints until it was at least temporarily suspended in the late 19th century.

Does this mean that polyandry happened? Well, it really doesn't address it. it addresses the teachings, as does this article.

Next reference, Steven Faux, "Genetic Self Interest & Mormon Polygyny: A Sociobiological Perspective of the Doctrinal Development of Polygyny" in Sunstone, July-August 1983, pages 37-40 talks about polygyny being taught by church leaders, not polyandry. he discusses the issues surrounding the "apparent" polyandry practiced and of course, like most, dismisses it because no cohabitation nor evidence of consumation ever occured, which by very definition of polyandry, must include sexual consumation. (go look at the wiki entry or dictionary.com to verify the definition).

Compton, gives strict definitions of the terms he uses in his book. He states:

POLYGAMY ("many-marriage"): A man or woman has two or more marriage partners. Plural marriage is the preferred Mormon term. Anthropologically, polygamy is divided into two subcategories: polygyny and polyandry.

POLYGYNY (i.e., "many-woman"): A man is married to two or more women simultaneously.

POLYANDRY (i.e., "many-man"): A woman has multiple husbands.

He uses polygyny to discuss Smith's eternal sealings or marriages, and Polyandry to discuss the women's temporal marriages. You cite his book, when you discount his post research about Sealings versus marriages as already discussed. Was smith sealed to the women, or married? In some cases both, it gets messy - as most children would be sealed to their mothers and by using the same definition would be in an incestual marriage union. There is evidence that although smith was sealed to multiple women as "the norm" some of them may or may not have been marriages. We've hashed this out before.

Jan Shipps in Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition, 1982 discusses polygyny versus polyandry, and clearly defends that polygyny was taught, not polyandry.

Go and read it. We should probably go by smith's own words in any case. Smith taught: "If any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else...if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take Hagar to wife."

That's all that we have that Smith taught on the practice. Everything else, as Nerd42 above points out is "proof" that smith practiced it. So the teaching is that a man can have another wife if the first approves. That's the whole teaching of plural marriage (aside from being sealed for eternity). Pretty funny that everyone is so up in arms over 150 words and ancedotal evidence and a few marriage certificates that really prove nothing. to be accurate on wikipedia we must show what is factual, and what historians also teach, hence the current compromise prior to your arrival, but even attempting to prove if he did or did not practice is impossible to do without more primary sources, which are not available to historians. -Visorstuff 22:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

There's no "current research" that's going to say that polygyny isn't a form of polygamy, because it isn't logically possible. I have of course seen the website you mention (religioustolerance.org), and it's nice that you agree with their opinion. It's not particularly authoritative on this matter, particular in comparison with Todd Compton, and at one point there was someone running around Wikipedia removing all references to the site since it is, essentially, a website consisting mostly of unattributed points of view. They also are a little condescending in assuming that their readers are unfamiliar with the word "polygyny". The definitions you provide, and the website are primarily concerned with current practice and "promotion", and not with historical practice. They also simply represent views, rather than facts. I would like to suggest once more that you seem excessively interested in teachings and theology and not at all with actual practice. This might be a useful way to approach the subject if we were writing here of the theology of plural marriages, but this is an article on Joseph Smith. As such, it should be primarily focused on his actions. I have not suggested that he "taught" polyandry, but it is a simple fact that he practiced it. You ask if Smith was sealed or married to the "women". The matter is resolved when you acknowledge they were called wives. - Hoboken 21:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

But not all historians do. If it were based on my belief only, I'd likely agree with you, but I can't in good conscience with historical documents not confirming it. This is about historical facts - none of which completely, and undisputably confirm that he was married to multiple women- rather they suggest it. Compton states how he defined who he decided who Smith was "married" to. He doesn't say that they are not indisputable, but rather offers some evidence. Since it is about smith, we need to discuss what he did teach, as all Latter Day Saint denominations base their doctrines and teachings on Smith's teachings not his practice. For example, the smith family operated a beer and cakes shop (and probably sold harder liquors). But he taught against strong drinks (not the beer) with the word of wisdom. The LDS church and some others don't drink liquors as a result of that teaching. Therefore his teaching superceded his practice. The written teaching survives, whereas the practice did not. I agree that his practices needd to be included - they are - including polyandry. But the sentence reads that he taught polygamy - he did not teach all forms of it. He taught polygyny. That is the teaching that survived. The article (and others) already detail his alleged practice of polyandry. The sentence in question is about his teachings. Perhaps we shoudl then change the sentence to read from the 150 word-teaching on the matter as his teachings and then leave the practice section as it is. His own words should be enough. The article is not hiding polyandry or any other form that was practiced, but is trying to distinguish between his teaching and practice. Perhaps you should re-read the sections on this?

Incidentally, Smith never called the form plural marriage, again showing that either you've not fully studied out the issue, or made a simple honest mistake. No issues either way, but we have to be more careful. -Visorstuff 21:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you are primarily interested in Smith's "teaching" rather than his practice. But that's your emphasis, not mine, and not the usual emphasis for a biographical article. In any case, I'm content we have the article in reasonable shape now. - Hoboken 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm interested in both his teachings and his practice for this biography. But the section is about Smith's teachings. The article already addressed the practice and polyandry/polygamy before you got involved. The sentence was originally about his teaching of polygyny. And most biographies don't deal solely with practices, but with both teachings and practices - see Jesus, Buddha, Mother Teresa and Ghandi - let alone with Brodie and Compton's works on his alleged marriages. Brodie discusses his teachings as hypocritical to his practices, and Compton seperates the two entirely. We wouldn't have much about/in the Jesus article (perhaps five to seven paragraphs) if it were soley about practice. Nor would we have the section "Smith's legacy" in this article. We definitely wouldn't have the section that we are discussing currently under the heading "Major teachings" (hence my focus on Smith's "teachings") If you want to move the section to a new section on "Smith's practices" then that's another issue. But perhaps that's where we are missing each other. this section is about his teachings. Again, you may want to re-read the sections on this -Visorstuff 22:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We were discussing the whole article, at least I was, not just one section of it. - Hoboken 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My Oh My! I admit I didn't read this entire conversation. I did remove BOTH words from the introductory paragraph, and replaced them with Joseph Smith's own word "plural marriage", which is linked to the article on the subject. The article on the subject explains all related terms. Let the user click if they don't understand a term, I say. This is a wiki, after all. :) Wadsworth 19:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wadsworth, I think the issue had been resolved by several careful edits relating to the discussion above. The use of all three terms in the opening section has been discussed several times -- see archives and above. Your removal might start us "back at square one". Editors, should we restore the deleted terms? WBardwin 21:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best not to have "Bulletpoint" in preference to actual sentences, and, as noted above, "plural marriage" is not Joseph Smith's term. - Hoboken 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie & Bushman

Editor, ANON 68.91.80.153, insists on deleting material from Bushman that must contradict their POV. On WIKI we strive for balance. Brodie is no more an "expert" historian than every other historian that is quoted and used as a refernece. ANON, you may want to do some reserach on Brodie's work and her methods. She wrote for a specific, conciously stated objective: to disprove Joseph Smith's statements of his history. She openly ignored all information and data that disproved her POV. She is still valued, but all scholars take her work for what it is, a one sided exposé. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean exposé though - it looks like, contrary to my thought, your spelling is an acceptaped alternative :() Trödel 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bullet-list in introductory paragraph - thoughts?

Reading the introductory paragraph was becoming painful. What had started as a concise comma-delimited list of controversial doctrines turned into a monster. :) Hopefully this list will allow easier assimilation of the concepts enumerated. What do you guys think? Wadsworth 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Bullet point lists are usually changed to paragraphs, rather than the other way around. It's especially bad form in the opening paragraphs. - Hoboken 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that it needs to be A) a bullet list, or B) a CONCISE comma-delimited list. The problem with the concise comma-delimited list is that people keep wanting to expand/clarify points, and so it get's unwieldy. They are, after all, controversial points (and identified as such). Do you think the bullet-list is appropriate here, given the circumstances? If not, I would be happy to convert it to a concise list; perhaps put a section lower in the page to expand it some. Wadsworth 14:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

His family supported Strang

I took this out - as this is too broad of a statement - as not all members of his family did not support Strang. And the support of strang varied over time - couldn't think of a good way to summarize it so I thought I would mention my concerns here in case someone wants to take another stab at summarizing that. Trödel 23:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Succession boxes

The succession boxes are screwed up. Joseph Smith III cannot succeed in 1860, a man who died in 1838. There should be some way to fix this and make it sensible. Did Joseph Smith III split off another split ? As it is, it's confusing. Wjhonson 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are confusing Joseph Smith III, the son, with Joseph Smith, Jr., his father. These are two separate people...father and son. Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Basically, Joseph Smith III did not take a leadership post in what later bacame the Community of Christ until 1860 - between 1844 and 1860 there were various factions and "The Midwestern or Prairie Saints began to call for the need to establish a "New Organization" of the church and many likewise believed that Joseph Smith III should be at its head. Elders repeatedly visited Smith and asked him to take up his father's mantle, but his reply was that he would only assume the church presidency if he were inspired by God to do so. Finally in 1860, Smith said that he had received this inspiration and at a conference in Amboy, Illinois on 6 April 1860, he was sustained as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints." from Joseph Smith III#The Reorganization of the Church - see also Succession crisis (Mormonism) for more information. Trödel 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not confusing them. I am saying the *succession boxes* are themselves confusing. Making it appear as if JS III took over directly from his grandfather. They should be cleaned up to make the years smoothly connected instead of discontinous as they are now.Wjhonson 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added (with a bit of trouble) the Quorum as a successor. It should be cleaned up a bit, but basically it was Strang and the Quorum who lead for 3 years and THEN there was another split. That should be made a little more clear in the boxes. Probably eventually move the other splits to later pages, and mention them in notes, not in succession boxes. Wjhonson 15:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me correct the impression I just made. I don't mean to say the Strang led the whole congregation, just his part. So Strang vs the Quorum should be one split at 1844 ish. Wjhonson 15:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to do it that way (I have no real preference either way), we should remove Brigham Young, JS III, and Bickerton as successors. From this perspective, the only significant immediate successors to Joseph Smith were the Twelve, Sidney Rigdon, and James Strang. COGDEN 16:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that. The other's should hang off the later successors, more in-line with how the succession boxes are used on the pages for royalty, etc. Wjhonson 16:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

It's a bit annoying to see three different forms of citation used. I've changed several to the "ref" form to make the article look better, and not have a cite [5] followed by a cite [11]. Wjhonson 15:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Crystal gazing sentence removal

I deleted the following sentence:

According to neighbors and friends, the young Joseph Smith, with his father and brother, began to practice crystal gazing around the year 1820.

This kind of sentence definitely need to be referenced to be kept in the article. The sentence is written to sound as if old Joe, Dad and brother (which one?) got together in the evening set up shop gazing into crystals. Sort of like a traveling freak show a la Smith family. Enough with an attempt at levity.

I have never read or heard an allegation that Joseph or his father put in together to "work" crystals together or at the same time. I have read, it seems like in Bushman's book, where Joseph Sr. did have dreams or visions, but off hand I don't recall a crystal. I get the impression that someone has melded thoughts together and created whole cloth. Let's substantiate and then either permanently delete it or re-insert it with references. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

References

We have a mixture of m:Cite.php and Template talk:Harvard reference here on this page - I think we should pick one and use it througout the article. My personal preference would be to leave the Reference section as is, merge it with the Bibliography section, and then use footnotes to refer to cites in the biblography as in the example below:

Joseph Smith was born in Sharon, Vermont (what is today South Royalton), the fourth surviving child of Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. After attempting to establish roots in various towns in Vermont, but being forced out by three successive years of crop failures, the Smith family settled in western New York, and began working a farm just outside the border of the town of Palmyra. In town, the family opened a "cake and beer shop", where the adolescent Joseph sometimes worked selling concessions at local Palymra events.

References

Bibliography

See also Works relating to Joseph Smith, Jr.

• Berge, Dale L. (1985), "Archaeological Work at the Smith Log House", Ensign, 15 (8): 24 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help).
• Hill, Marvin S. (1976), "Joseph Smith and the 1826 Trial: New Evidence and New Difficulties" (PDF), BYU Studies, 12 (2): 1–8.
• Smith, Lucy Mack (1853), Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations, Liverpool: S.W. Richards.
• Tucker, Pomeroy (1867), Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism, New York: D. Appleton.

That way we can use the good alphabetical bibliography and easily reference the specific cites. It also follows a more scholarly approach. --Trödel 19:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit on D&C 111:4

I just reverted the article to delete the following paragraph:

Smith seems to have begun practicing plural marriage as early as 1833. Polygamy (marriage to multiple partners) was illegal in many U.S. States, and was widely perceived as an immoral and misguided practice. The knowledge of the practice of polygamy had, despite efforts to keep it secret, crept out and become known to non-Mormons, to such a degree that it had to be denied in Doctrines and Covenants: “Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe that one man should have one wife ...“ (Doctrine and Covenants 111: 4). (See also Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy and Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1844#Plural marriage for more information.) The knowledge that the Mormons were secrretly practicing polygamy was one basis of anti-Mormon feeling in Kirtland.

I have added the references above to further clarify how to make this acceptable. First, D&C 111:4 reads, "And it shall come to pass in due time that I will agive this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours." This section has to do with Salem, Massachusetts where the Joseph and others went in the hopes of finding individuals capable of assisting the indebted church at the time. It was not a successful trip and they returned to their homes. Section 111 has nothing to do with polygamy. I suspect that this is information is taken from an uninformated source. That does not mean the information is not valid, but it does mean proper referencing will be needed. Further, make sure this information is not already covered in the article; I suspect it is. Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Different editions apparently have different numberings, and different content. The section you seem not to be able to locate is quoted in our "Doctrine and Covenants" article as having been 101. I've restored the passage and added additional citations, which should suffice to clear up your confusion. By the way, reverting to delete, and deleting an entire section because you can't find a reference and therefore conclude (erroneously) that it is from an "uninformated" source strikes me as not particularly harmonious editing. - Denovo 00:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, which is your D&C or to which Mormon group are you referring? I did see that the information was already covered in another area. These types of edits happen when we don't read the article in its entirety. Unfortunately, we all make those types of edits. Given the public nature of WIKI, it is always best to reread the entire article relatively often before editing to ensure that we understand topic organization and our edits are as productive as we desire. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you'll read what I added, you'll see I've cited the specific edition. I'm pretty sure I understand how biographies are arranged, and that's chronologically, rather than by topic. This information about polygamy in Kirtland belongs in that section, because it explains some of the reasons Smith moved on from there. Clearly the information was not redundant if you were unfamiliar with it; it can't simultaneously be in an article you've read, and unfamiliar. - Denovo 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

(Additional comments copied from my talk page.) I noted your recent additions/edits to the Joseph Smith article and briefly read your note on the discussion page. I suspect your edit will be again reverted, not necessarily because you are adding inappropriate material, but because of some of the limitations of the Joseph Smith article. Some reasons below:

• Some Wikipedia editors tend not to accept LDS scripture as an acceptable source (this may appear odd to Mormon editors) and so may revert quickly.
• There is a tremendous amount of source material on the Prophet and on the history of the early LDS movement. The group of LDS oriented editors here are always trying to keep the Smith article (and other major LDS articles) at a reasonable length. Sometimes they grow dramaticly. Sub-articles on various and sundry topics have been created to try and contain the growth.
• In addition, your edits address a popular, controversial, and inflamatory topic and so there is a tendency to revert more frequently than on other less controversial subjects. Editors find that concensus is rather hard won on things such as revealed truth, polygamy, and some other LDS practices and beliefs. The Plural marriage article attempts to address the practice, history, and (to some extent) the people involved in plural marriage in LDS history. There is also a Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy article. I would suggest you move your edit to these articles or talk pages. Then you can work with the editors focusing on that smaller topic to incorporate your edits. Remember that concensus and accuracy is the Wiki goal. I encourage you to come to the project page and get oriented to the LDS effort here. See: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Latter_Day_Saint_movement, Latter Day Saint movement and List of articles about Mormonism. I look forward to working with you. WBardwin 01:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Well, LDS scripture is certainly an acceptable source for what LDS scripture says!
• Smith's polygamy is necessarily part of his biographical narrative. It is important not merely in terms of doctrine, but also of the progress of his life. As I pointed out in editing, some of the hostile responses to Mormonism were certainly caused by its embrace of polygamy. This material can't be relegated to subpages; they are part of the fabric of Smith's life, and that's what the article is about.
• Reverting rather than discussing is not very polite. The rationale for doing so in this instance has not been persuasive. If the non-chronological information duplicates anything in my addition, let that duplication be excised; however, I'm not altogether convinced that the connection between polygamy and leaving Kirtland is addressed elsewhere in the article. If the general feeling is that including the doctrinal discussions in Smith's article make it too long for pertinent biographical details to be included, the solution is to split the detailed discussion of theological points off into subarticles so that the biography - which is, after all, the point of the article - is not shortchanged. - Denovo 03:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the discussions that have gone on before. Since you did not know the full versions were available at utah.edu, it seems reasonable for me to assume that you probably have not read 1) all the material about this issue, nor 2) the prior discussion on wikipedia. The current presentation is moving towards being balanced and NPOV - throwing in this much text at this point unbalances the presentation. --Trödel 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't assume I haven't read the pertinent discussions. If you have a pertinent passage in those discussions to point out, please do so. And please try to address the points I have made: the material is appropriate at this point in Smith's biography, despite the falsely-authoritative directive to the editors that keeps getting inserted. Whether or not you want to discuss it elsewhere, in a section on polygamy, is irrelevant to the fact that it's pertinent here. "Unbalances the presentation" is a value judgement with which I disagree: perhaps you would be so kind as to indicate in what way you feel this "imbalance" is manifested. It is (or was, until you repeatedly removed it) attributed appropriately. As it is, you are removing pertinent material not covered elsewhere, despite your claims to the contrary. It would also be nice if you didn't reintroduce errors which I corrected. - Denovo 04:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see there is no response here to these issues, and that other, less important items are now taking up space in the article, so I'm going to add what I consider important. In the process I'll try to clean up the various misspellings that have be introduced (or reintroduced) in the interim. - Denovo 05:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right - I haven't responded in 24 hours so I must have no response - perhaps you should also check my contributions to see if I have even been on Wikipedia. You might find it surprising that I don't have free time to spend on Wikipedia on Sunday, however, being that I am openly a member of the Church of Jesus Christ, others might not. Regardless, here are the issues I see:

• I don't have time to rediscuss and explain all the decisions that have gone on before - thus I recommend you see the archives
• The use of references to lds-mormon.com rather than more scholarly sources suggest to me that your research has been primarily on sites that exclusively present views in opposition to the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS - so I suggested that you read some alternative material
• The reliance soly on Quinn's work without reviewing any of the relevant critical discussion of that article is inappropriate for an encyclopedic article.
• I expect the same level of scrutiny to be applied to all sources of information about Joseph Smith - not just those that report favorably on him - and I expect to rely on generally accepted neutral reporters of LDS related issues (e.g. Jan Shipps) when they are available.
• It is unbalanced because presenting polygyny as being a major part of JS's life so early in the article misrepresents the chronological nature and importance of the relevant information. All of the claims that he practiced it earlier were brought up much later in his life, thus, if included chronologically, the controversy should be placed in that part of his life. It is also unbalanced because there are few, if any (the only one I can think of is the Sidney Rigdon letter), contemporaneous references that polygyny was practiced in 1833. Additionally, there are many sources that deny that Joseph Smith ever practiced polygyny - so that viewpoint also needs to be included and referenced. Thus the best approach would be to include it topically.

Incorporating your view, with which I disagree, that mention of it chronologically in 1833 is necessary, is accomplished by the short sentence with a link to the part of the article that covers that material. --Trödel 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you need a response, I will offer some, but I have purposely delayed it until now:

• It is confusing when you request someone to not make assumptions about reading the archives. If you have read them just say so, if not don't be offended when someone tells you to spend some time doing so. If you had read them you would have come to a conclusion that polygamy has been a well discussed topic in this article. Your comments are not origninal nor are they unique. The article you see today is the result of numerous editors working cooperatively to develop what is deemed a good article.
• Value judgements seem to be made just as much by you as anyone else. Can you please tell me and other editors why yours should be taking precedence? Why is your opinion unique and superior to the work of others, and at least two immediate, long-term editors, have disagreed with your edits?
• Polygamy is not the most accurate term. Those who have not spent a lot of time with the subject unfortunately find it as a favorite term, but it is not accurate. The accurate term is polygyny. Polygyny is constantly changed to the more inaccurate term polygamy, but it is still not accurate. We have obviously been overly lax in correcting this reintroduction of the more inaccurate term. The debate is whether to use the common term, though inaccurate, or to enlighten people to understand the difference and thus require them to use accurate terminology. You will see by reading archives that it is an ongoing debate; intelligence and accuracy do not always win out.

It is late and these are only the first things that come to mind. Also, this article is not meant to be a biography; chronological order is not necessary or the requisite form. We are writing an encyclopedic article that is designed to inform. This is the main article, which has a vast number of articles that spring from it...the Joseph Smith, Jr. and Polygamy being just one of them. That article is best for details. Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't question your Wikipedia habits, and you needn't be defensive about them. If you don't have time to edit Wikipedia, that's fine. What I would prefer is that you not "revert" when you have no time to explain your rationale: that's simply rude. As for the fact that discussions are reheld, and never closed, that's a consequence of an open-format, so I suppose you'll have to adjust. Now, as to your actually pertinent points: the correct (chronological) place to present Smith's polygamy is when it occurred, not when it was discovered. The decidedly minority viewpoint that Smith didn't practice polygamy is certainly already given its due. (We don't say "Some say the earth revolves around the sun, but others disagree", but "The earth revolves around the sun. Some people don't believe this." With regard to Stormrider, "polygamy" is both accurate, and the term adopted by historians, and therefore the one Wikipedia must (and does) use. - Denovo 17:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the open format means that discussion are reheld and never closed; however, prior discussions are retained to help provide context and understanding on how the language got to its current point. Making wholesale changes to sections of an article that have been discussed and compromised on through much effort without discussing the changes ahead of time is also rude. Your changes, reference to openly hostile sources, and an apparant ignorance of the material will often result in reversion. Additionally, despite your accusation, the reversion was explained - and you were referred to the prior discussions for additional details. There already has been an adjustment to the article as a result of your edits. Please provide some rational for the additional changes you wish to include. --Trödel 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

My "wholesale changes" amount to the addition of about two sentences. Hardly a crime which must be justified. Calling me ignorant, is, I suppose, good manners. As to sources, I'm not at all sure which you are calling hostile. A nebulous referral to "prior discussion" is not an explanation. Your most recent revision completely misses the fact that hostile reaction to Mormons was, in part, a consequence of (rumors of) Smith's polygamy. It omits Quinn's confirmation (apparently doubted by some, and the subject of a request for further documentation) that polygamy was illegal at the time it was practiced. And it places the changes in the Doctrine and Covenants outside their historical contexts (and in the process, asks for citations for facts for which a citation was previously provided). And please stop repeatedly reintroducing careless errors ("the the", "alledged", "resarch", "confim", etc.) - Denovo 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean this first edit on Wikipedia - which was reverted with discussion on talk page - which you have continually tried to reinsert (along with other edits in some cases) despite not reaching concensus[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. --Trödel 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we holding a "gotcha" contest, or trying to produce an accurate article? - Denovo 05:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If your behaviour is unacceptable you have no one to blame but yourself --Trödel 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)