Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

"The right person"

There's a lot of emphasis in the article about Smith taking the "right person" to the hill with him. Bushman, however dedicates a grand total of two sentences to the theory. He says, "Stories circulated of a requirement to bring Alvin to the hill to get the plates; and when he died, someone else. Emma, it was said, was designated as a key." Yet, our article presents the dubious stories as fact, and borders on implying that Smith married Emma because she was "the key."

To present the alternate view, let me finish Bushman's paragraph. "The stories have a magical flavor, but other stories have the angel warning Joseph about greed, and the evildoings of the money-diggers, as if the messenger was moving him away from his treasure-hunting ways. The danger of treating the plates as treasure was underscored time after time. By 1826, even Joseph Sr. had come around to a more biblical conception of Joseph's mission. The plates were seen less and less as a treasure and more and more as a religious history, preparing Joseph to conceive of himself as a translator and prophet." (Bushman 54)

So...There are two competing explanations for why Smith couldn't get the plates. Bushman favors the second, the article favors the first, spending more time talking about it than Bushman does in his book. Both explanations are based on "stories." I recommend moving the story about the "right person" to the footnotes where it belongs, and adding the competing story about greed to the footnotes. That way, we only present the facts (i.e. Smith returned without the plates because he said the angel prevented him, and later on, he and Emma went to the hill and retrieved them). Then we can do the speculating about why in the footnotes, without giving one story preference over the other. -- Adjwilley (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Revelation

I propose a new section specifically on Smith's revelations. It's length would probably be somewhere between the length of "Early years" and "Founding a church." I justify the addition of this section based on several quotes from Bushman, including, "The signal feature of his life was his sense of being guided by revelation" (preface). I know the article is already a little heavy on Views and Teachings, and this new section could probably replace some of the material there (such as the first paragraph of "History and eschatology", which I think is a weird section anyway.) Bushman has also been quoted as saying of this article, "The article doesn't say anything about the impact of new revelation on followers or even make much of the fact that Joseph was continually receiving revelation." With the new section, I intend to correct this problem.

A rough outline of how this section might look might be as follows:

• Short introductory Paragraph on Smith's revelations in general. How did they guide his life? Use material from Bushman preface. "He did not defend his revelations or give reasons for belief. He dictated words and let people decide. Everything he taught and most of what he did originated in these revelations." (Bushman preface) "Epigrammatic and oracular." Differentiated between opinions, teachings, and revelations.
• Very short Paragraph on first recorded revelation (Bushman 68-69) received during the translation of the Book of Mormon. Style of subsequent revelations ("Thus saith the Lord") (Bushman pages 129-130) (Brodie pp 55-57)
• Paragraph on the Book of Mormon, including a brief synopsis. (Bushman page 85) (longest and most complex of Joseph's revelations (Bushman 105)) (I think Vogel's book alone justifies this, since over 2/3 of his 560 page book is dedicated to a synopsis of the Book of Mormon)
• Perhaps a paragraph on Translation? (possibly move 2nd paragraph from "Founding.")
• Paragraph analyzing Book of Mormon. (Bushman chapter 4). Early Mormons called it a History of the Indians. Some call it an Extension of the Bible (mammoth apocryphal work). Some call it a response to the pressing issues of Joseph's times (Brodie 57-73). Some call it autobiographical (Bushman 106). Or drawing from other works (Brodie 72-73). Christian themes can't be ignored (Bushman 108). A sentence like this might lead into the next paragraph: "The Book of Mormon was the catapult that flung Joseph Smith to a place in the sun. But it could not be responsible for his survival there. The book lives today because of the prophet, not he because of the book." (Brodie 83).
• Short Paragraph on how Smith produced revelations. Spoke slowly and deliberately so the words could be written down. Revelations were immediately copied, recopied, and circulated. Often came in response to questions. "In later years Joseph described the spirit of revelation as 'pure intelligence' flowing into him. 'It may give you sudden strokes of ideas,' he said 'so that by noticing it, you may find it fulfilled the same day or soon; (i.e.) those things that were presented unto your minds by the Spirit of God, will come to pass.'" (Brodie page 57, arguing that what he was describing was his own alert, intuitive understanding and creative spirit) Given with confidence of Old Testament prophet (Brodie 57)
• Paragraph with overview of the revelations. What came when? Highlight major ones. Give timeline. (For example, the revelations slowed down considerably after Kirtland and then sped up again in Nauvoo.) How did they change over time? (For example: gradually moved away from the "Thus saith the Lord" approach and moved towards giving sermons; became more polished) Polygamy revelation was the last and "most epoch making"(Brodie 340).

In terms of the spreadsheet analysis I did earlier, this new section would solve some problems, but potentially make one worse. Two specific categories it would bring into closer alignment are: Book of Mormon (which currently has 0.39% weight but needs around 3.82%. This refers to the book itself, not translation or publication); and Doctrine (We should cut the views and teachings section back a little as material is covered in the new section. We currently have 10%; we need 2.7%) The specific category it would worsen would be "Revelation" itself. On the spreadsheet, the emphasis on Revelation is between that of Bushman and Brodie (with Bushman on the high side, Brodie on the low.) Most of WP's emphasis on revelation comes from the Views and Teachings section (a lot from ethics and behavior I think) and a little comes from the Ohio section, not sure where. This material could certainly be moved into the new Revelation section, but the end result would still likely be a move away from Brodie and towards Bushman in the Revelation category. I think such a move is justified, though, since one criticism of Brodie's book is that she doesn't explore Smith's religious side (Vogel viii). -- Adjwilley (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What would be eliminated if you added a new section?--John Foxe (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Good question. Technically nothing would have to be eliminated at all, though I was planning to remove redundancies if they occurred. For example, the sentences in the fourth Ohio paragraph that reads, "He also produced fewer revelations, relying more heavily on the authority of his own teaching,[130] and he altered and expanded many of the previous revelations to reflect recent changes in theology and practice, publishing them as the Doctrine and Covenants.[131]" would be moved down, and parts of the first paragraph in History &E would be substantially duplicated in the Book of Mormon paragraphs. I do think that parts of the "Distinctive views and teachings" section should be trimmed, but that's a separate issue than what I'm proposing here. If I decide that cuts need to take place, I will propose them here on the talk page first. -- Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I have written a draft of the proposed section here. I have tried to remain faithful to the sources, but would appreciate comments, insights, or opinions from other editors before I try to integrate it into the article. The section ended up being a little longer than I anticipated, and is more heavily sourced to Bushman than to Brodie and Vogel. (This is for various reasons, including the fact that Bushman's book is divided into nice sections that make referencing easy, while Vogel's book seems a bit scattered, to me, and only covers Smith's life until around 1831. Also, as I mentioned above, Brodie doesn't have very much detail on Smith's revelations or religious thought.)

A paragraph near the end contains a brief summery of some of Smith's more "notable revelations." I determined the notability primarily by the weight they were given in Bushman's book, and the fact that they were all important enough to have names. All the revelations I listed (with the exception of the Word of Wisdom) received at least two pages of treatment. Also, I copied a paragraph on translation from the History section, and have taken the liberty of adding a couple of sentences and correcting one or two errors (i.e. Smith didn't say he saw the words, that was Joseph Knight).

Anyway, please let me know your thoughts on this new section.

– Adjwilley (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to be so long? A section 1/4 that size would do fine and without repeating information given elsewhere in this article and in others (for instance, Book of Mormon).--John Foxe (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. The section is longer than I would like it, but I haven't been able to decide which part to cut. I think a brief synopsis of the Book of Mormon is appropriate, even though there's an article elsewhere on the subject. The reason for this is that the biographers I've read do this as well, and some of them spend a good deal of time analyzing the book.

As for information that is duplicated in the Revelations section that is already elsewhere in the article: I think a lot of that fits better under Revelations than elsewhere. The Word of Wisdom, for instance, currently has a paragraph in the Ethics section, which seems out of place. I think it should be deleted from there, and should live in the Revelations section. – Adjwilley (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not ideas that need to be cut but the wordiness of the exposition. One of the banes of Wikipedia is the belief that more is better.--John Foxe (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve been thinking about the section length. I am all for eliminating fluff, as long as it can be done without removing the substance. I know I have a tendency for wordiness. Either way, the new section is quite long for having no breaks. In the short term, I think I can solve the problem by breaking it up into subsections on the BoM and Other revelations. Long-term, I'd actually like to see the section get longer, while the article stays about the same length. I think many of the ideas in the "Distinctive views and teachings" section are better introduced in the context of Revelation. That's how Bushman does it. He seems to follow a pattern of introducing the revelation first with some historical background, and then discussing the particular doctrines and implications. Adding a subsection on Abraham and Moses could swallow up most of our "Cosmology" section, and some of the material from "Religious authority and ritual", "Theology of family", "History and E*" could be moved up as well. Of course, these are ideas that I came up with today, and I don't have specifics, but I'll think about it. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've performed a cut, just to provide an example of how I'd like to reduce the wordiness. But I also think the section should quote Brodie and Vogel on Smith's relationship to revelation because they obviously have a darker view of the process than does Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If I understand your cuts, you have reduced

"Perhaps the most notable aspect of Smith's life was his sense of being guided by revelation. Smith never presented his ideas in a clear, logical order or engaged in formal debate. Instead, he dictated authoritative revelations and let people decide whether to believe or not."

to

"Smith believed he was guided by revelation and never presented his ideas in any clear, logical order."

The first problem is that you've cut out more than just fluff. What I call "perhaps the most notable aspect", Bushman calls "the signal feature of his life" and that's been cut. Also, the fact that he never attempted to defend his revelations logically is an interesting and enigmatic point that Bushman hammers. Brodie and Vogel both assert that Smith was very intelligent. So why wouldn't he defend his revelations by appealing to logic or scripture? The initial version offered a glimpse into the complexity of the man, but the cut version sort of makes him out as a deluded bumbler who had trouble enunciating. I wrote the paragraph with Bushman's criticism of the article being "shallow" in mind, and the cut you are proposing seems to be a step in the direction of continuing that tradition. I welcome edits that cut out fluff, but let's not cut the heart out.

I'd certainly be open to adding material from Brodie and Vogel, though Brodie doesn't explore Smith's religious thought nearly as well as Bushman does. – Adjwilley (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll try again when I have opportunity. I think you should start the paragraph with a direct attribution to Bushman because the paragraph is obviously an opinion that would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove and one not held by Brodie or Vogel. Another book that's helpful on Smith's revelations is Kurt Widmer, Mormonism and the Nature of God (2000).--John Foxe (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying to maybe start off the paragraph with something like "Historian Richard Bushman stated that Smith's sense of being led by revelation was the defining characteristic of his life" or "According to Richard Bushman, Smith's sense of being guided..." I'll check Brodie and Vogel again for their views on Revelations when I get a chance. I had watered down Bushman's statement to "Perhaps the most notable aspect of Smith's life was his sense" but your concern makes sense. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

I've been doing some thinking about pictures for the new section. The closest picture we have to Smith actually giving a revelation is the seer-stone-in-hat picture commissioned by John Foxe. My idea is to move that one down to the revelations section, along with the artistic representation of the Plates and U&T that recently replaced the B&W print of the Angel Moroni. I found an old painting with Smith and Moroni that can fill that spot.

Advantages to this move would be that it would free up space in the "Founding a Church" section (which is currently a little crowded with pictures) and would add relevant pictures to the "Revelations" section (which doesn't have any yet). We can keep the Seer stone and golden plates pictures next to each other (I feel they are related) and we get another picture of Moroni. The "Founding" section will focus on the important fact that Smith published a book, and any speculation on how he did it will be lower down in the article. (I see both pictures as speculative: one because it shows the plates, the other, because it doesn't.)

Disadvantages could be that the picture of Moroni is also speculative, and noticeably so, because now he's actually shiny like an angel, unlike the dude in the horrible old glasses print.

Here is an example of what the article might look like with the pictures moved. – Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Problems

I've found various problems in the "Distinctive views and teachings" section. Over the next few days (or weeks) I'd like to point out some of the problems, section by section, and then fix them. I will try to follow a pattern of stating the sentence or phrase with the problem, with its citation, stating what the problem is, and then making a recommendation to remedy the problem. Many of the solutions involve shortening or deleting: something I'm still getting used to :-) I'll begin with the two sections on Cosmology and Ethics. Feel free to comment if you feel so inclined. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology

Statement in Article	Citation	Problem	Recommendation
Embodiment, therefore, was the purpose of earth life.	Bushman 421 "From Joseph's perspective, the melding of matter and spirit at birth was a major purpose for coming to earth. In a sense, embodiment was the the very purpose of earth life.	Overstatement; drawing a conclusion beyond what the source says.	Delete the sentence. The previous sentence "Nevertheless, spirits were incapable of experiencing a "fulness of joy" unless joined with corporeal bodies" is sufficient.
The work and glory of God, the supreme intelligence was to create worlds across the cosmos where inferior intelligences could be embodied.	Bushman 455-56	Understatement. The passage in Bushman makes it clear that Smith's god was more than just a supreme intelligence.	Delete "the supreme intelligence." It's an odd amount of detail anyway.
...he eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within space with a throne situated near a star or planet named Kolob, and measuring time at the rate of a thousand years per Kolob day.	Bushman, Widmer, Bloom, Bergera	Way too much detail; wordy	replace with "he eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space"

I think recommendations 1 and 2 are okay, to reduce redundancy. For #2, I do think it is important to say that Smith considered humanity and God to be the same type of being, but that is covered in the succeeding paragraph.

That leads to recommendation #3. I think that the first point, that he thought God is a glorified man, is very important, and a key to defining Smith's theology. Also important is the fact that God is embodied within space and time, although perhaps we could say more about what this means. (It really means that Smith did not think that God was the universe's sole "necessary being," but I'm not sure we want to use philosophical jargon here.) I think we need to specify Smith's innovation vis-a-vis contemporary Christian theology. For example, we could say that Smith "eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within space and time, and the son of a higher god." As to the info about Kolob, I think we could probably move it to the footnotes. COGDEN 02:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Replacing with "he eventually viewed God as an advanced and glorified man, embodied within time and space" was my initial recommendation. I have problems with the "son of a higher god" because Bushman stops short of saying that. As far as I can see, he doesn't imply any higher gods, and is careful to note that Smith's multiple "gods" are not distinct willful personalities, but are unified in sort of a Trinitarian sense. I think the "vast hierarchy of gods" later on in the paragraph should adequately cover the point. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bushman notes Smith's doctrine that God had a father on page 544. Bushman's statement that the plural gods were not "distinct willful personalities" was to distinguish Smith's belief from polytheism. I think the idea that Smith thought God had a father is a point worth noting explicitly. Reference to a "hierarchy" could just mean a hierarchy of lesser gods than the Father.COGDEN 07:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I had missed that. I read the section on King Follett a few pages before expecting to find it there. I'm fine with mentioning it, but I think we should choose the wording carefully so as to not imply polytheism (following Bushman's example). Perhaps it could be mentioned further down in the paragraph like so: "The ability of humans to progress to godhood implied a vast hierarchy of gods, with God himself having a father" or something along those lines. – Adjwilley (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I re-phrased the Book of Mormon sentence, and was considering pipe-linking "an angel" to "Angel Moroni" but held back. I hit "Save page" prematurely, thus the confusing edit summary. I seem to remember something about the angel not being identified by name until later, so I didn't want to make a potentially controversial edit without discussion. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Ethics and behavior

Statement in Article	Citation	Problem	Recommendation
...and by issuing revelations, Smith supplemented biblical imperatives with new directives.	No citation	No citation; his reliance on revelation is outlined at the beginning of the revelations section.	Shorten and source.
One of these revelations, called the "Word of Wisdom," was framed not as a commandment, but as a recommendation. Coming at a time of temperance agitation, the guideline recommended that Saints avoid "strong" alcoholic drinks, wine (except sacramental wine), tobacco, meat (except in times of famine or cold weather), and "hot drinks."	Brodie, Bushman, Smith	Word of Wisdom belongs (and is) in the Revelations section. Has little to do with ethics.	Delete. This is all covered above.
Smith and other contemporary church leaders did not always follow this counsel.	Brodie, Bushman, and Ostling, all noting that Smith drank wine from time to time	Presumably this is to show that Smith broke the Word of Wisdom. I read the reference in Brodie, and she was talking about how Joseph's tolerance of human frailty was endearing. Bushman says, "The Saints differed over how rigorously to apply the Word of Wisdom. Some were inclined to make exact compliance a requirement of membership. Others were more relaxed. Joseph drank tea and a glass of wine from time to time. It was left to a later generation of Saints to turn the "principle with a promise" into a measuring rod of obedience."	Delete. Replace perhaps with cited material saying that Smith made no claims to perfection.
In 1831, Smith taught that those who kept the laws of God had "no need to break the laws of the land." Nevertheless, beginning in the mid-1830s and into the 1840s, as the Mormon people became involved in conflicts with the Missouri and Illinois state governments, Smith taught that "congress has no power to make a law that would abridge the rights of my religion," and that they were not under the obligation to follow laws they deemed as being contrary to their "religious privilege."	Phelps (1833) and Quinn	Presumably this is another attempt to show that Smith was not consistent with his teachings. It is also poorly sourced.	Cut it back, source to Bushman if possible, and integrate into the last paragraph of the section.

For #1, I think the first sentence of the section could be re-written, "Smith said his ethical rule was, "When the Lord commands, do it," meaning that revelation from God would supersede earthly law." (Need to find a citation for that, but I don't think it will be too difficult.)

Page 441 of Bushman's book should do. – Adjwilley (talk)

I agree with deleting the "Word of Wisdom" material, given that it is covered in the "Revelations" section, and it kind of shoe-horned into this section because it didn't really fit elsewhere. But I have a problem with how the Word of Wisdom is described in in that section. The revelation never prohibited "alcohol." In fact, it said that "mild drinks" made of barley (i.e., beer) were okay. Also, I think it is a modern Mormon anachronism to exclude the part about eating meat sparingly. Also, the fact that Smith didn't always practice it is important. One must not be left with the impression that Smith was a teetotaler. Your concern about Smith's "frailty" or "perfection" is, I think, not the issue, because the Word of Wisdom was not a moral issue then, as it is today within the post-Temperance LDS Church. What if we just copy and past this part into the "Revelation" section to replace what is there?

I agree about the meat sparingly part, and I agree that we should point out that it did not become a "measuring rod of obedience" until later (the end of the prohibition I think). I think the "strong drink" wording is ok, though the sourcing there is directly to the original revelation. Bushman actually doesn't use the term; he simply says it counseled the brethren to give up tobacco and alcohol. I think the sacramental wine detail is a little too much.

My impression that the paragraph was meant to point out a perceived inconsistency was based, in part, on the last footnote which was really hammering the point that Smith drank wine "with relish" and "without apology" as if there were something there to prove. – Adjwilley (talk)

I agree the last paragraph needs to be rewritten. But its purpose is not at all (or shouldn't be) to show that Smith was inconsistent. It is to discuss Smith's ethical relativism and pragmatism. He was quite consistent in his relativism and pragmatism, right from the beginning, and I think the Nephi vs. Laban ethical quandry deserves mention here, which shows that he was a relativist/pragmatist even in 1829. Also, we can mention his statements, circa 1835 or so, when he began to perform illegal priesthood marriages based on a claim that God's law took precedence over the law of Ohio. Revising this section is going to require a fresh look at the secondary sources, however.

Agreed. I will put that on my list of things to do. – Adjwilley (talk)

Finally, with the Word of Wisdom materials removed, I'm considering whether this section could be merged with the "political views" section. COGDEN 03:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review these proposals and comment. I value your opinions, and I feel much more comfortable knowing where you stand. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I have made the proposed edits, and in the process reverted the changes to the lead again. It appears our IP fried has created an account and re-made his changes. I'll grand him that what he views as a grammatical error is a tad confusing ("Published as the Book of Mormon") and should probably be tweaked. – Adjwilley (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

History and Eschatology

I have long felt that this section was kind of a weird collection of seemingly random tidbits of information that aren't extremely relevant to an understanding of Joseph Smith himself. Yes, he wrote things that seemingly re-arranged pieces of history, but that in itself was not his intent. Yes, he had a millennial point of view, but that can be said in a single sentence elsewhere. My original intent was not to remove the whole section, but as I got into it I realized that much of the information was poorly sourced, irrelevant, and/or redundant. So I am proposing that we delete the section, and move non-redundant pieces elsewhere in the article. In the table below, I have outlined every sentence or phrase in the section with my rationale for moving or deleting them, as well as some space for comments. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Statement in Article	Citation	Problem	Recommendation	Comments
Smith taught that during a Great Apostasy, the Bible had degenerated from its original inerrant form, and the "abominable church," led by Satan, had perverted true Christianity.	Hullinger	Unfortunately I don't have this book, but does it really say the Bible was inerrant and that the "abominable church" was lead specifically by Satan? I can't put my finger on the exact problem, but the sentence seems off to me, compared to what I've read. Also, this is partially covered in the Early Life section where it says Smith discovered that "all the current churches were false."	Delete redundant parts and move the rest to a paragraph on Smith's bible translation (I'm planning a new paragraph under Revelation).
He viewed himself as the latter-day prophet who restored those lost truths via the Book of Mormon and later revelations	Hullinger (describing how the Book of Mormon solved biblical controversies)	We've already got the bit about Smith viewing himself as a prophet elsewhere, and we now have an entire section on the Book of Mormon and later revelations.	Delete (already covered elsewhere)
He described the Book of Mormon as a literal "history of the origins of the Indians."	Bushman and Roberts	There's not a real problem with the sentence, though it is picking out one of many interpretations that Bushman is discussing. Also, Bushman didn't actually use the word "literal." Nevertheless, this information is more or less duplicated in the second paragraph on Book of Mormon.	Delete (already covered elsewhere)
The book called the Indians "Lamanites," a people descended from Israelites who had left Jerusalem in 600 BCE	Smith (1830), Phelps (1833)	This information is completely duplicated in the first paragraph of the new "Book of Mormon" section, where it is better sourced.	Delete (already covered elsewhere)
and whose skin pigmentation was a curse for their sinfulness.	Smith (1830) Quoted in Brodie.	Quotes one interpretation of the primary source material (that being the Book of Mormon) but ignores the other side of the coin presented in Bushman, that the Book of Mormon "champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them a more glorious future than modern American whites."	Delete, or move to another section, expanding slightly and stating Bushman's interpretation along with Brodie's. I favor deletion, because it's a whole lot of detail that doesn't really say much about the man. (This kind of detail belongs in the Book of Mormon article.)
Though Smith first identified Mormons as gentiles, he began teaching in the 1830s that the Mormons, too, were literal Israelites.	Brooke and Shipps	Not sure what those sources say, but it certainly doesn't fit with what Bushman says. He says, "If the Gentiles shall hearken unto the Lamb of God...they shall be numbered among the House of Israel...God calls upon modern Christians to assist in the restoration—and to become Israelites themselves." (103-104)	It is an interesting doctrine, but if you correct the sentence, it really doesn't belong in a section on History. Delete
Smith also claimed to have regained lost truths of sacred history through his revelations and revision of the Bible	No citation	Did he actually say "lost truths of sacred history"?	Move to a future paragraph under "Revelations" on the bible revision and source.
For example, he taught that the Garden of Eden had been located in Jackson County, Missouri,	No citation	Interesting factoid, but probably belongs somewhere else.	Delete or move (I recommend to a footnote in the Missouri subsection)
that Eve's partaking of the fruit was part of God's plan	2 Nephi 2:22–25	Primary source. Interesting, but more relevant under Cosmology	Delete (preferred) or source and move to Cosmology
that Adam had practiced baptism	No source, or sourced with next statement	Interesting, but again, tells us little about Smith	Delete (this is the reason we have articles on Mormonism, Mormon Cosmology, etc.)
that the descendants of Cain were "black,"	Hill, Donna (1977), Joseph Smith: The first Mormon (citing Book of Moses 7:22).	Sounds like an interpretation of a primary source. Bushman only mentions Cain once (page 98), and this is not the context.	Delete
that Enoch had built a city of Zion so perfect that it was taken to heaven,	Bushman 138–41 The source does kind of say that, but that certainly wasn't the main point of those three pages, and Bushman doesn't say that Smith taught that specifically.	No major problems	Modify (to reflect cited source) and Move to somewhere talking about Smith's ideal of building a Zion society (probably Missouri section)
Smith declared that he would be one of the instruments in fulfilling Nebuchadnezzar's statue vision in the Book of Daniel: that he was the stone that would destroy secular government without "sword or gun",	Bushman 521	Incorrect. If you read the page it is clear that the stone is the Kingdom of God. Smith only said he would be an instrument in setting up the Kingdom.	This information should be corrected and moved elsewhere. I think this particular concept of the the theodemocratic Kingdom of God being the stone (instead of, say, the United States) is important. Political views would be a good destination.
which would then be replaced with a theocratic Kingdom of God.	Brodie, Bushman, Bloom	No problems	Move with the above sentence.
Smith taught that this political kingdom would be multidenominational and "democratic" so long as the people chose wisely; but there would be no elections.	Bushman	No glaring problems	Move to Political Views section.
Jesus would appear during the Millennium as the ultimate ruler. Following a thousand years of peace, Judgment Day would be followed by a final resurrection, when all humanity would be assigned to one of three heavenly kingdoms.	Bushman 521, 536–37	The first bit about the Millennium is hardly unique to Mormonism, though I see no problems with keeping it elsewhere (Cosmology perhaps). The last bit is inaccurate (for a technicality related to Outer darkness), and is already covered under Cosmology.	Correct and Move non-redundant parts to Cosmology.

I haven't had time yet to look at this table in detail, but in general, my main concern is to ensure that the content and citations are not deleted unless we are able to take a good look at the proposed deletions.

I don't think we necessarily need a dedicated "history and eschatology" section, but there are a number of very significant elements of Smith's doctrine that should be presented somewhere in the article. For example, Smith's idea that Mormons were Israelites should be mentioned prominently, because it is an important theme of his teachings. Also very significant is his belief that the Indians were Hebrews, and that he believed that a significant part of his mission was their "restoration." Also, you cannot underestimate the importance of his New Jerusalem teachings, or his teachings about Enoch, particularly Enoch's United Order. The racial elements ("Lamanites" and the descendants of Cain and Canaan) of his teachings are also very historically significant, and ought to be addressed somewhere as well, perhaps in the "political views" and "revelations" sections. COGDEN 22:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. I have already made many of the changes above, but I have a list of the things not to drop in my userspace, and will make sure they find their way back into the article. I've already got some of it in the Political views Revelations section, and will add the rest soon. I need to get working on a dedicated Bible Translation paragraph for the Revelations section, where the Enoch material will fit nicely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Selling fake 'ancient artifacts'

The main article reads in part "The Smith family supplemented its meager farm income by treasure-digging...." Why is there no mention of the jail terms and fines that Joseph Smith and his mother were subjected to for selling fake "antiquities?" Shouldn't this be included? Wouldn't including this fact be the honest and proper thing to do? I am baffled over why it was not included, since it was a part of Smith's early life. Desertphile (talk) 03:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

By all means add this if you have bona fide secondary sources. Nobody is keeping anything out of this article, and any implication of dishonesty or impropriety is unfounded. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Desertphile, there weren't any jail terms or fines.--John Foxe (talk) 14:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Gun

Has the photo of Joseph Smith's gun been removed to further Mormon POV?--John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how replacing the strange gun photo is "Mormon POV", but that term certainly gets thrown around quite a bit. My problem with the gun photo is a problem that I have with many parts of the article: that it zooms in on these seemingly random little details, blowing them up in slow motion on a big screen, while glossing over other, more important details. With the gun example, there's a picture of a gun in the section on Smith's death. That's somewhat interesting. There's a gun. Then you zoom out. The gun is in Smith's hand. Hyrum is dead on the floor. Taylor and Richards are beating at mobsters' guns with their canes. Smoke fills the bedroom. There's a window visible on the left. Smith seems to be raising his hands, reminding us that he will raise his hands in the Masonic sign of distress when he gets to the window. This is the kind of interesting detail you miss when you zoom in too far.

In a related example of zooming in on strange details, I can only find two direct quotes from Smith in the entire "Life" section. The first is, "Smith shouted 'Hosannah!' " after Rigdon's inflammatory sermon (the "Hosannah!" is cited to Rimini. It doesn't show up in Bushman, though Brodie notes that the crowd shouted "hosanna to God and the Lamb"...Not sure if that was what Rimini was referring to.) The second direct quote is the "establish our religion with the sword" in the next paragraph.

So why does the article zoom in on these specific details? Why do we get Smith's "Hosannah!" (that Bushman and Brodie don't mention) but not his last words as he falls from the window (which Brodie and Bushman both mention)?

So back to the gun. Give me a good reason for zooming in on that particular detail, and we can keep it. I even have a more colorful photo of it here in my growing collection of Joseph Smith images. I also have photographs of a cane, John Taylor's watch, the bedroom Smith was killed in, the window he fell out of, the door with bullet holes in it, and Smith's grave. Give me a reason we should zoom in on the gun over any of those artifacts. – Adjwilley (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Mormons like to emphasize that Smith was a martyr, willingly laying down his life. "I am going like a lamb to the slaughter" is a line from D&C 135:4. But I can't think of another martyr who unloaded his gun into a mob coming to kill him. The gun's not just a "particular detail" or a "random detail" like a watch or a cane; Smith's use of the smuggled gun demonstrates that he had no intention of voluntarily laying down his life. (I can't see the gun in Smith's hand in that Christensen picture. The image is misleading anyway. The mob rushed the door, and the action was over in seconds. No one was beating anyone with canes.) To remove the image of the gun is an attempt to hide an inconvenient historical fact. Why would you want to do that?--John Foxe (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious problems of using Wikipedia as a platform to refute what you perceive as being commonly-held beliefs, your argument has numerous problems. I'm not interested in arguing whether or not Smith was a martyr, but I'd like to point out that being a martyr doesn't necessarily mean just rolling over and letting somebody kill you. Besides, I can think of many religious leaders who in moments of rashness have engaged in physical violence. Peter cutting off the ear of the High Priest's servant comes to mind, as well as Moses killing the Egyptian. If I went over to edit the article on Jesus and I put in a picture of a whip with the caption: "Jesus used a whip to drive the moneychangers out of the temple" I would be laughed out of town. Also, I think your perception of the so-called "Mormon POV" is inaccurate.

The canes were used to deflect the guns that were being stuck through the door, and the watch is important because it broke, marking the time of Smith's death at "sixteen minutes past five" as Bushman notes in the very last words of the chapter.

That said, the point of view you have presented is an interesting one. Do you have evidence that Bushman or Brodie put extra emphasis on the pepperbox pistol to refute a perception that Smith was a martyr or was willingly laying down his life? – Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

My position is that the photograph of the gun symbolizes an aspect of Joseph Smith's story that Mormons want to play down and that to remove the photo is a deliberate attempt to advance Mormon POV. Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, not simply the one promoted by the LDS Church.

If it turns out that we're the only ones concerned with this issue, we could get a Third opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I've commented on the gun issue before. I don't understand the viewpoints that we have to try to counterbalance the LDS Church's portrayal of Smith's life and death or advance what any of us think is an important aspect of his life. Let's try to get away from this approach and move to a focus on what reliable sources present. This is no place for advancing any sort of agenda, whether that is in harmony with or in conflict with the LDS Church's view. I don't think removal of the gun image is necessarily "a deliberate attempt to advance Mormon POV". I would generally assume good faith on that matter and take Adjwilley's rationale at face value. Based on how reliable sources discuss Smith's death, I do agree that focusing on the gun over other artifacts probably places some undue weight on an isolated aspect of the history. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with John Foxe's last post on one point. "Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, not simply the one promoted by _____________" (insert your name here.)

That said, I have re-read the pages in Bushman and Brodie and haven't found any extra emphasis on the gun. I'd never have known the gun was called a pepperbox pistol, if it weren't for Wikipedia. Brodie just calls it a six-shooter. – Adjwilley (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to eliminate the picture of the gun? If the picture means nothing to you as a Mormon and it means a great deal to me as a non-Mormon, then why not leave it alone? You included a picture of a 21st century representation of the Golden plates, which implies that these items actually existed. I didn't object. You moved the drawing of Smith translating by looking in his hat to a less conspicuous place in the article. I didn't object. Those things are important to you and indifferent to me. In this case the photo of the gun is important to me and to the non-Mormon position; I believe removing it is, as Good Ol’factory says it's not, "a deliberate attempt to advance Mormon POV" because Smith's shooting at the mob before his murder is a story that the LDS Church would like to ignore. (When I went to Carthage Jail, I heard no mention of any gun.) Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, and if the Church wants to cover something up, we shouldn't be in the business of helping them.--John Foxe (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like the photo. I believe, however, that Wikipedia is about telling the whole story, not simply the one promoted by User:John Foxe. The painting I proposed does a better job of telling the whole story. In addition to the gun, it depicts Smith, Taylor, Richards, Hyrum, the canes, the window, the bed (under which the canes and guns were hidden), the mobsters, etc.

Could we please leave your opinions of the LDS Church out of this discussion? "When I went to Carthage Jail, I heard no mention of any gun." is original research and has no place in this discussion. Instead, let's focus on the weight and attention that reliable sources give to the gun. – Adjwilley (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I really think we need to stop making reference to others' personal beliefs related to how one feels about the LDS Church. Wikipedia is not really about "telling the whole story", but it is about "telling the story that is told in reliable sources". Usually that is a pretty good reflection of the "whole story". But it's the whole story as reflected from the sources and not what we personally feel is the whole story. Let's focus on the sources, not our own beliefs or biases. Everyone has them, but we need to move beyond them and assume good faith that others are trying to do so when they say that they are. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Christensen painting is inaccurate in a number of ways, but the gun is just what it is. In any case, if your objection is not to the gun per se, then add the Christensen painting but leave the photo of the gun as well. How could more information hinder the reader?--John Foxe (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It is possible, of course, for an encyclopedia article to have to more than an ideal number of images. In this case, there's probably nothing wrong with having both as a compromise. However, I would think that ideally, the image about Smith's death in this article should be of a more general nature, with images of specific artifacts of the day he was killed (the gun, the bullet holes in the door, the pocketwatch, etc.) in Death of Joseph Smith. There's a special article specifically about the death, and that's where I would expect more detailed information and images to be found. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To indicate with a picture that Smith fired a gun at his attackers stands at a far higher level of importance to the non-Mormon than images of bullet holes or a pocket watch. It reveals that Smith meant to kill his attackers, something the LDS Church tries to hide in its accounts. To remove such a picture is to bring this article into closer conformity with the account approved by the Church rather than allowing readers to grasp "the story that is told in reliable sources."--John Foxe (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Good Olfactory, for setting me straight on the "whole story" distinction. I'll admit a compromise would be nice right now, but I'm not quite ready for that just yet. The Death section is already a little crowded as it is, and so far there hasn't been a convincing argument for why a picture of the gun is better than a picture of any other artifact, like a picture of the door, (1, 2) the window (1, 2), the watch (1), a picture of Smith's grave (1, 2), etc. More importantly, John Foxe has given no argument comparing the article to what reliable sources say about the gun. We already give it a sentence in the text, pointing out that it's a pepperbox pistol (which is goes beyond what Bushman and Brodie say) with a footnote saying that three of the bullets found marks (which goes beyond what Bushman says). I would like to see John Foxe use reliable sources to logically prove his point. He should show that putting extra emphasis on the gun is WP:Due because that's what reliable sources do. If he cannot do this, he doesn't have an argument. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Said convincing argument must not include words like Mormon, non-Mormon, LDS, non-LDS, LDS Church, or Point of view. – Adjwilley (talk) 01:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe wrote: "To indicate with a picture that Smith fired a gun at his attackers stands at a far higher level of importance to the non-Mormon than images of bullet holes or a pocket watch." Comments like this seem to me to be indicative of the distinction I'm trying to get at. I guess the best way to respond to this to make my point is with the classic—"sez who?" One person may think that; other non-Mormons might disagree or agree. But without sources that demonstrate the emphasis on the gun, it's just one person's opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's a nice summary from a non-Mormon perspective just to demonstrate that the notion isn't idiosyncratic. Actually I think privately we'd all agree that the appearance or non-appearance of a picture of a gun has significance in this article, but only I can say so openly. If it meant nothing to you, you'd say, "Fine, whatever" and move on.--John Foxe (talk) 22:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As neither a Mormon or an anti-Mormon (i.e. member of a religious organization with a POV about Mormons or Smith), I have previously mentioned being a Smith and my hope that the article is well balanced. This means that if my forefather had a gun with him in that jail, and if bona fide references mention it, then no problem. However, MRM isn't just a 'non-Mormon perspective' - it is as biased, and POV-pushing as any of the LDS apologists Foxe claims to want to counterbalance. Bias on the one hand is to want to present a false picture of Smith as a pacifist martyred while in prayer. But equally ridiculous is to focus on the gun as a means of proving Smith was something more sinister than a guy rightfully trying to defend himself and his brother. An historian has no problem mentioning Smith's famous line about lambs and slaughter because they draw no religious inference from it - however, Foxe appears to because the POV agenda is to state that, if Smith came to jail with a little gun, it proves he wasn't a Prophet or that it is somehow not reconciled with his slaughter quote. An NPOV historian would also see no problem mentioning the gun, but not devoting too much to this fact. I for one wish this constant tug of war between extreme editors would cease. Pictures of bullet holes tell the story in more of a NPOV way because the reality is that two men were shot to death by a mob. It doesn't push either extreme agenda - LDS apologists or anti-Mormons. I personally object to either extreme, and the article's NPOV suffers for the tension. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think everything User:A Sniper says above is very reasonable and is the kind of approach I've been trying to advocate here in my comments, though less convincingly. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an unusual prisoner who has a gun. In fact, not only did the Smith brothers have guns, they fired first. (What might have happened had Smith faced down the mob? Two of Smith's friends, who were unarmed, got out alive.)

The photo of the gun says nothing about Smith's religious claims; but it does say something about the conditions of his imprisonment and his poor judgment. Such information should not be deliberately hidden from the casual reader. At least A Sniper does not claim that the picture of Smith's pistol makes no difference. To Mormon, non-Mormon, and descendant alike, the photo of Smith's gun has an emotional content. I wish the Mormons would admit their objective: "Yes, the gun suggests something that we and the LDS Church would prefer to minimize, and since we're in the majority here, we want it removed."--John Foxe (talk) 14:41, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

John, I can't disagree with what you're stating about purposely keeping information from the public - that might fly if one is editing a book at one's own press, but not in an encyclopedia. If sanitizing the narrative to fit an agenda, no thanks. However, it does cut both ways - and I've stated so on this page in the past. Let's take Smith's beer drinking at Moeser's pub or love of a good cigar on the streets of Nauvoo - there are folks who wouldn't ever know this because it was edited out of history in Utah publications. Not cool. But on the other hand, you would probably focus on that same information in a further effort to discredit or illustrate hypocrisy. Neither building up an immaculate prophet statue or charlatan bashing is acceptable here - only verifiable, encyclopedic quotations from secondary sources. POV agenda pushing from either extreme isn't appreciated. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I see this Mormon/LDS Church/martyr argument as being a straw man, and a waste of time. It's getting people riled up for no good reason, and is getting us absolutely nowhere. As Good Olfactory, A Sniper, and I have all said, we really need to focus on what the sources say. That's the only way we're ever going to reach a consensus here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Just one more thing to mention, John - I personally have no emotional issue with my great-grandma's great-grandpa having a gun. In fact, it makes perfect sense to me that he would. However, for an encyclopedia to focus on the gun instead of the bullet holes (and the results of the killings) is to be carried away by agenda-driving. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources all agree that Joseph Smith, who was prisoner, had a gun in his possession when he was attacked by a mob and that he fired first at his attackers. The actual gun exists, and there's photo of it in the article. The caption is completely innocuous. All of us now seem to agree that the photo of the gun is more important than say, pictures of canes or watches. I think we also agree that removing the picture is in the interest of the LDS Church, and keeping the picture is not. If we count noses, folks who want to remove it will win hands down; but Wikipedia will be the loser. No objective reader would want such information censored. Wikipedia's not about promoting the agenda of a church or burnishing the image of its founder.--John Foxe (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing this from the perspective of sources. I will respond to your first couple of sentences but ignore the rest about your personal opinions and LDS Church agendas and such. As you said, sources all agree that Smith had a gun in his possession and that he fired at his attackers. I don't know about the firing first bit, since by the time Smith fired his brother was lying on the ground with a bullet in his head. The text of the article currently states, "Smith fired a pepper-box pistol that had been smuggled into the prison," which is the information that all sources agree on. It states it clear and simple, and is not hidden in any way. Could you please explain now using the sources why we should further emphasize the gun by putting a picture of it in the article? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

John, since apparently you are the author of the picture, I think there might be a chance you are having personal hurt feelings over its proposed removal. I hope you realize that it's nothing personal or about the quality of the photo! (At least it was mentioned somewhere that you were the author—I'm not sure if that is true or not.) ... Anyway, incidentally, I at least am not a Mormon as has been implied several times, so I do consider myself reasonably objective as an editor on the subject of the Latter Day Saint movement. I just don't see a need for the photo in this article when it is such a small part of the text. I can see a better case for using it on death of Joseph Smith, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems an oddity that the image is used for this more general article, but not the specifically relevant article. I would expect the opposite. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think there is no valid argument supporting the gun photo remaining other than an extreme one - that it is necessary to counter Mormon agenda-pushing...which is nonsensical and without foundation. Please replace it with something more general, like the bullet holes. If the gun photo is to appear anywhere, why not the article specifically about the death? Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I did take the picture of the gun, Good Ol’factory; but I hope I wouldn't be petty enough to let that make a difference. (It's not that great a photo anyway. It's hard to get a decent shot through a glass case.) And for what it's worth, I think you've been a fine, objective editor at the Mormon articles where we've interacted.

My point has always been that the picture emphasizes to the casual reader that Joseph Smith had a gun with him at Carthage Jail and fired it at his attackers. Prisoners possessing guns are not an everyday occurrence. As for the excuse that Smith's possession of a gun is already stated in text, that's an argument that could be made against any image. It would be more of a problem if it weren't mentioned in the text.

It would be fun to know how many of the folks who hit this article daily—roughly 2,500—actually read more than a line or two. Certainly many more look at the photos. I find it satisfying to think that a number of them are seeing that gun for the first time and saying to themselves, "Wait, you mean Smith had a gun in jail; I ought to read a bit more here." And that thought satisfies me both as a teacher and as a non-Mormon. Illustrations should be both accurate and grab the reader, and the photo of the gun does exactly that. Christensen's painting may also arouse the curiosity of the reader, but it's an inaccurate portrayal. Smith's gun (is that what's in his hand?) isn't even pointed at the door.--John Foxe (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Smith's jail experience was indeed unusual. Not only did he have a gun for protection, but he was allowed to sleep in the jailer's own bedroom (note there are no bars in the windows), and have two friends stay with him. And he was shot to death. Unusual prison experience is an understatement. In my opinion, the painting does a much better job of showing these complexities than a photo of a gun.

I have swapped the gun out for the painting. If there are specific concerns with the painting, we can address those, but I think we should drop the gun. I agree with Good Olfactory and BFizz's suggestions to insert it into the Death article, where there's more room for zooming in on the finer details. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You have the consensus on your side, but I remain unapologetic about everything I've written above. Removing the photo of the gun is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.--John Foxe (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Good - now, let's move on. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Kirtland Safety Society

The article reads "In 1837, the Kirtland Safety Society, a bank established by Smith and other church leaders, collapsed." Documents from the time and place show that Smith's "bank" was not a bank, and it did not "collapse." Several old documents I have scanned in and posted to my web site show that Smith set up a fake "bank" and took people's money from them as deposits, and then he spent the money for himself. The main article should mention this fact; the truth is not a violation of the "neutral point of view." Desertphile (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You are correct that it was technically not a bank. I've heard it called a "quasi-bank" before. I remember that Richard Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling) calls it a bank (probably for simplicity's sake) and when I wrote the sentence you are quoting above, I was consciously following his example, with the intent of keeping the Lead simple. Later on in the article we call it by it's proper technical name: a "joint stock company to act as a quasi-bank" but that's a lot of words for the Lead. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The JSJr article is not the best place to hash this out. Have you actually read the Kirtland Safety Society article? Do you have a legitimate historic scholarship on this topic that even comes close to supporting your extremely polemic POV? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Desertphile, you mention that you've scanned and uploaded documents to your website. Unfortunately, your website probably isn't considered a Reliable source. Are these documents well-known and credible? Or are there any scholars that have summarized the contents of these documents, and supported their conclusions? If so, you could cite them. ...comments? ~BFizz 09:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we can call the Kirtland Safety Society a "bank." It was not a legally chartered bank, but a bank nevertheless. Joseph Smith called it an "anti-bank" so that he would not get in trouble for operating an unchartered bank. COGDEN 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

First Vision (once again)

We've been through the attempt to introduce the First Vision into Smith's adolescence several times in the past, but there's no historical reason to do so. The First Vision is largely important today because it "features prominently as part of the Church's proselytic program." (Widmer, 92)--John Foxe (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is a very good reason to treat the first vision chronologically: that's what the reliable sources do. (I'm not sure what you mean by "historal", so you'll have to explain that one.)

For anybody who's interested, John Foxe has deleted some extremely heavily sourced material I recently added, transforming

Smith said that at about the age of twelve (around 1817–18) he became concerned with religion. He reportedly showed a brief interest in Methodism, but probably in 1820 Smith decided to pray for a forgiveness of his sins and to ask which church was right. Smith said that in response to his prayer he had a theophany or first vision, in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all the current churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith told few people about his vision until the 1830s.

into

Near the end of his life, Smith said that in response to his own adolescent prayer he experienced a theophany in which God told him his sins had been forgiven and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Although Smith said that his vision caused him to be persecuted in the Palmyra area, there is no independent record of his having mentioned it at the time it allegedly occurred.

Where my paragraph introduces the First Vision in the context, and often the wording of reliable sources, John Foxe's version seems to be pushing his own unique point of view, cutting out much of the material that I had cited to Bushman, Brodie, Vogel, and yes, even Quinn. Also, John's last sentence has problems with WP:ALLEGED, while mine uses neutral words like reportedly and the ubiquitous said. Unless someone can give a reason not to treat the First Vision in the way that reliable sources do, I am going to revert. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I prefer the first one listed. The second one sounds somewhat combative, defensive, and dismissive. The first has a more neutral tone and its tone better reflects the tone of the sources, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I agree that the first reads better, yet still stays true to NPOV. Whether or not JSJr invented this narrative later in life, the reliable secondary sources still mention what he stated and what period he claimed it occurred. If LDS faith folks wish to use this in their missionary work, that's their business. However, writing from a negative Smith-bashing POV in an effort to counter simply won't do. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I oppose mentioning the First Vision at all in the paragraph about Smith's adolescence because there's no historical evidence for such an experience in his youth. Smith's relatives, who certainly recalled his talk about an angel and golden plates, had no recollection of an earlier theophany. Smith's many enemies in Palmyra never mentioned it when D. P. Hurlbut came calling. Locating the First Vision in Smith's adolescence is simply an endorsement of a Mormon faith statement.--John Foxe (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand what your opinion is, but you still haven't given a good reason why we should depart from the way reliable sources present the topic. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Both Brodie and Vogel are clear in their disbelief, and their skepticism at least needs to be recognized here. Better, the whole section should be removed. I'm not arguing that the First Vision shouldn't be mentioned—it's important theologically—just that it shouldn't be mentioned as an occurrence in Smith's adolescence. There's no historical evidence for it. It's just a religious belief and nothing more.--John Foxe (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for arguing sources here. You stated that "Brodie and Vogel are clear in their disbelief", but what Vogel actually says is: "I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s. However, his subsequent alterations reflect an evolving theology—particularly the addition of the personage of the Father in his 1838 account." (page 30) You'll notice that in my paragraph I stayed true to Vogel in sticking with the 1832 account (one personage, not two). ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

John, I know you're devout, so please don't take this the wrong way: let's suppose, for a moment, that all religions are made-up fantasy of the authors. It means every religious leader claiming any sort of divine occurrance is, to some degree, inventing something out of nothing - telling a tale, whether they are sincere, deluded, fraudulent or mentally challenged. However, the duty of a Wikipedia editor isn't to guess what a historical person had in their head at the time they made a claim, or to point a finger to say "see? I told you he was a false prophet!" - it is to use sources that can reliably report who said what and when they said it, perhaps the im[act what they said had on others, and the resulting news related to it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's what else Vogel (wordily) says: "While 1820 is often assigned as the date of this first vision experience, Joseph, Jr.'s earliest account, written in 1832, dated the event to 'the 16th year of my age,' or 1821. Owing to Joseph's later differing and expanded accounts, determining the original core of the story is a challenge. Nevertheless, when his earliest narrative is given priority and anachronistic elements are stripped away—such as the Palmyra revival of 1824-25, the addition of God the Father in the vision, and Joseph's prophetic calling—the experience emerges as a personal epiphany in which Jesus appeared, forgave Joseph's sins, and declared that the sinful world would soon be destroyed....However, his subsequent alterations reflect an evolving theology—particularly the addition of the personage of the Father in his 1838 account—and cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. In fact, one should be cautious, if for no other reason, because Smith himself freely modified his original account."--John Foxe (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you include the sentence that you've replaced with "...." in Vogel's quote, than you will have restated my argument. I will again revert your recent edit, not only because there is no consensus for it, but because it cropped out large amounts of material cited to Bushman, Vogel, Brodie, and Quinn. Also, the way you worded the paragraph, it made it sound like Smith's interest in Methodism came in the 1830s after he founded a church. I don't think edit warring is the right way to proceed here. (Looks like A Sniper got to the reverting before I did) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

My quotation from Vogel was intended to demonstrate Vogel's skepticism. The First Vision has nothing to do with Smith's adolescence and shouldn't be mentioned in that paragraph without also mentioning the anachronisms in the story, especially Brodie's clear statement that there's no contemporary evidence that Smith mentioned the Vision though he claimed to have been persecuted for doing so. As the material stands now, it seems to indicate that Smith's interest in Methodism came before his First Vision, which is manifestly not the case. Perhaps we can work out a compromise that clearly expresses the skepticism of Vogel and Brodie; but otherwise, we need to move on to some sort of dispute resolution.--John Foxe (talk) 12:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You bring up several issues, and I'm going to try to address all of them.

• The first vision should be mentioned in Smith's adolescence, because all the reliable sources introduce it there and agree that whatever happened, it happened around 1820.
• Only Vogel mentions anachronisms, and he was talking about the revival Joseph mentions in his account, assuming it was the 1823-24 revival. Bushman, however, seems to think it was the 1817-18 revival, while Quinn says there was an 1819-20 revival. Could there be an anachronism? Sure. Do the sources agree on it? No. Does it warrant mention in the paragraph? I say no.
• You say it should be clear that there's no contemporary evidence that Smith mentioned the vision in the 1820's. The last sentence of the paragraph says, "Smith told few people about his vision until the 1830s." Is that not sufficient?
• "No contemporary evidence that Smith mentioned..." I try to write what the sources agree on and put diverging points of view in the footnotes. Brodie says there's no evidence (though she she doesn't rule out the possibility). Bushman says flatly that Joseph did tell a Methodist minister. I try to take the middle road with my sentence on Smith telling few people. The sentence is diminutive, and doesn't rule out either possibility.
• Could you please cite some evidence showing that Smith's interest in Methodism started after the first vision? His brief attendance at his in-laws church in 1828 doesn't count if you're trying to avoid anachronisms. I think the story's pretty clear.
  • He gets interested in religion, and his own salvation
  • he has an epiphany or vision of some sort,
  • he tells a minister about it,
  • he gets the standard response that there are no visions,
  • he feels singled out for persecution,
  • he distances himself from organized religion.
• If I put one of those in the wrong order, please let me know.
• I'd be happy to compromise, if you can give good reasons from the sources to do so. As for skepticism, the paragraph already introduces the First Vision in a neutral manner, and in a way that reliable sources do it. The skeptical reader is still free to be skeptical, and the believing reader is free to be believing.
• I hope everybody's got the warm fuzzies today :-)

~Adjwilley (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no evidence beyond Smith's much later and disparate stories that anything happened in 1820. None of his enemies in Palmyra—who would have been happy to ridicule him for having visions—mentioned an event about which he said he'd been persecuted.

Smith didn't tell "few people" until the 1830s; he told no one. The Methodist minister exists only in Smith's testimony.

Smith's turn as a Methodist exhorter must have occurred after 1820 because the eyewitness to the occasion didn't arrive in the Palmyra area until 1822. I also hold the 1828 attempt to register in a Methodist class as serious business, even if done at the behest of Emma. By 1828 Smith had been warned that all contemporary denominations were wrong, had received the golden plates from the angel, and had actually started to translate them.

Perhaps the best way to handle our differences here is to take the paragraph a sentence at a time. Maybe that way I can also convince A Sniper that I'm not insulting his ancestor.--John Foxe (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's get this straight, Foxe - I don't care if JSJr is painted as a carbetbagging charlatan or the first Prophet since Moses...only that it is presented in a neutral narrative and that extreme POV, from either the Smith-hating or the Smith-worshiping, is held at bay. In eiter case, Smith was an influential, colorful figure from Americana, and that should be the main point of the encyclopedic article...not axes to grind or people to convert. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please point me to the source for the Methodist business. I am genuinely interested in that. A sentence at a time is probably an ok way to go about things. Would you like to start at the end with, "Smith told few people about his vision until the 1830s"? or at the beginning with "Smith said that at about the age of twelve (around 1817–18) he became concerned with religion"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• "Former Palmyra resident Orsamus Turner, who often visited the village between 1822 and 1828, said that Joseph—'after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the wood on the Vienna road'—became a 'very passable exhorter in evening meetings.'" (Vogel, 59)
• "Regardless, his own behavior at the time—specifically his flirtation with Methodism—suggests that he had not yet resolved the issue of which church was right." (Vogel, 63)
• "Why at this time [1828], would Smith feel a particular need to please Isaac Hale? Why would attending the Methodist class please Emma? Equally plausible would be that his attendance resulted from his own real doubts and needs following the death of his son and the loss of the translation manuscript. Instinctively, he reached for something familiar, something that had brought him comfort after Alvin's death in 1823." (Vogel, 128.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Vogel's arguments all hinge on his assumption that the revival Smith spoke of in his 1838 account was the revival of 1824-25. That is a logical leap that Bushman, Quinn, Milton, Backman, and Norton do not take. They all cite evidence of Palmyra revivals in 1819-20. (See Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism page 380; Milton's Joseph Smith's First vision page 79-93; Quinn's Magic book page 136, and Backman's Joseph Smith's First Vision page 74.)

That said, since there seems to be some disagreement in the sources, we could probably drop the Methodism clause if we can't agree on the chronology. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand why you believe the Vogel quotations depend on an 1824-25 revival. Certainly Turner couldn't have witnessed Smith serve as an exhorter at a Methodist meeting before 1822. And Smith's joining the Methodist class in 1828 is admitted by all. (There are only 262 pages in Bushman's 1984 book :)--John Foxe (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was page 53 for Bushman. Vogel makes it very clear that he is putting things in the context of the 1824-25 revival. See, for example, page 64 ("However, placing Smith's conversation with the minister in the context of the 1824-25 revival"); page 63 ("This was Joseph's emotional chronology which, when placed in the historical setting of the 1824-25 revival..."); and page 60 ("Indeed, it was the revival of 1824-25...rather than the revival of 1817 or the one he "remembered" for 1820".) As for Turner, I'm not extremely interested in arguing primary sources, or trying to date his 30 year old recollection. I agree with you that there is disagreement in the sources. I'd prefer taking the interpretations of Bushman, Quinn, Milton, Backman, and Norton. You prefer Vogel and his interpretation of Turner. Why don't we compromise and drop the clause He reportedly showed a brief interest in Methodism, altogether? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, my recent edits moved the Methodism clause to a place in the article that doesn't imply a specific date for Smith's interest in Methodism. The date range for that paragraph is 1817 to 1825, (whereas the date range for the first vision is 1820-21). This added ambiguity should be enough to satisfy the views of all the sources, while keeping the information in the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so if you can't explain the evidence away, you want to ignore what's favorable to my position? ;) Well, Bushman agrees that Smith was enrolled in a Methodist class in 1828, and that's all that's necessary to demonstrate that Smith dabbled in Methodism after 1820 and at the same time that he was a "practicing necromancer."--John Foxe (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the humor. I didn't mean to ignore any competing evidence; I wanted to acknowledge it, point out that many others disagree, and move on. I don't like your recent addition of "Many years later" to the beginning of the paragraph. It tends to muddy the waters "many years after what?" and push your point of view. Better to have a sentence at the end saying that Smith didn't reveal this until the 1830's. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

After some thought, I recommend starting the paragraph out with something like "In his 1832 autobiography Smith said that he became concerned with religion..." instead of "Many years later Smith said that he became concerned with religion..." It's neutral, precise, and I can source it if you'd like. I'd make the change now myself, but I know that you have editing restrictions, and I don't want to take advantage of that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the chronology problem above: I've been doing some more reading, and it looks like this scholarly controversy over the revivals has been going on for longer than I've been alive. I'm satisfied with leaving the date ambiguous and putting the POV split in the footnotes. Thank you for pointing out the chronology problem. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edit suggestions Adjwilley are, once again, neutral and fair, whereas Foxe continues to push push push the agenda ;) A Sniper (talk) 04:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that John Foxe's past 3 or 4 edits have all removed the 1820 date (the latest edit footnoted it). I find that odd because that particular detail is sourced to Bushman, Vogel, Brodie, and Quinn, and they all seem to agree on it. Perhaps John Foxe disagrees, but I think we should follow the sources here. I have reverted most of the changes, restoring the date. I've also used the autobiography wording instead of the "after founding his church" wording which sounds a little off for some reason. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The point is that you're not editing from an agenda-base, Adjwilley - Foxe is. Put the date in there if that is what the sources state. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My goal has been to find wording that will satisfy us all, and it's harder to reach a consensus if the wording's too specific. In the 1832 account, Smith says he was in his "sixteenth year" (fifteen), which would make the date 1821. And it's deceptive to say that "Smith told few people about his vision until the 1830s" when there's no independent evidence he told anyone about it (as the Brodie quotation makes clear).

I think it's a mistake to have a reference to the First Vision in this section, but if it has to be, why not something like:

During the 1830s, Smith said that he had become concerned with religion as a young adolescent and that when he had prayed for forgiveness of his sins and to ask which church was the right one, he experienced a theophany (often called the First Vision in Mormon theology) in which God told him his sins had been forgiven and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."

Giving a general date and making no statement about Smith's communicating the vision to others is pleasingly short and doesn't require mention of the contrary evidence necessary to make the passage NPOV. As I've said many times, when faced with differences of opinion at Wikipedia, it's usually better to cut rather than to add.--John Foxe (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you about cutting for consensus. You and I disagree on Fanny Alger, but you don't find me suggesting that we cut her out of the article. I believe that when faced with differences of opinion, consensus can be reached by digging deeper into reliable sources.

I still don't see a reason why the 1820 date should be cut, especially when all the sources seem to agree so closely on it. (The only dissenting opinion is Vogel who calls it 1820-21, so calling it "about 1820" is very reasonable.) Also, the only reason we're dealing with this difference of opinion on whether we should say "During the 1830s, Smith said..." or "In his 1832 biography, Smith said..." is because you insist on beginning the paragraph with some kind of reference to the 1830s. In this case, I would prefer cutting, and beginning the paragraph with a simple "Smith said..."

Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether it reads "in Smith's fifteenth year", "1820" or "1821"...but if the references state 1820, that is what it should read. BTW: I have heard people say in error that they were in their 25th year (for example) right after turning 25, contrary to the correct use my Dad taught me - that the person having turned 25 was now in their 26th year on the planet. 1820 or 1821 - at the end of the day it is really six-o-one, half a dozen of the other...so let the references speak: 1820 it is. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll concede on "1820," although that's not what Smith says in 1832. Actually I'd prefer the phrase "many years later" or "after he had organized the church" rather than "during the 1830s," but you've reverted those two phrases when I've tried them before. Nevertheless, reading through the 1832 account again, I realized that there's another problem in that in this telling, Smith says he had concluded that all contemporary churches had apostatized before he had the vision. How about this sentence, which cuts even more words?

During the 1830s, Smith said that he had become concerned with religion as a young adolescent and that in about 1820, when he had prayed for forgiveness of his sins, he experienced a theophany (often called the First Vision in Mormon theology) in which "the Lord" told him his sins had been forgiven.

Then every citation you've collected can be stuck in the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer:

Smith said that he had become concerned with religion at about the age of twelve. Probably in 1820 Smith decided to pray for a forgiveness of his sins and to ask which church was right. Smith said that in response to his prayer he had a theophany or first vision, in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith told few people about his vision until the 1830s.

This is a slightly softer statement than Bushman's definitive "Joseph Smith Jr. began to be concerned about religion at about the age of twelve years." Bushman, by the way, doesn't even mention that the statement was from the 1832 biography. I had to go to Quin's article for that. Also, please note that I'm not trying to use Smith's autobiography as a primary source. I'm just trying to say what the secondary sources say, but presenting it as Smith's words in order to weaken it a little. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are my problems with your version:

• It doesn't suggest that Smith's telling of this vision came after publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church; it's improper to imply that the vision and the telling are contemporary.
• It doesn't suggest that Smith retold the story in strikingly different ways throughout the 1830s. In most cases he said that he asked "which church was right"—but not in 1832. (In 1832, he already knew that all the churches were apostate without heavenly assistance.) Sometimes he said that he asked forgiveness for his sins, but usually not. Sometimes Smith said he saw God, sometimes two deities, and in 1832 "the Lord" (which is ambiguous—I think his contemporaries would think he was speaking of Jesus). In other words, you're making an synthesis of differing stories. If Smith told different stories at different times, it's a matter of fair play to tell the reader so. I think even my own version is vulnerable on that account.
• I've already noted that it's improper to say that Smith told "few people" about the vision before the 1830s because there's no evidence external to his own testimony that he told anyone. His relatives, and even his enemies, knew about the angel and the golden plates, but they didn't know about the First Vision.--John Foxe (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Here are my responses to your problems.

• I'm using the wording of Bushman–presenting it in the same way he does. If he doesn't feel the need to introduce the First Vision with a weird disclaimer like "Near the end of his life after he founded his church Smith said..." then neither do I. Besides, the wording doesn't suggest that they were contemporary.
• Neither does yours, for that matter. Mine tells the story the way the sources tell it, and that's more important than trying to tell it from either the 1832, 35, or 38 perspective. That said, I am looking for a place to insert the fact that the story changed with retelling, but I haven't had a spare minute yet.
• Actually, some of the secondary sources (Bushman included) say that he did tell people. If they accept Smith's word for it, I think it's fair for us to at least take the possibility into consideration, as my sentence does. To say "Smith told no-one of his vision until the 1830's" would fly in the face of Bushman, whereas the current sentence at leaves open the possibility that Smith told someone. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

The First Vision is an important LDS doctrine, and Bushman is a faithful Mormon. In his On the Road with Joseph Smith, Bushman says, "I sought a blessing from Elder Packer before getting started [writing the biography]; and insofar as I was worthy, I think the blessing was fulfilled."(32) The "weird disclaimer" is more NPOV, fair warning to the reader that the various First Vision stories come much later. Likewise, if you're going to trust Smith at his word, it's dishonest not to tell the reader what you're doing. Finally, the reason why I didn't want to have the First Vision mentioned here is that the only way to treat it fairly is to say that Smith's story arose after he organized the Church and changed remarkably during the 1830s. It's fine to mention the First Vision as an important Mormon doctrine; it has nothing to do with Smith's adolescence. We don't have to say "Smith told no one of his vision." As I suggested earlier, we can say nothing.--John Foxe (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What is your point about Bushman then John? That his religion has skewed his ability to write objectively? A Sniper (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In my (short) experience, John Foxe seems to default to what I've heard User:FyzixFighter call ad hominem arguments. That is, instead of approaching a disagreement logically, he attacks the beliefs of the person making the argument. I've long been annoyed with the way he brands other editors as "Mormon" and "non-Mormon", setting up a me-versus-them dichotomy. More disturbing is when he applies these weak arguments to the authors of reliable sources themselves. The fact that Bushman is a Mormon isn't news to anybody, yet it keeps coming up over and over again. John has dismissed Brodie in a similar way, calling her book eligible for Medicare.

This tendency to dismiss reliable sources so flippantly concerns me, and I wish it would stop. Unless John Foxe can find some scholarly consensus saying that Bushman's book is unreliable because of its author's religion, I suggest that he stop making such attacks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Over these last few years I have tried to work with Foxe as best I can, not falling so easily into the pro-LDS trap he appears so concerned about. Indeed, I have supported his edits when warranted and have compromised with him - I have even praised his writing if I felt it was worthy. However, I do find it difficult when he praises Bushman, et al only when it supports his own agenda, and bashes when convenient - I use the word agenda only for lack of anything better...for he is as much a tilted evangelical Mormon-basher as any pro-LDS is a statue-builder (I don't mean to be negative - I am merely trying to draw a parallel between the extreme editors). John, are you meaning to state that Bushman and the like cannot be trusted for objectivity? If not these historians, who then? Man, I just wish the agenda-pushing would stop from all camps...so that the Wiki bio could be straightforward, fair and interesting without needing to win converts to whatever is the cause of the writer. I have stood on Walnut Street in Independence, MO countless times having similar conversations with visiting LDS folk as glassy-eyed and single-minded as the evangelicals protesting against them in front of their visitor centre - nice people, no doubt, but not suitable as Wiki editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

History is an art and a craft, not a science. Even the noted British historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who famously argued that point, made such a bone-headed error in endorsing the forged Hitler Diaries that his reputation will probably never completely recover. Richard Bushman is a fine historian but, like all others, he is biased and fallible. In "Angel in America," New York Review of Books, November 17, 2005, 35-37, Larry McMurtry writes that in reading Bushman, it is difficult to determine "where biography ends and apologetics begins."

Helpfully, Bushman himself has written extensively about "believing history" and his own relationship to Mormonism, including this helpful essay in Common-place. There he says, "I would be the first to admit that my account of Joseph Smith shows greater tolerance for Smith's remarkable stories than most historians would allow." So, yes, Bushman may be biased, just like Brodie, Quinn, Vogel and any other historian can be biased. (In his description of the First Vision, Bushman is sometimes downright deceptive, as for instance when he puts Smith's engagement with Methodism before, instead of after, the account of the First Vision.)

I repeat my points, none of which were answered in the ad hominems above:

• Smith's telling of this vision came after publication of the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church; it's improper to imply that the vision and the telling are contemporary.
• Smith retold the First Vision story in strikingly different ways throughout the 1830s. In most cases he said that he asked "which church was right"—but not in 1832. (In 1832, he already knew that all the churches were apostate without heavenly assistance.) Sometimes he said that he asked forgiveness for his sins, but usually not. Sometimes Smith said he saw God, sometimes two deities, and in 1832 "the Lord." In other words, your version is an improper simplification and synthesis.
• It's improper to say that Smith told "few people" about the vision before the 1830s because there's no evidence external to his own testimony that he told anyone. His relatives, and even his enemies, knew about the angel and the golden plates, but they didn't know about the First Vision. Brodie makes this point clear; you want to ignore her.--John Foxe (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. My apologies for above; I didn't mean for that to be a John Foxe bashing party. That said, most of these points have already been answered or addressed above.

• Your first point is irrelevant because the current wording doesn't imply that the vision and the telling were contemporary. The paragraph both begins and ends with references to the 1830s, making it clear the story came later.
• I have already answered everything in your second point except the part about improper synthesis. That part, however, is inaccurate, because I'm not the one who did the synthesis. I left that to Vogel and Bushman, and then told the story as they had. (Vogel gives special preference, for example, to the 1832 account because it was the earliest, but doesn't ignore details from the later accounts.) Also, Bushman was not being deceptive in implying that the Methodism interest came before the first vision. (He actually makes it a little ambiguous.) As I noted before, there has been a scholarly controversy on that point for longer than I've been alive. Quinn comes down heavy on the side that Methodism came first. Vogel is heavy on the other side. Bushman seems to stay near the middle, but on the side of Quinn. Also, as you already know, I have put the Methodism in a neutral location that doesn't imply either before or after, so this is a mute point.
• We've been over this multiple times. I am hardly ignoring Brodie. If I wrote "Smith told a Methodist preacher" then that would be giving preference to Bushman and ignoring Brodie.

Anyway, we seem to be going in circles at this point. Other editors have already stepped in with their two cents, and I think we should both slow down a little and listen to what they have to say. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Like A Sniper, I wish "the agenda-pushing would stop from all camps". Like Adjwilley, I see this discussion just going in circles. I respect John Foxe as an editor and I think he has made some good contributions to Wikipedia. But, John Foxe, I think it's clear here that your approach is becoming (or perhaps has always been) agenda-driven, as has been suggested. We have to try to stop using our own judgments in deciding when reliable sources are good to use and when they are biased. Let's decide which sources are reliable and just use them—no snipping about what Bushman said on x must be biased, or what Brodie says about y must be biased. Just use try to use the sources and make the article reflect them as best we can without all the incessant editorializing and censoring of what they say. It's obvious that no work by any historian is perfect, and everyone has biases, but our job at WP is not to filter out the biases of reliable sources. It is to reflect the reliable sources as best we can, even if we disagree with them and their own agendas. This is not the place for agenda advancement of any kind. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

@Good Olfactory: Thank you for again taking the time to comment here. I'm very sorry that this discussion keeps going, and I'm sure it must be taxing for everyone involved. I value your input, and agree with you on the reliable sources. I know I started a discussion a while ago asking which sources were reliable, but the response didn't say much about specific books. I've gradually picked up Bushman, Brodie, Vogel, and Quinn (Quinn, mostly because John Foxe seems to really like his book, not because I view it as a biography). I tend, however, to write from Bushman, adding support from others as necessary. I prefer Bushman because he seems to have risen above the combativeness of other partisan authors and written a cohesive story that nearly everybody can agree on. I see Brodie and Vogel as being second and third place. That said, I'm no scholar, and I'd appreciate a word or two from COgden, who seems to have an excellent grasp of the sources.~Adjwilley (talk) 04:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Improper juxtaposition

I have long been annoyed by the citations in this article. Sometimes it seems like every clause is cited. The choppiness is distracting, making the article hard to read, and the frequent footnotes are enough to make an uninvolved editor wonder. (see WP:Citation overkill)

A problem I've noticed more recently is that this style of citing every clause allows editors to mix and mash different ideas from different sources together into a single sentence. Though this can potentially be helpful in preventing other editors from deleting some controversial claim, it also gives editors the freedom to perform original research, in the form of mixing different ideas or events in a way that reliable sources do not. In some cases, this improper juxtaposition is confusing, implying causal relationships between loosely related events, or tenuously promoting a point of view that was never intended by the authors of the individual sources.

I have provided a few samples below of sentences with too many citations, some of them implying things I haven't found in reliable sources.

• Smith may have considered giving up the translation because of opposition from his in-laws, but in February 1828, Martin Harris arrived to spur him on by taking the characters and their translations to a few prominent scholars.
• When Smith moved to Kirtland, Ohio in January 1831, his first task was to bring the Ohio congregation within his own religious authority by mitigating the new converts' exuberant exhibition of spiritual gifts.
• Redemption of Zion would have to wait until after the elders of the church could receive another endowment of heavenly power, this time in the Kirtland Temple then under construction.
• With [Smith's] knowledge and at least partial approval, recent convert Sampson Avard formed a covert organization called the Danites to intimidate Mormon dissenters and oppose anti-Mormon militia units. Sidney Rigdon was working to restore the United Order, but lawsuits by Oliver Cowdery and other dissenters threatened that plan. After Rigdon issued a thinly veiled threat in a sermon, the Danites expelled the dissenters from the county with Smith's approval.
• Mormon leaders began teaching that Smith was already among the gods, and some considered Smith to be an incarnation of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine now taught by Mormon fundamentalists.

There are a few similar problems with juxtaposition of sentences. These sentences are sometimes joined by red-flag words like nevertheless, despite, however, etc., but these problems aren't nearly as serious. In reading some of my own writing I realized that I have slipped into that style as well: a problem I intend to fix.

Over the next few weeks I would like to go through the article and try to combine these multiple citations into single ones. One citation should be enough for one sentence, and the citation generally should go at the end of the sentence. If I find cases where an entire sentence isn't supported by a reliable source like Bushman or Brodie, I would like to modify the sentence so that it does.

I would oppose any across-the-board policy of "one sentence, one citation." I think this would damage the style of the article, and make the footnotes much larger than they have to be. Either we will be left with a series of choppy sentences, or the footnotes will have to explain which part of the sentence the citation provides support for. If there are particular issues, I think we need to do this on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, long sentences can be split up, and in other cases, we may need to bolster the text with additional citations that make the exact connection. In some cases, the connection between clauses is non-controversial and needs no further citation.

I don't think we should be approaching this article as if text has to be deleted unless the citation is already included in the article and is used perfectly as-is. While the citations may be imperfect in some cases, many of the statements in this article are readily citable or non-controversial. We should not be changing any such statements simply because we do not yet have the perfect citation. Also, we don't need to find sources that say exactly what this article says, so long as what this article says is a noncontroversial reading of the sources, either individually or as a whole. Thus, the question should be, "Is this sentence as a whole either noncontroversial or supported by a noncontroversial reading of the (cited or uncited) sources?" In other words, our first instinct should be to ask whether the statement is supportable, not whether it is currently supported by the existing citations. COGDEN 21:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. I agree that an across-the-board policy would be a bad idea. My intent was not to go deleting stuff willy nilly either (even uncited material, which I'm fine with). My view is that the article is already damaged and choppy from past edit wars, with multiple people trying to cram their two cents into certain sentences. I don't want to delete so much as re-arrange material as best I can, so that it tells the story more smoothly and in a less confusing way.

Here is a sample of what I might do to the first two examples I gave above. I have combined the sources at the end of the article, and removed many that were redundant. The two pieces of more "controversial" information seemed to be interpretations of primary sources from the 1830s.

• • • Smith may have considered giving up the translation because of opposition from his in-laws, but in February 1828, Martin Harris arrived to assist him. Harris took a sample of the characters and their translations to a few prominent scholars... (I dropped the "spur him on" clause, which didn't ring quite right and was cited only to an 1831 source)
    • After moving to Kirtland, Ohio in January 1831, Smith mitigated the new converts' exuberant exhibition of spiritual gifts, bringing the Ohio congregation within his own religious authority. (The "first task" bit that I dropped seemed like kind of a stretch, and was citing D&C 50 and Phelps)

Granted, I could probably do exactly the same work by looking for controversial interpretations of non-controversial sources, but it might be easier this way. I found these six examples above by looking for sentences that looked like they had too many citations. Then when I looked closer, various other problems started popping out. I'd be happy to fix these on a case-by-case basis, but I'd rather not have to write a paragraph on the talk page for each sentence I re-arrange. What if I do them individually with clear edit summaries, and then if somebody has a problem they can revert, or leave me a note and I'll can self-revert until the problem is worked out? ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Upon further thought, I think you're right here. An overhaul for the sake of citation style alone is not warranted. I'll try to stick with verifiablity and fix problems as I find them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I have modified 5 of the 6 sentences above, bringing them into closer alignment with what I've read in the sources, or fixing general problems like redundancy, wordiness, etc. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the two edits above look good. I haven't had time to follow the other edits, but I think your approach seems reasonable based on these two examples.COGDEN 07:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I made these edits on Dec 19 if you want to see the diffs and read the edit summaries. I would also appreciate it if you would comment at the bottom of the "First Vision (once again)" section. You don't have to read the (long) section, but at the very end there is a discussion about reliable sources, where I think your input would be valuable. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16

48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

RFC: First Vision paragraph

How should the subject of the First Vision be treated in the Early years section? Below are three different versions that have been proposed. 00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1) Current paragraph

Smith became concerned with religion at about the age of twelve. Probably around 1820 he decided to pray for a forgiveness of his sins and to ask which church was right. Smith later said that in response to his prayer he had a theophany or first vision, in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith may have told a few people about his vision, but the event passed unnoticed in his home town.

2) Recommendation by Adjwilley

Smith became concerned with religion at about the age of twelve, saying later that he was concerned for the welfare of his soul and confused by competing religious denominations. Probably around 1820 Smith went to a wooded area to pray and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision (or theophany) in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith may have told a few people about his vision, but the event passed unnoticed in his home town. Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion.

3) Recommendation by John Foxe

During the 1830s, Smith said he too had experienced a theophany as an adolescent.

4) Proposal by COGDEN

Although there there is no contemporary record, Smith later said he had his own adolescent vision, a theophany, which he associated with his rejection of Christian sectarianism.

Arguments

• Adjwilley argues that in reliable sources, the First Vision is treated in the context of Smith's early life, and that the longer paragraph gives due weight to the First Vision, reflecting the story as it is described by the sources.

• John Foxe argues that the longer paragraphs push a Mormon POV, and don't belong in the Early years section because there's no historical evidence that the First Vision occurred in 1820, and it didn't become important to Mormonism until much later.

• Additional arguments can be found above in the sections labeled First Vision (once again) and Foxe's rewrite of First Vision paragraph.

Sources cited

• Richard Bushman's Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (excerpt on First Vision)
• Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (excerpt on First Vision)
• Dan Vogel's Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet (excerpt on First Vision)
• Robert Remini's Joseph Smith: A Penguin Life (excerpt on First Vision)
• Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist "Camp-Meeting" in 1820 (Dialogue article by D. Michael Quinn on the events surrounding Smith's vision)
• D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (excerpt on First Vision)
• An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Grant Palmer chapter on First Vision)
• The Significance of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” in Mormon Thought (Dialogue article by James B. Allen on the First Vision)
• Circumstantial Confirmation of the First Vision through Reminiscences (Richard L. Anderson article on the First Vision)

Comments

• I think 1) is ok, but that 2) corrects some potential issues that were brought up by John Foxe and COgden, notably an accusation of synth in the reasons for Smith's prayer, and the fact that the First Vision did not become important to Mormonism until much later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• My preference is for the shortest sentence possible with the fewest number of controversial elements. There's no evidence outside Smith's own statements, many years later, that he became interested in religion at an early age. There's no evidence that in the 1820s he told anyone about this vision: none of his family members or many enemies mentioned it. Smith also told the story in remarkably different ways, and so the longer proposals above are syntheses. (For instance, in the earliest version of the story, Smith said he already knew that the all current churches were corrupt; most versions contain no mention of sins being forgiven.)--John Foxe (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, what Smith said isn't nearly as important as what reliable sources say. Yes, the paragraph is a synthesis of Smith's accounts, but it's not an original synthesis. If you read WP:SYNTH, you'll see that synthesis is perfectly acceptable if it's a reliable source that does the synthesis. Historians like Bushman and Vogel did the synthesis, and our job is to reflect them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The longer paragraphs are an original synthesis. Not only have the comments of Bushman and Vogel been editorially melded, the views of other WP:RS who have written specifically about the First Vision, such as Widmer and Allen, have been ignored.--John Foxe (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So if significant viewpoints are being ignored and others (such as the LDS religious view, which is a very small minority view) are being overemphasized, this is really a WP:DUE issue, not so much WP:SYNTH. COGDEN 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the present version. This article is about Joseph Smith, not the First Vision or Mormon Theology. Discussion of the changing role of the First Vision should be in articles on that subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I would argue that the second version engages in unencyclopedic speculation about what Joseph Smith thought of such events. What is clearly pointed out by Richard Lloyd Anderson and other writers is Joseph Smith's understanding of what occured in the First Vision changed over time. However this is a biography of Joseph Smith, not a history of the First Vision. We have an article on that topic, and such discussion should be there, not crammed in here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that somewhere in the article, a mention of some of the details of the vision can be made, because the story did play a minor role in 1840s Mormonism (and then long after his death in the 20th century it became the defining element of at least one sect of Mormonism). But putting too many details here in the historical section, in the early life context, is a bit misleading, and gives it undue prominence in relation to its actual contemporary importance. COGDEN 01:13, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Foxe's rewrite of First Vision paragraph

I agree with Good Ol’factory that we can't unilaterally decide to include or exclude material on the basis of what we interpret to be the biases of historians; but that doesn't mean we have simplemindedly ignore those biases either. Certainly we need to compare varying accounts and be especially careful to write in a neutral manner where they disagree.

I've rewritten the paragraph "to reflect the reliable sources as best we can." In the 1832 account, Smith does not ask which church is correct; he already understands that all churches have apostatized. If we want to add that the various versions of the First Vision differ, that's fine. 2. There's no evidence, beyond Smith's own testimony, that he mentioned the vision to anyone before the 1830s, and there's no reason to privilege Bushman's account above Brodie's or Vogel's.

It's easy enough to revert what I've done, but I'd appreciate someone explaining why my version reflects the sources any less accurately than the version it replaced. Who'll step up to the plate and provide explanations instead of ad hominems?--John Foxe (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Your first error is that you're relying upon your reading of a primary source (the 1832 account) instead of the many secondary sources we have available that analyze the 1832, 1835, and 1838 accounts. It's a little ironic that I'm telling you this, because you were the one who taught me that secondary sources are better than primary, back in June when I was a newcomer.

You changed "1832 autobiography" to "1832 autobiographical sketch." This is a minor distinction, and I don't have an opinion on which is correct, however the source I was citing (Quinn's article) calls it his "earliest autobiography." See also Quinn's magic book page 139 where he calls it "Joseph Jr.'s earliest autobiography." Your edit has moved the wording further from the language of the sources.

You changed "God" to "the Lord," which fits with your reading of the 1832 account. Vogel also calls him "the Lord"; Brodie, however, leans toward "God the Father and His Son"; Quinn is unclear, but if I had to guess (based on pages 136-138) I'd have to say "God"; Bushman doesn't specify a preference for "God" or "Lord", but summarizes three different accounts: the 1832 "Lord," the 1835 two personages, and the 1838 Father and Son. Since there is ambiguity in the sources over whether it was just the Lord (Jesus), or if the Father (God) was present as well, I prefer using the slightly more ambigous term, "God" since that can mean the Father, the Son, or both: thus satisfying Vogel, Brodie, Bushman, and Quinn (instead of just Vogel).

You excluded the part about Smith asking which church was right. That goes directly against the Bushman quote that is still included in the footnote (the questions on his mind were "which church was right, and how to be saved"); it goes directly against the 1838 account upon which Brodie relies so heavily (and quotes extensively); and though Vogel doesn't specifically say that Smith was praying about the churches, he says that Joseph learned that his father's Universalism was wrong, and that the vision confirmed what he and his father had suspected: that the world was spiritually dead.

You excluded the part saying that contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." which again ignores what Bushman, Brodie, and Vogel say (just read the footnote for that one.)

You changed "Smith told few people about his vision until the 1830s." to "There is no external evidence that Smith told anyone about this vision until the 1830s." a change that has been discussed to death, and rejected, and is not supported by the citations in the footnote. Bushman says flat out that Joseph told a Methodist preacher, and while you have repeated over and over that your sentence is supported by Brodie, but I have not found such a statement in my readings. The closest I can find is on page 23 where she notes that the Palmyra newspapers took no notice of the vision (apparently making the mistake of projecting twentieth century journalism onto the patterns of another age, but not precluding Smith from telling a few people) and on page 25 where she says "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town" (which also fits with him telling few people). Also, your "no external evidence" wording reveals a non-neutral point of view.

You have made several controversial changes, moving the paragraph away from the sources to which it was cited, without giving any reasons for the change, other than your own original research and reading of the 1832 primary source. When you make changes, you are supposed to shoulder the burden of proof. You are supposed to give good reasons for your changes, and move the article closer to secondary sources. Instead, you seem to be repeatedly making POV edits, and then throwing the burden of proof on the person who reverts them. I shouldn't have to spend hours upon hours defending a stable, well-sourced paragraph against your repeated POV edits. If you intend to make changes to this paragraph, you should propose them here on the talk page. Additionally, you should shoulder your own burden of proof, and address the many reasons for keeping the status-quo, showing either why the wording is not faithful to the sources it's citing, or why the sources cited are not adequate, and adding sourcing of your own to support your changes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Bravo Adjwilley! If I had more time, I would have broken down each of Foxe's edit points - instead, I simply reverted the lot. John grew accustomed to his edit style of 'purge first, talk about it later' - easily, he had Duke53 (since banned permanently for bad conduct) and Hi540 (since blocked for possibly being a sockpucket of Foxe)...with the assistance, to some degree, of the more neutral COGDEN...to ram through these kind of edits. Well, the time has come to overhaul the entire article - paragraph by paragraph - to undo this agenda-driven narrative. Of course, this applies equally to the agenda-pushing LDS statue-building, as I'm aure we'd all agree. The POV needs to be left at the door. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

If the paragraph's supposed to refer to all the accounts Smith told during the 1830s, then the paragraph should begin with that information and insure that the reader understands that these accounts differ considerably from one another

Let me modify the final sentence and see if we can compromise on that first.--John Foxe (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little late to this discussion, but I wanted to make a view points:

1. Given that this is a controversial area, I agree that we shouldn't be using the primary sources (be they 1832, 1835, 1838, or 1840), except perhaps as a secondary reference, after secondary sources are cited.
2. We are talking about two different subjects here: (A) the first vision as a historical event, and (B) the telling of the first vision story as a series of historical events. Of the two, only (B) has documentary support that is accepted by the academic mainstream. However, there is probably enough support for (A), the proposition that Smith had some kind of theophany in the early 1820s, to at least mention it as an "claimed" historical event when discussing Smith's early history. However, when discussing the vision in a 1820s context, I do not think that we can reach forward in time to the later retellings to provide many specific details, because none of those details have the force of academic history. Even though Bushman's work was mildly apologetic, it was primarily an academic historical work, and thus the most he could say from that purely historical perspective is that, after forming a church, Smith told stories of a much earlier theophany.
3. However, the fact that Smith began telling the story of an early theophany is a very significant religious development, and the fact of the telling, including later enhancements such as the introduction of two personages, presumably Jesus and the Father, ought to be discussed somewhere, probably in the "legacy" or "Missouri" sections. I can think of very natural ways to present the vision in either of those sections.
4. Therefore, I would advocate an approach that I think satisfies both of the two competing interests here: (A) we very briefly mention a theophany in the "early years" section, without reference or attempt to harmonize or contrast the disputed details from the later stories, and then (B) at some later point, such as the "legacy" or "Missouri" sections, we discuss Smith's 1838 elaboration and its meaning. I don't think that the 1832, 1835, or 1840 elaborations of the story are very historically significant.
5. As to the fact that Smith biographies typically provide a detailed treatment of the first vision in the context of the early 1820s, I don't think that fact can dictate what we do here. A book-form biography can much more readily stop the narrative and do a detailed treatment of the first vision, with all the caveats, qualifications, and importations of much later material. In this encyclopedia article, however, jumping out of historical context to discuss the much later elaborations of the first vision does not work very well. I think it is confusing to the reader, who is not given enough background to fairly make the jumps back and forth through time that a neutral discussion requires. It is also impossible to discuss the first vision in the "early life" section without devoting a lot of space to caveats and qualifications, which gives the vision undue emphasis in comparison to the golden plates/Moroni story. It is the Moroni visions--not his first vision--for which Smith was most known during his lifetime, and this is probably still true today, except perhaps for the small minority of people in the world who identify as Mormons.

COGDEN 20:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

@COgden: Would you mind commenting specifically on your impression of the following short paragraph? I've tried to condense it to the bare bones of what Bushman, Brodie, and Vogel seem to agree upon, and I've cited Quinn on a few details.

In his 1832 autobiography, Smith wrote that he had become concerned with religion at about the age of twelve. Probably around 1820 Smith decided to pray for a forgiveness of his sins and to ask which church was right. Smith said that in response to his prayer he had a theophany or first vision, in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith told few people about his vision, and the event passed unnoticed in his home town.

The narrative is obviously weighted toward the 1832 account, which Vogel considers to be the most accurate, but the paragraph as a whole is probably closer to Bushman's interpretation. Also, I was hoping you would comment at the end of the preceding section, perhaps giving your impression of the reliability of various biographies. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would encorage a reading of Richard Lloyd Anderson's Ensign article (see http://lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&query=anderson,+first+vision#footnote1-96904_000_005 and http://lds.org/ensign/1996/04/joseph-smiths-testimony-of-the-first-vision?lang=eng&query=anderson,+first+vision#footnote1-96904_000_005) This is a relevant quote "The biggest trap is comparing description in one report with silence in another." Joseph Smith never claimed that any of his accounts told everything that was said. The 1838 account makes it clear that he is not repeating all that transpired or was said to him. Thus any comparison of the accounts needs to be done with these facts in mind. I would also encorage someone to consult Milton V. Backman's work Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Orem: Grandin, 1983).John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless someone wants to challenge COGDEN's analysis, I propose a short one-sentence replacement for Adjwilley's paragraph, something like, "During the 1830s, Smith said he too experienced a theophany as an adolescent." As COgden said, none of the details in the current paragraph "have the force of academic history," a fact made more clear by John Pack Lambert's citation of only non-WP:RS.--John Foxe (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley's paragraph will do just fine. I would note that readers, in general, assume that all religious leaders (and their flocks) believe their own claims, while at the same time affording absolutely no historical validity to them. We as editors should only be concerned with what the secondary sources report about who said what and not trying to expose religous fakery or inconsistencies. The force of academic history? Is there any force in claiming Moses saw a burning bush, Jesus walked on water, that Mohammed turned sand into chicken potpies or that Mary Baker Eddy cured leprosy with a showtune? Of course not - NPOV is merely to state what secondary sources report on what these religious icons claimed they did/saw/performed/healed/revealed and let readers make up their mind as to whether mysterious religious phenomenon actually occurred or whather it is all ridiculous nonsense. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand, A Sniper. We're not discussing whether or not Smith had a vision but rather its significance to Mormonism when Smith began to talk about it in the 1830s. COgden is arguing for a brief mention of the "theophany in the 'early years' section, without reference or attempt to harmonize or contrast the disputed details from the later stories," and later in the article say in the "legacy" or "Missouri" sections, "discuss Smith's 1838 elaboration and its meaning."--John Foxe (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe, I think my short paragraph fits the criteria of being a brief mention in the 'early years' section, without reference or attempt to harmonize or contrast the disputed details from the later stories. Also, I think that automatically interpreting COgden's not taking sides as support for your position would be a mistake. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. That paragraph's an improper synthesis and doesn't belong in a paragraph about Smith's early years. I'd be happy to discuss the matter in any dispute resolution forum you'd care to engage.--John Foxe (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you can argue WP:Synth when the paragraph is sourced so heavily. For reference, here's the paragraph and instead of citations, I've shown the authors cited.

In his 1832 autobiography, Smith wrote that he had become concerned with religion at about the age of twelve.^{[Bushman, Vogel, Quinn]} Probably around 1820^{[Bushman, Vogel, Brodie, Quinn]} Smith decided to pray for a forgiveness of his sins and to ask which church was right.^{[Bushman, Vogel, Quinn, Brodie]} Smith said that in response to his prayer he had a theophany or first vision, in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."^{[Bushman, Brodie, Vogel]} Smith told few people about his vision, and the event passed unnoticed in his home town.^{[Bushman, Vogel, Roberts, Brodie, Anderson]}

Each sentence is supported in whole by at least one of the sources cited, usually more, while the others lend support. Also, the entire paragraph is supported by Bushman, which, I think, will make your Synth argument very difficult.

I'm not very familiar with the dispute resolution process, but I think the easiest resolution would be to simply rely on reliable sources instead of the original research you seem to be doing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been very satisfied with the WP dispute resolution process in my past encounters with it. In any case, I'm suspicious of folks who enjoy tackling other people's disputes for fun, especially those completely ignorant of the subject in question.

The paragraph's certainly an improper synthesis, but that synthesis itself is a disguise for the real problem: that it doesn't mention the fact that Smith changed his story dramatically through the 1830s and that there's no independent evidence that Smith ever told anyone in Palmyra about his vision—including his family members or the locals under whom he said he suffered "bitter persecution and reviling." As James B. Allen has written in Dialogue, "none of the Church publications in [the 1830s] and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story in convincing fashion....The earliest anti-Mormon literature attacked the Book of Mormon and the character of Joseph Smith but never mentions the First Vision." That ain't original research.--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley:

• I don't think it matters which version of Smith's vision is referred to, because even though the 1832 version is the earliest, from an 1820s historical perspective, only the (alleged) fact of the vision is historically relevant, not its content. The content only becomes historically relevant later, as Smith tells the story in the 1830s and 40s, and adds it to his credentials as a prophet.
• As to whether Smith said in 1832 that he became concerned about religion around age 12, that is not relevant. What is relevant is whether or not he actually became concerned about religion in 1832. We would need to establish the date of his early concern with religion using reliable sources, and arguably, the cited sources do that, based on the historically-established fact of a revival in the Palmyra era around 1817.
• I don't think that the details of what Smith actually prayed about are historically established. If historians agreed on this detail, it might belong here, but even Smith's own accounts do not nail this down.
• I think it is appropriate, when discussing Smith's early life, to say that Smith later recalled having a theophany around 1820. Saying that he later had a theophany acknowledges that he later found significance in an event from that era, but does not confuse the reader with all the caveats and context stemming from the story's later elaborations.
• As with the details about what he prayed about, the details about what Smith actually saw, and what the being(s) told him, are not established historical facts, and are not amenable to historical analysis even if we had a crystal clear, unvarying account by Smith.
• I don't think it is historically established that Smith told anybody about his first vision in the 1820s. Apparently, his family was not aware of it independently of his 1838 retelling, nor did Smith claim to have told his family. If Smith did confide in a Methodist preacher, this would have been a historical non-event, even if it were documented. It would have been a common occurrence of the time for a clergyman to discount the validity of his flock's mystical experiences. It is pretty well documented that the "persecution" that Smith referred to in his 1838 account was caused not by this vision, but by his claim to have found golden plates.

COGDEN 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess my real concern here is a practical one. If the details of what Smith prayed for, how many personages he saw, their identity, and what they told him are going to be addressed, it is impossible to address all the complications in the short space that is available in the "early life" section. Also, the 1832 and other editions are not nearly as important, historically, as the 1838 account which was much later canonized by the LDS Church. So I see my comments as a compromise that would allow at least some mention in the "early life" section of Smith's later claim to have had a theophany (no historical dispute that he made such a claim, and anybody will admit it was at least possible he could have had what he thought was a theophany at the time, given that many other people of the era were also having theophanies and other mystical experiences), while leaving room later for a discussion of the 1838 account and its theological and hagiographic significance. In my view, valid historical points that we could make in the "early years" section might include the following:

• Smith dates his first interest in religion to around the age of 12 (about 1818).
• Looking back on his life as an adult, he said that he had his first vision, a theophany, in 1820.
• Around this time, he adopted a dim view of secular religion, which he shared with his father.

I don't think that all of the above necessarily should be included, but I think that each of these points are historically valid, well-supported, and objectively pertinent to his early life. COGDEN 22:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

@COgden:

Thank you for your analysis. If you don't mind, I'd like to give a short point-by-point response, though I don't have my books with me at the moment.

• I am a little unclear as to what you mean by historically relevant. Are you saying that it is not relevant because Smith was the only one who knew about it, or that it was not an influential part of his life until the 1830's? In my experience, the sources are treating it as if it was an influential part of his life, though there may be disagreement over what exactly happened in the vision, and precisely how much it influenced him.

That the precise details of his theophany make no demonstrable difference, which historians could agree on, until the 1830s. I'm not saying that theophany itself would not have been an important part, just the precise details, such as whether there was one personage or two, whether they were angels, etc. COGDEN 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• You are right about the 1832 said. The said and 1832 date were attempts of mine to water down the statement in an effort to appease John Foxe. Bushman, Vogel, and Quinn all agree that he became interested in religion around that age, and they mention the 1817 revival. (I don't remember Brodie having an opinion on that) I would favor beginning the paragraph with, "Smith became concerned with religion at about the age of 12..." or something like that.

I think that's reasonable, in view of the sources. COGDEN 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• As for why Smith prayed: Quinn says it was a concern for his sins. Vogel agrees on the sins part, but I also remember him discussing the churches (particularly Smith Sr.'s Universalim). Brodie says Smith was troubled by revivals. Bushman artfully combines the two, saying it was both (which church was right, and how to be saved) and that in reality the two questions were actually one. I kind of took the Bushman interpretation on this one.

I'm worried about trying to synthesize all the secondary sources here. I can't think of anything we can say here in just a few words that would be non-synthetic. To make it non-synthetic would probably require too much space. COGDEN 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The way I understand Synth, it's only synth if you're combining thing from different sources in a way that none of the sources do by themselves. I see Bushman as having argued both. If that's a problem, I can definitely find a way to modify that part of the sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have done my best to leave out the later elaborations, though not for the reason you gave. I did it mainly because that's what Vogel did, saying he didn't trust the later elaborations, but favored the 1832 account. Bushman didn't say he trusted one account over another, but he basically stuck with the story of the 1832 account too, if I remember correctly.

Historically, I think that the 1832 version is most reliable from a historical perspective, but the 1838 version is the most historically influential. But I think any reference to either version would require a lot of explanation. COGDEN 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• Again, I am a little bit unclear on what you mean by historical facts. I see our job here as being to reflect reliable sources as best we can, not picking out pieces and trying to decide what's historical or non-historical. I'd rather trust Vogel and Bushman to decide which stories to believe and which ones to discount. I feel that the paragraph here reflects their story pretty well.

The distinction I'm making is about what the sources say actually happened and what the sources say Smith said. Smith publicly telling the story was a historical fact, but it didn't happen until the 1830s. COGDEN 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Vogel makes a concerted effort to strip the narratives down to the "original core of the story". I think Bushman does the same, but without explicitly saying that he's doing it. I'm trying to tell that "core" story.~Adjwilley (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Vogel and Bushman are just two authors, though, and I think there is a diversity of views on what the "core" of Smith's experience would be. COGDEN 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with you that it is not historically established, but what is a "historical non-event"? I'm sorry, I'm not much of a history person. I've just been trying to parrot what I read. Bushman says that Smith told a Methodist minister, and that the Minister most likely gave him the generic response that there are no visions. I seem to remember Vogel speculating about which minister he told (George Lane or Willard Chase) but I don't have the book with me right now. The way I see it, I have a couple sources saying that he did or probably did tell someone, I have you and John Foxe saying that it's not historically established that he told anybody, but so far I don't have anybody saying flat out that he told nobody. I'm not a great word-smith, but the sentence on that currently reads, "Smith told few people about his vision, and the event passed unnoticed in his home town." In my opinion, saying that Smith told few people is softer than saying something like "Smith told a Minister" and doesn't exclude John Foxe's opinion that he told no-one. Actually, I just got an idea that might soften it up a little more. What if it read, "Smith may have told a few people about his vision, but the event passed unnoticed in his home town."? Would that be acceptable?

I definitely don't think we could say he told "a few people." At most, there is evidence he told one Methodist preacher. He didn't even tell his family, apparently. (Smith doesn't claim to have told them, and neither Lucy nor William apparently had any independent memory of having heard it.) But I don't think there is consensus that he spoke with a Methodist preacher. As the secondary sources have discussed (I'm not sure which ones), the most likely candidate would have been George Lane, and this is who Oliver Cowdery and William Smith thought it was. But there is a question about whether Smith would have had occasion to speak with Lane in 1820. I don't think there is any consensus history on this, either way. COGDEN 07:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The way it's worded now, it says he "may have told a few people about his vision, but the event passed unnoticed in his home town." In the footnote, there are people arguing for the Methodist preacher, as well as members of his family, and perhaps Oliver Cowdery. I seem remember Bushman even mentioning the family members, saying that the vision hadn't fixed itself in their minds either. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that using "may" necessarily solves this problem. There has to be a limit to when we can use "man." For example, we could say that Smith "may" have been visited, bodily, by God the Father and Jesus Christ, but that would clearly be inappropriate. I think what we need is a consensus among writers that the proposal "may" be true. I think (but am not sure without further research) that there are writers in the academic mainstream (Walters and Marquardt, perhaps?) who believe that Smith did not tell anybody about a first vision. COGDEN 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

In summary, I don't see why we need to make the First Vision into a controversial issue, or debate back and forth over what is historical or not. The way I see it, there are plenty of details that were recalled years later, and not just about the first vision. Scholars have debated these already and decided which details they trust, and I don't see a reason to continue the debate here. I know that I, for one, am not qualified for that. I'd rather stick with just telling the story as it's presented in the "reliable sources" that we seem to have agreed upon. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry, I missed your last comment in an edit conflict. I'll try to respond to that one tomorrow when I have more time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no way we can know that Smith became concerned about religion at age 12 because the only evidence for that statement is his own testimony. To the contrary, there's plenty of evidence that no one in Palmyra thought him religious as an adolescent. As Brodie says, his reputation was not that of an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions, but of a likable ne'er-do-well who was notorious for tall tales and necromantic arts." (16)

Again, there's no proof that Smith told anyone about the First Vision beyond his own testimony, and there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he didn't.

The way to eliminate the First Vision as a controversial issue is to put the bulk of statements about it where they belong, later in the article, not in the "early years" where they have no place except in LDS theology. As a compromise I earlier offered the sentence, "During the 1830s, Smith said he too experienced a theophany as an adolescent." Why isn't that sufficient?--John Foxe (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, John, this is about what the secondary sources feel comfortable stating - not what editors bent on painting a historical figure as a liar and conman are concerned with. Your use of "LDS theology" gives your game away, and you know from my edit summaries and notes on this page that I am not LDS nor do I care one bit if JSJr. had a vivid imagination or created stories about his religious past as he went along, just like most religious leaders claiming visions and miraculous discoveries. Adjwilley's edits have been without POV and have been concerned only with the sources...as opposed to, say, spinning for the sake of agenda-pushing. Best, A Sniper (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The Mormon historian James B. Allen wrote in Dialogue (1966), "none of the Church publications in [the 1830s] and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story in convincing fashion....The earliest anti-Mormon literature attacked the Book of Mormon and the character of Joseph Smith but never mentions the First Vision."--John Foxe (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would wager, based on editing with you for several years, that if a Mormon was to use such an obscure reference, you would be the first to say it hadn't been peer-reviewed and was merely a Mormon academic's opinion in a thinktank dominated by LDS folk. Yes? Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You'd lose. Dialogue is the oldest independent, peer-reviewed journal in Mormon studies, and Allen was a former Assistant Church Historian.--John Foxe (talk) 21:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × with John Foxe, A Sniper, then John Foxe again)

I think an important issue here is original research. I think John Foxe is giving an ok argument, and it is probably something he could publish somewhere to promote his point of view. It is not, however, an argument I've seen published in the books I consider to be the best reliable sources. Bushman and Vogel both say that Smith became concerned with religion around 1817-18. Brodie doesn't refute that, and as Foxe pointed out, she notes that the young Smith was known for necromancy, which the article already reflects. I am more convinced by the arguments of COgden, who in my experience, doesn't have an agenda or a point of view he's trying to push. I also see his arguments as valid historical arguments. However, I am not a historian, and I don't believe that Wikipedia editors should have to be historians. Good historians have already done the research, and our job is to reflect that - not argue against them. Not on Wikipedia. If John Foxe disagrees with Bushman, Vogel, and Quinn about Smith's 1817-18 interest in religion, he should write a scholarly, peer-reviewed publication saying so. He should not go to Wikipedia to push his arguments on lesser non-historian editors. He taught me the rules on reliable sources. He should play by them now. We seem to have a working consensus that Bushman, Brodie, and Vogel are the best sources on Joseph Smith. Bushman, Brodie, and Vogel all give a brief synopsis of the First Vision in the context of Smith's early life. Our job is not to argue with them or promote our own views. Our job is to reflect them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

As for the immediate conversation above, I dug up the 1966 article, and unsurprisingly, John Foxe was quoting Allen to push a conclusion that Allen doesn't make. I agree with Allen's quotation, and I agree with his conclusions. I don't think it's a good source to argue that Smith told no-one. Here's the link if anybody's interested. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow - Foxe's source states "it received only limited circulation in those early days". So, JSJr. "may have told a few people about his vision" - great writing, Adjwilley ;) A Sniper (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• I challenge Foxe to include the part of the quote from James B. Allen that he removed. It is extremely odd that he removes a section of a quote. Anyway, whatever else Dialogue is or was it is not peer reviewed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
• Joseph Smith is the best witness on what Joseph Smith thought and felt as a teenager. Foxe is arguing that we go with and value statements made by people who knew him at various levels, gathered by a man who was seeking to discredit Joseph Smith many years after the fact, more than we are to go with the statements of Joseph Smith about his own life experiences. He wants us to reject the superior scholarship of Richard L. Bushman for the flawed methods of last century and to turn to people who value 3rd hand accounts more than those of those who actually experienced the events. The best source on what someone was thinking and feeling is themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@Johnpacklambert: Thank you for your comments. I'm going to tell you something that John Foxe told me several months ago when I made a statement similar to what you just said. It's going to sound counter-intuitive, but it's Wikipedia policy, and when you actually think about it, it makes sense.

In a nutshell, secondary sources are better than primary sources. This means that Richard Bushman is a better source for what Joseph Smith said, did, felt, and thought than Joseph Smith himself. I know it seems weird. Think of it this way. When Joseph Smith tells his own story, he's bound to get some details wrong. His memories are filtered through the lens of his later experiences and clouded by the passage of time. If I were writing my own history, I'd say that my grandmother baby-sat me when I was about 5, but really that's a wild guess. A careful historian would take my own statement into account, but he'd also look at my grandma's bank records, my mom's employment history, and determine that my grandma actually baby-sat me when I was 3. It's not that I told a lie, it's just that I'm not the best judge of my own past.

It's the same with Joseph Smith. Historians like Bushman often take his statements at face value, but sometimes they have to correct various details, and they certainly have to take into account what other people say. Joseph Smith, for instance, gave a few different ages for when he had his first vision, not because he was changing his story, but because he probably didn't remember exactly. Bushman, Vogel, and Quinn have carefully weighed his accounts against things like the timing of revivals and camp meetings in Palmyra, and have all come to the conclusion that it happened around 1820. This difficult job of carefully weighing all the evidence is best left to historians, not Wikipedia editors, which is why Wikipedia guidelines recommend only using secondary sources. Does that make sense?

As for this side discussion of James B. Allen's statement, I see it as a distraction—a small example of a larger problem, and I don't think it needs further discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Pack Lambert. I'll attest from personal experience that Dialogue is a peer-reviewed publication ;)

@Adjwilley. You can't limit the number of reliable secondary sources to ones that you like. Allen's article is a WP:RS, especially authoritative about the First Vision unless you can demonstrate that it's been refuted elsewhere.

James B. Allen, “The Significance of Joseph Smith's First Vision in Mormon Thought,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 1 (Autumn 1966): "According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it." (30)

Grant Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), concludes his chapter on the First Vision with this statement: "The 1832 account describes Joseph's experience most accurately. Smith's 1832 description does not forbid him from joining a church, nor does it mention a revival or persecution. Instead, he became convicted of his sins from reading the scriptures and received forgiveness from the Savior in a personal epiphany. He stated that his call to God's work came in 1823 from an angel, later identified as Moroni. When a crisis developed around the Book of Mormon in 1838, he conflated several events into one. Now he was called by God the Father and Jesus Christ in 1820 during an extended revival, was forbidden to join any existing church, and was greatly persecuted by institutions and individuals for sharing his vision of God. This version is not supported by historical evidence."(253-54)--John Foxe (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe: I am in no way trying to limit the number of sources. I'm just citing the ones I know, a couple of which you yourself recommended to me. I think that biographies like Bushman's book should get a little more weight than dialogue articles, but I'm fine with citing those as well, and I have cited them in the past. I don't think the particular passages you've quoted above bring any new information that's not already in the books.

@Johnpacklambert: The Palmer bit that John Foxe quoted above is taking one side of an argument that has divided scholars for years. If you are interested in the argument over anachronistic revival meetings, this dialogue article by Quinn is probably a good place to start.

@COgden: I have responded to most of your comments above, however I think we are ignoring the main issue here. Since I started on Wikipedia, one thing I keep hearing is that we need to stick to reliable sources. Various Wikipedia policies state: "The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." "It is important that references be cited in context and on topic." "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources". I realize that there has been contention over the First Vision in the past, and I think that because of that, many editors here think that it is somehow more controversial than other topics. That's not to say there's no controversy in academia, but for us lowly editors, it should not have to be so controversial.

The way I see it, we have a handful of biographies that discuss the First Vision. They all discuss it chronologically, in the context of Smith's early life. They all mostly agree on the core of the story. They all agree that Smith didn't tell the story publicly until the 1830's, yet they still discuss it in the context of 1820. I agree with you and John Foxe that the story didn't become important to Mormonism until much later. This article, however, isn't about Mormonism. It's about Joseph Smith.

The argument that because Smith told the story later we should treat it later doesn't make sense to me. If we begin to pick apart biographies in this way we'll find lots and lots of details whose only sources are decades-old reminiscences. Take details from Lucy's biography, for instance. Secondary sources use her book to relate details from Joseph's early life, but when we quote those details, we find no reason to treat them after the section on "Death" or to include weird disclaimers as John Foxe has suggested, like, "Many years later, after Smith had founded a church and died, his mother recalled that her husband, Joseph Sr., had dreams that he believed communicated messages from God." (excuse the sarcasm) Scholars have accepted at least parts of her story, and we can accept those parts as non-controversial and state them in the early life section as "both his parents and his maternal grandfather had visions or dreams that they believed communicated messages from God." If we can accept biographers' accounts of Smith Sr.'s dream as non-controversial, why not Smith Jr.'s vision? Biographers have accepted at least parts of his story, and we should be able to accept those parts as non-controversial and state them in the early life section.

In summary, I think that Wikipedia policy is clear that the article should reflect reliable sources, and I don't think the First Vision is a point where we should depart from that. I know there's been "controversy" in the past, but I think it's time to stop treating it as a controversial topic, and just write from the sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

A controversial topic doesn't become noncontroversial simply by writing "from the sources"—unless you exclude sources you don't like. You say that you don't think "the particular passages you've quoted above bring any new information that's not already in the books." Then allow me to add that information to the article.

I've replaced your POV with a simple neutral sentence. Please explain why that's not good enough for the article?--John Foxe (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Foxe, after all that has been discussed, you just referred to Adjwilley's work as 'POV'. What utter nonsense. I think, to a great degree, your time has come...and gone. If you'd like to grab an administrator, I would encourage you to do so. Anyone going over these notes has lots of information to go by - that editor Adjwilley has been a NPOV breath of fresh air in a tide of agenda-driven POV. A Sniper (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You can revert, Sniper, but you can't answer my argument. Why not have a simple sentence that all of us here can agree on rather than trying to push LDS POV?--John Foxe (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is as baseless as implying that I, a non-Mormon, am pushing 'LDS POV'. Once again revealing your stripes as an agenda-pusher. And, yes, one of the only times I ever received a block for reverting was when I was tag-teamed by you and your fake alter sock ego, Hi540 ;) A Sniper (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of your religion, you're pushing LDS POV; and that POV pushing is all the more blatant because you refuse to answer my arguments.--John Foxe (talk) 18:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think that the religion and "POV" of editors shouldn't matter. In my opinion, whether or not something represents an "LDS POV" is unimportant, as long as it reflects reliable sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The reason the paragraph in question represents LDS POV is that it doesn't reflect all the reliable sources. And it doesn't reflect all the reliable sources because you won't let me add them. And you won't let me add them because you're trying to promote LDS POV. Which you claim shouldn't matter. So, why isn't it enough to have a simple sentence about the First Vision on which we could all agree?--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for Bob Jones or some other equally nitwitted evangelical biblethumper to be trotted out as reliable:) A Sniper (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sniper, to argue ad hominem means to appeal to personal prejudices or emotions rather than to reason.--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe, One correction: I have not tried to prevent you from adding any reliable sources. You brought up the Allen and Palmer quotes here, and I said that they don't seem to bring any new information to the table. The Palmer quote seems to be arguing the same thing that Vogel argues: that the 1832 account is most reliable. As you know, the paragraph already gives that account preference over the others, because that's what Bushman and Vogel do as well. Allen's article argued the same thing that Bushman argues, which is that the first vision didn't become important to Mormonism until much later (something we all agree upon). You never attempted to add any of that to the article, and if you had, I would have done nothing to prevent you. Most of your edits have deleted material rather than adding anything. That said, I have made a couple edits to the paragraph in my userspace here that try to add the information in a neutral way. Have a look and tell me what you think.

@A Sniper, I appreciate your calling me a NPOV editor, and I take it as a compliment. I'd like to state for the record that I do have a point of view. However, I try my best to represent the points of view of reliable sources like Bushman, rather than my own.

@Both, Frankly I'd prefer if we could focus on the sources rather than individual editors and their perceived points of view. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

For instance, you won't let me add the information that the various versions of Smith's First Vision differ dramatically from each other or that there's no evidence beyond Smith's own testimony that he mentioned the event to anyone until after he founded the Church.

Why won't a simple sentence do? I think we all agree on the following: "During the 1830s, Smith said he too experienced a theophany as an adolescent." Why not compromise on something we all agree on rather than deliberately trying to push LDS POV--John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)?

@John Foxe, Did you happen to read the revised paragraph I mentioned in my last post? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I did. (I was hoping to avoid commenting on it ;)--John Foxe (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. So far, you haven't provided a source putting any sort of stress on the "no evidence" part, or refuted Bushman's clear statement that he did. Also, you seem to have neglected the fact that the current wording isn't saying that he told anybody, making this a mute point. For the versions, I thought it was generally agreed upon that the part about the various versions should go later in the article, and I don't remember you trying to add that part.

My main issue with your simple sentence is that it doesn't adequately reflect the many pages reliable sources give the event in the context of Smith's early life. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources (as opposed to LDS sources) really don't grant that much space to the event. Kurt Widmer and Grant Palmer both have chapters on the First Vision, but they're discussing later theological evolution that has nothing to do with Smith's adolescence. I'd say one sentence is just about right in this paragraph, followed by a discussion of Smith's theological development of the First Vision given in its proper chronological spot later in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have to say, this has probably been your most convincing argument yet. WP:DUE is a powerful argument, if you're right in saying that reliable sources don't grant much space to the event. I took some time yesterday to count pages in Bushman and Brodie's books, to see how much space they grant the First Vision. Brodie gives it about 4 pages (pages 21.5–25.5). Bushman gives it about 5 (pages 37–42). Most of this is discussing the First Vision in the context of Smith's early life, with a small portion arguably discussing later implications.

Now knowing the number of pages doesn't tell us much. We have to compare it to something nearby, so for fun, I picked Treasure hunting/magic as a comparison. Brodie talks about these for about 6 pages (pages 16.5–17; 18.5–21.5; 28.5–31), and Bushman talks about them for about 5 pages (pages 37–42).

If we average the numbers from Bushman and Brodie, we get about 4.5 pages for First Vision, and about 5.5 pages for treasure hunting/magic. We should probably subtract a page from the First Vision average to account for the space where they discuss future theological developments and implications, which gives us roughly a 3.5 to 5.5 ratio.

Now for the article. We currently have a 4-sentence paragraph on the first vision, immediately followed by a 3-sentence paragraph on Money digging. We also have 4 other paragraphs containing 6 more sentences about treasure digging/magic. So all in all, we have 4 sentences on the First Vision, and 9 sentences on treasure digging/magic. This seems fairly reasonable, based on the weight given in the sources. However, if John Foxe wants to use the DUE argument to crop the First Vision paragraph down to a single sentence, then by his same logic, we should cut the material treating treasure hunting and folk magic down to 1–2 sentences. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems logical = cut the First Vision, cut the money digging/treasure hunting!  ;) A Sniper (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The weakness in Adjwilley's argument is that he's only considering Bushman and Brodie. If you're going to do comparative math on page content, you'd also need to consider (for instance) Vogel, Quinn, Widmer, and Palmer as well. So far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're all WP:RS. Those sources emphasize that the canonical First Vision was a creation of Smith's later years. And at least three of those sources put a lot greater stress on magic.--John Foxe (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

There are reasons I didn't analyze those other books. The main reason is that it is a time consuming process, and I'm a little short on time. Vogel tends to mix and mash a bunch of subjects together, and paragraphs about the First Vision are spread far into the Book of Mormon chapters. I didn't analyze Vogel's book because I didn't have the time. Also, an analysis of Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Magic World View would be less-than useful, especially if I'm comparing the First Vision to something like Magic. I'd get a couple of pages on the First Vision, and the rest of the book on Magic :-)

Additionally, I don't think it's fair that I should have to spend hours and hours doing research to disprove every argument you can think up. You make an argument, I dig into the sources and prove it wrong. Then you make another argument, and I have to go back to the sources to disprove it. Why is it always me who has to do the research? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley: you don't. You have demonstrated that it is possible to use reliable sources without pitching an agenda. However, Foxe is an agenda-pushing editor who has admitted to using sockpuppets. In days gone by, other editors have danced to his tunes...but those days are over. Your paragraph will be supported because it is based on the sources, and admins will see this clearly. Foxe's attempt will get reverted. Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@ASniper: Thanks. I don't think it's necessary to rehash the sockpuppet issue or to make assumptions about others' motives. I'm working on putting together an RFC for this page, because I think the discussion has gone in circles for long enough. My hope is that if we can get a decision from the RFC, we can all accept it as binding and this (long) discussion will finally be over. Hopefully it will go smoothly, as most arguments will likely have already been discussed above. 21:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, You took a shot at answering my argument, but you didn't disprove it because you examined only two of a number of peer-reviewed discussions of Smith's First Vision. For instance, as you say, Quinn's book would suggest that too little space is dedicated to magic in this article. If you considered Widmer's chapter or James B. Allen's article on the First Vision, you'd notice their emphasis on the lack of contemporary evidence for Smith's vision, how much Smith's story changed during the latter years of his life, and how unimportant the theophany was to the Church during Smith's lifetime. (Why should you do all the research? you ask. "It is good for a man that he should bear the yoke in his youth." [Lam. 3:27] :)--John Foxe (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@Sniper, We'll just have to hand the argument to the community and see what they have to say.--John Foxe (talk) 22:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe: Actually, it would be an error to try to use Quinn's book as a WP:DUE argument for magic in the Joseph Smith article, because the book is not a biography of Joseph Smith. It is a book about the influence of magic in early Mormonism. It naturally talks a lot about Joseph Smith, but always in relation to magic because that's what the book is about. If we used your logic, I would be able to take a book or article written specifically about the visions of Joseph Smith, and then say that we need more weight on the First Vision because the source talks about that more than other things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Quinn is a WP:RS and the best possible source about Joseph Smith and magic. It makes no difference that it's not a biography.--John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he's a wp:RS for JS and magic. I'm just saying that because his book is about magic, it's not a good tool for determining the weight we should give magic in comparison to other things. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Certainly. But if you have reliable sources that specifically address the First Vision (like Widmer and Allen, for instance) then those sources should logically trump Bushman and Brodie.--John Foxe (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is a very valid methodology to count pages in large books or biographies and use the ratios to determine how much space should be spent in a particular part of a Wikipedia article. Books are a different medium, and the authors have plenty of space to address all the caveats and qualifications, in place, before moving on to a different subject. Also, different writers have different focuses, but the prominence of an idea for this article should be based not on one book, but on the whole of what has been written about Smith. One good measure about what is academically prominent is to ask what do articles about Smith in academic journals tend to focus on. This type of analysis is a qualitative one, and is not amenable to simple arithmetic.

The first vision has certainly been a prominent topic of discussion, but this discussion has mainly focused on the various stories of the vision, and how they changed, and how they affected later Mormon doctrine. As far as any historical consensus as to what really happened, there isn't one, because one mainstream faction thinks the story was entirely fabricated during the 1830s, while another mainstream faction thinks something could have happened around 1820 which was not very momentous at the time, but gained importance in the 1830s and 40s. Most of what has been written on a subject goes to the question of whether or not it even happened at all, and everyone seems to agree that even if it did happen, the story of the event was a retroactive insertion into early Mormon history.

So all things considered, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to include a fair discussion of the first vision in the "early years" section, which provides the proper context and does not give the Mormon religious perspective (that it happened and was a momentous event in his early life) undue prominence. I don't think that is a problem, though, because we can provide a more robust discussion later. This is, after all, just an encyclopedia article, and we don't need to arrange the material in the same order that we would if we were writing a biography. Ultimately, the issue will be covered in the article with adequate breadth.

As to the WP:DUE issue, and taking into consideration WP:FRINGE, frankly, the only "mainstream" academic perspective that admits to the possible existence of a first vision posits that this vision had little actual relevance to Smith's early life. So between that, and the other "mainstream" academic perspective that it didn't happen at all, neither of these views is compatible with devoting a substantial explanation of the vision in the "early years" section. COGDEN 03:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I will stick by the assertion that Joseph Smith is the best source for what he did and felt. This is especially true because I was saying he is a better source for what he did than are the statements of other people about what they thought he was doing. My point is that secondary sources that build on Joseph Smith's statments have more validity than those that build on the statments of people who are attacking him. Joseph Smith's testminy about what he believed and did has more value than the testimony of someone else who lived in Palmyra at that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It always sounds odd to new editors, but Wikipedia privileges secondary over primary sources. So here Richard Bushman, Fawn Brodie and Dan Vogel trump anything that Joseph Smith ever said about himself. That's just the way Wikipedia works.--John Foxe (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That is not even a response to my argument. Foxe is arguing that the statements of other people in Palmyra should be privaleged over Joseph Smith's statements about himself. Anyway, Bushman in multiple cases and without question clearly states that Joseph Smith had the First Vision. Bushman's early book on Joseph Smith maybe should be consulted. On the specific issue of majic, both Quinn and Palmer rely heavily on the now discredited Hoffman forgeries, although both try to put forward a face that they do not. There emphasis on such things is inflenced by Hoffman forgeries and their belief that these were valid historical documents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not my argument but Wikipedia's. Wikipedia privileges reliable secondary sources over primary ones. Bushman counts, but then so do Brodie, Vogel, Widmer, Allen, etc. If there's disagreement among secondary sources, that disagreement needs to be reflected in the article. (As for Quinn, his book stands unless you can produce reliable secondary sources that dispute it. In fact, only LDS apologists do.) --John Foxe (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure that is accurate. Primary sources are acceptable to use UNLESS they are confusing or open to interpreation. They certainly should not be ignored. Secondary sources are used when a confict exists and they should be evaluated and the better sources should be used primarily. Foxe has agreed that Bushman is the more superior source. Brodie is acknowledged to be a good source, but care should be used. She grants that she writes to achieve an objective and ignores any references that conflict with her objective. Other secondary sources also write with an agenda and that should be acknoweldged and the more neutral sources given prioity. --^StormRider 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

All primary sources about the First Vision are are confusing and open to interpretation because Smith told differing stories about the event. (The First Vision article has a handy chart.) Bushman is a poor source about the First Vision because of his relationship to the Church. In my opinion, the best sources for the subject are Widmer and Allen, both of whom have written extensively about the subject and are ignored in the current paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 14:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the issues that keeps getting brought up is the lack of evidence on the First Vision. It's been said repeatedly that there's "no historical evidence" that Smith had this vision and that it wasn't historically significant enough to be discussed in the context of his early life. Let me counter this with a short quote from the Preface to Robert Remini's biography on Joseph Smith:

"I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work." (Remini p. x)

In his book, Remini presents the First Vision as Smith said it happened, the same as other biographers do, and the same way I believe we should do. Like Remini, we should not be trying to prove or disprove any of Smith's claims, but unlike Remini, or job is fairly simple. We don't have to worry about what was historical and what was not. We don't need to do original research. Our job is to reflect reliable sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Another try at a simple sentence about the First Vision

I've inserted the following in the text, two sentences I think both Mormons and non-Mormons agree on. Please tell me why it's unacceptable.

"During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith."

--John Foxe (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

• I will try to answer why this does not work. 1-the placement makes it seem like this is him trying to one-up his grandfather. 2-The "virtually unknown" ignores the fact that there are very early documents that mention revelations, and there is not enough detail in surviving documents to say what was and what was not known to "early believers". However I would note I am not the person who removed the section. I would also point out this is a long article and we have long had a consensus to cover the subject here in a summary style. Those sentances just do not seem to add up to a summary style.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
• Reading over the article, it seems you attempted to unilaterally remove the large section about the First Vision that is sourced to the work of Richard Bushman among others. people object to your change because you are shifting the article to saying about the same if not less about the experiences of Joseph Smith with revelation than of his parents. That makes no sense. The article is about Joseph Smith. Some of the stuff on his parents and other ancestors seems to constitue excessive background. I would also say that to some extent it is built around equating visions and dreams, when Joseph Smith's main visions are never claimed to have been dreams. However to take Joseph Smith's vision out of its historical context is to ignore the multiple works of Richard L. Bushman where he clearly demonstartes that it fits in the context of 1820.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right that I don't trust Bushman in this case. He ignores extensive considerations of the First Vision by Allen, Vogel, and Widmer for what I consider reasons of "religious correctness." When experts disagree, then Wikipedia should present a balanced view. (I note that Sniper has once again reverted me without responded on this talk page.)--John Foxe (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I sure did. You're purging refs with no consensus. And you know I couldn't give a rat's if JSJr. was a colorful liar and a grand Americana conman. This article is about Joseph Smith, the man - his story, as told by the secondary sources. It doesn't matter to me if he concocted the First Vision one night while playing poker and smoking cigars. However, if an editor purposely wanted to paint the man as a 'fake prophet' (because they had a personal religious conviction that made 'exposing Smith' one of their life's missions), then I guess that POV editor would sit on here all day trying to do that godly duty, eh. A Sniper (talk) 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

John, and you become the judge and jury and when to use an respected source by whom? Editing by agenda is not a good process and it is the process you use most. --^StormRider 12:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You're the folks who refuse to allow references to sources that don't match the LDS agenda. Sniper, who never offers anything but crude ad hominems, said he'd find an administrator if I don't stop. I'd appreciate if he'd do that. A couple administrators would be even better.--John Foxe (talk) 14:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ad hominems? I don't recall an apology for the sockpuppet deceptions, especially in light of the good faith we've all shown you over the years - even now, when you're accusing the world of fostering an 'LDS agenda', which is clearly ridiculous. A Sniper (talk) 03:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I've admitted to, and apologized for, using a sockpuppet here in 2009. I'm happy to apologize once again.--John Foxe (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's my try at a revision for the paragraph. I've tried to eliminate several of the problems that have been pointed out earlier, and I've made several concessions to John Foxe, beginning and ending the paragraph with language that shows the distance of the event from the telling. I've also added material from Allen and Palmer, authors who John Foxe has accused people of trying to keep out. (I actually read the entire chapter in Palmer, but there were no surprises there.) I've also added several citations to Remini, who is already cited frequently in this article. As it stands now, the paragraph has seven references, each cited to at least three different sources (with an average of 4.3). I could add more, but I think we've reached citation overkill a while ago. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Foxe's problem with the First Vision paragraph

Adjwilley believes he has created with the following paragraph a compromise between Mormon and non-Mormon views of the First Vision. I don't believe that to be the case.

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul and was confused by competing religious denominations.[18] Probably around 1820[19] Smith went to a wooded area to pray[20] and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."[21] Smith said he told a preacher about the experience,[22] who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, further distancing Smith from organized religion.[23] Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.[24]

During the 1830s, Smith wrote or dictated many things about the First Vision, many of them contradictory. He said that he had experienced the First Vision more than a decade earlier, but there is no evidence that he told anyone, including his family members, about it. In some versions of the story he said he was concerned about his sins; in most versions, he did not. In the first recounting of the story (1832), in his own handwriting, he said he already knew the churches were corrupt before he had the vision. There is no evidence beyond Smith's testimony for the date (1820), the preacher, or the statement that their interaction distanced him from organized religion. There is no external evidence that Smith had any serious interest in religion during this period, although there's plenty of evidence of his interest in folk magic and treasure hunting. It's possible to say that Bushman or Vogel believe that Smith probably understood the First Vision to be a personal conversion experience, but it's not possible to say it on our own hook because we can't know someone else's mind. (Neither can Bushman or Vogel, but they're authorities and so the notion can be attributed to them.)

A prudent course would be to shorten the paragraph to the following:

During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith.

That statement is non-controversial and easily documented, and it would not preclude the addition of other information about changes in Mormon theology that followed after Smith publicized the Vision near the end of his life.--John Foxe (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Foxe believes that there has to be either a 'Mormon or non-Mormon' view of the First Vision is problematic. This is Wikipedia, based on secondary sources - it is not meant to be the Deseret News or the Billy Graham Preachathon. In addition, it is an article that is about Joseph Smith and not about Mormonism. Whether Smith changed his story ten times isn't the point - a neutral editor isn't supposed to care less. None of this should be written from the standpoint of it being historical truth anyway - merely reporting what secondary sources have said about the subject, and secondly carefully utilizing primary sources if they are clear about what the subject himself said happened to him. I personally assume that all religious phenomenon has been created by the author, therefore it doesn't matter to me how many times any of it has been changed - it is only 'real' to the storyteller and setting it out as historical truth should not be the job of the editor. That would go for any person of religious importance, including Smith. But please let's move on from this. Adjwilley, can't the section be whittled down even further so that it is ambiguous enough to please both extremes, if that is even necessary? A Sniper (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

@John Foxe: You've made all those arguments before, and they've already been answered. Most of them don't even apply to the paragraph I've written, and are based on your own original research instead of reliable sources. If you feel it's necessary, I can again refute your arguments one by one, but I feel that would be a waste of time and space. The current paragraph reflects reliable sources, and if you'd like to change it, I'd ask you to show some reliable sources that support your changes, or show that my version doesn't adequately represent the many sources it's based on. By the way, I'd be very interested to see a source that argues your point of view, because so far I haven't.

@A Sniper: I've been trying to compromise with John Foxe for the past few weeks, with little success. I've been debating whether or not I should just give up and let him have his way, but I haven't been able to bring myself to do it yet. Frankly I don't want to reward his bad behavior. I don't want to let original research, POV, and edit warring triumph over reliable sources, logic, and Wikipedia policy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A short history of the First Vision's treatment in this article

Being a fairly new editor at an article with a very long history, I took some time today to read up on some old versions of the article and talk page discussions related to the treatment of the First Vision. I thought others might appreciate my findings, so I figured I'd publish them here for anyone interested in seeing how the First Vision treatment has changed over time. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

In July 2008 shortly before John Foxe made his first edit at the Joseph Smith article, the First Vision got 3 paragraphs in the Early Life section that read:

Smith reported that, in 1820 at the age of 14, he experienced a theophany, an appearance of God to man, or a divine disclosure, most commonly referred to by Latter Day Saints as the First Vision. Smith recorded several accounts of the vision later in life.[5] The version which is most well-known and read was published in 1838.[6]

Smith was concerned as to the correct church to join, and went to a grove of trees to pray. There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, appear to him as two separate, glorious, resurrected beings . They told him that none of the churches established at the time were correct, and that he should join none of them.[7]

Soon after, Smith reported his vision to a local minister, who pronounced it "of the devil," because the minister believed "there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and there would never be any more of them". Smith recounted that he was soon the object of much persecution and reviling in his neighborhood, for maintaining that he had seen a vision.[8]

By April 2009 the paragraphs had been shortened significantly, but now had their own subsection in the Early Life section, and pretty heavy footnotes.

As he later recorded the experience, Smith said that as a fourteen-year-old in 1820 he had received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that Latter Day Saints commonly call the First Vision.

Smith said that he had been concerned about what religious denomination to join and prayed in a nearby woods (now called the Sacred Grove). There he had a vision in which he saw God the Father and his Son, Jesus Christ, as two separate, glorious,resurrected beings of flesh and bone. They told him that no contemporary church was correct in its teachings and that he should join none of them.

Smith recorded several different accounts of this experience,[3] and the version of the First Vision later canonized by the LDS Church was not publicly revealed until 1842.[4]

In June 2009, during an extended talk page discussion on seer stones and treasure hunting, John Foxe "moved" the First Vision paragraphs later in the article to the 1827–1830 section on "Organizing the Church." (diff) Oddly, during this "move" the three paragraphs became one, and some material disappeared.

The single paragraph read:

After founding the church, Smith began to publicize an experience he said he had had as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, when he received a theophany, an appearance of God to man, an event that more recent Latter Day Saints have called the First Vision. [26] Smith recorded several different accounts of this experience,[27] and the version of the First Vision later canonized by the LDS Church was not publicly revealed until 1842 and, although the experience was to gain immense theological importance in Latter Day Saint churches, "most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision."[28](See First Vision.)

On October 29, 2009 a new user, User:Wmgcf, noticed that the Early Years section only talked about treasure hunting, and so he tried to replace that with FV material, starting a revert war with several editors (including A Sniper, John Foxe, and Hi540). After being warned on his talk page by A Sniper and Duke53, he began a talk page discussion ([1], [2]) that resulted in COgden adding the following statement to the Early Life section:

According to Smith, he had his First Vision around 1820, in which he said that he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although stories of this vision were unknown to Smith's early followers until the 1840s, they would later take on theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.

which John Foxe revised to read:

Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although this experience at best received only limited circulation until the 1840s, Smith's accounts of what came to be called the First Vision later acquired important theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.

shortly after User:Wmgcf retired from Wikipedia.

In December 2009, the First Vision was split between the Early Life and Establishing a Church sections, and read,

Many years later Smith said he had experienced a theophany around 1820, a vision in which he said he saw and heard the voice of Jesus. Although this experience at best received only limited circulation until the 1840s, Smith's accounts of what came to be called the First Vision later acquired important theological significance within the Latter Day Saint movement.[5]

...

After founding the church, Smith began to publicize an experience he said he had had as a fourteen-year-old in 1820, when he received a theophany, an event more recent Latter Day Saints have called the First Vision.[38] Smith recorded several different accounts of this experience,[39] but the version of the First Vision later canonized by the LDS Church was not publicly revealed until 1842. Although the experience acquired immense theological importance in Latter Day Saint belief, "most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision."[40]

On Dec 5, 2009, during a flurry of edits, COgden removed the second paragraph, calling it redundant and anachronous. (Probably redundant because it was briefly mentioned earlier, and anachronous because it was incorrectly placed in the "1827–1830" section) This edit took with it most of the citations and references on the First Vision, and probably went unnoticed by other editors because there was no discussion of this change on the talk page.

By Dec 10th, 2009, the only mention of the First Vision in the entire article read:

Smith, too, said that about 1820 he had a vision (his First Vision) in which God told him his sins were forgiven,[9] and according to later accounts, that all churches were false.[10] Though unknown to early Latter Day Saints, the vision story would later acquire great theological importance within the Latter Day Saint movement.[11]

On Dec 21, 2011 the article had a grand total of two sentences on the First Vision: one in Early Life, one in Legacy.

Smith later said that he had his own first vision in 1820, in which God told him his sins were forgiven[14] and that all the current churches were false.

...

Of all Smith's visions, Saints gradually came to regard his First Vision as the most important[431] because it inaugurated his prophetic calling and character.[432]

I noticed this problem and added material heavily sourced to Bushman, Brodie, Quinn, and Vogel. John Foxe immediately reverted, beginning a talk page discussion that has been going in circles for over a month now. The paragraph currently reads:

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul and was confused by competing religious denominations.[18] Probably around 1820[19] Smith went to a wooded area to pray[20] and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."[21] Smith said he told a preacher about the experience,[22] who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, further distancing Smith from organized religion.[23] Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.[24]

This short paragraph is possibly the best sourced in the entire article: each citation tag has an average of four sources in it, and it references at least nine reliable sources. John Foxe, who used to sing praises to "reliable sources", saying they were all on his side, has over the last month, all but abandoned them, preferring his own original research and point of view arguments. During this time I have tried to compromise with him, and have offered significant concessions, but it seems that he won't accept anything short of cropping out most of the sourced material, leaving only the parts that conform to his very unique point of view.

Note to other editors: I probably missed some important details and developments in my short history. Please don't be offended if I left you out; I realize that many editors have played significant roles in the development of the article. Also, if I got some details wrong, please set me straight, and feel free to revise the history above. I hope somebody finds this interesting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Foxe's problem with the First Vision paragraph (2)

In a paragraph above I discussed the problems with the current paragraph about the First Vision and suggested a two-sentence compromise. Adjwilley has written copiously about the history of the treatment of the First Vision here, but he has conspicuously not addressed my objections.

Let's try again. Here's the current paragraph about the First Vision:

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned for the welfare of his soul and was confused by competing religious denominations.[18] Probably around 1820[19] Smith went to a wooded area to pray[20] and later said that in response to his prayer he had a vision in which God appeared, told him his sins were forgiven, and that all contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel."[21] Smith said he told a preacher about the experience,[22] who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, further distancing Smith from organized religion.[23] Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.[24]

And here are my objections:

During the 1830s, Smith wrote or dictated many things about the First Vision, many of them contradictory. He said that he had experienced the First Vision more than a decade earlier, but there is no evidence that he told anyone, including his family members, about it. In some versions of the story he said he was concerned about his sins; in most versions, he did not. In the first recounting of the story (1832), in his own handwriting, he said he already knew the churches were corrupt before he had the vision. There is no evidence beyond Smith's testimony for the date (1820), the preacher, or the statement that their interaction distanced him from organized religion. There is no external evidence that Smith had any serious interest in religion during this period, although there's plenty of evidence of his interest in folk magic and treasure hunting. It's possible to say that Bushman or Vogel believe that Smith probably understood the First Vision to be a personal conversion experience, but it's not possible to say it on our own hook because we can't know someone else's mind. (Neither can Bushman or Vogel, but they're authorities and so the notion can be attributed to them.)

Here are some WP:RS that support my objections:

"The evidence, however, leaves no doubt that, whatever Joseph's inner feelings, his reputation before he organized his church was not that of an adolescent mystic brooding over visions, but of a likable ne'er-do-well who was notorious for tall tales and who spent his leisure leading a band of idlers in digging for buried treasure." Brodie, 16.

"Joseph's first published autobiographical sketch of 1834, already noted, contained no whisper of an event that, if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." Brodie, 24. "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family." Brodie, 25.

"I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s. However, his subsequent alterations reflect an evolving theology—particularly the addition of the personage of the Father in his 1838 account—and cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. In fact, one should be cautious, if for no other reason, because Smith himself freely modified his original account." Vogel, 30.

"None, friend or foe, in New York or Pennsylvania remembers either that there was 'great persecution' or even that Joseph claimed to have had a vision. Not even his family remembers it." Palmer, 245.

"According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it." Allen, 30.

"The emergence of the First Vision is a syncretic approach to deal with past doctrinal inconsistencies on a broad scale. What it attempts to do is, in one giant sweep, gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies, such as a plurality of Gods, God being an exalted man, the purpose of the Church, and the calling of Joseph Smith, and place it into an earlier time frame." Widner, 105.

Let me be clear that I'm not asking that these alternate views of the First Vision (which differ from each other) be somehow incorporated into the text. I'm arguing only for a couple of sentences, such as those below, that would eliminate the controversy.

During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith.

--John Foxe (talk) 23:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I trust Adjwilley to write something that is NPOV. The only editor that seems hung up on the 'controversy' is John Foxe. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

@ASniper, Thanks, I do try.

@John Foxe, Thank you for being willing to argue from the sources again. I appreciate the effort you've put into this, and I'll try to be careful in my responses. The short "history" I wrote above was not intended to be a response to anything you've said, but something I researched because I was curious and wrote down because I thought others might find it interesting as well. One thing I noticed in my reading was that historically there has been an "either-or" mentality surrounding the Smith's Vision/religious experience and his treasure seeking activities, as if he couldn't have done both. (I personally think this is a false dichotomy and that Bushman would agree with me.) That said, I will now try to respond to each of your quotations.

"The evidence, however, leaves no doubt that, whatever Joseph's inner feelings, his reputation before he organized his church was not that of an adolescent mystic brooding over visions, but of a likable ne'er-do-well who was notorious for tall tales and who spent his leisure leading a band of idlers in digging for buried treasure." Brodie, 16.

You've quoted this before, but I'll respond again. Having religious experiences and digging for treasure are not mutually exclusive activities. Virtually all the sources agree that Smith had a vision experience of some sort, and then went on with his daily life. Brodie is somewhat of an exception. She seems to view Smith as having been irreligious, and that's something many have criticized her for, including Vogel. (page viii)

"None, friend or foe, in New York or Pennsylvania remembers either that there was 'great persecution' or even that Joseph claimed to have had a vision. Not even his family remembers it." Palmer, 245.

The paragraph says nothing about "great persecution" or Smith telling his family, so this excerpt doesn't really apply. I think it's generally agreed upon that the "great persecution" was a detail that came from later visions that got projected back to the First Vision, whether intentionally or unintentionally we'll never know. Quinn and Vogel seem to take opposing views on that. The paragraph I wrote says nothing of it.

"Joseph's first published autobiographical sketch of 1834, already noted, contained no whisper of an event that, if it had happened, would have been the most soul-shattering experience of his whole youth." Brodie, 24. "If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph's home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family." Brodie, 25.

This quote seems odd because he actually did write it down in 1832...why is she talking about 1834? Perhaps you could explain this for me. Either way, these two quotes don't disprove anything in the paragraph. The paragraph notes that Smith wrote about it in the 1830s and that it was "virtually unknown to early believers". The paragraph also says nothing about him telling members of his own family (who were numbered among the early believers).

The 1832 account was unknown to Brodie; it remained unpublished until 1965.--John Foxe (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was assuming it might have been something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"I suspect that the vision, or at least the claim to a vision, may be traced to 1820-21. I therefore reject the suggestion that Smith invented the vision in the 1830s. However, his subsequent alterations reflect an evolving theology—particularly the addition of the personage of the Father in his 1838 account—and cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. In fact, one should be cautious, if for no other reason, because Smith himself freely modified his original account." Vogel, 30.

I'm surprised you quoted this one, since Vogel openly rejects the view that the vision was made up later. I feel my paragraph complies with this, as I was very cautious not to mention the subsequent alterations, particularly the addition of the personage of the Father. I've made a point not to stick to any account in particular, instead sticking very closely to what the sources say about the experience.

"According to Joseph Smith, he told the story of the vision immediately after it happened in the early spring of 1820. As a result, he said, he received immediate criticism in the community. There is little if any evidence, however, that by the early 1830's Joseph Smith was telling the story in public. At least if he were telling it, no one seemed to consider it important enough to have recorded it at the time, and no one was criticizing him for it." Allen, 30.

Again, my paragraph says nothing of Smith telling the story in public. As for the receiving criticism statement, Quinn and Vogel treat that much more carefully than Allen does, as I have noted above. As for the preacher, that's supported quite solidly by Bushman, Quinn, and Remini, and is not contradicted by Allen.

"The emergence of the First Vision is a syncretic approach to deal with past doctrinal inconsistencies on a broad scale. What it attempts to do is, in one giant sweep, gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies, such as a plurality of Gods, God being an exalted man, the purpose of the Church, and the calling of Joseph Smith, and place it into an earlier time frame." Widner, 105.

Again, I note that my paragraph says nothing of doctrinal inconsistencies, plurality of Gods, or God having a body. (I simply say he had a vision in which God appeared.) I say nothing about a coming Restoration or Church or Calling, saying instead that Joseph saw the vision as a personal conversion (cited to Bushman, Vogel, Allen, and Remini. I suppose I could add Widner to the citation as well).

As far as I can tell, you still seem to be arguing against the so-called "Mormon POV" without actually addressing what's in the paragraph. I understand that you have a long history of arguing against "Mormon POV," so long, perhaps, that you automatically assume anything not written by you is POV. (To read more about this condition, see m:MPOV.) Because my paragraph actually represents the sources instead of your POV, you seem to have assumed that it must be Mormon POV, setting that up as a straw man and arguing against it without actually acknowledging what the paragraph says.

By the way, Since we're finally arguing sources again, I've got one for you. From the preface of Remini's biography:

"I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work." (Remini p. x)

Could you please explain why you disagree with Remini's approach?

~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

When Remini or any of us write for publication under our own names, we can take whatever viewpoint we like on our subject so long as our publishers let us get away with it. Wikipedia, for good and ill, is a different critter.--John Foxe (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I dropped out of here a while ago, thanks to Adjwilley's showing up and taking the long-needed NPOV. It was such a frustrating circular argument that we went through (sorry it took me so long to realize it) and in the end I got the sense the article was being controlled by filibuster. Please, don't throw in the towel, Adjwilley. @JohnFoxe. Thanks for owning up to sockpuppeting (the accusation was as Hi540, I only bring this up because both you and Hi540 are mentioned in the previous section as contributors and so this provides a context for the influencers of the early article). The honorable thing to do is to step away. I don't think you are making many new arguments (Brodie is good, Bushman is okay as long as he is pointing out Joseph's weaknesses...) . I had kind of hoped when I stepped away that you would also, and leave the article to the newer NPOV editors. But having sockpuppeted (I claim guilt there too but only because I didn't know what I was doing with signing in early on), used the talk page as a Mormon-bashing forum, and clearly worked from a polemic POV, you seem to be as ineffective at improving the article as anyone could be. No offense, but as John Lennon wrote, "Let it be." You can take the time you'll save campaigning for 'Anyone-but Mitt' or your current President, the guy who makes Jimmy Carter look like the good old days. You know, being a Canadian I can tell you without reservation that I was anti-Obama before it was cool and not have the teamsters or the SEIU show up at my door to rough me up a bit. Hope I didn't offend too many here. Peace.--Canadiandy talk 06:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a small sidenote, as I don't want to give the wrong impression... as far as I saw, Hi540 didn't play a significant role in the history of the First Vision paragraph(s), but participated more in the magic/hat/stone discussions. That's past now, and I probably shouldn't have mentioned the name in the first place. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Because there is no room in the "early years" section to go into detail about the various shades of opinion on the First vision, the only thing we can reasonably present is what every major writer seems to agree with. This includes: (1) that Smith later claimed to have a theophany in the 1820 time frame, (2) that if such a vision occurred, it passed unnoticed in Palmyra and did not fix itself within the memories of Smith's family, and (3) the story of the vision later took on important theological significance. Is there anything else for which there is a consensus? Why do we need to say more than this in the "early years" section? There is also consensus about the theological impact of the vision story, but that impact is very out of place in the "early years" section, because such a discussion needs some background on Smith's later theological evolution. COGDEN 22:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you about the theological impact not belonging in the Early Life section, and have tried to leave that out. In addition to your three points, I would also say that there is a fairly good consensus on: (1) Some concern about religion; (2) the general content of the vision (the Lord, sins forgiven, and something about church corruption); (3) a distancing from secular religion, which many of the sources present in the context of the preacher's rejection; (4) Most sources agree that Smith saw the vision as a personal conversion, which fits with your 3rd point (in the sense that it didn't become doctrinally significant until later). Would you mind giving a specific opinion on the following paragraph?

During the 1830s Smith wrote that as a youth he had become concerned with religion and that around 1820 he had a vision in which God told him his sins were forgiven, and that contemporary churches had "turned aside from the gospel." Smith said he told a preacher about the experience, who he said dismissed the vision with contempt, distancing Smith from organized religion. Though his "First Vision" would be seen by later generations as Mormonism's founding event, Smith probably understood it as a personal conversion, and the story was unknown to most early believers.

~Adjwilley (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Though I think there is a consensus that Smith was at some point in his adolescence concerned about religion (enough so that he joined a Methodist class), I don't think there is consensus as to how or if that concern relates to the first vision. I don't think there is any consensus about the content of the visions, because there is no one element that is present in every account of the visions. One of the accounts says that Smith saw angels, for example, and some of them (including the canonized version) do not refer to sins being forgiven. The part about churches (as opposed to the world in general) being corrupt did not appear in his accounts until 1838. As to it being a personal conversion, I don't think there is a consensus for that, either, considering that there is not even a consensus that the vision occurred. As to Smith telling a preacher about the experience, I don't think we can include that without also including some caveats and qualifications, namely that there is no corroboration of that from sources other than Smith, and the main candidate for such a preacher is not known to have been in a place where Smith was during the relevant time period, so that if it happened, it might not have happened soon after the vision in 1820. COGDEN 07:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be coming at this from the wrong angle. I agree with you that there is no consensus that the vision occurred, but that was never an issue. There is consensus that Smith said it occurred, that the claim to a vision dated to about 1820, and every biography discusses it in the context of Smith's early life. As for the churches not being corrupt until 1838, I think we're splitting hairs here. The 1832 account says "...the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me..." Though he doesn't say the word "church" it's clearly the same story. That said, I don't think that's an important point, and I personally have never compared the original accounts. I think that doing so goes far beyond the scope of editing Wikipedia. As John Foxe has pointed out so many times, we're supposed to write based on secondary sources, not primary. Though one of Smith's accounts said he saw angels, I've seen no secondary sources arguing that he saw angels instead of the Lord. So far, in the sources I've read, I have seen 100% consensus on that point.

Likewise, with the other points, of course there will be no consensus over whether they actually happened or not, but there is consensus that Smith said they happened. The personal conversion bit comes primarily from unbelieving sources. The preacher bit is one that I'm willing to compromise on and drop entirely when John Foxe decides he's ready to compromise.

That said, I think a big problem with this discussion is the seemingly arbitrary requirement that "the only thing we can reasonably present is what every major writer seems to agree with." Consensus from every major writer is an extremely high standard, one I have not seen in Wikipedia policy, and certainly one that the rest of the article does not meet. Should one subject area have to meet this extraordinarily high standard because a single editor is making a big deal out of it? If so, a person could cut almost anything they want out of this article by arguing a lack of consensus among historians. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You haven't argued that my objections to the current paragraph are incorrect or untrue. You've just argued that secondary sources can be cherry picked in support of your own synthesis. But the secondary sources that I've quoted present a completely different, and equally valid, picture of the event: that Smith was irreligious in his youth; that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions"; that Smith claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study; that there's no mention of a preacher except in Smith's recollections; that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" that "cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account...because Smith himself freely modified his original account"; that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional; and that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame." Brodie speculates that the First Vision story might have been "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging." (25) On what grounds can her opinion be excluded from the paragraph?

I agree with COGDEN that there"s no scholarly consensus for anything other than the information in my suggestion (though, of course, there's nothing sacred about its wording).--John Foxe (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's odd that you accuse me of cherry picking when the paragraph represents the views of nine different sources, (including the ones you quoted above). You seem to be the one who is cropping out Bushman, Vogel, Brodie, and Quinn, in favor of Palmer and Allen. Why do you want to cut those out? WP:NPOV states that: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." I didn't argue that the sources you quoted were untrue. I just argued that they are already proportionately represented in the paragraph.

Also, I'm not at all satisfied with your response to Remini. "He wrote what his publishers let him get away with" is not any reason why we should ignore his viewpoint. So again, could you please explain why we should ignore Remini (or all the other sources you're trying to cut out for that matter). Here's the quote again.

"I should make it clear at the outset that I am not a Mormon. As such I faced several problems in writing this book, one of which involved Joseph's visions and revelations, which are crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived. After considerable thought I decided to present his religious experiences just as he described them in his writings and let readers decide for themselves to what extent they would give credence to them. I am not out to prove or disprove any of his claims. As a historian I have tried to be as objective as possible in narrating his life and work." (Remini p. x)

~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Adjwilley = 1. Foxe = 0. FAIL.  ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You've cherry picked reliable sources to back your personal synthesis of the First Vision story and refused to include other material, also taken from reliable sources, which, as I've demonstrated, presents an entirely different view of the episode. You haven't argued that any of the quotations I've used are unreliable or have been taken out of context. You therefore admit by default that your version of the First Vision story is POV because it only presents one side of the story.

My point about Remini is that he's welcome to take any position he chooses in regard to Joseph Smith. His name's on the book, Bushman's on his, Brodie's on hers, etc. I'm sure all would argue that they were attempting to write in a historically objective fashion.--John Foxe (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read your first paragraph several times now, and the only way it makes sense in my mind is if somebody were saying it to you. Perhaps you should explain yourself better, because so far you seem to be the only one here who's trying to exclude material from reliable sources. Again, your second paragraph gives no reason why we should ignore Remini. Saying that he was attempting to write in a historically objective fashion is no reason to abandon Wikipedia policy. So again: please explain why we should ignore Remini (and perhaps while you're at it, all the other sources you're trying to cut out with your edits). ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:RS sources I've provided the following information: that Smith was irreligious in his youth; that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions"; that he claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study; that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" that "cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account...because Smith himself freely modified his original account"; that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the First Vision story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional; that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame," and finally that the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging." You've not challenged any source or statement, yet the current paragraph about the First Vision reflects none of these ideas.

With apologies to COGDEN, the reason I've advocated a brief mention of the First Vision is that it's not possible to have a longer one. There's no room in the "early years" section to detail every shade of opinion about the First vision that can be found in WP:RS. The only thing we can reasonably present is what every major writer seems to agree on: (1) that Smith later claimed to have a theophany in the 1820 time frame, (2) that if such a vision occurred, it passed unnoticed in Palmyra and did not fix itself within the memories of Smith's family, and (3) the story of the vision later took on important theological significance.--John Foxe (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've already brought up those arguments before, and I've already painstakingly shown that they are a) already given due weight in the paragraph or b) not actually supported by reliable sources. I'd be happy to outline my arguments again, but it's still your turn. You served me six quotes from reliable sources, and I responded to each one, showing how they were represented in the paragraph, and how the paragraph doesn't contradict them. Then I gave you one quote from a reliable source, asking why it should be ignored, and you've skirted around it three times now. If you want me to continue thoughtfully reading and responding to your comments, I would ask that you do me the same courtesy. So again: please explain why we should ignore Remini (and perhaps while you're at it, all the other sources you're trying to cut out with your edits).

As a side note, please remember to thread your posts. Oddly, failure to thread posts on talk pages is listed as one of the 14 characteristics of tendentious editors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tedious. Foxe, Adjwilley has already patiently destroyed your argument. Move on. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Let me just add a brief note about Remini. WP:DUE relates to the presentation of various opposing perspectives in an article, and ensuring that the most prominent perspectives are given the most prominence. Remini's admitted perspective is that of a non-believer. He presented the 1838 story of the first vision after noting his personal disbelief in the veracity of Smith's stories. Remini did not have space to devote more than two pages to the First Vision story: his compromise was to just present the 1838 version uncritically with a note in the preface that he didn't believe it. Writing a Penguin Lives bio of Joseph Smith, he was free to do that. We as Wikipedia writers are not. We have to present all prominent mainstream perspectives, and give the most prominent ones the most prominence. Where we can't do that in the small space we have, we have to present just the consensus facts. COGDEN 07:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

...and Adjwilley is doing this adequately and free of POV. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The point with Remini is that he chose to tell the story, not whether he believed it or not. All the other historians choose to tell the story as well, some more critically than others, but the story is pretty much the same. Please understand, I'm not trying to write that anything actually happened, (as one can see from my liberal use of Smith saids). I'm just trying to present the story as it's told in the sources, and so far, nobody has said why that's wrong. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The statements in the current paragraph represent only cherry picked secondary sources. You've excluded statements that don't reflect your point of view. You haven't answered my objections, just ignored them. For good measure I'll repeat them:

WP:RS sources say that Smith was irreligious in his youth; that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions"; that he claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study; that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" that "cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account...because Smith himself freely modified his original account"; that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the First Vision story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional; that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame," and finally that the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging."

You say all the material above is either represented in the current paragraph or is not taken from reliable sources. Where then is an indication that the variations in Smith's stories "reflect an evolving theology" (Vogel) or that the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging" (Brodie)?--John Foxe (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've sidestepped the Remini quote again. I will answer your objections once again though, in good faith that you will answer mine.

You have provided one reliable source (Brodie) who says Smith's contemporaries didn't consider him religious. I have provided several reliabe sources (Bushman, Vogel, Quinn, Remini, etc.) who say otherwise. Also, as I have mentioned, Vogel criticizes Brodie for treating Smith as being irreligious. Also, if you feel enough weight is not given to Smith's money digging, I'd refer you to the next four paragraphs in the article.

You say that his contemporaries did not consider him an "adolescent mystic brooding over visions." My paragraph says that "the story was unknown to most early believers." You want more?

You say that he "claimed to have discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own Bible study." You've never provided a secondary source from that. That seems to be your own original research.

You quote Vogel saying that Smith's various stories "reflect an evolving theology" and I agree and say that that material belongs later in the article (pretty sure everybody here agrees on that one).

You quote Vogel saying one should be cautions against an uncritical acceptance of even the 1832 account. I agree 100%, which is why I'm not trying to base this on the primary accounts (as you seem to be doing), but instead base it on the works of several historians who have looked at all the accounts critically and synthesized them.

You say that Smith said he received immediate criticism for telling the First Vision story, which (so far as is possible to tell) is fictional. If you read the sources you'll find that either a) Smith mistook the criticism for the gold plates for the criticism for the First Vision or b) Smith was talking about the Preacher. If you choose a) (the Quinn interpretation) then the criticism belongs a couple paragraphs down. If you choose b) (the Bushman interpretation), you'll find that this is already represented in the paragraph ("who he said dismissed the vision with contempt.") If you're trying to add more than that, you're going onto thinner ice in terms of reliable sources.

You say that Smith's telling of the First Vision late in his career was an attempt "to gather all of the doctrinal inconsistencies...and place it into an earlier time frame" (without providing a source). Again: the doctrinal development does not belong in this first vision paragraph. This tidbit belongs later in the article. We're trying to strip it down to the core story, not explore all the possible interpretations and implications.

You say the whole story may be "sheer invention, created some time after 1830 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging." (Sounds like Brodie again, who as you pointed out earlier, didn't even know the 1832 account existed.) I respond: Of course the story may have been sheer invention! That goes without saying. You could say the same thing about Moses's burning bush. What are you suggesting we do? Should we put a disclaimer at the beginning of the article warning the reader that Joseph Smith may have made up his visions? I think not. We should follow the example of reliable sources, giving it its due weight and then moving on. Remini said that Joseph's visions and revelations are "crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived." Speaking of Remini, you still haven't given a reason for why we should ignore him, or any of the other historians you're trying to cut out. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don’t think the Remini quotation has any bearing on our discussion here. He’s an authority who can take responsibility for his own work; we can’t.

Brodie says Smith’s contemporaries didn’t consider him religious as a youth. Neither Bushman, Vogel, nor Quinn have contradicted her statement. That Smith was religious is a belief you’ve intuited from their discussions of Smith's First Vision. (Vogel’s remarks concern Smith’s alleged religiosity in the 1830s, not when he was a teenager.) To counter Brodie, you’d need an authority who says flatly that Smith was religiously minded as a youth and/or that his contemporaries considered him religious. Roger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 6, emphasizes the accuracy of community testimonies to the Smith family’s treasure hunting and lack of religiosity.

“Instead, the 1832 version says Smith discovered the falsity of Christendom through his own personal Bible studies that began at the age of twelve.” Richard Abanes, One Nation under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002), 15-16.

You can’t hide the information that the creation of the First Vision story may reflect an evolving theology by putting that information later in the article. If an authority on Mormon theology such as Widmer says that the telling of the First Vision was an attempt to put doctrinal inconsistencies into an earlier time frame, then that information can’t be hushed up by moving it somewhere else in the article. I’m not interested in a standard disclaimer ("Smith said") but in the second part of Brodie's sentence that the First Vision story may have been created “to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money digging.”

Your version avoids mention of Smith seeing angels, as does his 1835 version, or the two “glorious personages” who appear in all the versions beginning in 1840. Why exclude them when all authorities mention them to one degree or another?

Brodie’s summary says “Joseph’s autobiography would indeed lead one to believe that his vision of God the Father and His Son had created a neighborhood sensation….Oddly, however, the Palmyra newspapers, which in later years gave him plenty of unpleasant publicity, took no notice of Joseph’s vision at the time it was supposed to have occurred.” (23)

I agree with Remini that Joseph's visions are "crucial to an understanding of him, his Church, and the times in which he lived." That doesn't mean that the article has to push the POV that those visions actually occurred.

I'm not interested in ignoring Remini or any other authority, but we can’t write another First Vision article here. That's why we need a simple one- or two-sentence mention of the First Vision that all authorities agree on. I've suggested, "During the 1830s, Smith said that in about 1820, he too had had a vision of God while praying in the woods. Although this experience was virtually unknown to early believers, it would be viewed by succeeding generations of Mormons as the First Vision, the founding event of the faith."--John Foxe (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

John, I think you're getting way to caught up in the theological implications, judging by your gradual retreat from reliable biographies about Joseph Smith into various books critical of Mormonism like An Insider's View and One Nation Under Gods. Why can't we simply use the handful of biographies we already have and treat the First Vision as they do?

As for Smith's interest in religion as a youth, for our purposes it doesn't really matter what his contemporaries said they thought. It only matters what secondary reliable sources think. You've pulled Brodie's quote from its context to try to show he wasn't religiously minded, saying that nobody contradicts it. Actually, Bushman, Vogel, Quinn, and Remini all contradict it (Bushman pointing to the aftereffects of the 1817 revival, Vogel saying that around 1817 Smith was beginning to feel his own religious stirrings, and speaking of Smith's bible reading and awareness of his sins, Quinn's publications talking about Joseph attending the camp meetings, and concern for his sins, Remini on Smith wanting to join a church, and I could go on.) I also think it's slightly ironic that you said I need to find a source saying Smith was religiously minded as a youth, and then in your next paragraph quote Abanes saying that Smith's personal bible studies began at the age of 12. Thanks for that ;-)

As I said before, I left out the angels because that's what all the biographies do. Do I need a better reason than that?

One thing I wish you would stop doing is suggesting that I'm trying to push a POV that the visions actually occurred. That is absolutely not what I'm doing. Stating that Smith said he had a vision does not imply the vision occurred any more than stating Smith said he obtained golden plates implies that golden plates existed. I ask that you leave your theological baggage and your assumptions about me and my motives out of the discussion, and instead focus on what the sources say. They all give a brief synopsis of the vision. Why are you opposed to that? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source is a reliable source, and that includes Abanes and Palmer. I try not to use such if more neutral ones are available, but there's no reason not to use a reliable source just because it's critical of Mormonism.

Bushman, Vogel, Remini, and even Abanes are simply reflecting Smith's testimony. There's no evidence, external to Smith, that he was a bit religious during his teens. His Palmyra neighbors have uncomplimentary things to say about Smith's morality, and Rodger I. Anderson's Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Reexamined (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), another WP:RS, emphasizes the accuracy of those testimonies. Brodie's assessment stands unchallenged unless it can be countered by a secondary source that says Smith was religious in his teens.

Most secondary sources (though not Abanes) may ignore the angels, but even Bushman includes the two shining "personages" (presumably Jesus and God the Father) of the 1838/39 versions and following. On what grounds do you exclude them from your synthetic version of the First Vision?--John Foxe (talk) 20:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Give it up now, Foxe - Adjwilley has won the argument & has won the day. Move on now. Best, A Sniper (talk) 21:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

John, if I might ask you another favor... Would you please stop referring to the paragraph as my "synthetic version" of the First Vision? While the paragraph is definitely a synthesis of Smith's various accounts, it is not my synthesis, and more importantly, it is not original synthesis. It's Bushman's synthesis (which can be found here if anybody wants to check me on that).

You seem to be operating on the assumption that everything Smith said is automatically unreliable. While this is a perfectly valid point of view, I don't think it works for Wikipedia. It's not our job to look at the primary sources and decide who's reliable and who's not. The secondary sources have already done that, and our job is to reflect them. If they take Smith at face value on a particular point, we should probably trust them and do the same—not throw their careful analysis out the door because there's "no evidence, external to Smith." When I get a chance I'd be happy to provide you with more detailed quotes from Bushman, Quinn, Remini, and Vogel, but I've been quite busy recently and I don't have the books with me at the moment.

My reason for excluding the "two personages" is that Bushman mentions them almost as an afterthought to his initial discussion of the Vision as details that came out later, while Vogel strips them out altogether in his effort to get to the "core" of the story. For the purposes of this paragraph, I think it would be best not to try to discuss how many personages there were, though I'm not opposed to the idea. As it stands, the paragraph is slightly ambiguous as to how many personages there were, saying only "God" which could mean the Father, the Son, or perhaps both. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more careful to make clear that I believed your synthesis to be based on Bushman's synthesis. Whenever there's no evidence for a statement other than Smith's testimony, that fact should be acknowledged in the text—something Bushman himself should have done (though the borderline deception of Bushman's discussion here is beyond the scope of what we can argue at Wikipedia because he's a reliable source). I certainly believe you have secondary sources to support your position; but then, so do I. Our goal is to create an NPOV paragraph, and all reliable sources have to be considered, including those that are critical of Smith and Mormonism. For what it's worth, I do believe that every statement made by Smith is unproven unless it can be verified from another source; this is the only prudent position to take at such a controversial article.--John Foxe (talk) 22:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of irritating someone (I don't know who yet) I think this is an extraordinary amount of discussion for a fairly simply matter. I think that offering the 4 versions of paragraphs was a good faith effort to colaborate on the part of JohnFoxe. As someone who is not a Mormon and has little first hand knowledge, i think less is more. The Mormon theological terminology used to describe the kind of vision he had was irrelevant to me. I am sure it belongs in a BYU text book, but for an encyclopedia, it just seems like too much information to be useful in getting a sense of who the guy was. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

@Elmmapleoakpine: Thank you for being willing to stick your neck out and comment at a discussion like this. I agree about the extraordinary length of this discussion (the first bit is archived already), but I think that eventually John Foxe and I will come to an understanding. I think he sees this as being an issue of fighting what he perceives as being a "Mormon point of view", while I see it as being an issue of keeping the article in line with reliable sources. They are both noble causes, and should not necessarily be incompatible with each other. Though this particular discussion has been going in circles for a while, I think we are gradually getting closer to a compromise.

I do have one question for you where I'd be very interested in your opinion. You mentioned the "theological terminology" used to describe the vision. I was wondering if you'd be willing to have a look at the paragraph in question and perhaps offer an opinion on which parts you see as being theological jargon. I've put a copy of it here without the citation clutter if you're interested. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, as I see it, the reason why we can't just "tell the story" with liberal use of "Smith saids" is that the thing that must be given DUE prominence is perspectives. Joseph Smith's perspective on the first vision, whether related through Remini or directly from the LDS canon, is just one perspective. And it happens to be a minority perspective. It is also a minority perspective that the first vision mattered much, if at all, to Smith's early history. Therefore, merely giving it too much space in the "early years" section gives undue importance to the perspective that the vision was a momentous historical event. So rather than outlining all the different perspectives on the first vision at this point, or just providing one Smith perspective while ignoring the others, I think it is better to just very briefly state a few consensus facts. There is no argument that the first vision story was a rather important part of his impact, so it is much easier to devote more space in that context, rather than in the historical context of his early life. COGDEN 02:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

John Foxe and I have come to an agreement on a short, two-sentence version. The citations are still a tad messy, but those can easily be cleaned up. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate User talk:Adjwilley's willingness to talk this through and reach a compromise we both can accept.--John Foxe (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Adjwilley, It may be too late to be useful, but the theological terminology I was most confused by was "First Vision" and "Personal Conversion". On second look perhaps these were not Theological terms, but in the context of both the paragraphs you showed me, the use of them was not clear and I assumed they were religious terms. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Seer stone stuff

Seems there is a dispute over "seer stones" in the lead. Apparently the young Joseph had some stones that he used for finding (or searching for) buried treasures. That fits the scrying usage. Then he later used the same "seer stones" in a religious context in translating some gold plates -- and this transformed the "stones" into something different and they became seer stones (Latter Day Saints). A user and some anons want to say the scrying stones used to find treasures were religious objects before the fact. Now to me that's a bit off ... but "miracle" stuff often is. Does there exist a reliable source that states when these "magical stones" became and/or should be considered religious objects? Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the new user and the IP are the same editor - an eager beaver who removed anything related to treasure hunting, including secondary sources. I've since warned the user, and hope the drift is gotten. Best, A Sniper (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is no reason to specifically mention the seer stones in the lead. The mention of folk religious practice is sufficient at that point. The lead is supposed to be a quick summary of the article, having sentances that begin with "for example" is the antithesis of this. Also, since there are absolutely no sources in the lead, the attack on people for removing sentances that are "linked to secondary sources" is an unjustified attack on those who seek to inprove this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing mention of the seer stones from the lead is a brazen attempt to push a religiously motivated POV.--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Seer Stones mention is probably not best put in the lead. However, I don't think it is as you say a brazen attempt to push religiously motivated POV. The seer stone "stuff" is arguably why Joseph Smith became historically significant. A Morman perspective is needed for this article to be fully developed and if in instances people use "theological terminology" in the article in the everyday way they might speak about such things, I don't think that is an automatic attempt to push POV. While I know there has been a lot of back and forth, I think we can still assume good faith here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC) BTW- I am happy to continue contributing to this discussion, I would just ask if you really wan't my input to make a post on my talk page. THX!

• Elmmaplaeoakpine, you miss what was said. Foxe had the audacity to claim that not mentioning the seer stone is "religious POV". Not mentioning the seer stone in the lead is giving due weight. We mention "folk religious practices". That is sufficient for the lead. The whole point of a lead is to focus on the most important items. The connection between seer stones and the Book of Mormon is an issue that is open to debate. Foxe clearly wants us to not only assume that the seer stone is the main thing used to translate the Book of Mormon, but he wants to argue that the way the plates were found was through the use of a seer stone. Foxe is the one with a "blatantly religious POV". I am just removing a fact that opens up a complexed set of issues from discussion at a point in the lead where it serves no purpose. I still think the lead needs to be reduced to be even shorter. Encyclopedia articles are not meant to cover everything possible. If people want to learn more about folk religious practices they can go and search this out elsewhere. There is no purpose served by mentioning the seer stone in the lead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm adding factual content, based upon public documents from that period. While Smith may not have repudiated the stone's power, the practice of using stones to find treasure was considered illegal at the time, and that Smith was found guilty in a court of law for engaging in this practice. The fact that Smith didn't repudiate the stone's power after being found guilty could lead the reader to conclude (amongst many other things) that Smith:

• believed that their were laws of man and/or laws of nature and/or laws of a Supreme Being (a preliminary basis fo a separation of Church and State argument)
• had power/ability/guidance derived from a Supreme Being or other extra-terrestrial source
• was unique among men, and possessed abilities beyond that of the average man, etc.

In Summary, I believe that showing that Smith held to his beliefs (or at least didn't repudiate them) after being found guilty by a court of law, says a lot about the man. How one interprets that is up to the reader.Bilbobag (talk) 14:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Seer_stone_(Latter_Day_Saints)&oldid=476834552" Bilbobag (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems the referenced material should go in the article body. As stated in the edit summary removing the seer stone bit from the lead: "mentioned sufficiently in the body of the article", if it is covered "sufficiently" in the body, then should be summarized or mentioned in the lead. Vsmith (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Good comment. Took your suggestions and those of FyzixFighter - combined this into a single summary sentence.Bilbobag (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To John Foxe and A Sniper. I believe the following should be added to the "early Life" section. It's sequential from a time perspective, presents a variety of viewpoints while maintaining a NPOV, provides the reader with a better perspective within which to understand Smith, and is factual and sourced. Would appreciate comments?

Court records from Bainbridge, New York, show that Smith, identified as "The Glass Looker," was before the court on March 20, 1826, on a warrant for an unspecified misdemeanor charge,[84] and that the judge issued a mittimus for Smith to be held, either during or after the proceedings.[85] Although Smith's associate Oliver Cowdery (who had not met Smith as of 1826) later stated that Smith was "honorably acquitted",[86] the result of the proceeding is unclear, with some eye-witnesses (including the court reporter) claiming he was found guilty, others claiming he was "condemned" but "designedly allowed to escape," and yet others claiming he was "discharged" for lack of evidence.[85] In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end."[8] Bilbobag (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My own preference would be for a simple statement that treasure hunting was illegal in New York and that Smith was once brought to court for "glass looking." Except for the quotation from Bushman, the rest is footnote material.--John Foxe (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, and one I'm not opposed to. However, any telling of Smith's life is loaded with controversy(s). I believe that not establishing/identifying all the incidents in his life for which there is controversy, fails to provide the reader with the whole story of the man's life. I'm not advocating to take a side in any of the controversies, simply that we identify it as an event that had controversy. I believe that failing to identify when there are controversies (and what they are) fails to provide a complete picture of any individual or event, and that is a disservice to the reader...it's almost as if we're intentionally "sweeping things under the rug". Bilbobag (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My concern is stylistic. (No one who's been reading this page for more than a couple days would suggest that I was trying to sweep under the rug anything disparaging of Joseph Smith.) A couple of sentences is enough for an encyclopedia article: "When Smith was twenty, he was charged in Bainbridge, New York court with "glass looking," which was a criminal offense at the time. In the words of Richard Bushman, there is ample evidence that Smith never "repudiated the stones or denied their power to find treasure. Remnants of the magical culture stayed with him to the end." The rest goes in the footnote.--John Foxe (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

John -Didn't mean to imply that my comment was directed at you. Apologies if that's how it came across. Rather I was trying to explain to editors in general (both on this page and the Seerstones in Mormonism page) that Smith's life had many controversies. Failing to detail them isn't in anyone's best interest. My approach would be to list the various POVs and let the reader come to thier own conclusions (see my post below)/ Again, apologies.Bilbobag (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added information about the 1826 event (I'm not calling it a trial). The first change was to remove the Ostling reference that Smith was found not guilty. They actually state the exact opposite. I've included their conclusions about the result of the 1826 event, as well as 2 other, differing statements about the result of the 1826 event. By listing the various POVs we can let the reader come to their own conclusions.Bilbobag (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed as too detailed for the lead section and the bracketed numbers indicate it was copied from some other article. Vsmith (talk) 16:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've moved details to the "Early Years" section, with a single line in the lead section. In the detailed section I reference the source. Hope this helps Bilbobag (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

That is one part of my objection, how about fixing thos braketed ref numbers in you cut & paste copy? Vsmith (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree that that should be done, and was in process of doing same, when FyzixFighter removed all additions. In an attempt to come to consenses, am eliminating single line from lead (Still don't uinderstand how this is "too much", but will comply). Am re-instating the paragraph to Early Years section, with appropriate referenceing.Bilbobag (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have rolled back your recent edits, Bilbobag, as this is undue weight for the lede. Add secondary sources to the existing footnote or place the info later in the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I can see that Bilbobag did indeed place the paragraph in the Early Years section. However, it is a rambling piece that needs Wiki work before it is reinserted. Even Foxe would allow that much of it is footnote fodder, especially the 'conflicting POVs'. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Appreciate comments. Will re-write, using bulleted points to show the various outcomes (. Am working on/learning protocol for footnotes. Bilbobag (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

There is limited space in the article, so we need to make sure that we don't give the 1826 trial itself too much space. A lot has been written about his 1826 trial, but it was, after all, a misdemeanor charge. Smith was later arrested twice for capital crimes, and the emphasis on his 1826 misdemeanor charge ought not to be out of proportion to the amount of space spent on those other proceedings. I think mention of the 1826 trial should be no more than one sentence in the body of the article, and that it does not merit mention in the lede. Smith's religious and magical use of seer stones in general is quite important, however, mainly because the stones were an important element of early Mormon mysticism, and was integrally connected with his early status as a prophet, and with the translation of the Book of Mormon. I think the existing balance on that is fairly good. COGDEN 01:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree and have added that one sentence.--John Foxe (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a funny thing that all of us seem to have missed - a sentence on the 1826 court proceedings has already been in the early life summary section, placed chronologically after the 1823 Moroni visions. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Moroni or Nephi?

I suggested that the name Moroni not be used in the lead text because of the variant use of the name "Nephi." The 1842 version reads: "Immediately a personage appeared at my bedside, standing in the air....He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi; that God had a work for me to do." The 1851 edition of The Pearl of Great Price reads "He called me by name and said unto me, that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi." In the 1832 account, Smith does not call the angel by name at all; instead "the angel of the Lord" tells him about plates engraved "by Maroni." So if the angel spoke about Moroni, he shouldn't be Moroni.--John Foxe (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - fair point, Foxe. What say everyone? Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the most pertinent name to use depends on what the various LDS denominations believe and teach at this time. For the LDS Church, the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price teaches that it was Moroni that appeared to the Prophet Joseph Smith. This teaching is substantiated by Church History in the Fulness of Times and the 2012 Deseret News Church Almanac. What do other Latter Day Saint denominations currently teach? If it were just the LDS Church under discussion, I would say to use Moroni. But where there are other denominations involved in the Latter Day Saint movement, some consensus should be reached based upon the current teachings of all religions affiliated with the movement. Good idea, or not? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

It isn't clear why the April 1838 history said "Nephi." The name of the angel had been identified in church publications as "Moroni" as early as 1835, and Smith explicitly identified him as Moroni in July 1838, just a few months after he wrote his 1838 history. Maybe Smith believed he saw both Nephi and Moroni. Maybe he got confused. Maybe he changed his mind one way and then back again. I don't have a big problem using the name "Moroni," but at one point in the history of the article I think we just said "an angel" an linked to the angel Moroni article. COGDEN 00:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I hadn't thought of that. That being the case, I can now definitely say I am more in favor of using the name Moroni. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

As to what other denominations use/teach: the Community of Christ typically highlights the discrepancy between the 1838 version and the other versions. It doesn't really take a position on why the discrepancy exists: it just notes that there is one. In the Wikipedia context, I don't have a problem with it just saying "an angel", but I suppose it should still link to Angel Moroni, since that's the article that talks about the angel identified by Smith. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)