Talk:First Vision/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about First Vision. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Mouw / Jensen quotes deleted from the lead?

Great Honk, I take a week off to recover from cornea surgery and look what happens. Not a lot of time this morning, and it's still a bit difficult to work on the computer but I just want to make it clear that I don't agree with this deletion. I think both quotes performed a useful function in the lead. John Foxe doesn't like the Mouw quote, Bill doesn't like the Jensen quote, so, hey, let's just delete them both. I'll have more to say about this later. 24.123.96.74 13:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Bill doesn't like the Jensen quote presented in a POV manner. While he acknowledges the differences, I believe he tempers that point with an admission that his own perspective has changed as he has aged, implying that might be what happened with Smith. Repeated efforts to bring that balance out of the footnote into the body of the text kept getting reverted, and so I finally removed the entire quote.

I will repeat what I have said before - it is entirely possible that Smith didn't realize the significance of the First Vision until later in life. That is difference than the importance of the vision - anytime somebody has a vision it will be perceived as important. However, both his parents and some grandparents all had vision-like experiences, so he might have thought this was his own spiritual experience, just like everyone else.

I had a friend who when she was young, had to travel via bus and streetcar to get to school. She figured out that if she sat near the people with a white or yellow glow around them she was safer than if she sat near the people with darker glows. It wasn't until much later that she realized that others weren't able to see these glowings. She thought everyone else were like her, and so she never mentioned it to anyone until she was grown, and happened to mention it in passing. Only then did she realize how significant her ability was.

Smith was known for the Book of Mormon. That came about through the vision with Moroni, and so that was the vision that was emphasized most during his life time. That was the vision that described how the Book of Mormon came from, and so that was the vision that was talked about the most. The fact that many versions mixed the two visions together demonstrates that the First Vision didn't stand out in the minds of people during that time. It seems logical to me that Smith wasn't aware of the uniqueness of the first vision until much later in his life. IMHO, that is the point that Jensen was making. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure why JS didn't talk about the FV more in the early days of the church. Maybe he was worried about how people would react, based on his past experience sharing the full account. Maybe he was inspired to lead with the Book of Mormon, after all, lots of people at that time (and even today) claimed visions, but a book is something you can hold in your hand and experience for yourself. Maybe he didn't remember or understand all the details until later. Bill shared the experience of a friend, let me share a personal experience. My parents joined the church when I was 2. I have a memory that I believe is of my receiving a name and a blessing when I was 3, along with many other memories of my childhood even today. When I was 11 our family went to the Los Angeles temple and were sealed. But as good as my memory is, I didn't remember anything about the sealing until I saw my father in the sealing room at the Salt Lake temple at my wedding. That's right, when I saw my father, dressed in his temple clothes, standing next to the altar, I remembered being sealed to my parents, I remembered wondering about the way they were dressed, but I had never remembered or thought about it until that day. These things are sacred, and it's a good thing that I didn't remember them until later. I went thru a seriously rebelious period as a teenager, I hate to think of what I might have done or said if I'd had those memories at that time. 74s181 02:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

So, yes, it is easy for me to believe that JS didn't remember or understand some of the details of the FV until he received priesthood keys and further light and knowledge later in life. But is there any record of him explaining this? I don't think so, and he isn't available for cross examination. So the best we can do is expert speculation, I agree that this is what Jensen is saying. I just don't think this belongs in the lead. 74s181 02:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I have more time now. BTW, in case you didn't figure it out, that was me, I guess my login had timed out without my realizing it. 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the section as of 21:39, 3 June 2007, not the latest version, but close enough.

Although most members of churches associated with the Latter Day Saint movement believe the vision actually occurred...

Who knows what members believe? There are, however, references that show what most denominations teach. 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

...they differ in regard to its significance and the accuracy of its canonical details.

WP:UNDUE again. More than 90% are members of TCoJCoLdS, which teaches that the FV is the most significant event since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and has canonized one account which is referenced and quoted by leaders and members of the church. CoC, the second largest denomination also teaches that the FV is highly significant but doesn't take a position on which account is true. CoC(TL) and the other denominations that I know anything about stick with the JSH account. 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Current LDS Church Historian Marlin Jensen, after affirming belief in the vision "with all [his] heart," admitted being "struck by the difference in [Smith's] recountings."

Balanced, neutral, short, to the point, and complements the Mouw quote. The last part of this quote was originally at the end of the article, increasing the contrast and negative impact of the Hinckley quote. I looked up the interview, found the Jensen belief statement and added it to the quote to balance it, then move the whole thing to the lead to balance the Mouw quote. 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

He then noted that his perspective of certain events from his own youth has changed over the years.

This sentence seems to be the sticking point. Bill, I think I understand what you're trying to say with this, but I have to agree with John Foxe (gasp!). I think this is too complicated of an idea to try to explain in the lead, but I also think that the idea should be part of the article. 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Richard Mouw, an evangelical theologian and student of Mormonism, who rejects Smith's claim that "members of the godhead really appeared" to him, has nevertheless attributed an instinctive "sincerity to Joseph Smith," a belief that Smith was not "simply making up a story that he knew to be false in order to manipulate people." And so, said Mouw, "I live with the mystery."

I think the Mouw quote really helps the lead, especially the last part "I live with the mystery". I think that this statement, coming from a 'critic', really helps to put this pile of 'historical facts' into proper perspective, especially after he says that he rejects Smith's claims. 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the Jensen and Mouw statements provide a very interesting contrast. These two men, coming from totally opposite POV both say that they know the FV is True / False, they are certain, and yet, they have questions, it's a mystery. Isn't the lead supposed to interest the reader, make him want to read the article? Does encyclopedic tone have to be boring? 74s181 02:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

After a week with no comments, I've restored the Jensen / Mouw quotes. I've rewritten the controversial sentence, but personally, I don't think it is as significant as the other things that Jensen and Mouw said. 74s181 02:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe reverts again...

Two so far this evening. 74s181 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

LMS (Lucy Mack Smith) - JS 'gift for storytelling'

Joseph Smith, Jr. - She also noted his gift for storytelling, how he could regale the family with "the most amusing recitals that could be imagined" about "the ancient inhabitants of this continent."

While checking the citation I discovered that this quote was taken completely out of context. LMS is talking about the things that Joseph was telling the family what he learned after he began meeting with the angel Moroni. This is out of sequence (after second vision, not before FV), and she says nothing about a gift for storytelling. So I deleted the sentence, explaining why, John Foxe reverted with no explanation or discusion. 74s181 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

LMS doesn't mention the First Vision. The comment occurs before JS receives the plates, so there's no problem.--John Foxe 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

LMS does in fact mention the FV, but the quote is presented in "Historical Context / Joseph Smith, Jr.", that is, before the FV. The 'recitals' about the 'ancient inhabitants' are recorded on page 85 of LMS "Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations". The second vision is recorded begining page 78, and on page 83, LMS writes:

The ensuing evening, when the family were all together, Joseph made known to them all that he had communicated to his father in the field, and also of his finding of the Record, as well as what passed between him and the angel while he was at the place where the plates were deposited...

...Alvin observed it, he said, "Now, brother, let us go to bed, and rise early in the morning, in order to finish our day's work at an hour before sunset, then, if mother will get our suppers early, we will have a fine long evening, and we will all sit down for the purpose of listening to you while you tell us the great things which God has revealed to you."

Accordingly, by sunset the next day we were all seated, and Joseph commenced telling us the great and glorious things which God had manifested to him...

...he proceeded to relate further particulars concerning the work which he was appointed to do, and we received them joyfully...

From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening, for the purpose of listening together every evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same...

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.

So, according to LMS, Joseph had received considerable instruction from angelic messengers before he started giving 'recitals' about the 'ancient inhabitants of this continent'. And nowhere does LMS say anything to suggest that she believes Joseph was engaging in 'storytelling'. 74s181 01:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Vogel on tax records

Date of the First Vision - In the 1838 version of his story, Smith says that the First Vision occurred in "the second year after our removal to Manchester," and Manchester land assessment records suggest...

The word "suggest" used in the body of the article, and the word "indicates" in the footnote are both opinion words, and 'suggest' that the tax records don't quite say what Vogel would like them to say. For this statement about tax records to be fact we need a quote from the tax record stating that the increase was due to construction of a cabin. There are other possible explanations, this could 'indicate' that the existing cabin was added to, or it could 'suggest' that a frame house was constructed, both of these are things we know happened. On June 4 I attributed the statement to Vogel, and added a balancing opinion from Tucker. John Foxe removed the attribution and buried the Tucker info in the footnote, stating that it was unreliable. This evening I re-attributed the statement and added a ref where Lucy Mack Smith says the frame home (which was built some time after the original log cabin) was under construction at the end of 1822. John Foxe reverted without discussion but gave an explanation, stating that what Vogel says the tax records 'suggest' or 'indicate' is a fact, not his opinion. 74s181 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I've used the word "suggest" deliberately. It's possible but unlikely that public records are less reliable than an anti-Mormon's memory of something that occurred forty years previous. That slim chance is correctly buried in the footnotes.--John Foxe 23:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not said that the public records are less reliable than 'an anti-Mormon's memory'. But as I previously explained, LMS says that they were completing their frame house at the end of 1822. Once more, WHAT DO THE PUBLIC RECORDS SAY? DO THEY SAY THAT THE TAX ASSESSMENT INCREASED BECAUSE THE SMITH'S BUILT A LOG CABIN? OR IS THAT VOGEL'S OPINION? And BTW, what, exactly, is Vogel, besides "...the author of a number of books related to early Mormon history"? Is he a historian? What are his credentials? I ask this, so that the next time I attribute an opinion to him I can introduce him properly, I would hate to have to introduce him as a 'critic'. 74s181 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe has reverted again, without discussion. His comment:

(I know it's embarrassing, but let the land records speak for themselves)

As I previously said, I'm perfectly willing to let the land records speak for themselves, but John Foxe, while insisting on having Vogel interpret the records, also refuses to allow the opinion to be attributed to Vogel, and refuses to allow this fact to be identified in the article. 74s181 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC) I've provided three alternate versions of this paragraph. John Foxe has reverted three times without discussion. Now The Jade Knight is accusing me of edit warring, see below. I ask again, WHAT DO THE TAX RECORDS ACTUALLY SAY? Am I going to have to waste $42 on Vogel's book to find out? I'm pretty sure they don't have this at the public library. 74s181 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to let the tax records speak for themselves, I'm not willing to let Vogel's interpretation of the tax records be presented as undisputed fact. 74s181 04:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

AHA! According to Craig Ray, on FAIRLDS.org (http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf), although the property the Smith's acquired in 1818 was in what became Manchester, they mistakenly built their log cabin 59 feet North of the Palmyra / Manchester boundary, on the Palmyra side. As I suspected, what the Manchester tax records show in 1823 is the completion of the frame house, built to replace the cabin. Now I have to figure out how to put this into the article, no time right now. 74s181 12:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fourth try. I re-edited, once again attributing the Vogel opinion and this time balancing it with the Craig Ray info. I suspect John Foxe will just revert again, but I guess this is the way Wikipedia works, some of us try to follow the rules, others just do what they want. 74s181 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

'Proof' that JS didn't tell anyone about the FV when it occured - LMS history

BTW, if anyone is counting, John Foxe reverted again at 23:36, 15 June 2007, that's three reversions in 24 hours.

...but Lucy did not mention this conversation in her own history.^[1]

Actually if you count her inclusion of the JSH account then she did mention it. However, I think what John Foxe is implying by his insistence that this statement remain is that LMS makes no specific reference in her own voice. Yes, this particular book by LMS doesn't contain such a statement, but you can't prove a negative like this. You need to cite an expert who says that LMS never confirmed JS statement, this will then become a conflicting view per WP:NPOV and will require attribution. 74s181 14:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of context

Some 'facts' have been taken out of context to support statements in the article that are not true. 74s181 13:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Methodist 'exhorter'

Article says:

...and reportedly spoke during some Methodist meetings, being described by an associate as a "very passable exhorter."

Original text (Turner 1851) says:

But Joseph had a little ambition; and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; and subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings.

Original quote is about Joseph's skill as an 'exhorter' in the evening meetings of a juvenile debate club, not as an 'exhorter' in Methodist meetings. Having read the original quote, I disagree with the interpretation, therefore, this 'fact' is disputed, therefore, if someone believes that this quote says Joseph was an exhorter in Methodist meetings then they will need to attribute this interpretation to an expert who expresses this opinion. 74s181 13:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

You need to check the meaning of the word "exhorter," which has particular reference to the Methodist church. In fact, I once had a definition in a footnote that got erased somewhere along the way.--John Foxe 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster (http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exhorter) says:

Exhort

transitive verb

to incite by argument or advice : urge strongly <exhorting voters to do the right thing>

intransitive verb

to give warnings or advice : make urgent appeals

— ex·hort·er noun

Exhorter is a word that is much more commonly used outside of Methodism. I suspect that you don't agree with the LDS movement definition of Apostle or Prophet, why should I care about the Methodist definition of exhorter? Clearly, the context of the quote is Joseph's activities in the juvinile debating club. If you disagree then we have a conflicting view per WP:NPOV and you need to attribute the opinion that Joseph was a Methodist exhorter to some expert. 74s181 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

This seems rather blatantly obvious in the context of the quote; it has to do with a debate club and not religion. John, you are stretching things out of reality to fit your agenda. This is highly POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is John Foxe who is stretching it. My personal opinion is that some anti-Mormon writer stretched it, and John Foxe took the comment and the reference and dropped it here without checking the original source material. But I could be wrong. 74s181 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the reference to Joseph Smith being a good "exhorter" for the debate club deserves mention in one of his biographical articles; can anyone tell me where and when this comment is referring to, so I can place it in the appropriate article?

Removed text: being described by an associate as a "very passable exhorter."^{[verification needed]}^[2] The Jade Knight 21:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.#Childhood already has a reference to Joseph's participation in the debate club. Interestingly, later in that article is the same mistaken statement about Joseph being a Methodist exhorter, citing the same reference as for the debate club. 74s181 00:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added the description of his being a "very passable exhorter" there. The other reference to him being a Methodist exhorter should be corrected there, as well. Would you mind doing this? The Jade Knight 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Every history I've seen interprets the quote in Turner as referring to Smith being an exhorter at the Methodist meetings. The juvenile debate club was on Durfee street, whereas the Methodist camp meetings were "away down in the woods, on the Vienna road" (that Methodist camp meetings occurred there is verified from other sources). The "and subsequently" in the quote refers to an additional instance in which his mother's intellect showed through him (the first being the debate club, the second being the Methodist meetings". The term "exhorter" is almost a term-of-art for 19th century protestant revival meetings. An exhorter is someone who, after the sermon was given by the tent preacher, would testify that what the preacher said was true, and "exhort" them to follow their counsel. COGDEN 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I read the original paragraph as I was checking citations. I interpreted it to mean that subsequent to Joseph catching the spark of Methodism in the meetings down in the woods, he became a better exhorter in the evening meetings of the debate club. After reading COGDEN's comments I reread the paragraph. I suppose it could be interpreted to be giving two separate examples of the spark of his mother's intellect. 74s181 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding COGDEN's statement 'every history', I did a google search and came up with http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2004_Anti-Mormons_and_Documentary_Sources.html which interprets the paragraph the same way I did, and adds another question, how did Joseph become a Methodist 'exhorter' when he was never officially a Methodist? 74s181 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, I have no problem with this statement being in the article, but since it is disputed it will have to be attributed to an expert. We can then balance it, maybe with the FAIRLDS article, maybe there is something better. 74s181 02:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A good description of the exhorter can be found at Dave's Mormon Inquiry, about as neutral a source as you're going to find on the web. I'm currently far from home, my books, and my computer, but next week, I'll go through all the challenged sentences and provide citations. (How can LMS not mentioning the First Vision be OR? If she didn't mention it, she didn't mention it.)--John Foxe 03:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

So, she never once in her life mentioned it? How do you know? Even if you were with her every second of her life and know for a fact she didn't, that knowledge would still count as original research. Anyone claiming that she "never mentioned" something must have done some sort of research amounting to what scope he is making the negative claim in—she never mentioned it in a single source? She never mentioned it in any written source in which she has been quoted? Or she never mentioned it in her entire life? Do you see how such a claim needs a citation to avoid being OR? The Jade Knight 03:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English dictionary gives two definitions for the word Exhorter in use during this period. One is the specific religious sense, and the other (being the first definition) (with citations from 1660 and 1875) is a more general sense: "One who exhorts or urges on to action." In a 19th century debate club focusing on political issues, this first, generic, definition is perfectly appropriate. Regarding the text of the statement itself, there is nothing in the statement that implies that the "evening meetings" were religious at all.

Mark the syntax of the paragraph:

"Joseph had a little ambition; and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shown out in him…; and subsequently… he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings." These meetings may or may not have been the debate meetings. They may have simply been meetings of friends in the evenings, or family gatherings, or could have been any other sort of meeting imaginable—the syntax of the paragraph clearly shows that, syntactically, "the meetings" does not refer either to the Methodist "camp meeting", nor necessarily to the debate club. However, in context, it seems like the debate club would be the more likely candidate for the "meetings", because "the camp meeting" may be contrasted to "evening meetings" (singular vs. plural); and because the independent phrase "evening meetings" has been chosen, rather than a relative description ("those camp meetings"), which has been eschewed; and also because, syntactically, "he was a very passable exhorter" is separated from "the camp meeting"; the two are not linked syntactically at all.

Ultimately, the passage is still ambiguous—it does not specify which "evening meetings" are referred to. But it is clear that the location of the "camp meeting" given does not refer (syntactically) to the "evening meetings", and the two should not be confused. The Jade Knight 03:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure the FAIR web article is a reliable source. It was a presentation (somewhere) that was turned into a web site that could change tomorrow, as far as I know. And who is the author Matthew B. Brown? Has he published somewhere? This is the only source suggesting this interpretation of Tucker, and if it isn't reliable, we can't cite it. Anybody know anything about Brown, or about his presentation, and whether his ideas were published? Incidentally, Tucker didn't say Smith was a Methodist exhorter, just that he became an exhorter after gaining a "spark" of Methodism. A "spark" doesn't make a Methodist. But he had every right, at the Methodist camp meetings, to "exhort" on whatever topic he wanted, if he could get people to listen to him, though Tucker said some of his preachings were considered "blasphemous". Methodist camp meetings were not the sort of organized Methodist services that you see today. A camp meeting was a raucous party where people got drunk, people were speaking in tongues and faith healing, and they sold concessions and wares. Smith could easily have "exhorted" there without joining the church. COGDEN 00:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why you're discussing FAIR with me—I've made no mention of FAIR. You are also ignoring the 1st definition for "exhorter" provided by the Oxford English Dictionary (a reliable source, I would say). 19th century debates on politics quite often included appeals to action. Indeed—the 20th century debate club I was in often included exhortation to action amongst the politically inclined members. The Jade Knight 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned FAIR because they sponsor the only source for the "debate club exhorter" theory. All you are saying might be true, but if you can't find a reliable source, it's an academic exercise. OED doesn't help, because you are still making an inferential leap that has to be independently supported. COGDEN 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of parsing, the "debate club exhorter" theory doesn't really make much sense. Tucker says, first, that Smith helped solve some ethical problems at the debate club. That sounds "passable" to me, even if you referred to "exhorting" as a form of debate. If he was already a good (passable) debater, then why would Tucker mention the subsequent "spark of Methodism"? COGDEN 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the syntax of the sentence. "evening meetings" is, in three separate ways, been separate syntactically from "the camp meeting" where Smith caught "a spark of Methodism". The two are not connected syntactically at all. An easy explanation for the mention of "the camp meeting" is that, only AFTER having attended a camp meeting and catching on to the "excitement" of it (per se) did he become a passable exhorter. If his attendance of the camp meeting marked the beginning of (or an improvement upon) him becoming a passable exhorter (as, indeed, the very syntax of the cited paragraph supports!), there would be a perfectly good reason to mention the camp meeting in relation to him being a passable exhorter. Pay attention to the syntax—with a sentence as long as that, it's easy to miss the nature of what's being said. (I found that studying Kant can help one to hone in on syntax in long sentences... the only way to understand him well is to pay close attention to it) The Jade Knight 03:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't doubt this is an interesting parsing, but this is all original research you're giving me, and I still don't buy it, since "junior debate club" is even further separated (by a semicolon) from "evening meetings" than is "the camp meeting". That's not the point, though, because unless there is a reliable source, that interpretation might as well not exist for our purposes, given the hefty weight of authority to the contrary by both Mormons and non-Mormons, (and that fact that Turner used the term "exhorter" elsewhere in his book to refer to religious exhorters, see p. 393).COGDEN 21:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it's not original research (unfortunately, I don't think many people who have studied that sentence have training in Linguistics), and, as I've stated before, the sentence remains ambiguous. However, OR, in the sense of interpreting citations and integrating them into an article is a necessary evil in Wikipedia. If Wikipedia editors were forbidden from interpreting sources, Wikipedia would contain nothing but Public Domain and plagiarized text. If it is this controversial, I think we are best off leaving it out of the article entirely unless someone can provide a compelling explanation-in-citation from a higher authority—the syntax of the sentence in question does not lend itself to an interpretation that Smith was an exhorter at Methodist meetings (though there may perhaps be evidence somewhere else that states that he was?) The Jade Knight 08:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem here is that many people assume that Smith being an exhorter at Methodist camp meetings means that he must have been a Methodist, which would contradict his own story and make him a liar. This is not the case. Smith could have been an exhorter while being simply Methodist-curious. Here's some background material on "exhorters" in works that cite Turner:

David Persuitte (2000) Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, p. 14: "An 'exhorter' was a young man with some ability at public speaking who was urged by the circuit preacher or the class leader to 'exercise his gifts' in the meetings."
H. Michael Marquardt (2005), The Rise of Mormonism, pp. 48-50: Joseph was an exhorter at Methodist meetings, but "Joseph did not become a licensed exhorter because such persons had to be members in full standing with the denomination."
Robert N. Hullinger (1992) (a Mormon apologist), Joseph Smith's Response to Skepticism, ch. 4: "Exhortation was a part of every revival. The exhorter's role was to help those who had been touched by the preaching make a commitment while they still were open to the message."

Hope this helps. Maybe somebody needs to start an Exhorter article. COGDEN 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I could care less even if he was Methodist, in my case. I simply want to see the article accurately reflect what's in its citations. Once again, believing that the citation may support him being an exhorter in debate meetings may be considered my personal interpretation of the citation, but is not required by the syntax of the text in question, and is not related to my argument that the Methodist camp meeting has been specifically separated syntactically from the "evening meetings". The Jade Knight 08:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring over paragraph under "Date of…"

Both John Foxe and 74s181 have been guilty of removing cited statements in the paragraph they've been warring over (John Foxe recently removed 3 citations[1], and 74s181 previously had removed one[2]). You two need to attempt to work together and come up with a consensually aggreable solution, rather than simply removing citations you happen to dislike, and adding your own editorialized interpretations to the events in question. If you two want, I can take a look at the paragraph, and try to incorporate all of the given sources and opinions. Whatever solution is desired, the current edit-warring is not improving the article. The Jade Knight 03:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not engaging in WP:EW. 74s181 04:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in the WP:EW definition:

An edit war is when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article.

I haven't reverted anything in this section, even one time. John Foxe has reverted this particular paragraph three times. Also from WP:EW:

Instead of performing pure reverts, disputing persons should cooperatively seek out methods of compromise, or alternative methods of statement.

I have provided three alternate versions of this paragraph. John Foxe provided one alternate version of the footnote in an effort to discredit Pomeroy Tucker. 74s181 04:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the only references I deleted were criticisms of Pomeroy Tucker in the footnote that had nothing to do with the 'Date of the First Vision'. However, I see that buried in all the criticisms of Tucker there is in fact a relevant statement about Palmyra road lists. Ok, I made a mistake, I'm trying to carefully work within WP policies to counter a person who does what he wants and ignores any attempt to discuss differences. 74s181 04:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Good luck getting John Foxe to even discuss this, much less admit to a mistake. I suggest you read the archives of this talk page so that you have a complete understanding of John Foxe's history and tactics on this article. 74s181 04:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have grown tired of this edit warring myself. I have tried to offer reasonable NPOV versions of specific paragraphs within the talk page, offered room for reasonable discussion about that paragraph, pointed out POV problems, and apparently come to a "consensus" of sorts, only to have my content out right reverted because it did not fit the POV of a particular editor. I'm hoping that we can come to a general understanding here of what it really means to have a Neutral Point of View, but apparently nothing shy of Jimbo himself coming in to fix this article is going to help. I won't point fingers, but there are some very apparent problems, and this attitude of pushing a POV must change or be ended. I have complained along the first steps of the dispute resolution policy, and perhaps it could be kicked up another notch. I would rather than not happen in this case if the dialog can continue and respect about what is added by all contributors is honored and not reverted like something added by Willy on Wheels. Heck, I think content added by Willy would get better respect than what I've seen here or what I've attempted to add. --Robert Horning 18:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been pretty busy the last few days and haven't been able to keep up to date with the changes, but maybe it is finally time to request arbitration. I agree that there seems to be a basic misunderstanding of what NPOV actually means, and perhaps arbitration is the way to go. In the mean time, try simply reverting the reverts. I've done that a few times, and if enough people participate, then none of us will be in danger of 3rr. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but democracy has its own dangers…if a revert counts as a vote, and people are allowed 3 votes a day… all you need is 10 editors who feel passionately about each side of an issue, and you have revert-wars all over again. The Jade Knight 08:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

True, however in this case I know of only one editor who is consistently on the other side. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. IMHO, we shouldn't solve the problem of one editor breaking the rules by encouraging 10 editors to break the rules. OTOH, we've tried and tried to explain to John Foxe why his behavior is in violation of WP policies. What is the correct mechanism for dealing with an editor who frequently reverts and acts as though he owns the article? 74s181 15:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I frankly want to commend 74 for his ability to be patient and work with this article. Foxe is not an editor in the sense meant by Wikipedia; rather he has a specfic agenda to fulfill here. His edit history demonstrates this clearly. He is only interested that his agenda is achieved at all costs. I gave up attempting to work with him because of his total lack of understanding of NPOV. I see no other option but going to arbitration.

It is not wrong to revert or to change POV statements; that is proper editing. In this situation if enough people were simply monitoring for neutrality the abuser could be contained. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. I was unaware of John Foxe's edit history, and did not mean to discourage 74s181 from doing his good work. I do appreciate you going through and checking the citations and trying to keep these articles accurate, 74s181. The Jade Knight 22:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Just for the record, I too have an agenda. It is to make sure that LDS-related articles are fair and accurate. That is, I want the sincerely questioning reader to find a balanced presentation of the facts, not an anti- or pro-LDS tract. Yes, there are some things in LDS history that I and others would rather not lead with, but if something is true and significant I have no problem with these 'warts' being presented in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV. 74s181 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to popular opinion there is little to be ashamed of in this history, at least, I have rarely found this to be true. Yes, there is the Mountain Meadows Massacre, and a few other unpleasant incidents. But when it comes to Joseph Smith, what I have found to be true is that when I actually go back to the source material referenced by anti-LDS writers, most of the accusations are pure hogwash, and the rest are questionable. I have recently been focusing all my attention on this article because I think it is one of the most important LDS articles, and because it was the most negatively slanted. It is improving but still has long way to go. 74s181 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding John Foxe, a while back I asked myself, What Would Jesus Do in this situation? Would he revert back? Would he demand arbitration? Or would he patiently try again and again to explain where John Foxe has gone wrong, and try to offer alternative statements? I'm far from perfect, I've had my outbursts of anger over this article, but that's the model I'm trying to follow. Probably what He would really do is walk away from this conflict, but, like I said, I'm not perfect. 74s181 13:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, the last thing we want is to give John Foxe any ammunition for complaints that the LDS editors have 'taken over' this article and won't let him do anything. I think a coordinated revert response would do exactly that. 74s181 13:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Cabin date

After reading through the evidence, including the FAIR material, I agree that dating the move of the Smith family is more complex than I at first thought it to be. I have therefore deleted the whole section.--John Foxe 20:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Just because an issue is complicated does not mean it should be deleted, especially not without consulting the other editors of the page. The Jade Knight 22:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted material until further discussion is had on it. The Jade Knight 06:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought I was making a concession. Nevertheless, I have no problem with the inclusion of the material so long as critics and apologists don't appear in the text.--John Foxe 14:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OED

As discussed above, the OED has two definitions for "exhorter", the first of which I have listed above and has absolutely no religious connotations. By acting like the only possible meaning of a word can be your interpretation, you mislead the reader and present information which is not in the text. The Jade Knight 10:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The apologetic bee in your bonnet is based on a refusal to admit that words change meaning through time. The linguistic argument about the word "exhorter" could not have been made even a hundred years ago because too many people then would have understood its context.

Suppose I should jump on the phrase "author and proprietor," which Joseph Smith used to get his copyright, and insist that only the first definition of the word "author" in a modern dictionary ("original writer of a literary work") could be cited in any article about the BoM, declaring that any other definition would mislead the reader. Q.E.D., Smith was a fraud by his own admission.

I appreciate the cleverness of some Mormon apologetics, but this argument about the word "exhorter" is (please, pardon my bluntness) ignorant.--John Foxe 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have said absolutely nothing about my feelings on Mormonism—I find it strange that you would call me a Mormon apologetic. However, I have demonstrated quite clearly how the phrase on 4 separate accounts (3 syntactical and 1 lexical) is ambiguous. The OED is in and of itself, ambiguous. As in the Joseph Smith as author issue, where a word is ambiguous, external information must support either interpretation. This paragraph does not contain such external information. Thus to support your argument, another source must be used. That said, I could care less whether he spoke at those Methodist camps or not. But if you're going to claim it, you'd better have a citation that actually supports the claim. The Jade Knight 22:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't call you a "Mormon apologetic" because "apologetic" is an adjective, not a noun. Nor did I call you a "Mormon apologist." I only commented on the nature of your argument.--John Foxe 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"...some Mormon apologetics..." Those are your words, right John Foxe? 74s181 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, if you check a dictionary, you'll find that "apologetics" is a noun but not "apologetic," which is an adjective. The English language is constantly fascinating.--John Foxe 10:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Touché. 74s181 12:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute, the plural of "apologist" would be "apologists". "Apologetics", a noun, would be the study or practice of "apologism"? IOW what "apologists" do, not the plural of apologist. By now I'm sure that no one cares. 74s181 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you check a book on the English Language, you'll also find that the English language is regularly changing, and words change parts of speech regularlry. Have you heard the news? In the last decade, the proper noun "Google" became a verb—and yet no dictionary predicated that change. Amazing! The Jade Knight 02:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed Material

John Foxe has removed the following reference from the article:

Diary of Aurora Seager (June 1818);

If it belongs in the article, someone might want to explain to him why, and add a note in the article. The Jade Knight 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Persecution

This edit by John Foxe makes the assertion that simply because on Historian does not mention something, it has not happened. Just because Bushman does not mention persecution over a period does not mean it does not exist—and citing Bushman to make such an assertion is misleading. Rather, if Bushman went out and said "there was no persecution during this time", that could be cited. If you want that statement to stay, you need to find a reliable source that definitively states such. The Jade Knight 10:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added citations to the classic anti-Mormon and apologetic authors. I have not said that the persecution did not exist. All I've written is that there is no documented evidence for persecution, that no scholar has cited any.--John Foxe 11:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's OR unless some other scholar has stated that no documented evidence exists. The Jade Knight 21:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

John, you insist on writing from a POV that this is all a pile of balderdash. You are attempting to prove something by absence. The way you continue to edit the section is that no real person has said there was any evidence of persecution; thus we just haave ole' Joe's word for it; but not with as much postive wording as I just gave it.

How should we write about Paul's experience? Paul said he had an experience, but it is all confused and there is no evidence that anyone else on the road verfied his fantastical story. Would you write something like that? No, you never would; so why do you insist on writing that way about another faith. You consistely fail to write in an NPOV manner; there is always a negative spin. It is the role of a hypocrit to make allowances for perosnal beliefs while a using a wholly different standard for all others. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 13:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This article concerns Joseph Smith's First Vision not Paul's or anyone else's. What you have inferred above (inelegantly to be sure) is exactly the case: that there is no documented evidence that Smith was persecuted for religious reasons until sometime after he announced he had found the golden plates. Between 1820 and 1827, everyone in the neighborhood may have persecuted Smith for claiming to have seen God and Jesus Christ, but we have no evidence to support that belief except for Joseph Smith's word. Attempts to bury this inconvenient fact are motivated solely by the POV of certain Mormons who (correctly) find history threatening.--John Foxe 15:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you are missing Storm Rider's point. Let me try to reframe the current wording of this article in terms of Paul's experience: Paul claimed to have had a vision, but no scholar has been able to confirm that any such vision occurred. — Val42 16:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What Storm Rider and I have been discussing in this thread is not Joseph Smith's First Vision per se but documentation for Smith's persecution after experiencing the vision. Despite Smith's claim, there is no documentation for persecution (except for money digging) during the period 1820-27; then there's all kinds of documentation for religious persecution after 1830.

Paul lived two thousand years ago. Primary sources from the first century are extremely limited. There were no newspapers. Paul says he preached the gospel in "Illyricum," modern Croatia. (Romans 15. 19) We have nothing but his word for that. But for Joseph Smith, there's a deluge of information. We know where he lived and worked, in some cases on a day-by-day basis. There are five considerable volumes of Early Mormon Documents, each volume perhaps containing twice the word count of the New Testament. As Martin Marty has said, Mormon beginnings are so recent that there's "no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness."--John Foxe 17:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't have 'facts' about Joseph's persecution or lack of persecution in the early 1820's, what we have is a lack of facts. If you had a quote from a contemporary of Joseph Smith stating that he had not been persecuted in the early 1820's then you would have a fact. Surely someone would have written something in response to the publication of the FV if Joseph's claim of persecution had been false. I haven't seen anything like that. So, according to John Foxe logic, the fact that there is no extant record, written by a reliable contemporary of Joseph Smith, stating that Joseph Smith was not persecuted proves that he was persecuted. Right? 74s181 20:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight quibble - someone having said something does not make it a "fact" (when discussing historiography, one must recognize that even official sources can be incorrect, not to mention memoirs). However, were John Foxe to present such a document, he would at least have a strong argument. The Jade Knight 23:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The Jade Knight is correct. If I did supply a quotation from a contemporary stating that Smith had not been persecuted, you would argue that a sole witness could not be certain that Smith had not been persecuted by someone else and that such testimony was therefore worthless. You would ask for more witnesses, insist that I prove a negative, anything to avoid having unpleasant historical realities staring you in the face.--John Foxe 00:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, John Foxe, no, that isn't what would happen. If you found a contemporary source or a modern expert who clearly stated that Joseph and his family were accepted members of the community then it would be a disputed fact, and WP:NPOV would require that both views (there was / was not persecution) be presented "...without implying that any one of the opinions is correct." However, you are right about one thing, it is very difficult to prove a negative, you certainly can't prove it by saying that contemporary source so and so never mentioned X, therefore, X didn't happen. 74s181 01:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

An interesting example because I haven't used any of Howe's material (of which there is a plethora) to try to prove that the Smiths were lazy, drunken slackers.--John Foxe 11:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If you were to state that in the article then I would question it. If I could find a reference contradicting Howe then we would have two disputed facts and they would both have to be presented in a NPOV way, "...without implying that any one of the opinions is correct." 74s181 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, maybe this is why whenever someone comes up with an opposing view to one of your 'historical facts' you prefer to delete both, rather than allow the opposing view to remain. That is, if someone had heard something negative about the First Vision and came to this article wanting to find out more about it, then the absence of any discussion of that issue is better for your anti-LDS agenda than a truly NPOV presentation of the allegation, with an equally NPOV alternate view. That would explain a lot of your behavior, John Foxe. 74s181 00:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe I just don't want to see an article about the First Vision cluttered with material better discussed elsewhere.--John Foxe 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, John Foxe, that's a valid explanation. I withdraw my accusation and apologize. 74s181 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While I feel very strongly that Joseph Smith is the 'who' of the First Vision and needs to be introduced, I agree with John Foxe that the controversies surrounding him and his family are thoroughly covered elsewhere. I think we need to build a fence around JS in this article, I've added a section to the talk page to discuss this. 74s181 14:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Exhorter

If the research of several other editors is to be eliminated and an idiosyncratic view of a nineteenth-century word is to be retained, the rationale for that change must be provided here.--John Foxe 12:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

What appears to be shown is a definition that was used in the 1900 century, but the references used appear to state that the definition was much looser than the definition put forward. You can't make the reference say something it does not say. Was it it a debate club or was it church? The reference you used says debate club; why is this difficult? For that matter, who cares? What point are you striving to make that the reference does not support? Does it matter? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 13:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The Jade Knight has (foolishly, in my opinion) argued that something of importance is at stake here. If it is, then let him explain why. If not, then the obvious implication of the passage, unchallenged for a century and a half, should prevail. My suggestion is to grant The Jade Knight a couple of paragraphs to explicate, in his own words, this novel (and in my view, ignorant) treatment of the passage in question. I will then reply with the same or fewer words. In any case, The Jade Knight should not delete content favorable to the traditional understanding without explaining his reasons for doing so.--John Foxe 15:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The answer to the 'exhorter' dispute is very simple, it can be found in WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. Both POVs must be presented in a neutral manner. Because the POV that the quotation in question states that JS acted as a Methodist Exhorter appears to be the majority, it should be presented first, per WP:UNDUE. The POV that JS was a "passable exhorter" in the debate club, "after catching a spark of Methodism" should be presented second. Both should be presented in a neutral way, "without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. " 74s181 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would still be OR (for both arguments). Let's quote what experts have to say, and not make our own interpretations as to whether the quote posted below (and above) refers to "evening meetings" or "the camp meeting", nor make our own selection of which OED definition is intended. This is what I have attempted to do in my edits. If consensus is to show both POVs, however, I will submit to consensus. The Jade Knight 23:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The novel view of the "exhorter" passage cannot be cited here because there is no authoritative documentation. It is OR.--John Foxe 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It would only be WP:OR if there was no cited source. I added the alternate view, citing the FAIRLDS article. I believe that this meets the requirements of WP:SOURCE, FAIRLDS is is a reliable, third-party on-line publisher of LDS apologetic material. It is not a personal website, there has been an article on WP about it for two years. 74s181 00:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The FAIRLDS posting is not acceptable under WP:OR. It is neither published nor peer reviewed; its author is not an expert by Wikipedia standards. FAIRLDS serves as the arm of a religious body that intends to strengthen the faith of its members by discrediting legitimate historical sources as well as wacko attacks on Mormonism. Quoting FAIRLDS is one step removed from quoting a blog. Also, to my mind, the argument panders to the ignorance of younger people about how language changes over time. (I am heartened by your refusal to debate this issue with me.) Nevertheless, as a matter of fair play and peacemaking, I am amenable to having the citation appear in the footnotes.--John Foxe 11:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, my refusal to debate this issue? 74s181 13:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to remind you, John Foxe: 74s181 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, ~~believers~~ critics are annoyed that those facts don't align with anti-LDS doctrine, but ~~believers~~ critics can't sanitize them by moving the ~~facts~~ quotes to a separate section where the reader will ~~be first advised that they're not facts but "criticisms"~~ probably never see them. Forget ~~a separate section for "Criticism" or "Historicity"~~ hiding the quote. Give the reader the necessary information and let him decide what to believe. He doesn't need to be led by the hand. To do otherwise is to introduce anti-LDS POV.

I do not agree that the alternate opinion should be buried in the footnotes. I do not agree with your assessment of FAIRLDS. 74s181 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FAIRLDS is an established web site, if something appears on this web site it is published. This is, after all, the 21st century, not the 19th, you don't have to kill trees to publish something. 74s181 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FAIRLDS is peer reviewed. Of course, the peers are LDS apologists. And Dan Vogel is a critic. Does the opinion of Dan Vogel carry more weight just because it's printed on dead trees? 74s181 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

FAIRLDS is more accessable to the average Wikipedia reader than many of the references in this article. 74s181 13:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, FAIRLDS doesn't meet Wikipedia standards under WP:OR. (I like your notion of peer review, though. Sure would make the world simpler if all we needed was the approval of people who believed just as we did.)

The comment about refusing to debate was intended for The Jade Knight. You can be sure I'd never even think about saying something like that to you, Les.--John Foxe 18:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Peers generally agree with each other. If they had substantial disagreements then they wouldn't be peers. For an MD, other MDs are peers, and crystal healers are quacks. Peer review means that other MDs read an article written by a MD before it is published in a MD journal to make sure someone isn't trying to sneak in something about crystal healing. 74s181 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See my response to the OR assertion in your new section, "FAIRLDS is OR". 74s181 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please forgive me for having a life and having to depart from Wikipedia for several days. That is not a "refusal to debate". The Jade Knight 06:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The "exhorter" passage

Here's the passage at issue from Orsamus Turner (1851) [EMD, 3: 49-50]:

"But Joseph had a little ambition; and some very laudable aspirations; the mother's intellect occasionally shone out in him feebly, especially when he used to help us solve some portentous questions of moral or political ethics, in our juvenile debating club, which we moved down to the old red school house on Durfee street, to get rid of the annoyance of critics that used to drop in upon us in the village; and subsequently, after catching a spark of Methodism in the camp meeting, away down in the woods, on the Vienna road, he was a very passable exhorter in evening meetings."

John Foxe 15:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this whole thing, including the actual quote, is pretty well hashed out under Talk:First_Vision#Methodist_.27exhorter.27. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74s181 (talk • contribs)

Requested source contexts

Lucy Mack Smith allusions to folk magic practiced by the Smith family:

“we also planted a large orchard and made every possible preparations for ease as when advanced age should deprive us of the ability to make those physical exertions which we were then capable of.

Now I shall change my theme for the present but let not my reader supposed that because I shall pursue another topic for a season that we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business we never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remember the service of & welfare of our souls.

The 3rd harvest time had now arrived since we opened our new farm….”

EMD, 1: 285

On Joseph Smith’s lack of bookishness

“From this time forth, Joseph continued to receive instructions from the Lord, and we continued to get the children together every evening, for the purpose of listening while he gave us a relation of the same. I presume our family presented an aspect as singular as any that ever lived upon the face of the earth-all seated in a circle, father, mother, sons, and daughters, and giving the most profound attention to a boy, eighteen years of age, who had never read the Bible through in his life: he seemed much less inclined to the perusal of books than any of the rest of our children, but far more given to meditation and deep study.

We were now confirmed in the opinion that God was about to bring to light something upon which we could stay our minds….”

EMD, 1: 296

John Foxe 11:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"...trying to win the faculty of Abrac..." I'm sorry, John, but now that I see the full quote it seems more like LMS is saying that they eschewed folk magic in favor of hard work. 74s181 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I interpret it this way (emphasis added to clarify):

let not my reader supposed that... we stopt our labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying to the neglect of all kinds of business we never during our lives suffered one important interest to swallow up every other obligation but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remember the service of & welfare of our souls.

Or, if that isn't clear I'll try to modernize it:

My reader should not assume that we stopped our labor and worked instead at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, or drawing magic circles, etc. We never allowed ourselves to be fanatical about anything, but while working with our hands we tried to also address our spiritual needs.

So, does Dan Vogel give an interpretation of this paragraph? Or are you drawing your own inference? I did a quick google search on 'faculty abrac', just about everything that comes up is an anti-Mormon tract, except for several book sites offering a book titled "The Secret Masonic Process of Winning the Faculty of Abrac". 74s181 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, this is kind of interesting. Does Bushman talk about this stuff in his book? Maybe I'll have to buy it. 74s181 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, this is interesting. abracadabra I remember using this word when I was a kid, trying to impress my friends with magic tricks. I wonder if there is a connection, it kind of looks like it. 74s181 01:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What LMS does in these sentences is blur the distinction between folk magic and religion, as if they're a continuum. We can be sure that she wasn't referring to "magic tricks," although Abrac (or Abrasax) is the source of abracadabra. Tellingly, Bushman, the Mormon patriarch, says "Remnants of the magical culture stayed with [Joseph] to the end." (51)

"blur the distinction", yes, I agree that the Smith family and many others at that time and place didn't make a strong distinction between the Christian gospel and folk magic, and on reading the quote again, I think that may be what LMS is saying in the last sentence. 74s181 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Remnants of the magical culture", yes, I agree with this as well. One of the things that perhaps distinguishes LDS from mainstream Christianity is that we believe the full gospel was present on the earth and taught from the time of Adam, but became distorted and corrupted over time. Thus, LDS see remnants of the true gospel in many beliefs and practices that are condemned by MC. Mostly these remnants are corruptions of the true gospel and therefore, no longer 'Truth', but occasionally, bits of Truth are still visible. Truth is where you find it.

I don't normally go for that sort of thing, but you've convinced me, I'm going to buy Bushman's book. 74s181 14:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Good. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling is a bit long and stodgy and (for this non-Mormon, at least) exercises over-judiciousness in its discussion of certain problem areas like the First Vision. (Bushman hates being called an apologist, but that's what he is in the most sophisticated sense of that word.) Bushman is a fine historian, and I wouldn't feel comfortable discussing Joseph Smith in 2007 without having read his book.--John Foxe 18:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

74, I would strongly recommend you buy Bushman's book and keep it close at hand. There are very few books that come close to the depth of his analysis of historical record. First and foremost he is an historian. Secondarily he happens to be a LDS. I think upon reading the text you will come to the same conclusion. Enjoy it.

It would also be helpful to broaden your research of ancient Israel. That which we call magic was prevalent from the beginning of the Judeo-Christian scirptures. Sacred groves or trees, astronomy/astrology, curses or hexes were all present in this history. To attempt to define these belief systems outside of these influences is to deny historical fact. Superstition and magic, or that which we call magic today, and the Judeo-Christian tradition would seem to have long been companions. Though fascinating for historians, it causes the average Christian to be a bit uncomfortable. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men." Acts 19.19.--John Foxe 14:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I think you're attempting an inappropriate generalisation. No one here is saying that all 'magic' is good, but it sounds like you're saying that because some of it is evil, all of it is evil. 74s181 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What about:

"And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived." Numbers 21:9

Maybe you prefer the New Testament? You seem to like the book of Acts...

"So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them." Acts 19:12

If these examples came from anyplace other than the Bible I suspect that you would put them into the same category as seer stones, or other 'magical' implements. But these examples are Biblical, and I don't think there is any debate about the righteousness or authority of Moses and Paul. My point is that the difference between 'magic' and 'miracle' is not as clear as you think. 74s181 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?" Acts 19:15

So, what is the difference? Why was Paul able to perform miracles in the name of Jesus Christ, but others were condemned for attempting to do so? Why is a brass serpent ok in one context but not in another? How is healing with a 'magic' handkerchief any different from translating an ancient record with a Urim and Thummim? 74s181 13:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All magic is evil, every bit. (Of course, I’m not talking about Houdini and parlor tricks). None of your illustrations refer to magic. In Numbers 21.9, the verse reads, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent.” When the serpent later got used as an idol, Hezekiah “brake in pieces the brazen serpent” because “the children of Israel did burn incense to it.” 2 Kings 18.4

As for the “handkerchiefs,” Acts is recording what happened, just as 1 Samuel records what happened at the Witch of Endor’s house. It’s a simple record; there’s no “go thou and do likewise.”

In Acts 19.15, the exorcists get beaten up, and the following verse says, “And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks…and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified.” Good enough reason for me.

In Joseph Smith's case, I'm not calling magic the Urim and Thummim but rather seer stones, money digging, occult knowledge, that sort of thing.--John Foxe 15:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on my point, which was, if these events were taken out of their Biblical context I suspect you would consider them 'magic', and evil. Or, in other words, Moses and Paul were true men of God, the Bible records these actions of Moses and Paul, the Bible is true, therefore, these actions were of God, even though they are indistinguishable from the kinds of things that evil 'magicians' do. 74s181 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Or, in other words, we both know that Paul was a true Apostle of Jesus Christ, so the magic handkerchief must be ok, even if it looks like 'magic'. Likewise, since I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God I also know that there must be some reason for the things he did. What's the difference? 74s181 02:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them." D&C 121:16

You equate magic and miracles, which are not necessarily the same thing. In magic, a ritual is performed and if conducted properly, the desired result must follow unless countered by a stronger magic. Generally speaking, miracles depend on the will of a personal god. In other words, in magic, I myself could perform wonders with a handkerchief if I only knew the proper ritual to follow. Joseph Smith's scrying for buried treasure was magic, with ritual performed and the object in view prevented from being attained by a stronger magic. None of the biblical illustrations you've given work like that.--John Foxe 13:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm really wondering where you're getting your information about how magic works. In Shakespeare's The Tempest (only one such example. There are numerous others), magic only works when there is an external being (such as a spirit) to grant the desired effects into operation. In much of magic there is talk of spirits and gods. Consider, for example Clerical "spells" in Dungeons and Dragons. Clearly a "divine magic" (I believe it may even be called that). The Jade Knight 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, John Foxe, how about Matthew 17:18-21?

And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.

Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out?

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

Note that the Apostles had previously performed many miracles, but they couldn't do this one. Sounds like, stronger magic, proper ritual. Yes, 'magic' is evil as long as we define 'magic' as supernatural results obtained by the power of Satan, and 'miracles' are good as long as we define 'miracles' as supernatural results obtained by the power of God? The only difference is, are they wrought by the power of God or Satan? There really is no other distinction. Many things that look like 'magic', like the magic healing serpent, and the magic healing handkerchief are actually of God. Many things that look like 'miracles' are actually of Satan, I won't give examples for fear of offending. 74s181 02:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use Shakespeare as a way of getting at the pagan understanding of magic because Shakespeare exhibits many Christian ideas in his plays, even those set in fantastic, and nominally pagan, settings. On the other hand, I don't think that we're so far apart in our notion of what magic is. Even experts in the theory of religion know that distinguishing them is tricky. Some magicians invoke gods, some don't. For instance, in the classical Mediterranean world, people leaped in the air to get taller crops, practiced ritual prostitution to secure fertility of the soil, and banged spears on shields to produce thunder. This kind of stuff is closer to "pure" magic I was describing above, as is Joseph Smith looking in seer stones and describing the treasures of long-dead pirates and Indians.

In Matthew 17, Jesus is admonishing his disciples for not having the faith to appropriate the power he gave them in Matthew 10. 8. Apparently, this was the first time they had failed "because of [their] unbelief." Verse 21, about prayer and fasting, is almost certainly an interpolation from Mark 9. 29. (Check any other English or modern language translation; the sentence appears only in late manuscripts.)--John Foxe 14:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, John Foxe, you're saying that 'this kind' in verse 21 doesn't indicate a 'stronger magic'? Or, maybe you're saying that Matthew 17:21 isn't true? 74s181 14:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark 9:29 also supports the idea of 'proper ritual'. 74s181 14:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The word 'magic' is like 'cult'. One person's magic is another person's Truth. Within our present mortal existence there is no purely objective way for us to identify Truth, it is ultimately a matter of Faith. Objectively, Paul's handkerchief is indistinguishable from other things that we would normally identify as 'magic', it is only Truth to you and I because we have Faith. Can you agree with that? 74s181 14:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 17. 21 is almost certainly an interpolation, and the word "fasting" appears only in late Greek MSS even in Mark. It may be that the disciples were putting too much weight on the "ritual," and Jesus was calling them back to trustful prayer in God's revealed Word. It's not faith, per se, that one needs but faith in the revealed Word: "As many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name." John 1.12.

So, you're saying that Matthew 17:21 isn't Truth. Or, IOW, you subscribe to Prima scriptura, rather than Sola scriptura. Interesting position for John Foxe, eh? 74s181 15:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthew 17. 21 has no authority because it's an interpolation in the KJV. (The verse appears only in a footnote in the NIV, for instance.) Sola scriptura applies to the Bible in the original languages, not to translations. Sorry about those Reformed Egyptian plates being snatched up by an angel. I'm sure the original document was more concise and readable than in Joseph Smith's translation.--John Foxe 17:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, when LDS quote the 8th Article of Faith you are ok with that. At least, the first half: 74s181 18:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;

This is great. When I have time to get back to the Mormonism and Christianity article I can add: "According to John Foxe, Mormons believe in a form of Sola scriptura." <g> 74s181 18:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The great statements of orthodox Christian faith defer to the original manuscripts, as for instance the Westminster Confession (1646): "The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."--John Foxe 00:04, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Whew, those indents were getting to be a bit much. So, maybe you like the Old Testament better, how about 2 Kings 5:9-14? 74s181 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha.

And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean.

But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper.

Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage.

And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean?

Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.

Sounds like a very specific ritual performance. Elijah and Elisha are probably my favorite Old Testament prophets, I especially like how Elijah passed the mantle of authority to Elisha in 2 Kings 2: 74s181 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.

And then, after Elijah was taken up, leaving his mantle behind, Elisha picks it up: 74s181 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan;

And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the LORD God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

Pretty cool, eh? There's a lot of symbolism in this chapter. The use of the mantle to part the river by both Elijah and Elisha is relevant to our discussion about 'magic' objects, I think. 74s181 03:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Naaman wanted magic ritual. He thought Elijah would wave his hands over him and do the hocus-pocus. Elijah wouldn't even see him. In effect, Elijah told him, "You humble yourself and let God do a miracle or you won't be healed." Naaman's servants had to argue with him to dip in the Jordan with no magician in sight.

As for the mantle, Elijah had nothing to do with it. He told Elisha, "If you see me when I am taken up, then you'll get a double portion of my spirit." And when Elisha did see him in the chariot of fire, Elijah didn't hand over the mantle, it "fell from him." The mantle (and Paul's handkerchief) had no power in themselves. If I had them today, they'd just be old pieces of cloth. For His own pleasure, God used them as instruments of His power.--John Foxe 11:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Naaman wanted Elisha (not Elijah) to "...come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place...", or, in other words, he wanted Elisha himself to lay his hand on him and call upon God. Instead, Elisha prescribed a very specific ritual performance, Naaman was to wash seven times, a 'magical' number, and it had to be the Jordan river, a very special river to the Jews, no other river would do. I do agree that part of the reason for the ritual Elisha prescribed was to help Naaman to humble himself, but, still, it was a ritual, and if Naaman didn't perform it properly the healing wouldn't take place. 74s181 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I said that there was a lot of symbolism in 2 Kings 2. I agree that the most important thing that fell onto Elisha was not the physical cloth, yet both Elijah and Elisha "smote the waters" with it. When the centurian asked Jesus to "speak the word only" and his servant would be healed, Jesus responded "I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel," and yet, Paul sent a handkerchief. You said, "If I had them today, they'd just be old pieces of cloth," but if I had them, I think I would regard them a bit differently. Maybe that's because I'm LDS. 74s181 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not going to convince you on this, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Joseph Smith had a 'magical worldview' that is offensive to some Mainstream Christians. Elements of this persist in TCoJCoLdS today. Let's just leave it at that, ok? 74s181 14:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. We've wandered pretty far from the First Vision for sure.--John Foxe 19:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I have included slightly more of the quote in question so that its interpretation is not a matter of dispute. The Jade Knight 06:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

FAIRLDS is OR

As I said before, the citation of FAIRLDS is OR. Please find a Wikipedia-acceptable source for this hypothesis. We can discuss what should remain and what should be cut from the footnote once the FAIRLDS reference is in the footnote rather than the text.

I wonder how you could prove that Joseph Smith was never a Methodist. He's called an "exhorter" and was said to have been listed on a Methodist class roll for six months. In what sense was he not a Methodist?--John Foxe 18:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the WP:OR page? If FAIRLDS is OR, then so is Dan Vogel. The only difference is that Dan Vogel is published on dead trees, and you have to buy his dead tree books in order to check references to them, while FAIRLDS is published on the Internet, so anyone with a web browser can check references to FAIRLDS. 74s181 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories."

The material on FAIRLDS is published. 74s181 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas."

FAIRLDS exists outside of Wikipedia. The organization has existed since 1997, and has had a web site since 1998, three years before Wikipedia started. I don't think that FAIRLDS wrote their articles just so WP editors could cite them. 74s181 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Material that counts as "original research" within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it. The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

FAIRLDS is being used as a reference for the alternate interpretation of the exhorter quote in order to avoid the OR tag. 74s181 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"Material that is self-published, whether on paper or online, is generally not regarded as reliable..."

FAIRLDS is not a personal website, FAIRLDS is incorporated as nonprofit 501(C)3 corporation, it operates on tax-deductable donations. I did not write the material on FAIRLDS, I don't think any of the other editors participating in this discussion did, either. But even if we did: 74s181 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. "

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. By insisting that only facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher may be published in Wikipedia, the no-original-research and verifiability policies reinforce one another."

I think your argument should be WP:V, not WP:OR. 74s181 23:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize that lack of disagreement does not constitute consensus, but I want a resolution to this question about FAIRLDS. Clearly FAIRLDS is not WP:OR. John Foxe, I'm waiting to hear arguments of why it isn't WP:V. Going once... 74s181 05:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OR does not apply to FAIR, OR necessarily comes from an editor spouting opinion. John, is that what you meant or is that a typo? If it is accurate, please explain your position. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My position is that the use of FAIRLDS and its theory about the word "exhorter" is WP:OR, that FAIRLDS is not "a reputable source" nor "a reliable published source" because its theory has never been published in "books, journals, magazines, and mainstream newspapers" or by "university presses or known publishing houses." There is no peer review; and by self-definition, all the writers for FAIR are apologists for Mormonism.--John Foxe 14:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely not WP:OR, the arguments you are raising sound more like WP:V or WP:RS than WP:OR. 74s181 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Then let me try again. According to the Institute for Religious Research Smith "participated in Methodist meetings, and later joined a Methodist church class.” Would quoting IRR in the article be engaging in WP:OR? (If you want to call IRR unverifiable or an unreliable source, that's fine; but my quotations above came from the WP:OR page.)--John Foxe 17:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look at IRR, I suspect it looks to me about like the FAIRLDS stuff looks to you, John Foxe. I don't have a problem if you want to reference this, as long as statements are properly attributed. It definitely wouldn't be WP:OR, the only possible problem would be WP:V or WP:RS. 74s181 01:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no desire to cite either the Institute for Religious Research or FAIRLDS. They are both the sort of partisan sources that lead us away from, rather than toward, NPOV.--John Foxe 14:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I will try again. POV exists in all sources, not just FAIRLDS or IRR. NPOV is POV that has been neutralized. 74s181 15:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the original point, I don't think anybody making this argument here even has a grasp of the Wikipedia (or general Wikimedia) guidelines on original research. There is no problem referencing original research.... it is done all of the time. And even encouraged. You just can't use Wikipedia to do that sort of publication in the first place.... and that is a policy I completely support. Whether FAIR is a branch of the LDS Church (it is clearly not, but I'm not here to argue that point), contains completely theological and philosophical thought and no citations is besides the point. Or even if it is original research. It can be used as a source, but its value can be questioned just like any other sources.

Frankly, I find the whole argument here about sources to be something that is approaching a level of absurdity, and I would support the elimination of anything other than very original documents physically transcribed by Joseph Smith or pre-1900 documents about this topic...if only to try and restore the focus of this whole discussion and try to remove POV biases. The current article is still in horrible shape and represents a POV bias in nearly every paragraph... IMHO because of this insistence upon modern historical interpretations of these events. Not that pre-1900 sources are necessarily any better, but at least they have stood a test of time of some sorts to bury some sources that should never be seen again because of their sheer conjecture and absurdity. Quoting a summary of a source is not quoting that source.... which is another problem still. I would rather have the original source. --Robert Horning 00:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe originally made the WP:OR claim. His general argument seems to be that FAIRLDS.org is like someone's personal web site, not citable. As I explained, I think this is more of a WP:RS problem than WP:OR, which is why I started another section to discuss it: Talk:First_Vision#Is_FAIRLDS.org_a_.27reliable.27_source_per_WP:RS.3F 74s181 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I would prefer to quote exclusively from original documents, I think this is against WP policy. WP:OR#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources says:

Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them.

Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources.

...most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources...

If the primary source is ambiguous in any way, if it has to be 'interpreted', then that interpretation would be WP:OR if performed by a WP editor. That is why the preference for secondary sources, OIOW, 'experts'. 74s181 02:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

News flash: John Foxe uses the 'apologist' label in the article

In this edit, John Foxe added the label 'Mormon apologist' to describe Craig N. Ray. 74s181 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the terms 'apologist' or 'critic', but I thought that words like this were against your religion, John Foxe. Does this mean it's ok for the rest of us to use labels like this? 74s181 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

John has been progressing during this process, so let's not make a big deal about this. He has admitted that the tax records can have alternate interpretations, and has finally admitted that apologist and critic are perfectly good labels for this article. I think you're doing great, John, and hope you continue along this path. It greatly helps the effort to write a well-balanced NPOV article when such changes in attitude occur. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Bill, I was on a rant, sorry. 74s181 14:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't give me too much credit for using the word "apologist" in the footnotes. First, I simply copied the designation from COGDEN's research above. Second, I've never been adamantly opposed to designations in the notes, just in the text; although I believe even in the footnotes they're best to kept to a minimum. As I've said before, dividing the world into two hard-and-fast categories is misleading. What is Richard Bushman? What is his friend Richard Mouw?--John Foxe 10:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to using either the label "apologist" or "critic". People should be labelled on their credentials (Professor, Historian, or nothing at all) or not be labelled at all, IMO. Once again, however, I will submit to consensus if it is otherwise. The Jade Knight 06:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Jesus article this topic has come up many times. There are some who insist on calling historians, "Christian Historians" if they happen to be Christian and writing about Jesus. Concensus there was that there is no such thing, one is either a historian or not. A religious affiliation does not magically discredit a historian or make them unworthy of the name. More importantly, being a critic or an apologist has nothing to do with being a historian; they serve different purposes and neither is a true historian. A good historian strives to write from a neutrl position; they report events.

Of course, even historians have penchants, but they are often honest enough to tell you their position. Brodie is just such a historian; she tells you her hypothesis and she ignores information that conflicts with her position. I am not sure I would be comfortable with calling her a critic, but at the same time I would be quite comfortable with the statement that she was just not a very good historian. When there is an axe to grind it is very difficult to be a good historian. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Although Brodie served as a professor of history at UCLA, she had no degree in the subject, and there are all kinds of references to her husband and friends trying to restrain her go-for-the-jugular tendencies. But man, could she could write. No Man Knows My History was published when she was thirty, and the LDS Church hasn't gotten over it yet. Her prose has flash and zing that Bushman can't touch.--John Foxe 14:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Martha Nibley Beck sure can write, too—though everyone who would know about the events in question seems to contradict her. The Jade Knight 22:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I read Beck's book and thought it was awful, both in content and literary style. Beck's treatment of her father was pitiful, and all those repressed memories from her childhood reminded me of Joseph Smith's improving memory. Beck’s meanderings about visions, feelings, and emotional discoveries have a truly Mormon ring to them.--John Foxe 14:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not read Beck's book, but I know it was featured on Oprah's Book Club… I was assuming Oprah had some sort of literary taste in books. I see it was a poor assumption. The Jade Knight 22:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is the 'who' of the First Vision but is well covered elsewhere

John Foxe mentioned this in the persecution section, I have been thinking the same thing, and I think we need to discuss it. Yes, Joseph Smith is the 'who' of the FV, but he is thoroughly covered elsewhere, we don't need to rehash and redebate every detail of his early life here, I think we've demonstrated that for every criticism of JS there is a rebutal, and if we keep at it we'll end up creating a new article about Joseph Smith, rather than about the First Vision. Still, we do need to provide a short sketch of who he was, referring the reader elsewhere for more details. In order to do that we need to set some boundaries. My thoughts are that we need to state that there is controversy about his character, while agreeing that any discussion of his and his family's character is off limits in this article unless it relates directly to the FV. For example, the Grant Palmer paragraph in the "Possible anachronisms in the 1838 Account" is an attack on Smith's character, but it is directly relevant to the history of the FV. 74s181 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Any thoughts on how we can do this in a NPOV way? I suggest that we state the bare, undisputed facts of his birth, relative poverty and lack of education, followed by a brief quote relative to the controversy. I am providing a sample here rather than simply editing the article because I don't want to start another edit war. This is just a starting point, alternatives are welcomed. Note that I've indented it to set it apart from the discussion. 74s181 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

===Joseph Smith, Jr.===

Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith. The Smiths were a farming family who moved several times because of crop failures and ill-fated business ventures. In 1816 the family arrived in western New York, where they continued to farm just outside the border of the town of Palmyra.

There is considerable controversy about the activities and character of Joseph Smith and his family. In an account of his early life written many years later, Smith claimed that an angelic messenger had prophesied: "...that [his] name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people."^[3]

I think that the above provides the 'who' of the First Vision in a balanced, NPOV way without distracting readers (and editors<g>) from the main topic. Maybe the Moroni quote needs to be balanced with a very general critical statement from a well known expert. 74s181 13:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's painful, Les. How can words of praise from an angel be NPOV? I'd prefer to eliminate all biographical information about Smith. That's what links are for. In my opinion, one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia is the tendency of its articles to keep growing for no particular reason; fewer people are offended by adding than subtracting, so we get addition.--John Foxe 17:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"painful"? I'm not sure if you're referring to my prose, or to the idea that quoting Moroni is NPOV.<g> I used the word "claimed" which leans in the negative direction. JS is a very polarizing character, I think the reader will either believe that an angel eally said this, or he will believe that Smith made it up. I said that I thought the Moroni quote needed to be balanced, you're free to suggest a balancing quote, replace the Moroni quote with something you feel is more balanced that says approximately the same thing, or propose something completely different. 74s181 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to form a consensus. My primary interests are:

There must be some information about Joseph Smith in the article because he is the 'who' of the FV, but,
There are already several articles about JS, this article shouldn't become another one. 74s181 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

There is one thing I want to check. John Foxe, you said you'd "...prefer to eliminate all biographical information about Smith." I hope you're not suggesting that we delete the biographical info but keep the character attacks. That is the opposite of what I am suggesting. 74s181 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

While we're on this subject, the article also contains many ad hominem attacks on the Smith family that have nothing whatsoever to do with the FV. 74s181 00:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked the JS Jr, JS Sr., and LMS articles, the 'faculty of Abrac' is not mentioned in any of them, why here and not there? The Joseph Smith, Jr. section of this article exists to provide the 'who' of the First Vision, and while it may be interesting to know that the Smith family practiced a form of folk magic it isn't relevant to the FV. So I deleted it. 74s181 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the statement about JS Sr. and sons working as money diggers. JS Jr. admitted to this but it was later in life, it isn't relevant to 'who' the 14 year old JS Jr. is. 74s181 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the 'angelic messenger' / 'amusing recitals' as this had nothing to do with his education and is also out of sequence, isn't relevant to the 14 year old JS Jr. 74s181 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You have strange notions about the nature of NPOV, Les. The reason why the "faculty of Abrac" isn't mentioned in articles about the Smith family is that those articles are owned by Mormons. With no pesky non-Mormons hanging about, the articles now have the most satisfying NPOV any apologist could ask for.--John Foxe 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, articles on Wikipedia aren't "owned" by anyone. Everyone is welcome to make constructive edits. There are likely quite a few Mormons that edit those articles, just like there are likely quite a few Muslims that edit the articles on Islam, and quite a few Atheists editing the articles on Atheism, etc. The Jade Knight 02:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we know that Wikipedia articles aren't owned by anybody. Except we also understand reality. About the only non-Mormons I've seen at this article were vandals.--John Foxe 15:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The only non-Mormons seen at this article are vandals, John Foxe is a non-Mormon at this article, therefore... I think that would be Hasty generalization, hmmm? Sorry, couldn't resist. <g> 74s181 15:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You made me smile, Les. For future reference, notice what you've done here: you kept the joke short.--John Foxe 17:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted another arrangement, this time I didn't delete anything, but the material that has to do with the practices of Joseph Smith's family has been moved to the family section, which I renamed. I still want to ultimately delete some of this material, much of it is not relevant to the FV and doesn't belong here, but at least now it is a bit more neutral until we can reach some kind of consensus on deletion. 74s181 12:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe reverts again

Yes, John Foxe, what you did was a partial reversion, but still a revert according to WP:REVERT. My edits were not WP:VAN, they were " good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia". You replaced the new content with the old content, making no attempt to 'fix' the problems you perceived in the new content, and you did not post a vandalism warning on my talk page as you should have done if you had believed the changes to be vandalism. I suspect to you they were "...misguided or ill-considered...", but according to WP:VAN this is not vandalism and is not valid justification for reversion. You actions are especially egregious because there was an ongoing discussion about this, you had even suggested that material needed to be deleted. 74s181 03:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"The reason why the "faculty of Abrac" isn't mentioned..." I think your analysis is incorrect. According to WP policies, if you have been trying to get this information included in these other articles and have been unable to do so, the reason is that the consensus of editors has ruled it out. Saying that the editors of those articles are exhibiting WP:OWN on the talk page of a different article is sort of like talking behind their backs, maybe even a violation of WP:AGF. If you really believe the editors of another article are behaving inappropriately, you should bring it up on the talk page of the article in question, and if you don't get satisfaction, you should request mediation. Trying to insert that content here is a form of WP:POVFORK. 74s181 03:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

POV fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts.

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather than according to consensus.

Although you haven't created another article on the same subject, you're definitely attempting to place material in a spinout article that is obviously more appropriate in one of the main Joseph Smith articles. 74s181 03:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, Les, there's a quotation from Pascal that you need to take to heart: "Je n'ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte." I would not have made this so long except that I do not have the leisure to make it shorter."--John Foxe 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Slight quibble—there is no conditional in that sentence. I would translate it as "I have made this longer only because I have not had the leisure [or free time] to make it shorter." The Jade Knight 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right. I prefer your translation.--John Foxe 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing the subject, John Foxe? 74s181 01:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I just wasn't interested in hacking through the Amazon of verbiage to find it.--John Foxe 13:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this will be easier for you to parse, John Foxe. 74s181 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

My edits were not WP:VAN, yet you reverted. 74s181 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think you aren't being fairly treated in JS, Jr. articles, request mediation there. 74s181 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to put 'Faculty of Abrac' here when you couldn't get consensus to put it in JS, Jr. articles is a form of WP:POVFORK, so stop it. 74s181 02:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Change in perspective

I'm going to leave the phrase in for awhile, Bill; but isn't there something you could do to make it less awkward? I hate to agree to awkward writing.

As for the substance of the phrase, there's no indication that JS was contemplating his journals and rethinking what he had written earlier. And I still think your average non-Mormon would be surprised to learn that Jensen is arguing that JS forgot about seeing God in the same way that we think better of our parents after we reach our 20s.--John Foxe 18:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is not an easy idea to get across in a single sentence of the lead, but surely, John Foxe, you understood what the idea is about. Joseph Smith at one age looked back and considered certain things more important and other things less important. At a later age his perspective on the same event was a little different, and later on, it was more different. Also, as he learned more, certain things that he had seen and heard made more sense. 74s181 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

And BTW, he didn't forget about seeing God, it's right there in the 1832 account. 74s181 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Every psychologist who's ever studied memory knows that memories are less reliable the further they are from the event. What you are arguing is that John Smith's memory worked in reverse and got more reliable over time. Like I said, not only is this notion a hard sell to non-Mormons, I don't even think the average non-Mormon would understand Jensen's reference. (OK, Joseph Smith didn't forget about seeing "God," just God the Father with a material body introducing His Son. Good thing he didn't witness a murder.) John Foxe 13:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is true. It is also true that it is common for people to remember things in more detail later on in life the more they retell them. Of course, it's questionable whether or not these are accurate memories, but it is a very common phenomenon (according to my fiancée who has a degree in Psychology) to remember things in more detail over time. That doesn't mean that later accounts are more accurate, but it is not surprising that they shuold be more detailed (nor does it show an intention to deceive). The Jade Knight 22:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"...memories are less reliable the further they are from the event." Not always, see Repressed memory. I think seeing God the Father and Jesus Christ would be an intense experience. And I've personally had experience with memories of significant events in my early life that were hidden until triggered years later. 74s181 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"I don't even think the average non-Mormon would understand Jensen's reference", I agree. The statement "...his own journals reflect..." is intended as a rebutal to "...struck by the difference...", but I don't think anyone will understand it who doesn't already know a lot about the history of the FV. That is, I think the rebutal fails for the average reader. 74s181 02:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, forget the content. I'll try to repress my memories. Can you just make the phrase less awkward to read?--John Foxe 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, in case you didn't notice, I'm actually leaning toward your side on the 'change in perspective' line. That is, I agree with what Jensen is saying, but I think it is too complicated to try to explain in the lead, that is, the rebutal fails for the average reader. So, where does it fit in the article as it is currently organized? 74s181 15:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless

This article contains 8 instances of "nevertheless", which seems to be used in an editorial fashion as if putting forth an argument. Anyone mind if I edit these out and try to make the article sound less contentious in that regard? The Jade Knight 06:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on what you replace "nevertheless" with.--John Foxe 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If "flow" can be retained, I would eliminate it without a replacement. I'd like the content to speak for itself, without this "pushing an argument" language that it currently contains. The Jade Knight 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the "neverthelesses" and found them mostly expendable. Nevertheless, there are a couple, which if deleted, will eventually require some rewriting of the sentences. In good writing, we point the reader with transition words like "hence, "but," "accordingly," "nevertheless," and (in extremis) "however."--John Foxe 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but generally, in good writing, one is trying to push an argument (whatever it may be). Here we have multiple authors with multiple points of view, and we want neutrality. The Jade Knight 22:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nevertheless" = in spite of that. IMHO, "nevertheless" means, 'ignore what came before, what follows is the real truth'. Not exactly NPOV. 74s181 01:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Smith's religious confusion

Under subjects such as "replaced OR" and "restored unexplained deletions" (all of my deletions were explained), John Foxe has serially removed one citation which clearly states that Joseph Smith was not a Methodist, removed comments I made in the article questioning the relevance of certain dictionary definitions, removed the alternate OED definition, ignored the cited, alternate viewpoint brought up on this talk page, and inserted a redundant description of a Methodist exhorter. I understand why you are trying to delete the inclusion of an alternative viewpoint in this section, but can you please explain your deletion of the (other) citation in question, the other OED definition, my comments about the other definition-like quotes, and your insistance on including a redundant description? You clearly think that all of these changes are quite important, but your edit summaries do not tell why. Could you please do so here? The Jade Knight 06:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does that. You've done the right thing to comment on it here. I don't think he will respond, but it is important to record this. I also think that it is important for us to take the high road and offer alternatives to what he has deleted, rather than just reverting back. 74s181 12:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You will need proof that Joseph Smith was not a Methodist. Just because he wasn't a licensed Methodist exhorter doesn't mean that he wasn't a Methodist. Prove he wasn't a Methodist.

I've now removed the OED definitions. As for the other changes I've made in the notes, feel free to modify them. I'm willing to compromise the lot so long as the notion that "exhorter" means something that happened in a "debating club" is not in the text. That's a deliberate distortion of the meaning of words, and I'm annoyed by the attempt to foist it on the article. Google "exhorter" and "debating club" and notice how many times you get this quotation. Google "exhorter" and "debate" and note how many "Methodists" you get—yet nothing about "exhorting" as a debater. The whole business is a lie and a lie manufactured for partisan religious purposes.--John Foxe 14:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you need a citation that states that he was a Methodist or that he wasn't a Methodist before the topic should be introduced to the article. Right now, we have Original Research because somebody said Smith was a decent exhorter, and then some editor figures that must mean that he was a Methodist. As I keep saying, you can't prove something from a lack of evidence. Just because you can't find anything that says Smith wasn't the Easter Bunny, won't allow you to conclude that Smith was, indeed, the Easter Bunny, and it up to others to prove that he wasn't. ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course, we're in agreement about the impossibility of proving a negative, Bill. But calling Smith a Methodist is not in the same ballpark as say, calling him an Episcopalian, not to mention the Easter Bunny. We have Smith's statement (canonized even) that he "became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect," we have the "exhorter" mention, and we have his joining a Methodist class just a couple years before founding the Church. I might even bring into evidence Smith's later use of barely trained missionaries and a regular general conference, both Methodist innovations. Here's a flat statement from the Institute for Religious Research (composed, I'm sure of peers studiously reviewing): “As a young man he participated in Methodist meetings, and later joined a Methodist church class.” So why would quoting from IRR be any different than quoting from FAIR?--John Foxe 22:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proof? What about the citation, which you keep removing without explanation, stating that Joseph Smith "could not have been a licensed exhorter since membership was a prerequisite"? This statement clearly states that Joseph Smith could not have been a licensed exhorter because he was not a member of the Methodist church. I don't think Dan Vogel is exactly a Mormon Apologist.

The exhorter business is not a lie (and please, try to assume good faith); if one is to believe the Oxford English Dictionary, both definitions held currency at the time of Joseph Smith. I'm not ok with presenting 1 POV on this issue. Either we remove the "exhorter" reference entirely, or we make it NPOV by presenting both views (with citations). The Jade Knight 23:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and googling is not a very effective way of gauging usage two hundred years ago. The OED clearly states that "exhorter" in the first sense is currently obsolete, but was not at the time of Joseph Smith—and was not limited to debating clubs, but a wide range of activities. You'll also note that if you google "Methodist AND chimpanzee", you get about twice as many hits as you do when you google "Methodist AND exhorter"—clearly, then, according to your logic, Chimpanzees are more associated with Methodism than exhorters are, or, if that's too absurd, you might notice that "Episcopalian AND exhorter" gives more hits than "Methodist AND exhorter", and "Catholic AND exhorter" gives nearly as many. The Jade Knight 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The point is moot. JS Methodist class attendence and the 'exhorter' quote refer to events after the First Vision. Therefore, they aren't relevant to this article and should be deleted. 74s181 01:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)~

You're stealing my fire, man (just kidding). It's probably better to delete them to avoid contention. The Jade Knight 02:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Vogel's statement that Smith was not a Methodist is simply his opinion; his assertion relies on no primary documentation—which is why I deleted it. (In passing, your support for Vogel and my refusal to accept his word illustrates why our joint opposition to categorizing experts as either "critics" or "apologists" is sound.)

The exhorter business is indeed a lie; not your lie—I grant you good faith—but the lie of FAIRLDS. It is intended to deceive those who are unaware about how language changes over time, which unfortunately is most people in our age. Such an argument can only have been made recently because in popular consciousness even a hundred years ago, the term "exhorter" was commonly understood to be related to Methodism.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the use of Google. Let me try again. If you google “Episcopal” and “exhorter,” the first eighteen of twenty hits also include the word “Methodist” (not surprising because of the “Methodist Episcopal Church.”) When I googled “chimpanzee” and “exhorter,” I got 231 hits, and 145 of those (62%) also included the word “Methodist." I googled "exhorter" and "debating club," and 118 of 135 hits (87%) include the word "Methodist." And we are talking about a definition of the word "exhorter" that was in common use two hundred years ago but is not today.

Joseph Smith's Methodist class membership and the mention that he had been an "exhorter" do indeed refer to events that occurred after the First Vision. That is, if you believe the First Vision occurred—which, of course, I don't. If the First Vision did not happen in 1820, then those two pieces of information are highly significant. Smith never apologized for toying with Methodism as he did for his errors of youth. And why should he not have apologized if God had told him in 1820 not to have anything to do with any of the denominations because they were all false?--John Foxe 15:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of FAIR's interpretation of exhorter referring to a debating club, the OED makes it clear that there was another interpretation of the word current at the time. The sentence everyone seems to be quoting does not, syntactically, lead to one interpretation or another. I don't think the OED is lying about there being another interpretation, John Foxe.

Is Dan Vogel a reliable source or not? Regardless of whether or not the citation is "simply his opinion", it is a cited source stating that Smith was not a Methodist (and the fact that it was not written by a Mormon apologist makes it clear that it was not being said simply to make Mormonism look better). If Dan Vogel as a cited, published source is reliable, that statement should be included. If he is not, then none of that work should be included in any Wikipedia articles. If you prefer, the citation could be included, with a disclaimer: "though Vogel provides no citation for this statement." The Jade Knight 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, 'Methodist exhorter' is relevant to Smith's behavior after the FV. Having said that, I have to say that I think WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation applies, there are two competing opinions, one is the majority, it goes first (the methodist exhorter), one is a minority, it goes second. 74s181 01:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I also have to agree with The Jade Knight, if Persuitte, Hullinger, or whoever are saying that Joseph Smith was a Methodist exhorter, as much should be said, instead of providing yet another definition. 74s181 12:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, www.lds.org 'exhort' = 643, www.umc.org 'exhort' = 109. So, who's the exhorter now? 74s181 12:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation that FAIRLDS has created about the word "exhorter" is a lie. The Jade Knight's interpretation of the syntax is Mormon apologetics, which everyone in the nineteenth century would have hooted at.

Dan Vogel is quoted nowhere in the article and shouldn't be quoted here unless in the footnotes and with The Jade Knight's suggested addition, "though Vogel provides no citation for this statement." The notion that because one is not reliable in one case, one is not ever reliable is a doctrine that would turn Wikipedia into John Locke's tabula rasa.--John Foxe 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary makes it clear that the possibility of alternate interpretation is not a "lie". Moreover, my interpretation of the syntax is not "Mormon apologetics". It's called Linguistics (specifically: Syntax, John Foxe, which I have received formal training in). Painting anyone who presents a view that disagrees with your own as using "Mormon apologetics" and "lying" is an absolute failure to assume good faith. You're welcome to spend some time studying up on Syntax to learn how to parse a senmtence, John Foxe. Really, though, I don't think you should even need formal linguistics—I think my deconstruction of the sentence should be obvious to anyone who looks closely at it. If you really need me to, John Foxe, I can abstract it for you and simply draw out the formal structure, if you think that would help make it more clear.

John Foxe, has any historian ever stated that Joseph Smith was a Methodist? Dan Vogel has stated he is not, as have some LDS historians. It may be helpful to add the disclaimer, but if Dan Vogel is any sort of expert on Joseph Smith, his statement that Joseph Smith was not a Methodist must carry some significant weight when no other historian has disagreed with Vogel on this issue. The Jade Knight 02:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's beyond the ken of mortals to know whether any historian has ever called Joseph Smith a Methodist. (My gut feeling is that someone has.) But you can't claim that Smith wasn't a Methodist because you can't prove a negative. It is, however, possible to say that there is no evidence that Smith ever joined a Methodist church.

The FAIRLDS theory about the word "exhorter" would be a lie even if it were written in Latin and Greek. To include that notion in the text, you need to cite a reliable (i.e. non-Mormon) published source.--John Foxe 10:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like bias to me. Converting your statement accoring to WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation yields:

"According to John Foxe, only non-Mormon sources are reliable." 74s181 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's what WP:POV says about facts (emphasis in original): 74s181 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people (POVs). Inherently, because of this, most articles on Wikipedia are full of POVs. An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikipedia's official "Neutral Point of View" policy.

Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know:

Who advocates the point of view
What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

The only way you 'should' proceed in your attempt to supress the 'exhorter = debater' theory is for you to convince the other editors of this article that it is a tiny minority view as described in WP:UNDUE. But your continual violations of revert rules demonstrate that you don't seem to be too interested in what you 'should' do, kind of an interesting attitude for John Foxe. 74s181 13:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The novel "exhorter" theory is a lie of Mormon apologetics, one held by no non-Mormons, and predicated on the belief that people of our own age are too ignorant to consider that words had different meanings in the past than they do today. It's as if I took the words "the pursuit of happiness" and argued that Jefferson was arguing in favor of hedonism. (I haven't checked the Web, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there is doing just that.) Lies, especially those concocted to promote a religion, have no place in this article. As for persuading my fellow editors, I might as well urge nightclub patrons to stop drinking.--John Foxe 14:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The novel ~~"exhorter"~~ "Manchester Tax Records" theory is a lie of anti-Mormon ~~apologetics~~ critics, one held by no ~~non-~~Mormons, and predicated on the belief that people of our own age are too ~~ignorant~~ lazy to ~~consider that words had different meanings in the past than they do today~~ actually check references. It's as if I took the words ~~"the pursuit of happiness"~~ "separation between church and state" and argued that Jefferson was arguing in favor of ~~hedonism~~ atheism. (I haven't checked the Web, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there is doing just that.) Lies, especially those concocted to ~~promote~~ denigrate a religion, have no place in this article. As for persuading my fellow editors John Foxe to stop reverting, I might as well urge nightclub patrons to stop drinking. 74s181 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you have just stated that you have no interest in working with the other editors or developing a consensus for this article. You have not addressed many of the concerns regarding your reverts that have been raised. Please take the opportunity to try to develop consensus with the other editors, and please continue to engage in discussion with the other editors here. When there are relevant peer-reviewed cited sources to alternative POVs, and where the OED clearly lists two appropriate definitions for "exhorter", and where the syntax of the sentence in question shows clear ambiguity, I would hardly consider providing two opposing POV's as "lying" or "apologetics". The Jade Knight 01:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One non-Mormon "expert" on Joseph Smith has clearly stated that he was not a Methodist. No one here (including yourself) has provided any citation from another reliable source (Mormon or non-Mormon) which states that he was a Methodist. Removing the one definitive statement on this topic is POV-pushing—as it is, the disclaimer you requested has been included. Now, if Dan Vogel is just a sham, and what he wrote has no basis in reality, or his conclusions are clearly regularly wrong, that might be some good grounds for removing the comment from the article, as Dan Vogel would then be an unreliable source. But what reason have you to believe that Dan Vogel was incorrect in his summation, other than the simple fact that he disagrees with your own POV? The Jade Knight 02:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't said that I have no interest in working with other editors or developing a consensus. What I've said is that this novel "exhorter" theory is a lie of Mormon apologetics, one held by no non-Mormons, and predicated on the belief that people of our own age are too ignorant to consider that words had different meanings in the past than they do today. Lies, especially those concocted to promote a religion, have no place in this article.

Dan Vogel is wrong here because neither he nor I nor you can prove a negative. (I think we've been through this before when the shoe was on the other foot.) Joseph Smith said he was attracted to Methodism, he attended Methodist meetings, a friend called him a decent exhorter, he joined a Methodist class and stayed on the roll for six months, his notion of limited missionary training and general conferences were borrowed from Methodism. So in what sense wasn't he a Methodist? On the frontier, other denominations were often annoyed with Methodists because their membership standards were so low.--John Foxe 11:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Find a published source more reliable than (or as reliable as) Vogel which states that Smith was a Methodist, and we'll put it in the article. Right now we have one "expert" on Joseph Smith and his assessment. We have nothing else that is not Original Research. The Jade Knight 11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Just backing up a second, I think this discussion is missing the point. The issue with the word "exhorter" has nothing to do with whether Smith was ever a Methodist. Membership in a Methodist church was only a prerequisite for being a licensed exhorter, which Smith clearly was not, and no reliable (i.e., published on other than somebody's website) secondary sources I've seen have ever made that suggestion. It's a historical fact that Smith could have been an unlicensed exhorter. But all we need to say is that he was an "exhorter" in Methodist camp meetings. If there is any reliable secondary source that follows the novel "debate club exhorter" interpretation, we can include that as well, but I haven't seen such a source. The OED is irrelevant, because it says nothing in particular about Joseph Smith, whereas all the known reliable secondary sources say that Joseph Smith was an exhorter at Methodist camp meetings. Whether or not this was before or after the First Vision is up for debate (i.e., there are reliable secondary sources on both sides), and thus the matter is relevant to this article. Whether something is "more" or "less" reliable is not the standard: It's whether it's reliable (i.e., published in a source more reliable than just a website) or not. COGDEN 20:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The OED is relevant if we feel we have to give a definition for what is meant by "exhorter". If any definition is included, it should be the OED's. If no definition is included, then we need not include the OED's. Currently, no cited source in the article (apart from Dan Vogel) states that Joseph Smith acted as an exhorter at Methodist camp meetings. The Jade Knight 01:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Those citations can be added, although I think just a citation to Turner is required for now, since there are no known published secondary sources that disagree with the standard interpretation. COGDEN 01:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe reverts again, and again...

Even if you do it incrementally, if the result is the restoration of the last version that you liked it is still a revert. 74s181 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Following are the date/time stamps from the page history with John Foxe's edit comments, followed by my comments on each. 74s181

14:21, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (70,517 bytes) (replaced removed section as NPOV)

Section was not removed, it was moved. Text referred to activities of the Smith family, it was more relevant under JS family than JS, Jr. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

14:25, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (71,293 bytes) (restored deleted material)

No material was deleted. Paragraph on the angelic messenger was moved, I didn't think it was relevant to JS lack of formal schooling. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

14:29, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (69,823 bytes) (restored heading as less POV; how many people practiced folk magic is difficult to say, certainly "majority" is wrong)

The supposedly POV title that John Foxe replaced = "Smith family religious beliefs". 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The title that John Foxe reverted to = "Earlier Smith family visions" 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved material from the JS, Jr. section (see above) that was actually about Smith's family. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There was already a section on the family that included religious beliefs, I renamed it to fit with the moved material. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, maybe "majority" is wrong, that would have been an easy fix, no justification for revert. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

14:31, 29 June 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (68,724 bytes) (removed what is now repetition)

When John Foxe reverted the section on the 'angelic messenger' that he said was deleted, he forgot to delete it from the place where I had moved it. So, yes, it was now repetition, because I never deleted it to begin with. 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So after all these incremental edits, the "Joseph Smith, Jr." and "Early Smith family visions" in these two versions, separated by 48 hours and 13 edits, are identical except for a 'nevertheless' and other small changes in wording in the 'abrac' sentence, which are part of a similar ongoing conflict with The Jade Knight. 74s181

What now? 74s181 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Lewis & Clark repeatedly used the phrase, "we continued on." And so must we. I've discovered that on Wikipedia, men of good will usually both reach accommodation and strengthen the article in the process.--John Foxe 14:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"men of good will usually both reach accommodation...", but others simply revert what they don't like. 74s181 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means that I will continue trying to improve the article, and you will continue reverting the changes I make that you don't like. Sounds like WP:OWN, or maybe disruptive editing. 74s181 15:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, John Foxe, I exhort you to try to engage in conensus building, instead of simply reverting what you don't like. The Jade Knight 02:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Faculty of Abrac

A few days ago I deleted this from the article and commented: 74s181 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

"I checked the JS Jr, JS Sr., and LMS articles, the 'faculty of Abrac' is not mentioned in any of them, why here and not there? The Joseph Smith, Jr. section of this article exists to provide the 'who' of the First Vision, and while it may be interesting to know that the Smith family practiced a form of folk magic it isn't relevant to the FV. So I deleted it. 74s181 11:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)"

John Foxe responded:

"The reason why the "faculty of Abrac" isn't mentioned in articles about the Smith family is that those articles are owned by Mormons. With no pesky non-Mormons hanging about, the articles now have the most satisfying NPOV any apologist could ask for.--John Foxe 13:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)"

I was curious how the "Mormons" responded to the attempt to add 'faculty of Abrac' in other articles, so I checked the current version, talk page, and talk page archives of the following articles, looking for any occurance of the word 'abrac': 74s181 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith, Sr., Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith, Jr., Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1827 to 1830, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1831 to 1834, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1835 to 1838, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1838 to 1842, Life of Joseph Smith, Jr. from 1842 to 1844, Death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy, Teachings of Joseph Smith, Jr.

From this I must conclude that if anyone ever attempted to add anything about the 'faculty of Abrac' to any of these articles, they must not have tried very hard. That is, if they added it and someone deleted it, then they never brought it up on the talk page. 74s181 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I'm going to again delete it from this article, as there are many other articles where it would be more appropriate, like, Lucy Mack Smith, Joseph Smith, Jr., Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr.. 74s181 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, if you want to attempt to add 'faculty of Abrac' to one of the above mentioned articles, let me know if you are prevented from doing so and I will lend my support to a NPOV presentation of this historical fact in a more appropriate article than this one. 74s181 17:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether "faculty of Abrac" is included in other articles about Mormonism. It's enough that it's appropriate for this one.--John Foxe 17:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article about Joseph Smith or his family. Joseph Smith is briefly mentioned because he is the 'who' of the FV. Visions previously experienced by others of his family are mentioned because they show that the idea of having visions was part of Joseph Smith's upbringing. I tried to convert the 'Earlier Smith family visions' section into a more generic 'Smith family religious beliefs' section and move 'faculty of Abrac' there, but you reverted that, as you revert any significant change to the article. 74s181 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see how 'faculty of Abrac' might be relevant to one of the other Smith family articles, but I don't see how it is directly relevant to the First Vision. 74s181 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

So, John Foxe, specifically, how is the 'faculty of Abrac' relevant to the First Vision? 74s181 17:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith lived in a household that had visions, practiced money digging, and otherwise felt comfortable with the unseen world. As Michael Quinn has written, LMS "affirmed that these folk magic activities were part of her family's religious quest." Most readers would probably view Joseph Smith's First Vision differently if they understood that the Smith family regularly participated in occult activities.--John Foxe 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That might be so if this was a unique situation in the early 1800's; or for that matter at the time of Paul, or Moses, or any other individual in any of the histories of Christianity. Your consistent objective is to make this unique, novel, and the work of the "occult". I think if you would say they dressed in black, had a wart on the ends of their noses and ate dinner surrounding a boil pot of weird brew of bat's wings, it would have more impact, though a bit dramatic and sensationalistic (also very common characteristics of really poor quality anti-Mormon literature).

There is no proof or evidence that this was an abnormal family or one that delved into wickedness. There is strong evidence they were simple, hard-working people that believed in God and tried to follow His teachings. To go futher than that is not history, but fantasy. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I had a specific statement on the Smith family practice of 'folk magic', you deleted it in one of your recent reversions, you knew this statement was there, you made reference to it in your edit comment, but rather than 'fix' it you reverted the whole thing. 74s181 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Like the majority of families of this era, the Smith family had little affiliation with organized religion but were privately religious, practicing a form of folk religion, including activities that would be controversial today but were generally accepted at that time and place.^[4]. Lucy Mack Smith stated in her memoirs that the family never "stopt [its] labor and went at trying to win the faculty of Abrac, drawing Magic circles or sooth saying...but whilst we worked with our hands we endeavored to remember the service of & the welfare of our souls." ^[5]

The article still has money digging using seer stones, that sounds pretty occult, even after your reversion of the above, even after I removed the 'faculty of Abrac' stuff after your next to last reversion (sorry, I lost count). You still haven't explained why we need to mention that Joseph Smith, Sr. did this in the Joseph Smith, Jr. section. 74s181 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The 'faculty of Abrac' stuff is brand new, I don't think this had ever been in the article before you recently added it. I agree that it is useful and interesting info, but you haven't explained why this detail needs to be here rather than in one of the Joseph Smith or Smith family articles. 74s181 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried a different arrangement with the 'abrac' stuff still in the article. I still think it should come out, but let's see what happens with this. 74s181 21:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I warned you when you insisted on a section about Joseph Smith that it would lead only to contention. It's POV to refer to Smith as a simple farm boy. If a section on Smith is going to remain, we need mention of the magic world view of his family and their money digging right up front to set the stage for the First Vision story. Not to do so is simply to become an apologetic arm of the LDS church.

Plenty of people practiced folk magic in frontier New York; many more did not. A good portion of the latter considered it wicked—enough of them to get laws passed making it a crime. So what the Smith family did was not unique, but neither was it majority practice even for time and place.

I don't know of any reason why "the faculty of Abrac" can't go in other articles. But I'm just one non-techie person who works for a living, sometimes out of range of the Internet. Just how many Mormons do you think I can take on at a time?--John Foxe 23:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Many more as long as you continue to ignore the rules of Wikipedia. At least until someone blows the whistle. 74s181 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I am becoming increasingly swayed by 74s181's argument that this belongs more appropriately in one of the other articles on Joseph Smith. Also, like 74s181, I would support a NPOV inclusion of it in another article, if its inclusion were to be opposed in an appropriate biographical article. The Jade Knight 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"If a section on Smith is going to remain..." Is that the purpose of all the reversions (I think four so far on this issue, two in the last 24 hours), John Foxe? To get rid of the section on Joseph Smith, Jr.? The 'who' of the First Vision? 74s181 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"...we need mention of the magic world view of his family and their money digging right up front..." Ok, I've put the family before Joseph Smith, Jr. with the 'magic' stuff up front, let's see what you do with this, John Foxe. The first couple of sentences in the JS, Jr. section are a bit out of place, but I'm too tired to try to fix them now, especially if you're just going to revert again. I don't like this arrangement, I don't agree with it, I still say that there is detail material here that really has nothing to do with the First Vision, but I have a theory as to why it might be acceptable, consider this an experiment. 74s181 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the really great things about this format in comparison to a face to face discussion is that I can type up all sorts of mean spirited comments, I can really vent, and then I can delete it just before I hit 'Save Page'. 74s181 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For that you are commended. (Just remember to hit the right button for the preview.)--John Foxe 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made a few changes, restored some references and verbiage. I could use some help with a grammatical question. In the third paragraph of "Smith family religious beliefs", the phrase "the Smith family had little affiliation with organized religion but were privately religious", I'm not sure if that should be 'were' privately religious, or 'was' privately religious. Thanks in advance. 74s181 15:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

As you see I tried to straighten that out a bit. I may have changed your intent, but I was aiming at style rather than content. The Smiths did go to church even before the 1824-25 revival, so "little affiliation with organized religion" is not quite on the money.--John Foxe 19:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

"The Smith family was privately religious" would be the correct American form of the sentence. "were" may be appropriate in British English. The Jade Knight 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I've put Vogel in context in the contentious footnote, something that I should have done some time ago.--John Foxe 11:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of the "context" lacks context—I have, however, interpreted the Methodist exhorter claims to Dan Vogel, using the quote you provided as a foundation of the citation. Note, however, that Smith being described as a "very passable exhorter" should be placed in context of a claim, not an unambiguous interpretation (as your edits would seem to suggest). Joseph Smith may have been at Methodist meetings—not because he was described as a "passable exhorter", but because of other evidence and the (controversial) interpretation by Dan Vogel (and potentially others). The phrase itself does not say this much, however. "a very passable exhorter" certainly does not necessarily say anything about speaking at Methodist meetings. The Jade Knight 11:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I spent about two hours last night looking at the recent edit history of the Joseph Smith, Jr. and Smith family religious beliefs sections, trying to understand your motivations and think of an edit that might be acceptable to you. This morning I decided to try asking some questions. 74s181 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You said you wanted the magic right up front, why do you keep moving 'abrac' to be after money digging? 74s181 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, why do you want the family visions before both 'abrac' and money digging? Do you think that the visions are more damaging? 74s181 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Or, maybe the answer to both of the above questions is that you want 'abrac' last, so that it sticks in the reader's mind? I'll be straight with you on this, I would prefer that it were not last for precisely that reason. 74s181 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems like you want the article to say that the Smith family had Christian beliefs (conventionally religious) in addition to their 'magical' beliefs, so why do you keep removing "illustrates this blend of folk magic and Christian belief" from the 'abrac' sentence? I can think of one arguably valid reason for this, but I don't think this is why you are doing it. 74s181 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You keep replacing 'folk religion' with 'folk magic'. Based on what I have read (not a lot) it seems like folk religion is a more accurate. I don't have a problem with the word 'magic' as long as it is in the proper context, I don't believe that the Smith family were devil worshippers, I don't think that you believe this either. I understand that it is important to you that the word 'magic' appear in the text, but it could be wikilinked to either folk religion or Magic and religion, is there some reason you object to having an explanation of the kind of 'magic' the Smith family practiced? 74s181 12:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never been opposed to adding info on the Smith family's use of magic. You can't understand the Smith family otherwise, and it's very relevant to the golden plates and the early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. But I don't think it's as relevant here in the First Vision article, since there are few magical elements to the story. Mostly, the First Vision story was just a simple theophany, which wasn't usually associated with magic in the early 1800s (today, either). The only arguable link to magic I can see is when Joseph was attacked by an evil spirit in the grove while trying to pray. There's also Quinn's hypothesis (and that's all it is, I think he would admit) that the First Vision was associated with Smith's earliest involvement in treasure hunting, when he might have come to be concerned about his sinfulness, which would have interfered with his ability to act as a seer and locate treasure. So magical background is probably worth mentioning in this article as general background, but things as specific as the faculty of abrac, probably not so relevant here. COGDEN 21:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

it had never entered into my heart...

The article says:

In 1842, Smith said he had been unsure which church was correct or whether they were "all wrong together"^[6]—the earlier conclusion of his father.^[7] In another account, the younger man said that at the time of the vision, "it had never entered into my heart that all [the churches] were wrong."^[8]

However, the 1838 / 1842 / JSH / PGP account includes both statements (emphasis added): 74s181 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself, what is to be done? Who of all these parties are right? Or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right which is it, and how shall I know it?

No sooner therefore did I get possession of myself so as to be able to speak, than I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right, (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong,) and which I should join.

Obviously the wording in the article "In another account, the younger man said" isn't quite right, it is the same account. A closer look reveals that before the vision, Joseph is asking himself which church is right, or are they all wrong, he is unsure, he can't decide. During the vision he asks which is right, and comments that it never entered his heart that they were all wrong. Ok, so he wasn't sure before the vision, maybe he meant no certainty had 'entered his heart'. 74s181 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the 1832 account Joseph seems fairly certain:

by searching the scriptures I found that mand mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament

One could argue that Joseph is aware of the limitation of his experience (he was only 14 or 15), and perhaps expected to learn of some church that he wasn't yet aware, but this would be OR since I haven't seen this response to the 'never entered his heart' criticism.

I'm still not quite sure what to do with this sentence, because both statements are in the 1838 / 1842 / JSH / PGP account, the sentence isn't quite right. 74s181 01:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I always assumed - that he thought that the true church must be out there somewhere, but he hadn't found it yet. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a good point. I also, am not sure what should be done with it. Perhaps there is a way of combining the two in some congruous form? The Jade Knight 04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked the references in the article, all refer to the original accounts, there is no reference to a critical secondary source. Or, IOW, is there any critic that is pointing this out as a problem? Right now the juxtaposition of these two statements with the intent of trying to create questions in the mind of the reader may constitute WP:SYN. A simple solution would be to remove the "it had never entered into my heart" sentence, or at the very least tag it as ^{[improper synthesis?]}, giving John Foxe or whoever a chance to add a citation.

Sure. The Jade Knight 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Is FAIRLDS.org a 'reliable' source per WP:RS?

In the section on "Smith's religious confusion" it sounds like COGDEN is saying that FAIRLDS.org is not a 'reliable' source because it is 'just a website'. John Foxe has been arguing the same thing. I want a definite answer on this, independent of the 'exhorter = debater' issue as FAIRLDS.org is cited elsewhere in this and other articles, so I have spent some time trying to understand WP policy on exactly what 'reliable' means. WP:V says:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

FAIRLDS.org is not a personal website or blog, the website has been running since 1998, it is published by FAIR, an incorporated nonprofit 501(C)3 corporation. It is not a wiki, articles must be submitted and go thru a peer review process before appearing on the website. However, unlike FARMS, FAIR is not affiliated with any college or university. 74s181 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V refers to WP:RS which says essentially the same things as WP:V, but has a section on 'Exceptional Claims' (WP:REDFLAG) which says:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.

Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community.

The 'exhorter = debater' theory certainly fits this description but this doesn't help with the more general 'is FAIRLDS reliable' question. This section then refers to WP:FRINGE. The first paragraph in the WP:FRINGE lead lists "novel re-interpretations of history" as one of the kinds of theories it discusses, so I thought it might be relevant, at least to the 'exhorter = debater' question. Interestingly, the lead includes a photo of the Face on Mars, I assume this is an example of the kind of 'fringe theory' that the article discusses. The article repeatedly refers back to WP:RS, but there are a couple of specific statements that would be helpful if they weren't contradictory:

In order to be notable, a non-mainstream theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its small group of adherents.

Is FAIRLDS a 'major mainstream publication'? Unfortunately, that's the question we're trying to answer. 74s181 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability does not imply correctness or acceptance by an academic community. Many ideas widely believed to be incorrect are nonetheless notable, and the claimed correctness of an idea does not confer notability. If it can be documented in reliable sources that scientists or historians consider a hypothesis correct, then notability is satisfied per the above. However, a single proponent claiming that a hypothesis is correct does not satisfy notability.

The idea of notability vs correctness is a foundational principle of WP, something doesn't have to be 'true' to appear on WP, it just has to be 'notable'. But this paragraph does offer a possible solution to the 'exhorter = debater' question. Does anyone other than FAIRLDS discuss the 'exhorter = debater' theory? I don't know. Does the OED definition satisfy this criteria? I don't think so. 74s181 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ideas which are of borderline or minimal notability may be documented in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas...By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to "debunk" notable ideas which the mainstream scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong.

This part sounds like it is saying that the 'exhorter = debater' theory should be mentioned. 74s181 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, none of this really answers the 'is FAIRLDS reliable' question. Maybe the best solution would be to post a question about whether FAIRLDS.org constitutes a reliable source on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard and see what WP editors outside of this particular article think. I would prefer to leave out the specific 'exhorter = debater' question, as I'm looking for a general up / down vote on FAIRLDS.org. IOW, if FAIRLDS.org is considered a reliable source per WP:RS, then it is reliable for the 'exhorter = debater' question. If FAIRLDS.org is not reliable then another source will have to be found if anyone wants to continue the 'exhorter = debater' debate. 74s181 13:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would classify FAIRLDS.org as biased, but reliable. As you point out, the content of the site is controlled, but at the same time, it is slanted. The same could be said for lds.org, so I believe that FAIRLDS.org could be cited to represent the apologist viewpoint. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"biased, but reliable". According to WP:NPOV#Bias, "All editors and all sources have biases." The point being that WP doesn't judge Truth in these matters, it seeks to present all significant (or non-'tiny minority') views in a neutral manner. 74s181 13:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

True, everyone has a bias. My point was that I believe that FAIRLDS.org could be cited as a reliable source to represent the apologetic viewpoint (or at least one apologetic viewpoint). They clearly admit they are presenting an apologetic picture, and so they can be considered (IMHO) as a reliable source, although I would tend to include a note that they are apologetics. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think they are reliable, but I am somewhat uneasy about using the terms "critic" or "apologist" in a reference—it strikes me as highly unprofessional, and a little too editorializing. Anyone who visits the FAIR website will realize that it's full of apologists pretty quickly, anyway, IMO. The Jade Knight 23:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wp:npov#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements says that biased statements must be attributed. We can say 'Bob soandso says', but IMHO, attribution needs to also include some kind of label or title that explains why the person is an expert. Perhaps it is enough to say 'Bob soandso, a contributor to FAIRLDS.org says...' 74s181 09:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think 74s181's analysis of the issue is very good, and I'd be interested to see what people would say at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard. I've gone back and looked at the FAIR website and at the Matthew B. Brown article in question, and I've sort of changed my mind: I think the article is a reliable source, but that the theory is not notable. On the reliability front, I see that the article is a transcript from the 2004 FAIR Conference, and as such it would be like any other conference proceedings, where the content is permanent and you know where it came from, and it was from a notable conference event attended by historians. So I'd say it's probably a reliable source. However, I'm not convinced Brown's theory is notable. He's the only person I know of that has published this theory, and it disagrees with the main academic players in the field and with the long-held consensus. The theory is also just a small part of his article. Moreover, significant publications that came after Brown's FAIR Conference presentation (such as Bushman's masterwork) have ignored the theory. If it were notable, I'm pretty sure that Bushman would have commented on it. COGDEN 02:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for comment on the 'reliability' of FAIRlds.org at Wikipedia:Verifiability/Noticeboard. Although this issue pales in significance next to the current revert war, I think that the "exhorter = debater" theory from fairlds.org may be at the root of John Foxe's current frustration. 74s181 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The 'notability' question isn't as easy to resolve. When I first read the full text of the 'exhorter' quote, I interpreted it as exhorter = debater. I was encouraged to see the same interpretation presented in the fairlds.org article, but I agree, this is really been blown all out of proportion. 74s181 03:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)