Talk:List of Joseph Smith's wives

See also

The See also sections contains many links, some to DAB pages, to people who share a name with someone connected with Joseph Smith but have no obvious connection with Smith himself. What are they doing there? What purpose to they serve? Narky Blert (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

They serve the same purpose they would if each wife had her own article (and reporting in reliable sources may justify notability even if Wikipedia articles were not created on them). They inform a reader that a person with the cited name may be the same as or different from someone the reader may be thinking of or researching. They help a reader find the list of Wikipedia articles about people with the same name so they can, perhaps, identify whether the wife was also a mountain climber or if the name being the same was just a coincidence. A disambiguation page need not link only to an article about someone with the same name; it can link to an article that mentions such a person, such as a spouse of someone who is the subject of an article, and that's because it can help a reader to sort out who's who.

Given that purpose and its utility, disambiguation would defeat the purpose and should not be performed.

The hidden comments referring to Talk should be deleted. In general, it's better to use the list's Edit Summary to cite the Talk topic.

Nick Levinson (talk) 18:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is the purpose of "See Also" per WP:SEEALSO though. For example, the guidance specifically says not to include links that already exist in the article or links to DAB pages. The "See Also" is also not a variation of disambiguation pages. The links should be relevant to the topic and reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic. Almost all the links you recently added, imo, do not fit this guidance and so I've been bold and removed them. Seeing that at least 2 editors are challenging the inclusion, let's work out a consensus on the talk page before re-adding. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Significance of menarche in figure

What is the significance of displaying upper and lower menarche bounds in the timeline figure? Especially given that the reason for inclusion is not discussed in the article.... Is the point to emphasize that J.S. married pre-pubescent girls? Uninspired Username (talk) 23:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

@Uninspired Username: I'd say significance is for scholars to determine. If there are reliable sources that discuss it, then then the menarche lines should stay, otherwise, they should go. I'd be willing to update the figure and take out the lines if it is determined that they should go. Epachamo (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Epachamo: So, what exactly is for the scholars to determine? That menarche is an important metric for determining whether or not a girl is available for sex/marriage at a young age (to someone 20+ years her senior) and that is it fine as long as they can get pregnant? Uninspired Username (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Uninspired Username: It is for scholars to determine notability. If scholars explicitly make the connection between puberty and the age of Joseph Smith's wives and find it relevant, then it meets the criteria for inclusion in this wikipedia article. If not then the menarche lines should be removed. I looked at a couple of my sources and could not find any. I'm waiting for another book that might mention it, but if its not there, then I'd agree that the lines should probably be removed from the diagram. Epachamo (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Uninspired Username: I could not find a scholarly source that found it notable, therefore I removed the lines from the image. Epachamo (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

picture of Eldredge

What on earth does the picture of Eldredge have to do with this article? --142.163.194.13 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

It's just the picture that is used for Template:LDSpolygamy, which is used on this page. The template is applied and therefore the picture appears in every article that relates to Mormon polygamy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:14, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Denial of polygamy prior to Brigham Young

Recents edits by User:Elevangelioesverdad here and at Emma Smith and Origin of Latter Day Saint polygamy that contradict the consensus by a majority of historians that Joseph Smith did teach and practice polygamy. The user has reinserted these edits, in one form or another, after being reverted by myself and another editor. I have tried to explain in the edit summaries that the user needs reliable sources to support these statements. The user has finally added two sources, however the two sources do not qualify as reliable sources. The first source the user has attempted to use is a Deseret News article (or possibly from The Messenger - the quoted text is malformed in my opinion) from 1874. This is a primary source from which the editor is drawing the conclusion that Brigham Young is admitting to creating the doctrine - and therefore fails WP:SYNTH. What is needed is a statement from a reliable source, like a mainstream historian, that draws this conclusion from this quote. The second source is "Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage" by R. C. Evans, a member of the first presidency of the RLDS Church from 1902 to 1909. Again, this is a primary source which, even if it wasn't, would only support that this was the view of the RLDS Church at that time. So again, we need a reliable, secondary source for these claims.

@Elevangelioesverdad: Please self-revert, discuss the topic here on the talk page, and gain consensus before reinserting. (Also pinging User:Epachamo and User:ChristensenMJ who have recently edited this page and might be interested in providing feedback). --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you so much for your feedback, I appreciate it very much.

Just wanted to note that I have used the same credible sources that Fawn Brodie has used (The Deseret News, a very reliable newspaper) and the Times and Seasons (which in all actuality have been used by many editors on this site). Just wondering why these sources are only credible/reliable when used by people such as Brodie, but not credible by an RLDS man such as RC Evans? Am I to understand that it’s being implied that RLDS people aren’t credible? I’m a bit confused as to why this is an issue, seeing as Wikipedia takes a stance of being impartial and open-minded. Just saying, nothing wrong with hearing both sides of the issue.

In the Wikipedia spirit of impartiality and hearing out both sides, I’m going to add another Times and Seasons source and also a web link with several sources. Give them both a lookover and let me know what you think 🙂

Elevangelioesverdad (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Elevangelioesverdad: I think you need to review and understand wikipedia's policy on primary sources. Wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. Fawn Brodie is a secondary source. The sources you have provided are primary sources. Your edits are constructing an original argument from primary sources, which wikipedia cannot do. Wikipedia can quote a secondary source that uses primary sources to construct an argument. Wikipedia represents all major viewpoints relative to the weight they are given in secondary sources. The vast majority of academic historians in this field agree that polygamy started with Joseph Smith.

You also need to review WP:CONSENSUS - the material you have added has been challenged by at least two editors. When you find the material you've added being consistently removed, the proper course is to discuss on the talk page to reach consensus per WP:BRD rather than repeatedly re-inserting the challenged material.

Again, your edits violate WP:OR, should be removed and discussed here before reinserting. Please self-revert. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As this discussion continues, I have restored to prior version. Along with the issues of WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:SYNTH identified by FyzixFighter, and recognizing it's not technically applicable, there should be some care taken regarding a single-purpose account. ChristensenMJ (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Elevangelioesverdad:, first off welcome to Wikipedia. A Community of Christ, RLDS and other perspectives are very needed. I am not aware of any modern historian or book that is published by a well respected publisher, article published in a respected journal that does not conclude that Joseph practiced plural marriage. There is overwhelming consensus on this from the scholarly community to include: Fawn Brodie, Matthew Harris, Michael Quinn, Richard Bushman, Gregory Prince, Todd Compton, Richard Van Wagoner, Benjamin Park, Dan Vogel and even John Hamer. I am not aware of a single historian who disagrees. When critical scholars are available that can interpret the primary sources for us, they are always preferred. Internet blogs are not good sources, neither are primary sources and should only be used in very limited circumstances. I 1000% agree with FyzixFighter on this. Your next step if you still feel strongly that scholarly consensus is different would be to find a modern scholar that has interpreted the primary sources in a different way. Epachamo (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo Thank you. Glad to be here, and good to hear that you think the RLDS/Community of Christ‘s point of view needs to be heard as well.

You say you don‘t know of any published works that conclude Joseph Smith was not a polygamist. For starters, there‘s court records awarding the RLDS Church with being the church that holds and teaches the original doctrines as taught by Joseph Smith Jr (and to the RLDS, polygamy is heresy [many members who actually knew Smith testified under oath that Smith never instituted it or practiced it]; and court documents/transcripts don‘t lie). Secondly US Census records for the time period don’t lie either, as they show no children attributed to Joseph Smith other than the children he had with Emma. These so called wives are also listed in the census (of course) but none of their listings have anything to do with Joseph Smith. Their listings show their husbands names and the children they had with said husbands (if applicable). If unmarried they were listed with their fathers, mothers, etc., no children listed as being born to them until after they had married other men (like Fanny Alger for example).

Also there are countless testimonials in the Times and Seasons, the Deseret News, the Saints Herald (as well as many other widely circulated newspapers and magazines) which debunk the claim that Joseph was a polygamist. Published books such as « Memoirs of Joseph Smith III »(Joseph III interviewed the alleged « wives » in Utah and these women said they were married to his father after he was dead said women also testified the same in court); « Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy, Volumes 1,2,3,4 » by Richard Price, « Joseph Smith the Prophet and his Progenitors » by his mother Lucy Mack Smith, « The Carthage Conspiracy » by Dallin H Oakes, « Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage » by Joseph F. Smith (prophet of the Utah Church) and Richard C Evans (member of the RLDS Church Presidency); and the list goes on and on. These books contain many testimonials and they’re full of documented evidence that he did not practice polygamy. As for your naming John Hamer, he was raised in the Utah Church and although he has supposedly joined the CofC, he still claims and teaches the Utah doctrines (which again, many RLDS/CofC claim as being heresy). Hamer clearly does not reflect the RLDS consensus.

So just saying, we’re dealing with conflicting consensuses. The Utah consensus/teaching is definitely widely known. However the RLDS consensus is very widely known as well and available in many published works. Not understanding why one consensus can be regarded as the truth on Wikipedia but other truth is squelched and thrown out because it doesn’t agree with the current agenda. Why not let both be added and let the readers make up their own minds, instead of telling the readers they have to believe what is allowed to be posted? Fawn Brodie lived many years after Smith’s death. Why only allow her opinion over countless others who actually knew Smith and testified he didn’t practice it, and testified he excommunicated people who did? Definitely not dissing Brodie, Bushman, etc as they’re entitled to their opinions…but again, why can’t the other side state theirs as well? The other side is just as reliable, published, and credible.

Have to go but I leave you with a 42 page link (full of documented sources) that I’d appreciate getting your opinion on. I added it awhile back but someone else deleted it: http://downloads.miridiatech.com.s3.amazonaws.com/remnant/JosephSmithsMonogamy.pdf Elevangelioesverdad (talk) 18:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

@Elevangelioesverdad: The problem with almost all the sources you provided is that they are primary sources. Interpreting primary sources is not something that we as Wikipedia editors can do. We can only faithfully represent scholarly consensus. When there is scholarly disagreement, both sides of the argument should be presented making sure to follow the principles of WP:DUE. The only source you listed that would count as a scholarly, secondary source would be << The Carthage Conspiracy >>, but even that is a bit old, being written in 1975. Do you have a page number for where that book denies Joseph Smith polygamy? The best scholarly location that I've been able to find that presents an RLDS/CoC perspective is the John Whitmer Historical Association, which made waves back in the 1960s for producing scholarship that allowed for Joseph Smith polygamy. You can read an article here, written by a CoC member, that seems to imply that the RLDS/CoC scholarly perspective has entirely shifted to a conclusion that Joseph Smith did in fact practice polygamy. The 42 page link you sent is genuinely interesting, and could be used here as a source if it were published in a scholarly journal. Otherwise it is not a valid source. Epachamo (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo: I think « Joseph Smith Fought Polygamy » would be considered a scholarly, secondary source. An online source for volume 1, 2, and 3 can be found at https://restorationbookstore.org/pages/joseph-smith-fought-polygamy-online. It was published in 2000 so it is pretty recent. In the second page of the preface, it says "Joseph fought against this doctrine from the time he was married to Emma in 1827 (even before the Church was organized) until the time of his death. He did not practice polygamy nor teach it to others." 63.248.249.56 (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I would put this source on the same level as something published by the Interpreter Foundation, or the Gospel Topics essays from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These sources are great for presenting the current view of a particular sect, but they are not independent enough, or have the respect of the scholarly community to be considered scholarly. To show that these sources are quality and accepted, you would have to show that they are cited outside a narrow belief system. Epachamo (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)