| Revision as of 19:48, 10 September 2013 editAwilley (talk | contribs)Administrators14,151 edits →One or two stones...why is this a big deal?: good grief← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 16:02, 27 November 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 24) (bot |
| (913 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{featured article candidates|Joseph Smith/archive1}} |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|noarchives=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history|action1=PR |
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|
|counter = 21 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
<!-- MiszaBot seems to work best when its template is at the top, so please leave it there! --> |
|
|
{{Not a forum|personal beliefs, nor for engaging in ]/]s}} |
|
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=no |
|
|
|class=GA |
|
|
|listas=Smith, Joseph, Jr. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Missouri|class=GA |
|
|
|importance=low |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity| class=GA| importance= Top|latter-day-saint-movement=yes|latter-day-saint-movement-importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|class=GA|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|class=GA|importance=low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low|listas=Smith, Joseph, Jr.}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=PR |
|
|
|action1date=17:01, 11 August 2005 |
|
|action1date=17:01, 11 August 2005 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith, Jr./archive1 |
| Line 66: |
Line 42: |
|
|action7date=00:52, 16 August 2013 |
|
|action7date=00:52, 16 August 2013 |
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith/archive1 |
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Joseph Smith/archive1 |
|
|action7result=reviewed |
|
|action7result=not reviewed |
|
|action7oldid=568731131 |
|
|action7oldid=568731131 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=FAC |
|
|
|action8date=10:01, 06 October 2013 |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith/archive1 |
|
|
|action8result=not promoted |
|
|
|action8oldid=575820559 |
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=FAC |
|
|
|action9date=10:02, 27 December 2013 |
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Joseph Smith/archive2 |
|
|
|action9result=not promoted |
|
|
|action9oldid=587536173 |
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
|topic=Philrelig |
|
|topic=Philrelig |
|
|
|
|
|
|otd1date=2005-01-12 |
|
|
|otd1oldid=9686163 |
|
|
|otd2date=2006-01-12 |
|
|
|otd2oldid=34907269 |
|
|
|otd3date=2007-01-12 |
|
|
|otd3oldid=99901144 |
|
|
|otd4date=2008-01-12 |
|
|
|otd4oldid=183347223 |
|
|
|otd5date=2009-01-12 |
|
|
|otd5oldid=263560788 |
|
|
|otd6date=2011-01-12 |
|
|
|otd6oldid=407464143 |
|
|
|otd7date=2013-01-12 |
|
|
|otd7oldid=532602308 |
|
|
|otd8date=2015-01-12 |
|
|
|otd8oldid=641961939 |
|
|
|otd9date=2020-12-23|otd9oldid=995792032 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=GA|vital=yes|living=no|listas=Smith, Joseph|1= |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2005-01-12|oldid1=9686163|date2=2006-01-12|oldid2=34907269|date3=2007-01-12|oldid3=99901144|date4=2008-01-12|oldid4=183347223|date5=2009-01-12|oldid5=263560788|date6=2011-01-12|oldid6=407464143|date7=2013-01-12|oldid7=532602308}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=Top|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Christianity|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Missouri|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Illinois|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low|VT=Yes|VT-importance=Low|UT=yes|UT-importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Ireland|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=top|American=yes |American-importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Literature|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history|Biography=yes|Spanish=yes|US=yes|Canadian=yes|British=yes|African=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
{{Press |
|
{{Press |
|
| author=Michael De Groote |
|
| author=Michael De Groote |
|
| title=Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Misplaced Pages |
|
| title=Wiki Wars: In battle to define beliefs, Mormons and foes wage battle on Misplaced Pages |
|
| org=] |
|
| org=] |
|
|
| url=https://www.deseret.com/2011/1/30/20170574/wiki-wars-in-battle-to-define-beliefs-mormons-and-foes-wage-battle-on-wikipedia#jimmy-wales-from-the-us-co-founder-and-promoter-of-wikipedia-attends-the-intelligence-on-the-world-europe-and-italy-economic-forum-at-villa-deste-in-cernobbio-on-the-como-lake-italy-friday-sept-3-2010 |
|
| url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700105517/ |
|
|
| date=30 Jan 2011 |
|
| date=30 Jan 2011 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Daily pageviews}} |
|
{{archives |auto=short |search=yes |bot=MiszaBot I |age=30 |units=days |index=/Archive index }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 24 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(60d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}}{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Overcitation == |
|
== Church of Christ == |
|
|
|
|
Both FAC reviewers so far have mentioned the overcitation in this article. I'd like to look for consensus here on the talk page before slashing and burning them - especially since I wasn't present for much of the POV warring that led to them, so I'm not as familiar with which ones are useful, and which ones are just left-overs. What would be the best way to reduce the overcitation? |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking, to begin with, that we eliminate all (or most) mid-sentence citations, and merge them with their citations that appear at the end of the sentence. Also, we could be much more selective on which long blockquotes we include in the citations themselves, or pare down lengthy blockquotes into shorter snippets. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts? Ideas? -] (]) 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yep, getting rid of the mid-sentence citations is probably a good way to start. I've started going through those section by section, combining them into a single ref at the end of the sentence, and eliminating the duplicates. If there's a lot of text in the citation that's trying to prove some obscure and loosely related point, I cut that as well. Don't worry about not having read all the talk page archives...fresh eyes are probably better anyway. Having every sentence punctuated by a citation is still a little on the side of overcite, but I don't think people will complain. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Lead paragraph for section == |
|
|
|
|
|
I should probably provide an explanation for edit. Initially I thought sourcing it would be easy, since sources already exist in the article saying the same things. I realized, however, that the two paragraphs are very redundant with the other stuff. The first paragraph (Smith was innovative and divisive) is redundant with the 2nd paragraph in the "Impact" section. The second paragraph about Smith's teachings evolving from temporal to spiritual is redundant with the last paragraph in the "Other revelations" subsection immediately above. Anyway, that's the reason I ended up just blanking it. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yeah, thanks for explaining. I think the section looks bare without a lead, and I still think it would go over better in an FAC to have something there dealing with his body of teachings as a whole. Something so readers can get a feel for how his views/teachings, as a whole were/are viewed. I didn't mean for it to be viewed as redundant, but I was trying to give an overview. So, I guess what I'm saying is, I'd still like there to be something there, I'm just not sure exactly what. Any ideas? |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe we could prune the material from other sections if it's redundant? - ] (]) 15:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removed photos == |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I can understand removing the painting of Carthage Jail, since it's based on a description of events that may or may not have actually happened. I'll try to get a picture of the actual jail here when I have more time. (I'm sure there's one we could use at ]. But I only have a few minutes.) However, I think the image of the golden plates is worth keeping in the article, because it's a representation of an artifact of such critical importance to Smith's life. Whether they were real or not is subject to debate, of course, so the caption to the plates could and probably should be reworded to reflect that. But you can't have an article about Joseph Smith without the Book of Mormon, and you can't talk about the Book of Mormon without the golden plates. It's a critical thing to illustrate how they looked / how Smith claimed they looked. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thoughts? |
|
|
] (]) 16:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|Canstusdis}}, You should probably have a look at ] and ]. You don't get to revert over and over again, demanding that others discuss your edits — the onus is on you to provide an adequate rationale on the talk page, especially when you are reverted by two different people. As for the images, I'm not sure what you mean when you say they're not "representative of actual events". As far as I can tell, the depiction of the golden plates isn't supposed to represent any events at all. It is, according to the caption, "An artistic representation of the Golden plates with the Urim and Thummim, based on descriptions by Smith and others". Is that a problem? As for the second painting, it actually is fairly representative of what happened: there's Smith dead/dying on the ground outside the jail surrounded by the armed mob with blackened faces. Sure, he's not actively ''falling'' from the window, but I've seen pictures with him in midair, and they're pretty corny. Granted, this picture is a bit corny as well with the sunbeam, but Fawn Brodie describes that in surprising detail on page 394, which should be enough to justify its inclusion here. (You'll note we don't discuss the sunbeam or the attempted decapitation in the article or the caption.) Sure, I'd rather have a better depiction in the article, but we're rather limited in that regard since we can only use public-domain or open-license images on Misplaced Pages. Do have a better alternative you'd like to suggest? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 16:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree with ]. The image, as described, are accurate and should remain as it.--] (]/]) 16:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I agree with ] as far as removing the painting of Carthage Jail. The text nor references describe what that painting is trying to represent (sunbeams from heaven?). As far as the Golden plates, this photo seem more appropriate: |
|
|
] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::And this painting more accurately represents Smith's transcription/translation methods: ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Both these photos are in the public domain. ] (]) 17:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Re: "this painting more accurately represents Smith's transcription/translation methods"...more accurately than what? As far as I know there isn't currently an image in the article representing his transcription/translation methods. Are you saying there should be one? |
|
|
::::Re: golden plates, there are lots of images representing these, all with their pros and cons. I personally prefer the one in the article because it's a high quality professional-looking photograph of a well-made model, and it includes a replica of the wooden box that Smith said he kept the plates in. The other picture looks like somebody took a picture at a museum, and it's unclear when the model was made (if it's old enough to be in the public domain) or whether the original craftsman gave permission for their work to be published in this manner. |
|
|
:::: a link to the Google Books version of Brodie, describing what's going on in the other painting, though I don't see it as being terribly important for this article, and I think it's best if we leave that part out entirely, as I'm sure you'll agree. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 18:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::So, does this mean you concede the other dispute? Please let me know so I can delete/replace that painting with something more appropriate. (example: ) I'll discuss the second picture after we've resolved the first. Thanks. ] (]) 19:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It means I'd like an image that shows where Smith died (i.e. the outside of the jail with the well). would do, but is arguably less-historically accurate than the first. one is extremely low resolution, and it looks like he's doing a backflip. The one you linked to above shows the outside of the jail but not the window he fell from or where he died. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 20:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
<small>Let the record show that I'm bowing out of this conversation here. You two seem like you've got a better handle on how you'd like to see the article than I do at this point. ] (]) 21:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
: Thanks for your input. I hope you change your mind. I could use your help building consensus. ] (]) 22:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:{{ping|Adjwilley}}, in spite of it's low resolution is the most historically accurate. ] (]) 22:56, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::OK, I'm not particularly fond of it, but I've made the swap. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. Now the problem I have with the second picture is the inclusion of the Urim and Thummim. It implies Smith used some sort of spectacles to read the plates, but we know by the article itself that this is historically inaccurate. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Reference number 188: |
|
|
:::''{{Harvtxt|Remini|2002|p=57}} (noting that Emma Smith said that Smith started translating with the Urim and Thummim and then eventually used his dark seer stone exclusively); {{Harvtxt|Bushman|2005|p=66}}; {{Harvtxt|Quinn|1998|pp=169–70}} (noting that, according to witnesses, Smith's early translation with the two-stone Urim and Thummim spectacles involved '''placing the spectacles in his hat, and that the spectacles were too large to actually wear).''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::And according to the text: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::''Later, however, he is said to have used a chocolate-colored stone he had found in 1822 that he had used previously for treasure hunting. Joseph Knight said that Smith saw the words of the translation while he gazed at '''the stone or stones in the bottom of his hat, excluding all light, a process similar to divining the location of treasure.''''' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I don't have a problem with a photo showing what the plates supposedly looked like, and again as a compromise I'll offer the photo above, which I found . ] (]) 23:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Hmm, you seem to have missed the sentence in the text that says, |
|
|
::::''For at least some of the earliest dictation, Smith is said to have used the "Urim and Thummim", a pair of seer stones he said were buried with the plates.'' |
|
|
::::So according to the article he is said to have used both the U&T ''and'' the brown stone. I suppose if we had a picture with the plates, the U&T, and the stone, that would be best. I have already given my reasons for wanting the dark picture: It's more professional, higher quality, shows the box, is in portrait orientation, and unlike the museum snapshot, it has an OTRS ticket from the craftsman who made them, meaning there are no copyright issues. Additionally, the U&T is partly in the shadow, and is not prominent in the picture. It's also a much more accurate depiction of the U&T than (a pair of glasses) and quite possibly the best one I've seen anywhere. Of course, one could argue that they never existed, and the same could be said of the plates, the angel, God, etc. but it's still helpful to have illustrations. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The picture is misleading and does not represent the facts. Adjwilley, please look again at what you quoted: ''...a pair of seer stones he said were buried with the plates.'' I haven't seen anywhere a description of the U&T as a pair of glasses that J Smith put on his face. Here is what I have found: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::''In 1823, Smith said that an angel Moroni told him of the existence, with the plates, of "two stones in silver bows" fastened to a breastplate, which the angel called the Urim and Thummim and which he said God had prepared for translating the plates. His mother, Lucy Mack Smith, described them as crystal-like "two smooth three-cornered diamonds." Oliver Cowdery said the stones were "transparent".'' |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::If you could find a reference where J Smith used the U&T as a pair of glasses in which he translated the plates (as suggested in the photo), and not as a pair of seer stones in the bottom of his hat (as it is descripted by '''all''' the witnesses), I'll withdraw my objection. Thanks. ] (]) 01:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::You'll note that I never said they were glasses or that they were used that way. (The photo doesn't say anything about how translation was done either.) If you read the full quote from Lucy Mack, she says, ''two smooth three-cornered diamonds set in glass, and the glasses were set in silver bows, which were connected with each other in much the same way as old fashioned spectacles''. In another source (Largey) "William Smith said the spectacles were attached to the breastplate by a rod which was fastened at the outer shoulder edge of the breastplate…this rod was just the right length so that when the Urim and Thummim was removed from before the eyes it would reach to a pocket on the left side of the breastplate where the instrument was kept when not in use." (He also said it was too large and Joseph could only see through one stone at a time.) The stones themselves have been described as clear and white. If you look closely at the picture we're talking about you'll see it takes the compromise route (the stones are opaque). Anyway, nobody is saying that they were glasses, but lots of people say that they looked kind of like glasses, which is probably why when you looked at the picture you thought glasses, even though the idea was not suggested by anyone here. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 04:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Although I think the photo is misleading and not representative of the facts I'll withdraw my objection, however I'd like to add that, according to witnesses, actually represents the way the plates were transcribed/translated by J Smith. ] (]) 15:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Meh, whatever. I personally don't understand why the method itself is such a big deal. I don't think the picture is that great, but it's been in and out of the article before (it was removed a couple weeks ago, I think because the section was too crowded) and I expect it will be in and out in the future as well as people try to emphasize the bits they want emphasized. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 22:51, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think the method is quite important. It's discussed in the article itself. That's why I have such an objection to the 'artistic representation' photo that doesn't accurately represent the primary sourced factual events. I understand why you'd object to such a poor quality portrayal of the multi-witnessed events and I'd be willing to go with something of better quality as long as it wasn't as much of a distortion as your fanciful first photo is. This is a Misplaced Pages article after all. ] (]) 23:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::], how about a response to this one above? ] (]) 01:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* I was invited to comment here, but unfortunately am neither an expert on Joseph Smith nor pictures guidelines. Sorry. ] (]) 00:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that I'm still the last one to comment here. Not sure why ] hasn't replied. I suppose he'd like for me to build consensus by myself?] (]) 23:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Under the section titled, "'''Joseph Smith Jr.",''' 2nd paragraph, is this sentence, '''"'''The same year he organized the ], calling it a ] of the ]." |
|
@] - if you still have overall concerns about the picture being misleading, you might consider editing the caption in some way. I don't have anything particular in mind - it might end up being too awkward to try to include a disclaimer like that in a caption, but it's an idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: add a sentence clarifying that the church name was subsequently changed to the current title, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints", based on this recorded statement in April 26, 1838 |
|
Also, I'm going to try to find another suitable picture for Carthage Jail somewhere online (when I get the chance), because truthfully I can't stand the one we put up - it's low-res and black and white. Blech. As I understand it, for a new image to gain consensus, it must |
|
|
* Be historically accurate |
|
|
* Portray Smith leaping/falling from the window / after he's hit the ground. |
|
|
* Not look silly. |
|
|
* Be in the public domain/ other acceptable license for Misplaced Pages to use. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", ''Doctrine and Covenants 115:4'' |
|
Am I leaving anything out? ] (]) 23:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:Historically accurate: that's the number one most important criteria. beyond that it's up to editor consensus. ] (]) 01:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/115?id=p4&lang=eng#p4 |
|
:Again, waiting for a response. Isn't that how we're supposed to build consensus? ] (]) 23:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::What specifically did you want responded to? I would disagree that the number one most important criteria is historical accuracy. Sure it's important, but there's lots of historically accurate stuff that don't belong in this article. As for the image, I thought we had consensus to go with the low quality mid-air image until something better was found. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 00:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The name of the church was reitterated by the current president of the church: |
|
== One or two stones...why is this a big deal? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The Correct Name of the Church" |
|
There seems to be some disagreement over whether Smith used one or two stones to dictate the Book of Mormon, how to present this in an image caption, and how specific the wording should be. I am currently supporting a wording saying that according to some accounts he used the the single brown stone for much of it. (I want the more general wording to reflect disagreement I've found in the sources.) User:Canstusdis seems to support a wording that drops all reference to the U&T and implies that ''only'' the single brown stone was used. I guess the question I have is, why is this such a big deal? It wasn't a big deal to Joseph Smith, who used the two interchangeably. It wasn't a big deal to the scribes or his followers, some of whom took to calling other stones urim and thummims. It isn't a big deal to most of the biographers, none of whom make a statement as direct as the one Canstusdis seems to be trying to be putting in the caption (perhaps a sign of ]). It's not a big deal to Mormons...whether one stone or two stones were used, they still think the Book of Mormon was inspired. And it's not a big deal to non-Mormons...who cares if any stones were used at all: the Book of Mormon was a fabrication, and it was probably a manuscript in the hat anyway. So the question remains, why is this such a big deal, why is is so important, and why does this need to be highlighted in an image caption? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment'''. I have watched this develop and see it as verging on ] territory (not to suggest that editors are edit warring—but rather to suggest that the conflict is lame). I generally support the caption approach favoured by Adjwilley. There are indeed conflicts in sources on this issue, so it makes sense to simply state that the single brown stone was used for much of the translation. I don't understand why this has to be a matter of dispute. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree. Lame. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng |
|
:There may well be 'conflicts in sources' but the overwhelming preponderance of the sources seem to suggest that Joseph Smith used his brown seer stone to translate the entire BOM. If not, how do you square Whitmer's statement that the Urim and Thummim were taken away by the angel after Smith lost the first 116 pages of manuscript? And Emma's, that states basically the same thing? ] (]) 01:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The emphasis on the correct name has eclipsed "Mormon church" or other popular references. |
|
::I'm agreeing with Good Ol'factory in favoring the the simpler caption which accommodates more of the various accounts. In my estimation, I don't think there is a preponderance of sources suggesting only the brown seer stone after the 116 pages. Note that both the Remini (pg 61-62) and the Bushman (pg 70-72) references being cited both mention that JS did have the Nephite Interpreters returned to him after losing the 116 pages so these sources don't really support the brown seer stone only claim. A source that I found interesting that mentions and sums up a lot of the conflicting accounts and does some analysis of them is the recent essay "The Spectacles, the Stone, the Hat, and the Book: A Twenty-first Century Believer’s View of the Book of Mormon Translation" in the Interpreter (vol 5, pg 121-190). --] (]) 02:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Well, since I don't have access to either of those books at the moment maybe you could at least post the quotes so we could discuss them? Thanks. Also, links to places that might help my understanding are welcome. ] (]) 04:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Suggestion: tie hyperlinks to the name of the church to that churches official website, which offers comprehensive historical records |
|
:::I'm sorry ], but you suggested I read just confirmed what I've been saying all along. This from page 143: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/books-and-lessons/church-history?lang=eng ] (]) 01:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::''In 1886, David Whitmer indicates that Joseph used his own seer stone to translate all of our current Book of Mormon text. In this interview, Whitmer states that the spectacles were never returned after the loss of the 116 pages and that a seer stone was presented to Joseph Smith for the purpose of continuing the translation.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' name, and the various names of the church organization Smith founded, are : |
|
:::::: ''By fervent prayer and by otherwise humbling himself, the prophet, however, again found favor, and was presented with a strange oval-shaped, chocolate-colored stone, about the size of an egg, only more flat, which, it was promised, should serve the same purpose as the missing urim and thummim (the latter was a pair of transparent stones set in a bow-shaped frame and very much resembled a pair of spectacles). With this stone all of the present Book of Mormon was translated.37'' |
|
|
|
:* {{tq|The religion he founded is followed to the present day by millions of global adherents and several churches, the largest of which is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}} |
|
|
:* {{tq|In Missouri, the church also took the name "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints"}} |
|
|
:The phrase "Mormon Church" never appears on the page. For the recorded consensus on forms like "LDS Church", see ], a link to Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. It looks like last time the use of the phrase "LDS Church" was discussed, a preponderance of editors came out in favor of using "LDS Church" as the preferred shorthand for pages in mainspace, and the discussion closed with that as consensus. ] (]) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2024 == |
|
:::And This from page 146: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Joseph Smith|answered=yes}} |
|
:::''We have now established that there are multiple accounts from witnesses and Church sources confirming that Joseph switched from the spectacles or Nephite interpreters to a seer stone during the Book of Mormon translation process.'' |
|
|
|
The statement in quotes below is not accurate there is no LDS Church, and members of the church have always referred to one another as Saints. They did for a period of time accept being called Mormons, but it was derogatory and often used to imply the members were not Christian, or that they were non member sympathizers of the church in general. |
|
|
|
|
|
"Mormons generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the LDS Church and the Community of Christ." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should read |
|
:::Page 168: |
|
|
|
"Saints generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commonly referred to as the LDS Church, and the Community of Christ." ] (]) 22:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:When you're writing for a global audience (as we are), a ] is typically understood to be a dead person who has been ]. In that light, it's unlikely that "Saints generally regard Smith" at all. Also, see ]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 01:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I suggest we use Jason Wasden's edit, but with "Saints" changed to "Latter-day saints" or at least "Latter-day saints (Mormons)." ] (]) 20:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> <code><nowiki>''']'''<nowiki>]]'''</nowiki></code> (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 01:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2024 == |
|
:::''The image of Joseph translating using the stone and the hat does not match the picture that we typically have in our mind of Joseph looking at the plates through a pair of “spectacles,” while sitting behind a curtain. However, the use of the stone and the hat provides a distinct advantage in bolstering the claim that Joseph received the Book of Mormon text through revelation. The absence of a curtain during the latter part of the translation, during which the entire text of the Book of Mormon that we now have was produced, substantially weakens the critical argument that Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon by plagiarizing a number of other works. Instead of having Joseph obscured by a curtain or blanket, which could have hidden any number of reference materials, Joseph sat in the open, dictating the text of the Book of Mormon to Oliver while looking at '''the interpreter''' placed in his hat.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Joseph Smith|answered=yes}} |
|
:::It appears Joseph Smith didn't use the U&T to interpret the BOM at all. ] (]) 05:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
I suggest that note b should be changed to include the fact that the vast majority of Latter Day Saints followed Brigham Young. ] (]) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{Not done}}: please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] | ] 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Number of children == |
|
::::What official LDS website? If you are referring to ''Interpreter'', it specifically states that the "Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." ] (]) 13:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article mentions the children he had with Emma, but does not mention if he had children with the other women he was involved with. Is there a hard and fast number and can we get that included in the article? ] (]) 10:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::Fixed. Please don't sidetrack this conversation. Thanks. ] (]) 16:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::<small>Good grief, I was just trying to be helpful. is the appropriate way to redact a comment. Simply blanking the portion where you were wrong like confuses readers and makes Bahooka's comment look silly. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Children with other women have been suggested but many that can be checked via genetics have been disproven. A table of a few of the suggested and disproven candidates is included at ]. --] (]) 13:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::I'm going to edit the caption to reflect the . Let me know what you think. ] (]) 16:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Wait for this discussion to play out before changing things. So far no one has voiced support for your approach. Give users a chance to respond to what you have written. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
:::@FyzixFighter, thanks for the article, that was an interesting read. |
|
|
:::@Canstusdis, I have to wonder whether you actually read the Nicholson article or whether you just skimmed it looking for quotes that support your position. ] means assuming that you are not deliberately misinterpreting or quoting out of context with an intent to deceive, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there. Nicholson makes no conclusion that the BoM was translated entirely using the brown stone, and is very careful about drawing conclusions at all. The first quote you give is Nicholson quoting a primary source illustrating that there are contradictory accounts. (It is not Nicholson's own conclusion, which is what matters here.) Your second quote from page 146 only says that multiple accounts say that he used the brown stone. Nicholson doesn't draw a conclusion here, nor does he say how much was done using the brown stone. The third quote doesn't support your position either, as Nicholson doesn't specify whether ''the interpreter'' is the stone or the U&T. (Elsewhere in the article he says the U&T was also placed in the hat.) If you (or anyone else) is interested in what Nicholson's position is, I suggest reading the bullet points (starting around page 185) which get to straight to the meat of the issue without the confusion of sorting through contradictory primary sources. There he attempts to reconcile the various accounts and tentatively gives a chronology. Specifically speaking of the period after the 116 pages were lost, he says that the U&T were returned, specifically refuting what you've been saying all along, and further saying ''"Joseph began translating using either the Nephite interpreters or his seer stone, either of which may have been placed in the hat. The witnesses would not necessarily have been able to determine which instrument he was using, although Martin Harris’s swapping of the stone to test Joseph indicates that the stone was used at some point."'' |
|
|
:::Anyway, all that aside, you still haven't answered my original question, which I put in the section header: Why is this such a big deal? <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 19:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC) |
|
Suggestion: add a sentence clarifying that the church name was subsequently changed to the current title, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-daySaints", based on this recorded statement in April 26, 1838
"For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", Doctrine and Covenants 115:4
The emphasis on the correct name has eclipsed "Mormon church" or other popular references.
Suggestion: tie hyperlinks to the name of the church to that churches official website, which offers comprehensive historical records
The statement in quotes below is not accurate there is no LDS Church, and members of the church have always referred to one another as Saints. They did for a period of time accept being called Mormons, but it was derogatory and often used to imply the members were not Christian, or that they were non member sympathizers of the church in general.
"Mormons generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the LDS Church and the Community of Christ."
It should read
"Saints generally regard Smith as a prophet comparable to Moses and Elijah. Several religious denominations identify as the continuation of the church that he organized, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints commonly referred to as the LDS Church, and the Community of Christ." Jason Wasden (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The article mentions the children he had with Emma, but does not mention if he had children with the other women he was involved with. Is there a hard and fast number and can we get that included in the article? JustAChurchMouse (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)