Talk:Joseph Smith

First Vision caption

The words "more than ten years after founding the church" have been removed several times from the caption of the image that concerns the First Vision. This removal is an attempt to prevent casual readers from discovering a significant feature about Smith's First Vision: that there is no independent record of Joseph Smith having reported the vision for more than a decade after it supposedly occurred. In other words, removing those words is an POV attempt to remove helpful information for the casual reader, who will probably look at images first. Many individuals through the centuries have had visions of gods; rarely, if ever, have they concealed their visions for years. This aspect of Joseph Smith's behavior makes the words "more than ten years after founding the church" significant to the understanding of the casual reader.--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be concerned that the casual reader will not be led to a particular conclusion about the credibility of the First Vision account if that wording is not present. Yet it seems that omitting the wording is not likely to lead the reader to the opposite conclusion, so it seems that removing it on the stylistic grounds given will not offend NPOV. It's a level of detail appropriate for the article text but not a one- or two-sentence caption. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree with Analyst. Image captions should be simple and relevant to the adjacent content. Foxe said, "this removal is an attempt to prevent casual readers from discovering a significant feature about Smith's First Vision". I can just as easily turn that around and say "this insertion is an attempt to force casual readers to discover an insignificant feature about Smith's First Vision". However, I don't think either of these two statements is entirely true; the feature is somewhat significant, but not significant enough (or rather, not relevant enough to the adjacent content) to be in this particular image caption. Suppose the same image were used in an article like Criticism of Joseph Smith, Jr. in a section critical of Smith's first vision claims. In that situation, the caption would be appropriate. ...comments? ~BFizz 16:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The words "more than ten years after founding the church" are not insignificant. No contemporary of Smith claimed to have heard him discuss the vision for more than ten years after it was supposed to have occurred. So far as I can tell, that makes Smith unique among historical figures who have claimed to see deity.--John Foxe (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments for the wording's significance address the credibility of Smith's claim, but its credibility is not the subject or purpose of the illustration or its caption. The caption without the wording does not say or imply anything about the claim's credibility, so there is no pre-existing POV that would need to be balanced by adding the wording. Also, "more than ten years after founding the church" is factually incorrect, isn't it? The church was founded in 1830, and Smith's best known public account of the First Vision is from 1838. alanyst 18:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not a huge issue in my mind, but I can see how the current wording might be slightly misleading to say that Smith "reported that he had been visited by God the Father and Jesus in 1820." That kind of implies that he reported the vision in 1820. On the other hand, including a phrase that says "more than ten years after founding the church" clarifies things, but seems a bit gratuitous the way it is phrased, and is inaccurate in a different way, given that he did claim to have seen the two personages in 1838, though it was not published (reported?) until later. Maybe we just need a different approach. What about this: "Smith's later theology characterized the Father and the Son as two distinct "personages", as in this depiction of a vision Smith described in 1838." COGDEN 20:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. It feels a little awkward in its wording but has a lot else going for it: relevance, neutrality, and accuracy with respect to the article text. alanyst 21:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to tweak that a bit, how about "In Smith's later theology, he characterized the Father and the Son as two distinct 'personages,' as in this depiction of a vision he first publicly described in 1838"?--John Foxe (talk) 22:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

May I propose another angle? "Smith came to reject trinitarian views. He reported that during his First Vision, God the Father and Jesus appeared to him as two distinct 'personages'." I could see this with or without the first sentence, "Smith came to reject trinitarian views". As a matter of taste, I personally prefer not to refer directly to an image in its caption. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I want a reference to time or to a date. The casual reader should understand that Smith's exposition of the First Vision occurred very late in the game. How about "In his later theology, Smith characterized God the Father and Jesus as two distinct 'personages,' as in a vision he first publicly described in 1838"?--John Foxe (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I find that wording to be dissatisfying; it spends many words to accommodate the tangential point (when) rather than the main point (what). But if consensus deems the tangential point to be necessary here, I can live with it. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"When" is not tangential. The tardiness of Joseph Smith's public revelation is perhaps unique in the history of visions.--John Foxe (talk) 03:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

John, is there a reliable source that indicates that the timing of Smith's disclosure of the First Vision is essential to understanding Smith's theology and cosmology, or is the imperative you place on it coming from your personal views? Is the "tardiness...is unique in the history of visions" statement reflected anywhere in the scholarship or is this a novel argument? alanyst 04:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a pointed effort to interpret the later publication of Joseph Smith's first vision as some negative criticism. Again, I am personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject. The louder you yell at people not to look at the elephant in the room, the more likely they'll be interested.

So why might Joseph have focused on a publication of his First Vision later in life? Those who know anything about his history will have read his canonized history. In his own words,

"Some few days after I had this vision, I happened to be in company with one of the Methodist preachers, who was very active in the before mentioned religious excitement; and, conversing with him on the subject of religion, I took occasion to give him an account of the vision which I had had. I was greatly surprised at his behavior; he treated my communication not only lightly, but with great contempt, saying it was all of the devil, that there were no such things as visions or revelations in these days; that all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them. I soon found, however, that my telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects—all united to persecute me."

So remembering that Joseph Smith was persecuted (Murdered) for his religious beliefs from the moment he mentioned this vision, is it any wonder he focused more on the Book of Mormon and the organization of the Church than on his own revelation? Remember, the First Vision was a revelation whose intended audience was Joseph Smith, answering his questions. The other revelations he received, however were intended more specifically for the Church and the world. The fact he didn't walk around boasting about this sacred experience actually reveals a reverence.

In short, there's nothing to see here folks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reconsidered my position after looking at the current caption, which mentions neither the First Vision nor 1820. That caption is about as NPOV as one could be, and it obviously has support of the community here. I'm satisfied.--John Foxe (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current text as well. I think the reason the image is used is to illustrate Smith's later theology. It's not so much about the vision itself. Although I think the current text is fine, I would also not be opposed to some indication that the image reflects Smith's later theology (rather than earlier, more trinitarian theology). COGDEN 22:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm entirely satisfied with the current text: "Smith reported that he had been visited by God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct 'personages'." I'm not opposed to the idea of mentioning this was Smith's "later theology", though I personally can't see a way to insert that detail without bloating the caption. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a stab at modifying the sentence without specifying when Smith abandoned trinitarianism.--John Foxe (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There may be a problem with the word "abandoned". It's the same issue that arises when we say that the LDS Church "abandoned" polygamy. It vaguely implies a kind of betrayal or retreat. COGDEN 18:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

A further problem is that it implies that he was an outright trinitiarian initially, when I'm not sure that's been an established position in the reliable sources. Less is more in this case; the version without the bit about trinitarianism is superior to the one with John Foxe's good-faith addition. alanyst 18:26, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The caption now abandons both "abandon" and the Trinity, although there's now a rough date. What do you think?--John Foxe (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I still prefer the version that doesn't try to say anything about the timeline. It doesn't make sense to broach that topic in the caption when neither the illustration nor the nearby text expresses anything about it, and attempting to do so in an NPOV way makes for awkward wording. Best not to force it into a place where it doesn't fit. alanyst 19:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added the word "corporeal," to make the caption reflect both the illustration and the nearby text.--John Foxe (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The current version is quite good: As his theology matured during the late 1830s, Smith recalled a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct, corporeal "personages." I support this version as an acceptable alternative to the text I said I was "entirely satisfied" with. "Corporeal" was a particularly good addition, imho. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

If there was a problem with a bloated caption before, we have it again. "As his theology matured during the late 1830s..." seems a bit much just for a caption, and the insertion of the word "recalled" seems leading. If the reader is curious to know more details about Smith's claimed experience depicted in the image they can read the article. There they will find information about the different versions of the First Vision story and the associated timeline.Rockford1963 (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree, Rockford. A few days ago it read clearly and simply enough. Now it looks very "bloated." The term, "As his theology matured" is wordy and confusing. What's wrong with the word, 'later'? Or the phrase, 'later in life'. I second the concern over the term, 'recalled.' I highly doubt Joseph ever forgot such a pivotal experience. Perhaps the term 'reflected' but not 'recalled.' This reads very negative POV. Canadiandy1 (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've taken a stab at cleaning it up and simplifying it. Canadiandy1 (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Smith is not WP:RS. WP articles need to be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science."--John Foxe (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not Smith is a reliable source, my edit simply stated that he "recorded" having seen a vision. Is there reasonable evidence to prove he is not the author of "Joseph Smith - History" as published in the Pearl of Great Price? I thought my edit was both clear and balanced. Please revert back. Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I agree that "Smith is not a RS" is a red herring here; it is certainly backed up by reliable sources that Smith did record that his vision occurred in 1820. However, if consensus determines to remove the 1830s detail, I recommend my previously-proposed wording (with a few optional tweaks), "Smith claimed to have seen God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct, corporeal 'personages'." Leaving off all dates seems to be sufficiently vague that all viewpoints could agree with it. I myself hold no strong opinion on whether to include or exclude the introductory phrase, "As his theology matured during the late 1830s". ...comments? ~BFizz 06:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In this instance, it's a distortion to privilege Smith's claims over scholarship without including chronology because Smith said as a teenager he had seen God with flesh and bones and then taught that God was a spirit. A charitable implication is that Smith didn't understand what he had seen as a teenager until very near the end of his career; an uncharitable one is that he was a bold faced liar and blasphemer. The article text spells out the change in Smith's theology, and believers can't deny the problem. What they'd like to do is prevent the casual reader—the sort of person who grabs at the image captions and moves on—from understanding the difficulty with Smith's story. I don't blame them for trying to conceal such information, but I won't be a party to it.

@Canadiandy1: Are you, as you wrote above, "personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject"?--John Foxe (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, you're presenting a red herring. Smith's accounts of the First Vision did not affirm that God's corporeal nature was obvious to him as a teenager, but your argument depends on this for there to be some "difficulty" over the chronology of Smith's teachings on the nature of God with respect to his First Vision accounts. You're making your own inference and then saying the resulting "difficulty" is being concealed by believers in order to deceive the casual reader. That's insulting and a violation of AGF if you don't have evidence to back up that claim. alanyst 14:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

That Joseph taught God had a tangible body does not exclude him from teaching God as also being a spirit. In LDS understanding a soul is the combination of body and spirit. Nothing to see here. Please revert. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 15:03, 11 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I've changed it to read thus: "Smith said he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus, whom he described as two distinct 'personages.'" It's my good-faith effort at finding a wording that everyone can live with, that doesn't try to push any particular POV, and that still has relevance to the section it illustrates. alanyst 18:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Smith is not WP:RS. I have reverted with a citation to a scholarly source. The caption should make it clear that there's a problem with the story as Smith told it.--John Foxe (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I was not using Smith as a RS. It's well supported in the article text and reliable secondary sources that Smith said he saw God the Father and Jesus in a vision, and that he described them as two distinct personages. It needs no further citation, particularly in a caption. The wording I used is neutral and neither privileges nor impeaches Smith's claim. Your citation to Widmer is a reliable source (though I don't have the source on hand to evaluate how accurately you interpreted it), but there are other reliable sources (like Bushman) who draw different conclusions than Widmer. Bushman speculates that the timing and shift of emphasis in Smith's various accounts were due to some combination of teenage reticence, lack of confidence, fear of ridicule, and a changing perspective on its importance (see pages 39-41). I'm not saying that Bushman's right and Widmer's wrong—just that since reliable sources disagree, an image caption is not the place to address the dispute nor to favor one side or another, particularly when the illustration and context don't deal with the timing issue. I'm sorry to keep repeating myself, but the timing of the accounts of the First Vision is simply not relevant enough to the Views and Teachings section that it requires mention, let alone citation independent of the article text. (Also, Smith's later account was in 1838, not 1839 as you gave it.) alanyst 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no mention in the Bushman account that Smith saw God and Jesus as corporeal beings, so there is no conflict with Widmer.--John Foxe (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no mention in your citation of Widmer about God's corporeality, only the number of personages that Smith said he saw. Widmer's point apparently was that Smith's account changed over time, and he (Widmer) offered conjecture as to the reasons why. Bushman offers different conjecture as to the reasons for the timing and changes in Smith's account, and since the two scholars disagree, the job of Wikipedia is to describe the disagreement but not to take sides. Since doing so requires more discussion than an image caption can afford, and for the other reasons I've given above, the caption is not the place to address the issue. Besides, the fact that Bushman does not address the corporeal aspect bolsters my argument, since it shows that reliable sources do not see that aspect as inextricably intertwined with the timing aspect, which is your rationale for insisting on including it in the image caption. alanyst 23:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to include reasons why Smith may have changed his theology, only that he did change and that he never claimed to have seen God and Jesus Christ until after that change during the late 1830s. Scholarship (including Bushman and Widmer) agree on this point.--John Foxe (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy1: Are you, as you wrote above, "personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject"?--John Foxe (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, John. Neutral non-LDS contributors have now tried to make the caption more balanced, but since it keeps getting reverted to its present confrontational biased state, I am comfortable that the fair-minded reader will see through things and actually look at both sides of the issue. And the dark foil here is actually quite a nice compliment to the courteous and dignified treatment found elsewhere. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Rockford1963 has removed a caption earlier agreed on and removed the citation to an WP:RS without explanation. If we have to ask for mediation outside the group here, I'm ready to go that route.--John Foxe (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's the change. I'm not seeing that any references were changed, and the explanation on the caption change were given in the edit summary. I'm not advocating one caption over another, but.. rationale was given and your rationale doesn't match. tedder (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I incorrectly assumed that Rockford1963 had removed the citation to Widmer. He didn't, but alanyst did with no WP:RS sources given. Even with Rockford1963's change, the caption did not reflect the citation, which emphasizes that Smith created the First Vision story in 1839. The time issue given in the citation either needs to be reflected in the text or another scholarly citation refuting Witmer should be provided. The matter is not irrelevant. I insist on a chronological reference or I'll ask for outside mediation. I've reverted one final time today.--John Foxe (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the addition of a source was the solution sought. The problem was clearly identified as a biased presumption and a wordy (bloated) caption. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Indeed, no one is disputing the fact that Smith's teachings matured over time. The question is whether or not mentioning the various "when" details are important to this caption, in this section. I generally agree with what Analyst said earlier:

It doesn't make sense to broach that topic in the caption when neither the illustration nor the nearby text expresses anything about it, and attempting to do so in an NPOV way makes for awkward wording. Best not to force it into a place where it doesn't fit.

The footnote doesn't really fit. The "Smith's 1830s theology" detail does fit, but is not entirely necessary. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This is an lot of effort for such a minor caption. Here is the situation as I see it:

1. One side wants to omit details about time and context as irrelevant to the point of the caption, which is that Smith's ultimate theology included two deities with physical bodies.
2. The other side wants to include information about the time period and context, given that Smith did not arrive at his two-being Godhead theology until the late 1830s, long after the depicted vision.

Here's what I think: Dates are not necessarily relevant to the caption, as long as (A) it is clear that the theology depicted in the image is a theology from Smith's later period, and (B) the caption does not imply that the theology of the depiction is contemporaneous to the vision itself. There are a lot of ways to accomplish both A and B, and I don't really care which one. But here's a short and sweet suggestion: Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings. If you prefer a little bit more elaboration: At first essentially trinitarian, Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings, as shown in this artist's depiction of his first vision. COGDEN 03:43, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I still don't like the implied notion that Joseph Smith's theology "changed." While he may have communicated it with greater complexity in his later life, there is nothing I have seen or read which proves a changing theology. Enhanced, perhaps, but not changed. I would be comfortable with, "Smith described Jesus Christ and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." Of course, if you are looking to accept the LDS perspective, it would read more like, "Joseph Smith learned early in life that Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father had bodies of flesh and blood." Yeah, I know it would be perceived as bias, perhaps as relatively biased as the caption now reads. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 05:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I am not sure the reference to Widmar's text could be considered "mainline" and possibly could be considered more fringe. The supposed "changing" or evolution of Smith's theology is debatable and there is certainly not a universal perception of an evolution. The Book of Mormon can be argued to support many different positions and that is the main point...it is debatable and there is no single position.

There is no bias in reporting Joseph Smith's own words, nor has there ever been a bias. It is bias to completely ignore his words and grasp fringee opinions that present opinion as fact. -^StormRider 05:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

While the debate may continue as to the proper caption I made a change to the simple version suggested by BFizz. I am not sure why a reference is made within a caption - shouldn't that belong to the text of the article?Rockford1963 (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with COGDEN that dates are not required but that it is necessary to note that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, a change that's currently documented in the text and one about which all scholars concur. Let me also repeat that Joseph Smith is not a WP:RS; his words are of no value here except in so far as they agree with scholarship.--John Foxe (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate that you and COgden think that Joseph Smith's theology changed over time, but unfortunately that is a highly debatable issue. There is NO concensus among historians or theologians. Please provide your evidence that all "scholars" agree with your position. Joseph Smith is the ONLY reliable source about his life. Everyone that you have used, such as Widmar, provides only his opinions, avoids all contradictory information to his POV, and is, at best, a fringe position. Cheers. Repeating it does not make it any more true than when you first stated it, but if repeitition makes you feel better, by all means please go for it. -^StormRider 12:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not debatable among scholars. All scholars believe Joseph Smith's theology changed over time. Joseph Smith is not a reliable source at Wikipedia. I'll repeat those statements both because it makes me feel better and because those statements follow WP guidelines: "All scholars believe Joseph Smith's theology changed over time." "Joseph Smith is not a reliable source at Wikipedia."--John Foxe (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

John. I will repeat the concern which I voiced earlier and which you still have not addressed, John. My edit did not state anything which made Joseph Smith a source. It merely stated that Joseph Smith "recorded" that he saw God and Jesus Christ. Unless there is evidence that someone else shadow-wrote the Pearl of Great Price, or unless you actually want to attribute his words completely as the words of God and not his own, there is no reason my original edit was anything but fair, neutral, and clear. I say again, please revert. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I can't revert, Canadiandy, because my edit's already been reverted.

The question we're debating is not whether Joseph Smith said he saw God and Jesus Christ but whether he recalled/remembered/created this story to match the new theology he adopted in the late 1830s. The image appears in the section about Smith's theology, so we should note that Smith's theology about the nature of God changed during that period. All WP:RS agree that this change occurred, it's mentioned in the text, and it needs to be acknowledged in the caption. Otherwise, we're deliberately hiding useful information from the casual reader. As you said above, if the reader wants to discover the true story, it's easy enough to go to lds.org.--John Foxe (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right that it is a question, John. And until we know the answer we include what we know. We know Joseph Smith recorded that he saw God and Jesus Christ. It looks like I need to make the revert, thanks. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 15:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

We know there's no record that Joseph Smith ever mentioned seeing God and Jesus Christ until the late 1830s after he had changed his theology. About that all WP:RS scholars agree. The information appears in the text, why not in the caption?--John Foxe (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd nudge you (and everyone here) towards WP:CAP. While drawing the reader into the article with a caption is important, it isn't a DYK, so succinctness is also very important. tedder (talk) 16:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of succinctness. Anything that should be said, can be said short.--John Foxe (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

There is an consensus among mainstream scholars, both Mormon and non-Mormon, that Joseph Smith's theology evolved. It began as "essentially trinitarian", and gradually developed into something roughly like the theology of 20th century Mormonism. There are numerous references to support this, many of which may be found in Mormonism and Christianity. Bushman agrees (see, e.g., p. 420: "By 1841, he had moved from a traditional Christian belief in God as pure spirit to a belief in His corporeality..."), Brodie agrees, and every other reliable source agrees. That Smith's theology evolved is not controversial among mainstream scholars.

But I don't think this issue has much to do with the caption. It is too much detail for the caption to positively explain that Smith's theology evolved. We can leave that for the main text. All I'm saying is that though the caption should be succinct, it should not be so succinct that it implies the fringe perspective that Smith's theology circa 1820 was of a godhood with two distinct physical beings as shown in the depiction. So that's why I propose something like "Smith's later theology described Jesus and God the Father as two distinct physical beings." COGDEN 18:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. (It also proves my point that better is usually shorter. COGDEN's proposal is fourteen words, four shorter than the current version.)--John Foxe (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I feel there are two important points to make in the caption. 1) Smith (in his later teachings) taught that the Father and the Son were two distinct beings. 2) Smith claimed to have seen them as separate beings (this is what the image actually depicts). While COgden's suggestion is an excellently succinct explanation of #1, it omits #2, and I therefore hesitate to embrace it. Foxe is hesitant to embrace any caption that includes #2 without making it clear that Smith did not consistently proclaim that such was the case. I hate to put yet another suggestion forward when we've already come up with so many, but I see nothing else to do until we can all settle on one. Smith eventually departed from trinitarian beliefs, claiming that God the Father and Jesus had appeared to him as two distinct physical beings. This version is quite similar to the abandoned trinitarianism version, but uses the softer phrase "eventually departed". I have mentioned various versions that I support; add this one to the list. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The devil is in the details. The phrase about Smith's "later" theology seems purposely placed to imply an inconsistent theology. I do not believe all of the sources on Joseph Smith are implying Joseph did not have his reported vision. In fact his own words suggest the vision occurred at the age of 14. So to state this was only a later theology is to straight out accuse him of fabricating his original vision. Yes, John, I am sure you believe that is the case, fair. But surely you can't argue every source on Joseph Smith "knows" that he fabricated his early vision.

Fair wording would simply drop the word 'later'. The article already entertains enough pointed criticism on the subject for those who are interested in such things.

Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Concerning the word 'corporeal.' As the caption now reads it seems to allude that this is Joseph's phraseology. Could we not use his own words if it is already neutrally identified as his own report. If not, it needs to read such that the term is clearly connected to the researchers/editors who have synthesized his words? For example,

Joseph's record of this vision identifies God and Jesus Christ as having what religious historians have termed 'corporeal' bodies.

Yeah, I know that wording sucks, but I think you get the idea. Indirect quotes are tricky things which is why I usually avoid them. Canadiandy1 (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

@BFizz, I don't think #2 is a necessary point for this particular caption in this particular section, but I think your suggestion is good enough.

@Canadiandy, I think you are leaping to conclusions. Noting that Smith's theology evolved is not an accusation that he fabricated his first vision. If a 14 year old boy has a mystical dream or vision, you can't expect him to fully understand its deep theological implications the instant he awakens from it. It takes time to process the experience and assign meaning to it. In Smith's case, it took about two decades of reflection. But that's beside the point, because nobody in mainstream academia questions whether Smith's theology evolved, and to imply otherwise gives WP:UNDUE prominence to a fringe theory. COGDEN 03:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden,

I don't think I'm going to roll over on this one. Based on my understanding of the First Vision, I do not personally believe Joseph Smith's theology "evolved" or "matured." Consider the following insights from Milton V. Backman Jr.;

"On at least four different occasions, Joseph Smith either wrote or dictated to scribes accounts of his sacred experience of 1820. Possibly he penned or dictated other histories of the First Vision; if so, they have not been located. The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences. It is not surprising, therefore, that each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience. When Latter-day Saints today explain this remarkable vision to others, their descriptions often vary according to the audience or circumstances that prompt such reports. If one were relating the incident to a group of high priests, for example, he would undoubtedly tell it somewhat differently than he would to individuals who had never heard of the restoration of the gospel or of Joseph Smith.

In an important way, the existence of these different accounts helps support the integrity of the Latter-day Saint Prophet. It indicates that Joseph did not deliberately create a memorized version which he related to everyone. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement."

Nobody could ever prove that Joseph Smith understood his experience any differently as he aged. Speculate, sure. That it was reported differently is to be expected. So I call bias when individuals want to use loaded language such as "matured" or "evolved." I still see no valid argument against simply stating that "Joseph Smith recorded having seen God the Father and Jesus Christ at the age of 14. He noted that they were distinct beings with tangible bodies." 173.180.109.246 (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, you and Foxe have provided no references that "all" or even "mainline", "majority" of historians and theologians have agreed that Smith's theology changed. Being a little familiar with the topic, I will also say a reference does not exist, but I am open to being corrected. It is only your opinion that such is the case and your and Foxe's repeitition of such a statement or position does not make it real or correct. I ask both of you to drop the phrase and just use it in other media.

The LDS Church does teach that Smith received revelation his entire life and expanded on concepts first taught. However, that is not the same thing as changed. Evolved may be accurate depending upon the context of the statement and its specific topic.

The proposition that it "changed" is debatable; there is no single answer or perspective. -^StormRider 06:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I want to get away from some theoretical debate between the words changed and evolved, which is irrelevant to this caption. The only issue relating to the caption is whether or not the caption should imply that Smith had a fully formed two-corporate-being theology in 1820 at the time of his first vision. WP:UNDUE says we have to refrain from implying this WP:FRINGE view. To do this, we have two choices: (1) we forgo using the first vision image to illustrate Smith's 1840s theology, or (2) we make it clear in the caption that the figure illustrates Smith's later theology--preferably as succinctly as possible. COGDEN 06:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden, I apologize, but I continue to disagree with your premise. As I reflect on this progress of this discussion I am reminded of an analogy by B. H. Roberts when talking about another "historian" of the LDS Church:

"Mr. Wilson is as one who walks through some splendid orchard and gathers here and there the worm-eaten, frost-bitten, wind-blasted, growth-stunted and rotten fruit, which in spite of the best of care is to be found in every orchard; bringing this to us he says: "This is the fruit of yonder orchard; you see how worthless it is; an orchard growing such fruit is ready for the burning." Whereas, the fact may be that there are tons and tons of beautiful, luscious fruit, as pleasing to the eye as it would be agreeable to the palate, remaining in the orchard to which he does not call our attention at all. Would not such a representation of the orchard be an untruth, notwithstanding his blighted specimens were gathered from its trees? If he presents to us the blighted specimens of fruit from the orchard, is he not in truth and in honor bound also to call our attention to the rich harvest of splendid fruit that still remains ungathered before he asks us to pass judgment on the orchard? I am not so blind in my admiration of the Mormon people, or so bigoted in my devotion to the Mormon faith as to think that there are no individuals in that Church chargeable with fanaticism, folly, intemperate speech and wickedness; nor am I blind to the fact that some in their over-zeal have lacked judgment; and that in times of excitement, under stress of special provocation, even Mormon leaders have given utterance to ideas that are indefensible. But I have yet to learn that it is just in a writer of history or of 'purpose fiction,' that 'must speak truly,' to make a collection of these things and represent them as of the essence of that faith against which said writer draws an indictment.20

I see no need to attempt to introduce opinion as fact. There is not a consensus among historians or theologians that Smith changed his beliefs. What we know for a fact is that Joseph Smith stated he saw the Father and the Son as a lad of 14 years. To attempt to draw any other position is POV and misleading. Smith never stated that God the Father and the Son were one person. The Book of Mormon not only states that God is one, but that God and the Son are two separate persons. Context is vital to understanding any topic. To walk through the history of Joseph Smith and pick only the fruit that supports your positions is not honest and it is not serious scholarship. Yes, it does ressemble the rather deplorable objectivity found in Brodie's work, but it misses all the other fruit that evidences a different picture. I must concur with Roberts that seeking the worm-eaten fruit only and then attempting to judge the whole by this paltry picking, is lacking in justice and neutrality. -^StormRider 08:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Storm Rider, I think you are going far afield of the issue at hand. I think we should focus the discussion on this particular caption. In answer to your request for sources showing that Smith's theology began as roughly trinitarian and then evolved, please take a look at Mormonism and Christianity, and look in particular at Bushman, Alexander (who is probably the most cited reference), Kirkland, Ostler, White, and Widmer. Shipps (p. 80) cites this view with approval. Other sources, not cited in that article, include Melodie Moench Charles (Book of Mormon Christology, 1993), Hale (1978) [1], and Mark Thomas (Sunstone 5 (May/June 1980): 24-29). I am aware of no reliable source advocating the theory that Smith's 1820 theology was the same as his 1840s theology. If you are aware of one, please post it. Even if such an isolated reference existed, it would still be improper under WP:UNDUE to imply that perspective in the caption. COGDEN 09:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Was Smith’s theology different in 1840 than what it was in 1820? The answer is 'yes' in at least one sense, he knew more by 1840 and had a clearer picture of things heavenly, as he claimed he received through revelation. To infer that in 1820 Smith did not believe he saw two distinct personages, the Father and the Son, and later concocted this detail to flesh out his developing theology is pure conjecture. As mentioned by others in this discussion already - Smith not stating all facts in each statement he gave about the First Vision does not prove that later statements are incongruous with what he believed he experienced in 1820. The point made by StormRider is valid, there is no evidence that Smith said that the Father and the Son were the same person, and plenty of statements where he makes it clear they are two separate beings. Best leave the caption simple, and leave the details about timeline of First Vision statements to the main part of the article.Rockford1963 (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

How about simply removing the image, thereby finessing the problem of a caption?--John Foxe (talk) 10:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden,

You wrote; "I am aware of no reliable source advocating the theory that Smith's 1820 theology was the same as his 1840s theology. If you are aware of one, please post it." From a few posts ago,. Milton V. Backman Jr.. Or try Richard P. Howard. Or Dean C. Jessee. Stormrider, I couldn't agree more with your last discussion. The thing that is most puzzling to me is the double standard. For example, Bushman is touted as bringing balance to the discussion because he is LDS. But then any LDS researcher who is even slightly courteous towards Joseph Smith's history is quickly dismissed as unreliable. Looks like Bushman is the metaphorical "bad apple" (though I don't doubt he is not a nice guy) that the negative critics scoured the orchard for, found, and now want to focus on solely (with the exception of the odd Brodie reference here and there). 173.180.109.246 (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

The picture is one of the only images on the page that bears any semblance of dignity or "cheer." The other images (mostly two-tone, muddy, dark, or confusing) cry out for a little less gloom. There is nothing wrong with the image, just the cynical text it has been surrounded by. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, are you, as you wrote above, "personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject"? If so, you ought to take my side; if not you ought to apologize.

I'm willing to eliminate the image, but I'm unwilling to have the caption suggest that Smith recounted the First Vision before the late 1830s, a notion that (pace Canadiandy) no WP:RS scholars support. How say you all?--John Foxe (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bushman, in pages 39-40 of Rough Stone Rolling, says that Smith recorded the vision in 1832, 1835, and 1838: "By 1832, when he first recorded his vision..." "In 1835 he said that first one personage appeared and then another. In 1838, he reported that the first pointed to the other...." alanyst 16:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Rockford1963, my proposals for the caption merely contain a bare acknowledgement that the image reflects Smith's later theology. I don't think the caption should contain any kind of discussion or implication about how, or why, Smith's first vision stories are different from each other. I think that is a complex issue that is irrelevant for the caption. Lets put that issue aside, and deal specifically with concrete text of the caption.

@Canadiandy, again, the issue is whether the caption can imply that Smith's 1840s theology is the same as his 1820 theology, and I presented a pretty long list of preeminent academic references that say otherwise. That alone is sufficient to establish that the caption cannot make the above implication consistent with WP:UNDUE. But as an aside, I note that the Backman reference you cited is a religious article from the LDS Church's religious and devotional magazine, which is not a reliable academic source. Also, please note that some of the references I cited above, other than Bushman, are Mormon writers. COGDEN 19:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

First Vision caption (2)

If you take a look at the various accounts given in the First Vision article, I think you'll see the difficulties involved in identifying the image under discussion with any story Smith told before 1838/39.--John Foxe (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a different argument than "Smith did not recount the First Vision before the late 1830s." But see my analysis immediately below. alanyst 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think some concepts are being conflated in the discussion above. There are several issues at play:

• The timing of Smith's recording of the First Vision
• Changes over time to the theology that Smith taught regarding:
  • The distinctiveness of God the Father and Jesus
  • The physical nature of God (spirit only versus having a body of flesh and bone)

I can't see where the First Vision narratives say anything about the physical, tangible nature of God. Certainly it tells of God and Jesus appearing as "personages", and believers have (not unreasonably) inferred that this is evidence that they have physical bodies. But the accounts of the vision don't tell of them interacting with the physical world at all. Unless there is a reliable source that affirmatively states that the First Vision influenced or reflected Smith's theology regarding the physicality of God, it would be synthesis to mention that aspect in a caption of an image depicting the First Vision.

On the other hand, the First Vision quite obviously deals with the question of the distinctiveness and visual appearance of God the Father and Jesus. Thus the image is relevant to that bit of Smith's theology.

When we talk of the timeline of Smith's theology and whether the First Vision timeline is relevant to it, we should be precise about which of these two doctrines is being discussed. If Smith's early teachings affirmed that God did not have a physical body or that nothing had yet been revealed on the subject, this would not be at odds with the First Vision account. If they affirmed that God and Jesus were not distinct beings or that nothing had yet been revealed on the subject, then this would be at odds with the First Vision account. When historians say that Smith's views became less trinitarian over time, are they referring to the distinctiveness question or the physicality question? Quotes from reliable sources, in context, would be helpful to answer this. (On a side note, saying someone's views became less trinitarian over time doesn't mean that they started out with squarely trinitarian views, just as saying that political figure X's views became less conservative over time doesn't mean they started out as a conservative. Let's be careful not to claim that Smith started out teaching trinitarianism if that's not what the reliable sources indicate. Again, the actual language from the reliable sources would be helpful here.)

If Smith's public stance on the distinctiveness question didn't change from the date he claimed the First Vision to have occurred, then the timing issue of the First Vision accounts is not relevant to the theological position. This is why I think the caption should omit language that addresses the timing, and because the physicality question is not known to be addressed by the First Vision, I also oppose mentioning it in the caption. It should simply say that Smith claimed to have seen God the Father and Jesus as distinct personages, which the image nicely illustrates. alanyst 17:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Smith did not say that two separate personages appeared to him simultaneously before 1838/39—which is what the image shows. Eliminating the image is possible, but implying that the image represents Smith's views of the Trinity, the physicality of God, or anything else before the late 1830s is misleading.--John Foxe (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

@Alanyst, I agree with your analysis, for the most part. But the issue of the first vision stories changed over time is, in my view, completely irrelevant to the purpose of using this image. I think I was the one who put the image there, and the only reason I did so was to illustrate Smith's late theology. The fact that it shows the first vision is beside the point. You could just as easily substitute any Mormon image of God and Jesus as separate physical men. Thus, if this is really a sticking-point, maybe the solution is just to delete the image, or use a different image. The stained-glass window was created in the 20th century, anyway, and it does reflect Smith's 1838 account (though not his 1840 account) pretty well, but it is by no means a contemporary image.

I agree with your statement that saying that Smith saw the physical bodies of God and Jesus is a synthetic view of Smith's statements. (I believe Orson Pratt was the first to perform that synthesis, soon after Smith died.) But as to your proposal, "Smith claimed to have seen God the Father and Jesus as distinct personages," that really waters down Smith's later theology. Saying that Smith saw God and Jesus as "distinct personages" could almost be compatible with trinitarianism. Even trinitarians believe that God and Jesus are distinct "persons". What makes Smith's theology distinct from trinitarianism is that he believed they had separate, physical bodies. If we have to water down the caption that much, I think there's no point in including the image. COGDEN 20:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

John. You have now twice quoted me when I said I am, "...personally quite comfortable now seeing the negativism so severe here. It actually makes it more likely fair-minded readers will look to sites such as lds.org for more reliable information on the subject." Yep, I still feel that way. And nope, that doesn't mean I am going to support your position. Your logic is confusing on this one. A little thing called ethics stands in my way. That old ends does not justify the means thing. See, I will not bargain or compromise when it comes to truths and principles no matter what the justification. What's wrong is wrong, even if everyone else is doing it. Does it bother me that Joseph Smith is so slandered? Not at all, actually. They said, and are still saying, some pretty nasty things about Christ too. So as I see it, such unfair treatment is to be expected, puts Joseph Smith in with some pretty good company, and in fact was prophesied by Joseph Smith himself. And as to an apology? Nope. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Actually, it was three times. If you're content to see negativism here, and it makes "fair-minded readers" turn to apologetic websites, why bother trying to eliminate information in this article that doesn't conform to LDS POV?--John Foxe (talk) 10:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: move First Vision image to "impact" section

Here's a possible solution to the First Vision caption issue: What if we move the image to the "impact" section, and change the caption to say something about the impact of the First Vision story on later Latter Day Saints? If we can't use the image as a simple illustration of Smith's later theology, then the "impact" section is a good home for it. The image is an imperfect illustration of Smith's theology, but is a perfect illustration of how modern Mormons view Smith. COGDEN 20:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

An excellent idea since the First Vision is already mentioned in that section.--John Foxe (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally I feel the way we mention the First Vision in the impact section is rather tangential. It's like, "oh yeah, and there's also this random factoid that we couldn't squeeze in anywhere else". Also, if we move the image, the "Distinctive views and teachings" section would have no images at all. I'm not opposed to the move; I just wanted to raise these two small concerns. ...comments? ~BFizz 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, there is nothing wrong with the image. While stained glass is a little un-LDS (more of a Catholic culture thing) it is one of the rare, if not the only, images that does not look dark, gloomy, muddy, or confusing. I don't blame anyone for the fact, the problem stems from the historic cultural disrespect shown the LDS faith. But I wonder why John Foxe is leading the call to eliminate the image. It is beautiful, bright, relevant, and clear in message. But as it actually might in some minor way portray Joseph Smith in a positive light (pun intended) I anticipate its speedy removal here. No offense intended towards any individual contributors, just an insight relating to the collective bias still prevalent here.

@COgden. While Backman is a published and reviewed professor at an accredited university, I have to remember he bears the unfortunate character flaws of being both LDS 'and' positive towards Joseph Smith's history. If only he had been more critical like Bushman we could use his writings. Sorry if this sounds sarcstic, I commented this way only because I think it is the most poignant way to communicate my frustration with bias against pro-LDS writings. The sarcasm is not intended at you, it is directed towards the climate of bias I think is still present here. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

COgden, you have a problem with Backman's position. Which of the main points he made do you disagree with? Or is he just wrong because he is LDS?

1. That Smith wrote on at least 4 different occasions.

2. "The four surviving recitals of this theophany were prepared or rendered through different scribes, at different times, from a different perspective, for different purposes and to different audiences."

3. Each of them emphasizes different aspects of his experience

4. In the legal profession, attorneys and judges recognize that if a witness repeats an incident by using precisely the same language, the court might challenge the validity of such a statement.

You know, maybe it is my horrible LDS bias, but I'm having a hard time seeing anything in his points that is not common sense.

In my mind, we should base a researcher's work on its own merits, rather than on what religion the researcher is. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Canadiandy, it has nothing to do with Backman's religion (which I share), and everything to do with where Backman publishes his work. If Backman had been able to publish his view in peer reviewed journals, or in mainstream academic fora such as university presses, etc., and if his view wasn't a fringe view, then we could cite him for his apologetic position. But on Wikipedia, we can't cite fringe historical perspectives that may be found only in the Ensign, Deseret Book, or Bookcraft. COGDEN 16:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I get it. The belief that Joseph Smith might not have been an evil deviant is a "fringe view." That explains everything. And I was beginning to think it was just me. The question remains, however, which of Backman's points do you disagree with? 173.180.109.246 (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

173, you have hit the nail on the head. Foxe and COgden run roughshod on this article demonstrating a very high degree of ownership. Anything they do not like get reverted or deleted; they are the sole source of "acceptable" references; they are the only ones that know what "acceptable" view is as well as all fringe views. Being a member of the LDS Church does not equate to neutrality and certainly not possessing mainline beliefs, COgden. In fact, membership means nothing.

How in the hell does Widmar become an acceptable, mainline POV? Because you say so? How does anything that remotely is neutral in the article get deleted or changed to reflect, "tweaks" or edits that are too "wordy". You two need to back off the article and quit your violation of ownership polices. -^StormRider 11:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

@Canadiandy, your statement above, and your discussion regarding Backman, are straw men. My Mormon religious views, and whether I agree with Backman, are beside the point. My personal opinion is not citable, and has nothing to do with the caption in question. Plus, the only thing that is a "fringe view" is the idea that Joseph Smith had a secret theology in 1820 that was the same as his 1840s theology. As far as I am aware, no scholar has published this extraordinary hypothesis in a mainstream academic forum. That's not to say the view is necessarily wrong, just that it is apparently unpublishable and therefore "fringe". And this is not me making this rule, this is the policy of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

@Storm, I'm going to ignore the personal mudslinging, except for noting that: (1) I almost never revert edits to this article, and (2) you shouldn't confuse ownership with stewardship. COGDEN 21:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please be very careful; there is a difference between stewardship and ownership. What you and Foxe are doing is clear demonstration of ownership. Only your edits can stay in the article, only your references are acceptable, and only you two seem to know what is the proper way to word anything. -^StormRider 16:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

@COgden. You are the one who made the point about Backman. I merely quoted him here as some insight into why there is a misunderstanding of the First Vision. I have no idea why you raised the flag that he is an unreliable source. I merely mentioned his name as the quote was his. So please, is there anything he said that you disagree with?

And, that someone (Joseph Smith) knew something and didn't say it does not necessarily imply the keeping of a secret. You don't know what I had for lunch yesterday. Sure I didn't tell you, but it wasn't a secret. The argument that Joseph Smith was keeping a secret because he did not reveal each and every detail of the First Vision to each and every scribe for each and every audience is the rhetorical equivalent to asking if I have stopped beating my wife. So how is it a "Fringe View" to suggest it is common sense that the variation in Joseph Smith's recorded statements on the First Vision are merely the nature of different audiences, and different perspectives? Is it a "Fringe View" that I had a sandwich because I didn't tell you, or because I have never been peer reviewed on the subject of lunch foods?

I mean absolutely no offense. I think you know so much on the subject you are losing sight of the common sense of the matter. That is normal for individuals who focus heavily on one field or topic. Wasn't it Einstein who never wore socks. (Meant as a compliment, Einstein was a great man). I admire your breadth of knowledge on the research, but please, don't lose sight of the forest for the trees.

I don't see why the position that Joseph Smith's "different" comments on the First Vision are because of varied audiences and contexts is any more "fringe" than the position that he was changing his story or evolving a theology. I will gladly respect someone who wishes to postulate it. I think common sense would likewise evidence my position. And since there is likely no irrefutable evidence for either, I am of the position that we leave both out and aim for neutrality on the issue. Thus, we word it such that Joseph Smith "claimed" (N).

Canadiandy1 (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

It is relevant that Backman's Ensign article is not a reliable academic source for the conjecture that the 14 year old Smith had a secret nontrinitarian materialist theology. What isn't relevant is my personal views about Backman's article. In Wikipedia, it's never about who is right or wrong--it's only about what the references say. And nobody, at least yet, has been able to publish the secret theology theory in a general academic forum. If tomorrow somebody discovered Joseph Smith's lost teenage diary, and it amazingly contained his full 1840s theology, then that could change in a heartbeat. But that's not where we are now. COGDEN 03:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

COgden. Nobody has ever been able to locate a lost diary revealing Nixon was not a closet homosexual. Therefore Brodie's theory must be accepted as fact (for Wikipedia purposes). She was, after all, not Republican, peer reviewed (although her peers in that field mocked her work), and published.

Reminds me of the Shel Silverstein poem about the turtle that falls in love with a set of bagpipes. Each time he asks if they love him the bagpipes don't say no. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Offtopic, but I have a boycat named Sue. tedder (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the chuckle Tedder. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Wording

A lot of this article seems to take the Mormon beliefs as truth and say that they are absolutely correct. I think the wording needs to be changed to reflect the fact that this is religion and not history, and it is not concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.141.78 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Could I introduce you to a fellow editor named Canadiandy?--John Foxe (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Anon, could you please provide examples? As far as I can see, everywhere Mormon belief appears, we always precede it with "Smith said..." or "[Latter Day] Saints believe..." or something to that effect. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey "unsigned." Let me introduce myself. I am Canadiandy. Could you be a little more specific? Which specific article are you referring to? If you are suggesting the Joseph Smith Wikipedia article has even an inkling of pro-Mormon bias, then I would refer you to the treatment Joseph Smith receives from Encyclopedia Britannica, which in comparison must be a raving pro-Mormon conspiracy to indoctrinate and brainwash the masses into believing that Mormons actually control the government from inside a secret underground bunker. Sorry for the hyperbole. Or is it hyperbole? Maybe you are the only one who really isn't a Mormon. Or maybe you're just wrong. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

There, there, let's not bite the newcomers.--John Foxe (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I was just playing to your tongue-in-cheek "introduction" but I may have gone a little overboard. My "Bite" was not aimed at "unsigned" but at the systemic negative bias still existing in the article. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

"Wary" of Protestant religions?

First, I had a chance to look at the introductory paragraphs. They are so pointedly negative it is shocking. How do we miss this? In this summation of Joseph Smith, and what is important about him, we witness the following key elements,

He founded a movement, was a polygamist, was “wary” of Protestant churches, was influenced by folk religion, used supernatural powers to find buried treasure, organized a Church of Mormons, oversaw financial collapse, incited insurrection, and was tried on capital charges…

Does anyone believe that’s a fair or neutral snapshot of who Joseph Smith was? The bad apple analogy seems to be holding here.

To start with, I would take issue at least with the statement that Joseph Smith was "wary" of Protestant religions. While he was perhaps cautious about joining in with them, it seems he was actually at one point close to joining the Methodists. He writes "In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was bright and who was wrong."

Remember, Joseph Smith wrote, "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." Now of course we don't get to trust Joseph Smith's own record, but at least this makes the absolute statement that he was "wary" of Protestant religions debatable at best.

It would best be written that "In his early teens Joseph Smith went through a period of religious interest and investigation of the different Protestant faiths in the hopes of determining which was doctrinally correct."

Canadiandy1 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiandy1 (talk • contribs)

Not to play devil's advocate, but when were Smith's words written? Have they been edited & re-edited over time? Do these words, when written, jibe with contemporary accounts as found in secondary sources? (meaning: is it something he wrote about as an older gentleman or are there accounts that it took place when he was a teen as he suggests?) This is the standard by which we're all held to. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't expect everybody to accept Joseph Smith's words as the only evidence for this position. But when one considers the fact that his parents raised their children in a Christian home and that his mother a sister and two brothers were Presbyterian, common sense would at best suggest there is no definitive evidence for or against his being "wary" of the Protestant faiths. Combine that with what he recorded about the First Vision, and It seems to me that to accept unquestioningly that Joseph was "wary" of these faiths is a stretch at best. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 06:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

Joseph Smith, Sr. was a drinker and antagonistic to organized religion, and his sons Alvin and Joseph sided with him against their mother in religious matters. Joseph's childhood acquaintances uniformly agreed that Joseph wasn't at all religious in his youth, and he didn't come up with the First Vision until late in the 1830s.--John Foxe (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

John Foxe, you state that "Joseph's childhood acquaintances uniformly agreed that Joseph wasn't at all religious in his youth." All of his "acquaintances"? I notice you didn't refer to them as friends. Your sources please? Did these happen to be from that old reliable source of 'some of the locals who at the time were so fair-minded they ran out members of other religions they didn't agree with by burning their homes?' And what is your point in adding that Joseph Smith Sr. was a drinker? Most people back then were drinkers. What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying people who drink can't be Protestant? Your bias is showing. 173.180.109.246 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

For comments from Joseph's acquaintances about his early non-interest in religion, see the testimonies gathered in the five volumes of Early Mormon Documents, a fine set of primary sources. Richard Bushman says, "Judging from later accounts by the Smiths' neighbors, Joseph's religious struggles were unknown in the village. The publication of the Book of Mormon surprised everyone. The villagers had no idea that the nondescript farm boy who occasionally appeared in town to buy a paper for his father had any ambition or religious character. He seemed slow and 'destitute of genius' or lazy and superstitious. The townspeople who later recorded their memories thought of the family as treasure-seekers, not eager Christians."(35-36)

As for Joseph Smith, Sr., Bushman writes that he "may have partially abdicated family leadership. 'I have not always set that example before my family that I ought,' he confessed in 1834. Speaking of himself in the third person, he gratefully told Hyrum that 'though he has been out of the way through wine, thou has never forsaken him nor laughed him to scorn.' Joseph Sr.'s drinking was not excessive for that time and place; only two of the hostile affidavits collected in 1833 mentioned it. But he feared his sons' scornful laughter....By the standard measures of success in a rural society, he had failed. Even his dreamy yearning for religion had led to nothing; he felt he had let his children down. 'I have not been diligent in teaching them the commandments of the Lord,' he admitted, 'but have rather manifested a light and trifling mind.' All the boys loved and honored their father, Joseph Jr. particularly, but their affection may have included sympathy for a life blighted by shame."(42)--John Foxe (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "wary": the article body does a better job of explaining the precise situation, and while it's an important detail of Smith's accounts of the First Vision and visitations from angel Moroni, it's not really critical to the overview of Smith's life. I've edited the detail out of the lede. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Because the lede references the influence of folk religion, I think it is also important for completeness to say something about the complementary influence of Protestant Christianity. Whether or not the "wary" phrasing is the best option, i don't know, but I think we should at least note in the lede that he was was interested in the Christian controversies of his day, but skeptical of organized religion. I think the secondary sources thoroughly support that. COGDEN 20:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, BFizz. Thanks, COgden.

@COgden. I would suggest he was not merely interested but intrigued. I still don't see him skeptical of organized religion as much as he was questioning and exploring them. 'Skeptical' has a negative connotation and I believe he was sincerely hopeful he would find the right one. I would suggest perhaps that he was troubled by them and their incongruencies. Canadiandy1 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)Canadiandy

I'm only concerned with secondary sources, not what any of us suppose was in JSJr's head. Perhaps 'wary' isn't the right word. However, I would caution against lifting things directly from some published accounts of 'Joseph's words' as I've seen some that have been sanitized heavily over the years - comparisons between original publications and subsequent editions that remove any references that would paint JSJr in a lesser light. In addition, with the probability that early events were perhaps embellished or altered by the man himself in later years, the current narrative is probably not accurate as physical history. We therefore need to base this on secondary works and not what we supposed JSJr thought as a boy. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree there are limits to knowing what was in Smith's head, but there are some conclusions that the secondary sources draw, based on the entire historical record, which are not controversial. What about something like this:

"Smith was raised in western New York during a period of religious enthusiasm. His family was engaged with and divided by the Christian controversies of his day, but he was not happy with any particular religious tradition. He was also influenced by folk religion, and as a young man was recognized..."

However we express it, I think the secondary sources are in agreement that during his adolescence, Smith was not ultimately happy with any of the Protestant traditions to which he was exposed. The extent, if any, that he purposefully investigated different denominations is unknown (except for Methodism) so I don't think there's any certain theory on that presented by the secondary sources. COGDEN 00:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There are really two sides to Smith's views of the existing churches. On the one hand, he says that he was told personally by Jesus Christ himself that these other churches were "all wrong" and that their leaders and intellectuals were corrupt. Smith's position then was that the existing churches were all apostate. However, on the other hand, he also said, "Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true “Mormons.”" So while avoiding anything in their doctrines which was apostate, he believed in trying to gather what was good and true in all different traditions together, while discarding what was bad and false. Calling Latter Day Saintism a hodgepodge of theologies isn't a criticism but, in some ways, an accurate description. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fanny Alger

Two editors have tried to disguise an important aspect of Joseph Smith's career—his immoral relationship with Fanny Alger. (I have no intention of using the word "immoral" in the article itself, but that's exactly what it was.) My opponents need to explain why they wish to cover up this episode that reflects so negatively on the character of Joseph Smith.--John Foxe (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC).

Tried to disguise? That is ridiculous. Two words, John: undue weight. So now you're talking in terms of immoral and fellow editors as opponents? Time to take a break from editing ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No undue weight is given. The episode speaks to the lack of character and untrustworthiness of Joseph Smith. We don't cover up evidence at Wikipedia. As Cowdery said, this was a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair," and it needs to be included—even emphasized in my opinion. I make no apologies. Remove this information and you are not only my opponent but the opponent of the NPOV ideal that Wikipedia stands for.--John Foxe (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

At this point I have personally lost confidence that John Foxe is trying to keep his personal opinions separate from his editing. "Lack of character and untrustworthiness" are personal opinions and efforts to promote them in this article are no more appropriate than efforts to promote an opinion of Smith's integrity and kindness would be. alanyst 18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Even the current wording is rather odd. He "may have married"? The truth is he either did or he didn't. Probabilistic words like "may" and "chance that" work well when talking about unknowable future events, but don't work as well for disputed (but theoretically knowable) past events. But I can't think of a better way to phrase it at the moment.

Regarding the "immoral relationship with Fanny Alger". Did Smith marry Fanny Alger? Historians generally (but not universally) conclude "yes", based on various primary sources. Did Smith have sexual relations with Fanny Alger? , Bushman notes that Cowdery was the only one to publicly accuse Smith of immoral behavior. So from a Wikipedia standpoint, it seems obvious that we include the "married" detail (where there is at least enough evidence for historians to start asserting a POV) but exclude the "immoral relationship" detail (where historians generally avoid asserting a POV due to lack of evidence). In specialized articles, there is obviously more room to discuss both points.

As a slightly off-topic note, surely Foxe does not propose that we to take everything Cowdery said as the truth? Otherwise we would also have to accept his statement as one of the Three Witnesses, which I'm sure Foxe does not accept. Foxe, you seem very convinced that you know exactly what happened during "the episode", but the truth is, historians are grasping at straws to put the story together. How can such a poorly-evidenced event speak to anything about Smith's character? The original wording casts Cowdery as "one of the few that knew about the relationship", a sort of insider's look into the secret life of Smith. On the other hand, Bushman takes the opposite approach and states he was the "only one who accused"; basically asserting that despite the rumors wildly flying around, no one except Cowdery actually substantiated the claim. Bushman even seems to imply that Cowdery was jumping to conclusions, and had not witnessed anything; that Cowdery believed his own accusations, although he didn't base them on sound evidence. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Bushman gives Alger her own subhead and four pages of text. He notes that "her story was recorded as many as sixty years later by witnesses who had strong reason to take sides. Surprisingly, they all agree that Joseph married Fanny Alger as a plural wife." Bushman says that Alger never admitted to the marriage but then he also says she "had no trouble remarrying." My opinion is that Smith's relationship to Alger was exactly what Cowdery said it was, a "dirty, nasty, filthy affair." Obviously I can't prove that on the basis of Cowdery's testimony alone, but it's important to make sure that Smith's unconventional behavior, which reflects on his character and suggests his general untrustworthiness, is clearly delineated in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That's just it, Foxe: your opinion (POV) makes no difference. Frankly, I am rather shocked by the tone of your notes - a change recently. I remember someone once speculating that you and Duke53 were in fact the same person - a sort of yin & yang, good cop/bad cop. I thought the very notion silly. But now you seem so dramatic, so OTT. Opponents? Merely because I mentioned undue weight? Perhaps you think you own the article and take it seriously that if it deviates from your own narrative and your own mindset, it can't be tolerated. All we suggested was that the bit be shortened and that the content be shifted to a footnote or another article dealing with polygamy or the founding of the church. Drawing lines in the sand doesn't help anyone, unless you're wanting an admin involved. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that my opinion makes little difference in the actual editing of the article. We as editors can't go beyond evidence; and in the nineteenth century, it was uncommon for folks to parade their vices before the public. Nevertheless, I feel morally obligated to let all the regulars here know how I feel about this episode: that regardless of whether Smith considered this dalliance with Alger a "marriage," his affair with her was immoral, it betrayed his wife Emma, and it reflects negatively on his character and trustworthiness. On this issue, I do draw a line in the sand.--John Foxe (talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Fanny Alger issue is certainly a notable element of Smith's history, which is always given prominent treatment in any discussion of plural marriage. The dispute between Smith and Cowdery regarding Alger is also an important reason why Cowdery, who was practically the co-founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, defected from Smith's movement in the late 1830s. Therefore, I don't think we can minimize the issue. But the issue is not whether Smith's relationship with Alger was "immoral". Whether Smith's polygamous practices were moral or immoral is not a question that Wikipedia can answer. The "nasty affair" allegation is only relevant because it was one of the accusations made by Cowdery, and one of the reasons why he left the church. I don't think we necessarily need to quote Cowdery's exact inflammatory language, as long as we note that Cowdery believed Smith's polygamous relationship with Alger was immoral.

Also, while the preponderance of more recent scholars think that Smith developed the justification for polygamy before he entered a plural relationship with Alger, and that he probably had a marriage ceremony to mark their joinder, some scholars (like Brodie) take the opposite view, that Smith had a relationship with Alger before developing or understanding the religious justification for that relationship. So the language in this article ought to be compatible with both possibilities. COGDEN 22:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Notability is a relative issue; for critics of Joseph Smith it has been a wonderful bit of fat to chew since the beginning while for others it is at best an unremarkable "nonevent", i.e. it really does not matter relative to everything else that went on during his life. The value of an individual's life is not made up simply of those things critics find interesting, but rather those things that made the individual remarkable in history. The article does a better job of covering the major points critics enjoy hearing about and fails to really inform readers why this individual is worthy of historical note.

Is the purpose of the article to satisfy the interests only of critics or is it more important to focus on why Smith is important? If this one question were asked for every sentence in the article we all would find a drastically different article. Rabid critics would cry foul, POV, etc., but their complaints only legitimize their desire for a very twisted article. Frankly, I see no need to always cater to a single view point - no other religion article uses this lens - why this one? Because Evangelicals are so loud in their complaint? Or is it that Mormons are so willing to comply to the whims of critic? Or, more likely, Wikipedia articles are controlled by those that care the most that their POV be heard and enforced? Unfortunately, the last statement would seem the most likely reason and it is also the problem of a public forum for writing articles. At the end of the day, I have come to accept that it is just best to grin and bear it; shake my head in disgust; and look for other ways to spend my precious time. -^StormRider 12:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

When a person claiming to be sent from God to restore primitive Christianity has an affair with an adolescent girl in his household, the occasion can be described as a "non-event" only by those who have closed their minds to the testimony of a man's life.--John Foxe (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"Nature of reliable sources"

This is in response to conflicting edits.

Ah-hem. Please explain what could possibly be more reliable to document what a man's claims about himself are than books the man published himself? There can't be any more direct, reliable sources than someone's own published words for anything, ever! --BenMcLean (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect,with all regular editors coming from different backgrounds, the way we've been doing this to adhere to NPOV is by consensus. Your edits, and that of the IP, include references to non-scholarly works and websites. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying we can't cite primary sources, but have to rely in the reinterpretations of some scholar rather than citing a person's own words to establish their claims about themselves? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It often sounds peculiar to folks who are new to the encyclopedia, but Wikipedia privileges secondary sources over primary ones. At Wikipedia, articles must be based on "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources." So at Wikipedia, Joseph Smith's testimony about himself is disallowed except insofar as it confirms such secondary sources as the scholarly biographies of Fawn Brodie and Richard Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. But you and A Sniper didn't just say my sources are no good, you said my edit is POV. What is POV about it? Does anyone seriously dispute that Smith made these claims about himself or that these claims are among the most significant and noteworthy features of his life? I haven't read these biographies but couldn't you or someone else who has, look up where it is covered in these biographies that he did in fact make these claims about himself? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Admin Needed

I think it is time that we again grab an admin to supervise. Foxe is no longer editing fairly - ownership issues? Now it is a moral crusade to expose JSJr as an immoral bastard. Is that really our role as editors - to be on a crusade? This whole thing started with the issue of undue weight. Now it is a revert war by an editor on a POV mission. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have an outside administrator render his opinion.--John Foxe (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've protected the page because of the edit warring/content dispute. Issues of ownership and POV are done through consensus, not by an administrator. I think you all know the proper channels for this; WP:DR is a starting point. tedder (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence

I'm not sure how to pursue this but I think the opening sentence seems to make him much more moderate and unimportant than he really claimed to be. The introductory paragraphs as they currently stand fail to adequately explain Joseph Smith Jr's relevance as a religious figure, giving undue weight to his political ambitions while minimizing what made him remarkable: his supernatural claims. It seems to me to give more weight to his influences than to his influence. Whatever political offices he held or other practices he had, his primary historical relevance is his role as translator of the Book of Mormon, restorer of the priesthood, "prophet seer and revelator" and president of the church. In addition to the text I suggested, I think the second sentence also ought to mention that he was a candidate for president of the United States and that he was assassinated in 1844. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, when the protection is lifted from the page in mid-May, we can all begin editing again without the hot heads. However, this must be based on secondary sources. I agree with John Foxe on that point - that it must adhere to third party, bona fide references. I reverted your edits because they did not contain adequate sources. You also referred to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which is incorrect. And 'general authority'? In a controversial article such as this, every edit has to be carefully made - we work by consensus here. You'll note that the main biographies of JSJr are indeed used as references throughout. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you read these biographies? Anyone here who has read any decent biography of Joseph Smith should be able to cite that biography to confirm all of the points I added. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I would assume that most of us who work on this article possess the most popular of Smith biographies, even with our differing backgrounds and points of view. Remember that we're not writing a tract or apologetic text - this is an online encyclopedia. Everything must have a bona fide reference. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about defending the validity of the man's claims, only the necessity of stating what they, in fact, were - not whether they're true. Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral stance and I think it's failing to do so here by not accurately representing what is notable here. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Need bibliography section

There also ought to be a bibliography section of books that he wrote himself, because in addition to publishing what he claimed to be revelations from God, Smith also published works written on his own behalf (expressing his own private opinions) such as this book here. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ben, this article has an exhaustive list of material contained within. In the early days of my editing this article, I tried inserting all manner of primary source material - direct refs to Times and Seasons, Millennial Star, Nauvoo Neighbor, etc. - similar to the collection of letters you've mentioned - this unfortunately must take a backseat to secondary, scholarly works as per the rules of Wikipedia. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No no no, I'm not talking about citing these works, I'm only talking about listing them because Joseph Smith was an author, and Wikipedia pages for authors do typically include bibliographies. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

POV

Here is my issue: This article sounds as if John Foxe here is merely trying to expose Smith as an immoral fraud. It downplays on the positive aspects of Smith's life and emphasizes things that would seem "strange" to non-LDS people, as if John Foxe is trying to convince people that Smith was a liar and a conartist with a Wikipedia article. As a Latter-day Saint and a studier of Church history, I am fully aware of Joseph Smith's life and teachings, and many, many parts of this article are dreadfully and severely misleading. This whole thing needs to be fixed by somebody who is not completely biased against the church (like John Foxe obviously is). My other issue is that John Foxe seems to believe that this is his article; whenever information is added to it, he reverts the edit without offering an explanation, especially when the information puts Joseph in a positive light. John Foxe is obviously uncomfortable with having such information on here for whatever reason. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I personally have a problem with bias or POV of any kind at Wikipedia, pro-LDS or anti. NPOV is the key - that the article is written by consensus using secondary sources. If you wish to edit based on the rules of Wikipedia, that's fine with me. If you're agenda-driven, that is problematic. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be "agenda-driven." My problem is that John Foxe is deleting any kind of material that puts Joseph Smith in a positive light, and in doing it seems as if he is claiming ownership of this article, which he has no right to do. I am not saying that this article should be flooded with pro-LDS material, but it needs to be more balanced. The negative bias in this article is very apparent. 63.248.11.9 (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)