Talk:Heber C. Kimball

Signature Book reference

Moved anon. contribution here until someone can take a look at the book for relevance to Heber C. Kimball. WBardwin 22:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Smith, George D., editor. The Journals of William Clayton, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, UT, ISBN 1-56085-022-1

checked out reference. Does contain good inforamtion on Heber C. Kimball. restoring to article. WBardwin 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

HCK as a potter

LDS oriented articles often ignore a person's career or life work in favor of their religious contributions. Many of our early GA's were accomplished in one or more fields and made a living for their families while serving in the church. Should we balance the articles by giving more prominence to the secular work of these men?

A recent edit removed HCKimball from the potters category (one of several professsions he had during his life). I restored him for now. Kimball spoke often about the allegory of the potter and the clay - he knew what he was talking about. Excerpt below:

"How many shapes do you suppose you are put into before you become Saints, or before you become perfect and sanctified to enter into the celestial glory of God? You have got to be like that clay in the hands of the potter. Do you not know that the Lord directed the Prophet anciently, to go down to the potter's house to see a miracle on the wheel? Suppose the Potter takes a lump of clay, and putting it on the wheel, goes to work to form it into a vessel, and works it out this way, and that way, and the other way, but the clay is refractory and snappish; he still trys [tries] it, but it will break, and snap, and snarl, and thus the potter will work it and work it until he is satisfied he cannot bring it into the shape he wants, and it mars upon the wheel; he takes his tool, then, and cuts it off the wheel, and throws it into the mill to be ground over again, until it becomes passive, (don't you think you will go to hell if you are not passive?) and after it is ground there so many days, and it becomes passive, he takes the same lump, and makes of it a vessel unto honor. Now do you see into that, brethren? I know the potters can. I tell you, brethren, if you are not passive you will have to go into that mill, and perhaps have to grind there one thousand years, and then the Gospel will be offered to you again, and then if you will not accept of it, and become passive, you will have to go into the mill again, and thus you will have offers of salvation from time to time, until all the human family, will, except the sons of perdition, are redeemed. The spirits of men will have the Gospel as we do, and they are to be judged according to men in the flesh. Let us be passive, and take a course that will be perfectly submissive.(Journal of Discourses 1: beginning page 160)

WBardwin 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the discussion of his earlier career in pottery is entirely appropriate in the article, and that someone who had found this article might be interested to know that. But I was thinking in terms of a reader going to the American Potters category. I think that person would expect that the people listed there were people who were well known for their pottery, or else people who are so commonly known that they would be interested to know that person was a potter. HCK doesn't seem to fall in either category. --Paul Stokstad 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Descendants

Contribution moved here for discussion. Descendants of other LDS General authorities are sometimes listed, but usually when they also were prominent in church service. Should we include the following? WBardwin 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Natacha Rambova: Kimball was the great grandfather of Natacha Rambova (born Winnifred Shaughnessy), second wife of silent era film star Rudolph Valentino and renowned Hollywood art director.

Yes. She is now listed only as a link in the notable descendents section, which I think is fine. She should be listed, and she is both notable and a descendant, even though she wasn't (apparently) notable for anything related to her LDS heritage. 131.107.0.73 05:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dates of Apostleship

This article has his apostleship ending when he joined the 1st Presidency. This is inconsistant with some other Mormon apostleships are dated. See Gordon B. Hinckley for example. Marion G. Romney and Henry D. Moyle are counter examples. Until there is a box for 1st presidency counselors, I think the apostleship dates ought to include such service. 204.128.230.1 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Plural Marriage

On 18 July 2010, J0092 added the following edit:

In a sermon given from the Tabernacle, Kimball declared: 'I think no more of taking a wife than I do of buying a cow,' -Ann-Eliza Snow, Wife No. 19, Chapter 17, "Taking a Wife and Buying a Cow,"

This was edited twice more on the same day. The final form is:

Later in a sermon given from the Tabernacle, Kimball declared: 'I think no more of taking [another] wife than I do of buying a cow,' -Ann-Eliza Snow, Wife No. 19, Chapter 17, "Taking a Wife and Buying a Cow"

The citation is factually inaccurate. The author of Wife No. 19 was not called Ann-Eliza Snow. Her name was Ann Eliza (no hyphen) Webb Dee Young, a divorced plural wife of Brigham Young. She later married a man named Moses R. Denning, but at no time was she called Snow. The editor seems to have conflated her with Eliza R. Snow, who was also a plural wife of Brigham Young.

The edit is also inflammatory. The source is an anti-Mormon polemic, and suffers from the usual shortcomings of its genre. The offered quotation has not been located in any actual speech by Heber C. Kimball. I recommend that the paragraph be removed unless the quotation can be authenticated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmcgregor57 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that that quote is suspect, as it does not come from a neutral source and can't be otherwise backed up. Other sources have quoted this quote, but when cited it is always to Wife No. 19. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Whoa Nelly - lets be careful with the term "anti-mormon". A lot of people find it patently offensive to label something anti mormon without cause. Just because you don't believe that this quote is accurate doesn't mean it isn't. Maybe it can't be verified by another source, and maybe it is inflammatory, but it is a verifiable source, incredibly relevant to the topic at hand, and the article suffers without it. I am adding it back with additional clauses to speak to the controversial nature of the quote.--Descartes1979 (talk) 03:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

By the way - there are almost NO sources relevant to Mormonism that are neutral. Balance and NPOV in all of these articles tends to come by airing both sides and letting the reader decide. IMHO. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, I do think the quote is somewhat suspect, but I didn't agree with it being removed from the article entirely. Also agree that "anti-Mormon" language is not helpful in assessing sources. (I'm guessing this quote has been addressed by sources on "the other side"—Mormon apologists, and the like, so it shouldn't be too hard to "balance" the quote out.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• In her 1908 book, Ann Eliza declared that her purpose was "to expose that accursed system with all its polygamyic, murderous and other criminal practices." I doubt that calling such an agenda "anti-Mormon" is quite as "patently offensive" as trying to muster some respectability for a clearly fabricated, inflammatory quote. Just IMHO, of course. Rmcgregor57 (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygamic, murderous, and criminal are inflammatory terms to be sure, but they are not "clearly fabricated" claims. They have clear basis in fact. Polygamic - true (I believe this is beyond dispute), murderous - true (See Aiken massacre, Mountain Meadows Massacre, and the Circleville massacre, not to mention about a half dozen accounts of people being murdered by mormon militiamen for breaking temple covenants or being whistleblowers), criminal practices - true - polygamy was outlawed and the Mormon church continued to practice in secret as D. Michael Quinn demonstrated in his research. To me these remarks are not "anti-Mormon" in the way the current mormon church likes to use the label - that is, to say something fantastic that has no basis in fact. These remarks are "highly critical" and they very much have a basis in fact. --Descartes1979 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not say that Mrs Dee Young Denning's extreme and prejudicial language in her 1908 book was "clearly fabricated." I said that the Kimball quote is. The language I cited rather amply justifies the descriptor of "anti-Mormon."

Once again, I note that you take a similarly extreme and hostile view of LDS history. This does not seem to be the appropriate forum in which to debate your accusations in detail. I simply point out two facts: first, it is indeed possible for people to commit crimes in spite of being Mormons, and not necessarily because they are. The Mountain Meadow Massacre is a case in point. Second, the 19th century anti-Mormon atrocity tales are an interesting literary corpus; but careful students of history find many reasons to be skeptical about their claims. Rmcgregor57 (talk) 01:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually agree with everything you said - but you have to at least recognize that legitimate historians take opposing views on these issues - and therefore, all of it is relevant and should be included in the article for balance and NPOV. And once again - you need to be precise on your definition of "anti-Mormon". That alone is a hot topic among ex-Mormons and Mormons - so you can't just start branding things as anti-Mormon when many people don't agree to the same definition that you do. If by "anti-Mormon", you mean legitimate historical criticism of the Mormon church, then sure - this is an "anti-Mormon" claim. But if you mean it in the manner that most lay mormons use the term - i.e. completely fabricated claims a la Mormons have horns and steal your children - then no - this is not an "anti-Mormon" claim. I actually don't take much of a stance on a lot of Mormon history myself, because a lot of it is so murky. I very much favor getting all of the legitimate information out there from all sides of any given debate and letting the reader decide. I am not "hostile" to Mormon history, unless of course you mean that I think critical information in the church's history is relevant, and sometimes more accurate than the church's official version of events. I don't see that as hostile to history, but rather a pragmatic way to approach the "real" history of what actually happened. I would be happy to have a conversation on my personal talk page if you think I am taking an "extreme" view of something.--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have searched for some sort of apologetic take on this recurring quote, but surprisingly have found nothing so far. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Did the Utah Mormons not help the Masons ?

I entered a sentence that I thought was interesting and valuable to Wikipedia readers, although not directly relating to Heber C. Kimball. What it was directly relating to was the statement now in the Article that the LDS people made no move to build, or help build, a Mason lodge. This may be a false statement and no reference is given, as required by Wikipedia standards. The sentence should be researched and either documented or changed, in my humble opinion.

Here is the sentence which I thought was 'value added' to the Article, but was removed since Heber C. Kimball was not centrally involved. He was also not centrally involved in whether the LDS Church and/or people did, or did not, help with the Mason building followed by their temple now a Salt Lake City historic landmark and functioning headquarters for Utah Masons, and their temple.

BEFORE:

He remained active in Freemasonry throughout his stay in Nauvoo, but no serious effort was made in Utah by the Mormons to establish a lodge there.

AFTER:

He remained active in Freemasonry throughout his stay in Nauvoo, but no serious effort was made in Utah by the Mormons to establish a lodge at that time. Completed in 1927, the Salt Lake Masonic Temple and headquarters is now Salt Lake City's best example of Egyptian Revival architecture.

It is easily documented that the Mormon pioneers helped build the Catholic cathedral in Salt Lake City, on South Temple Street. Why would they not also help the Masons? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that Masonry info could go on another article, like Mormonism and Freemasonry; however as Heber C. Kimball had absolutely nothing to do with the 1927 building, it's out of place and completely tangential on this article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

I'll wait for others to respond and wait for someone to document the end of the BEFORE sentence before I consider changing it. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to agree with 208.81.184.4. If Heber C. Kimball had absolutely nothing to do with the 1927 building, why should be it included on a page about him? It would be no different then putting a comment on the construction of a 1927 masonic building in Washington, DC on Washington's (the person) page. He was an active mason, but what has that building got to do with him?--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

After doing some reading on the topic of Freemasonry in Utah, and the institutionalized animosity it had towards Mormonism until 1984, I find any mention of the 1927 building in this article completely inappropriate. I'm not even sure that I would find it appropriate on Mormonism and Freemasonry, other than to mention how Mormons were barred until 1984, even though that building is just a little over a mile east of Temple Square. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I read the change in the end of the sentence and it is both appropriate and well sourced. The first reference is especially instructive and interesting. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Woefoul state of this article - way forward

This article is woeful. Despite this guy having been one of the original twelve apostles, there is very little mention of what his achievements in this capacity were, let alone any critical assessment of his importance or legacy. Instead, it is full of patently unencyclopedic material, such as inane statements about his parents' "virtuous character" (I kid you not!), randomly selected details about assorted relatives (including babies that only survived for months), and general family-oriented stuff, all padded out with verbiose quotes purporting to be from some unspecified autobiography. I will go through the article now to remove the most egregiously offending silly material. However, even after that, the article will still remain in a pitiful state. Almost all the material appears to be WP:OR. Somebody with some expertise on this topic should go through this article and provide citations for what they think should be kept and flesh it out with properly sourced information of an acceptable standard. 92.25.21.108 (talk) 00:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• If someone really wants to get a good sense of the subject reading Stanley B. Kimball's Heber C. Kimball: Mormon Patriarch and Pioneer is probably a good start. I sadly do not have that book. I did try to incorporate some of the information from the article by Stanley Kimball in the LDS Historical Encyclopedia, but that was not very helpful. He does mention that "[Kimball]'s funeral was the largest ever held in Utah Territory", but I am not sure that is worth including in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
• It also seems odd that journals are included in the sources list. Wikipedia's policy against using primary sources would generally suggest we should not be using journals as sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Primary source citations are allowed with caution. See Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources. Tom Haws (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)