Talk:First Vision/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Just the facts? Ok, if you insist.

John Foxe, I have repeatedly tried to get you to understand that just because a statement contains facts doesn't mean that those facts have been stated in a NPOV way. I've given you ample opportunity to retain the critical POV that is obviously your goal by moving it to a section dedicated to that POV. I've tried to come up with a label for that section that you can live with. 74s181 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But you continue to insist that the critical POV statements are just facts, and you've resisted every effort to properly frame them in a NPOV way. 74s181 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I will begin converting your "historical truth" (Oh, we've got Trouble!) to NPOV facts. I think we can probably get most of these facts into a table. This will take a some effort, so given the controversial nature of this change and your predilection for reversion I will work on it here. All should feel free to comment. 74s181 13:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

	1832 JS	1835 JS	1838 JS	1839 JS	1840 OP	1842 JS	1843 JS	1844 ?	1850 ?
Moved to Palmyra	age 10			age 10	age 10	age 10
Moved to Manchester				4 years later	later	4 years later
Began to reflect / interest in spiritual things	age 12				age 14-15	age 14
Revivals				2nd year in Manchester			yes	yes	yes
Contention among churches				yes	yes	yes			yes
Couldn't determine which to join		yes		yes	yes	yes
Read James 1:5		yes		yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Event occured	16th year	age 14		15th year			age 14
Went to woods to pray		yes		yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Brilliant light	yes	yes		yes	yes	yes	yes	yes	yes
Saw -	The Lord	2 Personages / Jesus Christ		2 Personages / beloved Son	2 Personages / exactly alike	2 Personages / exactly alike	2 Personages / beloved Son	2 Personages / beloved Son	2 Personages / exactly alike
Sins forgiven	yes	yes			yes
Told all churches wrong / join none	yes			yes	yes	yes		yes	yes
Persecuted	yes			yes			yes	yes

Ok, that's the first wack at it. Feel free to comment, point out missing facts, add additional facts. 74s181 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Last year, when I first decided to put serious time into this article, I had the notion that tables would help me get a quick grip on the inconsistencies in the First Vision stories. I looked at both the apologetic on-line harmony of Elden Watson and the two-page table in the anti-Mormon Richard Abanes, One Nation Under Gods (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 2002), 16-17. (I think a fair-use case could be made for the latter if you wanted to incorporate the information in your table.) In any case, after looking glassy-eyed at those charts for awhile, I gave up and went back to words. Even if we ignore the issue of understandability for the uninitiated, there is the more serious problem that the categories chosen and the information selected make a significant difference in the final result. In fact, used together, Watson's and Abanes' tables make an excellent case study on how to deceive with graphs and charts.--John Foxe 13:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the table from the Richard Abanes book available on the Internet? If so, where? I'd like to take a look at it. 74s181 01:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I poked around and couldn't find it—but then, I'm a troglodyte.--John Foxe 10:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with the above table, as well as many of the supposed "versions". Frankly, I think many of these "inconsistencies" is because a number of the accounts are actually about the second vision with Moroni, rather than the first vision. It was the second vision that was emphasized for many years. It wouldn't surprise me if many members only knew about that vision rather than the first one. It is possible that Smith didn't realize the significance of the first vision until later. After all, it was quite similar to ones his ancestors had. It was the vision with Moroni that led to Smith translate the Book of Mormon, and led people to accept him as a prophet. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 00:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Grove experience"

If this article is going to stay applicable to most Latter Day Saint denominations, which it should, it is worth mentioning near the beginning of the artcle that some Latter Day Saint denominations do not refer to the incident that is the topic of this article by the chosen WP name ("First Vision"), but rather prefer to use the term "grove experience". The Community of Christ is the 2d largest Latter Day Saint denomination and it uses this terminology, so it's clearly relevant. I had inserted it earlier but it has recently been removed without explanation. -SESmith 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now it's being relegated to a footnote. Really, what is the problem with clearly stating an alternate name in the opening paragraph when a sizable number of Latter Day Saints use the alternate term? For example, we don't omit or relegate "Mormon Church" usage to a footnote in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. -SESmith 09:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, as an outsider I didn't realize the importance of the name and thought it an encumbrance in the opening paragraph. Hope this will do.--John Foxe 09:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Contemporary Beliefs

I keep adding this section in, and it keeps getting deleted. I don't get it.

Here is the original text:

There is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s.[61] Neither was the First Vision emphasized in the sermons of Smith's immediate successors Brigham Young and John Taylor. Hugh Nibley noted that although a "favorite theme of Brigham Young's was the tangible, personal nature of God," he "never illustrates [the theme] by any mention of the first vision."[62]In 1855, Young stated that Smith, in his First Vision, had seen an angel rather than God himself.[63] Taylor's comments on the First Vision shift from emphasizing angels to God the Father and Jesus Christ.[64]

Although The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has canonized Smith's 1838 version of the Vision,[65] even the current LDS Church Historian has admitted that he was "struck by the difference in [Smith's] recountings."[66] Nevertheless, the current president of the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley, has declared, "Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. ... Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration."[67]

Frankly I consider this to be so strong of a POV that I don't know where to begin. Sure, this is factual so far as it goes, but it pushes strongly the POV that this whole thing is a made up fictional fraud. Perhaps elements of this can be added back in, but it absolutely must maintain NPOV standards. The whole issue that no published references prior to the 1840s were made to the First Vision has been beaten to death by the time this section appears in this article, and it just seems redundant. And the quote here by GBH is very much out of context and just doesn't fit.

I very much like the rewrite of this section (which was originaly titled "Use of the First Vision by LDS Churches") to instead try to explain the current attitude toward this event by the various denominations within the LDS movement. This is very relevant (including mention of the term "grove experience"... not a mere footnote here), and leaves room to address other groups within the LDS movement as well. Perhaps this is two different concepts and ideas, but I think this rewrite does a much, much better job at being NPOV.

Here is the current "version":

Most contemporary denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement affirm belief in the First Vision. However, there is some disagreement between denominations about the contents of the Vision and the significance of its various elements.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The 1838 account of the First Vision is treated as scripture by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and is often cited to support uniquely LDS doctrines, such as the Godhead. Church President and Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley spoke on the importance of the First Vision:

Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision. It was the parting of the curtain to open this, the dispensation of the fulness of times. Nothing on which we base our doctrine, nothing we teach, nothing we live by is of greater importance than this initial declaration. I submit that if Joseph Smith talked with God the Father and His Beloved Son, then all else of which he spoke is true. This is the hinge on which turns the gate that leads to the path of salvation and eternal life.[61]

Community of Christ

Members of the Community of Christ accept the First Vision as a foundational event in the history of their church. The Community of Christ website gives a historical summary of the First Vision, emphasizing the healing presence of God and the forgiving mercy of Jesus Christ felt by Joseph Smith.[62] Members of the Community of Christ tend to refer to the First Vision by the alternate name "grove experience".[citation needed]

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

Members of the Church of Christ (Temple Lot) accept the essential elements of the 1838 account, including Joseph Smith's desire to know which church he should join, his reading of James 1:5, his prayer in the grove, the appearance of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, the statement by Jesus Christ that all existing churches were corrupt and instruction that he should join none of them.[63]

I'm placing the full text of both of these versions of this section here in the talk page, because it keeps getting deleted by the current edit war that is taking place. I'm tired of fighting this, and I think this dispute has gone on far too long and is just reaching the point of pure absurdity. This isn't really feature creep either, but a very relevant point to the understanding of what exactly happened here, and what is going on. If we have to fight this paragraph by paragraph, I am willing to do that, but this complete rejection of good prose is something I will not stand for if the rationale is that you object to your POV is being edited out of this article. Frankly all points of view should be removed.... which is the whole point of providing a neutral point of view. --Robert Horning 23:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, it is indeed necessary "to fight this paragraph by paragraph." There's no rush. POV is not established by unilateral declaration.

You are certainly incorrect in believing that the paragraphs you inserted are "good prose." Here's the test: explain, without using any quotations, the nature of the differences concerning the First Vision among the various branches of Mormonism. Good prose is clear, logical, and brief.--John Foxe 09:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I think there are two reasons John Foxe reverted your last edit. 74s181 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. In your latest attempt you deleted some of John Foxe's precious POV criticism, specifically, the grand conclusion where he twists the GBH quote 180 degrees and uses it to prove his POV. 74s181 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
2. The "Contemporary Beliefs" section was part of the outline I proposed for restructuring on May 2. I added this section on May 6th, it fell victim to the "No facts were harmed..." revert war. John Foxe has repeatedly demonstrated that he will revert any attempt to move in the direction of that outline. 74s181 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what should you do? I suggest you attempt to continue to constructively edit the article and attempt to discuss the issues with John Foxe. I suspect this thing is going to end up in mediation and when that happens we want it to be clear who edited in good faith and who did not. 74s181 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree at this point. I will keep reverting Mr. Foxe's reversions unless he can explain why I have to keep making the same minor edits over and over again. Full reversions are simply stupid.... although I don't know where to start here. --Robert Horning 14:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Foxe, I am not the only one here who has complained about the POV of the content you have written here. I am willing to have the light of formal outside Wikipedia review to discuss my actions, if necessary. I am also trying to explain what a Neutral Point of View is all about, and perhaps educate you a little bit regarding this central pillar to the development of Wikipedia. It is you, Mr. Foxe, who quoted Winston Churchill to declare an edit war, and you are the one who is doing constant reversions without even giving a thought at what else might be wrong here. Minor edits that I have made, including trying to fix footnotes, spelling changes, and even removing non-controversial category additions (such as the Category:Visions added by a 3rd party here) are being removed. How is that possibly a POV problem?

As far as good prose, perhaps this is just from my perspective here. This information that explicitly goes into detail about contemporary beliefs about larger denominations within the LDS Movement is very clear, concise, and IMHO logical because it also explains what current believers think about this event. In no other place within this article are these issues addressed, or to even consider that there are multiple schools of thought about this topic even among believers who accept that Joseph Smith actually talked with God or at least a messenger from God.

I will grant the idea that perhaps something could be said that incorporates some of what you wrote here, but none of this previous text really explains clearly what the current contemporary beliefs are among faithful adherents, and seeks to presume that Gordon B. Hinkley speaks for all denominations within the LDS movement.

If you have a problem with this text.... edit it. But you should not be reverting text on a wholesale basis just because you think that my status as being a believer here makes what I am writing to be unworthy of remaining on Wikipedia. Far more is being damaged when you make these full reversions.... and in nearly every case the reversion goes back to your last edit, not just the text that you are objecting about. --Robert Horning 15:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert, I'd be happy to edit your statement about the differences in belief between the various Restoration groups. Briefly, in a couple sentences, please tell me what they are.

I apologize if I've edited out improvements in mechanics and footnotes through my reversions. It's always my intention to put these things back in, but sometimes I've missed when the paragraphing has been changed.--John Foxe 19:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand this approach that you are using here. Instead of a full edit reversion, you are now engaging in a section edit war. This is completely unconscionable and is nearly as bad as a full revert, but at least you are in this situation going to allow some of the more modest changes to stay. I don't see that it was your intention to put minor improvements in mechanics and such back in.... you are here to prove a point that you think I and others editing this article are writing for an apologetic viewpoint. I tell you that is not my intention, and I find that you have not made any effort at assuming good faith, but have taken nearly every edit and change, no matter how minor and insignificant, or even if it might be beneficial to the development of the article or not, and have completely removed nearly every one. And yes, you have reverted each and every one of my edits on this page as though I'm some kind of common vandal.

I don't see an open mind on your part to accept anything written by anybody but yourself on anything with this article. --Robert Horning 00:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'm "going to allow some of the more modest changes to stay," Robert. My goal is to make this a stronger article, and there's no reason why you can't play a part in improving it. Your mission (if you chose to accept it) is to discover how each Mormon denomination treats the First Vision. Put that material on all fours, and you'll have made a significant contribution to our work here.--John Foxe 10:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of revert.

This morning I looked up and read the Wikipedia policy on reversion, Help:Reverting. Very interesting. I knew that the reverts John Foxe was doing were wrong, but I didn't realize just how wrong they were.

On May 16th Bill said "I think we have turned a corner with John, so I would encourage patience all around. ". How long did this last? 74s181 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

09:20, 18 May 2007 John Foxe (Talk | contribs) (41,731 bytes) (Revert to revision 131547531 dated 2007-05-17 14:49:09 by John Foxe using popups)

Here we go again. 74s181 12:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for doing this sort of reversion is to fight vandalism. At this point I can only consider John Foxe to be a vandal himself, unless he decides to legitimately explain why he thinks my edits are damaging to this article, and cite explicit Wikipedia policies that would govern this sort of behavior. Indeed, if this continues, I am going to seek administrator action on this point, even if it is only to temporarily "freeze" this article pending some sort of formal arbitration. Or seek other forms of vandal relief. --Robert Horning 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am truly sorry that it has come to this, but perhaps it was inevitable. John, I am hoping that we really have turned a corner with you. I am hoping that, instead of doing unexplained reverts, you begin a dialog to define specific objections to any edits that you believe are POV. Hopefully by now you understand that none of the regular LDS editors are trying to create a POV article, and will start to work with us to create a great article. As I have said before, you have a great deal of knowledge about this topic, and can be a great asset, provided you are willing to participate. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe all my current reversions are explained in my edit summaries except for the deletion of the section about the differences between the various branches of Mormonism. To stand here, the section needs to explain specifically what the differences between the churches are. Random quoting takes the reader nowhere. A couple of good sentences might explain the differences, and I hope someone like Les or Robert writes them up so that they can be included in the article.--John Foxe 16:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, based on your statement above, I can only conclude that you have either not read Help:Reverting or have chosen to ignore it. In My Humble Opinion, you are acting as the owner of this article in your use of casual reversion as a mechanism to prevent any substantive change to the article. This is explained in WP:OWN:

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But if this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

Ownership examples / Events

Article changes by different editors are reverted by the same editor for an extended period of time to protect a certain version, stable or not. (This does not include removing vandalism.)

Please review your actions in light of the following excerpts from the Help:Reverting article:

Do

Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.

Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.

If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.

If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Don't

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.

Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

In case you're thinking that what you've been reverting is vandalism, think again. The following excerpts are from WP:Vandalism:

What vandalism is not / Making bold edits

Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them - most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism.

IMHO, what you've been doing could itself be considered a form of vandalism.

Types of Vandalism / Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. This can include adding plausible misinformation to articles, (e.g minor alteration of dates), hiding vandalism (e.g. by making two bad edits and only reverting one), or reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages.

Your move. ----

I was just thinking this morning that it had been a long time since someone had accused me, the only non-Mormon on the block, of "owning" this article. Actually I prefer working on articles where I'm the unchallenged "facilitator," where I have free rein to improve a piece on my own simply because virtually no one else is interested in the topic. Obviously this article is not one of those.--John Foxe 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is true that I will not just roll over and accept your 'facilitation', nor will I tire of your obstructionist tactics and just go away as many have in the past. I also will not descend to your level and arbitrarily delete everything in the article that I don't like. 74s181 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

However, as long as you are willing to discuss in good faith the concerns that I and others have then I will do the same and attempt to develop some kind of consensus. Just so we're clear on this, I don't consider a flat 'no', or 'I disagree', or 'I like the article the way it is' to be a discussion in good faith. You need to say why you disagree and propose an alternative. 74s181 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Having said all that, I want to be clear that I agree with Bill, we definitely need a critical editor on this article. We don't want this to turn into a tract. Really, we don't. You've referred to me by name, that probably means you've read my user page. If I wasn't clear there, let me be clear here. My goal here at Wikipedia is not to try to preach or convince, but to make sure that faith has a chance. The topic of this article is foundational to the LDS movement, and this article is foundational to other LDS movement articles. It reeked of anti-LDS bias when I first read it a month ago, it has improved slightly since then but still has a long way to go to reach true neutrality. I'll be here until that is accomplished. Hopefully, you can open your eyes and realize that A is A, or, in other words, criticism is criticsm, and you too will stay here and work on the article. 74s181 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that each time this article has completed another rewrite through the past year, it has gotten stronger. And I also appreciate that your ad hominems have been polite.--John Foxe 10:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, another non-response response. I'm trying to remember the name of this tactic, but it escapes me. John Foxe, will you admit that any of your recent reverts were inappropriate? A simple yes or no will do. 74s181 14:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Foxy?--John Foxe 18:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Lady? What is this, some kind of word association test? Why don't you come clean on this and let's have a new start. Simply admit that your recent reverts were inappropriate, apologize, and let's move on. 74s181 11:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed changes

I'm going to propose some specific changes and create a section to discuss each one. I've written previously about these concerns, but I will repeat a quick summary here.

Lead

Half of the current lead is criticism. Part of the second paragraph ("Nevertheless...") almost the entire third paragraph ("There are no extant references..."). I think it is important to acknowledge that there is criticism of the FV and summarize the kinds of criticism, but currently the lead goes into way too much detail for a lead, it is the criticism itself, not a high level summary of it.

All references to the 'what' of the First Vision have been gradually (carefully?) removed from the lead. I suggest we use the following as a starting point:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest denomination of the Latter Day Saint movement, teaches that this vision came as a result of Smith's confusion during religious revivals occurring near his home. In response to Smith's prayer for guidance, God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him and declared that all churches then in existence were false and corrupt.

74s181 00:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned the last time you rewrote the article, I liked the arrangement you had then. I do agree with John, however, that we need something in the lead indicating that there are different views among Mormons about the details and, of course, that non-Mormons dismiss the reality of the event. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I moved your comment on the lead, I hope that's ok. COGDEN has reworked the lead, completely removing the third paragraph. I added a paragraph stating that there is criticism and what form it takes, I also moved the statement relating to faith to this paragraph. I also removed the last paragraph that talks about how the FV wasn't emphasized in the early church, as I consider this to be part of the criticism. 74s181 13:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally, a lead section that I can nearly live with. Now if we can only get the rest of this article to have a similar tone that acknowledges there are criticisms, but not have that completely dominate the whole article. --Robert Horning 15:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think of the fact that the FV wasn't emphasized during the early days of the church as explaining why many of the early leaders seemed to confuse/conflate the two events. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the lead saying that Mormons believe something, but it should be obvious from such a statement that non-Mormons don't.--John Foxe 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm making a further change to the second paragraph of the intro. Presently, it's redundant because it says, in essence:

1. Most denominations emphasize the vision despite inconsistencies.
2. Smith emphasized the vision.
3. But in the 20th century, the vision has been emphasized.

My change is to make the following points in the following order:

1. Initially, Smith's status of a prophet was because of the Book of Mormon.
2. During the 1830s, the first vision became an additional element of his prophethood.
3. Today, most denominations emphasize it as a foundational element of the faith.

COGDEN 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Description of the First Vision

Joseph Smith, Jr. is a big part of the 'who' of the first vision but there are only eight words in the first section about him. We don't need to recreate the entire Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article, but a short 'who' with a main article tag would be appropriate.

The current description of the First Vision is a token attempt to provide the who, what, when, where, why, how of the FV, but it is really little more than a slight expansion of what used to be in the lead.

On May 5th, I added a much more complete description of the First Vision. I used the current "Earlier Smith family visions" and "Revivalism in the Palmyra area" to provide context and background. I think that worked pretty well.

I think that the quote from Gordon B. Hinckley (that used to be at the end of the article, drawing a negative conclusion) would be a more appropriate statement on the significance of the FV than the excerpt from the webtract that is currently presented. 74s181 00:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote by GBH is best used in a context that somehow describes current beliefs as opposed to historical attitudes and perhaps even the process that this became "canonized" as not just a historical idea but is even considered scripture. BTW, if you think GBH's quote was out of context, the Marlin Jensen reference is completely out of line, as Mr. Jensen was in fact rather apologetic (academically speaking) about the veracity of the First Vision, not a major critic or detractor claiming that it in fact never happened. Read the interview yourself if you don't believe this. BTW, this is perhaps a useful interview in terms of contemporary LDS Church beliefs so far as Marlin Jensen is a general authority... but I think the quote by GBH is perhaps better if you have to keep this from becoming a major apologetic piece about the LDS viewpoint. --Robert Horning 15:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the things I most enjoyed about PBS series was that it avoided titling the talking heads "critics" or "believers." And often only those in the know could tell who was who. Non-Mormons were saying pleasant things, and apologists were affirming things that might have gotten them excommunicated in years past.--John Foxe 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you notice that Richard Bushman said that 10 of Joseph Smith's plural wives were married to other men? I've never heard a devout LDS apologist make that admission. COGDEN 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

The entire section "Date of the First Vision" is criticism. This is a valid POV and belongs in the article, but it should be moved to a new section that presents the critical POV in a structured manner.

There is considerable criticism mixed in with the different accounts, this should be moved to a section on criticism.

The section "Historical problems with the 1838 Account" is also pure criticism, let's also move it. 74s181 00:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What if we called this new section "Historicity of the First Vision" instead of calling it "Criticism"? This gives us a place to discuss the historical concerns relating to the FV, without labeling the discussion as criticism. A title like this might even satisfy John Foxe. 74s181 13:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose leaving the material just as it is and as it would have been if PBS had covered the First Vision in detail. Once we get by the canonical account at the beginning, let the reader decide what to believe. He doesn't need to be led by the hand.--John Foxe 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Propaganda Broadcasting Service, that left-wing, bleeding-heart, liberal, athiest..., oh, never mind. I have always thought that all political reporters and commentators should be required by law to declare their political affiliation, and that it should appear after their names, just like it does for senators and representatives. I think that would be interesting. 74s181 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the PBS special on "The Mormons", I have only seen the first half of it and was pleasantly surprised. Given PBS history and liberal leanings, I expected it to be much more negative than it was. I was even more surprised when the critic who explained that as a historian he couldn't accept Joseph Smith's account of the FV as fact also said that he couldn't say that it was a complete fabrication. 74s181 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

In any event, if you want to cite the PBS special that is your privilege, but don't expect anyone to just 'roll over' and accept the PBS POV as any kind of model for how this or any other Wikipedia article should be structured. 74s181 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So, what do you think of 'Historicity' as a more neutral word to be used in the title of a new section, instead of 'criticism'? BTW, I'm trying to compromise here, in case you didn't notice. 74s181 00:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no criticism in the section labeled "Historical problems with the 1838 Account." Just facts. Of course, believers are annoyed that those facts don't align with LDS doctrine, but believers can't sanitize them by moving the facts to a separate section where the reader will be first advised that they're not facts but "criticisms." Forget a separate section for "Criticism" or "Historicity." Give the reader the necessary information and let him decide what to believe. He doesn't need to be led by the hand. To do otherwise is to introduce LDS POV.--John Foxe 10:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whose historical facts and what interpretation are you referring to here? Any historical review of concepts... especially something so personal and wrapped up with theological implications, is going to have a huge variety of viewpoints ranging from petty squabbling over minutae (like what Joseph Smith ate for breakfast before he went to pray... or what time of day he was in the forest), to questions of if it even happened in the first place. These "facts" that you are so insistent upon introducing into this article has also been obscured by some individuals who have even gone so far as to even fabricate historical documents and do other kinds of unethical scholarship as a means to "prove" that Joseph Smith Jr. was a fraud. Even the most mundane event has multiple points of view over what events actually happened (try to ask a police officer about witness testimony at an accident scene), and this is far from an ordinary event with neutral historians writing objective histories about it.

The complaints here about your editing style have been over the tone of the words you have used, and a criticism that there is a strong point of view that is not only unnecessary for the development of this article, but it is a central pillar to the establishment of Wikipedia that all articles should (actually must... over time) maintain a neutral point of view in terms of their content. I keep saying this, because I don't think it makes sense to you John. This isn't just the facts, but the way that they are presented... which also suggests quite often a point of view as well.

I will say, however, that I am opposed to a separate criticism section for this article. The better written Wikipedia articles are able to be successfully rewritten to avoid them, and Wikipedia:Criticism suggests strongly that these kind of separate sections be avoided as well. Instead, in should be incorporated somehow into the main body of the article. Still, even such critical comments about this topic should not violate NPOV principles, nor should it disrupt the literary flow of the article. --Robert Horning 01:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you agree that we don't need a separate section of "criticism," then our differences revolve around the alleged POV of the words and phrases in the current article. Fine, let's discuss them. If there's POV, let's root it out. Of course, you'll need proof for any evidence you claim was fabricated. That the First Vision story is so extraordinary that "unethical scholarship" can't be trusted is not an argument that resonates with me.--John Foxe 09:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is claiming that anything is fabricated. That's not the issue. The issue is facts, stated in a POV way to form critical conclusions. I've given examples previously, here's another one.

"Joseph Smith may also have had a motive for changing his story in 1838, a period of crisis in the Latter Day Saint Movement. At the time there was open dissent against Smith's leadership, and a quarter of the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and some 300 members—perhaps fifteen percent of the total membership—had left the church. Smith might have reasoned that to declare that his original call had come from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than from an angel might strengthen his leadership role—and in fact, it did so." (BTW, the citation for this particular piece of criticism is broken)

It is a fact that some had lost faith in Joseph's prophetic calling, and it is a fact that the account he gave in 1838 contains details that were not present in previous accounts, and it is a fact that his position became stronger after that time. I don't think anyone disputes these facts. Is there evidence of intent, is there a record of JS saying that he changed his story to strengthen his position? I don't think so, but supposedly an expert has speculated that he "...might have...". That would make it a valid but controversial POV. To be stated as a fact this POV needs to be attributed to someone, and not just in a footnote. If it said "LDS critics have suggested that Joseph Smith may also have had a motive..." then it would be NPOV, but the need for a competing opinion would remain.

I can see two solutions to the POV problems remaining in the article. Both involve labeling the POV statements as criticism. It can either be done inline, as each critical assertion is made, or the various critical assertions can be gathered together in a section which is then labeled as criticism. If the criticism is left inline, and labeled, then a competing opinion needs to be stated, also inline. If all the criticism is gathered together in a separate section then that section becomes the competing opinion to the rest of the article and perhaps doesn't need to be balanced inline. 74s181 11:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Salamander letter by Mark Hoffman is a prime example of an historical document that was completely fabricated. This applies to the story of the First Vision because this made up story is supposedly how Joseph Smith got the idea in the first place to find the Golden Plates. But the whole thing was clearly shown to be a total and utterly complete forgery. And but one of several examples of supposed documents that claim contradictory testimony to these foundation events of the LDS movement. I do think that it is completely reasonable to strongly question much of the documentation that has been presented for this article if but for this example alone. I'm not addressing that any particular document that has been cited in the bibliography of this article is necessarily a forged document, but this is an example of the extent that some who would cite conflicts with this story can and will go to get their point across. --Robert Horning 20:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In 1984, while the Prophet, seer, and revelator accepted the authenticity of the Salamander Letter (as did a number of document experts), Jerald and Sandra Tanner denounced the letter as a fraud, even though the contents would have provided great propaganda for those who opposed to the Church. That's the sort of thing that happens when you consider truth to be more important than ideology.--John Foxe 20:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess this shows your bias as much as nearly everything you have written here. While I won't defend GBH's actions in regards to the Salamander letter (he can defend himself and you can ask him in person if you care), this is yet another example of taking a discussion way out of context. And it should be pointed out that, as explained in the Wikipedia article about Hoffman, these forgeries have tainted critical commentary about the early founding events of the LDS faith where critics use and abuse these forgeries beyond just their fradulant ideas... and build upon writings of even critical commentators who accepted these forgeries as proof Joseph Smith was a scam artist before these documents were shown to be fake. My point is that source fabrication can and does occur even for this topic. And sometimes source fabrication can go to incredible lengths, even to the extent that Hoffman went. Like all scholarly review of historical events, you need to challenge nearly every source you find, and the "truth" can sometimes be hard to pull out even in the best of circumstances. --Robert Horning 11:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

We should have a The "Date of the First Vision" section featured prominently in the article. The date section answers the question "when?", which is a very important thing to present. No reason to start down the road toward content forking here. COGDEN 18:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

John, I am still trying to figure out what you think the words criticism and critic mean. You seem to pair believers and critics, which sounds strange to me, since criticism doesn't have anything to do with belief (IMHO). As I have said before, critic and apologist are standard terms in scholarly articles. A person can be a critic and a believer, and most likely they can also be an apologist and a non-believer. I think I'm beginning to understand your objection to the term, though, if you consider "critic" as the opposite of "believer". Would you please go read the articles Critic and Apologist, and then tell me if they agree with the way you think of those words? -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand how critic is used in scholarship, but in everyday life, "critic" means a person who finds fault and judges things more severely than he ought. If only for that reason, we should avoid the word. I realize that in this article it will be necessary to say that Mormons believe certain things (although I wonder); but other than that, it's my position that we should avoid labeling, especially calling historical facts "critical" just because they are not congruent with the teaching of the Church. (It's possible to be an apologist and a non-believer, but such person is also a hypocrite.)--John Foxe 20:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

For topics of Faith, particularly those that are controversial, I have observed that it is better to have actual criticism sections. It is obvious that topics of faith are about report what people believe. However, that very fact is blatant acceptance that others do not believe in it because they belong to another church or faith. The types of comments highlighted by 74 above are prime examples of the thoughts or perspectives held by those outside of this faith.

A comparable example is the Jesus article's section on the crucifixion (heck, just read the entire article). Those outside the faith have sections on their perspective. Interestingly, none of these sections attack the story of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. There is none of the plethora of alternative explanations that could be offered for his miraculous life. Some of them simply state (Judaism and Islam) they do not believe in him as divine or that he was not the Messiah, but that is the extent of it. I think this article and its way of writing about events is one to be emulated. In doing so, we achieve a balanced, neutral article. Is there a reason why we should not emulate this style of writing? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think comparison with the Jesus article is a good one because Jesus is much more than the historical facts of his life. The First Vision, on the other hand, is an actual event, with a strong historical record verifiably in Smith's own words. I don't know of any criticism of the First Vision that isn't based on the historical record. On the other hand, most criticism of Jesus is based on pure metaphysics and semiotics. We don't need criticism sections here, because criticism of the historical record should occur when the historical record is discussed, not in a separate section. COGDEN 16:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

A minoroity of historians doubt Jesus ever existed. A vast majority of historians claim the New Testament can not be taken as a historical record or as a reliable source of the actions of the man known as Jesus. Further, Modern scholarship demonstrates the Bible to the result of differing accounts full of conflicts (i.e. Bart D. Ehrman or L. Michael White to name but a few leading academics). However, in the article we have an excellent example of how to good article is achieved. The focus is not Jesus in my statement, the focus is the quality of the article and how to write a good one. I think your proposition results in a mishmash of ideas that does not result in a coherent article. Readers are more likely to be perplexed after reading it than anything else...of course that may be the objective, but that would be me not assuming good faith. Turning this article into another monstrosity like Golden Plates is unacceptable. Producing well written articles that result in knowledgable readers is paramount. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Jesus is a good article, but its format doesn't translate well to First Vision. The Jesus article has the advantage that there are well-defined "camps" (e.g., Islamic, Jewish, anti-historicist, naturalist, non-Trinitarian, etc.) that each have a relatively coherent perspective. For the First Vision, nobody has a neat, consistant story. And before you say that the 1838 story is such a neatly-packaged story for the LDS Church, consider that the church views the First Vision as nothing less than an actual, historical event, and that everything Joseph Smith said about it is taken as true. Nobody I know in the LDS Church claims that Smith ever made a mistake or lied about the First Vision in his non-1838 accounts. Therefore, the LDS perspective on the First Vision is not as neat and coherent as you would think. Nor is any other perspective on the First Vision, such as the Community of Christ, anti-Mormon, FLDS, naturalistic Mormon, or atheist views. The First Vision is a historical event, and you have to be true to the history as Smith described it. Sometimes making a neat, coherent, well-tailored story is incompatible with NPOV and accuracy. That said, I think we can still improve the style and make it more comprehensible to the reader without sacrificing either NPOV or accuracy. COGDEN 18:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when it comes to Jesus there are camps within camps all the way from Immaculate conception through Death and resurrection of Jesus, I suspect there are many fewer POVs relating to the FV. Really, there are two main camps, one group says that something miraculous happened, the other says nothing happened, Joseph made it all up. I think the article should be divided up in this way.

Within the 'nothing happened' group the only disagreement is which alleged contradiction is the most convincing to use against LDS and potential LDS. Within the 'something miraculous happened' group, most accept the PoGP / JSH account as scripture, and the other accounts as interesting historical footnotes. I have argued before that the canonized account of TCoJCoLdS should be given prominence in the article for this reason, based on WP:UNDUE. 74s181 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN, you said "Nobody... in the LDS Church claims that Smith ever made a mistake". Excuse me? Neal A. Maxwell, James E. Faust, Dallin H. Oaks, all general authorities, all speaking in general conference, quoted Joseph Smith's statement "I never told you I was perfect—but there is no error in the revelations which I have taught". So, are all the accounts of the First Vision 'revelations'? Well, even the account canonized by TCoJCoLdS refers to itself as a history - "I have been induced to write this history...", "In this history I shall present the various events...". This account even includes a caveat - "...so far as I have such facts in my possession". 74s181 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that none of the accounts is a perfect description of what happened, but the same can be said for the four gospels of the New Testament in relation to the resurrection. What really happened on that first easter morning? Was there one angel at the tomb or two? Were they in the tomb or outside of the tomb? Did the resurrected Jesus first appear to Mary Magdalene alone, to both women, or to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? The key difference between the accounts of the FV and the accounts of the resurrection is that more than 90% of the LDS movement accept the PoGP / JSH account as scripture and the other accounts as not scripture, while most Christians I know consider all four gospels to be scripture despite their many contradictions. 74s181 01:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we even need to mention the POV that Smith made it up. It's implicit in all the discussion. But within the LDS and/or non-LDS Mormon perspectives, asking whether or not a particular account is currently LDS scripture is the wrong question. The question is, are these other accounts accepted as true? WP:UNDUE only applies to distinct minority POVs. For example, suppose some sect in the Arizona desert said that they had new information about the First Vision, never spoken by Smith himself, describing elements of the Vision that are not a part of the LDS POV. In that case, there would be a distinct POV that you'd have to worry about giving undue weight. Here, on the other hand, there is one POV: what Joseph Smith said about the vision. In fact, it's not even a POV: Smith's words are historical fact, not open to serious debate. Different accounts do not represent distinct viewpoints, just distinct sources. COGDEN 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"The question is, are these other accounts accepted as true?" First of all, yes, they are all true, just like four accounts of the empty tomb in the four gospels. Second of all, Wikipedia is not about TRUTH, in fact, TRUTH is implicitly forbidden on Wikipedia. But I'm not suggesting that the different accounts represent different POV, see my question below. 74s181 12:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it that way. That's a very relativist perspective. Truth isn't forbidden in Wikipedia. What's forbidden is for one group's truth to have a privileged position, or for it to be misrepresented. COGDEN 13:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The First Vision is a controversial subject. There is a TRUTH about the First Vision, but stating that TRUTH as part of the article is forbidden. Describing the different POVs is what we're supposed to do, but in order to do so in a NPOV way we have to attribute each POV. 74s181 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Growth in theological importance of the First Vision" = criticism

This section reeks of redundant POV. It does contain some useful and interesting facts not stated elsewhere, but the section title has almost nothing to do with the contents of the section. 74s181 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one fixes it, I'm going to retitle it. 74s181 01:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions? I was thinking of splitting the section up by denomination, and then putting in more info about how the LDS church re-emphasized the vision in the 1900s after the Reed Smoot hearings, and maybe some things 19th century leaders had to say about it. COGDEN 02:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe has a clear vision for how he wants this article to be structured and resists every effort to change it. It has been clear for some time that John Foxe really wants this article to end with the conclusion that the LDS church is false. His recent incremental edits have essentially reverted the changes I made. I'll say again, I am not trying to turn this article into a tract Mormonism, I'm just trying to change it from being a tract against Mormonism into a NPOV article about the First Vision. 74s181 12:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So concluding with the words of the Prophet, seer, and revelator is the way to prove the LDS Church false?John Foxe 16:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is constructive to accuse anyone of trying to slant the article. I think John is sincere, but I also think he doesn't totally understand NPOV. I think most people have problems understanding NPOV simply because they tend to think some of their beliefs are actually facts. I know from past experience that it is easy to write what you think is NPOV, but then have somebody point out a POV aspect to what you wrote.

In John's case, I think he is confusing facts with balance. I think he understands that if you stack the facts a certain way, it results in a POV article. The problem is recognizing when that pattern arises. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because John Foxe isn't using the 'revert' function several times per day doesn't mean that he has changed his agenda. There have been several attempts to fix this section of the article, and where John Foxe casually reverted in the past, he is now reverting via incremental edits. I don't see how he could not know what he is doing, I have repeatedly tried to explain the POV and ownership issues with this article, see his response to "Inappropriate use of revert". 74s181 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, I'm sure you know the answer to your question, but for the benefit of others I'll answer. Some parts of the article have improved over the last couple of weeks, but the last section still concludes that the First Vision didn't happen, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Following this conclusion with the GBH quote results in another WP:NPOV violation, a conclusion that the TCoJCoLdS is false. Your continued resistance to any attempt to correct this problem is evidence of WP:OWN. 74s181 02:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to revert you as if you were a common vandal, Les, but you need to take any revisions slowly, sentence by sentence. You can't just declare a section POV without explanation. (I'm amused by how embarrassed you are by the words of the President of the Church.) If something is POV, explain why you believe so. I know you're not someone at loss for words.John Foxe 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, John, but the rules have changed. From now on, I suggest that you first discuss your objections to an edit before you revert. The issues were mentioned, and yet you did not reply, but rather waited until after the changes were made and reverted them.

Actually, this has been the rule all along, see Help:Reverting and my previous comments under "Inappropriate use of revert". 74s181 01:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please identify why you think the change increased the POV of the article. I would also suggest that you make specific changes in the future rather than revert any such edits. Remember the comment about you thinking you own the article? It is action such as that revert that gives people that impression. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

'Taint so, Bill. Les, attacked that section vigorously and repeatedly, but he never explained why he believed the material to be POV. He needs to do so.John Foxe 16:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I will repeat - you need to indicate why you think the new version is POV. I recommend that you start a topic and discuss the matter here before you revert or undo any of the changes. People don't have to justify bold edits, provided they are done in good faith. If you honestly believe that he has introduced serious POV issues, then simply list them and see if we can all come to an agreed upon solution. If you are right about any POV issues, I will be on your side for getting it changed. (As, I imagine, will several other LDS editors). -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's unfair, Bill. If you don't have to justify bold edits then neither do I. If you believe that the previous version, which had been worked on (and worked over) for months, had POV problems, then list them.--John Foxe 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't think previous versions of this article had POV problems? And that those problems weren't explicitly enumerated in many cases point by point with explicit recommendations to fix them? --Robert Horning 20:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is POV in the previous version of that section, then describe it.--John Foxe 20:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you asked, here it is. Maybe I'll do this for the entire article, oh, wait, I already tried that and you mostly ignored it. 74s181 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Answering your comments is probably moot if all of us are reasonably happy with my revision of your "bold edit," but I wanted to let you know that I'm paying attention.--John Foxe 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion, because some of these problems still remain in the current version of the article. 74s181 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Title of the section = "Theological use of the vision by the LDS Church"

"There is no reference to the First Vision... Neither was the First Vision emphasized... never illustrates [the theme] by any mention of the First Vision..."

I thought the section title was 'use', not 'non-use'.

The statements are all factually true; you might have just changed the heading.--John Foxe 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, as promised.<g> I tried hard to think of something else to call it other than criticism, I think the title you came up with is a good fit for the content of the section. 74s181 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Young stated... had seen an angel rather than God himself."

Original research and wrong conclusion, see previous discussion "Brigham Young's comments", May 1. This is still present in the current version, please fix it or I will.

There's no original research there. The full quotation is in the notes. That's exactly what Young says, although obviously he didn't know that what seems like an off-hand remark might become significant more than a century following his death after the First Vision had grown in theological importance.--John Foxe 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:OR, emphasis added. 74s181 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article... The only way to show that your work is not original research is to produce a reliable published source who writes about the same claims or advances the same argument as you."

"Taylor's comments on the First Vision... "

At last, a fact that has something to do with the title of the section. I checked the Tanner article, looking for the cited fact. Tanner includes several quotes from John Taylor, these quotes illustrate the conclusion, but Tanner never actually states the conclusion included in the FV article, therefore, more original research.

You've lost me here: "illustrates the conclusion" but doesn't "actually state" the conclusion?--John Foxe 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, WP:OR. "...produce a reliable published source who... advances the same argument..." The Tanner article is about how early Church leaders taught a different First Vision than is taught today. It doesn't draw the conclusion that John Taylor's view on the First Vision shifted over time, as you stated in the article.

"Although TCoJCoLdS has canonized... even the current LDS church historian... struck by the difference..."

These two separate facts were combined into a conclusion, resulting in pure criticism and original research by John Foxe.

Both statements are undeniably true. I can understand how combining them might be irritating to a believer but not how they could be original research.--John Foxe 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See WP:SYN 74s181 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."

"The Community of Christ has taken a less dogmatic position..."

Ok, that's two statements so far that fit the title of the section, and this one is completely problem free.

"The 1838 account of the First Vision is treated as scripture..."

Yes, this is relevant to the title of the section, but after soundly thrashing the FV this quote is included only to discredit TCoJCoLdS. 74s181 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On a more positive note, John Foxe, I like what you've done with the ending of the article. Maybe I'll take a look at the Marlin Jensen transcript and see if I can come up with another statement to put the one you've included back into its original context. 74s181 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that comment, Les. Really.

What Jensen did immediately after the FV comment was to try to change the subject, which is significant in itself but not something that I thought would fly even in a footnote. (In passing, I was impressed by Jensen's performance.)--John Foxe 14:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Condensation

I thought it would be easier to switch than fight. Notice how much verbiage I've removed (not to mention the word "criticism") without any lost of content. If the Temple Lot has something distinctive to say about the vision, then that information should be ferreted out and included.(The reversion was just an easy way to correct an error of my own.)--John Foxe 22:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are two main points of view, agree or disagree?

There are two main views, one says that something miraculous happened, the other says nothing happened, Joseph made it all up.

Agree or disagree? 74s181 12:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. I count several notable views, including the following:

1. Smith had a mystical vision in which he saw Jesus, and the Father confirmed he was his son. (view of Orson Pratt, probable view, in my opinion, of Joseph Smith)
2. Smith had a non-mystical visit by God and Jesus, not a vision. (View of John Taylor, James E. Talmage, Bruce R. McConkie, etc.)
3. Smith saw angels. (View of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball circa early 1850s)
4. Smith saw Adam and Jesus. (Probable view of Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball circa 1860s, view of Mormon fundamentalists)
5. Smith had a vision, memories of which evolved during the 1830s and 1840s, possibly as a result of inspiration. (View of several Mormon scholars)
6. Smith didn't have a vision, but began to remember he did. (View of several Mormon and non-Mormon scholars)
7. Smith was a fraud. (View of several non-Mormon scholars and evangelical Christians)

COGDEN 14:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And one more.

Joseph Smith saw the devil "transformed into an angel of light." (2 Cor. 11. 14) (View of other evangelical Christians)

John Foxe 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, there are three views.

A. Something miraculous happened. Includes 1-5.

B. Nothing happened. Includes 6-7.

C. Something horribly evil happened. Includes the view stated above by John Foxe.

It appears that the article is completely missing POV C. 74s181 01:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an oversimplification. You could say the same thing about religion: There are really only two points of view about religion: (1) miraculous things happen, or (2) they don't. End of article. COGDEN 20:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are about 12 million people who believe A, they are not even mentioned in the Religion article, I guess that means LDS are Christians <g>.

If this is a general Latter Day Saint movement article then A is not an oversimplification, it is the least common denominator. If the article is about TCoJCoLdS then the PoGP / JSH account is the account quoted by general authorities and is the account we should focus on. As it stands this account is the focus of much of the criticism in the article.

I think the expression "not seeing the forest for the trees" is overused, but it is certainly applicable here. If you believe, then that is much more important than whether it happened in 1820, 1821, or whenever. This is the way I think the article should be structured, those who believe the essential message of the FV and what they believe. Those who don't believe and why. Those who believe the 'devil vision', what that is, and why. 74s181 01:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think focusing on the differences in the accounts is part of the critical POV, but isn't that important to believers. As I said before, I suspect that none of the FV accounts is a perfect description of what happened, but the same can be said for the four gospels of the New Testament in relation to the resurrection. What really happened on that first easter morning? Was there one angel at the tomb or two? Were they in the tomb or outside of the tomb? Did the resurrected Jesus first appear to Mary Magdalene alone, to both women, or to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus? Do these contraditions prove that Jesus wasn't resurrected? 74s181 02:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I recall hearing that the differences tend to prove that it actually happened rather than disprove it. If all accounts agreed completely, the assumption would be that they were simply copies of a single document. If, on the other hand, there are minor differences, that would indicate that there were several sources that described the event. I wish I had a reference for that - I asked the person who mentioned it during a Priesthood lesson about the resurrection, but he didn't remember what book he got it from. :-( -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have heard of the principle you're talking about, Bill, but I can't think of the reference either. However, I don't think that it is applicable to either the FV or the empty tomb as it depends upon multiple witnesses giving similar but not identical testimony, the differences prove that the eyewitness accounts are, in fact, unique accounts and not derived from the same source. In both the FV and Gospel of John version of the empty tomb there is only a single eyewitness, in the case of the empty tomb none of the accounts are firsthand. 74s181 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it seems logical that a person relating an important experience might not include all the details all the time. It also makes sense that if they later heard people passing a confused version of the experience back and forth then they might sit down and try to remember as much detail as possible about the event, and produce a more complete, written version. 74s181 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The important thing about both the FV and the resurrection is that they happened at all. It is less important to know exactly what day or even what year it was, or the exact wording of the message, etc. It doesn't matter if there was one angel or two, if they were inside the tomb or outside. What matters is that the tomb was empty, because Jesus had risen. What matters is that the heavens opened and God told a young man that all the churches were wrong. This wasn't 'inspiration' in the form of a 'still small voice' or a feeling, it was a clear message from God, a revelation. The heavens were not and are not closed. God did not and does not accept mainstream Christianity as His church. This is the message. This is what the First Vision is about. This is the POV of 12 million followers of the Latter Day Saint movement. 74s181

Most of these believers also believe that both the Father and the Son bodily appeared and spoke to Joseph. Some do not. Most believe that this occured in 1820. Some aren't sure exactly when it occured. For faithful members of TCoJCoLdS, the PoGP / JSH account has been identified as the account to study, to teach, to quote from when testifying. Yes, some of us recognize that it may not be 100% correct, but we don't worry about it. Personally, I don't think I need to know exactly how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in order to be saved. 74s181 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, almost the entire FV article strains at gnats, completely ignoring the camel. 74s181 12:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The gnats are pesky historical facts; the camel's just a faith claim, a virtual camel if you will. (So, if the story's not 100% correct, at what percentage of correctness do you avoid mentioning it "when testifying"—90%, 60%?)--John Foxe 14:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There's that 'Foxey' tactic again. I will be perfectly clear. The First Vision is as real an event as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The differences in the accounts of the First Vision are as meaningless to believers as the differences in the accounts of the resurrection. 74s181 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify - the First Vision is as real to Mormons as the resurrection of Jesus Christ is to Mormons and other Christians. The differences in the accounts of the First Vision are as meaningless to Mormons as the differences in the accounts of the resurrection of Christ are to Mormons and other Christians. Personally, many of the differences in the various accounts are because they aren't about the First Vision - they are actually about the vision with Moroni. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what you'd like to write, 74s181, is a First Vision and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article, dealing with what the LDS Church has taught on the subject. That would be great, and I'd contribute. As it stands, however, this article is called First Vision, which is about the vision itself, not about beliefs in the vision. An article about the vision has to encycle everything that is known about the vision, and thus must be broader than an article focusing specifically on second-order beliefs or faith. The faith information has to be included, but the usual structure in these kind of articles is to discuss the primary sources first (all of Smith's accounts, and other historical information on things like date, place, and background), followed by the secondary sources (which would include interpretations of the primary sources). COGDEN 22:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you are saying. There is the First Vision itself. There are facts about the First Vision. But I say these facts include both the documents and the beliefs, and statements about the documents and the beliefs. COGDEN, you suggested that the discussion of belief belongs in a different article, not First Vision, but rather First Vision and something else. I think there is room in the this article for all three groups of facts. 74s181 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Empty Tomb, it looks a lot like the current state of the FV article, it is very narrowly focused on the accounts of the resurrection.

Account A says two angels, account B says one angel. Expert so and so says this means that. Church XYX teaches A, but church QRS teaches B.

Now take a look at Death and resurrection of Jesus. It discusses all the facts, both the belief facts, and the historical facts, based on the accounts that exist.

This is why it's important. This is who believes it and why. This is who disputes it. This is what people believe happened. The accounts are different in these ways. This is what experts say.

COGDEN, it looks to me like the model you want to follow looks more like Empty Tomb, the model I want to follow looks more like Death and resurrection of Jesus. Which article is 'about' the death and resurrection of Jesus? 74s181 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a very telling excerpt from the Death and resurrection of Jesus article:

"The poor educational level that would be expected of the early disciples of Jesus, according to their descriptions in the New Testament, and the comparatively early timeframe in which they recorded the events, is argued by apologists to reduce their likelihood of being able to devise an elaborate account".

Wow, is that synchronicity or what? 74s181 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:V says:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.

WP:NPOV says:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense as described above. Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone. So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which is a fact verifiable by survey results, or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also fact. In the first instance we assert an opinion; in the second and third instances we "convert" that opinion into fact by attributing it to someone. It is important to note this formulation is substantially different from the "some people believe..." formulation popular in political debates. The reference requires an identifiable and objectively quantifiable population or, better still, a name (with the clear implication that the named individual should be a recognized authority).

My biggest objection to the article as it presently stands is that there is still a great deal of controversial POV conclusions presented as undisputed facts. I think it is confusing to attempt to represent the different views in-line as the article presently does, and I think it would be even more confusing if each view were properly attributed as described in the WP policy excerpts above.74s181 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to divide the views in the article into three sections based on the identifiable and objectively quantifiable population that espouses each POV. To avoid confusion with the earlier groupings, I've used a different set of letters to identify these groupings. 74s181 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

X - Those whose belief in the First Vision as a matter of Faith.

1. Followers of the Latter Day Saint movement
2. Leaders and members of the individual churches within the movement

Y - Those whose opposition to the First Vision is a matter of Faith.

1. Non-evangelical Christian groups or experts who teach that nothing happened.
2. Evangelical Christian groups or experts who teach that Joseph Smith was deceived by Satan.

Z - Those who speak or write strictly of the historicity of the event.

1. Historians whose body of work demonstrates no Faith-based bias for or against the FV or the Latter Day Saint movement.

Does this work any better? 74s181 14:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If there are any "POV conclusions presented as undisputed facts" in this article, then list them and we'll work on fixing them. There's no reason to reorganize the article unless you're attempting to promote an LDS POV by declaring historical facts to be "criticisms." In any case, how do the views of COGDEN fit in your scheme?--John Foxe 15:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't fixed the ones I already listed. Let me refresh your memory. 74s181 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"In the 1838 account Joseph claims that it had never entered into his heart..."

"Joseph Smith may also have had a motive for changing his story in 1838..."

"In 1855, Young stated that Smith, in his First Vision, had seen an angel..."

"Taylor's comments on the First Vision shift..."

"Although even the current LDS Church Historian has admitted..."

I don't know COGDEN personally. Based on what he has said here I would assume that COGDEN is a mainstream Christian, determined to insure that any reader of the article concludes that the FV didn't happen, but his user page says he is "...a loyal multi-generational Mormon, raised in rural Utah" and that he served a mission for TCoJCoLdS. I don't know what to think about that. His user page also says he is a lawyer, based on that I would expect him to understand that there is no room for TRUTH in a WP article on a controversial subject like the First Vision.

COGDEN, reading over what I wrote above, I worry that you might take it as a personal attack or that you might think I am questioning your testimony. I'm not. What I meant was, I'm confused. The position you have taken on this article and the things you say on this talk page (and other articles relating to Mormonism) seems to me to go beyond careful neutrality almost to the point of looking more like a carefully neutral anti-LDS editor than a carefully neutral LDS editor. Please don't take this personally. John Foxe has repeatedly invoked your name as an LDS editor who agrees with him, and this time specifically asked how your views fit into my 'scheme'. 74s181 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As for you, John Foxe, I would expect a person with a user name like yours to understand that when it comes to religious belief, WP must treat belief facts no differently than historical facts. And since we are all such obviously intelligent people here I would expect all of us to understand that when we talk about an event for which there are no living eye witnesses, and no physical evidence, the term "historical fact" becomes an oxymoron. 74s181 17:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Although John has problems understanding POV issues, he is not alone. Realizing why others may not believe as we do doesn't mean our faith is weak. It is quite possible to believe that the First Vision actually happened, and still write a NPOV article including controversial facts. It isn't easy, but it is possible. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to withhold comment on possible connections between truth and lawyers, Les. My suggestion is, as a first step, for you to try to improve the sentences that you believe to contain POV. Who knows, I might even agree with some of your changes. But, "belief facts"—you've got me stumped there. I'll have to speak to a leprechaun about that one.--John Foxe 19:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Foxey again, eh? Interesting how you asked for a list of "POV conclusions presented as undisputed facts", so you could "...work on fixing them", but now you want me to fix them myself. I've already tried that, you reverted, repeatedly, in clear violation of WP:3RR. But no one seems to think that is a big deal, so rather than wasting my time editing and waiting for your reverts I am now trying to gain some kind of consensus first. 74s181 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "belief facts", no leprechauns required (personally, I don't believe in them <g>), just read WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, substituting 'belief' for 'opinion'. Ultimately, on WP there are only undisputed 'facts', and there are 'beliefs', there is no 'TRUTH'. When I say 'belief facts', what I mean are attributed facts about beliefs. This includes LDS beliefs on the 5Ws of the FV, as well as your beliefs on what the accounts of the FV prove or don't prove. 74s181 21:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a bit more thought. There is a quick and simple change that I can make to a clearly POV paragraph. I don't think you'll like it, but, here goes. 74s181 21:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, attributing that statement to Palmer is fine with me. Sometimes it's remarkable how easy it can be to reach agreement. Why don't you try again? But if I were you, I'd be wary of disparaging truth. They who live by the sword of relativism tend to die by the sword of relativism.--John Foxe 19:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious why you changed "...an LDS historian and disfellowshipped member.." to "...a former LDS seminary teacher and now disfellowshipped member...". Maybe you didn't realize that an LDS seminary teacher isn't the same thing as a Presbyterian seminary teacher. In TCoJCoLdS, seminary is not post-graduate education for professional clergy, rather, it is a one hour daily class attended by high school age youth, either off-campus during normal school hours in areas of high LDS concentration, or early in the morning before school in areas of lower LDS concentration. I'm not sure, but I think in the former case seminary teachers are paid, in the second case I know that they are not. Since Grant Palmer taught seminary in Utah it was probably a paid position, but I don't think this would qualify him as an 'expert' in the WP sense, certainly not as much as being a published LDS historian. 74s181 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, maybe you already knew all of this. If so, the only motive I can think of would be that you hope to mislead the casual reader into thinking that Palmer was formerly a professor who taught future LDS clergy. Strictly speaking this is true, as most Bishops, Stake Presidents, etc., who grew up in the church attended seminary in their youth. If this was your intent then it was indeed a Foxey move. <g> 74s181 22:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Truth. I do not disparage Truth. The reason I am here is to protect Truth. However, what I have read about WP:NPOV tells me that Truth itself has no place on WP. To be more specific, I mean Truth as in identifying which of two or more controversial views is True, or, IOW, stating a controversial conclusion as a fact, rather than stating it as the belief of an expert or group. 74s181 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding attribution, so you're saying that it's ok if I attribute every statement that I believe is POV as I did the Palmer statement? I think the article will become pretty cluttered, especially after adding statements on competing POV as required by WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. I can live with that, but I think it would be much neater and cleaner to group all the criticism into one place and label the section as criticism. Then, maybe it wouldn't be necessary to attribute each and every disputed conclusion or fact. If we did that, i agree that it would be only fair to treat the pro-LDS conclusions or disputed facts similarly. 74s181 23:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Palmer was a director of LDS Institutes of Religion, which is the closest thing to what a non-Mormon would think of as seminary training. Though calling that training "seminary" catches essentials, perhaps it is indeed too foxy. Feel free to try again. But I wouldn't call Palmer a historian; he's never written anything that I consider history.

"Institute of Religion, or "Institute", as it is often called within the LDS community, is a program for college students that provides opportunities for spiritual growth and socialization with other LDS students, who are typically a very small minority on their various campuses. I think it would be fair to say that Institute is for college students what Seminary is for high school students. I think BYU offers degrees in theology, and there is a program specifically for military chaplains, this is probably the closest thing in the LDS church to what you might think of as a seminary. Remember, TCoJCoLdS has no professional clergy, it isn't a career path for LDS. 74s181 12:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The attribution to Palmer is, in my opinion, atypical of the statements you believe to be POV. In my view, most of the controverted phrases just need some tweaking until we're both satisfied that they're NPOV. If simple compromises work, why trot out canon and bombs?

My head starts spinning when I try to figure out what you are trying to say about the nature of truth. I still think you're headed toward intellectual disaster. As the late Jack Hexter wrote, “Confronted with high and ghostly arguments in the celestial realms of epistemology and ontology, [historians] tend unwarrantedly to lose faith in the common experience, common sense, and common language that has served and serves them quite well in their natural earthly habitat." We can discuss the nuances of Zeno's Paradox forever, but my money's on Achilles.--John Foxe 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to respond to your comment on Truth as I think it is central to our disagreements on this article. Stripping the First Vision down to its essentials, God spoke to Joseph Smith and said that all churches in existence at that time were wrong. I believe this is True, I consider it a Truth, from your editing it seems clear that you believe nothing happened, that is the Truth that you believe in. From a purely logical perspective, I could be right, you could be right, we could both be wrong, but we can't both be right, there is only one Truth. I think that even you would agree that if it did happen, it's pretty important, much more important than the details of this date, that date, was it a vision or an actual visitation, etc.

But, what does this have to do with Wikipedia? WP:NPOV addresses controversial topics like this.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."

None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth...

...the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.

NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves.

By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute."

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a piece of information about which there is some dispute."

Where we might want to state an opinion, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone.

And that's it. When I say that Truth has no place on Wikipedia, this is what I mean. When you or some other editor start talking about Truth, I get nervous. For more explanation, see the section below. 74s181 14:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

For purposes of this Wikipedia article, our beliefs make no difference. What we're interested in here is historical fact. Neither of us can never prove what, if anything, Joseph Smith experienced in 1820; but we can, for instance, check the local tax records to see when the Smiths built their cabin in Manchester and relate this information to that provided by Joseph Smith about the date of his visitation. The date of the cabin construction is a historical fact, and it's on the basis of this sort of historical evidence that people are convicted of serious crimes every day. Yes, historical "truth" can be manufactured by the police or accidentally created by incompetents in the crime lab. We have to be wary of such things. But in general, we accept that the overwhelming majority of tax records are not forged. It's that sort of truth, the truth of tax records created in the course of daily routine, that we're interested in here, not religious opinions. To deny the importance and validity of historical facts, and to try to replace them with religious beliefs, is to deny truth. My beliefs don't count; truth does.--John Foxe 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an excellent illustration of my earlier point. The article says "Manchester land assessment records suggest that the Smiths completed their Manchester cabin in 1822...", the quote from Vogel in the notes says "...which indicates that the Smiths had completed construction of their cabin..." 'suggest', 'indicates', does the tax record say that the assessment increased because they completed a cabin? Where is this 'fact' stated as a fact? And even if it is stated unequivocally somewhere, other sources (also not friendly to Smith) say that the Smiths completed a small cabin, moved into it around 1818, and were 'squatters' until title could be cleared for them to purchase the property some time later. So much for this 'historical fact', as I said earlier, when we talk about an event for which there are no living eye witnesses, and no physical evidence, the term "historical fact" becomes an oxymoron. 74s181 03:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You said "our beliefs make no difference", you are absolutely correct on this. What you fail to recognize (along with many other editors) is that the only 'facts' on WP are those which are undisputed.

Joseph Smith, Jr. was born on December 23, 1805, in Sharon, Vermont to Joseph Smith, Sr. and Lucy Mack Smith.

None of the above is disputed, therefore, it is stated as fact.

In 1855, Young stated that Smith, in his First Vision, had seen an angel rather than God himself.

This is an interpretation, I (and most LDS) don't agree that this is what the Young quote says, I (and most LDS, I suspect) believe it says that the Lord came, but not with the armies of heaven. But the statement is ambiguous enough that there are many anti-LDS who believe that it means that Smith had seen an angel, not God himself. Fine, but it is disputed, therefore, it is not a fact. However, if you change it to:

So and so with expert credentials such and such wrote that in 1855, Young stated that Smith, in his First Vision, had seen an angel rather than God himself.

Then you have converted it to a fact, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. That is, if so and so who has credentials such and such really said this, and you provide a citation so this can be checked, then it is a fact, no one can dispute it. This is how things WP NPOV works. We don't state controversial opinions as if they were facts, we state as fact that some expert believes the opinion. 74s181 12:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

So long as we can discuss whether any information presented is factual, we're in good shape.

Young did state that Smith saw an angel rather than God himself in 1855; that's a fact. Your belief about the quotation is irrelevant. Young may not have intended to say what he did, but that's what he said. No expert need stand between us and the quotation. The statement is not ambiguous; it is as clear as the statement that Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805. Now, if in the footnote you want to include Mormon apologetics, I have no problem with that.--John Foxe 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

John, this is a good example of the problem. It is a fact that Young, in 1855, did say Smith was visited by an angel. What is not a fact is if Young was talking about the First Vision or the visit with Moroni. Since Young doesn't mention the First Vision, there is no way to determine which vision he was talking about. You clearly think he was talking about the First Vision. I, on the other hand, see no evidence of that. In fact, since the First Vision wasn't really emphasized until after Smith's death (and Young's, for that matter), and since the visit with Moroni was emphasized during that time period, it is perfectly reasonable that many of the comments about Smith having a vision are actually about the second vision and not the first.

I have no problem stating that Young mentioned Smith being visited by an angel. I also have no problem with a statement that some critics assert that this mention was referring to the First Vision. What I have problems with is stating what Young said, and then associating that comment to the First Vision without any indication that it is not a universally accepted position. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's that magic word "critics" again. Why is it that "critics" have to bear the bad tidings of historical fact whereas "apologists" rarely materialize to challenge them?--John Foxe 21:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but...

According to the The Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research "...when you look closer with the entire quote, Brigham specifically says that the Lord did come. It was the Lord who "informed him," not the angel. "

So much for your 'historical fact'. I'm going to add this to the article, and tag the other opinion. 74s181 00:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Rather than respond piecemeal to the above discussion, and rather than indent any further, let me just respond in one place here:

• First, I disagree with the idea by 74s181 of splitting the article into three sections based on POV. That's content forking, which is almost never a good idea.
• Second, I'm not saying that this article should not include information about people's beliefs. Those are secondary or tertiary sources, and are very appropriate in any article. But you'll notice in WP:V, and just as a matter of good writing, that it's best to discuss the primary sources before moving on to the secondary sources. As evidenced by its title, this article is about the First Vision, not about people's interpretations of the First Vision. What I mean by that is, there are two kinds of facts appropriate in this article: (1) what Smith said, or may have said, happened during the First Vision (primary sources); and (2) what people have said about what Smith said about the First Vision (secondary sources). The focus of the article is #1, and #2 is important, but incidental to the main focus, unless you want to split off an article dealing specifically with #2, which might be called First Vision and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In that case, the primary sources would be #2 (as spoken by LDS leaders), because the article is about what LDS leaders have said about what Smith said about the First Vision. The secondary sources in that case would be #3: what non-authoritative commentators (like FARMS or non-Mormon scholars) have said about what LDS leaders have said about what Smith said about the First Vision.
• As to me personally, I'm an active and believing LDS Mormon, but I'm also a great admirer of such believing Mormon historians as Richard Bushman and Terryl Givens (and to a large extent D. Michael Quinn, though I'd be happier if he hadn't got himself excommunicated), who believe in the First Vision and other elements of LDS theology, but aren't afraid of the complexity and equivocality of the history.
• As to reliance on Grant Palmer to make points in this article, I think he's a rather poor secondary source. His book was not so much a history or biography as a pop-polemic. Palmer had few, if any, insights of his own regarding the First Vision: he based everything on older, better sources, such as Marquardt and Walters, Inventing Mormonism.
• As to Young's 1855 statement that Smith "saw an angel rather than God himself", issues like this are easy to resolve by using a quote. For example, we can say:

According to Young, at the advent of the LDS restoration, the "Lord did send His angel to...Joseph Smith jun.,...and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong." Many scholars view this as an indication that Young was not aware in 1855 of Smith's claim that God himself appeared during the First Vision (cite); some LDS scholars believe Young was referring to some other vision, such as the 1823 vision of Moroni (cite).

COGDEN 20:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article into three sections - I only suggested splitting the article up this way because I think it will result in a cleaner article than what we're going to have after we attribute all the controversial opinions. I'm not pushing for this anymore. And BTW, I don't think separate sections in the same article constitutes a POV fork. 74s181 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Separate article - First Vision and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - I think this would be a violation of WP:POVFORK. 74s181 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

COGDEN personally - I apologize for my earlier statements. 74s181 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No offense taken. COGDEN 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Grant Palmer - The particular fact that was recently attributed to Grant Palmer has been in the article with Grant Palmer as the cited reference for over two years. 74s181 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young quote - Both FAIR and TCoJCoLdS Brigham Young PH / RS manual (1997) interpret the controversial quote to say that Young said that the Lord did come. But I agree that the interpretation you gave could also be valid. The quote is a bit ambiguous, Brigham Young isn't available for interview, so we can't treat any interpretation of the quote as a 'historical fact', we have to attribute the various opinions about the interpretation. 74s181 03:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an LDS First Vision article would necessarily be content forking, it would just be a sub-article on a subtopic. It would still contain all points of view within the scope of the topic, but the topic would be any factual intersection between the First Vision and the LDS Church. In other words, it would be a "second order" article. I'm not saying we should create such an article, but it could be created if this article gets too big. COGDEN 17:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this or is this not a violation of WP:NPOV?

I want to be completely honest. Maybe I'm wrong in my understanding of WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Clearly, either I am wrong or John Foxe is wrong. I'm ready to be corrected on this, I'm still a bit of a newbie on Wikipedia. Let's take a couple of examples and run them to ground, please respond to each individual example inline, am I right in believing it to be a violation of WP policies, and if not, why not, citing WP policies if possible. 74s181 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

First example, I think this is clearly a violation of WP policies. 74s181 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith may also have had a motive for changing his story in 1838, a period of crisis in the Latter Day Saint Movement. At the time there was open dissent against Smith's leadership, and a quarter of the original Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and some 300 members—perhaps fifteen percent of the total membership—had left the church. Smith might have reasoned that to declare that his original call had come from God the Father and Jesus Christ rather than from an angel might strengthen his leadership role—and in fact, it did so.

IMHO, this paragraph speculates that Smith changed his story, or IOW, lied, and it states as fact that his position was strengthened because of the alleged lie. I don't believe that Smith lied, and I suspect most LDS would agree with me. I don't know if Smith's position was strengthened at the time as a result of his emphasis of the First Vision, perhaps some expert has stated this. Both 'facts' are actually controversial opinions, therefore, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, in order to convert them to facts they must be attributed to some expert, and since they are controversial they should be balanced with competing opinions, and this must be done "...without implying that any one of the opinions is correct." 74s181 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Second example, I think it is also a violation of the NPOV policy but I am not as sure. 74s181 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In the 1838 account Joseph claims that it had never entered into his heart "that the existing churches were all wrong," but according to the 1832 account in his own handwriting, he had already concluded from reading the Bible that all churches were wrong.

This example connects two facts that are not disputed, but, IMHO, it does it in such a way as to lead the reader to a conclusion. In other words, a conclusion is not explicitly stated, but two probable conclusions are implied, a) Smith lied, or b) he didn't really remember what happened. Given the tone of the section (and the article overall), and given the explicitly stated negative POV conclusion that follows, I think it is clear that a negative POV conclusion was intended. I believe that the implied conclusion should be stated, and again, per WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation, the statement should be attributed, and balanced with an expert response. Even if we decide that this statement is ok because it doesn't explicitly state a conclusion, I think it is still a problem (along with many other statements in the article) because of WP:NPOV#Fairness_of_tone. 74s181 21:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I find more of a problem with tone and balance, but it is also POV. This is common anti-Mormon literature style writing. This style strives to lead and guide readers to a conclusion; it does not report facts. 74, you have done great work and I commend you for sticking with this; someone needs to; however, you are working with a rather recalcitrant editor that writes with an admitted objective...he is born again and he is not so much committed to proclaiming the Good News, but pitifully trying to attack the beliefs of others. You must remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and you should be wary of being forced into taking that position. Continue your simply state the rules of Wikipedia, when he can not explain himself, delete his edits and state clearly what policy has been violated. This article should probably go to mediation; I personally am not patient enough to work with him. I had the pleasure of growng up in the Bible belt and his line of thinking is old hat for me. You might find it interesting; my sister (she still lives in Florida) just sent me a picture of the sign of the First Baptist church, on it it reads "Do not Pray about the Book of Mormon, That's how they get you!" It has got to make you laugh when a they begin to tell people they can not trust God, stop praying, and listen to man. I apologize in advance for this bit of personal diatribe. Keep up the good work! --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already raised the issue of this article having POV problems in a couple of different places within Wikipedia, asking for some additional eyes to come and check this out. It appears as though John has the message now that a full and blatant reversion, except for out right vandalism, is simply not acceptable. These edits by me and 74 here are not vandals, and John knows it. Unfortunately this isn't the first article I've come across that has somebody doing this kind of behavior either.

All this said, I think it is good to have somebody like John keeping us "on our toes" and challenging what is being written. I say this, and I want to encourage alternate viewpoints to challenge what may not be perceived as a NPOV article. Still, it is important to recognize that you don't know everything there is to know about this or any other topic, and that there may be some individuals who might actually have something new to say as well. I feel that I have been shut out of writing anything in this article, and I'm glad that somebody else is at least trying to challenge this current status quo. --Robert Horning 08:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please avoid ad hominems. Using phrases like "recalcitrant editor" and "pitifully trying to attack the beliefs of others" is probably not the best method for improving the neutrality of this article. I'm also fascinated by the constant use of poor John as a whipping boy when the majority of the words in this article were actually written by COGDEN--John Foxe 14:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Storm Rider displays a general garment and you claim it is cut to fit?<g> BTW, he wasn't criticizing anyone's character, just commenting on 'historic facts', I don't think that constitutes an ad hominem attack.<g> Seriously, I think we're making progress, I'm excited to see what happens when we start tagging assertions in the article. 74s181 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not the words of User:COGDEN that I'm complaining about. It is your use of reversions to completely ignore what has been written by other contributors (not just myself) to this article in good faith and dismissing those edits as vandalism. And the presumption that COGDEN is an apologist that has been able to seek a compromise with you as the final say on this article, and his is the only true voice of Mormonism. Or that the rest of use discussing this article are naive new Wikipedia contributors with no prior experience in ever writing a single word of prose. It is this condecending attitude I'm not appreciative of. --Robert Horning 10:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess that means no barnstar?--John Foxe 09:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tag, you're it!

John Foxe has asked for a list of problems with the article. I've given lists in the past, but little has been done.

How about if I just tag the offending assertions? I have previously used the {{fact}} tag, I wondered if there was a tag for a disputed fact that needs attribution. I did a bit of searching and found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/Disputes#For_inline_article_placement

There are several relevant tags we could use.

{{or}} - "original research?" - Something that looks like original research, if not, needs attribution and a citation.

{{syn}} - "improper synthesis?" - Another form of original research, synthesis of undisputed facts that results in a controversial conclusion which isn't attributed to an expert.

{{who}} - "attribution needed" - When something needs more specific attribution, meant for use on statements that say 'some believe', I think it might also be appropriate where an opinion has been stated as an undisputed fact and needs to be converted to a wiki fact by attribution.

{{lopsided}} - "opinion needs balancing" - When an opinion has been correctly attributed but needs balance.

{{check}} - "verification needed" - When there is a problem with the citation. Several of the Harvard style citations in the article are 'broken', I don't know where the info originally came from but someone does, this could be used to indicate a broken citation that needs to be fixed.

{{fact}} - "citation needed" - The old standby, this article is pretty well cited, but a few of these may still turn up.

So, what do you think, the article will look pretty cluttered for a while, but it will be much better after the problems are resolved. 74s181 13:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the above effort would be very productive. (Although I think the section title could have been more balanced. ;^) There are higher level tags, but I think approaching the issue at this level would help isolate the areas of contention. It would also have the side benefit of showing an uninformed reader where the disputes are located. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this procedure. If there's POV, let's tackle it on the retail level, phrase by phrase. Treating the whole article systematically in this fashion should also mute calls for transmuting historical fact into "criticism."--John Foxe 15:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think the appropriate style is, first attribution of a particular expert, the expert should be named, wikilinked if possible, with something to identify why the person is considered to be an expert. For example,

Gordon B. Hinckley, Church President and Prophet, has declared...

On subsequent attributions to the same person I think it is adequate to abbreviate the name:

Hinckley said...

Does this look right? 74s181 04:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've eliminated the tags mostly by deleting controverted material. So was reaching agreement without mentioning "critics" and "apologists" this easy?--John Foxe 16:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I never objected to the presence of the critical material. Even when I did the restructuring on May 9th ("No facts were harmed..."), I didn't remove any material, I just rearranged it so that the criticism was identified as criticism. This is all I have ever wanted. If it pleases you more to remove the critical material rather than attribute it, I'm ok with that, but I'm not sure everyone else will be. We'll just have to be diligent in continually checking for problems as old material resurfaces. 74s181 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not keeping track. If I re-tag something that you've removed the tag from, it is because I looked at it and decided that it had such and such problem at that moment.

Here's an example. "Taylor's comments on the First Vision shift..." I'm pretty sure I tagged this earlier, now it is not tagged. So I checked the reference again. Hmmm... Tanner says:

The first vision story and the LDS doctrine of God have continually evolved. The LDS Church's current position was not the position of the church in 1830 or 1835.

Checked the rest of the article, there are quotes from John Taylor, most talk about the Father and the Son appearing, a couple talk about appearances of angels (I looked up and read the full talk of the first such and found that the statement on angels had been taken out of context), but no conclusion stated that John Taylor's position shifted. So, should I just let this go? I will for now, there are worse problems still in the article. 74s181 00:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the Taylor quotations again myself and thought at best that he was unclear as to whether Joseph Smith saw deities or angels. Maybe the sentence just needs a tweak in wording to satisfy both of us. As I think I've made clear in the past, my main interest is in preventing historical facts from being described as criticism either by designation or by rearrangement of the article.--John Foxe 09:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mouw quotation

There's nothing wrong with quoting Mouw, but certainly a quotation this long should not be in the lede. The footnote is sufficient; it might even be placed nearer the end of the article.--John Foxe 15:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so everyone else knows what this is about, I added a third paragraph to the lead, John Foxe deleted it. Here it is as I originally left it. 74s181 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The First Vision is a controversial topic, and the historical facts can be confusing even to religious experts. Richard Mouw, an evangelical theologian and President of Fuller Theological Seminary, said in a recent interview:

My instinct is to attribute a sincerity to Joseph Smith. And yet at the same time, as an evangelical Christian, I do not believe that the members of the godhead really appeared to him and told him that he should start on a mission of, among other things, denouncing the kinds of things that I believe as a Presbyterian. I can't believe that. And yet at the same time, I really don't believe that he was simply making up a story that he knew to be false in order to manipulate people and to gain power over a religious movement. And so I live with the mystery.

John Foxe, you said this was too long for the lead. What is too long? With the quote, the lead still fits on my 1024x768 display without scrolling, it is shorter than many leads I've seen.

I think this quote does a great job of introducing the controversy and framing the discussion, Mouw rejects the fundamental message of the First Vision, yet, he also doesn't believe that Joseph was making it all up. It's a mystery, even to an evangelical theologian.

I really like this quote, I think it goes a long way toward neutralizing the negative vibes of the rest of the article. If you think it goes too far and needs balance, how about if we move the Jensen quote up to the lead? Before or after the Mouw quote, doesn't matter to me, bottom line, encyclopedic doesn't have to mean boring. 74s181 01:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

First, quotations of any kind should be kept to a minimum. No one reads quotations. When we see block quotes, nine times out of ten our eyes just skip over them.

"No one reads quotations". I disagree, I say, no one reads footnotes. Oh, of course, that's what you meant.<g> 74s181 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Second, Mouw's quotation doesn't tell us anything, least of all that the First Vision is controversial. Mouw says he believes Joseph Smith sincere. He doesn't give a reason; he just feels that way. Big deal. The quotation says more about the state of modern evangelicalism than it does the First Vision. The lede should provide only the most basic information, the shorter the better; and as you've probably noticed, I try to cut verbiage and tighten up the syntax of all the articles on which I work.--John Foxe 09:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Mouw's quotation doesn't tell us anything...", actually, it does. What it doesn't tell us is anything about what "most denominations within the movement teach", but this is where you've hidden it. But at least we now know that your primary concern is the content of the quote, not its length.<g> 74s181 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"...least of all that the First Vision is controversial... He doesn't give a reason; he just feels that way. Big deal." Yes, it is Very Big Deal. Mouw is an evangelical Christian, he rejects the message of the First Vision, and yet he doesn't believe that Smith is a liar. And by the way, the subject of the article is a religious belief, feelings matter, therefore, what Mouw believes can be converted to a fact and used in the article according to WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation. Oh, right, that's what I did. 74s181 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you would have been happier if I had written this:

Although evangelical Christians reject the doctrines contained within the First Vision, some can't help but attribute sincerity to Smith and admit that the First Vision is a "mystery". (footnote link to quote)

I guess that would be more encyclopedic. But less factual. 74s181 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm going to have a bit of fun, hopefully, you'll laugh along with me and get the point I'm trying to make. 74s181 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Young Mouw did state that he believed Smith saw an angel rather than God himself in 1855 was sincere; that's a fact. Your belief about the quotation is irrelevant. Young Mouw may not have intended to say what he did, but that's what he said. No expert footnote need stand between us and the quotation. The statement is not ambiguous; it is as clear as the statement that Joseph Smith was born on December 23, 1805. Now, if in the footnote you want to include criticism from a Mormon apologetics, I have no problem with that.

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

I propose leaving the material quote just as it is was and as it would have been if PBS had covered the First Vision in detail on Wikipedia.

<g,d,rfc> 74s181 12:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Because Mouw is a non-Mormon, he and his opinion are irrelevant to this article, although I don't doubt that such a statement from a prominent evangelical might encourage the heart of a believer.

As you recall, I put the quotation from Young in a footnote—I hope an adequate bona fide of my desire to try to keep the article from growing in verbosity. "In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin." Prov. 10.19--John Foxe 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mouw is accepted as an expert on Mormonism and on the First Vision, therefore, his opinion is relevant. 74s181 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As a believer, I don't need encouragement. As John Foxe, I doubt if encouragement will make any difference to you. The article is not for us, it is for those who don't know much about the First Vision and want to learn more. Unfortunately, the article has a negative POV tone. It has improved, but it is still negative. Although the quote doesn't eliminate the negativity it does take the edge off of it. 74s181 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"...my desire to try to keep the article from growing..." I don't recall anyone complaining about the "verbosity" of the article, or the quote. The complaint was about the negative POV of the article in general. I made a complaint about the comment on the Young quote. You removed the comment on the Young quote. I then added a somewhat positive quote from a critic, you immediately buried it as a "Nevertheless" to a footnote to a statement that has nothing to do with the quote. 74s181 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I decided to "have a bit of fun" was that you didn't seem to be responding to my words, I thought you might pay more attention to your own. Of course, unlike the Young quote there is nothing ambiguous about what Mouw said.<g> 74s181 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So, tell me, did you grin, even a little? That picture on your user talk page looks soooo serious.<g> 74s181 22:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a somewhat more genial looking engraving of John Foxe extant, and I need to try to figure out how to upload it for my home page; but I'm computer challenged. And sorry to say, I didn't catch the humor in your piece, especially since it looks like you took some time to put it together. Satire's a difficult genre to pull off. As for my urge to fight prolixity on Wikipedia, I'm in the minority wherever I go.--John Foxe 09:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"We've got Trouble!", posted a couple weeks ago was meant as a parody and I did spend some time at it, but I didn't really think of the paragraphs above as anything special, just an attempt to get you to see things a bit differently with a little humor thrown in. Oh, well. 74s181 12:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen 'prolixity' before. The meaning was obvious from the context, but looked it up to make sure there wasn't some subtle shade I was missing. I especially liked the Mark Twain quote, "If I had more time, I would have written less." Anyway, I understand the idea of excessive verbosity obscuring the point or boring the reader, do you really think the article is in danger of that? The "What Smith said he saw" section seems the most likely to suffer from this problem. It does a great job of pulling all the accounts together and it provides the formerly missing 'what' of the article, but all those footnotes! Whew! It's almost like a frog with all of its organs removed, neatly pinned and labeled on a dissection board. Yes, it's factual, it's useful, but it's difficult to see the living frog with its throat popping in and out, catching bugs, or jumping around. I think it would have been better to excerpt the most commonly referenced account, then talk about the differences and similarities with each of the other accounts. Oh, right, I tried that.<g>

Wikipedia is not paper (WP:PAPER), but there are valid reasons to limit the size of articles. I've often been accused of having my /v switch stuck in the 'on' position, I've tried to confine that to the talk page, but maybe the Mouw quotation was excessive. So, based on your comments, I'm off to try a summary of the quotation. Let's see what you do with that, hmmm? 74s181 12:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If I were king of this article, I'd cut it by a third. But I'm realistic enough to understand that that won't happen. For one thing, COGDEN's contributions are about the most sophisticated and knowledgeable of any comments on Mormonism that I've seen on Wikipedia. It's just that lawyers have a different notion about the meaning of the word "brief."--John Foxe 13:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did it. You'll probably want to 'tighten it up', and you may be tempted to switch the order of the Jensen / Mouw statements, but I'd really like the lead to end on the phrase "And so I live with the mystery." as I think this is a very neutral launching point for the rest of the article. 74s181 13:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If I become king, this paragraph will be one of the first to go, but I can certainly live with it.--John Foxe 14:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"If I were king", sorry, I think WP is more of a Rational Anarchy or commune than a monarchy. And yet, there is Jimbo Wales. Maybe a benevolent dictatorship? 74s181 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder about "question the significance" but within the context of the LDS movement I suppose this is true. I can live with what you've done, although it is interesting that even after deleting 'confusing', 'apologists', and 'critics', the net result of your edit is a longer lead. Also, I'm not clear on the difference between 'controversial' and 'controverted'. Are you an english professor? That would explain a lot. 74s181 14:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Leave to me to advocate brevity and then make something longer. What happened was that I moved material into the text from a footnote in the previous paragraph. If you don't think "question the significance" is appropriate, feel free to ditch it.

"Controverted" carries the implication of attempting to deny or refute a doctrine. I think it's a little edgier and more precise than the overused "controversial." I'm not an English professor, but I appreciate the compliment.--John Foxe 17:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Jensen

The apologetic statement by Jensen is too much for the lead, and it would be inscrutable to a non-Mormon reader anyway: "You mean, you'd forget about seeing God until you were older?" I could do a similar apologetic about Mouw, whose touching intuition about Smith's good intentions is certainly atypical of evangelicals. Let's leave the paragraph be, ditch it entirely, or move it to another location.--John Foxe 10:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The quote was consistently presented in a POV manner, so I removed it. While it is true that he was amazed with the differences, he also states that his perspective on events from his youth has changed as he grew older. To only include the quote about being amazed at the differences without including the rest of the quote is POV.

It is not that he forgot about seeing God, but it is more likely that Smith didn't realize the significance of the event when it first happened. Several of his ancestors had visions. Having visions wasn't that unusual back then. It is quite possible that he didn't think it was that significant until later. That could be why it wasn't emphasized during the early days of the Church.

Often when someone recounts an event from their youth, they do it from their current situation. This can change the way in which things are presented. I can think of several events from my earlier life that I now realize were quite significant, but at the time I considered them fairly normal. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 04:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

To me the proposition that Joseph Smith was unaware of the importance of a vision in which the God of the Universe and His Son appeared to him seems unrealistic or lacking in credibility as a true reason. I can't help but think that talking with God face to face would be the most significant experience of a person's mortal life. This is not to say that I disagree with you action, I think deleting the full quote was definitely intended to be POV. John do you ever get tired of only trying to include negative information? That was always the problem with Brodie and why she failed as a true historian; at the end she coudl not separate her feelings and desires from telling facts. There is not need to focus solely on the negative and exclude all potentially positive information if Mormonism is a farce. The facts will speak for themselves. There is nothing to fear and your consistent actions to not speak well of your lack of faith. Frankly, I a so fatigued with your edits I have come to hate editing anything you are involved in. Please try to write from a neutral perspective or at least be more cooperative with other editors that attempt to add balance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

By saying that he was not aware of the significance of the event, I don't mean that it wasn't significant to him, but rather that he might have thought that most others had similar experiences. Considering that the history of his family had plenty of visions, it might not have dawned on him that others didn't have them also. That might be why he was surprised at the reaction to his recounting of the event.

And I am sad to say that I am also getting tired of John's consistent POV edits, especially when he attempts to claim they are NPOV. I have come to believe that some people can't understand or recognize what NPOV is all about. Hopefully, John is one of those. I would hope he isn't doing it on purpose. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm content with the removal of the Jensen and Mouw quotations. Although, as a non-Mormon, I enjoy watching Jensen squirm, the emphasis of the article should be on history, not contemporary belief. Also, eliminating the quotations makes the article shorter, another objective of mine.--John Foxe 13:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As for Fawn Brodie, her greatest weakness as a historian of Mormonism was that she was bored by religion and couldn't bring herself to take it seriously.--John Foxe 18:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)