Talk:Joseph Smith/Archive 3

This page shows an archived portion of the discussion at Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. Archives help keep pages fast, accessible, and more usable. To see recent or active discussion, or to get a complete index of this discussion's archives, visit Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr.

President Box

I think the President box should be on this article. Joseph Smith was The President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not any of the other churches. While some groups refute Young's role as the next prophet, they had to branch off. Brigham was the next President of that same organization as Joseph. I think the prophet box should be on this page. Because legally Joseph led the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not any of the other branches of Joseph Smith Restorationism. Cookiecaper 22:04, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's not clear that Brigham Young branches off of the church any less than the others. In Wikipedia and generally we differentiate between the church Smith led, and all the churches that came after (ie The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (no hypen; Smith) --> The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hyphen; Young)). I believe this issue is non-trivial because lots of churches claim to in fact be Smith's church. If we are to include a box that leads to Brigham Young, we must also have a box leading to William Bickerton, Joseph Smith III, James Strang, and possibly many others. And even then we're advocating a kind of POV, namely that Smith was somehow the first in a series of divinely-appointed leaders. Some in the Latter Day Saint movement apparently didn't see it that way; they saw Smith as a sort of monolithic prophet. In short, I don't think the advantages of the box outweigh the POV disadvantages. Cool Hand Luke (Communicate!) 22:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The one Young led isn't different. It's legally the same organization that was organized back in 1830. Everyone else, if they wanted to be considered legally a church, had to break off. It's not POV; it's what's on the books. It's how it happened. At least I think so, anyway. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Cookiecaper 22:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree it's pretty much the same church, but many people don't share our POV. For example, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) claims to actually be Smith's church as well. Even putting this aside, the "reorganized" churches (like Community of Christ and Church of Christ (Cutlerite)) wouldn't say Young's church was the same either. By the very act of "reorganizing" the church, you're implying that Smith's church ceased to exist. There is in fact a disconnect; many of the leading components of Smith's Church didn't come with Young. It's not too unreasonable to say that the LDS church was in a sense also reorganized. Furthermore, many of the institutions and practices of the LDS Church didn't exist before Brigham Young. The route of succession (from senior-most apostle to president) is the clearest example of this. Cool Hand Luke 22:55, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OKAY if you say so. I disagree still. If I was an employee of a company and they appointed a new CEO to that company that I didn't feel was the rightful CEO and I said that I was the new CEO and told everyone that my company was the same as the first company and that I was really in control of that, I don't think most people would agree with me. I see it the same way. Some people may not have thought that Brother Brigham was the appropriate successor, but he still ran the Church that Joseph originally organized. Joseph is listed as the President of the Church on Brigham's page, that implies the same thing. You have to remove it from there too.

That's the most combatitive I've been in a long time. I feel bad now. Cookiecaper 22:39, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Again, that's how I see it to, but it's not NPOV to say Smith is LDS. There were not just two alternative CEOs,, but instead maybe a half dozen (Young, Strang, Lyman, Rigdon, William Smith—otheres like Smith III, later). Many were armed with conflicting instructions from Smith about who should take over if he died. Would you say they're the same company if the most popular CEO nonetheless lost over half his employees? What if the most popular CEO didn't even declare himself as such for three years, four months after the original's death? What if the entire family of the deceased told the strongest candidate that he was flat wrong about what the original intended?

I think there's a strong enough ambiguity in succession that stamping Smith as a Latter-day Saint is indefensible POV. We don't have to remove it from the Brigham and the others—Joseph Smith is the first LDS president, but he was more than that. He was the first RLDS president, the first Strangite prohpet, ect. All of them, after all, claim to be the most correct church inspired by Joseph Smith. Smith did inspire all of them. Moreover, there's enough disconnect between Smith's church and the strongest succession candidate (Young), that saying Smith in fact led any of the modern churches is inaccurate. Cool Hand Luke 01:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I guess Luke is right, and his last summary seems reasonable. What do you think, CookieC? Tom - Talk 20:29, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm okay with leaving the box off, but I don't quite agree with everything he said. But I'll agree that the box is alright being off, although it would be better if it were on.  :) Cookiecaper 00:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Waaaaait a second. Slow down. The Church from the earliest days taught common consent. The BULK of the church of JCoLDS voted or sustained to have the Twelve as Smith's successor. By this simple rule, written in Church covenants and articles, make the Twelve, and Young, de facto successors of the Church. Although there were other claims to his succession (and who knows, some may have even had some validity - which may be why Young tried to get JS III to come to Utah), the simple fact is the BODY of the Church - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - accepted Young as its new president. Others were dissenters, or did not accept the decision of the Church en masse. Even if you look at early JS III records, he acknowledges that if he were the rightful heir to the Church, it was of the original church that went to Utah, not the reorganized church (until after he graduated from law school and accpeted the position as head of RLDS). This was one of the reasons for their missionary efforts in Utah. I do believe that the other organizations would say it was the same church, but that Young's leadership was in question, and therefore the said church en masse lost its rightful place, and only a few true believers followed the correct path. This is similar to FLDS who accept the first three presidents and then state the church lost its place. Look back at history. Regardless of percieved fears of NPOV/POV, it is correct to state that smith was the first president of the church. He was LDS. Legally and by policy and by history. The President box should stay. It was his title. (By the way, CEO example is a good one and is accurate). -Visorstuff 16:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, V. I'm glad you happened by. Funny how these little issues sometimes seem so sticky. This one is out of my area, but I'll be listening in. Tom - Talk 17:02, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Joseph Smith III said that? If that's correct I suppose I wouldn't be opposed because I reckon JS III him to be the second most legitimate succesor by far. As you said, even the Utah church tried to get him which strongly suggests Smith singled his son out. However, even if Smith III said that early on, it's really difficult for me because I don't actually know if the Community of Christ would agree. Strangites insist theirs is the original, but if the contemporary Community of Christ consented, I would happily go along. Perhaps we should ask them in an email? Would you be opposed to listing other succesor's below LDS in order of their current size (limited to those that still have a following)? Cool Hand Luke 18:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have a vintage CofC correspondent. Tom - Talk 22:39, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Went back to some Zenas H. Gurley comements - one of the founders of the Reorgized Church - see the following from the Saints Herald Volume 1. "Reorganization" is referred to as "a new organization of the Church." Later one of Smith's decendants (and president of the RLDS Church) taught in the Saints Herald, Feb. 17, 1904: "The Church, using the word to mean the Church rejected, has not been again received."

This shows that at one time, the RLDS (now CoC), taught that Smith was president of the LDS Church which was later rejected - giving additional credence to Brigham's claims as successor to the LDS Church. RLDS do not care, they felt that the LDS Church was rejected because of doctrines including Plural marriage, discord, apostacy and details surrounding temple work. They would agree that Smith was President - the box should be included. -Visorstuff 18:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, are we gonna add it or not? Cookiecaper 02:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We should - any last objections? If so, state them today. -Visorstuff 15:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was about to reply to cookiecaper. No, unless the modern CoC has them, yet to be determined. Cool Hand Luke 15:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will ask my correspondent. Tom - Talk 20:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Incidentally, I re-added the box, but it still doesn't show up (though it does in a history comparison). Maybe the edits were too close together. Odd. Cool Hand Luke 06:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My CofC correspondent (who is actually quite a core member, knowing the president personally and being an older fellow with a lot of history) said essentially it would be biased to ID JS as the president only or primarily of one of the factions that succeeded him. To quote, I said, "Thanks. I do believe it would be biased to identify JS Jr as the first president of only one, or primarily one, of the factions." And he said, "Definitely agree." If you want, he gave me permission to share his full opinion, and he suggested we might ask President Grant McMurray at his email address gmcmurray over at CofChrist daught org. Tom - Talk 14:37, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Tom, perhaps you are misunderstanding our point. We are not saying that Joseph was president of one of the factions of the Latter Day Saint movement, we are saying he was the first president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Historically, this is sound. My point above is that early RLDS (now CoC) leaders agreed with this (and I'd guess modern ones too), and that I feel they would trace their roots to Smith, but that they would acknowledge that the first "RLDS" president was Joseph Smith III. He was the president of the RLDS movement - there was not a Re-organized Church in Joseph's day. They would contend that the LDS Church apostasized, and that there was a need for the Reorganization. I would forward this complete string back to your friend, or to President McMurray (although not sure I'd take up his time with the matter), to show the context of what we are stating. I realize this is a touchy subject, but when dealing with succession, as historians (although we are amatuer at best), we must stick to the facts, available primary sources, and the legal ramifications of what was decided at the time.

The RLDS Church is different than the Church Smith died leading - by very name and legal entity (and both CoC and LDS are different by teachings, but that is a whole other discussion). Let me know what the response is to the thread. I would contend that Smith was the first president of some of the other Latter Day Saint factions, but I can't for the RLDS/CoC. There were too many early statements their leaders made about LDS apostasy and the need for a Re-organization. I would however concede (and happily) that Smith was the founder of their belief and their movement, and that they believed that the succession was wrongfully taken by the LDS Twelve from JS III, but not their legal entity.

I think what you are saying makes sense. It is logical and reasonable. Note that he did see the entire thread. Here is how I asked it: Tom - Talk

At the Wikipedia, there is a series of info boxes on Presidents of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Somebody added a box for Joseph Smith Jr. But another user pointed out that CofC might not feel too keen on that idea. Smith is the founder of the LDS Movement, but various churches claim him as first president, so it was thought biased to put an LDS Presidents infobox in his article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.

Question: Would the CofC people disagree with the box? For an example of the box, you can see the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young Tom - Talk

Here is the discussion about the issue found at the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Smith%2C_Jr.: Tom - Talk 22:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

However, I could be convinced that Smith could be considered the first president of a number of Latter Day Saint organizations (including RLDS/CoC and LDS); and therefore still do not consider it wrong to state that Joseph was the first president of the LDS Church. Besides this fundamental issue of succession is what gives each organization it's unique beliefs. If we want to add a president box for each Latter Day Saint denomination who claims he was president, that would be more appropriate than removing this one, as that is the contested point by the various groups. Anyway, I'm beginning to ramble, let me know how it goes. -Visorstuff 16:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that what you are saying is correct. Are we ready to do that? Tom - Talk 22:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I think that we can, however, only after other church president's biographies are included. there isn't a bio on Grant McMurray or many other CoC presidents. If you would like to create them, feel free. But the box should be icnluded after other presidents are at least stubbed. Perhaps your friend has interest in contributing?

I rather suspected they might feel that way. I don't believe he's denying that he is the first LDS prophet, just that it would be biased to claim that's all he is. Would they be opposed to listing him as the first in several churches? (The only reason I'm less fond of this idea is that it would make it hard to exclude any group, so we'd probably have to list all of them—preferably in order of modern following.) Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Right. One way to handle this is to take care of the bigger groups first, then worry about the smaller ones as the issue arises. That is a lazy way out, but we don't have limitless time. That is primarily why I personally would never edit the article to remove the box. Perhaps we could include a small explanation that the box is only how he fits into the LDS Church history. Tom - Talk 22:07, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

It's all about content here, not fairness. I would love to list all the denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, however there is just not the ability to do it. I think we can add these in as it makes sense but not before or after. we are a young project and have much more to do until we get to this point. How many RLDS/CoC president pages are done? Three? Not enough to justify a president box for their organization - YET. It needs to be done, which is why we need CoC editors. -Visorstuff 22:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"It's all about content here, not fairness." Can you explain what you meant by this? I think I am taking it wrong. Tom - Talk 23:29, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm saying that it is the wikipedian's job to provide content - as long as it is accurate and NPOV. If we don't have content on a certain subject we can't put it up - that may seem unfair to some groups. But the bottom line is we don't have a lot of infomration that may make it fair. For example, it may not be "fair" not to include a president's box for the church of jesus Christ, saints of the last days who trace their roots back to Smith, but we don't have enough content to justify it. I think we may want to include a presidnets box on this page after there is enough CoC president's biographies created to justify it, but not before. This may not seem "fair" but we have to have content - we can't link to empty pages. -Visorstuff 00:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We don't need a great series of articles, just a link to the next claimant. We have a stuby article on Joseph Smith III, so we can make link to him. We don't really need every president in a series to have a box, as this article has demonstrated. Perhaps something like this:

Preceded by:	Joseph Smith, Jr.	Succeeded by:
—	President of the LDS Church 1830–1844	Brigham Young
—	President of the Community of Christ 1830–1844	Joseph Smith III
—	President of the Strangite Church 1830–1844	James Strang
—	etc.	etc.

Minimum conditions must be having an article on the church and successor, so I believe we only have three now. Cool Hand Luke 06:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In seeing this the first time I was struck by the attempt to make Joseph Smith a President of the CofC and Strangite groups. Joseph would never have recognized those names. I think your intent is to show how different groups claim the same initial leader, but to call Joseph the president of the Stragite group appeals more to reconstructionist history. We appear to be attempting to state something that the participants of the era would never have recognized. Doesn't it make more sense to present Joseph as the founder of the church which then broke up into several different groups? Storm Rider 08:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. Very good point. In fact, I'm not sure why I did it that way, becuase that was one of my own objections. Trying to use the standard box form, I guess. How about something more like this?

Joseph Smith, Jr. Founding president of the Church of Christ later called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1830–1844	Succeeded by leaders of several competing Latter Day Saint movement churches, including:
	President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1847	Brigham Young
	President of the Community of Christ (then called the "RLDS Church") 1860	Joseph Smith III
	President of the Strangite Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints 1844	James Strang

Revised. Description under Smith formerly read "Founder and leader of the Latter Day Saint movement | 1830-1844. Cool Hand Luke 21:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HI. I don't think the (RLDS) should be there. If they wanted to still be called that, it'd still be their name. If someone wants to know more about the Community of Christ, they'll click it and see that ir used to be the RLDS Church. But otherwise good box. Cookiecaper 21:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Good job, CHL. Tom - Talk 15:17, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Looking back on it a little bit, it's justified here because it was the RLDS when JSIII ran it. But for a President Box similar to ours for CofC or for CofC presidents that never were president during the RLDS days it shouldn't be there. - Cookiecaper 00:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I could see it either way. Maybe, "(then called the RLDS Church)" is better. In either case, if there's no objection, I'll add this latest box (with these three succesors) to the article tomorrow. In spite of my earlier objections, I like how it shows some of the religious groups he inspired. Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I also like the concept, however, it is not accurate. He was the fouding leader of the Latter Day Saint Movement, yes. That is accurate. BUT he was president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. there is a difference, and that needs to be added on. Remember, there was a church at the time of Joseph's death, and that Church as a whole came west. There were others that did not recognize the legitimacy of the church, which is fine (and not argued), but the fact remains that his title was "President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." He wasn't sustained as "Founder" or as a "movement" head. He had a title, and the box needs to reflect that. We could however, say in the box, that other groups claim him as their founder, including CoC, Etc. But his proper title needs to be respected. To me, this has been the issue all along. I love the concept of the box, but it needs to be factually, and historically, accurate. -Visorstuff 14:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I changed it. Acceptable? Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think you should just make the thing under Joseph Smith say President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Lose the President of the Church of Christ later called. P.S. Visorstuff is smart dang. Cookiecaper 19:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I honestly think Latter Day Saint movement is sufficient. I'd prefer not to list him as president of a particular church because that seems to raise the CoC bias percieved by listing him as leader of "one, or primarily one, of the factions." However, because we believe including historically correct titles is important, lets include historically correct titles. Joseph Smith founded and led what was called the Church of Christ for longer than The Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter-day Saints. One might object that they're the same church, but at least one successor makes the same claim about their church to Joseph's (Strangite). Furthermore, I believe this has advantages. The Church of Christ link states concisely what Smith did: restore the aincient church. It also functions as a sort of LDS movement disambiguation page, helping to diffuse POV complaints in my view. Cool Hand Luke 20:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Here's my two cents. Looking at everything that's been said, I think the following facts cannot be disputed:

1. Joseph Smith was president of an organization called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when he died.
2. Years before Smith died, he was president of an organization called the Church of Christ.
3. Years after Smith's death, Brigham Young was declared by a faction of Mormons as Smith's successor as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which was incorporated under that hyphenated name some time later in Utah.
4. Many denominations claim to be precisely the same organization that Smith led when he died.
5. At least one other church (the Strangites) not only claims to be precisely the same organization, but also formally calls itself the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
6. A few organizations (Cutlerites, Bickertonites, Temple lot, etc.) call themselves the Church of Christ, and claim to be the same organization presided over by Smith.
7. Whether or not he was president of any particular organization that exists today is someone's point of view. We all want to claim him, and claim him exclusively, don't we?
8. We can at least say that Smith was President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (not hyphenated), and that he was President of the Church of Christ.

Therefore, what do you think about the following box proposal?:

Joseph Smith, Jr. Founding president of the Church of Christ (1830–1838) later called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (1838–1844)	Successor (as claimed by several competing Latter Day Saint movement churches):
	President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Brigham Young 1847–1877
	President of the Community of Christ (née "RLDS Church") Joseph Smith III 1860–1914
	President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) James Strang 1844–1856

Any comments? COGDEN 22:11, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Nice. An improvement. Tom - Talk 07:02, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I did think hyphenation came later, but didn't have sources to show as such. Cool Hand Luke 07:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)