Talk:First Vision/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Paul on the road to Damascus

There is no conflict in the three accounts of Paul's vision if you read Acts 22: 9 in any version other than the KJV. For instance, in the New American Standard Bible and the New International version, it says that Paul's companions did not "understand the voice"--that is hear what was uttered with understanding.--John Foxe 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

True - in Acts 9:7, it says that the men with him heard a sound, but beheld no one. This agrees with what you have above. However, in Acts 22:9, it states that the men with him saw the light, but didn't hear the voice of the one who was talking to him (Saul). In Acts 26:13, the KJV says the light appeared around Saul and those with him, but if you look at the Greek, it could just as easily be translated that Saul and the men around him saw the light. So, in Acts 9:7 the men heard the voice, but in Acts 22:9 the men didn't hear the voice. The same greek word is used for "hear" in both verses. And while it can refer to understanding and learning, it can also mean simply "not deaf".

This isn't the only place. If you compare the different versions of the same event in the synoptic Gospels, you will find a number of incidents where the details are different. There are even more differences in the Hebrew Bible where the same story appears in two places, but slightly different (compare the creation stories in Gen 1 & 2), and there are a number of differences between Chronicles and Kings, which cover the same time frame. The reason I use this example is because both events involve three versions that deal with visions (Saul on the road to Damascus and Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove), and most Christians accept Saul's vision (as do I), even though there are differences in the accounts. Therefore, it shouldn't be such a surprise that Mormons can believe in the First Vision even though there are discrepancies in the accounts.

Actually, some historians consider differences in the details as further proof that the event actually happened. If different versions say basically the same thing, it could easily be different copies of a single source. If there are differences, that implies that multiple people recorded the event slightly differently. So, if there are no differences, it could have been a single person who claimed the event happened, but if there are differences, multiple people are claiming that the event happened. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you should put some of the argument above in the article text. As for the account of Paul's vision, I have to go on what I can read about koine Greek because I don't know any Greek myself. Greek apparently makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative.) In other words, you have the same Greek word but a different case: "phones" in Acts 9:7 and "phonen" in Acts 22:9. There's a parallel between what Paul's companions saw and what they heard. They saw only saw a blazing light, but they did not see the Person.

As for Genesis 1 and 2, they are not separate accounts. Genesis 2 follows logically from Genesis 1 and simply develops in detail the creation of man. Find another Near Eastern creation narrative that ignores mention of the sun and seas. Even the animals aren't mentioned until Adam names them.--John Foxe 09:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Smith's age in 1823

What Cowdery says is "You will recollect that I mentioned the time of a religious excitement, in Palmyra and vicinity to have been in the 15th year of our brother J. Smith Jr.’s age — that was an error in the type — it should have been in the 17th." In other words, he says that he had earlier made a typographical error and said that Smith was fourteen in the previous issue and now wishes to correct the error by saying that he was sixteen. Obviously, in 1823, Smith was seventeen, at least until the last week of December. So both articles get Smith's age wrong. Thanks for adding the links to the original text though.--John Foxe 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem - you're right re fourteen, sixteen - I think this "minor typo" is indicitive of the sloppiness of the scholarship of this "account" of the first vision - and such obvious errors cast doubt on the validity of the year as well - Cowdery could have just as easily have meant 1820 instead of 1823. --Trödel 22:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd bet Cowdery heard Joseph say "about fourteen" somewhere along the line and then realized that the date of the Moroni visitation wouldn't line up well with him being that old. (Cowdery was only a few months younger than Smith, and he would have been conscious of how old Smith was in 1823.) So a typo happened.--John Foxe 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

How can this possibly be called NPOV

While I would have to agree that for those who are trying to talk about religious concepts that are fundimental to their lives can often be at odds to those who consider otherwise, but this current article reeks so strongly of a POV bias against Mormonism and LDS theology that it makes my head spin.

Simply put, this is a horribly written article and espouses a very strong POV that the First Vision described by Joseph Smith didn't even happen at all. That is discussed right at the beginning. Or the viewpoint that Joseph Smith made all this up as some sort of religously oriented scam on a bunch of unsuspecting 19th Century American farmers. I hardly call that a NPOV.

As far as where to take this article, I think it would be useful to identify exactly what happened, or at least what are "typical" beliefs of what happened in regards to the events of the First Vision. It shouldn't delve immediately into criticism of the event as would an anti-Mormon tract. If you want to include the viewpoints of others of the LDS movment besides the LDS Church, fine.

To note that there are criticisms of Joseph Smith is fine, and that there may be differences between different versions of this event. I would, however, encourage that to perhaps even be made into a completely seperate Wikipedia article, unless there isn't enough source material to verify this sort of material, or enough commentary on the issue that it would turn into original research. If so, then it should be removed from Wikipedia anyway precisely because it is original research. The opinions of one person should not be written so strongly in this situation.

So much of this current article is an attempt to prove logically that Joseph Smith was a fraud that it totally misses the point of why this event is so critical to those who believe the LDS faith, nor do I upon reading it really understand what happened. I say put more of the actual event into this article and move the critical cruft to other articles. That they could be linked to this one is fine, but they don't belong here. --Robert Horning 00:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is NPOV because Mormons and non-Mormons have hammered it out together over several months--in a polite and respectful manner, I might add--and virtually every statement is documented by at least one citation. Interestingly, of the two sentences you asked to be documented, one citation was added by a Mormon and the other by a non-Mormon. Welcome to the conversation, Robert.--John Foxe 13:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That does not make an NPOV article, that makes an unruly compromise. Still, I am glad that at least some civil discourse can be made here. The real point that I'm making here is that this article ought to be termed Comparisons of accounts of the First Vision rather than something about the actual event itself, at least as it is currently written. Or even Criticisms of accounts of the First Vision. Just because there are citations here is not by itself sufficient either, and the citations are clearly ones with a major axe of some sort to grind.

When I come here, I want to know exactly what it is about. In other words, the who, what, when, where, and why? Instead, I get statements like these differences call into question what, if anything, happened in 1820. That is not a neutral point of view. That is clearly espousing a strong POV that this whole thing is about strong doubts that this event even happened, and strongly suggesting it didn't.

So from this, what is the First Vision that is claimed?

And launching right into a statement by Gordon B. Hinkley hardly follows the Wikipedia:Lead section guidelines either.

I'm not saying that this is really any different from the rest of the LDS-related articles on Wikipedia, but this is not NPOV. I know that people's egos are on the line here, and that as a strongly religious topic that trying to achieve a neutral point of view is often exceedingly difficult to obtain.

On the positive side, this article, as written, is making me very anxious to try and get into more depth about the subject and try to get into the original sources and see for myself more about these various accounts. I just don't think that more than half of the article ought to be highly critical of Joseph Smith and painting him to be a fraud. To note that there are people critical of Joseph Smith is acceptable, but it shouldn't be the main thrust of the article.

BTW, an example of a religious topic dealt with as an NPOV article I would consider to be more along the lines I was thinking of was Immaculate Conception. I can certainly try to dig up other better articles that perhaps are even featured articles as well. --Robert Horning 21:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I counted the citations in "First Vision," and by my calculation they break down roughly as follows:

Primary Sources 10

Mormon Secondary Sources 7

Anti-Mormon Secondary Sources (including Palmer) 7

Neutral (including Bushman) 6

I would certainly encourage your interest in the original sources. Let me suggest as a starting place Early Mormon Documents, Volume 1 (1996), which includes material from Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, and other members of the Smith family. We should be devoted to the truth and follow wherever it leads. --John Foxe 22:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Mind you, it isn't the fact this is lacking citable sources (which all of these certainly are to one extent or another). It is the simple fact that I have no idea what the First Vision even is after reading this article. That is a huge shortcoming that can and should be addressed, as the article as written right now does not cover the basics of what this is about. Instead, this is a comparison and contrast of various written versions, some by the harshest critics of Mormonism who would stop at nothing to prove their point.

What I'm asking is to apply the KISS principle to this article as well. I believe this would help with the POV problems that are rampant with this article, but also get to the point to explain exactly what is the big deal about this theological issue. Exactly how to accomplish that is certainly a point to argue at the moment. I do believe that a truly NPOV article can be created here that gets to the point, but it isn't going to be easy to accomplish. And the traditional appeal to citable sources is not going to be sufficient in this case, as it is apparent that there is certainly substantial outside content (outside of Wikimedia projects) about this topic.

From my POV (with long experience on many different projects and pages) a substantial problem here is that unlike other topics, almost all significant sources have an incredible POV either in glowing support of Joseph Smith and the LDS church, or out to skewer the man and prove him to be a fake. As written at the moment, this article does display both points of view, but that is also the problem. I am not asking that the article be rewriten to any particular point of view, but rather to refine it to the core concepts, and why this might be something that is contested as to its validity or not and perhaps to even know what might have indeed happened to Joseph Smith, or at least what is believed by most of the followers of Joseph Smith. I don't think that going over mintuae of individual written accounts necessarily accomplish this goal. --Robert Horning 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Robert. The issue is that articles centered on faith are difficult to write and edit. When the topic is about a religion as controversial as Mormonism, then one must understand that there are people in the world who make a living off of doing all in their power to disprove Mormons and save poor Christains from being converted to the faith "made in the bowels of Hell". I can be rather jaded and I do not have a great deal of respect or compassion for zealots regardless of which side they might fall.

The topic, rightly pointed out above, is called the First Vision. The structure should point out what the official LDS church position is of the theophany. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending upon one's POV, it is vastly larger organization and the tail should not wag the dog. Then it should discuss the significance of the event and then criticism. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a more complete description of the LDS position of the First Vision early on in this article. But as you both have admitted, it already stands on all fours; it is well supported by citations from every position. How we can learn anything more about this or any other event by ignoring the minutia "of individual written accounts" is unclear to me. As that great philosopher of criminology, Joe Friday, said on many occasions, "Just the facts, ma'am; just the facts." (And yes, I realize the line is apocryphal--we can't expect too much of a fictional character.)--John Foxe 10:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This definitely needs to include the position of the LDS Church and others within the Latter Day Saint movement about what happened. --Lethargy 00:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

For the reasons discussed above, as well as the repeated edits by IP users who obviously thought this was POV, I added the tag to the article. --Lethargy 00:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you wanted a truly NPOV (which is otherwise impossible in religion and politics), you would say "here is what his followers say and here is what others or his opposition says". To put one view ahead of the other is to show a POV. This should be obvious. Many of these sources cited are like asking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to write a book about George Bush. You might as well be quoting Mein Kampf in reference to Jews. The whole point of the article seems to be to prove that (1)the verity of the LDS Church is dependent on the verity of the First Vision and (2)The First Vision is clearly a sham. This is (1) Offensive and (2)A unwelcome attempt to use Wikipedia as a "bully pulpit". It is articles like this that turns wikipedia from a database of information to a circus of propaganda.

In that case you can also tag the article with {{unreliable}}. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources for guidelines. Thanks for discussing this here BTW. --Lethargy 01:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history of this article, you will note that there has been long-standing give and take by Mormons and non-Mormons here, and changes have been made in a gracious fashion with respect for one another's position. I would urge other editors to state specifically what, in their opinion, is POV or unreliable. We are not interested in "what his followers say" or "what the opposition says," we're interested in facts that can be demonstrated in historical source material.--John Foxe 09:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Foxe: I am not sure what history of the article you are referring. If you read the comments above by others you will find that many others have the same objection to this articles clever attempt at discreditation (see my specific comments). Hint: they are labeled wiht (1) and (2). My guess is your head is too far in the sand to notice and that the only give is "your take". I love how your infer that "what his followers say" etc can't be historically accurate and annotated. As if you are the fountain of truth on this subject. You urge others to state specifically what is "unreliable" yet you fail to read and intake others specific complaints. Please do not be a editor Nazi. I realize this might be your only attempt to revize this history. Maybe you were offended by a religious person earlier in your life but counseling is the place to deal with those problems not an online encyclopedia that others might take as accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.137.240 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 October 2006

Thank you for your comments. Your objections to the article are apparently not to any particular phrases or sentences. You have not asked for any facts to be documented. If the article is so obviously biased, why not? --John Foxe 20:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Although that was not aimed at me, I do feel the POV tag is justified, given the discussion here and particularly the one directly above this. --Lethargy 20:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for Reversion

Most of Cogden's suggestions are attempts to add things that should be on another page, probably "Joseph Smith, Jr." "First Vision" should be about the First Vision. There is no need to revisit the gamut of early Mormon history here. --John Foxe 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I added material back, and attempted to address some of your concerns. I don't think there is cause to delete any information about the First Vision that is relevant and verifiable. Much of this information is on the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article, but this First Vision article should go into more depth on this particular subject, which I think deserves extensive treatment. COGDEN 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I object to any material being taken from "Joseph Smith, Jr." For one thing, that page is too controverted, and you'll bring all the ill will over here. Besides the comments you've tried to add are so poorly written and organized that they make the page almost unreadable. Try taking the revisions sentence by sentence. We're in no hurry.--John Foxe 20:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

No info has been taken from Joseph Smith, Jr.. It was taken from Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr., which is a featured article that has appeared on the Main Page. Part of my changes are structural, and not amenable to a sentence-by-sentence addition. In essence, the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article contained only a summary about the First Vision, and this article should discuss every issue and citation raised there, and much more. Since I haven't really deleted anything, only added things, I would call on you and others to discuss any NPOV, relevance, or other Wikipedia problems you might think are present. If you have problems with something that has been added, please make improvements. COGDEN 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

John, it appears that your complaints may have not been as well thought out as you may have thought. I did not think the edits by Cogden were poorly written or made the article unreadable. I suppose that a feature article, the source for the edits, should be given a modicum of respect. Time is irrevelent to the conversation, the objective is to produce excellent articles. Wholesale reversions are a last resort according to policy; it is incumbent upon you to make a critique sentence by sentence if that is your desire. One does not achieve concensus by aggressive action such as yours and making unfounded critiques is also not a good sign of objectivity. Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted one more time, to keep the status quo while we discuss here. Both John Foxe and I are up to our limit under the Wikipedia:3RR rule, so I won't be reverting any more. Hopefully neither will John Foxe for 24 hours. This will give time for user comment. COGDEN 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand by my earlier statement that much of the new material is poorly written and (to a lesser extent) poorly organized. I've done some stylistic and substantive revision of the early parts of it, and I welcome the comparison with the original. There much to be redebated here. Good luck on the "sacred grove" page. The gnome that watches over it wouldn't let me add anything about Mormonism's sacred grove. --John Foxe 21:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My last edit, a short addition mentioning the Sacred Grove, apparently came just after John Foxe reverted the article (for the fourth time, in violation of the Wikipedia:3RR rule) and I didn't notice. Everybody needs to play by the rules, here, or otherwise we get anarchy. In honor of that rule, I'm not going to un-revert again for 24 hours. Obviously, since I'm an involved party, I can't use my administrative privileges to take any direct action like blocking or protection. Since this last reversion was only a partial reversion, I probably wouldn't block you anyway, but I would hope that we can work together on this article in the future. COGDEN 22:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't revert. I was simply editing. I look forward to working with you on this article. You've just thrown in a lot of changes all at once, and that's hard to get a handle on. --John Foxe 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just FYI, a partial reversion (any deletion of newly-added material) still counts under the Three-revert rule. COGDEN 00:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

New Version

I dare anyone to say that at least so far as clarity and readability goes, this new version is not superior to every other version that appeared on this page on October 23. Sorry, I didn't know that changing anything at all counted as 3RR. --John Foxe 00:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Foxe: if you are to be academically honest about that first vision you must include some form of the following statement made by Joseph Smith Jr in regards to the many versions of the first vision. I am sure you know the reference;

"Owing to the many reports which have been put in circulation by evil-disposed and designing persons, in relation to the rise and progress of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, all of which have been designed by the authors thereof to militate against its character as a Church and its progress in the world—I have been induced to write this history, to disabuse the public mind, and put all inquirers after truth in possession of the facts, as they have transpired, in relation both to myself and the Church, so far as I have such facts in my possession."

In fairness you seem to be headed in the right direction as far as POV. However, you might want to take a couple of days or weeks off and then come at it again. You seem too wrapped up in it. Nobody likes an editing Nazi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.134.242 (talk • contribs) .

That is the intro to his history, not the intro to the first vision account per se.{{lds|JS-History|js_h|1|1}} I had always interpreted that comment to refer to rumors about his character more than accounts of the first vision. In fact, later in that section he specifically points out the rumor of his being a money-digger.{{lds|JS-H|js_h|1|56}} I am not aware of any disputes about the various accounts of the first vision during his lifetime. Anybody else? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 15:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Although it had been in the Church Archives for over a century, the 1832 version in Joseph's handwriting was only made public by Paul Cheesman in 1965 and published later that year by Jerald and Sandra Tanner. --John Foxe 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

During Smith's lifetime, up until about 1840 when Orson Pratt published his missionary pamphlet in England popularizing the First Vision, it wasn't something that early Mormons emphasized at all. Pretty much all the major historians, including Bushman, agree on that. Frankly, during the 1820s and much of the 1830s, having a theophany was nothing special. Lots of people said they had them, and Smith apparently didn't think it was nearly as important an event, from a proselitizing perspective, as the translation of the Book of Mormon. COGDEN 21:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

John If I remember right, it was published prior to Cheesman's research - and certainly discussed by BH Roberts. I'll need to find my sources, though. -Visorstuff 00:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

New Discussion

I will try to revise the article starting from the beginning. It should be clear at the start that there were multiple versions of the First Vision, that one mentions two persons (I don't think anyone would argue that One of them was not God the Father), and that the 1838 account is the one treated by the Church as canonical. Nor should it be debated that the doctrine is so important to the Church that President Hinckley has put great weight on its veracity.

The statement by Gordon B. Hinckley has no business in the introduction, as has been discussed many times before by other editors than I. This is an article that applies to numerous Latter Day Saint denominations, and not all of them agree with Hinckley. In addition, not all of the denominations have canonized the 1838 version. Basically, only the LDS Church, in its Pearl of Great Price. COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I am irritated by those "Harvard citations" in the text. They are truly ugly and reduce readability. The vast majority of readers will not be clicking on them anyway. --John Foxe 10:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If we decide to use footnotes in the article, that's fine, but we should choose one system or the other. You haven't actually removed the Harvard citations. You just put them in footnotes, making it that much harder to find and verify them, which puts two layers of indirection between the user and the full citation. If you want to use footnotes, lets do so, but we should put the full citation, or at least an abbreviated one, in each footnote. Personally, I like Harvard citations because they are edit-friendly. Footnotes are good for World Book and Brittanica, where you don't have people constantly cite-checking. Harvard referencing is more academic, as well, for those of us who care about where the cited "factoid" came from, so that we can understand immediately how credible it is, without having to sort through footnotes. Either way, however, is only a temporary solution, because eventually we're moving toward a Wikicite system, which will solve all of these problems. COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

When you started editing "First Vision" I thought I'd take a look at your "Early Years of Joseph Smith." After two paragraphs I gave up; the internal citations were just too irritating. Two clicks is not too high of a price to pay to get rid of them. In fact I made a mental note that if someone wanted to insure that an article would not be read, he should just end every phrase with a Harvard citation.--John Foxe 21:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Second section: I think the belief that "most" Americans believed in visions is a stretch. Certainly most contemporary Calvinists would not have been amused. The Methodist preacher to whom Smith told his vision was horrified.

We can change "most" to "many". COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's try to avoid one-sentence paragraphs if possible. --John Foxe 12:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. COGDEN 23:42, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Historical Backround: If you look at the newspapers from this area and period, you'll be struck by how little attention they pay to religion. There's probably a good journal article in the reasons why there should be so little interest during a period of such religious intensity. --John Foxe 13:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Varied Accounts: I've cut one paragraph that was appropriate for the introduction but is superfluous here. Otherwise it's mostly stylistic tweaks.--John Foxe 20:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it looks so clean without those nasty internal citations. Every lawyer ought to have such an editor:) --John Foxe 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your premise that the article should begin with making it clear there were multiple versions. A topic is first introduced; it answers what, when, why, and where. A summary of the most prevelant and believed version of the event should be summarized. It should be followed by a lead in to who believes and how they might be different in their beliefs. Then a controversy section. I don't believe any article should start with controversy unless we are attempting to be polemical in our writing. I believe an outline was already discussed. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Where is the controversy in mentioning that there's more than one version? Mormons and non-Mormons agree about that. The various versions are a historical fact. Only one version is canonical, and we say that in the introduction.--John Foxe 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Current outline and proposed outline

The current outline for the article looks as follows:

1. Background and summary I don't see why this should contain more than in intro to Joseph Smith
   1. Earlier Smith family visions This is not germaine to the topic, but to the family article
      
      It's germaine because it provides context. And the academic articles include that information. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
   2. Historical background What is value of this, visions have happened in all religions.
      
      All the academic articles include historical context. And so did Smith's own 1838 account. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
   3. Date and location of the First Vision This should go into the intro: What, when, where, why
      
      There is too much information about date and location to include it in the introduction. This section will be expanded. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
   4. Whom Smith might have told This should remain and developed who knew first and what happened to knowledge
2. Details of the vision Initial details of vision are summarized in intro; this should intro evolution
   1. 1832 Account
   2. 1834 Account by Oliver Cowdery The accounts of Joseph Smith have precedence, then the accounts of others
   3. 1835 Account
   4. 1838 Account
   5. 1840 account by Orson Pratt
3. Criticism and apologetic responses to the canonical 1838 version of the First Vision
   
   We'll have to eliminate this section to conform to WP:NPOV policy. Separating apology and criticism into two separate sections doesn't work and is inherently biased.COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
   1. Criticism of the First Vision This is where main thrust of discussion on different versions, Joseph Smith etc
   2. Apologetics of the First Vision
4. Notes
5. References
6. Further reading

I hope this is a first step in gaining concensus on how to proceed. I have stayed onthe guidelines simiply because I dislike edit wars, but this sure smacks of individuals to committed to an agenda rather than writing an article in keeping with NPOV policy. I would hope that we can agree to an outline before we start wholesale rewriting of the article without any initial directioi chosen by the group. Thoughts? Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to suggest perhaps a "fork" of the article for doing a major overhaul of this article that would eventually be folded back into this main article, mainly to work on the more extreme simplification that I've suggested. There are some good sources here with this article, but it tries to do far more than simply tell the story of the First Vision, which was my complaint in the first place.

My goal would be to try and achieve a truly NPOV article rather than simply a conglomoration of ideas poorly put together. Perhaps even moving the bulk of this current article into some seperate Wikipedia article about the multiple accounts done as a comparison and contrast of various versions account. IMHO, discussion that there are multiple accounts should only take up about two paragraphs of content with this article, with perhaps the typical "For more information see..." linking to the other article going over the comparisons in much more detail. Detailed analysis really must be done as a seperate article as it completely confuses the issue and the point of this article. --Robert Horning 19:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Forking or segregating is always a very bad idea. Forking has come up numerous times across the Wikipedia, and the idea is almost always rejected. I share your desire to get a "truly NPOV" article. But that is impossible as long as the criticism, apologetics, and history are separated from each other. There is no "just telling the story" of the First Vision, because the First Vision has many stories. Smith himself wrapped up the story in its historical context. And every academic article I've read talks about the historical background and the different versions. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope my editing pleases you. I agree that the article should stay focused on the First Vision and not unnecessarily repeat what can be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Of course, a description of the varied versions of the First Vision can't be shunted to another site without violating the historical record, one accepted by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars. This section of the article is also unavailable elsewhere on Wikipedia.--John Foxe 21:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that you can't delete information about a topic that, in your POV, is (1) not true, or (2) not relevant, as long as there is a significant POV that disagrees with you. In particular, with respect to the relevance, Wikipedia has loads of storage, and its an encyclopedia, with emphasis on the "encyclo". There is no limit to how deeply we can and should explore the subject of the First Vision, so long as there are editors willing to do so and provide the proper citations. COGDEN 00:09, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I think I understand Robert's position and I am not sure I agree that it is would meet the true definition of a fork. I think he is talking about a more in depth article that covers the evolution of the recorded history of the First Vision. However, I would still disagree that it is necessary. This article can and should cover the history of the First Vision.

I don't think my proposed changes to the outline came out that well; it is not as easy to distinguish between existing and proposed. Currently the article is confusing. An reader without any understanding of the First Vision, which is the vast majority, would come away shaking their heads. It certainly reads more like a polemical pamphlet meant to confuse rather than enlighten a reader. First and foremost, it should answer the five W's of Who, what, where, when and why.

The history of the Smith family and visions in the early 1800's is, IMHO, superfluous information. Visions have been a common occurrence in religions since any human has claimed a relationship with a superior being. Attempting to draw this period as unique is in error and is more the mark of polemical writers than true scholarly research (with no offense to COgden intended).

In Mormonism, I have long been a proponent of never allowing the tail to wag the dog. The vast majority of members of the Latter Day Saint Movement are members of the LDS church. The doctrine primarily should focus on that doctrine and then should be followed by any differing opinions from the other sects. Also, the attempt to portray that there is a question as to which "story" of the First Vision should be used is also the work of polemical writers. There is one canonical recording of the First Vision; that recorded in 1838. The others are viewed as incomplete and unfinished, but should certainly be presented and discussed. Meeting the standard of the LDS church first is not disrespectful, but just simply the reality that they are the biggest group by far. This is similar to the Christainity article towing the line of the Roman Catholicism; they are the big dog and that is the first picture of Christianity presented.

I still think it best to come to an agreement on outlines and then let the writing begin in earnest. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to revise the introduction to answer the questions "who, what, when, where, and why", as you suggested. I agree it was needed. I disagree that this article should be LDS Church-oriented, because any attempt to do so would violate WP:NPOV. It's true that there is one canonical version of the vision, but the only group that has canonized any version has been the LDS Church. First and foremost, this is a historical article. While canonization by the LDS Church of a certain account should certainly be discussed at length, it shouldn't be discussed until after the historical facts are set forth. First, we discuss the history (the "who, what, when, and where" elements), and only then can we adequately discuss the theological interpretations (the "why" element). Discussing the "who, what, when, and where" requires discussing all the accounts, because they are arguably in conflict. COGDEN 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your revisions and the hard work you have done; thank you. I think my issue is that the topic of the First Vision is primarily a spiritual event, not a historical event. It only has significance within a religious context. For that reason I think it important to state the why sooner in the article. It is a question of focus. In the Jesus article we do not attempt to put him first in a historical perspective, but why he is important. The historicity question is addressed in more depth later in the article. If I am not mistaken, it has been a while since I read the article on Bernadette Soubirou, but it also just tells the visions of Lourdes without a focus on the historical setting. If I am not mistaken, COgden, you are a historian by training or by passion. It is natural for you to want to focus on the historical issues first, but I would humbly disagree with that initial focus. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is that I don't think you can tell much about the "why" in an NPOV manner without getting into the nitty-gritty historical details. There are several whys that all have to be accounted for. For example, consider the following "whys", all of which I've seen expressed in potentially-citable literature:

• LDS Church missionary POV: The First Vision was the single most important event in the history of civilization, other than the Atonement, because it started the Restoration and brought more souls to Christ than any other single event.
• LDS Church Gospel Doctrine POV: The First Vision was actually not a vision, but a visitation of actual living people, and its main importance is that it is our most potent evidence that God and Jesus are separate individuals, each with bodies.
• Community of Christ POV: The First Vision was actually, as the name suggests, a vision, in which Smith saw with his "spiritual eyes" two images representing the persons of the Father and the Son, who are in actuality the same being.
• Fundamentalist Mormon POV: The First Vision was an actual physical appearance of Jesus and his father Adam.
• New Apologetic History POV: There was a First Vision, but since the accounts were written years later, his recollection of the event may have grown more elaborate and were influenced by later events in his history.
• Skeptical "false memory theory" POV: There was no First Vision, but Smith later grew to believe there was one as he elaborated it in his mind.
• Skeptical "fraud-theory" POV: There was no First Vision, and Smith's various accounts were attempts to retroactively invent a convincing "Christian experience" that would justify to followers his claim to be a prophet.
• Skeptical "delusion-theory" POV: There was a First Vision, but it was the result of a delusion, or a hallucination.

COGDEN 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Forking for editorial purposes

Perhaps I am using the wrong terminology here, but what I am proposing is not to do an outright fork, such as something like LDS version of the First Vision, but rather doing a development and editorial branch of an unstable nature. This is indeed a common technique for helping to resolve complicated issue. In the software development world, especially when there are multiple contributors and collaborators, this is a very common practice to branch development from a stable bit that doesn't change much (keeping the current version of this article, for example) while the part that you want to allow major changes to be reviewed before they become "official". Indeed this is exactly what the Wikipedia 1.0 supporters are even encouraging, and it can be done right now in a limited fashion.

All I'm suggesting is starting a page of First Vision/Unstable or First Vision/Review that would allow us to do the major changes, but allow the current version to be available while the unstable version isn't quite up to par and is undergoing major changes. Especially if we are going to make substantial structural changes to the topic.

All of this is being done with the intention of moving it back to the main article. Indeed, a good administrator can even merge in the edit histories from the stable and unstable pages if we think we have found a good candidate page for improvement, and we can discuss several different organizational strategies to help deal with this topic and eventually delete the ones that we don't want to follow.

This is not a classical fork such as what happened with es.wikipedia, where a whole extra server was created independent of Jimbo and completely independent development occured. I am saying this is merely a tool to help organize our thoughts and try to achieve the supposed objective here: To create a truly NPOV article about the topic of the First Vision of Joseph Smith.

I would like to do this here directly tied to this article, but I can also do this (it is even recommended at times) as a sub-page of my user page instead. --Robert Horning 19:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

This is used sometimes, but be sure to put it at Talk:First Vision/Unstaable or /Review - as it should not be in the main namespace until it is finalized (See WP:SP). However usually it is better to work collaboratively on the article since it is difficult to get reach concensus that a wholesale new version should replace the current version. It would be good to get concensus from the editors to leave the main version alone and work together on catestrophic changes before working on such a version :) --Trödel 20:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we have any reason, here, to create a provisional fork article. I think we're generally moving in the right direction. It's difficult to achieve NPOV when there are such an unusually large number of significant points of view that have to be accounted for. COGDEN 17:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Towards consensus

We're making progress toward consensus, gentlemen. It just shows what good will and some maturity can accomplish even in such a controverted arena. --John Foxe 21:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I messed up the discussion...

The lead paragraph got into too much detail about non-essentials. Just tried to stick to what it was, etc. Hope it helps. -Visorstuff 00:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed what you wrote (but saved it below), largely because it gives us so little information about the nature of the First Vision. Note too that the first sentence emphasizes the importance of the First Vision while the second deemphasizes it.

The vision is considered the most important spiritual event in the Latter Day Saint movement. Although it is emphasized as a foundational teaching of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in demonstrating the need for modern prophets and apostles, and the reality of God the Father and Jesus, the event is not considered historical by some smaller Latter Day Saint denominations. Latter Day Saint adherents view the First Vision as the starting point of the Latter Day Saint restoration.

--John Foxe 09:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary - it says that it is important in the movement, and that it has controversial aspects. How the lead paragraph reads now doen't do either. It basically starts off saying there was an event that is hard to understand because tehre are multiple accounts. Gee. I don't have a clue what the FV is after reading the current version.

Why can't we say its the most important event in the Latter Day Saint movement. It is, isn't it? What LDS sect would state otherwise?

I'm completely frustrated by this article, moreso than others as it seems very agenda driven, but there is no apparent agenda other than edit control. I wish i could put my finger on what it is. The current form stinks, and it only seems to be getting worse. I'll take a break already from this article, but it seems like no real progress is being made. AND that is something else for me to say this early in my dialogue that i'm frustrated with it. -Visorstuff 21:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I've stayed away from editing on this article because I also see this to be very much an agenda driven article with a major bias against specifically the LDS Church, and driven from the POV of trying to systematically dissect and disprove the validity that this event even happened in the first place. This isn't NPOV, this is a very anti-LDS POV. This paragraph, as written above, is largly what I would have written as the leading paragraph, and states the idea of what this whole thing is about very clearly.

As I've stated before, I feel this whole thing is way off the mark in terms of trying to describe the who, what, when, where, and why of the primary topic here. The topic is the "First Vision", not "various accounts of the 'First Vision' as described by Joseph Smith and those who both hated and loved him".

IMHO, nearly the entire section currently labeled "Accounts of the First Vision" needs to be moved to a completely different Wikipedia article. It goes into minutae of details that do not really support the primary focus of what this really should be, which is to describe the topic. In terms of further reading, going on to other Wikipedia articles would be a good idea. As would filling up a substantial section on Wikisource filled with these various accounts rather than giving point by point editorial reviews of those various accounts. Since Joseph Smith has been dead for over 100 years, I'm presuming that they would all be public domain materials, or am I mistaken?

To describe that not everybody agrees with all of these accounts is certainly something reasonable in terms of maintaining NPOV standards. But this article certainly is not NPOV at the moment (although it is getting better). --Robert Horning 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lane, beer and cakes

I've put the section about Lane in the footnotes because it's so speculative. There is no evidence that Lane was the Methodist with whom Smith spoke, there is no evidence that he met Smith in Phelps, there is no evidence that Smith was in Phelps. I can't understand why you would be interested in including this guess on guess. There were plenty of Methodists in the Palmyra area to whom Smith could have spoken about the vision.--John Foxe 09:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to de-emphasize this, even though it's somewhat speculative. It's an important element of LDS apologetic literature on the subject. The precise date, whether 1820, 1821, 1823, or 1824-25 period, is a hot issue. Read the apologetic articles, and many of the non-apologetic articles, and you'll see what I mean. COGDEN 17:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that William Smith says that Lane was preaching in his neighborhood in "1822 and 1823." Another is that William introduces the minister as "the Rev. M___." William also conflates the First Vision and the Moroni vision. All that information will have to be introduced. Are you sure that's what you want? --John Foxe 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you are looking at the wrong reference. The earlier 1883 references mentions George Lane by name. Also, William combines the two visions. But it's still the First Vision. He describes the First Vision roughly the way Smith described it, except for the fact that he dated it in 1823, and he said that the personage he saw in the Sacred Grove also told him where the plates were. This is all very good stuff to include in the article. COGDEN 18:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

William Smith said "Rev. M__" the following year in 1884. That might have been a mistake made by the transcriber. Otherwise, the whole William story is hopeless. You suggest (on no evidence) that Joseph may have met Lane in Phelps in 1819, but William is clear that Joseph met him in 1823 in the Palmyra area. And then he has Moroni appear the next day.

In any case, I've put some of the Lane material back into the footnotes to keep everything about Lane together.--John Foxe 21:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The William Smith story is not hopeless. Consistent with NPOV, we don't judge the veracity of claims here on Wikipedia. We just report them. William's accounts are especially important, because he was living in the same house as Joseph when Joseph would have had the First Vision. If Joseph told his family, William would have heard. COGDEN 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Aplogetic writings are a response to criticims or conflicts. It seems like the objective you are trying to achieve is to ward off criticism without raising the criticism first. I would agree more with Foxe on this issue, it is more a curiosity and should be covered in footnotes. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Lane material is good stuff both for apologists and for critics, and I've seen it used on both sides. You have to keep in mind that this information is front-and-center in most of the literature on the First Vision since the late 1960s. The First Vision dating issue is significant, and the George Lane issue is at the center of the debate. COGDEN 23:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Critic" and "critical"

I object to the use of the word "critic" and "critical" to describe non-Mormon views. If non-Mormon views are characterized as "critical," then LDS views should be prefaced by the word "believing," and those who hold them should be called "believers." Obviously, for a number of reasons, this is the wrong way to go. --John Foxe 10:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. COGDEN 17:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditionally, the terms critic and apologist have long been used when discussing belief systems. I have no problems with those terms being used here, which is why I changed the lead from "detractors" to "critics". wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate not having these terms used. They take us nowhere. What is COGDEN?--John Foxe 18:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Differences in details

I would like to add some comments about the various accounts, but I don't know a source. I think it should be pointed out that differences in details of historical events doesn't necessarily mean it didn't happen. Actually, more often the opposite. The more different versions of a historical event, the stronger the evidence that the event happened. In some cases, the differences help in our understanding of the event.

For example, there are a lot of minor differences in the four Gospels about many of the same event. This makes sense because different people are recalling the same event slightly different. (Even if you accept the existence of the Q document, probably none of the existing Gospels are the same as the Q document.)

I've added a comment several times, but it keeps getting deleted, that Paul has three different accounts of his experience on the road to Damascus. Each account is slightly different than the others. (For example, did the people with him see a light or hear a voice?) Regardless of these differences, Christians still believe that Paul had an experience on the way to Damascus. Likewise, there are a number of details that differ in the Kings and Chronicles accounts in the Hebrew Bible. So, the fact that there are different accounts of the First Vision doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Personally, I think the significance of the event is overblown by the LDS Church (it has little to do with my testimony). I'm not sure that Smith realized the importance of the event when it happened, and much of the variation in accounts is the result in different interpretations of the meaning during different stages of his life.

Is it just me, or is this something that should be included? I'm not talking about an entire section, but at least a comment in passing. Does anyone have a source that would support my theory that differences in details doesn't have to cast doubt on the authenticity of the event? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, personally. I know there are apologetic sources that say that (but I don't remember where; maybe one of the BYU Studies articles), and that's a significant POV that should be referenced, probably in the very last section on "use of the First Vision...". COGDEN 20:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill, let me repeat what I've said earlier about Paul's vision--that there's no conflict at all in the accounts in Acts. None. Greek makes a distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (in which case the verb "to hear" takes the genitive case) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (in which case it takes the accusative.) In other words, you have the same Greek word but a different case: "phones" in Acts 9:7 and "phonen" in Acts 22:9. There's a parallel between what Paul's companions saw and what they heard. They saw only a blazing light, but they did not see the Person.

As for the notion that the "more different versions of a historical event, the stronger the evidence that the event happened," that's not what we look for in either a court of law or in daily life. The more different the versions, the more the likelihood that one or more people are lying. Because men are fallible, there will always be differences in the testimony of witnesses, but in real life, we give greatest credence to stories that are most congruent. --John Foxe 20:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was that the more different versions of an event, the stronger the evidence that the event happened. What the exact details were is, of course, a challenge, but it is much harder to make a case that it never happened if you have lots of people giving different accounts. When, for example, different Gospel versions are identical, the natural reaction is that they came from the same source (which is where the idea of the Q document came from.) As for Paul on the road to Damascus, we've had that conversation before. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you tend to accept my view if I say it several more times in different ways?:) --John Foxe 21:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

First Visitation?

Does anybody actually use the term First Visitation? I've never heard this before, except for in 1835 when Smith called it his "first visitation of angels". But nobody actually uses this today, do they? I can't find a reference to that usage on Google. If nobody actually uses it, we should delete it from the intro as a synonym. COGDEN 00:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that up; it struck me as odd today while editing. I am personally unaware of its usage, but you guys are more skilled researchers than I. I did not check to see who brought that usage in. Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have never heard it called that, but I haven't thoroughly studied the subject either. --Lethargy 01:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's gone. If someone comes up with a reason to resurrect it, we will.--John Foxe 19:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletions

I have reverted the page to eliminate unexplained deletions made during the past few days. It's important that reasons be given for major changes, especially for such an article where wording has been carefully negotiated for months previous.--John Foxe 15:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased links? Well, sure. That's no problem.--John Foxe 14:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Accounts of the First Vision: Joseph Smith was Lying?

Look, Foxe, first I'm glad you seem to have come around to accepting that there should be some logical connection between sentence one and sentences subsequent. That's an improvement. But to say "There is no evidence that Smith told anyone about his vision prior to 1832, although he claimed to have done so." does not leave much room for drawing the conclusion "Joseph was telling the truth". Now does it? If you want the article to be good, I don't care how convinced you are nor how much proof you have that Joseph Smith was a big fat liar, you have to leave *some* room for the possibility that he was truthful.

You ask for "documentation" that you are wrong. Well, Smith's 1838 account is a historical document, would you concede that? And in that document, he claims to have told others about the vision shortly after its occurrance, and *well* before 1832. That is historical evidence. Now maybe it is weak evidence in your view, because of course Smith is assumed a-priori to be a big fat liar. And maybe there is evidence to the contrary. Yes, that counter-evidence is discussed in the article already. But to say there is *NO* evidence is to essentially state that Smith's claims are *not* evidence. And they are. So you're wrong. :) Novel-Technology 21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Smith testified to many things that have no independent corroboration, and you don't believe him a liar on that account. Why is it such a problem here?--John Foxe 22:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence was clearly POV, IMHO. Can you provide a citation that there is no evidence to support his claim? What is the reason for the phrase "although he claimed to"?

I thought my edit provided a neutral presentation:

The earliest known written account of the First Vision is from 1832. Smith said that after receiving the vision, ...

What was wrong with that? I have removed the first sentence until we can come to a consensus. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 22:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Foxe, I never said what I do or do not believe. I simply said, like wrp, that your preffered formulations were anti-Smith POV, plain and simple. And also, that they were false, plain and simple. It didn't say "no independent corroboration", it said "no historical evidence". A first-person account is historical evidence.

wrp, it's true your formulation was neutral, but is missing any logical link between sentence one and the rest of the paragraph. It needs an although/but/however of some kind. Otherwise, why is 1832 being mentioned at all? It at least needs something to let the reader know they're moving back in time from 1832 to 1820 as they go from sentence one to sentence two. Your version could be misinterpreted any number of ways. When Smith told his mother, was that in 1832? Did he say in the 1832 account that he told his mother? Does any of the rest of the paragraph have anything to do with the 1832 account whatsoever? No, not really! The point of the first sentence is to cast doubt on the reliability of the rest of the paragraph. So in my edits I made that point clear. Pre-edits it was just a random factoid hung there with no clear purpose, and it was the first sentence of a section no less. Reader: "Huh?" I also made it more fair and accurate, while leaving the basic point intact.

Permanently removing the sentence altogether is not an entirely bad idea, actually. But that could be seen as too pro-Smith. Since the lack of any written account of the claimed vision until years later is a legitimate problematic issue, it should be brought up *somewhere* in the article. Novel-Technology 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the sentence as it now reads is as fine an introduction to the paragraph as one usually sees in historical writing. If we need to add additional dates to prevent confusion, that can certainly be done.--John Foxe 10:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If we are writing with the objective of casting doubt, then you have the right sentence. However, if you are writing a neutral article, then you have a problem with tone. We have no independent evidence that Paul ever saw or heard Jesus speak to him. Don't tell me that you need third party evidence to believe something. John, I suspect that you and I will always see editing Wikipedia differently. You prove consistently that your write with an objective in mind. This is not a Enangelical tract for Sunday School, it is an encyclopdia for public use. Please attempt to strive for a neutral approach to writing. I am reverting your edit for being its attempt to cast doubt on something before it is even fully explained. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither your opinion nor mine is of importance here (nor is Paul's experience, for that matter) but whether the sentence as I've written it is true. It is.--John Foxe 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The requirement isn't to prove a statement is true, but that it is NPOV. What if I added a statement saying "Smith was a prophet" and insisted that it stay there until you prove that the statement is false? Can you prove that your statement is true? I have re-reverted the edit, and suggest that it remains until a consensus can be reached on this page. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can prove a negative, Bill; but I'd certainly enjoy the opportunity to list all of Smith's false prophecies. Which of the following two of your scriptures is true?

"And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously..." Deut 18:21-22

D&C 105:13-15. "I will fight your battles...the destroyer I have sent forth to destroy and lay waste mine enemies; and not many years hence they shall not be left to pollute mine heritage, and to blaspheme my name upon the lands which I have consecrated for the gathering together of my saints."

As for the contested sentence, it's incontrovertibly true. And I stand for truth. I suggest my sentence stand until proved false.--John Foxe 21:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sure glad you stand for truth; the rest of us yokels are here for spite! You might want to get off that high horse now. I really enjoy it when a good ole Bible thumper attempts to destroy other religions. They so quickly and carelessly forget the foibles of the our beliefs. Paul's vision is eminently applicable to this exact situation. NO ONE EXCEPT PAUL HAD EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY; however, according to you that is all it takes....except if we are talking about Joeseph Smith. Context of prophecies are also important, no? How many times to the first Apostles claim to prepare for the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Of course, after 2000 years I guess everyone can say they were just a wee bit off in their "prophecies". If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones comes quickly to mind.

Let's take this from the TOP Mr. Foxe. The purpose of Wikipedia is to explain, provide information in a collaborative effort. It is not a soapbox, it is not a Bible tract, it is not a missionary tool, it is not a tool for your own personal agenda. The statement you seek to interject at the very beginning of the paragraph seeks to do one think ONLY, cast doubt on Joseph Smith's First Vision and nothing more. I will revert and delte that edit as long as possible becasuse it fails the standards of Balance, NPOV, and almost every other standard of Wikipedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

First paragraph example of problems of whole article

I've been a long-time critic of this article the whole time, in part because it relies so heavily on trying to push the POV that Joseph Smith was nothing but a lying fraud. Or more to the point, if I could rewrite the opening paragraph, I would change the current paragraph which reads:

The First Vision is the name given by Latter Day Saints to an event that Joseph Smith, Jr. said he experienced during the early 1820s in a forested area (now called the Sacred Grove) near his home in northwestern New York. In Smith's first account of this experience, he said that he saw Jesus, who told him that his sins were forgiven, that men "had turned aside from the Gospel," and that He was soon returning to earth. In later accounts, Smith said that he had seen angels and/or two heavenly beings, Jesus and a second unnamed "personage"--presumably God the Father, since He pointed to Jesus and said, "This is my beloved Son, hear him." In the last, but first published, account of the experience, Jesus also told Smith that all contemporary Christian churches were corrupt. Smith did not write down an account of the First Vision until 1832, and his 1838 account, considered canonical by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was not published until 1842. During the late 19th century, the First Vision evolved into a significant element of LDS Church theology. Many modern adherents of the religion view the First Vision as the beginning of the Latter Day Saint restoration.

to become something a bit simplier:

The First Vision is the name given by Latter Day Saints to an event that Joseph Smith, Jr. said he experienced during the early 1820s in a forested area (now called the Sacred Grove) near his home in northwestern New York. In Smith's first account of this experience, he said that he saw Jesus, who told him that his sins were forgiven, that men "had turned aside from the Gospel," and that He was soon returning to earth. In later accounts, Smith said that he had seen angels and/or two heavenly beings, Jesus and a second unnamed "personage"--presumably God the Father, since He pointed to Jesus and said, "This is my beloved Son, hear him." In the last, but first published, account of the experience, Jesus also told Smith that all contemporary Christian churches were corrupt. Many modern adherents of the religion view the First Vision as the beginning of the Latter Day Saint restoration.

I have long been a critic of the multiple accounts of this event being discussed in detail within this article as being disruptive to the POV, and it fails to get down to the meat of what most people actually believe this event to actually be about. Note here I'm not against critical commentary about this event, but I still believe that the discussion that breaks down into each individual account largely ought to be something best left to another article, such as Accounts of the First Vision or something like that. If you are talking about the different accounts, it would also be very useful to have these accounts put into Wikisource. These should all be public domain, aren't they? The "author" died in 1844, which clearly is way beyond the "life + 75 years" of most extreme copyright protection.

Should the fact that there are different accounts be mentioned? Absolutely. There are differing viewpoints about any historical event... often even by the same person at different points in their life (just as this event demonstrates). Sometimes even when the person giving the accounts was being completely truthful, which IMHO tries to show here in this article that Joseph Smith was not. But my question is.... should the discussion of each separate account make up the entire article? Is it possible to describe what is the First Vision without having to critically review each word of Joseph Smith and compare where he said something different in a different account? I think so, but it would require a major rewrite. --Robert Horning 23:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I think too much side information is being presented about a simple topic. There also is a lot more information that could go into those side topics. There are a lot more cited accounts and witnesses than what is presented, in fact which show evidence that the 1838 account may be the most accurate of the accounts - these are not represented here. If not, maybe we should be including the other cited accounts. I'll provide those in a bit. Jstayii 00:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates Mixed Up With Religious Revival?

I wonder if under the section "Date of the First Vision" the contested year of the first vision and the section referring to Rev. George Lane ought to be separated. I think there needs to be a new section, entitled, "Religious Revivals of the Time". There are many more accounts of other religious revivals occuring at the time, of which I list below. So long as we are trying to "prove a point" there as it seems, we should also state there are other evidences as well of a religious revival. Otherwise I wonder the purpose of having just the account of Rev. George Lane in there. Here are some more examples of religious revivals:

• The Palmyra Register recorded that the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820. (Palmyra Register (Palmyra, NY), 28 July 1820. See also Orsamus Turner, History of the Pioneer Settlement of Phelps and Gorham’s Purchase, and Morris’ Reserve (Rochester, New York: William Alling, 1851), 212–213. about where they met)
• Pomeroy Tucker (a witness hostile to Joseph Smith) states that “protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations…” (Pomeroy Tucker, Origin, Rise and Progress of Mormonism (New York: D. Appleton, 1867), 17–18.)
• The rise of a Methodist Church in 1822 gives more evidence that these "religious camps" were contributing. (George W. Cowles, Landmarks of Wayne County (Syracuse, New York: D. Mason & Company, 1895), 194.)
• The Zion Episcopal Church originated in 1823 (Cowles, Landmarks of Wayne County, 194.)
• In 1817 the Presbyterians separated into an Eastern Group and a Western Group. The Eastern group used the only church that was available in Palmyra in 1820 (Cowles, Landmarks of Wayne County, 191–192.)
• Despite "no Record that Lane visited Palmyra until 1823", we know that such revivals were common, and because of which were not often recorded in local newspapers. For instance, we know of such a revival that occured in Palmyra in 1818, yet it was not mentioned in the town paper despite it being attended by Rev. Roberts. Not all revivals were recorded because of their commonality. (Discussed and cited on pages 9–10 of D. Michael Quinn, "Joseph Smith's Experience of a Methodist 'Camp-Meeting'," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought - Dialogue Paperless: E-Paper #3 (12 July 2006), )

Without the above facts, that section is very biased, and un-neutral. Jstayii 23:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• • I've edited it to at least include some confirming evidence that "no record" does not mean it didn't happen. I'm still not completely satisfied that the section is not trying to prove something (what, I'm not sure - William may have been wrong? Joseph may have been wrong? If we're going to prove something, let's at least state what we're trying to prove). I really suggest we remove the second paragraph, as it gives no first-hand confirmation of the dates in one way or the other. The reader is left confused by what is there currently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jstayii (talk • contribs) 21:28, 4 April 2007.

The Churchillian Defense

Your change disparages truth in service of religion. No one but a Mormon could tell which sentence in that paragraph was supposed to be POV.

I refer to what Winston Churchill said at Harrow in 1941, "Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense."--John Foxe 10:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Some might say that his exceptions apply here. As I said earlier, the goal is consensus. No one person has control over any article. Rather than asking what is wrong with your version of the sentence, perhaps you can address what is wrong with the alternatives that have been presented. In what ways are they POV? wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 14:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The implication of your version is that pre-1832 knowledge of the First Vision is supported by sources other than Smith himself.--John Foxe 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

And the implication of your version is that Smith was dishonest in his statement that he told others. The fact that no collaboration exists doesn't imply that it didn't happen. You can't argue that something didn't happen because of a lack of evidence, only because of evidence to the contrary. The phrasing of the opening sentence implies that no evidence to support his claim, which is POV. There is also no evidence to refute his claim, either. I have changed it to a neutral statement. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 19:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the sentence weak. There should be some mention that before 1832, there is no proof that anyone beyond Smith knew of the first vision--two years after he organized the Church.--John Foxe 20:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to say here John that you are seriously hampering the NPOV tone of this article with your kind of edits here. I fail to see how the following sentence:

The earliest known mention of the First Vision is from 1832.

to become instead

There is no extant mention of the First Vision before 1832, two years after Smith founded the Church of Christ.

really is expressing a NPOV sentiment. Indeed, I would dare say the earlier edit is much more neutral in tone. This second version is implying in a POV that Joseph Smith made up this whole thing some time between 1830 when he started official services for the Church of Christ and 1832 when he first started talking about the visions. I hardly call that NPOV. If you disagree, I would like to see your argument in terms of this particular edit, which you just performed.

I would also suggest that this is getting very close to the 3R-rule to get invoked here if this doesn't stop. Inovking Churchill is openly setting yourself up here for an edit war of grand proportions, and declaring that you want this to become a war. Please stop that... it isn't helpful. I hope you really didn't mean that other than as some bluster to get some steam off your chest. If that was the case, point noted but please don't act on that attitude any more than to consider we can try to collaboratively come to an understanding here and you want your POV heard as well. I can't speak for everybody here, but for myself, I hope that we can keep the tone of this article to be neutral, and not just pure compromise between two warring factions. That does not help to create a healthy article. --Robert Horning 21:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

John, that's the second time you made the same reversion. Care to make it 3? --Robert Horning 19:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - how in the world is that reversion NPOV? I think the "The earliest known mention of the First Vision is from 1832." is much less biased. The original has my vote as well. Jstayii 19:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

My experience on Wikipedia has been that most disputes about wording can be resolved by men of good will trying to achieve consensus. I welcome working toward that goal here. Nevertheless, I will not accept the attempt to conceal the fact that there is no evidence of the First Vision, independent of Joseph Smith, for 12 years after it occurred. Those who care to check my track record on Wikipedia will discover that I am more than willing to admit error when I am wrong. They will also discover that my quoting Churchill is no bluster. In the service of truth, I am willing enough to sacrifice my time in an edit war.--John Foxe 20:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in truth; I suspect you will have many editors on this article that feel as strongly, if not more strongly, about that same issue. However, we are not talking about truth in this instance, we are talking about writing in the style of a Evangelical Biblical tract. This is strictly about POV writing style. You seek to write in such a way as to wave a flay every few sentences that this can not be "proven". Can you please show me one issue of Faith that can be proven in any article anywhere. Faith is faith. This is your personal crusade that is motivated by your personal beliefs and nothing more.

I will caution you again about POV writing and your attempt to cause edit wars. It will not be tolerated on this article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 20:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention of writing a tract and I resent your implying that this is my goal. My aim is an encyclopedia article that speaks the truth--and the truth is that there is no extant evidence of the First Vision, independent of Joseph Smith, for 12 years after it occurred. The attempt to disguise that unpalatable truth is an attempt (as you imply) to promote a strongly held religious agenda.--John Foxe 21:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not the use the term "critic." Believers and non-believers should not have different truths.--John Foxe 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, your words say "seeker of truth" and "man of good faith" while your actions say "creator of an evangelical tract." As I heard an editor once say in another article: "lets call a spade a spade." I resent your implication that LDS editors all have a religious agenda while you, of course, do not and are only "seeking truth" in "good faith." This is a charade. I don't care much what happens in an article such as "Golden Plates" which only 20 or so people will ever read, but this one counts. Bochica 13:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've implied nothing about other editors. In fact, I know a number of LDS editors who are men of good will and who are committed to the truth. I know of no reason why compromise wording can not be achieved here. If what I have written is not true, then provide evidence, not ad hominems.

And please don't use the word "critics." The opposite is "believers," and we don't want to go there. Whether one is a believer or a non-believer, there is only one truth.--John Foxe 18:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not opposed to you seeking to include verifiable facts in this article. But there is a difference between including a fact and writing according to a point of view. This is a fundamental principle here on Wikipedia to work on maintaining a neutral tone in all articles, and I would hope you would call people on the carpet (as I would too and has been done) when an edit is done that is very pro-LDS Church doctrine as well. But I am not going to be quiet when you express your POV explicitly in such a blatant fashion, and try to revert anybody who doesn't agree with it.

Please help us to objectively talk about this event in a neutral tone. I think it is possible, although I will openly admit that this is something so basic and an essential doctrine that trying to find some outside party who can speak objectively about this is almost a hopeless cause. I respect that you don't think Joseph Smith actually witnessed this event but instead made this up. But that is a point-of-view just as much as those apologists who firmly believe that God Himself came to North America and revealed Himself to a 14 year old boy. Both viewpoints together with what is (or may be) a founding event for a major religious movement is why this article is so significant.

If you are asking for proof regarding if Joseph Smith really saw this, I would have to suggest you do what Mr. Smith claimed he did himself: Ask God. Otherwise, this is a matter of faith. I am committed to the truth, but I am also committed to maintaining a NPOV tone. --Robert Horning 23:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I said above that there were LDS editors who were committed to truth, and COGDEN has proved it. Cogden's compromise language is certainly acceptable to me, and it demonstrates as well the falsity of the charge that my intent was to write an "evangelical tract." I love to tinker with words (especially those written by lawyers who have the urge to be novelists), but here I will abstain.--John Foxe 14:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Where's the beef?

I am very familiar with the official LDS version of the First Vision. Today I read this article, then I read the various other accounts of the First Vision for the first time. I was a bit surprised as the article had led me to expect something quite a bit different from the accounts. Yes, there are some minor variations between the Joseph Smith accounts, some details left out in some cases, but no real contradictions. The second and third hand accounts by other figures in the Latter Day Saint movement have more significant differences, some confusion between the sacred grove vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ and the bedroom vision of Moroni as one would expect from second hand accounts. Not surprisingly, there are serious inconsistencies in some of the accounts given by people who had reason to want to discredit Joseph Smith.

However, the article implies that there are major discrepancies among the accounts given by Joseph Smith that just don't exist, it engages in personal attacks on Joseph Smith's family that are totally irrelevant to the topic, and ends by twisting a quote 180 degrees into a false conclusion. I thought that this was Wikipedia, where we report on belief, especially in matters of Faith, and we absolutely, positively, don't draw conclusions. So I checked out the talk page, and now I'm wondering, just who is this John Foxe, and why does he think that he owns this article about a religious belief that is so clearly offensive to him? Yes, there is some controversy surounding the various accounts of the First Vision and it needs to be reported, but this article is far from neutral in this.

What has been done here is the equivalent of LDS editors 'taking over' the Trinity article and reframing it as totally false doctrine, using Biblical scriptures and quotes from historic Christian figures and maybe even a few from LDS authorities to prove that the 'three-in-one' doctrine is really a false doctrine of men, never taught by Jesus Christ or any of his Apostles. I wouldn't do that, I don't think any other LDS would either. So why has John Foxe, someone who probably considers himself to be a Christian, engaged in this kind of shameless attack?

This article is just wrong, it is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I don't understand how this has been allowed to go on for so long but I feel that I must try to correct it. But before I start working on it I'd like to hear if someone thinks I am wrong, if I have misunderstood somehow. 74s181 03:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would first check with COGDEN because he has been the most influential contributor to this article.--John Foxe 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

74s181, I would suggest you either bring up some specific parts of the article here on the talk page, and suggest changes, or make the changes in the article yourself and we can discuss them on the talk page. We can work on achieving a neutral POV. I wouldn't delete any material, however, because I don't know anything in the article that isn't at least relevant to the topic, although lots of things can be presented more neutrally. COGDEN 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV overhaul

Before I start making changes that I know are going to resisted, I'd like to at least try to establish some consensus. So, for the following statements, please indicate whether you agree or disagree, and if you disagree, please say why or offer an alternate. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No one other than Joseph Smith ever gave a first person, eye witness account of the First Vision. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith and the people who knew him personally are not available for interviews today. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Belief in the First Vision is fundamentally a religious belief, and therefore a matter of faith. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

There may be details of any significant event that are never reported in any account.

A particular detail about an event may be true even if the various accounts of the event don't all mention the detail. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people will bear false witness to advance a particular agenda. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The world can be divided up into groups relative to the official version of the First Vision:

1. Those who have never heard of it.
2. Those who have heard of it, but haven't read it, and thus don't have an informed opinion.
3. Those who have read it and believe it is true.
4. Those who have read it and believe it is false.
5. Those who have read it but haven't formed an opinion. 74s181 00:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you start to do a major overhaul, I would suggest that you really cut to the core of the 5 "W's" about the First Vision and really try to stick with them. You can be neutral if you stick to the facts, and that is IMHO the fundimental problem with this article: It tries to do way more than simply explain what is claimed to have happened. If you want to explain that there are some differing accounts, this is reasonable but it doesn't need to be the bulk of this article. I will also note that many of the alternate versions of the first vision are from sources that are clearly unfriendly to the LDS Church. For those accounts which are from sources in the LDS movement but not of the LDS Church, I would put quite a bit more credibility on them. While I would agree that the "official" account could be enhanced with other accounts, it still needs to be done with a NPOV. I've also seen some confusion between this "First Vision" and the vision of Moroni when Joseph Smith claims to have learned about the golden plates that became the Book of Mormon.

If you do work on this article, I wish you luck on trying to keep from major disagreements. Still, I do think an NPOV article can be written. And something more could be done to fix that. --Robert Horning 06:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the 5W's. This subject is such a fundamental part of LDS belief, and also of anti-LDS efforts that it really needs to be 'right'. Right now the article is heavily slanted in the anti-LDS direction, in fact it actually draws anti-LDS conclusions. I believe that a complete overhaul is necessary, not to 'balance' it more towards LDS but to remove POV altogether. 74s181 13:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to give John Foxe the benefit of the doubt, so before I start on this I wanted to give him an opportunity to see for himself where he has gone wrong. So far, no response. This doesn't seem to be working, but I have another approach in mind, not quite so tactful. 74s181 13:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs an overhaul, as much as a good work-over. Most of the basic facts are there and are relevant. But we can't, for example, consistently with NPOV, silently privilege one account (such as the 1838 one) over another (such as the 1832 one or one of the 1840 ones) simply because the LDS Church favors it. Also, if we provide any explanation (attributed, of course) reconciling or implying consistency between the different versions of the vision, we also (for balance) have to include the contrary position explaining how the versions can be viewed as inconsistent. As to your list above, I think everything you mention is so obvious that it doesn't need explaining in the article, except for the statement about the first vision being a matter of faith, with which I agree, but many people, both Mormon and non-Mormon, would disagree. COGDEN 18:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I am almost beginning to laugh; we seem to be on opposing sides. Be assured that it is not personal. I believe it is beyond question that at no time did Joseph more competely explain his First vision than the 1838 version. For that reason alone it should be given priority. In addtion, that is the vision that the vast majority of Latter Day Saints, if not all, follow; thus giving it the reason for being of value. I believe the article should be reorganized giving it precedence following by a critical comparative with the other times the vision was referred to or mentioned or recounted.

I strongly agree with COGDEN that nothing should be lost or removed. All acounts should be described. Further, it would seem appropriate to quote respected experts on what the significance of these summaries provide for LDS and for those outside of this Faith. Our objective is to report only without making any judgements about any of the recordings. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider that "nothing should be lost or removed" from this article. But I also agree with COGDEN that the 1838 account can not be privileged simply because the LDS Church favors it. In this case chronological ordering of the accounts is not only sensible, it's the most NPOV.--John Foxe 19:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the main reason for not silently privileging the 1838 version is that, although believers want to privilege it, those reasons for favoring it are purely faith-based and therefore not neutral. The order of presentation should be based on criteria for which there can be no notable dispute (and therefore no edit wars). Although less important, it also should create a logical progression that makes it easier for the reader to follow. Here are some of the possibilities for ordering the accounts:

1. By relative "truthiness" -- subjective: Mormons would say the 1838 version is truthiest, since it is canonized, secular and non-Mormon historians (who outnumber Mormon historians) would say the 1830 or 1832 version is truthiest, since they were written when Smith's memory was freshest.
2. By relative "officialness" -- subjective: one might say the most official version was the Wentworth version, since it was written last, published first (other than the 1830 allusion), and arguably the one Smith most wanted to be presented to non-Mormons. One might also say that the 1838 version is most official, because it is canonized by one denomination, but of course that is a POV.
3. By number of people who believe in it -- possibly objective, but statistics not available, and most Mormons probably believe all the versions equally. Also, non-Mormons probably disbelieve all versions equally, but think the 1830 allusion is most consistent with their faith.
4. By word count or detail count -- possibly objective, but confusing and not really rational, and does not create a logical progression for the reader. Since the longest version also happens to be the one canonized by the LDS church, this would require explanations to counteract the reader's natural assumption that whenever the author deviates from chronological order, it is because the author considers the out-of-order item to be truthiest (as opposed to just longest or more elaborate).
5. Chronological by date of publication -- objective, but confusing and not logical (the 1830 version would be first, followed by the Wentworth version)
6. Chronological by date of writing -- objective, logical, and the way the reader might expect it.
7. Reverse chronological by date of writing -- objective, probably logical (but less so than chronological order), and a little awkward. The Wentworth version would be first in this order.

Given these choices, the last option seems to be the one less fraught with problems and less likely to create an edit war. Nobody can dispute which version was written first. It's easy, however, to dispute which one is most important or official. COGDEN 20:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Silly me; I thought the topic was the First Vision; you might remember it, the vision responsible for the entire Latter Day Saint movement. I can't imagine why that silly group of people should have any say so about their story; what do they know. Goodness sake; those stupid people actually believe this gibberish. Besides, religious people should never be able to write about their own selves. Only we academics (and of course those parading as academics, but who bluntly proclaim their own personal objective is write with obvious bias) should be able to frame the topic. I can't imagine why anyone would be against writing the article as the vision is presented to the world! No, we must write it in such a way, again parading it as only history, as to cast as much doubt as possible. Those silly Mormons might say it is like laying in wait, trying to snare old Joe in a lie, but what do those bumbleheads know? They should just listen to their betters. After all, this article is about what WE say the First Vision is; not what Mormons say it is. Aren’t we feeling smug! Cogden, I wonder if you are aware of the analogy of a wolf in sheep’s clothing? It is getting more à propos. I can’t tell if it is the result of reality or an overblown sense of bending too far over backwards in the misguided commitment to being “objective”. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this? When someone working on an LDS movement article on Wikipedia adds a link to First Vision they probably assume that the article is about the First Vision. If they had any idea that the First Vision article wasn't really about the First Vision at all, but was really about the history of the different versions and the criticisms of non-believers they would probably create another First Vision article and link to that. But this is just my opinion and counts for nothing. 74s181 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

However, WP:UNDUE also says that this article is wrong. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority."

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute." 74s181 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which version the other LDS movement churches believe is true, but there are 10 times as many members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as all the other denominations combined. So, John Foxe, which version do you believe is the true version, or, in other words, which do you believe is the most accurate description of what happened? None of the above? I thought so. So, what you believe about which version should be presented first, or what 100s of millions of other non-LDS might believe about which version should be presented first is meaningless since you and they don't believe any of the versions to be true. However, the fact that you have studied the matter and disagree with all versions of the First Vision is an opinion that deserves mention. Since few outside of the LDS movement have made any kind of study of the matter or have even read it, their opinion is less signficant than the opinion of 12,000,000+ LDS who have read it and believe it to be true. 74s181 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, per WP:UNDUE, the lead should deal with the CoJCoLDS cannonized version first, and mention that there is controversy. The article should then discuss the CoJCoLDS cannonized version, then a smaller part of the article should deal with the controversy. I am in complete agreement that all the currently cited facts should remain in the article, I only object to the prominence given the minority opinions. 74s181 02:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

An alternative to an overhaul, and perhaps a better way to preserve the effort that has gone into making this article might be to rename it to First Vision (History), then create a new First Vision article that is actually about the First Vision as a belief, organized as I've described above. 74s181 03:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the lead to deal with the above objections. Please discuss here before reverting or re-inserting POV. --74s181 04:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored unexplained deletions to introduction.--John Foxe 09:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unexplained? John Foxe, I invited you to discuss this on the talk page. You ignored me. I spent time and effort trying to fix the POV in the intro. You came along and said, 'nope!' and reverted. So, what do you want? Fix this article? Or, rename it to First Vision (History) and create a new First Vision article which is actually about the First Vision in compliance with WP:UNDUE? Meanwhile, I've re-edited. 74s181 12:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Many people, LDS and non-LDS, have worked on this article over several years. You have made it clear that for this article to be acceptable to you, it must privilege the LDS view. What is there to discuss?--John Foxe 13:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"...must privilege the LDS view" - John Foxe, you are the one who has privileged the LDS view, not I. No current denomination is mentioned in relation to the First Vision until the very end. There is no mention, anywhere in the article, of which version the other denominations believe, if they believe anything at all. 74s181 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you have made it clear that for this article to be acceptable to you it must privilege the view that says all versions are seriously contradictory, therefore, Joseph Smith was a liar, therefore, the First Vision did not happen. One could make the same argument about the resurrection of Jesus Christ, would you consider that NPOV? 74s181 13:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding WP:UNDUE, I don't think this guideline really settles the issue here. UNDUE is about what to do about conflicting viewpoints on the same subject matter. The LDS Church, as far as I am aware, fully accepts each and every account of the First Vision that Joseph Smith wrote. According to the church, none of these versions are contradictory, and they are all true. Therefore, the only conflicting viewpoint is whether or not there is a contradiction between the accounts. This has nothing at all to do with the issue of which account is presented first. The facts can be presented neutrally, with citations, and then when there is a discussion about what the facts mean, that is the point where it might be reasonable to present the LDS Church view first. Moreover, we need to keep in mind that under the WP:NPOV policy, precedence of viewpoint relates to the viewpoints of experts on the subject, not those of the lay reader. COGDEN 17:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that WP:UNDUE can settle this argument. First, let's be clear what this article is about. The title is First Vision, not First Vision (History), or First Vision (Criticism). More than anything, the First Vision is a religious belief, and more specifically, a belief held by a small fraction of all the people on Earth. Some 'experts' might be able to tell us how many people believe or don't believe, other 'experts' might be able to tell us what these people believe, but no 'expert' can settle the matter of which account of the First Vision is most accurate, or whether it happened at all. IMHO, that means that the article should present the First Vision as a belief, explain what is claimed to have happened, where, to whom, and why it is significant, from the perspective of those who believe. 74s181 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to answer the who, what, where, when, why and how of this belief we must determine what the belief is, and this is where WP:UNDUE applies. There are multiple flavors of POV conflict to be resolved. There are those who say it happened one way, and those who say it happened a different way. The vast majority of those who believe in the First Vision believe that the account canonized by TCoJCoLDS is the most accurate record, thus according to UNDUE this is the account should be given prominence. Other beliefs should be mentioned, but given less prominence. As the article currently stands one doesn't learn until the very end that anyone believes in the First Vision today, and the Gordon B. Hinckley quote is only given in a pathetic attempt to prove that TCoJCoLDS is false. 74s181 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What about those like John Foxe whose POV is that the contradictions between the accounts prove nothing happened? This is a valid POV. Is it a majority? Most people have never even heard of the First Vision. Of those who have heard of it, most haven't read it and thus don't have an informed opinion. We're talking about a religious belief. Some believe it, some don't. Logic doesn't really enter into it. But enough people share this POV that it should be mentioned. Right now this particular POV is the entire subject of the article. 74s181 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line, the article should lead with and focus on the version taught by TCoJCoLDS, because that is the version believed by the vast majority of the believers. What other LDS movement churches believe should also be mentioned. And finally, the theory held by some that the differences between the versions proves that nothing happened at all should be mentioned.

So, what is the next step? I think that if the extreme negative POV were removed, the current article contains a lot of useful info that make an excellent article titled First Vision (History) 74s181 01:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, or even practical, to divorce this article from history. The first vision certainly has elements of faith that have nothing to do with Joseph Smith's actual historical vision, but these elements are still are all directly related to the history. Given that you and I weren't there, our only access to the vision is through history: you can't really talk about the First Vision without talking about the historical details, such as what Joseph Smith told others he saw, and what Joseph Smith told others the vision means. Moreover, what there is about the First Vision that isn't history, is most likely historiography, which is still history. (For example, if we want to describe how the 1838 version was included in the LDS Church canon, or how the First Vision started to be strongly emphasized for the first time after the Second Manifesto, that's all history, and it has to be presented neutrally.) If you think there is enough material to write an article about the First Vision that has nothing to do with the historical details (which have to be presented neutrally), we could name it First Vision (LDS Church) or First Vision and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Personally, I don't think there's a need for such an article. COGDEN 22:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I said that the article should be divorced from the history. The history is important but it isn't the story. The First Vision is a belief. It doesn't have "elements of faith" it is nothing but faith. There is no evidence other than Joseph Smith's words and the witness of the Holy Ghost. 74s181 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There were many more witnesses to the Death and resurrection of Jesus, yet that article opens by treating the resurrection as a belief, and most of the article continues in that vein. The four accounts of the resurrection differ far more than Joseph's accounts of the First Vision yet there is little criticism, and what there is is much more positive in tone. The article focuses more on what different groups believe than historical analysis although that is present. I think that Death and resurrection of Jesus is a good model for restructuring the First Vision article. 74s181 02:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The resurrection article is getting to be a reasonably good article, but it's more of a summary article, and it still has tons of uncited statements and possibly original research. I wouldn't use it as a model. Besides, the resurrection doesn't have statements indisputably written by Jesus himself or direct witnesses. Here, we have four or five statements by Smith himself, which is a goldmine compared to the resurrection. There's no reason not to discuss every detail given in any of Smith's descriptions, as well as the historical context of those statements. As to the First Vision being a pure matter of faith and the Holy Ghost. I don't think so, because unless somebody is receiving revelations, there is no way to determine any previously-undiscovered factual information about the First Vision through the Holy Ghost apart from the historical record (at least no verifiable factual information we can put in a Wikipedia article). What you can include in the article, for example, are historical statements by scholars and church leaders interpreting the First Vision primary sources. But such statements and opinions are secondary to the facts. Primary sources are always more significant than secondary sources. COGDEN 20:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I overstated when I said that the FV was "nothing but faith". What I meant was that faith was a much more significant contributor to belief or disbelief of the FV than historical evidence. Few people become convinced that the FV occured because they examine the evidence, they believe because they feel it is is true. Likewise, I suspect that most of those who so emphatically reject the FV do so more because of other beliefs that they have and not so much because of the historical evidence. 74s181 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean that we should assimilate the problems of the resurrection article, what I meant was, here is another miraculous event, more witnesses are claimed for it, there are more contradictions in the accounts, many more people reject it, if anything it is much more controversial than the FV, yet it is treated in a generally positive fashion as a belief first, with controversy and historical evidences covered later in the article. 74s181 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I will summarize my opinions:

1. Like the resurrection of Jesus Christ, there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove any version of the FV with any certainty.
2. In spite of this lack of evidence a significant number of people are very certain in their belief or denial of the FV. Therefore the article should treat the FV more as a religious belief and less as a historical event.
3. Most of those who believe the FV occured accept the 1838 account as the most complete and reliable description of what they believe happened, therefore, this account should be given prominence per WP:UNDUE.
4. Enough people who believe that the FV occured do not agree that there were two personages or that God or Jesus Christ appeared that these beliefs should be represented, but not given the prominence of the 1838 version.
5. The beliefs of critics or those who strongly believe that nothing occured should be represented and examined.
6. The historical evidence that exists is relevant and should be discussed but not given prominence.

My objections are not so much with the content of the article as with its structure. I agree that everything currently in the article that is properly cited should remain in the article, but should be rearranged so as to accurately reflect what the FV is. 74s181 00:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

New lead

I tried to start a discussion about these problems, John Foxe referred me to Cogden, who said I should either bring up specific concerns or make changes which we could then discuss here. I tried that, and invited discussion. John Foxe reverted, with no response to my comments. I tried again. Same thing. I posted more comments on the talk page. John Foxe ignored them. So, I did it again today, adding an explicit reference to the controversy which was not even in the lead that John Foxe approves of. I suspect John Foxe will revert, again without dicussion. 74s181 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not. Taking the text sentence by sentence and explaining each change often leads to both substantive and stylistic improvements.--John Foxe 13:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you asking me to take the old lead sentence by sentence and explain why it is POV, or are you asking me to take the current lead sentence by sentence and explain why it is NPOV, or at least, more NPOV than the old lead? Or, are you asking me to do a side by side comparison? That will take some effort. I had another approach in mind that I was going to use if you reverted again. Maybe I ought to go ahead and share that here, it might make the problems in the old lead more clear. 74s181 21:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing so complicated. I just meant that it's easier to reach NPOV if you consider questionable sentences one by one instead of using the blizzard technique. A number of people have worked on this article for a number of years, so the wording may have been fought over more than once before.--John Foxe 20:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"A number of people have worked on this article for a number of years...". Well, for the last nine months or so that is mostly you, John Foxe. There has been a major shift in the tone of the article since you started editing. 74s181 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"...the wording may have been fought over more than once before..." Did you discuss your objections with the other editors, or did you just revert their edits like you did mine? Revert, revert, restored unexplained deletion... I explained every change I made. I even tried repeatedly to mention the fact of the controversy in the lead, this is what almost all the rest of the article is still about, but you kept deleting that for some reason I don't understand. 74s181 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to another editor you invoked the "The Churchillian Defense", stating "Your change disparages truth in service of religion." Ah, yes, Truth, starts with a T, just like Trouble. But Wikipedia isn't about Truth, it is about facts. And when dealing with religion, the most important facts about a religious belief like the First Vision are what people believe about it. History of the belief is important, but secondary to explaining What the belief is. 74s181 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But, now that we're talking, let's talk. Prior to my changes to the lead the article focused on the background, the history of the FV, the controversies, almost completely ignoring the First Vision itself. The new lead puts things into the proper perspective. There was one eyewitness to the FV, what he said about it is a fact. A lot of people believe it to be an actual event, that is a fact. The variations between the different accounts of the FV is a fact, and should be reported, but is dwarfed by the facts of what people say and believe about it, both pro and con. 74s181 01:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, 74s181, (isn't it awkward to have a number as a name?) I think you've mistaken the purpose of the talk page, which is to discuss the articles not the editors.--John Foxe 09:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like you think you are the article. I tried to discuss the article, you ignored me. I made changes, explaining them on the talk page, you ignored them and reverted with no discussion. 74s181 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

But now we are talking. You said "...it's easier to reach NPOV if you consider questionable sentences one by one..." Ok, so I'll try again. We seem to have a small sticking point, the placement of the words 'but' and 'and' in one paragraph of the the intro. Let's talk about that. 74s181 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your version: "There are no extant written references to this event prior to 1830. Smith later wrote that he shared his experience with others shortly after it occurred, but the oldest surviving draft describing the First Vision was written in 1832, and nothing was published about it until 1842, well after Smith's standing as a prophet within the Latter Day Saint movement had been established by his publication of the Book of Mormon and other revelations."

My version: "There are no extant written references to this event prior to 1830 but Smith later wrote that he shared his experience with others shortly after it occurred. The oldest surviving draft describing the First Vision was written in 1832 but nothing was published about it until 1842, well after Smith's standing as a prophet within the Latter Day Saint movement had been established by his publication of the Book of Mormon and other revelations."

Kind of interesting, hmmm? Same facts, same words, split it one way and it has one kind of tone, split it a different way and it has a different kind of tone. This is the problem with the entire article, how do we resolve it? This is where I think WP:UNDUE applies. 74s181 13:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the earlier version is better grammar, better style, and better sense. (You also need to recall comma rules.)--John Foxe 10:40, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your statement on commas is correct, so why didn't you just fix it? I originally had this exact same version with commas, I know that I tend to use commas excessively so I removed them last time. You also changed my previous version that had commas so don't use this as an excuse to change the meaning. 74s181 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In the comment to your most recent change you said I created two run-on sentences. Excuse me? The result of your edit is one very short sentence followed by one very long sentence with at least three independent clauses. The use of a coordinating conjunction to connect two independent but related clauses is valid, you connect three, one of which is very long even by itself. Yes, the commas were missing in my most recent version, I looked it up this morning to make sure I did it properly this time. 74s181 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I also broke off the last clause and turned it into a separate sentence. 74s181 13:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That change created the syntactical error of unclear pronoun reference. Check it out with your nearest English teacher.--John Foxe 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Statement after quote disagrees with statement in quote.

The quote from the 1832 account contains the sentence, described by Joseph as the words of the Lord:

...<behold> the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned aside from the gospel and keep not <my> commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me...

The following analysis says:

The text also does not say that Jesus condemned contemporary Christian churches as corrupt but rather says that Smith discovered their erroneousness through his own study of the Bible.

Sounds like a condemnation to me. Additionally, the reference following the analysis paragraph mostly says that without the priesthood man cannot see God and live, nothing about this is mentioned in any part of the '1832' section.

So I deleted the offending sentence and the unrelated reference. 74s181 04:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the LDS canonized account says:

all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all ccorrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

The 1832 account sounds like the same idea and message, even if not exactly the same words. 74s181 04:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reintroduced and clarified the deleted paragraph. I think both of our changes have improved the article.--John Foxe 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the addition for POV reasons. The statement interpreted the facts rather than stated them.

The statement: "The text also states that Smith discovered the erroneousness of the churches through his own study of the Bible rather than by direct revelation" is an interpretation based on the text. Consider another interpretation: (a) Smith is told that churches are corrupt by the personage. (b) Smith searches the scriptures and finds evidence that the current teachings vary from the teachings in the Bible. (c) Smith learns, based on his study of the scriptures that the statement was true.

The statement: "Further, in September 1832, Joseph Smith revealed that before the reinstitution of the priesthood no man could see God and live, although he claimed to have done just this himself." is an interpretation of the revelation, which says that the priesthood allows a man to see the face of God and live. The revelation is about the priesthood, and that passage is explaining what the priesthood allows a holder to do. In Genesis, we read that Adam and Eve spoke face to face with God, but there is no claim that both of them held the priesthood. If the revelation was about something other than the priesthood, the argument that it is the only way to see God and live would have more validity, but as it is written, it can be read a variety of ways. There is also D&C 93:1 "1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;" which doesn't mention the priesthood as a requirement. To some, this is seen as a contradiction, but to others it is seen as an additional method of seeing God.

I will repeat what I have said before - you can't prove something by the lack of evidence, but only from the existence of contradictory evidence. It is extremely difficult to see all the different interpretations that are possible for a given text, which is what makes NPOV such a difficult task. Nevertheless, if we keep open minds, we will eventually get there. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've now incorporated primary source evidence concerning the distinction between the 1832 and the 1838 accounts of the First Vision.

About seeing God without the priesthood, I'm tempted to give this up, although the interpretation you've given sounds surreal. Have I gotten this right? Man may see God so long as he is not a priest; but if he is a priest then he needs to have the priesthood? (But if he doesn't have the priesthood, then he's not a priest.)--John Foxe 19:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Are there any verifiable citations regarding non-Mormon explanations for how Smith saw God before getting the high priesthood? I've seen the arguments on websites and discussion boards, but are any reliable sources that make this argument? If there are citations, there's no reason not to include it. As to Mormon explanations, there are several different theories. Apostle Orson Pratt, for example, raised the question himself, saying that some Mormons considered the issue troubling, but he argued that Smith had been ordained to the priesthood in his pre-existence, and that his later receipt of the priesthood was just a "re-confirmation" (JD 22:26). Another (then) apostle, Joseph Fielding Smith, had the theory that you only need the high priesthood to see God if the priesthood has been restored. Otherwise, seeing God kills you. The best apologetic explanation I've heard thus far is that Smith considered the First Vision to be, in fact, a vision, but I don't know who to cite for that. COGDEN 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Critics and Apologists

As I've argued above, it is unwise to introduce terms like "critics," "apologists," "believers," "detractors," etc. unless absolutely necessary—and then only in the notes. Using epithets takes us nowhere except into arguments. How would you classify Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, and Jan Shipps? We cite historical facts as a basis for NPOV writing, and there are not separate facts for believers and unbelievers.--John Foxe 13:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What believers believe are facts, and what unbelievers believe are facts. We use labels to identify who we're talking about when we state the beliefs of a group. Critic is not an epithet any more than Christian, Jew, Republican, or Democrat are epithets. Well, I guess it depends upon your POV, eh? <g>. 74s181 01:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are a post-modernist, the "facts" of the believer and unbeliever cannot both be true. I dislike the term "critic" applied to me, and I know Richard Bushman dislikes the term "apologist" applied to him. As men of good will we can believe differently while trying to be as accurate as possible in our search for historical truth.--John Foxe 09:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"...cannot both be true." There's that 'T' word again, Well, ya got trouble my friend, sounds like you're trying to draw a conclusion. I don't think that is what Wikipedia is about. 74s181 13:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't like the label 'critic' for those who wish to prove that the First Vision didn't happen. What label would you prefer? Because, you see, we have to write about this, it is a POV that should be represented in the article. Right now, it is the article. 74s181 13:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

"...search for historical truth." Again, the 'T' word. We've surely got trouble, right here in River City! (Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule?) Don't you see, there can be no 'historical' truth, because there aren't enough facts. The historical facts we have are important, but they aren't the most important thing. The way people respond to the First Vision is more important than arguing about whether the first person accounts by Joseph Smith are proof that the FV happened or that it did not happen. I have always said that the cited facts in the article should remain in the article. I'm only arguing for adding other, more important facts, and restructuring the article in accordance with WP:UNDUE.

When I first complained I was invited to make changes and then discuss them here. I tried that, you didn't seem to like it. So, John Foxe, do you want to discuss it here first, or do you want me to start doing it there? 74s181 15:57, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the American Declaration of Independence written in 1776? Was George Washington the first black President of the United States? If there is no truth, then we should all give up Wikipedia and go out for a pizza.--John Foxe 10:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

How many eyewitnesses were there to the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Of course, that doesn't prove that it was written in 1776, it might have been written before that time, but this seems unlikely considering the arguments about what went into it and what stayed out, and the documentation of those arguments. The point is, there is no controversy about whether or not the Declaration was written in 1776, so this is stated as a fact. According to WP:NPOV, when controversy exists all significant POVs must be presented. According to WP:UNDUE, where one POV is held by many more people than another then the majority POV is given greater prominence and weight. Currently, FV focuses on one minority POV, scarcely mentioning the majority POV or other significant minority POVs. 74s181 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A better event for comparison than the Declaration of Independence might be the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ. There is no extant first person account of the visit of the angel to Mary, and no extant account written by anyone until many (50? 70?) years after the event. It is interesting to note that although the VB article devotes considerable space to controversy, most of that is discussion of whether the early Christians believed and taught VB, rather than the question of whether or not VB actually occured, because there just isn't any expert claiming factual evidence one way or the other. Yet a substantial article on Wikipedia is devoted to VB because of the number of people who believe or disbelieve in it as a miraculous event. 74s181 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

However, in spite of its many similarities we can't really use Virgin Birth as a model for this article, because many who call themselves Christians don't believe in the Virgin Birth, but nearly all who call themselves LDS do believe in the First Vision. 74s181 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to be completely clear on the issue of 'truth'. There is a Truth (capital T) about the First Vision. Either it was the greatest miracle since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or it was an amazingly successful fraud. When I said "there can be no 'historical' truth," I qualified that with "...because there aren't enough facts." One might be able to 'prove' that the early Christians did or did not teach the doctrine of Virgin Birth, but can anyone 'prove' that VB did or did not occur? We have the same problem with the FV, there just isn't enough factual evidence either way, yet the current focus of the article (except the new lead) is to prove that FV did not occur and therefore the LDS movement is a fraud. 74s181 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

There is another truth (little t) for which there is much citable evidence, but it is almost totally absent from the article. I ask again, where is the discussion in the article of what LDS believe about the FV? The new lead introduces this, but it is still missing from the article until the very end, and then only TCoJCoLDS belief is mentioned in an attempt to use the preceding 'proof' that the FV is false to also 'prove' that TCoJCoLDS is false. Where is the more complete discussion of what 12,000,000+ people believe? I'll tell you where it is, it is back in August of 2006, before John Foxe began editing this article and refocusing it to his own POV. 74s181 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to controversial topics like this one, Wikipedia is not about Truth, it is not about objective reality. It is about the neutral presentation of the various POV of groups of significant size, as evidenced by experts on each POV. Right now this article attempts to prove a conclusion, this needs to be corrected. I've tried to fix the problems in the lead, I think that is done. Now I want to move on and start fixing the rest of the article. But in order to discuss the various POV I need a label to decribe those who do not believe that the FV happened. So, John Foxe, since you are the one objecting to the label 'critic' I ask you again, what label would you prefer? 74s181 15:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

None—at least until you tell me how you would classify Richard Bushman, Michael Quinn, and Jan Shipps, probably the three best-known academic historians of Mormonism.--John Foxe 21:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fair. I don't really know much about these experts other than what I've read on wikipedia. If these summaries are accurate then Richard Bushman is a believer or apologist, I don't think you get to be a stake president or patriarch without accepting the canonized account of the FV as fact. Quinn is no longer a member but claims to be a believer. The comments on Amazon concerning one of his books suggest that he accepts the canonized account of the FV, so on this topic I guess I would classify him as a believer or apologist. I can't tell about Jan Shipps, although not a believer she seems to be generally non-critical. I don't know her position on this particular topic, but as she has never joined the church I guess that means that she probably doesn't believe in the FV. <g> 74s181 23:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw your earlier posting that said, more or less, if we're going to call some people critics then we have to call everyone else an apologist. Is that what you are saying? I don't have a problem with classifying all statements as coming from believers, or apologists, or critics. If I quote Gordon B. Hinckley and identify him as President and Prophet of TCoJCoLDS, I think that pretty clearly identifies him as a believer, are you saying he has to be double labled? 74s181 23:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, you seem to be more focused on sifting the historical evidence. I consider that a valid POV, but a smaller part of the story than what people believe today. So, labeling this or that historian as a critic or an apologist doesn't really matter to me on this particular topic. But when we're talking about believers who believe that the FV occured, and (blank) who don't believe that the FV occured, what do we put in the blank? 74s181 23:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be a good idea to examine the work of the most notable contemporary historians of Mormonism before making pronouncements about the biased nature of this article? For instance, in his recent biography, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman says, "Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision, "(39) and the "later accounts of the vision supplied the church with a founding story." (40) If a believer says such things, why can't this article? Are those words apologetics because they come from a believer or criticism because they come from a historian?--John Foxe 10:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John, the term "critic" refers to anyone who presents a position contrary to the traditional view, while "apologetic" refers to anyone who supports the traditional view. It has nothing to do with believer or non-believer, and is an accepted way of describing scholarly work. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point, Bill, I had missed that distinction. Do you think 'critic' is the appropriate label for those who do not believe the First Vision and attempt to disprove it using historical analysis? Or, are you saying that their belief or disbelief doesn't enter into it, if someone is criticising the 1838 account then they are a critic, right? 74s181 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, you continue to misinterpret my intent. My goal is not to take the existing anti-LDS tract and turn it into a pro-LDS tract. My goal is to present the First Vision in an honest, fair, WP:NPOV-compliant manner. I have repeatedly tried to make myself clear on this, I'm still assuming good faith on your part, so I'll try again.

1. There aren't enough facts to prove that the FV did or did not happen, therefore, it is a matter of Faith, not Fact, like the resurrection of Jesus Christ or the Virgin Birth, neither of which can be proven or disproven by historical evidence.
2. The article as it now stands attempts to lead the reader to a POV conclusion by presenting minority POV (criticism based on differences in accounts) as if it were the only POV.
3. Discussion of what members of TCoJCoLdS believe about the First Vision is the majority POV and it is almost completely absent.
4. Therefore, the article should be restructured, leading with and emphasizing what the majority of believers believe.
5. The majority of believers are members of TCoJCoLDS, and believe the 1838 account to be the most accurate.
6. If other denominations within the LDS movement believe a different account to be most accurate, then that minority POV should also be presented.
7. Whether or not the FV was taught in the early LDS church is noteworthy POV, but not as noteworthy as whether or not the Virgin Birth was taught among early Christians, because nearly all practicing LDS today believe the FV, while many practicing Christians today do not believe the VB.
8. Historical context surrounding the FV is part of the story and should be presented, but is not the whole story or even most of the story.
9. Criticism of the FV is also a valid POV and should be presented. If there are multiple critical POVs then any that have a sufficiently large following should be presented.
10. Every fact cited in the article today that is relevant to any significant POV should be kept. 74s181 13:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Correct, the terms critic and apologist refer to the position of the writer for or against some belief system, not their actual belief (although there is often a correlation). See Apologetics Within academic circles the terms are neutral, although within popular culture they can have negative connotations. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Trying to privilege the LDS view of the First Vision by dividing the world into "critics" and "apologists" is both an intellectual error and the wrong way to proceed. If successful, such a change would lead us away, not toward, NPOV. We require only documented facts here. We don't care whether they're believed by John Foxe or GBH. I repeat what I said above: In Rough Stone Rolling, Richard Bushman says, "Most early converts probably never heard about the 1820 vision, "(39) and the "later accounts of the vision supplied the church with a founding story." (40) Those words are neither apologetics nor criticism; they're just facts.

Comparing the First Vision to the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection is also a mistake. As Martin Marty, the historian of American religion, has observed, LDS beginnings are so recent "that there is no place to hide....There is little protection for Mormon sacredness." (Martin Marty, "Two Integrities: An Address to the Crisis in Mormon Historiography," in George D. Smith, ed., Faithful History: Essays on Writing Mormon History (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 174.) For better or worse there are five volumes of Early Mormon Documents, and they tell all sorts of stories.--John Foxe 19:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Martin Marty is a historian; I am not aware of anyone who would think of him as the historian of early American religion. More importantly, he is but one among many historians of the field and none have a corner on the market. His personal feelings and opinions are nice to hear, but they hold no more weight than the next fellow's. I have no problem quoting him in the article because I believe him to be credible, but I certainly would not think his thoughts are the end-all of religion; I am certain he would strongly emphasize this point. The LDS church has nothing to fear from history; however, it rightfully is concerned about those who, from the very beginning until today, sought and seek to destroy (I am thinking of Howe and his ilk, these were not historians, but propagandists). Reading almost any site focused on the Church, but sponsored by another church (or those wonderful people who proclaim to be Christian, but their actions would indicate they know nothing of the Gospel of Jesus) is rife with error, mischaracterization, innuendo, and lies.

In reality there are few historians writing about this topic. Brody said from the beginning she was a critic and wrote from that perspective. Howe does not even rate. There simply are few who are objective or have treated the subject objectively. It is very appropriate to understand the qualifications and motivations of those who write claiming to provide a historical perspective, but fail miserably. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Trying to privilege the LDS view..." I do not want to give undue privilege to the LDS view. The article is currently dominated by a minority view, and the majority view (the LDS view) is almost absent. Wikipedia is not paper, there is room for all POV, but "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties." But I've explained this before. 74s181 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"We don't care whether they're believed by John Foxe or GBH..." Gordon B. Hinckley is accepted as The Prophet of God on the earth today by 12,000,000+ people. He is without question an expert on the beliefs of members of TCoJCoLdS. There may be more than 12,000,000 people who consider the historic John Foxe an expert on martyrs, but I'm not sure how many people there are who consider the user John Foxe and expert on the First Vision. 74s181 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"...there is no place to hide..." Do you have a document in Joseph Smith's own handwriting that says "I made it up"? Do you have a document from a close associate who remained friendly to Joseph Smith and the church that says "Joseph told me he made it up"? If not, you have no evidence that the First Vision didn't happen. OTOH, there is little physical evidence saying it did happen, and there are some inconsistencies in that evidence. So, this is a valid POV, but it is not the majority POV. 74s181 03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Young's comments

It's clear that Brigham Young is referring to Smith's First Vision, not the Second, because he notes that Smith was warned not to join any denomination.--John Foxe 18:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your link still points to the TOC instead of the text, so I can't verify your claim. However, it appears that you assume he was told only once to not join any church and/or that Young was talking about a single event rather than a collection of events. Change the link to point to the actual text you are quoting so we can verify. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find it from the page number. He's probably right that Young was referring to the First Vision. It might be understandable that he got the stories confused, since I believe Young was in England when the First Vision accounts were first published in U.S. LDS newspapers in 1842. (One of the stories, probably the Wentworth letter, might have been published in the English Millenial Star, but I don't know). Young , like probably most Mormons before the Pearl of Great Price was published, probably only heard the First Vision story by word-of-mouth, if at all, and didn't appreciate the implication in the 1838 version that the two messengers were actually God and Jesus. COGDEN 23:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, how you can claim to be precise in the use of language, yet use the phrase:

"But He did send His angel to this same obscure person...and informed him..."

to really mean

"But He did send His angel to this same obscure person...who informed him..."

in order to justify stating,

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

The only reason that the Tanners were able to try to get away with using this quote for this purpose was their liberal application of the ellipsis. In this case, however, the entire, unaltered quote is included here, and it does not support the conclusion that you are attempting to force into the article. Bochica 02:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem with the quotation (which is taken from the Discourses not the Tanners). The quotation makes it clear that God sent an angel who told Joseph Smith not to join any denominations. Of course, you can argue that the quotation demonstrates Young's misunderstanding of the First Vision or that God, at some other unspecified time, may have sent an angel to remind Smith of what He had told him earlier in person.

I'm confused by this comment of User:COGDEN: [Brigham Young] didn't appreciate the implication in the 1838 version that the two messengers were actually God and Jesus.

Is this suggesting that you think Brigham Young didn't comprehend what Joseph Smith was trying to say here and didn't understand the full implication of how significant it was for Joseph Smith to have seen God and Jesus, or is this suggesting that Brigham Young was offended by the thought that Joseph Smith claimed to have talked one on one with Jesus himself some twenty years earlier without mentioning that fact in any earlier conversation? By being one of the original members of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve, Brigham Young certainly would have been familiar with nearly everything Joseph Smith would have said about the topic that was in public consumption.

Of course one of my complaints about this article as it has been written is that it takes on the POV that both Joseph Smith and the LDS Church keep shifting the theme and focus of this event (the First Vision) with the implication that Smith was a fraud because his story is inconsistent. Even this quote by Brigham Young is being used to advance this POV, suggesting that Brigham Young should have been consistent when discussing the early foundation of the church and that being told by Jesus would be more significant than merely an angel to not join with any other Christian denomination. --Robert Horning 22:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the link: if someone will fix it, I promise to look at what was done and learn how to do it myself. --John Foxe 15:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Now I think the link links.--John Foxe 21:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed outline for NPOV overhaul

There have been many comments and some discussion about the problems in the current article. We have a new introduction, this is a good start. Now I think it is time to move to the next step.

The concerns that I and others have can be read in other comments on the talk page. My biggest concern with current article is that it focuses almost exclusively on one minority POV, that is, problems that some perceive in the different accounts of the First Vision, while ignoring completely the majority POV and other minoroity POV.

I think we can fix the article by adding info on the majority and other minority POV and re-arranging the existing facts in the article in a more neutral fashion. Following is a proposed outline.

Background

Joseph Smith (who)

Smith family

Revivalism in the Palmyra area (where / when)

The Vision (majority POV what)

The question (why)

The answer (how)

Subsequent visions (short summary of Moroni visit, BoM, etc.)

Contemporary beliefs

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Community of Christ

(whatever we can find out about what other LDS denominations believe)

Accounts of the First Vision (more what)

(short intro, maybe a table summarizing similarities and differences)

(various accounts more or less as current, reworked to remove anti-FV bias, just the facts ma'am...)

Criticism

Inconsistencies in accounts

Content

Date

Message

Lack of corroboration

No mention in teachings of early church leaders (better title for this section?)

???

Comments? 74s181 03:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I especially like that all of the criticisms will be grouped together, which will allow the reader to understand the event as well as the scope of the criticism. My guess is that the uninformed reader gets very confused with the current article and doesn't understand what it is and why people do / don't believe it. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 13:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

POV-check tag

Just so everyone knows, this was just added by an anonymous user, 68.108.196.155. 74s181 00:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I just reverted it. That was their only edit, and they made no comment about why they added it, nor did they start any discussion on the talk page. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't object to removing this tag at the moment. The main point of adding the tag would be to call attention to the article, which I think this one has in spades. NPOV concerns have in fact been raised on this talk page, but I believe them to at least be in the process of being resolved. There is no reason to make the appearance of the article look ugly while those concerns are being addressed. --Robert Horning 11:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

wording change

I changed

"There are no extant written references to this event prior to 1830, but Smith later wrote that he had shared his experience with others shortly after it occurred."

"There are no extant references to this event prior to 1830, but Smith later said that he had shared his experience with others shortly after it occurred."

The implication of written is that there's some kind of oral tradition outside say, the EMD. As for wrote, Smith actually wrote very little with his own hand. He spoke, and his scribes faithfully (we hope) wrote it down. I left "existing at that time," but if you look up contemporary in a dictionary, you'll find that "existing at that time" is a definition of that word—but perhaps one that wouldn't be understood by the average reader.--John Foxe 10:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What is 'EMD'? 74s181 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

1. If someone dictates a book to a secretary we still call it writing, and we say they wrote the book they dictated. We call what we do here writing, even though we do it by typing. 74s181 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
2. It is true that we have nothing about the FV written prior to 1830.
3. It is also true that after 1830, Joseph wrote that he told others about the FV before 1830. There are statements written by others after 1830 that support this. The way you phrased it makes it sound like he never wrote anything, like it is hearsay. 74s181 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
4. I understand the definition of contemporary, I changed it for the reasons you gave. 74s181 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we could delete everything in the third paragraph after the first sentence. In fact, I think it would be better to delete the entire third paragraph, it is detail info that is covered elsewhere in the article. I agree that we need to acknowledge the critical POV in the lead, I just think it would be better to do so in a more general way. 74s181 02:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Accounts of the First Vision

I've asked this earlier, but I would like some comments specific to this issue.

I would like to set up a Wikisource category of the various First Vision accounts, but I would also like to be able to obtain these accounts which can be independently verified as genuine historical accounts. The canonical version of the First Vision is already in Wikisource (and even linked within this article), but I would like to see other accounts added to this category as well.

If other full sources (not just annotations) can be found, please help with adding them to Wikisource as well. I'm willing to do some of the "heavy lifting" for this in terms of transferring the content to Wikisource, but sources of the text would be appreciated. --Robert Horning 11:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I should think the vast majority of the texts are available on line, though mostly from anti-Mormon websites. Personally, I prefer dead tree sources for accuracy, and all the First Vision accounts mentioned in the article are available, and nicely edited, in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents. I think including all the accounts on Wikisource is a worthy goal, and I'd be glad to keyboard whatever text you can't find on line.--John Foxe 15:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be interesting to find what texts actually can be found on line, as I have had some difficulty finding them. I've seen annotated commentaries with substantial quotes from various accounts, but that is not the same thing as the original text that would meet the standards of Wikisource as an original source document. I do appreciate the offer to help keyboard these documents, particularly if the accounts are relatively short, and I would have to agree that the best source is likely to be dead-tree documents as opposed to something somebody claimed is an historical document from the 1840's or so. I also don't believe that all of the sources necessarily have to be found from decidedly anti-Mormon websites, or even a majority of them. The point (I thought) was to provide different viewpoints about the events surrounding the "First Vision", not to provide POV fodder supporting a critical attitude towards the events. --Robert Horning 20:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

What's good for the goose...

I've modified the JSjr intro to balance the LDS POV.--John Foxe 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I reject the notion that this article ought to reflect the views of the LDS Church simply because it supposedly has twelve million members. Certainly more than twelve million people world-wide have heard the story of the First Vision and have rejected it out of hand. If nose-counting means anything, then skeptics (who include virtually all American historians—that is, professional experts in the subject of American history) vastly outnumber believers and the WP:UNDUE argument gets stood on its head.--John Foxe 19:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

John, two POVs don't make NPOV. ;^) The edit I think you were talking about was by a newbie. I've sent them a welcomenpov message.

I don't think the article should only present the LDS view, but as mentioned above, since the article is about a belief, it should describe the belief. It should also present all significant sides of the issue as well. I think by leading off with a description of what the First Vision is, followed by a description of the different versions (in a balanced NPOV manner) would help a reader understand the topic and understand what adherents believe. Next should deal with how the various sects interpreted the event, followed by a list of the criticisms, perceived inconsistencies, etc. would help the reader understand why others don't accept this as a fact. IMHO, the way the article reads now, it is hard to see the forest for the trees. A statement about the event is followed by commentary on various objections which is repeated over and over most likely confuses people.

I don't think the proposed arrangement gives an advantage to either side. (If I thought it did, I wouldn't be in favor of it.) An uninformed reader has problems understanding your objections just as much as they have problems understanding what it is you are objecting to. Too much point/counter-point ends up about as useful as talk radio. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, John Foxe, the two paragraphs I added on Joseph Smith were short, terse, and very neutral until you dumped vitriol on them. If you want to bash Joseph Smith, please go to one of the Joseph Smith pages. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I proposed an outline, you ignored it. I know you were here editing, you've left other comments on the talk page. So, after two days I started implementing the outline by adding a short, very neutral section on Joseph Smith. It didn't say he was a saint or a sinner. It says he was from a poor family, not educated, I referred the reader to the Early life of Joseph Smith, Jr. article for more info. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained my WP:UNDUE concerns at least six different times here on the talk page. You ignored me completely until I started editing, you have never responded to the WP:UNDUE issue. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

So, now that you're here, I'll try it again. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The world can be divided up into groups relative to the official version of the First Vision. These groups are presented in descending order of size, that is, from largest to smallest:

1. Those who have never heard of it.
2. Those who have heard of it, but haven't read it, and thus don't have an informed opinion.
3. Those who have read it and believe it is true.
4. Those who have read it and believe it is false.
5. Those who have read it but haven't formed an opinion.

"...more than twelve million people world-wide have heard the story of the First Vision and have rejected it out of hand." If you did a random poll and asked: "Have you ever heard of the First Vision?" I think that most would say no. If you asked the same people: "Do you believe that Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith?" most would say no, therefore, their opinion about the First Vision is uninformed, therefore it isn't a POV that belongs in Wikipedia. Based on your argument we had better get to work overhauling the Death and resurrection of Jesus article. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

12,000,000+ LDS know what the First Vision is about and believe it to be true. Most of them don't claim to be historians, their belief isn't based on debate or learning, it is based on Faith. This is a POV that should be represented in the article. It appears to be the majority POV, so it should be given prominence. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"...skeptics (who include virtually all American historians—that is, professional experts in the subject of American history) vastly outnumber believers..." You are saying that there are more than 12,000,000 experts in American history who know enough about the First Vision to have an expert opinion on it. I doubt it. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Even among the real academic historians who are familiar with the First Vision I doubt if many would agree that the factual information available proves that the First Vision didn't occur. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The really odd thing, John Foxe, is that you seem to think that the most important thing is to argue about whether it happened this year, or that year, or whether there was one angel, or many angels, or Jesus Christ, or Jesus Christ and God the Father. These things matter, yet I think even the different Latter Day Saint movement denominations would agree that the most important thing is that it happened. 74s181 03:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it is impossible to verify whether or not Joseph Smith saw God and Jesus Christ in 1820, the details of his various accounts are indeed the most important means for assisting readers in judging whether or not the Vision actually occurred.--John Foxe 15:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As the article currently stands, the reader gets two sentences in the introduction to answer the who, what, why, where, when, how of the First Vision before you start trying to prove that IT didn't happen. So, what is IT that didn't happen? Currently the article says very little about IT. That's what needs to change. 74s181 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

"...assisting readers in judging whether or not the Vision actually occurred." Yes, but what is the First Vision, what is IT that did or did not occur? 12,000,000+ LDS agree that the 1838 account is IT, or IOW, the most accurate description, therefore, that is the account that deserves the most attention. 74s181 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, it seems clear that even you think that the 1838 account is IT, on 26 Oct 2006 you added the "Difficulties with the Canonized 1838 Account" section, apparently, this is the only account with any 'difficulties' or 'Historical problems'. If it walks like POV, smells like POV, and quacks like POV, well, I don't think it is a goose. 74s181 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We need to explain what the First Vision is. In order to do that we need to choose one of the accounts. 12,000,000+ LDS believe that the 1838 account is the most important account, and apparently, so do you, John Foxe. 74s181 16:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No facts were harmed in the restructuring of this article.

I did a major restructuring this evening, pretty much follows the outline I previously proposed. Probably still some anti-LDS POV in some of the account summaries, but the structure is there, most of the bigger chunks of criticism have beem moved and reorganized. All original facts retained, most original verbiage retained, NO FACTS WERE HARMED IN THE RESTRUCTURING OF THIS ARTICLE.<g> 74s181 03:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I like what you did. Great job! Thanks!

I especially like the fact that people can understand all the factors - the big picture, the individual versions, as well as the controversies ... all clearly labeled and easily available. Thanks again! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I've reverted to the version of a week ago because the current reworking was egregious and done only to promote the view of the LDS Church.--John Foxe 11:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested in the notion of differentiating "contemporary beliefs," but in my opinion, as that section appeared, it was a lot of words with little content. If there are true differences between LDS branches, these should be emphasized; otherwise, the whole business is footnote material.--John Foxe 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

John, I'm sorry, but I think your actions were uncalled for without any discussion. I have restored what you reverted, and hope that you participate in this discussion instead of remaining silent and then making whatever changes you feel are appropriate.

Picture this - you are asked to speak to a group about why you think the First Vision is wrong. The audience doesn't know anything about the First Vision, and so when you start to explain the problems, they haven't a clue about what you are saying. Furthermore, each time you start to say something, we interrupt and explain why your objection is wrong. How do you think you would feel? Do you think the audience would have any idea what we are arguing about? Well, that is basically what the original version of this article was like.

The new structure was organized like a debate - argument, rebuttal, and counter - Mormons explained what they believed the First Vision to be, followed by you getting up and explaining why you thought we were wrong, followed by Mormons explaining why your arguments aren't correct.

The reason that the Mormons speak first is because they are the only ones who can explain what they think the First Vision is. You then get the floor to speak your mind without interruption. The counter at the end is because you might raise issues that aren't covered in the original description.

For this to be NPOV, everybody has to agree to the rules of the debate, namely that each segment is uninterrupted by the other side. Since this is an article instead of an actual debate, each side can go back and rephrase things to counter statements the other side makes later.

I suggest the following organization, which is pretty much the current state of the article:

• A statement of the LDS view of First Vision
• A statement about why non-Mormons don't believe it
• A rebuttal limited to points made during the opposing view that aren't covered by the original statement.

Ideally, the last section would be missing, unless the opposing view introduced issues that aren't deemed appropriate for the first presentation (e.g., too much detail, would muddy the waters, etc.)

Hopefully we can discuss this and prevent an edit war. John, I'm counting on you to present an honest reason why the above outline isn't satisfactory. Unless, of course, you agree with my great wisdom. ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 12:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with an opening section that describes the canonical First Vision story so long as it does not contain long quotations from the BoM, which are both unencyclopedic and off-putting to the reader. I oppose any attempt to divide the article into back-and-forth statements by "believers" and "critics." These are not helpful categories. (For instance, where would you put COGDEN ?) My objective is to insure that historical facts are the focus here and that they are not swamped or sandbagged by faith-promoting verbiage. But I'm also hopeful that we can prevent an edit war.--John Foxe 20:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that no section of the debate should attempt to persuade the reader in any direction. That is the essential nature of NPOV writing. The division between back-and-forth sections is to help the reader understand the various points of the argument. (Mormons say X, while non-Mormons say Y.) An individual may well contribute to both sides of the argument. As you have hopefully noticed by now, there are many LDS editors who are aware of serious questions about certain aspects of a wide variety of issues, and make no attempt to cover them up.

I do feel, however, that separating the two sides within the article will help both sides get their points across. Otherwise, as in the example above, one (or both) of us will be constantly interrupted while we are trying to explain our viewpoint.

I also agree that lengthy quotes of scripture isn't necessary, other than those pertaining to the First Vision. Certainly, long quotes from the Book of Mormon doesn't make sense. A general description with the details in footnotes might be fine, but in general, I see no reason to quote the Book of Mormon when talking about the First Vision. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

As I've often said, men of good will can usually reach practical compromise on Wikipedia, and I think we're headed towards an understanding. Nevertheless, notice the logical difficulty with the statement, "Mormons say X, while non-Mormons say Y. An individual may well contribute to both sides of the argument." One cannot be both a Mormon and a non-Mormon at the same time—which is why I oppose back-and-forth statements. COGDEN doesn't fit the theoretical pattern, and I would certainly defer to his extensive knowledge of Mormon minutiae. We need only present documented facts here and let the reader make his own decision. I believe the historical section as it stands does that and does it well.--John Foxe 10:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a lot of time this morning, so I'll try to be short and to the point. 74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"...current reworking was egregious and done only to promote the view of the LDS Church."

No, it was not. We've been preparing for this change for some time. I provided an outline a full week before the restructuring. No negative comments were received. 74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I did my best to not delete any facts during the restructuring. I just rearranged them. If any were deleted by accident, it would have easy enough to copy them from the older version and paste them in the appropriate place. John Foxe, on the other hand, deleted many useful facts in his reversion and subsequent re-reversion. 74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"I'm interested in the notion of differentiating "contemporary beliefs," but in my opinion, as that section appeared, it was a lot of words with little content. If there are true differences between LDS branches, these should be emphasized; otherwise, the whole business is footnote material."

This is interesting, because I feel similarly about the differentiating of the accounts. I think a simple table would do the job and take up a lot less space. But Wikipedia is not paper, so there is no reason to delete either of these subtopics. 74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"I have no problem with an opening section that describes the canonical First Vision story so long as it does not contain long quotations from the BoM..."

I checked this morning, I couldn't find any long quotations from the BoM in the version of the article before you reverted. I agree that long quotations from the BoM are not appropriate in this article. 74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. I meant Joseph Smith-History.--John Foxe 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"I oppose any attempt to divide the article into back-and-forth statements by "believers" and "critics.""

I agree with this, that is why I structured the article the way I did, with a 'clean' description of the who, what, why, where, when, how of the first vision at the begining, followed by the historical facts, and the criticism of the First Vision based on those facts.74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that we should revert to the version of 12:33, 13 May 2007 because the last John Foxe version deleted many important facts, including the essential who, what, why, where, when, and how of the First Vision. Also, the John Foxe version provided a summary of the First Vision that doesn't represent the canonized account. Yes, I followed the ref and see that it is from TCoJCoLdS website, but I have been a member of this church all my life and have never seen that particular verbiage used anywhere else. 74s181 13:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you more Catholic than the pope?--John Foxe 18:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What is this supposed to mean? WP:NPA This is treading on very thin ice here. --Robert Horning 07:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a figure of speech, for a definition, see here.--John Foxe 21:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the interpretations from the factual sections and gathered all the controversies and interpretations into its own section. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the 12:33, 13 May 2007 version. I appologize to all those who have edited in good faith since that time, but I proposed the reversion yesterday, no one objected. 74s181 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know why read the discussion for the last several weeks. 74s181 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The only person who has objected to the restructuring is John Foxe, he has ignored every effort to discuss changes to the article and arbitrarily reverted when those changes were made. So, John Foxe, do you want to discuss it here? 74s181 12:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Story of the First Vision

Although I don't feel strongly about the matter, I added back the quotation from the LDS Church in the belief that it was important to quote an official source early so as to underline the importance of the First Vision for the Church.

I also rewrote a footnote in an attempt to avoid the unclear pronoun reference "this is."--John Foxe 21:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reversion2

Gentlemen, we are headed toward an edit war. I oppose the creation of any section that separates "criticism" from the historical record.--John Foxe 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

John, that is your choice, but I would hope you will work towards a consensus. Historical records pertain to facts, while criticism pertains to opinions. It is important to keep the two separate. As I mentioned in the section that got reverted (and might get added back), much of the dispute involves different interpretations of the same facts. To try to introduce criticism in with historical facts tends toward POV or totally confuses the uniformed reader, who (IMHO) should be the target audience. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an edit war only if you want it to be here. My concern is that by infusing the whole of the article with critical commentary about the validity of this event, that it introduces a very strong POV bias that this event never really happened. It seems as though you insist that your POV is the only one that is valid here, and that you have been engaging in wholesale reversions to encourage this POV, throwing out changes that are even neutral to the sections that you are objecting to. This is not a postive method for trying to collaboratively write articles of this nature in a forum like Wikipedia. For some suggestions about critical commentaries in Wikipedia articles, see Wikipedia:Criticism. --Robert Horning 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If any historical material is incorrect, then we can correct it together as gentlemen. If there are opinions masquerading as facts, we can fix them too. But I stand firm against any attempt at separating inconvenient historical facts by labeling them "criticism" offered by "critics." Truth is not criticism, and it is not POV.--John Foxe 21:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Truth... is not POV" From WP:NPOV dispute: "Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral." 74s181 04:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted Robert Horning's edits because they are unexplained. How can the caption be POV when Joseph Smith said that the figures were exactly alike and their representation in the stained glass is of two personages that differ?

As for the distinctions between the various branches of Mormonism, the differences need to be pointed up. Brevity and clarity are also virtues.--John Foxe 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In passing, this discussion is up to 178 KB; would you all agree to archive some of this?--John Foxe 21:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Gentlemen, we are headed toward an edit war."

Headed towards? That's funny. 74s181 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"I oppose the creation of any section that separates "criticism" from the historical record."

Is that your only objection? You're ok with the restructuring of the article as previously outlined, as long as we don't separate criticism from the 'historical record'? So, all we have to do is define 'historical record'. 74s181 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with inconvenient historical facts. I have a problem with interpretations of history being presented as factual. The facts go in one place, the interpretation of those facts go someplace else. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with my edits? They weren't written by you John? I removed the extra highly critical commentary within an image caption and simplified it to get straight to the point of what a caption is supposed to be: A very brief description to explain exactly what the image is about. This is precisely the POV that you are pushing here that I am critical about. And you didn't both to see anything else that I put into this article.

I guess that suggesting this event is also called a "grove experience" by a substantial number of adherents of the LDS faith (non-LDS Church mind you) is irrelevant to this article? Or that explicit mention of the modern attitude toward this event by several denominations within the LDS movement is something pushing a POV?

Such blatant use of the reversion tool is IMHO going way too far, and is not appropriate in any situation under these sort of conditions to made modest improvements that improve not only the NPOV problems of this article but also get closer to the point of what exactly is claimed to have happened here with this event. This article is not called Criticisms of the First Vision or Accounts of the First Vistion, but it is simply called the First Vision. We are trying to write an article that is primarily to introduce what exactly this is or claimed to be, not to dive into the minutae of all of the controversial elements as if this is a theological discussion of this event among hard core scholars of this topic that already are familiar with the basics of this topic.

Furthermore, I will note here that I did not do a full reversion as you did, but merely made a few changes that I felt were made in good faith to help improve the readability of this article, and to add in content that would truly be an introduction to this article as is according to Wikipedia standards. Removing this content wholesale as if I was doing blatant vandalism here is not only couter productive but even damaging to Wikipedia as a whole. I am drawing the line in the sand here, and while I will not revert honest good faith edits of yours John, I will join in the effort to revert your reversions unless you are willing to be intellectually honest and try to cooperate with us in developing this article according to the basic pillars of Wikipedia. Having an article that is written with a neutral point of view is explicitly one of those pillars. --Robert Horning 02:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I vote no on the question of archiving any of the talk page at this time. I want everyone to see the full history of this discussion. 74s181 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

We've got trouble!

For your amusement, with apologies to Meredith Willson. 74s181 05:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, either you're closing your eyes

To a situation you do not wish to acknowledge

Or you are not aware of the caliber of disaster indicated

By the presence of TRUE BELIEVER in your community.

Ya got trouble, my friend, right here,

I say, trouble right here in Wiki City.

Why sure I'm Wiki editor,

Certainly mighty proud I say

I'm always mighty proud to say it.

I consider that the hours I spend

With a mouse in my hand are golden.

Help you cultivate horse sense

And a cool head and a keen eye.

Ever take and try to shape

An informative, neutral article

From a blatantly slanted POV rant?

But just as I say,

It takes judgement, brains, and maturity to post

a neutral fact

I say that any boob kin cite

a fact out of context and spin POV.

And they call that sloth.

The first big step on the road

To the depths of deg-ra-Day--

I say, first, a few undiscussed deletes,

Then a revert war.

An' the next thing ya know,

You’re in a raging debate

Or fighting a sock puppet.

And list'nin to some anonymous IP “True Believer”

Hearin' him tell about Witnessing.

Not an expert opinion, no!

But a personal opinion, or out and out Original Research!

Like to see some wannabe expert

Citing someone’s personal website? Make your blood boil?

Well, I should say.

Friends, lemme tell you what I mean.

Ya got one, two, three, I said three reverts in a day.

Reverts that mark the diff'rence

Between a gentlemen and a Bum,

With a capital "B,"

And that rhymes with "T" and that stands for TRUTH!

And all week long your Wiki City

Admins'll be frittern away,

I say your Admins'll be frittern!

Frittern away their noontime, suppertime, worktime too!

Fix the biased Point of View,

Never mind gittin' Dandelions pulled

Or the screen door patched or the beefsteak pounded.

Never mind gassin’ up the car

'Til your teenage son is ‘stranded’ with his date

On a Saturday night and that's trouble,

Oh, yes we got lots and lots a' trouble.

I'm thinkin' of the first-time editors,

Wide-eyed newbies, peekin' at the talk

Page while the editors rant, look, folks!

Right here in Wiki City.

Trouble with a capital "T"

I said a capital “T” and that stands for TRUTH!

Now, I know all you folks are the right kinda editors.

I'm gonna be perfectly frank.

Would ya like to know what kinda conversation goes

On while they're loafin' around that Talk page?

They're tryin' out hypophora, tryin' out hyperbole,

Tryin' out procatalepsis like forensic Feends!

And braggin' all about

How they're gonna invoke the Churchillian Defense.

One fine night, they ignore the talk page,

Throwin’ POV in the article!

Libertine men and Scarlet women!

And slanted facts, shameless conclusions

That'll grab your son and your daughter

With the arms of a jungle animal instink!

Mass-staria!

Friends, the casual revert is the devil's playground!

People:

Trouble, oh we got trouble,

Right here in Wiki City!

With a capital "T"

I said a capital “T”

And that stands for TRUTH,

That stands for TRUTH.

We've surely got trouble!

Right here in Wiki City,

Right here!

Gotta figger out a way

To get to that Neutral Point of View!

Trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble, trouble...

Harold:

Admins of Wiki City!

Heed the warning before it's too late!

Watch for the tell-tale sign of corruption!

The moment someone edits in good faith,

Does some POV warrior revert without discussion?

Is there POV criticism all over the talk page?

An editor acting like he owns the article?

Is he ignoring attempts to discuss changes on the talk page?

Are certain words creeping into his conversation?

Words like 'Truth?"

And 'cited historical facts?"

Well, if so my friends,

Ya got trouble,

Right here in Wiki city!

With a capital "T"

I said a capital “T”

And that stands for TRUTH.

We've surely got trouble!

Right here in Wiki City!

Remember the Maine, Plymouth Rock and the Golden Rule!

Oh, we've got trouble.

We're in terrible POV trouble.

That ill-considered revert is a devil's tool!

Oh yes we got trouble, POV trouble!

With a capital "P"! That rhymes with "T”!

And that stands for TRUTH!!!

In case anyone didn't get it, the point I'm trying to make is that Wikipedia is NOT about TRUTH. It is about FACTS, presented in a NEUTRAL fashion. When dealing with a controversial topic like this one there are many facts, some contradictory, all should be heard. Add religion to the equation and we have to recognize that BELIEFS are also important facts and deserve similar treatment. 74s181 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this particular topic is that there are so few historical facts relative to the belief facts. There certainly aren't enough facts to 'prove' what did or did not happen to Joseph Smith, Jr. that beautiful spring morning. We have Joseph's statements, but even here we are talking about belief, and yes, the statements are not perfectly consistent. I have heard anti-LDS say that Joseph actually did have a vision but it was a vision of Satan. Joseph wrote that he saw Jesus Christ and God the Father, and 12,000,000 members of TCoJCoLdS believe this is true. This is a fact, a rather important one, I think. 74s181 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If we're going to talk about TRUTH, well, clearly, the TRUTH is that God the Father and Jesus Christ did in fact appear to the boy Joseph. I'm sure that some will disagree with my view of TRUTH, they have their own opinion about the TRUTH in this matter. I agree with John Foxe that there can be only ONE TRUTH. Different people can have different opinions about what the ONE TRUTH is, these opinions are FACTS. The genius of Wikipedia is that the rules allow us to peacefully coexist by allowing opinions about the ONE TRUTH while excluding the TRUTH itself. That is, if enough people agree on a particular view of the TRUTH, and if we can find some 'expert' who comments on this view, then we can include it in the article. 74s181 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But when someone starts talking about TRUTH as opposed to opinions about TRUTH, then we need to be very careful. 74s181 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Truth is worth fighting for

I'm certain that I hold the high ground here.

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what I can do.” Edward Everett Hale (1822-1909)--John Foxe 14:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John, you are over the line again. I reverted your revert.

The issue is not "truth" here, it is balance. Nobody here is trying to hide the "truth". We are trying to write a NPOV article.

The problem with "truth" is that each of us has our own version of what that TRUTH is. I think my beliefs are true, while you think they are false. How do we determine what is the true truth? We can't. The problem is not because one side is denying facts, but rather than each person interprets the "facts" to fit their belief system. This is quite different than discussing some scientific or mathematical principle. I totally understand why you think the First Vision is bogus. My brother tells me that I am going to hell because I'm a Mormon on a regular basis. He is convinced that he is right and I am wrong. I, on the other hand disagree and think he is wrong and I am right.

The goal of NPOV articles is to present all sides of a controversial topic in such a way that a neutral person can understand the issues and make their own decision. It is improper to try to convince somebody, nor is it proper to present facts in a biased way.

If you were to actually participate in the discussions here on the talk page, we could make some progress. However, waiting some period of time and then trying to reset the article back to your favorite version will get us nowhere. Point out where you think POV issues still exist. It is very difficult to write NPOV because it is too easy to assume that what everyone else agrees with what you think are the "facts." IMHO, a true NPOV article is one that neither side is happy with, but both can live with.

I do not want ANY POV in this article. Pro- or Anti- Mormon. If you point out a section that you think is POV and explain why, we can work towards a resolution. If you keep reverting back to the same old version, you are running the risk 3RRR. Please don't do that. I am counting on you to provide balance in this article. You have a wealth of knowledge about this topic, and I want to see us work together. But that takes a dialog, not an edit war.

Maybe you think it is lunacy for a group of people to believe in a religion that is based on a common criminal who was killed by a mob. And yet, Christians all over the world do just that.

It is up to you, John, to decide if you want to work with us. I am hoping you choose wisely. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted again because I prefer to work from the earlier, better written version of the article. As you said, "If you point out a section that you think is POV and explain why, we can work towards a resolution." Truth is absolutely the issue here, and I will stand by the current version of the article unless you can explain what is POV about it. (Please take it slowly, preferably sentence by sentence.)--John Foxe 15:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Facts and interpretations

I have no problem with inconvenient historical facts. I have a problem with interpretations of history being presented as factual. The facts go in one place, the interpretation of those facts go someplace else. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 01:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem with separating "facts" from "interpretations," Bill. Suppose I should decide to create a new page, Authorship of the Book of Mormon, with the POV that Joseph Smith is the author. A few inconvenient facts stand in my path: Smith had little education, and the book was completed with remarkable speed. If I wanted to ride my hobby rather than create a NPOV article, I would take care to mention the inconvenient facts only at the end of the article under the heading "Criticism," and begin the section with the sentence, "LDS apologists say that Joseph Smith had minimal education." No lies are told; but I have effectively marginalized truth by suggesting that Smith's limited education is simply the opinion of "LDS apologists," not a historical fact.--John Foxe 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Take a look at the new intro, and tell me what you think. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the paragraph unnecessary. And of course, I especially dislike the use of the word "critic." Could we agree to avoid "critic" and "criticism" in this article?--John Foxe 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try to avoid the word "critic", but I must repeat that in scholarly works, it is a well established and accepted word (along with apologist). What npov word would you like to see in its place?

I must admit I think the paragraph should be there. Without it, the intro leads a reader to believe it was an actual event, and there is no hint of any of the disputes involved in the topic. I just hadn't noticed the pov balance during my first read. Would you have any problems if I added that paragraph back in. Using, of course, the agreed upon substitute for "critic." wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 16:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt to find common ground here. Can we just say that belief in the First Vision is a faith-claim and leave it at that? Let the reader encounter the evidence for himself without the interposition of those nasty critics.

As for the version from which to work: the current version has been vetted time after time over a period of nine months by both Mormons and non-Mormons. It's also more concise and better written. It makes more sense to delineate its problems than to work from a wretched mish-mash created last week.--John Foxe 18:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem for the faith-claim phrase, although I think the new paragraph I had added should be returned to the end of the intro. I think it provides an introduction to some of the reasons others doubt its reality. Clearly, only Mormons believe in any of the stuff that Joseph Smith said, because the only reason to believe in it is because you think he is a prophet. At best, non-Mormons could consider him a religious philosopher; at worst, a con-man. ;^)

As for what version to start with, I am open. I think it would be best if we discuss any major changes before making them. 74, you might consider creating a copy of the article in your sandbox, and then point us to revised sections you feel should be made. John, you could do the same. Simple tweaks can be made to the article, but before anyone makes a major change, I think it best if we discuss it first and get a consensus. Maybe StormRider or Cogden can tell us an easier way to do that. (For example, can't we create a sub-page here on the talk page so that we can work on a section until everyone most of us are happy? ;^) wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

See what you think of the additional sentence I added. It implies controversy without using words like "fraud," "hallucinations,"—and especially "critics."

I would also like to make clear that I am not arguing for religious truth but historical or courtroom truth, the sort of evidence on which we all make decisions every day.--John Foxe 19:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked it a bit. Feel free to revert or further tweak, in the rare case where you don't agree with my brilliant writing. ;^)

I think the next step is to identify the areas that people have problems. Hopefully we can come up with a framework and set of general guidelines that we can all agree on. Franky, I have a headache trying to follow all the reverting, so I will try to read the entire article later tonight and then probably comment more. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 19:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe what we have done in the last few minutes is a model for what should be done to the entire article, taking the sentences one by one and shaking them out individually to check for POV, meanwhile keeping an eye on conciseness and literacy. The tendency is just to add and add to these articles; I always rejoice when I can cut and lose nothing with the deletion. Clarity and brevity are the mark of writers who know their craft. Obfuscaters are wordy.--John Foxe 20:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. It is what I call "content creep" people are just dying to display that they know some bit of trivia that can be added to the article. (It gets really bad over in Final Fantasy (series) ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"...before anyone makes a major change, I think it best if we discuss it first and get a consensus." I have been trying to do that, but John Foxe has demonstrated that he doesn't respond to anything except edits to the article, and usually he just reverts. So, no, I think I'll pass on that idea. 74s181 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"...taking the sentences one by one and shaking them out individually to check for POV..." It's kind of interesting how when John Foxe first started editing this article nine months ago he didn't follow this policy, but now that he has beaten all other editors into submission and reshaped the article in his own image he is highly resistant to anything other than minor, incremental change. 74s181 22:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we have turned a corner with John, so I would encourage patience all around. (74, did you have Lesson 9 on "Forgiveness" in Priesthood last Sunday like I did? ;^) Let us all take a deep breath and try to wipe away all the negative feelings and get in touch with our inner selves ... oops! Sorry, I reverted back to my hippie days in the '60s. Okay, let's buckle down and get this article in shape! Are you with me, troops? ;^) -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 22:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's try again.

Here's a thought for you, Bill, 2 Nephi 28:20-22. Just remember how John Foxe has used COGDEN's past participation to prove how fair and NPOV the present article is.

But, yes, I had lesson 9. So, I'm going to try to ignore John Foxe's eggregious past behavior and give it another shot. It isn't easy. I spend hours trying to explain my concerns or do quality edits, but it only takes him a few seconds to revert. If he engages in a real discussion here and quits reverting my additions to the article then I will forgive him, even if he doesn't apologize directly. That's right, I'm not perfect yet. I'm going to exercise good faith, I'm going to wait and see. <g> 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of my criticisms of the current version of the article. Everyone should feel free to comment on each point inline. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Half of the current lead is criticism. I think it is appropriate to acknowledge that there is criticism of the FV and maybe mention 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.74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

All references to the 'what' of the First Vision have been gradually (carefully?)removed from the lead. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The title of the first section - "Story of the First Vision" bothers me, I feel like the word 'Story' implies that it is fiction. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any attachment to "story"; I just couldn't think of anything else at the moment.--John Foxe 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first section after the lead 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. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the quote from Gordon B. Hinckley at the end of the article would be a more appropriate statement on the significance of the FV than the excerpt from the webtract that is currently presented. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

There are maybe eight words in the first section about Joseph Smith, Jr. 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. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The entire section "Date of the First Vision" is criticism. This is a valid POV and belongs in the article, but it should be appropriately labeled as criticism. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The factual aspects of the different accounts would be more appropriately presented as a table, separate from the criticism. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The critical analysis of the accounts should be moved to a section with the word 'criticism' in the title. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The section "Historical problems with the 1838 Account" is pure criticism, let's label it as such. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The section title "Use of the First Vision by LDS Churches" is a misnomer. This section should present what different LDS movement denominations believe concerning the FV, but it is just more criticism. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the last section is almost a repeat of criticism given in the lead:

"There is no reference to the 1838 canonical First Vision story in any published material from the 1830s"

Well, of course there are no references to it in the 1830's, it wasn't written until 1838, and I don't think it was published until later. If this is an example of material that "...has been vetted time after time over a period of nine months by both Mormons and non-Mormons" then clearly the entire article is fair game for total rewrite. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with the article, facts twisted and stretched to prove a particular TRUTH. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But I don't really want to rewrite the whole article. I just want to reorganize it. Here is an updated outline for reorganization.

Historical context

Joseph Smith, Jr.

Earlier Smith family visions

Revivalism in the Palmyra area

The First Vision

The Question

The Answer

The Vision

Reaction to the Vision

Contemporary beliefs

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Community of Christ

Church of Christ (Temple Lot)

(others as we can find citable info)

Accounts of the First Vision

Possible tellings of the account prior to 1830

Possible 1830 allusion

Joseph Smith's 1832 account

Oliver Cowdery's 1834 account

Joseph Smith's 1835 account

Joseph Smith's 1838 account

Orson Pratt's 1840 account

Joseph Smith's 1842 Wentworth letter

William Smith's 1883 and 1884 accounts

Criticism

Inconsistencies

Content

Dates

Lack of Corroboration

Please respond with constructive suggestions to improve this outline or an alternate outline. 74s181 01:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I like the outline as it is.

I don't believe any introduction to Joseph Smith is necessary, especially because to be NPOV, it will have to include scrying and lying. There's no need to introduce that nastiness here.

I'm opposed to introducing large chunks of Joseph Smith-History to the text. This is an encyclopedia. Links to Wikisource are fine. Ask yourself how often you read block quotations in books and magazines.

It's fine to discuss the differences in how the various Restoration Movement churches treat the First Vision, but the distinctions should be pointed, and the section should be brief.

The word "criticism" should not be used anywhere, especially as a section heading. Facts are facts. They are not criticism because they don't align with the teachings of the LDS Church. They just are.--John Foxe 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm almost never in Priesthood, since I teach YM. ;^) Anyway, I like your outline, and as I said before I liked the way you reworked it. I would like to resurrect that version into a work area and then ask John to spell out what problems he has with it.

I do agree with you and John. The current intro is too POV, but the intro you created lacked acknowledgment of various criticisms. I think we should add a paragraph to the end that illustrates that there is considerable controversy over the event. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 02:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

When I revamped the lead a couple weeks ago I included a statement that there was disagreement, John Foxe reverted, he later made it clear that he was opposed to the label 'criticism' or anything like it. 74s181 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If John Foxe doesn't respond to these comments then I will begin reworking the article into the new outline. I won't just copy the old version, I'll rework the latest edits. But I'll do it more incrementally this time. Unfortunately, the article will be ugly for a while. 74s181 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John, we are still waiting for an alternate word for "critic". I used "skeptic" which might be just as bad for you. Frankly, I don't see the problem, but I'm more than happy to come up with an alternate vocabulary if it helps the article. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right that the word "skeptic" is just as problematic to me as the word "critic." My dispute is not with the words themselves but with the attempt to label positions as those of "believers" or "critics." In opposition to Les, I don't believe anything should be labeled criticism. I feel strongly that if the sentences are neutral, the readers can make their own decisions. As you see by my revisions, I've even dropped phrases and sentences that might be considered POV rather than have them tagged as "critical" or "skeptical."--John Foxe 09:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John Foxe, clearly we disagree on many things. What makes your opinion more valid than mine? You seem to believe that you "...hold the high ground here", simply because you have been editing this article longer than I have, but many people disagree with you, the talk page is full of their criticism. 74s181 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What do we do? How do disputes like this get resolved on Wikipedia? My feeling is that they don't. Take a look at the article history since John Foxe started editing, people come here, try to work on the article, get tired of his tactics and leave. As a Christian, I feel like I should walk away as well, but I would have to walk away from Wikipedia as the subject of this article is too important, it is foundational to everything else I want to edit. 74s181 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

So I'm going to focus on two things and try to reach a consensus. This article is about a belief. There isn't sufficient historical evidence to prove or disprove the belief, and even if there were, Wikipedia isn't about TRUTH, it isn't about drawing conclusions. 74s181 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Therefore, I insist that those who believe in the belief should get to speak first and explain what they believe, with appropriate citations and in a NPOV manner but also without interference. 74s181 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I also insist that those who reject the belief should speak last and that their criticism of the belief should be labeled as criticism. 74s181 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss these two foundational issues until we reach a consensus. 74s181 12:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Les, my opinion is not more valid than yours. For purposes of this article our beliefs make no difference at all; believers and skeptics stand on equal footing. What we are interested in here is historical fact. I hold the high moral ground not because of seniority at this site but because I'm determined that historical truth will prevail, that it will be obvious to all readers, and that it will not be encumbered by weasel words or a deluge of faith-promoting verbiage. True, we can never prove what, if anything, Joseph Smith experienced in 1820; but we can say, 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 vision. It is on the basis of this sort of historical evidence that people are daily convicted of serious crimes.--John Foxe 13:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

John, we all agree that the facts should be included. My concern is that sometimes the facts are presented in such a way to lead the reader to some conclusion that they may not arrive at if the facts are presented in a different way. A good example is the caption on the illustration. How does an artist's interpretation of an event have anything to do with the article? That is a lot different than talking about variations between sources. Some accounts also say that the two personages were brighter than the sun, but the illustration doesn't depict that, either. Should that be added? It is a stained glass window, not a source for the event. -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 14:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I concede unequivocally. How's that for being agreeable?--John Foxe 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! -- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) ^(Talk) 15:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I want to try to clarify the difference between 'fact' and 'criticism'. Facts are facts, but criticism occurs when facts are arranged to prove a critical POV. 74s181 00:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example of facts.

Summary of the 1832 Account

... (material on the 1832 account)

...Smith stated that his own searching of the Scriptures had led him to the conclusion that mankind had "apostatized from the true and liveing faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the the Gospel of Jesus Christ as recorded in the new testament."

... (more material on the 1832 account)

Summary of the 1838 Account

... (material on the 1838 account)

... Joseph wrote: "...at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong"

... (more material on the 1838 account)

Here is an example of criticism.

Possible historical problems with the 1838 Account

... (possible historical problems)

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.

Same facts, but when they are put together like this to lead the reader to a conclusion then the result is criticism. Yes, I realize that in this particular case the conclusion was probably written in a book by an expert. The only thing publication changes is that the statement is not original research, it is a citable fact, but it is still criticism. 74s181 00:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

And obviously some (most) writers of books about this topic have a very strong point of view that they are writing from. While I don't think we can completely eliminate the POV issues about this topic, I think they can be minimized, and to have at least as a goal something written toward NPOV principles. This does not mean that a couple of contributors have been able to reach a compromise and that compromise has "stood the test of time".

Perhaps I'm missing something here in this defintion, but if you can read an article and everybody reading it thinks the has a POV different from their own, it is getting close. At the same time, you need to avoid weasel words, and root out other issues related to having a point of view. I hope that this and other problems with this article can be fixed. --Robert Horning 04:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Robert has raised a good point. In this particular example, isn't the word "Possible" in the section title really a weasel word? The problem with the criticism in that section is that it is not attributed. I don't mean that the statements aren't cited, I mean that the POV that there are "problems" is stated as fact without being attributed to any group who believes this POV. 74s181 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: 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.

A fact would be, 'Joseph wrote X in account Y'. 74s181 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

An opinion would be, 'Joseph wrote X in account Y, but contradicted himself when he wrote A in account B, therefore, neither account can be trusted.' So, how do we handle this? 74s181 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: 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.

Let's see, who would we attribute this POV to? I suppose we could say "So and so says such and such in their book...", but that could get rather wordy. Maybe grouping statements that relate to a particular POV together would work, now we need a label for the group that espouses this particular POV, hey, how about "critics"!?!?! 74s181 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So, is it enough to say 'Critics believe that the contradictions in the accounts suggests that Joseph was a liar'? No, we have to provide the other side of the argument. 74s181 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: But it is not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. It is also generally important to give the facts about the reasons behind the views, and to make it clear who holds them. It is often best to cite a prominent representative of the view.

So, IMHO, WP:NPOV requires us to identify the source of criticism. We can either identify individual writers or we can group them together as critics or we can use some other label. WP:NPOV also requires us to present apologetical responses to criticism, and identify the respondents, either individually or as apologists or with some other label. And when presenting the belief itself we must identify who believes it. 74s181 11:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless the facts contained in this article are challenged, there is no "criticism." Facts are neither apologetics nor criticism; they're just facts.

The 'facts' in the article are clearly challenged, otherwise, why would you feel the need to revert or otherwise undo most of the edits in the last nine months. The two primary opposing POVs are that some believe that the FV happened and some don't. Those who believe want to offer an explanation of what the FV is about, but keep getting "swamped or sandbagged by faith-promoting -destroying verbiage" from those who do not believe. Additionally, the non-believers or 'critics' point out "Possible historical problems" with the accounts as evidence that the FV did not happen. Those who believe disagree and say that these 'facts' do not disprove the FV.

If you seriously believe that these things are "just facts", then say it again and I will build a table containing all of the 'facts' that are used to prove the critical POV. I will then delete all of what is "...in my opinion... a lot of words with little content." The article will be much shorter when I am finished. I think you would be much less happy with that than you would be with a section with the word "Historicity" in the title.

John Foxe, you may think that I am being threatening, arbitrary, and heavy handed, but I am proposing nothing different from what you have repeatedly said and done. 74s181 00:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm defending historical truth here and sincerely believe, unless proved otherwise, that the material in this article is factual. If the facts weren't facts, they would have been deleted long ago because non-Mormons editors at this site are about as numerous as Southern Baptists at a bartenders convention. I don't deny that we have opposing views about the historicity of the First Vision. My point is that there is a difference between faith-promoting verbiage and historical truth. True, we can never prove what, if anything, Joseph Smith experienced in 1820; but we can say, 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 vision. It is on the basis of this sort of historical evidence that people are daily convicted of serious crimes.--John Foxe 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)