Talk:Joseph Smith

	This Mormonism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

"a lynch mob murdered him"/"he was murdered by a lynch mob."

The former is active voice; the latter is passive. The action is "murdered." The subject of that action is "a lynch mob." The object is "him." Subject verb object. OnTheInternetNobodyKnowsYou'reAGod (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Titles

Now I'm confused. Do we italicize the titles of Smith's books? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose so. Evil fascist^{oh noez} 17:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I should have been more clear. It's correct to italicize book titles, but books that are religious scripture are usually not Italicized to my understanding. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Early 19th century knowledge of Egyptian

That Egyptian was an unknown language in Joseph Smith's day is not quite true. Champollion had deciphered the hieroglyphic script by 1822 and his preliminary grammar and dictionary of what became known as Middle Egyptian were published by 1841, before Smith was dead. This grammar was based on existing knowledge of Coptic, a late phase of Egyptian and a language into which the biblical gospels had been translated. As most initial study of Egyptian was by French, English, and German scholars, little material on it may have yet reached the young United States. But enough to second the present article's assertion that many American scholars would have recognized the Book of Abraham could not be an Egyptian text.

Of course Mormons are well aware of the discrepancy. They hold the Book of Abraham both as scriptural and as possessing historicity, stating that although Smith's translation doesn't correspond to the hieroglyphic on the papyrus fragments involved, Smith had nonetheless received divine knowledge about Abraham's life in connection with his translation activities. An LDS view on this topic is at

LDS Church source: https://www.lds.org/topics/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

In general, refutation of doctrine seems to little affect the success of religious movements, which have no trouble accommodating the new information within their belief systems.

Regards, Jessegalebaker (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Smith not a convicted conman

First, let me play devil's advocate and quote Christopher Hitchens, who is no Mormon sympathizer:

'In March 1826 a court in Bainbridge, New York, convicted a twenty-one-year-old man of being "a disorderly person and an impostor." That ought to have been all we ever heard of Joseph Smith, who at trial admitted to defrauding citizens by organizing mad gold-digging expeditions and also to claiming to possess dark or "necromantic" powers.'

However, Hitchens is having a bit of fun (these are half-truths). From what I gather about this wiki, it has a higher purpose than that. And, Smith was not in fact actually a convicted conman. I think there ought to be enough to discuss, here, with the guy starting a religious movement, and all these people being religious nuts. The Book of Mormon and other scriptures, etc. Lots of material, very much something for RationalWiki. However, there's lots of scholarly work on early Mormon history -- do we abandon this article to the cranks?

That supposed conviction mentioned above is very disputed, -- to put it generously. Apparently, Smith was arrested, and appeared before a justice of the peace, but was not sworn in for testimony, did not have a lawyer, there was, indeed, apparently no trial per se, but only a preliminary hearing, and note that there was no sentence. Also note, that a lawyer might quibble about matters like whether we are talking about a felony or a misdemeanor or what. The accusation, along with who made it, is in fact a matter of historical dispute. Being convicted of fraud or being a conman might come with a punishment -- might even get six months jail, I don't know. Smith walked, right out of there. He was discharged w/no record. There are a few accounts of what happened, a few documents, but we're talking about some minor thing that happened long ago when Smith was 20 years old. He got arrested lots of times after that, spent a winter in jail where he nearly got killed because the order to execute him had been given (but was refused as an unlawful order by the designated executioner, because he hadn't even been charged w/anything), and then of course was ultimately killed in jail (awaiting trial for juicy accusations like treason). He had his legal problems, then. But do we really need to fabricate more? ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.137.241.63 / talk / contribs}

Good point. Edited to remove this phrase. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

He is also not a convicted terrorist nor was he ever accused, I think we should remove that. alling Joseph Smith a terrorist simply because he was arrested is an overreach and misapplication of the term, which carries specific connotations in modern discourse. The term "terrorist" typically refers to individuals or groups who use violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to achieve political goals. Joseph Smith's actions, particularly as the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), do not fit this description. Although Smith was involved in conflicts and was arrested multiple times, these incidents were often rooted in the intense religious and political tensions of the time, rather than a campaign of violence to terrorize a population. Being arrested, even multiple times, does not automatically classify someone as a terrorist. Throughout history, many prominent figures, including political leaders and civil rights activists, have been arrested for their actions, often due to the prevailing power structures or laws of their time. Labeling them as terrorists based solely on their arrests would be a gross oversimplification. In Smith's case, the arrests were related to charges like treason, illegal banking, and inciting riots, but not terrorism in the modern sense. Joseph Smith was never convicted of terrorism or any crimes that would align with the definition of terrorism. While he faced significant legal challenges and even a mob assassination, none of these events resulted in a conviction that would substantiate claims of terrorism. Without a legal conviction, it's inappropriate to retroactively label someone with such a severe and specific term. In conclusion, labeling Joseph Smith as a terrorist is not supported by historical evidence or legal precedent. His arrests and conflicts were complex and rooted in the turbulent religious and political landscape of 19th-century America, but they do not constitute terrorism. Applying the term indiscriminately to anyone who has been arrested is an oversimplification that fails to consider the nuances of history and the specific actions required to meet the definition of terrorism.LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The article does not say he's a convicted terrorist. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Still, the term "terrorist" carries meaning and connotation that is simply not accurate for Joseph Smith. I provided a reason in my edit description, but basically we shouldn't call someone a terrorist if they were never convicted, even if they were held in captivity, just as we shouldn't call inmates at Guantanamo not yet tried terrorists, it's a serious accusation you need evidence to back up. It didn't even have a citation to any source whatsoever. You might call this "counterproductive edit warring", but I suggest we follow the principle of charity towards Mr. Smith and not reverse this edit until you or someone else can provide a citation to a reliable, impartial source.--Comrade Ziegler (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am making a compromise. I am fine with it staying, but it needs a citation. --Comrade Ziegler (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

That’s why I clarified what I said. Still, using the same logic Muhammad was a terrorist, if you say acts that Joseph Smith did was a terrorist attack same thing applies to Muhammad.LuxembourgLover (talk)

Terrorism is the purview of the non-state actor. Muhammad was more properly a warlord. He was a state actor, although he didn't start off as such. Perhaps if Joseph Smith had successfully established a sustained State of Deseret... Carthage (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, sure you are right about Muhammad. However still little to no evidence that Joseph Smith was a terrorist.LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Curious omissions in life story

The article starts as a biography but seems to stop some time before the foundation of Mormonism: there is a section on his early life then it describes the various Mormon texts and skips forward to his death. Surely it should cover his revelation of the alleged truths of Mormon, his actions in the Church, and his later life in general. It's like an article on Moses which skips from Moses' childhood at the Pharoah's court to his death in the wilderness. The article Mormonism doesn't cover the church's history either. I'm aware I could write it myself, but maybe somebody with more knowledge could do something. --Annanoon (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Felon?

Does anyone have an record of Joseph Smith being convicted of a felony? I can only find a record for an illegal banking conviction in Ohio, which appears to have been a misdemeanor. If not, I'll remove it. --Comrade Ziegler (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Since no one has replied yet, I've removed it. If someone wants to reverse it, please explain why on this page. --Comrade Ziegler (talk) 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I see the part about a "possible" fraud conviction, but I don't think that's enough to put this page in that category.--Comrade Ziegler (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)