Talk:Oliver Cowdery/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Cowdery rebaptism

The article states that Cowdery met with Brigham and the Twelve at Winter Quarters in 1848. But the encampment was primarily during the winter of 1846-7. Is this a date error, or did Cowdery really meet with them there a year later? --Blainster 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

He really met with them a year later, when Brigham returned and was sustained as church president.

There is a contradiction between this page and the page on David Whitmer. In this page it says Cowdery accepted Young as successor to Joseph Smith, in that page it says he accepted David Whitmer as successor instead. One of the two pages needs correcting. --Guest 2:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

POV additions

I'm not sure what to do with the early history of the church paragraph. It is so full of POV that its ridiculous and offensive to wikipedia's attempt at academic scholarship. I've removed some items that are just plain wrong, if you 'd like me to explain why it's wrong, let me know I'll walk you through it step by step. However, more needs to be edited out. Rather than me doing it, would the original author like to try for NPOV and take a re-stab? -Visorstuff 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed the bit about the church council that excommunicated Oliver Cowdery being composed of Smith loyalists. Its like saying that the current Apostles are "smith loyalists" it doesn't really need to be said. It makes it seem like Joseph Smith ordered a mock trial or somthing, which is not the case. Excommunications are done in councils for a reason. -04 Jan 2006

View of the Hebrews

The timeline doesn't make sense. In the biography heading it talks about Ethan Smith and View of the Hebrews, the obvious implication that Cowdery gave the idea to Joseph Smith Jr. But in the next paragraph, it says that he met Smith a year before the church was founded, which would be several years after Smith claimed to receieve the Golden Plates and that Smith already established they were early writings of Native Americans. So why is the View of the Hebrews reference relevant, let alone so prominant, other than to try to persuade the reader of some connection. Just based on the first two paragraphs, the connection is disproved. So why is it still there? Bytebear 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Many Americans in the colonial and early national periods thought there might be a connection between the Hebrews and the Indians. The notion itself was not exceptional. But it's possible that Cowdery's knowledge of View of the Hebrews made a significant contribution to the final version of the Book of Mormon. Before meeting Cowdery, Smith had been poking along with the translation, and the first 116 pages were lost. Once Smith and Cowdery met, however, the whole book was transcribed in a remarkably short period, April-June, 1829, in what Bushman calls a "burst of rapid-fire translation." In any case, the connection between Cowdery and Ethan Smith is at least curious.--John Foxe 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This is POV, which is why I have amended the footnote which uses the material. To go from Ethan Smith having written the book to asserting that Cowdery had sufficient knowledge of the book to make a significant impact on the Book of Mormon is a leap of logic with no visible means of support. It is speculation and not encyclopedic fact. Even had Cowdery been aware of the book's contents, he would have had to have had a very intimate knowledge of it for it to have made such an impact as the implication that the Book of Mormon was a sudden product based on the contents of the book. This is speculation and belongs on a blog, not a Wikipedia entry. Iain1917 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no speculation and no leap of logic. The facts are clear and documented.--John Foxe 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very sorry but there is a logical fallacy here. You note that Ethan Smith wrote the book. If you have further evidence to show that Cowdery either had a copy of the book during the production of the Book of Mormon or that he had largely memorised it, then add in that evidence. Otherwise, there is no demonstrable link between Ethan Smith's book and the Book of Mormon. You may believe it exists, but it is an assumption that you are making unless you have real evidence for it.Iain1917 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that statements must be based on authority, and I have provided the necessary citations.--John Foxe 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not done any such thing. As it stands, this is one of several texts that have been suggested as sources for the Book of Mormon, such as the Spaulding Text, the Golden Pot and others. You are making assumptions from what you know, but without the firm evidence that either Cowdery or Smith used the book, what you are presenting is your opinion. That is not what an encyclopedia does. It is valid to say that the circumstances have led some researchers to the conclusion that Joseph Smith used Ethan Smith's work, because this is factual. To say that the Book of Mormon is based on Views of the Hebrews is opinion and should not be put into the Wikipedia entry.Iain1917 (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm making no assumptions, and I haven't written that the Book of Mormon is based on View of the Hebrews ("it is possible"). I have cited David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (McFarland & Company, 2000), which is a scholarly work about the subject at issue; he's an expert and his words are authoritative for purposes of Wikipedia. Of course, you're welcome to find your own experts who deny that Persuitte's evidence is correct.

I would also be happy to negotiate wording that both of us would find acceptable. We've already silently agreed to this sort of compromise in paragraphs further down in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My issue with the citation of Persuitte is the quote that you give - "Oliver Cowdery surely had a copy of View of the Hebrews—a book that was published in his home town of Poultney, Vermont by the minister of the church his family was associated with. Considering his joint venture with Joseph Smith in 'translating' The Book of Mormon and the common subject matter, Cowdery could have shared his copy of Ethan Smith's book with Joseph, perhaps even sometime before Joseph began the 'translation' process." [my emphasis added] These are opinions, however authoritative the author might be; everything is conditional, both grammatically and semantically. I will leave it for the moment, but there must be better evidence than Persuitte's belief.Iain1917 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll notice that I didn't quote Persuitte's actual words in the text. But he's the expert; his opinion stands unless you can bring into evidence the words of another expert to counter his expert testimony.--John Foxe (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

John, nobody's opinion counts as anything but opinion. The point is that he doesn't have anything to back up his opinion, because all he says is 'surely', 'could have' and 'perhaps'. That is fine in the context of his book, but not as an encyclopedia entry. All you can use that quote to do is to show that one writer has that opinion; it says nothing factual about the relationship between Ethan Smith's book and the Book of Mormon, nor about Cowdery's role in the production of the Book of Mormon. If you feel that it is particularly important, you should either create or contribute to a page on theories on the production of the Book of Mormon.Iain1917 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Persuitte is an expert on this subject, and so his opinion counts in a way ours don't. If you disagree with his assessment, then it's your responsibility to introduce evidence from other experts with similar credentials. Otherwise, every matter of controversy at Wikipedia would end in an impasse, with editors disagreeing which evidence is acceptable and which not based on their own predilections.--John Foxe (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Persuitte may be an expert, but he is not offering expert opinion. This is nothing to do with my predilections and everything to do with the fact that no one's opinion is evidence of anything. I could point you to Mormon apologists who argue that the jumps made by Persuitte from assumption to assumption are false; would you accept them? I suspect not, because you start from the assumption that Mormon writers do not have the same credentials as non-Mormon writers, which ignores the fact that from the perspective of Mormons Persuitte is an anti-Mormon with an agenda to attack them. You are the one creating the impasse by insisting on including a partisan opinion as 'evidence' of a particular point, and also fulfilling your own description of that impasse. Persuitte can be quoted if he is stating facts, but the passage you quote contains only circumstantial evidence. This is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. It needs to be a statement of facts, not to be a creation of an argument. - Iain1917 (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Persuitte is an scholarly expert on this subject, and as such his opinion is expert opinion. But you're welcome to introduce the views of Mormon apologists so long as they are identified as such. You can even call Persuitte an anti-Mormon if you can find a properly identified Mormon apologist who calls him that. The citation to Persuitte is just a footnote after all; it can be quite lengthy if it needs to be.--John Foxe (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You really don't get it, do you? The point is that no one's opinion has a place in Wikipedia. It needs to be a presentation of what is factual, things that can be verified and demonstrated through evidence. Opinion does not fit into this. The only reason to quote opinion is to verify that someone has held such an opinion. It has no purpose beyond that. However, the current form of the page seems to me to be a reasonable statement of what is known and what opinions have been held about Cowdery and the Book of Mormon. - Iain1917 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the new comment about B. H. Roberts. It's an opinion he held. But all it needs is a proper citation to go right back into the text (although logically, in reverse order from the way it was inserted.)--John Foxe (talk) 11:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I included the citation that you requested. Before, it was a total misrepresentation of B. H. Roberts. Epachamo (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In what can be described as nothing but a blatant attempt to discredit Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, it was said that translation went slowly before Oliver Cowdery arrived. In reality, there were 116 large manuscript pages translated in a period of 2 months. That is clearly not plodding along and is POV. Just because it went even faster when Oliver Cowdery showed up, does not mean it went slow before. Epachamo (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an excellent article about View of the Hebrews on Wikipedia. I rewrote the first paragraph to return the focus on to Oliver Cowdery. I tried to do it as NPOV as possible, and if someone could review it, I would appreciate it. Epachamo (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think too much information was removed, limiting understanding of why Cowdery's connection with View of the Hebrews is important. I'd be happy to work with you in moving some of the material to later in the article, perhaps to a separate paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, John old son, I would suggest that some sections of this page are getting too concerned about the View of the Hebrews. This is a page about Cowdery; the only connection he had to the book was that he was a former parishioner of the author. The changes I have made are intended to give both sides of the debate and deal with Roberts' position as briefly as possible because none of that is particularly relevant on a page about Cowdery. Roberts' faith belongs on Roberts' page, not here. Anyway, it will be interesting to see whether you decide to revert this, and if so, what your justification will be this time :-)Iain1917 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering my age, it's been a long time since anyone addressed me as "son" (although I have fond memories of those days). "Old" works though.

Glad to bring back happy memories. Take it all as signs of affection. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider a few sentences too much to spend on the View of the Hebrews issue, especially considering the amount of effort Mormon apologists have devoted to the subject. I've divided the material into two paragraphs, although you may want to put them back together again; and that would be fine with me. All of our references are now in the notes for anyone who wants to follow up on the subject. It needs to be clear to the reader that only Mormon apologists argue that there are few parallels between VotH and the BoM; and that likewise only Mormon apologists argue that Roberts did not undergo a crisis of faith.

Equally, it could be argued that only anti-Mormon 'apologists' argue the opposite. It all depends on your point of view, which is what we are trying to keep out of the article. I think it is best if we note that the debate is one where either you accept the Mormon view or you accept the non-Mormon/anti-Mormon view, and that there is unlikely to be much resolution between the sides for reasons unrelated to the historicity of the matter. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've italicized book titles and tweaked a couple of other things in your references. Sometimes I wasn't sure whether a FARMS publication was a pamphlet or a book. (Does the "n.a." in one reference mean that the editor isn't specified or that you just don't have the book at hand to check?)--John Foxe (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have re-tweaked it. The n.a. is one where the editor is indeed unspecified. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Something still bothers me about the flow of the article with so much devoted to VotH at this point. It seems incongruous and disjointed to put so much information about VotH in this location. Why don't we do a simple mention of it in the section of his life, and then maybe put a controversies section down below or something like that. Epachamo (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is less VotH per se, and more the fact that we are debating B H Roberts' view of the book that is at odds. I have tried to reduce the impact of this, with the main issues dealt with in the footnotes and through the link to the page on Roberts, which is where the issue belongs. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've shortened it yet again. I just want to make sure that the phrase "Mormon apologists" appears. That is, the authors are not like Bushman or Givens writing for peer-reviewed journals or presses, they are producing material in deliberate defense of religion.

That's not really on. In some cases, they are writing for peer reviewed journals and presses (eg Dialogues or BYU Studies). One could equally argue that a lot of the writers that are being quoted are producing material in deliberate attack on religion. Both Mormon apologists and anti-Mormon writers are equally partial in their own way. You can argue that Persuitte is only trying to establish truth, but then printing his opinion that the fact Cowdery was at one stage his parishoner means that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon as a plagiarism of VotH reveals that he is not working from NPOV. I am reverting the paragraph, which already makes it clear that the issue is one of entrenched positions. Iain1917 (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If no editor is given, it's standard practice to leave the space blank.--John Foxe (talk) 11:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

By "peer-reviewed" journal, I mean one where the author's scholarly work is refereed by those who are experts in the same field (in our case, Mormon studies) but who don't necessarily hold the same views. Dialogue is such a journal; BYU Studies is not. BYU Studies will not publish a scholar's work unless his views are in accord with the teachings of the LDS Church. I don't have a problem with that—the Church puts a hefty amount of money into BYU; it's their money—but when one submits his article to BYU Studies, the ideas (not just the qualifications) of the scholar are judged before publication. Note that in the cases of Bushman and Givens, their work was published by solid academic presses: Alfred A. Knopf and Oxford, respectively. Their books weren't rejected simply because they were defending Mormonism in an academically rigorous way.

Those who argue that there are no similarities between VotH and the BoM are all Mormons writing for periodicals sponsored officially or unofficially by the LDS Church. No non-Mormons have ever defended the notion; no Mormons have ever argued the position in a scholarly journal or book.

It's more neutral to write that Roberts "noted" the similarities. That way we don't have to get into the controversy about whether or not he was serving as a devil's advocate. It's also shorter.--John Foxe (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

John, you are doing it again. Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral position, but you want to use Wikipedia to present a particular slant where you reject any writing by Mormons as being apologist and therefore not worthy academically. You insinuate that BYU Studies is a propaganda outlet for the LDS Church and that anything published there is of no value. That is because you are hostile to the LDS and start from a perspective of Mormonism being a fraud. You are welcome to hold that view, but you need to express it in another forum, of which the internet provides large numbers. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, not prejudiced. BYU Studies may not publish work that is hostile to the church that ultimately funds it, but that does not mean that works published are not valid, peer-reviewed works. You need to show that the church interferes with the editorial policy of the journal, not insinuate it. You need to show that BYU Studies will allow publication of articles that are not adequately referenced, distort facts or are otherwise non-academic. Time to put up or shut up because there is a lot of weasel word action going on here. Oh, and Happy New Year to you. Hope Santa was good to you, and all the best for 2008. Iain1917 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I have in my possession a personal rejection letter from BYU Studies which, although very courteous, makes it clear that the reason for the rejection of an article of mine was ideological. (And yes, the article was later published in a peer reviewed journal.) Happy New Year to you as well.--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Was that because your paper was ideological, or the reason for rejection was ideological? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that BYU Studies papers are peer-reviewed, and it is unfair to suggest that there is something substandard about LDS scholars' publications if they have been published in BYU Studies. I'd be interested in reading the paper, by the way, so if you have details of it, could you put them on my talk page, please? On another topic, the last change you made shifted the early life material I added to another paragraph under the Witnesses sub-heading. Do you think that is the best location, or do you think that the brief information about his pre-BoM life should be in the paragraph above, with the material relating to meeting the Smith family staying where you have put it? It seems to me that the information about clerking and teaching isn't really relevant to his role in BoM and should be in the earlier position. Iain1917 (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the subheading shift. That was my error completely, and I've corrected it.--John Foxe (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)]

Rearrangement

The View on Hebrews is out of place in the first paragraph. I removed it and put it in a new paragraph. 97.126.130.172 (talk) 04:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss your reasons for this assertion. Before you make major changes to an article, it's always best to first describe the rationale for them on the talk page.--John Foxe (talk) 10:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

John, in general I like what you have done with the overall organization of the article. I'm a bit crunched for time right now. I'll get back to this article in couple of days. 97.126.149.75 (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, see you then.--John Foxe (talk) 14:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Please give the Volume and Page Number from Messanger and Advocate of footnoot number 20. --155.98.108.141 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please give the source to the Location of 22-Johnson, Benjamin (1903). Letter to George S. Gibb. Note sources need to be verifiable and Non-Original reasearch. I am wondering if this is contained in a publisized book or paper that I can obtain. --155.98.108.141 (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

5.^ During the colonial and early national periods many Americans speculated about a possible connection between the Hebrews and the Americans Indians. Who are the many Americans? --155.98.108.141 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

23-Mehling, 181 Is this the name of a book? A paper? If so where is it archived? --155.98.108.141 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noting those gremlins.--John Foxe (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Second Elder of the Church Source

Need source to document where Cowderys objections can be found.--Mvonnied (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the phrase.--John Foxe (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Early Written History of the Church Problems

There are multiple problems when meshing the information presented in this section with the cited source of the Messenger and Advocate. Several problems are listed below.

1."with the help of Smith, Cowdery published a history of the church as a series of articles in the church's Messenger and Advocate"

A. The Messenger and Advocate was not published as "a history of the church". It was “an early Latter Day Saint periodical published monthly in Kirtland Ohio”[wikipedia] called the Messenger and Advocate of which Oliver Cowdery was the editor. The purpose of the Messenger and Advocate is primarily as a list of articles, letters, and news provided to early church memebers, Not as a history. However, the writers of the Messenger and Advocate “thought that a full history of the rise of the church”[Messenger and Advocate pg 13] would be beneficial and that “an article on this subject will appear in each subsequent No. of the Messenger and Advocate”. Joseph Smith “offered to assist” the writers of the messanger and advocate “That [their] narrative may be correct “[p. 13].

2. "Cowdery... describes Smith's first supernatural experience as the visitation of the angel Moroni""?

A. Cowdery, in the Messenger and Advocate, makes no claims that his description of the visitation of an angel was the first such visitation to Joseph Smith. See Messenger and Advocate pg 79 for a description of the purported angels visit.

3. Cowdery "first asserting that it had occurred in 1821, when Smith was 15"?

A. Cowdery claimed it occurred in the 15th year of Josephs Life. That is the first year of a persons life begins at a persons birth or age 0.

4.”Cowdery said ‘that the revival had occurred after Smith's brother Alvin had died in 1823’”.

A. No such reference or quotation can be found in the Messenger and Advocate written by Cowdery.

5.To give the writers of this section ‘Early Written History’ a more clear view of the inconsistencies of Messenger and Advocate one is illustrated below.

Several inconsistencies can be found in the Messanger and Advocate that are not always congruent with later official history of the church. For example, in a letter to W.W. Phelps, published in the Messenger and Advocate, Oliver Cowdery writes about the need to give the history of the church and states,

“that this history would necessarily embrace the life and character of our esteemed friend and brother, J. Smith JR. one of the presidents of this church, and for information on that part of the subject, I refer you to his communication of the same, published in this paper. I shall, therefore, pass over that, till I come to the 15th year of his life.”[pg 42]

Cowdery then begins to “premise” the historical account by giving a description of “the public mind relative to religion, at this time.” [p. 42]

In the following edition of Messenger and Advocate another letter written to W.W. Phelps was published in which Cowdery attempts to make a correction and states:

“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” …”This would bring the date down to the year 1823.”[78]

Oliver Cowdery goes on to recall the visitation of an angel to Joseph smith as a response to Josephs “prayer for a manifestation in some way that his sins were forgiven”[p. 79]

--Mvonnied (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia privileges secondary over primary sources, so when an interpretation of the Messenger and Advocate is in conflict with Bushman, Brodie, or other peer-reviewed authorities, it can be ignored. As WP:V says, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy....In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."--John Foxe (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is in need of attention if third party sources are to be used as the current section cites the Messenger and Advocate as its source. Further 3rd party sources should be provided for 4,3,2,1 as listed above. Note that readers must be able to locate the material in a reliable third party source unless it is a quotation in which case the source is prefered to be primary.--Mvonnied (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right that a good secondary source is to be preferred here. Let me look around for one.--John Foxe (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to rewrite the controverted portions of that section to eliminate the unprovable assertions that you've noted.--John Foxe (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

faithful reflection of sources

The Perusite attributed sentance attributed to Perusite a workable theory. The only problem is that this is not Perusites theyry. He claims Joseph Smith learned of "view of the Hebrews" perhaps before the start of the translation process, but Cowdery did not even meet Smith until after the process began. If we are going to slavishly quote people, we must exposed the inadequacies of their theories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Citing Perusite is all that's necessary here. He's an authority and we're not.--John Foxe (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with including some mention of those sources critical of the View of the Hebrews theory. It's an issue that definitely has two sides. I do not think we should add personal critiques of the theory. I also don't think the article needs to focus extensively on the issue and I think what it currently contains (before the disputed edits) is enough—it mentions and cites Welsh and Bushman as critical of the theory. Any further detail should probably be added at View of the Hebrews, not in this article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly I have no objection to the mention of clearly identified Mormon apologetic sources in the notes.--John Foxe (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perusite is no authority. He is all speculation and no evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious claims of what is POV

I end the totally biased and unreasonable code switching between "apologist" and "scholar" intended to preference a certain POV, and am accused of presenting a POV by doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to the article on this page first.--John Foxe (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Had you only changed the word, John, I doubt there would have been an issue. But your changes were more substantial than just a terminology change. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will alter the page to be better and avoid your biased wording. I do not need the approval of someone who deliberately switches between "scholar" and "apologist" to improve a page that is very biased. Such deliberate code switching and ad hominum attacks has totally destroyed any right to claim any amount of credibility on your part. Also, why you want to keep the totally irrelevant reference to Joseph and Oliver being about as related to each other as to every other immigrant in upstate New York from New England is beyond me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Why are you referring to the text as "your biased wording"? I didn't write it. I don't know that John Foxe wrote it. Calling someone an "apologist" is not an attack, though I can understand why the term is misunderstood often. When two other users who hardly know one another suggest talking about some proposed changes on the talk page, it's usually a good idea to take that route rather than proceeding unilaterally, especially when the topic is kind of inherently controversial. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss major changes to the article on this page first.--John Foxe (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It is biased. John Foxe did, and that was who I was talking to. John Foxe is a biased user who has written in bias, and I am trying to remove bias. Why you side with the latter is a good question. There is a general conspiracy against NPOV here though. My writting is clearly using a more neutral description of people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is part of this "general conspiracy", apart from John Foxe? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Among other things the whole title of the sub-section is biased. There is no controversy per se. No one even spoke of View of the Hebrews as linking to anything else until long after Oliver Cowdery was dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Is not a "controversy" when two sides disagree about an issue? From my understanding, there are some non-Mormon scholars and some Mormon scholars who disagree quite heatedly on this issue, and I personally would classify that as a "controversy". It's not a particularly prominent one in the grand scheme of religion, but it is one, I would say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I have decided that most of the View of the Hebrews section should be moved to that article. Well, I am thinking that might be a better place to put it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the brief mention that existed initially was sufficient for this article. No one is going to be reading the article on Oliver Cowdery expecting a full examination of the View of the Hebrews controversy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will move the two other paragraphs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You need to discuss the entire issue here on the talk page, providing citation to "academic and peer-reviewed publications" that support your POV. And why have you tried to eliminate citations to the respected LDS historian Richard Bushman?--John Foxe (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the deletions of a Bushman reference was this: "Cowdery told Smith that he had seen the golden plates in a vision before the two ever met.<ref>[[Richard Bushman]], ''[[Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling]]'' (New York: [[Alfred A. Knopf]], 2005), 73; ..." I agree with Johnpacklambert that this citation does not support the statement that "Cowdery told Smith that he had seen the golden plates in a vision before the two ever met." and agree that the Bushman citation should be removed here. The statement remains sourced to the Palmer reference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible denial issue

My comments relate to this part of the text:

He may even have briefly denied his testimony regarding the Golden Plates[citation needed] because in 1841, the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons published the following verse: "Or does it prove there is no time,/Because some watches will not go?/...Or prove that Christ was not the Lord/Because that Peter cursed and swore?/Or Book of Mormon not His word/Because denied, by Oliver?"

That's all very well and good, and is a logical link to make from the poem, but who exactly has written about this connection between the poem and the possibility that Cowdery denied his testimony of the golden plates? Has anyone, or is it just speculation that has its source in the Wikipedia article? I can't find anything that anyone has said about this poem and what it might mean. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Good call, but I've now added a source that makes the direct connection. In fact, I wonder if the phrase "repeated it even when estranged from the church" needs qualification because peers in Tifflin have him silent when asked about it.--John Foxe (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

That's probably good. I did find some stuff written by the Tanners, which I would have been fine to add, but there's always a debate with their stuff as to whether it constitutes a reliable source. Shook sounds to me like it was probably the first discussion of this issue? AFAIK, when estranged from the church, there were incidents where he remained silent in the face of inquiries and other incidents where he defended his testimony. I'll see if I can find any sources that summarize this well. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I avoid the Tanners because I don't like to wave the red flag unnecessarily. I don't know that Shook was the first to discuss this issue; he doesn't sound like he's presenting the reader with original research. It'd be great if you could find a nice summary of Cowdery's testimony in Tifflin. All the best,--John Foxe (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's really difficult to find anything on this issue that is not excessively apologetic or excessively trying to play "gotcha" with the Mormons ... neutral sources are quite hard to come by, I'm finding. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Vogel's comments in EMD are helpful, so I added them plus a citation to the documents.--John Foxe (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

irrelevant relationships

The statement that Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were distant relatives, although correct, is not relevant to the article at all. Their relationship was of such a distance that it had no effect on how they interacted with each other.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Please prove the statement that being a distant relation had no effect on how Smith and Cowdery interacted. You will need proof from an authoritative source.--John Foxe (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Do any authoritative sources even mention the distant relationship? (See my comment below.) One can't prove a negative, as you are asking, but we can see if there is mention of the relationship in sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Do the main sources about Cowdery's life mention that he was a relative of Joseph Smith? If so, I think the mention should probably stay, but if they don't generally mention it, I see no reason to here. I would imagine that being a relation to Smith would be seen as an interesting factoid among Latter Day Saints, so I could understand why sources might mention it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Brooke's Refiner's Fire and Quinn's Magic Worldview both make a point of the distant family relationship, mainly as evidence that Smith, Sr. is likely to have known Cowdery's father back in Vermont. COGDEN 00:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case then I don't see why the article should not mention it, if it is referenced to those sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added references to both of Bushman's Joseph Smith books.--John Foxe (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

• I do not need to prove that their being distant relatives is irrelevant. To include the fact it needs to be demonstated that the fact is relevant. The includer needs to show that the fact is other than trivial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

New Israelites issue

Re this deletion, which is a repeat. I understand that the editor removing the information essentially disagrees with what the writers have written on this, but that doesn't mean we delete the section. The sources used are multiple, reliable, and even well-respected in the field. Please let's not remove these sentences and their references without a consensus to do so. Personally, I don't think it's a problem. Just because someone wrote something doesn't make it true necessarily, but remember that we are focusing on verifiability and citations rather that abstract truth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The sources do not actually alleged what is claimed here. They allege some sort of connection between William Cowdery and some of the followers of Nathaniel Wood. No one puts for any evidence that actually shows William Cowdery as a follower of Nathaniel Wood. The evidence amounts to extrapolations from hearsay. There is no conclusive evidence that places William Cowdery as a follower of Nathaniel Wood. It is closely related to the Point of View of the authors involved, who assume there must be some sort of connections between Wood and Oliver Cowdery, and so they latch onto what amounts to no evidence at all to advance their theory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • D. Michael Quinn's book Early Mormonism and the Majic World View has been heavily criticized as having a "Salamander shaped whole in the argument". It was essentially a book that was heavily built around documents that were shown to be forgeries. Without these documents it does not hold together. Quinn assumes he understands the precedent, assumes there is a connection, and so latches on to any even remote possiblity that there is a connection. This is not good scholarship, it is polemics to advance his ideas.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

But again, this is disagreeing with what is written by the citation rather than a WP-based issue of someone writing something not contained in sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• The citation is not basing the claims on fact. It is inherently violation NPVO to cite things that are based in the unverified claims of one sided publications. At base there is no verification of these allegations. Just because some author somewhere hypothesized that such a connection makes sense does not mean the connection has been verified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• I am not disagreeing with what is written in the citations, I am pointing out the fact that they are basing conclusions on no cited facts, but just connections that they think must be based on what they think must be the actual connection of facts. There is no verifiable evidence that William Cowdery was ever a follower of Natianiel Wood. It is asserted by the cited authors without giving evidence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "There is no verifiable evidence that William Cowdery was ever a follower of Natianiel Wood." Don't you understand that your assessment of the truth or falsity of that statement is irrelevant? What matters is this: is it discussed in reliable sources? Yes, it is. The article reflects the tentative nature of the conclusion that authors reach: he may have been a member. It does not say he was a member. Based on the evidence, the authors have concluded that he may have been a member. The article should reflect the sources, not what individual editors believe to be true or false. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Smith and Cowdery relationship (again)

Re the distant relationship between Smith and Cowdery. User:Johnpacklambert has deleted this information again. The user brought up the issue above, where it was discussed, and seemingly resolved. Why is this still an issue? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he didn't think anyone was watching, and now he knows you are.--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• No one has demonstrated why the relationship is other than trivial. Just because it is mentioned in long, polemical books does not mean it is worth mentioning in an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, what you are doing looks like it goes against consensus. Brooke's Refiner's Fire, as COGDEN mentioned above, is hardly a polemic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@John Pack Lambert. What's polemic about Quinn and Bushman, to which the comments are cited?--John Foxe (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(John Foxe, you get so much more respect than me. :) I restored the original content three times in the past few days and was reverted each time. You came along and reverted to the original once and suddenly the issue dies .... ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to think the original stuck because I added more sources to the footnotes and tweaked the style; but it's probably because you were such a good trooper in making the reverts in the first place. I just came along and pronounced the amen. :)--John Foxe (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it interesting, and WP readers will also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Life Apart from the Church Section

"The Life Apart from the Church" section contains some obvious conjecture that doesn't add to the article. "From 1838 to 1848, Cowdery put the Latter Day Saints church behind him. He may have briefly denied his testimony regarding the Golden Plates because in 1841, the Mormon periodical Times and Seasons published the following verse" (emphasis added)

One, where is the source that he put the church behind him. Two, the author of this paragraph said that he 'may' have denied his testimony. Either he did or he didn't, but the fact is that we don't really know. Why do we need to speculate? Saying that he may have denied his testimony is just an opinion. I could easily change this to "may not" and it would leave us with the same speculation. To back up this POV the OP refers to an obscure quote from the Times and Seasons that mentions the name Oliver. Without context or any foresight on who that quote was referring to, I don't see any way you could call this a valid source. This was why I originally removed this section. Kingliam (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Cowdery joined the local Methodist church and didn't advertise his prior connection with Mormonism, although it was discovered as he became better known in the community.

The reason why the article says that Cowdery "may" have denied his testimony is because he may have. To attempt to hide that possibility is to accept the POV of the LDS Church that none of the Three Witnesses ever did. The footnote also provides a valid secondary source for the possibility: "Charles Augustus Shook, The True Origin of the Book of Mormon (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing Co., 1914), 54: 'At this time it was freely admitted by the Mormons that he had denied his testimony.'"--John Foxe (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

John, he may have, but he may not have also. Your guess is as good as mine and citing an anti-mormon advocate's POV (Charles A. Shook) is like citing a Nazi's POV (albeit published) on a Jewish wiki article. Shook wrote many books seeking to discredit the beliefs of Mormons and has published at least one book with the American Anti-Mormon Association. He is definitely not a valid source. My point is, there are no reliable sources to back up this supposition which makes it all plain conjecture. There is no point to put this in the article.

Aside from this, the quote from the Times and Seasons seems kind-of lost in the article. I don't see the purpose of as as we don't even know if it was referring to OC. Kingliam (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Mormon or not, I believe Shook to be a valid secondary source. (I'll pass on getting involved in Godwin's law :)--John Foxe (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if Shook is a scholarly source, but in my experience the view that Cowdery (or the other Book of Mormon witnesses) denied their testimony is WP:FRINGE. Take, for instance, the following quotes from a few more scholarly sources:

Like everything else in early Mormonism, the witnesses are controversial. What is not ambiguous is that, to the end of their lives, none of them disavowed their written testimonies even though most broke with Smith's church. That very apostasy has been used as a debating point in favor of their witness by the Book's defenders. —Ostlings, Mormon America (2000) p. 266

All three witnesses eventually quarreled with Joseph and left his church. At their going he heaped abuse upon them, but none ever denied the reality of his vision, and Cowdery and Harris eventually were rebaptized. —Brodie, No Man Knows My History, (1971) p. 78

The document was signed by Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris. All three men later quarreled with Joseph and left the Church, but, as Mormons are quick to point out, none of them ever repudiated their statement. —Remini, Joseph Smith, (2002) p. 66

All three of the first group of witnesses apostatized, although Harris and Cowdery later returned. Likewise, three of the second group left the church. Yet the Mormons have maintained that all eleven of them remained steadfast to death in their testimony. No one has been able to upset this contention with convincing evidence, although it has not been unchallenged. —O'Dea, The Mormons, (1957) p. 4

Hope this helps to clarify the issue. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I remain convinced that, for Wikipedia purposes, Shook is a reliable source. But I'll also spring for O'Dea, "No one has been able to upset this contention with convincing evidence, although it has not been unchallenged." That's why the article says "may." I think we all agree that Cowdery was excommunicated, that he criticized Joseph Smith and the LDS Church, and that he joined the Methodist church in Tifflin. That Cowdery may have disavowed his testimony is far from a fringe position. For instance, the Mormon apologetic website, FAIR attempts to counter the implication of the Times and Seasons piece while specifically criticizing this Wikipedia article for mentioning it. That's LDS POV--John Foxe (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Challenging a mainstream view, and failing for lack of convincing evidence sounds like a pretty good description of Fringe to me. Also, I note that so far you've failed to provide any secondary sources saying that Cowdery did deny his statement. You only cited an old poem and Shook saying that at the time Mormons believed Cowdery had denied his testimony. Nobody's arguing that Cowdery wasn't excommunicated, etc. so that seems to be a straw man. Also, nobody's arguing that FAIR should be a source for this article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that Cowdery denied his testimony, it says he "may have"; and Shook is a reliable source unless proved otherwise. I mentioned FAIR because it takes seriously enough the challenge of the Times and Seasons poem to the position of the LDS Church that it complains about the poem appearing in this article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Shook actually say that Cowdery "may have" denied his testimony, or does it just say that Mormons at the time thought so? I don't see where FAIR tries to counter the implications of the Times and Seasons poem on the link you provided. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:19, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Shook says, "We have positive proof that Oliver Cowdery did, in 1839, renounce Mormonism, and did later become a member of the Methodist Protestant Church. The evidence is so clear and conclusive that it is sheer folly for the Mormons to deny it."(49-50) The poem is only one piece of evidence for his conclusion. Here's the FAIR statement. I note that I'm listed as "controlling editor" :)--John Foxe (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

That Cowdery renounced Mormonism and became a Methodist is uncontroversial, but you'd still have to find a source bridging the logical gap between that and him denying his testimony of the Book of Mormon. As far as I can tell, the FAIR website complains that there's a NPOV problem because the newspaper poem is highlighted to argue that Cowdery might have denied his testimony, while the numerous other sources saying Cowdery didn't deny his testimony are ignored. I can't find where they try to counter any implications. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This has something that has bugged me about this article for some time. I can't find sources that connect the renouncing of Mormonism or J. Smith's church with the renouncing of the Three Witness's statement. It's clear that to the end of his life David Whitmer made it clear that he had renounced mainstream Mormonism and the church but was not renouncing the Three Witness's statement, so clearly the two issues should not be conflated, since the witnesses themselves seemed to regard them as separate issues. Ultimately, I have come to conclusion that the statement as it currently stands in the article is original research, or at least an original or POV conclusion drawn from the sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I've made an edit to the article that attributes the view that Cowdery denied his testimony to "Mormons at the time". This, at least, brings it in line with the sources being cited. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Much better—that is what was needed, I think. Take it from a WP statement of what may have happened to a report of what people at the time believed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Even I'm OK with this change. I believe Cowdery must have renounced his testimony to join the Methodist church, but the evidence is just too sketchy.--John Foxe (talk) 23:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Overall it sounds like he kept information of his previous involvement with the Latter Day Saints relatively quiet—would mention it only when asked about it explicitly. Judging from his other behavior at the time, I would speculate that he just didn't say anything about it and joined the Methodists in the same way and without fanfare as anyone else would have at the time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

There's evidence in Shook's book (58-59) that because the Methodists of Tifflin knew about Cowdery's prior relationship to Mormonism, a reluctant Cowdery explicitly renounced it in the process of joining the church—something that wouldn't have been unusual during that era. The question is whether to credit the testimony of one "G. J. Keen, a highly respected citizen of Tifflin" not given until 1885.--John Foxe (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't know that. This goes back to the issue of renouncing Mormonism vs. renouncing the Three Witness's Book of Mormon testimony. To modern ears, it sounds strange that one of the Three Witnesses could renounce Mormonism but not renounce his witness of the Book of Mormon, but that's essentially the position that David Whitmer took for a large portion of his life, and there are some earlier statements by Martin Harris to that effect. There is a substantive difference that seemed to be recognized by the Witnesses themselves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

What makes Keen's testimony more believable, despite its late date, is that he presents Cowdery as reluctant to make a public recantation. Nevertheless, Keen says that when being admitted for membership in the Methodist church, Cowdery said he was "sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism." There's no mention of his explicitly retracting his testimony as one of the Three Witnesses. I assume that what looks like a glaring omission to us in the 21st century was probably accepted in the 19th as being included in the "sorry and ashamed." But we can't know what Cowdery was thinking.--John Foxe (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it was a different time with different approaches, but had I made up all the stuff that Cowdery had earlier claimed had happened, I would have gotten it all off my chest at that point. Yet the "confession" seems relatively short on specifics; then later he actually ends up going back to the Mormons. I wonder ... (Clearly, he was a complicated person.) Anyway, just speculating here, nothing that can improve the article. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we've talked ourselves into consensus.--John Foxe (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Documentation for last paragraph

The LDS POV in the final paragraph is sourced only to LDS material, none of which is a WP:RS. We should be replacing the non-RS material we already have in this article rather than add more.--John Foxe (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: What is your criteria for a reliable source? I'm no expert here, but as far as I can tell, aren't publications from the Maxwell Institute both secondary and peer-reviewed? (I would appreciate if you'd clarify this for me, because I do want to know.) Also, are you questioning the reliability of the sources listed, or are you questioning the reliability of Gate's statement itself? If it's a matter of just finding a different source for the statement I'm sure that could be done quite easily, in fact I suspect it could be found in Vogel's EMD volume 2, around page 509. Would you like me to try to verify that? ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes they are secondary and peer-reviewed and the source is WP:RS. This is only John Foxe opinion that they aren't but they meet all the WP:RS requirements.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources are WP:RS. The Maxwell Institute material is not peer-reviewed (that is, its material is not reviewed by non-Mormons). You can certainly find the primary source reprinted in Vogel's EMD, but then all you have is a primary source.--John Foxe (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Being reviewed by non-Mormons is not a requirement of WP:RS, just like a catholic institute can be a WP:RS for catholic topics.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 19:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

If an article by a Mormon is reviewed for publication in a Mormon journal by Mormons only, it's not been peer-reviewed in the Wikipedia-sense of the term.--John Foxe (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You know that is not true. You have made this argument, and just as before you are wrong. Your anti-Mormon bias doesn't make every Mormon a Liar. The Maxwell Institute is accredited just like every other peer-reviewed journal that is accepted by Wikipedia. If you don't accept them they you cannot accept any other accredited collage.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 20:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @John Foxe, I'm a little confused about EMD now because I've seen you use EMD as a source several times, and it is listed in the References section of this page. Would you mind clarifying whether EMD is a reliable source, and whether it is primary, secondary, or a combination of both? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Maxwell Institute is simply an arm of LDS-owned BYU. I'm sure there are cases in which its publications could be citable at Wikipedia (for instance, accounts of its own history), but commentary on Mormon history is not such a case. Here we need a WP:RS.

You're correct that I've used Vogel's EMD as a source in the past; but Wikipedia privileges secondary sources, and I now try not to use EMD alone without a secondary source to go with it. As I said above, we need to work on getting more reliable secondary sources for the article rather than add more primary ones.--John Foxe (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that:

• Even though publications from the Maxwell Institute are peer-reviewed secondary sources, they cannot be considered WP:RS in matters pertaining to Mormon history.
• Vogel's EMD is a primary source.

Please state your agreement or disagreement with the preceding points, and correct or clarify if I got something wrong. Also, please complete the following statement: "For the purposes of Wikipedia, it is (always/often/sometimes/never) ok to use a primary source (if accompanied by a secondary source/if no secondary source can be found/as long as you're not making interpretive or synthetic claims or performing original research/_____(fill in the blank)_____)."

I really am trying to understand where you're coming from, because currently there seems to be somewhat of a double standard. I'd appreciate it if you'd answer these questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Maxwell Institute publications are not peer-reviewed secondary sources for purposes of Wikipedia. The Institute is a subsidiary of BYU, which is owned by the LDS Church. Maxwell Institute publications should not be considered authoritative at Wikipedia except in so far as they can be used to describe the position of the LDS Church.

Vogel's EMD is a valuable collection of primary sources that also includes introductory and marginal commentary by Vogel.

Wikipedia privileges secondary over primary sources; it's always preferable to use secondary rather than primary sources. Any primary source with an LDS POV is suspect on its face; simply to introduce such material to an article makes an interpretive statement.--John Foxe (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I now understand your position on Vogel's EMD. I'm still a little foggy on the other two though. Are you saying that MI publications are not peer-reviewed secondary sources period? Or are you saying that they are peer-reviewed and secondary, but because the university that publishes them is owned by the LDS Church they are disqualified from Wikipedia?

I also need some clarification on your last paragraph. You state, "Any primary source with an LDS POV is suspect on its face". First off, I'm not sure what you mean by "LDS POV." Does LDS POV mean a source that could be interpreted as supporting the positions of the LDS Church? Or it mean that the author was LDS or Mormon? Or does it mean that the author was sympathetic to the LDS position? Does it exclude people who were LDS/Mormon but have said things that could be considered damaging to the LDS perspective (take Martin Harris and Sidney Rigdon for instance)? Finally, the statement as a whole seems a little one-sided. Does the corollary hold that "Any primary source with an anti-LDS POV is suspect on its face"? I'd appreciate if you'd clarify your positions on this. Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "LDS POV"?

@John Foxe, I and others have frequently asked you what you mean by "LDS POV" or "Mormon POV", as you sometimes call it. So far, I haven't seen a satisfying answer. Last month I was excited because I thought I was finally going to get that answer, but unfortunately our discussion was interrupted before you could respond. I noticed that yesterday you made the statement, "To attempt to hide that possibility is to accept the POV of the LDS Church", which again raised the question. I was wondering if you would be willing to continue our discussion here.

As a reminder, you had made the statement, "Any primary source with an LDS POV is suspect on its face". I wanted to know precisely what you mean by "LDS POV". It seems that you are operating under the assumption that LDS/Mormon POV is 100% wrong/bad, and should be avoided at all costs, to the extent that sources whose authors happen to be Mormon, or sources that in some way corroborate "LDS POV" should be ignored, or receive less weight. I also inquired about the caveats of sources whose authors happen to be Mormon that argue against "LDS POV". Are they valid? What about sources with an anti-LDS POV? What about sources by non-Mormons that argue an "LDS POV"?

Anyway, I would greatly appreciate it if you could answer my questions here, or in some other forum if you prefer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The neutrality of anything produced by the LDS Church or by its apologetic surrogates, such as the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, is rightly suspect. I also try to avoid citing anti-LDS materials. But being a Mormon or anti-Mormon does not invalidate sound scholarship. For instance, Richard Bushman is a fine scholar even though he understandably tends to skate over some difficult patches of early Mormon history.--John Foxe (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what you mean when you use terms like "LDS POV" and "Mormon POV"? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

By "LDS POV" and "Mormon POV" I mean sources that take the official position of the LDS Church either (usually) from religious bias or from simple ignorance (as does Remini on occasion). So, for instance, the LDS Church denies as a matter of policy that any of the Three Witnesses ever denied his testimony. Immediately suspect.--John Foxe (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So, in your view, the "official position of the LDS Church" is wrong on all counts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent.--John Foxe (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume, for sake of argument, that the LDS Church's position is wrong on all counts. Now assume that a clear majority of scholarly reliable sources agree with the LDS position on one or more of these counts. My question is: What is the role of Wikipedia in this hypothetical situation? Should it publish the truth (i.e. the non-LDS position), or should it publish the false scholarly views that happen to coincide with the LDS position? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's got to go with the scholarship no matter how wrongheaded.--John Foxe (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, it doesn't actually matter what the LDS position is? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The position of the LDS Church on any controverted matter should be treated with suspicion unless proved otherwise. The more apologetic emphasis, the more suspicion. No statement promulgated by the LDS Church or its apologetic affiliates should be cited in any Wikipedia article except for statements that delineate the religious position of the Church (for instance, that LDS bishops are laymen rather than trained clergy).--John Foxe (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

With the obvious exception of statements about its own doctrines and positions, wouldn't it be easier to ignore the position of the LDS Church altogether, and just go with the scholarly views? You seem to be saying that if the LDS Church has a position on something we should automatically shy away from scholarly views that agree with that position. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's my position. If the LDS Church advocates any position about its own history, it should be considered suspect and receive extra scrutiny from scholars. As the Ostlings note, "There is a very real sense in which the church's history is its theology." (245)--John Foxe (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems unnecessarily confrontational and a source of pre-bias. It's probably easier to just ignore a church's official history and go with sources. Otherwise it probably has a tendency to bias your views towards sources that agree with the official history. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I stand my ground.--John Foxe (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's fine—I don't think anyone is trying to tell you what to think, but it can have the result of making your edits more suspect for bias. That's not exactly the view that most WP editors are striving to, which could raise further questions as to your motivations for editing, conflicts of interest, and so forth. (I'm not intending to raise these issues about you myself, I'm just saying that taking this stance will open you up to this kind of scrutiny from others.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but I'm still not clear on your position. Which of my questions were you saying "yes" to? I'm not asking what you think scholars should do. I'm asking what Wikipedia editors should do. Should we give scholarly views "extra scrutiny" when they happen to agree with the LDS position? Isn't the LDS position irrelevant, as you seemed to indicate here? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm indeed biased against whatever the LDS Church says about it's history because as the Ostlings note, "There is a very real sense in which the church's history is its theology." (245) The Church attempts to make its official history follow changes in its teachings; therefore scholars (and Wikipedia editors) need to give any LDS-sanctioned version of its history extra scrutiny because of the possible doctrinal implications of its creation. As the old Soviet joke went, "The future is certain, it's only the past that is unpredictable."--John Foxe (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses. I think I understand now what your position is; though I don't agree with it, I see where you're coming from. If you don't mind, I'd like to continue this conversation just a little longer, as I have one more line of questioning I'd like to pursue. I can understand why you don't want to use Mormon apologetic (i.e. FAIR) publications as sources on Mormon history, etc. My question is about the flip side of the coin: the various polemic and Christian apologetic publications and websites that are dedicated to disproving Mormon doctrine. (Examples include Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, the Institute for Religious Research, Exmormon.org, and the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, to name a few.) Would you also oppose using these as sources on Mormon history because of the inherent doctrinal bias? ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia I try to avoid citing publications of organizations dedicated to disproving Mormon doctrine because they're prima facie unneutral. Citing them irritates believers to no purpose. Nevertheless, skeptical treatments of Mormon history tend to be more reliable than official LDS versions because the later can take cognizance only of the Church's current position while the former can ransack the last 180 years for delicious discrepancies. Historians are always interested in change over time.--John Foxe (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So what about scholarly sources that happen to agree with a position of a polemic or Christian apologetic source? You stated that scholarly sources that happen to align with Mormon apologetic/LDS positions should receive extra scrutiny, so does the same go for scholarly sources that happen to align with an anti-LDS position? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

No, for the reason I mentioned above: skeptical, and even polemic, treatments of Mormon history are generally more reliable than LDS versions of LDS history because in the latter tradition "historical issues frequently are downplayed, avoided, or denied." (Ostlings, 247) Historian D. Michael Quinn notes that traditional "Mormon apologists discuss such 'sensitive evidence' only when this evidence is so well known that ignoring it is almost impossible."(Quinn, New Mormon History, xiii) The result of the Church's attitude toward history then is that truth, "supposedly embedded in history," becomes "dynamic and fluid." (Ostling, 249) As Marxist historian Mark Leone writes, "the church has discouraged any intellectual tradition that would interfere with disguising historical factors."(Leone, Roots of Modern Mormonism, 204, 211).--John Foxe (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So if I might try to summarize your views here, you believe that for the purposes of Wikipedia articles dealing with Mormon history:

1. Mormon apologetic/LDS church sources should never be cited, and should automatically be considered false—guilty until proven innocent.
2. Christian apologetic/Mormon polemic/Anti-Mormon sources should be avoided.
3. Scholarly sources that happen to agree with the official LDS view on some point should receive extra scrutiny from Wikipedia editors on that point, and the point should be viewed with suspicion.
4. Scholarly sources that happen to agree with a Christian apologetic or anti-LDS view on some point don't need any extra scrutiny, and are generally more reliable than scholarly sources that agree with the LDS viewpont on the point.

And the answer to my question "What do you mean by 'LDS POV'?" is something along the lines of:

• "LDS POV" means that a scholarly source has taken the official position of the LDS Church on some point, probably through religious bias or ignorance, and should receive an extra measure of scrutiny from Wikipedia editors, because it probably got that point wrong.

Are these correct? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

A nice summary—the sign of good debating skill. Nevertheless, in my definition, "LDS POV" doesn't necessarily, or even usually, spring from scholarship but from LDS faith-promoting sources, say something published by the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research, Intellectual Reserve, or Deseret Book.

Also, when push comes to shove, Wikipedians have to accept the consensus of scholarship. For instance, I don't believe there's any evidence that Joseph Smith ever did hired manual labor; but so far as I know, no scholarly source makes this claim, and Bushman implies the opposite. Obviously in such a case, a Wikipedia article needs to follow Bushman.--John Foxe (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I would guess that you might the term LDS POV to describe several situations, including:

1. A Mormon editor adds unsourced opinion to an article, or removes sourced material he perceives as anti-Mormon.
2. An editor adds information to an article sourced directly to the LDS Church, or an apologetic institution like FAIR.
3. An editor uses a source authored by a Mormon (scholarly or not, primary or secondary).
4. An editor adds information to an article citing a scholarly source, but the information added happens to agree with an official LDS Church view.

As you've probably guessed, I'm partly trying to resume this old discussion. I think number 1 is an appropriate use of the term, and 2 is ok, but borderline when it comes to publications by, say, the Maxwell Institute. Number 3 is hit and miss, especially with peer-reviewed secondary sources, and could easily backfire. It is dangerous business for Wikipedia editors to go head to head with peer-reviewed secondary sources. Number 4 was the reason I started the discussion because it's confused me for a long time. I understand it now, but I wouldn't count on other Wikipedians understanding it. I'd say that it comes across as a weak ad-hominem, especially when an editor is citing a reliable source that's widely accepted by the community.

Anyway, I started this discussion trying to understand, not convince you of anything, so I better stop now. Thank you for taking the time to respond to my many questions and for being so straightforward in your answers. I appreciate the gesture of good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your asking and your good faith as well. We've conducted what in diplomacy is called a "frank exchange of views." I think my reasons for distrusting LDS faith-promoting history are now more clear; and for my part, I'll try in the future to avoid the term "LDS POV" if the source being cited by an editor is clearly scholarly.--John Foxe (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Retouched and colorized photo available

There is a retouched and colorized version of the daguerreotype photo available here: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/oliver-cowdery-daguerreotype-restored-in-full-color/. Should the black and white photo be replaced by this color rendition? Fleckerl (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because unlike the original, the retouched and colorized one is non-free under copyright. The person who retouched and colorized the photo has an intellectual property interest in the retouched and colorized version that he produced. WP needs to use the free version. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)