Talk:Nauvoo Expositor

Nauvoo Charter

Contrary to propoganda or ignorance, the Nauvoo Charter does NOT "incorporate" the Illinois nor the US Constitutions. At most this is something like a counterpart to provisions like the Supremacy clause of the US constitution...a "subordination clause" if I may call it that. It is an unusual provision. The charter does give the Illinois state circuit courts appellate jurisdiction over Nauvoo's municipal courts, but it does not give Fed courts jurisdiction to rule on the matter nor could a city or state give juridiction to a fed court, nor would nor should a fed court rule on the matter because it is only a matter of local and state law...at most this sort of quasi-fed-law issue could only be appealed as far as IL's supreme court as odd as that may seem to give a state the final word on interpreting a quasi-fed-law. B

I agree that the assumption that the US does not apply at all since this happened before the 14th ammendment. I have no idea why people don't understand that. I had assumed that the relationship between towns and states was different than the relationship between states and the federal government. The states granted limmited powers to the federal government while on the other hand the states grant powers to the towns(at least in this case). Based on the difference in their relationship, the state constitution would appear to apply to Nauvoo even though it is not incorporated into the charter. You also bring up the point that freedom of speech/press is not unlimmited. While this is clearly true, a signifficant part of what freedom of speech/press is supposed to protect is political speech. When I read through the first issue of the Expositor it deffinitely did seem like a political publication, not just a mormon bashing paper. It clearly stated that only the first few issues would even deal with mormonism since the Expositor was a political publication. The paper clearly advocates against Joseph Smith's candidacy for president and Hyrum's candidacy for some state office. The discussion about how Joseph ran the mormon church and his alleged abuse of Habeus Corpus to shield people from the law are used to show that Joseph Smith is unfit for office. Politicians are not supposed to use the law to silence their critics; the gaurantee of a free press is supposed to prevent that. I think that your latest revision generally improves what I added, but I think it still needs a little more work. --andyh

Andy, thanks for engaging positively on this topic. This is a complex legal issue that has not been adequately addressed AKAIK. Ultimately, the legality of the censorship at that time is indeterminate since the case was never run thru the courts...so even if the law was clear, the most an intelligent mind could do is give an educated guess as to how the state judiciary would apply the law. A further problem is, even if it were run thru the courts, second-guessers who didn't like the outcome in this case wouldn't stop arguing; they would argue the courts decided wrongly because [fill in the blank]. Some of the issues would be novel to the judiciary at that time too, I'm sure...e.g., much of federal constitutional rights was only developed and matured in the last few decades. It will take some good research to develop the article substantially further, but some more tweaking might help the current article B 05:47, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can argue persuasively that the Expositor was not political speech, but again, free speech is not absolute, even political speech...In this case where the speech is deemed a public nuisance, the issue is what limitations, if any, did nuisance law have on political speech. There is no immediately clear answer. B 05:47, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's not clear what distinction you're tryin to draw b/w the limited powers granted to the fed gov't by the US constitution (ratified by the states with the states reserving all remaining powers to themselves under the 10th amendment) AND the powers (limited or plenary) given to local gov't entities by their respective states. Both of these are completely different structures for allocating power. As I read the 1818 Illinois constitution, it is very poorly drafted. Maybe that's why the IL constitution was later revised, I don't know. But take, for example, the US const 14th Amend: it specifically states that "no state" shall infringe on due process, etc. The IL constitution's provision on free speech is terribly ambiguous: "The printing presses shall be free to every person, who undertakes to examine the proceedings of the general assembly or of any branch of government; and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write, and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty." Oookay, "no law". Does no law mean merely no state law? Does that include no local law? And that's not the only ambiguity in that provision. B 05:47, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oaks comment unsourced

The quip claiming "even Oaks may have waffled later from his earlier defense" is unfounded. Allow me to quote from a recent (May 2005) talk given by Dallin H. Oaks, in which he confirms his original position: "...Few men have been the targets of more assaults on their mission or their memory than Joseph Smith. I investigated some of these charges by personal research in original records in Illinois where Joseph lived the last five years of his life. The event that focused anti-Mormon hostilities that led directly to his murder was the action of mayor Joseph Smith and the Nauvoo city council in suppressing an opposition newspaper. Early Mormon historians including B. H. Roberts conceded that this action was illegal. However, as I researched the subject as a young law professor, I was surprised to find a legal basis for this action in the Illinois law of 1844. My law review article reminded that the guarantee of freedom of the press in the Unites States Constituion was not declared applicable to the actions of city and state governments until 1931 and then only by a 5 to 4 court's reliance on a constitutional amendment adopted in 1868. There were many suppressions of newspapers on the frontier in the period before the Civil War. We should judge the actions of our predecessors on the basis of the laws and commandments and circumstances of their day, not ours" (starting a little after 34:30 in Session 3, available here: [1]). Unless the claim of Oaks' alleged "waffling" can be proven with a direct quote--with reference--the claim should be removed. --tJM, 22 Jul 2005

I will remove the unsourced statement concerning Oaks, but his defense of the "legality" of the city council's action places law above ethics. It is like saying slavery in the US prior to 1863 can be justified because it was legal. --Blainster 19:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Smith

(Smith was in fact actively seeking multiple wives in secret, while publicly denying such rumors and accounts.) Is this a point of criticism or a substantiated fact? by ex-lds mbr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.166.159.4 (talk • contribs) 15:09, June 1, 2006 (UTC)

The parenthetical statement is an editorial statement added by an editor who agrees with the third point of criticism in the Expositor paper. It should be referenced by a published source or removed, according to the policy on Wikipedia, which deprecates personal opinion or original research. Having said that, it is consistent with the research of historians such as those in the John Whitmer Historical Association --Blainster 04:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dallin H. Oaks

It is my feeling that Mr. Oaks current position in the LDS is very relevant as to his POV on this subject, and should be included in the article itself and not just as a footnote. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

When he wrote the article he was not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, so it's a bit backwards to want to mention it in the text of the article. If you would like to add the fact that was a practising Latter-day Saint into the text of the article, that makes more sense. In other words, the fact that he was LDS could have affected his POV when he wrote his article. The fact that he was later called as a member of the Quroum of the Twelve could have had no effect when he wrote the article. If he's more notable for something other than the article that occurred after the publication of the article, it is more than appropriate to reference that factoid in a footnote, but it should not be inserted as all it does is disrupts the flow of the sentence. (And we're not just talking a couple of months' or years' separating the events here—the article was published in 1965 and he didn't become an LDS apostle until 1984.) –SESmith 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Duke53, it sounds like you think Oaks's analysis might have been tainted by his pro-LDS point of view. If that were indeed the case, do you think it would have been likely that such an unsound analysis would be published in the Utah Law Review and be favorably cited by the U.S. Supreme Court? In particular, doesn't the rigorous editorial process of a law review journal weigh in your mind against the assumption that his work was apologetic rather than objective? By bringing Oaks's current position in the LDS church into the article, forty years after his analysis was done, aren't you making a bigger issue of his supposed bias than the law review editors or the Supreme Court justices have done? And are you comfortable with the idea that any legal scholar's commentary on the subject (if any besides Oaks have done so) should have their current religious activity mentioned, in case they too have a potential bias towards or against Mormonism? alanyst ^/talk/ 05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"Duke53, it sounds like you think Oaks's analysis might have been tainted by his pro-LDS point of view". I absolutely do think that his 'pro-LDS' may have played a part in his analysis, just as I would feel that an 'anti-LDS' analyst's POV would come into play with his opinion.

"Oaks's legal scholarship into the history of the writ of habeas corpus was approvingly referenced by the U.S. Supreme Court". Does this equate to his analysis of Smith's role in destroying the newspaper? I do not see the connection. Was he lauded by the U.S. Supreme Court for his analysis on the subject of this article? As far as the Utah Law Review .... ?? I am fairly certain that if an 'anti-LDS' attorney had come up with an alternate opinion about this incident that his 'anti-Mormonism' stance would be noted in the article somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duke53 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with noting his LDS affiliation, but you wanted to note his membership in the Quorum of the 12, which is a separate issue. – SESmith 06:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[Edit conflict.] Okay, good to know where you're coming from, Duke53. I basically agree with SESmith that Oaks's current position has little relevance to his analysis of forty years ago, but that his status at the time of the analysis as an LDS member perhaps merits a mention, something like this:

However, a legal analysis of the issue was undertaken by an LDS law professor, Dallin H. Oaks, while he was teaching at the University of Chicago Law School.

That mention of his religion, together with the link to Oaks's own article that details his professional and ecclesiastical activities, should be sufficient to alert the reader to possible influences on his legal scholarship, I think. Do you agree, Duke53? It's actually not entirely to my liking, as I don't care for the implication that just because someone has a set of beliefs that their academically-reviewed scholarship is questionable, but I can see how omitting mention of his background can make it look like someone is trying to sneak in an apologetic viewpoint to the article. I don't believe anyone's trying to do that, but if it makes the article seem more honest then I'm okay with it, for my part. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people's versions of 'academically-reviewed' or 'peer reviewed' articles are not exactly 'to my liking' either, but I am told that I have to live with it. Oaks didn't get to his current lofty position in the LDS church by publishing anything that might upset the powers-that-be of the LDS church; my feeling is that this work of his follows the church's view very closely. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing about this "conspiracy-theory"-style outlook being floated here is that if there is any law review in the North America that tries extremely hard to avoid presenting or appearing to present pro-LDS Church material, it is the Utah Law Review. The University of Utah—and particularly its law school—is not exactly well-known for its positive view of Mormonism or the LDS Church. Had the article been published in a BYU law review, your argument might have legs. I also don't understand why pet theories about how Oaks got to his current position is in any way relevant to this article. –SESmith 01:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And if the review had been done at any other law review outside the state with the largest LDS population in the U.S.A. your argument might have legs. Duke53 | ^Talk 01:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You obviously aren't familiar with the editorial biases of the Utah Law Review. It's called "overcompensation". Oaks has published other legal works touching on Mormonism, some of which have been published by the University of Illinois Press. I would bet that you, due to your personal biases and pet theories, would find these just as suspect, despite the fact that they were not published in Utah. –SESmith 02:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you any documented cases of this 'overcompensation' by the Utah Law Review, or is this simply your perception of them? If some people keep repeating something long enough then other people will start believing it, without any documented proof of it. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have tape-recordings of their editorial meetings from the past 45 years. :) My point was not to "prove" anything: it was merely to note that it is ironic that you bring up these concerns when a common perception among many lawyers about the Utah Law Review is the complete opposite of your apparent concerns about it. My saying this doesn't "prove" anything, except maybe that you are not at all familiar with some common perceptions of the ULR.

Anyway, should I assume you also have researched the issue and have independent documented proof of the biased nature of Oaks's legal opinions and that the nature of these opinions were taken into account when deciding to make him an LDS Church apostle? -SESmith 03:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You may assume anything that you choose. By 'documented proof' I meant something in a public record or such, not some OR that you may have. I will understand if you don't have proof, just some perception about them. I never stated as fact that Oaks was biased ... you did state as fact that the Utah Law Review was biased. Duke53 | ^Talk 04:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, you don't need to apply WP article standards to things someone writes on the Talk page, you know. That's a bit ridiculous. It's not like I'm including my opinions about ULR in the article. And incidentally, my point was not that the ULR is biased: one of my comments above clarifies that there was a general perception amongst lawyers that they tried to avoid being or looking pro-LDS Church. If you misunderstood my point due to my jovial, colloquial and abbreviated style of writing on a talk page, that's really what it was. You did, however, state without much equivication that Oaks gained his current position by avoiding the publication of anything that "might upset the powers-that-be" of the LDS Church, and you haven't modified this view with a subsequent comment. So if you're worried about OR on the talk page, it's right under your nose. :) Silly ... Let's keep the OR worries to matters that are actually edited into the article.

I think that it could probably constitute a violation of WP:OR to require the article to state Oaks's current position in a section talking about a piece of legal research and writing he produced in the 1960s, which was the original issue here.-SESmith 08:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. Oaks at the time was a law professor with a prestigious clerkship and few years of practice at Kirkland & Ellis under his belt. Being a Latter-day Saint, his analysis could have been biased, but we're not citing here him as an apostle. We're quoting him as a Mormon attorney and professor. I think the most problematic part of this article is right before the Oaks quote. It seems to be original legal analysis from primary sources. Can we get a citation for it? Cool Hand Luke 08:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, we might want to augment Oaks' 1965 view with his co-written treatise Carthage Conspiracy (Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill , Urbana, University of Illinois Press, 1975). I've not read it, but it appears to cover much of the same ground. The BYU Law Review wrote in a book review of it with this excerpt: "The Mormons' destruction of the press of the Nauvoo Expositor, a clearly unjustified act, and Joseph Smith's flight to avoid arrest are frankly described..." 1976 BYU L. Rev. 353, 354. Cool Hand Luke 09:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, scratch that. The enormous copyright violation known as Google books tells me that they just cite Oaks' earlier article approvingly for legal analysis. Marvin S. Hill, a BYU History professor, does not add credibility to the source if we're worried about his pro-Mormon bias. Cool Hand Luke 09:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-hash attempt: POV over Oaks

Back to the previous discussion, I would suggest that it is POV or agenda-driven to insist that Oaks be called out as a current LDS apostle in the article. This info, which is certainly interesting, should remain in the footnote. Only someone with a conspiracy theorist's mind (or an axe to grind about the LDS) would feel the need to stress this fact, which has little to do with Oaks' research as a lawyer. I'm not Mormon and I see no justification for the inclusion in the body of the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If Oaks were labeled an ' anti-mormon ' here (which almost all who don't accept mormon doctrine as gospel are labeled) there would be a stampede to include that info in the article. Tit for tat ... it provides a useful fact to this article. Duke53 | ^Talk 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Right on time, the swarm arrives to begin tag teaming. Good show. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you keep your snide comments to yourself? I don't accept Mormon doctrine and I've never been called an anti-Mormon. This is actually about a bad edit - yours. A Sniper (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would you ever be called 'anti-mormon' ? Describing an 'expert' fully is not a bad edit ... avoiding mentioning his status is a horrible edit, however. We are back to a situation where a single editor cannot make any edit that a team of pro-mormon editors can swarm with reversions ... same old, same old. Oaks didn't reach his lofty perch in the lds church by preaching anything BUT 'company policy'. My comment stands: it is what it is. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

How about agreeing to settle the editorial question by asking an uninvolved editor for their opinion as to the amount of emphasis that should be given to Oaks's current position? Can the two of you mutually agree on a person to ask? Maybe User:Newyorkbrad, who is an arbitrator here, a lawyer in real life, and widely considered on-wiki and off-wiki to be a fair-minded person? (To my knowledge, NYB has not been involved in any of the LDS-related disputes, so I have no reason to believe he'd be biased one way or the other.) Or pick someone else...just please focus on resolving the dispute. alanyst ^/talk/ 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, there is no need for an uninvolved editor. This is a simple case of NPOV vs. POV. Neither editor is a Mormon, but it seems the other editor (based on his/her statement) is exercising "tit for tat" editing - trying to balance a perceived bias by stressing an irrelevant, though interesting, piece of information. By linking Oaks to his current Mormon leadership position, the user seeks to discredit Oaks research as a lawyer. This should be obvious, even to my non-Mormon brain. There is no dispute here - there is one editor who has made a POV edit. A Sniper (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's typical of both sides in a dispute to believe sincerely that they are taking the objective stance and that their opponent is the biased one. Even if one of the parties actually is more accurate in this belief (not to say that's the case here necessarily), what harm would it do to seek someone who both sides can agree beforehand is likely to provide an objective view? alanyst ^/talk/ 18:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

By NOT mentioning Oaks' status, it appears that the editor is trying to hide it. Discredit his research? Hardly. Not mentioning his position is the POV edit; passersby might not recognize his name, and might believe that he was / is an uninterested laic, which he most certainly is NOT. Put the facts out there and let our readers decide for themselves whether there is / was a slant to his research. Duke53 | ^Talk 19:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You and A Sniper have proved my point: both of you think you're on the side of NPOV against a POV-pushing opponent. I will approach NYB about this tomorrow unless the two of you can agree on someone else to ask to intercede, or can resolve the dispute on your own. alanyst ^/talk/ 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Waste of time. However, I'm curious what the motive of the user is for highlighting Oaks' current Mormon leadership position...My take on it is that he wishes to diminish Oaks' credibility. I would challenge the user to explain his motivation, other than the tit for tat he has already mentioned. A Sniper (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I restate my position from above. I don't think adding Oaks title is a big deal but I don't think it's necessary—we're citing him as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School who had a legal and academic career ahead of him, not as an Apostle of the LDS Church. However, since I have affiliations with both institutions, I may not be an impartial party.

To me the bigger problem is the mass of apparent original research that precedes the section on Oaks' analysis. I'm no expert on Illinois constitutional jurisprudence, and I would like to see some citation for the proposition that the Illinois Constitution meant x or y in 1844. As with the U.S. Constitution, interpretations of state constitutions can change over time, and I think this whole mass should be deleted unless there's some existing secondary analysis we can use. This section seems to have entered the article as a sort of OR debate early in the article's history. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It was claimed Oaks analysis was cited favorably by the Supreme Court. To clarify: that citation is not about this article at all, but is instead about criminal procedure in California v. Minjares about the exclusionary rule. His work on habeas corpus and criminal law has been cited by the 2nd, 7th, D.C. circuits.

I have a PDF copy of the article from HeinOnline, 42 pages; it does not seem to be online. If anyone needs a copy, email me. The article does not seem obviously biased to me. In the section on damages covered in this article, Oaks says:

"there was no legal justification in 1844 for the destruction of the Expositor press as a nuisance. Its libelous, provocative, and perhaps obscene output may well have been a public and a private nuisance, but the evil article was not the press itself but the way in which it was being used. Consequently, those who caused or accomplished its destruction were liable for money damages in an action of trespass." 891.

He says the Illinois free press section was passed through states originally from Pennsylvania, where courts took a "no prior restraints" interpretation in 1788, an interpretation reiterated by one of the drafters of the Pennsylvania 1790 constitution, and by an 1805 anti-sedition case. Oaks also says that the Massachusetts Supreme Court reached a similar determination for its (different) free press provision in 1838. Oaks surveys several press suppression cases, and takes a keen interest in Near v. Minnesota, a suppression case originating 1927 where that state's Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the suppression because "It is the liberty of the press that is guaranteed - not the licentiousness." 901. The U.S. Supreme Court only narrowly overturned this 5-4. In conclusion he writes:

"A historian friendly to the people of Nauvoo has called the suppression of the Nauvoo Expositor "the grand Mormon mistake .... " 220 That its consequences were disastrous to the Mormon leaders and that alternative means might better have been employed cannot be doubted. Nevertheless, the common assumption of historians that the action taken by the city council to suppress the paper as a nuisance was entirely illegal is not well founded. Aside from damages for unnecessary destruction of the press, for which the Nauvoo authorities were unquestionably liable, the remaining actions of the council, including its interpretation of the constitutional guarantee of a free press, can be supported by reference to the law of their day." 902-903.

Cool Hand Luke 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dallin Oaks

It doesn't matter 'what' Oaks was when he wrote this ... it does 'matter' what he is now, and his high rank in the lds church is relevant.

Typical WP ploy used here: say that something should remain as it is until it has been thoroughly discussed, then do not actually have that discussion. Let's have this go before the entire group of WP editors and hear their thoughts. I am sure that this information will be included then. Duke53 | ^Talk 15:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking a few sections back, it appears that there was a discussion (mostly last year), with most involved editors disagreeing with you that it is relevant. What new arguments do you have for the additions of your edit? Have you any documented cases of Oaks' current high rank in the lds church causing his previously published legal analyses to be suspect, or is this simply your perception? Alanyst did try to get an uninvolved, neutral third party involved, and if that isn't sufficient, go to the WP:RFC and place a notice. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you place a notice here, and it's automatically added on the RFC list. I've done that below. I've tried to describe the dispute neutrally. Let me know if it's unsatisfactory. Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would just again state that I am not LDS - my only interest in editing these articles is for accuracy (and personal motivation, as I've stated, has been as a Smith) - and I see no reason whatsoever that the Oaks info is essential at that point in the article. I view it more as an effort by an editor to discredit the research. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC - Oaks

The article includes the legal analysis of a historical event by Dallin H. Oaks, written and published in the Utah Law Review in 1965 when Oaks was a law professor at a University of Chicago. Oaks concluded that the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor press by LDS and Nauvoo municipal leaders would not have violated the constitutional principles of 1844, although it could have been the basis of a tort suit. Oaks is now a high-ranking authority in the LDS Church, an Apostle. Should his current status be mentioned inline in the article, as opposed to merely in a footnote?

We would like outsiders to the dispute, particularly those who have no connection to the LDS Church. Most of this talk page discusses this dispute, so feel free to read through it. Thanks in advance for your help! Cool Hand Luke 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think a mention in the footnote is sufficient, since (1) his becoming an apostle happened after the article was published, and so is irrelevant from a time standpoint; (2) mentioning of the heirarchy position appears to be a type of an attempt to discredit the research. While it may be slightly relevant in assessing the research, it's not central, and a footnote should suffice. Theoretically, the wikilink to Oaks's article should be enough, but I see that's probably not an acceptable option to those involved in the dispute. (Caveat: I am not exactly "an outsider", as I have edited numerous other LDS-related articles. But I haven't done much on this particular page.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

OMG, so appallingly petty. Grow up, learn to use Wikipedia besides something for venting your angers and/or agendas; and come to consensus that's good for all: adding a parenthetical at the end of the paragraph where Oaks' opinion is mentioned -as a simple statement of fact- should suffice, since it's not quite inline and it's not quite a footnote. ("Oaks' later became an official with LDS.") 207.237.33.133 (talk) 10:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to attack others, anon. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion: I read a lot of the above commentary on the topic, and the arguments presented are fairly okay, and interesting. I think perhaps the one where it is mentioned in passing in the sentence that says he was a law professor that he was a member of the LDS (or, what is the correct way to put it, a believer?), and then a footnote about being an Apostle, would be okay. The second seems odd though, it seems irrelevant? Well anyway, a footnote would be fine for that, it's basically just a tidbit. These are my thoughts on it, I don't know anything about this debate, I just read through the comments and found the arguments interesting, if for being sometimes slightly biting.--Asdfg12345 22:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The current article relies quite a bit on the Salt Lake Tribune article. There has been a lot published on the episode in a variety of history books (Bushman, Donna Hill, Browdie, etc), which I consider to be more authoritative. In particular, the allegation that Joseph Smith approached Law's wife is one that I was not familiar with, though I have read quite a bit on the subject, and that seems to stem mostly from the newspaper article. Honestly, I don't know anything about the reliability of the allegation, but I do know that newspaper articles do have a pretty high rate of getting facts wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.42.9.150 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Obvious inline inclusion

Why do we even care WHAT Oaks thinks? Is it because he's a professor with an opinion-- no. Everyone's got an opinion and it is WP:SYNTH to just start mixing them.

So, my instinct was to chop the entire Oak's section as OR/Synth. BUT-- Oaks isn't just some professor, he's a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles! THAT is why we care about his opinion, much like we might care about the opinion of a Catholic cardinal.

If I'm correct that Oaks's opinion is relevant because of his standing in the church, then we can include Oaks analysis, citing inline his high standing. Alternatively, if we think Oak's standing in the church is irrelevant, then Oaks' opinions aren't worth hearing absent some evidence they're influential.

We need to get this right-- he's a religious leader with an influential opinion, or he's a non-historian with a non-notable personal view. I think it's the former. --20:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oaks was not a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the time. The current wording, that he was a law professor at the time (important because this was a legal analysis) and later became a leader in the church gives all the helpful information. Bahooka (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

So, I'm not certain what you're saying. Is Oaks' opinion just the opinion of a professor who happens to be mormon, or are we claiming that Oak's analysis is an 'influential' opinion within LDS?

Mentioning his influence isn't "an attempt to discredit the research"-- indeed, mentioning the influence is the only reason I can see the section survives NOR. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The analysis was published in a reliable source (the Utah Law Review), so it can stand on that alone in my opinion. I think explaining that the analysis was done by a law professor who later became a leader of the church is the best approach to explaining who Oaks was and is. It would seem odd to not mention his standing as a law professor at the time and just state a church leader did a legal analysis in a legal journal. Bahooka (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Explaining him as "church leader and former law professor" works fine for me. It just seems odd to omit his status as a church leader (and I agree it would be just as odd to omit his status as a law professor). Why do we care what a random lawyer in 21st century is arguing? Because he's not just some random lawyer-- he's a leader and his arguments carry weight. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec x 2) Oaks, a credentialed legal scholar at the time, wrote a scholarly paper in a peer-reviewed journal on the legal aspect of this article's subject. That alone qualifies his analysis as a relevant and reliable source; his current position in the church has nothing to do with the reliability of the source but is mentioned to alert the reader to Oaks' possible biases. Wikipedia's policy against original research (i.e., synthesis originating from Wikipedia) doesn't seem to be at all germane to this (very old!) RfC. Are you saying this article was cherry-picked from the hundreds of other legal analyses of the destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor out there? alanyst 20:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think Oaks's article is notable because he is a church leader or an active Mormon. It's notable with respect to this topic because it's pretty much the only article on the subject that has been published in a peer-reviewed law journal. We would such a source in this article regardless of the person's religious status. At the time the article was published, Oaks was a garden-variety Mormon elder but was not a general leader of the church until 1984, after he was CJ of Utah. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

To GoodOl'-- If what you say is true, that Oaks's opinion doesn't carry any special weight, then I think we're looking at OR/Synth or Undue. 150 years have passed-- why is this one opinion from 1964 worth explaining? Put another way, why are no other contemporary opinions worth sharing?

The best answer I have is that Apostle Oaks' opinion is held in high regard because of his religious position.

At present, we need to either cut Oaks, add other opinions for NPOV/UNDUE, or specify to the ready why Oaks' opinion matter to the reader. Just saying he was a law professor, with no mention of his religious standing, suggests nobody cares about about an "armchair historian"'s legal opinion was in 1964, with no suggestion that anyone else cares what Oaks' thinks.

I understand not wanting to use the man's religion "against" him somehow, but it's a GLARING omission. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"Why is this one opinion from 1964 worth explaining?" Because it is a legal analysis of the legality of the Nauvoo city council's action against the Expositor, provided by a legal scholar and published in a peer-reviewed law journal. Any other similarly qualified law professor's article on the subject, similarly published in a peer-reviewed journal, would similarly deserve mention regardless of the author's relationship with or feelings toward the LDS church. "Why are no other contemporary opinions worth sharing?" If you have access to other legal analyses of the Expositor case that might qualify as reliable sources, by all means provide them. alanyst 04:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

That's a fine solution, if we want to get into the whole discussion of what modern legal scholars think. I think the cleanest and easiest solution is to point out just how respected Oaks is in the hierarchy-- making the section more of a "what a respected a LDS-leader has said" about the subject.

Alanyst's way would work fine too-- making the section more of about "what modern people say" about the subject and adding RSes for balance. --HectorMoffet (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

So ... where are these other sources? I have yet to see anyone propose anything specific. There's probably a good reason for that—there are very few. I don't know of any other peer-reviewed articles by legal writers on the topic who perform independent analyses. So why do we favour Oaks's analysis? Because it is the only one! (Typically, Oaks just gets cited and his opinions regurgitated.) Oaks did not say what he said as "a respected LDS leader", and no one that I have ever heard in the LDS Church quotes Oaks's article in presenting a "church view" or a "respected LDS leader's opinion" of the incident. (Again, at the time he was not a general authority at the time and had no authority—real or implied—to speak on behalf of the church and its members, and since his becoming a general authority there has been no effort to retroactively endorse his paper, for example by publication in the Ensign.) I have, on the other hand, seen other non-Mormon legal writers cite Oaks's analysis and essentially repeat his analysis as a sound one. I also object to the suggestion that the section exists "with no mention of his religious standing"—there is—in the footnote. That was the approach that was adopted after the previous RFC on this very issue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Nobody reads footnotes; On the one hand, I think mentioning his later role in the church tells us something important about how his work has been received-- i.e. his analysis isn't "considered heretical", quite the contrary. Put another way-- suppose he had been disfellowed after his analysis was published-- that would also tell us something important about how his work was received and demonstrate a lack of respect for it. --HectorMoffet (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

"Nobody reads footnotes". Oh my dear sir, don't extrapolate your own behavior cover everyone in the world at large. If we all did that, I could say: everyone reads—nay, relishes—footnotes, and usually finds them more interesting than the text in which they are found. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I do know of one quasi-church source which explicitly cites the Oaks article: a CES manual on church history called Church History in the Fulness of Times p. 275. The paragraph that cites Oaks states: "Joseph Smith, as mayor, ordered the city marshal, John Greene, to destroy the press, scatter the type, and burn any remaining newspapers. The order was carried out within hours. The city council acted legally to abate a public nuisance, although the legal opinion of the time allowed only the destruction of the published issues of the offending paper. The demolition of the press was a violation of property rights." This is not dissimilar to the non-church references to Oaks that I have seen. The church doesn't really treat the issue as a matter of doctrine for which there is a orthodox answer. As far as I can tell from their other material, it's essentially regarded as a technical legal issue and really is not what most Latter Day Saints focus on much when they consider the lead-up to Smith's death, so there is little written on it from a church perspective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:16, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, G.O. that was really helpful. "it's essentially regarded as a technical legal issue and really is not what most Latter Day Saints focus on much" especially made a light bulb go off in my head. --HectorMoffet (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The glaring omission

So, let's assume for the moment that we should ascribe ONLY secular weight to Oaks' words-- which is one way to do it.

This creates a new problem. I think every reader to the article is going to ask "So, what do modern mormons think of this incident?". To use an example, what if the article on Jesus's Cleansing of the Temple never mentioned what modern christians make of the event.

There should be a section where we mention that this wasn't just dispute about a free press-- the events have theological significance that should be talked about.

I think Oaks is one great spokesperson for this, but if we don't want to bring up his religion, then we should find a different source or two to explain the mormon perspective and make a new section for it.

Readers want to know "What does the LDS church say about this"-- if we're not pointing them to Oaks, let's fill that hole with a different source. --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What sources do you have in mind? There are relatively few on this topic. It's nice to speak in idealistic terms, but practically speaking, what is being proposed? What are the sources? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 16:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

hehehe well, that's the rub isn't it.  :) Maybe someone will suggest one here on talk-- if not I'll try to dig up source when I get to that section. --HectorMoffet (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Quotes

The overall percentage of this article which is directly quoted text versus summary is much too high. Please see wp:QUOTEFARM. I tried to trim this down a few days ago, summarizing trivial & non-central information, but this was out-of-hand reverted. Since then the overuse of quotes in this article has only gotten worse in the article. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Direct quotes are sometimes the best tool for the job, but not always. Do any sections jump out to you as especially needing summaries instead of quotes? --HectorMoffet (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Anything with more than maybe three sentences, as well as the trivial information. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Given that we have a link to the Wikisource on the page, I don't see a need to quote the affidavits verbatim. It's pretty easy to just briefly describe the contents of the affidavits in a sentence. I'm also not sure why we need the verbatim orders to destroy the press, the letter from Governor Ford, or the writ of arrest. I see that's basically all the stuff in dropdown boxes. None of this is information that is very hard to summarize. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Modern analysis

This section is in a sad state. It contains a singular response by one Mormon who essentially claims that its legal for a local government council to hold court and circumvention justice systems. This is not the case in the US. The singular source indicates that this is the modern authority on the matter, which is not the case either. I have no problem with the piece staying if it has counter arguments presented, but alone it is not suitable for Wikipedia. I will delete the section again if no additional material is found. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The cited analysis is by a Mormon, true (who is now a prominent leader in the LDS church), but is also the only scholarly, peer-reviewed legal analysis of the case that appears to exist. It is the modern authority on the matter until someone publishes another peer-reviewed legal analysis. If you know of counter-arguments that meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources, let's have them. In the meantime, though, the section is informative and neutrally reports what the only reliable source has to say about the legal aspects, so it should remain. alanyst 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. This issue has been discussed before. I agree with alanyst that the section should remain. The Oaks piece is a reliable source and is the only peer-reviewed treatment of this incident that users have been able to locate. I don't know of any other, and the Oaks one is cited frequently when the issue is mentioned by other authors. I would suggest that users should hesitate to criticize the Oaks argument unless they have read it in its entirety—its rationale depends to a large extent on the nature of the Nauvoo Charter, which was a legal document of the type that is uncommon in today's United States. I have read it and I find the conclusion to be basically sound, from a legal standpoint. The morality or wisdom of the incident was not Oaks's focus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Per comment, I'd like to at least change the section name to something less POV. Its not the modern general viewpoint so much as one modern view. Arguments against Oaks are already considered in other sections of the article. "Oaks Analysis", perhaps? Considering the expansion tag, simply identifying Oaks' potential sensibilities/alignment would be enough. But, as you said, it seems unlikely at this point that we might find another view. i would imagine the ramifications of one somewhat obscure action in Mormon history is not exactly the most discussed topic in the general legal world. I would say this specific detail is of interest almost exclusively to Mormons, and people opposed to Mormons in some way. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 18:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Modern analysis" seems pretty neutral to me. It is a legal analysis from the recent past. How does it suggest a particular POV to you? alanyst 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The section title can be interpreted as singular, given the circumstances. We might as well make it 'the modern analysis', from my viewpoint. When articles feature "modern commentary", that's generally the section that shows commonly accepted modern viewpoints. Continuing with that reasoning, when there is only one commentary, there is only one upheld relevant modern view. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

"The modern analysis" might unintentionally imply that Oaks's analysis is the only possible correct legal analysis, or the one that has been universally accepted. I don't think either is the case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced information

I was a bit shocked to discover that this page had asserted in its lead for almost two years that the destruction of the press was by an unauthorised mob, against the wishes of Smith and the City Council; despite our sources (including LDS ones, and ones in Smith's own words) saying clearly that he ordered the press to be destroyed and that this was carried out by the town marshal. Please watch out for inaccurate and unsourced information! TSP (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Legal analysis section unneeded

Having an entire separate section for "legal analysis" is not necessary. jps (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Having as a separate section preserves the flow of the history portion of the text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the current text is problematic, but I do think it's a little jarring to hear 20th century analyses in the middle of the history flow. I'd say move the section back to the bottom but give it a major facelift so it actually presents analyses of why the destruction was unlawful. Feoffer (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like WP:PROMOTION of the First Presidency to me to have a separate section devoted to one person's POV. jps (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Because it is so blatantly favoring the LDS POV, I have reverted FyzikFighter for WP:POVPUSHing. jps (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No, not POV-pushing, just disagreement with your edit that awkwardly and sloppily placed and modified the text in the middle of the history section. I explained why I felt the edit was detrimental and, based on WP:STATUSQUO, switched back to the long standing version pending a new consensus. Your only opposition to the keeping the edit was it "is not necessary" with no explanation of how it was detrimental (which is examples #3 from WP:OWNBEHAVIOR). Then, instead of addressing my concerns, you immediately accuse me of editing in bad faith and jettison any pretense of WP:BRD. I know, not a policy, bBut you do you. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Thats one way to look at this... Another way to look at it is that you've been pushing a POV here since 2008[2]. In the article I see at least eight edits by you related to the topic well spaced throughout all of those years and no real consensus on the talk page to include, so its a bit odd to see you here now talking about BRD. Given that you wrote in 2014 "rv - Oaks was not a church leader when he wrote journal article, but was a credentialed legal scholar at the time, and the scholarly paper appeared in a peer-reviewed, secular journal (ie, a RS" (you sound like a broken record BTW) it would appear that you are slow edit warring. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd go farther and say that the analysis is inappropriate at this time. You said on FTN that the statement was "boring", but i think it is surprising and exceptional. Oaks is a very good source for the article, for a description of events maybe the best, and is well cited. But i don't think other authors are citing for his analysis. For instance Sarah Barringer Gordon can say kangaroo court yet still cite Oaks as an authority, probably viewing the analysis as fairly irrelevant also.

If you do include the opinion that under the law of the time the newspaper could have been declared libelous and therefore a public nuisance, implying that only the destruction was questionable i think you do need a whole "legal analysis" section to explain. I read the naked opinion in the current article and feel less informed, wondering how in the hell someone could make such an argument. Reading Oaks i'm not very impressed but do think there's much other valuable info in the source. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you clarify by what you mean by "inappropriate at this time"? As noted in a few of the previous discussions, other RS providing a legal analysis have not been found or reference this analysis. Gordon actually does cite Oaks in the Oxford Handbook of Mormonism to support the claim that some scholars defend the council's right under law to "abate" the newspaper as a nuisance, so not totally irrelevant I think. Your comment about the naked opinion in the current article - is that the state of the article when you made the comment or the longstanding status quo version? Certainly I think we could improve the summary of the analysis from if the current summary is lacking. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that it isn't nescessary, we can include Oaks' opinion but it should be though a modern independent source and as a stand alone section it doesn't seem appropriate. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Um, what you are describing is a tertiary source. Oaks is the secondary source - his analysis has taken the primary sources (historical documents from Nauvoo, case law from the area and time period, etc) and synthesizes a conclusion. The analysis is published in an academic journal so generally a reliable, secondary source. Why is a modern independent source needed? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

"Why is a modern independent source needed?" We always prefer modern independent sources to dated non-indepedent sources. You appear to know that the issue is who the author is, not the sourcing level or publisher... So why dance around it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Wherever we cover Oaks, we need to be clear in text, not footnote that Oaks was not some random impartial law professor. Feoffer(talk) 05:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems like the intent of the "Mormon" tag you are advocating for is to influence the reader to be suspicious of these sources and to introduce editorial bias that is not contained in the cited sources. It actually moves the text away from a neutral and impartial presentation of the sources. All of this is contrary to WP:NPOV. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages what reliable sources say about the subject. There is no requirement that sources used in articles have no bias, and the recommended way to balance potentially biased sources is not to introduce this kind of non-neutral language but to add other sources to provide a more neutral article.

Additionally, we mitigate potential for bias by pulling from the best reliable secondary sources, which both of these citations satisfy. What makes the Oaks and Firmage & Mangrum sources relevant is not that they are Mormon, but that they are legal scholars who have addressed this subject. --FyzixFighter (talk) 03:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In instances where there were obscure applications of the law relevant to only the religious movements that continued, it seems the only people interested in substantively dealing with these questions are Mormons because, frankly, no one else cares. This is typically for many New Religious Movements. The reader is not helped if the article is written as though this is some sort of "dispassionate evaluation" when it is actually done at the behest of cultists. jps (talk) 18:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Firmage and Mangrum are ALSO church members who were being identified only as legal scholars. Its likely the entire section is unbalanced toward FRINGE. Feoffer (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Whether we as editors think this should be here is irrelevant. If there is significant enough coverage in secondary sources, then it is relevant. Oaks analysis and his follow on book are cited numerous times throughout the literature on this subject. To not include it would make this article incomplete. HOW he is presented should follow the precedent set in the scholarly literature. Epachamo (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

You are literally arguing against presenting him how he is presented in the scholarly literature... (which is not as a stand alone section) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

In my first sentence, "this" was in reference to the section "Legal Analysis" which is the actual topic of this talk page section. Awkwardly phrased I admit. You say "I'm literally arguing against presenting him how he is presented in the scholarly literature." The only thing I said was that it should follow scholarly precedent. Where did I argue anything else? Epachamo (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

You can either admit that it was awkwardly phrased or you can aggressively demand to know where you argued such a thing... But you can't reasonably do both, the first answers the second. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Attack the argument not the person. Please help me understand how my argument is wrong, or different than scholarly precedent. Epachamo (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting Oak's analysis is irrelevant or unworthy of inclusion. Feoffer (talk) 18:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there is much in Oaks' paper that is more relevant and worthy of inclusion. Instead of what might have been an argument if the council had done something other than destroy the press, how they actually went about things and why they felt legally justified. fiveby(zero) 22:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Article already includes (Per Oaks via official LDS site): "The Nauvoo City Council had reason to believe their actions were legal.", but what other improvements would you propose? Feoffer (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Pov check tag

Three different members of the church were characterized only as "legal scholars". This suggests NPOV issues may be widespread on this article. Be on the lookout for additional instances. Feoffer (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, after a major POV-cleanse, I'm taking down the tag until I have true 'dispute', but I encourage all editors to help do a POV-check. If anyone does an partial reverts, please restore the tag. I should state, for the record, I was solicited via WP:FTN. Finally, I want to compliment all involved for such a 'balanced' article despite POV language issues; Usually articles with NPOV issues are one-sided, but there was roughly equal cleanup need on all sides. Feoffer (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Dalin Oak's well-cited biographical details have been purged, resulting in a version that fails NPOV. Feoffer (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure people know how to discuss matters, so I started a new section below. jps (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

William Law in lede

The second paragraph of the lede mentions "Law and his allies", but that is the first mention of him. I think something more should be said about him to bring some context to the sentence, but I'm not sure what the best wording would be. Suggestions? Bahooka (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done thanks for pointing that out. A major cleanup was just done and there lots of polishiny still to do. Law's no longer in lede. Feoffer (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Troubling description...

In the Origins section, there is the statement "In 1839, Law led a group of Canadian saints to Nauvoo.", which is troubling for a few reasons - one, it takes the LDS' own description of its members as "saints" at face value, something that is not how non-LDS sources would describe those members, two, the LDS usage isn't explained so that it appears that we are saying the group that Law led was indeed saints in the more general sense, and three, this specialized usage of LDS terminology isn't explained anywhere so the non-LDS reader is left confused and will not necessarily know that what is meant by "saint" here is "members of the LDS church" rather than "sanctified individuals". Ealdgyth (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Feoffer (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Fawn Brodie is not a "Mormon" historian

Listing Fawn Brodie as a "Mormon" historian is incorrect. This has been hashed out over at WP:LDS/RS. Her biography of Joseph Smith was the standard for around 60 years, and to this day is disparaged within Mormonism as "anti-mormon". That she would now be labeled as a "Mormon" historian would be scorned by scholars on all sides. Epachamo (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Excommunicated Mormons are still Mormons, and we do mention the excommunication. Feoffer (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

"Excommunicated Mormons are still Mormons". What? Isn't that the point of excommunication, to make clear they aren't Mormon anymore? It's not how she viewed herself, not how the church viewed her. Regardless, you are WAY out of step with how Brodie's views are presented in SCHOLARLY literature, not apologetic literature. If you can find me a single source that refers to her as a "Mormon" historian, then I would concur, otherwise it needs to be removed. Wikipedia reflects scholarship, it doesn't create it. Epachamo (talk) 03:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This argument seems unnecessarily aggressive and exclusionary. You don't have to be a member of the church to be a Mormon or of Mormon heritage, its a bit more complicated than that... For example if we look at the Utah History Encycopedia the entry for Fawn Brodie opens "Born in Huntsville, Utah, in 1915, Fawn Brodie came from patrician Mormon stock. Both her father, Thomas E. McKay, and uncle David O. McKay were important church leaders and her maternal grandfather, George H. Brimhall, was at one time president of Brigham Young University." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If you can find me a single source that refers to her as a "Mormon" historian Naifeh & Smith (2015): (link fixed) "When a Mormon historian, Fawn Brodie...". You're welcome and thanks in advance. Feoffer (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this the link you meant to send? It isn't Naifeh & Smith 2015. It is Brimhurst 1999 (which I will point out introduces her simply as an "author". Naifeh & Smith 2015 is not exactly scholarly, and even that book implies that she was independent. Epachamo (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I will also point out, that there is a difference between an article discussing Brodie as a person and the impact of her research (as done in both Naifeh and Smith, and Brimhurst) , and referring to her works and ideas (as in a book about the Nauvoo Expositor, or biography about Joseph Smith). The implication that she has the biases of a "Mormon" historian, as it is presented here, is just simply a misrepresentation that gives the reader the wrong idea that she somehow represents the "Mormon views". Brodie's views were absolutely NOT the "Mormon view". Epachamo (talk) 05:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You asked for 'a' source calling her a Mormon historian. If you'd asked a scholarly source, I'd have given you one. Now that "Mormon historian" is well-sourced, do you have any suggestions for how we could convey to the reader that "Brodie's views were absolutely NOT the [orthodox]'Mormon view'"? Feoffer (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The implication that all Mormons think alike and share the same views seems obviously false, Mormons have a broad range of beleifs and practices (Mormon historians no less than anyone else). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

This was hashed out over at LDS/RS? I don't remember this coming up, she can be both a Mormon historian and disparaged within Mormonism as "anti-mormon" I'm not seeing any contradiction whatsoever there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It's like an 80 year old biography, so there's lot of more modern scholarship. Some of her big points have been convincingly refuted (Smith as irreligious, for example). But when we're just quoting her own notable views, it's appropriate. Feoffer (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

She updated the book in the 1970s, but regardless it is still dated, I agree. Her views still hold some weight in scholarly circles though, so they can't altogether be dismissed. Epachamo (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The point is, she didn't consider herself a Mormon and neither did the Mormon church. More importantly, scholarly literature considers her to be independent from the church. Seriously, this is patently absurd. Epachamo (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So when was this hashed out at LDS/RS? Link or diff prefered Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

See here. Epachamo (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Epachamo: I don't see it, where in that discussion is the issue hashed over? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I see I need to provide more evidence that will hopefully be more convincing. The following table are some of the most prominent current biographies and histories of Joseph Smith. They all refer to Brodie. I also threw in Dallin H. Oaks and Marvin S. Hill's book for good measure to see how true "Mormon" scholars refer to her.

How Brodie is referred to when discussing her ideas

Author	Book	How Brodie is referred to
Dan Vogel	"Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet" page 310	"Historian Fawn Brodie"
Spencer McBride	"Joseph Smith for President: The Prophet, the Assassins, and the Fight for American Religious Freedom" page 246	"Scholar"
Martha Bradley-Evans	"Glorious in Persecution" page 269	"twentieth-century historian"
Richard S. VanWagoner	"Natural Born Seer" page 368, among others	No mention of name, just cites her ideas.
Todd Compton	"In Sacred Lonliness" e-book location 318 of 21885	"Historian Fawn Brodie"
Bryan Waterman	"The Prophet Puzzle" page 6	simply "Fawn McKay Brodie"
Mark S. Staker	"Hearken, O Ye People" page336	simply "Fawn Brodie"
Samuel Brown	"In Heaven as it is on Earth" page 309	No mention of name, just cites her ideas.
Richard Bushman	"Rough Stone Rolling" pg 58, 91, 179	"Unbelieving biographer", "Biography was acknowledged by non-Mormon scholars as the premier study of Joseph Smith", "critic", "historian"
George D. Smith	"Nauvoo Polygamy" e-book location 2538 of 12255	"historian Fawn M. Brodie"
Cheryl Bruno	"Method Infinite" pg 810	"Utah writer"
Richard S. Van Wagoner	"Mormon Polygamy: A History" pg 40	simply "Fawn Brodie"
John L. Brooke	"The Refiner's Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology", ebook location 2011 of 6221	"Historians, including Fawn Brodie"
Will Bagley	"Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows"	just "Fawn Brodie"
Dallin Oaks, Marvin S. Hill	"The Carthage Conspiracy" page 231	simply "Fawn Brodie"

None of the works in this table introduce her as a "Mormon" historian. To pre-empt the accusation that I am cherry picking, I encourage anyone to find a reference that presents a Fawn Brodie idea, similar to how it is in this article, that introduces her as a "Mormon" historian. I hope it is clear that the scholarly standard is to introduce her as a "historian". Any student of Mormon studies will immediately recognize the above list as including all the heavy hitters. Finally, I apologize if my previous conversation came off as aggressive or exclusionary. I know everyone here is trying to make this the best article possible. Epachamo (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncertain that your methodology here makes sense -- no matter how many people call him simply "George Washington", rather than "American President George Washington", RSes agree he was an American president, if you follow my meaning. Would it assuage your concern to somehow describe her as a "Historian and member of the LDS church" instead of "a Mormon historian"? Does the phrase "Mormon historian" implying "Church historian"? Alternatively, we could introduce her church membership in the later sentence where we discuss her excommunication. But we do need to let the reader know she was a member BEFORE we tell them she was subject to discipline. I suspect we both know that's automatically implied by her excommunication, but many religions do in fact 'discipline' non-members, especially authors. Feoffer (talk) 06:49, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We are bound to present her ideas as they are presented in secondary, reliable sources. We don't call her a "Mormon historian" for the same reason we don't call her a "woman historian," "widowed historian" or "mother historian" even though she was these things. Calling her a "Mormon historian" strongly implies a bias that simply wasn't there, or that she was speaking for the church in a way that she wasn't, which is why scholars don't put that title in front of her name. She was a historian, very much has the academic bonafides, wrote an academic book, speaking as a historian. She absolutely positively was not speaking as a Mormon, which is very much the consensus in both Mormon/non-Mormon scholarly communities. In general, I've found the only books that mention her excommunication are apologetic/polemic, in a way to discredit her views, or are biographical about her. Epachamo (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

the only books that mention her excommunication are apologetic/polemic... or are biographical. We actually should include a "faithful mormon anti-Brodie response"! The POVs of the church, the faithful mormons, the exmormons, and ultimately even the antimormons all do need to get summarized eventually. Feoffer (talk) 09:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with that. We just need to be careful that we lump Brodie in with the historians and scholars, not the apologists or antimormons. To do otherwise we are actually introducing UNDUE/POV issues that are contrary to the scholarly consensus. Epachamo (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If the sources noted her gender, maritial status, and motherhood status as much as they note her Mormon heritige it would be due... The only reason it isn't is because they don't, not because its inherently inappropriate. She certainly did have biases as a result of her heritage, those biases are what give us the questionable parts of her work (for example approaching Smith on such an intimate individual level, as if they had a pre-existing relationship) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be Due in a biographical article about Brodie, but not an article about the Nauvoo Expositor. The reliable secondary sources don't make the connection between her biases and her scholarship either, as I showed in the table above. We are making a connection between her ideas that historians themselves don't make. In fact, historians have stumbled over themselves to help praise for the books independence. Find a source that references her ideas that prefaces it with her Mormon affiliation. The only source provided in a different section was biographical, specifically about her book, not the ideas in the book. Epachamo (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You made broad statments about Brodie, I responded to those statements. You said she was not a Mormom historian, that is incorrect. You said she had no biases related to her Mormon heritage, that is incorrect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Good version

[3] I think this is the best version of the article (well, hopefully we'll eventually remove the POV tag). I cannot find any evidence here that there is a problem with this version, so, if there is, let's discuss it here. jps (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made some tweaks to that version (abbreviated bio, "saints" -> LDS members and taken the tag down. Feoffer (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I've already mentioned a couple things that need to change before we can remove the tag in other sections, but I will add here:

1. We need to add the latest scholarship. Grant Palmer is the only author mentioned from this century, and not considered a major historian. This section is very incomplete as is and has a problem with WP:BALANCE.
2. There is still excessive biographical information on ALL the authors cited here. I argue this is WP:UNDUE. None of these viewpoints merit anything more than a single sentence. I do not believe a photo of Oaks contributes meaningfully to an article about the Nauvoo Expositor.
3. Grant Palmer's observation about the Law's is mentioned in many other sources. We should replace that paragraph entirely.
4. After other viewpoints are added, the section title should be changed back to "Legal analysis" or something similar.
5. Words like "opine" should not be in this. It is too close to other words to watch: MOS:SAID. Epachamo (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We need to add the latest scholarship. Sounds good in theory. What specific text would you propose adding?

Palmer's observation about the Law's is mentioned in many other sources We can certainly mention those too.

title should be changed back to "Legal analysis" Maybe, but we'd need the views of multiple non-mormon scholars to be able to craft such a section (The opinions of rank anti-mormons won't suffice). 0 We would also need to see non-mormon scholarly sourcing showing Oaks's analysis being accepted before we could include it in a 'legal analysis' section, as it is [probably] WP:FRINGE. (We can include it in 'mormon views' or 'church views' section all we want. Feoffer (talk) 07:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Many of the texts in the table I mention in "Fawn Brodie is not a "Mormon" historian" section discuss the legality of the destruction. There are several other books such as "Kingdom of Nauvoo" and "Hosea Stout" by Stephen Prince that have a great analysis on the legality. Palmer is not doing original research, he is a tertiary source. That paragraph should be removed. You said, "Maybe, but we'd need the views of multiple non-mormon scholars to be able to craft such a section (The opinions of rank anti-mormons won't suffice)" I agree completely. Until then though, this section is very incomplete. I need to dig into the academic works to see if Oaks work is truly treated as WP:FRINGE. If it is, then I argue it should be removed from the article entirely. Epachamo (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I need to dig into the academic works to see if Oaks work is truly treated as WP:FRINGE. You misstate what FRINGE means just a hair, here. Oaks _is_ a scholar, not a guy wearing tin foil hat. RSes aren't going to "treat him as FRINGE" -- they'll treat him seriously or not at all. To include his opinion in a scholarly section, we need RSes showing a diversity of opinions about his views, with many non-mormon scholars supporting his reasoning.

We do need more coverage of how common press destruction was in that milieu. I've already added how a mormon press was previously destroyed. . Feoffer (talk) 11:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Dallin Oaks as a Stake Mission Leader

First, the biographical information on Oaks is WAY too much, and UNDUE for this article. At most his idea deserves a single sentence. That said, he is presented in this article as a "stake mission president". The intent, I believe, is to show that he was a high ranking member of the church. Given that this is generally NOT how he is presented when his work is discussed in scholarly literature (I can make a table), it should at the very least be pared back significantly. Even if we decide to keep it as is it should still be changed. The organization of the church is a bit byzantine, and not really well understood even by the lay membership. Here are some of the better ones that I've seen: here, and here. Most stakes today do not have Stake Mission Leaders anymore, but when they do, they would fall in as an "Auxilliary" organization within the stake. Oaks was also a Second Counselor in the Stake Presidency, which would have authority over all the auxilliaries, including Stake Mission Leader. If the intent is to show that he was a high ranking member, the counselor in the Stake Presidency would be more prestigious. That said, nobody would be all that impressed by either, and I think the attempt to paint him as a high ranking member backfires. There are probably around 6,000 members of a Stake Presidency today, and 10s of thousands who have served in that calling. Being a Stake President is not considered notable enough to get a Wikipedia page. They do not have authority over the money they collect, buildings they build, or the church lessons that are taught. It is all very centralized at the "General Level". Stake and ward leaders are more like volunteer mid-level managers. In military terms, its like General Officers vs. Field Grade officers. The fact that he went on to become an apostle and in the First Presidency is extremely prestigious, akin to a 4 star general, and I believe would be ok to mention. Furthermore, Richard Bushman was actually a stake president (around the time he won the Bancroft Prize). He is cited maybe thousands of times on Wikipedia. Should we preface each citation of him with all these biographical caveats? I think anyone would have a hard time getting that through. Epachamo (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

The intent, I believe, is to show that he was a high ranking member of the church. I know very little in this area, but my thinking was that "stake" is roughly equivalent to a diocese or a perhaps even a parish, so not at all "high ranking". But NPOV does require us to inform readers that he wasn't a random law professor -- he was already a leader on some level. If you have any specific suggestions on to how to improve the text to help the reader understand what "stake president" means in this context, they might be helpful. Feoffer (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

If the intent is to show that he wasn't just a random law professor, presenting him as a future Apostle and member of the First Presidency would make it much more clear and be much more effective. Presenting him as a stake mission leader will lead a reader to believe that he was just a random law professor, and work counter to what you are trying to convey. Epachamo (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

presenting him as a future Apostle That doesn't do the job; He could have converted to the faith sometime after 1965. Feoffer (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then I wouldn't mention anything at all then. To anyone that knows what it means, mentioning him as a counselor in the stake presidency will give the impression that he was a random law professor, because well, he was a random law professor. If we are going to keep it in in an effort to be NPOV, you should mention that a counselor in the Stake Presidency is a part-time volunteer lay leader position, unlike a paid full time diocese or a parish, so that people understand exactly what level of leadership and authority it has. Regardless, how it is now, with "Stake Mission Leader" is truly a "random law professor". Also, going from convert to Apostle in the span of 15 years would be absolutely unheard of, and incredibly unlikely. Epachamo (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

We absolute could add that stake president is a part-time lay leader (assuming its RSed, and I have no reason to doubt it could be). And yes, if you have even a passing familiarity with the institution, you know they don't use church discipline on non-members and [modern] apostles didn't convert the faith in middle age -- but we need to be comprehensible to students in rural China or a remote Brazilian rainforest -- readers who won't come to the Wikipedia already knowing these things. Feoffer (talk) 08:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

To hopefully add more context: Every person once they are baptized a Mormon is given a "calling" (or responsibility). A good portion of the titles have the word "president", "director", or "leader". Twelve year old boys are called as "Deacons Quorum Presidents". You have "Primary Presidents", "Sunday School Presidents", "Mission Leaders", "High Councilor" and many, many others. Again, being a "Stake Mission Leader" is no more special than saying he was a lay member, because all of these "callings" at this level are by lay members. The article Stake_(Latter_Day_Saints)#Stake_organization here lists the Stake level as an "Intermediate Level", not "high ranking" in the church hierarchy, and also provides important context. Again, Richard Bushman was actually the Stake President at around the same time as Oaks, and that fact didn't even make it into the lede of his Wikipedia article, nor do we preface his name with "Former Stake President" when we cite Bushman. What we are doing here is not in-line with convention on Wikipedia, and adds more trivia rather than context. Again, the fact that he was on a path to being an Apostle, or that he served on the Utah Supreme Court is much much more relevant than his mid-level management position. Epachamo (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

A mid level manager is a leader, manager is a leadership position. Maybe this looks completely different to someone on the inside but from the outside these arguments are baffling. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that he didn't hold a leadership position, just whether or not it is relevant to his academic theories. A mid level leadership position is not notable. Whether you are baffled by this or not, before it can be added to Wikipedia the onus is on you to show that it is relevant. When you can find a reliable secondary source that discusses his ideas with the biographical caveats then you have a point. Making the connection between his academic work and his "leadership" status on your own is original research otherwise. Epachamo (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Lets say we have an economist... That economist is a middle manager at McDonalds as well as a professor... That economist publishes a paper about McDonalds... It would be innpropriate to use that source without mentioning that the economist was a middle manager at McDonalds. How is this different? (Just to be clear we don't seem to have a single source which does not note Oaks' connection to the Church) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I call you out on that. There is not a single source that you can find that cutest his paper on the Nauvoo Expositor that mentions he was a second counselor in a Stake Presidency. Show me just one source. Epachamo (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You can only call me out on what I said, which is that they note Oaks' connection to the Church. I also take your avoidance of the subject to be acceptance of the fact that we would note the economist's connection to McDonalds? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Managers at McDonalds are paid. Oaks was a volunteer in his congregation. Should everyone's religious affiliation be stated? If they are Nicean Christian, or atheists, should that be mentioned? Surely that will influence how they view Mormons, right? A better analogy would be to Richard Bushman, who was a Stake President around the same time as Oaks was a counselor. Why don't we add caveats to Richard Bushman? Regardless, I've already stated here that I have no problem with his religious affiliation being mentioned, including his future as a truly high level leader, just that his position as a counselor in the Stake Presidency is not notable. Again, the onus is on you to find a source that cites his work on the Expositor that makes the connection. Epachamo (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Why is whether or not the position was paid relevent? Pointing out that in general the LDS space on wiki has issues with disclosing affiliations doesn't seem to help your point. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)