Talk:Thomas B. Marsh

Cream

"He later left the church over a dispute involving cream"? Please explain. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 02:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

---

Please see the paragraph about his wife's dispute over cream. I also removed the following until I can draft out both cause and effect.

This in turn led to the death of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in Carthage Jail. Shortly afterwards, Brigham Young led the saints to Salt Lake Valley, Utah due to the intense persecution. WBardwin 04:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WBardin --- This is very good work, it's wonderful to have see all of these bios filled out. It was a real gap to be missing (or to just have stubs) for important people like Hyrum Smith, David W. Patten and Thomas B. Marsh. Overall it's very good, but I do have a couple of problems with some of the details. (1) This cream story is just Mormon folklore; Utah leaders told this yarn long after the fact and there is no contemporary basis for it. Marsh explained very clearly at the time why he left the Saints. He left because he opposed the radical measures depriving the dissenters of the rights and property, he believed that Smith and Rigdon had overracted to the non-Mormon threat, and he was bitterly opposed to the fact that the Mormon militia had burned and looted the homes of non-Mormons in Daviess County. Those serious reasons make the later story of a petty quarrel absurd. (2) Marsh's affadavit did not cause the Haun's Mill Massacre and the other events of the Mormon War. The actions of the Latter Day Saints (sacking Gallatin, attacking the state militia, etc.) which Marsh opposed were the root cause. Marsh's affadavits exascerbated the problem by seeming to confirm the Missourians' worst fears. (3) Also, this last part is just speculation on your part and mine, but I think it's highly unlikely that Marsh would have succeeded Smith if Marsh had remained President of the 12. There was no reason to imagine that the President of the 12 would succeed to the Presidency and Marsh doesn't seem like the same kind of ambitious man that Brigham Young was to cause such an unexpected precedent. However, it surely is true that if Marsh had remained President of the 12 he would have prevented Brigham Young from becoming President of the Church. --John Hamer 06:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've made the changes to the "Falling Away" section. Marsh's contemporary statement, the timing of his apostacy, and a host of contemporary testimony back up the view that he left the church over the burning and looting of Daviess County. This milk cow story may be good sermon material, but it is not backed up by any contemporary account --- or, indeed, any other account. Lacking additional evidence, historians have rejected the later tale in favor of the contemporary accounts. For the standard treatment, see Stephen C., LeSueur, The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri, University of Missouri Press, 1990, pp. 134-137. --John Hamer 16:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marsh wrote his own Autobiography in 1864. I would suggest consulting it for more information on the milk incident. Thank you. User: TingYi 11:17, 21 Oct 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.73.81 (talk)

Date of George A. Smith sermon

The article states: "Years later, in 1864, George A. Smith claimed in a sermon that Marsh..."

The date of George A. Smith's sermon about the milk and cream was 1856, not 1864.

The Leaven of the Gospel, Etc. Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp. 280-291, 4/6/1856 [1].

Index of George A. Smiths discourses is at [2]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.20.160.251 (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Modern section

To all...As for the "Modern Opinion" this section should not be included, putting the silly disclaimer on it does not change the fact the "Modern Opinion" is entirely unsupportable and as a matter of fact someones personal non-authoritative opinipn. Any Mormon male "could be" the Prophet of the Mormon Church some day. Also IF and that's a VERY BIG IF, Mormons do hold the opinion supposedly expressed in the "Modern Opinion" section, then there is a reliable source to cite; some credible source to refer....otherwise for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity keep personal opinions elsewhere. Lastly please update yourselves on Wiki verifiable requirement for content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdem (talk • contribs) 05:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears WBardin created the modern opinion section as such it is then the creators responsibility to submit the sources. There is no source to be cited concerning the Modern Opinion. And by it very name it is just an opinion - more succinctly it appears to be the personal opinion of WBardin. The section can not be supported. The modern opinion section only serves to discredit Wikipedia. Please update yourselves on the guidelines and policies concerning content.(Rtdem (talk) 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC))

I suggest that since no BLP issue is involved, it would be appropriate to ask for a reference and provide a period of time to allow for that before deleting the section outright. I agree that the section needs referencing; however, I also agree that it's not appropriate in this case to delete it outright without first requesting a source and providing a reasonable amount of time for one to be provided (or not). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hardly an edit war! I'm not even particularly attached to the modern section -- as it was created as part of a discussion with another editor long long ago. But, I do object to deletions of sections, on any article, without discussion. The ability to delete without question is the ability to censor -- which is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I do remember some references to Marsh in recent LDS Relief Society/Priesthood lessons which might support some of this material. Other ideas on sources welcome. WBardwin (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I would consider 5 deletions and 5 restorations of a complete paragraph within 2 days to be an edit war. Whatever you call it, the back and forth needs to stop while we have a reasonable period of time to get sourced information. I have a few ideas for sources; I will post them if I find anything. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The section has been up for a few years, how much more time is needed? (Rtdem (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

In the "old" days, when this particular section was created, Wikipedia was not source obsessive. Under the established policy at the time, editors cited sources only when we directly quoted or when the issue was, by acclimation in discussion, considered very controversial. The obsession with citing a source for almost every line is quite recent -- and was probably based on some bad press Wikipedia received a while back. Many older articles are filled with material that needs sourcing under the new guidelines, and there are not so many of us "older" editors still around. Catching up on this material is a big job. So, if I can suggest, rather than just deleting when you come across such a section or article, place a source template on it and try to notify a couple of original editors who are still around. Then be patient - there is a reason why the templates are dated, and a group of editors review the dates regularly. Or do a little research and source the material yourself. Deletion may ultimately occur, but most often sources are found or the material is altered. Your input on the content discussion below would be welcome. WBardwin (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Efforts to source Modern section

In regard to: Marsh's conversion story is occasionally cited as an example of how powerful the Book of Mormon can be in convincing people of the truthfulness of the Church. A quick search found the following reference: William G. Hartley, Ensign, September 1978, who cites “History of Thos. Baldwin Marsh,” Deseret News, 24 Mar. 1858.

As for: When his apostasy is mentioned, he is often referred to either as an example of pride or as an example of one who failed to fulfill his calling to serve the Church. Supporting references from Ensign talks are easy to come by, i.e. Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, May 1984; Dale S. Cox, Ensign, January 1993; Henry B. Eyring, Ensign, June 2008; and David Z. Bednar, Ensign, November 2006. Also found some mention in a quick look at Gospel Doctrine Manuals.

As this section addresses how Marsh's experience is used in modern LDS teaching, I would assert that these would be good references. However, Ensign material is often disputed as being to LDS pov by other editors. Opinion? WBardwin (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice; I agree and I think Ensign references are fine when we are trying to establish LDS Church teachings. (In some instances it may not be a good source for neutrally assessing historical incidents (since it's largely "hagiographic"-style writings) or for establishing notability, but that's another story.) I had come across some of these Ensign sources too and was going to post them here.

The most difficult claim to cite may be the "rarely mentioned" comment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

We could probably change that to 'infrequently mentioned' -- given the time intervals between conference talks. I'll look in some LDS history books for references as well. But the last statement regarding speculation on succession to the Presidency, though certainly true in my experience in LDS classes, will probably have to go. No authority, at least in the last half of the 20th and the 21st century, is going to publicly speculate about Marsh becoming head of the church. Best.... WBardwin (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Olfactory, the Bednar quote may be a little too much, but it does lead into the Marsh/Young sentence. What do you think? WBardwin (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it could. ... I'm wondering if we should quote it or just rephrase it and cite it. For now, I would include it. Whether to cut stuff out might be something we need to assess once we have all we can find. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

More material:

• Recent LDS video collection - contains 'If They Harden Not Their Hearts' on Marsh[3]
• Aha, this link is probably one of the sources of the last sentence: ------ It might be noted that had he remained faithful, it would have been he and not Brigham Young who would have ascended to the Presidency of the Church. [[4]]

WBardwin (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Grandpa Bill's personal pontification is not something that should be posted on Wikipedia. Grandpa Bill is not credible on the subject matter. (Rtdem (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC))

Image

There is an image claiming to be Marsh at OliverCowdery.com -- The Premier Web-Site for Early Mormon History. I have my doubts are the LDS Church History people have never claimed to have an image of Marsh, something they would want. What do you all think? Is it Marsh?--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 14:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That's one of Dale R. Broadhurst's many websites. I'd suggest contacting him to find out what evidence he has that this is in fact Marsh; it's an intriguing lead, but the info currently available on his website is not enough to establish provenance. We don't need an issue like we had with Elijah Abel a few years ago, where we repeated a mistake that Dialogue had made, misattributed a drawing as Abel (see this for details). ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 16:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

'Document p.57' source?

I can't see any verifiable source for the quotes from and references to 'Document p.57.' Oops. Sorry. Found it in the references. But the link to the complete text is broken. Jenglish02 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

SYNTH in milk and strippings section

The recent reworking of the "milk and strippings" section is, IMO, a clear example of WP:SYNTH. It draws multiple conclusions ("it is highly probable that the real cause...", "...would indicate a disaffection...", "...may account for...") are novel conclusions not found in any of the cited sources. Since the cited primary sources only give (A) the date of his leaving the church and (B) the day of the Gallatin attack, any further conclusions like (C) why he left the church is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. Now there very well may be a reliable source out there that connects those dots, but my admittedly cursory search didn't turn anything up. @Thewholetruthnothingbut: Please get consensus here on the talk page before reinserting that edit. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Please excuse my bumbling about, but I'm new. I'm surprised that the milk strippings story was even brought up and then further discussed in the following paragraphs. This story is an unsubstantiated rumor, and misogynistic to boot, and does not deserve a place in wikipedia. Why wikipedia would allow a rumor and its ramifications to be posted while disallowing an obvious conclusion about Marsh's resignation is beyond me. Marsh resigned 4 days after Mormon violence and detailed it at length in an affidavit two days later. He expresses his concern quite clearly. So it looks like rumor has a place on this page but an affadavit holds no weight. Additionally, this story has some extremely delicate details that I doubt the church would want revealed, namely, that the milk strippings dispute was between Marsh's wife and the prophet Joseph Smith's secret polyandrous wife. I find it distasteful that this story has gained such a grip on the Mormon psyche (and trust me, I know) that true nature of this whole event is discarded. I'm sure I will be making more mistakes, and they are not intentional. A moderator wants to discuss this, but frankly it's going to take me some time to figure out how to email him, since he doesn't have his email on his page. He says he can be emailed. This is a very deep, nasty story, but if we're going to tell it, let's tell it all.Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)thetruthandnothingbut

@Thewholetruthnothingbut: Who cares what the LDS Church wouldn't want revealed? That has nothing to do with this page nor my concerns regarding your edit. You really need to familiarize yourself with wikipedia policies, especially WP:OR. I would also recommend WP:RGW, particularly the third bullet, and WP:BRD. The strippings story is recounted in secondary sources, therefore we report it. Unless the "obvious conclusion" is stated in a reliable source, wikipedia can't report it. It really is that simple. Your edit, as it is now, violates WP:OR as I've stated above because it appears to synthesize novel conclusions - why Marsh left the church and that the strippings dispute is just a rumor - from primary sources, but the conclusion itself isn't contained in a reliable source. We, as wp editors, can't draw and put forth conclusions or statements in this way. The affadavit is included in this article, under the "1838 split with Smith" section but I don't see in there where Marsh says the Gallatin event was the reason he left the church (if I'm wrong, point out where he says this), therefore to connect it with the strippings story/Marsh leaving the church is original research/synthesis. You need a secondary source that connects the dots. If a reliable source (defined by WP:RS) tells the whole deep, nasty story, then we'll tell it; if a source doesn't, then we don't.

As for getting in touch with the third party - you can also leave a note on their talk page, for example mine is User_talk:FyzixFighter and yours is User_talk:Thewholetruthnothingbut. The third party will also have a user talk page, and will get a notification when you leave a message there. Given that there is a dispute, usual practice on wikipedia is to revert back to the earlier edit while the new, challenged edit is discussed on the talk page until a consensus is reached (see WP:BRD). The onus is on the editor advocating a change to convince others that the change is an improvement (see WP:CONSENSUS). Usually a reasonable compromise is reached, but not always. In that light, I would ask you to revert yourself until consensus is reached here on the talk page. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

You must understand the dynamics that occur when the top dog of the quorum leaves the church. There are a hundred people left in the org that are willing to fabricate stories, and the person who left is doomed. This story has a hundred people telling it. I don't know if it's true or not, but do 100 liars get to win just because they had an outlet for publishing in 1838? I would be willing to compromise by writing a paragraph about what Marsh said in his own words 19 years later were his reasons for leaving. While I don't think he's being truthful, I do have his source. He mentions neither the milk strippings, nor the Gallatin attack. The milk strippings story should not even have been included. I don't want to talk about sexual dynamics in this article, but I can if I have to. While the disagreement may have happened, it just seems like the violence Marsh spoke of in his own words would have more weight than a trial that has no documentation. Why don't we just take out the MS story, or I will write up a paragraph about Marsh's first hand explanation. I apologize for my errors. I am studying up on how to do this. But frankly, and we might as well get this out of the way, did you take that link re Elizabeth Brotherton down out of malice or was it just a strange coincidence? That link worked when I left it. Mistakes will ensue, and if they/ you fire me, so be it. I'm editing myself. You're the expert, but the violence being the cause of Marsh's departure being original research seems off to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk • contribs) 07:02, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

My personal musings on the dynamics back then and the potential for fabricated stories are irrelevant - as are yours. What matters is what reliable sources say. Reliable sources retell this story, whether it is true or not, and also discuss the stories importance (again regardless of veracity) in modern LDS theology/culture. I did search for a reliable source that discussed the veracity of the milk strippings story but turned up nothing. It's of course possible that I missed it, so keep looking - the ideal sentence would be "So-and-so historian has challenged this account, instead arguing that Marsh left because of such-and-such". If you have a reliable source that talk about sexual dynamics relative Thomas Marsh, then let's include it. This is a hard concept for newcomers to wikipedia, but wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability. I'm no expert on this topic, but I have been around wikipedia a bit and am somewhat familiar with the policies. But that is the beauty of editing here - you don't have to be an expert, you only need access to sources from experts (and some competence in writing and interacting constructively with others - see WP:CIR).

As for the Elizabeth Brotherton issue, first I would note that you should remember to assume good faith (WP:AGF) of other editors - never attribute to malice that which may be adequately explained by a simple difference of opinion. If you would like to discuss that other edit, it should be discussed at Talk:Parley P. Pratt where I've already started a discussion (per WP:BRD). --FyzixFighter (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not just musings when the situation is an institution with newspapers and magazines at their disposal against a sole person who leaves. This is truly problematic. You have not addressed my proposal that I write a paragraph about Marsh's words as to why he left. That might balance out the last paragraph that goes into some detail about everyone who has used a rumor to their own purposes. Or I can add a section in that paragraph about articles that have labelled Marsh's departure aa act of integrity. This very real possibility was ignored. I'm sure you understand why integrity is not mentioned.Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)thetruthandnothingbut

If you can find reliable sources, as defined by WP:RS, that present a different view of this story, such as in terms of integrity, or that call it a rumor/character assassination, then we can begin discussing how to improve this paragraph based on those sources. Similarly if you have a reliable source that connects Marsh's departure to the Gallatin event. Note that self-published sources like youtube videos, blog posts, and certain websites (in this case, like FairMormon and MormonThink) are not reliable sources and have very limited uses. What we cannot do is extrapolate from primary sources to assessments and conclusions that cannot be verified in secondary sources. Since you are new, I would recommend you put your proposed text here on the talk page first, where you, I, and other editors can discuss and ensure that it lines up with wikipedia policies before adding it to the article. I am more than happy to discuss the proposed changes here. It appears that you are not aware of or familiar with some of the basic core policies, such as verifiability, original research, and reliable sources (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS), therefore read up on these. Again, the current paragraph fails the policy on original research and synthesis, therefore I am reverting back to long-standing version until consensus can be reached here on the talk page.

If you believe that I have acted in bad faith or malice, or acted incorrectly, there are a number of avenues such as dispute resolution (WP:DR) or administrator incident board (eg WP:AN) where you can request help from admins (but beware of WP:BOOMERANG). --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestions. I am working on a rework and will post here. My next issue is that I'm trying to edit an incorrect note in the notes section and yet the edit source does not allow that. Do you know why that is?Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Thewholetruthnothingbut

Which one is it? I can take a look and try. Sometimes the code for the notes themselves is in the body of the article, so you would have to edit the section where the note is found to alter the note's text. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Note 2 seems incorrect, and I can't find footnotes 1 and 2 in the body of the text.Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Thewholetruthnothingbut

That is odd. Maybe it's embedded in the infobox callout? I'm guessing what you might think is incorrect - do you have a source that says that Marsh "resigned" from the quorum in 1838? I've found sources that say he withdrew from the church in 1838 (usually pointing to the affadavit) and was excommunicated in 1839, but it's not clear what his status was inbetween the two events. To use modern vernacular, was he just inactive in that time but technically still with the calling of an apostle, or did he actually resign from the office prior to being excommunicated? Perhaps the policy and procedure were not a as clear as it is today. Certainly after being excommunicated he wasn't a member of the quorum, but what about the months inbetween? A reliable, secondary source would be helpful here. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, two of the church's websites (one is the joseph smith papers, and I believe I reference it, but will make sure) confirms he withdrew in October of 1838 and the witnesses of the affidavit also make mention of this, so there are 2 sources for that and there were several months between withdrawal and exxing. I doubt that the methods of resigning were codified at that point but we have 3 statements that seem to indicate he's really out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk • contribs) 17:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not challenging that he withdrew in 1838, months prior to being excommunicated. What I haven't seen in sources is if withdrawal is interpreted either by historians or any reliable source as meaning he was no longer in the quorum.

Note I'm also removing part of your recent addition because the text in quotes is not in the cited source - at least I couldn't find it using ctrl-F on that webpage. Perhaps the quoted text is in a different document? Also, that text if it can be verified probably belongs where the affadavit is mentioned in the previous section. The Daynes source actually makes a case that polygamy was not a contributing factor to Marsh's leaving the church, which is why I reworded that sentence accordingly. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

According to official church policy today, if you withdraw, I believe you cannot legally be excommunicated. Two church sources indicate that he left. I think that tells the tale. And leaving this out is deceptive. As for the other issue, are you asking me about the witnesses statement to the affidavit? It's at the very bottom. Let me know if that's not your question. I don't get your reference to the Daynes source, but I was under the impression that we, as editors, are not allowed to "make a case". To what are you referring?Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Nothingbutthetruth

Sorry, I think I referenced the wrong affidavit. There are several sites and I may have referenced the wrong one. Will find. Also, it is not said TBM left the Mormons, he said he left the church, which again indicates he's left the church, and also indicates he's upset with the whole organization, not just the people involved in the destruction. Also, If Marsh says he polygamy played a part in leaving, and understanding it allowed him to come back, that needs to be included. It's from his own mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk • contribs) 19:00, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Re: the affidavit. No problem, I found a copy of the document on an official government site. I prefer official and academic collection of primary documents, such as Vogel's EMD or the Joseph Smith Papers project, to transcriptions on self-published anonymous/amateur websites. I've inserted text using that source in the "1838 split" section - what would be better is if there was a secondary source that summarized it as such, but I think the wording is sufficiently neutral and without interpretation.

When I mentioned the Daynes source, I was referring to the reference to the secondary source that I added. The book by Daynes makes the case, not me. As editors we don't make case - we don't participate in debates or makes assessments, we can report debates and assessments by reliable sources. That's why I think a lot of your argument above about Marsh leaving the church and what it means is problematic. You are arguing your interpretation of these primary sources. How do we resolve a disagreement if another editor comes along and interprets the primary sources differently? For example, I read Marsh's statement as giving polygamy for why he might have stayed away but not why he originally left. How do we resolve that disagreement? Wikipedia's answer is that we rely on secondary sources to interpret and say what the primary sources say and why they are important. That's why I have repeatedly said we need a secondary source to give us guidance on whether or not we say Marsh was still in the quorum post-affidavit but pre-excommunication. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you not find the church sources on this issue of leaving to be more than sufficient? If it is never mentioned that Marsh left, the impression given is far more misleading than to say he left and was later excommunicated. What source would you find acceptable to prove he left in October? Also, you were the person who posted, "Although it wasn't his reason for leaving," and I think that opens the door and answers partially that question. Why did he leave? The logical place to put reasons for leaving and returning are in that paragraph, since the question has been raised. Also, I have found the affidavit that says Marsh left the church because he found it impious. It's at the bottom. I'll add that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewholetruthnothingbut (talk • contribs) 20:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I feel like you are not understanding much of what I'm replying to you with above. I'm going to try to be clearer.

1. I am perfectly fine with saying Marsh left/withdrew/disassociated himself from the church in October. We have multiple secondary sources that say this. What we don't have is what this meant relative to his membership in the quorum. Was this leaving/withdrawal/disassociation more akin to going inactive while technically retaining his calling or requesting his name be removed from the church rolls? That's what we don't know. We know he was no longer a member of the quorum when he was excommunicated. Without a secondary source giving a definitive answer, it is just us interpreting primary sources, which we can't do as editors.
2. Giving reasons for why he left doesn't make sense in that sentence because it's already been discussed in the "1838 split" section and in the previous quote where it is clear he is talking about why he left. The purpose of that sentence is to give context and explain the "bugbear"/polygamy portion of Marsh's quote. The "why did he leave?" has already been answered in the article, and trying to answer it again makes the sentence disjointed and clumsy.
3. This is why I feel like you are not understanding my responses to you above - I said above, before your most recent comment, that I had already found the a copy of the affidavit with the committee's comment on why he and Hyde left. And I had added it to where the affidavit is already discussed. Can you understand why your follow up comment therefore seems out of place?
4. It appears, based on some of your comments and edit summaries, that you are here to "right great wrongs" (WP:RGW). If the purpose of your edits is to expose the "truth" or "reality" of Mormonism and its history on Wikipedia, it's much more likely that those edits will be reverted. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

--FyzixFighter (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've created a new section below for just the leaving the church vs excommunication discussion. It kind of feels like this tangent has the potential to too easily split the focus of the discussion in this section (yes, I know I brought it up in the first place - this is me trying to correct what, in hindsight, was a mistake). Even if we can't carry out parallel discussions, at least this puts a pin in that discussion and gives us a place to continue it at a later date as needed. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

1838 or 1839 as last year in Quorum of 12

I wanted to start a new section here so the discussion in the "milk and strippings" section above can stay focused around that subject. Here's how I understand this issue: Thomas B. Marsh left/withdrew/disassociated himself from the church in the fall of 1838. From primary sources this is clearly seen in the 1838 affidavit. He was excommunicated in absentia in 1839. The question as I see it (correct me if I'm wrong) is what year do we use for the end of his term as member and as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles? Certainly he was no longer a member of the quorum once he was excommunicated, but what about the time between the affidavit and the excommunication? I can see arguments for both possibilities, and it's not clear to me which would be correct. For example, if he had changed his mind after the affidavit but before the excommunication and came back to the church, would he still have retained his membership or position in the quorum or not? On the other hand, he left pretty definitively in 1838, swore out the affidavit against Smith and the church, and didn't come back for ~19 years. That's not simply going inactive, to use modern vernacular. My problem is that for me to make either argument, I have to engage in some extrapolation from the primary sources, which we aren't supposed to do as WP editors. IMO, the best way to clear this up would be a secondary source that either says something like "Marsh was in the quorum until 1838/1839" or, better yet, discusses this exact question. That's where I'm coming from on this question. Did I miss anything in the summary of the question? Does anyone have a secondary source that would help? --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2017 (UTC)