Talk:Oliver Cowdery
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
Contents |
[edit] Cowdery Received Revelation?
Can you fill me in on this fact that Cowdery received a revelation? Hawstom 06:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- The "Articles of the Church of Christ" was a revelation he received in 1829. The Articles were found in Church archives, and are in Cowdery's handwriting. Much of Cowdery's language was used in the "Articles and Covenants of the Church of Christ" ratified by the church in 1830. The text is at http://saintswithouthalos.com/w/oc_arts.phtml COGDEN 04:20, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, there were some BYU studies articles written about why this would be written in Oliver's handwriting, etc. Interesting to note that verse 37 in D&C 20 nearly caused Oliver to leave the church at the time and led to his leaving the church, and is also part of this referenced revelation, which causes many Mormon historians to question his true involvement in the receiving of the revlelation in his handwriting. Just a thought, not to take an opinion either way. I think that it is weird that it was included since historians cannot decide fact versus speculation. In my opinion, this is not a forum to hold debates and introduce unconfirmed material, it should be reserved for fact. In either case, Oliver and Hyrum were the only ones to jointly hold the (associate president) presidency with Joseph for the church, so it doesnt' really matter. Who knows. -Visorstuff 07:45, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I would like to see that BYU Studies article (do you have a reference?), but it seems to be a stretch to conclude the revelation wasn't Cowdery's, given the full text of the Articles of the Church of Christ. For instance, near the end Cowdery writes, "Behold I am Oliver I am an Apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God the Father & the Lord Jesus Christ. Behold I have written the things which he hath commanded me for behold his word was unto me as a burning fire shut up in my bones & I was weary with forbearing & I could forbear no longer Amen." It's also signed "O.C." I don't think there is anything inconsistent with the idea that the revelation was Cowdery's; this was before Smith's Sept. 1830 revelation (D&C 28) saying that only Smith (and not Cowdery or Hiram Page) could receive commandments for the Church.
I'll see if I can dig up the reference wherever I found it. In any case the verse 37 similarities and controversies are suspect to most historians, since it was such an issue between the two. There is no doubt that Oliver played a prominent and often equal role to Joseph in many of the earlier things that took place within the Church. Oliver was promised by revelation that any revelation/translation and spritual gift that was given to Smith would be revealed or given to him as well. Very interesting article. Thanks. Visorstuff 18:23, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I always understood the referenced section of D&C came from Cowdery. I didn't understand is was a revelation. I thought it was simply a declaration. Hawstom 22:09, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV Issues
When speaking of revelation, it isn't necessary to say purported. The world kind of assumes that, I gather. Hawstom 06:40, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Cowdery rebaptism
The article states that Cowdery met with Brigham and the Twelve at Winter Quarters in 1848. But the encampment was primarily during the winter of 1846-7. Is this a date error, or did Cowdery really meet with them there a year later? --Blainster 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- He really met with them a year later, when Brigham returned and was sustained as church president.
There is a contradiction between this page and the page on David Whitmer. In this page it says Cowdery accepted Young as successor to Joseph Smith, in that page it says he accepted David Whitmer as successor instead. One of the two pages needs correcting. --Guest 2:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV additions
I'm not sure what to do with the early history of the church paragraph. It is so full of POV that its ridiculous and offensive to wikipedia's attempt at academic scholarship. I've removed some items that are just plain wrong, if you 'd like me to explain why it's wrong, let me know I'll walk you through it step by step. However, more needs to be edited out. Rather than me doing it, would the original author like to try for NPOV and take a re-stab? -Visorstuff 22:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Removed the bit about the church council that excommunicated Oliver Cowdery being composed of Smith loyalists. Its like saying that the current Apostles are "smith loyalists" it doesn't really need to be said. It makes it seem like Joseph Smith ordered a mock trial or somthing, which is not the case. Excommunications are done in councils for a reason. -04 Jan 2006
[edit] View of the Hebrews
The timeline doesn't make sense. In the biography heading it talks about Ethan Smith and View of the Hebrews, the obvious implication that Cowdery gave the idea to Joseph Smith Jr. But in the next paragraph, it says that he met Smith a year before the church was founded, which would be several years after Smith claimed to receieve the Golden Plates and that Smith already established they were early writings of Native Americans. So why is the View of the Hebrews reference relevant, let alone so prominant, other than to try to persuade the reader of some connection. Just based on the first two paragraphs, the connection is disproved. So why is it still there? Bytebear 22:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Many Americans in the colonial and early national periods thought there might be a connection between the Hebrews and the Indians. The notion itself was not exceptional. But it's possible that Cowdery's knowledge of View of the Hebrews made a significant contribution to the final version of the Book of Mormon. Before meeting Cowdery, Smith had been poking along with the translation, and the first 116 pages were lost. Once Smith and Cowdery met, however, the whole book was transcribed in a remarkably short period, April-June, 1829, in what Bushman calls a "burst of rapid-fire translation." In any case, the connection between Cowdery and Ethan Smith is at least curious.--John Foxe 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
- This is POV, which is why I have amended the footnote which uses the material. To go from Ethan Smith having written the book to asserting that Cowdery had sufficient knowledge of the book to make a significant impact on the Book of Mormon is a leap of logic with no visible means of support. It is speculation and not encyclopedic fact. Even had Cowdery been aware of the book's contents, he would have had to have had a very intimate knowledge of it for it to have made such an impact as the implication that the Book of Mormon was a sudden product based on the contents of the book. This is speculation and belongs on a blog, not a Wikipedia entry. Iain1917 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's no speculation and no leap of logic. The facts are clear and documented.--John Foxe 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry but there is a logical fallacy here. You note that Ethan Smith wrote the book. If you have further evidence to show that Cowdery either had a copy of the book during the production of the Book of Mormon or that he had largely memorised it, then add in that evidence. Otherwise, there is no demonstrable link between Ethan Smith's book and the Book of Mormon. You may believe it exists, but it is an assumption that you are making unless you have real evidence for it.Iain1917 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that statements must be based on authority, and I have provided the necessary citations.--John Foxe 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have not done any such thing. As it stands, this is one of several texts that have been suggested as sources for the Book of Mormon, such as the Spaulding Text, the Golden Pot and others. You are making assumptions from what you know, but without the firm evidence that either Cowdery or Smith used the book, what you are presenting is your opinion. That is not what an encyclopedia does. It is valid to say that the circumstances have led some researchers to the conclusion that Joseph Smith used Ethan Smith's work, because this is factual. To say that the Book of Mormon is based on Views of the Hebrews is opinion and should not be put into the Wikipedia entry.Iain1917 (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm making no assumptions, and I haven't written that the Book of Mormon is based on View of the Hebrews ("it is possible"). I have cited David Persuitte, Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (McFarland & Company, 2000), which is a scholarly work about the subject at issue; he's an expert and his words are authoritative for purposes of Wikipedia. Of course, you're welcome to find your own experts who deny that Persuitte's evidence is correct.
- I would also be happy to negotiate wording that both of us would find acceptable. We've already silently agreed to this sort of compromise in paragraphs further down in the article.--John Foxe (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- My issue with the citation of Persuitte is the quote that you give - "Oliver Cowdery surely had a copy of View of the Hebrews—a book that was published in his home town of Poultney, Vermont by the minister of the church his family was associated with. Considering his joint venture with Joseph Smith in 'translating' The Book of Mormon and the common subject matter, Cowdery could have shared his copy of Ethan Smith's book with Joseph, perhaps even sometime before Joseph began the 'translation' process." [my emphasis added] These are opinions, however authoritative the author might be; everything is conditional, both grammatically and semantically. I will leave it for the moment, but there must be better evidence than Persuitte's belief.Iain1917 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- You'll notice that I didn't quote Persuitte's actual words in the text. But he's the expert; his opinion stands unless you can bring into evidence the words of another expert to counter his expert testimony.--John Foxe (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- John, nobody's opinion counts as anything but opinion. The point is that he doesn't have anything to back up his opinion, because all he says is 'surely', 'could have' and 'perhaps'. That is fine in the context of his book, but not as an encyclopedia entry. All you can use that quote to do is to show that one writer has that opinion; it says nothing factual about the relationship between Ethan Smith's book and the Book of Mormon, nor about Cowdery's role in the production of the Book of Mormon. If you feel that it is particularly important, you should either create or contribute to a page on theories on the production of the Book of Mormon.Iain1917 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Persuitte is an expert on this subject, and so his opinion counts in a way ours don't. If you disagree with his assessment, then it's your responsibility to introduce evidence from other experts with similar credentials. Otherwise, every matter of controversy at Wikipedia would end in an impasse, with editors disagreeing which evidence is acceptable and which not based on their own predilections.--John Foxe (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Persuitte may be an expert, but he is not offering expert opinion. This is nothing to do with my predilections and everything to do with the fact that no one's opinion is evidence of anything. I could point you to Mormon apologists who argue that the jumps made by Persuitte from assumption to assumption are false; would you accept them? I suspect not, because you start from the assumption that Mormon writers do not have the same credentials as non-Mormon writers, which ignores the fact that from the perspective of Mormons Persuitte is an anti-Mormon with an agenda to attack them. You are the one creating the impasse by insisting on including a partisan opinion as 'evidence' of a particular point, and also fulfilling your own description of that impasse. Persuitte can be quoted if he is stating facts, but the passage you quote contains only circumstantial evidence. This is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. It needs to be a statement of facts, not to be a creation of an argument. - Iain1917 (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Persuitte is an scholarly expert on this subject, and as such his opinion is expert opinion. But you're welcome to introduce the views of Mormon apologists so long as they are identified as such. You can even call Persuitte an anti-Mormon if you can find a properly identified Mormon apologist who calls him that. The citation to Persuitte is just a footnote after all; it can be quite lengthy if it needs to be.--John Foxe (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- You really don't get it, do you? The point is that no one's opinion has a place in Wikipedia. It needs to be a presentation of what is factual, things that can be verified and demonstrated through evidence. Opinion does not fit into this. The only reason to quote opinion is to verify that someone has held such an opinion. It has no purpose beyond that. However, the current form of the page seems to me to be a reasonable statement of what is known and what opinions have been held about Cowdery and the Book of Mormon. - Iain1917 (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Persuitte is an scholarly expert on this subject, and as such his opinion is expert opinion. But you're welcome to introduce the views of Mormon apologists so long as they are identified as such. You can even call Persuitte an anti-Mormon if you can find a properly identified Mormon apologist who calls him that. The citation to Persuitte is just a footnote after all; it can be quite lengthy if it needs to be.--John Foxe (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Persuitte may be an expert, but he is not offering expert opinion. This is nothing to do with my predilections and everything to do with the fact that no one's opinion is evidence of anything. I could point you to Mormon apologists who argue that the jumps made by Persuitte from assumption to assumption are false; would you accept them? I suspect not, because you start from the assumption that Mormon writers do not have the same credentials as non-Mormon writers, which ignores the fact that from the perspective of Mormons Persuitte is an anti-Mormon with an agenda to attack them. You are the one creating the impasse by insisting on including a partisan opinion as 'evidence' of a particular point, and also fulfilling your own description of that impasse. Persuitte can be quoted if he is stating facts, but the passage you quote contains only circumstantial evidence. This is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. It needs to be a statement of facts, not to be a creation of an argument. - Iain1917 (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Persuitte is an expert on this subject, and so his opinion counts in a way ours don't. If you disagree with his assessment, then it's your responsibility to introduce evidence from other experts with similar credentials. Otherwise, every matter of controversy at Wikipedia would end in an impasse, with editors disagreeing which evidence is acceptable and which not based on their own predilections.--John Foxe (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- John, nobody's opinion counts as anything but opinion. The point is that he doesn't have anything to back up his opinion, because all he says is 'surely', 'could have' and 'perhaps'. That is fine in the context of his book, but not as an encyclopedia entry. All you can use that quote to do is to show that one writer has that opinion; it says nothing factual about the relationship between Ethan Smith's book and the Book of Mormon, nor about Cowdery's role in the production of the Book of Mormon. If you feel that it is particularly important, you should either create or contribute to a page on theories on the production of the Book of Mormon.Iain1917 (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- You'll notice that I didn't quote Persuitte's actual words in the text. But he's the expert; his opinion stands unless you can bring into evidence the words of another expert to counter his expert testimony.--John Foxe (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- My issue with the citation of Persuitte is the quote that you give - "Oliver Cowdery surely had a copy of View of the Hebrews—a book that was published in his home town of Poultney, Vermont by the minister of the church his family was associated with. Considering his joint venture with Joseph Smith in 'translating' The Book of Mormon and the common subject matter, Cowdery could have shared his copy of Ethan Smith's book with Joseph, perhaps even sometime before Joseph began the 'translation' process." [my emphasis added] These are opinions, however authoritative the author might be; everything is conditional, both grammatically and semantically. I will leave it for the moment, but there must be better evidence than Persuitte's belief.Iain1917 (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- You have not done any such thing. As it stands, this is one of several texts that have been suggested as sources for the Book of Mormon, such as the Spaulding Text, the Golden Pot and others. You are making assumptions from what you know, but without the firm evidence that either Cowdery or Smith used the book, what you are presenting is your opinion. That is not what an encyclopedia does. It is valid to say that the circumstances have led some researchers to the conclusion that Joseph Smith used Ethan Smith's work, because this is factual. To say that the Book of Mormon is based on Views of the Hebrews is opinion and should not be put into the Wikipedia entry.Iain1917 (talk) 09:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that statements must be based on authority, and I have provided the necessary citations.--John Foxe 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'm very sorry but there is a logical fallacy here. You note that Ethan Smith wrote the book. If you have further evidence to show that Cowdery either had a copy of the book during the production of the Book of Mormon or that he had largely memorised it, then add in that evidence. Otherwise, there is no demonstrable link between Ethan Smith's book and the Book of Mormon. You may believe it exists, but it is an assumption that you are making unless you have real evidence for it.Iain1917 16:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's no speculation and no leap of logic. The facts are clear and documented.--John Foxe 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is POV, which is why I have amended the footnote which uses the material. To go from Ethan Smith having written the book to asserting that Cowdery had sufficient knowledge of the book to make a significant impact on the Book of Mormon is a leap of logic with no visible means of support. It is speculation and not encyclopedic fact. Even had Cowdery been aware of the book's contents, he would have had to have had a very intimate knowledge of it for it to have made such an impact as the implication that the Book of Mormon was a sudden product based on the contents of the book. This is speculation and belongs on a blog, not a Wikipedia entry. Iain1917 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In what can be described as nothing but a blatant attempt to discredit Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, it was said that translation went slowly before Oliver Cowdery arrived. In reality, there were 116 large manuscript pages translated in a period of 2 months. That is clearly not plodding along and is POV. Just because it went even faster when Oliver Cowdery showed up, does not mean it went slow before. Epachamo (talk) 04:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
There is an excellent article about View of the Hebrews on Wikipedia. I rewrote the first paragraph to return the focus on to Oliver Cowdery. I tried to do it as NPOV as possible, and if someone could review it, I would appreciate it. Epachamo (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think too much information was removed, limiting understanding of why Cowdery's connection with View of the Hebrews is important. I'd be happy to work with you in moving some of the material to later in the article, perhaps to a separate paragraph.--John Foxe (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, John old son, I would suggest that some sections of this page are getting too concerned about the View of the Hebrews. This is a page about Cowdery; the only connection he had to the book was that he was a former parishioner of the author. The changes I have made are intended to give both sides of the debate and deal with Roberts' position as briefly as possible because none of that is particularly relevant on a page about Cowdery. Roberts' faith belongs on Roberts' page, not here. Anyway, it will be interesting to see whether you decide to revert this, and if so, what your justification will be this time :-)Iain1917 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- Considering my age, it's been a long time since anyone addressed me as "son" (although I have fond memories of those days). "Old" works though.
- I don't consider a few sentences too much to spend on the View of the Hebrews issue, especially considering the amount of effort Mormon apologists have devoted to the subject. I've divided the material into two paragraphs, although you may want to put them back together again; and that would be fine with me. All of our references are now in the notes for anyone who wants to follow up on the subject. It needs to be clear to the reader that only Mormon apologists argue that there are few parallels between VotH and the BoM; and that likewise only Mormon apologists argue that Roberts did not undergo a crisis of faith.
- Equally, it could be argued that only anti-Mormon 'apologists' argue the opposite. It all depends on your point of view, which is what we are trying to keep out of the article. I think it is best if we note that the debate is one where either you accept the Mormon view or you accept the non-Mormon/anti-Mormon view, and that there is unlikely to be much resolution between the sides for reasons unrelated to the historicity of the matter. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've italicized book titles and tweaked a couple of other things in your references. Sometimes I wasn't sure whether a FARMS publication was a pamphlet or a book. (Does the "n.a." in one reference mean that the editor isn't specified or that you just don't have the book at hand to check?)--John Foxe (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
- To be honest, John old son, I would suggest that some sections of this page are getting too concerned about the View of the Hebrews. This is a page about Cowdery; the only connection he had to the book was that he was a former parishioner of the author. The changes I have made are intended to give both sides of the debate and deal with Roberts' position as briefly as possible because none of that is particularly relevant on a page about Cowdery. Roberts' faith belongs on Roberts' page, not here. Anyway, it will be interesting to see whether you decide to revert this, and if so, what your justification will be this time :-)Iain1917 (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Something still bothers me about the flow of the article with so much devoted to VotH at this point. It seems incongruous and disjointed to put so much information about VotH in this location. Why don't we do a simple mention of it in the section of his life, and then maybe put a controversies section down below or something like that. Epachamo (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think it is less VotH per se, and more the fact that we are debating B H Roberts' view of the book that is at odds. I have tried to reduce the impact of this, with the main issues dealt with in the footnotes and through the link to the page on Roberts, which is where the issue belongs. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've shortened it yet again. I just want to make sure that the phrase "Mormon apologists" appears. That is, the authors are not like Bushman or Givens writing for peer-reviewed journals or presses, they are producing material in deliberate defense of religion.
- That's not really on. In some cases, they are writing for peer reviewed journals and presses (eg Dialogues or BYU Studies). One could equally argue that a lot of the writers that are being quoted are producing material in deliberate attack on religion. Both Mormon apologists and anti-Mormon writers are equally partial in their own way. You can argue that Persuitte is only trying to establish truth, but then printing his opinion that the fact Cowdery was at one stage his parishoner means that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon as a plagiarism of VotH reveals that he is not working from NPOV. I am reverting the paragraph, which already makes it clear that the issue is one of entrenched positions. Iain1917 (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- I've shortened it yet again. I just want to make sure that the phrase "Mormon apologists" appears. That is, the authors are not like Bushman or Givens writing for peer-reviewed journals or presses, they are producing material in deliberate defense of religion.
- I think it is less VotH per se, and more the fact that we are debating B H Roberts' view of the book that is at odds. I have tried to reduce the impact of this, with the main issues dealt with in the footnotes and through the link to the page on Roberts, which is where the issue belongs. Iain1917 (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Something still bothers me about the flow of the article with so much devoted to VotH at this point. It seems incongruous and disjointed to put so much information about VotH in this location. Why don't we do a simple mention of it in the section of his life, and then maybe put a controversies section down below or something like that. Epachamo (talk) 05:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- By "peer-reviewed" journal, I mean one where the author's scholarly work is refereed by those who are experts in the same field (in our case, Mormon studies) but who don't necessarily hold the same views. Dialogue is such a journal; BYU Studies is not. BYU Studies will not publish a scholar's work unless his views are in accord with the teachings of the LDS Church. I don't have a problem with that—the Church puts a hefty amount of money into BYU; it's their money—but when one submits his article to BYU Studies, the ideas (not just the qualifications) of the scholar are judged before publication. Note that in the cases of Bushman and Givens, their work was published by solid academic presses: Alfred A. Knopf and Oxford, respectively. Their books weren't rejected simply because they were defending Mormonism in an academically rigorous way.
- Those who argue that there are no similarities between VotH and the BoM are all Mormons writing for periodicals sponsored officially or unofficially by the LDS Church. No non-Mormons have ever defended the notion; no Mormons have ever argued the position in a scholarly journal or book.
- It's more neutral to write that Roberts "noted" the similarities. That way we don't have to get into the controversy about whether or not he was serving as a devil's advocate. It's also shorter.--John Foxe (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
John, you are doing it again. Wikipedia is supposed to present a neutral position, but you want to use Wikipedia to present a particular slant where you reject any writing by Mormons as being apologist and therefore not worthy academically. You insinuate that BYU Studies is a propaganda outlet for the LDS Church and that anything published there is of no value. That is because you are hostile to the LDS and start from a perspective of Mormonism being a fraud. You are welcome to hold that view, but you need to express it in another forum, of which the internet provides large numbers. This is supposed to be encyclopedic, not prejudiced. BYU Studies may not publish work that is hostile to the church that ultimately funds it, but that does not mean that works published are not valid, peer-reviewed works. You need to show that the church interferes with the editorial policy of the journal, not insinuate it. You need to show that BYU Studies will allow publication of articles that are not adequately referenced, distort facts or are otherwise non-academic. Time to put up or shut up because there is a lot of weasel word action going on here. Oh, and Happy New Year to you. Hope Santa was good to you, and all the best for 2008. Iain1917 (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have in my possession a personal rejection letter from BYU Studies which, although very courteous, makes it clear that the reason for the rejection of an article of mine was ideological. (And yes, the article was later published in a peer reviewed journal.) Happy New Year to you as well.--John Foxe (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Was that because your paper was ideological, or the reason for rejection was ideological? In any case, it doesn't change the fact that BYU Studies papers are peer-reviewed, and it is unfair to suggest that there is something substandard about LDS scholars' publications if they have been published in BYU Studies. I'd be interested in reading the paper, by the way, so if you have details of it, could you put them on my talk page, please? On another topic, the last change you made shifted the early life material I added to another paragraph under the Witnesses sub-heading. Do you think that is the best location, or do you think that the brief information about his pre-BoM life should be in the paragraph above, with the material relating to meeting the Smith family staying where you have put it? It seems to me that the information about clerking and teaching isn't really relevant to his role in BoM and should be in the earlier position. Iain1917 (talk) 12:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
