" 

 == Intro edits == 

 #Put back the NPOV dispute tag, as there is indeed an ongoing NPOV dispute...added some notes below regarding this 
 #Since all my inquiries into the very inaesthetically redundant use of the same picture (and one right under the other, no less!) were completely ignored (ie: no justification for keeping it that way, nevermind the simple acknowledgement that one should be able to expect in a civil society) I've changed it. 
 #Wikified some explanatory terms 
 #The following sentence fragment is unclear and needed clarification: ""...was actively opposed throughout his ministry."" This could mean: 
 #:*was opposed widely from within his own congregation 
 #:*was opposed during the whole time he was ministering 
 #:I'm assuming the latter was the intended meaning and will go with that 
 #""not welcomed by the existing Christian community"" is misleading for a few reasons: 
 #:*It is rather soft wording. ""Not welcomed"" sounds equivalent to pretending to not be home when religious folks come a knockin' on your door, or letting them talk, but only from the doorstep; whereas the actual Christian reaction was more akin to answering the door and telling them to beat it, not interested, no I don't want your pamphlets cuz they'll just go in the recycle bin (poor trees!)...so, I'll use the opposed part instead. 
 #:*""...existing Christian community"" is a little vague; and although ""orthodox Christianity"" seems at first to be more to the point, with some reasearch one finds that ""orthodox"" refers to what is ""right or correct"" (which is a value judgement) as well as being part of the name of certain religious groups (so it may be confusing or misleading); for these reasons, I have opted to use ""mainstream Christianity"" to indicate ""the set of beliefs most commonly accepted as Christianity""...there may be a better word to use, so if anyone can think of one, please use it 
 #:*The reason why Smith's teachings were not accepted by mainstream Christianity is avoided despite it's importance to the subject, so I have added the reason as well as a link to the article which describes this in more detail 
 #""This rejection was later compounded..."" paints Smith as undeserving of criticism, which is POV (only in Mormonism is he considered undeserving of criticism); ""detractors"" is also POV in the same way, as it is a pejorative term which implies that those who criticized Smith had no reason to do so, which is certainly not the case 
 Note: if someone can provide a representative person or body to whom criticism of Smith's military and political involvement can be attributed, that would be dandy and more in keeping with proper NPOV (ie: I would like ""by others"" to read ""by X (group)"", ""by others, such as Y (group or individual)"", ""by X (group), such as Y (group or individual)"", or anything similar.   

 ==NPOV dispute (Ongoing NPOV concerns)== 
 Some examples of POV in this article include (not a complete list): 
 *The overall tone of the article is clearly intended to raise, in the reader, sympathy for Smith (which is a sneaky form of proselytizing), instead of presenting the information in a way that allows the reader to form their own opinions. 
 *""Persecution"" implies that Smith met with opposition based on his beliefs, when in fact, the strongest opposition was in response to his actions, so again, these kind of words attempt to elicit sympathy for Smith by representing him and his followers as innocents and everyone who disagreed with Smith as evil wrongdoers. Conversely, where Smith is truly persecuting non-Mormons (one example being: trying to take over their land simply because of their beliefs (ie: not Mormon, and especially ex-Mormon)), it is not described as such, and is instead presented as being a justifiable action 
 *Bushmans description of the tarring and feathering uses strong language clearly meant to elicit extrordinary amounts of sympathy; and if it is retained in this article, should at least be preceeded by a neutral introduction. 
 *Similar strong language is used elsewhere throughout the article to describe actions against Smith, while all of Smith's negative actions are either suppressed, or made to seem as inconsequential as possible by using ""soft"" language 
 *Referring to Smith as simply ""Joseph"" is questionable, as it is discouraged in the style guidelines, and also attempts to put him on a more personal basis with the reader 
 *ex-Mormons are referred to repeatedly as ""disaffected"", which pushes the POV that Smith is ""the"" authority 
 *In many parts, particularly in the teachings section, the article takes on the tone of a sermon, which is most certainly inappropriate. Specifically religious language and words should not be used except where they are clearly defined as