Talk:Book of Mormon

Questions & comments re the Manuscripts section

Quotes from the first paragraph of the section are in italics. Questions & comments are not in italics and are indented.

1st sentence: The Book of Mormon was reportedly dictated by Joseph Smith to several scribes over a period of nearly two years, resulting in an original manuscript that was eventually printed into the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, minus the first 116 pages of the Book of Lehi, which were lost after Smith lent the uncopied manuscript to Martin Harris who gave them to his wife Lucy.[20]

This sentence is too long I think. Also I think something is wrong with the reference. When I click it, it seems to lead me around in a circle.

2nd sentence: These pages were never returned and are assumed to be lost.[20]

Previous sentence says they "were lost". This one says "assumed to be". This seems redundant and also contradictory.

3rd sentence: The original manuscript was then hand copied by Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes into a manuscript for the printer.[108]

Okay.

4th sentence: It is at this point that initial copyediting of the Book of Mormon was completed.

This I find puzzling. One interpretation could be that no changes were made between the printer's manuscript and the Book of Mormon printed in 1830. Is this the case?

5th sentence: Observations of the original manuscript show little evidence of corrections to the text. [109][110]

Presumably this means "The surviving portions of the original manuscript show little evidence of corrections to the text" Is this what is meant?

6th sentence: Critical comparisons between surviving portions of the manuscripts show an average of two to three changes per page from the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript, with most changes being corrections of scribal errors such as misspellings or the correction, or standardization, of grammar inconsequential to the meaning of the text.[108][110]

I think this is clear enough but that it could be somewhat shortened without loss of meaning. E.g., "Comparison of the surviving portions of the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript show an average of two to three changes per page. Most changes are spelling corrections, and the correction or standardization of grammar inconsequential to the meaning of the text."

7th sentence: The printer's manuscript was further edited, adding paragraphing and punctuation to the first third of the text.[108]

This seems to me to directly contradict sentence 4. See Copy editing.

I hope some of this comment is useful. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to Spalding/Rigdon controversy page?

Hello, everyone.

I believe that it is appropriate to have at least link to the internal Spalding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon Authorship page, if not a paragraph about the controversy. I've never edited a religious work page, so I don't want to step on any toes.

I would link to that page in my question, but I'm rusty and rushed.

Am I off base?

Marklemagne (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate. I've added Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship to the "see also" section. It's possible that there could be a brief section on issues of authorship. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The King James Version connection (KJV / AV)

Much has been made of apparent or obvious connections between the Book of Mormon and the King James Version (KJV / AV). I thought I read that Joseph Smith himself had responded to this, stating he had been given permission to take portions from the KJV (instead of directly translating, I presume). Does anyone know of a reference to that? And, if there is such a reference, why isn't it included in various articles about the B.o.M? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I wonder where someone would ask permission to reprint from a Book published well over 200 years before. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Smith sought copyright permission from the Almighty  ;) But since the KJV text was engraved on the golden plates, perhaps Mormon is the one who violated copyright. --Taivo (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a somewhat recent presentation on the subject by Daniel L. Belnap; I couldn't quickly find a link to a text version of it, but an audio recording of the presentation is available here from the Mormon Channel. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

A synopsis of his presentation an be found at: Lloyd, R. Scott (2011-03-05), "King James Bible Symposium: Complex tie to Book of Mormon", Church News, http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/60563/King-James-Bible-Symposium-Complex-tie-to-Book-of-Mormon.html . -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So what did the presentation conclude? Did Smith get permission from the almighty?MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the synopsis:

In trying to determine how Joseph Smith incorporated so much King James English into his translation of the Book of Mormon, one must recognize that "none of the accounts describing the translation process mention that he used a Bible, and, in fact, a few of the accounts state explicitly that Joseph did not use any biblical text during the translation process," Brother Belnap said. Moreover, there is not a clear understanding of what the translation process was, as Joseph would only say that it came forth "by the gift and power of God."

Really? Wasn't it claimed that he had the Urim and Thummim as translational aids? :) Misty MH (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Misty MH may be confusing the cooperation that the LDS Church sought in producing the LDS edition of the Bible in 1979, due in part to the copyright status of the KJV in the UK. The LDS Church also sought and received permission from the Cambridge University Press to use parts of their bible dictionary to produce the LDS Church's Bible Dictionary. Obviously none of this was done in Joseph Smith's lifetime, and naturally had no impact on his usage of KJV language in the BoM. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's not really what Misty MH is talking about. He/She is literally talking about the pages and pages of literal, word-for-word KJV text that was copied by Joseph Smith into the Book of Mormon. But modern conceptions of copyright violation really didn't apply in the early 19th century, so Smith wasn't really guilty of a crime by copying the KJV into his narrative. --Taivo (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit written on this, but I personally have never read that Smith stated that God or anyone else told him to just copy from the KJV. Somewhere around half of all the KJV verses that are found in the Book of Mormon contain alterations to the KJV text, so at least at times there must have been somewhat more going on than just a word-for-word copying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right! I am referring to verbatim quotes from the KJV/AV text. I am pretty sure that I read that someone claimed that Joseph Smith had been given permission (or whatever) -- by "God" or an "angel" -- to use the KJV in certain places. Whether it was into the BoM or some other Mormon writing, I am uncertain. But I thought it was the BoM. Whether J.S. himself claimed it or someone claimed it on his behalf, I am uncertain. Misty MH (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is also the "Inspired Version" of the Bible (in English) from some branch of the group. (I have a copy of it in storage, somewhere.) I don't know if that's different from what I am finding on the Internet called the "Joseph Smith Translation". I hope I wasn't confusing the BoM & KJV with that. Maybe that's where the "permission" to copy from the KJV comes in? And so, IF Joseph Smith, or someone in the group, had been working on an English version of the Bible that borrows from the KJV/AV, THEN it might make sense that he'd take from THAT, to keep them consistent. And THEN, it would appear to people -- who didn't know this -- that the BoM was borrowing DIRECTLY from the KJV/AV when it was actually borrowing directly from the new version of the Bible that borrowed from the KJV/AV. That may seem like a technicality, but IF that was the case, THEN, again, it would seem to make sense that J.S. could get (or try to get) permission to quote from THAT version (especially if he thought he had permission to make that version in the first place). Hmm. Interesting. Misty MH (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here we go! Already an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspired_Version_of_the_Bible Misty MH (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Inspired Version postdated the Book of Mormon, so any issues involved in copyright, copying from KJV to the Inspired Version aren't really relevant to the Book of Mormon issue and should be discussed at that article. Since it's later, then any copying would go from BOM to IV, not the other way round. The question that is relevant here is whether Joseph Smith said anything about the use of KJV in the BOM either while he was writing the original text of the BOM or later in explanation of his writing process or why there is so much of the KJV in the BOM. If his later comments were in relation to the Inspired Version, then they are relevant there, not here. --Taivo (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment regarding relevancy. And I agree, for the most part. Hopefully someone will come across this discussion topic who knows the answer, and will add to it. Misty MH (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Taivo, I see that you removed my paragraph breaks, putting my text into one large paragraph. (And your "Edit summary" says you did "refactoring" of my comments; so I will comment here about that.) Thanks for the thought, but this is Discussion, not a Wikipedia article; and it's really not a good idea to edit others' comments in Discussion. (For the most part, it's even against the rules.) If you'd like to point me to a Guide that says I should do what you've done, instead of using what I preferred and thoughtfully chose as paragraph breaks, please do. But please do not edit my comments or change my paragraph breaks in any way. (If you think something should be edited in Discussion, it says to contact the person first, for permission.) Thanks! :)

As far as whether it is "easier to read" or not, I disagree. Large paragraphs, for most people, are considered to be harder to read. (They are for me.) I tend to use them functionally, and removing them destroys the pattern of the function I intend. Long paragraphs also tend to be skipped over. (I get emails from people that contain single, massive paragraphs; and I hate it.) It makes the page longer to use paragraphs, but that matters mostly if one is printing something out. (Adding paragraphs hardly takes up extra data space; so that's not really an issue.)

Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, Misty MH. Most of the time, when I see each sentence as a separate paragraph, I associate it with anonymous IPs who are simply pushing some nationalistic POV and contain no content worthy of consideration. I would suggest two or three short paragraphs based on topic in the future, rather than making every sentence an individual paragraph. If you have so many points that two or three short paragraphs are insufficient, that comment may need to be refined down. I agree with you about long paragraphs, but double-spaces between sentences, especially where there is no thematic or stylistic reason for a new paragraph, is just as bad. You raised an interesting point in the first two sentences, so I kept reading. It was a point worthy of consideration and further comment. --Taivo (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moronis Promise

I added this to the religious significance section. I though it will be good to have the quote next to the text which tells of its significance!--84.177.245.68 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Moroni's Promise , Book of Moroni 10:3–5,

Removed. Wikipedia is not a Mormon missionary tract. If anyone is interested, they can click on the link in the footnote and access the text themselves. Otherwise, it is proselytizing. --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

But the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article has a quote of Joseph Smith. --87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

And the Quran article has also a Quran quote!--87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what those articles do. This is a different article and highlighting that quote is blatant proselytizing. If a reader is interested, they can click on the link in the footnote to get the text. --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

To highlight this quote is not proselytizing.--87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an important quote and it should be highlighted because the Origin of the Book of Mormon is also highlighted!--87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is NOT "an important quote". It is a proselytizing quote to get people to read and pray about the BOM. Is should not be highlighted. Read WP:BRD. You are violating it. If you add something to an article and someone objects and reverts it, you do NOT add it back into the article, you discuss and build a consensus before you put it back in. You have not built a consensus for this addition. This quote is the foundation for Mormon missionary work and is one of the key psychological tricks that missionaries use to get people to convert--"Pray about it and God will tell you." "But I did pray." "You must not have prayed hard enough." While the reference to "Moroni's Promise" is in the article and a link is provided for interested readers to read, it is heavy-handed proselytizing to add the full text and to highlight it as well. It is completely inappropriate. I don't know which Origin of the Book of Mormon article you're reading, but "Moroni's Promise" isn't even mentioned in it and the offending verse is not highlighted there. Also, read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Arguing that X article should Y because Z article has it is not generally a sound argument. --Taivo (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be a new editor, anon IP. This article is very carefully watched by both Mormon and non-Mormon editors to maintain a careful balance in the neutrality of the article. It is always preferable here to propose a change on the Talk page first and then build a consensus for it. --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

"Psychological tricks"? C'mon Taivo, we're supposed to stay objective even on the talk page {WP:TALK) and to discuss the article, not the subject. 72Dino (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

While it may sound extreme, that is exactly how critics of Mormonism describe the use of that particular verse in Mormon proselytizing (and in some cases the very words that are used). I didn't make it up. You know how hard we work on this article to keep it NPOV. That particular verse is a landmine. We already mention "Moroni's Promise" and its relation to proselytizing and there is a link to the verse in the footnote. Even without the POV problem, the quote itself is simply too long per WP:QUOTE. Long quotes should always be paraphrased or linked to. They should not be incorporated wholesale. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Taivo talked about the untruthfullness of the Book of Mormon, but I am NEUTRAL on this subject and think we should show the quote in this article and let the people decide.--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that the quote is not needed in the body of the article, especially with a link to the actual quote in the notes. It's just that the editorial comment is not appropriate on the talk page. The IP editor is new; you're not. 72Dino (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore even the Muhammad article has two quotes, is this also proselyzing?--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

God!
There is no god but He,
the Living, the Everlasting.
Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep;
to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth.
Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave?
He knows what lies before them and what is after them,
and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge
save such as He wills.
His Throne comprises the heavens and earth;
the preserving of them oppresses Him not;
He is the All-high, the All-glorious.

—The "Throne Verse", 2:255, revealed in Medina

Allah is the Light
of the heavens and the earth.
The Parable of His Light is
as if there were a Niche
and within it a Lamp:
the Lamp enclosed in Glass:
the glass as it were a brilliant star:
Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive,
neither of the east nor of the west,
whose oil is well-nigh luminous,
though fire scarce touched it:
Light upon Light!
Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light:
Allah doth set forth Parables for men:
and Allah doth know all things.

—The famous "Light Verse", part of the sura An-Nur, 24:35

Long quotes are generally discouraged in the body of the article on Wikipedia, and in a case where editors indicate the quote detracts from the neutrality of an article, it is best to leave the quote in the footnotes. You may want to read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists regarding the fact that another article includes long quotes. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two quotes at the Muhammad article, but on this article it is proselyzing? Why do this quotes exist on the Muhammad article?--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

72Dino, Moronis Promise is the "Light Verse" of Mormonism and should be on this article.--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The article on Muhammad is irrelevant. There is a link to those verses in Moroni in the online Book of Mormon in the notes. In the interest of neutrality, that should suffice. And please fix your formatting of the quotes so our comments appear correctly. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being personally labeled as an interferer, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue. First let me state that I am a member of the LDS Church, and I believe the Book of Mormon and Moroni's promise to be true. I have a testimony of both. Having said this, I agree that Moroni's promise is relevant to any article about the Book of Mormon. However, it appears that a link to the promise already exists in the notes about this article. For the sake of brevity, and to follow WP policy, I hereby state that I am in favor of NOT including the promise in this article. A mention of it is sufficient. And while I do not agree with the arguments that have been used against this text, at the same time, I recognize that this is a major edit, and should have been discussed before it was made. It appears that the consensus is NOT to include this quote in the article, as it is in the notes, so I say, let's leave it at that. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)