Talk:Book of Mormon

Primary research in and notability of the Political Theology Section

Hello, Wikipedians. I'm wondering about whether the Political Theology subsection ought to be removed from the Book of Mormon article. The section currently seems relies heavily primary research with references to Book of Mormon verses rather than on secondary research with references to writers and scholars discussing and describing the Book of Mormon.

It might be possible to rework the section to include verified secondary references (for example, there are books like Voice of the People and Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon that talk about the Book of Mormon's political theology, and there are probably a variety of articles in that subject area in venues such as the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies). But would that be the type of information readers interested in learning about the Book of Mormon are looking for? It was of interest to its early readers, and it's of interest to some churches in the various Latter Day Saint movement who continue to read the book theologically. But for a general audience who are looking for an encyclopedic overview of the Book of Mormon, political theology as a topic is somewhat niche and doesn't seem as relevant as sections like the manuscript history, textual criticism, Christological doctrine, literary criticism, etc.

Since removing an entire subsection (or perhaps significantly shortening it) would be kind of drastic, I figured I'd make a post here on the Talk page first. In the event there aren't objections, I may go forward with either removing or overhauling the subsection in the future.

--P-Makoto (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)P-Makoto

Is it appropriate to state that mainstream archaeologists don't consider the Book of Mormon factual in the introduction?

Not a single other Wikipedia article on sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran states anything like this in the introduction, though many mainstream archaeologists also believe that neither the Bible or the Quran are historically accurate. Why is the Book of Mormon a special case? Since the article itself is heavily infused with statements such as this (again, not found in any other article on sacred texts), is it really necessary to make this a focal point of the article or would it be better to push this a bit more to the sidelines while exploring the cultural and religious side of the Book of Mormon instead, as other articles on sacred texts do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs)

I believe it is appropriate. It's a difference of scale and of scope. The Book of Mormon presents itself as history far more explicitly than the Bible and Quran do, from the Introduction page to the Title page to the structure of the text as a history-like account with embedded narrators. While some of the books of the Bible are histories, not all are (such as Pslams and Proverbs) and the extent of historicity or not is different. While some events like the chronology of the Jewish captivity in Egypt, the extancy of the battle of Jericho, and the attribution of Solomon's Temple have been disputed (and those seeking naturalistic interpretations of the events naturally dismiss accounts of miracles), the existence of, say, a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judea are not disputed. Meanwhile, there is no consensus external evidence of Nephite societies. Latter-day Saints can identify parallels and can understand the Book of Mormon in ways that fit alongside their understanding of the archaeology, but they cannot satisfactorily prove, on a wide scale, to those who do not accept the text on faith, that Zarahemla was at least there the way archaeologists can prove that the Kingdom of Israel was there, and there was a Babylonian Empire, and a Persian empire, and Herod was king in the early Common Era who expanded the temple, and the Romans had established an imperial regime, etc.

To put it another way, Biblical historicity is not disputed by mainstream archaeological communities to the extent that Book of Mormon historicity is disputed by mainstream archaeological communities. One actually couldn't write on the Bible page that "Mainstream archaeological, historical and scientific communities do not consider the Bible to be an ancient record of actual historical events" because it would not be true for all parts of the Bible, though it would be true for plenty of parts. Additionally, Biblical historicity is not as firmly attested by Abrahamic faith communities as Book of Momron historicity is attested by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination that uses the scripture. For example, while some Abrahamic denominations insist on Biblical literalism, other Abrahamic denominations, in the present and in history, have accepted the Bible as religiously true but not historically true, and there are plenty in between such as Latter-day Saints who hedge Biblical historicity with their article of faith on it being the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." This contrasts with Latter-day Saint treatment of the Book of Mormon (and, prior to the latter-twentieth century, treatment by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Community of Christ), which upholds the Book of Mormon straightforwardly as the word of God and attests its historicity in missiology and discourse.

Still, Biblical historicity does get treated in Wikipedia articles. There is a section on the Bible page about Biblical archaeology and historicity, and there is a very thorough Historicity of the Bible page that acknowledges scholars' views that "large portions of" certain portions of the Bible, like the Deuteronomistic histories, "are legendary and it contains many anachronisms." It is given a differing level of treatment and focus, but this partly comes down to scholars treating the issue differently for the Book of Mormon. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we rely on the secondary scholarly discourse for our information, and the polemical/apologetic background of Book of Mormon discourse (by Latter-day Saints, other Mormons, and non-Mormons alike) has put historicity at the forefront of Book of Mormon scholarly discourse for many years. For decades, Book of Mormon historicity was the central scholarly subject for the Book of Mormon. It's what FARMS wrote about, it's what Vogel wrote about, it's what BYU wrote about, it's what Sorenson wrote about—Book of Mormon studies was all about historicity for years. It is in many ways only in the last couple of decades that scholars (Latter-day Saints, other Mormons, and non-Mormons alike) have shifted focus toward cultural and religious elements. As a result, Wikipedia's article arguably has a responsibility to acknowledge historicity in the lead because that is the question that secondary literature has had at its forefront for the majority of the Book of Mormon's existence. Leaving out that sentence might arguably be as egregious a gap as not mentioning that Latter-day Saints accept the book as scripture would be. P-Makoto (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I see. I suppose that does make sense. I'll leave such mentions in then, but I've added more information given from a Latter-day Saint perspective so as not to write the book off entirely. For example, I noticed that the section on Historical Authenticity contained only criticisms of the Book of Mormon and no defenses. In order to display both sides, I added some LDS scholarship and some of the most common defenses of the book. I may go through a second time to ensure my additions come from a neutral point of view. While the article as a whole I feel tends to view the book rather negatively, my additions could have too much of a positively biased tone that I've been trying to negate. I was also considering adding a section entitled "Claimed Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy" to detail how Latter-day Saints view the Book of Mormon in the context of Biblical tradition. Shifting this article from a historicity and factual debate perspective to a more cultural or religious perspective might be helpful. For example, emphasizing the effects of the Book of Mormon on the LDS religion or on the world as a whole rather than mostly focusing on criticisms and defenses of it (though those are both important to include). Jacobalbee (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)JacobAlbee

"While the article as a whole I feel tends to view the book rather negatively, my additions could have too much of a positively biased tone that I've been trying to negate."

It need not be a matter of positive or negative. Wikipedia articles try to reflect the broadest, mainstream (and where applicable scholarly) consensus. That this does not bear out in favor of Book of Mormon historicity may be a disappointment to readers who accept the book's faith claims, but Wikipedia is not able be all things to all readers. Its stated perspective is achieving a neutral point of view that reflects broad, mainstream, scholarly consensus. Even Wikipedia needs a point of view, or else every page would be debating with itself, and that would be difficult reading.

If I may, I hope you'll allow me to offer a couple other pointers relating to your additions to the page. I do not have time at the moment to thoroughly read your edits, but at a cursory glance I would advise you to strive for more neutral language. Calling people who disbelieve the Book of Mormon's truth claims "skeptics" or "critics" comes across a bit brusque. It would be probably be more appropriate to describe how certain scholarship responds to claims rather than to people broadly described as either "critics" or "believers."

Additionally, listing a litany of individual apologetic findings in ancient Book of Mormon studies is probably a lot more detail than the article needs. If the page devotes multiple long paragraphs to relatively niche scholarship that upholds claims of mesoamerican historicity, it would arguably have to devote even more paragraphs to reporting mainstream scholarship that challenges historicity in order for the page to maintain a sense of internal balance and balance with mainstream scholarly consensuses.

Finally, wherever you contribute to Wikipedia, I invite you to provide complete references. It is good to have the URL, but then readers always have to click on the link to see authors, publication titles, etc. With the Visual Editor, it is possible to fill in text boxes with the necessary information according to pre-made source templates for books, news publications, journals and magazines, and websites, and if you fill in the information, Wikipedia will take care of formatting. P-Makoto (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I merely copied the usage in the rest of the article. The rest of the article called those who were skeptical of the Book of Mormon "critics" and so I followed suit. And I steered clear of any scholarship that went into trying to place the Book of Mormon in a proper geographical setting. There's already an article on that and I feel it would be a waste of time describing such a complicated topic here. I added around three paragraphs discussing Book of Mormon complexity, consistency, and stylometry, with a brief reference to Nahom. There are hundreds or even thousands of scholarly articles out on the internet detailing defenses of the Book of Mormon. I just summed up a few major arguments in three paragraphs. Niche scholarship deserves recognition here, since that's exactly it's niche. And I completely understand the neutrality policy. I'm attempting to keep the article as neutral as possible. The article still recognizes that the Book of Mormon isn't accepted by most mainstream scholars and goes into great detail discussing criticism of the religious text. Most visitors of this website will already know that, but I'm just ensuring the article doesn't write the Book of Mormon off altogether, and that it treats it as it is: the sacred text of a living religious faith that deserves thorough and special insight and attention. Jacobalbee (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)JacobAlbee

Poor Sourcing

The Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, Latter Day Saint Magazine, among others are not strong, reliable, secondary sources for scholarly information, and should only be used when presenting a narrow point of view of a segment of one belief system within the broader Latter Day Saint movement. NPOV does not mean you present every viewpoint with equal weight (see WP:WEIGHT).Epachamo (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I notice you also removed information backed up by BYU, which would count as reliable information. Those sources were used throughout. I would agree NPOV doesn't mean you present every view point but this is important information about a well-contested sacred text. There are legitimate arguments presented for its authenticity that need to be recognized. I'll re-add this section and include better sources soon. However, you mention they should only be used when presenting that pov, which is exactly what I was doing. If you leave Latter-day Saint perspectives out of an article about an important aspect of the Latter-day Saint movement you can't really consider this a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Jacobalbee (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that Latter-day Saint and other Mormon and Latter Day Saint perspectives are worthy of inclusion, but as Epachamo states there is a matter of due and undue weight. As aforementioned, Wikipedia's neutral point of view prioritizes the broadest possible mainstream academic consensus. While the Interpreter and BYU Studies are both peer-reviewed journals, it is possible even for a peer-reviewed journal to be very niche. Information from Interpreter articles about, say, the Deseret Alphabet or about Cowdrey's transcription between the original and printer's manuscripts can probably be presented without qualification. An Interpreter article on ancient Book of Mormon studies would likely require qualification as being from a Latter-day Saint point of view, and at that point it is wise to give consideration to weight. While Latter-day Saints are the largest Mormon denomination for whom the Book of Mormon is highly important, the Latter-day Saint perspective on the Book of Mormon's historicity remains a minority perspective relative to the broader academic consensus, albeit a a significant one, but even significant minorities warrant only limited space in an article.

Think of it this way: if the Latter-day Saint perspective on the Book of Mormon, which proportionally compared to the broader academic consensus is very niche, were to be given more paragraphs on the page than said academic consensus, that would be giving more lingual "weight" to the more niche perspective than to the more accepted perspective. Wikipedia avoids that as a matter of policy, and while no system can be perfect, it is important. If niche perspectives received more weight on pages than broader consensuses, then one could hypothetically devote many paragraphs to the niche but largely unaccepted theory that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre (broader consensus is that his inflammatory language played a role, but at the most serious making him an unwitting accessory rather than an instigator, yet Bagley's Blood of the Prophets nevertheless pushes a Young-instigator theory), or many paragraphs to the niche but largely unaccepted theory that Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon (broader consensus is that Rigdon had no part in the Book of Mormon, and the Rigdon theory rightfully does not even appear on the Book of Mormon page, even though some still promote the theory.)

Proportionally speaking, one might compare the nicheness of Latter-day Saint perspectives on Book of Mormon historicity relative to the broader academic consensus to the nicheness of Young-instigator or Rigdon-author theories relative to Latter-day Saint perspectives. Thanks to Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight, those niche theories receive only limited or no treatment on relevant Wikipedia pages. (the Rigdon authorship theory does have its own Wikipedia page, separate from the Book of Mormon page, though half of that page is about people disproving it.)

With that in mind, I hope it is clearer why for many editors, not just Epachamo, the four long, detailed paragraphs you added about Latter-day Saint perspectives on the Book of Mormon seem like undue weight compared to the one short paragraph and a bulleted list about the broader academic consensus that the Book of Mormon is not historically authentic. To achieve Wikipedia-appropriate balance, editors would have to add four or perhaps more long paragraphs about all the ways scholars like Dan Vogel and Simon Southerton say the book is anachronistic or inauthentic. At that point I worry the page would drift even further away from the hope of speaking more to the scripture's religious and cultural relevance. As such, I think the earlier composition of the Historical authenticity section more appropriate: one bulleted list for the mainstream perspective of inauthenticity, one brief paragraph summarizing Latter-day Saint perspectives, which constitute a significant and relative minority, though still a minority in the broader academic discourse, as persuasive as that minority might be for plenty of people (though, as the academic discourse has yet to shift, not for a majority).

Finally, if I may offer some Wikipedia advice going forward. It's something I also had to learn when I got started editing Wikipedia. There is a saying sometimes of "BRD," short for "Boldly edit, Revert, Discuss." Boldness is not a bad quality on Wikipedia—after all, timidity would leave pages unedited eternally!—but after an edit has been reverted, it is generally better to leave the text reverted without adding it back in until after discussion takes place. P-Makoto (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You've removed my work a second time. I've gone through and fixed the sourcing issue. Brigham Young University is a reliable source of information on the Latter-day Saint movement and Book of Mormon lingustical studies. As I've stated before, I'm presenting the most common arguments given in favor of it. The article already mentions the most common arguments against. I'm going to undo your edit for now and let's talk here. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable concensus. Jacobalbee (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll take an example from your text to illustrate why this doesn't belong. "A lack of internal consistency or the confusion of small details are among the most common features of forgeries, but, uniquely, the Book of Mormon is remarkably consistent." Flatly stating this as fact is not appropriate nor is it uncontested. For example, Amlicites and Amalekites were probably meant to be the same, but spelled differently. King Benjamin shows up in the story after he was dead in the original. There are two narratives of the battle (or battles) that destroyed the city of Ammonihah that do not match up. The name of "Christ" was revealed to Jacob, but mysteriously unknown to later generations. Regardless, this phrase does nothing to address the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Internal inconsistencies could just have well been introduced by Mormon as by Joseph Smith, making the historicity point irrelevant. Also, these statements violate WP:UNDUE. There is a place for them in Wikipedia, (Historicity of the Book of Mormon), but that place is not this article. Finally, BYU is not an appropriate source for these statements, for the same reason that Harvard University would not be appropriate as a source for a statement listing Harvard University as the best school in the world, or that scientists paid by tobacco companies would not be an appropriate sources in a statement linking smoking to cancer. Epachamo (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)