Talk:Book of Mormon

Subjectivity in "Presentation" section

I wrote this in my edit comment but for some reason it's not appearing in the edit history, so to clarify why I took those statements out: calling the book "narratively and structurally complex" and "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" are very obviously not written from a neutral POV; if quotes by more prominent authors like Mark Twain calling it "chloroform in print" aren't included, then neither should subjective statements written by a BYU professor (Terryl Givens) who are contractually obligated to paint the church in the best possible light. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Givens isn't a BYU professor. Up until 2019, he was a professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. In 2019 he did join the Maxwell Institute as a senior fellow, but that isn't the same thing as being a BYU professor. Also, the cited material is from a 2009 source, while he was still at the University of Richmond and before joining the Maxwell Institute, so the bulk of your objection to Givens as a source is incorrect. Your edit also removed material cited to the Howe source, who you also mischaracterized in your initial edit as a Mormon apologist. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, "senior research fellow" at BYU. And no, it's pretty obvious that he's writing from a Mormon POV. I mean, just look at his page and the books he's spent his career writing; you can nitpick about whether he could be called an "apologist" prior to joining the Maxwell Institute (although the fact that he did end up joining it kinda belies his position); but the fact remains that none of those statements are "neutral" by any stretch of the imagination. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Mark Twain was an author of fiction, not a literary scholar published by university presses. Additionally, Mark Twain wrote his comment nearly a century ago; his comment does not represent the current state of the field of Book of Mormon studies.

The books by Terryl Givens currently cited on this page are By the Hand of Mormon and The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction. Both were published by Oxford University Press, a respected academic publisher that has no affiliation with any Mormon denomination. Academic presses review the books they publish and provide a context for understanding the book as part of a wider scholarly conversation. Additionally, the books' influence in the field furthers the conclusion that they are part of the prevailing consensus, scholarly point of view.

The Maxwell Institute also has a more academic, rigorous, and trustworthy reputation than you imply. It has some affiliation with BYU, that is true. But it is comparable to, say, Baylor University Press (affiliated with the Baptist school Baylor University) publishing books about the Bible. Both Baylor University Press and the Maxwell Institute are recognized as scholarly publishers, even with their institutional affiliations.

Wikipedia can cite American historians who write about U. S. presidents, or Protestant literary critics who write about the Bible, or Latter-day Saints who write about the Book of Mormon, and still maintain a neutral point of view. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

None of that disproves that statements like "narratively and structurally complex" and "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" are extremely subjective claims. Treating those claims as fact, instead of the opinions of obviously biased authors, is not "maintaining a neutral point of view". I mean, if you look at the OUP page for By the Hand of Mormon, one of the reviews they share specifically calls it "polemical".

Mark Twain's opinion is still shared by the majority of readers of the book, and it's hard to argue that the author of what is considered many to be the best contender for "Great American Novel" didn't have a sense for what constitutes good literature. Academic presses may "review the books they publish and provide a context for understanding the book" but that doesn't mean that said books (and in particular, opinion statements taken from those books) aren't biased. I actually checked it out on archive.org to flip through, and I can't find any mention of how the publishing or editing process involved the "prevailing consensus" at all.

Keep in mind that religious studies have a huge survivorship bias problem: the people who find a given book of scripture painfully boring and/or obviously fraudulent rarely (if ever) see it as a worthwhile use of their time to write their own books about it. It's a common practice in the mormon church to participate in a "book of mormon challenge" where members are encouraged to finish the book in some arbitrary timeframe, most often 3 months. That's just under 7 pages a day; even a breakneck "3 week" challenge is a bit less than 28 pages a day. That's not a "this is such an engrossing book" pace, that's an "ugh, just gotta get through a couple more chapters and then I can go to bed" pace. My point stands: if we're going to include opinion statements extolling the book's writing, we should also include ones condemning it; if the latter are seen as "too subjective", then the former should be as well. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"Narratively and structurally complex" is not a subjective claim. The Book of Mormon is a structurally complex book, with interlocking narratives, flashbacks, pericopes, etc.

"a powerful epic written on a grand scale" is a more subjective claim, that is true, and that is why it is placed in quotation marks and attributed to the historian who made the claim (Daniel Walker Howe), so it is not made in Wikipedia's voice. This is an appropriate way to document subjective information about a topic on Wikipedia, without having Wikipedia itself make the claim.

You identified one review that called By the Hand of Mormon "polemical". The other reviews on the page call it "outstanding", "unbiased", "vastly informative", and "exceptional".

If Mark Twain had analyzed the Book of Mormon in a scholarly venue, such as an academic book or periodical subjected to editorial and peer review, or a news periodical subjected to editorial review, and if he had written and published more recently within the context of the prevailing field of Mormon studies/religious studies/American history, his assessment of the Book of Mormon might be appropriately cited on this page. Twain did not. Twain made his comment about the Book of Mormon in passing, in a personal memoir, published 151 years ago. Twain's prominence as a novelist is not in dispute, but he was not a scholar of literature and did not publish in the current scholarship. For that matter, Twain notoriously hated and excoriated numerous books and authors whom academics today regard as classics, including James Fenimore Cooper, Henry James, and Jane Austen. Twain's own talents as an author do not make it appropriate to cite him on Wikipedia pages about Last of the Mohicans, The Portrait of a Lady, or Pride and Prejudice, as if his opinions were equivalent in authority to analytical and academic scholarship in literature and history published through academic presses.

Academic books don't generally internally describe the publishing process. There nevertheless is a publishing process. Laura Portwood Stacer's "Landing an Academic Book Congtract" describes the general process, which involves peer review, if you are curious.

The digression guessing at the hypothetical emotional state of lay Latter-day Saints who read the book seems irrelevant to concluding whether or not the cited books, published with academic presses that subject their publications to peer review by other scholars, are quality sources whose content may appropriately be cited.

The page is not exclusively positive about the Book of Mormon. The immediate preceding sentence calls it "repetitive and difficult to read". You never deleted that sentence, even though it is arguably as subjective as "Narratively and structurally complex" (if anything, it being so structurally complex is part of why it is difficult to read). Your edit would have left only a relatively negative statement about the book on the page, deleting a neutral statement about its structure and a positive statement (couched in quotation).

With all this in mind, it seems appropriate to conclude that citing By the Hand of Mormon and What Hath God Wrought on this Wikipedia page is appropriate to do. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I've placed an {npov} tag because this article does not clearly present the mainstream view of the Book of Mormon, beginning with what it is and who wrote it. It should say that the Book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith in the early 19th century. Instead, that fact is quite buried, in the line In the twenty-first century, leading naturalistic interpretations of Book of Mormon origins hold that Smith authored it himself, whether consciously or subconsciously, and simultaneously sincerely believed the Book of Mormon was an authentic sacred history. Even that sentence is inappropriately qualified ... "leading naturalistic interpretations" is the mainstream view, also known as "the truth." "Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon" should be in the lead, and it should be the first view given in the "Origins" section. Before I go about rewriting it, does anybody disagree with this? Levivich (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed. Switched the order of the lede's first two sentences. starship.paint (RUN) 13:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed, NPOV is non-negotiable and we should not be presenting fringe views as superior to or the equal of normal ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yeah. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah [you're right]., Yeah [I disagree with this]., or Yeah [though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me].? Levivich (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agreed on the need for NPOV tag, and on Starship.paint's sentence switch. However I'm struggling to see how "it is patently obvious..." can be considered NPOV, it's a mocking tone rather than "nonjudgmental" and "impartial". It's also inaccurate: if it was "patently obvious that Smith had authored the Book by himself" then neither the plagiarism hypotheses nor the rumours about Smith having help from a third party would ever have gained traction. Pastychomper (talk) 15:20, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Levivich (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)