Talk:Book of Mormon

Questions re new Edits to Lead -- July 20 12:56 & 13:04

Which is the American continent?

Adding in the sentence about Jesus Christ appearing to the Americas raises a question. While it would have been newsworthy, in what sense is it pivotal? Do you mean to say that to Latter Day Saints it is the pivotal event in the Book?

I'm puzzled how the flow of the last paragraph was improved. The jump from "pivotal event" to the organization of the Book struck me as needing a new paragraph. I did not get that feeling when reading the previous last paragraph.

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A description of the American continent can be on the Wikipedia article as linked to.

Regarding Christ's visit and whether or not it is the pivotal event of the book, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls it the "dramatic and spiritual climax of the Book of Mormon" (source). All authors in the book leading up to the visit prophesied of the event and directed people to it, and believers today claim that the visit was a fulfillment of Biblical prophesy (see source).

I agree the flow became awkward with the addition (hence, the challenges of piecemeal work) and have reorganized things to aid the flow. —Eustress ^talk 23:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is the term "American continent". At last count there were two. Do you mean to single out one of them or is this perhaps careless wording? Wanderer57 (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Eearliest of the defining publications of the LDS movement?

 Fixed The third paragraph of the lead starts out with:

The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement, and its denominations typically regard the text not only as scripture but also as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. The Book of Mormon is divided into smaller books, ...

Nowhere in the article does it mention or link to what these "defining publications" may be. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

History of the Latter Day Saint movement elucidates the issue a little bit, as among the largest denomination of the movement (LDS Church), the Book of Mormon was the earliest of the defining non-biblical publications in the Standard Works. If there is a real concern, it could be changed to read, "The Book of Mormon is a defining publication of the Latter Day Saint movement..." —Eustress ^talk 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think that linking "defining publications" to History of the Latter Day Saint movement should address this concern sufficiently. --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you - the word "works" was helpful. Using that word I found the Book of Mormon#The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints section of this article. I had looked for "defin" and "publication" in the article to see what these "defining publications" were. The History of the Latter Day Saint movement article was not helpful in terms of the "defining publications" or "standard works."

I updated the lead to replace "defining publications" with "standard works." That way someone wondering what the standard works are will seek that term in the main body of the article. I did not wikilink at this point as standard works is not about the Mormon works. The main body section that discusses the works is wikilinked. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops - I was not paying attention. Standard Works is about the LDS works. I'll update the lead again. Thank you for the replies Eustress & Taivo. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the KJV is also one of the standard works and predates the BOM. I changed the working to "unique writings" and linked to History of the Latter Day Saint movement. We don't want to confuse people by including the Bible in the discussion, especially since it's not unique. The intent of the sentence was to point at the writings that are unique to the LDS movement. --Taivo (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I left your wording in but changed the wikilink from History of the Latter Day Saint movement to Standard Works as I can't see anything in the history article that explains the standard works other than buried in a single sentence a third of a way into the article the Doctrine and Covenants is mentioned. Pearl of Great Price is not mentioned as part of history.

We could dispense with "earliest" and say "The Book of Mormon is one of the four Standard Works of the Latter Day Saint movement, ..." Another way to handle it would be "The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the "Triple Combination" works unique to the Latter Day Saint movement, ..." --Marc Kupper|talk 23:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The latter wording is better, but "Triple Combination" doesn't really refer to the works themselves, but to a common way of printing them in a single volume. --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

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. -- 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,