Talk:Book of Mormon

Removing weasel word

I am going to revert the language in the lede paragraph back to the original wording because it seems to me that "mimic" is not typically used in positive connotations and has a negative slant to it e.g. to mimic is to copy. The BOM's grammar style is similar to the KJV but still unique enough to not be considered "mimicking". The previous wording was that it is "similar to the early middle english of the KJV Bible". This statement was quite neutral and should not have been edited to include a weasel word. Twunchy (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a good change. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mimic is the accurate linguistic word. The wording is not Early Modern English (EME) since Smith was not a native speaker of EME (either as author or translator). The style, whether a translation or original creation, was a mimic of the KJV style. That is the correct word whether this was a translation or an original creation. It is intended to mimic KJV as a religious text and is unlike other English religious texts of the early 19th century. The intention was to create a document that sounded like the scriptural wording of the classic EME texts--the KJV, Pilgrim's Progress, etc. Mimic is not a weasel word, but is the accurate word to indicate that the language of the text was to sound like the KJV. Of course it is not exactly EME because Smith was not a native speaker of that dialect and there are many "errors" in his usage of the language. "Mimic" is not a negative word and is often used in biology and linguisics to speak of organisms that look like other organisms or linguistic styles that seek to imitate other styles without being exact copies. (Taivo (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Let me be very clear about this. The English of the BOM is not the English of 1830s America. Whether you believe that it is a translation or an original creation, its language is a mimic of Early Modern English (EME). The reason is fairly simple--a piece of scripture written in 1830 must sound like the KJV in order to be accepted as scripture. It must not just be "similar to", it must "mimic" KJV in order to sound like scripture because that was the model of what 1830s Americans thought scripture should sound like. They prayed that way because they thought God talked and listened that way. It is not a "different, but similar style" independent of KJV English, but a mimicry, an attempt to copy EME. If BOM is an original work by Smith, then the style shows Smith's nonnative mastery of the language in his attempt to copy KJV style. If BOM is a translation, then we must remember that EME was not the original language of BOM. It is a translation of another language done in 1830. It still shows Smith's nonnative mastery of EME in attempting to mimic the language of KJV. Either way, EME was not the language of 1830 America, Smith had an imperfect mastery of EME, and in order to be accepted as scripture, BOM had to mimic the EME of KJV. (Taivo (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

While I can't fault your logic, I believe that using "mimic" implies a deliberate attempt to copy the style; Mormons wouldn't believe that was the case (though I'm not actually sure what their explanation for the style similarity is). DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

But that's what I'm saying. Whether a deliberate attempt by Smith or by God helping Smith translate, it was deliberate for the reason that Americans in 1830 would never have accepted a text as "scripture" that didn't mimic the language of the KJV. A text written in contemporary English (1830 contemporary) would never have been accepted as scripture. Otherwise we must ask the question, "Why wouldn't a translation from another language use contemporary English instead of mimicing an archaic variety?" (Taivo (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Since we are arguing over a word let's look at its common definitions:

Mimic:

1. imitate (a person or manner), especially for satirical effect;

2. One who practices mimicry, or mime

3. To imitate, especially in order to ridicule;

4. to take on the appearance of another, for protection or camouflage.

5. imitative, imitation, or mock

6. to imitate closely : to ape

7. to ridicule by imitation

These are from many sources and all have a common theme: Imitation. So let's look at that word...

Imitation:

1. something produced as a copy : counterfeit

2. a literary work designed to reproduce the style of another author (my emphasis)

3. resembling something else that is usually genuine and of better quality : not real

I cannot find a positive definition that fits the use of this word. Therefore it is by definition not a neutral word, but one that is slanted to negative connotations, which gets to the crux of WP:NPOV. The word is inappropriate in its use in this article. Twunchy (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually read my comments, please. If you don't like "mimic" then I will use "imitate". The language of the BOM is designed to reproduce the style of KJV. (See above comments for explanation). It was not subconscious and was deliberate--either on Smith's part or on God's part--since it was not the contemporary language of 1830. (Taivo (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I am having a hard time with your insistence on changing an undisputed sentence unilaterally. There is no consensus or even impetus to change what you are changing. "Imitation" is not any better of a phrase than mimic, as it also denotes the negative as seen above...counterfeit, artificial, unoriginal, copied. In the KJV bible translation itself, they used archaic and unusual terms for the time period in which it was assembled, but we do not say that the bible is imitative of anything or that it mimics anything. It was perhaps a stylistic attempt to keep the old Latin roots of the church, and mix in some of the pagentry of the royals, perhaps to keep a distinction between the divine and the things of man e.g. thou and thine vs. you and your. There is no slant in either direction in the sentence that existed before your semantics experiment. There was nothing misguiding or false or inaccurate about the original language of the sentence. There is nothing that you are positively adjusting, methinks it is only your ego again trying to lay claim to this article as your own, heir professor. Don't make hay out of nothing...there is nothing wrong with the wording that was there, you made no attempt to see if anyone objected to the wording but I suspect that your own egomaniacal need to leave your mark on everything in this article is the only driving force here. Again I revert... Twunchy (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Perhaps a little experiment in semantics can resolve this...I would like other editors to input below each statement an example of their understanding of the meaning of each statement:

1: The shape of an orange is similar to a sphere.

2: The shape of an orange mimics a sphere.

3: The shape of an orange imitates a sphere.

and as another try this:

1: The scent of liquorice is similar to anise.

2: The scent of liquorice mimics anise.

3: The scent of liquorice imitates anise.

I think this should illustrate the neutrality of language that should be used here. There is quite a distinction between the statements. Twunchy (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The old wording implied that the "similarity" was purely accidental and that the BOM style stands somehow on its own as an independent style. It was not accidental but purposeful and done on purpose. That is what the word "imitates" makes clear. Whether on purpose by God or on purpose by Smith, it is not accidentally similar to KJV. That is the point. (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps you should review the Wikipedia policies about keeping civil. "Egomaniacal" is hardly civil. (Taivo (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

You are making a distinction that does not exist, is not supported by any literature out there, and your assertions are definitely in the realm of original research. Unless you can find someone who is making the assertions you are trying to, then it cannot be inserted into this article. We are stating facts...not making new assertions on our own here. Unless you can prove that either God or Joseph Smith, Jr. kept the language the same **ON PURPOSE** then it can only be assumed to be coincidental, because you have nothing to support your hypotheses. Twunchy (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

This feels like Taivo's personal preference and there is a definite spin being created by the use of this terminology. I find no reason to change from using similar or similarity. In what language was Smith to translate? Other languages continue to use the thee form of addressing others where English began to abandon it some time ago. However, that does not mean the the translation would be any different today were one to translate appropriately. These modern day versions are not translations so much as rephrased text to accommodate current English usage. It would not be a correct statement that at the time of Smith's translation that this language form was foreign; it is not even foreign today. I will revert to the original, uncontested language until your current edits; please stop the edit war until a consensus is achieved here. Twunchy, I understand your frustration, but let's try to stop the personal attack and focus on the edits. --^StormRider 01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that the language of BOM was not Smith's native language, it was not contemporary English, it was not the common language of literature in 1830. It was a conscious imitation of KJV English. Translation from either Hebrew or "Reformed Egyptian" had no requirement for the imitation of KJV English. This would be the equivalent of using KJV English to translate Mein Kampf or War and Peace today. Storm Rider, you are wrong about contemporary English translations of the Bible--they are not "rephrased" KJV--they are original translations from Greek or Hebrew into contemporary English. Since Storm Rider chose to warn me of a revert war without warning Twunchy, then I can hardly trust his neutrality in this, especially when Twunchy has offered no real arguments other than "that's not the way I want it and not the way it's been." (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I almost warned Twunchy, but I think you were the one who started this issue. I will warn anyone else that changes this from the original until we reach concensus here. I did warn/encourage Twunchy to stop his personal attacks, which are also inappropriate. I have read this position of your often in the lower quality anti-Mormon literature; it certainly isn't novel. I apologize that not everyone wants to go along with this POV and spin. What Wikipedia demands is a neutral treatment of topics. The thesaurus provides the following synonyms for similar: agnate, akin, allied, analogous, coincident, coincidental, coinciding, collateral, companion, comparable, complementary, congruent, congruous, consonant, consubstantial, correlative, corresponding, homogeneous, identical, in agreement, kin, kindred, like, matching, much the same, parallel, reciprocal, related, resembling, same, twin, uniform. This term is correct, it does not lead readers to a specific conclusion or insinuate some nefarious act, or demean Smith's translation. You are spinning; nothing more and nothing less. You may not be aware of this, but that does not mean it is not an accurate perspective of your choice of terminology. Move on. --^StormRider 03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was not implying any nefarious act. Imitation of a particular style or use of a nonnative variety of a language is not at all uncommon in literature, especially in religious literature. The KJV itself uses an imitative style (as was mentioned above) that was archaic for its time as well. But the translators/editors of the KJV made a conscious decision to be imitative rather than contemporary--it added "majesty" to the translation and made it more acceptable as scripture to the users of the "new" translation. Modern translations sometimes consciously use more archaic styles for the very same reason--certain translations that use more colloquial registers of contemporary English have suffered through excessively bitter and unwarranted criticism for that very reason (Today's English Version and Contemporary English Version, for example). A good example of this is found in the story of the New English Bible, which was an extremely accurate translation which used a formal register of contemporary English. While it had the imprimatur of many churches in England, it was nevertheless controversial for departing from the wording of the KJV, so was superseded by the Revised English Bible. Compare Genesis 1:1 in NEB: "In the beginning of creation when God made heaven and earth...", which is the most accurate translation of the Hebrew, with the same verse in the REV: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," which is the KJV wording, but is not as accurate as a translation for various reasons. In each case, the other reading is in the footnotes. Readers demand a certain style in religious literature that is scripture. There was nothing nefarious about either Smith or God using an archaic style to write/translate the BOM, just as there was nothing coincidental about the imitation of KJV style rather than using contemporary English. (Taivo (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I appreciate your tone above; thank you. To mimic and to imitate carry a certain sense of falsity in the English language; do you deny this? When in Rome or New York it is easy to find those who hawk their Louis Vuitton bags for cheap prices, but they are only imitations that mimic the appearance of the real thing. We commonly use these terms to denote something that is less than the real thing. Simply stating that an item is an imitation cheapens the product. There is a distinct difference between two cobblers who manufacture similar shoes and one cobbler that imitates the other. Another example, is a cubic ziconia is an imitation diamond; I don't know of anyone that would prefer to have the imitation when the real thing is available. Based upon sharing your academic background, I must assume you understand this usage. Are you saying that using mimic and/or imitate in this article would not have a negative connotation to readers? It appears that you strive to use both neutral and proper language; however, given that more than one editor has stated that your proposed language carries a negative connotation, it is logical that other readers would have a similar interpretation. I don't think it makes sense to tell others that though they have perceived a negative connotation, they are wrong and should not have that understanding. Doesn't it make sense to just use wording that does not carry any negative connotation or is at least neutral? I still think that similar adequately, neutrally states the reality of the matter without risk of leading readers to any conclusion. --^StormRider 08:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My problem with "similar" is twofold: First, it sounds coincidental. Second, it sounds like the BOM has a separate linguistic style independent of the KJV tradition. Neither is true. The "differences" between the language of the KJV and the BOM are quite minor and may relate more to the fact that Smith was not schooled in the subtleties of Early Modern English grammar. Whether or not you accept the first premise, the second is quite straightforward. The BOM is not something separate from the EME/KJV tradition, but stands firmly within it. "Similar" implies that something is coincidentally like something else, but fundamentally different ("The pronghorn is similar to the gazelle", "A volleyball is similar to the moon", "War and Peace is similar to The Lord of the Rings", etc.). This is not true of the BOM. I'm trying to find a word (first, "mimic", then "imitate") that conveys the notion that "similar" masks--that the language of the BOM is fundamentally part of the EME/KJV linguistic tradition. If you have a better suggestion, then please offer it. (Taivo (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

I don't yet have an alternative to offer, but I will continue to think about it as I am sure you will. I see your point, but I don't make as significant a distinction as you do with this term, but that is beside the point. You do and I accept that. The synonyms I provided above for similar would seem a good place to start. Are any of those terms acceptable? --^StormRider 10:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) When I look at the synonyms for:

• imitate: act like, affect, ape, assume, be like, borrow, burlesque, carbon*, caricature, clone, copy, counterfeit, ditto*, do like, do likewise, duplicate, echo, emulate, falsify, feign, follow, follow in footsteps, follow suit*, forge, impersonate, look like, match, mime, mimic, mirror, mock, model after, parallel, parody, pattern after, personate, play a part, pretend, put on*, reduplicate, reflect, repeat, replicate, reproduce, resemble, send up*, sham, simulate, spoof, take off*, travesty, Xerox* and
• mimic: act, ape, burlesque, caricature, copy, copycat, ditto*, do, do like, echo, enact, fake, go like, impersonate, look like, make believe, make fun of, make like, mime, mirror, pantomime, parody, parrot, perform, personate, play, resemble, ridicule, sham, simulate, take off*, travesty

it is quite clear that both of these terms and their synonyms have a clear negative connotation and are not acceptable for a neutral article. --^StormRider 10:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The inherent problem with looking at lists of "synonyms" is that there is no such thing as a true linguistic synonym and that there is no word in the language that doesn't have some negative connotation in some context. "Mimic" and "imitate" are perfectly neutral and acceptable technical terms in biology, for example. A whole class of insects is called, properly, "mimics". "Copy" would be an acceptable alternative. But just looking up a word in Roget's Thesaurus isn't a good way to judge it's applicability or not. We must be accurate in our use of terminology. That is an important function of an encyclopedia--not just neutrality, but accuracy. We can mislead by imprecise statements just as easily as by incorrect statements. (Taivo (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

Ah, sometimes the best solution is the simplest one--to cut rather than untie the Gordian knot. (Taivo (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

That works for me; a good solution! I hope Twunchy feels the same. The only reason I looked to the thesaurus was to demonstrate that there was negative connotation to the words you had proposed. Your examples above are correct when discussing insects, biology, etc.; however, when discussing this topic it would have been inappropriate to use such terminology because it set a negative tone to the article. I suspect that all of the editors feel similarly about accuracy in articles. --^StormRider 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I think I triggered this discussion with this edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=251335518&oldid=251223450

I made this edit (removing the statement that the writing style of the Book of Mormon is similar to that of the King James version of the Bible) because a) there was no source for the statement and b) I don't think it's true.

The King James Version of the Bible is widely considered, at its best, a majestic example of English prose. Even in its more pedestrian sections, it is still, let us say, "very competently" written.

Compared to the King James Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon lacks style. To be blunt, I don't think the word "majestic" comes into it.

If the passage had said that the antique "language" of the Book of Mormon was "similar" to that of the King James Version of the Bible, I wouldn't have made the edit. Saying the "style" was similar was going too far.

The alternative wording, discussed above, that the style of the Book of Mormon "mimics" that of the King James Version, is extremely generous to the Book of Mormon, IMO. One might better say that the style of the Book of Mormon is a pale imitation of that of the King James Version. CBHA (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

No need for the mea culpa. "Majestic language" is in the eye of the beholder. I'm sure that the faithful think the language of the BOM is majestic. The current version seems to be acceptable to all. There is no need for a reference for this since it is self-evident upon even a cursory reading that the BOM is in Early Modern English and only people who know the grammar of EME well can tell that the writer was not fluent in EME. (Taivo (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC))

wp:or in historicity

I'm sorry to discuss this again, but the previous discussion was archived. In the historicity section, the list of " [83] cattle[84], horses,[85] asses,[86], oxen,[87] sheep, swine, goats[88], elephants, wheat, grapes,[89] silk,[90] steel,[91] brass, breast plates, chains, iron, mining ore, scimitars, and chariots" all have references to the book of mormon itself, not to WP:OR sources. I don't feel this matches wikipedia's directive that the cited research "directly support" the claim stated in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). The authors of [83] were not writing about book of mormon historicity. Unless they say "therefore the book of mormon is contradicted" I'm thinking this is WP:OR.

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source...Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."Rogerdpack (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you think the statement should be supported by a source which states directly that the apparent absence of these animals and technologies in the new world reflects badly on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Have I understood you correctly? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Some WP:RS that has that same list or portions of it. Is that off base? I'm not a pro wiki'er here. Rogerdpack (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there have been sources listed here in the past, but people have removed them since they are sometimes considered too "anti" and POV. The problem is that there is no such thing as a NPOV source for this. The topic is, by its very nature, POV. There are POV sources that list all or most of these items, so this list is not OR. Indeed, most, if not all, of the previously listed sources are found in the list of references for this article. (Taivo (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Have those sources been WP:RS? If so which are they? Rogerdpack (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the same thing [no WP:RS sources making direct connections] for the phrase "The lack of DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East. [95]". Am I off-base in requesting this?

This has been an area of dispute in the past, which as created a great deal of contention. There is no reputable source that supports the statement as it is currently made. If you look at Historicity of the Book of Mormon you will find several of these sources, but as I recall there are no page numbers so they can not be checked. If you review the archives of this article you will see the discussion. Currently, editors like to draw a distinction among archeologists as those who are LDS and those who are not; then making the statement that only LDS archeologists support the historicity claims of the Book of Mormon or the reverse no non-LDS archeologists has found any evidence to support the Book of Mormon's historicity. I am sure more neutral language can be produced. You may want to look at other articles that have the same issues. See Solomon, Bible, etc. Cheers. --^StormRider 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the list of anachronistic animals/technologies include the Tanners' books, as well as others. If you want them included again, it isn't a problem. I'll put page numbers for exhaustive lists of Native American DNA evidence which include nothing from the Near East if you wish or I can just link to the book "Losing a Lost Tribe". It's got a very extensive discussion. No page numbers can actually be placed there since the entire book covers the subject. But there is a fundamental problem with some of these statements. That is that the LDS position is very clearly a "Fringe" position since it runs counter to the vast majority of scientific research on the issue of American archeology. Asking for exact quotes is akin to asking for exact quotes that say, "The Earth is not flat" (a negative). I'll put sources in there (they were there once, but a consensus was reached that they were better in the Historicity article) if the majority of editors think that they should be there again. None of this is original research, it is found in many non-LDS sources. (Taivo (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

I think more DIRECT sources [is there such a thing as an WP:RS for a religious topic?] would be great [esp. with page numbers]. I also think that some rewording would be nice. Any opposed? Rogerdpack (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any update on adding those? [ping]. Rogerdpack (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) This seems to be an example where the sources don't support the statement, but editors want to keep the current language. That does not jive with Wikipedia policy, but continues. Policy dictates that statements must be supported by reliable sources. If the source does not say it, it should not be said. Taivo's statement above that no page numbers can be supplied because the whole book covers the topic is specious. If a reliable source does not support the statement, it must not be made. For example, if none of the references do not state xyz, then don't write. However, if the references do say DNA research has found that x people are more closely related to the Siberian, or Asian, or ... then state that. What we have now is puffery and synthesis, several references without page numbers and none of which directly support the statement and none can be checked unless a reader finds each source and reads the entire book. Anyone can review the policy on reliable sources and this does not need to be contentious. It becomes contentious when editors force a reference to support statements that are not stated.

I agree that it currently reads as WP:OR/synthesis. Still waiting for an update on those original sources [even if they're not WP:RS--apparently that's ok in the BoM article] :) Rogerdpack (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The footnote on DNA was revised and expanded with page numbers and direct quotes linking Native American DNA to Northeastern Asia. (Taivo (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

I was hoping to get some more direct refs to the animal list. Anyone? Rogerdpack (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

picture

The picture of Moroni giving the plates to Joseph is somewhat ugly and made in 1893--probably not totally accurate there. I am proposing it be nixed -- it wasn't drawn by Joseph Smith, nor condoned by him, and it's ugly. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a better one that is open-source? (Taivo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

I would certainly support replacing it if an open-source picture can be found.--^StormRider 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Rogerdpack: I'm consumed by curiosity. Do you think a more accurate representation of the event is more likely to be obtained from an earlier picture OR from a later one?

The painting used previously was less detailed and IMO less "ugly". Wanderer57 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of "pretty or ugly" in the end. It's a question of what is available from open (non-copyrighted) sources. (Taivo (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. But if there is more than one image that is not subject to copyright, then other considerations can come into play. One of these might be "aesthetics".

My impression, which may be wholely wrong, is that the image of the painting of the Angel and Smith on a hillside is long since out of copyright. If this is the case, I think it a better choice than the engraving currently used. Of course, this is only a personal opinion. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current engraving has too much symbology involved. I don't know why we switched from the old painting that was just a simple version of the event. (Taivo (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Appears that it is indeed in the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hill_Cumorah_by_C.C.A._Christensen.jpeg). Rogerdpack (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New York link

Taivo, you have deleted the edit twice on Book of Mormon. The link is to the New York Times and it provides videos of personal testimonies. The first time you deleted it you stated that it was not a reputable reference; however, the New York Times is emmenintly reputable. The second time you deleted it your stated reason was, "But the link is not information, but personal testimonies--unverifiable POV." This makes no sense. The text is a religious book and the link is about individual beliefs in that book, which happens to be the case for all religious books and their related articles. Your reasons are really about your personal POV and nothing else.

If your reasons were a need to minimize links, an imbalance of information, etc. then you might have some kink of acceptable argument, but you don't. I am not sold on the link per se, but I am certainly against your heavy-handed control of this article. You are a single editor and you do not own the article. I have yet to see an accepable reason to delete the link. Maybe other editors can provide a reason why the link should be deleted.--^StormRider 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, must present information and verifiable facts. While the New York Times is a reputable source, a list of links of personal viewpoint and opinion is not. When Wikipedia seeks reliable sources those sources are forms of information that are themselves based on research, data, and information. The Tanners' work, for example, is research (no matter that it is POV research, it is still based on their own study and has footnotes, bibliography, etc.). Personal testimony, however, is not the same as a reputable source. It is personal opinion and belief. Yes, this is an article on a piece of scripture, and, as such, we assume that there are people who accept its story as brought from a Higher Power. That is the very definition of "scripture". We do not have links at the Bible article of personal testimony of its "truthfulness", nor at the Koran, nor at any other piece of scripture as far as I can tell. Personal testimonies add nothing to the informational content of the article and are certainly not verifiable sources. From my history of editing on the Book of Mormon article you know that I have a personal POV, but you also know that I work hard on both sides of the "aisle" in order to keep religious excess and zeal out of the article. This particular link is not verifiable information and adds nothing to the content of the article. If there are currently "anti" links that are in the same noninformational vein, then we should certainly delete them as well. Otherwise, we open the door for an equal number of testimonial links from people who are saying that the BOM is not scripture. (Taivo (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm not so sure if personal testimonies in the New York Times is WP:RS. Rogerdpack (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA vs Book of Mormon link

This video presents a POV, of course. However, like the Tanner's material, which is based on research, and the FARMS material, which is also based on research, this film is of scientists reviewing their own work on BOM/DNA issues. Unlike the New York Times piece, which is just personal testimony, the first half of this film is based on reviewable scientific research. The second half of the film is, indeed, personal testimony, but the first half is scientific and based on scientific research. If there is an equivalent FARMS video, then, by all means, it should be posted and linked to as well. There is, however, the current issue of how much of this scientific stuff should be posted here in this article and how much should be moved over to the Historicity article. This film might be a better link for the Historicity article, since the Southerton book is already referenced here and it is a more definitive source for the whole issue of DNA evidence. (Taivo (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Is scientists reviewing their own work WP:RS? Rogerdpack (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think any scientific book is? --A scientist reviewing his own work. It is a WP:RS anytime you have the researcher talking about his/her research, whether in book form or video form. (Taivo (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't think the video meets RS standards. First, it is published by a group, Living Hope Ministries, that "exists to share biblical truths with Latter-day Saints and others, and to educate and equip Christian individuals, ministries and churches to reach Mormons and others for the biblical Jesus Christ." There is no peer review and there is no standard of expertise cited or mentioned. The most I get out of it is a group of religious people who are pushing their POV. There is no consideration of objectivity or neutrality in their "research"; all of which are expected of a reputable source.

I also think it comes very close to spam in that it is a site that is selling its wares and it puts Wikipedia in the position of hawking them. Worse, it is asking for donations. This is not acceptable for any link on Wikipedia. --^StormRider 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there are enough other sources for this without using the video that the loss of the video as a source is not critical. Second, the "motives" of the publishing organization are really not germane to the discussion of WP:RS since many organizations, such as the LDS church, publish otherwise good material in support of their own POV. The Tanners' publications as well as FARMS could be put in this category no less than the DNA video. Third, the point of the video is not to seek donations any more than advertisements at the back of a published book seek money for the publisher. Be careful that in your zeal to get rid of an overly POV, yet otherwise reliable, source you don't paint other sources with your overly broad brush. Fourth, The scientists on the video are published specialists in their field and their publications and credentials can be examined with a simple web search. Be ready to remove all videos from Wikipedia if your criterion is that their qualifications are not readily visible. I don't care if you remove the video because it is not as good a source as the Southerton book, but you're grasping at straws for the reasons you cited and your criteria are not well-considered. Just say the Southerton book is better, but don't go down the paths that you've marked out or else there might be unforeseen consequences for the sources supporting your own POV as well. I'm not making a threat about your sources, but be very careful about where your "standards" might lead in any objective consideration. (Taivo (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I went ahead and removed all the overly POV proselytizing (pro and con) videos and links at the bottom of the page. There are plenty of other references to hard-copy, published materials that both pros and cons are already well-represented. There aren't any of the arguments on either side that relied solely on those sources. (Taivo (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

When I am reading a book or article or reviewing other media, it is always good to know the motivations of the author. Links are one thing where there may be room for flexibility, but using something for a source requires at least minimum standards. The Living Ministries as a source for DNA research fails on all counts. I am sure more responsible, scholarly sources can be found if needed. I have never advocated using different standards on Wikipedia and I am not interested in beginning to do so.

I don't think any site that is seeking donations or is used to sell items is an appropriate exterior link under any circumstances. --^StormRider 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My review of the very scarce information found on the Living Hope Ministries web site is that it is a site without substance, solely commercial in nature, devoted to selling self-produced "documentaries" (comparable to self-published books or blogs) and seeking donations to support its cause, that it contains links to sites known to have a bias against the LDS Church, all of which would leads me to suspect the credibility and POV of any information it provides. This site does not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliability source standards. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Living Hope Ministries is a church in Brigham City, Utah like any other church--there's nothing "sinister" about it and it is not a commercial enterprise. Its members are upstanding members of the community, just like members of the LDS church are upstanding members of the community. As a church, it has a POV, just as the LDS church does--nothing unusual or unpredictable there. And like the LDS church, it produces materials to promote its POV. The scholars shown on the DNA video are scientists in their respective fields and have published on the issues which they discuss in the video. There's nothing sinister, just a POV. The motivations of the producers of the DNA video are no more "commercial" than are the motivations of the Tanners, whose books are widely used in critical circles and are referenced here, or FARMS, whose apologetic materials are also cited here. Let's not get into a snit over this. The video is not the primary reference for the DNA issues, that is a more relevant matter than unfounded accusations of commercialism or implications of some sinister motive for the video. Show me a video made by a church that doesn't push a POV or at some point ask for a "decision" or "donation". I'm reading a fiction novel by Harold Coyle right now published by Forge Press. The last 10 pages list other publications by the press and asks readers to buy them. The last few pages of the most recent issues of International Journal of American Linguistics and Anthropological Linguistics contain advertisements for other journals in the field or other journals published by their respective presses. Every issue of the Newsletter of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas includes requests for donations to some foundation or other that promotes linguistic research. The fact that Living Hope Ministries requests donations to continue its ministry isn't anything at all unusual or sinister or in violation of Wikipedia policy. And Wikipedia policy says nothing about sources of information being NPOV--it only says that the resulting Wikipedia articles should strive for NPOV. (Taivo (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, calm down. This is no big deal; you are still attempting to fight about a decision that you yourself made...the deletion of the link. I made a request for input on this link and two editors commented; one of them came and made a comment here. There is no need to defend the good people at Living Hope and no one is questioning their goodness or making accusations they are sinister. They have an interest in a subject, but they are certainly not experts on DNA or a reliable, peer-reviewed source for Wikipedia. If we were talking about doctrine it would be find to provide their POV, but not here and this specific subtopic. The link is simply not acceptable here. Move on. --^StormRider 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Living Hope Ministries is most definitely self publishing. Rogerdpack (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

"Living Hope Ministries is most definitely self publishing." One could argue that F.A.R.M.S. is also self publishing. In fact, there is no real argument here, they are self publishing, a fact that many lds WP editors seem to ignore or discount. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Choose the "most scholarly" I suppose [LHM for instance has few citations to in google scholar]. As an interesting note, the works of Jerald Tanner also have surprisingly few citations [though far more than LHM]. I wonder if in theory the page "should" [heh] be limited to only original or WP:RS sources [rough stone rolling, etc]. That would be fascinating to try [and neither side would probably go for it :D ]. Rogerdpack (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow just realized that wiki doesn't even like original sources. This article would indeed be short :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to steal the plates

No mention is made in the origin section about the repeated attempts at stealing the plates after reception. Anyone averse to it being added? Rogerdpack (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There was more material here about six months ago, but it was generally agreed that such detailed information belonged in one of the subordinate articles. It really doesn't add anything to this overview article. It's more on the level of BOM trivia than something that will really add useful content to his overview. Actually, isn't this just the Lucy Harris story (which is already there)? There are two whole articles on "Origin of BOM" and "Golden Plates". I just really don't see how an expansion on that adds anything really useful to this article. (Taivo (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Good point. In fact, believe it or not, it's just that section [the Lucy Mack stuff] that caused me to wonder why the other stuff isn't in there :) Rogerdpack (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy Harris stuff is here to explain the whole question of not "retranslating" the sections that were stolen--something that is a big thing for critics. The other incidents really didn't have any impact on the text itself. (Taivo (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

I think I remember when it wasn't there and critics didn't seem to have qualms at that time. Any feedback on that? Rogerdpack (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy Harris stuff is there because an editor several months back was adding everything and the kitchen sink as well to the article (nearly all of it critical). We managed to get him to move it elsewhere, but he felt like the Lucy Harris stuff was important here. We basically agreed to leave it here to keep him from adding every nickel and dime criticism he could come up with (and, as I recall, he was pretty darn verbose about everything as well). (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

The scope of the article has been "leaned down" quite a bit since then. I think it may be appropriate at this point to take some more stuff out, for consistency sake. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with eliminating some of the details about the origin. The whole Lucy Harris episode seems extremely trivial to me. Some critics make a big deal of it, but I don't think it's such an issue. The episode is meant to explain why there are some "gaps" in the narrative, but we just need to mention the somewhat broken storyline without a detailed excursus as to why it is there in this overview article. (Taivo (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Dual sections?

Sorry to bring this up if it was discussed in the past, but...currently the last paragraph of the "origin of the book of mormon" section has much in common with the historicity section. They even have at least one almost repeated sentence ["to adopt..."]. What would be good to do about this situation? Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to take the better of the two (better refs, etc.) and move it to the end of the Origins section. What do you think? (Taivo (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

I removed the repetitive info from the Historicity section. (Taivo (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! It reads a lot better now. Rogerdpack (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not just for Utah LDS Church

Taelder, stop putting Utah-only links in the first sentence of the article. This article is relevant for ALL churches within the LDS Movement, not just the Utah church. (Taivo (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I did not realize that Wikipedia content was controlled with such immediate ferocity. I recognize that more churches than just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints use and reverence The Book of Mormon. I changed my edit to refer specifically to the other most prominent church which uses The Book of Moromon. I am not quite sure what you mean by using "Utah-only" links. I am editing from Oregon. The article mentions some specific subjects that are unique to The Book of Mormon and so why not add some references to actual text from The Book of Mormon discussing the cited subjects. One of the subjects mentioned is that The Book of Mormon discusses the organization of the Latter Day church. I have read the book many times and do not know to what the article is referring. A link to material in the book itself would be helpful. --Taelder (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The links you were placing in the first sentence were referring directly to the edition and the title of the BOM as it is published by the LDS church (headquartered in SLC). I abbreviate this as "Utah LDS" to distinguish it from other LDS groups. There are about a dozen other "LDS churches" around the world, for example, the Community of Christ, headquartered in Independence, Missouri. All these churches have different titles and subtitles for the BOM. There are already links at the bottom of the page to on-line texts for various editions of the BOM--Utah versions as well as other versions. The link to Latter Day Saint Movement goes to an article that discusses the various churches that comprise the LDS movement. The link you were placing in the text only goes to the Utah LDS webpage and excludes all the other LDS groups. There are many text references throughout the article already. If you see appropriate places for others, knock yourself out. The article that is referenced by "latter-day church" is an article on the original church founded by Smith under its original title. Remember that there are both members and non-members who edit this page to keep it as neutral in its point-of-view as possible. (Taivo (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

I notice that your second edit included the Community of Christ. We had the first sentence worded the way you wrote it about six months ago, but decided that it was still too discriminatory toward the other churches within the LDS movement. That's why we eliminated references to specific names in the first sentence. (Taivo (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I have now read about the Latter Day Saint movement (a movement, I might add I had no idea I was a part of) and things are making a little more sense as far as what is being done. I am going to add back the references for the subjects mentioned in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taelder (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few overzealous editors on this page that have yet to learn not to bite the newcomers to this page. I think I can safely assume that your intentions are good, and therefore editors here should be civil and assume good faith, unfortunately this may not have happened and I will apologize for that, as I have been bitten and trampled on this page many times. Don't get discouraged, there are many temperamental owners of this page who will fight you tooth and nail. All I can recommend is keep fighting. You have wandered into an unique world on Wikipedia where most rules are ignored and most editors would rather bicker on talk pages than solve problems (read: edit the article). Please do not feel the least bit intimidated to edit this article, you may do so as you see fit, but be forewarned you tread on razor's edge at all times. It shouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is. Twunchy (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy would seem to guide editors here. The majority position within the faith should receive the majority attention, i.e. the LDS position is overwhelmingly the majority position and the article should be written first from the majority position and then adding differences as held by the significantly smaller groups. The Community of Christ group is really the only legitimate altnerative POV given its size (it is 47 times smaller than the LDS group); the others are all very small relative to the LDS and CofC groups. --^StormRider 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral but rather used by members of that faith to describe themselves and their believes

Examples are too many to name as it occurs throughout the page.I recommend the whole article to be rewritten completly from a neutral standpoint with some insights - but not like this!. Added neutrality tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.3.100 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are just as many non-member editors working on this page as member editors and we work hard to maintain NPOV. It was agreed several months ago that the POV had been neutralized. Unless others disagree, then I am removing the tag. (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Unless the anonymous IP has some specifics, then his POV is pretty useless. The article must serve to neutrally describe the Book of Mormon. Neutral doesn't mean critical or "anti-", which is the implication I get from the tone of his comment. There are members who think the article is NPOV because it is already too critical of the BOM. This is a religious text and, as such, there will always be a chasm between believers and non-believers. True NPOV is probably not completely possible in every sentence, but a 2x4 lain over the chasm is about what we can expect. (Taivo (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I disagree; it's not even a close description; sound bites don't describe the Constitution. Notwithstanding the efforts made (and thank you for those efforts), the article reminds one of the blind men and an elephant story, because there is so much, and some authors are distant - rather like seeing canali on Mars. My POV is that what one can obtain from the Book of Mormon (and thus can describe in Wikipedia) depends on what one brings to it, some trust in God being first. One's capacity to communicate is limited by the language at his command, to frame and then to articulate concepts. Thanks again for the work, though. DanB (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious tract. Go to Temple Square to distribute those, not here. (Taivo (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Connection between BoM and North/Central America

Hey all; I do not at all quibble with most of what is in this article. Though I cherish and have a personal testimony (as LDSers would say) on the spiritual truth of the BoM, I seriously doubt its origins and historical veracity.

That said, I have a question about something that does not seem to be covered in the article. Though the fact that JSjr "found" the "golden plates" in NY would seem to suggest that the Nephites (et al) were in N. America, I cannot for the life of me find anywhere in the text of the BoM itself which makes it clear that the new world they are talking about is actually N. America. The text appears to be ambiguous; it could just as easily be Africa, Australia or South America. Anyone shed any light on this? Do we have anything to tell us that it was N. America other than JSjr's say-so?134.84.96.56 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we only have the word of Joseph Smith. It is like Paul saying he had a vision, or heard a voice, on the way to Damascus; we only have Paul's word. When it comes to topics of faith and visionary or prophetic people, we only have the word of the individual involved. Of course, you said that you were LDS and had a spiritual witness of its truthfulness. If you believe that the Spirit bears witness to truth, does it also lie or tell half-truths. Or in this instance, would the Spirit bear witness to people that were only the figments of Joseph's imagination. This caliber of question is appropriate for all religious experiences where the Spirit bears witness of truth. --^StormRider 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While there is nothing explicit in the text, the Lamanites = Native Americans equation dates to the very earliest layers of teaching within Smith's Church of Christ. (Taivo (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

StormRider, I think you may misunderstand me; I am not LDS and I do not want to be, though I have been active in the Community of Christ (RLDS) and feel a certain affinity for the LDS Church. My question had little to do with the faith aspect of the book; I was merely wondering if anywhere in the BoM it is made explicit that we are talking about the Americas. I am not suggesting in any definitive way that it was NOT the Americas, or was somewhere else; I am aware of the collateral teachings. But as far as I am concerned, the text itself is more or less ambiguous on the matter. In any case, it has little impact on my faith. It is another testament of Christ no matter which continent it took place on. Thanks for the responses. 160.94.183.236 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Proving" the Negatives

Proponents of the BOM use a classic argumentative technique to soften the historicity problems with the text--"Sure the text says there were 'horses', but even though 150 years of archeological examination of the evidence has failed to uncover a single shred of evidence of post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian horses, there may still be some evidence that we haven't found yet." I could just as easily say, "Dinosaurs and men coexisted, we just haven't found the evidence yet." The BOM position on the four issues described in the Historicity section is WP:Fringe, therefore the negatives are the default position when it comes to a scientific examination of the topic. We don't have to "prove" that the Earth is round, it is the default position and calling it flat is WP:Fringe. Indeed, the fact that there are many LDS scientists who agree with the critics' positions shows that they are the default situation. In addition, "softening" the absolutes is unnecessary since the introductory sentence to the section clearly says: "Critics mainly focus on four issues". The list describes the critics' positions, not a "neutral" position that requires softening. (Taivo (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Well, while we are at it, I removed a few things from that list of "non-fringe" items claimed not native to the Americas and removed "grapes" and "mining ore". These are well proven to have existed...grapes have existed in America for many millenia and mining of metals was a well established tradition of most Central and South American cultures. For example copper is uncommonly found raw in nature, more commonly as malachite and azurite (much more common and easy to identify), and must be mined and smelted...and there's evidence of that dating to 2000 BC. Not to mention the gold and silver mines etc. through out the area...why did the Spainards want to conquer the area again? Oh yeah...the gold. Twunchy (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and while we're at it again, they have great examples of "breastplates" found in Columbia, so that's out...see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303500/jewelry/14104/American-Indian for more. Twunchy (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, copper was not smelted but was found natively on the ground in foliate plates in areas like Michigan. It was not smelted from malachite or azurite or chalcopyrite or any other copper ore. It was simply hammered out from native copper (not from "ore"). Gold was used in nugget form (as it generally was until this century) and was not smelted either. I'm not up to speed on how silver was utilized, but it also occurs natively. I'd also like to see a gold breastplate fend off a sword blow or an arrow :p War breastplates were not made from gold, but from bone where they were found. They were not common, however. I removed an irrelevant National Geographic reference to the extinction of horses during the Pleistocene overkill (along with mammoths and ground sloths). This extinction happened about 10,000 years before the events recounted in the BOM and therefore the article is irrelevant to the issue of horses in the BOM. A more scientific reference to the date of Equus extinction in the New World: Donald K. Grayson. 2006. "Late Pleistocene Faunal Extinctions," Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins and Population. Smithsonian. Pages 208-221. (Taivo (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

As proof that "we don't know what we don't know" (thanks Mr. Rumsfeld), I offer nothing...because as we are saying negatives cannot be proved. But if we haven't discovered something yet, did it never exist? This is an equal logical fallacy. Both sides of these arguments are using false logic i.e. because it hasn't been found and the evidence doesn't exist, it does not exist (your "default" position), this argument doesn't work any more than the pro-Mormon stance trying to prove the evidence hasn't been found yet but "it says so in my book". Regardless, there are ongoing discoveries all the time in science that were assumed false or nonexistent or impossible in the past yet mystifyingly they are found, or proven, etc.

There is much work still to be done in American archeology. For example there is study on the very subject you make absolute claims on: the smelting (or just melting) of copper. Try this one website: http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm I make no claims of veracity, but strangely enough there are many questions here...not all copper was hammered...not all was native, some was obtained from ore (which when left in an oxygen starved furnace, (i.e. a kiln for pottery) beads of pure copper sweat out of the matrix). This discovery of copper smelting was made at differing times in different civilizations including as early as 1000 BC in the Andes mountain regions of North America see http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/newtrail/nav03.cfm?nav03=60986&nav02=60985&nav01=60925. In other words...we don't know what we don't know so therefore the fallacy falls on both sides of this argument, the non-LDS scholars cannot prove the non-existence of something any more than the believers can prove the existence of something not found. Both arguments fail. Twunchy (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting articles about possible smelting. You'll notice I'm not fighting to keep "mines" or "ores" in this list of anachronisms because the evidence is not unambiguous. A flint "mine" is just a pit and they are common. And even native copper can be considered "ore". There are enough clear anachronisms that the edges can contract without harm to the overall issue. Sure, there are still things to be discovered, but we're not going to find horses or mammoths or domesticated sheep, goats, and oxen in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America. If they were there, some evidence would have surfaced before now. The evidence for smelting copper isn't even recent to judge by some of the articles mentioned in the long copper posting. There's a big difference between talking about "mines" and "ores" in pre-Columbian America when we have copper, gold and silver artifacts on museum shelves in abundance and talking about "horses", "asses", "elephants", and domesticated "sheep", "goats", and "oxen" in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America when there is not a single shred of evidence for them. (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Speaking in absolutes is not done by any trained scientist; we are so often proved wrong that it is not done in any scholarly circles. What is done is state unequivocally that to date there is no evidence. Attempting to state that because it is more recent it is clear that evidence would have already been found is to misunderstand completely archaeological evidence for evolution...i.e. the missing link, the thing that is newest, latest, is what is missing. Based upon your logic Taivo we would all have to say there is absolutely no evidence for evolutionary theory and there never will be. The advice is to never project the future, but only stick with what has been found. If you have a scientist that makes the statement, quote him, but don't be surprised when it is reported the individual is a quack. --^StormRider 07:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that there is no evidence for evolution? I hope that I have misunderstood your comment about that. Your logic, that we cannot make absolute statements about negatives, implies that we cannot say, "The Tyrannosaurus is extinct." You hold out hope that the evidence just hasn't been found. It is quite possible to make negative statements of absolutes all the time. Show me a single (non-LDS) author who holds out any hope whatsoever for evidence of the survival of either the horse or any elephant in the New World past the end of the Pleistocene. Instead, we have absolutes of extinction stated all the time by reputable scientists: "Although mammoths and mastodonts were among the most spectacular victims of these late Pleistocene extinctions [in North America], horses, too, were wiped out." (Donald R. Prothero & Robert M. Schoch, Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals [2002, The Johns Hopkins University Press], pg. 215); "North America has been the centre of evolution of horses throughout their history. During the Pleistocene both New World continents abounded in them and then, some 8000 years ago, the last wild horses in the Americas became extinct..." (R.J.G. Savage, Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated Guide [1986, Facts on File Publicatons], pg. 204). So there you have three respected scientists in two different publications by reliable presses making absolute statements about horse extinction (I could add in the quote from the Handbook of North American Indians as well making four scientists in three publications). So your comment about "trained scientists" and "not done in scholarly circles" and "quack" is misinformed and just plain wrong. Well-trained scientists make absolute comments about extinctions all the time when the preponderence of the evidence justifies it. (Taivo (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

You have not understood; there is a missing link to the theory of evolution. There is no missing link and, based upon your logic that it is recent, we should have found it by now is nonsense. The reason there is a missing link is only because it has not yet been found.

I think you misunderstand what a negative is. Stating that a T-Rex is extinct is not a negative statement. A negative would be: "No archaeological evidence of the missing link will ever be found". Trying to state a negative about the future is left for palm readers, not scientists. No reputable scientists, or archaeologists, would provide such an absolute prognostication for something that is possible. The difference that I am drawing is that I am stating what science says and not attempting to make a deduction about what the future will bring. You are mixing science with your own zealous POV. Pull back on your POV and just let science speak for itself. Extinctions have nothing to do with the topic at hand; it is an analogy that does not apply. --^StormRider 10:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so your objection is not to the absolute statement made by scientists that horses and elephants became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene in the Americas, but my comment here on the Talk page that evidence would never be found otherwise. I will grant you that my statement is based on probabilities--the probability is vanishingly small that evidence of horses and elephants in the Americas during the time period covered by the BOM will be found. Granted, not zero, but virtually so. So the present statements in Historicity section, "There is no connection...", etc. are completely scientific in the same sense that the statement "Horses became extinct 8000 years ago in the Americas" is. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

(new indent) It is wording that I think is inappropriate both here and the article; it is stating a POV rather than stating the position of science. Science would say that no archaeological evidence has been found for...(take your pick). Science can state that unequivocally. What science would not say is that no evidence will ever be found for... It is a question of spin; you typically want science to make a final conclusion for all time, to speak in absolutes on this topic. The problem that science has learned not to make those types of claims. As a statistician I would not want to provide you the probabilities; it is a little bit like the lotto. The odds are ridiculous that you will win. Those odds are very real for everyone except the individual who won. In science we continue to do research because discoveries are being made all the time. It is certain that new discoveries will continue to be made, new (ancient and modern) species found, there are countless digs just waiting for a pick and brush. You don't need to force science to say something; no spin is needed, just state what is so and leave it me. Conclusions for are readers and reputable, reliable experts only. Cheers. --^StormRider 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rogerdpack (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

---

As a new point, other items on this list of anachronisms are indeed dubious and I would like to see what the consensus is on these:

Swine: There are most definitely "pig like" animals that are native to the Americas, namely the Peccary which by the way we have at my local zoo and my 4 year old son swears are pigs. This is an argument based on semantics...

Silk: Many differing explanations on this, including the Spaniards accounts themselves calling indigenous fabrics "silk"...another argument of semantics.

Scimitar: The argument here is that the scimitar wasn't even given it's name until after Lehi left for the New World...yet another argument that can be boiled down the Joseph Smith just using the most common term for a curved-bladed hand-held weapon...again semantics.

Chariots: This argument stems from the lack of evidence of wheeled vehicles. The lack of evidence of the chariots mentioned in the Bible doesn't draw the same criticism, but regardless, by what definition do we describe a chariot? Does it need wheels? Or can it just be a nice cushy chair for the royalty of the time carried on the backs of servants? Those certainly existed, and again down to semantics with these "chariots"...how else would you describe such a mode of transportation if you are "translating" something?

I simply ask for input here...I know these are all apologetic arguments, but these anachronisms do seem fairly easily struck down by just arguing "best word substitution", but then again maybe all these anachronisms suffer this...I don't know. Twunchy (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When referenced statements are used to take a declarative position, it is always appropriate to balance the article with conflicting positions from other reliable sources. On controversial topics it is especially important to provide a balanced approach. However, a reliable, reputable source is required.

I would be careful of the semantics argument because it cuts both ways. If Joseph was using the terms he knew to describe one thing, he would do it for all things. Thus he would use scimitar for a curved weapon, but he would only call a wheeled vehicle a chariot (that is opinion, but with RS you can say anything). Does this make sense? --^StormRider 20:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the issue. 1) Swine occurs in only one non-KJV verse of the BOM and it is clearly in a context of domesticated animals. The peccary does not have the characteristics of behavior to make it domesticable (see Jared Diamond's excellent discussion of domesticability in "Guns, Germs and Steel"). It should be retained in the list, but the peccary could be mentioned in a footnote along with the Diamond domesticability issue. If "swine" occurred in a context of wild animals, then it could be deleted from the list. Context is key here. 2) Silk is a non-issue and is one of those times when nit-picking by critics obscures and trivializes legitimate issues. 3) Scimitar could, indeed, refer to any type of curved blade, but the problem is that I have never seen an single example of a curved blade in the Americas. Indeed, the only "blades" that I've seen (beyond knife blades) are obsidian-edged straight club-like affairs from Mesoamerica (I can't remember whether Mayan or Aztec). Curves imply metal weapons and metal was not used for weaponry in pre-Columbian America. Some of the copper axe-heads in the upper Midwest may have been used for "weapons", but they were never fashioned into curved blades. 4) Chariots are wheeled war transport. There were no wheels in pre-Columbian America. If Smith used "chariot" to refer to a non-wheeled vehicle, then it would be unique in English literature. We must assume a normal meaning for "chariot". If a shoulder-borne chair was intended, Smith already had a word for it--"litter". There is no reason to use "chariot" unless wheels were intended. I don't mind whittling the list of anachronisms down to legitimate instances such as "horse", "elephant", etc. and getting away from "semantic flexibility" such as "silk", "ore", etc. But, as Storm Rider has clearly stated, the semantics argument is not a catch-all. (Taivo (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

In the spirit of this discussion I have inserted language that moves away from the absolutist language previously used to a more scientific language, e.g. "evidence has not been found for", instead of "didn't exist". I have also added a brief paragraph that points to the apologetic realm of research. Twunchy (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the addition. Perhaps it's more fair than my "softening" attempt :) Rogerdpack (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro is not Text

To the anonymous IP who keeps adding the issue of the change in the Intro to the BOM, you have a nice comment that is irrelevant to the issue of changes in the Text of the BOM. The Intro is not part of the text and any changes to it are not covered by the topic of "Changes to the Text". Stop adding that in. I will keep taking it out. We already mention the change to the Intro in one of the footnotes where it is relevant (under the DNA discussion, I think). It is irrelevant in the section on textual changes. (Taivo (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Intro is part of the Book of Mormon

Thanks, Taivo. I failed to sign-in.

The section is titled "Changes between versions" does not specify changes between versions of the portion Joseph Smith claimed was translated from the golden plates.

A minor note in the footnote does not seem to capture the signficance of a recent change coming on the heels of the DNA challenges.

Jlorz (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the Introduction was NOT part of the translated text. The claim by critics is that changes in the translated text are problematic. That's what the section is about. NOT about changes in the peripheral, non-translated material. The introduction is NOT part of the translated text and is irrelevant to the critics' claims of changes. (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

You seem upset, Taivo. Are you? "That's what the section is about" then is vague...because it specifically states "Changes between versions"...it doesn't state "Changes between the original published text claimed to be translated by Joseph Smith". The claims by critics also include that the long held assertions of the Book of Mormon is that it is a specific history of the Amerindians and the interpretation of the copyright holders has been perpetuated in the Introduction first included in 1981. The apologists for a major Mormon theological blunder concerning the historicity of the Book is pretty relevant. Please help me understand why you are the final word on this, since I'm new at proposing content. And please don't be upset. I think a balanced approach would be helpful in clarifying evolving LDS beliefs on the Book of Mormon. Thoughts anyone else? 65.122.116.226 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't upset. I just write bluntly. I know exactly the position that you were espousing. But your argument was equivalent to discussing changing Christian theology based on differing title pages to the King James Bible. It's mildly interesting on a page dedicated to Christian theology, but not relevant to a discussion of the KJV text itself. (Taivo (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

To put out this fire, I have changed the section title to better reflect the intent of the section; which was to compare subsequent printings of the BOM to the original 1830 version. Twunchy (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious omission?

As I'm thinking about this article, there is no explanation as to why the Book of Mormon is titled as such. There is nothing in this article on the origin of the name of the book itself. Off the top of my head I can't think of where to find that info, so if anyone else can clue me in that would be great. Twunchy (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts...did Mormon name this "The Book of Mormon" i.e. did he personally engrave his name on the title page to be translated as "his" book, or was it named by Joseph Smith or was it an inspired name ("God told me to call the book this")? Twunchy (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I inserted the logical place for this info to go in the article with an expansion tag and heading... Twunchy (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from History of the Church, by Joseph Smith:

"I wish to mention here that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; …and that said title-page is not…a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation" (HC 1:71.)

This, of course, does not apply to the "By Joseph Smith, Junior./Author and Proprieter/Palmyra:Printed by E.B. Grandin, for the Author/1830," in the 1830 edition, which were obviously modern.

So the quesiton of who wrote it, would be, according to this statement and the internal logic, probably Moroni. However, if you are a literalist, you might also say that it had to be someone after Moroni, since the page states that the Book of Mormon had already been "sealed by the hand of Moroni" at the time the title page was written. Or maybe Moroni was just anticipating the fact that he would be sealing the book up in the future. COGDEN 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source...I have filled out the new section and deleted redundant info in the following section. Twunchy (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Title section was much too long, Twunchy, so I edited it down to the essential information to make its content equivalent in scope to the following Organization section. The "purpose" quote is already found (nearly word-for-word) lower down on the page where it belongs with the doctrinal material. Should there be a comment on the difference on the title page between what Smith (wrote/translated) and what now appears? This will short-circuit another attempt to insert the material about the recent changes because of missing Israelite DNA in Native America. (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Wow. I thought this was an electronic encyclopedia and not paper. You took out 2 paragraphs and made it into 1 worthless sentence. I'm thinking that's a bit extreme. There were some great pieces of information that I retrieved for that section and I'm going to restore most of it. Sorry. Twunchy (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant information...it was already in the text twice, (before I started the new section) this is the second section that the quotes were in...sorry I missed it, but it's no excuse to get out the loppers! The information is now in the proper section, with one relevant quote left in the Jesus subsection. Also, there was a method to my madness here as the original title information is in the lede, BUT NOT IN THE ARTICLE. This is why the section needs to be a bit longer, all other books of the Book of Mormon have their own article, but not the title page, so the info needs to go somewhere, not just cut to extinction. Twunchy (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the section on the title overwhelms the section on the book itself. I'm still going to trim some. The details on where in the plates the title page was located is extreme and unnecessary, I think. I still think that the only relevant information for an encyclopedic summary article is that the title page was claimed by Smith to be in the plates. The other is pretty much fluff IMHO. (Taivo (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

The source of the title page is fluff? I think it's great to have here because it is not common knowledge. The other information that belonged in this section was scattered through the article, and like I said there is nowhere else for this information to go, and unless you're willing to create a new article to send all your clippings to you are censoring the information I think. Twunchy (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with these new edits...much better than before. Twunchy (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I cut a little more. The second sentence said the same thing the first sentence did--Smith said the title was on the plates. Saying this is a "translation" is POV, so we must be careful to qualify all such statements with "Smith said". The actual full title is discussed in the first sentence of the article. (Taivo (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Origin of Names in the Book of Mormon

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the origin names in the Book of Mormon. Some critics claim that the names are not Hebrew, Egyptian, nor consistent with with the time period or location of which the book was written. This is a common criticism of the BOM and should be included.

Aykantspel (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole separate article on Linguistics and the Book of Mormon where this issue is discussed at nauseum. (Taivo (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Taivo (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say at nauseum since the argument I am referring to isn't mentioned there either (maybe something similar is mentioned briefly, but with no detail or references,) but I will bring it up at that page. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aykantspel (talk • contribs)

Moroni as prophet

Um, Taivo, the person who wrote the Book of Moroni is referred to as a prophet correctly within the context here...your attempts to neutralize any religious word here is your POV and doesn't belong in the article. There is nothing POV about calling Moroni a prophet within the context of this obviously religious article. Twunchy (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It should be "a" and not "the" on first mention, however. (Taivo (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

You should also realize that one of the most common complaints from non-members about this article is that it is too POV. We've both seen extremists in the past vandalizing it with abandon. My edits are not directed at criticizing the faithful, but at minimizing the "hooks" that non-member critics can latch onto. You made a good point about "prophet". Just remember that I'm not anti-LDS, but there is no such thing as NPOV from any editor on a religious article. (Taivo (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure we both agree that this article is quite neutral to the subject (sometimes brutally so), and that anyone with a POV either on one side or the other is going to whine about this article. We should deal with that as it arises, but let's not be too sissy about edits in anticipation of such. If there's an objection to something, it should be dealt with when addressed. As to the "a" vs "the" I don't think that applies here since the name Moroni has been mentioned 6 times before this section, all in the context of the angel Moroni, so the use of the word "prophet" is used to distinguish the difference between Moroni's ministry on earth and his angelic role after death. Therefore, we don't need to jar the reader by referring to him as "a prophet named Moroni", but simply refer to him as "the prophet Moroni", this puts the text into the correct time frame where a logical assumption is made that this is the same person as angel Moroni, but while he was living, instead of the possible confusion created by the use of the word "a" causing a disconnect and possible confusion that there is yet another Moroni here. Twunchy (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So then the first reference to Moroni shouldn't be as "an angel" but something along the lines of "the spirit of an ancient American prophet named Moroni". I know that "angel" is the traditionally used term, but we should specifically reference that the angel was the spirit of the prophet. In traditional Christianity, angels are not post-mortal spirits of men, so many readers approaching this article will not necessarily equate "an angel named Moroni" with "the prophet Moroni". The two need to be overtly connected. (Taivo (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not opposed to this wording, but let's not get too involved in the definition of angels...there are many, with every religion out there defining them uniquely, the definition you mention is quite the traditional Catholic depiction of angels, (a separate race of divine beings), which is not necessarily the "traditional Christian" view, since there is no universal depiction. Regardless, we should leave nothing to question, I suppose. Twunchy (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good wording. (Taivo (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

NPOV tag in teachings about political theology section

I am not sure what is non-neutral about this section of the article. Whether you are a believer in the BOM (as I am) or not, either way, those are some of the political/economic ideas presented in the BOM. I thought that (other than some repeated language that I removed anonymously (forgot to log in first)) it was well done. What is not neutral about this section? Would everyone be comfortable with removing the tag now?--Jlc46 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am less sure what to do about the citation complaint. The section is attempting to show what the BOM teaches about certain topics, and cites the BOM itself. In this one instance I am not sure why direct citations instead of secondary citations are not adequate. I can think of some Nibley or other authors who have written about some of these themes in the BOM, but if I wanted to know what the BOM taught about kings, a reference to the BOM passages that talk about kings would be much more useful. I guess that I think that the current citations are sufficient, but I am willing to try and dig up some more if that is what everyone thinks it needs... if not, can we remove that tag too?--Jlc46 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the citation tags, but I would guess that just citing the original text with your interpretation would classify as WP:OR. That's just my guess, though. I generally stay away from editing this section. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Primary references are acceptable as long as there can be no other interpretation. If the verse is open to interpretation then a secondary reference is needed. For example, LDS think that 1 Cor 15:29 supports baptism of the dead; however, no other group interprets the scripture similarly. Therefore, if the topic was baptism for the dead a reference to the verse is not adequate, but rather we need a secondary reference that demonstrates the LDS position and those contrary. Make sense? --^StormRider 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. I was just guessing anyway. I also don't really think that the POV tag is necessary for this section. I think that it was added a few months ago when two editors were in a dispute over the exact nature of some of the points. This type of information is always POV anyway, they are statements of belief basically. LOL. One way to see what the objections were is to remove the POV tag and see who objects ;) (Taivo (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

A tag is only valid when there is a section on the dicussion page that clearly defines the problems and what is needed to remove the tag. I don't think it s present and thus can just be removed. --^StormRider 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yes Storm Rider, that was what I was getting at, I am not exactly sure how you could dispute the interpretations, as they are not interpretations, just statements of fact, i.e. a is in the text, b is in the text, and c is in the text... how do you dispute that? I guess you could dispute whether modern members of the Latter-day Saint movement believe those things, but it is hard to dispute that those things are in the text of the Book of Mormon, so if the wording was careful to say only that these items appear in the Book of Mormon text, but have potential alternate interpretations as to how we should live today for those who believe the text, then we should be ok. For example, the Bible contains references to killing all the Amalakites, but that doesn't mean that all followers of the Bible today go out and kill everyone who has any Amalakite blood in their veins (since statistically speaking, we all do by now). Saying that we should all kill everyone would be an opinion/original research, but saying that the Bible has a passage about it is not, it is just a statement of fact. Sorry for adding this discussion at the top, I have edited some pages before, but this is my first shot at a controversial topic, and therefore my first shot at the obligatory discussion before edit ;-) will add to the back from now on. Thanks for everyone's help on this.--98.202.73.63 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Context in the article then becomes very important. I think the problem comes when you try to say the BofM "teaches" something. It does not teach politics, but there are instances in the book where a king is discouraged, kings are used, etc. etc. I really do think we would all be on better ground if we had a secondary source. --^StormRider 17:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, so perhaps we should say "mentions" or "describes" instead of teaches everywhere? Would that solve the problem?--Jlc46 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. There is still the possibility of someone saying, "But the text doesn't 'mean' that when it says X" or "But this other text says Y", but it's less of a problem in dealing with the BOM than with the Bible. If everything is clearly stated, "The BOM says X", then if there is a dispute it can be worked out here, but we get away from interpretation. A good secondary source, "Nibley says that the BOM teaches Y" avoids all issues of interpretation because we're just quoting Nibley and not assigning meaning to the text itself, however. (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

There also is a need to dispute NPOV in the origins section. The Book of Mormon was plagiarized from from a book by Solomon Spaulding. Failure to mention this is biased in favor of Mormonism and fails to give Spaulding credit for his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.16.160 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph just above this --"There is also a need..." -- is about a different section of the article than the previous discussion. Also the previous discussion seems to have ended over three months ago. For these reasons, I have created a new section at the bottom of this discussion page to deal with the concern raised by 24.168.16.120. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

17 or 14?

I'm not conversant with the whole issue of Smith's age at the time of the vision. What is going on with the editors who change 17 to 14? Can someone enlighten me as to the issue? Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

I think that they were thinking of the first vision (where Joseph was 14) but he said that Moroni came when he was 17. --Jlc46 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

btw, you can follow the footnote to see that 17 is correct. --Jlc46 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. It's always good to put continually confusing stuff like that here on record on the Talk page. (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

Article cleanup

It looks like a lot of edits, but I have made many minor edits as a semi-thorough copy edit of article. Twunchy (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Twunchy, but I had to revert most of your quotation "fixes". When quotes surround a noun phrase or a preposition phrase only, then following punctuation is placed outside the quote marks, not inside. I also removed the comparison to the Bible (which was an edit made a year ago) because this article isn't a comparison of the Bible and BOM. There are many books that are composed of smaller books, so the comparison to the Bible was rather gratuitous. The statement is a simple declaration of the structure of the BOM--it's composed of smaller books--not a comparison to another sacred text. (Taivo (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC))

"Current" or not

"Current" was deleted because all Wikipedia content is "current". "Current" is not needed to imply that "debate and study is ongoing" because that is true of all fields of study without saying "current". In this context, "current" is just a weasel word. Future discoveries will, if they contradict current knowledge, of course be implemented into Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is not the place to hope for a future discovery that will contradict the overwhelming evidence. (Taivo (talk) 07:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC))

How did the "Nephites and the Lamanites" get to the Americas?

How did the "Nephites and the Lamanites" get to the Americas? Did they travel by boat or by foot? How many were there and what supplies did they bring to their new homeland? If they traveled by sea what type of vessel did they use, but if they traveled by land what type of transportation did they use? Did they stop along the way to get more supplies or just live off of what they brought with them? What route did they take to the Americas?

If you answer please by either an historian or geographer. I want an educated answer not a philosophical one. Waiting on a reply...Project Gnome (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As this is a fictional account, then neither an historian nor a geographer is necessary. The BOM text does not provide any of these details in its story. If you believe that this story is not fictional, then you will still not need either an historian nor a geographer since the only account of this voyage is in the BOM. (Taivo (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

The Book of Mormon is a book of faith; first and foremost. The Book records how these people were believed to have sailed from the Arabian peninsula to the new world 600 years before birth of Jesus (see 1 Nephi 17 to read a short summary). Geographers and historians have written about it, but these individuals are typically all LDS members. --^StormRider 00:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please keep your POV out of these discussions, Taivo. Your definitive statement that this is a fictional account is your opinion, not a proven fact. A simple answer of there is no description (aside from apologetic speculation) published of the journey outside of the BOM would suffice. Twunchy (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be respectful of others' beliefs, Taivo, including my own. Rogerdpack (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The Talk page is the place for POV. Without an honest appreciation of POV here then there is no possibility to come to a NPOV approach in the article. There's no mystery to my POV on this page and this isn't the first time I've mentioned it. There's no mystery here about your POV here either. But that's how we work together so that the article is NPOV. You'll notice that my answer actually included both POVs. (Taivo (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC))

I disagree. Strident statements pro or con are not beneficial for discussion here; they are best used on personal blogs, etc. There are very few such statements from either side of this discussion and when they are made, they are never encouraged! The purpose of the discussion page is to specifically negotiate the editing of the article. It would be best if we keep zealotry of all colors out of our conversation here. Honest appreciation is demonstrated by respectful interaction. Let's move on. --^StormRider 21:14, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

..."Moving on" does not prove how the Nephites and the Lamanites got to the Americas. From what I have studied it would be nearly impossible, at least highly improvable that such a journey could have been accomplished, due to their current technological limitations. I do not want to debate over POV's, but instead debate over how reliable the theory of the journey of the Nephites and the Lamanites and how they managed to successfully arrived at the Americas...Project Gnome (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your desire to debate a proposition, but Wikipedia is not a proper place for that caliber of discussion. If you want to edit the article, using referenced, notable experts, go for it. However, if you simply want to share your opinion (please review OR policies) and debate it, I would suggest a personal blog. On your blog you may want to check out feats of early sailing across the Atlantic among other things. As far as religious topics, you may also want to identify the scientific reality of Transubstantiation, Resurrection of Jesus, etc. Of course, your blog would be one of only countless others that have addressed these same questions ad nausaeum.

BTW, "moving on" was an invitation to drop the zealous, strident comments in the discussion. It was not intended to be an explanation of how, why, when, where, etc. of the possible Nephite traverse of the Atlantic hundreds of years before Christ. --^StormRider 00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there is the alternate apologetic proposal that it was a trans-Pacific journey rather than a trans-Atlantic one. (Taivo (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC))

Yes. As long as we are using reputable references all sides can be addressed. Thanks Taivo. I hope you will assist in resisting the type of conversation desired by Gnome and continue to encourage, as you have always done, to improve the article. --^StormRider 01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

To actually address the subject at hand, in short there is only a basic account of the journey from Jerusalem to the Americas in the most basic terms. The descriptions given are of general directions, days traveled, and places named by Lehi and his family, not specific cities or places known on the maps we have now. The description of the journey in the BOM goes on to say basically that they headed south out of Jerusalem wandered for a dozen or so years, until reaching a place they named Bountiful, on the shores of a sea, again not on any maps. The narrative then states that Nephi was commanded to build a ship (not many details on the type of ship or method of construction), which he did, and they then set sail. No direction is given because they were following the "Liahona" which apparently always pointed the way to go (apparently not in any ordinal direction), unless it stopped working due to the internal bickerings of Lehi's clan, etc. So we have no idea what sea they set sail into, or what direction they headed. There are apologetic theories of an Indo-Pacific crossing, and also of an Atlantic crossing (around the Horn of Africa and south, or through the Mediterranean is also up for debate), the amount of time spent crossing the ocean was only given in vague terms as well. Where they landed in the Americas is also an area of great debate and speculation so, in other words, there is not enough information to place specifics to. So the only thing, other than the narrative in the BOM, that is left, is pure speculation. Hope that helps. Twunchy (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue raised re Origins section

There also is a need to dispute NPOV in the origins section. The Book of Mormon was plagiarized from from a book by Solomon Spaulding. Failure to mention this is biased in favor of Mormonism and fails to give Spaulding credit for his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.16.160 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I copied the above paragraph from a previous section of this discussion. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I understand Wikipedia, an editor's belief that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized from one source or another is not a valid basis for our article. That belief itself is POV. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Wanderer is absolutely right. The belief that the BOM was plagiarized is not accepted by all critics of the BOM. Nor is it proven conclusively. It is just another POV position and is not even the majority position among critics. (Taivo (talk) 01:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

And regardless of the discussion here...IT'S ALREADY THERE! Last paragraph of section has direct mention of Spaulding hypothesis, so therefore we haven't failed to mention it. Twunchy (talk) 03:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The above comment is absolutely false. I have read the supposed source book by Spaulding, and it has no resemblance whatsoever to the BOM. Check it out for yourself. It's online and easy enough to find.Bigdatut (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

Moved info...

The external links section was tagged as containing links outside of Wikipedia policy that were to online editions of the BOM, so I have moved this information instead to a new section listing "online editions" in the "editions" section...logical, no? If you would like to double check my work I'd appreciate it, and if there's any other online version that exists (I couldn't find any more) please add to it. Twunchy (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

changes

"critics Jerald and Sandra Tanner cite the wording change from "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah" as an example."

I am at a loss as to how this is an example of evidence of "systematic attempts to remove evidence that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon." There is no explanation of how a simple name change would prove such a thing. The tidbit is useless. It's just kind of floating there and should be removed unless the whole thing is fleshed out better, preferably with more tidbits from both sides. Wrad (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is that is the "strongest" argument they make! They have argued it for years..."How could God let Joseph Smith print such an obvious name error?" The Tanners were the premier critics of the BOM and so this is the premier argument. There are quite a few apologetical sources that argue that the name was correct, in the proper contextual realm. But hey when the book claims to be perfect and you find an error...you win, right? That's what the Tanners think. Twunchy (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two kinds of changes that have affected the BOM text over the years--typographical and other minor changes (like changing Benjamin to Mosiah, "that" to "which", etc.), and doctrinal (like adding phrases about baptism). The former number in the thousands and are an exceptionally weak argument. The latter number just a few dozen (at the most) and are a more serious argument. Unfortunately, the Tanners got so overwhelmed in arguing for each detail that the more substantial of their arguments were lost in the noise. But even the doctrinal changes in the BOM text are not as serious a critical argument as the other issues (such as the historicity and scientific problems). The whole section is probably overblown here. Indeed, there are probably about twice as many articles in Wikipedia about the BOM as are really necessary. 90% of their content is just nit-picking lists of "so and so says this, but so and so says this". There's also a whole lot of unwarranted synthesis and original research on both sides of the issue. Basically it boils down to two simple things (probably an oversimplification, but you can get the point): If you are LDS, this is a book of faith and worthy of reverence, so you take attacks on its credibility as attacks on you and your faith personally; if you are not LDS, this is a creation of Joseph Smith and is part of a fringe religion. Wikipedia is not the place for proselytizing, so the faithful will always be unhappy with the presentation here because it doesn't present the book in an absolutely positive light. Non-LDS editors will always fall into two camps: Those who think this is WP:FRINGE and think there is too much here and those who are determined to marshal every piece of critical evidence against it. Trying to strike an appropriate NPOV Wikipedia tone is difficult in such circumstances. (Taivo (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Ok, so we appear to agree that the paragraph is unhelpful as it is. So do we want to cut it or give it some real substance? (The added phrase about baptism doesn't really strike me as serious or a real change in doctrine at all, personally, but whatever.) Wrad (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that the very name of the section is a bit POV. "Textual analysis" would be a lot more neutral than "Changes to the Book of Mormon" or such like. Lots of literature articles have sections like this, but they are more neutrally named. Wrad (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I did some cutting. The paragraph as it stands now is just a statement of the facts-- 1) there have been changes, 2) most changes are typos, 3) critics point to some changes, 4) critical edition being produced. Anything more than this is just argumentation, IMHO. (Taivo (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC))

Can we phrase this to make it clear that the Tanners only attack the LDS version, and have not given equal weight to the other Books of Mormon, CofC versions etc.? There are no side by side versions that I know of comparing them all. Twunchy (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Then the corresponding question would be whether or not the critical edition being developed at BYU also compares all editions, or just the LDS ones. As I recall, the CofC version is the old English version of 1840 (?) that was never printed in the U.S. But as for the other BOMs, I'm not sure of the provenance of them or which edition they use as the baseline. (Taivo (talk) 06:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC))

Christ-centered theocracy?

The source for this line "The book also speaks favorably of a particular instance of what appears to be a peaceful Christ-centered theocracy, which lasted approximately 194 years before contentions began again" absolutely does not back up the claims made. Wrad (talk) 23:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP Protection

After the continued vandalism of the last couple of days, I've requested semi-protection for this article. That will keep the anonymous IPs at bay. (Taivo (talk) 20:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

Agreed...though funny, I already submitted it too. Twunchy (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Article is now temporarily semi-protected. Mr. anonymous editor: please join the discussion and register as a user on Wikipedia. You are welcome to join in editing this page, but your recent attempts at strong-arming your edits was the principle factor in the page protection. If you wish to edit, please join in the discussion. Any attempts to restore your language without proper discussion will be rebuffed. Twunchy (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Something's missing...

After reading the article, we are missing information on the original manuscript of the BOM (besides the missing 116 pages), which has an interesting history all to itself, should we add a paragraph or two? Twunchy (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If by "original manuscript" you mean Smith's English text, then that would be appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC))

Oui, zees is what I mean. <spoken in bad french accent> Twunchy (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The added paragraph is an interesting addition. I have a couple of concerns about it.

"Observations of the original manuscript show little evidence of any corrections to the text. Comparisons between surviving portions of the original manuscript and the printer manuscript show an average of three changes per page, with most changes being corrections of scribal errors such as misspellings or the correction of grammar." - Are these two sentences contradicting each other or is the point that corrections of spelling and grammar are not considered "corrections to the text"? Three changes per page is a substantial number.

The business about Lucy Harris losing a major section of the manuscript - whose statements is this based on? There should be references, unless this is straight folklore.

Wanderer57 (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the capitalization on original manuscript and printer's manuscript. These are just common nouns and are not ambiguous in this context. (Taivo (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

The differences noted are between manuscripts, the original does not show much editing whatsoever, but a critical comparison between the OM and the PM shows and average of three "differences" per page between versions, most differences are spelling or gramatical, not substantive. The Lucy Harris is not folklore, it is well attested to, and is referenced quite extensively in the "Origins" section. I am no guru when it comes to referencing, and most of my references for this section are already used in other sections and I do not know how to reference an existing reference, and if I duplicate references, people tend to smack me around so any help in the referencing would be great. Twunchy (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The two pages I relied on for this new section were http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/book_of_mormon/manuscripts.html and http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2002_Changes_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html. If you can tell me how those should be properly referenced other than just inserting a ref tag around them, please enlighten me...I do need more experience with this. Twunchy (talk) 03:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After much trial and error, I think I have figured out a few things for the references...give it a look and make sure this is correct. Twunchy (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

New article "Criticism of the Book of Mormon"

I propose to create a new article "Criticism of the Book of Mormon". The article would be a summary style article. The goals would be:

1) It would provide "one stop shopping" for persons interested in critical analysis of the BOM. Speaking from personal experience, I have a heck of a time finding things amongst all the articles: Origin of the Book of Mormon, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, Reformed Egyptian, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon anachronisms, Historicity of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, etc etc. The critical data is spread across a dozen articles or more.

2) It would provide improve the consistency of the entire encyclopedia by paralleling the existing articles

• Criticism of the Bible
• Criticism of the Qur'an

The new article, as a Summary Style article, would have no new text, in fact very little text. It would primarily serve as an index, and would contain links to the existing subsections within the existing articles that already include the critical info.

Any suggestions are appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think that all the criticism articles should not be summarized in a single "Criticism" article, but should be shortened, condensed, combined into a single criticism article and then deleted. Wikipedia should not be the place for just another critical/apologetic work, but simply a summary and reporting. Too many of the articles as they stand right now are just argumentative and not encyclopedic (the linguistics article, for example, is so bad in this regard I don't even want to look at it). Wikipedia is the place to simply list (without comment) the criticisms, not a place for either apologists or critics to argue the issue. So, for example, a point should say, "Critics have written that DNA evidence runs counter to the historical claims of the book concerning Native Americans [reference to critical text, reference to apologetic text]", then move on to the next point. All the paragraphs on "But apologists counter" or "Critics claim" that then focus interminably on some minutiae or that describe some minutiae in intricate detail (like all that chiasmus cr.., er, argumentation), are just not encyclopedic in nature, IMHO. Instead of repeating critical texts or apologetic texts, summarize and let the Wikipedia reader look at the argumentative texts on their own. That's my opinion--there's just too much garbage (on both sides of every BOM issue) in Wikipedia as it stands right now. (Taivo (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for the input. I agree that the format of most articles that contain crtical/apologetic information is of poor quality. I tried to improve the text once or twice to be more encyclopedic (neutral, professional, direct, etc) but it never stays that way for long!

You say "... all the criticism articles": let me clarify: I'm talking about sections _within_ existing non-critical articles. For example, the "Archaeology and ... " article is mostly about geography theories, but contains some critical information. Ditto for "Origin of .." etc. So the proposed Summary Style article would merely serve as an index so encycl users could easily find information in existing non-critical articles without hunting through the many articles. --Noleander (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am a proponent of consolidation and thus appreciate the concept of a single article through merging the rest. However, a review of what Wikipedia is not might be helpful. If you are recommending an "Index", I believe there once was one (it was called a list), but it got deleted because it resembled more of a screed and was found to be without neutrality. Most of the articles you listed above only exist because of the desire for criticism to be explained and responded to. Criticism does not exist in a vacuum on topics of religion. To be successful in this type of merger, it will require a dispassionate ability to be extremely concise for both sides.

Noleander, you have a penchant for the sensational. For example, that bizarre quote by Kimball that we discussed elsewhere is sensationalism, but it also does not represent the LDS Church. It represents his personal views. What was important and what I think the legitimate criticism is/was, was that the LDS Church's views on the priesthood were racist for a long period of time. If you can support this type of dispassionate discussion of the facts, then I would support you fully, but if you are looking for just another article for a new opportunity to repeat the sensationalism elsewhere, then I would oppose it strongly. --^StormRider 16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Im not sure what the Kimball quote (relating to Skin Color) has to do with this proposal? This proposal is about creating a new article. The use of "you" and "your" in your comment indicates you may be discussing editors, rather than the topic at hand, or am I misunderstanding? The question is: Would users of this encyclopedia benefit from a Summary Style article to help them find information? Let's try to focus on that question.

I'm not sure I get your meaning when you say "Most of the articles you listed above only exist ..." Are you suggesting that those articles be deleted? There is a large body of research on all those topics (see their footnotes) so I think they are fairly important topics.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "a new opportunity to repeat the sensationalism ..". The proposal is simply to create a Summary Style article that helps users navigate. I do agree with you that the presentation and wording of much of text in those articles needs significant improvement. But certainly the Tanners and Ostlings (the source of much of the critical information) are not sensationalists, are they?

Would you suggest that the articles Criticism of the Bible and Criticism of the Qur'an should be deleted? --Noleander (talk) 16:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If what you mean by summary style really means a list of everything that has ever been said by an anti-Mormon, then I am not on board at all. You and anyone with an ounce of academic background know for a certainty the the Tanners have a penchant for sensationalism. That is not to say they are "bad", one just has to be careful using them. They have done a great deal of research that has been beneficial to Mormon History, but they are not neutral.

No I don't thing criticism of the Bible or Qur'an be deleted, but I would sure like LDS article to resemble them, which they don't have haven't for quite some time. LDS article are unique on Wikipedia; no religion article resemble them.^StormRider 02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it sounds like we have consensus. My intention is certainly not to include sensational material. My intention is simply to create a very terse, neutral summary style article. I envision it having just a list of the dozen or so key critical subjects, with "main" templates linking to the existing articles. In fact, comparing with the C. of Bible and C. of Koran, my vision is that the C. of Mormon is much briefer and all the detailed text is in the linked-to (existing) articles. The goal is simply "one stop shopping" to help users. I can't imagine any pro/con text in the new article, because that should all be in the linked-to articles, if at all. If that plan sounds reasonable, I'll proceed to create the article, and perhaps you could help by reviewing it when I get to that point? --Noleander (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is one heck of a lot of that potentially deleted text that needs to stay deleted...forever...and not be added to any other article. There's just too much stuff there that is based on a single anti-Mormon web site or early 20th century tract that is not encyclopedic in nature. Just because some Mormon critic once wrote something doesn't make it noteworthy for an encyclopedia. Only the major criticisms, that are carried into a variety of other works, need to be covered. This is not a comprehensive catalogue, but an encyclopedia that means to point in important directions, but not look into every dark corner. (Taivo (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Changes merely "Grammar and spelling"

I would concur with removing all text regarding how trivial (or not) the changes were. The key is mentioning that changes did happen (lots and lots of changes) and that some critics view that with skepticism. But if we want to discuss the triviality of the changes, we cannot pick a couple of words from the Tanners, out of context, true? --Noleander (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, here is the full text from the Tanners:

As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text. Actually, the changes in the Book of Mormon do not even begin to compare with the serious changes found in Joseph Smith's revelations and in the History of the Church. Although we must not overemphasize the changes in the Book of Mormon, even changes in spelling and grammar are important when we consider the claims concerning the translation which were made by Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the book. Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was "the most correct of any book on earth," and Martin Harris said that the words which appeared on the seer stone would not disappear until they were correctly written.

--Noleander (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Noleander, but adding that long quote from the Tanners is just too much running off at the mouth. This is an encyclopedia, neither a missionary tract nor a critical tome. Therefore, the simple statement, "Critics think X" is quite sufficient. That's my whole point about all these "X of the BOM" articles that are just rehashing the critical/apologetic arguments in minute detail that makes them worthless for an encyclopedia. State the criticism or apologia succinctly and give a reference, then move on. (Taivo (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps some history may be illuminating. I did a full re-write of the Criticism of Mormonism article a couple of years ago. Each criticism was briefly, neutrally stated, with no quotes. Just a sentence or two. That lasted about 24 hours. Then the apologists got involved and changed it to an unencyclopedic state. Then the skeptics rebutted. So the evolution went from (just paraphrasing here):

Version 1 (original text): "Critics say that the BOM has been changed a lot, and that undermines the claim that the book was divinely inspired, and supports the notion that JS fabricated it".

Version 2 (by apologist): "The Tanners say that the BOM has been changed a lot, and that undermines the claim that the book was divinely inspired, and supports the notion that JS fabricated it. But FARM analysed that and showed blah blah. And FAIR did a study. And church leader said 'blah blah' ". [Note that the apologetic material here _usually_ out-sizes the initial criticism in word count :-) Also note that "Critics" is usually replaced by the individual, to make it seem like it is only 1 critic]

Version 3 (by skeptic): "The Tanners say that the BOM has been changed a lot, and that undermines the claim that the book was divinely inspired, and supports the notion that JS fabricated it. But FARM analysed that and showed blah blah. And FAIR did a study. And church leader said 'blah blah'. However critic X says 'blah blah', and LDS D&C says 'blah blah'." [At this point, the word count is roughly balanced, the arguments are roughly balanced, and there is excessive detail].

All very silly and un-encyclopedic. The solution is clear: the text should be more or less version (1) with any details (quotes, etc) put into footnotes. I've been trying to do that for a long time: avoiding quotes, yet ensuring that the criticism accurately and fully reflects the criticsm as the original, notable critics state it (although if I see a veteran editor push the article from version 1 to version 2, I dont hesitate to add balancing information). If you are of a like mind, I'd be happy to work with you towards that goal. --Noleander (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at cleaning up the "Changes" subsection, per the above discussion. Let me know what you think. --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"Revision" was too much and implied more than is there for most of those "4000" differences. I tried to make the wording more neutral. (Taivo (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Looks great! Thanks for working with me. Now lets tackle the other 423 "critics say" sections in the various Mormon articles ... except the Linguistics article: that one gives me a headache.  :-) --Noleander (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is I it is just one half the story. It is typical of anti-Mormon pamphlets. I think it is appropriate to qualify these "almost 4000 changes". Are they substantive or not? Did anything change doctrine? Were the mistakes, errors that were corrected made by the printer, the recorder, or Joseph Smith? This is the type of thing that is just so bad about this type of criticism. It is half-truth, mis-direction, and innuendo. If you are going to make a statement, make it mean something. Provide actual facts; go beyond the tripe we find in anti-Mormon literature and make it legitimate, educated criticism.

Of course, when you compare it to the 1840 edition by Joseph Smith, what is significant? Should that be mentioned or do we sweep that under the carpet because it takes away the significance of the criticism? ^StormRider 05:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the whole section. 1) It's not a very substantive criticism (and never was a major one), 2) To be fair to both sides would require more text than the topic is worth, 3) The meaning of one of the (few) substantive differences is always in the eye of the beholder, 4) The vast majority of the differences are spelling and grammar. Before we add something back into the article (which I don't think is necessary from a value-of-content aspect, but may be necessary from an encyclopedic standpoint), then let's work out the text here first rather than engaging in a constant nitpicking in the article itself. Whatever is added should be in the section on manuscripts anyway, I think. It just feels like it's more appropriate there (and not worded as it was). (Taivo (talk) 10:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

The other thing, Storm Rider, is that one of the principal problems with the writing on all these articles on the BOM is that encyclopedic writing is not a debate, but more of a catalog. The current format of most of these articles reads more like a pro-Mormon apologetic text than an encyclopedic text--"Critics say X, but it should be noted that Y and Z" is not encyclopedic writing, but apologetic writing. A balance is needed, but too many of these articles are leaning precariously toward missionary tracts. The problem is that many LDS editors (I'm not including you in that bunch) refuse to let a truly neutral statement of fact ("Critics say X") stand without arguing for the other side. It makes for a tedious, uninformative, and argumentative style. A paragraph that is structured this way: "The BOM states X, Y, and Z [references to BOM and apologetic texts]. Critics state that Y [references to critical texts]" is encyclopedic and non-argumentative--all points of view are expressed (that is exactly the style employed at Criticism of the Bible). But when you add the next sentence that proponents usually insist on, "Apologists counter with Z [apologist references moved to here]," then you've turned a neutral encyclopedic paragraph into an argumentative one. (Taivo (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

On the other side of the coin, it is not necessary to list every single critical point that has ever been made against the BOM. There are vast amounts of anti-Mormon crap that has been published over the years and 99% of it is just that. It does not need to be mentioned, let alone elaborated. Look at the nauseatingly detailed list found in the "Anachronisms" article. Is it really necessary to point out that the BOM mentions swine and that some critics think that is an anachronism? That whole article reads more like Mormon bashing and not like neutral encyclopedic style. The statement needs to be made that critics point to anachronisms (that's a much more substantial issue than the 3990 typos in the 1830 edition), but the discussion and refutation of each of the anachronisms in exhausting detail is totally inappropriate. (Taivo (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Tavio: please read the text at the top of this Talk page:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Removing an entire subsection without consensus is not really appropriate. It may be that removing that subsection is the correct thing to do (especially in light of the new Criticism of the Book of Mormon article) but please work things out on the Talk page first. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tavio: Responding to your substantive questions about "grammar and spelling". Have you read the Tanners' books yet? May I suggest you do, if you have not. I'll try to summarize their argument in a few words:

• The Mormon faith is totally fabricated
• One key fabrication is the Book of Mormon
• The BOM was allegedly translated "correctly" and the golden tablets were not put down until the words were checked
• The 4,000 changes prove that the story of the BOM origin is false

[The above is the Tanners (and other critics) views, not mine]. The point is: they have a decent argument, and it is widely held by non-Mormons, and it does deserve to be represented in this encyclopedia. Whether it goes in this article or another one is open for debate, but we shouldn't trivialize the critic's views. --Noleander (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't try conversion or anti-conversion with me, Noleander, I've lived in Utah all my life as a non-member and have read the Tanner's criticisms, the vast majority of which are trivial. Krakauer, Brodie, & Southerton, for example, are rather more substantive and not so sensationalistic. This article must not devolve into an anti-LDS rant, citing every critical position ever espoused by the Tanners. There are clear and concise statements already in the article that criticism exists on several levels. It has been quite clearly and concisely shown that 90% (or more) of all the differences between the 1830 text and the modern text are printer's errors, so to continue to emphasize "4000 CHANGES!!!!" as if it is something spectacular is disingenuous and sensationalistic. The section on the history of the manuscript might include a little more comment on the differences and should cite the Tanners' book as a reference, but the issue really is a moot one. Please stop trying to push an overly anti-LDS POV on this article. (Taivo (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Taivo: No need to get personal: We are all trying to build a better encyclopedia.

First, I did not add the "4,000" changes text here: that was from some other editor long before me.

Second, This is not a paper encyclopedia, and notable information should be included.

Third, Most critics don't agree with your "printer's errors" assessment. Many errors are often slang grammar that a New Yorker would have used verbally, that was later changed to more formal prose.

Fourth, I think the key issue the critics are trying to point out is: Smith claimed that the book was accurately translated from the get-go, so how did the words get incorrect?

Fifth: I have no objection to moving the "4,000 changes" stuff into a more subsidiary article, if you can identify one.

Anyway, thanks for working on this article so enthusiastically! --Noleander (talk) 13:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Example of the "bad editing" spiral in LDS articles

For the record, here is a random example of how the apologist/skeptic editing goes haywire. Im capturing this as a follow-on to the above discussion of non-encyclopedic text. This is from the Plural Marriage Article. The original text was about 4 sentences, simple, with no quotes. LDS apologists then added a bunch of text that has the following hallmarks: (1) word count exceeds the original text; and (2) includes quotes. This pattern has been repeated over and over in the LDS articles.

Here is the orginal section:

Relationship between plural marriage and sex

Critics of polygamy in the early LDS church claim that church leaders established the practice of polygamy in order to further their immoral desires for sexual gratification with multiple sexual partners.[47] Critics point to the fact that church leaders practiced polygamy in secret from 1833 to 1852, despite a written church doctrine renouncing polygamy and stating that only monogamous marriages were permitted (section 101 D&C).[48] Critics also cite several first-person accounts of early church leaders attempting to use the polygamy doctrine to enter into illicit relationships with women.[49][50] Critics also assert that Joseph Smith instituted polygamy in order to cover-up an 1835 adulterous affair with a neighbor's daughter, Fanny Alger, by taking Alger as his second wife.[51]

Here is the text added by apologists:

Compton dates this marriage to March or April 1833, well before Joseph was accused of an affair.[52] However, historian Lawrence Foster dismisses the marriage of Alger to Joseph Smith as "debatable supposition" rather than "established fact".[53] Others conclude that many Latter-day Saints entered into plural marriage based on the belief that it was a religious commandment, rather than as an excuse for sexual license. For instance, many of the figures who came to be best associated with plural marriage, including Church President Brigham Young and his counselor Heber C. Kimball, expressed revulsion at the system when it was first introduced to them. Young famously stated that after receiving the commandment to practice plural marriage in Nauvoo, he saw a funeral procession walking down the street and he wished he could exchange places with the corpse. He recalled that "I was not desirous of shrinking from any duty, nor of failing in the least to do as I was commanded, but it was the first time in my life that I had desired the grave, and I could hardly get over it for a long time."[54] When Kimball first heard of the principle, he believed that he would marry elderly women whom he would care for and who would not be a threat to his first wife Vilate. He was later shocked to learn that he was to marry a younger woman.[55] His biographer writes that he "became sick in body, but his mental wretchedness was too great to allow of his retiring, and he would walk the floor till nearly morning, and sometimes the agony of his mind was so terrible that he would wring his hands and weep like a child..."[55] While his wife Vilate had trials "grievous to bear" as a result of her acceptance of plural marriage, she supported her husband in his religious duties, and taught her children that "she could not doubt the plural order of marriage was of God, for the Lord had revealed it to her in answer to prayer."[56] Apologists also note that, although the revelation permitting polygamy was not published until 1852, it was actually received by Joseph Smith sometime in the 1830s.

--Noleander (talk) 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tavio: please top edit-war: use talk page

Please discuss changes here first. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am using the Talk page, Noleander. But the text you want to add is repetitive and argumentative. And please take two seconds to spell my name correctly. (Taivo (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Sorry about the mis-spelling. There are two issues to decide:

1) How should the new Criticism of the Book of Mormon Summary-style article be referenced in this article

2) Which article should the "4,000" changes issue go into.

My 2 cents: the Crit of BOM should be a small sub-section at the bottom of this article. The "4,000 changes" should go into, hmmm, I cant see any other article that looks more appropriate than this one. What is the "manuscript article"? Would that be more appropriate?

BTW: the "4,000 changes" section is an old section containing noteworthy information, that has been in _this_ article for over a year ... maybe 2 or 3 years. So please dont delete it without consensus. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Read THIS article and you will see that 1) there is already a comment higher on the page about the existence of criticisms and 2) there is a subsection entitled "Manuscripts". I moved the changes comment to that section and removed the duplicate comment about the existence of criticisms. Don't create an all-new section labelled "Criticisms" just to advertise a new article. The "Criticisms" cross-reference can go up under the subsection higher on the page where criticisms are already mentioned. (Taivo (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Fair enough ... but where should a link to the new article go? --Noleander (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The link can go either under the subheading "Allegations of Fabrication" or "Historicity". (Taivo (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Done. Thanks for the suggestion. --Noleander (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

4000 changes ... where to put it?

I think there is some confusion about the (now very terse) "4000 changes" paragraph, which reads:

Some critics claim that the differences between the 1830 edition and modern editions[114] are evidence of systematic attempts to remove evidence that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon, and are attempts to hide embarrassing aspects of the church's past.[115][116][117][110][25][26][27][28][29]

A couple of notes: Twunchy suggested a wording change that I dont think is quite accurate: the issue is not that JS made the changes, but rather that church leadership made the changes after JS's death.

The other issue is what section it is in. The MS section seems kind of specific to the handwritten original version(s) of the book. But the "4000 changes" is not about handwriting, it is simply questioning the divine nature of the book. The (unstated) question is: since the book was ostensibly "correctly" translated, and the golden plates were not put away until correctness was ensured, how could there be that many changes? This is a _very_ common, very fundamental question posed by many critics.

Any suggestions on a more appropriate location? --Noleander (talk) 06:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The reference to the differences has already been added to the article (in the "Manuscripts" section). Actually, Twunchy's wording is superior in some respects. I'll tweak it just a bit to make the subject more general and not imply that it was only Smith involved. Your detailed comment is not appropriate for this article since it smacks of POV pushing. That is something that is one of those "too detailed" arguments that is inappropriate for Wikipedia. We're not here to argue for or against the BOM and its legitimacy, we're here to say that some critics think the differences hint of something more (which the current wording does). That detailed "changes argument" is for the Tanners to make since it is not a major avenue of BOM criticism, but a side street. In the bulk of BOM criticism, it is not a major thread and never has been. It is often found in one or two sentences in the anti-LDS "junk mail" (which will then be devoted primarily to another major criticism), or be found in an even shorter reference in a major critical work. It is never afforded more than a sentence or two in any of the works where it is found (except for the Tanners') and is not "a fundamental question". The article says that some critics think it's important, it has references for an interested reader to follow up with, and it moves on. That's exactly the way that Wikipedia needs to approach the subject and then leave it. It doesn't need to be placed in another article. It doesn't need to have every sliver of "relevance" overtly stated in Wikipedia. Once again, look at the anachronisms article. That article is what Wikipedia should not be--a detailed and exhaustive list of everything that any critic has ever said with every counter-argument that any apologist has ever made in rebuttal. That article and that approach to BOM criticism is an embarrassment to non-Mormons who are not anti-Mormons. (Taivo (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

I have to disagree. The change of the word "white" to "pure" for example, is very signficant, especially due to the timing. It is mentioned by many critics, and is not grammar or spelling. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I think we need broader consensus before we "hide" a signficant criticism such as this one.

Your example about anachronisms like "swine" being mentioned in the BOM is cited even more frequently by critics (more so than "4000 changes"). Many critics of religion use illogical statements like that (comparable to Methusala living 900+ years, etc) to call into question the divinity of sacred texts. You are entitled to your opinion, but this encyclopedia needs to capture the ideas of notable critics. See the WP:Censorship policy.

Here is a very promient example of criticism by Jacob Weisberg: http://www.slate.com/id/2155902. This shows that criticims about the Book are not obscure "Tanner only" issues. --Noleander (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I am content with the latest wording you did, so I think we have consensus there. My only remaining question is which section it goes in. If we agree it does not warrant its own section, then the "Textual Criticsim" is probably more appropriate that "Manuscript" section. What do you think? --Noleander (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand my statements concerning criticism. I never said that criticism should not be mentioned as existing. The comments in the Historicity section (I worked extensively to get that section to where it is right now) show that I'm not talking about "hiding" criticism. What I'm saying is that exhaustive, detailed, tit for tat cataloging of every point made on every category of criticism by every critic and every counter-argument by every apologist is totally inappropriate. Having a whole paragraph for "swine" with argument and counter-argument is silly to include and not in the spirit of an encyclopedia; saying that critics point out many anachronisms including "..., swine, ..., etc." is not inappropriate. There is enough comment about the differences between the modern text and the 1830 text as far as I'm concerned. Anything more moves into the realm of trivia or anti-Mormon tract and is not encyclopedic. As soon as you write your paragraph about "divine inspiration", etc., then an apologist editor must write a rebuttal and the whole thing turns into another waste of Wikipedia space in the minutiae of anti-/pro-Mormon propaganda. As far as where the comment goes doesn't matter so much to me--either at the end of "Manuscripts" or "Textual Criticism". But it doesn't deserve its own section. (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC))

Okay, I'll move it back to the Textual Criticism section. I still disagree about the importance of the critics allegations "4000 changes", but we can continue to work on that in the future. --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandal is back

The vandal that caused the recent page protection requests is apparently back. Mr. vandal, do not even attempt another round of edit warring or I will request your IP permanently banned from Wikipedia. Twunchy (talk) 05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sacred text

So that we have an entry here on the Talk page--The BOM is a sacred text for the LDS movement. That is a true fact. So the statement in the first line of the article is not POV in that it accurately reports the fact--that members of the LDS movement believe the BOM is a sacred text. It would be POV if the first line said, "The BOM is a sacred text." Obviously, for the majority of the long-time editors, this is a moot point. But since we've had a number of vandals recently claiming that the use of "sacred" in this context is POV, it doesn't hurt to have a placemarker here on the Talk Page to make sure that the issue is crystal clear. (Taivo (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

OK, so I feel silly for not reading my entire watchlist before reporting our anon IP for edit warring here. But there's a formal report there now :p (Taivo (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Steel

I reverted the deletion of steel from the list of anachronisms. The list of anachronisms is a list of those things which critics have mentioned, it is not a list of things which can be proven to be anachronistic. We are reporting the existence of the criticism here, not the existence of the anachronism. (Taivo (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to change section title "Historicity" to "Historical authenticity"

I suggest changing the word "Historicity" to "Historical Authenticity" or "Historical Accuracy" (and also the article "Historicity of the BOM") for a few reasons:

• Historicity is a rather arcane word, and wont be understood by most readers of this encyclopedia
• Criticism of the koran uses the phrase "historical authenticity"
• The Bible and history uses the phrase "historical accuracy".

Im sure that most editors that watch the BOM page are very accustomed to the word "Historicity", and perhaps even some BOM scholars use that term in their works (do they?). But the fact is that we have to use terms that are appropriate for users of this encyclopedia, especially for section titles.

Speaking personally, I cant think of any other time Ive seen the word "Historicity" - in any book or magazine - outside of the Wikipedia article(s) on the BOM.

Does any one have a good reason to continue using the term "Historicity"? (and if your reason is "some scholars use that term" perhaps you could address the concerns above about users of this encyclopedia). --Noleander (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with changing. (Taivo (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

Go ahead and change it. I do see a preference for accuracy versus authenticity, but that is just my opinion. --^StormRider 00:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I carefully considered "accuracy" vs "authencity" and went with the latter. "Accuracy" suggests minor factual errors (200 or 201? year 1934 vs year 1935, etc), whereas "Authenticity" is a broader term that addresses the underlying correctness or truth. --Noleander (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Historical authenticity" implies that there might be some. "Historicity" is more neutral. "Accuracy" would be more appropriate to a work of historical fiction or a dramatic recreation, etc. 72.229.55.245 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Moroni or Nephi

It can be clearly seen that Joseph Smith himself called the angel Nephi and not Moroni. Joseph Smith mother also recounted the angel's name being Nephi. This can all be seen Times and Seasons Vol. III pp. 749, 753, Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53, Millennial Star. August 1842. Vol 3 p 71, Biographical Sketches, p. 79, and Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition. Facts are facts no matter what a person thinks about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.6.253 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Sign your comments. There are other editors watching this page who will surely make a comment. If your evidence holds up, then we'll add it to the article once consensus is reached about it. Wait and be patient for the discussion. Actually, I have a problem with the accounts. I'm familiar with quite a bit of anti-LDS polemical literature and this is the first I've seen of such a thing. That makes me suspicious. Do you have a reference from the Tanners for example? (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

While Smith did call the angel Nephi in his official 1838 history, he more often called the angel Moroni. As discussed in the angel Moroni article, Smith didn't identify the angel until 1835, when he called him Moroni. He only called him Nephi once, in his official history, and then just a month or so after writing that history he called the angel Moroni again in a church newspaper. So it's not like Smith's final view as to the identify of this angel is in question. At most, this point belongs in this article only in a footnote, if at all. It's not incorrect to simply call the angel Moroni, because that was the name Smith used first and last. COGDEN 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Was Moroni also called Nephi?

There is an abusive anonymous IP trying to add a comment about the angel who appeared to Smith being named Nephi. Anybody know anything about this? I've removed his comment twice now, but he is still insisting. (Taivo (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC))

incoherent sentence

"According to Smith's account, and written in the book itself, it was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" on golden plates. "

So, we're supposed to believe that "the book itself" identified itself as being "originally written..." etc? How was that accomplished? Or is the article referring to a preface or something written by Smith? 72.229.55.245 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is referring to Mormon (the book within the larger Book of Mormon) 9:32 which reads "And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech." Moroni is purportedly the author of the sentence in question. He is simply placing a name (reformed Egyptian) to the language that was being used at that time to inscribe the plates.

Also, Joseph Smith's description of the plates, to my knowledge, is more accurately described as "plates having the appearance of gold," rather than calling them "golden plates," although the latter term has come into common use since then. It does not necessarily need to be inferred by this that the material he was describing was definitely the metal with the chemical symbol 'Au'. Ddweller (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Blanking

Ldsfaithfighter: The long standing version will be protected if you revert. If you want to implement drastic changes you will have to establish consensus here first. ·Maunus·ƛ· 14:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the sources for the section you are blanking they are mostly respectable and authoritative reliable sources. TRhere are very few web sources among them so Ldsfighters concerns about the sources being anti-mormon make little sense.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• Concur - a review of the cited references deleted shows them to be scholarly/academic in nature...if there was anything else in the list, I didn't spot it. I see no need to remove scholarly or academic references that are properly cited in support of a given statement, especially references which, as far as I can tell, are as neutral as any exhaustively-researched paper or article can be. --Alan (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No edit war here, LDSFF2009 blanked the section once and I restored it. This whole article was the subject of some very extensive editing and discussion among both Mormon and non-Mormon editors about three years ago. A fairly NPOV and balanced article is the result of that extensive negotiation and discussion. It's been very stable since then and both believers and non-believers work very hard to fight the occasional vandalism. (Taivo (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC))

Sorry, I must have been hallucinating I was sure I saw two reverts. Anyway the point stands: the removal of sourced content cannot be undertaken without discussion. Taivo was completely right in reverting.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Sealed Portion

People watching this page are requested to look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 17:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit proposals for sub-section "Historical Authenticity."

I would like to suggest making a few changes to this section which would greatly improve the neutrality and objectivity.

(1.) The first objection I have is with the following statement: "The consensus within the non-Mormon archaeological, historical and scientific communities is that the claims of the Book of Mormon do not correlate with the physical and historical evidence." There should not be a distinction between "Mormon" and "non-Mormon" scientists here because it implies that "Mormon" scientists are somehow less scientific in their approach to archeology, history, and science than "non-Mormon" scientists. Furthermore, the word "consensus" implies a unanimity of opinion which is unfounded, and this implication seems to be carried on throughout this entire subsection with a biased conclusive tone which is not warranted by the inadequate burden of proof provided. For instance:

(2.) the section continues by stating that "These discrepancies [from the claims to the evidence] cover four main areas:" By flatly stating that there are discrepancies between the claims and the evidence (which there may indeed be), in exactly four areas (no more, no less), the article draws a conclusive and therefore biased tone which is inappropriate for a controversial subject such as this. I would suggest mending this in one of two ways: One way would be to provide equal time not only to the discrepancies, but also to the miraculous (too strong of a word for wikipedia, to be sure) instances of consistency between the claims and the evidence in other areas (which do exist). The other way I might suggest if the first is not feasible would be to place the qualifier "purported" before "discrepancies" to place the judgment in the readers possession, rather than leading the reader to a fixed conclusion.

(3.) The individual bullet points listed continue with the unwarranted conclusive tone by repeatedly claiming a "lack of" evidence of one sort or another, which there may indeed be in certain areas. However, the rhetorical form of repetition used clearly places a prejudice on the ordinary reader's mind toward a conclusion of implausibility when confronted solely with the evidence against the historical authenticity. Because of this, I propose that: (a.) "The lack of correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites" be mended to read "The present inability of archeologists to correlate locations described in the Book of Mormon with known and existing American archaeological sites." (b.) "The lack of linguistic connection between any Native American languages and Near Eastern languages" be mended to read "The inability to establish a linguistic connection between a specific Native American language and a Near Eastern language." And (c.) "The lack of DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East" (as if anyone has genetically sampled every possible group) be mended to read "The lack of DNA evidence linking a specific contemporary Native American group to the ancient Near East.

(4.) The summary paragraph of the subsection pretends to offer an opposing point of view, but in reality offers up merely a vague "straw-man" argument with thinly-disguised brush-offs of third party sources who might offer an opposing point of view if the readers take the time to visit their pages and research their arguments themselves (but most won't, this is still wikipedia). It begins: "Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account" which statement is positioned to be in contrast to all of the evidence the readers have just been fed dissuading them from accepting this perspective as plausible. It should be ammended to read: "Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account, with allowance made for "the mistakes of men" as stated on the title page of the Book of Mormon" with a reference to the title page, quoting the title page as follows: "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men." This would clarify the general position of Mormons as not being fundamentalists regarding scriptural errors in minute matters.

(5.) The second correction I would propose making to improve this summary paragraph would be to change the phrasing of "...and within the LDS movement there have been many apologetical groups attempting to reconcile the apparent discrepancies" to read "Within the LDS movement there are many apologetical groups whose purpose is to explain or reconcile these and other alleged discrepancies. These groups haven't all died off, and they do more than attempt to explain discrepancies in many cases, while still scrambling for answers in others. Ddweller (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a strong consensus among non-Mormon scholars to ignore the BOM. If you doubt the veracity of this, then name one single, solitary non-Mormon scholar who refers to the BOM text to guide his/her work or who has quoted the BOM text as a support for one of his/her conclusions. You won't find any. Not a single one. That's a consensus. If you look at Near Eastern archeologists in contrast, you will find all of them, even "atheists" using the biblical text as a reference, even if just to refer to the site's biblical name or something like, "the biblical text places this site in the Late Bronze Age, but my work has proven that it's in the Early Bronze Age". You'll find nothing of the kind in non-Mormon New World archeology or science. You won't find one single exception to this. You will, however, find Mormon archeologists who dispute the BOM's historical, archeological, or scientific claims. Some of them ended up leaving the LDS church; some are uncomfortably within the church, others have recognized (like many so-called biblical archeologists) that the scripture doesn't have to be accurate to be spiritually valuable. Your proposed softening of the wording in each of the four subsections is inaccurate. The current wording is, basically (when you read it in context), "non-Mormon scientists object because there is a lack of correlation between New World archeology and BOM archeology", etc. That is a true statement. There is zero correlation between specific New World sites, Native American languages, Native American genetics, etc. and BOM claims. How do you state zero in any other words than "zero"? Some specific issues include under 4). The genetic research has covered hundreds of Native American communities and the genetic links are to northeast Asia. It's conclusive. Your wording implies some kind of incomplete survey, which is not the case. The "title page" objection in your point number 4 is rather silly. Most Mormons do, indeed, accept the BOM as a historically accurate document. Yes, there are some who don't, but the vast majority talk conclusively about Native Americans as the Lamanites and the descendants of Lehi. Your point 5 shows some validity, but to date no apologetical group has successfully reconciled any piece of evidence with the literal BOM narrative. By "successful" I mean their conclusions are accepted outside the LDS community and their linkage used within the mainstream scientific literature. Hasn't been done--not once. Rather than a multiple paragraph exposition, it works better in Wikipedia to deal with one issue at a time. Most editors aren't willing to read inches of text. Pick one thing to deal with and then deal with that one thing. --Taivo (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A better introductory paragraph has been given by FyzixFighter which clarifies that the information following it is the POV of critics of the BoM. It would be better IMO if the entire section of Historical Authenticity were subdivided into critics and apologists/supporters views. I deleted your citation of the sentence that was previously requesting a citation because your attempt had no bearing on the predicate of the sentence it was citing, which was clearly to establish that most Mormons do, in fact, accept the BoM as historically accurate. Of course, most Mormons do accept that fact, but to add a citation to that would try to verify it, not to lead the reader in a completely tangential direction. I don't see how my "title page" objection was "silly" at all. Just because most Mormons talk conclusively about the general body of Native Americans being Lamanites does not mean that there are not a significant number who hold a different view that is consistent with the actual book. This article is about The Book of Mormon, not about Popular or Traditional views of the Book of Mormon held by Mormons in general. It would not hurt to clarify this by actually citing the Book of Mormon and hinting that there are, in fact Mormons who hold a differing view that is consistent with the Book of Mormon text, which clearly and explicitly allows for human error in its many, many phases of transcriptions and translations (not only in the title page, but throughout the the book as well (reference Ether 12:25). Ddweller (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

FyzixFighter went back to an earlier version that had reached consensus and had been changed without anyone noticing. We don't divide the historicity section into point/counterpoint because this is not a missionary tract with arguments and counterarguments (see the extended discussion at Historicity of the Book of Mormon. This section is simply a summary of critic's positions and more detail can be found at the subarticle. The quotation I added is from a reliable source and speaks exactly to the statement that most Mormons accept the BOM as a literal reference. If you have contradictory evidence, then please present it. It would be interesting. The whole issue of limited geography or limited genetics is present but is not at all widely accepted among Mormons. If you have evidence that the majority of Mormons don't accept the literal narrative of the BOM, then please present it. --Taivo (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, of course not. A typical missionary tract would not have arguments and counter-arguments, they would simply have arguments (the pro's, not the con's). I already read that discussion. You seem intent on insisting that this section is only the missionary tract for the counter-arguments (the con's, not the pro's). This section is titled "Historical Authenticity," not "Criticism of Historical Authenticity Claims."As such it should maintain a NPOV stance as per the guidelines. If you maintain that it should have a specific POV stance, then that should be reflected in the title to the general section. You also seem to have a way of twisting my words slightly. There was never any argument made anywhere touching on any aspect of the general "literal narrative." Whether there are minor aspects within that narrative that may have been the result of human error (as one would expect with ancient records) was the argument.

Concerning the consensus issue, you seem to have skipped over my first proposition that "There should not be a distinction between 'Mormon' and 'non-Mormon' scientists here because it implies that 'Mormon' scientists are somehow less scientific." By doing so you have managed to create a straw-man argument for which there is no disputing. Of course, the consensus among non-Mormons is that it is not a historical account. Given the story of the miraculous nature of its' emergence, to accept it as a historical account would certainly lead one to become a Mormon, which has happened. While you were careful to point out the non-Mormons who disbelieve it as well as the former Mormons who have been dissuaded, you neglected this. One side (Mormon or non-Mormon) does not have any general claim to be more scientific in its approach than the other. Faith, as intellectual honesty, does not deter a person from considering facts as they are, but rather helps a person understand that other facts can co-exist and to navigate them with patience. The first counselor of the general presidency of the church is a highly-esteemed scientist.Ddweller (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, I am not taking a position on the wording just yet, but I do have questions. You state that Near Eastern archaeologists, all of them, even "atheists", that use the Bible text for a reference. Do they all only use the Bible to guide their research? What is their purpose for using the Bible? Do they use it to prove the authenticity of the Bible or because the Bible has been proved to be so reliable for archaeological digs? This last would be surprising because in a recent presentation I attended an archaeologist, a Catholic if it makes a difference, stated that approximately 40% of the Bible sites had been found. He did not state whether these were found by only using the Bible, but I am curious about these claims. We are talking about a part of the world where our knowledge is superior to any other area in history and it seems less then credible that these people start out by consulting only the Bible to direct the location of their digs. If the Bible is such a source whey haven't they found 95% or 98% of the sites mentioned?

What history books do archaeologists use in South/Central America to guide their digs? --^StormRider 01:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of using the Bible is as an ancient document that refers to a site. Obviously, if a site is not mentioned in the biblical text, or if the site predates the period of the written record, then it would not be useful. Most of the time, the name is the only thing that the text attests to. I didn't say that the Bible guided the dig, but only that the Bible was a reference tool for the dig. Sometimes it has, indeed, guided the location of a site. Sometimes it has guided the understanding of a particular feature. Sometimes it has misled rather than enlightened. But what I said (at least what I intended to say) was that the Bible was one of the tools used whenever excavating in ancient Palestine. If that wasn't clear, then my apologies. But it fundamentally differs from New World archeology, that's the point. In ancient Palestine every archeologist must at least look at any relevant biblical references in order to determine whether the site fits or doesn't fit within that context. (I find your estimate of 95% to 98% of unlocated biblical sites to be rather far-fetched.) In the New World, except for Mormon archeologists, the BOM is totally ignored. That's the point I was trying to make. That's been my point all along whenever the word "consensus" is objected to when discussing non-Mormon scientists. Find a single non-Mormon scientist who uses the BOM as a reference tool in the same way that most Near Eastern archeologists use the Bible as a reference tool. You asked what manuscripts New World archeologists use to guide their digs. Of course, unless the site is post-Columbian, there are no documents that relate to site locations. --Taivo (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I think it is almost impossible to state what Mormons believe; it is better to state what the LDS Church teaches because you can so easily reference it. Conversely, stating the belief of individuals is very difficult and not a lot of research done to verify this. --^StormRider 01:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

But we have quotes from reliable sources stating the trends. If you have something from another reliable source that states the contrary, then we can present that as well. --Taivo (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the issue of what scientists think: there is no question on that issue. Outside of FARMS and BYU, no scientist or archaeologist believes that any of the BOM's narrative is true. Period. The current sentence reads "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities have in general been skeptical about the claims of the Book of Mormon. ". That phrasing is mis-leading and not consistent with the sources. Better is "The consensus within the non-Mormon archaeological, historical and scientific communities is that the claims of the Book of Mormon do not correlate with the physical and historical evidence." --Noleander (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are two fallacies in your reasoning. Fallacy #1 is the assumption that Mormon scientists are somehow "less-scientific" in their approach to science. I've already addressed that in point #1. Fallacy #2 is that when you say, in absolute terms, that "no scientist outside of a (certain group) believes the BoM narrative to be true, period," you gloss over the fact that there are, in fact, scientists who may not accept the BoM in "whole-cloth" terms (other-wise they would be Mormon, no?), but are yet intrigued by many in-text evidences as to it's expertise concerning aspects of the ancient world. There is a reason why so many different hypotheses have come about attempting to explain its origins, and that reason is that the one thing that is certain is that no uneducated farm-boy from the early 18th century could have possibly have invented it and guessed right so often and so accurately as to its material in the complete blindness of an early 18th century Vermont. Archeology is not the only science there is, and it is, in fact, a very imperfect science, as unreliable in many ways (over a long-term, in predicting the past) as the weather forecast is (over the short-term, in predicting the future). There is no absolute ground for you to infer (and essentially claim) that there is no credible science that supports the BoM.

As to your accusation of it being "white-washy," the term would more aptly apply to your approach, i.e., that no credible scientist ever analyzed any aspect of the BoM with any result other than absolute assurance of its' complete and total fabrication. Ddweller (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has said here that Mormon scientists are less than scientific. The sentence only talks about non-Mormon scientists. Within the ranks of Mormon scientists there are good ones who ignore the BOM in their work and there are not-so-good ones who try too hard to make the data fit the book. But that sentence about a consensus of non-Mormon scientists said nothing about the Mormon scientists. You also make unsubstantiated claims. I can name two or three formerly Mormon geneticists who left the church because the science didn't match the book's claims. Can you name a single geneticist (or linguist or archeologist) who joined the church simply because the book's account matched their scientific findings? No. If they joined it was for spiritual reasons and had nothing to do with science. And once they joined, their science didn't change to match the book--they became part of that minority that doesn't believe in the literal nature of the book. You can't name a single scientist who joined the church for scientific or historical or archeological reasons. (In the 19th century that might have been the case, but not in the 20th century.) I know Mormon scientists personally who are quite good at what they do, but they realize that the literal story of the book cannot stand scrutiny. So don't accuse me of being against Mormon scientists. The sentence you object to said nothing whatsoever about them. Among non-Mormon scientists, the feeling is unanimous that the BOM is not relevant to any New World studies. --Taivo (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's trying to be subtle here, as you claimed I was below? The wording clearly implies that Mormon scientists are less than scientific by implying a conclusion that "Mormon" scientists should not really count in the tally. When you say that "there are good [Mormon scientists] who ignore the BOM in their work and there are not-so-good ones who try too hard to make the data fit the book," that is your POV and certainly is not verifiable. You want to make sweeping generalities (that there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the BoM) on insufficient evidence (there hasn't been an archeological site found yet or a direct DNA connection established to support the tradition views held about the BoM). This is not a scientific journal, as evidenced by the articles. Anybody can add citations of any kind to lead readers on a wild goose chase. In areas as large, complex, and sweeping as the BoM, it does not do any service to wikipedia to make a POV statement and to back it up with a quote or two from the Tanners.Ddweller (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Most Mormons believe"

I'm going to break this discussion down into manageable segments. As the old-timers know, shotgun approaches are rarely productive. The issue of "most Mormons believe" seems to be a touchy one to start with. Here is what the relevant text at Historicity of the Book of Mormon says:

• The dominant and widely accepted view among Latter Day Saints is that the Book of Mormon is a true and accurate account of these ancient American civilizations whose religious history it documents. Joseph Smith, Jr., who most LDS members believe translated the work, stated, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon may have been the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was nevertheless divinely inspired. Between these two LDS views is the view stated by some church leaders that the Book of Mormon is a divine work of a spiritual nature, written in ancient America, but that its purpose is to teach of Christ; not to be used as a guide for history, geology, archaeology, or anthropology.

Is this part of what the summary paragraph needs to say? --Taivo (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The original objection, referenced in point #4 above, was that it attempted to paint adherents to the BoM in a broad stroke, which view is painted in contrast to the seemingly rational/"scientific" view presented to them immediately beforehand. The wording which I proposed was intended to bring light to the wider array of beliefs held by differing members of the churches that believe in the Book of Mormon on one level or another. With the statement you presented here, there is not a "majority" opinion, but there is another non-sequitur (of the either/or type). Here, the article implies that "either" the book was "divinely" inspired, and implicitly without any possible chance that there is human error involved in any part of it (position 1); "or" that other members accept it as a simple "creation" of Joseph Smith, nevertheless with some sort of moral profit value of a "spiritual nature" (position 2). I will agree that the majority of the non-critical masses tend to gravitate to position 1, but it is certain in my mind, from my experience within the church, that position #2 is such a minority position as to be negligible in comparison with the beliefs held by a great many that the record of the Book of Mormon is a record of men (in it's original transcriptions, and in many aspects of the translation process) in that it is not infallible in every minute detail but that it is yet a factual historical narrative and that the events taking place in the narrative were a reality in the general sense. The "translation process" is where you are likely to get hung up. People generally require an "either/or" position here, which is that "either" God translated it, "or" Joseph Smith pretended to translate it. We could go on a complete tangent here and get into the details of the translation process, but that would be excessive, and would accomplish nothing that would further the dual requisites of brevity and a satisfactory explanation of the article. That is why I proposed a simple reference to a built-in reference from the Book of Mormon-- not a reference in some obscure high-brow library in a distant quarter of the known world-- a reference to the title page, explaining what the Book of Mormon IS and has always been, not what certain followers might believe it to have been at one time or another. "If there are faults (in other words, there are mistakes), they are the mistakes of men."

While "What most Mormons believe about the BoM, might be relevant to some aspect of this article (The Book of Mormon), it is not as relevant as what the BoM actually is, or claims itself to be, and states itself to be in no uncertain terms on the front page.

Of course, you may say "Well, that gives it Carte Blanche, that's unfair when it comes to historical authenticity" and that may be so. It is what it is, and should be judged accordingly, and not for what it never claimed to be (infallible). Ddweller (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are operating under an assumption of what Wikipedia is without seeming to actually know its rules. You are trying to apply logic to make this subtle, but logic doesn't have anything to do with Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates under the requirements of verification through reliable sources. The fact is that the majority of LDS believe that the BOM is a literal history of the Native Americans of the New World--not just a subset of the inhabitants, but the entire population of the New World--and that the scene of the book covers the entirety of both of the continents. There are reliable sources which state this in addition to statements from church presidents. That's just the baseline. Of course, there are subtleties among a minority of members, but that is not the majority view, nor the view of the top of the hierarchy. This comment isn't about the "translation process", but about the simple belief of what you call the "non-critical masses". If you have reliable sources that state otherwise, then please trot them out. The other extreme, absolutely a minority view, is that the book was written by Smith, and the narrative based on an early 19th century view of Native American origins, but that its value is strictly spiritual in nature. There are reliable sources to illustrate this view as well. Of course there are views in the middle, but this is not the place for a detailed review of each individual variant. The reader can easily understand that there are positions between the two extremes. Wikipedia is not the place to push your own personal position or your own variation of balancing literal versus spiritual. It's a place only for verifiable facts. --Taivo (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not trying to make anything subtle. You seem to want to treat wikipedia as if it were a scientific journal. It's an encyclopedia, and hardly a good one. The audience it overwhelmingly speaks to is not one that should be assumed "can easily understand that there are positions between the two extremes" without telling them as much. In broad, multi-dimensional, and complex and controversial topics such as the BoM it would be better to make general statements that are unbiased and accurate, rather than push an agenda from your particular POV and then add happenstance sources which are clearly cherry-picked and intended to further lead the reader to your POV. Ddweller (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't think that Wikipedia is worth the effort.... There are three facts here concerning the historical/scientific/archeological/genetic scientific community: 1) Non-Mormon scientists do not use the BOM for their research; 2) some Mormon scientists use it for their research; 3) some Mormon scientists do not use the BOM for their research. There are three facts concerning the beliefs of Mormon membership: 1) The majority of Mormons believe that the BOM is literal history; 2) a minority of Mormons believe that the BOM is Smith's creation, but of spiritual value; 3) there are minorities of Mormons who believe nearly every possible variant in between. That's what the article should say. It should not, as some of your comments tend to indicate in my reading of them, pick a reasonable one that will make non-Mormons more kindly disposed to the BOM than they might have been previously. It needs to state the verifiable facts. If you aren't satisfied that readers will understand that there are intermediate viewpoints between the extremes then a phrase can be added that will make that clear. If you think that the apologists' attempts to answer the objections are not detailed enough, then you are in the wrong article. This is a summary section only--the main article for details and extensive references is at Historicity of the Book of Mormon. There you, and the more interested reader, will find more details about who, what, and when. This article should say exactly what the summary of the historicity topic is: "1) Scientific/historical critics generally object on these grouds; 2) apologists have attempted to counter each of these claims; 3) most Mormons believe that the BOM is literal; 3) some Mormons don't". Once we've reached consensus here on the "most Mormons believe" part, then we can move to another of your issues. So what specifically do you object to about the "Most Mormons believe that the BOM is literal" statement? Do you have references to show that it is not true? --Taivo (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What I object to is the general way in which such a fact is presented. You know well that multiple facts can co-exist on a topic as broad and complex as the BoM. Because a "fact" is true does not make it relevant, even if there is a cute citation added at the end that maybe 0.2% of wikipedia readers will bother about, pretending to add credence to the fact. The section of historical authenticity is a clear example of comparing "apples to oranges," to use a familiar expression, in its' technique. First, it makes a general claim that the "scientific" (the elite; the intelligent) community has unanimously concluded that the BoM is a book without any evidence supporting its' historical authenticity (which is false, but I won't go into that again, here). The rebuttal to that is then given, that "most" Mormons (the commoners; the nit-wits) believe the book to be such-and-such. To use an example to flip this around in order to expose the fallacy, let's say I made a statement in a hypothetical article (for argument only) about the historical authenticity of, I don't know, let's say, the "Lachish letters." Then, in a sub-heading about "contrasting views about the historicity of the letters," I make the statement that the official stance of the LDS church is that the letters are authentic historical documents, and then go on to list evidences supporting that thesis. Then in the next paragraph, I begin by saying that "the overwhelming majority of Catholics do not maintain that the Lachish letters ever even existed, although there are groups among them who study the evidences carefully." You could then argue all day about what it is that the majority of catholics actually do believe, but it still would not be a fair comparison to the purported LDS stance, and it still would not matter what the "majority" of Catholics believe about the letters because it would not have any bearing whatsoever on the historical authenticity of the letters.

Bringing us back to the subject at hand, you can either compare apples-to-apples, by saying that "'most adherents' (the commoners) believe the BoM to be a historically accurate account", and then follow that up with a fair comparison by saying that "'most' of the others (the commoners) really couldn't care less about whether or not the BoM is historically accurate, and are infinitely more interested in how the snoop dogg single featuring lady gaga is fairing in the charts today." You could do that. Both of these statements are factually accurate. Go find a reliable footnote and put it at the end to pretty it up while you're at it. Or, you could compare oranges-to-oranges and say that "the scientific communities (the academic elite) have in general been skeptical...." and then begin the comparison by saying that "the predominant Book of Mormon apologetical groups (the academic elite) have generally held such-and-such views regarding the historical authenticity... and have responded to such criticisms generally in such-and-such a way...." Or, you could reference the Book of Mormon title page itself, regarding possible mistakes and/or human errors, as I have suggested, but then *gasp* somebody might actually read the book's title page to find out what position it holds about itself.

Briefly, I would ask, since you have asserted on this talk page that you hold the view that the BoM is purely fiction, and stated such not merely as your opinion but as actual fact with much disrespect toward a movement and a people who view it as sacred writ... what is your opinion regarding its origins? In other words, to which of the alternative hypotheses do you subscribe to explain its origins? I am not asking this to attempt to proseletyze(sic) you or anyone else on this forum. I have simply noticed that you have been hawkishly guarding this article as your own pet project for years-on-end. If you insist that there is absolutely no credible evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon, I would ask what credible evidence do you use to otherwise explain it, as it exists. Brushed off answers such as "he just made it up" or "just completely fabricated it" will not do, as there is an abundance of evidence proving this to be implausible. Ddweller (talk) 03:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am deleting the sentence "Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account" because it is neither relevant nor indisputable and also creates a distorted view of the academic state of the art regarding responses to criticisms within the LDS movement. Storm Rider suggested above that an official statement of the church would be better because it is verifiable. I maintain that a concise statement reflecting the state of the art within current Mormon apologetics might also be considered.Ddweller (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless you build a consensus, then don't touch the text of the article. I will revert your deletion. I don't "own" this article. If you actually read the edit history, you will find a number of different editors, a healthy mix of Mormons and non-Mormons alike, have protected the text as it stands for a long time. You just don't understand the concept of consensus building in Wikipedia, I'm afraid. The difference between Mormon and non-Mormon scientists is critical for an article on a religious topic. There are NO non-Mormon scientists that accept the BOM as anything other than Joseph Smith's creation (whether he used other sources or not). You asked my opinion on the matter. Joseph Smith created the BOM out of his vivid imagination. You claim that it couldn't be so, but the only "evidence" ever presented otherwise is from Mormon scholars who are attempting to "prove" that he didn't write it. The Spaulding theory is flimsy, at best, IMHO. Joseph Smith wasn't stupid and he had a very fertile imagination. You asked for my opinion, so there it is. My opinion isn't relevant for this discussion, however. You have 1) failed to disprove that the majority of Mormons believe this is a literal record, 2) you have offered no concrete alternate text here on the Talk Page that can be discussed, 3) you have offered no references to contradict the facts as presented in the article, 4) you have not provided any valid reason why the beliefs of the majority of Mormons concerning historicity are not relevant in the historicity section. --Taivo (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Your fundamental problem here is that you are not focusing on one issue at a time to build a consensus for changing anything. I offered an option to begin, but you keep going into shotgun mode. Focus on one thing. Do you have references to prove that most Mormons do NOT believe that the BOM is a literal history? If not, then admit it and we'll move on to the next topic in a new section. --Taivo (talk) 06:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

To take a sort of middle ground here I would say that we must be very careful in making sweeping statements about what large groups of people believe - because how do we know? In this case what we can say for sure is that Southerton states that "mormons generally believe" - but there might very well be other scholars who state the opposite (i.e. that many mormons believe in a non-historical interpretation of BoM). But at the present we have only one source. If we want to change the description of "most mormons believe" then first and foremost it requires other sources. However I also think that Southerton's claim has the air of being impressionist - i.e. it doesn't seem that he has actually made an inquiry about what any group of Mormons actually believe, butt hat he bases his statement on his own personal experience of Mormons. That is why I think changing "most" to "many" makes sense it doesn't ascribe final authoprity to southerton, but still acknowledges that a not insignificant number of Mormons believe in the historicity of BoM.·Maunus·ƛ· 06:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Southerton, but pronouncements by the church leadership as well. Southerton is just the book I have at hand. There aren't any references that counter that impression. Having lived in Utah all my life, I can assure you that Southerton is not off-base with that statement. Every semester a student asks me which of the Native American languages are most closely related to Hebrew. (Of course, personal experience doesn't count as a reliable source in Wikipedia, but it can be used to weigh the veracity of a source.) I've reworked the last part of the paragraph based on some of Ddweller's concerns that the "most" doesn't include the subtle variations in opinion among the minority that deviates from the literal view. I'll add a quote from a recent Church President as well. --Taivo (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Taivo, stop trying to create a red herring to divert attention away from the basis of my arguments and then telling me to "admit" things that I'm not even debating and subtly twisting words from "historically accurate" to "literal history" and so on. You didn't even attempt to answer the concern I raised over the fair comparison, which I called apples-to-oranges, and took some time and went into quite a bit of detail to try and explain it as best I could. The only thing in your response that I could find to relate to it was a curt response that "I have not offered any valid reason why the beliefs of the majority of Mormons concerning historicity are not relevant in the historicity section." Go back and re-read what I wrote and tell us how comparing the views of the elite community of one side of the equation is a fair comparison to the views of the populist and common views of the other side of the equation. I am going to start a new section because I believe this whole section is a big red herring which you began to divert attention away from my original concerns. I never did dispute the fact that this is probably what most mormons believe. Most mormons are busy raising families and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus and become better people. Most don't have the time or the resources to get into arguments over semantics in trivial concerns. I asked you to provide credible evidence concerning your alternative hypothesis of the genesis of the BoM, to which you thought it over, and decided that your best argument in response would be to place the adjective "fertile" before "imagination." I can only deduce that this is evidence of your utter ignorance of the state of Mormon apologetics. There is an abundance of evidence to prove that it is not plausible to attribute the BoM to the imagination of a backwoods upstate New Yorker of the 1820's. I will agree that Joseph Smith was not stupid, but he was very uneducated, which is beside the point, because it would be just as impossible for the smartest man alive in the 1820's to make assumptions on things such as Jewish customs, Ancient warfare, authentic place-names and person-names, and a myriad of other details within the text to stand the tests of scrutiny. Lay your cards on the table. You have a particular POV which you intend to push through the entire tone of this subsection by not only insisting on defending the critical POV, but by hoarding the entire subsection and wanting to be the principal author of the opposing (apologetical) viewpoint as well, of which you have neither sympathy for nor an expertise in-- and then trying to create arguments over trivial matters and semantics over your own words to fill the pages of talk so that the original concerns get lost in the maze. Ddweller (talk) 02:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Clarification of what information is relevant to Historical Authenticity

This article is about the Book of Mormon. The subsection titled "Historical Authenticity" should then, of course, directly pertain to the question of the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself. It should be brief and to-the-point, and should summarize material that is of the highest importance to the arguments about the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself. If should not, therefore be concerned with tangential concerns. If there is a wikipedia article or subsection that is directly concerned with "Popular interpretations of the Book of Mormon," then that would be the place to make a statement such as "Most Mormons believe such-and-such about the Book of Mormon." Likewise, if there is an article of subsection that is directly concerned with "Traditional views of the Book of Mormon," then that would be the place to make a statement such as "In 1974, So-and-So believed such-and-such about the Book of Mormon."

The first section of this subsection focuses on the general criticism of the plausible Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and emphasizes an academic approach to contemporary criticisms. Accordingly, it would ONLY be fair to limit the counter POV to academic apologetics. As far as "Historical Authenticity" goes, I just don't see how offering a factoid about what the majority of popular opinion happens to think about it is relevant, and I can only deduce that such statements are inserted into the section to belittle and besmirch a subsection of society (who is not principally concerned with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon but rather by abiding by its' teachings) by comparing them unfairly. The only opinions which are relevant to this subsection are those opinions from groups who are primarily concerned with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Once again, this article is about the Book of Mormon, as it stands on its own, and how it stands under various scrutinies from various sides. Ddweller (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to delete the following statement: "Most adherents of the LDS movement consider the Book of Mormon to be a historically accurate account." This statement only manages to besmirch a subsection of society by attempting to show how their beliefs are in conflict with a group of experts on the matter. If anyone can demonstrate how the contemporary opinions of a populist group such as the predominant mormon body directly affects the academic authenticity question of the actual Book of Mormon as it has stood for 200 years, then you can make your argument. The information herein should only include the latest and state-of-the-art views of the academic communities of various sides. Ddweller (talk) 03:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't delete until you've built a consensus for deletion. You felt that the old version was not subtle enough in distinguishing different varieties of thought. I agree with you on that, so that's why a consensus was built on the issue and I added some wording to improve the idea that there are many different variants of belief. Just because you disagree with one of the sentences that was in the older version doesn't mean you can delete it. Maunus asked for more references, so I provided them. Build a consensus. Don't just go deleting things. What the rank and file of the church believes about historicity is absolutely relevant to a section on historicity. It's not disparagement, it's just a statement of where the membership stands. If the rank and file didn't accept it as a historical document, then that would also be relevant. The section is on historicity, what critics think about it, what the rank and file thinks about it, and that apologists are working to 1) discredit the former, 2) prove the latter, or 3) reconcile the two. That is perfectly relevant content for a section in historicity. If this were about the Bible, for example, a section on science would be a perfectly natural place to mention the strength of a belief in 6-day creation within conservative denominations. And this isn't about "authorship", it's about building consensus wording and making the article better. I get no credit for "authorship" here or anywhere else based on this. Your comments are coming close to incivility. While being blunt about the issues is OK, it is not OK to make personal attacks. --Taivo (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating that you show utter ignorance on the state of Mormon apologetics is not a personal attack. It was stated thusly to show that you are out of place in trying to be the principal author of both the critical and apologetic POV's when you clearly and demonstrably have a particular POV and an ignorance and/or a disdain for the credentials of the opposing POV. While you claim that I am uncivil, you make broad assertions as absolute fact on this forum that Joseph Smith made up the entire Book of Mormon, and when you are asked to explain your rationale behind such statements, you retreat by saying it is not important. Why do you so strongly emphasize it if it is not important? It is important insomuch as you have a clear history on this forum of strong-arming opposing POV's by twisting words, deliberating, and then saying "Who, me?" or "Don't be uncivil." You seem to emphasize a consensus, but when I add something that is relevant, you delete it and say I must first build a consensus; but then you add something supposedly relevant, and you expect it to be left alone to be the foundation of the argument over the semantics of your original statement, in areas which you neither have sympathy nor expertise. I don't have any reason to have an opinion of you personally-- I don't pick fights with screen names or pseudonyms. Who you are or what you are like does not concern me. What you say does.

I don't understand what you insist is a "consensus." When Bubba from Nowhere USA chimes in and says "Not no scientist is alive that dadgum 'de say that that there Booka Morman ain't nothin' but superstishun and that Joe Smith he right rascally" and then PZkilladoGG from Los Angeles responds with "Word up, dogg right-on yo." And then Taivo confirms "So let it be done." Is that a consensus? You should let those who are more informed than you are about the state of Mormon apologetics write up the position that Mormon apologetics generally hold. If you then want to engage on long and drawn out debates on semantics, inferences, and word placements, then we can go from there. Don't say that the present wording is the result of long debates on the subject, because all I see when I read this forum is one person offering credible concerns, and then you strongballing them and outlasting them to maintain your POV, and thus the cycle has gone and continues to go it seems.Ddweller (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert, until you can show how the populist or traditional views (1.)Directly--not tangentially-- pertains to the question of historical authenticity and (2.)Is a fair --i.e. apples-to-apples-- comparison to the preceding criticism. If not, then this material only belongs in the lengthier and comprehensive article about historical authenticity. Ddweller (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revert back until you have reached some sort of consensus. I don't have to prove anything since the wording has already been the subject of discussion and is the result of consensus-building. What Mormons believe about historicity is absolutely relevant to the section on Historicity. Your only argument against the statement is that it offends you. --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what I know about Mormon apologetics, so to call me "ignorant" is a personal attack. If you persist in your incivility, I'll have to report you. My personal opinions about Joseph Smith and the BOM are clearly stated by me as my own POV, and you actually asked what I thought. That's not incivility. You're free to believe what you want, I don't disparage your right to believe whatever you want. And so far, you haven't really added anything. If you want to actually engage in a discussion point-by-point, then do so, but when you've been asked to contribute something positive, you just keep complaining about the current state of the text. When you and I agree, then that's a consensus at this point since you and I are the only two talking. You said that the paragraph as previously written didn't really address the variety of positions within the minority view that the BOM isn't literal. So I added phrasing that brought that out. If you don't like the phrasing, then say so, but you keep going off on tangents without addressing the points. The previous wording was agreed to by consensus. Before it gets changed then a new consensus must be reached. You don't get to just delete and make major revisions without that. We agreed that some subtlety needed to be added. So it was added. Next issue. But your previous post was nothing but incivility. --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer the question then. How do you show how the populist or traditional views (1.)Directly--not tangentially-- pertains to the question of historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself and (2.) Is a fair --i.e. apples-to-apples-- comparison to the preceding criticism. And don't threaten me. If you're going to report me then do it. I have not been uncivil by pointing out your demonstrable ignorance as to the genesis of the Book of Mormon. It was for the purpose of demonstrating your inadequacy of hawkishly (that's not uncivil, either) guarding a POV that is not your own and you have no expertise in. If you are not ignorant of Mormon apologetics, then by all means, give an accurate description of what they espouse in your section about them. Don't say, essentially, that most Mormons hold a view that is against science.Ddweller (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If you insist on keeping the portion about "most Mormons..." then I insist on inserting the word "generally" before "historically accurate account" to better reflect the true position of the rank-and-file of the church, and so as not to "mind true things by what their mockeries be." The vast majority of the church are not fundamentalist in their interpretation of the scriptures-- in either the Bible or the BoM. The wording beforehand made it seem as though they are (strictly fundamentalist). Ddweller (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already said why the general view on historicity is relevant to this section. It is a section on historicity--it says what critics think, it says what mainstream Mormons think, and it says what apologists are generally trying to do. All three items are relevant. Your continued personal attacks directed at me are inappropriate. You have no idea what level of knowledge I have of the BOM and its origins, of the critical literature, or of the apologetical literature, so your insults are uncivil. I suggest you move beyond the personal attacks and discuss the issues at hand. The "generally" is not a bad addition, especially since it mirrors some of the wording in the Southerton quote. --Taivo (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The comment about the Utah-based churches exactly reflects the quote out of Southerton and the facts on the ground--that in the Community of Christ, the historicity issue is ignored and the book is often treated as historical fiction, even by the leadership, but that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the leadership still emphasizes the literal text on Native American origins, etc. But it's a minor point and certainly not worth pushing overly much (that's why it was in a footnote). --Taivo (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Word up dogg, right on yo. Glad we could at least come to a consensus on something. It is a better section than it was when we began this session, if not by much, and it has mended one or two of some of its craftily misleading statements. More importantly though, I have confirmed my suspicion when I began this-- that wikipedia is essentially worth crap, containing information controlled by whoever is the most obsessive and persistent in lurking and strongarming his or her own personal agenda, with footnotes as a mere pretense. I expect that it will revert back to your complete and personally satisfactory POV within the coming week. But I'm done with this business trip and this motel, so Adieu. Ddweller (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Ddweller as to his edits bringing the article more into a neutral point of view. Many of his edits have changed the negative connotations of the wording into more of an encyclopedic format, as opposed to opinions and personal belief. --LDSFaithFighter2009 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)