Talk:Book of Mormon

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).

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)

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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs)

I'm in agreement withUser:Taivo as to his edits, using required WP methodology; this is not an lds tract and cannot be allowed to become one. Cheers. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A few comments on the situation:

• I oppose the deletion of the sourced content (though not an ideal source, it'll do).

• I support these small changes by Ddweller.

• It may be worth noting that 1) accurately relating historical accounts is not one of the Book of Mormon's self-stated purposes on the title page, and 2) the title page also includes the disclaimer that "if there are faults [in this book,] they are the mistakes of men".

• The section uses a bulleted list. While I am, in fact, using a bulleted list right now, in this instance I think prose would be better.

• The list of anachronistic animals could probably be put in a footnote instead of the article's main text.

• FARMS and FAIR are mentioned, but their specific rebuttals are not. Perhaps notable rebuttals should be included?

Depending on how Real Life (tm) treats me, I may or may not come back and try to make some edits based on these comments, assuming consensus emerges around them. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Second bullet isn't a problem and represents the current text. Rebuttals don't really belong here other than to mention general work. The section in question is a general list of problems that critics have, it's not the place to give detailed information on rebuttals other than to mention that rebuttals exist. The place for more detailed information is at Historicity of the Book of Mormon. This is an overview article, not the place for excruciating back and forth. The article as it stands is NPOV--"Here's the BOM, Here's what Smith said it is, Here's what the church believes it is, Here's how it is structured, Here's what critics think of it, Here's how the churches use it." That's enough for an overview and is balanced. The details of rebuttal and refutation don't belong here. The interested person can look at the detailed articles for that. --Taivo (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You've said that "the section in question is a general list of problems that critics have". I'm suggesting that it not be a list, but rather, a proper summary of the Historicity of the Book of Mormon article (according to WP:Summary style). I agree that "this is an overview article, not the place for excruciating back and forth", however, I feel that the section can be improved upon. I'll study up on the subarticle and think about it a little more over the next few days, and will then discuss and/or make edits accordingly. ...comments? ~BFizz 06:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

With sensitive articles like this it is always preferable to discuss first and edit only after consensus is reached. --Taivo (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First attempt at adjusting Hist Auth section

I've taken a stab at changing the section from a list into prose. It's not perfect yet, but I think it's a good start. Now that the criticisms take up less space, we can expand a little more on how they are relevant to the Book of Mormon. I commented out the list of anachronisms, with the intention of moving them all into a single footnote. But I wanted some feedback before going further. ...comments? ~BFizz 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a controversial article and the bullet list has been stable for a long time. Please discuss here first. I think that bullet lists are more readable in general. Discuss first and build consensus before making substantial changes here. --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The bulleted list is(imho) unprofessional and does not allow for expansion on the bullet points. Not saying they need a ton more expansion, but some of they why is missing. The article may be controversial, but my edit was neither controversial nor substantial. It preserved almost all of the same concepts, but stated them more clearly. Are there any other objections you, or others, have concerning my edit? ...comments? ~BFizz 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the bullet format. The fact is that most readers of this encyclopedia are skimming the articles. They are in a hurry: think Twitter, not War and Peace. Long articles, and verbose prose are not very user friendly. As a long-time fan of big books, Im a bit saddened by that, but it is the trend. This encyclopedia needs more bullet lists, more tables, more pictures, more graphs (not to say the content should be shrunk ... I'm just talking about the format). --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the prose is an improvement. Bulleted lists are useful when the elements are disconnected, not when there's an actual train of thought that should be explained or further developed. Think encyclopedia, not powerpoint presentation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Precisely, VeroWhitney. WP:Layout#Paragraphs states that "Bullet points should be minimized in the body of the article, if they are used at all". WP:Embedded list further explains that "Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context" and "Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Lists have their place but I feel this is not one of them. ...comments? ~BFizz 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bulleted lists are highly preferred for reading comprehension in technical and academic writing because they convey information quickly and expeditiously, especially to readers who are only skimming material. While an article consisting of only bullet lists is unacceptable, a place, such as the historicity section, where there are four equally balanced items is a very appropriate place to use a bullet list to summarize information. Noleander is correct, today's reader often loses things if they are not presented properly. If a consensus cannot be reached on this, then a request for comment might be appropriate. --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

We might be wise to wait a little longer to see if others will chime in and provide insight on the matter before invoking an RfC. The comments regarding "today's reader" are well taken, but I'm still not convinced that a list is useful or necessary for this section. My primary reason being that the section is (or should be) flowing content that can be expressed in prose, which is the preferred format for an encyclopedia. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we cite the official position of the Smithsonian Institute which states “Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book (Book of Mormon)? The Smithsonian does not make sweeping generalities on insufficient evidence in either direction. http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html--Alan355 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Second attempt at adjusting Hist Auth section

Without ending discussion on my first attempt, please note that I've taken another stab at improving the second paragraph in the section. I'm jumping to the edit part, rather than acceding to Taivo's invitation to discuss first, because I find the request ridiculous. Nobody discussed the status quo with me before implementing it; in any event, I am fairly certain that 90% of Wikipedians would agree that this edit is a step in the right direction. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the reason behind Taivo's revert of this change. I appreciate that you retained the limited geography model mention, though I don't understand what it is that needs a citation. Nor do I understand how the previous bloated wording is better than my proposed version. ...comments? ~BFizz 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that your proposed change eliminated a summary of the various types of apologetics that have been written in favor of just a single type of apologetic--the limited geography. There are several different types of attempts that have been attempted, not just shifting to limited geography. The earlier version presented a complete summary of the apologetical literature, while your short version only mentioned and highlighted the limited geography version. Because the limited geography is a very common variant, it was a good addition, but the removal of the other types of apology as well as the implication that the limited geography was the only one was not a good change. --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few small edits to the paragraph; please review them. Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've no problem with the edits you made. Let me clarify what I mean by the three types of apologetics:

• Proving veracity: Proving the BOM text as it stands is literally true. While this is not as popular now as it once was, it is still found in the apologetic literature and is the most commonly held belief among the rank and file.
• Countering critical arguments: Proving that the methodology or assertions of the critical literature is untrue. An example of this would be showing that the DNA methodology showing NE Asian ancestry of Native Americans is somehow flawed or inapplicable to the text of the BOM. Also arguing that just because there is no archeological link doesn't mean that there can't be one--we just haven't found it yet. Arguing that wheeled toys are indicators of wheeled vehicles in the ancient Americas and not just toys.
• Reconciling the text to the evidence: Neither disputing the evidence nor the text, this tries to place the BOM story in a context that doesn't contradict either. The Limited Geography model is an example of this type of apologetic. Saying that the "horses" of the text were really tapirs, for example. This is the most common type of apologetic today.

All three of these approaches to apologetics can be found in the literature. Perhaps my wording can be tweaked, but it's important to list the three since they each take a different strategy and utilize different types of argumentation and evidence. --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning each type of apologetic response is useful and important here. It was a mistake for me to have removed them. Thank you for the very clear, concise, and well-thought-out presentation of your views on this matter. ...comments? ~BFizz 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the first point—proving veracity—I left a "clarification needed" tag on this because the current sentence is a bit ambiguous.

“ [Much work has been published by FAIR and FARMS] attempting to prove the veracity of Book of Mormon claims ”

This raises the question, what are the claims of the Book of Mormon? Are are they related to its historical authenticity? How? I think I understand what the sentence is trying to say, but it doesn't seem to say it quite right.

Taivo has clarified that the meaning of this sentence is "proving the BOM text as it stands is literally true", in other words (if I understand correctly), that the historical people, places, and events that it mentions all existed or happened as the BOM describes. How can we phrase this so that it comes across more clearly? Is there a better word than "claims" that is less ambiguous in this situation? ...comments? ~BFizz 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something as simple as "attempting to prove that the Book of Mormon is literal history"? --Taivo (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)