Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Style for article

I checked out similar articles for Qur'an and Bible as well as the Sacred text article. Enlightening style guides. Good required reading for any would-be editors of this page. Hawstom 21:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I found an article at the back of the LDS Church's current edition of the B of M that is titled "A Brief Explanation". Unlike the "Introduction" in that same edition, it is quite NPOV and might be an improvement on the pretty good article that is here. I may see whether it would be permissible to quote such a beast or use it here. Hawstom 22:53, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Separate Article for each Book

Do we need a seperate article for each of the books in the Book of Mormon? I think they should be merged into one article. Noldoaran (Talk), 16:13, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. There are currently stub articles for all the books, but none of them contain much information. Unlike the Bible, there is not a great deal of independent historical or incidental information for each book. An article for a particular book would just amount to a summary of the text, which should be short enough to fit in one article. The historical, etc., information that would be of interest in an encyclopedia article would regard the Book of Mormon as a whole.COGDEN 16:58, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I disagree. There is plenty of exegesis to be written for each book-article. If you remove them, they will eventually be spun off as the exegesis becomes to unwieldly for this article...but far be it from me to stop you guys on this one. B 17:18, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
On second thought, I am ambivalent. In the short term, there is not much material on each individual book in the Book of Mormon, and a single article would be more coherent. On the other hand, in the long run, I think that BoNoMoJo is right that there will eventually be lots of exegesis, and a single article would become unwieldly. Maybe we should just leave things as they are. However, I think the articles should be called by the full name of the book, such as "Second Book of Nephi", rather than "2 Nephi". I had already moved "1 Nephi" to First Book of Nephi. (Not sure what to do about the ": His Reign and Ministry" part of the title.) COGDEN 19:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I agree with your point about First Book of Nephi. B 20:34, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
I agree that there is room for growth and that there is little need to combine. Might check the treatment of other sacred texts in Wikipedia. Are most expanded by book? Qur'an? See sacred text. Hawstom 21:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

But the books of the BofM do not and never have stood alone. The Book of Mormon is a monolithic composition and never purported to be otherwise. From that POV, what sense does it make to arbitrarily assign an article to each sub-book just because it has a name? Is there any real difference between 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi or between 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi. Truly they are really just chapters in the long record. Does anybody really feel that The Book of Jacob ought to stand on its own any more than Isaiah Chapter 55? Even the 23rd Psalm doesn't have its own Wiki article. Why proliferate articles when there is already overwhelming work to be done on the existing ones? Hawstom 18:29, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

RE: Hidden Comments

Hawstrom - To some of your hidden comments in the text: Yes the Book of Mormon is published by other churches besides the LDS Church. I also agree that it would be helpful to those eding this page if they read those other pages (Qur'an, Bible and Sacred Texts) prior to editing this page. If you'll notice though, these other pages have silenced any controversy that has been introduced about the sacred texts. Since they have a history of over a thousand years, they can squash it better than a sacred text that has only been around for 170+ years. I think they are missing a lot of information in not allowing the information to be included (or as seperate controversies articles), and the issue will certainly be introduced soon. May want to look at the discussion going on at User talk:Eloquence#Book of Mormon controversies regarding NPOV issues and overviews of sacred texts. I personally like this format and think it could solve issues that are occuring on other controversial sites. Part of the discussion states:

The page gives (and should give) an overview of what it says it is (and to your point is not the exclusive domain of their believers - although wikipedians seem to be censoring those type of pages as a whole, which I can understand). I think MOST of the the controversies are better handled in another forum, allowing the main page to give an overview.... This would save a lot of problems on the Mother Teresa page if they left the page be a simple biographical sketch of her life and then had two other pages on achievements and controversies. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but in that article's case there isn't enough sense in the editors to realize this (because it is so heated, not that they aren't smart). I do think that more criticism needs to be added into other sacred texts articles, as the editors don't seem to allow outside opionion and controversy. I think the controversy article about the book of mormon is a very good start on a great thing. I think people can argue with content within articles about main subjects themselves, but they can't argue with a seperate controversies page.

Happy editing Visorstuff 22:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mmm, Visorstuff, we need to be sure on this Book of Mormon publishers thingie. I know that in the past RLDS published BofM and that they and LDS have different chapter/verse scheme. But I just can't find any web reference to anybody publishing BofM currently except LDS. Can you provide add'l info? Hawstom 17:48, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The Community of Christ published at least one distinct edition in 1908. It can be found online at COGDEN 18:13, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Anything since 1908 outside the LDS Church? Hawstom 04:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The Community of Christ also created a Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon in 1966. The Zarahemla Research Foundation of Independence, Missouri also created a Restored Covenant Edition in 1999 with the words of Christ in red. --NateT 04:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's some links - yes the Community of Christ still publish the Book of Mormon (so do the Hedrickites). Do they de-emphasize it? Yes. But it is still part of their canon.,,, and they even offer a course on it found at They do not emphasize it as much as the LDS Church. I am however, unsure on what date the current edition was first printed. They may still use the 1908 edition which was put into verses, etc. But they definately publish the book (and incidentally, the Inspired Version (JST) of the bible). Visorstuff 07:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have yet to see the BofM for sale anywhere but at LDS outlets. Please show me. Hawstom 18:33, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Check out Herald Publishing House, the offical publisher for Community of Christ. --NateT 04:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Eliminating the Controversies Page

While User:Eloquence is working on a proposal for this page, I think it may be good to look at how criticisms of the Bible are done - Higher criticism, textual criticism and Documentary hypothesis are a few that come close to the criticisms of Biblical texts. How does criticims come to play in the Bible page? On Qur'an? We should model after these. Visorstuff 00:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Golden Plates Page

Beginning of a Gold Plates article Hawstom 07:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)


The section headed with, "Consistency with Latter Day Saint doctrines after 1830" is typical anti-Mormon propaganda. It is a criticism of church’s non-adherence to Book of Mormon doctrine as the author interprets it, as well as criticism of doctrine that is not even contained in the Book of Mormon. This belongs on the Controversies regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints page, if anywhere. I am seriously considering disputing the neutrality of this page if this section remains. Rsduhamel 06:55, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That section was written by an LDS writer, COGDEN, trying to give a neutral historical POV. He is more liberal in his historical viewpoints than the other LDS editors on the page, but is not incorrect in his statements. Most of his edits seem to pull from fringe Mormon historians (by stating this I do not mean non-reputable, just most mainstream Mormon historians consider them on the edge in their assumptions or question their agenda like D. Michael Quinn), fairly new research, and connecting statements in isolated journals rather than the Journal Histories. Although I do not like the statements, they are factually correct. I think this is one thing that has led to other LDS editors taking a short sabbatical from major edits (see BoNOMoJo's user page). Nearly all of COGDEN's research is solid and you may want to look back at the archives of these and other Mormon pages as I've debated these and othter topics with him.

COGDEN, I hope no offence is taken, I'm just trying to give Rsduhamel my viewpoint on your edits. I've corrected the edits when I've been able to support my interpretation of Mormon history, but your writing is based on solid (and sometimes obscure) reseach, that can't be disputed. I guess it will all work out best in the end. I admire your non-apologetic neutrality, even if it seems contradictory to advice and direction given about Mormon historical research given by Elder Packer and others. The other benefit of your work is that it directly gives many answers to the Tanner's sloppy work. Keep up the good work, even if I don't neccessarily agree with your view of the more details the better. I do believe your edits are informative and much needed. I just wish it was in a Mormon wiki rather than in a general interest wiki.

On another note, Rsduhamel, please fill out your user page so we know a bit of your background and what you are working on. Also, when you are creating Mormonism or Latter Day Saint articles, please add them to List of articles about Mormonism. -Visorstuff 15:03, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In November the BofM page was a mess resembling a mudfight, and I did a major rework to try to discipline it. Part of what was there was the implied argument "And the Mormons don't really follow it anyway. It's just a bait and switch tool." I saw that argument as rather irrelevant to the BofM itself, and I still agree that it has more to do with the church than the Book. I believed that stating the argument explicitly would demonstrate its absurdity in a discussion of BofM. The danger at that time was in deleting wholesale all the arguments against the BofM on the page. Does that history help, and what do you think we should do? Hawstom 04:43, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for not filling in my personal page yet. I will as soon as I can but that may not happen right away.

I hadn’t read the Book of Mormon page until a friend of mine brought it to my attention. This friend found the implication that Mormons may not really believe the B of M and the section on consistency offensive. I agree and tried to neutrally correct the misleading statement on "Latter Day Saint views." The section on consistency, I believe, belongs on the controversy page.

Let me make it clear, I am not disputing the accuracy of any of the statements in the consistency section. However, as I said above, it is typical anti-Mormon propaganda. Just look at Bill McKeever’s page titled, "Test Your Knowledge of the Book of Mormon" ( It’s the same argument, i.e. “If the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, then where are all your beliefs in the Book of Mormon?”

I would have no problem with a general statement to the effect that, "Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth. However, many LDS doctrines do not originate there. Some critics have also charged that certain church doctrines are inconsistent with principles in the Book of Mormon.". This would include a link to the controversies page. This is a statement of fact, not an editorial, and it shows the reader where to read more. However, laundry-listing those arguments and their rebuttals on this page, in my opinion, just reads too much like anti/pro-Mormon arguing. Rsduhamel 08:12, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree with that. I also agree with that sentiment in general. This isn't a usenet forum. Hawstom 21:57, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm fine with someone making changes. I think there are enough of us that feel the same way to constitute a majority opinion on this. -Visorstuff 23:30, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not being a Mormon - and not personally believing the BofM to be genuine - I do find it amusing that other Christians accuse Mormons of having doctrines without clear support from their Holy Book! 20:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Which "Holy Book" do you mean: The Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants or the Pearl of Great Price? Any doctrines we "have" come from one of these standard works. Frecklefoot | Talk 20:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Linguistics in BoM articles

Hi, I've been the one who — over the past several months — has occasionally added Hebrew forms of BoM names, though only where the linguistics behind a name are known. I was wondering — since Arabic is also believed by LDS to be a contributing language to the BoM, would anyone here object if I added Arabic BoM forms to the various relevant articles? For instance, the official Arabic BoM has distinctive spellings for names such as Omni, Mosiah, Alma, Zarahemla, Helaman, etc. I thought it would be good detail. - Gilgamesh 07:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We named our 4 month old recently neutered cat, "Omni". What is Omni in arabic?... B|Talk 00:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is عمني ʿUmnī. Based on that and the BoM's transliteration Omni for the name, it would be reasonable to expect the logical Tiberian Hebrew form (the earliest Hebrew standard I can reasonably construct) to be עמני ʿOmnî. Of course the believed date of the Book of Mormon's beginning is c. 600 B.C., which predates Tiberian Hebrew by approximately 1500 years. Anyway, in both cases, emphasis is on the second syllable, and the first consonant in both cases (the left-leaning apostrophe-like object) is a voiced pharyngeal consonant, something rare in most of the world's languages, but plentiful in Semitic languages. - Gilgamesh 00:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, since I don't see objections, I think I could start adding Arabic forms to the articles. In the language headers I'll link to Arabic language of the Book of Mormon (for which I've also prepared briefer redirects to the same), and give the Arabic form as it appears in the published Arabic Book of Mormon. By the way, I encourage people to review the new article for factual accuracy, copyediting, NPOV, etc., in a respectful and courteous matter. - Gilgamesh 00:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Why is this category inappropriate? Historians consider the book to be pseudohistory because it doesn't employ any standard method for discovering and documenting historical facts. Mormons may dispute whether it is pseudohistory, but holocaust deniers dispute the tag as well, just as creationists dispute the pseudoscience tag, but since their ideas do not follow an accepted method, and are not accepted by mainstream historians, that is irrelevant to whether we mention that they are considered to be pseudohistory. Deleting the tag or leaving out the criticisms of mainstream historians is not NPOV. Joe D (t) 08:04, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not sure who removed, but agree that it should be included, if desired. -Visorstuff 15:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter what secular historians think. In Wikipedia, secular views are just as valid as religious views, or even racist views. Categorizing the Book of Mormon under Category:Pseudohistory is in effect a non-NPOV argument that the Book of Mormon is pseudohistory. I think the problem is in the category name itself. I think it should be changed to something like Category:Nonstandard history. (Note that Category:Alternate history is already taken, and as defined, it is probably just as inappropriate a home for the Book of Mormon as Category:Pseudohistory. COGDEN 21:47, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it should matter what secular historians think. Defining something as pseudohistory does not neccesarily state that it is false, it states that it does not follow the standard method of discovering historical truth, something that applies to the Book of Mormon whether you consider it to be fact or not. Joe D (t) 22:02, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. The prefix pseudo- means false or counterfeit. Pseudohistory is false history, not merely controversial or nonstandard history. Besides there is no "standard method of discovering historical truth" that I am aware of, and upon which everyone would agree. Besides, your statement that the Book of Mormon does not follow standard historical methods presumes the fact that Joseph Smith didn't actually translate an ancient record, something which is a point of view not shared by many of the Wikipedia audience. Moreover, if pseudohistory is defined as you say, we should also categorize the Bible article as Category:pseudohistory. But personally, I don't want to get stoned by a mob of angry Christian fundamentalists who believe the Bible is 100% historical fact written by the finger of God, the world's most accurate historian. COGDEN 00:24, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Though I am an LDS of a more scientific discipline, I agree with COGDEN that this type of subject demands equal parity to be NPOV. Either all religious chronicle texts are defined as pseudohistory, or none of them are. I also object to "pseudo" as it implies "false". Here at Wikipedia we do not decide such things when it comes to someone's belief, which is itself usually not a scientific thing. Until a pan-religion-topic concensus can be found on this issue, I'm removing the category until we discuss the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Hindu texts, the Qabbalah, Gaelic mythology, Hawaiian religion, all of it. Because it's going to be sacred and believed as truth in someone's eyes, and the definition of "pseudohistory" first must be crystal clear in everyone's eyes with full concensus before we go around labeling it on religious text articles. Afterall, if "pseudo" means "false", then it's unscientific because the scientific method doesn't disprove them — it merely cannot prove nor disprove their truthfulness either way, for lack of empirical evidence. - Gilgamesh 03:08, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I completely agree - Pseudepigraphia is the study of texts whose authorship and authenticity is "disputed," not "false." In this case the connotation and denotation are in conflict. Definitely the Book of Mormon texts are disputed, but are not proven false. I do agree with COgden that a more appropriate category should be used, but I don't see the current as a problem - it is a disputed history, and according to the referenced "methods" (however reliable and unreliable) it fits into the discipline. -Visorstuff 16:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, the term pseudepigrapha technically means false epigraph. That is, they are works that are ascribed to an author who didn't actually write them. (I verified this in the Oxford English Dictionary.) COGDEN 22:52, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
And it would be POV to say the Bible and other mainstream texts are not disputed. - Gilgamesh 06:55, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this is the connotation by readers (as well as the "technical" explanation), then I agree, let's leave it off. However, I read the pre-fix "pseudo" as "disputed" or "unexplained," not "false." (However, this would bring up another question for the editor categorizing this topic - false epigraph - as in statue/historical marker inscription or motto/tag line? In this context it makes absolutetly no sense.)

Let's keep the category removed and reference the Oxford connotation COgden referenced as the reasoning why it is removed. Gilgamesh, incidentally, Muslims accept the bible as "scripture," but don't reference it like the Qur'an. The reason why is they believe that the bible was altered in the second century and prior by those "believers of the book" (Jews and Christians) who had ulterior motives. That was one reason why the Prophet Muhammed was called (I'm oversimplifying and have probably offended in my explanation. Sorry!). I tell you this (which you probably already know), because they would say that many parts of the Bible are disputed or false. In this way, almost a third of the earth's population (1.8 Billion) believe that the bible is either false and/or disputed historically. And that is just taking into account the Islam nations. Most non-Judeo-Christians would not care one way or the other. So, I think it is perfectly NPOV to say the bible is a disputed text, but that is irrelevant now that you and COgden have convinced me to leave off the disputed category. Hope I'm not sounding to lecture-y, just trying to give context on my view. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 20:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eh, that's cool. You've been clear. - Gilgamesh 04:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, whether or not one reguards the BoM as psudeohistory, it's definately not NPOV to categorize it as such. --Nerd42 22:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Facsimile translation deletion

I removed the following from the section about BOM alternate theories:

These theories were advanced after Egyptology managed to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, some huge abnormalities were found. Smith's translation of a Hypocephalus called Facsimile no. 2, for example, included problems such as Smith translating the gliph for 'water' into a three sentences about false gods. In places where characters had worn off, he was divinely inspired to replace them with characters (written upside down) which translated to mean that blacks couldn't attain the priesthood.

This has nothing to do with the article on the Book of Mormon. I am working on an article aobut the Hypocephalus which will allow this argument there. Indicentally, we've hashed over the incorrectness of the supposed "water" translation in other pages, including a rather lengthy discussion about the inconsistencies of Larson's work at Talk:Book_of_Abraham#Nonsense. This loosely defined theory is not closely supported by any non-Mormon scholars, except Charles and Stan Larson (not known if related) and the even the Tanners seems to flip back and forth on this theory. -Visorstuff 20:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV/POV through word usage

User:Tatarize suggested and made some edits saying that "Summary does not assume dispute. Stating book events as fact is PoV." I disagree. Nearly every topic in the Wikipedia could be disputed. If you re-read Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it allows for both sides of every agument, however, topics are to be stated for what they claim to be rather than what others claim about them. To add in words like "supposed," "might," "is said to have," "was said to have," "claims" breaks up the reading of any article, and frankly is poor writing. In addition to poor writing, if we edited Tatarize's talk page how he edited this section it would read something like this (not an attack, just a lighthearted illustration, would love more insight into your edit):

I claim to be currently working on expanding what I consider to be the heck out of what claims to be the Stargate SG-1 information page. Don't get me wrong, but the supposed Star Trek article is said to have information on alleged characters that I claim I haven't even heard of, and I've allegedly watched all the episodes that claim to be shows....

This is not a personal attack of any sort, just using it to illustrate a point on writing. It is better that articles - especially those on controversial subjects (including religious topics and sacred texts) - state what the belief, doctrine or whatever (literary work in this case) as it is given by believers/adherents (or what the book claims in this case). Then, an alternate explanation can be given and evidence/research introduced that says why or why not it could have been a probable explanation/theory.

In this way, the readers do not stumble over words and are given both sides of the argument. With that said, I suggest we revert back the changes, but want other imput first. Tatarize, I may be persuaded the other way, but need to hear more thoughts about the word usage and your POV issues with the article. I agree with you that the article could be more balanced, but the word usage you introduced is not the right approach. I look forward to your reccommendations on how to improve the article. Other thoughts? - User:Visorstuff 11 Jan 2005

IMHO the changes made by Taterize are inconsistent with good english - the absense of the present tense, the book claims to do such and such - the assumption on this page is that one summarizes the book - controversy about the book is better placed in the many other pages that discuss it. --Trodel 21:43, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) Can someone rollback this change - there was a lot of discussion before the current language was put in place and to change it without discussion first is rude. After discussion changes could be made based on the consensus
I revised the Summary of the book's narrative section to reflect the active voice again. The title and context clearly indicate that the summary is "of the book's narrative" and the constant use of POV language to challenge the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is inappropriate. Trodel 12 Jan 2005 (don't remember the time - it was morning - forgot to sign)
The primary problem with the tone there is a reader who is doesn't already know about the Book of Mormon wouldn't be able to tell what is POV and what is fact about the work. The primary objection of POV is probably only going to occur in the BoM. The book makes claims of authorship, and these claims are easily assumed to be neutral facts about the work rather than claims made by the work. Making this distinction clearer does make the English sound horrific. Perhaps add a paragraph introduction about the dates and authors being claims of the book itself. Tat 10:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
”The Words of Mormon written in AD 385 by Mormon, is a short introduction to the books of Mosiah.”
The tone seems to step away from telling the story although, it doesn't actually. Non-Mormons and critics wouldn't agree. The Book of Mormon says it was written by Mormon. The book of Mormon says it was written in AD 385. This is not made clear. Author and date are typically neutral. However it's unknowable if these are concrete facts or part of the narrative.
”He included the books 1 Nephi to Omni, then abridged large quantity of collected records detailing the national history from the end of Omni until his own time.”
Again, somebody who isn't familiar with the BoM wouldn't be aware that this is a claim by the book of Mormon that such a person existed and worked on the book. It seems to be a statement of fact.
"Ether is an abridgement (misspelled in article "abridgment") by Moroni, written shortly after his father, Mormon's, death."
Again, talking about the abstract of the construction of the book would be assumed to be neutral. It is not however. As these are again claims of the book.
"Moroni then witnesses the final destruction of his people and the idolatrous state of the remaining society."
The prior lines establishes Moroni as an author of a book that actually exists and therefore a real person outside of the Book of Mormon itself. Adding the impression that the events are statements of fact witnessed by a real person. Tat 10:45, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My reading of the article is that it is clear that there are alternate explanations for the Book of Mormon. Many of which are discussed in the Origins section. As pointed out above, the narrative of the Book of Mormon is confusing enough and to replace the simple declartive sentences with more complex ones only makes it more difficult to understand the summary. The New Testament is treated similarly with the brief summary attributing the books as described internally by the Bible, but a section on [[New Testament#Authorship|Authorship] that discusses modern critical inquiry.
I do agree however, that the summary could use an explanation at the top because the Book of Mormon is so unfamiliar to others - maybe similar to the "A Brief Explanation" that is discussed under style on this page - did any of that discussion ever lead to an addition to the pages. Trödel 17:32, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tat, excellent examples. I agree that they should be fixed, but in a blanket statement up near the top, such as Trodel suggests. Do you want to take the initial stab at fixing? -Visorstuff 19:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the consensus is against my fixing of things. It just needs to establish the claims as part of the book and not independent objective analysis. The best corollary I can think of is to state Huck Finn wrote the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn which is a claim made by the book not objective fact. Very few books make claims as to who the author actually is. However if the claim is made it should be stated as such. There's just a problem there. Go ahead and fix it. I'll pass. Tat 01:39, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

/* Latter Day Saint views concerning the book's historicity */

I removed the following because (as a Mormon) I don't think it is true: "But not all Latter Day Saints consider the Book of Mormon to be a work of history. Some see the book as a work of inspired or divine fiction, similar to the Book of Job or the parables of Jesus Christ. "

From my experience, if a person does not accept the Book of Mormon to be true, they cannot be baptized. It is a fundamental principal, that members of the church believe that the book is true in every sense of the word.

My appologies if the statement I removed was in reference to another "mormon" sect, but if that was the case it needs to be clarified.

smith as "prophet"

Anyone ever notice that every time one of this " prophecies" doesnt come true, the LDS tries to forget about said now bunk prophecy?

Youll also notice that none of said "prophecies" have ever actually come true?

herss a source Gabrielsimon 03:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to argue about this - if you have non-orginal research re these prophecies - please provide quote to the article/location and discuss. 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) (signing my deleted comments)

to reiterate herss a source Gabrielsimon 14:11, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

before adding stuff, specially about this prophecy thing, or anything elseive edited, why not try reading the link i just posted....? Gabrielsimon 14:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will happily read your reference - however, that does not excuse your behavior of deleting my comments below. 14:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey guys, check out Joseph Smith as a Prophet and let's write down the controversy. Jgardner 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Restoring comment deleted by Gabrielsimon (Again restoring my comments - which are signed), (3rd time I am restoring my comment), 4th restore, 5th restore of my comments, 6th restore

Recent edits to claim that the BoM is changed, that prophecies have been unfulfilled, etc. are not supported either on this page or in the comment to the edit. Additionally, attributing a books claim of its historicity to the book is sufficient to describe that it is a particular view point - it is POV to add edits like "alleged", "sole", "created", and then use scare quotes are around words like "translated", "divine inspiration" and "golden tablets". Then to claim no one else has seen them when there are (granted disputed by some) at least 11 people who have claimed to see the plates. The issues are already covered sufficiently in the critical view seciton. 13:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR violation
Please do not delete my comments from a talk page.
Additionally, I am sure you know this but you violated 3RR on Book of Mormon - I will not revert but I am sure other editors will because the comments are clearly POV. If you continue to revert I will have no choice but to request a 24-hour block. 14:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) copied from here

justbecause you might beleive in the religion doesnt mean that the wording should be of believers only, otherwise all relgion articles would be thus, and they arent, for consitancey and for the simple fact that its no point of view, the wordings whould be modifed from your point of reversion, additionally, i did not violate 3rr, so i removed that, if its no trouble. Gabrielsimon 15:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV, "If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone." (emphasis added)
Also I think you did violate 3RR, (removed references - see kelly) - and my patience with trying to be understanding (since I am assuming you are new to Wikipedia) is wearing thin given your reverts of my comments. 15:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've examined the edits in question and in my opinion they do not constitute reverts. In any case, both of you are editing this article too aggressively. Please take a moment to stop and try to reach a compromise, and give other editors a chance to offer their opinion. If the high rate of edits continue, it may become necessary to protect the article. Kelly Martin 15:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I very much appreciated that you restored my comments on the talk page, please [[review the full history of the edits and you will see that I had not "...edit[ed] this article too aggressively." I feel this claim is unfair and my actions have been completely reasonable especially since he outright deleted my comments 7 times. I reverted once (my personal rule re page edits) and this is the first time I have been told that was too agressive. -ANON 18:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Prophecies section. The first problem with these are the examples: Civil War, temple in Missouri. Both of these are not found in the Book of Mormon. This isn't the best place for them. 18:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've read the whole thing, and you are absolutely 100% correct. Just because Joseph Smith is claimed to have said something, doesn't mean it was in or supported by the Book of Mormon. --Nerd42 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I don't actively contribute to this article, but what is the problem with Gabrielsimon? He's been told over and over again that his edits are inappropriate and he keeps making them over and over. Shouldn't he be banned?

His issues:

  1. The Golden Plates were never photographed: The word "Photography" wasn't even coined when Smith translated the plates. Even if photography were common back then, he was commanded not to flaunt them about. Photographing them would be a direct violation of a direct commandment. He did show them to 11 witnesses who never—never—recanted on their testimonies of seeing and handling the plates, even though some of them later fell away from the Church. Since they had become disenchanted with the Church, wouldnt' recanting their testimonies be the best way to discredit the Church if they really hadn't witnessed the plates?
  2. Unfulfilled prophecies: Totally off-topic for this article (as states above). Nevertheless, the stated prophecies are not canonized scripture of the Church. Also, many talks and lectures were copied down by hand and contain numerous errors and so forth.

Really, Gabrielsimon is just making more work for the rest of us that are trying to improve Wikipedia. Frecklefoot | Talk 20:48, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)= a missing land =

heres a thought, just a thought , but considering the timeline that the book of mormon speaks of, why is it then that none of the native american , (ir incan area peoples) legdends speak of a place such as the lands described in said book? surely they would have been noticed, but as far as i have researched native american mythology and oral history ( extensively, might i add, i quite enjoy that topic) i find no mention oif any lands even remotely resembling the described localities in the book of mormon. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 21:24 (UTC)


(Problems with the book of mormon)

this link is a valid viewpoint about the topic in question, rempoving it seems POV to me, so please stop removing it. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)

its ok for you to have an opinion on whee it goes, and as you advise, ill put it there too, but since its about hte book, directly, it goes where the books page goes, its only common sense. im sorry if the page offends you, but its still a valid point of view, even if its not mine. Gabrielsimon 29 June 2005 22:30 (UTC)

  • Have no fear, I'm not offended by the content. I truly have no opinion on the subject, but you are choosing to ignore conensus. That is troubling. I think it doesn't belong here, but what does, and is missing is a See Also section linking to those other items. I believe I will fix that.Wikibofh 29 June 2005 22:42 (UTC)
    • Nevermind. They are there, I just missed them. Wikibofh 29 June 2005 22:43 (UTC)