Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 10

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

..."Moving on" does not prove how the Nephites and the Lamanites got to the Americas. From what I have studied it would be nearly impossible, at least highly improvable that such a journey could have been accomplished, due to their current technological limitations. I do not want to debate over POV's, but instead debate over how reliable the theory of the journey of the Nephites and the Lamanites and how they managed to successfully arrived at the Americas...Project Gnome (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to debate a proposition, but Wikipedia is not a proper place for that caliber of discussion. If you want to edit the article, using referenced, notable experts, go for it. However, if you simply want to share your opinion (please review OR policies) and debate it, I would suggest a personal blog. On your blog you may want to check out feats of early sailing across the Atlantic among other things. As far as religious topics, you may also want to identify the scientific reality of Transubstantiation, Resurrection of Jesus, etc. Of course, your blog would be one of only countless others that have addressed these same questions ad nausaeum.
 * BTW, "moving on" was an invitation to drop the zealous, strident comments in the discussion. It was not intended to be an explanation of how, why, when, where, etc. of the possible Nephite traverse of the Atlantic hundreds of years before Christ. -- Storm  Rider  00:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, there is the alternate apologetic proposal that it was a trans-Pacific journey rather than a trans-Atlantic one. (Taivo (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes. As long as we are using reputable references all sides can be addressed. Thanks Taivo. I hope you will assist in resisting the type of conversation desired by Gnome and continue to encourage, as you have always done, to improve the article. -- Storm  Rider  01:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

Something's missing...
After reading the article, we are missing information on the original manuscript of the BOM (besides the missing 116 pages), which has an interesting history all to itself, should we add a paragraph or two? Twunchy (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If by "original manuscript" you mean Smith's English text, then that would be appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Oui, zees is what I mean.  Twunchy (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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

2) It would provide improve the consistency of the entire encyclopedia by paralleling the existing articles
 * Criticism of the Bible
 * Criticism of the Qur'an

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

Any suggestions are appreciated. --Noleander (talk) 02:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that all the criticism articles should not be summarized in a single "Criticism" article, but should be shortened, condensed, combined into a single criticism article and then deleted. Wikipedia should not be the place for just another critical/apologetic work, but simply a summary and reporting.  Too many of the articles as they stand right now are just argumentative and not encyclopedic (the linguistics article, for example, is so bad in this regard I don't even want to look at it).  Wikipedia is the place to simply list (without comment) the criticisms, not a place for either apologists or critics to argue the issue.  So, for example, a point should say, "Critics have written that DNA evidence runs counter to the historical claims of the book concerning Native Americans [reference to critical text, reference to apologetic text]", then move on to the next point.  All the paragraphs on "But apologists counter" or "Critics claim" that then focus interminably on some minutiae or that describe some minutiae in intricate detail (like all that chiasmus cr.., er, argumentation), are just not encyclopedic in nature, IMHO.  Instead of repeating critical texts or apologetic texts, summarize and let the Wikipedia reader look at the argumentative texts on their own.  That's my opinion--there's just too much garbage (on both sides of every BOM issue) in Wikipedia as it stands right now.  (Taivo (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the input. I agree that the format of most articles that contain crtical/apologetic information is of poor quality.  I tried to improve the text once or twice to be more encyclopedic (neutral, professional, direct, etc) but it never stays that way for long!


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


 * I am a proponent of consolidation and thus appreciate the concept of a single article through merging the rest. However, a review of what Wikipedia is not might be helpful. If you are recommending an "Index", I believe there once was one (it was called a list), but it got deleted because it resembled more of a screed and was found to be without neutrality. Most of the articles you listed above only exist because of the desire for criticism to be explained and responded to. Criticism does not exist in a vacuum on topics of religion. To be successful in this type of merger, it will require a dispassionate ability to be extremely concise for both sides.
 * Noleander, you have a penchant for the sensational. For example, that bizarre quote by Kimball that we discussed elsewhere is sensationalism, but it also does not represent the LDS Church. It represents his personal views. What was important and what I think the legitimate criticism is/was, was that the LDS Church's views on the priesthood were racist for a long period of time. If you can support this type of dispassionate discussion of the facts, then I would support you fully, but if you are looking for just another article for a new opportunity to repeat the sensationalism elsewhere, then I would oppose it strongly. -- Storm  Rider  16:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what the Kimball quote (relating to Skin Color) has to do with this proposal? This proposal is about creating a new article.  The use of "you" and "your" in your comment indicates you may be discussing editors, rather than the topic at hand, or am I misunderstanding?  The question is:  Would users of this encyclopedia benefit from a Summary Style article to help them find information?  Let's try to focus on that question.


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


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


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


 * If what you mean by summary style really means a list of everything that has ever been said by an anti-Mormon, then I am not on board at all. You and anyone with an ounce of academic background know for a certainty the the Tanners have a penchant for sensationalism. That is not to say they are "bad", one just has to be careful using them. They have done a great deal of research that has been beneficial to Mormon History, but they are not neutral.
 * No I don't thing criticism of the Bible or Qur'an be deleted, but I would sure like LDS article to resemble them, which they don't have haven't for quite some time. LDS article are unique on Wikipedia; no religion article resemble them. Storm  Rider  02:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

As we stated earlier, most of the 3,913 changes which we found were related to the correction of grammatical and spelling errors and do not really change the basic meaning of the text. Actually, the changes in the Book of Mormon do not even begin to compare with the serious changes found in Joseph Smith's revelations and in the History of the Church. Although we must not overemphasize the changes in the Book of Mormon, even changes in spelling and grammar are important when we consider the claims concerning the translation which were made by Joseph Smith and the witnesses to the book. Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon was "the most correct of any book on earth," and Martin Harris said that the words which appeared on the seer stone would not disappear until they were correctly written.
 * --Noleander (talk) 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Noleander, but adding that long quote from the Tanners is just too much running off at the mouth. This is an encyclopedia, neither a missionary tract nor a critical tome.  Therefore, the simple statement, "Critics think X" is quite sufficient.  That's my whole point about all these "X of the BOM" articles that are just rehashing the critical/apologetic arguments in minute detail that makes them worthless for an encyclopedia.  State the criticism or apologia succinctly and give a reference, then move on.  (Taivo (talk) 00:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Perhaps some history may be illuminating. I did a full re-write of the Criticism of Mormonism article a couple of years ago.  Each criticism was briefly, neutrally stated, with no quotes.  Just a sentence or two.   That lasted about 24 hours.  Then the apologists got involved and changed it to an unencyclopedic state.  Then the skeptics rebutted.  So the evolution went from (just paraphrasing here):


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


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


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


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


 * I've taken a stab at cleaning up the "Changes" subsection, per the above discussion. Let me know what you think.  --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Revision" was too much and implied more than is there for most of those "4000" differences. I tried to make the wording more neutral.  (Taivo (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Looks great! Thanks for working with me.  Now lets tackle the other 423 "critics say" sections in the various Mormon articles ... except the Linguistics article: that one gives me a headache.  :-)  --Noleander (talk) 03:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Here is the orginal section:


 * Relationship between plural marriage and sex

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

Here is the text added by apologists:

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


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

Tavio: please top edit-war: use talk page
Please discuss changes here first. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am using the Talk page, Noleander. But the text you want to add is repetitive and argumentative.  And please take two seconds to spell my name correctly.  (Taivo (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Sorry about the mis-spelling.  There are two issues to decide:
 * 1) How should the new Criticism of the Book of Mormon Summary-style article be referenced in this article
 * 2) Which article should the "4,000" changes issue go into.
 * My 2 cents: the Crit of BOM should be a small sub-section at the bottom of this article.  The "4,000 changes" should go into, hmmm, I cant see any other article that looks more appropriate than this one.  What is the "manuscript article"?  Would that be more appropriate?


 * BTW: the "4,000 changes" section is an old section containing noteworthy information, that has been in _this_ article for over a year ... maybe 2 or 3 years.  So please dont delete it without consensus.  Thanks.  --Noleander (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Read THIS article and you will see that 1) there is already a comment higher on the page about the existence of criticisms and 2) there is a subsection entitled "Manuscripts". I moved the changes comment to that section and removed the duplicate comment about the existence of criticisms.  Don't create an all-new section labelled "Criticisms" just to advertise a new article.  The "Criticisms" cross-reference can go up under the subsection higher on the page where criticisms are already mentioned.  (Taivo (talk) 12:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC))


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


 * The link can go either under the subheading "Allegations of Fabrication" or "Historicity". (Taivo (talk) 13:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC))
 * Done. Thanks for the suggestion.  --Noleander (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

4000 changes ... where to put it?
I think there is some confusion about the (now very terse) "4000 changes" paragraph, which reads:


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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

Sacred text
So that we have an entry here on the Talk page--The BOM is a sacred text for the LDS movement. That is a true fact. So the statement in the first line of the article is not POV in that it accurately reports the fact--that members of the LDS movement believe the BOM is a sacred text. It would be POV if the first line said, "The BOM is a sacred text." Obviously, for the majority of the long-time editors, this is a moot point. But since we've had a number of vandals recently claiming that the use of "sacred" in this context is POV, it doesn't hurt to have a placemarker here on the Talk Page to make sure that the issue is crystal clear. (Taivo (talk) 01:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC))
 * OK, so I feel silly for not reading my entire watchlist before reporting our anon IP for edit warring here. But there's a formal report there now :p  (Taivo (talk) 13:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

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

Moroni or Nephi
It can be clearly seen that Joseph Smith himself called the angel Nephi and not Moroni. Joseph Smith mother also recounted the angel's name being Nephi. This can all be seen Times and Seasons Vol. III pp. 749, 753, Millennial Star, vol. 3, p.53, Millennial Star. August 1842. Vol 3 p 71, Biographical Sketches, p. 79, and Pearl of Great Price, 1851 edition. Facts are facts no matter what a person thinks about them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.174.6.253 (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sign your comments. There are other editors watching this page who will surely make a comment.  If your evidence holds up, then we'll add it to the article once consensus is reached about it.  Wait and be patient for the discussion.  Actually, I have a problem with the accounts.  I'm familiar with quite a bit of anti-LDS polemical literature and this is the first I've seen of such a thing.  That makes me suspicious.  Do you have a reference from the Tanners for example?  (Taivo (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC))


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

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

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. -- Storm  Rider  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)

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).

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)

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)

Sealed Portion
People watching this page are requested to look at Articles for deletion/The Sealed Portion of the Book of Mormon. &mdash; RHaworth 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</I> the historical authenticity. Because of this, I propose that: (a.) "The <I>lack of</I> 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 <I>lack of</I> 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 <I>any</I> Native American group to the ancient Near East" (as if anyone has genetically sampled <I>every</I> possible group) be mended to read "The lack of DNA evidence linking <I>a specific contemporary</I> 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 <I>might</I> 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 <I>wikipedia</I>). 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, <I>with allowance made for "the mistakes of men" as stated on the title page of the Book of Mormon</I>" 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 <I>have been</I> many apologetical groups <I>attempting</I> to reconcile the <I>apparent</I> discrepancies" to read "Within the LDS movement there <I>are</I> many apologetical groups <I>whose purpose is to explain</I> or reconcile these and other <I>alleged</I> discrepancies.  These groups haven't all died off, and they do more than <I>attempt</I> 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, <I>most</I> 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 <I>book</I>.  This article <I>is</I> 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 <I>citing the Book of Mormon</I> and hinting that there <I>are, in fact</I> Mormons who hold a differing view that is consistent with the Book of Mormon text, which clearly and explicitly <I>allows</I> 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 <I>"Historical Authenticity,"</I> not <I> "Criticism of Historical Authenticity Claims."</I>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? -- Storm  Rider  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. -- Storm  Rider  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 <I>consensus within</I> the <I>non-Mormon</I> 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 <I>reason</I> why so many different hypotheses have come about attempting to explain its origins, and that <I>reason</I> 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 <I>about</I> 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 <I>rational/"scientific"</I> 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 <I>non-sequitur</I> (of the either/or type).  Here, the article implies that "either" the book was "divinely" inspired, and implicitly without <I>any</I> possible chance that there is human error involved in <I>any</I> 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 <I>in the general sense</I>.  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 <I>IS</I> 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 <I>are</I> mistakes), they are the mistakes of men."
 * While "What <I>most</I> Mormons believe <I>about</I> 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 <I>is</I>, 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 <I>Carte Blanche</I>, 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 <I>maybe</I> 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 <I>any</I> 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 <I>do</I> 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 <I>read</I> the book's title page to find out what position it holds <I>about itself</I>.
 * 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 <I>fact</I> with much disrespect toward a movement and a people who view it as sacred writ... what is <I>your opinion</I> 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 <I>attempt</I> 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 <I>was</I> 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 <I>own</I> 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)

All inhabitants?
There's a dispute about the inclusion of "the" in this sentence of the lede:


 * The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon not only as scripture, but as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas...

May I draw to your attention to the verb "regard", which is in the present tense. We're talking about what churches say now, and they haven't really been definitive lately about whether it was the entirety of Amercia's inhabitants, though they generally suggest it wasn't. So it makes sense to omit "the" for this case. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 21:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. To change our wording from "with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas" to "with some ancient inhabitants of the Americas" or "with ancient inhabitants of the Americas" is in my opinion muddying the waters. One key point of discussion and criticism about the Book of Mormon over many years has been whether it is a historical record.  This discussion continues.


 * If the churches inspired by the Book of Mormon have decided no longer to assert the claim that it is a historical record (because they no longer think it is, or because they believe so but are unable to offer proof) this change of stance is MAJOR NEWS to people interested in the Book. If this is the case, the "lede" section of the article needs to be forthright about the change, not just slip it under the radar by dropping or changing one word.  If such is the case, it seems to me a more appropriate rewording would be:


 * "For over 120 years (approx.) the churches of the LDS movement typically regarded the Book of Mormon not only as scripture, but as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas. In recent years, the churches have moved to a less all-encompassing doctrine, that the Book is not a historical record, or alternatively that it is a historical record relating only to a small, unidentified group of ancient inhabitants of the new world."


 * (I offer this wording as a basis for further discussion.) Wanderer57 (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wanderer57. Smith, the Book, and Church leadership right up into the modern era uniformly considered it to be the record of ALL the inhabitants (and I daresay there is a very large percentage of today's membership that still thinks that).  If this is about the book, then that cannot be swept under the rug.  --Taivo (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the introduction, it clearly states that "[the Book of Mormon] is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas". If the introduction says "the inhabitants", then I guess we're safe using the same phrase. As I was searching the article for information in the BoM intro, I noticed this source: Intro change in Book of Mormon spurs discussion. It is part of current ref #109, which is way too long, but that's another issue. The change was in 2006; if anyone is interested in documenting the church's apparently-changed stance about how widespread the BoM people were, this article will prove useful. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 00:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Online Link
I removed the link again, because the link adding it had no explanation.

PLEASE explain changes in the Discussion page (aside from minor ones). This article and this subject is complicated enough without having editors pushing material in and out for unexplained reasons. Often the reasons for changes are more complex than can properly be discussed in edit summaries. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I added The Book of Mormon Online because this is a good link and it is a good resource for the Study of the Book of Mormon!79.209.51.63 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Having apparently encouraged one editor to put their reason for adding a link on the Discussion page, it is only fair to ask editors who delete the link to join the discussion.


 * The term "linkspam" is jargon, not meaningful to many people, especially new editors.  Wanderer57 (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Good resource for the Study of the Book of Mormon" is not a valid reason to be here. This article is not a promotion for the LDS faith, but a reference for the text of the Book of Mormon.  The theological materials at the proposed link are not appropriate "study materials" for neutral readers of the BOM or neutral readers of this article.  They are only for the faithful and not relevant to the discussion of the text, which this is.  They are relevant for a discussion of the theology of the text, not the text itself.  We have two text-only on-line editions of the BOM, which is absolutely appropriate--text-only.  --Taivo (talk) 23:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anonymous, please see Wikipedia policy concerning external links. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 04:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

"golden plate" edit and other changes
This is to explain the edit I just made:

- I removed "citation needed" beside "golden plates" in the lead section. In the context of the article, the clause "According to Smith's account, and also according to the book's narrative," is a sufficient citation. Anyone who doubts that the Book says "golden plates" can look in the Book.
 * It would be a different matter if the article asserted that as an objective fact the plates were actually gold. It doesn't, it says that according to the narrative in the Book, they were gold.

- I removed the bit about the number of copies that have been printed. It interrupted the point being made in the paragraph. An important and impressive statistic but I'm not sure it must be in the lead section.

- I removed the qualification "most of them" about the titles of the books. This gets into more detail than is essential in the lead section, IMO. Though it should have a place in the body of the article.

Changes really should be accompanied by explanatory notes, especially in an article as complex as this one. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Wait instead of actually citing the book, you're justifying removing the citation needed tag by saying people "can look in the book." That would seem to be what citations are for, to tell where the statement is made in the book? --BenMcLean (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think this is relevant to your concern. When to cite   Wanderer57 (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh thanks very much. Wikipedia has tons and tons of policy pages; way too many for the average person to read. I didn't know about that but I know now. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many citations for one phrase
A phrase in the Origin section, "Critics of the Book of Mormon claim the book was fabricated by Smith", has six citations after it. This amount of citations seems excessive and may be undue weight on a particular point of view. I thought it appropriate to come to the talk page first to recommend paring down the number of citations. 72Dino (talk) 04:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I received no response after a couple of days, so I trimmed some references. One sentence has ten references after it.  I left three, which is more than sufficient to support the sentence. 72Dino (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Trim the citations. . . I just read that paragraph today, and it was distracting with 3 citations after each phrase.  Is it possible to put multiple citations in one note?  Adjwilley (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, but it requires abandoning Wikipedia's fancy meta-referencing formatting. I don't use that mess, but when I cite references in proper MLA or APA style someone comes along later and "reformats" everything to Wikipedia's programming language.  With Wikipedia's formatting, each reference is a separate footnote.  Kind of hyper-silly if you ask me.  --Taivo (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation hat-notes
Previously, we had:

to which was added also:

which was removed because "The Book of Mormon disambiguation page has this musical included. Putting a link here also is unnecessary clutter" and then re-added because "It is not unnecessary clutter. The musical page actually has more hits than this page on a daily basis and so needs to be more directly link".

I agree with the reasoning to include it (or something like it), since this is the main article on the page (and I agree with that) but (at least for now) there's another one that readers are apparently often interested in finding. Our goal is to make it easy to find what one wants, and the single "other uses" link does not seem to do that--article is titled with the topic one wants, then start reading the article, say "huh?" then back up and find a link to DAB, etc. I think it's best to direct readers as soon as possible that they may actually not want to be here, but somewhere else instead. How about instead at a minimum:

Or maybe to help readers directly instead of sending them on a journey of discovery,

DMacks (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely think a direct link to the Broadway musicals page is needed. If the page hadn't been attracting the views it had it wouldn't matter, but because the musicals page has more hits than this page I feel it is needed to guide people easier. Not to mention the show has recently been nominated for 14 Tony awards and demand in reading the page on the musical is likely to be very high after the ceremony. On May 3rd (the day of the Tony nominations) the page had a lot more views than normal. And the highest ever 2 days after the musical opened, hardly coincidence. I would therefore go for -

Mark E (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I can well believe that the Book of Mormon (musical) is currently getting more hits than the Book of Mormon, the book.  I don't think this is a good reason to have an extra link.  Clicking on the disambiguation page and then on the "musical" is hardly too exacting IMO.
 * I'll seek another opinion since Mark and I are split on this. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wanderer57 and think the sole link to Book of Mormon (disambiguation) is sufficient. If one to the musical is included, it will just be removed anyway in time once the musical ends its run. It's a kind of "recentism" bias, really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly. But for now, it's useful. When the musical ends and it's no longer an apparently highly likely target, I'd certainly support removing it again--WP is dynamic. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I just don't think it's particularly needful, given the link to the disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

NOTE this was a two editor difference. A 3rd opinion was added while a note was being created at Wikipedia:3PO. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 3O. DMacks (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I vote to have both links as DMacks indicated above. To echo everyone else, the musical page is currently more popular. Also, please note that the musical is called  The Book of Mormon. People accessing this article probably either search for it as "Book of Mormon" or just find it through the Mormon disambiguation page. Though I have no way of proving it, those searching with the "The" are probably looking for the musical, and therefore it should be more easily accessible. -- warpedmirror ( talk ) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * How about redirecting Book of Mormon to Book of Mormon (disambiguation)? That would give the reader the choice of which page they wanted to look for instead of automatically directing them to the religious text... Voyager640 (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As it stands, if someone is taken to the article "Book of Mormon" when what they want is the musical, only one click is required to go to the article on the musical. The current format is commonly used in Wikipedia and it creates no significant problem.  IMO it should be left alone.  Wanderer57 (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The religious text is by far the more common usage of the term in sources, so by guidelines the page is correct as it now stands. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If people are really searching more often for the musical, it might make more sense to default to disambiguation. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems unclear on this; the guidelines on educational value and vital articles seem to be currently under discussion as well.  Voyager640 (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * IMO, there is little chance that people searching more often for the musical is any kind of long-term trend. It is most likely a blip. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now that the musical has won the TONY for best musical and is the biggest hit in 10 years, I would agree with Voyager in that a search should go straight to a disambiguation page. This "Blip" as you are saying is obviously more than that as it has been two months where the musicals figures have been higher than this pages. And its obvious this page is only receiving increased traffic because of people looking for the musicals article.Mark E (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Call me in a couple of years and we could examine the search and view trends again. I would bet the book page will easily overtake the musical page by then. That's the definition of "blip". Had Wikipedia existed in 1956, I'm sure they would have had a similar discussion over "The Ten Commandments"—primary meaning vs. insanely popular and successful Charlton Heston film. But in 2011, the film is not the primary meaning. These media trends come and go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The current wording of the hatnote is "This article is about the religious text. For the Broadway musical, see The Book of Mormon (musical). For other uses, see Book of Mormon (disambiguation)."


 * If a reader arrives at this article, one click is needed to get to the page about the musical. If it was set-up so that searches went directly to a disambiguation page, one click would be needed to get from it to the page about the musical. The net saving for such readers is zero. The notion that that other approach is more convenient for readers is, with all due respect, nonsense.


 * Also, the present hatnote serves to notify musical theatre buffs that the musical is based (however loosely) on the Book. It also serves to alert readers interested in the Book that there is a musical by the same name.


 * IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that it is just a blip. In May this article was getting about |2.4k 2.4k views a day, on June 13 (the day of the Tonys) it shot abruptly up to |40k 40k, then came back down over the next 4 days.  It seems to be hovering between 2k and 4k now, and I expect it will soon settle down to the previous levels.  The current hatnotes are sufficient for now, and I expect that within a few months to a year they won't be necessary anymore. Adjwilley (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Historical Authenticity Section Outdated
The section on historical authenticity is very one-sided and devoid of counterarguments and facts that directly disprove some claims. I'm speaking secondhand, and hope to edit this section with more formal citations. I'll be trying to find quality citations for the following:


 * DNA evidence has been found linking modern pure-blood Native Americans and modern pure-blood Israelites, which is specific to tribes
 * Archaeological evidence has been found supporting advanced Native American civilizations, more so than 16th-century explorers found, and other evidence(mostly focusing on the La Brea Tar Pits) showing that some of the animals mentioned in the Book of Mormon that were extinct on the American Continent when it was discovered by Europeans once existed.
 * Semetic (Hebrew) phrases, which are often awkward when translated into English, exist in the Book of Mormon
 * Semetic grammar structures exist as well, such as nouns preceding adjectives (river of water, altar of stones, instead of river or stone altar)
 * The characters which Joseph Smith Jr. copied from the plates, which when verified by a scholar as "reformed Egyptian" (which scholar threw away the certificate when he was told of the plates) lead Oliver Cowdry to sell his property for the printing of the Book of Mormon
 * Patterns of Native American and semetic poetic structure
 * Hebrew rituals present in the Book of Mormon, such as oaths, and customs, such as casting of lots, and renting of clothing, covenant renwal speeches, and other traditions
 * Joseph Smith himself being surprised on occasion by what he translated, such being unsure whether Jerusalem had walls (quite a risk to take in writing something you claim to be true).
 * Length of time used to translate/write the Book of Mormon, which was 67 days, including the time for a 120 mile move, trips to Colesville (60 miles away) for supplies, church organization and proselyting, and writing 13 of the sections now included in the Latter-Day Saint text, "The Doctrine and Covenants" (85 days if you include the time to obtain the copyright).

I've made quite a shopping list here and might only include only the simplest points, but if anyone wanted to help me, that would be great! --Inthend9 (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, Inthend9, your laundry list is pretty much crap based on POV-pushing pseudo-science. There is another article on Historicity of the Book of Mormon where these apologetic claims are more appropriately placed next to the actual science.  (Some of them are already there.)  You must be new to Wikipedia?  Otherwise you would not be so gung ho about adding this stuff.  This article isn't about argument and counterargument.  It's an overview only.  --Taivo (talk) 03:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now I see that you're not new to Wikipedia, but you are new to this page. This page is very contentious and the text as it stands is the result of much long-running and careful discussion and consensus-building.  It is best not to touch it without bringing your options here to the Talk Page first for consensus-building.  If you just put it in the article, it will be reverted pretty quickly and you'll be told to bring it to the Talk page anyway.  Might as well skip the aggravation of getting your editing reverted before bringing it here.  --Taivo (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo, please watch the language and the tone. If you do not agree with Inthend9's list or any specifics address them specifically please. Your language is uncalled for, confrontational, and in no way assumes good faith.-- Canad iandy  talk  01:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of his tone, the suggestion to review Historicity of the Book of Mormon first is a good one. -- Avanu (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Official Church Position on historical record?
In the last paragraph in the 'Origin' section, it reads; "The official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), and that of most members of the Latter Day Saint movement, is that the book is a literal historical record." Correct me if I am wrong, but while the church teaches that the Book of Mormon does contain a history of the Ancient American people, the official position of the Church is that the Book of Mormon is a spiritual record first and foremost. -- Canad iandy  talk  00:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. If you look at statements made by the First Presidency (Prophet and President) during the last decade, it is still the stated position that the BOM represents a literal historical document.  Its spiritual value may still be more important, but that doesn't mean that the church doesn't consider it a literal historical record.  --Taivo (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Taivo. The point is not that the First Presidency may have identified the book as a literal historic record, but the way it reads suggests that the Church's position is that it is its primary purpose. This is a case not of what is written, but what is not written. As we are stating the position of the Church it ought to read fully, "The official position...is that the book is a spiritual history of the Ancient American people." The way it reads now suggests the Church believes the record was kept primarily for the sake of keeping a social history, which is not true. The word 'literal' seems to muddy the water.-- Canad iandy  talk  05:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Unusual traffic
Check it out: http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Book_of_Mormon. . . you guys got a huge number of hits, probably because the Broadway play "The Book of Mormon" got some like 9 Tony awards. Congrats for having a good article :-) Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting observation, Adjwilley. This is the elephant in the room effect. It is wonderful that when modern media are critical of a group of people, fair-minded people will seek for more balanced information. People are by nature empathetic and kind, and this just goes to show it.-- Canad iandy  talk  05:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a lovely thought, but I think it's more likely that people were Googling the musical and clicking on this article because it had a very similar name :-) Adjwilley (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right, Adjwilley. I never really thought about that. :-) -- Canad iandy   talk  01:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Is Simon G. Southerton peer-reviewed?
I notice Southerton is used as a source. I wonder if his work has been peer-reviewed and if so where I might find evidences of those reviews. Any support for Southerton?-- Canad iandy  talk  05:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Be careful with such requests in articles concerning the BOM or else every single FAIR, FARMS, or Maxwell Institute source will also have to be questioned. The peer review process in academia means that the material has been submitted to a variety of (hopefully) neutral and knowledgeable reviewers in the field regardless of their past positions on the subject.  A scholar can expect to receive reviews from opponents of his or her position as well as potential supporters.  This is not the case with any reviews conducted by FAIR, FARMS, or the Maxwell Institute because only supporters of the BOM are included in the review panels.  No one is consulted who is a non-member and, thus, someone who would potentially give a negative review of the apologetic subject matter.  In other words, "peer review" of these sources only consists of review by other apologists, not by the scientific community at large.  Thus, if you are trying to eliminate Southerton (or any other critic) as a source, then we will also eliminate every apologist source as well.  The nature of this subject matter is such that typical peer review, on both sides of the issue, tends not to be neutral, and therefore technically should not meet the strictest standards of Wikipedia.  However, Wikipedia's peer review standards, as enshrined in WP:RS, are not, and never have been absolute.  They are standards to be strived for, but are not absolute requirements because of the difficulty in finding perfect sources.  The question here, however, is not about perfect academic sources (there are very few on the critical side and none on the apologetic side), but about representing in the article both sides of the argument with typical sources.  The relevant sections of this article are not about presenting a missionary tract with pseudo-science presented as peer reviewed fact, presenting the BOM in the best light.  It is about presenting a range of opinions on the book from a variety of sources.  --Taivo (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Taivo, FAIR, FARMS, and Maxwell Institute are usually discredited automatically anyway because their academics are not peer-reviewed in the right places. I'm not trying to eliminate Southerton, I'm merely asking whether he is peer-reviewed at all. If he is I would like to know what the reviews looked like so we can consider whether he is a reliable source. Because Wikipedia is not owned by Mormons or anti-Mormons I get to ask that question and anticipate a fair and open-minded response. Why is it every time someone asks these questions terms like "pseudo-science" and "missionary tract" start flying. What happened to assuming good faith? So, if you are aware of any peer reviews please include them.-- Canad iandy  talk  01:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know the history of Southerton's publication, so I don't know whether his work was peer-reviewed or not. For the purposes of this article, the rules of reliable source function differently from other articles because of the subject matter.  If this were an article on Native American genetics, then neither the BYU crop nor Southerton are reliable sources.  But this is an article on a belief system and works that deal with that belief system (either critical or apologetic) can be considered authoritative about their criticism or defense because they serve as a sort of primary document for the issue.  It's complicated in these articles and we tread very lightly around the broadly useful dictates of WP:RS.  --Taivo (talk) 16:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your point, Taivo. The problem is that none of the references to Southerton are about his opinion on any matters. If the article read, "Many critics of the Church argue..." or "According to geneticist Southerton..." I wouldn't be at all concerned. But there seems to be no reason to have him sourced where he is. Perhaps in the critics section? What I do appreciate is that there seems to be nobody here who is aware of any peer-reviews of his writings. I say, remove the references until there is a reason to include them. The article would read no differently.-- Canad iandy  talk  01:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Before we go removing references, let me take a look at them and think about it. Southerton has peer reviewed material in his professional work, so it's important to examine each of the references and compare them to his book to see if the referenced comments are based on other peer-reviewed work.  It's not just a simple cut and hack in this article.  We have to carefully consider each instance and remember that WP:RS is not a carved-in-stone law, but a guideline.  --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking into it, Taivo. I did not see a big problem with the wording of the article. I am very interested in the results of Southerton's peer review. But even if it is academically sound, I don't see the connection between the sentence referenced and Southerton's writing. That is why I felt I would be a little bold and see if anyone could find validate the reference's existence. As GoodOlFactory is the one who reverted my edit perhaps he has evidence I'm not seeing. Can anyone give me a quote or position that Southerton makes in the reference that relates to the location of the reference in the article?-- Canad iandy  talk  06:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the sentence where you removed Southerton's reference, I have added a similar direct quote from the apologist side--the intro to the "restored" first edition by Royal Skousen. --Taivo (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for approaching the sourcing in a fair way, Taivo. I still have one thought that the first Southerton reference at 40 is out of place and might best fit where reference 39 is. Could you review the positioning and let me know what you think? I don't know that I agree with Southerton's point (or concede he is reliable), but at least it should be placed in the right position.-- Canad iandy  talk  15:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Should editions in Triple Combinations be included?
I see that this article has a section that lists editions, both historical and current, for the Book of Mormon. This work is also included in the Triple Combination that many Mormons study. Should those be counted as editions? --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, not unless they are different editions of the actual BOM text. Simply being printed in a different format (e.g., large font) or as part of a combination of texts doesn't qualify.  --Taivo (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Taivo, not unless one wants to include a full section on its varied printing forms (i.e. triple combination, quad, digital, graphic).-- Canad iandy  talk  15:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Editions only for text changes makes sense - If we listed all the formats we'd also need to include the brass or gold editions... --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)