Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 11

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

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


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


 * Don't delete until you've built a consensus for deletion. You felt that the old version was not subtle enough in distinguishing different varieties of thought.  I agree with you on that, so that's why a consensus was built on the issue and I added some wording to improve the idea that there are many different variants of belief.  Just because you disagree with one of the sentences that was in the older version doesn't mean you can delete it.  Maunus asked for more references, so I provided them.  Build a consensus.  Don't just go deleting things.  What the rank and file of the church believes about historicity is absolutely relevant to a section on historicity.  It's not disparagement, it's just a statement of where the membership stands.  If the rank and file didn't accept it as a historical document, then that would also be relevant.  The section is on historicity, what critics think about it, what the rank and file thinks about it, and that apologists are working to 1) discredit the former, 2) prove the latter, or 3) reconcile the two.  That is perfectly relevant content for a section in historicity.  If this were about the Bible, for example, a section on science would be a perfectly natural place to mention the strength of a belief in 6-day creation within conservative denominations.  And this isn't about "authorship", it's about building consensus wording and making the article better.  I get no credit for "authorship" here or anywhere else based on this.  Your comments are coming close to incivility.  While being blunt about the issues is OK, it is not OK to make personal attacks.  --Taivo (talk) 03:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Stating that you show utter ignorance on the state of Mormon apologetics is <I>not</I> a personal attack. It was stated thusly to show that you are out of place in trying to be the principal author of both the critical and apologetic POV's when you clearly and demonstrably have a particular POV and an ignorance and/or a disdain for the credentials of the opposing POV.  While you claim that I am uncivil, you make broad assertions as absolute fact on this forum that Joseph Smith made up the entire Book of Mormon, and when you are asked to explain your rationale behind such statements, you retreat by saying it is not important.  Why do you so strongly emphasize it if it is not important?  It is important insomuch as you have a clear history on this forum of strong-arming opposing POV's by twisting words, deliberating, and then saying "Who, me?" or "Don't be uncivil."  You seem to emphasize a consensus, but when I add something that is relevant, you delete it and say I must first build a consensus; but then you add something supposedly relevant, and you expect it to be left alone to be the foundation of the argument over the semantics of <I>your</I> original statement, in areas which you neither have sympathy nor expertise.  I don't have any reason to have an opinion of you personally-- I don't pick fights with screen names or pseudonyms.  Who you are or what you are like does not concern me.  What you <I>say</I> does.
 * I don't understand what you insist is a "consensus." When Bubba from Nowhere USA chimes in and says  "Not no scientist is alive that dadgum 'de say that that there Booka Morman ain't nothin' but superstishun and that Joe Smith he right rascally" and then PZkilladoGG from Los Angeles responds with "Word up, dogg right-on yo."  And then Taivo confirms "So let it be done."  Is that a consensus?  You should let those who are more informed than you are about the state of Mormon apologetics write up the position that Mormon apologetics generally hold.  If you <I>then</I> want to engage on long and drawn out debates on semantics, inferences, and word placements, then we can go from there.  Don't say that the present wording is the result of long debates on the subject, because all I see when I read this forum is one person offering credible concerns, and then you strongballing them and outlasting them to maintain your POV, and thus the cycle has gone and continues to go it seems.Ddweller (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert, until you can show how the populist or traditional views (1.)<I>Directly</I>--not tangentially-- pertains to the question of historical authenticity and (2.)Is a fair --i.e. apples-to-apples-- comparison to the preceding criticism. If not, then this material only belongs in the lengthier and comprehensive article about historical authenticity. Ddweller (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert back until you have reached some sort of consensus. I don't have to prove anything since the wording has already been the subject of discussion and is the result of consensus-building.  What Mormons believe about historicity is absolutely relevant to the section on Historicity.  Your only argument against the statement is that it offends you.  --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You have no idea what I know about Mormon apologetics, so to call me "ignorant" is a personal attack. If you persist in your incivility, I'll have to report you.  My personal opinions about Joseph Smith and the BOM are clearly stated by me as my own POV, and you actually asked what I thought.  That's not incivility.  You're free to believe what you want, I don't disparage your right to believe whatever you want.  And so far, you haven't really added anything.  If you want to actually engage in a discussion point-by-point, then do so, but when you've been asked to contribute something positive, you just keep complaining about the current state of the text.  When you and I agree, then that's a consensus at this point since you and I are the only two talking.  You said that the paragraph as previously written didn't really address the variety of positions within the minority view that the BOM isn't literal.  So I added phrasing that brought that out.  If you don't like the phrasing, then say so, but you keep going off on tangents without addressing the points.  The previous wording was agreed to by consensus.  Before it gets changed then a new consensus must be reached.  You don't get to just delete and make major revisions without that.  We agreed that some subtlety needed to be added.  So it was added.  Next issue.  But your previous post was nothing but incivility.  --Taivo (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer the question then. How do you show how the populist or traditional views (1.)Directly--not tangentially-- pertains to the question of historical authenticity <I>of the Book of Mormon</I> itself and (2.) Is a fair --i.e. apples-to-apples-- comparison to the preceding criticism.  And don't threaten me.  If you're going to report me then do it.  I have not been uncivil by pointing out your demonstrable ignorance as to the genesis of the Book of Mormon.  It was for the purpose of demonstrating your inadequacy of hawkishly (that's not uncivil, either) guarding a POV that is not your own and you have no expertise in.  If you are not ignorant of Mormon apologetics, then by all means, give an accurate description of what they espouse in your section about them.  Don't say, essentially, that most Mormons hold a view that is against science.Ddweller (talk) 05:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If you insist on keeping the portion about "most Mormons..." then I insist on inserting the word "generally" before "historically accurate account" to better reflect the true position of the rank-and-file of the church, and so as not to "mind true things by what their mockeries be."  The vast majority of the church are not fundamentalist in their interpretation of the scriptures-- in either the Bible or the BoM.  The wording beforehand made it seem as though they are (strictly fundamentalist). Ddweller (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already said why the general view on historicity is relevant to this section. It is a section on historicity--it says what critics think, it says what mainstream Mormons think, and it says what apologists are generally trying to do. All three items are relevant. Your continued personal attacks directed at me are inappropriate. You have no idea what level of knowledge I have of the BOM and its origins, of the critical literature, or of the apologetical literature, so your insults are uncivil. I suggest you move beyond the personal attacks and discuss the issues at hand. The "generally" is not a bad addition, especially since it mirrors some of the wording in the Southerton quote. --Taivo (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment about the Utah-based churches exactly reflects the quote out of Southerton and the facts on the ground--that in the Community of Christ, the historicity issue is ignored and the book is often treated as historical fiction, even by the leadership, but that in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the leadership still emphasizes the literal text on Native American origins, etc. But it's a minor point and certainly not worth pushing overly much (that's why it was in a footnote).  --Taivo (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Word up dogg, right on yo. Glad we could at least come to a consensus on <I>something</I>.  It is a better section than it was when we began this session, if not by much, and it has mended one or two of some of its craftily misleading statements.  More importantly though, I have confirmed my suspicion when I began this-- that wikipedia is essentially worth crap, containing information controlled by whoever is the most obsessive and persistent in lurking and strongarming his or her own personal agenda, with footnotes as a mere pretense.  I expect that it will revert back to your complete and personally satisfactory POV within the coming week.  But I'm done with this business trip and this motel, so Adieu. Ddweller (talk) 07:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Ddweller as to his edits bringing the article more into a neutral point of view. Many of his edits have changed the negative connotations of the wording into more of an encyclopedic format, as opposed to opinions and personal belief. --LDSFaithFighter2009 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsfaithfighter2009 (talk • contribs)
 * I'm in agreement withUser:Taivo as to his edits, using required WP methodology; this is not an lds tract and cannot be allowed to become one. Cheers. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 12:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A few comments on the situation:


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


 * I support these small changes by Ddweller.


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


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


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


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

Depending on how Real Life (tm) treats me, I may or may not come back and try to make some edits based on these comments, assuming consensus emerges around them. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Second bullet isn't a problem and represents the current text. Rebuttals don't really belong here other than to mention general work.  The section in question is a general list of problems that critics have, it's not the place to give detailed information on rebuttals other than to mention that rebuttals exist.  The place for more detailed information is at Historicity of the Book of Mormon.  This is an overview article, not the place for excruciating back and forth.  The article as it stands is NPOV--"Here's the BOM, Here's what Smith said it is, Here's what the church believes it is, Here's how it is structured, Here's what critics think of it, Here's how the churches use it."  That's enough for an overview and is balanced.  The details of rebuttal and refutation don't belong here.  The interested person can look at the detailed articles for that.  --Taivo (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've said that "the section in question is a general list of problems that critics have". I'm suggesting that it not be a list, but rather, a proper summary of the Historicity of the Book of Mormon article (according to WP:Summary style). I agree that "this is an overview article, not the place for excruciating back and forth", however, I feel that the section can be improved upon. I'll study up on the subarticle and think about it a little more over the next few days, and will then discuss and/or make edits accordingly. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 06:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * With sensitive articles like this it is always preferable to discuss first and edit only after consensus is reached. --Taivo (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

First attempt at adjusting Hist Auth section
I've taken a stab at changing the section from a list into prose. It's not perfect yet, but I think it's a good start. Now that the criticisms take up less space, we can expand a little more on how they are relevant to the Book of Mormon. I commented out the list of anachronisms, with the intention of moving them all into a single footnote. But I wanted some feedback before going further. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a controversial article and the bullet list has been stable for a long time. Please discuss here first.  I think that bullet lists are more readable in general.  Discuss first and build consensus before making substantial changes here.  --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The bulleted list is(imho) unprofessional and does not allow for expansion on the bullet points. Not saying they need a ton more expansion, but some of they why is missing. The article may be controversial, but my edit was neither controversial nor substantial. It preserved almost all of the same concepts, but stated them more clearly. Are there any other objections you, or others, have concerning my edit? <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the bullet format. The fact is that most readers of this encyclopedia are skimming the articles.  They are in a hurry: think Twitter, not War and Peace.  Long articles, and verbose prose are not very user friendly.  As a long-time fan of big books, Im a bit saddened by that, but it is the trend.  This encyclopedia needs more bullet lists, more tables, more pictures, more graphs (not to say the content should be shrunk ... I'm just talking about the format).  --Noleander (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I think the prose is an improvement. Bulleted lists are useful when the elements are disconnected, not when there's an actual train of thought that should be explained or further developed. Think encyclopedia, not powerpoint presentation. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely, VeroWhitney. WP:Layout states that "Bullet points should be minimized in the body of the article, if they are used at all". WP:Embedded list further explains that "Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context" and "Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Lists have their place but I feel this is not one of them. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 01:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Bulleted lists are highly preferred for reading comprehension in technical and academic writing because they convey information quickly and expeditiously, especially to readers who are only skimming material. While an article consisting of only bullet lists is unacceptable, a place, such as the historicity section, where there are four equally balanced items is a very appropriate place to use a bullet list to summarize information.  Noleander is correct, today's reader often loses things if they are not presented properly.  If a consensus cannot be reached on this, then a request for comment might be appropriate.  --Taivo (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We might be wise to wait a little longer to see if others will chime in and provide insight on the matter before invoking an RfC. The comments regarding "today's reader" are well taken, but I'm still not convinced that a list is useful or necessary for this section. My primary reason being that the section is (or should be) flowing content that can be expressed in prose, which is the preferred format for an encyclopedia. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 03:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we cite the official position of the Smithsonian Institute which states “Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book (Book of Mormon)? The Smithsonian does not make sweeping generalities on insufficient evidence in either direction. http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html--Alan355 (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Smithsonian statement is referenced in a footnote, but since we don't encourage direct quotes in general, then the summary statement for the entire range of archeological critique is preferable to a quote from a single source. --Taivo (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Second attempt at adjusting Hist Auth section
Without ending discussion on my first attempt, please note that I've taken another stab at improving the second paragraph in the section. I'm jumping to the edit part, rather than acceding to Taivo's invitation to discuss first, because I find the request ridiculous. Nobody discussed the status quo with me before implementing it; in any event, I am fairly certain that 90% of Wikipedians would agree that this edit is a step in the right direction. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason behind Taivo's revert of this change. I appreciate that you retained the limited geography model mention, though I don't understand what it is that needs a citation. Nor do I understand how the previous bloated wording is better than my proposed version. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 18:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference is that your proposed change eliminated a summary of the various types of apologetics that have been written in favor of just a single type of apologetic--the limited geography. There are several different types of attempts that have been attempted, not just shifting to limited geography.  The earlier version presented a complete summary of the apologetical literature, while your short version only mentioned and highlighted the limited geography version.  Because the limited geography is a very common variant, it was a good addition, but the removal of the other types of apology as well as the implication that the limited geography was the only one was not a good change.  --Taivo (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made a few small edits to the paragraph; please review them. Thanks. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 00:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no problem with the edits you made. Let me clarify what I mean by the three types of apologetics:
 * Proving veracity: Proving the BOM text as it stands is literally true.  While this is not as popular now as it once was, it is still found in the apologetic literature and is the most commonly held belief among the rank and file.
 * Countering critical arguments: Proving that the methodology or assertions of the critical literature is untrue.  An example of this would be showing that the DNA methodology showing NE Asian ancestry of Native Americans is somehow flawed or inapplicable to the text of the BOM.  Also arguing that just because there is no archeological link doesn't mean that there can't be one--we just haven't found it yet.  Arguing that wheeled toys are indicators of wheeled vehicles in the ancient Americas and not just toys.
 * Reconciling the text to the evidence: Neither disputing the evidence nor the text, this tries to place the BOM story in a context that doesn't contradict either.  The Limited Geography model is an example of this type of apologetic.  Saying that the "horses" of the text were really tapirs, for example.  This is the most common type of apologetic today.
 * All three of these approaches to apologetics can be found in the literature. Perhaps my wording can be tweaked, but it's important to list the three since they each take a different strategy and utilize different types of argumentation and evidence.  --Taivo (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that mentioning each type of apologetic response is useful and important here. It was a mistake for me to have removed them. Thank you for the very clear, concise, and well-thought-out presentation of your views on this matter. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Taivo has clarified that the meaning of this sentence is "proving the BOM text as it stands is literally true", in other words (if I understand correctly), that the historical people, places, and events that it mentions all existed or happened as the BOM describes. How can we phrase this so that it comes across more clearly? Is there a better word than "claims" that is less ambiguous in this situation? <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something as simple as "attempting to prove that the Book of Mormon is literal history"? --Taivo (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

2500 BC dates for the Book of Ether- a request to Taivo
Taivo, you undid an edit I made on the 2500 BC date in the Book of Mormon. This date does not appear in the 1st edition, and was added only subsequently as a possible date for the Jaredites, based on popular bibical chronologies of the Tower of Babel. I wished to indicate that these dates do not appear in the Book of Mormon. Leaving open, however small a crack, the door for an earlier date may serve in the future to answer scientific objections to apparent descriptions in the Book of Mormon of holocene megafauna. The most conservative approach is to stick with the original text, which does not include a date of 2500 BC.

With respect

Phorbol (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Phorbol
 * Generations of LDS faithful accept the marginal dates as "fact", whether they appear in the first edition or not. Do you have a reliable source that calls the dates into question?  Otherwise the marginalia in the BOM need to be retained as the reliable source of record.  --Taivo (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Taivo: This is one of the problems with analysis of the Book of Mormon: the original text, translated by Smith and considered by Mormons to be divinely inspired, is not the focus of debate, but instead the beliefs of what you term "generations of LDS faithful" which may or may not correspond to the text. In this case, the 2500 BC dates for the Tower of Babel -- and by extension the Jaredite migration to North America-- was not determined by "generations of LDS faithful" but by the Bibical chronology by Archbishop James Ussher (1581 – 1656. Ussher in his 1648 "Annales Veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine Deducti"  and a subsequent amendation declared, by using an average of 20 years per generation applied to bibical geneologies, that not only did the Tower of Babel occur in 2500 BC. but that the earth itself was created on the night of October 22, 4004 BC. This is why Harvard's Geological Museum use to have an annual all night party ending on the morning of Oct. 23 to celebrate the earth's birthday. I doubt that "generations of LDS faithful" would infer the same divine imprimatur for the chronological musings of an Irish prealte as for the text of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon does not include a date of 2500 BC for the Jaredite migration. In Ether 9:19 of the Book of Mormon is a description of what appears to be a remnant of the Holocene megafauna of North America that existed prior to what is a well- understood, and archeologically supported anthropogenic extinction of that megafauna by early colonists to North America. Do you have any evidence that the 2500 BC date -- which is not early enough for this extinction event-- was part of the original text of the Book of Mormon? If not, you should not posit this date in an Wikipedia article on the "Book of Mormon," but perhaps mention it in a separate Wikipedia article on Beliefs of Generations of LDS Faithful. I think, dear Taivo, that you are an accomplished enough scholar to know that that 2500 BC date does not represent marginalia in the standard sense of the term, but that this date was instead inserted in later editions to make a parallel typographical presentation with dates in the rest of the book, which were based on a fairly historical date for Lehi's departure during the reign of King Zedekiah. Similarly, the "Pronouncing Guide" on pp. 532-535 of the current edition -- which I understand was prepared by a Sunday School class-- was not part of the Joseph Smith's translation, and should not be regarded as equally inspired as the original text, even though "generations of LDS faithful" have learned from it a pronunciation of "Nephi" that is probably at odds with the semitic origins of the name. Also, until recently "generations of LDS faithful" believed that Lehi and family landed on an empty continent, when there is abundant archeological evidence otherwise, and there is no textual evidence in the Book of Mormon itself to indicate that they did so. So I respecfully ask that you consider allowing insertion of a statement indicating that the 2500 BC date for the Jaredites does not appear in the original text of the Book of Mormon. This way scientific arguments against the Book of Mormon can be based on the text itself. Thank you for your consideration, 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Phorbol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phorbol (talk • contribs)

Witnesses
My understanding is that all the additional witnesses, besides Smith himself, described their experiences with the plates as not physical ones, but as if they were in a trance or dream. It was after a long period of prayer and meditation when in the company of Smith. The idea of three or more witnesses required for everything in the religion is a pseudo-legal philosophy that is quite interesting, yet this requires no concept of parallel independence between the witnesses, rather than in each other's company during a psycho-social group experience, nor that it be a sensory experience in the conventional meaning. Thus it differs considerably from any definition of an eyewitness in the secular law. -Reticuli 66.178.139.91 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure what the purpose of your comment is. Are you proposing any particular change? In any event, see Testimony of Eight Witnesses. "Psycho-social group experience" aside, they describe a physical experience of "handling" and "hefting" the plates. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 01:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Retuculi's point is a good one. In the two articles about the witnesses these experiences are discussed at length about how it is disputed that they were real physical experiences. Why are we not noting in this article that it is a disputed claim?--Descartes1979 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Another consideration
Another consideration that is often over-looked is that the Book of Mormon puts heavy emphasis on Smith's native place, America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.33.176 (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were a divine revelation, it would make many references to Siberia and Tasmania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Online editions
I think the table for online editions should be merged into the table for current and historic editions. My reasoning for doing this is: However, I haven't figured out how to incorporate these online editions: I'll leave the "Online" table alone for now, but I'm going to add links to the current and historic tables, too. Hopefully my last two concerns can be figured out later. ——Rich jj (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) There are many, many editions online, more than we should consider listing.
 * 2) Online editions just publish the same text originally prepared for the print editions. This is even true for the LDS "Internet Edition", which used the 1981 text at first, then in recent months updated to the text approved for use by Doubleday a few years back.
 * 3) Listing online editions in a separate table ends up repeating editions from the earlier tables. It is redundant and bulky.
 * LDS audio edition - This doesn't correspond to any current or historic print editions. Also the table dates it (along with the "Internet Edition") to 1994.  Where did that come from?  Is the text a revision of the official 1982 text?
 * Skeptics Annotated Book of Mormon - This looks like the only true online edition here; it doesn't exist in print and is an ongoing project.
 * I agree. Listing multiple online postings of the Book of Mormon could create a large table of little value.  Similarly if the article Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard listed the many online postings of that poem, it would be longer and would require much more editing to keep it up-to-date but would not be significantly more useful for it .   Wanderer57 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and decided to remove entries from the "Online" table that were duplicated by my link additions in the "current" or "historic" tables. I have left the online LDS items (dated as 1994) and the Skeptics Annotated Book of Mormon.  ——Rich jj (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

"Reformed Egyptian" phrase from the text
There have been recent edits over whether the phrase "reformed Egyptian" is actually in the text of the Book of Mormon or whether it was coined by later commentators. I just want to briefly clarify that it does come from the text (Mormon 9:32 -- LDS edition), and has since the first edition, and is so cited at the very beginning of the reformed Egyptian article. ——Rich jj (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. The article should cite that reference so as to clear up this confusion so no other readers fall into it. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Restorationist
I was mostly incorrect in my edit summary when I said "there is no restorationist movement". It exists, and is actually called the Restoration Movement. Taivo is correct in saying that the LDS movement is not a part of the Restoration Movement, but like I said, the LDS movement (similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses) is still considered "restorationist" in the sense of Restorationism (Christian primitivism). <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Restorationist?"
 * Regardless of the merits of the Restorationist/Not Restorationist discussion seen above and in the edit notes for the article, including this issue in our article on the Book of Mormon carries the article into an inappropriate level of detail.
 * Readers of this article must be presumed to be seeking information about the Book. If they want information about the nature of the LDS Movement, there is a link to an article on that topic.
 * Wanderer57 (talk) 05:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that for this article. But in general, if we call the LDS movement "Christian", it's usually wise to tag "restorationist" on there to indicate the significant departure from traditional Christianity. <small title="Click the F">...comments? ~B F izz 06:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

"a literal historical record"
Quoting: "The position of most members of the Latter Day Saint movement and the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is that the book is a literal historical record."

Is there a difference between a "literal historical record" and a "historical record"? Wanderer57 (talk) 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. A historical record can contain errors, invented speeches, but be broadly true.  A literal historical record presumes that speeches are exactly as delivered and there are no errors.  --Taivo (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the term you are looking for is 'accurate historical record' not literal. Literal is confusing because of its double meaning (1. no errors 2. actual). If you word it using the second meaning it is in line with saying, 'Mormons actually believe it is true' or even "Mormons believe it is actually true." And that type of phraseology sounds more POV than saying they believe it is accurate. For the cost of one extra letter we avoid the confusion. I still prefer "spiritual historical record" but would find middle ground with "accurate historical record". 'Literal', with its double meaning, insinuates POV, though doubtless undesigned.-- Canad iandy   talk  07:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Accurate' would mean without errors. 'Literal' in this case, means that it is actually or truly historical, and not made up in the 1800's by Joseph Smith. Another way to phrase this meaning might be "actual historical record". -- Avanu (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with "actual historical record". That's better wording than "literal", and more accurately reflects the intent of the sentence here.  "Spiritual" isn't good because it implies that there is little or no tie to actual history.  The historical position of the church and the current position of most members is that this is "actual history" and not just "spiritual history".  If it were not considered to be actual history, then there would be no New World Archeology practiced at BYU and no reason for FARMS or FAIR or the Maxwell Institute.  --Taivo (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Actual' is basically the same thing as 'literal'. Do you 'literally' believe what you are saying? Do you 'actually' think your suggestions sound neutral? What is wrong with stating that "Mormons believe the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical record". How is that POV or apologist? Who disagrees that is what Mormons believe?-- Canad iandy   talk  05:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with either "actual" or "accurate", they mean virtually the same thing in this sense--that the BOM records history as it happened in the New World, not as some sort of allegorical or metaphorical or spiritual historical treatise with invented speeches or exaggerated events. It purports to be history recorded at the time of the events by direct participants or witnesses to those events and later abridged (but not rewritten) by Mormon.  --Taivo (talk) 05:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Taivo. Can we go with 'accurate' then?-- Canad iandy   talk  05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Saying "actual historical record" implies/shows that some other people may not believe that the Book of Mormon is an actual historical record, but Mormons believe it.
 * Saying "accurate historical record" implies/shows that some other people may not believe that the Book of Mormon is accurate, but says nothing about it being a truly historical record.
 * Saying "literal historical record" leaves room for questions about what is meant by the word 'literal'. Is it "true"?  Is it something some people think is "true"?  Is it an accurate reproduction of what someone once wrote? And whatever someone once wrote, was that "true"? Its just not as clear a word. -- Avanu (talk) 05:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say your best bet is to use either "actual" by itself, or "actual and accurate" together. -- Avanu (talk) 05:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avanu's take on this and for that reason would prefer "actual historical record" over "accurate historical record". The debate is not over whether or not the BOM is an "accurate" history (that can kind of implies that everyone agrees it is real history)—it's over whether it is a real history or a fictional history. Of the three, I find this best captured by the phrase "actual historical record." Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you are both missing this. The discussion is not over whether it is or isn't an actual record (that would be pushing a Mormon POV). The discussion is whether most Mormons BELIEVE it is 'x' and so it is completely fair and neutral to say that "most members believe it to be an accurate historical record". Is there anyone out there that does not think this is the case?-- Canad iandy   talk  15:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the two sentences where this occurs, it is in the context of "Mormons believe that it is a(n) .... historical record." So don't get involved in a POV/NPOV issue.  This sentence is reporting a POV.  --Taivo (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Canadiandy, I don't think I'm missing anything and I still think "actual" is better in this context. (It's not terribly polite to assume that others are missing something when they disagree with you. It seems far more likely that you simply misunderstood my meaning, and/or that I did not express myself clearly enough.) The statement is reporting a Mormon POV, but the Mormon POV that it is "an accurate historical record" is to granular, since few others agree it is even an actual historical record. So it makes much more sense to me to set out the Mormon POV that this is an actual historical record, since that is the one that would be a more base issue of discussion and debate in the world at large. I don't think one can state that a history is "accurate" until one accepts that it is "an actual history", so we should start with the more basic claim. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Good points, Olfactory. --Taivo (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * First, my statement about you "missing something" was not implying you were missing something in the article, but in what I was suggesting. It could have been said, "I don't think you are clear on what my intent is" but that seemed a little wordy. Apologies if I have offended. That said, I must assume I am not making myself clear or that you are too converted to the current wording to be willing to improve upon it. Stating the more basic claim is not necessary when the secondary is obvious in its implication of the primary. For example, it is better to state that James Dean drove his 'Porsche' over a cliff than his 'sportscar'. In my proposal it points out that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon to be both a literal and accurate record and so it is both clear, and concise. If there is no further movement on this one though I will leave it alone.-- Canad iandy   talk  04:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So why not just go with "actual and accurate" rather than relying on implication? I don't think I'm "converted" to the current wording since until recently it read "literal". I agree it should be changed from that, I just don't agree with you that "accurate" is more of an improvement than "actual" would be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because 'actual and accurate' is both redundant and wordy.-- Canad iandy   talk  15:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That might be a decent reason if this discussion did not exist. But it does, so it seems reasonable to compromise and include both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

(outdented) I began this topic and I'm intrigued by the amount of discussion & the multiple options suggested.

- literal historical record

- historical record

- accurate historical record

- actual historical record

- true historical record.

I wonder if the LDS position is that the Book of Mormon is an infallible record, meaning true and accurate in all respects. I think I know the answer to this but I am not sure. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * As Joseph Smith declared it is the "most correct" book. 'Infallible' seems to push that position to an extreme. Thus 'accurate historical record' seems very appropriate.

- literal historical record
 * (confusing in meaning)

- historical record
 * (limits it to only being valued for its historicity)

- accurate historical record
 * (implies both its literal and actual nature without being confusing in implication)

- actual historical record
 * (are there such things as fictional historical records?)

- true historical record.
 * (While I believe it, I also see it as Pro-LDS and so inappropriate)

-- Canad iandy   talk  19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Canadiandy1. (I reformatted your comments a little.) Wanderer57 (talk) 19:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to the Introduction page on the website lds.org, "'Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “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.”"


 * To my way of thinking, if someone says (for example) "this is the most correct book in my library", that sets a high standard of correctness but well short of infallibility.


 * However if they say "the most correct of any book on earth", that says they believe the book in question to be absolutely correct, i.e., infallible.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the label "most correct of any book on earth" is about as close as one can come to saying it is infallible without actually saying it. On the other hand, the Book of Mormon title page itself says "if there are faults they are the mistakes of men", so if one accepts that it was written by ancient authors, they themselves don't necessarily seem to have been fully convinced of its infallibility. But what does this have to do with improving the article? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Improving the article?" Sorry, I thought that was reasonably clear. My comments were meant as a small contribution to the discussion about the best word to precede "historical record".  IF it is the case that the Book of Mormon is considered (by most members of the Latter Day Saint movement and by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) to be infallible, then "infallible historical record" would be more precise and less of a weasel word than other suggestions.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "are there such things as fictional historical records?" yes, there are. -- Avanu (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Re:Wanderer57. Oh, I see. I don't think "infallible" would be a better option, mostly because Latter Day Saints or sources reporting on their views usually don't speak about the book being "infallible", and Smith didn't ever come out and say it was infallible. The common viewpoint is that they say it's "true", but I don't think anyone really goes so far as to suggest infallibility, except by possible implication. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the most Smith ever said was that it was the "most correct book ever written". And I offer the Iliad as a "fictional historical record".  --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think Smith's "most correct book" comment is typically taken out of context. From the context of the statement, he seems to have been discussing doctrinal correctness. We know that Smith considered the book to have textual errors, because the book's narrators constantly worry about them. Plus, Smith made several non-insignificant changes to the book's 1840 edition.
 * In any event as to the discussion above, I think the best wording might go roughly like this:" The Book of Mormon is generally regarded as a speculative or fictional history. As a matter of faith, however, most Mormons regard the events described in the book as having actually occurred. ". CO GDEN  00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a "speculative history"? Fictional yes, but speculative?  The last half of your sentence does, however, avoid the whole "accurate/actual/literal" issue quite nicely.  --Taivo (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good wording, COGDEN. Are you sure it is not too anti-Mormon in its POV? -- Avanu (talk) 02:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think COGDEN's suggestion is probably an improvement, though I'm a bit hesitant about the "speculative history" bit—unless this is a well-accepted term, it makes it sound like speculative fiction, which the BOM has no relation to. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What term do reliable sources use? In this case, what term does the church use to describe its position? 72Dino (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We can remove the "speculative" part and just say "fictional history". That's actually probably better. I don't think that has neutrality problems, because it clearly states the predominant academic view without being judgmental, it is not simply dismissive of the small minority Mormon view that the book's events are historical, and it correctly states that the Mormon view is a matter of faith (so that, to some extent, the Mormon view does not compete for truthhood on the same basis as the academic view). CO GDEN  17:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead update
Greetings. I feel that the lead of the article is not representative of the article's contents and does not flow well. I propose the text below. If you will please list any concerns or improvements below, I will work to incorporate them and arrive at an iteration that we can all feel comfortable with. Thank you for your consideration. —Eustress talk 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The first serious problem with this lead is that it starts right off with an unnecessary attack word: "allegedly".  This is a legalistic word that pushes over the edge of POV.  The existing lead is much less non-committal and uses phrases such as "Smith claimed", "Smith wrote that", "the text claims", etc. in a much milder and less confrontational manner.  The proposed text is too pointedly critical and uses words such as "allegedly" to make a more blunt point that will, I am certain, prove unacceptably POV to adherents and will spark unnecessary edit wars.  The current text makes the same point--that we only have Smith's word for any of the truth of the book--with much less overt confrontation and has proven to be rather stable over a few years.  --Taivo (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Info regarding the subject matter of the book and its purported authors is buried in the lead and needs be moved to the front. Can you provide a possible solution or anything constructive to move this forward? How about, "The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets...." Nothing POV about that. Per your concern, a revised interation below. —Eustress talk 22:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the posting of suggested text here rather than insertion of it into the article. However this approach needs to be accompanied by explanation of the proposed changes.  "I feel that the lead of the article is not representative of the article's contents and does not flow well."  does not suffice as an explanation.


 * To take up just a few points:


 * "lead not representative of contents" - This is a long and complicated article; the lead has to be selective.


 * Bringing the "seer stones" into the lead as you suggest does not improve the lead IMO. These "stones" are quite unimportant to a basic knowledge of the Book, and my understanding (which may be wrong) is that they are unexplainable in any way other than as "supernatural" or "magic". Including them in the lead without any explanation of their nature, as in the proposed drafts, is unhelpful to a lay audience, and including them with explanation would give them space in the lead way out of proportion to their importance.


 * Quote from proposed draft: "Smith claimed to have translated the book, which was written on thin gold plates, from ......" This says to me that the translation was "claimed" but that it is objective fact that the original was on thin gold plates.


 * These are examples of why changes need to be made in a step-wise process, not by wholesale replacement. I urge Eustress to identify one or two points about the existing lead which they think are in the most need of change.  Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wanderer--this should be taken step by step. Your first sentence is superior to your first try and is, perhaps, better than the first sentence in the article now.  --Taivo (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The content issues raised thus far are easily fixable. I'm proposing a fundamental change in the lead because years of discussing issues in isolation has resulted in a disjointed lead that fails to adhere to WP:LEAD in many respects. Let's be bold and make this lead great.
 * Regarding "seer stones", if there is a wikilink to more information, then there shouldn't be an issue. Regarding the "claimed" argument, I agree and have tried to address it in the next iteration. —Eustress talk 14:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether there is a wikilink to seer stones, I contend that they are not important enough to be in the lead section.


 * The point I was trying to make with my comments, and the point you seem to me to be missing, is that a rewrite of the lead which involves changes of content, changes of specific wording, changes at least to some extent of style, as well as reordering, constitute a block of changes which none but the most dedicated editor can reasonably assess. This means that some editors who care about this article are in effect shut out of the process.


 * Raising issues point by point, indicating concerns and suggesting changes, is obviously more work for you than what you have done, i.e., doing a rewrite of the entire lead, not taking the trouble to justify the many changes. But I believe the former method to be a much better approach for the good of the article.


 * For an article this complex, I personally reject the way you are approaching this. Please note the request  - below - which is directed to all editors of this article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Wanderer. We need to take this step by step, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence to make sure that everyone's concerns are met. People simply can't process the amount of change you're advocating here, Eustress, in a careful manner so that they feel heard. What will happen if this change is simply pasted in is that concerned editors will start nibbling at it piecemeal and any coherence which you hoped to have will be gone. --Taivo (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All right. Let's give it a try. I will be bold and make what I would consider the less controversial changes to the article, and I will bring the others here. —Eustress talk 12:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions re new Edits to Lead -- July 20 12:56 & 13:04
Which is the American continent?

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

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

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


 * A description of the American continent can be on the Wikipedia article as linked to.
 * Regarding Christ's visit and whether or not it is the pivotal event of the book, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism calls it the "dramatic and spiritual climax of the Book of Mormon" (source). All authors in the book leading up to the visit prophesied of the event and directed people to it, and believers today claim that the visit was a fulfillment of Biblical prophesy (see source).
 * I agree the flow became awkward with the addition (hence, the challenges of piecemeal work) and have reorganized things to aid the flow. —Eustress talk 23:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Nowhere in the article does it mention or link to what these "defining publications" may be. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * History of the Latter Day Saint movement elucidates the issue a little bit, as among the largest denomination of the movement (LDS Church), the Book of Mormon was the earliest of the defining non-biblical publications in the Standard Works. If there is a real concern, it could be changed to read, "The Book of Mormon is a defining publication of the Latter Day Saint movement..." —Eustress talk 21:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that linking "defining publications" to History of the Latter Day Saint movement should address this concern sufficiently. --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you - the word "works" was helpful. Using that word I found the Book of Mormon section of this article. I had looked for "defin" and "publication" in the article to see what these "defining publications" were. The History of the Latter Day Saint movement article was not helpful in terms of the "defining publications" or "standard works."


 * I updated the lead to replace "defining publications" with "standard works." That way someone wondering what the standard works are will seek that term in the main body of the article. I did not wikilink at this point as standard works is not about the Mormon works. The main body section that discusses the works is wikilinked. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oops - I was not paying attention. Standard Works is about the LDS works. I'll update the lead again. Thank you for the replies Eustress & Taivo. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 21:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


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


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


 * We could dispense with "earliest" and say "The Book of Mormon is one of the four Standard Works of the Latter Day Saint movement, ..." Another way to handle it would be "The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the "Triple Combination" works unique to the Latter Day Saint movement, ..." --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 23:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The latter wording is better, but "Triple Combination" doesn't really refer to the works themselves, but to a common way of printing them in a single volume. --Taivo (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Questions & comments re the Manuscripts section
Quotes from the first paragraph of the section are in italics. Questions & comments are not in italics and are indented.

1st sentence: The Book of Mormon was reportedly dictated by Joseph Smith to several scribes over a period of nearly two years, resulting in an original manuscript that was eventually printed into the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, minus the first 116 pages of the Book of Lehi, which were lost after Smith lent the uncopied manuscript to Martin Harris who gave them to his wife Lucy.[20]
 * This sentence is too long I think. Also I think something is wrong with the reference. When I click it, it seems to lead me around in a circle.

2nd sentence: These pages were never returned and are assumed to be lost.[20]
 * Previous sentence says they "were lost". This one says "assumed to be".  This seems redundant and also contradictory.

3rd sentence: The original manuscript was then hand copied by Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes into a manuscript for the printer.[108]
 * Okay.

4th sentence: It is at this point that initial copyediting of the Book of Mormon was completed.
 * This I find puzzling. One interpretation could be that no changes were made between the printer's manuscript and the Book of Mormon printed in 1830. Is this the case?

5th sentence: ''Observations of the original manuscript show little evidence of corrections to the text. [109][110]
 * Presumably this means "The surviving portions of the original manuscript show little evidence of corrections to the text" Is this what is meant?

6th sentence: Critical comparisons between surviving portions of the manuscripts show an average of two to three changes per page from the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript, with most changes being corrections of scribal errors such as misspellings or the correction, or standardization, of grammar inconsequential to the meaning of the text.[108][110]
 * I think this is clear enough but that it could be somewhat shortened without loss of meaning. E.g., "Comparison of the surviving portions of the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript show an average of two to three changes per page. Most changes are spelling corrections, and the correction or standardization of grammar inconsequential to the meaning of the text."

7th sentence: The printer's manuscript was further edited, adding paragraphing and punctuation to the first third of the text.[108]
 * This seems to me to directly contradict sentence 4. See Copy editing.
 * I hope some of this comment is useful. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Link to Spalding/Rigdon controversy page?
Hello, everyone.

I believe that it is appropriate to have at least link to the internal Spalding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon Authorship page, if not a paragraph about the controversy. I've never edited a religious work page, so I don't want to step on any toes.

I would link to that page in my question, but I'm rusty and rushed.

Am I off base?

Marklemagne (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would be appropriate. I've added Spalding–Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon authorship to the "see also" section. It's possible that there could be a brief section on issues of authorship. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The King James Version connection (KJV / AV)
Much has been made of apparent or obvious connections between the Book of Mormon and the King James Version (KJV / AV). I thought I read that Joseph Smith himself had responded to this, stating he had been given permission to take portions from the KJV (instead of directly translating, I presume). Does anyone know of a reference to that? And, if there is such a reference, why isn't it included in various articles about the B.o.M? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 09:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder where someone would ask permission to reprint from a Book published well over 200 years before. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that Smith sought copyright permission from the Almighty ;)  But since the KJV text was engraved on the golden plates, perhaps Mormon is the one who violated copyright.  --Taivo (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a somewhat recent presentation on the subject by Daniel L. Belnap; I couldn't quickly find a link to a text version of it, but an audio recording of the presentation is available here from the Mormon Channel. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A synopsis of his presentation an be found at: . -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So what did the presentation conclude? Did Smith get permission from the almighty?MilkStraw532 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

To quote from the synopsis: "In trying to determine how Joseph Smith incorporated so much King James English into his translation of the Book of Mormon, one must recognize that "none of the accounts describing the translation process mention that he used a Bible, and, in fact, a few of the accounts state explicitly that Joseph did not use any biblical text during the translation process," Brother Belnap said.

Moreover, there is not a clear understanding of what the translation process was, as Joseph would only say that it came forth "by the gift and power of God.""


 * Really? Wasn't it claimed that he had the Urim and Thummim as translational aids? :) Misty MH (talk) 11:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Misty MH may be confusing the cooperation that the LDS Church sought in producing the LDS edition of the Bible in 1979, due in part to the copyright status of the KJV in the UK. The LDS Church also sought and received permission from the Cambridge University Press to use parts of their bible dictionary to produce the LDS Church's Bible Dictionary. Obviously none of this was done in Joseph Smith's lifetime, and naturally had no impact on his usage of KJV language in the BoM. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's not really what Misty MH is talking about. He/She is literally talking about the pages and pages of literal, word-for-word KJV text that was copied by Joseph Smith into the Book of Mormon.  But modern conceptions of copyright violation really didn't apply in the early 19th century, so Smith wasn't really guilty of a crime by copying the KJV into his narrative.  --Taivo (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There's been quite a bit written on this, but I personally have never read that Smith stated that God or anyone else told him to just copy from the KJV. Somewhere around half of all the KJV verses that are found in the Book of Mormon contain alterations to the KJV text, so at least at times there must have been somewhat more going on than just a word-for-word copying. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Right! I am referring to verbatim quotes from the KJV/AV text. I am pretty sure that I read that someone claimed that Joseph Smith had been given permission (or whatever) -- by "God" or an "angel" -- to use the KJV in certain places. Whether it was into the BoM or some other Mormon writing, I am uncertain. But I thought it was the BoM. Whether J.S. himself claimed it or someone claimed it on his behalf, I am uncertain. Misty MH (talk) 11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

There is also the "Inspired Version" of the Bible (in English) from some branch of the group. (I have a copy of it in storage, somewhere.) I don't know if that's different from what I am finding on the Internet called the "Joseph Smith Translation". I hope I wasn't confusing the BoM & KJV with that. Maybe that's where the "permission" to copy from the KJV comes in? And so, IF Joseph Smith, or someone in the group, had been working on an English version of the Bible that borrows from the KJV/AV, THEN it might make sense that he'd take from THAT, to keep them consistent. And THEN, it would appear to people -- who didn't know this -- that the BoM was borrowing DIRECTLY from the KJV/AV when it was actually borrowing directly from the new version of the Bible that borrowed from the KJV/AV. That may seem like a technicality, but IF that was the case, THEN, again, it would seem to make sense that J.S. could get (or try to get) permission to quote from THAT version (especially if he thought he had permission to make that version in the first place). Hmm. Interesting. Misty MH (talk) 11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here we go! Already an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspired_Version_of_the_Bible Misty MH (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The Inspired Version postdated the Book of Mormon, so any issues involved in copyright, copying from KJV to the Inspired Version aren't really relevant to the Book of Mormon issue and should be discussed at that article. Since it's later, then any copying would go from BOM to IV, not the other way round.  The question that is relevant here is whether Joseph Smith said anything about the use of KJV in the BOM either while he was writing the original text of the BOM or later in explanation of his writing process or why there is so much of the KJV in the BOM.  If his later comments were in relation to the Inspired Version, then they are relevant there, not here.  --Taivo (talk) 11:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment regarding relevancy. And I agree, for the most part. Hopefully someone will come across this discussion topic who knows the answer, and will add to it. Misty MH (talk) 07:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Taivo, I see that you removed my paragraph breaks, putting my text into one large paragraph. (And your "Edit summary" says you did "refactoring" of my comments; so I will comment here about that.) Thanks for the thought, but this is Discussion, not a Wikipedia article; and it's really not a good idea to edit others' comments in Discussion. (For the most part, it's even against the rules.) If you'd like to point me to a Guide that says I should do what you've done, instead of using what I preferred and thoughtfully chose as paragraph breaks, please do. But please do not edit my comments or change my paragraph breaks in any way. (If you think something should be edited in Discussion, it says to contact the person first, for permission.) Thanks! :)


 * As far as whether it is "easier to read" or not, I disagree. Large paragraphs, for most people, are considered to be harder to read. (They are for me.) I tend to use them functionally, and removing them destroys the pattern of the function I intend. Long paragraphs also tend to be skipped over. (I get emails from people that contain single, massive paragraphs; and I hate it.) It makes the page longer to use paragraphs, but that matters mostly if one is printing something out. (Adding paragraphs hardly takes up extra data space; so that's not really an issue.)


 * Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * My apologies, Misty MH. Most of the time, when I see each sentence as a separate paragraph, I associate it with anonymous IPs who are simply pushing some nationalistic POV and contain no content worthy of consideration.  I would suggest two or three short paragraphs based on topic in the future, rather than making every sentence an individual paragraph.  If you have so many points that two or three short paragraphs are insufficient, that comment may need to be refined down.  I agree with you about long paragraphs, but double-spaces between sentences, especially where there is no thematic or stylistic reason for a new paragraph, is just as bad.  You raised an interesting point in the first two sentences, so I kept reading.  It was a point worthy of consideration and further comment.  --Taivo (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Moronis Promise
I added this to the religious significance section. I though it will be good to have the quote next to the text which tells of its significance!--84.177.245.68 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed. Wikipedia is not a Mormon missionary tract.  If anyone is interested, they can click on the link in the footnote and access the text themselves.  Otherwise, it is proselytizing.  --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints article has a quote of Joseph Smith. --87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And the Quran article has also a Quran quote!--87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter what those articles do. This is a different article and highlighting that quote is blatant proselytizing.  If a reader is interested, they can click on the link in the footnote to get the text.  --Taivo (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To highlight this quote is not proselytizing.--87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an important quote and it should be highlighted because the Origin of the Book of Mormon is also highlighted!--87.163.241.165 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this is NOT "an important quote". It is a proselytizing quote to get people to read and pray about the BOM.  Is should not be highlighted.  Read WP:BRD.  You are violating it.  If you add something to an article and someone objects and reverts it, you do NOT add it back into the article, you discuss and build a consensus before you put it back in.  You have not built a consensus for this addition.  This quote is the foundation for Mormon missionary work and is one of the key psychological tricks that missionaries use to get people to convert--"Pray about it and God will tell you." "But I did pray." "You must not have prayed hard enough."  While the reference to "Moroni's Promise" is in the article and a link is provided for interested readers to read, it is heavy-handed proselytizing to add the full text and to highlight it as well.  It is completely inappropriate.  I don't know which Origin of the Book of Mormon article you're reading, but "Moroni's Promise" isn't even mentioned in it and the offending verse is not highlighted there.  Also, read WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Arguing that X article should Y because Z article has it is not generally a sound argument.  --Taivo (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You appear to be a new editor, anon IP. This article is very carefully watched by both Mormon and non-Mormon editors to maintain a careful balance in the neutrality of the article.  It is always preferable here to propose a change on the Talk page first and then build a consensus for it.  --Taivo (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Psychological tricks"? C'mon Taivo, we're supposed to stay objective even on the talk page {WP:TALK) and to discuss the article, not the subject. 72Dino (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * While it may sound extreme, that is exactly how critics of Mormonism describe the use of that particular verse in Mormon proselytizing (and in some cases the very words that are used). I didn't make it up.  You know how hard we work on this article to keep it NPOV.  That particular verse is a landmine.  We already mention "Moroni's Promise" and its relation to proselytizing and there is a link to the verse in the footnote.  Even without the POV problem, the quote itself is simply too long per WP:QUOTE.  Long quotes should always be paraphrased or linked to.  They should not be incorporated wholesale.  --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Taivo talked about the untruthfullness of the Book of Mormon, but I am NEUTRAL on this subject and think we should show the quote in this article and let the people decide.--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec)I agree that the quote is not needed in the body of the article, especially with a link to the actual quote in the notes. It's just that the editorial comment is not appropriate on the talk page.  The IP editor is new;  you're not. 72Dino (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

 Furthermore even the Muhammad article has two quotes, is this also proselyzing?--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Long quotes are generally discouraged in the body of the article on Wikipedia, and in a case where editors indicate the quote detracts from the neutrality of an article, it is best to leave the quote in the footnotes. You may want to read the essay Other stuff exists regarding the fact that another article includes long quotes.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

There are two quotes at the Muhammad article, but on this article it is proselyzing? Why do this quotes exist on the Muhammad article?--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

72Dino, Moronis Promise is the "Light Verse" of Mormonism and should be on this article.--87.163.241.165 (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The article on Muhammad is irrelevant. There is a link to those verses in Moroni in the online Book of Mormon in the notes. In the interest of neutrality, that should suffice.  And please fix your formatting of the quotes so our comments appear correctly.  Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being personally labeled as an interferer, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue. First let me state that I am a member of the LDS Church, and I believe the Book of Mormon and Moroni's promise to be true. I have a testimony of both. Having said this, I agree that Moroni's promise is relevant to any article about the Book of Mormon. However, it appears that a link to the promise already exists in the notes about this article. For the sake of brevity, and to follow WP policy, I hereby state that I am in favor of NOT including the promise in this article. A mention of it is sufficient. And while I do not agree with the arguments that have been used against this text, at the same time, I recognize that this is a major edit, and should have been discussed before it was made. It appears that the consensus is NOT to include this quote in the article, as it is in the notes, so I say, let's leave it at that. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Jgstokes, I would also agree that Moroni's promise is inappropriate for inclusion in any encyclopedia. Although it may be of religious importance to believers, I'm sure non-believers would rightly raise their eyebrows over the the inclusion of an exhortation to pray about the truthfulness of the volume - especially post-modernists. :-) Additionally, including it opens a can of worms in relation to NPOV - what other points of view would need to be considered to balance such a bold assertion and invitation? I don't think we believers would want to go there either. Davidwhittle (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)