Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 15

Pseudohistoricity
I have no problem with anyone on this website, including the Mormons... but there is one thing I have to talk about. I recently added into  ; this is reasonable because:


 * 1. Many archaeologists, both Mormon and secular, have expressed doubts on the authenticity of the story told in the Book of Mormon. After hundreds of excavations in these and those locations, they only found artifacts from ancient nations with no relation to those mentioned in the Book of Mormon. I am not saying this myself, but the first paragraph of the article's lead, which I made more concise, does, so this addition is reasonable. Did I need to quote that here? Ok: "The majority of Latter Day Saints believe the book to be a record of real-world history, and many Mormon academics and apologetic organizations strive to affirm the book as historically authentic through their scholarship and research,[7][8] but mainstream archaeological, historical and scientific communities do not consider the Book of Mormon to be a record of historical events."
 * 2. The Book of Mormon is called "the most correct book on Earth" by Joseph Smith himself, not to mention that the grammatical structure has to be changed for thousands of times. Because Smith is not a historian, so it is logical to see why most of the things appearing in the Book of Mormon do not fit with the history.
 * 3. Relating to the first point, there are too many obviously irreconcilable anachronisms (please see Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon for more) in the Book of Mormon. If the work is an "authentic ancient record of the Native Americans", then at least there should be some historical values in it but anything the book mentions contradicts what archaeologists and historians believe. For example, one of the most popular anachronism, the existence of elephants in the alleged time of the "prophets" of the Book of Mormon. However, the Journal of Mammalogy (which of course is not funded by the Mormon Church) told us the facts that the first elephant arrives in America on 13 April 1796. This is not the only one; please check the afore-linked article.
 * 4. Unlike the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus, the Book of Mormon is a modern work. The Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus, which are traditionally attributed to the prophet Moses, were written thousands of years ago, and they should not be considered pseudohistorical, simply because they did not claim to be one; did they?. The Adam and Eve story, which should be taken allegorically, for example; we found fossils of dinosaurs, which are dated millions of years ago, but that does not mean the Book of Genesis is incorrect—simply because there is no statement of "THIS IS UNDENIABLY CORRECT TRUTH" in the book, or by the writer. Thus, these two books, especially the Book of Genesis, can be read allegorically. An editor left this on the reversion of my edits: "'Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial' - onus is on you to build a consensus on the talk page; the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus aren't in this category even though they are also disputed by historians - take it to talk."
 * 3. Relating to the first point, there are too many obviously irreconcilable anachronisms (please see Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon for more) in the Book of Mormon. If the work is an "authentic ancient record of the Native Americans", then at least there should be some historical values in it but anything the book mentions contradicts what archaeologists and historians believe. For example, one of the most popular anachronism, the existence of elephants in the alleged time of the "prophets" of the Book of Mormon. However, the Journal of Mammalogy (which of course is not funded by the Mormon Church) told us the facts that the first elephant arrives in America on 13 April 1796. This is not the only one; please check the afore-linked article.
 * 4. Unlike the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus, the Book of Mormon is a modern work. The Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus, which are traditionally attributed to the prophet Moses, were written thousands of years ago, and they should not be considered pseudohistorical, simply because they did not claim to be one; did they?. The Adam and Eve story, which should be taken allegorically, for example; we found fossils of dinosaurs, which are dated millions of years ago, but that does not mean the Book of Genesis is incorrect—simply because there is no statement of "THIS IS UNDENIABLY CORRECT TRUTH" in the book, or by the writer. Thus, these two books, especially the Book of Genesis, can be read allegorically. An editor left this on the reversion of my edits: "'Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial' - onus is on you to build a consensus on the talk page; the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus aren't in this category even though they are also disputed by historians - take it to talk."
 * 4. Unlike the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus, the Book of Mormon is a modern work. The Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus, which are traditionally attributed to the prophet Moses, were written thousands of years ago, and they should not be considered pseudohistorical, simply because they did not claim to be one; did they?. The Adam and Eve story, which should be taken allegorically, for example; we found fossils of dinosaurs, which are dated millions of years ago, but that does not mean the Book of Genesis is incorrect—simply because there is no statement of "THIS IS UNDENIABLY CORRECT TRUTH" in the book, or by the writer. Thus, these two books, especially the Book of Genesis, can be read allegorically. An editor left this on the reversion of my edits: "'Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial' - onus is on you to build a consensus on the talk page; the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus aren't in this category even though they are also disputed by historians - take it to talk."

Please consider to re-add the category instead of blindly, blatantly removing it. Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC) —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing this to the talk page. A quick search of the talk page archives shows that this categorization has been discussed previously. I would recommend you review the previous discussions. The previous consensus, paraphrased, was that whether or not one regards the BoM as pseudohistory, it is not NPOV to categorize it as such. In my opinion, it does not rise to the definition of pseudohistory, which is more than just not accepted by mainstream historians. The great flood, Noah's ark, the Exodus, Moses, Abraham, the early kings of Israel, the resurrection of Christ are all not accepted by the mainstream, but none are categorized as pseudohistory on WP. All of your arguments above rely on original synthesis. I did search for secular, reliable sources that make an explicit pseudohistory categorization for the BoM but did not find any. Given the previous consensus and the lack of new arguments I don't think it's appropriate to make this change. --FyzixFighter (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh my... you now compare the whole historicity of the Book of Mormon with the great flood story and, even, Jesus' resurrection. First, are you a Mormon? If not, then I am not surprised at all why you made such comparison; however, if you are, you just created the greatest joke ever! Second, as I have stated before that Smith claimed the book to be "the most correct book on Earth" while historians disagree with his words. There are no genetical proofs that the Native Americans are descended from the Israelite tribes; that's only one among other many archeological, genetical, historical, logical problems. Regarding the early kings of Israel, David, one of them, has been confirmed to be a historical figure by the Tel Dan stele finding; on Jesus' resurrection, not wanting to be like a religious bigot here but... his resurrection is recorded in the Paul the Apostle's First Epistle to the Corinthians and, along with his ascension, the Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Acts of the Apostles. I know each books of the New Testament may have their own problems and contradictions but on the resurrection and ascension, they all agree. Ok, I won't stop there but as I have noted, Smith's claim seems to be contradictory so the addition of the "Pseudohistory" category into this article is, at least to me, reasonable. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I, personally and honestly, really dislike to debate except for some things I find important. I will stop this discussion here. If you disagree with my edits, that's fine—at least for now. I will not object that anymore but the explanations you gave to me are unconvincing. From how you comparing the Book of Exodus, which was written in the ancient time, and also about figures that probably existed at the time of it was being written, it is obvious to me that there is nothing good in debating with you and other people like you at all. First, my English is bad and now I have to debate; I regret this decision now. The Bible did not claim to be the truest and deniable books; did it?. The Book of Mormon, in contrast, is claimed by its writer, or in Mormonism, its translator Joseph Smith to be a historical record of the Native Americans, who according to him was descended from the Israelites, while archaeology and genetics say the different. I am aware that in the link given by you here, there is someone, a Mormon, who joked about why people think the Book of Mormon is pseudohistorical while the Bible also probably contains same things. That is absurd to me; don't Mormons, if I am not wrong, believe in the authenticity of the Bible "as long as it was translated correctly"? Then why implicitly attacking the Bible? I have no idea; his or her statement is contradictory. I am sorry for not giving you more "secular, reliable sources", which you really wanted here; but wait, no secular sources agree with what the Book of Mormon said. I am surprised! Ok, never mind. I will really stop this discussion now before some offended Mormons attacking me with some warnings of violation on my talk page. Have a great day or night! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I recognize that the discussion has already been resolved, but I hope it is appropriate to give some input so as to bring in more voices on the matter. I am inclined to agree with FyzixFighter on this point. The Pseudohistory category on Wikipedia, from looking at the page itself, refers to instances of historical negationism which attempt to claim the legitimacy of secular, scholarly history without providing the appropriate rigor (or despite being disproved) and does not include religious texts, even those whose claims are not substantiated by secular approaches, since religious texts traditionally do not claim to function in the same arena as the secular academy. Thus, refraining from the category/term pseudohistory seems useful and appropriate for avoiding a POV tone that places expectations on the topic of this page that are not also placed on other, similar topics on other pages. P-Makoto (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I, personally and honestly, really dislike to debate except for some things I find important. I will stop this discussion here. If you disagree with my edits, that's fine—at least for now. I will not object that anymore but the explanations you gave to me are unconvincing. From how you comparing the Book of Exodus, which was written in the ancient time, and also about figures that probably existed at the time of it was being written, it is obvious to me that there is nothing good in debating with you and other people like you at all. First, my English is bad and now I have to debate; I regret this decision now. The Bible did not claim to be the truest and deniable books; did it?. The Book of Mormon, in contrast, is claimed by its writer, or in Mormonism, its translator Joseph Smith to be a historical record of the Native Americans, who according to him was descended from the Israelites, while archaeology and genetics say the different. I am aware that in the link given by you here, there is someone, a Mormon, who joked about why people think the Book of Mormon is pseudohistorical while the Bible also probably contains same things. That is absurd to me; don't Mormons, if I am not wrong, believe in the authenticity of the Bible "as long as it was translated correctly"? Then why implicitly attacking the Bible? I have no idea; his or her statement is contradictory. I am sorry for not giving you more "secular, reliable sources", which you really wanted here; but wait, no secular sources agree with what the Book of Mormon said. I am surprised! Ok, never mind. I will really stop this discussion now before some offended Mormons attacking me with some warnings of violation on my talk page. Have a great day or night! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I recognize that the discussion has already been resolved, but I hope it is appropriate to give some input so as to bring in more voices on the matter. I am inclined to agree with FyzixFighter on this point. The Pseudohistory category on Wikipedia, from looking at the page itself, refers to instances of historical negationism which attempt to claim the legitimacy of secular, scholarly history without providing the appropriate rigor (or despite being disproved) and does not include religious texts, even those whose claims are not substantiated by secular approaches, since religious texts traditionally do not claim to function in the same arena as the secular academy. Thus, refraining from the category/term pseudohistory seems useful and appropriate for avoiding a POV tone that places expectations on the topic of this page that are not also placed on other, similar topics on other pages. P-Makoto (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Fraud
Modern scientific consensus is that the Book of Mormon is a fabrication by Smith, and the biggest proof of that is the Book of Abraham. Every time any of Joseph Smith's so called "translations" come under academic scrutiny, Smith is proven to be a fraud over and over again. The Book of Abraham is one great example. DNA analysis proves American Indians were not descendants of Jews, and the Book of Mormon text claims American Indians had horses, cattle, sheep, bellows, and that they manufactured iron objects, none of which is true or ever has been true. Wikipedia is a place for academic truth and not for promoting Mormonism with "faith inspiring" only materials. Wikipedia should not be used to promote and perpetrate Joseph Smith's fraud. Please stop using Wikipedia to whitewash the ugly truth about Mormonism and Smith's phony books and fraud. The article should discuss all aspects and not be subject to continued reversion of academic content by Mormon Church members on Wikipedia who don't like the accurate analysis of academia regarding Smith's 19th century works of fiction. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BRD I will wait several days for discussion about this matter on the talk page and if no one responds I will reinstate the content. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been previously discussed on this talk page (see the archives), the important thing to maintain in this article is a neutral point of view. There are many different people who are interested in an article such as this, and as such there are differing viewpoints as to the role that the Book of Mormon plays in history. I'm not discounting any of the concerns that you have brought up, but with such differing viewpoints the article needs to address all of the significant ones. As an example, the lead currently states that the denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement typically regard it as scripture, but at the same time mainstream academic communities do not believe it to be a record of historical events. Both viewpoints are addressed. This is why there are entire articles surrounding the historicity and archaeology of this topic.
 * I am not opposed to rewriting the article as necessary, but looking through some of your edits the tone could perhaps be more encyclopedic in nature. They also need to directly reflect the most reliable sources. That was probably why several of them were reverted. As @FyzixFighter suggested, a 1839 book is probably not the most up to date or reliable source to utilize.
 * Thank you for bringing up your concerns. Frankly the article does dive into some viewpoints more than others and as such it does need to be balanced out. Feel free to suggest any wording that you think is appropriate here, that is what the talk page is for. Rollidan (talk) 23:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To pile on, a fraud implies wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Just because something can be proved wrong, does not mean there was wrongful or criminal deception on his part. Virtually all of the historians I have read felt that Joseph Smith himself believed in his divine calling and translation abilities. There are some historians that feel Smith could have been a pious fraud, but that is a better conversation for the Joseph Smith article, not this one. Epachamo (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There is currently a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding this issue that editors of this page may be interested in. Kire1975 (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * IP blocked until Nov 2022. Doug Weller  talk 13:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposing to delete the section "Literary criticism" because the section itself is thin and critical literary scholarship can be used throughout the page
The last section on the page, "Literary criticism", is only a collection of quotations and a very short reference to the existence of a book. There has been little work to build it up, and being just quotations it doesn't seem like an encyclopedic summary of the best sources. I think that it's more natural to simply use literary scholarship in building up the rest of the page (for example, citing American literature scholars in the subsection on "Apocalyptic reversal" under the "Content" section) rather than cordoning such scholarship off to one section at the end. Since deleting an entire section, even if it is a rather thin one, is a bit bold, I want to put my reasoning out here on the talk page before making the page revision. P-Makoto (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I've gone through with the revision. P-Makoto (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with the removal of the section. Such quotes or comments could easily be integrated into other parts of the article. Rollidan (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

(The) Community of Christ?
@FyzixFighter, if I may, I'm curious about this prior discussion where previous editors concluded "the Community of Christ" reads better than "Community of Christ". I looked back in the talk archives, but the only discussions from three years ago on this talk page were about Book of Mormon usage, views on historicity, and concerns about anonymous editors around a church's annual conference. There's no three-year-old discussion about "Community of Christ" or "the Community of Christ" on Community of Christ's talk page either (there is one from five years ago, but with only two editors' input it's not much of a discourse). Was this discussion on a different page?

As an aside, I admit I don't quite see what's so grammatically confusing about the phrase "Community of Christ", at least any more than, for example, "Creative Commons" or "Flatirons Commuity Church" without a preceding "the". And external (as in outside Wikipedia) usage isn't (in my limited experience) consistently applied as a standard on Wikipedia. (On top of ngram seeming like a difficult measure to apply to a denomination that is notable enough to have a scholarly literature studying it but not popular enough to inspire spates of new books on short notice.) But my aside is neither here nor there if there's a discussion I can apprise myself of first. P-Makoto (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I should have been more specific - the small discussion I was thinking of was at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 19. About three years ago, was going through several pages, including this one, removing "the"s that preceded "Community of Christ". Multiple editors, including myself, challenged this removal arguing that it created odd grammar and that WP was not required to follow the CoC style guideline (similar to how it is not required to follow other churches' style guidelines) - eg, , , and . Sources outside of WP, including CoC documents themselves, as you noted are inconsistent; my reference to ngrams was about my attempt to verify the claim that recent informed sources were increasingly using the style, which I was unable to substantiate via that method. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to where that discussion was. I confess, I can't help but feel a little amused that one editor remarked that Wikipedia is not beholden to the "LDS world" when most Community of Christ members would tremble at conflating them with Latter-day Saints.
 * My bad on the claim about informed usage; I think you were right to call me on it. I did a brief search of some relevant academic journals (JWHA Journal, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Dialogue, etc. I don't know if journal publications are included in Google's measure of "books") and realized that usage in the last few years was more inconsistent than I remembered, sometimes without [1 ] [2 ] and sometimes with [3 ] [4 ]. Sorry for my error, and thanks for making the catch.
 * For clarity's sake, when I said "isn't consistently applied", I meant that non-WP that is also non-subject doesn't seem to always dictate use on WP. e.g. For instance, while "4 Da Gang" appears in external independent sources about the song, there's nevertheless a push among some editors to render it "4 da Gang". But what happens on that page is its own matter. Here, I'll let the earlier discussion take priority since the ground hasn't changed much since. P-Makoto (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Subjectivity in "Presentation" section
I wrote this in my edit comment but for some reason it's not appearing in the edit history, so to clarify why I took those statements out: calling the book "narratively and structurally complex" and "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" are very obviously not written from a neutral POV; if quotes by more prominent authors like Mark Twain calling it "chloroform in print" aren't included, then neither should subjective statements written by a BYU professor (Terryl Givens) who are contractually obligated to paint the church in the best possible light. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Givens isn't a BYU professor. Up until 2019, he was a professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. In 2019 he did join the Maxwell Institute as a senior fellow, but that isn't the same thing as being a BYU professor. Also, the cited material is from a 2009 source, while he was still at the University of Richmond and before joining the Maxwell Institute, so the bulk of your objection to Givens as a source is incorrect. Your edit also removed material cited to the Howe source, who you also mischaracterized in your initial edit as a Mormon apologist. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, "senior research fellow" at BYU. And no, it's pretty obvious that he's writing from a Mormon POV. I mean, just look at his page and the books he's spent his career writing; you can nitpick about whether he could be called an "apologist" prior to joining the Maxwell Institute (although the fact that he did end up joining it kinda belies his position); but the fact remains that none of those statements are "neutral" by any stretch of the imagination. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mark Twain was an author of fiction, not a literary scholar published by university presses. Additionally, Mark Twain wrote his comment nearly a century ago; his comment does not represent the current state of the field of Book of Mormon studies.
 * The books by Terryl Givens currently cited on this page are By the Hand of Mormon and The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction. Both were published by Oxford University Press, a respected academic publisher that has no affiliation with any Mormon denomination. Academic presses review the books they publish and provide a context for understanding the book as part of a wider scholarly conversation. Additionally, the books' influence in the field furthers the conclusion that they are part of the prevailing consensus, scholarly point of view.
 * The Maxwell Institute also has a more academic, rigorous, and trustworthy reputation than you imply. It has some affiliation with BYU, that is true. But it is comparable to, say, Baylor University Press (affiliated with the Baptist school Baylor University) publishing books about the Bible. Both Baylor University Press and the Maxwell Institute are recognized as scholarly publishers, even with their institutional affiliations.
 * Wikipedia can cite American historians who write about U. S. presidents, or Protestant literary critics who write about the Bible, or Latter-day Saints who write about the Book of Mormon, and still maintain a neutral point of view. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * None of that disproves that statements like "narratively and structurally complex" and "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" are extremely subjective claims. Treating those claims as fact, instead of the opinions of obviously biased authors, is not "maintaining a neutral point of view". I mean, if you look at the OUP page for By the Hand of Mormon, one of the reviews they share specifically calls it "polemical".
 * Mark Twain's opinion is still shared by the majority of readers of the book, and it's hard to argue that the author of what is considered many to be the best contender for "Great American Novel" didn't have a sense for what constitutes good literature. Academic presses may "review the books they publish and provide a context for understanding the book" but that doesn't mean that said books (and in particular, opinion statements taken from those books) aren't biased. I actually checked it out on archive.org to flip through, and I can't find any mention of how the publishing or editing process involved the "prevailing consensus" at all.
 * Keep in mind that religious studies have a huge survivorship bias problem: the people who find a given book of scripture painfully boring and/or obviously fraudulent rarely (if ever) see it as a worthwhile use of their time to write their own books about it. It's a common practice in the mormon church to participate in a "book of mormon challenge" where members are encouraged to finish the book in some arbitrary timeframe, most often 3 months. That's just under 7 pages a day; even a breakneck "3 week" challenge is a bit less than 28 pages a day. That's not a "this is such an engrossing book" pace, that's an "ugh, just gotta get through a couple more chapters and then I can go to bed" pace. My point stands: if we're going to include opinion statements extolling the book's writing, we should also include ones condemning it; if the latter are seen as "too subjective", then the former should be as well. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Narratively and structurally complex" is not a subjective claim. The Book of Mormon is a structurally complex book, with interlocking narratives, flashbacks, pericopes, etc.
 * "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" is a more subjective claim, that is true, and that is why it is placed in quotation marks and attributed to the historian who made the claim (Daniel Walker Howe), so it is not made in Wikipedia's voice. This is an appropriate way to document subjective information about a topic on Wikipedia, without having Wikipedia itself make the claim.
 * You identified one review that called By the Hand of Mormon "polemical". The other reviews on the page call it "outstanding", "unbiased", "vastly informative", and "exceptional".
 * If Mark Twain had analyzed the Book of Mormon in a scholarly venue, such as an academic book or periodical subjected to editorial and peer review, or a news periodical subjected to editorial review, and if he had written and published more recently within the context of the prevailing field of Mormon studies/religious studies/American history, his assessment of the Book of Mormon might be appropriately cited on this page. Twain did not. Twain made his comment about the Book of Mormon in passing, in a personal memoir, published 151 years ago. Twain's prominence as a novelist is not in dispute, but he was not a scholar of literature and did not publish in the current scholarship. For that matter, Twain notoriously hated and excoriated numerous books and authors whom academics today regard as classics, including James Fenimore Cooper, Henry James, and Jane Austen. Twain's own talents as an author do not make it appropriate to cite him on Wikipedia pages about Last of the Mohicans, The Portrait of a Lady, or Pride and Prejudice, as if his opinions were equivalent in authority to analytical and academic scholarship in literature and history published through academic presses.
 * Academic books don't generally internally describe the publishing process. There nevertheless is a publishing process. Laura Portwood Stacer's "Landing an Academic Book Congtract" describes the general process, which involves peer review, if you are curious.
 * The digression guessing at the hypothetical emotional state of lay Latter-day Saints who read the book seems irrelevant to concluding whether or not the cited books, published with academic presses that subject their publications to peer review by other scholars, are quality sources whose content may appropriately be cited.
 * The page is not exclusively positive about the Book of Mormon. The immediate preceding sentence calls it "repetitive and difficult to read". You never deleted that sentence, even though it is arguably as subjective as "Narratively and structurally complex" (if anything, it being so structurally complex is part of why it is difficult to read). Your edit would have left only a relatively negative statement about the book on the page, deleting a neutral statement about its structure and a positive statement (couched in quotation).
 * With all this in mind, it seems appropriate to conclude that citing By the Hand of Mormon and What Hath God Wrought on this Wikipedia page is appropriate to do. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

==Discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)== You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS). Levivich (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)