Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 5

Translations
I added a column to the table "Chronology of complete translations of the Book of Mormon" for the title of The Book of Mormon in each language. I've been using the other language articles on wikipedia, as well as the product images at the | LDS Distribution Center to find the titles. unfortunately, some of the titles are in alphabets unfamiliar to me, so I can't type them. If anyone else can, please do. And correct my mistakes. Thanks. --Tea and crumpets 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

DNA Section
I think this section needs to be removed, or at least seriously modified. The section is written based on the incorrect idea that the Book of Mormon claims that the Book of Mormon peoples are the main ancestors of today's American Indians. It is a common assumption of both the book's supporters and detractors that the Book of Mormon peoples lived throught America. The book itself is decidely unspecific on the location of its events. Common logic and archaeological evidence suggest that these events occurred in a much smaller geographical area, likely in Central America.

Obviously, a relatively small group living in a small area, which reportedly fell into decline, would not provide a large portion of the gene pool modern American Indians draw from. Therefore, whether American Indian DNA matches Hebrew DNA is of no consequence.

Also, the section states "Nevertheless, critics say that the narrative does not explicitly mention other groups present in the Americas." This part of the section is, at best, confusing. What is meant by "other groups"? If, by this, the author means "groups other than the book's primary subjects, the Nephites and the Lamanites," then the statement is incorrect. The book explicitly mentions two other groups, the Mulekites and the Jaredites. If, on the other hand, the statement suggests that the book does not mention "any groups living in the Americas other than those mentioned in the book"...well...yeah. Obviously, the only groups mentioned in the book will be the ones mentioned in the book.

Before making changes, though, I thought this ought to be brought up here.--Cheaust 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

--What about Zelph the White Lamanite?--Talmage

I have something to say that most people don't realy think about but it could explain the DNA problems. Jacob had sons from different wive, though Judah's mother was a sister to Joseph's, trace through a mother's line already is set appart. Further more, Jospeh married an egyptian women, giving his sons another distinct character to their DNA that would set them apart. It would be pertent to assume that his sons may have married egyptians as well, considering their mother was one and they lived in egpyt. Lobre 19:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs to be removed or edited as to be npov as it's obviously pov. Npov would be to take the scholarly evidence "against" it and list problems with said evidence and other evidence that support the claims of The Book of Mormon.Aqulias Regalis Thor (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But weren't all of the semetic native Americans supposedly (and rather conveniently) wiped out completely by those whose descendants became the historical native Americans? Isn't it conceivable that a white American used the excuse that the aboriginals had wiped out God's "chosen people" as justification for inequitable treatment of the First Nations peoples? This page needs a whole section for "criticism". -Crimson Phantom 00:42, January 22 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.23.2 (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Religious texts category
No religious text is allowed to be in a category and a sub category nor a sub cat of that nor a sub cat that it is put under the most specific category for it putting it in both latter day saints texts category and in religious texts is against categorizing policy for example the bible is not listed under religious texts and abrahamic texts but under christian texts and jewish texts because it belongs under a more specific category it belongs under christian texts and jewish texts it doesn't belong under abrahamic texts because not all abrahamic religions use the bible nor should we put in under religious texts because not all religions use the bible that is how the categorizing policy works also if a text has no subcategory we it under the most specific category--67.65.196.121 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not strictly true (if I'm understanding you right), Wiki:Categorization also says "However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored." I believe that since "sacred history" isn't exclusively a "religious text" subcategory... this isn't exactly "cut and dried" here, perhaps some other editors can comment? gdavies 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

not all LDS
This article needs to be neutral about the different Latter Day Saint denominations, instead of just mentioning the LDS Utah Mormons. --  NERD42 [mailto:nerd42@gmail.com EMAIL ]  TALK  H2G2 UNCYC NEWS   17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an excellent point, and something I personally need to be more mindful of. User:Nerd42's edits in the article in furtherance of this were valuable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Claimed differences between the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint doctrine
The beginning of this section frankly does not belong here. Any claim to contain the "fullness of the gospel", infallabillity or completeness was never made anywhere in the part of the Book of Mormon we have that I could find. Quite the contrary in fact. Moroni freely admits that their might even be mistakes in the book(see the TitlePage). Also, the majority of the book was "sealed up" ( Ether 3:22) until the world was ready to receive them. Why would they be sealed up if they contained nothing new? As mentioned before, the Book of Mormon never claims to contain the fullness of the gospel, therefore it cannot contain a contradiction to the gospel. The Doctrine and Covenants does make this claim, but even so, who knows what was on the sealed portion? The introduction is NOT considered part of the Mormon canon of scriptures, and was written millenia after the Book of Mormon claimed to be finished. Therefore, it cannot be cited as a reference. If nobody can come up with a good reason to keep the first paragraph or so, speak up or I will delete it shortly. Epachamo 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the phrase "fullness of the gospel" comes from a Joseph Smith Jr. quote, though I'm not sure what the context was - but just because a certain amount of information is called the "fullness of the gospel" by latter day saints doesn't mean that they believe there is no other informatino of relevence. Indeed, most Latter Day Saints believe very strongly in an open cannon of scripture.

For Mormons the "fullness of the gospel" does not refer to every doctrinal tenet and idea of the religion, but to the steps one must follow in order to obtain exaltation, i.e. faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost, endure to the end.Primalscreamtherapy 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Fullness of the gospel" is a misleading phrase, if you do not understand the context of the word "gospel". Gospel means the good news of Christ, and not the doctrines or even the practices of the church.  It should be explained or scrapped, but at the very least referenced.  Bytebear 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to correct the above, "fullness of the gospel" means all steps leading to salvation, not exaltation, in mormonism. Wrad 22:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

the fullness of the gospel is basically this, a testament of Christ. When jospeh smith said that it contained the fullness of the gospel, he was inffering to that. In the book of mormon, it is mentioned by the lord explicitly that those who condemn the book of mormon under the closed cannon ideaology are under condemnation and teh Lord reveals many things in his own due time according to the preparation of the people. 2 Ne chapter 29. Therefore it must be understood that the book of mormon is a tool to bring people to pray to God and believe in the power of christ. Therefore in progression as people believe the lord can/ will reveal more as the hearts and the mind of people are open to the fact that the Lord can still speak to men. Many times the abridgers, Mormon and Moroni, selected passages that testified of christ and directs men to have faith, and answered specific things about timeless universal relilgious questions,(such as is it ever justifiable to kill). Specific relgious practices are not explicitly dealed for that is not the purpose of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.100.141 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

differences between the RLDS and LDS versions of the Book of Mormon
As I understand it, the main difference between the two versions is one of chapter and verse allocation, but it is such a severe difference as to make chapter and verse references cited by one group make no sense to the other group.

So, somebody needs to get some RLDS/LDS chapter and verse conversion tables on the internet, and this article should link to them. Would that information would be appropriate as a wikipedia article?

Do any RLDS/CoC historians know why the RLDS Church used a different chapter and versification in their 1908 (or earlier editions) than the 1879 model done by Orson Pratt for the LDS editions? I note that The Church of Jesus Christ (with headquarters in Monongahela, Pennsylvania) has used the Pratt model for a long time. Were they trying to assert their independence or had the LDS threatened them with copyright infringement?Russellane 07:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Russel Lane

As these were two clearly separate churches by 1879, an 1879 versification system of one tradition is clearly not going to be used by the other. Community of Christ took the original chapter break-ups from the 1830/1837... editions and divided those chapters into many verses. the LDS chose to divided the books into smaller chapters thus leads to fewer verses per chapter but more chapters than the Community of Christ versification system. Thus for example if you have a copy/reproduction of an 1830 Book of Mormon and are given Community of Christ reference of I Nephi 5:168 you will find that verse within chapter 5, however if you were given LDS reference 18:1 (the same passage) it will take you longer to find it unless you know the development of the versifications system or have some sort of chart since you will find only 7 chapters. Both systems have pluses and minuses to them. For Community of Christ the decision was to embrace the original chapterfication, which leads to long chapters with many verses but also leads to a bit of backward compatibility. The LDS leads to a system with similar chapter lengths as other books of scripture and chapters that are shorter and more narrow in focus, as 22 chapters verses 7 leads to each chapter having less content and so a reference to a particular chapter may be enough to get a person to the passage you want to deal with while with the larger chapters a starting verse is going to be needed.
 * according to Richard Howard in Restoration Scriptures 2nd Ed. p37- to 8Prior to O. Pratt's versification system both Community of Christ and the LDS church had basically the same system where they just numbered the paragraphs as found in the first few editions. In 1879 Pratt devised a system for the LDS that shortened and increased the number of chapters and Paragraphs. In  1906 3 years after acquiring the Printer's Manuscript the Council of Twelve of Community of Christ sponsored a motion that led to the developing a new versification system rather than the numbering of paragraphs, which sometimes spanned a page or more.
 * In the next few years as they prepared a new edition based on the PMS and the 1837 edition (previously Community of Christ had used a version based on the 1840 3rd Edition), they also developed the current versification system in use by Community of Christ and various groups which have "broken" away from Community of Christ over the years since then. Temple-theo 22:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As much of this information as can be referenced should be included in this article under the Organization section. All one would have to do for the number of chapters is to get the three verions mentioned. Val42 19:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Temple-theo for your very informative response to my inquiryRussellane (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

removed comment
To consider Smith as the author of The Book of Mormon would make him one of the foremost authors of his day, since this work widely read around the world. One of Smith's contemporaries, James Fenimore Cooper, published The Last of the Mohicans in 1826, four years before Smith's work. Similar to the Book of Mormon, Cooper's work deals with Native Americans, however, it is not nearly so comprehensive in dealing with civilizations and military maneuvers in the way the Book of Mormon does. Ralph Waldo Emerson's essays, while dealing with philosophy and ethics, were published years after the Book of Mormon and took ten years to write, while Smith claims to have written his work in mere months. Nathanial Hawthorne, born one year before Smith, did not publish The Scarlet Letter until 1850, twenty years after Smith's Book of Mormon. If Smith did indeed write the work, he has certainly been denied a rightful place in the study of American Literature; the study of The Book of Mormon in academic circles would, at the very least, allow modern criticism of a work that is significant in its relevance to the early 19th century religious and philosophical ideas in America.--Dncstevens 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Its importance to the literary would be true if it wasn't horribly written, as pointed out by Mark Twain. Also, your arguments on why it should be considered important to the literary world are ridiculous. To mention that Hawthorne was born one year before Smith has nothing to do with why a certain book is accepts into any given literary canon, nor does the time in which a book was completed. Since when were "military manuevers" a pre-req for an important work? And finally, the amount of Book of Mormons in circulation is irrelevant; many were given out to free and those that do read it aren't reading for literary reasons, they are reading it to buy into the myth of going to heaven.--Talmage 04/27/2007

I removed the above comment from the article and placed it on the talk page for reference. --Trödel 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So you removed a comment based on your opinion which goes contrary to the majority of people who read the book both supporter and non-supporter alike? I wonder have you even read it and if so give an example of how it is written poorly. Mark Twain also criticized parts of the style of writing that support authenticity and claimed it boring and prosy not poorly written as you state. And considering he was a proud Anti-Mormon, I fail to see how his opinion on the matter holds any weight against other scholarly and non scholarly opinion to the contrary. In short you removed it because it brings up a good point you do not wish to bring up, as it adds credibility to it. I think the comment should be placed back on until a more scholarly one with the same points can be written to replace it.Aqulias Regalis Thor (talk) 08:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
Book of Mormon → The Book of Mormon – Rationale: See Naming conventions: Titles of works, just like The Old Man and the Sea, this needs a "The" --Lethargy 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~ ''


 * Support: See above. --Lethargy 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support: But I think that starting and article with an article ("a" or "the) is against Wikipedia policy. Val42 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is fine in this case, see When definite and indefinite articles should be used. --Lethargy 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the name change or change to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ -- Trödel 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Second suggested title is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Val42 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: True I forget the other LDS movement groups haven't adopted the subtitle. I'll withdraw the second suggestion -- Trödel 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support the suggested name change. &mdash;Brim 05:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't know. Are we treating this as a work of fiction, like The Old Man and the Sea, or are we treating it as a religious text, like Bible or Torah?
 * The title page says "The Book of Mormon" --  NERD42 [mailto:nerd42@gmail.com EMAIL ]  TALK  H2G2 UNCYC NEWS   20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the title of my King James bible says "The Holy Bible", but that's not the article title. I'm really not sure about this one. Kafziel 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support The 1830 edition contains the article "The" therefore I think it should be added into the title. Since when do we drop articles from religious texts? Although you don't really say "Do you want a The Book of Mormon" unless your name is Strongbad:) Epachamo 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You asked "since when", so I direct your attention to two places above, where I mentioned Bible and Torah. I'm not opposed to the move (yet) but I'd like to see better reasons than title pages. Thus far it does seem that precedent goes against this request. Kafziel 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have been more specific. I have never heard of the convention of dropping articles from the titles of religious texts and not from works of fiction.  If there is let me know, and I apologize.  It seems more likely after reading the section When definite and indefinite articles should be used, that the article is dropped when it is not used in the title in the original language (As I suspect is the case with "Torah" and "Bible").  Since we don't really know how they did it with Reformed Egyptian, Wikipedia guidelines say to go off the translations.  Since we only have one translation, and the article IS used in that translation, we should use it in the title of our article.  That it seems is the precedent. Epachamo 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I will not support nor vote against this move, but recuse myself in this instance. It was tried once before and the move failed due to the article policy cited above. If you can't get it changed for the legal name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you'll have a harder time with the Book of Mormon. I agree with keeping where it is due to encyclopedic standards, but would support a move of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are no doctrinal issues with it in either place, as there are with the name of the church, and simply doesn't really matter. If I remember right, the library of congress listing is "Book of Mormon, The." -Visorstuff 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Visorstuff's reasoning. I understand the logic in adding "The" to the beginning, but don't really think there's a need to make a change that, in the end, isn't really that necessary and would require changing an enormous amount of links so they don't point at the redirect. Thanks for bringing this up here rather than just doing a unilateral move.  Tijuana Brass ¡Épa! 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Lethargy's comment below and Tijuana Brass' reasoning above. I'm convinced. Kafziel 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Stormrider and Lethargy below - the churches that use it seem to flip-flop on the "the", and keeping no "the" is more likely to match searches for it. Besides, do we really know whether "Reformed Egyptian" used definite articles? English is somewhat peculiar in its mania for definite articles everywhere, and languages written with logographs rather than alphabets seem especially prone to omitting them - so, assuming the reality of the Book of Mormon, I don't think it would have used anything translated as "the" in its original title. It would have been an anglicizing touch by Joseph, along with all the other anglicizing he did, according to LDS apologists. I don't know of any authoritative statements by the Brethren on the doctrinal importance of the "the". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 08:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support The actual book reads The Book of Mormon, so I suggest we name the article according to the exact name and have Book of Mormon as a redirect. --TomasBat (@) (Sign) 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support The name of the text is "The Book of Mormon" as named by Mormon because it is one book containing multiple abridged records. If Joseph is the Author he chose "The Book of Mormon" as the title of his work. Torah cannot be "The Torah" as hebrew does not contain any indefinite articles and they are added by translators to the best of their ability. Bible is also a different circumstance as not all people use the same version or translation, also the Bible is a collection of unabridged works by various authors (who's authenticity btw can be questioned just as easily as TBoM)compiled and collected into a "bible" (note that the word bible is derivative of biblia which mean library and can be applied to any library. Note also you can look up articles on the different versions and that many of them contain "The" in the article title. The Quaaran is not titled with the in its title rather the is used simply in modern language the way you would use the to reference something. Except for some english edition the only word on the cover is Quarran or one of it's various iterations.Aqulias Regalis Thor (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

This may not be as straightforward as I had originally thought. Although the cover of the book shows "The Book of Mormon", it seems the "the" may be there purely for aesthetic reasons. First, the spine of a combination BoM/PoGP/D&C/Bible lists it as simply "Book of Mormon". Second, you can see here that the "The" is on a separate line from "Book of Mormon". Third, this article and many others do not capitalize the "the" before Book of Mormon. --Lethargy 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * People, I am ambivalent about this issue. Titles are important to me to identify article topics and to facilitate searches.  I believe that most adults would look up Book of Mormon.  Youths might first search for "The Book of Mormon", but would sill find it.  I really don't know what we gain by changing the name.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UT

This is pathetic. The Book of Mormon was never God's intention. It was a man's. Saying the Book of Mormon was to strenghen our relationship and understanding of God is calling God weak. The Bible was/is the only word, and it says so too. Why would you believe in something that is against the Bible. The Book of Mormon says Mary and God had sex and Jesus was the product, the Garden of Eden is in Mosouri, and that Israelites came to the Americas. They believe in a different Christ. It (Book of Mormon) should never been written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.205.19 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Really?? 68.238.205.19, although you have demonstrated a stunning ability to regurgitate the content of The God Makers, you appear to know very little about the actual content of the Book of Mormon. This stuff belongs in a chat room rather than a Wikipedia discussion. Bochica 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms should be up front
DW: This entry makes me embarassed to be a fan and evangelist for wikipedia. It sounds like Church propoganda. The issues and questions about this book should be summarized in the lead-in to this topic. Right now, you folks who maintain this have them burried. If you are not afraid of them, talk about them up front. 64.121.2.68 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As an evangelist for Wikipedia, you should have your own account (rather than an anonymous IP address) and know how to sign your own articles. Above all, you should know that you can make such edits yourself.  This article has been edited many time by many Mormons and many who are not Mormons.  Since you think such criticisms are in order, you can make such edits yourself and see how they stand up to peer review by both groups of editors of this article. If you have changed your mind about such information belonging in the introduction, then leave the article as-is.  Val42 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DW: So those who have chosen not to setup an account are not qualified to be evangelists for Wikipedia? I think most here would argue with that position, and if that's the case, Wikipedia would disable such features. Of course, I know that I can make edits myself, and I did (you know there is a diff function, right?). I have not changed my mind (whatever led you to think that), and a quick scan of the article just now made me think that it is in better order and that others have helped to ensure that. Once I save this edit, maybe I'll do a diff to verify. The reason I think it ended up in the condition I first viewed it (before I and others made edits) is that more mormons were maintaining it than neutral third parties (and I'm not talking about mormon hating christians). As an editor, you should put your own unanswered questions (that you can't explain execpt by faith) about this topic up front. 64.121.2.68 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If someone said that they were "a fan and evangelist for" the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or any cause for that matter), but had shown by their actions that they were not a member of said organization (and never would be), what would be your first question?
 * Of course I know of the history; that is how I got the information to sign your comments for you. As I've told other people, editors who sign their comments and get an account (it is as anonymous as your IP address, you know) are taken more seriously than those who don't.
 * And IF you'd read my comments, I wrote "If you have changed your mind ...." Don't skip the short words; depending on the word and the context, the meaning of the sentence may change greatly when you leave them out.  But to directly answer your question, I checked the history from when you posted the above comment (19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)) and now, and you have not made any further edits.  I also checked the introductory paragraph between my edit on the 22nd and now, and "according to the text" was added.  That's it.  Please evaluate for yourself my if-statement in that light.
 * As for the content of the introductory paragraph, I renew my admonition to you, in shorter form: Since you think such criticisms are in order in the introduction, please made the edits yourself and see if they stand up to peer review; otherwise, leave the introduction as-is. Val42 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * My money says they'd never stand up to peer review, simply because in the real world they're not the relevant focus of a discussion on the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is left to stand on the merit of its content, and those who say it should only be viewed through the lens of their "Top Ten Ways to Fight Mormons" books really don't represent the statistical majority. I'm sure if one were to poll, he would see that those "concerns" aren't really the concerns of very many... (and if you ask me, none who actually know the history.)  --Mrcolj 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Humor? Who's Laughing Out Loud?
The Book of Mormon is a sacred religious text to a large group of people. I feel that a 'Humor' section with degrading material provides no intelligent 'nutritional value'.

I propose that the Humor section be removed from this topic. I don't find similar sections on the Koran or Torah. Coldblackice 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)(talk)


 * Mark Twain has no qualifications for legitimate criticism of any religion; it was not within his limited area of expertise. His writing is more appropiratly labeled Mark Twain's opinion.  I think I understand why someone may have thought it appropriate to have a humor section; it is motivated by the same thought process similar to common jokes of racisim.  This is a public encyclopedia and we will get all kinds of edits.  It seems POV to list it and so I will delete the whole section.  If someone feels differently; let's discuss it here.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Letters From the Earth is one of the best pieces of religous satire written. Also, he is undeniably one of the great thinkers of his time. Where does your expertise, or any of ours, reside from? And anyway, about your rascism comment, people can't change their rrace but they sure can change whatever certifiably false beliefs they have.

What kind of qualifications does one need to legitamitely criticize religion? Maybe Mark Twain was divinely inspired in his criticism.
 * I may not have stated it as elegantly as I could have; anyone is capable of criticizing religion or anything else. However, to have the comment noted the opinion must derive from expertise. Given thta this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of talks on the back porch, quotes should be reserved for experts. It would be like having a quote from G. W. Bush about religion; who could possibly care. He may be a Christian, but his opinion is only as good as the opinion from the Muslim down the street when it comes to quotes in an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the quote in question and deleted the entire section. If we are going to have an "in literature" section, we are certainly going to need more than a sarcastic critique by Mark Twain. I personally don't feel the section is necessary at all as the Book of Mormon itself is the subject of this article and few great works of literature (if any) have been influenced by it in any amount (which seems to be the purported purpose of the section, "in literature"). gdavies 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing section
I'm moving the following section here for more discussion (if necessary).


 * In Ancient History Books


 * Although Mormon historians and Mormon literature sets the origin of the Book of Mormon (BoM) as having been translated from "Reformed Egyptian Symbols" found on golden plates, by the Prophet Joseph Smith using a special set of mounted seer stones on a device called the Urim and Thummim. There is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that the BoM could be the lost archives of the Jewish Khazar nomads in Russia, who left Jerusalem at 600 BC and went into the wilderness... This theory is put forth by the Dutch Historian, Nico de Jongh. His ever expanding research is found on his History webpage:


 * Book of Mormon in Classical History Writing

Neglecting the poor organization and grammar (first sentence starts out with "although" but doesn't have a second clause, probably supposed to join to the second part... serious run on as well). The "substantial body of evidence" they refer to is a rather embarrassing page with nothing more than original "research" (using the term loosely) consisting of seemingly random assignment of events in the Book of Mormon with elements of history (primarily russian). It ends with a request for the original documents of the Book of Mormon, which they insist Salt Lake still has, so they can have the lost/stolen record of world history. Although the page is good for a nice laugh, I seriously doubt that anything contained therein deserves our attention on this page. This article is already too long, no thanks to sections like these. gdavies 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?
At what point do facts enter in neutral point of view? The book of mormon is obviously false. We all understand that except for mormons. Having 2 sides of an issue argue a point isn't neutral. I'd almost prefer just stating what the mormons beileve in, instead of explaining how stupid it is, then how it's not really stupid.

That is a reoccuring theme. The Book of Mormon is fake, but here's why it might not be.

Why not just say the facts of the issue. Avoid the whole thing. Any rational human being is going to read it, and determine the issue on their own.


 * Nothing like having an opinion. Have you read the NPOV policy?  I am not sure what you are asking or if you are exhibiting troll behaviors.
 * Topics of faith are difficult; for those outside the respective faith it is at times unimaginable how anyone in their right mind could believe such outlandish claims. WIKI is not a place to judge what is "true" and what is not among any of the faith articles.
 * Some editors believe that balance is necessary for readers to understand an article. I personally am not an absolutist in this regard.  At times in articles of faith I think we bend over backwards before the alter of Balance and doing so leads to disjointed, clumsy articles.  Other times it leads to excellent articles.  The challenge is for us as editors to rise to the occaission and write better.
 * Your last point is all that the Book of Mormon asks with an additional request; pray about it and ask God if it is true. Also, please show me a completely rational human; I have yet to meet one.  I find humans have feet of clay...always.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "I'd almost prefer just stating what the mormons beileve in, instead of explaining how stupid it is, then how it's not really stupid." That's the spirit of NPOV, esp in encyclopediae.  Balance doesn't work, ever.  Because "balance" always favors the lowest common denominator--the guy with the craziest "but morally equivalent" view.  Libertarianism always descends into the libertine.  E.g., my mother is a member of the Interfaith Council in a county in San Francisco.  Every week she tries to get the various churches to participate in some universal event, and it's not hard to find something they all believe in.  But invariably there's one guy who believes something weird and in the name of "balance" believes his views should get an equal vote with catholicism, which defines 25% of the population.  And the hippies give it to him.  Realistically, there are 10 of these people a week, and the ensuing gridlock disallows all progress.  All of us know who should have a vote in the interfaith council, and most of us believe that should be defined at the very least by number of adherents and government recognition.  But "balance" stops anyone from seeing that.  That's how I feel here.  "Balance" is irrelevant.  What we want is what the BoM is, and even some legitimate academic discussion of what it is not, but not statistically insignificant ramblings of trolls who have never read the book.  --Mrcolj 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's much easier to discount the BoM with some crazy conspiracy theory if you haven't read it. I don't think the first poster was being a troll, though. I think his opinion was that we should just state the facts on where Mormons believe the Book of Mormon came from and what it is and let it speak for itself. He obviously believes the book is untrue but I don't think he was being trollish.Primalscreamtherapy 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Most non-Mormon scholars regard the book as a collection of local legends of Indian origin, fragments of autobiography, and current religious and political controversies (especially that connected with the Anti-Masonic movement), all transformed with remarkable ingenuity into a religious document." This statement is an ambiguous statement without any serious evidence to back it up (despite it's supposedly reliable source). "Most non-mormon scholars" probably don't have an opinion on the Book of Mormon and certainly (if this is true) we could point to some local indian legends that this is a "collection of." It's POV in it's placement and lack of qualification, deleting until (if necessary) we can find a better section (perhaps one regarding critics explanations for the Book of Mormon) gdavies 00:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As an aside, there are scholars and nonscholars. Scholars can be of various religious affiliations. To differentiate between a Christian scholar and an atheist scholar is an attempt at spinning an article; it is POV. It is also POV to attempt to state that a Mormon scholar is somehow different from any a scholar of another faith, sect, denomination etc.; it is blantant spinning and POV. I reject the statement above because of its definitive attempt to spin the article. Many scholars are not religious and think that all religion is the stuff of fairy tales. There are many other scholars that are people of faith and belong to as many different religions as recognized in the world. Please refrain from attempting to spin your POV and to lend it credibility. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph in the "smith as a plagiarist" section is very POV... needs some work. "However, if such plagiarism did exist, most blame would have to be placed on the shoulders of Oliver Cowdery." From the outset, this statement has a variety of POV insinuations that I don't think we need to go in depth on (some include Oliver Cowdery as the moving force behind the book, the word "blame" and general wording).

"Cowdery was educated and trained as a typesetter/printers assistant in the 1800s and worked at the Poultney Gazette in the summer of 1823 (the paper became known as the Northern Spectator in December of 1823) when Ethan Smith brought the View of the Hebrews manuscript to be published. Soon thereafter Cowdery left the paper and within a few months Joseph Smith had reported the first divine visitation on September 21, 1823." Besides the unnerving dearth of citations in this section, this statement is POV as well because its format suggests that Oliver Cowdery had some part in Joseph Smith's "divine manifestation" (that he helped "cook up" the whole thing).

"This employment at the Poultney Gazette would not have been Cowdery's first exposure to View of the Hebrews; his family, including father William and stepmother Keziah, were noted as being longstanding members of Ethan Smith's congregation in Poultney when he arrived and assumed leadership in November 1821. Ethan Smith made no secret of his theories presented in View of the Hebrews during sermons." This statement is completely unsourced. Hopefully we can get this section cleaned up. Thanks! gdavies 04:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture Section Irrelevant
Removing -- along same lines as Humour section. --Coldblackice 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have never understood the value or appropriate reason the value of these types of sectons for an encyclopedia.  I find it akin to ready those rags at the check counter like National Enquirer, etc.  There is no academic value.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These pop culture references in serious articles should be removed everywhere, IMHO - see the recent discussion starting here on the mailing list -- Trödel 03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on the type of article. For "Xenu" (a Scientology topic) a discussion would be incomplete without a description of the South Park episode on the topic because it is so high-profile, but most of the pop culture sections on wiki are so obscure. . . Anyway, there are few high-profile pop culture references to the Book of Mormon so we don't need anything for now (at least in the main page). For wiki articles related to entertainment or celebrities a pop culture section is much more relevant.Primalscreamtherapy 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns
After reading the discussion of the this article, it is clear there are sincere questions about the neutrality of this article and that these concerns have been ignored. Here is just one example from the article: "Some claim Smith plagiarized material from the manuscript for an unpublished novel by Solomon Spaulding. Spaulding's romantic novel has very little in common with the Book of Mormon." While this quote acknowledges a critical point of view, it instantly disposes of it. The "Some" are not identified. Not only does Spaulding's romantic novel, readers are told, has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, it "has very little in common," whatever that means. This construction is deliberately misleading and lacks even a weak attempt at accuracy, balance or fairness on the part of the author. If Spaulding's novel has passages that appear plagarized, let's see them and make up our minds. If you argue that the plagarism theory rubbish, let's see the point-by-point destruction of charge. The article is also riddled with sloppy, weak, dishonest and illogical thinking and expression.
 * I agree with your concerns and would invite you to assist in editing the article to bring in more in line with policy. The article needs to be balanced and your example is evidence that balance is lacking.  Thanks.  Storm Rider (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Along these lines, I'm wondering if we can get some more substantive sources for the paragraph about "automatic writing." The paragraph names off a bunch of characteristics ("multiple authorship, use of archaic language, accounts of bygone historical figures, descriptions of times and places apparently unfamiliar to the writer, narratives with well-developed characters and plot, accounts of various ministries of Jesus Christ, poetics, occasionally impressive literary quality, doctrinal, theological, and cosmological discussions, and even discourses by deity") that "happen" to be in common with the material of the BoM, but I can't find a single reference to most of these aspects being shared with other purported automatically written works. This seems like a section taken from some anti-lit that really doesn't have a strong foundation. In looking at the wiki article on automatic writing there really aren't any similar purported works. Any ideas? I'd like to limit the section to just saying that some believe that it was written with this method (if that is indeed a belief out there.... I've never heard of it until now). Just seems like a major stretch... Gentry Davies 23:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with the concept of spirit writing, but it is not a thought supported by the academic community at large. It falls within some of the New Age movement.  Dunn's hypothesis is similar to the value of an opinion; everyone has one and it is common.  It is funny that he would create such a fanciful allegation at the same time he is accusing Joseph Smith of being fanciful.  My grandmother's opinion was that man never walked on the moon.  It is a nice opinion; but it is still false.  It would be appropriate to describe Dunn's expertise in/with spirit writing and evaluating Joseph Smith's supposed use of such a thing.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I personally find the inclusion of such a theory degrading to "the critics point of view." It is a totally baseless theory and one that no serious critic would take seriously. I suggest the paragraph be removed. If anyone has a legitimate reason and/or strong desire to keep the paragraph, I welcome an explanation. Mapache 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with you position; it definitely makes critics look a bit looney. It makes me think of the old saying, swallowing camels and choking on gnats.  I would feel this article and WIKI in general is improved by not having such outlandish claims cited.  However, I am a Latter-day Saint and may not be viewed as wholly objective.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the inclusion of valid scientific criticisms, such as the many issues brought up by B.H. Roberts. There are a plethora of individual ideas on other exotic origins (automatic writing, space aliens, etc) but I do not believe they have enough credibility to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.  I am removing the paragraph.  Should anyone have any serious objections or come up with a logical reason to include the automatic writing theory, then let us discuss it.  Mapache 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand as to what this topic is about. If it is discussing that the book of mormon was produced by supernatural means, but not neccessarily divine, then it is supported by non-Mormon scholars including Robert Remini, University of Illinois at Chicago, Margaret Barker, biblical scholar from England and Jan Shipps, Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis. In fact this was discussed during the recent Library of congress symposium on the topic of Smith. It has long been the response of those who think that smith himself was led astray. Naturalistic scholars don't subscribe to the theory, but naturalistic scholars are declining - many of the new movements in history say that perhaps things happened the way the historical sources thought they did - they don't try to explain it by science, but by evidences - regardless of what they point to.


 * This is a bizarre discussion, but one that interests me. It's hard to be objective when some issues are so polarizing. Should insane nutty crackpot theories be included on Wikipedia? Probably, if many people have them, making them encyclopediac. The Spalding book would be a good example. It's a plainly baseless accusation (the mere fact that the book was written with a couple parallel plot points but almost nothing in common makes conspiracy theorists get excited), but it must be included because it's a common baseless accusation. Even on the main Mormon page it includes the "Are Mormons Christian" debate even though it's a lame debate, because it's a common debate. Where do we draw the line between encyclopediac and non-encyclopedic?Primalscreamtherapy 02:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraphs by Storm Rider
I don't understand the purpose of the following paragraph:
 * 1. As can be seen on the title page of the first edition of the Book of Mormon the book claims to be "written by the hand of Mormon" and that Joseph Smith himself claimed to be the "author and proprietor".  In 1830, the only way to secure a copyright for a work, even if it was translated, was to file the application as the "author and proprietor".  Thus, Joseph Smith's assertion that he translated the Book of Mormon is consistent with the law of the time and the wording on the title page of the first edition of the book.

It seems to be a polemic entry to defeat the claim that because Joseph Smith claims to be the author then he created it. I don't think it belongs; it is a weak accusation from critics.


 * 2. In addition to the possibility of a quotation by Nephi, members also say that Joseph could have referred to the KJV version during the translation, and, as such, the errors in the KJV could have been transferred to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon Institute Manual notes that all prophets, ancient and modern, quote existing scripture as it is known to the people of their time, rather than forming their own translations of the text. It cites the authors of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) in quoting scripture to the Greeks as it was known to them, rather than retranslating the originals.

Again this sounds polemic. The section should just be presenting the different views on the genesis of the Book of Mormon wihtout all the pros andcons.


 * 3. This position tends to be the most commonly-held among Smith's critics (including New Order Mormons and non-Mormons in general). Some Latter-day Saint apologists, such as Hugh Nibley, reject this viewpoint, claiming that it is nearly impossible to write such a book within such a period of time, particularly given that Smith was an unlearned man with little or no knowledge of Hebrew peoples. Forensic evidence is equally debated and remains inconclusive. However, some believe there is evidence to indicate that Joseph Smith had both the capability and resources to accomplish this task (Vogel 2004).

Based upon the legitimate NPOV concerns I have begun to edit the article. The above paragraphs I felt were more polemic than necessary. I still do not think the outline works well. There should be one section that addresses the official version of the genesis of the Book of Mormon; it now bleeds over several areas and is redundant. Further, the sections on alternative views of its genesis needs to be clearly defined without rebuttal. I do think with the discovery of the actual Spaulding manuscript that this theory should be presented as a debunked theory. All writers previous to their discovery were relying on hearsay and quoting earlier sources that also did not have the manuscript for reference. However, the balance of the theories are appropriate.

I think this is only a beginning and others should begin to "scrub" the article. If someone feels like some of the above information needs to be reinserted to the article, pelase feel free; but please do not use them in their current form or in their previous places. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * 4. A significant segment of the Book of Mormon, namely 2 Nephi chapters 7, 8, and 12-24, matches nearly word-for-word the chapters 50, 51-52:1-2, and 2-14 (respectively) of the King James Translation (1611) of the Book of Isaiah.  Whilst this is a point of argument for those who do not accept the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints accept these passages as quotations from Isaiah by Nephi.  The footnotes and chapter headings acknowledge this and encourage comparisons between Isaiah and 2 Nephi. There are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah that are quoted in the Book of Mormon; some minor, some significant.

Critics note, however, that there are many word-for-word quotations purportedly taken from the KJV that are no longer accepted in current English translations of the Bible. They are considered as later additions placed by a scribe or monk. The most well-known example is Mark 16:15-18 which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24, the passage concerning believers holding snakes and drinking poison. This passage does not appear in many early manuscripts and is widely believed to be composed in the 2nd century.(See Mark 16).

It should be noted that as well as apparently direct quotations, the book overall reflects the 1611 KJV literary and linguistic style. Given the absence of the RSV at the time, this is unsurprising since the KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced.

This should probably be added by in under the critics section, but I am focused on other areas of the article and did not want to lose this data. Storm Rider (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, you asked me for some comments. I am unfortunately rather busy at the moment, so I can't say too much, but I noticed that you put the title of the subsection you removed, "Passages...", under the Historicity section. The subsection would not fit well with Historicity as it discusses issues outside the text of the book (archaeology, DNA, etc.). The subsection originally came from the Origins section which discusses issues of the origins of the text and it is best to remain there. Perhaps the title of the section could be renamed as "Critics' explanations"? In fact, I will do that just now so you can see and edit it some more. RelHistBuff 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hal Hougey
was not a member of the LDS church as previously listed. He did however make it a point to study the Mormon religion.


 * Not being familiar with Hal Hougey, I had to double check this claim, and I could find no references to him being LDS. Good edit.  Mapache 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Me either - I could find no reference confirming the claim he was LDS. -- Trödel 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

LDS Funded Archaeology
Under this section of the article, the following paragraph seems improperly quoted:


 * Ferguson wrote a 20 February 1976 letter to Mr & Mrs H.W. Lawrence in which he stated: "...The real implication of the paper is that you can't set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere — because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say — what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."[5]

The implication of the presentation in this article seems to be that Ferguson was assessing the picture for the Book of Mormon as bleak. But Ferguson's real meaning seems to be that the Norman and Sorenson papers were making that assessment. Am I off the mark in thinking this is an abused quote? Agape bright 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I looked up the Dialogue article and Ferguson was actually quoting from his own paper. I will try to fix this based on the original source. RelHistBuff 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry I meant he was "referring to" not "quoting" his 29-page paper. RelHistBuff 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Critics' views
There were 3 uncited sentences that I took out of this section. These had all been tagged for over a month, which is ample time for them to have been cited, IMO. I also deleted 1 sentence that did not make sense without the deleted one. I think the rest of the paragraph still makes sense and is OK to keep. Leon7 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

In the Critic's View section, it stated that Olive Cowdery never retracted his witness that he saw the plates in vision. I changed this to leave out the "in vision" to eliminate confusion. The testimony says that God came and showed them to him... In contrast, the testimony of the eight witnesses makes it fairly obvious that they saw and "hefted" the plates. I don't think that we can really say whether God came and showed them the plates physically or in a vision... for that reason I took out the reference... any ideas?Gentry Davies 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery never "hefted" the plates, as he was part of the "The Three Witnesses" who were (as the declaration says) shown the plates by an angel who came down from heaven. You are thinking of "The Eight Witnesses" who claim to have had the otherwise exclusive privilege of actually touching them. That being said, Cowdery's own words should be used whenever possible. If he ever stated that it was a "vision" it should be written as such. If not, it should be left out. Either way, I'd like to see citations.

On an unrelated note, a few passages in the "Smith as plagiarist" section concern me. While it is admitted that David Persuitte's book (which I have not read) shows parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon it quickly points out but notes no instances of direct copying, nor does he demonstrate that Smith ever read or even encountered the book. B.H. Roberts book Studies of the Book of Mormon not only marks parallel passages, but points out that View of the Hebrews and other similar works were repeatedly checked out at the library 5 miles from Smith's home, making it quite likely that he was, at the very least, familiar with the books. None of this is mentioned however. Perhaps it would make the article too long, but if that is the case, the plagiarist section may just be in need of a rewrite. Thoughts anyone? Mapache 22:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The Studies of the Book of Mormon article mentions and cites an article in the Times and Seasons in which Joseph Smith mentions Ethan Smith and cites passages from View of the Hebrews, so there is no doubt that he encountered the book. This article should be corrected to reflect that (I might be able to do it myself in about a week or so when I have time.) I would also be interested in the page number in Studies where Roberts mentions the checking out of the book from the library if you have it handy. I've read sections of Studies, but I haven't read it completely yet so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed the reference. Bochica 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Last complaint for today I promise ;). The archaeology section mentions elephants as one of the "evidence once thought lacking."  While elephants did (along with horses) live in the americas in the pleistocene period, the citation links to what seems to be a personal website, which also fails to link to the American Aniquarian Society's actual article.  The context of the passage in the encyclopedia entry implies that the bones of the elephants dated to Book of Mormon times.  Is there a credible citation for this claim? Mapache 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There isn't credible citation. That's saying evolution exists. Besides, if there were horses and elephants, there would have had been evidence (native american: paintings, carvings, and they would have passed down (orally) the sitings of horses and elephants they lived alongside with. Why wouldn't they keep the information, even if it was true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.201.65 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the View of the Hebrews and the solomon MSS. Add it in. As for the other question - Honestly, depends on your definition of elephants. Elephants, Mastadons, Mammoths or other Pachyderm. Yes, at least on the last two, the first is still in dispute in archaeological circles, and scholars are quoted both ways. They all come from the order Proboscidea, which various species of did exist in americas as late at 2000 years ago. See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and its talk page, as well as the extinction date at Mammoth. -Visorstuff 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Who are you trying to fool ? When is an elephant not an elephant FFS ?Palx 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * To clarify my question, I was trying to find a reference to any of those species in the BoM time range. I don't dispute their being here in more ancient times, but I would like to see the actual article cited as a reference rather than someone's personal webpage mentioning it. Mapache 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

An Elephant is not an elephant when someone calls a mammoth or something else an elephant. Mammoth and Mastadon are both modern terms that came after Joseph's day so how and why would he have used them? It's the same as curlom or cummom which could be any number of animals used in Meso-America that Joseph didn't know the equivalent for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aqulias Regalis Thor (talk • contribs) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Disposition of the Plates
"After translation was complete, the angel is said to have again taken the plates from Joseph Smith and no public account of their whereabouts has been made since."

This statement raises questions. Who said this? Is an accurate quotation available? On what date did the angel take back the plates? Who was present on this occasion? Where did this event occur?


 * I added a reference to Joseph Smith's statement regarding the return of the plates. Little information is given other than that is was "according to arrangements". Paul D. Anderson 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Length of article
This article is now over 50 KB long. Generally this means there needs to be some pruning or creation of sub-articles. Any thoughts on how we can pare this article down? --Kmsiever 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The area that I see the highest probability of paring the aricle is under the Content section. The rest of the article seems to address subjects that if not present would lessen the value of the article.  Storm Rider (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also think a History subarticle is feasible. --Kmsiever 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading the article, and thinking the same thing. This article should be about the book and it's contents. Some history should be presented as to it's origins through Joseph Smith, but I think the sections on criticisms and alternate theories should be made into separate articles. Don't think I am trying to make it a POV article, but the article should be about the book and it's contents. I would rather see sections on each individual book than about criticisms and rebuttels. 68.4.225.187 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is longer than it should be (empty), because people shouldn't be reading this junk!!! It is all a lie! How many times do we Christians have to say, Mormons are not the same, they believe opposite of what we know is true. It's too easy, we have proof that: Jesus existed, that there was a crucifition, and that the Holy Spirit exists in us (we just need to use it). You know what, to prove that I'm correct, go to www.youtube.com, and search The Bible vs. the Book of Mormon. Just watch it. Don't leave it. Be curious and watch, compare, and think about it. Jesus Lives!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.205.19 (talk • contribs) 04:08, August 13, 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one: there has never been anything to out right prove mormonism wrong. The fact that there is evena discussion on it means there is something to it. Two: Mormons and other christian church doctrines are closer then you think. (if you want I can prove it.) As to the legth of the article there is aenough content to make another article and should e made just so there isn't clutter. I think it is up to the writter of the article to decide how it should be done if it does get done.Lobre 22:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bible
quote <> What is this all about. Can we have some examples of where the Bible is not translated correctly otherwise this is a pretty pointless thing to say! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studge (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC).
 * As far as mistranslations are concerned, see this interesting article, about half way down is a compelling summary of differences between LXX MT and other versions of the Bible. gdavies 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "as far as it is translated correctly" means as long as the translation is consistent with the King James Version, that hundreds of verses of the Book of Mormon match (see 2.2 "Similarities of some segments to the King James Version"). As Mormons believe that Smith received the translation directly from God, they believe that any differences in more modern translations cannot, therefore, be correct. Glyns 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What an interesting, but unfortunately, completely incorrect statement about LDS or Mormon beliefs; wholly lacking in truth. I think you might now put that axe down and begin to edit from a neutral position and seek to gain a deeper understanding of LDS doctrine and thought.
 * Studge, you also made a similar, but more complete, statement on the Mormonism talk page. The Bibles we use today are translations of a muliple translations.  LDS believe that the Bible contains mistranslations.  Bart D. Ehrman, chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC at Chapel Hill, has written an excellent book regarding this very subject entitled, Misquoting Jesus:  The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.  Suffice it today that there are a multitude of reasons to understand that there are errors in the text we recognize as the Bible today.  It should be noted that Ehrman has nothing to do with the LDS church and is not a member.  To see some differences in the text from an LDS perspective please see the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.  The link just provided gives some examples of differences from an LDS perspective; however, I would recommend reading Ehrman's book.  It is completely neutral; he is not writing from a specific church's viewpoint.  It is an accomplished, highly regarded scholar's results from his personal research as well as the research of a number of scholars for the last few hundred years.  I found it fascinating; maybe you will too.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Translations do not matter. As long as it's the same word, just in synonyms (big, large). But the Book of Mormon was actually taken from the Bible and was added random, made-up writings, by Joseph Smith, the criminal escapee from Illinois. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.205.19 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know which Bibles you use today. Actually most of them are not translations of multiple translations, but translations of base texts which are not themselves translations. There are indeed many known mistranslations in the King James Bible, the Bible which the Book of Mormon is identical to in many cases. I read the LDS notes on Joseph Smith's "translation" and according to this it is not a true translation but adds items to the Bible. It seems to me that Joseph Smith claimed to translate the Book of Mormon from some trablets. Over the years the text of the Book of Mormon itself has changed, seemingly admitting that it also has translation errors, so it seems to me that if you say you accept the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly" you must also say the same about the Book of Mormon, as the LDS changes to the Book of Mormon imply to me that it was not translated correctly. This would be fairer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Studge (talk • contribs)


 * Curious what your point is? If you want debate, there are other forums for it. If you really want to know, I can address.


 * Even the NIV, which is considered the most accurate English translation, is not from the original or even the oldest manuscripts. ALL english translations that I'm aware of do not from the oldest specimin of manuscripts (dated to the 3rd and fourth century) - which don't read the same as each other as it is (see for example Gospel_of_Mark). Each English translation comes from greek, hebrew and the vulgate translations. See the translators intro to the NIV. I personally use an eight translation bible when studying the bible - as the multiple translations help me to understand difficult passages much better - i was suprised at how different each one is. The LDS church uses the KJV officially, but Smith was partial to the German bible. Second, a copy of an origininal is considered a translation - as it is a second "rendering" of the original. So unless you have the original documents that Moses down to John the Revelator wrote on, you are likely dealing with imperfect documents. Monks or whomever meticuouly copied by hand the entire manuscripts weren't perfect, and it is fun to go back and read soem of their mistakes - especially when they caught them themselves. I thank God for thier efforts to preserve such a sacred text and the account of Jesus, but realize mistakes creep in.


 * The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible indeed added things to the text. Some of which has been corraberated by other sources, interstingly enough - such as the vision of enoch, which is strikingly similar to a work attribted to enoch that was found in the dead sea scrolls, including the introduction by smith of a man named "Mahijah" who was named in connection with enoch in the dead sea scrolls text. Also, Smith's own prophecy of a prophet by the name of joseph, a descendant of Ephriam, (which he is often criticised as adding a prophescy about himself) follows jewish talmudic legend about Messiah ben Joseph - see Encyclopedia Judaica 11:1411 which states: "A secondary messianic figure is the Messiah son of [of the tribe of] Joseph (or Ephraim), whose coming precedes that of the Messiah, son of David, and who will die in combat with the enemies of God and Israel." This figure is supposed to restore israel's temple worship. - a striking similarity to Smith's own JST addition. That said, some of his translation "corrections" are more study-related notes, and have little to do with the original texts.


 * As far as the Book of Mormon, the introduction (I see a common thread of reading introductions here, don't you?) of it in the current edition states that some errors have been perpetuated in past editions. The current edition is compared to the original (we have those) documents and printers manuscript (we have that too) and post publication corrections by Smith himself to bring it in line with the highest standards possible. There have been 3900 changes if you compare the first edition book of mormon with the current edition. However, 98 percent of them are punctuation only. one percent is textual errors from the printing of the manuscript, which has plenty of spelling and misplaced words, missing phrases, etc. And one percent is changing words into modern vernacular (just as the KJV and other bibles have been, not uncommon) - ie word usage including "were"'s instead of "was"'s and "exceeding" to "exceedingly" - which was proper writing in 1830, but not now. Interestingly that of the 433 verses that quote pre-lehite biblical scripture, 280 of them don't match the KJV, but match the septagint, or are a combination of both.


 * As far as your "fairer" statement, the comment that Mormons want to use teh bible "as far as it is translated correctly" is not an unfair statemnt. I know plenty of Mormon scholars who would add the same appendage to the use of the book of Mormon (ie the interpretation of it). We are not claiming that the Book of Mormon is perfect and that the bible is not. Both acknowledge their own faults - they were both written by multiple prophets who were men, and as such have errors.


 * Hope this helps. If you have more question about this topic, please visit my talk page and I can address in more detail. But if your point is to debate (which I don't know if it is or not), try an apologetic forum rather than Wikipedia. If it is in helping improve the articles, welcome aboard. Happy editing. -Visorstuff 15:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay assuming that what you write is generally accepted I propose applying the phrase "as far as it is translated correctly" to both the Bible and the BofM, if as you say Mormon views on both books is the same. I don't want an argument just fairness. It seemd to be to be a bit unfair to put a "rider" on the Bible but not on the BofM when Mormons claim both are translations. Just seemed unfair to me. If it is not unfair then we canapply to rider to both, so I have littly edited that way.
 * Please remeber to sign your text by typing four tildes (~). What we are talking about is what is commonly stated by the LDS church.  There is not a "fairness" issue here; Mormons say one thing and not the other.  Is the purpose to state what LDS believe or to tell Mormons what they believe?  Storm Rider (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you insist, at least state what is meant by "as far as it is translated correctly" which it does not at the moment.


 * 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.” (History of the Church, 4:461.) Joseph Smith also said "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly, we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God." (8th Article of Faith).


 * LDS belief is that the writings that make up the Bible were originally written by prophets called by God, but then copied and recopied by those without priesthood authority, and ultimately translated by the knowledge of men. On the other hand, the writtings that make up the Book of Mormon were written by prophets called by God, abridged (and translated in the case of the Book of Ether) by prophets called by God, with the resulting work translated to English by a prophet called by God.  Therefore, although LDS don't consider the Book of Mormon to be 'perfect', the qualification "as far as it is translated correctly" doesn't apply to the Book of Mormon in the same way it does to the Bible. 74s181 18:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

lets put Joseph Smiths in context. He says and I quote "the most correct..." Not "the correct book..." or "Perfect without flaw." The claim of perfection insinuated out of that statement is a very gross stretch of the meaning. Oh, it doesn't bood well to tell people what they believe, because in teh end only they themselves know what they believe.Lobre 21:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Cumorah
As proof that Cumorah is the same as Cumorah New York, User:Glyns added a reference to the D&C, which states, "And again, what do we hear? Glad tidings from Cumorah! Moroni, an angel from heaven, declaring the fulfilment of the prophets—the book to be revealed."

This hardly says Cumorah New York is the same Hill where the Nephite/Jaredite last battles took place.

Most current LDS Scholars associate the New York Cumorah differently from the Last Battle Cumorah - you may want to read Hill Cumorah and its associated references. From your edits, I'm guessing that you are not very familiar with the current state of Mormonism academia, and are using much older writings if you associate this together.

Sanders' hill, Mormon Hill, which is now known as "Hill Cumorah, New York" was named by Cowdery in the Messenger and Advocate (published between 1834-5) for it holding the plates until Smith's finding them. That is the first reference we have of it being called it. However, Manti, Utah and the Book of Mormon "Manti" are two seperate locations. And Zarahemla Iowa (also referenced in the D&C) is different than Zarahemla where the Nephites were, and Bountiful, Utah Temple, is different than the temple in Bountiful where the Book of Mormon says Jesus visited the Lehites.

As evidence that the Hill Cumorah and Hill Cumorah, New York are different places, one need only to look at the stated vision of Cowdery and Smith - in vision they went to a Hill Cumorah, which had caves. In the caves there was a room full of plates, and Nephite artifacts. Such a cave never existed, nor could have existed in the New York location.

However, aside from common sense, here are references:

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism states: "Cumorah had also been the site of the destruction of the Jaredites roughly 900 years earlier. Moroni states in the book of Ether that the Jaredites gathered for battle near the hill Ramah, the same hill where his father Mormon hid up the records unto the Lord, which were sacred. It was near the first landing site of the people of Mulek, just north of the land Bountiful and a narrow neck of land... The more common reference to Cumorah among Latter-day Saints is to the hill near present-day Palmyra and Manchester New York, where the plates from which the Prophet Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon were found.....In 1928, the church purchased the Western New York hill...." (punctuation errors are mine).

In the Glossary of the same work it defines Cumorah" as "(1) A hill in which the Book of Mormon prophet Mormon concealed sacred records before the annihilation of his people; (2) the hill in New York State, near the town of Palmyra, where Joseph Smith unearthed the gold plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon.

In the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies: Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon P172, states: Wilson attempts to make Joseph Smith responsible for the Hemispheric Geography Model by claiming that he "located the Hill Cumorah...in Palmyra, New York" an assertion for which Wilson, once again provides no evidence. In fact the Earliest explicit correlation of the hill in New York where Joseph Smith found the golden plates and the Hill Cumorah mentioned in the Book of Mormon comes not from Joseph Smith, but from Oliver Cowdery. Joseph Smith simply describes a hill of considerable size - no name is given....Joseph also supported a version of the Limited Geography Model...1841 John Lloyd Stephens published volume one of his Incidents of Travel in Central America, Chiapas and Yucatan, the first accessible English-language account of the Maya ruins.52 It was enthusiastically received by the early Mormons, who saw it both as a validation of the Book of Mormon and as a source to help understand Book of Mormon geography. An editorial reviewing this book in the Times and Seasons was written either by Joseph Smith or John Taylor.53 The editorial speculated that the city of Zarahemla was to be found in modern Guatemala north of the Isthmus of Panama (called Darien in the early nineteenth century).54 Since the internal geography of the Book of Mormon places Zarahemla south of the narrow neck of land,55 the editorial implies that the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, rather than Panama, was the Book of Mormon narrow neck of land. Thus Joseph Smith, rather than insisting only on the validity of the Hemispheric Geography Model, both advocated an early form of the Limited Geography Model and encouraged the modification of geographical interpretations of the Book of Mormon based on the discovery of new evidence.56 The important thing to note is that the core concept of the Limited Geography Model was in existence in 1842, with the approval and possible authorship of Joseph Smith…This issue has been dealt with by Latter-day Saint writers; it is unfortunate that Wilson is unwilling or unable to come to grips with the reality of current Latter-day Saint thought on the subject, relying instead on old discredited anti-Mormon arguments. Actually, the Limited Geography Model does not insist that there were two Cumorahs. Rather, there was one Cumorah in Mesoamerica, which is always the hill referred to in the Book of Mormon. Thereafter, beginning with Oliver Cowdery (possibly based on a misreading of Mormon 6:6), early Mormons began to associate the Book of Mormon Cumorah with the hill in New York where Joseph Smith found the plates. The Book of Mormon itself is internally consistent on the issue. It seems to have been early nineteenth-century Latter-day Saint interpretation of the text of the Book of Mormon which has caused the confusion on this point. Thus, advocates of the Limited Geography Model are required only to show that their interpretations are consistent with the text of the Book of Mormon itself, not with any nineteenth-century interpretation of the Book of Mormon.

The question of how the golden plates could have been carried from Mesoamerica to New York has also been answered by Sorenson. Once again Wilson has misread the Book of Mormon, claiming that the Limited Geography Model forces Moroni to transport "the entire Nephite library over two thousand miles to the New York Cumorah" (3b). In fact, Mormon 6:6 specifically states that all the Nephite records, ‘’except’’ the Book of Mormon plates, were buried in the hill Cumorah near the narrow neck of land by Mormon, not Moroni. Nowhere in the Book of Mormon does it state where the Book of Mormon plates were finally buried.

Next: David A. Palmer, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.72 states: This summary of the archaeology of western New York, developed by a prominent archaeologist, shows that the region of western New York could not have been the scene of the culture described in considerable detail by Mormon. Where are the ruins? Where are all the other cultural facets demanded by his text? They simply are not there. This author fails to show that the Nephites ever lived in that area. By contrast, there is substantial evidence for a Mesoamerican location for those cultures. In fact, there is agreement on a number of site locations being specific Book of Mormon cities. There is also general agreement that the probable site of the Hill Ramah/Cumorah was at the hill called Vigía, in Veracruz, Mexico.

Next, John A. Tvedtnes, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.261 states: The story of the cave full of plates inside the Hill Cumorah in New York is often given as evidence that it is, indeed, the hill where Mormon hid the plates. Yorgason quotes one version of the story from Brigham Young and alludes to six others collected by Paul T. Smith. Unfortunately, none of the accounts is firsthand. The New York Hill Cumorah is a moraine laid down anciently by a glacier in motion. It is comprised of gravel and earth. Geologically, it is impossible for the hill to have a cave, and all those who have gone in search of the cave have come back empty-handed. If, therefore, the story attributed to Oliver Cowdery (by others) is true, then the visits to the cave perhaps represent visions, perhaps of some far distant hill, not physical events.

And, William J. Hamblin, Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, p.478-9 states, 1. The Book of Mormon itself specifically states that the golden plates of the Book of Mormon were not buried in Cumorah (Mormon 6:6). If Joseph is the author of the Book of Mormon, and wished to make this identification, why did he state the opposite in his text? Assuming Joseph was the author of the Book of Mormon, this would indicate, at the very least, that he had not made the correlation in his own mind by the summer of 1829. What caused Joseph later to decide to make this correlation? 2. The Book of Mormon strongly implies that the Hill Cumorah is near the narrow neck of land (Mormon 4–6, Ether 14).89(1) If Joseph were inventing the text, and already had in mind a hemispheric geography and an identification of the hill in New York with the ancient Cumorah as Metcalfe maintains, why did he place the hill Cumorah near the isthmus of Panama—the narrow neck of the hemispheric model? 3. Joseph never identifies the hill in which he found the plates as the hill Cumorah. Indeed, even after that identification became commonplace, Joseph simply calls it “a hill of considerable size,” which was “convenient to the village of Manchester” (Joseph Smith–History 1:51). If I were convinced that the evidence supported Joseph as the author of the identification of the New York hill with the Book of Mormon Cumorah I would not hesitate to accept it. It ultimately makes no difference to the limited geography model, because it would not change the possibility that the identification was Joseph’s personal interpretation. But whether one believes that Joseph translated an ancient book or fabricated a fantasy tale, the evidence seems to indicate that Joseph did not originally have the identification of the ancient Nephite Cumorah with the hill in New York in mind. This seems to come as an afterthought, deriving either from Joseph himself in personal conversation (as Metcalfe maintains), from W. W. Phelps, or from some other unidentified source.

See Also, David A. Palmer: In Search of Cumorah p 25-27, Sorensen: An Ancient American Setting 44-45. And I’ve only hit a few of the sources on the matter.

I gladly acknowledge that some Mormons have associated the two – and they are those who followed the school of thought of Joseph Fielding Smith (which include McConkie), but even he was inconclusive: in Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 3, JFSmith states after quoting D&C 128 "While this statement is not positively declared that the Hill Cumorah is the place where the plates were obtained..." BH Roberts was much less certain the locations were the same, and stated he highly doubted the two were linked, aside from being the place where Moroni placed this small set of plates for Smith to find (see BH Roberts Defense of the Faith and the Saints, vol 1, and New Witnesses for God vol 2 - where he discusses both sides of the argument). However, this association is not founded on anything more than Cowdery’s, Phelps, and others words, not the Book of Mormon or Smith himself. A case of folklore, and repeated poor scholarship by Wilson.

That said, I'm changing back your edit. -Visorstuff 17:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, thanks for your edits - they are welcomed, however, please remember to source statements. You've made some good corrections, but many additions you've added could use citations. -Visorstuff 17:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Umm, your last edit about how the plates got to New York, is...well not sure how to categorize. Moroni was alive for 21 years after the last battle. He could have gone around the world dozens of times, let alone from Mesoamerica to New York. Mormon folklore places Moroni as dedicating some temple sites including Logan and Manti. 21 years and the help of God does "address the problem of how the Golden Plates, stone box, and numerous other artefacts Joseph Smith said he found came to be near Palmyra, New York" quite adequately. -Visorstuff 17:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The book of Moroni makes no reference to moving the plates, etc., nor to any motivation for doing so - strange it wouldn't mention it, as Mormon, Moroni's father, is recorded as having carefully chosen the hiding place in the hill Cumorah...
 * "Mormon folklore" can hardly be considered an authority in any way, as no link has ever been established between Mormon belief and geographical reality.
 * If by "the help of God" you mean a supernatural teleportation, this absolutely does not address the problem, as no such event has ever been verified (and the book of Moroni would doubtless have mentioned it). So the problem i outlined remains. Glyns 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Moroni both refer to the plates being moved - to protect them and to prepare them for being hidden. For example, Mormon 6:6 states that all of the plates, but the ones Moroni worked on were hidden in the Hill Cumorah by Mormon:


 * "And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni.'"

"In other words, the Book of Mormon explicitly states that the records hidden in the Mesoamerican Cumorah were not the plates of the Book of Mormon, but were the other records of the Nephites. The Book of Mormon itself provides no name for the hill in which the golden plates found by Joseph Smith were buried." see journal of book of mormon studies referenced above p.173, and Mormon 8:4, 14-22; Moroni chapters 1 and 10; and Ether 15:11.

Also see, as referenced above, Sorenson's "An Ancient American Setting," p44-45. In this, he discusses how and why Moroni would have carried the plates to New York to make them readily available to Smith in it's stone time capsule.

An examination of a map of North America shows that it is possible to sail along the coast of Mexico, up the Mississippi River, and then up the Ohio River to within less than one hundred miles of the New York hill where the plates were buried. Trails and waterways along these major rivers have existed for several thousand years. Sorenson provides a sixteenth-century example of someone walking a similar route in less than a year;59(1) Moroni had thirty-five years between the final battles of the Nephites and when he buried the plates.60(2) Thus, the plates could have been transported by canoe to New York, along well-used waterways of the Hopewell Indians (who flourished c. 200 B.C. to A.D. 400) (IBID 173)

For a map of American Indian civilizations in the Mississippi River valley at the time of Moroni, see Michael Coe, Dean Snow, and Elizabeth Benson, Atlas of Ancient America (New York: Facts on File, 1986), 51, where it shows that the Hopewell archaeological complex extended from Louisiana to New York along the Mississippi and Ohio rivers. Analysis of various artifacts has demonstrated that there was extensive trade along these river systems in the fifth century a.d.; Brian M. Fagan, Ancient North America: The Archaeology of a Continent (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991), 366-67, 370-76, 392-4 (IBID 173)

As far as your "Mormon Folklore" statement, my reference is a vision given to Brigham Young at the Manti Temple - I refer to it as Mormon Folklore as it wasn't recorded by Young himself, but by others, and it has taken a life of its own. Folklore isn't always wrong - it usually has some sort of truth in it - even if twisted beyond recognition. Look at your reliance on someone quoting Wilson's research about Cumorah. He states that the Hill cumorah in new york couldn't be the same one. Well he's probably right-that's the truth of the folklore, however, the ignoring of research and Smith's own statements and it taking a life of its own creates the folklore you are referencing. And as far as "the help of God" I do not mean teleportation, but Moroni was divinely led as to where to bury the plates. Not that hard to do in 21-37 years (The final battles were 384 years after the birth of Christ (Mormon 6:4), while Moroni buried the plates 420 years after the birth of Christ (Moroni 10:1).).

We have record of Whitmer and Smith meeting Moroni physically carrying the plates instead of smith on one occasion when Smith needed to transport the plates from one location to another. Moroni had adequate time to carry them from one part of the americas to the other. I'm suprised you didn't bring up how Moroni supposedly died. -Visorstuff 20:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If the battles on mount Cumorah existed, and how the Book of Mormon said bodies were left, then where are the bones of the dead!!! Mormons have no proof because it's a lie. The Mormon cult, is actually a company with millions of dollars and owns 55% of the Coca-Cola Company and many of the heads of the cult know the religion is a lie and pretend they truly believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.205.19 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern version
I just wanted to address an item recently deleted by Storm Rider. The deletion states:


 * No version of the Book of Mormon into modern English has been produced, even though LDS are happy to amend and translate the book.

I don't want to address the POV part of this, but want to state that a modern english translation has been produced at least three times. One by the RLDS, one at BYU and one by the translation department - and the latter of which is used in the translation process into various languages. It is easier for the translators into languages such as tagolog, etc. to refer to modern usage than to try to address the multi-interpreation nuances of the older KJV English. Anyway, just wanted to address, as the way it was written on the first legal-sized paper is still valid, although portions of newer editions have been modified or corrected back to this pre-publication manuscript, the way SMith, cowdery and others wrote from Smith's mouth, it stands. -Visorstuff 15:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's interesting. Can that be added to the page somehow? That is a lot more relevant that some of the stuff there.

Wait, wait, wait a minute..."but want to state that a modern english translation has been produced at least three times"...how can you translate the BOM at least three times without the original documents? I thought the original plates have been "hidden" for decades, its not like JS went to the local Kinkos press and made a few copies to archive. Did I read this right? Or do you mean it's been translated to other languages from the english version?

Also, hasnt the BOM been "edited" to correct sintax errors and proper English sentence structure usage? According to this study/re-search ~3000 changes have been made...without the original documents to back it up...I will like to see someone independently look into this I'm curious. Thanks keep up the good info coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.182.124.2 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These changes have been addressed in this article. But since you didn't read that, here is what is printed in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon on the page "A brief explanation about The Book of Mormon", just before the table of contents:
 * About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
 * &mdash; Val42 04:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability
This is a nice article in the main but the "verifiability" section stood out as quite POV so I deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.68.218 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC).
 * I don't much care for the title, but it is a statement held in the Book of Mormon so I find it difficult to be labeled POV. I reinstated the deletion you made. Could you offer an alternative rather than a complete deletion? --Storm Rider (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Really? One (Mormon) POV is that the Book of Mormon is from God and another (everyone else i.e. the majority) POV is that it is not. Therefore if it is a statement in the Book or Mormon then it is definitely POV surely? I don't see the need for this verifiability section as it reads to me as very POV, notwithstanding what you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.71.215.191 (talk • contribs)


 * Majority is a weasel word. I would venture to guess that the majority of people's views on the book of Mormon is that they don't care one way or another if its from god and don't have enough info to have an informed decision - much like american's views on the Koran, Vedas, Talmud, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Guru Granth Sahib, Avesta or any number of other texts that claim to be inspired by God. Many know what these documents or books are, but don't really make a decision that they are of god or not. Please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~ so we can keep track of who is making comments. -Visorstuff 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned ANON editor, Wikipedia is not an arbitrator of what is true, but rather it reports facts, i.e. what happened, when, who said it, etc. Because a book says something, or a reputable expert states something, is not POV. Quoting them is not POV; it is quoting them. It is neutral and meets WP:NPOV policy to say that "Moroni 10:3-5 states ..." Conversely, POV is saying, "The Book of Mormon is true" without attributing it to a source. In doing so, wikipedia is being presented as saying something is true, which is not acceptable.

I think the confusion you are having results from your POV. I assume you disagree with the statement in the Book of Mormon, the Book of Mormon itself, and Mormonism in general; that is your perogative. It is not your perogative to ensure that wikipedia matches your POV. Does this help or make sense? If not, please review WP:NPOV. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Regarding the sentences...
 * Currently, few of the book's claims have been thoroughly substantiated, although some claim the Mayan left records stating they are descendants of the Israelites. However, a good deal of them are problematic in terms of both dating and locating.

The sentence is POV, probably doesn't belong and includes a weasel phrase (some claim). While the source (which is not LDS by the way) may very well be biased, the information is well sourced (see the quotation near the top, quoted on the "archaeology and the book of mormon" talk page. If it's poor scholarship, it shouldn't be included (not just given a weasel word intro). While I haven't been able to get a hold of the source personally, everything looks in order, and this would definitely be substantial evidence supporting Book of Mormon claims. This, in addition to Stela 5 (and translations of its glyphs), the cultural weights and measures used in Guatemala corresponding to the Book of Mormon record, and a variety of other evidence seems to be contrary to the gist of this sentence. gdavies 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What does this repeated edit mean:

 * The format of the Book of Mormon is similar to the Bible in that there are separate books "self-claimed to have been written by different authors" who recorded the interactions of God with people. Generally, the book is composed of the following books, though editorial divisions in different churches' editions vary:

Is the editor trying to say that the Book of Mormon is self-claiming to have been written by different authors? Versus what, the Bible? Are you saying that you have some knowledge unknown to everyone else about the real authors of the Bible? On what are you attemptig to cast doubt; the Bible or the Book of Mormon? How does NPOV apply to this edit? How does this comply with WP:Words to avoid. The edit is not acceptable and I have deleted it once, rather than continue with this littl spat, I would like to hear your reasonings here. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure issue you're addressing, but maybe this will help... The Bible is subdivided into separate "books" which are generally authored by separate individuals (i.e. the book of Matthew the book of Mark, etc.).  The Book of Mormon is arranged in a similar fashion with each book being written by a principal author (usually a prophet).  You of course understand this, but the point that this statement might be attempting to make is muddled with some strange wording ("self-claimed to have been written by different authors").  What they're saying is true, but either needs to be reworded or elaborated on to not induce the false impression that the book as a whole is "self-claimed to have been written by different authors" conspiring together, or something of that nature. I'd rather have something along the lines of "The Book of Mormon is divided into separate books in a format similar to the Bible." Something that simple would suffice (the term "separate authors" isn't strictly true, 1 nephi and 2 nephi, the book of Omni with several authors, etc.) thoughts? gdavies 09:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's accurate, but poorly phrased. 64.122.31.130 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I interpert the phrasing to be POV. It attempts to cast doubt that the Book of Mormon was written by different authors (the self-proclaimed bit). What has come to be recognized is that the books of the Bible are not written by the suppposed authors acknowledged by the names of the books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.). This edit attempts to cast the tone that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon; i.e. that it is obviously false. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Original research being re-added
I keep seeing Louis P. Mansfield re-adding this, so I'm removing it as original research. Veinor (talk to me) 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative theories sections
These sections need to be reviewed and citations provided. If the various theories are not supported by references, those statements will be deleted.

There are legitimate theories and they need to be presented in a scholarly manner. However, there are alos myths that have been disproven, but continue to be repeated in anti-Mormon literature. I propose that these theories need to be put in a separate section and presented with scholarly counterpoint. Mixing the two delegitimizes true scholarly critique. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I subscribe to the human origins theory concerning the BOM, I think the other supernatural theories listed (Divinely inspiried and historically accurate, and Divinely inspired irrespective of the history) should include a negative one - that the BOM was demonically inspired - which, as far as "theories" go, that one has been around for as long as the BOM came to light, and should be included in this section. 71.220.188.80 20:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Racism
Is anyone going to mention the racism in that "white and delightsome" passgage, or the way that the church edited it to "fair and delightsom" even though Joseph Smith supposedly translated it under the inspiration of God?

The passage in question specifically teaches that negroes are dark-skinned as a punishment, and repaets the usual slaveowner's compliant about them being sly and lazy. I think it's 2 Nephi 5:11 or thereabouts.


 * For a quick explanation see this article. Although the meaning of "white" and "pure" in this context is the same, Joseph corrected this error in the 1840 edition to avoid confusion (or imply racism). However, future editions missed the correction until the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. The church placed a note about this in the 1981 edition, it reads:
 * About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.


 * The passage in question (2 Nephi 5:21-24) is referencing the Lamanites (not negroes), and, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to the "skin of blackness" as a cursing. Instead, the curse is that "they are cut off from the presence of God (2 Nephi 5:20). Because of the wickedness of the Lamanites, they were separated from the Nephites and from the presence of God. So that the Nephites could know who were parts of this group (who were cut off from the presence of God) they had a mark set upon them, a "skin of blackness." Alma 3:14 helps clarify:
 * "Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them."
 * Although the Book of Mormon does not elaborate on how the Lamanites acquired this "skin of blackness," it's possible that this was a result of marrying "outside the covenant" with other Native people not part of Lehi's clan. For a good article on this and other Racial questions regarding the church, see John A. Tvedtnes' article. gdavies 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Dark skin wasn't used as a punishment; it was used as a distinction.66.58.206.228 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I have always been taught. And it think that that is even verifiable. Lobre 21:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Same here, I am LDS and we were always taught that god used this for distinction.Gellister (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pseudohistory
What's the difference between the "history" described in the Book of Mormon, and the Nation of Islam's story of how Yakub created the white race? I'll tell you what the difference: the LDS has more people on this site and we do not what to step on their toes. The tag of pseudoshistory should stay or every religous groups fake history should have the tag removed. I will vigorously fight this edit war to keep that tag untill one of the following happens: the nation of Islam and all those other wonderful religous group's fake history have the tag removed or a Nephite city is dug up (I will change my name to Joseph Smith)(it is not going to happen.) As a student of Mesoamerican history I find it insulting to even suggest that such noble people as the Maya could be part of these fictitious "Lamenites." Pseudohistory is going to be added! I have thrown down the gauntlet. --Jorbian 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A wonderful bit of POV, but it has no place in an encyclopedia. If we are going to attempt to identify this as pseudohistory, then plase start by identifying all books of scripture as pseudohistory! After you have succeeded with that, then we will talk about this subject. Further, when you actually look at the category and what other articles have been so tagged, it is too easy to understand that this is a personal, POV crusade. Keep it for your blog; it does not belong. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the Bible, which archeological edvidence corroberates the Book of Mormon has no archeoglogical evidence whatsoever to corroberate it. The Bible has actual historical value, this has none. The point of my previous statement, is why is the NAtion of Islam's stories idenfified as pseudohistory, but this is not? Before that tag is removed again, I want an explaination about the difference between the stories of Yakub and the Neiphites. --Jorbian 19:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your desire to understand the difference between Yakub and the Nephites, but I am not familiar with Yakub. In reality, I could not care less about Yakub even though I am a student of religion. It just is not on my radar of the next thing I want to study.
 * Jorbian, you seem to be an expert in archeology and quite strident in your beliefs. I have heard that excellent Evangelical preachers state on numerous occaisions the same thing you are repeating, but not one of them, as in zero, has ever been able to provide information on the societies and cultures of the Americas. Where did they come from? Where did they go? How did some of them just dissappear?
 * More to the point, the Book of Mormon is not a history book, but rather a book of history based upon the spiritual dealings of God of the ancient Americas. You can not equivically state it is false; that is called POV and you are welcome to it. What you are not welcome to is to enforce it on the public at large. As I have said before, keep it for your blog. I am reverting again for violation of NPOV. Do not change unless you can explain why it is in keeping with this bedrock principle of Wikipedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

What I was saying is: there are religions like the nation of Islam which claim history that is completely unsubstiated, and on this encyclopedia is labeled as pseudohistory. Why does Mormon pseudohistory get expemted from it? And I can provide information on the societies of ancient America, try me, though I am not proffesional, this is my faviorte thing in history to study. Even if it is pseudohistory, that shouldn't change your belifs, you have that "burning in your bossum" and your "testimoney" that is more then adequetly making the book of Mormon true for you. This does not make it true in reality by any stretch of the imagination, but you can belive whatever you want. There are wackos that belive that the white race was created by a man named "Yakub" though they don't respect me, I respect them (though I am glad that they are not present here in SLovakia). My point is, you can belive this, but it has no historical value. This is not a POV, it is a fact that stands the historical value of the book of Mormon from a purely historical value is zero, none what so ever. That is why it should be tagged as such, or if we are going to get into this objective truth nonsense the category of pseudohistory should be done away with. Why shoudl we stop at allowing this to be passed off as history? --Jorbian 19:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would never claim to be an expert on Mesoamerican history, and I would also never imply that I have an amazingly complete omniscience in all things related to Central America (as you have). It's embarrassing (though slightly humorous) to see people frantically and bullishly supporting their trolling their POV through Wikipedia, but there comes a point when it's not cute anymore.  I defy you to disprove the Book of Mormon.  Find a source with undeniable evidence that nothing in the Book of Mormon could have happened and then stick it in the article.  That's what we do in Wikipedia.  In the meantime (while you aren't finding this evidence) you can answer for the evidence stacked up in favor of the Book of Mormon's historicity.  Some of these evidences (there's no reason to go into overkill here, but this might get you started) might be the present use of Guatemalan weights and measures (of ancient origin, by the way) that directly mirror those described in Alma 11, the plausible location of Nahom in Arabia (which has been demonstrated impossible for Joseph Smith to have known), the presence of a continually running stream on the coast of the Gulf of Aqaba (extremely extremely rare in Arabia) as described in 2 Nephi 2, the precolumbian city of "Lamanai", the destruction of the Olmecs at the same time described by the Book of Mormon (unknown in Joseph Smith's time). If you want more, we can do this, but it's completely irrelevant. We want Facts (how things are or what people did/said). Unless you can unequivocally prove that everything in the Book of Mormon is historically incorrect (Just about every biblical scholar will agree that God's conversation with Satan isn't "historically accurate," though there are numerous historical facts throughout the Bible) you absolutely cannot justify adding this POV category.  Please don't continue to add this, it's vandalism at worst and POV trolling at best. gdavies 01:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

My point is that there is a double standard! The Nation of Islam's fake history gets pseudohistory, but the LDS's does not. I want to know why that is justified. And if I was claiming omnisense, it was not intended, but I am very, very, very, very confident in the fact that the Nephites never existed. I would belive that Yakub created the whtie race before I could belive that. USing your same arguments, we could say: how do we know that Yakub didnt create the white race. My point is there is a double standard for hte LDS only because they actually have people on here and that's the only reason why. --Jorbian 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)--Jorbian 15:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page for Book of Mormon and that is the subject of this article. Another article's (alleged or real) failings should have absolutely no effect on the content of this article.  If you have a bone to pick with them, go for it.  In the meantime, we're not going to follow your "gut" that Nephites never existed (gut speculation with absolutely zero archaeological support) over various and extensive evidence to the contrary.  The fact that you see absolutely no merit in the theory that the ancient Mayan civilization is that of the Nephites as described in the Book of Mormon (and the Olmecs, the Jaredites) is illustrative of your personal bias and set worldview rather than an honest interpretation of the archaeological evidence at hand. Please feel free to make useful contributions to this article (properly sourced), but please refrain from forcing your POV on everyone else and displaying it as fact. gdavies 18:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. There are a whole lot of exclamation marks being thrown around here, so I hesitate to enter. But, I think I have something worth offering. Religious Studies hold that sacred books are neither history or pseudohistory.

For example, if we look at the Bible, we find several disputed areas where there is no historical evidence to back up its time line or facts, especially within the first 12 chapters of Genesis--but even the Exodus is troublesome in terms of history. Yet it is still contextually meaningful regardless of what can or can't be dug up to verify the event. These types of books are written with less emphasis on historical fact, and more upon instilling faith and showing God's hand at work among his people. In Religious Studies, this is called a Sacred history. The Bible, Book of Mormon, and the story of Yakub would all fall under this category.

A Sacred history article on Wikipedia has not yet been written. I am happy to contribute to it, and welcome participation. What are your thoughts? Is a Sacred history tag for this article and others (versus either a history or pseudohistory tag) an acceptable move? Regards,--Rojerts 16:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I would love to collaberate on that as well, would you like to? My whole point is that there is a double standard! "Yakub" gets pseudohistory but the Book of Mormon does not. Noone has answered my question about why this is ok. And as far as the Bible goes, enough of it has archeological evidence to back it up that it is safe to assume that there is unfound evidence that backing up the parts that have no arcehological evidence. Lets leave the Bible out of this discussion, this is not about the Bible. This is about the Book of Mormon. And I want my question answered: why does the story that Yakub created the white race on the isle of Patmos get labeled as pseudohistory (which has no evidence what so ever other then the beilf of an insane Islamic sect) but the story that the first inhabbitents of North America where Jewish (which has even less evidence going for it then the white race being the product of Yakub) dosen't? Jorbian 15:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that tagging both the Book of Mormon and the Yakub as a Sacred history renders the question moot. In the case of sacred books, a NPOV would demand that it is neither presented as truth or untruth, but for what it is: a sacred writing that has meaning and context for a specific group regardless of its historic verifiability.


 * The Bible would also fall into this category of a sacred history. Yes, cities in the Bible have been uncovered, but the story of the creation, Eve from Adam’s rib, fall, flood, and etc., cannot be proven.  Yet there are countless numbers of literalists who demand that it did happen just as it is written, and countless others who deny it emphatically.  This, by the way, holds true for the Book of Mormon as well; there are many who claim that they have archeological evidence to support the claims in the book, and many like yourself who see no evidence.


 * Personally, for the sake of this article, I don’t really care either way. In order to be neutral, it is not the place of a wikipedian to state which of these viewpoints is correct, but rather be as functionally objective as possible in presenting both sides.  This, of course, happens as multiple editors lend their expertise and are willing to work together.


 * I look forward to working with you on a Sacred history article, and then tagging this and other articles. I will start out a stub, let’s do some research, and then go from there.  Regards,  --Rojerts 16:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yakub is no longer in the category so there is not a problem a double standard. I also removed several other articles from the category. As I covered with Rojerts, creating this new category may be the way to go if a category is necessary. The article may be better than creating a category. I would assist on the article also.  --Storm Rider (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Reading all this, I am not sure why this sparked such a vigorous debate. The Yakub article clearly states that its considered "an allegory" and "a parable", not a factual history, by the NOI. However, the LDS have not said such about the Book of Mormon (as far as I know). Just a thought. I like the sacred history article though. Good idea. Vassyana 22:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Change in "Verifiability" section
Deleted the word "very" in the sentence: "A witness from the Holy Ghost is a very personal event and the experience varies widely. "Very" is extraneous language as per the Avoid peacock terms entry.

Obviously, this statement is debatable. Maybe the paragraph, like the testimony entry, should say something like "In general religious practice." Jer443932 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I added a comparison of verifiability to similar claims made in other religious texts, specifically to one in the Koran. This places such "proofs of authenticity" in a greater context and removes any unwarranted conclusion that the promise made by Moroni is somehow unique among religious texts. 71.220.188.80 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the example you supply is not a similar claim at all. The promise of the Book of Mormon is that God will tell you it is true. The example you supply from the Koran attempts a logical proof by saying that no one else could have written it, and leaves it to the questioner to disprove the Koran by writing something better. Rather than encouraging the questioner to pray to the god of the Koran, it encourages him/her to pray to "false gods" for help in disproving it. I'm new here, so I don't want to delete your paragraph without waiting for a response, but I will soon. Your idea sounds good, but you've actually ended up highlighting the uniqueness of the Book of Mormon challenge rather than "removing any unwarranted conclusion." --Adamrmonteith 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Adamrmonteith that it should be removed. The Koran passage has more in common with Hugh Nibley's Book of Mormon Challenge than anything actually in the Book of Mormon. I read the section and the part on the Koran just seems out of place, since there is no clear connection between the "test" in the BOM and the "test" in the Koran. –SESmith 03:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't notice the paragraphs referring to the Doctrine and Covenants and to 2 Nephi 33, either. After the sentence "These verses are often referred     to collectively as Moroni's Promise," the relevance and the accuracy of the section starts to go downhill (with the description of the "burning in the     bosom" as the only manifestation of a spiritual witness), followed by the neutrality and the quality of the writing ("In the following verse, 2 Nephi     33:11, it gives us guidance on what we are to do if we feel words aren't      true"). Again, I'm new, so I don't want to show up out of nowhere and start bashing, but I think the parts that don't refer specifically to the Promise should be removed. --Adamrmonteith 01:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

About "The"
It is the "Book of Mormon" is it not? Yet I keep seeing "The Book of Mormon" creeping in. Isn't the first style the correct one? Without "the" as part of the title? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Every copy I have ever seen reads "The Book of Mormon" so no. Gellister (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Linguistics
I added the story of Martin Harris' copied fragment of Book of Mormon writing taken to Prof. C. Anthon for verification. This is one of the few stories which claims that other non-Mormons saw fragments of the original writing. This is part of the history of the Book of Mormon, and certainly merits inclusion in that section.--Header-up 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I removed these sentences:

Critics claim that if Harris' version is correct, then it entails that the writing contained on the Golden Plates was similar enough to ancient old world writings (specifically, Greek and Latin) that Anthon was able to read it and verify its translation. The numerous examples of Maya Hieroglyphic writings in Meso-America bear no such resemblance to Latin, Greek, Hebrew or reformed Egyptian. Linguists state that no known writing systems found in Pre-Colombian America bear any relationship any Old World writing systems.

This makes no sense because in Martin Harris's account of what happened, he says that Anthon said that the characters were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyrian, and Arabic. He says nothing about Latin and Greek. Unless someone can find a reliable source for this, it shouldn't be there.--Tea and crumpets 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I agree those are a horrible couple of sentences... I vaguely remember a very poor and questionable statement in an early anti-mormon book (maybe a letter in EMD?) that was supposedly from Anthon describing the characters somewhat differently from Martin Harris' account, including a description that they were latin/greek etc. If the letter was really from him it definitely would seem like an attempt to save face after his statements (as quoted by Martin Harris) were used in support of "those crazy Mormons." The sentences are very misleading and POV pushing, but perhaps that's where they came from? gdavies 05:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

THe book of mormon makes it very clear that the language used in scripture keeping was different then the actual language used by them. They (the kings and later on maybe the high preist of teh church) learned teh language so they could read the plates of brass. See mosiah 1:2-4Lobre 01:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the reference to people in the Book of Mormon coming into contact with other civilizations. The reference in Omni 1:12-18 refers to 1. other Hebrews that came over and 2. says that Mosiah retaught them their original tongue. It is misleading to say that this contact could have resulted in serious linguistic variations. The other reference to Mosiah 24:1-4 doesn't show contact with other civilizations in the least bit convincingly. Given they don't mention linguistic barriers or the thrill of seeing a new population, and given other references to Lamanites, this could be much more easily interpreted as a feudal system. Also, the text given to meeting Coriantumr, the one Jaredite, makes you wonder why this text would not be repeated elsewhere if other civilizations were met. I removed the following quote and reference because they are not based on good evidence. In a section that seems to be set up to put forth non biased information, it can't be justified. Here is the original. I will remove this sentence and make the grammar work.

"A common counterargument is that the Book of Mormon mentions contact with other civilizations[74] with their own non-Semitic languages that might have influenced or supplanted any Semitic language being spoken"

Also, saying that the characters in the Book of Mormon spoke in a modified Semitic language at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, and that the abridger (who transcribed the records of the earlier writers) of the plates spoke in the same language(reformed egyptian), and mentioning that people referred to the plates to preserve their language, and then saying they "might have spoken a modified Semitic language up to at least AD 400" is rubbish. The B of M clearly shows that they did. I am changing this to "spoke a modified semitic language". If people have reasons why these changes aren't justified, please put them here when you change things back.(hii) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.50.103 (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First off, welcome to Wikipedia 65.12.50.103. Unfortunately,  your singular point-of-view obscured larger Book of Mormon scholarship, and as a result I reverted the article to a previous edition.  Counter arguments exist in all their splendor and failings--depending on your point of view--but the central issue is that they exist.  Your edits seemed, not to refute their position, but deny that they ever existed (or perhaps should exist).


 * A quote from Elder Dallin H. Oaks might be useful as to why these counterarguments are important:


 * The case against the historicity of the Book of Mormon has to prove a negative.... For me, this obvious insight goes back over forty years to the first class I took in the Book of Mormon at BYU. The class was titled, somewhat boldly, the "Archeology of the Book of Mormon." In retrospect, I think it should have been labeled something like "An Anthropologist Looks at a Few Subjects of Interest to Readers of the Book of Mormon." Here I was introduced to the idea that the Book of Mormon is not a history of all of the people who have lived on the continents of North and South America in all ages of the earth. Up to that time, I had assumed that it was. If that were the claim of the Book of Mormon, any piece of historical, archaeological, or linguistic evidence to the contrary would weigh in against the Book of Mormon, and those who rely exclusively on scholarship would have a promising position to argue.


 * "In contrast, if the Book of Mormon only purports to be an account of a few peoples who inhabited a portion of the Americas during a few millennia in the past, the burden of argument changes drastically. It is no longer a question of all versus none; it is a question of some versus none."


 * I'll close on these two notes: First, no one knows what language was spoken in 400AD by Book of Mormon peoples; and second, the Book of Mormon does not claim to tell the history of every group on the continent(s). What Mormon does tell us is that only 1/100th of the history of the people is included (Hel 3:14).  Whether literally or figuratively, that leaves a lot of wiggle room to include non-Semitic linguistic diversity.  Cheers, --Rojerts 17:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there could have been other civilizations, and that this is an important argument. I just don't agree that the Book of Mormon itself supports that. The versus referenced in that argument can hardly be construed to support introduction of non semitic languages. If other versus can be given as evidence, great. Please show them. I also agree that it is impossible to know what language was spoken. I think this is misleading, because it does not tell that they initially spoke a semitic language. I have added taht they initially spoke a semitic language. If you think that is untrue please justify. Also, please tell me where the Book of Mormon shows contact with other non Semitic speaking groups (besides Coriantumr). I will leave that for now, but your reference is to a LDS leader, where the phrase states the Book of Mormon. (same guy as last time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.50.103 (talk) 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I changed "critics" to "Some linguists". Listing one side as critics and the other side as LDS scholars gives the idea that one side is made of muckrakers without sufficient background, and the other is composed of educated people, showing bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.50.103 (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting how POV completely changes perspective; when I read "LDS" scholar it immediately assume someone is attempting to denigrate the scholar; "He is a Mormon, therefore you can't trust what he says". That is then balanced by the term Critic, which is exactly what the linguist is, a critic. What are these linguists qualifications? There could be a whole host of questions that could be posed. If you are going to be neutral then you would have scholars and linguists; one's religious affliation should have nothing to do with it. Isn't POV strange; we so easily see it in others and completely blind to our own. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Storm Rider. I agree, and think the current article is better for the modifications.--Rojerts 12:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of unsourced POV
I have removed several unsourced POV statements such as the one below:


 * "Under this view, such claims as mentioned in 2 Nephi 29 are just reflections of the author’s own anxiety as to the acceptance of the work as "authentic". The view that the book is a work of man is also testable - since works of historical fiction contain elements of cultural thought common at the time, and certainly works of historical fiction leave no archeological evidence. Those who hold this view point out that it was commonly believed that native Americans were misplaced Hebrews during Smith's time, and the lack of archeological evidence, which one would expect to be abundant if the work were true, helps confirm this theory."

You can certainly find some sources to support this view (Anything written by Vogel comes to mind), however, conclusions may not be drawn in the article. If you want to insert a sourced statement that says something to the effect that "Vogel said this..." with a reference, then go ahead. Bochica 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you should have added the reference yourself or deleted that selection only. Instead, you threw the baby out with the bath water. And please note, there are plenty of places in the article where conclusions are drawn by Mormons,for example: "Additionally, the book reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. This is unsurprising since the KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced." "This is unsurprising" is one such conclusion! Spare us the "exscuse" just state that you do not agree with the point, and for that reason, deleted it! I am putting it back in!--71.220.188.80 04:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review Wikipedia policy WP:CITE. I agree with you that there are pro-POV statements that are uncited, and I'll be going through the article looking for that as well. Bochica 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia we do not edit by taking two wrongs to make it right. If it is unsourced, more particularly, when drawing conclusions it is sourced or it is deleted. Too often unsourced material turns into original research, which is not allowed. I would also encourage you, Anon 71, to work cooperatively with other editors. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to remove unsourced point of view, then remove most of the article. Why on earth include fiction as though it were fact? Where is your proof? Plus, this book must be illegally racist in many countries, but where are the articles on other racist treatises? Mike0001 12:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith related to Oliver Cowdery?
This article says that Joseph Smith is related to Oliver Cowdery. I don't think they were. Unless someone can site their source, I will remove it. Epachamo 00:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please specify where it says it that? That way, I´ll be able to check it out and give you a reply... ♠  TomasBat  ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Its in the section Smith as a plagiarist of contemporaries The sentence where it talks about there relation states:  "Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith were related and often associated together. Cowdery was educated and tr..." Epachamo 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow Epachamo, you literally took the words right out of my mouth! I was adding the same reply at the same time you were. The section is currently called "Smith a a plagiarist of contempories: The View of the Hebrews theory" since I just reverted the anon who removed all of my edits from yesterday. Bochica 00:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While we're at it, can anyone cite a source for the related sentence:
 * "Those who believe that such plagiarism did happen usually place most blame on the shoulders of Oliver Cowdery.[citation needed]" I've been searching, but have yet to find anything to support this claim. Bochica 00:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sentence was worse when I got to it in February... it said "However, if such plagiarism did exist, most blame would have to be placed on the shoulders of Oliver Cowdery." So I edited to the current form and slapped a citation request on it. The section is very messy... and I think that there's an inordinate amount of space devoted to all the plagiarism theories.  Compare that to the "Joseph Smith's Own account" section, which is a third as long.  Perhaps we can condense these a little? gdavies 17:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This link appears to be where a lot of stuff has been recently introduced from. Upon further investigation, I found a great site that discusses Oliver Cowdery's family tree.  Nowhere does Joseph Smith show up that I could find. Epachamo 01:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The answer to this question, according the the LDS database, is that Smith and Cowdery are 3rd cousins one time removed. Here is the relationship:

Oliver Cowdery<-Rebecca Fuller<-William Fuller<-John Fuller<-John Fuller 11 Jan 1656

Joseph Smith<-Lucy Mack<-Lydia Gates<-Lydia Fuller<-Shubael Fuller<-John Fuller 11 Jan 1656

A number of sites that I looked at stated that they were "3rd cousins" or "2nd cousins" or "distant cousins," but none were specific about the lineage or who the common ancestor was. I removed "commonly associated together" because I can't find any evidence of them ever meeting prior to the documented meeting. The sites just say things like "could have attended the same meeting" and so on. Bochica 02:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Chiasmus?
I think the paragraph mentioning chiasmus was written by someone who did not know what chiasmus was and was perhaps repeating a 'talking point'. The point is, in any case unreferenced and should be sourced or removed ASAP, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the article in general. Anyway, chiasmus occurs when elements (words, ideas, motifs etc.) are used in a pattern of ABBA, ABCBA, ABCCBA, ABCDCBA &c. So the phrase, "The cows are white, green the grass" is "chiastic" because it goes Noun Adjective Adjective Noun (ABBA). This pattern *does* appear prominently in ancient Near Eastern literature including literature in the Semitic languages, so the article is correct about that much. *However* chiasmus also appears prominently in, e.g. Homer, and is picked up on both the smaller and larger scales by later literate poets. Unless the appearance of chiasmus in, say, Homer is an argument for a *linguistic* relationship between Greek and the Semitic languages (there is none to speak of), then a fortiori the argument in regard to the linguistic status of the translation that constitutes the Book of Mormon is precisely worthless.

Furthermore, the paragraph on linguistics vis a vis the Book of Mormon begins, "The Nephites, and possibly the Lamanites, might have spoken a modified Semitic language up to at least AD 400, where the Book of Mormon stops. However, no spoken Semitic language has survived in the Americas to modern times." I take this to mean, "it is possible that the Nephites, and possibly the Lamanites... spoke a Semitic language." And yet, there is not a single linguist (except maybe a Mormon one somewhere?) who thinks that *any* New World language has *any* linguistic relationship to the Semitic languages. This means that, in the light of the best available research (which is the standard on which Wikipedia articles supposedly rest) it is *not* possible that the Nephites or any other New World people spoke a language with *any* relationship to the Semitic languages. The whole claim about Semitic influence is only in any way coherent if one already *believes* that it is true and ignores all evidence to the contrary. The whole article is affected by the same bias, I would suggest. Not that I'm surprised; every other article on a religious movement has pretty much the same systemic bias, it's just upsetting to see (pseudo-)linguistics pressed into service this way.

Cheers, Charlie 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Charlie, I haven't really looked at the chiasmus section on this page yet, but I've spent a lot of time working on it on the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon page during the last few weeks. Sentences that contain "might have" definitely need to be modified. I'll take a look here. You might want to check out the Linguistics page and see if there is anything there that you think might be a suitable replacement for some of the text here. Or, you might be able to help keep the Linguistics page on the level as well. I try to remove bias (pro- and con-) but I'm not always successful (probably due to my own bias :-)). Regards. Bochica 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrific job
Wow, you have all really done a terrific job with the editing on this page. This page reads much more like a classic encyclopedia than the majority of articles on Wikipedia 75.166.87.15 19:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Reformed Egyptian
User: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has suggested that Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism) be merged back into this article five years after it was forked off. I disagree with this as the resulting article would be nearly 200 KB and theis section would be longer than needed in the Book of Mormon article. Just my two cents.

Incidentally, he also listed Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism) as an article for deletion. -Visorstuff 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. It is a subarticle to this one and should not be remerged after five years. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The AfD has failed now, but merging is clearly a bad idea (the tag was just re-added by Merkey a few minutes ago), and I think most everyone will agree with this.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ni-go-di-s-ge-di (so be it). Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Cherokee Language Book of Mormon Translation
I translated the book of mormon into Cherokee. Looks like it was added. Hopefully my alleged mental illness did not taint the effort. Please have someone review the materials. I am not certain they belong here, but if its of interest, so be it. I have not been able to represent words for "Nephite" or "Lamanite" in Cherokee as of yet -- I need to think about it. I also left the proper names and some of the 19th Century english terms. At some point, I will translate them. Before I translate the proper names, I need some input on the best method. I'll hand it over to the LDS Church after it has been proofread and thoroughly reviewed for any errors. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I used the Cherokee New Testament as the baseline and the traslation is in the form of language dialect used by Elias Boudinet so both books would have a similar writing style. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, who are you addressing this to? and what "materials" are you referring to? You didn't eat more tainted spinach, did you? It looks like it was added by your sockpuppet IP address, if anyone. –SESmith 09:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not just "looks like" it was added by a sockpuppet IP address, but "was unboubtedly added by a sockpuppet IP address".


 * The IP address adding those references was, which Jeff has used in the past (indeed, here's a diff where Jeff realises he's not signed in, and so signs an edit made by that IP address as his own -

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daniel_Brandt&diff=next&oldid=129239266) Of course, this is not conclusive, given dynamic IP addresses. The edit history for the inclusion of the cherokee translation follows Jeff's pattern, though: One edit to add, and then a storm of typo fixing and rewording.  See the history of the article, between 07:06 on 13 June 2007, and 08:23 on 13 June 2007.


 * For Jeff to leave it a couple of days, then claim somebody else added it ("looks like it was added") is disingenouous at the least, and just another example of him trying to get his own way without having to bother with all those rules that everyone else is expected to comply with. 83.205.184.61 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure that the LDS Church undertakes their own translations of their own texts. In other words if and when the church desires a translation into Cherokee they will make the arrangements and choose the people to do it. But as far as Wikipedia is concerned, that is neither here nor there. Isaac Crumm 04:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Change made
I changed

the King James translation are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g. see Nag Hammadi Library and Dead Sea scrolls), thus, the inclusion

to

the King James translation are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g. see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls), thus, the inclusion

Insinuating that the Nag Hammadi Library is more reliable as a source of biblical texts is plainly wrong since it holds no biblical books at all.

Drmental 14:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy Edit mistake?
"Verifiability: the challenge..." is now a subheading (2.1.1) of "Organization" (2.1) and "Chronology" (2). Not sure where this was supposed to end up or if we're in process here, just thought I'd point it out. gdavies 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I promoted the subheading one level, but I'm not sure that the paragraph is in the correct place. I think that all of the article headings need to be looked at and organized a bit more. Bochica 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus in America
Sesmith, while I agree that your version of the intro is better than the one with the changes I made, I still think Jesus's appearance in America is important enough that it deserves more than the passing reference than it gets here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.100.224 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but I don't think it's appropriate to make it the dominant statement of the first paragraph, which is why I changed it back. The introductory statements should, in my view, say what the Book of Mormon is, not what it teaches or what happens in its narrative. The section that metnions Jesus' visit does say it is the "crowning event" of the book, which hardly amounts to a mere "passing reference". (PS: I didn't write the intro and I certainly don't claim it to be "mine". It could certainly still be improved.) –SESmith 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Images
Please note that a vast majority of the images currently used in the article are copyright and that their continued use does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. More specifically, none of these images are essential to the article and all could clearly be replaced by free equivalents. Most of them were uploaded by who provided shaky fair-use claims for them. The images will be deleted by the middle of next week unless the originating website releases the images under a license compatible with their use on Wikipedia. Thank you, Pascal.Tesson 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just checked, and none of the images used on this page seem to have been uploaded by . Bella   Swan (Talk!)  12:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs references
I found these partially translated beliefs references at es:Libro de Mormón and I wondered why they wer not present in this article. they are excellent footnotes. Tom Haws 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

El Libro de Mormón es uno de cuatro libros sagrados aceptados por

La Iglesia de Jesucristo de los Santos de los Últimos Días,

la Comunidad de Cristo

y otras ramas

Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon
I quote this paragraph from the article for ease of reference.

The Smithsonian Institution issues a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide, stating that "physical type of American Indians is basically mongoloid".[81] In 1998, the Smithsonian stated that its stance did not change, and issued shorter letter without detailed response (which is found in the first letter) and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution.[82]

I am asking questions, not changing the article, in case this is contentious. My concerns with this paragraph are:

1) The Smithsonian reply has changed. The wording "issues a standard reply" should be changed to "used to issue..." or "previously issued...".

2) The quote given from the "standard reply" is only part of one sentence in the paragraph that is the 2nd of 8 points.  The quote is really out-of-context.  Also the quote says nothing directly about the Book of Mormon, so it is confusing to the reader.  Only the first of the eight points says anything about the Book of Mormon.  The quote seems both confusing and irrelevant.

I wonder if this old "standard reply" is important enough to be in the article at all. If it is, maybe it needs a fuller treatment.

3) Reference [82] leads to a letter from the Smithsonian Institution dated in 2001. The article would be more up-to-date and consistent with the reference if the second sentence referred to 2001, not to 1998.  For example, the sentence might say: "In response to an inquiry in 2001, the Smithsonian Institution stated that the Book of Mormon is a religious document, not a scientific guide, and that the Institution has never used it in archeological research."

Wanderer57 06:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These issues have been brought up before. Please make these changes to the article. &mdash; Val42 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Clarity
This is a fairly small point, but I think it would help the clarity of the section, "Similarities of some segments to the King James Version".

Paragraph 2 includes the long sentence "The similarity to KJV, when the majority ....... 600 BC source." This sentence is run-on to the point where it is difficult to comprehend. Could someone familiar with the topic please rewrite this in two or more sentences? Thanks. Wanderer57 04:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider - Thank you.  That was a quick response, if your change to the article was indeed in response to my above request.


 * Other readers of this page will find that the section, "Similarities of some segments to the King James Version" has now changed to the point where my request no longer applies. Wanderer57 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * My objective was to fulfill your request, but once I got there I found more problems than jut the one you stated. When requests for references go without support for over several months, they can/should be deleted, which I did. Do you find the section improved or do you feel it is still lacking in clarity? Do you feel that the significance of the critique is sufficiently stated? --Storm Rider (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Modern pseudepigrapha" is NPOV-vio
The articles for Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and Book of Moses have been edited a few times to put them in the Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, and the article Modern pseudepigrapha has been edited to include them (with the all-too-appropriate edit note, "removing NPOV", rather than "removing NPOV violation"). These edits are equivalent to a factual determination that the books were originally written in modern times, which is the equivalent of making the assertion that a church that accepts it is false - or, the equivalent of starting the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with the assertion, "This is a false church". Neither statement would conform to a NPOV. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 17:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I will explain placing an article under Category:Sacred History, does not mean the article is actual sacred history but that it is typically considered sacred history not that it is actually sacred history doing so would violate npov the same is true of the book of mormon i put it under the Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, because it is generally considered to be the Gospel of Barnabas is considered by some to have actually have been written by Barnabas despite the fact that it is generally considered to be written in the 1500's by placing it under Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, wikipedia is merely stating that the text is generally considered Modern pseudepigrapha--129.115.102.13 17:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Again - this is the equivalent of starting the article on the LDS Church by saying "This church is generally considered false". NPOV violations are not saved by also using weasel words. The category doesn't belong. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 18:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are a large number of other texts categorized under Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, because they are generally considered to be Modern pseudepigrapha, explain to me why believers in the Gospel of Barnabas get to see that the Gospel of Barnabas is categorized under Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, but mormons don't get to see their text categorized under Category:Modern pseudepigrapha, even though it fits the criteria that is most academics believe the text is not what it claims to be--129.115.102.13 18:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a controversial issue. If you want to state that "the text is generally considered Modern pseudepigrapha", there needs to be some solid support for that statement.  That is, REFERENCES.  Also I think it would make the discussion clearer if the "I will explain" paragraph was divided into sentences.  I can't figure out why Barnabas comes into this discussion. Thank you.  Wanderer57 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason why i mention the Gospel of Barnabas is because there are countless muslim websites and muslims,especially in Pakistan and Kashmir, claiming it was written by the supposed disciple of Jesus named Barnabas, despite the fact the text was written in 1500's if this text is Modern pseudepigrapha, so is the Book of Mormon.--129.115.102.13 18:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It may be modern pseudepigrapha. The rule is that if you want to state THAT IT IS, references are needed.  Wanderer57 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And for the record, we have three users trading off to revert the edit out, and a single user who has violated the no-three-revert rule to put the edit back in. Further 3-revert vios to put it back in will be considered fair game to undo at will. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I can find only websites using the term "Modern pseudepigrapha" on wiki-clones also it is a fact that scholars think the book invented the book as there is no evidence of the text existing before joseph smith supposedly translated it unless the angel moroni gives the scholarly community the golden plates there will be no evidence of the text being as old as it claims and also he have not translated it at all correctly see Book of Abraham since it is has not been referenced by anyone before joseph smith either therefore this book is by definition Modern pseudepigrapha.--129.115.38.42 16:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon:Ancient or Modern? From the Salt Lake City Messenger, November 1993, pp. 5-11."Our study of the Book of Mormon has extended over a period of thirty years and has led us to conclude that it is not an ancient or divinely inspired record, but rather a product of the nineteenth century. Mormon apologists, of course, have resisted the evidence set forth in our books, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?, and Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon. Although the church itself has been completely silent concerning our work, L. Ara Norwood, Matthew Roper, John A. Tvedtnes, and a few other Mormon apologists have recently assailed our work. We have been preparing a response to these critics that will be available soon."

Since scholars do not consider it ancient it is Modern pseudepigrapha--129.115.38.42 16:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * STOP THE PRESSES - THIS PERSON HAS FOUND A SCHOLARLY SOURCE CRITICAL OF THE LITERAL CLAIMS OF THE LDS CHURCH!!! ASTONISHING!!! How did they do it?


 * Seriously dude, this is what a blog is for. Get one, post on it all day long every day about how you don't think the LDS scriptures are literally what they claim to be. In the meantime, stop trying to impose your NPOV-vio crusade on an encyclopedia. Thanks. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 18:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it help anyone to be sarcastic? "129.115.38.42" has provided a reference to two books.  There is information about these books on the Internet.  There are probably many other skeptical writings about the origin of the Church of Latter Day Saints.  Do you know of any that you consider "scholarly" or at least "serious"?   Wanderer57 19:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider one squirt of sarcasm well-earned after one user has persistently violated the 3-revert rule and continually reverted back unilaterally against at least four other users who have removed the edits while providing ample reasoning - and where the unilateral user gives an example of one viewpoint and tries to use it to justify the proclamation, "scholars do not consider it ancient", as if "scholars" are a monolithic being whose entirety of views can be summed up with the one highly selective reference.


 * The point here is not whether there are any differences in scholarly evaluation between one source and another regarding the LDS scriptures. The point is that the edits are a precise equivalent of posting a factual assertion, "The LDS Church is false", and would have an equivalent POV status with a factual assertion of any religion being false. Whether assertions such as those violate NPOV might be debatable on Hitchensdawkinsopedia, but not on Wikipedia. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 19:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have created a template for category:Modern pseudepigrapha, Template:Modern pseudepigrapha, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.65.22 (talk • contribs)


 * You're just digging the hole deeper. The disclaimer is pure OR as well as NPOV-vio; it reflects nothing more than something you just made up. Taking a look at a dictionary definition of "pseudepigrapha" at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=pseudepigrapha, we have, "1. Spurious writings, especially writings falsely attributed to biblical characters or times. 2. A body of texts written between 200 b.c. and a.d. 200 and spuriously ascribed to various prophets and kings of Hebrew Scriptures." Ergo, labeling something "pseudepigrapha" is a factual assertion that the thing labeled is "spurious" and "false". Your ever-further-3-revert-violation edits are all the precise equivalent of posting on each article, "this work of scripture is spurious and false". NPOV violation or not? The template with a made-up disclaimer: OR or not? Your edits are never going to be allowed to stay. Please get your own blog and stop wasting everyone's time. - Reaverdrop ( talk / nl ) 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a note on Talk:Modern pseudepigrapha related to the issues we are discussing here. I think there is a fundamental question about that article that should be discussed in its talk page.  Please take a look at it.  Thank you.    Wanderer57 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

certain writings (other than the canonical books and the Apocrypha) professing to be Biblical in character.

is what dictionary.com says —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.153.65.22 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

GA rating
Even if this article is of GA quality, it has to go through the GA nomination process. It has nothing to do with my point of view. It's just the way things work on wikipedia. You can't promote your own article to GA. The highest you can promote it to is B-class. Sorry. If you want it to be GA, then put it up on WP:GAC. That's how the process works. Wrad 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey Wrad, thanks for your prompt response. I am not a good one to evaluate article quality. My only issue is that I perceieved that someone in the past had rated it "GA" and then you changed it to "B". It seemed a rather strong deviation from precedent. I don't know who rated it the first time, but I assume we can follow it back to find out. Are you stating that the first person who rated the artcile did not follow protocol? Is this common to see such a broad range in evalutors? Also, you did not add any comments to indicate why it was a B article and how to improve it; isn't that normal to do? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if it had been properly rated GA, I would have had to say why, but since it was promoted against protocol, no protocol really has to be followed. Since it hasn't gone through the protocol, the best thing to do is nominate it an get a good review. To be honest, it can really help the article. I'd say the article is pretty close to GA. At a swift glance, though, I see some citation tags. Those would have to be fixed. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged has to be cited, and those statements have clearly been challenged. In any case, for an article like this, it's probably best to have most everything cited for GA, since it is a controversial topic. All in all, it's pretty close, but not quite, and needs to go through the process anyway. I'd say get rid of the citation needed tags by citing or removing the offending statement, then put it up for GAC. Wrad 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand now; thank you for your comments and counsel for improvement. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd highly recommend going for GA status. It really is close. Wrad 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the history User:Java7837 rated it a GA on 4 Sept, 2007. User:Hawstom rated it a GA on the LDS Project on 28 August 2007.  I will contact these editors and clarify proper procedure with them to ensure there is not a repetition of improper rating in the future. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If any of them take issue with the change, they can feel free to bring it up at the GAC talk page. Wrad 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have added a lot of sources to the article and think I'm going to add it for another GAC. Bella   Swan  00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The "Smith as a plagiarist of contemporaries: the View of the Hebrews theory" still has some citation needed tags. Those probably need to be fixed before hand. Certainly wouldn't hurt. Wrad 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When I was trimming I saw that, but didn't really know much about it so I left it alone. I looked again and can't seem to find anything about this so I've just removed that info. Bella   Swan  01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, give it a go! Wrad 01:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Persuitte's section
The section was written as if it was fact; Persuitte was the final arbitrator of truth. He does not "show", he attempts to show, he posits, it is his studied opinion, nothing more and nothing less. The paragraph had been written to lessen the POV language to demonstrate that his position is only one opinion among a broad range of opinions. This is rather simple edits to achieve a more NPOV article. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a clue how NPOV language can be construed as OR! Maybe you, Duke, could clarify what you mean. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Back in January in the section entitled "Humor? Who's Laughing Out Loud?" the following statement was made: "...the Book of Mormon itself is the subject of this article and few great works of literature (if any) have been influenced by it in any amount..."

This assertion has gone unchallenged for over 8 months. I cannot help but wonder, is the statement true? Wanderer57 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Depends on where you look and who you ask. In the Mormon world, a lot of fiction and nonfiction is affected by it. In the rest of the world, the only author I can think of offhand is Orson Scott Card, a bestselling author who quotes from it and borrows heavily from its plot in several of his books. "In any amount" is a pretty blanket statement and isn't true. The effect does seem to be minimal, though. Maybe someone should look into the effects of the book and write a real section. Wrad 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As you mentioned, this section was created in January and has since then been removed so most of the section either had false information or was irrelevant to the topic. Why would anyone challenge the information if it was removed? ~ Bella   Swan  23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I referred to the statement in Talk, not information in the article. I was surprised the statement was not challenged, given that the editors here are a reasonably argumentative group (not that there is anything wrong in that, I hasten to add.)  Thanks for the lead to Orson Scott Card.   Wanderer57 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I see, it looks like they were arguing other points and maybe were only thinking about those points at the time. After the disscusion ended, nobody probably looked at it again. Now that you point it out though I do disagree, and think that was made up information. ~ Bella   Swan  02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Review
There are a number of issues with this article, mostly to do with referencing. While much of the article is already referenced, there are significant sections that do not have references. Due to the controversial nature of LDS, I feel that more footnotes are needed in certain areas outlined below.
 * 1) LDS scholars believe that the rise and fall of the Jaredite empire corresponds with that of the Olmec.
 * 2) *Which scholars?
 * Joseph L Allen PhD among others. He presents a well thought out consideration of the time period of the Jaredites in the Book of Mormon. See Sacred Sites: Searching for Book of Mormon Lands and Exploring the Lands of the Book of Mormon. The following is his reasoning. --John Freestone (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "No dates are given in the Book of Mormon pinpointing the destruction of the Jaredites... However we know that the Jaredites could not have been destroyed prior to 586 BC, becuase that is when Jerusalem was destroyed and because Mulek did not come to America prior to that destruction.We are also inclined to move farther away from the 586 BC date, and closer to the 250 BC date, for the following reasons:
 * 1. The Mulekites first landed in the Land Northward, the place where the Jaredites lived. (Alma 22:30) A certain period of time was required for the people of Zarahemla, Zarahemla being a descendant of Mulek, to migrate to the Land Southward where Mosiah discovered them. (Omni 1:13-16)
 * 2. Zarahemla's being a descendant of Mulek suggests that more than one generation had elapsed from the time of Mulek to Zarahemla.
 * 3. When Mosiah discovered the People of Zarahemla, they had become exceeding numerous, they had fought many wars, and their language had become corrupt.  We can expect that one or more generations had transpired for those events to occur. (Omni 1:17)
 * 4. When the 121 BC Limhi Expedition discovered the 24 gold plates that contained the history of the fallen Jaredites, they also reported that they saw ruins of buildings, BONES, SWORDS WHICH HAD RUSTED. (Mosiah 8:8-11) We know that the Jaredites lived near the seashore and that their last battle was also near the seashore. (See Ether 9:3) If the Jaredites were destroyed in a sea-level climate and if the Jaredite destruction was anywhere near 600 BC, certainly no evidence of bones or swords would have remained in 121 BC, wehn the Limhi Expedition discovered the Jaredite records.
 * The Mesoamerica records are a little more clear in terms of dating the last battle of the first settlers to Mesoamerica. I propose that the pre-Olmecs and the Olmecs of 2500 BC to 300BC were the Jaredites.  If this is the case, then the destructio nof the Olmecs(Jaredites), as determined by carbon-14 dating, is between 300 and 400 BC(See Coe 1962:90) A recent publication written by Edmunson records the Stela 13 date of Monte Alban, a proposed captivity date, at 251 BC (Edmunson, 1988) The date of the Jaredite destructio may be close to this date.
 * Ixtlilxochitl records the destruction of the "giants" (Jaredites) at 240 BC. He was so precise in his dating to the destruction at the time of Christ, from which the 240 BC date is taken, that his dating lends credibility to the date of the destruction of the giants(Jaredites). (See Ixtlilxochitl:18) For the sake of compromise, in this text I will place the destruction of the Jaredites around 350 BC." --John Freestone (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) The remainder of the Book of Mormon is written in third-person historical narrative, said to be compiled and abridged by Mormon (with Moroni abridging the "Book of Ether").
 * 2) *Who said it was compiled by Mormon?
 * The primary abridgement was done by Mormon as stated in the Book of Mormon. See W of M 1: 3 and Morm. 5: 9 . There are several other references throughout the actual book itself.--John Freestone (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason it says "said to be" is to be neutral? Perhaps "said by believers to be..." would be better? Wrad 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While a citation would be better, failing to find one, the 'said by believers' is an acceptable alternative. Zeus1234 06:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought the source was obvious. It's the book itself. Wrad 15:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When the word 'said' is being used, you have to ask who said it. It should be clear that the book is the source in which no citation is needed.Zeus1234 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess we should be more obvious. Wrad 17:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) A title page (believed to have been written by Moroni)
 * 2) *Believed by who?
 * See above. Wrad 23:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) One of Smith's associates as the author, who then allowed Smith to take the credit.
 * 2) Many critics use this as evidence to demonstrate that Joseph Smith simply wrote the Book of Mormon and later claimed to have translated it.
 * 3) *Which critics?
 * 4) One of Smith's colleagues as author
 * 5) *This paragraph needs more footnotes
 * 6) The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced.
 * I don't think this is at all controversial, so it may not need an inline citation for GA. Wrad 23:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) LDS apologists
 * 2) *This paragraph has no footnotes
 * 3) This could be considered the official stance on determining historicity.
 * 4) Archaeology
 * 5) *This section has only two footnotes
 * 6) The book’s importance is commonly stressed at the twice-yearly general conference and at special devotionals by general authorities in the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the several Quorums of the Seventy. There is also the issue of length, as the article is too long at the moment. However, there is an easy way to chop down the article to an acceptable length. Simply spin-off the translation tables into a new article called 'List of Book of Mormon Translations.' Such an article would be a more appropriate place for a long list. I also think that the auction section is innapropriate and should be removed from the article. It adds nothing to the article itself, and detracts from its flow.
 * Agree. New article created. Wrad 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also important that the lead of the article reflect the article's contents, which it does not at the moment. One full paragraph in the lead should be dedicated to historical questions and controversies regarding the book, especially considering the article discusses these issues in detail. I would also merge the first two paragraphs of the lead.

Once these changes are completed, I will read-through the article again and see if anything more needs to be done. Zeus1234 21:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have failed the GA after little work has been done in the ten days since I reviewed the article. Some work has been done, but far more references need to be added before it is renominated. Zeus1234 20:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. I did what I could, but I wouldn't know where to look for references. Hopefully someone will fix this. Wrad 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the Book of Mormon, and have found nothing at all which concretely identifies the geographic area at issue as the Americas. From the book's vague description of crossing great waters, it could just as easily have been Australia or Japan or somewhere in Africa. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course the huge problem with that caliber of statement is that no in Australia, Japan, or Africa claims to have found an ancient record and none of them claim to be a promised land. If there is any credibility to the writers of the Book of Mormon coming to the Americas 400 years before Jesus Christ, I can assure you they would not have provided an address. It was identified solely as a promised land, the records were found in the Americas, ergo "the promised land". It is an issue of faith. Science cannot begin to answer it because so little is known of the ancient Americas. Regardless, your "review" of the Book of Mormon is appreciated. Cheers! --Storm Rider (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely I may have missed something. Does the Book reference any identifiable landmarks? Does the Book describe any animals that are unique to the Americas? Such as jaguars, prarie dogs, black bears, buffalo, or oppossums? Does it describe animals that are (or at that time were) found only outside of the Americas, elephants, lions, horses, etc.? Those would be some good clues. Cheers! bd2412  T 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if you believe that the record is true, then you also believe that Joseph Smith found it buried on the American continent, and the angel Moroni told him that the book was about the American continent. If you don't believe it's true, and Joseph Smith was a fraud, then it doesn't matter where it took place, because it didn't even happen.
 * There are some clues, though, that show that it was in the Americas, for instance, Nephi's prophecy about the discovery of America and the Revolutionary war in . -Tea and crumpets (t c) 05:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, I have added some links/references to the artcile replacing all but one citation request. Would you like to work together to take care of the rest? I think we could do this in short order in a cooperative effort. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Language and Avoiding Confusing Phrases
In this article, I note a number of LDS "buzzwords" and phrases being used that would be unfamiliar or confusing to non-members. It seems that it would be in everyone's best interest to avoid using such phrases. LDS members should want to avoid using such unfamiliar and confusing phrases in order for others to better understand the Book of Mormon, and others should want to avoid using these phrases so that the article is more readable. Please avoid using loaded phrases, and terms that would be unclear to non-LDS members. Example: Mormons accept the Bible "so far as it is correctly translated." A much clearer, neutral and honest way of putting it would be to simply say "as it is translated by Joseph Smith, Jr." That doesn't reflect on the quality of this translation, it simply explains things clearly without using a Mormon phrase that is unclear to others. Kungfumeister 18:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have an excellent point and more effort should be made to communicate in a clear manner. However, the statement you have made above is incorrect and false. Joseph Smith's translation does not change the statement as it was previously made. Further, most LDS use the King James Version with references to the Joseph Smith transaltion.
 * I believe the statement as it was is clear and understandable. The Bible is known to have many errors in it as identified by modern scriptural scholarship. That does not change the fact that LDS hold the Bible to be the word of God. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't dispute the principle, but your example puzzles me. "Mormons accept the Bible as it is translated by Joseph Smith, Jr."  To me, this wording is at least as unclear as the previous one.


 * I understand the Bible was translated into English (and other languages of course) long before Joseph Smith, Jr. was born. Do Mormons only use a translation made by Joseph Smith, Jr.?  Did Joseph Smith, Jr. translate the Bible?  Is so, from what language?  Wanderer57 19:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For more information, see Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. However, to summarize that article, here is the relevant summary from two sentences in the introduction of that article: "The work, however, was not a literal translation from ancient documents. [T]he "translation" is rather a purportedly inspired rendering or restoration of the Bible to its original or intended meaning." &mdash; Val42 18:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with using neutral language. In this particular case, however, "as it is translated by Joseph Smith" is not quite accurate. Many denominations (such as the LDS Church) don't accept Joseph Smith's translation as canon, except for certain selections of it, and instead prefer the King James Version. Plus, Joseph Smith's version of the Bible was not technically a translation, since he didn't work from a source document. This is why the Community of Christ refers to it as the "Inspired Version", rather than the "Joseph Smith translation". Many Mormons think that there was a "correct version" out there that even Joseph Smith didn't fully capture. CO GDEN  23:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What's so confusing about the phrase "as far as it is translated correctly"? I hope I'm not being rude, but ["as far as" + clause] really is plain English, isn't it?Adamrmonteith 08:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Adam: It is plain English, but the sentence leaves me wondering who  the Latter Day Saints rely on to decide whether a particular version of the Bible is "translated correctly".


 * Related issue - since the main point of the sentence is the Book of Mormon, would it be better if the part about the Bible translation was in a separate sentence?  Wanderer57 16:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point there; now that you mention it, that whole clause should be removed from the sentence and possibly explained in a separate sentence or paragraph.Adamrmonteith 06:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thought. Since this article is about the Book of Mormon, does the point about whether the Bible is translated correctly need to be in the introduction to the article, or even anywhere in the article?


 * It could say: "Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ and other churches that claim Joseph Smith as their founder. In 1982, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added the subtitle Another Testament of Jesus Christ to its editions of the book to help clarify and emphasize its purpose. Prior to 1982, some editions of the Book of Mormon had included the subtitle, A Second Testament of Jesus Christ."  Comments?


 * (another thought - is the word "canon" generally enough understood to be meaningful? I know what it means but it is not often used.  Just wondering.  There is a link for canon but it is quite technical in nature.) Wanderer57 18:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The term canon is not common in LDS theology, but assuming that readers come from all religious backgrounds it is, IMHO, appropriate for the article. I like your suggestion on wording, please insert it in the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I made the change.  Wanderer57 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Role of the Book of Mormon in Mormonism
The Role of the Book of Mormon in Mormonism section starts with, "The Book of Mormon is of prime importance to the church ...." There are other such sections referring to "the church" in this section. This needs to be rewritten because it doesn't identify which church, and there will be different views depending on which church in the Latter Day Saint movement. However, I don't know how it should be rewritten. &mdash; Val42 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "religious significance" section needs to be totally rewritten. It should start out with a discussion of its importance in the early movement during the life of Joseph Smith, including what he said about it being the "most correct book", etc., and his views that it was the word of God, and its role as a guideline for early church organization. It can also discuss changes in early Mormonism that moved away from what many early Mormons like Cowdery initially assumed were Book of Mormon teachings, such as anti-polygamy, anti-freemasonry, etc. Then, the section can discuss how the book was treated by various denominations after Smith's death. CO GDEN  17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor Wording change in Introduction
Looking at the Introduction, it seems a bit wordy. How about this change?

FROM

Joseph Smith, Jr. said the book was a translation of golden plates. He said that the angel Moroni told him that the plates were buried in a hill near his home (which he later called the Hill Cumorah).

TO

Joseph Smith, Jr. said the book was a translation of golden plates, which the angel Moroni told him were buried in a hill near his home (which he later called the Hill Cumorah).

Also in the same paragraph, would it be correct to say: "with the aid of the Urim and Thummim, objects which were with the plates." ? There is a link for Urim and Thummim, but this is to a rather complex article. It might help the reader to know that Urim and Thummim are physical objects, not people or angels. Or am I way off base?

Also, would it be correct to say: "During the translation, Smith obtained..." instead of "During the production of the work Smith obtained..." ? I suggest this as shorter and more specific.

Wanderer57 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Auction of a 177-year old rare book
Is there any information about what happened at the sale in September? Wanderer57 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC) What is the point of the section anyway, as it is not closeley related to the Book of Mormon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.70.237 (talk) 20:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The book's sequence is primarily chronological.
Quoting the article: "The book's sequence is primarily chronological."

I'm wondering - does this mean there is evidence outside the Book of Mormon about the sequence of events in the Book, or is this sentence based solely on information within the Book? Wanderer57 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is based on information within the book. &mdash; Val42 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Belatedly, thank you. Wanderer57 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

KJV literary and linguistic style
Quoting from the Book of Mormon article as it was early September: "Additionally, the book reflects KJV literary and linguistic style. The KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced."

This paragraph strikes me as relevant to the article, but I can't find it in the current revision. I wonder what happened to it. Wanderer57 19:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I remember right, somebody took it out because it wasn't sourced. Wrad (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this quote covers the matter quite well. Other opinions?


 * "Nevertheless, the King James Bible turned out to be an excellent and accurate translation, and it became the most printed book in the history of the world, and the only book with one billion copies in print. In fact, for over 250 years...until the appearance of the English Revised Version of 1881-1885...the King James Version reigned without much of a rival. One little-known fact, is that for the past 200 years, all King James Bibles published in America are actually the 1769 Baskerville spelling and wording revision of the 1611. The original “1611” preface is deceivingly included by the publishers, and no mention of the fact that it is really the 1769 version is to be found, because that might hurt sales. The only way to obtain a true, unaltered, 1611 version is to either purchase an original pre-1769 printing of the King James Bible, or a less costly facsimile reproduction of the original 1611 King James Bible."


 * The source of this is http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/index.html


 * To see others, google history of Bible translations. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 3 of the article
Currently reads: "Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and other churches that claim Joseph Smith as their founder. In 1982, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added the subtitle Another Testament of Jesus Christ to its editions of the book to help clarify and emphasize its purpose. Prior to 1982, some editions of the Book of Mormon included the subtitle, Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

Would this make better sense if it read:

"Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and other churches that claim Joseph Smith as their founder. Prior to 1982, some editions of the Book of Mormon included the subtitle, Another Testament of Jesus Christ.  In 1982, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added this subtitle to its editions of the book, to help clarify and emphasize its purpose."

Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Be BOLD and go for it; I don't see a problem. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I like to get a second opinion.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that this is a good change. However, I would like more information on the "some" in the above paragraph.  Go ahead and make this change while someone finds this information. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes between editions
I AM QUOTING the current wording of the section: "Changes between editions"

"Former Mormons, and now critics of the LDS church, Jerald and Sandra Tanner have claimed to have documented almost 4000 changes in the Book of Mormon.[37] The vast majority of these changes have been discussed in official Church publications ...."

The part "Former Mormons, and now critics of the LDS church," was just added and it raises a question in my mind.

It seems from our article that "official Church publications" and critics of the church AGREE that there have been numerous changes to the text of the Book of Mormon. If so, the numerous changes seem to be a matter of fact, not a matter of controversy.

In this case, could the section be written in a more straightforward way? In particular, starting the section with the views of two critics of the church seems to me to suggest that it is a matter of controversy.

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, yeah. Make it more straightforward. It's not like it's a big secret. Wrad (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the description of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, as we should make clear that we are not talking about disinterested academic writing, but something closer to anti-Mormon apologetics. My wording was admittedly rather clumsy, and any improvements would be great. I do think there is a general problem in the Mormon articles with too much citing of this sort of stuff, and insufficient clarity as to the motives of those involved. On the other hand, it is difficult to find criticism of Mormon beliefs from a secular standpoint, for the reasons I've noted below. LeContexte (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Historicity of the Book of Mormon
In an edit note, editor LeContexte stated:

"the fact is that there is essentially zero support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside the LDS church."

I think a statement of this moment needs to be examined and sourced, not simply tucked away in an edit note. Can we please discuss this? I'm starting a new section here for the purpose.

My view is that statements of the sort made by LeContexte should either be supported significantly by references or not made at all. I would like some feedback on this. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I doubt very much you'll find academic papers from mainstream historians saying that the civilisations set out in the Book of Mormon never existed, any more than History Workshop Journal publishes papers concluding that the lost continent of Mu (lost continent) never existed, or Applied Physics Letters publishes papers concluding that the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator is a scam which violates the laws of thermodynamics rather than a revolutionary breakthrough. The Nephites, Mu and the MEG each have a degree of partisan support, but have so little support in the wider academic community ("essentially zero" indeed) that it's most unlikely they will be the subject of academic consideration. The MEG and Mu articles therefore state explicitly - without citing any reference - that these ideas have no mainstream scientific/geological support. The approach to the historical claims in the Book of Mormon should be the same. That said, I'm quite ready to admit I may be wrong on this, and there may be significant non-LDS support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon - if so, I would be fascinated to see it, and it should most definitely be cited in this article. LeContexte (talk) 22:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant information from the introductory paragraph and Wikipedia:Verifiability: Burden of evidence section of Verifiability, with links added by me:
 * Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. [...] The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
 * This should enlighten this discussion. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Except it is often not possible to find academic sources considering fringe claims, which is why pretty much the only sources you will find discussing the historicity of the Book of Mormon are interested parties (being Mormons or anti-Mormon evangelicals). See WP:FRINGE - "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance". I doubt very much you will find any significant non-Mormon sources supporting the historicity of the Book of Mormon, or indeed discussing it at all. Like the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator, it is simply not taken seriously by academics. LeContexte (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the Wikipedia policies on Fringe theories that you provided. You conveniently left off the sentence immediately prior to the sentence you did quote: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance for the idea among the relevant academic community."  There are references in the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article (which you have also edited) from the Smithsonian Institution and the National Geographic Society, so you can provide such references as required by this Wikipedia policy.  Would you, in the future, please deign to read the articles you are editing before you say there are no such references. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Val42, perhaps we are talking at cross-purposes. I am aware of the reference at the start of the article to the Smithsonian and National Geographic letters, and indeed I have edited that reference myself. But there is a difference between statements that neither organisation accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon (which the letters support) and statements that there is no acceptance amongst mainstream historians. The latter statement is, I think, correct and, in accordance with WP:FRINGE should be included unless there is evidence to the contrary. The burden is upon those making fringe claims to find mainstream support - I should think it would be easy to do so, if such support existed. LeContexte (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering the enormous impact of the Latter Day Saint movement (I use that term in a broad sense to include all the branches of the religion) on the history and the religious life of the USA, it seems to me that some "mainstream historians" must have studied the subject of its origin. I hope there are Wikipedians with better access to this research than I have. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The two main non-LDS historians that have written recently about the book of Mormon are Margaret Barker (from Britian) who basically shocked the Mormon world at the Joseph Smith Symposium this year when she said that internal evidences show that it is indeed an ancient document, but she stops short in saying where it took place; and Jan Shipps, who doesn't deal with its historicity. Interestingly enough, both are Methodist (and Barker is a preacher). There are others, like Robert Remini, but he and the others don't address teh historicity of the book, but its impact. Remini basically says he has no reason to believe or disbelieve it - it is what it is. Once we start citing at Non-Mormon historians who have actually done research, like Barker, Shipps and Remini, critics get more vehement about deleting such references from Wikipedia. -Visorstuff (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Aren't Shipps and Remini historians of Mormon history, in the context of modern American history? Neither are historians of pre-Columbian history, and - as you say - I'm unaware either has studied or made any claims about the historicity of the Book of Mormon. I hadn't heard of Barker. A quick google search brings up one Margaret Barker who is a "math and religion teacher at the Ockbrook School in England." and has written a book claiming that "pre-Christian Judaism was not monotheistic". Is this who you mean? If so, I suppose you could say she is a historian (albeit an amateur one) but she would seem to be some way out of the mainstream. LeContexte (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

LeContexte, it does not suprise me that you have not heard of her, as most Mormon critics can't attack her because of her credentials and therefore her theories on the Book of Mormon are not pushed out there as much. Plus she is new to Mormonism studies. But Barker is definitely NOT a amatuer historian nor is she considered out of the mainstream in any forum except by Mormon critics. Barker graduated in theology from University of Cambridge, England and has presented at nearly every Old Testament scholarly conference that I know of, and is considered one of the pre-eminent scholars on King Josiah's reform, the temple and the dueteronomists. She has been interviewed by dozens of christian radio stations in the US and UK and if memory serves me well, i believe she was even quoted in a major US pub in regard to the lost gospel of Judas stuff a year or two ago. In addition, she has authored 13 books and hundreds of published papers, some of which are found here. She was a past president of the Society for Old Testament Study in 1998, and is currently the Editor of the Society’s Monograph Series, published by Ashgate. She also has been part of the "Religion, Science and the Environment" symposium. She is an extremely popular Old Testament historian since the 1980s and if you do much research into old testament studies you would have definitly come across her (one of my favorite papers of hers is found here about Enoch legends. And, yes in her semi-retirement (from what i can piece together) she teaches at a private school for gifted students and is on the board of a womans refuge (which she's worked with for 30 years). She has only in the past couple of years come into contact with Mormonism. Definitely mainstream, definitely popular, definitely not Mormon. -Visorstuff (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversal of Changes
This is to explain why I reversed a batch of changes to the Book of Mormon article. I'm not saying those changes are right or wrong in their content.

The problem as I see it is the process. In a controversial article, which Book of Mormon sometimes is, a mass of changes creates great confusion of changes being made back and forth.

The only way to avoid this is to discuss proposed changes in the talk page, indicate why they are proposed, and allow time for a consensus to be developed. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - one proposal: as discussed above, the balance of the "historicity" section is wrong and fails to reflect the view of mainstream historians. LeContexte (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added to the 'authorship' section a note to point out the passages that are identical with Bible passages. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I want to explain why I reversed ten changes by DJ Clayworth. It was for the same reason as for those by 24.2.75.193 on December 15.  The problem is one of process. A batch of changes creates great problems in reviewing the changes and then reversing or revising some but not others.


 * It seems to me the better way is to propose changes in Talk, with unrelated changes in different sections. This allows for discussion of the changes independently.


 * To illustrate what I have in mind, I have added a section (below) based on one of DJ Clayworth's changes. (I don't think this change is a particularily contentious one. Some other changes are more likely to create discussion.) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I don't think you get to dictate process. If you have specific objections to anything I wrote feel free to say what that objection is here. Other than that, please don't undo valid changes without cause.


 * I'm going to give you detailed reason why a reversal of changes is wrong. You gave no reason for your reversal - as far as I can tell they are perfectly good. If I had not returned to this page, and you had come up with no valid objection, would you have gone and put my changes back? If not then my changes would have been lost for no reason.


 * Reviewing a batch of changes is actually very easy. If you go to the history page you can select the differences between any two versions, including the one before my changes and the one after. That should allow you to review the changes perfectly easily. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello DJ Clayworth: I am sorry you think I undid valid changes without cause. I believe that allowing for an orderly discussion of the changes is a valid reason and I tried to explain that.


 * In support of this view, I point out the "controversial" tag near the top of the Talk page. Here it is for reference:


 * I know that this note suggests that "substantial" changes should be discussed, and that your change comparing the Book of Mormon to the Bible is not substantial. The problem is that that change is in the midst of a batch of others.


 * I had no intention of allowing your changes to quietly be forgotten. In fact, to ensure this would not happen I pointed out those changes to a number of other editors who are interested in the article, as evidenced by past work on it.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favour of an orderly discussion. However I think your method of undoing changes whenever they occur is counter productive, and very contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. You claim that you had "no intention of allowing your changes to quietly be forgotten", but I only have to go back to December 15th to find a batch of changes which you reverted, again with no reason, and which you did not put back after no objections were raised.


 * I note that you wrote to another user "I'm not able to comment seriously on the proposed changes." That really begs the question of why you reverted them. Please give a reason why you think my changes were bad, or re-instate them. If you feel you want other readers to comment on them that is entirely fair, but they can do so with the changes in place in the article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Me again. If you go back to December 15, the changes I reverted that day were by 24.2.75.193.  If you look on that editor's talk page, you will see that I left a note there so they would be aware of what happened to their changes.


 * As explained above, my problem was not with the substance of your changes but rather the process.


 * As you and I seem to be far apart on this matter, I will seek some other input regarding what I did. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You left a note with the other user, but you still didn't put their changes back, even though you could find nothing wrong with their edits. If that had happened to my edits I would be very annoyed, and I might reasonably think you were a vandal.


 * Feel free to seek other input, but unless you have a good reason for thinking that there is anything wrong with my edits please put them back, or I will do so. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to be clear. My issue was with the process you followed. I made no comment on the substance of your changes.


 * Your process a) ignored the "please discuss substantial changes" and b) introduced a batch of changes at once. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You may have noticed when you signed up for Wikipedia that "everyone is free to edit anything" and "be bold in editing". In fact I've given you several hours for discussion, during which you had plenty of opportunity to raise objections; but you've used the time instead to argue about process. Either find something that is wrong with any of the edits I put in, or restore them please. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From the beginning of this episode, I have been very upfront that I reverted your edits because of process. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea of reverting anything except as a last resort. I think discussion could have been introduced here before a revert and caused fewer problems. The idea is to discuss big changes, not prevented. Someone can add something big and then bring it up here why they changed it. If they don't bring it up here, then someone else should, and if it really is bad then the consensus will fix it. Reverting just because of procedure will just cause problems. Wrad (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wrad that, "Reverting just because of procedure will just cause problems." However, I just reviewed the edits made by DJ Clayworth that were undone by Wanderer57.  Except for the one that was redone by DJ Clayworth, they all lack citations, violating "Make sure you supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information in highly controversial articles," of the above notice.  This would be another procedural issue except that it echoes general Wikipedia policy; it is a reminder of general Wikipedia policy. The one that was restored doesn't provide balance; it doesn't bring up that (according to the Book of Mormon) Nephi was quoting from Isaiah which is why it is a (near) duplicate. The same applies for most of the other duplicated passages. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm always happy to provide cites. I encourage people to do so. Let's look at what I wrote:


 * 1) "Book of Mormon is the foundational document of scripture of the LDS church". Do I really need to cite this? Isn't it obvious? If there is some minor wording I've got wrong that you object to please fix it.
 * 2) Elephants. It's in Ether 9:19. Did I need to reference that?
 * 3) No mention of squash, jaguar, tomato etc. Again do we really need to reference this? It's pretty common knowledge and I challenge anyone to find that the BoM DOES reference them. If you have to have a reference try here.
 * 4) The duplication of 2Nephi with Isaiah is also well known and not seriously disputed.

Anything else you'd like references on? DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to Wanderer's revert; it is standard procedure on controversial topics to revert edits that are viewed as significant changes or are controversial in and of themselves. When an Anonomyous editor edits it is even more common to see these types of reverts and request a discussion before inserting the edits.
 * This articles has turned into a lesser quality article; if there are not references for the new edits or edits can not be found, then delete them until such time as references can be found. This also goes for that heinous, "Critics" say; this should be changed to specific reputable experts who have leveled criticism with specific references for where they have brought them up. This goes for apologetic comments also. If an expert can not be found, edits/comments/edits should be deleted.
 * DJ, it is common knowledge for those who know something of Mormonism; it is not common knowledge among the majority of readers. Of course they should be referenced; you know better. The vast majority of the world does not know about Mormonism, its beliefs, or its criticisms. We should never assume the opposite; in fact, we should always write articles from the position that the reader does not have a working knowledge of any article. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide knowledge not currently possessed by readers. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To summarize what I wrote above: All of these need references. The information about the duplicated biblical passages also requires balance. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Change to "Duplication of the King James Version
The section currently reads (in full):


 * A comparison of passages in the Book of Mormon with the King James Version of the Bible reveals that several passages are duplications, with or without minor variations. For example 2 Nephi 19 is a copy of Isiah 9, with minor variations.

The proposal is to change it to:


 * A comparison of passages in the Book of Mormon with the King James Version of the Bible reveals that several passages are duplications of Biblical passages, with or without minor variations. For example 2 Nephi 16-24 is a copy of Isaiah 6-14, with minor variations.

Does this example serve to illustrate the extent of the similarily between the Book of Mormon and the Bible? Please discuss. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the different wording, and you certainly didn't need to undo that change to revise it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is to briefly state the case for alternative views of the development of the Book of Mormon. I am not sure of the purpose of this subsection. It sort of just makes a statement, but does not really do anything. I think it is unnecessary and should be deleted. The purpose of referring to the subarticle is so that each of the theories can be explored and expanded upon. Unless there is some reason I am missing I will delete it. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it not relevant information? The section devotes nearly twice as much space to the LDS view of authorship as any other view, and the statement is worth making whatever the true authorship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is relevant, but already included elsewhere: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. I've added in template link to the other article that already treats this material and added in the requested citations, which is well researched. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent massive revert
A large section was recently added on allegations of plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, which was quickly removed. This section was well cited and no reason was given for the reversion. Since I don't feel like waiting for the writer of that section to notice and post here, I'm pre-emptively requesting an explanation for the section's removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Critics claim" additions to article
I reverted several table-formatted additions on the theme of "critics claim plagiarism". I assume good faith. However, these major changes need to be discussed, not added unilaterally. Please note the "Controversial" tag at top of this Talk page.

Issues (that I see with the additions):

1. Are the Tanner's views worth increasing the article by 16% to include?

2. Is this the right article for this material? There is another article (Origins of the Book of Mormon..) that goes into these controversies.

3. Last and least, Some spelling needs work.

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be useful to check of the referenced books are themselves notable, as such would go a long way to establishing their worthiness as sources (for this article or some other). Further, I'd suggest that the citations be converted to the Harvard citation method so as not to utterly bloat the reflist. I can work on both of these very soon. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The text was added because the article had virtually no mention of the similarities between BoM and "View of the Hebrews" and "The Wonders of Nature", nor of the origin of the word Nephi.  Regarding the 16%: the article is not especially large, Wikipedial is not censored and Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.  As for Origin of the Book of Mormon that article could certainly be beefed up. The vast majority of non-LDS scholars view the BoM as a work of fiction by J. Smith, and that deserves significant discussion on the main page, see WP:OWNERSHIP.  As for spelling, any spelling mistakes should be corrected.   Noleander (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Wanderer that this information belongs primarily on the origins page. It is very clear that this information is about the book's origins (asserting those origins as pre-existing texts), and the origins page is meant to serve as a subarticle to prevent bloating or granting undo weight (to a particular aspect of the book) in this article. I believe, in concurrence with summary style, the best course of action is to sumarize the plagiarism accusations as one paragraph (about as long as this comment of mine) in the origins section of this article, while moving desired text to the sub-article. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to moving the bulk of the plagiarism info into the Origins article, provided that a significant summary, including a couple of examples, is left in this main article. Noleander (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your discussion. The origins article seems to me a good place for these points to be reported.


 * I would like to mention one particular point. I am struck by the similarity between the statement made just above by Noleander "The vast majority of non-LDS scholars view the BoM as a work of fiction by J. Smith" and a statement earlier this month by editor LeContexte: "the fact is that there is essentially zero support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside the LDS church."


 * As I wrote in the earlier section titled "Historicity of the Book of Mormon", I think a statement of this moment needs to be examined and sourced, not simply tucked away in an edit note. In my opinion, the earlier discussion was inconclusive.  Can we take it any further?  Wanderer57 (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "The vast majority of non-LDS scholars view the BoM as a work of fiction by J. Smith"; this seems like one of those DUH statements. How many non-Chrstian scholars think the Bible to be a work of fiction? Let's just say they all do or they would be Christian. How many "non-Hindu" scholars think the Bhagavad Gita is false? These are the types of silliness that parades as NPOV when in fact all they are are POV diatribes. When I look at the Bhagavad Gita article I see no critique or claims of being false by non-Hindus. Under Bible I see no rather stupid statment that says non-Christian scholars believe the Bible to be the jabberings of misguided desert nomads (read False). You can't make a silk purse out of a pig's ear; at the end of the day it is still just a pig's ear. However, I do get a laugh every times I see the sillness that anti-Mormons go through to sound "scholarly" about a topic of faith. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The last post by Storm Rider reminds me of the ArbCom ruling on whether the mention of "psychic" should be preceded by "self-proclaimed" (or some other weasely statement), which was a flat no. If people want to believe that divine vissions occur, it's up to them, and no qualifications should be given. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for all to see is a proposed summary of the new section sitting in my sandbox, with likely non-ideal ref placement. If someone wishes to move the content to the origins page and move my summary over here, I'll be happy to Harvard cite everything once I'm done eating dinner. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This looks wrong. What should it be?

"[M]y words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, fo a standard unto my people, which are of the House of Israel." (2 Nephi 29:2) Wanderer57 (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon/2_Nephi 29:2
 * And also, that I may remember the promises which I have made unto thee, Nephi, and also unto thy father, that I would remember your seed; and that the words of your seed should proceed forth out of my mouth unto your seed; and my words shall hiss forth unto the ends of the earth, for a standard unto my people, which are of the house of Israel; Noleander (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)