Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 6

Polygamy
Recently, "Polygamy is condemned" was added to the "Some doctrinal teachings" section of this article. I changed it to "Polygamy is condemned, unless commanded by the Lord" with the reference of Jacob 2: 27-30. However, this later part was removed by an anonymous editor. I reverted this removal with the additional comment, "State complete teaching." Wanderer57, on my talk page, said, "However, I think many people outside the church would not make this interpretation," which summarizes his longer explanation. I think that what I added is a fair and reasonable summary of Jacob's teachings on polygamy. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure my point is clear from the above note. I will expand on it a bit.


 * My comment is about the statement in the Book of Mormon article, that polygamy is forbidden unless commanded by the Lord. The reference given to support this statement is Jacob 2:27-30.


 * I am prepared to accept that these verses ARE UNDERSTOOD BY MEMBERS of the LDS Church to mean "polygamy is forbidden unless commanded by the Lord." I have no grounds to argue against this.


 * However, I think many people outside the church would not make this interpretation. To me as an "outsider", the "common-sense" interpretation of those verses is that only one wife is "allowed."  Verse 27 seems very clear on this.


 * My point is that since this is a general encyclopedia, if the "common-sense" interpretation is not the one understood by the church, some explanation seems to be called for.


 * I don't know how "important" these particular verses are to the church, but given the controversial history of polygamy, I suspect they may be very important. I would appreciate feedback on this. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, if there are two significant interpretations of a quote, policy, or action, both should be represented in an encyclopedia. In particular, if the quote, policy, or action is controversial, and the two interpretations support opposing sides of the controversy, then both should be mentioned.  Of course, the views must be held by reliable scholars, or a significant number of people (not just some fringe view).  Just my 2 cents.  Noleander (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wanderer57, if you think that this is the "common-sense" interpretation, then it should be obvious to those reading the passages. If the interpretation by those who believe in this book as scripture is different, then that should be pointed out.  Your argument, on its face, makes the case for the point that I have tried to make with my changes.  We can argue about the wording, but you have made my case that this meaning needs to be included when citing this teaching.
 * Now, the case can also be made that references are needed or the whole item should go. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never read a significant alternate interpretation of those verses. They are pretty clear. I could add some refs, but I don't like the "unless commanded" part because it could suggest to the outsider that anytime a Mormon feels he's been commanded, he can have more than one wife, which isn't doctrinal at all within the LDS church. Wrad (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added references to both interpretations. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Changes to Original Text: "principal" to "among"
Val42: I notice you removed a line added by some anonymous editor recently. The editor added something like (paraphrasing):
 * Intro to Book of Mormon change: Used to say Laminites are "principal ancestors" of American Indians, changed to Lamanites are now “among the ancestors" of the American Indians.

The sentence is certainly relevant to this article, although it does need to be emphasized that the change is in the Intro, not the main body of text. Your revision note says "Undid item covered by previous item". Im unable to find where that is covered elsewhere in the article. Can you help clarify? Noleander (talk) 15:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this change is relevant to this article. But at least here, changing "principal" to "among" is among the "Wording changes", which is the item previous to the item I removed.  Do you object that I used "previous" instead of "just prior to", or do you not think that changing a word is a "wording change"? &mdash; Val42 (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. Just confirming that you agree that the change is relevant to this article.  Noleander (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice that you went and made the change anyway. I think that this should be covered in the article, but I don't think that this is the proper place to cover this issue. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 20:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many lists
This article has become extremely listy lately. It seems as though half of it is nothing more than bullet points. How can we organize it into prose better? Wrad (talk) 21:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've changed three of the lists. I think that the others should remain as lists, but you're free to make them prose if you like. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems better, although I don't see why we need to list all of the books in the Book of Mormon (seems tedious), and I would rather see a prose summary of Book of Mormon doctrine than a list, myself. Wrad (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see a way to do this. That is why I invited you to do it, if you think it should be done, which you apparently do. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Didn't see the invite there. Wrad (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Personal opinion
Regarding the recent edit comment by LeContexte:

""not widely" is a significant understatement - is there a single non-Mormon academic who accepts the historicity?)"

- - - -

The point is not whether LeContexte or I or another editor thinks that "non-Mormon academics accept the historicity of the Book."

Rather the point is to provide references to reliable sources to support statements in the article.

This has been discussed previously, as you will know, I'm sure. I think it might be worth reiterating to remind all editors; not to single out any one.

I think there is another point worth considering. If Jesus had lived 200 or so years ago rather than 2000, there would be many more known specific records of His life than there actually are, many more records of the early history of the church founded in His name, and much more questioning and skepticism than there currently is about that early history.

Quoting Thomas Campbell -

"Why to yon mountain turns the musing eye,

Whose sunbright summit mingles with the sky?

Why do those cliffs of shadowy tint appear

More sweet than all the landscape smiling near?--

'Tis distance lends enchantment to the view,

And robes the mountain in its azure hue."

Wanderer57 (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't agree - the claim that there was a significant Jewish/Christian pre-Columbian settlement in the New World is a fringe theory and should be treated by Wikipedia in the same manner as any other fringe scientific or historical theory. The statement that there are few, if any, non-Mormon academics who support this claim is entirely appropriate (just as it is appropriate to say that there is no mainstream support for the historicity of the Lost Continent of Mu). That is, of course, unless you or others can provide evidence that there are a significant body of mainstream academics who support the historicity of the Book of Mormon (or of Mu). The rule against original research is intended to prevent undue coverage of fringe theories, not to prevent entirely correct statements being made regarding fringe theories.
 * Regarding your second point, please note that I make no comment regarding whether the Book of Mormon represents historical truth - I am saying only that there is no mainstream academic support for this proposition.LeContexte (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits done by 66.251.16.100
These need to be seriously looked at. They were obviously done by an apologist and the page now reflects something you would see on the LDS church's own website. Nearly everything that questioned the credibility of the book has been removed. Rettet181 (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rettet181 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the above comment also applies to the recent edits by editor John Freestone. The objectivity of the article is declining, IMHO.


 * These edits need to be discussed in the Talk page. Please note the request at the top of the Talk page:


 * I am tempted to revert the article back a couple of days to a version prior to what I see as a bunch of dubious edits. The main thing stopping me, aside from my natural caution and innate civility, is uncertainty about how far back to revert.  Comments please and thank you.  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I can tell, the revision done on 23:39, 13 January 2008 was the last before the flood of questionable edits. However, there were also edits during the intervening time that would not be out of place in an objective article, such as the description of events in the book. Regardless, the archeological evidence section should especially be reverted back; the only organizations that claim to have found evidence supporting the BoM are FAIR and FARMS, which certainly can not be called objective. Rettet181 (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a reader and editor for Wikipedia I want to know the most current information available on a certain topic. For example, FARMS has funded archeological digs in mesoamerica and archeological finds date to Book of Mormon times.  There are histories, sculpture, writings, geography, and culture that parallel Book of Mormon writings. This information is helpful to lay Mormons as well as to an interested general public.  This is extremely relevant to anyone who seeks a complete current picture of all information relating to the Book of Mormon.--John Freestone (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This information is indeed important, but it should be presented as any evidence from an organization that exists to defend its position would be. Your recent edits show this information as fact, which it most certainly is not. Unless the source is from a peer-reviewed and trusted scholarly resource, you should be sure to note that it is merely the opinion of one group. Also, why has the section on missing artifacts been removed? Archeologists have not found evidence of steel or horses in mesoamerica, which is also extremely relevant to anyone who seeks a complete current picture of all information relating to the Book of Mormon.Rettet181 (talk) 21:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your comments. I find it interesting that you have already decided in your mind that none of the information is even worth considering (aka "Your recent edits show this information as fact, [which it most certainly is not].") Do you have refuting evidence that disproves these statements? References?
 * The following is only interesting if you actually want to find out the origins of the Book of Mormon.
 * To use the scientific method of study one must make a hypothesis and then seek to prove or disprove this hypothesis. For instance let's assume the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon is an actual document that records a limited history of three groups of highly developed people with a written language, centralized government, religious hierarchy, trade, art and building. The Book's translator and compiler stated that it was a history of people in America. The BofM states that these people lived near an area with a narrow neck of land that took only 1 1/2 days to travel from the borders of the Land of Desolation and the Land of Zarahemla to the sea on the south. The BofM also talks about heat never about cold or snow. The BofM also states that the main record started about 600 BC and finishes about 400 AD. The Jaredites predated this time period.

With this basic information we can pull out a map of America and google: wiki [North America] and [South America]and even without a degree we can see that the only area that has a narrow neck, year round mild climate, and that has ancient artifacts that date to this time period is the southern tip of North America. Now that we have narrowed our search we should find a written language that gives clues to the Book of Mormon. One writing style that is very distinctive to the Book of Mormon is the phrase "And then it came to pass". This is an Egyptian way of connecting ideas like we currently use paragraphs to connect thoughts. They did not uses verses or chapters that are currently in the BofM. See my reference in the article for Joseph Allen PhD p3. The Temple of the Cross at Pelenque shows a Hebrew writing style called "chiasmus" in a typical A-B-C-D-C-B-A format that is replete in the First Book of Nephi. As you may know. Mesoamerica has many cultural traditions in common with the Book of Mormon, including the first settlers arriving from the great tower, and the accounts of the white God, quetzalcoatl. See Annals of the Cakchiquels / Title of the Lords of Totonicapan (Paperback) by Delia Goetz (Translator), et al. Several geographical sites have the same names as recorded in the BofM suggesting a correlation.
 * Geography - Mesoamerica matches with striking detail the account in the Book of Mormon, even down to cities, names of places, lakes, rivers, streams, and elevation. Again see Joseph Allen PhD p8. But, regressing a little, you don't have to take my word for it. You can wiki Olmec,May civilization, North America South America or you can even spend 2 1/2 weeks down there yourself visiting all of the sights that I have mentioned.
 * Are these evidences absolutely conclusive? No. But as more and more archeology is done more and more correlations come to light. These all support our original hypothesis. That is how the scientific method is used and the historicity of the Book of Mormon is no different.  Now if you fail to even consider a hypothesis or put the blinders on from the beginning then you are stuck in the stone ages on a flat world in Europe with the sun rotating around the earth without knowledge of much.
 * COMMENT on steel and horses. This is a oft repeated anti-mormon question. The explanation is lengthy but if you are really curious and not just arguing here is an interesting analysis and some current archeological evidence.

The following is an excerpt from William Hamblin at
 * "Steel is mentioned only five times in the Book of Mormon — once in the Book of Ether (7.9), and four times in the Nephite records (1 Ne 4.9, 1 Ne 16.18, 2 Ne 5.15 and Jar 1.8). Of these, two refer to Near Eastern weapons of the early sixth century B.C. 1 Ne 4.9 states that the blade of Laban's sword was "of most precious steel." Nephi's Near Eastern bow was "made of fine steel" (1 Ne 16.18). The next two references are to steel among generic metal lists. The first is to the time of Nephi, around 580 B.C.:

work in all manner of wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious ores (2 Ne 5.15)
 * The second is from Jarom 1.8, around 400 B.C.:workmanship of wood, in buildings, and in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools of every kind to till the ground, and weapons of war — yea, the sharp pointed arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin, and all preparations for war. Notice that these two texts are what is called a "literary topos," meaning a stylized literary description that repeats the same ideas, events, or items in a standardized way in the same order and form.
 * · Nephi: "wood, and of iron, and of copper, and of brass, and of steel"
 * · Jarom: "wood, …iron and copper, and brass and steel"
 * The use of literary topoi is a fairly common ancient literary device found extensively in the Book of Mormon (and, incidentally, an evidence for the antiquity of the text). Scholars are often skeptical about the actuality behind a literary topos; it is often unclear if it is merely a literary device or is intended to describe specific unique circumstances.
 * Note, also, that although Jarom mentions a number of "weapons of war," this list notably leaves off swords. Rather, it includes "arrow, and the quiver, and the dart, and the javelin." If iron/steel swords were extensively used by Book of Mormon armies, why are they notably absent from this list of weapons, the only weapon-list that specifically mentions steel?

Significantly, there are no references to Nephite steel after 400 B.C. Putting all this together, we find the following:
 * · The steel sword is a Near Eastern weapon. It is imitated by Nephi in the first generation — although we are not sure if this imitation is of function, form or material — or all three.
 * · Steel swords are never again mentioned in the Book of Mormon after this first generation.
 * · Steel is mentioned once more, in 400 B.C., in a literary topos list, which is notable also for its failure to mention swords, steel or otherwise.
 * The minimalist and tightest reading of this evidence is that Nephi had a steel weapon from the Near East. He attempted to imitate this weapon — whether in function, form, or material is unclear. His descendants apparently abandoned this technology by no later than 400 B.C. Based on a careful reading of the text of the Book of Mormon, there are no grounds for claiming — as anti-Mormons repeatedly do — that the Book of Mormon describes a massive steel industry with thousands of soldiers carrying steel swords in the New World."

It is also interesting to note that the people of Limhi discovered the ruins of the Jaredites probably less than two hundred years after their battles and they recorded: in Mosiah 8: 11 And again, they have brought swords, the hilts thereof have perished, and the blades thereof were cankered with rust Joseph Allen remarks, "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, when the Limhi Expedition discovered the Jaredite records." This sea level climate would quickly remove most evidence of iron that we would look for sixteen hundred years later. Suprisingly some iron artifacts have survived. These include the iron and silver sculpture depicting Pacal Na, from Palenque. A recent scholarly publication describes iron in mesoamerica specifically the Central Depression of Chiapas, Mexico, the possible Land of Zarahemla. See page 82. This book IS PEER REVIEWED! Mesoamerican Archaeology: Theory and Practice (Blackwell Studies in Global Archaeology)by Julia A. Hendon (Editor), Rosemary Joyce (Editor) (2003) A book review commented: "This is not the same old culture history but a respectable compilation of recent fieldwork and analysis within a framework of innovative problem-oriented research. Joyce's introductory chapter is a synthetic tour de force." Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. See Amazon.com for full book details.

Beating the proverbial dead horse is another favorite anti-Mormon topic. If you did a cursory google search you would find that the National Geographic News features a report on the Clovis indians and ancient horse remains in Canada. (The last time I checked the National Geographic has no connection with FARMS.) Notice that these horse remains are very ancient dated about 10000 years ago. These horses were much smaller than todays horses, but a careful exam of the Mayan people would show that these horses would be adequate for a smaller people to domesticate use and like the Clovis indians possibly eat. Please see the link. A side note a study of the Clovis indians is extremely interesting. PBS has a documentary on these indians and their possible migrations to America.

If you have watched any of the Public television documentaries there are literally mountains of archeology to unearth catalog and study. I suggest studying the information and saving your judgement until we have all the facts. I for one love studying the sciences and welcome all archeological findings about the Book of Mormon or otherwise.--John Freestone (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that referring to the critics of the BoM as "generally uninformed" is unwise and needs to be removed. Believer or no this is not an encyclopedic entry.Mrtmat (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to Book of Mormon article

 * "please discuss substantial changes here before making them."

There have been a lot of changes since the middle of January, with very little discussion or citations.

Will the editors who made these changes please provide some specific justification for them?

Please note I'm not addressing the substance of the changes (at least not at this point), I'm concerned about inadequate justification of significant changes. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Unverfiable content presented as history, etc
This entire page is just riddled with LDS POV comments like this one: "The question of whether the Book of Mormon is an actual historical work or a work of fiction has long been a source of contention between scholarly adherents and generally uninformed critics. Beginning in the late 20th century, some former members, and some denominations have attempted to deal with the Book of Mormon as possibly fiction or inspired fiction. However, both the Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially view the Book of Mormon as sacred scriptures and historically accurate."

"between scholarly adherents and generally uninformed critics"? Much of the article reads as a defense of Mormonism, I have nothing against Mormons, but the writing here is very clearly POV. I thus tagged the article for cleanup, I know some Mormons are probably watching this page, waiting to pounce on any unverifiability tags, so if I see it removed without cleaning it first, we'll just have to take it to the battledome. Liddell (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty amazed that an article on such a well-known topic can be this biased. The historicity section is a fucking joke.P4k (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been a number of recent edits that are POV; I wonder if it would not be better to revert back several days and then begin from there? I think I will do that and then begin to edit the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I agree with that idea.   Wanderer57 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In all my time roaming the halls of Wikipedia, I have never seen a more biased article as this one on Mormonism. Storm Rider, if you're the editor, I think you need to tug on the reins and make sure that what looks like a diatribe to me, comes off as more even-handed and thus more effectively informative. No small task, I understand, so best of luck to you. --Eastmav (talk) 07:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Eastmav - I agree, there is a problem. Storm Rider is not "the editor", though I think one of the main editors.  Let me ask, and this is a straightforward question, do you say the article is biased because a) you have knowledge of the subject matter by which you recognize faults in the article, or b) the way it is written alone leads you to consider it biased, or c) some combination of the two.  Thank you.  Wanderer57 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wanderer57 - I would not consider myself by any means to be an expert on Mormonism or the Book of Mormon, as most of what I have learned has come from popular culture, rather than scholarly pursuit. What I do consider myself an expert on is writing unbiased analytical prose, and I don't see that here. I think that just because the use of "weasel words" and such is absent, does not mean that this article doesn't speak out of turn and offer a slant in one direction or another. That being said, I would judge this article by it's writing style alone to be biased. Cheers. --Eastmav (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with reverting back before all the recent changes. Particularly the changes made by John Freestone and a couple others are done from a Mormon POV. As stated at the top of this page, because this is a controversial article all significant changes should be discussed on this page before the edits are made. That guideline has not been followed. Rettet181 (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a group effort and unfortunately, I think the article has gotten out of hand and is not acceptable in its current condition. The article needs to distinguish between beliefs and historical fact...that does not mean that every sentence needs to begin with adherents "believe". We need to find the balance and assume that readers will recognize that this is a topic regarding faith and Wikipedia is reporting on that faith and we need to write in such a way as to just report.
 * It is typically easier to revert when a single editor has made a series of edits that are POV; however, in this situation I wonder if it might not be better to agree on an outline and then fit the information into the outline while improving wording. If we answer the who, what, when, where, and why, we will be much further ahead than we are now. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. I came to the discussion after reading this article after originating at Mitt Romney's (no connection), and as a generally uninformed person when it comes to Mormonism trying to understand a little more, the original quote the first poster of the section wrote really caught my eye. I'm not particularly good with editing out those kind of things, especially since I have very little knowledge of Mormonism in general. Please someone who knows, take the POV out of it.

Mikelj (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments about the article. A number of people have now agreed on concerns about the article, including some people who are LDS church members and others who are not. I hope you all can assist in improving the article, whether by pointing out wording that bothers you, suggesting alternate wordings here, or providing specific information including references. Please keep in mind that doing this well will be a gradual process, not an overnight sensation. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Just read this article for the first time. Wow.  Good luck to everyone involved with editing it.  I'd suggest a very bold initial step - removal of the Verifiability, Origins, and Historicity sections in their entirety.  The last two sections are completely unsourced and have their own better-written offshoot articles anyway, and the Verifiability section is pretty much a transcript of a visit from the missionaries in its current format. Townlake (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I propose that at the very least the whole part of the "Historicity" section about Nahom is deleted until some references are provided? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, I haven't looked at this one in a while - it looks like a lot of unreferenced commentary was added. With regard to Nahom, there is an entire article (with citations) discussing it. All that needs to be included here is a summary of a sentence or two and a link to the Nahom article. We don't need to duplicate references here. As Townlake stated, a lot of what is mentioned here is covered in detail in other articles. Bochica (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Soory, Wanderer, didn´t intend to do vandalism. Just new here. Timoniel

Questions
I'm going to be asking naive questions here. Please be tolerant.


 * What does "doctrinal semblance" mean? It is used in the article, in this sentence:  "On the contrary, there are a number of evidences which support the text, the culture, the style of writing, and doctrinal semblance found in the Book of Mormon."  Having reached my advanced age without knowing what the term means, I suspect it is too specialized to use in the article.  Wanderer57 (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering I was raised as a member of the LDS church I've heard this phrase before, but it is incorrectly used in nearly every case. Generally it's meant as "doctrinal correctness" which is obviously not a correct use of the term.


 * Semblance is defined as:


 * -an outward or token appearance or form that is deliberately misleading; "he hoped his claims would have a semblance of authenticity"; "he tried to ...
 * -illusion: an erroneous mental representation
 * -likeness: picture consisting of a graphic image of a person or thing


 * I suppose that this statment could be refering to the final definition in some form. It doesn't exactly make sense to be refering to the "doctrinal illusion" or something. Perhaps it is refering to the doctrinal similarities to the Bible or other Christian works. In any case, this phrase is completely uncited and does not belong in the article (as well as the rest of the Historicity section). I suggest the entire section be rewritten with a NPOV and cited sources or completely removed, if anyone wants to undertake the task. I would do it myself, but but as I personally left the religion just over a year ago I am afraid I would simply bias the article in the other direction.  Rettet181 (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Massively non-neutral
As tends to happen when nobody is watching this article it has again become a Mormon tract. It is not neutral to say things like "Critics allege that but that is not true because ". Both sides of the case need to be presented here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While we are here, it is weaselly in the extreme to say there is "not yet" evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. There is "not yet" evidence for a great many things that will never happen. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm reminded of an event in a Mathematics class years ago. The Professor stated a theorem which he was going to prove.  Some of the students said it was unnecessary to prove it as it was "obviously" true, and they persisted in this line of argument.  The Professor pointed out that if he had to give a counter-example to convince them the theorem was not obviously true, they were at a logical impasse.  Wanderer57 (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, no --- However, some
Whether the sentence is: "Furthermore, no archaeological discoveries have been made supporting the Book of Mormon's authenticity."

OR "However, some archaeological discoveries have been made supporting the Book of Mormon's authenticity.",

there should be some supporting references.

I've taken out the sentence - IMO the article can get along without it for a while. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just about to do exactly that. That is such a huge claim that it shouldn't be allowed to stand without some support. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Limited Geography Model
The Limited Geography Model paragraph is getting moved in and out of the Historicity section.

Can there be some explanation here of its relevance to the article?

Wanderer57 (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * With regard to the LGM paragraph - it was there and was removed by an anon without explanation, and I simply replaced it for that reason, as we do for anything that is removed without explanation. However, I don't think that the LGM needs to be discussed in this article at all. It is relevant to the subject of archaeology and the Book of Mormon and all of the subjects that branch out from that. Rather than load up this article with a bunch of stuff that is better explained in sub-articles, there should be some brief mention of archaeology and the Book of Mormon with a link to that article (there is one there, but it is masked behind the single word "archaeology"), which in turn links to the Limited geography model (Book of Mormon) article. The LGM is a sub-article of the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article, not this one. I would favor removing most of the text from the "Historicity" section and simply summarizing the subarticles that are available, since everything in "Historicity" is redundant and more thoroughly explained in the subarticles. Bochica (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing Nahom
I suggested this above, but it seems to have got lost in the noise. There are currently four paragraphs in the Historicity section about the supposed discovery of the city of Nahom in the Arabian peninsula. They are entirely unsupported by references and are written as though they are universally accepted fact (they aren't). I propose removing them. Any objections? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be edited down to one paragraph with links to the Wikipedia article on Nahom. I do not think it should be removed completely. Alanraywiki (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't really been following this discussion but I just removed the historicity section.  If people feel that part of it is OK then move that back I guess; I think the article's better off without it.  Here it is:

The question of whether the Book of Mormon is an actual historical work or a work of fiction has long been a source of contention. Beginning in the late 20th century, some former members, and some denominations of LDS have attempted to deal with the Book of Mormon as possibly fiction or inspired fiction. However, both the Community of Christ and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially view the Book of Mormon as sacred scriptures and historically accurate. Outside of the LDS churches the Book of Mormon is generally viewed as fictitious.

One approach to the historicity issue is through archaeological studies. Reputable archaeologists and anthropologists do not consider the events narrated in the Book of Mormon to be consistent with what is known about pre-Columbian civilisations in the area. For example the Book of Mormon makes reference to a number of technologies, plants and animals for which there is no evidence in pre-Columbian America.

It has been pointed out by LDS scholars that the Book of Mormon does not claim to be a history of the entire New World. For this reason, most modern LDS scholars in support of its historicity have adopted a limited geography model which states that the book is the history of a limited geographic area, likely in Mesoamerica.

Another approach to the historicity issue is through linguistic studies of the Book of Mormon. Some scholars have found linguistic and literary patterns (such as chiasmus and place names) in the book that conform to ancient Hebrew linguistic writing styles. In 1969, law and religion scholar John W. Welch first identified Chiasmus structures in the text of the Book of Mormon. Additionally, many non-biblical names found in the Book of Mormon of ancient Hebrew origin (e.g. Alma, Sariah, Aha, Ammonihah, Chemish, Hagoth, Himni, Isabel, Jarom, Josh, Luram, Mathoni, Mathonihah, Mosiah, and Muloki). Some, like Alma, are attested Hebrew names; others are unattested but plausible. These names are often interpreted as evidence in favor of the Book of Mormon, since Joseph Smith's knowledge of Hebrew was limited to names found in the Bible.[25]

Another major approach to the historicity issue is genetic studies. The book says that some Native American people descended from groups of Semitic people, including Ancient Israelites, who emigrated from the Old World by ship. The initial and limited genetic research results, however, is that the Native American people descended primarily from north-east Asian stock.

Another approach to the historicity issue is through archaeology. The Book of Mormon makes reference to many animals, food plants and locations which, since its publication were not believed to by most scholars to have existed during the period the book describes. These include the use of steel, horses (Ether 9:19) and silk. However, recently, one horse specimen, discovered in Florida, was carbon-dated to about 100 B.C. Other horse remains have been found in precolumbian archaeological contexts in Mesoamerica (at Loltun and Mayapan), but these have not as yet been carbon dated. The Book of Mormon never claims that the horse was universally known or used in the New World. For example, a Book of Mormon reference to horses suggests that they may have been relatively uncommon, being limited only to certain regions during specific periods of Book of Mormon history.

The Book of Mormon makes some very specific claims about many aspects of the Arabian Peninsula. However, information about this place is so difficult even today, that the only way these claims. Several groups have retraced the journey of Lehi's party making some amazing discoveries,1 one of the most significant of which is the location of, “the place which was called Nahom (I Nephi 16:34).”  Recent archeology has discovered the then existing city described in the Book of Mormon. No city of Nahom was known until recently. Back in the 1970s, Doctor Ross Christensen and Doctor Warren Aston estimated the location of Nephi's Nahom to be in modern-day Yemen. Aston found that the name Nahom, also appeared in Arabic sources which go back to the early Islamic period, the ninth century A.D. and was known as both a place name and as a tribal name. This was a substantial in that this area lies almost due west of the place where the Book of Mormon city Bountiful must have lain in Oman. This is important, because Nephi recorded turning "eastward" out of Nahom and eventually ending up in the place they called Bountiful. While Aston found a location with the same name, it could only be confirmed back to the Ninth century A.D., and Nephi's reference occurs roughly 1500 years earlier. Dr Kent Brown of Brigham Young University, however, recently published a discovery of excavations of an altar bearing inscriptions of Nahom dated to the seventh-sixth centuries B.C. No maps of the middle east, and certainly no knowledge of Nahom or other discovered locations existed at the time of Joseph Smith. Brown found an ancient Arabian artifact with the name Nahom that could be dated back to the time of Lehi.

It was from this place Nahom that Lehi’s group journeyed ‘nearly eastward’ for the space of eight years until they intersected the seashore and found a place ‘with much fruit’, a place ‘prepared of the Lord’, a place that they called Bountiful. Critics of the Book of Mormon have scoffed at the existance of such a location in the Arabian Peninsula. Information about this place is so difficult to obtain that the only way these claims have be verified actually retracing the journey made by Lehi and his followers. Due east of the place called Nahom is the Dhofar region of Oman with the modern city of Salalah. There is no other place like it in all of Arabia. The unique combination of the funnel-shape and high elevation of the coastal mountains surrounding Salalah forces moist air from the Arabian sea to condense into clouds that bathe the coastal slopes of this small area nearly year-round complying exactly to the Book of Mormon claims of the Land of Bountiful. Since climates have not changed much in the past 2500 years, it is likely that the Dhofar region has a similar ecosystem now as it did during Lehi’s time.

The discovery and use of ore in the Arabian Peninsula to construct tools has been a source of criticism of the Book of Mormon. Not only are iron-ore bodies rare, particularly in Arabia, but also most ores require temperatures much hotter than a wood fire can reach. The Book of Mormon claims that Nephi used this ore to build tools to construct a ship. Nephi describes that he was lead to “find ore to molten…” (I Nephi 17:9). This is a very specific and bold claim. It requires two rather unique conditions: the existence of an iron ore body, and a type of ore that can melt at the low temperatures attainable in a bellow-assisted fire (I Nephi 17:11). There are only a few places in Arabia where igneous rocks are found. One of these places is incidently on the Salalah Coast, theorized to be the location of the land of Bountiful described in the text. In 2004, Dr. Ron Harris identified iron-rich carbonate veins located within the Salalah Coast, and registered the finding with the ministry of geology. Geochemical analysis of samples of the veins indicate they consist of minerals known as limonite and ferroan dolomite, which have many unique properties that make it possible, ‘to molten’ the ore as described by Nephi. These properties include a naturally occurring mixture of iron and carbonate. Carbonate acts as a natural flux that lowers the melting point of iron to temperatures that are most likely achievable with a wood fire and bellows. His team tested the process to make certain it was possible by crushing samples and mixing them with carbon, then heating them to 1100° C (2012° F). After a few hours the samples were transformed into sponge-iron, which is a brittle form of iron that can be further refined by a combination of heating and pounding. The samples were essentially ‘molten’ and it would have been possible to forge them into tools. It is also important to note that the ore was located in exposed veins, accessible to Nephi and his party.

LDS claim these discoveries are consistent with the Book of Mormon claims. There were no topographical maps, geographic or geological information of any kind of the Arabian peninsula known to Joseph Smith. LDS claim these examples underscore how the current undiscovered evidences of locations, persons, and events are not dis-credits to the Book of Mormon.

Additionally, critics hold that the Book of Mormon fails to make any reference to, or describe, animals and plants which are now known to have been common during the period the book claims to describe, but which were unknown during the time of Joseph Smith. The LDS response is that the Book of Mormon's purpose was not to catalog plant and animal life, it was to be a record of the prophetic council, revelations and teachings to the Book of Mormon peoples.


 * P4k (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we need to have something in that section! How did all of that uncited info get in there in the first place! How are we going to rewrite it so that it is referenced? Wrad (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is a more reasonable approach between keeping the entire Historicity section (which I think has too much detail) and deleting it all. My edit restores the first, more general, part of the section.  Wanderer57 (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That stuff is not that bad but it still basically reads like apologetics.P4k (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that we're all so worked up about POV that we aren't paying attention to references. The section has very few references. I don't care how POV or NPOV it is, we need to take care of referencing first, and then worry about POV. Otherwise, people who read this article have no reason at all to trust what we're saying. Wrad (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with Wanderer57's edit. What's there now is no worse than the rest of the article. I suggest a couple of days of adding references, and anything that's still not referenced after that time gets cut. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Two comments: I think two days is an unnecessarily tight timeframe, likely to result in editor A deleting material while editor B is seeking references for it. Also, I think adding new material without references is not moving us in the right direction. For example, "The Book of Mormon also quotes large parts of the King James Bible virtually verbatim..." If true, this would seem to be a relatively easy point for which to find references. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * a) Point taken. Make that a couple of weeks. I, at least, won't try to remove anything before that for lack of references. b) Another good point. I added that statement and I will add references for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The obvious problem with this approach: It ignores the principle that no information is better than bad information.  I'm not planning to go in and start deleting things, but absent a time frame and plan of action, striking huge chunks of this article immediately is far more appropriate than preserving uncited OR for the sake of having words under headings.  And, going forward, there has to be a policy that improperly-sourced additions to the article will be immediately removed, or all the effort you're going to to improve this thing will promptly be buried by new waves of unsourced pap. Townlake (talk) 01:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussing our Process
(What I have to say pretty much follows on from the discussion just above, but I began a new section with a more general title as what I have to say has nothing specifically to do with Nahom.)

I see that DJ Clayworth made a bunch of edits dated Jan. 31 and Feb. 1. I reviewed these and don't find much to complain of. (How's that for a tepid endorsement? :o)    Actually I quite like some of them. )

What still bothers me is that edits are being made without prior discussion or even concurrent explanation in this talk page. Such discussion/explanation provides a record of why changes are made. Without such a record, the article is more likely to flip back and forth incessantly between various wordings because people do not know the rationale for certain wordings. Wanderer57 (talk) 09:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Again your point is taken, Wanderer. I always prefer to add to an article when I can, and then discuss it. 'Be bold in editing' as they say. However it doesn't mean the additions I made are not up for discussion; in fact I'm very happy if they are discussed. I started those edits by looking for references to back up some of the things there already; most of the extra things was stuff I discovered by reading the references that I did find - expanding the list of plants and technologies that are BoM but not historical for example. Do we think that's too many? I think four or five is fine (some references give dozens of them). Barley and Wheat I added because I found agricultural references saying that those crops require who agricultural systems to grow and process them, and that those whole systems are absent from pre-Columbian America, not just the crops themselves. However I thought that explanation was getting too detailed, so I didn't add it.
 * The actual claims are simple: Elephants, horses and cows (and also goats) haven't been found in pre-Columbian America, yet the BoM describes civilizations that seem to make extensive use of them. Likewise steel was not only unknown in pre-Columbian America but was not even discovered until after the period the BoM describes. Some sources claim that it would have been impossible to make with the kind of fire-making available at the time. The section on chapter and verse I'll talk about below.
 * Feel free to suggest improvements, or even make improvements. I'm not saying my word is the last one. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Chapter and Verse
I've put back the statement about chapter and verse. It doesn't matter that there were no verses in the original plates - they were added in in the Joseph Smith publication, and to most observers it seems like a strange coincidence that they exactly match up with the versification of the KJV if Joseph Smith wasn't using the KJV as a source. Of course it's also a strange coincidence that Smith's translation of the Hebrew (or Egyptian?) originals into nineteenth century American matches word for word the KJV translation into seventeenth century English, but we can deal with that elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I discovered a whole article on The BoM and KJV, so I'm making a link to it. I also added some more info that I found there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this argument is that you're providing information with the intent of leading the reader to the conclusion that this is strange and suspect, ie you're subtly using OR to push a POV. If this is from a critic, find a reliable source and put it in the proper context. Also, I still hold that this is absolutely irrelevant. The original publications (I'm not talking about the plates) did not have verses. They did have chapters, though not the same as they appear today. The current chapter and verse division did not appear until about 1879, nearly fifty years after the first publication. Therefore, the fact that chapters and verse numbers line up is totally irrelevant to whether JS plagiarized the KJV or not. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I don't know that the versification had changed. I'll remove the statement pending further verification. Do you know why the versification changed? DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidney Rigdon met Joseph Smith
QUOTING recent EDIT SUMMARY:

"Sidney Rigdon met Joseph Smith AFTER the Book of Mormon had been published, hence the statement is impossible."

If the authorship of the Book is still under discussion, how can one be so sure about when Sidney Rigdon first met Joseph Smith?

Just wondering. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed
I removed this statement: "It should be noted that the verse in (1 Nephi 22:15) has a written reference to (Malachi 4:1) in the footnotes." It was dropped in with no context, and it doesn't seem to make sense. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't make sense to me either. Needs an explanation. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove Verifiability Section as Pure POV
The entire section entitled "Verifiability: Moroni's Promise" should be removed. It has nothing to do with a factual, NPOV, discussion of the Book of Mormon and is nothing more than the first words out of a missionary's mouth when you've said at the door, "No, thank you, I'm not interested." The Book of Mormon's self-verifiability is not an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia article. Every book of faith calls forth the same issue--"if you wonder about my truthfulness, then [pray about it/check the accuracy/look in your heart/ask your father/etc.]"--but it's not necessary to say this in articles about the Bible, Quran, or other Scriptures. The article's POV is seriously flawed, but the "Verifiability: Moroni's Promise" is the most egregious offender despite a scattering of weasel words. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Taivo, you have an interesting POV, but not one that is fully accurate. The article in the Qur'an actually does address the same thing without quoting the verse. The section may need to be cleaned up, but the section would seem to valid for the article.
 * Topics of faith brings out the best and worst in people. For example, one's personal dislike of Mormon missionaries and whatever the heck they may say at a door may taint one's opinion. Intolerance is not acceptable on Wikipedia and parading intolerance as [WP:NPOV|NPOV] is also not acceptable. NPOV is not the absence of POV, but simply neutrality. Given this topic of faith, it needs to be presented only as "their" position and not the position of wikipedia. Cheers, --Storm Rider (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, the statement in the Quran article is fairly devoid of POV and of appropriate length. The Verifiability: Moroni's Promise section here is out of proportion compared to it.  I don't have a personal problem with Mormon missionaries (I'm friends with many and while I am living in Ukraine I stop them on the street so we can exchange a few friendly words of English).  My objection is not related to that, but to the overtly apologetic nature of the section as it currently stands.  Whittle it down to something that looks like the Quran statement and my objection would evaporate.  And, as you can see from the previous discussions, my objection to the highly biased article as currently written is not a voice crying in the wilderness.  (Taivo (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Storm Rider, I saw your edit of the Verifiability section and made just one further edit. I deleted the extensive quote since the quote is summarized in the text and interested parties can look up the exact wording through the reference.  (Taivo (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I see this interesting discussion, but can't get into it tonight. Please don't reach a conclusion until some other opinions are in.  Thanks.  Wanderer57 (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

POV drift
Earlier in this talk page I mentioned how this article (and many others) gradually drift away from NPOV, typically by having things removed bit by bit - usually stuff seen as critical of the BoM. I just thought I'd draw people's attention to the way this process has started already. User:Email4jonathan removed the statement about parts of the BoM being copies of the KJV. Thanks Wanderer for putting it back, but in my experience this will go on happening. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I defended my replacement of the repetitive statement that there are similarities in the BoM and the KJV by adding a link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Mormon_and_the_King_James_Bible (which was still left in, by the way--even after Wanderer's modification), which refers to a whole page on the subject. Plus, the statement that the BoM "quotes" the Bible is irrelevant since this section of the article is entitled "Purported Plagiarism." Quoting something is not plagiarism, but using another person's or book's words (the Bible, it is argued, in this instance) without due credit is. I strive to encourage NPOV and discourage unorganized, rambling remarks in articles, which the paragraph I removed was.--Email4jonathan (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't see that as a 'repetitive' statement. The article doesn't make the statement about the duplication anywhere that I could find, other than the statement you removed. I'm fine with using the link to the more thorough article in addition to the statement about the duplication.
 * I can't think of a section that is better that "Purported Plagiarism" to put this in. There certainly are those who believe that Joseph Smith simply copied the KJV. Can you suggest a better section to put it in? DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Organization Issue Vis a Vis "Origins" Section
There is an organizational problem here. Right up near the front is a section entitled "Origins according to the LDS Church", but immediately following this section is no corresponding section entitled "Origins according to Historians" or "Other Origin Accounts" or some such title where critical views of the Church's account can be placed. Indeed, critical views of the origins story are relegated deep within the article as a single sentence, while the Church's story is accorded several paragraphs. I suggest condensing the "Origins" section and renaming it. The section should contain a single paragraph (no more than three or four sentences) describing the Church's origin story. Then there should be a second section of equal length (or so) detailing the principal critical views against the Church's origin story. As it stands, there is only the Church-sponsored view of the Book's origin and no others. (Taivo (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

I suggest the following for a renamed "Origin of the Book of Mormon" section to replace the current "Origins according to the LDS Church". The later section "Origin and Authorship" can then be deleted as redundant (after moving the reference to the other Wikipedia article and the graphic to the front of this revised early section).

" The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr. in March 1830 in Palmyra, New York. According to Smith's written account, the book is a translation of gold plates which contained the writings of prophets in ancient Meso-America between approximately 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. Smith said that on September 31, 1823 he received the plates from the angel Moroni and was directed to translate them using two stones called the Urim and Thummim that were deposited with the plates.  In addition to Smith, eleven others supposedly saw the gold plates for themselves.  Their written testimonies are known as The Testimony of Three Witnesses and The Testimony of Eight Witnesses.  These affidavits are published as part of the book.[5]

Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that the book was either the original creation of Joseph Smith (with or without the assistance of one or more of his associates) or based on a prior work such as View of the Hebrews. Serious, unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of conclusive archeological evidence have lead many faithful LDS to adopt a compromise position that the Book of Mormon may be the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration." (Taivo (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I see four sections of the current article where the origin of the book is talked about. This seems to be too much, especially since there is another article on the subject.  Wanderer57 (talk) 11:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Since there is another whole article on Origins, a single paragraph here should be sufficient to summarize both "believer" and "non-believer" positions.  The whole Plagiarism issue as well as the Historicity issue should be relegated to the related articles and just referenced here.  In fact, a link to the Historicity article could be placed in this suggested revision right after the link to the "Origin" article at the top.  (PS, Wanderer, you forgot to "sign" your comment right above this one.) (Taivo (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I also agree (and it was me who named the current section). I think some editors will want to expand this to include more of the story of how the plates (supposedly) came to be buried at The Hill Cumorah, and I think they probably should be allowed to. Somewhat. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Auction of a 177-year old rare book
Looking at this section near the end of the article, there is a lot of detail that is unnecessary. My question, before doing some edits, is the section necessary at all? Is the sale of that first edition at that price still notable? I know it was in the news at the time of the sale. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems more relevant to an article on rare book sales and is fairly meaningless here. This is not news--old first editions are worth some serious money.  We don't mention sales of first editions of Dickens in the article on Dickens, for example. (Taivo (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Scrap the Purpose Section
Time for the next piece of editing. The Purpose section is "empty". At this time all it contains is a two-paragraph direct quote from the BOM. In essence, it says, "This is a religious book and contains moral instruction with the goal of repentence". All the other information (about books, records, Jaredites, Lamanites, Nephites, etc.) is contained in a following section of this article that discusses "timeline". All the theological information of the BOM is also contained in a following section of this article. As it stands now, the Purpose section could be easily eliminated, especially since its purpose is stated in the intro paragraph to the whole article. (Taivo (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I can see only referencing the quote, but the section should be rewritten to clearly state what the purpose of the Book of Mormon is; the convincing of Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. In reality, that is its only purpose. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, then the "purpose" sentence should then be removed from the article's introductory paragraph. As it is, we either have a good purpose sentence in the introductory paragraph or a good purpose sentence here.  Having two sentences that say the same thing is redundant. (Taivo (talk) 15:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Changing my mind
I'm starting to change my mind about the wholesale removal of the historicity section. There are such huge issues levelled at the BoM by its critics that some discussion of the whole 'steel, wheat and elephants' issue should be mentioned here, and probably others, even if only a sentence of two.

Incidentally, the references article has nearly as many neutrality problems as this one did, so it's probably a good idea to work on that next. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is just getting worse and worse. Awhile ago it nearly passed GA. Now it's not even close. Why was it even a debate whether or not to keep the historicity section? In order to really be comprehensive, this article obviously needs it. We really need to add some good, referenced information and get this article to a reasonable quality. Wrad (talk) 16:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is ALREADY an entire article devoted to nothing except the historicity of the Book of Mormon to which this overview article is cross-referenced. If the Historicity of the Book of Mormon article contains all the relevant issues, then this article needs to do nothing more than reference that more comprehensive article.  This is an overview article, and, as such, should not be as detailed as the article directly devoted to the whole question of historicity.  If another sentence or two needs to be added about historicity, then propose one, but the detailed discussion needs to be reserved for the article specifically devoted to historicity issues. (Taivo (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * It STILL needs to be referenced IN THIS ARTICLE. Not as detailed of course, but a REFERENCED summary section needs to be here. Wrad (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Notice that it already is referenced right up at the top under the heading "Origin of the Book of Mormon":
 * Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Main article: Origin of the Book of Mormon
 * Main article: Historicity of the Book of Mormon
 * But maybe I'm confused by what you mean by "referenced". I consider the above a "reference"--"see this other place".  If that doesn't match your idea of a "reference", then please be more specific as to what you think should be there.  I'm not opposed to a sentence or two, but in an overview article such as this a laundry list with pros and cons is not appropriate.  My feeling is that this overview article should be as non-POV as is possible.  Let the POV problems live in the detailed articles and let this overview article be as neutral as possible.  (Taivo (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

How about something like this: "Critics of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon cite issues such as the lack of any generally accepted correlation between Meso-American archeology and Book of Mormon archeology, DNA evidence which places the earliest Native Americans firmly in a Northeast Asian context, anachronistic technologies, and non-American flora and fauna in the text.  Proponents from LDS-sponsored organizations have counter-arguments for each of these objections.  A more detailed analysis of the pros and cons can be found in the Historicity of the Book of Mormon article." (Taivo (talk) 20:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I couldn't object more to that. The section needs to be much more detailed than a long list of issues with no explanation. Wrad (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't know what I mean by referenced. Wikipedia cannot use itself as a reference. It needs third-party sources, and those references need to be in this article, otherwise it is violating WP:Verifiability. This is one of the most basic rules of wikipedia. If you don't want people to add uncited, POV information to this article, then you must cite your sources. If you don't, then the article won't deserve any respect and it won't get any respect from new editors. They'll just add whatever they want. Wrad (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The "explanation" is in the other article. This overview article should not become a debate on the historicity of the Book of Mormon when there is another article specifically created just for that purpose with external references, etc.  An overview Wikipedia article can, and, indeed, should reference other Wikipedia articles when the goals of information are served.  People looking to Wikipedia to answer the question "What is the Book of Mormon?" don't want to spend two hours wading through the arguments pro and con.  If they are interested, then they can refer to the other Wikipedia article with the detailed discussion.  Referring to another Wikipedia article for verification (where there are verifiable references) is a completely acceptable practice and does not violate the Wikipedia Verifiability principle.  If, however, I said "Joe is an idiot (see Wikipedia article on "idiot")" and then in the Idiot article I did not cite an external reference proving that Joe was an idiot, then that WOULD be a violation.  If I said "Joe is an idiot (see "idiot")" and then in the Idiot article I cited several articles out of the New England Journal of Medicine proving that Joe was an idiot, that is NOT a violation.  By referring to the other Wikipedia article for details of the historicity arguments with references, we are maintaining the true goal of Wikipedia, which is to be a reliable reference work. So I again suggest that you write what YOU think is appropriate if you don't like what I've written.  I'm trying to maintain as neutral a POV as possible without overburdening this overview article with a plethora of references which are completely duplicated ad nauseum in the Historicity article. (Taivo (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * This article could be (and should be) at least 30 KB longer while staying within wikipedia guidelines. It is not currently comprehensive. It is not well-referenced. What good would my showing you my version of a section do when we already disagree on the most basic things? I could write beautiful, well-referenced prose, and you would just pounce on it for being to long. Why are you so worried about providing explanation? Explanation is good! It is clear to me that you have a very misguided interpretation of WP:Verifiability. If you look at Jesus, which is a GA, something this article is light years away from right now, you will see that despite the fact that it has main: and see: stuff over it, it still cites its sources in the article itself to second parties. This is the most basic of basic rules for wikipedia, and if this article doesn't follow it, then it is just a bad article, pure and simple. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (I wrote this while you wrote the above so it probably doesn't address what you say above)I want to make one more comment about the Historicity Issue. I completely agree that the Historicity problem of the Book of Mormon is a serious issue that needs serious addressing.  The problem is this:  1) The Historicity article as it currently stands is a piece of biased garbage; 2) The overview article as it currently stands refers to that garbage without discussion; 3) something honest needs to be said about the historicity issues--including both sides of the issue without taking sides.  Now, I see two "fixes"--1) include the honest discussion of historicity here in the overview article complete with references, etc. or 2) rewrite the Historicity article.  I think that the second option is optimal.  There are two reasons I have for this thinking:  1) Mormon bashers and LDS apologists will spend the rest of their lives making silly edits and changes to the discussion wherever it is placed (the vanilla paragraph I wrote about origins just yesterday has already had one attack from a Mormon basher); 2) The overview article will be more neutral (and stable) the more of the contention we keep somewhere else.  I'm not trying to be a hardhead about this, I'm just trying to look at the issue from a practical standpoint. (Taivo (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I can agree with all of that. Wrad (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, so now the issue is what the next step should be. I'm really not interested in spending the rest of my life fighting both the Mormon bashers and the LDS apologists on the Historicity page, but I'd like to see this page as non-POV as possible and as immune from the mud-slinging as possible (LOLOLOLOLOL--I can dream, can't I?). (Taivo (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC))
 * My friend, you can dream all you want, but please do not have any expectations of realization or you will only face disappointment. Both sides are equally bad about thinking that their side is being slighted. LDS history and doctrine can not be learned by simply reading a website. There are too many sources that have errors in fact, but repeated incessantly. Topics of faith will always demand vigilance and this article is no different. Cheers --Storm Rider (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, well. My personal goal is to edit this article in such a way that you can't tell if I'm personally a member or not.  But I wonder if such a thing is even possible--especially to the true cogniscenti. (Taivo (talk) 08:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC))
 * The simplest way to start might be just to put back the previous sections that were taken out. That at least gives us something concrete to work with. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * An alternative might be to just summarize the Smithsonian statement. It's authoritative, clear, and acould be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The Smithsonian statement might be a starting point. But before we put a lot of historicity back in here we need to clearly define what and how it should be presented.  There is a very fine line we have to walk between the apologists and the bashers.  I'm still of the opinion that we should leave the fighting to the Historicity article and make this one the neutral statement.  The previous Historicity section was quite POV. (Taivo (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I think we do this the way we do everything like it. "A says this, B says that". DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Here are my suggestions for the most critical historicity issues vis a vis BOM:  1) There is no accepted correlation between BOM archeology and any American archeological sites; 2) There is no evidence whatsoever for a West Asian genetic component in Native American DNA; 3) There is no linguistic evidence whatsoever in any Native American language for Hebrew or "Egyptian" input.  Most of the anachronisms--steel, horses, wheels, etc.--fit within these broader and more problematic categories; and the whole "chiasmus" issue is just a word-game and linguistic double-talk--there's no real linguistic basis to it.  (Chiasmus exists, but it is by no means unique to Hebrew or the BOM--I can find it in just about any language in the world if you show me a couple of texts from that language.) (Taivo (talk) 19:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * In general that's a good division, but I think the anachronisms need to be addressed on their own. They are a separate issue from the three above. They contribute to the general view that Old World visitors did not come to the New World, but they additionally to that cast doubt on the BoM historicity. They are also subject to an argument that isn't germane to the other questions - i.e. the possibility that the words refer to things that did exist in the New World. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the gist of the chiasmus argument--"Hebrew has chiasmus and certain phrasal characteristics. The BOM has chiasmus and similar phrasal characteristics.  Voila!"  Here's the problem--the people making those claims know English (as a native language in 99% of the cases), and they have learned at least enough Hebrew to compare with the BOM.  But they don't know enough other languages to honestly say that such structures are unique to BOM and Hebrew.  Such structures can be found in other languages as well--chiasmus is VERY common, for example, and Germanic alliterative verse is in many ways similar to the related root constructions that pop up in Hebrew.  The structures are just not unique enough to serve as a diagnostic. (Taivo (talk) 20:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I agree that chiasmus wouldn't have a place in a summary of historicity. In fact even in the main article the section about it is vague and unreferenced, and unless someone comes up with references soon I'm going to take it out. Here's what I think needs to go in a summary of historicity, with a sentence about each - no more.


 * South American civilisations do actually exist;
 * Some animals, plants, technologies described in the BoM for which there is no real evidence;
 * Lack of links between New World Languages and Hebrew etc.
 * Lack of evidence of plants, animals etc transferred from Old World to New World
 * Limited Geography Model

DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good list and a good admonition about "a sentence about each - no more". (Taivo (talk) 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I worked up a paragraph on historicity issues to add to the "Origins" section. I don't have references right now (I'm in Ukraine and my library is in Utah).  When I get some time I'll cross-check with other articles and import references, otherwise feel free to reference if you have them. (Taivo (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC))


 * That paragraph reads well. Good job, Taivo. I moved it down below the discussion of the contents - that's just a suggestion and feel free to put it back if you like, but I think we should describe what's in scriptures before considering whether they are true or not. But like I said, nice work. DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the "doctrines" section
There's a whole list of doctrines out of the BOM. But out of that list only about 5 or so are actually UNIQUE to the BOM. Most of the others are vanilla doctrines found in every other scripture--be good to the poor, God will judge sin, etc. These are the ones that I think are unique: "other sheep" and Jesus' visit, Native Americans descendants of Israel, America is the best, Adam had to sin to make little Adams. The polygamy reference seems a bit too apologetic and is put to the lie by Smith's and subsequent leaders' plural wives; it's problematic at best. Should this section be reduced to unique teachings with a vanilla statement to cover the others? (Taivo (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC))


 * It seems to me the polygamy reference should be there. It relates directly  to an issue that many non-LDS people, rightly or wrongly, associate with the historic church.


 * There is a section "Polygamy" at the top on this article (until moved into archive). It is about the same sentence.  I raised an issue which I never felt got resolved.  Wanderer57 (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, right at the top of this page. The quote about polygamy in the BOM needs to be separated from the actual belief and practice of the early LDS church, which was based on another of the LDS scriptures--Doctrines and Covenants.  Polygamy was not only "permitted by the Lord", but was overtly encouraged in D&C.  And the association of LDS with Polygamy is absolutely fixed in the world's eyes, so this quote in BOM was NOT a fundamental scripture until after 1890, when the Church outlawed polygamy (it's not a coincidence that statehood was granted to Utah shortly after in 1896).  So the "prohibition" against polygamy in BOM was not considered authoritative for the first 60 years of its existence--the pro-polygamy statements in D&C were considered authoritative instead.  So the question arises of how to deal with this.  The "doctrines" section lists that as a major teaching of BOM, but it's a teaching that was not important until the 20th century, and there are literally thousands of LDS in Utah who still practice polygamy.  (They are generally not members of the mainstream LDS church--they have to keep the practice private if they are--but there are dozens of splinter groups in Utah.  I know five polygamist men from southern Utah personally, and there are ten women among them--they keep it very quiet and they don't tell anyone who is not one of them who belongs to whom.  One of my best friends in southern Utah is the second wife of a polygamist--she's pretty unabashed about it.)  So even though polygamy is no longer practiced by the mainstream LDS church, there are plenty of LDS in Utah for whom that verse in the BOM is pretty meaningless.  So now the verse in BOM, that was so long ignored, is an apologist's gift and they ignore all the chapters in D&C that praise polygamy.  That raises another issue.  Can a "doctrine" that is stated in only one verse in BOM actually be considered an important doctrine?  To me it sounds more like an apologist wants the world to know that polygamy was "outlawed" from the very beginning in the LDS church, even though the vast majority of verses on the subject in LDS scripture praise polygamy.  (Taivo (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Fascinating and "problematic", as you say. My question above was about the relationship between the statement in the article "Polygamy is condemned, unless commanded by the Lord", and Jacob 2:27-30 of the Book, on which I understand it rests. Confessing my lack of knowledge, I don't see how those verses are construed to allow for the "exceptional case" represented by the words "unless commanded by the Lord."  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are quite right, of course. There is absolutely no wiggle room in the Jacob passage.  The wiggle room was allowed for in the writings of Smith and Young and in D&C (which are the writings of Smith & Young as well).  In looking at the chronology of these things--1) BOM, 1830--no polygamy; then 2) D&C growing, by 1845--polygamy in full bore.  The BOM passage had absolutely no effect on the growth of polygamy.  That's why I don't think that "polygamy" is a relevant doctrine at all--the Jacob passage was meaningless in the history of the church--the D&C so completely dominated the emerging doctrine in LDS faith that the doctrines of the BOM were really almost secondary to the writings of Smith & Young in D&C--many anti-Mormon writers point this out, but if you look at any book on LDS doctrine written for the faithful from the 1960s (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, for example)--the David O. McKay era--you will see two or three references to D&C for every one reference to BOM.  Most of the beliefs that really set the LDS church apart from mainstream Christianity (well, except for having more scripture)--the eternal progression of the soul, eternal marriage, baptism for the dead, polygamy--they are all from D&C and none from BOM.  It is only in the last 20 years that the LDS church has started to downplay these fundamental doctrines and downplay the importance of D&C and Pearl of Great Price in the canon and to foreground the BOM.  So we have a conundrum here:  1) Polygamy is condemned in BOM without qualification; 2) Polygamy was a fundamental doctrine and practice in the LDS church until 1890 (and it is still far from "fringe" with thousands of open practitioners in Utah still)--indeed, in the D&C it says that no man can attain the highest levels of the celestial kingdom without practicing polygamy (there's none of this "only if God permits" stuff at all--it's a flat-out requirement in D&C).  (Taivo (talk) 22:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC))
 * There's another problem with the polygamy issue. D&C is filled with the visions and prophecies of Smith & (Brigham) Young advocating polygamy and stating that it is a fundamental requirement for entry into the highest levels of the celestial kingdom.  But in 1890, Woodruff simply issued a proclamation that it was no longer allowed within the church.  There was no "vision" recorded in D&C.  It's just a simple proclamation.  Apologists point out that Woodruff had a vision, but just didn't call it such in D&C.  But the fact remains that the anti-polygamy proclamation in D&C is treated differently than the pro-polygamy words of God (as the visions are treated) to Smith and Young. (Taivo (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Leave aside 1890 for now. Back in the 1830s, Joseph Smith was writing texts that contradicted what was on the Golden Plates that he had translated a few years before? Yet "the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth."
 * Is there a way around this, or is this pretty much the way it was? I'm getting a sour taste.  Wanderer57 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's the way that my LDS friends have explained it to me: "In the early years there were more women than men in the Church, so the Lord ordered us to practice polygamy so that the population could grow and all women could live full and productive lives.  Once the numbers of women and men equalized, the Lord told us to stop practicing it."  Since the LDS Church believes in continuing revelation, such "contradictions" are OK as long as the Lord (the words of the prophet/president are the words of the Lord) is commanding something different.  But for an outsider, you've hit the nail on the head--between 1830 and his death in 1845 (or 44?) Smith was writing "revelations" in D&C that contradicted the polygamy teaching in BOM and after 1845 Young carried it right on in Utah.  Polygamy could not end until shortly after John Taylor's death (Taylor succeeded Young) when Woodruff became the next president and "ended" the practice with his Manifesto of 1890.  (As a piece of trivia, Young's last wife--Ann Eliza Webb--was a sister of one of my great...grandfathers.)  [I'm breaking the rules of the discussion here--I have flipped between using 1890 and 1892 for the Manifesto.  I just looked it up and it was 1890, so I went back and edited all the 1892s to 1890.] (continued in next paragraph)
 * This is my take on what will happen: 1) We mention polygamy, but that the Church ignored the prohibition until 1890.  Apologists will pounce on that and want to add "unless commanded by the Lord" even though that wording is not in the BOM.  2) We ignore polygamy and some basher keeps trying to add it in.  Of the two options, the second seems the best for a couple of reasons:  1) Bashers will be less aggressive in adding in polygamy than apologists will be to modify it; 2) Since polygamy isn't in the BOM and the section is about "important doctrines in BOM" we can honestly leave it out.  This article is about BOM, not LDS doctrine or history, so since polygamy is virtually absent from BOM....(Taivo (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * This is why missionaries don't hand out D&C like candy, even though D&C is equally part of the canon along with the Bible and BOM. (Taivo (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Those were good edits on the Doctrines section :) (Taivo (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
 * This isn't true at all. The BoM does talk about polygamy and it does make it clear that it's only allowed if the Lord commands in order to "raise up seed". You can't just dismiss that reading of it. I agree that it shouldn't be in there, though. It's only four verses of the entire book! Wrad (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the inputs to this discussion. In summary, we seem to have reached the position that a) we agree the article should not get into the matter and b) disagree on what the four verses mean. Since two widely differing interpretations are supported, perhaps there is no way this can be settled.  Has anyone got any ideas?  Presumably this has been discussed before.  Are there shelves full of books on the matter?  Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we've all agreed that polygamy doesn't belong in this article (whew!). So the discussion of how to deal with it should move to another, more relevant, talk page--definitely a D&C page and a polygamy page. (Taivo (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
 * This has been a discussion between people that don't understand the history of this issue:
 * Someone (I'm not judging their motives) added in that polygamy is condemned by the Book of Mormon.
 * Since it isn't a major teaching (as you have correctly assessed in the discussion above), I removed it.
 * It was added back in.
 * I added the counterpoint clearly indicated by "For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things." (Jacob 2:30)
 * There was quite a bit of battling about this interpretation until I added references for both of the interpretations: condemning the practice and "except where allowed by the Lord".
 * The editing controversy stopped.
 * I agree that it doesn't belong in there because it isn't one of the "Major themes", but it will probably be added in for the reasons that you've indicated above. The article about polygamy can deal with the other issues that you have brought up above. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes
I was massaging the "Chronology" section and noticed the reference to the Ten Lost Tribes. This is an important creed in LDS doctrine, but the time line is a real problem. The "Ten Lost Tribes" were "lost" in 721 BCE with the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to the Assyrians and the massive deportations that replaced a Hebrew population in the north with an Aramaic population. However, the events of the BOM supposedly happened shortly before 586 BCE, 135 years after the ten "lost tribes" were lost. Not sure what I'm asking--maybe I'm just thinking out loud. (Taivo (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

Revert
I just reverted the removal of a referenced section on non-LDS beliefs about BoM origin and non-historical LDS beliefs. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed when that happened. Mmichel82 (or whatever) did a whole bunch of edits at the same time and I missed seeing that paragraph get deleted.  Thanks for catching it.  (Taivo (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I just reverted another removal without discussion from this same section. There ARE critics of the BOM's historicity who are faithful Mormons (a lot of them) and they write books.  (Taivo (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC))
 * See my comments on 'POV drift' above. The price of freedom... DJ Clayworth (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nephites in Europe
I'm taking out this reference. I've read it and within the first page there are major errors and mistatements of history and linguistics. For example, there is a statement that "According to recent linguistic studies, the inhabitants of that region [northern coastal Europe] once spoke a tongue from the same family as Hebrew and Egyptian, but then adopted the Germanic tongue of their neighbors." This is based on a discredited, extremely marginal belief held by Theo Vennemann (and virtually no one else), that a Punic language is the superstrate for the Germanic languages. There is no solid linguistic evidence for this and no linguist has ever considered it to be more than whimsical. The authors' qualifications for historical research consist of "we took some classes at BYU". I'm removing the reference. If I were LDS I'd be embarassed to have non-members reading such drivel and thinking that it represented mainstream LDS views on the history of Europe. (Taivo (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)) One other reason to remove this reference: it's got nothing to do with the subject of this article--the Book of Mormon. It refers to a single event in BOM that is not a key part of the book and goes off in a completely unrelated direction. It's irrelevant to a discussion of BOM. (Taivo (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC))

Vennemann is not the only linguist cited. Try again. You are free to disagree with those studies, but you are being less than honest to dismiss those studies, and their findings, or to claim they do not exist. As to your claim that this was presented as mainstream thought, page five clearly states "The interpretations of historical and scriptural sources in this account reflect the views of individuals, and should not be mistaken for actual doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." So your strawman argument there is noted, and is also unfounded. As to the issue of the reference having nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, it has everything to do with the argument of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, since the research provides concrete historical correlation for the existence of Nephites. That's three strikes for your basis of removal. I'm restoring the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urijah (talk • contribs) 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If the paper does not represent a widespread view of BOM historicity then it does not belong here. If you feel strongly that it is a topic of BOM historicity then put it on that page.  And since I am a professonal linguist (PhD and all) and you are not, then I suspect that my understanding of what constitutes "evidence" for linguistic arguments and what constitutes a fringe position without solid evidence within the field is more valid than yours.  Vennemann's recent views on prehistoric European languages (including the relationships of Basque, the Punic superstrate in Germanic, and "Hamito-Semitic" [sic] languages in Europe) are not being accepted by historical linguists.  As a side note, the sources in this paper are not even properly cited and there is no bibliography.  If this were a student's term paper, I would give it a "C" just for the lack of proper citations.  The Book of Mormon's historicity is not dependent on European influence.  If someone besides you, Urijah, thinks that the reference is a valid one, then I will relent, but so far you're the only voice supporting this extremely poorly researched article as a "reference".  Has this theory appeared in print anywhere?  Or has it just been posted on someone's personal website?  Is it supported by some research foundation?  I suspect that it is just a vanity project.  I'm removing it again until some other editor convinces me otherwise.  (Taivo (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Just a couple thoughts:
 * It is better not to proclaim one's personal expertise i.e. degrees, occupations, etc. We simply cannot verify this type of information. In that wikipedia is a public encyclopedia we judge editors based upon their work and observance of our policies. It will also allow us to respect each other and understand that no one individual's edits are unilaterally superior to those of another.
 * I don't get to excited about links at the bottom of the page. I don't think I would allow this as a reference for an in-line statement; but I am not sure if I would delete it as an exterior link. However, I would say it is borderline. If it stays, it should link directly to the related article and not only to the website. That comes across as an attempt to publicize the web site rather than provide a source to a worthy link.
 * I have not be closely observing this back-and-forth reverting, but you both might want to cool it. I don't feel strongly enough to bring it back, but I certainly would not delete it if someone else felt more strongly than I do. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. (Taivo (talk) 00:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC))

Storm - thanks for the comments. As to #2, I agree it can come across that way. However, the link was made to the site instead of to the article because the URL to the document itself will be changing in the near future, as the site is new and will be restructured soon. Taivo - the assertion that something has to be mainstream to merit mention defeats a key principle of learning. This assumption is mirrored yet again in referring to one linguist's "recent" views as not yet having mainstream approval. Views will never become mainstream as long as they are "recent". Such transitions take time and thought. If only mainstream thoughts are represented, how will current assumptions ever progress? All others - is the intent of Wikipedia to set a previous generation's thoughts in concrete, or to present a variety of views, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions based on the variety of evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urijah (talk • contribs) 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Urijah, Vennemann's results are not accepted because the methodology he uses is, to say the least, suspect. It's not that he has a new theory or idea--linguists are not stupid hacks who blindly stick to the old ideas just because they are old.  Witness the linguistic revolution of Noam Chomsky in the 1960s as an example of how quickly linguists can change their paradigm when a better solution comes along.  No, Vennemann's ideas about Basque have been thoroughly debunked by Basque specialists; his ideas about Germanic have been thoroughly debunked by Germanic specialists; and his ideas about a "Hamito-Semitic" [sic--the term every other linguist in the world except the Russians uses is Afro-Asiatic] have virtually no evidence to support them (see Lingua 116 for a thorough critical review by Philip Baldi and Richard Page, and  Dieter Steinbauer's "Vaskonisch - Ursprache Europas?" in Gene, Sprachen und ihre Evolution for another).  That's why his linguistic assertions do not provide a solid basis for historical claims.  Unfortunately, linguists are rarely asked about the validity of "fringe" claims when they are used by historians, archeologists, anthropologists, the media, etc., especially when the claim sounds really "sexy."  The completely debunked claim that all languages of the Americas derive from a common source (Greenberg) continues to haunt the pages of non-linguistic academia simply because it makes discussing the languages of Native America easier.  Using Vennemann's linguistic work as the centerpiece of this "history" means that it is based upon unsound linguistics and has a foundation based on sand.  Unless this article becomes more widely used in LDS circles than it currently is, it cannot be considered a valid candidate for participation in an informed debate.
 * But there is another problem that seems to be popping up in your answer, Urijah. You seem to have first-hand knowledge about the website where this paper is located.  Wikipedia is not the place for original research or to promote your own original research.  If you are one of the authors of the paper, then it is inappropriate for you to be placing it as a reference in a Wikipedia article.  If it is a published, peer-reviewed work, that's different, but Wikipedia specifically forbids the author of a website from promoting their own work.  I have original research posted on a website, too, but the only references I make to my own work in Wikipedia are to things that have appeared in print in peer-reviewed journals and books and not to self-publications or on-line working papers. (Taivo (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC))


 * If Urijah wants to include the article under "fringe ideas" as a subgroup under Historicity, why not? Taivo, you've got a bit of a superiority tone to your posting.  I'm not saying that it's undeserved given your level of education, but you can't use it as support for your ideas.  Urijah, in my opinion the source you've cited is poor scholarship without sufficient documentation.  If it is original research, you are in violation of wikipedia policy and should know better.  Unless it's published in a peer-reviewed journal/volume, I'd recommend identifying it as "fringe."  If it were me, I'd put it on the Historicity article, and not on the main page.Wuapinmon (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, the scholarship in that article is extremely bad. But the main reason I don't think it should be included is that it isn't even on the fringe, it's in the lint beyond the fringe. It's one thing to add a theory held by a minority of scholars or even a group of vocal amateurs, quite another to add "hey, here's a neat idea me and my brother came up with on a sugar high while abusing 'sounds-like' pseudo-linguistics and the Dummy's Guide to European History." Ratatosk Jones (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally this discussion is getting to a level of scholarship I can relate to. Please pass the corn sirop jug down here.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)   ;o)
 * It's a bit nippy tonight, so I guess I can burn the soapbox now ;) (Taivo (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I also agree this link should come out. It's at best a fringe theory of something of slight relevance to the historicity of the Book of Mormon,, which is not even the main subject of this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Tag
Just for the sake of asking, how close do people think we are to being able to get rid of the tag at the top of the article? What else do we need to do? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that religion articles should have their own tag. There's never going to be a consensus about this article; it's almost like it'll just become a masthead.  As a practicing Latter-Day Saint, I cringe when other church members try and interject their own religious bias into an article about their faith.  I see other bias full of invective against the Book of Mormon in the article too.  With anyone able to edit the article, I don't see it ever getting to a NPOV.  Therefore, I say we just nix the tag permanently.  Wuapinmon (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of developing a new "religious topic" tag that would automatically go on the top of every article about an overtly religious topic or controversial topic based on a religious issue. It would say something like, "Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can edit this article with his own POV, so today's article may be different than next week's article".  You get the drift.  And Wapinmon has a good point--one man's "neutral" may be another man's "invective". ::As far as removing the existing tag, I've been working on the top half of the article.  The bottom isn't too bad as it stands since it can be a little more POV as it discusses relevance to contemporary LDS and the printing/publishing history.  The intro paragraph is getting closer.  The real problem areas when I first looked here were the historicity and origins sections.  I'm satisfied with where we've gone with those issues. (Taivo (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC))
 * I just read over the "Major Doctrines" section and it needs some massaging. It's too "preachy" as it stands and the wording is overly biblical. (Taivo (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Article Review
I started to review the article from my own particular viewpoint.


 * There was recent discussion about this wording in paragraph 2, "Along with the Bible, which is also held by Latter Day Saints to be the Word of God as far as it is translated correctly,[2] the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of canon". After that discussion, the part "which is...correctly" was deleted on the grounds that the LDS view of the Bible is peripheral to this article and the "as far as it is translated correctly" is open to various interpretations.  I see it has been put back in, and I suggest it be removed again.


 * The earlier discussion I am referring to is at Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 5, near the end of this section. There is prior discussion at:  Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 5.


 * In the same sentence, should not "part of canon" be "part of the canon". or perhaps some more accessible wording?


 * In "Purpose and Content", the "primarily chronological " point is made twice. It is not clear what evidence supports the statement that the sequence is chronological. I understand from previous discussion that this is based on the internal content of the Book, not on external evidence.  Perhaps this should be stated.


 * "The Book of Ether is presented as a narrative of an even earlier group of people to have come to America. " At this point in the article, this raises the question: "even earlier than whom?"
 * Even earlier than the NephitesWuapinmon (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This sentence is in "Chronology": "These books are described as being abridged from a large quantity of existing records called "the large plates of Nephi" that detailed his nation's history from the time of Omni to his own life."  I think it is unclear whether "his" refers to Mormon or to Nephi.


 * The next sentence: "The book of 3 Nephi is of particular importance because it contains an account of a visit by Jesus to the Americas sometime after his resurrection at Jerusalem and ascension into heaven." I think this is meant to say that Jesus came back to earth and visited the Americas after ascending to heaven.  Is this the case?
 * That is correct, after his "Ascension" in the Book of Acts. LDS scholar and Apostle, James Talmadge, in his Jesus the Christ, says that it happened sometime after the Ascension, though it may not have been immediately.  Talmadge's book is part of the "Standard Works" of the LDS Church.Wuapinmon (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "The account describes a group of families led from the Tower of Babel [9] to the Americas, headed by a man named Jared and his brother (referred to, in the text, as “the Brother of Jared”)." I expect there is a point to the part of this sentence in parentheses.  However, as it is so obvious, it sounds as if it were meant as a joke.
 * The Book of Mormon always refers to him as "The Brother of Jared." Joseph Smith later revealed that he name was Mahonri Moriancumr (I think that's right) in a baby blessing.  Mahonri Young (noteworthy sculptor) was named after the "Brother of Jared."Wuapinmon (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "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." Naming the various "senior bodies" of the Church here seems inappropriate and unnecessarily detailed.


 * In Moroni's Promise: "The book promises that God will give unto them an undeniable witness of its truthfulness through the Holy Ghost.[36] ".  Could this be put in non-Bibical language? "The book promises that God will provide an undeniable witness of its truthfulness through the Holy Ghost.[36] " or "The book promises that God will provide proof of its truthfulness.[36]" or such.

I'll try to cover more of the article later. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions. One thing I just noticed was the inconsistency between "3 Nephi" and "Third Nephi", etc.  That should be cleaned up as well. (Taivo (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Registration of the term as a trademark
Why is this section in the article? What is its significance? Wanderer57 (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * According to US law, if a company does not actively protect its trademark, it loses trademark status. Thus, if the Church doesn't prosecute trademark violation, then it can no longer legally claim to have a trademark.  Look at Disney.  If a Cub Scout troop wears Mickey Mouse ears to a fund-raiser, the company takes them to court--THAT's trademark protection. (Taivo (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Thanks. I understand the general nature of the trademark system.  I'm wondering how important it is to have this item in the article.


 * There are 3 main points. 1) name successfully registered in 2004, 2) rights not asserted, 3) registration not challenged.  I suspect there are very few articles in Wikipedia pointing out either that one organization or another has registered a trademark, or that a trademark is not being asserted, or that a registration has not been challenged.


 * Second point of wonderment - is the "lack of protection" a sign that someone in the LDS admin office is negligent, or a policy decision? (This is rhetorical; I don't expect an answer but it might help the section to have this information.) As it stands it seems very much a ho-hum item.  Wanderer57 (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone trademark a piece of scripture? Sounds pretty strange.  And, if the book is, indeed, a piece of inspired writing, wouldn't the trademark ownership reside with the One whose creative property it is, namely, God?  How does God assert trademark protection?  If I print something negative, and use the words "Book of Mormon" in the title, does the Infinite One assert trademark protection with a lightning bolt?  Just rhetorical questions, of course ;) (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Doctrines question
An edit to this paragraph by Taivo led me to take a closer look:

"The Old Testament prophet Isaiah spoke of prophets who would "whisper out of the dust."[22]. The Book of Mormon interprets this as a reference to itself. [23]"

Reference [23] is 2 Nephi 26 15-16. I don't see how these verses support the statement "The Book of Mormon interprets this as a reference to itself. "

(On a possibly unrelated point, clicking ref 23 leads to a massive "reference" which is about 1.5 columns long. Is this a well reference?)

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to cut down on the verbosity and the dueling cuts/undos. This probably needs some work. (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * My comment was not intended to reflect on your edit. I think the relation of 2 Nephi 26 15-16 to the statement made is unclear, both before and after your edit.  Wanderer57 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that the interpretation of Isa as a prophecy of the BOM is to be found outside BOM. Unless I'm missing something in the BOM text.  If the interpretation is outside the BOM, then this point should not be in this article as "a doctrine of BOM".  It is a doctrine of the church in that case, but not of the BOM, which is the topic of this article. (Taivo (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Another Doctrines Question
"Jesus spoke to the Jews in Jerusalem of “other sheep” who would hear his voice,[20] which the Book of Mormon claims meant that the Nephites and other remnants of the lost tribes of Israel throughout the world were to be visited by Jesus after his resurrection[21]. The various groups had their own prophets, and each recorded their history and dealings with God. These records will eventually be had among men, and will complement the Bible and Book of Mormon.[22]"

Again, I'm probably showing my ignorance. After the first sentence in the paragraph, I have the sense of being out of the area of "especially important doctrines" and into supporting details.

Also, in the last sentence "had" seems an odd word choice. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point (Taivo (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

The most correct book
This paragraph was deleted by one editor and restored by another:

"Members of the Church hold the Book of Mormon as the most correct book of scripture. Not placing enough emphasis on the Book of Mormon or ignoring it altogether was decried in a revelation to Joseph Smith that pronounced a condemnation on the "whole church" for treating it “lightly,” until they should “repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I [the Lord] have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written, that they may bring forth fruit meet for their Father’s kingdom”.[35] While this revelation also applies to the early Church’s under-emphasis of the Bible (“the former commandments which [the Lord had] given them”), the importance of studying the Book of Mormon has also been stressed by every church president since Joseph Smith, Jr.."

I don't have an opinion on whether or not this is important enough to include, but surely it does not need to be this verbose.

How about this?

Church members officially regard the Book of Mormon as the "most correct" book of scripture. Joseph Smith, Jr. told of receiving a revelation condemning the "whole church" for treating the Book of Mormon and the former commandments lightly. "Former commandments" is understood to mean the Holy Bible. The importance of studying the Book of Mormon has been stressed by every church president since Joseph Smith."

Is the date of this revelation known?

Wanderer57 (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. It's a good summary statement without the biblical terminology that parts of the article suffer from. (Taivo (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I have no problem with it either. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question re Historicity section
Re this sentence: "Mayan records written during the period that the Book of Mormon covers make no mention of any activities mentioned in the Book of Mormon". (Actually I only quoted relevant part of the sentence.)

"No mention of ANY activities" seems a very sweeping statement. What activities are considered here?

The reference at the end of the sentence is a book about writing systems. I don't have the book but suspect it won't answer the question re activities. Another reference is needed. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reworded the sentence to make it more specific. Yes, the reference is to the Mayan writing system and supports the last half of the sentence (no relationship to Near Eastern writing). (Taivo (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Role of Book of Mormon
Taivo, you have to be careful with the terms you are using. Mormonism is not the equivalent of the Latter Day Saint movement. Academically, they are two different things. Also, the section title that you are changing only pertains to the LDS church's position and not the position of the next largest group, the Community of Christ. The previous title that stated LDS church I think is the more appropriate title for the section. If not LDS church, then I suspect the best title would be Latter Day Saint movement and expand the section to include other perceptions beside the LDS church. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was cutting and pasting a section on Community of Christ at the same time you were writing this--"great minds..." To me "Mormonism" and "LDS movement" are the same thing.  Please correct me if that is a misperception. (Taivo (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC))
 * Much better now. It is difficult with the smaller branches within Mormonism; particularly when there is such a variation. It used to be the tail was wagging the dog and now there is not as much about the smaller groups as there probably should be. Many LDS would now view the CofC as part of Protestantism rather than the Latter Day Saint movement given the doctrinal changes within that organization even though they structurally have their origin within the LDS movment. Anyway, good work. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Community of Christ
(I wrote this at the same time someone else was writing something so it may be out of context right now.) We get so hung up on dealing with Utah-based issues that the Community of Christ kind of gets ignored. I copied and pasted three paragraphs from the Community of Christ article into the "Role of BOM..." section. It needs some smoothing out and some of the info should be moved, but I think it's important not to get so focused on Utah that we forget the Missouri Mormons. (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Further Question re Historicity
From Historicity: "Mayan records written during the period that the Book of Mormon covers make no mention of any people or places named in the Book of Mormon and Mayan writing shows no relationship to any Near Eastern writing system.

Aren't these really two distinct points?

I.e., "Mayan records written during the period that the Book of Mormon covers make no mention of any people or places named in the Book of Mormon. Mayan writing shows no relationship to any Near Eastern writing system." Wanderer57 (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep (Taivo (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC))

Historicity
I thought the Historicity section was very difficult visually. Please look at the revised version as to whether it is an improvement. I put it in point form and made other minor edits.

Wanderer57 (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks better. I have a minor quibble.  Storm Rider removed the reference to non-LDS scholars in the first point.  Now it sounds like there is not a religious divide between those who might find correlations and those who don't.  It sounds like there may be some maverick non-member who is finding correlations.  The truth of the matter is that no non-member has found any correlation.  All correlations have been posited by members, especially when NWAF, FARMS, or BYU is the funding source.  Storm Rider?  Do you have some wording to clarify this?  Do we need to clarify it Wanderer57?  As an aside, if an LDS archeologist funded by non-LDS sources found a Mesoamerican city that had the words "Welcome to Zarahemla, home of the Nephite Cardinals--Winners of the No-Lamanite League finals during Jesus' last month here" carved in indisputable Mayan glyphs above the gate, he probably still couldn't announce that and expect to receive non-LDS funding ever again.  Sad, but true.
 * Storm Rider, the points about non-correlation between languages and non-correlation between writing systems are different. Writing and language are separate creatures.  And the wording about "known" is good.  Wanderer57, they look better next to each other. (Taivo (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Maybe I can share some of my logic for the edit. Scholarship is areligious; the religious affiliation of individual scholars does not affect their expertise in their given field. Now, if we are talking about apologists that is a field of study unto itself. However, in this context we are talking about archaeologists, etc., which is more related to science. Also, I would be careful about absolute statements; no scholar except one that is a member of the LDS church supports any of the findings? Is there any reputable claim or is that just hyperbole? I am not sure anyone is capable of verifying that answer whereas I can see critics making the exaggeration.
 * Also, I actually think the current wording is stronger than the last; there are few scholars hat support the position. The old phrasing attempts to put scholarship in a religious context, which it should never be. Does this make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I agree that science can be highly politicized, I prefer to make the assumption in this article, that all scholars are playing from a level field of research. It is certain that some LDS scholars may be willing to go out on a limb and declare such and such may be an artifact of a Lamanite civilization. Conversely, no non-LDS scholar would dare to make the allegation because he would be supporting a book of scripture that is wholly foreign to him. All they would say is "this is what we found" without making any ties to a book of scripture. On a relative basis we know virtually nothing of the western hemisphere when compared to the amount of knowledge we know of the eastern hemisphere. I do not want to offend, but it is a bit naive to assume that any scholar is going to go so far as tie anything to the Book of Mormon at this stage. Mormons and non-Mormons alike should really understand the value of some of these critics before placing any weight in them. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so we'll just leave the "non-LDS" wording out. I can live with that.(Taivo (talk) 06:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC))

What Else?
I'm feeling pretty comfortable with the very low level of POV that we've got in the article at this point. What else do we need to do to remove the POV tag? (Taivo (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you. I went through the article again.  My comments and suggestions are in several sections below.  As to POV, it looks good to me, with minor issues noted below.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

awkward sentence
It seems to me this sentence (from the section Another Testament of Christ) is confusing.

"The great prophet-general Mormon worked to convince the faithless people of his time of Christ (AD 360), and Moroni buried the plates with faith in Christ.[19]"

Shouldn't Mormon have been characterized (i.e., as the great prophet-general) earlier in the piece?

Doesn't AD 360 relate to "time" rather than to "Christ"?

Also there are two separate thoughts; this would be better in two sentences.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Doctrinal teachings
"Inasmuch as ye keep [the Lord's] commandments, ye shall prosper in the land, but inasmuch as ye keep not my commandments, ye shall be cut off from [His] presence."[25]"

The annotations "the Lord's" and "His" help clarify the understood meaning. One is also needed after "my", because the quote is out-of-context and it's not clear who the speaker is.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Role within the Community of Christ
In the section, "Role within the Community of Christ", and in the paragraph beginning: "In 2001, Community of Christ President W. Grant McMurray ", the last two sentences come across to me as very defensive.

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Moroni's Promise
Could the sentence:

"The book invites the reader to make a personal investigation into the truthfulness of the book and is associated with a promise written in the final chapter. This promise states that after reading the message of the Book of Mormon, anyone who wants to know the truth should ask God if it is true. The book promises that God will give them an undeniable sign of its truthfulness.[36] This is often referred to as Moroni's Promise."

be shortened to this:

"The book invites each reader to make a personal investigation into its truthfulness. The final chapter states that anyone who wants to know if the message of the Book of Mormon is true should ask God.  It promises that God will give them an undeniable sign of its truthfulness.[36] This is referred to as Moroni's Promise."

and retain its meaning sufficiently? Wanderer57 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think so (Taivo (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

I think that's a very fair and non-apologetic explanation of Moroni's Promise.Wuapinmon (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Historicity
'''Ooops. I've created a second section with the same title. So much for clarity.''' Wanderer57 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

"Few scholars identify any correlation between locations named or described in the Book of Mormon and any recognized Mesoamerican or other American archaeological site."

I think this could be shortened slightly.

"Few scholars identify any correlation between locations named or described in the Book of Mormon and any recognized Mesoamerican or other American archaeological site."

I realize this is less exact but the unrecognized sites don't really come into the picture till later.

---

"Known Mayan records written during the period identified in the Book of Mormon make no mention of people or places named in the Book of Mormon."

Likewise, the "unknown" Mayan records need not be taken into account.

How about:

"Mayan records from the time period identified in the Book of Mormon make no mention of people or places named in the Book of Mormon."

Wanderer57 (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think these changes are fine. (Taivo (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC))

Editions
"*ExperiencePress.org (2006) of two reprints of the 1830 edition. The type was reset to match word, line & page the text of the original 1830 edition with one categorical exception:  all known original typographical errors were corrected."

Comments:

"of two reprints" is odd. Why "of"? And why trouble to mention two without distinguishing between them?

In the ending, "all known original typographical errors were corrected", "all" and "known" might go without mention. How about:

"The type was reset to match the original 1830 edition in word, line & page, with the exception that typographical errors were corrected."

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)