Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 8

POV
The Point-of-View, Non-Neutrality tag needs to be replaced on the top of this article. It is now, sadly, once again seriously flawed. (Taivo (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)) There are several reasons why this article is, once again, seriously POV. The main are the edits of needless details about the origin of the book that should not be here. This is an overview article, not the place to discuss every critics objection to the scriptural designation of this book by members of the LDS movement. It is overly biased toward the anti-LDS viewpoints espoused by the Tanners and other highly inflammatory sources. The tag must not be removed until all are satisfied that the POV content has been neutralized or removed from this article. (Taivo (talk) 10:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC))
 * agreed Rogerdpack (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started a rewrite of the article. Maybe we can take it one section at a time as we move through the article. If we are going to change the structure of the sections, it might be advisable to discuss that here first and then proceed when concensus is reached. Thoughts?--Storm Rider (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. The "Origins" section got so far off-topic that it's hardly recognizable as a neutral encyclopedia overview. (Taivo (talk) 01:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC))


 * It's always a good idea to discuss proposed changes before they are made. I find that this allows other editors to have inputs. By the way, I'm not blind, but I'm not necessarily seeing what might be a problem POV-wise with this article. If I had an idea of what in particular everyone's concerned about, I'd probably be able to voice my opinion (whatever it might be) better. For now, if a rewrite does seem to be needed, it would be a brilliant idea to take it section-by-section and discuss each section before it is changed/rewritten. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the neutrality needs some help. For example, the first sentence places TBOM within the LDS context, which is not historically accurate, nor neutral. TBOM is not a subcategory of the "LDS movement," any more than the Bible is a subcategory of a church. Since most of the converts to the LDS movement leave it, it is safe to say there are more "adherents" to TBOM outside of the "LDS movement" than in it. BOMC (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A paragon of neutrality I see. First of all you either did not read the first sentence or you did not understand it. The sentence states that the BofM is a book of scripture for the Latter Day Saint movement. Rather than name every church that uses it as scripture, it proceeds to name two of the churches as examples: the LDS Church and the CofC, which also happen to be the largest two churches in the movement. Second, the Bible is a book of scripture for Christianity, which is exactly like the Book of Mormon being a book of scripture for the Latter Day Saint movement. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This category is about TBOM is it not? The current POV places it within the "LDS Movement" which is a slanted view of TBOM. It may be your view, but for those outside of the "LDSM" it is not, and in this forum, it must be neutral. [Note, there is no mention of TBOM preceding its later denominational affiliations, nor is there any mention of the command and attempt to sell the copyright to TBOM. These are details not shared - as examples of POV.] BTW, TBOM says it is for everyone - like the Bible - and not just the LDSM. Your statements however do substantiate the need for neutrality in the article. BOMC (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BOMC's statement has a serious problem: "Since most of the converts to the LDS movement leave it..."  Uh, I'm not a math whiz, but if most converts leave, then doesn't that mean there is a NEGATIVE membership flow and that the movement should have dried up by now?  Just a thought on a silly statement. (Taivo (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
 * My math skills are worse than I thought. BOMC's statement doesn't mean a negative membership flow, just a very small one.  But the statement is still ridiculous. (Taivo (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Very astute of yourself to check the math. Read this article for how not ridiculous the statement was: http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2890645 . BOMC (talk) 05:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Rearding BOMC's complaint, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any serious scholar of the Book of Mormon specifically or Restorationism in general who would agree that the study of the book or its presentation in an encyclopedia should be completely divorced from the Latter Day Saint movement. In fact, I think many regard the publication of the Book of Mormon as the "start" of the Latter Day Saint movement. It is considered a scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement. There is no other religious movement that recognises it as scripture. In fact, belief in the Book of Mormon is one of the defining features of a church in the "Latter Day Saint movement". To argue otherwise would appear to me to be a very good example of a WP fringe theory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The current POV implies the TBOM is a product of the LDSM, when in fact it was the other way around. Adherents to TBOM take great offense when others presume all believers in TBOM are also members of the LDSM. This is not historically accurate, or reflective of how things are today. It should be BoM first; believers second; denominations third; critics last. In other words, TBOM pages should not be mirror images of the LDSM pages, there are big differences.BOMC (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have any reputable references to support this position? Also, it would be helpful if you had sources for who else uses the BofM as a book of scripture and who are also outside of the Latter Day Saint movement. If these references do not exist, then this violates several polices: original research and fringe ideas come immediately to mind. --Storm Rider (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So there are 10 people who think that the BOM is historical scripture who are not members of the LDS movement compared to the other millions of believers who are members of the LDS movement. Ahem, cough.  Like StormRider has said, "Show me the references".  Give me ONE single book praising the Book of Mormon that was NOT written by a member of one of the churches that are part of the LDS movement.  On the other hand, your point about the historical dates is probably valid--book then church--but the flow from one to the other was inevitable and unavoidable.  The church exists because of the book and the book survives because of the church.  The two are Siamese twins.  (Of course, by "church" I refer to all the constituents of the LDS movement.)  If you have actual constructive suggestions for wording rather than just a rant, please present them (in a separately labelled section.) (Taivo (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
 * LDSM has its own pages, this page is about TBOM. POV is not historically accurate and those for and against it are so wrapped up in their controversies that they don't see this. WP:OR? WP:FRINGE? If this was on one of the LDSM pages, perhaps. POV for this page however is lacking neutrality and does not reflect things historically. I would be happy to do the rewrite where needed.BOMC (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be better to propose some of your edits here first. If you have reputable references I am sure they will be added to the article. Making proposals here, seeking concensus of your edits will make this process smoother. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Contributors know these facts - that TBOM existed before the LDSM. I am giving them the chance to correct this bias first, to make the topic more historically accurate. BOMC (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Your attitude does not appear to be very constructive, BOMC. Storm Rider just invited you to propose any rewordings you have here so that we can discuss them and include those that are appropriate.  We will revert any mass editing you do to this article without prior discussion here, on the talk page.  Yes, the BOM predates the LDS church, just as the Koran predates Islam.  But the two are inextricably tied.  Any attempt to separate the BOM from the LDS Movement is historically inaccurate and disingenuous.  Your references will need to be impeccable as well.  (And references are REQUIRED.) (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Acknowledging the historical inaccuracy is a start. A better analogy however would be the Bible, as both are Christian records. The Bible is not referenced from within a denominational framework, as TBOM is being treated. Because TBOM predated the LDSM, and because its adherents are broader than the LDSM, the POV must be adjusted. Again, I suggest previous contributors make the adjustment or I will be happy to do so. If there is still a cognitive disconnect, I will could start a new section with suggested changes before making any edits. You decide.BOMC (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not what the article says. It states that the BofM belongs to the Latter Day Saint movement and cites two churches, being the largest, as examples. It is an exact correlation to the Bible belonging to Christianity; the Book of Mormon belongs to the Latter Day Saint movement. The rest of Christianity just has not caught on to it yet, but we continue to hope. Let's move to a proposal. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a fundamental difference between the Bible and the BOM in this context. The belief in the Bible is not exactly coterminous with a particular religious group.  Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, etc. all accept the Bible as Scripture, but are by no means a nearly uniform group.  The BOM, however, is nearly exactly coterminous with one particular movement--the LDS one.  There are NO churches outside the LDS movement that accept the BOM as scripture and there are no churches within the LDS movement that do not accept the BOM as scripture.  The two are exactly coterminous.  Indeed, one of the principal definitions of a church being part of the LDS movement is its acceptance of the BOM and Smith as a prophet.  That is probably the Number One definition, in fact.  To separate the two is more like trying to separate the Koran from Islam and Islam from the Koran.  The Bible is not a good analogy for this.  The Koran is a much better analogy.  (Taivo (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Changing the argument to Bible -v- Koran does not help the issue, which is, not all BoM believers are members of the LDSM and TBOM should not be framed from within it. [This is not a Mormon wiki.] There are adherents to TBOM outside of the LDSM, and always have been. Case in point is David Whitmer. He did not wish to be associated with Joseph Smith, but remained a follower of TBOM. Book of Mormon Christian [www.bomchristian.com] is another group who follows TBOM but not Joseph Smith. I propose a rewrite to bring this page in line with the standards of the WP.BOMC (talk) 04:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Latter Day Saint movement is waaaayyyy more amorphous than you are making it out to be. It's an artificial construct, created by scholars. There's no group you join to become a member. Scholars lump in all Christians who believe in the Book of Mormon into the movement. Whether individuals want to be so classified is not really the point — people can call themselves whatever they want, but scholars usually make classifications like this for purposes of convenience. WP simply reflects that. The fact that your only reference is a website (that strangely has a URL quite similar to your WP name) is pretty good evidence that you're pushing your own hobby horse here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * BOMC, Name one single church that accepts BOM as scripture that does NOT accept Joseph Smith as a prophet or that rejects him in some way. Since the origin of the BOM is 100% tied up with Smith's account of its origins, I find it impossible to believe that anyone can accept it as scripture without accepting Smith as someone special.  How can the BOM exist otherwise?  Propose your rewrite here on the talk page, BOMC, and we'll talk about it, but some website does NOT constitute a solid-enough reference to obviate the existence of an LDS movement that is coterminous with belief in BOM and acceptance of Smith as someone special.  And I did NOT reframe the issue to Bible v Koran, I reframed the issue to show that the Islam-Koran relationship is the same as the LDS Movement-BOM relationship and NOT the same as the Christianity-Bible relationship.  Islam and the LDS Movement are both more cohesive and unitary than is Christianity. (Taivo (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I looked at that website and it is utterly unacceptable as a reference for this article. It is not a scholarly work, it is just a POV website.  I also see your fundamental problem, BOMC, you have confused "LDS Movement" with "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints".  That is not what "LDS Movement" means.  LDS Movement means any church or group that accepts the Book of Mormon as latter day scripture.  Nearly all of these churchs have (or formerly had) the words "Latter Day Saints" in their name, but just because "Book of Mormon Christians" doesn't include the words "latter day saints" in their title doesn't make them any less a part of the LDS movement.  You'll be very hard-pressed to claim an exclusion on the basis of anything I saw on that website (which, as Good Olfactory pointed out, bears a not-coincidental relationship to your username here).  You've got to come up with better references than that website if you want to impress anyone here with your fringe position. (Taivo (talk) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
 * The historical significance of BoM witness David Whitmer being a follower of TBOM and not of Joseph Smith should be included. The chronology of events, that TBOM predated the LDSM should be included. And the historical significance that Joseph attempted to sell the copyright to TBOM should likewise be mentioned. These three historical facts, IMO justify a rewriting of the page from a view outside of the LDSM. BOMC (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One guy. Hmmm.  Sort of defines "fringe".  But we keep saying, show us your suggested revision here on the talk page and we'll discuss it.  And the question still stands, "How can one accept the BOM as scripture and not accept Smith as someone special?"  The whole origin story of the book stands or falls on Smith.  And once you accept Smith and the BOM origin story, then that is the definition of the LDS movement. (Taivo (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Hiram Page could also be cited. The point is, there was a class of believers who did not follow Joseph Smith. DW, the most interviewed BoM witness, had no problem separating TBOM from Joseph Smith. Reasons vary from, "That was the extent of his call" to "He was a fallen prophet." Most believers in the Bible don't care much who the specific translators were, they just like the Bible. This is the same view they take with TBOM. Where do you want me to post the suggested rewrite? BOMC (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Start a new section at the bottom of this talk page. Title it something like "Suggestions for rewrite" or something else you like.  Most of us watch this page for every change, but put it at the bottom so it's easier to edit. (Taivo (talk) 21:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC))

Reworking the Origin Section
During the sad Ecrasez (or however it is spelled) affair, the Origin section became highly POV. The whole tale of Lucy Harris is complete overkill in this overview. It shows a radical tilt toward the anti-LDS POV. It is relevant for the separate detailed Origins article, but not here. (Taivo (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC))


 * IF 116 pages of the Book were lost and had to be recreated, how is that not relevant to the origin of the Book? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * They were not "recreated." I know that WP frowns on information that tends to be too POV, so let me put it this way. The LDS Church believes that 116 manuscript pages that would have been included in the Book of Mormon as "The Book of Lehi" were lost through the careless but deliberate violation of a covenant made to the Lord through Joseph Smith Jr. by Martin Harris.
 * The LDS Church also believes that a revelation from the Lord to Joseph Smith informed him of what would happen if the pages were retranslated. (See D&C Sections 3 & 10 for these revelations). In that revelation, the Lord explained that the devil had laid a cunning trap to prevent the spread of the work: he had fooled men who had stolen the pages into believing that Joseph would retranslate the pages. There was a two-fold plan to discredit him. If Joseph had a gift to translate, and if the translation was different, they could discredit him that way. However, if he produced the same translation of the same material, they would alter it, publish the alterations, and discredit him that way. The Lord explained that He had foreseen this and made a provision for it.
 * It appears that "The Book of Lehi" covers essentially the same material as covered in what is now in the Book of Mormon as the beginning of First Nephi to the end of the Words of Mormon but with the emphasis on things of more of a secular nature. The material that was preserved was a second, more detailed, but more spiritually related record that Mormon felt to include when he was abridging the Book of Mormon. By translating what eventually became part of the Book of Mormon as we know it today instead of retranslating the Book of Lehi, Joseph, through the advice of the Lord, was able to thwart the wicked men who sought to discredit him.
 * The amazing thing is, all this was foreseen back when the Book of Mormon was being abridged. Mormon wrote that he felt to include 1st Nephi to Words of Mormon for "a wise purpose" that he didn't know about. Sorry for the sermon. I'll get off my soapbox here just as soon as I add this statement: What all this means is that the pages weren't retranslated, nor have they been "recreated."
 * There was one member of the Church I read about at one point who claimed to have been authorized by Moroni to translate the 116 pages of the Book of Mormon for the benefit of the Church, but the only thing wrong with that is that LDS members believe that only the prophet is entitled to receive revelation for the benefit of the entire Church. I can't remember where I stumbled across the information about this guy, but his apparent "authorization" has been proven false through the silence of the Church leaders about this issue.
 * I explain this to demonstrate that there has never been an "authorized" translation or recreation of the lost 116 pages, at least not in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is what the Church has claimed and will continue to claim until such time as the Book of Lehi is translated.
 * As far as what other Latter Day Saint denominations believe about the lost 116 pages, you'd have to check their individual beliefs.
 * Btw, for verification purposes, all that I said about how the pages were lost and the plan to thwart the Prophet's claims that the record he was translating was authentic can be verified by material contained in the LDS D&C 3 & 10. Happy reading. I'll get up off my soapbox now. :) --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 02:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll simplify. The pages that were stolen were not retranslated, but removed from the text.  Critics use this as "proof" that the document was an original creation of Smith.  Adherents pretty much ignore the story.  Since it's just a detail (IMHO), I do think that it's best left in the Origins article, but is too much detail for this overview.  I am not LDS, but I think it's just unnecessary detail and certainly "flavors" the section in an anti-LDS way.  (Taivo (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I reworded the section and reduced the Lucy Harris episode down to a more appropriate length. I'm still not completely convinced that the episode is necessary for this overview, but at least the number of words devoted to it is more appropriate now. (Taivo (talk) 13:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

"believed to have been translated"
This is quoted from the lead section: "It is believed to have been translated by Joseph Smith, Jr. and first published in March 1830 by E. B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York, USA."

"It is believed" raises the question "by whom".

"Translated" raises the question "from what language". Would it be sufficient to say "from an unknown ancient language"?

Wanderer57 (talk) 02:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "It is believed by whom?" Probably those of the Latter Day Saint movement.
 * As far as "What language was it translated in?" the LDS version of the Book itself says that it was written in "the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians" (1 Nephi 1:2) And further: "we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record." (Mormon 9:32-33.)
 * So, reformed Egyptian would probably be the best thing to put. However, if we wanted to list the full explanation, the two scriptures cited above would probably do. Hope this is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Adherents believe" is a better wording. If you ask 100 Mormons what language the plates were written in 99 of them will say "Reformed Egyptian".  So the language isn't "unknown" (other than the fact that there is no documentary evidence of it)--it has a name. (Taivo (talk) 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you both. I much appreciate your contributions to my education. Based on the above, I suggest the sentence in question be changed to read:


 * "It is believed by adherents to have been translated from Reformed Egyptian to English by Joseph Smith, Jr. It was first published in March 1830 by E. B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York, USA."


 * Is the above an improvement?


 * Taivo, I am probably foolish to argue with you on a point related to languages, but I'll give it a try anyway. Suppose I were to tell you about an old book which had been handed down through my family for many generations, which book no-one was able to read because of the strange alphabet employed, and that the book had a marginal note saying it was written in Modified Scranish Metropedian. Suppose further that due to an unfortunate accident the book had been consumed in a fire some years ago. Would it not be fair to say that Modified Scranish Metropedian was an "unknown language", despite the language name being known?  Wanderer57 (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This issue has always been a bit mushy for me. Joseph called it Reformed Egyption (RE), but that was only what he called it for lack of a better term. It was written in the language of the people who wrote it. When we call it RE some people get all excited because it is not a recognized language, thus see how stupid this story is. I wonder if it might not be adivsable to first state it was translated. Then later in the article explain what Joseph Smith said about the language from which it was translated.
 * As an aside, we go so some length to always qualify that adherents believe. At times the narrative becomes very repetitve as a result. I know that some readers get excited if there is not a qualifier to every sentence that describes beliefs, but I think that the average reader understands the topc is about another groups beliefs. Can we cut back on the qualifiers and just write the article?--Storm Rider (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Joseph Smith never referred to the language as "reformed Egyptian" except when he quoted the two scriptures I cited. He never called it that himself. Besides, this was a man with less than a high school education. How could such a man have known for himself it was reformed Egyptian except by reading what the record said?
 * As far as cutting back on the qualifiers, WP's whole purpose is to provide as much accurate information about a subject as is available, informative, and verifiable to suit public purposes. In my own opinion, wrong though it may be, it is our duty to provide information that is clear and easily understandable. By eliminating the qualifiers, we take away from the quality of the article, make it harder for the reader to understand, and thus undermine the whole purpose for which WP was established. I think these are valid questions that may come to mind as this article is read, and I believe WP readers deserve the answer to them. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, this whole discussion gets a little surrealistic for me because there were no plates and thus there was no language. HOWEVER, we can call that language we're discussing "Reformed Egyptian" because that's what the vast majority of Mormons call it. A language is called what people call it. We call the English language of 500-1100 "Old English" not because that's what its speakers called it, but because that's what WE call it and everyone understands what we mean by that term. Everyone who knows about the Book of Mormon knows exactly what is meant by the term "Reformed Egyptian" no matter what Smith called it (I'm not on a first-name basis with the man) and no matter what the text calls it. The term is crystal clear and that is, in the end, our goal. Concerning "adherents believe" I think that the article is not overly stressed by the use of the term at this point. In the origin section, we have worked hard to vary the qualifiers from "Smith wrote" to "Smith said that" to "adherents believe", etc. Some sentences don't have qualifiers, but are clearly within a qualified context. I think that the qualifiers need to be there for two reasons: 1) I am uncomfortable with the unqualified sentences in any article where the "facts" are not facts, but are tokens of faith, and 2) anti-LDS editors would be more likely to attack the article without the qualifiers. (Taivo (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Please don't think that I am against using qualifiers; my position is that we use enough of them to make it clear tot readers that this is a topic of faith. What I seek is well written articles that is informative to readers. There is not need to bang readers' brains out of their respective heads with the dire warning that their mind is being polluted with beliefs and not facts. When I read about the Qur'an I want to know about the book and I quite aware that it is a book of faith. Do we really think that readers are not aware of the same thing when they read this article? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I agree that we do not want an excessive amount of qualification. The uncertainty is how much is sufficient.


 * When I read "it is believed to have been translated...", I of course know that the unstated point is "believed by the LDS faithful". Notwithstanding that knowledge, the question "believed by whom?" was brought to my mind. I take this as a signal that a more specific statement may be in order.  Wanderer57 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Existence of anachronistic animals?
QUOTING THE ARTICLE: "The following are the principal areas where historical and scientific criticism are focused:


 * Correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.


 * Existence of anachronistic animals, plants and technologies described in the book."

(I admit that this is a picky point about the wording.)

IMO, the historical and scientific criticism is NOT focused on the "Existence of anachronistic animals, etc". Rather it is on the NONexistence of animals, etc described in the Book.Wanderer57 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the current language is correct. It is not that the animals never existed, but that at the time period they are thought to not have existed. For example, horses exist in the Americas, but they are thought to not have existed in the Americas at the time the Book of Mormon was supposedly written...that is what makes them anachronistic, i.e. not belonging to the time period. It would be different if the BofM described blue-eyed flying griffons, which are the things of myth and never existed in any time period. Does this make sense?--Storm Rider (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be "presence of anachronistic ... in the Americas" I think (Taivo (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Does this wording work?


 * Mention in the Book of Mormon of anachronistic animals, plants and technologies


 * P.S. Maybe the flying griffons were in the missing pages. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that Lucy Harris said something about a Horoni Potter in her memoirs. (Taivo (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC))


 * As I have said before, more is less. Keep it simple. This section should merely highlight topics that are addressed in a separate article. We need to keep the article brief and to the point.--WaltFrost (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Focused on ???
QUOTING the article:


 * "The following are the principal areas where historical and scientific criticism are focused:


 * Correlation between locations described in the Book of Mormon and American archaeological sites.


 * Mention in the text of anachronistic animals, plants and technologies.


 * Linguistic connection between any Native American language or language family and any Near Eastern language or language family.


 * DNA evidence linking Native Americans with descendants of Israel.

When I commented yesterday on the wording of the second point, I did not realize that the other three points suffer from similar logical errors. I think "criticism" cannot be said to be focused on the correlation between locations, when there is no correlation. Likewise it cannot be on 'linguistic connections' when there are no connections, and it cannot be on DNA evidence linking Native Americans with descendants of Israel, when there is apparently no such evidence.

It seems to me the wording in the Historicity section at the end of July 2008, was clearer and avoided tying itself in this logical knot. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll play a bit with the wording (Taivo (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC))

Reworded Lead
After stumbling through the blocky sentences and boring prose of the lede, I have revised it to hopefully read much more smoothly...I have tried to keep it as general as possible, inserting a few things into notes for any clarification purposes. Please feel free to make it even better but let's not revert to 3rd grade sentences just to keep it so dry as to kid ourselves into thinking that that is what NPOV means...you can be eloquent in your prose without being POV...I promise! Be brave people! Twunchy (talk) 16:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you must not "be brave" here. This page is too highly charged to go galloping off making wholesale edits without getting some sort of consensus first.  This page is too easily attacked by anti-LDS to be too "eloquent".  I'm going to revert all your edits right now.  That doesn't mean that they are all bad.  That just means let's talk about the issues you want to address first.  This is the process on the BOM page (read the statement at the top of this page). (Taivo (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Why a wholesale revert? I am allowed to edit. I am not anywhere close to someone new to this article.  Read the lead...it is missing info on the golden plates...that would be of pinnacle importance.  The sentences are blocky, they read like a 5th grade book report, the edits I made were in no way controversial, POV or otherwise please don't claim ownership and say I can't be here. Most of my edits were for clarity...standard copyediting i.e. combining sentences of similar topics, punctuation, removing redundencies e.g. adherents believe this and adherents believe that and adherents also believe this too...there needn't be a qualifier for every sentence here.  See WP:Brilliant prose for the appropriate tone to an encyclopedia, and for goodness sakes everyone needs to quit being paranoid about this page!  Yes be Brave! Stand up for facts and knowledge don't hide behind the threat of NPOV attacks!  You can say things and remember NPOV does not mean No Points of View. I am allowed by wikipedia policy to be bold in my edits and I have boldly fixed a horrible lede.  You can edit what you don't like but have no right to wholesale reversions here. Twunchy (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another point to add...just because people aren't challenging the POV of lede doesn't mean it's good. Let's make this a great article again, with language that is informing and flowing, not just listing fact, after fact, after fact. That's not prose...it's a list. Twunchy (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See also:WP:Lede —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twunchy (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need to review the changes one by one.


 * Are there particular sentences you consider "blocky" (i.e., Short, heavy, and solidly built: chunky, compact, dumpy, heavyset, squat, stocky, stodgy, stubby, stumpy, thick, thickset)?


 * In paragraph one you changed "sacred text" to "key sacred text". I think key is quite unnecessary to the point of the sentence. Also it suggests that some sacred texts are more important than others. If the Almighty sees fit to create a sacred text, ranking it a key or non-key seems impertinent, if not sacrilegious.


 * In same paragraph you added "used alongside the Bible". Unnecessary to the point of the sentence and a detour.


 * When you get into the part about the Pearl of Great Price, a) this is also unnecessary and inappropriate here, and b) you have destroyed the sentence structure; i.e., it is not a proper sentence.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocky: meaning short, with redundant wording that can be revised to fewer sentences that flow better...does anyone read my posts? you shouldn't have "adherents believe x" and then the next sentence starting with "adherents believe x" and then "These churches believe x" That is called a list. The lede is not a list.

Key: Without Book of Mormon, no Mormons. Also called a cornerstone, as in not more important than other scriptures, but essential. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the Book of Mormon is essential to the Mormon movement. Where we differ is in whether the word key is needed in the opening paragraph. At this point we have to assume we are writing for someone unfamiliar with the subject. Whether or not the Book is 'key' is not essential to their initial reading.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"Used alongside the bible" was already in the text. i.e. read it and it says "along with the Bible"...not my words.


 * ?? Sorry for misunderstanding. Somehow those words were part of your edit here and my revert here. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC) I seem to have this backwards.  Sorry.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a proper sentence that I have made: "[These churches] consider BOM to be divinely inspired scripture and (along with x, and x, and x,) the Book of mormon constitues the foundation of their beliefs." It is a proper sentence.


 * I'm going to ponder this one further. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And naming the other core scriptures that coincide with the Book of Mormon within this system of beliefs AS A WHOLE is not out of the scope of this article. Just because they don't all have the same version of the D&C doesn't mean it isn't mentionable, and just because not all agree of the divinity of the Pearl Of Great Price doesn't mean it isn't mentionable either. Twunchy (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * My point is not whether the information is out of the scope of the article. It is that it does not belong in the lead section of the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Another note: please don't be afraid to edit me! Just don't keep hitting the revert button, if you don't like it...fix it! I take no offense to working with me, I do take offense at outright reversions when they're undeserved. Twunchy (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Be bold HERE FIRST, Twunchy. Let us discuss this before you start a slash and burn through a very carefully built article that tries to avoid opening the door for anti-LDS slash and burn. The overall tone of your edits is too reverential IMHO and needs to be toned down. And NPOV means NEUTRAL--neither reverential nor derrogatory (sp?). You will find that I tend to agree with Wanderer more often than not. Please respect those of us, both LDS and non-LDS, who labor ceaselessly on this article to keep it from getting too holy or opening the door to the anti-LDS crowd. When your edits are so wholesale as to make "editing" too laborious and time-consuming, then a wholesale revert is called for. Talk here and then we can cut and paste into the article once we've got some good wording from you that everyone reaches consensus on. Please see note on the top of this page about discussing all changes here before making them to the article. That is Wikipedia policy for controversial topics such as this. (Taivo (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC))


 * My two cents on the matter: Twunchy, it's true that WP policy is to BE BOLD, however, within that boldness policy is embedded other policies that prevent edits from becoming too cumbersome. I looked over the way the page was before your edits took place and then compared your changes with what is now currently there, and I think that while this section needs some work, it is counterproductive to WP purposes for ANY editor to unilaterally decide to rearrange the lede, add/delete major sentences, or put in information that may or may not have relevancy to the article subject. I think all who have spoken to you about this before are correct. If this section does need work (and I don't rule out the possibility that it does), then the thing to do is first discuss what you perceive as the problem(s) with the section and what you suggest doing about it, then allowing time for feedback from others before you make whatever changes you feel need to be made. That way, the consensus can help with such decisions and the changes become "ours" rather than "yours". I have often found that discussing proposed changes helps me to get a better perspective on my own viewpoint before I try to do anything that may detract from the article quality. I'd be happy to help offer feedback on your suggestions for changes of the lede if I know what these suggestions are. I'm not entirely sure what Taivo means when he calls this a "controversial topic." I don't see it that way. At any rate, when in doubt, it's always wise to discuss BEFORE making changes rather than making changes without discussion and then getting upset/angry when those changes are reverted. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've shown you what I want to do to clear up the lede, just let me know when I can actually edit here. O gracious lords of the Book of Mormon page. Twunchy (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that would happened here is too many edits at once making some editors nervous. Twunchy, I think you were on the right path and I encourage you to keep going. However, a slower pace might be helpful. Often times discussion here first allows people time to think and understand what is being proposed. This topic is controversial. Being a book of scripture for a group is a very strong statement and to most of Christianity it is blasphemy. Some Christians get very excited about it; they feel compelled to announce its heresy. This article and most of the other major LDS topic article generate their fair share of anti-Mormon edits. We respond to those just as we respond to overly pro-Mormon edits. My advice is to either do shorter edits to the article or discuss major edits here first. Does that work? --Storm Rider (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Storm Rider, now if I can only convince everyone else here to let go of their stranglehold on this article, but again most of my edits were of a non-substantive nature and I can't even get those to be kept now because if I change anything now I will be accused of violating the 3RR. It's a game that everyone's playing - it's called tag-teaming. If one person reverts me twice, and the other once, but I undo it again - I have therefore edit warred and they haven't because they slapped their partner's hand and got a free dance around the 3RR. Now before anyone accuses me of not knowing what's going on in the world of controversial Mormon-related-article-dom, look at the Golden Plates page which I have been involved in as an example of how a consensus can still be reached without mercilessly reverting every "newcomer" to the article.  That page will run circles around this article in it's form, prose, and function.  And heck...I'm the one who was constantly copyediting it and smoothing out the article!!!  No reverts there! But heaven forbid I trod on this sacred article for because it wasn't being attacked by the anti-mormons it must have been perfect...or maybe they liked it looking like a mess, hmmm.  Either way I don't care, I will be editing here people, and If I keep getting reverted I will keep going, because my edits are not anything that is in any way negative against this topic, and the only ones complaining are the owners who sit on their revert buttons so they can say to God when they died that they defended this page. Twunchy (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We can reach consensus quite easily here, Twunchy, but we reach consensus HERE FIRST. Notice my minor edits.  They are not wholesale, but minor.  We discussed the redundancy of the "Adherents" phrasing in the opening paragraph.  We all agreed that it was poor wording.  I got rid of the word adherents and collapsed the second and third sentences into one.  I changed the first word of the (new) third sentence to "they".  We gained consensus and my edits were limited in scope.  I did not try to rewrite an entire paragraph at once without having discussed the matter here first.  We go one step at a time here, Twunchy.  Propose something, talk about it, make the small edits.  We have found that massive editing nearly always introduces unwanted POV.  Stop getting defensive or arrogant about your "right to edit", etc.  We have done nothing more than ask you to participate in a collaborative process BEFORE you start burning up what has gone before. (Taivo (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Amen. I think that's what everyone (including me) has been trying to say. We don't dispute ANYONE's right to edit here on WP. As WP itself has stated, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. Each editor comes to this article with different perspectives. We welcome all such differences of opinion. However, consensus decisions must be honored because otherwise, it's just one person's decision about the content of the article. And getting defensive or arrogant about your "right to edit" is neither productive nor profitable. Please don't take offense. All we have been asking you to do is to follow WP's policy on adding information. And that neither takes away your right to edit nor prevents any of us from reverting or changing it when you have done so. This whole conversation COULD be avoided IF you were willing to forget about and let go of the supposed "wrongs" you feel have been practiced against you and instead contribute to a discussion on what can be done to improve the article. Sticking up for your right to edit is all well and good. But when THAT becomes the focus of the discussion rather than how to improve the article, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I look forward to getting back to the discussion about how to improve the article and hope all of you do as well. In my opinion, this discussion of one editor's "right to edit" has gone on too long. Now, as far as the lede goes, I think I would not be opposed to the proposed changes as long as it doesn't make the article too cumbersome. I think there is a way to implement the changes Twunchy would like to see without damaging the readability or credibility of the article. However, I also think that a little more discussion about the actual changes would be in order before their implementation. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

So to get your approval, look at my last 3 edits and tell me if there's anything wrong. I will not yield on the golden plates issue, it NEEDS to be there, or we are not doing our job presenting the topic. Twunchy (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, Twunchy, please stop throwing down gauntlets. We try to work together here.  No one challenged the golden plates issue.  But take things slowly.  Even if you make twenty small edits at once instead of one massive one, you might still get reverted because it's just too confusing to find the one particular thing that is off.  If you have a lot of things to change, then propose them here first.  You'd probably be surprised that we agree with you most of the time, our disagreements with you are on the process at this point.  (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Talking about proposed changes on the talk page is ALWAYS the best way to go. No one challenged your actual edits. What IS being challenged is your reaction to the revert of material you added without consensus decisions being made first. You don't need "approval" to make any edits. Editors are encouraged to be bold. However, when edits are made WITHOUT discussion, and these edits impact the content and readability of the article, then they do need to be discussed first. Enough on that. Now, just a word of clarification pertaining to what you said about "our job." Our job is to present verifiable facts, without which unsourced material will be removed. Our job is also to reach a consensus about the addition of content that alters either the verifiability or the readability. Simply put, the majority rules. Now, before you pounce on that sentence, let me remind you that it has been previously stated by more than one user that WHEN the consensus decides on this issue, it is likely that most, if not all, of your proposed changes will be implemented. So, we are not in any way challenging the material you propose adding, nor are we saying it will never be included. What we ARE saying is that we would like to be involved in the revision process and the forming of the revised material. By making the edits yourself, you essentially cut off ANY chance of discussion of the material BEFORE it was added. That's why your changes were reverted. I agree that you have the right to "be bold," and the duty to include verifiable material that you feel belongs in the article. The problem arises when the exercising of those rights and duties takes away from our opportunity to provide constructive feedback on the proposed contents to "touch up" anything that might need work before the changes are made. We don't want to be cut out of making decisions about the content of the article, and that is why your changes were reverted. I for one have no objection to your proposed changes being made AFTER sufficient feedback is provided on the changes. But unless you lay aside your vendetta about the revert of added material and instead discuss what you feel needs to be changed, why it should be changed, and how you think it ought to be changed, then this issue will continue to go nowhere and get there quickly. Again, I look forward to hearing the answers to what you feel needs to be changed, why it should be changed, and how you think it ought to be changed. As I said earlier, enough has been said about this issue. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess if everyone can quit acting like every newcomer to this article is the devil in sheep's clothing, can we move along? The lede for this article is WAY too terse, it is abnormally short for an article of this size. Are we addressing all of the relevant material here? The who, what, where, why, and how of all the important facts this article? The lede is supposed to give a succint enough overview from the topic as to impart the most relevant information in a short summary.

It is my opinion that the overall tone of the lede is coming from the wrong perspective, we are viewing the Book of Mormon through the lens of the churches, not just taking an objective look at the book itself, Regardless of the perspective of the churches. It should be about what the book is and says, not what the "churches believe" about it. The statements that I'm getting at are all these qualifiers, "these churches think...they [the churches] believe, etc." It should instead be the Book of Mormon is this and that...as in we should speak not of the effects of the BOM, but what IT is.

It's akin to writing an article about water, but only mentioning all the things that are wet because of it, instead of it's structure, abundance, properties, etc. If we wrote the lede to another book of scripture would we qualify everything saying that the baptists think this and the catholics that, or would we look at the whole of the book, it's influence in general, the wars fought over it etc. Imagine reading the Bible with as many qualifiers as exist in the Mormon series...The Jews think this, but the Protestants think this, and then the Catholics think another...the article would be a mess, and unreadable. If we decide to be bold and stick to simplicity instead of embracing qualifiers for every darned statement in this piece it will be that much better for that. The Lede should give the general information from the lens of how this book created 13+ million followers among tens or hundreds of churches, spread globally. Do you get the point? THe book is bigger than this article is giving it credit for. This article should be about MORE than the book's effect, Just like the Bible is about more than Christianity or Judaism. Take it from the view point of No book...No Mormonism. Then the Lede and the rest of the article will fall in line. Twunchy (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This book is a book of faith, a token of a belief system, therefore it must contain the "belief" modifiers. It is not a book of fact used to guide archeology, history, etc, but is a book of faith used to fuel a belief system.  Its origins are clouded in faith and belief, not in facts.  There are no golden plates to touch and no Reformed Egyptian for scholars to discuss the translation of.  It is, first and foremost, a book requiring faith to accept.  Therefore, all the "belief" qualifiers must remain in place.  Second, if we compare the length and content of this lead (I don't know where you get "lede" from, but it's not an English word) to the article on the Koran, you will find them almost completely parallel:
 * The Qur’an[1] (Arabic: القرآن ‎ al-qur’ān, literally "the recitation"; also sometimes transliterated as Qur’ān, Koran, Alcoran or Al-Qur’ān) is the central religious text of Islam. Muslims believe the Qur’an to be the book of divine guidance and direction for mankind, and consider the original Arabic text to be the final revelation of God.[2][3][4][5] Islam holds that the Qur’an was revealed to Muhammad by the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel) over a period of 23 years.[2][6][7] Muslims regard the Qur’an as the culmination of a series of divine messages that started with those revealed to Adam, regarded in Islam as the first prophet, and continued with the Suhuf-i-Ibrahim (Scrolls of Abraham),[8] the Tawrat (Torah),[9][10] the Zabur (Psalms),[11][12] and the Injeel (Gospel).[13][14][15] The aforementioned books are not explicitly included in the Qur’an, but are recognized therein.[16][17] The Qur’an also refers[18] to many events from Jewish and Christian scriptures, some of which are retold in comparatively distinctive ways from the Bible and the Torah, while obliquely referring to other events described explicitly in those texts.


 * The Qur'an itself expresses that it is the book of guidance. Therefore it rarely offers detailed accounts of historical events; the text instead typically placing emphasis on the moral significance of an event rather than its narrative sequence.[19] It does not describe natural facts in a scientific manner but teaches that natural and supernatural events are signs of God.[20]


 * The Qur’an was written down by Muhammad's companions while he was alive, although the prime method of transmission was oral. It was compiled in the time of Abu Bakr, the first caliph, and was standardized in the time of Uthman, the third caliph. The Qur’an in its actual form is generally considered by academic scholars to record the words spoken by Muhammad because the search for variants in Western academia has not yielded any differences of great significance and that historically controversy over the content of the Qur’an has never become a main point. [21][22] Therefore all Muslims, Sunni or Shia use the same Qur’an.


 * I think that we do, as you suggest, need to add a parallel paragraph to the Koran's second paragraph about what the BOM says about itself. But to say that this BOM lead is on the wrong track is wrong.  This BOM lead is exactly parallel with the Koran's lead with a bit more fleshing out.  But the tone and the content are right in line with this other book of faith's introduction. (Taivo (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I want to say one more thing about your comment, Twunchy. You say that we should stick to what the BOM is.  Well, here is what it is:  "It is a fictional (i.e., not based on fact) book about the ancient Americas published by Joseph Smith in 1830 that is scripture in the LDS movement".  That's it.  All the stuff about golden plates is NOT factual, it is Smith's story.  There is no factual basis for any of the origin myth of the BOM that Smith writes about.  So if you want to mention the "golden plates" (as you insist you must), then you MUST include qualifiers like "Smith says", "adherents believe", etc.  Since the BOM contains no verified facts in its narrative about the Ancient Americas, then you must include qualifiers like "the church accepts it as".  You can't eliminate the qualifiers and still include the information that you want to include in the lead.  The FACTS are just too meager.  It is the BELIEF that fuels the BOM. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Taivo, if you don't believe the Book of Mormon is true, that's all well and good. However, since the adherents of the LDS Church and COC say that they know it's true, there is no basis for saying it's a fictional account. Millions believe the Book of Mormon IS based on fact, and don't forget that there were 11 others besides Smith whose unequivocal testimony of the book's divine origin attest to the truth. Just as a jury of twelve persons can convict or acquit persons accused of a crime, so the testimony of twelve attest to the book's validity. Now, even though what those twelve said was, according to you, fictional, the fact remains that many believe and know the book to be true. That may make it an opinion on their part and on mine, however, your statement that the Book of Mormon is "fictional" is only YOUR opinion, and personal opinions have no place on WP. A better rewording that would be partial in stating what the Book is would be something like, "It is a book that purports to be a record of the people of the ancient America which adherents believe was translated by the gift and power of God through Joseph Smith." That, to me, seems to be partial enough. However, I happen to know that the Book of Mormon is true and is the word of God. Joseph Smith could never have brought it about of his own accord. Remember, the man barely had a partial elementary school education! He could barely write letters that made sense, and the letters contained badly misspelled words and incorrect grammar. There's absolutely NO WAY Joseph could have written the record for himself. All the theories you hear about other people writing it and Smith putting his name to it are rubbish. Many of the people who claim someone else wrote it forget, overlook, or simply ignore the fact that the people who are supposed to have "written it" for Smith never even MET him until years after the Book was published. I don't know what you mean about it's not based on fact. Many of the American Indians have related stories passed down from their ancestors about a Great White God (Jesus Christ) appearing to their forefathers. And there are other similar examples, including ongoing discoveries verifying events described in the Book of Mormon. You're not out of line in expressing the opinion that it's fictional, but you ARE out of line in suggesting that such a viewpoint be advanced in this article. Just as my knowledge that the Book of Mormon is true has no bearing on a partial WP article, so your opinion that it is fictional has no bearing or merit either. The qualifiers are okay to include. However, your definition of what the Book of Mormon is will never be included in this article as long as I and fellow believers in the truthfulness and validity of the Book of Mormon have anything to say about it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed my point, JG. My point was that it's all based on belief--from Smith's account of Moroni's visits, to the value of the BOM in archeology and history.  It's all a question of belief.  No one "knows" anything about the BOM except as a result of "belief".  You "know" the BOM to be true as an act of faith, not as the result of scientific discovery.  You believe and I respect you for your strong faith.  I have no qualms with that or the faith of the millions who believe the BOM to be true (I live in Utah so my friends and neighbors are almost all LDS).  Just as you (and most other LDS) respect me for my non-belief.  But that is the point I was trying to make with Twunchy when he wanted to delete the qualifiers.  The BOM is a token of faith, both in terms of its message and in terms of Smith's account of its origins.  We cannot remove the faith-based qualifiers from this article because then we are left only with the actual fact--Smith's account is all there is of the origin of the book.  (The "witnesses" were all close associates of Smith, so their accounts are equally "tainted" and subject to belief for acceptance.)  I NEVER intended for my "fictional" viewpoint to be advanced in the article.  I'm sorry if I left that impression.  I was just taking twunchy's point-of-view to the extreme when he wanted to remove everything that was based on "belief" and to state everything as if it was verified fact.  I advocate an NPOV article here--one that will be informative to anyone looking at it who does not know what the Book of Mormon is.  I don't want it to discourage anyone considering conversion or encourage anyone considering leaving.  Those decisions must be made in the heart, not on the basis of a Wikipedia article.  We must present a definition here, not a point of view.  So if I offended, my apologies.  That was not my intention.  (Taivo (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Actually, if you read my history of comments, I'm pretty strongly in favor of making only minor edits to the article as it stands. Many of us have worked very hard (I've been involved for about a year now) at making this article as NPOV as possible.  If you look at the history of reverts, I've spent most of my time fighting the anti-LDS crowd to "protect" this page from their POV.  (Taivo (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I too apologize if I misunderstood you. Now that you clarified your position, I understand where you're coming from. I agree that there's very little physical evidence of the validity or veracity of the Book of Mormon. I think that we can make this article NPOV without offending either those who do not believe in the Book of Mormon or those who do. I would be in favor of having qualifiers in there to that end. And in case you misunderstood where I come from, though I believe in the validity and veracity of the Book of Mormon, in general, I would side more with what you said than what Twunchy said. I thank you for what you said in response to me, and I hope you don't get the wrong impression from what I said earlier. Since I didn't know what you were doing until you told me, I proceeded on the incorrect assumption that you were trying to advance that viewpoint as you stated it. The quotation marks should have tipped me off, but when I read that, I saw red and let my fingers do the talking before my brain had a chance to catch up. Again, my apologies, and I hope you don't think any less of me for my momentary lapse in judgment. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a dollar for every time I've had a momentary lapse of judgement. (Taivo (talk) 07:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

I agree with Twunchy wholeheartedly. There needs to be a complete rewrite to acheive neutrality and it needs to be about the record itself right from the start. I have some examples that are concise, neutral and to the point which could lay a broader foundation (IMO) in which a greater number of topics could be built on. BOMC (talk) 05:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Give us the examples and let us look at them. We have all been saying all along that we don't necessarily object to Twunchy's proposed changes. What we HAVE been objecting to is mass changes being made by one or more isolated and independently-working editors without discussion that effectually cuts off the rest of us from providing input about the proposed contents. So, give us a sample of what you have in mind and let us discuss it. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But what we don't want to see is an endless parade of trivia diluting the article. The stuff about Lucy Harris already borders on the trivial; we don't want just a pile of trivialities that cloud the basic facts. (Taivo (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
 * Amen. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 67
Footnote 67 has some problems. It was originally a part of the text, so the references are marked that way. But the material was moved en masse to the footnote, but the formatting commands are still as they would be found in a main text context. Can someone fix this? My skill with the formatting commands of references and footnotes does not extend beyond the <*ref> tags. (Taivo (talk) 08:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Neither do mine, but an attempt to fix this problem has been made by me. I have removed the excess opening reference tags and added a few clarifier words to the footnote. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

POV tag
Now that things have settled down a bit, are we close to a point where we can remove the "POV" tag again? (Taivo (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC))


 * At a glance, on the surface, it appears to me as if we can. However, I wouldn't want to say "yes" for sure and then have other users contradict me. If the consensus decides that would be all right, it's OK with me as well. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So that's a definite "maybe"? LOL (Taivo (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC))


 * It's more like a sort of an "I think it would be okay if everyone else agrees." But then, on the other hand, all things considered, factoring in all the possible ramifications...I'd still have to say if everyone agrees, I agree too. LOL. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Taivo, I would wait a week or two and then make the change. After all, if someone still believes strongly it needs to be there, they can put it back and say why. Thanks. DavidBailey (talk) 10:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * David, if it can just be put back if someone disagrees with its deletion, why bother waiting to remove it? Roughly 3 1/2 Wikidays after Taivo posted his inquiry, only the three of us have offered input. That indicates to me that those who have seen this article and this talk page during that time either don't care or are waiting to see what happens. With the "boldness" that WP encourages, it may be a good idea to remove it now, THEN wait and see if there are any disagreements. Of course, if it absolutely HAS to stay for the next couple of weeks, I suppose I have no real objections. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's OK to remove it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that the tag in question has been removed by an annonymous user with only an IP address. I'm fine with that, but I'm more than a little concerned about the manner in which this user worded his/her reason for the removal. The reason as it was stated seems to show POV itself and perhaps a little anti-Mormon bias. At any rate, the tag's been removed, so I think that unless someone voices the opinion that it ought to be put back in, this conversation can be closed with honor. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "reason" for removing the tag was pretty offensive. Like listening to Hitler paint a synagogue--you like the work he's done, but his conversation while doing it wasn't exactly enlightening :p  (Taivo (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I took the liberty of posting a comment on the user's talk page yesterday. I thanked him for taking care of this, expressed concern about the reason he gave for doing it, invited him to obtain a proper user name, and asked him to contact me with any questions about what I wrote. I haven't heard back from him yet, and maybe I never will, but I just thought I'd keep all of you informed on the latest developments. Hopefully I handled the situation all right. If not, let me know. Otherwise, as I said previously, this discussion can probably be closed with honor. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wording issue
Quoting first sentence of article:

"The Book of Mormon is a sacred text used alongside the Bible in the Latter Day Saint movement for such churches as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Community of Christ."

This is perhaps a minor point, but it occurs to me that this wording, where two churches of the LSD movement are named, can be taken to imply that NOT ALL the churches in the LSD movement use the Book of Mormon. (I assume this is not the case.)

How about the alternate and simpler wording:

"The Book of Mormon is a sacred text used alongside the Bible by all the Churches in the Latter Day Saint movement."

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Knowing you, I'm sure that "LSD" was just a typo ;) We could just take out the "all" as well. (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Oops! Wanderer57 (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New intro, and being bold
Taivo, I've replaced my edit to the introduction. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers, but I strongly believe in the edict of Be Bold, and that it is the onus of those who oppose a bold change to come forward with explanations as to why the change should not be made, rather than a reversion without comment.

Let me just give a little bit of rationale. The previous version of the intro did not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD, which requires us, among other things, to have an introduction that hits all the major points of the article. Fully half of the prior version, for example, is devoted to the rationale of the LDS Church for changing the book's subtitle from the 1830 version. This is important information, but there are a lot more interesting and significant topics about the book than its subtitle. We also need to touch the following points, which I tried to do, though I welcome any improvements: (1) the gist of the book's contents, and who the book's narrators are; (2) the idea that the narrators were Christian and that the book depicts a visit by Jesus; (3) whether or not the book is considered a history, or a work of fiction--which is probably the biggest issue in the mind of non-adherents reading the article; (4) generally, what the book teaches, and whether it is the basis for distinctive Mormon theology; and (5) how it is regarded among faithful members of the Latter Day Saint movement. CO GDEN  17:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the intro could have been improved and some of your points have merit. Being BOLD does not mean being the first to edit makes the edit sacrosanct. Consensus is also a bedrock principle for Wikipedia. If the edit is controversial it should be discussed here, not left in the article until Mr. Bold is satisfied his edit is less than acceptable.
 * One issue I have is the with above is the thought the biggest issue for non-adherents is if the book is true history or not. This is a book of faith similar to every other book of faith in the world. Do you feel compelled to believe in the Bhagavad Gita, the Qur'an, the Apocrypha, the Tao Te Ching, etc.? I don't; I enjoy reading them, but I feel no compunction to think or believe they are true. Why is it different for those who learn of the Book of Mormon? Does it have some mysterious influence over peoples of the world to come to to a conclusion? I don't think so, but it would be nice if it did. why is it necessary to say that non-adherents do not believe in the historical nature of the book. That seems overly obvious when discussing a book of faith. Do you really think the obvious needs to be stated? -- Storm  Rider  18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "Being BOLD does not mean being the first to edit makes the edit sacrosanct."


 * Hear, hear! I should be glad if I could have expressed the point even a fraction as succinctly as StormRider. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree with Storm Rider more. This article is prime hunting ground for anti-LDS and the super-apologist alike, so it is VITAL that edits be discussed here on the Talk Page first.  I might agree with your edits, but discuss them here first and get consensus. (Taivo (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC))


 * Amen. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya know guys, you really need to allow a few people into your little ownership group, I fully support COGDEN in his editing of the intro for the very same reasons I got into it...see the above post for the discussion on locking out all outsiders. Please stop saying that you must write paragraphs after paragraph on the talk page, and achieve true eternal bliss among all participants, before you can fix something that is not up to wikipedia policy. The simple fact is that the lede of this article does not meet the wikipedia standards for such! Stop reverting everyone while quoting the banalities of wiki policy on boldness etc. and go read about poor writing...this article is a showcase of it!! You stop people from improving the lede just because everyone here is afraid of a fight, well bring it on I'm willing to fight for the quality of this article...no more wholesale reversions of the lede, let's EDIT it...it truly stinks! Twunchy (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hear, hear, and Amen Twunchy. I have long stopped trying to edit this article because of the iron fist with which my edits always seem to be controlled. But of course, systematic bias is a part of life on Wikipedia, so maybe I am just a minority voice over which the tyranny of the majority can kick around. To be fair, I don't know that it is quite that bad, and of course in the end, competing POVs do a lot to get us to a Neutral POV. Cheers --Descartes1979 (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no qualms about working on the LEAD (there is no such English word as "lede"), but don't make massive edits at once. Do a piece at a time so we can see what it looks like and how it works.  Or else do a massive edit here on the Talk page first and let's get it to where it sings and dances.  This article is just too sensitive an issue for running amok.  We must work together and get a good consensus among members and nonmembers first.  IMHO, the only reason for not working on the Lead here first is being unwilling to discuss the issue.  (Taivo (talk) 04:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Don't speak too fast Taivo - "lede" is an English word, and it was used appropriately - see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lede. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do we have to go through this morass again? Making unilateral changes without discussion, then accusing people who revert changes of stifling creative freedom or something like that.


 * The reasons for asking people to follow this approach


 * on this article are not all that complicated.


 * If you or I or anyone else makes a bunch of edits without discussion, we have chaos for a while. It is extremely inefficient for one thing.


 * Moreover, it often results in bad feelings. If for example I make three edits and you or another editor has problems with all three, the edits will likely be rejected by reversion. Not only are the edits rejected; I may feel rejected also.


 * If instead I suggest those edits in the Talk page and provide explanation of why I think they should be made, other editors can think about my suggestions and agree or disagree, or they can point out how my suggestions might be modified and improved. I am much more likely to feel I am part of a civil process, instead of feeling rejected. There are many examples in the above discussions of this process happening.


 * When changes are put into the article before they have been reviewed, an editor who thinks they are bad changes feels a certain urgency to fix them or revert them. This can lead to hasty decisions; sometimes bad decisions.


 * When changes are proposed in the Talk page, that urgency is not there. There is a bit of opportunity to reflect on and discuss the suggestions.


 * In my experience people who make changes without providing discussion or explanation seem to believe that it is obvious to others that those edits are improvements. Even if they are improvements, it may not be immediately obvious to other editors that they are. People who edit this article bring quite a variety of subject knowledge and personal point of view.  This naturally affects how they perceive changes. The courtesy of discussing changes before making them can help the process a great deal.


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If the change is fixable, even if you don't agree with it, proper Wiki-ettiquete is to participate in the editing and incorporate your own contributions, rather than simply reverting and thereby subverting the Wiki process. (Particularly when the prior version of text was in obvious need of fixing.)  Edits are normally only discussed on the talk page if the normal Wiki process has broken down. I think people forget, sometimes, that the talk page is not an essential part of Wikipedia, and it was never meant as a place where all edits must be "approved". I remember when talk pages were mostly blank, and people communicated with each other primarily through comments. Wikipedia has grown more sophisticated since then, but one thing hasn't changed: it's still a wiki. CO GDEN  20:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious improvements?
Twunchy: If you want your edits to stand unchallenged and unexplained, you will have to do better than this:

"Adherents believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. translated it from from an otherwise unknown language..... "

and this

"Most notable of these churches are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), and many other smaller organizations. "

Wanderer57 (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I invite you to edit anything that you may think is not worded up to your standards, I will not tolerate what has become the norm on this page which is revert until people give up... Twunchy (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I DID edit what I thought needed changing (did not revert, but EDITED). But then YOU, Twunchy, reverted without editing.  Take a dose of your own medicine.  DISCUSS things if you want to put forward your edits, otherwise we will edit right back if we think that your edits are not warranted or are too extreme. (Taivo (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I reverted because I got caught in an edit conflict that was much to difficult to weave through after you deleted an entire paragraph. Twunchy (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

So let's compare...
Here's the lede before I edited. (or should I say after everyone here stripped COGDEN's edit)


 * The Book of Mormon is a sacred text used alongside the Bible in the Latter Day Saint movement. These churches regard the text not only as scripture but as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas[1]. They believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. translated it from an otherwise unknown language called Reformed Egyptian written on golden plates obtained from the Angel Moroni. It was first published in March 1830 as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi by Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor[2].


 * In 1982, in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.[3]

Here's it after re-inserting many of COGDEN's edits, along with a few facts that I believe were missing here...


 * The Book of Mormon is a sacred text among the churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. It was first published in March 1830 as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi by Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor.[1][2] Adherents believe that Joseph Smith, Jr. translated it from from an otherwise unknown language called Reformed Egyptian written on golden plates that Joseph Smith discovered in 1823. Smith claimed that the Golden Plates had been buried in a hill near his home in Manchester, New York, and was directed to their location by the Angel Moroni.


 * The Book of Mormon was a key influence to the very beginnings of the Latter Day Saint movement, and since its publication it has inspired a multitude of churches with over 13 million adherents worldwide.[3][4] Most notable of these churches are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, the Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), and many other smaller organizations. These churches typically regard the Book of Mormon not only as scripture but as a historical record of God's dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas.[5]


 * According to Smith, the book's authors were ancient American prophets who foretold the coming of Jesus, and recorded his visit to the Americas in the 1st century. The style and language of the book are roughly similar to the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, and some of the books' passages are nearly identical. However, the Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, the nature of the Atonement, eschatology, and commentary on social and political issues, and the organization of the Church of Christ.

As a third alternate here's COGDEN's revision of the lede in full:


 * The Book of Mormon[1] is a scripture used alongside the Bible and other scriptures by the churches of the Latter Day Saint movement. The book was first published in 1830 by Joseph Smith, Jr., the movement's founder, who said he translated the book from a set of golden plates he had found buried in a hill near his home in Manchester, New York.


 * According to Smith, the book's narrators were actual ancient American prophets who foretold the coming of Jesus, and recorded his visit to the Americas in the 1st century. He said the book was an actual history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas. The religion's adherents generally accept this historical interpretation of the book,[2] or they interpret the book as historical, but not a universal history of indigenous Americans. However, a significant minority, including some Mormon scholars, view the work as inspired fiction. Non-adherent scholars do not accept the work as historical.


 * The style and language of the book are roughly similar to the Authorized King James Version of the Bible, and some of the book's passages are nearly identical. However, the Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, the nature of the Atonement, eschatology, and commentary on social and political issues, and the organization of the Church of Christ. The work does not teach later doctrines and practices, such as plural marriage or the Endowment, that came to be associated with the religion later during the life of Joseph Smith; those elements of doctrine are found in some versions of other scriptural works such as the Doctrine and Covenants, and are not accepted as scriptural by all denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement. Acceptance of the Book of Mormon, however, represents a common denominator to all of these faiths. Twunchy (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I now propose a change: let's improve THIS (the second) version of the lede instead of hitting the revert button, because frankly when you read the first, it doesn't even make sense. So in the spirit of being bold, let's boldly EDIT this lede into something we can all be happy with, instead of leaving a piss poor lede while we all bicker about everything here. Twunchy (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First, this article is NOT about the LDS Movement, so the laundry list of churches that belong to the movement or the membership numbers are needless information and irrelevant (especially the membership numbers). Second, the information about "style" is not really relevant either, but if it is, then the current wording is really unacceptable and nontechnical.  "Sounds like the KJV" is not a style.  Find some good technical terminology or leave the impressionistic assessment out.  Finally, it is NOT the "Church of Christ".  That implies that it is either directed toward the literal church known as the "Church of Christ" or that it is somehow universal.  The reference needs to be less "authoritative".  Please, there is NO SUCH WORD IN ENGLISH AS LEDE.  It is LEAD. (Taivo (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

There's a flaw in your logic...and here's why: If there's no bible, then there's no Judeo-Christian religion period. So in the same vein, without the BOM, there's no mormon movement. It's not out of the scope of the Bible's wiki page to say there's around 3 billion christians out there, so to delete the information on the influence of the BOM aka "the latter day saint moement" then you're just being naive and denying the facts. Second, the original church that Joseph Smith started was "The Church of Christ" so I don't get your point, and i'm just re-inserting another editor's work that was mercilessly deleted by those who wish for this article to stink so it perpetually looks bad. And third...if you don't get what a lede is try this link [] it might fill you in...ignorance ain't bliss. Twunchy (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (I hate it when I write something and then the servers prevent its posting and there's no way to recover what I've written.)
 * If you want to reach consensus here before anything is done to the lead, then you must revert back to the last version BEFORE you made any edits.
 * First, The Bible article does NOT say that there are 3 billion Christians in the intro paragraph. The number of adherents of the LDS movement is not a direct result of the BOM--there are many, many other factors involved in that number.  So the number is not directly relevant to the BOM article.
 * Second, The article definitely implies that the BOM is the first scriptural monument in the growth of the LDS movement. Perhaps that needs to be clarified if you don't think it does already.  But a laundry list of church names is part of the article on the LDS movement, not part of this article.
 * Third, the "Church of Christ" may very well have been the first name that Smith gave to the church, but, again, that's part of the article on the LDS movement and is simply confusing here since most readers will not know that name, it is not used in the BOM for the modern church, and there is a mainstream church called the "Church of Christ" that has nothing to do with the BOM. The BOM does not speak of a specific denomination as the "Church of Christ", but refers to the universal church in that usage.  Therefore the phrase "constitution of the church" is much more accurate. (Taivo (talk) 06:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Since consensus is now the issue, then I have reverted to the last version where there was consensus. Once we reach consensus here, we can make the changes on the main page. (Taivo (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

I am officially making a stand for the quality of this article...I don't mind if I get suspended so please keep reverting me...I want to be turned in so attention can be paid to those that wish to bicker endlessly on the talk page but do nothing on the actual article, and deny me, and many others the right to edit this article on wikipedia. Twunchy (talk) 06:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No one is denying your right to edit. All we are asking for is the opportunity to discuss things first and come to a consensus.  If you look at the history of this article, that is all we have ever asked.  Many people have proposed edits, we have discussed them, we have agreed, and we have made the change.  But the changes are not made in 24 hours as you seem to demand.  We come to a consensus.  Your opinion plus my somewhat differing opinion do not make a consensus.  We wait to see what others say. (Taivo (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
 * You sir have denied many users' edits, and continue to obfuscate here on the talk page instead of improving this article. You claim edits are POV when it's just a fact stated...cause=BOM effect=13 million followers is not POV, I think you just don't want it here. Read my prior posts where it was discussed the things missing from this article as in the profound effect one book has had...your approach would exclude the fact that Salman Rushdie was basically sentenced to death in absentia, and people declared intifada against him for The Satanic Verses as having nothing to do with the book itself, when in fact it is of ultimate importance. Twunchy (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not "discussing" anything. You simply make a statement.  It is time that we leave the article alone and let OTHERS weigh in on this.  If you read the article, you will notice that I have actually accepted several of your changes as good ones.  Get past the two or three points where we disagree, leave the article alone for a few days, and let others weigh in.  If a consensus can be formed (a "consensus" is neither you nor me, but a GROUP of assenting editors), then we can make further changes.  Right now, the article as I have edited it is at a point of consensus since you and I agree on WHAT IS THERE.  You want to move further.  THAT is what needs discussion.  I have given my reasons for not including your further information.  What does everyone else think?  Just because you want the edits done in 24 hours doesn't mean a hill of beans.  WAIT for further editors to read and consider your arguments for including the material. (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Your unilateral decision to determine what can or can't be included just proves that you claim this page as your own...you can't just let it go! I guess that's the college professor mentality, that nothing presented before you can't be done better by you. Either way, I don't care if I get suspended because the point I'm making - you're proving perfectly, that you can't wait for anyone else to judge this edit, you must be judge, jury, and executioner before anyone else sees the difference here. What they can see is there's a stubborn owner of this article who is obsessed with controlling it. Keep it up! You lose more credibility every time. Twunchy (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not judged on the ARTICLE page, but here on the TALK page. Several of us, not just me, and including members and nonmembers of the LDS church, have asked you to cease and desist from editing the article until we have reached a consensus here on the Talk page first.  If you actually read my rewrite, you will notice that there are only a couple of issues of contention.  However, we need to reach a consensus FIRST, HERE, BEFORE you continue to press your agenda. (Taivo (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Twunchy, don't be too bothered by editors who prefer to take major edits in a "go slow" mode. As a topic of faith, this article is particularly contentious. I agree that COgden's edits should have been reverted, but I would also say the same for your edits. If another editor(s) have a issues, it is appropriate to revert and ask, take it to the discussion page, where specific questions can be answered. I don't see Taivo doing wholesale reverts and he seems to be working with you. I don't quite understand your strong language to/with him. The great thing is that nothing is written in stone and working by consensus does take more time. However, the result is generally a far better article. Please consider talking more about the direction you are wanting to go and wait for other editors to enter the conversation. The concept is working by consensus on articles that are the result of difficult past discussions. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  22:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Role of BOM in greater LDS movement
To further view this article in proper context I have added another section for additional BOM views from the smaller religions not so prominently featured within the article. Please feel free to expand this, I have provided a very basic foundation, not to say it's 100%, but let's put our heads together and look at the bigger picture that's not so LDS or Community of Christ centric. Twunchy (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. It needs good references as well as avoiding every single minor difference that might exist between two fringe groups. It also needs to be clearly focused not on the issue of polygamy (which tends to be one of the major divisions between the offshoots), but on possible different roles of the BOM within those groups.  Polygamy is not an issue in the BOM, so that issue should be left to pages on the history of polygamy in the LDS movement and not here.  (Taivo (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

This section still needs references. We've gone about as far as we can go in making it accurate and inclusive, but without specific references, it's not as strong as the LDS and Community of Christ sections. (Taivo (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't think we should focus on references until we get compliance with WP:LEAD, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE. Plus, many leads don't have references at all, since they are summaries, and fuller references appear later in the article. CO GDEN  20:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits
These wording adjustments in the article have been good, Twunchy. (Taivo (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC))

Notes re my edits of paragraph 1

 * "one of the sacred texts"  -- True I believe, but not important enough to be in sentence one. Let's focus on the Book which is the topic of the article.


 * In an article about a book, "published" implies "first published". The word first is not needed.


 * I reordered the sentence that gives the original title, putting the name Joseph Smith first and dropping "author and proprietor". I realize this is the wording of the credit on the title page. However, I think "author" is unnecessary as it is obvious, and that "proprietor" does not help the reader's understanding.


 * "from from" --> "from". Need I explain this one?


 * I rearranged the "Adherents believe" sentence to try to make it read better.


 * "and was directed to their location" --> "and that he was directed to their location" -- add missing words.

I hope these changes are all improvements. Wanderer57 (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good improvements. I made two minor edits:  Changed "Book" to "book" and "Golden Plates" to "plates".  Even though these items are often capitalized within the LDS movement as proper names, outside that community, the capitalization is not usual since they are not treated as proper names. (Taivo (talk) 16:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Wanderer57 and Taivo, it's absurd that you should be discussing these changes here. Just make the changes! And if anybody reverts a good faith edit that is an improvement over what is already there, you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. CO GDEN  20:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi COGDEN: I have in the past complained about edits that were made without benefit of discussion or explanation.  I was just trying in this section to live up to the standard I ask of other editors. If that is absurd, so be it.  Wanderer57 (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Absurd it is, and I second COGDEN's viewpoint...we are bickering to no end on a talk page and no one is paying attention to the actual article...did anyone else read the post with the 3 options for the lede? The only comments were that Taivo was overlord of the page and others are not welcome here to edit, without Taivo controlling the content.  BTW, the lede is still too terse and should be filled in with other information...it in itself should be a synopsys of the entire article, i.e. a stand alone stub that conveys all important points of the article.  Length should be between 3-4 paragraphs so lets BE BOLD and just edit this darn thing...send it through the forge and see what comes out. Twunchy (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the intent is when you think you are going to making some controversial edits, bring it up here. The alternative is to be bold, make the edit; if it gets reverted you know you have some discussion to do with other editors. The intent is not to prevent simple edits from being made and certainly not those of noncontroversial matters. -- Storm  Rider  22:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The revert function was intended for vandalism not for censorship. And that's what we have here is a few who don't want new people to change anything and sit on their revert buttons claiming you need their permission from the talk page to do anything.  So that's why we are here...there are censors standing on this article who treat the rest of us as vandals who are desecrating their glorious mess of prose. Twunchy (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That "forge" is right here, Twunchy. And I read your proposed leads and made comments on them.  You will see that the new lead incorporates MUCH of what you wrote.  Now, this current lead is very much in line with the lead for other articles that deal with books that are scripture.  Compare this lead to that for the Qur'an and you will see that they are very close to the same length and contain very much the same content.  That is the article that you need to be looking at as a comparison for the Book of Mormon article.  Personally, I think that the current lead does stand alone as a piece.  What more is there actually to say about the Book of Mormon?  Not much, really.  What is it?  It is a volume of scripture for the LDS Movement that adherents think was translated from a language on golden plates and written by ancient Americans.  It contains some unique doctrines to the LDS Movement and was written in a style similar to KJV.  It is the first scripture of the LDS movement.  That's really what it is and that's what the current lead says it is.  Anything further and you're talking about details that should be (and mostly are) covered further down in the article.  But if you have suggestions, then forge away--right here on the "forge" of the Talk page.  We will have an open discussion right here.  But just because you write something doesn't mean that everyone will automatically agree with you.  Your attitude is the problem, "I'm going to write this and damn you if you don't like it".  I can discuss things (note that I actually agreed with the bulk of the material you added), but do not think that I will agree with you on everything.  Be ready to discuss and not just make accusations.  Bring your facts and your logic and I will bring mine.
 * You also have no real clue about the history of this page. We discuss things here first because by doing that we REDUCE vandalism on this page--both from anti-LDS and hyper-apologists.  (Taivo (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC))
 * This ain't the forge you ain't the king and changes will be made without your permission sir, so get off your high horse and come back to the basic principles of wikipedia. Twunchy (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

COgden, this is the kind of crap you create by riding in and making pronouncements without any thought for the consequences. Yes, I get teed off because you don't stay around to clean up the mess that is created when editors make unilateral edits go unchecked. Twunchy, you have yet to grasp what is being said nor the principle involved. Frankly, after as much has been said I am not sure you ever will. Edit as you wish and if you get reverted, you might first try explaining yourself before accusing other editors of all types of silliness. If you think any editor involved is so good as to write the article without any contributions from other editors, then you are in the wrong place. I direct to book publishers who would be happy to see your perfect manuscript. Geez, I hate this kind of crap! -- Storm  Rider  22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We gotta tone down the rhetoric here. Does anybody disagree that we should move this article toward GA status?  I didn't think so.  Does anybody think we are close to that goal?  I didn't think so either.  So lets spend our time editing the article page rather than bickering about periods and semicolons, and about whose motives are "truer". If somebody makes an edit that you don't entirely agree with, don't revert it--fix it! But do so with out of principle (like WP:UNDUE or WP:LEAD), not because consensus has not been pre-established. That's how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Be willing to allow non-optimal text to exist on the page for longer than 5 minutes, because eventually, somebody--if not you--will correct it and make it better. CO GDEN  23:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Where does consensus dwell in your proposed process? Do you know how many times Foxe and I revert each other? Do you know how often he ever really discusses his edits when reverted? The process you present is unknown on every controversial article of which I am aware on Wikipedia. It would be nice if it worked, but all you are asking for is a continuous edit war. What is the purpose of the discussion page? Discussing controversial edits with others is not such a bad thing. -- Storm  Rider  01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look at the article on chaps. You'd think that would be a completely noncontroversial topic.  But no.  That article resulted in so many edit wars and reverts on the main article page that they were FORCED to go to arbitration on a Talk page BEFORE anyone could touch the text of the article.  And the whole war was over the pronunciation of the word!  (As a linguist, that's why I got involved.)  The Talk pages ARE for discussion and reaching consensus.  Otherwise what is their function?  Just to chat about the weekend?  No.  Once an edit has been reverted once and a reason given, then the discussion MUST move to the Talk page until a consensus is reached.  No contentious text should be placed in the main article until the issue is resolved and a consensus reached here. (Taivo (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I agree with CO GDEN  on one thing only: that we are trying to get this article toward GA status. But that's as far as my agreement with him goes. I have watched this particular topic with interest but have not up to this point sounded off about it, because I hoped my esteemed fellow editors would see and say sense on this issue without my sticking my nose in. Now that this hope has proved vain and dead, I feel the need to speak.
 * Talk pages, as defined for WP purposes, are for the sole purpose of discussing improvements that can be made to an article. There are established policies that have been tried, tested, and proven to protect ANY WP article from material that would be detrimental to its content. One of those established policies include discussing major edits and potential changes in page content and direction. This is to allow ALL editors who watch/contribute to any given article to have a say in the article content. And that's as it should be. This prevents ANY editor from unilaterally solely attempting to control or controlling the content of these pages. It also prevents any editor from depriving his fellow editors of the right to have a say in article content.
 * There have been past experiences I've had here on WP where I have observed some of these same editors that are ridiculing the conversation that has taken place here where they have been insistent towards other editors about discussing edits FIRST. I have many mottos and mission statements that I have developed since joining WP. I will now state another one: When in doubt, it is ALWAYS a good idea to discuss things on the talk page BEFORE acting.
 * CO GDEN  has ridiculed Wanderer57 and Taivo for so doing. He has even stated that they ought to be ashamed of themselves if their edits made without discussion are reverted as not being an improvement over what is already there. For what should they be ashamed? For following WP policy? I wasn't aware that editors who do so should blush about it. In my opinion, CO GDEN  and Twunchy should be ashamed of themselves for calling these two out on this. Since when is it the place of two editors to criticize two other editors for following an established WP policy that works? Before I'm attacked for defending these two good editors, I will add material any can feel free to attack me about by saying that I concur fully with the two posts at the beginning of this topic, and the decisions and changes that were discussed therein, as well as the process by which these matters were resolved.
 * CO GDEN  and Twunchy certainly have a right to their own opinion, but they DO NOT have the right to criticize the other two for trying to follow WP policy as they understand it. Storm Rider and Taivo have said enough about that already.
 * No individual editor has a right to undertake of their own accord to redefine WP policy, especially when what they suggest clearly violates the policy as it now stands. CO GDEN  and Twunchy, I would think you have both been Wikipedians long enough to know better than that. I admire you both, and I appreciate the fact that you both think your viewpoint is valid. However, the longer you try to redefine WP policy with no authority to do so, the only result is that you look sillier and lose credibility. I'm sure you don't want that.
 * One last parting thought before I get off my soapbox...for now. The purpose of a talk page, as before stated, is to discuss improvements to an article. But when criticism is made against those who follow that purpose, the only result is a prolonged discussion that has no relevancy whatsoever to the content of the article because it deals with the actions of individual editors rather than improvements to content.
 * So, I would suggest that those who take exception to the beginning of this conversation either take the proper steps to get their concerns resolved or keep quiet about it! That may sound harsh, but I think it's high time to let go of any personal prejudice any editors have for any other editors, and get back to the business of improving article content, without personal attacks, and without letting our feelings get away from us. That said, once again, I concur fully with the changes that have been proposed and likely implemented, and I urge all of us to get back to the subject of how to improve this article to get it to the GA status CO GDEN  mentioned. I think that's what we all want. Time to get off the sidetracks and back to the business of making this article the best it can be. Who's with me? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly322 would like to offer a Third opinion
An editor will often only leave edit history comments without putting down any talk page commentary, which in many cases is just fine. In this case--after reading the initial comments by User:Taivo and User:Wanderer57 and the commentary that they subsequently generated--I must state that by themselves both comments would certainly appear friendly, on topic, and in good faith. I don't believe Taivo nor Wanderer are new editors, but even if they were calling these talk page comments of theirs absurd would certainly test the patience of the wikipedia guideline WP:BITE. So unless there is an extraordinary history between Taivo/Wander57 and COGDEN/Twunchy, there really was never a good faith justification for User:COGDEN/Twunchy's claim that User:Taivo/User:Wanderer57's comments were absurd. In general, their so-called absurd comments should have been welcomed and praised not disparaged.--Firefly322 (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

--

The absurdity of this whole matter, if you would scroll up the talk page, started when I was doing some basic copyediting (changing NO content) and it was being subject to wholesale reverts because I was "new" to this page, Just FYI in case anyone cares my first edit to this page was quite a while ago...05:56, 24 September 2006 (hist) (diff) m Book of Mormon ‎ (→Similiarities of some segments to the King James Version: request verification of statement). I have been editing on wikipedia for over 3 years and never run into the brick wall that exists as it does here on this article. I have edited on some very controversial pages but never have I seen the establishment of a revert everything first policy that exists here, contrary to the wiki policies of WP:BOLD and the basics of WP:Who writes Wikipedia. The fact is there are some editors here who apparently have their computers wired to an alarm system announcing the breach of the sacrosanct article, and quickly swoop into the article to defend against the intruders (also known as good faith editors, see WP:AGF) who are simply here to clean up the mess this article became.

I don't usually get involved in articles unless I see something missing or see horrible writing. I have been in journalism for 10 years now, working with NBC, CNN and the likes, but since on my talk page I announce my LDS affiliations I am automatically labelled as POV for everything I write and can't be objective. My main focus on wikipedia has been 2 articles: the golden plates and Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the latter of which I only write about because I have constantly interviewed those involved heavily in the ongoing saga there so I'm now a quasi-expert in the religion, and when I looked the article was at least 2 years out of date so I revamped and rewrote most of it. So to say I'm unfamiliar with controversial articles is false.

So imagine my surprise that when I started to condense the lede of this article into something at least palatable I get this warning on my talk page from Wanderer57: "I wonder if you will provide some explanations of your recent edits to the Book of Mormon lead section. Frankly, they seem to me to make it longer but without improving the clarity.  I'm tempted to do some reverts but I think it better to ask." which is fine, I replied with a posting to this page (see above) and then was slapped with a wholesale revert, by Taivo, wasting about a half hour of my time. That to me showed a serious lack of disrespect toward "newcomers" and got to the crux of WP:Bite...I was no newcomer but was presented with hostility from the get-go for this article. So if you look at the language I use it is because I see an extreme case of ownership here violating WP:OWN but no one cares!! Taivo and wanderer57 ganged up on me at first to beat me at the WP:3RR and then proceded to write page after page here on the talk page on "how things are done around here". Honestly I don't care how things are done around here any more...it's against wiki policy and I won't allow it. Heck I'm not even afraid to get kicked off wikipedia because it's that important to me to be able to edit and make something better.

I don't claim to understand the why's and the wherefore's of the history of this page, but the current setup isn't any better than a free-for-all approach (which I am NOT suggesting), because either way the page would stink. What I have suggested is instead of wringing our hands constantly on the talk page over the banalities of semantics after we hit the revert button, LETS JUST EDIT THE PAGE!! Lets just take what someone else did and if you don't like it, but it isn't vandalism, EDIT IT! DON'T REVERT!! FIX WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE!! This isn't the wild west where you shoot first (revert) and ask questions later, FIX IT, FIX IT, FIX IT, FIX IT! EDIT, EDIT, EDIT, EDIT! And for goodness sakes let go of the hair trigger...let something stand on the page for, heck, an hour, read it through, think about how it can be better, etc. Reversion is not the answer! Reversion is for vandalism! So until we can get to that point we will have quite the tension here because I won't back down. I don't need permission to edit, that is granted by the fact that this is an open source encyclopedia, WITH ALL FAULTS. So let's give up those who guard against all intruders and let some people in who care enough about this article to kill the sacred cow process we have created here aka you must write 3 pages of explanations on the talk page FIRST about your edits have them rubber stamped and typed double-spaced in triplicate, notarized by the page owners before your edit will be allowed. This is my rant and it will continue until we can get back to the Wikipedia principles where EVERYONE is welcome to edit here (and then EDITED MERCILESSLY), I invite all to edit anything I add. I am not offended by such. I am offended by being reverted on the spot and then having to explain everything down to its minutae before it's accepted. Twunchy (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If there is this history between you and the other editors and their comments were simply perfunctory statements done to make a WP:POINT, then you would have a case. But I don't think I can help you, but the Mediation cabal or Mediation Committee can.  Don't do anything too rash.  WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are extraordinarily patient, but that patience is a two way street.  Such patience in the processes might seem like wikipedia is a free-for-all, but it's far from it.  Editors routinely get into hot water with WP:ARBCOM, so if you really do have a case try and maintain the moral high ground until other editors can figure out what's really going on here.  Honestly, I don't have the WP:diff's necessary to be certain about what is going on here.  And even if they had been provided, WP:3 is more or less limited to a dispute between two editors.   --Firefly322 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Twunchy, the fact that another outsider, Firefly322 has in essence agreed with what all of us have been saying all along tells us something. We are fine to edit any content you change that we may disagree with. That's altogether well and good. However, you will recall at the beginning of this conversation that it was mentioned by more than just one or two editors that there were sufficient problems in the edits that you made that had the potential to violate WP policy that a wholesale revert was easier than fixing things one by one. Reversion is not just for vandalism. It is also for fixing numerous changes that happened over a certain interval that other editors feel might damage the page. No one is requiring a three page explanation for changes you made. All we have been saying all along is that all of us would like a say and that your unilateral changes eliminated that possibility. You have accused many of claiming "ownership" of this page. But when YOU undertake to tell EVERYONE ELSE HOW to take care of problems that were observed with your edits, you are essentially claiming ownership of the page yourself, thus becoming guilty of what you are accusing everyone else of doing. Tell me, Twunchy, if the talk pages HAVE NOT been established for discussing improvements to articles, just WHAT is their purpose? I will submit you have had lots of WP experience. I don't argue with that. What I and everyone else commenting on this particular topic ARE taking issue with you about is the fact that you are contributing to ridiculing two editors who are following one of the well-established WP policies you claim to know so well. That is not constructive for WP purposes. You and one other editor are the only ones trying to push this kind of propaganda off as a new WP policy. The policies you cited have no connection or relevancy whatsoever to the current issue. If you are pushing WP policy as hard as you say, you should not rise up to ridicule those who follow one WP policy of discussing major changes to the article on the talk page FIRST. It is NEVER a bad thing to discuss first. Even if trivial stuff is discussed, remember: triviality often exists ONLY in the eyes of those who see it as such. Each editor brings a different perspective to WP. The way you see this article and its issues may be a far cry from the way I see this article and its issues, and the same holds true for every editor. Discussion allows EVERYONE to bring their different perspectives together so that ANY WP article may be protected from unilateral revisisions and prevents ANY ONE editor from "claiming ownership" to an article. Again, if you don't like it that way, that's fine, but you have NO RIGHT whatsoever to push your viewpoint on others who are following WP policies that you claim to know so well and claim you are following yourself. That's the plain, unvarnished truth. If it hurts, I apologize. But if you think that all of us are just going to stand by and allow you to portray anti-WP-policy propaganda as being actual WP policy, you've got another think coming. I said this the last time I posted in this topic, and I'll say it again: It's time we get back to the business of improving this article and foregoing the criticism of others. If you have problems with individual editors, there are channels you can take that are in accordance with WP policy. If you DO NOT take those channels, the properly established steps to resolve problems between editors, it just shows an attitude on your part of having no actual, genuine regard for the improvement of this article, and only a desire to be argumentative and debate. That WILL NOT be tolerated on WP, because it is counterproductive to WP purposes, not to mention to the WP policies you claim to embrace but are actually twisting to suit your own agenda. Let's get back to the improvement of this article, and leave this particular line of so-called defense that is actually an argumentative debate until you decide to take the proper steps to get your personal prejudice and vendetta against individual editors resolved, shall we? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't agree with anyone here, except for a superficial observation that had a specific condition, i.e., that unless there is a history, which there does appear to be. This history, involving several editors, is probably far outside the scope of WP:3. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Twunchy, you started a new section below (LDS Renaissance) where you get us ready to discuss the actual text. Why aren't you proposing things there?  Why are you wasting your time and still complaining about the process instead of actually participating in a discussion of the issues below?  I'm waiting to see your proposals below. (Taivo (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Please be patient, unlike the revert button, it actually takes time to create things - perhaps you could give a thought or two and I would be glad to incorporate any ideas. Twunchy (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia generally operates in one of three modes:
 * As a Wiki: This is the mode contemplated in WP:BOLD (a guideline), where one person makes bold edits, a second person doesn't entirely agree with the bold edit, but fixes what they see as the problem, the first person agrees with much of the second person's edit and makes a further tweak, and then the second person agrees that it is good enough for now, until editor three comes along and provides some additional good ideas. This model Wikipedia behavior, which everyone should aspire to.  It is also what generally happens.
 * As a Wiki (secondary model): This mode is contemplated by WP:BRD (which is just an essay, but a good one), and is appropriate when consensus is hard to reach.  It involves one person making a bold edit, a second person disagreeing and reverting, and then having a discussion ensue on the talk page, before editor one makes a (hopefully) revised bold edit taking editor two's concerns into consideration. This is less-than-optimal, but it often works, and gets the job done. But only if editor two is willing to get specific about their particular concerns.  This does not work when an editor just reverts without explanation, or claiming lack of consensus without explaining why.
 * As a club: This mode is described in WP:OWN, and is against Wikipedia policy.  It involves the reversion of bold edits, and a de facto requirement that new substantive submissions be run past a group of interested editors to see if there is prior consensus. If there is consensus, then the edit will be "pre-approved". CO GDEN  20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As a disfunctional family: This mode happens when the article is stuck in a rut of inertia, no edits can be made because everybody thinks that all editors must agree with any edit, and nobody is willing to allow anybody else's edits to exist on the page for longer than 5 minutes, or is willing to build upon the edits of anybody else.  When this occurs, there is often good cause for some sort of dispute resolution.
 * I think for this article, we are on the cusp between #2 and #3. But we can do better--at the very least let's agree to follow #2: nobody is ever required to get "pre-approved" for consensus. If you don't agree with an edit, revert and please explain why (#2). Or better yet, fix the problem you see in the edit (#1). CO GDEN  20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

LDS renaissance
I believe there is a major shortcoming of this article and it's in the fact that we are too stuck on reporting just about the book itself to the exclusion of the profound effect it has had over the 180 years it has been published. The information missing is that the BOM created a rennaissance among believers and non-believers within the sphere of influence. Think of it in terms of today...if someone came out with a totally new book of scripture today declaring extraordinary things...we wouldn't even come close to taking it seriously i.e. Ted Kaczynsky's manifesto or something akin to it in a religions realm.

The fact is that the book created lasting religions (not just the LDS church) with millions of followers, and quite possibly even more detractors. The fact that this information is not there is proof that we aren't doing our jobs here. I'm not talking about a huge expansion because yes there already are articles covering the History of the Latter Day Saint movement etc., but this book was the catalyst for it all. This information is missing and should be created in a new section or added to the head of the "Role of the BOM" sections. Thoughts? Twunchy (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your enthusiasm is clear, Twunchy, but you must also realize that about half of what you wrote in your comment is highly POV. The Book of Mormon is a sacred book for one religious tradition.  That's the perspective you must approach this from.  Even if to you it is the sacred book of sacred books with a special place, you cannot write from that perspective.  I would actually argue that from a historical perspective, the Book of Mormon has a piece of the responsibility for the foundation of LDS movement, but that there are other more important factors to its expansion.  It may have been the first step, but subsequent steps were more important in making the LDS movement a worldwide faith--the missionary effort, Smith's own marketing skills, polygamy and the D&C, the establishment of isolated communities, the move to Utah (free land), Young's theocracy, etc.  This is an encyclopedia, we are stuck with reporting the facts.  That is the function here--not proselytizing, but reporting.  So what are your suggested additions?  (Taivo (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Twunchy, I think we can certainly do much better to address that topic, and we need to do this to achieve GA status. Given the large amount of material that has been written about the Book of Mormon, this article, in the end, is only going to be a summary article. But it should address all the important points, including the 180 years of secondary materials written about the book.  In fact, the secondary materials give us a clue as to what prominence to give the sub-points of the article.  No one topic should be given undue prominence, but all should be at least touched on.  The article should also be balanced, so that (as per WP:UNDUE) different POVs are given prominence in proportion to their prominence in the field, as reflected in the secondary literature. Since the historicity issue is the hottest topic of both apologists and critics alike, and has been for a few decades now, it should be given greater prominence than it has. CO GDEN  23:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Plates
Re this paragraph:

"Joseph Smith's first published description of the plates said that the plates "had the appearance of gold", and were described by Martin Harris, one of Smith's early scribes, to be "fastened together in the shape of a book by wires".[7] The writing on the plates was described to be engraved in a language Smith called Reformed Egyptian,[8] and a portion of the plates was also "sealed", and therefore untranslated.[9]"

IMO the first sentence of this is appropriate to the article on the Plates themselves, but is too much detail here. I think the same about the part about a portion of the plates being sealed.

The only remaining part of the paragraph is about the characters being Reformed Egyptian, and this is covered in the lead section.

It seem to me therefore that the appropriate edit for this paragraph is to delete it. Are there any reasons not to do so? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Two sentences to describe the source of the Book of Mormon is not excessive, nor too much detail. I purposely kept it quite brief...the description in the Golden Plates article is 4 sections and many paragraphs each.  It is a very basic description of the golden plates, and since we are referring to them would it not be best to give a brief description? The purpose of this article is not to defer to other more detailed articles to the exclusion of any details whatsoever in the main article. Twunchy (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate that the paragraph is relatively short.


 * To me, the only thing that the phrase "having the appearance of gold" does (compared to simply calling them "golden plates") is to suggest the possibility they were NOT REAL GOLD. Personally, I don't think the issue of whether these plates were actually gold or some "gold-colored" metal is important here. Or anywhere else, come to think of it.


 * I can buy your point of including the description by Martin Harris of plates "fastened together in the shape of a book by wires". It is certainly an interesting detail. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So much can be said about the golden plates, and has been said in the golden plates article, but I think we need to very briefly summarize what is in that article, just hitting all the main points as briefly as possible. I think it does a pretty good job: paragraph 1 is about how Smith obtained the plates, 2 and 3 could be combined and streamlined, and I don't think we should single-out Harris' description, which is just one of many, sometimes conflicting descriptions--maybe we ought to just say exactly that, (that there are several, sometimes conflicting descriptions). And then 4 is good, but probably ought to include something about the translation process. The final paragraph ought to be beefed-up, to ensure that the material on Origin of the Book of Mormon is briefly summarized. CO GDEN  10:45, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My two cents about "the translation process". Yes, Smith and the "holy stones" (or "divine spectacles") is a part of the tale, but including it here in a manner that is both accurate and understandable would include, IMHO, more verbage than it deserves.  Does the reader of this article, who may or may not know anything about either the BOM or Mormonism (or care very much), really need to know the details of the Urim and Thummim?  If the account is shortened too much, it sounds kind of trivial and even a little bit silly ("He looked in the rocks and read out the translation").  I'm not a member, so I think the whole account does sound a little silly anyway, but I'm just afraid that it almost trivializes the subject to put it here in any kind of abbreviated form.  I'd like to keep this article as respectful as possible and leave the Urim and Thummim to the Origin article or the Golden Plates article where it can be treated in the detail that it deserves without trivializing it. Or perhaps I'm being a little overprotective because I'm trying to keep my own POV out of it.  (Taivo (talk) 14:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I think it can be presented in a neutral way, if we just stick to what there is a scholarly consensus about, something like:
 * The translation process involved Smith placing a seer stone or stones in a top hat while he dictated the words of the book to a scribe, usually in the scribe's view.
 * I don't think it has to be any more detailed than that. And while many Mormons are not aware of this fact, no modern Mormon scholar, be they devout Mormon or anti-Mormon, would disagree. CO GDEN  16:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the LDS editors don't mind adding that, I can live with it. It's factual, but as a non-LDS reader I know how it sounds. (Taivo (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I may not be a typical LDS editor, but I don't see any problem with how it sounds. But in any event, the main issue is that it is factual, and there is a scholarly consensus on this point. CO GDEN  17:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) One's religious affiliation has little to do with it and being a LDS does not equate to any degree of neutrality (pro or con: Mormons can be some of the greatest antagonists and most virulent zealots). As always my issue is that it narrowly presents one method of translation and who said what and who did not say anything. As we have talked numerous times before. The translation process used the Urim and Thummim, the stone(s), and nothing at all. The discussion should include all the methods and not the leading statement of anti-Mormon literature. We all can write in such a way as to make anyone look foolish, Jesus himself included, and then we can just report reputable facts. -- Storm  Rider  17:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Quoting from earlier in the section: "The translation process involved Smith placing a seer stone or stones in a top hat while he dictated the words of the book to a scribe, usually in the scribe's view."
 * This is said to be "a factual statement". By this, do people mean the statement is unquestionably true, or merely that it is a specific statement as contrasted with a vague one?
 * This is said to be the "consensus of all modern Mormon scholars". Considering the amount of disagreement that goes around generally, I am skeptical when I hear about such a remarkable level of agreement.
 * As to how the statement "sounds", IMO it might explain the origin of the expression "talking through his hat."
 * Wanderer57 (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also curious about what exactly is "factual" about the use of the stones. The top hat story sounds a little more like anti-Mormon ridicule.  And the engraving that is now attached to this article clearly shows Moroni handing Smith a pair of spectacles. (Taivo (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC))

Now to a point of substance, albeit minor...
I propose that in the "Origins of the BOM" section that the "main article" and "See also" sections be swapped. Currently the "main article" is the Origin of the Book of Mormon article. I think it would be better served that the Golden Plates be the main article to point to for the bulk of information regarding the origin of (or at least the origin of the story of) the Book of Mormon. The Origins article is more akin to a speculative/objective approach to the authenticity (or authenticity of the origin) rather than the "origin" of the BOM, which is stated by the author to be the Golden Plates. At worst the golden plates is the cover story for the "fraud" of the BOM or at best it is the true origin depending on the POV. The golden plates article covers all of this in a better narrative than the "main article" that it is now pointing to. Just my 2 cents though. Twunchy (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see your point, but I disagree. The Golden Plates article is part of the Origin story, but not the whole thing.  The Origins story includes the entire "Origin Narrative", not just the plates.  The "Plates Narrative" is a subset of the larger Origin Narrative.  The Origin Narrative includes Moroni and the vision, the plates, the "translation" process, the missing pages scandal, and the publication.  The Plates Narrative includes, well, mostly just the plates.  The longer, more inclusive article should be the main (first) reference, and the shorter, more detailed article should follow.  (Taivo (talk) 23:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC))
 * So how about Co-Main articles and eliminate the see also, you mention length of articles etc. but in fact the Golden plates page is nearly twice as long and quite a bit more detailed than the Origins page. Twunchy (talk) 23:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting that the Origins page is shorter than the Golden Plates page. The reverse would be the logical assumption.  But "co-main" references is fine.  (Taivo (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
 * A lot more has been written specifically about the golden plates than about alternate origin theories (e.g., the Spaulding theory and the Brodie theory), so it's not surprising that the golden plates article is longer. Golden plates is a subset of Origins, but I think co-main is most appropriate here. CO GDEN  10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

✅ Twunchy (talk) 15:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions re first paragraph of Origin section.
"At 17 years of age Joseph Smith Jr. said that an angel of God, named Moroni, appeared to him[3] and told him that a collection of ancient writings, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets, was buried in a nearby hill called Cumorah in Wayne County, New York. "


 * Ambiguous beginning. Was Joseph 17 when the angel appeared, or 17 when he told people about it, or both?


 * What is the difference between an angel and an angel of God? Is it important to specify "of God"?


 * When was the hill first referred to as Cumorah?

"This ancient record is believed to describe a people whom God had led from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere 600 years before Jesus’ birth. "


 * That must have been quite a trip. Do Latter Day Saints have a belief about how they travelled? (I'm not suggesting that the mode of travel should be included here. Just wondering.)

"According to the narrative, Moroni was the last prophet among these people and had buried the record, which God had promised to bring forth in the latter days."


 * I expect that "the latter days" has a generally understood meaning to Latter Day Saints. However, I do not think it does to the broad range of encyclopedia readers. IMO, this makes it inappropriate to use here, unless there is an explanation or a link to an explanation.

"Smith stated that he was instructed by Moroni to meet at the hill annually each September 22 to receive further instructions and that four years after the initial visit, in 1827, he was allowed to take the plates and was directed to translate them into English.[4]"


 * How about "to meet him at the hill each September 22"? IMO, given the wording "each September 22", it is unnecessary to say "annually".


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I question the value of including the photo of the model of the Golden Plates. Frankly, to me it looks much like a model of a modern three ring binder. I think this makes it amusing rather than evocative of something created by angels.


 * See this link for example []


 * Wanderer57 (talk) 17:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think the best image for the Origins section is the main image on the golden plates page, which depicts Moroni giving the plates to Smith. That image has a lot of information content, which I think is always good. CO GDEN  18:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree, I removed the picture. Should it be included later in the article? -- Storm  Rider  18:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO the same concern would apply no matter where in the article the image was placed. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with Wanderer on this. My very first thought when I saw the image was "Did they get those D-rings at Office Max or Staples?" (Taivo (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I added the image from the golden plates article, with an appropriate heading. This also has the advantage of showing other Book of Mormon artifacts such as the sword of Laban; unfortunately, it does not show the Liahona, which some witnesses heard Smith say was also in the box. CO GDEN  16:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also removing the other painting of Moroni giving the plates to Smith. I don't think we need two of them, and the other one is in the wrong section anyway, and does not have as much information content. CO GDEN  16:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Slaying laban and violence/war
I removed the folowing text for the article:
 * "The book also, however, justifies the beheading of an unarmed, unconscious man when the killing was said to be commanded by the Holy Spirit.

This is a bit WP:OR, twists the use of references, uses primary references in an unacceptable manner; should I go on? COgden, you added this. Please tell us what Nephi's reaction was to the command of the Spirit? How many times did he reject the prompting of the Spirit? What was the exact reason that it was allowed? Is this text about obedience to God or violence?

This is a joke and you know it! You are seeking sensationalism, but you left out the most important parts of the story. Is it appropriate to tell just the stories of incest in the Old Testament without the rest of the story? How about discussing the nature of God by just focusing on the destruction of the world by flood or by destroying the two poor, defenseless cities, Sodom and Gomorrah? This is the type of shoddy writing that is unacceptable because it parades as being referenced, but the reference does not support the conclusion being drawn. What is needed is a reference that LDS use the verse to support killing unconscious people. This disgusts me.-- Storm  Rider  07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Teachings and political theology and POV tag
I worked on this section tonight, but it was so frustrating that I could not finish the gross amount of rewriting that is necessary. I almost deleted the last parts of the section, but chose to just add the tag. First of all, the use of primary sources to prove a deduction is not acceptable. Second, either someone does not have a clue about the meanings of the scriptures cited or they are being purposefully deceitful. I suspect it is the result of a total lack of understanding of LDS scripture; and COgden, you have always claimed to be a LDS. Third, what is needed is for a reputable source to be used to support the statements being made; or that interpret the scriptures like COgden has written the text currently. -- Storm  Rider  07:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Too Many Links to Text of BOM
Lihaas has a point--there were too many links to too many copies of the BOM. I have cut down these links to one for on-line LDS edition, one for on-line Community of Christ edition, one for getting an audio version, one for getting a text version, and one for the 1830 edition. That covers the spectrum. The rest of the old links simply duplicated this selection. There were three links that included commentary with the text. That should not be in a section labelled "online editions" since the text is the same as the LDS online text. (Taivo (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC))
 * I moved them into a subsection in the external links section because, well, they're "external links."
 * In turn I also removed the LDS version b/c there already is one in the external links.
 * I removed "Book of Mormon - Guide to the Scriptures" because WP:EL states "try to avoid separate links to multiple pages in the same website; instead, try to find an appropriate linking page within the site."
 * and the free bible link for 2 reasons: 1. the edition is already published and 2. Links mainly intended to promote a website (ie- those issuing the book) Lihaas (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moroni's promise
Re this edit:

CHANGE

It promises that God will give them an undeniable sign of its truthfulness.

TO

It promises that God will "manifest the truth of it unto them."

Why are the words "undeniable" and "sign" problematic, and how does it help understanding by a reader who is not LDS to quote the somewhat archaic language of the Book?

Wanderer57 (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the original language was excessive as well. How about just "God will show them the truth of it"?  That's what the text actually says, there's nothing about an "undeniable sign" in that language.  (Taivo (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC))

OK... first, the word "sign": To many religious people there is a significant difference between a witness or testimony and a sign. A witness is what the LDS believe is offered by Moroni's Promise. A sign is at best something that encourages people to gain a witness. It may also strengthen a witness that one already has. At worst it is the object of the passage "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign."

As for either a witness or a sign being "undeniable"... to use a clever bit of phrasing, it may be questioned whether it may be questioned. In other words, that which some consider undeniable, others (who may be more skilled in denial) may consider unbelievable. Personally, I consider my witness undeniable to me, but people who don't have their own sometimes deny mine quite easily. And signs, which are less powerful than witnesses, are denied (or rationalized away) even more easily.

As for my quote, I didn't know "manifest" was considered archaic. Perhaps some of this language from the introduction of the Book of Mormon will be more helpful:"We invite all men everywhere to read the Book of Mormon, to ponder in their hearts the message it contains, and then to ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ if the book is true. Those who pursue this course and ask in faith will gain a testimony of its truth and divinity by the power of the Holy Ghost. (See Moroni 10: 3-5.)"Hope this helps in some way.Adamrmonteith (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Adam. I now appreciate much better the background that makes "undeniable sign" an inadequate way of expressing the promise. Having said that, I suspect that few readers will bring this sort of background to the article. Of course I may be way off base. It has happened before.


 * As for "archaic", it was not the word manifest that caused me to so label that wording. I think manifest is a fine word. It was the turn of phrase as a whole and the word "unto" which brought "archaic" to my mind.


 * It's good to talk about this with you, Wanderer57 (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Role within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
What does the It in the sentence refer to "It promises that God will show them the truth of the book. This passage is referred to as Moroni's Promise"

From the passage: "The LDS Church placing particular emphasis on one passage in the final chapter which invites readers to make a personal investigation into its truthfulness, proposes that anyone who wants to know if the message of the Book of Mormon is true should ask God. It promises that God will show them the truth of the book. This passage is referred to as Moroni's Promise"

Not sure if its church or book. Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The promise is in the Book. The link given after "Moroni's Promise" in the article leads to the passage containing the promise. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

An alternative wording could be:
 * The LDS Church places particular emphasis on a passage in the book of Moroni, which invites readers to read, ponder, and pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon and promises that God will answer. This passage is known as Moroni's Promise. If readers will "ask in faith," then the promise indicates the Holy Ghost will "manifest the truth of it unto you."

Providing the link to the reader, adding quotes, would seem to make this pretty clear to the average reader. -- Storm  Rider  20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all too complex. I simplified it right down to its essence:  "The LDS Church places particular emphasis on one passage in the final chapter which says that anyone who wants to know if the message of the Book of Mormon is true should ask God and he will show them the truth of the book. This passage is referred to as Moroni's Promise."

Point of View Notice
I have removed this notice from the article:

 

This is to explain why.

Since the notice directs people to the Talk page for a discussion of the concern that the article is "point of view", and since the editor who placed the notice neglected to begin a discussion section on the Talk page, we are in the unfortunate position of having a POV notice but nothing to indicate what the concern is.

I have therefore removed the notice. I expect the editor who placed the notice will place it again, with a suitable level of explanation of his or her reasoning. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I put it there when the last "edit war" was fast and furious and didn't seem to be getting anywhere because of the POV pushing. The issues have since been worked out so the removal is appropriate. (Taivo (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Oh, I guess I didn't put the most recent one there. LOL.  I know I have put one there in the past, but I guess it got removed at some point without me noticing it.  (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
 * (The most recent notice was placed on Sep. 17. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

Link removed
I have removed a newly-added link from the Origin of the Book of Mormon section. It was the second link in this sentence:

"At 17 years of age Joseph Smith Jr. said that an angel of God, named Moroni, appeared to him and told him that a collection of ancient writings, engraved on golden plates by ancient prophets, was buried in a nearby hill which the book called Cumorah in Wayne County, New York."

My reason for doing so is that the verses linked did not seem to me especially relevant to the above sentence. The chief points in those verses are Joseph Smith's mental attitude and sense of persecution, and the "appearance" of the angel Moroni, especially the extraordinary whiteness of the angel's garment.

I am not saying these verses are irrelevant, just that they are not (IMO) relevant enough to warrant inclusion.

It would assist in understanding edits if edit summaries were provided. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The illustration included in the Origin section shows the angel in a dark garment, not at all white. Perhaps we should show instead the painting of the angel and Smith in a hillside, where the angel's garb is glowing white.


 * Not to mention that the statue of Moroni atop the Salt Lake Temple has no beard. (Taivo (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC))

Doctrinal and philosophical teachings
I have not looked at this article much recently. When I compare the current section "Doctrinal and philosophical teachings" to the section "Some Doctrinal Teachings" that was present at the beginning of this year I am frankly appalled.

I think there are several problems in the current section.


 * 1) Confusing material is raised.
 * 2) Relatively unimportant issues are raised, in a level of detail not warranted in a general article.  I hasten to make it clear that I am NOT saying these issues are unimportant to Latter Day Saints (though I wonder about that point.) I'm saying that IMO they are of tertiary or even lower importance to Wikipedia readers interested in obtaining a basic level introduction to the Book of Mormon. As a second example, we include details of esoteric points of prophesies regarding Jesus.
 * 3) Much of the language is not in modern English, in which the English Wikipedia is supposed to be written in the twenty-first Century.  It is too much in quotations in archaic language.  This makes the article unreadable except to students of the Book of Mormon, who surely are not the primary target audience, as they will generally have other sources to which they can turn.

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Seventeen years old
I made a slight rework because, as I understand it, Smith did not make the claim when he was seventeen that Moroni had spoken to him; he later made the claim that Moroni had spoken to him when he was seventeen. Sorry if I misunderstood that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

"Researched" DNA Evidence
Some types of evidence are evident without "research". (For example, a smoking gun, blood on the butler's shirt, a horse in the bathtub.)

However, DNA evidence must be "researched". Unless a highly technical lab analysis is performed, a person in the possession of "DNA evidence" would not necessarily even know that it was DNA, much less know its significance.

Saying "researched DNA evidence" instead of "DNA evidence" implies that there is some DNA evidence of genetic linkage between ancient Hebrew people and people of the Americas, but that no scientist has yet gotten around to analysing it. In other words, in this context "researched" is a "weasel word". IMO.

I have taken out the word "researched" for this reason. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is not the way I read it. To me you have the scholarly opinion by researchers who have concluded that in there opinion there is no evidence to support the DNA linkage. However, there are other scholars who disagree with their conclusions and research.


 * Stating "DNA evidence" is POV; it makes a definitive conclusion on a point or topic what is still debated. I will clarify the wording so that it reflects this inconclusive position. -- Storm  Rider  17:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have edited the section; I did not realize that it had gotten so out of whack. There is not a scholar alive that can support a categorical, abosolute conclusion about DNA, languages, etc. We need to do better on edit review to limit this type of writing.-- Storm  Rider  17:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Regarding the wording: "Two genetic researchers have stated that there is an absence of mitochondrial DNA evidence linking Native Americans with descendants of Israel", it seems to me this wording suggests that this is a minority opinion.  I.e., only two?


 * Also I fear that adding the word mitochondrial further muddies the waters. It suggests the possibility that though there is no "mitochondrial DNA evidence", there might be other "non-mitochondrial" evidence. My understanding is that given the technologies now available, the only possible type of DNA evidence in this situation is mitochondrial.


 * If the two researchers based their conclusion on (say) an extensive review of the literature, a better wording might be "In an extensive review of the literature, two genetic researchers found no DNA evidence linking Native Americans with descendants of ancient Israel". Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wanderer you are looking for language that is not supported by references. If you have references that say something different, please present them. Wikipedia does not accept writing language that is not supported by references. Do you know of more than two researchers cited? There is not a great body of work to investigate; I am only aware of two researchers that have written about their findings and it is "their" findings. Do you know of more than just the mitochondrial DNA research? No one is standing in your way, but you cannot introduce a statement that is not supported by references. This is very basic Wikipedia NPOV policy. -- Storm  Rider  19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East. We don't have to say "researched" for the reasons given above by Wanderer.  This is just weaselly to try to modify that statement.  Just as there is no evidence that the Earth is flat.  The mitochondrial DNA article is just a sample of DNA articles which deal with Native Americans, absolutely none of which link Native America with the ancient Near East.  We only need detailed references if there is some debate on the issue, just as with a flat versus round Earth.  But no DNA researcher on Native America has found any link.  "No evidence" is the default position in this issue, it doesn't need to be "proven".  Only if you can come up with a DNA study (not just "the BOM doesn't rule out....") that links the two regions, does a detailed list of references become relevant.  Just as we don't need to have a detailed list of references for the extinction of horses in N.A. at the end of the Pleistocene, we don't need a detailed list of references for this statement.  "No link" is the default scientific position.  (Taivo (talk) 21:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC))

Anachronisms
Hi again StormRider. You reverted my perfectly legitimate edit, so I'll explain why it's legitimate. The anachronisms refer to more than just "some animals"; there are anachronistic plants, crop systems, technologies, weapons and other things. They are all detailed in Historicity of the Book of Mormon. Saying it is only "some animals" hugely misrepresents the case. When I wrote "See Historicity of the Book of Mormon" for references, I didn't mean that the article was the reference. I meant it contained the references. Since there are references there for each of the anachronisms, twenty or so I believe, I didn't want to reproduce them all here. I think it's not unreasonable to expect a reader to go to another article for the detailed references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * References cannot be other Wikipedia articles. Since the article was already at the top of the section; it serves no purpose. If you want to provide a single reference for your statement that is acceptable. I would also suggest deleting the babble of the reference that currently exists. I am not disagreeing with your edit, per se, but in the manner it is supported it becomes unacceptable. You know the value of proper references; why are you trying to slide on this point? Stop being silly. If you want to say something, provide the reference and move on. -- Storm  Rider  19:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Enough with the insults. I told you what my edit meant and you are chosing to ignore it. How would you suggest I supported a statement like that? You know as well as I do that those references exist and are in Historicity of the Book of Mormon - do you want me to copy them all over? Or do you want me to make the statement without a reference? If so will you personally be responsible for reverting anyone who deletes the statement through lack of references? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * StormRider, you also deleted a perfectly good reference to the extinction of horses and replaced it with a fact tag! That's bordering on vandalism. What are you playing at? You're supposed to be better than this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * On Wikipedia we use a uniform method of requiring references. What is required is a reference for the statement being made. What existed was language that was supported by a reference. You seek to expand the statement to include many things. I support that, but I don't have a reference to support the statement you have written; do you? What would you suggest to someone else that is writting a statement not supported by a reference? Do you think it would be acceptable for me to write an article that is unreferenced?
 * Come on DJ, I am not trying to insult you or make you angry. Let's just review the other article and see if we can find a single reference that uses the inclusive language that you are looking for and put it here in this article. What we are really trying to get readers to do is see the other article where this topic is addressed in detail. Right? -- Storm  Rider  19:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's absolutely what we're trying to do. What was wrong with saying "See Historicity of the Book of Mormon for detailed references"? As I said, I'm open to other suggestions. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that is not a reference. Please reread policy. The objective is not to frustrate you or make you angry, but you can't just dream up new ways of doing things and demand that others accept edits that have already been decided by Wikipedia to be unacceptable. -- Storm  Rider  19:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not helpful when you say "we can't do it that way" but don't come up with a suggested way of doing it. There is no indication that "Wikipedia" has decided that this is unacceptable, just you.DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's core policy at WP:V, every edit has to backed by a reliable third party source. Wikipedia is not a reliable third party source and most people don't consider it reliable, so providing the link to the historicity page is not adequate according to wiki-policy. Wrad (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I just spent some time at other articles trying to come up with a reference for your current edit; I could find nothing that supports the statement. However, I did add a fact statement to another one of these broad statements. They have been supported by an article entitled, ""Does Archaeology support the Book of Mormon"; however, the problem is that I could not find through Google. I did find a pamplet by that name for sale by an religious web site, IRR.org. I doubt that is really the kind of scholarly resource capable of making these kind of claims.

What we need is a archaeologist that has made a broad statement that you like or that at least fits your objective. Have you looked at the other articles; maybe you will find something that I missed or that meets your needs.

Are you saying that you need me to cite the policy that says Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for other Wikipedia articles? -- Storm  Rider  20:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're being deliberately and unhelpfully legalistic, StormRider. The references are there, in Historicity of the Book of Mormon, and my edits were designed to point this out. You are choosing to apply policy in a ridiculously nitpicking way simply to try and get rid of a statement you don't like. Please remember that policy is not the final arbiter. My edits unquestionably are more accurate than the previous version, and your game-playing will not change that.
 * Two other options are available: pick one. a) we copy all twenty or so references over from Historicity of the Book of Mormon. While I'm about it I may as well copy the entire, detailed list of BoM anachronisms. b) We simply say that this is a summary section (which it is). Summary sections don't have to be referenced if their main articles are well referenced. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Summary sections most definitely do need to be referenced. The best option is none of the above. We need a summary section with carefully-chosen references. Wrad (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * IMO phrases like "being silly", "deliberately and unhelpfully legalistic", "ridiculously nitpicking" and "get rid of a statement you don't like" are focussed too much on the motives and personalities of other editors. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point DJ, I could not care less what you do. I notice you did not answer a single question of mine from above. I follow the same standards that are demanded by every other editor. What I have done is make the language in the article fit the reference. You want more expansive language for which I have requested a reference. Either provide it or not. Your choice. I did not find a single reference inn the Historicity article that supports your language; I assume that you did not also or you would have added it.
 * The objective is to write an article that will not be attacked by future editors. If that is not the result, then we are wasting our time. -- Storm  Rider  20:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, let's do this the hard way. It conforms to all the policies, but isn't as good as what was there before. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Storm Rider, but DJ is NOT referring to Wikipedia as a source when he says "see Historicity for references". Referring to Wikipedia as a source would be something like "Historicity states that X, Y, Z".  Listing detailed third-party sources in another article and then specifically referring the reader to that other article for third-party sources is NOT a violation of Wikipedia policy.  Indeed, you will see an example of this elsewhere in the article where "Reformed Egyptian" is discussed and the reader is referred to the Wikipedia article for a detailed list of references. (Taivo (talk) 21:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC))
 * It most definitely is a case of using wikipedia as a source. Show me a featured article that does that. You wouldn't even make GA with a stunt like that. It's cheap and it shows a lack of respect for the reader. Wrad (talk) 21:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are wrong. The reference is not to another article, but to the references in another article.  It is economical and reasonable to prevent overduplication of effort.  (Taivo (talk) 02:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC))
 * It's very irresponsible to tell people to go to a whole different article for references. Once again, show me an FA article that does that. If you tried to pull that at FAC you would get laughed off the page. Wrad (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not irresponsible to ask people who want more detail to go to another page. This is a summary page, not a full-blown discussion of every single issue involved.  If people want a complete set of references they should expect to go to a detail article and not get everything on the summary page.  This is exactly what good researchers expect to do.  They start on a general topic, then expect to go to a more detailed page for the details.  If you want everything here, then there is no point to the detailed articles and this article grows exponentially.  But that is exactly what the editors of this page do not want to happen.  We have discussed this before and come to a consensus that the detail articles are the places for the details and this is the place for the summary. (Taivo (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

(new indent) Hello Taivo, good to have you and Wrad join the conversation. There are several things wrong with the principle of making controversial statements without providing references and only referring to another article. In this specific case the only evidence provided for the statement is the following:
 * "The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies that are currently thought not to have existed in pre-Columbian America. These include  asses, cattle, milk, horses, oxen, sheep, swine, goats, elephants, wheat, barley, figs, grapes, silk, steel, bellows, brass, breast plates, chains, copper, iron, mining ore, plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots . The Smithsonian Institute has stated that "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus." "

Within this statement the only reference to support the claim they did not exist is the Smithsonian statement. The problem with that is that all the Smithsonian says is: "none of the principal food plants and domestic animals of the Old World (except the dog) were present in the New World before Columbus". So what we have is a single statement from a museum without any qualification for the writer of the letter, no knowledge of their expertise or qualifications to make the statement, and the statement is so broad what is not included in it? No principle food plants...does that include wheat? How about oats? Are lettuce and green beans included? How about potatoes? Who has defined for the reader what was Old World food stuffs and New World food stuffs?

The only acceptable reference is the reference about the horse. It is not suprising that that is the way I chose to write the sentence in this article, but DJ rejects that statement for a more encompassing statement; however, no reference provided yet supports the statement.

Just referring to another article hides the responsibility for providing verifiable resources for statements made. Should all editors be allowed to write whatever they want and just refer to another article? Does the other article have to support the claim? In this instance we are relying on an article that makes the same claims, but does not support the claim with an acceptable reference. It is no referencing relying on poor referencing.

Let me make this clear...I am not concerned about what is written, but I am adamant that statements be supported by verifiable sources from qualified third parties. The only way to control this is for all controversial statements to only state what can be supported by sources. What is the problem with only writing what can be supported by sources? What policy allows for this type of writing? -- Storm  Rider  16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and trasferring garbage in and thinking you have provided references does not come close. QUESTION: WHAT REFERENCES ARE BEING PROVIDED? Yes, children I am screaming now because no one is attempting to provide references made. Taivo and DJ are relying on another article without asking yourselves if the article is providing sources. What you have done is properly state what the Book of Mormonn says, but only acceptable references is the one on horses. Geez, why is this so difficult. We are not talking complicated policies here. Either provide the reference for statments made or stop making the stupid edit! -- Storm  Rider  16:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some sympathy with Taivo here; the difficulty with compiling an objective assessment of the historical claims in the Book of Mormon is that these claims have been considered by very few reliable sources outside the Mormon community. That of course does not imply acceptance of these claims; quite the opposite. There is a similar difficulty in articles presenting fringe scientific claims, and WP:FRINGE therefore allows a more liberal approach to sources than is usually the case. That should be the approach here LeContexte (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how wp:fringe applies at all here. Would you please quote the exact line that tells us that references do not need to be directly placed into this article? I don't see it, frankly. I see the opposite. Wrad (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So fringe should apply to religious topics. I can buy that. When does it become fringe? Is it applicable to the 4th largest Christian domination in the US? Conversely, is it more applicable to the everything that is not in the top 100 largest Christian churches in the US? Where are you drawing the line? Also, are you saying that we can make any controversial statement we desire if we think something is fringe? Just so we understand each other, you and I get to choose what is fringe and what is not, correct?
 * Also, just to be clear if you answered yes to the question, you and I have a major problem. In fact, you and Wikipedia have a major problem. What we can say on Wikipedia is anything that is supported by reputable sources. We cannot put Wikipedia in the position of statement what is factual or what is true or what is not factual or what is not true; those are bedrock principles for all articles. We don't get to bend or completely warp them out of all recognition for topics in which we have a particular interest, love, hate, passion, etc. If you have a reference, provide it; if you do not, please don't edit. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A religious denomination can be mainstream, with millions of follows, but its scientific or historical claims fringe - indeed WP:FRINGE specifically mentions creationism. Please note that I was not saying that references are not required, but that, as WP:FRINGE states a different standard of references applies when assessing fringe scientific claims. LeContexte (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that fringe policy would also demand that everything in the article be suitably referenced within the article itself. Basically the same thing we've been saying this whole time. Wrad (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is how Fringe applies. The BOM makes scientific/historical statements that are nonscientific/unhistorical, just as the Bible does.  The scientific/historical evidence virtually universally contradicts the religious documents in these matters.  The Bible says that the earth is flat, but there is no need to present "references" to say otherwise in the article on the Bible because the evidence is universally opposed to that.  What you are demanding here is a set of negative references for what is axiomatic information in the scientific/historical community.  You are asking for scientific references that unequivocally state, "The earth is not flat."  It is a subtle way to put forward the LDS POV that "science just hasn't yet proven that the BOM is true."  It is putting a book of faith forward as a book of science or history, just as fundamentalist Christians put forward the Bible as a literal book of history and science.  This is highly POV.  It is exactly equivalent to demanding references from scientists that say literally that "the world was not created in six days".  You won't find such literal references.  When you demand proof of "majority" or "none", that is what you are demanding--proof that a majority of scientists have written, "the world was not created in six days".  No DNA geneticist has ever found a link between the ancient Near East and pre-Columbian America.  They also haven't found links with subsaharan Africa or Australia.  They don't need to write this because it is axiomatic--there are no population inputs from those regions so unless DNA evidence is actually found linking them there is no need to say it.  The POV of the BOM is Fringe for science and history just as the Bible is Fringe for science and pre-Davidic history.  Unless there is actual hard evidence that unambiguously supports the BOM in these issues, no one is even going to mention them in a science or history text any more than it will specifically state that "There is no African DNA component in the native Australian genome".  Perhaps this whole section should be removed since the question of historical/scientific accuracy is irrelevant for a book of faith.  Books of faith are, by definition, not scientific/historical documents.  (Taivo (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC))


 * As far as the referencing issue goes, I still contend that a summary article that refers to sub-articles, should not be overloaded with all the references that can be found in the subarticles. Otherwise, what is the point of the subarticles?  Just make this article 20 pages long and remove the subarticles. (Taivo (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I am not sure we are disagreeing with one another; however, I am not sure we agree either. I don't think Fringe applies here. There is no comparison between the earth is flat and whether some food stuffs were eaten in the Americas in pre-Columbian times. One is throughly researched and the other simply has fewer areas of research.
 * I don't think we should delete the section because I personally think there are some problems that should be identified; horses being a prime example. The point upon which I continue to stand is that editors just don't make up crap and get to say it. Editors need references for statements. If you don't have references, don't make the bloody statement. The sub-article that DJ wants to refer does not even support this current statement. Both articles need to be improved and reputable references need to be supplied for both. What has taken place in both articles is pure OR and opinion. Just because DJ agrees with the POV does not mean is it acceptable. It is not acceptable for any article. Why are we even discussing this point? What am I missing? When did any of us accept that no references are necessary? -- Storm  Rider  21:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

References question
I went in search of some guidance regarding the above discussion. My question and the answer I was given are HERE.

I hope this is helpful. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have now added references that cover the entire range of animals, plants, metals, and technologies that are in the BOM and not in precolumbian America. (Taivo (talk) 04:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Historicity Again
Storm Rider, I reverted that long, barely referenced rant in Historicity. The section you added sounded much more like a defensive knee jerk. Look at the way that the issues are addressed in the list already--a simple sentence in the footnote to each item (as follows the DNA statement, for example). If there are specific items that you think should not be in the list of anachronisms (for example, figs), then we can delete that item specifically. Mention it here and then we can prune the list. I'm not opposed to eliminating items from this list, but arguing the issue the way you did doesn't really fit the style and tenor of the article. It "felt" much more argumentative than informative. We should (as we have in the past) argue on this page, hammer out the issues, and then edit the article in the direction we mutually feel it should go. (Taivo (talk) 11:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC))
 * Take a look at Bible. That is an appropriately written section dealing with similar issues.  Although the Bible is a much more complex document than the BOM, it shows that the different POVs can be reported in a very neutral and balanced manner.  You can also look at Qur'an for a much more minimalistic approach, although there is much less purported history and science in the Qur'an than there is in either the Bible or the BOM. (Taivo (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

When the shoe is on the other foot, it seems like things change. You, nor any other editor, wanted to debate language on this page, you simply reverted and added language. No consensus was met, no discussion of acceptable references was provided, nothing.

I believe what I added was all supported by referenced statements. If you have a problem with the references, please identify them or add fact tags. However, what is not acceptable is to delete referenced statements simply because you do not approve of the tone. Tone is important; but you do not censor a document simply because you don't like the tone. Edit the article or propose changes if you think your proposed edit may go too far.

Argumentative? Probably so. The whole argument for this part of the section hangs on a article from the Smithsonian. None of you responded to my questions about the source; it was simply used carte blanc. When I researched this, not to my surprise but only anti-Mormon websites used to silliness and waved it about like the end-all. No thought to verify. Then when I seek to verify, what is the first thing I find...it is common knowledge that barley has been acknowledged as being pre-Columbian since 1983. So what we have allowed for months, if not years, is lying to readers about the reality of what did and did not exist in the Americas during the time of Book of Mormon.

Are there problems with animals and plants in the Book of Mormon? I think so. How about writing something that is backed up by current science rather than some screed that is only found on anti-Mormon websites? Let's not be a parrot for a single POV. How about actually trying to write an NPOV piece about what really are historicity problems and those that are not. It might even be worth identifying all of the "issues" that detractors have mentioned that have since been proved dead wrong. -- Storm  Rider  16:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Smithsonian document is produced by a scientific organization so it is hardly "anti-Mormon". It is non-Mormon, but not anti-Mormon.  The references I have provided are all standard and highly respected texts in precolumbian biology, technology, history, linguistics, etc.  So don't get so excited about "anti-Mormon" websites.  I have removed "asses" and "figs" from the list.  Your comment about "barley" didn't make sense when I read it and there is zero evidence of grain cultivation (besides corn) in the Americas, so I deleted it.  Your comment about recent elephant effigies was unreferenced, so I deleted it.  I have incorporated your proponent arguments into the footnotes following each item you discuss.  The argument that the word "deer" was used to name "cow" in Miami always draws a chuckle from me because many Native American languages used the word "dog" to name the "horse" and in some cases even used the word "dolphin" to name the "horse".  Is the BOM talking about dogs or dolphins when it mentions horses?  LOL.  (Taivo (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't have time to read your edit before I leave, but you have to remember it does not matter what you and I think...it does not even matter if we laugh about the stupidity of other groups. What matters is if there are reputable references it can stay in the article. Our objective is to make sure references are reputable and that they exist.
 * I am confused about the barley issue; I must have written it badly, but the reference is exact and you are wrong. Barley has been found as being both a domestic grain and grown wild in pre-Columbian America. Again, what we think individually does mean a thing on Wikipedia. If you can't help yourself just write a blog and expound upon your opinion to your heart's content. However, for Wikipedia, all it takes is a reputable reference. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  18:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is disheartening to see this type and level of disagreement between two editors who in the past have seemed to me to be models of civil discourse. For example, the comments "long rant" and "defensive knee jerk." For another, the remark "You, nor any other editor, wanted to debate language on this page." I think this inaccurate since Taivo has made 214 edits to the article compared to 228 to the Talk page, and I have made 75 to the article and some 160 to Talk. Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The comment that was placed in the article text was "There were three kinds of barley in 1983". That may be true, but the way it was written has nothing to do with precolumbian America.  I don't recall what reference you had, but I'm very skeptical about it.  I have found references to a Hohokam (Arizona) site where (semi-)domesticated barley was found.  Here is a reference to domesticated pollens from a Mayan site that offers a continuous record for the last 4770 years or so:  David J. Rue. 1987. "Early Agriculture and Early Postclassic Maya Occupation in Western Honduras," Nature.  He found no evidence for wheat, barley, or any cereal grain other than corn in that region, which most LDS would place as the epicenter of BOM history.  I'll delete barley from the list even though the geographical problems related to linking Arizona barley to the Limited Geography Model of BOM history are huge.  (Taivo (talk) 20:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Just to get back to the original statement here, it is my belief that the complete list of anachronisms doesn't belong here. I know I placed it here, but that was in response to StormRiders refusal to accept any summary of the list. If we could agree to a wording that summarised this list without having to name everything on it I believe it would be better here. The list is duplicated in Historicity of the Book of Mormon and it is there that we should be deciding if individual items should be included or not included. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * DJ, my only position is whatever is said should be backed up by a referenced statement. You were the one that opend this whole issue by expanding the statement to include items that had no reference. I still don't care what it says as long as there are reputable references for the statements-- Storm  Rider  17:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you be OK if we removed the list, truncating the line after what is currently reference 81? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Truncating the line after reference 81 would make the statement parallel with what is stated in the other bullets--brief summary statements. (Taivo (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I don't have a problem with that, but the references to 81 don't apply to anything. There are no page numbers that allow for other editors to verify the references. This is particularly bad when "loading" references (providing one reference after another). It attempts to provide readers with the appearance that the "fact" is supported by a lot of important references without any ability to verify the reference without reading the entire book/article/paper, etc. These books should either be deleted entirely or each reference presented so that the fact(s) can be checked. Taivo, does this make sense to you? -- Storm  Rider  21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wanderer, please don't be too concerned between the exchanges between Taivo and me; nothing that he says is taken personally. It is more "fun" between friends than anything else. I suppose that it might not set the best of example for other editors, but letting off steam every now and then is not a bad thing. For me, I have gained a significant degree of trust with Taivo that eventually the article would turn out right even if I did nothing and Taivo continued to edit alone. I can speed up the process, but NPOV would be achieved. -- Storm  Rider  21:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is standard referencing used in all academic works. The only time a specific page number is needed is when a direct quote is used.  When the reference as a whole (whether a text or a journal article) is the source, no page numbers are necessary.  It is assumed that if someone wants to "verify" the information, they can look it up themselves in the text.  In this case, there is a wide range of information that is relevant to determining that there are anachronistic references in the BOM, therefore a laundry list of page numbers would be meaningless--the entire work serves as a source showing the anachronistic nature of the BOM references, just as the entire works under linguistics and DNA show that there is no correlation between Native America and the ancient Near East.  No mainstream scientists use the BOM as a reference source, so if you want specific references that say "The BOM is not a reference here", then you must use anti-LDS materials.  Using solely anti-LDS materials then skews the impression that the BOM might have mainstream credence and that only the extremists don't use it.  The mainstream materials are important to show that mainstream science has no support for the majority of the BOM's scientific and historical claims.  (Taivo (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Are you saying that other books of faith are used by scientists as a reference source? What legitimate scientist soley uses the Bible for a reference? Me thinks you are using a standard not met by any other religious work. The truth is that no religious test is used by scientists solely as a reference source. Those that did quickly came to the conclusion that the "book" was simply a book of faith. The Bible does contain some infomation, but much of it is not usable for scientific research.
 * I think I will need to go back and review referencing guidelines. When discussing a specific concept or idea, then the page numbers are required. When writing in broad terms, major concepts, etc., then page numbers are not required....but I will need to verify. You might want to do the same thing. I wonder how long my references would stick if I just listed LDS books? This really smells like a double-standard. These are the books in the reference for animals, plants, metals, and technologies:
 * Cecil H. Brown. 1999. Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics, 20. Oxford
 * Paul E. Minnis & Wayne J. Elisens, ed. 2001. Biodiversity and Native America. University of Oklahoma Press.
 * Gary Paul Nabhan. 2002. Enduring Seeds: Native American Agriculture and Wild Plant Conservation. University of Arizona Press.
 * Stacy Kowtko. 2006. Nature and the Environment in Pre-Columbian American Life. Greenwood Press.
 * Douglas H. Ubelaker, ed. 2006. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins, and Population. Smithsonian Institution.
 * Elizabeth P. Benson. 1979. Pre-Columbian Metallurgy of South America. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library.
 * R.C. West, ed. 1964. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 1, Natural Environment & Early Cultures. University of Texas Press.
 * G.R. Willey, ed. 1965. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volumes 2 & 3, Archeology of Southern Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press.
 * Gordon Ekholm & Ignacio Bernal, ed. 1971. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 10 & 11, Archeology of Northern Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press.
 * So I can really just refute all the claims and just list 50 LDS books and you would be okay? Really? This is supposed to be a serious conversation. -- Storm  Rider  02:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

StormRider the longer you keep arguing like this the longer the full list of anachronisms has to stay in this article, because that's the only possible response to your legalism. It makes for a worse article, but if that's what you want then it has to stay. You know the correct position as well as anyone on these anachronisms, and the Smithsonian statement provides ample references on its own for most of the things there. There are also plent of references from Mormon-critical sites. Will you accept those? DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * StormRider, we're not discussing any other book of faith here. We are dealing with issues that are commonly dealt with in BOM discussions.  I would suggest deleting the entire historicity section but for one glaring thing--unlike the majority of books of faith, where the majority of adherents do not accept them as anything more than tokens of faith and they are not texts for science and history, the BOM is held to be historical and scientific fact by the majority of LDS adherents.  These listed references are used broadly to dispute the key elements of BOM science and history--a Near Eastern origin for Native Americans.  Nearly every page of some of them has some fact or evidence that contradicts the claims of the BOM for a Near Eastern origin for Native Americans.  You cannot provide a similar list of standard references that will confirm BOM science and history because it doesn't exist.  There isn't a single LDS-produced text that upholds the science and history of the BOM that is accepted by mainstream historians or scientists and used in classrooms outside BYU.  You're confronted with a problem, StormRider--there isn't any evidence for BOM science and history in general.  There is no Near Eastern component to the Native American genome or cultural complex.  Those are the facts.  So, we can treat the BOM solely as a token of faith, removing all mention of scientific/historical evidence either pro or con, or we treat the BOM science and history according to the Wikipedia doctrine of Fringe--that is, we don't need detailed page-by-page, exact quote references to refute its claims (just as we don't need a laundry list of texts and quotes that dispute the notion of Flat Earth).  Those are your choices--either treat the BOM strictly as a token of faith and remove all mention of scientific or historical "facts" or treat BOM science and history as Fringe Theory. (Taivo (talk) 04:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC))


 * I can understand why you would not want to talk about other standards used for the Bible; it forces everyone to ignore double standards. Don't you hate that in discussions? It is so much more comforting to create separate standards for "those people." What does it matter that there is no evidence for the Exodus and Moses. Move forward to more recent times and one finds there is no historical evidence for Peter being martyred in Rome. But I digress, we are talking about creating a different standard for the Book of Mormon in a vacuum of information or comparative situations.
 * BTW, I missed that recent gathering of world scientists that voted and concurred that current DNA science was so sophisticated that science was now capable of producing a definitive answer. There must have been a stone tablet passed around that proved their findings were final; surely you must have got one by carrier because the US Postal Service was not schlepping around carrying that in their backpack. I guess my UPS man missed the delivery and my dues to Science Magazine are even all paid up!
 * The only thing I am talking about is the way we reference statements. You have chosen to present that it is okay to make broad ranging statements with the only reference being a list of books that may or may not apply. Who determined these apply? Which one says what? Every reader is forced to think this edit is factual why? Because you say so? Come on, Taivo, that is not the way this works. Do all readers have to read the each entire book to verify the position you are presenting? (I would tend to reject that "Nearly every page of some of them has some fact or evidence that contradicts the claims of the BOM"...we call that gross exaggeration in the trade. If evidence is on nearly every page give me three pages so that I can at least verify a single statement. Why is this so hard? Make a statement provide a reference.
 * I think it will better to keep a laundry list of things that are wrong. I will make some changes to the the way it is presented differentiating between the references for claims in the Book of Mormon and then those legitimate references for evidence against. Currently, it is gobbledygook. There are legitimate claims here, but none are universally held much to the chagrin of my friend Taivo. Presenting them as such is either delusional or deceitful and that is the real facts. -- Storm  Rider  17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you personally before, there is a whole difference of level of "lack of historicity" between the Bible and the BoM. While it is generally thought that Exodus, Noah, Judges are not historical, nobody denies that a) there was a nation called Israel b) it existed in about the place the Bible describes c) everyday life in it was about as described i the Bible d) major historical events such as the exile did actually happen e) major historical personages such as Pilate and Herod did actually exist. The general opinion about the BoM (outside Mormon circles) is that hardly anything described in it actually happened. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating though this discourse is, I confess to having increasing difficulty in figuring out where the blankety-heck it is going.


 * I suggest specific reviews on this page of at least a few of the cases of species mentioned in the Book that were allegedly not present in the Americas (according to anthropological and other evidence) when, according to some theory or other, they "should have been".


 * Perhaps there is already a place to turn to (in Wikipedia or elsewhere) for such a collection of reviews? Wanderer57 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Handbook of North American Indians, pages 208-218 (Donald K. Grayson, "Late Plestocene Faunal Extinctions")--lists the extinctions of Equus (horse and ass), Camelidae (camels), Proboscidea (mammoths, mastodons). Same book, page 819 (D. Andrew Merriwether, "Mitochondrial DNA," pages 817-830), "The combination of Alu I 10287 and Dde I 10284 is specific to Asian populations and populations of Asian descent (including Native Americans and Pacific Islanders)."  From the same article, pages 822-827 is a detailed chart comparing northeast Asian DNA evidence with Native American DNA evidence to illustrate similarities.  That took about 15 minutes to find and is not even a thorough listing of everything that is in the volume because I just looked up the most relevant articles in the table of contents.  I don't have the time today to spend sampling every volume.  You didn't address the main question I asked, StormRider--do you want to treat BOM as other tokens of faith and assume that it is a generally ahistorical and unscientific body of myth, legend, and unverifiable fact or do you want to treat it differently from other tokens of faith and treat it as historical and scientific?  We can go either way.  If you want to treat it like other tokens of faith then the entire discussion of history, science and what the BOM says about these things becomes "legend" and nonfactual.  If you want to treat it as a factual account of history in Native America then you must treat it differently than other tokens of faith, which historians use in the same way they use the Iliad and Beowulf.  But the BOM suffers from one glaring problem if you want to treat it like other tokens of faith--it did not exist before 1830 (except in the LDS belief system).  The Bible, on the other hand, exists in ancient manuscripts, some written within decades of the events described (in the N.T., surviving O.T. manuscripts postdate the events by several centuries).  As a believer in the BOM, you can decide how you want to proceed, StormRider.  This isn't my token of faith, but I'm willing to go do whichever path you want to go down.  Right now we treat the BOM as a document that claims to be a work of history.  If you want to treat it solely as a token of faith, then the entire narrative becomes a nonfactual "parable" or "morality play".  (Taivo (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure this is StormRider's call to make. We have plenty of references to say that most (not all) Mormons take the BoM as a historical, factual account. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Possible way out of this
I'd like to propose a possible way out of this disagreement. Currently we make only the statement that the BOM is criticised mainly on the following grounds (then the four bullet points). Therefore we should be able to make these statements provided we find a reference to show that these criticisms are made (that should be easy to do, as using what StormRider calls "anti-mormon" sources for that should be allowable). I suggest we don't discuss the validity of these criticisms at all in this article, and leave it to Historicity of the Book of Mormon, where we can have a more detailed discussion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nearly a week and no responses. Does anyone object to this? If no-one objects the text would revert to a summary of the Historicity... section, without an explicit reference. When I find a good one from among the Mormon-critical websites I'll add it (remember this is a reference only to show that such criticisms are raised). DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been in Ukraine for the last week so I haven't had a chance to check in properly. Just a summary sounds to be appropriate here.  (Taivo (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC))
 * OK, I'll change that. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand
A recent edit made me question a sentence I found:"Supporters of the Book of Mormon maintain that correctness refers only to the content, notably the doctrine.". What does this mean? Is it intended to indicate that errors may have occurred in the typesetting and production which it's legitimate to fix in later versions? Is it intended to indicate that the translation is not infallible? Is it intended to mean that only the general doctrine of the book, and not the details, are correct? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never heard that position taken; I don't know what it means. Doctrine is what is found in the Standard Works (scriptures) of the Church. If there isn't a reference it should be deleted. Without the reference it sounds like oringinal research. -- Storm  Rider  16:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As a note thank you to all editors--though I don't agree with the whole article at least it reads mostly balanced, which is better than it was when...last year? Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing weasel word
I am going to revert the language in the lede paragraph back to the original wording because it seems to me that "mimic" is not typically used in positive connotations and has a negative slant to it e.g. to mimic is to copy. The BOM's grammar style is similar to the KJV but still unique enough to not be considered "mimicking". The previous wording was that it is "similar to the early middle english of the KJV Bible". This statement was quite neutral and should not have been edited to include a weasel word. Twunchy (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good change. DJ Clayworth (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mimic is the accurate linguistic word. The wording is not Early Modern English (EME) since Smith was not a native speaker of EME (either as author or translator).  The style, whether a translation or original creation, was a mimic of the KJV style.  That is the correct word whether this was a translation or an original creation.  It is intended to mimic KJV as a religious text and is unlike other English religious texts of the early 19th century.  The intention was to create a document that sounded like the scriptural wording of the classic EME texts--the KJV, Pilgrim's Progress, etc.  Mimic is not a weasel word, but is the accurate word to indicate that the language of the text was to sound like the KJV.  Of course it is not exactly EME because Smith was not a native speaker of that dialect and there are many "errors" in his usage of the language.  "Mimic" is not a negative word and is often used in biology and linguisics to speak of organisms that look like other organisms or linguistic styles that seek to imitate other styles without being exact copies. (Taivo (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Let me be very clear about this. The English of the BOM is not the English of 1830s America.  Whether you believe that it is a translation or an original creation, its language is a mimic of Early Modern English (EME).  The reason is fairly simple--a piece of scripture written in 1830 must sound like the KJV in order to be accepted as scripture.  It must not just be "similar to", it must "mimic" KJV in order to sound like scripture because that was the model of what 1830s Americans thought scripture should sound like.  They prayed that way because they thought God talked and listened that way.  It is not a "different, but similar style" independent of KJV English, but a mimicry, an attempt to copy EME.  If BOM is an original work by Smith, then the style shows Smith's nonnative mastery of the language in his attempt to copy KJV style.  If BOM is a translation, then we must remember that EME was not the original language of BOM.  It is a translation of another language done in 1830.  It still shows Smith's nonnative mastery of EME in attempting to mimic the language of KJV.  Either way, EME was not the language of 1830 America, Smith had an imperfect mastery of EME, and in order to be accepted as scripture, BOM had to mimic the EME of KJV. (Taivo (talk) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
 * While I can't fault your logic, I believe that using "mimic" implies a deliberate attempt to copy the style; Mormons wouldn't believe that was the case (though I'm not actually sure what their explanation for the style similarity is). DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's what I'm saying. Whether a deliberate attempt by Smith or by God helping Smith translate, it was deliberate for the reason that Americans in 1830 would never have accepted a text as "scripture" that didn't mimic the language of the KJV.  A text written in contemporary English (1830 contemporary) would never have been accepted as scripture.  Otherwise we must ask the question, "Why wouldn't a translation from another language use contemporary English instead of mimicing an archaic variety?" (Taivo (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Since we are arguing over a word let's look at its common definitions:


 * Mimic:


 * 1. imitate (a person or manner), especially for satirical effect;
 * 2. One who practices mimicry, or mime
 * 3. To imitate, especially in order to ridicule;
 * 4. to take on the appearance of another, for protection or camouflage.
 * 5. imitative, imitation, or mock
 * 6. to imitate closely : to ape
 * 7. to ridicule by imitation

These are from many sources and all have a common theme: Imitation. So let's look at that word...


 * Imitation:


 * 1. something produced as a copy : counterfeit
 * 2. a literary work designed to reproduce the style of another author (my emphasis)
 * 3. resembling something else that is usually genuine and of better quality : not real

I cannot find a positive definition that fits the use of this word. Therefore it is by definition not a neutral word, but one that is slanted to negative connotations, which gets to the crux of WP:NPOV. The word is inappropriate in its use in this article. Twunchy (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually read my comments, please. If you don't like "mimic" then I will use "imitate".  The language of the BOM is designed to reproduce the style of KJV.  (See above comments for explanation).  It was not subconscious and was deliberate--either on Smith's part or on God's part--since it was not the contemporary language of 1830. (Taivo (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

I am having a hard time with your insistence on changing an undisputed sentence unilaterally. There is no consensus or even impetus to change what you are changing. "Imitation" is not any better of a phrase than mimic, as it also denotes the negative as seen above...counterfeit, artificial, unoriginal, copied. In the KJV bible translation itself, they used archaic and unusual terms for the time period in which it was assembled, but we do not say that the bible is imitative of anything or that it mimics anything. It was perhaps a stylistic attempt to keep the old Latin roots of the church, and mix in some of the pagentry of the royals, perhaps to keep a distinction between the divine and the things of man e.g. thou and thine vs. you and your. There is no slant in either direction in the sentence that existed before your semantics experiment. There was nothing misguiding or false or inaccurate about the original language of the sentence. There is nothing that you are positively adjusting, methinks it is only your ego again trying to lay claim to this article as your own, heir professor. Don't make hay out of nothing...there is nothing wrong with the wording that was there, you made no attempt to see if anyone objected to the wording but I suspect that your own egomaniacal need to leave your mark on everything in this article is the only driving force here. Again I revert... Twunchy (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a little experiment in semantics can resolve this...I would like other editors to input below each statement an example of their understanding of the meaning of each statement:


 * 1: The shape of an orange is similar to a sphere.


 * 2: The shape of an orange mimics a sphere.


 * 3: The shape of an orange imitates a sphere.

and as another try this:


 * 1: The scent of liquorice is similar to anise.


 * 2: The scent of liquorice mimics anise.


 * 3: The scent of liquorice imitates anise.

I think this should illustrate the neutrality of language that should be used here. There is quite a distinction between the statements. Twunchy (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The old wording implied that the "similarity" was purely accidental and that the BOM style stands somehow on its own as an independent style. It was not accidental but purposeful and done on purpose.  That is what the word "imitates" makes clear.  Whether on purpose by God or on purpose by Smith, it is not accidentally similar to KJV.  That is the point. (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Perhaps you should review the Wikipedia policies about keeping civil. "Egomaniacal" is hardly civil. (Taivo (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC))

You are making a distinction that does not exist, is not supported by any literature out there, and your assertions are definitely in the realm of original research. Unless you can find someone who is making the assertions you are trying to, then it cannot be inserted into this article. We are stating facts...not making new assertions on our own here. Unless you can prove that either God or Joseph Smith, Jr. kept the language the same **ON PURPOSE** then it can only be assumed to be coincidental, because you have nothing to support your hypotheses. Twunchy (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This feels like Taivo's personal preference and there is a definite spin being created by the use of this terminology. I find no reason to change from using similar or similarity. In what language was Smith to translate? Other languages continue to use the thee form of addressing others where English began to abandon it some time ago. However, that does not mean the the translation would be any different today were one to translate appropriately. These modern day versions are not translations so much as rephrased text to accommodate current English usage. It would not be a correct statement that at the time of Smith's translation that this language form was foreign; it is not even foreign today. I will revert to the original, uncontested language until your current edits; please stop the edit war until a consensus is achieved here. Twunchy, I understand your frustration, but let's try to stop the personal attack and focus on the edits. -- Storm  Rider  01:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The fundamental problem is that the language of BOM was not Smith's native language, it was not contemporary English, it was not the common language of literature in 1830. It was a conscious imitation of KJV English.  Translation from either Hebrew or "Reformed Egyptian" had no requirement for the imitation of KJV English.  This would be the equivalent of using KJV English to translate Mein Kampf or War and Peace today.  Storm Rider, you are wrong about contemporary English translations of the Bible--they are not "rephrased" KJV--they are original translations from Greek or Hebrew into contemporary English.  Since Storm Rider chose to warn me of a revert war without warning Twunchy, then I can hardly trust his neutrality in this, especially when Twunchy has offered no real arguments other than "that's not the way I want it and not the way it's been."  (Taivo (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I almost warned Twunchy, but I think you were the one who started this issue. I will warn anyone else that changes this from the original until we reach concensus here. I did warn/encourage Twunchy to stop his personal attacks, which are also inappropriate. I have read this position of your often in the lower quality anti-Mormon literature; it certainly isn't novel. I apologize that not everyone wants to go along with this POV and spin. What Wikipedia demands is a neutral treatment of topics. The thesaurus provides the following synonyms for similar: agnate, akin, allied, analogous, coincident, coincidental, coinciding, collateral, companion, comparable, complementary, congruent, congruous, consonant, consubstantial, correlative, corresponding, homogeneous, identical, in agreement, kin, kindred, like, matching, much the same, parallel, reciprocal, related, resembling, same, twin, uniform. This term is correct, it does not lead readers to a specific conclusion or insinuate some nefarious act, or demean Smith's translation. You are spinning; nothing more and nothing less. You may not be aware of this, but that does not mean it is not an accurate perspective of your choice of terminology. Move on. -- Storm  Rider  03:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was not implying any nefarious act. Imitation of a particular style or use of a nonnative variety of a language is not at all uncommon in literature, especially in religious literature.  The KJV itself uses an imitative style (as was mentioned above) that was archaic for its time as well.  But the translators/editors of the KJV made a conscious decision to be imitative rather than contemporary--it added "majesty" to the translation and made it more acceptable as scripture to the users of the "new" translation.  Modern translations sometimes consciously use more archaic styles for the very same reason--certain translations that use more colloquial registers of contemporary English have suffered through excessively bitter and unwarranted criticism for that very reason (Today's English Version and Contemporary English Version, for example).  A good example of this is found in the story of the New English Bible, which was an extremely accurate translation which used a formal register of contemporary English.  While it had the imprimatur of many churches in England, it was nevertheless controversial for departing from the wording of the KJV, so was superseded by the Revised English Bible.  Compare Genesis 1:1 in NEB:  "In the beginning of creation when God made heaven and earth...", which is the most accurate translation of the Hebrew, with the same verse in the REV:  "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," which is the KJV wording, but is not as accurate as a translation for various reasons.  In each case, the other reading is in the footnotes.  Readers demand a certain style in religious literature that is scripture.  There was nothing nefarious about either Smith or God using an archaic style to write/translate the BOM, just as there was nothing coincidental about the imitation of KJV style rather than using contemporary English. (Taivo (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
 * I appreciate your tone above; thank you. To mimic and to imitate carry a certain sense of falsity in the English language; do you deny this? When in Rome or New York it is easy to find those who hawk their Louis Vuitton bags for cheap prices, but they are only imitations that mimic the appearance of the real thing. We commonly use these terms to denote something that is less than the real thing. Simply stating that an item is an imitation cheapens the product. There is a distinct difference between two cobblers who manufacture similar shoes and one cobbler that imitates the other. Another example, is a cubic ziconia is an imitation diamond; I don't know of anyone that would prefer to have the imitation when the real thing is available. Based upon sharing your academic background, I must assume you understand this usage. Are you saying that using mimic and/or imitate in this article would not have a negative connotation to readers? It appears that you strive to use both neutral and proper language; however, given that more than one editor has stated that your proposed language carries a negative connotation, it is logical that other readers would have a similar interpretation. I don't think it makes sense to tell others that though they have perceived a negative connotation, they are wrong and should not have that understanding. Doesn't it make sense to just use wording that does not carry any negative connotation or is at least neutral? I still think that similar adequately, neutrally states the reality of the matter without risk of leading readers to any conclusion. -- Storm  Rider  08:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My problem with "similar" is twofold: First, it sounds coincidental.  Second, it sounds like the BOM has a separate linguistic style independent of the KJV tradition.  Neither is true.  The "differences" between the language of the KJV and the BOM are quite minor and may relate more to the fact that Smith was not schooled in the subtleties of Early Modern English grammar.  Whether or not you accept the first premise, the second is quite straightforward.  The BOM is not something separate from the EME/KJV tradition, but stands firmly within it.  "Similar" implies that something is coincidentally like something else, but fundamentally different ("The pronghorn is similar to the gazelle", "A volleyball is similar to the moon", "War and Peace is similar to The Lord of the Rings", etc.).  This is not true of the BOM.  I'm trying to find a word (first, "mimic", then "imitate") that conveys the notion that "similar" masks--that the language of the BOM is fundamentally part of the EME/KJV linguistic tradition.  If you have a better suggestion, then please offer it. (Taivo (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't yet have an alternative to offer, but I will continue to think about it as I am sure you will. I see your point, but I don't make as significant a distinction as you do with this term, but that is beside the point. You do and I accept that. The synonyms I provided above for similar would seem a good place to start. Are any of those terms acceptable? -- Storm  Rider  10:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) When I look at the synonyms for:
 * imitate: ''act like, affect, ape, assume, be like, borrow, burlesque, carbon*, caricature, clone, copy, counterfeit, ditto*, do like, do likewise, duplicate, echo, emulate, falsify, feign, follow, follow in footsteps, follow suit*, forge, impersonate, look like, match, mime, mimic, mirror, mock, model after, parallel, parody, pattern after, personate, play a part, pretend, put on*, reduplicate, reflect, repeat, replicate, reproduce, resemble, send up*, sham, simulate, spoof, take off*, travesty, Xerox* and
 * mimic: act, ape, burlesque, caricature, copy, copycat, ditto*, do, do like, echo, enact, fake, go like, impersonate, look like, make believe, make fun of, make like, mime, mirror, pantomime, parody, parrot, perform, personate, play, resemble, ridicule, sham, simulate, take off*, travesty

it is quite clear that both of these terms and their synonyms have a clear negative connotation and are not acceptable for a neutral article. -- Storm  Rider  10:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The inherent problem with looking at lists of "synonyms" is that there is no such thing as a true linguistic synonym and that there is no word in the language that doesn't have some negative connotation in some context. "Mimic" and "imitate" are perfectly neutral and acceptable technical terms in biology, for example.  A whole class of insects is called, properly, "mimics".  "Copy" would be an acceptable alternative.  But just looking up a word in Roget's Thesaurus isn't a good way to judge it's applicability or not.  We must be accurate in our use of terminology.  That is an important function of an encyclopedia--not just neutrality, but accuracy.  We can mislead by imprecise statements just as easily as by incorrect statements. (Taivo (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Ah, sometimes the best solution is the simplest one--to cut rather than untie the Gordian knot. (Taivo (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC))


 * That works for me; a good solution! I hope Twunchy feels the same. The only reason I looked to the thesaurus was to demonstrate that there was negative connotation to the words you had proposed. Your examples above are correct when discussing insects, biology, etc.; however, when discussing this topic it would have been inappropriate to use such terminology because it set a negative tone to the article. I suspect that all of the editors feel similarly about accuracy in articles. -- Storm  Rider  17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa. I think I triggered this discussion with this edit:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=251335518&oldid=251223450


 * I made this edit (removing the statement that the writing style of the Book of Mormon is similar to that of the King James version of the Bible) because a) there was no source for the statement and b) I don't think it's true.


 * The King James Version of the Bible is widely considered, at its best, a majestic example of English prose. Even in its more pedestrian sections, it is still, let us say, "very competently" written.


 * Compared to the King James Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon lacks style. To be blunt, I don't think the word "majestic" comes into it.


 * If the passage had said that the antique "language" of the Book of Mormon was "similar" to that of the King James Version of the Bible, I wouldn't have made the edit. Saying the "style" was similar was going too far.


 * The alternative wording, discussed above, that the style of the Book of Mormon "mimics" that of the King James Version, is extremely generous to the Book of Mormon, IMO. One might better say that the style of the Book of Mormon is a pale imitation of that of the King James Version. CBHA (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for the mea culpa. "Majestic language" is in the eye of the beholder.  I'm sure that the faithful think the language of the BOM is majestic.  The current version seems to be acceptable to all.  There is no need for a reference for this since it is self-evident upon even a cursory reading that the BOM is in Early Modern English and only people who know the grammar of EME well can tell that the writer was not fluent in EME. (Taivo (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC))