Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon/Archive 1

West Eurasian origin of Native americans
"North American Indians are generally considered the genetic descendants of East Asian peoples.[42] Several authors have published works that suggest that current studies of genetic anthropology using DNA evidence do not provide support for the Book of Mormon. To date there have been no DNA studies which link any Native American group with any group in West Asia.[43][44"

I recently read an article in national geographics online that states, that they found out, Native Americans DO have West Eurasian origins too. Here's the link to the article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131120-science-native-american-people-migration-siberia-genetics/

I'm not a mormon but I think we should delete the line that there ate no proofs for west-asian or west-eurasian origin of native americans.

Eromae (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is only one minor edit that will harmonize this data:
 * Change "with any group in West Asia" to "with West Eurasia".
 * While there are minor genetic links to the genome of West Eurasia, the article is clear that the linkage is with the ancestors of West Eurasian people, not with West Eurasia itself. The genome still crossed to America via the Bering Sea land bridge from the origin at Lake Baikal (which is in East Eurasia).  The two things that 99% of NG's readers will miss are that the evidence is from Lake Baikal (and they have no idea that Lake Baikal is solidly in East Eurasia), and that the article clearly states that the genome still entered the Americas over the Bering Strait.  --Taivo (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
The actual quote is "These include asses, cattle, milk,... plows, swords, scimitars, and chariots. The Smithsonian Institution 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."  I find this odd, considering the fact that the Smithsonian's own National Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. as a very obvious example of a child's toy scimitar (made from clay) on display among the other examples of children's toys. (https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B8UMEf5UmkEnNzBiNWMxN2UtNmU2Yy00ZGY3LTlmOWMtNmY0NDdlMjIyNjEz&hl=en)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.199.182.234 (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The section on the Historicity at Book of Mormon have been deleted and a reference sent here. That means we have to neutralize this article, which seems to have problem. Let's mention one to start with.

"Critics believe that insufficient evidence in the pre-Columbian archaeological record for horses, cattle, swine, goats, wheat, steel swords, possible wheeled chariots and other elements mentioned in the Book of Mormon casts doubt on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon."

The actual situtation is that the overwhelming majority of non-LDS scholars believe that these technologies, animals or plants did not exist at the time the BOM describes. Calling them 'critics' implies that only those opposed to Mormonism believe this. Also "insufficient evidence" implies that there is a little, but not enough. In fact virtually the only evidence is LDS provided and disputed. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article isn't appropriately neutral. Clearly this was started by a pro-mormon writer. For example: historicity is generally not accepted. Generally? How about not accepted by any non-mormon scholar. I recommend that the wording for this paragraph is changed accordingly. Unless someone can find a half respected scholar - I'm going to change the wording here. Jspice9000 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

This entire article should be deleted. There is no debate among persons outside of the Mormon faith regarding any factual basis for the claims in the Book of Mormon. Even to say that there is no debate among non-Mormon archaelogists is not a strong enough statement because it implies that there are Mormon archaelogists that believe in it. Let's be really clear here: archaelogy is a science, and if any person professing to be an archaelogist, Mormon or non-Mormon, claims that the events set forth in the Book of Mormons are true from an archaelogical standpoint, then that person is not a scientist and not an archaelogist. They can certainly believe so as a matter of faith, but wrapping themselves in the vestments of a profession does not make them part of the profession and does not legitimize their theories. I mean for crissakes, at least the Nazis had some shreds of archaelogical legitimacy to base their theories on. The Book of Mormon is about as credible as Scientology text from a historical standpoint. Ndriley97 (talk) 05:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I second the deletion of this article. More or less useless, and almost impossible to write from a 'neutral' perspective. The original read like a mormon apologist, and the current version was obviously sourced and written by a dedicated mormon critic. Overall, poor Wikipedia quality.96.225.230.22 (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

New Topics
Another potential topic would be the method of transportation to the new world. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that boats were sufficiently developed to make transatlantic travel possible at the time. I'll dig up some references for this. Jspice9000 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

The limited geography section should be expanded a bit more. How can the Hill Cumorah be explained if the characters in the BoM stayed in Mesoamerica? Jspice9000 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

I hate to be a real pain, but this page should probably be merged with the Archaeology page. I am no historian but it seems to me that a critique of the accuracy or historicity of a particular work (BoM in this case) one needs a historic event that the work describes and a general agreement as to what probably happened. For example, if I wrote an account of WWII (most agree it happened), areas of criticism could include topics such as which countries were involved, timelines, important individuals etc using letters written by soldiers compared to accountes written by the press. There are no events mentioned in this article at all and no mention of alternative scenarios or sources of information. It is my opinion that there is no evidence that any of the events described in the BoM actually happened but there is no possibility to critique it on these grounds since there are no alternative sources of information to determine the BoM's accuracy in describing those events. Can anyone come up with a good reason not to merge this? Jspice9000 (talk) 15:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000
 * Perhaps Authenticity of the Book of Mormon would be a better title for this page? Jspice9000 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

View of the Hebrews is a topic that I had almost forgotten about. If we keep this page, there should be a reference to this book. Jspice9000 (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

View of the Hebrews is treated in detail at Origin of the Book of Mormon.--Descartes1979 (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add a one line reference to that page (Origin of...). Once again however, makes me think this page is incorrectly titled. Jspice9000 (talk) 12:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

Keep it Simple
Some of the sentences need to be simplified to provide clarity and better writing style to this article.--WaltFrost (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Please discuss
Let's remind people that discussion helps the process of producing a good article.

I've put back the reference to barley as being one of the items not found in the New World. That is the Smithsonian's opinion and I've referenced it. Please don't remove it without a more reliable counter-reference. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It be more correct to say that the Smithsonian used to say this. Current correspondence with them does not produce the same response. As for a counter-example, one need go no further than Wikipedia itself, which says that a form of barley, Hordeum pusillum ("little barley"), was cultivated (possibly even domesticated), in pre-Columbian times. As for mainstream scientific references, there are:
 * Daniel B. Adams, "Last Ditch Archaeology," Science 83 (December 1983): 32
 * V.L. Bohrer, "Domesticated and Wild Crops in the CAEP Study Area," in P.M. Spoerl and G.J. Gumerman, eds., Prehistoric Cultural Development in Central Arizona: Archaeology of the Upper New River Region (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Center for Archaeological Investigations, Occasional paper 5, 1984): 252
 * Nancy and David Asch, "Archaeobotany," Deer Track: A Late Woodland Village in the Mississippi Valley, edited by Charles R. McGimsey and Michael D. Conner (Kampsville, Illinois: Center for American Archaeology, 1985), 44
 * Patricia L. Crown, "Classic Period Hohokam Settlement and Land Use in the Casa Grande Ruins Area, Arizona," Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Summer, 1987), pp. 147-162
 * Bruce D. Smith, "Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America," Science, New Series, Vol. 246, No. 4937 (Dec., 1989), pp. 1566-1571.
 * There's probably more, but this was the result of a quick search. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That's the sort of references we are looking for. You might want to think about finding somewhere to explain this in the article, because lots of sources cite barley as one of the things not present in the New World and some editor will add it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

LFrankow
Just a heads-up. Many of the links at the bottom of the article are dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankow (talk • contribs) 15:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

LDS Apologists
Can anyone explain what the purpose of the section LDS Apologists is? The first three sentences would be agreed with by any archaeologist (They have little bearing on the historicity question except to confirm that some civilizations did exist). The final sentence is covered much better in succeeding sections. Could I maybe replace it with a statement of agreed facts and a pointer to later sections? DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's gone. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Charles Anthon
Although this discussion is interesting, Charles Anthon didn't know what he was talking about since the Rosetta stone wasn't discovered until 1799, hence he couldn't say whether Smith actually knew what he was talking about or not either. Can anyone think of any reason to keep this paragraph in light of this? Jspice9000 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000


 * Firstly all this is happening in the early nineteenth century, after the Rosetta was discovered. Secondly translation (which Rosetta allowed) isn't the issue, it's identification of the writing as Egyptian. It is certainly possible that a scholar could have identified the writing as plausibly Egyptian or not without reference to Rosetta. But thirdly and most importantly the Anthon story is frequently used by Mormons to attest to the historicity of the BoM, so the story belongs here solely on that basis. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good points. I had always assumed that the translations from the Rosetta Stone had never been seen by neither Smith nor Anthon.  Why?  I have read that some of the original 'egyptian' translations from Smith were discovered recently and found to be completely incorrectly translated.  I need to dig up some references for this however.  If I can find some good references, what then?  Add to this section?  Jspice9000 (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)jspice9000

Please read the following wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Papyri. This paragraph in particular:
 * In July of 1835, Chandler brought four mummies and associated papyri to Kirtland, Ohio, then headquarters of the Latter-Day Saints. Although the Rosetta Stone had been discovered in 1799, the ability to read Egyptian wasn't well developed until the 1850s. Chandler asked Joseph Smith to look at the scrolls and give some insight into what was written on them, due to Smith's notoriety and claim to have translated the golden plates of the Book of Mormon.

Maybe we need a link to that article? Jspice9000 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:City of zarahemla the testaments film lds.jpg
The image Image:City of zarahemla the testaments film lds.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents and the LDS view
These two paragraphs don't flow very well. The first describes one or two civilizations. The second mentions three civilizations(this is more accurate). It needs to be cleaned up. Be curious, not judgmental. --WaltFrost (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Steel
I'm putting steel back in. True, there was some 'iron' products that people refer to as steel, but you can't use it like modern steel to make a bow that is light enough to lift and flex and return to its original shape. Drop a cast iron pan, see what happens. Otherwise, we can go into much greater detail on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspice9000 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Added additional commentary regarding steel. Any metalurgists, please add commentary. In addition, are there any modern bows made from steel? No. Why? Wood is better for bows. Jspice9000 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to argue every single technology that the BOM mentions. I removed the unnecessary steel reference as too trivial for the point of the paragraph, which is that there were many animals, plants, and technologies mentioned in the BOM that are anachronistic.  We don't want a detailed discussion of each of these because that would just get into a detail-boring argument between critics and proponents.  The word "steel" could refer, as you clearly state, to many different metal alloys, so singling it out for detailed discussion just opens a Pandora's Box.  The horse is a much better example because it is clear that horses didn't exist in the New World and the arguments that "horse" might refer to llama or tapir are really quite ludicrous. (Taivo (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

I appreciate your point of view, perhaps my explanation is too long and argumentative. However, since the BoM is 'divinely inspired' and translated with the help of God, shouldn't steel actually mean steel? I do think steel should stay as per the orginal, just a single word. Perhaps make the link to the History of ferrous metallurgy page instead. You have to admit that making a bow out of steel is equally foolish and points to the same logical error that J Smith made over and over again - they thought that all the animals, plants and much of the technology that they saw in their daily lives were always there - in North America. They had no idea about the origins of the various plants, animals or technology. J Smith would have had no real concept of the history of steel making either. Don't we open up a different pandora's box when exluding concepts that are longer and more complex because some apologist has come up with an arugement that may cast a sliver of doubt on it, like suggesting that steel really means alloy?Jspice9000 (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to remember that this page is not just for non-LDS readers to get "fuel for the fire", but for LDS readers to hear a neutral presentation of the issues that nonmembers raise. It's not the place for a detailed analysis of every problem, but an overall presentation of the problems.  I agree with you that an uneducated Smith was listing things he could see around him and assumed had always been there, but the believer sees things differently.  We need to keep from getting overly critical of the BOM here and simply present the issues without excess embellishment.  The Bible says that the Earth has four corners, that the sky is a solid dome and the stars are fixed in place on it, that women emit semen during copulation, and that bats are birds.  But we don't spend excess time worrying about it.  Faith is very forgiving when it comes to the scriptural basis of itself.  We must be careful and make sure that when believers come to this page, they see that we have treated the topic respectfully.  They can respect the nonbelievers' unbelief as long as they know that their belief is respected in turn.  (Taivo (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I see your point, but I maintain that thorough can still be neutral. Without being a pain on this issue, we leave mention of steel in, but cut the commentary? Jspice9000 (talk) 01:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry if I misunderstood your last post. Steel should, of course, be left in the list, but, as you say, without commentary. (Taivo (talk) 01:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC))
 * BTW, I didn't realize that wikipedia was for de-converting believers. If they are curious enough to ask questions, they probably already suspect problems.  Cheers.Jspice9000 (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a 'cite needed' in the archaeology section. There is a good reference at the end of the paragraph. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Default Position
Asking for a reference that the majority of the people in the world do not accept the BOM as fact is equivalent to asking for a reference that the majority of people in the world do not accept the Flat Earth hypothesis. The BOM is a religious work, not a historical work, and, as such, most of the world doesn't even know much about it all. Ask a Ukrainian on the street whether he has ever heard of the BOM or its account and he will answer "no" (but he's probably heard of Mormons and their missionaries--with a negative opinion). (I was told by colleagues there to not mention that I was from Utah unless it was necessary.) You could just as well ask for a reference for "the majority of people in the world are not Catholic". (Taivo (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Proposal to re-name article
... to "Historical Authenticity of the BOM". Please see discussion at Talk:Book_of_Mormon for details. --Noleander (talk) 22:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Let’s briefly contrast the proposed “Historically Corrupt Scriptures” of mainstream Christianity with the Book of Mormon. Although much older, Scripture was originally written in documented, academic languages – Ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Kione Greek. There are more than 40 authors of the Bible, on several continents spanning nearly 2 millennium. However, they all seamlessly reported the same things. Not to mention that humanity has thousands of Ancient source manuscripts (in our possession) to cross-reference. The Book of Mormon was dictated by 1 man, in a single location, from a “never-existent” language. It also has no source manuscripts to reference proving the accuracy / legitimacy of Joseph Smith’s writing. Now, you tell me: based solely on material fact, which one of these books would be more “credible” if submitted in court trial?“those living in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by HBCALI (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucifer
I've removed a sentence that states

One example is the word Lucifer which is of Latin origin and appears in both the Book of Mormon and Mormon temple ceremonies. (ref) http://www.lds-mormon.com/lucifer.shtml LDS-Mormon.com (/ref)

I can't find any solid statements in the Lucifer or KJV articles to back this up as a "translation error". Do any reputable critics really bring this up? ...comments? ~B F izz 00:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew text doesn't contain the word "Lucifer". Lucifer is a Latin name for Venus/Morning Star meaning "light bearer" and is found in the Latin translation of Isaiah 14:12:  Quomodo cecidisti de caelo, Lucifer, qui mane oriebaris?"  The Hebrew has:  Heylel ben-shachar ("shining one, son of dawn").  The critical argument is that Nephi would have been working from Isaiah's Hebrew of the 7th century BC so rather than the KJV "Lucifer", based on the Latin translation from about the 4th century AD, he would have used something more akin to the actual Hebrew rather than the Latin usage preserved in the KJV, which should have translated the Hebrew properly as "Venus", "Morning Star", etc.  "Lucifer" as a name was completely unknown in Hebrew.  Even if he was quoting directly from the Hebrew text, Nephi would not have used the KJV text and certainly not used a Latin name that postdated him by several centuries.  This argument has occurred many times in the critical literature.  And your requirement for "reputable critics" isn't really appropriate.  The list is a list of critical arguments, not whether the critique is good/reliable or not.  The "Lucifer" argument is one of the critical arguments that are out there.  This is a translation error in KJV because the Latin name "Lucifer" doesn't mean "Satan", but "Venus/Morning Star".  It was only in the Middle Ages that the equation "Lucifer" = "Satan" entered Christian tradition.  The KJV translators should have translated "Heylel ben-shachar" as "Venus" or "Morning Star", which is the only meaning of the Hebrew.  Instead they followed the Medieval Christian tradition and used "Lucifer" as a proper name with the implication of "Satan".  In other words, they used a name out of the Latin text which in 1611 meant "Satan" to translate the phrase out of the Hebrew text which in 700 BC meant "Venus/Morning Star".  --Taivo (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we leave it to reputable critics to determine what the "critical arguments" are? Otherwise we're wandering in the land of original research. I'm not saying the criticism isn't valid, I'm just saying it's controversial, and has no reliable source (at least none that I've seen) to back it up. ...comments? ~B F izz 02:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing the need for reputable sources to state facts versus the simple listing of things that are in existence. This criticism exists and the evidence for its existence is a source that discusses it.  The source that uses it doesn't have to be a peer-reviewed academically-published work to be in existence.  This article is about the existence of criticisms no matter where the source is.  The criticisms have to obviously be above the level of "The Book of Mormon sucks" and to be based on some legitimate argument, but their existence is enough.  Now if this article were judging the relative merits of the pros and cons, then reliable sources would be important, obviously.  But it's not.  The existence of the criticism is demonstrated by a basically decent source presenting it and the arguments behind it.  --Taivo (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article as it stands presents the criticism as valid, asserting that the JST and the Book of Mormon have translation errors, and that the Lucifer bit is one such error. We cannot assume the POV of lds-mormon.com without reputable sources backing up the assertion that it is, in fact, a translation error. The prose should be reworded to make clear exactly who is making this assertion. ...comments? ~B F izz 03:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The paragraph isn't about whether the criticism is valid or not, only that the criticism exists. As such it is a valid reference since it proves that the criticism exists.  If you need references that "Lucifer" is a bad translation, then refer to any recent, non-fundamentalist commentary on the 14th chapter of Isaiah, such as the Word Bible Commentary or the Anchor Bible Commentary.  Here are some footnotes from reputable study bibles at Isaiah 14:12 along with (in parentheses) the modern translations:
 * Harper Collins Study Bible: (New Revised Standard Bible:  "O Day Star, son of Dawn!") "Day star, Dawn, names of deities."
 * Oxford Study Bible: (Revised English Bible:  "Bright morning star") "Bright morning star: Heb. "Helal son of Shahar," possibly meaning "Day Star, son of Dawn," and reflecting the names of deities."
 * New Oxford Annotated Bible: (New Revised Standard Bible) "Canaanite mythological background is reflected in Day Star and Dawn (Hebrew "Helal" and "Shahar," names of deities)"
 * New Jerusalem Bible: (New Jerusalem Bible:  "Daystar, son of Dawn")  "vv. 12-15 seem to be based on a Phoenician model.  At all events, they display several points of contact with the Ras-Shamra poems: Daystar and Dawn were two divinities...The Fathers [Christian writers of the late Roman Empire] identified the fall of the Morning Star (Vulg. 'Lucifer') with that of the prince of the demons."
 * New American Bible: (New American Bible:  "O morning star, son of the dawn!")  "Morning star: the king of Babylon.  The Vulgate has "Lucifer," a name applied by the church Fathers to Satan."
 * The Reformation Study Bible: (English Standard Version:  "O Day Star, son of Dawn!")  "O Day Star, son of Dawn.  Lit. "shining one, son of dawn."  Probably this refers to the planet Venus, rising in the morning and climbing toward the top of the sky, only to be overtaken by the sun.  In the ancient world observations of this astronomical cycle gave rise to several myths."
 * There's no real debate about this among mainstream biblical scholars. "Lucifer", meaning "Satan", is a mistranslation of the Hebrew here.  Whether the text is talking literally about the planet Venus or about the Canaanite deities associated with it, it's not "Satan", which is what "Lucifer" has meant in the Christian world since the early Middle Ages.  --Taivo (talk) 04:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But to reiterate, if this paragraph were about whether the criticism were valid or not, then the best references would be needed. But the paragraph isn't about the validity of the criticism.  It's about the existence of the criticism.  Since the only thing required to prove the existence of a criticism is its existence in a critical source, then the website is perfectly adequate to prove the existence of the criticism.  The criticism exists; Wikipedia says nothing about whether the criticism is valid or not, only that it exists.  --Taivo (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your point, but the new wording is slightly better and I don't have the enthusiasm to continue trying to explain my editorial opinion on this one. Note that I've removed the reference to mormon temple ceremonies, which—while true—is not germane to the BOM. ...comments? ~B F izz 04:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The temple reference did seem a bit odd here. --Taivo (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Milk
I'm proposing we re-word "milk," in a list that begins "The Book of Mormon mentions several animals, plants, and technologies for which there is currently no evidence..." Milk is not a technology, and milk was abundantly present in pre-Columbian America. It is the dietary of use of (non-human) milk that is in question, and I think the easiest way to suggest that is to say "dairy products" or "domestic dairy animals." Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "Milk" was not "abundantly present". Common English usage is very clear that "milk" in the present context refers to the "dietary use of non-human milk".  It isn't even ambiguous.  In English, when one means human milk, it is always modified by "breast milk" or "mother's milk".  "Milk" by itself in normal English always refers to cow's milk.  --Taivo (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps I am oversensitive, but when I first read the sentence, I did something of a double take. I agree that in general, "milk" unmodified means cow's milk.  But the context here is a list of stuff one might find in an ancient culture, and we've specifically mentioned animals and plants, so the reader is expecting us to be talking about non-human stuff.  Since "milk" is definitely not a technology or a plant, I suppose I tried to mentally cram it into the animal category....like, an animal product.  But then it makes no sense, because blah blah.  I don't see why "dairying" or "dairy products" isn't an acceptable way to avoid this. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 15:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the BOM text specifically says, "milk". It does not mention "cheese" or any other dairy product.  --Taivo (talk) 16:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New lede
Please provide your opinions as to which of the following lede sections best follows WP:LEDE and WP:FRINGE: If you agree the second one is better, then I'll make the change and you all can edit it at will, cutting out or adding whatever you think is appropriate. I'd rather not make the edits here on the text page, which kind of circumvents the purpose of wiki. If you think the original lede is better, please defend the status quo. CO GDEN  07:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead paragraph of an article should be a brief summary of what is found within. The first version is clear, concise and tells exactly what the article is about--the conflict between critics and apologists over the historical veracity of the BOM.  The second version is a long, overly apologetic position piece that virtually ignores the historical criticisms of non-members.  Of the dozen sentences in the two-paragraph proposal on the right, only one actually deals with the critical position, all the others are a pro-Mormon apologetical position piece.  Of the two references in the proposed version, both are to Mormon apologetical sources.  The proposed verion neither fairly summarizes the article--which is balanced between critical and apologetic issues--nor presents a balanced introduction to the issue.  --Taivo (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hold the following editorial opinions:
 * The current lede is a little too succinct. It presents the topic of this article but does nothing to summarize its contents.
 * The balance of the proposed lede does not match the balance of the article.
 * The proposed lede also fails at summarizing most of the article.
 * The second paragraph is too detailed for the lede.
 * The content of the second paragraph could be expanded within the article body
 * I think the first 3/4 of the proposed lede starts off better than the current lede.
 * "acceptance of the book's historical authenticity automatically makes one a Mormon" - Sure, you cite Shipps and Duffy, but this is a strange thing to say
 * However, it don't have a very fitting first sentence; the original is a little better in this respect.
 * It is worth noting, though, that apologists have probably published a lot more dealing directly with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon than anyone else. As such, I think there's room for a bit more apologetic content in the article. ...comments? ~B F izz 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Taivo, the sources I cited are not at all apologetic. The authors of both sources are non-Mormons who do not believe in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Strangely, my problem with the current lede is that it is too apologetic. According to the principles of WP:LEDE, article such as this need a strong statement that we're talking about a fringe view, and that the underlying theory is not academically credible. The current lede doesn't do this. Rather, it treats the view that the Book of Mormon is an authentic history on the same footing as the 99.9..% predominant academic view that it isn't, as if each view had equal academic credibility, and there were a true academic debate between the two.
 * That said, the fact is, there is almost no research by credible scholars debunking the historical theory of the Book of Mormon in detail--just as credible scholars don't "waste their time" debunking the theory of Ancient Astronauts, or Searches for Noah's Ark. Certainly, we need to include in the article anything written by a mainstream scholar that does attempt to debunk the historical theory of the Book of Mormon. But there isn't much of that. The main point is to make it clear that this theory is not archeology and not science, and has no academic credibility. It's not bad, like in Ancient Astronauts, that most of the article discusses the fringe theory. After all, the article is about the fringe theory.
 * As to the lede not reflecting the body of the article, I think part of the problem is that the article needs some editing to remove some of the original research and synthesis. The article shouldn't pit the apologetic Mormon view against the mainstream academic view, as if they were comparable or equally academically credible. When mainstream scholars haven't bothered to rebut a particular aspect of the Mormon apologetic theory, the article doesn't need to rebut every argument, point-by-point. It's understood--or should be understood--that this is a fringe theory. It's okay to let pseudoscience stand as pseudoscience. In this case, however, there are a few mainstream academic articles, such as the Duffy article, that discuss Mormon apologetic theory from a mainstream academic perspective. Those are the kind of articles we should be using, and if we could base the entire article on such sources, that would be ideal, rather than either using Mormon apologetic sources or synthesizing general scientific sources that were not intended to have anything to do with the Book of Mormon.
 * Also, I don't think this article should misleadingly present Mormon apologetic views as if they were archeology, science, or history. They are religion. Like any article on a fringe theory, the article should start from the perspective that the whole theory lacks academic credibility, and then just explain the theory, being careful not to imply mainstream academic credibility, for example by using the language of science to present ideas that aren't science.
 * The point about accepting the ancient origin of the Book of Mormon automatically making one a Mormon is to emphasize the point that by definition, only Mormons accept this theory. It is accepted by nobody outside of Mormonism. CO GDEN  01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems clearer to say just that then: nobody outside of Mormonism accepts that it is historically authentic. I generally agree with what COgden has said here. ...comments? ~B F izz 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I also generally agree with what COgden has said here. But the proposed lead really doesn't say that since I obviously got exactly the opposite impression reading it.  The existing lead is very sparse and can be expanded some, but the proposed lead isn't what COgden intended it to be.  --Taivo (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like we are all on the same page philosophically, but just need to come to an agreement on execution. I may not have the final solution, but want to move the article in the right direction, so I'll make some provisional incremental changes and let the Wikipedia process work its magic as we all improve upon each others' edits. CO GDEN  21:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
The fluffy introduction to this article wreaked of bias, and was unworthy of Wikipedia for several reasons. I don't think we need an introduction at all to this topic, but I can be agreeable if someone else thinks they can add something to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sowarsick (talk • contribs) 14:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Every article should have a lead - see WP:LEAD. How does this reek of bias? I've restored it. You're new so I don't expect you to understand how Wikipedia works, but please never remove a lead again. Dougweller (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Does every great civilization leave an archaeological record?
"Civilizations of their magnitude and duration would be expected to leave extensive archaeological records"

Ok. Who says so?

Nibley asserts just the opposite in Chapter 8 of Since Cumorah:

The possibility that a great nation or empire that once dominated vast areas of land and flourished for centuries could actually get lost and stay lost, in spite of every effort of men to discover its traces, has been demonstrated many times since Schliemann found the real world of the Mycenaeans. In our own generation the first scraps of physical evidence for the existence of certain great civilizations have come to light, though scholars have studied the literary and historical records of those same civilizations for centuries without possessing so much as a button or bead that could be definitely assigned to them. Indeed, until actual remains were found, it was quite possible and respectable to regard some of those civilizations as the invention of poetic fancy or legend.

Citing Edward Bacon: "Thirteen such civilizations are discussed by Edward Bacon, ed., Vanished Civilizations of the Ancient World (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963)."

Has anyone here read Bacon or know how reliable this source is? Terrel Shumway (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course the LDS partisan Nibley would assert such a thing to bolster his belief in the historical authenticity of the BOM. --Taivo (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Nibley fails to mention the linguistic and biological impossibility involved in Smith's efforts. There is no chance that American Indians are descended from those from the Middle East. It suits Nibley to be vague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.124.220 (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Archaeology was hardly even in its infancy when Schliemann worked. If you look at this review of Bacon's book, it includes discussion of the [{Etruscans]], Great Zimbabwe, the Khmers, the Maya, the Ainu (as the review points out, not a civilization, and if the chapter says they are white, simply wrong), etc (full list at . Nibley's claim is at best disingenuous - he must know the Maya are not a vanished civilization, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706181359/http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/ENGLISH/View.asp?x=752 to http://www.bioportal.gc.ca/ENGLISH/View.asp?x=752
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071016062213/http://www.aaccnet.org/cerealfoodsworld/samplepdfs/CFW-51-0004.pdf to http://www.aaccnet.org/cerealfoodsworld/samplepdfs/CFW-51-0004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120520134005/http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html to http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071013171045/http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=50 to http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=50

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Original research
The Archaeology section had a lot of citations of general history and science sources that don't seem to have anything to do with the Book of Mormon. They fail to show that the anachronisms under discussion have been noted outside this article, and constitute original research used to support arguments made directly by Wikipedia editors, violating NPOV: I have removed these from the article. I'm not sure if these were what's referred to as original research in the template at the top of the article, as I can't find any clarification on the Talk page, so I've left that listed as a possible issue for now. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 01:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Handbook of North American Indians, pp. 208–18 (Donald K. Grayson, "Late Plestocene Faunal Extinctions") lists horses, elephants and related mammals as extinct
 * GC.ca
 * AACCnet.org
 * While iron ores such as haematite were mined (rather rarely), they were used as coloring. The metal was not extracted. See: . Also: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, December 2007.
 * AACCnet.org
 * While iron ores such as haematite were mined (rather rarely), they were used as coloring. The metal was not extracted. See: . Also: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, December 2007.
 * While iron ores such as haematite were mined (rather rarely), they were used as coloring. The metal was not extracted. See: . Also: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society, December 2007.

Intro
I attempted to make the intro more neutral, but it was reverted which is ok, but with no comment? Please leave a comment. Also if anybody has aversions to that change please post why here, otherwise I'll bring it back in a couple days. Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Your additions actually made it less neutral and more of a "there are reasons why believers believe and reasons why they doubt the doubters". The current text is utterly neutral:  "Believers believe and doubters doubt."  It doesn't try to convince doubters, it doesn't try to justify believers.  The current text makes precisely two parallel statements:  "Believers believe because it's an article of their faith" and "Doubters doubt because the text falls outside the bounds of academic credibility".  --Taivo (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The current intro, from my POV, reads like "believers believe, however this view is...wrong. And the theory is...not accepted, therefore wrong." which I feel could be improved in terms of NPOV.  Anybody care to help me out? One thought: something like "a few theories have been postulated like x and y but no direct archaeological connections have been found" or what not.  Leave some room for belief, as it were.  Cheers! Rogerdpack (talk) 20:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how you can possibly get the "this is wrong" meaning when it comes to belief. Beliefs are neither right nor wrong by definition.  They are just beliefs and the lead simply states the fact that most Mormons accept the BOM as historical fact as part of their belief system.  Then the lead simply states the fact that outside Mormonism this is simply not the case and non-Mormons do not accept the text as a historical document.  I don't know how you can possibly see that as POV.  It is a statement of two simple, easily demonstrable facts.  If you believe then evidence really doesn't matter.  If you don't believe then there's no evidence to make you believe.  Wikipedia isn't a place for a mission debate.  Believers will look at the evidence and see it through the lens of their belief.  Non-believers will look at the evidence and see no valid scientific/historical reason to change their mind.  --Taivo (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious to me that at least in some cases (I suspect so for many), belief or non-belief can be a choice. A believer can so choose in spite of or because of evidence (and as a believer I feel I have done so, some but not all of the evidence being internal to my personal experience), and so can a non-believer.  Therefore one (as I) can choose to believe the BoM is what it says it is, based on faith, and/or based on evidence, and that in fact faith can (and should) be based on evidence (details beyond the current scope).  (Others have written about this also, not necessarily here.)  There are multiple kinds of evidence, like personal feelings and experiences, the experiences of others (witnesses to various events or things they saw and heard), and the kinds discussed here.  My intent with this comment is simply to refute that believers never care about evidence: as a believer I personally find it valuable, and probably very necessary.  But you might have meant, that the kinds of evidence you personally prefer are not always the only important kind, to believers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcall52 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you think that evidence is useful in choosing to believe or not (it's not as far as I'm concerned), Wikipedia is not the place for a missionary tract to convince readers of the "truth" of Joseph Smith's fiction, nor is it the place for an anti-Mormon screed with the same function. Belief is not the business of Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I would have reverted it if Taivo hadn't beaten me to it. Doug Weller  talk 19:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Why Does This Article Even Exist
Belief is belief. If you believe that the earth is flat, and it is a tenet of your belief system, then no amount of scientific reasoning will dissuade you until you abandon your belief system for other reasons. At the article for "Beliefs of the Platemundus Religion", we will have a paragraph on their belief that the earth is flat and that it was flattened by the action of a giant heavenly elephant who stepped on it. We do not need an article about whether that belief is based on any factual evidence (even though the Platemundians can provide a library full of "facts" that believers "know" prove the flatness of our planet). We do not need an article on "Astronomical authenticity of the Platemundus Book of Space". It can all be covered without debate at "Beliefs of the Platemundus Religion". Why does this article exist? It falls into precisely the same category as the flat earth beliefs of the Platemundians. If you are a Mormon, chances are greater than even that you believe the narrative of the Book of Mormon to be historical fact. You don't need evidence, you don't need archeology, you have the strength of your belief and your trust in the prophet who brought the book into the world. If you are not Mormon you don't have any such belief system requirement and accept the scientific and archeological evidence that does not support anything about the BOM narrative. Mainstream scientists, historians, and archeologists ignore the BOM because it offers nothing of fact for their study. They don't need even a footnote in an academic journal to explain that they disagree with the BOM fiction. It is simply ignored by each and every academician who works at a university not named BYU. Why is it ignored? Because it is 100% tied with a religion, a belief system, and neither has nor requires a factual basis. Even a greater than trivial number of faithful Mormons don't think that the BOM is a factual historical narrative, but accept it as an inspired fiction. This article has no function in Wikipedia other than to present the illusion that the BOM narrative has a basis in fact. It has always been a playground for returned missionaries to try to justify their belief by making it sound like there is a scientific basis for it. I have proposed its deletion before (along with other such articles related to the BOM). Believe the BOM narrative all you want. We'll describe it at Book of Mormon or at Latter-day Saint movement in great detail. But there is simply no historical authenticity of the BOM outside that belief system. The two are entirely intertwined, inseparable. --Taivo (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It exists because it's a subject of interest to a lot of people and has had extensive coverage.★Trekker (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Olive Horticulture
The question of olive horticulture and the BOM isn't one of "Is the BOM's description of olive horticulture accurate?", it is rather, "Is the description of olive horticulture in the BOM one that Joseph Smith could have known about from his own research either in the Bible or in early 19th century literature in order to insert it into his fictional narrative?". Just because Mormon scholars have found an accurate description of olive horticulture in the BOM doesn't mean that it proves the BOM's historical authenticity. There is a lot of BS that Mormon scholars have posited over the years to prove the BOM's historical authenticity, but this article doesn't give an exhaustive list since that would simply turn this article into a missionary tract and lose all semblance of NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm not sure what is wrong with my edit other than that you dislike or disagree with the scholarly efforts I referenced.  It is directly relevant to the topic: I provided a simple note that some have written on the subject, with references.  In a follow-up revert comment I asked for clarification or references to support your unverified revert comment (as to extensive olive horticulture description in the Bible).  I think according to the wikipedia guidelines we should allow my edit, or suggest a factual clarification, such as stating that some have disagreed (if there are references).  In case it helps, here is a link to all the Bible references I could find on olives, as well as to further info, where I have not yet found the extensive olive horticulture descriptions you suggested in your first revert comment, that would make my original edit irrelevant: |olive search link.  "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject" Talk_page_guidelines.  Is there a better, accurate phrasing for my earlier edit?  Thanks for pointing me to the WP:BRD page.  --Lcall52 (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be more accurate, and useful to readers, if I had said "...not found in the Bible or in literature known to be available to Joseph Smith." --Lcall52 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * For example, in the reference I gave, "The Allegory of the Olive Tree - Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship", the 3rd-to-last paragraph lists specific things that are illustrated by the Book of Mormon in olive culture, which were not known to Joseph Smith. The last paragraph of that reference has further info, as well as the rest of it, and as do the other references I gave. --Lcall52 (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We are not going to list every attempt by Mormon scholars to prove the historical accuracy of the BOM. (Personally, I think that this page has no place in Wikipedia since it is nothing more than a "he said/she said" listing of arguments and evidence pro and con.)  I also seriously distrust the "scholarship" of anything whatsoever published by FAIR or FARMS or whatever the BYU propaganda organ is called.  It is suspect for one simple reason:  it assumes, before any scientific examination, that the BOM text is what Smith claimed it was.  It's circular logic:  1) The BOM is true, 2) The BOM has this "evidence", 3) therefore, the BOM is true.  As far as your edit is concerned, you need to read WP:BRD.  You were Bold and edited.  I Reverted your edit as inappropriate.  Now, you don't put your edit back in until after a Discussion here on the Talk Page and a consensus is reached for its inclusion.  It's not a question of what you believe.  It's a question of whether we're going to turn this page into an unencyclopedic and unending missionary tract of Mormon propaganda posing as scholarship.  --Taivo (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The info I presented is evidence that meets wikipedia guidelines. It is well-documented and well-referenced, simple and clear that someone wrote that material which is very relevant to the page's topic, which should exist as answered by someone else previously (and as you have argued elsewhere: it presents both sides, as wikipedia should).   Please give reasons other than your personal disagreement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcall52 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere on this page you argue that criticisms should be presented with the mere basis that they exist and are above the level of crude polemic (paragraph starting with "You are confusing the need for reputable sources to state facts versus the simple listing of things that are in existence."). Here you argue that an evidences which exist and are well-documented should not be presented, simply because you disagree.  This inconsistency shows bias and an effort to prevent well-presented evidence, and is against wikipedia principles of presenting multiple points of view, fairly, therefore is just obstructionist.  You also describe fairmormon's and others' work as "BS" and the BoM as "fiction", and that this page should not exist, which shows clear bias.  I also have a point of view.  So both sides should be presented, as you yourself have argued, and since many people are interested in the evidence, we can do so fairly, as grown-ups acting together in the interest of making this a high-quality, balanced encyclopedia with references.  I request that you check those that I provided, which I believe more than answer all the non-personal concerns you have presented, and/or give reasons other than personal opinion this should not be included. --Lcall52 (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You state that you provided references for both sides. I disagree.  You have simply listed sources from one side of the issue.  Just adding more pro-Mormon apology doesn't further the cause here and turns this article into a missionary tract filled with biased sources.  Critical voices have been balanced by apologetic sources throughout this page.  Yes, I'm biased.  I'm biased against allowing this page to turn into a "Look at all the proof that the BOM is true" page when the evidence is entirely from BYU and LDS websites and publications.  --Taivo (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If the page were a missionary tract it would be written and edited by one entity, which is obviously not the case here. If you are aware of contrary evidence you may also present it if it is up to wikipedia standards.  In this case, it seems that you are simply preventing presentation of evidence, without a reason other than personal preference.  --Lcall52 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that you want to make the article balanced. An insistence that all evidence always be presented with a counter-argument or not be presented at all, violates neutrality principles and seems meant to pursue an "editorial goal" (WP:CONSENSUS).  Thanks for helping maintain the quality of the page.  Is there a rephrasing that you would prefer, other than what I have suggested in this discussion?  --Lcall52 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Among other things, "BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." Thanks again for your help.(WP:BRD) --Lcall52 (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand WP:BRD. It's not just for bad editing, but for any additions that another editor objects to.  You want to see POV editing (even with so-called "good references"), then try editing on the Balkans pages sometime.  It's not about "bad" editing, but editing that another editor objects to, for whatever reason.  Build a WP:CONSENSUS for your edit if you think it's a good one.  I disagree with your edit because it moves this article closer to what it should not be--a missionary tract to "prove" the BOM based on biased, non-peer-reviewed research published by BYU and the LDS church.  --Taivo (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It's hardly surprising that there were, indeed, early 19th century sources that would have given Smith all the information he needed to expand and adapt parables out of the Bible to his purpose as listed here, for example. This is why this article is BS.  Because it is (and will always be) nothing more than a listing of "Critics say X, but apologists say Y" without any real purpose.  Believers will believe that the BOM is real.  Nonbelievers will believe that it's Smith's imagination.  If this article takes on any function to help move readers in either direction, then it fails Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.  There is no historical authenticity to the BOM.  I know that.  You disagree.  There is no middle ground between us.  It's not "partially historically accurate".  It's either a work or fiction or it's not.  That's why all these "Linguistics and the BOM", "Archeology and the BOM", "History and the BOM" articles are unencyclopedic.  They are nothing more than opportunities for believers to proclaim their faith and non-believers to call BS.  --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case we could also edit the content to include that contrasting POV. There are enough people reading the page to justify it, BYU is an accredited and well-ranked university with more interest in the subject than most, so much stronger reasons would be needed to dismiss all its publications as sources.  Because you still don't give arguments other than personal opinion that the article should not even exist, I interpret this as ownership behavior, due to being "emotionally or ideologically invested in winning".  The "facts should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies".  "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view."  "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy", rather than your personal declarations of strong opinion of truth vs. falsehood.  And because BRD is optional, and no one else is commenting, I think we should reapply my change, and add your link, both with a NPOV. --Lcall52 (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't understand my point about BYU vis a vis anything to do with either the church or the BOM. You think that just because BYU is a prestigous school with regards to any other subject (which I don't argue with) that its statements and publications about the church and the BOM are equally prestigious outside the LDS world.  You couldn't be more wrong.  BYU is as biased as you can possibly get and not have an address in an office building just east of the SLC Temple when it comes to statements and publications about the LDS church and the BOM.  I could equally claim that you share the opposite bias toward this subject matter since the only sources you have cited are BYU and LDS propaganda from sites and publishers noted for their bias in favor of the church.  Before adding another biased paragraph to this article, try it out here first.  If you think you can write a neutral paragraph incorporating both positive and negative views, I am willing to look at it and discuss it.  Consensus is not impossible here, but just plastering BYU and LDS sources and declaring it done isn't going to get you there.  --Taivo (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a proposal: "Some Mormon authors have written that the Book of Mormon reflects an accurate understanding of details of olive horticulture, that were not found in literature known to be available to Joseph Smith (then my references).  Others have written that relevant information about olive horticulture was available in North America at that time (then your reference)."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcall52 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair start. I guess that my biggest issue with this addition as a whole is that it addresses a minor, almost trivial, issue of historicity.  Read the article.  Every section is a major issue:  archeology, geography, linguistics, DNA, etc.  Then you want to add "olive horticulture".  It's just not on the same level as the other topics.  The BOM will not rise or fall on the historicity of Smith's olive knowledge.  The other issues, however, are fundamental to the BOM narrative and its historicity.  It's not a matter of existence, it's a matter of magnitude and importance.  That's why it concerns me--once you've opened the door to trivia, anything goes and the article quickly becomes unmanageable.  --Taivo (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as your proposed text is concerned, the second sentence should begin, "Critics" rather than "Others", which implies "other Mormon authors". And it's not "available in North America", that's just weasel wording, it's "available to Joseph Smith" (as a man of the first quarter of the 19th century).  But as of right now, I still oppose adding the text because of the issue of trivia and this article I discussed above.  --Taivo (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

{od}(not indenting further now as there is no apparent need to get indefinitely deeper). Thanks. You also said you think the article itself shouldn't exist, so I'm not surprised that you don't want more content. I agree with changing to Critics, but for the other we don't know where the stuff was located, if somewhere JS could physically get to. Please propose wording that satisfies both, as I tried to do earlier, or else it seems you are playing owner and obstructing the addition of content of interest to the audience, since it meets the wikipedia standards I linked to earlier. I can give more quotes from policy in support of what I am doing, if that matters, or we can try DR. Thanks. --Lcall52 (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to get the point. The point I'm trying to make here is that this article is substantial (as far as substantial goes when dealing with religion), but your olive addition is trivial.  Each of the topics already discussed in the article are broad-based and inclusive of material that has meat on its bones.  Your olive content is not of the same gravity.  It's trivial, but you don't seem to get it.  It may be of interest to you, but it's not fundamental to the historical argument being made for and against the BOM.  It's just fluff.  That's my point.  It's trivial content compared to every other topic in the article as it stands.  Once we start allowing trivial content into an article such as this one, there is no limit to the number of inconsequential additions that might be made, both for and against the BOM's historicity.  Your continued attempts to wikilawyer the issue with endless misrepresentations of policy that you don't seem to completely understand is pointless.  The simple fact is that this is a proposed trivial addition to a weighty topic.  --Taivo (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me make this simple for you. The primary topics discussed here are "Archeology, Linguistics, Population Genetics, and Geography", all general topics which cover a broad range of chapters and data in the BOM.  Then there are "Anthon Transcript" and "Smithsonian Statement" sections which cover non-Mormon statements concerning the historicity of the BOM in general.  The "Other Stuff" section includes the statements that BYU and FARMS are constantly researching the historicity of the BOM.  How does "Olive Horticulture" fit into this at all?  Don't you see its triviality compared to all the other sections and topics?  It affects one chapter and is so minor that critics of the BOM generally ignore it because there are so many other bigger targets.  I know that you probably think that it's the most important thing ever in BOM historicity studies because its "your" topic and "your" addition to Wikipedia.  But it's trivial in terms of content with relation to this article.  It's like fighting for adding Napoleon's eye color to his article.  So what?  Whatever color they were, that's got to be the least important thing about him and not encyclopedic in content.  --Taivo (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems not much different from (edit/adding: the various listed) "animals, plants, and technologies" which is also worth while; eye color is not a valid comparison. Of course BYU does more work on the subject, because they naturally have more interest than most; one wouldn't expect a non-Mormon to be as interested in such research, nor a non-adherent of any worldview to be typically as invested in that view's studies (perhaps unless they feel threatened by it).  It seems you are pursuing your editorial goal to own and minimize the value of (or eliminate) the page, as you have stated it should not exist.  You continue to heatedly provide reasons that are not from wikipedia policy but are based on your opinions and preferences.  I read somewhere in wikipedia policy & guidelines recently that this should be a friendly place, and that one should not revert a change simply because one dislikes it, but should provide reasons from policy, which you have not, but continue to express very strong dislike.  You might still propose wording that you think we could both accept. --Lcall52 (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As animals/plants/technologies go, there are various listed already, and this one is discussed at much greater length in the text than any of those, and again, I think it has been written about enough (per the sources) and is of interest to readers. --Lcall52 (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I have thought a bit about this. It is on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. My first thought is that there could be a section that included minor matters which the Book of Mormon deals with more or less adequately, such as olive cultivation. After all, a stopped clock is accurate twice a day. Proves nothing, but is interesting. Not really giving in to Mormon claims, more damning with faint praise. But after taking a good look at the title of this article, History, I don't think a detail of horticulture actually fits. Disclosure: part of my family is LDS. They lead rich lives, but serious talk about the factual content of Mormon scripture is kind of off-limits with other family members. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fred, a good suggestion. If we are to have an encyclopedic article on this subject at all (and the attention given the subject by LDS does seem to justify the existence of the article), then I suppose it's acceptable to have a section on trivialities put forward by desperate apologists. The other acceptable approach would be to remove this entire insignificant matter, as Taivo suggests. My preference would be for removal, unless more and better sources can be found. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In further thought about this issue there is another reason why this isn't a question of historicity. Historicity refers to the historical accuracy of the content of the text itself.  If the text says, "There were giraffes in Zarahemla" that is a question of historicity:  1) Was there a place called Zarahemla that can be identified in the New World and 2) were there giraffes in the New World near that place?  The historical accuracy of both those statements can then be tested:  1) no and 2) no.  That's historicity.  As far as I can tell, the BOM nowhere says that olives were cultivated in the New World.  So just because someone in the text talks about olives, it's not a question of the text's historicity since there is no assertion of olive cultivation in the New World .  The narrative of olive cultivation was supposedly taken from a lost Mediterranean manuscript.  Since the existence of a lost manuscript cannot be demonstrated historically one way or another, then it's not a question of historical authenticity.  It does seem stupid that a New World speaker would be using a parable about cultivation of a fruit that was unknown in any form to his listeners, but that's not a question of historical authenticity of the BOM.  So since there is no assertion made in the text about the existence of olive horticulture in the New World, the fact that the text talks about olives in a parable is not historicity and doesn't belong in this article.  --Taivo (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So "historical authenticity" refers to the material in the text that is unique and can be tested. In the case of the BOM that is the entire New World history created by Smith--its geography, its biosphere, its culture, its genetics, etc.  Elements of the narrative that existed in the Old World can be tested (olives and the fall of Jerusalem), but since they are common and widely known, they offer nothing to prove or disprove the historical authenticity of the BOM.  The question of whether Smith could have invented or copied from books available to him the parable of the olive tree isn't a question of historical authenticity in the text, but of the truthfulness of Smith's origin tale--a different issue.  --Taivo (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Words like "stupid" or "desperate apologists" are less than what we could do. I have a very long list of meaningful reasons for my belief, most of which might not necessarily surprise or persuade others, but name-calling is not a way to build anything, and I ask us to work together at a higher level.  Jacob's speech about olives etc makes sense to me just by realizing he was speaking to a culture that, at minimum, had gone to great lengths to remember their ancestral ties to an olive-growing culture.  I will try to continue at the DRN page, not here, per recent comments by the volunteer/moderator there that the other 2 editors commenting, can also comment there.  Thanks for those comments and I like the suggestion of a new section, though I originally added it (1-2 sentences) to the section called "Other...".  --Lcall52 (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

After long discussion on the |Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, in which Taivo agreed to the addition of the content about olives to the page Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon, followed by closure of that discussion, I have made a suggestion on that Origins talk page, in effect moving this discussion there. Thanks for suggestions. --Lcall52 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historicity of the Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210071839/http://content.lib.utah.edu/u/?%2Fdialogue%2C21904 to http://content.lib.utah.edu/u?%2Fdialogue%2C21904
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070408014044/http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=2&table=transcripts to http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=2&table=transcripts

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Outright stating that the book of Mormon is FICTITIOUS historically
Currently it says "The theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility". It would be preferable to be more forthright and just say that it is FICTITIOUS historically. This doesn't preclude people of faith to believe it, but as an example, for the book of Mormon to state that there were certain animals in America before they were ever migrated there is just FALSE, and a reflection of Joseph Smith's fallability 2001:8003:6A23:2C00:147D:6484:A444:C656 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is neither a pro-LDS missionary tract nor an anti-LDS debunking site. Pages like this have only a bare hold on reality to begin with (and I have argued to no avail many times that all the of "X and the Book of Mormon" pages should be deleted as thinly-veiled religion-bashing/religion-praising debate mashups), but since they do, they must adhere to WP:NPOV as closely as possible as a whole.  Much of the wording and word choice is neither pro-LDS enough for true believers nor anti-LDS enough for opponents.  The old adage, "a compromise is something that neither side likes", is appropriate here.  --Taivo (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Fairmormon.org and bookofmormonhistory.com fail WP:RS
For Fairmormon see,. Bookofmormonhistory is run by a member of the The Church of Jesus Christ (Bickertonite), the 2nd largest denomination to take the BoM as scripture. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Claim
Since this has been an issue with this article I'm opening this thread. While it's the manual of style more than policy, WP:CLAIM is commonly mentioned (words to watch):  and this is indeed a situation where there is disregard for contradictory evidence. I suppose that an alternative could be "believe ... despite ..." or a similar formulation. "Claim" is both simple and accurate and as others suggested, is consistent with avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. — Paleo Neonate  – 09:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the way it is. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Doug Weller  talk 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Historicity in individual articles that deal with fictional Mormon characters and places
I'm looking for some unbiased input on how some of the articles on fictional Mormon figures should begin. I made edits to Captain Moroni, Nephites, and Moroni (Book of Mormon) to make it clear that these are not historical figures and places, but items contained within Mormon folklore. I've been reverted on these edits. Can someone weigh in please? JimKaatFan (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Fact versus religious fiction is always a problem whenever you question a believer's true faith that the fiction is actually fact despite the evidence. (That is, of course, the very definition of "faith"--treating something as fact in spite of the evidence.)  Mormonism, like most religions, falls under the purview of WP:FRINGE since it's fundamentally on the level of a conspiracy theory, but using logical arguments in these articles has always fallen on deaf ears.  Pointing out the fictional nature of a character in the Book of Mormon tends to fall in the bucket of POV editing so it's best to word the issue by using an intro such as "X is a character in the Book of Mormon" and leave the "fictional" or "factual" to the reader's POV.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If I might add on to what TL has said here, we treat the subjects of our articles the same way that our sources use them. To call them fictional, in Wikipedia's voice, would not be the best way to proceed. Whether we accept Smith's writings or not, it is pretty clear that he presented them factually. So we should be careful not to editorialize our own belief's on top of the reliable sources. --AdamF in MO (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is why we begin these articles with "According to the Book of Mormon, ..." similar to wording on biblical figures, such as those that appear in Genesis, and was the recommended wording at WT:religion that was verifiable and NPOV. The OP has replaced those on the disputed pages with "In Mormon folklore, ...", which doesn't work if you actually look at Mormon folklore. What the Book of Mormon story says about Captain Moroni is independent of how he appears in Mormon folklore and the article on Moroni doesn't really mention much of the folklore. Contrast that with Three Nephites which are figures in the Book of Mormon, but which have a ton of stories within the body of Mormon folklore, i.e. cultural stories, usually verbally transmitted, outside of the BoM story, within Mormon culture. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't say these things were fictional, though. I edited to state that the subjects of the article were part of Mormon folklore, which they are. When I first saw the articles on Captain Moroni and the Nephites, they were phrased in a way (and still are, since one editor wants it that way) that made it seem like these were actual historical figures. There's got a be a way to open these articles that doesn't confuse the reader who may not be familiar with Mormon beliefs. After all, we are writing this encyclopedia with the purpose of informing the English-speaking world, not to avoid offending the sensibilities of Mormons. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Side note - if you look at our article on Mormon folklore, it literally has in the lead how The Three Nephites are folklore. So this argument by FyzixFighter is a red herring, and while I try to assume good faith, it's clear from his edit history that he's heavily invested in promoting the Book of Mormon as factual. So I don't see his views as neutral on the topic. I'm trying to make the opening on these articles less confusing. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * First, in full disclosure, I acknowledge that I would be grouped similar to what has been noted regarding editing of church-related articles. With that said, I don't think anyone who has commented is heavily invested in promoting these beliefs as factual, rather there is effort to keep it balanced - acknowledging what adherents believe vs. those indicating it's all a hoax and fictional.  So, I agree with the caution of not treating these characters and places as though they are fictional.  With that said, a primary reason for adding my comment is in relation comments made about The Three Nephites in the folklore article.....the article does not say they are folklore....it says that what is captured in folklore are experiences, events, or interactions people indicate have occurred with them over time. So, there is a distinction there. ChristensenMJ (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with everything you've said here, ChristensenMJ. And I'm not trying to frame it as a "hoax" - my issue with the wording is that for someone who isn't familiar with the Book of Mormon (and in the English-speaking world, that's probably a lot of people), the opening lines of those articles (and probably others) really frame the opposite - that these are actual places and people that existed. So in the spirit of compromise, how about "In the Mormon belief system..." ? That's accurate, and I think pretty neutral. Would anyone have a problem with that? JimKaatFan (talk) 17:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The key is to locate these characters within their source, which is a physical artifact first and a metaphysical belief system second and not subject to POV, "X is a character in the BOM", "X is a figure in the Mormon belief system". "Folklore" is a loaded word because it has the added baggage of "fantasy".  Even "belief system" might be considered problematic for a true believer who might think you are invalidating their belief by labeling it a "belief system".  IMHO, the safest, least POV route is to label characters in the BOM as characters in the BOM.  But that's just my caution after more than a decade of editing on Mormon topics as a non-believer.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So, "X is a character in the Book of Mormon" is a great suggestion - I think that is clear, NPOV, and accurate. Does anyone have any objections to that? JimKaatFan (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I still fail to see how beginning the page with "According to the Book of Mormon,..." (the existing and longstanding wording) is different from, inferior to, or less neutral than the suggested "X is a figure in the Book of Mormon". --FyzixFighter (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree User:FyzixFighter that "According to the Book of Mormon..." is just as NPOV as "X is a character in the Book of Mormon...". The key is to locate the character in a physical artifact--in this case the BOM.  Such a construction as these two cannot be POV since they are both simple, succinct, and clear statements of fact.  (I haven't actually looked at this article, I've just been responding to User:JimKaatFan's generalized question.)  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's basic English comprehension. "X is a character in the Book of Mormon" makes it clear that the Book of Mormon is the only original source that puts forth the existence of said character. "According to the Book of Mormon..." leaves it unclear, if the reader is unfamiliar with what the Book of Mormon is, whether the character is real or not. BUT, if you don't see any difference between the two, then I assume you don't object to using the phrase proposed. Thank you. JimKaatFan (talk) 00:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a list of sources that talk about the people in the BOM in these terms? Please place them here so that we can evaluate them. --AdamF in MO (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? We're not talking about sources, but about how Wikipedia should introduce BOM characters in an NPOV manner.  Sources are irrelevant.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

With respect to NPOV, I don't think the phrases are any different. I think "X is a figure in the BoM" can be inferior in some cases, causing the intro to be needlessly verbose and awkward. I don't share your opinion that "According to..." is unclear, and I have never heard that from any other editor. Looking at alternatives from biblical figures, I think there are reasonable alternatives that would not be as awkward but still satisfy NPOV. For example, the current lede of Moroni (Book of Mormon) is:
 * Moroni (/məˈroʊnaɪ/), according to the Book of Mormon, was the last Nephite prophet, historian, and military commander who lived in the Americas in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

Here, I think the "X is a figure in the BoM" could be needlessly verbose and awkward. An alternative, based on a quick look at biblical figure articles (I'm cribbing this structure from Enos (biblical figure)), could be:
 * Moroni (/məˈroʊnaɪ/), in the Book of Mormon, is the last Nephite prophet, historian, and military commander who lived in the Americas in the late fourth and early fifth centuries.

Is this wording still unclear? If it is, does that mean we need to change the Enos article, and the several like it, as well? Does anyone else feel that "According to..." is unclear? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So far, you are the only one objecting to this change, and yet you're doing it while saying "I don't think the phrases are any different." Neither is verbose or awkward. So take your pick - either there's no difference, in which case you should have no objection, or there is a difference, and that difference is that "X is a character in the BoM" is more accurate and clear. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that I get what User:FyzixFighter is saying now (I hope). "X is a character in the BOM" means that X's only mention is in the BOM, X is not mentioned otherwise anywhere else.  "According to the BOM, X was..." implies that X is mentioned in the BOM, but X might be mentioned somewhere else as well--we're just talking about what the BOM said about X.  If I am understanding this argument correctly, then I would have to greatly prefer "X is a character in the BOM" (or the equivalent "X is a prophet in the BOM", "X is a criminal in the BOM", etc.) in order to leave no option for the reader to think that X might actually be mentioned elsewhere.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 17:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm with TaivoLInguist and FyzixFighter on this one (I think). We should do it the same as Wikipedia does with other fictional religious figures (Adam, Eve, Enos).  I'd be fine with "X is a figure in the BOM", or "According to the Book of Mormon".  I prefer the word "figure" over "character", as I think "figure" is more neutral.  If there is ambiguity as to whether or not they are historical figures, it should be stated like in the article on the biblical Adam or even on Anti-Nephi-Lehies. This is in line with my most critical scholarly books on the subject.  Refiner's Fire, uses the phrase, "In the Book of Moses the prophet Enoch...".  Dan Vogel in Joseph Smith:The Making of a Prophet  characters are introduced as "X in book X".  Moroni's introduction is "Moroni-Nephite military hero", and then compares him to Andrew Jackson. In both of these books, the authors clearly feel the Book of Mormon is not historical, but don't feel the need to append "a fictional character" every time they introduce a figure. Epachamo (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd also be fine with "X is a figure in the BOM". JimKaatFan (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that the Adam article opens with "is a figure in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible". If it's good enough for the First Man, surely it's good enough for Captain Moroni. JimKaatFan (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I still think that the mental gymnastics needed to say that "According to the BoM, ..." could equally be used to argue any "... in the BoM" statement is unclear. Both statements do need to allow for how X occurs outside of the BoM when X also occurs in other Latter Day Saint scriptures or in LDS culture/folklore, and I think both wordings do allow for that. Would the alternative to the Moroni intro sentence I provided above be equally unclear?
 * Also, is a statement of "X is a figure in the BoM" sufficient for articles on BoM figures such that explicit historicity statements are not needed (such as this example)? That it was sufficient was the advice that was given when I raised this question on WT:RELIGION several years back. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We could easily tailor the opening sentence to "X is a figure in the BoM" or ""X is a figure in Mormon folklore" or "X is a figure in the BoM and Mormon folklore" on a case-by-case basis. The worst option is the one that currently exists - which frames these subjects as real people or places, when they're objectively not. As far as I know, Wikipedia's goal isn't to avoid offending people who take religious mythic texts literally, especially not one that was written in 1830 and has zero archaeological, historical, and scientific evidence to support anything in it. JimKaatFan (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I come to this discussion ongoing after seeing a post on Wikiproject History. I think using "figure in the BoM" would work (this is done with Enoch ("biblical figure"), about whom we know nothing historically (unlike Jesus, e.g., who appears in works of history besides the New Testament).  It seems like using "belief system," which I saw mentioned earlier, would also work, but I say this without having combed through similar articles to see precedents (and I don't have a lot of experience editing religious articles).--MattMauler (talk) 18:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that "figure in the BoM" is looking like a safe consensus. So far everyone but one editor is on board with that, and his arguments against it don't make a lot of logical sense. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but it's certainly possible that his real reasons for being against that phrase will remain hidden. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith. I have been completely honest and forthcoming in my reasons and criticisms of the proposed text. If you wish to express doubts about my conduct, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence rather than veiled accusations of bad motives.
 * Thank you for taking the time to provide an outside opinion. If I could ask a follow-up clarifying question: Do you see any issues or problems with the current lede of Moroni (Book of Mormon)? --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This thread has grown a little since you asked your question, so I hope the placement of my response does not cause confusion. I know that by "current" you mean with the wording "According to ..."; to be completely honest, it might not have occurred to me that any change was necessary.  I know what the book of Mormon is, and assume that limited or no historical evidence exists for this angelic being outside of the text.  I have offered my opinion, but I am not a good decider here.  We're not dealing with a history article. I would recommend one or both of you asking Wikiproject Religion and basing it on their recommendation(s); if you've already looked there or if you receive conflicting advice, look and note particularly how Good and/or Featured religious articles handle this.  Before giving my initial answer, I just poked around randomly (which is where I got the Enoch example in my previous comment).--MattMauler (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I have assumed good faith throughout. If you have doubts about my faith, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence rather than just making up accusations out of thin air. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ummm, I never said you have acted in bad faith. I do think that some of your conduct is inappropriate relative to WP:AGF - these edits ( and ) are veiled accusations that I am acting in bad faith. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As for your end of it, it becomes more difficult to assume good faith when this edit of yours appears, as it's a blatant violation of WP:CANVAS. It took me about 5 seconds to find the proper procedure for asking for a third opinion - you didn't follow it, you went to the talk page of someone you knew would be sympathetic to your POV, and you called it a "third opinion" request. That's not even close, it's a clear violation. Then you went and made this revert based on that canvassing, and called it "Per third opinion provided by Editor2020" in your edit summary. No way is that gonna fly if even one admin bothered to take a look at that. I'm busy now figuring out the best way to report it. I'll let you know on your talk page. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah - that wasn't canvassing. It was an appropriate attempt to get an outside opinion from two editors that have shown an expertise in religious articles, but who I know are nonpartisan. The request was limited and neutral. Therefore, it's perfectly appropriate notification. I probably should not have said "third opinion" as there is that formal process, and I meant it as an informal outside opinion - so sorry for that. If you think my behavior has been inappropriate, feel free to report it, but beware the WP:BOOMERANG. --FyzixFighter (talk) 17:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It is literally the definition of WP:CANVAS. And you were caught, and now you're back-pedaling. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And don't threaten me with "beware the WP:BOOMERANG" like some bully - you're way outside the lines on this one. Only one person in this discussion is fighting the "figure in the BoM" verbiage. TaivoLinguist, MattMauler, and JimKaatFan all agree that it's neutral, it's concise, and it's clear. The old verbiage is nebulous and leads anyone unfamiliar with the book of Mormon to believe these are historical figures and places right off the first sentence. The only reason to defend that verbiage is if someone is coming at the topic from a POV of believing these articles are about actual people and places. JimKaatFan (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL. "Beware the BOOMERANG" is not a threat, it's kindly reminder that your behavior will be just as much under scrutiny as mine when/if you make a report. I don't see a consensus above that the "according to the BoM" wording is not neutral, concise, or clear. Only you have been arguing that. TavioLinguist has said that the "according to the BoM" is equally as neutral as "X is a figure in the BoM", so WP:NPOV does not require a rewording. As I said before, there are instances where the "X is a figure in the BoM" results in needless wordiness and awkwardness (like this). Again, you are the only one who thinks the previous, long-standing wording is insufficient or lacking. --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference (since I just saw MattMauler's response above), I did raise this at Wikiproject Religion years ago here and the "according to the BoM" was the recommendation I got there (and that an additional explicit historicity statement was not needed). --FyzixFighter (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

(EC) User:JimKaatFan, just a friendly warning to dial down the outrage about five notches. User:FyzixFighter has been around the Mormon pages for years. (I don't know whether I came first or he did, but we've worked together for a very long time.) He's a good enough editor here that I actually haven't even subconsciously placed him in the "Mormon" or "non-Mormon" camp. That's a real testament to his NPOV editing. We might differ on details sometimes, but there's no question that he's trying to do the best for Wikipedia. I can tell that your wish is for the same. What FyzixFighter did in asking for the outside opinion isn't considered illegal canvassing because his request was not "Come to this page and support me!!!" spread to multiple potentially sympathetic editors. So let's summarize a bit. (I admit that I got involved on another page in a very heavy discussion and stopped following this page quite as closely.)
 * "X was/is a figure in the BOM."
 * "According to the BOM, X was ..."
 * "X was/is a character in the BOM."
 * Any others? I think these are the major ones

Personally, I could live with any of them and I think that the differences between them are almost trivial at this point. The other issue is that Wikipedia will never have identical wording in related articles as long as it remains "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". There's even a warning about this at WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's nice to be as similar as possible, but it's more of a preference than a reality. That said, it's obvious that while unanimity is always a preference, perhaps in this case we can gently agree to disagree if there's not a major issue with any of them. That's just my suggestion. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, my entire involvement in this is based on the fact that the original "According to the BOM, X was ..." phrasing really frames these figures as historical figures that actually existed. And that's with me actually knowing what the Book of Mormon is (although I didn't know it was written in exactly 1830 until I delved deeper). My concern is that for English-speakers who do not know what the Book of Mormon is, it's a very confusing way to frame things. I do feel that "X is a figure in the BOM" is much clearer. Even the use of "is" vs. "was" makes it clearer that this is not a historical figure for whom there is any evidence of existence. I appreciate you being a calm voice of reason. It appears that the only one who has a problem with "X is a figure in the BOM" is FyzixFighter, to the point that he engaged in canvassing to revert one of my edits. That's what mainly upset me. JimKaatFan (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * User:JimKaatFan I completely understand your concern over "According to..." leaving the door open for an actual historical character. "In 2016, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic nominee for U.S. President, but according to Fox News she was a criminal," where Fox News is but one of the many sources that mention and refer to an actual historical figure.  I shared that same concern previously and this is my least preferred choice of wording.  It would, however, be a rather odd and overly dramatic introductory sentence to an article about a real historical person, "According to the British tabloids, Napoleon was a monster who ate children for breakfast."  It would be less odd if it were complimentary, "According to the French people, Napoleon was the greatest leader France ever had."  Both Hillary Clinton and Napoleon are real people and there are multiple sources to confirm their existence.  But this could even be used for presumably actual individuals who are only mentioned in one source.  "According to the Groenlendinga saga, Bjarni Herjólfsson told Leif Eriksson about a land to the west of Greenland covered in trees."  Bjarni Herjólfsson is considered by most historians to be an actual person, but he's only mentioned in one source.  And yet, the article on Bjarni Herjólfsson begins, "Bjarni Herjólfsson (fl. 10th century) was a Norse-Icelandic explorer who...".  This is actually the preferred way that biographies of real people should begin (there's a Wikipedia policy or guideline that states as much, MOS:OPENPARABIO)--name, dates, main characteristic.  So given that background, to begin an article "According to the Book of Mormon, X was a ...." already sets it apart as (1) most likely a single-source character because Wikipedia is assumed to be neutral in its point of view, (2) most likely a single-source character because the source, being mentioned first, is more prominent than the character, and (3) most likely fictional since this character is introduced differently than nearly every historical figure.  Does this allay your concerns about "According to the Book of Mormon..."?  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really, and ironically, it's your examples of real people, I think, that make it an issue. We often use "according to (whatever text)" to describe real people, and I think that's another reason not to use it for biblical, or Book of Mormon, figures - at least, the ones without any historical evidence supporting their existence. For the Bible, that's many figures - for the Book of Mormon, it's virtually all of them. "X is a figure in the BoM" is much clearer. It's not inaccurate, and it doesn't leave the reader with any false impressions about the historicity of the figure. I still think that's the least cumbersome way to accomplish a solid first sentence for these articles. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

So, as there's been no new activity here for a couple of days, it looks to me that most editors prefer, or at least are okay with, "X is a figure in the BoM" as the opening sentence. I already know we have one editor that will object, but even he said he sees "no difference" between that and the current phrasing, so it should be no problem to go ahead and make that change. I'll do that in a bit, waiting on any responses here. JimKaatFan (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But you are the only one who thinks that a change is necessary. Again, I don't see a consensus that change is necessary. The "According to the BoM,... " a valid structure both in terms of style and NPOV, based on the other opinions expressed. It is also the structure suggested when I brought this to WP:RELIGION a few years ago (see link above). If there is no stylistic or NPOV difference of the two verbiages, then MOS:VAR would apply, which states that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." I do not see a substantial reason for the change, aside from you don't like it. --FyzixFighter (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So User:JimKaatFan, here's where we stand. You want X and User:FyzixFighter wants Y.  No one else cares.  Because you don't have a WP:CONSENSUS for changing the wording, ("I don't care" doesn't count for judging consensus), the status quo prevails and you cannot change the wording within Wikipedia's rules and processes.  Sorry about that, it's not uncommon.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Defenses of Historicity
What is the procedure for including sources that support the historicity, especially those that are independent of the LDS Church? Some examples are the many tribes of North America that held traditions of a "Great Spirit", the Mayan temples, and the 200 pages of supporting judeo-native american linquistics and customs documented by James Adair in 1775, (55 years prior to the publication of the BOM). Elias Boudinot, (1741-1821) 2nd President of the US Confederation Congress, also wrote extensively on the subject, sharing many notes on connections between the Judeo and Native American cultures. Or should I start a separate article Historicity Supporting the Book of Mormon? Coriantumr15 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not evidence of acceptance of the Book of Mormon as a book of history. Those are facts that Mormons accept as evidence, but no non-Mormon looks at and says, "Hey, that's evidence that we should use the Book of Mormon as a historical document".  You're seriously confused.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not going to turn Wikipedia into a missionary tract. That stuff that you list can be mentioned in this article, but it's not evidence of using the Book of Mormon as history, it's historical evidence ("Historicity") that Mormons use to argue for the book's historicity.  No non-Mormon historian, linguist, or other relevant scholar accepts the Book of Mormon as a work of history.  There is not a single incontrovertible piece of historical or archeological evidence that matches an event in the Book of Mormon.  Heck, Mormons can't even agree on where the events in the BOM might have taken place if it were something more than a work of religious fiction.  --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You would have to find a scholarly source that makes the connection between the Native American cultures and the Book of Mormon. Otherwise it is original research and not permitted on Wikipedia. FWIW, I recommend reading Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon for the general scholarly consensus on how those historical things you mentioned ended up in the Book of Mormon. Epachamo (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Why the push for Category:Pseudohistory?
So this category was recently added, and I obviously disagree with its inclusion, so here we go to the talk page. This article is currently categorized in Category:Book of Mormon studies which is a subcat of Category:Book of Mormon which is a subcat of Category:Pseudohistory. As I indicated in my edit summary, WP:CAT says articles should be in their most specific categories. The current placement in BoM studies is certainly more specific than pseudohistory, so what am I missing here? VernoWhitney (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a really misleading argument. Category:Book of Mormon wasn't a sub-category of Category:Pseudohistory until 2 days ago. I find it difficult to believe that you didn't already know that. JimKaatFan (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Late to the discussion but BOM should not be a subcat of Pseudohistory. That's wayyyy too far.     I see its been corrected now.  Feoffer (talk) 23:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's something we can both agree on. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea on what you are talking about. Can you elaborate your points? The BoM category has never been listed under the BoM studies category, which is a subcategory of the BoM category. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't generally check on the history of categories, so I actually didn't know that. Thank you for pointing it out. In any case, the reason I removed it in the first place is still the violation of WP:CAT. Include too many things in broad categories makes them (the categories) unusable. I have no real opinion on whether it should or should not be counted as psuedohistory, because I have not done the research. But I think that should be taken care of at the category level (as NMH apparently attempted to), and not on a page-by-page basis. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial given that categorization cannot be annotated. None of the other "Historicity of X" articles are included under this category so why is this one being singled out? Do things like the Book of Genesis or the Book of Exodus, which are also disputed by historians, also belong in this category. Looking at the summary of pseudohistory I would argue that there are some elements of the definition that the BoM does not satisfy, in particular the common feature of "an underlying premise that there is a conspiracy among scholars to promote so-called "mainstream history" over "true" history, an assertion commonly corroborated by elaborate conspiracy theories." Not everything that historians dispute qualifies as pseudohistory (Book of Genesis and the Exodus, for example). Do we have reliable sources that identify the BoM as "pseudohistory" not just disputed or not accepted by historians? --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Putting this article in Category:Pseudohistory isn't controversial for anyone outside of the community that takes the Book of Mormon as literal fact. Sorry, no religious text gets to strike that category just because there's a band of true believers that doesn't like it. The fact that it's pseudohistory is well-documented in general analysis and even in this article itself!
 * as a side note, making the category a sub-category of Category:Pseudohistory is problematic for several reasons that have nothing to do with the this article. I reverted that edit for those reasons. However, there's no problem with putting this article into that category. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:06, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand that but I want you to know that I will no longer talk about the Book of Mormon anymore. Wikipedia is full of Mormons after I doing "a little research", I believe it. When I added the Polytheism category into God in Mormonism, for example, the edit got instantly removed, while the concept of the so-called "plurality of gods" and "eternal progression" is well discussed in it but I don't care anymore. Please do not tag me in any discussion relating to Mormonism. I will avoid this topic from now. Thank you. Please understand! —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I forgot. This is because the Mormons will compare the Book of Mormon's historicity to those of the Book of Genesis and Exodus, which were written long before the Book of Mormon and never claimed to be the truth of a certain thing. Their argument actually contradicts themselves but just avoid them; arguing with them wastes is meaningless, they will not care. Please avoid arguing with them, once again. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I would encourage you to not look at it that way - as "arguing with Mormons". We're all just editors here. I think you will find that a less confrontational approach will be helpful. I'm not Mormon, and I'm not particularly religious, but I do have an interest in history in general, and the places where religion and history overlap in particular. We can all work together on this. JimKaatFan (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, please just stop it. If you want to argue over its historicity, then do it by yourself. Do not involve me in it. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, just because something is disputed or not accepted by mainstream historians does not make it pseudohistory. I think that this categorization fails both WP:CATPOV and WP:CATV. There are other similar religious topic articles that are similarly disputed by mainstream historians but are not currently in this category, therefore it seems that there is a pattern on WP. For example none of the "Historicity of X" articles are in this category or in one of its subcategories, nor are articles about the Exodus, the Genesis Flood, the Old Testament patriarchs, and so on. There is also related discussion at Talk:Book_of_Mormon/Archive_3 that I think is relevant where the consensus was against the categorization of that article. Broader consensus and explicit reliable sources are needed in my opinion. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You're citing an argument from 2004? When barely anyone was editing Wikipedia? Nice try. Also, your sentence stating that "just because something is disputed or not accepted by mainstream historians does not make it pseudohistory" is a twisted interpretation of the Book of Mromon. There are literally NO historians that believe the events described as historical actually occurred. That's literally the definition of pseudohistory. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you really trying to set aside tons of arguments by historians against the Book of Mormon's historicity????????? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)