Talk:Plates of Nephi

Proposed merger
There is a significant overlap of information in the Large and Small plates of Nephi articles, and the one can't really be discussed without the other. At the time of this writing there are three articles (Large Plates, Small Plates and plain old Plates of Nephi). It seems to be Wikipedia would be better served with one comprehensive article.--andersonpd 18:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. It would be better to discuss them all in one article. Val42 06:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Caretakers
I added the "Caretakers" section to this article since this article would be the most likely place where people would look for this information. I got the information there, but I'm not quite happy with the format that I used. But I haven't come up with a better, more consistent way, yet. Please feel free to fix it. Val42 20:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Need for a minor edit on note/reference #5 - currently reads 1717 for the verse. The link is correct and takes one to the right verse. I tried to edit but am insufficiently adept at understanding how to get into the reflink to edit hyperlink titles.
 * --Zigmund Snorticus (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it up on the talk page. I wouldn't have noticed without it.  I've fixed it. &mdash; Val42 (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Questionability of the Whole Story
It's too bad that there is no mention in the article that nobody other than Joseph Smith ever saw the alleged plates, and that their existence is therefore questionable. Also the fact that no writing or language called "Reformed Egyptian" is known to scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hadding (talk • contribs) 06:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The following people signed statements claiming to have seen the plates: Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, Martin Harris, Christian Whitmer, Jacob Whitmer, Peter Whitmer Jun., John Whitmer, Hiram Page, Joseph Smith Sen., Hyrum Smith, Samuel Smith. Userid333 (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

"work of fiction"
I object to the classification of this article as applying to "work of fiction". It would be inappropriate to tag an article about a Bible or Quran subject in that manner, and it is equally inappropriate to tag this article in that manner, simply because some people believe it to be a true, ancient based record and some do not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.93.240.146 (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * More specific & correct templates have have replaced the one you objected to. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Articles' Phrasing
This article, along with many other small BOM articles such as those on the individual books, is written mostly uncritically from the perspective given in the BOM itself; ie it presents the book as a historical record, and the plates and prophets claimed to have written them as real, without the clarification that this is just what is stated in the text and believed by the Mormon movement. An example is the sentence "These plates, as well as other records made and found by Nephi's people were handed down from generation to generation." which might be rephrased as "These plates, as well as other records made and found by Nephi's people were described as being handed down from generation to generation." It would however be very awkward to simply add "according to the Book of Mormon" or some such phrase to every sentence in these articles. Ideally, the narrative from the Book would be identified as such, rather than stated in Wikipedia's voice, and also other things such as peoples' viewpoints on it, discussion of doctrines, etc. would be discussed rather than just the BOM perspective. For example, this article does not even discuss the fact that many doubt existence of the Nephites, let alone the authenticity of the plates which were claimed to contain a record of their history. Dijekjapen (talk) 22:38, 23 October 2020 (UTC)