Jump to content

Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Book of Mormon

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 21:42, 7 June 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Subtitle discussion

I copied these two most recent edit notes from the article history.

10 April 2012‎ Jgstokes "As repeatedly mentioned, the only sect in the Latter Day Saint movement that uses that subtitle is the LDS Church. The Book of Mormon (without subtititle) is the correct way to refer to it in connection with the Latter Day Saint movement."

9 April 2012‎ 71.199.13.171 "Updated book title to reflect the actual title printed on the cover, and on the title page, of each official copy printed in the past 31 years by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had printed over 150 million copies as of 4/2011"

The first illustration in the article, of the cover of a Book of Mormon, carries the very subtitle that is under discussion. A photo of the cover of a different edition of the Book, without the subtitle, would be less likely to lead to confusion IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The photo may be misleading. I think the easiest way around this difficulty is to find a free-image, fair use photo of the first edition of the Book of Mormon. This would, IMHO, settle the dispute for all parties concerned. At least, that would resolve it as far as I'm concerned. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 06:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Probably a good solution, although I'm sure there are current editions of the book that don't have the subtitle on the cover. For example, this one (although that particular one isn't good because it has a drawing of the Salt Lake temple). --Taivo (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Harv inline missing matching ref

There are inline harv references in this article that no longer work: they no longer link an in-text attribution to the full citation at the bottom of the page in the references section (see Template:harv for more info). Could someone please fix this? I tried today, but found the edit history of this article too convoluted to find the original references. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the longer citations in the "References" section are using the "Cite book" and "Cite journal", templates, when the Harv references are looking for the "Citation" template. I fixed this for Brodie's book (currently Ref 19) which wasn't working before, and it is working now. If there are no objections, I can do the same for the other references, swapping out "Cite book" and "Cite journal" for "Citation". ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"saw and handled"

Quoting our article, "In addition to Smith's account regarding the plates, eleven others signed affidavits that they saw and handled the golden plates for themselves. Their written testimonies are known as the Testimony of Three Witnesses[15] and the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.[16] These affidavits are published as part of the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon."

Based on this link:

http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/witness.htm

the Testimony of Eight Witnesses says they handled the golden plates but the Testimony of Three Witnesses does NOT say that. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

So perhaps a "saw and/or handled" is in order? --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Sounds acceptable to me. It appears from the account of the three witnesses that the angel showed them the plates, but they may not have handled them. Interesting. I never noticed that before. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the inputs. I think "saw and/or handled" is awkward and that the "or" could be taken to suggest that some of them handled the plates but did not see them. I suggest another wording:
"In addition to Smith's account regarding the plates, eleven others signed affidavits that they personally saw the golden plates and, in some cases, handled them."
Wanderer57 (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Better. Thanks. --Taivo (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

"saw" (or "seen") – I didn't check the article to see what it says about people who claimed to have seen the plates, but I do recall reading that some people who had claimed to see the plates were later asked if they had LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY SEEN the plates; and a number of them (if what I read was accurate) did NOT claim that they had! One person (not sure if it was one of the listed witnesses, but I thought so) supposedly said that he saw them with the "eyes of faith". I read this many years ago, and don't recall where. But if someone claims that they saw them with eyes of faith, that would seem to indicated that they weren't willing to lie at that time, and were unwilling to say that they saw them with their physical eyes; this point seems rather important, not only as evidence for or against the idea of the actuality of the plates, but could speak to the the veracity of some claimed experience regarding the plates in general. Misty MH (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I see that Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints), one of the Three Witnesses, said that he did NOT see the plates with his physical eyes (mentioned under the Wikipedia article under his name). Misty MH (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"handled" – I recall an author once commenting on someone claiming that he had "hefted" the plates. The author (possibly Ed Decker, as part of Ex Mormons for Jesus, but I don't recall) seemed to think that one wouldn't be "hefting" around heavy, gold plates. Not sure I agreed with his assessment, but it was interesting. At the time, I had gotten the idea that the plates much have been large in size; in recent months, I have gotten the idea that something that someone had seen was somewhat small by comparison with what I had originally imagined (imagined, that is, based on that author's writing). Misty MH (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Too bad no expert in linguistics was allowed to actually analyze the plates (I presume), and that whole sections were apparently not copied for analysis; I am aware only of the controversial "Caractors" (sic) document (also called the "Anthon Transcript"), which was apparently just a page, or part of a page, with characters on it instead of actual passages from the plates. And, of course, there were the "lost 116 pages", which were "the first portion" of the supposed golden plates (in 1827); but these have apparently not turned up; nor did Joseph Smith retranslate or recreate them but only included an "abridgment" of the Book of Lehi instead ("with Nephi's account of the same events", which came later). Misty MH (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC). Minor edit: Misty MH (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I just made the change that I suggested on May 2. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting point from Misty MH about the weight of the golden plates needed to contain the entire text of the Book of Mormon. Has anyone reported experimenting with writing texts onto sheets of gold? Or sheets of copper, a much less expensive choice for experimentation.
Do LDS Temples or other meeting places have "replicas" of golden plates? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Temples and meetinghouses do not have replicas, although I understand the Church History Museum has a replica. Here is a news story from BYU about making the replica. Also, it was not claimed that the plates were made of solid gold. 72Dino (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not really a true replica, it's more of a model based on authoritative descriptions. One of the key thing missing is the inscriptions, which cannot be authentically replicated. We have a picture of that model on Wikimedia Commons at File:GoldenPlates.JPG -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you both. Excellent photo. I can't help thinking, though, that the use of 3-ring binder clips makes it look startlingly modern. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Binding techniques that might be mistaken as modern can actually be quite old. For example, see the Etruscan golden book from Bulgaria (Unique book goes on display, BBC, 26 May 2003) which dates to around 600 BC, as it features a ring binding; additionally the golden Pyrgi Tablets circa 500 BC many have at one time featured a ring binding, although this is less clear. When function meets form it can produces startling similarities across cultures and eras. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
While this next bit is origional research for the purposes of WP articles, one could also observe that coptic binding appears to a "missing link" between metal plate-based codex ring binding and parchment/papyrus/paper-based codex binding. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
The model of the golden plates dates at least as far back as my childhood in Utah in the '60s, but, of course, it's all conjecture since the plates (never existed/are no longer available for inspection) and I don't recall any descriptions of their binding by Smith or anyone else (not meaning there isn't a description, just that I don't remember one). --Taivo (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here are some sources of information regarding the binding, as well as dimensions. 72Dino (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Model of Golden Plates with Urim and Thummim
Here's another picture that's available on Commons of a model of the plates. This was made several years ago by a craftsman in Utah. I believe he tried to make everything to scale, based on the descriptions available. I think the box in the picture is a model of the "glass box" that Smith said he carried the plates in.
Also, just a note about the composition of the plates: I don't think there's anybody claiming that they were solid gold (they would have been much too heavy). Even Smith said they "had the appearance of gold". I've heard of several Mormon scholars saying that the plates may have been made of a copper-gold alloy like Tumbaga (which was quite common in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica) where the plates would be mostly copper with a few microns of gold on the surface. (I'm sure objects made of tumbaga must have been quite disappointing for the conquistadors when they got back to Spain and started melting down the Inca "gold" :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Good link of descriptions, 72Dino! And good (but dark) photo of the facsimile!
At that descriptions link, Martin Harris gave some pretty specific measurements. How could he have done that if he did not see it with his eyes (per my comment above)?
And while I am at it, I noticed just who was listed as witnesses: mostly 2 families.
Misty MH (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


Determining number of pages of plates (not given in descriptions at the link): Don't yawn, LOL.

From the descriptions link, I gather that it might have been approximately 4" to 6" thick, with approximately half (1/2) to two-thirds (2/3) of that "sealed" (and I presume untranslated, and not in the BoM). At a near-maximum, that might be up to 3" of pages that were an approximate maximum page size of about 7"x8".† Let's give that page size another 1/4 inch. (One description says "about as thick as parchment" (David Whitmer); which seems to contradict "of the thickness of plates of tin" (Martin Harris), but mitigated by "not quite as thick as common tin" (Orson Pratt). Notice who said this next one: "They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic [sic] sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book" (Emma Smith).) At the MAXIMUM, that's 7.25"Wx8.25"Lx3"H, with pages engraved on both sides.†† If they were paper – I just measured 3" thick of a couple of regular, printed books (465+1065=1,530) – that could be about 1530 pages. Wispy-thin pages of a Bible came to more like 4444 pages. While 3" of bulk DVD-R discs came to only 55 discs x 2 = the equivalent of 110 pages (counting both sides); if the plates were half (1/2) as thick as a DVD-R disc, then that would be 220 pages; if one-third (1/3), then that's 330 pages; if one-quarter as thick (1/4), then 440 pages. (I don't have any "tin" sheets on hand, LOL.) TODAY'S PRINTINGS: Most BoM printings I've seen are about as Wide and Long as a small paperback. Searching Amazon for sizes, top hits, searching under Books, give these measurements (for whatever they're worth) – remember that these include margins: 436 pages, 7.9"x10" (Publisher, Empire Books); 779 pages, 4.9"x7" (Publisher, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints); and 608 pages, 5.8"x8.5" (Publisher, Harmony).

Size of the words in the original: I am now wondering whether "Egyptian" is "wordier" than English, or less wordy or about the same; in Chinese script, one character can be a few words in English! ANYONE?

CALCULATIONS and CONCLUSIONS: IF we use all the maximums – and if the original text were just about as "wordy" as English (which I don't know) – based on a guess of 1/3 the thickness of a DVD-R (330 pages), and all the other maximums, THEN it would seem like there would not be enough original pages to supply all the text for the English BoM; but based on 1/4 the thickness (pretty thin!), then that 440 pages would just about match the 436 pages (at 7.9x10 with margins) of the Empire Books' publication.

† It's interesting that so many people stated those exact inches (7x8) – Same source? Collusion? – when other inches varied much more widely (4-6), and how much was "sealed" also varied widely (1/2 vs. 2/3).

†† I'd like to see that "Egyptian" statement at the link verified. I recall years ago reading that it was "like" Egyptian, and things said like modified Egyptian. What exactly was said (found at the link above)? since it's practically surrounded by ellipses?

Well, this felt like another exercise in futility, LOL, in trying to determine the truth of these matters. Maybe I'll have to find piles of plates of tin from the 1800s, LOL. (Kidding.)

Now I wonder what a chunk of metal 7"x8"x6" (or x4") weighs? 60 lbs.? Really?? Hmm. Edit: Maybe so. (I remember hearing or reading something by Ed Decker, from Ex-Mormons for Jesus, where he thought it ludicrous that someone "hefted" the plates—if I understood it (and it has been many years). I dunno, my dictionary says "heft" means to "lift or carry (something heavy)". Sounds about right. Maybe he misunderstood the word "hefted". :)

Misty MH (talk) 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Minor clarification Misty MH (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Added "Maybe so." Misty MH (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Small error

In the actual B.o.M. it says that they lived on the American continent from 600 BC to 421 AD, not 2200 BC. Thanks, Wikihunter734 (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

According to Book of Mormon scholars, the Jaredites lived on the American continent starting roughly 2200 B. C., so the article is accurate, and there is no error. Thanks. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh! :-P Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihunter734 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia... Now that this has been resolved, should I delete it, or keep it so we can refer to it in the future? B-) (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

We don't delete stuff off the Talk Page. At some point in the future, an administrator will archive it. --Taivo (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey. B-) (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Prophecies Section?

The first thing I noticed in reading this article for the first time (I've read the BofM more times than I can count) is that there is not a single mention of the many prophecies contained in and made by the book, and no discussion here of their absence, in spite of the fact that they constitute a significant part of the content of the book and are a critical thematic element. I'm willing to write such a section, but I'd like to get a consensus on its importance, as well as anything I should be careful to avoid in writing the section. Thanks in advance. Davidwhittle (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Davidwhittle, Can you please read my comments below about "prophecies", where I ask for links? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Because writing about prophecies is not encyclopedic and wanders all too easily into NPOV ground. --Taivo (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm a little surprised by your response. Can you be more specific when you say "writing about prophecies is not encyclopedic?" I'm not talking about writing about prophecies - I'm talking about including important information about the content of the Book of Mormon in an article titled "The Book of Mormon." I'm failing to see how excluding what amounts to a key part of the Book of Mormon, such that its omission stands out as remarkable, serves Wikipedia's purpose of being "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge." Perhaps you can enlighten me. Personally, when I go to a Wikipedia article, it's to find factual, accurate, well-sourced information that reflects all points of view, and I don't think I'm alone in believing that an article on the Book of Mormon should do at least a decent job of representing the content of The Book of Mormon itself. What's there now is substandard, at least from this published author's perspective. As for NPOV being a potential problem, yes, that's true if the section were to expand disproportionately. But NPOV is already a problem here by the exclusion of such a significant part of the BoM, since NPOV requires that all significant views be represented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias. The exclusion of any mention of prophecies, revelations, dreams, visions, etc. in relation to the Book of Mormon is a violation of NPOV in that I'm sure the millions of believers who are most familiar with the book who are reading the article today would not claim that the content of the book is being represented fairly, proportionately, or without editorial bias. That was my immediate reaction, especially when I read this in the lede: "The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve,[5] the nature of the Atonement,[6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death,[7] and the organization of the latter-day church." My reaction was raised eyebrows and a chuckle, thinking to myself: "Huh? Wow. Now there's a good example of Wikiality if I've ever seen one." NPOV requires proportionality, and just because someone can find a reliable source stating that the BofM addresses a particular topic somewhere in the book doesn't mean that the topic warrants inclusion in the lede or in the article at all. I'll guarantee you this: ask a million people who have read the Book of Mormon, and how many will say, unprompted, that it's about eschatology? Zero. Plus you have to ponder for awhile to think of where you'd find what little information there is about "the organization of the latter-day church," and nobody would say a primary topic is the fall of Adam and Eve. The BofM even states what it's about - why not include that? And prophecies of the latter-days? All readers would agree that's a recurring theme of major importance in the book. Do you believe that sentence in the lede can't be improved? Can you explain how my proposal to add more representative content would not improve Wikipedia? And does it make any difference how many people might speak up and agree with me here on this? I don't want to get into a contentious debate over this, especially not with you, since you seem to be the ultimate authority and gatekeeper here, but I believe I'm asking some serious questions and making some serious points that should be addressed. Thanks for your consideration. Davidwhittle (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Several remarks concerning the issue:
  • Since the BOM is a single-author work regarded as scripture, it is best compared to the Quran, which does not include any major sections on theology. All such issues are found in subordinate articles. The article itself focuses on the physical form of the text, its authorship, the context of its writing, its transmission, etc. For believers who might think that the BOM is what Smith claimed it to be, then a parallel article would be the Bible article, which, like the Quran article also focuses on the physical nature of the book, its authorship, its transmission, etc. Notice that the Bible article has nothing about prophecy--there is a link to an article on biblical prophecy which has a "problems" tag clearly slapped on it. Not a good omen for an article on BOM prophecy
  • The sentence which you complain about from this article is a sentence which only exists after much discussion and consensus-building and talks about distinctive theological features of the BOM. I actually don't think it belongs here. Like the articles on the Quran and the Bible, this article should be about the book's physical origin, transmission, etc., and not about its contents. That sentence and the limited amount of discussion of its contents is based on consensus-building and a lot of hard work from both members and nonmembers to keep it as NPOV as possible. This article is constantly attacked by those who would either turn it into a missionary tract (see the Moroni's Promise discussion) or into a slanderous attack on Mormonism.
  • "Prophecy" isn't a well-defined term anyway and I don't know what you think it is or what our readers might think it is. Prophecy isn't "foretelling the future" when properly defined, it is a way of interpreting the prophet's present through the lens of God's declaration. Thus, the majority of biblical prophecy isn't at all about the future, but about judgments on the prophet's Israel/Judah and the surrounding neighbors of the time. Very, very little of the classic biblical prophecy has anything at all to do with the future. Thus, Moses is called a prophet even though nothing ascribed to him in the text is about the future. Thus, "prophecy" is simply another tool used by a scriptural author to clarify and describe some other point, it is not a thing in and of itself, separate from the theology that it is used to explicate. "Prophecy" is not fortune-telling, it is a different literary style. It is not a "thing" to be discussed, but a tool used by a scriptural author to talk about something.
So if you think that a small amount of expansion of the literary styles used in the BOM text, which includes prophecy as one of the literary styles, is important, then I suggest you write a paragraph here on the Talk Page first and it can be discussed and a consensus either built for inclusion or not. With contentious articles such as this one, that is always the best strategy. --Taivo (talk) 08:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Intriguing discussion. There seem to be two meanings of prophesy in play here. According to my Oxford dictionary, prophecy is a "prediction of what will happen in the future". Merriam-Webster is more subtle but one of its three meanings is "a prediction of what is to come". If an important part of the Book is prophecy in the sense of prediction of future events, it seems to me that certainly warrants mention. If it is "only" prophecy in the sense of a literary style, not so much, literary style being of much less general interest than specific content IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd love to see three complete lists of predictive prophecies – even links will do! 1) The prophecies in the BoM itself. 2) The predictive prophecies (if any) that Joseph Smith made. 3) The predictive prophecies that any official of the various Mormon assemblies made (LDS or otherwise). ANYONE? Misty MH (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Misty, none of those three lists belong in this article and probably not in Wikipedia. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not a missionary tract for the Mormon church. --Taivo (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
True, LOL. But Will someone here please give me links to predictive prophecies here in Talk (per 1)-3) just above)? Thanks!
I've seen a number of articles about other groups that contain several predictions that DIDN'T come true, which is notable, IMO.
So, some "difficult-to-predict" predictions that DID come true also seem fair game (plus citations for more), and are certainly notable, IMO.
Misty MH (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
As with all things related to religion, "coming true" is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. If the BOM said, "A white man in western New York will find and translate these plates in the early 19th century", a true believer would call that a "difficult prophecy fulfilled" and everyone else would say, "Baloney, Smith wrote that himself." Either way, it's not encyclopedic. --Taivo (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Right. That would be a lot of people's reactions, LOL. (That was a cute example, LOL.) A lot of predictions do tend to seem a little (or a lot) vague. And I tend to discount them somewhat. But if they are relatively specific – I can think of a couple from some other Scriptures collection – then I tend to take note. :) OTOH, put together a whole bunch or spate of predictions that are somewhat specific, or not terribly vague (but not necessarily date-setting, LOL) that all come true – when it doesn't seem likely that even a genius could predict all that – and then I tend to take note! I can only think of a few prophetic predictions that really stand out, but then, I am not a student of all that is prophetic (prediction-wise). :) Misty MH (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC) P.S., I think it's unfair, though, if articles can list a few failed predictions but fail to list a few successful ones. That's bias (or would seem to be), and also not encyclopedic in spirit. I find that this is too-often the case with many articles about religion or the paranormal, whether in the press or on Wikipedia. It seems that skepticism is the predominant "religion" of preference among journalists and editors; however, not believing in something is often believing that something is not so. Misty MH (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think prophecies are really encyclopedic unless you're specifically dealing with an article on prophecy in general. It's a very slippery slope and this page on the BOM must walk a very fine line between being too skeptical and too "faithful". There are both LDS and non-LDS editors who work this page and we work very hard to walk that line. Adding anything on prophecy here is a dangerous precedent for the very reason I mentioned above--prophecy is in the eye of the beholder and, in this book's case, authorship of that prophecy as well. --Taivo (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
(I just returned to this discussion after being away from it for a long while.) I agree with Misty MH in that I would like to see a list of the prophecies (in the sense of predictions of the future) in the BoM. And I agree with Taivo that such a list does not belong in this article. Please will someone provide a link to such a list? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why deleted?

From previous version ...

According to Smith's account, and also according to the book's narrative, the Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as "reformed Egyptian" [1] engraved on golden plates. Smith claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel,[2] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as another witness of Jesus Christ, and as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days. It was not intended to replace the bible, but rather to be a more accurate reference to the teachings of Christ, and to clarify miunderstandings and misinterpretations, undefiled by translation and transliteration throughout the centuries of time, and to be a companion to the bible.

Why was part deleted? 99.112.212.204 (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a rather POV comment and has nothing to do with Smith's account of the alleged discovery of the plates. It is an apologetic explanation of the contents, not of the origin of the book, which is the topic of this paragraph. --Taivo (talk) 22:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Add Jesus of Jerusalem reference?

99.181.159.115 (talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

These comments don't make clear what changes you are suggesting to our article. You seem to me to be suggesting that the article should go into much more detail. The article cannot accommodate such details without (a) becoming inordinately long and (b) wandering far away from its topic which is the nature and history of the Book of Mormon. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This link # 11 is not working. It seems it is an important one.

^ a b “The Life and Ministry of Joseph Smith,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007),xxii–25.

Wanderer57 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It should work now. 72Dino (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The Hat

The historically established method Smith used to create the Book of Mormon, translating Reformed Egyptian into English using seer stones in a hat, is of critical material relevance to the origin and authenticity of the book, as discussed in the linked article, Seer Stones (Latter Day Saints), and the cited source, Translation of the Book of Mormon, and belongs in the lede.

The Mormon Think website pulls together extensive authority establishing that Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon. The website says about itself: "Mormonthink.com is a site produced largely by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are interested in the historical accuracy of our church and how it is being taught to its members and portrayed in the media." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun Lahaun (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is there may have been other methods of translation, although other editors may have more information than that. You may feel that the translation method (using seer stones in a hat to block out light) may be "of critical material relevance to the origin and authenticity of the book", but that is one opinion and does not mean it should be in the lead section. 72Dino (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Why is it "of critical material relevance to the origin and authenticity of the book"? IMO, the only reason that is true is if you are trying to lead the reader to a particular conclusion as opposed to presenting information informally and with a neutral tone. A large number of accounts about the seer stones/Urim and Thummim and the Book of Mormon translation give few details and don't mention the hat (or anything else exactly), and there are other accounts that describe something different than the hat. It's also possible that the process changed over the years. Additionally, that's a lot of specific detail for the lede (which is supposed to summarize the article), details that are not found in the main body of the article.
As for the website, anyone can create a webpage. There is nothing on that website to indicate that it meets the guidelines for reliable sources (WP:RS). --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The addition of the "hat" anecdote represents a trivial piece of information and is therefore inappropriate for the lead. Whether true or not, it's simply not a critical piece of summary information. A better place for it would be in a section dedicated to "reported translation process" or something like that which includes all the variants of how Smith allegedly translated, not just the "hat" story. --Taivo (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The Mormon apologist web site, "FAIR Mormon: Defending Mormonism by providing well-researched answers to challenging questions within a faithful context," contains an extensive discussion of Smith's use of seer stones, both generally and in translation of the BOM, which it accepts without serious reservation. The only controversy FAIR Mormon addresses is whether the LDS Church has attempted to suppress the story and it concludes the church did not attempt suppression. http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones Moreover, if anyone has reason to believe that the Mormon Think site is anything other than what it claims to be, please let us know.
I'm not sure how extant stories about BOM translations that don't mention the hat are relevant. There are a lot of contemporaneous histories of the first century Roman Empire that fail to mention Jesus Christ, but that is hardly evidence that he did not exist. As far as I know, all the actual witnesses to Smith's translation said he used the hat, after he lost the interpreter stones.
I think you may be objecting to inclusion of the seer stone story for the same reason I think it's relevant: it raises serious credibility issues. I think it's important to expound on the rather fantastical circumstances surrounding Smith's discovery of the golden plates and his subsequent translations so the reader has a comprehensive understanding of the origin of Mormon scripture. (Think of trying to understand Scientology without knowing anything about L. Run Hubbard.) It goes without saying that NPOV requires inclusion of all relevant information, not just info that paints an individual or organization in a positive light. I would expect that almost all devout Mormons simply accept and embrace the history of their church as it actually is without attempts to repudiate or gloss over well documented descriptions of the events within that history.
I'm amenable to addition of a separate section about translation, although I am not familiar with any documented versions of the translation process other than the Urim and Thummim/interpreters and rock in a hat stories. If they're out there, let's hear about them. Lahaun (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
So, somehow it is ok to say "Smith claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days." But it would be biased somehow to say he used a hat or some seer stones to translate it? To quote the anime-version of Philip J. Fry, "The list of things I've heard now contains everything!" It is silly to assume that people will somehow find the method of translation more silly than the rest of the story about the plates. The bias is in the protectiveness that people put around the story as if to tell the story as it was originally told would somehow lead people to disbelieve it. -- Avanu (talk) 01:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This article is NPOV, so that means it neither claims that Smith is telling the truth nor does it take an overly aggressive stance on debunking it. Over the course of several years of discussion and compromise, both Mormons and non-Mormons have come to a consensus on how to approach this sensitive issue without one side offending the other. The question right here isn't about whether or not the translation technique should be mentioned in the body of the article, but that it is too trivial an issue for the lead, which already contains qualifiers such as "Smith claimed to have done X" rather than just "Smith did X". Prepare an appropriately referenced section that is neutral in tone and it will probably be acceptable for most editors. But the hat is too trivial an issue for the lead. --Taivo (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Any authoritative affirmation of the hat story would be found here:http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament - where not only is the process of translating described by one of the leaders of the mormon church, it references multiple journal entries of first hand accounts of those who were there i.e. Emma Smith. This makes it not a trivial issue, but one that should be included in a NPOV as a first hand account of the process of producing the book.

Write a well-referenced section, by all means, but it is still too peripheral (and its emphasis too POV) to include in the lead. --Taivo (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

For inclusion in Category:American fiction

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As that is the conclusion from communities of experts in archaeology, ethnography, history and genetics. Any alternative view is WP:FRINGE and widely disparaged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.135 (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Religious texts are treated differently than non-religious texts and always have been. We don't put the Bible in the category of "Middle Eastern fiction", nor do we put the Bhagavad Gita in the category of "South Asian fiction", etc. While those of us who don't believe a particular religious narrative can treat the text like fiction in our personal lives, we don't insult the millions of believers who think the text is literal by placing that text in the overt category of "fiction" here in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is neutral in such issues, but placing the BOM overtly in a "fiction" category removes that neutrality. --Taivo (talk) 10:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Where's the policy that creates such an exception, just to prove you didn't dream it up yourself?Plausy (talk) 06:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Per Historicity of the Book of Mormon, "the theory that the Book of Mormon is an ancient American history is considered to fall outside academic credibility". Suppositions that are bereft of academic credibility, in other words those that are WP:FRINGE, will NOT be influential in categorisation as that policy tells us that "a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight". Such undue weight would be given if we fail to uphold the fiction categorisation.Plausy (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, Plausy, but you will not be able to build any kind of WP:CONSENSUS for your POV pushing. Go ahead and try to get a consensus. Remember that consensus isn't a majority vote, but a "coming together of the minds". Be my guest. But until you get a consensus, you are bound by WP:BRD. You tried to make your edit, you were reverted, now before editing again you are required by the very policies you are trying to mechanistically apply in an inappropriate place to not edit the article until you have built a consensus. But unless you are prepared to apply this same process to the Bible, the Upanishads, the Koran, etc. then this might not be your best idea. --Taivo (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that where a prevailing expert consensus is that the work is fiction, and that is the case here, it is to be categorised so. The fringe view to the contrary can be mentioned though not with undue weight. Categorising on the basis of such discredited viewpoints is certainly undue.49.176.98.239 (talk) 05:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
While this may very well be a "work of fiction" in the eyes of most readers and even most scholars, it is a sacred volume, a religious text, and thus, unlike "The Lord of the Rings" or "Huckleberry Finn", which are universally considered to be works of fiction, there are tens of millions of Wikipedia readers (including serious scholars) for whom the Book of Mormon is not a work of fiction, but the word of God and a literal historical account. For Wikipedia to take a position that slaps these tens of millions of readers in the face and declares their sincere religious beliefs to be false is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. Compare this article with Book of Jonah, the story in the Bible of a man being swallowed by a whale. Please point out to me where that article says, "This is a work of fiction" or where it is included in a category of "Fiction of the ancient Near East". Unless you are ready to include the word "fiction" prominently in that article, then you need to back off here. Religious texts are completely different from the latest James Rollins thriller. You need to recognize that fundamental distinction in the way we must treat them in Wikipedia. Like I said, I dare you to try to build a WP:CONSENSUS on adding "fiction" to this article, either as a word in the text or as a category. You'll fail, but you are welcome to try. --Taivo (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Newsflash for you. In a comparison between the confirmed finding of the academic community and a fringe discredited theory we're not 'neutral' and noncommital: we give dignity to the first, including in the scheme of categorisation, and we warn the latter to be exactly what it is. Thanks for effectively confirming there's no policy exception for works of literature that have religious pretensions. And keep on talking about every other article.Plausy (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Belligerency will do you no good in building a WP:CONSENSUS, Plausy. And per WP:BRD you are required to build a consensus for your edit before reinserting it into the article. You apparently are ignorant of these Wikipedia policies, as well as WP:NPOV, WP:TE, and WP:POINT. Until you build a consensus for your edit here on the Talk Page, you will continue to be reverted. If you continue to push your unwarranted and anti-Mormon POV in the article without building a consensus first, you may be subject to blocks on your editing privileges. I have clearly and unequivocally invited you to pursue the building of a consensus here, but you have failed to attract a single other user to your side (we all know the anon IPs are you). --Taivo (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Just read your edit summary for your last edit (which got you blocked for edit warring). What "consensus" were you referring to? You have built no consensus here. You continuing to push your POV through insults is not a "consensus". --Taivo (talk) 23:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Libraries generally categorize this book under 'religion,' not under 'fiction.' I'm not sure why we would take the liberty of re-categorizing it. Religious works of all kinds are generally categorized under 'nonfiction;' I'm not familiar with any system of book organization that calls religious texts 'fiction.' What source are you using as the basis for this categorization, and why is it more reliable than the Dewey Decimal or Library of Congress categories? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
In libraries, where there is only one shelf space for a volume, this book is found either in fiction under the name of its author who copyrighted it or in a reference section. It is NOT a work of scholarship and it is not a book ABOUT the religion built around it. Library categorisation preferences have no influence here as we are bound classify each article into 'ALL of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs'. As referred to and revealed above, a fictional categorisation (ie anything based in whole or part upon imagined or nonexistent or unreal things) is one which applies due to the confirmed finding of it being 'outside academic credibility' to assign the work any historographical merit and scientific consensus of its lack of any quality of truthfulness or factuality.Sciot (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
About the library comment, you're wrong. See multiple copies listed at the Library of Congress under the call number BX8623. The BX8623 call number classifies it as Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > Christian Denominations > Mormons. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Also, per WP:CAT#Articles, categorization of articles must be verifiable, should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories, and should be guided by defining characteristics of the subject of the article, ie one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having) of the subject of the article. I don't see any of these requirements as having been met in the article or addressed yet in the discussion here. If you want outside third-opinion (one of the dispute resolution paths instead of edit warring), I would suggest asking over at WP:RELI (or WP:NV if you want to add this page to that wikiproject). --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You've been alerted to the fact that Duffy acknowledges claims for any truth or factuality in the book to be 'outside academic credibility', and you've had the time to review the article on the books historical authenticity, and subarticles on it and the fields of archaeology, genetics, and linguistics .. and that's a lack of 'verifiable information'. Really?Sciot (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I find it impossible to take you with any degree of seriousness whatsoever, Plausy (you fool no one at all with your sockpuppet named Sciot). First, your link doesn't go anywhere. Second, you act like you have some sort of irrefutable argument and you have no argument at all for why a religious text should be classified under "fiction". Let me repeat that, you have no argument whatsoever for why a religious text should be labelled as "fiction" when the nation's most prestigious libraries treat religious texts as distinct. --Taivo (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
@Plausy/Sciot/whatever you want to call yourself today - what part of Duffy (sentence, page number or paragraph) do you feel warrants the category of "fiction", and don't just quote other WP articles? Also, these edits [1] [2] are not minor edits; don't abuse the minor edit mark. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Using the nation's largest university library on-line catalog, the unified catalog of the universities in the University of California system (which includes includes Berkeley, UCLA, UCSB, UCSD and others), the listing for Book of Mormon is here. Except for one copy at Berkeley under F835 ("Local History of the United States, and British, Dutch, French, and Latin America"), all other copies in the system are at BX8623. No copies are cataloged under "Prose Fiction" PS370-379. --Taivo (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Being that we don't ever censor just because of the preciousness of some faction's feelings, that academic consensus has to be respected above what is fringe and discredited, and that there is not something about religion which quarantines the character of fictional accounts - then it wrong to insult the consensus by failure to acknowledge this categorisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.213.43 (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Are you also recommending the Bible and Koran go into fiction categories too? 2001:4479:3A06:82B1:74AB:48B0:B413:E0F8 (talk) 11:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You clearly don't know what the word "consensus" means in reference to Wikipedia, Plausy (and we're still not fooled by that anon IP you're using now after your second block for edit warring). Read WP:CONSENSUS again (if you haven't already). Consensus exists only within Wikipedia for Wikipedia's purposes. Consensus is built on each page or for a small group of very closely related articles. But is it built here, in Wikipedia, through discussion on Talk Pages, not "out there". You have zero consensus for your edits here. You have been reverted multiple times by multiple editors. And almost all of the editors who are reverting you are actually non-Mormons, so the possibility of getting any support for your changes is vanishingly tiny approaching non-existent. You are on course to be permanently banned from Wikipedia if you continue your edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Suggestion. There is only one person arguing for this course of action, although he is using multiple accounts to do so. Consensus is clear. I have indefinitely blocked that user for block evasion, and I suggest that we acknowledge that consensus is clear on this question, close the discussion, and revert edits from any further sockpuppets of this user to help him understand that 'blocked' means he doesn't get to edit any more. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unfactual claim in "Historical Authenticity"

Under "Historical Authenticity", it says "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities are unanimously skeptical about the claims of the Book of Mormon". That is a complete assumption. While it doesn't have support across the board, not all scientists discredit it. There are many in each of those fields who are open to the words expressed in the Book of Mormon. Saying that all the experts discount it is misleading. Seansto (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you seriously just write "many in each of those fields who are open"? Wrong. Only Mormons fit into that category and the serious scientists among them don't openly espouse the scientific/historical claims of the Book of Mormon because the field is universally panned by serious scientists. Outside the apologetic materials produced by BYU and the Mormon presses, please cite a single scientific article or book that is accepted by the scientific community that promotes the claims of the BOM. --Taivo (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless there is a reliable source that states the scientific communities are "unanimously" skeptical, then this is exaggeration and POV. Wikipedia should never be put in the position of making a declaration; that is verboten. We don't prove a negative; we cite sources. -StormRider 09:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed "unanimously" to "generally", but that's as far as I'm willing to go. There simply is no peer-reviewed scholarly source that isn't clearly written by a Mormon from the Mormon POV that even vaguely gives support to any "openness" by the scientific community to the claims made by Smith in the book. --Taivo (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I have always found the question odd. I know of no scholarly journal that has ever contemplated the reality of the Book of Mormon; it just is not a topic. The BofM is viewed as a religious text. There certainly have been individuals that have addressed archeological questions that also affect the BofM, but that was not the objective of the study. There is a host of Mormon critics that like to use these studies to then conclude that the BofM is wrong. However, this is not a scholarly review; this is a narrow interpretation and is worse than those LDS scholars that have responded to them. If you have a source that supports your statement, then great. Use it to support the statement. Otherwise, you are putting Wikipedia in a position of making an unsupported declaration, which is not acceptable. -StormRider 13:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The BOM is a religious text, yes? Then shouldn't this article's treatment of it's historical authenticity be treated in the same way as the Bible? Perhaps someone could take a look at that article's treatment of the matter. Rhowryn (talk) 13:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I think this sort of discussion might be clearer and more productive if the person initiating one were to point out the article wording that they take issue with AND also try to suggest an alternative wording that they think would be closer to the mark.
This is a general comment, not meant to single out the editor who started this particular topic. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Personally, since this is a religious text and, as StormRider correctly points out, is completely ignored by the scientific community, I have found all of these articles Archeology and the Book of Mormon, Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, etc. to be open to so much proselytizing and Mormon-bashing that they are really worthless as Wikipedia articles. There simply is no science or history behind the BOM except the extreme POV accounts published by BYU and FARMS and simply ignored everywhere else in the scholarly community. There are a few books written by reputable scholars such as "Losing a Lost Tribe" that deal specifically with Book of Mormon issues, but overall the scholarly world ignores Smith's text. I seriously think these articles should be deleted since they are religious in nature and not encyclopedic. They are appropriate for a Mormon cheerleading site such as the LDS wiki, but they really don't belong here at all since there are virtually no reliable sources that back them up. That would also mean deleting the sections in this article about historical and scientific authenticity and simply leave this article as a discussion of the book, its structure, its verifiable origin, the story it tells, its role in the formation of Mormonism, and its publication history. No more missionaries trying to push scientific and historical authenticity, no more anti-Mormons pushing its scientific and historical impossibilities. Just treat it like the straight-up religious text that it is and don't treat like anything more. That's my honest opinion on the matter. But as long as editors continue to insist that these articles have any value, they will have to present both points of view in order for Wikipedia to maintain NPOV. Just because Mormons have 20 FARMS and BYU sources that are not peer-reviewed, then non-peer-reviewed sources from the other point of view must be presented. There are few publications on either side of the issue that would pass a strict interpretation of Wikipedia's reliable source policy. That alone should throw up red flags about the encyclopedic value of these "Science and History and the Book of Mormon" articles and the section in this article. --Taivo (talk) 03:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
The latest edit/revert is further proof of this. 58.6.128.122 (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon for Latter-(D/d)ay Saint Families

I don't mean to belabour this point, and it is a minor one, but—according to world cat and the Library of Congress and Amazon, this book's title uses a capital "D" in "Latter-Day". But on the book's cover (visible on the Amazon link), it is spelled "Latter-day". What do we do in such an instance? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The book's actual title trumps the typists and cataloguers, but the definitive evidence would be the title page rather than the cover. --Taivo (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the spelling in the book would trump, given the whole "verfiability not truth" principles of WP:V and the restrictions on original research. It's a bit counterintuitive, though, for such a minor issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it would. The title of page of the book (or in this case, cover) is absolutely verifiable, just as the spelling of my name on my birth certificate would override every misspelling, no matter how "authoritative" the source of the misspelling. And looking at the cover of the book and copying the spelling directly from the book itself is not "original research", it is simply verifying a piece of information at the most authoritative location for that piece of information. --Taivo (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Dunno—I'm not convinced. There is a difference in verification being done via primary sources and it being done by secondary sources, the latter being what is known as verification by "third-party sources". And WP:V is quite clear that verification is done through third-party sources. (I think if all third-party sources spelled a name differently than the birth certificate of a particular person, we would still go with the spelling in third-party sources. That seems to be a great example of verifiability (via third-party sources) taking precedence over truth. It wouldn't change the person's name in fact, but I think it would change how WP reports it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
In modern books (ones with ISBNs) published in English, the material found on the edition notice page, not the cover or title page, is the most authoritative source when looking at the book itself. There the publisher explicitly spells out the exact text-based name (without graphical flourishes) as intended, for copyright claims (among other things). This is also what is most commonly used as the source for the material in indexes, but many indexes (Worldcat in particular) are noted for using their own capitalization schema, instead of following the original intent of the publisher. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I should point out that this isn't an extreme case of all sources using a capitalization that is different than what the book cover uses; the ones I highlighted above are using "-Day" but there are some sources out that that use "-day". So it's not as problematic an issue as it could potentially be. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 edition

Could someone please fix the recent attempt at adding a citation for the 2013 edition? There is no such thing as template:cite lds.org so the citation doesn't work. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. Let me know if you'd like any changes done to the new citation. 72Dino (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Criticism page

Possible to remain neutral about this topic and add a critisism page about the Book of Mormon? Preferably including citing book of Mormon 10:4 or 1:4 I forget which.

Also citing Hebrews 9:16 KJV, Galatians 1:6-9 KJV, and revelation 1:18 KJV.

-funky1096

174.71.119.232 (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

We already have a page for that. You can try bringing up you changes there, but I imagine both sides of the argument could use those verses to support their claims, so such additions in favor of one side over the other will probably not be called 'neutral'. FallingGravity (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Editions section

I know for a fact that various small publishing companies exist which keep old editions of the Book of Mormon in print, at least in limited quantities, including the RLDS 1908 Edition. The way the editions section is worded suggest that old editions are dead when in fact, you can still buy a "1908 edition" new in hardcover today. --BenMcLean (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure those are replica editions. I own an 1830 replica edition, but it wouldn't be fair for me to say that I own an "1830 edition" of the Book of Mormon, would it? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the Restoration link is too loose to be appropriate here. In the article on the LDS church or under Mormonism, of course. But the relationship is more tenuous here. --Taivo (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Early Scribes??

Quoting our article: (The plates) were described by Martin Harris, one of Smith's early scribes, as 'fastened together in the shape of a book by wires.'

I'm wondering about the significance of the term "early scribes". How many scribes were involved and over what time period?

Wanderer57 (talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Smith's wife, Emma Smith was an early scribe, though no one knows the precise dates. She may have been a substitute when Harris was unavailable. From Apr–Jun 1828, Harris was the main scribe. After the 116 pages were lost, Harris was not permitted to be scribe any longer. Oliver Cowdery was the overall main scribe, from Apr 1829 to publication. Most of what exists as the Book of Mormon was written down first by Cowdery. David Whitmer did a little bit as well. There may have been others, but I don't know of any. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Repeated additions of a reference to "The Late War"

To the folks on the ex-Mormon subreddit who are crowd-sourcing these changes here: "Book of Mormon wikipedia edit to reference Chris Johnson's big data analysis.", the reason your changes are being reverted is because your source, the blog "askreality.com," is not a valid Wikipedia source. On the linked thread, to the guy who said this: "All it takes is people keeping watch and undoing the removal from the edits page when it does get removed. Enough of that, and it'll stay." You are wrong. That's not how Wikipedia works. To the guy who said this: "Wouldn't it make more sense to add this after it's been peer reviewed by a statistical journal?" Yes, you are on the right track. Roger Penumbra (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

In light of this, the article has been semi-protected. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Urim and Thummim

In regards to the literal translation of the plates into what is now the Book of Mormon, the actual description of the device used (Urim and Thummim) are never described either by Smith or the book itself as "two stones in a top hat", or "peeping stones". They are described as two stones fastened to a breastplate (see book of Ether for an origin of these stones). The former descriptions are commonly used by skeptics, non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) and other opponents of the claim of divine source from which the book sprang forth. In my opinion, the inaccurate description of the Urim & Thummim is derogatory toward the book, the Church and Smith.

See Ether, chapter 3 for more information. The stones themselves were originally translucent stones the Brother of Jared brought to the Lord upon a mountain for the purposes of illuminating them, whereby their vessels built to transport them across the seas to present day American continent would have light. These vessels were water-tight according to the record of Ether, and would often be overcome by swells of water. Therefore, windows could not be built for light, neither could they go by fire (for the sake of using their oxygen). The stones were used after having been touched by the finger of the Lord. Eventually, two of the stones (to my recollection) were fastened to a breastplate where the stones would be about eye-level when the breastplate was worn. Those who had the gift of seership given by God, exercising faith could use the Urim & Thummim to translate unknown languages.

This gift of seership, and by way of the Urim & Thummim, went beyond merely translation of the reformed Egyptian into modern day words. The gift allowed Joseph (who had rudimentary reading and writing education as a child) to understand context, the sentence structure and literary inflections that would not have been understood otherwise. The authors of the book wrote in the "language of the prophets", and because of the similarities to the King James version of the Holy Bible, it is easy to read and to comprehend. The translation of this book is nothing short of a miracle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmandanxx (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I reverted a recent edit that changed the description of critics claims from "plagiarized" to "drew upon sources" which, in my view, inaccurately reflects the claims that critics make by watering them down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but accurately portraying a point of view does not violate NPOV. stvltvs (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Stvltvs: thanks for starting a talk page thread. I had a feeling my edit summary wouldn't be enough. 150 years ago the sentence "Critics claim it was fabricated by Smith and that portions of it were plagiarized from various works available to him." would have been true, but starting in 1884 when Spaulding's lost manuscript - the document most believed Smith plagerized from - turned up in Hawaii and didn't look anything like the Book of Mormon, and ending with Fawn Brodie's book in 1945, the prevailing theory has been that Smith composed the book drawing from scraps of information available to him. The other three suggested sources (King James Bible, The Wonders of Nature, and View of the Hebrews) have some parallels with the Book of Mormon and have been parsed very thoroughly for differences. With the exception of the Bible, Smith doesn't directly quote any of the books. In the case of the Bible, he extensively and explicitly quotes Isaiah, many of the teachings of Jesus, etc., but that's quoting, not plagiarism. There probably are "critics" who would call it plagiarism, but I'm sure you'll agree that instead of citing those kinds of "critics" we should stick with the critics who have written respectable, peer-reviewed publications (like Brodie and Vogel for instance) instead of scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Lastly, since you'll probably want a source, I'll suggest Richard Bushman's book, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, which gives a very thorough review of the critical scholarship and apologetic response (pages 88 to about 100). On page 91 he says, "The fall of the Spaulding theory turned critical scholarship in a new direction. In the half century since Brodie, all the critics have assumed that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. They have pointed to signs of its nineteenth-century production, on the one hand, and the lack of supporting archeological evidence in the supposed Book of Mormon lands, on the other."
Anyway, the point is that critics believe he drew from works like View of the Hebrews and the Bible, but the ones who still claim plagiarism are "sources" like the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Mormon Research Ministry, and other anti-proselyting sources that we tend to avoid using on Wikipedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Adjwilley, would it be appropriate to summarize the evolution of critical views? Also, perhaps it would be appropriate to explicitly mention the extensive quotations from the KJV as a category of criticism separate from the others. stvltvs (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure. A fair amount of the evolution of criticism is and should be covered in sub-articles (see for instance Origin_of_the_Book_of_Mormon#Purported_sources and Criticism of the Book of Mormon where the phrase in question was apparently copied from), but I don't see a problem adding a bit here, though probably not in the sentence that I was modifying up in "Origin". I don't think that's the appropriate space for that, since that present tense sentence should probably represent the most updated, reliable, and accurate criticisms. I'm surprised the article doesn't mention the extensive quotation from Isaiah...a problem I intend to fix barring any objections. In the mean time, is it alright if I re-modify the one present tense sentence? ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Adjwilley, plagiarism is hard to define, of course, so what do you think of language like this: " he drew material and ideas from various modern works available to him rather than translating an ancient record"? I think this gets at the heart of the criticism better than simply calling it plagiarism anyway. stvltvs (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Stvltvs, that sounds great... I've modified it to read, "Critics of the Book of Mormon claim that it was fabricated by Smith and that he drew material and ideas from various works available to him. Works that have been suggested as sources include..." Feel free to modify it yourself too... ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

My apparently biased opinion is as follows: It does not appear to me that it is soft to say that direct plagiarism occurs in the Book of Mormon. A particular example of plagiarism from the King James Version of the Bible is quite apparent in the following passage: Compare: Isaiah 2:1-4 KJV and 2 Nephi 12:1-4 BOM. Other than minor punctuation alterations, and capitalization changes, the text is essentially the same. Furthermore, why would the verse divisions also be essentially the same if this particular text was not directly plagiarized from the King James Version?165.138.95.59 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's not plagiarism if you cite what you're quoting, and the BoM is very explicit in saying that it's quoting Isaiah. I've never heard whether or not the verse divisions are the same as in the Bible, but I do know that the verse divisions in the BoM were put in sometime after the first publication (the original had no verses) and that for the most part there is exactly one verse per sentence. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
This discussion belongs on the talk page for The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible article, as that article tries to address this very specific topic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
To the ancients plagiarism was no offense like it is in modern American Law. You have to keep in mind that with a source which definitely purports to be from 2200 B.C. to 421 A.D. is not placed on the same scrutiny table as the modern mind set. Once again you will get caught in your own historical errors if you try to compartmentalize everything into your own experience and bias. To the ancients this was not like it is for us in our day. So watch carefully what you lay at the door of accurate or inaccurate historical data.Dalwiscombe (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon Online

I think that this article should link to the website http://bookofmormononline.net/home on the Non-print editions section because this website provides an incredible reading experience. You can read the book vers by vers and everything is explained with commentary and you can listen to every verse. I think we should ignore that this version is not endorsed by any sect in the Latter-day Saints movement and link to it. Its reading experience is so great.--79.192.50.108 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Please get consensus before restoring the link. Thus far, the most recent additions have been removed by three different established editors - consensus appears to be against the link be added. It is necessary to show that consensus exists for the link before restoring it again.
I agree with the removal by Good Olfactory; in the context of the section, it should only link to official versions. In that context, this apparently self-published version which is neither in use nor endorsed by any sect is not appropriate for linking.
--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that for a version to be included it doesn't necessarily have to be endorsed by a particular sect, but it would need to be a fairly prominent version that has received significant coverage in third-party sources. The mere fact that a particular editor thinks it's cool or useful is not enough, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Article use of proper language, syntax, punctuation, etc.

Tonight I read the Wikipedia article for "Book of Mormon" for the first time. I was quite surprised by its generally poor narrative and grammar. I've also submitted a request to change the title to "The Book of Mormon", which is its correct title.

Given all the adherents to LDS Restorationist Christianity, and the importance of the Book of Mormon in their lives and their religion, I'm truly shocked at how poorly written this article is. There are 4 entire universities & colleges owned & operated just by the Mormon Church, each blessed with numerous published professors, both in academia & for public consumption, nearly all of whom hold PhD degrees, some of which are considered the very best in their fields. I'm not up to it myself -- I've spent too many years developing technically descriptive business grammar, which would be extremely boring & unfathomable to the general reader. But my goodness -- will some qualified and talented talk page member please take responsibility to refine this article into a more accurate, enjoyable and grammatically correct narrative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpammm (talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 June 2014‎

The traditional reply to this kind of common comment is "so fix it", but there's more you should know. We're all self-selected volunteers here, editing what strikes our fancy; unfortunately this article is a bit of a battleground (as the edit history of the last 500 edits will attest, as will the archives of this talk page) and many of the people who polish articles (variously known as WikiGnomes, WikiFairies, & WikiHobbits) have difficulty with the drama on these high-conflict pages, so they can be a bit rough sometimes. To make real progress in bringing them up to good article criteria or beyond, these kinds of articles need to be adopted by people (e.g. WikiKnights) who dedicate a significant amount of time and effort to improving them. If you're up to the challenge, your self-image of your writing style doesn't have to limit your contributions here: "That which we persist in doing becomes easier, not that the task itself has become easier, but that our ability to perform it has improved." (Emerson) - 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
"Volunteers" is the operative word here. So if you decide to "fix" the grammar, punctuation, etc., I suggest you proceed one paragraph at a time and not move too fast. This article balances on a very, very thin compromise based on WP:NPOV. Any massive amount of editing will be viewed suspiciously since large edits make evaluating whether or not you have tilted the compromise one way or another very difficult to judge. The key here is to be patient. It's clear that you operate under a very particular point-of-view concerning Smith's text, so remember that for every editor like yourself who thinks it is a work of divine provenance, there is another editor who thinks that Smith was a con artist and made the whole thing up. It's that balance between both points of view that has to be maintained. Go slow and don't rush. If you feel that some paragraph needs more than minor punctuation and spelling correction, then post a draft here on the Talk Page and build a consensus for it. Some of the awkwardness may be essential to maintain Wikipedia's neutral point of view. --Taivo (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested moves -- Add "The" to article title, invert re-directs

{{|Book of Mormon = Current title of page 1 |The Book of Mormon = New title for page 2 |The Book of Mormon = Current title of page 2 |Book of Mormon = New title for page 3 |reason = "Book of Mormon" should re-direct to "The Book of Mormon", and not vice versa (the current state). "The Book of Mormon" is the correct main title. Among the supermajority of lds movement denominations (all lds denominations?), as well as the general public at large, "Book of Mormon" is not commonly or colloquially used. "Book of Mormon" is also an incorrect grammatical/syntax reference. "Book of Mormon" also is not used as a plural reference: neither "Book of Mormon", nor "Books of Mormon", nor "Book of Mormons" are used [not without giggling anyway]). "Book of Mormon copies", is an acceptable plural reference; however, such requires a separate Wikipedia page as a separate noun, or worst case, should re-direct to "The Book of Mormon". , For evidence reference, see image of cover in right hand column of page. "The Book of Mormon" is the primary title. . . }}

Not sure how to fix your un-template above, but you might want to see template:Requested move for how to use that template properly, and try again. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

. I'm brand new at this, if what I stated above was incorrectly stated, please bear with me. I've since reviewed the Wikipedia etiquette and other guidance. Going forward I'm looking to do things within the program. So 1st things 1st -- am I even making this comment correctly? 20 June 2014 Dpammm (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

BOM in hotel rooms

It's not notable that Mormon-owned hotels put the BOM in their hotel rooms. Nothing to see here folks. Anyone who has stayed at a hotel in Utah can tell you that. --Taivo (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The distribution of the BoM in hotel rooms could have a place in an encyclopaedia article. The citation being used here, though, noting that "many" (nfi) branches of a single specific hotel chain have it in their rooms (with no date as to when this started, or if this is unusual/normal etc.) feels a bit weak to me personally. Is there any more information from other sources that could be added to make it a more relevant part of the article? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems notable to me because (as the cite notes) it was atypical (either unusual itself, or specifically highlighted as part of a wider trend). The cite does appear to support it being unusual or at worst part of a recent trend with comparison made to the Gideon Bible (our article notes that's been happening for over a century, and orders of magnitude more widespread). Enough so that it got reported in a generally reliable source. This isn't a "Mormon hotel in Utah" (where it would be reasonable as local culture) but a major international chain that does not seem to have other religious overtones. DMacks (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a "Mormon-owned" hotel chain as I clearly stated above. I agree with User:Hchc2009 that it is certainly a weak piece of information and doesn't pass muster as notable. And, that "generally reliable source" isn't the only criterion for passing the notability test. Lottery winners are also reported in that reliable source, but that doesn't make them notable. --Taivo (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't either make them default non-reliable in other areas. DMacks (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Taivo that it isn't notable; this situation is unlike the Gideon Bible, where placement of literature in guest accommodations is a principle focus of Gideons International. In the NYT article the Book of Mormon gets a single sentence to itself (plus a mention in a list of other publications being similarly placed), while in the Christianity Today article it gets two whole sentences: clearly both refs are just passing mentions. The whole point of both articles is the trend for a "crowded nightstand" with literature from many faith traditions, and the BoM is just a very small contributing factor in the much bigger trend that was being reported on. —Asterisk*Splat→ 17:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify my position, DMacks - I'm not arguing that the fact isn't true; the NYT is generally reliable, and it seems very plausible that in 1995, in some of the Marriot chain's hotel rooms, there were BoMs. I'm just not convinced that this fact on its own, without further contextual information, improves the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I understand your position completely. I hunted for additional context or comparitive information. Here's a slightly different copy of the same underlying story (different publishing outlet, but cited back to NYT): [3]. Presumably there's some syndication adjustment, as the wording and a few details are included/excluded. And the additional details do provide more support for this being a major second player on the nightstand: not just a random few (by number or specific geography) of their rooms, but "many of the 160,000 rooms in the chain". The other religious-texts are also noted with numbers, and they don't seem nearly as widespread by amount or geography. The topic of religious texts other than Gideon is further raised by an apparent scholar in the field (see Keck quote in article), though he is not specifically speaking about this alternative text. And still other religious texts are noted as not being distributed this way. That's what I think makes this a notable detail, that it's substantial, and that it's tied to the corporate culture or a major example beyond Gideon, rather than focused as a customer-culture/geographic choice. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Here's another story [4] from 12 years later, specifically mentioning the BoM as part of the corporate culture (and not as strongly mentioning other faiths as being supplied by default in other hotels). So it's not just a one-time mention of this situation. And this new article also notes that Marriott BoM placement is a decades-long effort rather than the wider trend, which is instead described as a recent situation (including an expert in the field supporting that position). DMacks (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, DMacks, it is "focused as a customer-culture/geographic choice" since the Marriott chain did not make this choice for business reasons, but because the ownership is Mormon. If this practice actually extended to non-Mormon chains outside Utah, then it would be notable perhaps--the Gideons don't care if the hotel chain is owned by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, or Mormons--but as long as it is virtually 100% found in Mormon-owned chains or in Utah (and even then not regularly in hotels that are not Mormon-owned), then I would say that it is still not notable. --Taivo (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that what a company decides to do (seemingly) across widespread areas and based on its owner's preference is related to what it thinks customers want ("customer culture") either in general or in certain areas ("geographic choice")--it's exactly the opposite. And a company doing something that's not positioned as customer-driven or marketing-ploy seems novel. Note my second ref supports that this was not solely "one of many examples" as part of the current customer-diversity/plural-culture push. That's my final comment here as I'm not saying anything I haven't already said (unless I have a chance to find more refs). DMacks (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it's not completely unknown for businesses to operate in a way that isn't customer-focused, but based on owners' beliefs. Take, for example, the companies like Chick-Fil-A, Taco Time, and Hobby Lobby that close on Sunday. Hobby Lobby just won a Supreme Court case because it didn't want to offer its employees access to ACA-mandated birth control because of its owner's belief system. --Taivo (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Mormon 9:32
  2. ^ Roberts (1902, pp. 11, 18–19).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon/Archive_12&oldid=1092041533"