Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Simon's reversions

I removed a separate section titled Opposing Views containing an external link itself titled "Refuting Mormonism" that does not purport to be about the article Book of Mormon. I also removed a line from the "major doctrinal teachings" subsection which claims that certain verses state "Jesus' death was not sufficient to cleanse men of all sins". Upon reading the verses cited I found that they do not, in fact, make that claim. Gabriel Simon reverted those edits without comment, and in the process deleted another contribution which rephrased a line for better reading. Since he made no edit summary I have no way of knowing why he has done this. I placed a request on his usertalk for him to explain his edits, and I will now redo the edits I did earlier. --Blainster 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Smith as a plagarist

This section is being blanked or changed by an anon. It seems to me the person isn't reading that this is one of 3 alternative theories on the authoring of the Book of Mormon, not a statement that he was. As a section it does not strike me as incredibly POV, but then again, I'm not Mormon. What is consensus on this? Wikibofh 03:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you revert. I suspect the anon is not reading the article as a whole. Thanks for catching it. Rule of thumb, articles that address faith are typically cause a lot of knee-jerk responses given the emotional nature of the article. We have people from both sides incapable of allowing the other side to speak. I will leave a note on the Anon's page encourgaing his continued efforts and let's move on from there. Thanks again. Storm Rider 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Solomon Spalding wrote another book, called Manuscript Story. This story is the one reputed to be the one the Book of Mormon was "based" off of. For mor information on the Solomon Spalding theory read Wayne L. Cowdrey's "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon." Enjoi 77 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Spalding's book is constantly picked up by a multitude of Anti-Mormon writers and repeated; such is the case with the book written by co-authors Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis and Donald Scales. This explanation has been discredited, but trying to get Anti-Mormons from repeating the same story appears to be an impossibility. It remains fodder for Anit-Mormons, but true scholars have abandoned it as a plausible theory. Storm Rider 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

If you could kind storm riding sir, show me where this is dicredited by any of these 'true scholars' (as long as they are also not LDS members - I have problems with faked impartiality) and please define what makes a true scholar? Having myself read up *a lot* on the subject, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the story line from MF is not used in the outline of the BoM. Of course, I admit that the story line is not that all farfetched (at least not for travellers in the pre-GPS world) for anyone creative to come up with. Does dismissing the similarities use 'coincidence theory'  ;-) 'Quaddriver on as anon'

This section seems to ever so slightly lean towards a POV. The phrases declaring that the Spaulding Manuscript is "not relatable to the Book of Mormon" and the phrase saying that one particular theory is "complicated by two simple facts" are what caught my attention. Because there are probably an equal number of people that disagree with the statements presented in the article, I recommend this section be rewritten. Mapache 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

IT IS THE WORD OF GOD!

If you don't believe what mormons say about The Book of Mormon, why don't you read it? search, Ponder and Pray!

Matau 03:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• That is one point of view Wikibofh 03:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Many of us agree with you Matau, however, this is an encyclopedia and must present all sides of the story. -Visorstuff 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

The value of the Church lies in the faith and community of its believers, not in a text. Fred Bauder 15:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

LOL, personally I think the value of a church lies in the truth of it's doctrines and the salvation of it's followers. --Nerd42 21:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Uh, great, but how do we determine whether its doctrines are true or if its followers are, in fact, saved? Alienus 23:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We don't. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia. That is for God and religions to decide. -Visorstuff 14:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All, deciding what is the value of a church isn't WP's job, that's right. I just said what I think it is ... indicating to Fred that he can't/shouldn't try to put that view in WP because there are alot of different views on that. --Nerd42 15:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Fred was paraphrasing the common phrase that the strenth of the church lies in the faith and testimony of the members. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. which are paraphrases of the original quote (near as I can tell) from Harold B. Lee "For the strength of the Church is not in the numbers, nor in the amount of tithes and offerings paid by faithful members, nor in the magnitude of chapels and temple buildings, but because in the hearts of faithful members of the Church is the conviction that this is indeed the church and kingdom of God on the earth."[8]

I myself am LDS, but I need to say one thin: NPOV. Wikipedia is totally neutral, and preaching, as well as other religous activities, do not belong on here, but in a meetinghouse or church. Stay cool, and calmly attempt to explain what you think is not right about this article; it is neutral, however. It lists the positive arguments and the negative arguments, and nothing the religous community can say will change the scientific communties way of thinking, and vice versa. Dee man45 04:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Matau, I agree but support NPOV --Nerd42 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Close but no cigar

The language "There is disputed archeological evidence about the places, persons and events mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.)" implies a dispute among archelogists, which does not exist. No reputable archeologist knows of any evidence. Fred Bauder 19:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

We obviously disagree about this topic. Using the word "no" in the context of the sentence that you wrote is making a conclusion for the reader that doesn't reflect the Wikipedia policy of providing the arguments and letting the reader decide. Your use of "reputable archaeologists" in the sentence above, if used in an article, would be doing the same thing. Since you won't accept any of the compromizes proposed by two different people, I have reverted the introduction to the pre-edit-war version until concensus is reached on this talk page. Once concensus is reached, then the introduction can be modified accordingly. Val42 19:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this point addressed in some part in section 2.3 of this article. This type of statement might be better located down in there. Also, could "As yet, there has been no widely accepted archeological evidence that any of the places, persons or events mentioned in the Book of Mormon actually existed or happened." be a more neutral language, satisfying both sides? FyzixFighter 19:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Take a look at my edit and see if it's a good compromise:

"While some Mormon religious scholars claim to have found archaeological and linguistic evidence that the book was an ancient record, these conclusions are not generally accepted by secular academia, which generally treats it as a work of 19th century fiction."

COGDEN 20:18, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've thought that other revisions were more concise. But something close to this would be acceptable to me, though right now I can't think of wording that would be better. Nevertheless, any such statement needs a link to the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article. However, I still think that we should reach a concensus before it it placed in the main article. Val42 20:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is kind of a man from Mars problem. I heard about the Book of Mormon years ago and live in a community with some Mormons, have Mormons in the family and don't take the claims very seriously one way or the other. However Wikipedia is published worldwide and the result of presenting material from the book without comment is misleading as they may think an article about Nephi might be talking about a historical figure rather than about a revelation. Fred Bauder 20:53, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

So, you are proposing that all of the information about the Book of Mormon be placed in each article about each other article that now has a link? No? Then this is why each of these articles has a link to the Book of Mormon article in its first paragraph. The controversies are handled there.

BTW, have you placed statements about the archaeological evidence (or lack thereof) in the Abraham, Job, etc. articles yet? I look forward to seeing these statements in the next couple of days, done with the same zeal. Val42 21:16, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

It is like the article hobbit. I wouldn't someone to think that hobbits once really lived in The Shire. Ur is a known site. Fred Bauder 00:05, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Fred, you seem to dismiss the entire article on Mormon archaeoligcal evidence. I still don't understand why a simple, "check it out" does not meet your objectives. You seem quite willing to accept evidences for what you believe; but to equate the Book of Mormon to "The Hobbit" is going a strectch and is certainly POV. It is not appropriate to cover in this article, but is fully covered in the other article on archaeology.

As for your sincere concern that some poor stranger would read an article about Nephi and be confused about reality, which compels you to wave the light of "truth", let's just assume that any reader will know he is reading an article that is centered on faith. Let's keep our decisions about truth to ourselves and state what is so. Storm Rider 00:24, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right that in most Book of Mormon related articles such as Nephi, a phrase such as "according to the Book of Mormon, X happened..." is enough qualification to trigger in the mind of the reader the idea that the Book of Mormon may or may not be historical. Same with any article on parts of the Bible that many scholars agree are basically fictional, such as the Book of Job or the Book of Genesis. But in the Book of Mormon article itself, I can see a need to make that qualification a bit more explicit. COGDEN 05:07, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

"according to the Book of Mormon" is a good formulation and will probably serve without further characterizing it. I think in this article we need to search for some language which characterizes the Book of Mormon as revelation rather than history which needs to be part of the introduction. It is true that some Biblical personages or events are also difficult or impossible to confirm, for example, Moses, who if the events of Exodus are true, should show up in Egyptian records. It suffers from all the defects of an oral record, but can also be relied on because it was an oral record. Fred Bauder 15:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Fred, you compare the Hobbit to the Book of Mormon. First of all, no religion to my knowledge is based on the text of the Lord of the Ring prequal. Second when you look at articles such as Fellowship of the Ring or even Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, those articles don't mention the word "fiction" anywhere in the article - it is a given to the reader who knows that a "novel" could be fiction. Same with the words "sacred text" or "scripture," the reader is left to believe that it is a matter of faith whether accurate or not. To put a disclaimer is asinine in this case. To qualify every statement as "according to the book of moron" or whatever, is just adding wordiness to the aritle, which most accept as a faith-based topic. -Visorstuff 17:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Issue of Faith

It still does not make since to me and shows up more as an axe to grind than beneficial to the article. When I read the Bible article, I do not see qualification that the text is viewed as fiction. Why is the Book of Mormon different? Both are books that contain the history of God's dealings with man.

I suspect that Fred's real objective is archeological evidence for the BofM is lacking. However, that is a totally different article and is already addressed there.

When articles are written about issues of faith, I fail to see the need for "warnings" that some people believe the topic is total BS while others believe. It seems common sense that the reader is already aware that when it is a topic of faith, what is being explained is an issue of fAITH. So often these issues become hot buttons because some "nonbeliever" feels too much credence will be given to the topic and that would be unacceptable to the nonbeliever and his group.

I would like to hear more reasons as to why a disclaimer is required on the BofM that is not required on the bible article and every other article based upon issues of faith. Attempting to be bold, I am deleting the sentence in the article until a concensus is reached. Storm Rider 15:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not just issues of faith. What archaelogical evidence do we have of most of our history? Sure, there is some evidence out there for some events, but most of "history" is unsupported by archaelogical evidence. Indepedent of the records that people wrote down, most of them on paper that doesn't last very long without great care, we wouldn't know what happenned. If Fred's standard were to be applied fairly, it would have to be applied to (almost) all of history as we know it. Val42 02:54, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Your complete removal of information which is not in accord with a Mormon point of view is inappropriate and not in compliance with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think to maintain the sectarian point of view as the only one with a credible source you would need to show at least some evidence of some city or country or event mentioned in the Book of Mormon. A rusty sword would do. Or DNA evidence from any Native American which showed some linkage to Jewish ancestry. I'm not proposing you remove favorable information about your faith and community, just making it plain that whatever its utility as revelation there is a marked lack of evidence that its contents reflect events which actually occurred. Fred Bauder 12:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Comparing The Book of Mormon to the Bible one finds references in the Bible to Jerusalem, the Jordon River, Egypt, Cyrus the Great, Herod the Great, etc. plus a people, actually two peoples if you count the Samaritans, who maintained the traditional text for thousands of years. Fred Bauder 12:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

But that is not what you said in what you want to put in the article. You want independent archaelogical evidence that (for instance) Jerusalem, the Jordon River, Egypt, Cyrus the Great, Herod the Great, etc. were called such when such events were written. Throughout history, there doesn't exist much archaeological evidence. What we have is multiple supporting (verbal) traditions and written histories that these are what such places and people were called at their times. But you are insisting on archaeological evidence of such, so I expect that you are going to be adding the same archaeological tests to many other articles. Unless you would like to revise your statement. Val42 15:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I think the BoM is in a somewhat unique position, and NPOV requires us to mention that secular historians do not consider it history. Yes, there's plenty in the Bible or other religious texts that may well not be history either, but they contain reference to peoples and places that are considered real, as explained above. I noticed this removal of the compromise text. I came to the talk page, read this section, but I saw no justification for its removal. I'm going to try putting it mostly back in, but with a slight tweak that will hopefully make it more neutral and acceptable to all involved. Friday (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Friday, this is not the removal of long-standing information that has been in the article. This is about information that was put in this article on [3, 2005 by Fred Bauder. Compromises were proposed (in place), but Fred Bauder reverted it to his same text (with a link the the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon article) three times. According to my understanding to Wikipedia policy, three reverts means that a concensus needs to be reached on the talk page before the disuputed information is added back in. We are in the process of working on such a compromise. To find out the reason for the removal of the text, you will have to look at the previous section Close but no cigar. I think it would be best to remove the disputed text until such a compromise has been reached. Val42 15:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I read that stuff a few days ago. But, I just re-read it now to make sure I didn't miss anything. IMO we don't need to get too hung up on policy, it looks like we already have a civilized disscussion going. I didn't put back in Fred's version, I put in COGDEN's compromise wording, which had been there for several days while the discussion was going on. I don't see that it was very disputed. It seems to tell both sides of the story to me. The BoM is (somewhat) special because it says it's a history. If secular historians consider this claim very unlikely, that's relevant to this subject. If it gets removed, I'm not going to rush in and put it back or anything, but I don't really see a good reason for me to remove it either. Friday (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Language already exists in the opening paragraph "It asserts that it was compiled..." that clues people to the disputed authenticity. Perhaps we could move that kind of statement earlier on something like:

The book's self-declared main purpose is to testify of Jesus Christ. It asserts that it is a compilation of the writings of ancient American prophets, abridged (according to its record) by the prophet Mormon and his son Moroni, who compiled its contents in the 4th century, and that one of its main purposes is "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God."

And then include a statement at the end of the paragraph: "For discussion on the historicity of the text, see Archaeology and the Book of Mormon." And as for archaeology evidence, what about Nahom/NHM (granted it's in the arabian peninsula - but the BoM does mention it)? FyzixFighter 15:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Guys, I came back and saw the new language Friday (I think) introduced; read the entire article and moved it down to the appropriate location. I should have read this discussioin first; but I still like the move given the article. Everyone needs to read the whole article before commenting further.

Although I don't agree with Fred's reasoning, I am not opposed to having it in the article, given that it has already been in the article in a more appropriate place in the article. I DON'T agree with it being in the first paragraph; it disrupts flow and gives too much precedence to a proposition that is still disputed by all parties. One thing that I find interesting about this whole discussion is the argument "Well, the bible is about real people and placed, yahda yahda, yahda. Please show me any history book about thw western hemisphere. One written by the inhabitants that has been handed down. This critique is typcial Anti-Mormon, common, tripe. Where do we find out the names of mountains, rivers, people's, etc. that was not handed down since the days of Columbus...except for what the Book of Mormon proclaims. IT does not exist; not one iota. I agree that it belongs in the article, but not in the first paragraph. Storm Rider 20:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

To add a warning or a mention of the BoM as possibly being fiction would be insulting and completely wrong. I wouldn't want anyone putting a disclaimer on the article on Buddha saying "he might have been a jerk," or one on the Dharmapada's article saying "this might be a bunch of crap." While I don't personally believe in the BoM, I don't agree with a lot of the Bible, or the Qur'an, or the Sutras. The BoM is no different from any other religious text, however opposed to it some people might be.

71.240.161.241 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

First two paragraphs

I've found that many times an edit needs to be seen in its entirety to see if it works. I used information from the discussion above, with edits that put it in context. I included the cross-links (because that sentence gets confusing otherwise) but no other markups:

The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr. in March 1830 in Palmyra, New York. The book's self-declared main purpose is "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God." It asserts that it is a record of ancient prophets who originated in Jerusalem and settled in the Americas; and their descendants, and was compiled and abriged by the prophet Mormon and his son Moroni in the 4th century. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the record by divine inspiration with assistance from the Urim and Thummim. For information on the historicity of the text, see Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon.

Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon of numerous churches that grew out of the Latter Day Saint movement, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The largest of these denominations, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), accepts the King James Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants as canonical scripture.

The first paragraph as it exists in the article starts with a sentence about why people should care about this article then what the Book of Mormon has to say about itself. The current second paragraph deals with its meaning in the here-and-now. I toned down the introduction because it doesn't fit with the purpose of the rest of the paragraph and it is redundant with the second paragraph. I think that something else should be in the second paragraph, but even in context, I couldn't come up with something. Maybe it doesn't need to be changed. Val42 16:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I like your language and proprosed changes except for the last sentence of the first paragraph on archaeology. It does not belong at that location in the article. That subject is already addressed later on in the article. To put it in the first paragraph is redundant and disrupts the flow of the article. Delete it and it is very good. Storm Rider 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

"Very good" meaning POV Fred Bauder 02:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Fred, it is obvious you have an axe to grind and are commited to only a single perspective. Your comments were already mentioned in the article and your past edits on historicity/archaeolgy were redundant. I suspect you edited without having read the entire article. Further, none of your comments are found on any of the other articles; Bible, Bagavad Gita, etc. The objective is is write an article that is informative for readers. This article meets the same standards that WIKI has for every other article. Put the axe down; it does not belong here. Storm Rider 02:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll look for some good sources, but the introduction is not acceptable as it stands. I have very little interest in this article, so it may be a while before I find adequate sources. Fred Bauder 02:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

FYI about edit

So that people know why I edited someone else's comment, I'll explain it here. Whenever I edited a section after the "POV" section, Wikipedia would bring up the edit page for the following section. I traced it down to HTML header markup in the subsection within the "POV" section. I left the subject text bold but it is now the same size as the surrounding text. Now editing of sections seems to be working correctly. Val42 20:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I have no doubt that Joseph Smith dictated The Book of Mormon himself in much the same manner that Mohammed composed the Koran. It is not usually said that Mohammed plagiarized the Bible, but taking the view that he composed the Koran, he was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish and Christian sources and ideas and inspired by them. Nor is it said that Christ plagiarized Isaiah. Applying the term plagiarism to Joseph Smith has an anachronistic quality. Plagiarism is much in our consciousness now with the rise of the internet and the frequent copying of material that has resulted in academic contexts. Going back 180 years and applying it to someone who doubtless had never heard of the concept seems inappropriate. I think it is better to say that Joseph Smith was inspired by the sources he used which if looked at closely are prophetic in their own right. Fred Bauder 14:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• I can see your point. My problem is that is far more internally consistent. Those sections are:

2.2 Alternative explanations
   * 2.2.1 Smith as author
   * 2.2.2 Smith colleague as author
   * 2.2.3 Smith as a plagarist

Changing just the last one is inconsistent. If we can come up with better headings for all of them fine. I also think it does discuss plagarism to some degree. Especially in regards to a novel by Solomon Spaulding or View of the Hebrews: or the Tribes of Israel in America. I think any implication of plagarism from the Bible would be wrong. Although maybe I should add something like that to the New Testament...claiming it plagarised from the Old Testament. (I'm kidding  :) Wikibofh 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I've always thought this argument was funny - I was on one Anti-Mormon site, that pointed to over 50 sources of Smith's plagerism. Perhaps I should add in details of some as well. Those that need to be addressed aside from Solomon Spauldings, are Ethan Smith's View to the Hebrews, Masonic Hiram Abif legend, the federalist papers, apocolypse of abraham, book of jasher, gnostic teachings such as gospel of the 12 apostles, the septagint, the hebrew bible, law of habarabi, plato, alexander the great, gospel of phillip (funny, this was a claim that he plagerized this book, but it wasnt' re-discovered until 1952), book of breathings, book of the dead, book of gates, Swedenborg, Luther, enoch legends, Wicca texts, arianism writings, epistle of barnabas, Tibetan Termas and terton texts, Kabbalah, avesta (zorastrianism), Vedas, confucius works, Popol Vuh, the Koran, I & II Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Augustine, and other ancient jewish texts, commentaries, and geographical books for names such as Comoros (comorah), Moroni, etc. as well as chinese histories for military histories. All have significant evidence of "lifting" by those who claim to think these are where. Non-Mormon historian Margaret Barker also points to Smith having to had some understanding of King Josiah's reforms under the deuteronimists to be able to have written 1 Nephi or it had to have been supernatural revealing it to him. We should add in arguments for these as well. -Visorstuff 04:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how the revelation of the Qur'an by Muhammad is comparable to the Book of Mormon. The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, and is unique in its writing. Nowhere in the Qur'an do we find a word for word copy of the Bible. For the Book of Mormon, the story is different. Passages from Isaiah are almost entirely reproduced from the King James Version of the Bible. And while Muhammad may have received inspirations from Jewish and Christian sources, that is not a problem. Muslims gave credit to the Jewish and Christian sources. But the Book of Mormon claims parts of it were written before the New Testament was even compiled, yet many themes from the New Testament (Trinity, Crucifixion, mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 [see for instance I Nephi 11:13], etc.) are incorporated in it, as well as many verses being directly copied from Gospels into the Book of Mormon. John Smith does not give the credit to the New Testament, and that is why it should be considered plagiarism. 71.141.127.117 06:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Anon (User:71.141.127.117) - First of all, it's Joseph Smith, not John Smith :^) You may want to check the simple things so your credibility is trusted a bit more.

AS is stated in other places, the referened passages from Isaiah many follow the KJV (about 200 verses), but nearly as many follow the Septaguint, and Hebrew Bible (about 190 verses), showing that if smith copied, he used three different bible sources for the copying. The remaining of the 433 versus of Isaiah do not follow any known version of the biblical record, and at least four follow excerpts from the Dead sea scrolls as opposed to biblical records. But that last part is a discussion for another time. In addition, the BOM states that Nephi copied the passages directly from Isaiah, and the New Testament similarities are sourced back to Christ, who gave many of the same passages to groups in the new testament and in Gnostic texts. Third you wrote: "the Book of Mormon claims parts of it were written before the New Testament was even compiled." This is only partially true. The BOM claims it was compiled in about 400 AD.

In any case, using the definition of plagerism, Muhammed would be similarly accused for lifting ideas, lifting passages and such, the same as Smith. The difference is that the KJV is perpetually copyrighted in the U.K. and plagerism denotes a violation of copyright. -Visorstuff 16:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary: plagiarize:

transitive senses : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive senses : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

If, as Smith claimed, the Book of Mormon is a translation, then the other authors would be the plagiarists where they didn't site their sources. Most of the citations from other sources are cited (Isaiah, Zenos, etc.). Jesus Christ also quoted from these and other prophets in the New Testament. The quotations from Jesus Christ in the New Testament given by Jesus Christ himself in the Book of Mormon would not be plagarism because he originated them.

If, as the critics claim, that Smith (or associate(s)) wrote the Book of Mormon, then most of the sources are still given in the context of the Book of Mormon (as above). If we're talking about extra-Biblical sources for the text of the Book of Mormon, then what should be done to show plagarism is to show the text of the Book of Mormon side-by-side with what it was purportedly copied from. Val42 17:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

As has been stated, most of the sections from the old testament are given due credit by the authors. The following is an incomplete list where the Book of Mormon authors cite Isaiah. 1Nephi19:23 (a prelude to the next two chapters from Isaiah], 2Nephi6:4-5, 2Nephi11:8 (before the multi-chapter section in Second Nephi)], Mosiah 14:1, Mosiah 15:6, 3Nephi23:1 (3Nephi22 is the one from Isaiah). The Sermon on the Mount is given by the Savior himself with some instructive differences in 3 Nephi 12-14. The Savior also quotes the last two chapters of Malachi starting on 3Nephi24. I hope this is somewhat informative. Epachamo 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Bias Tag by Anon

User:69.29.34.85 added a bias/neutrality tag to the article header without giving a reason. Will assume that the Anonymous user does not believe IN the book of Mormon as it has plenty of internal references and claims as made by believers, rather than stating as fact (such as phrases such as: "book's self-declared main purpose" and "It asserts that it was abridged", etc). Nothing in the article is stated as fact, but it is described from a believers point of view, as is standard in religious based articles on Wikipedia. In fact, the article is overly-full of non-absolutes, as to describe what it says it is, what believer think of it, and what detractors do as well. As no discussion took place on the talk page, as is required by the neutrality tag, it will be removed. -Visorstuff 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just so anyone interested in modifying this page is aware, there is an apparent group of apologists who will undo any changes made to the article that reflect a secular or academic perspective. This is an unfortunate state of affairs for an encyclopedia that is trying to present a neutral and accurate point of view. Ergo, the controversial template.

I know I don't aspire to be a Mormon apologist, and there is plenty of secular and academic perspective in this article. Anyone who thinks there is a smoking gun to prove the book of mormon false is not looking into the current state of research on the matter. Many non-Mormon scholars have offered interesting insights into "evidences" in favor of the book of mormon as an ancient document, including Presbyterian Biblical Scholar Margaret Barker. You may want to read academic and scholarly work on the subject, rather than uninformed and outdated anti-Mormon collateral. Please outline specific issues with the article before or directly after you place a template on an article page. I believe this article has been commended by non-Mormons for a neutral treatement of first, what the book of mormon is, and then second, issues in its authorship. If you'd liek, I can add in the 75 differnt books that I've seen some anti-Mormon sites claim Smith copied from to create the book of Mormon. Some consider this plagerism, others an amazing coincidence, other proof that it came from the devil, and others evidence that it conforms with so many other ancient texts. The reader should decide what he believes on wikipedia, not the writer deciding for him. Wikipedia should provide the facts as much as possible, and not push propaganda (for or against) on religious topics. --Visorstuff 01:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is off-subject, but still worth talkiing about. &&&&&&&, is your "handle" to imply that you are no longer a Mormon or that you are no longer an idiot? If you are an ex-Mormon, then you are being intentionally offensive and your name is not acceptable on WIKI as stated by policy. Of course, if you are the later then that would be a judgement best left for others. Too often when I try to toot my own horn, I fail miserably; I suspect the same would be for you.

We all have an agenda, but on WIKI we attempt to produce great articles. All of us get carried away sometimes and go on a tangent by grinding our favorite axe. At those times, it is bet to listen to other objective editors and lay down the axe and get back to objective editing. You are inivited to do so. Storm Rider 18:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In regard to DNA Evidence:

Please see the following article courtesy the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research by Dr. David Stewart, M.D.

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html

---

Nathanael

Stuff that belongs elsewhere

The criticism section is not supposed to be a discussion of Archeaological finds. Plus it is not correct.

For example, the article states that there is not Hebrew influence in America prior to columbus. This belongs on Archaeology nad the book of Mormon or Linguistics. And there was semetic influence. See Dighton Rock, Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone, Newport Tower, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact and other articles. You'd think, Alienus, after our dealings as of late, you'd at least look at the latest research, or at least bits of evidence. Please read through the references at Archeaology and the Book of Mormon. I have a non-Mormon archaeologist working on that page with me, and we are documenting everything we can there. You may want to do the same, OR add the disclaimer that critics claim this, despite evidence to the contrary.

You write "This appears to contradict..." that is POV. It should read, critics claim. I don't think it a contradiction, as I looked in the dictionary as to the definition of the word "principal."

You use words like "no" "none" and "lack of" which are POV, and not correct. Don't be so absolute. It's not right, and when research "changes" it makes all of us look stupid. You say you've had historical training (a master's I beleive), surely you took a writing class on word usage in your coursework that dealt with the use of absolutes? -Visorstuff 21:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

What about "The existence of many great cities, like the Nephite capital of Zarahemla, is recorded in several parts of the text (3 Nephi:3-9), but no archaeological evidence has been found to support this." Isn't Mexico City built on the ruins of a large, Native American city? Besides the LDS tours, there are other tours of the great pyramids of Mexico built before the arrival of Columbus (to the Americas). There are also stone buildings and cities being discovered in Central America where they have been overgrown by heavy vegitation. If whomever wrote this sentence was meaning the name of Zarahemla hasn't been found, then make it clear; otherwise, said author is just being purposely deceptive. I'm going to remove this sentence from the article. Val42 00:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is where I have strange feelings. It is a "criticism." But it is a silly one. The name Sodom and Gmorrah doesnnt' appear anywhere either, but yet most Jews/Christians/Muslims accept that it existed. Yet there is no evidence. Then there is Joseph in Egypt. The closest we get to him is Imhotep in archeaological record. He doesn't exist. There are a hundred other examples in biblical archaeology, but yet, Mormonism gets dinged because "entering Zarahemla city limits" doesn't appear anywhere. DUH. Most ancient cities don't have record. It is a criticism, and I agree that how it was written seems decpetive. -Visorstuff 00:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Because of this discussion and the 48 Hours show on the origins of Christmas I watched last night, I looked up The Nativity of Jesus, just to see if there is opposition. Even there, there is no mention of the criticisms brought up on that show, except that the Nativity probably wasn't on the 25th of December. Val42 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There is in fact criticism of mainline Christianity on the basis of archeological and historical problems. However, it's harder for Mormons for two reasons, one of which is fair. The unfair one is that mainline Christians take the historicity of Bible as a matter of faith. The fair one is that the BoM makes very verifiable claims that just don't work with the evidence. Alienus 03:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point with Biblical Archaeology. "Mainline Christians" get fairer treatement, when there are just as many problems. Windows in Noahs' ark? Did the technology exist? No. Red Sea/Reed Sea debates? Moses as a non-hisorical figure? Even some of the metalurgy and vegatation claims of the Bible are wrong. However, even thoug it doesn't "work with the evidence" it is seen as okay, and that things will work themselves out, when in Mormonism, it is seen as the end of the Church as we know it. Whatever. According to the Biblical archaeology page, there are only seven confirmed locations (I'd raise that number to over a dozen), but there are at least two confirmed if not six or more "confirmed" (using the same type of evidence) locations for the BoM in the arabian pennenusla. We are halfway to the same standards that biblical archaeology is held to and our field of study is less than 200 years old, when biblical research has gone on for nearly a thousand years. Kinda unfair, No? I could chance your comment to read "The fair one is that the Bible makes very verifiable claims that just don't work with the evidence." However, that would just be discounted. Different standards is what I see, not fair or unfair, just different standards. -Visorstuff 15:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I do think these are serious issues for mainline Christianity, but the issues for Mormons are necessarily more serious, as the latter are a superset of the former. Every criticism of Biblical historicity applies to Mormons as much as, say, Catholics. Frankly, if I apply the same rigorous standards consistently across the board (and I do), neither group fares well. So far, the mainliners have done a better, yet still unacceptable, job of support, perhaps because they're not burdened with the need to show that the Indians were Hebrews.

In the end, archeology does not offer much support for any Judeo-Christian sect. There's a reason why many Christian scholars are content with treating the OT and NT as collections of myths with limited basis in reality, why the Jesus Seminar has concluded that many words attributed to Jesus shouldn't be, and why liberal Christians treat the Bible as inspiration, not fact. The problem isn't Mormonism, it's scriptural literalism, which is insupportable no matter which scripture you use. 209.83.182.242 17:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you do think this is as serious of an issue for all of Christianity as you say, why don't you add some of the same wording, thoughts, etc. to Bible and Biblical Archaeology, Torah and Qur'an. All I'm asking for is fair treatment. If you debunk one, debunk them all.

I do not believe it is more serious for Mormonism, as IF the book of Mormon is "true," [9] (remember the opposite of "truth" in Mormonism is not "false," it is "error") then the Bible is as well.

There are many more "liberal" mormons who are like the liberal christians who treat the Book of Mormon "as inspriation, not fact," so again, why the added focus on the Book of Mormon, rather than Bible, Torah or Qur'an? Use your expertise across religions if that's where your expertise is. -Visorstuff 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent liguistical and archaeological edits

Over the last two days, there have been a lot of linguistic and archaelogical information introduced in to this article. Besides belonging in to these other articles, the "author" of these changes has admitted in his text introduced that this text is itself biased. There is some useful information in the text introduced. I will have more time after the beginning of the new year, but I don't right now to tackle a project of this size. Would someone who is more knowledgeable about these two subjects (and has some time) please sort through this information, move it to the appropriate related articles and remove the POV statements. Val42 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical translation references

There has to be a better way to discuss Smith's translation ability than to rehash his translation ofthe Bible and Book of Abraham here. It detracts from "Book of Mormon" arguements. I'm willing to suggestions, but it makes no sense to have a paragraph-long overview or discussion about the JST in an article about the BOM. That is why we have a JST article. Other editors chime in beside myself and Alienus/209.83.182.242 please. Both of us are at our max on reversions of this before either of us break the three-revert-rule (WP:3RR) and are eligible to be blocked. Look forward to suggestions. -Visorstuff 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Getting large

This talk page was 77KB long. I archived the discussions older than six months. This talk page is down to 37KB which is much more manageable. Feel free to move back anything that seems relevant.

The current size of the main article is 62KB. This will be a much more complex edit. None of the sections is large enough by itself to be about 30KB. How should we split up the article? What do you other editors think that we should do? Val42 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew?

"It is important to mention that expatriated Hebrew speaking Jews do not typically speak Hebrew outside of closed groups or religious cerimonies. Reasons given for this have typically centered around the persecution Jews have received over the millenia, as such, most are at the very least bi-lingual and engage others in the local language."

Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience, or to be understood by the local population? I assume "expatriated Hebrew-speaking Jews" refers to Israelis, as Israel is the only country where Hebrew is spoken as an official language. The fact is that Hebrew-speakers are a serious minority in any country other than Israel; why would Hebrew speakers ever speak the language outside of groups of other Hebrew speakers and religious ceremonies? Why would anyone speaking a minority language, for that matter? I don't think Hebrew is alone in this respect - immigrants have traditionally adopted the language of the country to which they immigrate, quite simply in order to be understood! From the early years of the Jewish Diaspora, Jews have adopted the language of the countries in which they lived - starting with Aramaic, the common language of Babylonia.

However, my real problem with this statement comes from the next sentence, which posits that the aforementioned anti-Semitism was the reason why Westerners did not recognize spoken Hebrew:

"Therefore, exposure to Hebrew as a conversational language in 1800's America would have been quite rare."

This is likely true, but not in the way implied. Hebrew was not used as a spoken language from around 200 C.E. until the late 19th century when it was revived to unite Jews in a Jewish state whose first language was Ladino, Yiddish and others. Between that time, Hebrew was an almost exclusively written language, used for scholarly and religious purposes - much like Latin today. It would have been near impossible for anyone to hear "conversational" Hebrew because such a thing did not truly exist! So while this statement is technically true, the "therefore" connects it to the statement above, which says that Hebrew was not used because of anti-Semitism. The two statements have nothing to do with each other; if they are indeed true or theorized by scholars, then it needs to be cited; otherwise, removed. Rachel Ariel 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Good points rachel, however, (it was I who wrote that passage) I used very deliberate wording when I said "reasons given for this" simply because the bulk of written and spoken material on this subject does in fact play the 'anti-semitism' card. Perhaps because a number of the 'speakers' have tatoos on their wrists or fled eastern europe in the teens tarnishes their viewpoints, fine. I think that your explanations would make a great addition. However the facts remain, as the jews were dispersed (by choice or by force - you choose) the adopted languages of the new nations were practiced. It would be hard for you to show any period in history where Jews were accepted, and most would conclude that not calling attention to oneself....

I am not sure how long you have been around (here, this page), but the challenge that prompted that passage was to show that turn of the century people would be unfamiliar with spoken hebrew. Initially the passage said 'bewildered' which I had lifted uncited from a critical book dealing with the asserted plagarism of 'view of the hebrews' by J. Smith.

returning, whereas it is true the language as a conversational language was 'hidden' the diaspora brought this about, please note that the dates you give, nearly encompass the entire event. Or put simply, when in Rome do as Romans do.... Please note, the language was revived only because it could be. While that seems crass on the surface, realize, if you do not know how to speak it as a native, no amount of text can help you.

(point of fact, ladino and yiddish are both credited c. 1100 as being developed. There are 900 years in this first gap as well as the nearly 800 years following. Someone was practicing....

...Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience...

On reflection, probably not, however, we must look at history and how enclaves of jews have fared wherever they have went.

Lastly, the word 'therefore' can only logically connect that which preceded it. If you must pick only parts of the preceeding sentences to make your point, fine, but that is not my intent as written. While it could perhaps be worded differently, I stand on the argument.

Cites? Jew is a good place to start. Pr David Gordis, Hebrew College Boston Ma: "One rabbinic dictum has it that Jews were able to preserve their identity [in exile] because they didn't change their names and didn't change their language," Gordis says. "The notion of having a distinct language and literature is a sine qua non of having a culture. Absent that, there is no culture."

A bridge between Jews from disparate corners of the globe, Hebrew has been the primary language of prayer, but that's not all. Jews have always used Hebrew to communicate—through letters, or in person when traveling—with Jews whose vernacular is different from their own. (Taken from Lost in Translation, Michael Kress, Hebrew College year unk)

Latest vandalism

To Visor (primarily): after the latest rounds of clear POV vandalism in the 'critical' sections by adherents, do I need to write one more word in my proof of the worthlessness of this article, wiki in general, and what passes for intellectualism today? We dont need to look to TV or popular culture for examples of why "bad stuff" (insert category of choice) happens today. It happens because it can, by people who possess no more advanced mental processes than those who have spoken up behind the "anonymity" of an IP address. I repeat a question I once asked not-so-thetorically: are the adherents so fragile that thinking must cease? The truly enlightened will take a moment to discover the pandoras box that question opens. Quaddriver 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Bias identification in links?

I think the list of external links at the bottom is balanced and appropriate. There is nothing on there that is necessarily extreme or misleading in either direction. However, whereas most are not themselves neutral, I would suggest that when NPOV they be broken into "supportive" and "contrary" sections, or individually labelled similarly. Because if someone comes here with a legitimate question, they'll not know the difference between lds.org and mormonwiki.org. They'll both be "org"s, one will even sound more academically sound since it has the word "wiki", but one is obviously designed for the purpose of promoting the Book of Mormon and one one is obviously designed for the purpose of slandering Mormonism in general. [For that matter, why is mormonwiki even on there, if it's not necessarily Book of Mormon related? Shouldn't we at least point to its Book of Mormon page?] This is a real question, please don't say "we've been through this before" and ignore it. --Mrcolj 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good question; thank you for asking it. If memory serves I have seen individual links identified on other related articles. Those critical identified as such and the supportive left without clarification assuming that the reader would get the gist easily. I also want to say that I have seen them broken into two groups. I would encourage you to be bold and make the edit. Others will see the discussion and weigh in if there is a problem.

There have been struggles in the past on ensuring that a balanced list of links exists. As you pointed out above, some links should be deleted when they are not directly related to the topic. Go for it. Storm Rider 16:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Assumption of Translation

I removed this section because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the title; if the author (or anyone else) can edit the ideas so they have some relation to BoM, go for it. —DevLaVaca 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Most -> Some

I changed the wording in the Archaeology section to say "Currently, some Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." from "Currently, most Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." While reading through the page it is clear that the sentence above did not match the rest of the page. It is fair to say that "some" claims are substantiated. It is not fair to say "most" (especially when reading what "most" of the claims encompass.) I hope this makes it more factual.

-epecho-

Yes that's a good change : ) By the way, you should sign your post using the Wiki convention ~~~~. It'll automatically generate a signature and timestamp, a little bit like the one I'm about to use but not exactly!!!. Thanks for helping. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The existence of horses at any time isn't a substantiation of the Book of Mormon. While I completely respect LDS and the Church, and I consider the religion to be a very positive and uplifting one, I have serious issues with the BoM itself, seeing as to how incredibly off it is. Absolutely none of the animals and crops the text claims were brought to America by the Nephites or the Jaredites were ever present in the Americas before 1492, and some, like elephants, weren't even here until much later.

That's like saying that the "Noah's Ark and the Flood" story is substantiated by the fact that, at some point in time, there have been floods and there have been arks.

71.240.161.241 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Investigation of the book

This whole section seems overly preachy from both points of view. I can understand explaining how Mormons gain a belief in the book, but I have a couple issues with this section. First, I have not recently encountered any brainwashing criticisms about the LDS church. If this is indeed a prominent theory of how Mormons gain their testimony, who are these critics? It is easy to say they have never presented evidence if none are ever referenced. Secondly, the "Contradictions Include" section. It is preachy, POV, has no introduction, and generally feels out of place in the article. This entire section is either in desperate need of a rewrite, or should be removed completely, and the "Mormon testimony method" relocated to another part of the article. Anyone else have any ideas or opinions on this?

Upon further review I noticed the entire 2nd section was added earlier today by Scots-Man. Until he either justifies or rewrites his post, I am removing it for the time being.

Content restored by adminstrator, opinions anyone?Mapache 05:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree about the contradictions section, and have removed it. There is already a section expounding critical viewpoints, these should be added there in a much more neutral format. Welcome Mapache guy. If you're interested in Mormonism, you might want to consider joining the WP:LDS WikiProject. Hopefully we'll see you around more. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh judging by the current state of the page, I'm going to guess you also received a vandalism warning. I am contesting mine. Mapache 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The mysterious "Some Critics"

I deleted the following sentence:

Some critics have suggested that some of the changes across editions significantly affect the meaning of the Book of Mormon and indicate an agenda inconsistent with the idea of a revealed or inspired book.

The meaning of this sentence is good to have in the article, but it must be referenced. The article is vastly improved when claims on both sides simply provide a reference.

The previous edit for the Tanners comment on 3,990+ changes used a reference, but the formating is off. I looked at the edit, but was at a loss to correct the reference at the end of the article. Could someone with the expertise please look at it? Thanks. It also uses "One critic" and should just state, The Tanners alledge, or some similar beginning to the sentence. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Book title

The title, "The Book of Mormon" (or the "Book of Mormon") occurs in dozens of places in the article formatted in different ways. I tried to bring some consistency to this by italicizing the title per Wiki conventions wherever it was not part of a quotation or section title. I also chose to render it using the Wiki convention of not capitalizing the definite article ("the"). The LDS church does capitalize it ("The"), so if other editors think it should be rendered that way, then OK. But if so, please be sure to change every instance so that it remains consistent. --Blainster 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Critics claims of Brainwashing and Mind Control

I deleted the following statements today by a new editor:

In addition, some critics claim that a testimony is the result of mind control or brainwashing techniques used by the church. For instance, investigators frequently experience the phenomenon of love-bombing, and they are never given access (through official information sources) to a full account of the church's problematic issues, such as any evidence that might disprove the Book of Mormon.

This information would be great to have in the article; however it is not appropriate to level allegations with reference to a reputable source. Further, it would also help to demonstrate what techniques are being used. This also applies to love-bombing. What constitutes love-bombing and how do Mormons implement these techniques? Without these references, explanations, and evidence these allegations are just POV statments. Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I have attempted to maintain a neutral POV in my recent edit by providing information on both positions. The previous version:

Such a witness is a very personal event and can vary widely, depending on the individual. Of those whom claim to have received a witness, most consider it to be sacred and of great import. In Mormon circles this is most commonly referred to as "a testimony", a knowledge born of faith, prayer and spirit; and the act of telling others of the experience or the faith gained thereby is called "bearing one's testimony". A testimony is claimed to give the seeker assurance of the truth of these matters by seeking answers from God directly.

Critics refute the gaining of a testimony by arguing that the evidence against the Book of Mormon is irrefutable, that a testimony is a form of brainwashing by the church and that readers are to gain a testimony and ignore scientific evidence supporting the critics attacks. However, defenders believe that Christ's praise of Peter in Matt 16:16,17 where Peter's knowledge of Christ as the Son of God comes from the Father is worthy of emulation. Further, critics give no evidence of brainwashing techniques.

My edited version:

Such a witness is a very personal event and can vary widely, depending on the individual. Of those whom claim to have received a witness, most consider it to be sacred and of great import. In Mormon circles this is most commonly referred to as "a testimony", a knowledge born of faith, prayer and spirit; and the act of telling others of the experience or the faith gained thereby is called "bearing one's testimony". Readers and investigators are encouraged to emulate Peter, whose testimony of Christ came from the Father (see Matt 16:16,17), by seeking answers and wisdom directly from God (see James 1:5).

Critics (including New Order Mormons and non-Mormons) question this method of "know[ing] the truth" of the Book of Mormon by disputing the divine origin of spiritual feelings that purportedly verify the the book's validity. In addition, some critics claim that a testimony is the result of mind control or brainwashing techniques used by the church. For instance, investigators frequently experience the phenomenon of love-bombing, and they are never given access (through official information sources) to a full account of the church's problematic issues, such as any evidence that might disprove the Book of Mormon.

Storm Rider's objections to my recent edit seem to be a mere hasty attempt to remove information that does not conform to his POV. The objections are unfounded. His statement that I have "leveled allegations with reference to a reputable source" is vague and seems intended to discredit me as an editor. Is Wikipedia not a reputable source? Examples of mind control/brainwashing techniques were provided, such as lovebombing (with a Wiki link) and distortion or concealment of information. However, as he and other editors are aware, this article is probably not the most appropriate forum for elaborating on the particulars of these and other forms of brainwashing techniques. The links to the topics on mind control and brainwashing should suffice. A careful examination of my revisions will show that I was careful to preserve a neutral POV by elaborating on both the apologist and critical perspectives, without deviating from the current topic on the Book of Mormon.

In the meantime, I will not challenge the current version or insist on restoring my version. But I do hope that Storm Rider is more willing to consider neutral POV changes in the future. James echt 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

James, my comment was that this "information would be great to have in the article". My objective is to include the information, but to do so not on hearsay or POV, but by referencing a reputable source. Asking for references for information is common on WIKI and should never be percieved as a personal slight and certainly is never used to discredit an editor.

As far as references go: no, a wikilink to another article on WIKI does not provide a reputable source; that causes circular arguments. If you will look at the bottom of the article you will find eight references to sources to support claims made in the article. You are not being singled out, it is standard practice. When we use reputable references we turn a POV statment into an NPOV statement...we are not claiming anything, but rather an expert is stating something.

You will note that the subtitle is, "Investigation of the book". The reason this information is so important is that it would explain how Mormons brainwash and control the minds of converts. Understanding their techniques would be invaluable to the quality of this article.

In closing, I have assumed your good faith and you have responded by attempting to accuse me of bad faith and POV editing. If you need exact policy cited to you, I would be happy to do so. I also expect you to treat every other editor, myself included, with the same good faith you are treated. Your information is important and needs to be included, but it needs to meet the standards of WIKI. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

spin off controversy sections

This whole article is a mess. The back and forth about whether or not the book is true makes the article page feel more like the discussion page. Why not create some sort of "Is the Book of Mormon True or Stupid" page on which people can have edit wars to their hearts content? At least a third of the article could (and IMHO, should) be merged into that. Articles like these make Wikipedia look foolish.

The "Views of the Faithful" section is particularly bad and seems to have been taken over by a pro-mormonism viewpoint. ("Logical fallacies"?? Gimme a break...) I have tagged this section for POV and original research concerns. Grandmasterka 03:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gees, when you have a section entitled "Views of the Faithful" can it be anything but from a pro-Mormon viewpoint? Do you have some specific recommendations? Typcially, WIKI policy dictates that you provide some specific reasons form tagging an article. From your original research comment I suspect you are looking for more quotes from Mormons regarding the Book of Mormon; is that correct? Anything else? Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I just reread the section...I have no idea why the section is labeled "Views of the Faithful". The section has very little to do with Mormon viewpoints and is a hodgepodge of critiques mixed with minor Mormon viewpoints. It definitely needs work. However, I still will like for your specific ideas so that they could be incorporated, GMK. Storm Rider ^(talk)

Yeah, I know, I probably should have explained it more, but I thought it would be pretty obvious. Hmmmm, where do I start? Some of it reads more like a debate than an encyclopedia article with a "he said she said" approach. The "logical errors" part is the worst -- it's totally irrelevant and unencyclopedic (ignoring the obvious problems with trying to argue over religion with "logic",) and perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole thing could be sourced better and improved (how is the Mormon-related archaelogical data used by non-Mormon institutions? What plants and animals do not fit the time period?)

This section shows signs of past POV warring (with language like "To date, the NWAF has been continuously unlucky. However, given the light of the logical fallacy presented earlier, this is not a proper argument that the Book of Mormon is false or true." And "since revelation comes to your mind and then the Holy Ghost manifests the truth of the thing to you".) but I don't see any alarming edit summaries in the edit history. It's not as much original research as I thought when I first read it, but there are a few questionable sentences, mostly related to the POV problem ("Furthermore, it is argued that Joseph Smith was never held up to be infallible: just as Jonah ran away from his preaching duties, while being referred to as a prophet in the Bible, Joseph Smith was subject to all the faults of men.")

I would recommend generally trying to bring a more encyclopedic and neutral tone to this section and the whole article. I might have more specific recommendations when I'm thinking more clearly (it's 2am here) and maybe I'll make this a project of mine if it hasn't improved by mid-May, despite my general lack of knowledge on this right now. Grandmasterka 07:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen. As someone who just read through this in a procrastinating bout of browsing, I have to agree with the assessments that the article is an unmitigated mess that clearly shows the scars of excessive edit warring. Unfortunately, this is endemic to any active belief system or philsophy -- believers and adherents will inevitably confuse a "he said, she said" approach with NPOV, assuming they don't simply claim that absolute belief is valid as a NPOV. A good encyclopedia must be oriented in facts, presented dispassionately. One would do well to look at pages concerning defunct faiths, where a more correct neutral sociological viewpoint is taken without conflict.

In the case of religious beliefs -- which can neither be proven nor disproven by reason, logic, or science, it is simply inexcusable to present them as neutral fact. To say, for example, "practicioners of Oprahism hold that the holy canon of Oprah's Book Club was revealed to their prophet by divine revalation" is solidly NPOV. Writing instead "The holy canon was revealed by divine revalation," is not. And an edit-warred entry saying, "The holy canon of the Book Club was revealed by divine revalation, although people who don't believe this don't think so," is first off, horrid encyclopedic writing, and second, redundant.

Ideally this article should be cleaned up significantly to, at its most basic, include a section of, "contents of the book of Mormon," a section on the religious significance of the text to the religions organized around it, possibly with a subsection regarding the significance (or lack there of) ascribed to it by other faiths. I'm honestly not sure about a final section assessing archaeological and historiographic analyses and critiques -- isn't that covered in the archaeology spur? or should that be combined. If it is retained/incorporated into the main article, I think it should absolutely have a subsection along the lines of "interpretation by adherents" -- this is unquestionably important to provide, but it should not be muddled up in some horrid back-and-forth. It's two very clearly seperate and relevant approaches: 1. Here's what we know independent of faith, and 2. Here's how people of faith interpret that information. It seems to me the cleanest way to allow presentation of multiple sides without violating NPOV or winding up with a mangled article.

Just my humble, stopping by opinion. Daveny1979 17:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Note, on Brief narrative summary

There is a reason to have a note specificly that they are claims within the book itself. For example one could say that Huck Finn wrote the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. This is a claim made by the book itself. Just as the claim that Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon in 385AD. It's not redundant to say that Huck Finn being the author of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a claim made by the book. Less so when the summary includes notes like Huck Finn starts writing his story by talking about his previous adventures with Tom Sawyer. Tat 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Smithsonian Letter

User:Enormousdude has entered data from a site dedicated to showing falsehoods of Mormonism. He stated that the letter was the response from requests of LDS scholars; but the letter clearly stated it was from the Mr. Luke P. Wilson of the Institute for Religious Studies. I corrected that error. However, what I would like to have had is the letter Mr. Wilson wrote to the Smithsonian to understand the context of the responses. I also found it curious that the letter was from the Public Inquiry Mail Service; does anyone know if this is a typical response format from the Smithsonian? It appears that it may just be a form letter for responses to similar questions.

I question this edit given its source. I am not aware that the Smithsonian has ever done any specific research into the Book of Mormon and without doing so is not an acceptable source. The statements made are very specific; does anyone know if this is a real document?

Also, User:Enormoudude to enter a new section is not a minor edit. It is a major edit. Marking it as minor is deceptive; please refrain from using the minor edit check box except for spelling corrections and other "MINOR" edits. Cheers. Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The letter is real, but the person who wrote the original (and most circulated) almost lost their job because of it and the many errors in it. A PR guy answering questions is only dangerous, but not technically accurate (believe me I should know). It was argued that because the letter was so widely circulated, that an official response be crafted. This is the current Smithsonian offical response (there have been multiple versions):

Your inquiry of February 7 concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in this office for response.

The Book of Mormon us a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated.

Incidentally, the most recent issue of Smithsonian magazine warns about using the Bible for archeaology, because it is likely not historically correct, adn that evidence shows that Israel was not united during the reign of David. They've treated the Koran in a similar way. Jeff Lindsay discusses the factual errors with the 1996 letter [10] and John Sorensen has discussed the errors in the earlier letter.

That said, the Smithsonian even discussing item by item issues with the book of Mormon actually discounts the first letter. That the individual was familiar enough with the content of the book of mormon to address silk, etc. suggests that in an official capacity, he had addressed issues with the book of mormon and archeaology, and therefore, had used the book to guide research while on the job. -Visorstuff 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Enormous, I reverted your edit today where you reinserted information that has already been shown to have been retracted by the Smithsonian. You are using sources that have been proven to lack credibility. Further, this information was referenced which you delted to resert this disproven data. When the Smithsonian retracts a statement it is serious. If you want use a Smithsonian quote, use the most current data available. Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Further, reverting your edit is not vandalism particularly when it is a major edit that you inserted and marked as a minor edit; this is highly misleading. This was discussed before and you chose not to participate on the discussion page. The revert is standard practice when a controversy exists and needs to gain concensus before further editing. Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I did further research and found the following:

New Light: Smithsonian Statement on the Book of Mormon Revisited

For many years, the Smithsonian Institution has given out a routine response to questions posed to them about their view and relation between the Book of Mormon and scientific studies of ancient American civilizations. Statements in their handout pointed out what somebody at the Institutions claimed were contradictions between the text of the scriptures and what scientists claim about New World Cultures.

In 1982 John Sorenson wrote a detailed critique of the Smithsonian piece that was published by FARMS. It pointed out errors of face and logic in the statement. He revised that is 1995 and included the recommendation that the Smithsonian Institution completely modify their statement to bring it up-to-date scientifically. FARMS officers later conferred with a Smithsonian representative who indicated a willingness to make changes. More recently members of Congress have questioned the Institution about the inappropriateness of a government agency taking a stand regarding a religious book.

In March of this year the director of Communications at the Smithsonian began using the following brief response to queries about the Book of Mormon:

Your recent inquiry concerning the Smithsonian Institution's alleged use of the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide has been received in the Office of Communications. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide, The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect.

The Sorenson critique, "A New Evaluation of the Smithsonian Institution 'Statement regarding the Book of Mormon,'" is available from FARMS and may also be seen on the FARMS website: [[11]]

Please do not use old data just because it fits more with your POV. Please know that the Smithsonian has definitely retracted the letter you insist on inserting. The Smithsonian does not stand behind the letter and has adopted the statement above. Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Enormousdude Edits

I have reverted this editors edits of the 25th. Obviously there is a lack of any understanding of Mormon teachings or thought. I suspect he has limited his understanding to some of wonderful anti-Mormon websites similar to the one mentioned above.

First, the teaching of the Book of Mormon and one's own persuit to understand if it is from God is specifically as follows:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how amerciful• the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and bponder• it in your chearts•.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not btrue•; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal• intent, having efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth• of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. Moroni 10:3-5

These verses were specifically cited in the article. He mentioned the burning in the bosom that is mentioned in the bible: Luke 24: 32 and also D&C 9:7-8. Though this is good counsel for receiving answers through the Holy Spirit; let's just stick to the promise mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

Enormous, Welcome to Mormon related articles. I believe everyone is glad you are here; however, you might want to approach the subjects from an understanding of it before getting carreid away. Many of your edits go too far and are not what LDS would say or believe. You seem to take extreme positions and pass them off as what Mormons believe. This is a common error of sites I would label anti-Mormon. Understand my definition, to be critical is welcome. To misrepresent in an effort to disparage or destroy is what I would call anti-Mormon. Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Enormousdude, your edits have been addressed on this page and you have continued to edit without any type of explanation. Your edits will be reverted wholesale unless you begin to discuss some of your reasonings. Further, this is not the archeaology article, but the main article. The intent is to summarize the section and point them to the subarticle. Are you listening to anyone or are you just ignoring all other editors? Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally "Big Guy" :^), the burning in the bosom is not how the Spirit works for most members. You should read Dallin Oaks talk clarifying doctrines and statements about how the spirit works. It is unmistakeable to those who've felt it. -Visorstuff 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted this section (again), with three reasons: 1) The Smithsonian Institute no longer issues or upholds this statement, thus, it is outdated[12]. 2) Each "point" is currently contested by non-LDS scholars, as well as those within the tradition. The same was true in 1996. 3) This section violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy; it was inserted surreptitiously and finds support only on sites with negative POV. Combined with points one and two, this is clearly an inappropiate entry. DevLaVaca 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the whole body of that letter does not belong here - merely a link to it is sufficient. Also, I kind of cut-and-paste the similar section over on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon to mention the 1998 revision (again w/o the text, but merely a link to a copy). Though, even doing that seems to be redundant/sprawling - like Storm said above, this isn't the archaeology article. School is winding down so I'm going to try and help out here if I can. And Enormous, should you read this, can you please provide more reasoning for adding and removing the {{fact}} tag. Tchau. --FyzixFighter 19:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking out the following:

Book of Mormon asserts that the people of one particular group (described as Lamanites) "are the principal ancestors of the American Indians". According to Book of Mormon, their skin was made dark by God's curse.

There's got to be a better, more npov way of including something like this in context and in the intro rather than a separate paragraph. Maybe something like:

The Book of Mormon is one of four sacred texts of Mormonism, which also include the Bible, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants. Published by the first prophet of this movement, Joseph Smith, Jr., in March 1830 in Palmyra, New York, the belief in the truthfulness of this book stands as the central dividing doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from other Christian faiths. Adherents to its teachings are commonly referred to as Mormons. The book asserts that it contains part of the history of three ancient american civilizations, and that one of these, the Lamanites are "the principal ancestors of the American Indians." Though it describes historical events, the book's self-declared purpose is to testify of Jesus through the writings of ancient prophets of the Western Hemisphere who traveled there from ancient Israel, probably between 600-650 BC. It asserts that it was abridged and compiled by the prophet/historian Mormon, and his son Moroni in the 4th century, for "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God." Joseph Smith is said to have translated the record by divine inspiration with assistance from the Urim and Thummim.

Thoughts? --FyzixFighter 17:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that it reads well, with one minor issue: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not the only sect to believe in the historicity of the Book of Mormon. "Latter Day Saint movement" would be better, but the Community of Christ, which is part of this movement, doesn't believe in the Book of Mormon any more. Val42 17:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Val, your comment that the CofC does not believe in the Book of Mormon overstates to their position, I believe. My aunt and uncle are members of the Community of Christ. They recently spoke of attending a church conference/meeting where the Book of Mormon was the focus. He was really astonished about how important the Book of Mormon was. He was asking all sorts of questions about my/our understanding of its teachings. I have other friends within the CC church and I almost see two different types of positions (I am sure there are more, just like the LDS church has members that believe differently). Officially, the Bible is the word of God and held superior to the Book of Mormon; that may be changing witht he new CC prophet. Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I appologize for my misunderstanding of the relevance of the Book of Mormon within the Community of Christ. In that case, "Latter Day Saint movement" would be appropriate. Val42 20:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Just made the change, and used "Latter Day Saint movement" instead of CoJCLDS. I thought some comment should be made as to the BoM's claim that the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the amerindians - though the God's curse thing is a can of worms that shouldn't be opened in the intro. I hope I didn't move too fast on making the change, if so revert me and I'll be more patient... --FyzixFighter 23:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Immunity argument

I removed the following:

Contacts with Europeans in 15-16 centuries caused high mortalities among amerindians from deseases against which indians had no immunity (like smallpox, syphilis, etc). Thus, if there were relatively recent contacts of amerindians with Old World civilizations as Book of Mormon claims, then amerindians would already develop immunity against such deseases. Actually, being "principal ansestors" of Lamanites (who were of Israelity origin), amerindians must be immune to those deseases prior to Columbus arrival.

This argument does not match up with similar historic events. For example, Viking settlements on Iceland were periodically wiped out by european diseases due to periods on the order of hundred years where no contact with europe was made. It only takes a few generations to lose natural immunity in isolated populations. --FyzixFighter 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please, provide the reference to your statement "It only takes a few generations to lose natural immunity in isolated populations" - this is made up statement. Also, provide the reference to another statement (which I think, is also incorrect but I am not 100% sure): "Viking settlement periodically viped out by european deseases".

On a side note, how big were Viking settlements (say, in Iceland, Greenland and in Newfoundland)? I presume, only a few thousands (?). How come that such small settlement living relatively short time span (a few hundred years) in such remote nordic places are archaeologically well known, while mighty and much more advanced multimillion civilizations of BoM living a few millenia in warm places almost under our nose (in mesoamerica where archaeology is very active) are archaeologically inexistant?

Sincerely, Enormousdude 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The information can be found in "Ecological Imperialism : The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900-1900" by Alfred Crosby. The relevant passage is on page 52, the first full paragraph, part of which states:

The Norse in Iceland and even more so in Greenland were so remote from Europe that they rarely received the latest installments of the diseases germinating in European centers of dense settlement, the their tiny populations were too small for maintenance of crowd diseases.

Crosby cites the periodic smallpox epidemics (one of which in 1707 wiped out 18,000 in Iceland, a third of the population) and notes about the periodic epidemics that "the longer the respite, the worse the blow when it came." --FyzixFighter 05:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Archaeology Section

Enormousdude, you say that the Book of Mormon cites "in detail several major technologically advanced ancient American civilizations flourished between 2600 BC to 400 AD." There are only 3 cited, and even that's arguable. The only civilizations cited by name are the Jaredites, Nephites & Lamanites and Mulekites, however, IN DETAIL would mean to me something granualar, and we don't have details on the technology of the Jaredites or Mulekites per the BoM; we only know they existed. It is only the Nephites that we learn of their building styles, their weaponry, etc. We really only know of the Lamanite's weaponry, much of which is borrowed from the Nephites. Please further explain what you mean by that. Bo-Lingua 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, please note that the book of mormon itself (as does the D&C) alludes to other groups of people not named. This has been addressed elsewhere on the wiki. This is not a new concept, but is swept under by most casual readers.

Where does the Book of Mormon say that there were others (of non-Israelitian origin) prior to Jaredites arrival?! On the contrary, both on Sunday school and by Mormon missionairies I was taught vice versa. I was said that before Jaredites the American continent was void of people. And missionaires have shown me the paragraph from BoM which says that promised land was not habitated and that they (people from the house of Israel) must keep it for themselves and from knowledge of others. Can you explicitly show exactly where BoM says that?

Sincerely, Enormousdude 22:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Not everything that is taught in Sunday school or by Mormon missionaries is true unfortunately, especially those things not directly relating to salvation. Can you provide references to the parts you believe where it says that no one else was on the land prior? I've looked through but can't find any verse that says this, but maybe I've missed it. I believe that Omni 1:17 is used as a possible reference to other people in the land - I'm not sure what other references are used in this argument. Also note that the Jaredites where not Israelites, so to categorize all the people in the BoM as Israelite or Jewish is misleading. --FyzixFighter 23:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by the Omni 1:17 reference in your statement above. I just read Omni 1:17. Taken alone, it could be used to indicate otherwise unidentified people who were encountered. But in the context of Omni 1:14-22, it clearly covers the people who (would later) be known as the Mulekites and the Jaredites. Val42 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear - I don't know the exact argument, but this is the verse that I have seen others use. It might do well to ask those who first inserted this to understand their argument. I'll take a look over at FARMS to see what and how they argue this. My main contention with Enormous on this though is that the BoM does not preclude the presence of other peoples that are not Lehite, Mulekite, or Jaredite. And if Omni 1:17 does refer to Jaredites then "Israelity" is still an incorrect description. --FyzixFighter 17:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny edit removal

[13] - wanted to keep this for historical reasons. I'd love to address item by item someplace - perhaps I will on my blog sometime. The funniest thing was the edit about "only one temple" particularly in light of this month's smithsonian issue that discusses that the references in Deuteronomy adn Joshua actually refer to a Temple structure built by Joshua on Mount Ebal, not Solomon's temple. (I actually think it discusses the tabernacle) The later kings, etc. references, are added in by the deuteronomists in what Margaret Barker calls revisionist history - no strong reference on revelation from the Lord as there is in the Moses/Joshua account. And then, the discussion on melchizedek pristhood versus teh levitical. Or the gnostic accounts of multiple days of darkness (and reference in OT, is it habbukuk or haggai or zecheriah?). the childen "qualifier" adn also the adam and eve and paul references. And then we should talk about the names - I do wonder what the hebrew word for laver is, and if the editor even thought about that the stupidity of using English words to discuss what is mentioned or not in two non-english texts.

Anyway there are so many errors (factually and logically) in the edit that it was wise that Storm Rider removed. -Visorstuff 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale revert

I think I and Bo Lingua both did a wholesale revert to User:162.111.195.15's edits. The changes added in qualifiers when qualifiers already existed ie, no need to have "self-declared" and "supposedly" in teh same sentence, when one already casts doubt, etc. Its the same as using a double negative. -Visorstuff 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm surprised that it didn't do an edit conflict, honestly. ;) Bo-Lingua 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Unnatural (if not to say stupid) picture of Hill Cumorah

Did anyone notice the disgraceful picture of Joseph Smith talking (or listening) to angel Moroni on the Hill Cumorah? Who put it up there? Does anyone see what is wrong with this picture? (Or it is only me who noticed?) Enormousdude 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What about the picture is disgraceful? It's no Renaissance painting, to be sure, but I don't see anything particular about it. The picture is, as far as I am aware, the oldest painting of Smith's story of his receiving the gold plates. The artist, C. C. A. Christensen, painted it between 1878 and 1890 (if the external links from his Wiki page can be trusted). It is possibly used because its age puts it beyond copyright disputes, but I'm just guessing on that one. Perhaps if you can find another painting of the event that can be legally posted in its place? NoCoolName Tom 02:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't agree with there being anything wrong with the picture. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is only me who noticed. Ok, let's see. It is about logically contradicting representation of direction of gravity on a hill. And I am not talking about the angel (Moroni or whoever). Angel indeed represents the direction of gravity correct - he/she is aligned with it (therefore from his/her alignement we can see that the vector of gravity is directed vertically. Interestingly enought, angels are known to defy (=not to obey) gravity - thus it is a little strange that on this picture we see the contrary - that somehow angel "feels" the correct direction of gravity (and when nothing else around him/her gives a clue about it). By the way, how can angel - obviousely having some energy (as radiating/reflecting light, as having voice, etc) not to obey gravity? General relativity teaches that any energy-momentum both creates and obeys curved space-time (which we call gravity.)? But I am not talking about obedient/desobedient gravity angel(s). I am talking about trees on the painting. Look at them. Look at their direction of growth - they do not obey the direction of gravity. This is unnatural, especially for trees on a slope. Large torque they experience by not aligning their trunks with the direction of gravitational acceleration can easily break them especially if wind blows downhill (pay attention that these trunks are thick as can be seen in comparison with human and angel figures - thus they are quite heavy), yet on the painting they grow unnaturally crooked (deviated from vertical).And it is not just a tree or two - practically all of them (except the one on left from the angel). This makes the whole painting to look extremely unrealistic - almost childish. Could this unusual behavior of trees be due to the presense of angel (which may somehow create some sort of void in the gravitational field)?

Or there is more simple explanation - that the author of the painting have never seen actual forest? Where did this painting come from anyway? Is this paintig on display somewhere? And nobody have noticed? Sincerely, Enormousdude 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Second Coming

If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then the Second Coming would have already happened, a fact that the Mormons themselves are strangely mum about. Hackwrench 22:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide the chapter and verse reference. Val42 22:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Elaboration of my position:

If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then it would be easy to conclude that it depicts that the Second Coming already happened, a fact that the Mormons themselves are strangely mum about. The lack of mention of this event in the New Testament makes it likely, that if true, it took place after the events in the New Testament. Hackwrench 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

From the article:

Though it describes historical events, the book's self-declared purpose is to testify of Jesus through the writings of ancient prophets of the Western Hemisphere who traveled there from ancient Israel, probably between 600-650 BC.

If the writings of the prophets were to testify of Jesus, then how did they travel there 600-650 years before Christ.

So, what you're saying is that His Second Coming (wording that isn't used anywhere in the New Testament) doesn't count when he ascended to Heaven ("Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." John 20:17) and came back to appear to the Apostles and countless others, but does count when for the second (or third, fourth, fifth, etc.) time he ascended to heaven then came back to appear to those who believed in him in the Americas? If we use your interpretation of "Second Coming", then the Bible already says that he's come for the second time, "that if true, Christians themselves are strangely mum about."

To answer your second set of questions, how did Isaiah and the other Old Testament prophets write about what Christ would do when they were writing before Christ came? Val42 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow ... I don't want to insult you all, but there is a suprising level of ignorance here. (I say ignorance, not stupidity. There is a difference) Let's assume for a second, for gramattical reasons and for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon is accurate historically.

The Book of Mormon is (usually) divided into there different time periods. The first (recorded last, in the book of Ether) started with the Tower of Babel, recording the history of the Jaredites. It went on until the last survivor of this group was found by the Nephites. The second period (recorded first) started in 600 BC and went to the time of Christ. The third went from the time of Christ to when Moroni buiried the plates in what would later become New York state - which was several generations after the time of Christ. So not only was the first thing this thread said incorrect, (that the Book of Mormon started with the time of Christ) so is the second. (that it started in 600 BC) --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

POV and User:RelHistBuff edits

The intro paragraph just was changed to add further clarification that it is not stating facts. The problem is that in the first paragraph we have the following "clarifications" already:

1. belief
2. asserts
3. User:RelHistBuff recent edit was immediately followed by self-declared
4. asserts (again)
5. said to have

Now, it is possible that we need to clarify that this is a topic of faith, but surely in one paragraph stating something is a belief once is enough for the average reader to understand that it is a topic of faith. When we bend so far backwards to clarify we actually are taking a POV that it is all false, which is unacceptable. Do you think it would be acceptable to delete the at least three of the other "clarifications" and just have one or at most two? Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There may be better ways to write the paragraph. But even given the previous clarifications, the sentence, "Though it describes historical events, the book's..." jumps out to the reader as declaring the book is historical. As another proposal, how about just deleting the clause? RelHistBuff 07:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Another proposal is to remove "self-declared" and just say "declares". I think that alleviates some of the "asserts". RelHistBuff 07:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I like RelHistBuff's new solution. You're quite right, Storm Rider, that it already had several qualifications, which made it pretty clearly NPOV. But it still contained that one nugget, "it describes historical events", asserted as fact, which I think would be better to avoid. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 08:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the change made also. I reread the paragraph and maybe I am being just overly sensitive; however, I did not edit anything. Is there someway to ensure that readers know that we are talking about what Mormons believe about the Book of Mormon without so many redundant statements. I did not feel comfortable changing anything, but I would like to know if you guys see a way to do it smoothly throughout the article. Again, good edit. Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it is only in the first paragraphs (the summary section) where one has to be careful. After that I think it is well-understood that the article is about what Mormons believe. Note for example in the "Title page" section, it says "The title page, translated from...". Some editors might prefer "allegedly translated from...", but at this this stage that would be overkill. Also the "The book's major theme" section has no additional clarifications. RelHistBuff 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)