Jump to content

Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Origin of the Book of Mormon

This section is less like prose and more like "balloon painting". It is all over the place with the tedious diatribe of Martin Harris' wife and references that are so biased that even a critic would blush. Joseph Smith could write but used transcriptionists including his wife to write the manuscript. I'm not confused. I'm just well mixed. --WaltFrost (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The more I analyze the opening sections the more I pine for sanity in writing. It goes without saying that any religious text is not generally accepted outside of the culture that supports it. Sometimes more is less. This section needs some serious weight loss and excision of needless blather. The artist in me cries out for design. --WaltFrost (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Historicity

I took a badly needed scalpel to this section. It was becoming a blog unto itself. This is merely an introduction and should stay as such. I also changed the woefull excuse for NPOV language to highlight the controversy and leave it at that. The world is full of willing people; some willing to work, the rest willing to let them. --WaltFrost (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Caps

There is no reason for ANOTHER to be capitolized here, besides the fact that the sentnce structure makes no grammatical sense. I am going to remove the whole sentence, as it is stated earlier that the book has canon status along with the bible.Whiteknight521 (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Critics claim

QUOTING (except I omitted reference numbers for simplicity):

"Church critics, including Richard Abanes and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, claim that the original versions of the Book of Mormon contained substantial evidence that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon. Critics claim that the LDS church has frequently revised the Book of Mormon in order to delete the evidence that shows that the book was fabricated. The Tanners have documented almost 4000 changes in the Book of Mormon. These changes include spelling, hundreds of grammatical errors that are systematic and not attributable to type-setting, and wording changes such as changing "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah". or the addition of the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism"."

I think this is not a well paragraph.

  • Since the critics' names are in the references, need they be in the text?
  • Both sentences start "critics claim". How about combining the first two sentences to :
"Church critics claim that the original versions of the Book of Mormon contained substantial evidence that Joseph Smith fabricated the Book of Mormon and that the church has revised the Book of Mormon to remove this evidence."
  • "The Tanners have documented almost 4000 changes in the Book of Mormon." This raises the question "4000 changes between which two editions"? I don't know if we should get into answering that.
  • "These changes include spelling, hundreds of grammatical errors that are systematic and not attributable to type-setting, and wording changes such as changing "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah". or the addition of the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism"."

There is a lot packed into this one sentence (including "changes" twice and "changing"). How about:

"These revisions include wording changes such as "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah", adding the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism", and correction of spelling and grammatical errors. The contention is that many of the removed errors were systematic and are signs of fabrication."

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Critics claim - paragraph 2

"However, supporters of the Book of Mormon maintain that correctness need not refer to the translation, the grammar, or the spelling, only to the content, notably the doctrine. Since Joseph Smith later made corrections to the text of the Book of Mormon, on both copies of the manuscript (the original and the copy prepared for the printer) and in later editions, it seems clear that he did not consider the book to be an infallible translation as it first appeared in print. The Book of Mormon itself indicates that it may contain errors made by the men who wrote it.[47] The vast majority of the changes noted by the Tanners have been discussed in official Church publications including the Ensign, Improvement Era, Millennial Star and Times and Seasons, and are consistent with early pre- and post-publication edits made by Joseph Smith. Some corrections were made due to earlier print or copy errors, or changes in punctuation.[48]"

  • The words and phrases: "However", "need not refer to", and "it seems clear" seem to me to give this an apologetic tone. Perhaps the paragraph could be tightened up. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Serious unresolved issues

Re the sentence: "Serious unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence have led some faithful LDS to adopt a compromise position that the Book of Mormon may be the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration."

This was recently amended to remove the word "serious".

My impression is that the concerns were, and are, serious indeed if they led people of faith to disbelieve the foundation story of their religion.

I would tend to put back the word, but let's discuss first. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea on the discussion, Wanderer57. As indicated, I feel the word "serious" should be removed because it connotes a belief that the non-resolution of certain issues is so important and obvious that all sensical people should discount the book. And if you or others don't agree with my reasoning for removing the word, I would conversely like to know why it should be included--I feel the superfluous word conveys a different meaning and feeling. Thanks. --Eustress (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I dislike the whole sentence; I have never met anyone that maintained this position. Has there been any serious reserach to quantify how many LDS take this position? It sounds like it would only be fringe LDS and thus its attention violates policy. Based upon this violation, I say it should be deleted. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed - it is unsourced and should be deleted. There appear to be no sources suggesting any significant doubt over the historicity of the Book of Mormon within the LDS Church, and conversely no sources suggesting any significant acceptance of the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside the LDS Church (and other Mormon denominations). The article should reflect this dictotomy. LeContexte (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, you are both wrong. This is the position held by thousands of LDS members. I've lived in Utah all my life and can point to hundreds of conversations along these lines. However, for a source, you need only look at "New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" (already in the reference list) and noted in footnote 3. And I don't mind leaving "serious" out. This is no different than the position of millions of Bible-belivers in other churches who don't buy the historicity of a universal Flood or feeding 5000 people with a little fish and bread, for example, but believe the spiritual message of the text. (Taivo (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
Respectfully, I've lived in Utah all my life and never had a single one of those conversations. Not even with BYU faculty :P Rogerdpack (talk) 04:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
A note on dichotomy. We've had dichotomous language in the article before, but most felt that the language was confrontational and we removed it. The real difficulty is that you can't really reference or "prove" a negative. "There are no geologists who believe in a flat earth." Try to reference that statement. It's not possible because the truth of such an assertion is considered to be so self-evident and axiomatic that no one ever wastes the time to write it. Wikipedia has such a reference fixation that we can't even write that because it can't be referenced. The same goes for "No non-LDS scholar accepts the historicity of the Book of Mormon". Since non-LDS scholars ignore the Book of Mormon, it's not possible to reference such a statement except in the vaguest terms. (Taivo (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
Thinking a little more about it, maybe the problem with the sentence in question is the presence of the word "faithful". Most LDS (at least in Utah) might not exactly fit into the category of "faithful" although they are still LDS and believe in the BOM as scripture. Perhaps we should remove the word "faithful" and simply say "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence have led some LDS to adopt a compromise position that the Book of Mormon may be the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration." This removes the question of "How could a FAITHFUL LDS doubt the historicity?" As to Wanderer's question about how could one still be faithful when they doubt the foundation document. This is answered above. I believe in the truth of the Bible, but doubt most of it's "historicity" where the miraculous is concerned. Millions of Bible-believers doubt one or more "unbelievable" events in the text, yet they would still consider themselves "faithful". As with everything else in religion, nothing is black and white. (14:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taivo (talk • contribs)
Thank you to everyone for their great insights!
  • (1) Due to commentary or silence, I think the consensus is that we should leave the word "serious" out of the phrase.
  • (2) While I can see Taivo's reasoning for keeping the rest of the sentence (although, I think New Approaches to the Book of Mormon would not be an accurate source, unless a direct quote can be identified), I agree with the others that the word "faithful" should also be removed. --Eustress (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
To me, the point of the sentence is to indicate that there is recognition within the Church (i.e., by some members of the Church) that Joseph Smith's account of the origin of the Book is very difficult of belief. That although they remain faithful, there are elements of disbelief in their minds. Just, as Taivo says, some Bible-believing people do not believe everything in the Bible.
Without the knowledge that there is some, let's say, range of opinion within the Church, many people outside the Church will view it as incredibly conformist and uniform in belief.
To me, there are "serious unresolved issues". Wanderer57 (talk) 16:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's all on what we want the sentence to say in the end:
1) The historicity issues are such that everyone sees them and the church collapses.
2) The historicity issues are such that some faithful LDS people see them and leave the church.
3) The historicity issues are such that some faithful LDS people see them and become unfaithful, although they don't leave the church.
4) The historicity issues are such that some faithful LDS people see them and have to reconcile them somehow with their continued faithfulness.
5) The historicity issues are such that some faithful LDS people see them and ignore them.
6) The historicity issues are such that faithful LDS people don't see them.
7) The historicity issues are such that no one sees them.
I think we can safely rule out 1) and 7), and probably 2) and 6) as well, so the question is how we want to characterize the issue and whether "serious" (or another adjective) fairly describes that assessment. Based on my experience and reading, I would place the issue as a 4). People who leave the church don't do it because of historicity issues in the BOM. They do it for more personal reasons (although they may publically state some silly thing like DNA evidence). People leave churches because the church isn't meeting their spiritual needs and that is a completely separate issue from historicity of the sacred text (whichever text we're talking about). If a church is meeting their spiritual needs, then they will always find some way to reconcile inconsistencies, etc. so that they can continue to get their spiritual needs met. I find my spiritual needs met in a church where the majority of people think that an acceptance of Evolution is akin to drug abuse. I chuckle at it and reconcile it in my mind, but I don't leave. (Taivo (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
From my perspective I don't see any serious unresolved issues. Rogerdpack (talk) 04:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. Your option 4 is what I had in mind when I opened this section. That there are faithful LDS people who remain faithful without believing "everything".
How well your option 4 describes the actual situation, I'm not in a position to say. Based on the above discussion, I think there is a major divergence of opinion. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, now I'm even more convinced that the entire sentence should be removed because "faithful" members of the Church (faithful, that is, connoting allegiance, loyalty, and adherence[1]) never accept any doctrine, revelation, or scripture (e.g., Word of Wisdom, Book of Mormon, women only wearing one pair of earrings[2]) on the basis of "historicity" or scientific evidence but on faith.[3][4] I think it should be removed or, my compromise, left in its current wording. I really appreciate everyone's comments! --Eustress (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm still in the same position. Based on the above discussion, I think there is a major divergence of opinion....as to the importance, or not, of the historicity of the Book of Mormon to faithful Church members. I wonder if there are reliable sources that address this matter. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd to have a paragraph disputing the origin of the book of mormon, among faithful, at the beginning of the document. I'd place Critics of the Book of Mormon claim... in Historicity or some place regarding controversy or disputed origin. Stating people's beliefs about the origin is a somewhat different topic than describing its origin. So I'd say it's not a bad sentence, but could be placed better. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 05:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The positioning of this material is appropriate for this particular article. While in a "perfect" world, you may be right for your logical sequencing, in "this" world, the critical views must be placed here or else there would be eternal editing wars between "pros" and "antis" about the "real" origin right in this place. By putting critical views right here, up front next to the "official" position, we subvert those who would continually place them here anyway (usually in not such neutral wording as we've been able to work out). (Taivo (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC))
I like the way it is currently more than the old way, though it still feels a little NPOV'ish to say " however, the historicity of the book is not accepted by several archaeologists, geneticists, and historians who have studied the issues.[3]" right in the beginning, as if dismissing its validity up front. I might reword it as "the historicity of the book is disputed by some geneticists..." Rogerdpack (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
How is it NPOV if it is just stating the facts? There is no opinion in that sentence - it states very clearly the facts of the matter. It is not opining on the truthfulness of the BOM, just saying that there are several people who don't accept it. I think that to reword as you suggest is a little POVish myself we would be watering down the sentence so it is not so controversial. --Descartes1979 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
True it is factual...this is a tough one, since there are geneticists and scientists who think the Book is true, too. Where is their factual mention? If I have sources for them should I add it in? Would an additional sentence of "however, the historicity of the book is not accepted by several archaeologists, geneticists, and historians who have studied the issues[3] and is accepted by others[4]" be better? I can find references I saw some books on it in the BYU bookstore last saturday :P Another option would be to remove any statements of authenticity from the first paragraph, since they are adequately addressed in the next paragraph [origin of], and add something like "the origin of the book is a matter of debate" and link to the origin paragraph. Rogerdpack (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: So...frequently the article currently cites "reliable sources" which are from a very negative point of view. ex: 11 witnesses' testimony is dismissed as "non binding" and that's it. Should I go in and add the LDS perspective to these things? What is going on? Rogerdpack (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Roger, I don't really see an alternative. It will lead to article bloat, but when an article attracts such strong, conflicting opinions there is very little alternative. If it is not done, what is left is a POV article that does not serve readers. It takes work, but really is not difficult. The plethora of diverse resources could easily be brought to bear to balance the negative POV. It is unfortunate, but is a common cycle I have seen many times on these articles. Strong POV come in, article gets inundated with information, cry for shorter article is raised, article is reduced, strong POV comes in and the cycle goes on. Cheers. Let me know if you need assistance. --Storm Rider (talk) 04:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

POV?

OK, so we've been playing around with different wording in various sections for a week or so now. I'll ask again, "How close are we to getting rid of the POV tag?" (Taivo (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

Style

This is not a big deal, at least to me, but at some points in the article we have Book of Mormon, at others Book of Mormon, and at others Book of Mormon.

We should standardize this. Any preferences about which way to go?

The first time it's mentioned it should be Book of Mormon and thereafter just Book of Mormon. (Taivo (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
Do I have this straight? Within the Book of Mormon, there is a section which is known as the Words of Mormon and also as the book of Mormon. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Mormon and Words of Mormon are two books in the Book of Mormon. See Book of Mormon#Purpose and Organization. Alanraywiki (talk) 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Time for me to read the article again. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Number of Languages

This recent edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon&diff=next&oldid=197481387

brought to my mind this question:

Are we being excessively precise in this area?

If the Book of Mormon has been translated into X languages and is currently available in 'X minus Y' languages, it is (I'm guessing here) because the editions in Y languages are out-of-print. Do we want an article whose accuracy depends on keeping score as editions go in and out of print? Wanderer57 (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Taivo: Quoting your edit summary: " ALL languages are "oral". what is relevant is a tradition of writing."
Excellent point that all languages are oral, but being pedantic, I'm wondering about the word "tradition". To me, it seems an odd choice of word. "System of writing"??
I'm just curious. Wanderer57 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Today, any language that has been studied by a linguist has writing system. One just uses the orthography that was developed by the linguist to write the examples in the grammar. But just because someone develops a writing system for a language doesn't mean that the members of that community can read it (or even care to). There is an officially recognized tribal orthography for the Timbisha language, but there are only two of us (both of us white linguists) who actually ever use it. So that's why the "tradition" part of the comment is relevant. If most of the speakers of a language don't know how to read their language because virtually nothing has ever been published in it, then that is a language without a tradition of writing. (Taivo (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Tradition of writing

See the above paragraph. "Spoken-only" and "oral" are completely inaccurate portrayals of languages that do not have a history of writing. The issue is that 99% of ALL language (no matter what language) is spoken. Measuring a language by the amount of speech is meaningless--measuring a language by the amount of writing is much more meaningful. Sorry Eustress, but I must insist on my wording. (Taivo (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

I guess I don't understand your logic and think your solution is overly wordy and unprofessional. By saying "historically spoken-only," I mean that the language is rarely, if ever written. The LDS Church usually only translates the BoM onto audio mediums for these languages because only a handful of people even know how to write, more-yet read, in the particular language. I think "Historically spoken-only languages" makes more sense than "languages without a tradition of writing". What does everyone else think? Thanks! --Eustress (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to explain more completely. 1) ALL languages are spoken/oral languages (we'll exclude signed languages) so ALL languages are "historically spoken-only" since writing is a recent invention. 2) Writing is a historically recent invention that has only ever been applied to a minority of the world's languages. Out of about 7000 languages still spoken or spoken until recently, only about 1000 (at the most) have any kind of writing tradition and only about two hundred of them have a writing tradition prior to the 20th century. 3) So, "spoken-only" is actually the majority of the world's languages and is, therefore, the default situation--writing is exceptional. 4) The very phrase "spoken-only" sounds prejudicial, that they are somehow deficient as languages. "Poor Rotokas, it's only a spoken language." 5) As someone who has worked intimately with speakers of a language that has no written tradition, I can sympathize with their sensitivity about "writing" and the extremely high value they place on oral tradition and the poor learning skills of the younger generation "because everything is written down for them--they don't have to use their brains to remember things". 6) The reason that the Book of Mormon is on audio cassette is NOT because of speaking, but because of the lack of writing--writing is the problem, NOT speaking, therefore "spoken-only" focuses attention on the WRONG end of the scale and on the WRONG issue. There is NOTHING unclear about "lack of a writing tradition", but linguists grind their teeth every single time they read ill-advised phrases such as "oral language", "spoken-only", etc. It sounds SO Judeo-Euro-Arabo-Sino-Indo-centric. It ALWAYS sounds like "poor little unwritten languages, aren't they cute?" Even "unwritten" is better than "spoken-only", but all languages can be written, the key element is that they aren't written, not that they can't be. OK, I'm on a roll, but I'm not going to compromise on this. The problem is NOT "speaking", but "writing", therefore the phrase MUST reflect the problem and include the root "write" and not the root "speak" in the solution. (Taivo (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC))
IMHO, it would be a good idea if the current participants in this discussion would leave it alone for a day to allow for some other inputs to occur. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Wanderer. That's why I asked "What does everyone else think?" We already know what User:Taivo thinks on this matter, and I don't think it's appropriate or even matters that he is not willing to compromise on this. --Eustress (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the phrase "languages without a tradition of writing" is infinitely better than "oral language" "spoken only" or some such phrasing.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I also agree with Taivo - use the phrase "languages without a tradition of writing" --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggested tweaks of wording

Hello editors:

I'm wondering about the highlighted words in this sentence: "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt a compromise position that the Book of Mormon may be the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration."

I suggest specifically, to change "conclusive" to "supporting",

to change "a compromise position" to "the position"

and to change "may be" to "is".

The resulting sentence would be:

"Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon is the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration."

I thought I would put these suggestions forward. Your reaction please. Wanderer57 (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your rewording completely. Good catch! --Eustress (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Works for me :) (Taivo (talk) 01:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Ouch!! My head is swelling. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
When you change it, please also change it at Historicity of the Book of Mormon where we have the same paragraph. (Taivo (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
I think "may be" is an accurate usage here. It implies a possibility that is inherent in matters of belief and faith.Wuapinmon (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree with this change; you move from the vague to taking a position that puts Wikipedia in the role of making a decision. Wikipedia does not do that; we report facts and stated by experts. This matter is disputed by those who are viewed as experts. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the suggested wording means that WP is adopting a position. All it does is say that some people adopt this position. If some people say "I believe the BoM is the creation of Joseph Smith" then that's what we should report. If they say "I believe the BoM may be the creation of Joseph Smith" then we should report their beliefs as may be. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
The wording change is good - and it stays very neutral - be bold and perform the update. I struggle to see how this makes WP take a position on the issue. And by the way, the matter is not disputed by the vast majority of experts (who happen to be non-Mormon) - it is only disputed between Mormon and non-Mormons. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
DJ, I went back and reviewed the language and I agree with you; it is stating that adherents take the position and does not put Wikipedia in the position of stating a fact. I suppose that this sentence is appropriately referenced; I did not check.
Descarte, your views and opinions are appreciated; however, the vast majority of the the information about archeology and the Book of Mormon is written by anti-Mormons who would not understand the definition of archaeological evidence if it hit them between the eyes. So much of it has about as much sense as saying, "Zarahemla is not a known city in the America's; thus there is no evidence." Then of course the reasoning is, "Gosh, the Bible is full of historical evidence"; the problem is that the comparison between history books written about Jerusalem and the middle east can fill a vast number of buildings whereas the relative comparison is like hoping to fill a locker. Surprising, experts have stated that less than 60% of the Bible is supported by actual archeology and none of the significant points are supported beginning with Moses on. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
"the vast majority of the the information about archeology and the Book of Mormon is written by anti-Mormons who would not understand the definition of archaeological evidence if it hit them between the eyes." - Wow Storm Rider, don't you think you are stereotyping just a little bit? I don't care about what anti-Mormons are saying, I am talking about what established archaeologists are saying in scholarly journals. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Storm Rider, your statement about biblical archeology versus book of mormon archeology is, well, a bit overstated. We'll just leave it at that. The question here is what some adherents say about the book of mormon--do they say, "it might have been written by JS, but" or do they say, "it was written by JS, but". Here we get into splitting hairs. The discussion above got off-track so I'm not sure where anyone stands about the current wording in the article. There are adherents who assert, from their own stance of faith and experience, that JS was the author of BOM, but that he was divinely inspired to do so. There are others who are more judicious in their wording. We don't want to have two sentences or to make this too complicated, so we are completely fair and honest to report that "some adherents believe that js wrote the bom, but..." We don't need to get mealy-mouthed about it since most of the referenced authors aren't.(Taivo (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
As long as it is documented with reputable references there is no problem; if there are no reputable references then it is original research.
You may want to look into the findings of archaeologists and Bible narrative; I suspect you would find it enlightening. There are few archaeologists that support the accounts of the Bible except those employed by theological groups; the majority reject the narrative as fables. Hardly overstated, but in fact...fact.
The vast majority is a relative term; you will find that what anti-Mormons, with no archaeological expertise, say about the topic vastly outweighs the amount of material written by expert archaeologists. Most could not care less about what the Book of Mormon says and the few that have looked at it find no, or very little, evidence for some of the things that are discussed in the Book of Mormon. --Storm Rider (talk) 12:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a couple of points. Storm Rider said, "There are few archaeologists that support the accounts of the Bible except those employed by theological groups; the majority reject the narrative as fables. Hardly overstated, but in fact...fact." Overstated in this sense, "reject the narrative as fables" only applies to the theological material of the text. No reputable archeologist, for example, says that the Second Temple is NOT talked about in the New Testament. None of them write about Jesus overturning the moneychangers' tables, but NONE of them would say that the account of Jesus' actions was a "fable" because there was no Second Temple. All would agree that if Jesus had overturned the tables it would have occurred in the Second Temple that we can see remnants of on the ground at the Temple Mount. There is not a single archeologist in Israel or Palestine, employed by "a theological group" or not, working from the Early Bronze Age layers to the end of the Roman period, who does NOT know the relevant Old or New Testament text related to their site. While they may not believe the theological content of the Bible, they know that there is often a geographical or historical fact at the kernel of all "fable", and if something they find in the ground is actually correlated with something in the text, they always mention it, just as they mention relevant references in Assyrian and Babylonian texts to the site. That is just good archeological methodology. Mesoamerican archeologists, excluding those who are funded by a particular "theological group", have never found a correlation between a site on the ground and a name in the BOM text. You are right, 99.9% of them have never read the BOM and don't care about it. But field reports from Mesoamerican sites are written with the same accuracy as field reports from the Middle East. If there were evidence, it would be discoverable by others reading the reports. The problem with BOM archeology is that there is virtually nothing on the ground that can be unequivocally related to the text. In the Middle East, on the wall of the Siloam Tunnel, there is an inscription that says, "Hezekiah dug me". No problem relating this inscription to King Hezekiah of the Bible--name, place, paleographic evidence all concur. But other than the Mayan texts, there is no written record to identify the original name of a Mesoamerican site. But the Mayan texts don't match up with the BOM during the relevant time period. There isn't a Mayan text that says, "Yo, you be walking in downtown Zarahemla now". And archeological confirmation of cultural items unique to the BOM text is also missing--no chariots, no ferrous metals, no horse bones, etc. So until a reputable archeologist picks something up in Yucatan that is unequivocally BOM or reads a Mayan inscription that is unequivocally BOM, there won't be any "BOM archeology" and archeologists will continue to ignore it. The vast majority of Mesoamerican and Middle Eastern archeologists are equally agnostic, the difference is that in the Middle East it's possible to actually match places, and, in rarer cases, people and events in the Bible (or in other Near Eastern literatures--Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc.) to what they see in the ground, but it's not possible in Mesoamerica with the BOM. That "not possible" is not a religious evaluation of the text, but only of its value as a reference to archeological research. (Taivo (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I see that the wording of the sentence that was the original topic of this discussion was changed again, from :

(A) "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon is the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was created through divine inspiration." to :
(B) "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon, though inspired, is the creation of Joseph Smith."
- with the edit summary: clarifying the phrasing here, the last clause makes this sentence very confusing

and was changed yet again, to :

(C) "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon, though still divinely inspired, is the creation of Joseph Smith."
- with the edit summary: the "divine" part of the inspiration is important.

I think these changes merit more discussion.

  • To me, the last clause in (A) wasn't confusing.
  • Using the word "though" minimizes the whole idea of divine inspiration, which I think is still central to the point.
  • And adding "still", as in (C), raises in my mind vague, confusing, and distracting questions as to the implications of that word in this sentence.

Feedback please. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just quote the reference? I am not sure how many of the editors making changes have the original text, but it would make sense to just quote the author. Too often references are used, but the text gets so twisted in editing that it no longer supports the text. I suggest you nip it in the bud and use a quote. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with using a quote is that this is not the position of a single author with whom the position can be most identified. It is the position of many authors--indeed, the reference cites two works, the second of which is a collection of works along the same lines. I don't really mind which way the phrase is finally worded, I wrote the original sentence and didn't have a problem with it. I have concerns with the new phrasing that it diminshes the divine inspiration component. I tried figuring out how to reinsert "divine" and the current phrasing is the best I could come up with. I agree with Wanderer that the first phrasing, as I originally wrote it, emphasizes the divine inspiration part better than the "revision". Since most of us have a problem with the "new" wording, I'll put the earlier wording back pending further discussion. (I actually own the "original texts", but they are sitting on my shelf in Utah while I am sitting on my rear in Ukraine.) (Taivo (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
I don't have access to the original sources, but I am guessing that the point of this sentence is to say that some Mormons don't believe that the Book of Mormon is historical, but that it is so-called "inspired fiction". Is that what we are trying to say here? If so, I propose this sentence: "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon, though it may have been divinely inspired, is not a literal historical record, and is the creation of Joseph Smith." - that seems very clear to me. In general, I agree with Storm Rider - why not quote one of the original sources so this sentence doesn't evolve from the original meaning in the cited source? --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (to StormRider) for the suggestion. I'm handicapped in this regard by not having ready access to the book referred to. Can you or someone else provide the relevant wording?
As an aside, I searched the local library catalogue for "An Insider's View of Mormon Origins" and got back the message: "We were unable to find any titles that matched your search. Did you mean "an inside view of morning original?"" I'm not making this up. ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to Descartes, that's not exactly right. The point we're trying to make is that there are faithful LDS who believe, unequivocally, that the BOM is divinely inspired, but that it was written by Joseph Smith, not translated from golden plates. There's no "may have been" on the divine inspiration for them. Wanderer and I agree that this is a critical factor to consider in the wording--the divine inspiration isn't a sidebar, but is the main thrust of the phrase--divine inspiration despite human authorship. It is, in a broader sense, no different than mainstream Christians who don't buy the miraculous, fabulous stuff in the Bible, but who absolutely believe in its divine message and the divine inspiration of its writers (whether their historical/scientific/geographical/linguistic understanding sucked or not). (Taivo (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC))
I am a little confused. So you are saying that some adherents don't believe in the miracles or the "fabulous stuff" in the BOM, but still believe that its messages are inspired? Isn't that saying the same thing as my proposed wording above - that these adherents don't think it is a literal historical record, even if it is still a "divinely" inspired message? For example, if they don't believe that the miracle of the prison walls falling down around Lehi and Nephi actually happened, isn't that saying they don't believe it is not a literal historical record? Seems like the same thing to me. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Just noticed that a BOT had reverted the wording while making an inocuous change elsewhere. Damn bots! Anyway, it's a question of emphasis, Descartes. With your wording, the divine inspiration becomes a prepositional phrase, relegating it to just another component of the main clause--"JS wrote the BOM". That's not the point of the sentence. The current wording juxtaposes two seemingly contradictory main clauses and links them by the adversative conjunction "but"--"JS wrote the BOM" BUT "it's divinely inspired". THAT's the point of the sentence--the "compromise" that I called it in a previous edit--that two seemingly opposing views are married in this view. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the current wording--with two main cluases linked by "but"--is the best structure for this sentence. A prepositional phrase relegating the divine inspiration to just a minor component of the sentence "JS wrote the BOM" does not have the same emphasis. (Taivo (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC))
I agree with Taivo about the sentence order and structure. The specific point that concerned me about your suggested wording is that attributed the thought "may have been divinely inspired" to some people whose belief takes the form "is divinely inspired". Wanderer57 (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I just noticed another part of your question, Descartes. You said "they don't believe in the miracles or the 'fabulous stuff'". That's not quite correct. Proponents of this point-of-view don't believe that ANY of the BOM is historical--not the colonization of the Americas, not the visit of Christ to the Americas, nothing in the text. They believe the message is divinely inspired--that the meaning of the text has nothing to do with history, but is a "parable" of sorts showing God's love for mankind and man's need for repentance or else judgement will follow. Just like similar-minded mainstream Christians can say "God made man" when they are firm proponents of evolution, or "Noah showed faith when he built the ark" when they don't believe in a universal Flood for one second. I don't think we need to spell that out in the text, but that's the underlying issue for these adherents. It's not just that they don't believe in miracle stories, it's that they believe that the whole BOM story came from JS, but even so, it was divine inspiration that gave him the ideas. (Taivo (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
OK thats what I thought - and if that is the case, then I disagree with you. It should be spelled out, because otherwise it is quite confusing - and I am a Mormon, for non-Mormons it will be so nebulous they would never understand that. If that is what the sources are saying, it should be very clear in the sentence that these people don't believe in the historicity of the BOM. New proposal: "Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon, though not a literal historical record, is a divinely inspired creation of Joseph Smith." --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Now that's a better alternative. Let's see what Wanderer and Storm Rider (and others?) think and I'll let it stew for a bit before deciding myself. My first reaction is more positive, but I might change my mind once my eyes are fully open this morning. (Taivo (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
Descartes, I have read twice now that you are a member of the LDS chuch; I am curious. In what capacity are you a member? Being a member of a church generally does not entail or mean there is a deep understanding of the doctrine of that church (I am not insinutating anyone is ignorant, particularly you); however, being a practicing member of a church does infer a degee of understanding, faith, and participation. Just curious. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Lifetime active member, Return missionary, BYU grad, married in the Salt Lake Temple -- still a practicing member with a current Temple Recommend, although I am quite disenchanted with the church right now after doing a lot of reading on its history, as you have probably noticed that my edits are usually from a critical perspective. --Descartes1979 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"regarded by several Latter Day Saint groups as divinely revealed". Surely this deserves a "most" as in "regarded by most LDS groups..." ? DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. I fixed it (Taivo (talk) 14:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC))

And now for something completely different

The bottom of the article is kind of messed up. "Further Reading" then "External Links" then "Notes" then "References". The whole order is backwards when compared to what one normally finds. The "Notes" are tied to the text and should immediately follow the text for ease of reference. The "References" section should be works that were referenced in the article, but I'm not sure if that's the case here. Then "Further Reading" lists sources that were not referred to in the article, but would be useful for reading. Then "External Links" are those sources that are on-line. On-line sources are never as highly ranked for valued as printed sources, that is standard practice (see large numbers of other Wikipedia articles for comparison) since anyone can post anything online, but the commitment of financial resources means that the majority of printed material is assumed to be of higher, critically-reviewed quality (that's the theory). I propose doing the following: 1) Move "Notes" right after the text. 2) Combine "References" and "Further Reading" into one section since I don't think there is a clear division anymore. 3) Move the specific online references to the actual text of BOM to the beginning of the References section. 4) Finish with "External Links". This will make the material more organized and will follow a more traditional order of presentation. (Taivo (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Unofficial Sources

A reference material section titled "Unofficial Sources" has moved in and out of the article. I have not seen any explanation of why this is happening. Are the unofficial sources in addition to others already in the article?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you notice it was the same guy posting and unposting. Looking at the things in the section it looked like BOM texts. Perhaps he thought we needed links to the BOM text itself and then noticed we already had them. (Taivo (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

Circular?

Quoting the article: "Each of the books is named after the prophet or leader who is named as the author of the book. "

This seems somewhat to go in a circle. Can someone find a more elegant way to say this? Wanderer57 (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to word it so non-Mormons would not get in a snit over "These guys didn't write it, Joseph Smith did". But I put the simplest wording in for now "named after the dude who wrote it". We probably have enough weasel words elsewhere in the article. (Taivo (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC))
"Each of the books is named after the prophet or leader who is purported to have written most of the text." --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Be careful of words that violate polciy; purported, claimed, etc all create bias. The current sentence reads, "Each of the books is named after the prophet or leader who is named as the author of the book." this seems to be NPOV. It does not claim who wrote the books, but only after one who is named as such. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I tweaked the sentence a bit. Maybe it's a bit clearer now and not so obviously circular. (Taivo (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC))

Specific Date

Quoting the article: "The central event of the Book of Mormon is the visitation of the resurrected Jesus to the Nephites around AD 34, shortly after his ministry in Galilee.[5]

My attention was drawn to this when the date was changed from AD 34 to AD 37 and then back to AD 34.

The reference is to Third Nephi, Chapters 11 to 26. Each of these chapters does show the year AD 34, but it is stated in the "preview notes" at the start of each chapter, not in the text proper. This is not as I think it should be. If the dates are not in the text, it suggests to me that someone was doing date calculations after the fact. I think the example of Bishop James Ussher illustrates how error prone this can be.

Feedback please. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't think "preview notes" is the proper term. Will someone please tell me what is? Crib notes? gloss?
Well, unlike Bishop Ussher's dates, the dates in the BOM text are considered much more authoritative by LDS. They have been consistent for about 100 years and are the basis for BOM teaching throughout the seminary system and in publications. (Taivo (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
Thank you. But would it be fair to say they are based on date calculations made some time after Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon was published, and that the date AD 34 does not appear in the book? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes (Taivo (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
The "headnotes and footnotes (including dates), the doctrinal summaries ("preview notes"), the index, the Topical Guide, and the maps" were inserted in the LDS Church's scriptures in the 1981 edition by LDS Church leaders:
In 1972 the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appointed a committee with the charge to produce a new publication of the King James Version of the Bible with study helps arranged in a manner that would assist the Latter-day Saints to better understand and use the Bible. This group was composed primarily of Elders Thomas S. Monson, Boyd K. Packer, and Bruce R. McConkie and was identified as the "Bible Aids Committee." This committee selected others to help. As work progressed on the Bible aids, it became apparent that the use of latter-day scriptures would be facilitated also if they were updated and improved in format. Therefore the assignment to the Bible committee was extended to include the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price. At about this same time the name was changed from "Bible Aids Committee" to "Scriptures Publications Committee" to accommodate the enlarged assignment. The Bible came off the press in 1979, the new triple combination in 1981. A slightly corrected reprint of the modern scriptures was issued in 1982. - Jackson, K. & Millet, R. (1989). Studies in Scripture, Vol. 1: The Doctrine and Covenants, Ch. 2. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company.
So, while the addition came after the original J.S. publication of the BoM, the majority of BoM adherents would find the dates credible since they came from whom many consider prophets. This could either be noted with mention of the date(s), or if preferred, the date could be omitted and the phrase could simply read according to the current LDS edition Introduction: "The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection." Just adding another view to the discussion. Best --Eustress (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Eustress is probably right about the revision in 1982, especially as regards the dates in the Bible editions published in SLC, but the BOM dates predate that revision. My grandmother had a BOM from 1909 (or so) that I inherited and I think the dates are in there as well (I'm in Ukraine right now and can't check). Whether there were any significant changes in the dates in the BOM marginalia in 1982 I can't say. But the dates, whether 100 years old or 50 or 25, were not "on the plates", so to speak. (Taivo (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
Thank you both. Strictly a personal reaction, but for an event nearly 2000 years ago, I find a date to a specific year unbelievably precise. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I've always had a problem with the dating of Creation to the evening before 23 October in 4004 BCE. I honestly think the evidence is stronger for an early morning time rather than the vague "evening before". I see God starting about 3:25 a.m. actually. :p (Taivo (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC))
I assume you mean Mountain Standard Time. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
They began keeping time from when the sign of Christ's birth was given. (3 Nephi 2:8) If no mistake was made in counting, in the 34th year, first month and fourth day, the sign of Christ's death was given. (3 Nephi 8:2-6 and Heleman 14:20,27) Near the end of the 34th year, Christ appeared to the remaining people. (3 Nephi 10:18-19) So, while it doesn't say "34 AD" in the text, the text does support 34 AD, if we were to assume that the "AD" years were correct. However, there is enough dispute over that that we should just say that it was near the end of the 34th year since the sign of Christ's birth. — Val42 (talk) 04:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No reference to Reformed Egyptian or the Anthon transcript?

Why is there no discussion to Reformed Egyptian or the Anthon transcript? Those seem to be some pretty important topics when discussing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I realize they have their own article, but there should be a summary in here somewhere IMO. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I added the following text to the article: The text on these plates is said to have been written in Reformed Egyptian.<*ref>Non-Mormon linguists dismiss the existence of any language known as "Reformed Egyptian" as described in LDS tradition. The only example of Reformed Egyptian extant is the "Caractors Document", also known as the "Anthon Transcript", a paper written by Smith with examples of Reformed Egyptian characters.<*/ref>
I tried to keep it non-POV. I don't think the Anthon Transcript deserves any more mention than that. It is not enlightening since it was written in Smith's hand. For critics, that's akin to a Mark Hoffmann manuscript. (Taivo (talk) 11:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC))
I don't get why this information was put in a footnote - it seems more important than that as it is a high profile criticism of the Book of Mormon that is frequently mentioned by critics. I think we can include it in the article in a NPOV way. --Descartes1979 (talk) 15:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The section of the article where I put the sentence is not really a "critical" one, but a straightforward presentation of the story of the BOM's origin. It is a summary version only without critical evaluation or details. It does not include many of the details which a longer version would, including, undoubtedly, a page on the "Caractors Document". There is a reference to Reformed Egyptian (actually two references--one in the main text and one in the footnote) and this should suffice. The Anton issue is quite a minor one in a real sense, even for critics. It's just too much "he said, she said" in its details. In a paragraph that basically says, "Joe Smith produced the Book of Mormon in 1830", getting into the details of peripheral matters like the nature of "Reformed Egyptian" is too much of a detour, in my opinion. (Taivo (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

White or Pure?

I removed the paragraph beginning: 

 "The church declared that all men would be permitted to enter the priesthood...."

due to lack of information on the following points:

  • The reference establishes the wording used in an older edition of the Book of Mormon. It does not establish that the wording change stated was made effective with the 1981 printing, or that it was the "one change" in that edition.
  • The paragraph removed implies that the word "white" was changed to "pure" specifically as a result of the declaration made three years earlier. Is this known to be the case, or is this speculation?
  • Was this wording change controversial at the time, or is the insertion of this paragraph implying controversy where none existed?
  • Supposing the change and the link to the 1978 declaration to be factual and supportable, is the point important enough to be worth including in this article?

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PS Regarding the objection to prior discussion of changes. Is the case of controversial articles, it is commonly requested. It can save a great deal of unproductive editing and associated gas pains. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On controversial articles it is certainly the best way to go when adding information you think may add to the controversy to propose the language on the talk page and proceed from there.

The proposed language does need to clarify a few things for me to be satisfied with it. As asked above, is there a direct correlation between the term pure and the declaration of allowing the priesthood to be ordained on all worthy males of the church? Two, was the 1830 language the same language used prior to 1981? Clarifying this will make it perfectly clear about the change. Three, did the LDS Church provide any reasoning behind the change at the time or since? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The change from "white" to "pure" apparently occurred in the 1840 version (see the Campbell reference below), but the change was sporadic until this century. Because this is an important change in the church's history and the text, I suggest simply adding the following subordinate clause in this list of examples provided:
These revisions include wording changes such as "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah,"[54] 2 Nephi 30:5–6 saying that when the Native Americans receive the gospel they will becomes a "white and a delightsome people" to a "pure and a delightsome people," …
with the references
  • Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830). "2 Nephi 30:5–6". Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon, Upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi. Palmyra, New York: E. B. Grandin.
  • Douglas Campbell (Winter 1996). "'White' or 'Pure': Five Vignettes". Dialogue. 29 (4): 119–135.
This also avoids the obviously erroneous connection with the change of Church policy in 1981. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The Campbell reference is interesting in that he never indicates who directed the change in the 1840 edition. I would assume that the changes made were either at the direction of Joseph Smith or errors in printing. The 1841 edition printed 4,000 miles away without the direction of Joseph Smith, attempted to stay as close to the 1837 edition, which was the most recent edition to their knowledge.
It does not seem appropriate to portray the 1981 edition as "new"; it faithfully reproduced the 1840 edition language, which was the last edition printed at the express direction of Joseph Smith.
Campbell alludes to the issue of why the later editions followed the English 1841 edition rather than the 1840 US edition; that is the more interesting story. Kimball obviously returned the language to the 1840 language. It would seem a discussion about the editions would be of more value than what is being currently proposed. I would think a discussion of the 1840 change, the 1841 edition and subsequent changes, the RLDS edition, then the 1981 edition changes.--Storm Rider (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, it seems to me the matter of this wording change is more complex than can be dealt with in the context of this article. In other words, if the issue is covered here, the article is getting into too much detail.
Perhaps there should be another article on 'Book of Mormon wording changes.' Wanderer57 (talk) 21:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but I think it could acutally make the "Changes to the original text" section more meaningful. Wanderer, did you read the Campbell article? I thought it was fascinating and would be beneficial to all readers to gain an understanding of the changes made in different editions, the problems of past printing styles, and how they affected different editions. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. I have not read the Campbell article. I will try to do so.
Having reread the "changes to the original text" section, I agree it could be made more meaningful. My concern is that it would take a lot more text to properly cover the topic.
For example, the current wording seems to suggest that the change from "white and a delightsome people" to "pure and a delightsome people" was "systematic" and a sign of "fabrication". Based on what is in the article (and in this discussion), I find this suggestion absurd. A change that takes 140 years from when it first appears until it becomes "standardized" can hardly be described as "systematic".
I'm very tempted to revert the recent changes to the article because I don't think they make a lot of sense. However, I'm going to refrain from doing that now. What do others think? Wanderer57 (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) I am not suggesting that the original editor is neutral or edits in a neutral manner. In fact, after reading the reference it is clear that it was not an accurate reflection of the source. I am saying that I think if the facts were reported it would be beneficial to all. I also think we would begin at the beginning and more carefully reflect history. BTW, it is worth reading--Storm Rider (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the section needs a rewrite de novo. The original version was highly POV. Sometimes it's easier to rewrite than to try and edit out POV. Just a thought. (Taivo (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC))
I think your position is where we will end up. The editor, at first, wrote something very POV, but I suspect that (s)/he is open to working with others to produce a neutral summary of the evolution of the printing of the Book of Mormon. Do you have a recommendation or draft of how to proceed you want to offer? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I finally got a chance to look at the Campbell piece. It is very interesting. That should be the basis of the section on textual variants, I should think. If we (briefly) discuss the history of the texts then can we get rid of the Tanner references (which, although major anti- works, are not really fair assessments)? I'm not LDS, but the Tanner material makes me squirm when I see it in bibliographies (I own copies of some of them and I hate to even touch them). I think we can craft a paragraph on changes that is honest to the material and NPOV (although, as with all things, NPOV is in the eye of the beholder). What I DON'T want to see is us focusing on a single instance and implying some agenda that isn't there--one way or the other. (Taivo (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
The benefit of the Tanner references is that they exhaustively document the changes; while it would be POV to cite only the Tanner's conclusions about these changes, a compendium of changes is NPOV regardless of the source. I recommend keeping one example from the Tanner's but balance their conclusions with several other references. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, with the publication of a critical edition of the BOM, the Tanner's stuff becomes moot. The changes are being documented exhaustively in the scholarly critical edition. The church has never denied the changes (which is the erroneous opinion that the Tanners espouse). If we rewrite the article properly, the changes can be discussed quite dispassionately without getting the Tanners involved at all. (Taivo (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
But that would leave the POV problem of how to represent the criticism

The contention is that many of the changes were systematic and are signs of fabrication,

(as it currently appears)—a widespread criticism. Leaving it out is POV. Just citing the Tanners is POV too. For balance, several critics that espouse this view should be cited, as well as the Church's response. Also, it is preferable to have independent citations from opposing parties, such as the page Joseph Smith, Jr. and polygamy which enumerates Smith's wives based upon different authorities. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussing on Talk Page FIRST

I don't know this new editor who is making edits that, to me at least, seem marginally informative and borderline POV. This article is HIGHLY sensitive. The current version is the work of months of hammering out NPOV compromises among various interested parties. ALL changes need to be discussed here first in order to respect those who have been working on this article for a very long time and have been working very hard to keep it NPOV. (Taivo (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC))

Sensitive or not, your demand that edits be discussed at this talk page first violates Wikipedia:Editing policy. The edits being discussed are minor. Rather than deleting information from the page, which does violate Wikipedia:Editing policy#Preserve information, please either edit the article itself to improve it or explain your objections on this talk page. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Ecrasez, we are in the middle of doing so or hadn't you noticed? The edit should be deleted until an acceptable draft is proposed. You are obviously aware that you edit was very POV initially and still does not represent history, but your interpretation of it. That is not encyclopedic and violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV. It would be best to not start quoting your policy unless you are observant of all of them. Are you unwilling to work cooperatively with others? Or do you think disputed edits should stay in the article while they are being reworked? My experience is take the new edit out until a solution is produced so as to prevent edit wars. I think there is a majority that is more than happy to keep deleting, which seems pointless and is the exact reason why we have discussion pages to work out solutions. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
For the record, originally I simply restored an old pp to this section. When the objection to the original pp was clearly stated, I corrected it and moved the correct portion to a subordinate clause in a list of examples as stated above. Wikipedia:Editing policy cleary states that edits need not be perfect, but simply improve the article—I believe that all of my edits adhere strictly to WP, whether or not other editors are comfortable with their content. I believe that this has now been accomplished, with the inclusion of two relevant and worthwhile citations. If others have suggestions for better ways of including this relevant information in the article please suggest them here or edit them in yourself. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"Relevant" is one of the most important issues here. This is a highly sensitive article. The issue of "relevant" may not make a hill of beans' difference in an article on the species of Artemesia found in Madagascar, because you might be the only person who cares. But this article is not like other Wikipedia articles. There are thousands of people who care very much about this article. That is why we must ALWAYS proceed with caution on this page. The word "improvement" is HIGHLY debatable here. We spent much time discussing the exact phrasing of many individual sentences here. Please do not just plow into the middle of a discussion you don't understand and make massive edits to an article that will spark controversy. We have a careful, dedicated group of editors who watch this page and are very willing to discuss your proposed changes. But not all articles are the same. You cannot bully your way into here and impose your will without talking about it first. Please respect those who have gone before. (Taivo (talk) 01:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
The fact that there are numerous scholarly articles and published books and histories on this subject speaks for itself. The change of the wording from white to pure belongs as an example in the section on changes to the text. Your unsubstantiated accusation that "Your edits seem too POV on the surface" is not sufficient to delete a great deal relevant material from the article, most of which has nothing to do with the change of wording from "white" to "pure," and is in fact in violation of Wikipedia:Editing policy#Preserve information, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I will revert your deletion and respond only to substantive criticisms about content. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) What is reality is that in 1840 the language was changed; it was not clear in the reference, but it appears that was a change directed by Joseph Smith. The English addition was unaware of the change and followed the printing of the 1837 copy. The insinuation from the reference was that the change was discovered by the RLDS, but was still not changed in the later editions. The Church then made a final decision in 1981 to return to the 1840 changes. Writing that it was new is hardly reality, it is in fact POV. It would be better to report history; clarify if Joseph Smith directed the 1840 change, discuss the 1841 English edition and that the change was not formerly clarified until 1981. Ecrasez you you think your first edits were POV? I would think you would have realized that your editing is not neutral. There is a way to record history that does not "guide" the reader, but just report facts. That is what we all should be attempting to implement. --Storm Rider (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ecrasez, we do not necessarily disagree with you on the issue. What we disagree with you about is your insistence on inserting potentially misleading or POV information into the article without PRIOR discussion on this page. Your edits may not be POV, they may be quite neutral. BUT we judge that HERE on the talk page BEFORE inserting information into the article. This is not a usual Wikipedia article, like, for example, the article on blue iguanas. This is a highly charged and emotionally important article for many people. Respect the consensus building process, which is just as important to Wikipedia (perhaps more so) as your alleged "right" to insert material into any article you please. (Taivo (talk) 10:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC))

Proposed Compromise to Editing Book of Mormon

While we have been discussing the edits at the Book of Mormon, I have been falsely accused of edit warring by both Storm Rider and Taivo, both in the [edit summary and at my talk page, and Taivo currently seeks to have my account blocked based upon patently false accusations. These accusations are patently and provably false, and I have notified both Storm Rider and Taivo that false accusations adhere to Wikipedia's very definition of incivility:

Ill-considered accusations of impropriety

Furthermore, deletions of factual, cited, and relevant information in this article by these editors for reasons not consistent with Wiki's editing policies appear to violate WP:PRESERVE, WP:NPA, WP:DE, and WP:AGF. For now I will continue to assume good faith and that these editors simply made a mistake in making these false accusations. Rather than pursuing these matters, I suggest the following comprise:

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Ecrasez, I NEVER said I would seek getting your account blocked, THAT is an erroneous accusation. I said I would seek to get the ARTICLE locked. I have never asked you to do anything more than discuss your changes on the Talk page so that we can come to a consensus on wording. That is not something I will apologize for. We have begun discussing appropriate language for the very issue that you are raising. You can either join the discussion or not. But the final text in the article will be the result of consensus building, not unilateral editing. (Taivo (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC))
Certainly what you wrote might imply having my account blocked from editing this article based upon a provably false accusation, as I wrote, but it could also mean having the entire article blocked, so I'll assume good faith, accept your explanation, and retract my statement pertaining to blocking my account above. Would you please respond to terms of the proposed compromise? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Écrasez l'infâme: Please note that simply linking to policy doesn't automatically say why they apply. Also, if you look at the definition of edit warring, it does not depend on 3RR, but is the underlying behaivior. No one likes to be accused, but Taivo and StormRider are entitled to their opinion, and do not have to apologize for their opinion, and their substantiations are grounded in my opinion. Lastly, I would suggest you stop making so many accusations and being so defensive, and that we start being productive. We can argue forever but I don't think any of us want to. Lets start talking about what needs to be added and come to a consensus on the new material here on the talk page. Boccobrock•T 16:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I had to laugh when I read this section. I was reminded of the old adage, "when you can't win them over with facts, baffle them with BS". It is possible for everyone to start throwing around policy acronyms, but to any editor with any grasp of the underlying policies or experience, it does nothing. This silliness is a result of not understanding the reasons for issuing warnings or the danger of violating the 3RR rule. I have advised "e" to review policy, but I get a lot of divert and evade. I see no reason to do anything else until an actual draft is provided and discussion is engaged. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Article Process

Having reviewed the article changes and reverts made in the last few days, as well as the explanations and discussions of those changes, I found that almost no explanation of the significant recent changes has been given, either in edit summaries or in this talk page.

Such discussion as I see here has been about process, not article content.

Unjustified changes often do not improve the article, and unjustified changes are very difficult to evaluate.

To rescue the article from the danger of it becoming a mess, I hope all editors will review their recent edits and consider whether they are worth remaking, with explanation, justification, and references.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

- - - - -

PS Just as a reminder of the nature of this article, I am inserting below a copy of a message that appears earlier on this page. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Title, 1st pp

Earlier versions of htis article have the original title in the first paragraph, which is correct because this article is about both the modern-day scripture as viewed by the LDS and the original book. Just having the latest LDS version of the title is POV. To represent the facts of the original 1830 title, as well as claimed authorship, I suggest the following change:

The Book of Mormon is one of the sacred texts of the Latter Day Saint movement. It is regarded by most, if not all, Latter Day Saint groups as divinely revealed and is named after the prophet–historian Mormon who, according to the text, compiled most of the book. It was authored by the founder of the LDS movement, Joseph Smith, Jr. in March 1830 and published by E. B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York, USA.[6] Originally titled The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi by Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor,[6] the latest LDS Church version is titled The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.[7]

with the references:

Any comments? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


Thank you. IMO, putting all the title/subtitle information into one paragraph overloads it, especially as the original subtitle is quite long (which I believe was common at that time.) Adding the original subtitle into the existing paragraph two would work better.
I don't think that not including the subtitle in paragraph one is slighting it in any way. Subtitles are used to receiving second billing, or even lower. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Two paragraphs works better.
Re the revised wording now in article. "It was originally titled The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi by Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor.[1] In 1982, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added the subtitle Another Testament of Jesus Christ to its editions of the book...."
This wording ("added the subtitle") suggests that the title of current editions is "The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi by Joseph Smith, Junior, author and proprietor - Another Testament of Jesus Christ"
The wording that was suggested above: "the latest LDS Church version is titled ..." is more direct and avoids giving this implication. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
A further thought, re this sentence: "It was published by the founder of the LDS movement, Joseph Smith, Jr., in March 1830 by E. B. Grandin in Palmyra, New York, USA." This says it was published by Smith. It goes on to say it was published by Grandin. I think I know what is meant by this but it is confusing. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I know we talked about this a while back but...

This sentence still doesn't make sense to me:

Unresolved issues of the book's historicity and the lack of supporting archaeological evidence have led some adherents to adopt the position that the Book of Mormon may have been the creation of Joseph Smith, but that it was nevertheless divinely inspired.

Are we saying that these "some adherents" consider it to be divine or not? If they think it is a creation of Joseph Smith, then how is it divinely inspired? --Descartes1979 (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be a better statement if the proverbial "some" was replaced with a specific individual(s). A possible redraft would read, "'Jack Sprat' has stated that the Book of Mormon may be divinely inspired, but that it also has no basis in historical and cultural fact of the Western Hemisphere." I think these LDS may be trying to find a third path that says the book may contain spiritual truths, but the actual characters of the Book of Mormon are not real people. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, go back up and read what I wrote earlier. There are many LDS, especially intellectuals and the highly educated, who believe that 1) Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon, 2) the BOM contains spiritual truth, 3) the historical fiction doesn't matter. This is EXACTLY parallel with Christians who believe 1) the Bible was written by men, 2) the Bible contains spiritual truth, 3) the historical and scientific fiction doesn't matter. We should not rephrase it "to name names" since the actual adherents include thousands of LDS who have never committed their beliefs to writing. The "names" are in the references. We should not "name names" for this statement any more than we should name names for those who believe and for those who are critics. We have good references. Descartes, FAITH is not subject to logic. I believe that the Bible contains the Word of God, but it's still chock full of scientific and historical garbage. There is no contradiction when it is an issue of faith. Same with the BOM. It is completely possible to believe in its divine message and not buy the historical fiction. FAITH is NOT subject to LOGIC. Never has been, never will be. (Taivo (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC))
To reply specifically to the two questions of Descartes1979:
Yes, the quoted sentence is saying these adherents consider the Book of Mormon divinely inspired.
My understanding of the meaning is that the Book can be divinely inspired and also the work of a mortal man in the sense that what that mortal man wrote was divinely inspired. I think there is no contradiction here for someone who believes in a divine power.
Wanderer57 (talk) 02:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Wanderer can say in 10 words what it takes me 100 words to say. (Taivo (talk) 06:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC))

No photo / graphic in lede?

Looking at the page here today, I thought how plain it was that there is no graphic in the lede to this article...and there should be. I'm thinking perhaps if anyone has access to a first edition BoM or an uncopyrighted a photo of it, or even the title page would be a great addition to the article and perhaps give some light to the historicity of it. Twunchy (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole article seems devoid of really good pictures. It could really be improved if some great pictures could be added. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Done, courtesy of the Library of Congress. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It has a few pictures now. Avoiding ugly pictures is probably good. Rogerdpack (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes in Book of Mormon and Publication History

OK, watch while I step off the cliff. Here is a proposed revision to the section on "Changes". The first two paragraphs are entirely based on the Campbell reference in Escrasez's comment far above here. I pulled out all the references so that we can see clean text and not get bogged down in details right now.

The first printing of the Book of Mormon in 1830 was based on the printing manuscript prepared by Joseph Smith. It was typeset in 16-page signatures and the type salvaged after printing the requisite number of copies of each signature. The original printing of 5000 copies was exhausted in 1837 and a second edition was prepared based on the original printing copy. Smith had made revisions to this printing copy in the seven intervening years and these were also incorporated into the new print run. This edition was exhausted in two years and a new edition, incorporating more changes to the printing manuscript was prepared in 1840. However, at the same time, a new edition was also being prepared in England based on the 1837 manuscript. Both the 1840 (U.S.) and 1841 (U.K.) editions used the new stereotyping technology that preserved the typeset master. The U.S. stereotyping plates were lost during the emigration to Utah in 1846-47, therefore all subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon used by the LDS church until 1981 were based on the U.K. 1841 edition. Although typesetting technology changed during that period, the text of the BOM remained primarily based on the 1841 U.K. edition. In 1981, an entirely new edition of the Book of Mormon was produced using the lastest typesetting technology, but reverting much of the text to the 1840 U.S. edition.
In a somewhat related process, the Community of Christ uses a slightly different text of the Book of Mormon as its standard edition. In 1858, upon the expiration of the copyright for the Book of Mormon, James O. Wright printed a non-LDS version of the Book of Mormon based on the U.S. 1940 edition with a long anti-Mormon introduction. This did not sell well and he subsequently removed the anti-Mormon introduction and sold his remaining stock to the RLDS church. In 1906, in order to distance themselves from the Utah-based LDS church, the RLDS church reverted its official version of the text back to the 1837 version and the printer's manuscript.
Church critics claim that the fact that Joseph Smith made changes to the printer's manuscript between 1830 and 1840 is evidence that he fabricated the Book of Mormon and that the church has revised the Book of Mormon to remove this evidence. The Tanners have documented almost 4,000 changes in the Book of Mormon between the 1830 edition and modern editions. These revisions include wording changes such as "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah," adding the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism", and correction of spelling and grammatical errors. The contention is that many of the changes were systematic and are signs of fabrication.
Supporters of the Book of Mormon maintain that correctness refers only to the content, notably the doctrine. Since Joseph Smith later made corrections to the text of the Book of Mormon, on both copies of the manuscript (the original and the copy prepared for the printer) and in later editions, he did not consider the book to be an infallible translation as it first appeared in print. The Book of Mormon itself indicates that it may contain errors made by the men who wrote it. The vast majority of the changes noted by the Tanners have been discussed in official Church publications including the Ensign, Improvement Era, Millennial Star and Times and Seasons, and are consistent with early pre- and post-publication edits made by Joseph Smith. Some corrections were made due to earlier print or copy errors, or changes in punctuation.
Since 1989, the LDS Church's Brigham Young University has been publishing a critical text edition in four volumes. Volumes 1 and 2, published in 2001, contain transcriptions of all the text variants of the English editions of the Book of Mormon, from the original manuscript up to the newest editions. Volume 4, which is being published in parts, contains a critical analysis of all the text variants. Volume 3, not yet published, will describe the history of all the English-language texts from Joseph Smith to today.

Let the firing squad take their places. Actually that paragraph that begins "Church critics" sounds awfully tawdry once you read the publishing history. (Taivo (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC))

Thank you for this. This goes into the publishing history in a lot of detail, probably more than many people will want. However, the complexity of the history makes the many changes to the text over time more understandable. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Based on a private discussion, I'm going to clarify the "non-LDS" version wording by changing it to:
In 1858, upon the expiration of the copyright for the Book of Mormon, James O. Wright printed a non-LDS version with a long anti-Mormon introduction. He based this on the U.S. 1840 edition.
(Taivo (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
Also, it's probably relevant that until the latter half of the 20th century, the Book of Mormon was actually printed in England, so the use of the English version makes even more sense. This should be worked in. (Taivo (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC))
Great information! Could be included in a separate page Publication History of BofM

To be social is to be forgiving. --WaltFrost (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith's Account of Why the Plates are Taken from Nephi, Not Moroni

This important discussion, including the specific involvement of the Harris's as well as background, is not represented in the article, so I'll add it to the "Origins" section, with citations to reliable sources, of course. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Hello Écrasez l'infâme:
As you and I and many others have discovered in the past, there are advantages to discussing changes before they are put into the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of Revert

I was bold and reverted a string of edits made today by editor Écrasez l'infâme. I consider the first of this string of edits to be a problem to the section Origin of the Book of Mormon. Instead of a relatively straightforward account of the reputed origin of the Book of Mormon, the section becomes a (IMO) mishmash including:

-- historical background about the "burnt-over district. There are other articles better suited to this information.

-- Christopher Hitchen's views. To me, a section on the origin of the Book of Mormon which puts Mr. Hitchin's views ahead of the story of the origin is absurd. Indeed, I think it questionable whether his views belong in the section at all.

The edits subsequent to the one mentioned above have also been reverted, as they modify the same section (with the exception of the edit which added an image, which needs to be considered on its own merits.)

I trust other editors will let me know if I was out-of-line in doing this. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

agreed. Rogerdpack (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to Explanation of Revert

I was WP:BOLD too and added the highly relevant facts that were missing from this article. I'm sure that you believe the reasons cited in your explanation, but contrary to your explanation, you have deleted highly relevant verifiable facts from a reliable source wholesale—please bear in mind the Wikipedia policy WP:PRESERVE:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
  • request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag

You did not cite any specifics in your explanation, such as citing a WP:RS to explain why the facts I added are incorrect. And rather than Hitchens' personal views and a few short words of background, I added verifiable facts based on Hitchens as a reliable source—Hitchens' personal views are much more direct than this NPOV account. I will attempt to restore NPOV to the article, bearing your comments in mind, and ask you in future to cite sources and specifics, as well as adhering to WP:PRESERVE. I am happy to discuss the content of this section here. If I have made any mistakes, please tag or remove them, explain why, and I will correct them. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Écrasez l'infâme:
Thank you for the feedback. I'll try to respond to your points.
First of all, just in case you are not aware of this, I'll mention that the information that I reverted is not lost. It is available for review in the article history, and it is technically easy to restore the article to "your version" or another version.
I did not explain why the facts you added are incorrect BECAUSE I did not say that the facts you added are incorrect. Likewise, since I was not quarrelling with your sources, I did not see fit to cite other sources.
I'll stand by what I said above. I think the information you added, in the context you placed it, weakened the article.
I look forward to reading your revised version. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE refers to the article itself, not the history of diffs. This information about the origin of the Book of Mormon belongs naturally in the section Origin of the Book of Mormon. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
PS - I have to say I'm bewildered as to why you changed my section title "Explanation of Revert" to be a subsection title. Can you explain this please? Wanderer57 (talk) 01:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Simply because it refers directly to the subject of the previous section, which talks about the deleted material. Please feel free to change it back if you prefer. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems to me it would have been possible to introduce the intriguing part about needing a second set of plates because the first lot disappeared, without getting into other material such as Hitchin's opinion of Joseph Smith. Wanderer57 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Talking FIRST, Editing SECOND

Ecrasez, you have been kindly asked to talk about edits on this page BEFORE making wholesale changes. For a while, you did this, but now you have begun to rape and pillage again without discussion. I agree with Wanderer on these edits. They are needless detail in an encyclopedic article in my humble opinion, especially in an overview section. If you want to add a later section with these needless, and in my view highly POV details, then talk about adding a section later. People who read encyclopedias expect a certain type of writing--general facts first, details that they can ignore second. Your placement of this extraneous material near the front of the article weakens it significantly over the writing style needed for encyclopedic articles. (Taivo (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Taivo, I am unable to locate the Wikipedia policy WP:Talking FIRST, Editing SECOND—would you please direct us to it? Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia, and it appears that you and perhaps a groups of editors have developed an undue sense of owndership of this article. Please read the Wikipedia policy WP:OWN, which states

Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images, essays, or portals) that they have contributed to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all others. It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

  • If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
Before you delete any more relevant verifiable facts from reliable sources, also please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy WP:PRESERVE:

Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information. Instead of removing, try to:

  • rephrase
  • correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content
  • move text within an article or to another article (existing or new)
  • add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced
  • request a citation by adding the {{fact}} tag
You did not cite any specifics in your explanation, such as why this information—specifically Smith's method of translation and related subjects such as the Lost 116 pages—about the origin of the Book of Mormon does not naturally belong in the section Origin of the Book of Mormon. Before responding, also please familiarize yourself with Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement and avoid the fourth stage of stating "opposition with little or no supporting evidence." I will attempt to restore NPOV to the article and ask you in future to cite sources and specifics, as well as adhering to WP:OWN and WP:PRESERVE. I am happy to discuss the content of this section here. If I have made any mistakes, please tag or remove them, explain why, and I will correct them. I have also added new WP:RS references that support the relevant verifiable facts that have added. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello Écrasez: It appears to me that you make major changes to the article with little if any justification yet you expect others who change your handiwork to provide specific justification. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
My justification for adding one short paragraph, hardly a "major change," is provided above: highly relevant background on the origin of the Book of Mormon. The cited facts speak for themselves, which is why I requested a RfC below. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
As an occasional editor here, I'd like to weigh in on these contentious edits. It's not the new and verifiable facts you've brought to the article, it's the wholesale addition of negatively-toned prose and emphasis on a particular point of view. For instance, your version here made the fourth paragraph a quote about how Smith was a member of two stupid groups. All in all, your edits are bordering on violating WP:NPOV. --GoodDamon 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The most recent version here already emended this WP:RS quotation. Please refer to the page's current content. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I intentionally chose a non-current version, because I thought that specific edit was very demonstrable of your apparent POV. You subsequently removed the quote, presumably because it was indeed over-the-top and you noticed that, but it's part of your editing history and is demonstrative of your apparent conflict of interest in this article. --GoodDamon 01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Edits need not be perfect. If you're concerned about POV, you're free to edit the article yourself, within the constraints of WP:PRESERVE, as I did. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
You cite WP:PRESERVE and WP:OWN to such a large extent, but I don't think you're actually applying them properly, and even appear to be trying to own the page yourself. Let me be blunt: WP:PRESERVE does not dictate that large swaths of POV-pushing material be kept. On the contrary, the applicable policy there is WP:NPOV. You are also skirting WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DIS. And if I may be bold, you could also stand to review your edits for useful edit summaries. Your most contentious edits completely lack them. --GoodDamon 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Book of Mormon: Deletion of Relevant Verifiable Facts from Reliable Sources

The content being consistently deleted—Smith's method of translation of the Book of Mormon and the central role of the Harris's, especially Lucy Harris, in the translation, as well as an example of a controversial wording change in the 1830 original version—is represented here. All facts are WP:VF from WP:RS. The concern, as discussed above, is adherence to WP:PRESERVE and WP:OWN. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor's consistent anti-LDS agenda comes through clearly in this edit. These are minor and controversial details that he insists on putting forward as "relevant fact". He sources are generally all POV and anti-LDS. If Wikipedia is to retain an NPOV stance, then it is important that inflammatory material such as this be discussed thoroughly on the Talk Page. This is a new editor to this subject and he disrepects the hard work that other editors (both LDS and non-LDS) have done to get the POV tag removed from this article. I am non-LDS and I think that his material is not relevant or is just minor, unnecessary detail meant to press his anti-LDS agenda. That's my POV. (Taivo (talk) 08:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC))
This editor's consistent anti pro-LDS agenda comes through clearly in this edit. These are minor and controversial significant and indisputable details that he insists on putting forward deleting as "relevantirrelevant fact". He sources are generally all POV and anti pro-LDS. If Wikipedia is to retain an NPOV stance, then it is important that inflammatory material such as this be discussed thoroughly on the Talk Page editors not be allowed to insist that NPOV reliable facts be cleared by them at talk first, contrary to WP:POV, and deleted wholesale, contrary to WP:PRESERVE. This is a new old editor to this subject and he disrepects the hard work that other editors (both LDS and non-LDS) have done to get the POV tag removed from this article WP:OWN and WP:REMOVE. I am non-LDS and I think that his material is not relevant or is just minor, unnecessary detail meant to press his anti-LDS agenda. The deletion of this material, the first cited in several reliable sources on The Book of Mormon is meant to to press his pro-LDS agenda. That's my POV. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the brief paragraph describing the origin of the Book of Mormon in the section Origin of the Book of Mormon being discussed, as well as the list of references to reliable sources. There is also brief clause later in the article about a wording change in the original 1830 version that has been the subjects of a journal publication (also cited). Perhaps Taivo or others who claim that these facts are POV would highlight the part or parts they have a problem with in <font color=red>red</font>. These facts are among the first to be found in most reliable sources describing the Origin of the Book of Mormon—merely see the ones cited, and there are many, many more; that they have been deleted or suppressed from this Wikipedia article is a clear indication of POV that must be corrected. First edit and references:

The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr. on March 26, 1830, in Palmyra, New York. Smith was raised during the Second Great Awakening in a region of western New York near numerous Indian burial mounds.[8] As explained by the journalist Christopher Hitchens, "there were two … schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in [buried Indian artifacts]: … gold-diggers and treasure-diviners [and] those who hoped to find the resting place of the lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups[.]"[9] Smith announced that he had been visited three times by the angel Moroni who informed Smith of a buried book "written upon Golden Plates" and later[10] that there there were two magic stones set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim that would enable Smith to translate the Book of Mormon.[11] Smith refused to show the golden plates to anyone and claimed that it would mean death for anyone but Smith to view them.[12][13] Smith, an illiterate who could not write,[14] enlisted the help of his neighbor Martin Harris, who mortgaged his farm to underwrite the translation of the Book of Mormon.[15] Harris's wife, angry at her husband's gullibility, stole the first 116 pages of the translation and "challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could".[16] Fawn Brodie wrote that Smith "realized that it was impossible for him to reproduce the story exactly, and that to redictate it would be to invite devastating comparisons."[17] Harris's wife taunted Smith:

"If this be a divine communication, the same being who revealed it to you can easily replace it.[18]

Smith did not replicate the original, "which might be in the devil's hands," but instead claimed that God had provided him with smaller plates—those of Nephi—whose account was similar to but not the same of that told on the plates of Moroni, who Smith claimed had taken back the originals because he was angry that Smith allowed the translation to be lost.[19][20][21][22] Smith and Harris resumed the translation based upon the plates of Nephi, and when The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi was completed and published in 1830, the original golden plates were "transported to heaven."[23][24]

Second edit and partial references:

These revisions include wording changes such as "King Benjamin" to "King Mosiah,"[25] 2 Nephi 30:5–6 saying that when the Native Americans receive the gospel they will become a "white and a delightsome people" to a "pure and a delightsome people,"[26][27] adding the phrase "or out of the waters of baptism"[28], and correction of spelling and grammatical errors. The contention is that many of the changes were systematic and are signs of fabrication.[several refs]

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez: Hitchins book is specifically a critique of various religions including Mormonism. There are a number of books relating to the beginnings of Mormonism. Your decision to turn to that one particular book as a reference for "factual information" seems to me a very POV choice. Does it not occur to you that an anti-religion, pro-atheism book of opinion is a poor source of factual objective information about a controversial religious figure?
Your editing of Taivo's remarks by striking out some words and replacing them is confusing and misleading. Whatever your motive, you should not edit other people's talk page comments (except in some narrow circumstances which do not prevail here.)
Wanderer57 (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

[new indent] Wanderer57, please address the content, as I have included it above. How can you say that I turned to "one particular book"?!—did you even read my comment? Here are, again, the sources cited:

Hitchens is a reliable source no matter what your personal opinion of him. If you have your own reliable source references that refutes the facts presented in these sources, please cite them and improve the article. Finally, I see that I did edit Taivo's remarks—this was a mistake, as I intended to edit my snarky c&p reply to his remarks. I'll go back and fix this. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I expressed no opinion of Mr. Hitchens. If he writes an anti-religion, pro-atheism book of opinion, that is perfectly fine with me. But turning to a book of that type for POV-neutral, factual information about religion is at best naive, IMO. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This was brought to my attention due to a Wikiquette alerts. A few thoughts from an uninvolved party:

As a whole, Ecrasez's controversial edit clearly serves to skew the article away from neutral. Even if the information is factual, there is a significant undue weight problem with the way the information is presented.

That said, some of Ecrasez's concerns and suggestions are valid. In particular, I find it astonishing that the Lucy Harris "stolen pages" saga is neither mentioned nor linked to in either Book of Mormon or Origin of the Book of Mormon. There is a brief mention of the "loss" of the pages in Golden Plates, but it doesn't mention that Lucy Harris stole them for the purposes of exposing Smith's translation as a phony.

This seems to me to be a rather glaring omission, as the Lucy Harris story is a critical part of the roots of the Book of Mormon from both an LDS and non-LDS perspective. From an LDS perspective, this is an important parable about unwavering faith and an admonition against trying to "test God". From a non-LDS perspective, the story gives context related to the credibility of the alleged translation. Since the story itself is not denied by the LDS church (and in fact, is even taught to members), it would seem that including the story, told from a neutral standpoint and in the appropriate location, would be uncontroversial.

The Hitchens quote is not going to fly. I personally found Hitchens' inference to be rather fascinating, but it is nowhere close to WP:NPOV. It takes certain facts (the presence of both diviners and preachers in the Palmyra area at that time) and creates an unflattering synthesis about Joseph Smith and his intentions/insights. I'm not even convinced the inference is accurate -- it seems plausible, and is certainly a fascinating take on Smith's "recipe for success", but in the end it's just one man's opinion about events that occurred over a hundred years before he was born.

The information about Indian burial grounds near Palmyra and the proliferation of treasure-hunters in the area in that time period is new to me. It could be relevant if properly contextualized, although I think it is far more relevant in the Origin of the Book of Mormon article (I believe it is already mentioned there). Also, we need to be very careful about the reliability of sources here, given how controversial this topic is.

Regarding Smith's literacy, this is potential relevant (though again perhaps more so in Origin of the Book of Mormon, but it needs to be careful how this is phrase. "Smith had received no formal education and so would have been unable to transcribe the verses on his own" might make sense, but referring to Smith parenthetically as "an illiterate" is both pov in phrasing, and possible offensive to the illiterate (I don't think that "illiterate" as a noun is the preferred terminology anymore, just as it would be okay to say "a handicapped person" but not "a handicapped" or "a cripple").

The image of Smith with face in the hat... well, I'd be lying if I said it didn't give me a bit of a chuckle. But it seems a bit pov-ish, and in any case I am pretty sure it's on its way to deletion. I just don't see it meeting WP:NFCC. If it were an article about Dialogue, then maybe -- but using it to illustrate the translation/dictation of the BoM is a copyvio, because that's the same purpose Dialogue used it for. If it passes the ongoing IfD, we can revisit whether it is pov or not.

There is no doubt about Ecrasez's intentions, but this does not mean he doesn't have a point or two. Let's do our best to discuss this rationally, and put aside our biases if possible.

That's my two cents! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a previously uninvolved party. I have to say this is probably one of the more obvious RFCs I've responded to. All of this material is relevant and well sourced, it should be included. Wiki editors are not supposed to be balanced, we're supposed to be objective. Just because a higher number of facts are anti-LDS than the number of facts that are pro-LDS doesn't mean we should delete anti-LDS facts so the ratio in the article is 50/50. It seems to me that the deletion of these facts is creating WP:SYNTH, not the inclusion. If you want to keep the article "neutral" then try to find more supporting facts rather than deleting opposing facts. I really can't imagine a more blatant form of censorship. AzureFury (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the facts presented are already in the article in summary form, and covered in-depth in Origin of the Book of Mormon and Historicity of the Book of Mormon. No one's trying to censor anything, and we're certainly not pushing a pro-LDS agenda (I myself consider the religion frankly cult-ish, to be honest). The problem boils down to a disagreement over whether material that's already largely covered elsewhere should be front-loaded into this article's lead. I'm not saying it necessarily shouldn't be -- if you look at articles on other unusual belief systems like Scientology, there is brief mention of notable controversies in the lead, which is in line with WP:LEAD. But I strongly disagree with Écrasez's methods and tone, including attempts to pass off Christopher Hitchens' commentary as notable fact suitable for the lead, as well as his own POV-pushing comments in references to things like the "gullibility" (a judgment call if I've ever seen one) of Martin Harris. Worse, he presents reversions of those edits as attempts to violate WP:PRESERVE -- and lately WP:NPOV -- when the first does not require anyone to keep obvious POV-pushing edits and the second is one he himself is violating.
Again, I don't dispute his facts or most of his citations. My problem lies in his disruptive methods and attempts to tilt the article with undue weighting towards criticism -- to the point of repeating things that are already in the article -- and then cloaking himself as the champion of neutral POV. A less disruptive method that would have accomplished the same thing without coming in like he owns the article would have been to move any number of pertinent critiques that are already there to the lead, with an edit summary along the lines of "Per WP:LEAD, moving one of the controversies to a more prominent position." He could even have added a few of his citations then and there, and copy-edited the text, without anyone so much as batting an eye. --GoodDamon 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I responded to your comments by modifying my proposed edit here a day or two ago. Is this acceptable to you? If this is POV pushing as you appear to believe, please identify which part of the suggestion you have difficulty with. Also please bear in mind Wikipedia's first definition of WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As I've said, the individual items you've been attempting to add appear to be reliable and verifiable. I don't dispute that (beyond the use of Mr. Hitchens' opinions as facts). I see the following problems remaining with your edits (please answer each point, as you haven't yet responded to several of them):
  • They're unnecessary. This is the big one. The information they cover is already summarized in the article, and was previously spun off in greater detail in other articles. Once that happens, there's no reason to bulk up this article. WP:NPOV does not require that content already spun off into other articles and linked to within this one be re-added to this one. If it did, we'd never spin off articles at all, and each one would be enormous. But we do. The Bible article, for instance, does not list all the rules in Leviticus, despite the fact that those rules are indeed a part of the Bible. It's no violation of Wikipedia policy, NPOV in particular, to have the controversial content of Leviticus in its own article instead of the Bible article.
  • They're unbalancing. As has been stated, the article has much of the information you've been trying to add already in it. Instead of over-emphasizing that information through repetition and veering into WP:UNDUE territory, it would be better to move a piece of notable content to the lead per WP:LEAD, perhaps expand it a little with some of your sources, and enhance the section already devoted to these controversies, bearing in mind that the article is about the Book of Mormon, so the introduction should be primarily about it, not critiques of it.
That's really it. Those are my remaining issues with your additions, but they're pretty big. If you've got a paper encyclopedia handy, take a look at the way articles on the Book of Mormon and other religious texts are usually phrased. The intro states what it is about, then if controversies exist, it gives a brief overview of them. That's the way encyclopedias should do it, that's the way our manual of style dictates it should be done, and that's good enough for me. --GoodDamon 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Jaysweet and I were just involved in a similar dispute. Our solution there was basically linking to the article covering the controversy fully. I agree that if it's covered elsewhere, a link in the lead and summary sections satsify WP:NPOV. Covering the same thing twice in one article does seem a bit excessive. AzureFury (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
You personal opinion is contradicted by the WP:RS reliable sources cited, where this history is treated as highly relevant and necessary for a balanced treatment. This argument is also, quite frankly, absurd, as it is important enough to be discussed explicitly in two sections of the D&C, every WP:RS BoM history, and is also necessary to explain Smith's original BoM title which is based upon the "Plates of Nephi." So deleting this history obviously violates WP:NPOV and WP:Censorship, as pointed out by other editors. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem like the "Origin of the Book of Mormon" paragraph is slighty weird? Stating "combined the interests of those who explored Indian artifacts for buried treasure with those in search of the Lost tribes of Israel.[5] " makes it sounds like Smith like the wikipedia author knows "exactly why smith got the plates and what motivated him" -- you could say that people "suppose" that that is his motive, but stating it as fact seems a little strong, since I'm not sure Smith himself wrote anything about his motives. Also some other notes: Smith did not refuse to show the plates to everyone. It was "no one unless commanded to do so" [cite the 8 witnesses]. Also if I am correct, from Lucy Mack Smith's book, Martin Harris' wife "probably" stole the plates, not "did." And who cares what Fawn Brodie says were Smith's motives--those were what Fawn Brodie thought they were! Should I say "Roger Pack writes that his motives are..."? If we do have the fawn brodie quote in there, then I think we should also add what Smith actually said about it, to balance it., or the traditional Mormon thought on the subject [which are easily citable]. Rejecting Joseph Smith's own words on the subject seems dangerous when one is searching for answers. I would be happy to add in citable sources and quotations from Joseph. Rogerdpack (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Rogerdpack, please, have at it. Your suggestions are entirely consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:PRESERVE, and all the other issues we've been discussing. This section needs the LDS POV on this important part of the story. As long as your edits are verifiable, reliable, and balanced, then you'll sure have my full support. Also, please keep in mind that everything we edit to this summary article should be summarized yet insightful. That is why I added the sentence you question above, originally with an interesting/insightful near-full quote from a WP:RS. I'll add it back and tell me if you like it better. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE only applies when there is something worth retaining. In this instance there is not. The entirety is written in such an anti-Mormon perspective that it is worthless. As many times as you have been told it is disingenuous to think otherwise and to parade policy while you so blatantly ignore the same weakens your position. I delete information when it is wholly contested. It is POV and you know it. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You are correct: It is POV and I know it. It is also is a significant view that as such, Wikipedia demands a representation "non-negotiably" on this page. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV really means:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". <blink>The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".</blink>

The LDS version of these facts is also POV and I know it, which is precisely why I want to see a fair representation of them in this article. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume that moving content from the head paragraph and positioning it in more appropriate place is not elimination of article content. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for whoever edited that paragraph to be more NPOV [doesn't explain the BoM as "american indian" now] and took out the "magic stones" reference. It reads MUCH less negatively now. Thank you. And also whoever took out that picture of Joseph translating, since it was pretty ugly looking :P Rogerdpack (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

NEEDLESS POV

Ecrasez, DO NOT move this topic or make it a subtopic again. Your "editing" on the Talk page is totally inappropriate. Your edits to this article must be discussed here first in order to ensure a fair and impartial article. Your edits are highly POV and unwelcome. You may have "references" up to your eyeballs, but that is not the point. The material you are adding is needless detail that is highly controversial and highly POV. You are disrespectful of the LDS editors and the non-LDS editors who have labored for over a year on this article to get it as NPOV as possible. You have no inherent right to change this article on your personal whim and according to your clear anti-LDS agenda. Work with us productively as you have in the past, but stop the bulldozing of your POV. (Taivo (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC))

You have not yet responded to my request to point us to the Wikipedia policy that requires that edits be discussed at talk first, or Wikipedia policy that supports your claim that I "have no inherent right to change this article," which both violate WP:OWN on its face. Also, as I said above, I simply added two equal signs around the section titles to put related comments in one logical section. If I erred in doing so, you are free to remove these equal signs—it's not a big deal. How is this edit of the talk page "inappropriate"? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Taivo, whereas you deleted WP:VF from WP:RS almost immediately, it has now been several days that you have not responded to or commented on the suggested edit here. Is this acceptable to you? If this is POV as you appear to believe, please identify which part of the suggestion you have difficulty with. Also please bear in mind Wikipedia's first definition of WP:NPOV:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm on vacation. Sorry that I don't respond to you with the speed you so desire. We have talked about all this before. I'm not going to rehash our previous discussions every single time you get your feathers ruffled because someone reverts your seriously POV edits to this article. (Taivo (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC))
When you get back from vacation, please read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy, which clearly states:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Your objections are invalid according to Wikipedia policy. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Article is not Neutral, Lacks significant historical information

This article is POV because it does not fairly represent the origins of the Book of Mormon as described by critics in reliable sources, especially Smith's treasure hunting background and Lucy Harris's account of the Lost 116 pages. It is also therefore lacking significant historical information. These facts are widely known, and I'm sure that we've all watched South Park's All About the Mormons?. So here's your chance to balance an account of this important history. The account I propose is, with references:

The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr. on March 26, 1830, in Palmyra, New York. Smith was raised during the Second Great Awakening in a region of western New York near numerous Indian burial mounds.[29] As explained by the journalist Christopher Hitchens, "there were two … schools or factions who took a fascinated interest in [buried Indian artifacts]: … gold-diggers and treasure-diviners [and] those who hoped to find the resting place of the lost tribe of Israel. Smith's cleverness was to be a member of both groups[.]"[30] Smith announced that he had been visited three times by the angel Moroni who informed Smith of a buried book "written upon Golden Plates" and later[31] that there there were two magic stones set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim that would enable Smith to translate the Book of Mormon.[32] Smith refused to show the golden plates to anyone and claimed that it would mean death for anyone but Smith to view them.[33][34] Smith, who could read but not write,[35] enlisted the help of his neighbor Martin Harris, who mortgaged his farm to underwrite the translation of the Book of Mormon.[36] Harris's wife, angry at her husband's gullibility, stole the first 116 pages of the translation and "challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could".[37] Fawn Brodie wrote that Smith "realized that it was impossible for him to reproduce the story exactly, and that to redictate it would be to invite devastating comparisons."[38] Harris's wife taunted Smith:

"If this be a divine communication, the same being who revealed it to you can easily replace it.[39]

Smith did not replicate the original, "which might be in the devil's hands," but instead claimed that God had provided him with smaller plates—those of Nephi—whose account was similar to but not the same of that told on the plates of Moroni, who Smith claimed had taken back the originals because he was angry that Smith allowed the translation to be lost.[40][41][42][43] Smith and Harris resumed the translation based upon the plates of Nephi, and when The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi was completed and published in 1830, the original golden plates were "transported to heaven."[44][45]

Also, while I agree with much of what Jaysweet says above, Hitchens is WP:RS and is as acceptable here as any other relevant WP:RS source. If you want to refute, you needto do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecrasez: Please tell me why you insist that "Hitchens is WP:RS". Is it your position that the man personally is a "reliable source" so everything he writes is reliable? Or are you referring specifically to his book "god is not Great"? Wanderer57 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist, journalist, and critic for Vanity Fair, The Atlantic, The Nation, Slate, The London Review of Books, Harper's, The Los Angeles Times, New Left Review, The New York Review of Books, Newsweek International, The Times Literary Supplement, The Washington Post, Free Inquiry and more. He is a frequent television and radio commentator especially on religious issues, prolific author of numerous books, including his critical analysis of religion in general and Mormonism in particular. Note that I did not cite his criticisms in the historical passage above, merely the account and Hitchens's observation that Smith combined two popular reasons for searching for buried treasure, certainly a key fact in the origins of the BoM. That Hitchens is WP:RS, especially for a critical history of BoM origins, goes almost without saying. Indeed, if anything of his that I've cited is not WP:VF, please tell us. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Ecrasez: Just to be clear, is it your position that because of Mr. Hitchin's impressive experience and credentials, everything he writes can be treated as reliable? Wanderer57 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't have a problem with using Hitchens for verifiable, neutrally-stated facts. I do have a problem, however, with your insistence that the article include his commentary, going so far as to make it the third sentence in the first paragraph of the article (in your proposed version). This article is not about Christopher Hitchens or his thoughts on the founder of Mormonism. It is about the Book of Mormon. You have been told repeatedly that your proposed changes violate WP:NPOV, and again I'll point out you're skirting WP:CONSENSUS and WP:DIS. You continue to cite WP:PRESERVE and WP:OWN as if the material you're attempting to insert somehow becomes set in stone once you've added it, yet you ignore the issues we've brought up with your edits. I'm beginning to think you might have a WP:COI problem here, and you're certainly using this article and its talk page for WP:SOAP purposes.
All that said, you do have some valid additions to make to the article, and I really wish you would make them without adding Mr. Hitchens' commentary and your own apparent bias. You are absolutely right that the facts you're trying to add belong in the article. But you are absolutely wrong to try to add them in a non-neutral, POV-pushing manner, and as long as that persists, you won't get anywhere. --GoodDamon 14:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

[New indent] Okay, how about this:

The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr. on March 26, 1830, in Palmyra, New York. Smith was raised during the Second Great Awakening in a region of western New York near numerous Indian burial mounds,[46] and combined the interests of those who explored Indian artifacts for buried treasure with those in search of the Lost tribes of Israel.[47] Smith announced that he had been visited three times by the angel Moroni who informed Smith of a buried book "written upon Golden Plates" and later[48] that there there were two magic stones set in the twin breastplates Urim and Thummim that would enable Smith to translate the Book of Mormon.[49] Smith refused to show the golden plates to anyone and claimed that it would mean death for anyone but Smith to view them.[50][51] Smith, who could read but not write,[52] enlisted the help of his neighbor Martin Harris, who mortgaged his farm to underwrite the translation of the Book of Mormon.[53] Harris's wife, angry at her husband's gullibility, stole the first 116 pages of the translation and "challenged Smith to reproduce them, as presumably—given his power of revelation—he could".[54] Fawn Brodie wrote that Smith "realized that it was impossible for him to reproduce the story exactly, and that to redictate it would be to invite devastating comparisons."[55] Harris's wife taunted Smith:

"If this be a divine communication, the same being who revealed it to you can easily replace it.[56]

Smith did not replicate the original, "which might be in the devil's hands," but instead claimed that God had provided him with smaller plates—those of Nephi—whose account was similar to but not the same of that told on the plates of Moroni, who Smith claimed had taken back the originals because he was angry that Smith allowed the translation to be lost.[57][58][59][60] Smith and Harris resumed the translation based upon the plates of Nephi, and when The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi was completed and published in 1830, the original golden plates were "transported to heaven."[61][62]

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Historicity and DNA evidence in the lead

The lead of the article is also highly POV. As per the discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Book of Mormon.E2.80.94Repeated deletion of relevant.2C cited facts without cause, I have attempted to correct this by adding WP:VF from WP:RS. Please note Wikipedia's definition of WP:NPOV:

content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors.

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez l'infâme, your edits make the lead far too long. There is another article entirely devoted to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon which you might find more suited to your taste. Remember this article is about all aspects of the book - its contents, its use, its position within the Mormon religion. To make half the intro about the historicity is far too much. Can I suggest you come up with one sentence about the historicity which could be included. You could reasonably place some of the things you wrote in the main body of the article. Please remember that the current version of the article is a consensus position arrived at after a lot of work. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying, but no matter how much work went into the article, the current version is woefully POV and unbalanced, as a cursory glance at WP:NPOV illustrates:

content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

I'm afraid that the "elimination of article content" summarizes the article's current state. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
That's more the sort of length I was thinking about. Your number of references is over the top - two will do fine. I suggest moving the others to elsewhere in the article or to the historicity article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work with the reference, but please don't undo the neutralisation of the sentence.
Allow me to explain why what you wrote is not neutral. Who believes that the BoM is contradicted by Archaeological and DNA evidence? Well Hitchens obviously does, and I would guess you do, and other people certainly do. Does everybody believe that? No clearly they don't. Mormons don't for example. It is not neutral to ignore their viewpoint, any more than it would be neutral to ignore Hitchens viewpoint. What you wrote clearly violated that principle. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. This information does not need to be in the lead. The information is already in the article, in summary form since a lot of it was spun off into the historicity article, and therefore satisfies NPOV, which applies to articles as a whole. Compare this to the article on the Bible, where the lead sums up the basic questions of who, what, where, but doesn't go into the criticism or the fact that some reject it's historicity. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to express a strong opinion on that. I'm limiting my efforts are to get what is written down to a reasonable size and neutral. I don't believe it's a violation of an Wikipedia policy to include a sentence about historicity in the lead, but I wouldn't be upset of there was nothing there. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for pointing that out. Let's run over and fix the Bible article's POV issues too! Actually, let's just focus on the ones in this article, like the POV lead. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Écrasez l'infâme are you aware of the three revert rule which you have just violated? Doing so get you an automatic 24 hour block. If you revert your own change immediately I will not ask for it to be enforced. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it is interesting to see what other articles do and what is allowed and disallowed. I think LDS articles should more closely reflect articles on the Roman Catholic Church. When you have some time, you should review them to see what good articles look like on controversial religious topics. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

StormRider, I would say that "Critics think..." is less accurate than "Outside the LDS the BoM is not thought of as historically accurate". I would say that even those that don't criticise the LDS would not agree that it is a historically accurate book. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This one is tricky and I am not absolutely comfortable with the current sentence. I used critics so as to include all those who think there is no historicity in the BofM; I have heard there are some LDS who have voiced their opinion of such. They might be a significant minority, but I wanted not to make the sentence seem an LDS vs. the world position. Also, there are similar issues with the Bible as you know. Those who believe in the OT and/or NT claim there is a historicity to it, but there is no evidence for the major events of the OT and NT. To me, the major thrust of these types of articles should focus on the Who, What, When, Where, and Why of the matter. As we read other religious articles on Wikipedia this is the consistent process. I don't see why the Mormon related articles should have a preponderance of criticism as proposed by Ecrasez. It is strange, but each religious article that I edit seems to deal with the same types of criticisms and others seem more successful containing them than these articles. The objective is not to paint a black and white picture. Do you have a suggestion?
BTW, I appreciate your willingness to contribute in these current issues; thank you.--Storm Rider (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"Critics think..." implies that only those who are actively against the LDS deny the historicity. I don't believe that is the case. A pretty large number of disinterested people also believe that there is no historicity in the BoM. That is certainly the majority view of non-LDS academics who have been asked to pronounce on the matter. Not all non-LDS people are critics of LDS.
On the matter of the Bible, I hope you will admit that while there are doubts expressed about the historicity of both books, the doubts about the BoM's historicity are of an entirely different nature. Nobody, no matter how opposed to Judaism/Christianity, will deny that there existed a nation called Israel; that they lived in approximately the time and place described; that their rulers were pretty much those described in the Bible; and that major historical figures (Pilate, Herod) actually existed and major historical events (such as the exile) actually took place. The majority view of the BoM is not the same. I'm sorry to have to say this, and I try to say it with gentleness but also the knowledge that it is true, most people outside the LDS believe that absolutely nothing written in the BoM is historical fact. We have to reflect the differences in these views with differences in the way we write about the books. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we agree on the academic position on the Bible. There is a blending of historical fact with a topic of faith. However, I wonder how many non Judeo-Christians people would assume the Bible to be a book of fact? Essentially it if viewed as a book of faith. The Book of Mormon and the Bible are both books of faith and the Bible certainly does contain known historical facts whereas the Book of Mormon discusses a civilization about which almost nothing is known. However, I do think the comparison is unfair. You are taking a book that was written near the cradle of civilization about which historians for thousands of years have written and comparing it to civilizations that had no historians writing about their history ever. There simply is no written history about the civilizations of these continents of North and South America. The Book of Mormon is purported to contain some of that history and one day hopefully, the historical record of these continents will be known as well as Western Civilization.
Regardless, do you have better wording to suggest? As indicated above, I remain open to changing the wording. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Made a suggested change. Feel free to comment. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
As an aside, as far as the DNA evidence goes I think "critics" is the better claim. Most scientists would not go so far as to say the evidence is conclusive, rather they would say there is insufficient evidence to support or deny the claims of the Book of Mormon. Critics take the evidence and stretch the claims and attempt to show the evidence is conclusive. Science is simply not progressed enough to make these kinds of broad, unequivocal statements that critics want to make. The sentence may need to be broken down to cover the information more appropriately. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that is the case. I think there is strong evidence that genetically Native Americans are not related to Ancient Hebrews. One of our article did say that "other reserchers" cautioned against use of genetics to prove or disprove links, but the two references supplied were both to LDS researchers. I've fixed the article in question. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

[New indent] "Critics" is factually incorrect. In the cited article

LDS anthropologist Thomas W. Murphy writes, "I advised in my article 'against confusing a spiritual witness [of the Book of Mormon] with scientific evidence'," while also saying no "genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and and indigenous Americans" and that genetic data do not support "an Israelite origin [of Native Americans] as posited by Mormon scripture." These are not the words of a critic, but of a faithful Mormon, simply pointing out the verifiable fact that historical claims made in the BoM are contradicted by DNA evidence. The article's original wording on this point was most accurate, WP:NPOV, and WP:AWW:

The Book of Mormon's historicity is contradicted by archaeological and DNA evidence.

This addresses the highly relevant historical claims of the BoM, but is silent on the spiritual ones. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you see a difference between saying "no genetic link as been found" and contradicted? You are misusing the reference to say something the reference does not. You change the tone and you make a deduction that is not supported. Critics do the same thing; they state something as fact, but the facts do not support the flat statement you have made and in the manner in which you edit the article. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless you have a reliable source that tells us how that the genetic makeup of native Americans magically transformed since Lehi and sons sailed from the Arabian peninsula and landed in America, then "contradicted" is the precise conclusion to any genetic study that shows no "genetic link has been found between ancient Israelites and and indigenous Americans." Would you prefer a weasel word to "contradict," or do you have a reliable source that explains how the genetic makeup of Native Americans could have changed since the alleged arrival of Lehi and sons on American shores? Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Weasel word? I believe it is you have made the deduction that your references do not support. By your own words, just read them, it does not say contradict. You say contradict, but not the reference. You are making the reference say something it does not say. This is repetitive problem with you and your use of references; you ignore what they say and write what you want them to say. DNA research has not progressed to the point of being able to make the deduction you are making, that is why they say there is no known evidence to support the position. It is open ended; it admits they do not know with certainty. Do you get the distinction at all with the words you use and those of your references? Just quote the reference if not and leave the interpretation to the reader. --Storm Rider (talk) 18:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If the genetic studies were merely inconclusive, then you would have a point, but they are conclusive: Native Americans are genetically unrelated to Ancient Israelites. This flatly contradicts BoM claims. This is pretty simple stuff, and yes, DNA research has progressed well beyond the point of making such conclusions, unless you'd also like to add qualifiers about 99.999% certainty—we could do that too. However, it appears that we have found a compromise wording, so let's stick with that. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Contradicts what the BoM claims? You mean the BoM claims Native Americans are genetically related to Ancient Israelites? I am pretty certain the Book of Mormon is silent on the subject. For that matter, the Book of Mormon doesn't even claim to be about a people in the Western Hemisphere. --Kmsiever (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  1. House of Joseph (LDS Church).
  2. Murphy, Thomas W. (2003). "Simply Implausible: DNA and a Mesoamerican Setting for the Book of Mormon". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 36 (4): 109–131.
  3. Murphy, Thomas W. (2003). "Genetic Research a 'Galileo Event' for Mormons". Anthropology News. 44 (2): 20.
  4. Murphy, Thomas W. (2002). "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics". In Vogel, Dan; Metcalfe, Brent (eds.). American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon. Salt Lake City: Signature. pp. 44–77. ISBN 1-56085-151-1.
  5. Southerton, Simon G. (2004). Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Signature Books. ISBN 1560851813.
  6. "LDS author facing excommunication". Deseret News. 2005-07-17.
Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 20:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Where in any of those sources does it state the Book of Mormon claims Native Americans are genetically related to Ancient Israelites? --Kmsiever (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Now that's just plain disingenuous. Of course the book doesn't mention genetics, because nobody knew anything about DNA or genes at the time. But the book does make the claim that the indigenous population is descended from the lost tribe, and as we know now, based on genetics, it's impossible. Now, if you'd like to argue that genetics itself isn't a reliable indicator of lineage, that's a different matter. --GoodDamon 23:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(new indent) The book does make the claim that at least some of the indigenous population is descended from the House of Israel, not a lost tribe. And no, we do not know for a certainty that is impossible. What we know is that a few geneticists, Murphy, a community college teacher, and Southerton, a PhD and scientist have made a determination. The problem is that they are not "all" scientists; their analysis is not the definitive study of the matter.

It is interesting to listen to various Jewish geneticists and their analysis of modern Jewish DNA and their determination that they don't know what ancient Israel's DNA was. Unfortunately, Murphy and Southerton have assumed that modern Israel's DNA similarities and that of ancient Israel are identical. That is a preposterous assumption and is not based upon an understanding of history (think of the number of times Israel has been conquered and scattered) or proper scientific analysis. Parading these references around like the argument is finished is POV. I assume that if we are going to do so then we need to introduce the body of work on Jewish DNA, Mongolian DNA, and the shortcomings of Murphy and Southerton's work. Of course, this article will become quite bloated, but I don't see an alternative when we have editors who are so absolute in their position and unwilling to qualify the opinions of a community college teacher and a single PhD.--Storm Rider (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Now that's just plain disingenuous. Of course the book doesn't mention genetics, because nobody knew anything about DNA or genes at the time." Which is why I don't understand why people like Murphy are trying to say it does. All his finding are based on the premise that the book does say this. Likewise, the Book of Mormon does not make "the claim that the indigenous population is descended from the lost tribe". It makes the claim that its characters are descended from the House of Israel, but it does not state anything about the indigenous peoples of the Americas. That's something that people in modern times have projected onto the book, but which the book does not do. Which is why I am not sure why Écrasez insists on adding it. This is something more appropriate to an article on the doctrines of the early Mormons. --Kmsiever (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I would note that "historicity" seems to not have citations for a few claims "Those outside the LDS movement do not consider it so, and the majority opinion is that it is contradicted by scientific and archaeological research, virtually all of which has been conducted since the book's publication."

ex: "do not consider it so" and "the majority" I would suggest to rephrase it with less "concrete and uncited" terms. Also the whole thing doesn't include any LDS rebuttals to these arguments. I would be happy to add them. Also the use of terms like "conclusively" and "is no" are poor--they really mean "conclusively for some" and "there is none yet discovered." This section seems negative POV. Rogerdpack (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sad Events in BOM Article

For over a year, honest, NPOV editors have been working to remove the POV tag from this article. Now a single editor with a highly anti-LDS agenda has made it necessary to have the tag replaced. It is sad when the spirit of cooperation that was carefully built over the months of work is destroyed by a single individual with an axe to grind. Both LDS and non-LDS editors were in agreement and had been working hard to make a good article. Now all that work has been ruined by a single person. While he quotes "Wikipedia policy", he knows nothing of Wikipedia's spirit. (Taivo (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC))

That's noth what other editors are saying. In the RfC above, Jaysweet says,

"I find it astonishing that the Lucy Harris "stolen pages" saga is neither mentioned nor linked to in either Book of Mormon or Origin of the Book of Mormon. There is a brief mention of the "loss" of the pages in Golden Plates, but it doesn't mention that Lucy Harris stole them for the purposes of exposing Smith's translation as a phony. This seems to me to be a rather glaring omission, as the Lucy Harris story is a critical part of the roots of the Book of Mormon from both an LDS and non-LDS perspective."

AzureFury goes further, invoking WP:Censorship:

"I'm a previously uninvolved party. I have to say this is probably one of the more obvious RFCs I've responded to. All of this material is relevant and well sourced, it should be included. Wiki editors are not supposed to be balanced, we're supposed to be objective. Just because a higher number of facts are anti-LDS than the number of facts that are pro-LDS doesn't mean we should delete anti-LDS facts so the ratio in the article is 50/50. It seems to me that the deletion of these facts is creating WP:SYNTH, not the inclusion. If you want to keep the article "neutral" then try to find more supporting facts rather than deleting opposing facts. I really can't imagine a more blatant form of censorship."

This is the real issue here. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Gotta poke my nose in here again. Why do you continue to simply disregard the points other editors are making? I have repeatedly pointed out other policies, as well as components of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, that your edits have largely ignored, and even given you ideas on how you could make your edits without conflicting with them. Other editors have pointed you towards other articles (like Origin of the Book of Mormon where your edits would be more appropriate. You cite two editors who, as near as I can tell, came in with an incomplete understanding of the situation, and ignore many, many others, including most of the editors here who aren't Mormon (like myself) telling you you're being disruptive, POV-pushing, and all around rude. So stop. Just sit back, take a breather, and try answering our concerns first. And please stop citing WP:PRESERVE and WP:OWN. The first doesn't require editors to accept changes that violate other policies, and the second is one that you are violating, not the rest of us. You're starting to sound like a broken record.
Look... I agree with you that the article needs work, but you are going about it in the way most likely to get yourself reverted. You're editing like you have a serious conflict of interest. So try this:
  1. Move a single controversy from the body of the article to its lead, in the form of a brief summary. That is perfectly in line with WP:LEAD. Use your sources, although keep the references down to a couple, as stacking the lead with references is not only unnecessary, but messy.
  2. Add the bulk of your new material to the body of the article, in the historicity section and in other pertinent places. The lead is not appropriate for front-loading controversies about the book.
  3. If necessary, create an entirely new section to outline the problems with the book's creation, bearing in mind that there's already an article devoted to the book's origins, and that the larger bulk of your material belongs there, not here.
Having edited in plenty of controversial articles a lot, I can say unequivocally, stacking the lead with anything but really, really neutral information is both POV-pushing and likely to get you reverted. Just say no, kids. :) --GoodDamon 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
We have been attempting to do mostly as you suggest, i.e. putting this content in the body, but it has been consistently deleted -- just see the RfC link above. As for editing other articles, fixing POV elsewhere does not correct it here. Please read Wikipedia's WP:NPOV (and be thankful that these pages do not support the <BLINK> element):

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. <blink>This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles</blink>, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

Furthermore, the lead as it stands is POV; the added facts make it WP:NPOV. As for your conflict of interest accusation, WP:PROVEIT. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You can -- and obviously will -- quote that one particular passage from WP:NPOV until this entire talk page is subsumed with it, and it still won't change either the manual of style's rules on leads, or the policy you have most obviously failed to read, the summary style guidelines. As you're a big fan of them, here's a nice blockquote from it:

Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article.

This was done a while back with Historicity of the Book of Mormon, which is, per WP:SUMMARY, considered a "subarticle" and is considered a basic part of the main article, because they link back to one another, with the subarticle pointing to the main one at the very top. Mass duplication of the data contained in the historicity article in the main one is unnecessary because one's a split from the other. To put it bluntly, they're the same article, and mass duplication would be breaking it.
Now, to your points:
Neutral point of view: As I said, the content is already there. It's already in the overall article, because that's what the summary style guidelines are for.
Doing "mostly" as I suggest: Are you kidding me? Look at your most recent edit to the article. You're still trying to front-load duplicate data into the lead, instead of expanding the body and moving a controversy to the lead, per WP:LEAD. That's not in line with my suggestions at all.
Your oft-repeated quote from WP:NPOV; That quote is absolutely true, and absolutely inapplicable to what you've been trying to do. I'll say it again... Most of what you're trying to add is already there. The parts you're trying to add that aren't don't belong in the lead. Blinktag it, put it in 24-point font size, and use the most impressive font face you can come up with, and it still won't make that paragraph mean you should duplicate stuff that's already in the article or one of its summary forks, and load it all up in the lead.
Conflict of interest: Here are your last 500 edits. Cut out the Mormon pages, user talk pages discussing the Mormon pages, various mediation posts concerning the Mormon pages, and you know how many edits you have left? Seven. Four on Mother Teresa, and three on the Burned-over district, which you've mentioned all over the Mormon discussion pages and seem to be editing in conjunction with them. As for the Mother Teresa edits, they're focused on her crisis of faith, which is quite notable actually, and inclusion of our friend Christopher Hitchens' opinions. You appear to be an anti-religion -- and specifically anti-Mormon -- single-purpose account. Look... My own personal bias is that organized religion is a lot of bunk, but I'm capable of editing without that bias needing to be expressed in every single one of my changes to Wikipedia. Looking at your edit history, I almost want to say "stay off my side." I certainly want to suggest you spend some time editing in another area where you may have expertise. Whatever Duke53 has to say about it, you really do seem to have an ax to grind with religion, especially Mormonism, and that's the wrong attitude to take into an article. --GoodDamon 05:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's rich. I edit in a few kB of WP:VF from WP:RS to add a touch of WP:NPOV to a few Mormon-related articles, and the ensuing battle to WP:Censor these plain facts suggests to you that I have WP:COI?! Let's focus on the content. I haven't seen anyone suggest an alternative to the brief summary paragraph I've suggested for the origins section. You seem to believe that this is somehow about taking sides, but rather the issue is simply to produce neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia articles. This obviously is not the case now for the BoM article and many related articles because of the glaring problems of WP:Censorship. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is reaching the point of ludicrousness. No one is trying to censor you, and you've been tossing that accusation around since you started this mess. How many times do I have to say this, in how many different ways, for it to sink in? Look at your edits. They're all to the lead of the article. They're all attempts to insert content that duplicates what already exists in the body of the main article or in one of the subarticles. The content that isn't a duplication, which I've already said I support, isn't what's getting you reverted. From now on, every time you mention censorship, I'm just going to mentally replace it with the words "fluffy bunnies," because rabbits are just about as apropos. Please, just once... for my sake... try adding content to the body of the article instead of the lead. Then, if you're feeling really nice, start a new discussion on this Talk page concerning which controversy most deserves to be moved to the lead (which as I've said repeatedly, is perfectly in line with WP:LEAD). Don't break the article or ignore the style guide out of your need for a particular piece of critical content to be at the beginning of the article. Oh, and on your editing history? Take a look at it yourself. Note that to find articles you edited unrelated to Mormonism, you have to go back to 2006. Note that even in those articles, you were editing about religion from an antagonistic perspective. --GoodDamon 15:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm obviously not alone in citing WP:Censorship as a problem, an opinion I'd expect to be shared by a good number of lurkers as well:

AzureFury: "I'm a previously uninvolved party. I have to say this is probably one of the more obvious RFCs I've responded to. All of this material is relevant and well sourced, it should be included. Wiki editors are not supposed to be balanced, we're supposed to be objective. Just because a higher number of facts are anti-LDS than the number of facts that are pro-LDS doesn't mean we should delete anti-LDS facts so the ratio in the article is 50/50. It seems to me that the deletion of these facts is creating WP:SYNTH, not the inclusion. If you want to keep the article "neutral" then try to find more supporting facts rather than deleting opposing facts. I really can't imagine a more blatant form of censorship."

Duke53: "'[Censorship] is the real issue here.' Amen, brother ..."

Those ain't fluffy bunnies, GoodDamon. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, yes they are. Calling deletion of D-U-P-L-I-C-A-T-E-S (figured I'd spell it out for you) "censorship" is absurd. At least now you're no longer trying to stuff it all in the lead, and I hope you noticed that I actually restored one of your edits, but don't think I'm done... I'm going to move some of those items myself to their correct locations in the article, and get rid of the duplication you're introducing, as I'm quite tired of asking you to do it. And believe it or not, I'm going to move one of the controversies to the lead itself. See, I think you actually have valid content to introduce, but you've gotta do it in a way that doesn't break the structure of the article. --GoodDamon 16:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"This is the real issue here. " Amen, brother ... (who here actually has an 'axe to grind') ?  :) Duke53 | Talk 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Here we go with some more of the same old, same old: ... if you can't deal with someone's arguments, you can always attack his motives. I have been waiting for some of this and it is heartening that the old gang still continues to use this silly tactic. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's not pretend Ecrasez doesn't have a bias here. That doesn't mean it's impossible that any of his suggestions could be right, but the bias is plain as day. He quoted me above saying I felt there are some things in his edits that may belong in the article, e.g. some background on the Lucy Harris thing. What he did not quote me saying (in the same edit) is that his proposed edit, taken as a whole, skews the article waaay away from NPOV. And it's clear that's his intention.
I think if we were able to take one issue at a time and communicate calmly and rationally, his powerful bias could actually bring something useful to the discussion, as he serves as an unfettered advocate for the inclusion of criticism (and it's not like we'll have a hard time finding his counterweight, i.e. an unfettered advocate for removing all criticism). In other words, we may gain insight from listening to him regardless of motive. But let's not be naive here, Ecrasez wants this article to be as negative as possible. To pretend otherwise is lunacy. --Jaysweet (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
And the cadre of regulars from the lds side are dedicated to NPOV in all lds-related articles? Riiight !!! Let's really not be naive here; there is a gang of pro-lds whose intent is to eradicate any and all perceived negativism about the church from these articles. As someone on another site recently said: "There are those who won't rest until it reads like it was written by the church of latter day Wikipedians". To pretend that there isn't a pattern of pro-lds editors ganging up (or swarming) on other editors is far more ludicrous. When they can't discredit the facts they proceed to attack editors on any level their Machiavellian hearts desire. Duke53 | Talk 10:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Jaysweet said: "it's not like we'll have a hard time finding...unfettered advocate[s] for removing all criticism".
Duke53 responded: "And the cadre of regulars from the lds side are dedicated to NPOV in all lds-related articles? Riiight !!! (emph. in original)
Uh, no, I think I pretty much just said the exact opposite of that. Don't put words in my mouth, especially exceedingly stupid words. StormRider's and Taivo's biases are painfully obvious, as is Ecrasez's bias. To pretend these biases don't exist, any of them, is pretty much retarded.
However, I believe that rational adults communicating in a calm manner do have the capability to arrive at effective compromise even if they have powerful biases.
(I'm sure that Duke53 will now respond by saying, "Jaysweet said that if we all lock each other in a steel cage and beat each other with baseball bats, the article will get to Featured Article status!" Riiight !!!...) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't be so 'sure' about what another editor is 'going' to say.
"Uh, no, I think I pretty much just said the exact opposite of that. Where? All I saw was your commentary about Ecrasez's alleged bias ... did you even mention the lds editors' biases?
Do NOT put words in my mouth, either ... hypocrisy is not an endearing trait.
Editing my comments here while allowing other accusations ("You seem not to have any grasp of the content"; "Ecrasez has misused references ..."; "... his powerful bias"; "Your edits are highly POV and unwelcome", etc.) to remain. Pot. Kettle. Black. Duke53 | Talk 17:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, guys? Without commenting on the specific issues or charges made in this section, I would like to remark on the increasing lack of civility and urge you all to tone it down a bit. Take a pill and chill, man. --Richard (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Fluoxetine capsules.

Helpful illustration. No known side effects. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Here is a quotation from NPOV: "Neutrality and verifiability

A common type of dispute is when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.

In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias.

Verifiability is only one content criterion. Neutral point of view is a core policy of Wikipedia, mandatory, non-negotiable, and to be followed in all articles. Concerns related to undue weight, non-neutral fact selection and wording, and advancing a personal view, are not addressed even slightly by asserting that the matter is verifiable and cited. The two are different questions, and both must be considered in full , in deciding how the matter should be presented in an article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerdpack (talk • contribs) 00:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing statements

I saw where this edit had been deleted by Taivo for not being appropriate for a the lead. I had deleted these references earlier for not really being references; there was nothing specific about them. At that time Ecrasez had just listed the names of articles or books with no page numbers so it was impossible to check the source. With this new edit he placed page numbers for whole series of pages. In the past Ecrasez has misused references attempting to use them to support deductions the references did not support. This seems to be similar to that same, consistent pattern.

I looked at the first one by Kaestle and Smith. The abstract of the article reads:

"The mitochondrial DNA of modern Native Americans has been shown to fall into one of at least five haplogroups (A, B, C, D, or X) whose frequencies differ among tribal groups. The frequencies of these five haplogroups in a collection of ancient individuals from Western Nevada dating to between approximately 350-9,200 years BP were determined. These data were used to test the hypothesis, supported by archaeological and linguistic data, that the current inhabitants of the Great Basin, the Numic speakers, are recent immigrants into the area who replaced the previous non-Numic inhabitants. The frequency distributions of haplogroups in the ancient and modern Native Americans differed significantly, suggesting that there is a genetic discontinuity between the ancient inhabitants and the modern Numic speakers, providing further support for the Recent Numic Expansion hypothesis. The distribution of mitochondrial haplogroups of the ancient inhabitants of the Great Basin is most similar to those of some of the modern Native American inhabitants of California. Am J Phys Anthropol 115:1-12, 2001. © 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc."

No where in the reference does it talk about the Book of Mormon, the LDS church, or anything that he is using the reference. The full article has a cost of $29.95 for the day; his reference to support his use in this article was pages 1-12. Is that the whole article. This type of misuse of references needs to stop immediately. It does not engender trust to so consistently misuse references in an effort to support personal conclusions. Why not just use the references for what they state? Why is there a need to twist them? Stop it! It is a form of dishonesty that should not be allowed under any conditions. BTW, editors are under no obligation to deep deceitful edits such as this; your consistent use of WP:PRESERVE is a canard and does not apply. --Storm Rider (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here we go with some more of the same old, same old: ... if you can't deal with someone's arguments, you can always attack his motives. I have been waiting for some of this and it is heartening that the old gang still continues to use this silly tactic. Cheers. Duke53 | Talk 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I expect that the next move from the old bag of tricks will be a request for some informal mediation ... (that one never gets old). Duke53 | Talk 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The cited paper discusses the genetic background of Native Americans in the Great Basin. None of the groups is related to ancient Israelites; therefore it is appropriate as a citation here. You are correct in pointing out that this serious academic paper does not mention the discredited and absurd BoM explanation of Native origins, and neither does it discuss the Chariots of the Gods, Ancient astronaut theories, Pseudoarchaeology, or dozens of other laughable accounts. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, and if you read the abstract what it says is that Native Americans today have little to do with the genetic makeup of Native Americans from thousands of years ago in the Great Basin. That has nothing to do with Israelites, genetic history or anything else having to do with the topic of this article. Do you read this sources? I am getting the distinct impression you don't understand the articles that you are citing. You seem not to have any grasp of the content. If you are really bypassing your true reference and using the references cited by other sites such as Living Hope Ministries or the Utah Lighthouse Ministry, this is not acceptable methodology and it only serves to get in troubled water. Just site your source where you get the information and forget the charade. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Ecrasez, the problem here is one of WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. While I think it is a credible inference to suggest that the genetic study casts serious doubt on the feasibility of the BoM theory of native American ancestry, it is still an inference and requires us to do interpretation in order to use it to support the statement it was used to reference.
That source could be used to support a statement to the effect of "There is no genetic evidence that the ancestors of Native Americans originated in Israel," but we still need to be careful about WP:SYNTH, in that we don't want to be using that statement to support an original essay on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Rogerdpack (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainstream?

Let's not try and describe what mainstream geneticists, archaeologists, etc. think. The vast majority of geneticists have made no comment. The only "experts" provided is a community college professor from an unremarkable community college and a fellow in Australia. That is hardly mainstream. It is best to not over-state the case. Just say what is so; there is no need to dress up one position like it is the conclusion accepted by all humanity. However, if you have that reference, please provide it; until then don't exaggerate. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - I was a little quick on the edit. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
agreed Rogerdpack (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your change regarding non-LDS scholars. This type of qualification is a very slippery slope that is not allowed on other articles. You should check out the history of Christianity and Jesus for this same conversation. A scholar is a scholar; they are qualified or they are not and their religious affiliation is irrelevant.
I think using "some" is better than saying critics, which they also happen to be, but that is beside the point. A few scholars have researched the topic and have made conclusions, but science as a body has made no determination and we should not allow any article to make a delcaration unless it is referencned by a reputable source. --Storm Rider (talk) 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you are wrong here - If I am not mistaken, there have been a number of archaeologists that have written papers in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought on the topic. Besides - how in the world can you claim that "science as a body has made no determination"? At what point can one conclude that "science as a body" HAS made a determination?
I propose we use the word "several" instead of "some". The word "some" to me indicates that there is a bucket of scholars, and "some" of them (i.e. less than 50%) have such an such an opinion. Maybe that is not the way it reads to other editors, but I think "several" is probably more accurate - because we are quantifying a set of scholars, not a proportion of scholars. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with several. The problem is the grouping of geneticists, archaeologists, and historians, etc. in one group. The research in each area is varied with differing levels of understanding and research. It is probably appropriate in the lead as long as it is qualified, which has been done.
Science makes mainstream determinations all the time. It is when the vast majority of scientists agree with a teaching or finding. That is not the case with any of these issues. Some may find it hard to believe, but most scholars could not care less about the Book of Mormon and its claims. It is simply not a topic of major research. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like we are narrowing on a compromise on this issue, that is good. I am not sure I like "several" because it has some WP:WEASEL problems, but if that's the compromise it's not terrible. I am more inclined to say that "no mainstream blah-blah-blah has confirmed the historicity". Might be hard to find a source to directly support that though, but it avoids the problem of having to characterize what a lot of people think (and as Storm Rider points out, most scholars don't think anything either way, heh...) --Jaysweet (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
"Several" is entirely misleading. It implies that the majority of scholars accept the book's historicity and 'a few' don't. The actual situation is the reverse, and if you discount those archaeologists who are members of the LDS church then the huge, overwhelming, majority do not accept the book's historicity. I have no problem with considering LDS archaeologists 'scholars' but it better reflects the situation to give the opinions of both groups - both LDS scholars and non-LDS scholars, especially since the two groups have such different views. DJ Clayworth (talk) 22:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any reference that most archaeologists, geneticists, etc believe as you say? That reference would be helpful in supporting your position. If not, we only state what is factual and stay away from opinion and original research. Does that make sense?
Alternatively, do you have a suggestion how it might be better stated? I am open to suggestions, but unreferenced statements are not acceptable. Also, are LDS scholars different from non-LDS scholars? Is one group deficient while another group is more qualified? If so, can we also quantify the religious affiliations of each scholar that is used to state their opinion? Obviously, there may be a conflict of interest if they belong to other Christian churches. Also, it might be instructive because the same standard could then be applied to all other church articles and which historians, archaeologists, geneticists, etc. are used. I hope you see the difficulty of using that type of language. --Storm Rider (talk) 02:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'd say "some do and some dont" maybe, to try and be NPOV. Rogerdpack (talk) 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

One issue at at time please!

First issue: Lucy Harris story. Why is it not here? And if it's not appropriate here, where should it be?

Please, no long diatribes, no red herrings about Indian burial grounds and controversial journalists, and especially no edit warring. I'll report the whole lot of you to WP:3RR.

So... Lucy Harris, stealing pages, Book of Lehi vs. Book of Nephi, etc... why no here? And if not, where? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The topic of the article is Book of Mormon: what it is, who is it about, why is it important, when did it happen, and where. These questions should be answered for both the peoples about whom the BOM is about and how the BOM came about. That is the topic.
When reviewing what material should and should not be included it should answer those questions. If it does not, why not? Also, a consideration of other articles Golden Plates, Origin of the Book of Mormon, Persons in the Book of Mormon, Seer stones in Mormonism, The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible, etc. should also be reviewed as to which best fits the topic.
How does Lucy Harris' stealing of the plates play in the history of the Book of Mormon and how important is it? It's importance is virtually insignificant for the current topic. It may merit a mention in the Origins article, but it should be treated in context and not strictly from an anti-Mormon perspective. Just report the facts of the matter without all the spin. I don't know why this is so difficult to get across. Spinning a POV is not NPOV and it is not reporting a "significant" position. It is simply spin. If spin is what is important, it should be identified as such. For example, Mormon apologist state "..." or Anti-Mormon writer ? states "...". This comment is only about spin, it is not about history and history written from a neutral perspective.
What is needed is balance and an avoidance of fringe ideas and concepts. The objective is to produce a a concise article about the topic. A review of the Bible article would be helpful. You will notice there is not the constant drumming of the critics, but rather a focus on who, what, when, where, and how. To state that some people don't believe in the Bible is stupid; it is a book of faith. To state some don't believe in the Book of Mormon is just as stupid. It is one of those duh moments; topics of faith are just that and nothing more. If we believed in the Bhagavad Gita, we would be Hindu; not Christian or whatever else.
Another consideration is simply what is a reader trying to find out when they look up Book of Mormon? What is it is the answer. The rest is superfluous. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The Lucy Harris thing is significant from a pro-LDS perspective too, since as I mentioned somewhere earlier in this Talk page, it is a parable about unwavering faith and why one should not "test God". Right? Or do I have that one wrong?
It may belong in Origin of the Book of Mormon], but it's not there either.
Also, please let's focus on one issue at a time, as I requested. I have comments about your Bible vs. BoM analogy, but I do not want to cloud the issue.
So you would not in theory oppose adding the Lucy Harris lost pages thing to Origin of the Book of Mormon? --Jaysweet (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Jay, I missed the analogy on testing God; I don't think there is a pro or anti position to Lucy Harris. Is it significant to all that can be said on the Book of Mormon? My position is that it is insignificant. At what point do we say something is not important or do we add everything?
Look, I know that this Google book search for "Harris 116" that yields 388 independent book hits is not WP:RS, but it does give some indication of how important the Lucy Harris thing is to this article. For WP:RS look no further than Givens's history already cited by the article:
There's nearly a full chapter and a dozen references within the book to the Lost 116 pages. So its relevance and significance is beyond dispute according to the WP:RS already cited. The only debate ought to be a summary WP:NPOV representation of the two interpretations of this event. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the Lucy Harris story certainly belongs in Origins of the Book of Mormon and probably Historicity of the Book of Mormon. It may belong in other places too. Incidentally that's not duplication. Nothing in WP:SUMMARY says that the same fact can't be mentioned in two sub-articles if it's relevant to both.
Does the story belong in this article? I'm not sure. The section on historicity should be a summary of the main article. Currently it's a very short summary indeed and could use being expanded to at least a couple of paragraphs. Whether Lucy Harris is one of the things included in such an expansion depends on how important she is relative to other things related to historicity. We shouldn't include her just because she is something we are talking about right now. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
At least in outline, it seems to me the story that 116 pages of Book of Mormon manuscript disappeared and were suspected to have been stolen by Lucy Harris DOES belong in this article. IMO, it rests on similar authority to the story that Joseph Smith Jr. received the golden plates from the angel Moroni. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed the other day that there is little in Origin section about Joseph being threatened and the plates being attempted to be stolen quite a few times. Shouldn't that be described more? Rogerdpack (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


COI?

One could make the case that Mormons ought to refrain from editing this page due to a conflict of interest. It seems too obvious to spell out the argument. However, I suppose it's that Mormons have a potentially very large and significant stake, or an interest, in making their beliefs appear attractive and reasonable. If I were seeking a neutral account of matters concerning Mormonism, I'd prefer it to come from non-Mormons Calamitybrook (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Mormons ought to refrain from editing this page due to a conflict of interest"? That argument would never go very far. If that's the case, then any individual editor or group of editors should refrain from editing ANY articles that they happen to have ties to: such as preventing anyone who has played, coached, refereed, or watched basketball from contributing to the WP article about basketball, or anyone who has seen a movie or TV show from contributing to accurate information about that movie or TV show. WP attempts to not discriminate against ANY users, regardless of race, gender, ethnic background, or religion. Besides, even YOU would have to admit that non-Mormons can hardly be accepted as "neutral" experts on the subject of Mormonism, as many are either bitter towards the Church or have little or no knowledge about what real Mormon doctrine and policy is on any given issue. If non-Mormons WERE editing this page solely, a LOT of non-Mormon propaganda would likely be the central focus of articles such as this, which is not permissible on WP. The argument isn't so "obvious" as you claim, and such an argument under any other circumstance should be "spelled out". If Mormons can't speak for themselves and what they believe to the satisfaction of those who wonder, then who can? Such an attitude as you've expressed clearly shows bias against "Mormons" on your part. However, this issue is beside the point for this or any other WP talk page. For questions relating to possible COI and bias on the part of Mormon editors, please contact the appropriate person here at WP. Talk pages, according to WP policy, should not be used for discussion of personal beliefs or for stating qualifications of editors to make changes to the article, but have in fact been put into place for the express and sole purpose of discussing how to IMPROVE the article. Since such a topic as this doesn't fall in that category, I recommend deleting this discussion as soon as enough people have seen it. Thank you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Calamitybrooks' argument is one of the most ridiculous I have seen in Wikipedia, and I have seen a lot here. According to his (?) logic, then no Christian should edit any page dealing with the New Testament, no Jew should edit any page dealing with the Torah, and no Muslim should edit any page dealing with the Koran. According to his logic, no linguist should edit any page dealing with language, no doctor should edit any page dealing with health and disease, etc. Get the picture? The very clear fact about this particular article is that its current text is the result of over a year's worth of careful editing by a team of both LDS (Storm Rider, for example) and non-LDS editors (myself and Wanderer, for example). All of us have worked very hard to keep the anti- crowd as well as the overly-faithful at bay. The article is neutral not because of the involvement of only non-LDS editors, but because of the collaboration of careful, respectful, and dedicated editors on both sides of the religious divide. Where is the article untrustworthy, Calamity? Where does the article stray from NPOV? If there is truly a place that needs work, then bring it to our attention and we will work on it. I suspect, however, that you are another anti-LDS editor shrouding your own bias in a "reasonable" argument. There are times when I must keep quiet and assume good faith on the part of an editor. But there are times like this when it is clear that the editor has no good faith intended. (Taivo (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark...I dislike opinions parading as serious edits. Nothing has been added to improve the article; no specific issues of concern are raised; and all we know is that an editor would like to go a garbage man the next time she/he is sick to find out what is really wrong. Please, please use a blog and not Wikipedia for this type of personal sharing; it is simply too embarrassing for the rest of us. I agree with Jgstokes; I will delete this section tomorrow in accordance with policy regarding discussion pages unless there is something significant added. That does not mean we need any kind of rejoinder; there is no merit to the position. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Storm Rider and Taivo, I couldn't have said it better myself. I tried and failed above. The user in question responded on my talk page, continuing his/her harangue about the issue. I patiently as possible (and perhaps stupidly) responded as seriously as could be expected under the circumstances. The full transcript of that discussion in available on the user's talk page if you'd care to respond to it there. I have absolutely no objection to this irrelevant discussion being removed from THIS talk page, but think perhaps we should leave the comments on the user's talk page. Also, one or both of you may care to add to what is already there. I'm afraid all I accomplished was living up to my reputation as a windbag! :) But seriously, I think if this user hears from someone besides me how ridiculous this whole line of discussion is, he/she will HAVE to believe it. If you like, you could even let other contributors, LDS and non-LDS alike that I may not be aware of know about the discussion on the user talk page as well. I only realized the level of the ridiculousness when at the end of his/her post on my talk page he/she thanked me for the opportunity to be "part of this debate." I attempted to set him/her straight on that point as well. I don't know if I was successful or how successful I was, so again, if either of you or anyone else you know would like to reemphasize, clarify, or completely correct what I said on that user's talk page, you're more than welcome to. In the meantime, thanks so much for responding to my request for attention to this matter. I called on both of you because I know from working with both of you how much impact your perspectives have had on me, I respect you both more than I can say, and I can't thank you both enough. Hope the additional information is helpful to you. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 07:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=0478425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
  2. ^ http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=b90a8d00422fe010VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
  3. ^ http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f318118dd536c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=feac742e35474110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&hideNav=1
  4. ^ http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=862cd0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
  5. ^ See 3 Nephi 11 to 3 Nephi 26
  6. ^ a b Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830). Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon, Upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi. Palmyra, New York: E. B. Grandin.
  7. ^ Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Edition). LDS.
  8. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 162 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  9. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 162 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  10. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  11. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  12. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  13. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  14. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  15. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  16. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  17. ^ Brodie 1971, pp. 54 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  18. ^ Brodie 1971, pp. 54 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  19. ^ Doctrine and Covenants, Section 3 and Section 10
  20. ^ Brodie 1971 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  21. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  22. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163–164 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  23. ^ Brodie 1971 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  24. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 164 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  25. ^ Mosiah 21:28; Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1987). Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. p. 90. ISBN 9993074438.
  26. ^ Joseph Smith, Jr. (1830). "2 Nephi 30:5–6". Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon, Upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi. Palmyra, New York: E. B. Grandin.
  27. ^ Douglas Campbell (Winter 1996). "'White' or 'Pure': Five Vignettes". Dialogue. 29 (4): 119–135.
  28. ^ Tanner, Jerald and Sandra (1987). Mormonism - Shadow or Reality?. Utah Lighthouse Ministry. p. 91. ISBN 9993074438.
  29. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 162 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  30. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 162 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  31. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  32. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  33. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  34. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  35. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  36. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  37. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  38. ^ Brodie 1971, pp. 54 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  39. ^ Brodie 1971, pp. 54 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  40. ^ Doctrine and Covenants, Section 3 and Section 10
  41. ^ Brodie 1971 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  42. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  43. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163–164 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  44. ^ Brodie 1971 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  45. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 164 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  46. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 162 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  47. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 162 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  48. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  49. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  50. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  51. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  52. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  53. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  54. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  55. ^ Brodie 1971, pp. 54 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  56. ^ Brodie 1971, pp. 54 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  57. ^ Doctrine and Covenants, Section 3 and Section 10
  58. ^ Brodie 1971 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  59. ^ Van Wagoner 1982
  60. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 163–164 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
  61. ^ Brodie 1971 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFBrodie1971 (help)
  62. ^ Hitchens 2007, pp. 164 harvnb error: multiple targets (4×): CITEREFHitchens2007 (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon/Archive_7&oldid=1104398818"