This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
This article is about the Book of Mormon. The subsection titled "Historical Authenticity" should then, of course, directly pertain to the question of the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself. It should be brief and to-the-point, and should summarize material that is of the highest importance to the arguments about the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself. If should not, therefore be concerned with tangential concerns. If there is a wikipedia article or subsection that is directly concerned with "Popular interpretations of the Book of Mormon," then that would be the place to make a statement such as "Most Mormons believe such-and-such about the Book of Mormon." Likewise, if there is an article of subsection that is directly concerned with "Traditional views of the Book of Mormon," then that would be the place to make a statement such as "In 1974, So-and-So believed such-and-such about the Book of Mormon."
The first section of this subsection focuses on the general criticism of the plausible Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and emphasizes an academic approach to contemporary criticisms. Accordingly, it would ONLY be fair to limit the counter POV to academic apologetics. As far as "Historical Authenticity" goes, I just don't see how offering a factoid about what the majority of popular opinion happens to think about it is relevant, and I can only deduce that such statements are inserted into the section to belittle and besmirch a subsection of society (who is not principally concerned with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon but rather by abiding by its' teachings) by comparing them unfairly. The only opinions which are relevant to this subsection are those opinions from groups who are primarily concerned with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Once again, this article is about the Book of Mormon, as it stands on its own, and how it stands under various scrutinies from various sides. Ddweller ( talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already said why the general view on historicity is relevant to this section. It is a section on historicity--it says what critics think, it says what mainstream Mormons think, and it says what apologists are generally trying to do. All three items are relevant. Your continued personal attacks directed at me are inappropriate. You have no idea what level of knowledge I have of the BOM and its origins, of the critical literature, or of the apologetical literature, so your insults are uncivil. I suggest you move beyond the personal attacks and discuss the issues at hand. The "generally" is not a bad addition, especially since it mirrors some of the wording in the Southerton quote. -- Taivo ( talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A few comments on the situation:
Depending on how Real Life (tm) treats me, I may or may not come back and try to make some edits based on these comments, assuming consensus emerges around them. ...comments? ~ B F izz 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at changing the section from a list into prose. It's not perfect yet, but I think it's a good start. Now that the criticisms take up less space, we can expand a little more on how they are relevant to the Book of Mormon. I commented out the list of anachronisms, with the intention of moving them all into a single footnote. But I wanted some feedback before going further. ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we cite the official position of the Smithsonian Institute which states “Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book (Book of Mormon)? The Smithsonian does not make sweeping generalities on insufficient evidence in either direction. http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html-- Alan355 ( talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Without ending discussion on my first attempt, please note that I've taken another stab at improving the second paragraph in the section. I'm jumping to the edit part, rather than acceding to Taivo's invitation to discuss first, because I find the request ridiculous. Nobody discussed the status quo with me before implementing it; in any event, I am fairly certain that 90% of Wikipedians would agree that this edit is a step in the right direction. ...comments? ~ B F izz 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the first point—proving veracity—I left a "clarification needed" tag on this because the current sentence is a bit ambiguous.
“ | [Much work has been published by FAIR and FARMS] attempting to prove the veracity of Book of Mormon claims | ” |
This raises the question, what are the claims of the Book of Mormon? Are are they related to its historical authenticity? How? I think I understand what the sentence is trying to say, but it doesn't seem to say it quite right.
Taivo has clarified that the meaning of this sentence is "proving the BOM text as it stands is literally true", in other words (if I understand correctly), that the historical people, places, and events that it mentions all existed or happened as the BOM describes. How can we phrase this so that it comes across more clearly? Is there a better word than "claims" that is less ambiguous in this situation? ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, you undid an edit I made on the 2500 BC date in the Book of Mormon. This date does not appear in the 1st edition, and was added only subsequently as a possible date for the Jaredites, based on popular bibical chronologies of the Tower of Babel. I wished to indicate that these dates do not appear in the Book of Mormon. Leaving open, however small a crack, the door for an earlier date may serve in the future to answer scientific objections to apparent descriptions in the Book of Mormon of holocene megafauna. The most conservative approach is to stick with the original text, which does not include a date of 2500 BC.
With respect
Phorbol ( talk) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Phorbol
Dear Taivo: This is one of the problems with analysis of the Book of Mormon: the original text, translated by Smith and considered by Mormons to be divinely inspired, is not the focus of debate, but instead the beliefs of what you term "generations of LDS faithful" which may or may not correspond to the text. In this case, the 2500 BC dates for the Tower of Babel -- and by extension the Jaredite migration to North America-- was not determined by "generations of LDS faithful" but by the Bibical chronology by Archbishop James Ussher (1581 – 1656. Ussher in his 1648 "Annales Veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine Deducti" and a subsequent amendation declared, by using an average of 20 years per generation applied to bibical geneologies, that not only did the Tower of Babel occur in 2500 BC. but that the earth itself was created on the night of October 22, 4004 BC. This is why Harvard's Geological Museum use to have an annual all night party ending on the morning of Oct. 23 to celebrate the earth's birthday. I doubt that "generations of LDS faithful" would infer the same divine imprimatur for the chronological musings of an Irish prealte as for the text of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon does not include a date of 2500 BC for the Jaredite migration. In Ether 9:19 of the Book of Mormon is a description of what appears to be a remnant of the Holocene megafauna of North America that existed prior to what is a well- understood, and archeologically supported anthropogenic extinction of that megafauna by early colonists to North America. Do you have any evidence that the 2500 BC date -- which is not early enough for this extinction event-- was part of the original text of the Book of Mormon? If not, you should not posit this date in an Wikipedia article on the "Book of Mormon," but perhaps mention it in a separate Wikipedia article on Beliefs of Generations of LDS Faithful. I think, dear Taivo, that you are an accomplished enough scholar to know that that 2500 BC date does not represent marginalia in the standard sense of the term, but that this date was instead inserted in later editions to make a parallel typographical presentation with dates in the rest of the book, which were based on a fairly historical date for Lehi's departure during the reign of King Zedekiah. Similarly, the "Pronouncing Guide" on pp. 532-535 of the current edition -- which I understand was prepared by a Sunday School class-- was not part of the Joseph Smith's translation, and should not be regarded as equally inspired as the original text, even though "generations of LDS faithful" have learned from it a pronunciation of "Nephi" that is probably at odds with the semitic origins of the name. Also, until recently "generations of LDS faithful" believed that Lehi and family landed on an empty continent, when there is abundant archeological evidence otherwise, and there is no textual evidence in the Book of Mormon itself to indicate that they did so. So I respecfully ask that you consider allowing insertion of a statement indicating that the 2500 BC date for the Jaredites does not appear in the original text of the Book of Mormon. This way scientific arguments against the Book of Mormon can be based on the text itself. Thank you for your consideration, 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Phorbol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phorbol ( talk • contribs)
My understanding is that all the additional witnesses, besides Smith himself, described their experiences with the plates as not physical ones, but as if they were in a trance or dream. It was after a long period of prayer and meditation when in the company of Smith. The idea of three or more witnesses required for everything in the religion is a pseudo-legal philosophy that is quite interesting, yet this requires no concept of parallel independence between the witnesses, rather than in each other's company during a psycho-social group experience, nor that it be a sensory experience in the conventional meaning. Thus it differs considerably from any definition of an eyewitness in the secular law. -Reticuli 66.178.139.91 ( talk) 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Retuculi's point is a good one. In the two articles about the witnesses these experiences are discussed at length about how it is disputed that they were real physical experiences. Why are we not noting in this article that it is a disputed claim?-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Another consideration that is often over-looked is that the Book of Mormon puts heavy emphasis on Smith's native place, America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.33.176 ( talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the table for online editions should be merged into the table for current and historic editions. My reasoning for doing this is:
However, I haven't figured out how to incorporate these online editions:
I'll leave the "Online" table alone for now, but I'm going to add links to the current and historic tables, too. Hopefully my last two concerns can be figured out later. —— Rich jj ( talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been recent edits over whether the phrase "reformed Egyptian" is actually in the text of the Book of Mormon or whether it was coined by later commentators. I just want to briefly clarify that it does come from the text ( Mormon 9:32 -- LDS edition), and has since the first edition, and is so cited at the very beginning of the reformed Egyptian article. —— Rich jj ( talk) 17:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I was mostly incorrect in my edit summary when I said "there is no restorationist movement". It exists, and is actually called the Restoration Movement. Taivo is correct in saying that the LDS movement is not a part of the Restoration Movement, but like I said, the LDS movement (similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses) is still considered "restorationist" in the sense of Restorationism (Christian primitivism). ...comments? ~ B F izz 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Quoting: "The position of most members of the Latter Day Saint movement and the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is that the book is a literal historical record."
Is there a difference between a "literal historical record" and a "historical record"? Wanderer57 ( talk) 29 June 2011 (UTC)
(outdented) I began this topic and I'm intrigued by the amount of discussion & the multiple options suggested.
- literal historical record
- historical record
- accurate historical record
- actual historical record
- true historical record.
I wonder if the LDS position is that the Book of Mormon is an infallible record, meaning true and accurate in all respects. I think I know the answer to this but I am not sure. Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- literal historical record
- historical record
- accurate historical record
- actual historical record
- true historical record.
-- Canadiandy talk 19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
What term do reliable sources use? In this case, what term does the church use to describe its position? 72Dino ( talk) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. I feel that the lead of the article is not representative of the article's contents and does not flow well. I propose the text below. If you will please list any concerns or improvements below, I will work to incorporate them and arrive at an iteration that we can all feel comfortable with. Thank you for your consideration. — Eustress talk 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement allegedly containing writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. [1] [2] Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [3] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days.
Smith claimed to have translated the book, which was written on thin gold plates, from previously unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian", at first with the aid of seer stones and eventually relying solely on "the gift and power of God". [4] Smith typically dictated the translated text while a scribe recorded the words, and he showed the plates first to three witnesses and later to eight more. The book was first published at the Grandin Print Shop in March 1830.
The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, [5] the nature of the Atonement, [6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death, [7] and the organization of the latter-day church. The pivotal event of the book is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after his death, burial, and resurrection.
The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon as scripture in addition to, not in lieu of, the Bible. [8] First published as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi, [9] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1982 in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose. [10] As of 2011, the Book of Mormon has been fully or partially translated into 108 languages. [11]
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. [1] [2] Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [3] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days.
Smith claimed to have translated the book, which was written on thin gold plates, from previously unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian", at first with the aid of seer stones and eventually relying solely on "the gift and power of God". [4] Smith typically dictated the translated text while a scribe recorded the words, and he showed the plates first to three witnesses and later to eight more. The book was first published at the Grandin Print Shop in March 1830.
The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, [5] the nature of the Atonement, [6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death, [7] and the organization of the latter-day church. The pivotal event of the book is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after his death, burial, and resurrection.
The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon as scripture in addition to, not in lieu of, the Bible. [8] First published as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi, [9] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1982 in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose. [10] As of 2011, the Book of Mormon has been fully or partially translated into 108 languages. [11]
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
I completely agree with Wanderer. We need to take this step by step, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence to make sure that everyone's concerns are met. People simply can't process the amount of change you're advocating here, Eustress, in a careful manner so that they feel heard. What will happen if this change is simply pasted in is that concerned editors will start nibbling at it piecemeal and any coherence which you hoped to have will be gone. -- Taivo ( talk) 01:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. [1] [2] Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [3] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days.
Smith claimed the book was written on thin gold plates and that he translated them from previously unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian", at first with the aid of seer stones and eventually relying solely on "the gift and power of God". [4] Smith typically dictated the translated text while a scribe recorded the words, and he showed the plates first to three witnesses and later to eight more. The book was first published at the Grandin Print Shop in March 1830.
The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, [5] the nature of the Atonement, [6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death, [7] and the organization of the latter-day church. The pivotal event of the book is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after his death, burial, and resurrection.
The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon as scripture in addition to, not in lieu of, the Bible. [8] First published as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi, [9] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1982 in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose. [10] As of 2011, the Book of Mormon has been fully or partially translated into 108 languages. [11]
Which is the American continent?
Adding in the sentence about Jesus Christ appearing to the Americas raises a question. While it would have been newsworthy, in what sense is it pivotal? Do you mean to say that to Latter Day Saints it is the pivotal event in the Book?
I'm puzzled how the flow of the last paragraph was improved. The jump from "pivotal event" to the organization of the Book struck me as needing a new paragraph. I did not get that feeling when reading the previous last paragraph.
Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed The third paragraph of the lead starts out with:
Nowhere in the article does it mention or link to what these "defining publications" may be. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Quotes from the first paragraph of the section are in italics. Questions & comments are not in italics and are indented.
1st sentence: The Book of Mormon was reportedly dictated by Joseph Smith to several scribes over a period of nearly two years, resulting in an original manuscript that was eventually printed into the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, minus the first 116 pages of the Book of Lehi, which were lost after Smith lent the uncopied manuscript to Martin Harris who gave them to his wife Lucy.[20]
2nd sentence: These pages were never returned and are assumed to be lost.[20]
3rd sentence: The original manuscript was then hand copied by Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes into a manuscript for the printer.[108]
4th sentence: It is at this point that initial copyediting of the Book of Mormon was completed.
5th sentence: Observations of the original manuscript show little evidence of corrections to the text. [109][110]
6th sentence: Critical comparisons between surviving portions of the manuscripts show an average of two to three changes per page from the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript, with most changes being corrections of scribal errors such as misspellings or the correction, or standardization, of grammar inconsequential to the meaning of the text.[108][110]
7th sentence: The printer's manuscript was further edited, adding paragraphing and punctuation to the first third of the text.[108]
Hello, everyone.
I believe that it is appropriate to have at least link to the internal Spalding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon Authorship page, if not a paragraph about the controversy. I've never edited a religious work page, so I don't want to step on any toes.
I would link to that page in my question, but I'm rusty and rushed.
Am I off base?
Marklemagne ( talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Much has been made of apparent or obvious connections between the Book of Mormon and the King James Version (KJV / AV). I thought I read that Joseph Smith himself had responded to this, stating he had been given permission to take portions from the KJV (instead of directly translating, I presume). Does anyone know of a reference to that? And, if there is such a reference, why isn't it included in various articles about the B.o.M? Thanks! Misty MH ( talk) 09:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a somewhat recent presentation on the subject by Daniel L. Belnap; I couldn't quickly find a link to a text version of it, but an audio recording of the presentation is available here from the Mormon Channel. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
To quote from the synopsis:
In trying to determine how Joseph Smith incorporated so much King James English into his translation of the Book of Mormon, one must recognize that "none of the accounts describing the translation process mention that he used a Bible, and, in fact, a few of the accounts state explicitly that Joseph did not use any biblical text during the translation process," Brother Belnap said. Moreover, there is not a clear understanding of what the translation process was, as Joseph would only say that it came forth "by the gift and power of God."
I think User:Misty MH may be confusing the cooperation that the LDS Church sought in producing the LDS edition of the Bible in 1979, due in part to the copyright status of the KJV in the UK. The LDS Church also sought and received permission from the Cambridge University Press to use parts of their bible dictionary to produce the LDS Church's Bible Dictionary. Obviously none of this was done in Joseph Smith's lifetime, and naturally had no impact on his usage of KJV language in the BoM. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 19:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Right! I am referring to verbatim quotes from the KJV/AV text. I am pretty sure that I read that someone claimed that Joseph Smith had been given permission (or whatever) -- by "God" or an "angel" -- to use the KJV in certain places. Whether it was into the BoM or some other Mormon writing, I am uncertain. But I thought it was the BoM. Whether J.S. himself claimed it or someone claimed it on his behalf, I am uncertain.
Misty MH (
talk)
11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is also the "Inspired Version" of the Bible (in English) from some branch of the group. (I have a copy of it in storage, somewhere.) I don't know if that's different from what I am finding on the Internet called the "Joseph Smith Translation". I hope I wasn't confusing the BoM & KJV with that. Maybe that's where the "permission" to copy from the KJV comes in? And so, IF Joseph Smith, or someone in the group, had been working on an English version of the Bible that borrows from the KJV/AV, THEN it might make sense that he'd take from THAT, to keep them consistent. And THEN, it would appear to people -- who didn't know this -- that the BoM was borrowing DIRECTLY from the KJV/AV when it was actually borrowing directly from the new version of the Bible that borrowed from the KJV/AV. That may seem like a technicality, but IF that was the case, THEN, again, it would seem to make sense that J.S. could get (or try to get) permission to quote from THAT version (especially if he thought he had permission to make that version in the first place). Hmm. Interesting.
Misty MH (
talk)
11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Here we go! Already an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspired_Version_of_the_Bible Misty MH ( talk) 11:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the religious significance section. I though it will be good to have the quote next to the text which tells of its significance!-- 84.177.245.68 ( talk) 22:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Moroni's Promise , Book of Moroni 10:3–5, [2]
This is an important quote and it should be highlighted because the Origin of the Book of Mormon is also highlighted!-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Taivo talked about the untruthfullness of the Book of Mormon, but I am NEUTRAL on this subject and think we should show the quote in this article and let the people decide.-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore even the Muhammad article has two quotes, is this also proselyzing?-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
God!
There is no god but He,
the Living, the Everlasting.
Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep;
to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth.
Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave?
He knows what lies before them and what is after them,
and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge
save such as He wills.
His Throne comprises the heavens and earth;
the preserving of them oppresses Him not;
He is the All-high, the All-glorious.
—The " Throne Verse", 2:255, revealed in Medina [3]
Allah is the Light
of the heavens and the earth.
The Parable of His Light is
as if there were a Niche
and within it a Lamp:
the Lamp enclosed in Glass:
the glass as it were a brilliant star:
Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive,
neither of the east nor of the west,
whose oil is well-nigh luminous,
though fire scarce touched it:
Light upon Light!
Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light:
Allah doth set forth Parables for men:
and Allah doth know all things.
There are two quotes at the Muhammad article, but on this article it is proselyzing? Why do this quotes exist on the Muhammad article?-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
72Dino, Moronis Promise is the "Light Verse" of Mormonism and should be on this article.-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of being personally labeled as an interferer, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue. First let me state that I am a member of the LDS Church, and I believe the Book of Mormon and Moroni's promise to be true. I have a testimony of both. Having said this, I agree that Moroni's promise is relevant to any article about the Book of Mormon. However, it appears that a link to the promise already exists in the notes about this article. For the sake of brevity, and to follow WP policy, I hereby state that I am in favor of NOT including the promise in this article. A mention of it is sufficient. And while I do not agree with the arguments that have been used against this text, at the same time, I recognize that this is a major edit, and should have been discussed before it was made. It appears that the consensus is NOT to include this quote in the article, as it is in the notes, so I say, let's leave it at that. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Jgstokes, I would also agree that Moroni's promise is inappropriate for inclusion in any encyclopedia. Although it may be of religious importance to believers, I'm sure non-believers would rightly raise their eyebrows over the the inclusion of an exhortation to pray about the truthfulness of the volume - especially post-modernists. :-) Additionally, including it opens a can of worms in relation to NPOV - what other points of view would need to be considered to balance such a bold assertion and invitation? I don't think we believers would want to go there either. Davidwhittle ( talk) 03:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | → | Archive 15 |
This article is about the Book of Mormon. The subsection titled "Historical Authenticity" should then, of course, directly pertain to the question of the Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself. It should be brief and to-the-point, and should summarize material that is of the highest importance to the arguments about the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon itself. If should not, therefore be concerned with tangential concerns. If there is a wikipedia article or subsection that is directly concerned with "Popular interpretations of the Book of Mormon," then that would be the place to make a statement such as "Most Mormons believe such-and-such about the Book of Mormon." Likewise, if there is an article of subsection that is directly concerned with "Traditional views of the Book of Mormon," then that would be the place to make a statement such as "In 1974, So-and-So believed such-and-such about the Book of Mormon."
The first section of this subsection focuses on the general criticism of the plausible Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, and emphasizes an academic approach to contemporary criticisms. Accordingly, it would ONLY be fair to limit the counter POV to academic apologetics. As far as "Historical Authenticity" goes, I just don't see how offering a factoid about what the majority of popular opinion happens to think about it is relevant, and I can only deduce that such statements are inserted into the section to belittle and besmirch a subsection of society (who is not principally concerned with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon but rather by abiding by its' teachings) by comparing them unfairly. The only opinions which are relevant to this subsection are those opinions from groups who are primarily concerned with the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Once again, this article is about the Book of Mormon, as it stands on its own, and how it stands under various scrutinies from various sides. Ddweller ( talk) 02:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have already said why the general view on historicity is relevant to this section. It is a section on historicity--it says what critics think, it says what mainstream Mormons think, and it says what apologists are generally trying to do. All three items are relevant. Your continued personal attacks directed at me are inappropriate. You have no idea what level of knowledge I have of the BOM and its origins, of the critical literature, or of the apologetical literature, so your insults are uncivil. I suggest you move beyond the personal attacks and discuss the issues at hand. The "generally" is not a bad addition, especially since it mirrors some of the wording in the Southerton quote. -- Taivo ( talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
A few comments on the situation:
Depending on how Real Life (tm) treats me, I may or may not come back and try to make some edits based on these comments, assuming consensus emerges around them. ...comments? ~ B F izz 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at changing the section from a list into prose. It's not perfect yet, but I think it's a good start. Now that the criticisms take up less space, we can expand a little more on how they are relevant to the Book of Mormon. I commented out the list of anachronisms, with the intention of moving them all into a single footnote. But I wanted some feedback before going further. ...comments? ~ B F izz 02:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we cite the official position of the Smithsonian Institute which states “Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book (Book of Mormon)? The Smithsonian does not make sweeping generalities on insufficient evidence in either direction. http://www.irr.org/mit/smithsonian.html-- Alan355 ( talk) 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Without ending discussion on my first attempt, please note that I've taken another stab at improving the second paragraph in the section. I'm jumping to the edit part, rather than acceding to Taivo's invitation to discuss first, because I find the request ridiculous. Nobody discussed the status quo with me before implementing it; in any event, I am fairly certain that 90% of Wikipedians would agree that this edit is a step in the right direction. ...comments? ~ B F izz 00:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the first point—proving veracity—I left a "clarification needed" tag on this because the current sentence is a bit ambiguous.
“ | [Much work has been published by FAIR and FARMS] attempting to prove the veracity of Book of Mormon claims | ” |
This raises the question, what are the claims of the Book of Mormon? Are are they related to its historical authenticity? How? I think I understand what the sentence is trying to say, but it doesn't seem to say it quite right.
Taivo has clarified that the meaning of this sentence is "proving the BOM text as it stands is literally true", in other words (if I understand correctly), that the historical people, places, and events that it mentions all existed or happened as the BOM describes. How can we phrase this so that it comes across more clearly? Is there a better word than "claims" that is less ambiguous in this situation? ...comments? ~ B F izz 03:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Taivo, you undid an edit I made on the 2500 BC date in the Book of Mormon. This date does not appear in the 1st edition, and was added only subsequently as a possible date for the Jaredites, based on popular bibical chronologies of the Tower of Babel. I wished to indicate that these dates do not appear in the Book of Mormon. Leaving open, however small a crack, the door for an earlier date may serve in the future to answer scientific objections to apparent descriptions in the Book of Mormon of holocene megafauna. The most conservative approach is to stick with the original text, which does not include a date of 2500 BC.
With respect
Phorbol ( talk) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC) Phorbol
Dear Taivo: This is one of the problems with analysis of the Book of Mormon: the original text, translated by Smith and considered by Mormons to be divinely inspired, is not the focus of debate, but instead the beliefs of what you term "generations of LDS faithful" which may or may not correspond to the text. In this case, the 2500 BC dates for the Tower of Babel -- and by extension the Jaredite migration to North America-- was not determined by "generations of LDS faithful" but by the Bibical chronology by Archbishop James Ussher (1581 – 1656. Ussher in his 1648 "Annales Veteris Testamenti, a Prima Mundi Origine Deducti" and a subsequent amendation declared, by using an average of 20 years per generation applied to bibical geneologies, that not only did the Tower of Babel occur in 2500 BC. but that the earth itself was created on the night of October 22, 4004 BC. This is why Harvard's Geological Museum use to have an annual all night party ending on the morning of Oct. 23 to celebrate the earth's birthday. I doubt that "generations of LDS faithful" would infer the same divine imprimatur for the chronological musings of an Irish prealte as for the text of the Book of Mormon. In fact, the 1st edition of the Book of Mormon does not include a date of 2500 BC for the Jaredite migration. In Ether 9:19 of the Book of Mormon is a description of what appears to be a remnant of the Holocene megafauna of North America that existed prior to what is a well- understood, and archeologically supported anthropogenic extinction of that megafauna by early colonists to North America. Do you have any evidence that the 2500 BC date -- which is not early enough for this extinction event-- was part of the original text of the Book of Mormon? If not, you should not posit this date in an Wikipedia article on the "Book of Mormon," but perhaps mention it in a separate Wikipedia article on Beliefs of Generations of LDS Faithful. I think, dear Taivo, that you are an accomplished enough scholar to know that that 2500 BC date does not represent marginalia in the standard sense of the term, but that this date was instead inserted in later editions to make a parallel typographical presentation with dates in the rest of the book, which were based on a fairly historical date for Lehi's departure during the reign of King Zedekiah. Similarly, the "Pronouncing Guide" on pp. 532-535 of the current edition -- which I understand was prepared by a Sunday School class-- was not part of the Joseph Smith's translation, and should not be regarded as equally inspired as the original text, even though "generations of LDS faithful" have learned from it a pronunciation of "Nephi" that is probably at odds with the semitic origins of the name. Also, until recently "generations of LDS faithful" believed that Lehi and family landed on an empty continent, when there is abundant archeological evidence otherwise, and there is no textual evidence in the Book of Mormon itself to indicate that they did so. So I respecfully ask that you consider allowing insertion of a statement indicating that the 2500 BC date for the Jaredites does not appear in the original text of the Book of Mormon. This way scientific arguments against the Book of Mormon can be based on the text itself. Thank you for your consideration, 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)Phorbol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phorbol ( talk • contribs)
My understanding is that all the additional witnesses, besides Smith himself, described their experiences with the plates as not physical ones, but as if they were in a trance or dream. It was after a long period of prayer and meditation when in the company of Smith. The idea of three or more witnesses required for everything in the religion is a pseudo-legal philosophy that is quite interesting, yet this requires no concept of parallel independence between the witnesses, rather than in each other's company during a psycho-social group experience, nor that it be a sensory experience in the conventional meaning. Thus it differs considerably from any definition of an eyewitness in the secular law. -Reticuli 66.178.139.91 ( talk) 05:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Retuculi's point is a good one. In the two articles about the witnesses these experiences are discussed at length about how it is disputed that they were real physical experiences. Why are we not noting in this article that it is a disputed claim?-- Descartes1979 ( talk) 19:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Another consideration that is often over-looked is that the Book of Mormon puts heavy emphasis on Smith's native place, America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.33.176 ( talk) 15:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think the table for online editions should be merged into the table for current and historic editions. My reasoning for doing this is:
However, I haven't figured out how to incorporate these online editions:
I'll leave the "Online" table alone for now, but I'm going to add links to the current and historic tables, too. Hopefully my last two concerns can be figured out later. —— Rich jj ( talk) 18:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
There have been recent edits over whether the phrase "reformed Egyptian" is actually in the text of the Book of Mormon or whether it was coined by later commentators. I just want to briefly clarify that it does come from the text ( Mormon 9:32 -- LDS edition), and has since the first edition, and is so cited at the very beginning of the reformed Egyptian article. —— Rich jj ( talk) 17:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I was mostly incorrect in my edit summary when I said "there is no restorationist movement". It exists, and is actually called the Restoration Movement. Taivo is correct in saying that the LDS movement is not a part of the Restoration Movement, but like I said, the LDS movement (similar to the Jehovah's Witnesses) is still considered "restorationist" in the sense of Restorationism (Christian primitivism). ...comments? ~ B F izz 16:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Quoting: "The position of most members of the Latter Day Saint movement and the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is that the book is a literal historical record."
Is there a difference between a "literal historical record" and a "historical record"? Wanderer57 ( talk) 29 June 2011 (UTC)
(outdented) I began this topic and I'm intrigued by the amount of discussion & the multiple options suggested.
- literal historical record
- historical record
- accurate historical record
- actual historical record
- true historical record.
I wonder if the LDS position is that the Book of Mormon is an infallible record, meaning true and accurate in all respects. I think I know the answer to this but I am not sure. Thanks, Wanderer57 ( talk) 16:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
- literal historical record
- historical record
- accurate historical record
- actual historical record
- true historical record.
-- Canadiandy talk 19:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
"Concerning this record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”
What term do reliable sources use? In this case, what term does the church use to describe its position? 72Dino ( talk) 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Greetings. I feel that the lead of the article is not representative of the article's contents and does not flow well. I propose the text below. If you will please list any concerns or improvements below, I will work to incorporate them and arrive at an iteration that we can all feel comfortable with. Thank you for your consideration. — Eustress talk 19:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement allegedly containing writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. [1] [2] Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [3] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days.
Smith claimed to have translated the book, which was written on thin gold plates, from previously unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian", at first with the aid of seer stones and eventually relying solely on "the gift and power of God". [4] Smith typically dictated the translated text while a scribe recorded the words, and he showed the plates first to three witnesses and later to eight more. The book was first published at the Grandin Print Shop in March 1830.
The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, [5] the nature of the Atonement, [6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death, [7] and the organization of the latter-day church. The pivotal event of the book is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after his death, burial, and resurrection.
The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon as scripture in addition to, not in lieu of, the Bible. [8] First published as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi, [9] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1982 in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose. [10] As of 2011, the Book of Mormon has been fully or partially translated into 108 languages. [11]
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. [1] [2] Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [3] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days.
Smith claimed to have translated the book, which was written on thin gold plates, from previously unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian", at first with the aid of seer stones and eventually relying solely on "the gift and power of God". [4] Smith typically dictated the translated text while a scribe recorded the words, and he showed the plates first to three witnesses and later to eight more. The book was first published at the Grandin Print Shop in March 1830.
The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, [5] the nature of the Atonement, [6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death, [7] and the organization of the latter-day church. The pivotal event of the book is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after his death, burial, and resurrection.
The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon as scripture in addition to, not in lieu of, the Bible. [8] First published as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi, [9] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1982 in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose. [10] As of 2011, the Book of Mormon has been fully or partially translated into 108 languages. [11]
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
I completely agree with Wanderer. We need to take this step by step, paragraph by paragraph, sentence by sentence to make sure that everyone's concerns are met. People simply can't process the amount of change you're advocating here, Eustress, in a careful manner so that they feel heard. What will happen if this change is simply pasted in is that concerned editors will start nibbling at it piecemeal and any coherence which you hoped to have will be gone. -- Taivo ( talk) 01:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The Book of Mormon is a sacred text of the Latter Day Saint movement that adherents believe contains writings of ancient prophets who lived on the American continent from approximately 2600 BC to AD 421. [1] [2] Joseph Smith, Jr. claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [3] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days.
Smith claimed the book was written on thin gold plates and that he translated them from previously unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian", at first with the aid of seer stones and eventually relying solely on "the gift and power of God". [4] Smith typically dictated the translated text while a scribe recorded the words, and he showed the plates first to three witnesses and later to eight more. The book was first published at the Grandin Print Shop in March 1830.
The Book of Mormon has a number of original and distinctive doctrinal discussions on subjects such as the fall of Adam and Eve, [5] the nature of the Atonement, [6] eschatology, redemption from physical and spiritual death, [7] and the organization of the latter-day church. The pivotal event of the book is an appearance of Jesus Christ to the Americas shortly after his death, burial, and resurrection.
The Book of Mormon is the earliest of the defining publications of the Latter Day Saint movement. The churches of the movement typically regard the Book of Mormon as scripture in addition to, not in lieu of, the Bible. [8] First published as The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi, [9] The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) retitled its editions of the book to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1982 in an effort to clarify and emphasize its purpose. [10] As of 2011, the Book of Mormon has been fully or partially translated into 108 languages. [11]
Which is the American continent?
Adding in the sentence about Jesus Christ appearing to the Americas raises a question. While it would have been newsworthy, in what sense is it pivotal? Do you mean to say that to Latter Day Saints it is the pivotal event in the Book?
I'm puzzled how the flow of the last paragraph was improved. The jump from "pivotal event" to the organization of the Book struck me as needing a new paragraph. I did not get that feeling when reading the previous last paragraph.
Thanks. Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed The third paragraph of the lead starts out with:
Nowhere in the article does it mention or link to what these "defining publications" may be. -- Marc Kupper| talk 20:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Quotes from the first paragraph of the section are in italics. Questions & comments are not in italics and are indented.
1st sentence: The Book of Mormon was reportedly dictated by Joseph Smith to several scribes over a period of nearly two years, resulting in an original manuscript that was eventually printed into the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, minus the first 116 pages of the Book of Lehi, which were lost after Smith lent the uncopied manuscript to Martin Harris who gave them to his wife Lucy.[20]
2nd sentence: These pages were never returned and are assumed to be lost.[20]
3rd sentence: The original manuscript was then hand copied by Oliver Cowdery and two other scribes into a manuscript for the printer.[108]
4th sentence: It is at this point that initial copyediting of the Book of Mormon was completed.
5th sentence: Observations of the original manuscript show little evidence of corrections to the text. [109][110]
6th sentence: Critical comparisons between surviving portions of the manuscripts show an average of two to three changes per page from the original manuscript to the printer's manuscript, with most changes being corrections of scribal errors such as misspellings or the correction, or standardization, of grammar inconsequential to the meaning of the text.[108][110]
7th sentence: The printer's manuscript was further edited, adding paragraphing and punctuation to the first third of the text.[108]
Hello, everyone.
I believe that it is appropriate to have at least link to the internal Spalding-Rigdon theory of Book of Mormon Authorship page, if not a paragraph about the controversy. I've never edited a religious work page, so I don't want to step on any toes.
I would link to that page in my question, but I'm rusty and rushed.
Am I off base?
Marklemagne ( talk) 17:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Much has been made of apparent or obvious connections between the Book of Mormon and the King James Version (KJV / AV). I thought I read that Joseph Smith himself had responded to this, stating he had been given permission to take portions from the KJV (instead of directly translating, I presume). Does anyone know of a reference to that? And, if there is such a reference, why isn't it included in various articles about the B.o.M? Thanks! Misty MH ( talk) 09:58, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
There was a somewhat recent presentation on the subject by Daniel L. Belnap; I couldn't quickly find a link to a text version of it, but an audio recording of the presentation is available here from the Mormon Channel. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 18:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
To quote from the synopsis:
In trying to determine how Joseph Smith incorporated so much King James English into his translation of the Book of Mormon, one must recognize that "none of the accounts describing the translation process mention that he used a Bible, and, in fact, a few of the accounts state explicitly that Joseph did not use any biblical text during the translation process," Brother Belnap said. Moreover, there is not a clear understanding of what the translation process was, as Joseph would only say that it came forth "by the gift and power of God."
I think User:Misty MH may be confusing the cooperation that the LDS Church sought in producing the LDS edition of the Bible in 1979, due in part to the copyright status of the KJV in the UK. The LDS Church also sought and received permission from the Cambridge University Press to use parts of their bible dictionary to produce the LDS Church's Bible Dictionary. Obviously none of this was done in Joseph Smith's lifetime, and naturally had no impact on his usage of KJV language in the BoM. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 19:48, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Right! I am referring to verbatim quotes from the KJV/AV text. I am pretty sure that I read that someone claimed that Joseph Smith had been given permission (or whatever) -- by "God" or an "angel" -- to use the KJV in certain places. Whether it was into the BoM or some other Mormon writing, I am uncertain. But I thought it was the BoM. Whether J.S. himself claimed it or someone claimed it on his behalf, I am uncertain.
Misty MH (
talk)
11:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
There is also the "Inspired Version" of the Bible (in English) from some branch of the group. (I have a copy of it in storage, somewhere.) I don't know if that's different from what I am finding on the Internet called the "Joseph Smith Translation". I hope I wasn't confusing the BoM & KJV with that. Maybe that's where the "permission" to copy from the KJV comes in? And so, IF Joseph Smith, or someone in the group, had been working on an English version of the Bible that borrows from the KJV/AV, THEN it might make sense that he'd take from THAT, to keep them consistent. And THEN, it would appear to people -- who didn't know this -- that the BoM was borrowing DIRECTLY from the KJV/AV when it was actually borrowing directly from the new version of the Bible that borrowed from the KJV/AV. That may seem like a technicality, but IF that was the case, THEN, again, it would seem to make sense that J.S. could get (or try to get) permission to quote from THAT version (especially if he thought he had permission to make that version in the first place). Hmm. Interesting.
Misty MH (
talk)
11:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Here we go! Already an article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inspired_Version_of_the_Bible Misty MH ( talk) 11:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I added this to the religious significance section. I though it will be good to have the quote next to the text which tells of its significance!-- 84.177.245.68 ( talk) 22:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
Moroni's Promise , Book of Moroni 10:3–5, [2]
This is an important quote and it should be highlighted because the Origin of the Book of Mormon is also highlighted!-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Taivo talked about the untruthfullness of the Book of Mormon, but I am NEUTRAL on this subject and think we should show the quote in this article and let the people decide.-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore even the Muhammad article has two quotes, is this also proselyzing?-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
God!
There is no god but He,
the Living, the Everlasting.
Slumber seizes Him not, neither sleep;
to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth.
Who is there that shall intercede with Him save by His leave?
He knows what lies before them and what is after them,
and they comprehend not anything of His knowledge
save such as He wills.
His Throne comprises the heavens and earth;
the preserving of them oppresses Him not;
He is the All-high, the All-glorious.
—The " Throne Verse", 2:255, revealed in Medina [3]
Allah is the Light
of the heavens and the earth.
The Parable of His Light is
as if there were a Niche
and within it a Lamp:
the Lamp enclosed in Glass:
the glass as it were a brilliant star:
Lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive,
neither of the east nor of the west,
whose oil is well-nigh luminous,
though fire scarce touched it:
Light upon Light!
Allah doth guide whom He will to His Light:
Allah doth set forth Parables for men:
and Allah doth know all things.
There are two quotes at the Muhammad article, but on this article it is proselyzing? Why do this quotes exist on the Muhammad article?-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
72Dino, Moronis Promise is the "Light Verse" of Mormonism and should be on this article.-- 87.163.241.165 ( talk) 18:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of being personally labeled as an interferer, I feel the need to weigh in on this issue. First let me state that I am a member of the LDS Church, and I believe the Book of Mormon and Moroni's promise to be true. I have a testimony of both. Having said this, I agree that Moroni's promise is relevant to any article about the Book of Mormon. However, it appears that a link to the promise already exists in the notes about this article. For the sake of brevity, and to follow WP policy, I hereby state that I am in favor of NOT including the promise in this article. A mention of it is sufficient. And while I do not agree with the arguments that have been used against this text, at the same time, I recognize that this is a major edit, and should have been discussed before it was made. It appears that the consensus is NOT to include this quote in the article, as it is in the notes, so I say, let's leave it at that. -- Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable ( talk) 23:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Jgstokes, I would also agree that Moroni's promise is inappropriate for inclusion in any encyclopedia. Although it may be of religious importance to believers, I'm sure non-believers would rightly raise their eyebrows over the the inclusion of an exhortation to pray about the truthfulness of the volume - especially post-modernists. :-) Additionally, including it opens a can of worms in relation to NPOV - what other points of view would need to be considered to balance such a bold assertion and invitation? I don't think we believers would want to go there either. Davidwhittle ( talk) 03:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)