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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I copied these two most recent edit notes from the article history.
10 April 2012 Jgstokes "As repeatedly mentioned, the only sect in the Latter Day Saint movement that uses that subtitle is the LDS Church. The Book of Mormon (without subtititle) is the correct way to refer to it in connection with the Latter Day Saint movement."
9 April 2012 71.199.13.171 "Updated book title to reflect the actual title printed on the cover, and on the title page, of each official copy printed in the past 31 years by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had printed over 150 million copies as of 4/2011"
The first illustration in the article, of the cover of a Book of Mormon, carries the very subtitle that is under discussion. A photo of the cover of a different edition of the Book, without the subtitle, would be less likely to lead to confusion IMO. Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There are inline harv references in this article that no longer work: they no longer link an in-text attribution to the full citation at the bottom of the page in the references section (see Template:harv for more info). Could someone please fix this? I tried today, but found the edit history of this article too convoluted to find the original references. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Quoting our article, "In addition to Smith's account regarding the plates, eleven others signed affidavits that they saw and handled the golden plates for themselves. Their written testimonies are known as the Testimony of Three Witnesses[15] and the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.[16] These affidavits are published as part of the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon."
Based on this link:
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/witness.htm
the Testimony of Eight Witnesses says they handled the golden plates but the Testimony of Three Witnesses does NOT say that. Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"saw" (or "seen") – I didn't check the article to see what it says about people who claimed to have seen the plates, but I do recall reading that some people who had claimed to see the plates were later asked if they had LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY SEEN the plates; and a number of them (if what I read was accurate) did NOT claim that they had! One person (not sure if it was one of the listed witnesses, but I thought so) supposedly said that he saw them with the "eyes of faith". I read this many years ago, and don't recall where. But if someone claims that they saw them with eyes of faith, that would seem to indicated that they weren't willing to lie at that time, and were unwilling to say that they saw them with their physical eyes; this point seems rather important, not only as evidence for or against the idea of the actuality of the plates, but could speak to the the veracity of some claimed experience regarding the plates in general. Misty MH ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I see that Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints), one of the Three Witnesses, said that he did NOT see the plates with his physical eyes (mentioned under the Wikipedia article under his name). Misty MH ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"handled" – I recall an author once commenting on someone claiming that he had "hefted" the plates. The author (possibly Ed Decker, as part of Ex Mormons for Jesus, but I don't recall) seemed to think that one wouldn't be "hefting" around heavy, gold plates. Not sure I agreed with his assessment, but it was interesting. At the time, I had gotten the idea that the plates much have been large in size; in recent months, I have gotten the idea that something that someone had seen was somewhat small by comparison with what I had originally imagined (imagined, that is, based on that author's writing). Misty MH ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Too bad no expert in linguistics was allowed to actually analyze the plates (I presume), and that whole sections were apparently not copied for analysis; I am aware only of the controversial "Caractors" (sic) document (also called the " Anthon Transcript"), which was apparently just a page, or part of a page, with characters on it instead of actual passages from the plates. And, of course, there were the " lost 116 pages", which were "the first portion" of the supposed golden plates (in 1827); but these have apparently not turned up; nor did Joseph Smith retranslate or recreate them but only included an "abridgment" of the Book of Lehi instead ("with Nephi's account of the same events", which came later). Misty MH ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC). Minor edit: Misty MH ( talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sources of information regarding the binding, as well as dimensions. 72Dino ( talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Determining number of pages of plates (not given in descriptions at the
link): Don't yawn, LOL.
From the descriptions link, I gather that it might have been approximately 4" to 6" thick, with approximately half (1/2) to two-thirds (2/3) of that "sealed" (and I presume untranslated, and not in the BoM). At a near-maximum, that might be up to 3" of pages that were an approximate maximum page size of about 7"x8".† Let's give that page size another 1/4 inch. (One description says "about as thick as parchment" (David Whitmer); which seems to contradict "of the thickness of plates of tin" (Martin Harris), but mitigated by "not quite as thick as common tin" (Orson Pratt). Notice who said this next one: "They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic [sic] sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book" (Emma Smith).) At the MAXIMUM, that's 7.25"Wx8.25"Lx3"H, with pages engraved on both sides.†† If they were paper – I just measured 3" thick of a couple of regular, printed books (465+1065=1,530) – that could be about 1530 pages. Wispy-thin pages of a Bible came to more like 4444 pages. While 3" of bulk DVD-R discs came to only 55 discs x 2 = the equivalent of 110 pages (counting both sides); if the plates were half (1/2) as thick as a DVD-R disc, then that would be 220 pages; if one-third (1/3), then that's 330 pages; if one-quarter as thick (1/4), then 440 pages. (I don't have any "tin" sheets on hand, LOL.) TODAY'S PRINTINGS: Most BoM printings I've seen are about as Wide and Long as a small paperback. Searching Amazon for sizes, top hits, searching under Books, give these measurements (for whatever they're worth) – remember that these include margins: 436 pages, 7.9"x10" (Publisher, Empire Books); 779 pages, 4.9"x7" (Publisher, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints); and 608 pages, 5.8"x8.5" (Publisher, Harmony).
Size of the words in the original: I am now wondering whether "Egyptian" is "wordier" than English, or less wordy or about the same; in Chinese script, one character can be a few words in English! ANYONE?
CALCULATIONS and CONCLUSIONS: IF we use all the maximums – and if the original text were just about as "wordy" as English (which I don't know) – based on a guess of 1/3 the thickness of a DVD-R (330 pages), and all the other maximums, THEN it would seem like there would not be enough original pages to supply all the text for the English BoM; but based on 1/4 the thickness (pretty thin!), then that 440 pages would just about match the 436 pages (at 7.9x10 with margins) of the Empire Books' publication.
† It's interesting that so many people stated those exact inches (7x8) – Same source? Collusion? – when other inches varied much more widely (4-6), and how much was "sealed" also varied widely (1/2 vs. 2/3).
†† I'd like to see that "Egyptian" statement at the link verified. I recall years ago reading that it was "like" Egyptian, and things said like modified Egyptian. What exactly was said (found at the link above)? since it's practically surrounded by ellipses?
Well, this felt like another exercise in futility, LOL, in trying to determine the truth of these matters. Maybe I'll have to find piles of plates of tin from the 1800s, LOL. (Kidding.)
Now I wonder what a chunk of metal 7"x8"x6" (or x4") weighs? 60 lbs.? Really?? Hmm. Edit: Maybe so. (I remember hearing or reading something by Ed Decker, from Ex-Mormons for Jesus, where he thought it ludicrous that someone "hefted" the plates—if I understood it (and it has been many years). I dunno, my dictionary says "heft" means to "lift or carry (something heavy)". Sounds about right. Maybe he misunderstood the word "hefted". :)
Misty MH ( talk) 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Minor clarification Misty MH ( talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Added "Maybe so." Misty MH ( talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
In the actual B.o.M. it says that they lived on the American continent from 600 BC to 421 AD, not 2200 BC. Thanks, Wikihunter734 ( talk) 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh! :-P Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihunter734 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia... Now that this has been resolved, should I delete it, or keep it so we can refer to it in the future? B-) ( talk) 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Okey dokey. B-) ( talk) 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The first thing I noticed in reading this article for the first time (I've read the BofM more times than I can count) is that there is not a single mention of the many prophecies contained in and made by the book, and no discussion here of their absence, in spite of the fact that they constitute a significant part of the content of the book and are a critical thematic element. I'm willing to write such a section, but I'd like to get a consensus on its importance, as well as anything I should be careful to avoid in writing the section. Thanks in advance. Davidwhittle ( talk) 02:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
From previous version ...
According to Smith's account, and also according to the book's narrative, the Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian" [1] engraved on golden plates. Smith claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [2] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as another witness of Jesus Christ, and as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days. It was not intended to replace the bible, but rather to be a more accurate reference to the teachings of Christ, and to clarify miunderstandings and misinterpretations, undefiled by translation and transliteration throughout the centuries of time, and to be a companion to the bible.
Why was part deleted? 99.112.212.204 ( talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
99.181.159.115 ( talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This link # 11 is not working. It seems it is an important one.
^ a b “The Life and Ministry of Joseph Smith,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007),xxii–25.
Wanderer57 ( talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The historically established method Smith used to create the Book of Mormon, translating Reformed Egyptian into English using seer stones in a hat, is of critical material relevance to the origin and authenticity of the book, as discussed in the linked article, Seer Stones (Latter Day Saints), and the cited source, Translation of the Book of Mormon, and belongs in the lede.
The Mormon Think website pulls together extensive authority establishing that Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon. The website says about itself: "Mormonthink.com is a site produced largely by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are interested in the historical accuracy of our church and how it is being taught to its members and portrayed in the media." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun Lahaun ( talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Any authoritative affirmation of the hat story would be found here: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament - where not only is the process of translating described by one of the leaders of the mormon church, it references multiple journal entries of first hand accounts of those who were there i.e. Emma Smith. This makes it not a trivial issue, but one that should be included in a NPOV as a first hand account of the process of producing the book.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As that is the conclusion from communities of experts in archaeology, ethnography, history and genetics. Any alternative view is WP:FRINGE and widely disparaged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.135 ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Under "Historical Authenticity", it says "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities are unanimously skeptical about the claims of the Book of Mormon". That is a complete assumption. While it doesn't have support across the board, not all scientists discredit it. There are many in each of those fields who are open to the words expressed in the Book of Mormon. Saying that all the experts discount it is misleading. Seansto ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to belabour this point, and it is a minor one, but—according to world cat and the Library of Congress and Amazon, this book's title uses a capital "D" in "Latter-Day". But on the book's cover (visible on the Amazon link), it is spelled "Latter-day". What do we do in such an instance? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the recent attempt at adding a citation for the 2013 edition? There is no such thing as template:cite lds.org so the citation doesn't work. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible to remain neutral about this topic and add a critisism page about the Book of Mormon? Preferably including citing book of Mormon 10:4 or 1:4 I forget which.
Also citing Hebrews 9:16 KJV, Galatians 1:6-9 KJV, and revelation 1:18 KJV.
-funky1096
174.71.119.232 ( talk) 03:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I know for a fact that various small publishing companies exist which keep old editions of the Book of Mormon in print, at least in limited quantities, including the RLDS 1908 Edition. The way the editions section is worded suggest that old editions are dead when in fact, you can still buy a "1908 edition" new in hardcover today. -- BenMcLean ( talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the Restoration link is too loose to be appropriate here. In the article on the LDS church or under Mormonism, of course. But the relationship is more tenuous here. -- Taivo ( talk) 07:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Quoting our article: (The plates) were described by Martin Harris, one of Smith's early scribes, as 'fastened together in the shape of a book by wires.'
I'm wondering about the significance of the term "early scribes". How many scribes were involved and over what time period?
Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
To the folks on the ex-Mormon subreddit who are crowd-sourcing these changes here: "Book of Mormon wikipedia edit to reference Chris Johnson's big data analysis.", the reason your changes are being reverted is because your source, the blog "askreality.com," is not a valid Wikipedia source. On the linked thread, to the guy who said this: "All it takes is people keeping watch and undoing the removal from the edits page when it does get removed. Enough of that, and it'll stay." You are wrong. That's not how Wikipedia works. To the guy who said this: "Wouldn't it make more sense to add this after it's been peer reviewed by a statistical journal?" Yes, you are on the right track. Roger Penumbra ( talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the literal translation of the plates into what is now the Book of Mormon, the actual description of the device used (Urim and Thummim) are never described either by Smith or the book itself as "two stones in a top hat", or "peeping stones". They are described as two stones fastened to a breastplate (see book of Ether for an origin of these stones). The former descriptions are commonly used by skeptics, non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) and other opponents of the claim of divine source from which the book sprang forth. In my opinion, the inaccurate description of the Urim & Thummim is derogatory toward the book, the Church and Smith.
See Ether, chapter 3 for more information. The stones themselves were originally translucent stones the Brother of Jared brought to the Lord upon a mountain for the purposes of illuminating them, whereby their vessels built to transport them across the seas to present day American continent would have light. These vessels were water-tight according to the record of Ether, and would often be overcome by swells of water. Therefore, windows could not be built for light, neither could they go by fire (for the sake of using their oxygen). The stones were used after having been touched by the finger of the Lord. Eventually, two of the stones (to my recollection) were fastened to a breastplate where the stones would be about eye-level when the breastplate was worn. Those who had the gift of seership given by God, exercising faith could use the Urim & Thummim to translate unknown languages.
This gift of seership, and by way of the Urim & Thummim, went beyond merely translation of the reformed Egyptian into modern day words. The gift allowed Joseph (who had rudimentary reading and writing education as a child) to understand context, the sentence structure and literary inflections that would not have been understood otherwise. The authors of the book wrote in the "language of the prophets", and because of the similarities to the King James version of the Holy Bible, it is easy to read and to comprehend. The translation of this book is nothing short of a miracle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmandanxx ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I reverted a recent edit that changed the description of critics claims from "plagiarized" to "drew upon sources" which, in my view, inaccurately reflects the claims that critics make by watering them down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but accurately portraying a point of view does not violate NPOV. stvltvs ( talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
My apparently biased opinion is as follows: It does not appear to me that it is soft to say that direct plagiarism occurs in the Book of Mormon. A particular example of plagiarism from the King James Version of the Bible is quite apparent in the following passage: Compare: Isaiah 2:1-4 KJV and 2 Nephi 12:1-4 BOM. Other than minor punctuation alterations, and capitalization changes, the text is essentially the same. Furthermore, why would the verse divisions also be essentially the same if this particular text was not directly plagiarized from the King James Version? 165.138.95.59 ( talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that this article should link to the website http://bookofmormononline.net/home on the Non-print editions section because this website provides an incredible reading experience. You can read the book vers by vers and everything is explained with commentary and you can listen to every verse. I think we should ignore that this version is not endorsed by any sect in the Latter-day Saints movement and link to it. Its reading experience is so great.-- 79.192.50.108 ( talk) 13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Tonight I read the Wikipedia article for "Book of Mormon" for the first time. I was quite surprised by its generally poor narrative and grammar. I've also submitted a request to change the title to "The Book of Mormon", which is its correct title.
Given all the adherents to LDS Restorationist Christianity, and the importance of the Book of Mormon in their lives and their religion, I'm truly shocked at how poorly written this article is. There are 4 entire universities & colleges owned & operated just by the Mormon Church, each blessed with numerous published professors, both in academia & for public consumption, nearly all of whom hold PhD degrees, some of which are considered the very best in their fields. I'm not up to it myself -- I've spent too many years developing technically descriptive business grammar, which would be extremely boring & unfathomable to the general reader. But my goodness -- will some qualified and talented talk page member please take responsibility to refine this article into a more accurate, enjoyable and grammatically correct narrative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpammm ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 June 2014
{{|Book of Mormon = Current title of page 1 |The Book of Mormon = New title for page 2 |The Book of Mormon = Current title of page 2 |Book of Mormon = New title for page 3 |reason = "Book of Mormon" should re-direct to "The Book of Mormon", and not vice versa (the current state). "The Book of Mormon" is the correct main title. Among the supermajority of lds movement denominations (all lds denominations?), as well as the general public at large, "Book of Mormon" is not commonly or colloquially used. "Book of Mormon" is also an incorrect grammatical/syntax reference. "Book of Mormon" also is not used as a plural reference: neither "Book of Mormon", nor "Books of Mormon", nor "Book of Mormons" are used [not without giggling anyway]). "Book of Mormon copies", is an acceptable plural reference; however, such requires a separate Wikipedia page as a separate noun, or worst case, should re-direct to "The Book of Mormon". , For evidence reference, see image of cover in right hand column of page. "The Book of Mormon" is the primary title. . . }}
. I'm brand new at this, if what I stated above was incorrectly stated, please bear with me. I've since reviewed the Wikipedia etiquette and other guidance. Going forward I'm looking to do things within the program. So 1st things 1st -- am I even making this comment correctly? 20 June 2014 Dpammm ( talk) 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not notable that Mormon-owned hotels put the BOM in their hotel rooms. Nothing to see here folks. Anyone who has stayed at a hotel in Utah can tell you that. -- Taivo ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I copied these two most recent edit notes from the article history.
10 April 2012 Jgstokes "As repeatedly mentioned, the only sect in the Latter Day Saint movement that uses that subtitle is the LDS Church. The Book of Mormon (without subtititle) is the correct way to refer to it in connection with the Latter Day Saint movement."
9 April 2012 71.199.13.171 "Updated book title to reflect the actual title printed on the cover, and on the title page, of each official copy printed in the past 31 years by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which had printed over 150 million copies as of 4/2011"
The first illustration in the article, of the cover of a Book of Mormon, carries the very subtitle that is under discussion. A photo of the cover of a different edition of the Book, without the subtitle, would be less likely to lead to confusion IMO. Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
There are inline harv references in this article that no longer work: they no longer link an in-text attribution to the full citation at the bottom of the page in the references section (see Template:harv for more info). Could someone please fix this? I tried today, but found the edit history of this article too convoluted to find the original references. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 20:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Quoting our article, "In addition to Smith's account regarding the plates, eleven others signed affidavits that they saw and handled the golden plates for themselves. Their written testimonies are known as the Testimony of Three Witnesses[15] and the Testimony of Eight Witnesses.[16] These affidavits are published as part of the introductory pages to the Book of Mormon."
Based on this link:
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/witness.htm
the Testimony of Eight Witnesses says they handled the golden plates but the Testimony of Three Witnesses does NOT say that. Wanderer57 ( talk) 20:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
"saw" (or "seen") – I didn't check the article to see what it says about people who claimed to have seen the plates, but I do recall reading that some people who had claimed to see the plates were later asked if they had LITERALLY and PHYSICALLY SEEN the plates; and a number of them (if what I read was accurate) did NOT claim that they had! One person (not sure if it was one of the listed witnesses, but I thought so) supposedly said that he saw them with the "eyes of faith". I read this many years ago, and don't recall where. But if someone claims that they saw them with eyes of faith, that would seem to indicated that they weren't willing to lie at that time, and were unwilling to say that they saw them with their physical eyes; this point seems rather important, not only as evidence for or against the idea of the actuality of the plates, but could speak to the the veracity of some claimed experience regarding the plates in general. Misty MH ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC) I see that Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints), one of the Three Witnesses, said that he did NOT see the plates with his physical eyes (mentioned under the Wikipedia article under his name). Misty MH ( talk) 20:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
"handled" – I recall an author once commenting on someone claiming that he had "hefted" the plates. The author (possibly Ed Decker, as part of Ex Mormons for Jesus, but I don't recall) seemed to think that one wouldn't be "hefting" around heavy, gold plates. Not sure I agreed with his assessment, but it was interesting. At the time, I had gotten the idea that the plates much have been large in size; in recent months, I have gotten the idea that something that someone had seen was somewhat small by comparison with what I had originally imagined (imagined, that is, based on that author's writing). Misty MH ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Too bad no expert in linguistics was allowed to actually analyze the plates (I presume), and that whole sections were apparently not copied for analysis; I am aware only of the controversial "Caractors" (sic) document (also called the " Anthon Transcript"), which was apparently just a page, or part of a page, with characters on it instead of actual passages from the plates. And, of course, there were the " lost 116 pages", which were "the first portion" of the supposed golden plates (in 1827); but these have apparently not turned up; nor did Joseph Smith retranslate or recreate them but only included an "abridgment" of the Book of Lehi instead ("with Nephi's account of the same events", which came later). Misty MH ( talk) 20:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC). Minor edit: Misty MH ( talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Here are some sources of information regarding the binding, as well as dimensions. 72Dino ( talk) 16:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Determining number of pages of plates (not given in descriptions at the
link): Don't yawn, LOL.
From the descriptions link, I gather that it might have been approximately 4" to 6" thick, with approximately half (1/2) to two-thirds (2/3) of that "sealed" (and I presume untranslated, and not in the BoM). At a near-maximum, that might be up to 3" of pages that were an approximate maximum page size of about 7"x8".† Let's give that page size another 1/4 inch. (One description says "about as thick as parchment" (David Whitmer); which seems to contradict "of the thickness of plates of tin" (Martin Harris), but mitigated by "not quite as thick as common tin" (Orson Pratt). Notice who said this next one: "They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metalic [sic] sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book" (Emma Smith).) At the MAXIMUM, that's 7.25"Wx8.25"Lx3"H, with pages engraved on both sides.†† If they were paper – I just measured 3" thick of a couple of regular, printed books (465+1065=1,530) – that could be about 1530 pages. Wispy-thin pages of a Bible came to more like 4444 pages. While 3" of bulk DVD-R discs came to only 55 discs x 2 = the equivalent of 110 pages (counting both sides); if the plates were half (1/2) as thick as a DVD-R disc, then that would be 220 pages; if one-third (1/3), then that's 330 pages; if one-quarter as thick (1/4), then 440 pages. (I don't have any "tin" sheets on hand, LOL.) TODAY'S PRINTINGS: Most BoM printings I've seen are about as Wide and Long as a small paperback. Searching Amazon for sizes, top hits, searching under Books, give these measurements (for whatever they're worth) – remember that these include margins: 436 pages, 7.9"x10" (Publisher, Empire Books); 779 pages, 4.9"x7" (Publisher, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints); and 608 pages, 5.8"x8.5" (Publisher, Harmony).
Size of the words in the original: I am now wondering whether "Egyptian" is "wordier" than English, or less wordy or about the same; in Chinese script, one character can be a few words in English! ANYONE?
CALCULATIONS and CONCLUSIONS: IF we use all the maximums – and if the original text were just about as "wordy" as English (which I don't know) – based on a guess of 1/3 the thickness of a DVD-R (330 pages), and all the other maximums, THEN it would seem like there would not be enough original pages to supply all the text for the English BoM; but based on 1/4 the thickness (pretty thin!), then that 440 pages would just about match the 436 pages (at 7.9x10 with margins) of the Empire Books' publication.
† It's interesting that so many people stated those exact inches (7x8) – Same source? Collusion? – when other inches varied much more widely (4-6), and how much was "sealed" also varied widely (1/2 vs. 2/3).
†† I'd like to see that "Egyptian" statement at the link verified. I recall years ago reading that it was "like" Egyptian, and things said like modified Egyptian. What exactly was said (found at the link above)? since it's practically surrounded by ellipses?
Well, this felt like another exercise in futility, LOL, in trying to determine the truth of these matters. Maybe I'll have to find piles of plates of tin from the 1800s, LOL. (Kidding.)
Now I wonder what a chunk of metal 7"x8"x6" (or x4") weighs? 60 lbs.? Really?? Hmm. Edit: Maybe so. (I remember hearing or reading something by Ed Decker, from Ex-Mormons for Jesus, where he thought it ludicrous that someone "hefted" the plates—if I understood it (and it has been many years). I dunno, my dictionary says "heft" means to "lift or carry (something heavy)". Sounds about right. Maybe he misunderstood the word "hefted". :)
Misty MH ( talk) 21:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Minor clarification Misty MH ( talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Added "Maybe so." Misty MH ( talk) 22:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
In the actual B.o.M. it says that they lived on the American continent from 600 BC to 421 AD, not 2200 BC. Thanks, Wikihunter734 ( talk) 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh! :-P Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihunter734 ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm new to wikipedia... Now that this has been resolved, should I delete it, or keep it so we can refer to it in the future? B-) ( talk) 14:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Okey dokey. B-) ( talk) 01:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The first thing I noticed in reading this article for the first time (I've read the BofM more times than I can count) is that there is not a single mention of the many prophecies contained in and made by the book, and no discussion here of their absence, in spite of the fact that they constitute a significant part of the content of the book and are a critical thematic element. I'm willing to write such a section, but I'd like to get a consensus on its importance, as well as anything I should be careful to avoid in writing the section. Thanks in advance. Davidwhittle ( talk) 02:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
From previous version ...
According to Smith's account, and also according to the book's narrative, the Book of Mormon was originally written in otherwise unknown characters referred to as " reformed Egyptian" [1] engraved on golden plates. Smith claimed that the last prophet to contribute to the book, a man named Moroni, buried it in a hill in present-day New York and then returned to earth in 1827 as an angel, [2] revealing the location of the book to Smith and instructing him to translate and disseminate it as another witness of Jesus Christ, and as evidence of the restoration of Christ's true church in the latter days. It was not intended to replace the bible, but rather to be a more accurate reference to the teachings of Christ, and to clarify miunderstandings and misinterpretations, undefiled by translation and transliteration throughout the centuries of time, and to be a companion to the bible.
Why was part deleted? 99.112.212.204 ( talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
99.181.159.115 ( talk) 19:37, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
This link # 11 is not working. It seems it is an important one.
^ a b “The Life and Ministry of Joseph Smith,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, (2007),xxii–25.
Wanderer57 ( talk) 15:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The historically established method Smith used to create the Book of Mormon, translating Reformed Egyptian into English using seer stones in a hat, is of critical material relevance to the origin and authenticity of the book, as discussed in the linked article, Seer Stones (Latter Day Saints), and the cited source, Translation of the Book of Mormon, and belongs in the lede.
The Mormon Think website pulls together extensive authority establishing that Smith used seer stones to translate the Book of Mormon. The website says about itself: "Mormonthink.com is a site produced largely by members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who are interested in the historical accuracy of our church and how it is being taught to its members and portrayed in the media." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lahaun Lahaun ( talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Any authoritative affirmation of the hat story would be found here: http://www.lds.org/ensign/1993/07/a-treasured-testament - where not only is the process of translating described by one of the leaders of the mormon church, it references multiple journal entries of first hand accounts of those who were there i.e. Emma Smith. This makes it not a trivial issue, but one that should be included in a NPOV as a first hand account of the process of producing the book.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As that is the conclusion from communities of experts in archaeology, ethnography, history and genetics. Any alternative view is WP:FRINGE and widely disparaged — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.97.135 ( talk) 12:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Under "Historical Authenticity", it says "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities are unanimously skeptical about the claims of the Book of Mormon". That is a complete assumption. While it doesn't have support across the board, not all scientists discredit it. There are many in each of those fields who are open to the words expressed in the Book of Mormon. Saying that all the experts discount it is misleading. Seansto ( talk) 23:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to belabour this point, and it is a minor one, but—according to world cat and the Library of Congress and Amazon, this book's title uses a capital "D" in "Latter-Day". But on the book's cover (visible on the Amazon link), it is spelled "Latter-day". What do we do in such an instance? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the recent attempt at adding a citation for the 2013 edition? There is no such thing as template:cite lds.org so the citation doesn't work. -- 208.81.184.4 ( talk) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Possible to remain neutral about this topic and add a critisism page about the Book of Mormon? Preferably including citing book of Mormon 10:4 or 1:4 I forget which.
Also citing Hebrews 9:16 KJV, Galatians 1:6-9 KJV, and revelation 1:18 KJV.
-funky1096
174.71.119.232 ( talk) 03:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I know for a fact that various small publishing companies exist which keep old editions of the Book of Mormon in print, at least in limited quantities, including the RLDS 1908 Edition. The way the editions section is worded suggest that old editions are dead when in fact, you can still buy a "1908 edition" new in hardcover today. -- BenMcLean ( talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the Restoration link is too loose to be appropriate here. In the article on the LDS church or under Mormonism, of course. But the relationship is more tenuous here. -- Taivo ( talk) 07:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Quoting our article: (The plates) were described by Martin Harris, one of Smith's early scribes, as 'fastened together in the shape of a book by wires.'
I'm wondering about the significance of the term "early scribes". How many scribes were involved and over what time period?
Wanderer57 ( talk) 05:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
To the folks on the ex-Mormon subreddit who are crowd-sourcing these changes here: "Book of Mormon wikipedia edit to reference Chris Johnson's big data analysis.", the reason your changes are being reverted is because your source, the blog "askreality.com," is not a valid Wikipedia source. On the linked thread, to the guy who said this: "All it takes is people keeping watch and undoing the removal from the edits page when it does get removed. Enough of that, and it'll stay." You are wrong. That's not how Wikipedia works. To the guy who said this: "Wouldn't it make more sense to add this after it's been peer reviewed by a statistical journal?" Yes, you are on the right track. Roger Penumbra ( talk) 20:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
In regards to the literal translation of the plates into what is now the Book of Mormon, the actual description of the device used (Urim and Thummim) are never described either by Smith or the book itself as "two stones in a top hat", or "peeping stones". They are described as two stones fastened to a breastplate (see book of Ether for an origin of these stones). The former descriptions are commonly used by skeptics, non-members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS, Mormon) and other opponents of the claim of divine source from which the book sprang forth. In my opinion, the inaccurate description of the Urim & Thummim is derogatory toward the book, the Church and Smith.
See Ether, chapter 3 for more information. The stones themselves were originally translucent stones the Brother of Jared brought to the Lord upon a mountain for the purposes of illuminating them, whereby their vessels built to transport them across the seas to present day American continent would have light. These vessels were water-tight according to the record of Ether, and would often be overcome by swells of water. Therefore, windows could not be built for light, neither could they go by fire (for the sake of using their oxygen). The stones were used after having been touched by the finger of the Lord. Eventually, two of the stones (to my recollection) were fastened to a breastplate where the stones would be about eye-level when the breastplate was worn. Those who had the gift of seership given by God, exercising faith could use the Urim & Thummim to translate unknown languages.
This gift of seership, and by way of the Urim & Thummim, went beyond merely translation of the reformed Egyptian into modern day words. The gift allowed Joseph (who had rudimentary reading and writing education as a child) to understand context, the sentence structure and literary inflections that would not have been understood otherwise. The authors of the book wrote in the "language of the prophets", and because of the similarities to the King James version of the Holy Bible, it is easy to read and to comprehend. The translation of this book is nothing short of a miracle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmandanxx ( talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I reverted a recent edit that changed the description of critics claims from "plagiarized" to "drew upon sources" which, in my view, inaccurately reflects the claims that critics make by watering them down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but accurately portraying a point of view does not violate NPOV. stvltvs ( talk) 05:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
My apparently biased opinion is as follows: It does not appear to me that it is soft to say that direct plagiarism occurs in the Book of Mormon. A particular example of plagiarism from the King James Version of the Bible is quite apparent in the following passage: Compare: Isaiah 2:1-4 KJV and 2 Nephi 12:1-4 BOM. Other than minor punctuation alterations, and capitalization changes, the text is essentially the same. Furthermore, why would the verse divisions also be essentially the same if this particular text was not directly plagiarized from the King James Version? 165.138.95.59 ( talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that this article should link to the website http://bookofmormononline.net/home on the Non-print editions section because this website provides an incredible reading experience. You can read the book vers by vers and everything is explained with commentary and you can listen to every verse. I think we should ignore that this version is not endorsed by any sect in the Latter-day Saints movement and link to it. Its reading experience is so great.-- 79.192.50.108 ( talk) 13:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Tonight I read the Wikipedia article for "Book of Mormon" for the first time. I was quite surprised by its generally poor narrative and grammar. I've also submitted a request to change the title to "The Book of Mormon", which is its correct title.
Given all the adherents to LDS Restorationist Christianity, and the importance of the Book of Mormon in their lives and their religion, I'm truly shocked at how poorly written this article is. There are 4 entire universities & colleges owned & operated just by the Mormon Church, each blessed with numerous published professors, both in academia & for public consumption, nearly all of whom hold PhD degrees, some of which are considered the very best in their fields. I'm not up to it myself -- I've spent too many years developing technically descriptive business grammar, which would be extremely boring & unfathomable to the general reader. But my goodness -- will some qualified and talented talk page member please take responsibility to refine this article into a more accurate, enjoyable and grammatically correct narrative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpammm ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 18 June 2014
{{|Book of Mormon = Current title of page 1 |The Book of Mormon = New title for page 2 |The Book of Mormon = Current title of page 2 |Book of Mormon = New title for page 3 |reason = "Book of Mormon" should re-direct to "The Book of Mormon", and not vice versa (the current state). "The Book of Mormon" is the correct main title. Among the supermajority of lds movement denominations (all lds denominations?), as well as the general public at large, "Book of Mormon" is not commonly or colloquially used. "Book of Mormon" is also an incorrect grammatical/syntax reference. "Book of Mormon" also is not used as a plural reference: neither "Book of Mormon", nor "Books of Mormon", nor "Book of Mormons" are used [not without giggling anyway]). "Book of Mormon copies", is an acceptable plural reference; however, such requires a separate Wikipedia page as a separate noun, or worst case, should re-direct to "The Book of Mormon". , For evidence reference, see image of cover in right hand column of page. "The Book of Mormon" is the primary title. . . }}
. I'm brand new at this, if what I stated above was incorrectly stated, please bear with me. I've since reviewed the Wikipedia etiquette and other guidance. Going forward I'm looking to do things within the program. So 1st things 1st -- am I even making this comment correctly? 20 June 2014 Dpammm ( talk) 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not notable that Mormon-owned hotels put the BOM in their hotel rooms. Nothing to see here folks. Anyone who has stayed at a hotel in Utah can tell you that. -- Taivo ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)