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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hello everyone,
A couple of days ago, I created my first topic page post ever right here on this talk page. It's the "Requested moves -- add "the" to . . ." page. I've since read up on Wikipedia etiquette & talk page guidelines. My apologies if I trespassed over some of these general practices, and please bear with me as I "traverse the learning curve".
I'd like to delete that topic page and start over. If deleting it is possible, I request an experienced talk page member explain the steps required to do it. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps me with this.
Moving forward, I'd like to focus the scope of this talk page to the article title only. Again, please bear with me as I learn the rules of the road.
The current title of this Wikipedia article is "Book of Mormon". In my view, the title should be changed to "The Book of Mormon". A few key rationales for this are as follows:
1. "The Book of Mormon" is the book's general short title, and always has been
2. It was the large print portion of the title page in the 1st edition (I think)
3. It's the generally accepted title used in everyday speech among latter-day saint movement adherents
4. "Book of Mormon" violates the key Wikipedia imperative to use proper grammar, because it is not an official or accurate title
I request anyone with a different point of view please contribute it in this talk page.
Thanks,
Dpammm ( talk) 01:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
2 items: (1) what is " WP:THE" (remember, I'm new at this) (2) It's true no one capitalizes "the" when referring to the Book of Mormon in running text. But grammatically, using proper english, does that necessarily translate into not using the correct title of the book as the article title? I don't see how a running text convention would wipe out using the proper title of the book, let alone any other book. Also, "Book of Mormon" is not used as an object in running text or everyday conversation. "Books of Mormon", "Book of Mormons", etc. are not used. "Copies of The Book of Mormon" is how I've been trained to say it, even if that's a bit unwieldy. I don't know whether "Book of Mormon copies" is OK. Pls. Share your thoughts. Dpammm ( talk) 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm picking this back up: another editor recommended providing official references. This formal media guide from lds.org states that the official title is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/book-of-mormon. So what are the next steps? Am I OK to change the page title to "The Book of Mormon"? Does this go to mediation? I request that someone in the know advise what I'm supposed to do next. Thanks! Dpammm ( talk) 17:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the (very short) page Keystone symbol in Mormonism should be merged into this article. I really want to work on the Keystone article, and this separate page arose because of disagreement how/whether to include the Mormon example of the figurative use of "Keystone" in the keystone page itself. (Actually I think some discussion of the various figurative uses is quite appropriate, but that is a separate issue.) Now we have this rather stranded page -- it could be referenced from this page, but if the keystone is that significant, it should surely merit mention in the body of the text, and all of the content would fit in a small paragraph. (Currently 'keystone' occurs only in the title of one of the references.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Keystone metaphor seems very appropriate - the Wikipedia article gave a symbol off to the side which made it appear that that would be the symbol for representing Keystone. If it is incorporated into the discussion and I think it would be very fine to do so. It would need to represent the true meaning of the Keystone as the center or central stone that is used to hold up an arch that has it's center stone keeping the structure intact. The fact that the Book of Mormon exists, That Joseph Smith was told where it was by an Angel, that God the Father and Jesus Christ who first appeared to Joseph set about the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was lost to the world through an ancient apostacy from authority, doctrine, etc. - Have placed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints, on the earth. Would necessarily have to have the Book of Mormon hold up under all circumstances that could be thrown at it and brought to test it's authenticity. It does hold up and has held up under every test I have been able to give it. Sometimes the answers come immediately and sometimes it will take weeks and months before answers reveal themselves, but it always comes out true. It holds up under all scrutiny. Because it's true. Dalwiscombe ( talk) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What if this article just cites the quote and leaves it at that, without any advocacy one way or the other? It is probably the most famous statement ever about the Book of Mormon itself. Seems appropriate to include it on that basis, per Wikipedia Pillar 2 to "document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence". Perhaps something like "Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon 'was the most correct book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get closer to God by abiding by its principles, than by any other book'". Pretty tough to be more major, weighty or prominent than that. But then just leave it at that. The reader can form their own opinion about such a strong statement. Dpammm ( talk) 05:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Book of Mormon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incorrect doctrine is being taught in this article. I have been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for over twenty-five years.
Under the section: Other distinctive religious teachings there is the following statement:
The atonement of Christ saves unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel,[81][82] including children who die without baptism.[83]
Wording should be changed to following: The atonement of Christ may save unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel,[81][82] including children who die without baptism.[83]
The Lord Jesus Christ will have all come unto Him, but He will not save all unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel. There are some who will want to choose the lower kingdoms of glory. Please correct the article to reflect true Latter-Day Saint doctrine. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
174.23.247.83 ( talk) 04:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD if someone reverts your edit, do not just revert the reversion, but come here to the Talk Page and discuss your proposed edit before editing again. If your edit ruins the syntax of a sentence or wrecks a subsequent reference, then expect to be reverted. -- Taivo ( talk) 01:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The list of anachronisms in the historical authenticity section cited general works on science and history, that seem to make no specific application of their disciplines to the Book of Mormon:
The assertions being made in the article are (or should be) that notable objections have been made to the presence of horses, etc., in the Book of Mormon, and to the ancestry implied there for Native Americans. The above references fail to establish that anyone outside Wikipedia has made these objections. Rather, they present a marshalling of evidence for an argument (against the Book's historicity) that is being made directly by Wikipedia editors, thus violating NPOV. For these reasons, I have removed them. Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Reading the Historical Authenticity section, I was struck by the soft tone of "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities are generally skeptical of the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events."
As opposed to simply being "generally skeptical," I think it'd be pretty uncontroversial to suggest that there's not a single living non-LDS scholar of American antiquity who thinks that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is even remotely plausible in any regard; and as such I had edited the line to “Mainstream archaeologists, historians and scientists are unanimously skeptical of the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events" (which was then reverted).
Maybe my edit wasn't perfect (perhaps "Mainstream, non-LDS archaeologists, historians and scientists are universally skeptical..." instead?); but if it can reasonably be demonstrated that this is indeed the consensus, could a change like this be accepted? Of course, there might be the problem of collecting academic citations that state the total non-historicity of the Book of Mormon in such stark and general terms. But, in fact, in footnote 118, well-known Mesoamerican archaeologist and scholar Michael D. Coe is cited precisely to the effect that "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon]."
Although this statement was made in 1973, the same holds today -- and possibly even more accurately, due to advances in various relevant fields, and the even greater marginalization of fringe and pseudoscientific proposals. (I think of the older fringe theories of scholars like Cyrus Gordon, who has now died.)
Ostensibly1 (
talk)
23:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. There is no agreement that the proposed name is more common or otherwise preferable according to policy. Cúchullain t/ c 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Book of Mormon →
The Book of Mormon – (This topic has been discussed before, I don't know why it no longer appears in this talk page.) Proper English dictates any published book be referred to by its full name. It further dictates mid-article references need not include "The" from its title.
For comparison purposes, the article for The New York Times uses its full legal title in the heading. If there is any good reason to use "The" in The New York Times but not for The Book of Mormon, please advise how the official rules of the English language state this. Thank you. Dpammma ( talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lafeuilledolivier.com/English/Book_of_Mormon_1830_facsimile.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a sweeping statement with little or no evidence to back it up. Anybody care? It purports to tell us about B of M use in "most of Mormon history" before 1980. Yet there were 150 years of such history and the single footnote only covers 40 of those years, so there's no evidence offered for "most of Mormon history" and the evidence it offers for even those 40 years is thin; the footnote doesn't address the overall question of how much the B of M was used, just how much it was quoted by leaders in general church meetings. Anybody feel like taking this subject on? I don't beyond this note. I came of age as a Mormon two decades before the alleged revival of B of M usage in the 1980s. My first formal religious training in 1963 was a year-long class on the Book of M, not on the New Testament or D&C. The curriculum designers for the church as a whole put the B of M study first. The "seminary" teacher clearly believed it was as important as all the other LDS scriptures put together. He was about 35 and said, "I've read the Book of M. seven times." He certainly hadn't read any other scripture that much. When in 1967 I began taking college-level LDS "Institute" classes, the B of M had a leading role in those studies, a head above anything else. Mormons who gave church talks at local levels frequently talked on how great it was to read the Book of Mormon again and again. Nobody pounded the pulpit very often saying similar things about the Bible or D&C. Moabalan ( talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Try to remove bias and look at this. The sentence shows a consensus and uniformity to "the archaeological, historical and scientific communities" that is not there and this sentence is not accurate. If a scientific or historic community has a statement on the book, report or reference it. There is no official historical community and no citable consensu "rejection." I get the intent is to show the lack of mainstream acceptance, but to do that cite those organizations or individual authors and their statements directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:3849:C68:17F2:8BCE ( talk) 11:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
You are getting the point and missing the point at the same time. Cite "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities" that reject the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. Add qualifications to the statement to make it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:5DB2:947B:93F3:9F6E ( talk) 14:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The reference as currently written is incorrect and taviolinguist seems to be trying to reference his inaccurate over-assessment. The statement as written as referring to communities as if they are uniform and have ruled without and accurate reference.
I previously suggested this neutral accurate statement:
"Prominent archaeological, historical and scientific communities such as the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Department of Archaeology have stated that the Book of Mormon has no verified archaeological evidence and is not used as a scientific guide instead categorizing the book as "a religious document" or "a work of great spiritual power." [1]"
That is too easy, lets start with Archeological: /info/en/?search=Category:Archaeological_organizations have not released a statement on the book of Mormon, let alone "rejected" claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.208.170.244 ( talk) 15:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I took out the "the" and added "generally" to make the statement correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:6C84:BC7B:64DF:B397 ( talk) 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You are adding qualifications, to the statement to make it accurate in your request, ruling out Mormon, so the qualification is necessary and stands. please stop vandalizing Wikipedia on this issue. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.138.41.10 (
talk)
06:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It's general conference weekend so there are more anon IPs hitting the edit buttons here than usual. -- Taivo ( talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Why does it say 1827 as the visit for Angel Moroni? Every source I can find says 1823. Epachamo ( talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I am well aware that COJCOLDS is by far the largest church, but there should be more information on the other groups which use the Book of Mormon. In particular, the opening paragraph should reflect that is known as "The Record of the Nephites" and other such names. 86.180.91.151 ( talk) 10:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the "Mound Builder" theory that was prevalent at the time 1820s and 1830s is undisputable. That the Book of Mormon parallels the "Mound Builder" theory is the scholarly consensus. Early Latter Day Saints were in part attracted to the religion because of the "Mound Builder" theory. I get that it might be embarrassing for Latter Day Saints, and is sometimes exploited by anti-Mormon writers, but that is not a good reason for exclusion from Wikipedia(see WP:RNPOV). It is mentioned in just about every scholarly book on the Book of Mormon I could find, to include:
These are not "anti-mormon" books, with the debatable exception of possibly Fawn Brodies. John Hammer, a seventy in the Community of Christ, actively advocates for the Mound Builder theory as a primary explanation of the Book of Mormon narrative. The fact that nowhere in this article is any mention of the mound builder theory is a glaring omission. Here is a quote by Orson Pratt in 1851, that is the Mound Builder theory summed up succinctly: "The bold, bad Lamanites, originally white, became dark and dirty . . . . They became wild, savage, and ferocious, seeking by every means the destruction of the prosperous Nephites, against whom they many times arrayed their hosts in battle. . . . The slain, frequently amounting to tens of thousands, were piled together in great heaps and overspread with a thin covering of earth, which will satisfactorily account for those ancient mounds filled with human bones, so numerous at the present day, both in North and South America." Here is another one from Joseph Smith in 1834 during the Zion's Camp march, "The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity..." Wilford Woodruff added this about an experience with Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, "Brother Joseph requested us to dig into the mound; we did so; and in about one foot we came to the skeleton of a man, ... Brother Joseph feeling anxious to learn something of this man, asked the Lord, and received an open vision. The man's name was Zelph. He was a white Lamanite, the curse having been removed because of his righteousness. He was a great warrior, and fought for the Nephites under the direction of the Prophet Onandagus. ... There was a great slaughter at that time. The bodies were heaped upon the earth, and buried in the mound, which is nearly three hundred feet in height." Say what you will about the Zelph story, it is clear that the Mound Builder theory was prominent in the minds of early Saints.
Even Fairmormon has a better section on the Book of Mormon and the Mound Builder theory than this article: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Great_Lakes_geography/Mound_Builders#Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_believe_that_the_.27.27Book_of_Mormon.27.27_explained_local_legends_associated_with_the_.22Mound_Builders.22_of_the_Eastern_United_States.3F Epachamo ( talk) 03:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This image was reverted. From the revert, "Not necessary as it implies an artist's rendition of an actual event, not a fictional interpretation". There are hundreds of thousands of images of fictional events on Wikipedia, in articles from Adam and Eve, Bible, Iliad, Harry Potter and many more. Having this image in no way implies endorsement of a historical viewpoint, nor does it violate any policy that I am aware of. This particular image is significant further in that it is a rare pioneer era painting from inside the Logan Temple. Epachamo ( talk) 15:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Printer's manuscript. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Printer's manuscript until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedians. I'm wondering about whether the Political Theology subsection ought to be removed from the Book of Mormon article. The section currently seems relies heavily primary research with references to Book of Mormon verses rather than on secondary research with references to writers and scholars discussing and describing the Book of Mormon.
It might be possible to rework the section to include verified secondary references (for example, there are books like Voice of the People and Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon that talk about the Book of Mormon's political theology, and there are probably a variety of articles in that subject area in venues such as the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies). But would that be the type of information readers interested in learning about the Book of Mormon are looking for? It was of interest to its early readers, and it's of interest to some churches in the various Latter Day Saint movement who continue to read the book theologically. But for a general audience who are looking for an encyclopedic overview of the Book of Mormon, political theology as a topic is somewhat niche and doesn't seem as relevant as sections like the manuscript history, textual criticism, Christological doctrine, literary criticism, etc.
Since removing an entire subsection (or perhaps significantly shortening it) would be kind of drastic, I figured I'd make a post here on the Talk page first. In the event there aren't objections, I may go forward with either removing or overhauling the subsection in the future.
-- P-Makoto ( talk) 04:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)P-Makoto
Not a single other Wikipedia article on sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran states anything like this in the introduction, though many mainstream archaeologists also believe that neither the Bible or the Quran are historically accurate. Why is the Book of Mormon a special case? Since the article itself is heavily infused with statements such as this (again, not found in any other article on sacred texts), is it really necessary to make this a focal point of the article or would it be better to push this a bit more to the sidelines while exploring the cultural and religious side of the Book of Mormon instead, as other articles on sacred texts do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee ( talk • contribs)
I merely copied the usage in the rest of the article. The rest of the article called those who were skeptical of the Book of Mormon "critics" and so I followed suit. And I steered clear of any scholarship that went into trying to place the Book of Mormon in a proper geographical setting. There's already an article on that and I feel it would be a waste of time describing such a complicated topic here. I added around three paragraphs discussing Book of Mormon complexity, consistency, and stylometry, with a brief reference to Nahom. There are hundreds or even thousands of scholarly articles out on the internet detailing defenses of the Book of Mormon. I just summed up a few major arguments in three paragraphs. Niche scholarship deserves recognition here, since that's exactly it's niche. And I completely understand the neutrality policy. I'm attempting to keep the article as neutral as possible. The article still recognizes that the Book of Mormon isn't accepted by most mainstream scholars and goes into great detail discussing criticism of the religious text. Most visitors of this website will already know that, but I'm just ensuring the article doesn't write the Book of Mormon off altogether, and that it treats it as it is: the sacred text of a living religious faith that deserves thorough and special insight and attention. Jacobalbee ( talk) 07:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)JacobAlbee
I have posted some warnings on user talkpages, and I'm going to start handing out blocks if there's any more edit warring on this article. Thank you for discussing above, guys, but now is the time to only discuss, and try to reach a consensus. Bishonen | tålk 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC).
"I strongly suggest you avoid editing the article at all at this point, especially considering that you have already violated the three-revert rule"that you don't understand? Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 19 May 2021 (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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hello everyone,
A couple of days ago, I created my first topic page post ever right here on this talk page. It's the "Requested moves -- add "the" to . . ." page. I've since read up on Wikipedia etiquette & talk page guidelines. My apologies if I trespassed over some of these general practices, and please bear with me as I "traverse the learning curve".
I'd like to delete that topic page and start over. If deleting it is possible, I request an experienced talk page member explain the steps required to do it. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps me with this.
Moving forward, I'd like to focus the scope of this talk page to the article title only. Again, please bear with me as I learn the rules of the road.
The current title of this Wikipedia article is "Book of Mormon". In my view, the title should be changed to "The Book of Mormon". A few key rationales for this are as follows:
1. "The Book of Mormon" is the book's general short title, and always has been
2. It was the large print portion of the title page in the 1st edition (I think)
3. It's the generally accepted title used in everyday speech among latter-day saint movement adherents
4. "Book of Mormon" violates the key Wikipedia imperative to use proper grammar, because it is not an official or accurate title
I request anyone with a different point of view please contribute it in this talk page.
Thanks,
Dpammm ( talk) 01:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
2 items: (1) what is " WP:THE" (remember, I'm new at this) (2) It's true no one capitalizes "the" when referring to the Book of Mormon in running text. But grammatically, using proper english, does that necessarily translate into not using the correct title of the book as the article title? I don't see how a running text convention would wipe out using the proper title of the book, let alone any other book. Also, "Book of Mormon" is not used as an object in running text or everyday conversation. "Books of Mormon", "Book of Mormons", etc. are not used. "Copies of The Book of Mormon" is how I've been trained to say it, even if that's a bit unwieldy. I don't know whether "Book of Mormon copies" is OK. Pls. Share your thoughts. Dpammm ( talk) 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm picking this back up: another editor recommended providing official references. This formal media guide from lds.org states that the official title is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/book-of-mormon. So what are the next steps? Am I OK to change the page title to "The Book of Mormon"? Does this go to mediation? I request that someone in the know advise what I'm supposed to do next. Thanks! Dpammm ( talk) 17:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that the (very short) page Keystone symbol in Mormonism should be merged into this article. I really want to work on the Keystone article, and this separate page arose because of disagreement how/whether to include the Mormon example of the figurative use of "Keystone" in the keystone page itself. (Actually I think some discussion of the various figurative uses is quite appropriate, but that is a separate issue.) Now we have this rather stranded page -- it could be referenced from this page, but if the keystone is that significant, it should surely merit mention in the body of the text, and all of the content would fit in a small paragraph. (Currently 'keystone' occurs only in the title of one of the references.) Imaginatorium ( talk) 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Keystone metaphor seems very appropriate - the Wikipedia article gave a symbol off to the side which made it appear that that would be the symbol for representing Keystone. If it is incorporated into the discussion and I think it would be very fine to do so. It would need to represent the true meaning of the Keystone as the center or central stone that is used to hold up an arch that has it's center stone keeping the structure intact. The fact that the Book of Mormon exists, That Joseph Smith was told where it was by an Angel, that God the Father and Jesus Christ who first appeared to Joseph set about the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was lost to the world through an ancient apostacy from authority, doctrine, etc. - Have placed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints, on the earth. Would necessarily have to have the Book of Mormon hold up under all circumstances that could be thrown at it and brought to test it's authenticity. It does hold up and has held up under every test I have been able to give it. Sometimes the answers come immediately and sometimes it will take weeks and months before answers reveal themselves, but it always comes out true. It holds up under all scrutiny. Because it's true. Dalwiscombe ( talk) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
What if this article just cites the quote and leaves it at that, without any advocacy one way or the other? It is probably the most famous statement ever about the Book of Mormon itself. Seems appropriate to include it on that basis, per Wikipedia Pillar 2 to "document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence". Perhaps something like "Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon 'was the most correct book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get closer to God by abiding by its principles, than by any other book'". Pretty tough to be more major, weighty or prominent than that. But then just leave it at that. The reader can form their own opinion about such a strong statement. Dpammm ( talk) 05:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Book of Mormon has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Incorrect doctrine is being taught in this article. I have been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for over twenty-five years.
Under the section: Other distinctive religious teachings there is the following statement:
The atonement of Christ saves unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel,[81][82] including children who die without baptism.[83]
Wording should be changed to following: The atonement of Christ may save unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel,[81][82] including children who die without baptism.[83]
The Lord Jesus Christ will have all come unto Him, but He will not save all unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel. There are some who will want to choose the lower kingdoms of glory. Please correct the article to reflect true Latter-Day Saint doctrine. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
174.23.247.83 ( talk) 04:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD if someone reverts your edit, do not just revert the reversion, but come here to the Talk Page and discuss your proposed edit before editing again. If your edit ruins the syntax of a sentence or wrecks a subsequent reference, then expect to be reverted. -- Taivo ( talk) 01:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The list of anachronisms in the historical authenticity section cited general works on science and history, that seem to make no specific application of their disciplines to the Book of Mormon:
The assertions being made in the article are (or should be) that notable objections have been made to the presence of horses, etc., in the Book of Mormon, and to the ancestry implied there for Native Americans. The above references fail to establish that anyone outside Wikipedia has made these objections. Rather, they present a marshalling of evidence for an argument (against the Book's historicity) that is being made directly by Wikipedia editors, thus violating NPOV. For these reasons, I have removed them. Lusanaherandraton ( talk) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Reading the Historical Authenticity section, I was struck by the soft tone of "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities are generally skeptical of the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events."
As opposed to simply being "generally skeptical," I think it'd be pretty uncontroversial to suggest that there's not a single living non-LDS scholar of American antiquity who thinks that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is even remotely plausible in any regard; and as such I had edited the line to “Mainstream archaeologists, historians and scientists are unanimously skeptical of the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events" (which was then reverted).
Maybe my edit wasn't perfect (perhaps "Mainstream, non-LDS archaeologists, historians and scientists are universally skeptical..." instead?); but if it can reasonably be demonstrated that this is indeed the consensus, could a change like this be accepted? Of course, there might be the problem of collecting academic citations that state the total non-historicity of the Book of Mormon in such stark and general terms. But, in fact, in footnote 118, well-known Mesoamerican archaeologist and scholar Michael D. Coe is cited precisely to the effect that "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon]."
Although this statement was made in 1973, the same holds today -- and possibly even more accurately, due to advances in various relevant fields, and the even greater marginalization of fringe and pseudoscientific proposals. (I think of the older fringe theories of scholars like Cyrus Gordon, who has now died.)
Ostensibly1 (
talk)
23:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No move. There is no agreement that the proposed name is more common or otherwise preferable according to policy. Cúchullain t/ c 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Book of Mormon →
The Book of Mormon – (This topic has been discussed before, I don't know why it no longer appears in this talk page.) Proper English dictates any published book be referred to by its full name. It further dictates mid-article references need not include "The" from its title.
For comparison purposes, the article for The New York Times uses its full legal title in the heading. If there is any good reason to use "The" in The New York Times but not for The Book of Mormon, please advise how the official rules of the English language state this. Thank you. Dpammma ( talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lafeuilledolivier.com/English/Book_of_Mormon_1830_facsimile.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a sweeping statement with little or no evidence to back it up. Anybody care? It purports to tell us about B of M use in "most of Mormon history" before 1980. Yet there were 150 years of such history and the single footnote only covers 40 of those years, so there's no evidence offered for "most of Mormon history" and the evidence it offers for even those 40 years is thin; the footnote doesn't address the overall question of how much the B of M was used, just how much it was quoted by leaders in general church meetings. Anybody feel like taking this subject on? I don't beyond this note. I came of age as a Mormon two decades before the alleged revival of B of M usage in the 1980s. My first formal religious training in 1963 was a year-long class on the Book of M, not on the New Testament or D&C. The curriculum designers for the church as a whole put the B of M study first. The "seminary" teacher clearly believed it was as important as all the other LDS scriptures put together. He was about 35 and said, "I've read the Book of M. seven times." He certainly hadn't read any other scripture that much. When in 1967 I began taking college-level LDS "Institute" classes, the B of M had a leading role in those studies, a head above anything else. Mormons who gave church talks at local levels frequently talked on how great it was to read the Book of Mormon again and again. Nobody pounded the pulpit very often saying similar things about the Bible or D&C. Moabalan ( talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Try to remove bias and look at this. The sentence shows a consensus and uniformity to "the archaeological, historical and scientific communities" that is not there and this sentence is not accurate. If a scientific or historic community has a statement on the book, report or reference it. There is no official historical community and no citable consensu "rejection." I get the intent is to show the lack of mainstream acceptance, but to do that cite those organizations or individual authors and their statements directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:3849:C68:17F2:8BCE ( talk) 11:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
You are getting the point and missing the point at the same time. Cite "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities" that reject the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. Add qualifications to the statement to make it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:5DB2:947B:93F3:9F6E ( talk) 14:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The reference as currently written is incorrect and taviolinguist seems to be trying to reference his inaccurate over-assessment. The statement as written as referring to communities as if they are uniform and have ruled without and accurate reference.
I previously suggested this neutral accurate statement:
"Prominent archaeological, historical and scientific communities such as the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Department of Archaeology have stated that the Book of Mormon has no verified archaeological evidence and is not used as a scientific guide instead categorizing the book as "a religious document" or "a work of great spiritual power." [1]"
That is too easy, lets start with Archeological: /info/en/?search=Category:Archaeological_organizations have not released a statement on the book of Mormon, let alone "rejected" claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.208.170.244 ( talk) 15:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I took out the "the" and added "generally" to make the statement correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:6C84:BC7B:64DF:B397 ( talk) 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
You are adding qualifications, to the statement to make it accurate in your request, ruling out Mormon, so the qualification is necessary and stands. please stop vandalizing Wikipedia on this issue. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
192.138.41.10 (
talk)
06:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
It's general conference weekend so there are more anon IPs hitting the edit buttons here than usual. -- Taivo ( talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Why does it say 1827 as the visit for Angel Moroni? Every source I can find says 1823. Epachamo ( talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I am well aware that COJCOLDS is by far the largest church, but there should be more information on the other groups which use the Book of Mormon. In particular, the opening paragraph should reflect that is known as "The Record of the Nephites" and other such names. 86.180.91.151 ( talk) 10:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The fact that the "Mound Builder" theory that was prevalent at the time 1820s and 1830s is undisputable. That the Book of Mormon parallels the "Mound Builder" theory is the scholarly consensus. Early Latter Day Saints were in part attracted to the religion because of the "Mound Builder" theory. I get that it might be embarrassing for Latter Day Saints, and is sometimes exploited by anti-Mormon writers, but that is not a good reason for exclusion from Wikipedia(see WP:RNPOV). It is mentioned in just about every scholarly book on the Book of Mormon I could find, to include:
These are not "anti-mormon" books, with the debatable exception of possibly Fawn Brodies. John Hammer, a seventy in the Community of Christ, actively advocates for the Mound Builder theory as a primary explanation of the Book of Mormon narrative. The fact that nowhere in this article is any mention of the mound builder theory is a glaring omission. Here is a quote by Orson Pratt in 1851, that is the Mound Builder theory summed up succinctly: "The bold, bad Lamanites, originally white, became dark and dirty . . . . They became wild, savage, and ferocious, seeking by every means the destruction of the prosperous Nephites, against whom they many times arrayed their hosts in battle. . . . The slain, frequently amounting to tens of thousands, were piled together in great heaps and overspread with a thin covering of earth, which will satisfactorily account for those ancient mounds filled with human bones, so numerous at the present day, both in North and South America." Here is another one from Joseph Smith in 1834 during the Zion's Camp march, "The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity..." Wilford Woodruff added this about an experience with Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, "Brother Joseph requested us to dig into the mound; we did so; and in about one foot we came to the skeleton of a man, ... Brother Joseph feeling anxious to learn something of this man, asked the Lord, and received an open vision. The man's name was Zelph. He was a white Lamanite, the curse having been removed because of his righteousness. He was a great warrior, and fought for the Nephites under the direction of the Prophet Onandagus. ... There was a great slaughter at that time. The bodies were heaped upon the earth, and buried in the mound, which is nearly three hundred feet in height." Say what you will about the Zelph story, it is clear that the Mound Builder theory was prominent in the minds of early Saints.
Even Fairmormon has a better section on the Book of Mormon and the Mound Builder theory than this article: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Great_Lakes_geography/Mound_Builders#Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_believe_that_the_.27.27Book_of_Mormon.27.27_explained_local_legends_associated_with_the_.22Mound_Builders.22_of_the_Eastern_United_States.3F Epachamo ( talk) 03:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This image was reverted. From the revert, "Not necessary as it implies an artist's rendition of an actual event, not a fictional interpretation". There are hundreds of thousands of images of fictional events on Wikipedia, in articles from Adam and Eve, Bible, Iliad, Harry Potter and many more. Having this image in no way implies endorsement of a historical viewpoint, nor does it violate any policy that I am aware of. This particular image is significant further in that it is a rare pioneer era painting from inside the Logan Temple. Epachamo ( talk) 15:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Printer's manuscript. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Printer's manuscript until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Wikipedians. I'm wondering about whether the Political Theology subsection ought to be removed from the Book of Mormon article. The section currently seems relies heavily primary research with references to Book of Mormon verses rather than on secondary research with references to writers and scholars discussing and describing the Book of Mormon.
It might be possible to rework the section to include verified secondary references (for example, there are books like Voice of the People and Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon that talk about the Book of Mormon's political theology, and there are probably a variety of articles in that subject area in venues such as the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies). But would that be the type of information readers interested in learning about the Book of Mormon are looking for? It was of interest to its early readers, and it's of interest to some churches in the various Latter Day Saint movement who continue to read the book theologically. But for a general audience who are looking for an encyclopedic overview of the Book of Mormon, political theology as a topic is somewhat niche and doesn't seem as relevant as sections like the manuscript history, textual criticism, Christological doctrine, literary criticism, etc.
Since removing an entire subsection (or perhaps significantly shortening it) would be kind of drastic, I figured I'd make a post here on the Talk page first. In the event there aren't objections, I may go forward with either removing or overhauling the subsection in the future.
-- P-Makoto ( talk) 04:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)P-Makoto
Not a single other Wikipedia article on sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran states anything like this in the introduction, though many mainstream archaeologists also believe that neither the Bible or the Quran are historically accurate. Why is the Book of Mormon a special case? Since the article itself is heavily infused with statements such as this (again, not found in any other article on sacred texts), is it really necessary to make this a focal point of the article or would it be better to push this a bit more to the sidelines while exploring the cultural and religious side of the Book of Mormon instead, as other articles on sacred texts do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee ( talk • contribs)
I merely copied the usage in the rest of the article. The rest of the article called those who were skeptical of the Book of Mormon "critics" and so I followed suit. And I steered clear of any scholarship that went into trying to place the Book of Mormon in a proper geographical setting. There's already an article on that and I feel it would be a waste of time describing such a complicated topic here. I added around three paragraphs discussing Book of Mormon complexity, consistency, and stylometry, with a brief reference to Nahom. There are hundreds or even thousands of scholarly articles out on the internet detailing defenses of the Book of Mormon. I just summed up a few major arguments in three paragraphs. Niche scholarship deserves recognition here, since that's exactly it's niche. And I completely understand the neutrality policy. I'm attempting to keep the article as neutral as possible. The article still recognizes that the Book of Mormon isn't accepted by most mainstream scholars and goes into great detail discussing criticism of the religious text. Most visitors of this website will already know that, but I'm just ensuring the article doesn't write the Book of Mormon off altogether, and that it treats it as it is: the sacred text of a living religious faith that deserves thorough and special insight and attention. Jacobalbee ( talk) 07:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)JacobAlbee
I have posted some warnings on user talkpages, and I'm going to start handing out blocks if there's any more edit warring on this article. Thank you for discussing above, guys, but now is the time to only discuss, and try to reach a consensus. Bishonen | tålk 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC).
"I strongly suggest you avoid editing the article at all at this point, especially considering that you have already violated the three-revert rule"that you don't understand? Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC).