![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed a separate section titled Opposing Views containing an external link itself titled "Refuting Mormonism" that does not purport to be about the article Book of Mormon. I also removed a line from the "major doctrinal teachings" subsection which claims that certain verses state "Jesus' death was not sufficient to cleanse men of all sins". Upon reading the verses cited I found that they do not, in fact, make that claim. Gabriel Simon reverted those edits without comment, and in the process deleted another contribution which rephrased a line for better reading. Since he made no edit summary I have no way of knowing why he has done this. I placed a request on his usertalk for him to explain his edits, and I will now redo the edits I did earlier. -- Blainster 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This section is being blanked or changed by an anon. It seems to me the person isn't reading that this is one of 3 alternative theories on the authoring of the Book of Mormon, not a statement that he was. As a section it does not strike me as incredibly POV, but then again, I'm not Mormon. What is consensus on this? Wikibofh 03:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you revert. I suspect the anon is not reading the article as a whole. Thanks for catching it. Rule of thumb, articles that address faith are typically cause a lot of knee-jerk responses given the emotional nature of the article. We have people from both sides incapable of allowing the other side to speak. I will leave a note on the Anon's page encourgaing his continued efforts and let's move on from there. Thanks again. Storm Rider 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Solomon Spalding wrote another book, called Manuscript Story. This story is the one reputed to be the one the Book of Mormon was "based" off of. For mor information on the Solomon Spalding theory read Wayne L. Cowdrey's "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon." Enjoi 77 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Spalding's book is constantly picked up by a multitude of Anti-Mormon writers and repeated; such is the case with the book written by co-authors Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis and Donald Scales. This explanation has been discredited, but trying to get Anti-Mormons from repeating the same story appears to be an impossibility. It remains fodder for Anit-Mormons, but true scholars have abandoned it as a plausible theory. Storm Rider 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If you could kind storm riding sir, show me where this is dicredited by any of these 'true scholars' (as long as they are also not LDS members - I have problems with faked impartiality) and please define what makes a true scholar? Having myself read up *a lot* on the subject, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the story line from MF is not used in the outline of the BoM. Of course, I admit that the story line is not that all farfetched (at least not for travellers in the pre-GPS world) for anyone creative to come up with. Does dismissing the similarities use 'coincidence theory' ;-) 'Quaddriver on as anon'
This section seems to ever so slightly lean towards a POV. The phrases declaring that the Spaulding Manuscript is "not relatable to the Book of Mormon" and the phrase saying that one particular theory is "complicated by two simple facts" are what caught my attention. Because there are probably an equal number of people that disagree with the statements presented in the article, I recommend this section be rewritten. Mapache 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't believe what mormons say about The Book of Mormon, why don't you read it? search, Ponder and Pray!
Matau 03:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The value of the Church lies in the faith and community of its believers, not in a text. Fred Bauder 15:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Matau, I agree but support NPOV -- Nerd42 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The language "There is disputed archeological evidence about the places, persons and events mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.)" implies a dispute among archelogists, which does not exist. No reputable archeologist knows of any evidence. Fred Bauder 19:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
"according to the Book of Mormon" is a good formulation and will probably serve without further characterizing it. I think in this article we need to search for some language which characterizes the Book of Mormon as revelation rather than history which needs to be part of the introduction. It is true that some Biblical personages or events are also difficult or impossible to confirm, for example, Moses, who if the events of Exodus are true, should show up in Egyptian records. It suffers from all the defects of an oral record, but can also be relied on because it was an oral record. Fred Bauder 15:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
It still does not make since to me and shows up more as an axe to grind than beneficial to the article. When I read the Bible article, I do not see qualification that the text is viewed as fiction. Why is the Book of Mormon different? Both are books that contain the history of God's dealings with man.
I suspect that Fred's real objective is archeological evidence for the BofM is lacking. However, that is a totally different article and is already addressed there.
When articles are written about issues of faith, I fail to see the need for "warnings" that some people believe the topic is total BS while others believe. It seems common sense that the reader is already aware that when it is a topic of faith, what is being explained is an issue of fAITH. So often these issues become hot buttons because some "nonbeliever" feels too much credence will be given to the topic and that would be unacceptable to the nonbeliever and his group.
I would like to hear more reasons as to why a disclaimer is required on the BofM that is not required on the bible article and every other article based upon issues of faith. Attempting to be bold, I am deleting the sentence in the article until a concensus is reached. Storm Rider 15:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Guys, I came back and saw the new language Friday (I think) introduced; read the entire article and moved it down to the appropriate location. I should have read this discussioin first; but I still like the move given the article. Everyone needs to read the whole article before commenting further.
Although I don't agree with Fred's reasoning, I am not opposed to having it in the article, given that it has already been in the article in a more appropriate place in the article. I DON'T agree with it being in the first paragraph; it disrupts flow and gives too much precedence to a proposition that is still disputed by all parties. One thing that I find interesting about this whole discussion is the argument "Well, the bible is about real people and placed, yahda yahda, yahda. Please show me any history book about thw western hemisphere. One written by the inhabitants that has been handed down. This critique is typcial Anti-Mormon, common, tripe. Where do we find out the names of mountains, rivers, people's, etc. that was not handed down since the days of Columbus...except for what the Book of Mormon proclaims. IT does not exist; not one iota. I agree that it belongs in the article, but not in the first paragraph. Storm Rider 20:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
To add a warning or a mention of the BoM as possibly being fiction would be insulting and completely wrong. I wouldn't want anyone putting a disclaimer on the article on Buddha saying "he might have been a jerk," or one on the Dharmapada's article saying "this might be a bunch of crap." While I don't personally believe in the BoM, I don't agree with a lot of the Bible, or the Qur'an, or the Sutras. The BoM is no different from any other religious text, however opposed to it some people might be.
71.240.161.241 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found that many times an edit needs to be seen in its entirety to see if it works. I used information from the discussion above, with edits that put it in context. I included the cross-links (because that sentence gets confusing otherwise) but no other markups:
The first paragraph as it exists in the article starts with a sentence about why people should care about this article then what the Book of Mormon has to say about itself. The current second paragraph deals with its meaning in the here-and-now. I toned down the introduction because it doesn't fit with the purpose of the rest of the paragraph and it is redundant with the second paragraph. I think that something else should be in the second paragraph, but even in context, I couldn't come up with something. Maybe it doesn't need to be changed. Val42 16:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
"Very good" meaning POV Fred Bauder 02:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Fred, it is obvious you have an axe to grind and are commited to only a single perspective. Your comments were already mentioned in the article and your past edits on historicity/archaeolgy were redundant. I suspect you edited without having read the entire article. Further, none of your comments are found on any of the other articles; Bible, Bagavad Gita, etc. The objective is is write an article that is informative for readers. This article meets the same standards that WIKI has for every other article. Put the axe down; it does not belong here. Storm Rider 02:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll look for some good sources, but the introduction is not acceptable as it stands. I have very little interest in this article, so it may be a while before I find adequate sources. Fred Bauder 02:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
So that people know why I edited someone else's comment, I'll explain it here. Whenever I edited a section after the "POV" section, Wikipedia would bring up the edit page for the following section. I traced it down to HTML header markup in the subsection within the "POV" section. I left the subject text bold but it is now the same size as the surrounding text. Now editing of sections seems to be working correctly. Val42 20:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Joseph Smith dictated The Book of Mormon himself in much the same manner that Mohammed composed the Koran. It is not usually said that Mohammed plagiarized the Bible, but taking the view that he composed the Koran, he was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish and Christian sources and ideas and inspired by them. Nor is it said that Christ plagiarized Isaiah. Applying the term plagiarism to Joseph Smith has an anachronistic quality. Plagiarism is much in our consciousness now with the rise of the internet and the frequent copying of material that has resulted in academic contexts. Going back 180 years and applying it to someone who doubtless had never heard of the concept seems inappropriate. I think it is better to say that Joseph Smith was inspired by the sources he used which if looked at closely are prophetic in their own right. Fred Bauder 14:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
2.2 Alternative explanations * 2.2.1 Smith as author * 2.2.2 Smith colleague as author * 2.2.3 Smith as a plagarist
Changing just the last one is inconsistent. If we can come up with better headings for all of them fine. I also think it does discuss plagarism to some degree. Especially in regards to a novel by Solomon Spaulding or View of the Hebrews: or the Tribes of Israel in America. I think any implication of plagarism from the Bible would be wrong. Although maybe I should add something like that to the New Testament...claiming it plagarised from the Old Testament. (I'm kidding :) Wikibofh 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how the revelation of the Qur'an by Muhammad is comparable to the Book of Mormon. The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, and is unique in its writing. Nowhere in the Qur'an do we find a word for word copy of the Bible. For the Book of Mormon, the story is different. Passages from Isaiah are almost entirely reproduced from the King James Version of the Bible. And while Muhammad may have received inspirations from Jewish and Christian sources, that is not a problem. Muslims gave credit to the Jewish and Christian sources. But the Book of Mormon claims parts of it were written before the New Testament was even compiled, yet many themes from the New Testament (Trinity, Crucifixion, mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 [see for instance I Nephi 11:13], etc.) are incorporated in it, as well as many verses being directly copied from Gospels into the Book of Mormon. John Smith does not give the credit to the New Testament, and that is why it should be considered plagiarism.
71.141.127.117 06:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
User:69.29.34.85 added a bias/neutrality tag to the article header without giving a reason. Will assume that the Anonymous user does not believe IN the book of Mormon as it has plenty of internal references and claims as made by believers, rather than stating as fact (such as phrases such as: "book's self-declared main purpose" and "It asserts that it was abridged", etc). Nothing in the article is stated as fact, but it is described from a believers point of view, as is standard in religious based articles on Wikipedia. In fact, the article is overly-full of non-absolutes, as to describe what it says it is, what believer think of it, and what detractors do as well. As no discussion took place on the talk page, as is required by the neutrality tag, it will be removed. - Visorstuff 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see the following article courtesy the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research by Dr. David Stewart, M.D.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html
Nathanael
The criticism section is not supposed to be a discussion of Archeaological finds. Plus it is not correct.
For example, the article states that there is not Hebrew influence in America prior to columbus. This belongs on Archaeology nad the book of Mormon or Linguistics. And there was semetic influence. See Dighton Rock, Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone, Newport Tower, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact and other articles. You'd think, Alienus, after our dealings as of late, you'd at least look at the latest research, or at least bits of evidence. Please read through the references at Archeaology and the Book of Mormon. I have a non-Mormon archaeologist working on that page with me, and we are documenting everything we can there. You may want to do the same, OR add the disclaimer that critics claim this, despite evidence to the contrary.
You write "This appears to contradict..." that is POV. It should read, critics claim. I don't think it a contradiction, as I looked in the dictionary as to the definition of the word "principal."
You use words like "no" "none" and "lack of" which are POV, and not correct. Don't be so absolute. It's not right, and when research "changes" it makes all of us look stupid. You say you've had historical training (a master's I beleive), surely you took a writing class on word usage in your coursework that dealt with the use of absolutes? - Visorstuff 21:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If you do think this is as serious of an issue for all of Christianity as you say, why don't you add some of the same wording, thoughts, etc. to Bible and Biblical Archaeology, Torah and Qur'an. All I'm asking for is fair treatment. If you debunk one, debunk them all.
I do not believe it is more serious for Mormonism, as IF the book of Mormon is "true," [9] (remember the opposite of "truth" in Mormonism is not "false," it is "error") then the Bible is as well.
There are many more "liberal" mormons who are like the liberal christians who treat the Book of Mormon "as inspriation, not fact," so again, why the added focus on the Book of Mormon, rather than Bible, Torah or Qur'an? Use your expertise across religions if that's where your expertise is. - Visorstuff 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Over the last two days, there have been a lot of linguistic and archaelogical information introduced in to this article. Besides belonging in to these other articles, the "author" of these changes has admitted in his text introduced that this text is itself biased. There is some useful information in the text introduced. I will have more time after the beginning of the new year, but I don't right now to tackle a project of this size. Would someone who is more knowledgeable about these two subjects (and has some time) please sort through this information, move it to the appropriate related articles and remove the POV statements. Val42 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
There has to be a better way to discuss Smith's translation ability than to rehash his translation ofthe Bible and Book of Abraham here. It detracts from "Book of Mormon" arguements. I'm willing to suggestions, but it makes no sense to have a paragraph-long overview or discussion about the JST in an article about the BOM. That is why we have a JST article. Other editors chime in beside myself and Alienus/209.83.182.242 please. Both of us are at our max on reversions of this before either of us break the three-revert-rule ( WP:3RR) and are eligible to be blocked. Look forward to suggestions. - Visorstuff 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This talk page was 77KB long. I archived the discussions older than six months. This talk page is down to 37KB which is much more manageable. Feel free to move back anything that seems relevant.
The current size of the main article is 62KB. This will be a much more complex edit. None of the sections is large enough by itself to be about 30KB. How should we split up the article? What do you other editors think that we should do? Val42 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"It is important to mention that expatriated Hebrew speaking Jews do not typically speak Hebrew outside of closed groups or religious cerimonies. Reasons given for this have typically centered around the persecution Jews have received over the millenia, as such, most are at the very least bi-lingual and engage others in the local language."
Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience, or to be understood by the local population? I assume "expatriated Hebrew-speaking Jews" refers to Israelis, as Israel is the only country where Hebrew is spoken as an official language. The fact is that Hebrew-speakers are a serious minority in any country other than Israel; why would Hebrew speakers ever speak the language outside of groups of other Hebrew speakers and religious ceremonies? Why would anyone speaking a minority language, for that matter? I don't think Hebrew is alone in this respect - immigrants have traditionally adopted the language of the country to which they immigrate, quite simply in order to be understood! From the early years of the Jewish Diaspora, Jews have adopted the language of the countries in which they lived - starting with Aramaic, the common language of Babylonia.
However, my real problem with this statement comes from the next sentence, which posits that the aforementioned anti-Semitism was the reason why Westerners did not recognize spoken Hebrew:
"Therefore, exposure to Hebrew as a conversational language in 1800's America would have been quite rare."
This is likely true, but not in the way implied. Hebrew was not used as a spoken language from around 200 C.E. until the late 19th century when it was revived to unite Jews in a Jewish state whose first language was Ladino, Yiddish and others. Between that time, Hebrew was an almost exclusively written language, used for scholarly and religious purposes - much like Latin today. It would have been near impossible for anyone to hear "conversational" Hebrew because such a thing did not truly exist! So while this statement is technically true, the "therefore" connects it to the statement above, which says that Hebrew was not used because of anti-Semitism. The two statements have nothing to do with each other; if they are indeed true or theorized by scholars, then it needs to be cited; otherwise, removed. Rachel Ariel 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Good points rachel, however, (it was I who wrote that passage) I used very deliberate wording when I said "reasons given for this" simply because the bulk of written and spoken material on this subject does in fact play the 'anti-semitism' card. Perhaps because a number of the 'speakers' have tatoos on their wrists or fled eastern europe in the teens tarnishes their viewpoints, fine. I think that your explanations would make a great addition. However the facts remain, as the jews were dispersed (by choice or by force - you choose) the adopted languages of the new nations were practiced. It would be hard for you to show any period in history where Jews were accepted, and most would conclude that not calling attention to oneself....
I am not sure how long you have been around (here, this page), but the challenge that prompted that passage was to show that turn of the century people would be unfamiliar with spoken hebrew. Initially the passage said 'bewildered' which I had lifted uncited from a critical book dealing with the asserted plagarism of 'view of the hebrews' by J. Smith.
returning, whereas it is true the language as a conversational language was 'hidden' the diaspora brought this about, please note that the dates you give, nearly encompass the entire event. Or put simply, when in Rome do as Romans do.... Please note, the language was revived only because it could be. While that seems crass on the surface, realize, if you do not know how to speak it as a native, no amount of text can help you.
(point of fact, ladino and yiddish are both credited c. 1100 as being developed. There are 900 years in this first gap as well as the nearly 800 years following. Someone was practicing....
...Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience...
On reflection, probably not, however, we must look at history and how enclaves of jews have fared wherever they have went.
Lastly, the word 'therefore' can only logically connect that which preceded it. If you must pick only parts of the preceeding sentences to make your point, fine, but that is not my intent as written. While it could perhaps be worded differently, I stand on the argument.
Cites? Jew is a good place to start. Pr David Gordis, Hebrew College Boston Ma: "One rabbinic dictum has it that Jews were able to preserve their identity [in exile] because they didn't change their names and didn't change their language," Gordis says. "The notion of having a distinct language and literature is a sine qua non of having a culture. Absent that, there is no culture."
A bridge between Jews from disparate corners of the globe, Hebrew has been the primary language of prayer, but that's not all. Jews have always used Hebrew to communicate—through letters, or in person when traveling—with Jews whose vernacular is different from their own. (Taken from Lost in Translation, Michael Kress, Hebrew College year unk)
To Visor (primarily): after the latest rounds of clear POV vandalism in the 'critical' sections by adherents, do I need to write one more word in my proof of the worthlessness of this article, wiki in general, and what passes for intellectualism today? We dont need to look to TV or popular culture for examples of why "bad stuff" (insert category of choice) happens today. It happens because it can, by people who possess no more advanced mental processes than those who have spoken up behind the "anonymity" of an IP address. I repeat a question I once asked not-so-thetorically: are the adherents so fragile that thinking must cease? The truly enlightened will take a moment to discover the pandoras box that question opens. Quaddriver 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the list of external links at the bottom is balanced and appropriate. There is nothing on there that is necessarily extreme or misleading in either direction. However, whereas most are not themselves neutral, I would suggest that when NPOV they be broken into "supportive" and "contrary" sections, or individually labelled similarly. Because if someone comes here with a legitimate question, they'll not know the difference between lds.org and mormonwiki.org. They'll both be "org"s, one will even sound more academically sound since it has the word "wiki", but one is obviously designed for the purpose of promoting the Book of Mormon and one one is obviously designed for the purpose of slandering Mormonism in general. [For that matter, why is mormonwiki even on there, if it's not necessarily Book of Mormon related? Shouldn't we at least point to its Book of Mormon page?] This is a real question, please don't say "we've been through this before" and ignore it. -- Mrcolj 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the title; if the author (or anyone else) can edit the ideas so they have some relation to BoM, go for it. — DevLaVaca 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the Archaeology section to say "Currently, some Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." from "Currently, most Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." While reading through the page it is clear that the sentence above did not match the rest of the page. It is fair to say that "some" claims are substantiated. It is not fair to say "most" (especially when reading what "most" of the claims encompass.) I hope this makes it more factual.
-epecho-
The existence of horses at any time isn't a substantiation of the Book of Mormon. While I completely respect LDS and the Church, and I consider the religion to be a very positive and uplifting one, I have serious issues with the BoM itself, seeing as to how incredibly off it is. Absolutely none of the animals and crops the text claims were brought to America by the Nephites or the Jaredites were ever present in the Americas before 1492, and some, like elephants, weren't even here until much later.
That's like saying that the "Noah's Ark and the Flood" story is substantiated by the fact that, at some point in time, there have been floods and there have been arks.
71.240.161.241 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This whole section seems overly preachy from both points of view. I can understand explaining how Mormons gain a belief in the book, but I have a couple issues with this section. First, I have not recently encountered any brainwashing criticisms about the LDS church. If this is indeed a prominent theory of how Mormons gain their testimony, who are these critics? It is easy to say they have never presented evidence if none are ever referenced. Secondly, the "Contradictions Include" section. It is preachy, POV, has no introduction, and generally feels out of place in the article. This entire section is either in desperate need of a rewrite, or should be removed completely, and the "Mormon testimony method" relocated to another part of the article. Anyone else have any ideas or opinions on this?
Upon further review I noticed the entire 2nd section was added earlier today by Scots-Man. Until he either justifies or rewrites his post, I am removing it for the time being.
Content restored by adminstrator, opinions anyone? Mapache 05:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh judging by the current state of the page, I'm going to guess you also received a vandalism warning. I am contesting mine. Mapache 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence:
The meaning of this sentence is good to have in the article, but it must be referenced. The article is vastly improved when claims on both sides simply provide a reference.
The previous edit for the Tanners comment on 3,990+ changes used a reference, but the formating is off. I looked at the edit, but was at a loss to correct the reference at the end of the article. Could someone with the expertise please look at it? Thanks. It also uses "One critic" and should just state, The Tanners alledge, or some similar beginning to the sentence. Storm Rider (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The title, "The Book of Mormon" (or the "Book of Mormon") occurs in dozens of places in the article formatted in different ways. I tried to bring some consistency to this by italicizing the title per Wiki conventions wherever it was not part of a quotation or section title. I also chose to render it using the Wiki convention of not capitalizing the definite article ("the"). The LDS church does capitalize it ("The"), so if other editors think it should be rendered that way, then OK. But if so, please be sure to change every instance so that it remains consistent. -- Blainster 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following statements today by a new editor:
This information would be great to have in the article; however it is not appropriate to level allegations with reference to a reputable source. Further, it would also help to demonstrate what techniques are being used. This also applies to love-bombing. What constitutes love-bombing and how do Mormons implement these techniques? Without these references, explanations, and evidence these allegations are just POV statments. Storm Rider (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I have attempted to maintain a neutral POV in my recent edit by providing information on both positions. The previous version:
My edited version:
Storm Rider's objections to my recent edit seem to be a mere hasty attempt to remove information that does not conform to his POV. The objections are unfounded. His statement that I have "leveled allegations with reference to a reputable source" is vague and seems intended to discredit me as an editor. Is Wikipedia not a reputable source? Examples of mind control/brainwashing techniques were provided, such as lovebombing (with a Wiki link) and distortion or concealment of information. However, as he and other editors are aware, this article is probably not the most appropriate forum for elaborating on the particulars of these and other forms of brainwashing techniques. The links to the topics on mind control and brainwashing should suffice. A careful examination of my revisions will show that I was careful to preserve a neutral POV by elaborating on both the apologist and critical perspectives, without deviating from the current topic on the Book of Mormon.
In the meantime, I will not challenge the current version or insist on restoring my version. But I do hope that Storm Rider is more willing to consider neutral POV changes in the future. James echt 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This whole article is a mess. The back and forth about whether or not the book is true makes the article page feel more like the discussion page. Why not create some sort of "Is the Book of Mormon True or Stupid" page on which people can have edit wars to their hearts content? At least a third of the article could (and IMHO, should) be merged into that. Articles like these make Wikipedia look foolish.
There is a reason to have a note specificly that they are claims within the book itself. For example one could say that Huck Finn wrote the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. This is a claim made by the book itself. Just as the claim that Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon in 385AD. It's not redundant to say that Huck Finn being the author of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a claim made by the book. Less so when the summary includes notes like Huck Finn starts writing his story by talking about his previous adventures with Tom Sawyer. Tat 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Enormousdude has entered data from a site dedicated to showing falsehoods of Mormonism. He stated that the letter was the response from requests of LDS scholars; but the letter clearly stated it was from the Mr. Luke P. Wilson of the Institute for Religious Studies. I corrected that error. However, what I would like to have had is the letter Mr. Wilson wrote to the Smithsonian to understand the context of the responses. I also found it curious that the letter was from the Public Inquiry Mail Service; does anyone know if this is a typical response format from the Smithsonian? It appears that it may just be a form letter for responses to similar questions.
I question this edit given its source. I am not aware that the Smithsonian has ever done any specific research into the Book of Mormon and without doing so is not an acceptable source. The statements made are very specific; does anyone know if this is a real document?
Also, User:Enormoudude to enter a new section is not a minor edit. It is a major edit. Marking it as minor is deceptive; please refrain from using the minor edit check box except for spelling corrections and other "MINOR" edits. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Enormous, I reverted your edit today where you reinserted information that has already been shown to have been retracted by the Smithsonian. You are using sources that have been proven to lack credibility. Further, this information was referenced which you delted to resert this disproven data. When the Smithsonian retracts a statement it is serious. If you want use a Smithsonian quote, use the most current data available. Storm Rider (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Further, reverting your edit is not vandalism particularly when it is a major edit that you inserted and marked as a minor edit; this is highly misleading. This was discussed before and you chose not to participate on the discussion page. The revert is standard practice when a controversy exists and needs to gain concensus before further editing. Storm Rider (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I did further research and found the following:
Please do not use old data just because it fits more with your POV. Please know that the Smithsonian has definitely retracted the letter you insist on inserting. The Smithsonian does not stand behind the letter and has adopted the statement above. Storm Rider (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this editors edits of the 25th. Obviously there is a lack of any understanding of Mormon teachings or thought. I suspect he has limited his understanding to some of wonderful anti-Mormon websites similar to the one mentioned above.
First, the teaching of the Book of Mormon and one's own persuit to understand if it is from God is specifically as follows:
These verses were specifically cited in the article. He mentioned the burning in the bosom that is mentioned in the bible: Luke 24: 32 and also D&C 9:7-8. Though this is good counsel for receiving answers through the Holy Spirit; let's just stick to the promise mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Enormous, Welcome to Mormon related articles. I believe everyone is glad you are here; however, you might want to approach the subjects from an understanding of it before getting carreid away. Many of your edits go too far and are not what LDS would say or believe. You seem to take extreme positions and pass them off as what Mormons believe. This is a common error of sites I would label anti-Mormon. Understand my definition, to be critical is welcome. To misrepresent in an effort to disparage or destroy is what I would call anti-Mormon. Storm Rider (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Enormousdude, your edits have been addressed on this page and you have continued to edit without any type of explanation. Your edits will be reverted wholesale unless you begin to discuss some of your reasonings. Further, this is not the archeaology article, but the main article. The intent is to summarize the section and point them to the subarticle. Are you listening to anyone or are you just ignoring all other editors? Storm Rider (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted this section (again), with three reasons: 1) The Smithsonian Institute no longer issues or upholds this statement, thus, it is outdated [12]. 2) Each "point" is currently contested by non-LDS scholars, as well as those within the tradition. The same was true in 1996. 3) This section violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy; it was inserted surreptitiously and finds support only on sites with negative POV. Combined with points one and two, this is clearly an inappropiate entry. DevLaVaca 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following:
This argument does not match up with similar historic events. For example, Viking settlements on Iceland were periodically wiped out by european diseases due to periods on the order of hundred years where no contact with europe was made. It only takes a few generations to lose natural immunity in isolated populations. -- FyzixFighter 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please, provide the reference to your statement "It only takes a few generations to lose natural immunity in isolated populations" - this is made up statement. Also, provide the reference to another statement (which I think, is also incorrect but I am not 100% sure): "Viking settlement periodically viped out by european deseases".
On a side note, how big were Viking settlements (say, in Iceland, Greenland and in Newfoundland)? I presume, only a few thousands (?). How come that such small settlement living relatively short time span (a few hundred years) in such remote nordic places are archaeologically well known, while mighty and much more advanced multimillion civilizations of BoM living a few millenia in warm places almost under our nose (in mesoamerica where archaeology is very active) are archaeologically inexistant?
Sincerely, Enormousdude 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Enormousdude, you say that the Book of Mormon cites "in detail several major technologically advanced ancient American civilizations flourished between 2600 BC to 400 AD." There are only 3 cited, and even that's arguable. The only civilizations cited by name are the Jaredites, Nephites & Lamanites and Mulekites, however, IN DETAIL would mean to me something granualar, and we don't have details on the technology of the Jaredites or Mulekites per the BoM; we only know they existed. It is only the Nephites that we learn of their building styles, their weaponry, etc. We really only know of the Lamanite's weaponry, much of which is borrowed from the Nephites. Please further explain what you mean by that. Bo-Lingua 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[13] - wanted to keep this for historical reasons. I'd love to address item by item someplace - perhaps I will on my blog sometime. The funniest thing was the edit about "only one temple" particularly in light of this month's smithsonian issue that discusses that the references in Deuteronomy adn Joshua actually refer to a Temple structure built by Joshua on Mount Ebal, not Solomon's temple. (I actually think it discusses the tabernacle) The later kings, etc. references, are added in by the deuteronomists in what Margaret Barker calls revisionist history - no strong reference on revelation from the Lord as there is in the Moses/Joshua account. And then, the discussion on melchizedek pristhood versus teh levitical. Or the gnostic accounts of multiple days of darkness (and reference in OT, is it habbukuk or haggai or zecheriah?). the childen "qualifier" adn also the adam and eve and paul references. And then we should talk about the names - I do wonder what the hebrew word for laver is, and if the editor even thought about that the stupidity of using English words to discuss what is mentioned or not in two non-english texts.
Anyway there are so many errors (factually and logically) in the edit that it was wise that Storm Rider removed. - Visorstuff 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I and Bo Lingua both did a wholesale revert to User:162.111.195.15's edits. The changes added in qualifiers when qualifiers already existed ie, no need to have "self-declared" and "supposedly" in teh same sentence, when one already casts doubt, etc. Its the same as using a double negative. - Visorstuff 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone notice the disgraceful picture of Joseph Smith talking (or listening) to angel Moroni on the Hill Cumorah? Who put it up there? Does anyone see what is wrong with this picture? (Or it is only me who noticed?) Enormousdude 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it is only me who noticed. Ok, let's see. It is about logically contradicting representation of direction of gravity on a hill. And I am not talking about the angel (Moroni or whoever). Angel indeed represents the direction of gravity correct - he/she is aligned with it (therefore from his/her alignement we can see that the vector of gravity is directed vertically. Interestingly enought, angels are known to defy (=not to obey) gravity - thus it is a little strange that on this picture we see the contrary - that somehow angel "feels" the correct direction of gravity (and when nothing else around him/her gives a clue about it). By the way, how can angel - obviousely having some energy (as radiating/reflecting light, as having voice, etc) not to obey gravity? General relativity teaches that any energy-momentum both creates and obeys curved space-time (which we call gravity.)? But I am not talking about obedient/desobedient gravity angel(s). I am talking about trees on the painting. Look at them. Look at their direction of growth - they do not obey the direction of gravity. This is unnatural, especially for trees on a slope. Large torque they experience by not aligning their trunks with the direction of gravitational acceleration can easily break them especially if wind blows downhill (pay attention that these trunks are thick as can be seen in comparison with human and angel figures - thus they are quite heavy), yet on the painting they grow unnaturally crooked (deviated from vertical).And it is not just a tree or two - practically all of them (except the one on left from the angel). This makes the whole painting to look extremely unrealistic - almost childish. Could this unusual behavior of trees be due to the presense of angel (which may somehow create some sort of void in the gravitational field)?
Or there is more simple explanation - that the author of the painting have never seen actual forest? Where did this painting come from anyway? Is this paintig on display somewhere? And nobody have noticed? Sincerely, Enormousdude 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then the Second Coming would have already happened, a fact that the Mormons themselves are strangely mum about. Hackwrench 22:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Elaboration of my position:
If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then it would be easy to conclude that it depicts that the Second Coming already happened, a fact that the Mormons themselves are strangely mum about. The lack of mention of this event in the New Testament makes it likely, that if true, it took place after the events in the New Testament. Hackwrench 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
Though it describes historical events, the book's self-declared purpose is to testify of Jesus through the writings of ancient prophets of the Western Hemisphere who traveled there from ancient Israel, probably between 600-650 BC.
If the writings of the prophets were to testify of Jesus, then how did they travel there 600-650 years before Christ.
Wow ... I don't want to insult you all, but there is a suprising level of ignorance here. (I say ignorance, not stupidity. There is a difference) Let's assume for a second, for gramattical reasons and for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon is accurate historically.
The Book of Mormon is (usually) divided into there different time periods. The first (recorded last, in the book of Ether) started with the Tower of Babel, recording the history of the Jaredites. It went on until the last survivor of this group was found by the Nephites. The second period (recorded first) started in 600 BC and went to the time of Christ. The third went from the time of Christ to when Moroni buiried the plates in what would later become New York state - which was several generations after the time of Christ. So not only was the first thing this thread said incorrect, (that the Book of Mormon started with the time of Christ) so is the second. (that it started in 600 BC) -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph just was changed to add further clarification that it is not stating facts. The problem is that in the first paragraph we have the following "clarifications" already:
Now, it is possible that we need to clarify that this is a topic of faith, but surely in one paragraph stating something is a belief once is enough for the average reader to understand that it is a topic of faith. When we bend so far backwards to clarify we actually are taking a POV that it is all false, which is unacceptable. Do you think it would be acceptable to delete the at least three of the other "clarifications" and just have one or at most two? Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
I removed a separate section titled Opposing Views containing an external link itself titled "Refuting Mormonism" that does not purport to be about the article Book of Mormon. I also removed a line from the "major doctrinal teachings" subsection which claims that certain verses state "Jesus' death was not sufficient to cleanse men of all sins". Upon reading the verses cited I found that they do not, in fact, make that claim. Gabriel Simon reverted those edits without comment, and in the process deleted another contribution which rephrased a line for better reading. Since he made no edit summary I have no way of knowing why he has done this. I placed a request on his usertalk for him to explain his edits, and I will now redo the edits I did earlier. -- Blainster 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This section is being blanked or changed by an anon. It seems to me the person isn't reading that this is one of 3 alternative theories on the authoring of the Book of Mormon, not a statement that he was. As a section it does not strike me as incredibly POV, but then again, I'm not Mormon. What is consensus on this? Wikibofh 03:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you revert. I suspect the anon is not reading the article as a whole. Thanks for catching it. Rule of thumb, articles that address faith are typically cause a lot of knee-jerk responses given the emotional nature of the article. We have people from both sides incapable of allowing the other side to speak. I will leave a note on the Anon's page encourgaing his continued efforts and let's move on from there. Thanks again. Storm Rider 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Solomon Spalding wrote another book, called Manuscript Story. This story is the one reputed to be the one the Book of Mormon was "based" off of. For mor information on the Solomon Spalding theory read Wayne L. Cowdrey's "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon." Enjoi 77 02:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Spalding's book is constantly picked up by a multitude of Anti-Mormon writers and repeated; such is the case with the book written by co-authors Wayne Cowdery, Howard Davis and Donald Scales. This explanation has been discredited, but trying to get Anti-Mormons from repeating the same story appears to be an impossibility. It remains fodder for Anit-Mormons, but true scholars have abandoned it as a plausible theory. Storm Rider 07:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
If you could kind storm riding sir, show me where this is dicredited by any of these 'true scholars' (as long as they are also not LDS members - I have problems with faked impartiality) and please define what makes a true scholar? Having myself read up *a lot* on the subject, you would be hard pressed to convince me that the story line from MF is not used in the outline of the BoM. Of course, I admit that the story line is not that all farfetched (at least not for travellers in the pre-GPS world) for anyone creative to come up with. Does dismissing the similarities use 'coincidence theory' ;-) 'Quaddriver on as anon'
This section seems to ever so slightly lean towards a POV. The phrases declaring that the Spaulding Manuscript is "not relatable to the Book of Mormon" and the phrase saying that one particular theory is "complicated by two simple facts" are what caught my attention. Because there are probably an equal number of people that disagree with the statements presented in the article, I recommend this section be rewritten. Mapache 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't believe what mormons say about The Book of Mormon, why don't you read it? search, Ponder and Pray!
Matau 03:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
The value of the Church lies in the faith and community of its believers, not in a text. Fred Bauder 15:33, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Matau, I agree but support NPOV -- Nerd42 21:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The language "There is disputed archeological evidence about the places, persons and events mentioned in the Book of Mormon. (See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon.)" implies a dispute among archelogists, which does not exist. No reputable archeologist knows of any evidence. Fred Bauder 19:26, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
"according to the Book of Mormon" is a good formulation and will probably serve without further characterizing it. I think in this article we need to search for some language which characterizes the Book of Mormon as revelation rather than history which needs to be part of the introduction. It is true that some Biblical personages or events are also difficult or impossible to confirm, for example, Moses, who if the events of Exodus are true, should show up in Egyptian records. It suffers from all the defects of an oral record, but can also be relied on because it was an oral record. Fred Bauder 15:03, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
It still does not make since to me and shows up more as an axe to grind than beneficial to the article. When I read the Bible article, I do not see qualification that the text is viewed as fiction. Why is the Book of Mormon different? Both are books that contain the history of God's dealings with man.
I suspect that Fred's real objective is archeological evidence for the BofM is lacking. However, that is a totally different article and is already addressed there.
When articles are written about issues of faith, I fail to see the need for "warnings" that some people believe the topic is total BS while others believe. It seems common sense that the reader is already aware that when it is a topic of faith, what is being explained is an issue of fAITH. So often these issues become hot buttons because some "nonbeliever" feels too much credence will be given to the topic and that would be unacceptable to the nonbeliever and his group.
I would like to hear more reasons as to why a disclaimer is required on the BofM that is not required on the bible article and every other article based upon issues of faith. Attempting to be bold, I am deleting the sentence in the article until a concensus is reached. Storm Rider 15:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry Guys, I came back and saw the new language Friday (I think) introduced; read the entire article and moved it down to the appropriate location. I should have read this discussioin first; but I still like the move given the article. Everyone needs to read the whole article before commenting further.
Although I don't agree with Fred's reasoning, I am not opposed to having it in the article, given that it has already been in the article in a more appropriate place in the article. I DON'T agree with it being in the first paragraph; it disrupts flow and gives too much precedence to a proposition that is still disputed by all parties. One thing that I find interesting about this whole discussion is the argument "Well, the bible is about real people and placed, yahda yahda, yahda. Please show me any history book about thw western hemisphere. One written by the inhabitants that has been handed down. This critique is typcial Anti-Mormon, common, tripe. Where do we find out the names of mountains, rivers, people's, etc. that was not handed down since the days of Columbus...except for what the Book of Mormon proclaims. IT does not exist; not one iota. I agree that it belongs in the article, but not in the first paragraph. Storm Rider 20:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
To add a warning or a mention of the BoM as possibly being fiction would be insulting and completely wrong. I wouldn't want anyone putting a disclaimer on the article on Buddha saying "he might have been a jerk," or one on the Dharmapada's article saying "this might be a bunch of crap." While I don't personally believe in the BoM, I don't agree with a lot of the Bible, or the Qur'an, or the Sutras. The BoM is no different from any other religious text, however opposed to it some people might be.
71.240.161.241 23:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found that many times an edit needs to be seen in its entirety to see if it works. I used information from the discussion above, with edits that put it in context. I included the cross-links (because that sentence gets confusing otherwise) but no other markups:
The first paragraph as it exists in the article starts with a sentence about why people should care about this article then what the Book of Mormon has to say about itself. The current second paragraph deals with its meaning in the here-and-now. I toned down the introduction because it doesn't fit with the purpose of the rest of the paragraph and it is redundant with the second paragraph. I think that something else should be in the second paragraph, but even in context, I couldn't come up with something. Maybe it doesn't need to be changed. Val42 16:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
"Very good" meaning POV Fred Bauder 02:04, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
Fred, it is obvious you have an axe to grind and are commited to only a single perspective. Your comments were already mentioned in the article and your past edits on historicity/archaeolgy were redundant. I suspect you edited without having read the entire article. Further, none of your comments are found on any of the other articles; Bible, Bagavad Gita, etc. The objective is is write an article that is informative for readers. This article meets the same standards that WIKI has for every other article. Put the axe down; it does not belong here. Storm Rider 02:40, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll look for some good sources, but the introduction is not acceptable as it stands. I have very little interest in this article, so it may be a while before I find adequate sources. Fred Bauder 02:46, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
So that people know why I edited someone else's comment, I'll explain it here. Whenever I edited a section after the "POV" section, Wikipedia would bring up the edit page for the following section. I traced it down to HTML header markup in the subsection within the "POV" section. I left the subject text bold but it is now the same size as the surrounding text. Now editing of sections seems to be working correctly. Val42 20:05, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Joseph Smith dictated The Book of Mormon himself in much the same manner that Mohammed composed the Koran. It is not usually said that Mohammed plagiarized the Bible, but taking the view that he composed the Koran, he was undoubtedly familiar with Jewish and Christian sources and ideas and inspired by them. Nor is it said that Christ plagiarized Isaiah. Applying the term plagiarism to Joseph Smith has an anachronistic quality. Plagiarism is much in our consciousness now with the rise of the internet and the frequent copying of material that has resulted in academic contexts. Going back 180 years and applying it to someone who doubtless had never heard of the concept seems inappropriate. I think it is better to say that Joseph Smith was inspired by the sources he used which if looked at closely are prophetic in their own right. Fred Bauder 14:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
2.2 Alternative explanations * 2.2.1 Smith as author * 2.2.2 Smith colleague as author * 2.2.3 Smith as a plagarist
Changing just the last one is inconsistent. If we can come up with better headings for all of them fine. I also think it does discuss plagarism to some degree. Especially in regards to a novel by Solomon Spaulding or View of the Hebrews: or the Tribes of Israel in America. I think any implication of plagarism from the Bible would be wrong. Although maybe I should add something like that to the New Testament...claiming it plagarised from the Old Testament. (I'm kidding :) Wikibofh 15:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how the revelation of the Qur'an by Muhammad is comparable to the Book of Mormon. The Qur'an was revealed in Arabic, and is unique in its writing. Nowhere in the Qur'an do we find a word for word copy of the Bible. For the Book of Mormon, the story is different. Passages from Isaiah are almost entirely reproduced from the King James Version of the Bible. And while Muhammad may have received inspirations from Jewish and Christian sources, that is not a problem. Muslims gave credit to the Jewish and Christian sources. But the Book of Mormon claims parts of it were written before the New Testament was even compiled, yet many themes from the New Testament (Trinity, Crucifixion, mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 [see for instance I Nephi 11:13], etc.) are incorporated in it, as well as many verses being directly copied from Gospels into the Book of Mormon. John Smith does not give the credit to the New Testament, and that is why it should be considered plagiarism.
71.141.127.117 06:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
User:69.29.34.85 added a bias/neutrality tag to the article header without giving a reason. Will assume that the Anonymous user does not believe IN the book of Mormon as it has plenty of internal references and claims as made by believers, rather than stating as fact (such as phrases such as: "book's self-declared main purpose" and "It asserts that it was abridged", etc). Nothing in the article is stated as fact, but it is described from a believers point of view, as is standard in religious based articles on Wikipedia. In fact, the article is overly-full of non-absolutes, as to describe what it says it is, what believer think of it, and what detractors do as well. As no discussion took place on the talk page, as is required by the neutrality tag, it will be removed. - Visorstuff 20:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Please see the following article courtesy the Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research by Dr. David Stewart, M.D.
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/bom/bom12.html
Nathanael
The criticism section is not supposed to be a discussion of Archeaological finds. Plus it is not correct.
For example, the article states that there is not Hebrew influence in America prior to columbus. This belongs on Archaeology nad the book of Mormon or Linguistics. And there was semetic influence. See Dighton Rock, Los_Lunas_Decalogue_Stone, Newport Tower, Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact and other articles. You'd think, Alienus, after our dealings as of late, you'd at least look at the latest research, or at least bits of evidence. Please read through the references at Archeaology and the Book of Mormon. I have a non-Mormon archaeologist working on that page with me, and we are documenting everything we can there. You may want to do the same, OR add the disclaimer that critics claim this, despite evidence to the contrary.
You write "This appears to contradict..." that is POV. It should read, critics claim. I don't think it a contradiction, as I looked in the dictionary as to the definition of the word "principal."
You use words like "no" "none" and "lack of" which are POV, and not correct. Don't be so absolute. It's not right, and when research "changes" it makes all of us look stupid. You say you've had historical training (a master's I beleive), surely you took a writing class on word usage in your coursework that dealt with the use of absolutes? - Visorstuff 21:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
If you do think this is as serious of an issue for all of Christianity as you say, why don't you add some of the same wording, thoughts, etc. to Bible and Biblical Archaeology, Torah and Qur'an. All I'm asking for is fair treatment. If you debunk one, debunk them all.
I do not believe it is more serious for Mormonism, as IF the book of Mormon is "true," [9] (remember the opposite of "truth" in Mormonism is not "false," it is "error") then the Bible is as well.
There are many more "liberal" mormons who are like the liberal christians who treat the Book of Mormon "as inspriation, not fact," so again, why the added focus on the Book of Mormon, rather than Bible, Torah or Qur'an? Use your expertise across religions if that's where your expertise is. - Visorstuff 17:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Over the last two days, there have been a lot of linguistic and archaelogical information introduced in to this article. Besides belonging in to these other articles, the "author" of these changes has admitted in his text introduced that this text is itself biased. There is some useful information in the text introduced. I will have more time after the beginning of the new year, but I don't right now to tackle a project of this size. Would someone who is more knowledgeable about these two subjects (and has some time) please sort through this information, move it to the appropriate related articles and remove the POV statements. Val42 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
There has to be a better way to discuss Smith's translation ability than to rehash his translation ofthe Bible and Book of Abraham here. It detracts from "Book of Mormon" arguements. I'm willing to suggestions, but it makes no sense to have a paragraph-long overview or discussion about the JST in an article about the BOM. That is why we have a JST article. Other editors chime in beside myself and Alienus/209.83.182.242 please. Both of us are at our max on reversions of this before either of us break the three-revert-rule ( WP:3RR) and are eligible to be blocked. Look forward to suggestions. - Visorstuff 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
This talk page was 77KB long. I archived the discussions older than six months. This talk page is down to 37KB which is much more manageable. Feel free to move back anything that seems relevant.
The current size of the main article is 62KB. This will be a much more complex edit. None of the sections is large enough by itself to be about 30KB. How should we split up the article? What do you other editors think that we should do? Val42 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
"It is important to mention that expatriated Hebrew speaking Jews do not typically speak Hebrew outside of closed groups or religious cerimonies. Reasons given for this have typically centered around the persecution Jews have received over the millenia, as such, most are at the very least bi-lingual and engage others in the local language."
Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience, or to be understood by the local population? I assume "expatriated Hebrew-speaking Jews" refers to Israelis, as Israel is the only country where Hebrew is spoken as an official language. The fact is that Hebrew-speakers are a serious minority in any country other than Israel; why would Hebrew speakers ever speak the language outside of groups of other Hebrew speakers and religious ceremonies? Why would anyone speaking a minority language, for that matter? I don't think Hebrew is alone in this respect - immigrants have traditionally adopted the language of the country to which they immigrate, quite simply in order to be understood! From the early years of the Jewish Diaspora, Jews have adopted the language of the countries in which they lived - starting with Aramaic, the common language of Babylonia.
However, my real problem with this statement comes from the next sentence, which posits that the aforementioned anti-Semitism was the reason why Westerners did not recognize spoken Hebrew:
"Therefore, exposure to Hebrew as a conversational language in 1800's America would have been quite rare."
This is likely true, but not in the way implied. Hebrew was not used as a spoken language from around 200 C.E. until the late 19th century when it was revived to unite Jews in a Jewish state whose first language was Ladino, Yiddish and others. Between that time, Hebrew was an almost exclusively written language, used for scholarly and religious purposes - much like Latin today. It would have been near impossible for anyone to hear "conversational" Hebrew because such a thing did not truly exist! So while this statement is technically true, the "therefore" connects it to the statement above, which says that Hebrew was not used because of anti-Semitism. The two statements have nothing to do with each other; if they are indeed true or theorized by scholars, then it needs to be cited; otherwise, removed. Rachel Ariel 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Good points rachel, however, (it was I who wrote that passage) I used very deliberate wording when I said "reasons given for this" simply because the bulk of written and spoken material on this subject does in fact play the 'anti-semitism' card. Perhaps because a number of the 'speakers' have tatoos on their wrists or fled eastern europe in the teens tarnishes their viewpoints, fine. I think that your explanations would make a great addition. However the facts remain, as the jews were dispersed (by choice or by force - you choose) the adopted languages of the new nations were practiced. It would be hard for you to show any period in history where Jews were accepted, and most would conclude that not calling attention to oneself....
I am not sure how long you have been around (here, this page), but the challenge that prompted that passage was to show that turn of the century people would be unfamiliar with spoken hebrew. Initially the passage said 'bewildered' which I had lifted uncited from a critical book dealing with the asserted plagarism of 'view of the hebrews' by J. Smith.
returning, whereas it is true the language as a conversational language was 'hidden' the diaspora brought this about, please note that the dates you give, nearly encompass the entire event. Or put simply, when in Rome do as Romans do.... Please note, the language was revived only because it could be. While that seems crass on the surface, realize, if you do not know how to speak it as a native, no amount of text can help you.
(point of fact, ladino and yiddish are both credited c. 1100 as being developed. There are 900 years in this first gap as well as the nearly 800 years following. Someone was practicing....
...Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience...
On reflection, probably not, however, we must look at history and how enclaves of jews have fared wherever they have went.
Lastly, the word 'therefore' can only logically connect that which preceded it. If you must pick only parts of the preceeding sentences to make your point, fine, but that is not my intent as written. While it could perhaps be worded differently, I stand on the argument.
Cites? Jew is a good place to start. Pr David Gordis, Hebrew College Boston Ma: "One rabbinic dictum has it that Jews were able to preserve their identity [in exile] because they didn't change their names and didn't change their language," Gordis says. "The notion of having a distinct language and literature is a sine qua non of having a culture. Absent that, there is no culture."
A bridge between Jews from disparate corners of the globe, Hebrew has been the primary language of prayer, but that's not all. Jews have always used Hebrew to communicate—through letters, or in person when traveling—with Jews whose vernacular is different from their own. (Taken from Lost in Translation, Michael Kress, Hebrew College year unk)
To Visor (primarily): after the latest rounds of clear POV vandalism in the 'critical' sections by adherents, do I need to write one more word in my proof of the worthlessness of this article, wiki in general, and what passes for intellectualism today? We dont need to look to TV or popular culture for examples of why "bad stuff" (insert category of choice) happens today. It happens because it can, by people who possess no more advanced mental processes than those who have spoken up behind the "anonymity" of an IP address. I repeat a question I once asked not-so-thetorically: are the adherents so fragile that thinking must cease? The truly enlightened will take a moment to discover the pandoras box that question opens. Quaddriver 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the list of external links at the bottom is balanced and appropriate. There is nothing on there that is necessarily extreme or misleading in either direction. However, whereas most are not themselves neutral, I would suggest that when NPOV they be broken into "supportive" and "contrary" sections, or individually labelled similarly. Because if someone comes here with a legitimate question, they'll not know the difference between lds.org and mormonwiki.org. They'll both be "org"s, one will even sound more academically sound since it has the word "wiki", but one is obviously designed for the purpose of promoting the Book of Mormon and one one is obviously designed for the purpose of slandering Mormonism in general. [For that matter, why is mormonwiki even on there, if it's not necessarily Book of Mormon related? Shouldn't we at least point to its Book of Mormon page?] This is a real question, please don't say "we've been through this before" and ignore it. -- Mrcolj 14:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed this section because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the title; if the author (or anyone else) can edit the ideas so they have some relation to BoM, go for it. — DevLaVaca 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the Archaeology section to say "Currently, some Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." from "Currently, most Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." While reading through the page it is clear that the sentence above did not match the rest of the page. It is fair to say that "some" claims are substantiated. It is not fair to say "most" (especially when reading what "most" of the claims encompass.) I hope this makes it more factual.
-epecho-
The existence of horses at any time isn't a substantiation of the Book of Mormon. While I completely respect LDS and the Church, and I consider the religion to be a very positive and uplifting one, I have serious issues with the BoM itself, seeing as to how incredibly off it is. Absolutely none of the animals and crops the text claims were brought to America by the Nephites or the Jaredites were ever present in the Americas before 1492, and some, like elephants, weren't even here until much later.
That's like saying that the "Noah's Ark and the Flood" story is substantiated by the fact that, at some point in time, there have been floods and there have been arks.
71.240.161.241 23:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This whole section seems overly preachy from both points of view. I can understand explaining how Mormons gain a belief in the book, but I have a couple issues with this section. First, I have not recently encountered any brainwashing criticisms about the LDS church. If this is indeed a prominent theory of how Mormons gain their testimony, who are these critics? It is easy to say they have never presented evidence if none are ever referenced. Secondly, the "Contradictions Include" section. It is preachy, POV, has no introduction, and generally feels out of place in the article. This entire section is either in desperate need of a rewrite, or should be removed completely, and the "Mormon testimony method" relocated to another part of the article. Anyone else have any ideas or opinions on this?
Upon further review I noticed the entire 2nd section was added earlier today by Scots-Man. Until he either justifies or rewrites his post, I am removing it for the time being.
Content restored by adminstrator, opinions anyone? Mapache 05:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Heh judging by the current state of the page, I'm going to guess you also received a vandalism warning. I am contesting mine. Mapache 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence:
The meaning of this sentence is good to have in the article, but it must be referenced. The article is vastly improved when claims on both sides simply provide a reference.
The previous edit for the Tanners comment on 3,990+ changes used a reference, but the formating is off. I looked at the edit, but was at a loss to correct the reference at the end of the article. Could someone with the expertise please look at it? Thanks. It also uses "One critic" and should just state, The Tanners alledge, or some similar beginning to the sentence. Storm Rider (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The title, "The Book of Mormon" (or the "Book of Mormon") occurs in dozens of places in the article formatted in different ways. I tried to bring some consistency to this by italicizing the title per Wiki conventions wherever it was not part of a quotation or section title. I also chose to render it using the Wiki convention of not capitalizing the definite article ("the"). The LDS church does capitalize it ("The"), so if other editors think it should be rendered that way, then OK. But if so, please be sure to change every instance so that it remains consistent. -- Blainster 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I deleted the following statements today by a new editor:
This information would be great to have in the article; however it is not appropriate to level allegations with reference to a reputable source. Further, it would also help to demonstrate what techniques are being used. This also applies to love-bombing. What constitutes love-bombing and how do Mormons implement these techniques? Without these references, explanations, and evidence these allegations are just POV statments. Storm Rider (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Please note that I have attempted to maintain a neutral POV in my recent edit by providing information on both positions. The previous version:
My edited version:
Storm Rider's objections to my recent edit seem to be a mere hasty attempt to remove information that does not conform to his POV. The objections are unfounded. His statement that I have "leveled allegations with reference to a reputable source" is vague and seems intended to discredit me as an editor. Is Wikipedia not a reputable source? Examples of mind control/brainwashing techniques were provided, such as lovebombing (with a Wiki link) and distortion or concealment of information. However, as he and other editors are aware, this article is probably not the most appropriate forum for elaborating on the particulars of these and other forms of brainwashing techniques. The links to the topics on mind control and brainwashing should suffice. A careful examination of my revisions will show that I was careful to preserve a neutral POV by elaborating on both the apologist and critical perspectives, without deviating from the current topic on the Book of Mormon.
In the meantime, I will not challenge the current version or insist on restoring my version. But I do hope that Storm Rider is more willing to consider neutral POV changes in the future. James echt 19:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
This whole article is a mess. The back and forth about whether or not the book is true makes the article page feel more like the discussion page. Why not create some sort of "Is the Book of Mormon True or Stupid" page on which people can have edit wars to their hearts content? At least a third of the article could (and IMHO, should) be merged into that. Articles like these make Wikipedia look foolish.
There is a reason to have a note specificly that they are claims within the book itself. For example one could say that Huck Finn wrote the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. This is a claim made by the book itself. Just as the claim that Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon in 385AD. It's not redundant to say that Huck Finn being the author of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a claim made by the book. Less so when the summary includes notes like Huck Finn starts writing his story by talking about his previous adventures with Tom Sawyer. Tat 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
User:Enormousdude has entered data from a site dedicated to showing falsehoods of Mormonism. He stated that the letter was the response from requests of LDS scholars; but the letter clearly stated it was from the Mr. Luke P. Wilson of the Institute for Religious Studies. I corrected that error. However, what I would like to have had is the letter Mr. Wilson wrote to the Smithsonian to understand the context of the responses. I also found it curious that the letter was from the Public Inquiry Mail Service; does anyone know if this is a typical response format from the Smithsonian? It appears that it may just be a form letter for responses to similar questions.
I question this edit given its source. I am not aware that the Smithsonian has ever done any specific research into the Book of Mormon and without doing so is not an acceptable source. The statements made are very specific; does anyone know if this is a real document?
Also, User:Enormoudude to enter a new section is not a minor edit. It is a major edit. Marking it as minor is deceptive; please refrain from using the minor edit check box except for spelling corrections and other "MINOR" edits. Cheers. Storm Rider (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Enormous, I reverted your edit today where you reinserted information that has already been shown to have been retracted by the Smithsonian. You are using sources that have been proven to lack credibility. Further, this information was referenced which you delted to resert this disproven data. When the Smithsonian retracts a statement it is serious. If you want use a Smithsonian quote, use the most current data available. Storm Rider (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Further, reverting your edit is not vandalism particularly when it is a major edit that you inserted and marked as a minor edit; this is highly misleading. This was discussed before and you chose not to participate on the discussion page. The revert is standard practice when a controversy exists and needs to gain concensus before further editing. Storm Rider (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I did further research and found the following:
Please do not use old data just because it fits more with your POV. Please know that the Smithsonian has definitely retracted the letter you insist on inserting. The Smithsonian does not stand behind the letter and has adopted the statement above. Storm Rider (talk) 23:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I have reverted this editors edits of the 25th. Obviously there is a lack of any understanding of Mormon teachings or thought. I suspect he has limited his understanding to some of wonderful anti-Mormon websites similar to the one mentioned above.
First, the teaching of the Book of Mormon and one's own persuit to understand if it is from God is specifically as follows:
These verses were specifically cited in the article. He mentioned the burning in the bosom that is mentioned in the bible: Luke 24: 32 and also D&C 9:7-8. Though this is good counsel for receiving answers through the Holy Spirit; let's just stick to the promise mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
Enormous, Welcome to Mormon related articles. I believe everyone is glad you are here; however, you might want to approach the subjects from an understanding of it before getting carreid away. Many of your edits go too far and are not what LDS would say or believe. You seem to take extreme positions and pass them off as what Mormons believe. This is a common error of sites I would label anti-Mormon. Understand my definition, to be critical is welcome. To misrepresent in an effort to disparage or destroy is what I would call anti-Mormon. Storm Rider (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Enormousdude, your edits have been addressed on this page and you have continued to edit without any type of explanation. Your edits will be reverted wholesale unless you begin to discuss some of your reasonings. Further, this is not the archeaology article, but the main article. The intent is to summarize the section and point them to the subarticle. Are you listening to anyone or are you just ignoring all other editors? Storm Rider (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted this section (again), with three reasons: 1) The Smithsonian Institute no longer issues or upholds this statement, thus, it is outdated [12]. 2) Each "point" is currently contested by non-LDS scholars, as well as those within the tradition. The same was true in 1996. 3) This section violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy; it was inserted surreptitiously and finds support only on sites with negative POV. Combined with points one and two, this is clearly an inappropiate entry. DevLaVaca 06:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following:
This argument does not match up with similar historic events. For example, Viking settlements on Iceland were periodically wiped out by european diseases due to periods on the order of hundred years where no contact with europe was made. It only takes a few generations to lose natural immunity in isolated populations. -- FyzixFighter 17:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Please, provide the reference to your statement "It only takes a few generations to lose natural immunity in isolated populations" - this is made up statement. Also, provide the reference to another statement (which I think, is also incorrect but I am not 100% sure): "Viking settlement periodically viped out by european deseases".
On a side note, how big were Viking settlements (say, in Iceland, Greenland and in Newfoundland)? I presume, only a few thousands (?). How come that such small settlement living relatively short time span (a few hundred years) in such remote nordic places are archaeologically well known, while mighty and much more advanced multimillion civilizations of BoM living a few millenia in warm places almost under our nose (in mesoamerica where archaeology is very active) are archaeologically inexistant?
Sincerely, Enormousdude 22:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Enormousdude, you say that the Book of Mormon cites "in detail several major technologically advanced ancient American civilizations flourished between 2600 BC to 400 AD." There are only 3 cited, and even that's arguable. The only civilizations cited by name are the Jaredites, Nephites & Lamanites and Mulekites, however, IN DETAIL would mean to me something granualar, and we don't have details on the technology of the Jaredites or Mulekites per the BoM; we only know they existed. It is only the Nephites that we learn of their building styles, their weaponry, etc. We really only know of the Lamanite's weaponry, much of which is borrowed from the Nephites. Please further explain what you mean by that. Bo-Lingua 19:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
[13] - wanted to keep this for historical reasons. I'd love to address item by item someplace - perhaps I will on my blog sometime. The funniest thing was the edit about "only one temple" particularly in light of this month's smithsonian issue that discusses that the references in Deuteronomy adn Joshua actually refer to a Temple structure built by Joshua on Mount Ebal, not Solomon's temple. (I actually think it discusses the tabernacle) The later kings, etc. references, are added in by the deuteronomists in what Margaret Barker calls revisionist history - no strong reference on revelation from the Lord as there is in the Moses/Joshua account. And then, the discussion on melchizedek pristhood versus teh levitical. Or the gnostic accounts of multiple days of darkness (and reference in OT, is it habbukuk or haggai or zecheriah?). the childen "qualifier" adn also the adam and eve and paul references. And then we should talk about the names - I do wonder what the hebrew word for laver is, and if the editor even thought about that the stupidity of using English words to discuss what is mentioned or not in two non-english texts.
Anyway there are so many errors (factually and logically) in the edit that it was wise that Storm Rider removed. - Visorstuff 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I and Bo Lingua both did a wholesale revert to User:162.111.195.15's edits. The changes added in qualifiers when qualifiers already existed ie, no need to have "self-declared" and "supposedly" in teh same sentence, when one already casts doubt, etc. Its the same as using a double negative. - Visorstuff 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone notice the disgraceful picture of Joseph Smith talking (or listening) to angel Moroni on the Hill Cumorah? Who put it up there? Does anyone see what is wrong with this picture? (Or it is only me who noticed?) Enormousdude 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, it is only me who noticed. Ok, let's see. It is about logically contradicting representation of direction of gravity on a hill. And I am not talking about the angel (Moroni or whoever). Angel indeed represents the direction of gravity correct - he/she is aligned with it (therefore from his/her alignement we can see that the vector of gravity is directed vertically. Interestingly enought, angels are known to defy (=not to obey) gravity - thus it is a little strange that on this picture we see the contrary - that somehow angel "feels" the correct direction of gravity (and when nothing else around him/her gives a clue about it). By the way, how can angel - obviousely having some energy (as radiating/reflecting light, as having voice, etc) not to obey gravity? General relativity teaches that any energy-momentum both creates and obeys curved space-time (which we call gravity.)? But I am not talking about obedient/desobedient gravity angel(s). I am talking about trees on the painting. Look at them. Look at their direction of growth - they do not obey the direction of gravity. This is unnatural, especially for trees on a slope. Large torque they experience by not aligning their trunks with the direction of gravitational acceleration can easily break them especially if wind blows downhill (pay attention that these trunks are thick as can be seen in comparison with human and angel figures - thus they are quite heavy), yet on the painting they grow unnaturally crooked (deviated from vertical).And it is not just a tree or two - practically all of them (except the one on left from the angel). This makes the whole painting to look extremely unrealistic - almost childish. Could this unusual behavior of trees be due to the presense of angel (which may somehow create some sort of void in the gravitational field)?
Or there is more simple explanation - that the author of the painting have never seen actual forest? Where did this painting come from anyway? Is this paintig on display somewhere? And nobody have noticed? Sincerely, Enormousdude 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then the Second Coming would have already happened, a fact that the Mormons themselves are strangely mum about. Hackwrench 22:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Elaboration of my position:
If the Book of Mormon is accurate, then it would be easy to conclude that it depicts that the Second Coming already happened, a fact that the Mormons themselves are strangely mum about. The lack of mention of this event in the New Testament makes it likely, that if true, it took place after the events in the New Testament. Hackwrench 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
Though it describes historical events, the book's self-declared purpose is to testify of Jesus through the writings of ancient prophets of the Western Hemisphere who traveled there from ancient Israel, probably between 600-650 BC.
If the writings of the prophets were to testify of Jesus, then how did they travel there 600-650 years before Christ.
Wow ... I don't want to insult you all, but there is a suprising level of ignorance here. (I say ignorance, not stupidity. There is a difference) Let's assume for a second, for gramattical reasons and for the sake of argument, that the Book of Mormon is accurate historically.
The Book of Mormon is (usually) divided into there different time periods. The first (recorded last, in the book of Ether) started with the Tower of Babel, recording the history of the Jaredites. It went on until the last survivor of this group was found by the Nephites. The second period (recorded first) started in 600 BC and went to the time of Christ. The third went from the time of Christ to when Moroni buiried the plates in what would later become New York state - which was several generations after the time of Christ. So not only was the first thing this thread said incorrect, (that the Book of Mormon started with the time of Christ) so is the second. (that it started in 600 BC) -- NERD42 EMAIL TALK H2G2 UNCYC NEWS 17:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The intro paragraph just was changed to add further clarification that it is not stating facts. The problem is that in the first paragraph we have the following "clarifications" already:
Now, it is possible that we need to clarify that this is a topic of faith, but surely in one paragraph stating something is a belief once is enough for the average reader to understand that it is a topic of faith. When we bend so far backwards to clarify we actually are taking a POV that it is all false, which is unacceptable. Do you think it would be acceptable to delete the at least three of the other "clarifications" and just have one or at most two? Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)