This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Book of Mormon witnesses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I propose we merge Mary Whitmer into this article - it is very small, unlikely to get much more information in it, and her notability only exists because of her witness to the gold plates.
It's illegitimate for an editor to delete cited material just because he disagrees with it.-- John Foxe ( talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the following illustrates continuous revelation:
The call of the Eight probably also illustrates the significant Mormon doctrine of continuous revelation[4] because in Doctrine and Covenants 5: 11-14 (revealed to Joseph Smith in March 1829) the Three Witnesses are told that they will be given power to see the golden plates, "and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation." Nevertheless, in 2 Nephi 27:13, the Three are told that "none other...shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God."
In Nephi, it says that "none other... shall view it, save it be a few..." Later, the statement was made "none else will... receive this same testimony among this generation." I don't see a contradiction. Nobody else will view it, except for a few people. Nobody else will receive the same testimony during that generation. Seeing something isn't the same as receiving a particular testimony of that thing, it's clearly two different verbs and neither statement contradicts or extends the other statement. In light of that and since the referencing hyperlink points to a section of the site that no longer exists, I'm going to just cross most of that off. Banaticus ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In this section is a link that says "Main article: Criticism of Mormonism#Credibility of witnesses". However, the criticism of Mormonism page has no such section. Has it been moved to another article or does it no longer exist? -- Kazim27 ( talk) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added the {{ Synthesis}} tag to this section of the article, why? Because after revising policy, it appears that the statements of "criticism" in this article, as cited as they are, seem only to be a means of unpublished interpretation from neutral sources that states broadline facts, which are a) not of a critical intent and b) does not explain to why these facts are criticism. Thus this section of the article seems to have been written by someone who has indeed went and interpreted the information stated from the sources as criticism for their own means, violating policy in the process. Another example of the cunning and tedious manipulation of wikipedia by editors wanting to slate the image of the church.
To back this up I have provided examples
The rest of the "criticisms" in the article appear to be cited from sources which information I don't have access to (yet), and two are from actual critical sources. However, the ones stated above have no standing at all in the article. Routerone ( talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I accepted the 30. I'll first take Routerone's objections one by one:
1) The "folk magic" allusion seems unnecessary, yet I gather that the use of the stone is connected with the matter of "real" v spiritual vision; it is cited in this connection in the "Utah Ministry" web account. The matter of the stone only should stand, but be explained and integrated to point 4, not connected vaguely with "magic" which may be seen as pejorative.
2) The matter of witnesses leaving must be linked by a citation to a "skeptical" source that draws clear conclusions from this.
3) "All the witnesses are family" - this is shown to have formed part of a skeptical critique by the Twain quote and is not undue synthesis, though I dare say presentation would be improved by deriving the whole point from Twain himself if possible.
4) "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience" - again, the Utah page and other references make it clear that the fact that the "witnesses" did not see actual, real plates is a very significant criticism of the version of things as given out. The alteration of the number of witnesses is also significant. There is no undue synthesis in my opinion.
The section should not be presented as though these points form a unified, authoritative body of criticism if such cannot be shown to be the case. Please otherwise consider altering the heading and pre-amble to show that the criticisms are separate matters from separate sources. With these riders I believe the material forms valid comment upon the matter and ought to be included in wikipedia's account of the Mormon revelation.
Note that I do not offer comment on source reliability - was not requested. I'll watch the page and hear comments. (Point of order - two sections with same title on this page - not clever!) Redheylin ( talk) 05:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Its worth noting that the article likely looks even worse than it does previously before John Foxe started editing it. He has seemingly replaced synthesis with bias and negatively toned astute language, as if he is intentionally attempting to destroy the credibility of the witnesses with his "research". Routerone ( talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather than engage in another edit war, I would like to dicuss the neutrality of this article:
The "Skeptical criticism of the witnesses" still concerns me, despite an attempted reform by John Foxe the sources of information that he is drawing into it are that which have a significant degree of bias against the church and are set out to make a point against it in a critical manner, disregarding apologetical arguments and being mostly, poor arguments in general, most of them being easily overthrown by apologetics. Yet the editor John Foxe, seems to defend this "criticism" with his life, whilst focusing little on the positive points that actually support the witnesses.
To add to this, I think it is also unfair that the "criticism" section is now the largest part of the article. It is a blatant attempt by Foxe to destroy the credibility of the witnesses by: a) using biast sources b) using synthesis and turning certain evaluated points into negatively spinned statements c) attempting to stop any changes to the article he disagrees with, reverting who does so and then when they retaliate, he accuses them of edit warring. Hence because of Foxe again using wikipedia as a game to destroy the church, the article indeed does have serious neutrality problems. This is an article not designed to explain what the witnesses were and their role in church history, but clearly just an attempt to isolate them from the means of credibility and create a certain negative impression of them. In general, the "criticism" section has been took too far, and considering the amount of apologetic evidence that exists, its an unfair match and needs sorting immediately.
Unless he changes his ways, I seriously recommend that John Foxe is banned from the LDS topic field here on wikipedia. As I have no doubt whatsoever that he clearly has a problem with the organisation in general and is using wikipedia to express that and manipulate to his means from what may be considered a "legitimate" manner at first, but with closer inspection it clearly isnt appropriate at all. Routerone ( talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I frequently find sections like these in articles, and I think it's rather unfortunate, since they don't make for a great encyclopedia article. The above conversation is a good example of how sections like this are built. Two editors stack the article with POV material in an attempt to achieve "balance" and we end up with this weird fragmented article sourced to stuff like the Utah Lighthouse Ministry and FAIRwiki. It would be much better, in my opinion, to have a single analysis section sourced to middle-of-the-road scholarly sources instead of this apologetic/polemic garbage. I removed some of it earlier today, but I'd like to continue on the same track and see if I can't merge these two lists of POV bullet points into a single neutral section in paragraph form. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the edit again because, even though the second time it was added it was cited to references, it is still too WP:SYNTH in my opinion. For example, the two cited works only talk about the original (what Skousen calls "O") manuscript and make no mention on the existence, status, or non-existence of the original document signed by the witnesses. So any comments using those sources require a certain amount of extrapolation, too much IMO, to say anything about the subject of this article. The final sentence in the edit "no document containing the witnesses’ original signatures is known to exist" is extremely OR and cannot be verified from the cited sources (in fact I would argue that the Printer's Manuscript, which I believe does still exist, at least partially contradicts the statement since it was Cowdery's handwritten copy of the original manuscript with the witnesses' signatures so it at least has his signature). I also think the position of the edit is problematic - it seems like too much minutia for the lede. As to where it would go, perhaps that depends on the purpose of including such information. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Mormon witnesses. 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) 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This document was 'discovered' by the American Anti-Mormon organization in 1906. Indeed, all the extant copies were printed in 1906, and we don't know why no copies dated to earlier than that exist (since the Anti-Mormon organization that 'unearthed' this document provided no evidence that an original even existed), or why no one heard about it until decades after Cowdery's death. This is just the beginning of the problems:
Therefore, I will eliminate the reference to this forgery in the section Three Witnesses and urge other editors to do the same if it is added again. -- Enriquei2000 ( talk) 06:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Book of Mormon witnesses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I propose we merge Mary Whitmer into this article - it is very small, unlikely to get much more information in it, and her notability only exists because of her witness to the gold plates.
It's illegitimate for an editor to delete cited material just because he disagrees with it.-- John Foxe ( talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how the following illustrates continuous revelation:
The call of the Eight probably also illustrates the significant Mormon doctrine of continuous revelation[4] because in Doctrine and Covenants 5: 11-14 (revealed to Joseph Smith in March 1829) the Three Witnesses are told that they will be given power to see the golden plates, "and to none else will I grant this power, to receive this same testimony among this generation." Nevertheless, in 2 Nephi 27:13, the Three are told that "none other...shall view it, save it be a few according to the will of God."
In Nephi, it says that "none other... shall view it, save it be a few..." Later, the statement was made "none else will... receive this same testimony among this generation." I don't see a contradiction. Nobody else will view it, except for a few people. Nobody else will receive the same testimony during that generation. Seeing something isn't the same as receiving a particular testimony of that thing, it's clearly two different verbs and neither statement contradicts or extends the other statement. In light of that and since the referencing hyperlink points to a section of the site that no longer exists, I'm going to just cross most of that off. Banaticus ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
In this section is a link that says "Main article: Criticism of Mormonism#Credibility of witnesses". However, the criticism of Mormonism page has no such section. Has it been moved to another article or does it no longer exist? -- Kazim27 ( talk) 16:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have added the {{ Synthesis}} tag to this section of the article, why? Because after revising policy, it appears that the statements of "criticism" in this article, as cited as they are, seem only to be a means of unpublished interpretation from neutral sources that states broadline facts, which are a) not of a critical intent and b) does not explain to why these facts are criticism. Thus this section of the article seems to have been written by someone who has indeed went and interpreted the information stated from the sources as criticism for their own means, violating policy in the process. Another example of the cunning and tedious manipulation of wikipedia by editors wanting to slate the image of the church.
To back this up I have provided examples
The rest of the "criticisms" in the article appear to be cited from sources which information I don't have access to (yet), and two are from actual critical sources. However, the ones stated above have no standing at all in the article. Routerone ( talk) 22:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
I accepted the 30. I'll first take Routerone's objections one by one:
1) The "folk magic" allusion seems unnecessary, yet I gather that the use of the stone is connected with the matter of "real" v spiritual vision; it is cited in this connection in the "Utah Ministry" web account. The matter of the stone only should stand, but be explained and integrated to point 4, not connected vaguely with "magic" which may be seen as pejorative.
2) The matter of witnesses leaving must be linked by a citation to a "skeptical" source that draws clear conclusions from this.
3) "All the witnesses are family" - this is shown to have formed part of a skeptical critique by the Twain quote and is not undue synthesis, though I dare say presentation would be improved by deriving the whole point from Twain himself if possible.
4) "seems to have repeatedly admitted the internal, subjective nature of his visionary experience" - again, the Utah page and other references make it clear that the fact that the "witnesses" did not see actual, real plates is a very significant criticism of the version of things as given out. The alteration of the number of witnesses is also significant. There is no undue synthesis in my opinion.
The section should not be presented as though these points form a unified, authoritative body of criticism if such cannot be shown to be the case. Please otherwise consider altering the heading and pre-amble to show that the criticisms are separate matters from separate sources. With these riders I believe the material forms valid comment upon the matter and ought to be included in wikipedia's account of the Mormon revelation.
Note that I do not offer comment on source reliability - was not requested. I'll watch the page and hear comments. (Point of order - two sections with same title on this page - not clever!) Redheylin ( talk) 05:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Its worth noting that the article likely looks even worse than it does previously before John Foxe started editing it. He has seemingly replaced synthesis with bias and negatively toned astute language, as if he is intentionally attempting to destroy the credibility of the witnesses with his "research". Routerone ( talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Rather than engage in another edit war, I would like to dicuss the neutrality of this article:
The "Skeptical criticism of the witnesses" still concerns me, despite an attempted reform by John Foxe the sources of information that he is drawing into it are that which have a significant degree of bias against the church and are set out to make a point against it in a critical manner, disregarding apologetical arguments and being mostly, poor arguments in general, most of them being easily overthrown by apologetics. Yet the editor John Foxe, seems to defend this "criticism" with his life, whilst focusing little on the positive points that actually support the witnesses.
To add to this, I think it is also unfair that the "criticism" section is now the largest part of the article. It is a blatant attempt by Foxe to destroy the credibility of the witnesses by: a) using biast sources b) using synthesis and turning certain evaluated points into negatively spinned statements c) attempting to stop any changes to the article he disagrees with, reverting who does so and then when they retaliate, he accuses them of edit warring. Hence because of Foxe again using wikipedia as a game to destroy the church, the article indeed does have serious neutrality problems. This is an article not designed to explain what the witnesses were and their role in church history, but clearly just an attempt to isolate them from the means of credibility and create a certain negative impression of them. In general, the "criticism" section has been took too far, and considering the amount of apologetic evidence that exists, its an unfair match and needs sorting immediately.
Unless he changes his ways, I seriously recommend that John Foxe is banned from the LDS topic field here on wikipedia. As I have no doubt whatsoever that he clearly has a problem with the organisation in general and is using wikipedia to express that and manipulate to his means from what may be considered a "legitimate" manner at first, but with closer inspection it clearly isnt appropriate at all. Routerone ( talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I frequently find sections like these in articles, and I think it's rather unfortunate, since they don't make for a great encyclopedia article. The above conversation is a good example of how sections like this are built. Two editors stack the article with POV material in an attempt to achieve "balance" and we end up with this weird fragmented article sourced to stuff like the Utah Lighthouse Ministry and FAIRwiki. It would be much better, in my opinion, to have a single analysis section sourced to middle-of-the-road scholarly sources instead of this apologetic/polemic garbage. I removed some of it earlier today, but I'd like to continue on the same track and see if I can't merge these two lists of POV bullet points into a single neutral section in paragraph form. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 21:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the edit again because, even though the second time it was added it was cited to references, it is still too WP:SYNTH in my opinion. For example, the two cited works only talk about the original (what Skousen calls "O") manuscript and make no mention on the existence, status, or non-existence of the original document signed by the witnesses. So any comments using those sources require a certain amount of extrapolation, too much IMO, to say anything about the subject of this article. The final sentence in the edit "no document containing the witnesses’ original signatures is known to exist" is extremely OR and cannot be verified from the cited sources (in fact I would argue that the Printer's Manuscript, which I believe does still exist, at least partially contradicts the statement since it was Cowdery's handwritten copy of the original manuscript with the witnesses' signatures so it at least has his signature). I also think the position of the edit is problematic - it seems like too much minutia for the lede. As to where it would go, perhaps that depends on the purpose of including such information. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Book of Mormon witnesses. 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) 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This document was 'discovered' by the American Anti-Mormon organization in 1906. Indeed, all the extant copies were printed in 1906, and we don't know why no copies dated to earlier than that exist (since the Anti-Mormon organization that 'unearthed' this document provided no evidence that an original even existed), or why no one heard about it until decades after Cowdery's death. This is just the beginning of the problems:
Therefore, I will eliminate the reference to this forgery in the section Three Witnesses and urge other editors to do the same if it is added again. -- Enriquei2000 ( talk) 06:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)