Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

wp:or in historicity

I'm sorry to discuss this again, but the previous discussion was archived. In the historicity section, the list of " [83] cattle[84], horses,[85] asses,[86], oxen,[87] sheep, swine, goats[88], elephants, wheat, grapes,[89] silk,[90] steel,[91] brass, breast plates, chains, iron, mining ore, scimitars, and chariots" all have references to the book of mormon itself, not to WP:OR sources. I don't feel this matches wikipedia's directive that the cited research "directly support" the claim stated in this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). The authors of [83] were not writing about book of mormon historicity. Unless they say "therefore the book of mormon is contradicted" I'm thinking this is WP:OR.

"Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source...Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources."Rogerdpack (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, you think the statement should be supported by a source which states directly that the apparent absence of these animals and technologies in the new world reflects badly on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Have I understood you correctly? Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Some WP:RS that has that same list or portions of it. Is that off base? I'm not a pro wiki'er here. Rogerdpack (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there have been sources listed here in the past, but people have removed them since they are sometimes considered too "anti" and POV. The problem is that there is no such thing as a NPOV source for this. The topic is, by its very nature, POV. There are POV sources that list all or most of these items, so this list is not OR. Indeed, most, if not all, of the previously listed sources are found in the list of references for this article. (Taivo (talk) 06:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Have those sources been WP:RS? If so which are they? Rogerdpack (talk) 01:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the same thing [no WP:RS sources making direct connections] for the phrase "The lack of DNA evidence linking any Native American group to the ancient Near East. [95]". Am I off-base in requesting this?

This has been an area of dispute in the past, which as created a great deal of contention. There is no reputable source that supports the statement as it is currently made. If you look at Historicity of the Book of Mormon you will find several of these sources, but as I recall there are no page numbers so they can not be checked. If you review the archives of this article you will see the discussion. Currently, editors like to draw a distinction among archeologists as those who are LDS and those who are not; then making the statement that only LDS archeologists support the historicity claims of the Book of Mormon or the reverse no non-LDS archeologists has found any evidence to support the Book of Mormon's historicity. I am sure more neutral language can be produced. You may want to look at other articles that have the same issues. See Solomon, Bible, etc. Cheers. --^StormRider 04:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources for the list of anachronistic animals/technologies include the Tanners' books, as well as others. If you want them included again, it isn't a problem. I'll put page numbers for exhaustive lists of Native American DNA evidence which include nothing from the Near East if you wish or I can just link to the book "Losing a Lost Tribe". It's got a very extensive discussion. No page numbers can actually be placed there since the entire book covers the subject. But there is a fundamental problem with some of these statements. That is that the LDS position is very clearly a "Fringe" position since it runs counter to the vast majority of scientific research on the issue of American archeology. Asking for exact quotes is akin to asking for exact quotes that say, "The Earth is not flat" (a negative). I'll put sources in there (they were there once, but a consensus was reached that they were better in the Historicity article) if the majority of editors think that they should be there again. None of this is original research, it is found in many non-LDS sources. (Taivo (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC))

I think more DIRECT sources [is there such a thing as an WP:RS for a religious topic?] would be great [esp. with page numbers]. I also think that some rewording would be nice. Any opposed? Rogerdpack (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Any update on adding those? [ping]. Rogerdpack (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(new indent) This seems to be an example where the sources don't support the statement, but editors want to keep the current language. That does not jive with Wikipedia policy, but continues. Policy dictates that statements must be supported by reliable sources. If the source does not say it, it should not be said. Taivo's statement above that no page numbers can be supplied because the whole book covers the topic is specious. If a reliable source does not support the statement, it must not be made. For example, if none of the references do not state xyz, then don't write. However, if the references do say DNA research has found that x people are more closely related to the Siberian, or Asian, or ... then state that. What we have now is puffery and synthesis, several references without page numbers and none of which directly support the statement and none can be checked unless a reader finds each source and reads the entire book. Anyone can review the policy on reliable sources and this does not need to be contentious. It becomes contentious when editors force a reference to support statements that are not stated.

I agree that it currently reads as WP:OR/synthesis. Still waiting for an update on those original sources [even if they're not WP:RS--apparently that's ok in the BoM article] :) Rogerdpack (talk) 16:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The footnote on DNA was revised and expanded with page numbers and direct quotes linking Native American DNA to Northeastern Asia. (Taivo (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

I was hoping to get some more direct refs to the animal list. Anyone? Rogerdpack (talk) 07:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

picture

The picture of Moroni giving the plates to Joseph is somewhat ugly and made in 1893--probably not totally accurate there. I am proposing it be nixed -- it wasn't drawn by Joseph Smith, nor condoned by him, and it's ugly. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a better one that is open-source? (Taivo (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

I would certainly support replacing it if an open-source picture can be found.--^StormRider 16:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Rogerdpack: I'm consumed by curiosity. Do you think a more accurate representation of the event is more likely to be obtained from an earlier picture OR from a later one?

The painting used previously was less detailed and IMO less "ugly". Wanderer57 (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not a question of "pretty or ugly" in the end. It's a question of what is available from open (non-copyrighted) sources. (Taivo (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC))

Agreed. But if there is more than one image that is not subject to copyright, then other considerations can come into play. One of these might be "aesthetics".

My impression, which may be wholely wrong, is that the image of the painting of the Angel and Smith on a hillside is long since out of copyright. If this is the case, I think it a better choice than the engraving currently used. Of course, this is only a personal opinion. Wanderer57 (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The current engraving has too much symbology involved. I don't know why we switched from the old painting that was just a simple version of the event. (Taivo (talk) 04:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC))

Appears that it is indeed in the public domain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hill_Cumorah_by_C.C.A._Christensen.jpeg). Rogerdpack (talk) 01:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New York link

Taivo, you have deleted the edit twice on Book of Mormon. The link is to the New York Times and it provides videos of personal testimonies. The first time you deleted it you stated that it was not a reputable reference; however, the New York Times is emmenintly reputable. The second time you deleted it your stated reason was, "But the link is not information, but personal testimonies--unverifiable POV." This makes no sense. The text is a religious book and the link is about individual beliefs in that book, which happens to be the case for all religious books and their related articles. Your reasons are really about your personal POV and nothing else.

If your reasons were a need to minimize links, an imbalance of information, etc. then you might have some kink of acceptable argument, but you don't. I am not sold on the link per se, but I am certainly against your heavy-handed control of this article. You are a single editor and you do not own the article. I have yet to see an accepable reason to delete the link. Maybe other editors can provide a reason why the link should be deleted.--^StormRider 18:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and, as such, must present information and verifiable facts. While the New York Times is a reputable source, a list of links of personal viewpoint and opinion is not. When Wikipedia seeks reliable sources those sources are forms of information that are themselves based on research, data, and information. The Tanners' work, for example, is research (no matter that it is POV research, it is still based on their own study and has footnotes, bibliography, etc.). Personal testimony, however, is not the same as a reputable source. It is personal opinion and belief. Yes, this is an article on a piece of scripture, and, as such, we assume that there are people who accept its story as brought from a Higher Power. That is the very definition of "scripture". We do not have links at the Bible article of personal testimony of its "truthfulness", nor at the Koran, nor at any other piece of scripture as far as I can tell. Personal testimonies add nothing to the informational content of the article and are certainly not verifiable sources. From my history of editing on the Book of Mormon article you know that I have a personal POV, but you also know that I work hard on both sides of the "aisle" in order to keep religious excess and zeal out of the article. This particular link is not verifiable information and adds nothing to the content of the article. If there are currently "anti" links that are in the same noninformational vein, then we should certainly delete them as well. Otherwise, we open the door for an equal number of testimonial links from people who are saying that the BOM is not scripture. (Taivo (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

I'm not so sure if personal testimonies in the New York Times is WP:RS. Rogerdpack (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA vs Book of Mormon link

This video presents a POV, of course. However, like the Tanner's material, which is based on research, and the FARMS material, which is also based on research, this film is of scientists reviewing their own work on BOM/DNA issues. Unlike the New York Times piece, which is just personal testimony, the first half of this film is based on reviewable scientific research. The second half of the film is, indeed, personal testimony, but the first half is scientific and based on scientific research. If there is an equivalent FARMS video, then, by all means, it should be posted and linked to as well. There is, however, the current issue of how much of this scientific stuff should be posted here in this article and how much should be moved over to the Historicity article. This film might be a better link for the Historicity article, since the Southerton book is already referenced here and it is a more definitive source for the whole issue of DNA evidence. (Taivo (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC))

Is scientists reviewing their own work WP:RS? Rogerdpack (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think any scientific book is? --A scientist reviewing his own work. It is a WP:RS anytime you have the researcher talking about his/her research, whether in book form or video form. (Taivo (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I don't think the video meets RS standards. First, it is published by a group, Living Hope Ministries, that "exists to share biblical truths with Latter-day Saints and others, and to educate and equip Christian individuals, ministries and churches to reach Mormons and others for the biblical Jesus Christ." There is no peer review and there is no standard of expertise cited or mentioned. The most I get out of it is a group of religious people who are pushing their POV. There is no consideration of objectivity or neutrality in their "research"; all of which are expected of a reputable source.

I also think it comes very close to spam in that it is a site that is selling its wares and it puts Wikipedia in the position of hawking them. Worse, it is asking for donations. This is not acceptable for any link on Wikipedia. --^StormRider 22:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

First, there are enough other sources for this without using the video that the loss of the video as a source is not critical. Second, the "motives" of the publishing organization are really not germane to the discussion of WP:RS since many organizations, such as the LDS church, publish otherwise good material in support of their own POV. The Tanners' publications as well as FARMS could be put in this category no less than the DNA video. Third, the point of the video is not to seek donations any more than advertisements at the back of a published book seek money for the publisher. Be careful that in your zeal to get rid of an overly POV, yet otherwise reliable, source you don't paint other sources with your overly broad brush. Fourth, The scientists on the video are published specialists in their field and their publications and credentials can be examined with a simple web search. Be ready to remove all videos from Wikipedia if your criterion is that their qualifications are not readily visible. I don't care if you remove the video because it is not as good a source as the Southerton book, but you're grasping at straws for the reasons you cited and your criteria are not well-considered. Just say the Southerton book is better, but don't go down the paths that you've marked out or else there might be unforeseen consequences for the sources supporting your own POV as well. I'm not making a threat about your sources, but be very careful about where your "standards" might lead in any objective consideration. (Taivo (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

I went ahead and removed all the overly POV proselytizing (pro and con) videos and links at the bottom of the page. There are plenty of other references to hard-copy, published materials that both pros and cons are already well-represented. There aren't any of the arguments on either side that relied solely on those sources. (Taivo (talk) 23:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC))

When I am reading a book or article or reviewing other media, it is always good to know the motivations of the author. Links are one thing where there may be room for flexibility, but using something for a source requires at least minimum standards. The Living Ministries as a source for DNA research fails on all counts. I am sure more responsible, scholarly sources can be found if needed. I have never advocated using different standards on Wikipedia and I am not interested in beginning to do so.

I don't think any site that is seeking donations or is used to sell items is an appropriate exterior link under any circumstances. --^StormRider 23:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My review of the very scarce information found on the Living Hope Ministries web site is that it is a site without substance, solely commercial in nature, devoted to selling self-produced "documentaries" (comparable to self-published books or blogs) and seeking donations to support its cause, that it contains links to sites known to have a bias against the LDS Church, all of which would leads me to suspect the credibility and POV of any information it provides. This site does not appear to meet Wikipedia's reliability source standards. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Living Hope Ministries is a church in Brigham City, Utah like any other church--there's nothing "sinister" about it and it is not a commercial enterprise. Its members are upstanding members of the community, just like members of the LDS church are upstanding members of the community. As a church, it has a POV, just as the LDS church does--nothing unusual or unpredictable there. And like the LDS church, it produces materials to promote its POV. The scholars shown on the DNA video are scientists in their respective fields and have published on the issues which they discuss in the video. There's nothing sinister, just a POV. The motivations of the producers of the DNA video are no more "commercial" than are the motivations of the Tanners, whose books are widely used in critical circles and are referenced here, or FARMS, whose apologetic materials are also cited here. Let's not get into a snit over this. The video is not the primary reference for the DNA issues, that is a more relevant matter than unfounded accusations of commercialism or implications of some sinister motive for the video. Show me a video made by a church that doesn't push a POV or at some point ask for a "decision" or "donation". I'm reading a fiction novel by Harold Coyle right now published by Forge Press. The last 10 pages list other publications by the press and asks readers to buy them. The last few pages of the most recent issues of International Journal of American Linguistics and Anthropological Linguistics contain advertisements for other journals in the field or other journals published by their respective presses. Every issue of the Newsletter of the Society for the Study of the Indigenous Languages of the Americas includes requests for donations to some foundation or other that promotes linguistic research. The fact that Living Hope Ministries requests donations to continue its ministry isn't anything at all unusual or sinister or in violation of Wikipedia policy. And Wikipedia policy says nothing about sources of information being NPOV--it only says that the resulting Wikipedia articles should strive for NPOV. (Taivo (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, calm down. This is no big deal; you are still attempting to fight about a decision that you yourself made...the deletion of the link. I made a request for input on this link and two editors commented; one of them came and made a comment here. There is no need to defend the good people at Living Hope and no one is questioning their goodness or making accusations they are sinister. They have an interest in a subject, but they are certainly not experts on DNA or a reliable, peer-reviewed source for Wikipedia. If we were talking about doctrine it would be find to provide their POV, but not here and this specific subtopic. The link is simply not acceptable here. Move on. --^StormRider 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Living Hope Ministries is most definitely self publishing. Rogerdpack (talk) 05:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC).

"Living Hope Ministries is most definitely self publishing." One could argue that F.A.R.M.S. is also self publishing. In fact, there is no real argument here, they are self publishing, a fact that many lds WP editors seem to ignore or discount. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Choose the "most scholarly" I suppose [LHM for instance has few citations to in google scholar]. As an interesting note, the works of Jerald Tanner also have surprisingly few citations [though far more than LHM]. I wonder if in theory the page "should" [heh] be limited to only original or WP:RS sources [rough stone rolling, etc]. That would be fascinating to try [and neither side would probably go for it :D ]. Rogerdpack (talk) 04:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow just realized that wiki doesn't even like original sources. This article would indeed be short :) Rogerdpack (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempts to steal the plates

No mention is made in the origin section about the repeated attempts at stealing the plates after reception. Anyone averse to it being added? Rogerdpack (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There was more material here about six months ago, but it was generally agreed that such detailed information belonged in one of the subordinate articles. It really doesn't add anything to this overview article. It's more on the level of BOM trivia than something that will really add useful content to his overview. Actually, isn't this just the Lucy Harris story (which is already there)? There are two whole articles on "Origin of BOM" and "Golden Plates". I just really don't see how an expansion on that adds anything really useful to this article. (Taivo (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Good point. In fact, believe it or not, it's just that section [the Lucy Mack stuff] that caused me to wonder why the other stuff isn't in there :) Rogerdpack (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy Harris stuff is here to explain the whole question of not "retranslating" the sections that were stolen--something that is a big thing for critics. The other incidents really didn't have any impact on the text itself. (Taivo (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

I think I remember when it wasn't there and critics didn't seem to have qualms at that time. Any feedback on that? Rogerdpack (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Lucy Harris stuff is there because an editor several months back was adding everything and the kitchen sink as well to the article (nearly all of it critical). We managed to get him to move it elsewhere, but he felt like the Lucy Harris stuff was important here. We basically agreed to leave it here to keep him from adding every nickel and dime criticism he could come up with (and, as I recall, he was pretty darn verbose about everything as well). (Taivo (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

The scope of the article has been "leaned down" quite a bit since then. I think it may be appropriate at this point to take some more stuff out, for consistency sake. Thoughts? Rogerdpack (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with eliminating some of the details about the origin. The whole Lucy Harris episode seems extremely trivial to me. Some critics make a big deal of it, but I don't think it's such an issue. The episode is meant to explain why there are some "gaps" in the narrative, but we just need to mention the somewhat broken storyline without a detailed excursus as to why it is there in this overview article. (Taivo (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Dual sections?

Sorry to bring this up if it was discussed in the past, but...currently the last paragraph of the "origin of the book of mormon" section has much in common with the historicity section. They even have at least one almost repeated sentence ["to adopt..."]. What would be good to do about this situation? Thanks! Rogerdpack (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts would be to take the better of the two (better refs, etc.) and move it to the end of the Origins section. What do you think? (Taivo (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

I removed the repetitive info from the Historicity section. (Taivo (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks! It reads a lot better now. Rogerdpack (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not just for Utah LDS Church

Taelder, stop putting Utah-only links in the first sentence of the article. This article is relevant for ALL churches within the LDS Movement, not just the Utah church. (Taivo (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Taivo, I am new to Wikipedia editing and I did not realize that Wikipedia content was controlled with such immediate ferocity. I recognize that more churches than just The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints use and reverence The Book of Mormon. I changed my edit to refer specifically to the other most prominent church which uses The Book of Moromon. I am not quite sure what you mean by using "Utah-only" links. I am editing from Oregon. The article mentions some specific subjects that are unique to The Book of Mormon and so why not add some references to actual text from The Book of Mormon discussing the cited subjects. One of the subjects mentioned is that The Book of Mormon discusses the organization of the Latter Day church. I have read the book many times and do not know to what the article is referring. A link to material in the book itself would be helpful. --Taelder (talk) 05:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The links you were placing in the first sentence were referring directly to the edition and the title of the BOM as it is published by the LDS church (headquartered in SLC). I abbreviate this as "Utah LDS" to distinguish it from other LDS groups. There are about a dozen other "LDS churches" around the world, for example, the Community of Christ, headquartered in Independence, Missouri. All these churches have different titles and subtitles for the BOM. There are already links at the bottom of the page to on-line texts for various editions of the BOM--Utah versions as well as other versions. The link to Latter Day Saint Movement goes to an article that discusses the various churches that comprise the LDS movement. The link you were placing in the text only goes to the Utah LDS webpage and excludes all the other LDS groups. There are many text references throughout the article already. If you see appropriate places for others, knock yourself out. The article that is referenced by "latter-day church" is an article on the original church founded by Smith under its original title. Remember that there are both members and non-members who edit this page to keep it as neutral in its point-of-view as possible. (Taivo (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

I notice that your second edit included the Community of Christ. We had the first sentence worded the way you wrote it about six months ago, but decided that it was still too discriminatory toward the other churches within the LDS movement. That's why we eliminated references to specific names in the first sentence. (Taivo (talk) 06:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Ok, I have now read about the Latter Day Saint movement (a movement, I might add I had no idea I was a part of) and things are making a little more sense as far as what is being done. I am going to add back the references for the subjects mentioned in the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taelder (talk • contribs) 22:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a few overzealous editors on this page that have yet to learn not to bite the newcomers to this page. I think I can safely assume that your intentions are good, and therefore editors here should be civil and assume good faith, unfortunately this may not have happened and I will apologize for that, as I have been bitten and trampled on this page many times. Don't get discouraged, there are many temperamental owners of this page who will fight you tooth and nail. All I can recommend is keep fighting. You have wandered into an unique world on Wikipedia where most rules are ignored and most editors would rather bicker on talk pages than solve problems (read: edit the article). Please do not feel the least bit intimidated to edit this article, you may do so as you see fit, but be forewarned you tread on razor's edge at all times. It shouldn't be that way, but unfortunately it is. Twunchy (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy would seem to guide editors here. The majority position within the faith should receive the majority attention, i.e. the LDS position is overwhelmingly the majority position and the article should be written first from the majority position and then adding differences as held by the significantly smaller groups. The Community of Christ group is really the only legitimate altnerative POV given its size (it is 47 times smaller than the LDS group); the others are all very small relative to the LDS and CofC groups. --^StormRider 21:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is not neutral but rather used by members of that faith to describe themselves and their believes

Examples are too many to name as it occurs throughout the page.I recommend the whole article to be rewritten completly from a neutral standpoint with some insights - but not like this!. Added neutrality tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.3.100 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are just as many non-member editors working on this page as member editors and we work hard to maintain NPOV. It was agreed several months ago that the POV had been neutralized. Unless others disagree, then I am removing the tag. (Taivo (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Unless the anonymous IP has some specifics, then his POV is pretty useless. The article must serve to neutrally describe the Book of Mormon. Neutral doesn't mean critical or "anti-", which is the implication I get from the tone of his comment. There are members who think the article is NPOV because it is already too critical of the BOM. This is a religious text and, as such, there will always be a chasm between believers and non-believers. True NPOV is probably not completely possible in every sentence, but a 2x4 lain over the chasm is about what we can expect. (Taivo (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

I disagree; it's not even a close description; sound bites don't describe the Constitution. Notwithstanding the efforts made (and thank you for those efforts), the article reminds one of the blind men and an elephant story, because there is so much, and some authors are distant - rather like seeing canali on Mars. My POV is that what one can obtain from the Book of Mormon (and thus can describe in Wikipedia) depends on what one brings to it, some trust in God being first. One's capacity to communicate is limited by the language at his command, to frame and then to articulate concepts. Thanks again for the work, though. DanB (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a religious tract. Go to Temple Square to distribute those, not here. (Taivo (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Connection between BoM and North/Central America

Hey all; I do not at all quibble with most of what is in this article. Though I cherish and have a personal testimony (as LDSers would say) on the spiritual truth of the BoM, I seriously doubt its origins and historical veracity.

That said, I have a question about something that does not seem to be covered in the article. Though the fact that JSjr "found" the "golden plates" in NY would seem to suggest that the Nephites (et al) were in N. America, I cannot for the life of me find anywhere in the text of the BoM itself which makes it clear that the new world they are talking about is actually N. America. The text appears to be ambiguous; it could just as easily be Africa, Australia or South America. Anyone shed any light on this? Do we have anything to tell us that it was N. America other than JSjr's say-so?134.84.96.56 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we only have the word of Joseph Smith. It is like Paul saying he had a vision, or heard a voice, on the way to Damascus; we only have Paul's word. When it comes to topics of faith and visionary or prophetic people, we only have the word of the individual involved. Of course, you said that you were LDS and had a spiritual witness of its truthfulness. If you believe that the Spirit bears witness to truth, does it also lie or tell half-truths. Or in this instance, would the Spirit bear witness to people that were only the figments of Joseph's imagination. This caliber of question is appropriate for all religious experiences where the Spirit bears witness of truth. --^StormRider 18:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

While there is nothing explicit in the text, the Lamanites = Native Americans equation dates to the very earliest layers of teaching within Smith's Church of Christ. (Taivo (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC))

StormRider, I think you may misunderstand me; I am not LDS and I do not want to be, though I have been active in the Community of Christ (RLDS) and feel a certain affinity for the LDS Church. My question had little to do with the faith aspect of the book; I was merely wondering if anywhere in the BoM it is made explicit that we are talking about the Americas. I am not suggesting in any definitive way that it was NOT the Americas, or was somewhere else; I am aware of the collateral teachings. But as far as I am concerned, the text itself is more or less ambiguous on the matter. In any case, it has little impact on my faith. It is another testament of Christ no matter which continent it took place on. Thanks for the responses. 160.94.183.236 (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Proving" the Negatives

Proponents of the BOM use a classic argumentative technique to soften the historicity problems with the text--"Sure the text says there were 'horses', but even though 150 years of archeological examination of the evidence has failed to uncover a single shred of evidence of post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian horses, there may still be some evidence that we haven't found yet." I could just as easily say, "Dinosaurs and men coexisted, we just haven't found the evidence yet." The BOM position on the four issues described in the Historicity section is WP:Fringe, therefore the negatives are the default position when it comes to a scientific examination of the topic. We don't have to "prove" that the Earth is round, it is the default position and calling it flat is WP:Fringe. Indeed, the fact that there are many LDS scientists who agree with the critics' positions shows that they are the default situation. In addition, "softening" the absolutes is unnecessary since the introductory sentence to the section clearly says: "Critics mainly focus on four issues". The list describes the critics' positions, not a "neutral" position that requires softening. (Taivo (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Well, while we are at it, I removed a few things from that list of "non-fringe" items claimed not native to the Americas and removed "grapes" and "mining ore". These are well proven to have existed...grapes have existed in America for many millenia and mining of metals was a well established tradition of most Central and South American cultures. For example copper is uncommonly found raw in nature, more commonly as malachite and azurite (much more common and easy to identify), and must be mined and smelted...and there's evidence of that dating to 2000 BC. Not to mention the gold and silver mines etc. through out the area...why did the Spainards want to conquer the area again? Oh yeah...the gold. Twunchy (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and while we're at it again, they have great examples of "breastplates" found in Columbia, so that's out...see http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/303500/jewelry/14104/American-Indian for more. Twunchy (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, copper was not smelted but was found natively on the ground in foliate plates in areas like Michigan. It was not smelted from malachite or azurite or chalcopyrite or any other copper ore. It was simply hammered out from native copper (not from "ore"). Gold was used in nugget form (as it generally was until this century) and was not smelted either. I'm not up to speed on how silver was utilized, but it also occurs natively. I'd also like to see a gold breastplate fend off a sword blow or an arrow :p War breastplates were not made from gold, but from bone where they were found. They were not common, however. I removed an irrelevant National Geographic reference to the extinction of horses during the Pleistocene overkill (along with mammoths and ground sloths). This extinction happened about 10,000 years before the events recounted in the BOM and therefore the article is irrelevant to the issue of horses in the BOM. A more scientific reference to the date of Equus extinction in the New World: Donald K. Grayson. 2006. "Late Pleistocene Faunal Extinctions," Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins and Population. Smithsonian. Pages 208-221. (Taivo (talk) 05:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

As proof that "we don't know what we don't know" (thanks Mr. Rumsfeld), I offer nothing...because as we are saying negatives cannot be proved. But if we haven't discovered something yet, did it never exist? This is an equal logical fallacy. Both sides of these arguments are using false logic i.e. because it hasn't been found and the evidence doesn't exist, it does not exist (your "default" position), this argument doesn't work any more than the pro-Mormon stance trying to prove the evidence hasn't been found yet but "it says so in my book". Regardless, there are ongoing discoveries all the time in science that were assumed false or nonexistent or impossible in the past yet mystifyingly they are found, or proven, etc.

There is much work still to be done in American archeology. For example there is study on the very subject you make absolute claims on: the smelting (or just melting) of copper. Try this one website: http://www.iwaynet.net/~wdc/copper.htm I make no claims of veracity, but strangely enough there are many questions here...not all copper was hammered...not all was native, some was obtained from ore (which when left in an oxygen starved furnace, (i.e. a kiln for pottery) beads of pure copper sweat out of the matrix). This discovery of copper smelting was made at differing times in different civilizations including as early as 1000 BC in the Andes mountain regions of North America see http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/newtrail/nav03.cfm?nav03=60986&nav02=60985&nav01=60925. In other words...we don't know what we don't know so therefore the fallacy falls on both sides of this argument, the non-LDS scholars cannot prove the non-existence of something any more than the believers can prove the existence of something not found. Both arguments fail. Twunchy (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting articles about possible smelting. You'll notice I'm not fighting to keep "mines" or "ores" in this list of anachronisms because the evidence is not unambiguous. A flint "mine" is just a pit and they are common. And even native copper can be considered "ore". There are enough clear anachronisms that the edges can contract without harm to the overall issue. Sure, there are still things to be discovered, but we're not going to find horses or mammoths or domesticated sheep, goats, and oxen in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America. If they were there, some evidence would have surfaced before now. The evidence for smelting copper isn't even recent to judge by some of the articles mentioned in the long copper posting. There's a big difference between talking about "mines" and "ores" in pre-Columbian America when we have copper, gold and silver artifacts on museum shelves in abundance and talking about "horses", "asses", "elephants", and domesticated "sheep", "goats", and "oxen" in post-Pleistocene, pre-Columbian America when there is not a single shred of evidence for them. (Taivo (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Speaking in absolutes is not done by any trained scientist; we are so often proved wrong that it is not done in any scholarly circles. What is done is state unequivocally that to date there is no evidence. Attempting to state that because it is more recent it is clear that evidence would have already been found is to misunderstand completely archaeological evidence for evolution...i.e. the missing link, the thing that is newest, latest, is what is missing. Based upon your logic Taivo we would all have to say there is absolutely no evidence for evolutionary theory and there never will be. The advice is to never project the future, but only stick with what has been found. If you have a scientist that makes the statement, quote him, but don't be surprised when it is reported the individual is a quack. --^StormRider 07:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying that there is no evidence for evolution? I hope that I have misunderstood your comment about that. Your logic, that we cannot make absolute statements about negatives, implies that we cannot say, "The Tyrannosaurus is extinct." You hold out hope that the evidence just hasn't been found. It is quite possible to make negative statements of absolutes all the time. Show me a single (non-LDS) author who holds out any hope whatsoever for evidence of the survival of either the horse or any elephant in the New World past the end of the Pleistocene. Instead, we have absolutes of extinction stated all the time by reputable scientists: "Although mammoths and mastodonts were among the most spectacular victims of these late Pleistocene extinctions [in North America], horses, too, were wiped out." (Donald R. Prothero & Robert M. Schoch, Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals [2002, The Johns Hopkins University Press], pg. 215); "North America has been the centre of evolution of horses throughout their history. During the Pleistocene both New World continents abounded in them and then, some 8000 years ago, the last wild horses in the Americas became extinct..." (R.J.G. Savage, Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated Guide [1986, Facts on File Publicatons], pg. 204). So there you have three respected scientists in two different publications by reliable presses making absolute statements about horse extinction (I could add in the quote from the Handbook of North American Indians as well making four scientists in three publications). So your comment about "trained scientists" and "not done in scholarly circles" and "quack" is misinformed and just plain wrong. Well-trained scientists make absolute comments about extinctions all the time when the preponderence of the evidence justifies it. (Taivo (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

You have not understood; there is a missing link to the theory of evolution. There is no missing link and, based upon your logic that it is recent, we should have found it by now is nonsense. The reason there is a missing link is only because it has not yet been found.

I think you misunderstand what a negative is. Stating that a T-Rex is extinct is not a negative statement. A negative would be: "No archaeological evidence of the missing link will ever be found". Trying to state a negative about the future is left for palm readers, not scientists. No reputable scientists, or archaeologists, would provide such an absolute prognostication for something that is possible. The difference that I am drawing is that I am stating what science says and not attempting to make a deduction about what the future will bring. You are mixing science with your own zealous POV. Pull back on your POV and just let science speak for itself. Extinctions have nothing to do with the topic at hand; it is an analogy that does not apply. --^StormRider 10:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, so your objection is not to the absolute statement made by scientists that horses and elephants became extinct at the end of the Pleistocene in the Americas, but my comment here on the Talk page that evidence would never be found otherwise. I will grant you that my statement is based on probabilities--the probability is vanishingly small that evidence of horses and elephants in the Americas during the time period covered by the BOM will be found. Granted, not zero, but virtually so. So the present statements in Historicity section, "There is no connection...", etc. are completely scientific in the same sense that the statement "Horses became extinct 8000 years ago in the Americas" is. (Taivo (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

(new indent) It is wording that I think is inappropriate both here and the article; it is stating a POV rather than stating the position of science. Science would say that no archaeological evidence has been found for...(take your pick). Science can state that unequivocally. What science would not say is that no evidence will ever be found for... It is a question of spin; you typically want science to make a final conclusion for all time, to speak in absolutes on this topic. The problem that science has learned not to make those types of claims. As a statistician I would not want to provide you the probabilities; it is a little bit like the lotto. The odds are ridiculous that you will win. Those odds are very real for everyone except the individual who won. In science we continue to do research because discoveries are being made all the time. It is certain that new discoveries will continue to be made, new (ancient and modern) species found, there are countless digs just waiting for a pick and brush. You don't need to force science to say something; no spin is needed, just state what is so and leave it me. Conclusions for are readers and reputable, reliable experts only. Cheers. --^StormRider 11:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Rogerdpack (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

---

As a new point, other items on this list of anachronisms are indeed dubious and I would like to see what the consensus is on these:

Swine: There are most definitely "pig like" animals that are native to the Americas, namely the Peccary which by the way we have at my local zoo and my 4 year old son swears are pigs. This is an argument based on semantics...

Silk: Many differing explanations on this, including the Spaniards accounts themselves calling indigenous fabrics "silk"...another argument of semantics.

Scimitar: The argument here is that the scimitar wasn't even given it's name until after Lehi left for the New World...yet another argument that can be boiled down the Joseph Smith just using the most common term for a curved-bladed hand-held weapon...again semantics.

Chariots: This argument stems from the lack of evidence of wheeled vehicles. The lack of evidence of the chariots mentioned in the Bible doesn't draw the same criticism, but regardless, by what definition do we describe a chariot? Does it need wheels? Or can it just be a nice cushy chair for the royalty of the time carried on the backs of servants? Those certainly existed, and again down to semantics with these "chariots"...how else would you describe such a mode of transportation if you are "translating" something?

I simply ask for input here...I know these are all apologetic arguments, but these anachronisms do seem fairly easily struck down by just arguing "best word substitution", but then again maybe all these anachronisms suffer this...I don't know. Twunchy (talk) 19:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

When referenced statements are used to take a declarative position, it is always appropriate to balance the article with conflicting positions from other reliable sources. On controversial topics it is especially important to provide a balanced approach. However, a reliable, reputable source is required.

I would be careful of the semantics argument because it cuts both ways. If Joseph was using the terms he knew to describe one thing, he would do it for all things. Thus he would use scimitar for a curved weapon, but he would only call a wheeled vehicle a chariot (that is opinion, but with RS you can say anything). Does this make sense? --^StormRider 20:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts on the issue. 1) Swine occurs in only one non-KJV verse of the BOM and it is clearly in a context of domesticated animals. The peccary does not have the characteristics of behavior to make it domesticable (see Jared Diamond's excellent discussion of domesticability in "Guns, Germs and Steel"). It should be retained in the list, but the peccary could be mentioned in a footnote along with the Diamond domesticability issue. If "swine" occurred in a context of wild animals, then it could be deleted from the list. Context is key here. 2) Silk is a non-issue and is one of those times when nit-picking by critics obscures and trivializes legitimate issues. 3) Scimitar could, indeed, refer to any type of curved blade, but the problem is that I have never seen an single example of a curved blade in the Americas. Indeed, the only "blades" that I've seen (beyond knife blades) are obsidian-edged straight club-like affairs from Mesoamerica (I can't remember whether Mayan or Aztec). Curves imply metal weapons and metal was not used for weaponry in pre-Columbian America. Some of the copper axe-heads in the upper Midwest may have been used for "weapons", but they were never fashioned into curved blades. 4) Chariots are wheeled war transport. There were no wheels in pre-Columbian America. If Smith used "chariot" to refer to a non-wheeled vehicle, then it would be unique in English literature. We must assume a normal meaning for "chariot". If a shoulder-borne chair was intended, Smith already had a word for it--"litter". There is no reason to use "chariot" unless wheels were intended. I don't mind whittling the list of anachronisms down to legitimate instances such as "horse", "elephant", etc. and getting away from "semantic flexibility" such as "silk", "ore", etc. But, as Storm Rider has clearly stated, the semantics argument is not a catch-all. (Taivo (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

In the spirit of this discussion I have inserted language that moves away from the absolutist language previously used to a more scientific language, e.g. "evidence has not been found for", instead of "didn't exist". I have also added a brief paragraph that points to the apologetic realm of research. Twunchy (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the addition. Perhaps it's more fair than my "softening" attempt :) Rogerdpack (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Intro is not Text

To the anonymous IP who keeps adding the issue of the change in the Intro to the BOM, you have a nice comment that is irrelevant to the issue of changes in the Text of the BOM. The Intro is not part of the text and any changes to it are not covered by the topic of "Changes to the Text". Stop adding that in. I will keep taking it out. We already mention the change to the Intro in one of the footnotes where it is relevant (under the DNA discussion, I think). It is irrelevant in the section on textual changes. (Taivo (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2009 (UTC))

Intro is part of the Book of Mormon

Thanks, Taivo. I failed to sign-in.

The section is titled "Changes between versions" does not specify changes between versions of the portion Joseph Smith claimed was translated from the golden plates.

A minor note in the footnote does not seem to capture the signficance of a recent change coming on the heels of the DNA challenges.

Jlorz (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the Introduction was NOT part of the translated text. The claim by critics is that changes in the translated text are problematic. That's what the section is about. NOT about changes in the peripheral, non-translated material. The introduction is NOT part of the translated text and is irrelevant to the critics' claims of changes. (Taivo (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

You seem upset, Taivo. Are you? "That's what the section is about" then is vague...because it specifically states "Changes between versions"...it doesn't state "Changes between the original published text claimed to be translated by Joseph Smith". The claims by critics also include that the long held assertions of the Book of Mormon is that it is a specific history of the Amerindians and the interpretation of the copyright holders has been perpetuated in the Introduction first included in 1981. The apologists for a major Mormon theological blunder concerning the historicity of the Book is pretty relevant. Please help me understand why you are the final word on this, since I'm new at proposing content. And please don't be upset. I think a balanced approach would be helpful in clarifying evolving LDS beliefs on the Book of Mormon. Thoughts anyone else? 65.122.116.226 (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't upset. I just write bluntly. I know exactly the position that you were espousing. But your argument was equivalent to discussing changing Christian theology based on differing title pages to the King James Bible. It's mildly interesting on a page dedicated to Christian theology, but not relevant to a discussion of the KJV text itself. (Taivo (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

To put out this fire, I have changed the section title to better reflect the intent of the section; which was to compare subsequent printings of the BOM to the original 1830 version. Twunchy (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Curious omission?

As I'm thinking about this article, there is no explanation as to why the Book of Mormon is titled as such. There is nothing in this article on the origin of the name of the book itself. Off the top of my head I can't think of where to find that info, so if anyone else can clue me in that would be great. Twunchy (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts...did Mormon name this "The Book of Mormon" i.e. did he personally engrave his name on the title page to be translated as "his" book, or was it named by Joseph Smith or was it an inspired name ("God told me to call the book this")? Twunchy (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I inserted the logical place for this info to go in the article with an expansion tag and heading... Twunchy (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from History of the Church, by Joseph Smith:

"I wish to mention here that the title-page of the Book of Mormon is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates, which contained the record which has been translated; …and that said title-page is not…a modern composition, either of mine or of any other man who has lived or does live in this generation" (HC 1:71.)

This, of course, does not apply to the "By Joseph Smith, Junior./Author and Proprieter/Palmyra:Printed by E.B. Grandin, for the Author/1830," in the 1830 edition, which were obviously modern.

So the quesiton of who wrote it, would be, according to this statement and the internal logic, probably Moroni. However, if you are a literalist, you might also say that it had to be someone after Moroni, since the page states that the Book of Mormon had already been "sealed by the hand of Moroni" at the time the title page was written. Or maybe Moroni was just anticipating the fact that he would be sealing the book up in the future. COGDEN 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source...I have filled out the new section and deleted redundant info in the following section. Twunchy (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Title section was much too long, Twunchy, so I edited it down to the essential information to make its content equivalent in scope to the following Organization section. The "purpose" quote is already found (nearly word-for-word) lower down on the page where it belongs with the doctrinal material. Should there be a comment on the difference on the title page between what Smith (wrote/translated) and what now appears? This will short-circuit another attempt to insert the material about the recent changes because of missing Israelite DNA in Native America. (Taivo (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Wow. I thought this was an electronic encyclopedia and not paper. You took out 2 paragraphs and made it into 1 worthless sentence. I'm thinking that's a bit extreme. There were some great pieces of information that I retrieved for that section and I'm going to restore most of it. Sorry. Twunchy (talk) 04:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant information...it was already in the text twice, (before I started the new section) this is the second section that the quotes were in...sorry I missed it, but it's no excuse to get out the loppers! The information is now in the proper section, with one relevant quote left in the Jesus subsection. Also, there was a method to my madness here as the original title information is in the lede, BUT NOT IN THE ARTICLE. This is why the section needs to be a bit longer, all other books of the Book of Mormon have their own article, but not the title page, so the info needs to go somewhere, not just cut to extinction. Twunchy (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right now, the section on the title overwhelms the section on the book itself. I'm still going to trim some. The details on where in the plates the title page was located is extreme and unnecessary, I think. I still think that the only relevant information for an encyclopedic summary article is that the title page was claimed by Smith to be in the plates. The other is pretty much fluff IMHO. (Taivo (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

The source of the title page is fluff? I think it's great to have here because it is not common knowledge. The other information that belonged in this section was scattered through the article, and like I said there is nowhere else for this information to go, and unless you're willing to create a new article to send all your clippings to you are censoring the information I think. Twunchy (talk) 04:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with these new edits...much better than before. Twunchy (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I cut a little more. The second sentence said the same thing the first sentence did--Smith said the title was on the plates. Saying this is a "translation" is POV, so we must be careful to qualify all such statements with "Smith said". The actual full title is discussed in the first sentence of the article. (Taivo (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC))

Origin of Names in the Book of Mormon

I'm surprised that there is no mention of the origin names in the Book of Mormon. Some critics claim that the names are not Hebrew, Egyptian, nor consistent with with the time period or location of which the book was written. This is a common criticism of the BOM and should be included.

Aykantspel (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a whole separate article on Linguistics and the Book of Mormon where this issue is discussed at nauseum. (Taivo (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

Taivo (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't say at nauseum since the argument I am referring to isn't mentioned there either (maybe something similar is mentioned briefly, but with no detail or references,) but I will bring it up at that page. Thanks. (Taivo (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aykantspel (talk • contribs)

Moroni as prophet

Um, Taivo, the person who wrote the Book of Moroni is referred to as a prophet correctly within the context here...your attempts to neutralize any religious word here is your POV and doesn't belong in the article. There is nothing POV about calling Moroni a prophet within the context of this obviously religious article. Twunchy (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It should be "a" and not "the" on first mention, however. (Taivo (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

You should also realize that one of the most common complaints from non-members about this article is that it is too POV. We've both seen extremists in the past vandalizing it with abandon. My edits are not directed at criticizing the faithful, but at minimizing the "hooks" that non-member critics can latch onto. You made a good point about "prophet". Just remember that I'm not anti-LDS, but there is no such thing as NPOV from any editor on a religious article. (Taivo (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm sure we both agree that this article is quite neutral to the subject (sometimes brutally so), and that anyone with a POV either on one side or the other is going to whine about this article. We should deal with that as it arises, but let's not be too sissy about edits in anticipation of such. If there's an objection to something, it should be dealt with when addressed. As to the "a" vs "the" I don't think that applies here since the name Moroni has been mentioned 6 times before this section, all in the context of the angel Moroni, so the use of the word "prophet" is used to distinguish the difference between Moroni's ministry on earth and his angelic role after death. Therefore, we don't need to jar the reader by referring to him as "a prophet named Moroni", but simply refer to him as "the prophet Moroni", this puts the text into the correct time frame where a logical assumption is made that this is the same person as angel Moroni, but while he was living, instead of the possible confusion created by the use of the word "a" causing a disconnect and possible confusion that there is yet another Moroni here. Twunchy (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So then the first reference to Moroni shouldn't be as "an angel" but something along the lines of "the spirit of an ancient American prophet named Moroni". I know that "angel" is the traditionally used term, but we should specifically reference that the angel was the spirit of the prophet. In traditional Christianity, angels are not post-mortal spirits of men, so many readers approaching this article will not necessarily equate "an angel named Moroni" with "the prophet Moroni". The two need to be overtly connected. (Taivo (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not opposed to this wording, but let's not get too involved in the definition of angels...there are many, with every religion out there defining them uniquely, the definition you mention is quite the traditional Catholic depiction of angels, (a separate race of divine beings), which is not necessarily the "traditional Christian" view, since there is no universal depiction. Regardless, we should leave nothing to question, I suppose. Twunchy (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Good wording. (Taivo (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC))

NPOV tag in teachings about political theology section

I am not sure what is non-neutral about this section of the article. Whether you are a believer in the BOM (as I am) or not, either way, those are some of the political/economic ideas presented in the BOM. I thought that (other than some repeated language that I removed anonymously (forgot to log in first)) it was well done. What is not neutral about this section? Would everyone be comfortable with removing the tag now?--Jlc46 (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am less sure what to do about the citation complaint. The section is attempting to show what the BOM teaches about certain topics, and cites the BOM itself. In this one instance I am not sure why direct citations instead of secondary citations are not adequate. I can think of some Nibley or other authors who have written about some of these themes in the BOM, but if I wanted to know what the BOM taught about kings, a reference to the BOM passages that talk about kings would be much more useful. I guess that I think that the current citations are sufficient, but I am willing to try and dig up some more if that is what everyone thinks it needs... if not, can we remove that tag too?--Jlc46 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't add the citation tags, but I would guess that just citing the original text with your interpretation would classify as WP:OR. That's just my guess, though. I generally stay away from editing this section. (Taivo (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

Primary references are acceptable as long as there can be no other interpretation. If the verse is open to interpretation then a secondary reference is needed. For example, LDS think that 1 Cor 15:29 supports baptism of the dead; however, no other group interprets the scripture similarly. Therefore, if the topic was baptism for the dead a reference to the verse is not adequate, but rather we need a secondary reference that demonstrates the LDS position and those contrary. Make sense? --^StormRider 04:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense. I was just guessing anyway. I also don't really think that the POV tag is necessary for this section. I think that it was added a few months ago when two editors were in a dispute over the exact nature of some of the points. This type of information is always POV anyway, they are statements of belief basically. LOL. One way to see what the objections were is to remove the POV tag and see who objects ;) (Taivo (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC))

A tag is only valid when there is a section on the dicussion page that clearly defines the problems and what is needed to remove the tag. I don't think it s present and thus can just be removed. --^StormRider 04:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yes Storm Rider, that was what I was getting at, I am not exactly sure how you could dispute the interpretations, as they are not interpretations, just statements of fact, i.e. a is in the text, b is in the text, and c is in the text... how do you dispute that? I guess you could dispute whether modern members of the Latter-day Saint movement believe those things, but it is hard to dispute that those things are in the text of the Book of Mormon, so if the wording was careful to say only that these items appear in the Book of Mormon text, but have potential alternate interpretations as to how we should live today for those who believe the text, then we should be ok. For example, the Bible contains references to killing all the Amalakites, but that doesn't mean that all followers of the Bible today go out and kill everyone who has any Amalakite blood in their veins (since statistically speaking, we all do by now). Saying that we should all kill everyone would be an opinion/original research, but saying that the Bible has a passage about it is not, it is just a statement of fact. Sorry for adding this discussion at the top, I have edited some pages before, but this is my first shot at a controversial topic, and therefore my first shot at the obligatory discussion before edit ;-) will add to the back from now on. Thanks for everyone's help on this.--98.202.73.63 (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Context in the article then becomes very important. I think the problem comes when you try to say the BofM "teaches" something. It does not teach politics, but there are instances in the book where a king is discouraged, kings are used, etc. etc. I really do think we would all be on better ground if we had a secondary source. --^StormRider 17:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

yes, so perhaps we should say "mentions" or "describes" instead of teaches everywhere? Would that solve the problem?--Jlc46 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good solution. There is still the possibility of someone saying, "But the text doesn't 'mean' that when it says X" or "But this other text says Y", but it's less of a problem in dealing with the BOM than with the Bible. If everything is clearly stated, "The BOM says X", then if there is a dispute it can be worked out here, but we get away from interpretation. A good secondary source, "Nibley says that the BOM teaches Y" avoids all issues of interpretation because we're just quoting Nibley and not assigning meaning to the text itself, however. (Taivo (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC))

There also is a need to dispute NPOV in the origins section. The Book of Mormon was plagiarized from from a book by Solomon Spaulding. Failure to mention this is biased in favor of Mormonism and fails to give Spaulding credit for his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.16.160 (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph just above this --"There is also a need..." -- is about a different section of the article than the previous discussion. Also the previous discussion seems to have ended over three months ago. For these reasons, I have created a new section at the bottom of this discussion page to deal with the concern raised by 24.168.16.120. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)