Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon

Chiasmus

The entire paragraph on Chiasmus has no references (except one explaining what Chiasmus is). It's going to have to go unless some references can be found. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there needs to be a link to the Chiasmus page.Gallus lafayettii (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Constancy of Language

Does anyone know whether there are statements about the language used in the supposed original plates of the BoM? In short, is there any record of whether the language in which 1 Nephi was supposedly originally written is the same in which the Book of Moroni was written? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've never heard anyone talk about anything other than "Reformed Egyptian"--no "Old Reformed Egyptian", "Partially Reformed Egyptian", "Mostly Egyptian", or any other such distinction in the language of the plates. Since the plates (never existed / are no longer available for examination) it's more of an academic musing than anything else I'm afraid. Smith never said anything about a different language in the beginning than in the end. He only talked about "Reformed Egyptian" as a unitary language. Even the Book of Ether is Moroni's edit (and translation?) of older materials so it would have been in "Reformed Egyptian" as well. (Taivo (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC))

@DJ Clayworth Well if you think about it, Old English is not the same as Modern English, so both Nephi and Moroni were speaking the same language, it's just Moroni was speaking a later descendant of Nephite Hebrew.17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC) Gallus lafayettii (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on category inclusion/exclusion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus in favor of including the article in the pseudohistory category. Arguments on both sides were weakened by the fact they often referred to the Book of Mormon — a separate article to the one under discussion. However, editors against the inclusion failed to provide strong enough arguments as to why the category is inadequate for this article in isolation. Even though votes were divided relatively equally between both options, I find the relative strength of arguments to be consequently in favor of inclusion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

---

Should this article be listed in the Category:Pseudohistory? JimKaatFan (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - the Book of Mormon presents itself as history, and there are no historians that regard it as based in actual historical fact. One of the identified characteristics of a pseudohistory (from the wikipedia article) is that it "is almost always motivated by a contemporary political, religious, or personal agenda." That certainly fits the bill here, not only when applied to the Book of Mormon itself, but when looking at the people claiming it as actual history. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
• No - A previous related discussion arrived at a local consensus that inclusion of the Book of Mormon article would fail WP:CATPOV, and I think those arguments also apply here. Other religious topics and objects of disputed historicity or rejection by mainstream historians are no similarly categorized, for example The Exodus, Noah's Ark, Biblical patriarchs, Book of Genesis, etc nor are any of the other "Historicity of (religious topic)". To meet WP:CATV, I think we need a well-sourced statement that the subject is explicitly considered pseudohistory. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  But Noah's Ark is classified as pseudoarchaeology. So that's snot a good example. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  The article actually says the practice of searching for it is "widely regarded as pseudoarchaeology." Not quite the same as saying the ark itself is classified as pseudoarcheology. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  This article also actually says the Historicity of the Book of Mormon for it is "widely regarded as pseudohistorical." Not quite the same as saying the Book of Mormon itself is classified as pseudohistorical. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Just to point out -- The Exodus, Noah's Ark, Book of Genesis are all categorized as myths, while the Biblical patriarchs are categorized as legendary. Some might object to those characterizations on NPOV grounds, but CATPOV/CATV doesn't mean we don't call a spade a spade. Feoffer (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Legends and myths aren't pseudohistory, so that's fine. I wouldn't call Greek myths pseudohistory either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  In the context of religious studies, "myth" is not a term used to label something as untrue. This is even explained in an infobox on Category:Origin_myths. So that term/categorization is definitely neutral. Sigvid (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

The "previous related discussion" you keep referring to is from 2004. If you have to go that far back into Wikipedia pre-history to support your case, it's a good sign that you don't have one. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. Unlike the Bible, the Book of Mormon is claimed by its writer (or "translator") Joseph Smith to be "the most correct book on Earth", which means it cannot be wrong historically, factually, scientifically, etc. Well, ironically, it is not. There is no archaeological evidences for anything (wars, people, and the arrival of the Jews in the Americas, for example) mentioned in the book. Anything in the book is simply false but I know the Mormons will not like if I say it, so I will just say "some of the book's contents are incorrect". What is more ironic, Mormons will argue that since the Book of Exodus and Genesis contain unprovable claims like Adam and Eve or the Great Flood, which should have been listed under the Pseudohistory category too, then the Book of Mormon shouldn't be. Well, the differences are:

  1. The Book of Mormon presents itself as "the most correct book on Earth", while the Bible does not.

  2. The fact that the Bible came out thousands years ago means that it should be taken allegorically rather than literally, unlike the Book of Mormon that came out in 1830, which is claimed to be "the most correct book on Earth".

Just because it is a religious text does not mean that it is not or cannot be or should not be listed as pseudohistorical. There is more proofs for the resurrection of Jesus than for elephants in America before the colonisers arrived there. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes. The article largely presents the claims that the book makes, and doesn't delve into actually real history as much as would be needed for the category to be inappropriate. ––FormalDude talk 04:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

  I wonder if this is a weird psychological effect where one sees one's "thorns" before the "roses". I see a lot of emphasis in weight and wording making it clear what the mainstream science says and that those outside this view are apologists, not historians. What does Historicity of the Bible have that this article lacks that keeps the former out of this category? --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Stop comparing the Book of Mormon with other books, you are so bad at making arguments. In regard of the historicity of the Bible, for the New Testament, it has been studied for thousands of times by many scholars (both Christian or not), and general scholarly consensus is between that it is reliable or not, but the former one is more popular among scholars. For the Old Testament, since these books are written long before the Common Era, it will be more difficult to conclude if it is pseudohistorical or not, though many modern scholars state that it largely is. Why I write "largerly" is because many Old Testament figures have been identified by non-biblical sources, especially the most famous King David. I will not mind if you want to add the Pseudohistory category into the Historicity of the Bible article but you have to come with good arguments. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Nicholas Michael Halim: I'll say this once - no need to reply. Regarding this, comment on content and do not disparage other editors. That is all. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Pseudohistorical works on holocaust denial also contain figures are also identified by non-holocaust denialist scholars. That's one of the keys of pseudohistory, using just enough real history to make your fake research look like real research. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes No reputable historian regards it as historical. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• No, as it doesn't actually fit the definition of pseudohistory. There is no claim to scholarly or academic methods. It's just a guy using magical glasses to read golden plates he dug up after an angel told him where they were buried. Nothing about that is presenting itself as actual historical study. Take a look at Notable examples of pseudohistory include British Israelism, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy, the Irish slaves myth, the witch-cult, Armenian genocide denial, Holocaust denial, the clean Wehrmacht myth, the anti-Spanish Black Legend, and the claim that the Katyn massacre was not committed by the Soviet NKVD. from our article on Pseudohistory. All of these have "researchers" that try and prove things through scholarship, and they write papers and books. It's no more pseudohistory than any other religious text.
  Yes, it's wrong, incorrect, silly and plenty of other things, but it's still a religious revelation, not a work of pseudoscholarship. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Problem there is that's the argument against calling a lot of things pseudoscience, I've seen fringe comments saying it can't be pseudoscience because there's no attempt at science. Doug Weller talk 14:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Something can be fringe and wrong without actually being pseudoscience. Someone saying they can talk to ghosts isn't necessarily pseudoscience if they're not making any scientific claims. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  You essentially argue we should have a sort of "religious exemption" to pseudohistory, but a quick peek at Category:Pseudohistory shows we regularly include religious or semi-religious topics in the category: Yakub (Nation of Islam), The Lost Tomb of Jesus, Darius the Mede, etc. And indeed, we have to: Is a topic like Ancient Aliens or Atlantis or QAnon religious or not?? Who can say. There is no clear dividing line between faith and false-fact. Feoffer (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  WP:OTHERSTUFF covers most of that. As for the dividing line, this is disguistingdiscussing the main scripture of an established, fairly mainstream religion. Where exactly the line may be is up for debate, but I'm pretty confident this is well on the religious side. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  We certainly don't mean to disrespect anyone's scripture, but we can't let that outweigh NPOV/V. The Book of Daniel is a mainstream scripture, but we still categorize Darius the Mede as an article relevant to students of pseudohistory. Feoffer (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Precisely. Religious works and pseudohistorical works are not in any way mutually exclusive. They are overlapping categories. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• Sadly, yes. Regrettably, categories require us to make "Black-or-White" decisions -- we cannot "half-include" categories. While we cannot state as metaphysical certitude that BoM IS pseudo-history, there is no doubt that students of pseudohistory will be interested in an article of on BoM. And that's what the category system is, at its essence, about. Feoffer (talk) 11:33, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I believe this is why we have such guidelines like WP:CATPOV and WP:CATV. In article text it is easy to make binary decisions while maintaining NPOV because they can be attributed and sourced. Categories appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition. We, as editors, should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when adding categories to articles and the categorization should be clear from verifiable information in the article. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are right that we should be have a neutral point of view, but you should not forget that neutrality on Wikipedia should be based on general consensus. For the case of the historicity of the Book of Mormon, it finds no support from the general consensus among secular (or non-Mormon) historians and archaeologists, which is why the article should be listed under the Pseudohistory category. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  I might be sympathetic to WP:CATPOV concerns if people were insisting on adding Category:Pseudohistory to Book of Mormon itself, but this article is literally about book's historicity. There's no doubt it's an article relevant to the discussion of pseudohistory.Feoffer (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• No per SFR. It should be clear that it is a religious text. Some may claim, on faith I presume, that it is a factual text but I don't think people generally treat it as such. It does come across as a failure of IMPARTIAL to treat this religious text differently than others in this context. Springee (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• No FyzixFighter and ScottishFinnishRadish laid it out pretty clearly. Its purpose was to promote a particular religion, not a secular sociopolitical worldview (like aliens building the pyramids) independent of dogma, faith, and internal "spiritual" beliefs. The myth of Atlantis is based off cockeyed reading of Plato, and other abuses of scholarship and is thus pseudohistory. If it was invented in a book written by a deranged archaeologist to promote Indiana Jones and Sophia Hapgood as gods, it would be a religious text. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• No. While it is fine to assess consensus on whether a document is historical, assessing one religion's documents against another to treat one religion differently from another violates both WP:ORIGINAL as well as WP:NPOV. Neutrality on Wikipedia is policy and the first of the core principles. Consensus to be non-neutral cannot override it. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Reghardless of how many angels may dance on the head of a pin, this has never been a work of history, only the imaginary—very well imagined, but imagined—history of one man. SN54129 09:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. 1) the Book of Mormon purports to be a book of (mostly) history 2) it isn't, almost all of the "history" that it presents is invented 3) that's pretty much the definition of pseudohistory. Nobody else's religious books are remotely relevant, nor is its standing as a religious text. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• No I agree with Pyrrho the Skipper that "FyzixFighter and ScottishFinnishRadish laid it out pretty clearly". Springee is also correct imho. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes There's a lot to unpack in this subject area, but my conclusion is that the article subject is strongly associated with pseudohistory and should be categorized as such. This is not the article for the Book of Mormon, but the historicity thereof. Even if you consider that the book itself is an article of faith, the discussion of historicity firmly lands in the area of pseudohistory. The NPOV concerns above are mostly manifestations of whataboutism and don't hold much weight. We don't need to mince words here. AlexEng^(TALK) 03:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes The Book of Mormon clearly falls into the category of the Mound Builder pseudohistory which was a dominant theory in the 1820s and 1830s (see Mound_Builders#Popular_mythology). While the mound builder theory has been thoroughly debunked and the BoM is no longer viewed through that lens by modern mormons, it was at once uncontroversially recognized as such by early Mormons as is attested by numerous reliable sources. Contrary to what has been stated, the mound builder myth WAS a secular socioplitical worldview. Epachamo (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an important point. Feoffer (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes as Alex Eng has said, this article is about the BoM's historicity and that is clearly pseudohistory. I think that some of the Yes voters are confusing our article on the BoM with this one. I'd have to be convinced to call the BoM pseudohistory, but this is a different kettle of fish. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
• No, as this is a POV on the religion. Almost all religious books can be described as pseudo-histories with the same argument. The Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, the Puranas, and so on and so forth. Unless all religious books containing history are flagged, singling out Mormon scripture is taking sides here. Baxbox (talk) 09:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Baxbox: This article is not about the Book of Mormon itself but about a specific topic, its historicity. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Baxbox, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a relevant argument here. If you want to discuss the categorization of other articles, it would be appropriate to do so on their own talk pages. Not here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

There are broader implications here, it isn't neutral to single out Mormons on Wikipedia, there must be some even handed consistency across religious topics. Furthermore, as ScottishFinnishRadish above and as BilledMammal below says "being wrong doesn't make it pseudohistory". This is a religious book, it is not written or presented a scholarship. It is presented as true. But all religious books are presented as true. That doesn't mean that they have to be flagged as psuedohistory, or psuedoscience, or some other pseudo. No one seriously presents this as historical scholarship. Baxbox (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

it isn't neutral to single out Mormons Mormons aren't being singled out. Category:Pseudohistory is full of faith-related pages. Feoffer (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• (Summoned by bot) No, per ScottishFinnishRadish; being wrong doesn't make it pseudohistory. BilledMammal (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding a category to this article doesn't make Book of Mormon pseudohistory either. The goal of the category system is to provide navigational links, that's it. There's no doubt that this article is strongly associated with the topic of pseudohistory. Feoffer (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes Given the wikipedia rules, its pretty clear cut, I don't know how we couldn't.Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I'm curious since different policies and guidelines have been linked to by both sides of this debate, - which rules in particular are you referring to? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• No, I don't think category labels are particularly useful and should not be used to make contentious points. Also a page on historicity doesn't seem like it needs a label of pseudohistory, but it seems appropriate to put the label on the article for the Book of Mormon itself. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes. Per Jimkaatfan and Hawkeye7. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes, as should nearly every other religious text which purports to describe 'historical' events. Doesn't matter if historians don't take it as accurate—if it was written as if it were historical fact, it is pseudoscience. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
• Yes Yes, because it is by no means historically correct. It is pseudohistory. MraClean (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
• No. Category:Pseudohistory notes that it is the primary category for Pseudohistory, which per that article is a form of pseudoscholarship that attempts to distort or misrepresent the historical record, often by employing methods resembling those used in scholarly historical research (emphasis mine). Simply put, this is not a form of pseudoscholarship; it isn't scholarship at all. While there's an academic consensus that the particular historical narrative in the Book of Mormon is not true, the pseudohistory category is properly reserved only for shoddy pseudoscholarship. I have yet to see anyone in this discussion present sources that take the Book of Mormon as a scholarly work, and absent that evidence it is wildly inappropriate to lump it into the proposed category. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

First, I want to thank @JimKaatFan: for inviting me to be on this discussion. Considering the political and social influences of the Book of Mormon among the people around the world, especially the Mormons, it seems so controversial to label something they consider truth to be pseudohistorical. Discussions are needed to add such things into any article with relations to religious beliefs; Mormonism for example. The Book of Mormon, as stated by its writer, sorry, translator Joseph Smith, is considered by the Mormons to be "the most correct book on Earth", while ironically has faced thousands of grammatical corrections and none of the events "recounted" in it proven by historical evidences. The Native Americans, according to the book, are supposedly to be devout Jews but there is no evidences that they were or, at least, had one contact with the Jews. From this fact only, the Mormon beliefs collapse.

Now, I will talk about this discussion. There are countless statements by archaeologists and scholars that the Book of Mormon contain no historical values but rather historically unprovable events (or, f*c*t*o*n*l, concisely—I do not want to offend any Mormons) that are believed to be true. For example, the very anachronisms that are in the book, such as the existence of horses before the colonisers coming. I am honestly disappointed by the efforts of these apologists trying to reconcile all of these irreconcilable contradictions, but I respect them—as comedic entertainers in my boring days; no offense, thank you. I agree that Adam and Eve, biblical patriarchs, and the Great Flood cannot be proven by both historical or scientific methods, but what makes it different to the Book of Mormon is:

1. The Book of Mormon claims, as said by Smith, to be "the most correct book on Earth", but the facts say differently. The Book of Mormon has been known to contain many anachronisms, as I have mentioned above, and those who try to reconcile it will only meet with two paradoxical situations:

a. Smith is incorrect of some parts. If this premise is true, and it is, the Mormon beliefs will collapse instantly, because Smith claimed the book to be "the most correct book on Earth" before, thus the Book of Mormon is not the "words of [their] God" and it is irreconcilable for the contradiction stands between yes or no, between which there is no a middle way. Now, let's wee see to the second premise.

b. The evidences claimed by scientists are wrong, thus there is probability that the Book of Mormon is true. What is sad about this premise is that scientists will not instantly claim something as evident but rather through carbon dating, the parallels in other source, etc. After years of research, the conclusion is still the same—the Book of Mormon is not historically true. I want to see someone proves the existence of at least one person from the Book of Mormon that is not mentioned in the Bible; the Angel Moroni, who was originally a human, allegedly—I am not talking about his or her angelic form—for example.

2. After encountering these facts, apologists will try to compare the Book of Mormon with other books of the Bible such as the Book of Genesis, the Book of Exodus, and the books of the New Testament. In short, they will say, "If the Bible contains mythical elements but is not considered pseudohistorical, so the Book of Mormon is not either." This argument has many flaws, especially those in Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 3#Category:Pseudohistory:

a. The Bible never claims to be undeniable. For example, the Genesis creation narrative tells us that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, which is not true, but we can not say it to be pseudohistorical because the time this narrative was created was the time when we did know of archaeology, biology, and geology, which tell us that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, which is true. The Bible is not a book of science, at least this is a conclusion most scientists make; you should not have your focus only on the Bible, but in terms of theology, the Bible is not enough and other books, such as the Book of Mormon, are not needed.

b. If the Mormons use the aforementioned argument, it will simply be self-destructive as they also acknowledge the Bible to be the words of God. If they do not believe in the Bible, then they should not believe in the Book of Mormon as well because the Book of Mormon is simply the same or at least similar. By the way, @FyzixFighter:, I tell you that the searches for Noah's Ark has been listed under the Pseudoarcheology category, so it means that the Book of Mormon should be listed under other Pseudo- categories too; I agree with you on this one. In fact, the Book of Mormon has been deemed by many (this, this, and this). @COGDEN: I tell you that the Bible never claims itself to be written by God Himself; your arguments is obviously erroneous.

I have never been a historian, just like Smith, but it is obvious if the Book of Mormon is pseudohistorical simply because it claims as truth while it contains no historical values and many archaeologists have made cases against it. I remember when I first heard the legends of Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene, with no historicity or other proofs for it but is believed by many, just like anything mentioned in the Book of Mormon; do not forget the Book of Mormon's mentions of horses. Please let me know your opinion. Please also understand me that I never want to spread hates among the Mormons but just a little bit of entertainment. Haha! Thank you. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't really buy much of this argument. Just because a religious text claims to be "the most correct book" doesn't mean it's actually trying to be a history. The Bible is claimed to be revealed by god to its followers, and there are plenty of those who hold that it is the whole and actual truth. The bible also describes spinning, interlocking wheels of flaming eyes talking to Zeek, and that's about as likely as elephants in North America.

Pseudohistory implies that the work or author is presenting it as an actual researched work of scholarship. About the time someone says they put their magical lenses on and look at golden plates in a hat, I feel it loses a fair amount of "employing methods resembling those used in scholarly historical research." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

No, the meaning of pseudohistory is not stuck only on pseudo-scholarship but also includes "any work that claims to be history, but does not use established historiographical methods; especially one that uses disputed evidence and speculation rather than relying on the analysis of primary sources." Smith claimed the Book of Mormon to be a record of Native American history, which is not, while modern-day historians (most of them, I mean) conclude that it is not, which I agree with. For clarification, I am talking about the existence of the "elephants" in the Book of Mormon times. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

First, as I've mentioned before, drop the faux-civility in your arguments (similar to what you did here and here) - it doesn't help the discussion and makes your text very hard to read and parse. Just "don't be a dick".

Following on, the article on pseudohistory does define it as "a form of pseudoscholarship". I would argue that pseudoscholarship about an object can be categorized as pseudohistory while the object might not - take for example Noah's Ark and Searches for Noah's Ark. There's a subtlety there that a lot of the argument above (even some of my own) fails to make and why the categorization of this article would be different than categorization of the Book of Mormon article. I've brought up similar religious topics above, to show that the argument that something is rejected and not accepted by mainstream science and historians is insufficient for this categorization. You yourself have invented ad-hoc caveats to preserve your theological "sacred cows". So what is the additional argument? I don't think it's the one you propose above, which really only works for the Genesis creation narrative.

But for a minute, let's say that the Genesis creation was intended to be allegorical and therefore outside this demarcation problem. At what point does the Old Testament and the Bible stop being allegorical. The exodus and the stories of Abraham and Moses and Joshua are certainly presented as real histories, the origin of the Hebrew nations, but all are similarly disputed. But articles like Historicity of the Bible and its related historicity articles (Historical reliability of the Gospels, Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles, etc) are not categorized as such. No mainstream scientist or historian accepts the resurrection of Christ, but Historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus is not categorized on WP as pseudoscience or pseudohistory. That these aren't categorized as such indicates that there is an argument against their inclusion (and I don't think it's the one you propose above) that should be considered here. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I am sorry for having been sarcastic. By the way, I am a human, not a dick, for your information. You are clearly right that pseudohistory is a form of pseudo-scholarship; what we are talking about now is the Historicity of the Book of Mormon not the Book of Mormon itself. Just like the searches for Noah's Ark, which has been listed as pseudoarchaeology long before this discussion was even started and talks about the searches and not about specifically the ark, the historicity of the Book of Mormon involves studies by both Mormon and non-Mormon scholars, and general consensus concludes that the Book of Mormon is unhistorical (or, synonymously, pseudohistorical). I forgot to clarify where the allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament should be stopped; well, I should admit that I have not come with a good argument for this one, please give some days to get it. Sadly, the historicity and origin of the resurrection of Jesus is covered with many historical arguments, such as its mentions in Paul the Apostle's letters or all four Gospels, which biblical scholars believed to be reliable or at least partially. You are right that no scientists believe in His resurrection but is it reasonable to believe any words coming from out the mouths of scientists, even those who are ignorant of the New Testament? I do not think so. Not all scientists are historians or biblical scholars. I will not mind if you want to list His resurrection article as Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience but do not forget for debates or lengthy discussions you have to face with other editors.

By the way, are you a Latter Day Saint? I am just curious because you tirelessly defend this article from being listed in the Pseudohistory category. You have to answer with a yes or no only, or you can tell me, "Sorry, it's not your business." I just want to know, it's not a force. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a present-day root vegetable, and asking another editor their religious affiliation is out of line. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for being out of topic. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Upon reviewing the article and discussion I have some points that may be useful to this article and perhaps this question. In this article's first section the only person claiming literal historical truth was Joseph Smith himself (d. 1844). Next section, Bennett (2000) offers apologetics to resolve language inconsistent with facts, but he is a religious scholar writing in a publication on religion. It appears in the next paragraph the all serious attempts at real-world archaeology based on BoM ended by 1972. However, serious academic discussion has clearly continued (see the limited geography model and Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies), and this article does not give adequate context of what the mainstream clergy believe, what mainstream LDS secular academics believe, and what the LDS membership believes currently. The article Archaeology and the Book of Mormon goes into further detail and includes more recent sources than this article, but also lacks this context. This context is of similar relevance as the status of biblical literalism is to the study of the historicity of the Bible, as even though mainstream Biblical history and archaeology are mostly secular academic pursuits today, until relatively recently (starting in the 1960s) the fields had essentially a theological teleology (whether affirmative or no), and are still plagued with these issues. And if mainstream academic debate on the historicity BoM identifies similar issues within and rejects them (and whether there'd be anything left to study I don't know), it may not be pseudohistory. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Scientology and Pseudoscience

While in general I'm opposed to making decisions on religions, is the fact that Scientology is in the Pseudoscience category relevant as a comparison here?Naraht (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

If you choose to regard it so - but I can't see that it helps us. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

You are missing one.

How about people who think the book of Mormon took place in the American heartland? Gallus lafayettii (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)