Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 3

message: I checked out similar articles for Qur'an and Bible as well as the Sacred text article.  Enlightening style guides.  Good required reading for any would-be editors of this page.  Hawstom 21:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Style for article

message: Hawstrom - To some of your hidden comments in the text: Yes the Book of Mormon is published by other churches besides the LDS Church. I also agree that it would be helpful to those eding this page if they read those other pages (Qur'an, Bible and Sacred Texts) prior to editing this page. If you'll notice though, these other pages have silenced any controversy that has been introduced about the sacred texts. Since they have a history of over a thousand years, they can squash it better than a sacred text that has only been around for 170+ years. I think they are missing a lot of information in not allowing the information to be included (or as seperate controversies articles), and the issue will certainly be introduced soon. May want to look at the discussion going on at User talk:Eloquence#Book of Mormon controversies regarding NPOV issues and overviews of sacred texts. I personally like this format and think it could solve issues that are occuring on other controversial sites. Part of the discussion states: 
:The page gives (and should give) an overview of what it says it is (and to your point is not the exclusive domain of their believers - although wikipedians seem to be censoring those type of pages as a whole, which I can understand). I think MOST of the the controversies are better handled in another forum, allowing the main page to give an overview.... This would save a lot of problems on the Mother Teresa page if they left the page be a simple biographical sketch of her life and then had two other pages on achievements and controversies. It seems like a no-brainer to me, but in that article's case there isn't enough sense in the editors to realize this (because it is so heated, not that they aren't smart). I do think that more criticism needs to be added into other sacred texts articles, as the editors don't seem to allow outside opionion and controversy. I think the controversy article about the book of mormon is a very good start on a great thing. I think people can argue with content within articles about main subjects themselves, but they can't argue with a seperate controversies page.
Happy editing Visorstuff 22:49, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The Community of Christ published at least one distinct edition in 1908.  It can be found online at http://www.centerplace.org/hs/bofm/default.htm. COGDEN 18:13, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

text: Anything since 1908 outside the LDS Church? Hawstom 04:23, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: The Community of Christ also created a Revised Authorized Version of the Book of Mormon in 1966. The Zarahemla Research Foundation of Independence, Missouri also created a Restored Covenant Edition in 1999 with the words of Christ in red. --NateT 04:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Check out Herald Publishing House, the offical publisher for Community of Christ. --NateT 04:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: Hidden Comments

message: While User:Eloquence is working on a proposal for this page, I think it may be good to look at how criticisms of the Bible are done - Higher criticism, textual criticism and Documentary hypothesis are a few that come close to the criticisms of Biblical texts. How does criticims come to play in the Bible page? On Qur'an? We should model after these. Visorstuff 00:30, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Eliminating the Controversies Page

message: Beginning of a Gold Plates article Hawstom 07:09, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Plates Page

message: Hi, I've been the one who — over the past several months — has occasionally added Hebrew forms of BoM names, though only where the linguistics behind a name are known.  I was wondering — since Arabic is also believed by LDS to be a contributing language to the BoM, would anyone here object if I added Arabic BoM forms to the various relevant articles?  For instance, the official Arabic BoM has distinctive spellings for names such as Omni, Mosiah, Alma, Zarahemla, Helaman, etc.  I thought it would be good detail. - Gilgamesh 07:13, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We named our 4 month old recently neutered cat, "Omni". What is Omni in arabic?... —B|Talk 00:27, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is عمني ʿUmnī.  Based on that and the BoM's transliteration Omni for the name, it would be reasonable to expect the logical Tiberian Hebrew form (the earliest Hebrew standard I can reasonably construct) to be עמני ʿOmnî.  Of course the believed date of the Book of Mormon's beginning is c. 600 B.C., which predates Tiberian Hebrew by approximately 1500 years.  Anyway, in both cases, emphasis is on the second syllable, and the first consonant in both cases (the left-leaning apostrophe-like object) is a voiced pharyngeal consonant, something rare in most of the world's languages, but plentiful in Semitic languages. - Gilgamesh 00:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Anyway, since I don't see objections, I think I could start adding Arabic forms to the articles.  In the language headers I'll link to Arabic language of the Book of Mormon (for which I've also prepared briefer redirects to the same), and give the Arabic form as it appears in the published Arabic Book of Mormon.  By the way, I encourage people to review the new article for factual accuracy, copyediting, NPOV, etc., in a respectful and courteous matter. - Gilgamesh 00:52, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Linguistics in BoM articles

message: I removed the following from the section about BOM alternate theories:
:These theories were advanced after Egyptology managed to translate ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs, some huge abnormalities were found. Smith's translation of a Hypocephalus called Facsimile no. 2, for example, included problems such as Smith translating the gliph for 'water' into a three sentences about false gods. In places where characters had worn off, he was divinely inspired to replace them with characters (written upside down) which translated to mean that blacks couldn't attain the priesthood. 
This has nothing to do with the article on the Book of Mormon. I am working on an article aobut the Hypocephalus which will allow this argument there. Indicentally, we've hashed over the incorrectness of the supposed "water" translation in other pages, including a rather lengthy discussion about the inconsistencies of Larson's work at Talk:Book_of_Abraham#Nonsense. This loosely defined theory is not closely supported by any non-Mormon scholars, except Charles and Stan Larson (not known if related) and the even the Tanners seems to flip back and forth on this theory. -Visorstuff 20:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Facsimile translation deletion

message: Anyone ever notice that every time one of this " prophecies" doesnt come true, the LDS tries to forget about said now bunk prophecy?	 
		 
Youll also notice that none of said "prophecies" have ever actually come true?	 
herss a  source
http://www.contenderministries.org/mormonism/bomproblems.php 
Gabrielsimon 03:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really the place to argue about this - if you have non-orginal research re these prophecies - please provide quote to the article/location and discuss. 205.188.116.14 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I will happily read your reference - however, that does not excuse your behavior of deleting my comments below. 205.188.116.14 14:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, check out Joseph Smith as a Prophet and let's write down the controversy. Jgardner 23:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: smith as "prophet"

message: Prophecies section. The first problem with these are the examples: Civil War, temple in Missouri. Both of these are not found in the Book of Mormon. This isn't the best place for them. 205.188.116.14 18:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read the whole thing, and you are absolutely 100% correct. Just because Joseph Smith is claimed to have said something, doesn't mean it was in or supported by the Book of Mormon. --Nerd42 20:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prophecies