Talk:Origin of the Book of Mormon

message: I moved the new text on church views of plagiarism into a dedicated section, because there are 4 sections on plagiarism, and since this is an important rebuttal (and apparently will grow in the future), it deserves its own named section.   There is one issue that we should probably address:  Does this rebuttal somehow need to be clarified to focus mostly on the KJV (and perhaps the Apocrypha)?   Or does the rebuttal also encompass the View of the Hebrews, Wonders of Nature, and the Spaulding text?   If the rebuttal arguments are mostly about the KJV, that fact should probably be noted, since there are five source documents under discussion.  Noleander (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Church rebuttals to plagiarism

message: This is kind of a minor thing but in the possible sources section, right before the list of this is written "Critics specifically cite four books that Joseph Smith could have used to obtain verses for the Book of Mormon, though they fail to tell us how Smith could have acquired them." I take exception to the "though they fail..." 
because it would seem that these books were widely available at that time in America.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rustytrombone32 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better if it read: Circumstancial evidence suggests that Joseph Smith or oliver cowdery may have had acces to the sources. Evidence such as....... However it is impossible to prove or disprove if Joseph Smith was in possesion of or had previously read the cited texts. --155.98.108.141 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

text: If you are certain that is correct, go ahead and fix it. --Noleander (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources of Plagiarism

message: Apparently a reference to Lucifer was also mis-translated.  Not sure how long a list of errors should be inlcuded, but four or five seems about right to me.  Any thoughts? Jspice9000 (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Similarities of some segments to the King James Version

message: Since when have movies become references?  This topic deserves something a little more substantial. If someone can find a statement by an organized church to that effect I would appreciate it.
I accept reality and dare not question it.--WaltFrost (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Theories

message: Mbz1:  There is a POV tag on this article, but those must be accompanied by an explanation on the Talk page explaining the issue.  I looked on this Talk page and couldnt find any discussion of the POV tag.  Maybe Im looking in the wrong place.   Can you explain why the POV tag should stay?  Thanks.  --Noleander (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go ahead and remove the POV tag.  If think it should be restored, that is okay, but the POV policy says there must be an explanation (on the Talk page) of reason for the POV.  So you should either add an explanation, or point us to where the explanation is.  --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale needed for POV tag 

message: Regarding the new 5th possible source of the BOM:  we need better sources if it is to be included here.  It is only mentioned in one web site, and in one self-published book: "House of Faith House of Cards: One Man's Journey Through the World of Mormonism, Magic, and Murderers".   If it is a source of the BOM, other analysts will have noted it in more reliable works.  --Noleander (talk) 01:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need better sources for Warren's book 

message: Mvonied:  what is your goal with the color highlighting?  Also, you are adding additional text, true?  What is the source you are using for that additional text? --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Color highlighting should be avoided as much as possible in Wikipedia because it cannot be read by software readers used by blind users.  --Taivo (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be possible to accomplish the same goal by using bold and italicized text.--Mvonnied (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mvonnied:  Can you, here -  in the talk page - put the new tables that you want in the article.  Just copy the text from the main article, change it the way you want it, and put it here as if they were in the article.  Then we can see what you have in mind before it goes  into the main article. As for bold/italic: I'll have to see what it looks like before I can render an opinion.  The snippets of text (in the article) are fairly small, and it is obvious to any reader where the alleged plagiarism is, so I'm not sure if  bold-ing is necessary.  Do you also want to include more text? --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is purpose of color highlighting? 

message: It would be beneficial to add more text from the original sources as quoted by critics. This may be accomplished by adding the text that David Persuitte quotes in italics and bold in the context of the surrounding paragraph of the original sources. Doing so would allow a reader to gain a better understanding of the alleged plagiarized texts. (Mvonnied (talk) 19:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole table needs to be deleted.  Wikipedia is not the place for people to do research and decide whether X or Y point of view is accurate or not.  Wikipedia is the place to get basic information.  It is enough that some critics say that the BOM is partially plagiarized from the View of the Hebrews.  That POV exists and needs to be documented.  Wikipedia is not the place for a reader to decide whether or not X author or Y author is right or not.  Wikipedia is a catalogue of views, of which the View of the Hebrews plagiarism is one.  It is not Wikipedia's place to present every detail of every theory and present minute critiques of every element of each theory.  I think the whole table is overkill.  The article used to state, simply and elegantly, that some critics think Smith plagiarized from The View of the Hebrews.  Then it moved on to the next topic without trying to convince the reader whether that was an accurate critique or not.  We need to ditch the table and go back to the simple elegance that was there before.  --Taivo (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Taivo:  Sorry, but the sources use a table-like format to present the comparison between the BOM text and the other texts.  Other formats would make it nearly impossible for readers to understand what the sources are saying.  Certainly you are not suggesting that the quotes from the other texts be deleted from the article?   Any concerns you have are better resolved by adding material that counter-balances the plagiarism allegations ... do you have any  sources that could be used for that purpose? --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mvonnied:   You ask "what is the point the tables are trying to make?".  They are not making any point:  they are simply conveying the identical information that several sources present (see the footnotes).  Your proposed use of boldface is interesting, but unless the sources present the quotes in that fashion, we - as editors - should not add that highlighting.  Do you have a source that highlights those particular words in a manner similar to what you are proposing?   If not, we should stick with what the sources provide, unless there is a compelling reason to change it.  Regarding your other points about Persuitte: certainly if Persuitte is biased or unreliable, that fact should be presented in the article (with sources, of course).  However, he is not the only source that discusses the plagiarism issue: there are many, so any problem with Persuitte, by itself, doesnt really effect the over-all section. --Noleander (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mvonnied: PS, please put new text at the bottom of the Talk page, not the top. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Noleander, I am saying exactly that the quotes and table are completely unnecessary.  Wikipedia is not for "counter-balancing the plagiarism allegations", it is simply for presenting in summary what critics have said, and presenting in summary what apologists have said.  It is not here to provide all the data necessary for our readers to come to a conclusion one way or the other.  Saying that "Some critics have claimed that the BOM is partially plagiarized from View of the Hebrews.  Apologists claim that the alleged plagiarism is X" is quite sufficient (with appropriate references inserted in situ, of course).  These religious articles suffer when they become extensive back and forths with claims and counter-claims and an over-accumulation of detail, with every advocate fighting to get the last word in each paragraph, as if it will convince a neutral reader to land on their side of the issue.  Yes, Noleander, I think the table is complete overkill on the issue.  Just state the two positions and move on without filling the article with layer upon layer of fighting over every detail of every argument.  Give a summary, provide the interested reader with references to find further information, and move on.  That's the ultimate in the spirit of encyclopedic content and NPOV.  --Taivo (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You might have a point if the detail were in the Mormonism article, or even the Book of Mormon article. But this is a rather low-level article on the origin of the BOM, and so the quotes are not overly detailed, nor irrelevant.   Articles in WP discussing religious texts frequently contain direct quotes of verses, and it is very common for analysts to compare the verses to other texts (e.g. comparing the various books of the Gospel; or comparing the Talmud to the Tosefta).  --Noleander (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between those quotes and these is that those other quotes are not critical of the texts, but illustrative.  There isn't an argument going on that distracts from the issue at hand.  These quotes are purely for the purpose of argumentation and not illustration.  One quote might be sufficient to illustrate the kinds of plagiarism arguments that are made, but a cherry-picked list will invariably reflect the editor's POV--either finding the most damning to show that the BOM is a fraud or the least damning to show that the charge of plagiarism is a false accusation.  You can't cherry-pick quotes here and remain NPOV.  That is why I consider NPOV to be better served by eliminating the quotes entirely and simply stating that critics charge plagiarism, but apologists say the similarities are few, and then moving on to the next topic.  --Taivo (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct:  editors cannot cherry-pick quotes.  However, in this situation, the picking was done by Abanes, Tanners, et al.  This article has to reflect what those sources said. --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Can you look at the Abanes and Tanner sources and see how they present the quotes? --Noleander (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables, David Persuitte, and Theory Revision

message: I've reverted the edits after and including the split of the article, and turned [Purported sources for the Book of Mormon]] into a redirect back here. There was no discussion about this, not even a rationale given in an edit summary (which didn't even mention the article it was going to). On a technical point, there was no actual link back to this article in the edit summary for the new one and other requirements in WP:SPLIT were not met. Although WP:PROSPLIT says that editors can be WP:BOLD, it also says "If unsure, or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject. Additionally, adding one of the templates below will display a notice on the article and list it at :Category:Articles to be split. This will help bring it to the attention of editors who may assist in establishing consensus, in deciding if a split is appropriate, or in carrying out the split. Templates used without an accompanying rationale, and where there is no obvious reason for the split request, may be removed at any time.
Failure to reach a consensus, whether the result of a split discussion, or a bold split that was contested usually results in the article remaining whole. A contested bold split may be reverted, however it is not always appropriate to redirect the new article to the old as the new article may stand on its own even if the main article that it came from is not split."
I disagree with the split. The article is obviously not to big, and 'origins' is about sources - it's easier for editors to read one article than two. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose.  I agree with Dougweller.  --Taivo (talk) 19:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

text: I agree with Dougweller's restoration of the split I made.  A bold split is fine if its without objections-- but clearly, we lacked unanimous consent for a change of that magnitude.   I don't have any strong feelings about whether to split, so given that it's controversial, I'm content leaving the article as it is, unsplit. --HectorMoffet (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split of article 

message: The claim of witnesses in the first paragraph is too strong. If we can actually identify evidence that these witnesses made the claims that they LDS church says they made, then the evidence must be provided. If no evidence exists besides a church publication that does not actually bear their signatures, then these sentences must be omitted. Let me say that again: it is not sufficient to claim the supposed statements of the supposed witnesses as evidence. I am editing the section to show that these statements are disputed. Rscragun (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This is already discussed at Book of Mormon witnesses, which is linked to in the very section you attempted to edit. —Asterisk*Splat→ 23:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Claim of witnesses

message: After long discussion on the Talk:Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon page and in Resolution Noticeboard, in which Taivo agreed to addition of the content about olives to this page, I submit the following for suggestions, before I add it to a new "Other" section: "Mormon author Wilford M. Hess wrote: 'The remarkable detail concerning olive horticulture (in Jacob, chapter 5) supports the text's claim of ancient Old World authorship.... It is untenable to ascribe its authorship to Joseph Smith .... (because) he would have known very little about the unique aspects of olive culture found in the allegory, because domesticated olives cannot grow in his native northeastern United States.', and that '...(relatively little) was known about olives in the eastern United States (an area not suitable for olive cultivation) in 1829 when the Book of Mormon was translated.'."  Also, separately from the above statement, Augustus L. Hillhouse wrote an essay on olives in 1818 which mentions grafting (pp. 20-22), as well as other facts about olives (wild growth, soil, ...), but I am not sure on whether or how to include it, as it did not seem to cover the same specific aspects and detail discussed in the other references.  Thanks.  --Lcall52 (talk)
:As proposed, that comment is completely one-sided.  --Taivo (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Given my explanation and all our earlier discussions, what do you suggest? You said you would support it, so ... in what form that might work for both of us? --Lcall52 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I said I would support an addition here, but not a specific one.  Find some balancing information and include it.  To simply state that Smith couldn't have known anything about olive horticulture in New England ignores the existence of books that a smart and resourceful man like Smith could have found and read.  --Taivo (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That link from the previous page included a number of books that Smith could have used.  --Taivo (talk) 01:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I already included in my comments above, the most likely one from that page, and you can see the book content online as I did; but as I said I'm not sure if or how to include it.  The policy page you have cited on weight seems to say that the wikipedia content should reflect the sources available, so if the sources available do not give the outcome that you want, then it is up to you now to collaborate encyclopedically by supporting something or suggesting specific wording that fits the sources known.  It is contrary to wikipedia policy to say that content cannot be added until sources are found that fit certain editorial goals, as noted previously in our earlier discussions.  --Lcall52 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the content should be added, and when you find other sources, you add those as well. --Lcall52 (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

text:  Or how about this?: "Mormon author Wilford M. Hess wrote: 'The remarkable detail concerning olive horticulture (in Jacob, chapter 5) supports the text's claim of ancient Old World authorship.... It is untenable to ascribe its authorship to Joseph Smith .... (since) he would have known very little about the unique aspects of olive culture found in the allegory, because domesticated olives cannot grow in his native northeastern United States', and '...(relatively little) was known about olives in the eastern United States ... in 1829 when the Book of Mormon was translated.'  Augustus L. Hillhouse wrote an essay on olives in 1818 which mentions grafting (pp. 20-22), as well as other facts about olives (wild growth nn, soil nn). " (with the 3 references, and maybe a few more page #s from the Hillhouse reference where I have "nn").  Then perhaps other improvements can be made in future if/when more solid information is available.  --Lcall52 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In getting into specifics, the quote is simply unnecessary.  ALL of the Mormon authors say the same thing, so this quote is not specific, it's just window dressing.  The statement should be something along the lines of "Mormon authors claim that the description of olive horticulture in Jacob 5 is too specific and detailed for Smith to have learned on his own in early 19th century New England, so they assert it is proof that his story of the Book of Mormon's origin is true. (a couple of references here)  Critics point out that the narrative could have been completely based on the biblical texts in Isaiah X and Romans Y and point out that midway through Jacob 5 Smith switches from an allegory of a single olive tree to an allegory of a vineyard, reflecting his imperfect use of the biblical texts. (a couple of references here)"  That's a much more balanced and appropriately summarized text.  Quotes should not be used unless they are unique and distinctive.  --Taivo (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for suggesting some text, that helps us move along.  Is there a wikipedia policy or guideline supporting omission of the quote?  I wouldn't mind shortening the quoted text some if that helps.  Do you have a reference on the critics pointing out something about Isaiah and Romans, or "critics saying" anything about it, that is not reddit?  If reddit is the only source of that, maybe you can add it later and defend it later, as I couldn't (per DRN moderator comment re reddit).  (I reviewed everything in the Bible that I could find about olives, and didn't find anything relevant to this, but even if I had, we would need a citation from a source.)    --Lcall52 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Along with those questions, how about this?:  "Mormon authors have written that the description of olive horticulture in Jacob 5 is far too specific and detailed for Smith to have learned on his own in early 19th century New England, since domesticated olives cannot grow there, supporting the claim of inspired origin of the Book of Mormon (a couple of references here).  Augustus L. Hillhouse wrote an essay on olives in 1818 which mentions grafting (pp. 20-22), as well as some other facts about olives (archive.org reference)."  Without other good references I don't see what else to include about existing knowledge; maybe the last sentence could be omitted and someone can provide more later if available..? --Lcall52 (talk) 21:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was busy today and tonight and can't write more than X and Y and "references here" today.  But my comment about critics is based on more than that reddit post.  That Hillhouse comment is actually peripheral to the issue that Smith could have gleaned all the information he needed from the chapters in Isaiah and Romans and that you can tell where he switched biblical sources when his cobbled-together allegory switches from talking about an olive tree to talking about a vineyard.  I'll clean it up tomorrow when I have more time.  Removing my sentence and replacing it with your comment about Hillhouse is unacceptable.  --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: To me this is sacred scripture, which I have determined, for myself, with the efforts of many years, for a long list of reasons.  I have at times appreciated your directness in explaining your position, and in our exchanged citations of wikipedia guidelines.  I consider it my obligation to not insult your views or be harsh (and when I fail I should try to do better), and I ask the same: let's walk together as associates who can try learning from each other.  Omitting "cobbled together", and "unacceptable", you have said you will provide other suggested wording and/or sources.  That seems sufficient and good, for now.  Thank you. --Lcall52 (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

text: See WP:QUOTEFARM.  --Taivo (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a policy reason not to proceed?  I don't mind including or omitting the Hillhouse quote as you prefer.  I could just go ahead, omitting the Hillhouse quote, until future changes are ready; I don't know why to delay now or until such are ready, as they can be added then. Thanks & sincere best wishes. --Lcall52 (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait for me to supply references.  I have them, but I've been in a time crunch on other things this weekend.  Your rush is unnecessary, especially since your addition is unbalanced and POV as it stands, based as it is on highly POV sources (BYU, FAIR, FARMS, etc. are all highly POV).  I'll add the balance this evening.  Since you're a new editor, you also need to be aware that trying to make everything about "policy" is frowned upon by most editors.  The most important thing isn't policy, but WP:CONSENSUS.  Many times the end product isn't exactly "policy", but it works through consensus.  We have a term for editors who are constantly trying to get their way by quoting policy right and left:  wikilawyers.  You don't want to become one.  That is a sure-fire way to alienate the editors that you have to be working with.  You will not always get your way on Wikipedia, whether you think you have policy on your side or not.  This will be especially true if you continue to focus on Mormon subjects.  --Taivo (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

text: It does, and it presents them appropriately. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I added it with the other reference, changing "proof" to "evidence" which I think is more accurate. --Lcall52 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olive Horticulture 

message: "Mormon authors claim that the description of olive horticulture in Jacob 5 is too specific and detailed for Smith to have learned on his own in early 19th century New England, so they assert it is proof that Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's divine origin is true. Critics assert that the narrative could have been completely based on the biblical texts in Isaiah 5 and Romans 11 and point out that midway through Jacob 5 Smith switches from an allegory of a single olive tree to an allegory of a vineyard, reflecting his imperfect use of the biblical texts.http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm#Bible Fatigue in the Book of Mormon"
This text contains both halves of the issue.  --Taivo (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, and it presents them appropriately. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I added it with the other reference, changing "proof" to "evidence" which I think is more accurate. --Lcall52 (talk) 16:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Olive Text

message: The article concerns matters of faith for Mormons. Such matters of faith will never be proven to a scientific standard. There are other articles, both religious (Q source) and not (Stone Tape) which take a more skeptical, evidence-based approach to the topic of the article. In contrast, this article puts forth a lot of Mormon explanations and elevates them to the level of "theory", which implies a testable hypothesis.
We have no scientific explanation for a miraculous writing of the Book of Mormon by Smith through divine golden plates. It is, flatly, not the most likely or rational explanation for the authorship. It cannot be called a "theory" and should not be listed first. If it was true, we would have to go through every other religion's article and edit them to say that they're not true, because Mormonism is true. Since we can't prove it one way or the other, we should stick to a consensus of non-biased experts. I suspect the consensus would be on more scientific explanations rather than divine ones. The most likely explanations should be listed first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Giving_%22equal_validity%22_can_create_a_false_balance
Anonymous-232 (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased in favor of Mormon explanations 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS).  Levivich (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)|Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard §&nbsp;Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS)]]