Talk:Book of Moses

message: While in the title of an Article it is standard to capitalize the first word as well as any content words, with the book of Moses the standard practice is to leave "book" lowercase when in midst of text. For reference, a default search here on the lds.org website returning 20 results has 15 results with "book", 2 results with "Book" in text (both from the same article), 2 results apparently without the query contained, and 2 results with "Book" in the title of a referenced document (one of which also has "book" when in the text itself). Going to the next twenty reveals similar results, with a few more "book"s, but every single article referenced with said case is at least 25-30 years old, and more recent articles by the same authors now use "book" again. ~Araignee (talk • contribs)  13:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If "Book of" is part of the name of the book, the MOS would mandate that it is capitalized. If the book is actually called "Moses" and "book of" is just an uncapitalized explanation, then that suggests that perhaps the page should be moved to Moses (book). I'm of the opinion of the former—that "Book of Moses" is the full title of the book. As such, the MOS says we should capitalize it, regardless of how the LDS Church capitalizes it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Title Capitalization

message: The article does a great job of showing parallels from The Book of Moses and various other religious texts.  There are a lot more parallels that should be represented in the article.  One such parallel is how the Book of Moses mentions that the city of Enoch walked with God (Moses 7:69).  The Bible only mentions Enoch walking with God (Gen 5:24).  However, The Book of Jasher mentions that many who were with Enoch could not be found (Jasher 3:38).  This parallel definitely needs to be in the article. --CABEGOD 01:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: All parellels, however, should have reliable sources, have you got some for this? Dougweller (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed I do.  I'll be coming up with a draft in the coming days. --CABEGOD  01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Parallels

message: Reading this article gives the impression that no criticisms have been made of this book. I find this a bit hard to believe, there must be other opinions that should be included in this article. Dougweller (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps my edit makes it a bit more palatable? ~Araignee (talk • contribs)  02:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Looking at the genealogy of Adam and his sons (Genealogies of Genesis), it is clear that the Enoch that walked with God and the Enoch that has the city named after him are two different people. The Enoch that walked with God came from the line of Seth who is the third son of Adam. The Enoch that had the city named after him is from the line of Cain who is the first son of Adam. 
As a side note, David M. Rohl- a British Egyptologist and former director of the Institute for the Study of Interdisciplinary Sciences (ISIS) (see: David Rohl) believes that the city of Enoch is incorrectly translated and that it was actually named after Irad- Enoch's son. The following an excerpt from the Giza Discovery(http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/SpiritCiv5.htm) discussing spirit worlds and civilizations:
:According to the Bible the first city was built by Cain and named after his son Enoch. According to Sumerian history the very first city ever built was established by human beings under the care of the god Enki, and named Eridu. While the Genesis account may in fact be correct there is a great deal of evidence that the very first city eventually became known by the name of Enoch's son, who was Irad. In other words, the name "Eridu" comes from the name "Irad."
:
:In fact, based on his analysis, David Rohl believes that the Genesis text of 4:17 has been tampered with. He believes that the subject of the second sentence, following the usual rules of grammar, should be understood to refer to Enoch. Rohl also believes that the last word of Genesis 4:17 appears out of place and must certainly be a scribal insertion. If read with Rohl's preferred corrections the verse would then read:
:
"And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he (Enoch) builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son (Irad)."
Surfinsomm (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this have anything to do with improving this particular article? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is User:Surfinsomm's only edits here at WP, so I'm not sure they understand what a talk page is for. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clearing up the genealogy of two Enochs 

message: Hi, Doug. Thanks for the kind tone of your remarks. I wanted to let you know that I just reverted some of the changes you made to the book of Moses article. I agree that the announcement of the forthcoming book may be a conflict of interest, so I did not add that back. However the parallels between the book of Moses verses and the Enoch literature can be publicly verified, and I thought they should be kept as is. If you or anyone else has an honest quibble with any of these parallels, however, I'd be happy to look at them again on a one-by-one basis. I'll try to watch for any reply from you, but since I don't get a chance to check for such messages often, please forgive me if I am slow to reply.
Cheers,
Jeff  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffreymarkbradshaw (talk • contribs) 20:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The parallels need to be sourced to someone such as Orlov, otherwise they are your interpretation/original research. Have you read WP:NOR? Dougweller (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Moses entry... 

message: 1. No, that would still be original research, as you would have chosen the passages and be the one showing that they demonstrate parallels.
2. No again, sorry. That's a blog, and we only use blogs where they have reliable editorial supervision or are by an acknowledged expert, and the latter we'd still never use for living people, not that that applies here.
3. That's tricky and might need consensus here. You'd certainly have to make it clear it's Nibley's opinion and not a fact. But probably yes, but I'd say keep it short, give his opinion without lists of passages, etc. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the above

message: Thanks, Doug. Sorry I did not see that you'd asked to move this to this talk page sooner.
I think I understand what you are asking, and I'm okay with that. But I'd like to discuss the part of the guidance where you say: "give his opinion without lists of passages."  I'm concerned that if we just give general statements of opinion from various authors (e.g., "There are many parallels between the book of Moses and the Enoch literature...") without also listing references to specific verses from manuscript sources that are referenced by those authors, it makes the article into a sort-of "he said" vs. "she said" instead of giving the reader the tools they need to consult the specifics themselves and come to their own opinions (I can add hyperlinks to the manuscript sources, if that is helpful). Of course, I do understand the need for being concise in any such references.
That's my main concern. Your further guidance would be welcome.
Cheers,
JeffJeffreymarkbradshaw (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to the above

message: Doug, not having received any further guidance since July 18, I went ahead with new edits to the part of the article dealing with parallels between the Enoch literature and Moses chs. 6-7, with references to Orlov and Nibley. In the interest of conciseness, I greatly reduced the number of examples given. I hope this is an improvement over my previous edits in your eyes, and would welcome any additional guidance.
Jeffreymarkbradshaw (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: July 20 Edits

message: I've made several edits in expansion that deal with third-party scholarship, including many non-Mormon sources. As I don't see any specific claims of bias other than not having enough non-Mormon sources, I'll remove the templates that are atop the article. ~Araignee (talk • contribs)  03:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV edits 

message: The Book of Enoch, in XC.28–42 talks about Enoch who "weeps" for the wickedness of the people, but it also does in the Book of Moses. Is it a strange coincidence, or Joseph Smith could copied this from the Book of Enoch (did he even had access to this book)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucasW (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  the prophet who weeps