Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 5

message: I added a column to the table "Chronology of complete translations of the Book of Mormon" for the title of The Book of Mormon in each language. I've been using the other language articles on wikipedia, as well as the product images at the LDS Distribution Center to find the titles. unfortunately, some of the titles are in alphabets unfamiliar to me, so I can't type them. If anyone else can, please do. And correct my mistakes. Thanks. --Tea and crumpets 21:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Translations

message: I think this section needs to be removed, or at least seriously modified. The section is written based on the incorrect idea that the Book of Mormon claims that the Book of Mormon peoples are the main ancestors of today's American Indians.  It is a common assumption of both the book's supporters and detractors that the Book of Mormon peoples lived throught America. The book itself is decidely unspecific on the location of its events.  Common logic and archaeological evidence suggest that these events occurred in a much smaller geographical area, likely in Central America.
Obviously, a relatively small group living in a small area, which reportedly fell into decline, would not provide a large portion of the gene pool modern American Indians draw from. Therefore, whether American Indian DNA matches Hebrew DNA is of no consequence.
Also, the section states "Nevertheless, critics say that the narrative does not explicitly mention other groups present in the Americas."  This part of the section is, at best, confusing.  What is meant by "other groups"?  If, by this, the author means "groups other than the book's primary subjects, the Nephites and the Lamanites," then the statement is incorrect.  The book explicitly mentions two other groups, the Mulekites and the Jaredites.  If, on the other hand, the statement suggests that the book does not mention "any groups living in the Americas other than those mentioned in the book"...well...yeah.  Obviously, the only groups mentioned in the book will be the ones mentioned in the book.
Before making changes, though, I thought this ought to be brought up here.--Cheaust 17:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA Section

message: No religious text is allowed to be in a category and a sub category nor a sub cat of that nor a sub cat that it is put under the most specific category for it
putting it in both latter day saints texts category and in religious texts is against categorizing policy for example the bible is not listed under religious texts and abrahamic texts but under christian  texts and jewish texts because it belongs under a more specific category it belongs under christian texts and jewish texts it doesn't belong under abrahamic texts because not all abrahamic religions use the bible nor should we put in under religious texts because not all religions use the bible that is how the categorizing policy works also if a text has no subcategory we it under the most specific category--67.65.196.121 21:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not strictly true (if I'm understanding you right), Wiki:Categorization also says "However there are occasions when this guideline can and should be ignored." I believe that since "sacred history" isn't exclusively a "religious text" subcategory... this isn't exactly "cut and dried" here, perhaps some other editors can comment? gdavies 01:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious texts category

message: This article needs to be neutral about the different Latter Day Saint denominations, instead of just mentioning the LDS Utah Mormons. --NERD42  EMAIL  TALK  H2G2  UNCYC  NEWS  17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent point, and something I personally need to be more mindful of. User:Nerd42's edits in the article in furtherance of this were valuable. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 17:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  not all LDS 

message: The beginning of this section frankly does not belong here.  Any claim to contain the "fullness of the gospel", infallabillity or completeness was never made anywhere in the part of the Book of Mormon we have that I could find.  Quite the contrary in fact.  Moroni freely admits that their might even be mistakes in the book(see the TitlePage).  Also, the majority of the book was "sealed up" ( Ether 3:22) until the world was ready to receive them.  Why would they be sealed up if they contained nothing new?  As mentioned before, the Book of Mormon never claims to contain the fullness of the gospel, therefore it cannot contain a contradiction to the gospel.  The Doctrine and Covenants does make this claim, but even so, who knows what was on the sealed portion?  The introduction is NOT considered part of the Mormon canon of scriptures, and was written millenia after the Book of Mormon claimed to be finished.  Therefore, it cannot be cited as a reference.  If nobody can come up with a good reason to keep the first paragraph or so, speak up or I will delete it shortly.  Epachamo 02:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure the phrase "fullness of the gospel" comes from a Joseph Smith Jr. quote, though I'm not sure what the context was - but just because a certain amount of information is called the "fullness of the gospel" by latter day saints doesn't mean that they believe there is no other informatino of relevence. Indeed, most Latter Day Saints believe very strongly in an open cannon of scripture.
For Mormons the "fullness of the gospel" does not refer to every doctrinal tenet and idea of the religion, but to the steps one must follow in order to obtain exaltation, i.e. faith, repentance, baptism, holy ghost, endure to the end.Primalscreamtherapy 02:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Fullness of the gospel" is a misleading phrase, if you do not understand the context of the word "gospel".  Gospel means the good news of Christ, and not the doctrines or even the practices of the church.  It should be explained or scrapped, but at the very least referenced.  Bytebear 22:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claimed differences between the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint doctrine

message: To consider Smith as the author of The Book of Mormon would make him one of the foremost authors of his day, since this work widely read around the world. One of Smith's contemporaries, James Fenimore Cooper, published The Last of the Mohicans in 1826, four years before Smith's work. Similar to the Book of Mormon, Cooper's work deals with Native Americans, however, it is not nearly so comprehensive in dealing with civilizations and military maneuvers in the way the Book of Mormon does. Ralph Waldo Emerson's essays, while dealing with philosophy and ethics, were published years after the Book of Mormon and took ten years to write, while Smith claims to have written his work in mere months. Nathanial Hawthorne, born one year before Smith, did not publish The Scarlet Letter until 1850, twenty years after Smith's Book of Mormon. If Smith did indeed write the work, he has certainly been denied a rightful place in the study of American Literature; the study of The Book of Mormon in academic circles would, at the very least, allow modern criticism of a work that is significant in its relevance to the early 19th century religious and philosophical ideas in America.--Dncstevens 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removed comment 

message: Book of Mormon → The Book of Mormon – Rationale: See Naming conventions: Titles of works, just like The Old Man and the Sea, this needs a "The" --Lethargy 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
*Support: See above. --Lethargy 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: It is fine in this case, see When definite and indefinite articles should be used. --Lethargy 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Second suggested title is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Val42 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: True I forget the other LDS movement groups haven't adopted the subtitle. I'll withdraw the second suggestion --Trödel 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the title of my King James bible says "The Holy Bible", but that's not the article title. I'm really not sure about this one. Kafziel 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You asked "since when", so I direct your attention to two places above, where I mentioned Bible and Torah. I'm not opposed to the move (yet) but I'd like to see better reasons than title pages.  Thus far it does seem that precedent goes against this request. Kafziel 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more specific.  I have never heard of the convention of dropping articles from the titles of religious texts and not from works of fiction.  If there is let me know, and I apologize.  It seems more likely after reading the section When definite and indefinite articles should be used, that the article is dropped when it is not used in the title in the original language (As I suspect is the case with "Torah" and "Bible").  Since we don't really know how they did it with Reformed Egyptian, Wikipedia guidelines say to go off the translations.  Since we only have one translation, and the article IS used in that translation, we should use it in the title of our article.  That it seems is the precedent. Epachamo 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Add any additional comments
This may not be as straightforward as I had originally thought. Although the cover of the book shows "The Book of Mormon", it seems the "the" may be there purely for aesthetic reasons. First, the spine of a combination BoM/PoGP/D&C/Bible lists it as simply "Book of Mormon". Second, you can see here that the "The" is on a separate line from "Book of Mormon". Third, this article and many others do not capitalize the "the" before Book of Mormon. --Lethargy 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: People, I am ambivalent about this issue.  Titles are important to me to identify article topics and to facilitate searches.  I believe that most adults would look up Book of Mormon.  Youths might first search for "The Book of Mormon", but would sill find it.  I really don't know what we gain by changing the name.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UT
This is pathetic. The Book of Mormon was never God's intention. It was a man's. Saying the Book of Mormon was to strenghen our relationship and understanding of God is calling God weak. The Bible was/is the only word, and it says so too. Why would you believe in something that is against the Bible. The Book of Mormon says Mary and God had sex and Jesus was the product, the Garden of Eden is in Mosouri, and that Israelites came to the Americas. They believe in a different Christ. It (Book of Mormon) should never been written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.205.19 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Really?? 68.238.205.19, although you have demonstrated a stunning ability to regurgitate the content of The God Makers, you appear to know very little about the actual content of the Book of Mormon. This stuff belongs in a chat room rather than a Wikipedia discussion. Bochica 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~''
*Support: See above. --Lethargy 01:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: It is fine in this case, see When definite and indefinite articles should be used. --Lethargy 02:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment: Second suggested title is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Val42 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment: True I forget the other LDS movement groups haven't adopted the subtitle. I'll withdraw the second suggestion --Trödel 20:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the title of my King James bible says "The Holy Bible", but that's not the article title. I'm really not sure about this one. Kafziel 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You asked "since when", so I direct your attention to two places above, where I mentioned Bible and Torah. I'm not opposed to the move (yet) but I'd like to see better reasons than title pages.  Thus far it does seem that precedent goes against this request. Kafziel 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have been more specific.  I have never heard of the convention of dropping articles from the titles of religious texts and not from works of fiction.  If there is let me know, and I apologize.  It seems more likely after reading the section When definite and indefinite articles should be used, that the article is dropped when it is not used in the title in the original language (As I suspect is the case with "Torah" and "Bible").  Since we don't really know how they did it with Reformed Egyptian, Wikipedia guidelines say to go off the translations.  Since we only have one translation, and the article IS used in that translation, we should use it in the title of our article.  That it seems is the precedent. Epachamo 18:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments
This may not be as straightforward as I had originally thought. Although the cover of the book shows "The Book of Mormon", it seems the "the" may be there purely for aesthetic reasons. First, the spine of a combination BoM/PoGP/D&C/Bible lists it as simply "Book of Mormon". Second, you can see here that the "The" is on a separate line from "Book of Mormon". Third, this article and many others do not capitalize the "the" before Book of Mormon. --Lethargy 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People, I am ambivalent about this issue.  Titles are important to me to identify article topics and to facilitate searches.  I believe that most adults would look up Book of Mormon.  Youths might first search for "The Book of Mormon", but would sill find it.  I really don't know what we gain by changing the name.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2006 (UT
This is pathetic. The Book of Mormon was never God's intention. It was a man's. Saying the Book of Mormon was to strenghen our relationship and understanding of God is calling God weak. The Bible was/is the only word, and it says so too. Why would you believe in something that is against the Bible. The Book of Mormon says Mary and God had sex and Jesus was the product, the Garden of Eden is in Mosouri, and that Israelites came to the Americas. They believe in a different Christ. It (Book of Mormon) should never been written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.205.19 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Really?? 68.238.205.19, although you have demonstrated a stunning ability to regurgitate the content of The God Makers, you appear to know very little about the actual content of the Book of Mormon. This stuff belongs in a chat room rather than a Wikipedia discussion. Bochica 19:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: The Book of Mormon is a sacred religious text to a large group of people. I feel that a 'Humor' section with degrading material provides no intelligent 'nutritional value'.
I propose that the Humor section be removed from this topic. I don't find similar sections on the Koran or Torah.
Coldblackice 07:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark Twain has no qualifications for legitimate criticism of any religion; it was not within his limited area of expertise.  His writing is more appropiratly labeled Mark Twain's opinion.  I think I understand why someone may have thought it appropriate to have a humor section; it is motivated by the same thought process similar to common jokes of racisim.  This is a public encyclopedia and we will get all kinds of edits.  It seems POV to list it and so I will delete the whole section.  If someone feels differently; let's discuss it here.  Storm Rider (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I may not have stated it as elegantly as I could have; anyone is capable of criticizing  religion or anything else. However, to have the comment noted the opinion must derive from expertise. Given thta this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of talks on the back porch, quotes should be reserved for experts. It would be like having a quote from G. W. Bush about religion; who could possibly care. He may be a Christian, but his opinion is only as good as the opinion from the Muslim down the street when it comes to quotes in an encyclopedia. --Storm Rider (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the quote in question and deleted the entire section. If we are going to have an "in literature" section, we are certainly going to need more than a sarcastic critique by Mark Twain. I personally don't feel the section is necessary at all as the Book of Mormon itself is the subject of this article and few great works of literature (if any) have been influenced by it in any amount (which seems to be the purported purpose of the section, "in literature"). gdavies 05:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humor? Who's Laughing Out Loud? 

message: I'm moving the following section here for more discussion (if necessary).
:In Ancient History Books
:Although Mormon historians and Mormon literature sets the origin of the Book of Mormon (BoM) as having been translated from "Reformed Egyptian Symbols" found on golden plates, by the Prophet Joseph Smith using a special set of mounted seer stones on a device called the Urim and Thummim.  There is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that the BoM could be the lost archives of the Jewish Khazar nomads in Russia, who left Jerusalem at 600 BC and went into the wilderness... This theory is put forth by the Dutch Historian, Nico de Jongh. His ever expanding research is found on his History webpage:
:Book of Mormon in Classical History Writing
Neglecting the poor organization and grammar (first sentence starts out with "although" but doesn't have a second clause, probably supposed to join to the second part... serious run on as well).  The "substantial body of evidence" they refer to is a rather embarrassing page with nothing more than original "research" (using the term loosely) consisting of seemingly random assignment of events in the Book of Mormon with elements of history (primarily russian). It ends with a request for the original documents of the Book of Mormon, which they insist Salt Lake still has, so they can have the lost/stolen record of world history.  Although the page is good for a nice laugh, I seriously doubt that anything contained therein deserves our attention on this page.  This article is already too long, no thanks to sections like these. gdavies 06:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing section

message: At what point do facts enter in neutral point of view? The book of mormon is obviously false. We all understand that except for mormons. Having 2 sides of an issue argue a point isn't neutral. I'd almost prefer just stating what the mormons beileve in, instead of explaining how stupid it is, then how it's not really stupid.
That is a reoccuring theme. The Book of Mormon is fake, but here's why it might not be.
Why not just say the facts of the issue. Avoid the whole thing. Any rational human being is going to read it, and determine the issue on their own.
:Nothing like having an opinion.  Have you read the NPOV policy?  I am not sure what you are asking or if you are exhibiting troll behaviors.  
:Topics of faith are difficult; for those outside the respective faith it is at times unimaginable how anyone in their right mind could believe such outlandish claims.  WIKI is not a place to judge what is "true" and what is not among any of the faith articles.  
:Some editors believe that balance is necessary for readers to understand an article.  I personally am not an absolutist in this regard.  At times in articles of faith I think we bend over backwards before the alter of Balance and doing so leads to disjointed, clumsy articles.  Other times it leads to excellent articles.  The challenge is for us as editors to rise to the occaission and write better.  
:Your last point is all that the Book of Mormon asks with an additional request; pray about it and ask God if it is true.  Also, please show me a completely rational human; I have yet to meet one.  I find humans have feet of clay...always.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 07:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "I'd almost prefer just stating what the mormons beileve in, instead of explaining how stupid it is, then how it's not really stupid."  That's the spirit of NPOV, esp in encyclopediae.  Balance doesn't work, ever.  Because "balance" always favors the lowest common denominator--the guy with the craziest "but morally equivalent" view.  Libertarianism always descends into the libertine.  E.g., my mother is a member of the Interfaith Council in a county in San Francisco.  Every week she tries to get the various churches to participate in some universal event, and it's not hard to find something they all believe in.  But invariably there's one guy who believes something weird and in the name of "balance" believes his views should get an equal vote with catholicism, which defines 25% of the population.  And the hippies give it to him.  Realistically, there are 10 of these people a week, and the ensuing gridlock disallows all progress.  All of us know who should have a vote in the interfaith council, and most of us believe that should be defined at the very least by number of adherents and government recognition.  But "balance" stops anyone from seeing that.  That's how I feel here.  "Balance" is irrelevant.  What we want is what the BoM is, and even some legitimate academic discussion of what it is not, but not statistically insignificant ramblings of trolls who have never read the book.  --Mrcolj 19:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's much easier to discount the BoM with some crazy conspiracy theory if you haven't read it. I don't think the first poster was being a troll, though. I think his opinion was that we should just state the facts on where Mormons believe the Book of Mormon came from and what it is and let it speak for itself. He obviously believes the book is untrue but I don't think he was being trollish.Primalscreamtherapy 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

text: As an aside, there are scholars and nonscholars. Scholars can be of various religious affiliations. To differentiate between a Christian scholar and an atheist scholar is an attempt at spinning an article; it is POV. It is also POV to attempt to state that a Mormon scholar is somehow different from any a scholar of another faith, sect, denomination etc.; it is blantant spinning and POV. I reject the statement above because of its definitive attempt to spin the article. Many scholars are not religious and think that all religion is the stuff of fairy tales. There are many other scholars that are people of faith and belong to as many different religions as recognized in the world. Please refrain from attempting to spin your POV and to lend it credibility. --Storm Rider (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: Removing -- along same lines as Humour section.  --Coldblackice 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I have never understood the value or appropriate reason the value of these types of sectons for an encyclopedia.  I find it akin to ready those rags at the check counter like National Enquirer, etc.  There is no academic value.  Storm Rider (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. These pop culture references in serious articles should be removed everywhere, IMHO - see the recent discussion starting here on the mailing list --Trödel 03:33, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture Section Irrelevant 

message: After reading the discussion of the this article, it is clear there are sincere questions about the neutrality of this article and that these concerns have been ignored.
Here is just one example from the article: "Some claim Smith plagiarized material from the manuscript for an unpublished novel by Solomon Spaulding. Spaulding's romantic novel has very little in common with the Book of Mormon."
While this quote acknowledges a critical point of view, it instantly disposes of it.
The "Some" are not identified. Not only does Spaulding's romantic novel, readers are told, has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon, it "has very little in common," whatever that means.
This construction is deliberately misleading and lacks even a weak attempt at accuracy, balance or fairness on the part of the author.
If Spaulding's novel has passages that appear plagarized, let's see them and make up our minds. If you argue that the plagarism theory rubbish, let's see the point-by-point destruction of charge.
The article is also riddled with sloppy, weak, dishonest and illogical thinking and expression.
:I agree with your concerns and would invite you to assist in editing the article to bring in more in line with policy.  The article needs to be balanced and your example is evidence that balance is lacking.  Thanks.  Storm Rider (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am familiar with the concept of spirit writing, but it is not a thought supported by the academic community at large.  It falls within some of the New Age movement.  Dunn's hypothesis is similar to the value of an opinion; everyone has one and it is common.  It is funny that he would create such a fanciful allegation at the same time he is accusing Joseph Smith of being fanciful.  My grandmother's opinion was that man never walked on the moon.  It is a nice opinion; but it is still false.  It would be appropriate to describe Dunn's expertise in/with spirit writing and evaluating Joseph Smith's supposed use of such a thing.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with you position; it definitely makes critics look a bit looney.  It makes me think of the old saying, swallowing camels and choking on gnats.  I would feel this article and WIKI in general is improved by not having such outlandish claims cited.  However, I am a Latter-day Saint and may not be viewed as wholly objective.  Storm Rider (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the inclusion of valid scientific criticisms, such as the many issues brought up by B.H. Roberts.  There are a plethora of individual ideas on other exotic origins (automatic writing, space aliens, etc) but I do not believe they have enough credibility to be mentioned in an encyclopedia.  I am removing the paragraph.  Should anyone have any serious objections or come up with a logical reason to include the automatic writing theory, then let us discuss it.  Mapache 21:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a bizarre discussion, but one that interests me. It's hard to be objective when some issues are so polarizing. Should insane nutty crackpot theories be included on Wikipedia? Probably, if many people have them, making them encyclopediac. The Spalding book would be a good example. It's a plainly baseless accusation (the mere fact that the book was written with a couple parallel plot points but almost nothing in common makes conspiracy theorists get excited), but it must be included because it's a common baseless accusation. Even on the main Mormon page it includes the "Are Mormons Christian" debate even though it's a lame debate, because it's a common debate. Where do we draw the line between encyclopediac and non-encyclopedic?Primalscreamtherapy 02:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality concerns

message: I don't understand the purpose of the following paragraph:
:1.  As can be seen on the title page of the first edition of the Book of Mormon the book claims to be "written by the hand of Mormon" and that Joseph Smith himself claimed to be the "author and proprietor".  In 1830, the only way to secure a copyright for a work, even if it was translated, was to file the application as the "author and proprietor".  Thus, Joseph Smith's assertion that he translated the Book of Mormon is consistent with the law of the time and the wording on the title page of the first edition of the book.  
It seems to be a polemic entry to defeat the claim that because Joseph Smith claims to be the author then he created it.  I don't think it belongs; it is a weak accusation from critics.
:2.  In addition to the possibility of a quotation by Nephi, members also say that Joseph could have referred to the KJV version during the translation, and, as such, the errors in the KJV could have been transferred to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon Institute Manual notes that all prophets, ancient and modern, quote existing scripture as it is known to the people of their time, rather than forming their own translations of the text. It cites the authors of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) in quoting scripture to the Greeks as it was known to them, rather than retranslating the originals.
Again this sounds polemic.  The section should just be presenting the different views on the genesis of the Book of Mormon wihtout all the pros andcons.
:3.  This position tends to be the most commonly-held among Smith's critics (including New Order Mormons and non-Mormons in general). Some Latter-day Saint apologists, such as Hugh Nibley, reject this viewpoint, claiming that it is nearly impossible to write such a book within such a period of time, particularly given that Smith was an unlearned man with little or no knowledge of Hebrew peoples. Forensic evidence is equally debated and remains inconclusive. However, some believe there is evidence to indicate that Joseph Smith had both the capability and resources to accomplish this task (Vogel 2004).
Based upon the legitimate NPOV concerns I have begun to edit the article.  The above paragraphs I felt were more polemic than necessary.  I still do not think the outline works well.  There should be one section that addresses the official version of the genesis of the Book of Mormon; it now bleeds over several areas and is redundant.  Further, the sections on alternative views of its genesis needs to be clearly defined without rebuttal.  I do think with the discovery of the actual Spaulding manuscript that this theory should be presented as a debunked theory.  All writers previous to their discovery were relying on hearsay and quoting earlier sources that also did not have the manuscript for reference.  However, the balance of the theories are appropriate.
I think this is only a beginning and others should begin to "scrub" the article.  If someone feels like some of the above information needs to be reinserted to the article, pelase feel free; but please do not use them in their current form or in their previous places.  Cheers.  Storm Rider (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4.  A significant segment of the Book of Mormon, namely 2 Nephi chapters 7, 8, and 12-24, matches nearly word-for-word the chapters 50, 51-52:1-2, and 2-14 (respectively) of the King James Translation (1611) of the Book of Isaiah.  Whilst this is a point of argument for those who do not accept the divine origin of the Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints accept these passages as quotations from Isaiah by Nephi.  The footnotes and chapter headings acknowledge this and encourage comparisons between Isaiah and 2 Nephi. There are differences in more than half of the 433 verses of Isaiah that are quoted in the Book of Mormon; some minor, some significant. 
Critics note, however, that there are many word-for-word quotations purportedly taken from the KJV that are no longer accepted in current English translations of the Bible. They are considered as later additions placed by a scribe or monk. The most well-known example is Mark 16:15-18 which is quoted nearly word-for-word in Mormon 9:22-24, the passage concerning believers holding snakes and drinking poison. This passage does not appear in many early manuscripts and is widely believed to be composed in the 2nd century.(See Mark 16).
It should be noted that as well as apparently direct quotations, the book overall reflects the 1611 KJV literary and linguistic style. Given the absence of the RSV at the time, this is unsurprising since the KJV was the most commonly used translation of the Bible when the Book of Mormon was produced.
This should probably be added by in under the critics section, but I am focused on other areas of the article and did not want to lose this data.  Storm Rider (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Storm Rider, you asked me for some comments. I am unfortunately rather busy at the moment, so I can't say too much, but I noticed that you put the title of the subsection you removed, "Passages...", under the Historicity section. The subsection would not fit well with Historicity as it discusses issues outside the text of the book (archaeology, DNA, etc.). The subsection originally came from the Origins section which discusses issues of the origins of the text and it is best to remain there. Perhaps the title of the section could be renamed as "Critics' explanations"? In fact, I will do that just now so you can see and edit it some more. RelHistBuff 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted paragraphs by Storm Rider

message: was not a member of the LDS church as previously listed.  He did however make it a point to study the Mormon religion.
:Not being familiar with Hal Hougey, I had to double check this claim, and I could find no references to him being LDS.  Good edit.  Mapache 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Me either - I could find no reference confirming the claim he was LDS. --Trödel 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hal Hougey

message: Under this section of the article, the following paragraph seems improperly quoted:
:Ferguson wrote a 20 February 1976 letter to Mr & Mrs H.W. Lawrence in which he stated: "...The real implication of the paper is that you can't set the Book-of-Mormon geography down anywhere — because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say — what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."[5]
The implication of the presentation in this article seems to be that Ferguson was assessing the picture for the Book of Mormon as bleak.  But Ferguson's real meaning seems to be that the Norman and Sorenson papers were making that assessment.  Am I off the mark in thinking this is an abused quote?  Agape bright 22:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked up the Dialogue article and Ferguson was actually quoting from his own paper. I will try to fix this based on the original source. RelHistBuff 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry I meant he was "referring to" not "quoting" his 29-page paper. RelHistBuff 14:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LDS Funded Archaeology

message: There were 3 uncited sentences that I took out of this section.  These had all been tagged for over a month, which is ample time for them to have been cited, IMO.  I also deleted 1 sentence that did not make sense without the deleted one.  I think the rest of the paragraph still makes sense and is OK to keep. Leon7 21:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Studies of the Book of Mormon article mentions and cites an article in the Times and Seasons in which Joseph Smith mentions Ethan Smith and cites passages from View of the Hebrews, so there is no doubt that he encountered the book. This article should be corrected to reflect that (I might be able to do it myself in about a week or so when I have time.) I would also be interested in the page number in Studies where Roberts mentions the checking out of the book from the library if you have it handy. I've read sections of Studies, but I haven't read it completely yet so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed the reference. Bochica 03:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Last complaint for today I promise ;).  The archaeology section mentions elephants as one of the "evidence once thought lacking."  While elephants did (along with horses) live in the americas in the pleistocene period, the citation links to what seems to be a personal website, which also fails to link to the American Aniquarian Society's actual article.  The context of the passage in the encyclopedia entry implies that the bones of the elephants dated to Book of Mormon times.  Is there a credible citation for this claim? Mapache 22:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify my question, I was trying to find a reference to any of those species in the BoM time range.  I don't dispute their being here in more ancient times, but I would like to see the actual article cited as a reference rather than someone's personal webpage mentioning it. Mapache 23:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critics' views 

message: "After translation was complete, the angel is said to have again taken the plates from Joseph Smith and no public account of their whereabouts has been made since."
This statement raises questions. Who said this? Is an accurate quotation available? On what date did the angel take back the plates? Who was present on this occasion? Where did this event occur?
:I added a reference to Joseph Smith's statement regarding the return of the plates. Little information is given other than that is was "according to arrangements". Paul D. Anderson 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposition of the Plates 

message: This article is now over 50 KB long. Generally this means there needs to be some pruning or creation of sub-articles. Any thoughts on how we can pare this article down? --Kmsiever 16:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The area that I see the highest probability of paring the aricle is under the Content section.  The rest of the article seems to address subjects that if not present would lessen the value of the article.  Storm Rider (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think a History subarticle is feasible. --Kmsiever 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Length of article

message: This is a nice article in the main but the "verifiability" section stood out as quite POV so I deleted it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.68.218 (talk) 01:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't much care for the title, but it is a statement held in the Book of Mormon so I find it difficult to be labeled POV. I reinstated the deletion you made. Could you offer an alternative rather than a complete deletion?  --Storm Rider (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Majority is a weasel word. I would venture to guess that the majority of people's views on the book of Mormon is that they don't care one way or another if its from god and don't have enough info to have an informed decision - much like american's views on the Koran, Vedas, Talmud, Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Guru Granth Sahib, Avesta or any number of other texts that claim to be inspired by God. Many know what these documents or books are, but don't really make a decision that they are of god or not. Please sign your posts with four tildes like this: ~~~~ so we can keep track of who is making comments. -Visorstuff 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Currently, few of the book's claims have been thoroughly substantiated, although some claim the Mayan left records stating they are descendants of the Israelites.http://hope-of-israel.org/copan.htm However, a good deal of them are problematic in terms of both dating and locating.
The sentence is POV, probably doesn't belong and includes a weasel phrase (some claim).  While the source (which is not LDS by the way) may very well be biased, the information is well sourced (see the quotation near the top, quoted on the "archaeology and the book of mormon" talk page. If it's poor scholarship, it shouldn't be included (not just given a weasel word intro). While I haven't been able to get a hold of the source personally, everything looks in order, and this would definitely be substantial evidence supporting Book of Mormon claims.  This, in addition to Stela 5 (and translations of its glyphs), the cultural weights and measures used in Guatemala corresponding to the Book of Mormon record, and a variety of other evidence seems to be contrary to the gist of this sentence. gdavies 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: Regarding the sentences... 
:Currently, few of the book's claims have been thoroughly substantiated, although some claim the Mayan left records stating they are descendants of the Israelites.http://hope-of-israel.org/copan.htm However, a good deal of them are problematic in terms of both dating and locating.
The sentence is POV, probably doesn't belong and includes a weasel phrase (some claim).  While the source (which is not LDS by the way) may very well be biased, the information is well sourced (see the quotation near the top, quoted on the "archaeology and the book of mormon" talk page. If it's poor scholarship, it shouldn't be included (not just given a weasel word intro). While I haven't been able to get a hold of the source personally, everything looks in order, and this would definitely be substantial evidence supporting Book of Mormon claims.  This, in addition to Stela 5 (and translations of its glyphs), the cultural weights and measures used in Guatemala corresponding to the Book of Mormon record, and a variety of other evidence seems to be contrary to the gist of this sentence. gdavies 23:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel Words

message: :The format of the Book of Mormon is similar to the Bible in that there are separate books "self-claimed to have been written by different authors" who recorded the interactions of God with people. Generally, the book is composed of the following books, though editorial divisions in different churches' editions vary: 
Is the editor trying to say that the Book of Mormon is self-claiming to have been written by different authors? Versus what, the Bible? Are you saying that you have some knowledge unknown to everyone else about the real authors of the Bible? On what are you attemptig to cast doubt; the Bible or the Book of Mormon? How does NPOV apply to this edit? How does this comply with WP:Words to avoid. The edit is not acceptable and I have deleted it once, rather than continue with this littl spat, I would like to hear your reasonings here. --Storm Rider (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not exactly sure issue you're addressing, but maybe this will help...  The Bible is subdivided into separate "books" which are generally authored by separate individuals (i.e. the book of Matthew the book of Mark, etc.).  The Book of Mormon is arranged in a similar fashion with each book being written by a principal author (usually a prophet).  You of course understand this, but the point that this statement might be attempting to make is muddled with some strange wording ("self-claimed to have been written by different authors").  What they're saying is true, but either needs to be reworded or elaborated on to not induce the false impression that the book as a whole is "self-claimed to have been written by different authors" conspiring together, or something of that nature. I'd rather have something along the lines of "The Book of Mormon is divided into separate books in a format similar to the Bible." Something that simple would suffice (the term "separate authors" isn't strictly true, 1 nephi and 2 nephi, the book of Omni with several authors, etc.) thoughts? gdavies 09:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's accurate, but poorly phrased. 64.122.31.130 03:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I interpert the phrasing to be POV. It attempts to cast doubt that the Book of Mormon was written by different authors (the self-proclaimed bit). What has come to be recognized is that the books of the Bible are not written by the suppposed authors acknowledged by the names of the books (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc.). This edit attempts to cast the tone that Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon; i.e. that it is obviously false. --Storm Rider (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this repeated edit mean:

message: I keep seeing Louis P. Mansfield re-adding this, so I'm removing it as original research. Veinor (talk to me) 14:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research being re-added

message: These sections need to be reviewed and citations provided. If the various theories are not supported by references, those statements will be deleted.
There are legitimate theories and they need to be presented in a scholarly manner.  However, there are alos myths that have been disproven, but continue to be repeated in anti-Mormon literature. I propose that these theories need to be put in a separate section and presented with scholarly counterpoint. Mixing the two delegitimizes true scholarly critique. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative theories sections

message: Is anyone going to mention the racism in that "white and delightsome" passgage, or the way that the church edited it to "fair and delightsom" even though Joseph Smith supposedly translated it under the inspiration of God?
The passage in question specifically teaches that negroes are dark-skinned as a punishment, and repaets the usual slaveowner's compliant about them being sly and lazy. I think it's 2 Nephi 5:11 or thereabouts.
:For a quick explanation see this article. Although the meaning of "white" and "pure" in this context is the same, Joseph corrected this error in the 1840 edition to avoid confusion (or imply racism). However, future editions missed the correction until the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon. The church placed a note about this in the 1981 edition, it reads:
::About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon.  This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
:The passage in question (2 Nephi 5:21-24) is referencing the Lamanites (not negroes), and, contrary to popular belief, does not refer to the "skin of blackness" as a cursing. Instead, the curse is that "they are cut off from the presence of God (2 Nephi 5:20). Because of the wickedness of the Lamanites, they were separated from the Nephites and from the presence of God. So that the Nephites could know who were parts of this group (who were cut off from the presence of God) they had a mark set upon them, a "skin of blackness." Alma 3:14 helps clarify:
::"Thus the word of God is fulfilled, for these are the words which he said to Nephi: Behold, the Lamanites have I cursed, and I will set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed, from this time henceforth and forever, except they repent of their wickedness and turn to me that I may have mercy upon them."
:Although the Book of Mormon does not elaborate on how the Lamanites acquired this "skin of blackness," it's possible that this was a result of marrying "outside the covenant" with other Native people not part of Lehi's clan. For a good article on this and other Racial questions regarding the church, see John A. Tvedtnes' article. gdavies 01:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Dark skin wasn't used as a punishment; it was used as a distinction.66.58.206.228 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Same here, I am LDS and we were always taught that god used this for distinction.Gellister (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: Deleted the word "very" in the sentence: "A witness from the Holy Ghost is a very personal event and the experience varies widely. "Very" is extraneous language as per the Avoid peacock terms entry.
Obviously, this statement is debatable. Maybe the paragraph, like the testimony entry, should say something like "In general religious practice."
Jer443932 16:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change in "Verifiability" section

message: It is the "Book of Mormon" is it not? Yet I keep seeing "The Book of Mormon" creeping in. Isn't the first style the correct one? Without "the" as part of the title? Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About "The"

message: I have removed several unsourced POV statements such as the one below:
:"Under this view, such claims as mentioned in 2 Nephi 29 are just reflections of the author’s own anxiety as to the acceptance of the work as "authentic". The view that the book is a work of man is also testable - since works of historical fiction contain elements of cultural thought common at the time, and certainly works of historical fiction leave no archeological evidence. Those who hold this view point out that it was commonly believed that native Americans were misplaced Hebrews during Smith's time, and the lack of archeological evidence, which one would expect to be abundant if the work were true, helps confirm this theory." 
You can certainly find some sources to support this view (Anything written by Vogel comes to mind), however, conclusions may not be drawn in the article. If you want to insert a sourced statement that says something to the effect that "Vogel said this..." with a reference, then go ahead. Bochica 01:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia policy WP:CITE. I agree with you that there are pro-POV statements that are uncited, and I'll be going through the article looking for that as well. Bochica 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On Wikipedia we do not edit by taking two wrongs to make it right. If it is unsourced, more particularly, when drawing conclusions it is sourced or it is deleted. Too often unsourced material turns into original research, which is not allowed. I would also encourage you, Anon 71, to work cooperatively with other editors. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of unsourced POV 

message: I think the paragraph mentioning chiasmus was written by someone who did not know what chiasmus was and was perhaps repeating a 'talking point'.  The point is, in any case unreferenced and should be sourced or removed ASAP, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the article in general.  Anyway, chiasmus occurs when elements (words, ideas, motifs etc.) are used in a pattern of ABBA, ABCBA, ABCCBA, ABCDCBA &c.  So the phrase, "The cows are white, green the grass" is "chiastic" because it goes Noun Adjective Adjective Noun (ABBA).  This pattern *does* appear prominently in ancient Near Eastern literature including literature in the Semitic languages, so the article is correct about that much.  *However* chiasmus also appears prominently in, e.g. Homer, and is picked up on both the smaller and larger scales by later literate poets.  Unless the appearance of chiasmus in, say, Homer is an argument for a *linguistic* relationship between Greek and the Semitic languages (there is none to speak of), then a fortiori the argument in regard to the linguistic status of the translation that constitutes the Book of Mormon is precisely worthless.
Furthermore, the paragraph on linguistics vis a vis the Book of Mormon begins, "The Nephites, and possibly the Lamanites, might have spoken a modified Semitic language up to at least AD 400, where the Book of Mormon stops. However, no spoken Semitic language has survived in the Americas to modern times."  I take this to mean, "it is possible that the Nephites, and possibly the Lamanites... spoke a Semitic language."  And yet, there is not a single linguist (except maybe a Mormon one somewhere?) who thinks that *any* New World language has *any* linguistic relationship to the Semitic languages.  This means that, in the light of the best available research (which is the standard on which Wikipedia articles supposedly rest) it is *not* possible that the Nephites or any other New World people spoke a language with *any* relationship to the Semitic languages.  The whole claim about Semitic influence is only in any way coherent if one already *believes* that it is true and ignores all evidence to the contrary.  The whole article is affected by the same bias, I would suggest.  Not that I'm surprised; every other article on a religious movement has pretty much the same systemic bias, it's just upsetting to see (pseudo-)linguistics pressed into service this way.
Cheers, Charlie 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charlie, I haven't really looked at the chiasmus section on this page yet, but I've spent a lot of time working on it on the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon page during the last few weeks. Sentences that contain "might have" definitely need to be modified. I'll take a look here. You might want to check out the Linguistics page and see if there is anything there that you think might be a suitable replacement for some of the text here. Or, you might be able to help keep the Linguistics page on the level as well. I try to remove bias (pro- and con-) but I'm not always successful (probably due to my own bias :-)). Regards. Bochica 02:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiasmus?

message: Wow, you have all really done a terrific job with the editing on this page. This page reads much more like a classic encyclopedia than the majority of articles on Wikipedia 75.166.87.15 19:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrific job

message: User: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey has suggested that Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism) be merged back into this article five years after it was forked off. I disagree with this as the resulting article would be nearly 200 KB and theis section would be longer than needed in the Book of Mormon article. Just my two cents. 
Incidentally, he also listed Reformed Egyptian (Mormonism) as an article for deletion. -Visorstuff 23:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. It is a subarticle to this one and should not be remerged after five years. --Storm Rider (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AfD has failed now, but merging is clearly a bad idea (the tag was just re-added by Merkey a few minutes ago), and I think most everyone will agree with this.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 06:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: ni-go-di-s-ge-di (so be it).  Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge from Reformed Egyptian

message: I changed
the King James translation are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g. see Nag Hammadi Library and Dead Sea scrolls), thus, the inclusion
to
the King James translation are no longer the earliest or most reliable sources (e.g. see Alexandrian text-type and Dead Sea scrolls), thus, the inclusion
Insinuating that the Nag Hammadi Library is more reliable as a source of biblical texts is plainly wrong since it holds no biblical books at all.
Drmental 14:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change made 

message: "Verifiability: the challenge..." is now a subheading (2.1.1) of "Organization" (2.1) and "Chronology" (2). Not sure where this was supposed to end up or if we're in process here, just thought I'd point it out. gdavies 03:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I promoted the subheading one level, but I'm not sure that the paragraph is in the correct place. I think that all of the article headings need to be looked at and organized a bit more. Bochica 03:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy Edit mistake? 

message: Sesmith, while I agree that your version of the intro is better than the one with the changes I made, I still think Jesus's appearance in America is important enough that it deserves more than the passing reference than it gets here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.100.224 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but I don't think it's appropriate to make it the dominant statement of the first paragraph, which is why I changed it back. The introductory statements should, in my view, say what the Book of Mormon is, not what it teaches or what happens in its narrative. The section that metnions Jesus' visit does say it is the "crowning event" of the book, which hardly amounts to a mere "passing reference". (PS: I didn't write the intro and I certainly don't claim it to be "mine". It could certainly still be improved.) –SESmith 05:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus in America

message: Please note that a vast majority of the images currently used in the article are copyright and that their continued use does not conform with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. More specifically, none of these images are essential to the article and all could clearly be replaced by free equivalents. Most of them were uploaded by  who provided shaky fair-use claims for them. The images will be deleted by the middle of next week unless the originating website releases the images under a license compatible with their use on Wikipedia. Thank you, Pascal.Tesson 17:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just checked, and none of the images used on this page seem to have been uploaded by .  Bella Swan(Talk!) 12:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I found these partially translated beliefs references at :es:Libro de Mormón and I wondered why they wer not present in this article.  they are excellent footnotes. Tom Haws 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Beliefs references

message: I quote this paragraph from the article for ease of reference.
The Smithsonian Institution issues a standard reply to requests for their opinion regarding the Book of Mormon as an archaeological or scientific guide, stating that "physical type of American Indians is basically mongoloid".[81] In 1998, the Smithsonian stated that its stance did not change, and issued shorter letter without detailed response (which is found in the first letter) and limited its comment to briefly deny any use of the Book of Mormon as an archaeological guide by the institution.[82]
I am asking questions, not changing the article, in case this is contentious.  My concerns with this paragraph are:
1) The Smithsonian reply has changed.  The wording "issues a standard reply" should be changed to "used to issue..." or "previously issued...".
2) The quote given from the "standard reply" is only part of one sentence  in the paragraph that is the 2nd of 8 points.  The quote is really out-of-context.  Also the quote says nothing directly about the Book of Mormon, so it is confusing to the reader.  Only the first of the eight points says anything about the Book of Mormon.  The quote seems both confusing and irrelevant.
I wonder if this old "standard reply" is important enough to be in the article at all.  If it is, maybe it needs a fuller treatment.
3) Reference [82] leads to a letter from the Smithsonian Institution dated in 2001.  The article would be more up-to-date and consistent with the reference if the second sentence referred to 2001, not to 1998.  
For example, the sentence might say: "In response to an inquiry in 2001, the Smithsonian Institution stated that the Book of Mormon is a religious document, not a scientific guide, and that the Institution has never used it in archeological research."
Wanderer57 06:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These issues have been brought up before.  Please make these changes to the article. — Val42 01:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smithsonian Institution statement on the Book of Mormon 

message: Even if this article is of GA quality, it has to go through the GA nomination process. It has nothing to do with my point of view. It's just the way things work on wikipedia. You can't promote your own article to GA. The highest you can promote it to is B-class. Sorry. If you want it to be GA, then put it up on WP:GAC. That's how the process works. Wrad 21:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Wrad, thanks for your prompt response. I am not a good one to evaluate article quality. My only issue is that I perceieved that someone in the past had rated it "GA" and then you changed it to "B". It seemed a rather strong deviation from precedent. I don't know who rated it the first time, but I assume we can follow it back to find out. Are you stating that the first person who rated the artcile did not follow protocol? Is this common to see such a broad range in evalutors? Also, you did not add any comments to indicate why it was a B article and how to improve it; isn't that normal to do? --Storm Rider (talk) 21:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if it had been properly rated GA, I would have had to say why, but since it was promoted against protocol, no protocol really has to be followed. Since it hasn't gone through the protocol, the best thing to do is nominate it an get a good review. To be honest, it can really help the article. I'd say the article is pretty close to GA. At a swift glance, though, I see some citation tags. Those would have to be fixed. Anything challenged or likely to be challenged has to be cited, and those statements have clearly been challenged. In any case, for an article like this, it's probably best to have most everything cited for GA, since it is a controversial topic. All in all, it's pretty close, but not quite, and needs to go through the process anyway. I'd say get rid of the citation needed tags by citing or removing the offending statement, then put it up for GAC. Wrad 21:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand now; thank you for your comments and counsel for improvement. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I'd highly recommend going for GA status. It really is close. Wrad 21:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reviewed the history User:Java7837 rated it a GA on 4 Sept, 2007.  User:Hawstom rated it a GA on the LDS Project on 28 August 2007.  I will contact these editors and clarify proper procedure with them to ensure there is not a repetition of improper rating in the future. Cheers. --Storm Rider (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If any of them take issue with the change, they can feel free to bring it up at the GAC talk page. Wrad 21:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a lot of sources to the article and think I'm going to add it for another GAC. Bella Swan 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Smith as a plagiarist of contemporaries: the View of the Hebrews theory" still has some citation needed tags. Those probably need to be fixed before hand. Certainly wouldn't hurt. Wrad 00:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When I was trimming I saw that, but didn't really know much about it so I left it alone. I looked again and can't seem to find anything about this so I've just removed that info. Bella Swan 01:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA rating

message: The section was written as if it was fact; Persuitte was the final arbitrator of truth. He does not "show", he attempts to show, he posits, it is his studied opinion, nothing more and nothing less. The paragraph had been written to lessen the POV language to demonstrate that his position is only one opinion among a broad range of opinions. This is rather simple edits to achieve a more NPOV article. --Storm Rider (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Persuitte's section

message: Back in January in the section entitled "Humor? Who's Laughing Out Loud?" the following statement was made:  "...the Book of Mormon itself is the subject of this article and few great works of literature (if any) have been influenced by it in any amount..."
This assertion has gone unchallenged for over 8 months.  I cannot help but wonder, is the statement true?   Wanderer57 15:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on where you look and who you ask. In the Mormon world, a lot of fiction and nonfiction is affected by it. In the rest of the world, the only author I can think of offhand is Orson Scott Card, a bestselling author who quotes from it and borrows heavily from its plot in several of his books. "In any amount" is a pretty blanket statement and isn't true. The effect does seem to be minimal, though. Maybe someone should look into the effects of the book and write a real section. Wrad 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you mentioned, this section was created in January and has since then been removed so most of the section either had false information or was irrelevant to the topic. Why would anyone challenge the information if it was removed? ~ Bella Swan 23:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I referred to the statement in Talk, not information in the article.  I was surprised the statement was not challenged, given that the editors here are a reasonably argumentative group (not that there is anything wrong in that, I hasten to add.)  Thanks for the lead to Orson Scott Card.   Wanderer57 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I see, it looks like they were arguing other points and maybe were only thinking about those points at the time. After the disscusion ended, nobody probably looked at it again. Now that you point it out though I do disagree, and think that was made up information. ~ Bella Swan 02:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: The Role of the Book of Mormon in Mormonism section starts with, "The Book of Mormon is of prime importance to the church ...."  There are other such sections referring to "the church" in this section.  This needs to be rewritten because it doesn't identify which church, and there will be different views depending on which church in the Latter Day Saint movement.  However, I don't know how it should be rewritten. — Val42 15:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the "religious significance" section needs to be totally rewritten. It should start out with a discussion of its importance in the early movement during the life of Joseph Smith, including what he said about it being the "most correct book", etc., and his views that it was the word of God, and its role as a guideline for early church organization. It can also discuss changes in early Mormonism that moved away from what many early Mormons like Cowdery initially assumed were Book of Mormon teachings, such as anti-polygamy, anti-freemasonry, etc. Then, the section can discuss how the book was treated by various denominations after Smith's death. COGDEN 17:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of the Book of Mormon in Mormonism

message: Looking at the Introduction, it seems a bit wordy.  How about this change?
FROM
Joseph Smith, Jr. said the book was a translation of golden plates. He said that the angel Moroni told him that the plates were buried in a hill near his home (which he later called the Hill Cumorah). 
TO
Joseph Smith, Jr. said the book was a translation of golden plates, which the angel Moroni told him were buried in a hill near his home (which he later called the Hill Cumorah).
Also in the same paragraph, would it be correct to say: "with the aid of the Urim and Thummim, objects which were with the plates."   ?  There is a link for Urim and Thummim, but this is to a rather complex article.  It might help the reader to know that Urim and Thummim are physical objects, not people or angels.  Or am I way off base?
Also, would it be correct to say: "During the translation, Smith obtained..." instead of "During the production of the work Smith obtained..."  ? I suggest this as shorter and more specific.
Wanderer57 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Wording change in Introduction 

message: Is there any information about what happened at the sale in September?  Wanderer57 00:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auction of a 177-year old rare book 

message: Quoting the article:  "The book's sequence is primarily chronological."
I'm wondering -  does this mean there is evidence outside the Book of Mormon about the sequence of events in the Book, or is this sentence based solely on information within the Book?  Wanderer57 07:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is based on information within the book. — Val42 03:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Belatedly, thank you.  Wanderer57 19:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The book's sequence is primarily chronological. 

message: Currently reads:  "Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and other churches that claim Joseph Smith as their founder. In 1982, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added the subtitle Another Testament of Jesus Christ to its editions of the book to help clarify and emphasize its purpose. Prior to 1982, some editions of the Book of Mormon included the subtitle, Another Testament of Jesus Christ."
Would this make better sense if it read:
"Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Community of Christ, and other churches that claim Joseph Smith as their founder. Prior to 1982, some editions of the Book of Mormon included the subtitle, Another Testament of Jesus Christ.   In 1982, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints added this subtitle to its editions of the book, to help clarify and emphasize its purpose."
Wanderer57 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be BOLD and go for it; I don't see a problem. --Storm Rider (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I like to get a second opinion.  Wanderer57 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is a good change.  However, I would like more information on the "some" in the above paragraph.  Go ahead and make this change while someone finds this information. — Val42 (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 3 of the article 

message: I AM QUOTING the current wording of the section: "Changes between editions"
"Former Mormons, and now critics of the LDS church, Jerald and Sandra Tanner have claimed to have documented almost 4000 changes in the Book of Mormon.[37] The vast majority of these changes have been discussed in official Church publications ...."
The part "Former Mormons, and now critics of the LDS church," was just added and it raises a question in my mind.
It seems from our article that "official Church publications" and critics of the church AGREE that there have been numerous changes to the text of the Book of Mormon.  If so, the numerous changes seem to be a matter of fact, not a matter of controversy.
In this case, could the section be written in a more straightforward way?  In particular, starting the section with the views of two critics of the church seems to me to suggest that it is a matter of controversy.
Wanderer57 (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm, yeah. Make it more straightforward. It's not like it's a big secret. Wrad (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the description of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, as we should make clear that we are not talking about disinterested academic writing, but something closer to anti-Mormon apologetics. My wording was admittedly rather clumsy, and any improvements would be great. I do think there is a general problem in the Mormon articles with too much citing of this sort of stuff, and insufficient clarity as to the motives of those involved. On the other hand, it is difficult to find criticism of Mormon beliefs from a secular standpoint, for the reasons I've noted below. LeContexte (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes between editions 

message: The section currently reads (in full):
:A comparison of passages in the Book of Mormon with the King James Version of the Bible reveals that several passages are duplications, with or without minor variations. For example 2 Nephi 19 is a copy of Isiah 9, with minor variations.
The proposal is to change it to:
:A comparison of passages in the Book of Mormon with the King James Version of the Bible reveals that several passages are duplications of Biblical passages, with or without minor variations. For example 2 Nephi 16-24 is a copy of Isaiah 6-14, with minor variations.
Does this example serve to illustrate the extent of the similarily between the Book of Mormon and the Bible? Please discuss.  Wanderer57 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with the different wording, and you certainly didn't need to undo that change to revise it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is to briefly state the case for alternative views of the development of the Book of Mormon. I am not sure of the purpose of this subsection. It sort of just makes a statement, but does not really do anything. I think it is unnecessary and should be deleted. The purpose of referring to the subarticle is so that each of the theories can be explored and expanded upon. Unless there is some reason I am missing I will delete it. --Storm Rider (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Is it not relevant information? The section devotes nearly twice as much space to the LDS view of authorship as any other view, and the statement is worth making whatever the true authorship. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant, but already included elsewhere: The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible. I've added in template link to the other article that already treats this material and added in the requested citations, which is well researched. -Visorstuff (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Change to "Duplication of the King James Version

message: A large section was recently added on allegations of plagiarism in the Book of Mormon, which was quickly removed. This section was well cited and no reason was given for the reversion. Since I don't feel like waiting for the writer of that section to notice and post here, I'm pre-emptively requesting an explanation for the section's removal. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent massive revert