Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 4

message: I removed a separate section titled Opposing Views containing an external link itself titled "Refuting Mormonism" that does not purport to be about the article Book of Mormon.   I also removed a line from the "major doctrinal teachings" subsection which claims that certain verses state "Jesus' death was not sufficient to cleanse men of all sins".  Upon reading the verses cited I found that they do not, in fact, make that claim.  Gabriel Simon reverted those edits without comment, and in the process deleted another contribution which rephrased a line for better reading.  Since he made no edit summary I have no way of knowing why he has done this.  I placed a request on his usertalk for him to explain his edits, and I will now redo the edits I did earlier.  --Blainster 09:29, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Simon's reversions

message: This section is being blanked or changed by an anon.  It seems to me the person isn't reading that this is one of 3 alternative theories on the authoring of the Book of Mormon, not a statement that he was.  As a section it does not strike me as incredibly POV, but then again, I'm not Mormon. What is consensus on this?  Wikibofh 03:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you revert.  I suspect the anon is not reading the article as a whole.  Thanks for catching it.  Rule of thumb, articles that address faith are typically cause a lot of knee-jerk responses given the emotional nature of the article.  We have people from both sides incapable of allowing the other side to speak.  I will leave a note on the Anon's page encourgaing his continued efforts and let's move on from there.  Thanks again. Storm Rider 05:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smith as a plagarist 

message: I've found that many times an edit needs to be seen in its entirety to see if it works. I used information from the discussion above, with edits that put it in context.  I included the cross-links (because that sentence gets confusing otherwise) but no other markups:
:The Book of Mormon was first published by Joseph Smith, Jr. in March 1830 in Palmyra, New York. The book's self-declared main purpose is "the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God."  It asserts that it is a record of ancient prophets who originated in Jerusalem and settled in the Americas; and their descendants, and was compiled and abriged by the prophet Mormon and his son Moroni in the 4th century.  Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the record by divine inspiration with assistance from the Urim and Thummim. For information on the historicity of the text, see Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon.
:Along with the Bible, the Book of Mormon is esteemed as part of the canon of numerous churches that grew out of the Latter Day Saint movement, founded by Joseph Smith, Jr.. The largest of these denominations, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), accepts the King James Version of the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants as canonical scripture.
The first paragraph as it exists in the article starts with a sentence about why people should care about this article then what the Book of Mormon has to say about itself.  The current second paragraph deals with its meaning in the here-and-now.  I toned down the introduction because it doesn't fit with the purpose of the rest of the paragraph and it is redundant with the second paragraph.  I think that something else should be in the second paragraph, but even in context, I couldn't come up with something.  Maybe it doesn't need to be changed.  Val42 16:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
:I like your language and proprosed changes except for the last sentence of the first paragraph on archaeology.  It does not belong at that location in the article.  That subject is already addressed later on in the article.  To put it in the first paragraph is redundant and disrupts the flow of the article.  Delete it and it is very good.  Storm Rider 20:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  First two paragraphs 

message: Over the last two days, there have been a lot of linguistic and archaelogical information introduced in to this article.  Besides belonging in to these other articles, the "author" of these changes has admitted in his text introduced that this text is itself biased.  There is some useful information in the text introduced.  I will have more time after the beginning of the new year, but I don't right now to tackle a project of this size.  Would someone who is more knowledgeable about these two subjects (and has some time) please sort through this information, move it to the appropriate related articles and remove the POV statements.  Val42 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent liguistical and archaeological edits

message: There has to be a better way to discuss Smith's translation ability than to rehash his translation ofthe Bible and Book of Abraham here. It detracts from "Book of Mormon" arguements. I'm willing to suggestions, but it makes no sense to have a paragraph-long overview or discussion about the JST in an article about the BOM. That is why we have a JST article. Other editors chime in beside myself and Alienus/209.83.182.242 please. Both of us are at our max on reversions of this before either of us break the three-revert-rule (WP:3RR) and are eligible to be blocked. Look forward to suggestions. -Visorstuff 19:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biblical translation references

message: This talk page was 77KB long.  I archived the discussions older than six months.  This talk page is down to 37KB which is much more manageable.  Feel free to move back anything that seems relevant.
The current size of the main article is 62KB.  This will be a much more complex edit.  None of the sections is large enough by itself to be about 30KB.  How should we split up the article?  What do you other editors think that we should do? Val42 16:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Getting large

message: "It is important to mention that expatriated Hebrew speaking Jews do not typically speak Hebrew outside of closed groups or religious cerimonies. Reasons given for this have typically centered around the persecution Jews have received over the millenia, as such, most are at the very least bi-lingual and engage others in the local language."
Can it be proven that this is any different than other expatriated people who speak the local language for convenience, or to be understood by the local population?  I assume "expatriated Hebrew-speaking Jews" refers to Israelis, as Israel is the only country where Hebrew is spoken as an official language.  The fact is that Hebrew-speakers are a serious minority in any country other than Israel; why would Hebrew speakers ever speak the language outside of groups of other Hebrew speakers and religious ceremonies?  Why would anyone speaking a minority language, for that matter?  I don't think Hebrew is alone in this respect - immigrants have traditionally adopted the language of the country to which they immigrate, quite simply in order to be understood!  From the early years of the Jewish Diaspora, Jews have adopted the language of the countries in which they lived - starting with Aramaic, the common language of Babylonia.
However, my real problem with this statement comes from the next sentence, which posits that the aforementioned anti-Semitism was the reason why Westerners did not recognize spoken Hebrew:
"Therefore, exposure to Hebrew as a conversational language in 1800's America would have been quite rare."
This is likely true, but not in the way implied.  Hebrew was not used as a spoken language from around 200 C.E. until the late 19th century when it was revived to unite Jews in a Jewish state whose first language was Ladino, Yiddish and others.  Between that time, Hebrew was an almost exclusively written language, used for scholarly and religious purposes - much like Latin today.  It would have been near impossible for anyone to hear "conversational" Hebrew because such a thing did not truly exist!  So while this statement is technically true, the "therefore" connects it to the statement above, which says that Hebrew was not used because of anti-Semitism.  The two statements have nothing to do with each other; if they are indeed true or theorized by scholars, then it needs to be cited; otherwise, removed. Rachel Ariel 20:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebrew?

message: To Visor (primarily):  after the latest rounds of clear POV vandalism in the 'critical' sections by adherents, do I need to write one more word in my proof of the worthlessness of this article, wiki in general, and what passes for intellectualism today?  We dont need to look to TV or popular culture for examples of why "bad stuff" (insert category of choice) happens today.  It happens because it can, by people who possess no more advanced mental processes than those who have spoken up behind the "anonymity" of an IP address.  I repeat a question I once asked not-so-thetorically:  are the adherents so fragile that thinking must cease?  The truly enlightened will take a moment to discover the pandoras box that question opens. Quaddriver 17:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest vandalism

message: I removed this section because it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the title; if the author (or anyone else) can edit the ideas so they have some relation to BoM, go for it. —DevLaVaca 23:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumption of Translation 

message: I changed the wording in the Archaeology section to say "Currently, some Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." from "Currently, most Book of Mormon claims are substantiated, however, a good deal of them are problematic from a dating perspective - some, such as horses (mentioned above), existed in the Americas, but not during the Book of Mormon time period." While reading through the page it is clear that the sentence above did not match the rest of the page. It is fair to say that "some" claims are substantiated. It is not fair to say "most" (especially when reading what "most" of the claims encompass.) I hope this makes it more factual.
-epecho-
:Yes that's a good change : ) By the way, you should sign your post using the Wiki convention ~~~~. It'll automatically generate a signature and timestamp, a little bit like the one I'm about to use but not exactly!!!. Thanks for helping. : ) cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most -> Some 

message: This whole section seems overly preachy from both points of view.  I can understand explaining how Mormons gain a belief in the book, but I have a couple issues with this section.  First, I have not recently encountered any brainwashing criticisms about the LDS church.  If this is indeed a prominent theory of how Mormons gain their testimony, who are these critics?  It is easy to say they have never presented evidence if none are ever referenced.  Secondly, the "Contradictions Include" section.  It is preachy, POV, has no introduction, and generally feels out of place in the article.  This entire section is either in desperate need of a rewrite, or should be removed completely, and the "Mormon testimony method" relocated to another part of the article.  Anyone else have any ideas or opinions on this? 
Upon further review I noticed the entire 2nd section was added earlier today by Scots-Man.  Until he either justifies or rewrites his post, I am removing it for the time being.
Content restored by adminstrator, opinions anyone?Mapache 05:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the contradictions section, and have removed it. There is already a section expounding critical viewpoints, these should be added there in a much more neutral format. Welcome Mapache guy. If you're interested in Mormonism, you might want to consider joining the WP:LDS WikiProject. Hopefully we'll see you around more. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that. AmiDaniel (Talk) 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Investigation of the book 

message: I deleted the following sentence:
:Some critics have suggested that some of the changes across editions significantly affect the meaning of the Book of Mormon and indicate an agenda inconsistent with the idea of a revealed or inspired book. 
The meaning of this sentence is good to have in the article, but it must be referenced.  The article is vastly improved when claims on both sides simply provide a reference.
The previous edit for the Tanners comment on 3,990+ changes used a reference, but the formating is off.  I looked at the edit, but was at a loss to correct the reference at the end of the article.  Could someone with the expertise please look at it?  Thanks.  It also uses "One critic" and should just state, The Tanners alledge, or some similar beginning to the sentence. Storm Rider (talk) 05:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The mysterious "Some Critics"

message: The title, "The Book of Mormon" (or the "Book of Mormon") occurs in dozens of places in the article formatted in different ways.  I tried to bring some consistency to this by italicizing the title per Wiki conventions wherever it was not part of a quotation or section title.  I also chose to render it using the Wiki convention of not capitalizing the definite article ("the").  The LDS church does capitalize it ("The"), so if other editors think it should be rendered that way, then OK. But if so, please be sure to change every instance so that it remains consistent.  --Blainster 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Book title

message: There is a reason to have a note specificly that they are claims within the book itself. For example one could say that Huck Finn wrote the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. This is a claim made by the book itself. Just as the claim that Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon in 385AD. It's not redundant to say that Huck Finn being the author of the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is a claim made by the book. Less so when the summary includes notes like Huck Finn starts writing his story by talking about his previous adventures with Tom Sawyer. Tat 19:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note, on Brief narrative summary 

message: - wanted to keep this for historical reasons. I'd love to address item by item someplace - perhaps I will on my blog sometime. The funniest thing was the edit about "only one temple" particularly in light of this month's smithsonian issue that discusses that the references in Deuteronomy adn Joshua actually refer to a Temple structure built by Joshua on Mount Ebal, not Solomon's temple. (I actually think it discusses the tabernacle) The later kings, etc. references, are added in by the deuteronomists in what Margaret Barker calls revisionist history - no strong reference on revelation from the Lord as there is in the Moses/Joshua account. And then, the discussion on melchizedek pristhood versus teh levitical. Or the gnostic accounts of multiple days of darkness (and reference in OT, is it habbukuk or haggai or zecheriah?). the childen "qualifier" adn also the adam and eve and paul references. And then we should talk about the names - I do wonder what the hebrew word for laver is, and if the editor even thought about that the stupidity of using English words to discuss what is mentioned or not in two non-english texts.  
Anyway there are so many errors (factually and logically) in the edit that it was wise that Storm Rider removed. -Visorstuff 16:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Funny edit removal

message: I think I and Bo Lingua both did a wholesale revert to User:162.111.195.15's edits. The changes added in qualifiers when qualifiers already existed ie, no need to have "self-declared" and "supposedly" in teh same sentence, when one already casts doubt, etc. Its the same as using a double negative. -Visorstuff 19:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm surprised that it didn't do an edit conflict, honestly. ;) Bo-Lingua 19:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wholesale revert

message: Did anyone notice the disgraceful picture of Joseph Smith talking (or listening) to angel Moroni on the Hill Cumorah? Who put it up there? Does anyone see what is wrong with this picture? (Or it is only me who noticed?) Enormousdude 22:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the picture is disgraceful?  It's no Renaissance painting, to be sure, but I don't see anything particular about it.  The picture is, as far as I am aware, the oldest painting of Smith's story of his receiving the gold plates.  The artist, C. C. A. Christensen, painted it between 1878 and 1890 (if the external links from his Wiki page can be trusted).  It is possibly used because its age puts it beyond copyright disputes, but I'm just guessing on that one.  Perhaps if you can find another painting of the event that can be legally posted in its place?  NoCoolName Tom 02:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I really don't agree with there being anything wrong with the picture. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 04:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unnatural (if not to say stupid) picture of Hill Cumorah

message: The intro paragraph just was changed to add further clarification that it is not stating facts.  The problem is that in the first paragraph we have the following "clarifications" already:
::#  belief
::#  asserts
::#  User:RelHistBuff recent edit was immediately followed by self-declared
::#  asserts (again)
::#  said to have
Now, it is possible that we need to clarify that this is a topic of faith, but surely in one paragraph stating something is a belief once is enough for the average reader to understand that it is a topic of faith.  When we bend so far backwards to clarify we actually are taking a POV that it is all false, which is unacceptable.  Do you think it would be acceptable to delete the at least three of the other "clarifications" and just have one or at most two?  Storm Rider (talk) 07:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There may be better ways to write the paragraph. But even given the previous clarifications, the sentence, "Though it describes historical events, the book's..." jumps out to the reader as declaring the book is historical. As another proposal, how about just deleting the clause? RelHistBuff 07:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Another proposal is to remove "self-declared" and just say "declares". I think that alleviates some of the "asserts". RelHistBuff 07:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like RelHistBuff's new solution. You're quite right, Storm Rider, that it already had several qualifications, which made it pretty clearly NPOV. But it still contained that one nugget, "it describes historical events", asserted as fact, which I think would be better to avoid. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 08:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the change made also.  I reread the paragraph and maybe I am being just overly sensitive; however, I did not edit anything.  Is there someway to ensure that readers know that we are talking about what Mormons believe about the Book of Mormon without so many redundant statements.  I did not feel comfortable changing anything, but I would like to know if you guys see a way to do it smoothly throughout the article.  Again, good edit.  Storm Rider (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is only in the first paragraphs (the summary section) where one has to be careful. After that I think it is well-understood that the article is about what Mormons believe. Note for example in the "Title page" section, it says "The title page, translated from...". Some editors might prefer "allegedly translated from...", but at this this stage that would be overkill. Also the "The book's major theme" section has no additional clarifications. RelHistBuff 10:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV and [[User:RelHistBuff]] edits