Talk:Historicity of the Book of Mormon

message: The entire paragraph on Chiasmus has no references (except one explaining what Chiasmus is). It's going to have to go unless some references can be found. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, there needs to be a link to the Chiasmus page.Gallus lafayettii (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiasmus

message: Does anyone know whether there are statements about the language used in the supposed original plates of the BoM? In short, is there any record of whether the language in which 1 Nephi was supposedly originally written is the same in which the Book of Moroni was written? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting question.  I've never heard anyone talk about anything other than "Reformed Egyptian"--no "Old Reformed Egyptian", "Partially Reformed Egyptian", "Mostly Egyptian", or any other such distinction in the language of the plates.  Since the plates (never existed / are no longer available for examination) it's more of an academic musing than anything else I'm afraid.  Smith never said anything about a different language in the beginning than in the end.  He only talked about "Reformed Egyptian" as a unitary language.  Even the Book of Ether is Moroni's edit (and translation?) of older materials so it would have been in "Reformed Egyptian" as well. (Taivo (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: @DJ Clayworth Well if you think about it, Old English is not the same as Modern English, so both Nephi and Moroni were speaking the same language, it's just Moroni was speaking a later descendant of Nephite Hebrew.17:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Constancy of Language

message: *Yes - the Book of Mormon presents itself as history, and there are no historians that regard it as based in actual historical fact. One of the identified characteristics of a pseudohistory (from the wikipedia article) is that it "is almost always motivated by a contemporary political, religious, or personal agenda." That certainly fits the bill here, not only when applied to the Book of Mormon itself, but when looking at the people claiming it as actual history. JimKaatFan (talk) 22:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "previous related discussion" you keep referring to is from 2004. If you have to go that far back into Wikipedia pre-history to support your case, it's a good sign that you don't have one. JimKaatFan (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Just because it is a religious text does not mean that it is not or cannot be or should not be listed as pseudohistorical. There is more proofs for the resurrection of Jesus than for elephants in America before the colonisers arrived there. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an important point.  Feoffer (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

text: This article is not about the Book of Mormon itself but about a specific topic, its historicity. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Baxbox, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a relevant argument here. If you want to discuss the categorization of other articles, it would be appropriate to do so on their own talk pages. Not here. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are broader implications here, it isn't neutral to single out Mormons on Wikipedia, there must be some even handed consistency across religious topics. Furthermore, as ScottishFinnishRadish above and as BilledMammal below says "being wrong doesn't make it pseudohistory". This is a religious book, it is not written or presented a scholarship. It is presented as true. But all religious books are presented as true. That doesn't mean that they have to be flagged as psuedohistory, or psuedoscience, or some other pseudo. No one seriously presents this as historical scholarship. Baxbox (talk) 08:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Mormons aren't being singled out. :Category:Pseudohistory is full of faith-related pages. Feoffer (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

text:   Adding a category to this article doesn't make Book of Mormon pseudohistory either.  The goal of the category system is to provide navigational links, that's it.   There's no doubt that this article is strongly associated with the topic of pseudohistory.   Feoffer (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: While in general I'm opposed to making decisions on religions, is the fact that Scientology is in the Pseudoscience category relevant as a comparison here?Naraht (talk) 13:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you choose to regard it so - but I can't see that it helps us. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientology and Pseudoscience

message: How about people who think the book of Mormon took place in the American heartland? Gallus lafayettii (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  You are missing one.