Talk:Book of Mormon

Archives

• Archive 1 from defunct Talk:Book of Mormon controversies page
• Archive 2 from defunct Talk:Book of Mormon controversies page
• Archive 3 from this page
• Archive 4

not all LDS

This article needs to be neutral about the different Latter Day Saint denominations, instead of just mentioning the LDS Utah Mormons. --Nerd42 (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Claimed differences between the Book of Mormon and Latter-day Saint doctrine

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" ([1] 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)

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)

"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)

differences between the RLDS and LDS versions of the Book of Mormon

As I understand it, the main difference between the two versions is one of chapter and verse allocation, but it is such a severe difference as to make chapter and verse references cited by one group make no sense to the other group.

So, somebody needs to get some RLDS/LDS chapter and verse conversion tables on the internet, and this article should link to them. Would that information would be appropriate as a wikipedia article ?

removed comment

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)

I removed the above comment from the article and placed it on the talk page for reference. --Trödel 18:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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)

Survey

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)
• Support: But I think that starting and article with an article ("a" or "the) is against Wikipedia policy. Val42 02:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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

• Support the name change or change to The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ --Trödel 03:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kommentar: Second suggested title is specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Val42 03:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Kommentar: 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)

• Support the suggested name change. —Brim 05:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't know. Are we treating this as a work of fiction, like The Old Man and the Sea, or are we treating it as a religious text, like Bible or Torah?
• The title page says "The Book of Mormon" --Nerd42 (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Support The 1830 edition contains the article "The" therefore I think it should be added into the title. Since when do we drop articles from religious texts? Although you don't really say "Do you want a The Book of Mormon" unless your name is Strongbad:) Epachamo 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Comment I will not support nor vote against this move, but recuse myself in this instance. It was tried once before and the move failed due to the article policy cited above. If you can't get it changed for the legal name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, you'll have a harder time with the Book of Mormon. I agree with keeping where it is due to encyclopedic standards, but would support a move of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. There are no doctrinal issues with it in either place, as there are with the name of the church, and simply doesn't really matter. If I remember right, the library of congress listing is "Book of Mormon, The." -Visorstuff 23:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Visorstuff's reasoning. I understand the logic in adding "The" to the beginning, but don't really think there's a need to make a change that, in the end, isn't really that necessary and would require changing an enormous amount of links so they don't point at the redirect. Thanks for bringing this up here rather than just doing a unilateral move. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa! 23:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lethargy's comment below and Tijuana Brass' reasoning above. I'm convinced. Kafziel 00:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per Stormrider and Lethargy below - the churches that use it seem to flip-flop on the "the", and keeping no "the" is more likely to match searches for it. Besides, do we really know whether "Reformed Egyptian" used definite articles? English is somewhat peculiar in its mania for definite articles everywhere, and languages written with logographs rather than alphabets seem especially prone to omitting them - so, assuming the reality of the Book of Mormon, I don't think it would have used anything translated as "the" in its original title. It would have been an anglicizing touch by Joseph, along with all the other anglicizing he did, according to LDS apologists. I don't know of any authoritative statements by the Brethren on the doctrinal importance of the "the". - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 08:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

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)

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 (UTC)

Criticisms should be up front

DW: This entry makes me embarassed to be a fan and evangelist for wikipedia. It sounds like Church propoganda. The issues and questions about this book should be summarized in the lead-in to this topic. Right now, you folks who maintain this have them burried. If you are not afraid of them, talk about them up front. 64.121.2.68 19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

As an evangelist for Wikipedia, you should have your own account (rather than an anonymous IP address) and know how to sign your own articles. Above all, you should know that you can make such edits yourself. This article has been edited many time by many Mormons and many who are not Mormons. Since you think such criticisms are in order, you can make such edits yourself and see how they stand up to peer review by both groups of editors of this article. If you have changed your mind about such information belonging in the introduction, then leave the article as-is. Val42 02:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DW: So those who have chosen not to setup an account are not qualified to be evangelists for Wikipedia? I think most here would argue with that position, and if that's the case, Wikipedia would disable such features. Of course, I know that I can make edits myself, and I did (you know there is a diff function, right?). I have not changed my mind (whatever led you to think that), and a quick scan of the article just now made me think that it is in better order and that others have helped to ensure that. Once I save this edit, maybe I'll do a diff to verify. The reason I think it ended up in the condition I first viewed it (before I and others made edits) is that more mormons were maintaining it than neutral third parties (and I'm not talking about mormon hating christians). As an editor, you should put your own unanswered questions (that you can't explain execpt by faith) about this topic up front. 64.121.2.68 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone said that they were "a fan and evangelist for" the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or any cause for that matter), but had shown by their actions that they were not a member of said organization (and never would be), what would be your first question?

Of course I know of the history; that is how I got the information to sign your comments for you. As I've told other people, editors who sign their comments and get an account (it is as anonymous as your IP address, you know) are taken more seriously than those who don't.

And IF you'd read my comments, I wrote "If you have changed your mind ...." Don't skip the short words; depending on the word and the context, the meaning of the sentence may change greatly when you leave them out. But to directly answer your question, I checked the history from when you posted the above comment (19:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)) and now, and you have not made any further edits. I also checked the introductory paragraph between my edit on the 22nd and now, and "according to the text" was added. That's it. Please evaluate for yourself my if-statement in that light.

As for the content of the introductory paragraph, I renew my admonition to you, in shorter form: Since you think such criticisms are in order in the introduction, please made the edits yourself and see if they stand up to peer review; otherwise, leave the introduction as-is. Val42 02:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My money says they'd never stand up to peer review, simply because in the real world they're not the relevant focus of a discussion on the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is left to stand on the merit of its content, and those who say it should only be viewed through the lens of their "Top Ten Ways to Fight Mormons" books really don't represent the statistical majority. I'm sure if one were to poll, he would see that those "concerns" aren't really the concerns of very many... (and if you ask me, none who actually know the history.) --Mrcolj 19:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Humor? Who's Laughing Out Loud?

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)^(talk)

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)

NPOV?

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)

"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)

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)

Popular Culture Section Irrelevant

Removing -- along same lines as Humour section. --Coldblackice 22:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

It depends on the type of article. For "Xenu" (a Scientology topic) a discussion would be incomplete without a description of the South Park episode on the topic because it is so high-profile, but most of the pop culture sections on wiki are so obscure. . . Anyway, there are few high-profile pop culture references to the Book of Mormon so we don't need anything for now (at least in the main page). For wiki articles related to entertainment or celebrities a pop culture section is much more relevant.Primalscreamtherapy 02:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

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)

Along these lines, I'm wondering if we can get some more substantive sources for the paragraph about "automatic writing." The paragraph names off a bunch of characteristics ("multiple authorship, use of archaic language, accounts of bygone historical figures, descriptions of times and places apparently unfamiliar to the writer, narratives with well-developed characters and plot, accounts of various ministries of Jesus Christ, poetics, occasionally impressive literary quality, doctrinal, theological, and cosmological discussions, and even discourses by deity") that "happen" to be in common with the material of the BoM, but I can't find a single reference to most of these aspects being shared with other purported automatically written works. This seems like a section taken from some anti-lit that really doesn't have a strong foundation. In looking at the wiki article on automatic writing there really aren't any similar purported works. Any ideas? I'd like to limit the section to just saying that some believe that it was written with this method (if that is indeed a belief out there.... I've never heard of it until now). Just seems like a major stretch... Gentry Davies 23:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I personally find the inclusion of such a theory degrading to "the critics point of view." It is a totally baseless theory and one that no serious critic would take seriously. I suggest the paragraph be removed. If anyone has a legitimate reason and/or strong desire to keep the paragraph, I welcome an explanation. Mapache 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Perhaps I misunderstand as to what this topic is about. If it is discussing that the book of mormon was produced by supernatural means, but not neccessarily divine, then it is supported by non-Mormon scholars including Robert Remini, University of Illinois at Chicago, Margaret Barker, biblical scholar from England and Jan Shipps, Indiana University and Purdue University at Indianapolis. In fact this was discussed during the recent Library of congress symposium on the topic of Smith. It has long been the response of those who think that smith himself was led astray. Naturalistic scholars don't subscribe to the theory, but naturalistic scholars are declining - many of the new movements in history say that perhaps things happened the way the historical sources thought they did - they don't try to explain it by science, but by evidences - regardless of what they point to.

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)

Deleted paragraphs by Storm Rider

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)

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)

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)

Hal Hougey

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)

Me either - I could find no reference confirming the claim he was LDS. --Trödel 17:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

LDS Funded Archaeology

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)

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)

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

Critics' views

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)

In the Critic's View section, it stated that Olive Cowdery never retracted his witness that he saw the plates in vision. I changed this to leave out the "in vision" to eliminate confusion. The testimony says that God came and showed them to him... In contrast, the testimony of the eight witnesses makes it fairly obvious that they saw and "hefted" the plates. I don't think that we can really say whether God came and showed them the plates physically or in a vision... for that reason I took out the reference... any ideas?Gentry Davies 23:54, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Oliver Cowdery never "hefted" the plates, as he was part of the "The Three Witnesses" who were (as the declaration says) shown the plates by an angel who came down from heaven. You are thinking of "The Eight Witnesses" who claim to have had the otherwise exclusive privilege of actually touching them. That being said, Cowdery's own words should be used whenever possible. If he ever stated that it was a "vision" it should be written as such. If not, it should be left out. Either way, I'd like to see citations.

On an unrelated note, a few passages in the "Smith as plagiarist" section concern me. While it is admitted that David Persuitte's book (which I have not read) shows parallels between View of the Hebrews and The Book of Mormon it quickly points out but notes no instances of direct copying, nor does he demonstrate that Smith ever read or even encountered the book. B.H. Roberts book Studies of the Book of Mormon not only marks parallel passages, but points out that View of the Hebrews and other similar works were repeatedly checked out at the library 5 miles from Smith's home, making it quite likely that he was, at the very least, familiar with the books. None of this is mentioned however. Perhaps it would make the article too long, but if that is the case, the plagiarist section may just be in need of a rewrite. Thoughts anyone? Mapache 22:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Good point on the View of the Hebrews and the solomon MSS. Add it in. As for the other question - Honestly, depends on your definition of elephants. Elephants, Mastadons, Mammoths or other Pachyderm. Yes, at least on the last two, the first is still in dispute in archaeological circles, and scholars are quoted both ways. They all come from the order Proboscidea, which various species of did exist in americas as late at 2000 years ago. See Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and its talk page, as well as the extinction date at Mammoth. -Visorstuff 23:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Who are you trying to fool ? When is an elephant not an elephant FFS ?Palx 14:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Disposition of the Plates

"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)

Length of article

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)

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)

I also think a History subarticle is feasible. --Kmsiever 01:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just reading the article, and thinking the same thing. This article should be about the book and it's contents. Some history should be presented as to it's origins through Joseph Smith, but I think the sections on criticisms and alternate theories should be made into separate articles. Don't think I am trying to make it a POV article, but the article should be about the book and it's contents. I would rather see sections on each individual book than about criticisms and rebuttels. 68.4.225.187 03:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The Bible

quote <<accept the Bible "as far as it is translated correctly">> What is this all about. Can we have some examples of where the Bible is not translated correctly otherwise this is a pretty pointless thing to say! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Studge (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

"as far as it is translated correctly" means as long as the translation is consistent with the King James Version, that hundreds of verses of the Book of Mormon match (see 2.2 "Similarities of some segments to the King James Version"). As Mormons believe that Smith received the translation directly from God, they believe that any differences in more modern translations cannot, therefore, be correct. Glyns 06:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)