Jump to content

Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Change Article Title from "Book of Mormon" to "The Book of Mormon"

Hello everyone,

A couple of days ago, I created my first topic page post ever right here on this talk page. It's the "Requested moves -- add "the" to . . ." page. I've since read up on Wikipedia etiquette & talk page guidelines. My apologies if I trespassed over some of these general practices, and please bear with me as I "traverse the learning curve".

I'd like to delete that topic page and start over. If deleting it is possible, I request an experienced talk page member explain the steps required to do it. Thanks in advance to anyone who helps me with this.

Moving forward, I'd like to focus the scope of this talk page to the article title only. Again, please bear with me as I learn the rules of the road.

The current title of this Wikipedia article is "Book of Mormon". In my view, the title should be changed to "The Book of Mormon". A few key rationales for this are as follows:

1. "The Book of Mormon" is the book's general short title, and always has been

2. It was the large print portion of the title page in the 1st edition (I think)

3. It's the generally accepted title used in everyday speech among latter-day saint movement adherents

4. "Book of Mormon" violates the key Wikipedia imperative to use proper grammar, because it is not an official or accurate title


I request anyone with a different point of view please contribute it in this talk page.

Thanks,

Dpammm (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

You can open a request for that, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:THE, I don't think we would include the "The" in the article name. No one (not even the LDS Church) capitalizes the "The" in running text. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

2 items: (1) what is "WP:THE" (remember, I'm new at this) (2) It's true no one capitalizes "the" when referring to the Book of Mormon in running text. But grammatically, using proper english, does that necessarily translate into not using the correct title of the book as the article title? I don't see how a running text convention would wipe out using the proper title of the book, let alone any other book. Also, "Book of Mormon" is not used as an object in running text or everyday conversation. "Books of Mormon", "Book of Mormons", etc. are not used. "Copies of The Book of Mormon" is how I've been trained to say it, even if that's a bit unwieldy. I don't know whether "Book of Mormon copies" is OK. Pls. Share your thoughts. Dpammm (talk) 16:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WP or MOS are prefixes that distinguish "Manual of Styles" or Wiki Project pages that give instruction on how to use the wiki. So, for example, when someone adds information to an article that is unsourced and usually based on one persons interpretation of an item you could cite "WP:OR" as reason to remove the content.
In this case I believe that "The Book of Mormon" is the proper title, and WP:THE does state that you can use the word "The" in the title name. However, one thing to consider is how searchable the name my be. In this case "Book of Mormon" may be the better name. As a final thought I decided to do a test. I went and looked for the article on the Bible to see how it had been named. Its title also omits the article at the beginning of the name, so "Book of Mormon" may also be more consistent. I don't really have a preference one way or the other. I did want to commend you to keep up the good work though. Dromidaon (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
There are three different types of "the" relevant to this discussion. 1) The garden variety of definite article, used after a generic noun has been singled out for discourse cohesion: "I saw a dog. The dog was chewing a bone." 2) The specifier role used in front of proper nouns: "I watch the Dallas Cowboys play football." 3) Part of the actual proper noun: "I watch The View." The question here is whether 2) or 3) is the appropriate way to interpret the the which precedes "Book of Mormon". There is a simple test which is completely reliable in distinguishing between uses 2) and 3): capitalization in running text. "The" is not part of the proper noun "Dallas Cowboys", therefore it is never capitalized (except at the beginning of a sentence and when blazoned on a marquee, of course). "I watch the Dallas Cowboys", not "I watch The Dallas Cowboys". When one is talking of the television program, however, "the" is always capitalized because it is part of the name itself. "I watch The View", not "I watch the View". So let's compare that to the usage of "the" before "Book of Mormon". This is from the Introduction to the Book of Mormon itself. Notice that "the" is never capitalized unless it's at the beginning of a sentence. That's definitive. --Taivo (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
While I know Wikipedia is not required to follow the style guide of article subjects, it is interesting to note that the fifth bullet of the church style guide uses a lower case "t" in the sentence. Bahooka (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey everybody, I noticed the controversy on the topic, and decided to voice my own opinion on the matter. As the word 'The' was and is officially published as part of the book's title, it is my opinion that this article should indeed be moved to 'The Book of Mormon', as opposed to 'Book of Mormon'. Thanks, --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm picking this back up: another editor recommended providing official references. This formal media guide from lds.org states that the official title is "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/book-of-mormon. So what are the next steps? Am I OK to change the page title to "The Book of Mormon"? Does this go to mediation? I request that someone in the know advise what I'm supposed to do next. Thanks!Dpammm (talk) 17:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to pursue it, you can follow the instructions at WP:RM to formally propose a name change. You should not move the article yourself since there has been disagreement here as to whether or not it should be changed, so the change would be classified as a "controversial" one that needs a formal discussion. Once you open the discussion using the WP:RM process, the formal proposal will then be open for comments and discussion for at least a week. If there is a consensus in the discussion that the article title should be changed, it will be changed by an administrator. If there is consensus for the current name, the title will not be changed. If there is no consensus that can be identified, then the article name will remain unchanged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The LDS Church is not the only organization that is publishing copies of the Book of Mormon; your citation is only useful to demonstrate the name the LDS Church has given it's edition since October 1982, not to what it was historically called, nor what other denominations in Latter Day Saint movement and other publishers call it. The name of the article is best left as-is. —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The website of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does NOT include a capitalized "the" with the Book of Mormon. See the style guide here. Bahooka (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal: the keystone metaphor

I suggest that the (very short) page Keystone symbol in Mormonism should be merged into this article. I really want to work on the Keystone article, and this separate page arose because of disagreement how/whether to include the Mormon example of the figurative use of "Keystone" in the keystone page itself. (Actually I think some discussion of the various figurative uses is quite appropriate, but that is a separate issue.) Now we have this rather stranded page -- it could be referenced from this page, but if the keystone is that significant, it should surely merit mention in the body of the text, and all of the content would fit in a small paragraph. (Currently 'keystone' occurs only in the title of one of the references.) Imaginatorium (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Keystone metaphor seems very appropriate - the Wikipedia article gave a symbol off to the side which made it appear that that would be the symbol for representing Keystone. If it is incorporated into the discussion and I think it would be very fine to do so. It would need to represent the true meaning of the Keystone as the center or central stone that is used to hold up an arch that has it's center stone keeping the structure intact. The fact that the Book of Mormon exists, That Joseph Smith was told where it was by an Angel, that God the Father and Jesus Christ who first appeared to Joseph set about the restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that was lost to the world through an ancient apostacy from authority, doctrine, etc. - Have placed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter - Day Saints, on the earth. Would necessarily have to have the Book of Mormon hold up under all circumstances that could be thrown at it and brought to test it's authenticity. It does hold up and has held up under every test I have been able to give it. Sometimes the answers come immediately and sometimes it will take weeks and months before answers reveal themselves, but it always comes out true. It holds up under all scrutiny. Because it's true.Dalwiscombe (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What if this article just cites the quote and leaves it at that, without any advocacy one way or the other? It is probably the most famous statement ever about the Book of Mormon itself. Seems appropriate to include it on that basis, per Wikipedia Pillar 2 to "document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence". Perhaps something like "Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon 'was the most correct book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get closer to God by abiding by its principles, than by any other book'". Pretty tough to be more major, weighty or prominent than that. But then just leave it at that. The reader can form their own opinion about such a strong statement. Dpammm (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

While Smith's famous comment about his book is, as Dpamm states, "famous", the entire sentence doesn't need to be produced here. While the phrase "more correct than any other" is probably the most famous snippet from the longer quote and should be included, the entire quote is overkill and reads more like an author's quote on the dust jacket of a bestseller. Include a summary and the pithy meat of the quote certainly, but don't let Smith drone on and on about how great his book is all the way to the bitter end. We've tried to avoid entire quotes most of the time when a clause or two is generally quite sufficient to get the point across. --Taivo (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

Incorrect doctrine is being taught in this article. I have been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for over twenty-five years.

Under the section: Other distinctive religious teachings there is the following statement:

The atonement of Christ saves unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel,[81][82] including children who die without baptism.[83]

Wording should be changed to following: The atonement of Christ may save unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel,[81][82] including children who die without baptism.[83]

The Lord Jesus Christ will have all come unto Him, but He will not save all unbaptized people who die without a knowledge of the gospel. There are some who will want to choose the lower kingdoms of glory. Please correct the article to reflect true Latter-Day Saint doctrine. We believe that through the atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

174.23.247.83 (talk) 04:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with the proposed change. The comment seems to be focused more on the doctrine of the LDS Church than the content of the Book of Mormon. LDS Church doctrine is often more "developed" or detailed than what is in the Book of Mormon. This is because the church has adopted other scriptures since the publication of the Book of Mormon and believes in continuing revelation through living prophets. The suggestion adequately describes LDS Church doctrine, but the Book of Mormon says something slightly different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing that ruins syntax and references

Per WP:BRD if someone reverts your edit, do not just revert the reversion, but come here to the Talk Page and discuss your proposed edit before editing again. If your edit ruins the syntax of a sentence or wrecks a subsequent reference, then expect to be reverted. --Taivo (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Original research

The list of anachronisms in the historical authenticity section cited general works on science and history, that seem to make no specific application of their disciplines to the Book of Mormon:

  • Cecil H. Brown. 1999. Lexical Acculturation in Native American Languages. Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics, 20. Oxford
    Paul E. Minnis & Wayne J. Elisens, ed. 2001. Biodiversity and Native America. University of Oklahoma Press.
    Gary Paul Nabhan. 2002. Enduring Seeds: Native American Agriculture and Wild Plant Conservation. University of Arizona Press.
    Stacy Kowtko. 2006. Nature and the Environment in Pre-Columbian American Life. Greenwood Press.
    Douglas H. Ubelaker, ed. 2006. Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins, and Population. Smithsonian Institution.
    Elizabeth P. Benson. 1979. Pre-Columbian Metallurgy of South America. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library.
    R.C. West, ed. 1964. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 1, Natural Environment & Early Cultures. University of Texas Press.
    G.R. Willey, ed. 1965. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volumes 2 & 3, Archeology of Southern Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press.
    Gordon Ekholm & Ignacio Bernal, ed. 1971. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 10 & 11, Archeology of Northern Mesoamerica. University of Texas Press.
  • "[H]orses became extinct in North America at the end of the Pleistocene..." (Donald K. Grayson. 2006. "Late Pleistocene Faunal Extinctions," Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins and Population. Smithsonian. Pages 208-221. quote on pg 211)
    "The youngest dates on North American fossil horses are about 8150 years ago, although most of the horses were gone around 10,000 years ago" (Donald R. Prothero & Robert M. Schoch. 2002. Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Page 215.)
    "During the Pleistocene both New World continents abounded in [horses] and then, some 8000 years ago, the last wild horses in the Americas became extinct..." (R.J.G. Savage & M.R. Long. 1986. Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated Guide. Facts on File Publications. Page 204.)
  • Asses and horses are both in the genus Equus so see the footnote concerning horses.
  • Donald K. Grayson. 2006. "Late Pleistocene Faunal Extinctions," Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 3, Environment, Origins and Population. Smithsonian. Pages 208-221. The Pleistocene extinction of the two Proboscidea genera Mammut and Mammuthus are mentioned on pages 209 and 212-213.
    "T[he] megafauna [of North America] then disappeared from the face of the earth between 12,000 and 9,000 years ago..." (Donald R. Prothero & Robert M. Schoch. 2002. Horns, Tusks, and Flippers: The Evolution of Hoofed Mammals. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Page 176.)
    "In North America three other proboscideans survived the end of the Ice Age--the tundra woolly mammoth (Mammuthus primigenius), the woodland American mastodont (Mammut americanum) and the grazing mammoth (Mammuthus jeffersoni). Hunting by early man is the most likely cause of the final extinction..." (R.J.G. Savage & M.R. Long. 1986. Mammal Evolution: An Illustrated Guide. Facts on File Publications. Page 157.)
    "Mammut became extinct only about 10,000 years ago." (Dougal Dixon et al. 1988. The Macmillan Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and Prehistoric Animals. Collier Books. Page 244.)
    "M[ammuthus] primigenius survived until about 10,000 years ago." (Dixon et al. 1988, page 245)
  • Lyle Campbell. 1979. "Middle American languages," The Languages of Native America: Historical and Comparative Assessment. Ed. Lyle Campbell and Marianne Mithun. Austin: University of Texas Press. Pages 902-1000.
    Lyle Campbell. 1997. American Indian Languages: The Historical Linguistics of Native America. Oxford University Press.
    Jorge Súarez. 1983. The Mesoamerican Indian Languages. Cambridge University Press.
  • D. Andrew Merriwether. 2006. "Mitochondrial DNA," Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution Press. Pg 817-830. "Kolman, Sambuughin, and Bermingham (1995) and Merriwether et al. (1996) used the presence of A, B, C, and D to argue for Mongolia as the location for the source population of the New World founders. More specifically perhaps, they argued that the present-day Mongolians and present-day Native Americans are both derived from the same ancestral population in Asia, presumably in the Mongolia-Southern Siberia-Lake Baikal region. T.G. Schurr and S.G. Sherry (2004) strongly favor a southern Siberian origin for the majority of lineages found in the New World." (pg 829)
    Tatiana M. Karafet, Stephen L. Zegura, and Michael F. Hammer. 2006. "Y Chromosomes," Handbook of North American Indians. Smithsonian Institution. Pp. 831-839. "Zegura et al. (2004) have presented the following scenario for the early peopling of the Americas based on Y chromosome data: a migration of a single, polymorphic Asian population across Beringia with a potential common source for both North American founding lineages (Q and C) in the Altai Mountains of southwest Siberia. Since all their STR-based SNP lineage divergence dates between the Altai and North Asians versus Native Americans...ranged from 10,100 to 17,200 year ago, they favored a relatively late entry model." (pg. 839)

The assertions being made in the article are (or should be) that notable objections have been made to the presence of horses, etc., in the Book of Mormon, and to the ancestry implied there for Native Americans. The above references fail to establish that anyone outside Wikipedia has made these objections. Rather, they present a marshalling of evidence for an argument (against the Book's historicity) that is being made directly by Wikipedia editors, thus violating NPOV. For these reasons, I have removed them. Lusanaherandraton (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The historical (in)authenticity of the Book of Mormon and academic consensus

Reading the Historical Authenticity section, I was struck by the soft tone of "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities are generally skeptical of the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events."

As opposed to simply being "generally skeptical," I think it'd be pretty uncontroversial to suggest that there's not a single living non-LDS scholar of American antiquity who thinks that the historicity of the Book of Mormon is even remotely plausible in any regard; and as such I had edited the line to “Mainstream archaeologists, historians and scientists are unanimously skeptical of the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events" (which was then reverted).

Maybe my edit wasn't perfect (perhaps "Mainstream, non-LDS archaeologists, historians and scientists are universally skeptical..." instead?); but if it can reasonably be demonstrated that this is indeed the consensus, could a change like this be accepted? Of course, there might be the problem of collecting academic citations that state the total non-historicity of the Book of Mormon in such stark and general terms. But, in fact, in footnote 118, well-known Mesoamerican archaeologist and scholar Michael D. Coe is cited precisely to the effect that "As far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing [the historicity of The Book of Mormon]."

Although this statement was made in 1973, the same holds today -- and possibly even more accurately, due to advances in various relevant fields, and the even greater marginalization of fringe and pseudoscientific proposals. (I think of the older fringe theories of scholars like Cyrus Gordon, who has now died.)


Ostensibly1 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

That's probably a good wording. --Taivo (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 June 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. There is no agreement that the proposed name is more common or otherwise preferable according to policy. Cúchullain t/c 15:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


Book of Mormon → The Book of Mormon – (This topic has been discussed before, I don't know why it no longer appears in this talk page.) Proper English dictates any published book be referred to by its full name. It further dictates mid-article references need not include "The" from its title.

For comparison purposes, the article for The New York Times uses its full legal title in the heading. If there is any good reason to use "The" in The New York Times but not for The Book of Mormon, please advise how the official rules of the English language state this. Thank you. Dpammma (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Proper English" isn't a reason for a move change. You need to be able to show that your version is the WP:COMMONNAME used in reliable sources. In this[1] Google books search, among virtually ever other link, I see Hugh Nibley doesn't use your version. Google Scholar shows the same.[2] Doug Weller talk 10:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Respond call it proper English, official English, or whatever you like, but all Wikipedia articles should follow standard language rules. This settles bias or arbitrary viewpoint. Further, "The Book of Mormon" meets all elements of Wikipedia article title policy. And again, "Book of Mormon" is never used in practical/everyday usage. It just isn't done, and it makes no sense to apply an article title that is never used in any instance. Regarding Nibley reference, Van Dam's book of condensed Hugh Nibley history and teachings (published in 2014) includes a Nibley quote that due to ongoing learnings (from new research, language evolution, church revelation, etc.), he takes no responsibility for anything he said more than three years previously. He died in 2005 so this certainly applies. (Note: I don't know how to link a source yet -- please advise how to do this.)
  • Regardless, we need to follow our guidelines, not my opinion or yours. You were told this in 2014 by User:Editor2020 when you wanted to make the same change. Nibley is just an example, there are plenty of other similar sources including stuff by BYU authors. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per this being the main volume and principal text of a recognized prominent religion. The links show that the full title is used as a common name, the people who follow this religion probably use the 'The', and per accuracy concerning the name of a major religious text. Randy Kryn 13:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose as needless definite article. I don't see substantial WP:COMMON for it, and the general MOS guidelines are to be simple and avoid articles. I note also our article is called just Bible, even though the first sentence uses the definite article, and that the DAB page is at Bible (disambiguation) even though using a definite article would be natural-dab for this specific meaning. DMacks (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Note: See Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 13#Change Article Title from "Book of Mormon" to "The Book of Mormon" from June 2014 for previous discussion. DMacks (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all the arguments in opposition above. --Taivo (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Book of Mormon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

For most of the history of the LDS Church, the Book of Mormon was not used as much as other books of scripture such as the New Testament and the Doctrine and Covenants

This is a sweeping statement with little or no evidence to back it up. Anybody care? It purports to tell us about B of M use in "most of Mormon history" before 1980. Yet there were 150 years of such history and the single footnote only covers 40 of those years, so there's no evidence offered for "most of Mormon history" and the evidence it offers for even those 40 years is thin; the footnote doesn't address the overall question of how much the B of M was used, just how much it was quoted by leaders in general church meetings. Anybody feel like taking this subject on? I don't beyond this note. I came of age as a Mormon two decades before the alleged revival of B of M usage in the 1980s. My first formal religious training in 1963 was a year-long class on the Book of M, not on the New Testament or D&C. The curriculum designers for the church as a whole put the B of M study first. The "seminary" teacher clearly believed it was as important as all the other LDS scriptures put together. He was about 35 and said, "I've read the Book of M. seven times." He certainly hadn't read any other scripture that much. When in 1967 I began taking college-level LDS "Institute" classes, the B of M had a leading role in those studies, a head above anything else. Mormons who gave church talks at local levels frequently talked on how great it was to read the Book of Mormon again and again. Nobody pounded the pulpit very often saying similar things about the Bible or D&C. Moabalan (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Problematic Statement; "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities reject the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record of actual historical events

Try to remove bias and look at this. The sentence shows a consensus and uniformity to "the archaeological, historical and scientific communities" that is not there and this sentence is not accurate. If a scientific or historic community has a statement on the book, report or reference it. There is no official historical community and no citable consensu "rejection." I get the intent is to show the lack of mainstream acceptance, but to do that cite those organizations or individual authors and their statements directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:3849:C68:17F2:8BCE (talk) 11:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Please cite a mainstream, non-Mormon, archeologist, historian, or scientist who takes the BOM seriously. --Taivo (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You are getting the point and missing the point at the same time. Cite "The archaeological, historical and scientific communities" that reject the claims that the Book of Mormon is an ancient record. Add qualifications to the statement to make it accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:5DB2:947B:93F3:9F6E (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that without a citation the aforementioned statement is biased and that it should be fixed. Rorix the White (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Please cite any mainstream, non-Mormon scientist who takes the BOM narrative seriously. Without a single counterexample, the statement is true. --Taivo (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact that you must qualify that statement with the words "non-Mormon" and the arbitrary "mainstream" make your argument a weak one. Simply because someone who agrees with something does not fall within your definition of "normal" does not mean that their opinion does not matter. Also, citations on your end are still needed, as our counterpoint is currently as supported as your point. Rorix the White (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I can eliminate the word "non-Mormon" and it is still true when we rely on neutral, peer-reviewed sources (that is, anything that isn't published by BYU or the LDS church and doesn't include the word "Mormon" in the title). We can equally say that mainstream science rejects Genesis as a reliable source for discussing evolution. Do you want a quote on that, too? --Taivo (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as the credibility and validity of Wikipedia is built on citations. If that statement has no need of a citation, then nothing on Wikipedia really does. But that is not how Wikipedia works. It needs a citation, and that is a fact. Rorix the White (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Then please show me in the article Book of Genesis where the belief that it represents the actual events at the creation of the world or that it is thoroughly rejected by mainstream scientists occur. Perhaps those statements are hiding there and I missed them. I would support removing all references in this (BOM) article about a religious text to either its historical accuracy or its rejection by the scientific community. But, sadly, the set of BOM articles has become a place where true believers keep trying to push their religious dogma about historical and scientific accuracy so there is the constant need for rational science to be present in order for these articles not to become missionary tracts. --Taivo (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point, all that has been said is that, as with everything on Wikipedia, that statement needs citations to make it more credible and useful. No dogma is being pushed, except for Wikipedia policy itself. Rorix the White (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
So show me evidence that the statement is incorrect. No one seems to doubt "The earth is round", "The sky is blue", etc. --Taivo (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
There are many statements that no one argues with that still need citation, it is how Wikipedia operates, so what is wrong with wanting a citation? You are literally arguing against improving an article! Why do you want to stand in the way of implementing one of Wikipedia's core policies? To not add a citation would be in direct violation of wikipedia:verifiability, as it states: "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." and "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." Core policy states that that citation is mandatory, so you have no legs to stand on. Rorix the White (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Rorix the White (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The reference as currently written is incorrect and taviolinguist seems to be trying to reference his inaccurate over-assessment. The statement as written as referring to communities as if they are uniform and have ruled without and accurate reference.

I previously suggested this neutral accurate statement:

"Prominent archaeological, historical and scientific communities such as the National Geographic Society and the Smithsonian Department of Archaeology have stated that the Book of Mormon has no verified archaeological evidence and is not used as a scientific guide instead categorizing the book as "a religious document" or "a work of great spiritual power."[1]"

If the anon IP wants to imply that the scientific community is not unified on this, then the anon IP can provide a source outside Mormonism that says this. --Taivo (talk) 10:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

That is too easy, lets start with Archeological: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeological_organizations have not released a statement on the book of Mormon, let alone "rejected" claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.208.170.244 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

No, that's NOT what I asked for. I asked for you to prove that any organization or mainstream scholar has USED or APPROVED of the use of the BOM as a guide to scholarly pursuit in their field or as a reference for a peer-reviewed scholarly work (Mormon journals are not peer-reviewed except by other Mormons, so they don't count). Prove that any scholarly scientific organization or any mainstream scholar uses the BOM. --Taivo (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
But since you seem to reject the word "reject", I can reword the phrase to "Archeological, historical, and scientific communities do not use the BOM as a guide to history or archeology." (The footnote then mentions the overt rejection by NatG & SI.) --Taivo (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The difference between X rejects Y and X does not accept Y is fundamental to your problem. X rejects Y means that there is an overt action to cast aside Y. X does not accept Y means that there is no overt action to use Y. Since there is no overt action to reject and no overt action to accept, then the latter is categorically true while the former is interpretation. --Taivo (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I took out the "the" and added "generally" to make the statement correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C8C0:6C7:6C84:BC7B:64DF:B397 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The statement as I wrote it is absolutely correct. If you don't think it is, then provide a reference to a mainstream scholar in (non-Mormon) peer-reviewed academic literature who has used the BOM as a reliable source for their work. --Taivo (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


You are adding qualifications, to the statement to make it accurate in your request, ruling out Mormon, so the qualification is necessary and stands. please stop vandalizing Wikipedia on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.41.10 (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I did not rule out "Mormon". Many Mormon scholars publish scientifically valid research in proper peer-reviewed journals. But Mormon-published journals are not peer-reviewed by mainstream scholarship. They are peer-reviewed (if at all) by Mormon scholars who adhere to the "party" line. They are Mormon propaganda and highly POV, not the NPOV reliable sources that Wikipedia requires. --Taivo (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We do not need to include a citation for the fact that the moon is not made of green cheese, and neither do we need one for the fact that Mormon versions of history has 0% backing in the scientific community outside of the LDS movement itself. It is nough to note that *all* mainstream science provides accounts that are entirely incompatible with the Mormon version, and that mainstream science does not generally find it relevant enough to even mention.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
We do not need a citation saying that the moon is not made of cheese because the article on the moon does not say that it it. If an article says something, it needs a citation. That is what WP:Verifiability says, so it is what must be done. And again: ¨Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.¨ Thus, here goes. Rorix the White (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
You can find a citation for how actual historians describe history and note that it is completely different to the Mormon account. That is enough.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I've already supplied references. It is you who will need to supply a reference to any mainstream, peer-reviewed reliable source that uses the BOM as a valid source for historical or scientific information. You are using Mormon missionary strategy 101: demand sources and make baloney arguments for negative comments. "There were no iron tools in the Americas." "Wait, we just haven't discovered them yet. Have we searched every inch of Mesoamerica archeologically?" Without a reference that any mainstream, peer-reviewed reliable source (by name) uses the BOM as valid source material, then the sentence as edited by me is the valid Wikipedia statement. Prove that my statement is wrong. "The earth is round." Any contrary statement is subject to WP:FRINGE. Using the BOM as a valid reference for history or science is equally WP:FRINGE, just like using Genesis 1-2 as a valid reference for history or science. --Taivo (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Fringe does not apply here, as what is being done is refuting that The archaeological, historical and scientific communities... ¨ all do not accept it, and that is not significantly different from the norm. Your reference still only covers the Smithsonian, and ¨The archaeological, historical and scientific communities... ¨ is not only the Smithsonian, so your statement is still not verified. You have the burden of proof, so provide real citations. I am removing it again, and if it is reverted without further citation, I am getting an admin. Rorix the White (talk) 22:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
No fringe ideas are being espoused by changing the words ¨The archaeological, historical and scientific communities... ¨ to ¨Many...¨ Rorix the White (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:FRINGE absolutely applies to religious dogma when used as historical or scientific fact. Absolutely. And you apparently haven't actually read the references--I have referenced a scientific analysis of the BOM by Southerton. The Smithsonian and Nat Geo comments are secondary notes. --Taivo (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
And "Many" is baloney POV-pushing, an attempt to minimize the lack of use of the BOM as anything other than a work of religious dogma. "Many" does not imply "All" or even "Almost every single one", which is the truth of the matter. "Many" doesn't even need to be a majority, just a big minority. Unless you can provide any mainstream, peer-reviewed, reliable source that accepts the BOM as a valid scientific or historical reference, then "many" is just POV-pushing to minimize the truth. Find a source. If it's only "many" who object, then surely you can prove me wrong with a reliable source. --Taivo (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
No dogma is being pushed. Get that through your head first. I am only pushing Wikipedia policy. Also, WP:Verifiability requires the citation to be in-line, and it is absolutely not. Also ¨"All" or even "Almost every single one"¨ have not made statements, so to make the statement that is in the article would be to make an assumption, and that is not allowed. The statement in the article creates a blanket, and that blanket is disproportionately large. You are doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing, but in reverse. Rorix the White (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Religion is WP:FRINGE from the beginning outside the realm of religion. If you want compromise wording, then "The overwhelming majority of the archeological, historical, and scientific communities completely ignore the Book of Mormon as a work of any scientific or historical validity" will do. It's perfectly accurate. But you are completely misinterpreting WP:VERIFIABILITY to push the religious dogma of the BOM as something other than a work of Joseph Smith's imagination. You are misusing it as a means to make the BOM just something that some historians use and some don't. If it is so easy to prove that some mainstream scholars use it, then prove it with a reliable source. And just because the references I've provided are in footnotes doesn't make them any less valid. WP:VERIFIABILITY clearly states that in-line references can be in the footnotes. You're just wikilawyering now in order to push your religious worldview. --Taivo (talk) 22:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
First off STOP accusing me of trying to push my religion, it is NOT what I am doing. I want Wikipedia policy to be followed, and for statements to be accurate. You are the only one pushing their opinion. Secondly, as I was about to post, but you beat me to it, I would be willing to compromise by changing ¨The archaeological, historical and scientific communities... ¨ to ¨Most archaeological, historical and scientific communities... ¨. It would be more accurate, and would still have a large majority meaning. Rorix the White (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Anti-Mormon ideas are dogma just as much as pro ones are. Rorix the White (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, while "The overwhelming majority of the archeological, historical, and scientific communities completely ignore the Book of Mormon as a work of any scientific or historical validity" is partially accurate, it is certainly not NPOV. Rorix the White (talk) 22:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
"Most" still implies that there is an identifiable minority of the mainstream scientific community that uses it. There simply is no evidence that any mainstream scientific community uses the BOM as a valid reference. The only way that "most" is true is if a note is attached that the exceptions are certain Mormon-sponsored research institutions (FAIR, FARMS, and BYU). --Taivo (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
There is no requirement of anyone using it for ¨most¨ to be true. It implies nothing about use, only about whether there are any part of the scientific community that does not not accept it (and yes, that is different from accepting it). Rorix the White (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Taivo. I have one final suggestion (I will leave this one entirely up to your judgement). The statement ¨The exceptions are several LDS organizations that sponsor historical and archeological research, such as FairMormon, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, and Brigham Young University; and LDS journals.¨ may be better worded as ¨The most notable exceptions are several LDS organizations that sponsor historical and archeological research, such as FairMormon, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, and Brigham Young University; and LDS journals.¨ I understand how that could be seen as being too vague. Again, I would like to leave that one entirely up to you. Rorix the White (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess what I have been saying, for the most part, is that absolutes do not exist in relation to people and communities. Rorix the White (talk) 23:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Conference weekend

It's general conference weekend so there are more anon IPs hitting the edit buttons here than usual. --Taivo (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And they have not even been Conference-related edits. Rorix the White (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It's the bane of Wikipedia, that real-world events often "inspire" anon editors with a passion for the topic to come to "set Wikipedia straight". You can virtually time every event in Greece's trademark dispute with Macedonia by the number of anon IP edits being made in a whole suite of articles about ancient Macedonia, so it's not surprising to see an uptick in anon IP edits in the suite of articles about the BOM during conference weekend. --Taivo (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

1827 vs 1823

Why does it say 1827 as the visit for Angel Moroni? Every source I can find says 1823. Epachamo (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

There were several visits in 4 years, as explained further down the page. Arguably they all led to the translation, but 1827 was closest to the event. Pastychomper (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Other editions

I am well aware that COJCOLDS is by far the largest church, but there should be more information on the other groups which use the Book of Mormon. In particular, the opening paragraph should reflect that is known as "The Record of the Nephites" and other such names.86.180.91.151 (talk) 10:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about the groups, but about the book and there is already a section that discusses the primary editions in use by each of the groups within the Latter-day Saint Movement. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Historical Context Section - Needs to be included

The fact that the "Mound Builder" theory that was prevalent at the time 1820s and 1830s is undisputable. That the Book of Mormon parallels the "Mound Builder" theory is the scholarly consensus. Early Latter Day Saints were in part attracted to the religion because of the "Mound Builder" theory. I get that it might be embarrassing for Latter Day Saints, and is sometimes exploited by anti-Mormon writers, but that is not a good reason for exclusion from Wikipedia(see WP:RNPOV). It is mentioned in just about every scholarly book on the Book of Mormon I could find, to include:

  • "Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon" Elizabeth Fenton and Jared Hickman page 31, Oxford University Press
  • "The Refiner's Fire" John L. Brooke at Location e-book location 2078 of 6221
  • "The Book of Mormon's Witness to Its First Readers" Dale Luffman (a former apostle in the Community of Christ) Location e-book location 3797 of 4274.
  • "Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling" Richard Bushman (he addresses it extensively, acknowledges the parallels, but is alone in his conclusion that the speculation probably didn't filter down to Joseph Smith) e-book location 2215 of 17510. Bushman has recently referred to the Book of Mormon as pseudepigrapha, so maybe he no longer feels this way?
  • "No Man Knows my History" Fawn Brodie
  • "Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet" Dan Vogel location 4829 of 19201
  • "The Mound Builder Myth" Jason Colavito, a scholar of the mound builder myth, not religion, with a section on the Book of Mormon concluding that the Book of Mormon falls within the genre. Page 101
  • "The Mound Builders" Robert Silverberg. Another scholar of the mound builders, who also concludes the Book of Mormon falls within that genre.
  • "By the Hand of Mormon" Terryl Givens, page 92-101. Givens, who works at the Maxwell Institute, notes the parallel, and how it played into early members beliefs.

These are not "anti-mormon" books, with the debatable exception of possibly Fawn Brodies. John Hammer, a seventy in the Community of Christ, actively advocates for the Mound Builder theory as a primary explanation of the Book of Mormon narrative. The fact that nowhere in this article is any mention of the mound builder theory is a glaring omission. Here is a quote by Orson Pratt in 1851, that is the Mound Builder theory summed up succinctly: "The bold, bad Lamanites, originally white, became dark and dirty . . . . They became wild, savage, and ferocious, seeking by every means the destruction of the prosperous Nephites, against whom they many times arrayed their hosts in battle. . . . The slain, frequently amounting to tens of thousands, were piled together in great heaps and overspread with a thin covering of earth, which will satisfactorily account for those ancient mounds filled with human bones, so numerous at the present day, both in North and South America." Here is another one from Joseph Smith in 1834 during the Zion's Camp march, "The whole of our journey, in the midst of so large a company of social honest men and sincere men, wandering over the plains of the Nephites, recounting occasionaly the history of the Book of Mormon, roving over the mounds of that once beloved people of the Lord, picking up their skulls & their bones, as a proof of its divine authenticity..." Wilford Woodruff added this about an experience with Joseph Smith in the early 1830s, "Brother Joseph requested us to dig into the mound; we did so; and in about one foot we came to the skeleton of a man, ... Brother Joseph feeling anxious to learn something of this man, asked the Lord, and received an open vision. The man's name was Zelph. He was a white Lamanite, the curse having been removed because of his righteousness. He was a great warrior, and fought for the Nephites under the direction of the Prophet Onandagus. ... There was a great slaughter at that time. The bodies were heaped upon the earth, and buried in the mound, which is nearly three hundred feet in height." Say what you will about the Zelph story, it is clear that the Mound Builder theory was prominent in the minds of early Saints.

Even Fairmormon has a better section on the Book of Mormon and the Mound Builder theory than this article: https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Book_of_Mormon/Geography/New_World/Great_Lakes_geography/Mound_Builders#Question:_Did_Joseph_Smith_believe_that_the_.27.27Book_of_Mormon.27.27_explained_local_legends_associated_with_the_.22Mound_Builders.22_of_the_Eastern_United_States.3F Epachamo (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Artistic Depiction

The climactic moment in the Book of Mormon is the visitation of Jesus

This image was reverted. From the revert, "Not necessary as it implies an artist's rendition of an actual event, not a fictional interpretation". There are hundreds of thousands of images of fictional events on Wikipedia, in articles from Adam and Eve, Bible, Iliad, Harry Potter and many more. Having this image in no way implies endorsement of a historical viewpoint, nor does it violate any policy that I am aware of. This particular image is significant further in that it is a rare pioneer era painting from inside the Logan Temple. Epachamo (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"Printer's manuscript" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Printer's manuscript. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Printer's manuscript until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 05:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Primary research in and notability of the Political Theology Section

Hello, Wikipedians. I'm wondering about whether the Political Theology subsection ought to be removed from the Book of Mormon article. The section currently seems relies heavily primary research with references to Book of Mormon verses rather than on secondary research with references to writers and scholars discussing and describing the Book of Mormon.

It might be possible to rework the section to include verified secondary references (for example, there are books like Voice of the People and Americanist Approaches to the Book of Mormon that talk about the Book of Mormon's political theology, and there are probably a variety of articles in that subject area in venues such as the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies). But would that be the type of information readers interested in learning about the Book of Mormon are looking for? It was of interest to its early readers, and it's of interest to some churches in the various Latter Day Saint movement who continue to read the book theologically. But for a general audience who are looking for an encyclopedic overview of the Book of Mormon, political theology as a topic is somewhat niche and doesn't seem as relevant as sections like the manuscript history, textual criticism, Christological doctrine, literary criticism, etc.

Since removing an entire subsection (or perhaps significantly shortening it) would be kind of drastic, I figured I'd make a post here on the Talk page first. In the event there aren't objections, I may go forward with either removing or overhauling the subsection in the future.

--P-Makoto (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)P-Makoto

Is it appropriate to state that mainstream archaeologists don't consider the Book of Mormon factual in the introduction?

Not a single other Wikipedia article on sacred texts such as the Bible or the Quran states anything like this in the introduction, though many mainstream archaeologists also believe that neither the Bible or the Quran are historically accurate. Why is the Book of Mormon a special case? Since the article itself is heavily infused with statements such as this (again, not found in any other article on sacred texts), is it really necessary to make this a focal point of the article or would it be better to push this a bit more to the sidelines while exploring the cultural and religious side of the Book of Mormon instead, as other articles on sacred texts do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs)

I believe it is appropriate. It's a difference of scale and of scope. The Book of Mormon presents itself as history far more explicitly than the Bible and Quran do, from the Introduction page to the Title page to the structure of the text as a history-like account with embedded narrators. While some of the books of the Bible are histories, not all are (such as Pslams and Proverbs) and the extent of historicity or not is different. While some events like the chronology of the Jewish captivity in Egypt, the extancy of the battle of Jericho, and the attribution of Solomon's Temple have been disputed (and those seeking naturalistic interpretations of the events naturally dismiss accounts of miracles), the existence of, say, a Kingdom of Israel and a Kingdom of Judea are not disputed. Meanwhile, there is no consensus external evidence of Nephite societies. Latter-day Saints can identify parallels and can understand the Book of Mormon in ways that fit alongside their understanding of the archaeology, but they cannot satisfactorily prove, on a wide scale, to those who do not accept the text on faith, that Zarahemla was at least there the way archaeologists can prove that the Kingdom of Israel was there, and there was a Babylonian Empire, and a Persian empire, and Herod was king in the early Common Era who expanded the temple, and the Romans had established an imperial regime, etc.
To put it another way, Biblical historicity is not disputed by mainstream archaeological communities to the extent that Book of Mormon historicity is disputed by mainstream archaeological communities. One actually couldn't write on the Bible page that "Mainstream archaeological, historical and scientific communities do not consider the Bible to be an ancient record of actual historical events" because it would not be true for all parts of the Bible, though it would be true for plenty of parts. Additionally, Biblical historicity is not as firmly attested by Abrahamic faith communities as Book of Momron historicity is attested by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination that uses the scripture. For example, while some Abrahamic denominations insist on Biblical literalism, other Abrahamic denominations, in the present and in history, have accepted the Bible as religiously true but not historically true, and there are plenty in between such as Latter-day Saints who hedge Biblical historicity with their article of faith on it being the word of God "as far as it is translated correctly." This contrasts with Latter-day Saint treatment of the Book of Mormon (and, prior to the latter-twentieth century, treatment by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints/Community of Christ), which upholds the Book of Mormon straightforwardly as the word of God and attests its historicity in missiology and discourse.
Still, Biblical historicity does get treated in Wikipedia articles. There is a section on the Bible page about Biblical archaeology and historicity, and there is a very thorough Historicity of the Bible page that acknowledges scholars' views that "large portions of" certain portions of the Bible, like the Deuteronomistic histories, "are legendary and it contains many anachronisms." It is given a differing level of treatment and focus, but this partly comes down to scholars treating the issue differently for the Book of Mormon. As Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we rely on the secondary scholarly discourse for our information, and the polemical/apologetic background of Book of Mormon discourse (by Latter-day Saints, other Mormons, and non-Mormons alike) has put historicity at the forefront of Book of Mormon scholarly discourse for many years. For decades, Book of Mormon historicity was the central scholarly subject for the Book of Mormon. It's what FARMS wrote about, it's what Vogel wrote about, it's what BYU wrote about, it's what Sorenson wrote about—Book of Mormon studies was all about historicity for years. It is in many ways only in the last couple of decades that scholars (Latter-day Saints, other Mormons, and non-Mormons alike) have shifted focus toward cultural and religious elements. As a result, Wikipedia's article arguably has a responsibility to acknowledge historicity in the lead because that is the question that secondary literature has had at its forefront for the majority of the Book of Mormon's existence. Leaving out that sentence might arguably be as egregious a gap as not mentioning that Latter-day Saints accept the book as scripture would be. P-Makoto (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I see. I suppose that does make sense. I'll leave such mentions in then, but I've added more information given from a Latter-day Saint perspective so as not to write the book off entirely. For example, I noticed that the section on Historical Authenticity contained only criticisms of the Book of Mormon and no defenses. In order to display both sides, I added some LDS scholarship and some of the most common defenses of the book. I may go through a second time to ensure my additions come from a neutral point of view. While the article as a whole I feel tends to view the book rather negatively, my additions could have too much of a positively biased tone that I've been trying to negate. I was also considering adding a section entitled "Claimed Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy" to detail how Latter-day Saints view the Book of Mormon in the context of Biblical tradition. Shifting this article from a historicity and factual debate perspective to a more cultural or religious perspective might be helpful. For example, emphasizing the effects of the Book of Mormon on the LDS religion or on the world as a whole rather than mostly focusing on criticisms and defenses of it (though those are both important to include). Jacobalbee (talk) 03:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)JacobAlbee
"While the article as a whole I feel tends to view the book rather negatively, my additions could have too much of a positively biased tone that I've been trying to negate."
It need not be a matter of positive or negative. Wikipedia articles try to reflect the broadest, mainstream (and where applicable scholarly) consensus. That this does not bear out in favor of Book of Mormon historicity may be a disappointment to readers who accept the book's faith claims, but Wikipedia is not able be all things to all readers. Its stated perspective is achieving a neutral point of view that reflects broad, mainstream, scholarly consensus. Even Wikipedia needs a point of view, or else every page would be debating with itself, and that would be difficult reading.
If I may, I hope you'll allow me to offer a couple other pointers relating to your additions to the page. I do not have time at the moment to thoroughly read your edits, but at a cursory glance I would advise you to strive for more neutral language. Calling people who disbelieve the Book of Mormon's truth claims "skeptics" or "critics" comes across a bit brusque. It would be probably be more appropriate to describe how certain scholarship responds to claims rather than to people broadly described as either "critics" or "believers."
Additionally, listing a litany of individual apologetic findings in ancient Book of Mormon studies is probably a lot more detail than the article needs. If the page devotes multiple long paragraphs to relatively niche scholarship that upholds claims of mesoamerican historicity, it would arguably have to devote even more paragraphs to reporting mainstream scholarship that challenges historicity in order for the page to maintain a sense of internal balance and balance with mainstream scholarly consensuses.
Finally, wherever you contribute to Wikipedia, I invite you to provide complete references. It is good to have the URL, but then readers always have to click on the link to see authors, publication titles, etc. With the Visual Editor, it is possible to fill in text boxes with the necessary information according to pre-made source templates for books, news publications, journals and magazines, and websites, and if you fill in the information, Wikipedia will take care of formatting. P-Makoto (talk) 04:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I merely copied the usage in the rest of the article. The rest of the article called those who were skeptical of the Book of Mormon "critics" and so I followed suit. And I steered clear of any scholarship that went into trying to place the Book of Mormon in a proper geographical setting. There's already an article on that and I feel it would be a waste of time describing such a complicated topic here. I added around three paragraphs discussing Book of Mormon complexity, consistency, and stylometry, with a brief reference to Nahom. There are hundreds or even thousands of scholarly articles out on the internet detailing defenses of the Book of Mormon. I just summed up a few major arguments in three paragraphs. Niche scholarship deserves recognition here, since that's exactly it's niche. And I completely understand the neutrality policy. I'm attempting to keep the article as neutral as possible. The article still recognizes that the Book of Mormon isn't accepted by most mainstream scholars and goes into great detail discussing criticism of the religious text. Most visitors of this website will already know that, but I'm just ensuring the article doesn't write the Book of Mormon off altogether, and that it treats it as it is: the sacred text of a living religious faith that deserves thorough and special insight and attention. Jacobalbee (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)JacobAlbee

Edit warring

I have posted some warnings on user talkpages, and I'm going to start handing out blocks if there's any more edit warring on this article. Thank you for discussing above, guys, but now is the time to only discuss, and try to reach a consensus. Bishonen | tålk 07:30, 19 May 2021 (UTC).

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a problem. I've been attempting to shorten my additions in order to balance that section of the article. I'll continue to do that since it doesn't require undoing the work of anyone else and it seems to be the current consensus that my additions should be shortened.Jacobalbee (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Jacobalbee
I know you're fairly new, Jacobalbee. I hope you realize that reverting another user's removal, as you did here, also counts as "undoing another editor's work". Thought and consideration goes into removals, too. I strongly suggest you avoid editing the article at all at this point, especially considering that you have already violated the three-revert rule. Please offer your shortened additions here, on Talk. Bishonen | tålk 07:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC).
  • Article protected. You seem to be ignoring my advice above, Jacobalbee, even though I pinged you to it. Please also pay attention to User:P-Makoto's excellent advice about WP:BRD here. Aggressive editing will merely lead to the article being protected to force discussion, as now. For dispute resolution alternatives, if you think it's time for that, see some tips in my 3RR warning on your page. Bishonen | tålk 09:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC).
I wasn't ignoring your advice. I was editing my own work, not undoing the edits of others. Yes, I understand that reverting another user's removal is "undoing another editor's work" but I haven't done that since you mentioned it. I've only shortened my own addition in accordance with what was mentioned on the talk page.Jacobalbee (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Jacobalbee
You weren't? Is there something about "I strongly suggest you avoid editing the article at all at this point, especially considering that you have already violated the three-revert rule" that you don't understand? Bishonen | tålk 21:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC).
  1. ^ {{|url=http://http://lifeafter.org/smithsonian/%7C}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Book_of_Mormon/Archive_13&oldid=1146707527"