Talk:Book of Mormon/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Poor Sourcing

The Interpreter Foundation, Book of Mormon Central, Latter Day Saint Magazine, among others are not strong, reliable, secondary sources for scholarly information, and should only be used when presenting a narrow point of view of a segment of one belief system within the broader Latter Day Saint movement. NPOV does not mean you present every viewpoint with equal weight (see WP:WEIGHT).Epachamo (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I notice you also removed information backed up by BYU, which would count as reliable information. Those sources were used throughout. I would agree NPOV doesn't mean you present every view point but this is important information about a well-contested sacred text. There are legitimate arguments presented for its authenticity that need to be recognized. I'll re-add this section and include better sources soon. However, you mention they should only be used when presenting that pov, which is exactly what I was doing. If you leave Latter-day Saint perspectives out of an article about an important aspect of the Latter-day Saint movement you can't really consider this a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Jacobalbee (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that Latter-day Saint and other Mormon and Latter Day Saint perspectives are worthy of inclusion, but as Epachamo states there is a matter of due and undue weight. As aforementioned, Wikipedia's neutral point of view prioritizes the broadest possible mainstream academic consensus. While the Interpreter and BYU Studies are both peer-reviewed journals, it is possible even for a peer-reviewed journal to be very niche. Information from Interpreter articles about, say, the Deseret Alphabet or about Cowdrey's transcription between the original and printer's manuscripts can probably be presented without qualification. An Interpreter article on ancient Book of Mormon studies would likely require qualification as being from a Latter-day Saint point of view, and at that point it is wise to give consideration to weight. While Latter-day Saints are the largest Mormon denomination for whom the Book of Mormon is highly important, the Latter-day Saint perspective on the Book of Mormon's historicity remains a minority perspective relative to the broader academic consensus, albeit a a significant one, but even significant minorities warrant only limited space in an article.

Think of it this way: if the Latter-day Saint perspective on the Book of Mormon, which proportionally compared to the broader academic consensus is very niche, were to be given more paragraphs on the page than said academic consensus, that would be giving more lingual "weight" to the more niche perspective than to the more accepted perspective. Wikipedia avoids that as a matter of policy, and while no system can be perfect, it is important. If niche perspectives received more weight on pages than broader consensuses, then one could hypothetically devote many paragraphs to the niche but largely unaccepted theory that Brigham Young ordered the Mountain Meadows Massacre (broader consensus is that his inflammatory language played a role, but at the most serious making him an unwitting accessory rather than an instigator, yet Bagley's Blood of the Prophets nevertheless pushes a Young-instigator theory), or many paragraphs to the niche but largely unaccepted theory that Sidney Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon (broader consensus is that Rigdon had no part in the Book of Mormon, and the Rigdon theory rightfully does not even appear on the Book of Mormon page, even though some still promote the theory.)

Proportionally speaking, one might compare the nicheness of Latter-day Saint perspectives on Book of Mormon historicity relative to the broader academic consensus to the nicheness of Young-instigator or Rigdon-author theories relative to Latter-day Saint perspectives. Thanks to Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight, those niche theories receive only limited or no treatment on relevant Wikipedia pages. (the Rigdon authorship theory does have its own Wikipedia page, separate from the Book of Mormon page, though half of that page is about people disproving it.)

With that in mind, I hope it is clearer why for many editors, not just Epachamo, the four long, detailed paragraphs you added about Latter-day Saint perspectives on the Book of Mormon seem like undue weight compared to the one short paragraph and a bulleted list about the broader academic consensus that the Book of Mormon is not historically authentic. To achieve Wikipedia-appropriate balance, editors would have to add four or perhaps more long paragraphs about all the ways scholars like Dan Vogel and Simon Southerton say the book is anachronistic or inauthentic. At that point I worry the page would drift even further away from the hope of speaking more to the scripture's religious and cultural relevance. As such, I think the earlier composition of the Historical authenticity section more appropriate: one bulleted list for the mainstream perspective of inauthenticity, one brief paragraph summarizing Latter-day Saint perspectives, which constitute a significant and relative minority, though still a minority in the broader academic discourse, as persuasive as that minority might be for plenty of people (though, as the academic discourse has yet to shift, not for a majority).

Finally, if I may offer some Wikipedia advice going forward. It's something I also had to learn when I got started editing Wikipedia. There is a saying sometimes of "BRD," short for "Boldly edit, Revert, Discuss." Boldness is not a bad quality on Wikipedia—after all, timidity would leave pages unedited eternally!—but after an edit you make has been reverted, it is generally better to leave the text reverted without adding it back in until after discussion takes place. P-Makoto (talk) 07:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

You've removed my work a second time. I've gone through and fixed the sourcing issue. Brigham Young University is a reliable source of information on the Latter-day Saint movement and Book of Mormon lingustical studies. As I've stated before, I'm presenting the most common arguments given in favor of it. The article already mentions the most common arguments against. I'm going to undo your edit for now and let's talk here. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable concensus. Jacobalbee (talk) 06:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll take an example from your text to illustrate why this doesn't belong. "A lack of internal consistency or the confusion of small details are among the most common features of forgeries, but, uniquely, the Book of Mormon is remarkably consistent." Flatly stating this as fact is not appropriate nor is it uncontested. For example, Amlicites and Amalekites were probably meant to be the same, but spelled differently. King Benjamin shows up in the story after he was dead in the original. There are two narratives of the battle (or battles) that destroyed the city of Ammonihah that do not match up. The name of "Christ" was revealed to Jacob, but mysteriously unknown to later generations. Regardless, this phrase does nothing to address the historicity of the Book of Mormon. Internal inconsistencies could just have well been introduced by Mormon as by Joseph Smith, making the historicity point irrelevant. Also, these statements violate WP:UNDUE. There is a place for them in Wikipedia, (Historicity of the Book of Mormon), but that place is not this article. Finally, BYU is not an appropriate source for these statements, for the same reason that Harvard University would not be appropriate as a source for a statement listing Harvard University as the best school in the world, or that scientists paid by tobacco companies would not be an appropriate sources in a statement linking smoking to cancer. Epachamo (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Latter-day Saint scholarship needs to be represented in an article about the sacred text of Latter-day Saints. Their sources are good and their scholarship is firm. It's their conclusions that are questioned by critics. I'm not stating their conclusions as fact, only the facts as fact. I'll remove references to consistency, though the Book of Mormon, by all means is remarkably consistent given the circumstances. Jacobalbee (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many other references to BYU articles all throughout the work so I don't think my use of them is a problem. We also are apparently using No Man Knows My History. BYU articles can't be worse than that, given that most scholars now agree it's outdated, having been published in 1945, and that it contains factually incorrect information or misuses evidence. I'm currently going through and shortening my addition to this section though, as it seems we all agree it needs to be shortened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobalbee (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

(Quick aside: remember to sign your replies on Talk pages; thank you!)

@Jacobalbee, I share your frustration with No Man Knows My History as a generally unreliable book whose ongoing popularity which even eclipses more recent naturalistic interpretations by Dan Vogel, Ann Taves, and William Davis is perplexing.

However, the solution to that is not necessarily to add more sources that also don't have broad consensus;* that could lead to my concerns already outlined above. Additionally, not every claim in No Man Knows is erroneous. Credit where it's due, Brodie thoroughly discredited the Solomon Spaulding authorship theory and put an end to delusory interpretations of Joseph Smith. After a quick search through references to No Man Knows on the current instance of the Book of Mormon page (footnotes 27 and 36, each used twice, plus an un-footnoted quotation in the "Literary criticism section"), all four seem to be used for making safe, consensus claims that other authors agree upon (Joseph Smith's early use of a curtain in translation, which he later abandoned; the golden plates virtually always being covered during translation, and eventually often not being present at all; Smith's account of the lost manuscript pages and the rebuke from Moroni; Smith's account of returning the golden plates to Moroni after translation finished).

While it could be said folks agreed your additions ought to be shortened in a general sense, I suspect Epachamo hoped they'd be shortened to either nothing or to maybe a sentence or two. As Epachamo pointed out, describing in-depth the Latter-day Saint answers to historicity probably is better suited to the Historicity of the Book of Mormon page, a page whose more focused subject matter allows it to go into more detail. The idea of "weight" on Wikipedia is that a page should dedicate more text to the most relevant information as described by the most consensus point of view. With about a paragraph given to describing scholars' assessments of the Book of Mormon as anachronistic on the Book of Mormon page, there ought not be more than a paragraph given to assessments of the Book of Mormon as ancient. The single Wikipedia article is not capable of giving voice to every jot of information about the Book of Mormon (hence related pages are created), and I don't think the page should have multiple more paragraphs about anachronisms, so it's not able to accommodate multiple more paragraphs for ancientness.

I understand it may feel like an obstacle sometimes, but the Wikipedia dedication to neutrality, verifiability, and broad consensus also protects Latter-day Saint interests. After all, it keeps niche anti-Mormon perspectives like the discredited Rigdon authorship theory from gaining ground on pages. As for the Book of Mormon page's "Historical authenticity" section, I might be open to the addition of a sentence or a couple of sentences to the paragraph, since the summary is somewhat thin, but I don't think more than that would be warranted.

*Theoretically, a solution would be to replace No Man Knows My History citations with references to more recent publications about the Book of Mormon, e.g. Ann Taves's Numen article "The Materialization of the Golden Plates" (2014) and Revelatory Events: Three Case Studies of the Emergence of New Spiritual Paths (2016); as well as William Davis's Visions in a Seer Stone all offer naturalistic interpretations while avoiding the polemical pitfalls of No Man Knows; for history beyond the Book of Mormon, there's books like Benjamin Park's Kingdom of Nauvoo (2020), Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling (2005), Robert Remini's Joseph Smith (2002) (Though I'm less familiar with Remini's; whenever I see book recommendations about Smith, it's usually either Brodie, Vogel, or Bushman), even Dan Vogel's Making of a Prophet (2004). (Though as naturalistic interpretations go, I personally find Vogel's "pious deceiver" model superficial and Taves's "skilled perceiver" model more compelling.) However, replacing every reference to No Man Knows on Wikipedia time-consuming and inconvenient, and it's probably the case that more editors have access to Fawn Brodie's No Man Knows (freely available through the Internet Archive's Open Library) than to the more recent publications, which by nature of their recency are more expensive and less commonly available in libraries. (Though I have found that USCB provides a free draft copy of Taves's "Materialization" online, which I may incorporate as a postscript into footnotes where I've cited her Numen article.) Additionally, it seems unnecessary to go to the trouble of such replacing on the Book of Mormon page, where as aforementioned No Man Knows from what I can tell is primarily cited for tame claims corroborated by other sources. P-Makoto (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that No Man Knows my history is unreliable, but that it does have important pieces of information that are true. I don't see any problems with the inclusion of BYU articles as a source of information. I have to fall in line with DaysonZhang's statement that BYU articles should (generally) be treated as a biased source, and used in the same way Christian historian's work is used on other pages. At this current time, I've shortened my additions down to three shorter paragraphs. The start and end sentences of my additions also emphasize the mainstream view and problems LDS scholars face in defending the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I think it's quite clear from that section that the Book of Mormon isn't considered authentic by most historians, but my additions add a better LDS perspective. As the article stands right now, I'd say it looks good, and that section is balanced okay.Jacobalbee (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2021 (UTC)Jacobalbee

The paragraphs you added do not add balance and should be deleted. There is already a paragraph with the Latter-day Saint perspective. Virtually every statement presents a contested premise, presented as objective fact. You say, "critics remain divided on how to explain its origins." I don't think this is generally the case. Every critical scholar I am aware of is fairly consistent in believing that Smith is the author. "all accounts of the Book of Mormon translation agree that Smith never paused to review the previous page or sentence, and he used no notes, books, or other reference materials." There is significant evidence and agreement that the King James Bible was used in the translation, and most scholars (believing and otherwise) find the Emma Smith account problematic, yet this is where your second source gets its information (see the footnotes). One of your sources is a BYU forum speech by a political science professor (not peer reviewed even by BYU and not a good source). "Multiple stylometric analyses and studies of the Book of Mormon, in most cases, suggest that it was written by multiple authors..." Stylometric studies fall strictly on believing/non-believing lines. To say that "in most cases" when only a handful of stylometric analysis have been done is misleading. Presenting chiasmus as a Hebraism or even an exclusive near-eastern writing style is misleading as well. The name chiasmus itself is Greek, and non-LDS scholars do not present chiasmus as a Hebraism. " The root of Jershon is y-r-sh, which means "to inherit" in Hebrew, making this a Hebrew play-on-words". The "Jershon" source is https://onoma.lib.byu.edu/index.php/JERSHON, which is a wiki and should not be used. "The late 20th-century discovery of an ancient altar bearing the placename Nahom." No, the altar bears the three letters "NHM", and nowhere in the source article could I find where it says that it is a placename. Epachamo (talk) 08:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

They should not be deleted, but I'd be open to a summarized version of my additions, if you want to make it shorter. I would also contest your statement that division isn't generally the case. There are numerous different perspectives among those who would prefer a naturalistic explanation of the Book of Mormon. Many possible authors have been proposed, from Sidney Rigdon, to Solomon Spaulding, to a collaboration of multiple authors. In the case of stylometric studies, most actually do agree that the Book of Mormon was written by multiple authors. This has been tested over and over again. I also never presented chiasmus as a Hebraism, but as a Near Eastern writing style, which it is. I'd like to point out that Greece is in the Near East as well, and chiasmus is known primarily from that area, including in Israel. I could add better sources if you'd like, but my additions should stay in. We could also change "Nahom" to "NHM" if you would really like. The exact pronunciation is unknown, but no matter how it's pronounced, it still sounds pretty much like "Nahom," even if you pronounce it "Nihem." But if you could present me with a summarized version of my additions that would fit better, I would be happy to oblige and use that instead.Jacobalbee (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Jacobalbee

Please find me a single modern day ***scholar*** who supports the Solomon Spaulding theory, or even the Sidney Rigdon theory. Those theories began to die down in the 1940s after Fawn Brodie came along. Not even the Tanner's push either of those theories. Since 1986 when Dan Vogel published "Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon", and even a little before, the by far dominant theory is that the Book of Mormon falls into mound builder literature category, along with dozens of other examples to include Solomon Spaulding and Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews, and that the Book of Mormon is a rendering of a pop culture history of the 1820s. When critics bring up Solomon Spaulding today to point out similarities, ****nobody**** is arguing that Joseph Smith plagiarized from it. The only place you will read about the Solomon Spaulding theory anymore is in apologetic literature, where it is widely propped up as a straw man to cut down. You say that most stylometric studies agree the Book of Mormon was written by multiple authors, but most studies were produced by Latter Day Saints, rendering your point moot. Chiasmus is not a primarily Near Eastern writing style, as they pop up in many writings throughout the world. Presenting it as "Near Eastern" or of primarily ancient origin requires an independent source. The fact that there is a stark dividing line between the Latter Day Saint results and non-Latter Day Saint results should be mentioned. NHM does not necessarily equal Nahom, nor does it state in the source that it is a place name. There is no reason to think that Smith couldn't have gotten the name Nahom from Nahum in the Bible. If this material is kept in, which it shouldn't, then the critical perspective on each of these must also be included. Epachamo (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Since some of my other additions and edits have been kept in, I think I'll allow these additions in the Historical Authenticity section to be removed. Feel free to remove my additions to this section. Jacobalbee (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that BYU should be treated as a WP:BIASEDSOURCE and accorded a limited influence on WP:DUEWEIGHT rather than as wholesale unreliable. Its reliability is more analogous to the reliability of Christian apologists who are also historians who are prominently cited on pages like Historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. --DaysonZhang (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"I would argue that BYU should be treated as a WP:BIASEDSOURCE and accorded a limited influence on WP:DUEWEIGHT rather than as wholesale unreliable."

I think this is a reasonable approach. For instance, BYU Studies Quarterly, at the time of writing, is a decent, peer-reviewed journal reliable for a variety of subjects, from psychology to nineteenth-century Western North American history. However, when it comes to the subject of ancient Book of Mormon studies, BYU Studies' papers reflect the niche Latter-day Saint view that the Book of Mormon is ancient, rather than the consensus view that it is not. Those specifically are the BYU sources that I think ought to be accorded limited influence on this article, as a way of recognizing the Latter-day Saint view as a relevant minority, but without giving it undue weight as you observed.

Overall, as I said earlier in the talk page, I think the earlier composition of the page's "Historical authenticity" section was more appropriate: one bulleted list for the mainstream perspective of inauthenticity, one brief paragraph summarizing Latter-day Saint perspectives. Another sentence or two about Latter-day Saint perspectives might be warranted, but probably not additional paragraphs. Such content is, as Epachamo pointed out, probably better suited to the specific Historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon page. I do think there ought to be a better reference for the paragraph on the Book of Mormon page than an Ensign article. This two-part Sunstone article is a neutral overview of historicity debates as of 2010; it makes an effort to evenly describe all "sides" and parties. I think it could be productively appended somewhere in the paragraph to provide additional verification.

I think what serves the "Historical authenticity" section of the Book of Mormon page best is that it briefly summarize and relate not so much the blow-by-blow of anachronism/historicity claims, but instead succinctly convey the broad strokes of the claims.

Another bit of info that I think could be worthwhile to include is if the limited geography model has gained any further popularity among workaday Latter-day Saints (in 2004, Southerton noted in his book that it was a perspective limited mostly to the apologetic community), as the nature of Latter-day Saint perspectives on historicity can be of neutral interest as a matter of culture and community opinion; unfortunately, I don't know if there has been any research on that front, like a poll or survey, so that may just have to wait for future secondary research.

As an aside, I hesitate to say broadly something like "Organization X is unreliable" or "Organization X is biased" since organizations are big, and individual scholars can belie such expectations. e.g. Brian M. Hauglid, a former BYU professor, helped debunk John Gee's apologetic and ultimately inaccurate "missing section of the papyri" theory on the Book of Abraham. (See Maxwell Institute presentation as well as The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism's Most Controversial Scripture, co-written with Terryl Givens; as a practicing Latter-day Saint, Hauglid does adopt a "catalyst for revelation" theory.) I don't know if it'd be entirely out of the realm of possibility for a BYU Studies paper to say something consensus about ancient Book of Mormon studies/Book of Mormon historicity, though I admit it would be a little bit of a surprise. (While it isn't BYU Studies, there was an interesting Journal of Book of Mormon Studies paper about the presence of New Testament scripture in the Book of Mormon; it did explicitly take a neutral position on historicity.) In other words, I do my best to examine each source on its merits in the context of the broader consensus, bearing in mind the author, publisher, and content. P-Makoto (talk) 18:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jacobalbee, I actually agree with you that "No Man Knows My History" is a poor source. Scholarship has moved well beyond. I also submit that anything the Tanner's wrote, Jon Krakauer, Daniel Peterson, Christopher Hitchens, LDS365.com, Robert Millet, the Ensign magazine, churchofjesuschrist.com, and several others are not appropriate sources for this article unless it is caveated as coming from a particular viewpoint. In many cases, I do not put BYU studies into that category, and myself have used BYU studies as a source many times in articles. Very very few sources are universally appropriate. In the last 10 years there has been an explosion of good scholarship on this topic, and the aforementioned sources should be replaced with higher quality sources and viewpoints. Epachamo (talk) 20:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

If I may, before we're too hasty I would point out that LDS365 is currently only cited on the Book of Mormon page as a secondary source attesting the number of Book of Mormon translations and the existence of Book of Mormon translations in American Sign Language and Mayan languages. Likewise, some of the Ensign citations are not making ancient Book of Mormon claims but rather are reporting uncontroversial news or church information. For example, footnote 108 in the current instance provides verification that the Book of Mormon is one of the church's "four standard works"; footnote 227 reports the church's announcement that it no longer practices partial Book of Mormon translations.

This is why I wrote that I hesitate to broadly say "Organization X is unreliable." On Wikipedia, should an Ensign article written by Daniel C. Peterson about the persuasive obviousness of the Book of Mormon's ancient qualities be privileged over the broader academic consensus that it's not persuasively obvious? No, unless the purpose is to provide readers with an example of the Latter-day Saint perspective, in the event that such is appropriate to the page. Does that mean all Ensign articles should be purged from the Book of Mormon page's footnotes unless caveated as coming from a particular viewpoint?* I'm not so sure about that; that seems to be throwing some things out with the bathwater. As you said, few sources are universally appropriate, but so too would I say few sources universally inappropriate, even on a given page. A publication can have a diverse array of content over its lifetime, an organization's members can be viewpoint-diverse, and an institution's misalignment with the mainstream on one point (e.g. Book of Mormon historicity) does not necessarily mean it is not reliable on other points (e.g. whether or not there is an ASL translation).

*For example, I think it would be unnecessary to rephrase "In 1998, the LDS Church stopped translating selections from the Book of Mormon, and instead announced that each new translation it approves will be a full edition" to "In 1998, according to the LDS Church, the LDS Church stopped translating selections from the Book of Mormon, and instead..." and so forth. I realize you probably didn't mean this; I raise this for the sake of clarity. P-Makoto (talk) 10:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Fair point, and I agree that few sources are universally inappropriate. I would also agree that context of the Daniel C. Peterson Ensign article reference is valid based on the context. I also agree that stating "In 1998, the LDS Church stopped translating..." is an appropriate caveat. If you were to simply state, "In 1998 the selections from the Book of Mormon were no longer translated..." I would find that insufficient. An example where lds365.com is inappropriate is in the lede, which states, "...has since been fully or partially translated into 112 languages." This is only LDS Church editions. I know of at least one other translation not included in that tally (Hebrew edition by Denver Snuffer), so the statement is inaccurate as it now stands. Epachamo (talk) 11:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on whether newly added section should remain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the edit here and discussed above remain in the article? Epachamo (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

As we've discussed previously, I think the addition in that edit is too large, throwing off the weight, and too detailed, becoming cumbersome in its specificity. But I don't quite want to simply revert the edit, as I was not entirely satisfied with the previous version. It seemed somewhat thin and provided hardly any information about the nature of the apologetics that might be of interest to readers curious about how historicity-affirming Latter Day Saints reconcile their beliefs.

I have attempted an alternative revision of the section, which you can see in this sandbox. In addition to cleaning up and standardizing some footnotes (e.g. shortened links will direct to their main work when added to the main Book of Mormon page), I attempted a briefer and more balanced summary of Book of Mormon historicity apologetics, focusing on describing apologists and their common claims and activities rather than repeating those claims. I hope it can satisfy as many parties as possible. The section opens and closes with the mainstream viewpoint so Wikipedia remains focused on its encyclopedic mission, and the Book of Mormon-as-history viewpoint is represented briefly and neutrally as encyclopedically relevant content, but also I hope sufficiently so Mormon/Latter Day Saint readers and editors feel fairly treated. (The last is not strictly, the way it's phrased, a Wikipedia policy per se, but some elements of it are part of the Neutral Point of View policy on religion, and I feel that bearing in mind practitioner communities can be part of good religious studies.) I have limited the examples to major ones, relegating further information to footnotes and to the relevant subpages. P-Makoto (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Just read the sandbox, and I think it is looking great! I could go for that, and is a step in the right direction. Another perspective that has emerged in the Latter Day Saint movement recently is that the Book of Mormon is inspired pseudepigrapha or even more nuanced, and I think their perspective is worthy of being added to this section. For example, LDS Church scholar Richard Bushman stated recently, "I’ve just always said it was right. I have a little difficulty with the word “true.” ... there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi’s and Mormon’s words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times. I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true. But there are just too many scholars now, faithful church scholars, who find 19th-century material in that text. That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be." here. Scholar David Bokovoy (one of the founders of the Interpreter I might add) presented a pathway for believers to maintain their belief while not accepting the historicity of the Book of Mormon (see "Authoring the Old Testament"). John C. Hamer is an excellent historian and leader in the Community of Christ, and while he finds inspiration in the Book of Mormon does not believe it historical and has been a leading proponent of the Mound Builder Myth explanation. Dale E. Luffman was an apostle in the Community of Christ when he wrote "The Book of Mormon's Witness to Its First Readers", which says, "My prayerful study and reflection on the Book of Mormon text, and on the cultural context in which it was introduced, leads me to the conclusion that Joseph Smith and his environment contributed to both the language and content of this book of scripture." This perspective is growing within the movement particularly in scholarly circles. Epachamo (talk) 07:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Short version: I added to the revision draft.

Thanks for reading the draft and for your feedback.

You raise good points about the inspired fiction, pseudepigrapha, and related viewpoints. I will say I'm hard-pressed to say how much it's growing as a view, based on sources I've been reading. Even in the 1980s, at the height of orthodoxy/revisionism tension, especially in scholarly circles, a supermajority of respondents to a Dialogue survey maintained an orthodox view of Book of Mormon historicity (Duffy 42). I'd add that I'm not so sure reading a belief in pseudepigrapha into Bushman's interview is quite right, since he goes right on to say he also believes in physical golden plates being translated. Bushman's hesitation to use the word "true" seems to be more a concern over about how scholarly colleagues regard truth claims of the Book of Mormon ("I have a little difficulty with the word 'true.' I am willing to say it’s true for me and it is something I’m willing to grasp. But it’s not something I can persuade everyone, including Harvard professors, to believe in"). And from reading a book review of Authoring the Old Testament, Bovokoy seems to be arguing for pseudepigraphic readings of the Books of Moses and Abraham, but not completely for the Book of Mormon, which he maintains is anciently authentic in origin though expanded with modern emendations, a la Blake Ostler. When it comes to Latter-day Saints, I'm generally inclined to follow the assessments of Richard Bushman (Rough Stone Rolling 93–94) and Grant Hardy (A Reader's Edition xix; Understanding the Book of Mormon xvi–xix, 9) that the typical Latter-day Saint view is one of historicity (acknowledging some diversity within that premise), especially since that comports with other scholars' observation that for most of the church's existence, history replaced theology, forming the underpinning to justify claims of sacred revelation and divine authority. Apologetics on the nineteenth-century influence have also been developing, with one of the latest defenses being that God, knowing when the book would be published, inspired the inclusion of nineteenth-century influence so the Book of Mormon would sufficiently appeal to its first readership and come forth successfully (this view is noted in the Book of Mormon studies roundtable of the 2020 Mormon History Association virtual conference). (The paragraph in the draft was getting rather long, though, and it's a relatively recent strain of thought, so I didn't include it among the examples of apologetics.)

Nevertheless, you're right that it would be good for the page to also describe pseudepigraphic views on the Book of Mormon. I daresay it's a bit of a shame that such go entirely unmentioned on the Book of Mormon page as it currently stands, outside of a footnote. Especially since I'm given to understand it's the increasingly dominant view for Community of Christ, which remains a significant denomination, as well as for a minority of Latter-day Saints and (I would presume) certain other Mormon denominations (just as some other Mormon denominations presumably share the authentic history view). I'm not nearly as familiar with pseudepigraphic approaches and don't know if I'd be able to say much more than what the Duffy's Sunstone article mentions throughout, though perhaps that's no issue and is enough information to constitute a paragraph of appropriate length.

As you mentioned "even more nuanced" views, Duffy's article also notes postmodernists like James Faulconer who propose reading the book in ways that assume historical meaning not on the grounds of Enlightenment-informed evidentiary positivism but rather sacramental authority. And for completeness I'll mention my passing awareness of An Other Testament: On Typology, in which Joseph Spencer avers the Book of Mormon as historically authentic but nevertheless attempts to subvert the entire debate by casting the book as non-historical, whereby "it must be subtracted from the dichotomy of the historical/unhistorical" (28).

I've added to the revision draft. Admittedly, this means that the section is actually becoming long again, but I think this time in a productive way that isn't giving undue weight to one niche view but instead allows the reader to become abreast of both the mainstream academic position, the major trends of Latter-day Saint historicity thinking, and a diverse range of Latter Day Saint approaches to the Book of Mormon.

One question I have is if "A few scholars propose considering the Book of Mormon partially pseudepigraphic" should be specified as Latter-day Saints. The only writers in the "partial pseudepigrapha" camp I'm directly aware of (Ostler, Bokovoy, and apparently Rees to some extent) are all specifically Latter-day Saints, and I'm not familiar with such work from Community of Christ or other Latter Day Saint denomination members. P-Makoto (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind if I took a crack at your draft? I can put my go at it in a section below yours, add some CoC perspective, and you can take what you want for the final draft. On page 213 of Bokovoy's book he writes, "Still, those who accept the Book of Mormon as an English translation of ancient scripture must allow for historical anachronisms as part of the revelatory process. Even Brigham Young was open to the idea that external forces influenced the present form in which the Book of Mormon appears. On this subject, Brigham Young taught: 'I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be rewritten, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.' Taking this idea even further, LDS scholar Mark Thomas suggests that 'the Book of Mormon uses the Bible as proof text, as a springboard to new revelation and creativity.' From this perspective, Joseph was doing the very thing that the ancient authors of the Hebrew Bible did by taking a previous source and making it relevant for a contemporary audience. Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and Joseph Smith were all continuing the tradition of using archaic sources to create new scripture."Bokovoy, David. Authoring the Old Testament: Genesis–Deuteronomy (Contemporary Studies in Scripture) (p. 213). Greg Kofford Books. This seems to take it a bit further than Ostler, who has another interesting perspective. This video here are three other prominent Latter Day Saint Scholars (Thomas Wayment, Patrick Mason, Richard Bushman), who also take nuanced views on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. In this video you can see Bushman actually state that the Book of Mormon can be read as inspired pseudepigrapha and "put into that genre". Bushman has changed his views over time, as well (see here).

The official stance of the Community of Christ is that it belief/non-belief in the Book of Mormon is not a requirement for membership. There is a pretty good breakdown here Comparison_of_the_Community_of_Christ_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Book_of_Mormon, that could be incorporated into this article. Epachamo (talk) 08:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@P-Makoto, I actually oppose this rewritten version, and propose we go back to the version that was there prior to my additions. I've conceded that my additions were unnecessary. This new proposed revision is even longer than my additions are and is also, I feel, unnecessary and pushes the article further into arguments about historical authenticity when the main focus should be cultural and religious uses and perspectives. The nuanced view is such a tiny minority as well, far smaller than any of the other perspectives and should not be given so much text, if it is to be included at all. I don't think it should. The summarized version we had before was pretty good already so let's stick with that. Jacobalbee (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, @Jacobalbee. I considered your previous additions interesting, but due to length perhaps more appropriate to the main Historicity of the Book of Mormon page which is sadly sparse and describes little of the broad and diverse apologetic conversation arguing for historicity.

While the revision draft is longer than your additions, they do not all focus on the single topic of Latter-day Saint apologetics for Book of Mormon historicity. I have tried to make the new draft about historicity as a matter of the various cultural and denominational perspectives—a religious studies approach—rather than about whether or not the book is or isn't historical.

By "nuanced view", I presume you mean the writers who propose the book is partly ancient and partly modern along the lines of Ostler's and Bokovoy's partial pseudepigrapha theories. I agree that this is a minority view. The revision draft describes that in one paragraph with two sentences of description and one sentence of criticism. I think that is brief enough to be an appropriate weight compared to the much longer sections of mainstream consensus, historicity (especially among Latter-day Saints) which is 11 sentences, and fictional interpretations (especially in Community of Christ) which is 4 sentences. While I don't agree to excluding it entirely, I do object to making the paragraph any longer than it is already. Three sentences can concisely describe the discourse surrounding the concept.

I think the old summarized version was fine, but I don't know if it was pretty good. I thought it was too short and misrepresented apologetics as being solely about the limited geography model when as you pointed out there is a much wider and more interesting discourse taking place. I have tried to capture the broad strokes of that using limited geography and chiasmus as notable examples to keep the paragraph an acceptable length. The inclusion of description of other viewpoints on the Book of Mormon also helps balance the weight of the page and section so the deeper description of pro-historicity views has more room to fit. P-Makoto (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Epachamo Thank you for your further feedback on the draft. I'm open to seeing your insights on Community of Christ perspectives.

Before getting into some discussion on what to include in the revision, I realized that the page protection ended today. I have kept the revision draft in a sandbox for now. If you (and other editors, if applicable and interested) are satisfied, I could move the draft to the main page, and further editing could be done on the page itself.

I'm not sure if as much can be made of Bokovoy, Wayment, Mason, and Bushman as you seem to suggest, and I hesitate to add them as further examples of pseudepigraphic readings.

Of Bovokoy saying "Nephi, Mormon, Moroni, and Joseph Smith were all continuing the tradition of using archaic sources to create new scripture", I'm not sure it is substantially different enough from Ostler's "ancient source, modern expansion" theory on the Book of Mormon. Bokovoy's reading of the text is not exclusively as "inspired fiction" but as partial pseudepigrapha, like Ostler's—taking an ancient source and expanding on it with modern emendations. Bokovoy may take Ostler's theory further, but I don't think it is worth getting into that much further detail on a subview of yes-and-no-historicity which is already a subview of the niche-but-notable view of historicity.

The way those clips in the video are cut, and with what I'm aware of as trends in Latter-day Saint approaches to the Book of Mormon go, I am very cautious of the possibility of ascribing more to scholars than they actually say. For example, the Wayment clip in that video merely says he is worried about other Latter-day Saints who might experience a faith crisis if they put too much stock in certain interpretations of Book of Mormon historicity. That could come down to the existence of Nephites, but it also might come down to matters as comparatively mild as hemispheric versus limited geography (the latter of which is, as Duffy's "Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates" observes, practically becoming a mainstream view in the church).

Patrick Mason seems to be the only one of the three in that video who says explicitly that he is personally not sure one can discern where Joseph Smith ends and Mormon begins in the Book of Mormon, but it does not seem to warrant additional mention when it seems to fall under either that of either the Duffy 57 footnoted quote or "partial pseudepigrapha/yes-and-no-historicity" already described and heavily footnoted. His other comments are about the Books of Mosses and Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price, which is a different set of scripture and experiences much more diverse interpretations, even in highly orthodox church circles.

As for Bushman, I think he is being misread if construed as personally believing in a pseudepigraphic Book of Mormon or proposing such for devotional purposes, and I worry the clips video you linked is misrepresenting him by presenting comments out of context. Based on the sources available, Bushman's views of the Book of Mormon have developed over time, but not in the way that the video clips highlighted suggest.

I'll first address Bushman's comments at Claremont Graduate University. When watching the video more fully and not just the clip, when Bushman speaks of reading the Book of Mormon as inspired pseudepigrapha, he says he gives this as advice to "friends [who] ask [him] what to do with the Book of Mormon." This does not require him to hold that view personally, and in context it is part of Bushman's ongoing interest in finding ways to communicating the Book of Mormon to non-Mormon scholars, which is the context set by the preceding content of the video. Going back to 14:02, you suggested his CGU comments demonstrate he has "changed his views over time"; while he has changed a view of his over time, it is his view on how best to present the Book of Mormon to non-Mormon scholars, which is different from what he personally believes about Book of Mormon historicity. Of Bushman's comments you have referenced so far, almost all of it he has explicitly linked not to a personal view on Book of Mormon historicity, but to his project for communicating Mormonism to non-Mormons.

For example, in the CGU video, Bushman states he changed how he presented the Book of Mormon in Beginnings of Mormonism versus Rough Stone Rolling because he wanted to produce "something that would be useful to scholars . . . I wanted a story of the Book of Mormon that could be absorbed in a course^{[emphasis added]} on American scriptures that still would be true to the nature of the book. And that is the key issue for me. It's such a temptation when you're reading a complex text to either reduce it to something simple and say 'it's obviously [sic] the Book of Mormon is thus and so,'" (here Bushman is hearkening back to the comments in the same speech describing how in Beginnings of Mormonism he setup a series of reductive readings of the Book of Mormon and objected to them) "and I want to resist that, because it's not stable, you're not really true to the text. Not only are you misleading your students, but your own ideas will falter." So Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling chapter presents the Book of Mormon to other scholars in a way that he said instead says, "Here's some things you can look at, but please note the complexity of these things."

Understanding what Bushman said this way makes sense in context of Bushman's comments elsewhere. For example, in a friendly response to Jan Shipps's book review of Rough Stone Rolling, Bushman made similar comments about wanting to produce a chapter on the Book of Mormon that would be useful to teachers and classrooms:

"Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism was originally intended for a series on church history, sponsored by the church historian, and published by a church press. I could not help but have Mormons in mind as I wrote. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling was slated for publication by Alfred A. Knopf. I was much more aware of writing for a general audience, so the intramural debates between apologists and critics of Mormonism seemed less relevant.^{[emphasis added]} General readers, I thought, would want to get a taste of these controversies but not to become mired in them. They would be more interested, I presumed, in what the Book of Mormon meant to Joseph Smith and to his readers than in the apologists' attempts to defend the book. My aim was to situate the book in its American environment—not to identify its sources, but to explain its interaction with American culture. . . . The apologists were less satisfied with my second rendition of the Book of Mormon. It lacked an argument, some thought. The historians, including non-Mormon historians, preferred it. It helps them, I gather, to find a place for a complex text that in many ways stands outside history.^{[emphasis added]} One colleague, perplexed by how to teach the Book of Mormon in an American history course,^{[emphasis added]} once asked: What books would you assign before and after reading the Book of Mormon? How is it to be situated? In the current chapter on the book, I may not have solved the problem, but at least I addressed the issue." (Bushman, "What's New in Mormon History?" Journal of American History 94, no. 2 (September 2007), 519–520.)

Finally, Bushman has explicitly stated his religious beliefs on the Book of Mormon. In 2016, he said the following as part of an example of how to approach describing Latter-day Saint belief in the Book of Mormon to a non-Mormon colleague:

"When the lawyer was asked why he knew the church was in the right in the case [this being the tail-end of a kind of parable Bushman was telling], it would not do to say it was because he knew that this was the true church of God. A testimony of that kind would not work in a courtroom. It would weaken the lawyer’s case rather than strengthen it. I felt the same way at the lunch table. Testimony was not the answer. The 'I know' formula would not do. Later I worked out another answer. I could simply say that I read the Book of Mormon as informed Christians read the Bible. As I read, I know the arguments against the book’s historicity, but I can’t help feeling that the words are true and the events happened.^{[emphasis added]} I believe it in the face of many questions." (Richard Bushman, "Speaking Faith in Secular Times," keynote address at the Mormonism in the Academy conference, 2016; video 29:39; transcript, 12–13)

As such, I do not think it necessary or accurate to present Richard Bushman as an example of Latter-day Saints reading the Book of Mormon pseudepigraphically. His statement that it could be put into the genre of biblical pseudepigrapha is one he says he gives as an answer to friends' inquiries about how to grapple with the Book of Mormon, which in the context of his other statements surrounding Rough Stone Rolling and his religious beliefs makes sense as referring to friends who are non-Mormon scholarly colleagues.

—

Bushman's comments in the Mormon Discussions Podcast blurb, while clipped. is the only example that does seem reflect some of Bushman's elsewhere-expressed views on the Book of Mormon. He has similarly expressed in an interview that he acknowledges the presence of apparently nineteenth-century ideas in the Book of Mormon: "And there’s so much in the Book of Mormon that comes out of the 19th century that there’s a question of whether or not the text is an exact transcription of Nephi and Mormon's words, or if it has been reshaped by inspiration to be more suitable for us, a kind of an expansion or elucidation of the Nephite record for our times." However, Bushman adds, "I have no idea how that might have worked or whether that’s true", and says, "That remains a little bit of a mystery, just how it came to be". Bushman does not himself commit to pseudepigraphic readings or other interpretation far beyond orthodoxy.

Bushman's position seems more like what Duffy says on page 57 of his "Mapping Book of Mormon Historicity Debates", which is already expressed in the footnotes of the revision draft as somewhat over-detailed but still relevant, yet difficult to fit in without over-lengthening the paragraph: "even Latter-day Saints who accept historicity hold differing views regarding how accurately or transparently the Book of Mormon reports the ancient past or to what extent the translation process may have allowed Joseph Smith’s nineteenth-century ideas to be incorporated into the text." Since the revision draft already has this content expressed in a footnote—and I have felt some difficulty in trying to introduce it elsewhere in the paragraph—I am reticent to make an example of Bushman as somehow advancing pseudepigraphic or other unorthodox views on the Book of Mormon.

—

Overall, I am hesitant about saying Wayment or Bushman read the Book of Mormon pseudepigraphically (whether fully or partially) or promote reading the Book of Mormon pseudepigraphically as a devotional approach because from the sources I have seen so far, drawing such a conclusion requires making a characterization that the scholar's statements only potentially hint at (in Wayment's case) or just about contradict (in Bushman's case). Especially since these are living persons, I am very cautious about the possibility of misrepresenting their position on the Book of Mormon, which would in turn misrepresent their personal religious beliefs.

From reading different takes on the Book of Mormon, I think Wayment's and Bushman's nuanced views better fit into Duffy's description of diversity within the view of historicity. Even Mason I am only understanding as perhaps believing in and proposing partial pseudepigraphy on the basis of a stray comment in a somewhat de-contextualized clip that seems to focus more on the Pearl of Great Price, and I hesitate to use him as an example without better understanding. In general, I am very cautious about claiming this or that living scholar holds such or other unorthodox view and have strived to stick to very clear, explicit examples.

This being said, I must thank you for pressing me on Bushman. By doing so, you have reminded me of a view on historicity I have entirely neglected to directly describe in the revision draft so far: as Bushman described it, "believ[ing] in the face of many questions," which based on contemporary Latter-day Saint rhetoric is indeed not an uncommon view for Latter-day Saints who are unsatisfied by traditional apologetics. (I would presume some members of other Mormon denominations might also hold similar views.) I have added this to the draft.

Perhaps I have been misunderstanding you for the past several paragraphs, and your intent has been to point me toward the above as a nuanced view of historicity among Latter Day Saints who acknowledge challenges while holding them in tension with faith, in which case I must apologize for misunderstanding and thank you for your patience in bearing with me. In any event, though, I think it useful to keep my thoughts intact in case I have not misunderstood or in case a different reader coming across the talk page understands/misunderstands as I did.

I think much of the content at Comparison_of_the_Community_of_Christ_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Book_of_Mormon is already incorporated into the Book of Mormon page. President Stephen M. Veazey ruling the resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record" out of order is in the #Religious Significance#Community of Christ subsection of the Book of Mormon page as it already is. And Community of Christ having no official stance on or requirement for Book of Mormon historicity is already in the draft ("'Opinions about the Book of Mormon range from both ends of the spectrum' among members while the leadership takes no official position on Book of Mormon historicity.")

The latest revision draft rearranges some sentences and adds the one bit about Mormons who "believe in the face of many questions." P-Makoto (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Great rundown. Without a doubt, Richard Bushman is an enigma who is very careful in how he uses words. I'd agree that since all these people are living, ultra-caution must be taken. The one video I shared with the clips of different Latter-day Saint scholars was definitely propaganda and should not be used as a source. Something is going on. Without a doubt true that a quiet civil war is going on between the Maxwell Institute/Joseph Smith Papers type scholars, and the Interpreter Scholars. Just read the comments in this Q&A, and there is a cottage industry of Book of Mormon literalists who attack nuanced scholars. Something is going on. Saying that they explicitly believe it to be pseudepigrapha is probably going to far. Revelatory expansion is probably about as far as we can reasonably go as Wikipedia editors. As an aside, you could add Greg Prince to the list of nuanced LDS scholars, saying the BoM could be viewed as midrash. Epachamo (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I added a mention of midrash to the revision and included a citation to Prince's article. I'm not sure I'd personally use the word midrash, since the unique narrative elements don't strike me as equalling commentary, but I'm happy to report that as one term that is used and liked.

I'm not sure I consider Bushman enigmatic—he seemed rather clear-cut to me—but that is just me quibbling over details.

I hope it is alright that I've added the draft to the article, since it seemed like editors involved are broadly okay with it. Thanks for your feedback and for encouraging me to broaden the scope of the section, as now it's a very interesting exploration of Book of Mormon historicity in the Latter Day Saint movement. P-Makoto (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@P-Makoto, I might be able to get behind this newest draft. I think it articulates the point fairly well and I appreciate a lot of the insights. It also explains that the debate is quite complex and gives numerous points of view. I was originally hesitant due to the length of the addition but I think you may be right. With this in mind, there is at least one more revision I think needs to be made. The sentence "However, some prolific apologists have gained reputations for disrespect and for aggressively insisting their claims are irrefutable" could probably be removed. I don't think that's an accurate description of most apologists. There are certainly a minority but the sentence as it stands isn't really necessary and highlights a minor dispute. If that could be entirely removed, then I fully support the new additions. Jacobalbee (talk) 00:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@P-Makoto, I've been thinking a little more about your revisions. Could we also possibly expand just a bit on the studies that suggest there were multiple authors, while also recognizing Epachamo's point that there haven't been many studies of this when it comes to the Book of Mormon. For example, adding the sentence, "Though stylometric studies of the Book of Mormon are sparse, one argument for the historical authenticity of the book is that most analyses of its text suggest that it was written by multiple people, and, based solely on these analyses, neither Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Sidney Rigdon appear to be likely authors." This is just a suggestion and if you have a good reason not to include it, I'd be happy to listen. Jacobalbee (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"However, some prolific apologists have gained reputations for disrespect and for aggressively insisting their claims are irrefutable" could probably be removed. I don't think that's an accurate description of most apologists. There are certainly a minority but the sentence as it stands isn't really necessary and highlights a minor dispute.

I would agree it is not be an accurate description of most apologists. Hence I specified that this is some apologists and is a reputation, i.e. a perception in the eyes of others.

While I might not think this is a minor dispute (I grant that there are limits to my familiarity with the apologetic discourse, but sometimes it looks like concerns about civility versus aggressiveness loom large as some folks' concerns about how people (both Latter-day Saint and not) view apologetics and ancient Book of Mormon studies) I think you are right that the inclusion of that discussion isn't necessary. "While contesting there is rational evidence for historicity, such apologists traditionally concede that belief in Book of Mormon historicity is ultimately a matter of faith. However, some prolific apologists have gained reputations for disrespect and for aggressively insisting their claims are irrefutable." Looking back, these two sentences describe apologetics but do not describe the actual apologetic claims about historicity. Describing reputations of and perceptions toward apologists might perhaps be more appropriate in some page or section that describes Latter-day Saint apologetics, if such exists elsewhere on Wikipedia, rather than this section which is meant to focused on describing views on the book's historicity Cutting the sentences in question will keep the section more focused, so I have done so in the latest revision draft.

As for the stylometric studies, that is indeed one of the popular strands of apologetic thought on the Book of Mormon. While I imagine readers might find it interesting, I decided not to include it because I already had three major examples (limited geography model, substitute words concept, and ancient parallels like complex chiastic structure), and the nature of stylometry and of the specific nature of the claim is such that I found it difficult to describe both neutrally and concisely. I have tried to keep the paragraph on for-historicity views phrased in such a way as to keep clear to readers that this is but a small sampling.

Also, it looks like some of that stylometry is discussed on the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon page, which is also linked at the top of the Historical authenticity section. P-Makoto (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I see your reasons for not including that, and especially since that article is already linked, that's entirely reasonable. Also, thanks for removing that sentence. Though I actually rather liked the sentence right before it, which you also removed: "While contesting there is rational evidence for historicity, such apologists traditionally concede that belief in Book of Mormon historicity is ultimately a matter of faith." I think it's a neat single-sentence summary of how most Latter-day Saints view the Book of Mormon so i'm hoping you might consider adding that back in. I love the revisions though, and, whether that sentence is included or not, I support the inclusion of your new revised version of that section. You did a really good job explaining the diverse perspectives, and I also like the comparison to the Book of Job and the quote you included from Richard Bushman, which were both really insightful. Jacobalbee (talk) 04:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and for hearing me out as I answered some of your questions. I hope the section is to your liking and successfully addresses some of your concerns about the old draft as much as it addresses my own. I know this was a bit of a long process, but I'm glad we got to revise this section and make it, I hope, more accurate, useful, and interesting for readers seeking information. P-Makoto (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewrite lead proposal

Note: This discussion has been advertised at WikiProject LDS movement. ––FormalDude^(talk) 22:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I was reviewing the article and I realized enough changes have been made, particularly to the content, context, origin, and interpretations of Biblical prophecy sections, that the introduction could do to be revised to better fit the content of the article. Does anyone else agree and, if so, would anyone like to propose some drafts? Jacobalbee (talk) 18:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd be ok with a modification to the article introduction, but it can't grow too long and should be hashed out here before made live. Epachamo (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Here's my proposal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jacobalbee/sandbox/Book_of_Mormon I kept it pretty short and added in summaries or details from some of the significant additions to the article. For example, I've noticed your excellent work in the content section and added more detail on the content. I also added a sentence on the beliefs of most Latter-day Saints regarding the book's fulfillment of Biblical prophecies and another sentence detailing its critique of American society, a section you added. If you have any other proposals or concerns, feel free to share and I'll see what I can do. If you think it's good as is, go ahead and tell me and I'll replace the current introduction. Jacobalbee (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

It's been a while so if no one has any comments on this revised version by the end of the day, I'll go ahead and integrate it into the article. Afterwards, if you suddenly have any thoughts or proposed ideas, go ahead and comment them to me here and we can talk about them. Please refrain from directly editing the introduction until discussing your ideas here so we can get group consensus. Thank you everyone! Jacobalbee (talk) 20:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, Jacobalbee. I appreciate the initiative, but I hesitate on some of the specifics of your proposed revision.

In the first paragraph, "and the majority of Latter-day Saints accept the book as historically accurate" seems redundant inasmuch as the lead as it stands now says "the [Latter Day Saint] denominations of which typically regard the text primarily as scripture, and secondarily as a historical record of God's dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas" (emphasis added). When the lead says the denominations regard it as a historical record, that seems to already imply adherents believing it to be historically accurate. At the very least, I would also point out that there are denominations other than Latter-day Saints that hold to a historically accurate Book of Mormon, so "Latter Day Saint" might be a better term to use in this case.

Next, "Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon" I think could similarly be changed to "Latter Day Saints" or "Mormons" or something along those lines. Perhaps "Common teachings of the Latter Day Saint movement hold that the Book of Mormon fulfills numerous biblical prophecies by ending a global apostasy and signaling "the restoration" of the original Christian gospel." I would also note that on Wikipedia, the adjective "biblical" is generally rendered in lowercase.

This actually raises to my attention some thoughts on the sentence "Some critics say that it was authored by Smith" etc. That was from the lead already, but so long as we're editing it, I think this is an opportunity to improve that point as well. There are also non-critics who say such, and some critics instead say that it was authored by the devil (a diminishing minority, of course, but nevertheless). Perhaps that sentence would be better phrased, "Most naturalistic views on Book of Mormon origins hold that Smith authored it, drawing on material and ideas from his contemporary 19th-century environment, rather than translating an ancient record." This would sound more neutral (by refraining from saying naturalistic views are necessarily critical as in a critic).

I think the third paragraph seems generally sound, though I might adjust "society at large" to "American society at large" or "United States society at large." You and I might make the case that it critiques modern society at large, or at least Western modern society at large (to use the word "modern" in its historical, periodized sense), but verifiable sources that explore the Book of Mormon as a critique of society usually specify America (e.g. Bushman, Sudholdt, and Hatch).

In the fourth paragraph, I would refrain from the specific information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints being the largest Latter Day Saint denomination or its members of record numbers. Other pages describing scriptural texts focus on the text itself in the lead; for example, the Quran page does not mention what denomination of Islam is largest, nor does the Bible go into the details of the largest Christian denomination.

As a last question, I noticed some of the footnotes are blank, but I take it that's a formatting error to be resolved when put in the page itself?

Overall, I do think the proposal moves in a solid direction, and thanks for bearing with my comments and suggestions. P-Makoto (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with your first and second concerns, I'm happy to change "Latter-day Saint" to "Latter Day Saint" to better reflect the multiple denominations. I'll also put "biblical" in the lower case. I'm willing to make some changes to the sentence about naturalistic viewpoints but I'm afraid of using the word "naturalistic" in the introduction since it's not a commonly understood word and the definition of "naturalistic" is "derived from real life or nature," which implies that this is the only "real-life" viewpoint. This is why I would be hesitant to change it from "critics" to "naturalistic." If you have a more clear wording, I'd be okay to probably work with that. Or even if you could better define what we mean by "naturalistic" in the sentence. Unless we can do that, I feel the original wording is better. I could also use the phrase "Western society" instead of "society at large" to make it even more specific. As for the member record numbers, I think those are very important as a good indicator of the actual number of people who treat the Book of Mormon as scripture. I'm well aware that there are several other Latter Day Saint denominations outside of the one I mentioned but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints encompasses 98% of the movement and altogether, the other branches would only add a few hundred thousand people. I'll make some of those changes right now. If you have any more thoughts, go ahead and voice them. Thanks for your cooperation. Jacobalbee (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Jacobalbee, I think "scientific" would suffice instead of "naturalistic". It seems like we're talking about the views held by historians/anthropologists regarding the book's origin. Similar to how historians say the bible was written by people, but others say it was written by the Lord or Holy Spirit or Jesus Himself. Thoughts on that change? (Try to keep it brief/to the point, if you wouldn't mind please.) ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 22:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I made this change to the article per WP:BRD. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 23:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 I'm not sure "scientific" is the best word here because much of the scholarship engaging Book of Mormon origins, especially history, falls less under the sciences than the humanities. Humanities are certainly rigorous and scholarly, but for some institutional claims about the Book of Mormon, there's no way to use the scientific method to meaningfully test them. People still assess such by other scholarly means, so I think naturalistic (as in not supernatural) is a better term.

Jacobalbee, I hear your concern about the word naturalistic, but I do not think there is need for such worry. Naturalistic in this context is more like "of the philosophy of naturalism," which merely means the opposite of supernaturalistic. Joseph Smith's account of Book of Mormon origins, as well as the book's own, involves angels, divine revelation, and the power of God, i.e. the account involves supernatural elements. Naturalistic views are simply views that reject supernatural possibilities out of hand. (The history of this "writ[ing] over... of the gods really present" in academic discourse is ably examined in Robert Orsi's History and Presence (Harvard University Press, 2016; see page 4), though it would likely be too much to get into in the Book of Mormon page.)

As for the members of record numbers, I maintain that I do not think they are warranted in the lead. Certainly Latter-day Saints play a major role in the Book of Mormon's reception and use, but I think the page will best serve readers by pointing their attention more to the Book of Mormon itself: what it is, says, does, is used for, etc. I worry the specific numbers of one denomination will distract from that, especially since it means the lead ends on what might seem, to readers, like denominational trivia rather than on the Book of Mormon itself. The number of American members especially seems unnecessary; doing so seems to unduly place American Latter-day Saints center stage on a page about the Book of Mormon overall and in a world where both Christianity generally and the Church specifically are global phenomena. P-Makoto (talk) 07:58, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I made another change (see diff) that I think clarified some pieces and removed redundancies and irrelevant info. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 08:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC) [@P-Makoto ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 08:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC) ]

Some of what was removed did not seem redundant to me. For example, you removed "Many Mormon academics and apologetic organizations strive to affirm the book as historically authentic through their scholarship and research"; the amount of ink spilled by adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement forms a significant part of the Book of Mormon's reception history.

Additionally, the changed order in the second paragraph seemed to move the lead in the wrong direction. The order of the article runs from Smith's account to naturalistic views (as in the Origin section), and the reader seems better served with a lead that runs in the same order (especially since understanding the Book of Mormon's role in the Latter Day Saint movement is difficult without first knowing Smith's account of the book). Furthermore, that order is in keeping with precedent from other Wikipedia pages on religious texts, such as the Quran, which presents the faith claims (contextualized as faith claims) about the book up front, not the naturalistic claims: "The Quran is thought by Muslims to be not simply divinely inspired, but the literal word of God. Muhammad did not write it as he did not know how to write." Finally, it seems more verifiable to say that some naturalistic views hold that Smith authored it, rather than that Smith authored it, as not even that is a matter of consensus among historians that favor naturalistic accounts. Automatic writing and larger conspiracies continue to loom in naturalistic takes on Book of Mormon origins. (As the page itself currently states in the Origin section, even the Smith authorship view is "not universally embraced" among naturalistic views.) This may be a book whose origins are never fully settled by consensus.

As a tangential matter, to be transparent I may replace some of the footnotes in the lead on the naturalistic views sentence. There are better sources available than Krakauer's Banner of Heaven and the now 75-year old No Man Knows. P-Makoto (talk) 08:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• @P-Makoto:

1. This text is irrelevant and poorly sourced, as well as likely not WP:NPOV:

Many Mormon academics and apologetic organizations strive to affirm the book as historically authentic through their scholarship and research.

There are scholars and academics who strive to affirm the bible to, but the Wikipedia page still says it was written by people because that is what the most reliable sources say.

2. This part is contextually redundant in every way:

and writings, which are regarded by the faithful as holy scripture.

3. Scientific views on Book of Mormon origins hold that Smith authored it, drawing on material and ideas from his contemporary 19th-century environment, rather than translating an ancient record.

This text does not follow WP:RS, and needs to changed to something verifiable like:

The Book of Mormon was originally authored by Smith, drawing on material and ideas from his contemporary 19th-century environment.

––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲^(talk) 08:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. You believe that Michael D. Coe's "Mormons and Archaeology: An Outside View" is poor sourcing, despite being an article specifically about the way Mormons try to use archaeology to substantiate their views on the Book of Mormon, written by a non-Mormon for an academic journal? Is the book citation, from the publisher Alfred A. Knopf, poor sourcing as well?

"There are scholars and academics who strive to affirm the bible to, but the Wikipedia page still says it was written by people because that is what the most reliable sources say." I'm also not sure how this is an objection; people who consider the Bible scripture also generally believe it was written by people anyway so there isn't disagreement on that point; it's not as if Jews or Christians think Isaiah was an angel or ghost. The better comparison is the Quran. Muslims claim Mohammed dictated it as a conduit of the divine and was incapable of creating its poetic style; a naturalistic view holds that either Mohammed was more talented than Muslims claim or that he didn't actually dictate it. The Wikipedia lead for the Quran describes the Muslim view of the Quran for the benefit of readers' understanding, contextualizing it as a religious perspective, and also including competing perspectives. The information about the Muslim interpretation of the Quran is provided not as an endorsement, but rather to give readers context for understanding what the religious text's users think about said text. I think the Book of Mormon page can follow this example.

"and writings, which are regarded by the faithful as holy scripture." I agree with that part being redundant, given that information is already stated in the first paragraph. I removed it, and I think the biblical prophecy bit will fit in better in the third paragraph, alongside other teachings from and about the Book of Mormon, so I moved that bit to there.

"Scientific views on Book of Mormon origins hold that Smith authored it, drawing on material and ideas from his contemporary 19th-century environment, rather than translating an ancient record." If the Reliable Sources policy applies to that sentence, the call might be for it to be stricken rather than reworded to your suggestions; sources like Banner of Heaven and Shadow or Reality are unscholarly and polemic, and No Man Knows is over seventy years old and has been supplanted several times over by other biographies and histories. Instead of striking the sentence, I have replaced those sources with more reputable sources from academic journals and a book from Oxford University Press. I would reiterate that even within naturalistic views, the 19-century-influenced Smith authorship may not be a matter of consensus. Trance/automatic writing and 17th-century hermetic origins remain in play in scholarly discourse, just to give two examples. That is another reason for "Most naturalistic views" rather than saying something definitive. P-Makoto (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

I like the reword you did. Looks pretty good to me now.  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 07:40, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality of authenticity section

I am concerned about the neutrality of this section, which builds off the tone of the entire article, such as the criticism of the political philosophy section, and how the origins section dedicates a single short paragraph to human authorship.

The section dedicates one paragraph to the known archeological, ethnographical, and scientific record, and six to lengthy apologetic discourse. While the opening paragraph is supported by extensive neutral, and not self-serving, sources, the balance gives a solid impression biased towards authenticity. This POV is demonstrated by the transition to the second paragraph: "Despite this, most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be historically authentic." While this sentence on its own is a shift of perspective, the following paragraphs clearly contextualize this comment as the controlling volta.

I propose a rebalance of this section, in coordination with the interests of the community as a whole. Zkidwiki (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

While I would agree that the section in question could use some improvements, I disagree with your characterization that the latter 6 paragraphs are apologetic. Rather, imo, most of the last 5 paragraphs are addressing that this isn't a binary situation, but that there are notable positions along the spectrum between the two extremes. Specifically, paragraph 1 and 2 are, as you point out, the mainstream scientific position and the LDS apologetic position. Paragraphs 3 and 5 (which should probably be merged or brought closer together) describe additional positions along the spectrum, particularly within the religious communities. The intent of paragraph 4 appears to be to describe the response of mainstream scholars to apologists' claims - but it is awkward and needs to be reworked. Paragraphs 6 and 7 describe alternate positions along the spectrum from the scholarly community. Describing the spectrum of verifiable and notable positions between the two extremes is helpful and I would not characterize them as POV apologetic. --FyzixFighter (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @Zkidwiki; I'm one of the editors who participated in the most recent revamp of the Historical authenticity section, as seen in the closed discussion above in which editors came to a consensus to accept revision (which is more or less how the section still presently stands). I have a couple of questions about your view of the section.

First, I am not sure what you mean by the point of view shifting in the second paragraph. "Despite this, most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement consider the Book of Mormon to generally be historically authentic" seemed more like a neutral description of the existing reality that most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement generally disregard the consensus of mainstream archaeology, history, and science on the Book of Mormon. The rest of the second paragraph and then the third paragraph neutrally describes a few illustrative examples of what such Latter Day Saints do and believe about Book of Mormon historicity without endorsing their view, so as to provide readers with that information. The second paragraph points out that even some adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement are troubled and unconvinced by their apologetic coreligionists ("Nevertheless, not all Mormons who affirm Book of Mormon historicity are universally persuaded by apologetic work").

You wrote that "the section "dedicates... six [paragraphs] to lengthy apologetic discourse." However, the fourth paragraph in the section specifically points out the mainstream archaeological, historical, and scientific community does not accept apologists' claims: "when mainstream scholars do examine such they typically deem them 'chance based upon only superficial similarities'."

The fifth paragraph in the section is about Latter Day Saint denominations and adherents which reject historicity.

The sixth paragraph in the section neutrally describes the existence of a hybrid historicity discourse without endorsing it.

The seventh paragraph in the section neutrally describes the existence of a nonhistoricity discourse.

The majority of the paragraphs in the section then are about discourses which do not promote a "full historicity" view of the Book of Mormon. So I am a little surprised you think the majority of the paragraphs are dedicated to apologetic discourse.

As one of the editors who participated in making that revision, I would say that we did our best to follow the example of the sources we cited for how to appropriately balance the content of the section and to, in turn, for the whole page, rely on reliable sources, including scholarly articles and books published by reputable publishers.

I want to remain open to ideas you might have, but I also wanted to point out what I was not sure I understood about your concerns about the section.

Parenthetically, I also would comment on what you said about the Origins section. I would agree that the end of the paragraph could use revision and expansion—it includes some depreciated sourcing and is much too brief—but I am not sure i would characterize the rest of the section as describing a non-human production of the Book of Mormon. The page's text describe what people involved said or claimed, etc. In any case, the scholarly consensus on Book of Mormon production does seem to be that Smith dictated it more or less in the manner that he dictated it as the accounts surrounding described. Some minor details, like whether he saw/thought he saw letters in his hat might be in some dispute, but overall the leading scholars agree that Smith spoke words, and his scribes wrote them down, and that's what the section describes (plus a sentence about one account claiming "letters" in the hat, because that lets readers know what the people involved claimed/believed was happening). [For examples of such scholarship, see Ann Taves, Revelatory Events (Princeton University Press, 2017); Ann Taves, "History and the Claims of Revelation: Joseph Smith and the Materialization of the Golden Plates" (Nova Religio, 2014; though in less detail here than in her Revelatory Events); Paul Gutjahr, The Book of Mormon: A Biography (Princeton University Press, 2012); Terryl L. Givens, The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2009); Richard Bushman, Rough Stone Rolling (Alfred A. Knopf, 2005); Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon (Oxford University Press, 2002).]

Lastly, I'm not sure what section you mean by "criticism of the political philosophy". The section with the most similar name seems to be the "teachings about political theology" section, which I had been considering proposing deletion for, since there are no secondary source citations in it.

(As a final question, I am not sure what you mean by "controlling volta"; I thought that was a term of poetry?) P-Makoto (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. Editor2020 (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I have seen that policy before, and I have now reread it. I am not sure what else you want me to make of it, and I am not sure what it has to do with the section under discussion. If this is an accusation that the section is falsely balanced, I disagree. You gave no reasons for considering the section falsely balanced. I feel that risks putting the discussion at an impasse. P-Makoto (talk) 04:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

While I may disagree with the editor (Zkidwiki) who considers the section to fall short of neutrality (possibly editors, though it is hard to be sure without further clarification from Editor2020), I nevertheless am interested in being neighborly on Wikipedia. In the hopes of addressing some concerns, I have revised the first paragraph so that it no longer reads as a short list. While the list format did make the information very accessible, it also made it feel perhaps too clipped. P-Makoto (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)