Talk:Book of Mormon anachronisms

For current discussions on thie topic, see Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

Starting the article - a quick note

As I am filling out this article, I do not pretend to be an expert on every field represented here, nor do I claim to be particularly up to date on the current research, and debate on each item. As such, I look forward to insights from everyone to hone the list and add lots of references. Thanks! --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:Syn

In editing this article, it becomes extremely important to avoid violations of Wikipedia's policies on Original Research and Synthesis. Articles like this, where virtually all editors have a strong POV, are especially susceptible to such violations. I'm not innocent myself in this regard. We must, however, be careful. I just reverted a large edit that was entirely POV synthesis, and unreferenced as well. (Taivo (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

There is still one heck of a lot of violations of WP:OR and WP:Syn in this article. I removed some obvious instances, but the whole article would shrink by a third if I got really happy with the cutting. (Taivo (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

"I removed some obvious instances, but the whole article would shrink by a third if I got really happy with the cutting"... Please take this advice from me, a professional editor. Don't. Don't get 'happy' with the cutting. You Do not cut, you edit. If you feel the urge to get happy with cutting... turn your computer off and do something else for a while.92.8.99.28 (talk) 00:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The problem isn't with editing, but with saying just and only what the sources say without editorializing :) (Taivo (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Reducing Argumentation

This is not a debate. This is a presentation of a) the issue, b) what apologists say, and c) what critics say. I have reordered some sections to follow this flow. This means that all apologist comments must occur in one place, not interlaced with critical comments as if the article were trying to convince someone. (Taivo (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

Actually yes it is a debate. I would remind you moreover that you do not own this article. It is supposed to be balanced - which means including arguments we don't agree with. As it stands, it is poorly written, laid out, contains inadequate links to other wikipedia articles and has all too few images in it. --MacRusgail (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC) p.s. I have heard of Uncle Sam (who hasn't?) but since when was Sam particularly American? It's used throughout the Anglosphere, probably in other parts of Europe as well.

So satyrs exist?

So are you trying to say that satyrs really existed? What is the point of adding the extra reference to satyrs in KJV? I'm not being sarcastic here, it's just absolutely not obvious why the extra reference to satyrs in KJV is relevant to the issue of satyrs mentioned in KJV quote in BOM. Enlighten me, please. (Taivo (talk) 06:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

No not at all. The topic is anachronisms and an example is given about satyrs. The language currently adds that the bible also talks about the same thing. What is the conclusion? Both books talk about them (the Bible has a few more animals that are thought to be mythological too). Are the verses to be interpreted literally or do they mean something else. The way the article is currently written, readers can only assume that Mormons believe only in a literal interpretation. With the added language about the Bible, readers then come to a conclusion that maybe this is not a real anachronism, but that something else is going on. I don't think this is enlightening you, but it seems a little obvious.

In reality this is a really flip article that is designed to put the Book of Mormon in a silly context. What is funny is that the Bible has even more anachronisms, is not supported by archeology, it's major events are not supported by historians, etc. There is no need to hide the weenie; just write a balanced article....you know the kind, the ones that don't just focus on one side of the issue. --^StormRider 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense now. Actually, I agree with you about the silliness level of this article. It was probably originally written by a strong anti-LDS editor who wanted to list every single argument that could be made against the BOM. I would strongly support an AfD request for this article (just as I think the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon article is also not really a good Wikipedia topic). (Taivo (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

I suspect that we agree that we don't really want the information to dissappear, but the article itself, and certainly the title, are very POV. No attempt to place things in context such as this issue. I wonder why this could not be rolled back into the Book of Mormon article. --^StormRider 19:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd hate to see the BOM article turn into an endless stream of every anti-LDS piece of trivial detritus that was ever dredged up out of a misreading of some quote by the 9th Apostle in 1931. A whole lot of this information is actually not really encyclopedic IMHO. I really do think that the summaries at Book of Mormon are quite sufficient and that a lot of the stuff in this article is, well, just POV crap (on both sides of the POV). Criticisms of the BOM can run from DNA problems down to the trivial "Joe Smith was left-handed". There's already a sentence in the BOM article that covers a laundry list of items. It doesn't need expanding (I think it's too long as it is). Those are my two bits. (Taivo (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Last I checked, Isaiah lived from around 740-681 BC; where the heck are they getting Isaiah 44+ was written 100 years after he died? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.94.121.198 (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To the anonymous author of that comment, Isaiah chs 40-66 are generally considered by scholars not to have been written by Isaiah (who wrote chs 1-39). They date to near the end of the Babylonian Exile and the period just after the return to Jerusalem at the end of the sixth century BCE and not to the late 8th century period. (Taivo (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

Written language

"Archaeological evidence shows that the only people who ever developed a written language in America were the Mayans, whose written and spoken language has no resemblance to Hebrew or Egyptian."

This is wrong. Mainstream archaeology accepts the existence of several pre-Columbian scripts including Olmec (picture on right), Aztecs, Isthmian script and possibly the Mixtecs. See also Cascajal Block (controversial).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the statement. The Olmecs developed the first (and only) writing system that was later borrowed into Zapotec and Maya. --Taivo (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Jeremiah Cast into prison

This section was recently taken out by an editor due to allegations of Original Research:

In the opening chapters of the Book of Mormon, Nephi laments that the prophet Jeremiah has been cast into prison, (1) sometime before the 8th year of the reign of Zedekiah.(2) However, according to the Bible, Jeremiah was not imprisoned until the 10th year of the reign of Zedekiah.(3)

(1) 1 Nephi 7:14
(2) The Book of Mormon dates this comment between 600 B.C. and 592 B.C. (see the heading to 1 Nephi chapter 7), with the first year of the reign of Zedekiah being dated to 600 B.C.
(3) Jeremiah 32:1-2

I am certain that there is an independent source on this and I am wondering if any of you guys know of it. A quick google yields at least a dozen sites that have this anachronism mentioned, including Mormon apologetic sites defending against it. But in deference to NPOV, I am not adding it back because I want to have a solid reference - not just a random website. Do any of you guys have Abanes book, or another one of those critical books that talks about anachronisms - or know of a Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought article that addresses this?

I believe that his article is worse off without this included - because it would definitely not be comprehensive in its scope.

--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I was the one that took it out. As it is presented, it looks somewhat credible but the "sources" support the statements very weakly. I googled around a little, and found this FAIR Wiki article, which says that Jeremiah was imprisoned multiple times. That article has a "needs work" tag under the "Source(s) of the criticism" section. I would personally be surprised if any reputable critics would put their name to this mediocre criticism. ...comments? ~BFizz 23:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon IPs Who Want to "Edit" This Page

This page is one of several related to the Book of Mormon that are highly contentious because of their religious nature. It is important that if you want to make a major edit to this page that you come to the Talk Page if anyone reverts your edit and build a consensus for it FIRST. READ WP:BRD and live by it here. If someone doesn't like what you've written, then come here and build a consensus. Don't just keep trying to hammer your square peg into a round hole. Edit summaries are NOT a substitute for coming here and discussing the issue. --Taivo (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Well Taivo, I'm an Anon IP and it happens that I agree with your position on content issues here. So I do hope you don't mind if I edit the article. 203.118.184.100 (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. The anon Ips I have a problem with are those who come in, make a POV edit and then refuse to discuss on the Talk Page. You're simply supporting the status quo prior to consensus building for a new version. --Taivo (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi All, I've just learned how to access this talk page and have also registered as a Wikipedia user, since it seems this is the preferred way to contribute. (I couldn't ever find this page until I asked someone on their talk page how to get here.) Whenever making future edits, I will try to login first to more easily show identity of my edits instead of using the anonymous IP method. Another user has edited the same section I have been editing in order to try and build consensus and remove what he considered to be previous POV and my POV from this section. So now that I have found this place, I will go paragraph by paragraph to more fully qualify this section with Wikipedia standards.Sifterway (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"Former" Anachronisms

Just because FAIR and the Maxwell Institute say that something isn't an anachronism anymore doesn't make it true. These are simply POV pushers. Better to simply list these sources as additional apologetic information in the appropriate section of anachronisms. --Taivo (talk) 06:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What about if a consensus is built to indicate certain points of contention are not considered anachronistic any longer? Much of what is written on this entire page is the POV of someone, whether they be for, against or somewhere in between. It is agreed that stating something is true does not make it true, of course. But what is the "threshold" that you write of where some point is no longer considered a pro- or con- POV and can be accepted as fact or POV-neutral? I ask sincerely. Sifterway (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that everything on this topic is POV in essence. There really isn't anything that is considered NPOV because 1) anything pro will be labelled apologetic theology by critics and 2) anything anti will be labelled critical unbelieving attacks by apologists. There really isn't any middle ground. Thus, when apologists come up with something, the chances of them convincing critics is virtually nil, and vice versa. There is virtually no possibility of a consensus emerging. In order for something to be considered a "former anachronism" would require a combination of apologetic and critical sources agreeing that something was no longer anachronistic. Indeed, the whole function of apologetic literature is to "prove" that criticisms are not valid, so unless critics mark something as no longer anachronistic, then it cannot be considered so. It's quite common for apologists to agree with one another and they reach consensus amongst themselves all the time. But that is not an NPOV consensus, it is just a consensus amongst one POV that does not include the other. It is POV by its very nature. Thus, only the agreement of critics can make an anachronism "go away". --Taivo (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It is true that anything a human can define and indicate is always going to be a POV. There is no such thing as "objective" or "neutral" in any work created by any human being, since by its very nature a human has a "subjective" view of everything. All views are subject to an individuals ability to collect, understand and process data based on their own abilities and experiences. My objections to the wording of this entire article on Wikipedia is the assumption that the section intros read as the baseline of facts of the subject at hand and are not labeled critical nor apologetic. The very Heading of the article, titled "Book of Mormon anachronisms" is POV in that it assumes anachronisms exist, which is not a neutral POV. A more proper wording of the title would be "Book of Mormon alleged anachronisms" but perhaps this is assumed on the part of the reader; it is not known. It seems that a fact-based intro to each section followed by critical arguments and apologetic arguments would be a reasonable approach. I will continue to attempt to generate fact-based intros, without any POV if possible, followed by critical/apologetic material, but the reader shouldn't have to sift through grossly subjective "facts" only to discover on further reading of outside material that is was skewed so heavily in favor of or in opposition to. Claiming that critics must agree in order to no longer label something an anachronism, is also logically flawed since at that point they would no longer be considered a "critic". Opposing views can be sign of a healthy debate on many subjects, no doubt. Certainly there ought to be a reasonable consensus on what is factual and what is acceptably neutral POV (meaning somewhat acceptable to critics and apologists), if only to introduce each section. Most importantly, the section intros should include what the books says, and not the interpretation of what the book says. The interpretation belongs to either a critic or an apologist, but not the text of the book. The whole point of this article is to imply a non-neutral POV that anachronisms exist, so if true, it should be easy to lay out what the text says and then show that it is out of sync in time and place. A brief section intro (or any section in Wikipedia for that matter) should be free from interpretations of the text and contain only statements of what is in the text, thus easily identifying for the reader a likely candidate as an anachronism. Critical and apologetic arguments then follow. Of course there are other methods also to construct articles on Wikipedia, and I'm not promoting this as the only method. So, for example, let it be assumed that by the very inclusion of a subject here that critics purport something to be out of time and place and let the very section introduction be the critical argument. Then follow with the apologetic position, followed by a critical rebuttal. That just seems like sloppy scholarship since, again, if it is so obviously an anachronism it should be clear to the reader by providing facts about the text in the intro followed by interpretations of those facts. Good scholarship presumes readers don't want to be treated like they are stupid, even if someone else thinks they are. People who are seeking to become enlightened on the subject matter need not fear the truth. The human interpretation of the truth is what they should fear most.Sifterway (talk) 17:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)