Talk:Golden plates/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

New Talk Page Archive

After wading through all the recent discussions, I have archived all discussions prior to the Today's Featured Article listing, Feb 8, 2008. Please refer to Archive 4 for more recent past discussions. Twunchy (talk) 20:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article Review (transclusion)

Edits to the following will also appear at the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Golden plates:

Golden plates

previous FAR (17:15, 11 April 2008)

Controversy/Critic Section

Why is there no controversy or critical section? Many non-Mormons believe that the Golden Plates never existed. The way this article is written seems passively Pro-Mormon belief in the absolute reality of their existance, which is open to debate. I'm afraid that reads unfamiliar to Mormonism reading this article will take the story at face value. Zidel333 (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There should definitely be a criticism section here. There are tons of sources of people who believe that the golden plates are a hoax, but this article says nothing about that. Seems pretty POV for that reason. A good place to start is to site the man who first said it could be reformed hieroglyphics, and then changed his opinion after hearing more about the supposed golden plates. It should also be noted that the people who claim to have seen the plates later said that they only saw it in their mind, not in actual reality. There really need to be some non-Mormon sources to make this article NPOV. Kristamaranatha (talk) 01:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I should not have been passed for FA without the section in question.I suggest knocking this article down to WP:FAR. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with this, especially because there is mention of real golden plates from the Mediterranean which gives an Archeological validity to something which has no archeological value whatsoever. Master z0b (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked into it and the page can be nominated for review on WP:FAR three days after it's been featured on the main page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A criticism section is not necessary, if you read the article there are plenty of quotes from critical sources, and most major (and minor) criticisms are written into the article or contained in the extensive footnotes. If you see any criticisms (other than your own objection to the subject) missing please add them to the relevant sections with references. Any unsourced criticisms will be deleted. As for the alleged passive pro-mormon slant, we had plenty of non-mormons and objectors that fashioned this article...it was thoroughly debated and vetted, NPOV is consistantly applied. During the nomination for FA status, the article was consistantly commended for presenting the topic, although controversial, as well balanced and neutral. Twunchy (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC) )

I disagree, if criticisms are within the article, they are much harder to read and understand then if separated into a new section. Please note that I called it passively Pro-Mormon, which is not a slant so much as a bias or twinge. I feel that a FAR should be opened as soon as possible so that an unbiased third party can review this article. I do not mean to sound belligerent, or negative, but it is in the best interest of both the article and Wikipedia itself. Cheers! Zidel333 (talk) 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make some actual suggestions as to what is missing this article, instead of just turning it into a mormon/non-mormon/anti-mormon debate. These arguements have been made before in many LDS articles and the concensus is that if you don't have similar "controversy/criticism" sections in other religious articles, then they don't belong in a Mormon-themed article. Again the controversies are there, please let us know if there's something we've missed. Twunchy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I already made the suggestions per above: make a separate section on the controversies and criticism instead of burying them within paragraphs so that general readers don't skim over this. You are a doing an injustice to the argument when you claim is it basically a pro/anti debate, its just a debate, IMHO religious belief doesn't validate either side to the Golden Plate existence. If you like, I'll dredge up some research on the Golden Plates on my campus library for specific citations, and make the criticism section myself. Zidel333 (talk) 03:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I always encourage any researched and cited additions to this article. If you wish to contribute, please do, but please don't just complain, do nothing, and expect someone else to guess at your intentions, there's no one better than yourself do it. Twunchy (talk) 03:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if it sounded like I was just complaining to you. Please try not to get so defensive at the first criticism of an article I know you must have slaved over (I do the same thing from time to time). Your work is greatly appreciated, but together we can improve even a FA article further. Have a good evening. Zidel333 (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a movement to get rid of "criticism" sections, see Wikipedia:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section for instance. That is not to say that articles shouldn't have all POVs, including those critical of the subject. The point is not to create one section where you pile on all the negative stuff, but instead have a more holistic approach, and place relevant negative POVs in corresponding topical sections. For instance, if this article had a section on the historicity of the disks, you could put the skeptical view there, instead of placing it in a separate "criticism" section (of course, assuming you cite a notable, reliable source!) I haven't had a chance to read the whole article, so I cannot comment yet on whether this article has successfully incorporated all POVs or not. But the lack of a criticism section alone should not be the sole determiner of POV.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wihtout a criticism section, this article would seem like a panegiric on mormonism more than a wikipedia article. Open encyclopaedia doesn't mean you can write whatever you want to support your personal point of view of the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.197.38 (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be an entire category for "FA - Class latter day saints articles" are we going to get more of these?--Matt D (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Money Digger vs Paid to Use Seer Stone

"Beginning in the early 1820s he was paid to act as a "seer", to use seer stones to locate lost items and buried treasure." Is this statement really justified? Joseph Smith admitted that he helped Josiah Stoal (or Stowell) to dig for a silver mine, but that's very different to this claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carl.antuar (talk • contribs) 02:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to the quoted source for clarification, the quote is accurate. Twunchy (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your Mom insert

so who inserted the Your Mom reference? Good thing someone cleaned it up right away. im not used to editing wikipedia so i can't find out for myself.

mustamike (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)mustamike

Ahh...vandalism...Welcome to wikipedia! :) Twunchy (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Too many pages

Emma's musing about thumbing the plates/pages appears twice, once in the translation section and once in the physical appearance section. I'm not sure it adds much to either, but it certainly doesn't belong twice. (Knowing you're in for FA grief, I'm just commenting here.) -- OtherDave (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Necromancer

In reading the article, mention of the "necromancer" from 60 miles away, hired to find the plates is mentioned twice, or perhaps there were two different guys, but either way, it sounds repetative. 70.181.109.146 (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Plates returned to Moroni

This is also repeated in the article. Bytebear (talk) 05:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Little complaint

I've only made it through the section on acquiring the plates, but the wikilinking is out of control. Emma Smith is linked in two consecutive paragraphs, September 22 is linked about a million times, and more specifically September 22, 1827 is linked three paragraphs in a row, the Urim and Thummim are linked several times, as are the seer stones. I'm under the impression that we don't need more than one wikilink for an article per section. As well, there is an extra period after ref 68. I would fix all these things myself, but the footnotes make reading the editable text a nightmare. Murderbike (talk) 04:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

that's kinda what you get when the wikilink nazis come through though...it's not intentional, just turn down the color on the monitor and you'll never notice :) Twunchy (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Head in the hat

The paragraph(s) about Smith burying his head in a hat needs a better explaination of why he used a hat. It sounds like he is just being goofy, when in fact, he explains that the stones glowed with the translation, and the hat simply blocked the light making it easier to read. Similar to reading a digital watch on a sunny day. 70.181.109.146 (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? What? Used a hat? What? To read a watch on a sunny day, I simply use my hand. A hat. Surely this is a work of...FICTION.

Coincidence?

Is it not an interesting coincidence that this article was the article of the day the same day that quite possibly the most popular Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney quit his campaign? OK...maybe that's just me.VarunRajendran (talk) 05:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

A glint of light in the US polity at long last? Albatross2147 (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering that getting an article to feature article status takes a few months, then getting it scheduled to actually appear as a feature article (after it reaches the status) takes a few weeks, it is a coincidence. — Val42 (talk) 06:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article made feature of the day? Thats sad... we need to improve it.

Okay, first I want to make it clear that this is not an attack on the relgion, purely wikipedia editor point of view although personaliy I do not believe this as "truth" and am in fact shocked that people can.

First I think it should be made clear at the begining and throughout the text that these are claimed to have existed by Smith and they are in the belief system of a relgion. There are parts where that is made clear and other parts where they would lead you to beleive that they actually existed and if you were around you could have carried them around.

It is very disjointed. It almost reads as if someone is randomly dictating its contents out of a hat. The phrase "Many Latter Day Saints, including Brigham Young, have believed the plates were returned to Hill Cumorah and that other ancient records lie buried there, including the Sword of Laban and the special spectacles given to aid the translation process" is repeated two or three times within the span of several paragraphs.

Do we need all the quotes in the article? In addition, do we need ALL of the accounts of their size and shape? I would think that "The plates were claimed by various witnesses to be to between 40 and 60 lbs in weight." could replace about 700 words of text that basically say the same thing.

This article needs a flow and editing that I am willing to do, section by section if need and and gain approval from people on here. I assume that fresh unbiased to the agrument eyes, could help with this artcile. I am serious when I say I think this has to be the worst selection for feature article I've seen.

My only problem is I know that if I edit this without asking for input people will just blindly revert and maybe call me a bigit or a Mormon hater. I just want a clean article that displays the facts in a coherent and conceice fashion. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 05:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments would be better received if you didn't make thinly veiled derogatory statements about the subject in your comments. I will point out that aside from the official witnesses, there are many others who described the plates in a first hand manner. Clearly there is ample evidence to say that Smith did have some kind of plates, whether genuine or manufactured by him, the plates did phyisically exist in some form. Bytebear (talk) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I am just being honest about my opinion of the system of beliefs but I believe my points are valid and I believe I can edit jsut about anything unbiasedly. Although I have to agrue your point in that 1) we have no ability to assess the creditablity of these people, so therefore, there statements if true are really of no concern. Also, if Smith use fakes plates then he did not have the Golden Plates", and therefore the whole article really loses meaning but my point stands, either way they would be plates claimed to have been given by... instead of the powerful presence they are given in the article.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole article loses meaning if the plates are fake? Interesting? So if Jesus was fake, we can simply delete all of the Christianity articles? The story of these plates has helped to generate a new world religion. You may think it is popycock, but you cannot make the article slant to that position. Wikipedia is neutral. This article is a "feature article" which means it went through a very strenuous process to prove that it is in fact neutral. Your attemps to shift the balance to a less neutral point of view are simply unwarrented. Bytebear (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It is because it is wikipedia is neatural that i make the suggestions. I honestly have no idea who this made FA. Again I say read the article.. it is really a mess. I am not making this up. I take offence to you suggesting that i want to make it less NPV. HAs anyone read the article?-Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read the article. There are a few sections that repeat themselves (a common occurance when dozens of people edit sections of a single article, rarely looking at the whole), but the POV is not in question. This article is incredibly balanced, and very thorough. You complain because there are not enough "aledgidely" and "according tos", but adding them makes the article unbalanced and gives no power to the fact that more than a dozen witnesses for the events that "supposedly" happened. If you have any more criticisms beyond what I have outlined as your main concern, let me know. Otherwise, your argument is without merit. Bytebear (talk) 07:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but since one of you believes that the plates existed and the other one doesn't isn't this whole argument going nowhere? I mean, I don't believe that the plates existed so an article that suggests they did seems bias to me. But if I did believe they existed I would be upset by an article that suggested they didn't especially if I spent all my time on wikipedia making edits related to the LDS and defending them. I may even nitpick peoples posts to see if they contained anything that could be considered a thinly veiled insult and discount their entire argument based on that. But thats only what I would do.--Matt D (talk) 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Topic Sentence

If you think the article has too many weasel words, then remove them, but leave the opening phrase. That phrase serves to qualify the entire article and makes all other weasel words redundant. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree -- the church association is in the topic paragraph. That is plenty. The article is about the plates! Moving this to the article's talk page. WBardwin (talk) 06:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I say just tell about the objects as related by the writers of the story. Is there the same objection to the tablets with the Ten Commandments being regarded as real for the context of that article? I understand the occasional "according to the Book Of Mormon" or "according to the Bible," but there's no need to pepper the article with "allegedly's." Brian H., 4/2/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.236.132 (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"Translation process" last sentence

I found the last sentence of the "Translation process" heading to be very confusing:

"When in mid-1828, Smith loaned the manuscript pages to Martin Harris, and Harris lost them, Smith said that opponents would try to see if he could 'bring forth the same words again'. Smith did not explain why he believed different translations of a text should not be different or why a fraudulent version with different handwriting would not be obvious."

Maybe it is the double negatives or maybe it is because I haven't eaten and I'm feeling a bit woozy. Either way, could someone clarify what the meaning is relative to the previous sentence? I guess what it comes down to is that I don't understand how the last sentence resolves the previous one. Maybe it just needs to be worded in a clearer way?

--Megiddo1013 (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Basically from my understanding, after the first manuscript was lost Smith was tasked to have to produce it again and he did not explain why another translation may not be a prefect copy of the first and be produced by different people, he had many people writing for him. Thats what i read from it.. i revert back to my previous point... this article is a mess. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the footnotes make it pretty clear. Bytebear (talk) 06:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Good Faith Edits

I have made two good faith edits ([1], [2]) to this article to bring it into a more NPOV. Both of those edits were reverted. Further, one of the reverting editors deleted my comment on his talk page, effectively ignoring the suggestion that This edit would serve to make all other weasel words in this article completely redundant, and would more easily allow them to be removed to foster a more encyclopedic article. It appears that edits which might even hint that there are questions of veracity are summarily reverted by admittedly biased editors. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved your comments, as I would rather not fill my talk with ongoing comments about a featured article. Things should be discussed here, in real time. -- See above: Topic Sentence. Now everyone can express an opinion on the topic sentence. WBardwin (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article makes it clear this is a topic relating to "alleged" events. That does not need to be emphasized throughout the article. It makes the prose hard to read, and ends up sounding more POV. If someone described events, you can describe those events as first hand, and let the reader decide if the source is telling the truth or not. Also, saying "according to LDS belief" is too specific (other faiths also believe these events as well). It is really "according to Smith" but for the most part, this article is all about things according to Smith, so it becomes moot. Hope that makes sense. Bytebear (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How about leave your bias out of this article? I think that's easiest. There were tens of people who contributed and edited this from many faiths and backgrounds, the weasel words are enough already, the article is balanced and it doesn't need your pretext. Twunchy (talk)

IF there was tens of people editting this article, no offense, you did a bad job. Maybe too many cooks spoiled the broth. This is a very poorly constructed article. And back to the point in question here, I think it should be made clear that this part of a belief system in a reglious sept, to include the "other" reglions that believe the plate story, and making it clear at the begining and through the article, if done correctly, would not hamper the story at all. I mean read any article about scientology, they always include the words, and according to scientogist Xenu this and that... -Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The very first paragrah uses the term Latter Day Saint movement which includes dozens of different sects. Do you have any Scientology articles that have feature status? Can we see examples of good articles that use your methodology? Bytebear (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Twunchy, you're reinforcing my point. That one phrase could remedy the situation you describe as, "the weasel words are enough already". Further, if you search back in my edit history, you would be hard pressed to find bias on my part. Lastly, you seem to want to exclude me from the "tens of people who contributed and edited this from many faiths and backgrounds." Thanks. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 06:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

your obvious disagreements about the subject of this article is enough to taint your objectivity and credibility. Weasel words and prefacing the entire article with Weasel words violates so many Wikipedia guidelines I can't even list them all. The article was vetted and is 99% intact from the original article that acheived FA status, that was the time to bring up your arguements, today it is showcased and therefore should be left in its approved status. This is not to say it can't be improved, but now's not the time for an overhaul. Twunchy (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

First, Bytebear, now I fail to see your point about the sept agruement... you seem to have gone and defined teh very issue you saw with my explaination.. so thanks? Second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu : The article on Xenu is a perfect example. One, it deals with a belief in the reglion and is not an article ABOUT the reglion and two they thoroughly include statments like As stated in OTIII or Scientlogy believes. Also it is very readable and not disjointed. Twunchy, this article was only brought to my attention through the FA status.. I wish I had a chance to edited it before hand. I encourage you, READ IT. It has to be the most convoluted hard to understand artcile. I'm not the first to mention this. And Hey, I don;t care about other peoples beliefs, believe what you want. I'm not going to say I agree but I can say that this article isn't done well, its bloated and could use a one or few editor apporach to slim it down and get the points across. I feel only because I am not assoicated with teh reglion can i actually offer a point of view. If it is any consolation, i think Mormons are scholars compared to scientogists. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you would be suprised at how many of us editors are actually not LDS. I personally had no interest in this article before it became the FA, and I agree there are some repetitious elements that can be tightened, but otherwise it is very well balanced and fair. Bytebear (talk) 06:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

you have no idea how many times I've read this article...I'm the one who is constantly copyediting the thing...so I know exactly what it says, and it is very well put together and many people have said such. The biggest problem you'll run into while trying to edit this article is the massive amount of sourcing that's here...nearly 200 referenced statements. And nearly all of them debated. It's not a hodgepodge article like you claim, it's actually quite scholarly, compared to some of the useless featured articles out there. So please add what you will but I will reiterate, today is not the day for an overhaul. Twunchy (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Examples of issues with article

A few examples:

The article uses "said" as in "Smith Said" as opposed to the more correct "claimed" or "claims".

As a youth, Joseph Smith, Jr., lived on his parents' farm near Palmyra, New York, a place and time noted for its participation in the Second Great Awakening and a "craze for treasure hunting". [3] ^ Bennett 1893. See also Quinn 1998, pp. 25–26 (describing widespread treasure-seeking in early 19th century New England). I am Canadian, but even I know that New York is not part of New England so a citation that treasure hunting was common practise in New England is not transitive to New York.

The last paragraph of the section :Location of the plates during translation" is almost exactly the whole section "Plates returned to Moroni"

The last paragraph in the "Witnesses to the plates" section states conflicting claims of plate sigthings. Does this require adjustment? Did he or didn;t see the plates? HE said in a statement he did, then denied it twice then said he doesn't believe the book of Mormon is not the truth... so did he? more importantly, can't it be further explained that he had doubts about his sighting of the plates throughout his life but not the reglion iteslf?

" Martin Harris, one of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s early scribes" He is mentioned and cited and quoted several times as being a scribe for the book, does it require further mentioning?

Smith mother seems to claim that that was only one ring, why is there three in the model?

There seems to be three different claims to the thickness of the papers.. could that just be explained? the paper thickness arugement is drawn out over two paragraphs.

It should be noted throughout that it is claimed size, shape and colour.. this section poses the witness describing a fact as oppose to a claim.

The article jumps around through theories i think if it was just stated the claims of the size and weight, removed most of the direct quotes.. i mean there are like 150 cited quotes... why? Do you need someone else words to say the claim is that the book weighed 40 to 60 lbs?

There seems to be no critism whatsoever.. that which exist is muted at best. Whole sections go unquestioned and those with questioning seem to have "further" explainations explaining why the questioning was unmerited.

I think that there seems to be a benefit of the doubt given to the witnesses in this article that is seemingly beyond POV. Most of the witnesses were members of smith family or peopel pre-diposed to beleive because of investment or beleif in Smith himself. I believe that in order to remain balanced, stronger lanaguage HAS to be included to make the point that this is part of a belief system. true or not is not the question as we cannot prove or disprove but we should not be allocating benefit to those we cannot assess critically and therefore opinions of supposed witnesses should be clearly noted as claims and not truth, generalized to remove this seemly quote happy system that has evoluted in this article, and the basic agruments presented. Joe found plates. They are claimed to look like this. This weight. No need to go into paragraph long quotation spells.

Anyway thats just a rough skim over what i remembered having a problem with. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "said" is generally considered to be more neutral than "claimed". I think it might even explicitly say that in WP:NPOV or a similar policy article. There is a continuum of bias: on the one hand, you have "claimed" or "alleged", while on the other hand you have "noted" or "explained". The word said is somewhere in the middle. COGDEN 23:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Angel Moroni

Moroni? Really? Do you think Smith wanted to imply anything? Could this be a hidden jab at his followers?Xenovatis (talk) 09:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Really disappointed

I was really sad to see an unfinished article listed as a featured article.

This is an amazing presentation of the Mormon understanding of the Golden Plates, with a few minor rebutalls on specific little things here and there.... however two things are missing:

A clear stating of the fact that all of this is a theory, and one that is not accepted widely outside the Mormon Church! I.e. Do any scholar, historian, archaeologist outside the Mormon Church believe they are real? If not, please review WP:FRINGE!

A clear stating of the existence of controvery IN THE LEAD. Since the choice was made to spread out the criticsm/controvery, that does not mean it doesn't exist, isn't vast!

My hunch is, outside the Mormon Church, this understanding of history is considered a joke. In the interest of NPOV.... it might be nice to mentio that! Sethie (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another fine example of how the FA is being used to promote the personal ideologies of certain admins. Why on earth this article on total rubbish should be even considered to have a place in Wp (at least as a stand alone article) let alone be a featured article I at a complete loss to comprehend. The whole status of FA and how FAOTD are selected should be thoroughly reviewed. Albatross2147 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously then it isn't just me on this issue. I am really amazed that this is a FA seriously. It needs a total overhaul but when I mention it I am told I am not being NPOV and get ignored in argument. It seems like the golden plates article is where consenses and normal wikipedia processes go to die or get filled with cited hersay. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

this "fring theory" was one of the founding primcipals that launched a new worldwide religion. Mormonism is a 13+ million member organization, and the LDS Church is the 4th largest church in the United States. That takes this topic well beyond "Fringe." By your standard, all Christianity articles should be halted because the "Massiah" is a fringe theory. How many scholars believe that a man can truly turn water to wine, walk on water or raise the dead? I hate to break it to you, but this story and all the stories of Mormonism will eventually be as common to mankind as Noah's Ark, the Ten Commandments and Adam and Eve. It in an inevitable fact. 208.203.4.140 (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Did someone switch off the enlightenment? Albatross2147 (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If your idea of enlightenment is censorship, then I don't want any part of it. Bytebear (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You can say what you like, believe what you like and I will support you but in Wikipedia we deal with verifiable facts. This is not Mormonopedia. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you could give an example of "Mormonopedia" I am willing to discuss, but so far, all you have to contribute is this statement: "Why on earth this article on total rubbish should be even considered to have a place in Wp." You don't consider that just a little bit POV? Bytebear (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is far from the Mormon understanding of history relating to the golden plates. Many Mormons are shocked to read this article, and would consider it to be anti-Mormon. Indeed, true anti-Mormon literature doesn't contain much more information than can be found here. We have had to constantly fight for neutrality here on both sides, and the fact that both sides have been complaining is a good sign indicating that we have roughly achieved NPOV. COGDEN 23:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This article contains too much hearsay/mormon mythology and few real facts

Where are the facts on these plates? Where are the photos? Are there at least one single independent researcher who have actually SEEN these plates?

Please don't write about them as they actually exist(citing hearsay) when you haven't got the slightest proof!

You need to clarify that no single independent researcher have seen these plates!

Please don't help myths and hoaxes grow just because you want to appear friendly to everybody. People believe what WikiPedia writes, this comes with a responsability. Thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.26.104 (talk) 14:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.175.4 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Other issues aside, note that Smith claimed to have lost posession of the plates in 1829, just three years after the first permanent photograph was taken. While much of the story stretches credibility, it's unreasonable to expect that Smith or his associates would've had access to photography. 216.52.69.217 (talk) 14:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Smith also claimed that the angel Moroni brought the plates back whenever they wererequired to be witnessed. I'm sure he could have found a few more people, outside the family and not invested in the church, to see the plates, if for no other reason but conversation purposes.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason it's religion. It's all based on faith, not logic. My personal opinion is that Joseph Smith made the story up just as countless prophets before him have, but I am not going to put my personal opinion into the article.Schism500 (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't go to extremes. No one is asking for that. All that is being asked for is that the mainstream view, presented by scholars, historians, etc., not Schism500 be clear. Right now it isn't.

This article in fact errs to the opposite. It discusses these things as if they're true, which is a personal opinion! Sethie (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Sethie (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Pray tell, what is the "mainstream" view? Is it the LDS viewpoint (believers) or those outside the religion (nonbelievers)? Be careful with the standard you create because it will then be the standard that is used for all topics of religion (read your own religion/church/denomination, etc). The topic is the gold plates; it should answer what, when, where, who, and why. Given that it is a topic of religion, Wikipedia does not give a fig who believes it as long as there is a religion that does, it fulfills its purpose and readers will be enlightened. Conversely, it does not matter who does not believe in it; that is why there are other religions with their own articles. Each of us gets to choose and Wikipedia could not care less what your choice in religion is. However, NPOV states we report this in a factual basis, which the article has done ad nauseum. Wikipedia does not concern itself with truth; in fact, for Wikipedia truth does not exist. Truth is a personal matter and when it comes to religion you get to choose, but you must as allow others to choose. You will not find many other articles with as many references. Also, it is important to point out that stating that others don't believe in a given religion is a bit redundant and obvious. I am getting the distinct impression that people feel threatened by any religious topic that does not agree with their own personal religious disposition. This is getting absurd. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This concern is addressed down below. Sethie (talk) 00:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs some serious editing and criticism

The basic fact is nobody know if these plates where real or not and that needs to be addressed seriously in this artical. This is too much of a Mormon myth and frankly its a little insulting to anyone outside its faith. It's far off from the true historical story and reads like propaganda for the religion.

• And what is the "true historical story"? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-02-08 15:06Z

There are plenty of witnesses to the existence of plates. we take other stories as credible with far less evidence. This story is about a religion, and as such it does not rely heavily on "proof". Other wise we would have to scrap all religious articles, because none of them can be proven. 208.203.4.140 (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• "There are plenty of witnesses to the existence of plates."

Sure! Just take a look at the article below, linked in the "Skeptical excerpts" section. —Cesar Tort 18:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The sceptics are not refuting the existance of the plates themselves, but rather the story behind them, as well as the story contained within the Book of Mormon. Those are very different issues. Bytebear (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

it does not rely heavily on "proof". Other wise we would have to scrap all religious articles, because none of them can be proven. Brilliant!!! I second that. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Mormons generally consider this article as far too critical. That tells me that its neutrality is in about the right place. Actually, it's neither truly critical nor apologetic, just an unbiased presentation of the sources. Some of the sources were believers, and others were disbelievers. We don't judge who wins. If we start citing sources arguing essentially "how could anybody believe this?", we'll have to include sources saying "how could anybody not believe this?" I don't think we want either, because these sources don't add anything new to the article that isn't already there. COGDEN 23:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What is not in the article is that outside the Mormon Church, this is considered pure and simple mythology and/or theory.

I love article on mythology. I love detailed articles on theories!

But to not make it EXPLICITLY clear- hey this is a story believed by a group of people. Outside that group- there isn't much support for it, and in fact there's a lot of disbelievers and critics is totally unencyclodiac. Sethie (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

An outstanding example of -

how Wikipedia pages can be created, somehow given the status as best of class, despite being bereft of verifiable facts with regard to the central aspects of the topic. I am astonished at the lack of balance and proper skepticism for the unsubstantiated statements made. Reads more as a tract of faith than a balanced and objective assessment. Monty III (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Bereft? Adj: Deprived of something, Lacking something needed or expected? Befeft of verifible facts? Dosent all the citations, albet from utterly biased sources sway you? Dont you believe Mary Smith?

Agreed. (ApJ (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Me too —ditto! It's hard to believe that the wiki may have stupendous skeptical articles on Scientology and, at the same time, an article without even a critical section like this one! What kind of schizophrenia is this? Which image does it give to the readership? How on Earth could this piece has reached the featured status?? Please, explain it to me! I am tempted to place a pov tag but, alas, I am not bold enough. I urge to another editor to do it! Skeptical approaches to these "plates" such as Paul Kurtz's chapter about the subject in The Transcendental Temptation ought to be added to the article. —Cesar Tort 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think people either take it as an elaborate hoax or truth, but are not bothered either way because Mormons are generally very nice people, that are not after your money or other hidden agendas. —dearsina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.223.140.62 (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That may explain why we have now this new bestseller debunking Tom Cruise's faith, but this is no excuse to write a POV article on the "plates", let alone grant it feature status! I insist that a POV tag is in order. Any objections? —Cesar Tort 16:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Not from me! I second it. (ApJ (talk) 16:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Just because it is a belief that you do not agree with, does not make it POV. It is very well sourced, and balanced. Seems like there is a lot of sour grapes. There is absolutely no proof that these events did not occur just as Smith described them. It is a matter of faith, and just because you lack faith, doesn't make it POV. 208.203.4.140 (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"...no proof that these events did not occur..." How, exactly, does one go about proving a negative?

All that matters in Wikipedia is that sources be verifiable, not facts. The article is not about what Wikipedia editors think about the truth or falsehood of the golden plates story. It's about what people, particularly Joseph Smith, have said or written about the golden plates in verifiable sources. We present the information presented in the sources, without judging them. A criticism section is not particularly needed for this article because the critics don't provide any more information within this article's scope than is already included. COGDEN 23:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I read your comments and I don't know how to placate you. Are you saying that the article presents a topic of faith as truth, i.e. that readers do not understand the article is about a religion's beliefs, or are you saying that the article should be written only from the position that it is a load of hooey?

For the first issue, I find it hard given the number of qualifiers to think that a reader does not understand the topic is one about faith. For the second position, which I think is the more prevalent, you are allowing your personal beliefs too much control in a neutral environment. Wikipedia does not take a position of proclaiming truth, but rather we take the position of reporting facts. This article reports facts as reported by both anti-Mormons and Latter Day Saints. Facts are not the equivalent of truth, but statements that are supported by reputable references. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeptical excerpts

By Paul Kurtz:

• "[The plates] revealed that American Indians were descendents from two remnants of the lost tribes of Israel [...]. Christ visited America in C.E. 34."

• "There is no independent, verifiable evidence for the existence of the tribes mentioned or the Middle East origin. In Joseph Smith's day it was commonly believed that the Native American Indians were related to the lost tribes of Israel. Many critics of Joseph Smith have pointed out that a book had been published by Ethan Smith in Poultney, Vermont. It was entitled A View of the Hebrews and likewise argued for the Hebraic origin of the Indians."

—Cesar Tort 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"Smith, the founder of that movement, said he obtained the plates on September 22, 1827, on Cumorah Hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and shown to Smith by an angel named Moroni. After dictating a translation and obtaining signed statements by eleven other witnesses, Smith said that he returned the plates to the angel in 1829."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.87.190.12 (talk • contribs)

• removed IP user's comment due to profanity* (ApJ (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

By Stephen Van Eck:

• "Today their [Mormons] influence as well as a misguided form of tolerance, causes even some encyclopedias to shy away [my bold type] from unpleasant disclosures about the history of Mormonism. But the truth cannot be fully suppressed, and free from niceties, is presented below."

• "It must be pointed out here that the fabled "Hill of Cumorah," where the plates were allegedly unearthed, has produced no physical evidence of anything along the lines claimed by Mormonism. Not only the plates, but no weapons, bones, or artifacts of any kind were ever found at the site, despite it being--as Mormonism asserts--a veritable Armageddon."

• "Smith was also taken in by a hoax by three men who pretended to discover brass plates in the ground, which they'd etched with strange letters and artificially aged before burying. Smith, of course, claimed he could read it, but years later one of the participants revealed it to have been a prank."[3]

—Cesar Tort 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• Uhhh... Mormons don't think of this place as an Armageddon. That's a different Cumorah... That website needs to check its sources better. If anything's a hoax. It is. Wrad (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, all it takes is a day to hack an article up with POV

I am looking at the last 24 hours of edits, and it has become a hack of POV statements. I would vote to revert the whole thing back to the day it became a featured article. I mean do we really need the sentence "None of this can be proven" ? Bytebear (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is fairly common. Generally the only "fixes" featured articles receive from Main Page exposure are minor typos or formatting glitches. Still, it's worth it :) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 19:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That was quite a day's ride. I've reverted all the edits.--John Foxe (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know it was up for main page status, otherwise I would have helped keep an eye on it. I guess I've been a bit out of the loop on this article for a while. COGDEN 22:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to fight the good battle guys! I think after this all cools down there were some substantive edits that should be reinstated, and alot of the nit-picky things that we all missed...I'll try to sort through it all. Overall I think today was good...plenty of anti-mormon sentiment to go around though--yikes! Twunchy (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I would say that it has been entertaining. It seems like most of the comments come shrouded in ignorance of the subject matter, but fired by zealotry. That is a terrible mix in any situation. I found it interesting when somebody wanted to quote Walter Martin; there is a neutral source. It is almost comical how much emotion can be devoted toward a single religion that so many people have absolutely no knowledge of except what they read on an anti-Mormon web sites that has been swallowed hook-line-and-sinker for the God's honest truth. No rational thought, no questions asked, but that is what it says so it must be true. This is bad in religion and it is certainly bad when posing as an astute critique. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the point stands, this article is a mess.

Objectively, I think we are at something like people who think this article is a mess and two or three who constantly defend or retort. I think clearly the article is bloated with citations and the fact that plates are in a belief system of reglion, fringe if you consider 14 million to be a ridiclously low amount of peopel in comparison to other reglions although i do not put stock in the numbers, and the article should note that this is a set of opinions of said relgion. Also, any heresay evidence of peopel with questionable motives i.e. Joe Smith's dad, mom, wife, family etc. should be removed, period. Given I see little in the citations that isn't directly referencing heresay, that should shave citations down to a few dozen easily.

And please if you wish to comment, don't bring relgion into this debate. I've read a few people trying to defend the relgion, and I don't care for it. I could sit and and blast at Mormonism all day but the fact remains that this is a vaild article about the system of beliefs in a reglion and it should be on Wikipedia, but it should be clearly documented and noted throughout that it is the system of beliefs of a relgion and not fact, which is definately not the case here. And valid critisms should be added, I would claim in its own section so that people can get a concentrated point by point on the plates and a conceentrat counterpoint counterpoint on them instead of the muted watereddown mess that is before you. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree profoundly. In order to be comprehensive, all those accounts should remain. If you study history you know history is all hearsay anyway: journals, newspapers, etc. Valid criticisms are already there! The article makes it very clear where the information comes from. It never says it is a fact. It doesn't make any judgment calls. That's the way it should be. I just don't see what the problem is. Wrad (talk) 20:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Wrad. The article is very fact-based, which it has to be considering the subject-matter. The job of the article is not to judge the validity or credibility of sources, and exclude those deemed by Wikipedia as "less credible". You can't do that here consistent with NPOV. The best way to present the subject matter is to tell the whole story, with all its encyclopedic splendor. COGDEN 22:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a Warning: This article is about a belief system tag with a notation that it is about matters that even adherents to the tenet discussed may not fully agree about. Albatross2147 (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated in a previous section, the article should be listed with WP:FAR three days after it appears on the main page. The review will help improve the page's problems and keep it at FA status. It's not a bad thing. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::Whatever. I just fail to see what exactly needs to be fixed. It seems like people are opposed to NPOV and want to push their own to me. Wrad (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

To you? Sounds like you are taking this article a little too personal. Please see WP:OWN. Pay close attention to the first two sentences. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

:::::::ASSUME GOOD FAITH!!!!!! It's obvious you didn't understand. Let me rephrase, to make it extremely clear: "To me, it seems like people here are opposed to NPOV". Wrad (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone assume good faith when you are reverting to childish name calling. Please see WP:Civil. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC

What name calling? You assumed bad faith way before any of that! Wrad (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

::::::::::The ironic thing is I haven't edited this article even once! How could I own it? How could you possibly interpret what I said that way? Wrad (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(Please note that I have taken Wrad's comments that he himself took out over the past hour. I have reverted them back in with a strike through to indicate that he has recanted the statements, per policy guidelines. This was done in Good Faith, and Wrad was reminded of this guideline. Thank you. Zidel333 (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC) )

You honestly think that this article should have a warning sticker? What...Beware of Heresy? The article is clearly categorized with the proper information. If you want to speak out with your 2 cents for a review process please do...don't just nominate it because you don't like it or the subject matter. And don't nominate it and then complain without doing anything substantive to ease your complaints. I didn't object to the Animaniacs getting their featured article, and there was certainly no disclaimer "this is a serious article about a made-up cartoon" (read: encyclopedia (factual) article about fiction). Please step back from emotion and present your objectivity please, if there's improvement to be had please offer it. Twunchy (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

There are also encyclopedic sources of information by critics. One which I came across many years ago was Kingdom of the Cults by Walter Martin. A quick look at Amazon shows it available (used only) for $5.03 today. Dr. Martin devotes pages 166-226 to Mormonism -- The Latter-Day Saints. His focus is theological, but his research into the Golden Plates, the Book of Mormon, and the history of the Church is very detailed, including many contemporaneous sources both inside and outside the Church. I am surprised to see that book is not mentioned anywhere in the references. It leads me to question the neutrality of the article. Docduke (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Two big problems with using "Kingdom of the Cults." First off, it isn't reputable. Second, we can gather primary sources for reference, and not rely on a tersiary sources like this book. Bytebear (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Secondary sources are good. I just doubt the reliability of this book. I'd have to see it. Wrad (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And what about Kurtz' book cited above? It's clearly a RS. What we are dealing with is simply a pov article. It should be tagged somehow —now. Cesar Tort 23:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the sources for Kingdom of the Cults, undoubtably there will be citations from most of the primary sources quoted here. A tertiary source will never be more accurate or reliable than the primary sources quoted therein, because the author undoubtably had a bias when the tertiary souce was written. Twunchy (talk) 23:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If we have two sources that cite the same material, we should choose the more reliable of the sources. I don't know about Kurtz, but I know that KotC will not provide any material not already cited from more reliable sources. Bytebear (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And just BTW I have read the section of KotC that we are discussing and it is my opinion that if you took out all the words in "quotations" and all the "weasel words", and all the "allegedly's" there "wouldn't" be much left to this "source". Twunchy (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I still stand by my points, and I LOVE being told that I do not have a NPOV by people who are professed Mormons waiting to keep this mess of an article the same. Please. I think one person commented on one example of how much of a mess this article is by stating that said is more NPOV then Claimed and left the ENTIRE debate at that. This ARE Claims, the only reason they have space on Wikipedia is because people believe them or feel they are relevent. It is highly disputed expect for those who "claim" it to be "The Truth". I've given examples of other reglious text that make it known that the text is about a belief system, The Xenu article again for example, and NO ONE seems to have checked it out. I, for fun, checked out other FA's and found that a) they may have a lot of sources but they are rarely repeated and b) They are usually to papers and research material, not sermins or direct quotes of involved people. By the way, the Xenu article, which because I am objective in analysis both articles, was a FA and it has 41 citations and over 75% of them are unique. I think that ownership to the article has been applied. I'd like to see some serious dialogue on the improvements, and not the bickering over each persons own sense of NPOV. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone who thinks you are wrong is a Mormon. :) Bytebear (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Walter Martin's book currently has 124 reviews, 63 are 5 stars, 14 are 4 stars and 39 are 1 star. Considering that he skewers 14 Western associations that he classifies as cults, I would have expected more negative reviews. As a scientist, my judgement of the content and documentation is that it would qualify as a college level textbook, if colleges dealt with such subjects today. There are two other seminal works which excite controversy. They are contemporaneous and first-person: "No Man Knows My History," by Fawn Brodie; and "Mormonism Unveiled: The Life and Confession of John D. Lee, Including the Life of Brigham Young" which I suppose qualifies as an autobiography. None of these three books appears in the body of the article. Fawn Brodie is not even mentioned. Docduke (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

the content and documentation is that it would qualify as a college level textbook, - but only in Utah Albatross2147 (talk) 06:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand the remark: "if you took out all the words in 'quotations'" -- The whole point of a scholarly work is to provide primary sources to the reader. For the benefit of readers who do not have access to the book (since you made a point of it), the quote begins:

"We the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years, while they resided near this place, and we have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them distitute of that moral character which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community... [Martin, p. 175]

Martin explained that this statement was signed by 62 residents of Palmyra, New York, and collected by E.D. Howe, a contemporary of Smith's. An illustration of Martin's scholarly approach is his comment immediately following that quotation:

Some persons reading this may feel that it is unfair to quote only one side of the story; what about those who are favorable to the Mormons, they will ask. In answer to this, the amazing fact is that there exists no contemporary pro-Mormon statement from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family and Joseph intimately. (emphasis in original)

I am not interested in getting into an argument over whether these sources are unbiased. My primary area of interest is science, not religion. I am simply adding some support to those who consider this article non-neutral, in the sense that a significant body of knowledge about the Golden Plates is missing from the article. Docduke (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I guess the thousands of people who joined the church in Smith's lifetime, moved to Kirkland, then to Nauvoo then to Utah don't count as "contemporary pro-Mormon statement from reliable and informed sources who knew the Smith family and Joseph intimately." Yeah, this author is reliable (rolling eyes). Bytebear (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the kind of nonsense remarks that are hardy with replying to other then they show an obivous bias, regardless if they are LDS members or not.. by the way Bytebear, nice work on those World LDS chapter maps. You put a lot of work into them... you know, for a non-mormon. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I have always had an affinity to LDS church architecture, and ended up broadening my scope of LDS theology. My LIFE PARTHER and I have both delved into Mormonism quite a bit, actually. But up until yesterday, I had no interest in this article, as I see you have too. So you are saying that only reliable sources are those who believe Joseph Smith's story, but don't join the church? Am I readin this correctly? Bytebear (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I would say that if you are a believer in the faith, you would be disqualified as someone to be considered impartial enough to give even handed statements, yes. For example, I would assume if I were to say that I believe the "Kirk is great" reglion has a solid base and really, involves little to no explaination because one day I woke up and poof, realise just how great I am, and my moms a member too, and then someone went on to quote us in the article "The Kirk is great enlightment day", I would consider my statements to be a tad bit biased, however true they may be in my own, undeniable greatness.-Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So, then you want to get rid of all (or nearly all) of the positive content on religious articles? — Val42 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that question real comes out of left field for me... the quick answer is no? I am just stating that this article screams of bloated citations. Have you read the citation section? I think Smith or an associate is cited NO LESS than a 100 times. Why can't the article pose the facts of the beliefs surrounding the plates, in accordance to the LDS system of beliefs in a neutral manner that outlines the fact it is a belief system and tht includes valid critisms. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote, "Well I would say that if you are a believer in the faith, you would be disqualified as someone to be considered impartial enough to give even handed statements, yes." Then I posed my question, "So, then you want to get rid of all (or nearly all) of the positive content on religious articles?" How does that question come out of left field after your comment? — Val42 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess my main problem with the article is that it tries to be a first person narritive of the events, including the quotes and what not, as opposed to providing the information of the system of beliefs. Espeically when you see that the "sourced" information about the events is over 50% Smith himself, I think it is save to conclude that a few "according to the LDS relgion" or "as claimed by the followers of Smith" throughout the article would make it placed that this is not a event but rather an event in a system of beliefs held by LDS followers, which this text would greatly disallow someone to believe. BEsides that, it is disjointed and reads horribly.. although that has yet to be address...-Kirkoconnell (talk) 00:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Unqualified use of word "translation" is questionable.

It seems clear from the description of the process that whatever it was that Smith did, and no matter whether you believe him or not, what he did wasn't much like the kind of work that is usually called translation in a secular context. So even if Smith called it "translation", should Wikipedia simply go along? -- 85.177.185.89 (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

An alternative would be to use the word "revelation", but somehow I don't think that would be considered NPOV. I think that as long as it is explained what is meant by "translation" in this article (perhaps a section dedicated to this), then it would be a good word to use. — Val42 (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Romney Joke?

Was having this as the featured article some sort of backhanded hit against Romney's failure in the presidential race? That would be funny.

Considering that getting an article to feature article status takes a few months, then getting it scheduled to actually appear as a feature article (after it reaches the status) takes a few weeks, it is a coincidence. — Val42 (talk) 04:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the Lead

How on Earth can the lead NOT read something like this:

"While the golden plates are the most significant of a number of metallic plates important to Latter Day Saint history and theology, some historians dispute their existence (citation), (citation).

Someway, somehow, it needs to be clearly presented in this article that this is a BELIEF, a THEORY. I have no qualm with it being deeply, throughly presented, as it has been.

I have a big problem with it not being made ABSOLUTELY 100% clear that this is not established fact.

Until this happens, I am sorry, it is just not an encyclopedia article. It's an essay, that is leaning towards propaganda. Sethie (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to the article currently reads:

The golden plates, also called the gold plates or the golden bible (an antiquated reference),[1] are described as a set of engraved plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source material for the Book of Mormon, a scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith, the founder of that movement, said he obtained the plates on 22 September 1827 on Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and protected by an angel named Moroni. After dictating a translation and obtaining signed statements by eleven other witnesses, he said he returned the plates to the angel in 1829. The literal existence of the golden plates is an article of faith in the Latter Day Saint movement, based exclusively on the religion's teachings and on the testimony of Smith and his eleven witnesses.

According to the Book of Mormon, the golden plates were engraved by a pre-Columbian prophet-historian, from an early American civilization, named Mormon and his son Moroni (who after death protected the buried plates as the angel Moroni) in about the year AD 400. These men said they had abridged earlier historical records from other sets of metal plates in a language they called "reformed Egyptian".[2] Part of the plates were said to have been sealed, and thus could not be translated. The golden plates are the most significant of a number of metallic plates important to Latter Day Saint history and theology.

Please explain how any reader can read the introduction and not understand that this article is about a religion, it is based upon what someone said; please limit your comment to actual facts. I reverted the redundant last edit so that it no longer includes "The literal existence of the golden plates is an article of faith in the Latter Day Saint movement, based exclusively on the religion's teachings and on the testimony of Smith and his eleven witnesses."; this is just silliness. It already states it is a book of scripture for the LDS movement. Also, compare to the Bible article.

In addition, this article has very little relationship to what you would find on an LDS website. It is full of hearsay by those outside of the LDS faith. You might want to acutally familiarize yourself with the topic before arriving at a conclusion. This article does not well represent the position of the LDS church on the topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Factual statements about a particular religion's beliefs are perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedia article (if you don't believe me, look up any religion in Encyclopedia Britannica). Words such as "belief" or "religion" indicate to the reader that the subject matter is based on faith. The existence of the specific teaching is an established fact (especially if it can be corroborated by official statements of faith, such as Doctrine and Covenants). Whether the particular belief is true or not can never be established scientifically or even objectively--that's why it's called faith. Obviously, a statement that a particular belief is true or untrue would be unacceptable. This doesn't make reporting on what the belief is somehow unencyclopedic or POV. If the particular belief is stated accurately in the article, it really doesn't need further warnings, such as "this is not an established fact". In fact, such a warning could itself be POV (i.e., pro-skeptic, or anti-religion). Objectivity is the key--not skepticism hiding as objectivity. (And, by the way, a BELIEF is a completely different thing from a THEORY.) On the other hand--while we're on the subject of objectivity--I do agree with Sethie that the article needs to be balanced with a little more info on opposing views. Some of the material in the article on Reformed Egyptian might be useful to this end. MishaPan (talk) 08:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This sentence was removed from the lead "The literal existence of the golden plates is an article of faith in the Latter Day Saint movement, based exclusively on the religion's teachings and on the testimony of Smith and his eleven witnesses."

The reason given for the removal "RV: no; please read the first two sentences; it already states it is a book of scripture for the LDS movement; compare it to the Bible article"

This reasoning is of course faulty. The first two sentences do not mention that there are people who don't believe this scripture even exists! That was not the new idea introduced here. It is as if the person removing it was reffering to something else....

Comparins to the Bible is also faulty, for the same reason. No one denies the Bible exists!

I propose reinserting this sentence in the same place, with a few word tweaks:

The actual existence of the golden plates is an article of faith in the Latter Day Saint movement, based on the religion's teachings, the testimony of Smith and witnesses who said they saw the plates.

"It already states it is a book of scripture for the LDS movement." But where is it stated that the actual EXISTENCE of this scripture is an article of faith?

If you stop and think about it, that is kinda significant!

Christians do believe in the content of the Bible, however, most of them don't really need to believe in the existence of the Bible!

Even Atheists believe the Bible exists.

This is an article not only about faith, but one of the articles of faith itself. It is a source of faith, that's existence is taken on faith.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with this.

I am saying that not clearly saying this, in an encyclopedia article.... is not an encyclopedia article. It's a poor excuse for one. Sethie (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The current wording begins: "The golden plates, also called the gold plates or the golden bible (an antiquated reference), are described as a set of engraved plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source material..." This wording could easily be interpreted to mean "This is a real artifact, that someone has talked about," which would be misleading.

As Sethie notes, the question here is not about the existence of the Book of Mormon as a scripture, nor the truth or falsehood of LDS/Mormon beliefs in general, but the existence of the subject of this article, the Plates themselves. Similarly, one can question the tenets of the Bible without disputing that the ancient documents claimed as the originals actually exist or existed at one point. Compare to Shroud of Turin, which explains that "It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy," that it has occasionally been shown to the public, that there are images taken from the original, and that scientific studies have been done on it. No one seems to challenge the fact that the Shroud exists, only its age and significance. In contrast, Holy Grail repeatedly refers to that artifact as a "legend" and part of "mythology" and "literature," and Holy Chalice shows photographs of actual artifacts that have been claimed as the real Chalice. See also Neutrino, which describes the evidence for that particle's existence, and Loch Ness Monster, which in its opening paragraph says: "Evidence of its existence is largely anecdotal, with minimal, and much disputed, photographic material and sonar readings: there has not been any physical evidence (skeletal remains, capture of a live animal, definitive tissue samples or spoor) uncovered as of 2008."

In short, why are we presenting an article on the physical object (not the scriptures) as though its existence is unquestioned, when that's not true? We could add this tag:

But that's needlessly hostile and is considered a request for cleanup rather than an excuse for leaving the text that way. (That is, the fact that it's a religious belief doesn't justify omitting the basic question of whether the subject of this article ever existed.) Or, we could change the wording to be at least as critical as that in Loch Ness Monster. I would rather we do neither, and instead simply make it clearer that this artifact's existence is disputed and that belief in its existence is based on the testimony of witnesses rather than its presence in a display case somewhere. How about Sethie's proposed wording, above?

By the way, please adhere to WP:AGF and don't label your edits "RV" when they don't show intent to mangle the text.

-Kris Schnee (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the wording again, I think I see the basis on which Storm Rider says the article is "clearly" about a religious belief: "The golden plates are described as such-and-such," as opposed to "The golden plates are such-and-such." Try reading the intro with that phrase substitution and see how that affects the meaning. So the fact that someone described the Plates is being presented as making it clear that this isn't solidly established information. That seems to me too much like the "weasel word" problem.

-Kris Schnee (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the new revision by Storm Rider changes "described as" to "believed to have been." This changes raises the question of "Who?" though. Still you could take out that one phrase and otherwise have the lead sound as though this is definitely a real object we're talking about. To use a silly example, imagine if we replaced the opening of Pikachu, currently:

"Pikachu is one of the fictional species of Pokémon creatures from the multi-billion-dollar Pokémon media franchise... In the Pokémon franchise, Pikachu are often found in forests, plains, and occasionally near mountains, islands, and electrical sources (such as power plants), on most continents throughout the world. As an Electric-type Pokémon, Pikachu can store electricity in its cheeks and release it in lightning-based attacks." with...

"Pikachu is believed to be a species of Pokemon creature often found in forests, plains, and occasionally near mountains, islands, and electrical sources (such as power plants), on most continents throughout the world. As an Electric-type Pokémon, Pikachu can store electricity in its cheeks and release it in lightning-based attacks."

Is that wording enough to make it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse the literal existence of Pikachu?

By the way, Noah's Ark states among other things in its lead that "few natural historians felt able to justify a literal interpretation of the Ark story" and that its existence is otherwise a matter of debate.

-Kris Schnee (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (Pika!)

It's funny because I know you pointed out that by saying "believed to have been" you are going way out of NPOV but of course you will come back with I am a mormon hater and this is like bible page and you don't know what you are talking about you evil mormon hater. And thats fine but clearly changing decribed to believed is regliously motivated and, again, because I am not involved in the reglion, I consider myself unbiased because I am not motivated by anything other then fairness of article. Well that and chicks, but who edits wikipedia for the chicks? Pika! -Kirkoconnell (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't parse the previous comment.

How about the following wording for the lead (reference omitted):

The Golden Plates, also called the Gold Plates or the Golden Bible (an antiquated reference), were an artifact believed by members of the Latter Day Saint movement (aka. Mormon religion) to have been found and translated by Joseph Smith, Jr.. Physically the Plates were a set of engraved golden pages bound into a book, found in a buried box by Smith in Manchester, New York, whose text when translated proved to be a lost scripture called the Book of Mormon. Smith obtained signed statements from eleven witnesses stating that they had seen the Plates, and said that the Plates were returned to an angel named Moroni in 1829. The Plates were never publicly exhibited, photographed or scientifically studied, and some scholars question whether the Plates ever existed.

The golden plates are the most significant of a number of metallic plates important to Latter Day Saint history and theology.

This wording explains what the Plates were said to be, states that they are part of LDS theology, and indicates that their existence is supported by signed statements but is disputed. By using this wording, the article will achieve a similar level of clarity to other articles that describe physical objects or creatures, as discussed above. If I've gotten the official theology wrong, please suggest an alternative wording, but the article does need a similarly unambiguous explanation.

-Kris Schnee (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

So refreshing! Sounds great. Sethie (talk) 04:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The intro is fine, as far as I can see. I really don't like the phrase "whose text when translated proved to be a lost scripture " Bytebear (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur that part maybe confuses things a bit much for an intro. Here is a new proposal.

The golden plates, also called the gold plates or the golden bible (an antiquated reference),[1] are said to have been a set of engraved plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source material for the Book of Mormon, a scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith, the founder of that movement, said he obtained the plates on September 22, 1827 on Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and protected by an angel named Moroni. After dictating a translation and obtaining signed statements by eleven other witnesses, Smith said he returned the plates to the angel in 1829. The Plates were never publicly exhibited, photographed or scientifically studied, and some scholars question whether the Plates ever existed.

The golden plates are the most significant of a number of metallic plates important to Latter Day Saint history and theology.

That combines the intro as it currently is with Kris' very clear sentence about questions about their validity/existence. Sethie (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting)

Hmm. The part I wrote about how the Plates were "believed by LDS to have been X" was meant to make it clear who's making the assertion about them, while the latest wording by Sethie doesn't say who's doing the believing. It's still kind of got that Pikachu problem for that reason. -Kris Schnee (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay how about this:

The golden plates, also called the gold plates or the golden bible (an antiquated reference),[1] within the Mormon tradition, are said to have been a set of engraved plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source material for the Book of Mormon, a scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement. Smith, the founder of that movement, said he obtained the plates on September 22, 1827 on Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and protected by an angel named Moroni. After dictating a translation and obtaining signed statements by eleven other witnesses, Smith said he returned the plates to the angel in 1829. The Plates were never publicly exhibited, photographed or scientifically studied, and some scholars question whether the Plates ever existed.

The golden plates are the most significant of a number of metallic plates important to Latter Day Saint history and theology. Sethie (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it's absolutely bizarre to say that "some scholars question" whether they existed, as if their existance were a matter of scientific analysis, rather than pure faith. We don't need to state the obvious here. We don't start out the Gabriel article by saying "Gabriel never appeared publicly and was never subjected to a medical examination to determine whether he actually existed or if so, whether he was a real angel or just a person posing as an angel." It's just assumed, based on the context, that we are talking about religious matters that are a matter of faith. We don't need to point out the totally obvious. These kind of statements in religious contexts are heavy-handed and totally unnecessary. They sound like some editor is trying to make a point, which is what you always want to avoid. COGDEN 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a little different then Gaberial. Please review turin shroud or Noah's Ark or Bible and note that historicity and whether or not the object existed or is authenitic is addressed. This an article about an object.

While I honor that you question the inclusion of it, the bottom line is, some scholars HAVE questioned their existence and other components of the historicity surrounding Mormon claims about the plates. Given that this is the case, why would we not mention it? Sethie (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I put up (sans links):

According to adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement (aka. Mormonism), the Golden Plates, also called the Gold Plates or the Golden Bible (an antiquated reference),[1] are a set of engraved gold plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr. said was his source for the Book of Mormon, a scripture of that movement. Smith's account states that he obtained the plates on September 22, 1827 on Cumorah hill in Manchester, New York, where they were hidden in a buried box and protected by an angel named Moroni. Smith said that he translated the plates by supernatural means and returned the plates to the angel in 1829. Smith obtained signed statements from eleven witnesses stating that they had seen the Plates, but because the artifact was never publicly exhibited, photographed or scientifically studied, some scholars question whether it ever existed. The Golden Plates are the most significant of a number of metallic plates important to Latter Day Saint history and theology.

This version includes a mention of the Plates' existence status (though I'm not quite happy with the use of "artifact"; I was trying to avoid saying Plates, Plates, Plates). Is it appropriate to capitalize "Golden Plates" as I did?

I also mentioned the fact that the Plates were said to have been "translated by supernatural means," which is significant because of a key assertion about the Plates: that they contained a scripture written in some form of Egyptian. Never mind the authenticity of the text; did Smith actually learn Egyptian and sit down with a guidebook to analyze the writing? It appears that he did not even look at the Plates while writing the English version, so the use of the word "translation" here is a non-standard use of the term that is worth alluding to.

In hindsight, I figure that that phrase will get edited away as being excessively critical -- maybe even rightly -- but it would be helpful to at least make more mention of what "translation" meant elsewhere in the article.

-Kris Schnee (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going to alter it a bit. Bytebear (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with COGDEN here in believing that it's bizarre to say that some people (especially "scholars") don't believe in the existence of the plates. That sounds silly and implies that readers are ninnies. Also the implication of "eleven signed statements" is that there are eleven separate statements. In fact, there are not even two signed statements, the two that Smith presumably had the two groups of witnesses assent to. No documents with signatures exist.--John Foxe (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unindenting) Really? You mean that there isn't a display case somewhere containing two old-looking pieces of paper on which are written eleven signatures and wording to the effect of "we saw the Plates?" If so, then it's not accurate to say that Smith obtained eleven signatures, only that official theology says he did. Let's look at the lead again from the perspective of a reporter:

WHAT is this? A set of golden sheets bound into book form and engraved.

WHY is it significant? The theology of a major religion says that it was the source of its scriptures, and contains a record of a previously unknown Iron Age civilization in pre-Columbian America, in contradiction to mainstream archaeology.

WHO, WHEN and WHERE did it come from, and HOW do we know? We don't know. Official LDS theology says that it was written way back &c and then Joseph Smith &c &c. This account is supported by Smith's own testimony and on his statement that he obtained eleven signatures from other people who had seen the Plates. However, we are not talking about an object whose existence is well-established outside the LDS community, and prominent critics of the factual claim being made by the LDS Church point out that this is the only evidence.

The lead is deficient if it doesn't include essentially all of the above information, which is basic info needed for a reader to know what we're talking about. There is a factual claim being made here about the existence of a physical object, and if in fact there is a significant dispute about the truth of that claim, blurring the situation by simply couching everything in "Smith said, Smith said" doesn't make it clear to the reader. Would you agree that an article about an object should make it plain whether it (1) definitely exists, (2) is definitely fictional, or (3) is disputed by people who aren't nuts, with some mention of the nature of the dispute? If you do agree, would you also agree that the Plates are in the third category? -Kris Schnee (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a suggestion to change the WHY: ... and contains a record of pre-Columbian, American civilizations not connected archaeologically with any known civilization. This way it says that maybe the civilization is known, but there isn't anything actually connecting the Book of Mormon account with this civilization (whatever one that may be). — Val42 (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment Kris, the way you expressed #3 is not helpful at all and likely to just create ill-will on the page. It also takes the focus away from making a better article. Please strike it and re-write it. It really is a clear WP:NPA, there are people ont his page who do believe it. Sethie (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see how that phrase could be read differently than I intended. Sorry. My intended meaning was, "Its existence is disputed, and the people who dispute it are reputable enough to be worth mentioning as opposed to being the sort of critics who're widely dismissed." Presumably you can find someone who'd dispute any claim, but not every such dispute is worth mentioning. -Kris Schnee (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

:) Whoops! Okay- yeah I was off on that one. Sethie (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added in a version with actual citations of critics and people who are skeptical. Sethie (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE does apply

"Reporting on the levels of acceptance

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

To move this article towards NPOV we absolutely must have a paragraph that reports on level of acceptance within scholarly academic community.

What do prominent historians, archeologists, etc. have to say on this topic.

That one section is the missing link here. Sethie (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What you are looking for is found here:

Origin of the Book of Mormon

Historicity of the Book of Mormon

Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

Linguistics and the Book of Mormon

Genetics and the Book of Mormon

This article is not the main article; that is found at Book of Mormon. This article is supposed to answer what the term means. It has grown far larger than it ever should have, but we have had some rather zealous editors that became enamored withe the topic and expanded it beyond its simple purpose. Regardless, you might want to acquaint yourself with the broad range of articles that have already been written, documented, referenced as much as, and in many instances far more, than other similar topics. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 07:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that I suppose a lot of non-LDS people find it difficult to take this whole subject seriously and like me fail to understand why they accept what appears to be unsupported claims whilst the 'LDS party" accept it more or less as the literal truth. But there is another side to this. Wp gets spammed by various outfits and people all the time. Having an article about you or your services/products in Wp lends huge credibility. Indeed there are SEO outfits who dedicate a large amount of effort into to getting their clients onto Wp because of the perceived value a link from Wp has in SEO. So it is with religions which we can see in the 21st century are often quite like large businesses. Getting adherents to work assiduously to craft articles on Wp would appear to be easy (vide the LDS and Hillsong for starters). And the net result for the church is positive. At the very least they can say to the folks they hope to prosletyse "well we are written up on Wp and you know they don't accept anything that isn't factual". So I would hope that the more intelligent members of a religion would realise the dangers of this and recuse themselves from contributing to articles about their beliefs except perhaps verifiable facts and preventing vandalism. To the person who used EB as an example somewhere here I would simply say Wp is NOT EB. Albatross2147 (talk) 08:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The position of a skeptic is not a bad thing; skepticism breeds discovery. However, a skeptic also should not rule the world for all others. The purpose of the article is to simple inform the reader about a given topic. When a religious topic is addressed it is not necessary to be condescending to fellow readers or fearful of their stupidity so as to wave flags about warning them that they are reading a topic that concerns a particular faith; that it is not true or some other such warning. Readers are not mindless lemmings that believe something simply because it has been stated. What a small world we would live in if we could not read about other religions, their ideas, concepts, beliefs, etc. Have more faith that readers will know this is a topic of faith and not a science article.

Also, just to clarify. Hillsong is a congregation; not a church. The LDS church is a denomination with thousands of congregations. I assure you that Wikipedia is not used for sharing information about the church; the LDS church has its own [www.lds.org website] for that. These articles are edited by the public; they ebb and flow far too much to be reliable or representative of accurate LDS doctrine or history. As an aside, you could conceivable attend an LDS church your entire life and never give a penny to the congregation. It is true that the LDS church teaches its members to pay tithing, but its payment is strictly confidential and done in private. You never see a plate passed in any church seeking contributions during a meeting. If one choose to pay their tithing or provide any other type of contribution, one gives a sealed envelope to a bishop or one of his two counselors; within a slip of paper stating what is being paid and the amount. Receipts are provided for all funds contributed.

Your last recommendation appears wrong-headed. It assumes that people of faith are so shallow as to be incapable of intellectual neutrality; that they are somehow deficient in logic, honesty, and fairness so as to prevent them from being responsible contributors to articles about their own faith. Worse, you propose that those outside a given faith are superior and somehow are granted a super neutrality in their perception of the religion. This form of intolerance is puerile and grossly POV. It is blind the fact that non faith itself is a POV. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:41, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

SR I've read your contributions in Wp and they do seem to be good faith. But on the other hand you don't disclose your LDS affiliation (if such be the case) on your user page. My modest proposal was based on my own practice. I am a member of a particular political party - therefore I don't any longer make edits to pages related to that party other than matters of fact eg. dates or candidates' names and rvs of vandalism. So please do not impute venality to me (for most of the time anyway). As to your point about the intellectual honesty of adherents of religion - well we do know that some religions teach that it is ok to dissemble in certain circumstances. Albatross2147 (talk) 11:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider, thanks for offering and what you shared is not what I am looking for.

The existence of these things are disputed. That is what I would like to see that mentioned here!

If this article can spare 2 paragraphs on the wittnesses, 4 paragraphs on composition and weight, 11 paragraphs on translation.... surely there is room for ONE paragraph (with nice citations from scholars, historians, etc), who challenge the existence of these witnessesed to, composed and weighty, and throughly translated, though maybe non-existent, items. 6 Paragraphs on "the location of the plates during translation" and no section on "Respectable People who say the topic of this article is non-existent and/or flies in the face of all historical data." NPOV? Huh? WhAT?

To leave out that piece.... it is astounding. If we are going to delve into details about the translation of the thing, might it be relevant to discuss the view of some who say the thing never existed? Or that the details of the tradion of the thing don't mesh with history.

It is starting to sound like this article is (whether intentionally or not) serving as a POV fork. Sethie (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems obvious. In an article on Catholcism do we say all nonCatholics think this is all bunk? Your position seems so elementary as to "astound". When I read an article on Islam do I need to be told that Catholics do not believe in it? How about when I read about evolution, do I need to be told that it is a the fairy tale of scientists with absolutely no shred of evidence for the Christian?

I don't like the article; you will find my opinion clearly in the talk page history. I was not a major contributor and reject the article as not representative of LDS belief. I am beginning to question whether you have even read the entire article. Regardless of my position, it is beyond argument that it is well researched and supported by reputable references. My father always said, "never state the obvious; it is a sign of weak mind". I think it is an accurate statement. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 09:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason that evolution and catholcism do not require that are because they are not considered fringe. If you believe any agrument against evolution, you are considered fringe off the bat and catholics have been around for thousands of years and their testiments have been to. Maybe if Jesus dictated the New Testiment from a boil on a leper,more people would consider it fringe. The LDS chruch does have fairly wide gapping holes of scientific evidence against them but I don't want to get into that here. I would think that to the laymen reading this article it is not "obvious" that this is a very fringe claim, made by 1 to 11 people at best, who have abolutely no evidence besides the "good word" the town believes them to have and supposed holy plates in a berlap bag. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 14:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about an article on Catholcism or a belief system, we are talking about an article about an believed in thing. Please see Turin Shroud in which scientific and historical evidence is presented. Please calm down. I am not asking "In an article on Catholcism do we say all nonCatholics think this is all bunk?" You misrepresent what I want. I don't want to "state the obvious" I am asking that reputable historians and scholars be given their say. The foundation of WP is reputable scholars and academics.

Here is a little lite reading from the Turin shroud lead "The shroud is the subject of intense debate among some scientists, people of faith, historians, and writers regarding where, when, and how the shroud and its images were created." Sethie (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare the plates with the Turin shroud. At least the shroud exists and is available for scientific tests. We cannot say the same about the plates. —Cesar Tort 20:55, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

By that standard you would have to discount the Bible; there are no, none, zilch, nada original documents. What we do have are copies, of copies, of copies, but we don't know even who wrote many of the original documents. Yes, we have the actual shroud, but we don't have the actual bible. When you create standards for "others", you have to live by the same one. It is a two edged sword that cuts your own feet from asunder. Topics of faith are about FAITH; they are not about truth. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Nop! Even New Testament atheist scholars such as Morton Smith agree that the texts were very real. Yes: we only have 4th century full NT copies. But we do have 2nd century fragments of the gospels; many of these corroborate the comparatively late 4th and 5th century narratives in the texts. —Cesar Tort 21:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Whats on trial here? The bible or the Golden Plates? If anything for the most part it is admitted that the bible is a set of stories, agreed to over years and years of counsult, to be the teachings of Christans reglions, of which by the way the Mormons are apart of. Now what we are talking about are explicit objects out of the belief system of the reglion. It is better compared with Xenu for scientiogist or if you want a christian example, Noah's ark because we do not have it as evidence, the Shroud follows a different set of rules. If we had gold plates then maybe we can give it the same status. I would like to point out that Xenu and Noah's Ark are both former FA articles, both make it clear that it is in a system of beliefs, both have critisms sections and both have around 40 citations instead of 180ish. As for all the examples I quote, I have not been given a single counter example. Please offer up one before you retort. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Touche, I was thinking the Ark of the Covenant as well.Sethie (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Storm... please read the article on the Bible. Unlike this article it has the integrity, fearlessness and lack of POV to actually address the very concerns you mention.Sethie (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) An example of another article requested by Kirkoconnell is Bhagavad Gita and another would be Tao Te Ching; neither have anything that addresses your concerns. More importantly, both are main articles. Regardless, I have said this several times before but it is obvious you are so committed to your position that you ignore the obvious; I will say it one more time. THIS IS NOT THE MAIN ARTICLE - the main article The Book of Mormon. The sole, initial objective of this article was to explain what "Gold Plates" means. I think the article is bloated and has become more than it should be. The main article should have the full nuances that each of you is complaining about.

If the issue is a criticism section, summarize the main article. Does a criticism section have to be in every article? Repetition is not a bad thing, but would make this article all the more longer.

It is surprising, and telling, that you would propose Xenu when speaking about LDS theology. It must be self-gratifying to continue to point out those terrible cults. Maybe would could bring up the Heaven's Gate cult, or James Jones' People's Temple, or even Koresh's Branch Davidian. Of course, those groups killed themselves or were killed, but at least we could mention the LDS church in the same company. Just makes it all the more sensational. It is a shame that LDS history does not echo these groups and their reputation is so different, but to hell with inconvenient facts. A more appropriate article would be Moses, which is nearly devoid of real criticism. Certainly, the most important criticism, there is no historical evidence of the Exodus or even of Moses' existence. Without Moses and the Exodus there is no Old Testament, no Judaism, no God of Abraham, and no Christianity, etc. The trial here is creating standards for one group when other standards are used for other religions and for your own.

Yes, I am a bit torked, but it is because I think you have a limited understanding of the topic and little understanding of the purpose of this article or the numerous other articles. This is a subarticle and was never intended to be anything else. Worse, you don't even try to hide your POV, but wear your intolerance and narrow-mindedness as if it was an honor. It is not appropriate or acceptable on Wikipedia. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I see someone had there confrontation orange juice this evening, I surely hope you at least corrupted it with some Sapphire Blue Gin. Just so you know, I mentioned Xenu because that is a more tangable example of what we have going on here not because I think Mormons are a crazy cult of loonies, although I am not saying I don't believe that but that wasn't the reason I used Xenu. The reason Moses is a bad example is that, believe it or not, a figure from over 3000 years ago becomes hard to analysis... the history has soured in time and the translations of what we currently read are probably not exactly what was attested to thousands of years ago given they have gone through several dramatically different lanauages. Most historians cannot even find record that all the Jews were eygptian slaves other then the biblical reference. Now I have a retort. One, the Moses article was not FA, so that pretty well means it is not the same example with I purpose. Two, it has a critism section. Three, the article makes it clear that Moses is a character in the Bible, although I will agree this article could use some tinkering as well. Also, just so you know, I believe my lack of faith in LDS (which by the way is curiously close to LSD) relgion is what is allowing me to be impartial. If I believed something were true beyond all logic, I wouldn't edit the article because any critism surely would an attack at my reglion. By the way, you are not allowed to address Scientolgoy as a cult, we are a valid reglion and dare not talk about the Hallowed Lord Xenu , unless you are unfearful his revenage! -Kirkoconnell (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How etertaining! What a wonderful display of superior intelligence. You are remarkable aid to the perfection and neutrality of Wikipedia. Rest assured I will be sure to trumpet your accomplishements far and wide. Of course, I would typically recommend that an editor have a modicum of knowledge about a subject before adding a critique, but when it comes to neutrality, your POV is overwhelming. We are all humbled in your sight. Now that we all can get up off our knees, do you have anything concrete to recommend or is this going to be just simple troll behavior? If not, it may be time for you to bury yourself in the blue sapphire you seem so familiar with; but I begin to question your taste; gin and orange juice? Surely you jest. Next time try a nice vodka, lose the OJ, and just make sure it is ice cold. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Storm Rider, I actually prefer Gin and Ginger or maybe Guiness if I can get it. Obviously you've missed my point with all of this, all I do is pose reasons why this article is a mess... I've given examples of simular topics, examples of problems in the text itself.. i've tried to be as neutral as possible but all I get is "you're wrong, you're biased, I know everything" without actually offering any serious retort. If you are not going to be serious, neither am I. Xenu commands it. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 07:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Good job BTW

I have been highly critical over the last day of what is missing from this article... and the need is arising here to acknowledge that overall I am throughly impressed with what is here.

For me, this is an excellent well written deeply detailed telling of one component of the Mormon faith. Good job all.Sethie (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take credit for a bit of that work. What's the problem with mentioning Joseph Smith's previous treasure hunting, Sethie?--John Foxe (talk) 14:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto, I don't see one. (ApJ (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

I removed the text and added the following reason/concern: "this material belongs in the Smith article."

No one has addressed that, they have just put the material back in.

My concern may or may not be valid and when people undo my edits with no response, I just undo their edits.

On the other hand, I very much welcome and value discussion about my edits.

Numerous people have said this article is too long. Other editors have said this article is just to be a physical description and definition of the plates. I am believing those editors and working from that stance.Sethie (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no problem with that paragraph being in the Smith article. Feel free to insert it. Just because it's in one article doesn't mean it can't be in another.

The reason why it's here is that it's important for the reader to understand that Smith's era was one of religious excitement and that Smith had a history of "money digging" with a seer stone before he said an angel appeared to him. Not to include such information is deceptive.

If your concern is about length, there's a surplus of material on the "sealed" portion of the plates--that is, speculation about something that even Joseph Smith and the other witnesses who claimed to have seen the plates never claimed to have seen.--John Foxe (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My initial response is thank you for entering into dialogue and addressing my thoughts, instead of ignoring them and reverting. More to comeSethie (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Sethie. The only reason to introduce Smith's "money digging" is to sway POV, and when you do that, you have to add additional text to bring the article back to neutral. There are many other articles that go into Smith's past. Let this article be about the plates only. Bytebear (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That much information, in this article, feels like a POV push to me. A more neutral thing to do might be a one or half sentence mention of his history/past. That way it is included, without moving attention away from the subject of this article, which is the plates. Sethie (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's simple honesty to include the information that Joseph Smith had long sought gold objects in the ground through supernatural means before he said an angel told him to seek a gold object in the ground through supernatural means.--John Foxe (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Did he actually seek "gold objects?" and by supernatural means? The use of water sticks, seer stones, ect., were common, and not seen as supernatural at all, but perfectly natural to the people of the day. In fact, it was only after the story of the plates emerged, that people started taking a negative slant to Joseph's prior activities. Are you prepared to cover all sides of the story? You are putting too much emphasis on connecting the plates with his treasure seeking past. This goes in to compelling conversations as to how his treasure hunting was different than the visit with Moroni, how he was told not to use the plates for personal gain, how he saw the sight in a vision without use of stones. All of this would need to be added (with references). If you want to simply say that he was a "money digger" without all of these other aspects, then it is POV, and I am not prepared to have the article lopsided. Not to mention there are articles that exist already that cover these topics in detail. It's just too much detail for this article, and to try to summarize would put too much emphasis in the wrong place (as your comments already show). Bytebear (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Smith indeed sought gold objects in the ground through supernatural means before he said an angel told him to find a gold object in the ground through supernatural means. Orthodox Christians thought such activities the work of the devil. There's also no proof for your claim that only after he had discovered the golden plates did people put a "negative slant" on Joseph's activities. Certainly his future father-in-law was not amused that his daughter might marry such a "glass looker."--John Foxe (talk) 22:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

What is becoming clear in this dialogue is that this is a very intricate subject, with lots of information, including some information which has controversy.

Since this is not directly related to the Golden Plates, I still believe that the most neutral thing to do is to mention that SMITH - :) not the golden plates, the subject of this article - had a history as a treasure seeker, and let this be hashed out in the Smith page, divintation in the LDS page.

Is it relevant that he had done divination before? I don't see why not. Is it relevant to go into a lot of discussion about that here? I can's see why.

John you say "The reason why it's here is that it's important for the reader to understand that Smith's era was one of religious excitement and that Smith had a history of "money digging" with a seer stone before he said an angel appeared to him.

I could not agree with you more! It is important that the reader understands that Smith's era was one of religious excitement and that Smith had a history of money digging. It is important that they understand this if they are reading a biography of Smith. It would also be important in an article on the history of divination in that area, time.

So I ask you once again, why is more then a brief mention of this relative to THIS article?

Sethie (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've now reduced the paragraph to two sentences. Considering the extraordinary length of the article relative to its subject, this mention is not excessive. If a fellow told you that he's had a message from an angel directing him to dig up some golden plates, you would not want concealed the fact that for years previous he had been digging for treasure directed by other supernatural forces.--John Foxe (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for dialogging. Everything that is left feels pertinent to the article to me and has such a better feel to this article. Sethie (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure.--John Foxe (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Backround?

Backround to what?

This is an article on the golden plates. The background is on Smith. We need a more accurate description of what it is a backround to. It certainly is not a background to the Plates. [[4]]

I propose "Smith's treasure hunting background." It sounds a bit POV and it is honest about what the paragraph is about.

Sethie (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

see comments above. If we keep this section in, we need to expand it extensively. Say bye bye to FA status. Bytebear (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is an honest title for the section. Thanks. Sethie (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the links used to justify the inclusion of the iformation states that treasure hunting was a common practise in New England. New York is not part of New England. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say... :) remove it! Sethie (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Roadmap to improvement

Wikipedia policies on controversial topics and due weight indicate that, where there are multiple conflicting viewpoints, the majority interpretation should be given the greatest weight while significant minority approaches are also discussed. This topic is unusual in that there are two largely non-overlapping communities of thought. I would propose that they be granted roughly equal treatment in terms of time and weight, and that a third, clearly minority interpretation receive a comparatively briefer treatment.

1. The most prominent interpretation in Mormon scholarship is that the plates really existed, largely (or, often, precisely) as described by Smith. This interpretation is supported by considerable treatments in Mormon specialist journals. Of these Dialogue is the generally considered to have the highest quality editorial process; luckily, it appears to also have the widest breadth of articles on the topic. The FARMS Review, on the other hand, has been dogged by allegations of somewhat dubious scholarship. It still has a peer-review editorial process, and is suitable for citation within this context, but should probably be avoided where better sources exist. Improvement Era and other direct publications of the church may warrant mention, but are not independent in any justifiable sense and may not have undergone any significant peer-review.
2. The most prominent interpretation in non-Mormon scholarship is that the plates did not exist in any form, and that the whole of their background is fictional. This viewpoint is attested in a number of "traditional" peer-reviewed journals, such as Religion and the Journal of American Folklore. Caution will be required to select well-credentialed discussions. In general, coverage in these sources after about 1980 is of higher quality than in earlier periods. It is important to note that some of these sources, although discounting the plates as fictional, nevertheless discuss their importance as symbolic religious entities or in the context of metaphor.
3. Some commentary exists regarding a minority viewpoint: that the plates were physically extant, but were created by a third party. Most treatises of this type essentially hold that Smith was manipulated or defrauded by another group. Many of these claims, especially those dating from the 1900-1920 period are profoundly biased (often anti-Semitic) and of poor scholarship. However, at least some responsible authorship on this issue has been created (addressing implications of Masonic involvement, primarily), and, in any case, there is sufficient traction to discuss this interpretation as a minority view.

I will see what I can do in the coming days and weeks about providing some citations and potential citations for these ideas. Many (all?) of the journals of interest are not available online. Someone with ready access to JSTOR will be a valuable asset. At some point, a survey of books will also be necessary, but we're a long way from there, I think. Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The premise of controversial in regards to religion is interesting. I would propose that all religious topics are not controversial, but simply disagree with one another. For example, when we speak of the other gods in human history is it necessary that all other religions that represent other gods clarify that belief in this specific god is believed false by other religions that worship other gods? In this topic we are discussing a belief of a religious movement. Its reality is irrelevant to all other religions, Christian or otherwise. All other religions, and Christian churches, would say it is false. If they would believe it was true they would be part of the movement. This seems blindingly obvious to me; am I missing something?

Serpent, your premise of equal treatment seems a little silly. It is one of those DUH moments when we talk about faith. When we read about St. Bernadette is it necessary to document the beliefs of all other Christian Churches that think that her visions were the result of an overactive child's imagination or that they are simply false. Does any Protestant religion believe in the virgin Mary appeared to Bernadette? No, they don't; they don't recognize any of the Marian traditions or visions within Catholicism. Is it necessary to say so? Of course not; it is obvious they do not are they would be Catholic.

When writing about a topic faith there is only one perspective that is of primary importance and that is the beliefs of that religion. Who does not believe it is just so obvious...it is everyone else except the adherents of the religion. Please note that I am not saying a critical analysis is not important or valid to include in articles. However, I am saying that your proposal for "balance" is not appropriate. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 19:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

However, such a balance is integral in Wikipedia's conception of a neutral point of view. Among the better-written articles about religious topics in general, space is allotted to scholarship contrary to the religion. The article on Jesus discusses his historicity, as does the article on The Bible, which includes even a summary of textual criticism. In both cases, there are in fact sub-articles that examine the historicity disputes in more detail. Of course, these situations differ from scholarship on Mormon issues, largely due to the comparative recency of Smith's experiences and work, and the consummately broader available documentation (there is certainly no question, for example, that Smith really existed). I don't have any demand or expectation of length-for-length parity between the sections (the religious canonical viewpoint will, by nature if nothing else, require more explanation), but there has been significant research, scholarship, and literature produced concerning this topic from multiple perspectives, and its coverage in an article striving to represent the best of the encyclopedia is required by policy. Serpent's Choice (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One statement is all that's needed to balance this article...Skeptics think that the plates never existed. This would discount all other pro-statements. Therefore your logic of balancing this article is quite flawed, because either the point is you think they existed or they didn't...we don't need to get into the how they don't exist sections, that's just nonsense. Twunchy (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

A few notes... as pointed out the argument Storm Rider has here is quite flawed because at issue is existence... people believe, for example, St. Bernadette did exist just the experiences she has claimed to have had are dispute. The plates main point of contention is existence. Although I take offence to the remark "Skeptics think that the plates never existed". I am not a skeptic simply to disbelieve, I require actually evidence in order to be swayed, which to me is well in the realm of logically discourse, and it is also incredibly lacking here. I think the fact that against the overwhelming lack of evidence there IS an article that states that the plates exists is and of itself Pro-Mormon. Therefore to balance, stating that the existence of the plates is highly disputed is hardly biased as it balances off the fact that an article exists about them. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Skeptics think that the plates never existed. (including that) This would discount all other pro-statements. " This is utterly ridiculous and totally contrary to how wikipedia operates. Sorry. We cover all significant viewpoints here. We're not taking sides, we report what the different sides say. Sethie (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Skeptics think that the plates never existed" is an accurate statement, and sums up the arguement in quite a terse fashion, I agree, but do we need to bloviate about why they don't exist inserting extraneous text (just to balance out the word count) on how they don't exist, why I think they don't exist" All of these arguements get into the how to "prove a negative" problem. How do you prove something doesn't exist? All you can do is express your opinion. But typically those that have written their opinion about the existance of the golden plates express such an extreme POV as to warrant themselves excused from rational discussion. Most of these references you seek to balance this article would be found in so-called "anti-mormon literature" not in scholarly papers and publications. This is obviously unacceptable due to the requirements of WP:Reliable Sources Twunchy (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think all rational thought has gone out the window. Serpent has made a proposal, let's just wait for this vaunted language that supports that a topic of faith is really false. When you are ready Serpent let's go to the Roman Catholic church article and greatly expand the critical section or even the Bernadette Soubirous, which has no statement whatsoever that the visions did not exist.

It is the utter hypocrisy of the situation that is so comical. The topic is that Mormons believe the Book of Mormon was the translation from ancient records. Not surprising, non Mormons think it is a crock. What exactly are you trying to prove; that non Mormons don't believe the Mormon religion? Well, DUH! You parading around wrapped in NPOV is a joke. Let's just put a giant header at the top of the page that reads ***BEWARE - THIS ARTICLE TALKS ABOUT MORMON BELIEFS WHICH ARE FALSE*** would that assure your tender minds that the article is balanced and that the world understands it is a topic of belief? Of course, I would like to see an article on every topic of every religion say the same bloody thing. You are creating standards based upon your own faith that you are unwilling to see met on all other articles. This is a joke. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles in Wikipedia, and, sadly, a great many of them would benefit from substantial revision. The article on Bernadette Soubirous is not an example of the "best that Wikipedia has produced", which is what FA-status represents. For it to be so, it would have to face the same sorts of concerns that this article faces. I assure you that my standards are those of Wikipedia policy, and not of whatever my own faith might be. I want these standards met everywhere. I am here, now, because this article became very visible and so impressed a greater sense of urgency, not because it is an article about a Mormon topic. Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Storm Rider's suggestion of a health warning banner on all the religious belief articles. Could we devise a suitable wording? Mike0001 (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

List of substantive facts missing

Seeing as there's quite a few people who want to improve this article, but the majority of the suggestions for improvements are too vague to act on, please list what is missing from this article...I have yet to see anything of substance that has been excluded from this article other than the "section where everybody gets to pour out their venom against the topic to placate the critics" or "Controversy/Criticism" section which contradicts the WP:Criticism#Criticism_in_a_.22Criticism.22_section discussion. Please list what is missing, from where, and we shall continue from there. Twunchy (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not enjoying how you chose to enter this dialogue. Your characterization of all the activity over the last couple of days as "section where everybody gets to pour out their venom against the topic to placate the critics" violates WP:AGF, WP:CIVILITY and WP:accurate Descriptions of What is Going on!

If you wish to see some concrete things, please read my comments, including the section where I am in dialogue with people about re-doing the lead.

About six times I have said, "What is missing is citations from reliable scholars and historians who don't believe the plates existed/assert that the claims about the plates contradict known history." What is missing is the non-mormon view of the plates.

Sethie (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"the non-mormon view of the plates" is that they didn't exist. Plain and simple. Just like the Catholics don't belive in Karma, non-mormon religions all have the same opinion of this topic. I don't see how retooling the entire article adding MORE citations, quoting from secondary sources, that have used the same primary sources here is going to "fix" the article. The controversy here can't simply be get more modern citations from contrarian sources. As a matter of faith they existed or didn't. As to civility issues, please remember that we are talking about faith issues, and my opinion of how some editors have been viciously attacking this article, just based on their anti-sentiments, is that can become overwhelming for quite a few of us who may be of the LDS persuasion. It truly feels as such when you have people attacking all issues of credibility, including personal attacks etc. against those who wrote this article in good faith. See the above post about "Moroni" for example. I am exasperated at the many people who came into this article, and trashed it based on their dis-belief in the subject, rather than the actual scholarship of the article. Twunchy (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But surely you can't have "scholarship" about a topic that can't really be taken seriously. The best thing that could happen is that Wp has a short article noting that there is a belief about the "Golden Plates" held by some and link to the LDS sites that do give it the reverence they believe it deserves. Albatross2147 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarship would actually dictate that the plated did in fact exist. If we are basing it on first hand accounts, written afidavits and such, then the plates certainly have more going for it, than any source that claim otherwise. Certainly there is more evidence of the plates existance than (as Storm Rider has ponted out) other spiritual topics. Bytebear (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware that there are editors who have envisioned a starkly anti-Mormon article. Please understand that is not my goal in the least. In fact, I believe that a revision of this article requires not only stronger referencing and citation for the positions of non-Mormon scholars, but also those of Mormons who have written on the topic. Regarding the former, I feel it is inaccurate to say that the scholarship ends "plain and simple" with their non-existence. There are historians and religious scholars who have written about the plates in comparison to other texts believed to be divinely inspired, and with other religious events in a wider context. These authors believe that the plates could not have existed, yes, and we need to give at least some explicit mention of why that is the case, but they say -- and we can say -- more than that. And as to the latter, there has been over a century of dedicated Mormon study into the origins of the faith. At least two peer-reviewed journals cover the content from the religious perspective (as noted above, Dialogue is very much the superior source of the two). These authors -- Mormon scholars subject to peer review -- have written papers and published books that go beyond a simple retelling of the canonical timeline of the plates' origin, and the article is owed insight into these viewpoints, too. Serpent's Choice (talk) 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have read some of your comments in the peer review, and am ok with your approach, which to me seems to be less about using non-Mormon views to show that they don't believe Smith's story, but rather to describe how the story has influenced Mormonism, which really should be the focus of this article. This article isn't about the facts of the story, although they should be told. but rather this should be how that story helped create a new world religion. I think from that perspective, we can find good sources both from within and outside of the church. It also should eliminate the sources that do denegrate to the base argument of their existence. Bytebear (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think both aspects are crucial to a well-crafted article. The article should not ignore the body of evidence that indicates the non-existence of the plates. But neither should it ignore the strong and valid faith in their existence held by members of the church. That's the essence of NPOV. Cover all significant aspects. Both sides have scholarly research. Both sides have peer-reviewed works. And both sides talk about origins of the plates (or the story of the platse) and their the significance to a significant religion -- either as a physcial object or a metaphorical one. Obviously, the authors beginning with different premises reach different conclusions, but that is nothing that an article cannot incorporate. Let me see about getting a list of sources together. I hope that some concrete examples will help to assuage the concerns that my goal here is malicious. Serpent's Choice (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Most journal articles are, of course, paywalled or otherwise restricted. A thoroughly researched article will thus require some library time. However, by means of illustration, I've assembled a first round of plausible sources, though by no means a comprehensive list. Mormon scholarship on the issue: [5] [6] [7]. Non-Mormon scholarship on the topic: [8] (ch. 1) [9] [10] (p.51+, comparisons with other religious texts and origins) [11] (some quotable bits, esp. from p. 293 where the author directly states that non-existence of the plates would not invalidate the study of the religion and philosophy derived from them) [12] (certainly biased, but might be valuable for mention of early forms of criticsm?) [13] (third-party origin hypothesis). And I have no idea what this is about, and don't have immediate access to it, but the title is interesting: [14]. There's a ton of material available for this all around. Gathering it all and melding it together to craft a comprehensive, neutral article will be a significantly challenging undertaking, however. Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment isn't Steven C. Harper in fact a Mormon or least "tainted" (for want of a better word) as a example by his employment at BYU? Albatross2147 (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, to be honest, all those sources will require review from their full text. I sort of took guesses about how they might fit in, based mostly on the journal they are published in and their abstract when available (that one was not). If it winds up that the Harper reference supports a doctrinal approach to the plates, that much the better, as it is published in an independent journal and would show some consideration of the concept outside dedicated LDS publishers. But either way, it isn't as though there's a shortage of journal articles out there for any aspect of this topic. Serpent's Choice (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Although from a very minor journal, another Mormon academic analysis is "Just How 'Scandalous' Is the Golden Plates Story? Academic Discourse on the Origin of the Book of Mormon." John Whitmer Historical Association Journal 26 (2006): 142-165. I am trying to locate a solid basis for the faith-based aspect of the topic first, because I recognize that it is more difficult for me to readily locate these sources. For example, were the plates the subject of any discussion in Sunstone (especially either before or after its issues in the 1980s-1990s)? Serpent's Choice (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that as a never-been-a-Mormon who's edited here over many months, I find the interest of Serpent's Choice in this article unusual and refreshing.--John Foxe (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

One problem I have with the NPOV approach is with sincerely held beliefs. How much evidence is there to support this sincerity? A truly neutral view should disregard beliefs and concentrate on evidence. One should not attribute the same weight to all the evidence we have from the world that such things just do not happen and the testimony of a few men that they did. Mike0001 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

On the topic of missing facts I am wondering why the specs clearly shown in the image "Joseph Smith receiving golden plates" being held by Moroni are not mentioned here. I've seen Mormons wearing glasses so they must be halal or whatever it is. I think we should be told what the facts on these are. Albatross2147 (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(newindent) We can't really talk about it; most people think that those glasses Mormons wear are for vision, little do they know that they are really "sacred" glasses used to signify a 41st wife. It is also used to cover up their horns when they get tired of filing them off every night. LOL, this is just too rich.

It is a very bad picture that should be deleted because it takes a very high degree of artistic license with the depiction of the Urim and Thummim; which of course is mentioned in the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

SR you aren't taking all this seriously enough. Please read WP: Suspend incredulity. I did and then read the Urim and Thummin and all the articles flowing on from there. Wow. There isn't nothing that you can't believe in if you want to. However there is hope. Someone once said somewhere It is science that discovers frauds within its ranks. That is the very reason science can be trusted. Fundamentalists always miss that point. Religion doesn’t appreciate critical review. If it did, it would self destruct. The unexamined belief is not worth believing. Albatross2147 (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not mean to be offensive, but it is you that is hard to take seriously. You actually question why Mormons wear glasses and then equated that with the Urim and Thummim; you stretch things so far out of reality and then state them as if they are facts. You are willing to believe anything, if it is negative, about LDS that it is almost laughable. What makes it even more rich is that you then pose yourself as thinking in a scientific manner. Scientific deduction, t'were one possessed of it, would be applied to all things and not just those you disagree with. It is the willingness to apply them to your own beliefs, sacred cows, etc. that allows brings wisdom. However, to parade about as if you are using rational thought in this context when it appears as if you have been reading the National Enquirer is laughable. My advice, echoing Sethie above, you might want to use a modicum of objectivity in your words. There is a difference between a critical mind and being a bigot. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 18:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if it is in WP:civil to imply that someone is a bigot... whether or not they use "objectivity" to your standard.... -Kirkoconnell (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A bigot is defined as "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion." If I have defined the word inappropriately, please correct me. If anyone's actions are accurately described by the term, then wear the term proudly rather than hide behind some false sense of indignation. It makes me think of that old saying in Forest Gump, "Stupid is as stupid does" or in this instance would be accurately stated, "A bigot is as a bigot does". Anyone that only speaks of another religion in a derisive, offensive manner is accurately described as a bigot. Of course, if one wishes not to be a bigot, please change the tone of one's edits. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

By your definition then we are not bigots if we were "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion" you wouldn't have the article. I say hey its fine to have an article about reglious beliefs as long as it is properly sourced, nicely written and well makes it clear that it is an article about regilous beliefs. I give you at least 3 examples of what I am talking about and you blanket call all of us bigots.... It sounds like someone else is "utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion" here....-Kirkoconnell (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kirk, what I said is if the shoe fits wear it; if not, it does not apply to you. In this specific instance my comment was directed strictly to albatross because of her repeated use of offensive language.

No one is protesting having an excellent article about the topic nor supporting any violation of NPOV policies. When someone wraps themselves in anti-Mormon invective, please let's not try to then call it a wonderful display of neutrality. Call it for what it is and move on. As far as my respect for other beliefs, you haven't a clue about my knowledge, respect, or understanding of and for other religions, but thank you for sharing. One thing you will never be able to demonstrate is examples of similar language used by Albatross here against any other beliefs. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that all (or at least most) editors here want this, in the end, to be a well-written, well-researched article. Editors on all sides feel strongly about the issue, and the shortcomings of the current text are a focal point; there have been a lot of changes made to the text over the last couple of weeks: sections added or removed or reverted and oh-so-many tweakings of the lede. I'm working in the meantime to compile enough references to produce a more significant rewrite of the article's backbone, transitioning from primary to secondary sourcing support. However, I need help. I have, or can easily get, access to traditional religion, archeology, history, and social sciences journals. But the article needs to cite discussion from the Mormon religious perspective also, and I'll admit I'm out of my normal research element there. If any of the editors here have quick access to articles from Dialogue, Sunstone, and (to a less extent) the various FARMS publications, that would greatly hasten the process. I am not going to even propose structural changes to the article until we've got the lion's share of the references at hand; the last thing we should do is rewrite half of the article and hope the rest gets finished! Serpent's Choice (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SR et al - I am happy for anyone to believe in whatever they believe in. What I have an issue with is articles in Wp which are written so as to lead an uninformed visitor, typically a child who is using it as a resource for their homework, to form an opinion that the article is about an actual event or thing. Furthermore as I have said elsewhere it is a definite fact that certain groups organise themselves either formally or informally to promote their beliefs on Wp so as to give those beliefs verisimilitude. Incidentally I do not normally read the NE as I don't have access to it. But when I have I laughed and thought, "Only in America would you be able to get away with this" - the same as I did when I read the Book of Mormon. Furthermore I will have it known that (a) I am a bloke and (b) that I have "fought" other actions here against myths being dressed up as facts - including mainstream Christian beliefs. However I do have a day job and nobody could take on a cleanup all the religious claptrap here on their own and hope to remain safe or sane. We just have to chip away a little bit at a time or be oblique like creating an article on the very funny Jesus and Mo. Albatross2147 (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing something, but this article (to me anyway) makes it very clear that this is a subject of belief. After all the article says "believers" and "non-believers." Just how much more clear do we have to make it? Bytebear (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment Look I am happy to go with a consensus here if it is a real consensus and not just a ganging up of people with a particular world view. Albatross2147 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Over in the Talk section "Changes to the lead" we're discussing the opening section specifically. (And again, my comment there was poorly worded and not intended as an insult; sorry.) The opening section currently says that the Golden Plates "are a set of engraved gold plates, bound into a book, that Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, said was his source for the Book of Mormon..." From reading that, if I'd never heard of these before, I would interpret that as, "These are a real object, and this Smith guy said they inspired some scriptures." I had referenced other articles such as Neutrino, Shroud of Turin, Holy Grail, Loch Ness Monster, and even Pikachu for comparison, making the point that the lead should make clear whether the Plates are (1) definitely real, (2) definitely fictional, or (3) allegedly real but significantly disputed. If the Plates fall into category 3, as I think even many LDS members would agree, then the lead ought to make that clear, explaining who believes what, and on what basis.

I also stated that because this is an article about a physical object that could conceivably be sitting in a museum somewhere, it falls into a different category of analysis than an intangible religious belief like the Book of Mormon, a text derived from the physical object. A reader will understand that almost by definition, LDS members believe in the accuracy/authenticity of the Book and non-members don't, but the truth of the scripture is a different question than whether the artifact it's said to be based on ever physically existed. Similarly, the Shroud of Turin article makes it plain that the Shroud exists, while reserving judgment on its significance. We would be remiss not to make this distinction plain. -Kris Schnee (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have an objection to the use of the word are as in are a set of engraved gold plates but I would go for are, within the set of beliefs attributed to Mormons, a set etc Albatross2147 (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Storm Rider and I have made a slight change to the lede that I think answer these concerns.--John Foxe (talk) 19:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR

What do you want from JSTOR?--Dougweller (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what JSTOR is? Sethie (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

JSTOR is an online academic journal repository. Bytebear (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to compile a list of the potential sources I've been working on and we can try to tackle acquisition. Quite a few aren't available via JSTOR, though, and my access to smaller repositories is limited to absent. Serpent's Choice (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can get JSTOR stuff and maybe other stuff as well.--Dougweller (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

26 Pages!

I just dropped this into Word and it came out as 26 pages. This seems far too long to me. It reads, if you leave out anything skeptical, like a chapter in an LDS textbook. It's about 10 pages longer than the entry on the Book of Mormon. I am very impressed at the huge amount of work that the LDS has put into making Wikipedia a showcase for their faith -- not just this apge but 70 other related articles. I see Joseph Smith has 8 articles alone! A quick glance at a few suggests that they are probably all basically LDS POV, simply a quick way that the LDS can refer people to a web source to learn about their religion.

Is there really a good reason that this article should be so long and detailed?--Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, welcome to the article. The ongoing discussions etc. are trying to address some of your concerns. The length of an article when viewed in word is not a concern here, the article is not overly long, but perhaps overly cited, which has added considerable bulk to this article, but being a controversial article and with all sorts of editors challenging every quotation or fact, the amount of citations is probably correct as to establish the sources for all of this information. As to the LDS POV, please understand that there have been many hands, from many faiths, fashioning this article and be it a surprise to you or not, there are many within the LDS faith that would think that this article is quite the opposite of a "showcase for their faith" i.e. this article differs wildly from most "official" LDS accounts. Please do not presume to think that these articles are LDS propoganda any more than any other article written on wikipedia regarding faith. And as a final note remember the WP:Wikipedia is not paper policy as pertaining to the length and detail, there are no limits, but this is not an excessively long article. Twunchy (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Although with that stated, if you counter the Mormon view you will be called a bigot, the "The ongoing discussions etc. are trying to address some of your concern" means that they will address them by saying that your concerns are not valid and they will list "facts" which are more or less direct articles of faith. I tried to help out with this article but as like as people who dead-set believe this is the "truth" from a propheit, you will never be able to get a truly balanced article, at least from my experience. Don't worry, I don't mind if you call me a mormon hating bigot again... I am strong.. I can take it...-Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you telling me that this is a unanimous opinion?

I note that all your edits are on this page, so I can understand that you may not be that familiar with other articles and how they are treated. The edits I made are all, I believe, within Wiki policy. One was for some sheer speculation, for instance. Another was just adding a reference to an unreferenced statement. If you want to discuss these here, please do, but they were just standard edits such as you will find on many articles. As for a criticism section, the LDS faith has its own uniqueness and there are areas where I don't think it can be expected to be treated exactly the same as other religions. Its view on history for instance. The Golden Plates are not an ancient myth, they are a relatively modern story that should be examined, at least in some aspects, as though it was a secular claim to fact. The article as it stands seems to me, as someone with no religion at all, very unbalanced. I find it fascinating that it got FA status. And since it is riddled with POV, I can't understand why it doesn't reflect LDS POV since it certainly doesn't reflect a skeptical POV. So, to start, how do you justify including the speculation that I edited out, and removing my reference? --Dougweller (talk) 19:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Dougweller's recent edits

I think all of them look good, except for the "alleged" in the translation section, which I have changed. Welcome Doug. Sethie (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, thanks.--Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Plates outside the LDS tradition

I've replaced this section with a few tweaks. It's not a good idea to eliminate material that has as much bearing on the article and on Mormon argumentation as this section does. Yes, there are some inscribed gold plates extant from ancient civilizations, but very few and none from the New World.--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

And none from Egypt, which I've added.--Dougweller (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts John... and whether my actions are or aren't a good idea.... is really not the issue here. For that section to stay, in this article, :) on wikipedia, per WP:NOR that "much bearing" HAS to be established by a WP:RS. This is not an article about "metal plates" in general, nor historical use of plates in world history.

It is about a specific set of plates.Sethie (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added a citation to a Mormon apologetic article to confirm the reason why this section should remain.--John Foxe (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I was frustrated to see that a source was cited and the key part of it was left out, once again. People, since day one, have challenged the historicity of the plates.

The source that was cited admits this, in the first paragraph!, and is a written response to this.

It is a grosse violation of NPOV to include arguments for the historicity of something without adequately acknowledging and detailing the claims of the non-historicity of something. Sethie (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Current references

I recall that one of the complaints about the article was that the references were old and not reflective of current scholarship or scientific. Sethie, you just added references that would not meet either standard:

1. John Hyde dated 1857; Hyde was a member of the church, served a mission in France, and was dismissed and later left the church. He has no training to criticize the plates, but would be more appropriate as a potential resource for the LDS church article.
2. M. T. Lamb on the Golden Bible, dated 1887. This is a minister's opinion; is this really a scientific perspective or is this just, at best, a polemic? If so, is there a real value to polemists? Is there value to the reader that other religionists don't believe "it"?
3. then Stuart Martin in 1920 and Anthony A. Hoekema in 1963 for the last two, which are more current, but is this what seen as current scholarship? Regardless, their qualification to criticize the gold plates also appears lacking, particularly Hoekema, whose study as Calvinism with no archeology background or knowledge of ancient America.

If we are going to attempt to use more current scholarship, a more concerted effort will be needed for all references in the article, not just these new ones. I am also concerned that these references are not best suited for criticism of the gold plates, but more for criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement, Joseph Smith, Jr., or the LDS church. Do any of them have any qualifications in archeology or are they just ministers of other churches or like Hyde who was a disgruntled ex-Mormon? Have we dropped the goal of a more scientific approach to this topic?

Sethie, as an aside and not directly relevant to this this conversation, you seem to have a different perspective of primary sources then what I do. If the primary source is not interpreted or not needed to be interpreted, then it is the preferred source. If there is any interpretation that needs to be done, then secondary sources are the preferred source for information. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I was curious when I saw these specific sources; are you quoting from the original works or are you copying these sources from another source? If so, would it not be more appropriate to cite the source from which these material have been cited? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 01:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Foxe, you just added a refernce, but it was for a book without any page numbers. Do you have access to the book and can you cite it? I have noticed a number of cites on LDS articles that are similar, i.e. History of the Church with nothing else. These should either be completed with page numbers or deleted because they serve no purpose if the information can not be verified. Do you agree or is this an unacceptable standard? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm working on memory, so I'll see what I can find. By the way, I could argue that "mythology" carries no more baggage than "critical" does. But I won't.--John Foxe (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Critical does have negative connotations; I am open to another term, but I do not have a suggestion. If you have proferred one in the past, I have forgotten it. Do you have suggestion? In a strictly academic millieu, mythology is appropriate when discussion all religion, but given the general readership of this article it does carry some overly negative nonnotation. I recall a similar conversation on the Jesus page months ago. Some readers were adament that Jesus is most appropriately discussed solely as mythology in the article. Fortunately, the group defeated such a proposal. I think the same logic would apply here. Thoughts? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just trying to find language strong enough to satisfy our friends who are so insistent about announcing that non-Mormons don't believe in Mormonism.--John Foxe (talk) 02:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Storm, I concur with you, that the references I added are the best... and it's a start. I heartily agree that given the sources, my language was too strong and have toned it way down.

I found them here [[15]]. Maybe you're right- it might be best to cite this paper. Sethie (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

John Foxes' edit

This edit [[16]] is totally unacceptable.

First off, removing sourced information is borderline vandalism. Both the sentences which you removed were sourced.

2ndly I posted my reasoning for the new sentence in the metal plates section. You removed it without responding.

3rdly a dialogue had been started about the sentence you removed from the lead. You didn't participate and just removed it.

4thly your edit summary doesn't accurately describe the edits- you made significant changes- calling it a tweak is inaccurate.

5thly your reasoning is faulty- scholars/authors don't give much time and attention to the existence or non-existence of the tooth fairy. The sources I provided show that they do give time and attention QUESTIONS (not conclusions mind you) of the existence or non-existence of the plates. Sethie (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your position, what you want here, your input is totally welcome. The above style of editing is not. Sethie (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sethie, as I stated above regarding your references; these are not scholars and they are certainly not historians. Please read my posts above and respond to them. You don't seem to engage much in conversation in order to work in a cooperative manner. Possibly you just overlooked it and only responded to Foxe's edit, but you might want to read the posts of others rather than work blind and only complain about the edits of others. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I think I'm on the same side as Storm Rider. Saying that non-Mormons doubt the existence of golden plates delivered to Joseph Smith by an angel is simply silly. If non-believers believed such things, they would be Mormons.--John Foxe (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What references are these?--Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

What in the world is going on? Why was the list of references which included Hoekema removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

From the beginning one of the complaints is that references were old and primary, i.e. not neutral. If you look above I have addressed each of the references. Are any of them historians or archeaologists? It appears they are either ministers of other churches or a disgruntled former LDS that was niether trained or capable of providing scholarly contribution. Am I missing something? Are we updating references or not? If we are just going to quote old references, are we improving the article are creating the same problems that were cited? --Storm Rider ^(talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't make a connection between 'old and primary' and 'not neutral' nor do I understand what 'not neutral' means or why it is relevant. One of the claims was that these people weren't scholars, which seemed a strange comment on Hoekema. And you don't have to be an archaeologist to know about metal plates.--Dougweller (talk) 07:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I for one never cited "antiquated" refferences as a problem.

2) My complaints about this edit are about TWO seperate sentences that were removed. One of those sentences is being discussed above- I propose we keep that dialogue there.... Sethie (talk) 05:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Syntactical Ugliness

??!!If you don't like the way a statement is put, discuss it here, don't just remove it. That borders on vandalism -- the statement was correct, it was in understandable English, you aren't claiming spelling or grammar problems, just ugliness. I'm off to bed now but although I am happy to discuss the wording I want it back in some form.--Dougweller (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: One common criticism of the Book of Mormon is to challenge the historicity of the Golden Plates. I think what you are trying to say is that non-believers commonly criticize the Book of Mormon on the ground that the golden plates never existed. Besides being, as I said, "syntactically ugly," I don't believe that statement is accurate. Non-believers criticize the Book of Mormon for a host of reasons, but denying that the plates existed is not a common tactic because such an argument would require the disputant to prove a negative. To stand here, such a statement (in whatever revised form) would require a citation.--John Foxe (talk) 02:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation is there. Please read it. Your removing it is vandalism. Please stop. Now. I think my 2nd summary of it more accurate: Since early in the movement, there have been challenges to the veracity and historicity of the Golden Plates." Sethie (talk) 05:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Much better. The earler statement (which I copied, not wrote) was accurate but this is better. I don't understand John Foxe's reasoning either. You can deny the plates existed without actually proving a negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sinebot is fast! Anyway, I also looked at the reference just provided to Hamblin's article, which says the Golden Plates have "long been a favorite target of critics of the book." It's a bit odd Foxe didn't know that.--Dougweller (talk) 06:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. I've just tweaked the sentence a bit in a way that I think clarifies what we're talking about here.--John Foxe (talk) 10:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it just non-believers? There are Christians who don't take all the miracle stories seriously, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am definitely under the perhaps mistaken impression that there are within the LDS movement as a whole people who do not take literally the Book of Mormon or the existence of the Golden Plates - but would consider themselves 'believers'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 12:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I know "believers" who don't believe. They interest me, but I don't think it's worth our time worrying about them in this article.--John Foxe (talk) 20:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

..... and a new article was born

Something miraculous happened while I slept last night. This article took a HUGE leap towards being NPOV. I am very pleasently surprised. Thanks to Cogden for the great work.... and that no one else reverted it! :) Sethie (talk) 16:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick skim but it does look much better. I still am not sure that there are no LDS who disbelieve in the Gold Plates, but that's a minor matter.--Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are indeed believing Mormons who do not believe the physical existence of the plates, and that they had a more mystical or metaphorical existence (for example, they couldn't be seen except through the exercise of faith; attempts to see them without purity of heart would cause them to move out of the place where they were, etc., which is what happened to a lot of the buried treasure Smith located during the 1820s). This is a common view within the Community of Christ, and within liberal Mormon apologetics. COGDEN 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, COGDEN, great job as usual. But when I go looking for treasure—whether material or spiritual—I'll take mine literal or not at all.--John Foxe (talk) 23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is so beautiful right now. Thank everyone who put their heart and soul the past few weeks making it so much better, and worthy of true Featured Article status. Good job!! :) Zidel333 (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure about this sentence

"According to Smith's 1835 biography and other accounts, he "supposed his success certain" in obtaining the plates."

Is there another way to phrase that- the meaning is unclear. Using a direct quote here feels forced... is he just trying to say he was sure he would succeed? Sethie (talk) 18:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tweaked that sentence (and a couple more), hopefully to your satisfaction.--John Foxe (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. I now get the meaning. The sentences feel kind of akward to me, I will play with it. Feel free to play as well. I think introducing the inner workings of Smith's mind just muddies the paragragh. Try reading it with and without the first sentence, I think it is much clearer without. The topic header also introduces the theme of this paragraph just fine, me thinks.Sethie (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's fine by me.--John Foxe (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need to bang their heads?

The sentence "Because there is no physical artifact for modern scholars to examine, the existence and authenticity of the plates is a matter of faith." is both in the introduction, and in a later paragraph. Do we really need to bang the head of the reader over and over? Bytebear (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to bang the head of the reader over and over with this information, I think you're correct in objecting to it. I've tried to replace the three similar statements with one, although perhaps taking it out of the lede is inappropriate.--John Foxe (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the statement is so obvious it doesn't need to be said, but there are a few editors that think it should be emphasized, and I don't have a problem with that. If nobody is pressing for it, I'd just soon leave it out. COGDEN 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see the sentence in the lead and then again in the article, than just the lead to emphasize its point. One cannot always assume that the majority of Wikipedia readers will understand....Zidel333 (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So you think they need their heads banged over and over? I think if somoene has more than a pasing interest in the subject, enough to read past the intro, they will understand that this is a matter of faith, without making the prose of the article redundant. Bytebear (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Zidel, it is not the purpose of wikipedia to proclaim what is or is not truth. Nor is it our place to say what is faith and what is not. Your position comes very close to being blatant POV if not something far worse. Readers are not stupid and they do not need some wise father to spoon feed everything to them. Let's move on; this horse has been beaten to the ground. I support Foxe's last edit and it should be sufficient for all those who are terrified that the common man might be lead astray into the awful cult of Mormonism. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be equally POV to spend 99% of the article as if the plates were in fact real User:Storm_Rider. I frankly don't care what the reader's believe, or how my own belief would play into changing the article, but the severity of the argument against the plate's actuality is (IMHO) utmost importance in the article. As for spoon feeding, certain topics need to be understandable to all audiences, thus we a Quantum mechanics, as well as a Introduction to quantum mechanics article for the less technical audience; topics of religion being mystifying enough that a certain additional amount of explanation needed for the non-faithful. Lastly, your comments were on this side of being insulting; I would ask you to refrain from such language as it can be misconstrued very easily. Zidel333 (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you implying we need an "introducton to the Golden Plates" article? The article more than covers the position that the plates may have never existed. It simply doesn't need to be repeated in every paragraph. Bytebear (talk) 22:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No I'm suggesting we should make an intro article on this particular topic, I'm just saying that there is precedent for being more explanatory with certain subjects on Wikipedia, and that its OK to repeat. Zidel333 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to create a "dumbed down" (golden plates for dummies?) version of this article, that idea goes against all scholarly endeavors of an encyclopedia. The topic is not rocket science, or Quantum Mechanics, as you have suggested. Articles on Wikipedia are not meant to cater to the "lowest common denominator", i.e. Joe Sixpack, but it should speak in plain (every day) english in inspiring prose to convey knowledge, not to beat everyone with a "dumb stick" just because of a perceivably less intellegent (perhaps you are thinking gullible?) audience, that may or may not exist. This article isn't going to convince anyone that Golden plates exist any more than those who read the Loch Ness Monster are going to know of a certainty of Nessy's existence. To prove a negative is impossible, and those who demand proof (of something unproveable) are the ones who constantly stir the pot here in this article and bloviate against this travesty of an article, when in fact if personal opinion and emotion is removed-the article is among the best in scholarship about the subject at hand. Twunchy (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

I was absolutely shocked to come back and look at this article.

After an entire month of talking things out, what I thought was a reasonable compromise was reached about the lead- and I come back 2 weeks later and it is gone, no discussion.

My disgust for your actions (whomever it is, and I am not going to waste my time looking) is.... beyond words.

To work so hard for something, with so many other people and then- no discussion and it's gone.

My disgust is over your lack of respect for concenus, and lack of respect for even bothering to try to gain consensus.

So that is how wikipedia is, huh, you need to keep constant vigilance over one sentence?

I'm out. You win.... except I know that you loose, since in your heart of hearts, you can't feel good about your behavior! You also loose, because behavior like this litterally puts one more nail in wikipedia's coffin.

YUCK!Sethie (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume this comment is germane to this discussion. This happens on Wikipedia all the time. An editor who wasn't part of the discussion above came along and changed the wording. If you have a problem with it, change it back and refer him to the discussion. I don't think it was an outright attack on you or your opinion. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember who actually made all the changes--I know I made at least some of them--but they arose out of the ongoing FAR review. This article is fighting for its favored status because of opposition from people who think the article is to pro-Mormon, and there has been a lot of discussion. One factor that came up is that the previous version did not follow the recommendations of WP:LEAD. That has been remedied. COGDEN 23:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to first section

I earlier eliminated three separate statements that there was no evidence that the plates had ever existed and condensed the three into one clear statement. I even took one of the earlier statements out of the lede as a matter of good will. And now Twunchy wants to obfuscate by exchanging the one clear statement for a muddled, wordy one. Why?--John Foxe (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay here's why I'm editing it: This statement leading off the section is not working for me..."The golden plates were never examined by non-believers". I think this statement is mildly misleading...because, one can assume, if a person did see the plates, and examine them they would come to their conclusion that they were real or not, and it's entirely possible they would have believed in what they saw, this does not discount their witness!! It's akin to the "doubting Thomas" scenario. The statement implies that if a disaffected party who could have independently examined the plates, and then believed, would be discarded as partial to them. My attempt is to clarify that those people who did witness the plates were those who were intimately connected already with Joseph Smith, and if anything it actually narrows the statement to a very precise bunch of people who would be less speculative and more trusting of Joseph Smith and therefore even more partial! For those who wish to discredit the I'm amazed that this edit is reverted. Forget the wordiness, it's just plain old more accurate of a statement to say that those who witnessed were close to Joseph Smith. Twunchy (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, there's nothing misleading about that statement. I think you're making an unwarranted assumption. Only men who were already believers in Joseph Smith's message were allowed to become official witnesses. But I'm most concerned about eliminating wordiness. In my view, your version is an attempt to obfuscate. Even if I'm wrong, and there's no ideology involved, then it's just bad writing.--John Foxe (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, for certain, that all of the Eight Witnesses were believers before Smith took them to the woods and opened the chest. They definitely were believers after, but I don't know if there is a full enough historical record to say all of them were prior believers. We know that Joseph Sr., Hyrum, and Samuel were already effectively Mormons, as was John Whitmer. But we don't know for sure about Christian, Jacob, and Peter Whitmer, or Hiram Page. So I think we should say that all the witnesses were Smith's sympathetic associates--which is true--rather than believers (which is possibly true, but we don't know for sure). COGDEN 08:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point.--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This much I can tell you. Most of the translation work was done in the Whitmer home, according to most sources. Several historians recount the aid that the Whitmer family gave to Smith. It is plainly evident therefrom that the Whitmer's definitely believed in the divine role of Joseph Smith and the work he said he'd been divinely appointed to do. I can get specific citations to prove this, but it may take a while. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I find it rather worrying that there are no 'controversy' sections anywhere on Mormon pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daithi81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's primarily because so-called "controversies" are in general either a product of the minds of those who make them up or else there is no verifiable source for them. Now, even though I am a "Mormon," I want to say clearly that I would have absolutely NO objection to the inclusion of such "controversy" sections in "Mormon" articles PROVIDED that the source from whence they came is cited, and provided that a counter-source stating the "Mormons" official view on the issue is also included. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This section (And perhaps the whole article.) needs to be sanitized of the word "Mormons." Mormons are not the only believers in TBOM. BOMC (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That depends entirely on what your definition of "Mormons" is. In general, that term seems to be employed in connection with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. However, in WP context, the term as coined here seems to refer to ALL denominations/sects that came about as a result of Smith's work. While it is a nickname that under most conventional rules should not be applied, it is nevertheless appropriate for use here according to WP conventions. At least, that's my opinion. Thoughts? --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The well advertised PBS program "The Mormons" was entirely about the LDS Church. The WP acknowledges the close association, which is why it must be removed from the article. Community of Christ and Church of Christ members do not claim the title though they believe in TBOM. BOMC (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A TV program with a nickname that pertained to ONE PART of the Latter Day Saint movement is hardly justification for removing the epithet "Mormon" in connection with the other churches in the Latter Day Saint movement. The fact is that before the groups splintered, it was all one church whose members were referred to by the populace at large as "Mormons." When Young's group (now the LDS Church) left Nauvoo in 1846, they didn't take the nickname "Mormons" with them. While the world at large may only view LDS adherents as "Mormons," the plain, untarnished truth is that FOR WP PURPOSES, the epithet "Mormons" applies to ALL churches that are considered part of the Latter Day Saint movement.

This subject matter is probably, it seems, un-featureable

It looks like this article is of the type of subject matter that is inherently unfeatureable. The main problem that Marskell eventually accepted in removing featured status was the fact that the article uses the word "said" too many times. As we all know who have been working on this article, however, removing any of the "saids" introduces NPOV problems, which is far worse than any perceived stylistic problem with the word "said". So it's a catch-22. This is a bit of a problem for articles such as this, and others such as Noah's Ark and Xenu where nothing is known other than what people said, and there can be no modern "scientific analyses" of the subject matter. This has to be an embarrasment to Wikipedia, after the article (even minus the great improvements we've added over the last few weeks) was featured on the front page.

Well, the article is what it is, and whether or not it is featured does not, ultimately, detract from the high quality of work that everybody has put into this article. I think this is still a good model article for articles where there is no hard scientific evidence, and where every single point is heavily controverted. COGDEN 21:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad. Maybe Wikipedia needs a policy that says that the reader can imply that something unknowable can be written about in a style that implies it is knowable. Bytebear (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate all the work you've put into this article, COGDEN, and I'm sure it's frustrating to have the article lose its featured status on such flimsy grounds. But my own Wikipedia philosophy is that I only need to make sure the facts of an article are accurate and the writing is clear. Sometimes others respond to my work with bouquets and sometimes with tomatoes; but that's their problem not mine. As I said on another talk page recently, "Whether this article is GA-rated or not is comparatively unimportant to me; better that it be B-rated but also accurate and well-written. It is that right now."--John Foxe (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

After some time thinking about it, and with some critical distance, I think there is a way forward. We need to forget about length limitations for now, and just edit until at some point, we can just split off a few sub-articles. This article is the bare minimum length, I think, that is required to be comprehensive of all the important relevant facts on the topic. But it is also about as large as we can make a single article--which was the dilemma. If we forget about length, for now, we can introduce all the extra secondary, derivative, and double-derivative information that some of the vocal critics of our stick-with-the-facts approach consider to be so essential. I don't think this derivative information is necessarily bad, it's just the commentary about the facts just wasn't as important as the facts themselves, and both the facts and the derivative and double-derivative commentary about the facts could not possibly fit within a single article. COGDEN 22:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Joseph Smith translating

Thanks to John Foxe for the drawing of Joseph Smith translating. I've been looking for a public domain image of this, and had considered drawing one myself, but this is great, and among the most historically accurate, down to the white color of the top hat. COGDEN 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for it. There were various methods of translation and this is but one method described by a third party and not by Smith himself. The reasons I don't care for it are 1) the quality of the picture, 2) similar illustrations are only used in anti-Mormon literature, 3) it makes readers think Joseph Smith did all of his translations by this single method, which is not reflective of known history. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 03:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Smith's method of translating the plates by peering into his hat was witnessed by his wife, Martin Harris, David Whitmer, Michael Morse, and Issac Hale--about as good a cross-section of testimony as we're going to get for anything in the early history of the Church. But it would also be great to have a contrasting LDS picture showing Smith knitting his brows while studying the plates or sitting across from Cowdery with the plates in plain view, so long as the source for these pictures is appropriately documented.--John Foxe (talk) 10:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In your kind description of the process you forgot to mention sitting in a lotus position, hands outstretched with the all-seeing eye on his forehead. Your neutrality is always a pleasure to see even in your forgetfulness. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 14:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking of these images specifically: beautifully drawn, straight from the Church, and based on no evidence whatsoever.--John Foxe (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If it has no basis in the historical record, it shouldn't be in this article. Really, other than the method using the hat, the only other translation method with an arguable historical basis is one of the three descriptions given by William Smith (the other two being, once again, the stone-in-the hat method), as well as the third-hand account of Fayette Lapham: Joseph looking at the plates through the Urim and Thummim--or at least one of the crystals on the Urim and Thummim, since they were made for a giant, while, at least according to William, wearing the breasplate and holding the plates. If anybody can find an image of that, we can include that one too, but not the fanciful ones like Smith reading the plates like a book, etc. The only other variation in historical recountings of the translation method have to do with whether Smith put the chocolate stone in the hat, or whether he put the crystal spectacles in the hat, or both.

I don't think fact that anti-Mormons use similar images is relevant. An image like this has been published in Dialogue, as well, by Mormon writers, and I don't think most Mormon scholars have a problem with the fact that this is how essentially everybody, including Smith's loving wife, brother, most trusted old friend (Joseph Knight, Sr.) and two of the Three Witnesses, said he translated. I don't think this is a real controversy within the field. COGDEN 23:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd statement on the artifact.

The statement

Although the Book of Mormon is generally accepted by adherents as a sacred text, not all Latter Day Saints view the plates as an ancient, physical artifact engraved by ancient prophets.

seems extremely strange to an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Is there any reference of this as church doctrine? It is a basic tenant of the church that the plates are very real. I would say that any Latter Day Saint that is in good standing with the church would definitely affirm that the plates were very real. In 30 years of church membership in many places in the world I have NEVER seen this viewpoint espoused by any member of the church.

The following is from footnote 6:

"In the early 20th century, B. H. Roberts, historian for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), entertained the notion that Joseph Smith was capable of producing the Book of Mormon himself. In 1999, Richard N. Ostling,a religion journalist, wrote that within "the loyal Mormon community, there is a moderate intellectual group that believes the Book of Mormon does have ancient roots but, as part of the process of revelation properly understood, is expressed through nineteenth-century thought processes....an ancient text mediated through the mind of Joseph Smith" (Osling 1999, 264). At the 2007 Community of Christ World Conference, President Stephen M. Veazey ruled a resolution to "reaffirm the Book of Mormon as a divinely inspired record" out of order. In so doing he stated that "while the Church affirms the Book of Mormon as scripture, and makes it available for study and use in various languages, we do not attempt to mandate the degree of belief or use. This position is in keeping with our longstanding tradition that belief in the Book of Mormon is not to be used as a test of fellowship or membership in the church." Andrew M. Shields, "Official Minutes of Business Session, Wednesday March 28, 2007," in 2007 World Conference Thursday Bulletin, March 29, 2007. Community of Christ, 2007.

Besides, the fact that a religious position is not publicly espoused does not mean that it isn't privately held. What churches declare and what members believe are two different things.--John Foxe (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Then instead of claiming the ambiguous "some" believe should we not be clear and identify those who have specifically stated such positions? The CofC is a group unto itself and should be identified for their position. As we have stated before we can easily support what churches teach, but not what groups believe. Let's just document the reality rather than attempt to lead readers to a position that may or may not be accurate. --^StormRider 23:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Rkeene0517 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Your statement is correct, but the part

there is a moderate intellectual group that believes the Book of Mormon does have ancient roots but, as part of the process of revelation properly understood, is expressed through nineteenth-century thought processes....an ancient text mediated through the mind of Joseph Smith

Still does not indicate that there never was a physical artifact. It simply states that the translation was mediate through the mind of Joseph Smith.

The statement that some members believe the Book of Mormon was not a physical artifact is factually untrue and is neither church doctrine nor is an opinion held by any significant part of the membership of the church.

You can declare such to be the case, but proving it would be difficult.--John Foxe (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Finding the plates

The first sentence of this section is very confusing and redundant, but I am not knowledgeable on the subject and I don't want to mess anything up. Hopefully someone who knows what they're doing can fix it up =] M00npirate (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That sentence had obviously been heavily wounded on the battlefield of some forgotten edit war. It's been resuscitated and sent back into action.--John Foxe (talk) 09:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 76

Footnote 76, which references page 101 of the book by Lucy Smith, seems to be wrong. At least, I don't see anything in the source that speaks of the sentence attached to the footnote. - Aaronshaf (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. I was confused about the differences between this and this. - Aaronshaf (talk) 07:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Quality of Sources

I'm not sure about how good it is to use some of the sources cited in this article. For example, Jan Shipps is a noted critic of the LDS church, and her books could considered a biased source. Thus, direct comments from these books would need especially tight scrutiny to make sure that they were 1) Not taken out of context 2) Not the authors personal opinion 3) Based on verifiable fact 4) Not a distortion or exaggeration of historical accounts. If someone could actually start checking these sources on a case-by-case basis, that would be excellent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jan Shipps is one of the better sources available. I am not sure she would be considered a critic in the vein of an anti-Mormon; she is not. I do agree with some of your recommendations. All quotes or references should be verified by other editors and we do attempt to do this. However, the first rule for serious editors is not to wait for others to do it when "I" can do it. Expert opinion is what we are seeking; an expert's opinion is what is most desired and fits Wikipedia policies. The exaggeration of historical fact is not really found within reputable references. For example, the Tanners, though very good at some things, have a tendency to exaggerate other things. They would not be considered as reputable a resource as Shipps. Please lend a hand and begin to check all references where you can. A library is a great place to start or begin to purchase some of the references; it is a great way to expand your personal library. Cheers. --^StormRider 03:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

"All books of faith"

--66.142.56.149 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC) I removed the generalization about books of faith. ("As with all books of faith, assertions of their existence or authenticity remain a matter of religious faith") I may be wrong, but I think it's an unnecessary statement, and one that would require a citation to a source that covered "all books of faith," rather than just this particular one.

First of all, the article isn't about all books of faith, just the claimed source for one book of faith. The only good reason I can think of off the top of my head for including a statement such as this would be to give context to the concept of asserting or believing such things on faith. It could seem a bit strange to single out this particular text as requiring faith in its existence without connecting this instance with the larger practice of believing religious texts on faith. However, a statement that I subjectively interpreted as "all books of faith are empirically unverified, and all belief in the origin of such books is a matter of faith" does not accomplish this goal. Maybe my interpretation was wrong.

If by "books of faith" it meant books that claim divine inspiration and authority, then it needs to be clarified as such. As it was, it implied that no religious books have verifiable source materials, which I believe (based on pure assumption) is wrong.

Well, let's think about this logically. When dicussing the topic books of faith, what books come to mind. Old Testament, New Testament, Bhagavad Gita, Qur'an, writings of Bahá'u'lláh, and finally Book of Mormon. Do you have any evidence that any of these books do not require faith to believe? Or, are you saying that anyone who reads them automatically believes them? This seems a little bit like swallowing camels and choking on gnats like my old Muslim friend says. Exactly what do you think is meant by the statement "books of faith"? Do you have an example where any book of faith does not demand or present that it is not of divine origin?--^StormRider 20:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look it again, this sentence sounds strange. The authenticity of the Bible, the Qur'an, Book of Mormon, etc. may be doubted but not their existence. The golden plates are another matter, more like the original Ten Commandments written on stone by the hand of God.--John Foxe (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)