Jump to content

Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Early Linguistic Inquiry on Language Development

Descartes, I reverted all your changes made in this section. Here is why:

1. You erased well-document facts with 12 citations.

2. If you really believed that this article is about current research on linguistics and the Book of Mormon, why are you so intent on putting in a long quote from over 85 years ago?

3. Do you seriously think that it is of no relevance whether the author believed what you quote him as saying? It is crucial to know that when he was identified these issues he was citing arguments that he specifically disclaimed as his own opinions. These were arguments that he said needed answers. Don’t you want your reader to know that?

4. You want to delete the statement where Roberts makes clear his own beliefs in the Book of Mormon are not affected by his questions. If you are going to identify him as a general authority and quote a phrase that without explanation would make the reader think he did not accept the Book of Mormon as a valid history, then you need to let the reader also see the quote about his beliefs. How can you assert this is irrelevant?

5. Do you seriously believe it is of no relevance that the author never intended to publish the quote that you want to insert? That is a crucial fact to accurately evaluate the quote.

6. He did not have the answer to his question, but later researchers do. Why are you so intent on minimizing the current research that answers Robert’s question? You want to devote five times as many words to describe an 85-year-old quote from an author who disclaimed it as his own opinion and who never wrote it for publication, as to current scholars dealing with the same issue.

7. Your description of modern research is worded to minimize the relevance of what the scholars say.

Nayatwa (talk) 03:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to revert your revert - my edits were carefully thought out, and I believe they will stand up to scrutiny beyond your own - no offense intended. Perhaps we can get a third party to opine? I will make a request. Here are some specific responses to your 7 points above:
  1. I only erased facts and citations that are irrelevant to the subject at hand.
  2. Though old, the quote from B.H. Roberts still represents the current thought of Linguists on the matter - and it concisely and accurately describes the facts of the matter - why are you so intent on removing it? Perhaps if we got a more modern cite from a Linguist? That might be nice to back up the quote, but B.H. Roberts quote is special since it was made in the context of Mormonism, whereas most other Linguists (outside apologists at FARMS) have never opined on the Book of Mormon.
  3. B.H. Roberts testimony has nothing to do with Linguistics in the Book of Mormon. His summary of the research was well done, and does not deserve the disclaimer that you inserted which distracts readers from the facts. The quote says nothing about whether he thinks the BOM is true - it only talks in cold hard facts. Again, his testimony is completely irrelevant.
  4. Again, the quote does not say whether he thinks it was true or not - it just deals in cold hard facts. You can believe the Book is inspired without believing that it is linguistically sound.
  5. Again - I don't see your logic one bit here - it was published end of story. Whether it was intended to be published has no relevance as to what is said in the book. If people want background on the book, they can follow the link to that article. In this article we deal with Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, not controversy regarding B.H. Roberts.
  6. First, lets be clear - the "researchers" you cited are all apologists from FARMS. Second, their thoughts are as valid as anyone's - I am happy to come to a consensus on what should be included as far as this goes. However, in a large article like this one, we need to be razor sharp in the scope of our comments, and keep things concise as we can so the reader does not have to wade through the ins and outs of all of the research. I think a few sentences are just fine to convey what apologists think in this section.
  7. Not sure what your are saying here - can you be more explicit?
--Descartes1979 (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


I suppose I could revert you back. Why do you claim ownership of this paragraph? I suggest you leave it where I had made my well-thought changes, instead of just rejecting them wholesale. I may just revert you back—I think my summary is more balanced and accurate than yours.

Reply to your comments:

1. Irrelevance is in the eye of the beholder. I think it is crucial to understand what Roberts is saying.

2. Actually, no modern linguist contests the first and second sentences in Robert’s quote—that there are a large number of disparate languages in America. Modern linguists would indeed contest the third sentence. Strong connections have been demonstrated between Uto-Aztecan and Hebrew. Modern scholars also contest the assumption in the fourth sentence—that the Book of Mormon “represents the people of American as speaking and writing one language down to as late a period as 400 AD—as mistaken. So why do you find this quote so enticing? I submit simply because he was a general authority. If that is the reason, then it is extremely relevant to include the additional information about his motives for making the statement and his opinion about it. Your last sentence in your justification 2 is meaningless: “B.H. Roberts quote is special since it was made in the context of Mormonism, whereas most other Linguists (outside apologists at FARMS) have never opined on the Book of Mormon.” What do you mean “outside apologists at FARMS” have never opined on the Book of Mormon? If you find it significant that Robert’s “opined on the Book of Mormon” why do you keep deleting what his opinion truly was?

3. Just because you want to believe Robert’s testimony and opinion have nothing to do with his statement, Roberts disagreed with you. Is your opinion of more weight than his own as to what is and is not relevant?

4. His commentary on his belief in the Book of Mormon is a commentary on his belief in the importance of the issue—how is this not relevant—especially when the reason you claim this is important is because his comment is made in the “context of Mormonism.” You want to include this without Robert’s cautionary statements, because you want the casual reader to believe Roberts thought these issues negated the veracity of the Book of Mormon. This is misleading.

5. How can you argue in good faith that whether an author intended to publish a comment is irrelevant? His intent not to publish the comment indicates that he was not really committed to the quotation you strive to lay on him.

6. You always seem to use “apologists from FARMS” as a pejorative. What you really mean is these scholars don’t agree with you. The quality of their training and of their research far surpasses the research of critics that you are so inclined to honor.

7. Yes, look at all your weasel words in your description of modern research: “Apologists from FARMS”—don’t these people have names? Didn’t they each write separate articles with separate arguments? Are these less worthy of mention than an 85-year old quote from Roberts? “claim that the linguistic evidence is not *necessarily* in contradiction with the Book of Mormon" (implying that these people are not quite convinced of their own positions); You refer to the “Limited Geography Model” as if one has to believe in that to believe that there were other peoples in the Americas. Although the concepts are related, they are not identical. “then it is possible”—more hems and haws in your summary of modern research.

Nayatwa (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - Time out dude. Lets establish a few basic things we agree on before we keep going back and forth on this. I am going to propose a short list of items - and you let me know if you agree with them:
  1. The scope of this article should be focused on linguistic studies regarding the Book of Mormon. No more, no less.
  2. In accordance with WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABLE - current research by independent linguists are preferable above other research.
  3. FARMS is an LDS apologist organization, and FARMS scholars, while they have valuable insight, are not independent.
  4. The opinions of critics and apologists should both be qualified as such ("apologist x stated...", or "critic y stated..."), and should have juxtaposing rebuttals from each other in an attempt to achieve NPOV.

Do you agree with the statements I listed above? (If so we can move on to the next set of statements, if not, then we may have a more fundamental disagreement.) --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

1. I agree the scope of this article should focus on linguistic studies regarding the Book of Mormon. The problem with your “no more, no less” statement is that you want to be the arbiter of where that line is drawn. No topic in any area is easily circumscribed with clear cut boundaries of what is in and out. You have a tendency to declare something out of bounds when it clearly is not, by my reckoning. Any court of law, for instance, would allow testimony about whether a person made a statement as his own belief or simply to reflect an issue about which he was interested. You keep trying to exclude such evidence about B.H. Roberts’s statement.

2. No, I cannot agree with a blanket statement that current research by independent linguists is preferable to other research (even though B.J. Robert’s quote doesn’t pass the “current” filter!) Independence is a rare commodity. Pretty much anybody that has an interest in the Book or Mormon (or any other topic for that matter) has a vested interest in one point of view or another. Sounds to me like you are trying to import a concept from public accounting ethics into intellectual discussion—it doesn’t work. I would agree that independence is nice for auditors, but even there, I have never seen a truly independent one. I would say well documented and well-reasoned inquiry is preferable to other research.

3 & 4. Why do you feel the need to divide the world into two groups, apologists and critics? Why not call people by their name, report what they say, and let the reader decide whether he agrees? I admit that in this area one usually wants to know the bias of the researcher. However, you seem to think that anyone who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is disqualified from serious consideration and anyone who does not believe in the historicity is “independent,” “mainstream” and somehow free from bias. ‘Taint so.

Nayatwa (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Responses -
  1. I am not claiming to be the arbiter of where the line is drawn - we can work together to come to a consensus on this.
  2. You are really saying that current research by independent linguists is not preferable? What exactly would be preferable? This point is a central tenet of WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV - if you can't agree with me on this point, then we may be at an inpass - and with respect, I think you should review Wikipedia guidelines on this point.
  3. The only reason why I made this point is because I think we both agree that most people who have spoken on the subject come at it with either a critical POV or an apologetic POV. I agree with you that independence is a rare commodity. Also, I have never said that "anyone who believes in the historicity of the Book of Mormon is disqualified from serious consideration". The article would be incomplete without both sides of the story. Please don't put words in my mouth that were never there.
--Descartes1979 (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no connection between Hebrew and any Mesoamerican languages. This clearly falls under WP:FRINGE. Very few—if any—real independent (key!) linguists believe this.
But to the larger point going on here, Descartes1979 is exactly right. WP:RELIABLE and WP:NPOV are the key policies here, and I would hope we can all come to an agreement based on those. --Makaristos (talk) 05:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

POV tag added

I added a POV tag. To get it removed, the article needs to come up to Wikipedia neutrality standards. Specifically:

  • Need better balance between mainstream scholarship vs. LDS scholarship views (at the moment, latter is too heavy)
  • Needs an explicit discussion of how/why linguistics is important: namely, because it could provide strong evidence that J. Smith did or did not fabricate the BoM
  • Needs to disclose that all the cited scholars that support the divine origin of the BoM are LDS-funded.
  • A named section outlining the views of mainstream scholars on this topic
  • Needs more explicit discussion of linguistic aspects of the BoM that suggest that it was written by mortal, not divine sources
  • Needs more explanation of _why_ certain linguistic analyses are significant. Exergasia, etc are simply discussed with no explanation of why it is significant. Gives the appearance of legitimacy by overwhelming the reader with lots of big words.
  • Although there is already an article on BoM and KJV, there needs to be a paragraph or 2 in _this_ article summarizing the issues of why the KJV stuff is used by skeptics to argue that the BoM was not divinely inspired.
Noleander (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean whether the scholars that support the divine origin are LDS-funded? Not that they are. In a topic of such interest to all sorts of individuals, it would seem implausible to presume as a default that all viewpoints that would agree in such a way would be through research funded by the church. It almost smacks of conspiracy theory. True, from a NPOV, this article perhaps needs balance. But to presume what you have just said would be a strong imbalance, and it would be on the burden of the editor making such a claim to provide sources for each scholar that state whether or not their research is LDS-funded. - Gilgamesh (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
One small NPOV item, "mainstream scholars" in the lead paragraph needs to either be cited or changed to "non-LDS scholars." Many LDS scholars are also "mainstream" unless you are going to provide a qualifying standard for "mainstream." If you are not going to define "mainstream" then there should be a citation for "mainstream scholars" from among non-LDS scholars that shows this lack of support mentioned. For balance, those non-LDS scholars cited should have at least similar credentials in Egyptology, Mesoamerican archeology, linguistics, etc. as their LDS counterparts. As it now stands "mainstream" in the context of this article (and your note) meets the criteria for a weasel word Jbh001 (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


I would tend to agree with the opinion that most scholars on this subject have a biased point of view. The Book of Mormon, much like the key religious text of any major religion, is a pretty touchy subject. Not many scholars are going to investigate a topic like this unless they are seeking to either prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. There's no money in it (although I wish the NIH, etc. would start giving out checks for things like this; it would make my job more fun). But, if the research they do is valid, on either side, it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.102 (talk) 08:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know who removed the POV tag from this article, but as it stands it is still very biased in places. There are unreferenced comments, apparent violations of WP:Syn, and things that look like WP:OR (but may not be). The use of quotes needs to be examined. A summary of a research problem with a POV quote that could have been easily summarized with fewer words is a tactic useful for violations of WP:UNDUE. I don't see any discussion on this page of why the POV statement was removed. At Book of Mormon we had a discussion before it was removed. (Taivo (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

Plagiarized material - looks like copyright violation

I've just removed a large amount of material plagiarized from [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. At most, a few words were moved around or inserted, but most of the time not even that. Sheesh. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is pure anti-mormon bias, this is no plagiarism, we just need sources because wikipedia does not consider original research.84.146.201.29 (talk) 18:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I think the idea here is that you are quoting things word for word without giving the credit. If you can include quotes and summarize what you are referencing, then it would be more acceptable. --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You also have to realize that a lot of the research by FARMS and the Maxwell Institute are disputed by mainstream scholars. As such, when you quote them (IMO), you should preface it by saying: "FARMS asserts that..." or "Mormon Apologists say...". I also don't buy your idea that this article is "pure anti-mormon bias". --Descartes1979 (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You lifted entire chunks of texts from these websites and dumped them in the article with minimal editing. Of course it's plagiarism. Also, even if you did rewrite the passages, they wouldn't be notable enough for reinsertion. Currently, the article checks things that have been widely discussed and debated, like chiasmus and wordprint analysis. That's notable. If you want to add a link to the book as a source, that's fine (it may even already be in there; I haven't checked), but this is not the place to list every single argument one author comes up with. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My proposal is that I add the "Mormon Apologists say..." quote and put all statements in the quote format.84.146.206.45 (talk) 13:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Which still doesn't make any of this notable. Both Pinnock and Parry are in the notes and references sections already. We don't have to quote large amounts of their books. Just focus on the big issues, and leave the minutiae for the ones wanting to learn more on their own. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The material should not have been removed, but simply properly tagged. If you feel it was copied, then rephrase it in a NPOV way. Bytebear (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I didn't "feel" it was copied, it was copied, as anyone could check. I'm not going to let plagiarized material remain in the article until someone decides to rewrite. Anyway, I stand by my claim that this is not notable. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Normally changing a section heading is a no-no, but as the first link I hit said copyright, it's vital to make it clear that copyright violations will not be allowed. dougweller (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Non scholarly source?

I don't believe that this is a valid source - it appears to be a personal website. We can't cite Wikipedia articles using things that we get from "the creator of one website..."

The creator of one website identified chiasmus and parallelism in nearly every section of the D&C from section 1 to section 41." cited to http://www.donwinegar.com. Bochica (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of Facts, introduction of anti-LDS POV

What this merger has amounted to is the suppression of several facts and their sources, and their replacement with a plethora of polemical arguments with a strong anti-LDS Point of View. The arguments furthermore do not make sense. What does it mean, "the possibility of a unity of religious thought"? Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What facts have we suppressed Das? The sourced article from Dialogue is an independent and well documented scholarly article, perhaps you should read it if you don't know what a "unity of religious thought" means. I think it adds a great deal of balance to the information, rather than portraying Nibley's claims as facts themselves, when in reality they are his opinions. There are no facts that were suppressed - if there are let me know what they are, and we can get them into the article. I guess what I am saying is that I couldn't disagree with you more Das - the merger was a good move, supported by several very pro-LDS people, and I don't see the anti-LDS POV that you are alluding to - the relevant sections appear very NPOV to me. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, they appear very anti-LDS to me. The worst thing, however, is that so many facts have been suppressed.Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again I ask, what facts? There are no facts, they are all opinions. --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Nibley's Sources

Sources for Egyptian Names in Nibley's Lehi in the Desert.

  • Die Agyptischen Personnennamen, Hermann Ranke, 1935. Gluckstadt; Augustin.
  • Dictionnaire de noms hieroglyphiques, Jens D. C. Lieblein, 1871. Crhistiania; Broger and Christie.
  • The Amarna Letters.

Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I stated before, I am challenging the information from these sources - can you give us some quotes and page numbers? --Descartes1979 (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
You may want to challenge this article as well, then: Haman (Islam) --TrustTruth (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
No TrustTruth - what I am challenging is that Nibley said that the Egyptian name pairs were exact matches, something that Das keeps claiming, but can't seem to provide a reference other than the name of Nibley's book. I have no beef with Hermann Ranke. Per WP guidelines a page number or quotation is appropriate in this case. Frankly, I don't believe that Nibley is claiming that, but I can't check the reference because he won't give one. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't going to Nibley's book clear up the confusion then? Wouldn't anything else be original research? --TrustTruth (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
EXACTLY. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Neither I nor Dr. Nibley ever said that all the names are exact matches, only that a few of them are. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian Names Merge Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was Merge with one dissenter. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I propose we merge Egyptian Names in the Book of Mormon with the Egyptian names section of this article. They are treating exactly the same topic.

This is a very important matter, and to merge it diminishes it. It is a disservice to knowledge and to scholarship to shorten the list. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To want to go from an extensive treatment to just "a few examples" seems to me very wrong and the very opposite of useful. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge - Mild support. The list can be shortened, but it should be kept for those names that a layman would recognize as similar. The current Egyptian article does not yet have enough information to merit a separate article. However, if it can be properly expanded, then it should have its own article in the future.--Storm Rider (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears we aren't getting a ton of interest in this subject, but there is a clear leaning towards "merge", with one dissenting opinion. Since the merge votes are coming from a cross section of users with backgrounds inside and outside of Mormonism, I am considering the one dissenting opinion as an anomaly, and will start the merge this weekend according to the agreed upon guidelines. If there are still strong dissenters, please let me know and please give a reason why they shouldn't be merged. --Descartes1979 (talk) 05:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Linguistics used as criticism

If I remember correctly, B. H. Roberts found several problems with the Book of Mormon on linguistic grounds that he detailed in Studies of the Book of Mormon. Also, Richard Packham, the noted linguist and critic of the church wrote a lengthy article detailing the linguistic problems with the Book of Mormon at this website: http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm. Both are notable enough that I think they should be included in this article - I will try to work on these little by little as I get time, but would appreciate some help. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, Descartes inserted the "Linguistics used as criticism" title soon after making this comment. Whoa! What is this insertion doing at the beginning of this article? It seems to me to be designed as a POV attack against the historicity of the Book of Mormon--kind of like the supposed anti-smoking advertisements that were produced by the cigarette companies.
1. Location makes a difference. Putting this at the beginning indicates that it is one of the most important facts of the discussion. It is far from that.
2. I don't know when Roberts wrote the quoted work, but he died in 1933. This insertion makes it sound like a current writer, not a comment never intended for publication written over 70 years ago, by a believer in the Book of Mormon who was writing what he saw as concerns to be further investigated.
3. The title, when imposed against the text, would lead a reader to assume that Roberts wrote what he wrote as criticism. That was not the purpose of his writing.
4. The whole premise of this anti-historicity dig is that the Book of Mormon asserts that all inhabitants of the Americas were descendants from Lehi. Nowhere does the Book of Mormon say this; to the contrary, various passages indicate exactly the opposite. See, e.g., citations in Note 4 of http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?id=248&table=review . The insertion's sole relevance is based on this false premise; its sole purpose seems to be to promote an anti-historicity POV.
The whole insertion should be deleted as irrelevant and POV. Nayatwa (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

-ihah merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merging to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon - see comment below. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we merge the article -ihah to the section in this article about Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Hebrew names. If you read the -ihah article, the crux of the whole thing is that it is based on the Tetragrammaton. Other than that, and a list of names, there isn't much else in the article. It is doubtful it will ever have any other content in it. A few sentences of summary would be a nice fit here in the Linguistics article.

No response for two weeks, and this seems cut and dried - I going to "be bold" and merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 03:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deleted the use of " purported"

I deleted the use of the word purported from the following section. (It's use is bold and italicized for emphasis).

Critics of the church have claimed that a variety of linguistic anachronisms exist in the Book of Mormon which cast doubt upon its historical authenticity. Linguistic anachronsisms are words or words that represent concepts that are not believed to have existed in the Americas between 2500 B.C. and 400 A.D., or in the Jewish world of Lehi's time - the period of history covered by the narrative of the Book of Mormon. Apologists generally rebut these claims by pointing out that during the purportedItalic text translation of the golden plates, Joseph Smith may have chosen words that he knew that were closest in meaning to the original concept written on the plates, i.e. a "translators anachronism".

I did this for the following reasons:

1. The sentence is detailing the claim of the FARMS apologists. Since they are defending the Book of Mormon as a historical document, the use of the word purported here could be construed as a doubt on their part as to the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

2. The word appears out of place and looks to me as if it was inserted after-the-fact by someone wishing to dispute the translation of the Book of Mormon. Again, the purpose of the sentence is to detail the claims of the FARMS apologists, not to examine whether those claims are true or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic Change

I've eliminated the use of "you" from the following sentence for stylistic and consistency purposes

"Christ" is the English transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated precisely as Christós); it is relatively synonymous with the Hebrew word rendered "Messiah." Both words have the meaning of "anointed," and are used in the Bible to refer to "the Anointed One".[8] In Greek translations of the Old Testament (including the Septuagint), the word "Christ" is used for the Hebrew "Messiah", and in Hebrew translations of the New Testament, the word "Messiah" is used for the Greek "Christ".[9] If you take any passage in the Bible that uses the word "Christ", you can substitute for it the word "Messiah" or "the Messiah" with no change in meaning (e.g. Matthew 1:1, 16, 18). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "idependent journal"

I am deleting the words "independent journal" from the following paragraph.

In the independent journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, one scholar, Douglas F. Salmon, alleged that Mormon scholar's work in drawing parallels between the Book of Mormon and other sources fits this classification.[84] Salmon notes:

for the following reasons:

1. If the journal is truly an independent journal (as most scholarly journals are assumed to be), then the designation of being independent is redundant.

2. If the independence of this journal is in doubt, I don't want to make an assertion of its independence in the wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 09:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Theses and WP:RS

Masters Theses and PhD Dissertations are WP:RS. Scholars treat these as reliable resources in their research. I cite them regularly in my scholarly publications as do all other scholars. If they are good enough for scholars, they're good enough for Wikipedia. They are not just "student papers" without scholarly review. In order to be accepted by the university, they are read and reviewed by a committee of scholars. If it is not of scholarly quality, the thesis or dissertation is not accepted by the committee and the student doesn't graduate. For anyone to suggest that theses and dissertations are not reliable sources is ludicrous. Scholars and specialists accept them as such. (Taivo (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

PhDs, yes. Masters theses, no. I've marked enough to know how bad some of them can be but still manage to pass. I've brought this up at the appropriate forum: [7].
Depending on the topic, these may still be the only source of information. It's important to consider the amount of research that went into a Masters thesis. For example, many Masters theses done in the Linguistics department at the University of Texas at Arlington are the only sources available (in any language) that describe grammatical features of some languages and are based on fieldwork on that language by the student. A Masters thesis that I supervised a couple of years ago for a student at the University of Vienna is the only source available for a sociolinguistic survey of the Deseret alphabet and usage in territorial Utah. It just depends. It is important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. (Taivo (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC))
That it is the only source doesn't make it a reliable source from Wikipedia's standpoint. Our definition of a 'reliable source' is not necessarily that of an academic. And in this specific case, I'd argue that something much more than a masters thesis cited in one LDS journal is needed to back up the claims it references. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Doug, and so to my reading do the good people at the RSN. PhD theses need to be taken on their merits, but Masters theses are not RS and not to be referenced with out very good justification, and I haven't seen a justification here. Verbal chat 19:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, I don't have a problem with removing this thesis, but Doug, please move your discussion from the RSN page to here so that your objections to this thesis are recorded here. You had sound arguments there, but they need to be here. That's what this Talk page is for. I don't understand your comment on the other page that sounded like this was not the appropriate place for your objections. This is precisely the place for it. I reverted the last change only because the conversation and consensus-building was only partially completed at the other discussion. I'm not wedded to that source, but I wanted the issue clarified before just removing it. (Taivo (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC))

Deleting this Article?

I'm looking at this article and it seriously has no place in Wikipedia. The subject matter is utterly trivial. First, there can be no serious linguistic discussion of the BOM because the "original text" (was taken back / never existed), therefore any discussion whatsoever must be entirely based on the English version. That is no discussion at all. 90% of LDS "linguistic studies" consist of discussions of chiasmus (which is not uniquely Hebrew) and different types of sentence connectives which may or may not be reflected in the "original language" and may or may not be an artifact of the deliberate use of Early Modern English "King James" style in Smith's finished work. Second, if we take the "Pro-" position that this is a translation, what is it actually a translation of? It would not be a translation of Biblical Hebrew, it would be a translation of Hebrew as it developed and was spoken in isolation 900 YEARS (550 BCE to 350 CE) after it separated from Biblical Hebrew as a language. In other words, it would not be a translation of any language that we know anything at all about. Living languages do not remain stable over 900 years, they continue to develop and evolve, so that "American Hebrew" would be as different from Pre-Exilic Hebrew as Modern English is from late Old English. Try reading Beowulf in the original language and you will see how much language usually changes over the course of 900 years. Therefore, any comparisons between the English text of the Book of Mormon and Pre-Exilic Hebrew style are completely and totally unreasonable and unscientific. Therefore, I would like to suggest that this article be deleted from Wikipedia. The subject matter is just too narrow and there is no serious linguistic underpinning to it. (Taivo (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC))

I would support taking it to AFD... Reswobslc (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I've nominated this article for deletion (apparently for the second time). The process is rather byzantine, so I hope I did it correctly. Basically, the reasons are twofold: 1) The subject matter is trivial being mainly confined only to discussions by apologists of chiasmus and sentence connectors. No non-LDS scholar has seen fit to waste a moment of time on the issue. 2) The subject matter is completely unverifiable since we have absolutely no evidence for the "original" language and any discussion is completely tied to an alleged English translation that purposely mimics the Early Modern English style of the King James Version of the Bible. (Taivo (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

Peer-Reviewed Study

I reverted the deletion of this paragraph: In a new peer-reviewed study using a traditional authorship method and a new pattern classification technique, several academics at Stanford University concluded that the likely authors of the Book of Mormon were Rigdon, Spalding, and Cowdery.[46]

Obviously the editor who deleted this has a substantial comment on the matter, but the edit summary is not the place to make the comment. Please discuss your reasons here. The edit summary was only partially comprehensible. I tried to click on the link and got an error message, not the article in question. (Taivo (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC))

I just looked up this journal, Journal of Linguistic and Literary Studies, here, and the most recent issue mentioned online is only September 2008, not December. The link in the article is still inactive, but may be to an author's posting that has not yet appeared in the print version of the journal. Any clarification on this? (Taivo (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
[8] was a copy of the journal article itself, which I now realize was likely a copyright violation. The link worked for me when it was first added and I read the study, but it's gone now and I don't have a copy of it.
Essentially, the study study started with the assumption that the Book of Mormon was written by some combination of Oliver Cowdery, Orson Pratt, Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spaulding, Isaiah and Malachi, Joel Barlow, and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. It did not compare the book to the works of anyone outside this group -- it did not even attempt to compare them to the works of Joseph Smith. It then computed chapter-by-chapter the probabilities that each of these authors wrote that chapter (the probabilities added up to 100%), showed that overall Spaulding and Rigdon were the most likely candidates of these seven, and jumped to the conclusion that Spaulding and Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon.
Does that make sense? There are some more discussions of it at [9], [10], [11], and [12]. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks. But rather than eliminating the article completely since the journal is a WP:RS, we should add a sentence that says the methodology employed doesn't consider Smith as one of the possible authors and has therefore been criticized (with refs to the reviews you posted). The study by non-LDS scholars is important here, even though the flaws in the methodology have been pointed out. (Taivo (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
Unfortunately, the blogs that critique the statistical study are not WP:RS (and, unfortunately, none of them are NPOV). But, then again, most of the references in this article would not be considered WP:RS under a strict review. (Taivo (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC))
The study only shows us that out of those seven people, Spaulding, Rigdon, and Cowdery are the most likely to have written the Book of Mormon. It doesn't bring us any closer to proving whether or not the book is authentic in the first place. The failure to include Joseph Smith as a possible author is a relatively small problem compared to the underlying assumption that the Book of Mormon was written in the 1800s. You can't use a study that assumes that the Book of Mormon is a fraud to prove that the Book of Mormon is a fraud. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We can just as easily say the same thing about the LDS studies that have been conducted which assume that the BOM is a translation of an ancient document. All these LDS-sponsored studies start from the assumption that the BOM is a translation. That is the fundamental problem with all these studies--none of them are NPOV, whether pro or con. All of them start with an assumption about the provenance of the BOM and all of them end with that same conclusion. (Taivo (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC))
The other studies don't seem so bad to me because their conclusions don't depend on their assumptions...at any rate I see more than one place in this article where a very weak argument is portrayed as though it were highly compelling. It'd be better to remove all such arguments from the article than to leave them there to mislead. The article seems to be particularly biased in the case of the wordprint study we've been discussing, making it seem like the worst criticism the critics could come up with was failure to include Joseph Smith. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'd be hard-pressed to identify a single source for this article that doesn't reach the conclusion that is part of its initial assumption. But, I agree that a lot of this article makes mountains out of molehills. The legitimate linguistic questions cover about 25% of the article and the rest is arguing over the number of angels on the head of a pin. Questionable scientific methodology and over-generalized conclusions on the part of proponents have been blown up into issues of major importance and an abundance of microscopic nit-picking on the part of critics has obscured and trivialized legitimate linguistic issues. Unfortunately, a very careful examination of each source (both pro and con) using a careful reading of WP:RS would eliminate most of the sources used in this article. Once that is done, I think that there will be a very small handful of "pro" sources and no "con" sources (mainly because mainstream linguists almost totally dismiss the BOM as a work of fiction written by Smith and realize that their promotion and tenure goals are not advanced by spending time researching the topic or rebutting LDS sources). As I have said many times, however, I don't discount the BOM as a work of faith, but only focus on the historical and scientific issues presented therein. Just because Joshua didn't make the sun stand still in reality doesn't diminish my faith in the Bible as a book of faith. As far as the Wordprint study is concerned, I would dismiss it as a non-LDS linguist because it didn't include Smith and other issues are secondary. But the study exists, it was published in a peer-reviewed non-LDS journal, and it meets the criteria of WP:RS. Since it exists and presents a particular POV and set of conclusions on the matter, it needs to be included in this encyclopedia article with a summary of criticisms directed at it (even though we both agree that it is flawed). If the summary I wrote is not sufficient, then expand on it. Personally, I think that the exclusion of Smith is a fundamentally fatal flaw on any study of this type and everything else is totally secondary. (Taivo (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC))
Just my 2 cents here, which is totally original thought - but is it really a fatal flaw if Joseph Smith was not one of the authors included in the study? Not even LDS think he wrote the Book of Mormon, so what is the big deal if he is not in the comparison set? What would be more telling is if God could be one of the authors in the pool for statistical analysis. Then you could settle this once and for all right? But then you have the problem of identifying original writings by God himself....--Descartes1979 (talk) 08:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of people who think that Joseph Smith was the original author of the BOM. I don't really get your point. (Perhaps there is a typo.) Unless your point is that the study's intention was to answer the question, "If Joseph Smith didn't write the BOM, who did? (God doesn't count.)" The question is flawed for two reasons, I think. First, most non-LDS believe that Smith wrote the BOM, so not including him in the pool is a little silly. Second, most LDS believe that the writing style of the BOM was Mormon's (he was the main editor/reviser) or a composite, so including he/them is impossible. To me, it's sort of like asking, "If Thomas Jefferson didn't write the Declaration of Independence, who did?" I took out your editorial comment about Smith's original writings because it wasn't clear whether you were citing the authors' reasons or your own. If your own, then they shouldn't be there. If the authors' then they should be before the reference. (Taivo (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
But in the end, there's a major flaw in using any of these Wordprint methods for the BOM. The greatest usefulness of statistical methodology is taking a document (X) and deciding whether it is more likely to have been written by (Y) or by (Z). You take original writings by (Y) and (Z) and determine which one matches (X) more closely. You cannot use it to answer the question of whether or not (Y) wrote (X) because there is no comparison. Thus, you can't use it to answer the question of whether or not Smith was the author or translator of the BOM because there are no other documents "written by Mormon" to compare it to. (Taivo (talk) 10:33, 8 February 2009 (UTC))
First, my post above was a minor effort to inject some humor into this debate. Second I wholeheartedly agree with Taivo's assessment that stylometry is a bit tenuous as an evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. I added the Stanford study to try and balance out the argument.--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The Stanford study should be included since it is there and it is a WP:RS. Being an encyclopedia doesn't mean that everything has to be "good". It's not available on-line, so I couldn't refer to it myself and had to check. (Taivo (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC))


Proper Names Section

I'm not sure who added the comment to begin with, but I would like to see the information confirming such.

"Critics note that he had access to numerous Hebrew and Greek proper names through his reading of the Bible, and may have lifted other names from people and places that he knew, such as Moroni and Cumorah (both on a map that Smith had access to)[citation needed] and Lemuel (one of Smith's neighbors).[citation needed]"

The part I'm referring to is the part about the map containing the names 'Moroni' and 'Cumorah'. My understanding is that the 'Hill Cumorah' in western New York, was named BY Joseph. That would suggest to me that the map he may/may not have had possession of/access to was created after the fact. I propose that the sentence be re-written, or deleted altogether if there is no evidence of said map. Infero Veritas (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are wrong Infero - I have seen some research somewhere where they identified a whole bunch of Book of Mormon names on local maps that Joseph was familiar with, and I thought Cumorah was one of them. I will dig around and see if I can find the source - perhaps you would like to help me find it? --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot of that information on this webpaper: http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#KINGJAMES. I don't know what his primary sources were. (Taivo (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC))
Descartes1979...I'm willing to take a look at whatever you may find, as well as find my original source for my 'understanding'. I want to make note though that it may be a few days before I am able to reply as we're having a few family health issues that I need to address, which taken precedence over my wiki time. Back to the point...I read that article on the link Taivo provided. There was quite a bit of info there, however hardly any of it was sourced. Which, as we know, if it's un-sourced it's hearsay. My main concern here is not the sentence in question itself, it's the source. If you'll notice in the article Taivo produced, neither Moroni or Cumorah are discussed as far as name recognition goes. Regardless though, the reason I didn't just change it is because I didn't want to go changing stuff without sourcing it. And as a side note, some of the names in that linked article are a stretch to make the comparisons he made (but we're not here to discuss his article :) ). Infero Veritas (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Moroni and Cumorah are discussed in the article. And, yes, there aren't many sources listed. However, the Moroni ~ Cumorah connection really doesn't need a strong source since they would be found on any sufficiently detailed map of the world, even in the 1830s-- Moroni is the capital of the Comoros Islands in the Indian Ocean. They might also have been found in many travelogues, dictionaries, and atlases of that era. (Taivo (talk) 17:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC))
I apologize. I missed the one sentence devoted to Moroni and Cumorah in my first reading. But I want to be clear that I'm not having this conversation to dispute the validity of the names. I brought it up because from what I can tell there aren't any reputable sources for the information. I see that the sentence was updated with reference, however the website for the reference (and pardon my sarcasm) looks like something my 10 year old brother-in-law could make. The whole point of this conversation was to determine if there is in fact a reputable source to make a reference to. The fact that a map was in existence in doesn't mean that that map was in Western New York in 1830. I'm trying my best to keep from ranting on the larger subject of the names in general, so please excuse me if I do. But seriously, can we atleast TRY to find a better source? I have no issues with leaving the sentence there if it's sourced properly. Thanks:) And please refer to my previous post that in about an hour I can't promise I'll respond promptly. Infero Veritas (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Hebraisms

Why was this section removed? I found it on an archive Google search. It looks well documented. 68.5.11.175 (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's the section I think it is, it was trivial and highly POV nit-picking. It was also not linguistically sound. (Taivo (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC))
It was certainly appologetic, but it does come from reputable scholarly sources. Whether you want to counter it with a rebuttal, fine, but it also has to be reputable. Regardless, the content should be presented. Bytebear (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in Wikipedia per WP:NPOV. It is merely argument promoting the Book of Mormon as genuine ancient scripture. The whole notion about "Hebraisms" being in the Book of Mormon is POV to begin with, because most people don't believe the book to be of Hebrew origin. Mainstream consensus in the scientific community is that the BOM has absolutely nothing to do with anything Hebrew. The "reputable scholars" cited are only reputable within the LDS community. Hebraisms being in the BOM is a fringe theory at best, represented plenty well by a short blurb saying so - but the arguments on which specific verses are "Hebraisms" are not welcome here per WP:NPOV, especially when presented as any sort of facts. Reswobslc (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
BTW, in the article's recent AFD, serious POV problems were noted, and plenty of people thought the article was worthy of keeping if and only if the POV issues could be fixed. That means this article's continued existence depends upon REMOVING obvious POV problems, not adding them back. Reswobslc (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
You need to review the NPOV guidelines. NPOV does not mean we don't present apologetic research. It means we present them in a neutral unbiased way. Facts of opinions are still facts. You don't need to present them as facts, but you can say "Mormon scholars have said ..." But you should not supress information that you personally don't agree with. Bytebear (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with this point, as well as, IMHO, with this whole article is that it presents a classic example of a fringe theory--that the BOM is an ancient text. It is relatively easy to find "scholarship" on the apologetic side of the issue, but since the topic isn't worth five minutes of a non-LDS scholar's time it is very difficult to find serious works dedicated to refuting the unsound conclusions of the LDS scholar. The article therefore gives a solid POV impression since the apologetics are found in "serious" journals and monographs, but the critiques are found in works such as the Tanner's. This makes an unbalanced presentation and a highly POV work. On the issue of supposed "Hebraisms" in the BOM, it is especially prevalent since the points that were made by the section were so irrelevant and unscientific as to have no reliable source refuting them. That's the whole problem with this article--it's so fringe that it gives a strong POV stance even when all the critical sources are used to try to offset the strong POV references by LDS scholars. It doesn't count toward tenure and promotion decisions for serious scholars to waste their time refuting marginal fringe religious scholarship. (That was why I nominated this article for deletion.) (Taivo (talk) 13:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC))
The bit of NPOV that is particulary important here is WP:UNDUE. Taivo is absolutely correct in what he says just above, serious academics just aren't going to waste their time on this normally. dougweller (talk) 13:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. --Makaristos (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree with Doug, Tavio et al. Verbal chat 10:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Then this entire article needs to be removed, unless there is some merit to the study of linguistics in the Book of Mormon, and if there are, then you need to include Hebraisms. I understand the issue of "Fringe Theories" but we aren't talking about scientific proof of the Golden plates. The text of the Book of Mormon is real. It does exist, and it can be studied. Because no reputable scholars have refuted claims made by church scholars, does not make the church scholars any less reputable. Take the sources for what they are. They are apologetic, and should be presented as such, Furthermore, The Tanners and other less reputable "scholars" are used throughout Wikipedia. If this is a debate on the quality of the source, then make that your argument, but right now, you are saying because the source is apologetic, the theories become fringe. I disagree on both the quality of the sources, and on the aspect of their research. I just think academia has yet to catch up. There are word print studies both inside and outside believers. Neutrality of sources will be nearly impossible, until academia takes study of the book seriously (but that includes literary studies as well), but the article can present the views in a neutral way. It sounds like you want to scrap the article altogether, but there is enough study to warrant a substantial overview of the topic. I just think it unbalanced to pick and choose what aspects to present based on who's written what about them. Anyway, my nutshell position is this. It isn't a fringe theory if the subject (the text of the Book of Mormon) can be studied by scholars. Just because reputable scholars have not yet refuted the apologetics, does not mean that Hebraisms don't exist in the text. We don't throw out scholarly research, just because you think other scholars would disagree. Instead you find those other scholars. I have heard of a few Hebrew Scholars outside Mormonism, who are translating the text into Hebrew to see how it reads. Perhaps we need to find their research. Bytebear (talk) 18:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
You said: "I just think academia has yet to catch up." That, right there, is the quintessential red flag of a fringe viewpoint. I rest my case. Reswobslc (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
First, I do think that this article should be scrapped because it is not based on sound scholarly research. Second, there are no Hebraisms in the text because the text was written by Joseph Smith and he was imitating the style of the King James Version of the Bible, therefore any "Hebraisms" in the BOM are simply copies of the Hebraisms that are legitimately found in the KJV. Third, it is impossible to have "scholarly treatment" of the underlying text of the BOM because it does not exist and has never been proven to have existed. Fourth, any "scholarly work" done by LDS scholars on this issue is not a scholarly work because it has not been peer-reviewed by neutral scholars. Peer review for articles in the various LDS-funded journals consists of peer review by LDS scholars, not by non-LDS scholars. LDS peers will support any conclusion that backs up the existence of a Hebrew/Reformed Egyptian original for the BOM and will dismiss any conclusion that does not support that conclusion--they know who signs their paychecks--the church-funded Brigham Young University, FARMS, Church Historian's Office, etc. Fifth, scholars outside the church have nothing to "catch up" to. There are no Hebraisms in the BOM other than what is copied from the KJV. Sixth, the "Hebrew" of the BOM (taking the LDS point of view) is unknown because it was not the language of the Ancient Israelite community found in the Bible, but had changed over time (as all languages do and as is even said at one point in the BOM itself). Thus, any research into "Hebraisms" in the BOM is doomed to failure since there is no documentary evidence whatsoever for the kind of "American Hebrew" that would have been spoken in the middle of the first millennium AD. This whole article is based on unreliable sources from a Wikipedia point of view, but enough proponents come out of the woodwork to vote "keep" every time it has been proposed for deletion to keep it here--bad sources and all. (Taivo (talk) 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC))
Everything you said amounts to Original Research, and opinion. But if there is scholarly criticism of Hebraism, they should be presented to counter the LDS position. I agree that this whol article is basd on unreliable sources, but I would also say that a good 70% of Wikipedia is also based on unreliable sources. How may Academic, peer reviewed articles exist on Donkey Kong for example? I am find with scrapping this article, but I would say, if you used the same argument on a great number of Wikipedia articles, you would be shot down. I am sure I could find 20 or so Latter-day Saints who could come and defend my position, and the material would be added. I don't like that process, I would rather find a compromize, and as I said, I am fine with the article being removed. But this just makes me love the ideals of Wikipedia, but hate the pracice and methods of Wikipedians. Bytebear (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You want to present this article as a serious article with "scholarly" sources from the LDS point of view that prove that the BOM is a valid historical document, but then you get angry when I present the scholarly reasons why it cannot be so. You don't know what the original language of the golden plates was (because they are gone/never existed), so how can you use Biblical Hebrew as a comparison? The text itself says that the language had changed from the days of Lehi, but LDS scholars use circular logic: "1) We'll assume that the writers used Biblical Hebrew because we don't know what their language was really like; 2) we'll look for Biblical Hebrew elements in the English text; 3) ah, we found things that could be Biblical Hebrew; 4) we'll ignore the fact that these things are not exclusively found in Biblical Hebrew; 5) we've proved that the BOM was translated from Biblical Hebrew!" (Taivo (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
I don't think it's about proof, but it is about theory and evidence, which is all you can ask on religious matters. LDS scholars aren't discussing the Golden Plates, or even Reformed Egyptian, but they are trying to show that it has textual patterns that Smith would not have known to use, had he written it. I am not angry at you. I think your points are valid, but I am saying that the nature of Wikipedia (in a practical sense) leans toward inclusion of such material, presented in a neutral way, rather than flat out exclusion. I think you can present the LDS theories in a neutral way. Even if it's presenting the fact that some LDS scholars believe these theories. You aren't presenting the theories directly, but presenting the position of (some) Mormons. Bytebear (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
It's fine for inclusion, but as a fringe viewpoint, only as a brief mention. It's already briefly mentioned. The article already makes it clear that LDS "scholars" think there is evidence of ancient origin in the BOM. To make this article chiefly to hash them out, one by one, would be to give it undue weight and is against the admonition of the people who voted Keep. The idea that BOM is genuine scripture or that it has actual Hebrew connection is April Fools matter at best to over 99.8% of the world population. Reswobslc (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I could make basically the same argument about textual evidences of the Koran, the Bible, or the Book of the Great Pumpkin (Charlie Brown :) ). The point that I think Bytebear is trying to make is that, since this article exist (and maybe it shouldn't), you have to present both sides equally. The "fringe research" argument you made could be made for the entire article itself: it either represents a "fringe" effort by Mormon scholars to scientifically prove the Book of Mormon, or it represents a "fringe" effort by non (and usually anti) Mormon scholars to disprove the Book of Mormon scientifically. But, if the Wikipedia community wants to breach the subject (and why not, since they have articles on the origin of "pwned") we might as well throw the kitchen sink as it, so to speak. If someone has a claim and they can support that claim with a quote from a "scholar", throw it in, I say!!! Jjc16 (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's cut it in half

As many have suggested in the discussion pages, but as far as I can see no one has outright said, this article is a clear example of a coatrack (see Wikipedia:Coatrack). If not an explicit coatrack, it is definitely a long debate between those using linguistic evidence to support the validly of the Book of Mormon, and those using it to discredit to book, which is not really the purpose of Wikipedia. Much of the text is in the style of a college essay discussing the different sides, rather than an encyclopedic article it is supposed to be. Yet discussions like this in the talk page like this lead me to believe it is an outright coatrack:

“How is criticism of a topic encyclopedic, but support is not? Let's be reasoned about this. If you have issues with the article, make (npov) changes. Why is it so scandalous that a study could verify claims in favor of the Book of Mormon? No where does it states the study confirms the truthfulness of the book. There is a group of people who religiously claim a link between autism and vaccinations. Surely a study verifying claims in favor of these people could be cited in an article about autism, even though the vast majority of scientists agree there is no link. There is no need to censor information that may support the veracity of the Book of Mormon. Let's play fair. --TrustTruth 00:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)”

and

“The article Linguistics and the Book of Mormon is not supposed to be a "support" article for the Book of Mormon, particularly with that title. There are two sides to that topic - critics have just as many reasons why linguistics prove the BoM false, none of which are given any weight in that article. Now, if the article were titled something that made it sound like a Book-of-Mormon-support article (just like how Criticism of Mormonism is obviously a critical article), and it stopped narrating conclusions without attributing them, and stopped making arguments instead of describing them, then we're playing "fair". Then whether such an article is encyclopedic is another matter that I'm afraid you and I are too involved to decide (let the community do it). Reswobslc 01:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)”

The article is clearly not neutral, and clearly has partisan language:

“The vast majority of linguistic evidence cited for the Book of Mormon is only creditable within a Latter-day Saint context, as it depends almost entirely on the opinions of LDS researchers, and past and present LDS leaders, rather than the scientific community at large. Outside the LDS community, the Book of Mormon is widely viewed to be the work of Joseph Smith, Jr., and the linguistic evidence offered to mostly be conjecture, hypothesis, and folklore.”

On both sides of the aisle:

“Examples of chiasmus can be found in the Book of Mormon. Some have argued chiasmus is evidence of the text's historical authenticity, suggesting it reflects the Semitic background of Nephi and other authors of the Book of Mormon. They claim that such findings support claims of Hebrew origins in the text on the basis that chiasmus is often found in Hebrew texts such as the Bible.”

And there are elements that seem to be wholly unnecessary or don’t appear to be belong at all:

“The fundamental problem with any linguistic discussion of the Book of Mormon is that the "original text" does not exist. For adherents, that means that linguistic discussions are based solely upon what they believe to be an English translation from another language--there is no access to the original language, and not even complete unanimity of opinion as to the exact nature of that language.”

It has been put up for deletion a few times so obviously that’s not the way to go. I considered attempting to rewrite it, but that is a daunting task indeed and I am sure it would just incite another edit war. What really needs to happen here is a bunch of material needs to be cut (it’s way too specific and contains way too many nitpicky examples for an encyclopedia article). This should be a review of the literature, not an argument. And it is far too long for the purposes of Wikipedia anyway (it’s as long as the article for the Book of Mormon itself…). And most (dare I say all) of the sources are used to show what different people have argued, rather than what the scientific community has determined in consensus, or what they can agree upon. I propose that someone goes through and clears up all of the unnecessary baggage (especially the ‘apologists say’ and ‘critics respond’ incessant repetition). Let’s be civil and agree on a plan to fix this article and get rid of the neutrality tag. Let’s cut this article in half. Is anyone willing to go through and clear it up? And does anyone disagree with such an action?

It’s times like these I wonder whether a clear, informative, and simple article is possible, or if Wikipedia is just unable offer the information that people want in a convenient manner… 98.202.194.194 (talk) 22:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

98.202.194.194

I agree with you that this article needs revision and with most of the points that you made above. I noticed the same thing when I was reading through the article earlier tonight. I tried to correct a few minor points, but the task of fixing the whole article does seem daunting.

I think the main problem is that the issue is so polarizing. From what I can see, little research has been done on the Book of Mormon that doesn't in some way address the authenicity question in one direction or the other. Given the nature of the subject, I'm not even sure this is possible.

I am open to ideas for fixing this article. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjc16 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole subject of "Linguistics and the BOM" is nothing more than 1) a partisan attempt to prove the BOM's authenticity and 2) a critical attempt to disprove the BOM's authenticity. Since the "golden plates" (never existed/are no longer available) there is no such thing as discussing real linguistic topics unless one wants to deal with early 19th century English grammar or Smith's lack of facility with Early Modern English (both of which still end up being either 1) or 2) above). At the most, this article should be little more than a bullet list of issues raised by proponents and opponents without the give and take of a debate. The problem is balance. In terms of the world as a whole, accepting the BOM as being a translation of ancient scripture is a fringe theory. But since it is a religion, then some of the rules of WP:FRINGE do not really apply if we want to maintain NPOV. But the problem with that is that there are LDS scholars who make a comfortable living and get tenure at BYU by developing linguistic reasons why the BOM is valid. On the other side of the coin, no critical scholar gets tenure by spending time countering the LDS arguments since the pro-BOM view is a fringe theory (imagine a contemporary earth scientist trying to get respect if he spends research time proving why the earth is round in order to counter Flat Earth arguments). So if we just "weigh" the evidence, then there isn't balance. We end up with published books on the "prove authenticity" side and anti-Mormon websites on the "disprove authenticity" side. It gives the impression that "prove authenticity" is decidedly the mainstream POV, while the opposite is the case. It's just that non-LDS scholars don't spend any time writing or publishing about it--they take it as a given that the BOM was Smith's creation and that proponents are grasping at straws. (Taivo (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC))
I agree that there is a fundamental imbalance here. As with any article, this one should follow the WP:UNDUE guideline. That means that the predominant view of linguists (i.e., that all linguistic evidence points to the Book of Mormon being an 19th century work) should be given the greatest prominence in an article bearing the name "linguistics". If we wanted an article that gives greater prominence to apologetic theories, then we would need a name change to something like Apologetic language studies of the Book of Mormon. Furthermore, we need to be careful not to characterize a lot of the Mormon apologetics materials as true linguistics studies, because these authors are generally not linguists, and their work is not peer-reviewed within the mainstream linguistic fields. That doesn't mean that their work is worthless or that it should be dismissed--only that it is a different kind of work than linguistics: generally (though perhaps not exclusively) more religious, poetic, faithful, and speculative than rigorously scientific. COGDEN 22:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The stuff that is usually called "BOM Linguistics" is actually not Linguistics, but Literary criticism. (Taivo (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC))

"Outside of the LDS community"

I have removed this statement "Outside of the LDS Community, the book of mormon is viewed as a work by Joseph Smith jr" several times from the lead paragraph and replaced it with "Critics argue that the work was written by Joseph Smith Jr", yet certain editors are putting it upon themselves to keep restoring this statement. In relation to this I'd like make the following point that this statement clearly isn't suitable for the article, why? As there is no solid or statistical evidence which can be used to generate the conclusion that everyone who isn't a member of the church views the book of mormon as a fraud, which is what that statement is hinding. Now, I am clear that criticism of the book does exist and in this statement I am not denying it, however I'd like to make the point that the majority of people who view the book of mormon as a work of fiction on a scale to which their claim is relevant are usually verified are professional academics/critics in of the book in general, and as these critics usually have stated views through books and academic works they can be of some relevance to have a mention in the article. They have no attribution or rearch onto what the whole general public actually thinks in relation to the topic.

Now obviously there will be members of the public who view the book as being such however there is no verification to who thinks it is and who thinks it isn't, and there's no evidence anything in relation to that as obviously some outside of the church accept the book and become members. So really saying the whole outside of the church thinks in such a way is just an assumption. As its worth noting that if the article contains such a broad unsourced statement it looks to me as a member of the church as being quite negative, bias, and a heavy assumption to make which ruins the credibility of the organisation as a whole, where as if it says "critics" view the book of mormon as being such it gives a reasonable perspective on the other point of view and doesn't assert that the whole world outside of the church is against it, and as it says "critics" the professional sourced critics can fit under that word title, as well as members of the general public who do not agree.

Hence in a nutshell: Do not make broad unsourced assumptions in articles in relation to the views of the general public in regards to a certain topic. This goes against WP:OR WP:V and WP:NPOV.

Routerone (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's put it this way--go to any non-LDS church in the U.S. on a Sunday morning and ask who thinks that the Book of Mormon is a true record of Christ in the Americas. That's not just "critics". I've smoothed the wording out to remove some of the extreme anti-LDS POV, but you can't really expect people to think that only critics think the BOM is Smith's creation, unless you think that everyone who thinks that is automatically a "critic"--whether they've written a book or not. (Taivo (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
We have discussed these kinds of issues here and at Book of Mormon and related articles many times before. The LDS religion is, by definition, WP:FRINGE since it does not represent mainstream. Anything associated with religion and belief systems is generally fringe by definition. Therefore, anything associated with that belief system can be assumed to be non-fringe within the context of its adherents. However, outside the religion, that cannot be assumed without very strong evidence. If you want to give the impression that most people outside the LDS church think that the BOM is not Smith's fabrication, then you're going to need very strong evidence otherwise. The default position is that the BOM is true only within the context of the LDS movement. So you're trying to make the BOM seem mainstream when it is not. (Taivo (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

"Let's put it this way--go to any non-LDS church in the U.S. on a Sunday morning and ask who thinks that the Book of Mormon is a true record of Christ in the Americas". What a broad assumption you are making here, you have failed to consider the following groups in relation to the church when making such a statment

  • Those who do not know about the book of mormon- therefore have no opinion on it
  • Those who do not care aless about religion or the book of mormon- therefore they don't have an opinion either.

Now I think you'll find that outside of the church, the majority fit into those two groups, and not the small percentage of members or critics. You feel to realise that if presented the book of mormon, some of the people in these groups may accept it, of course they do fall into the "Pro-LDS" category, but regardless I'm just using it as an example that those two groups do not automatically deny the book as a result. Hence the majority are "neutral" and aren't making an assumption, this is not a "black or white" category you are dealing with, therefore it should only be left for "critics" to deny it. I was not saying the book of mormon is mainstream, I am just demonstrating that most people really have no knowledge or interest of it, therefore they don't automatically deny it as your logic seems to think. On hearing of it, they could fall into either of the categories. Routerone (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Right now the text in the article is accurate--"Outside the LDS movement the text is widely viewed as..." It does not say "everyone", it does not include "those who don't care", it does not include "those who don't know". I just says "widely", which is 100% accurate. (Taivo (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC))
Plus you have still failed to reference your "fact" that is viewed as such, and you are also automatically making the assumption that the criticism is mainstream and everyone who is not in the church fits into the "criticism" mainstream. The fact is that is not true, as I've demonstrated there are people who have no opinion at all, and there's also those who may dispute that the book of mormon was a fabrication from another since other than Joseph Smith. The "fabrication by smith" theory is largely a stereotypical assertion of public view, and to be honest there's no evidence other than the criticism to prove the mainstream population thinks that, as I've proven time and time. You're making an assumption in the article and you have no evidence whatsoever to back it up, its unverified and I'd like to point out that as the criticism isn't mainstream (as I've pointed out the majority of people don't have an opinion) it also fits into WP:FRINGE as a result and henceforth is being unfairly used in the article. That statement has no standing whatsoever and hence the book of mormon is widely viewed as "The majority of people don't have an opinion on it". Routerone (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It says "widely", which is 100% accurate. "Widely" means a large number of people across a broad spectrum--it doesn't mean "everyone", it usually means "of those who have an opinion". Sorry, but you're really pushing a POV here to make the BOM look more mainstream than it is. You have not proven that the majority of people have no opinion. While that may be true, you said you "proved it" and you have not. Where are your numbers? The text says "widely". That's all it says. You cannot prove that widely is not an accurate statement. (Taivo (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

This isn't an argument

The biggest problem with this article is the continual punch and counter-punch. It is a piece of garbage as it stands right now. The relevant quotes and facts are there, but the organization is non-encyclopedic argument--"X says Y, but then Z says ...". There's got to be a better, non-argumentative way (NPOV, of course) to present this stuff. The whole topic is a piece of irrelevant religious trivia anyway and I've proposed deleting it (unsuccessfully) before. But if we've got to have it, then it needs to be less a piece of "dueling tracts" and something more encyclopedically written. (Taivo (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Widely Rejected is not POV

We've discussed this before, Routerone, and you're just going back to plowing the same POV ground. "Widely rejected" is absolutely fact outside the LDS community. It's not POV, it's just simple fact. Name a single non-LDS scholar who uses the BOM as a reference for his history of Native America. You can't. (Taivo (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

Here are some works by a non-LDS scholar, who is supporting the idea that the Mayan civilization originated from Israelites. [13][14][15] Although not mentioning the BoM directly, they would likely be less skeptical of it as a consequence.
At the end of the day you can't determine what people think, and do people's opinions really merit a place in the lead paragraph on the article or bare a particular importance? To me, it only seems to be there as a declarative statement to try and deliberately limit the credibility of the book of mormon rather than contribute to the topic of the article. It's providing an expression and is not an important fact to consider, and is it relevant or apropriate? For example Tom Cruise, has a large hatred outside of his fanbase, does that mean this statement "Outside of his fanbase, Tom Cruise is largely hated" is correct to put in the article? No, if I tried that I wouldn't get away with it so why should you here? Its relevant, inapropriate, uncontextual and being used only to merit an impression on the book rather than contribute to the page. Routerone (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me with those links. I said "scholar", not "fringe kook". The first two of those sites are religious POV pushers, not scholarly. The last one is just plain kooky. You do realize, don't you, that web site sources are the lowest form of bottom feeder when dealing with reliable sources. As far as your second paragraph, this is a religious article, therefore there are, by default, strong opinions on either side and there really is no such thing as NPOV therefore. Adherents will always think that "non-adherents don't believe this" is a POV statement. There's no real science possible in any issue related to religion. There's no "neutral" evidence to support the BOM--supporters will always see X as evidence, while nonbelievers will see it as not evidence (to say the least). Our job here is to juxtapose two diametrically opposite views, so the adherent's POV is stated as accurately as possible while the nonadherent's POV is also stated as accurately as possible. Non-adherents think that the BOM was written by Smith. That's just the fact. Your comparison to Tom Cruise is not relevant. Show me a non-adherent scholar or historian who uses the BOM as a source for science or history. (No kooks this time, please.) (Taivo (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC))
Adherents often forget the following fact, so I will gently remind you--The standard of evidence for proving something to an adherent is much lower than the standard of evidence required to convince a non-adherent. This is true for all religions. That's why religious articles are so difficult to deal with--adherents are much more easily convinced of the "striking accuracy" than non-adherents. The article's wording is fine as it stands. It is respectful to the viewpoint of adherents and doesn't weasel about the lack of evidence. (Taivo (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC))
In regards to that comment, this is why I removed the other part of the discussion, simply because it was a worthless argument about the topic and nothing to do with the article. The current wording is actually fine on both viewpoints. Routerone (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I am fine with the deletion and agree that it had wandered off-topic. (Taivo (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

Routerone,

You're absolutely right about your objection.

Taivo,

I've helped edit more than a few articles on Wikipedia specifically to remove statements like the one in the opening paragraph: "Outside the LDS movement, the historical authenticity of the book of Mormon is rejected and it is thus viewed as the 19th century work of Joseph Smith.[2]" What a poor sentence! To boot, it is also stated in a way that has about as much authority as if it were coming from God himself. The problem with passive sentence structure in general (and in this case in particular) is that it hides the subject of the sentence. So, who is the one responsible for "rejecting" Mormonism as the sentence states? God? The evangelical web site that was quoted as the "source"? Your mom? Who?

As for the source, you've got to be kidding me, right? You're going to use an obviously evangelical site as a source to disprove the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Does this mean that the Anti-Semites can start using Neo-Nazi websites to disprove the historicity of the Holocaust? Oh wait -- the one source is "fringe" and the other isn't, right? So, who decided that the IRR is "mainstream"? Again, you, your mom, your pastor?

LOL

155.101.240.30 (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, anonymous IP, as Reagan famously said, "There you go again". Same song, different singer. I again challenge you with the same challenge that I gave to Routerone. Find a single non-Mormon scholar who uses the BOM as a source for his history or archeology or linguistics textbook and you will have a point. Otherwise, read my comments about religion above. I thoroughly believe that you have "helped edit more than a few articles" to remove what you consider to be anti-LDS POV. You are a true believer, of course. (Taivo (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC))
We have been through this before, Routerone, and you are just as wrong now as you were before. NPOV is saying X thinks A and Y thinks B. That is neutrality. NPOV is not X thinks A as if it were fact. It is not a fact that Smith "translated" the BOM because there is no object evidence for it--no original text. The only evidence is Smith's statement. So it is NPOV to say that believers believe Smith and nonbelievers don't. (Taivo (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC))
And the anon IP claims that the non-Mormon source is "fringe" and POV. Well, guess what? All the pro sources are also technically "fringe". They are mainstream within the LDS movement, but in terms of science as a whole, they are absolutely classified as "fringe" since they reflect the non-scientific viewpoint of a single religion and are not accepted as valid outside the movement. You can't treat LDS research as mainstream, because the mainstream rejects it. (Taivo (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

I changed the lede to attribute the rejection to the IoRR. I can't find any claim in the source that supports the "widely held view" concept. Can you provide a quote from the source (or another source) that does? ...comments? ~BFizz 19:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Find one single, solitary non-Mormon scholar who believes that the BOM was not written by Smith. I dare you. (Taivo (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC))
And I've added three other sources, so you can forget about the "only this one website thinks this" comment. (Taivo (talk) 20:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC))
Here is a simple explanation of why unique religious dogma is fringe--it's because it is held by only one group of people and is completely outside the mainstream position. The LDS movement holds that the BOM is a translation. No other group of people on the planet holds that view. You can't find one. Mainstream historians, archeologists, and scientists ignore the BOM because they do not believe it is any sort of historical record. That makes the view that the BOM represents history fringe. It's a simple concept. It doesn't mean that your faith is misplaced--that is completely between you and your Higher Power--it only means that the BOM as a historical document is not supported by the non-Mormon historical, scientific, archeological community. (Taivo (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC))


Tavio,

Find me one nonbeliever that accepts the believers view on Harry Krishna, Buddha, Muhammad, etc. You can't. This doesn't mean that the one is "fringe" and the other "mainstream". It's a difference of opinion.

As for your "sea" of references, I could find just as many sources that say the Book of Mormon is provably historical. Alas, these are from the "fringe" believers section in the Mormon church. So, of course anything they say is biased and unreliable, unlike the Tanners who have so much objectivity on the subject. I mean, gosh, they're just two scholars who had never even heard of the Mormon church before and happened to take up the quest to make a scholarly study of it, right? They have no affiliation, past or present, so we should trust what they say as a neutral source ;) Oh wait . . . NOT!!!! As for the Smithsonian, I would guess that their position is similar to one that they would take about the Shroud of Turin or the Garden of Eden for that matter: they don't know one way or the other and don't want to get involved. The rest of your sources resemble the Tanner source. I still find it strange how someone who is completely disenfranchised with the church can be "objective" in their analysis of its history while a believer in the church cannot. You're saying the Tanners have less of an agenda in disproving the church than FARMS does in proving it? It's like allowing North Korean sources to write the history of capitalism and then objecting every time a source from a western nation tries to interject a thought because the western sources are "biased".

I'm still laughing as I write this. I guess that I'll probably give up eventually, but I still find it funny why someone who obviously doesn't believe in or care about a religion takes such great lengths to edit the Wikipedia articles about said religion in such a way as to repeatedly cast a negative light on it. I always wonder if they had a Mormon father that tried to make them cut their hair and go to church when they were 15 and they just haven't gotten over it or if they got dumped by a Mormon girlfriend or boyfriend. Oh well, to each his own.

You still have a very poorly worded sentence that is deliberately worded to avoid any "source" taking ownership of the claim that the Book of Mormon is not a historical document. We both know that under the standards that are in place from Wikipedia, you should edit this sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.52 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

155.101.240.52 (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You just fail to understand the nature of this article. It isn't a missionary tract. It's not here to prove the validity of the Book of Mormon to non-believers. We've had this problem before on other Mormon-related pages--the true believers who take rewriting Wikipedia articles on Mormonism as a Priesthood assignment to convert the Gentile. The worst writing on Wikipedia is of the nature, "X says A. Y says B. X says C in response to Y. Y says D in response to Z, etc." The text as it stands works--"X says A, Y says B." Period. Wikipedia lists the point-of-view on each side, then moves on. If you want to include the references to the "counter-arguments", then put them right after the statement that "Adherents accept the BOM as literal history" (the first sentence). Don't make it into a debate. Each position is stated once. (Taivo (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC))

Now that there are multiple sources to support the broader claim, I have no issues with the statement as it stands. ...comments? ~BFizz 22:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I can live with the new edit.

Also, I would remind you, Tavio, that neither is Wikipedia a forum for people who don't believe in Mormonism to push that viewpoint. You've had problems one way with Mormons rewriting the articles in a pro Mormon direction? Well, I've had problems with non-Mormons rewriting the articles in the other direction. Seriously, I get sick of going onto a Wikipedia article about "Mormonism topic X", seeing an edit that needs to be done, going to the talk page, and seeing a discussion similar to this one where the article liberally quotes sources like the Tanners and calls every source on the Mormon side of the aisle "fringe" or "biased". Like I asked earlier, more so than the Tanners?

Also, I wasn't on assignment from the Elder's quorum or whatever, though maybe I should count it as my home teaching for the month? Furthermore, your statement itself suggests a level of familiarity with the practices of the church. I wonder how much of my earlier musings about ex-Mormon girlfriends and military dads really resonates with a lot of the editors of Mormon articles on Wikipedia. Perhaps the world will never know. In any case, one sentence fixed, 9999 more to go . . .

Thanks for the spirited debate! :)

155.101.240.52 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with all the "Science vs Mormonism" articles is that while you can't find a non-Mormon scientist who uses the BOM as a source, they're not going to spend valuable research time writing about why they don't use it. Articles and books debunking Mormon "science" don't count towards tenure or promotion at any university I've ever heard of. So we're forced to use the Tanners, whether we agree with their militant anti-Mormonism or not. I could have easily produced several articles and a book on the subject of linguistics and BOM claims, but my Dean would have asked why I wasn't doing serious research. On the other hand, BYU is quite generous in allowing publications for FARMS, etc. to count towards tenure and promotion decisions so the "quality" of the pro-Mormon references always look superior to the other. A few non-Tanner authors (whose tenure and promotion are secured by other publications) have produced good work, but they are few and far between. This is one factor that all religiously-based "science" and "history" have in common with fringe theories. Scholars don't get "credit" for debunking fringe theories either. (Taivo (talk) 00:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

While I sympathize with this position (the grant system at any university can be a bear), at the same time I don't think that's the mission of Wikipedia. As editors, we're not here to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon -- only to report on the results. And, as far as research on the Book of Mormon goes, the work done by FARMS is some of the most cutting edge stuff out there right now. I think that it's very wrong to dismiss it out of hand without giving them the credit for the hard work that the researchers have put in on the subject. It reminds me of some of the scientific conferences that I've been to in the past where a researcher will present a project that they've spent years carefully studying and some know-it-all in the audience will try to dismiss it in 30 seconds because "You forgot to account for such-and-such variable, etc." Give the men of FARMS credit for what they've done. I've read many of their papers. While I'm not saying that there aren't other opinions out there and that there aren't counter arguments to their viewpoints, I am saying that their research looks to me to be credible enough that I don't feel right dismissing it out of hand. It's pretty hard to "fake" research (and very easy to catch), and when one of the FARMS papers reads correctly, is well cited, has photographs of the pertinent information, etc -- that screams to me of a credible article. Notice that I didn't say "correct", but I did say "credible".

Also, if your university doesn't want to pay for research into Mormonism, perhaps you should look around. It really seems to me that someone (maybe Bob Jones) would be willing to pay researchers in the field of, for lack of a more creative term, Anti-Mormon apologetic research. Also, I would again caution about using the word "fringe" or the idea of it, both in thinking and in scholarly publications. Sometimes the mob does actually get it wrong. Up until the late 1800s, EVERYONE knew that light waves propagated through this invisible substance called ether. It was just common knowledge. Unfortunately, that bubble burst (there was a little thing called the Michelson-Morley experiment and then Einstein and his theory of special relativity, etc.) and today the world is a lot richer for it. But, I digress.

In summary, 1. As Wikipedia editors, we need to cite all credible resources on a topic, both for and against. 2. There is really no evidence that has ever been presented to me to show me why pro-Mormon sources would be "fringe" and Anti-Mormon ones would not. I think that FARMS should be judged on the basis of the quality of their research, not because they take a position against something that supposedly "everybody knows" to be true/false. 3. Calling someone "fringe" is a pretty strong statement, and we should carefully consider when and where to use it.

155.101.240.52 (talk) 04:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've read FARMS materials as well and while the research requires work to complete, it is not always of the best methodological quality. I'm not going to cite particular examples because I work with some of these individuals in other projects as colleagues, but the FARMS work that they do is methodologically flawed in some key respect. To the layman or specialist in another field, it looks wonderful and supports the BOM theological stance, but to specialists it is unsound. These same individuals are often publishing other work that is methodologically sound, but unrelated to BOM issues. They often realize that the FARMS work is substandard. Indeed, one of my colleagues has asked that I never cite his FARMS work (or even mention it to others in our field who are unaware of his LDS work). You're not going to find FARMS cited in the mainstream archeological or scientific literature. FARMS bears the same relation to science that military music bears to music--it's designed to stir the hearts of the faithful. I agree with you that these articles on Mormonism are not to be missionary tracts in either direction. They should present both sides of each position with what sources exist in as neutral, but fair language as possible. (Taivo (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

No researcher worth a damn would ever attach their name to work that they didn't believe in 100%. Although I'm not acquainted with either the researchers personally or the methodology deeply enough to make a judgment call, I doubt vociferously that they are deliberately fabricating anything or deliberately hiding counter evidence. Even though they almost certainly have an agenda of defending the Mormon church (just like other researchers do in attacking it) they can't produce evidence where none exists to begin with. Picking one of many topics from their papers, they can't say that people in the ancient world didn't write things down on metal plates if no such writing existed. Period.

Also, I doubt that there are flaws in the methodology. I've found that this is a very popular refrain when someone wants to disprove work -- especially when the evidence presented seems to support it: cry foul on the "methodology" of the work. That way, you never have to address the evidence directly; you can just say something like, "Yeah, the evidence seems to support this viewpoint, but that's only because you did such-and-such." It's the same old story of the man at the conference shouting out about some research being flawed because the researcher forgot one variable or another, usually because the conclusions disagree with his/her worldview. All research produces a model of reality, not reality itself; and it is impossible to account for every variable in every case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.101.240.53 (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You clearly state that you're not a specialist in any area of interest covered by FARMS. You need to actually know how the publication process works for academics and the details of scientific methodology before doing your pro-FARMS cheerleading too loudly. While data isn't fudged, the key to publishing in FARMS is always interpretation of that data in one particular direction. Alternate points of view are never covered or refuted. A typical FARMS publication says: "Here is one piece of data. It could mean this. That interpretation would support the BOM. Hooray!" That's not solid science. If it were solid science, then you'd find FARMS materials quoted in mainstream journals and publications. You don't. (Taivo (talk) 19:32, 21 April 2010 (UTC))

Tavio,

And, see, somehow I thought that I knew a thing or two about "research" and "methodology" (though admittedly not about the specific FARMS topics) because it's what I do for a living. Go figure. Shall I begin to call you "Dr. Tavio", with a Ph. D. in archeology, anthropology, Egyptian, metallurgy, agriculture, Hebrew, etc. -- only some of the many areas which you seem to understand oh so much better than any Mormon researcher in the same field, even one who has devoted a lifetime of study to it?

As for your "data fudged" argument, here we go with the methodology arguments again. You (and other non-Mormon scholars) look at a word from an ancient text and say that it means one thing. A FARMS scholar looks at it and says it means something else. So, what we have is a difference of opinion. Who is right? According to Wikipedia, if they're both published and both use credible research methods, then both sources are valid. I say that FARMS fits this criteria; you say otherwise. Fortunately, there is a nice, presumably non-biased source to evaluate Mormon scholarship. This comes from two evangelical ministers (and I'm sure that you're aware of its existence?) but, to beat the dead horse: http://www.cometozarahemla.org/others/mosser-owen.html#_1_4 To summarize, these two fine, evangelical non-Mormons devoted an entire conference talk (and subsequent peer-reviewed journal article) to the study of how Evangelicals scholars were losing the battle over Book of Mormon historicity, etc. to Mormon scholars because their work is good and the response from Evangelical scholars is to use the same tired, crappy arguments against the Mormons, arguments which were disproved by Mormon scholars a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. But, don't take my word for it: read the article yourself.

Also, I still can't understand how anti-Mormons think that Smith "wrote" the BOM. I know that this is an issue a little outside of the scope of the actual Wiki article, but it remains a subject of curiosity for me. From what I understand, the prevailing theory for a while was that Smith got drunk one night, threw up in his felt "seer" hat, started to spout First Nephi, and had so much fun that he kept at it every night after that until the whole book was written . . . or something like that. Apparently that theory didn't work out, so now the theory is that he somehow "stole" it from everyone and everything around him, including the Free Masons, the Bible, the Apocrypha, ancient Jewish traditions, etc. . . . and William Shakespeare? Jeff Lindsay wrote about how this must have happened at one point: http://www.jefflindsay.com/oneday.shtml

Well, I'm sure that you've got an argument for this, eh Dr. Tavio? It's because the FARMS forgot to account for the gravitational pull of the moon, isn't it? Darn, I knew that they'd forgotten something. Well, that changes everything.

155.101.241.17 (talk) 02:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon/Archive_2&oldid=1077845336"