Jump to content

Talk:Lost 116 pages/Archive 2

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

Plates used before and after lost 116 pages

The wording of this sentence of the article has been changed by me and John Foxe over the past few days. It currently reads:

Nevertheless, most Mormons are little troubled by questions about the lost 116 pages and their replacement by writings from other metallic plates not revealed until after the loss occurred.

I had changed it to be that Joseph Smith began translating from the same plates after they were returned, but John Foxe changed the meaning back. The reference given at the end of the paragraph,[1] gives this text at the end of the Scriptural and Historical Accounts section:

Joseph was told not to retranslate the first portion of the plates (see D&C 10:30–31). Because the Lord knows all things, he knew that this incident would happen. He had therefore commanded the ancient prophet Mormon to include a similar account of what was included in the 116 pages in another part of the gold plates (see Words of Mormon 1:3–7). Joseph translated this part instead of retranslating the lost part (see D&C 10:38–42).

This indicates to me that the same set of plates were used. Do you have another reference? Val42 22:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon talks about Nephi abridging Lehi's record (which we understand to be the first book on the Large plates of Nephi) onto the Small Plates (The small plates were primarily religious and lasted until Omni, when they were "filled"). Mormon included the small plates, which was a spiritual/type rerun of the first part of the Large plates, for a "wise purpose," which we find from D&C 10 was to replace the lost 116 pages (from the first part of the Large plates, the Book of Lehi). The plates Joseph Smith actually had were the small plates (engraved by Nephi and those who followed him, until Omni. They were written Egyptian; Reformed Egyptian is what Mormon wrote in), Mormon's abridgement (Including material from a bunch of different records, but the first part is from the Large Plates of Nephi) and the sealed portion (written by Jacob, probably in "adamic," contained a revelation of the whole history of the earth). This is why the first part of the Book of Mormon is in first person and the majority of the rest is in third (excluding parts written by Mormon or Moroni)... I realize this is too long already, but the core question is what do you mean by plates? The golden plates or the individual parts of the Golden Plates. The way it was written previous to your edits seemed to imply (falsely) that Joseph Smith replaced the 116 pages by translating by plates other than the golden plates. I think we can reword it fairly easily to avoid making false implications... gdavies 03:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree. There are the whole set of plates that Mormon (and Mornoni) had to make the abridgement that became the golden plates. These golden plates were the ones given to Joseph Smith to translate. The wording, as it presently stands (and is quoted above), says to me that there were different plates that were given to Joseph Smith before the lost 116 pages and afterwards. From what I understand, they were the same set of plates. This is backed up by the reference that is given at the end of the paragraph. I just want it straight with us before we go an edit it back to say this. Val42 04:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup, that's the way I see it, I just wanted to put that all there for other's future reference. I think we should say "from another portion" or "a later portion" of the golden plates. Factually it wasn't wrong before, but very likely to be misinterpreted. gdavies 05:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've done it. Val42 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Content of the 116 pages

I started to add a section under this name, but I wanted to get another opinion first. Seems like we should have a section on this.. Here's what I started on, input? gdavies 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Smith wrote in the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, "... I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon."<ref>Taken from [[http://www.inephi.com/3.htm| inephi.com]]</ref> The lost material was replaced by... gdavies 06:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Magic world view

I have no problem if you want to add "he was called by God."--John Foxe 22:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I do, it's not provable nor NPOV. If your alleged complete disregard of neutrality and verifiability standards for inclusion in wikipedia extends to both sides of the religious spectrum, so be it, but please don't reflect that recklessness in your editing. gdavies 07:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this attempt at compromise might do it.--John Foxe 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Missing info on warning

If my memory serves me, I recall in the story of these missing pages that Joseph was instructed by God not to give the mauscript to Harris, but this info is missing here... Twunchy 06:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I almost added this info a few weeks ago... but I didn't have a primary source on hand for it... definitely necessary in this article. If I'm not mistaken, he asked twice, was told no both times, then Harris pressed him, he asked again and was given a "do what you think is best, but..." type answer and then the manuscript got stolen. The account of the result is very easy to find (in D&C) but a clean account for the parts before is trickier... gdavies 22:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

Here we say


"Smith described Lucy Harris as a woman of "irascible temper," but Lucy also accused her husband of physically abusing her on a number occasions

but on Martin Harris (Latter Day Saints)

Lucy Harris was described by Lucy Mack Smith as a woman of "irascible temper," but Harris may also have abused her

We should be clear which smith and what the citations for both parts of the statement are.

Rich Farmbrough, 08:08 27 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks for catching that discrepancy.--John Foxe 20:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed Section

My edit summary gave my explanation but I will elaborate. The whole section is terribly POV and needs to be removed.

1. The "effect on mormon belief" itself is a generalized statement suggesting that all mormons feel the same way, which is wrong. Also this is an encylclopedia and not an explanation of why the faith of mormons is unshaken despite the lost pages.
2. "most Mormons are little troubled by questions about the lost 116 pages" - POV
3. "Some Mormons believe that events in Mormon history that are difficult for non-believers to credit may actually strengthen belief in things of a spiritual nature" - POV
4. "Not surprisingly, then, the loss of the manuscript provided critics of Mormonism with additional opportunities to dismiss the religion as a fraud" - POV - like the world was scammering at opportunities to discredit the BOM
5. "Most importantly, the evidence of the Spirit is available to those who seek it. I, for one, have received the witness of the Spirit, and I bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and that the gospel is true." - POV just because it is a quotation does not mean it is true or needs to be in an encyclopedia article, no one cares how confident he is in his faith.

I feel that these examples strongly justify the deletion and this section was taking away from an otherwise well written article. JRN (talk) 03:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's fine to believe that the section is "terribly POV," it's another thing to prove it. The statements that you've cited are based on authoritative sources. To remove the material you dislike, you must counter it with other sources that buttress your position. I agree that the most difficult problem is the attempt to state what Mormons believe. But again, to counter this section of the article, you need to put into evidence authoritative statements that say things like "many Mormons are troubled by the lost 116 pages" or "critics rarely use the 116 pages problem to discredit Mormonism."--John Foxe (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't "believe" they are wrong, in fact IMO I agree with the statements but that doesn't mean they aren't POV. Please do not jump to conclusions and assume good faith in my edits. Just because you disagree doesn't mean you can continue to revert my edits. There are no "authoratative sources" given for the statements I quoted. The source list includes what seems to be a mormon teaching lesson and a couple other sources of that ilk. Not exactly "authoratative" in any standards. Since you seem completely opposed to removing the POV section, what would you like to do with it. Just saying that you disagree doesn't solve any problems and won't help this article at all. JRN (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
As you can probably see I tagged the sentences in question awaiting the authoratative sources. JRN (talk) 00:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The final quotation comes from the Ostlings' book, and Jan Shipps is a pretty good second for the ideas expressed in the paragraph. Hope you also approve of my stylistic tweaking.--John Foxe (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately despite your editing the whole paragrpah is still in awful shape. The use of "some mormons" is ambiguous and needs to be clarified. Who are "some mormons" and what percentage of the total mormon/lds opinion do they share. It needs to be cited or removed. The citation of the golden bible to substantiate the claim of critics is weak at best. There should be more references that that if the claim is true. One book isn't really significant in relation to the many that were published in opposition to lds beliefs at that time. Further the whole section is still in violation of WP:NPOV and more specifically WP:UNDUE. It reads like a rebuttal against critics of the lost 166 pages while does not at all show the other side of the story. It is POV like I originally stated and you have failed to prove otherwise. This is a page about the lost 116 pages and not on the LDS rebuttal of critics and an affirmation of the faith. It is being removed. Sorry JRN (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your opinion, but I have no problem eliminating the Ostling quotation if that's a problem to you.--John Foxe (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Deleting the quotation from the LDS primary was unexplained.--John Foxe (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I figured you could see that it has no part in a section about criticism. This article is not about the LDS church's teachings or view but is about the lost 116 pages. It would be best if you discontinued your reverts of my edits until you form an arguement why my edits are not correct. Saying you disagree means nothing unless you have an arguement. Which you haven't put forward yet. You are not making any "compromises", you are merely reverting the changes I have made without any explanation why and yet when I don't explain my edits on the talk page you are quick to revert saying I have not explained myself. Please either present an arguement or stop your vandalism. JRN (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The reaction of the LDS Church to the story of the lost pages is part of the story. In fact, the story of the lost pages is hardly a story at all without mentioning its modern consequences. A deletion here must be explained.
I dislike the term "criticism." (We avoid people who are "critical.") The term should especially be avoided in headings unless there is a corresponding section called "apologetics."--John Foxe (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand your dislike of the term "criticism" and I will try to discontinue my use of it in the future. However the heading "influence of mormonism" and the subsequent section are still failing WP:NPOV and specificlally WP:UNDUE. The reactions and opinions of the LDS church do not represent all of what the readers and historians would consider "mormonism". There are over 100 denominations that believe in the BOM (most are probably defunct), but focusing on one and generalizing that as the overall effect is in violation of policy and is being removed once again. The reaction of the LDS is NOT part of the story. It would be better sutied under the criticism of lds article (don't know the exact name) and not here. This article is not on the LDS church or it's views. The article is on history associated with over 100 organizations. A section on the views expressed by one has no part. I will be removing your edits again until you have an arguement. JRN (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I think my current edits are a fair compromise and keep the flow of the article fairly consistent. The only portion I removed was that of the lds primary because it has no point here. The other statements were moved and the section heading was removed. Please comment here and let me know what you think to come to a concensus and end the edit war. JRN (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm satisfied, JRN. But you need to be more attentive to your spelling and syntax. You've made heedless mistakes in every post.--John Foxe (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on individuals

Is it really necessary? This is an article about describing what the lost 116 pages were, yet its written in a very tedious style in regards to the people who are involved:

  • "Martin Harris, a respectable but superstitious"
  • Oliver Cowdery- "who had previously used a rod to receive revelations"

Interestingly, its just these two individuals who are given the negative commentary. As if its an attempt to dismiss their character in regards to what they were involved with. However, its worth noting that excessive commentary on a persons character in an article which as a whole is not describing them, is POV pushing and going over the top. It's not needed, nor is it important. Routerone (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree to a point, I do think the superstitions of Martin Harris is more legitimate than Cowdery, but I'm sure the wording could either be better, or relegated to the notes. Superstitions were very common in this era, so it's not as negative of a connotation as one may think but it does amp up the language in terms of the meanings today. Mysticism, necromancy, and divination were very prevalent in those days, so perhaps this should be included as well. Just my 2 bits... Twunchy (talk) 17:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I assume by "tedious," Routerone, you mean you don't like it.
Twunchy, on what grounds do you believe that mysticism, necromancy, and divination were "very prevalent in those days"—as opposed to existing in similar measure today? Daniel Defoe's System of Magic (1727-30) declared that if anyone claimed "secret Inspiration from Heaven...we should presently give him up for a Magician in the grossest Acceptation of the Word, and say in short that he deals with the Devil." D. Michael Quinn argues that this "view persisted in books published from the 1770s to early 1800s." (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 9) Nevertheless, I also think it's appropriate to relegate the Cowdery reference to the notes.--John Foxe (talk) 19:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've removed even the footnote reference to Cowdery as a rodsman at the suggestion of Routerone.--John Foxe (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

How much would they be in print?

How much would 116 pages amount to? For example, how much of the existing BoM text (Book of Mosiah and onward) is covered by the next 116 Pages of manuscript? -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

An almost two year old question yes, but I'll answer it. The current first 116 pages of the book of mormon amount to the full books of 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi, and after that the book of jacob starts. Routerone (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Today's Value

Martin Harris "mortgaged his farm for $3000 as security in the event that the Book of Mormon did not sell, and when in fact, it did not, he lost both his farm and his wife." Should we include the current equivalent of the $3,000? I had heard it would be over $60k. There are numerous sources out there. --CABEGOD (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

An excellent source for such comparisons is MeasuringWorth.com. But if you read the explanation for the various numbers generated, I think you'll understand why trying to convert $3000 into modern buying power is a tricky business and not something we should mess around with here. Besides someone would have to go back every year and make re-estimates. For what it's worth, I think $60,000 would be a low-ball estimate.--John Foxe (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed... I just thought it might add some perspective. --CABEGOD 00:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

116 pages new info...

I have inserted new information by Royal Skousen concerning the possible inclusion of the first two chapters of the Book of Mosiah as being included in the lost 116 pages. Please look it over... Thanks Twunchy (talk) 19:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, John...please don't stuff it all into the footnotes! Twunchy (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this business is far too arcane for the text. Skousen's just guessing, and even if he's right, it makes no difference to the Wikipedia reader. To most non-Mormons it would be downright baffling.--John Foxe (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
but to the average Mormon reader to know that possibly two chapters are missing is worth reporting. please make some mention in the text, and not just keep it in footnotes. Twunchy (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless there's some logical connection to the lost 116 pages, the material belongs in the article on the Book of Mosiah.--John Foxe (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The logical connection is that we mention that the pages contained the "Book of Lehi", and until now that was the extent of knowledge of the contents of these pages. For there to be new information on additional books' contents then that is most definitely a "logical connection"...we're not talking about 116 blank pages here. Skousen would be a very reputable source, and this comes from his Critical Text Project, which is as scholarly as it gets in the world of Mormon studies, considering that this is a cooperation beyond just the LDS Church to accomplish this. I think if the "Book of Lehi" is worth mentioning then this would be too; otherwise leave it all out and make it irrelevant..but then again why do we care what was written on these pages...oh yeah, they're the subject of the article. It affects not only the 116 pages but lends a new theory about missing content in the printed version of the Book of Mormon as well. This is bigger than you're lending credence. Twunchy (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not a matter of scholarship but of relevance. It seems to me that the information most logically belongs in the Book of Mosiah article. If you want to say in this article that the 116 lost pages likely ended at the third chapter of Mosiah, then there will also be good reason to introduce the Tanners' "black hole" theory, which basically argues that Smith couldn't remember all the names he had created in the lost pages, and so therefore he was exceptionally vague about names and dates until he got about this far in the text.--John Foxe (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mormography's edits

Mormography made a number of edits to this page, which I consider to be POV commentary. Now following John Foxe's self made rule:

major changes must be discussed on the talk page

I reverted the edits following his guidelines. He reverted again, so I reinstated my reversion explaining it is always best to discuss content. However, Foxe then reverts me again saying I have to discuss my reverts. Since when? He never does? Is this one rule for him and another for everyone else?

Nonetheless, [2] here are the edits which are up for debate, according to him its not WP policy to discuss major changes, according to foxe it is. Yet both seem to revert and edit when it suits them regardless of what they say to others. Routerone (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Why did you repeatedly delete cited evidence—something which I have not done?--John Foxe (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Because if I add some in you revert it claiming there is "no concensus", yet you edit how you like? Your hypocricy is truly disgusting and is not going unnoticed. Routerone (talk) 22:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Routerone, stop with the personal attacks ! You will learn that you must follow the Wikipedia rules just like the rest of us or you will not be editing here any longer. Period. Duke53 | Talk 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Routerone – Thanks for moving this to the talk page. To clarify, I have not reverted anyone’s edits on this article, I have undone your reverts. Do you understand the difference? Furthermore, John Foxe and I are two distinct individuals. I can understand using the consensus argument against him in some sort of hypocrisy statement, but you used it against me, another editor with which you have no history.

I believe your concern of sourcing has been addressed. However, I need some help understanding your charge of Point Of View. Usually POV refers to how something is stated, not what is stated. You appear to object to the verifiable truths themselves, not to how those verifiable truths are presented.

The more excited a Wikipedia editor becomes about EXCLUDING verifiable, sourced, neutrally stated items, the more those editors justify including those items. You see, if the items were so irrelevant to the article, the editor would not be so excited about excluding them.Mormography (talk) 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

While Mormonography's logic is questionable, the sources seem to support the two sentences in question:
This could be worded better. I considered moving the whole thing to a footnote; it is a rather confusingly large parenthetical. Mormonthink isn't the best source for this. The reference to Hoffmann is fitting but feels anachronistic without an more detailed explanation.


This could also be worded better. Also, it would be nice if the citation were more than just a link. At first glance, it looked like a non-notable website. It was not immediately apparent to me that the Tanners wrote the linked article, since their name appears nowhere on the page. ...comments? ~BFizz 05:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor wording issue

"On September 22, 1827, Joseph Smith, Jr. said"...the verb associated with Sept 22 shouldn't be "said", it should be "recovered". The "saying" probably occurred at a later date. I can't really think of how to reorder the sentence to clarify the meaning. ...comments? ~BFizz 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Does that tweak do it,B?--John Foxe (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks good, Foxe. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

116 Pages Today

I am struggling to see how the statement: "We got back more than we lost. And it was known from the beginning that it would be so." Means anything different today than it did 150+ years ago, let alone why it should be included while other items excluded. If the section is notable, should it not just be ‘116 Pages Today’. Furthermore, with that heading why would the South Park Episode response not also be notable. In the episode ‘All About Mormons’, of the endless items the writers could have focused on, the item they chose was the Lost 116 Pages event.

An example addition to the section:

The South Park Episode ‘All About Mormons’ lampooned the Lost 116 Pages. In the episode the character Stan concludes “Wait. Mormons actually know this story and they still believe Joseph Smith was a prophet?” …. “All you've got are a bunch of stories about some asswipe who read plates nobody ever saw out of a hat, and then couldn't do it again when the translations were hidden!”

For now I am adding the episode to the see also section.

http://www.imsdb.com/transcripts/South-Park-All-About-The-Mormons.html

STAN 

                        ...Wait. Mormons actually know this 
                        story and they still believe Joseph 
                        Smith was a prophet?

                                    GARY SR.
                        Well sure. The story proves it, doesn't 
                        it?

                                    STAN
                        No, it proves he DID make it all up. 
                        Are you blind?

                                    MARK
                        Well, Stan, it's all a matter of faith.

                        
                                    STAN
                        No, it's a matter of logic! If you're 
                        gonna say things that have been proven 
                        wrong, like that the first man and woman 
                        lived in Missouri, and that Native Americans 
                        came from Jerusalem, then you'd better 
                        have something to back it up. All you've 
                        got are a bunch of stories about some 
                        asswipe who read plates nobody ever 
                        saw out of a hat, and then couldn't 
                        do it again when the translatios were 
                        hidden!

Mormography (talk) 08:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The section would probably be better titled something like, "Modern Mormon interpretations". I think including All About Mormons as a see also is appropriate, given that the episode focuses somewhat on the 116 pp incident. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There is really no new or modern interpretation found in the Holland section. As far as "today" or "modern" discussion is the back and forth between the iconoclast Mormon Think and the apologist Mormon FAIR, which includes comments on the South Park episode.Mormography (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
It wouldn't need to be a new interpretation if that interpretation is not otherwise represented or presented in the article via other sources. I don't know of any earlier sources that adopt Holland's approach, however, so I think it probably is "modern" in the absence of any evidence that he was reflecting an earlier thought. (The "known from the beginning" idea is not original, but the "got back more than we lost" idea seems to be, as far as I can tell without looking into it all in greater detail.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
All earlier source adopt Holland's approach. "got back more than we lost" idea is in the canon itself. From the canon: "Behold, there are many things engraven upon the plates of Nephi which do throw greater views upon my gospel;" And that is how the matter has been presented by Mormons for 150+ years. Holland is merely reguritating the same line. If not so, then why do critics decades ago refer to this like so:

"Joseph is informed in this precious revelation that there is another record he may use, abridged not by Mormon but by Nephi, and that is after all a great deal better and more desirable than the stolen record:"

"If Joseph Smith was making a sad blunder in translating a second-rate, discarded set of plates, why should the Lord so terribly scold him and punish him for letting Mr. Harris take that manuscript home—since it was the best thing that could have happened for the cause of truth?" Mormography (talk) 10:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

So if this approach is the orthodox and common approach, is it not useful to have a source to represent it and indicate that? I don't know where the quote is from that you provided, but I wouldn't rely on a critic to fairly represent the orthodox Mormon approach. I'd like to see a non-primary source from a non-critical view, but I guess I'm not well read in the area enough to know if there is one (other than Holland's). But if that's the appropriate interpretation of the D&C verse (on its face it is ambiguous as to what the "greater" is in comparison to), this too is a reason that the Holland quote is useful, because it represents this approach (which you claim is orthodox and common) and yet avoids using the primary source of the D&C. What source are you suggesting should be used instead, if any? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Background section

Removed reference to wholly discredited John Clark letter source as source provides entirely alternate book of mormon discovery history in pages 225 - 228. (source can be found online @ http://files.lib.byu.edu/mormonmigration/articles/Gleaningsbywayg00clarrich.pdf). Author admits his memory was fuzzy and was writing about conversations from 13yrs prior in his same book containing letter (see link above). His alternate history of other events such as Joseph Smith's excursions to recover the Golden Plates as mentioned above entirely differ from any other account either agreeing with or disagreeing with Joseph Smith's version of event. Mikesquad (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

New section on Christopher Marc Nemelka

Is the claimed translation by Christopher Marc Nemelka something notable that should be mentioned in the article? It was recently added. I'm not sure how important it is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have heard of lots of people who have "claimed" to have translated the lost 116 pages. I would say unless we can verify somehow that any of the translations are authentic, they do not warrant a mention in this article. At least, that's how I see it. For believing LDS members, it is far simpler: the translation will only come through the one the Lord has appointed to be His prophet in these latter-days. If it comes through any other channel, it is not inspired of God. I know that is not the measuring stick Wikipedia uses, so the authenticity of translation will have to be proved another way for Wikipedia purposes. But again, unless and until it is proven to everyone's satisfaction and beyond reasonable doubt that it authentic, I wouldn't include it. That's my two cents on the matter, for what it's worth. --Jgstokes (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, but isn't that an impossible standard to meet? If we used that standard, we wouldn't have an article on the Book of Mormon, since the authenticity of the translation has not been proved to everyone's satisfaction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it comes down to WP:UNDUE. If this claim by Nemelka, regardless if it is true or not, is reported in reliable sources then the weight given in this article should be roughly proportionate to the prominence in the published, reliable sources. I don't think that we have met that threshold, though, in which case the third bullet of UNDUE applies. Nemelka's claim just isn't prevalent at all among reliable sources so I say delete at will. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The only reliable source I can find that discusses Nemelka is this one from a few years back. It discusses his claim of translating the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon but not the 116 pages, which may be a more recent development. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Good Ol’factory, I understand what you mean completely. And I agree. But in the Book of Mormon's case, we have 12 men who gave their testimony that the translation of the Book was true and correct, 12 men who, whether they remained "true to the faith" or not, never denied what they had been shown or the authenticity of the Book of Mormon or of Joseph Smith's translation of it. Nemelka has no such witnesses for his "record". And he completely overlooks the fact that, according to LDS doctrine and practice, any new LDS scripture needs to come through the one who is appointed to be the president of the Church, the prophet, seer and revelator. I know that argument against its authenticity doesn't hold water for Wikipedia purposes. So getting back to how Wikipedia should view this record, I like FyzixFighter's observations that the material violates WP:UNDUE. With that in mind, I say we should get rid of it. The insertion of it was well intentioned, but it is not encyclopedic for the reasons FyzixFighter has outlined. Hope that further clarifies my position. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Nemelka is arguing that he is the prophet, seer, and revelator. I don't think he has intended to present his claims within the context of LDS Church orthodoxy. This has been quite a common thing to happen in the history of the broader Latter Day Saint movement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that I was the one to remove the section, it's obvious I don't think it should be there. Principally I think that not every claim about any particular subject needs to be added to an article, and we do need a threshold of notability, established by significant enough coverage (not just slam/puff or silly season journalism) in third party reliable sources, especially in cases of where living people are specifically named. I don't think that Nemelka meets a minimal level of notability for inclusion, however it is entirely possible that there are references I didn't find that push him over this threshold. —Asterisk*Splat→ 18:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the removal is on solid grounds. I've looked, and even the reliable sources that talk about Nemelka's claims do not include any discussion of the 116 pages claim. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If the a link to the Nemelka's publish Book of Lehi is insufficient, then of course a reference to compilation of CES Symposium is insufficient to include the Holland stuff as well. That is to be consistentMormography (talk) 04:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but there is no reasonable, realistic comparison between the two. —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the Holland quotes could be useful for the article in that it can provide a view on what the LDS Church's "take" is on the incident and its meaning and repercussions. Holland doesn't speak for the church, but as one of its top officials, it's probably a good source for such an insight. In contrast, the Nemelka claims appear to just be "some guy" who doesn't represent or lead a significant movement or group. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Either both are included or both excluded until dispute is resolved. AsteriskStarSplat has provided no reasonable explanation. Good Olfactory's sudden change of reasoning proves POV pushing.Mormography (talk) 11:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

FyizxFight made edits without discussion. POV dictates only one of two sections is included. Non-POV includes either both or excludes both. A 2 to 3 vote doesnot squately make, nor does it make sense that a cabal ditacte wikipedia content. By this reasoning I could round up a bunch of friends to out vote others here. Admin resolution required.Mormography (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that NPOV requires mutual exclusion or inclusion of the two section. My comment about consensus squarely existing was with respect to just the Nemelka section, the section that my edit removed. I was not commenting at all on the existence or the quality of the section with the Holland cite. However, taken by itself, IMO the Nemelka section fails WP:UNDUE and the above discussion appears to me to establish a consensus to exclude it on that basis. Applying the same rubric (WP:UNDUE), I think that a section on how the topic is handled within the LDS faith should not similarly be excluded. That said, the one sentence section is severely lacking but can easily be remedied by expansion and addition of relevant sources. --FyzixFighter (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
FyzixFighter I understand what you are referring to about WP:UNDUE there was a citation that linked the source of Christopher Marc Nemelka material directly, which does fall under non-neutral sources. Yet you are incorrect, in stating that there is undue weight for the whole section. If you saw in the first edit to the there was a natural source http://en.fairmormon.org that was able to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources." Whiteboycat (talk) 23:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The correct solution would be to include both in the see also section. As it is, the Holland quote says nothing substantive and does nothing to deal with how the topic is dealt with, that is unless how the topic is dealt with is that it is ignored. But alas we see a weakness of wikipedia,, a cabal can collectively violate the three revert rule. Unfortunately for reason, most people have something better to do than be lobbied to waste their time in favor of reason on wikipedia, ergo the cabal can out last reason, carefully waiting for editors to pass away so that the editors can be reverted. Thus we see how regligion outlasts reason given the centuries. Nonetheless, the Internet in general is appearing to overcome even wikipedia's limitations.Mormography (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, since the see also section is for internal wikipedia links (see WP:SEEALSO). A "cabal" cannot violate WP:3RR, although they can edit war - again I would point you to the dispute resolution mechanisms wikipedia has in place. Overcoming a "cabal" is best done by bringing in the wider wikipedia community through dispute resolution avenues. An argument could be made however that your last edit violated 3RR since it undid other editors' actions in part (removal of link to Nemelka's pdf). Maybe you weren't aware of that caveat of 3RR. Another caveat to 3RR is that not all reverts need to involve the same material. Seeing as the edit isn't in line with the WP:SEEALSO and technically crosses the 3RR line, please revert yourself. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I know that it's easy to get paranoid when users disagree with you, but sometimes there are differences of opinion on WP, and sometimes one finds oneself in the minority. To accuse others of participating in a cabal can be tempting in such circumstances, but ultimately it shows a lack civility, and possibly maturity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Now that the glaring MOS issue has been cleared up, let me address the link itself. Even in the "Further reading" section, I don't see Nemelka's document as relevant. I don't think it satisfies the topical and reliable guidelines suggested in WP:Further Reading. It's just too fringe IMO, and so the UNDUE concerns remain for me. Thoughts from the other editors?

As for editing, Mormography was bold and put the link in, because of my concerns I'm going to revert, now let's discuss per WP:BRD before re-adding it in.--FyzixFighter (talk) 15:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Chris Nemelka

The link above the is the one in question.

An argument could be made that your last edit violated 3RR and given that you have unapologetically confessed to edit warring with me at Succession Crisis the sincerity of this dispute is in questionable, an insincerity further validated by the nonsensical topical and reliable arguments. It is exactly on topic (116 lost pages) and a reliable reference, though according to reliable the annotation may be improved. Furthermore, according to BRD you have not explained why your revert was necessary. The UNDUE argument is easily defeated by the depth of detail, quantity, prominence and other less relevant items in the article.Mormography (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment. From my research, I haven't been very impressed with the reliability/notability of the material in the link. The author is discussed in some reliable sources, but I can find no references to this document he produced even in that small amount of coverage. It is pretty fringe-y stuff, and I don't think it should be included. If there are other links or material in the article that should not be included, they should also be discussed, and not used as a justification for keeping this one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
UNDUE is refers to proportion, hence other items in the article are imperative to undue discussion. GoodOlfactory reasoning might apply for removal of the a subsection, but not the further reading. The Holland section makes no notable statement what so ever and it is given its own section. A 3-2 vote is how consensus is defined in Wikipedia? Good to know, I will keep that in mind.Mormography (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in re-litigating the Holland issue, in this section, anyway. Its retention is an insufficient reason to keep this particular link. If you want to pursue removing the Holland section, I suggest that it could be addressed in a discussion in a separate section (above, or a new one)—but I don't think its retention should be used as leverage to keep this problematic link. (And I count the opinions as 4–1 in the Holland case above, not 3–2; but in any case, consensus is not identified by counting heads.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
In the count of 2, I count the original editor who added the Nemelka section and myself. But I agree, a simple vote is rather weak grounding.Mormography (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
GoodOlFactory, I don't know where you were looking but there are places that make references to Christopher and his publication one such is SaltLake city weekly [1] Whiteboycat (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the Salt Lake City Weekly source is the only one that I could find. But I can find no mention in it of Nemelka's 116 pages claims, which is what we needed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is a quote referring to the ″sealed portion″ which also contains the 116 pages. ″Along with claiming to have translated the "sealed portion" of the Book of Mormon...″Whiteboycat (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The sealed portion of the golden plates and the 116 pages are not the same thing. Joseph Smith translated the 116 pages—he did not translate any of the sealed portion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.cityweekly.net/TheDailyFeed/archives/2012/11/30/christopher-nemelka-to-host-lds-temple-symposium

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lost 116 pages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Content

I would like to include a summary of the supposed content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.81.179.41 (talk) 00:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

What is the source of the summary of the contents? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lost_116_pages/Archive_2&oldid=1155634865"