Talk:Linguistics and the Book of Mormon/Archive 1

Article Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon merged here: See old talk-page here, and the results of the Merge vote here.

Neutrality of This Article

Unfortunately this article is being moderated by people who claim to have an unbiased view of the linguistics found in the Book of Mormon, but will allow negative connotaions such as the following:

 "...the language seems to be anachronistic, a common sign of a fictional work."
 "This lends some credibility to the argument that Joseph Smith was the sole author of 
  the Book of Mormon."
 "Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon" link points to world-famous anti-Mormon Sandra Tanner
 "...evidence of the Book of Mormon can also be used to claim that Dr. Seuss's children's 
  book Green Eggs and Ham has ancient origins"

Any attempt to correct these biased points will be changed back to their original negative protrayal of the Book of Mormon's authenticity. --Urbanaut 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The first doesn't appear to me to be biased, as the beginning of the sentence clearly states "Critics point out places where the language seems to be". The article isn't saying that the language is anachronistic, it's not even saying that critics say it is anachronistic, it's saying that critics say it seems to be anachronistic.

I'll agree that the second and fourth points seem a little biased. The whole chiasmus section seems to be stitched together out of pieces that are biased in both directions. That part needs a major clean-up before we get rid of the POV tag.

Your third point I'm confused about, though. The first link "Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon" points to Jeff Lindsay, the world-famous Mormon apologist. The second link is in a paragraph clearly stating "Critics point out ...", hence it makes perfect sense to link to someone critical of the Book of Mormon. Are you saying that the article shouldn't link to anyone critical of the Book of Mormon? Or are you saying that the paragraph isn't clear that the link points to a criticism? --Dlugar 14:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You have valid points here, but there just seems to be an overwhelming tone of discredit in each section of this article. There is no problem with presenting both the opinions of apologetics and critics, although the many critic's point of views given do not seem to be balanced by the opposing apologetic point-of-view.

There is a lot of information available that can be found and represented from groups such as FARMS, FAIR, and SHIELDS.

In response to the last question, it appears that it is not clear that the links given point to a Mormon apologetic and a critic. The first link may be difficult for some to navigate to easily, why not use this link when referring to Jeff Lindsey's work? --Urbanaut 15:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

In Talk pages, would you mind tagging your contributions with --~~~~? This will add your signature and a timestamp so we can see who's talking more easily. Thanks :-)

With regards to the "overwhelming tone of discredit", I think that in many cases in the article there are opinions of apologetics alongside the opposing point of view. However, an encyclopedia shouldn't read like "X says Y, but critic A refutes this saying B" the whole way through the article. I'm not really sure how to avoid this--separating content into different sections may be a start. What I'd recommend is to start amassing a list on this Talk page of FARMS, FAIR, and SHIELDS links that talk about Linguistics and the Book of Mormon; once you get a good handful, we can start looking at categorizing them and seeing which ones fit well with the article. You'll probably have a much better chance of getting changes into the article that way, too. Good luck, and thanks for the help! --Dlugar 15:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I realize this conversation has been over for months, but I thought I'd comment for future readers. "critics" and "apologists" are words that should really not appear often in this article (or any other for that matter). We really don't care what they say. We care about facts, about what people say who are in a position to comment. This wipes out a large amount of material/sources on both sides of this issue, but would end up in a much more readable and informational article. This is not the place for common anti-mormon arguments and their respective apologist counter-arguments. Ideally this is a place where the spin is replaced with "facts" or comments by "scholars" or "researchers" in each section. That said, happy editing! gdavies 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Why should only facts be reported? As a newcomer to a topic, I am often more interested in the controversy itself than just in the mere facts ... or to put it differently, the controversy is a fact in itself, and certainly worth documenting ... it would therefore make sense to split articles like this one into two separate articles: one edited by the critics and another by the apologists ... over the time a fair picture of the controversy should emerge ... and the practical advantage would be that the process of re-adding and re-deleting should stop —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.210.72.134 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

I've done a fair amount of revising on this article; I'm a little concerned because I'm doing this without help/consent of other editors. My goal is to bring this article into conformance with NPOV, NOR, and reduce speculation by adding citations and removing uncited comments. gdavies 07:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Chiasmus

This is simply untrue. Chiasmus is not unique to middle eastern poetry. It is a common element of ancient Greek verse and Roman verse. There are many instances of chiasmus in Horace, for example. The presence of Chiasmus is not an indication that the book is authentic.

• It is, since chiamus was not an element of 19th century American poetry or writing. Antley 17:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Chiasmus was more common in English literature, including Shakespeare, and it was not obvious when done well. Chiasmus was common even to the stories that were read by most Americans.[1] Anon166 17:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not Mormon, but the expample from Dr. Seus seems demeaning. 205.242.78.70 10:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Suess (rather). Paxfeline 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It clearly is. demeaning. But if you attempt to "be bold" and remove it you will be attacked as a vandal. Someone feels very strongly about Dr. Seuss. 72.193.191.112 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do think it a bit odd that you describe chiasmus but only give the parody Suess as an example. I dont mind that so much, but I would like to see examples from the BOM as well as other sources. Bytebear 19:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm moving the section in question to the talk page so whoever wants to discuss it's merit (or lack of) can do so.

A tongue-in-cheek article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol 33 No. 4, Winter 2000, p 163, by Robert Patterson, "Hebraicisms, Chiasmus, and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in 'Green Eggs and Ham'" demonstrated that the same arguments which Mormon apologists use to show that chiasm is evidence of the Book of Mormon can also be used to claim that Dr. Seuss's children's book Green Eggs and Ham has ancient origins:

 I am Sam.
 Sam I am.
 ...
 I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
   I do not like green eggs and ham.
     Would you like them here or there?
     I would not like them here or there.
      I would not like them anywhere.
   I do not like green eggs and ham.
 I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

It is demeaning and childish and should be replaced with the fact that there are people who believe the presence of chiasmus is not necessarily indicative of ancient origins. A reference to this article can be made in the notes, but of course the full text has no place in the main body. Discuss future additions or deletions from this section here before editing the main page. thanks. gdavies 09:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more like there are not *any* non-Mormons who believe that chiasmus constitutes a Hebraism. *That* is the problem with the article as it stands, and I imagine that is precisely the reason why the tongue-in-cheek Dr. Seuss parody (which is *completely* a propos) was written in the first place. Charlie 04:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Rewrite

I've rewritten basically the entire first half, and re-arranged certain parts. I'm planning to do a complete rewrite of the last half too, I just haven't gotten to it yet. Please let me know if any of my changes were stupid, or too POV-ish, etc. I just felt it didn't have very much information and all the sections seemed too stubbish for my tastes.

Please proofread, and is there any way other than my %68 trick to get around archive.org links? Or should we just copy the entire archived page onto Wikipedia, since otherwise it would be lost?

Wikipedia is not a tool for critical analysis. Please revise this article to conform to NPOV. -- [DarkMythril]

I agree, but I'm not sure at all how to go about revising this article. As I can see it, there are two problems: the article is primarily critical analysis, and the article has very POV sections. With regard to the first, is there a solution for this? (Other than deciding whether an article like this belongs on Wikipedia?) With regard to the second, it is difficult for me to tell which parts are most POV because of my ties to the subject. Do you have any suggestions for which parts need rewriting the most? --Dlugar 02:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the page to discuss the linguistic studies and arguements in depth, or is it to define techniques and concepts that both pro and con have used to prove or disprove the books authenticity? I think the tone should be about the techniques and less about the critical arguements. I think even the word "prove" is too string, as this is all circumstantial anyway. Even Mormon scholars may in years to come throw out current theories on this. Bytebear 19:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One nitpick:

In addition, extra biblical accounts referencing the legend of Ester allude to synagogues.

How is this important? The Book of Esther (should it be written Ester or Esther?) is believed to be written between the 4--2nd century B.C. and the later additions to that book that are a part of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox versions (BTW, is it what you call "extra-biblical"?) are probably from the 2--1st century B.C. And the book is not actually a modern historical account. Does the source explain the connection? Does the source agree on the dating of the book with, say, Wikipedia? --Mikon 20:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Book of Mormon Language/Characters

OK. A question. Where does it best fit to put the following idea? Hawstom 06:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Besides the Book of Mormon text itself and historical statements, the only resource for Book of Mormon language studies is a transcribed sample of characters provided by Smith known as the Anthon Transcript or Caractors Document.

Does the Anthon Transcript or Caractors Document deserve its own article? We have an article on Reformed Egyptian. Maybe it would be better to either put all that on this page or on a separate Book of Mormon Languages page. Hawstom 06:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not sure. I think the above quote should be in the "linguistics" article. I think that eventually, the Anthon transcript should have its own article, and maybe a jpg showing what it looked like, and a discussion of what happened with Anthon. I think the Reformed Egyptian article should be quite brief, because there really isn't much material about it. Also, I don't think there should be both a "linguistics" and "languages" page, because that seems redundant. There should be lots of cross-referencing.

Page Focus

Is this page for the English text only, as in "Book of Mormon English Text Linguistic Studies"? Is it for everything about the language of the BofM, as in "Book of Mormon Languages"? I am confused. Hawstom 06:10, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking that for now, it could contain all intersections between the BofM and language studies. If it needs to be subdivided later, we might know better where the natural fault lines are later, after the article fills out with material. COGDEN 01:42, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it makes sense that the article be about the English text only. The reason for this is that the article deals with language as evidence for or against authenticity. Since all other language versions of the Book of Mormon are simply translations of the English version, the English version can be considered primary source material, and thus the only text to be used in serious authenticity testing. The actual source material (ancient writings on golden plates) no longer exists, if it ever existed in the first place. 71.209.54.138 20:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the only reason this article exists is because it's been a common method to attempt to prove or disprove the Book of Mormon. Those supporting it say it's a translation from another language, and elements such as Names, Locations, phrasing organization, etc. remain. I don't think the article should be about a certain language since a few different languages contribute to the bulk of the debate (inextricably connected to each other). gdavies 01:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoken Languages of Book of Mormon Peoples

I've recently begun working on an article, Book of Mormon Languages, which discusses the languages actually spoken by the people of the Book of Mormon. I think it deserves a seperate article. Feel free to add to it. DarkFantasy 12:41, 19 May 2004 (CDT)

No need for such an article, DarkFantasy. There is little to no knowledge of the spoken language except speculation. The Reformed Egyptian article is sufficient. —B|Talk 19:45, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Reformed Egyptian discusses only Reformed Egyptian, the writing system used on the Golden Plates. The Book of Mormon includes many words that were untranslated, which means that we have English equivilant. It also would talk about the Jaredite language, and Jaredite words such as deseret. If this information is already included in the Reformed Egyptian article, it should be moved. DarkFantasy

See my comments at Talk:Book of Mormon Languages —B|Talk 14:45, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

It is so great to hear you are undertaking that project, DF. I was anxious to see your work, but alas all I got was a redirect to Reformed Egyptian ;-) . I can see a clear distinction between Reformed Egyptian and Book of Mormon Languages, though I agree the article title you proposed is a bit ambiguous, and might be expected to mean the languages the Book of Mormon was written in. Is there possibly a better title for the article? How about Linguistics and the Book of Mormon :-D? Sorry. To tell the truth, Linguistics and the Book of Mormon does probably encompass that subject, and I am not sure how to break it out cleanly. Hmm. Could you start for now with a section of Linguistics? I am still anxious to see the beginnings of your effort. Kudos! Tom (hawstom) 21:33, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that the Jaredite words belong on the Adamic language page, since leaders, inlcuding Smith, have said they were pre-tower of babel and Adamic in nature. As for the other - "Book of Mormon Words" would be an appropriate title, although it is my opinion that this is getting into the speculative and primary research, as the words would have to be compared to an 1800s dictionary and encyclopedia to ensure they are not English equivelants. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, and I haven't seen more than one or two papers on the subject to draw from. Feel free to submit to FARMS, it does sound interesting, but not appropriate for this forum unless you can draw from sources. -Visorstuff 23:03, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Too true, V. The efforts we go to to arrive at NPOV agreements sometimes seem like original research. But we do have to avoid actually using the Wikipedia for original work. At least that is the party line. Still, I am anxious to see DF's contributions, presumably not original Wikipedia work. Tom (hawstom) 14:35, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Relevance of changes

I edited this section a lot and removed the following factually misleading excerpt. I am not really in this loop, but it should be fixed and thought through before being added back in. Tom 20:20, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

According to the Church the original translation was done by placing two "seer stones" (known as the Urimm and Thummim) in bows attached to a breast plate, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates "one character at a time." Smith dictated the interpretation to Oliver Cowdery, who would repeat it to Smith. According to Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon is "the most correct of any book on earth." After translating the plates, he said "These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct."

Critics argue the translation process does not allow for even one error, as a) Smith called it the most correct book and b) the translation was directed by God.

Recent anon edits a la Usenet

This article (Bible section) is now degenerating into another Usenet discussion. I guess that means it wasn't ironclad enough to begin with and we have to do a better job with the Bible section. Is the Bible section something we should be eliminating as way to speculative? Hmm. ??? I am commenting the section out for the time being. Tom - Talk 06:41, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Chiasmus existence in other cultures discussion

I removed:

Chiasmus is not specific to Hebrew writing forms and is present in many cultures literature.

The existence of Chiasmus in the supposed Reformed Egyptian calls into question the existence of Reformed Egyptian. Through linguistic assumptions one can not guarantee the Chiasm would remain intact. Smith asserted a literal translation and whether Chiasmus would survive the "translation" is in question. See the Tanners Chiasmus article (http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/chiasmusandthebom.htm) for sources and detail.

I would like to see better sourcing for these comments if they are to be included. Trödel|talk 14:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The sources were included and you need to read the link that was included but deleted. Your disagreement with it is driven by your differing point of view, not scholarly reasons. IT stays because it was referenced.

Read the article behind the link before removing something. 90 percent of the "facts" would be removed from many pro-mormon viewpoints if the same standards were held to assertions of supposed reformed egyptian, supposed nephites and supposed existence of kolob. If someone besides yourself can give a better reason besides better sourcing beyond UTLM's exhaustive research then so be it. Your own confirmation bias is not a valid reason to delete this edit. --Vegasbright 16:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Haha, good old Tanners. I cringe to see their work taken seriously anywhere, as they've done an excellent job of exhibiting utter and remarkable ignorance in almost all areas they are vocal about (which includes a whole lot of areas by the way). Citations to their work are a dark smudge on the scholastic integrity of Wikipedia. gdavies 19:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted the UTLM is a valid source for anti-mormon information - but I question their creditials in linguistics. We should be able to find a source unrelated to Mormonism their claims about Chiasmus that enhance Wikipedia's credibility. I.e. quoting sources that are not blatently anti-mormon adds to the credibility and neutrality of the article. When I make edits on Wikipedia I work hard to make those edits as neutral as I can and try to be fact based - check my contributions for examples. When you add something that includes "supposed", "asserted", etc. it immediately flags that section as biased. Proper wikipedia style is to do something like, "Critics claim that the process of translation would make identifying Chiasmus from the original Reformed Egymption difficult..." (though that is not exactly right) I don't have time to rewrite your paragraph because I think I am too biased to do so quickly and it would take time-consuming effort for me to do so. However, the fact remains that this information should be presented in an NPOV manner. Trödel|talk 17:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I should not have to take time out to respond to this edit but I guess petty pro-mormon POV edits need attention. Pro-mormon sources such as your opinion of UTLM are an invalid point of view. Your language, calling UTLM a source of "anti mormon" opinion is expressing the belef that the pro-mormon opinion is more valid than theirs. There is no "anti mormon" material in UTLM's site but there is information that you and other LDS members disagree with. So go home, take a breather and read the definition of point of view with a new insight that UTLM's opinion is just as valid as yours in Wikipedia. By the way, I put the edit back in with the sources included just for you,as you most likely did not look at the references to the tanners material - all 5 of them. For such a small article to include that ratio of references is the norm for the tanners. So keep up the edits, maybe you will concentrate more on valid objections next time.--Vegasbright 17:29, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, by anti-mormon I was meaning shorthand for a group whose "purpose ...is to document problems with the claims of Mormonism and compare LDS doctrines with Christianity" (from UTLM home page).

I proposed using neutral sources like the University of Utah professor who is quoted, or the Dialogue article that is quoted.

Using neutral sources - or being clear that it is a critc in describing the view are WP:NPOV - don't you see that including slanted wording invalidates the view when someone neutral reads it? IMHO, NPOV is policy for many reasons but one of the main ones is that it enhances the credibility of the article. Trödel|talk 17:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again I do not see any reason not to include UTLM's research. The supposed slant you percieve is nonexistant, as it is irrelevant what religion, agenda, etc is furthered by UTLM. If we delete UTLM's links then all FARMS, Jeff Lindsay, etc should be removed as well. --Vegasbright 18:36, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

UTLM's "research" put on the same level as FARMS? The problem with the Tanner's is they are not qualified to comment on many (if not most) of the things that they do. What degrees to they hold? Aside from 30 years of "disaffection" I'm not aware of any training in Hebrew, Archaeology, Genetics, Linguistics or any other field which they pretend to know about. FARMS on the other hand is full of some of the most dedicated and qualified scholars out there see this page for a list of authors, Stephen Ricks is the president/chairman/founding editor for the book review, etc. gdavies 20:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Sticking my nose in here. It is supremely important here at Wikipedia that we strive for the following, any of which I am afraid may be suffering here:

• Write articles that are encyclopedic. Whether it is the result of recent edits or not, the article as it stands represents a notepad or blog rather than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not a blog. It is not a magazine. We must at least try to write encyclopedic quality.
• Collaborate with wikilove, always doing our best to assume good faith of one another.

It is perfectly fine to confess that we are each here to see that our respective Points of View are represented fairly. But once here we are mandated to honestly try to put on our opposite glasses and try to write for the enemy. We are also mandated to speak well of one another and to work collegially toward solutions. If we can't honestly respect each other enough to do that, we simply can't work here. Just try to speak well toward each other here and remember the article itself is an encyclopedia article. Tom Haws 17:59, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not get confrontational - please be kind in comments - assumptions such as " AKA 'I dont agree with it so i'll delete it'" have no place when that was not the intent. Vegasbright has had similar conversations attacking Mormons on their "blindness" and even Anti-Mormons who disagreed with your thoughts - [2]. We are not out to get you - We are not here to hide anything as well - and we want to collaborate, however, you have to cut some slack for us as well. A negative attitude is not healthy for Wikipedia contributors. We are making an effort to be NPOV and hope you can help in that effort, but you must help us too by providing proper sources, accepting feedback and revising just as we all have to do - we are trying to do the same for you. I disagree with much of the information on Wikipedia from a doctrinal standpoint - as it is incorrect, and from a perception standpoint, as well as a sensitivity standpoint, however, I must allow others edits to stay and agree with the feedback presented. However, absolute words, inferences on intent and polarizing words are not appropriate for Wikipedia edits.

That said, I do agree that the UTLM source should be used, however, I too would like to see at least another source. It is the standard when doing basic research to have multiple sources. I think the edit may have merit on its own, but it should have multiple sources. This is not a new argument and has its place, however, should be discussed from a scholarly standpoint, not an amateur historian's standpoint (and FARMS, however amateur it can be, is associated with a university and is considered academic, but UTLM is not they are considered amateur professionals - regardless of how good they may be in preserving documents and raising good questions - they are both an integral part of the Mormon history profession and culture. Incidentally, we don't quote sunstone very often either...why is that? same reason we don't typically quote UTLM. too slanted, too amateur, etc. However, they have an article you may want to use as a reference for this particular disagreement - if you are willing to look it up).

We are trying to see others point of view and appreciate your edits, can you do the same for us? -Visorstuff 18:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Visorstuff, I generally agree that sources are good and often necessary, and they ought to be quality sources, but I'm not sure I can recall seeing another example of your insistence on multiple sources. How many is enough? Two? Five? Shall I start deleting all bits of pro-Mormon history that have less than three references? Let's both be reasonable here. I don't know beans about "the UTLM source", I'm just trying to catch up with what's going on, but on procedural grounds if you think the source is credible enough to use, than I say it ought to be enough. Frankly, I don't think there are that many non-Mormons who research the LDS that thoroughly or well, and we should probably be glad to find one or two such sources on a given sub-subject. Wesley 03:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Wesley. I see too much of the double standard applied by individuals not interested in opposing views uncomfortable to the LDS church. Too often pro LDS opinions do not have any sources but merely believe that the same standards applied to faith promoting rumors spread in relief society are applicable on Wikipedia. I would like to construct a formal rebuttal to this attitude. --Vegasbright 11:17, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I am fine with one or two sources. Additionally, I think we should prefer quoting sources that are peer reviewed and fact checked over webblogs and other sources, IF they are available, as it adds credibitiliy to the article. Trödel|talk 11:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried to incorporate the comments in an NPOV way, but being a minimalist they are short. I included the tanner as well as the review of Welch's book from the '84 Dialogue issue. The Tanner web page really doesn't summarize well the issues trying to be included here; so I think that rather than forcing a reader to find unlinked sources that are listed at UTLM, we should use actual links to the primary sources both pro and con - and quote from them if needed. Having read the Tanner thing again today - I just don't see how one could think that a secondary source without any review or fact checking is a better source than peer reviewed articles. Trödel|talk 19:29, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A personal note: I am just another TBM (True Believing Mormon--a caricatured acronym of course) here. If I disappear there won't be any great POV loss to the WP:LDS project; my POV will continue to be represented. But if you, Vegasbright, drop out, there will be a POV loss, and Wikipedia will be the worse for it. I think we all here feel that, and we hope you will hang in there, learn the ropes, and eventually make a positive mark on Wikipedia. Tom Haws 19:55, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tom, why is it that whenever we disagree about something you have to tell me to not "drop out"? I find this behavior to be odd, as I have never implied that I am going anywhere. Furthermore you continually imply that I need more experience. Its getting redundant and although I am new around here I am rather versed in how to construct valid arguments. I would describre your remarks as patronizing. My opinion is just as valid as yours in the eyes of wikipedia so please treat me and others accordingly. --Vegasbright 11:33, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think Tom is just speaking from past experience where people have left - I am sure that he means nothing against you personally Trödel|talk 11:54, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry I keep sticking my foot in my mouth. I thought it was an repeated expression of my personal estimation of your value to this project. I guess I better say less. Anyway, its good to be working with you all, and of course we all are learning. Tom Haws 17:51, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the repeated inviting nature, even though I do get conflicting statements from you sometimes. No big deal. I do not believe I am altogether cordial at times, myself.

:-) Tom Haws 19:52, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Did all this have anything to do with chiasmus? You guys, the original poster was absolutely right: chiasmus is *not* a Hebraism, plain and simple. If you would like, I will gather 50 examples of chiasmus from Greek and Latin literature (in the *original*, of course!) all occurring before the speakers of those languages had any substantial contact with speakers of Hebrew (this would of course constitute "original research", however). It's just not a Hebraism. And also, who said chiasmus was not popular in English literature? If you would like, I could easily gather 50 examples from popular authors of the 17th-19th centuries (again, original research and so technically inadmissible). The whole idea that it *is* a Hebraism is what should be discussed in the article: i.e. why do some people believe that it is a Hebraism in the first place, given that there is no evidence that it is a Hebraism (any more than that it is a Grecism, a Latinism, a Sanskritism, an Anglicism etc.). I'm not trying to be a troll here, but seeing so much virtual ink spilled talking about something that is a non-question is really frustrating. I mean, Reformed Egyptian? Come on... Charlie 04:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Proper Names

This section is lacking, to say the least. There are no sources, and it reads awkwardly. In fact, this whole article, along with many others on LDS, tip-toes between Mormon and "anti-Mormon" POVs, but I don't think I'm the person to correct them. At least not yet. Although I would, if no one objects, like to delete the entire Proper Names section. That, or whoever added that section can find a source and add it. Also, please try to clean it up. If this doesn't happen, it's getting deleted because it's ungainly and uncited. Flillibridge 05:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not going to delete the Proper Names section of this entry anymore, because I suppose it at least attempts to make a (possibly) valid point. I am, however, going to start editing and/or rewriting this and other sections of some of the entries listed on the Controversies in Mormonism page because they badly need it. If anyone wants to help, and try to correct some of these argumentative-type articles, feel free. Flillibridge 22:35, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I made one addition to this section. I added the controversy surrouding the name "Lemuel" and I gave the name of the book and the author where I procured this information. But this is my first time ever doing anything besides reading Wikipedia, so let me know if I cited incorrectly. I don't know the protocol and at this point I don't have time to learn, but soon enough I will take the time.--LanguageSLO 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BoM Arabic

"BoM Arabic" redirects here, but the page says nothing about Arabic.

I guess the redirect is an invitation to write something.  :-) Tom Haws 16:44, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the Book of Mormon doesn't really have anything to do with Arabic. The "BoM Arabic" article used to have some nonsense about a few Book of Mormon names being Arabic and this was evidence that Lehi had learned Arabic since he was a merchant or something along those lines. If there is some relationship between the Arabic Language and the Book of Mormon, I'd love to hear about it. --Dlugar 03:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. When every article about a BoM figure includes an Arabic transliteration of the name, it gives the false impression that Arabic was the original language of the book, when the book itself states that it was written by Jews in "reformed Egyptian" characters. In fact, the BoM is available to us only in translation, and any speculation about the characters' names in the original language is just that, speculation. It might be acceptable to include some of that speculation in the articles ("Some scholars have suggested that Nephi may be a form of the Egyptian name such-and-such...," etc.), but just putting the "BoM Arabic" in parentheses after the name is misleading and inappropriate. Unless someone can give me a good reason not to, I'm going to start deleting parenthetical Arabic names from BoM articles. Pterodactyler 14:54, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I came to this article expecting to find a reason for the surprising Arabic transliterations of BoM names in articles, but I found absolutely no discussion of Arabic in this article! Since this is an English encyclopedia, not an Arabic one, Arabic words should only appear (if at all) for things who were originally named in Arabic. Since nobody seems to allege (at least not in this article) that the BoM people spoke Arabic, all these Arabic names look extremely out of place. Nyh 14:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I would love to verify any and all claims about the BoM and Arabic. I have an equivalent of a BA in Arabic Language, so I hope that my expertise will be able to be helpful. However I don't know what yet I am supposed to prove or disprove. So as soon as someone would like to purport some kind of actual link between the BoM and Arabic, then I will be more than happy to look into it. I've got my connections in the Middle East big time, plus I just so happen to know an Arabic teacher who is on "teacher exchange" at BYU and going crazy without coffee, so at least this would give him something to do. So let me know and I shall find! --LanguageSLO 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Christ and Messiah

I tried to clean this up a bit, but I feel like I failed utterly. I think one of the major problems is this reference to Christ as a "name-title". A quick Google search reveals that this idea of the word "Christ" as a "name-title" is a predominately LDS idea. Since the idea of "Christ" as a "name-title" was not around in Biblical times, should such references even be a part of this article? --Dlugar 03:55, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that the Greek 'Christ' is a translation of the Hebrew 'Messiah'. They are, by now however, two different words in English. That the BOM should confirm to modern English usage is, the argument goes, evidence that it was written in modern English rather than a Semitic language. I removed the counterarguments because they didn't seem to address this point. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 20:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The counterargument addresses the issue directly, and shows that "Christ" is used in the Book of Mormon in the same way that Biblical scholars have interpreted the term. They have translated the relatively synonymous terms 'Khristós' and 'Messiah' into English, giving each a distinct usage. Joseph Smith seems to have followed the same patterns in translation, because the purpose of a translation is to convey the meaning of the base language, not to be overly literal. Obviously, the word "Khristós" would not have been etched on the plates; the Nephites didn't speak Greek, just as they didn't speak French (see the end of the Book of Jacob). Joseph Smith chose to translate whichever word or character WAS written into the English word "Christ," because that is how "Christ" is used in not only modern English, but in the English Bible itself. The fact remains that English Bibles use the terms "Christ" and "Messiah" in the same way that the Book of Mormon does, which the critics fail to mention (and they do not fault the Bible for doing so).

You're right that it's unfair to criticize the Book of Jacob for containing the word 'adieu'. That word is used in English and can reasonably (if somewhat unexpectedly) be used to translate all sorts of words in other languages. But back to Christ. The reason that the English Bible contains both the word 'Messiah' and the word 'Christ' is, if I'm not mistaken, that it's translated both from Hebrew and from Greek. This is not the reason for the presence of both words in the Book of Mormon. In any case your rewording of the rebuttal paragraph has improved it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 08:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Someone who knows Ancient Greek should work on "Jesus Himself uses the word "Christ" as a name-title in the way "Messiah" is not....". The New Testament was written in Greek, so what it says in an English translation is irrelevant. It wouldn't be Greekm but Latin would be better than English, here.

I think the "Jesus Himself uses..." part is quite innaccurate, as well as misses the point. In the New Testament, every instance of the word "Christ" could be replaced by "Messiah" or "Anointed One", for example: "The book of the generation of Jesus the Messiah" (Matt. 1:1), "Jesus, who is called the Messiah" (Matt: 1:16), or also "The book of the generation of Jesus the Anointed One," or "Jesus, who is called the Anointed One." In Ancient Greek, when they wrote "ιησους ο λεγομενος χριστος", they meant "Anointed", they did not mean for χριστος to mean anything but the Greek word for Messiah. The Mark 12:35 example could accurately be rendered, "And Jesus answered and said, while he taught in the temple, How say the scribes that the Messiah is the Son of David?" This is true of most of the places the Book of Mormon uses the word Christ, e.g. the Helaman example could be written: "remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is the Messiah, the Son of God". This doesn't pose any problem. However, the initial example: "it must needs be expedient that Christ--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name" is considerably more difficult. It doesn't work to render this text as "it must needs be expedient that the Messiah--for in the last night the angel spake unto me that this should be his name". I would rewrite, but I don't know how to word the section without appealing to original research. Any thoughts? --Dlugar 02:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a massive edit of this section, hoping to make the main point of it more clear, and added several references in the process. Please feel free to add to the discussion! --Dlugar 15:27, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Nephi

I'm stuggling a bit with this sentence:

The Book of Mormon contains over 300 proper names, which some consider a strong evidence that the book could not have been written in the 19th century (see 33 Challenges of the Book of Mormon). Some of these names are found in the Bible and the Apocrypha (e.g. Nephi: II Maccabbees 1:36; Lehi: Judges 15:9; Lemuel: Proverbs 31:1; Ammon: Genesis 19:38; Enos: Genesis 4:26; and many others). A few of the names are similar to place names around New York that existed before the Book of Mormon was first published (e.g. Lehi, Onidah, Morianton, Jacobugath, Alma, Shilom, Kishkumen, Moron, Shurr, Ogath, and Ramah--see also Book of Mormon Authorship).

Aside from the disputes of the word Nephi - based on which translations you use (and which have been discussed ad nauseum at scholarly conferences long ago), the following "similarities" to maps seem a bit of a stretch. In addition, Shurr is listed, but no source provided for it. I'm going to leave in, (aside from Shurr) but thought the full list provided at the source should be included here. Someone took a lot of effort to compile this list, which I could also do in Italy, Spain and China, using similar methods:

Modern Map = Book of Mormon name Agathe, Saint * Ogath Alma Alma Angola Angola Antrim Antum Antioch Anti-Anti Boaz Boaz Conner * Comner Ephrem, Saint * Ephraim, Hill Hellam Helam Jacobsburg Jacobugath Jordan Jordan Jerusalem Jerusalem Kishkiminetas Kishkumen Lehigh Lehi Mantua Manti Monroe Moroni Minoa Minon Moraviantown * Morianton Morin * Moron Noah Lake Noah, Land of Oneida Onidah Oneida Castle Onidah, Hill Omer Omner Rama * Ramah Ripple Lake * Ripliancum, Waters of Sodom Sidom Shiloh Shilom lands of the Minonion Land of Minon Tenecum (Tecumsah) * Teancum

Importance to Latter-day Saints

This section seems like a general-purpose statement about Latter-day Saint belief, and not a comment that distinctively belongs in a discussion of linguistics and the Book of Mormon. Could this perhaps be transferred to the generic Book of Mormon article and removed from this one? Moroni

I think that such a (brief) statement should be in each of the Book of Mormon articles. Otherwise, readers would assume that Mormons place more weight on physical and linguistic evidence than should happen. Since the beginning, a witness from God has been preached as the only evidence necessary. Personally, I look at other evidence as what may bring some people to ask for the witness from God, but will never reach the level of convincing someone by the evidence alone.

I think that this paragraph should be the first paragraph after the introduction and table of contents. Val42 15:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Moroni. This should be left on pages such as "Faith and Mormonism" or "Faith and the Book of Mormon", because if it's not directly related to linguistics, then it isn't linguistics and should be categorized elsewhere.--LanguageSLO 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Word Choice in Translation

Westbrook348 made some edits to some content which I had contributed, which I appreciate. He cleaned up some of my awkward grammar and I think made the article more NPOV. I am clearly *NOT* neutral when it comes to this subject but I try really hard to write as though I were. Sometimes I succeed more than others...

Anyway, the only real problem I have with Westbrook's edits to this page is in his closing comments about the accounts of Whitmer and Harris as they relate to the translation of the BOM. He edited the paragraph to say:

If this version of the translation process is accurate (placed into question by earlier descriptions that fail to mention seer stones), then there is very little room for error in the word choices used in the translation of the Book of Mormon (since each word was reportedly divinely approved and could not be written incorrectly). "Steel" must mean steel, "horse" must mean horse, "wheat" must mean wheat, and so forth.

The part I am most having a problem with is the "(placed into question by earlier descriptions that fail to mention seer stones)". To my way of thinking, if one accepts a witnesses's testimony in *some* instances and not in others, then one is really just cherry-picking the testimony of that witness to reach the conclusion one wants. If Whitmer and Harris are reliable enough to establish the authenticity of the BOM then they should be reliable enough to establish the method of its translation. If their testimonies differ... well, that says something about their reliability as witnesses, doesn't it? I would either like to see the parenthetical comment struck, or else I would like to see some follow-up discussion which drives home the point that witnesses who provide inconsistent or contradictory testimony really aren't very good witnessess at all. Comments? Jarom Smith 03:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the parenthetical phrase is there is because there are plenty of accounts that differ from those quoted; to ignore that they exist is irresponsible and misleading, especially when the topic being discussed is the method of translation (was joseph given the words in english, or did he have to study it out in his mind per D&C 9?). if you want to try and discredit the witnesses' testimonies, go for it, though i think this is the wrong place for it. the fact of the matter is, witnesses are not going to 100% accurate in their descriptions their whole life. witnesses often remember the same event differently, even just days later; what i tried to explain is that these accounts by whitmer and harris originate in the 1880s, decades after the translation took place. their recollections after all that time do not have to be completely accurate in order for their book of mormon testimonies to still be valid (a bigger question is why none of the 3 ever denied their testimony, when all 3 left the church at some point and were disgruntled with joseph for this reason or that? you'd think if they were lying in any way, they would expose joseph as a fraud. yet they stood FIRMLY by their testimonies their whole lives). in conclusion, while i think there is some validity to your claim that there is a correlation between a witnesses' testimony of one event and a testimony of another event, given the great time gap it becomes less of an issue; moreover, the article is not dealing w/ the witnesses as much as it is dealing with the method of translation, only one of which involves words appearing to joseph in a hat.

Westbrook348 05:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been a much discussion about the three witnesses and the fact that they never abandoned their testimonies. Whole books have been written about it. I would argue that there are many reasons, besides "it being true", for people to stick to their testimony once it has been given. Howerver, that is outside the scope of this article, although it might belong over on the three witnesses page. What I would like to know is, of these other accounts which you say exist, were they accounts given by Whitmer and Harris (i.e., did Whitmer and Harris provide contradictory accounts?) or are they simply contradictory accounts given by other people? If the former, then I would suggest clarification of the statement to indicate that Whitmer and Harris provided contradictory testimony regarding the translation process, as well as some kind of citation or reference to support that statement. If the latter, then you are really comparing apples to oranges and confusing one person's testimony with another. Clearly, Whitmer and Harris' testimony is and should be accorded "special" status by virtue of the fact they are "official" witnesses for the BOM. Indeed, anyone who picks up the book can see in the first few pages that the book purports to establish its authenticiy by virtue of their testimony. Therefore, I think it is fair and reasonable to accord more weight to the testimony of Whitmer and Harris than to anybody else who claims to give a differing account of the translation of the plates. At the very least, we should make it clear that *other people* (i.e., not Whitmer and Harris) contradicted the accounts of Whitmer and Harris, and let people judge for themselves who was in a position to best know and whose testimony is likely to be authoritative. Jarom Smith 23:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to back up to the original issue here - but word choice in 1830 is not as precise as it is today. For example, your comment about "steel meaning steel" does not have the same weight today as 180 years ago. No one in Smith's day is going to say, well did the iron made in the Book of Mormon really have less than 1.5 percent carbon by weight or is it really "cast iron?" (iron smelted types are categorized as either steel, iron alloy or cast iron). Or, did Mormon/Moroni say iron, as it was begun to be used, but were referring to all metals as steel, or a billion other apologists and scholars guesses as to the meaning. The bottom line is words that Smith was familiar with were used in almost all places. there are very few departures from this - (curelom, deseret, etc. which Moroni used). It seems that Mormon used the easiest object by comparison, or that Smith did as well. All I'm saying is more needs to be considered in this argument either way. -Visorstuff 23:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Visorstuff, thanks for chiming in. I think you're missing the point I am trying to make about word choice. According to the testimony of Whitmer and Harris, which is undisputed so far as I know (although Westbrook claims to have a reference which says otherwise; we'll see) -- God supplied the words. Not Joseph Smith. And the words couldn't be written down incorrectly because God wouldn't let that happen. (I am not making this up, that is what the testimony says.) I could maybe accept the argument that Joseph Smith didn't know what steel was, or that he chose one word when the original writer/document really said another, etc. But the testimony of Whitmer and Harris claims that every single word was divinely-inspired and approved. Are you now going to argue that God doesn't know the difference between steel and tumbaga? Or between a horse and a tapir? So, here is my point, as succinctly as I can make it:

• The Book of Mormon presents David Whitmer and Martin Harris as credible witnesses for the authenticity of the BOM.
• If David Whitmer and Martin Harris are credible witnesses about the authenticity of the BOM, then they should be accepted as credible witnesses about its translation too.
• Both David Whitmer and Martin Harris claim that each word of the Book of Mormon was divinely-inspired and could not be written down incorrectly.
• Therefore, there is no room -- zero -- for error in the translation. Unless you allow for the possibility that God doesn't know what steel, horse, barley, wheat, cow, elephant, etc. mean.

Jarom Smith 16:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jarsomsmith - Sorry in advance for the long response - it is my norm.

• • No worries. I'm going to do an in-line response with bullets to set off my comments. I hope that doesn't become too cumbersome.

First - a bit of playful banter - I don't mean to sound rude, but God knows the difference between Steel and Tumbaga, but you apparently do not. :^) Steel is iron and carbon. Tumbaga is gold and copper. They are not related as you suggested, and I chuckled when I read that, as I knew what you meant, but it seems you were hasty in your response, as we all tend to be. Thanks for letting me chide you on this. :^) Please don't be offended, I'm simply teasing you. We've all made similar mistakes.

• • Thank you for the correction/clarification. Critics have pointed out that plates of gold of the size Joseph claimed to have would weigh over 200 lbs (and thus, have been difficult for Joseph to "run" with, as well as other problems). In response, some apologists have suggested that perhaps the plates were made of tumbaga. (see http://www.shields-research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Tumbaga.htm). Of course, none of this has to do with iron, and none of THAT has to do with the translation of the BOM or linguistics. So thank you for catching my mistakes, and now *I* will catch my mistake and get back on topic...

Now on to your question/point:

You may want to reread the accounts, God did not provide the words, but provided the translation of Mormon's words.

• • Are we looking at the same thing? David Whitmer says: "One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English." Martin Harris describes a similar process, and like Whitmer, notes that "when finished [the Prophet] would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected." That doesn't leave a lot of room for error. The words appeared in English, Joseph called them out, and the scribe wrote them down. If it was not written down correctly, the translation did not proceed.
    • This does not mean, however, that God provided the dictation to Mormon (and Smith), but rather that he provided the translation to Smith of what was already written. That's like saying because the bible is inspired that every english word was how God intended it to be. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Maybe it's just me, but you seem to be willfully ignoring what Whitmer and Harris actually stated regarding the "translation" process -- that words appeared in English. According to their testimony, Joseph wasn't "translating" anything (in the normal sense of the word). Rather, he was reading off English words and the scribes were writing them down. If that is the case, then the "translation" must be 100% perfect which means that if there are any errors in the text of the BOM, they must have been Mormon's and not Joseph's. (For example, as I said before, I could buy the idea that Mormon wrote "Benjamin" instead of "Mosiah"). It's a harder sell to get me to believe that Mormon wrote words for things which apparently didn't exist in his environment such as horses, elephants, iron, steel, wheat, cows, and so forth. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, Harris and Cowdery were two of the first to suggest that the use of "Benjamin" rather than "Mosiah" in the translation of Mosiah 21:28 was not a translation mistake or a printers error, but an error in Mormon's abridgement (...and if there be mistakes, they are the mistakes of men...").

• • I will concede the possibility that perhaps Mormon, in abridging the record, got "Benjamin" and "Mosiah" mixed up. I can see how that could happen. But I don't see how you could attribute things like iron, horse, cow, wheat, barley, etc. being in the record to Mormon. Did he screw up and write "steel" when he meant to write something else? Did he write horse when he meant to write something else?

Something that Sid Sperry continued research on in the mid 1900s. I'm not an apologist, nor do I aspire to the realms of it. I'm just saying you are not considering all possibilities. The majority of the time, Smith did not use words he was unfamiliar with. I think of what my Mom taught me when I learned Algebra: "You can pray all you want, but God can't help you recall those things you haven't studied." For the most part, Smith used either the words he was familiar with, or the words that Mormon/Moroni/Nephi used. Not what God used. The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation of Mormon/Moroni/Nephi's work, not a dictation from God or an angel like the Koran. They are not God's words, but Mormon/Moroni/Nephi's words, which God gave the "correct" translation for.

• • I'm glad you mentioned this. The Book of Mormon claims to be a translation. I guess *my* point (sorry it has taken me so long to articulate this) is that, from the accounts of Martin Harris and David Whitmer, it sounds a lot more like a dictation or divination (like the Koran) than it does a translation. So really, all this talk about translation is off the mark if David Whitmer and Martin Harris are to be believed.
    • I don't read the primary source like you do, apparently. I see it as a "they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us..." not the content was "chosen" and dictated directly from God. See my comment above. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • In the "testimony of the three witnesses" which you refer to, in which the witnesses state that "[the plates] have been translated by the gift and power of God...", at no point do they say *how* the translation was performed. They only say that it was performed. Sixty years later, they say how. The two testimonies are not contradictory in nature (in fact, in the latter testimony Whitmer and Harris still say "translated" when describing the process), and yet for some reason you seem to be willing to accept the first account and not the 2nd. You seem to be assuming that "translated" in the first account means "translated" according to the normal understanding of the word, but for whatever reason, that does not seem to be what Martin Harris and David Whitmer meant when they said "translated". Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Second, word choice about animals is not a great example to use. There are two schools of thought: Tapir and Horse are both in the same Order, Perissodactyla, so a categorization is irrelevant (of course so is the Rhino, and Mastadons, Mammoths and Elephants are more closely related that Mongloids and Negroids and Caucasians. The second, which I believe is that I personally, don't believe that Tapirs and Horses are the equivelent and that there were horses in the americas. Steel and Iron definitely were, as was silk (different species of worms, but same genus).

• • I'm not sure what your point is here. I understand you to be saying that the horse and tapir are closely related, and that the mastodon and mammoth are more closely related than different races of humans. I am not sure what this has to do with word choice, particularly if the words were divinely chosen.
    • I'm saying one variable to consider is whether or not Smith knew the term "tapir" or "mastadon" If he did not, then he wouldn't have likely used. The words were not divinely chosen (see comment above) but that the translation of existing words was divinely given. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • You're still missing the point. Smith didn't come up with the words, at least not according to eye-witness testimony of the process. So it's irrelevant whether or not he knew the words "tapir" or "mastodon" Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Over on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, you'll read that Horses and elephants did exist in the Americas, much later than many think. This for me is solely a lack of available evidence, and will someday be vindicated. You are taking apologists and critics work and saying that the book of Mormon is right or wrong because of it. This is not the case. There is just not evidence for or against these claims at this time as complete data is not available.

• • I don't want to get too much into archaeology here. If you want to argue that there may be evidence "out there" that just hasn't been found yet, you certainly may do so but that is a non-falsifiable assertion (and therefore scientifically meaningless). I can't prove that the evidence isn't out there, and I don't have to. The burden of proof is on you. If/when the evidence shows up, I will be happy to re-evaluate my position. Until then I won't hold my breath.
    • Agree. That belongs to that page. I again, am no apologist, but have been amazed at the research in this area. Now with confirmed Mid-east sites based on both internal and external evidences, there is much more lively discussions taking place or discounted. But that is another discussion. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: "But the testimony of Whitmer and Harris claims that every single word was divinely-inspired and approved." No this was not in their "testimony" of the book of Mormon, but in later accounts.

• • Correct. Same people, additional testimonies.
    • Correction: same people, later recollections. Time fades memories. Historians will take a contemporary primary source over a recollection any day. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I would agree with this if there were any discrepancies between the two accounts. In other words, if the first account contradicted the 2nd (later) account, then the 1st account would be generally deemed to be more accurate. But that is not the case here. These two accounts do not contradict each other, unless you insist on assigning the normal meaning of the word "translate" to the use of the word "translated" in the first account, which is not supported by the text itself. As an aside, Joseph Smith gave many versions of his "First Vision" story. Why do you suppose the LDS church adopts the 1838 version (which is some 18 years after the alleged incident) instead of more contemporaneous accounts such as his 1832 or 1835 accounts? In fact, why isn't there an 1820 account? Rhetorical question and slightly off-topic for this discussion, except that it illustrates some of the inconsistency of your position. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Now back to the translation, you are trying to come to a conclusion of which there will not be any scientific proof of - only statements, and evidences of.

• • Wait, stop right there. If a statement is not going to be considered valid "evidence" for purposes of this discussion then all bets are off. That's not what you're saying, is it?
    • That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you seem to be trying to "prove" something here. Don't. Provide evidence. Let the reader come to his own conclusion. You cannot claim to have a certain conclusion, when it is impossible to prove something that is spiritual. You cannot prove that God doesn't exist, or that he does. In the same vein, you cannot prove that the book of Mormon is not true, or that it is. There is no "indisputable" evidence one way or the other. In fact, there is as much, if not more that disproves the biblical history as the book of Mormon. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • What I am trying to do is use deductive logic and reasoning to demonstrate that "translator word choice" is not an acceptable explanation for anachronistic words in the Book of Mormon. I have done the best I can. I cannot prove that the BOM is false, nor do I intend to. The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, in this case you or the LDS church. The only "proof" which has been offered is the testimony of 11 witnesses, which in some respects is remarkable and in other respects is highly suspect. As far as I am concerned, the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the BOM is not true because every time a BOM claim is subjected to a scientific test, the BOM fails. No smelted iron. No wheat. No cows. No DNA. And so forth, and so on... But that, again, is beyond the scope of this discussion. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Were we to go to your the extreme of your reasoning, we'd have to conclude that David Whitmer was the rightful successor to Smith, but in 1838, prior to Smith's death, which he claimed.

• • I'm not following... I assume you're referring to someting David Whitmer said?
    • The same document you are quoting from, I believe, says that Smith was a fallen prophet. David was ordained "president of the Church" in Zion by smith (who was president of the church), so he would have been the rightful successor had smith fallen as a prophet. Your reasoning above takes that everything that David Whitmer said was true. If this is true, then he was the rightful successor he claimed to be later in his life. -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I searched through the document I was quoting ("An Address to All Believers in Christ") and could not find that reference. In any case, it seems you want to pick and choose from witness testimony. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Their "legally-binding" witness document is found in the front of the Book of Mormon, and other recollections later do not carry the same weight and that affidavit.

• • First of all, the witness documents in the BOM are not signed or notarized and therefore not legally binding (although, the witnesses did affirm their testimony later, so we can safely assume that it is theirs). Secondly, you say that the testimonies don't carry the same weight -- why not? [Note: I think I know what you'll say here and I have a smart-aleck response, so be careful!]  :-)
    • My answer is more complex. That statement in the front of every BOM was commanded to be written and signed by God. Smith and the others thought it a good idea to include in the BOM. It was signed as an everlasting testimony. Therefore it was "notarized" in some fashion. It was signed in the presence of others as to be legally binding (I'll have to check to see if it was notarized, but doubt it was, as notorizign was not common. Their later testimonies don't carry the same weight because of both this and the lapse of time (see recollection comments above). This is over smiplified but should suffice for thsi discussion. (by the way, gotta run, but will finish responding shortly) -Visorstuff 00:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Drat, I can't remember what my smart-aleck resopnse was going to be. It would seem to me that if you're going to insist that "the earlier recollection is the best recollection" (which seems reasonable to me) then you'll have a hard time justifying why the LDS church uses the 1838 version of Joseph Smith's first vision instead of his earlier recollections (which, of course differ). And again, in this instance we are discussing now there is NO DISCREPANCY between the two recollections. They are complementary, not contadictory. Yet you seem to want to reject the 2nd one because it has some implications you don't find comfortable. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Even Whitmer said, what he had said in that statement was "verily true" and that it was what he believed. Perhaps I am still missing your point? If so, please continue to clarify and I can be slow to comprehend at times...

• • Not a problem. I am not putting the testimonies at odds with each other. Rather, I am saying that if we are to accept "this one" (the BOM testimony), then we also have to also accept "that one" (their testimony regarding the translation). And if you accept their testimony regarding translation, then there really isn't much room for error in word choice. In fact, you could argue that "word choice" is really not accurate at all since, according to the testimony, no human chose any words. Remember, the testimony says: the words appeared in English, Joseph called them out, the scribe wrote them down, and only when written correctly did the next words appear. The only way to get out of this inevitable conclusion is to impeach the 2nd testimony, which (in my opinion) you can't do without compromising the integrity of the 1st testimony. Then the BOM just spontaneously blows up! (just kidding).
    • Again, that seems very oversimplified to me, and most historians. We could apply the same to the writings of paul, the chronicles and even the declaration of independence. Just because two events don't seem to line up, doesn't mean they don't or do. It means we weren't there and we don't know all of the data. Again, I read the testimonies of these men and see them as describing the translation process, not a diction process. To me, that is a big and significant difference. -Visorstuff 01:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, clearly, we are at an impasse. You read a description of a dictation and insist on calling it a translation. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an important discussion, so I think you and User:Westbrook348 need to come to some sort of agreement and I'll be happy to help you consider more alternatives to your respective points, as there is much more to consider than either of you are in this disagreement.

Incidentally, you mention, "I am clearly *NOT* neutral when it comes to this subject." What is your bias? -Visorstuff 17:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I am ex-Mormon. I was born and raised in the church (you don't get a name like "Jarom Smith" otherwise...) but I left after taking a critical look at things. Gotta run! Jarom Smith 22:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry of your decision. I really feel, as I stated above, most anti-Mormon arguments have oversimplified things. I also feel that the answers are not complex. People have the tendancy to draw conclusions where there is none to be made. People use stereotypes and apply them generally (ie the steel argument above). When I look at the real data, I become more impressed with what Smith was able to do. He was a genius to correctly "guess" so many things from Chrism (see Washings and anointings (Mormonism) to gnostic texts, to the 75+ sources he supposedly plagerized the Book of Mormon from. That feat is pretty amazing. For me, in addition to having a testimony via the Spirit, I've decided that hundreds of "coincidences" have to add up to be at least one point of evidence in his support. Glad to have been talking to you. -01:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Don't be sorry for my decision. I am very happy as an ex-Mormon. I think with regards to Mormonism, we're going to have to agree to disagree. We look at the same things and draw different concusions. I am not interested in arguing with you about it, nor am I particularly interested in persuading you. I would like to see substantiation for the comment that Westbrook made about the testimony of Whitmer and Harris "(placed into question by earlier descriptions that fail to mention seer stones)". In particular, I would like substantiation for this comment, and I would like it clarified that either *other* people provided different accounts (which is one thing), or else that Whitmer and Harris provided contradictory accounts (which is something else). Right now it's not clear which is meant, although the implication is that Whitmer and Harris's accounts are somehow "less" because of these other accounts which are allegedly out there. I'd like to let the reader judge for himself or herself which of the accounts should be believed. Perhaps we could make "Method of Translation" a whole separate section? Thanks for the chat. Jarom Smith 19:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed your changes - I think it should still say, "according to this argument" - can you provide sources for other scholars that believe that word choice of the Book of Mormon was given by diction? I understand that we have differing opinions on this, that is fine (I believe it was a translation, you belive it was a diction). But I am unaware of anyone that believes in your point of view from a scholarly viewpoint. I've cited sid sperry as stating that word choice was mormons/Moroni's/Nephi's not "God's diction." Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, not a place to push our point of view. If we can't decide, perhaps we ought to leave the original quotes in there and share each side of the arguement, who thinks this (with references) etc. I just am unaware of other scholars who have suggested what you have. THey may have, but I am unaware of it.

Hi Visorstuff, thanks for dropping in again. I provided several references for scholarly works (books, articles, etc) which discuss the translation/dictation process of the BOM. They are included in the "References" section of the article. For your convenience, here they are again:

• Grant H. Palmer, An Insider's View of Mormon Origins, (Signature Books, SLC, 2002, pp. 2-7,66,169). Palmer is an LDS seminary teacher and three-time director of LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah
• D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987; revised, expanded 1998, pp. 41-ff)
• James E. Lancaster, "By the Gift and Power of God," Saints Herald, 109:22 (November 15, 1962) pp. 14-18, 22, 33
• Edward H. Ashment, "The Book of Mormon — A Literal Translation," Sunstone, 5:2 (March-April 1980), pp. 10-14
• Richard S. Van Wagoner and Steven C. Walker in "Joseph Smith: The Gift of Seeing," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 15:2 (Summer 1982), pp. 48-68
• Blake T. Ostler, "The Book of Mormon as a Modern Expansion of an Ancient Source," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 20:1 (Spring 1987), pp. 66-123
• Stephen D. Ricks, "The Translation and Publication of the Book of Mormon," Foundation for Ancient Research & Mormon Studies, official F.A.R.M.S. transcript of video lecture, 1994, 16 pages

If there is a contrary view -- i.e., some eye-witness account which says that the Book of Mormon was produced in some way OTHER than by dictation -- then of course that viewpoint should be presented as well. To my knowledge such an account doesn't exist. That's why I removed the parenthetical comment. However, I guess I didn't understand what you were trying to say with the Sid Sperry reference. If you would like to write up something along the lines of "Sid Sperry, a Mormon researcher and scholar, feels that this account of the translation process is incorrect because of XYZ.." with a reference to Sid's work, I think that would be great. We could include Sid's work in the references section, too. However, all other things being equal, the testimony of David Whitmer and Martin Harris would have to carry more weight than the ideas of Sid Sperry. (We don't need to spell this out in the article, we can let the reader figure it out for themselves as long as we make it clear who Sid Sperry is and that he was not an eye-witness to the events). As you yourself said, "Historians will take a contemporary primary source over a recollection any day".

Second, does the translation process really belong in this article? Linguistics is "The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics." Does the translation process really belong in this context? -Visorstuff 16:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it does. Some would argue that it makes no sense to have a "BOM linguistics" page in the first place since there were no gold plates, no Nephites, no Lamanites, etc.  :-p But if there is to be a discussion of Book of Mormon linguistics, it seems reasonable (to me at least) that there should be some mention of the translation/dictation process by which the book was produced, since that process would have an obvious impact on the words used in the Book of Mormon. Jarom Smith 16:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow your guys' back and forth banter is difficult to follow, not to mention quite off-topic at times. I don't mind that the paranthetical statement was removed, though i do think it was less confusing than Jarom claims. I was not asserting that whitmer and harris had contradicted themselves, but was asserting that accounts by other witnesses to the translation process imply that it was not a dictation. the fact of the matter is, there are multiple versions of how the translation took place; whitmer's and harris's version is not the only one. moreover, their versions come into existence after joseph smith's death, decades after the book of mormon was originally published, so these accounts should be given LESS weight rather than more. simply because they are witnesses to the existence of the gold plates and saw the angel does not mean every statement they ever gave regarding the book of mormon is accurate or should be given extra weight; any "testimony" (i.e. recollection) of the translation process is completely separate and independent of the testimonies printed at the front of the book of mormon. thus, while i have no problems with their accounts being presented, it should not be implied in the article that what they said later in their lives has to be believed in order to not cast doubt on their earlier, separate, and unrelated testimonies. that is the main issue. happy thanksgiving, guys. ~~westbrook348

Hi Westbrook. Sorry for the mess. I understand your point. I think that the edits which have been made make it clear that the recollections of Whitmer and Harris were made later in their lives and are not contemporary with their "official" BOM testimony. As for how much weight should be given to their testimony, I am content to let the reader decide. I think we have presented all the facts as NPOV as possible. Jarom Smith 22:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Jaromsmith, I think you still misunderstand my sid sperry reference. His belief, as was Harris' and Whitmers, according to my reading of teh primary documents, and the sources you mentioned, is that smith was "given" the translation by the gift and power of God. Therefore if Mormon made an error in the writing, then the words translated by Smith would have that same error. Thus it was a perfect translation, not a diction of words from god about how the nephites lived. It is thus not God's word choice, but Mormon's word choice given by God. This was his argument.

I see nothing in the sources you mentioned that state that God was the author of the words. On the contrary, I see them saying God gave the translation of Mormon's words. Perhaps if I'm reading in different places within the sources? Please provide page/URL references and specific quotes that God was the author of the book of Mormon words, rather than Mormon.

Westbrook348, sorry about the off-topic. Illustrations are my style, but probably not appropriate in all cases. I'm working on it. -Visorstuff 07:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

OK it seems we're getting stuck on a word here. I understand exactly what you are saying. In fact, I agree with you and I have been trying to say the same thing! (Funny how that happens some times). I think we both agree that whatever is in the BOM neccesarily must have been *exactly* what Mormon wrote down. There is no room for error in the translation, or word choice, because the translation was "perfect" since it was given by God (by whatever mechanism). But where does that leave us? If the translation is 100% correct and any mistakes in the BOM text are the mistakes of Mormon, then how do you explain anachronistic word choices like "horse", "elephant", "wheat", "cow", and so forth? Surely, if Mormon was writing about a beast of burden which was familiar to his people, time and location, he would have used the actual word for that beast of burden instead of using some other word (such as "ass" or "horse"). The fact that "curelom", "cumom", and "deseret" (all unknown words in English) show up in the translation would seem to indicate that when an English equivalent for whatever Mormon had written was not available, a transliteration of Mormon's phrase was used. The idea that somehow, Mormon (sitting circa AD 400 and summarizing the writing of others) somehow read a word which described a contemporary plant or animal (like a tapir) and decided to subsitute it with a word which would refer to something which didn't even exist in his time (like a horse) is preposterous. It would be like me sitting down in 2005 to write an autobiography and instead of using words like "computer", "network" and "monitor" I used words for technologies which haven't been invented yet and won't be invented for another 1000+ years. Do you see where I am going with this? Logically, the whole discussion of "word choice" really makes no sense. I don't expect you to agree with my POV but I am wondering if I have even successfully conveyed to you what my POV is. By my understanding, if the translation is 100% perfect (or reasonably close thereto) then gross anachronistic errors such as "horse", "cow", "ass", "wheat", etc. simply cannot be accepted. The whole BOM self-destructs in a puff of logic. Jarom Smith 22:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I am going to throw out my 2 cents. I agree with Jarom Smith in that the translation process is documented as a word for word translation. I have also heard that God must know the difference between a horse and a tapir. However, the BOM was not written for God. It was written for man, and generally men at that time and this time for that matter haven't a clue what a tapir is, and therefore, my theory is thisL God chose words that Smith specifically and English speaking people could understand. So not only did the Smith translate from Reformed Egyptian to English, he also translated from ancient concepts to modern English paradigmns. - Bytebear 19:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Emma's conflicting testimony regarding BOM translation

Someone (I believe it was Westbrook or Visorstuff) pointed out that Emma gave conflicting versions of how the BOM was translated. In some instances she apparently said that Joseph translated with the plates in front of him (and with a cloth separating him from the scribe), whereas in other instances she said that Joseph had "his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it" and would dicate for hours and hours in this fashion with "nothing between us". (see History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols. (Independence, Missouri: Herald House, 1951), "Last Testimony of Sister Emma," 3:356.) So I have taken out references to Emma's testimony altogether, since the section was already getting pretty cluttered. If someone feels the need to put it back in (I don't think it adds a lot) then both versions of her testimony should be included. Jarom Smith 22:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I added back in. I personally believe both accounts are correct. Larry Porter (if I remember the author right) wrote an article a few years back in the Ensign that discussed translation process. He cited the sources you've mentioned and more that suggests that Smith didn't use only one method to translate. JS III claimed it was solely throught the seer stone, but Mother smith said it was through the breastplate and U&T. Emma has three differing accounts to my knowledge. But if all are correct, Smith used multiple means to translate the BOM. Direct revelation, U&T, and Seer stone. Interesting to note, that he hardly used the U&T or seer stone in contemporary accounts after D&C 13 was received. most of Mormon, Moroni, the title page, and 1 Nephi-Words of Mormon were done unaided by a conduit device from my own research and the article I referred to. My findings are that he started with the U&T, found the SS easier, but bounced back and forth as he became familiar with the U&T, he used it more. Then relied on both less after he recieved the priesthood. However, Wikipedia is not a place for primary research.... -Visorstuff 23:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to laugh. When I embarked upon this project (of actively trying to edit/contribute to the Wikipedia) I received the following sage advice from a colleague:

I used to try to contribute to these historical/biographical/religious/political articles on Wikipedia. Now, I feel that by contributing to these sorts of articles in Wikipedia, I am implicitly endorsing Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source for that sort of information. I will not do that, because it is publicly editable and is not professionally reviewed. Hence, the bias of any given article is inevitably on the side of the fanatics, who will *never* tire of reverting non-faith-promoting factual content or spinning things in whatever angle their own subjective view promotes. Unless there is enough counter-fanaticism, it is ultimately a losing battle. Trying to maintain a balance against the fanatics on Wikipedia will only lead to frustration, and you will give up before they do. Rather than try to fight that losing battle, I would focus spending time on letting others know that Wikipedia is not a very good source for historical/biographical/religious/policital information.

I can see now that my colleague was correct. I give up. Visorstuff, you win. Write whatever you want. Jarom Smith 00:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you think that some information should not be included. I'm sorry that you try to draw conclusions when the conclusions are not their, and I'm sorry that you don't consider many of us on here academic or professional. A good number of us are published in other forums about these topics. To me, this is a good example of immediage peer review, however, I do agree there are many problems. You do have a lot to contribute - but don't draw conclusions. When you look at our edits, and discussion, I've simply maintained the point that we don't know how smith got the words - whether by diction or translation, and that we don't know the processes that he used. We have dozens of statements, many contradictory, that are used to explain his process. The bottom line you draw conclusions where there is no conclusive evidence on this particular topic. I do hope you stay and contribute, just try not to push a POV that is so controversial and unsubstantiated and not supported by any other scholar. I've not added in my research for the same reason. Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, but for supported theory. How smith "translated" has only been discussed by a handful of folks, but yet you are certain you know how he did it. I hope you continue to contribute, as I don't think I've "reverted" as much as that last post alludes. You are obviously well-read, and that is important for wikipedia. Plus you have an opposing view to most Latter Day Saint editors here - which is needed. Hope to see you around. -Visorstuff 14:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the word Mormon

Is anyone curious as to the origin of the word Mormon? I won't go into much theological debate into this discussion with respect to our Latter-Day Saint friends, however I have read that Joseph Smith knew quite a bit of Greek. According to Liddell-Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, the Greek word "Mormo" means "a hideous she-monster" used by nurses to frighten children...a bugbear...". The definition can also be referenced here Mormo. I was just curious as to anyone's thoughts on this particular phrase. Thanks. ICXCNIKA 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Smith certainly did not know Greek at the time the name "Mormon" first appeared. Furthermore, you can find all sorts of false cognates for the word; for example "Môr-môn" could easily be Welsh for "sea-base". The Chinese word is "摩门", being transliterated "mómén" (whose component parts mean "rub" and "gate").

From Smith's own hand:

'I wish to correct an error among men. . . . The error I speak of, is the definition of the word "MORMON." It has been stated that this word was derived from the Greek morme. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon.'

He goes on to explain that "mon" is of Egyption origin; my understanding of his explanation of the entire word is that it is a partial translation, partial transliteration, combining "mon" with English "mor'"; it must be then understood that the word is entirely a neologism, unless "mor" was also Egyptian and similar in meaning to the English. The Jade Knight 01:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is no Greek word "morme". He perhaps meant "Mormwn" (the w representing omega) which refers to some kind of mythical She-monster. Cheers 208.102.108.245 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reminds me of the translation of Coca-cola into Chinese; it came out "bite the wax tadpole".

And to complete Mr Knight's story, Joseph states that "mon" means "good", so the word means literally, "more good". (History of the Church, 5:399–400) OneWeirdDude 00:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

New Archaic Vocabulary section pushes article size over the top

Hello, I've just added a section essentially summarizing Royal Skousen's hypothesis that the Book of Mormon vocab itself predates Joseph Smith. I acknowledge that there might be neutrality issues, since I write it from a pretty unabashedly 'pro' viewpoint, so I'm quite open to criticism. But what I really want to talk about is the fact that this article is HUGE! I vote that we do some refactoring and split it up somehow. Or perhaps we should just do some editing for brevity to bring the size down. What do you think? --RockRockOn 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I also have a concern about my current citation of the "original text" of the Book of Mormon, which comes straight from the article, but otherwise is not verified. Probably the best way to verify it will be to take a look at Skousen's publications on the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, which is the project involved in determining the original Book of Mormon text as it came out of Joseph's Smith mouth, using printer's manuscripts etc. to do the analysis.

Another thought: maybe it would work to move everything under the 'King James Bible' heading over to a new article? --RockRockOn 17:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think having a "Book of Mormon and the KJV" article would be a nice clean separation. The article probably can do with another separation after that, too, but I don't see any cleavage points that are as clean as BoM and KJV. --Dlugar 06:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking also, so I went ahead and did it, so go check out Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#The King James Bible and The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible and let me know what you think. Make sure to check my notes in the talk page. Thanks! --RockRockOn 07:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to see a page called Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon and have the meat of that section moved there. - Bytebear 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Although I'm very interested in Chiasmus and think it's an essential subject, we have waaaaaaay too many articles on Mormonism... Usually these types of articles turn into usenet discussions as opposed to encycopediac content. We'd do better to condense the rampant redundancy throughout these articles and narrow down on the speculation. Creating new articles seems to foster a whole lot of unsourced speculation, and fast... gdavies 02:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

This page was pulled from About.com. Has About.com entered the Public Domain? Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to be the work of their authors, not a simple pasting of contents from another site without even acknowledging the source. Please, redo this article unless it can be shown to be original. Thanks. 24.119.67.166

About.com pulls data from Wikipedia as one of its sources, not vice versa. Plus, Wikipedia's text is licensed under the GFDL, so you're in fact allowed to do this sort of thing. There is no plagiarism. --Makaristos 16:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I don't want to step on any toes, but it appears that this article was tagged for POV over 8 months ago, and since then editing has calmed down considerably. I may be wrong in assuming that concerns have been generally resolved, but a quick scan of this talk page and I don't see any recent POV complaints... if I'm wrong, please restore the tag and we can start working towards POV afresh. (BTW we should probably archive this page...) Thanks! gdavies 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

References and formatting

I've done a little organization of references and some formatting for consistency. References need more work - some of them appear to be incorrectly attributed. I'll work on checking them. There is a lot in this article that needs to be cited - I'll try to look up as many as possible. Bochica 02:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration

I would recommend placing section "Importance to Latter-day Saints" at the beginning rather than at the end of the article. Bochica 02:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cognate Accusative?

This article contains what seems to be a sourced, but demonstrable, falsehood. Namely the claim that: "The "cognate accusative" is a Semitic language construct". The cognate accusative is *not* a Semitic language construct, as is proven not only by the fact that it appears in normal spoken English ("He walks the walk" is perfectly natural English idiom) but also by the fact that Latin and Greek (and I imagine Sanskrit too) are *full* of cognate accusative constructions. None of these languages has any structural relationship with Hebrew and in Greek and Latin cognate accusatives are common in the languages before there was any substantial contact between them and Hebrew speakers. I think it would constitute "original research" if I were to insert what I've just noted here into the article, but this is a pattern I have noticed in Mormon pages dealing with linguistics. The pages cite a published Mormon scholar whose aim is to prove that the Book of Mormon is influenced by Hebrew, in spite of the fact that no linguists who are not Mormons (i.e. who do not believe in Hebrew influence a priori) think that the "Hebraisms" are real. Since no linguist has deigned to refute the demonstrable falsehoods in these Mormon works (e.g. that the "cognate accusative" or "chiasmus" are Hebraisms) they are allowed on the page as if they were NPOV. Charlie 03:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Charlie, I'm happy to see you taking a look at this page. The disadvantage that I face is that I cannot sometimes easily locate sources for the other points-of-view, so I would be very happy if you can locate or suggest some references and we can get this information into the article. If we provide citations, then it won't be OR. We need to add balancing information for anything in the article that appears to present only one side. The objective is to present all aspects and all sides, and I'm perfectly willing to help you do it to the extent that I can locate information. Bochica 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked at that sentence and noticed it was not cited (I'm not the one that added this information to the article originally, by the way - I only looked up and added citations). I went ahead and put a citation tag on it. If "cognate accusative" is not unique to Semitic language, then we need to modify that sentence. Bochica 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I added further information giving some examples of the prominence of the cognate accusative in languages unrelated to the Semitic family. 208.102.108.245 15:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedic or not

(Moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linguistics and the Book of Mormon)
This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a wikified essay merely arguing that linguistic analysis proves the authenticity of the Book of Mormon as being of ancient origin - a highly controversial claim. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and is not balanced at all. Its brief mention of opposing viewpoints is for the purpose of rebutting them. A more appropriate title would be "Linguistic reasons why the Book of Mormon is true", but then that would only make it more obvious that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Reswobslc 23:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article Criticism of Mormonism is not an encyclopedia article. It is a wikified essay merely arguing that Mormonism is wrong. It is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and is not balanced at all. Its brief mention of opposing viewpoints is for the purpose of rebutting them. A more appropriate title would be "Critical reasons why Mormonism is not true", but then that would only make it more obvious that this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --TrustTruth 23:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Criticism of something is an encyclopedic topic. Criticism of Mormonism is a summary of the arguments used by Mormonism's critics, not an attempt to persuade the reader that Mormonism is false. If Criticism of Mormonism were narrated with conclusions like this and phrases like "a study was completed that verified [claims in favor of the Book of Mormon]" like this nominated article, it would deserve an AfD as well. Reswobslc 23:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

I have to agree that this article should be considered for deletion, along with articles such as "Archaeology and the Book of Mormon". What these articles amount to, in my experience, are collections of claims by Mormon scholars or believers which are designed to prove certain propositions usually about the origins of the BoM. An example is the claim that Hebraisms in the BoM indicate an Hebraic origin for the English text. The problem is that the Hebraisms are only Hebraisms in the minds of some Mormon believers, and if there were Hebraisms in the text, only a Mormon true believer would take that to mean that the English text had an Hebraic origin. There is simply no non-Mormon philologist who agrees with any of these premises. It is not that both sides of the debate need to be represented, but that there is no debate to be represented. In my considered opinion, any article presenting the Mormon claims about a given subject will not amount to anything more than a collection of "Mormon beliefs about x..." It seems to me that such claims should be discussed in an article about Mormonism proper or Mormon Dogma. Charlie 14:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; however I do not support deletion. "Linguistics of the Book of Mormon", indeed, suggests an unbiased, peer-reviewed article, but most of the claims are simply arguments that are not upheld outside of LDS apology. Is there merit, then, in renaming the article to "Apology of Book of Mormon Hebraic Influence" or something similar? There was a comment made earlier regarding splitting the article into two, and I think that there is merit to that; one for criticism and one for apology. From a structural standpoint, I think that this article could benefit from the more NPOV stance of Criticism of Mormonism (where arguments are described as opposed to made, etc.) if we can still consider a re-write instead of simply deleting it. Josh C 07:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The nature of a topic like this is that those who are going to do research into something like this are those who will be supporting this topic. This article does need restructuring. I recommend that we organize it by subject with supporting and opposing views intermixed in the same section, though probably in different paragraphs. I don't see many criticisms in this article, but I'm sure there are many more; The Book of Mormon and the King James Bible has more. After we make a preliminary restructuring, we should bring in an outside reviewer to check it over for additional improvements that could be made.

I would also support a renaming of this article, but I don't like any of the renaming proposals made above. — Val42 17:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think the issues in this article have been resolved. The article is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is concerned in facts; opinions should only be represented in the form of description. The entire thing needs to be reduced and edited. This article is not titled 'linguistic proof of authenticity of the Book of Mormon' nor is it titled 'authenticity of the Book of Mormon' nor is it titled 'linguistic refutation of the Book of Mormon.' All opinions need to be stated as opinions. And the article needs to be reorganized to have a more logical format in describing these opinions. Much needs to be edited out, this is not a book describing every linguistic item of debate. What makes Wikipedia great is that it is neutral and NOT a platform to argue a certain belief or position. All we are here to do is describe and let individuals make their own conclusions. I don't think the article is bad, I think it needs proper organization and description rather than opinion. It does not flow well either. I recommend someone non-invested in the opinions rewrite the article. If no one is willing, it should be deleted. It is quite a monumental task to go through this hodge-podge, so good luck to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.11.53 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

The result was Merge Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon to Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I propose we merge Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon with the Chiasmus section of this article. The Chiasmus article is pretty skimpy, and the information is almost a duplication of the Chiasmus section here.

• Merge--Descartes1979 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm not sure I agree - the Chiasmus material seems to be weak apologetics of doubtful notability and it's not clear to me it belongs anywhere. LeContexte (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Although some might agree with you LeContexte, there are an awful lot of people of the LDS faith, that believe Chiasmus are good apologetics. So, maybe rather than removing it altogether, we present a balanced criticism of it.--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Chiasmus - I agree with both Descartes1979 and LeContexte in a way - simply changing Chiasmus to a redirect would solve this Reswobslc (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Perhaps the best route is to move the Chiasmus article to be a listing of alleged examples. This would obviously be too long to include in the linguistics article and would avoid duplication of information. --uriah923^(talk) 04:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Would it really be appropriate to spell out the examples, especially when they are disputed?--Descartes1979 (talk) 06:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)- I guess what I mean is, I recently read an article in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought in which one scholar did a point by point analysis of why he thought the Alma 36 Chiasmus was not a chiasmus at all - so, an article with a list of examples would probably turn into a list of chiasms, each with a criticism section of why some don't think it is a chiasm. That kind of article seems a little too granular to me, and I tend to favor keeping it a little higher level, since the conclusions by LDS researchers are not in the mainstream, and are disputed.--Descartes1979 (talk) 00:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Indeed. The mainstream (by which I mean non-Mormon) academic response would be that Chiastic structure can be identified in numerous ancient and modern works in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian and English, and whether they exist in the Book of Mormon is therefore not relevant to questions of the books origins. However these claims are, I would think, insufficiently notable to have attracted any mainstream response at all. LeContexte (talk) 10:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the other way — This article is large enough as is and already has too many sections that look like lists of examples. It would be better to make the Chiasmus article more like this section of this article, then make this section a summary. — Val42 (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • ? I don't understand your logic Val - can you elaborate? The Chiasmus article and the related section in this article are nearly identical already. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia - and per this guidance "there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." There is not enough content in my opinion to justify keeping Chiasmus as its own separate article. It is much more relevant here. Thoughts?--Descartes1979 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

We must be comparing different articles. The Chiasmus section of this article tells what "chiasmus" is, and gives an example from Genesis and modern poetry. There are then three subsections: "The Book of Mormon", "Occurrence in other LDS scriptures" and "Other works containing chiasmus". Even those these other subsections are about chiasmus in other works, they directly address the validity of using chiasmus in the Book of Mormon to validate it as a translation of a work by a culture descended from people who traveled from Jerusalem.

The current Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon article begins with a paragraph about what "chiasmus" is followed by what the Book of Mormon is. The body then has one section of "Discovery" with one sentence, two paragraphs of "Criticism" then three times that much page space devoted to "Examples". The "Examples" section is just a list of where to find the examples without showing any examples.

These two look very different to me. Would you please explain how you see them as "nearly identical already." — Val42 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious Val42? I think you should take another look - and focus on the content, you will find that exactly the same information is covered - perhaps not in exactly the same words. If you take out the summary section and the examples section of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon there is practically nothing left of the article. It is just a waste of space. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK Val - I just re-read your comment, and you are right - the articles are not identical in content - what I meant to say was that the content in Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is completely, or nearly completely covered in this article (barring the examples section) - which I think you also recognize based on your post. As such, doesn't this lend more support to the idea that we should merge the articles?--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is enough material for Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon to become a good article on its own, then the section in this article should become a summary. One important thing is that neither article has an actual example from the Book of Mormon. This article also needs to be fixed because there are a few sections that are lists. — Val42 (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I support the merger of the chiasmus article into the relevant section of the linguistics article. Chiasmus is a highly specialized subset of syntax. Syntax is a subset of linguistics. The lengthy chiasmus example-list should not be included in the linguistics article, however. Perhaps it warrants its own simple page: List of Chiasmal Phrases in the Book of Mormon. Divespluto (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)Divespluto

• Comment An article which is comprised mostly of lengthy examples isn't really an article at all. I would suggest moving the references from the Chiasmus article to this one without the examples. Wikipedia isn't supposed to contain long lists of examples - that might be more appropriate for Wikiquote. If someone wants to see a large collection of examples, they should be able to go to the referenced sources.Bochica (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. While lists are common in Wikipedia, they aren't articles. Two or three examples should suffice. Divespluto (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Divespluto

There appears to be only one dissenting opinion - unless Val42 has a really strong opinion about it I will begin the merge later this weekend. Please let me know if you disagree. --Descartes1979 (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I made my strongest case that I could. It looks like the merger goes forward. I still think that this section will become large enough to split off into its own article. — Val42 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

How about as a compromise, we merge them for now, and if the material grows enough then we split it out? I think that some people think (myself included) it won't grow enough to be notable in and of itself, which obviously you disagree with. If the section gets big and bulky by itself, perhaps we can revisit this discussion. --Descartes1979 (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what I just said I agreed to do? — Val42 (talk) 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL - sorry, it wasn't clear to me I guess - I will start the merge. --Descartes1979 (talk) 06:12, 26 January 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.