Talk:Criticism of the Book of Mormon

This is a Summary Style article: not a place for details

This is a summary style article, so it should not contain any detailed info. All detailed info should go into the articles that this links to. If you would like to add rebutttal or apologetic information, please consider adding it into the more detailed articles: this is a Summary article, and so is not the best place to put details. If you feel that details really need to be added to this page, consider putting the details in footnote, rather than in the primary text.

Page Protection

I for one am tired of reverting edits by anonymous users on both sides who are using this page as a battleground to push out ideology. Certainly this page has work to be done, but given the controversial nature of the topic, I move that this article be given protected status. Any thoughts? Epachamo (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Epachamo: I can't because I'm involved, try WP:RPP. Doug Weller talk 15:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, looks like it worked. Epachamo (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

POV Title

The following discussion 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.

---

This article has a title that is directly in violation of Wikipedia's "no disputes in title" policy. Please correct this. "Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name. Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." Please see: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:POVNAMING&redirect=no PeanutHat (talk) 09:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

If you want to get rid of all the articles that start with "Criticism of" how about starting with something that has a lot more attention, eg Criticism of Christianity or Criticism of Wikipedia. Or go to WP:NPOV with a list of all the articles starting with "Criticism of". Then there is the category Category:Criticism of Mormonism. You might want that deleted. Of course there's also Criticism of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In other words, you're dealing with an issue much wider than this article and this isn't the best place to start. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Nevertheless, this IS where I started. Maybe it isn't where you would suggest, but I saw an article about a controversial topic, labeled in a biased way and I took the opportunity to start a discussion in the talk page. Could this title be changed in the way Wikipedia's guide suggests to something like "Views on the Book of Mormon" or whatever? PeanutHat (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is, the many articles that DO start with "Criticism of..." show that it is not inherently POV according to the broader Wikipedia culture. I would not be on board with changing it, because I am not convinced it falls into the category of POV. When you can explain why this article is POV and Criticism of the Koran or Criticism of the Bible is not then I might be on board. If you feel like ALL these articles are POV, then I'd follow the advice of Doug Weller and work to change the broader naming culture.Epachamo (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I know that Doug Weller probably meant his comment sarcastically, but actually, changing the naming system of these articles is something that would invite more conversation and might even improve the shape of some controversial Wikipedia articles. Like you said Epachamo in your last sentence, I do think all of those articles are POV maybe I'm naive or foolish for thinking so, but it seems to me like they fit the perfect description of a biased or, more extremely, a fork article. PeanutHat (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@PeanutHat: we do fork articles when they get too long. I wasn't being sarcastic. Note that Epachmo has done some excellent and non-pov work on Mormon related articles. Doug Weller talk 13:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that the current title is a problem. A formal move discussion could take place though. I would discourage "views" or "societal views" because this would imply a type of WP:FALSEBALANCE: the article is not about collecting alternative opinions. Perhaps that "Historicy of the Book of Mormon" would work, assuming that criticism that is more related to the origin be merged into origin of the Book of Mormon... Ideally, this article would be a spinoff/extension of an existing section of the main article. In any case, I don't think that it can be considered a POV fork, since mainstream scholars do not support authenticity or historical claims about the book. —PaleoNeonate – 15:51, 13 April 2020 (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.

Should the Institute for Religious Research be used as a source?

Some excerpts from irr.org's about us/statement of faith: "Bible: We believe that the sixty-six books of the Bible as originally given are in their entirety the Word of God, that they are unique and final, and that they are therefore the supreme authority for faith and life (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:20-21). We believe that God has providentially preserved the integrity of these biblical scriptures down through the ages so that they remain reliable today (Matthew 5:18)."

"God: We believe that there is one true and living God, who is the creator and ruler of heaven and earth. He is inexpressibly glorious in wisdom, power, and holiness, and worthy of all possible honor, confidence and love. In the unity of the Godhead there are three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, equal in every divine perfection, and executing distinct but harmonious offices in all their works (Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14)."

"Christ: We believe that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God; He became man without ceasing to be God, having been conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin, so that He has two distinct natures, divine and human, in one Person forever (John 1:2-3; Philippians 2:6; Colossians 1:15-16; Hebrews 1:2-3)."

"Man: We believe that through the disobedience of Adam all have become sinners both by nature and choice (Psalms 51:5; Romans 5:12ff), and that apart from regeneration, we are at enmity with God (Romans 8:7), disposed only to doing our own will (Ephesians 2:1-3)."

"Church: We believe that, upon personal trust in Jesus Christ, the believer is baptized by the Spirit into the Church which is the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-13); local assemblies, meeting for edification and evangelism, are its visible form."

"Last Things: We believe that Jesus Christ will return bodily at the end of the age to judge the living and the dead; that all people will be raised, those who have personally trusted in Christ to a resurrection of life, and the lost to be sent into eternal punishment (John 5:29; Revelation 20:11-15)."

I am personally a Christian myself, so I am not criticizing this source because I have a religious difference. However, this is clearly a religiously motivated group and is it appropriate to cite a religiously biased source when applying criticism to another religious group? It would be like citing a Republican source in a criticism of the Democratic Party article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:600:a180:1100:b811:d32:660f:f4c1 (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

See WP:RS, you may find some clues there. JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I kind of put them on the same level as The Interpreter Foundation and FairMormon. On the hierarchy of good sources, they are pretty low. They all have significant bias and shouldn't generally be used but can be used in certain contexts (see WP:BIASED). You could ask for community input from WP:RSN Epachamo (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

What is the reason for adding a section detailing criticism of the Book of Abraham in this article?

This article is about criticisms of the Book of Mormon specifically, not the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith generally. This section should be removed. There's already an article detailing criticism of the Book of Abraham on Wikipedia. If you want to add criticism of the Book of Abraham, add it there.

A common criticism of the Book of Mormon, is that since the Book of Abraham has ostensibly been proved false, it shows a pattern of false translations. I agree that as it is written, it is not very clear. At the very least it should be paired down and re-written significantly, per WP:UNDUE Epachamo (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but is it necessary here? Since there are plenty of other articles that address that subject, I don't see why it's needed in the Book of Mormon article itself. Could we not just add the Criticism of the Book of Abraham article to "See Also" and then delete this section?Jacobalbee (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source that connects the two then yes it deserves to be in here. If not, then no. Epachamo (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

POV explanation in Historical Accuracy

> However, this view finds little acceptance outside of Mormonism because "scholars realize that accepting the Book of Mormon’s antiquity also means coming to terms with LDS beliefs about Joseph Smith’s access to supernatural powers."

The quotation here is asserted as a summary of skeptics to the Book's historical accuracy. The idea being, the only reason to reject the Book's accuracy is failure to accep Joseph Smith as a prophet. But the quotation comes neither from skeptical scholars, nor from an unbiased summary of skeptical scholarship; instead, it is sourced from a partisan article about Mormon apologetics.

This sentence should be removed.

2601:144:200:E660:0:0:0:622F (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it certainly should be changed. XeCyranium (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Well the change was reverted but given what an absurd claim it is I'd still favour removing it entirely. Given User:Doug Weller was the one to revert the change I'd like to hear their thoughts as to why it should be included. It seems like WP:FRINGE should cover the belief that the reason the Book of Mormon isn't accepted by scholars as historically accurate is because scholars are simply too hardheaded to accept the mystical powers of the author. Even with attribution the idea seems obviously undeserving of mention.XeCyranium (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Here's the author.[1] Seems like a reliable source published in Sunstone (magazine). Doug Weller talk 15:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my issue with the statement. One person with any conceivable academic credential isn't sufficient to make such an absurd claim. Luc Montagnier has a Nobel Prize in Medicine, that doesn't make his beliefs about vaccines and autism anywhere close to the accepted bounds of scholarship on the subject. Unless the author is themself the subject of the article their extraordinary claim seems unfit to be included because it's such a bald-faced lie with no support.XeCyranium (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@XeCyranium Well the IP is clearly wrong about not using skeptics as a source. You and I are wrong in assuming that the source says that. In fact the sentence starts with "Initial enthusiasm will wane, however, once". It goes on to say "Given the difference in paradigms, I believe it is inevitable that most non-LDS academics will see orthodox scholarship as analogous to much that falls under the rubric of “creation science.” and concludes "That is to say, non-LDS academics will relegate orthodox scholarship to the category of “pseudo-scholarship.” I reiterate that this label represents a political judgment rather than an objective assessment of orthodox scholarship’s quality or truth value." I think there may be something to save from the actual; source rather than an editor's misunderstanding. Doug Weller talk 08:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I worry that the source may not be relevant enough to the article. It at least seems slightly more appropriate for responses to criticisms than for information on the criticisms themselves.XeCyranium (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@XeCyranium not sure I understand your point. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Doug Weller sorry for the late reply but my point is essentially that I'm concerned the source is more relevant to apologetics, given that's its primary concern, and isn't necessarily authoritative on the historical discrepancies/criticisms themselves. I only bring it up because you mentioned you think the source is still useable.XeCyranium (talk) 01:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Probably. I've just had a trying hour responding to a mistake I made, but that sounds reasonable. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Heliocentrism as an Anachronism

Helaman's heliocentric understanding isn't logically supported in the Book of Mormon and represents a clear anachronism of 19th century scientific understanding.

In Helaman 12:13-15, Helaman argues for heliocentrism on the basis of observing the sun remaining still when God tells the earth to "go back" so that the day might be lengthened. This is circular reasoning: In order to draw this conclusion, he has to already have beforehand knowledge of planetary rotation--that, in itself, debunks geocentrism--before he can then use that information to debunk geocentrism.

It is well known that geocentrism was the dominant worldview until Nicolaus Copernicus in the 16th century AD. The Copernican Revolution was a big deal for a reason. Yes, ancient Greek philosophers Philolaus and Aristarchus of Samos had heliocentric views before Copernicus, but 1) heliocentrism failed to overturn geocentrism then and 2) the BOM argument presented by Helaman is entirely independent of the reasoning used by Philolaus and Aristarchus.

I'm putting this information here, rather than in the article itself, because I have yet to encounter a primary source that discusses this. I am hoping that one of the readers or editors or passersby with too much free time on their hands can bridge the gap here, for it certainly warrants a place in the article. Mtndewman870 (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)