Talk:Book of Mormon

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
! This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Religion-related articles on Conservapedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Conservlogo.png

I have a question about the ancestry of Native Americans. I thought, that since genetic tests couldn't find a common ancestry between Jews and Native Americans, that modern LDS teaching is that while the descendants of the Lammanites lived (and still live, presumably) in America, the bulk of the Native Americans are descendants of people dispersed after the Flood (I think?), and not necessarily from Nephi et al. I don't want to change the article, because I'm not LDS, and I'm not sure about it, but I did want to ask if that part of this article was accurate. Kolbe 20:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the ancestry of Native Americans, although you accurately state that genetic tests have failed to show any correlation between Jews and Native Americans (and have conclusively shown that Native Americans are in fact descended from Asians who crossed the Bering Straight), I know of no modern LDS teaching that changes this concept - at least not as an official teaching of the mainstream LDS church. Indeed, for the LDS church to do so would seriously undermine the Book of Mormon which is the foundation of the entire religion. Would inclusion of this (properly documented) information be considered neutral? Although factual, it could easily be considered disparaging to the LDS religion. If it were to be included, perhaps it could be put under a heading such as "Historicity", which could also house other aspects of BoM problems such as the lack of archaeological evidence and linguistic evidence etc. Is there any objection to such a section? Spotsbunch 9:10, 10 August 2009 (CST)

Restored the proper title of the book which this article references; please do not remove or change.

The title of the book commonly known as "The Book of Mormon" is actually "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ."

The removal of the rightful subtitle of such an extensively published book from a reference such as the Conservapedia wouldn't make sense coming from a neutral party.

The front matter of The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ makes it quite clear that the name of the book is indeed as I noted. If you wish to verify the authenticity of my observation, please take a look here and here. Please also feel free to open physical copy of the aforementioned book you may have at hand, and you will find in the front matter of the book the same full title.

Just as the full title of Sean Hannity's most recently published book is "Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism," so too does "The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ" have a proper name, including a subtitle. Please do not remove the book's subtitle from the first reference to the name of the book in the article. Leader 22:54, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The whole thing seems a little bizarre, but, hey, to each his own.Livingston 22:56, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Bizarre that we use the proper name of what is arguably the most important uniquely American religious text in publication? Why would anyone oppose the proper name of a book? Leader 23:40, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

The subtitle was added in 1982. Maybe that deserves a mention? Brainslug 10:16, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Never mind, see that it's in the reference section. Brainslug 10:17, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

The title business

Look, I think I know what this is about, and it's silly, let's stop it.

I think it is an appropriate courtesy to Mormons to use the full title as it is presently given, if they really care about this point. A footnote symbol alerts the reader that there might be something more, and the footnote notes the title change. Nothing is being hidden, everything's on the up-and-up.

Now, Leader, do you commonly refer to "The Holy Bible, Containing the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesty's Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches?" I'll bet you don't. I'll bet just call it "the King James version" or "the Holy Bible" or "the Bible." Even though that long sentence is exactly what's on the title page. And I'll bet you just call the Book of Mormon "the Book of Mormon" when you're not trying to make a point.

What I'm sure this is all about is that Mormons have views that are somewhat outside the Christian mainstream. That's not going to go away. Some Christians are always going to say Mormons aren't really Christians. Just as some Catholics don't think Protestants are really Christians (and vice versa). Just as some Friends General Conference Quakers don't think Friends United Meeting Quakers are really Quakers.

And without even looking I can tell you with 99% accuracy what the title business is about. I betcha the Mormons-are-not-Christians faction says "See? They just added it as window-dressing to fool people," and I betcha the Mormons say "We've always been Christians, that was taken for granted, we didn't think anything need to be said about it, but when the question came up we adjusted the title to reflect what's always been true." Am I right?

We can talk about it, but please, no edit wars or changes without discussion or flat assertions that one title "the proper title" and others are wrong. Dpbsmith 11:36, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

A SysOp inserted the word "supposedly" into a quote; I fixed this error.

CPAdmin1 inserted the word "supposedly" as follows; I have illustrated with strikeout text:

Thus the Book of Mormon was supposedly translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ, Richmond, Mo.: n.p., 1887, p. 12.)
Check out the reference to the article in question if you wish to see proof of the fact that the text is as I quoted it, and not as CPAdmin1 altered it to read.

I have fixed this error, and kindly request that all who disagree with the personal religious views of Latter-day Saints not resort to doctoring quotes to express their views. Leader 20:14, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Ease up a bit. With the previous formatting the situation wasn't clear. With the previous formatting, the words "Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God..." was not within quotation marks and it looked as if the article was stating this as a fact.
Now that it is clear that it is a quotation I don't think anyone is going to alter it.
You were right to call the change an error. You were right to correct the error. You were right to change the formatting to make it clear that the passage is a direct quotation. But I think talking about "doctoring a quote" was unfair to CPAdmin1 and uncalled for. I think it was just a very understandable mistake. Dpbsmith 20:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, I didn't think it was part of the quotation. --CPAdmin1 22:44, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

I am interested in editing this page

I am interested in editing this page, I feel in the "Historicity" section many of the statements regarding the book are

a) heavily biased against it

b) factually misleading and inaccurate

c) some facts are out of date

d) too many assumptioms made

e) no citations.

I would like to gel up this page a lot! I would like to reference it more, clean up the text and make it more accurate and well presented. The reason I am discussing this here first is that it may be met with considerable opposition if I just jump in making changes.

What we have to remember is that although Mormons have a seperate theology, there are very Conservative in nature and should be treat with considerably less hostility. Afterall this a church which is battling against gay marriage, abortion, sexualisation of society and strongly adheres to family values. You don't have to believe in them, but they hold values socially in which every American Conservative would infact agree with. TomFowdy 12:31, 8 June 2011 (EDT)