Why not use a link like "Criticism" or "Scientific questions". This is a big problem of misperception here! Both Judaism and Christianity are given exactly the same treatment! Just read the entries! Both of these religions depend on the belief that God dictated his words to moses and later prophets. But read the entries on what wikipedia has to say on these issues, especially the article on the documentary hypothesis. Traditional Christians and Orthodox Jews view this as heresy, as slander, as hatespeech against God.
Understanding the book of Mormon: a reader's guide
Karl There are no embedded criticisms on Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints, that I can see. No mention of science, certainly. I think this article, being about the for book of mormon, is an appropriate place to put questions and discussion on the authenticity of the book itself. In particular, the physical characteristics of the supposed golden plates, the use of language, changes in differing revisions - that's all totally relevant. On the other hand, the content under the heading delhi "Archeological does seem to me to be misplaced, because it's more a criticism of lds than of the book itself. martin It does seem odd, but the Archeological section is properly placed with matters concerning the authenticity of the book of Mormon. Archeological issues arise out of specific reference to the bom than out of any issue general to lds. There are statements outside the bom in regards to archeological issues, but these statements typical coincide with references in the bom. In considering the very unlikely possibility that the lds discarded the bom, no obvious archeological issue remains which is pertinent to the lds in general. B the question still is why do mormon's get this treatment and not some other religions. Using the heading Archeological would be to hide the criticism.
B here is a link to an book article printed in the lds church's flagship monthly magazine, the Ensign which talks about both of these theories together. You'll have to scroll down to find the article. Since the article is coming from a church publication, notice how the top of the page-link states: "Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy." b i looked at some of the other pages from religious groups. The ones I looked at do not have imbedded criticisms on the main page, with the exception of Scientology. My feeling is that religions are based on faith, and as such are subject to scientific criticism - eg the noah story's world wide flood. I would like to see such science vs religion debates moved off the main page of religious groups. When I go to the mormon page, i want to know what they believe, the tenants of their religion. I don't need to know that Mormon is not based on science. That is the nature of faith.
Roberts is said to have wondered about it in his personal writings. Q these alternate explanations were introduced london very early and have been presented many times by very many critics. Handling attribution to the originator of long-standing critical or alternate views (or variations thereof) in general may be difficult to track down in some cases. I believe the contributor of the various explanations is referring to solomon Spaulding's Manuscript found and that the various explanations are variations of the cases arising from that controversy. Philastus Hurlburt was the first to make this case around 1833 not long after he had been excommunicated from the lds church. For an lds view of this controversy, see michael Ash's summary on this subject. Most experienced critics do not advocate this position any more, but it is probably good to include it at the very least to show it as a prominent case in the history of lds criticism b so there we have it, Ethan Smith or Solomon. Good example of how non-attribution creates ambiguity. The contributor will have to let us know what he had in mind.
B feel the love. . From the article: Various alternate explanations for the origin of The book of Mormon have been proposed - do we know who proposed each of these? I find this kind of historical detective work interesting, so i'd love to see the sources. martin I wouldn't be surprised if the first two go all the way back to joseph Smith's time. The third and fourth I think are really references to the same book written by a preacher named Ethan Smith (no relation) who lived in the same town as Joseph. This book speculates about the native americans having Israeli origins, among other things. I don't know who originally proposed this, but I believe.
Book of Mormon Difficulties, contradictions and Explanations
The book of Mormon makes far more than theological claims; it also makes dozens of geographical, linguistic and historical claims. Each one has been shown to be unsupportable. How one chooses to deal with the gap between scientific consensus and the claims made by mormons is up to the individual, but maker the gap exists. Writing in best the independent Mormon scholarly journal dialogue, mesoamerican archaeologist Michael coe of Yale University states clearly that: rk "As far as i know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing. In doing so, let's include plenty of references so everything is open to scrutiny. It will be interesting to explore this area. For example, the coe statement above should probably be worked into the beginning of the Archeology section.
I'll give it a shot. Rk or anyone, do you have a year and volume for the dialogue issue? B i've followed rk's lead in retracting/rephrasing statements. There is more material that could be retracted including people besides rk and. I'll continue to make retractions of my own material if appropriate and relevant to other's retractions. Ould we call this talk page a chalkboard instead?
I like the current title, book of Mormon controversies. It's npov and it's general. Thanks for the guidance. Hawstom 23:03, (UTC) - this" on the page is incorrect. The part about faith is correct. quot; believers in the book of Mormon, however, point to a statement made by joseph Smith, to the effect that the only real doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints are faith, repentance, and Baptism, and that all other doctrines and practices.
quot; This is the actual"" The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that he died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain. Joseph Smith, history of the Church 3:30. quot; That Jesus is the Christ is the main message of the Church, and the main message of the book of Mormon. This" puzzles me:" They comment that no official statement on the humanity of God has been been made since it is unrelated to those 3 things; " what exactly is meant by "the humanity of God"? Waldemer This is not really related to the book of Mormon, or this article, but here's my question. If the" written above is true, why do lds believers spend a lot of effort trying to convert me from my current position (A Protestant Christian who believes all of the above) to their position? Dj clayworth 22:03, (UTC) we still need to deal with science, history and geography, and that isn't being done here at all.
Translation of the book of Mormon
You guys are great. Tom 30505sv 's suggestion above makes the most sense. Rather than moving this article back to its original page, authenticity of The book of Mormon -which is still far better than the current ill-named page- book of Mormon controversies fits well for the move. B 18:16, (UTC)I apologize for diving in and marring the page resumes before becoming thoroughly trained in wikiness. I don't know that I will be back anytime soon, and I really regret the mess I made. Y'all go ahead and do what you have to do, and I will forebear making any other changes until I learn a bit more. Hawstom 21:55, (UTC).
Look at the contents of the article folks; it does not merely cover "origins" and is not intended to cover merely origins. The article is intended to cover exactly what the original article was titled, not the overly-complicated less neutral title it has e title was well thought out. What reason is there for changing it now? B 22:35, (utc i was the one that moved it but that was done to fix a cut and paste khan 'move' done. User: rather than because i thought it should be moved. The 2nd move was for the same reason, after. Tom (aka hawstom) cut/pasted it into its current title. Angela 22:52, (UTC)Thanks for the explanations, the forebearance, and the patience. Hang on while i get up to speed on all the style issues, etc.
quite sure what was wrong with the original. Origin of The book of Mormon title as this page could include the controversies without saying in the title that it was doing. Angela 01:50, (utc what in the world have you folks been doing? Why in the world was this article moved from. Authenticity of The book of Mormon. Especially without any discussion beforehand?!
However, it is not likely that Joseph Smith would have seen the name of the capital city moroni on any map as it became the capital city in 1876, many years after Smith died. Due to the small size of the city prior to that time, it is unlikely that it would have appeared on any map available to Smith or most e capital Moroni's name is French and Italian in orgin. Link to some history of the island: Some mormon apologists sites about the Island:, visorstuff. Book of Mormon controversies or, book of Mormon origin controversies are better titles. "Regarding" is clumsy, anti. WP:style, and just plain big for its transitive meaning (which can be eliminated altogether.) - 30505sv 01:13, sep pdf 5, 2003 (utc i ain't moving it again! Authenticity of The book of Mormon and, origin of The book of Mormon in the last 2 days. It might as well be consistent with.
The possibility of Janus Parallelism in the book of Mormon
Originally from, talk:book of Mormon controversies, contents. Could add mention of the ye/you/thou mix up - oltz. I remember reading about Smith finding the words "Cumorah" and "Moroni" (the hill where he found the tablets, and the angel) on a map, referring to the comoros Islands and the city of Moroni, and that was another piece of evidence that he just made. Maybe that should be added as well, if anyone can find. (I won't add it, because i don't think i can be neutral about the subject.). Adam Bishop 01:50 (utc it also could be a supporting point to the book of Mormon as well. The island was 'discovered' by polynesian settlers about 600. (Mormon's believe that polynesians are descendants of book of Mormon peoples) who could have carried the name with them.