The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Book of Mormon at the Reference desk.
Book of Mormon is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
@FyzixFighter, if I may, I'm curious about this prior discussion where previous editors concluded "the Community of Christ" reads better than "Community of Christ". I looked back in the talk archives, but the only discussions from three years ago on this talk page were about Book of Mormon usage, views on historicity, and concerns about anonymous editors around a church's annual conference. There's no three-year-old discussion about "Community of Christ" or "the Community of Christ" on Community of Christ's talk page either (there is one from five years ago, but with only two editors' input it's not much of a discourse). Was this discussion on a different page?
As an aside, I admit I don't quite see what's so grammatically confusing about the phrase "Community of Christ", at least any more than, for example, "Creative Commons" or "Flatirons Commuity Church" without a preceding "the". And external (as in outside Wikipedia) usage isn't (in my limited experience) consistently applied as a standard on Wikipedia. (On top of ngram seeming like a difficult measure to apply to a denomination that is notable enough to have a scholarly literature studying it but not popular enough to inspire spates of new books on short notice.) But my aside is neither here nor there if there's a discussion I can apprise myself of first. P-Makoto (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@P-Makoto: Sorry - I should have been more specific - the small discussion I was thinking of was at Talk:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Archive 19#Removal of "the". About three years ago, Hwangfan was going through several pages, including this one, removing "the"s that preceded "Community of Christ". Multiple editors, including myself, challenged this removal arguing that it created odd grammar and that WP was not required to follow the CoC style guideline (similar to how it is not required to follow other churches' style guidelines) - eg [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Sources outside of WP, including CoC documents themselves, as you noted are inconsistent; my reference to ngrams was about my attempt to verify the claim that recent informed sources were increasingly using the style, which I was unable to substantiate via that method. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for pointing me to where that discussion was. I confess, I can't help but feel a little amused that one editor remarked that Wikipedia is not beholden to the "LDS world" when most Community of Christ members would tremble at conflating them with Latter-day Saints.
My bad on the claim about informed usage; I think you were right to call me on it. I did a brief search of some relevant academic journals (JWHA Journal, Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture, Dialogue, etc. I don't know if journal publications are included in Google's measure of "books") and realized that usage in the last few years was more inconsistent than I remembered, sometimes without [1][2] and sometimes with [3][4]. Sorry for my error, and thanks for making the catch.
For clarity's sake, when I said "isn't consistently applied", I meant that non-WP that is also non-subject doesn't seem to always dictate use on WP. e.g. For instance, while "4 Da Gang" appears in external independent sources about the song, there's nevertheless a push among some editors to render it "4 da Gang". But what happens on that page is its own matter. Here, I'll let the earlier discussion take priority since the ground hasn't changed much since. P-Makoto (talk) 05:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote this in my edit comment but for some reason it's not appearing in the edit history, so to clarify why I took those statements out: calling the book "narratively and structurally complex" and "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" are very obviously not written from a neutral POV; if quotes by more prominent authors like Mark Twain calling it "chloroform in print" aren't included, then neither should subjective statements written by a BYU professor (Terryl Givens) who are contractually obligated to paint the church in the best possible light. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Givens isn't a BYU professor. Up until 2019, he was a professor of Literature and Religion at the University of Richmond. In 2019 he did join the Maxwell Institute as a senior fellow, but that isn't the same thing as being a BYU professor. Also, the cited material is from a 2009 source, while he was still at the University of Richmond and before joining the Maxwell Institute, so the bulk of your objection to Givens as a source is incorrect. Your edit also removed material cited to the Howe source, who you also mischaracterized in your initial edit as a Mormon apologist. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, "senior research fellow" at BYU. And no, it's pretty obvious that he's writing from a Mormon POV. I mean, just look at his page and the books he's spent his career writing; you can nitpick about whether he could be called an "apologist" prior to joining the Maxwell Institute (although the fact that he did end up joining it kinda belies his position); but the fact remains that none of those statements are "neutral" by any stretch of the imagination. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mark Twain was an author of fiction, not a literary scholar published by university presses. Additionally, Mark Twain wrote his comment nearly a century ago; his comment does not represent the current state of the field of Book of Mormon studies.
The books by Terryl Givens currently cited on this page are By the Hand of Mormon and The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction. Both were published by Oxford University Press, a respected academic publisher that has no affiliation with any Mormon denomination. Academic presses review the books they publish and provide a context for understanding the book as part of a wider scholarly conversation. Additionally, the books' influence in the field furthers the conclusion that they are part of the prevailing consensus, scholarly point of view.
The Maxwell Institute also has a more academic, rigorous, and trustworthy reputation than you imply. It has some affiliation with BYU, that is true. But it is comparable to, say, Baylor University Press (affiliated with the Baptist school Baylor University) publishing books about the Bible. Both Baylor University Press and the Maxwell Institute are recognized as scholarly publishers, even with their institutional affiliations.
Wikipedia can cite American historians who write about U. S. presidents, or Protestant literary critics who write about the Bible, or Latter-day Saints who write about the Book of Mormon, and still maintain a neutral point of view. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of that disproves that statements like "narratively and structurally complex" and "a powerful epic written on a grand scale" are extremely subjective claims. Treating those claims as fact, instead of the opinions of obviously biased authors, is not "maintaining a neutral point of view". I mean, if you look at the OUP page for By the Hand of Mormon, one of the reviews they share specifically calls it "polemical".
Mark Twain's opinion is still shared by the majority of readers of the book, and it's hard to argue that the author of what is considered many to be the best contender for "Great American Novel" didn't have a sense for what constitutes good literature. Academic presses may "review the books they publish and provide a context for understanding the book" but that doesn't mean that said books (and in particular, opinion statements taken from those books) aren't biased. I actually checked it out on archive.org to flip through, and I can't find any mention of how the publishing or editing process involved the "prevailing consensus" at all.
Keep in mind that religious studies have a huge survivorship bias problem: the people who find a given book of scripture painfully boring and/or obviously fraudulent rarely (if ever) see it as a worthwhile use of their time to write their own books about it. It's a common practice in the mormon church to participate in a "book of mormon challenge" where members are encouraged to finish the book in some arbitrary timeframe, most often 3 months. That's just under 7 pages a day; even a breakneck "3 week" challenge is a bit less than 28 pages a day. That's not a "this is such an engrossing book" pace, that's an "ugh, just gotta get through a couple more chapters and then I can go to bed" pace. My point stands: if we're going to include opinion statements extolling the book's writing, we should also include ones condemning it; if the latter are seen as "too subjective", then the former should be as well. plethoraOfUselessInformation (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Narratively and structurally complex" is not a subjective claim. The Book of Mormon is a structurally complex book, with interlocking narratives, flashbacks, pericopes, etc.
"a powerful epic written on a grand scale" is a more subjective claim, that is true, and that is why it is placed in quotation marks and attributed to the historian who made the claim (Daniel Walker Howe), so it is not made in Wikipedia's voice. This is an appropriate way to document subjective information about a topic on Wikipedia, without having Wikipedia itself make the claim.
You identified one review that called By the Hand of Mormon "polemical". The other reviews on the page call it "outstanding", "unbiased", "vastly informative", and "exceptional".
If Mark Twain had analyzed the Book of Mormon in a scholarly venue, such as an academic book or periodical subjected to editorial and peer review, or a news periodical subjected to editorial review, and if he had written and published more recently within the context of the prevailing field of Mormon studies/religious studies/American history, his assessment of the Book of Mormon might be appropriately cited on this page. Twain did not. Twain made his comment about the Book of Mormon in passing, in a personal memoir, published 151 years ago. Twain's prominence as a novelist is not in dispute, but he was not a scholar of literature and did not publish in the current scholarship. For that matter, Twain notoriously hated and excoriated numerous books and authors whom academics today regard as classics, including James Fenimore Cooper, Henry James, and Jane Austen. Twain's own talents as an author do not make it appropriate to cite him on Wikipedia pages about Last of the Mohicans, The Portrait of a Lady, or Pride and Prejudice, as if his opinions were equivalent in authority to analytical and academic scholarship in literature and history published through academic presses.
Academic books don't generally internally describe the publishing process. There nevertheless is a publishing process. Laura Portwood Stacer's "Landing an Academic Book Congtract" describes the general process, which involves peer review, if you are curious.
The digression guessing at the hypothetical emotional state of lay Latter-day Saints who read the book seems irrelevant to concluding whether or not the cited books, published with academic presses that subject their publications to peer review by other scholars, are quality sources whose content may appropriately be cited.
The page is not exclusively positive about the Book of Mormon. The immediate preceding sentence calls it "repetitive and difficult to read". You never deleted that sentence, even though it is arguably as subjective as "Narratively and structurally complex" (if anything, it being so structurally complex is part of why it is difficult to read). Your edit would have left only a relatively negative statement about the book on the page, deleting a neutral statement about its structure and a positive statement (couched in quotation).
With all this in mind, it seems appropriate to conclude that citing By the Hand of Mormon and What Hath God Wrought on this Wikipedia page is appropriate to do. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
