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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics 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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This post is concerning this edit. It reintroduces WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:YESPOV issues by misrepresenting scientific consensus as the opinion of particular critics and suggesting that some legitimate science is apparently being done on the topic by "Mormon scientists and historians": ("rejected by non-Latter Day Saint historians and scientists", "Critics of the Book of Mormon"), etc. —PaleoNeonate – 14:21, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The new language seems accurate. It seems more NPOV to say "these people think this language shows this book is fake" than "this language shows this book is fake" when that dispute is the whole subject of the article. I think if you want to convince the reader of the legitimacy of the critiques, just make sure the article represents all the evidence and explanations of that POV fairly. -- Beland (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jan 3, 2024 - How is the statement "...or never existed" allowed to remain on this page? In October 1841, Joseph Smith placed the original manuscript in the southeast cornerstone of the Nauvoo House. 40 years later, 28 percent of the original manuscript was recovered, (the rest was water damaged) scanned at high resolution and published early in 2022 [1] --- Considering the amount of time/ink invested on Mr. Stubb's publication credentials... the disregard for this obvious"oversight" seems, at best, highly questionable.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.4.156 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the next sentence following that statement you'll see the "claimed original text" existence of which is not established refers to the source text supposed translation of which the extant "original manuscript" is. – MwGamera (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, how is professor of law and religion John Welch reliable for linguistics, Augmented? Explain your decision, or revert your POV pushing fringe edit. 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting to say I am withdrawing from this conversation. I am not knowledgeable enough in either linguistics or the Book of Mormon to continue. I originally reverted what you put forth because I thought it was vandalism; I am sorry for not thinking otherwise. 45dogs (they/them) (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you willing to revert yourself then? You added fringe thoughts about linguistics written by a professor of religion, not linguistics. Are you letting your edit stand? 166.199.97.87 (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first two paragraphs in particular mention a type of stylometry that seems to have been used only once, by the church. It then has a quote from a church apologist saying the proof is pretty undeniable. Should we remove the fringe prose? 166.205.97.96 (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or not, as the case may be. I think that the person is definitely making valid points, but it is harder to act on them when we juggle around in this interstitial space of banned-not-banned. I speak from experience having come back from a ban myself and encourage @Jesus of Cumorah to contact me privately if they would like to work towards an unban. jps (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
