Talk:Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

For previous discussions on this topic, see: Talk:Book of Mormon anachronisms

NPOV

This article is not presented neutrally - it does not include all points of view. In several instances it has original research with quotes to original sources and interpretations of the meaning rather than a summary of scholars words.

The latest changes have made the POV issues worse. --Trödel 14:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Rather than a general assertion, it is better to take issues one at a time and discuss here. But there will always be POV problems on Book of Mormon articles, since virtually all editors come here with a POV on the issue. --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no pov on the Book of Mormon, but the article is certainly heavily concerned to prove that all criticisms are unfounded. Without exception, these counter-arguments have no basis, and it's pointless including them - the article needs to concentrate on pointing out the anachronisms and mistakes. PiCo (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

NPOV means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. There is a large amount of scholarly work dedicated to rebutting perceived anachronisms and mistakes in the Book of Mormon, and it's bad form to hack sourced material out of an article just because you don't agree with it. -- Adjwilley (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

But the sources being used are NOT reliable - the arguments would disgrace a child. I think this article needs to be taken to arbitration, as the quality is so low that it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. (In fact it makes it a laughingstock - you can imagine the article some journalist could write about Wikipedia as a scholarly source, based on this.) I'll see what can be done. PiCo (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, Adjwilley is right. All POVs must be presented fairly. You definitely have a POV--that all sources seeking to deal with the anachronisms are unreliable. That is your POV and you need to keep it in check. --Taivo (talk) 02:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly your pov is that the Book of Mormon has no anachronisms :). The fact remains, the arguments advanced against the anachronisms are childish and do not come from reliable sources. PiCo (talk) 03:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted PiCo's "edits" again after he deleted half the article. The edit warring should stop now. PiCo has been WP:Bold, but now it is time to discuss on the talk page specifically why he thinks apologist sources are unreliable. -- Adjwilley (talk) 05:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

PiCo, if you actually took two seconds to look at my edits on this and other BOM articles, you'd see that I am definitely not on the pro-side, but your edits are one-sided and biased, pushing your single POV to the exclusion of any others. Wikipedia must fairly represent all sides of every issue and not just follow your personal judgment on what is and is not "reliable" or what is and is not "the truth". --Taivo (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly common misconception that Wikipedia must represent "all sides of every issue" - but in fact this isn't so. What Wikipedia represents is major points of view from reliable sources. Where there is an important minority view we show that too. But all sides? No. In this case, the views that, for example, there were horses in the Americas before European settlement, or that Isaiah was written entirely by the 7th century prophet, or that baptism was practiced in Iron Age Judah, are simply not reputable. Nobody believes these things, or at least nobody whose opinion is an informed one. Therefore we don't include them in this article, which is about the errors in the Book of Mormon. Anyway, as I mentioned above, I'm trying to get some action from administrators. PiCo (talk) 06:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling the beliefs of several million people a "fringe theory" is rather bold, not to mention unfair, insensitive, and a violation of Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policies. Good luck with that. That said, however, I would support the deletion of all these articles whose only purpose is to 1) denigrate the Book of Mormon (this article) or 2) uphold it as science (Linguistics and the Book of Mormon, Genetics and the Book of Mormon, Archeology and the Book of Mormon, Historical Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, etc.). The problem with these articles isn't that they lack reliable sources, but that their fundamental purpose isn't enlightenment, but either proselytizing or anti-proselytizing. THAT is the true embarrassment to Wikipedia. But, as you will yourself find out, when you step in the pile of doodoo called "religion", all your neat and tidy little rules of sourcing will fly out the window because these apologists have been 1) published in a university or other reliable press, and 2) had their work peer-reviewed. Of course, that university is Brigham Young University and those reliable presses are in Utah, and peers means peers within the community of scientists who work at BYU, but Wikipedia doesn't distinguish between scholars at religious schools and scholars at secular schools. And, these scholars have perfectly reputable degrees from other universities. As I said earlier, my preference would be to delete every one of these articles since they are all fundamentally based on a proselytizing (or anti-proselytizing) effort, but I've tried before and those AfD nominations are overwhelmed by LDS editors who want to keep them--whether they benefit Wikipedia or not. --Taivo (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A religious belief isn't any kind of theory, fringe of other. The fringe theory part is the bit that says there were horses in America before Columbus (and so on). Oddly enough I'd agree with you about deleting this article - I don't think it serves any useful purpose. PiCo (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Note that I expanded my previous comment. Oh, but PiCo, you have never dealt with the LDS belief system obviously, where the history, archeology, etc. are all bound up in the religious assertions and therefore the proselytizing and teaching mission surrounding the BOM. The reasoning goes: if the history and archeology of the BOM are false, then the book is false and Joseph Smith was not a prophet, and, therefore, the whole religion is false. --Taivo (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

But I will, indeed, support any AfDs you wish to put forward for the removing of these barely disguised missionary and anti-missionary tracts. --Taivo (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

@Taivo, I have zero interest in editing this article, but was thinking that perhaps a merge could be a possible solution. It looks like there's been a proposal to merge it up for a while anyway. -- Adjwilley (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

See Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Ok, done as I said above - I've taken my concerns to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Please note: I'm not saying that Mormonism is a fringe theory - it's a religion - nor that the Book of Mormon is a fringe theory - it's a religious text - but that it's fringe when religious apologists bring uninformed, non-expert arguments to bear on subjects in which they have no standing, such as whether American Indian languages are descended from Egyptian. Anyway, please go to that page and add anything you think is useful. PiCo (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion has been archived, but providing link for future reference. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh - I should add that I've reverted the article to immediately before I started editing, so as to provide a clean slate. PiCo (talk) 07:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In this case, your so called "fringe theories" are relevant, since the LDS is a fringe religion and the BoM a fringe text! If you don't provide answers from both sides, you seriously run the risk of having a biased POV.--MacRùsgail (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Figs

Resolved

 – section was removed

The reference to figs as being an anachronism seems to be a stretch, for the following reasons:

1. The comment about figs is attributed to Jesus, who had lived his life in the Middle East where figs are native.
2. The Nephites are described as being descendants of people from the Middle East, so they could have known of the existence of a fruit called the fig even if they didn't have them.
3. The comment about figs is a metaphor anyway which should reasonably transparent even to those unfamiliar with the fruit. If someone said that one can't get good things from bad people just like one can't pick yuzus from a pitaya tree, that could be comprehensible even to those who might never seen or heard of a yuzu or a pitaya. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It should be deeleted.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Remove Bees Section?

Resolved

 – section was removed

Although the mention of bees in the Book of Mormon is still occasionally presented as an anachronism, I think that this section should be removed. The honey bee is only mentioned in Ether, which takes place in the Old World, where bees are known to have existed long before the Book of Mormon. It really isn't an anachronism at all.Gypsy Danger Dynamite (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, as I read the current text it is not even clear what the anachronism is supposed to be - possibly an implication that surviving Apis sp. should have been found in the Americas? Pastychomper (talk) 14:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Lindsay

See WP:RSN#Jeff Lindsay (engineer) jefflindsay.com. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dates in cn tags

If you're going to get your tighty whities in a knot about old citation tags, then you need to be consistent and not just cut text that disagrees with your POV. --Taivo (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing/broken citations

The section "Cattle and cows" states "However, no species of bison is known to have been domesticated." There is a Harvard citation of "Diamond 1999" with some page numbers, but I can't find the corresponding full citation. Can anyone find the book and provide title, publisher, and/or ISBN? Thanks. Pastychomper (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I've just noticed there are at least two other citations in a similar predicament on the page, and tagged all 3. FWIW I tried a bit of digging, picking "Coe 2002" at random: It was introduced (apparently in the same form) when the page was created, and there were quite a few Coes getting published in 2002. Pastychomper (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Just come across a possible candidate for "Sorenson 1985" in the "Historicity of the Book of Mormon" article. I can't yet find a copy of the book to see if it matches the citation on this article, but the ISBN is 0-87747-608-X. Pastychomper (talk) 08:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Silk

I've added some more details of American wild silks, which to my mind are clearly relevant given what is said about Sorenson's ideas. I've put them as a separate paragraph as they are not directly referenced by the Sorenson article and I don't want to stray into OR territory. I've also tried to clean up the section but there's more to be done. Given how strongly some people seem to feel about this article, I'd welcome others' (considered :) ) opinions on the relevance of what I've added. Thanks. Pastychomper (talk) 12:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of references to swords

Doug Weller, you indicated a revert in the swords section as "original research." Which portions of the post is considered original research, pretty much all of it is just straight from the Book of Mormon text? I will gladly remove portions that are original research Geneva11 (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Original research includes taking a primary text and applying an interpretation to it. Thus, if you apply your interpretation to a BOM text, that is original research. If you reference a scholar and a reliable source that makes that interpretation, then that is not original research. --Taivo (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

"The Book of Mormon makes numerous references to "swords" and their use in battle. What the swords are made of is mostly ambiguous except for one instance involving the Jaredites and one instance involving a people that were "remnants" of a destroyed people (presumably Jaredites). The first was an early battle involving Shule a few generations after the Jaredite arrival in the New World circa 2500 BC which used "steel" swords. The second involved an expedition of Limhites to the land northward which returned from an area of ruins (presumably Jaredite area, but the text doesn't say) with swords that were received from a "remnant of the people who have been destroyed" along with some sacred records and that "the blades thereof were cankered with rust," suggesting that these swords were also metal. Nephite swords were capable of being "stained" indicating a non-metallic material, and no reference in the Book of Mormon indicates that the Nephites or Lamanites utilized metal swords except for the sword of Laban brought from the Old World which was utilized as a type of royal effigy weapon."

I see no sources for the struck out material. You also shouldn't put steel and swords in quotation marks, it's confusing at the very least. Doug Weller talk 13:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Mastodons in Florida

I'm not sure that 100 BCE date is solid. I see this Mormon source[1] says "near to" although of course it isn't an RS. I can't take a proper look at this for 2 days, but there's [2] which is an unsearchable pdf that I'll be able to convert to Word. Also a search[3] Doug Weller talk 18:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The Mormon source is, as you said, unreliable. The second source is from the Handbook of North American Indians (which I own) and the article in question (Southeast Animals from Volume 3) says unequivocally that the mastodon was extinct in the Americas by 8000 BCE. I'll also check out the results of the Google Search, but I would say with 99.99999999% confidence that the 100 BCE date for mastodon remains is utterly bogus. --Taivo (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources that all these 100 BCE dates for C14 measurements for Florida mastodons date to the 1960s. We all (should) know that C14 accuracy was sometimes questionable because of contamination either after or during collection or during or after deposition. Any 2012 publication (the Mormon one) that relies on 50-year-old C14 dates from the dawn of C14 technology for a highly suspicious date is the very definition of reliable. I've found no indications in any of the recent scientific literature that even mentions these readings from the '60s. I am going to remove this comment from the article because it is based on unreliable sources. --Taivo (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to this topic

Rather than doing pros/cons of each "anachronism", this topic should be summarized with top-levels pros/cons.

The explanation of adieu is a basic rebuttal to many of the words.

Daniel H. Ludlow contends that it may have been the result of Joseph Smith choosing the best word available to convey the meaning of the original text. The word is found in the 1828 Webster's Dictionary so was considered an English word at the time of the Book of Mormon translation.

This argument posits that the Joseph Smith was limited by the language of his day. 600 BC the Bronze Age II was underway, and Nephi had a bow of steel. Laban had a sword of steel. We can't say "steel" means the Bessemer steel process. It does not, since that wasn't invented until the 1850s. What did "steel mean in 1828"? https://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/steel

Similarly, if a Nephi descendant translated a record of Ether and it says steel, does that mean the original record said steel? This logic obviously falls under the "apologists" side. If Joseph/scribe recognizes an Isaiah verse, would he not open his KJV and just write it down?

Another important logical flaw in this page is the "black swan" problem. Scientific falsification (popperism) is not being applied to this page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

The predation of mega-fauna theory is referenced in the topic, which has been widely challenged in archaelogical research. Man may have been in America for 200,000 or more years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event#Arguments_against_the_second-order_predation_hypothesis

Finally, the amount of the earth that has been thoroughly reviewed archaelogically is miniscule. How many dig sites are there in the Sahara Desert? America? The book American Holocaust suggested that 30 million people were wiped out by the Columbus discovery and what followed (next 50 years). Other evidence, such as Before America suggests the number may be 100 million. The cities are lost and undiscovered in the rainforests of Brasil.

In summary, the logical arguments on this page are very flawed. I could easily see this page be reduced in size significantly. The "nature of the translation" and the "black swan" are generic rebuttals to the different anachronisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.241.209 (talk) 06:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

"Adieu" section could be removed

I'm not sure what anachronism is suggested here. As the source given demonstrates, adieu was an english word (or at least a widely recognized loan word) at the time of translation. Whether the book was divinely inspired or Joseph Smith's original creation, it seems reasonable for him to translate (or write) a word common in his time and language. The only way I could see this being an anachronism is if the claim is made the original (untranslated) text contained the French term; I'm not aware of any significant group making this claim, and certainly not Smith himself. As such, I think this section doesn't contribute to the article and could be removed. Does anyone know a reason it should stay, or a way it contributes positively to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elliptical Reasoning (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree it is not anachronistic for the reason you've stated, but it does seem to be a popular inclusion in lists of Book of Mormon anachronisms. It might be worth leaving it in but rewriting the section. Something like "[source] considers the use of 'adieu' to be anachronistic, but [other source] points out that the word was in common use in 1820s USA, and Smith does not appear to have claimed that the same word was used in the original." Admittedly this might be drifting away from the article's purpose, since it isn't titled "Alleged Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon". 62.6.59.86 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Since it's a widely-acknowledged loan word in 19th century English, my vote is that this doesn't really represent a bona fide anachronism. I'm going to be bold and remove it. I haven't been able to find any serious scholarly claims that it represents an anachronism from a quick Google search. As always, feel free to disagree/discuss/revert if you feel strongly that I'm wrong. Trevdna (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian

Form the article, "No reformed Egyptian manuscripts or plates have ever been excavated by archaeologists." That's very likely to be true, but the only way to be sure would be to compare every excavated text with a known example of reformed Egyptian, and there is an obvious problem there. Further down, the article discusses the lack of texts that resemble Egyptian or Hebrew, so I've changed that part of the Background section to match. 62.6.59.86 (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Apologism throughout

Every point raised by this article has a weak response from an apologist editor. Many of these are absolute nonsense, like dating Leviticus to 1445BC or imagining that the word "horse" refers to deer.

I suggest we move the apologism to a dedicated section (rather than interleaving it throughout), and remove the obviously stupid bits. 86.18.4.28 (talk) 17:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Given that the BoM is a religious work which at least some people in the world believe to be true, it's appropriate to include apologists' responses so people can understand current thought on the subject, including why the believers don't either reject or reinterpret the work based on the anachronisms presented. The page is not supposed to be a tract to persuade people to believe one way or the other (and wouldn't be very effective if it was).

I don't see the point in collecting all the apologist parts in one place, you'd just end up repeating most of the titles and making the article harder to read for anyone interested in both parts.

About Leviticus, the cite you deleted seems to be referring to the date the rules in the book were first written, not the date the book reached its present form. The WP page on Leviticus says "the Pentateuch received its final form during the Persian period (538–332 BC). Nevertheless, Leviticus had a long period of growth before reaching that form." In the absence of a decently-sourced date for the first ritual immersions in ancient Israel, someone's guess based on the Biblical timeline seems reasonable to include - though the wording could have been better.

I agree that the "horse=deer" argument is at best weak, but if it's cited and looks like a notable part of apologist thought it should probably stay.

Pastychomper (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

(I know this is an older discussion, but... ) I think I see a way we can improve this. I'm going to go through and create an "apologetic response" subsection on each of these where it's applicable.

If I goof it up too bad, feel free to revert me, you won't hurt my feelings, just trying to be bold. Trevdna (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

False balance in the article

I've just created a lot of subsections on the "apologist perspective." In so doing, I've realized this article may suffer from issues with false balance between the mainstream and the apologist perspectives. From WP:FALSEBALANCE:

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. ... Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context concerning established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

That said: would it be appropriate to remove some or all of the apologetic responses throughout this article? It seems as though they are given equal - or in some cases, substantially more - weight than the mainstream, generally-accepted views of third-party scientists, archeologists, etc. etc. Trevdna (talk) 23:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Trevdna maybe ask at the Wikiproject? Doug Weller talk 13:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Trevdna It seems to me you've largely fixed that problem by defining all counter-arguments as "apologetic perspectives", since readers will understand that apologists' views are not likely to be mainstream, and will therefore tend to give them less weight. For that reason, I am not sure that title is appropriate in all cases. For example, the "apologetic perspective" on baptism don't include any apologist sources, it's just a paragraph of (as far as I can see) well-sourced limitations on the claim of an anachronism, as one should hope to find in a scholarly article. Some of the others are, shall we say, less mainstream and should be presented as apologists' ideas if they're presented at all.

As for whether they're presented at all, I've given my view in the section above, and agree it might be worth inviting more perspectives from the project. Pastychomper (talk) 12:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair point.

Also feel free to edit the baptism thing if you disagree with how I did it. If it’s a good faith edit that makes the article better, I don’t get offended, promise ;) Trevdna (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Horses in pre-Columbian

Horses were present in pre-Columbian times. The horses section should be modified or deleted. See this BBC article. https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20230126-the-return-of-the-spirit-horse-to-canada Sakalava47 (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It's nonsense, see Pseudoarchaeological claims of Horses in the Americas Doug Weller talk 20:13, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Doug, the article you cite doesn't address the BBC's main point and isn't as authoritative as the BBC. Sakalava47 (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is BBC Travel, not BBC News. The BBC is a vaste organisation that creates a wide selection of media, not all of which can be considered reliable in the same way. If this was science or news output it would be different, but a BBC travel article is not a reliable source for the genetic history of American horses. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, when I checked up on the claim of DNA testing, I didn't find a good source. That's an issue I will try to track down. Sakalava47 (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sakalava47 The BBC story is in the travel section written by a travel writer, not authoritative at all for horses. And discusses the originator of the story that is dealt with in the article I linked. The horse society is dedicated to this claim. To its credit it does link to this article which is dubious about the claim.[https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/lac-la-croix-indigenous-pony] We have an article on these at Lac La Croix Indian Pony where the BBC article was used as a source by one person but removed by another. Long story short, we have no reliable sources for this extremely dubious claim. I can find two sources discussing DNA.[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6070244/][https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1751731111001212] There was one at http://www.laclacroixindianpony.com/pdfs/cothranDNAreport but I can't find it even using Wayback. It was used as a source in one of the first two, can't recall which. Doug Weller talk 08:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a whole article about it here at Horses in the United States with lots of good references. Epachamo (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Apologetics responses: all must go

These anachronisms are pretty straightforwardly attested to as anachronisms. We don't write point-counterpoint articles on Wikipedia. I will be going through this article and removing "apologetics say" as WP:FRINGE WP:POVPUSH. You can keep apologetics in if anyone without an agenda to prove the veracity of the Book of Mormon has noticed. Otherwise, sorry, gang, Pseudoscience/pseudoscholarship OUT! jps (talk) 11:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The subject of "apologetics" has been discussed ad nauseum here and on the previous talk page linked above, the consensus so far has been to keep those parts and to keep them under special headings. It's all there to read trawl through, but as far as I recall (it's been a while), the main reasons have been:

• As a religious work, it's acceptable/encouraged for Wikipedia to acknowledge that some people believe it, and discuss (with appropriate sources) why they don't either reject or re-frame it when presented with evidence to the contrary.
• "Apologist" does not necessarily equate to "fringe". Some of the anachronisms on the page are not as clear-cut as either side like to pretend. See, for example, previous discussions on what the word "steel" meant in 1828 vs today. Also see the section on silk: Paragraph 1 seems to imply (without references) that the BoM was talking about woven, Asian silk, Paragraph 3 has 4 different non-Mormon references discussing the pre-Columbian wild silk trade. But 3 counts as apologetic, and 1 is likely a majority view, if only because most people aren't silk nerds.
• The title "Apologist perspective" makes it clear, or at the very least implies, that said perspective is not the mainstream view. It isn't being given undue weight here.
• The vast majority of editors on this page have a strong POV, either that the BoM is historical or that it's a load of dingos' kidneys.

As I read WP:FRINGE, the current layout is at least attempting to comply with the policy: religious claims should be evaluated, including on a scientific level where relevant, and we don't have to omit notable non-mainstream perspectives. Pastychomper (talk) 10:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That said, I would like to strongly encourage the trimming/pruning of some of the longer apologetic responses from this article. When the apologetic response is 2-3x as long as the description of the anachronism itself, that strikes me strongly as WP:UNDUE, especially given its status among mainstream scholars as pseudoscience. I had at one point brought up the idea of trimming it but was shot down (right when I had introduced the "apologetic response" headers) because the headers moved the article away from the apologetic POV. So I didn't push it. But if the consensus is moving in that direction, again, I would support it. Trevdna (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

As it is this article is absurdly written, we shouldn't be appending a "counter-argument" pulled out of a hat to every factual statement. One might as well go through the homeopathy article and add "homeopaths' arguments" following every paragraph. It's just asinine. As for WP:FRINGE I'd say calling these opinions "non-mainstream" is underselling it at best, they're apologetics unconcerned with the veracity of the argument. They'd disagree with what's written regardless of what it is because that's the point of apologetics. We shouldn't be conflating serious scholarship with nonsense conjured up to deflect from said scholarship. XeCyranium (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the "Apologist perspective" sections should go. This is an article about anachronisms. It isn't a point-counterpoint debate article. There is no need to give apologists the last word in any of the sections. Just present the anachronisms and be done with it. The same is true for our "criticism" articles, like criticism of Muhammad or criticism of Islam. The article is about criticims, so criticisms are presented, there is no need for creating a WP:FALSEBALANCE to give weight to the apologist perspective. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This article should not be a debate, however, if there is a notable apologetic back and forth that is discussed in reliable independent sources, then it should be discussed here. An example is the Scopes trial. The entire scopes trial was a notable back and forth and literal debate. That said, much of what is in the apologist perspective is not located in independent, reliable sources and should be removed. Epachamo (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Scopes trial was notable in its own right, but our article on evolution mentions it only briefly in the "cultural responses" section, and our article on natural selection doesn't mention it at all. None of our natural science articles describe the "creationist perspective" as counterpoints, because they are WP:FRINGE views that don't need to be considered. The same is true here. Apologist perspectives are fringe views.

If there actually exists a notable apologetic back and forth that is discussed in reliable indpendent sources, then that topic merits a standalone article, and such an article could be summarized or mentioned briefly in a short section, as evolution does with the Scopes trial.

Absent such an article to summarize or mention, however, there is no need to include any apologetic perspectives here. To whoever would want it mentioned, see WP:WTAF. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The article on evolution is about evolution. It is a science article. This article is about anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. It is not a science article. If there is a notable debate about an anachronism in the Book of Mormon, as presented by a reliable secondary source, there is no reason it NEEDS a separate article. We just need to be careful to follow WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. Don't misunderstand me, I am very much for paring back the pseudoscience in this article, I just think we should be judicious and not go overboard. Epachamo (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have undone the edits by Pombedo11! until there is some sort of consensus. While some sort of note of an apologist perspective may be appropriate, I personally don't believe the he said/she said format of these particular edits was the way to go. Rather, I think, a general summation would be better, but happy to abide by consensus. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the rest. I left in a few perspectives (removing the headings, which were unnecessary) but for the most part the "apologist perspective" sections consisted of handwaving WP:SYNTH cited to sources unrelated to the topic, or cited to primary sources, or were arguments based solely on religious belief rather than evidence. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The Synth/OR argument cuts both ways. I've noticed that at least some sections in this article go like this:

"The Book of Mormon mentions such and such.{citation to Book of Mormon} Scholars agree that such and such didn't exist in pre-Columbian America.{citation to source that doesn't mention the Book of Mormon}

I would suggest that one way of improving the article would be to prune it back to only include scholarly sources that directly discuss anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. I'm sure at least some exist. ~Awilley (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, anything that smacks of original research or synthesis should be removed. However, sources should be searched first; it's possible that the recent pruning may have inadvertently removed some. For example, the section about the term "compass" was recently removed because it cited only primary sources, but I found a citation to a source discussing this, so I restored it. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Two things re: compass.

1. The "compass" isn't actually a technological anachronism. It's a linguistic anachronism. The problem isn't that God gave the Nephites a magical pointer ball in 600 BC, but compasses weren't invented until 1100 AD in China. The problem is that the Book of Mormon compares the magical pointer ball to a "compass" and the concept of a "compass" as something that points wasn't invented until much later. (This is a good example of why we should avoid original research in this article.)

2. The source you linked to at https://packham.n4m.org/ appears to be entirely self-published. It's on Packham's personal website, published alongside his favorite sourdough recipes. I'm personally ok with judicious use of self-published sources, but I'm not ok with double standards. We can't say "self-published sources are allowed here, but only if they're polemic." ~Awilley (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This was all vetted out and discussed in 2011-12. Basically the format has been acceptable to pretty much all editors since then. Just because one or two new users come on and want to change everything does not change the earlier concensus and that the format is acceptable under Wikipedia rules. One of the new users deleting huge sections of the page has the user name "Anachronist' Lol. Pretty clear what his whole reason for recently joining Wiki is, obviously can't see beyond his own bias by even giving himself the Username. In looking at all of the POMBEDO11! (myself) additions, I was extremely careful to follow all Wiki guidelines and all citations meet Wiki guidelines. Since Wikipedia now has the reputation as being controlled by biased editors, wiping out the approach acceptable to long time editors such as Doug Weller is not advisable. ~Pombedo11! (talk)

Kind of you to mention me, but I'm with the other editors in this section. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect Pombedo11!, consensus can change. Happy Friday eve! Dumuzid (talk) 03:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Easy now Pombedo11!, attack the argument, not the user. Anachronist has over 60,000 edits. I'm pretty sure he didn't just create his account to mess up this page. What are your reasons for wanting to keep the apologetic responses? Epachamo (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've given them a 31 hour block from this talk page. I warned them before about civility and they ignored it. Doug Weller talk 07:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, if the consensus of the editors is that the Book of Mormon is not historical, then it should just say that in a single sentence on a different page dealing with the Book of Mormon on Wikipedia somewhere and just get rid of this entire anachronism page. What is the point of the whole page if that is the consensus? To keep the page up presumes that the Book of Mormon is still a subject of valid study to answer that particular question.

If this page is to remain, there are a variety of reasons to have various academic points of view reflected. For whatever reason, over time the format became that anyone who wanted to post information that actually indicated that there wasn't an anachronism to be classified as an "Apologist" and given a different section to write in.

For example one of the listed anachronisms such as "swine" is really just applying a scientific genus to the Book of Mormon word when the BOM is not a scientific book. Many people (including the Spanish conquistadors) referred to peccary as simply "pigs." So it is not really an anachronism, just a word preference. So why is it even up as an anachronism anymore? When I tried to put up that basic information, with carefully cited sources meeting Wiki guidelines, it gets taken down because it was "Apologist" post. I guarantee if I tried to eliminate that particular anachronism, even with a talk post, it would just be subject to be being undone almost immediately. Same with some other "anachronisms" such as silk. Just a difference in word preference. There ought to be the ability to at least to post alternate meanings of a particular word than the one editor's definition of a word who then posts that something is an anachronism. This would certainly be consistent with Wiki guidelines. Another anachronism that was listed was the use of the word Sam. Again, it is found prior to the time period.

Also, the reality is that there are various studies done by legitimate qualified individuals just specifically on the topic of anachronisms (also for non-BOM ancient texts) so it is a legitimate area of academic interest, just as there are various academic studies and points of view on the theology of the Book of Mormon. Pombedo11! (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Just an FYI on the history of the page, based on what is on the talk page, here is where the Apologists headings were added.

Pastychomper (talk) 09:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(I know this is an older discussion, but... ) I think I see a way we can improve this. I'm going to go through and create an "apologetic response" subsection on each of these where it's applicable.

If I goof it up too bad, feel free to revert me, you won't hurt my feelings, just trying to be bold. Trevdna (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Pombedo11! (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not a fan of the "apologetic response" sections, but I think they are/were a mostly-workable compromise that reduced the number of arguments over what should be included.

I broadly agree with @Pombedo11!'s latest comments on the content. This page has long suffered from false equivalences along the lines of "The Book of Mormon says A; A usually means B; B is an anachronism, therefore A is an anachronism", and the latest changes haven't fixed that. (That is slightly different from @Awilley's example; although both are SYNTH-related, my beef is with the unsupported and/or irrelevant use of "usually", not with using sources that don't mention the BoM.)

I am not convinced we need to "only include scholarly sources that directly discuss anachronisms in the Book of Mormon". If the Book of Mormon makes a clear claim of elephants in the Americas, then any RS that says there were or weren't elephants in the Americas should be acceptable. At least, that's how I read WP:SYNTH and What SYNTH is not, since the (non)existence of elephants would not be a new hypothesis. I'd welcome other perspectives though, I don't think I'm an authority on where to draw the line.

If we are going to rely only on sources that directly discuss the Book of Mormon, then we need to do it for both "sides", not just the "apologetic" sections. To bring in another quote from up-page,

"If you're going to get your tighty whities in a knot... then you need to be consistent and not just cut text that disagrees with your POV." --Taivo, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If talking about Aztec wild silk is SYNTH, then the sentence "Most modern day commercial silk comes from the cocoon of one of several Asian moths" is also SYNTH - where does the Book of Mormon mention Asian moths? Or modern silk, for that matter? We'd be better off removing the whole section. A similar argument can be made about the implied (but not stated) "swine == Sus sp." mentioned above, and the "transparent panes" in the window section.

As to whether this page should exist at all, I think it serves a purpose but I wouldn't don a black arm-band if it was deleted. I have a nasty feeling that if it was binned, some helpful editor would create a similar page a couple of years down the line. And they'd probably either split it out of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon or base it on a half-remembered polemic they read in the '90s. Pastychomper (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

What's up with the atheist slant in this article

There is nothing neutral here. It is an attack piece on faith, and it seems like it was recently made worse.

We simply don't know if ancient Americans had chariots, etc. Wood decays, and there are experts on both sides saying that the book of Mormom is reliable, and others who use semantic arguments to say it isn't. But this isn't settled science. Brigham Young Was Right (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Brigham Young Was Right: Find a reliable, independent, secondary source and we can put it in the article. Epachamo (talk) 17:37, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

"It isn't settled science." No, the Book of Mormon isn't science at all, and wasn't ever meant to be considered as such. The plain and simple fact is, anachronisms exist in the Book of Mormon. To the extent where an apoligist perspective is more than hand-waving reasoning, those perspectives are present in the article already. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Note, the OP has been blocked as a sock of User:Raxythecat. Given that one of the other rather prolific socks was User:Big Money Threepwood, this is likely a Joe job style post. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello to IP 2806:370:725D:6140:1:0:5268:76EF!

Thank you very much for your contributions, but I would respectfully ask you to slow down just a bit and gain consensus on the talk page before making such major edits. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

"the Bible"

"the Bible" is used in a way to indicate, that there is one text, in English, but the article appears to refer to KJV translation (?) looking at an earlier section. The article appears to (over)use "lies to children"/buzzwords. The sources may be biased or misleading, but it appears that an editor tried to simplify things. Such things may constitute OR (own/original research), in area where it may not be really possible to achieve scientific consensus.

--Luhanopi (talk) 07:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC) ,

Silk again

I have deleted the silk section for the reasons I mentioned back in May, namely that silk is not an anachronism unless you assume that "silk" == "Asian silk", which is not a reasonable assumption.

Wild silk was used and traded in pre-Columbian America, as described on the silk and wild silk pages. Those two pages between them have several independent secondary sources that appear reliable. I added at least two of those same sources to this article years ago, but earlier this year another editor decided they were SYNTH.

The section opened with a paragraph that attempted to narrow the acceptable definition of "silk" to mean only silk derived from Bombyx spp. The Book of Mormon only makes passing references to silk, there is no description of its appearance, use or origins, so I can see no justification for narrowing the definition in that way. Discounting American silks would tend to discredit the Book of Mormon narrative, but accepting them does not necessarily support it, since there's a fair chance Smith would have heard of the native silk trade (it was apparently recorded by European explorers long before 1829); so the main effect of the section was to make help the page look biased. Pastychomper (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)