User talk:Westbrook348

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

BOM Linguistics

Hi there! I see you've made some edits to the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon page. In general, I like what you've done. Clearly, you have a Mormon POV (whereas, clearly I do not) so perhaps between the two of us we can reach some kind of compromise. :-) I think I am OK with letting all your changes stand as they are (you have cleaned up a lot of my awkward grammar -- thank you!) but I have a problem with your closing comments about the accounts of Whitmer and Harris as they relate to the translation of the BOM. You edited the paragraph to say:

If this version of the translation process is accurate (placed into question by earlier descriptions that fail to mention seer stones), then there is very little room for error in the word choices used in the translation of the Book of Mormon (since each word was reportedly divinely approved and could not be written incorrectly). "Steel" must mean steel, "horse" must mean horse, "wheat" must mean wheat, and so forth.

The part I am most having a problem with is the "(placed into question by earlier descriptions that fail to mention seer stones)". To my way of thinking, if you are going to accept a witnesses's testimony in *some* instances and not in others, then you are really just cherry-picking the testimony of that witness to reach the conclusion you want. If Whitmer and Harris are reliable enough to establish the authenticity of the BOM then they should be reliable enough to establish the method of its translation. If their testimonies differ... well, that says something about their reliability as a witness, doesn't it? I would either like to see the parenthetical comment struck, or else I would like to see some follow-up discussion which drives home that witnesses who provide inconsistent or contradictory testimony really aren't very good witnessess at all. You can't have your cake and eat it, too!

Jarom Smith 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added some discussion to the Linguistics and the Book of Mormon page. I just wanted to make sure you know so that you can go check it. Thanks! Jarom Smith 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with the page Stingray on Wikipedia! Your test worked, and thank you for reverting or removing it yourself. The best way to do tests in the future would be to use the sandbox. You can look at these pages as well: how to edit a page, the tutorial, and how to write a great article. All of these pages are good places to start. Again, thanks, and we hope that you will like Wikipedia. Ansell 21:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)