Jump to content

Talk:Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ephrathite? Lehi is through Manasseh

[edit]

Ephrathite? I disagree... In Alma 31:10 3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren. I think we need a little more info for this to be useful... there are several promises that those of the tribe of Ephraim are eligible for. Maybe this statement is here because they qualify for some of these blessings?

--?? Who is this - unsigned?

I removed this until it can be explained and sourced: Lehi's sons are said to be characteristically Ephrathite, though it is uncertain what this means or why this would be. Bochica 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

"...and the fact that Mormonism is not grounded in fact." - I just wonder if this is an inflammatory...?

--Darkpoet 16:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was probably vandalism. Bochica 05:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article lacks references

[edit]

As I read this article I realize the lack of historic, geological, and archeological references outside the BOM and/or internal writings. The article makes stipulations and assumptions about its own veracity. As Wikipedia user guidelines states the "encyclopedic content must be verifiable" by external material. Eternalyalive 01:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked out the article for "lack of historic, geological, and archeological references" in this article. There are plenty of references, some of which don't show which specific information they support. I have requested such association. Now, what specific information do you want referenced? — Val42 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, all of the items in the Reference ("Other") section are linked from the Harvard citations in the notes section. There are no references shown which are not linked into the article somewhere. Bochica 16:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "As I read this article I realize the lack of historic, geological, and archeological references outside the BOM and/or internal writings". All references used are from LDS/Mormon writers and publishers or from BYU sources. "As Wikipedia user guidelines states the "encyclopedic content must be verifiable" by external material" and by this I mean historical facts, local history records, recorded archeological discoveries, references from other books or legend of the same era. Sadly all these references that have been plugged in this article support the thought that LDS scholars and people with interest have published works that support their own beliefs and may not be necessarly historically supported. I would like to see jewish documents that would confirm the existance of Lehi, his friend Ishmail, and the other man named Zoram, the jews by law and culture (maybe even religion) where very specific when recording names and generations & tribes. If these 3 super wealthy guys and their huge families (according to the BOM) were able to slip through the jewish history books yet make a big impression somewere in Africa then we have yet another mistery to solve. Don't get me started with Mulek. Eternalyalive 01:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So based upon your standard Moses, Isaiah, Esther, Amos, etc. are all fictional characters because there is no historical evidence to support any of them? I guess we would need to have Buddhist sources to confirm their reality or to be acceptably sourced. It gets pretty funny when we start applying the same standard to every thing doesn't it?

This article simply discusses characters and events in a book. It does not need to take a position on whether the book is historically true or not, nor does it. Arguing about the historicity of the Book of Mormon is pointless and irrelevant to the purpose of the article. Ltbugaf (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

No scholars nor scientists could prove this whole theory. That Lehi was invented and only exists in the book of Mormon. The article should mention the scientific facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4950:ab51:c831:c46a:dc5:b6af (talk • contribs) 16 November 2014‎

The article should summarise what wp:reliable sources have said about the topic of this specific article, including by those engaged in Mormon studies. There is plenty of material about the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon and criticism of the Book of Mormon on those particular articles, but most of that is off-topic on this article. —Asterisk*Splat→ 20:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with AsteriskStarSplat. This historical authenticity is debated on those pages listed.--- ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently exposed to Bedouin story about Lehi (unpublished undergoing research, not mine), so the claim that Lehi exists only in Mormon book is looks to me as non valid right now --Mmedvin (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article simply discusses characters and events in a book. It does not need to take a position on whether the book is historically true or not, nor does it. Arguing about the historicity of the Book of Mormon is pointless and irrelevant to the purpose of the article. Ltbugaf (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2021 Ltbugaf (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nearly text-book example of original research, and so there should be no change to this article based on your statement. —Asterisk*Splat→ 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure!--Mmedvin (talk) 05:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lehi sailed to Americas?

[edit]

How can one say that Lehi, who lived in 600BC have sailed to America which were discovered 1000 years later? you need at least give some explanation to this claim...otherwise it looks unreliable... If there is any known historical fact to this - you have to add it? --Mmedvin (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The ~600 BC claim is made by the LDS Church, as well as other denominations in the Latter Day Saint movement. On this article we are not trying to establish or disprove this claim: we are merely summarizing what reliable sources have said about this claim, including by those that originally made the claim. —Asterisk*Splat→ 23:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you use a doubtful statement, even if taken from a "reliable source" it is good to have a short discussion about it. If this is not a historical fact that have been proved (it is hard and tricky especially since too many indigenous Americans were killed and their culture and history disappeared) it could be a try to explain it. Many things like this in religious literature can be explained and it is hard to believe that nobody asked the question I've asked before (not only here, but in general).--Mmedvin (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Plates

[edit]

WP:VERIFY WP:NOTRELIABLE WP:SELFPUBLISH Need a citation to objective evidence that these metal plates exist. Otherwise its unverifiable self published say so.DLH (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic or Pacific?

[edit]

From Bountiful, did they sail east across the Pacific? or south and west across the Atlantic?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Mormon doesn't give the route. There is no definite answer to this question. Ltbugaf (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew vs English Pronunciation

[edit]

The paragraph on possible origin of the name states, "However, the Hebrew word and the Book of Mormon character name Lehi are not pronounced similarly." This is a superfluous comment. It seems intended to suggest the name Lehi is not of Hebrew origin, but it does not suggest that. The fact that English-speaking people say "LEE-high" whereas a Hebrew pronunciation would probably be more like "lekhee" is not relevant to whether the name has Hebrew origins. The English pronunciation of virtually every name in the Bible is also different from Hebrew pronunciations. Abraham, Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Obadiah, Zephaniah, and Malachi are just a few of the many examples. Ltbugaf (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The whole paragraph shouldn't be here, at least in its current state. One reference is simply to the Bible. Another is to a Bible study site, which is probably not so reliable. More importantly, neither reference says anything even about the possibility that this is the origin of the name, so it's original research. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sources

[edit]

Hi Left Guide, I noticed that you added the paid contributions template. The instructions for this template state: "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain why you tagged the article." It is true that my student, a paid contributor, Adri-at-BYU, has made substantial edits to this page. I believe they her revisions are within Wikipedia's guidelines for NPOV. Which sources do you believe are "compromising" (as you mentioned in your edit summary)? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, BYU Studies Quarterly is published by BYU, so it's obviously not independent of the church. I think all of the sources should undergo review by other non-COI editors to ensure the article is NPOV-compliant. Left guide (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Goodreads? Really? C'mon now, if you are paying and employing these students, then you are responsible for inspecting their edits and holding them to a much higher standard of source selection, so volunteers aren't wasting valuable time cleaning up messes. At a minimum, y'all should know to check WP:RSP#Sources. Left guide (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? C'mon now; wasting valuable time cleaning up messes
Left guide, the tone of this veers into WP:UNCIVIL. That kind of behavior isn't necessary. Let's WP:AGF and give Adri-at-BYU and Rachel Helps (BYU) due respect as fellow people and participants in the Wikipedia community.
I agree that a Goodreads review doesn't establish sufficient notability or provide sufficient reliability for use on Wikipedia. That specific portion of the page was WP:UNDUE.
As for BYU Studies Quarterly, I don't follow, Left guide. The topic of this page isn't the church, as you put; the topic is Lehi, a figure named in the Book of Mormon. WP:INDEPENDENT states that a source lacks independence when it has a vested interest, or a financial or legal relationship to the topic. In what way is the peer-reviewed academic periodical BYU Studies Quarterly financially or legally dependent on Lehi, a figure that appears in a public domain book from 1830?
As someone who is not paid by anyone to edit Wikipedia and who also has no legal or financial relationship with Lehi (like most of us, I would think) and has some experience creating Book of Mormon studies pages, I would be happy to take a closer look at the Lehi article and its use of sources when I have more time later. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lehi is a character invented and created by the church (via the Book of Mormon), so if the source is published by BYU, then it's not an independent secondary source. Left guide (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the church; but which church? The Book of Mormon is a text considered religiously significant by numerous denominations of the Latter Day Saint movement, and the founding dates of all extant Latter Day Saint denominations postdate the production and publication of the Book of Mormon (published in March 1830). Or do you mean to consider all Christian-affiliated writers and presses non-independent of Job or Paul? Wikipedia's own voice of course adheres to a NPOV, but that on its own isn't grounds for excising any all sources with religious background. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The LDS Church, but more broadly the LDS movement on the whole too. And you were right about my tone, I apologize to the three of you for the harsh tone of my Goodreads comment above, I now realize the error of my ways and shouldn't have come down like a ton of bricks over a good-faith mistake, I sometimes make errors in source selection too. Left guide (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the Goodreads review source removed, and with the BYU Studies Quarterly article talked about, ould you feel at ease removing the tag stating the page "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view"? Having now myself taken the time to read the page a few times and think it over, I think improvement of the page is still possible—e. g. if the only people invested in this apparent Shakespearean intertextuality is Alexander Campbell (a preacher in the 1830s rather than an academic in the last half century) and a few respondents contesting the connection, I don't think the "Cold and silent grave" section is all that due, and a source could be provided for Lehi, Arizona and Lehi, Utah—but I don't see sources being cited in specifically "compromising" ways, as you said in your edit summary. I watch a lot of Book of Mormon pages and have noted the contributions of paid editors like Adri-at-BYU and while new editors often have a learning curve, I've been impressed with a lot of the work being done. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the LDS-affiliated sources, and I think some of the statements cited to them could use better or different attribution. I don't see anything in the article that seems bad enough to be tag-worthy anymore, so I'll remove the tag and then work on the attributions. Left guide (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lehi_(Book_of_Mormon_prophet)&oldid=1222367118"