Talk:Nephites/Archive 1

Archive 1

Usages

I added the four usages to the article. I think that the terms "Nephite" and "Lamanite" have suffered from oversimplification among both LDS and non-LDS readers of the Book of Mormon. Hopefully my additions will clear things up a bit. Also, it may lessen the need for the archeological and NPOV sections of the article.--Cassmus 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging

What does everyone think of merging this article wi the Lamanite one? To me it seems like you can't understand one without the other.--Cassmus 10:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Although it may be true that "you can't understand one without the other," that argument could hold true for almost any two nations or groups of people that have extensive interaction with one another. There is a lot that binds these two, but there is also a lot that sets them apart from each other. I say we keep them separate. Matatigre36 01:59, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Merging with Lamanite would require a completely new article name. Nephites and Lamanites seems to imply an article only about the relationship between the two people. Each group does stand on its own to some extent. A prominent link to Lamanite is a no brainer, but merging doesn't make sense. Mrmcgibby 04:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose - Each merits its own article. Those who seek a merge could, instead, produced a combined article referencing the individual articles. Not sure, though, what the combined article would add to the body of wisdom. The Editrix 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The consensus is obviously not on my side, so I'm removing the merge tags from both articles.--Cassmus 02:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute

The characterization of a dispute of forest/trees is meaningless to me. Documentation of the alleged statues and legends of white people are absolutely necessary if this article is to be taken seriously. 69.51.153.203 21:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is neutrality disputed?209.181.147.213 22:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Since this question has been here since 5 April, over six months, with no answer, I'm removing the "neutrality dispute" tag. Val42 03:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is ridiculous for Wikipedia and reads like it belongs in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism. Folks, this article is consumed with minority views on the subject of Nephites. The world's community of non-Mormon scholars universally contend that Nephites never existed outside of the imagination of Joseph Smith. For a Wikipedia article, the bulk of this article should in the majority be about this majority view. As it is now, it is written to be "faith promoting". I am placing the NPOV tag back into this. CyberAnth 17:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you were more specific. Or you could make the fixes yourself. Otherwise, after an amount of time, the NPOV tag will be removed for the very same reason that I removed it before. Val42 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article comes up from time to time. If you wish to discuss this topic, the current discussion is taking place in the topic "Strange thing to say" later on this discussion page. Val42 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

Shouldn't all the discussion of the historicity of the Nephites be better placed in an article on the historicity of the Book of Mormon? This is an issue common to many subjects in the Book of Mormon Mrmcgibby 18:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree that it is done too often with Book-of-Mormon-related topics, I think the historicity discussion is relevant to this article because the Book of Mormon is the record of the Nephites. I don't think the discussion should make up the bulk of the article as it does now, but it does bring up some interesting points about Quetzalcoatl and the pochteca, the latter of which I had never heard of before.

To me, it wouldn't seem so POV if we added more to the article about the Nephite nation (which I think we should). For example, a lot could be included about their systems of government (King Nephi and his successors, the Reign of the Judges, kingmen, freemen, etc.), their wars with the Lamanites, the culture of their lawyers, even their money system... I am surprised that so little has been written about the history of this people (not pointing fingers here, just would like to make this my next project maybe). In short, if we include all of that, the archeological dispute, which I think is relevant, won't be so "in our faces" for LDS members. Matatigre36 04:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. I think that a link to more detailed discussion of the topic would at least be warranted for those who are interested. Mrmcgibby 15:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Matatigre36, I put in a section called "Nephite society," covering government, laws, maney, and calendars. I agree that it will make the historicity discussion not seem so prominent. I hope others add to that section. I'd like to do the same for the Lamanites, but that article seems to be organized in a completely different way. It's more about the significance of Lamanites today than about their society in ancient times. (BTW, the history page doesn't show my name for the addition of "Nephite society" because my computer had logged me out by the time I finished writing it.) Nathan000000 11:53, 11 Aug. 2006 (MST)

The neutrality of this article comes up from time to time. If you wish to discuss this topic, the current discussion is taking place in the topic "Strange thing to say" later on this discussion page. Val42 21:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Compelling Archaeology

For some time I have watched the word compelling repeatedly added and removed from the 2nd sentence in the Archaeology section. Because this sentence is supposed to represent the opinion of most (or mainstream or non-LDS) archaeologists, the wording should reflect that of a cited source. Unfortunately, no one has cited any source for this. Someone please cite a source so that we can settle this one way or another.Plazak 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any mainstream archeological studies that attempt to delve into the existence or otherwise of the Nephites, for the simple reason that the overwhelming majority of archaeologists and historians regard them to be an entirely fictional creation of Joseph Smith. Surely it is sufficient to note the complete absence of mainstream support for the Nephite story proposed by the LDS? --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Destruction of the Nephites

I changed the article to indicate that the Lamanites destroyed the Nephites in 385 AD instead of "circa 421 AD." I realize that Moroni and other Nephites were still alive after the great battle recorded in Mormon 6, but the Nephite nation was already destroyed. Mormon begins chapter six by stating, "And now I finish my record concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites," and then goes on to describe the tremendous final battle at Cumorah. Also, in 401 AD Moroni writes that he was alone (Mormon 8:3); all of the other 'survivors' of the battle had been killed off or absorbed by the Lamanites after "deny[ing] the Christ" (see Moroni 1:2). In other words, the Nephites were destroyed in the battle of 385 because they could not have recovered as a people (or even be considered a people) after that. Please let me know if you disagree with my assessment of the destruction of the Nephites. Cheers! Matatigre36 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha ha, you are killing me! Next time try using the words "allegedly", "porportedly" and "according to the book of mormon" :-). Aside from that, thanks for the corrections. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations

What does LDS or non-LDS mean? And, on the discussion page, POV/NPOV?

LDS is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and non-LDS is everyone else. POV is Point of View, and NPOV is Neutrality or Non-Point of ViewSanitycult (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

B of M setting

The article lacked references on Book of Mormon setting. I have supplied some.Onondaga (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2012 NPOV

This article had a great deal of POV issues, portraying LDS church doctrine as undisputed historical fact. I've attempted to balance the POV, by arranging a new history section, which addresses both Mormon tradition and external evidence and disputes. I also balanced other sections by giving them context as handling primarily scholarship from the Book of Mormon. --Zfish118 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by thepasta

Thepasta's recent edits, besides their unreadability, weren't NPOV. If Thepasta feels like discussing it, I'm happy to explain why. Triacylglyceride (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic Evidence of Nephites

How is the following not an objective criticism of the archaeological evidence of Algonquian prehistory?

'Contemporary linguistic perspectives reveal controversies between archaeological and linguistic theories regarding reconstructions of the prehistory and migration of the societies that correlate with proposed origins of the Book of Mormon. According to the Journal of Archaeology of Eastern North America, "Most archeologists in the Northeast, rejecting earlier theories of migration and diffusion, now assume indigenous cultural development and continuity of settlement in the region, from Paleo-Indian times until the historic period. However, this assupmption appears to be incompatible with linguists' reconstructions of Algonquian prehistory, which presuppose a relatively late migratory expansion from a northern homeland. When archeologists have not simply ignored the linguistic evidence, they have either drastically altered the proposed linguistic chronology to fit their own models, or else have questioned the theoretical validity of the linguists' models. (e.g., Snow 1977, 1980)" This linguistic evidence suggests that current archaeological models may not reflect the beliefs of other scholarly domains of historical analysis.' http://www.jstor.org/stable/40914351 Thepasta (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

When you can show the correlation between Algonquin people and Nephites, this might apply. The listed reference says absolutely nothing about Nephites. You're making a leap between Nephite > Algonquin with no supporting references. Or did you mean to post this in the Algonquin language article and ended up here by mistake? --Manway 01:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

What Manway said. Plus, pointing out a flaw in the commonly-accepted model without discussing the evidence in the commonly-accepted model is not NPOV. Triacylglyceride (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Strange thing to say

they "fell into wickedness"

really? well, I don't think that is a very encyclopedic thing to say--82.26.87.194 15:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a quotation from the Book of Mormon. Isn't quoting a primary source (in proper context) encyclopedic? Val42 17:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would say yes were the primary source material in question regarded as a scholarly text. There are very few respected scholars who would consider the Book of Mormon scholarly.

Reading the article the main issue is that the tone treats the Book of Mormon claims as historic, despite the fact that this is the only record of the group. Were it revised to state "According to the Book of Mormon" when making claims, it would go a long way to addressing the neutrality. Without that disclaimer the article is, frankly, extremely biased. Jmcachran 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence in question reads, "The book describes the Nephites as an initially righteous people, who eventually fell into wickedness and were utterly destroyed by their rivals the Lamanites circa A.D. 385.[3]" Since this paragraph begins with "In the Book of Mormon," in this context "The book" is refering to this previously-referenced book. Since this was in the article since at least the last edit on December 4th (before your comment), are these disclaimers acceptable, or do you want your exact wording?

Also, each level 1 section ("Various usages" and "Nephite society") begins with "The Book of Mormon" and "While the Book of Mormon" (respectively), and the statements are clearly references to the Book of Mormon, what else needs to be done to remove the neutrality tag? Please be specific. Val42 21:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Under the "Archeological Disputes" section, it says that "...images of the pochteca (a merchant group often depicted with beards, having the face structure of Caucasians)..." The article on the pochteca doesn't mention Nephites, or even the LDS Church. The tlatlani, a subgroup of pochteca, helped prepare slaves and captives for human sacrifice. Also, if the Nephites came from the general area of Israel (except Iran), they would be Semites, not Caucasians. 69.119.98.236 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it has been almost a month with only the one objection to removing the POV tag. So I removed this text mentioned and also removed the POV tag. Remember, it is Wikipedia policy that if an article is mentioned as POV, the reason(s) for adding the tag must be added to the article's talk page. So, if the POV tag goes back up without saying why it was put back on this page, I will remove it. Val42 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed the last line of the introductory paragraph. Basically it said "studies have proven no genetic link between Native Americans and Israelites". Generally speaking, science doesn't "prove negatives". I think it is more scientifically accurate to say that no links have been discovered. It's a subtle but logically critical difference. 128.143.171.188 (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)James Mitchell, 27 April2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.171.188 (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that every paragraph should mention the Book of Mormon to stress the fact that there is no evidence of the nephites existence outside this book. I have made some minor changes according to this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animus00 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nephites as "Christians"

It is suggested that the Nephites became Christians after the coming of Christ (Which is true to a certain degree). The term "Christian" tends to very loosely relate to the Christians that arose from the primitive Church of Jesus Christ (Established by Christ, and organized by the apostles under the direction of Christ). This very church then became influence by popular pagan, greek, and roman beliefs as they adopted Christianity. The term "Christianity" encompasses those greek/roman/pagan philosophies that helped influence and form it into what it became over centuries leading down to today. In that sense, Nephites were not Christians. They did not have any influence from the philosophers such as Constintine among others.

The Nephites did however believe in Jesus Christ, and like in the Holy Land, he established his Church among the Nephite people. This church was exactly the same as the primitive church organized by the 12 apostles (Line of authority coming from Jesus Christ, Peter the prophet, James and John his counselors, the remaining apostles, and so forth.) The Nephites also had apostles and church organization identical to that church. They were in fact Christians, but not in the sense of the word as it is used today.

I would ask that this point is made in the article to clarify what type of "Christians" the Nephites were.

216.106.18.70 (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)Brother Donnie Howell Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

No. Very unencyclopedic. Suggestion: Take it to the Mormon Wiki. Regards, --Manway 23:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

References needed tag

Just was perusing this again today when I spotted the following hidden tags:

All articles lacking reliable references - Articles lacking reliable references from January 2011 - All articles lacking sources - Articles needing more viewpoints from January 2011 - All articles with unsourced statements - Articles with unsourced statements from June 2012 - Articles with unsourced statements from April 2012

How long must we wait for WP:RELIABLE references before we concede that there are none? If this was an article about a race of UFO aliens with the same tag, how long would we give the believers before we did something about it? And yet an (IMHO correct) tag that says "Mythological People" is removed within minutes of adding it as too "POV?"

Just a thought. I am willing to discuss. Regards, --Manway 19:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon is an indisputably notable topic. As a topic discussed in the Book of Mormon, the Nephites are a potentially notable topic. I really have no problem with the existence of the article, but would like to see more critical commentary provided by reliable neutral sources and citations of official LDS commentary. How the scholars handle the claims should guide how the article presents the material. The Smithsonian letter is a start, but doesn't quite address the Nephites in particular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zfish118 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 21 August 2013‎

Three Nephites

I notice that the Three Nephites has their own article under "see also", but I wonder if they shouldn't be mentioned in the text of this article as they are intimately linked to the question of what happened to the Nephites. In other words I think it is more germane to the content of this article than the other "see also" articles. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Tips on how to improve

Wow! That was a bad article indeed! It should contain:

• a summary of the chronicle on the Nephites according to the Book of Mormon,
• how the LDS:ers (and other groups) use this chronicle,
• academic assessments (pro and con) after the main section.

It shouldn't contain:

• analyses,
• comparisons with the Old and New Testament,
• ad hoc assessments interspersed with the text.

It is preferrable that a secondary source is used for the summary of the chronicle, but if such don't exist, then primary could be provisionally accepted. In the analyses sections, there must be secondary (academic) sources that support the essence of the analyses, original syntheses aren't allowed. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)