Talk:Nephites

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality dispute

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Destruction of the Nephites

message: 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)
thread_title: Usages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Merging

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Compelling Archaeology

message: 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)
thread_title: Abbreviations

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  February 2012 NPOV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits by thepasta 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Linguistic Evidence of Nephites 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. Very unencyclopedic. Suggestion: Take it to the Mormon Wiki. Regards, --Manway 23:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nephites as "Christians" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Three Nephites 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tips on how to improve 

message: Regarding recitation 8, the Smithsonian Institution's 1996 assertion that there is no archaeological evidence, "no direct connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the book" of Egyptian, Morrocoan, Musulamiian, Tunisian, Arabic, Phoenician, Carthaginian, Tyrhennian, Etruscan, Italian, Hellenic, Ionic, Doric, Turkic, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebraic, Pontific, Keltic, Gothic, or Viking overseas migrations across the Atlantic Ocean, from Europe and Africa, to North, Central, or South America, and further stating that genetic evidence supports their assertion that only asiatic peoples migrated by way of a land-bridge across the Bering Strait. The Smithsonian seems to think it is unlikely that people like Bjarni Herjolfsson, or Leif Eiriksson, or Thorvald Eiriksson, or Thorfinn Karlsefni, or others from europe or africa may have sailed inadvertently to North, Central, or South America and settled long enough on the American continents to produce any children with the native populations. It seems short-sighted to ignore the mathematical laws of probability, and Occam's rules of epistemology and logic. One may be better informed, epistemologically, and thereby, historically, by studying the Works of Thor Heyerdahl. Kon Tiki.   Aku Aku . Easter Island. The Ra Expeditions. Fatu Hiva. Early Man and the Ocean. The Tigris Expedition. In the Footsteps of Adam. And...66.8.248.245 (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The comparison seems rather silly. Leif Eiriksson and the others were not from Africa or the Levant, nor is evidence for their travels confined to a 19th century religious text. And even if evidence surfaced of, say, Abu Bakr II reaching the Americas, that's very different from evidence of the Nephites existing. --Ismail (talk) 03:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Smithsonian Institution's assertion that there is no archaelogical evidence of Egyptian, Phoenician, Hellenic, Hebraic, or Keltic overseas migrations across the Atlantic Ocean from Europe or North Africa to North, Central, or South America, see citation 8 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nephites. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140521050129/https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-helaman-through-3-nephi-8-according-thy-word/5-decline-nephites-rejection-coven to https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-helaman-through-3-nephi-8-according-thy-word/5-decline-nephites-rejection-coven
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:14, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Did the Nephites go west or east?  Did they cross the Atlantic ocean or the Pacific ocean? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atlantic or Pacific?