Anyone ever been bothered by Nephi?

[jay santos]

No one finds it interesting that Nephi tells himself to kill Laban? Sorry I couldn't resist, but at least I held off a couple days. Welcome back, Fuzz.

[ute4ever]

I think all of the explanations in this thread are accurate. Passages of scripture can easily have multiple meanings and multiple symbols, concurrently. Abraham sacrificing his son. Moses smiting the rock. Christ throwing the merchants out of the temple. Etc.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

Let's suppose your right; that the story is at the very least is using imagery from Moses and the Exodus. This at the worse would be neutral evidence in terms of ancient origins of the Book of Mormon. Later Israelite literature is filled with Moses and exodus imagery. This is true for both the Old and New Testament. For example, think about the first few chapters of Matthew; the Moses imagery is striking. Consider the following broad outline of the first 7 chapters of the Matthew:

1. A male child is miraculously born.
2. An evil or at least a pretty bad tyrant rules the land.
3. The child is protected from harm in Egypt.
4. The child leaves Egypt.
5. He passes through the waters (of Baptism).
6. He is tested in the wilderness for 40 units of time.
7. He delivers God's law on a mountain (mount).

Matthew goes out of his way to arrange his narrative in such a way that his reader will recognize that Jesus is a "New Moses." Why would Nephi be any different? If there is an ancient prophet name Nephi, then it would hardly be surprising that he uses this same kind of imagery or that he thought about the Lehite exodus in terms of the Israelite exodus. On the other hand, if the BOM has 19th century origins and Joseph Smith is the author, it is hardly surprising that he would rework Biblical narratives. Thus, I don't think this line of thinking helps your position and hurts mine (ancient origins) in any substantial way.

P.S.

I am aware that you didn't mention of the origins of the BOM in your comment; I just assumed it was implicitly part of it. I apologize if I have unfairly judged.

I agree the Gospels are derivative of the Old Testament in much the same way. The anonymous authors of the Gospels made Jesus the heir apparent to the throne of David, as he was of David's lineage. The anonymous authors made Jesus the fulfillment of all Jewish prophetic expectation. They made Jesus the new and greater Moses. The life of Jesus these anonymous authors adaped from the life of Moses. Moses’ mother hid him in the bulrushes of the River Nile because Pharaoh decreed all Jewish male babies be executed at birth. Phoroah's daughter, bathing in the Nile, found Moses and spared him. So too did the Gospels' creators make Jesus’ birth occur in a manger, in the simplest, most rustic circumstances imaginable, the infant amid hay, in a manger, a place for animals, like bulrushes. Likewise, did the Gospels' creators make Herod, deceived by the Wise Men who had visited and paid respects to the baby Jesus, send his soldiers to Bethlehem with orders to slay every Jewish boy under two years of age.

Just as Moses came out of Egypt led by a vision, so too did the anonymous creators of the Gospels write that Jesus was brought out of Egypt led by a dream. Moses led the Children of Israel through the divided waters of the Red Sea, emerging from the waters with a new purpose and destiny, rending any ties with the past, never to be the same. So too does Jesus emerge from His baptism in the Jordan River with a new a new vocation, a new calling, leaving his past behind, never to be the same.

From the Red Sea, the Children of Israel sojourned in the wilderness, for forty years, and there struggled with the meaning of their new found destiny as God's elect. So too ddid the creators of the Gospels make Jesus go from the waters of the Jordan River to the wilderness, where He remains for forty days, and struggles with the meaning of His new found destiny--the Chosen One, the Messiah of God. Moses gave the Law, the Books of Moses. God spoke through Moses on a mountain and thereby He gave the sacred Law to the Children of Israel, and thereby made a covenant with his people. So too did the Gospels' creators make Jesus give the law, and also on a mountain, the Sermon on the Mount. So too does Jesus make a covenant of salvation with all those who accepted His sacrifice by baptism for the remission of sins.

Just as Moses led the Children of Israel through the wilderness, with the promise of a new homeland, so too does Jesus lead an exodus, from sin, promising the Kingdom of God. In the cosmology of the creators of the Gospels, Moses and Jesus alike pass through fear, frustration, doubt, rejection, and ultimately death. Just as Moses fed the Children of Isreal with manna from heaven, Jesus feeds bread to the five thousand. The anonymous creators of the Gospels made Jesus, as Moses, the bread of life.

Of course, I didn't make any of this up. For five hundred years people have seen these parallels as either evidence of the Gospels' divinity or that they were created by men. The Book of Mormon consciously parallels the Pentateuch as well as does Joseph's own autobiography and Mormonism's early history. Thus we see the awesome power of myth to regenerate itself and raise whole societies.

[All-American]

The tendency to notice parallels with figures of the past is nothing new. Attempts to recreate the Roman empire and establish "New Rome" are numerous; Constantinople, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Germany's "Kaiser" and Russia's "Czar" are just a few examples. Religious societies are especially wont to find parallels in their founding mythology. The Mormon "exodus" is rife with comparisons; Brigham Young as the "American Moses," the camps of 10 and 50, the use of Biblical place-names such as "Mount Pisgah," and so forth show this tendency.

It's worth pointing out that the mere presence of similarities, whether actual or contrived, does not mean that the latter event is not authentic. Although similarities between the Exodus of Moses and the pioneer trek, for example, it does not of necessity dictate that Mormons never travelled to Utah.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

The tendency to notice parallels with figures of the past is nothing new. Attempts to recreate the Roman empire and establish "New Rome" are numerous; Constantinople, Charlemagne, Napoleon, Germany's "Kaiser" and Russia's "Czar" are just a few examples. Religious societies are especially wont to find parallels in their founding mythology. The Mormon "exodus" is rife with comparisons; Brigham Young as the "American Moses," the camps of 10 and 50, the use of Biblical place-names such as "Mount Pisgah," and so forth show this tendency.

It's worth pointing out that the mere presence of similarities, whether actual or contrived, does not mean that the latter event is not authentic. Although similarities between the Exodus of Moses and the pioneer trek, for example, it does not of necessity dictate that Mormons never travelled to Utah.

We could debate in circles and write whole treatises here about what is meant by "authentic" in this context.

All scripture, like art, is derivative.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

We could debate in circles and write whole treatises here about what is meant by "authentic" in this context.

All scripture, like art, is derivative.

By authentic, I mean that it describes an person, place, or event that actually existed or happened. I don't suppose that I'm pointing out anything new in saying that parallels may or may not argue for or against claims that scripture documents a real event. Parallel constructions do contribute significantly to its value as literature (or art, for that matter; well you might say that "all scripture IS art") or as a teaching device.

[Indy Coug]

I don't think CatBlue actually exists, he's just a metaphorical construct with Satanic parallels.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Brian

I agree that this is an important parable about missing the point.
This parable has so many interesting angles. Here is one of many.
If the plates are seen as the word of god (jesus), nephi and the boys try 3 things.
1- Intellectually obtain Jesus. Reason with the keeper of the word. Doesn't work. the keeper runs them off.
2- Purchase Jesus. Be it by works, obedience, etc. Doesn't work, the keeper runs them off.
3- Kill Laban. This finally works. Only by killing the inner Laban, the natural man, and killing him by removing the head (the old way of thinking) can Jesus be obtained.

This was a very good post. Thanks for that insight.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

This was a very good post. Thanks for that insight.

I like how he called the story a parable. Otherwise I didn't understand the post.

[fusnik11]

The Nephi/Lehi story has multiple interpretations and is only true, IMO if translated correctly.

I think SU brings up some valid points. Our scriptures are essentially teh retelling of the same story over and over and over. Noah symbolizes creation and the fall. Babylon symbolizes the fall. Jaredites symbolize the fall. Nephi symbolizes the fall. All pointing to a singular transaction, singular happening. Jesus symbolizes the fall and redemption.

I appreciate Brian's thoughts, and my post was more along that vein....