Talk:Three Nephites

Too many scriptural references?

I thought that this article was too small. I rewrote it, including the previous information. The account in 3 Nephi 28 was in historical order, so was not presented in a way to understand this topic. (There were other purposes for the way that it was written.) The information that I wrote lays it out for someone who is interested in this topic. I liberally referenced the passages from which I drew the information. I think that there are too many scriptural links for a Wikipedia article. But considering that the source material is arranged differently, it seemed logical to reference the scattered verses. Feel free to rearrange and remove these references if you think that it will help the article. Val42 17:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I like your additions, but I think you're right about too many unnecessary references. They're all from the same chapter, 3 Nephi 28, which is included as an external link; is it really necessary to link to each verse individually? I think there are a few mentions of the Three outside of that chapter, too, come to think of it. Somewhere round about 3 Nephi or Mormon, doesn't it say the people got so wicked that the Three Nephites were taken away from them? Pterodactyler 17:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Authorship of verses

It is clear that Mormon contemplates whether the Three Nephites are already immortal.(v36) But because Mormon inserts his own comments sometimes during his edits, I don't know if verse 17 is Nephi or Mormon. This is why I put "possibly Nephi" in the article. But this is terribly ambiguous as to what is meant by the words. The two possibilities are that "Nephi is the possible author of this verse" (what I meant) or "Nephi possibly meant to contemplate the immortality of the Three Nephites." Someone please rewrite this sentence so that it means what I want it to mean. Val42 17:02, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, verse 17 is Mormon. Verse 18 wouldn't make sence if it was Nephi's words. Slim 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this whole thing be meta-fiction? The idea that an impossible fictional character is commenting on previous impossible fictional characters? Yes, the character of "Mormon" is speculating, but both he and the "three nephites" are wholy the product of imagination by a dangerous criminal lunatic. I find the whole "taken at face value" concept of the ancient Native American turned angelic guide for a deranged bipolar teenager with bouts of misogyny and racism (against native americans no less) to be non-encyclopedic. There are no FACTS besides the work of fiction (the book of mormon) that claim that Mormon ever existed, so having a serious explination as to who and what the "three nephites" need to be clearly demonstrated as a concept only the LDS and their offshoots care about and believe in (the way the article now reads implies that ANY christian or american should simply accept this folklore bullshit as universal - yet another dininformation campaign by our wonderfull full time Mormon apologist editors here on wikipedia the wall mart of broken facts.) I don't feel it is appropriate for me to do anything about this, but SOME impartial editor needs to clean this horrible joke of an article up.Sanitycult (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Every article on religious matters needs to be written as much as possible in a way that both believers and intelligent non-believers find accurate. In most cases, this requirement can be met by prefixing sections with "According to [XText]," or "[XText] states that...", or perhaps "[XFollowers] believe that...", or some equivalent. There can be a difficulty with speculation based on a religious text. The question whether any of the Three Nephites were in fact Lamanites is only a real question if the text is regarded as history; if it's regarded as fiction, then they were only Lamanites if the writer states that they were. The problem then is to present the speculation neutrally. Koro Neil (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Have you even read the Book of Mormon? Because it appears evident that you haven't. 66.7.115.132 (talk) 09:17, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Random Quotation without authority

"In 1963, a 24 year old man[who?] in Salt Lake City, Utah declared that 'The three Nephite Apostles, who, like John, never die, come to the aid of the faithful when they're threatened by evil.'"

Why is this in the article? It's pointless. Actually, I'm going to remove the quote because it serves no purpose other than potentially spreading misconceptions about the Three Nephites.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuropsychguy (talk • contribs) 23:26, 7 August 2011

If you notice the citation, it is describing the Mormon folklore elements that currently surround the Three Nephites, not a doctrinal interpretation or the text of the Book of Mormon. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

But it does not support the statement made, namely that modern stories about encounters with the Nephites are common. It's quite random, like saying "belief in a flat earth is common today, because some book written 30 years ago quoted some guy who believed in it". Perhaps this section should be rewritten or taken out. 134.153.33.203 (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

agreed99.253.32.92 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2017 (UTC)