Comments on: Guest Post: Were the wise men Nephites (and Lamanites)?

By: Rourke

Rourke — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 07:12:57 +0000

One thought to consider is priesthood keys. The Savior would need to receive them by the laying on of hands as he was baptized by John the Baptist. Lehi had the sealing keys which would be needed. I’m not sure who in the old world would have them.

By: Roger

Roger — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:18:41 +0000

I confess to being skeptical about Book of Mormon historicity, but the more general claim that there was some sort of back and forth contact between the Nephites and the Old World would solve a few problems, such as the appearance of Pauline phrases, Deutero-Isaiah, and Greek names. (Hugh Nibley dealt with the question of Greek names, but I wasn’t convinced by his response.)

As for the wisemen, I wonder if it’s a piece of a larger tradition now lost to us. In the first epistle of Clement, the author refers to the Phoenix as typifying the resurrection. He says that it originates in Arabia where it builds its nest using frankincense and myrrh…

By: Dan

Dan — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:38:18 +0000

Ethan,

That would depend on what is supposed to be in the sealed portion. According to the only place where Mormon talks about the sealed portion, in 3 Nephi 26, it seems he is referring to the teachings Jesus taught the Nephites when he visited them.

I should add one more thought to my original comments. I have no problem with thinking outside the box, with trying to see things beyond what we know. But if we’re going to do this, we must account for everything, control all the variables, so that way when we posit something, it stands on sound logic.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:34:58 +0000

Some of the most precious sections of the Book of Mormon have remained sealed until we’re prepared for them. We have a pretty small view of the Book of Mormon to be making judgments about whether something could or could not have happened with much certainty.

By: Fourth Nephite

Fourth Nephite — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 06:14:08 +0000

I can only imagine that if Nephi was going to go to the old world to see the Savior, that would have been something mentioned…but instead, we get the words which you mentioned…Nephi “departed out of the land, and whither he went, no man knoweth. It is not reasonable to think that someone who testified of Christ’s coming would “sneak” out to see him and not tell anyone. Prophets do not hide from such declarations of testimony.

By: Owen

Owen — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:33:32 +0000

Was this a joke I’m not getting?

Nephi’s ship, and Nephi’s journey is truly a miraculous, wondrous journey that has not been duplicated until modern technology allowed us to master this world’s laws of physics.

There were at least three major transoceanic voyages in the Book of Mormon. Sailors from other cultures (Chinese, Scandinavian) did similar things before the Spanish/Portuguese. And the shipbuilders/sailors at the time of Columbus certainly had not “mastered the laws of physics”. I wouldn’t even say that about contemporary humanity.

Nearly all of the scriptures give us very limited accounts of events from the perspectives of single observers. What percentage of the travels, learning, and travails of God’s children do they tell us about? 1% of 1%?…probably much less. What percentage of the prophets that have been called are even mentioned? It’s perfectly in keeping with this that three (or however many) prophets linking up to go see the newborn savior wouldn’t be mentioned anywhere. This would likely have been a personal reward for each of them, which would thus have nothing to do with the salvation of the rest of us, so why mention it?

I think it’s obvious that Nephi was one of those wise men. Who else would it be? Some pagan astronomers? Come on.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:11:56 +0000

It is an interesting theory. The question is, if this is true, then to whom did the go to testify? Their mission was one of bearing witness and we are told by Matthew that they departed a different way to their own country. I think this is clearly not the Americas again, so the question is: To whom did they testify of Jesus’ birth?

I suppose that one possible answer (which adds a speculation upon speculation – is that like line upon line…?) is that they could have been going to testify to the 10 Lost Tribes. We know that there have been missions sent to preach the Gospel among them and that their records will come forth at a later stage… Wouldn’t it be interesting if Nephi, Samuel (and Lehi the brother of Nephi as is proposed by Jeff Holt in “From the East”) had testified of this among those lost tribes?

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 01:19:10 +0000

Nice job Mike M, I love it.

By: Ethan

Ethan — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 19:50:04 +0000

Just as another highly implausible but fun consideration, it’s curious that many nativities with the wise men depict at least one of them as dark-skinned. Samuel? Anyway, fun post, and I disagree with Dan that the only reason the wise men were mentioned is so that Matthew could discuss Herod’s atrocity and the family’s ensuing flight. If that was the case, why mention the worshipping and giving of gifts? Isn’t Matthew trying to teach us something about the universally encompassing gospel, a very radical idea for the Jews of that time-period? As a testament of Jesus Christ, wouldn’t it be significant to include the visit of foreign emissaries to acknowledge the birth of the Savior and then return to their own lands and testify of him? These things seem like a much more significant message to convey than Herod’s wickedness and Joseph’s family’s departure.

By: g.wesley

g.wesley — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:06:47 +0000

at first i thought this had to be in jest. but the end especially left me unsure.

either way, awesome post, mike m.