Bom Bull'sâ??eyes

[Matt Amos]

Getting back to the OP:

1) I find the NHM discovery to be highly probative, but placed in context with the discovery of a plausible "Valley of Lemuel" w/ accompanying "River of Laman"...

I must confess that I have never been comfortable with these particular claims about Arabia, since I cannot understand how an eight/ten-day journey from Jerusalem to the Red Sea could have been accomplished by the Lehi party in three days.

[cdowis]

Noggin sez

The Catholic, the Muslim, the JW, the Scientologist also believe that they have the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Truth is not on trial. We ourselves are being tested. Each of these groups you mention do have some truth, but they are being tested whether they will find the fullness of the Gospel.

[LeSellers]

I must confess that I have never been comfortable with these particular claims about Arabia, since I cannot understand how an eight/ten-day journey from Jerusalem to the Red Sea could have been accomplished by the Lehi party in three days.

It may be because you're not considering all the evidence.

5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam. 6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

Notice that Lehi first traveled to the wilderness "by the borders near the Red Sea", then, while in the wilderness, he traveled an additional three days before reaching Laman/Lemuel.

Lehi

[Sargon]

Hi Sargon,

The problem is that a personal spiritual experience is said to produce knowledge that is universal. When a person states they love their wife they are proclaiming knowledge that is internal to themselves. Hence the knowledge gained is applicable only to the person involved.

Yes, sort of. While Oaks (and others I have read) have used as an anology a man's love for his wife when describing the subjectiveness of spiritual experiences, I find that this analogy falls short. As you have pointed out, love is applicable to the individual, and not to anyone else.

On the other hand when a person claims on the basis of a personal spiritual experience that the afterlife consists of three degrees of glory. This is a claim that is universal in nature in other words the afterlife for everyone consists of three degrees of glory.

Absolutely. This is where the "love" analogy falls short. Like your example of the afterlife, to testify that God is real based on a personal experience carries great implications for all men.

For propositions of this type it is appropriate to ask if this claim can be duplicated by others since the claim is universal in nature true not only for you but for everyone.

Agreed.

I'll take a stab at trying to explain my meaning. This could get sticky:

Scientist A observes phenomena P, a phenomena that he cannot create or cause to happen of his own will. Scientist A does not understand the mechanism that created phenomena P. The only way for scientist A to observe phenomena P is for phenomena P to come to him. Scientist A can go back to the same place in which he first observed P, can duplicate his actions immediately prior to his observance of P, but doing those things does not guarantee that P will occur. They are however necessary for P to occur. Necessary, but not a guarantee. One of the necessary (but not guaranteed) requirements for the occurance of phenomena P to occur is that A, or any potential observer, must be completely alone. Noone else must observe it alongside him.

Scientist B learns about phenomena P from scientist A. Scientist B wants to experience phenomena P but, like A, has no way of doing that until P comes to him. Scientist B carries out those requirements for P to occur, including being absolutely alone, but nothing happens. The requirements never guarantee that P will occur.

Does this mean that P is only in the mind of A? Does this mean that P never actually occurred, and does not exist? In other words, if a tree falls in the forest and only I hear it, did it actually happen?

For A, the experience was real. He can summon all of his faculties and evaluate his experience of P as objectively as he can, and conclude that yes, P did in fact occur.

For B, the experience of P may or may not be real. He doesn't know, he's never observed it. He has no obligation to take A at his word, but he has no absolute reason to reject P as non-existent. He is still waiting. Scientist B may grow tired of waiting and give up, concluding that P is not real. However, scientist B's conclusion should not influence scientist A's conclusion.

I am reminded of Joseph Smith's testimony in which he testified that he knew it, God knew it, and God knew that he knew it. He couldn't deny it.

And it is reasonable that a truth that is universal in scope can be experienced by others.

It is reasonable to ask, but unfortunately it is not possible. Even if phenomena P was a universal truth with implications for B, that doesn't change the fact that A & B cannot observe P any time they wish.

I hope my attempt at explaining this was clear enough.

[Matt Amos]

It may be because you're not considering all the evidence.

Notice that Lehi first traveled to the wilderness "by the borders near the Red Sea", then, while in the wilderness, he traveled an additional three days before reaching Laman/Lemuel.

Hmmm...it seems like the straightforward reading of 1 Nephi 2:4-6 is that the "three days in the wilderness" in verse 6 are a reference to details provided in verse 5, after they depart into the wilderness at the end of verse 4. I would summarize the events in chapters 2-7 something like this:

• Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem
  
• They take three days journey into the wilderness
  
• Nephi and his brothers return to Jerusalem for the plates of brass
  
• Nephi and his brothers return again to Jerusalem for Ishmael's family
  

[Uncertain]

I'll take a stab at trying to explain my meaning. This could get sticky:

Scientist A observes phenomena P, a phenomena that he cannot create or cause to happen of his own will. Scientist A does not understand the mechanism that created phenomena P. The only way for scientist A to observe phenomena P is for phenomena P to come to him. Scientist A can go back to the same place in which he first observed P, can duplicate his actions immediately prior to his observance of P, but doing those things does not guarantee that P will occur. They are however necessary for P to occur. Necessary, but not a guarantee. One of the necessary (but not guaranteed) requirements for the occurance of phenomena P to occur is that A, or any potential observer, must be completely alone. Noone else must observe it alongside him.

Scientist B learns about phenomena P from scientist A. Scientist B wants to experience phenomena P but, like A, has no way of doing that until P comes to him. Scientist B carries out those requirements for P to occur, including being absolutely alone, but nothing happens. The requirements never guarantee that P will occur.

Does this mean that P is only in the mind of A? Does this mean that P never actually occurred, and does not exist? In other words, if a tree falls in the forest and only I hear it, did it actually happen?

For A, the experience was real. He can summon all of his faculties and evaluate his experience of P as objectively as he can, and conclude that yes, P did in fact occur.

For B, the experience of P may or may not be real. He doesn't know, he's never observed it. He has no obligation to take A at his word, but he has no absolute reason to reject P as non-existent. He is still waiting. Scientist B may grow tired of waiting and give up, concluding that P is not real. However, scientist B's conclusion should not influence scientist A's conclusion.

I am reminded of Joseph Smith's testimony in which he testified that he knew it, God knew it, and God knew that he knew it. He couldn't deny it.

It is reasonable to ask, but unfortunately it is not possible. Even if phenomena P was a universal truth with implications for B, that doesn't change the fact that A & B cannot observe P any time they wish.

I hope my attempt at explaining this was clear enough.

Hi Sargon,

Yes this is very helpful. To be clear I am not arguing that simply because a given phenomena cannot be replicated does not prove the phenomena is false. I was simply pointing out there is a big difference between claims made about internal states such as love and universal claims. And using criteria that may hold for internal states such as lack of reproducibility may be inappropriate for universal claims.

In any case I have probably derailed this thread enough. Thank you for your thoughts.

All the Best,

Uncertain

[LeSellers]

Hmmm...it seems like the straightforward reading of 1 Nephi 2:4-6 is that the "three days in the wilderness" in verse 6 are a reference to details provided in verse 5, after they depart into the wilderness at the end of verse 4.

Verse 4 (see below) is a foreshadowing of the events that follow. Nephi tells us that they were going and where. Then he gives the details.

Furthermore, "Jerusalem" is not the "city of Jerusalem", it is the "land of Jerusalem". We know this because Lehi did not live inJerusalem, he lived near it, in the "land of Jerusalem". This is critical, because when Nephi writes they left, he writes that they left "his house, and the land of his inheritance". We don't know exactly what constituted "the land of Jerusalem, but it is certain that, whatever it was, it was not "the wilderness". Any travel done therein would not be in the wilderness, irrespective of how densely populated or cultivated it may have been. Nephi counts the travel time "in the wilderness" as three days, he does not count in those three days the time they traveled in the land of Jerusalem.

In the Italian translation of the Book of Mormon, the word "wilderness" is "desert". The word "desert" means, as it does in English, "empty" (of people). It is the same in the French translation, too. One must surmise, then, that (given there are words that means "wild place" and "forest") the idea Joseph was trying to get to us with "wilderness" was "uninhabited" not necessarily "savage place" (which is what I had always pictured when I read the word earlier). If that is so, then Nephi's use of the words "wilderness" and "Jerusalem" make us measure their travel in the wilderness as beginning when they entered, not when they set out for it.

I would summarize the events in chapters 2-7 something like this:

• Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem
  
• They take three days journey into the wilderness
  
• Nephi and his brothers return to Jerusalem for the plates of brass
  
• Nephi and his brothers return again to Jerusalem for Ishmael's family
  

None of which, except "They take three days journey into the wilderness", has anything at all to do with how long they traveled.

4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness. 5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam. 6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

In describing their going back for plates and wives, Nephi says nothing about how long the trip took. When the Lord told Lehi to leave Jerusalem, neither He nor anyone else said how far they would be going, nor anything about the itinerary.

The only thing we know about the first stage of the trip is 1 Nephi 2:5~6. And it says what it says. We note that Nephi is explicit about "borders", they are "near" or "nearer" the Red Sea or fertile lands, or whatever is appropriate. Here, he tells us about the wilderness, and its borders, both "near" and "nearer" the Red Sea, and that he measured their journey in the wilderness from the time they entered the wilderness in the first place, he does not say anything about how long they traveled before they got there.

You are free to read it as you choose. But in doing so, it seems that you are looking for problems where no problem exists on its own.

You have not said what error you believe I made in my exegesis, only that your interpretation is different: Stalemate.

Lehi

[Matt Amos]

LeSellers,

So, is the basis of your argument that "the wilderness" does not start until they are close to the Red Sea?

[LeSellers]

So, is the basis of your argument that "the wilderness" does not start until they are close to the Red Sea?

Unless someone shows me that this is a bad position, yes.

Lehi

[Matt Amos]

Unless someone shows me that this is a bad position, yes.

Lehi

That doesn't seem to be the position of Potter et al, or Jeffrey Chadwick of the Maxwell Institute. In his review of Potter's book, Chadwick mentions the following (bold emphasis mine):

Nephi gives us a short, matter-of-fact statement about the first leg of his family's journey upon leaving Jerusalem: they "departed into the wilderness" and then "came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea" (1 Nephi 2:4â??5). No further details are given....Lehi and his sons had probably traveled to the Red Sea's Gulf of Eilat (or Gulf of Aqaba) many times in the years prior to their final departure from Jerusalem. They seem to have known the trail well. It was a regularly traveled route that exited the city to the southeast, into the wilderness of Judah east of Bethlehem and Tekoa, and descended via the Arugot valley to Ein Gedi. From Ein Gedi, the path turned south along the western shore of the Dead Sea and continued straight south through the desert wilderness of the Arabah valley to the Gulf of Eilat. The copper-mining area of Timna was located half a day's journey north of the gulf shore, and other copper-mining sites were located in nearby northern Sinai. It was probably to this area that Lehi and sons had come to mine copper ore and smelt it on-site into ingots for their metal-smithing activities back in Jerusalem (their smithing abilities are frequently noted throughout Nephi's writings).[1]

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Noggin sez

Truth is not on trial. We ourselves are being tested. Each of these groups you mention do have some truth, but they are being tested whether they will find the fullness of the Gospel.

Weather they find it or not is not the point, it is only a matter of what they do with what they have. Some people may never find the truth, and it wont be thier fault. But if the truth is presented and rejected I think then there may be some fault.

[maklelan]

Hmmm...it seems like the straightforward reading of 1 Nephi 2:4-6 is that the "three days in the wilderness" in verse 6 are a reference to details provided in verse 5, after they depart into the wilderness at the end of verse 4.

If by "straightforward" you mean your initial subjective impressions, unimpeded by additional relevant facts, then I think the discussion is over.

LeSellers,So, is the basis of your argument that "the wilderness" does not start until they are close to the Red Sea?

The word "wilderness" means uninhabited land. There is a great deal of inhabited land south of Jerusalem, but it ends as you get close to the Red Sea. An objective and critical reading of this text supports our position 100%. Your position, however, only works if the interpretation is based entirely on first uneducated impressions.

[Matt Amos]

If by "straightforward" you mean your initial subjective impressions, unimpeded by additional relevant facts, then I think the discussion is over. The word "wilderness" means uninhabited land. There is a great deal of inhabited land south of Jerusalem, but it ends as you get close to the Red Sea. An objective and critical reading of this text supports our position 100%. Your position, however, only works if the interpretation is based entirely on first uneducated impressions.

By straightforward, I mean what would be understood by just reading the text, without regard for trying to make it fit a preferred geographic model (I assumed Potter's Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman was the underlying source of this proposed bull's-eye). In this case, the summary reading I provided happens to coincide with the summary at the beginning of 1 Nephi:

...The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days' journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife...

[maklelan]

By straightforward, I mean what would be understood by just reading the text, without regard for trying to make it fit a preferred geographic model (I assumed Potter's Valley of Lemuel/River of Laman was the underlying source of this proposed bull's-eye). In this case, the summary reading I provided happens to coincide with the summary at the beginning of 1 Nephi:

"Just reading the text" means interpreting it with nothing but your own a priori understanding to aid you. Obviously this kind of interpretation is last on the list of preferred ways to interpret a text. Knowing that when the text says "wilderness" it means "uninhabited land" and not "everything between Jerusalem and the Red Sea" helps. When your defense distills down to "my interpretation works if you read the text without knowing anything at all about it," you've lost the debate.

[Matt Amos]

"Just reading the text" means interpreting it with nothing but your own a priori understanding to aid you. Obviously this kind of interpretation is last on the list of preferred ways to interpret a text. Knowing that when the text says "wilderness" it means "uninhabited land" and not "everything between Jerusalem and the Red Sea" helps. When your defense distills down to "my interpretation works if you read the text without knowing anything at all about it," you've lost the debate.

I agree that it is important to understand the meaning of the words one reads--I assumed that was implied in our earlier effort to establish what was meant by "wilderness". Please explain why the 1 Nephi summary should be ignored.

[maklelan]

I agree that it is important to understand the meaning of the words one reads--I assumed that was implied in our earlier effort to establish what was meant by "wilderness". Please explain why the 1 Nephi summary should be ignored.

I came in late to the conversation, so I apologize if I overlooked any previous discussion. As far as the 1 Nephi summary (you're talking about 1 Nephi 2:4-6, right?), it supports our interpretation. Here's the text:

4 And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness. And he left his house, and the land of his inheritance, and his gold, and his silver, and his precious things, and took nothing with him, save it were his family, and provisions, and tents, and departed into the wilderness.

5 And he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea; and he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea; and he did travel in the wilderness with his family, which consisted of my mother, Sariah, and my elder brothers, who were Laman, Lemuel, and Sam.

6 And it came to pass that when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water.

7 And it came to pass that he built an altar of stones, and made an coffering unto the Lord, and gave thanks unto the Lord our God.

8 And it came to pass that he called the name of the river, Laman, and it emptied into the Red Sea; and the valley was in the borders near the mouth thereof.

The text, when read chronologically, gives the events occurring in this order:

1 - he departed into the wilderness

2 - he came down by the borders near the shore of the Red Sea

3 - he traveled in the wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea

4 - when he had traveled three days in the wilderness, he pitched his tent in a valley by the side of a river of water

5 - he built an altar of stones

6 - he called the name of the river, Laman

The text explains that he came down by the borders of the Red Sea and then traveled three days in the wilderness. Which wilderness? "The wilderness in the borders which are nearer the Red Sea."

[Doctor Steuss]

Tvedtnes' book on the subject offers only one example of "the critics" laughing. And who does it cite? The Baptist parents of some Mormon woman in the Midwest who sent FARMS an email. And where did the parents get the idea that writing on gold plates was absurd? From some 1886 anti-Mormon lectures by a Baptist named Thomas Lamb. Really, it's not necessary to devote entire books to refuting every stupid thing some idiot with a printing press decided to put on paper a hundred years ago.

In the 60's there was a book on Mormonism put out by Eerdman's press that had a page or so criticizing the concept of writing on metal plates. Other than that, I think someone has to go to the 1800â??s to find a published source criticizing it. Devoting an entire book to the subject is probably a bit on the overkill side (IMO), but at the same time, I guess it makes for a handy reference should anyone else encounter laughing Baptist parents familiarized with 1800â??s anti-Mormon pamphlets (which, I assume happens all the time ).

----------

As a side note (for those with access to alter the FAIR wiki), in the article on metal plates it cites as a source of the criticism a Dialogue article by Metcalfe. This article doesnâ??t use metal plates as a criticism, but instead provides contemporary sources to Joseph Smith that spoke of ancients utilizing metal plates (and one that even states that sacred writing would be done on gold plates). This should probably be removed as a source of the criticism (IMO).

[Zakuska]

To go along with what Makelan said

Bro. Potter explained...

The Arbaian word for "Mountian" also can be translated as "borders" because impassable mountain ranges where often used as natural boundary markers for lands. Right there by the gulf of Aquaba there are 2 sets of Mountain ranges running parallel to the the gulf. One is closer to the gulf than the other. These mountain ranges form a valley... this valley ends in the river.

So they traveled in the wilderness which was in the "Mountians" [ie borders] which where closer to the red sea.

Its exactly how the BOM describes it!

[Matt Amos]

....As far as the 1 Nephi summary (you're talking about 1 Nephi 2:4-6, right?), it supports our interpretation. Here's the text...

Actually, I was referring to the summary from the beginning of 1 Nephi:

...The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days' journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife...

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, I was referring to the summary from the beginning of 1 Nephi:

You do realise that the summary is not part of the BoM?

[Noggin]

What proof? All I see is people exploring the potentialities of the assumption that the Book of Mormon is what is purports to be.

And I appreciate that. I understand what you are writing there. Having come from an devout LDS background, I used to declare what I knew to be true in the format of expressed testimony. And by default, declaring that I knew Mormonism was true, I was also implying that Mormonism was most true... and that all other religions could not save a soul the way God had outlined it in the Doctrine and Covenants and Book of Mormon (Moroni 10:3-4 in particular is what I employed to achieve my state of knowing).

If you look you can find all sorts of writing by people like Hugh Nibley, John W. Welch, John Sorenson, Alan Goff, Louis Midgley, Daniel Peterson, William Hamblin, and even yours truely on the limits of proof.

But what about the many comments that state Mormons can know, can "prove" sufficiently enough to merit a surrendering to Mormon doctrine and rejecting Islam, Catholicism, Judaism or what have you as the correct way to achieve salvation? The first one I found just now after a quick internet search comes from Hugh B Brown (Baccalaureate address, Utah State University, Logan, Utah, 4 June

1965.)

No stone wall separates the members of the Church from all of the seductions of the world. Members of the Church, like everyone else, are being surfeited with deceptions, challenges, and temptations. However, to those of enduring faith, judgment, and discernment, there is an invisible wall which they choose never to breach. ... They willingly accept the supremacy of God and rely upon the scriptures and counsel of His servants, the leaders of the [noggin adds: Mormon] Church....... I believe that few things in life deserve oneâ??s complete confidence.

I testify that the Church is worthy of our full trust. There is no inconsistency between truth and faith. I know that everyone who sincerely and righteously seeks to know this can have it spiritually confirmed. May we open up our minds, hearts, and spirits to the divine source of [noggin adds: Mormon] truth. [noggin adds: and this, Brown appears to assert is the only truth that matters pertaining to correct salvation]

May we reach above ourselves and beyond our mundane concerns and become heirs to the knowledge of all truth and to the abundant life promised by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Truth, according to Brown, is subjective to his pre conceived notion that Jesus is who they said he was. But Truth, according to Jews and Muslims and Scientologists is hardly anything of the sort. I didn't know how else to describe the Mormon spiritual paradigm other than pre conceived confirmation bias and I apologize if that was offensive to those reading this thread. It's not a bad thing to have them. But all theists have one.

Which leads me to observe that there appears not to be one conclusive version of what is actually most certainly True pertaining to what God is, who God is, and what that entity actually would like us to do while we live our lives. So if there is no way to know what the reality of salvific Truth actually is, in that context, I understand better why this thread of Book of Mormon bullseyes exists.

We all know that anyone can say "So what?" to be best material we come up with. No one can be coerced into belief against their will. Far from trying to prove the Book of Mormon, we are simply following up on the implications of our belief in the text, our testimonies. We are planting the seed and nourishing it to see what grows, and we we find things that we never would have seen had we not tried, we often get excited.

Again, I appreciate that and thank you for the insight.

...

From the Welch's essay:

"In an important sense, evidence makes belief possible. I am very impressed by the words of Austin Farrar in speaking about C. S. Lewis and quoted by Elder Maxwell on several occasions: "Though argument does not create conviction, lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows that ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish."

What I observe, and I don't mean to be redundant, is that most religions with potent exclusivity claims state the same sort of observation C.S. Lewis is talking about there. Muslims know that lack of argument in defense of the Qu'ran could very well undermine the faith of Muslims. Catholics also know this and if one looks, they will find a legion of defensive but extremely cogent arguments that defend Catholicism. These religions, probably most organized religions understand this and that is why they engage in academic apologetics so as to maintain a climate in which belief (in their religion) may flourish.

So then, to what extent is this useful?

I begin to wonder why the defense, the apologetics, the finding of interesting tidbits that seem to support Catholicism or Islam or Mormonism as the "only actual truth" God approves is needed if truly God's spirit is supposed to be sufficient in sustaining a person's conviction (via Moroni 10:3-4).

Do you, or any of you on this thread engage in finding the bullseyes simply because you need more to sustain your faith? Is it a hobby? I am curious.

Noggin

[Matt Amos]

You do realise that the summary is not part of the BoM?

Why would you say that? Nephi wrote it himself. It even ends with, "This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record."

[Zakuska]

Why would you say that? Nephi wrote it himself. It even ends with, "This is according to the account of Nephi; or in other words, I, Nephi, wrote this record."

ROFL! Thats an amazing feat since it was added much later when the books was chopped up into sections and verses.

[LeSellers]

Actually, I was referring to the summary from the beginning of 1 Nephi:

...The Lord warns Lehi to depart out of the land of Jerusalem, because he prophesieth unto the people concerning their iniquity and they seek to destroy his life. He taketh three days' journey into the wilderness with his family. Nephi taketh his brethren and returneth to the land of Jerusalem after the record of the Jews. The account of their sufferings. They take the daughters of Ishmael to wife...

Summaries, even those written by the author of the piece, by definition, do not take into account all of the shades of meaning or nuances of the entire text.

Nephi's use of "three day's journey into the wilderness" does not mandate that the entire journey from the land of Jerusalem to the valley/river of Laman/Lemuel.

The text of 1 Nephi 2:4~6 seems clear enough that the three days were spent entirely in the wilderness. Only the most cursory and careless scan of the text would permit the longer trip.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

ROFL! Thats an amazing feat since it was added much later when the books was chopped up into sections and verses.

Love ya ta death, Zak, but Nephi wrote it.

The chapter headings have been added (in various forms) over the years, but there are several books with author-produced introductory 'graphs. First and Second Nephi are among them. Jacob, Alma, Helaman, and Third Nephi each have one.

Lehi