text:
Kathak

Kathak (Devanagari: कथक) is one of the nine major forms of Indian classical dance. Its origin is attributed to the traveling bards in ancient northern India known as Kathakar ("storyteller"), who communicated stories from the Hindu epics and mythology through dance, songs and music. Its name derives from the Sanskrit word katha which means "story", and kathakar which means "the one who tells a story", or "to do with stories".

Kathak dancers tell various stories utilizing hand movements and expensive footwork, their body movements and flexibility as well as their facial expressions. Kathak often has a strong beat and can be danced in many taals. While proto-Kathak elements can be seen long before, Kathak evolved during the Bhakti movement, particularly by incorporating the childhood and stories of the Hindu god Krishna, as well as independently in the courts of north Indian kingdoms. During the period of Mughal rule, the emperors were patrons of Kathak dance and actively promoted it in their royal courts. Kathak performances include Urdu ghazal and commonly used instruments brought during the Mughal period. As a result, it is the only Indian classical dance form to feature Persian elements.

Kathak is found in four distinct forms, called "gharana", named after the cities where the Kathak dance tradition evolved – Jaipur, Benares and Lucknow. While the Jaipur gharana focuses more on the foot movements, the Banaras and Lucknow gharana focus more on facial expressions and graceful hand movements. Stylistically, the Kathak dance form emphasizes rhythmic foot movements, adorned with small bells (Ghungroo) and the movement harmonized to the music. The legs and torso are generally straight, and the story is told through a developed vocabulary based on the gestures of arms and upper body movement, facial expressions, neck movements, eyes and eyebrow movement, stage movements, bends and turns. The main focus of the dance becomes the eyes and the foot movements. The eyes work as a medium of communication of the story the dancer is trying to communicate. With the eyebrows the dancer gives various facial expressions. The difference between the sub-traditions is the relative emphasis between acting versus footwork, with Lucknow style emphasizing acting and Jaipur style famed for its spectacular footwork.

Kathak is a performance art that has survived and thrived as an oral tradition, innovated and taught from one generation to another verbally and through practice. It transitioned, adapted, and integrated the tastes of the Mughal courts in the 16th and 17th centuries, particularly by Akbar, but stagnated and went into decline during the British colonial era, then was reborn as India gained independence and sought to rediscover its ancient roots and a sense of national identity through the arts.

Etymology and nomenclature
The term Kathak is rooted in the Vedic term Katha (कथा) which means "story, conversation, traditional tale". Kathak refers to one of the major classical dance forms primarily found in northern India, with a historical influence similar to Bharatanatyam in south India, Odissi in east India and other major classical dances found in South Asia. It differs from the numerous folk dance forms found in the north and other parts of the Indian subcontinent.

The Kathak dancers, in the ancient India, were traveling bards and were known as Kathakas, or Kathakar.

Kathak has inspired simplified regional variants, such as the Bhavai – a form of rural theatre focussing on the tales of Hindu goddesses (Shakti), and one which emerged in the medieval era, is presently found in Gujarat, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. Another variant that emerged from ancient Kathak is Thumri.

Thumri was developed by the tawaif community who were called "nautch" dancers by the British. Their history as Kathak dancers have been erased in modern India '' Pallabi Chakravorty. (2008) .  "Bells Of Change: Kathak Dance, Women And Modernity In India" , also see  "The Tawaif And The Item Girl: A Struggle For Identity" ''

History

According to Mary Snodgrass, the Kathak tradition of India is traceable to 400 BCE. The earliest surviving text with Kathak roots is the Natya Shastra, attributed to sage Bharata. Its first complete compilation is dated to between 200 BCE and 200 CE, but estimates vary between 500 BCE and 500 CE.

The most studied version of the Natya Shastra text consists of about 6000 verses structured into 36 chapters. The text, states Natalia Lidova, describes the theory of Tāṇḍava dance (Shiva), the theory of rasa, of bhāva, expression, gestures, acting techniques, basic steps, standing postures – all of which are part of Indian classical dances including Kathak. Dance and performance arts, states this ancient Hindu text, are a form of expression of spiritual ideas, virtues and the essence of scriptures.

The 2nd century BC panels found in Bharhut show the dancers in a vertical stance with their arms ' positions already suggesting today's Kathak movements. Most of the dancers have one arm near the ear in a pataka hasta (Mudra). In subsequent years, the hasta was lowered to the bust level.

The term Kathakas in the sense of "storytellers" appears in ancient Hindu texts, such as the Mahabharata:

"वेदवेदाङ्गविद्वांसस्तथैवाध्यात्मचिन्तकाः"

Bards, actors, dancers, songsters and musical reciters of legends and stories are mentioned hundreds of times in the Hindu Epics.

Bhakti movement era
Textual studies suggest that "Kathak" as a classical dance form likely started in Banares (Varanasi) and from there migrated northwest to Lucknow, Jaipur and other parts of north and northwest India. The Lucknow tradition of Kathak dance attributes the style to a Bhakti movement devotee named Ishwari from the Handia village in Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, who credited Hindu God Krishna appearing in his dream and asking him to develop "dance as a form of worship". Ishwari taught his descendants, who in turn preserved the learning and developments through an oral tradition over six generations ultimately yielding the Lucknow version of the Kathak dance – a family tree that is acknowledged in both Hindu and Muslim music-related Indian literature.

The evolution in Kathak dance theme during the Bhakti movement centered primarily around divine Krishna, his lover Radha and milkmaids (gopis) – around legends and texts such as the Bhagavata Purana found in the Vaishnavism tradition of Hinduism. The love between Radha and Krishna became symbolism for the love between Atman (soul within) and the supreme source (Cosmic soul everywhere), a theme that dance ballet and mimetic plays of Kathak artists expressed. Although central Asian influence of Kathak rapid whirls has been proposed, Sangitaratnakara, a 13th-century Sanskrit text on Indian classical music and dance in Chapter 4 mentions a dance movement with rapid whirling around like a wheel keeping the arms in the Dola pose and bending the body inwards called 'Cakramandala' It is employed in worshipping gods and in vigorous movement.

The emergence of Raslila, mainly in the Braj region (Mathura in Western U.P.) was an important development. It combined in itself music, dance, and the narrative. Dance in Raslila, however, was mainly an extension of the basic mime and gestures of the Kathakars or story-tellers which blended easily with the existing traditional dance.

Mughal era
With the coming of the Mughals, this dance form received a new impetus. A transition from the temple courtyard to the palace durbar took place which necessitated changes in presentation. In both Hindu and Muslim courts, Kathak became highly stylized and came to be regarded as a sophisticated form of entertainment. Under the Muslims, there was a greater stress on nritya and bhavag - the dance's graceful, expressive and sensuous dimensions.

The Mughal era courts and nobles accepted Kathak as a form of aristocratic entertainment, which low income families were willing to provide. According to Drid Williams:

"It should be remembered that the first Kathak dancers were, after all, Hindus who danced for Moghul overlords. Too much outward expression of religious belief was without doubt undesirable. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the wide use of 'abstract' dancing, intricate bell work (tatkar), dazzling turns and the fleeting, transient, glimpses of Radha and Krishna in Kathak arose both to remind the dancers about their reasons for dancing and (gently, unobtrusively) to deceive their courtly Moghul audiences. Perhaps tatkar and tukras formed the bulk of these first dancers' performances. Gradually more and more images, then stories of Krishna and Radha crept in."

Over time, the Kathak repertoire added Persian and Central Asian themes, such as the whirling of Sufi dance, the dress replaced sari with items that bared midriff and included a transparent veil of the type common with medieval Harem dancers. When the colonial European officials began arriving in India, the Kathak court entertainment they witnessed was a synthesis of the ancient Indian tradition and Central Asian-Persian dance form, and the Kathak dance performers were called the "nautch girls" (or natch, a derivative of the more difficult to pronounce Sanskrit natya).

British Raj era
With the expansion of British colonial rule in 19th-century India, Kathak along with all other classical dance forms were discouraged and it went into decline. This was in part the result of the Victorian morality of sexual repressiveness along with Anglican missionaries who criticized Hinduism. Reverend James Long, for example, proposed that Kathak dancers should forget ancient Indian tales and Hindu legends, and substitute them with European legends and Christian tales. Missionaries recorded their frustration in Church Missionary Review when they saw Hindu audiences applaud and shout "Ram, Ram" during Kathak performances.

The seductive gestures and facial expressions during Kathak performances in Temples and family occasions were caricatured in The Wrongs of Indian Womanhood, published at the start of the 20th century, as evidence of "harlots, debased erotic culture, slavery to idols and priests" tradition, and Christian missionaries demanded that this must be stopped, launching the "anti-dance movement" or "anti-nautch movement" in 1892. Officials and newspapers dehumanized the Kathak dancers and the sources of patronage were pressured to stop supporting the Kathak performing "nautch girls" (also termed as devadasis and tawa'ifs in mid 20th century literature). Many accused the dance form as a front for prostitution, while revivalists questioned the constructed histories by the colonial writers.

Not only did missionaries and colonial officials ridicule the Kathak dancers, Indian men who had been educated in British institution and had adapted to Victorian prudery joined the criticism, states Margaret Walker, possibly because they had lost their cultural connection, no longer understood the underlying spiritual themes behind the dance, and assumed this was one of the "social ills, immoral and backward elements" in their heritage that they must stamp out. However, the Hindu families continued their private tutoring and kept the Kathak art alive as an oral tradition. Kathak teachers also shifted to training boys to preserve the tradition, as most of the 20th-century ridicule had been directed at Kathak "nautch girls".

Kathak was brought to the attention of audiences outside India in the early 20th century through Kalkaprasad Maharaj.

Post-independence era
The movement to end the colonial era and for an independent India, states Walker, also witnessed a revival of Kathak and more broadly, a cultural ferment and effort to reclaim culture and rediscover history. The Kathak revival movements co-developed in Hindu gharanas, particularly by the Kathak-Misra community. Of these the Jaipur and Lucknow sub-traditions of Kathak have attracted more scholarship.

The oldest Kathak department pat a degree college (university) was formed in 1956 at Indira Kala Sangeet University, a public university located in Khairagarh where Puru Dadheech instated the first Kathak syllabus for degree programs. It was inspired by the diploma syllabus of Mohanrao Kallianpurkar at Bhatkhande College.

According to a BBC Arts article, Kathak is unique in being practiced by the Muslim community of the India, and thus has a "historical link to Islam." Farah Yasmeen Shaikh, a Muslim and a disciple of Pandit Chitresh Das in the Lucknow school, considers Kathak as a "confluence of Hindu and Muslim cultures", and has presented her performance in Pakistan. In contrast, states BBC, Nahid Siddiqui (a legendary Kathak dancer from Pakistan, settled and nurtured in the UK), has a hard time practising and presenting her [Kathak] art in her birth-country of Pakistan".

While most scholars consider Kathak as an ancient art, some such as Margaret Walker suggest the modern Kathak is a 20th-century phenomenon, more a form of cultural revival, if one relies on the music-related Indian documents.

Repertoire
A modern Kathak, in all three major sub-traditions called Lucknow, Benares and Jaipur styles (gharana), states Bruno Nettl, consist of three main sections - the invocation, one pure (abstract) dance recital and one expressive dance.

The invocation (vandana) consists of the dancer coming to stage and offering respect to his or her guru and the musicians on the stage. If the team is from the Hindu tradition, the dancer(s) combine facial expressions and hand gestures (mudra) to invoke Hindu gods and goddesses; while a Muslim performance replace the devotional expressions with a salami (salutation).

The pure dance is called a nritta, while the expressive dance is called a nritya. A Kathak performance can be solo, duo or team. In a technical performance, the speed and energy the dancers exchange with the audience increases in multiples, that is the tempo doubles or quadruples. During the performance, one or more of the Kathak artists may come to the microphone, interact with the audience, explain something, tell an anecdote in a particular language, or rhythmically recite a song.

The dresses of the dancer and the facial cosmetics between a Hindu or Muslim Kathak dance troupe varies. The stage typically is bare with no distracting background, states Williams, with musicians seated on rugs downstage right (audience's left), and if it is a Hindu performance there is an image of dancing Shiva (Nataraja) or a Ganesha on the stage's left with flowers and perfumed incense burning.

Pure dance (Nritta)
The nritta performance starts off with a thàth sequence, which is a slower graceful movement of wrists, neck and eyebrows. Thereafter, the dancer gradually increases speed and energy, while completing a sequence of bol (mnemonic syllables in Indian tradition). Each bol has short sections, similar to technical exercises in western dance traditions, wherein the dancer engages the audience with tora, tukra, parhant, paran and others stressing footwork, gestures and turns. Each section when completed has a punctuation mark, usually a sharp turn of the head. Each ankle is adorned with small bells (ghungroo), which may have just one bell or hundreds. The dancer's rapid movements and footwork in a nritta is perfectly timed to the musical beats (tala) and tempos, and the footwork sequences are called tatkars.

Most of the Nritta performance is abstract, fast and rhythmic aspect of Kathak. In a Kathak nritta, as with all classical Indian dance forms, the viewer is presented with pure movement, wherein the emphasis is the beauty in motion, form, speed, range and pattern. It aims to engage the senses (prakriti) of the audience.

Expressive dance (Nritya)
Nritya is slower and expressive aspect of Kathak that attempts to communicate feelings, storyline particularly with spiritual themes in Hindu dance traditions. In a nritya, the dance expands to include words, musical notes and gestures to articulate a legend or message, it is more than sensory enjoyment, it aims to engage the emotions and mind of the viewer.

The expressiveness of Kathak is also found in other classical dances of India. Its roots are found in the Natyashastra text which defines drama in verse 6.10 as that which aesthetically arouses joy in the spectator, through the medium of actor's art of communication, that helps connect and transport the individual into a super sensual inner state of being. The Natya connects through abhinaya (literally, "carrying to the spectators"), that is applying body-speech-mind and scene, wherein asserts Natyashastra, the actors communicate to the audience, through song and music. Drama in this ancient Sanskrit text, thus is an art to engage every aspect of life, in order to glorify and gift a state of joyful consciousness. According to Massey, another important ancient text that has influenced Kathak is the Abhinaya Darpanam of Nandikeshvara (~2nd century CE).

In Kathak, abhinaya is in the form of expressive gestures and pantomime set to music that usually outline a legend or the plot of a well known story. The gestures and facial expressions convey the ras (sentiment, emotional taste) and bhava (mood) of the underlying story. In the Hindu texts on dance, the guru and the artists successfully express the spiritual ideas by paying attention to four aspects of a performance: Angik (gestures and body language), Vachik (song, recitation, music and rhythm), Aharya (dress, make-up, jewelry), and Satvik (artist's mental disposition and emotional connection with the story and audience, wherein the artist's inner and outer state resonates). A Kathak nritya performance, however grants flexibility to the artists and invites improvisation, and it may not be accompanied with a song or recital about the legend. The stories in Kathak performance generally tend to be about the Hindu god Krishna (or in some cases Shiva or Devi), and the stories come from sources such as the Bhagavata Purana, or the Indian Epics. This form of expressiveness is also found in thumri and Persian ghazals.

Dresses
The dresses vary among Kathak performers, and find their sources in either Hindu or Muslim culture.

The Hindu dress for female dancers has two variations.One is based on a Sari, but is worn in a style different from the customary style that goes over the left shoulder. A Kathak artist generally wraps the sari around the waist and it hangs down from the left. A blouse called choli covers the upper body. The artist may wear a scarf (called orhni in some places). Hair, face, ear, neck, hand, wrist and ankle jewellery, typically of gold, may adorn the artist. A tika or bindi in the middle of forehead is common. The second variation of a Hindu Kathak dancer uses a long, full (just above the ankle), light-weight skirt usually with embroidered border that helps highlight the dance motion. The skirt is contrasted with a different color choli, and a transparent scarf typically drapes over it and the dancer's head. Jewelry is typically present in the second variation.

The Muslim dress for female dancers also uses a skirt, but includes close fitting churidar pyjamas and sometimes a long coat covering hands and the upper body. The head has a cover scarf and the jewelry is light.

The Hindu dress for male Kathak performers is typically a silk dhoti draped around the waist, and covered with a silk scarf tied over the top. The upper body is usually left bare or with only the Hindu thread, but is sometimes covered with a loose sleeveless jacket. Kathak male artists also wear jewelry, but often of stones and much simpler than the female artists. The Mughal dress for male Kathak performers is kurta-churidar. The kurta can be a simple one, or cut as an angarkha. There is also the possibility of adapting the angarkha or kurta for dance to incorporate wider flare in the lower portion. Particularly older variety dress include the small peaked cap too.

Instruments
The ensemble of musical instruments vary with any Kathak performer, ranging from two to twelve classical Indian instruments or more in versions with synthetic innovations. The most common instruments that go with Kathak are tabla (a pair of hand drums) that syncs with the dancer's feet rhythms, sarangi or harmonium with manjira (hand cymbals) that meters the tal (cycle), and other instruments to add effect, depth and structure to the expressive stage of a Kathak performance.

Music
The ancient music genre of India, Dhrupad, was re-introduced into Kathak for the first time by India's senior Kathak exponent Mahamahopadhyay Dr. Pandit Puru Dadheech. He is India's first Kathak dancer to bring back 'Dhrupad' on the formal Kathak stage and this composition in 28 matra. Shankar Pralayankar, his Dhrupad composition, has the unique status of regularly being sung in concerts by 'Dhrupad' maestros the Gundecha Brothers.

Gharanas
Kathak is a diffuse tradition, of which three gharanas (schools) are more well known and studied – Jaipur, Benares and Lucknow. The schools place different relative emphasis between aspects of a Kathak performance such as the acting versus footwork. The Lucknow style, for example, emphasizes acting while Jaipur style emphasizes the dance and footwork. Traditionally, the Jaipur gharana has had a strong spiritual flavor, covering a diverse range of ideas in Vaishnavism and Shaivism.

The Jaipur gharana traces its origins to Bhanuji, a famed Shiva Tandava dancer who upon visiting Vrindavan was inspired and taught Natvari Nritya. Bhanuji's grandons Laluji and Kanhuji were similarly inspired by Krishna. They returned to Jaipur, and together they began the Jaipur gharana of Kathak. The Jaipur style developed under the sponsorship of Rajput rulers, and they favored the Kathak dance with Hindu religious themes. In the modern era, this school has continued their emphasis on dance and footwork with Jai Lal, Janki Prasad, Kundan Lal, Mohan Lal and Nawal Kishore. This school is best known for its systematic innovations in rhythmic dancing, and the use of dance movement to express a story.

The Lucknow gharana of Kathak dance attributes its origins to a rural Krishna devotee named Ishwari from the village in southeast Uttar Pradesh, who aimed to develop Kathak dance as a form of loving devotion to Krishna. This school thrived after the Mughal Empire collapsed, when Kathak artists moved from Delhi to Lucknow under the sponsorship of Avadh nawabs who favored court dance culture. In the modern era, the Lucknow gharana style influences the dance school in New Delhi with Shambu Maharaj, Birju Maharaj and Lacchu Maharaj. Kathak choreography there has developed themes beyond Krishna-Radha, such as those based on the drama works of Kalidasa's Shiva-Parvati and Bhavabhuti's Malati-Madhav. This school has also attempted a Hindu-Muslim Kathak fusion style, highlighting the court dancers theme.

The Benares gharana is the third major style, traditionally believed to be the oldest. Its history is unclear. According to Kothari, the school started with Janakiprasad from a village near Bikaner who resettled in Varanasi, but one whose ancestors were famed dancers and musicians. Janakiprasad was a dancer and a Sanskrit scholar, and credited with inventing the bols of Kathak, which are mnemonic syllables within the language of this classical dance of India.

According to Nicole Lehmann, modern Kathak dancers show, to varying degrees, a fusion of the styles from all three gharanas.

Relationship with other art forms
The north Indian Kathak dance differs from the south Indian Bharatanatyam in several ways, even though both have roots in the Hindu text Natya Shastra. Kathak expressions – particularly in Hindu devotional styles – are more introverted and withdrawn, while Bharatanatyam is more extroverted and expansive. Kathak is normally performed in a standing form with legs and torso typically straight, while Bharatanatyam extensively utilizes bent knee form (ara mandi, half sitting position that is somewhat similar to Demi Plié ballet move).

Kathak is also different from Kathakali, though both are Indian classical dance traditions of "story play" wherein the stories have been traditionally derived from the Hindu epics and the Puranas. Kathakali emerged in the southwestern region of India (modern Kerala), and is distinctive in its elaborate codified colorful makeup, masks and dress. Kathakali traditionally has been troupes of predominantly male actor-dancers, who dress up as hero, heroines, gods, goddesses, demons, demonesses, priests, animals and daily life characters. Both dance forms employ elaborate footwork, choreography and hand gestures, but Kathakali integrates south Indian martial arts movements such as leaps and jumps. Both dance forms trace their roots to classical Sanskrit texts, but Kathakali has relatively more recent origins, more closely follows the Hastha Lakshanadeepika text and began flourishing in the 16th century. While each has a different musical and dance language, both deploy a host of similar traditional Indian musical instruments.

According to Miriam Phillips, the Indian Kathak and the Spanish Flamenco dance share many visual, rhythmic and kinesthetic similarities.

title: Kathak


text:
Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet)

According to the Book of Mormon, Lehi was a prophet who lived in Jerusalem during the reign of King Zedekiah (approximately 600 BC). In First Nephi, Lehi is rejected for preaching repentance and he leads his family, including Sariah, Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi, into the wilderness. He sends his sons back to recover the plates of brass and once more for the family of Ishmael. As they travel, Lehi has a vision of the tree of life in which most of his family, excepting Laman and Lemuel, accepts God. He also prophesies Christ's coming 600 years in the future.

Lehi has two sons in the wilderness before they arrive at the ocean, where Nephi is directed to build a boat. They cross the sea, and Lehi and Sariah become sick because of Laman and Lemuel's rebellion. Before he dies, Lehi blesses his sons and their families.

Lehi likely had daughters in addition to his named sons and has been compared to Moses both in his calling as a prophet and leadership of an exodus. He may have made two different kinds of sacrifices, namely peace offerings and burnt offerings, based on the Book of Mormon text and Old Testament descriptions. It is noted that Lehi claimed the land his family landed on despite others already living there. Some scholars suggest based on travel time that Lehi and his family received assistance from nearby tribes as they travelled, possibly in return for work or even servitude. Others compare the pointed mentioning of Lehi's tent to scriptural connections between tents and temples. Lehi's record is claimed to have been contained in the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon translation. One phrase of his has been compared to a quote from William Shakespeare's Hamlet, with some suggesting Joseph Smith took it from the play and others suggesting a precedent of similar phrasing around Lehi's time.

He is the namesake of the modern-day city of Lehi, Utah and has been depicted in many fiction and non-fiction books, movies, and works of art.

Narration
In the Book of Mormon, Lehi is a descendant of Joseph of Egypt, husband of Sariah, and father of Laman, Lemuel, Sam, Nephi, Jacob, Joseph, and two or more daughters. He lives in Jerusalem around 600 years before the coming of Jesus Christ in a time when many prophets are preaching the city would be destroyed. After hearing this, he prays on behalf of the people and has a vision from God of the destruction of Jerusalem. Following this vision, he begins to preach to the people that they need to repent, but they try to kill him. The Lord commands Lehi to take his family and any supplies they need and leave everything else behind. He then builds an altar and offers burnt sacrifices in thanks to the Lord for saving his family. His sons Laman and Lemuel complain about leaving everything behind.

The Lord asks Lehi to send his sons back to Jerusalem for the plates of brass, which contain family records and other teachings, from Laban. His wife Sariah complains against him for sending them into danger, thinking they might be dead. When they return safely, Lehi reads through the plates, discovers he is descended from Joseph of Egypt, and teaches his sons more of what he learns from the records.

Lehi sends his sons back to Jerusalem again to gather the family of Ishmael to travel with them. Sometime after their return, he has a dream with a vision of a tree of life in which Sariah, Sam, and Nephi eat of the fruit representing God's love and Laman and Lemuel choose not to. Upon waking, he shares the dream with his family and, worrying about Laman and Lemuel, he teaches them they need to be more faithful. In another vision, he predicts the Messiah will come within 600 years.

One morning, he finds a compass outside of his tent which guides his family in their travels. They continue traveling and come to a land they name Bountiful. While camping in Bountiful, Nephi's bow breaks and they suffer from food shortage. Lehi begins to complain alongside Laman, Lemuel, and the sons of Ishmael, but Nephi speaks to them and the Lord "chastens" Lehi. After he repents, Lehi asks the Lord where to find food and is able to direct Nephi on where to go with his new bow. As the group continues and arrives at the ocean, it is revealed that Lehi has had two more sons in the wilderness, Jacob and Joseph. The family is guided across the ocean, but Laman and Lemuel's rebellious actions along the way cause Lehi and Sariah so much grief that they become sick and close to death.

Lehi has another vision after arriving in the Promised Land that Jerusalem has been destroyed. He shares that the land they have been guided to is promised to his descendants as an inheritance as long as they follow God's commandments. Before his death, he blesses his sons and their families. He also quotes from a prophecy in the brass plates, saying that there will be a seer in the future who was a descendant of Joseph of Egypt and Lehi's son Joseph, and whose father would be named Joseph. After blessing his family, Lehi grows old and dies.

Lehi's prophesies include the destruction of Jerusalem, Babylonian captivity, the Jews returning to Jerusalem, the teachings of John the Baptist, the coming of Christ, Christ's resurrection, and the gathering of Israel.

Family relationships
Lehi's known immediate family according to the Book of Mormon is as shown in the diagram below.

Daughters
Lehi's son, Nephi, mentions having sisters in his writings, although their names and birth order are unknown. The Encyclopedia of the Book of Mormon suggests Lehi had these daughters after leaving Jerusalem. Latter-day Saint Book of Mormon scholars and apologists Hugh Nibley and Sidney B. Sperry propose that the wives of the two married sons of Ishmael may have been Lehi's daughters as it was customary at the time for daughters to marry their father's brother's sons.

Laman and Lemuel
Laman and Lemuel are often spoken of in negative terms such as when Lehi urges them to improve and be firm and continuously righteous as the river and the valley in which they are camping. In The Book of Mormon For the Least of These, a Book of Mormon commentary, Fatimah Salleh and Margaret Hemming suggest that rather than a scolding, this encouragement should be viewed as Lehi having sustained love and hope for his children. Writing in 1969 for Dialogue, Robert E. Nichols attributes Laman and Lemuel's confession that they cannot understand Lehi's words to Lehi's metaphorical language.

Lehi's exodus
Nephi has been brought up as a Moses figure in the past, says BYU professor and past director of FARMS Noel B. Reynolds, but Lehi may have set that example as well. In an analysis of Lehi's final words to his family, Reynolds suggests fourteen different connections to Moses. There were often issues with people in Lehi's group failing to acknowledge him as a prophet. As his children knew and understood Moses as a prophet and leader of the exodus from Egypt, Lehi may have used comparisons to Moses to help them understand the significance of the Lord's guidance of their family and the commandments he asked them to follow. Lehi's exodus from Jerusalem has been compared to that of Moses, and additionally sets a precedent for the exodus of later groups in the Book of Mormon. Lehi was called just as Moses was when he prayed to the Lord for his people. Both Lehi and Moses left with their people and led them into the desert through times of difficulty and rebellion. In different occasions, both groups tried to kill their leader. They received commandments, were directed by God, and were led to a promised land.

Scholars S. Kent Brown, Terrence l. Szink, and Bruce J. Boehm add that as 1 Nephi was written a number of years after it happened, Nephi may have noticed similarities between the Israelite exodus and Lehi's leadership of their own journey and reflected that realization as he wrote his history.

Religious sacrifices
Multiple offerings are mentioned in Lehi's appearance in the Book of Mormon and S. Kent Brown suggests these were sacrifices of thanksgiving as well as burnt offerings for sin. Both times Lehi's sons returned from Jerusalem, joy and thanks are described, which lines up with descriptions the sacrifices of thanksgiving described in Psalm 107, says Brown. Sacrifices of thanksgiving are alternately translated as peace offerings, which were connected with the idea of well-being and therefore with safe travels. Such offerings were common and often involved a meal, the sacrifice itself being an animal and unleavened bread. Brown suggests Lehi and his family may have traded with local tribes for animals to sacrifice. Additionally, just as priests in Jerusalem offered daily burnt sacrifices in the likelihood that someone somewhere had sinned that day, Lehi's burnt sacrifices would have been to cover the sins of his family.

Land inheritance
Salleh and Hemming also touch on Lehi's mindset of inheriting the Americas as the Promised Land. They point out that there are already people living on the continent when Lehi and his family arrive, and how Lehi talks about having possession of the land as a right. This may be notable in the context that Lehi has been traveling for years without land of his own.

Bondage in the wilderness
BYU professor of ancient scripture S. Kent Brown explains that in Lehi's time, a large caravan could travel from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean in a span of weeks rather than years. The full journey is said to have taken about eight years, and Brown suggests the activities and traveling from Jerusalem to the first camp and on to Nahom lasted less than a year. This time gap presents, according the Brown, a missing part of the narration. Based on the resources they brought with them and the fact that they ran out of food multiple times on the way, Lehi and his family may have turned to a tribe in the area for help in exchange for work. It is noted that in the Bible, "to sojourn" is linked to servitude or living under the protection of another.

Lehi's record and the 116 pages
Nephi begins his record claiming he's making an abridgement of his father's writings. Latter-day Saint founder and prophet Joseph Smith claimed that the first 116 translated pages of the Book of Mormon which were lost included the Book of Lehi.

"The cold and silent grave"
Latter-day Saint apologist Hugh Nibley writes of the oft-compared phrasing from 2 Nephi 1:14 with a quote from Hamlet. Alexander Campbell of the Millennial Harbinger proposes that the words were copied from Shakespeare. Nibley alternatively suggests that although the wording is similar, there are other examples of similar usage around Lehi's time period. Independent scholar Robert F. Smith, who studies Near Eastern languages, cites specific linguistic connections to the verse from outside sources of ancient times and other similarities specifically within the Bible.

Modern commemorations
Lehi, Arizona and Lehi, Utah were named after him by Latter-day Saint settlers.

In art
The Book of Mormon Art Catalog records multiple depictions of Lehi in visual art. Lehi's tree of life vision was among the first subjects of artwork of Book of Mormon content, and around 1874 David Hyrum Smith, a son of Joseph Smith and a leader in the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (later renamed to Community of Christ), produced Lehi's Dream, portraying Lehi being led to the tree of life by an angel. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' first visual artwork of Lehi's dream was produced in about 1949–1951 by American painter Minerva Teichert; her The House of the World depicts Lehi beckoning his family, who clasp the iron rod, with Sariah in focus in the image's center. After receiving a copy of the Book of Mormon and reading its stories, Polish Catholic artist Roman Śledź created several woodcarvings of Book of Mormon scenes, including Wizja Lehiego—Drzewo Życia depicting Lehi’s dream of the tree of life. From January to May 2024, the Harold B. Lee Library's Reynolds Auditorium Gallery hosted an exhibition of artwork of Lehi's vision of the tree of life. Depictions of Lehi's tree of life vision account for 7% of all visual art of Book of Mormon content.

Danish-American painter C. C. A. Christensen's 1890 Lehi Blessing His Posterity portrays Lehi with his family. American artist George M. Ottinger's Arrival in the New World, also produced around 1890, is a scene of Lehi with Ishmael, Nephi, and family. Teichert's Loading the Ship, created 1949–1951, shows a scene of Lehi's family. In the twentieth century, American illustrator Arnold Friberg produced a series of 12 paintings depicting scenes from the Book of Mormon, including portrayals of Lehi such as in Lehi in the Wilderness Discovers the Liahona and Lehi and His People Arrive in the Promised Land. In an interview, Friberg said of his Lehi in the Wilderness that he envisioned Lehi as a "wealthy man" and intentionally portrayed him with "rich clothing". In the same interview, Friberg pointed out that in his Lehi and His People Arrive, while most of the figures express excitement about arriving, Lehi visibly "is looking heavenward in thanks".

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Lehi (Book of Mormon prophet)


text:
Dhoti

The dhoti, also known as veshti, mardani, dhotar, jaiñboh, or panchey, is a piece of cloth arranged around the legs to resemble trousers. It is most popular in India and Nepal. The dhoti is a lower garment forming part of ethnic wear for men in the Indian subcontinent. The dhoti is fashioned out of a rectangular piece of unstitched cloth, usually around 4.5 m long, wrapped around the waist and the legs and usually knotted in the front. The dhoti is considered to be the male counterpart of the saari worn by females to religious and secular ceremonies (functions). A is a yellow silk dhoti worn on auspicious occasions. The dhoti must not be confused with "dhoti pants" which are a new ready to wear trend, popular among women and typical of children.

Etymology

It is also referred to as "dhautra" (IPA: /dʱɑwtɽɐ/) in Sanskrit, which means rope or cord. The dhoti evolved from the ancient antriya which was passed through the legs, tucked at the back and covered the legs loosely, then flowed into long pleats at front of the legs, the same way it is worn today as formal dhoti. While a casual and short dhoti wraps around both legs firmly, in this style the back side of the dhoti is pulled to the front and tucked at the waist, before tucking the two loose ends at back, creating firmly fitted trouser-like dhoti that wraps around both legs. This style is more commonly worn by farmers and martial artists.

Names and styles

The garment is known by various names based on language, such as:

Custom and usage
The pancha is worn by many conservative Jain men when they visit Derasars or Basadis for puja; unstitched clothing is believed by some Jains to be "less permeable to pollution" and therefore more appropriate for religious rituals than other garments. They also wear a loose and unstitched cloth, shorter than the pancha on top.

Hare Krishna, known for its distinctive dress code, prompts Western adherents to wear pancha, usually of saffron or white cloth folded in ethnic Bengali style. Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was known for wearing a white silk dhoti.

The dhoti has been ethnically worn by farmers, pehlwano (wrestlers) and shepherds (grazers) of the Sikhs in the Punjab region; it was discouraged during the Punjab Subah Movement, owing it to the inter-communal tensions prevalent at the time. The dhothi was also worn by South Canarese Christian men to their pre-nup ceremonies, Church weddings and receptions until the 1960s, when they fell out of favour; since then grooms have been styling the black suit and tie instead.

There's a distinction between the lungi, a similar garment often worn by people at their homes, as it is more casual and comfortable, dhoti is sometimes even worn by secular politicians.

At the height of the Indian Independence Movement, weaving was a symbol of the Swadeshi Movement. In 1921, the famed M K Gandhi himself championed only the dhoti often topless and without a kurta, to promote and identify with the weaves and handicrafts, produced by the rural and the poor of his homeland.

title: Dhoti


text:
Talk:Homotopy

Correct Definition?
Is the definition set up correctly for homotopy equivalence? It seems if you have a disk, X, and a point, Y = {y}, there is only one function f:X->Y, f(x) = y. Take a, b in X such that a /= b. Thus, g(f(a)) = g(y) = g(f(b)), so if g*f is the identity function, we have a contradiction that a = b. 63.73.199.69 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

We only require the functions f(g) and g(f) to be homotopic to the identity. In your case, a constant function from a disk to itself is homotopic to the identity function and any function from a point to itself is the identity. Orthografer (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

 * And actually a topological space is call contractable if (and only if) it is homotopic to a point. Dharma6662000 (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Continuous functions have homotopies, but not topological spaces. Orthografer (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

When is H continuous?
What topology do we usually assume on functions X->Y? The definition in the article says H must be continuous, but it is not explained when H is continuous. 63.73.199.69 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

 * You are asking two nice questions here. I think that one of the questions you don't realise your asking. So first of all I'll answer the question I think you're asking, i.e. "What hoes it mean for $$ H : X \times [0,1] \to Y$$ to be continuous . Well Y is a topolgical space so we have a collection of open sets which cover Y and satisfy some axioms. For H to be continuous we require that the preimage of every open set of Y is open in $$X \times [0,1]$$. For the open sets in $$X \times [0,1]$$ we consider the product topology given by the topology on X and the topology on $$[0,1]$$. The second question which I don't think you meant to ask was "What is a topology on the space of maps $$X \to Y$$?" This is a very nice question since this space is an infinite dimensional space. If we restrict our attention to the space of smooth functions, i.e. $$C^{\infty}(X,Y)$$ then we can use the Whitney $C^{\infty}$-topology. This compares k-jets and successive partial derivatives to give a notion of proximity it this infinite dimensional space. This is a very interesting question, and I urge you to study it in depth. Dharma6662000 (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * A simple answer is to give a topology in Xx[0,1] and then H:Xx[0,1]->Y is continuous if for each open set U in Y, we have H^(-1)U is open in Xx[0,1], that easy--kmath (talk) 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

 * That's what my rely said (and I quote: "For H to be continuous we require that the preimage of every open set of Y is open in $$X \times [0,1]$$. "), why bother to say the same thing twice? The key problem is what are the open sets on $$X \times [0,1]$$ ? And my reply answers that question too by saying that the product topology should be used. Dharma6662000 (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Now our friend 63.73.199.69 is going to be focused on that matter--kmath (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statment?
I think it is not true as stated in the article, that when X and Y are homotopy equivalent, and X is locally path connected, then Y is also locally path connected. For an example, take the subspace of a unit square consisting of the interval [(0,0),(0,1)] together with all line segments from (0,1) to the points (1/n,0) where n runs through all natural numbers. The space is contractible, but it is not locally path connected at (0,0).

I am not sure that the statement that two homotopies can be rotated makes much sense (but I know what is meant..:) )

 * Yes, locally path-connected isn't a homotopy invariant.

It seems to me the stuff on homotopy groups belongs in its own article. --gorlim 16:52, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

 * The stuff on homotopy groups has its own page. It seems to me that the stuff on isotopy belongs in its own article. —Blotwell 08:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Misleading picture?
The illustration with caption "An illustration of a homotopy between the two bold paths" is somewhat confusing for two reasons:

1. first, which subsets of the bold loop correspond to the "two bold paths" could be misinterpreted, making the isolines even more confusing

2. second, at first glance, the illustration makes you think that all homotopies are necessarily relative to some none-empty subset, since the endpoints of the curves are fixed.

I'm changing the caption for reason #2, feel free to change it back...

I think the etimology here is wrong: homo-topy comes from the greek verb "topao"(= to melt, or to deform), and not from the name "topos" (= place).

(in reference to above) was the etymology clarified? 68.239.20.246 00:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From the OED: ORIGIN from HOMO + -Greek topos (place) + -y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.166.141 (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Why are all the illustrations isotopies?
Would be nice if someone would create/add an illustration of a homotopy that's not an isotopy :)

Homeomorphism $$ \implies $$ Homotopy
Maybe a note should be added that says that all homeomorphisms are homotopies. (Or have I missed it?) Two continuous maps $$ \phi, \psi : X \to Y$$ are called homotopic if (and only if) there exists a continuous map $$\chi : X \times [0,1] \to Y$$ such that $$\chi(x,0) = \phi(x)$$ and $$\chi(x,1) = \psi(x)$$ for all $$x \in X$$. Now, two topological spaces X and Y are homotopic if (and only if) there exist continuous maps $$f : X \to Y$$ and $$g: Y \to X$$ such that $$g \circ f : X \to X$$ and $$f \circ g : Y \to Y$$ are both homotopic to the identity maps. Now, assume that X and Y are homeomorphic, then we can choose a homeomorphism $$f : X \to Y$$ and let $$ g := f^{-1} : Y \to X$$. Then $$g \circ f = f^{-1} \circ f = \text{id}_X$$ and $$f \circ g = f \circ f^{-1} = \text{id}_Y$$. It follows that X and Y are homotopic. Dharma6662000 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're imagining these topological spaces as embedded in other spaces. A homeomorphism is not necessarily a homotopy.Orthografer (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * What's wrong with the above proof? It makes no mention of an ambient space and deals only with abstract topological spaces. The proof seems correct to me. The proof shows that two spaces that are homeomorphic are necessarily homotpic. See pages 5 and 6 of

 * H. Osborn's Vector Bundles, Volume 1: Foundations and Stiefel-Whitney Classes. Academic Press 1982. Declan Davis (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * In fact the article says that all homeomorphisms are homotopies. In homotopy equivalence and null-homotopy the article says: "Clearly, every homeomorphism is a homotopy equivalence, but the converse is not true: for example, a solid disk is not homeomorphic to a single point, although the disk and the point are homotopy equivalent." Declan Davis (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that a homeomorphism is a homotopy equivalence. My point is the following: saying that a homeomorphism is a homotopy is, strictly speaking, not true. Further, it distracts the reader from the main idea, which is that a homotopy is simply a 1-parameter family of maps. Certainly a trivial homotopy can be constructed from any continuous map. What is special about such a map being a homeomorphism? I also think some of the people here are confusing the word "homotopic" with "deformation equivalent." Orthografer (talk) 18:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I completely agree with Orthografer. There is a clear confusion supra: an homotopy equivalence is not an homotopy. I think this should be clarified explicitly in the article.Moreover, I'm a bit uncomfortable with the coffey cup <---> doughnut illustration; it does illustrate an homotopy (and indeed even an isotopy), provided that the cup and the torus are considered not as topological spaces, but as two different embeddings of the same space into (e.g.) R3. We should not be too formal; but also not incorrect. JoergenB (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the coffee mug example in the text of the section, and in the caption to the animation. MorphismOfDoom (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Homeomorphisms per se have nothing to do with homotopies. A homeomorphism is a certain kind of mapping (continuous and bijective with continuous inverse) between topological spaces. A homotopy is a continuous family of mappings between two topological spaces. The existence of a homotopy between two continuous mappings X → Y defines an equivalence relation on those mappings. Some homeomorphisms between spaces X and Y (if there exist any at all!) are homotopic, some are not. Yes, all homeomorphisms are homotopy equivalences — but the concept of a homotopy equivalence is quite different from that of a homotopy.Daqu (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Definitions
Firstly, should the alternative definition of a homotopy from f to g, in terms of a family of maps ht such that h0= f and h1= g be included? Both versions are used so should both be in the article?

Secondly, why does it say that the fundamental group can only be defined with a concept of homotopies relative to a subspace? At most, all you need is relative to a point, and that is a far simpler concept. Saying relative homotopy is needed for the fundamental group makes it sound more complicated than it is. Zerxp —Preceding not properly signed comment added by Zerxp (talk • contribs) 13:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, and welcome, Zerxp!
 * The "alternative definition" is equivalent to the ordinary one. Thus, very formally, it is unneccessary; but I think it is good to include it, since it may help the reader to understands what goes on.
 * When you define homotopy relative to a point, that is equivalent to defining it relative to the subspace consisting of only that point. Thus, the subset definition formally includes the one point subset one. However, IMHO you are right in one sense, since the formulation with subsets is slightly more complicated, if you are only going to apply it for the ordinary homotopy groups anyhow. JoergenB (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (PS. The easiest way to sign your discussion contributions "properly" is to push the "signature button", or to write ~ by hand. Test it; its effects are "slightly magical"!)

 * Thanks for the help with signing, that will be useful.
 * I have put in the other definition, along with how it relates to the original one given, just to try to help avoid confusion on the matter for people who are new to homotopy. I have left the fundamental group as part of the Homotopy groups paragraph, but made sure to put a link to its own page and so that page can explain it without having to use the relative homotopy groups, but I decided that it would take up a lot of space on this homotopy page to include the construction of the fundamental group without using the relative homotopy that has already been described.
 * Also, I have added a small paragraph on the Homotopy lifting property as there was currently no link at all to that page, and I think it is another important result. I don't know why, but the size of some of the maths text has come out smaller than the rest, which makes it look very odd to me, but I do not know how to fix that. Zerxp (talk) 11:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Alternative definition appears incorrect or incomplete
I object to the following as a definition of a homotopy:

 * An alternative notation is to say that a homotopy between two continuous functions f, g : X → Y is a family of continuous functions ht: X → Y for t ∈ [0,1] such that h0= f and h1= g and the map t → ht is continuous from [0,1] to the space of all continuous functions X → Y. The two versions coincide by setting ht(x) = H(x,t).

This is meaningless so long as no topology has been put on the set of continuous functions from X to Y.

The definition would be correct if this set were given the compact-open topology and X was locally compact. This is too complicated, though. I think the best thing to do is to say that the family ht is "continuous" only in the sense that the original definition is satisfied, where H(x,t) = ht(x). 67.150.252.66 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I do not recall any mention of a topology on the function space Ω(X,Y) when I was learning about homotopies. The (usual) definition of homotopy says that two maps f : X → Y and g : X → Y are homotopic if there exists a continuous map H : X × [0,1] → Y such that H(x,0) = f(x) and H(x,1) = g(x) for all x in X. This definition only requires that we have a topology on the spaces X × [0,1] and Y. I've never seen any mention of the map [0,1] → Ω(X,Y) needing to be continuous. Maybe if we seek a special kind of homotopy then this extra condition may be imposed. Δεκλαν Δαφισ   (talk)  22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

cofee cup picture
Is the cofee cup picture appropriate in this article? It seems to be a full homeomorphism and not just an homotopy equivalence. If the torus were a solid torus and it became a circumference it would. The current one may give the impression that a homotopy equivalence is a stronger relation than it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.13.252 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I also think the coffee cup picture is misleading, for a different reason. A homotopy is a continuous deformation between two functions, where each function is a continuous deformation between two topological spaces. But the coffee cup picture just shows one continuous deformation between two topological spaces. Maproom (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Doesn't it show a parametrized family of embeddings of certain spaces into R3, starting with the cup and ending with a torus? — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 * Yes, you are right. It's easy to look at that image and not notice the embedding R3. Maproom (talk)

 * The picture is good only for illustrating the Homeomorphism relation, but to be honest would be better if it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.11.236.76 (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 * The picture should be either explained better (indicating what are X, Y, f and g), or removed as confusing without further explanation. Now the reader may take away the incorrect impression that isotopy means a reversible continuous mapping, i.e., homeomorphism. It's easy enough to say X = S1 × S1 (a torus) and Y = R3. But how to define f and g without too much handwaving? --Lambiam 22:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored the coffee mug animation after initially having deleted it, added a clear explanation of what the homotopy is (what X, Y, f, and g are, and what the animated image shows) in the text at the end of the " formal definition " section, and made the caption accurate as well. MorphismOfDoom (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Homology, homotopy and homeomorphism
I would find it really useful to have a dummies' explanation of the differences between all these things, including such subtleties as distinguishing homotopies vs. homotopy equivalents vs homeomorphisms. Examples would be good. At present the article reads little better a student's notes. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Completely agree. Will try to work on this. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 04:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

New article for homotopy equivalence
I would like to suggest a separate article for "Homotopy equivalence" since it is significantly more advanced than the notion of simple homotopy. Moreover it has applications in may different context that need special mention. For example, homology groups and homotopy groups are invariant up to homotopy equivalence. Moreover its relation with and distinction from deformation retract is worth mentioning.

Finally, and most importantly, a clear clarification of the difference between two spaces being "homotopic" vs. them being "homotopy equivalent" is important to avoid confusion.

If these make sense, I will start working on the article. - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 04:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

the isotopy part plenty of errors!!!!
"and an embedding is simply a homeomorphism" WHAT?!!! they are completely different concepts!!!

"The intuitive idea of deforming one to the other should correspond to a path of embeddings: [...] this corresponds to the definition of isotopy"

no! this is not! The given definition of isotopy is about homeomorphisms, non embeddings!! --2.236.204.53 (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

 * I think the one who wrote the sub-section used definitions more aligned along ambient isotopy (the article for which, itself, has many things incorrect in it).
 * I have completely re-worked the subsection to reflect the standard definition of isotopy.
 * Corrected the definition: "In case the two given continuous functions f and g from the topological space X to the topological space Y are embeddings, one can ask whether they can be connected 'through embeddings'. This gives rise to the concept of isotopy, which is a homotopy, H, in the notation used before, such that for each fixed t, H(x,t) gives a embedding."
 * Added clarification "...and this embedding gives a homeomorphism between the circle and its image in the embedding space...". (see Embedding). Although I do not see why this statement is relevant here. It can very well be removed.
 * Fixed the sentences about knots: "The intuitive idea behind the notion of knot equivalence is that one can deform one embedding to another through a path of embeddings: a continuous function starting at t=0 giving the K1 embedding, ending at t=1 giving the K2 embedding, with all intermediate values corresponding to embeddings. This corresponds to the definition of isotopy."
 * Removed this sentence since isotopy has nothing to do with smoothness: "This works well as long as we require all the maps involved to be differentiable, but fails if they are simply allowed to be continuous, as there is then no obstruction to pulling the knot taut, which changes the knot geometry." If the knot is 'taut', it no more remains an embedding.
 * Not sure about this sentence: "An ambient isotopy, studied in this context, is an isotopy of the larger space, considered in light of its action on the embedded submanifold. Knots K1 and K2 are considered equivalent when there is an ambient isotopy which moves K1 to K2. This is the appropriate definition in the topological category. " Have kept it though.
 * Here is the diff.
 * - Subh83 (talk | contribs) 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Why "Formal" Definition?
Why "Formal" Definition? Does that label help people understand the article? I find it distracting. 129.255.1.225 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC) realisticusername@gmail.com
 * First of all, article is technical at times, it is fine. Wikipedia sole purpose is to document and universal readability is not our goal.
 * I also don't know why you find formal definition distracting but one can add its own section of (plain) definition.
 * Lastly, the lead section, In topology, two continuous functions from one topological space to another are called homotopic (Greek ὁμός (homós) = same, similar, and τόπος (tópos) = place) if one can be "continuously deformed" into the other, such a deformation being called a homotopy between the two functions.
 * Feel free to tell me/us what is missing. --14.198.220.253 (talk) 08:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Guess what? Universal readability should be your goal. Maybe this explains why so many math articles in Wikipedia are really, really, really bad.Daqu (talk) 06:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Etymology
Does anyone know the etymology of the word "homotopy"? I would guess it comes from the greek word "topos"="place" such as "utopia" or "distopia", but it is only a guess. If someone could check the etymology of the word and add it to the page it would be much appreciated.
 * I don't know the details. But basically, Greek "homo" = same and "topos" = place. Maproom (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Error in Homotopy Equivalence section
I believe the following is incorrect:

 * [F]or example, the double torus and the double torus with the rings interlinked are homotopy equivalent (since they are homeomorphic), even though the said transformation cannot be embedded in three-dimensional Euclidean space without the rings "passing through" each other.

This transformation may indeed be embedded in R^3. Here is an illustration of exactly that. I have edited this out for now. If someone knows of a better example, please include it.

Peligro~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

 * Maybe a valid example is a torus and a knotted torus. Maproom (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 02:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

False caption to illustration
The caption to the illustration of an unknot and a trefoil knot reads as follows:

"The unknot is not equivalent to the trefoil knot since one cannot be deformed into the other through a continuous path of embeddings. Thus they are not ambient-isotopic."

The statement that "[O]ne cannot be deformed into the other through a continuous path of embeddings" is false. The intuitive idea of pulling the knot tight can be made rigorous so that at the final stage the knot disappears entirely, leaving an unknot.Daqu (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

 * Are you trying to say the trefoil is equivalent to the unknot? By pulling tight, do you mean shrinking to a single point, which would not be an embedding? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 * What I am saying is that a continuous family of merely topological embeddings of the circle into 3-space exists between any knot and the unknot. The intuitive idea is simply to pull the knotted part of the curve tight. Because the length of the knotted part of the curve approaches 0 in the limit as t → 1, this is a continuous family of embeddings.

 * For this reason, mere isotopy of embedded circles is not an adequate way of defining knot equivalence. (Ambient isotopy — an isotopy of the entire 3-space carrying one knot to another — is an adequate way of defining knot equivalence.)Daqu (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

 * Daqu, I'm sorry to say, but this is wrong. When you "pull the knotted part of the curve tight", at the limit, you have several points all converging to the same point. Thus you don't get an embedding at the limit. In any case, you are welcome to try and find any reputable source for your claim that there is a path in $$\mathrm{Emb}(S^1, \mathbb{R}^3)$$ (continuous embeddings) between the trefoil knot and the unknot. (You won't.) Quantum Knot (talk) 09:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

 * No, why have several points all converging to the same point? If, for instance, each curve is parametrized by arc length, and the "tight knot" is a short arc (length converging to 0), then in the limit we have an embedding. See also here. I guess, the conclusion depends crucially on the topology on $$\mathrm{Emb}(S^1, \mathbb{R}^3).$$ Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Yet another reason why this article is bad
The animated illustration with the caption

"A homotopy between two embeddings of the torus into R3: as "the surface of a doughnut" and as "the surface of a coffee mug". This is also an example of an isotopy."

is not an example of either a homotopy or an isotopy.

The reason this is not an example of either one is that in a homotopy or an isotopy, specific points move in specific paths as the "time" parameter increases from 0 to 1. But this illustration gives no indication of where specific points move. So although it illustrates something, that something is neither a homotopy nor an isotopy.Daqu (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I think this is a little unfair. The illustration shows the embeddings obtained at various points of time along a homotopy. Since the homotopy itself is a function, with a graph in a high-dimensional space, it seems impossible to sketch the actual homotopy function. But it is common to illustrate a homotopy by showing various stages, without tracking particular points. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

 * I am complaining about a false statement. The illustration makes no attempt to indicate that the isotopy of a solid torus between the bagel shape and the coffee-mug shape is actually a motion of each point of one embedding, along a path, to a specific point of the other embedding.

 * The statement "The illustration shows the embeddings obtained at various points of time along a homotopy" is not true. The illustration shows only the images of the embeddings obtained at various points of time along a homotopy (that is actually an isotopy, a very special kind of homotopy).

 * The important thing is that anyone coming to this article with the goal of understanding what homotopy means will very likely be confused.Daqu (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homotopy


text:
The Numskulls

The Numskulls is a comic strip in The Beano, and previously in The Beezer and The Dandy – UK comics owned by D.C Thomson. The strip is about a team of tiny human-like technicians who live inside the heads of various people, running and maintaining their bodies and minds. It first appeared in The Beezer from 1962 until 1979, drawn by Malcolm Judge. The Numskulls are still going and featured weekly in the popular British comic The Beano.

History
The strip first appeared in The Beezer in 1962 and was drawn by Malcolm Judge. In this version, they lived inside a man's head rather than a boy's head. The man was never named, but the Numskulls referred to him as "our Man". There were six Numskulls during this time. The 'Mouth Department' was home to two Numskulls, named Alf and Fred. Luggy (Radar) looked a lot like Cruncher, Snitch looked like Cruncher as well except Snitch wore orange, Brainy had no glasses and had no hair apart from around his ears and wore black, Blinky looked the same except he was bald and Alf and Fred had two hairs on their head and wore black and yellow.

Judge drew the strip until 1979, at which point Tom Lavery started drawing the strip. Judge returned as artist in 1984, and continued to draw it until his death in 1989. Following his death, John Dallas took over as artist. In 1990 the comic became The Beezer and Topper following the merge of The Topper and The Beezer. It was at this point that the man was replaced by a boy. In the Beezer and Topper, Dallas continued drawing the strip for a few months, before Steve Bright took over as artist for most of the comic's remaining run. Three years later the comic folded, and the strip joined The Beano in issue 2674, dated 16 October 1993, drawn by Tom Paterson. It was at this point "Our Boy" Became Edd, and each numskull was given a new look. The strip in the 60th anniversary special was drawn by Trevor Metcalfe. Paterson continued drawing it until late 2000, as shortly afterwards he took over Minnie the Minx from the retired Jim Petrie. The strip was then drawn by Barry Glennard, who became the permanent artist in 2003, although Dave Eastbury drew some strips on occasion during 2002. Tom Paterson returned to contribute a number of strips in 2007–2009, as well as in the 2009 and 2011 Beano Annuals.

After "Our Man" became "Edd" and "Luggy" became "Radar" and "Nosey" became "Snitch", Edd became aware of the Numskulls' existence inside him, after a doctor discovered them on his X-ray system. Despite the doctor's alarm and decision that they had to be removed, Edd was very calm and wondered whether getting rid of them was a bad idea.

The Numskulls in this version are:
 * Brainy – controls Edd's brain. Brainy is the head of the Numskulls.
 * Blinky – controls his sight/eyes.
 * Radar (originally called Luggy) – controls his hearing/ears.
 * Snitch (originally called Nosey) – controls his smell/nose.
 * Cruncher (originally two characters called Alf & Fred) – controls his mouth/taste.

Occasionally other numskulls are seen who control Edd's other body functions including germ fighting numskulls, numskulls in the stomach, pelvis numskulls and blood numskulls.

Some earlier strips had suggested that everyone had Numskulls. A Bananaman summer special, for instance featured an X-ray of Bananaman showing the "Nanaskulls". Even animals and other Beano stars were revealed to have Numskulls, in fact, the centre story of the 2008 Annual was centred around Plug's Plugskulls, reacting to true love. A rare trope in their strips would occur when the Numskulls of animals (such as dogs, rabbits and pigeons) would invade Edd, causing him to behave in the same characteristics as their animal hosts.

In December 2012, a new version of The Numskulls appeared in the new digital version of The Dandy. This version is about a younger boy called Alex Bonce, whose Numskulls are not stick figures, but instead are concepts popular with children – the brain is controlled by a space jackal starship captain, the nose by a masked wrestler, the eyes by a video game elf (a spoof of Link from The Legend of Zelda), the ears by a robot, and the mouth by a barbarian and a dinosaur. It was drawn by Jamie Smart.

In July 2013, the Beano version was revamped by Nigel Auchterlounie, who writes and draws a new version of the strip showing the Numskulls of celebrities, starting with Ant and Dec. As a result, Edd disappeared for a while, though he returned after a few months. The Numskulls remain the same though, although always looking different each week, they are still referred to as Brainy, Blinky, Radar, Snitch and Cruncher. In early 2014, Edd returned but it's still drawn by Nigel Auchterlounie.

Parodies
The strip was parodied in the Viz comic strip "Driving Mr Beckham", in which we are privy to the thought processes of David Beckham, in a style akin to the Numskulls.

title: The Numskulls


text:
Burgess Park

Burgess Park is a public park situated in Camberwell in the London Borough of Southwark. It is close to Walworth to the north, Bermondsey to the east and Peckham to the south. At 56 ha, it is one of the largest parks in South London.

Unlike most other parks in London, Burgess Park was carved out of a highly built-up area of the city. Virtually all the land now occupied by the park was previously used for housing, industry and transport infrastructure.

Construction
Houses were purchased and demolished to form the park. The idea for Burgess Park came out of the 1943 Abercrombie plan for open spaces in London, and the land has been gradually assembled and landscaped over the subsequent decades, first by the London County Council, then the Greater London Council, and since the mid-1980s, the London Borough of Southwark. The earliest component of what is now Burgess Park pre-dates the Abercrombie Plan. This is the King George's Field, opened in 1938 on the site of a former baths and swimming pool, at the Addington Square end of the park.

The early stages of the expansion of the park led to the incorporation of the North Camberwell Open Space in 1965. That open space included the churchyard of St George's, Camberwell, which had been designed by Francis Bedford in 1824. The churchyard had ceased to be used for burials in 1856. In 1886 it was acquired as a public open space by the Metropolitan Public Gardens Association and laid out as a public garden with funds provided by Viscountess Ossington. Catherine Gladstone opened the garden in 1887. After the churchyard was incorporated into the North Camberwell Open Space, it was re-landscaped in 1966. However, the church closed in 1970 and was allowed to become derelict. When the church was adapted to private housing in 1994, most of the garden was allowed to become a private garden.

An important stage in the construction of the park was the closure of the Grand Surrey Canal in the early 1970s, which terminated at Addington Wharf on Camberwell Road. The canal served the Surrey Commercial Docks, and the area near Camberwell was full of 19th-century streets, houses and industrial buildings (including an R White's ginger beer factory and the Watkins Bible Factory ), many of which had suffered heavy bomb damage during WWII. The stretch of canal now incorporated in the park is the site of Camberwell Wharf, which was virtually straight. Other land incorporated in the park was occupied by housing.

Named Burgess Park in 1973 (after Councillor Jessie Burgess, Camberwell's first female Mayor), it is still incomplete and contains some former roads which have been stopped up but not yet grassed over. The boundaries of Burgess Park remain a matter of dispute, and because the park is unfinished, it is regularly the subject of proposals to build housing, schools, or transport links of the sort that would never be contemplated in one of London's older parks of Victorian origin.

Features
There are a large number of listed buildings in the Park, remnants of the streets which once occupied the site: an early 19th century lime kiln, the Passmore Edwards library, baths and wash houses (the piers and railings of which are separately listed) and the former almshouses in Chumleigh Gardens (which have three separate listings). The whole of the Passmore Edwards building was listed as an asset of community value in 2014. The adjacent former church of St George designed by Bedford, now converted into flats, is also listed; some parts of its former churchyard form part of the park. Its war memorial of Christ, head bowed, holding a crown of thorns, by the Danish artist Arild Rosenkrantz, is also listed.

The library, baths and wash houses are occupied by the Lynn AC boxing club and formerly by a theatre group Theatre Delicatessen. An external wall has a large mosaic of a Camberwell Beauty butterfly. The almshouses are occupied by offices and by a café. There are also several bridges, which once used to cross the canal.

Chumleigh Gardens, near the centre of the park, is a World Garden, with plants and landscaping designed to reflect the diversity of the surrounding population of this highly cosmopolitan portion of London. It was established in 1995, in the grounds of the former Female Friendly Society Asylum.

Recent additions to the park include Silent Raid, an art installation by Sally Hogarth commemorating Zeppelin raids on the local area in 1917 and a memorial to locally-born Jack Harvey VC.

There is a thriving Friends of Burgess Park who also have an online heritage project on the park, Bridge To Nowhere. In the past, the park has played host to many festivals, including, in August, the Carnaval Del Pueblo, Europe's largest celebration of Latin American culture.

Facilities
In 2009, Burgess Park was one of 11 parks throughout Greater London chosen to receive money for redevelopment by a public vote. The park received a grant of £2 million from Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, as part of a London-wide competition, and the money was used to install better footpaths, additional lighting, refurbished public toilets and new play areas for children. Subsequent plans existed to top this up to £6 million by Southwark Council, to ensure the renovation of the space.

Peckham BMX Club are based in the park and has trained several world-class riders including Olympic medallist Kye Whyte.

Other facilities include: tennis courts, football pitches, a rugby field (winter) / cricket oval (summer), a bbq area, a sports centre, a nursery, a community art project, Art in the Park, a local rugby club, Southwark Tigers, and two playgrounds. The park hosts a Saturday morning 5 km ParkRun.

title: Burgess Park


text:
Thermal equator

The thermal equator (also known as "the heat equator") is a belt encircling Earth, defined by the set of locations having the highest mean annual temperature at each longitude around the globe. Because local temperatures are sensitive to the geography of a region, mountain ranges and ocean currents ensure that smooth temperature gradients (such as might be found if Earth were uniform in composition and devoid of surface irregularities) are impossible, the location of the thermal equator is not identical to that of the geographic Equator.

The term is less frequently used to describe the belt of maximum temperatures surrounding the globe which migrates roughly between the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn. This region is known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone. This zone is the result of trade winds from the northern and southern part of the hemisphere eventually joining together.

Still another definition states that the thermal equator is the latitude at which insolation is identical throughout the year. This is not the same as the astronomical equator because Earth reaches perihelion (the minimum distance from the Sun in its orbit) in early January and is at aphelion (maximum distance) in early July. Therefore, insolation is somewhat higher at 0° latitude in January than in July even though the height of the Sun (at noon) and the length of day (from sunrise to sunset) is essentially the same. At a few degrees north of the Equator, the perihelion/aphelion factor is balanced by the fact that the angle of the Sun is slightly more direct, and the days are slightly longer, at the time of the summer solstice for the Northern Hemisphere (most commonly on June 21), making the level of insolation virtually the same in both "summer" and "winter."

Chennai, India, at 13 degrees north, is considered to lie on the thermal equator at its longitude (80 degrees east).

title: Thermal equator


text:
Nephi, son of Lehi

Nephi is one of the central figures described in the Book of Mormon. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is described as the son of Lehi, a prophet, and the founder of the Nephite people. The Book of Mormon also describes him as the author of its first two books, First and Second Nephi.

In the narrative, Nephi's family flees Jerusalem as commanded by God but returns twice. The first time, Lehi's sons return to retrieve the brass plates from a man named Laban. After two unsuccessful attempts to get the plates, Nephi, prompted by the Holy Spirit, kills Laban and receives the plates after disguising himself as Laban. The next time they return, the brothers convince Ishmael's family to join them. Both times Nephi's life is threatened by two of his older brothers, Laman and Lemuel.

After spending eight years in the wilderness, the family reaches the land Bountiful, where Nephi builds a ship under the direction of God. As the family voyages across the sea, Laman and Lemuel rebel, tying Nephi when he admonishes them about their behavior. A storm pushes them back on their journey, and eventually Laman and Lemuel untie him. Some time after their arrival in the Promised Land, Laman and Lemuel once again try to kill Nephi and he flees with several members of the family. Now safe, Nephi becomes a leader over his people and builds a prosperous community. Nephi is the subject of religious scholarship and various creative authorial works.

Background and family

According to the Book of Mormon, Nephi is the fourth of six sons of Lehi and Sariah. Nephi and his family live in Jerusalem, circa 600 BC, during the reign of King Zedekiah, who is initiated as king under the direction of Nebuchadnezzar. They live there until Lehi is commanded by God to take his family and flee into the wilderness. Before their flight, Nephi's father Lehi prophesies of the impending destruction and captivity of Jerusalem by the armies of Babylon, an event mentioned in the Bible several times.

Family tree
Nephi also mentions having sisters, though he does not give their names or birth orders. Little is known about Nephi's children. Religious scholar Grant Hardy suggests that all of Nephi's children may have been daughters at the time of passing on the record, or that his sons were influenced by Laman and Lemuel; his speculations are based on the fact that Nephi says he has children yet passes the record on to his brother Jacob.

Narrative
In the narrative of the Book of Nephi, Nephi and his family leave Jerusalem around 600 B.C., travel to the Red Sea, and journey three days farther into the wilderness, stopping in a valley by a river near the Red Sea. Lehi then sends four sons (Laman, Lemuel, Sam, and Nephi) back to Jerusalem to get the brass plates. After successfully obtaining them, they are commanded to return to Jerusalem a second time to bring Ishmael's family.

Returning to Jerusalem
A powerful man named Laban, who is a kinsman to Lehi, possesses the brass plates, a record kept by the Jews which contains their laws, customs, history, and lineage. Nephi and his brothers attempt three times to get them from Laban. First, they send Laman, whom Laban accuses of theft and sends servants to kill when he asks for the plates. Nephi convinces his brothers to try buying the plates using their abandoned wealth; Laban refuses the offer, though he keeps the goods, and sends his servants to kill them. After running away, the brothers hide in a cave, where Laman and Lemuel beat Nephi and Sam. An angel appears and stops them. Nephi returns a third time to make a final attempt to get the plates. When Nephi finds Laban drunk and passed out in the street, the Lord commands him to kill Laban—an idea Nephi struggles with. The Spirit tells him that it is better for "one man to perish than for an entire nation to dwindle and perish in unbelief." Nephi follows through with the command and then dresses himself in Laban's clothing and armor. He returns to Laban's house and orders Zoram, one of Laban's servants, to bring him the brass plates. When he leads Zoram back to his brothers, they think that Nephi is Laban and turn to flee; Nephi calls out to them. Realizing that Nephi is not Laban, Zoram turns to run, but Nephi stops him. He commands him to join them as an act of self-preservation, to which Zoram consents.

Sometime after they obtain the brass plates, the Lord tells Lehi to send his sons back to Jerusalem so they can convince Ishmael’s family to join them. This allows Lehi’s sons to marry, as Ishmael is father to five daughters. They succeed and return to the wilderness. During the journey, Laman and Lemuel as well as members of Ishmael’s family defy Nephi, three of Ishmael’s daughters, and Ishmael and his wife. They want to go back to Jerusalem. When Nephi warns them that they will be destroyed if they do so, they tie him up, planning to leave him behind on their journey. Nephi's bonds are loosed by the Lord when he prays for help. Laman and Lemuel want to tie him again, but eventually give in to the pleas of mercy from Ishmael's family.

Nephi and his family spend eight years in the wilderness, facing many hardships. At one point Nephi's bow breaks, making it difficult to obtain food. While the rest of the family complains, Nephi sets forth to make a new bow and prays to God for help.

Building the ship and voyage
Finally, in the land of Bountiful, God commands Nephi to build a ship and sail to the Promised Land. However, Laman and Lemuel do not think he should build it. They try to throw Nephi into the depths of the sea; however, Nephi commands them not to, warning them that they will be smitten by the power of God if they touch him. In response, Laman and Lemuel try worshipping Nephi, but he commands them to stop. Meanwhile, the Spirit protects Nephi.

Partway through the voyage over sea, Laman, Lemuel, and some of Ishmael's family participate in irreverent revelry. Nephi asks them to stop, but in their anger they tie him up. The Liahona stops working and they are significantly delayed in their journey until the brothers finally untie him. This done, Nephi prays to God and the storm calms down.

Life in the Promised Land
Not long after arriving in the Promised Land, Lehi dies, leaving the leadership of the colony in Nephi's hands. His brothers Laman and Lemuel rebel shortly thereafter, and the colony splits into two. Nephi's followers name themselves "Nephites" while the others are dubbed "Lamanites." The Nephites separate into the wilderness, where they begin building in the land of Nephi. Within twenty-one years of arriving in the Promised Land, Nephi's people construct a temple. Nephi teaches his people artisan skills, including but not limited to wood and metal work. Under Nephi's leadership, the Nephite civilization prospers despite occasional war with the Lamanites. According to the Book of Mormon, Nephi is revered by his people. Upon his death, Jacob is entrusted with keeping the records of the Book of Mormon.

Nephi's vision
After his father receives a Vision of the Tree of Life, Nephi receives a similar vision and records it in detail, including an interpretation of each element of the dream. Nephi also sees and records details of the birth, life, and crucifixion of Jesus Christ. An angel also shows him similar things to those found in the vision of John the Revelator.

Obtaining the brass plates
Anthropologist Steven L. Olsen points out that the journey to possess the brass plates is the first instance in which Nephi is portrayed as a leader of his brothers. Additionally, Olsen points out that deliverance and remembering are themes that show up in Nephi's account. In fact, the concept of deliverance is one factor in Nephi's contemplation of killing Laban. Writing about this contemplation, R. John Williams, who is an assistant professor of English at Yale, concludes that while Nephi's internal struggle is very personal, his rationalization of killing Laban appears to be more unemotional. According to Hardy, Nephi's difficult decision demonstrates the value of the brass plates to his family. Robert L. Millet explains that the brass plates serve as a link between the Nephites and their predecessors. The content of the plates gives the people a connection to their ancestors, culture, and religious beliefs.

Further, healthcare technologist Ben McGuire identifies what he calls "thematic parallels" between Nephi's slaying of Laban and David's killing of Goliath; among the parallels are confrontation with an intimidating foe, fear of the foe, and slaughter of the foe. Author Elizabeth Fenton, on the other hand, compares Nephi and Laban to David and Saul, pointing out that Nephi killed Laban but David did not kill Saul, while both were encouraged to kill said enemies.

The ship
The design for Nephi's ship is divine, which theme is common in various Biblical stories, says legal editor Alan Goff. He points out that Nephi wants to make it clear that he is following a divine pattern. On another note, Riess compares Nephi's calming of the water to Jesus' calming of the storm in the New Testament, pointing out that while Jesus used his own power, Nephi prayed.

Visions
Like others, during his visions Nephi is often taken by the Spirit into a mountain. Brent Farley, who is the former manager of Church Educational System College Curriculum within the LDS church, explains in a devotional-type article that this transportation by the Spirit to a mountain typically occurs in religious records when a temple is unavailable to worship in.

Nephi as a narrator
Though Nephi begins his narrative with a basic genealogy, he eventually shifts from a familial to a national focus. Nevertheless, he is conscious of his posterity as he writes. Nephi desires that his record should be filled with religious things. Hardy proposes that Nephi portrays Laman and Lemuel in a negative light in order to solidify his purpose of showing the Lord’s deliverance. Nephi rarely talks about Laman and Lemuel individually, and hardly mentions Sam—possibly an attempt to greater emphasize Laman and Lemuel. Robert A. Rees agrees concerning Nephi's rhetorical purposes, stating that Nephi is deliberately shaping the reading experience. He argues that Nephi brings his first-person biases into the narrative, making it difficult for his readers to have an impartial perspective. In Claudia L. Bushman's view, Nephi emphasizes different aspects of the narrative more than others, which impacts the reader experience. According to Hardy, however, Nephi’s motives are not only religious but also political. Latter-day Saint lawyer Nathan B. Oman explains that legal issues are woven into Nephi's narrative, especially those that concern his brothers.

Fenton argues that Nephi did not write the Book of Mormon for the Nephites, as implied by his inclusion of his dream about their destruction. Nephi was well-versed in Jewish scripture and could read and write in Egyptian. His teaching style has been described as "frank, direct, and even blunt." At the same time, Rees suggests that Nephi may have drawn inspiration for his writing style from passages found in the brass plates. Allusions to the Exodus are deliberate throughout Nephi's record, Michael Austin explains. Hardy notes several parallels between Nephi and Joseph: both are younger, favored sons whose older brothers resent him and attempt to murder him. Both escape death and later save their families from starvation. Contrasting the stories, Hardy finds that Joseph's story has more emotional range, whereas Nephi's narrative is limited to his "one-sided narrative." Bushman also notices that Nephi relies very little on the experiences of the other members of his travel party.

Writing in Dialogue in 1969, Robert E. Nichols noticed similarities between Nephi and a writing style from the heroic age. As evidence, Nichols draws parallels between the narrative's emphasis on Nephi's strength and manly skills and Beowulf's great strength and skills in Beowulf. In this reading, Nephi's beot, or ritual boast, is found in the famous passage where he says he will "go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded," and his brothers become his band of warriors.

Nephi's legacy
The first major figure in the Book of Mormon, Nephi is regarded by members of the Latter Day Saint Movement as a prophet, political leader, and record keeper. Bergin points out that Nephi shares some semblance to Moses, such as being a colonial leader. Riess also points out similarities between the two, such as their both receiving commandments from the Lord atop a mountain. A number of individuals throughout the Book of Mormon were named after Nephi, including all of the kings in the early Nephite civilization. Additionally, his people referred to themselves as "Nephites"–a name that followed them through the entire 1000-year history given in the Book of Mormon. Nephi is also the name of a city in Utah.

Etymology of Nephi
The origin of the name Nephi is uncertain and disputed. Based on a non-Latter-day Saint or secular perspective, hypotheses for the name's origin include:
 * Its appearance as a geographic name in 2 Maccabees of the Deuterocanon: "And Neemias called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say, a cleansing: but many men call it Nephi."
 * A reference to the nephilim ( נְפִילִים ), who are the mythical half-immortal "giants" described in Genesis. The name means "fallen ones."
 * Or the term Nephes, which is a Kabbalistic term for a ghost that wanders around sepulchers.

Latter-day Saint scholar John Gee theorizes that Nephi is a Hebrew form of the Egyptian name Nfr. In Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions of Egyptian names containing nfr, the nfr element is rendered npy, and the closely related Hebrew language would presumably transcribe the name the same way.

Nephi in Latter-day Saint literature
Orrin R. Wilcox writes about the journey of Nephi's family in verse form, telling it from Nephi's perspective. In two of the poems Wilcox shares the story of why Nephi's family left Jerusalem, then describes the family relationships. "I was built large in stature / And my brothers did defy," he explains. Wilcox continues to contrast Nephi with Laman and Lemuel, specifically discussing their attitudes about leaving Jerusalem. Later, he writes about obtaining the brass plates and visiting Ishmael's family. When he writes about the brass plates, Wilcox explores the feelings and actions of Nephi as he kills Laban and brings Zoram with him.

In her collection Book of Mormon and Other Poems, Latter-day Saint poet Mildred Hunt includes a poem that tells of the retrieval of Ishmael's daughters in an allegory of gardeners coming to select beautiful willow and cypress trees for their homes, where the trees represent Ishmael's daughters and the gardeners represent the sons of Lehi. She spends most of the poem describing the grace and beauty of the trees; in the last stanza, however, she tells how their father let the four gardeners select their trees of choice. In her poetry she also explores how Nephi may have felt at various points in his life, including an inference of what successes he may have experienced: "How thankful and how pleased, Nephi, were you / When that first harvest gilt the wilderness."

An emeritus English professor at Pepperdine University and Latter-day Saint, Michael R. Collings wrote a book entitled The Nephiad. This epic-style work retells parts of the life of Nephi, from Lehi's revelation to leave Jerusalem to Nephi's vision of Jesus Christ, with some creative imagination. Collings describes Nephi's vision of the Americas at the time of Jesus' death as follows: "This Nephi saw, and fain would turn away / Tormented eyes from scenes calamitous / ...Tempests, floods, and quakings o'er the Land / With fracturing force disrupted Spring-smooth soils."

title: Nephi, son of Lehi