   |
|
|
1 And now I, Mormon, being about to deliver up the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni, behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites. W of M 1:2 2 And it is many hundred years after the coming of Christ that I deliver these records into the hands of my son; and it supposeth me that he will witness the entire destruction of my people. But may God grant that he may survive them, that he may write somewhat concerning them, and somewhat concerning Christ, that perhaps some day it may profit them.
"Words of Mormon 1:1 And now I, Mormon, being about to deliver up the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni, behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites." Mormon's name does not appear in the text from 1 Nephi to Omni because those records are not abridged. They are entered into the record without any abridgment. Prior to this statement in Mormon's abridgment we have the mention of Mormon in the Title Page, but that text is best analyzed as being written wholly by Moroni rather than Mormon. This means that when we come to the initial introduction to the main editor of the record in Words of Mormon, we begin with some very interesting assumptions on Mormon's part. First, Mormon simply declares who he is, and when he is writing. This is essential since the text is intercalated into a much earlier time period. He must make a significant break in order to let the reader understand the transition from the historical text of the small plates to the abridgment he has made of the large plates. Nevertheless, it is a very brief introduction with no more introduction to who he is than to simply indicated his name. Second, Mormon assumes that we know something about his editorial process. He is writing a shorter history from the longer history that is contained on what is termed the "plates of Nephi." When he references his major source, he is extremely brief and spends his time explaining the small plates - his alternate material: "Words of Mormon 1:3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi. Mormon explains how he found this alternate source, and simply mentions that it occurred "after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi." Mormon simply assumes that we both know who he is, and what he is doing. That assumption continues in his editorial asides in his abridged text. In most cases, he even presumes that we know who he is without any reference to his name at all: "Mosiah 8:1 And it came to pass that after king Limhi had made an end of speaking to his people, for he spake many things unto them and only a few of them have I written in this book, he told his people all the things concerning their brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla." Mormon's linkage text here includes both the first person insertion, and the information that the "I" has "written in this book." Both of these pieces of information must be related to Mormon and his editorial work, but Mormon inserts the first person "I" without any designation of the name of the person "I" refers to. When he indicates that he is writing in the book, he makes no description at all of the editorial process. He assumes that we understand that already. Similarly: Mosiah 28:18-20 "18 Now this account did cause the people of Mosiah to mourn exceedingly, yea, they were filled with sorrow; nevertheless it gave them much knowledge, in the which they did rejoice. 19 And this account shall be written hereafter; for behold, it is expedient that all people should know the things which are written in this account. 20 And now, as I said unto you, that after king Mosiah had done these things, he took the plates of brass, and all the things which he had kept, and conferred them upon Alma, who was the son of Alma; yea, all the records, and also the interpreters, and conferred them upon him, and commanded him that he should keep and preserve them, and also keep a record of the people, handing them down from one generation to another, even as they had been handed down from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem." Mormon's editorial insertion here indicates a foreknowledge of what will come later in the book without specifically noting that Mormon is the one who will choose to record it. In verse 20 we have the editor's "I" without specific reference to his name. The vast majority of the times that Mormon inserts his editorial "I" he leaves off the identification of who he is (see Alma 3:17-19, Alma 6:2-3, Alma 6:5, Alma 23:6, Alma 48:19-21, Alma 49:2-3, Alma 53:10, Hel. 2:13-14, Hel. 3:16-17, Hel. 12:25 (whole chapter is an intercalation), 3 Ne. 7:3, Ne. 7:23-24, 3 Ne. 28:36-37, and 3 Ne. 30:1). There are two exceptions to this. The first comes at the end of 4 Nephi where Mormon is in transition from the abridgment to his own holographic record: "4 Ne. 1:23 And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ." The most interesting of the exceptions is 3 Nephi 3 Ne. 5:12-19: "12 And behold, I am called Mormon, being called after the land of Mormon, the land in which Alma did establish the church among the people, yea, the first church which was established among them after their transgression. 13 Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life. 14 And it hath become expedient that I, according to the will of God, that the prayers of those who have gone hence, who were the holy ones, should be fulfilled according to their faith, should make a record of these things which have been done— 15 Yea, a small record of that which hath taken place from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, even down until the present time. 16 Therefore I do make my record from the accounts which have been given by those who were before me, until the commencement of my day; 17 And then I do make a record of the things which I have seen with mine own eyes. 18 And I know the record which I make to be a just and a true record; nevertheless there are many things which, according to our language, we are not able to write. 19 And now I make an end of my saying, which is of myself, and proceed to give my account of the things which have been before me. Until this point in his text, Mormon has simply assumed that we know who he is. In fact, although Words of Mormon does give some information, it is very likely that it was written after this statement in 3 Nephi (see Words of Mormon 1:1). Thus at this very late point in the abridgment, we have our most complete introduction to Mormon the editor. Here he tells us who he is, and describes somewhat of what he is doing with his source materials. We now have two issues; is this the first introduction, and if not, why is it here? While it is necessarily an argument from silence, I suggest that this is not our first introduction to Mormon, simply the first that has been preserved. Since the early portions of Mormon's abridgment proceed with the assumption that we know who he is and what he is doing, we must suppose that Mormon made this clear in some introductory statement which was lost with the 116 pages. Just as Nephi began his book with a personal statement, we must presume that Mormon would also have done so - with even greater need as Mormon's role as an editor would have to be made clear so his readers could understand in the text that followed the presumption that we can sort out the editorial insertions without identification or explanation. We may use as support of this hypothesis the chapter we know as Words of Mormon. When Mormon had a difficult transition, he attempted to smooth it out by providing linking text. There is no more abrupt transition that the beginning of a text, and so it would appear that he would also attempt to make that first transition from not-reading to reading as easy as possible. In the original 116 pages, we may also assume that Mormon would have begun with the same editorial style as we see later, and therefore that same presumption of understanding for the editorial insertions would have been interspersed in the text. Mormon could not have made that assumption unless he has previously introduced himself, his divine call to abridge the records he had received, and the purpose in so doing. Only after such an introduction may we be expected to understand the type of editorial insertions we see. Of course the clearly aberrant text is the 3 Nephi 12:19. If Mormon had previously introduced himself, why does he do it again? I suggest that this is a special insertion because of the nature of the material Mormon is about to include. Mormon is on the verge of relating the appearance of the Savior to his people. In addition to what was certainly the most sacred of his tasks, Mormon adds a particularly important qualification: "3 Nephi 5:13 Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life." Mormon is an apostle - a called witness for the Savior. I suggest that it is in the declared capacity of apostle that he prefaces this section. This introduction is not to Mormon the editor, but to Mormon the apostle - the special witness. He declares his position as that witness prior to describing the events. Redaction: The nature of the chapter is as a closing to (and explanation of) the small plates and a transition to the large plates that pick up afterward. Although the function of the chapter is clear, it is nevertheless problematic, because the information Mormon gives will make it difficult to understand both when Mormon wrote the chapter as well as where it was placed in the record he gave to Moroni. These verses give us an important reference to time. Mormon says that he is about to give the plates to Moroni, and that Mormon has already seen the near destruction of his people. We know from the book of Mormon in the Book of Mormon, that this condition occurs soon before Mormon's death. Since Mormon is about to give up the plates, and apparently does not have long to live, we understand that he will not be writing much more on the plates. In and of itself, this is not problematic, but will become so with more information below.
3 And now, I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written; for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi.
The only very clear reference in this verse is to the small plate materials. Mormon says that after he had written his abridgement of the plates of Nephi to the reign of Benjamin, he went searching his source materials (all of the plates that had been delivered into his hands. This verse tells us several important pieces of information. 1) Mormon did not work with a single set of records at a time that were completely in order. Even if there were only a single set of plates per ruler, they were not compiled into a physical set. We know this because he had to look through his records. If he were only looking for the very next record in the set, he would have found it in place and used it. It is the very fact of searching that tells us something of the state of the records from which the abridgement was made. There were multiple sets of records, and they were presented in a random order, from which Mormon had to extract some sense when he compiled his work. 2) While individual books would be named for specific people, as is retained in the translation of Mormon's account, there was a collective name for the entire set of records, which was the plates of Nephi. the use of this consistent designation for what was demonstrably multiple sets of records indicates that regardless of the specific content of any single set, it was yet entitled the "plates of Nephi"(see below for an more detailed analysis). 3) The time when Mormon found the small plates was when he was apparently looking for the next set of records to abridge. 4) Mormon did not know about these small plates before he found them. He was not looking for them, and their very existence appears to have been a surprise to him. While we cannot be certain that he read them through when he found them, that is the best hypothesis. Once Mormon had found the set of plates that he did not expect, he would have had to read some to know whether they were of any importance. Finding right at the beginning that they were actually in the hand of the original Nephi would have been too great a temptation for any man with a historical interest (and the job of abridging the plates surely gave Mormon such an interest if it were not natural to him). While Mormon would have had that same opportunity with the original large plates, that was an expected tradition. These were a surprise, and the way in which they retold a story Mormon had already abridged would be of as much interest to Mormon as reading Mormon's account of that time period would be to us today (and even more so the original of any of the plates from which Mormon abridged his information). 5) Mormon labels this a "small account." Jacob specifically calls them "small plates" (Jacob 1:1), as does Jarom (Jarom 1:2,14). These references are undoubtedly behind the LDS tradition of referring to these holograph plates as the "small plates of Nephi." We should understand, however, how they are "small." Much earlier, we discussed the creation of the plates, and suggested that the physical size and shape of each plate was related to the model of the brass plates. Without a standard size model, Nephi either made one up, or followed the only pattern of scripture he had. With the importance of the brass plates to Nephi, not only scripturally, but personally (remembering the very personal events that brought the plates out of Jerusalem) it makes sense that they were formed after the pattern of the brass plates (and indeed that both material and script were suggested by the plates). From the visual model of the brass plates Nephi created two sets of plates, one which becomes labeled "small" in our tradition, and the other "large," though only by reference to the "small" as they are never called that in the plates themselves. What the "small" plates are probably not - is smaller in single sheet size. Nephi would not have had any conception of a "pocket book" an alternate form factor that would be smaller in size. Indeed, while forging the original plates, it makes much more sense to make them all the same size, and simply use some in one record and some in another. Thus we should not suppose that the individual sheets of the 'small' plates would be any different size that the rest of the plates. The 'small' size, therefore is that the quantity of plates relegated to this set is significantly fewer than those with which Mormon is familiar. 7) We may also now infer something about the plates that Mormon used. Mormon had to physically abridge his sources onto a new set of plates. The modern descriptions of the plates have them held together with rings, but do not have a single section significantly different in shape. Since these holographic plates were included in the abridged set, we must assume that Mormon's plates were of the same basic size and shape as these original plates from Nephi. Therefore, the physical size that Nephi created became the de facto size for metal plate records throughout Nephite history. When Mormon finds these small plates and physically adds them to the plates he wrote on, they fit together just as sheets of store bought paper would today. While it does not surprise us that paper from one store should be the same as paper from another (indeed it is surprising when it is not) we ought to be surprised that an ancient form factor existed for the manual creation of plate records. Of course the simple explanation is that the records that Nephi created became the model for all such records that followed. The sacred nature of the records would encourage their following the same forms as the previous records. We should also understand that since Mormon makes the plates with his own hands (3 Nephi 5:11) that the plates need not have a fixed form prior to beginning to write on them. That is, he could have combined the sheets into their final form at any point (and indeed Moroni may have created the final arrangement of the physical order of the plates). 8) This is perhaps obvious, but it shouldn't be; Mormon could read what Nephi wrote. Mormon knows enough to be able to indicate that whatever was one "Egyptian" is now "reformed Egyptian." That distinction alone tells us that Mormon could see some difference between the old records and the language or script that he was using. That we have this record with no more introduction that we have indicates that Mormon could read it fairly easily, and that he presumed that anyone able to read his record could read that of Nephi also. Textual, defining the "plates of Nephi:" We are formally introduced to the plates of Nephi by Nephi himself: 1 Ne. 9:2 "2 And now, as I have spoken concerning these plates, behold they are not the plates upon which I make a full account of the history of my people; for the plates upon which I make a full account of my people I have given the name of Nephi; wherefore, they are called the plates of Nephi, after mine own name; and these plates also are called the plates of Nephi." Unfortunately, Nephi happens to call two different records by the same name. This may have been only logical to him as he wrote both, and intended to keep their transmission lines separate, but it can make it more difficult for the modern reader to understand the references to the "plates of Nephi" when they are not clearly separated. Modern tradition labels "large plates of Nephi" those that Nephi intended for the historical/political record, and the "small plates of Nephi" the very specific record that was given to Jacob and transmitted through Jacob's descendants until it was discontinued after Amaleki at the time of King Benjamin. We must remember, however, that this is an external designation for the plates, and when they refer to themselves they make no distinction between the large and small plates as we do. We should therefore examine a little more closely those internal reference to understand both to what they are referring, and the relationships between the various source materials. First, the internal references to sources are typically to the "plates of Nephi," without any other modifier. When Mormon is directly referring to both sets of plates, he uses "plates of Nephi" to mean what we would term the large plates. He gives no name to the "small plates:" Words of Mormon 1:4 4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass— Words of Mormon 1:5 5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people. Mormon simply refers to "these plates" (verse 4) and contrasts them to the better known set, the "plates of Nephi." Mormon is consistent in this reference to what we would call the "large plates" as simply the "plates of Nephi" (Mosiah 1:6, Mosiah 1:16, Mosiah 28:11, Alma 37:2, Alma 44:24, 3 Ne. 5:10, 3 Ne. 26:11, 3 NE. 26:6, 4 Ne. 1:19, and Morm. 1:4). There are two specific verses that are worth particular examination: Morm. 2:17 17 And now, the city of Jashon was near the land where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed. And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron. Morm. 2:18 18 And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man. From verse 18 we learn that Mormon (rather like the first Nephi) has written two records. The first is written directly on the "plates of Nephi," and the second is written on "these plates," referring to his abridgment. Morm. 6:6 6 And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. In this verse Mormon's very clearly indicates that the source material for his abridgment was the "plates of Nephi." We are now quite certain that the "plates of Nephi" began as the first set of plates create by Nephi, and they continued to be called the "plates of Nephi" throughout all of the subsequent writers on those plates. In spite of the use of the plates of Nephi as the primary source material, we must understand that the plates of Nephi were not the only available sources. At the very least we have the brass plates and the 24 plates that contained the record of Ether (Mosiah 8:9). To these we may also add the set of plates we call the "small plates of Nephi." There were yet been more: 3 Ne. 5:9 9 But behold there are records which do contain all the proceedings of this people; and a shorter but true account was given by Nephi. 3 NE. 5:10 10 Therefore I have made my record of these things according to the record of Nephi, which was engraven on the plates which were called the plates of Nephi. 3 NE. 5:11 11 And behold, I do make the record on plates which I have made with mine own hands. When Mormon refers to "a shorter but true account was given by Nephi" he does so in contrast to "records which do contain all the proceedings of this people." Mormon indicates that rather than use this more exhaustive source, he is abridging the shorter version found in the book of Nephi in the plates of Nephi. This "book of Nephi" refers to the Nephi contemporary with the visit of Christ. What is clearly significant is that there is a set of more complete information which are not on the "plates of Nephi." Therefore, Mormon had access to multiple records, only one series of which was termed the "plates of Nephi." As a last note, Mormon indicates in 3 Nephi 5:11 that he is writing on plates "which I have made with mine own hands." This is significant because it reminds us that the production of plates was an essential forerunner to the ability to write on them. Were one to run out of space on the inherited set of plates, new ones would have to be made. We have seen that the small plates ended partially because they were full, and there was no room left on which to write on them (Omni 1:30). It is unlikely that Amaleki would have had the resources to make more plates. In the context of Mormon's records, a single continuously "bound" set of plates cannot describe the "plates of Nephi," particularly when we remember that Mormon had to go looking among his plates after abridging the records up to the time of Benjamin (Words of Mormon 1:3). The physical arrangement of the "plates of Nephi" had to be separate sets of plates for various writers, probably akin to the small plates, where available space allowed some continuation from writer to writer on the same set of plates, but that other writers would have begun on a different physical set. What is important to remember is that this multiplicity of physical plates, each bearing the individual name of the particular author, was yet collectively termed the "plates of Nephi." It would therefore appear that this term, "plates of Nephi," had become a generic label for a particular type of historical record kept by the Nephites, although it was not the only record kept.
4 And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ; and my fathers knowing that many of them have been fulfilled; yea, and I also know that as many things as have been prophesied concerning us down to this day have been fulfilled, and as many as go beyond this day must surely come to pass—
5 Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them, which remainder of my record I shall take from the plates of Nephi; and I cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people.
Mormon will "finish [his] record upon" the small plates. He "shall take" the remainder of his record from the plates of Nephi. In connection with that larger collective name of "plates of Nephi," he indicates that he "cannot write the hundredth part of the things of my people." The problem is the juxtaposition of "finishing" on the small plates, and then continuing to write the bulk of our current Book of Mormon starting at Mosiah. If Mormon is near death when he is writing this interlude known as Words of Mormon (as suggested by verse 1) he does not have time left to abridge the records from Benjamin to his own time given his proximate demise. Daniel H. Ludlow summarizes: "In verse 5, Mormon mentions that he is going to finish his record upon "these things" and that he will take the remainder of his record "from the plates of Nephi." Several questions have been raised concerning this brief verse by Mormon: (1) First of all, to what is he referring when he states he is going to finish his record? (2) To what plates is he referring when he says he will finish his record upon these things? (3) To what section of his writings is he referring when he talks of the remainder of his record? Most Book of Mormon scholars have assumed that when Mormon refers to finishing "his record" he had in mind the rest of his writings in the small section entitled The Words of Mormon. Most scholars also assume that "these things" refer to the small plates of Nephi. If this interpretation is correct, then the section entitled The Words of Mormon was written at the end of the small plates of Nephi. According to these scholars, the fact that Amaleki says the small plates of Nephi are already full (Omni 30) does not necessarily rule out the possibility of adding the brief notes that make up The Words of Mormon. Mormon's reference to the "remainder" of his record is a little more confusing. Some scholars believe that here Mormon is referring to the rest of his writings in The Words of Mormon, the ideas of which he obtained from the large plates of Nephi. Other scholars, however, believe that Mormon is referring to that portion of his abridgment from the large plates of Nephi which he has not yet written on his plates of Mormon. Unfortunately, the pronoun reference in verse 5 does not make it possible to determine Mormon's meaning exactly." Ludlow, Daniel H. A Companion To Your Study Of The Book Of Mormon. Deseret Book 1976, pp. 171-172.) Mormon's record is very clearly the abridgment he is creating from the plates of Nephi. The most interesting suggestion here is that the Words of Mormon appear physically on the small plates. That explains the "upon" in a very literal way. However, it is not a necessary addition, as Mormon is equally as clearly adding these plates just before giving the set of plates to Moroni, and this the act of inclusion is equally a "finishing upon" as writing on the physical plates would be. The suggestion that Mormon still have the Mosiah to 4 Nephi section of the plates left to write contradicts the intent of verse 1 and does not appear to be a viable solution (although Eldin Ricks appears to hold this position, see Ricks, Eldin, "The Small Plates of Nephi and the Words of Mormon." The Book of Mormon: Jacob Through Words of Mormon, To Learn With Joy. BYU,1990, p. 216).
6 But behold, I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren.
7 And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will.
D&C 10:38 38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the plates of Nephi; D&C10:39 39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi. D&C 10:40 40 And now, because the account which is engraven upon the plates of Nephi is more particular concerning the things which, in my wisdom, I would bring to the knowledge of the people in this account— D&C 10:41 41 Therefore, you shall translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi, down even till you come to the reign of king Benjamin, or until you come to that which you have translated, which you have retained; D&C 10:42 42 And behold, you shall publish it as the record of Nephi; and thus I will confound those who have altered my words. D&C 10:43 43 I will not suffer that they shall destroy my work; yea, I will show unto them that my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil. D&C 10:44 44 Behold, they have only got a part, or an abridgment of the account of Nephi. D&C 10:45 45 Behold, there are many things engraven upon the plates of Nephi which do throw greater views upon my gospel; therefore, it is wisdom in me that you should translate this first part of the engravings of Nephi, and send forth in this work. Most fascinating about these verses is that there is no clear division between the large and small plates of Nephi. Just as Nephi called them the same thing, so the Lord appears to make no distinction. Nevertheless, the two sets of plates must be referenced here. Note the enigmatic reading of verses 38 and 39: D&C 10:38 38 And now, verily I say unto you, that an account of those things that you have written, which have gone out of your hands, is engraven upon the plates of Nephi; D&C10:39 39 Yea, and you remember it was said in those writings that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi. In verse 38 the very clear reference is to the large plates, because the reference is to the source of the 116 manuscript pates "which have gone out of your hands." Therefore in verse 38 "plates of Nephi" must refer to the large plates. In verse 39, however, there is a shift in emphasis. In the text of "those writings" (forcibly referring to the previous verse, and therefore the large plates) the Lord notes that "it was said… that a more particular account was given of these things upon the plates of Nephi." If we read "plates of Nephi" in this verse to be the same as the "plates of Nephi" in the previous verse, we are left with the contradictory idea that the document stated that there was a more particular account written in that same document. At one and the same time it would suggest a separate document, but hold that they were the same document. This makes no sense except that the small plates were also called by the same name, and that they were physically included in the large plate tradition. We may speculate, therefore, that at the end of the material immediately prior to the inclusion of the small plates, there was a similar transition between abridgment and small plates as we have in Words of Mormon. In that missing transition, the plates would have been named, and described as a "more particular" account. Joseph would have already read this transition in order to have the Lord call it to his remembrance. It may be, however, that the Lord did not have him translate it at that time, again for the "wise purpose" of foiling the possible attempt at discrediting the translation through the alteration of the 116 manuscript pages, which was Joseph's fear.
8 And my prayer to God is concerning my brethren, that they may once again come to the knowledge of God, yea, the redemption of Christ; that they may once again be a delightsome people.
9 And now I, Mormon, proceed to finish out my record, which I take from the plates of Nephi; and I make it according to the knowledge and the understanding which God has given me.
While there are internal reasons to use the "small plates of Nephi" designation or the plates Mormon has inserted, it is not one that Mormon used. Indeed, Mormon does not specifically name them, nor refer to them as anything other than "these plates." However, I have suggested that he might have introduced them by their duplicative "plates of Nephi" name in the putative lost introduction.
10 Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin.
In the preface to the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith indicates: "I would inform you that I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took form the Book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon… " (Preface, Book of Mormon. 1830 facsimile edition, Herald Heritage Reprint. 1970.) The preface was removed in the 1837 and subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon (Brewster, Quinn. "The Structure of the Book of Mormon: A Theory of Evolutionary Development." Dialogue. P. 130). Brewster's analysis of the structure of the Book of Mormon suggests that Joseph Smith was not completely cognizant of the interrelationships among the source plates as he was dictating the text. (Brewster, Quinn. "The Structure of the Book of Mormon: A Theory of Evolutionary Development." Dialogue). While his analysis depends upon a very different reading of the hints in Words of Mormon (for instance, Brewster sees Mormon writing the Mosiah-Mormon section after Words of Mormon. See p. 132) he is apparently correct that Joseph did not have an accurate understanding of the composition of the plates. The best evidence is the preface's indication that the Book of Lehi was taken from the plates of Lehi. This is not correct, according to the internal evidence from the translation we have received. What is undisputed is that the lost 116 pages constituted a "Book of Lehi." Nevertheless, the translation that picks up immediately in Mosiah comes from the plates of Nephi, according to the consistent references Mormon makes in the Mosiah-Mormon section of our current Book of Mormon. It is also certain that there was a record of Lehi's deeds, probably created early in the family exodus, which served as a resource for Nephi's citations of Lehi in Nephi's record that we have in 1 and 2 Nephi (see Brown, S. Kent " Nephi's Use of Lehi's Record." In: Rediscovering the Book of Mormon. ed. John L. Sorenson and Melvin J. Thorne. FARMS 1991, pp. 3-14). In spite of the existence of this original record, what we have in our current Book of Mormon is Nephi's abridgement, molded into his own narrative (1 Nephi 1:17). Our course all this tells us is that there was a record of Lehi, and therefore the possibility that the Book of Lehi came from the "plates of Lehi," just as Joseph said in the 1830 preface. However, the evidence from 2 Nephi seems to counter that proposal, as well as the probably nature of Lehi's record. Brown suggests that Lehi's account was likely begun while yet in Jerusalem, and was continued throughout the family exodus. The necessity of carrying the record when they already had the heavy brass plates suggests that it was probably written on a perishable material (see Brown, 1991, p. 5 for his full analysis on the reasons for suspecting a perishable material rather than metal plates). When Nephi flees from his brothers, he specifically mentions taking the brass plates and the Liahona, but no mention is made of any other plates (2 Nephi 5:12). Later in that same chapter, Nephi speaks of his "other plates" on which he has a more particular history (2 Nephi 5:29). Thus we know that Nephi made an abridgement of the record of Lehi on at least the small plates, and that he made and kept a more complete record on the large plates. While a record of Lehi certainly existed, it does not appear to have existed on metal plates, and our current Book of Mormon is an abridgement of plates, never mentioning perishable sources. Indeed, Jacob specifically notes that perishable records would indeed perish (Jacob 4:1-2). The suggested resolution to this excursion into the Book of Mormon "plate tectonics" is that Joseph simply assumed plates of Lehi because of the plates and source material, and the existence of the Book of Lehi. The Book of Lehi was an abridgement by Mormon from the "plates of Nephi," or the large plates. When Nephi wrote that set of plates, he was using apparently began with the Book of Lehi, and did not change the book to his own name when he became the ruler (regardless of the nature of the source material of Lehi's record, it is clear that the Book of Lehi as translated continued to the beginning of our Book of Mosiah). It is unknown whether or not there were "book" divisions, but since the 116 manuscript pages are consistently known as the Book of Lehi, it appears that there were no other divisions. The last interesting question would be why the "unbooked" Book of Lehi - with apparently no "book" divisions for different rulers (though different chapters would be certain) suddenly changed names only at the Benjamin/Mosiah break. The Printer's Manuscript for our Book of Mosiah originally listed it as "Chapter II" rather than "Chapter I" (Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS 1987, 2:356). Since the best evidence is that Joseph recommenced his translating with Mosiah rather than 1 Nephi, (see Book of Mormon Critical Text. FARMS 1987, pp. 33-37) this appears to suggest that some of the Book of Mosiah covered the reign of Benjamin. I would suggest that it might have been the book of Mosiah I, and that the break from the ruling dynasty for the city of Nephi was the reason for the shift in the naming convention in our received text. It appears that this possibility of naming the gross "book" for the dynastic founder may also explain the reason that there was no Book of Benjamin. Benjamin certainly reigned during important times, and his farewell speech is a classic, but all we know of Benjamin comes from the sparse notes in Omni and Words of Mormon, and the official inclusion in the Book of Mosiah.
11 And they were handed down from king Benjamin, from generation to generation until they have fallen into my hands. And I, Mormon, pray to God that they may be preserved from this time henceforth. And I know that they will be preserved; for there are great things written upon them, out of which my people and their brethren shall be judged at the great and last day, according to the word of God which is written.
12 And now, concerning this king Benjamin—he had somewhat of contentions among his own people.
Although Mormon tells us nothing except that they existed, the source material he was using surely went into greater detail. We may presume that this is a very heavy handed editorial, preserving the essence of the problems without discussing the specifics. They would appear to be significant, because this verse is in the transition, and has no real function as a transition. If there were minor contentions, they would not have been worth mentioning.
13 And it came to pass also that the armies of the Lamanites came down out of the land of Nephi, to battle against his people. But behold, king Benjamin gathered together his armies, and he did stand against them; and he did fight with the strength of his own arm, with the sword of Laban.
Mormon mentions that Benjamin fought "with the strength of his own arm" which suggests that Benjamin was active in the actual fighting. Mormon also notes that Benjamin employed the sword of Laban. By this time, the sword of Laban is over 300 years old, and a sacred/political relic. Although certainly wielded physically in the past, the reference to wielding the sword of Laban may here be more ceremonial than physical. The sword of Laban was a metal sword, and while durable, not imperishable. It would have been cared for, but 300 years of maintaining an edge would have diminished the strength of the blade, as swords are sharpened by removing small amounts of the metal and forming a new edge. It is most likely that wielding the sword was a visual symbol rather than a weapon at this point in Nephite history.
14 And in the strength of the Lord they did contend against their enemies, until they had slain many thousands of the Lamanites. And it came to pass that they did contend against the Lamanites until they had driven them out of all the lands of their inheritance.
15 And it came to pass that after there had been false Christs, and their mouths had been shut, and they punished according to their crimes;
Benjamin's religion would be an anomaly in Mesoamerican religion - a denial of accepted deities and actions. We know that the Zarahemlaites had lost their religion, meaning that they had lost the Jerusalem religion. It is clear from this evidence that the melding of religious ideas was ultimately even harder than melding the cultural styles. The next interesting aspect of Mormon's description is that there were false Christs. When we saw Sherem before Jacob, modern interpreters have labeled him an anti-Christ, not a false Christ. Mormon is writing much later, so we cannot be absolutely certain what was on the plates. What we have are Mormon's words in the 400's CE that Benjamin had to deal with false Christs. What might he have meant? A false teacher or a false prophet is one who teachers a false teaching. While an "false Christ" would also teach false teachings, the problem is intensified in that the person himself is "false." In order to be a false Christ, the person must purport himself to be Christ. Remembering that Sherem denied the future Christ entirely, it is not really likely that there were those who were attempting to claim the status of this future Messiah. Only those within the Nephite religious tradition would have known enough to be able to present themselves as a "Christ." This would seem unlikely given the religious cohesiveness of the Nephites who fled Nephi and entered Zarahemla. The Zarahemlaites had lost their Jewish religion, and had not had the benefit of New World prophecies heightening the Messianic expectation. Something else would appear to be represented by the idea of "false Christs" this early after the joining of the Nephites and Zarahemlaites. Although the term and culture far post-date the Book of Mormon, a possible explanation comes from the Nahua concept of ixiptla. "The Aztecs appear to have been a people compelled to insist on the visible presences of their gods. In the conceptualization of these presences they went to extremes of detail… But the Aztecs had a special type of idol which differed radically in that it was animate and incarnate. This was the ixiptla, "image" or "representative," a person who wore the regalia, acted out the part of the god, and then was sacrificed." (Brundage, Burr Cartwright. The Fifth Sun. University of Texas Press, 1979, p. 57). There are aspects of the Aztec ixiptla that probably did not pertain to Benjamin's time, such as the final sacrifice of the deity-incarnate. However, the concept of the representation of the god's by donning the masks of the gods appears to have wide representation in Maya culture in the iconography. It may be that the term "false Christs" was appropriate because the persons were deity impersonators from the competing religions - people perpetrating the old religion by donning the regalia of the gods to continue in the old ways. This would certainly have caused a division - a "contention" in Zarahemla between the way of the newly entered Nephites and the old Zarahemlaites.
16 And after there had been false prophets, and false preachers and teachers among the people, and all these having been punished according to their crimes; and after there having been much contention and many dissensions away unto the Lamanites, behold, it came to pass that king Benjamin, with the assistance of the holy prophets who were among his people—
Next, however, we note that there were "many dissensions away unto the Lamanites." Everything we see about these particular contentions is based on religion, and the solution for many who were unable to accept the newly imposed religious/political regime left Zarahemla - and went to the Lamanites. In terms of the Book of Mormon, that would be logical because there was no other named people to whom to turn. However, we might doubt that they went to the very people who were defeated in battle not long before this. Nevertheless, they did go to some "Lamanite" (read non-Nephite) group. Given the religious cause of the dissention, we may suppose that they left to go to a group of people following the more common religion of the land, though probably not the Lamanites in the land of Nephi, who would have a different language, and slightly different religious system. These dissenters would have gone back towards the old Jaredite homeland (Olmec lands in Mesoamerican terms) which fit with their linguistic and cultural heritage.
17 For behold, king Benjamin was a holy man, and he did reign over his people in righteousness; and there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God with power and with authority; and they did use much sharpness because of the stiffneckedness of the people— W of M 1:18 18 Wherefore, with the help of these, king Benjamin, by laboring with all the might of his body and the faculty of his whole soul, and also the prophets, did once more establish peace in the land.
|
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1999 |
W
of M 1:1
|
|
 |