Justice

This does not say He was God before He was chosen as such in the Grand Council in heaven. You have to read carefully. Continuing on with that thought... Isn't the language used in the creation process interesting? As Jehova is creating, according to the Father's will, it says, "And God said..." over and over through out the process. Then, when it's time to make man, it says something notably different: "And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." Then, as to Adam's condition after the Fall, this is said: "I, the Lord God, said unto mine Only Begotten: Behold, the man is become as one of us." For a long time I understood "Let us make man..." and "man has become as one of us..." as the Father speaking to Jehova, AND referring to Himself and Jehova as "us." But, after further study, and plain logic, I see it could not have been. Obviously, He was speaking to Jehova. Jehova was the One who had completed ALL the creation tasks of this heaven and earth as described. But, was the Father speaking of "He and the Son" creating man in their image, both male and female? Or, could He have been speaking to the Son, saying, "You have done well, but now it's time for Me and Mother (us) to create man?" The wording, as well as everything we know and understand about families, suggest the latter. Why is this significant, and what is my point? Because the Father was not saying Jehova knew good from evil yet, and could not until He had taken a physical body. As this scripture is often used as evidence that Jehova had to have had a physical body before He was born here, I would simply say, it does not prove that, nor does it seem to offer any evidecne if understood properly. In fact, it seems to be saying the opposite.

I had prepared a long post to discuss these issues more, but I'll just say some of those things can be understood differently... especially 1,3, and 4.

Vanhin... Not necessarily. :) "Apparently" may not be so apparent when understood differently. I believe Christ was the first resurrected of all the Father's children (just as the scriptures say) in this eternal round, or among those that live on the worlds He created. All who were born and died before Him (whether on this world or another) needed to wait for Him to gain the victory over death. As I mentioned earlier, it's all how you interpret "eternal." But, as far as the question asked and answer you gave, we're in complete agreement. Apple, if you're interested, Alma chapters 12 and 42 are also good for resurrection. 42 discusses a "partial judgement" that happens at resurrection called "restoration," where good is restored to good and evil to evil. I believe this is why we have to overcome the flesh while in the flesh, or at least be sincerely striving to do so. When our spirits and bodies are reunited (immortally), the restoration of all those physical desires we have not learned to overcome or control will have a lot to do with what state or condition we stand before God to be judged.

It's just "milk jam" or basically carmel. Other than the components that are bad for you, like sugar and cream, there isn't anything addictive... other than it's sheer goodness!

I would like to see it as well, whether here or in a private message.

I'm usually a bit taken back by tests like this because I wonder how much the people administering the test really know about all the various religions in order to properly grade answers. There are some things about the LDS Church they simply can't know, right? Well, I took the poll anyway, and I have to post my results. 1. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (100%) Books, etc. Information link 2. Jehovahs Witness (98%) Books, etc. Information link 3. Orthodox Judaism (75%) Books, etc. Information link 4. Islam (66%) Books, etc. Information link 5. Sikhism (63%) Books, etc. Information link 6. Mainline - Conservative Christian Protestant (62%) Books, etc. Information link 7. Orthodox Quaker - Religious Society of Friends (61%) Books, etc. Information link 8. Eastern Orthodox (61%) Books, etc. Information link 9. Roman Catholic (61%) Books, etc. Information link 10. Seventh Day Adventist (53%) Books, etc. Information link 11. Hinduism (51%) Books, etc. Information link 12. Bahai (49%) Books, etc. Information link 13. Jainism (49%) Books, etc. Information link 14. Mainline - Liberal Christian Protestants (44%) Books, etc. Information link 15. Reform Judaism (44%) Books, etc. Information link 16. Christian Science Church of Christ, Scientist (42%) Books, etc. Information link 17. Mahayana Buddhism (41%) Books, etc. Information link 18. Theravada Buddhism (39%) Books, etc. Information link 19. Liberal Quakers - Religious Society of Friends (34%) Books, etc. Information link 20. Unitarian Universalism (28%) Books, etc. Information link 21. Scientology (27%) Books, etc. Information link 22. Taoism (22%) Books, etc. Information link 23. Neo-Pagan (21%) Books, etc. Information link 24. New Age (21%) Books, etc. Information link 25. New Thought (18%) Books, etc. Information link 26. Secular Humanism (13%) Books, etc. Information link 27. Non-theist (12%) Books, etc. Information link They must know at least a little about our beliefs. I was shocked, really, when I saw they had me as 100% LDS.

A while back, I was involved in a discussion with an investigator where they used the exact same scripture the missionaries used to argue their point. Both used the same scripture but understood it so differently. Even with myself, over the years I have been deeply amazed at how much more I get out of the scriptures as I re-read them again. I encourage people to read the scriptures as often as they can, and ponder them throughout their day as often as they can. It does very little good to read them one day, and never ponder or consider them again until they are read again the next day. I maintain that it is impossible to read the scriptures everyday with a sincere desire to know their mysteries, ponder them intently with sincere prayer, and NOT be enlightened in some way by the more difficult passages. I believe it is a mistake to read and concentrate only on what we know, waiting for the leaders of the church to reveal more. But, we should be cautious when and where we discuss what we learn. So, I see both sides.

Without reading your link (I will when I have time), I believe the distinction is this: Immortality is one who was born on earth, received a mortal body, and then resurrected into immortality. There is no condition of glory implied. This is, at a minimum, a step above what Lucifer has, because he was never mortal. Eternal Life is one who has not only been resurrected, but had received life in the highest degree of glory, or the kind of life God lives.

I was responding to what had already been said, even by you. I agree, as I said previously, that discussions like this are better held in private. When I see someone expressing ideas where beliefs and understandings are projected through the veil I like to get involved in the discussion to bring up the point you just made. I like for people to see that there are other possibilities. In any case, thank you for the discussion.

I agree with most of it. I'd just like to add this: The term "have no end" does not apply to just existence. All who ever become offspring of God will exist forever, even fallen Lucifer. Rather, it is indicitive of the kind of life they will live. Their offspring will have no end, or their offspring will be innumerable, because it will be an eternal progression. Truths can be discerned from the fact that glorified and perfected men and women will have offspring, and that is the qualifier to "having no end" as stated in the scriptures... not just to exist forever.

You ask a lot of good questions. I think these discussions always go wrong when too much is discussed at once. And, holy cow, there's a lot in this one. I'll try to reduce it to a few. I don't know, I think questions where no answer is given, or where no answer is known to exist, are difficult questions. :) Your quote from Joseph Smith is your most compelling argument. It's much like many topics, especially topics that are new, as this was to Joseph Smith. Like "hell" there are specific and general meanings to "spirit of man." Some scripture and GAs use hell in one way, or in a way that other scripture authors and GAs would never use it. "Spirit of man" has been used to describe both the "conscience individual composing a spirit-made body," and also it has been used to describe the "stuff" or material used to make up that body that is specifically called intelligence. Joseph Smith is clearly making a distinction between these two, but tends to call them the same thing. It is the last paragraph where he talks about "enlargement" that I'm talking about. Let's discuss a human embryo, when is it ready to be born? It is a "man" before it is born, but it is not a man until it is "enlarged" and born. From one perspective it was a man all along, from another it becomes a man once it is born. I believe things that are physical teach of things that are spiritual. I believe this applies to much more than most realize. The physical matter that makes up a man's body is called element, and exists forever; it cannot be created nor destroyed. Man's body will eventually be made from it. But, the conscience of man does not exist until a "union" takes place. I don't think enough stress is placed on the fact that God has a wife and children, or that those who will become Celestial will have children. So, I sympathize that we have always existed, and that we cannot be created nor made, yet we are children. Interesting how the physical world offers a possible solution... one that we can understand. Again, this is another language difficulty, where a word can mean different things. Birth and death are very different when you look at them through the other side of the veil, aren't they? They may even be considered opposite. So, we add difficulty by projecting our definitions on these words through the veil. As I said, I turn to the physical world to try to understand the spiritual. Our bodies are born, yet the elements already existed. That sounds like a good comparison to intelligence and sprit offspring to me. I use physical matter to understand intelligence, and a man who has been born to understand a spirit body. It's the in-between that we really know little about. Again, I use the embryo period of a man's physical body, it's enlarging and growing, to help me see how God might have spiritual offspring, without those spirit offspring being called "creations." Friend to Friend: How Life Began LDS.org - Friend Article - Friend to Friend: How Life Began Mark E. Petersen Since we are His spiritual offspring, as the apostle Paul said, He did not create us in the same way He did other life forms. Gifts and Talents LDS.org - New Era Article - Gifts and Talents Henry D. Taylor My mission president, B. H. Roberts, asked, “Is it a strange and blasphemous doctrine, then, to hold that men at the last shall rise to the dignity that the Father has attained: Is it ‘heathenish’ to believe that the offspring shall ultimately be what the parent is? He is coeternal and coexistent with God, and existed as an intelligence before becoming a spiritual offspring of a Heavenly Father. I added the bold. The Great Plan of Our God LDS.org - Liahona Article - The Great Plan of Our God L. Tom Perry We are the literal spiritual offspring of our Heavenly Father. God is a glorified man presupposes that He was once not glorified, but yet was man before He was glorified. It's in the language. No revalation is needed on the matter. By simply revealing that statement tells us certain things, while other things can no longer be true. God did not create the spirit of man must be finished by saying "the same way He created other living things." It's a true statement, because we are offspring, not creations... yet in the general term, He did create us. Again with the language difficulty. To many Christians "create" and "children" are synonomous terms, and in no way relates to offspring, when speaking of our creation. "We were born of Heavenly Parents." Again, that revealed statement tells us that before we became offspring of those Parents that we were previously something different. Made of the same material, but different, just like the physical world shows us. As to exactly what that difference is goes back to the transition between intelligence and spirit offspring. I don't know what that difference is, other than spirit offspring is intelligence that has been enlarged... even born (is my preferred word). Wasn't it a probation for Christ, the greatest of us all? Because it does not say what it was like for Him does not mean it was not a probation for Him, just as much as you telling me it does not mean it was. I agree, we do not know any more than He once dwelt as a man on an earth like like this one. All that means is He was born and has a physical body, which was needed for Him to become glorified and perfected. Even though it has not been revealed in more words, doesn't that sound familiar? What is earth life like? What is man like before earth life and after? Where is the logic in NOT applying what we do know? That's an unfair statement. I just said that we shouldn't project "infinite" and "eternal" past the veil based of our limited understanding, ESPECIALLY when we can't understand those things. Yet, you do this very thing to make it look like my beliefs are not scriptural. If you keep doing that this discussion can't go very far. By saying God is not infinite and eternal because He was born of Heavenly Parents could be projecting a thought through veil that only exists here. We KNOW we are spiritual offspring of Heavenly Parents, and we KNOW we can become infinite and eternal through Christ. So, something has to give.

Yes, and I'm wondering if this discussion should take place in an open forum. There are so many beliefs, because we are all at a different level of spiritual maturity. I even think God wants us each to believe different things because those beleifs comfort us. My beliefs comfort me, and your beliefs comfort you. We use the same words, just understand them differently. We both know God lives, and that Jesus Christ is His Son. Yet, we believe them differently. As to my questions, some questions require deep and significant pondering and prayer to see that they cannot lead to a possible answer. Saying anymore would seem like I am belittling your beliefs, when it would never be my intention. I have this propensity to ask the difficult questions some people never even think of. I view it as a curse. :) I believe there is much more about her in scripture than most people realize. I know that she was married and sealed to the Father. This truth by itself makes other things typically believed impossible. That's just the way it is, and that's why I asked the question. We KNOW that marriage and sealing (that are ordained of God) are ordinances that MUST be performed while on "earth" in a physical tabernacle. Jesus Christ, the Father's Only Son born of the flesh, the very Creator of heaven and earth and all things that in them are, the very God of the universe, dwelt among man, as a man. Isn't that interesting? He bled, He suffered, and He died, just as if He was a man. Yet, He is spiritual offspring of the Father, infinite and eternal. We are promised that we can become infinte and eternal through Jesus Christ. To me it's clear. Our "immortal spirit" is a tangible entity, with parts and passions. It is a child of Heavenly Parents. It is not the same thing as the "intelligence" from which it was created, or born. The intelligence is infinte and forever, a spirit body created from it is eternal yet was not always a conscience. Creating these "offsprings" is the blessing, reward, work and glory of those who obtain the highest degree in the Celestial realm. If all these spirit children already exist, how can Celestial parents have children? Heavenly Mother, like us, was born of Heavenly Parents, as offspring of a grand and glorious union of immortal and perfected Beings... as was He. As was all men and women that ever were, and ever will be. Joseph Smith said the great mystery is that God is a glorified and perfected Man and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. I don't know why it is overcomplicated beyond that. Yes, during their mortal probation. What is a mortal probation? Is it not to "see if [man] will do whatsoever the Lord their God commands them?" If God was glorified and perfected before His mortal probation, what was the point of His mortal probation? If, at the very least, didn't He need a body? Interesting that Joseph Smith taught that the Father has a glorified and perfected physical body. I don't think it's a cooincidence. Why does it always come back to "where did it all begin?" Why did it have to begin? I say it did not begin. I say it has always been this way. I can't comprehend it, but if it has not always been this way, then it would not be this way now. "God" does not change. Lucifer wanted to change things, and was denied. God knew it must happen this way. How did He know? Was He told? Was He shown? Or, has it always been this way? I believe He learned it from experience, just as we hopefully will one day. I believe The Father is infinte and eternal, from everlating to everlasting. In fact, I know He is. I also believe Jesus Christ is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting. But, I also know that Jesus Christ, or Jehova, was a spirit offspring of Heavenly Parents. We run into trouble when we try to project our view or interpretation of words and ideas into eternity. The terms infinite and eternal are words we cannot understand in this state. That does not mean we should place what we don't understand on God. He has revealed many things about His character and who He is. He is a parent, meaning also, He has parents. We are intelligent enough to determine that on our own. He has shown us this through nature and all His creations. It's what He was trying to teach Adam by making him till, plant, and harvest his own food (can discuss more later if you'd like). God procreates, meaning He was born. I don't try to overcomplicate it past what is simple and makes sense. Again, I believe Christ's atonement is infinite and eternal. Christ created all things in this eternal round, or in this eternity. His atonement covers all things in this eternal round. Everything. If Christ truly is the Son of God, how can His atonement apply to the Father (and Mother) when He did not exist as a spirit child yet when they were "mortal" and were in need of an atonement? They did not have spirit children until they were glorified and perfected. If Christ existed as a spirit child before their mortal probation, then He is not their offspring. And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father— That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24) That is my favorite scripture found anywhere. It's the only scripture I asked my wife to cross-stitch and hang up for me. We are begotten sons and daughters unto God. We will be given all He has, including eternal life, the kind of life He lives. We, as a married and sealed couple, will be given the greatest gift known to man, the ability to have our own children and seek to perfect them. Our children will become our work and glory. The cycle of life will continue. Once more, if all spirit beings already exist, why is having children promised as a reward to those who are faithful to Jesus Christ? (rhetorical) I believe we can accurately measure the past based on what God promises to the faithful in the future.

If God had no beginning, how can He BE the beginning and end? The answer to this question lies in one's definition of "eternal" and "eternity," not whether or not one believes God is eternal. As far as I know everyone believes He is eternal.

So, where did His wife come from? Did she exist forever with Him? Or, is she one of His creations? If they existed forever together, when did they get married? If she is His creation (because He couldn't have children without a wife) how can that be explained?

But it does. Moroni 10: 5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things. 6 And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is. 7 And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God; for he worketh by power, according to the faith of the children of men, the same today and tomorrow, and forever. 8 And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God, for they are many; and they come from the same God. And there are different ways that these gifts are administered; but it is the same God who worketh all in all; and they are given by the manifestations of the Spirit of God unto men, to profit them. It's sad to me when I hear people say these questions cannot be answered. Does God know the answer? Well, of course. So, when I hear people say no man can know the answer, it sounds akin to Korihor and Nehor who taught that no man can know God. Which, all that is really saying is that God will not speak to man. Because if God knows the answer, either He can or cannot communicate it to man. I believe He can... and does.

Vanhin, do you believe The Father is married?

No. Sorry, I was directing my comment to the last portion of the statement. We've had this discussion so many times on this forum already. Many people place "what can't be understood" on God, when in fact, it should be placed on "eternal and infinte." God reveals His will, and reveals His character and attributes to those who listen. It is revealed all throughout nature, all throughout the scriptures, and all throughout the life of Christ. We have to open our minds, and set aside the understanding of men, in order to see it. If we read scriptures with a pre-conceived notion, we will walk away from the reading with that pre-conceived notion. Many "read into" the scriptures what they believe. Many want to believe that God cannot be understood. They think this makes Him more wonderful, more powerful, and more trustworthy. After spending 30+ years in the scriptures, I think the opposite. God is a glorified, perfected Man (the Father of all men and women that will ever live on earth) who has a glorified, perfected Wife. We are His offspring and He is trying to give us what He has. He became glorified and perfected and is doing everything He can to make that happen for us. One of the greatest evidences of this is that the Father sent His Son to suffer, bleed, and die for us. If God was "all powerful" in the way many think, and can set and create His own laws, He would not make that a condition. Also, He would make it so ALL His children would be saved. He cannot do either, and must abide eternal law while trying to perfect His children. The fact that He sent His Son is proof God follows laws, just as He commands us to do, and by that we know that by following law is the only way we can be perfected. God is real. He exists in space. He is corporeal. He has a body just as tangible as man's. He has children, and He is undertaking to perfect them.

I believe it all hinges on accepting Christ as the Savior or Messiah. In order to obtain perfection and exaltation one must accept Christ. Not just the person or Being Christ, but the philosophy and "eternal plan" that is Christ. "Christ" represents a mortal probation period where One who is chosen is sent to redeem children from sin, and allow them the ability to become pefected and exalted. The Father chose this method. The Son chose this method. They are One. All who choose this method are One. You cannot be saved unless you choose this method and rely on Christ, not only for your own personal redemption, but more importantly, for the redemption of your children once you gain eternal life. Some spirits do this in the First Estate, or pre-mortal realm. Those are the ones who are the elect, who are sent to be prophets and apostles, also those who only need to obtain a body... like those who do not live to the age of accountability, or those who do, but never become accountable for their choices because of physical limitations. Some spirits do this during their second estate, which is where we are now. Some do it after this life, but before the last resurrection. All are One if they chose this way of salvation for themselves and for their children. Christ is the tie that binds.

Moving along in Words of Mormon, listen to how he tries to describe what he's doing: 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. Very interesting wording. I shall take these plates Meaning the Small Plates that he just found... and put them with the remainder of my record Put them with the remainder of my record... The Small Plates of Nephi was NOT his record. This is curious wording. Try to see which fits better: 1) Mormon is going to include them with his entire abridgement, thus the remainder of his record (doesn't make sense), or 2) Mormon replaced a portion of his record with these plates and he is putting the Small Plates with the rest of his record he gave to Moroni, or the remainder he did not remove. Clearly, Mormon is still using words of choice and removal and replacing, not just adding to. 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. Again, go back to where I discussed why replacing this time period with the Small Plates was considered a "wise purpose." Edit: Hemi, PM me your phone nuymber. It would be much easier to discuss over the phone.

...the funny thing is, the "stolen chapters of Mosiah" were stolen by Mormon when he pulled that portion of his abridgement and replaced it with the Small Plates. Why not ask where his abridgement of Nephi through King Benjamin went also? I know many think it was all part of the 116 pages that were lost. I say, no way. The fact that Mormon even added that filler to bridge the gap proved he pulled the record, because that is the only way that gap could have existed in his day.

OK, M... you first.

No.

I appreciate that. But, I'm stubborn, and I don't think you're quite there yet... Here's another thought. How many times in the Small Plates does Nephi refer to "his other plates," or the Large Plates? I didn't count them, but I know it's serveral times. Nephi is the ONLY author who wrote in the Large Plates and the Small Plates. If Nephi mentioned the Large Plates in the Small Plates multiple times, it would stand to reason that he mentioned the Small Plates while writing the Large Plates. Keep that thought in mind. As I said earlier, we have solid evidence, even proof, that Mormon abridged the Large Plates from Lehi to 4th Nephi, leaving no time gap in their history. If this is not the case, I'd like to see the evidence that suggests otherwise. I can repost the scriptures that show this if you missed them. We also know that Mormon did not find the Small Plates until after his abridgement of the Large Plates. It says in Mormon 6 that he had already buried all the records that had been passed into his hands. Now, back to Nephi... if in the Small Plates Nephi wrote that his other plates contained the more history of the wars and government, what would he have said about the Small Plates when writing in the Large Plates? Obviously, that his "other plates" (the Small Plates) contained a more spiritual record of their revelations and prophecies (or something to that effect). Mormon read this while he was reading from the Large Plates. I don't think he accidentally happend on the Small Plates, nor do I think he was looking to fill any gap, because we KNOW there was no gap in his abridgement of the Large Plates. He read about the Small Plates, and what they contained, and he SEARCHED for them to get the more spiritual words recorded on them. He probably didn't have time to look through all the records while he was abridging. When he was done he probably went back and looked for it. When he found it, he preferred it, probably because he was prompted, and replaced his abridgement of that time period covered by the Large Plates with the Small Paltes. And THAT is what casued the gap in time, which brought about the need for Words of Mormon. Again, if he did not remove a portion of his abridgement, it was complete... it did not have a gap in time. The Large Plates did not have a gap in time. It just makes too much sense. There's no reason to include 2 records of the same time period, especially if you "prefer" one over the other. More to think about.

Yes. The most logical way he did this was by adding a plate to the end of them (for Words of Mormon). As was noted by Amaleki they were full when he finished them. For some reason, from Jarom to Amaleki, no one chose to make more plates. Mormon made plates for his abridgement, presumably the same size as the plates Nephi made. To anyone, if you just read the Words of Mormon it's clear what his purpose was in making it, and putting it 500 years earlier in the record. He had all the records, meaning Mormon, not Joseph Smith. As far as I can tell, he (Joseph Smith) never had any portion of the Large Plates of Nephi in his possession. I'd like to see something that says he did. Not sure what you mean by "witnessed," but his translation of Lehi, then Mosiah to the end, came from the Plates of Mormon, or the abridged set. So, he started in Lehi from the Plates of Mormon, then, D&C 10 says he went to the "Plates of Nephi" next, which can only mean the Small Plates, since he never had the Large Plates. I disagree. In AD 385 Mormon was finished, or nearly finished, with his abridgement of the Large Plates. Mormon 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. It was a done deal. He may have already even buried all the records "which had been passed into his hands" which were sacred. He made an abridgement so they (or Moroni) could have the scriptures to read. He knew from the history of the people Mosiah I discovered in Zarahemla what happened to people who did not have scriptures. Mormon did not abridge (or write) his own record onto the Small Plates, it had to be the plates he made... he didn't even discover the Small Plates until after Mormon 6, when he wrote Words of Mormon. Think about it... it'll come to you. You're very close, Hemi!! If you want I'll try to lay it out more clearly again. Let me know. This took quite a while for me to see. Hemi, the language Mormon uses in the early part of Words of Mormon is very clearly making a "choice" to use the Small Plates instead of his abridgement of the Large Plates covering the same time period. Had he not "inserted" the Small Plates he would have left his abridgement from Nephi to King Benjamin. I don't know the logic in thinking he would have included 2 records of the same time period. Also, it doesn't make much sense that Mormon would make a "filler" page if he included the entire history he already had translated (including from Nephi to King Benjamin). Also, Hemi, note that Mormon claims to be writing in his plates, or in his abridgement, in Mormon 6, not the Small Plates (underlined above).

I have heard this all my life, Just_A_Guy. Even the professor quoted in this discussion used this very language, that the Word of Mormon was used to bridge the gap between the Small and Large Plates. Edit: also, Nephi made both sets of plates about the same time. I believe they were basically the same size, shape, and thickness. It also stands to reason that they were the same size as the Brass Plates, since he probably used those as a model. The plates of Ether would have been the only ones that maybe were a different size, but they were bound or sealed, and were not to be opened. The question I'm really trying to answer is did Mormon include BOTH his abridgement of the Large Plates from Nephi to King Benjamin AND the Small Plates. I believe Mormon says he "chose" the Small Plates over his abridgement for the same time period.