For Sunday21: The Book of Mormon made understandable


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

The book of Lehi (which, you have correctly corrected me on as it being the 116 pages) was from the abridgment of the large plates. So the 116 pages were both a translation from the abridgement of the Large Plates of Nephi and the book of Lehi.

 

TFP, are you of the opinion that the book of Lehi was a separate thing from the large plates of Nephi? If so, I disagree that this is or must be the case. See my previous response to LeSellers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone in this conversation even suggest that Moroni was the abridger of the large plates into the Book of Mormon?

Yes, several times:

This is correct, though many think of it that way. The lost 116 pages were (probably) Moroni's abridgment of the Large Plates of Nephi.

The bulk of the Book of Mormon -- the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, and 3rd and 4th Nephi -- were Moroni's abridgment of the large plates. The 116 pages were Mormon's abridgment of the first part of Nephite history as told in the large plates, namely, the book of Lehi.

 

Your claim was that the 116 lost pages did not contain the translation of the abridgment of the book of Lehi. I do not see where you arrive at that conclusion or how you maintain it, especially in the face of Joseph Smith's own words affirming that the translated and lost pages were indeed taken from the book of Lehi.

No, I claimed that the 116 pages were not the book of Lehi. If (and I accept that Lehi did write some of the Nephite history) Mormon abridged the plates of Lehi, it was a fraction of those 116 pages, not the entirety of the manuscript. When people say that the 116 pages were the book of Lehi, the implication is that all of it was Lehi, but that's simply not the case.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

TFP, are you of the opinion that the book of Lehi was a separate thing from the large plates of Nephi? If so, I disagree that this is or must be the case. See my previous response to LeSellers.

 

No. I think you and I are in sync. I'll tell you the process. I have always thought the lost 116 pages to be the book of Lehi. When LeSellers wrote that it wasn't, I searched on lds.org. The first article I came across said that the lost 116 pages came from the abridgment of the large plates of Nephi. So without further thought or research (being somewhat fatigued at the time), I posted in agreement with LeSellers. When you corrected us via the Joseph Smith quote I searched a bit further on lds.org and discovered that I had mistakenly jumped to a wrong conclusion.

 

My understanding at this point is that the 116 pages were the book of Lehi (so named by Mormon) in the same sense that the book of Alma is so named by Mormon, etc. Mormon abridged the large plates up to the reign of King Benjamin (I think) and then discovered the small plates. He inserted the small plates at that point and then continued on with his abridgment of the large plates. So "separate" thing only in that I think there was a literal separation via the insertion of the small plates, and in that there was a virtual separation in the same way Alma is a separate book from the rest of it.

 

But this opinion stems primarily from the minimal research I've done on it in the last hour. Prior to that I hadn't given it much thought or study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, several times:

 

As I just said in my previous post...I was fatigued when I wrote this. It wasn't Moroni. I know it wasn't Moroni. My usage of hist name was either fatigue or typo. ;)

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator

I think both Vort and FP help the entire forum with their knowledge of the Book of Mormon. I only speak for myself obviously, but just as a convert both of you guys are priceless here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yes, several times:

 

Holy cow! I blew it! Right you are; it was a thoughtless misattribution on my part. I have corrected it now.

 

George Washington had ivory dentures, not wooden ones. You're absolutely right.

 

No, I claimed that the 116 pages were not the book of Lehi. If (and I accept that Lehi did write some of the Nephite history) Mormon abridged the plates of Lehi, it was a fraction of those 116 pages, not the entirety of the manuscript. When people say that the 116 pages were the book of Lehi, the implication is that all of it was Lehi, but that's simply not the case.

 

I think the implication is rather what Joseph Smith himself wrote:

 

I translated, by the gift and power of God, and caused to be written, one hundred and sixteen pages, the which I took from the book of Lehi, which was an account abridged from the plates of Lehi, by the hand of Mormon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mormon abridged the large plates up to the reign of King Benjamin (I think) and then discovered the small plates. He inserted the small plates at that point and then continued on with his abridgment of the large plates.

 

By the way, as a point of interest: This was precisely my own understanding. Then a few years ago, I noticed that Mormon makes it clear that he went looking for the small plates. He didn't just come across them; he obviously had knowledge of them, and went searching for them. My guess is that Nephi mentioned them in the large plates and Mormon thought it would be a good idea to find them and see what was in them. Words of Mormon 3:

 

...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...

 

Anyway, that's my interpretation of what he's saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an excellent synopsis of the entire Book!  I never thought to organize scripture this way - except for the 4 gospels in the NT.  Thanks, Vort!

 

But, I have to say, what I learned the most out of this thread is... a brand new word... Grokking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, as a point of interest: This was precisely my own understanding. Then a few years ago, I noticed that Mormon makes it clear that he went looking for the small plates. He didn't just come across them; he obviously had knowledge of them, and went searching for them. My guess is that Nephi mentioned them in the large plates and Mormon thought it would be a good idea to find them and see what was in them. Words of Mormon 3:

 

...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...

 

Anyway, that's my interpretation of what he's saying.

 

Actually this is my understanding. My usage of the word "discovered" sort of implied accidental..but I knew he sought them intentionally. It's right there in the BOM, afterall. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

D&C section 3 heading refers to the 116 pages remarking "which was called The Book of Lehi".

D&C section 10 heading flat out calls it the "Book of Lehi".

 

Article from the LDS scriptures study helps* says the first six books of the current BoM are the "other related accounts" of the narrative contained in the "Book of Lehi'.

 

It seems apparent that such a book was not necessarily written by Lehi himself.  He was not alive during most of those six books.  But I see it the same as us calling the BoM after Mormon even though he did not even abridge all of it.  And Mormon himself calls the BoM "The Book of Nephi" after its originator.

 

I do wonder how much of it was actually written by Lehi or if it was actually Nephi's work that he simply called the "Book of Lehi" to honor his father.  I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

*study helps:  Note that while the study helps is an official Church publication, it is to primarily to be considered the most educated opinion of the most inspired people on the planet, not necessarily a prophetic statement of what actually was, or is, or is yet to be. (hee-hee).

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All joking aside, I believe this is somewhat related to the topic at hand.  My understanding was that all the "additional items" in the LDS edition of the scriptures are in line with the current interpretation of scriptures by the GAs.  this would include chapter headings, topical guide references, bible dictionary, etc.

 

Is this not correct?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All joking aside, I believe this is somewhat related to the topic at hand.  My understanding was that all the "additional items" in the LDS edition of the scriptures are in line with the current interpretation of scriptures by the GAs.  this would include chapter headings, topical guide references, bible dictionary, etc.

 

Is this not correct?

Can't speak to that, but I know the footnotes are not quite accurate.

The very first verse, Gen 1:1c, says: "HEB shaped, fashioned, created; always divine activity …" But the Hebrew word bara is not always divine activity. The word appears 53 times in the Hebrew scriptures, and, to be sure, for the vast majority, the subject of the verb is "God". But there are at least a dozen cases where the person creating is a human being.

For example, Eze 21:19 Also, thou son of man, appoint thee two ways, that the sword of the king of Babylon may come: both twain shall come forth out of one land: and choose (bara) thou a place, choose (bara) it at the head of the way to the city.

So, while I can agree that the headnotes and footnotes are useful, and represent what Bruce R. McConkie thought would be helpful, they are not the be-all and end-all of scripture study.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...
3 hours ago, Grunt said:

Anatess gave me the link to this and I'm so grateful it exists.

Nice trip down memory lane.

I'll correct/clarify something that Le said:

The word bara can be used for both man and God as the actor just as Le said.  HOWEVER, it is a verb.  And verbs have conjugations. (Grammatically, Hebrew is weird and it isn't correct to call it a conjugation.  But it is the closest thing we have in English to compare it to.) 

That particular conjugation found in Genesis is only used to denote God as the actor.  Wherever man is the actor, a different conjugation is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/14/2016 at 11:48 AM, Guest said:

Article from the LDS scriptures study helps* says the first six books of the current BoM are the "other related accounts" of the narrative contained in the "Book of Lehi'.

It seems apparent that such a book was not necessarily written by Lehi himself.  He was not alive during most of those six books.  But I see it the same as us calling the BoM after Mormon even though he did not even abridge all of it.  And Mormon himself calls the BoM "The Book of Nephi" after its originator.

I do wonder how much of it was actually written by Lehi or if it was actually Nephi's work that he simply called the "Book of Lehi" to honor his father.  I guess it doesn't really matter.

So, today while finishing my study of the intro material to the Book of Mormon, I went down a rabbit hole, and discovered  things that lead me to this conclusion (supports to follow):

The 116 pages were entirely the book of Lehi.  That's what was lost.  But Joseph had translated more than those 116 pages. The "more" was not lost.  But it also was not used to produce the Book of Mormon.  Rather, it was all replaced by the translation of the small plates.  Whatever happened to this additional part, which Joseph had not given over with the 116 pages, I have no idea, and have never even heard mention of.  I would guess they were destroyed so they couldn't be used as the 116 pages might have been.

Supports:

That quote @Vort posted, from History of the Church, volume 1, page 56, footnotes:

Quote

...but behold, the Lord said unto me I will not suffer that Satan shall accomplish his evil design in this thing; therefore thou shalt translate from the plates of Nephi, until ye come to that which ye have translated, which ye have retained; and behold ye shall publish it as the record of Nephi; ...

D&C 10:41 (says the same thing)

Quote

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;

Section 10 pretty clearly delineates this in my mind - there are the pages "which have gone out of your hands" and "that which you have translated, which you have retained" - two different groupings.

The large plates, which Mormon abridged, would have contained:

  • Lehi
  • The equivalent of 1 Nephi through Omni (but as history and from the perspective of the kings rather than the prophets)
  • Mosiah through 4 Nephi

My reading of "which you have retained", suggests Joseph Smith translated to some point in bullet #2 (likely to the end of it, given the rest of verse 41).

Now, I suppose one can argue that "which you have retained" refers to some other thing, but I don't think so.  I recommend reading the entry in History of the Church and all of D&C 10 before deciding what you think.

(My rabbit hole also makes me believe that Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon on Nephi's small plates (even if he had to make a new plate to do it, though there's no evidence he did).  Some verses in Words of Mormon have him referring to "these plates" in a way that suggests they're not just the small plates, but that he's writing on them.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zil2 said:

(My rabbit hole also makes me believe that Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon on Nephi's small plates (even if he had to make a new plate to do it, though there's no evidence he did).  Some verses in Words of Mormon have him referring to "these plates" in a way that suggests they're not just the small plates, but that he's writing on them.)

This is one of the things that make me think that Mormon physically inserted the small plates into his abridgment, rather than copying them in. I envision Nephi and later plate-makers using a standard plate template to make plates with, so that the resulting plates could possibly be shuffled around as desired. If this were the case, it would have been a simple enough thing for Mormon just to put the small plates right in with his abridgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Vort said:

This is one of the things that make me think that Mormon physically inserted the small plates into his abridgment

Yes, that seems quite clear from the Words of Mormon.

59 minutes ago, Vort said:

I envision Nephi and later plate-makers using a standard plate template to make plates with, so that the resulting plates could possibly be shuffled around as desired. If this were the case, it would have been a simple enough thing for Mormon just to put the small plates right in with his abridgment.

I wondered the same thing.  I mean, if keeping plates is quite common, and it seemed to be (as far as prophets and rulers were concerned), and someone had made the "template", so to speak, why not reuse it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zil2 said:

Yes, that seems quite clear from the Words of Mormon.

I wondered the same thing.  I mean, if keeping plates is quite common, and it seemed to be (as far as prophets and rulers were concerned), and someone had made the "template", so to speak, why not reuse it?

Note that the template could be something as simple as a prototype of the desired dimensions, hammered out to a desired thickness, and with holes for the rings in a standard position. Nothing fancy, no plate casting needed or anything of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

At the request of a few people, I wrote this thread up into a document. I have not updated it in years, and I don't pretend it's anything but a reflection of my understanding from several years back. But for what it's worth, here is the link.

The Book of Mormon made understandable

Ha!  I tripped over that the other day when looking through the list of things others had shared with me on my g-drive (trying to find things to delete - no, I did not delete it :) ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, and here I've just tripped over 1 Nephi 1:17:

Quote

17 But I shall make an account of my proceedings in my days. Behold, I make an abridgment of the record of my father, upon plates which I have made with mine own hands; wherefore, after I have abridged the record of my father then will I make an account of mine own life.

It would appear that the large plates of Nephi contain an abridgement on the book of Lehi - no doubt called the book of Lehi, but still an abridgement.  That would suggest that Lehi had a lot to say.  It would also suggest that Mormon may have abridged Nephi's abridgement of the book of Lehi.  (Or Mormon may have abridged the original book of Lehi, or that book may have been added to Nephi's large plates, heaven knows - but it's interesting to note that Nephi made an abridgement.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share