Book of Mormon Reading Group: 09 Oct - 15 Oct 2023 (Words of Mormon 1 - Mosiah 13)

[zil2]

Please see the Book of Mormon Reading Group thread for details (and discussion of 1 Nephi 1 - 5).  Our goal is to read the Book of Mormon by the end of the year.  I'll make a new post before each Monday so that it's ready to go - weeks go from Monday to Sunday for our purposes.

This week's schedule:

Oct 9	Mosiah 1	Monday
Oct 10	Mosiah 2	Tuesday
Oct 11	Mosiah 4	Wednesday
Oct 12	Mosiah 7	Thursday
Oct 13	Mosiah 9	Friday
Oct 14	Mosiah 11	Saturday
Oct 15	Mosiah 13	Sunday

 

Last Week: Book of Mormon Reading Group: 02 Oct - 08 Oct 2023 (2 Nephi 29 - Omni 1)

Thread Index

[Jamie123]

So it's mostly Mosiah for some time to come! I have read the Words of Mormon this lunchtime. I suppose this is a kind of editorial bridge between the original plates (which Amaleki has just filled up) and whatever records followed.

P.S. I really appreciate your efforts here Zil. Your scheduling is making this exercise very easy and enjoyable. Thank you.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

Ok I read Mosiah 1. Verse 4 mentions Egyptian language. The sister missionaries who first came to me told me the plates were written in Egyptian (though they seemed rather vague on the point). I've always wondered why they would not have been written in Hebrew like the Old Testament. (Except for the section of Daniel that in Aramaic, but that was written after the Nephites left Jerusalem.) Were all the plates written in Egyptian, including the "Bible" ones from Laban's house?

Edited October 9, 2023 by Jamie123

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

So it's mostly Mosiah for some time to come! I have read the Words of Mormon this lunchtime. I suppose this is a kind of editorial bridge between the original plates (which Amaleki has just filled up) and whatever records followed.

Yes, exactly - an editorial bridge.  The remainder of the book up to Mormon consists of Mormon's abridgement of the large plates of Nephi - the ones kept by the kings.  Parts of Mormon, and all of Ether (ETA: Moroni's abridgement of the Jaredite record) and Moroni were written by Moroni (Mormon's son), though a couple of Moroni chapters are letters from his father.

2 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

P.S. I really appreciate your efforts here Zil. Your scheduling is making this exercise very easy and enjoyable. Thank you.

I'm happy to walk through it with you, and still hope more will join us - a good discussion in Sunday School quickly reveals that different people learn and perceive many different things when studying scripture, so we all learn more as more participate.  Either way, this has been very rewarding for me and came at the perfect time - so thank you for that!

Edited October 9, 2023 by zil2

[zil2]

21 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Ok I read Mosiah 1. Verse 4 mentions Egyptian language. The sister missionaries who first came to me told me the plates were written in Egyptian (though they seemed rather vague on the point). I've always wondered why they would not have been written in Hebrew like the Old Testament. (Except for the section of Daniel that in Aramaic, but that was written after the Nephites left Jerusalem.) Were all the plates written in Egyptian, including the "Bible" ones from Laban's house?

I don't think anything ever says what language was used on the brass plates.  I would guess Hebrew, but I don't know.  Oh, so, the index to the triple combination (which doesn't appear to exist in the Book of Mormon app) has an entry for "Egyptian".  And one of those entries takes us to Mosiah 1:3-4 which suggests that Lehi was able to read the brass plates because he had "been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings" - so I guess the brass plates were in Egyptian.

As for Nephi's two sets of plates, they called it "reformed Egyptian" (per Mormon 9:32 - which was written by Moroni).  I believe they wrote this way because it required less space and perhaps was easier on plates.  In fact, I think they say that in the book....  Yes, Mormon 9:33-34:

Quote

33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record.

34 But the Lord knoweth the things which we have written, and also that none other people knoweth our language; and because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof.

I haven't started on today's reading, but will, just as soon as I finish with the FP forums and my morning exercise...

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

Ok I read Mosiah 1. Verse 4 mentions Egyptian language. The sister missionaries who first came to me told me the plates were written in Egyptian (though they seemed rather vague on the point). I've always wondered why they would not have been written in Hebrew like the Old Testament. (Except for the section of Daniel that in Aramaic, but that was written after the Nephites left Jerusalem.) Were all the plates written in Egyptian, including the "Bible" ones from Laban's house?

We know the plates were written in an Egyptian script. Joseph Smith referred to it as "reformed Egyptian", and the Book of Mormon mentions that the Nephites had altered the Egyptian to suit their purposes. This sounds for all the world like a form of what we today would call Demotic Egyptian, a recharacterized (reformed) Egyptian script where the normal glyphs were replaced with simplified forms. Coincidentally—or not—Demotic became common at just about exactly the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, maybe a few decades before.

A question that we cannot answer is whether the Nephites used their "reformed" Egyptian characters to phonetically write Hebrew, or rather simply wrote in Egyptian. I tend strongly toward the latter view; I don't believe the reformed Egyptian was merely a sort of parallel with Coptic. (Coptic was a late form of Egyptian and was often written using Greek letters, so has the idea of a language written in the script of another, completely different language. Sort of like Japanese written in Romaji.) I suspect Mormon's writing on the plates was in the Egyptian language, which partially accounts for why they could write so compactly; it was not a true phonetic writing system, but a shorthand abbreviation using widely understood (among those who knew Egyptian) glyphs with indicators for meaning and phonetics.

In Mormon 9:33, Moroni asserts that if they could have written in Hebrew, they would have avoided many of the otherwise inevitable errors that crept in. If you're writing phonetic values, you can spell out the Hebrew in Hebrew letters, Egyptian hieroglyphs, or cuneiform, and it's going to be pretty much the same. So that's why I tend to believe the Nephites preserved the Egyptian language as well as its script. Admittedly, this introduces a lot of complexity in some ways, such as a relatively small group of Nephites needing to keep alive a non-native religious language, at least well enough for the kings to record the Nephite history. In the end, we don't know. It's speculation. Such ideas have no real bearing on the important topics covered by the Book of Mormon. But they are interesting questions to consider.

[Carborendum]

25 minutes ago, Vort said:

We know the plates were written in an Egyptian script. Joseph Smith referred to it as "reformed Egyptian", and the Book of Mormon mentions that the Nephites had altered the Egyptian to suit their purposes. This sounds for all the world like a form of what we today would call Demotic Egyptian, a recharacterized (reformed) Egyptian script where the normal glyphs were replaced with simplified forms. Coincidentally—or not—Demotic became common at just about exactly the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, maybe a few decades before.

I kinda wonder whether the common wisdom on this matter are accurate.  What if it were Hieratic instead of Demotic?  There was a gradual transition from glyphs to Hieratic, to Demotic over time.  And as I've looked at Hieratic, it seems to me that the Anton characters were closer to Hieratic.  And that would have saved more space on the plates than Demotic.

Regardless, whichever form they were familiar with, they altered it as the Nephite nation evolved.  Whichever forms they were closer to, they were certainly not exactly the same as either one.

Mormon is the one who called it "Reformed Egyptian." Joseph simply repeated it.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Carborendum

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I kinda wonder whether the common wisdom on this matter are accurate.  What if it were Hieratic instead of Demotic?  There was a gradual transition from glyphs to Hieratic, to Demotic over time.  And as I've looked at Hieratic, it seems to me that the Anton characters were closer to Hieratic.  And that would have saved more space on the plates than Demotic.

I've never noticed any good correspondence between the Anton characters and either hieratic or Demotic Egyptian. (Although the multicrossed horizontal line is reminiscent of the wave glyph that I believe held the phonetic value "n": /\/\/\/\/\/\ <-something like that.) My limited understanding is that Demotic was often used on engravings, while hieratic was specifically developed as a cursive to be used when writing on papyrus with reed pens. It seems to me that would have made hieratic unusable, or at least very inconvenient, for engraving things on metal plates. I also wasn't aware that hieratic was particularly any more space-efficient than Demotic.

[Jamie123]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

This sounds for all the world like a form of what we today would call Demotic Egyptian, a recharacterized (reformed) Egyptian script where the normal glyphs were replaced with simplified forms.

When I first heard the term "reformed Egyptian" I assumed it meant Demotic. It's the language of the middle panel of the Rosetta Stone:

You're right - after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, the old Egyptian characters were deemed "idolatrous" by the Church, and Egyptians were forced to write their own language using Greek letters (except for a few Egyptian sounds for which no Greek character existed - here a couple of Demotic characters were tolerated). When the Arabs invaded Egypt they brought their own language with them, but Egyptian Christians continued to use Egyptian (with Greek letters) and that language came to be called "Coptic". No one knew it was really Old Egyptian - it was just the ceremonial language of the Coptic Church.

Years later the Rosetta Stone was discovered, which (so it was suspected) told the same story in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic Egyptian and Greek, and could potentially provide a kind of "cipher key" to understand Egyptian. However, the real breakthrough came in 1822 when a French scholar called Jean-François Champollion realized that the Egyptian language was very similar to Coptic - which he knew well! By comparing the Greek and Egyptian words he was able to read not only the Rosetta stone, but every single hitherto mysterious Egyptian inscription.

I have seen the Rosetta Stone many times. It is in the British Museum in London, having been filched (along with a whole bunch of other Egyptian stuff) when we conquered Egypt from the French. If you're ever in London it's well worth a visit!

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, Vort said:

My limited understanding is that Demotic was often used on engravings, while hieratic was specifically developed as a cursive to be used when writing on papyrus with reed pens. It seems to me that would have made hieratic unusable, or at least very inconvenient, for engraving things on metal plates. I also wasn't aware that hieratic was particularly any more space-efficient than Demotic.

I think you may be confusing Hieratic with Hieroglyphic.  The Hieratic script was specifically developed to be an ink based script which mimicked Hieroglyphs. But it was also the beginnings of phoneticisms in the Egyptian writings.  So, it was a middle ground which used pictographs, ideographs, and phonemes.  Somewhat like Japanese characters today.

One interesting quirk is that even after Demotic was developed, Hieratic continued to be used in religious texts.

As far as space, we can look at the Rosetta stone and get an idea of the space conservation.  (I see Jamie just posted an image).  The font size of each language should tell you how efficient it was.  If Hieratic is the middle ground between Hieroglyphics and Demotic, yes, it would have been more efficient than Demotic.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Carborendum

[Carborendum]

16 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Years later the Rosetta Stone was discovered, which (so it was suspected) told the same story in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic Egyptian and Greek, and could potentially provide a kind of "cipher key" to understand Egyptian. However, the real breakthrough came in 1822 when a French scholar called Jean-François Champollion realized that the Egyptian language was very similar to Coptic - which he knew well! By comparing the Greek and Egyptian words he was able to read not only the Rosetta stone, but every single hitherto mysterious Egyptian inscription.

As I understand, there was a bit of a scuffle between him and another linguist who had been utilizing mathematical methods of deciphering it.  The primary objection was that Champollion was not highly educated.  True that he did not have the papers.  But he loved languages from an early age and he sought out native speakers of Coptic to teach him until they declared that he spoke it like a native.

16 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I have seen the Rosetta Stone many times. It is in the British Museum in London, having been filched (along with a whole bunch of other Egyptian stuff) when we conquered Egypt from the French. If you're ever in London it's well worth a visit!

If I ever have the money to make a jaunt across the pond, I would certainly be interested.

[zil2]

Clearly I have been delayed by other posts on the forum...  (And a trip to get bird seed since Klaw's bird-attracting supplies are arriving tomorrow and I didn't order bird seed online - cheaper locally, go figure.)  And now it's time for lunch.  My scripture study will be happening late today...

[zil2]

Words of Mormon

It amazes me (and doesn't) how the prophets in the Book of Mormon are always concerned both for their enemies and for the people of the future.  They clearly knew that they were recording things for a future day.  And it seems to me they were fully invested in that future.

v7: The Lord knew, even back then, that we'd need the small plates to cover for when the 116 pages were lost.

v8: Be deeply concerned for the spiritual welfare of all people.  I think I too easily think folks can do what they want - it's not like I can teach millions anyway - but reading these things makes me think I should have deeper feelings for my billions of unknown brothers and sisters and their spiritual well-being.

v12-18: This is like the Reader's Digest version of the Book of Mormon, summarizing all the sorts of things that happen in the rest of the book.

Mosiah 1

v2+: Again with parents teaching children.  It's like a subliminal message to every person reading the Book of Mormon: good parents teach their children.

v3-5: Be grateful both for scripture and for historic records.  It is the written record that allows society to progress and not devolve into near animals.

v6+: Testify to your children of the truth.

v7: The scriptures do us no good if we don't "search" them.  (And these folk didn't have topical guides or indexes or apps or anything!)  And then we have to do what the scriptures teach.

v10: Evidence Mosiah I was probably a great man - instead of saying "people of Zarahemla, and the Nephites", Benjamin refers to them as "the people of Mosiah".  I wonder how many of the people of Nephi stayed behind, with the Lamanites, perhaps, when Mosiah led the righteous away.

v13+: Don't forget Christ - the name by which you are blessed and by which you will one day be called.

v17: When you feel "smitten with sore afflictions", examine how well you're carrying out your duty to God.

@Jamie123, King Benjamin's address that starts tomorrow is a well-known story in the Church - yeah, lots of Book of Mormon stories are, but I'd say this one is higher up the list as far as how frequently it's referenced.  (Just FYI.)

[askandanswer]

Similar to the fate of the Canaanites, the Jaredites, the Jews when they were carried into capitivity, earlier generations of Nephites and the people in the time of Noah. I wander if we could also add the American Indians and Inuits and the Australian aborigines? Or is it the case that their demise has been brought about solely at the hands of men and has nothing to do with the rejection of God or His gospel or failure to live up to the conditions on which they were given a promised land?

Words of Mormon 1:1

behold I have witnessed almost all the destruction of my people, the Nephites.

 

Back to the original purpose of keeping the records, as first intended by Nephi - to preach the gospel and bring people to Christ - rather than to keep the geneaology, as proposed by some of the record keepers after Jacob.

Words of Mormon 1:2

that he may write somewhat concerning them, and somewhat concerning Christ, that perhaps some day it may profit them.

 

These records have had an immensely profitable impact across almost two centuries.

Words of Mormon 1:2

that perhaps some day it may profit them.

 

I wonder about the infrastructure and possibly support staff that might be required for this task. How many record were there? How much space did they take up? Was there someone who was perhaps the equivalent of a librarian caring for the records while Moroni did the prophetic tasks of abridging? Its a bit odd to imagine Mormon maintaining the dual roles of military leader and religious historian/editor. We know that Mormon moved around a lot for military reasons, perhaps the records moved with him?

Words of Mormon 1:3

for after I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, 

 

 I suspect that Mormon had a lot of material to work with and that he left out far more than what he included. So its not immediately clear why he chose to include the Book of Omni. Omni contains some information that may be of historical interest to some, but of all the material that Mormon had to choose from, was Omni some of the best?

 

Words of Mormon 1:3

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.

 

There aren't too many prophecies of Christ in Jarom and Omni.

Words of Mormon 1:4 

And the things which are upon these plates pleasing me, because of the prophecies of the coming of Christ;

 

Mormon was in a very interesting position. He held the record in which these prophecies were first written, and he wrote the record describing the fulfillment of some of these prophecies. He had a complete perspective, seeing the beginning, middle and end of the Nephite people.

Given all that he did in creating the Book of Mormon, its perhaps a little surprising that it was his son, who did comparatively little, and nor Mormon, who played such a prominent role in the revealing, coming forth and translation of the record that was mostly prepared by Mormon.

Words of Mormon 1:4

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—

Edited October 9, 2023 by askandanswer

[zil2]

10 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I suspect that Mormon had a lot of material to work with and that he left out far more than what he included. So its not immediately clear why he chose to include the Book of Omni. Omni contains some information that may be of historical interest to some, but of all the material that Mormon had to choose from, was Omni some of the best?

Omni was on the small plates.  Mormon included all of the small plates.

10 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

There aren't too many prophecies of Christ in Jarom and Omni.

The clarifying history and these two verses are more than enough to justify Omni (as near as I can tell, this is the only place where we get the phrase "offer your whole souls"):

Quote

25 And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him, exhorting all men to come unto God, the Holy One of Israel, and believe in prophesying, and in revelations, and in the ministering of angels, and in the gift of speaking with tongues, and in the gift of interpreting languages, and in all things which are good; for there is nothing which is good save it comes from the Lord: and that which is evil cometh from the devil.

26 And now, my beloved brethren, I would that ye should come unto Christ, who is the Holy One of Israel, and partake of his salvation, and the power of his redemption. Yea, come unto him, and offer your whole souls as an offering unto him, and continue in fasting and praying, and endure to the end; and as the Lord liveth ye will be saved.

 

Edited October 9, 2023 by zil2

[zil2]

3 hours ago, zil2 said:

Mormon included all of the small plates.

To be clearer: he included the plates themselves, not just an abridgement or copy of them (at least, this is my understanding).

[zil2]

Mosiah 2

v3-4: Sure, you could just go to listen, but better if you go to gatherings prepared to participate in ordinances (like the Sacrament) and to give thanks to God.  (Be an active participant, not a passive or thoughtless one.)

v6: @Jamie123, it's quite common for someone to use this verse in a talk or lesson about where we focus our attention - using the analogy of how these people had their doors open toward the temple.  (Just helping you get the "reading as a member" experience. )  Meanwhile, I also liken this to modern times when every person can remain in their tents (aka home) and watch and listen to General Conference.

v9: Learning the things of God requires more than just understanding the meaning of words spoken or written.  It requires an intent on your part, a willingness to receive and act.

v12-14: The attributes / behavior of good government / leadership. (Alas, these days are long gone.)

v17: @Jamie123, one of the most commonly quoted scriptures, I think.

v20+: There is no way to get out of debt to God.   So, be grateful.

v25 (and Helaman 12:7-8, linked in the footnote): Good verses to keep you humble - you dust.

v32: In some ways, this is the downfall of the Nephites - internal contention at critical times.  I expect it will be the downfall of America, too.

v36+: Whatever you do, don't rebel against God!

v41: Choose to be blessed and happy instead.

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

v17: @Jamie123, one of the most commonly quoted scriptures, I think.

It's similar to Matthew 25:40 😀

 

[Vort]

23 hours ago, zil2 said:

To be clearer: he included the plates themselves, not just an abridgement or copy of them (at least, this is my understanding).

Funny you should make this somewhat random point. I agree; that is my understanding, as well. I suppose it doesn't really matter one way or the other, but it does sound like Mormon searched out the small plates and then physically inserted them in his growing abridgement. If so, that suggests that Nephi established a standard plate size that all plates thereafter were made to fit. Which would make sense.

[Carborendum]

48 minutes ago, Vort said:

Funny you should make this somewhat random point. I agree; that is my understanding, as well. I suppose it doesn't really matter one way or the other, but it does sound like Mormon searched out the small plates and then physically inserted them in his growing abridgement. If so, that suggests that Nephi established a standard plate size that all plates thereafter were made to fit. Which would make sense.

What is interesting is the placement within the stack of plates.

Joseph translated Mormon's abridgement of the large plates from 1 Ne to Words of Mormon era in the 116 pages.  After that fiasco, he was told to start translating from Mosiah (that's my understanding).  But at some point later, he discovered the small plates of Nephi.  I'm guessing that means the small plates were at the bottom of the stack which was hidden in the stone box.

As he realized what they were, he placed the translation at the front.

But based on vocabulary and sentence structure, he took a lot more time with editorial review on 1 & 2 Nephi than he did on 3 Nephi.  So, it was almost as if he were expecting it to be done with.  But when he discovered the small plates, he really dug into it.  He realized the small plates were full of some important words setting up the doctrine, the people & culture, the cycles.  And it was a different type of hero's journey.

[zil2]

Mosiah 3

(This speech is like General Conference Saturday - 6 hours long - but with only one speaker. )

v3+: If Christ's gospel doesn't bring you great joy, it probably worth some serious pondering to figure out why not, and how to change that.

v6: You don't have to be possessed for Christ to cast the evil out of you - you just have to repent and let him change your heart.  Both are miracles.

[It just occurred to me... Nephi knew and recorded all this.  I would guess it was on the large plates, since he made those first and learned these things before making the small plates.  And then later he put them on the small plates.  I wonder whether any of this had been lost to the Nephites, and how much the kings had read from the large plates.  And finally, this is likely after King Benjamin received the small plates, and I wonder if he didn't read them and that isn't part of what sparked the visit from the angel and parts of this speech.]

v5-11+: I have heard (on YouTube) a preacher of another Christian church complain about this degree of knowledge given about Christ before Christ came.  If I remember right, the complaint was basically that none of this was known to people before Christ came - if it had been, it would be found in the Old Testament (or at least mentioned in the New Testament that it was known).  I'm wondering, @Jamie123, if other Christians believe that God knew from the beginning that Christ would come.  And if he did, why would he not reveal the fact to prophets?  (Or is it just the degree of detail that seems objectionable?  Because I think all Christians recognize prophecies of Christ in the Old Testament.)  Anywho, I just don't understand what seems so objectionable about God revealing the future to Nephite prophets (just as we believe He did to all prophets - see v13).

v14-15: Looking at commandments (and Church policy, and such) as tools to help guide one to Christ (rather than just arbitrary rules that some human thought was a good idea), can help one to make use of those commandments (etc.) to learn and progress faster than one might otherwise, and with less frustration.  (Some may not need another way to look at "the rules", but others might benefit from such a perspective - so long as it doesn't become an excuse to ignore some and obey others.)

v17: Coming to Christ is necessary, so do it, no matter how painful it might seem at the time, it will get better.

v19: @Jamie123, this is another verse that is quoted a lot.  Definitely high on the list of often-used verses.  Bits of it can commonly be heard (without reference) in gospel discussions (or even ordinary conversation) among members: "(put off the) natural man", "yield to the enticings of the Holy Spirit"...

v25: The definition of hell.  Choose "great joy" instead.

Mosiah 4

v5, 11: More humbling for you unworthy creatures.

v10: If you believe, act accordingly!  (Easier said than done.)

v11: This ought to be linked to the Sacrament prayers - to "always remember" Christ.

v11: Do this. v12: Get these blessings. v13+: Become this sort of person.

v15: Best thing you can do for children, IMO - teach them to love and serve.

v16-26: A reminder that we are all beggars.  Be merciful and generous.

v25: "covet that which ye have not received" - an awfully easy temptation to give in to.

v27: The mercy of God.

v30: In some ways, righteousness is about being aware in the moment.

(And there's more to come! )

[Just_A_Guy]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What is interesting is the placement within the stack of plates.

Joseph translated Mormon's abridgement of the large plates from 1 Ne to Words of Mormon era in the 116 pages.  After that fiasco, he was told to start translating from Mosiah (that's my understanding).  But at some point later, he discovered the small plates of Nephi.  I'm guessing that means the small plates were at the bottom of the stack which was hidden in the stone box.

As he realized what they were, he placed the translation at the front.

But based on vocabulary and sentence structure, he took a lot more time with editorial review on 1 & 2 Nephi than he did on 3 Nephi.  So, it was almost as if he were expecting it to be done with.  But when he discovered the small plates, he really dug into it.  He realized the small plates were full of some important words setting up the doctrine, the people & culture, the cycles.  And it was a different type of hero's journey.

It may be worth noting here that I believe some linguists/researchers (Skousen, Bradley, maybe Gardner) suspect that the lost 116 pages included one or two chapters of the book of Mosiah; so what we call “Mosiah 1” is actually “Mosiah 3” or “Mosiah 4”.

[zil2]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It may be worth noting here that I believe some linguists/researchers (Skousen, Bradley, maybe Gardner) suspect that the lost 116 pages included one or two chapters of the book of Mosiah; so what we call “Mosiah 1” is actually “Mosiah 3” or “Mosiah 4”.

If that's so, it probably makes the summary of recent history at the end of Omni even more valuable.

Whenever Joseph found the small plates and learned that they covered the period that had been on the 116 pages, I imagine he was beyond relieved and grateful that the Lord had covered his mistake before it ever happened.

Edited October 11, 2023 by zil2

[Carborendum]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It may be worth noting here that I believe some linguists/researchers (Skousen, Bradley, maybe Gardner) suspect that the lost 116 pages included one or two chapters of the book of Mosiah; so what we call “Mosiah 1” is actually “Mosiah 3” or “Mosiah 4”.

I'm not sure what that means.

The Book of Mosiah begins with Mosiah being chosen as king.  Sounds like the first chapter to me.

So, what does "Mosiah 3" mean? Was it that Benjamin had such little entry, that he was the first couple of chapters of Mosiah?  And what does linguistics have to do with that?

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure what that means.

The Book of Mosiah begins with Mosiah being chosen as king.  Sounds like the first chapter to me.

Sure, I could believe that. But it's not obvious to me that it must be that way. I've never considered that our present book of Mosiah might actually have started before the first part that we have. But if Joseph translated the entire book of Lehi and just the beginning of the book of Mosiah before handing over the 116 pages to Martin Harris, I could believe that when he was forgiven of God and resumed his prophetic duties, he picked back up where he left off, ostensibly just into the book of Mosiah, and continued from there.

The fact that the book of Mosiah begins in media res might indicate that it was so, that there was a part of the book of Mosiah that came before, so that Mormon was following his narrative and that's why Mosiah 1 starts as it does. On the other hand, I've always assumed that Mosiah wrote his Words of Mormon abridger's note immediately before he started abridging Mosiah's record, and that's why Mosiah 1 reads as it does: It just follows the end verses of the Words of Mormon, in writing sequence as well as in the Book of Mormon that we have. An even stronger reason (IMO) to suppose that there was no preceding "lost" chapters to Mosiah is that Mosiah is introduced in the second verse of the book of Mosiah, and I would think it strange if there were two or three chapters in a book named after Mosiah before his existence is even mentioned.

But then, I have always assumed that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon in the same sequence we have it today, less the initial Book of Lehi. Some scholars suggest (or insist) that this is wrong. I don't know; I'm certainly no scholar on the subject. But I do prefer Occam's Razor, or at least my implementation of it, to help decide such matters, and Occam's Razor seems to suggest that our present order of the Book of Mormon most likely reflects the order of translation.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, what does "Mosiah 3" mean? Was it that Benjamin had such little entry, that he was the first couple of chapters of Mosiah?  And what does linguistics have to do with that?

I'm guessing there might be some linguistic clues that suggest something of the sort. I don't know what clues those would be.