© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
In an earlier comment, I replied to Jonathan Neville’s claim (made here: https://interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=59392) regarding the term ‘about to’ as used in Words of Mormon 1:1 and promised to address the remainder of his assertions later. I now reply to those assertions, beginning with his statement about the two wavy lines that Oliver Cowdery inserted into the printer’s manuscript between the final words of the book of Omni and the heading ‘The words of Mormon.’ His statement suggests that he agrees with my view of the meaning inherent in these two wavy lines.
I explain at pp. 13-25 of this article, “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained,” that Oliver Cowdery inserted these two wavy lines into the printer’s manuscript to designate the transition point between the final words on the original manuscript (the last words of the book of Omni) and the first words on the original manuscript (the beginning of the text that was retained by Joseph Smith after the 116 pages were lost). This retained text begins with the heading ‘The words of Mormon’ and was transcribed by Martin Harris (and perhaps Emma Smith).
Neville’s comment says that Oliver “drew the two lines … when he finished copying Omni (which he presumably wrote [transcribed] … in Fayette [New York]).” He drew them “to designate that he was beginning to copy what Martin/Emma had originally written [transcribed] in Harmony.” Thus, it appears that Neville and I agree that Oliver’s unique two-line mark, which is more prominent and conspicuous than anything Oliver or other scribes placed between successive books in the printer’s manuscript, designates the precise point where the final, most recently translated words from the original manuscript (at the end of the replacement small-plate record) meet the earliest translated words of the original manuscript (beginning with the heading ‘The words of Mormon’). Neville’s words also confirm that Oliver’s unique mark helps us understand Oliver’s subsequent edit to the original chapter number for our current chapter 1 of Mosiah (changing it from III [3] to I [1]). Neville offers no explanation for Oliver’s similar edit to the number for the previous chapter (Words of Mormon 1) from 2 to 1. I believe that Oliver edited this number for the same reason. Words of Mormon was originally chapter 2 of Mosiah, but Oliver changed the number to 1 after the translated text of the original first chapter of Mosiah was lost as part of the 116 pages.
Frankly, I expected Neville to suggest a different point in the printer’s manuscript as his choice for the place where the most recently translated words from the original manuscript (at the end of the small-plate record) meet the earliest translated words of the original manuscript (transcribed by Martin Harris and perhaps Emma Smith). In the past, he has argued that this transition occurs at the beginning of Words of Mormon 1:13 (see Neville’s book ‘Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates,’ p. 145). Perhaps he has changed his opinion. My article points to several reasons for considering such a change. Among these reasons: (1) Oliver placed his unique mark just before the heading “The words of Mormon,” rather than just before verse 13. (2) Oliver inserted the book title “The Book of Mosiah” at the beginning of the subsequent chapter, rather than just before verse 13. And (3), the resumptive structure in Words of Mormon 1:9-10 indicates that the lost portion of the original manuscript was originally found just before the aside that begins with the heading “The words of Mormon.”
Separately, Neville’s comment says, “In my opinion, Oliver was not the scribe for the Book of Mosiah for all the reasons I’ve discussed previously.” This sentence appears to support a different view from that found in chapter 9a of Neville’s book mentioned earlier. In that book, Neville depicts Oliver as the scribe for Words of Mormon (which Neville doesn’t see as part of the book of Mosiah) and for virtually all of our current book of Mosiah. He depicts Martin Harris (and perhaps Emma Smith) as scribes for the original first two chapters of Mosiah, which he believes were both lost as part of the 116 pages. Perhaps Neville’s opinion has changed since he wrote that book.
I hold that Joseph Smith retained some of the text transcribed by Martin Harris (and perhaps Emma Smith). This retained text includes both Words of Mormon, which was the original chapter 2 of Mosiah, and some of the earlier words in the original chapter 3 of Mosiah (our chapters 1-3 of Mosiah). The retained text was followed by limited additional text translated by Joseph Smith (likely transcribed by Emma) before Oliver Cowdery arrived in Harmony, but Oliver was the principal scribe for everything Joseph translated on and after April 7, 1829, including the rest of Mosiah (and the balance of the Book of Mormon).
A comment made by Jonathan Neville under his article, “A Man That Can Translate and Infinite Goodness: A Response to Recent Reviews,” (https://interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=59392) doesn’t relate directly to that article, but does relate directly to this one, “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained,” so I’m responding to his comment here, where others interested in this article can benefit from the discussion. Neville’s comment makes two assertions about the findings in my article. I address here his assertion concerning the term ‘about to.’ I will address his other assertion in a later response.
[Cliff Jones response to Jonathan Neville: ‘about to’ Part 1 of 2.]
The foundational research on which my article is based includes the substantial work of Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack in the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project. This research, and particularly Volume IV: Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon, reveals significant evidence of language usage in the Book of Mormon from earlier English, primarily Early Modern English, which must be taken into account as we attempt to determine the intended meaning of the words in the Book of Mormon. Specifically, Skousen discusses “39 lexical items that each take a distinct archaic meaning in the Book of Mormon, one that no longer exists in English,” (Royal Skousen and Stanford Carmack, The Book of Mormon Critical Text Project, vol. 3, The History of the Text of the Book of Mormon, part 3: The Nature of the Original Language, (Provo, UT: FARMS and BYU Studies, 2018), 11.) An archaic sense of the term ‘about to’ is one of these 39 archaic lexical items that no longer exists in English.
The non-archaic sense of ‘about to,’ the meaning in common use today (and in Joseph Smith’s day), is “at the very point when one is going to do something; intending or preparing immediately to do something” (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “about (adv.), sense IV.12,” March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/7813438093). So today, when we say that something is ‘about to’ happen, it basically means that it will happen soon. Depending on the specific context, either the event being described is on the verge of occurring, or it is being discussed as if it were on the verge of occurring.
The obsolete meaning of ‘about to,’ on the other hand, doesn’t convey this sense of immediacy. Someone who is ‘about to’ do something in this archaic sense is “engaged in or busied with plans or preparations to do something; planning, conspiring, or scheming to do something” (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “about (adv.), sense IV.11.a,” March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1099335878). The scholars responsible for the Oxford English Dictionary haven’t found any instance of this sense of ‘about to’ since the late 1600s. Nevertheless, Book of Mormon Critical Text Project finds that this obsolete, archaic meaning is used in the Book of Mormon. My own research finds that this meaning applies, not only in Words of Mormon 1:1, but also in Helaman 1:7–8 and 22–23; Alma 10:19; and (as explained in Mark Campbell’s earlier comment to this article) Mormon 4:23.
(Mark Campbell correctly points out, contrary to my own assertion in my article, that the archaic meaning is probably not used in 1 Nephi 17:17, where Nephi says that he was ‘about to’ build a ship. Campbell notes that even though Nephi was only making tools at the time, his words still convey a sense of immediacy. He explains, “Even today, I can say ‘I am about to build a new house.’ What is happening immediately is the commencement, not the conclusion of the construction. There is no need for an archaic meaning to be inferred.”)
Neville disagrees with the findings of the Book of Mormon Critical Text Project that the original text of the Book of Mormon is primarily Early Modern English (see, for example, Jonathan Neville, “Skousen/Carmack and Early Modern English Translation (EMET),” Moroni’s America (blog), 29 May 2020, (https://www.moronisamerica.com/skousen-carmack-and-early-modern-english-theory-emet/). Neville’s explanation for much of the archaic wording in the original text of the Book of Mormon relies on the idea that Joseph Smith was intimately familiar with the works of Jonathan Edwards and therefore was prone to use words as Edwards did. Consequently, Neville asserts in his comment about my article that “Jonathan Edwards, among others, used the phrase [‘about to’] in that [archaic] sense.” Thus, the issue raised by Neville’s comment is whether the use of the archaic, obsolete sense of the term ‘about to’ in the text of the Book of Mormon could be due to Joseph Smith’s acquaintance with Edwards’s works (or the works of others who wrote in the 1700s or later).
[Cliff Jones response to Jonathan Neville: ‘about to’ Part 2 of 2.]
Jonathan Edwards was a theologian of British American Puritanism who was born on October 5, 1703, about a century before Joseph Smith. He may be best known for his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” We know that the meanings of some words in Edwards’s works have been specifically considered by Oxford English Dictionary scholars because his works are repeatedly quoted in the Oxford English Dictionary as samples of word usage in the 1700s.
The words ‘about’ and ‘to’ are sometimes used in sequence in terms other than the specific lexical item ‘about to.’ Some other terms use the word ‘about’ just before the infinitive form of a verb. Because the infinitive always begins with the word ‘to,’ these other terms always use these two words in sequence. One must be careful not to conflate these unrelated terms with the lexical item ‘about to.” For instance, the term ‘to go about’ is not used in Words of Mormon 1:1, but is used elsewhere in the Book of Mormon (see, for example, Jacob 7:6, Enos 1:19, and Mosiah 27:10-11). The term ‘to go about’ is not obsolete, but is still in use today. It means “To busy oneself with doing something; to endeavour, contrive, or conspire to do something” (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “’to go about’ in go (v.), sense 3,” March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5606053291). Other distinct terms that can be conflated with the term ‘about to’ for the same reason include ‘to turn oneself about,’ ‘to be carried about,’ and ‘to come about.’
As explained in my article, there is one construction of the term ‘about to’ still in use today that doesn’t carry a sense of immediacy. In negative constructions, chiefly in North America, the term “not about to” means “not intending or planning to do something” (Oxford English Dictionary, s.v. “about (adv.), sense IV.11.b,” March 2024, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1494109635). This construction isn’t used in the Book of Mormon (or anywhere else in scripture).
To test Neville’s hypothesis about Edwards’s use of the obsolete sense of the term ‘about to,’ I searched an extensive set of Edwards’s works (well over 3,000 pages of text) for all instances of the string ‘about to.’ This extensive set included not only all writings in the 1879 publication, The Works of President Edwards (a four volume set published in New York by Robert Carter and Brothers (see https://archive.org/details/workspresidente17edwagoog/mode/2up, https://archive.org/details/workspresidente21edwagoog/mode/2up, https://archive.org/details/workspresidente16edwagoog/mode/2up, and https://archive.org/details/workspresidente18edwagoog/mode/2up), but also the sermons found in ‘92 Sermons of Jonathan Edwards’ written by Edwards between 1703 and 1758 and published by Monergism Books (see https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/edwards/92SermonsofJonathanEdwards.pdf). It’s possible, of course, that a few of the writings of Jonathan Edwards are not included in these comprehensive sources. As I learn of other such writings, I can add them to my study, but these sources certainly include a substantial majority of Edwards’s writings.
My search of this large set of Edwards’s works identified 146 unique instances of the string ‘about to.’ None of these 146 unique instances use the term ‘about to’ with the archaic meaning found in the Book of Mormon, a meaning that had become obsolete long before Edwards began writing. Of the 146 instances, 47 are easily ruled out. In 2 of them, punctuation separates the words ‘about’ and ‘to,’ so the term ‘about to’ isn’t actually used. In 1, Edwards uses the term ‘not about to,’ the North American negative construction. In 4 other instances, the text was authored by someone other than Edwards. In the other 40 instances, the words ‘about to’ are part of the unrelated terms mentioned above that end with the word ‘about’ and are always followed by the infinitive, which begins with the word ‘to.’ There is one use each of ‘to turn oneself about,’ ‘to be carried about,’ and ‘to come about;’ and there are 37 uses of ‘to go about.’
Each of the remaining 99 uses of the term ‘about to’ by Edwards describes something that is, or is considered as if it were, on the verge of occurring—using the common meaning of ‘about to.’ Thus, at least within the thousands of pages of the works of Jonathan Edwards that I analyzed, Jonathan Edwards never used the term ‘about to’ in the obsolete sense that applies in Words of Mormon 1:1. This finding agrees with the Oxford English Dictionary, which states that this archaic sense of ‘about to’ became obsolete in the late 1600s. Even if Joseph Smith were well acquainted with Edwards’s writings, he could not have learned about this obsolete sense of the term ‘about to’ from those writings.
Thanks for the meticulous analysis. It often takes this kind of serious work to see if apparent relationships between two texts really have any explanatory power. In the case of the archaic use of “about to” in the Book of Mormon, it’s clear that Jonathan Edwards was not the inspiration for that feature. Nice work.
I love a good jig saw puzzle!
I’m getting to your article 3 years late. I read all the Interpreter articles but when I encountered your article 3 years ago it must not have resonated with me. I’ve been wondering about the Words of Mormon “plate” this year. As an amateur but dedicated lifetime reader I came to the conclusion on my own that the WoM plate must have been a separate plate attached at the end of the small plates. You’ve convinced me otherwise. Thank you. I just love your close readings! It amazes me what can be gleaned from the forensic tangible evidence.
I Found your article referenced in Val Larsen’s latest Interpreter article … footnote 39.
Some questions…
In your online remarks/ reply to Jerry Grover you mention: “The chain of custody for these plates indicates that the original small plates of Nephi, which Amaleki delivered to King Benjamin, were among the plates that Moroni …placed in the care of Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.” I presume you mean/ believe that the small plates were in the stone box along with the Plates of Mormon and retrieved by JS along with the U&T & breastplate on the night of Sep. 21, 1927?
Question? Do any of your conclusions hinge on whether the small plates were somehow “attached” to the plates of Mormon or whether JS received the small plates at a later date from the messenger?
In your footnote 13 you say, “… these small plates are the only plates of Nephi included among the plates that Joseph Smith received from Moroni….”
On pg 19 you say, “… the retained manuscript was completed, and the translation eventually proceeded through the balance of Mormon’s writings, through Moroni’s writings, and then the writings on the small plates, ending with the book of Omni.” Is it your belief that the small plates of Nephi were attached at the end of the plate of Mormon?
On pg 31 you say, “…But Mormon didn’t include the small-plate record with his own record until after he wrote his aside (see Words of Mormon 1:6).”
Again on pg 39 you say, “Mormon…had not yet put the small plates with his abridged record…”
Don Bradley in his “..116 Lost Pages…” book, asserts on pg 109, that “Mormon… spliced the intrusive small plates into his record…”
My printed BoM chapter heading for WoM states “He inserts the plates of Nephi into the abridgment..” But I notice that the online scripture heading says, “Mormon…. puts the small plates with the other plates.”
D&C 9:2 says “… other records have I, that I will give unto you power that you may assist to translate.” Couldn’t this indicate that the small plates of Nephi were made available at a later time and may not have been in the stone box with the plates of Mormon?
Then there is all the instruction in D&C 10:39-46 and the uncertainty when D&C 10 was received. You reiterate somewhere in your article what is now in the online D&C header “Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, likely around April 1829, though portions may have been received as early as the summer of 1828.” I’m not sure how this all relates to concluding whether the small plates were attached to the plates of Mormon or delivered at a late date to JS & OC in Fayette (as Jonathan Neville asserts.)
Can you help me better understand why you believe the small plates of Nephi were “attached” somehow to the plates of Mormon?
Thank you again for your stimulating, challenging, interesting, faith promoting article. Indeed the BoM was produced organically with JS & OC dealing with events as they unfolded day by day.
I just love the BoM production mysteries.
I’ll also be reading your 2019 article, “The Record of My Father.”
Any response/ comments would be greatly appreciated by me.
Thanks again, Blair Lucas
[Cliff Jones response to Blair Lucas. Part 1 of 3.]
Thanks, Blair, for your careful reading of my article. You ask whether the small plates of Nephi were included in the ancient book of plates that were in the “stone box” (Joseph Smith—History 1:51). You note that Jonathan Neville claims that the small plates of Nephi were not among these plates, but were given to Joseph Smith years later, near the end of the translation process. This claim is hard to reconcile with the words in the Book of Mormon and with the historical record.
Words of Mormon begins a chain of custody, or history, of the completed small plates of Nephi (the specific set of plates delivered by Amaleki to King Benjamin). This history consistently refers to the small plates of Nephi as “these plates,” “them,” and “they” (see Words of Mormon 1:3, 4, 6, 10, and 11). In Words of Mormon 1:6, Mormon promises to “take ‘these plates’ [the small plates of Nephi] … and put ‘them’ with the remainder of my record [his yet-to-be-completed abridgment].” Mormon explains that he will put these small plates with his own record because, “‘they’ [the small plates of Nephi] are choice unto me [Mormon]; and I know ‘they’ will be choice unto my brethren [in the latter days]” (Words of Mormon 1:6). He later adds, “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” (Words of Mormon 1:7. See also 1 Nephi 9:5-6.). Thus, Mormon will put the small plates of Nephi with his own record according to the Lord’s will.
My article explains that Words of Mormon 1:1 tell us that Mormon is ‘working to’ “deliver up the record [he has] been making [his abridgment of the large plates of Nephi] into the hands of [his] son, Moroni.” With this aim in mind, he tells us that he will do the Lord’s will and put the small plates of Nephi with his abridgment. Mormon will deliver his record into the hands of Moroni. By putting the small plates of Nephi with his record, he will ensure that both records will be “hid up unto the Lord [in the stone box], to come forth in due time by way of the Gentile” (Book of Mormon Title Page).
Accordingly, after Mormon had “made ‘this record’” (his now-completed abridgment), he gave Moroni “these few plates” (Mormon 6:6). The passages quoted above clarify that Mormon’s term ‘these few plates’ necessarily refers to both Mormon’s own record and the small plates of Nephi because Mormon has put them with his record, so he gave both to Moroni. Mormon survived the battle of Cumorah and was able to make a final entry in his record (see Mormon 6 and 7). After Mormon’s death, Moroni added his own writings to those of his father, including his addition to the book of Mormon, his abridgment of the book of Ether, the sealed portion of the record, and Moroni’s own book. Moroni then bound together all sacred records in his care, including these writings of Mormon and Moroni and the separate small plates of Nephi received from Mormon, into the ancient book. He hid this composite bound book of plates unto the Lord in the “stone box.” On September 22, 1827, Moroni delivered this ancient bound book to Joseph Smith.
Mormon’s explanation that he will put the small plates of Nephi with his own record suggests that although the two records would be kept together, they remained separate records. Each contains its own unique description of content and purpose. When the 116 pages of manuscript containing the translation of the first part of Mormon’s record were lost by Martin Harris, the small plates of Nephi were already in Joseph Smith’s custody. The Lord directed in Doctrine and Covenants 10 that they be translated and that their translated content would become the first part of our Book of Mormon. Even though our Book of Mormon includes content from both of these records, the statement of content and purpose for the records of Mormon and Moroni (the title page) now serves (quite well) as the title page for our entire Book of Mormon.
[Cliff Jones response to Blair Lucas. Part 2 of 3.]
Joseph Smith consistently referred to the entire ancient bound book of plates simply as “the plates.” (See Joseph Smith—History 1:34-35, 42, 46, 50-53, 59, 62-63, 65-66, and 68). Similarly, his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, used the term ‘the plates’ to refer to this ancient book. She used this term with this meaning at least 50 times in her 1845 history (https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1845/1). In some cases, she quotes from Joseph’s history, but most instances are in Lucy’s own words. For example, she says that before Joseph received the plates, Moroni warned him that “when he went to get ‘the plates,’ he must be on his guard, or his mind would be filled with darkness” (p. 81) and told him that “the time for ‘the plates’ to be brought forth to the world had not yet come” (p. 84). She added that Joseph told his family the following evening “what passed between him and the angel, while he was at the [place] where ‘the plates’ were deposited” (Ibid.).
In addition to using the term ‘the plates’ in this consistent manner, Lucy also used the term ‘the Record’ about 30 times as an equivalent term. For instance, after she explained that David Whitmer came to Harmony, Pennsylvania to take Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to Fayette, New York. She says,
“When Joseph commenced making preparations for the journey, he inquired of the Lord to know in what manner he should carry ‘the plates;’ his answer was, that he should commit into the hands of an angel for ‘their’ safety; and, when he should arrive at Mr. Whitmer’s, the angel would meet him again in the garden, and deliver ‘them’ up again into his hands. … On arriving at Waterloo [Lucy often uses the name of this prominent town near Fayette as the location of the Whitmer residence], Joseph received ‘the Record’ according to promise, and the next day, they resumed the work of transtation (sic), which they continued without farther interruption until the whole work was accomplished” (pp. 150-151).
David Whitmer left a separate account of these same events. Like Lucy, he also said that a messenger took “the plates” just before the group left Harmony and that he learned that “‘the plates’ were placed or concealed in my father’s barn” sometime “soon after our arrival home” (Interview of David Whitmer by Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith in September 1878, Millennial Star, 40 (9 Dec 1878): 771-74, https://whitmercollege.com/interviews/orson-pratt-joseph-f-smith-1878/, 772). These two independent accounts both indicate that ‘the plates,’ which were taken from Joseph by an angel or messenger, arrived safely in Fayette about the time Joseph, Oliver, and David arrived there.
As Lucy’s account continues, she again uses the term ‘the plates’ in the same manner as she describes the experiences of the witnesses, explaining that one morning, after praying, “Joseph arose from his knees, and, approaching Martin, … said: ‘Martin Harris, you have got to humble yourself before your God this day, that you may obtain a forgiveness of your sins: if you do, it is the will of God that you should look upon ‘the plates’ in company with Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer’” (p. 152). Later, when these four men returned to the house, Joseph exclaimed, “Father, mother; you do not know happy I am; the Lord has now caused ‘the plates’ to be shown to three more besides myself” (p. 153).
[Cliff Jones response to Blair Lucas. Part 3 of 3.]
Lucy then explains that after they returned to their home in Manchester, New York, they “retired to a place where the family were in the habit of offering up their secret devotions to God. They went to this place because it had been revealed to Joseph that ‘the plates’ would be carried thither by one of the ancient Nephites: Here it was that those eight witnesses, whose names are recorded in the Book of Mormon, looked upon ‘them’ and handled ‘them.’” Thus, Lucy’s record indicates that these eight witnesses, like the three witnesses, saw ‘the plates’ and bore testimony of the experience.
The Testimony of Three Witnesses confirms these events using these same terms. Among other things, the three witnesses testify that they “have seen ‘the plates’ which contain ‘this record’ [the Book of Mormon]” and that “‘they’ [the plates] have been translated by the gift and power of God.” They also testify that they “have seen the engravings which are upon ‘the plates;’ and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw ‘the plates,’ and the engravings thereon.” This testimony indicates that ‘the plates’ shown to these witnesses by the power of God contained the entire record that became the Book of Mormon, and not just a portion thereof. The words “which contain ‘this record’” may also suggest that the witnesses did not see other individual plates within the ancient book whose content was not included in the Book of Mormon record, perhaps a reference to the sealed portion that was not translated and whose plates could not be seen because they were sealed.
The Testimony of Eight Witnesses follows the same pattern. In it, the eight witnesses testify that Joseph Smith, Jun. showed them “‘the plates’ of which hath been spoken” and that they handled “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated.” These words indicate that the eight witnesses, like the three witnesses, handled all translated leaves [plates] (including both the translated plates of Mormon and the translated small plates of Nephi). The limitation in this wording, “as many leaves as the said Smith has translated” may also suggest the existence of untranslated leaves, perhaps leaves that were sealed in a manner that prevented them from being “handled” in the same manner as the translated leaves.
Similar usage of the term ‘the plates’ by David Whitmer corroborates these facts. In his answer to Orson Pratt’s question, “Do you remember what time you saw ‘the plates?’” he says, “It was in June, 1829—the latter part of the month, and the Eight Witnesses saw ‘them,’ I think, the next day or the day after (i.e. one or two days after). Joseph showed them ‘the plates’ himself, but the angel showed us (the Three Witnesses) ‘the plates,’ …. Martin Harris was not with us at this time; he obtained a view of ‘them’ afterwards (the same day). Joseph, Oliver and myself were together when I saw ‘them.’” (“Interview of David Whitmer,” 771)
In summary, the words of the Book of Mormon and the words of Joseph Smith, Lucy Mack Smith, and David Whitmer convincingly and consistently support the conclusion that their term ‘the plates’ refers to one ancient book of plates—a book that contained not only the writings of Mormon and Moroni, but also the small plates of Nephi, which were kept with those writings.
Thanks for a thoughtful and persuasive article.
I believe that 1 Nephi 17: 17 (page 43 of the paper) is not a strong example of the purported archaic usage of the phrase “about to”. This verse begins: “And when my brethren saw that I was about to build a ship, they began to murmur against me . . . “
Here are all the other instances where Nephi uses the phrase “about to”:
– 1 Nephi 3: 14: “my brethren were about to return unto my father”
– 1 Nephi 4: 30: [Zoram] “was about to flee from before me”
– 1 Nephi 17: 43: [the Jews] “are at this day about to be destroyed”
– 1 Nephi 17: 55: [Nephi’s brethren] “were about to worship me”
– 1 Nephi 18: 15: “we were about to be swallowed up in the depths of the sea”
– 1 Nephi 18: 18: “their grey hairs were about to be brought down to lie low in the dust”
– 1 Nephi 18: 20: “they were about to be swallowed up in the depths of the sea”
Clearly, Nephi meant to convey a sense of immediacy in all these other instances. So, why not in 1 Nephi 17: 17 too? Even today, I can say “I am about to build a new house”. What is happening immediately is the commencement, not the conclusion of the construction. There is no need for an archaic meaning to be inferred.
Similarly, 1 Nephi 17: 17 indicates that Nephi was about to commence building a ship. The tools had been made (1 Nephi 17: 16) and he was about to begin. The construction might take a long time, but he was commencing the work immediately. So, I disagree that Nephi’s use of “about to” in 1 Nephi 17: 17 should be read in any archaic, non-immediate sense.
A better example of the purported archaic usage is found in Mormon 4: 23. It reads: “And now I, Mormon, seeing that the Lamanites were about to overthrow the land, therefore I did go to the hill Shim, and did take up all the records which Ammaron had hid up unto the Lord.” In this instance, the Lamanite effort to “overthrow the land” was already well underway (Mormon 4). However, that effort would not conclude for another decade (Mormon 6). Yet Mormon still states that the overthrow was “about to” occur. This example is far closer in spirit to the argument made in the article. Namely, that Mormon was “about to deliver” – i.e. he had already begun and was actively working to deliver – the abridged record to Moroni.
The example of Mormon 4: 23 is particularly appealing because it is written in Mormon’s own voice and is not an abridgement of others’ words. Therefore, it provides far stronger support for the paper’s purported archaic meaning of Words of Mormon 1: 1.
Thanks, Mark for your well-reasoned comment. I agree that Mormon 4:23 is a better example of the archaic meaning of the term ‘about to’ and that it also supports Words of Mormon 1:1 more directly because, as you say, “it is written in Mormon’s own voice and is not an abridgment of others’ words.”
It also does not seem exactly clear in your article how Mormon’s description of “these plates” in WofM 1:3 would not be indicative that Words of Mormon was written on the small plates. In WofM 1:5 it says he finished his record “upon them.” How do you interpret these passages in light of your theory?
Jerry:
Thanks for these two additional questions. Detailed answers are found on pages 31-39 of my paper. The meaning of the term ‘these plates,’ as used four times in Word of Mormon, is explained across all nine pages. The meaning of the term ‘upon them,’ as used in Words of Mormon 1:5, is explained on pages 35-39 under the heading “Mormon’s Choice to Focus the Balance of His Abridgment on Small-plate Prophecies.”
Great article. I was inspired to take this on because I am working on Moroni’s influences and my argument was strengthened if Amaleki in the Book of Omni was the last writer in the Moroni’s Book of Mormon rather than Mormon in Words of Mormon. But the point made here runs much deeper than I anticipated. This article performs a kind of Copernican revolution, making what might seem the weakest point in the coming forth narrative into the strongest point. If the point made here is valid–and the evidence is powerful–Words of Mormon 1:1-8 occurred at a providential point in the translation process, at the very point where everyone’s testimony would need to be shored up and would be shored up by the retained text. Were there no retained text, someone might skeptically but somewhat naturally read Words of Mormon as Joseph’s ad hoc explanation for his inability to reproduce the lost pages. But if Martin, Oliver, and others gathered around Joseph knew that Mormon’s aside on the Small Plates had been produced before–just before–the 116 pages were lost, then that aside would read for them as a powerful testimony that God did indeed foresee the loss of the pages and had a plan in place for making up the loss. The evidence for that plan would appear in the text and be retained at the very moment when it would be most needed.
So the timing of the passage makes all the difference in the evidential status of Words of Mormon 1:1-8. It was exciting to read this more than credible account of the pre-loss production of these verses.
I had planned to raise the “about to” objection in the comment section and ask for your explanation, but you made that question moot with your extensive discussion in the text. Other modern usages that reflect, I think, the older meaning you cite are the following:
“What is he about?”
“What is he all about?”
The latter usages is more common and means something like: what are his purposes and values and goals and intentions. But I think I first encountered the former usage, in contexts where people wonder if someone has ulterior plans and purposes or is engaged in hidden, purposeful activity. That usage closely reflects the one you attribute to Mormon and the one you cite, e.g., “I am not about to support that cause.”
Finally, while I can’t make it here, I think a strong case can be made that Mormon wrote much of his history with a Nephite audience in mind before he came to know that his people would be completely destroyed. At various points, even quite late, he says things that leave open the possibility that the Nephites will not be destroyed. And much of what he has written makes perfect sense if his intended audience was elite Nephite males, much less sense if his envisioned audience was us moderns. But if my hypothesis be granted, one must add that at some point near the end of his life, Mormon did know for certain that the people would be destroyed. At that point, he probably would not have had time to write a entirely new history, perfectly calibrated for a modern audience. But he would have had time to rework an existing history meant for a Nephite audience, putting emphasis on the prophecies of destruction that he found in the small plates. So the text we have becomes a mix of messages perfectly calibrated to train Nephite elites and statements that show the futility of any text meant to train those elite–since there will be no more Nephites, elite or otherwise, to read the message.
This hypothesis could bridge the two meanings of “about to,” making the imminent meaning relevant because Mormon didn’t have to fully rewrite his history (which includes the accounts of all those wars and political dealings so useful for training Nephite leaders). He just needed to redraft to include/underscore in a few relevant places the Small Plates prophecies of destruction, now clearly about to be fulfilled, something he had not previously known to be true.
Once again, thanks for drafting such a thorough (and in my view, the most faith promoting account) of how Words of Mormon relates to the lost 116 pages.
Thanks for sharing your insights about how Mormon’s words in the retained text would likely have strengthened Joseph Smith and his associates at a difficult time. Thanks also for your thoughts about the term ‘about to.’ I look forward to learning more about your continuing Book of Mormon research.
Thank you for your important insight on how the Words of Mormon might have affected those close to Joseph at a difficult time.
I didn’t see any reference to a bit of my research that touched upon this topic that contains some previously unmentioned possibilities as to the Words of Mormon and transition. You might find it of interest. The discussion relevant to this topic is found on pages 21-28. http://bmslr.org/possibilities-of-a-reformed-egyptian-version-of-the-small-plates/
Jerry:
Thanks for your comment and for your diligent study of the Book of Mormon. I was unaware of your writings when I wrote my paper. Unfortunately, no author can possibly find or review all of the personal sites on the Internet that relate to the Book of Mormon. My paper responds to peer-reviewed research published in respected scholarly journals.
I have now reviewed your ideas as well. Your effort to understand the Book of Mormon is commendable. Nevertheless, your analysis suffers from several weaknesses. For instance, Words of Mormon describes a chain of custody that runs counter to your analysis. It’s the chain of custody for the specific set of plates delivered by Amaleki to King Benjamin. This chain of custody isn’t just for the concepts once written on those original plates, but rather it describes the history of the plates themselves—a set of plates referred to as ‘these plates’ four times in Words of Mormon. This series of clear statements follows ‘these plates’ from Amaleki’s hands to Mormon’s hands.
Verse 10 explains that “Amaleki delivered up ‘these plates’ into the hands of king Benjamin,” whose successors passed them on until “’they’ have fallen into my [Mormon’s] hands.” In verse 6, we learn that Mormon planned to “take ‘these plates’ … and put them with the remainder of my [his] record.” After Mormon did so, he passed these plates, together with his own completed record, to Moroni (see Mormon 6:6). The chain of custody for these plates indicates that the original small plates of Nephi, which Amaleki delivered to King Benjamin, were among the plates that Moroni, as a messenger from God, placed in the care of Joseph Smith, who translated them by the gift and power of God.
I don’t disagree with the chain of custody, I did address that in that the indication that the plate set included the original small plates, with the set of translated reformed Egyptian version. I don’t think that portion is incompatible with your proposal. Btw, that paper was peer reviewed, actually much more so than the Interpreter actually does. It was also part of a larger peer reviewed published book (The Translation of the Caractors Document, Revised and Updated) which is available in various university libraries and free to view online.
I do think the your approach is a distinct possibility and contains new ideas, which is good. I do have a few questions.
1) As I pointed out in my paper, the occasional chapter headings are indicative of an editor (that is why the headings in Jacob are an indication that the version we are reading has been interpreted by someone). Your premise is that Mormon would have used this structure when breaking into the narrative with his own commentary, which he does numerous times throughout the Book of Mormon without using occasional chapter headings. Why would he only do that here?
2) The capitalization as we see in the Original Manuscript is extremely haphazard, Skousen really didn’t even include it in his analysis of the Original Text. Are you implying that it is an evidence of your theory?
Jerry:
Thanks for your comments and questions.
Even with your explanation, I find your paper ambivalent, at best, about the chain of custody. Your strongest support for the chain of custody is on page 5, where you suggest that the plates received by Joseph Smith may (or may not) have included a portion or all of the original small plates that Amaleki gave to King Benjamin.
You suggest, however, that Joseph Smith definitely received “a version of the small plates that had been translated [by an unknown agent] into reformed Egyptian.” You recognize that this idea is never mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, you suggest that Joseph Smith didn’t translate the writings found on the original small plates of Nephi, but only the writings of this hypothetical, unmentioned, version, which was translated and edited anciently by an unknown hand.
To the degree that your paper allows that some or all of the original small plates of Nephi were delivered to Joseph Smith, it insists that Joseph Smith failed to translate the words on those original plates. This suggestion seems completely unnecessary and quite incompatible with the words in the Book of Mormon and in Doctrine and Covenants section 10.
With respect to chapter headings, Stephen O. Smoot (Stephen O. Smoot, “Notes on Book of Mormon Heads,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 40 (2020): 263‒82 ) calls these occasional chapter headings “markers of embedded content” because they “delineate embedded material” that has been inserted “within individual books of the Book of Mormon.”
My paper asserts that Mormon embedded the personal aside in Words of Mormon 1:1-8 within the historical narrative of the book of Mosiah. To do so, he chose to begin a new chapter with a chapter heading (marker of embedded content). This is in line with the pattern observed by Smoot and with Brant Gardner’s statement that “When Mormon began using a new source, he created a new chapter…. Sometimes he notes that he is finished with a source and is returning to the large plates.” (Brant Gardner, Labor Diligently to Write: The Ancient Making of a Modern Scripture (Provo, UT: Interpreter Foundation, 2020), 28.)
Words of Mormon is a new chapter with a heading containing information from a new source (Mormon’s personal words as opposed to the abridgment of the large-plate record). When Mormon ends his personal words and resumes his abridgment, he uses a resumptive structure (Words of Mormon 1:9-10) to note the transition. Of course, Mormon sometimes inserts asides or other content without the use of chapter headings. After noting a pattern in Mormon’s use of headings, Smoot says, it “is not universally applied throughout Mormon’s abridgment (Smoot, Notes, 68). Similarly, Gardner notes that Mormon sometimes moves from specific records back to the large plates without a clear indication in the text (see Labor Diligently, 28-29). We are sometimes left to infer transitions without the help of headings. While this may make some transitions harder to identify, it doesn’t diminish the value of the headings that Mormon does provide. Neither Smoot nor Gardner suggests that such headings are only found in edited writings. Smoot notes that ancient Egyptian writers used similar devices in their original works. Thus, in my view, the headings to Alma 36, 38, and 39 appear to have been written by Alma; the heading in 2 Nephi 6 appears to have been written by Nephi (or perhaps by Jacob); and the heading in Jacob 2 appears to have been written by Jacob. The small plate chapter headings don’t suggest that the original writings of Nephi and Jacob were edited by an unknown agent.
As for capitalization, my paper discusses only the capitalization of book headings and chapter headings in the printer’s manuscript. Although your comment refers to capitalization in the original manuscript, I assume it was meant to refer to my analysis of capitalization in these headings in the printer’s manuscript. While some capitalization in the manuscripts may be haphazard, the word ‘Book’ is consistently capitalized in all book titles in the printer’s manuscript. Similarly, the word ‘words’ is consistently not capitalized in any chapter heading. Similarly placed words in other chapter headings generally follow this same pattern. My paper not only acknowledges nonstandard capitalization among the various chapter headings, but also includes an addendum so readers can review such capitalization for themselves. This point about capitalization is a minor point, discussed in one paragraph of my paper, but yes, I not only imply but directly state that it supports my thesis. The consistent capitalization of the word ‘Book’ across all book titles and the consistent lack of capitalization of the word ‘words’ in chapter headings are all the more remarkable in light of haphazard capitalization elsewhere in the manuscripts.
You might characterize the portion of the paper that dealt with the Words of Mormon transition a bit ambivalent, as I was trying to determine the compatibility of the small plates reformed Egyptian premise with the varying proposals on the Words of Mormon (primarily Skousen, Gardner, Lyon, and now yourself). I was careful to title my paper as a “possibility” as there were certain evidential areas where there really isn’t enough information to definitively say one way or the other, but the premise of a reformed Egyptian small plates does answer a variety of questions raised by critics and have bedeviled apologists (which I am not one) for some time. I am a scientist so am not so dogmatic as not to change my point of view if new information and data present itself. Please don’t interpret my questions as accusatory. I am always interested in exploring new points of view. I find it interesting that there really are BOM camps that defend their premise to the end no matter what the new evidence is and really aren’t very open minded, even on such a small topic as this. I found your proposal very interesting and am just trying to weigh it against the others, and also with some of my own past thinking.
Thanks for answering the question on capitalization, that clarifies what you are asserting (and not asserting) very well. There is still something about the use of “Words of Mormon” that seems incomplete to me. As you say many (most) of these chapter type headings are likely present in the original source material, others like (as your point of view seems to be) Nephi inserting the term words of Jacob (Nephi acting as an editor although it may be possible this was also an original source, but that seems strange as it doesn’t really add anything to the text in terms of summation, etc). It doesn’t seem consistent that Mormon himself would insert a heading referring to himself, either as an original source or as an editor. I suppose, based on your interpretation of the second words of Jacob reference, that Jacob did something similar, maybe there is precedence for this type of insertion, although the point of doing so escapes me, and it is removed by nearly 1000 years of history and writing from the Words of Mormon. My prior opinion was that the words of Jacob insertion was a small piece of evidence of a minor editor in the small plates.
In any event, thanks for responding to the questions. I think that your position is interesting, and has quite a few compelling arguments. I plan on chewing on it further when I have some more time.
Jerry:
Thanks for your efforts to look at this with an open mind.
Cliff, I’ve been pondering your explanation of “about to” in this paper. You explained, “In the aside, Mormon, who still needed to abridge about five centuries of the history of his people, writes that he is ‘about to deliver up the record which [he has] been making into the hands of [his] son Moroni’ (Words of Mormon 1:1). In this context, the modern meaning of the term ‘about to’ is out of place, but the archaic meaning, used in several other Book of Mormon passages, fits well, telling us that Mormon is working to deliver into the hands of his son Moroni the record he has been making.”
At first, I thought you could very well be right about this, but after reflection, I’ve changed my mind. You’re interpreting “about to deliver up the record” as “about to *finish abridging* the record,” which isn’t the same thing at all. In fact, “about to deliver up the record” implies that the record is *already finished* and that Mormon is working toward (“about to”) actually getting it into the hands of Moroni.
It’s true that in verse 9 Mormon says, “And now I, Mormon, proceed to finish out my record,” but I believe he’s talking about Mormon chapters 6 and 7, which begin “And *now I finish my record* concerning the destruction of my people, the Nephites. In fact, Mormon’s “about to deliver” could refer to writing the material in those two chapters. By Mormon 8:1, Moroni has the records: “Behold I, Moroni, do finish the record of my father, Mormon”; at that point Mormon has successfully delivered the record to his son.
I see another possible problem with your thesis. When Mormon is writing the Words of Mormon, he says in verse 6, “I shall take these [small] plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record.” This implies that the words he is currently writing (the Words of Mormon) are *separate* from the “remainder” of his record, not part of it.
Jack:
It appears that further explanation of the archaic meaning of the term ‘about to’ may be helpful. With this archaic meaning, the term ‘about to’ indicates an ongoing effort aimed toward ultimately, but not immediately, reaching a specified goal. Because this term implies no sense of immediacy, the specified goal needn’t be an immediate goal. It is often a long-term, ultimate goal, with several interim goals to be accomplished before the ultimate goal is reached. A clear example is found in Helaman 1:22-23. As explained in the paper, the term ‘about to’ is used in this passage to explain that Coriantumr was “about to [working to] go forth against all the land.” Going forth against “all the land” was clearly the ultimate goal, but it had to be accomplished one step at a time. The term ‘about to’ describes the ultimate goal, but the first interim goal was to “march forth with a large army even towards the city of Bountiful.” Your comment suggests that Mormon should have referred to only this interim goal with the term ‘about to,’ but the text indicates that it is appropriate to use this term with a more-distant ultimate goal. There is no implication in the archaic meaning of the term ‘about to’ that any interim goals have already been achieved.
This same concept applies in Alma 10:19. In this verse, the term ‘about to’ is used to explain that Alma’s ultimate goal was to “deliver up the kingdom” to the first chief judge. As explained in detail on page 43 of the paper, several important interim goals needed to be accomplished before this ultimate goal could be achieved. So once again, the term ‘about to’ refers to the ultimate goal rather than to the next interim goal.
In Words of Mormon, Mormon uses the term ‘about to’ with exactly the same meaning. Rather than referring to an interim goal, such as finishing the abridgment, the term ‘about to’ refers to Mormon’s ultimate goal to “deliver up the record which [he has] been making into the hands of [his] son Moroni” (Words of Mormon 1:1). This meaning fits well in this context and in the greater context of all other language in Words of Mormon (including the language of the resumptive structure in Words of Mormon 1:9-10).
As for the possible problem you see in Words of Mormon 1:6, the paper explains that Words of Mormon, in its entirety, is the original second chapter of Mosiah. None of this chapter was written on the small plates of Nephi. Mormon wrote this chapter on the plates of Mormon (where he wrote all of his abridgment of the large plates of Nephi.) You correctly state that Words of Mormon 1:6 tells us that the small-plate record is separate from the remainder of Mormon’s record. This remainder is the extensive portion of Mormon’s abridgment that is not yet written at the time he writes these words. Thus, the language in Words of Mormon 1:6 fits perfectly with my thesis. (For a more detailed explanation, please review pages 32, 33, and 38 of the paper.)
Cliff, thanks for your reply. You wrote:
“It appears that further explanation of the archaic meaning of the term ‘about to’ may be helpful. With this archaic meaning, the term ‘about to’ indicates an ongoing effort aimed toward ultimately, but not immediately, reaching a specified goal.”
I understand the archaic meaning. My point is that it’s a big stretch to interpret “about to deliver” as you have done if Mormon still has hundreds of years of Nephite history left to abridge. Why didn’t he say “about to finish” instead (in the archaic sense)? And in fact that’s basically what he does say in verse 9: “And now I, Mormon, proceed to finish out my record.”
I think it’s much more likely that when Mormon says “about to deliver” (in the archaic sense), he means exactly what he is saying. His abridgment is basically finished and he is working out how to deliver the record to Moroni.
In my mind, verse 2 also supports this interpretation: “It is many hundred years after the coming of Christ that I [now] deliver these records into the hands of my son; and it supposeth me that he will witness the entire destruction of my people.” I’ve read your explanation of this verse in footnote 84, but I disagree with your conclusion.
I also need to comment on Words of Mormon verse 5, which begins, “Wherefore, I chose these things, to finish my record upon them.” Throughout your article, you’ve rendered that as “Wherefore, I *choose* [present tense] these things, to finish my record upon them,” which better supports your theory, but you didn’t mention why you made that change. You may be aware that “choose” is Royal Skousen’s preferred reading. Here is his analysis:
—————————————————–
Here in the Words of Mormon 1:5, when copying from O into P, Oliver Cowdery himself apparently interpreted the verb as being in the past tense since he initially wrote “chosed” in P. He immediately erased the final “d” to give “chose.” The spelling “chosed” could stand for either of two nonstandard past-tense forms, “choosed” or “chosed,” given that Oliver would have spelled both “choose” and “chose” in O as “chose.” Nonetheless, the fact that Oliver did not generally distinguish between “choose” and “chose” in his manuscript spellings means that for each case of the spelling “chose” we have to determine whether or not the intended reading is in the past tense. In the Words of Mormon 1:5, the present-tense “choose” is more consistent with the use of the present-tense forms throughout verses 4–6.
https://interpreterfoundation.org/books/atv/p2/
—————————————————–
I agree with Royal on most things, but I think he’s made the wrong choice here. Why? Because as he points out, “Oliver Cowdery himself apparently interpreted the verb as being *in the past tense* since he initially wrote ‘chosed’ in P. He immediately erased the final ‘d’ to give ‘chose.'”
I also see little in the text itself to support Royal’s assertion that “the present-tense ‘choose’ is more consistent with the use of the present-tense forms throughout verses 4–6.”
At any rate, I disagree that “the language in Words of Mormon 1:6 fits perfectly with [your] thesis.” If the Words of Mormon are included as *part* of Mormon’s abridgment, why would he refer to it as “the remainder of my record”? Isn’t it more likely that he would have said “the remainder of *this* record”?
I believe that Words of Mormon verses 12-18 are what remains of Mosiah chapter 2, and that Mormon wrote Words of Mormon verses 1-11 on an additional plate that he placed at the end of the small plates, ending with “There are great things written upon [these small plates], 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.”
When Joseph and Oliver finished translating the small plates, they took those pages and put them on *top* of the manuscript that was left after the loss of the 116 pages. That manuscript began with what is now Words of Mormon verse 12: “And now, concerning this king Benjamin—he had somewhat of contentions among his own people” (or wording very close to that).
When Oliver later copied that juncture into the Printer’s Manuscript, he merged the end of the small-plates text (including what is now Words of Mormon verses 1-11) with the text that remained from Mosiah 2, incorrectly giving us this:
—————————————
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. And now, concerning this king Benjamin—he had somewhat of contentions among his own people.
—————————————
My theory is harder to understand than yours, but I believe it’s correct. Interested readers can find my…
By the way, the fact that Oliver wrote “chosed” (ungrammatical past tense) in the Printer’s Manuscript indicates that the word in the Original Manuscript was also “chosed” (past tense). I believe that this trumps Royal’s reasoning about “present-tense forms throughout verses 4–6.”
If “about to…deliver” in WM 1:1 means “engaging in…preparations to deliver,” what preparations is he talking about? Abridging the last half of the Nephite record? That would make the production of the abridgment secondary to its delivery, which doesn’t seem fitting. One wouldn’t describe the act of writing a letter to a loved one as “engaging in preparations to drop a letter in the mail.” Writing a letter to one’s loved one is the purposeful activity, not merely a preparatory step for walking to one’s mailbox. In this case, since Mormon is “about to deliver” the record to his son, he is not talking about producing the record, since producing the record is his primary mission, not merely a preparatory step for passing on the plates. Perhaps he’s instead saying that he’s working on the logistics of delivering the plates—how he’s going to transport them while avoiding detection, etc—which seems more consistent with being “engaged in or busied with plans or preparations.” But why would he bring up the logistics of transferring the plates when he’s only half way through his abridgment?
Stan:
This comment is intended to reply not only to your comment, but also to Jack’s most recent comments.
Mormon’s words in Words of Mormon 1:1 suggest that Mormon didn’t see delivering the record to Moroni as the equivalent of dropping a letter in the mail. The archaic meaning of ‘about to’ highlights a future event that Mormon sees as his finish line. To Mormon, delivering this record to Moroni was more akin to the pioneers entering the Salt Lake valley. Everything Mormon would do with sacred records before delivering this record to Moroni was preparatory. The delivery of a completed record to Moroni would mark Mormon’s fulfillment of a commandment of the Lord.
In Mormon 6:6, Mormon summarizes his efforts to preserve the records of his people. His words in this verse indicate that he had been given a commandment by which he could prevent “the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred” from falling “into the hands of the Lamanites, – for the Lamanites would destroy them.” These words identify three things Mormon did to fulfill this commandment. First, he “made this record out of the plates of Nephi.” Next, he “hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to [him] by the hand of the Lord.” Finally, he gave “these few plates … unto [his] son Moroni.” Mormon’s words in Words of Mormon 1:1 suggest that, from the very beginning, Mormon had seen this third step as the culmination of the effort. It would be the final step in fulfilling the commandment he had received from the Lord.
Mormon’s words in Mormon 6:6 describing this delivery are written in the past tense and are followed by his description of the battle of Cumorah. This indicates that Mormon delivered the record to Moroni before that battle. Having fulfilled the commandment, he was ready to meet the Lamanites. They might end his life, but the sacred records were safe. It appears that, at the time of that delivery, Mormon’s final words on the plates were the concluding words of Mormon chapter 5. After Mormon and Moroni both miraculously survived the battle of Cumorah, however, Moroni again gave the record to Mormon, who added chapters 6 and 7. Then, sometime before Mormon’s death, he once again delivered the record to Moroni.
The following points relate to some of Jack’s further comments.
As for the meaning of Words of Mormon 1:2, I stand by the clear explanation in footnote 84. The other passages cited in the footnote, including Words of Mormon 1:7, clearly show that Mormon sometimes uses the present tense to refer to future events. In fact, both your theory and mine acknowledge that Mormon’s present tense wording in Words of Mormon 1:2 refers to a future event. Even your view would be expressed more clearly if you were to replace your added word ‘now’ (which isn’t currently true while Mormon writes these words) with the word ‘will’ (which is). This added word isn’t necessary under either of our theories because, recognizing that Mormon sometimes uses the present tense to refer to future events, the meaning is sufficiently clear in either case without it.
As I state in footnote 65, all Book of Mormon quotations in my paper are from Royal Skousen’s ‘The Book of Mormon, The Earliest Text.’ Accordingly, I use his word ‘choose’ in Words of Mormon 1:5. The word ‘chose’ can also work with my views, but I agree with Skousen’s well-thought-out rationale for selecting the word ‘choose.’
As explained on page 38 of my paper, Mormon doesn’t use the term ‘the remainder of my record’ to refer specifically to Words of Mormon. He consistently uses this term to refer to “the extensive portion of Mormon’s abridged record that is not yet written at the time he writes these words.” The term ‘my record’ works perfectly within this larger term. The larger term refers to all that remains to be written by Mormon. When one understands when Mormon wrote these words, his term ‘the remainder of my record’ describes this remainder clearly and succinctly.
I don’t expect to change your views. In my view, however, all of the words in Words of Mormon (and in the rest of the Book of Mormon) harmonize well with a small-plate record that ends with the last words of the book of Omni and a retained portion of the original manuscript that follows immediately thereafter in our Book of Mormon with the original second chapter of Mosiah. Oliver Cowdery’s unique mark designates this juncture. This juncture is located precisely where Mormon’s resumptive structure in Words of Mormon 1:9-10 indicates it should be found. I don’t mind that some diligent students of the Book of Mormon see things differently.
Cliff, you wrote, ” I don’t mind that some diligent students of the Book of Mormon see things differently.”
Well, I should hope not! That’s half the fun of doing this kind of analysis, and, as Joseph Smith once said, “By proving contraries, truth is made manifest.”
Please keep up the good work–even if it doesn’t agree with mine. 🙂
Cliff, your paper claims that The Words of Mormon is the second chapter of Mosiah, and that its heading is similar to other insertions in the record, such as “The Record of Zeniff: An account of his people, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until the time that they were delivered out of the hands of the Lamanites.”
As The Words of Mormon was not originally preceded by the word “Chapter” (it was added later above the line), I wondered if any of the other insertions were missing the preceding “Chapter” break, so I went through the book and checked. Only one of those insertions was missing the break: “The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.” Why? Because that heading is original to the chapter from Isaiah; it was not added as an original heading by Mormon. The same is true of the heading for the next insertion, “The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see,” but it is preceded by a chapter break.
*All the rest* of the insertions are also preceded by a chapter break, but The Words of Mormon is not, suggesting that it may *not* be the kind of insertion you suggest in your paper but rather a separate book.
Here is a list of all the insertions, for those who might want to check for themselves:
The words of Jacob, the brother of Nephi, which he spake unto the people of Nephi.
The word that Isaiah, the son of Amoz, saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see.
The words which Jacob, the brother of Nephi, spake unto the people of Nephi, after the death of Nephi.
The Record of Zeniff: An account of his people, from the time they left the land of Zarahemla until the time that they were delivered out of the hands of the Lamanites.
An account of Alma and the people of the Lord, who were driven into the wilderness by the people of King Noah.
The words which Alma, the High Priest according to the holy order of God, delivered to the people in their cities and villages throughout the land.
The words of Alma which he delivered to the people in Gideon, according to his own record.
The words of Alma, and also the words of Amulek, which were declared unto the people who were in the land of Ammonihah. And also they are cast into prison, and delivered by the miraculous power of God which was in them, according to the record of Alma.
An account of the sons of Mosiah, who rejected their rights to the kingdom for the word of God, and went up to the land of Nephi to preach to the Lamanites; their sufferings and deliverance—according to the record of Alma.
An account of the preaching of Aaron, and Muloki, and their brethren, to the Lamanites.
The commandments of Alma to his son Helaman.
The commandments of Alma to his son Shiblon.
The commandments of Alma to his son Corianton.
The account of the people of Nephi, and their wars and dissensions, in the days of Helaman according to the record of Helaman, which he kept in his days.
The Prophecy of Nephi, the Son of Helaman: God threatens the people of Nephi that he will visit them in his anger, to their utter destruction except they repent of their wickedness. God smiteth the people of Nephi with pestilence; they repent and turn unto him. Samuel, a Lamanite, prophesies unto the Nephites.
The prophecy of Samuel, the Lamanite, to the Nephites.
Jesus Christ did show himself unto the people of Nephi, as the multitude were gathered together in the land Bountiful, and did minister unto them; and on this wise did he show himself unto them.
The words of Christ, which he spake unto his disciples, the twelve whom he had chosen, as he laid his hands upon them.
The manner which the disciples, who were called the elders of the church, ordained priests and teachers.
The manner of their elders and priests administering the flesh and blood of Christ unto the church.
The manner of administering the wine.
And now I speak concerning baptism.
And now I, Moroni, write a few of the words of my father Mormon, which he spake concerning faith, hope, and charity.
An epistle of my father Mormon, written to me, Moroni.
The second epistle of Mormon to his son Moroni.
Now I, Moroni, write somewhat as seemeth me good.
Jack:
Thanks for your thoughts. I believe the paper itself and my earlier comments already explain the most likely reasons for the interlinear chapter designation at the beginning of Words of Mormon. It’s due to a lack of continuity at this unique juncture where the retained portion of the manuscript begins within the ongoing book of Mosiah. An interlinear chapter designation fits at least as well at the beginning of this truncated manuscript as it would at the beginning of a new book.
Part 2:
Regarding the lines separating Omni from WM in the PM, keep in mind the purpose of the marks in the “Printer’s” Manuscript. Adding the marks was not an academic exercise. The PM was prepared specifically for the printer as he needed copy, and the various marks were intended for his eyes, to guide the typesetting. The location of the juncture between the translations of the small plates and the abridgment was not information the printer needed to know. But he did need to know where the breaks were between chapters and between books. In our case, he needed to know that WM was to be typeset as a book, not as a chapter of Omni (the lack of “The Book of…” gave room for confusion), so making this clear was a likely purpose of the long (page-width) line. Notice that the long line differs from the preceding short line in that it lacks the usual small waves, suggesting that it may have been placed at a different time. Also notice that, like the long line at the beginning of 3 Nephi, the long line above WM appears to be raised somewhat to avoid the underlying text as much as possible, reaching its first two high points at the two highest points in the underlying text (the initial “T” of “The Words” and the “b” of “about”). This suggests the line above WM was drawn after the text was in place. OC usually gave his separator lines their own vertical space rather than squeezing them in between lines of text, so this, too, suggests that the long lines in WM and 3 Nephi were later additions. The later addition of the long line in WM would have still been appropriate under your theory, but also under the traditional theory that WM came at the end of the small plates. In that case, OC may have added it when he realized that WM was not the “2d” chapter of Omni and should be set as a book. It is understandable that OC may have initially thought WM was a second chapter of Omni (despite Amaleki saying the plates were full) since the expected “The Book of…” was absent and (as you nicely illustrated) the phrase, “Words of Mormon” resembles some chapter headings elsewhere in the BoM.
Stan:
Your thoughts about the timing of and purpose for the second of the two lines on page 115 of the printer’s manuscript are less persuasive. I agree with you that a line added later would still be appropriate under my theory, but the shape and placement of this line, together with other evidence, suggest a line drawn across the page in a single motion before the subsequent text was added.
Skousen’s 2015 Typographical Facsimile of the Printer’s Manuscript doesn’t identify this second line as a revision added after the original text was in place. You correctly note that this line is less wavy than the first line. In general, this second line dips slightly near the center. You note that it easily clears the “T” at the beginning of the text and the “b” nearer to the end. In the center, however, where it dips, it touches the top of the capital “M” in “I Mormon.” It doesn’t turn upward at all to avoid this tall letter. The fact that it dips to its lowest point as it approaches this tall letter suggests that it was drawn in a single motion before this text was added. (Perhaps it dips in the center to avoid the descender of the letter “g” above this same point, but its trajectory appears to ignore all other descenders across the page.)
Unlike all of Oliver Cowdery’s other separator lines, this one doesn’t begin or end with text, so it requires less vertical space than a line sharing such space with a partial line of text. There is plenty of vertical space for the line itself. It appears somewhat squeezed, as you say, only because of Oliver’s later interlinear addition of the Chapter information. This interlinear insertion, however, is no more squeezed than others in the manuscript.
There are some similarities between this line on page 115 and the one on page 363 at the beginning of 3 Nephi, which was clearly added after the text was in place. It appears, however, that the differences between these lines are more significant than the similarities. Close examination of the line on page 363 shows that is a broken line that clearly bends to avoid preexisting text and to connect with the short wavy line at the end of the final line of text from Helaman. These obvious differences may suggest different purposes for these lines.
You correctly state that “the location of the juncture between the translations of the small plates and the abridgment was not information the printer needed to know.” This doesn’t, however, rule out the possibility that the location of this juncture was information Oliver himself would want to have clear in his own mind as he returned to review the integrity of the printer’s manuscript. Recognizing the unique nature of this juncture, he may have felt a need to identify it clearly for editorial purposes. As explained in the paper, Oliver (and perhaps another scribe) did, in fact, return to make reconstructive edits following this significant mark. It appears that these edits were needed precisely because of the manuscript loss that caused this unique juncture. It would have been reasonable for Oliver to place a significant mark in the printer’s manuscript to remind himself to carefully review the text following this point. Such a purpose for the mark would have been at least as important as a need to give direction to the printer. The fact that Oliver did, in fact, revisit and edit this text before sending the manuscript to the printer provides ample justification for a mark made for this purpose.
To the degree that a mark was needed in this location to alert the printer to the fact that the book of Omni had ended, the first of the two lines, the most significant mark of its nature in the entire manuscript, could have served that purpose without the addition of the second line. While it might be argued that this uniquely lengthy first line could also have been sufficient to remind Oliver to consider the need for reconstructive edits, Oliver clearly added a second line. He may well have believed that the two lines together were the best way to indicate the most unique juncture in the manuscript.
Cliff, I appreciate your detailed response. It’s a fascinating topic (to a few of us, anyway). You are correct that Skousen 2015 doesn’t code the long line before WM as a revision, but neither does he code the long line before 3 Nephi as a revision, and we agree that it was added after the text was in place. And you are right that this is not as clear of a case as the line before 3 Nephi. It is possible that the long line before WM was drawn before the next line of text was written, as you assert, but the evidence seems to suggest otherwise to me. We can’t be certain either way. Nor should we pick and choose the evidence, so let me do my best to grapple with the additional two features that you bring up. First—the fact that the line dips near the middle, barely touching the “M” below. I think you are correct in saying that the line dips to try to avoid the descender in “g.” But it doesn’t dip quite far enough to completely avoid it. Why? Could it be because “M” is in the way? The line is placed as low as possible (trying to avoid “g”) without actually crossing the “M.” It is in the best possible location to minimize interference with both letters, which suggests that both letters were in place when it was drawn. Second, you mention that the long line fails to avoid some of the other descenders. It also fails to avoid “Chapter 2d.” We can see from the case at 3 Nephi that OC (presumably) tries to avoid existing text but only as long as he can do so while keeping his line reasonably straight (he crosses 2 descenders and grazes the top of a “T”). So why doesn’t he avoid all descenders and “Chapter 2” at WM? Well, with “Chapter 2” already in place, it would have been impossible to completely avoid all the letters without making some tight turns that would have left a contorted line. And at 3 Nephi we see that he does not like to do that. Overall, the line seems a pretty good compromise between minimizing impact to the existing text and minimizing contortions.
It is plausible, as you suggest, that OC drew these lines as a reminder to come back and review the text. This would be consistent with either scenario (WM as a chapter of Mosiah or WM as an afterword to the small plates). But we can’t use “the fact” that OC revisited and edited this text as justification for the wavy lines, because…
1) we don’t, in fact, know if OC came back and made any edits in WM or the beginning of Mosiah, particularly the 3 edits you discuss. Per Skousen 2015, it is not known what scribe revised the chapter numbers in WM and Mosiah, and “the Book of Mosiah” was only “possibly” inserted after the time of the original copying (his note 296); and
2) similar edits to chapter numbers were made elsewhere in PM, and OC made revisions in many other places–all presumably without reminder marks.
Yes, these lines before WM are unique, just like those before 3 Nephi and many other marks in the PM. Uniqueness alone doesn’t confer significance. What you call “the first of the two lines, the most significant mark of its nature in the entire manuscript” (a wavy line reaching to the right margin) is not very different from other unique marks we find elsewhere between chapters, so this single wavy line would not have been sufficient on its own to alert the printer that this was to be a break between books. (A quick search yields examples of wavy lines reaching the right margin on PM pages 132, 135, 208, as well as page 143, which even has two consecutive wavy lines.) The length of this first wavy line is, of course, not something OC consciously chose for greater visibility, but was rather determined by the distance between the last word on the line and the right margin; if there had been more words in that line of text, the wavy line would have been shorter. Because of these uncertainties and dependencies, there’s a limit to what these two lines can tell us. But I think a detailed analysis of such an important manuscript and fascinating writing is still worthwhile.
Stan:
Thanks for your reasoned response to my earlier comment. I am responding to it in two separate comments. This is the first.
I agree that the available evidence can’t remove all doubts about my thesis. Nevertheless, my thesis fits well with all available evidence. This comment provides a better explanation than my earlier comment about the interaction between lines, descenders, and other text in the printer’s manuscript. I previously noted that one might think that the line that completely crosses page 115 dips to avoid the descender of the letter “g.” I then explained that this view is countered by the fact that this line crosses through four other descenders before it also crosses through this fifth one. This line wasn’t drawn to avoid descenders. Even the line (on page 363) that you and I agree was drawn to avoid passing through text nevertheless crosses through both descenders in its path. That line begins at the base of the line of text, far to the left of any text on that line. There is ample space above the line to avoid a third descender in that area. Even so, it doesn’t appear that this descender was considered an obstacle as the line was drawn. The line blindly bends towards this descender before veering upward to avoid the text to the right. Another very short line on page 169 connects two sets of inserted text. It avoids other existing text, but crosses through a descender.
None of these lines provides much evidence to support a claim that lines in this manuscript are drawn with the intent to avoid descenders. Even lines that bend to avoid other existing text pass right through existing descenders. Thus, it appears that drawn lines in the printer’s manuscript veer to bypass other existing text, but cross right through existing descenders in their path. Similarly, tall letters throughout the manuscript routinely pass through existing descenders that happen to encroach on their space. The fact that the line on page 115 dips towards and heedlessly crosses some tall text below it suggests that this tall text didn’t exist when the line was drawn. Had the text been there when the line was drawn, the line would have avoided the text. Since the line doesn’t avoid this text, it appears that this text was added after the line had been drawn across the page. Then the text was written in standard fashion in a straight path across the page. So, where the existing line fell slightly into the space needed for writing taller letters, those letters crossed above the existing, encroaching line just as other tall letters routinely cross through existing, encroaching descenders.
This evidence suggests that the inserted ‘Chapter 2d.’ was also written after this second line was in place. The behavior of other lines and text in the manuscript suggests that a line drawn after this insertion was in place would have bent to avoid it (perhaps passing through its descenders). The fact that this line doesn’t bend to avoid any part of this insertion suggests that the line was already there before the insertion was added. It’s the text of the insertion that did the crossing over the existing, encroaching line.
Thus, it’s likely that both lines on page 115 were added right after Oliver Cowdery concluded the final text from the small-plate record. The evidence about lines and descenders is very consistent for a handwritten manuscript, but, as your interpretation of this evidence suggests, it isn’t irrefutable. Even you, however, agree that one reasonable interpretation of the evidence is that both lines were drawn before the subsequent line of text was added. After adding these two lines, Oliver began copying text from the retained part of the original manuscript. Sometime after that text was also in place, he inserted ‘Chapter 2d’ and then, even later, the chapter number was changed from 2d to I. Each reader can draw his or her own conclusions about the order in which these edits were made, but this consistent evidence about lines and descenders fits well with my theory about the provenance of Words of Mormon and the likely purpose for this two-line mark.
Stan:
This is the second of my two comments.
I believe we agree that the two-line mark on page 115 was placed at a break at the end of the book of Omni. I suggest that this line is unique while you see it as just another typical manuscript mark. To determine whether this mark is typical or unique, we should compare it against other marks made at similar points in the manuscript. We shouldn’t conflate this mark between books with marks made in other locations for other reasons. The printer’s manuscript has 14 breaks between books (see pages 46, 95, 110, 112, 113, 115, 117, 169, 330, 363, 410, 413, and 439). Ten of them don’t include any mark at the end of the first book. The printer had to identify these ten breaks between books without the aid of such marks. This wouldn’t have been hard because, in each case, the new book begins with a chapter one. Without other consistent marks to go by, the printer could count on this consistent feature to properly identify all intended breaks between books. The chapter break on page 117 is a unique case. Its original marks and format don’t suggest a break between books. They simply indicate a chapter break. Later, in a reconstructive edit, the book title ‘The Book of Mosiah’ was sandwiched in above this chapter break and the chapter was renumbered as chapter one. No book heading or other marks were added. As explained in my paper, these reconstructive edits were made to replace the original book title, which was lost with the 116 pages.
Only the break on page 115 and three other breaks between books (on pages 46, 363, and 410) have marks where one book ends and the other begins. Because these are the only marks made at similar points in the manuscript, they are the ones we should compare to determine whether the mark on page 115 is unique or typical. A comparison reveals that the marks on pages 46 and 410 are much less significant. The original marks on page 363 were also less significant, but at some point after the continuing text was in place, a new line was added to connect the two shorter lines. Perhaps this new line was added to emphasize the two shorter lines it connects. The mark on page 115 consists of two lines, one directly below the other, both of which appear to have been placed at the end of the book of Omni before further text was added. In my view, these differences make this mark unique. The uniqueness of the break on page 115, however, goes beyond the uniqueness of this mark. Unlike the book titles at the beginning of all other books, Words of Mormon begins with a chapter heading. This heading doesn’t contain the word ‘Book’ and doesn’t have the title capitalization found in all book titles. Despite these differences, it appears that the printer relied on the edited chapter number to format this unusual break like other breaks between books. You suggest that the two long consecutive lines may have been added to inform the printer that this was indeed such a break. I suggest that this significant, but unusual and unexplained mark may not have helped the printer at all. It certainly wouldn’t have identified this location as a break between books as clearly as the edited chapter number did.
The lines you compare against the mark on page 115 weren’t placed at breaks between books. Three of them set the word ‘Chapter’ and the chapter number apart from the surrounding text. The fourth comes after a book heading to separate it from the first regular text of the book. These marks were made for different reasons than the mark on page 115, so they don’t work well as comparables. Their characteristics tell us nothing about whether the mark on page 115 is unique or typical for a mark placed between two books.
I hold that the two-line-mark on page 115 signals the end of the small-plate record, but not the beginning of another book. Rather, it marks the beginning of the retained text, which continues the book of Mosiah. This mark appears to be the most significant mark made at the end of a book in the printer’s manuscript. It is found precisely where Mormon’s resumptive structure indicates the most significant break in the text should be found. The existence of this unique mark in this particular location is either an amazing coincidence or Oliver Cowdery added it because of this unique juncture.
Cliff,
I agree that OC was less concerned about avoiding descenders with his lines than about avoiding other parts of letters and keeping his lines reasonably straight. I’ve looked through the entire PM and don’t find consistency or enough data, statistically speaking, to say anything stronger than that. What I think is more notable is how we can read the same data so differently. When I look at the line on p. 363 of the PM, I see 3 descenders, not 2, that are initially in the path of the line — the descenders in “of”, “according” and “of.” And even though the line “blindly bends toward” the 1st of these descenders, it appears to me that it avoids hitting it by veering suddenly to the right, not upward. And in the other case you mention – the short line on p. 169 of PM – I do not see how the extremely long descender of “p” could have been avoided while keeping the line reasonably straight. And regarding the long line before Words of Mormon on p. 115. To me, this line does not appear to pass through any of the “taller letters” in the line of text below it (which, as you note, “was written in standard fashion in a straight path across the page”). The line touches a single letter–the “M” of “Mormon”–but does not cross through it or through any other letter in that full line of text; I certainly don’t see multiple letters in that straight path of text that “crossed above” the line. (The long line added on p. 363, however, does needlessly and unmistakably cross through the top of a letter in the line below [“T” in “The”], so the touching of the “M” on p. 115 is relatively minor and does not indicate the text was added later.) I don’t see that bending the long line underneath “Chapter 2d” (perhaps passing through its single descender) would have been a viable option since that would have placed the Chapter designation with the Book of Omni, where it obviously didn’t belong.
If, to determine whether the marks on p. 115 are “unique or typical,” we are only allowed to compare them with marks at 3 other locations (on pp. 46, 363, and 410), then we are left with an extremely low bar for determining uniqueness, especially since the marks on pp. 46, 363, and 410 are also unique compared to one another. There is no “typical,” and thus nothing unique about being unique in this small dataset.
Stan, you wrote, “Regarding the lines separating Omni from WM in the PM, keep in mind the purpose of the marks in the ‘Printer’s’ Manuscript. Adding the marks was not an academic exercise. The PM was prepared specifically for the printer as he needed copy, and the various marks were intended for his eyes, to guide the typesetting.”
That is *exactly* right. Oliver was preparing this document *for the printer* to work from, and keeping that in mind can help us better understand what was going on here in the manuscript.
Cliff,
Thank you for this extensive analysis of Words of Mormon. I found your discussion of “about to” especially informative. To me, the greatest mystery of Words of Mormon is why Mormon would be discussing elements of Benjamin’s reign that have nothing to do with the topic at hand–the small plates. Your idea would solve this mystery by making Words of Mormon part of the abridgment. But I think there is more evidence that needs to be considered.
Part 1:
Regarding “Chapter III” at the beginning of our current Mosiah. Skousen’s 2015 Typographical Facsimile of the PM has “Chapter” as part of the original writing in the PM and “III” as a later revision by an unknown hand (in JSP, click on the book icon above the zoom slider to see the color-coded text). This is relevant since, if the OM had said “Chapter III,” OC would in all likelihood have written “Chapter III” in the PM rather than saving the “III” to insert later. I can see a few reasons Skousen (2015) considers the “III” to be a later addition. In addition to the numbers being represented by Roman numerals rather words or Arabic numerals, there’s the heavier ink flow, which is also found (as you mention) in other chapter numbers that are Roman numerals (including in the fine strokes of these numbers, which strokes are obviously not retraced). This consistent difference in ink flow between Arabic and Roman numerals throughout the small plates and most of Mosiah (at least until the change of scribes) suggests that the Roman numerals were placed all at one time after the text had been copied. The chapter numbers in lighter ink (like the surrounding text) are all at first or second chapters (i.e., “first” or “1st” or “2d”). I suspect that OC tried to add the appropriate chapter numbers as he was copying the text but lost track of which number he was on by the time he got to the second or third chapter of each book, and left a blank space so he could come back and fill in the number later. Then he or someone else (possibly Scribe 2, whose writing in Mosiah has heavier ink flow) went back and filled in the missing chapter numbers using Roman numerals, labeling unnumbered chapters following “1st”/“first” chapters as “II” and unnumbered chapters following “2d” chapters as “III,” etc. until he came to the next “Book of….” This may explain how our Mosiah 1 initially got labeled as “III”, since it follows “Chapter 2d” with (initially) no “Book of…” in between. OC (if he did the numbering), upon taking a closer look, would have soon realized he was in a new book and corrected the “III” to a “I.” There’s more evidence that the Roman numerals are revisions. First, several of them are written partially below the line of surrounding text (see original numbering V, VII, XI, XIII in 2N, III in Jb, and IIII and VII in Mh), suggesting later, less precise placement. Second, there is often extra space between “Chapter” and the Roman numeral, again suggesting later, less precise placement of the numerals. This extra space is especially apparent between “Chapter” and “III” in our first chapter of Mosiah. If OC had written the Roman numerals at the same time he wrote “Chapter,” in all likelihood there would be no extra space and the words and numerals would be lined up and have similar ink flow. Given this evidence for a temporal difference between the placement of the Arabic and Roman numerals, it doesn’t appear that either scribe arbitrarily switched between the two systems while copying the text. The example of Alma “10th” followed by “XI” that you mention corresponds to a change of scribes in the PM.
Stan:
Thanks for thoughtfully presenting and considering this additional evidence and particularly for pointing out how to access Skousen’s 2015 Typographical Facsimile of the Printer’s Manuscript from any page in Joseph Smith Papers copy of the printer’s manuscript. I wasn’t aware of this important resource.
This resource, together with your analysis of the Roman numerals in the printer’s manuscript have convinced me that the “III” on page 117 of the printer’s manuscript is indeed a later revision by an unknown hand. It would appear that in this location, as in many others, the original manuscript contained only an indication of a chapter break. This indication was copied from the original manuscript to the printer’s manuscript. The Roman numeral III was added later. Had I known of this additional evidence when writing my paper, I wouldn’t have suggested that the number III came from the original manuscript. This additional evidence, however, doesn’t materially affect the rationale of the paper or its conclusions. The retained segment of the original manuscript remains the most likely source for the original number 2d in the previous chapter from which the original number III flowed. All other evidence discussed in the paper, including this number 2d, still firmly supports a conclusion that the chapter we call Words of Mormon was the original second chapter of Mosiah.
What a wonderful article. I am so glad that you took the time to “grind out” the supporting details. I have tried to illustrate the details of your proposal in a simple diagram. If you will contact me at my e-mail address I would be glad to send you the file for your comment.
Thanks, Alan. I’ll try to get in touch with you and look forward to seeing your diagram.
Thanks, Alan. I made a chart using your diagram as a starting point. The chart illustrates some of the basic points discussed in the paper. Here’s the link: https://nephi2moroni.wordpress.com/2021/03/
Thank you for your research. I’ve studied the article and comments. Are you saying:
“The lost “116” pages from the abridged, translated large plates were replaced by 114.5 pages from the translated small plates.”
If so, how do get around the unlikelihood / improbability that these two separate writings were within 1.5 pages of each other in length.
Thank you.
Thanks, Jim, for your comment. You correctly understand the reported lengths of the lost part of the original manuscript and portion of the printer’s manuscript containing the small-plate record.
How is it improbable that these manuscripts would have similar lengths? By what reasoning would you suggest a different length for the lost manuscript? As explained in detail in my article and addendum, the best available evidence supports the length repeatedly attested to by Joseph Smith and Martin Harris. The similarity of this length to that of the replacement record in the printer’s manuscript is clear, but the similarity neither enhances nor diminishes the likelihood that their reports were accurate.
I do think that Mormon’s characterization of the “small account” in 1:3 from Jacob to the reign of king Benjamin could be interpreted as compared to his abridgement but of course could be interpreted as comparative against the large plates as well.
Jerry:
Thanks for continuing to consider this point of view. If we look only at Words of Mormon 1:3, we might reasonably arrive at either conclusion. For me, additional information suggests that Mormon’s word ‘small’ means small in comparison with all the large plates. This additional information includes Mormon’s note in 3 Nephi 5:14-18 where he describes his entire abridgment of “that which hath taken place from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, even down to the present time” as a “small record.” These words suggest to me that Mormon considers everything he is writing to be a “small record.” Because Mormon refers to the small-plate record as a “small account” and refers to his own complete abridged record as a “small record,” I’m confident that in both cases, the comparison is with the large-plate record containing “all the proceedings” of the Nephites. I believe Mormon makes a similar comparison in Mormon 6:6. There, he explains that he hid “all the records which have been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord” (including the large plates) in the Hill Cumorah, giving only “these few plates” to Moroni. I believe that the “few plates” he gave to Moroni included both the set of plates containing Mormon’s own “small record,” (his entire abridgment of the Nephite record), and also the small plates of Nephi, which contained the “small account” described in Words of Mormon 1:3. Thus, these “few plates” contained both of these “small” accounts or records referred to earlier. This suggests to me that the word “small” in Words of Mormon 1:3 most likely is comparing the account on the small plates with the account on the large plates also described in that verse.
Part 2
Fourth, on page 35 there is a discussion of Mormon’s summary of King Benjamin’s reign found in Words of Mormon 1:12-18. My conclusion is that Mormon’s account is not just a random historical summary but is Mormon’s list of the matching problems the Nephites faced in both time periods. Mormon does not just list the problems but also includes the King Benjamin’s positive resolutions and solutions for each situation. Mormon open’s his little aside Words of Mormon chapter on a very gloomy future for the Nephites but ends it with the a more upbeat hope of their possible recovery by using what I call “the King Benjamin” solution. I believe we see Mormon recounting such an attempt in Moroni 9:4 where he talk of speaking the “word of God with sharpness” in the same manner that King Benjamin and holy men did as recorded in Words of Mormon 1:17.
Fifth, while I enjoyed the discussion on pages 40-44 concerning the archaic meaning of the word “about” found in Words of Mormon 1:1 where Mormon states that he is “about to deliver the record which I have been making into the hands of my son Moroni”, I believe the discussion is all for not. Everybody assumes that Mormon only would deliver a completed record to Moroni and never consider that Mormon may be short on time and is needing help to transcribe his writings onto the metal plates. There are 2 place that indicate that this could be the case. First, in Mormon 6:6 Mormon writes; “. . .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 [past tense meaning Moroni already had possession of the plates while Mormon is still composing his record] unto my son Moroni.” Second, there is Mormon’s 2nd epistle to Moroni, found in Moroni 9, that Mormon composed after a horrific battle (most likely the one mentioned in Mormon 5:6-7) to let Moroni know that he was still alive. In Moroni 9:24 Mormon tells Moroni; “…wherefore, write somewhat a few things, if thou are spared and I shall perish and not see thee; but I trust that I may see thee soon; for I have sacred records that I would deliver up unto thee.” This verse leaves me with the question; what is Moroni supposed to write upon that will last into the future that it may someday profit the Lamanites and the Nephite deserters? Also, not only is Moroni 9:22-24 very much the same message that we find in Words of Mormon 1:2, but it seems incomplete after the line “write somewhat a few things”. To me it is screaming to be made whole with the last few lines from Mormon 1:2 “concerning them, and somewhat concerning Christ, that perhaps some day it may profit them.” My answer to my question is this, that at the time Mormon wrote his epistle, Moroni had the plates of Mormon to perform the tedious task of transcribing Mormon’s writings onto the metal plates. We know that writing on metal plates was a hard and time consuming task because Jacob tells us such in Jacob 4:1; “…(and I cannot write but a little of my words, because of the difficulty of engraving our words upon plates)…” This is a small subset of a larger discussion that needs to be explored concerning the overwhelming chore of Nephite record keeping.
Terry:
I hadn’t considered the similarities between the problems encountered by King Benjamin and Mormon. Thanks for pointing them out.
The suggestion that Mormon may have abridged the large-plate record onto a less-permanent medium and then transcribed that interim record onto his own plates is interesting, but unnecessary. In my opinion, neither Mormon’s use of the term “about to” (Words of Mormon 1:1) nor his description of how and when he “made this record” (Mormon 6:6) rely on the existence of an interim record. Perhaps, as you suggest, that topic should eventually be explored in more depth.
Part 1
Amen, Amen, Amen! I have been trying to write a similar article since 2013, struggling to overcome my lack of academic writing skills. Clifford did a much better job than what I ever could have produced. I want to point out a few things but space is tight and so I must be brief. First, on page 11 the math is off–the lost 116 pages would be comprised of 5 gatherings instead of 6 with the 5th having 20 pages instead of 24 pages.
Second, on page 14 it is claimed that the extended “full page” wavy line between the Book of Omni and the Words of Mormon is unique in the printer’s manuscript–it is not. This mark is used in 2 places in the printer’s manuscript. Oliver Cowdery used the same mark to separate the book that is now called Third Nephi from the end of the Book of Helaman. I was going to use this instance to show that the mark between the Book of Omni and the Words of Mormon was not a fluke or an impulsive flourish but a deliberate emphasized mark of separation. The original manuscript for the start of Third Nephi still exists and shows that the format of its first page as / main book title / Chapter I / title extension / Chapter I / text /. For the printer’s manuscript Oliver Cowdery removed the first “Chapter I” and formatted the first page as / main book title / title extension / Chapter I / text /. Therefore he added the emphasized full page wavy line to ensure recognition of the new book break between the last of the Book of Helaman and this copious title of Third Nephi. However, John Gilbert never saw Oliver Cowdery’s formatting of Third Nephi. The original manuscript was used for printing this part of the Book of Mormon because the printer’s manuscript was taken to Canada to try and sell the copyright. Seeing the original manuscript format of first page, Gilbert removed the second “Chapter I” and formatted the page as / main book title / Chapter I / title extension / text /. The source for the printer’s manuscript came from 2 separate sets of gatherings, one from the remainder of Mormon’s abridgement and the other from the “small” plates of Nephi which was copied first in the printer’s manuscript. It is only natural that one would expect to see a definite indicator separating the 2 sources and we see such an emphasized separating mark between the end of the Book of Omni and the beginning of the Words of Mormon. I feel this added analysis of the separation between the Book of Helaman and the Third Nephi shows that the similar separator prior to the Words of Mormon was intentional and not a fluke. Although Joseph Smith added a forward to the Book of Mormon explaining the situation of the lost 116 pages and the use of content from the “small” plates of Nephi, one wonders if Joseph fully followed the Lord’s instructions as recorded in D&C 10:42 to publish this document as the “record of Nephi” because, currently, its existence seems to vanish into the contents of Mormon’s abridgement under the title of Book of Mormon.
Third, concerning the analysis of D&C 10:38-39 on pages 33-34, I disagree with the conclusion. I believe that in D&C 10:39 the Lord is quoting Nephi as abridged by Mormon. One can read similar words from Nephi concerning the “large” plates of Nephi in 2 Nephi 5:33 where Nephi is recounting within the historical time line the commandment he received to make the “small” plates. The full account can be found in 2 Nephi 5:29-33. Nephi would have used similar language in the “large” plates to narrate this same event when he described the “small” plates. Nephi explained more about the purpose and content of the “small” plates in an aside found in 1 Nephi 9. I believe 2 things prevented Mormon from looking for these “small” plates at the time he learned about them. First, I feel that Nephi most likely indicated in the “large” plates his intent to gives these “small” plates to Jacob who was previously ordained as a priest and teacher. Second, I believe the difficulty in getting to the location of the bulk of the Nephite records was a hindrance. I feel that Mormon was left contemplating the existence and location of the “small” plates. So when Mormon joyously read about their survival and inclusion in the official Nephite library he couldn’t contain himself and did make the effort to find them.
Thanks, Terry, for your perspective and insights. It appears that you and I have held similar views about Words of Mormon for quite some time.
Your math is correct. The lost manuscript was comprised of five gatherings—four 24-page gatherings and one 20-page gathering. I have it right on page 4, but wrong on page 11. Good catch!
I consider the line that Oliver Cowdery placed at the beginning of 3 Nephi on page 363 of the printer’s manuscript (and the other line below the description of book contents on that page) to be sufficiently different from the two consecutive lines on page 115 to warrant calling those consecutive lines a unique mark. The first line on page 363 is a broken line that appears to have been added after the surrounding text was in place (it bends to avoid text). The second line on that page is simply an extended blank for the chapter number. The two consecutive lines on page 115, on the other hand, are both solid lines that appear to have been added as a single significant mark before Oliver moved on to the subsequent text. I agree with you that, in each case, the lines were made intentionally. Indeed, I believe that you and I agree on the likely purpose for each of these lines.
I’m confident that Joseph Smith was true to the Lord’s instruction to publish the small-plate record as the record of Nephi. I believe that most readers of the Book of Mormon have understood from the published record that the first part of the Book of Mormon is Nephi’s small-plate record and that Mormon’s words begin with the Words of Mormon.
In Doctrine and Covenants 10:38-40, the Lord reminds Joseph Smith that the lost manuscript said that the small-plate account is “more particular” about information important in our day. Pages 33-34 of my paper suggest that this now-missing provision may have been found at the end of the lost manuscript. You disagree, suggesting an alternate scenario in which Nephi may have written a large-plate passage mirroring 2 Nephi 5:33 (where Nephi explains that his other record—the large-plate record—contains the “more particular” part of the history of his people). In this presumed large-plate passage, Nephi might have described the topics on which the small-plate record is “more particular.” You suggest that Mormon might have quoted such a passage in the early part of his abridgment. He didn’t search for the small plates at the time, however, either because he thought they remained with Jacob’s heirs or because Mormon was away from the bulk of the ancient records at that time. Perhaps that was the case, but it seems to be based on significant speculation. In addition, it may contradict Mormon 6:6, which tells us that Mormon “made this record,” (his abridged record) “from the [large] plates of Nephi” after his people were gathered “to the land of Cumorah” and before he “hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to [him] by the hand of the Lord.” This indicates that Mormon made his abridgment in Cumorah while he had access to all the sacred records entrusted to him.
This is certainly a well-reasoned argument. However, I would like to call into question the key point in Jones’ focus, which he relegated to his note 47, the actual number of lost pages. Moreover, Jones there misses the opportunity to recognize the obvious (which is recognized as a real possibility by the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers Project):
In the Printer’s Manuscript, page 116 comes just before the next page in which the current book of Mosiah begins, nearly at the top of the page. Joseph may well have been using that 116-page count to speak of the generic length of the book of Lehi, rather than the exact page-count which he supposedly recalled from the Original Manuscript (I doubt that he could recall the exact page-count from 1828 when he penned the Preface in late 1829). Otherwise we must claim pure coincidence that the 116 pages is the same in both manuscripts, which seems hardly likely. As Jones observes, we do not have that section of the Original MS. Don Bradley may have been correct to suggest that the lost pages were 200 or more pages in length.
Also, the rate of use of the phrase “it came to pass” in Words of Mormon is exactly the same as only one other book in the BofM, the book of Mormon. This is true of no other books in the BofM, as I show at http://premormon.com/resources/r003/003Smith.pdf . This suggests that Words of Mormon is fully unique to Editor Mormon himself, and not merely an aside.
Thanks, Robert, for your comment.
Evidence relating to the length of the lost portion of the original manuscript is covered in more detail in my Appendix A: Consistent, Credible Evidence that Supports Joseph Smith’s Published Page Count of 116 Pages. As explained there, the physical evidence for the page count is all gone. The most likely evidence available to Joseph Smith at the time he wrote the preface was the page number 117 on the first page of the retained portion of the manuscript. This numbered page, however, together with rest of the retained portion, was lost to water damage, so that physical evidence is no longer available.
Today, the best remaining evidence for the length of the lost manuscript includes three published statements from Joseph Smith, a firsthand witness who was acquainted with both the lost manuscript and the retained portion of the manuscript. Each statement confirms a length of 116 pages. Martin Harris, another firsthand witness, also appears to have confirmed this number several times, but we have received his words only through the statements of others. Don Bradley suggests both that the early pages of the original manuscript may not have been numbered and also that there was no retained portion of that earliest manuscript. He suggests that Joseph may have estimated the length of the lost manuscript based on the length, in the printer’s manuscript, of the replacement record. My note 47 explains, however, that Bradley’s 116-page length for the replacement record includes the Words of Mormon, which, I propose, was not part of the replacement record at all, but was the original second chapter of Mosiah. When the length of Words of Mormon is omitted, the length of the actual replacement record in the printer’s manuscript is 114.5 pages and not 116 pages. Had Joseph estimated the length as Bradley suggests, he would have used either the number 114 or 115. Both your comment and my note 47 acknowledge that the editors of the Joseph Smith Papers Project mention Bradley’s theory. Those editors note, however, that Oliver may not have completed the printer’s manuscript through page 116 before Joseph Smith wrote the number 116 in his preface to the 1830 Book of Mormon.
Thanks also for pointing me to your research on the occurrence rates for the phrase “it came to pass.” Your research appears to suggest that Mormon’s rate of usage of this phrase in the Words of Mormon is similar to the combined rate of usage of this phrase by Mormon and Moroni in the book of Mormon. I don’t believe this information affects the fact that Mormon wrote Words of Mormon 1:1-8 as an aside.
Thanks for your article! I’m thrilled to see someone else working on this topic.
For readers who might be interested, the paper that Kent Minson and I published on the Words of Mormon is available here:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byusq/vol51/iss4/10/
Brant Gardner’s response to our paper can be found here:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/when-hypotheses-collide-responding-to-lyon-and-minsons-when-pages-collide/
Brant and I have had a lot of online discussion about all this, which is available here:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/comments-page/?id=2856
Best wishes,
Jack Lyon
Thanks for your comment, Jack. Your scholarship helped me recognize the possibility that the Words of Mormon is part of the book of Mosiah. Thanks for your contributions.
Readers of your paper may be interested in seeing my PDF containing images of the relevant chapter openings from the Printer’s Manuscript:
http://www.editorium.com/ChapterBeginnings.pdf
I encourage you to download it and examine it carefully. In fact, you should zoom in on the images so you can really see what’s going on. I have edited some of the images in Photoshop to show the stages of Oliver Cowdery’s editing. Doing so makes the progression very clear. That sounds like cheating, maybe, but take a look. I think you’ll see that my editing makes sense and reflects what Oliver was doing.
Thanks again, Jack, for sharing this PDF. It’s a creative and easily understood visual aid that represents Oliver Cowdery’s edits to the printer’s manuscript in their likely sequence.
Very well reasoned and presented. The idea of the Words of Mormon being an inserted break in the original Book of Mosiah was a bit of a forehead-slapping moment for me, since it is consistent with Mormon’s editorial approach throughout, especially in Mosiah and Alma. It also makes the resumptive statement at the end of the WofM make far more sense than for any other location for the WofM.
Honestly, the only counter-argument that springs to mind is Mormon’s self-introduction in 3 Nephi 5:12-19, which would seem at first glance to predate Mormon’s immediate reference to himself and his situation in WofM 1:1-2, where he seems to assume the reader knows who he is and what his situation is. One would have to assume that Mormon has a self-introduction earlier, likely at the start of Lehi 1, but then why the re-introduction in 3 Nephi 5?
To answer my own question: Mormon may have included information in 3 Nephi 5 that he had not earlier presented, and/or he may have felt the need to re-establish his bona fides as “a disciple of Jesus Christ…called by him” before presenting the grand climax of the Book of Mormon, namely the fulfilment of all the prophecies in the destruction surrounding the death of Christ and His subsequent ministry as the resurrected Jehovah in the New World.
Thank you. This is an important addition to Book of Mormon scholarship.
A forehead-slapping moment — that’s a great description for the impact of this important work of great scholarship. Once pointed out, the idea makes so much sense that many might wonder why we didn’t see this before, but I think it took a great deal of work to pull together the many subtle clues and even to notice details like the two unusual lines in the Printer’s Manuscript, to then be able to see and elucidate an entirely new way of understanding the Words of Mormon. This paper means a lot to me and I’m so grateful to Cliff Jones for the extensive work he did to make this possible.
Jeff,
Talk about a forehead-slapping moment. Your comment was for me. Now I know why you refused to publish my paper on this topic in the Interpreter, you had already decided Cliff’s interpretation was the correct interpretation as “it means a lot to me.” Oh brother.
Jerry, I can understand the frustration, but this isn’t the place to review the feedback from our reviewers on other papers or the decisions to not publish them. I’d be happy to go over the issues again in private correspondence or a phone call if you felt the reviewer input was not clear or was erroneous. I know the review process can be frustrating for writers, but as for my positive comment on this paper, I will say that I feel the same way for the vast majority of papers we publish: they tend to be quite meaningful to me and I greatly appreciate the insights they bring and the detailed work required to create and publish a paper here.
I hope you won’t take a positive remark on another paper as a sign of bad faith toward a paper that we did not publish. We try to be impartial and to rely on our peer review process to make tough decisions about what to publish. I’d be happy to discuss any details again directly with you.
Thanks so much for your kind words and also for your insights into 3 Nephi 5:12-19.