Why does the story of the Nephites wrap so quickly?

[UtahDan]

As I was teaching the last lesson this week I was really focused on the fact that after all this time we had spent with the Nephites they were getting exterminated this week and I really wanted to be able to tell the class why this time was so different. Why it was that after having been forgiven so many times they had used up their last chance. In doing so I was really struck by the fact that (at least in my edition) Lehi fleeing Jerusalem to Christ's final appearance in 3rd Nephi takes up 464 pages and goes to about AD 34. AD 34 to AD 321 is then covered in four pages.

Then, in six short chapters covering 61 years, the Nephites go from being, according to Mormon, as numerous as the sand of the sea and the landing being covered with buildings to there being 24 of them left. Mormon gives a lot of insight as to why this is, and I got very focused on the idea that Nephites had "willfully" turned away. Still, after all this prolific writing it is almost like a dark age occurs here.

I guess if you think Joseph wrote it you could conjecture that he ran out of steam at this point and wanted to wrap up the story. But does anyone have a faith based answer? My speculation has centered around Mormon's military activities and then being on the run not giving him the luxury of doing the compiling he had previously done. I just find it odd. Thoughts?

[Fiyero]

It seems that after Christ's visit to the Nephites, a consecrated order was formed, like a preamble to life in the millennium. Perhaps the prophets at that time felt inspired to not leave detailed records as other prophets did, the ones who saw our day and knew they were writing for us. Maybe life as it exists in that standard is "too great" for us right now.

Then again, maybe they did leave detailed records but they are part of the sealed portion.

Additionally, as pride and wickedness returned, it's possible that there wasn't a righteous leader who cared to keep any records. We see something similar in the generations from Enos to King Benjamin.

[pelagius]

I guess if you think Joseph wrote it you could conjecture that he ran out of steam at this point and wanted to wrap up the story.

You could but you run up against commonly accept translation or writing order for the BOM for Mormon studies these days. Most critics these days as well as most apologists argue for the priority of Mosiah. For example, see

Brent Lee Metcalfe “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis” in New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1993) [A critic if there ever was one]

Thus even those that believe the BOM Mormon is a work of fiction posit the following order in terms of writing (translation for the non-critic):

The Priority of Mosiah. Scholars maintaining Mosian priority, the most widely held solution, ordinarily theorize that Smith resumed with Mosiah followed by Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, Title Page, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and finally Words of Mormon. Advocates for this theory include Hyrum L. Andrus (1966, 124; 1968, 89-90), Edward H. Ashment (in this compilation), Richard L. Bushman (1984, 99, 223n67), Church Educational System curriculum writers (CES 1989, 59), Edwin J. Firmage (1992), Arthur Glen Foster, Jr. (1983, i, 48-53, 83, 205, 244-45, 252-55), the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS 1987, 1:xi), Kenneth W. Godfrey (1988, 11-12), Dean C. Jessee (1970, 277-78), Stan Larson (1974, 16-20; 1977, 87-88), Dale L. Morgan (Walker 1986, 309-10), Max J. Parkin (1979, 69-70, 76, 84), Jerald and Sandra [p.399] Tanner (1989; 1990, 32-37), John A. Tvedtnes (1991, 202; 1992, 223),7 Dan Vogel (1988, 124n37), Wesley P. Walters (1990, 90, 93-94), John W. Welch and Tim Rathbone (1986, 1, 17, 21-22, 26-28, 33-39; 1992a, 212; 1992b, 2-4, 8; see also Welch 1988, 46-47; 1990, 130-31, 134), and Robert John Woodford (1974, 203-204).

So "running out of steam" doesn't really seem to work even for fiction people.

[UtahDan]

It seems that after Christ's visit to the Nephites, a consecrated order was formed, like a preamble to life in the millennium. Perhaps the prophets at that time felt inspired to not leave detailed records as other prophets did, the ones who saw our day and knew they were writing for us. Maybe life as it exists in that standard is "too great" for us right now.

Then again, maybe they did leave detailed records but they are part of the sealed portion.

Additionally, as pride and wickedness returned, it's possible that there wasn't a righteous leader who cared to keep any records. We see something similar in the generations from Enos to King Benjamin.

Clearly there is a power vacuum because Mormon is leading the armies at 16 which shows me that the people still recognized they needed a Godly man to lead them but could find one so they chose a boy. It could be that no one was available, and that is an interesting idea about the details of the law of consecration not being appropriate subject matter for our eyes.

[SeattleUte]

You could but you run up against commonly accept translation or writing order for the BOM for Mormon studies these days. Most critics these days as well as most apologists argue for the priority of Mosiah. For example, see

Brent Lee Metcalfe “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis” in New Approaches to Book of Mormon Study: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1993) [A critic if there ever was one]

Thus even those that believe the BOM Mormon is a work of fiction posit the following order in terms of writing (translation for the non-critic):



So "running out of steam" doesn't really seem to work even for fiction people.

You lost me. This is an old appologist's trick. Say something extremely arcane and incomprehensible to anyone not initiated in the occult box of higher Mormon apologetics. No worries, however. I understand there are no English words that permit a very precise translation.

[pelagius]

You lost me. This is an old appologist's trick. Say something extremely arcane and incomprehensible to anyone not initiated in the occult box of higher Mormon apologetics. No worries, however. I understand there are no English words that permit a very precise translation.

It don't think it is arcane (but I like it when you are accusing me of apologetics when I am not even remotely close to doing that).

Let me re-explain: Almost everyone believes the following in terms of the order of translation (writing for you):

Mosiah followed by Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, Title Page, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and finally Words of Mormon.

Critics believe this and apologists believe this. Its a relevant piece of information if one's hypothesis is that Joseph Smith ran out of steam towards the end of the book (since he went back a translated (or wrote) the beginning of the book after finishing Moroni).


See Metcalfe's article for why he (as a critic) argues for this order and the implications:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/book/chapter10.htm#exegesis

[ERCougar]

You lost me. This is an old appologist's trick. Say something extremely arcane and incomprehensible to anyone not initiated in the occult box of higher Mormon apologetics. No worries, however. I understand there are no English words that permit a very precise translation.

You're very easily confused.

[ERCougar]

It wasn't intended to be arcane (but I like it when you are accusing me of apologetics when I am not even remotely close to doing that).

Let me re-explain: Almost everyone believes the following in terms of the order of translation (writing for you):

Mosiah followed by Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, Title Page, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and finally Words of Mormon.

Critics believe this and apologists believe this. Its a relevant piece of information if one's hypothesis is that Joseph Smith ran out of steam towards the end of the book (since he went back a translated (or wrote) the beginning of the book after finishing Moroni).


See Metcalfe's article for why he (as a critic) argues for this order and the implications:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...0.htm#exegesis

Bushman's in that list. Is his contention that JS translated Mosiah first? What do they (critics and apologists) base this order on?

[Fiyero]

Bushman's in that list. Is his contention that JS translated Mosiah first? What do they (critics and apologists) base this order on?

I don't have a reference right on hand but didn't JS say numerous times that he translated Mormon's abridgement of the large plates before the small plates?

[UtahDan]

Bushman's in that list. Is his contention that JS translated Mosiah first? What do they (critics and apologists) base this order on?

At the risk of sounding dumb I had never heard that either. Here is a link to the article Peligius referenced though:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/book/chapter10.htm#exegesis

I haven't read it yet but it is short enough that I'm not going to ask anyone for a quick summary.

[LA Ute]

Clearly there is a power vacuum because Mormon is leading the armies at 16 which shows me that the people still recognized they needed a Godly man to lead them but could find one so they chose a boy.

I had never thought of that possibility. The romantic in me prefers the view that Mormon was simply a freak of nature, both physically and spiritually:

And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus. (Mormon 1:15.)

Already we know he is no ordinary fifteen year-old. (Certainly a very self-effacing man when he wrote that.) Then this:

And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies. (Mormon 2:1.)

So I don't think he was chosen just because there was no one else. He was was obviously quite a physical specimen, and just generally something special. At least that's what I like to think.

[UtahDan]

I had never thought of that possibility. The romantic in me prefers the view that Mormon was simply a freak of nature, both physically and spiritually:

And I, being fifteen years of age and being somewhat of a sober mind, therefore I was visited of the Lord, and tasted and knew of the goodness of Jesus. (Mormon 1:15.)

Already we know he is no ordinary fifteen year-old. (Certainly a very self-effacing man when he wrote that.) Then this:

And it came to pass in that same year there began to be a war again between the Nephites and the Lamanites. And notwithstanding I being young, was large in stature; therefore the people of Nephi appointed me that I should be their leader, or the leader of their armies. (Mormon 2:1.)

So I don't think he was chosen just because there was no one else. He was was obviously quite a physical specimen, and just generally something special. At least that's what I like to think.

I don't think the ideas are mutually exclusive. There is no reason why Mormon couldn't be exceptional AND Nephite society was so unhealthy spiritually that it was bereft of older more seasoned men who should have been available to fill that role.

[pelagius]

Bushman's in that list. Is his contention that JS translated Mosiah first? What do they (critics and apologists) base this order on?

It is really a series of evidences that supports the priority of Mosiah. Taken together the different pieces become pretty compelling. Here is one example:

That Smith began with Mosiah also seems confirmed by reports of his and Oliver Cowdery's 15 May 1829 baptisms. The stimulus for baptizing each other, according to Smith, was information "found mentioned in the translation of the plates" (Smith et al. 1978, 1:39).12 Cowdery corroborates Smith's story, noting that they performed the baptisms "[a]fter writing the account given of the Savior's ministry to the remnant of the seed of Jacob, upon this continent" (Messenger and Advocate 1 [Oct. 1834]: 15). Cowdery writes that he and Smith were inspired by "the directions given to the Nephites, from the mouth of the Savior, of the precise manner in which men should build up his church" (ibid.). This means the narrative of Christ's visitation in 3 Nephi was dictated before 15 May 1829.

If Smith began at 1 Nephi, he would have dictated an average of 13 printed pages per day (based on the 1830 edition) between 7 April and 15 May to have arrived at the end of 3 Nephi. This would have left only slightly more than 1.5 pages a day to be dictated to complete 4 Nephi through Moroni by 1 July. Smith's dramatically decreased output is difficult to account for in this scenario.

The Mosian model more reasonably accounts for an average number of pages transcribed per day.13 From 7 April to 15 May Smith's dictation of Mosiah–3 Nephi would have averaged 9.25 [p.403] published pages per day. From 16 May to 1 July he dictated almost 5 pages per day for 4 Nephi–Moroni and 1 Nephi–Words of Mormon. If most of Mosiah had been transcribed prior to Cowdery's arrival, the numbers would be closer still.

The Metcalfe article does a nice job of going through the evidence.

I don't have a reference right on hand but didn't JS say numerous times that he translated Mormon's abridgement of the large plates before the small plates?

I don't believe that this is the case ... I believe all the evidence is more indirect than that.

[Tim]

It don't think it is arcane (but I like it when you are accusing me of apologetics when I am not even remotely close to doing that).

Let me re-explain: Almost everyone believes the following in terms of the order of translation (writing for you):

Mosiah followed by Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi, Mormon, Ether, Moroni, Title Page, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni, and finally Words of Mormon.

Critics believe this and apologists believe this. Its a relevant piece of information if one's hypothesis is that Joseph Smith ran out of steam towards the end of the book (since he went back a translated (or wrote) the beginning of the book after finishing Moroni).


See Metcalfe's article for why he (as a critic) argues for this order and the implications:

http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org...0.htm#exegesis

I don't have a problem with Mosian priority. It seems reasonable to me that the small plates of Nephi could've been attached at the end of Mormon's record. It would likely imply that some type of revelation to attach the small plates would likely have been received by Mormon after he had completed his abridgement -- he wouldn't have included the small plates unless he had a specific reason to, or he was told to do so by revelation. Imagine abridging a book and then being told to attach as an appendix the very history you've just abridged. Mormon wouldn't have done so on his own, or with his own logic, likely.

The only question I would have, then, is that of the title page. Did he write it at the end of his abridgement? Or when he went to add the small plates into the end of his abridgement (assuming that the small plates were located "lower" in the stack of plates? Or after both? Which is most likely?

Tim

[pelagius]

The only question I would have, then, is that of the title page. Did he write it at the end of his abridgement? Or when he went to add the small plates into the end of his abridgement (assuming that the small plates were located "lower" in the stack of plates? Or after both? Which is most likely?

Tim

The "Title Page" evidence is consistent with Mosiah priority. First, the title page is from the last page of the Book of Mormon (whether Joseph is referring to the end of all the plates or the abridgement I suppose we can't know for sure but the statement seems to me most likely to refer to the whole plates in my view (see the Metcalfte quote below)). Second, historical records indicate the translation continued after that copy of title page was sent to obtain a copyright for the BOM. So Joseph Smith translated the last page (the title page) but then there was more translation done. There are other explanations that would be consistent with this general sequence as well (like Joseph jumped around), but it is definitely consistent with the priority of Mosiah.

From Metcalfe:

Evidence concerning Smith's dictation of the Title Page also points to the priority of Mosiah. Before he completed dictation, Smith secured copyright for the Book of Mormon. Authors applying for copyright in New York state were requested to include the title of their work. Bearing the date 11 June 1829, the Book of Mormon copyright application includes the entire Title Page, which Smith said "is a literal translation, taken from the very last leaf, on the left hand side of the collection or book of plates" (Smith et al. 1978, 1:71; emphasis added). According to Smith, the Title Page was at the end of the record not the beginning, yet both Mormon and non-Mormon sources indicate the dictation was still underway after its transcription. Smith's History of the Church states that the dictation was only "drawing to a close," not finished, when he secured the copyright (ibid.). A local journalist printed the Title Page on 26 June 1829 adding that the remainder "will be published as soon as the translation is completed" (Wayne Sentinel, 26 June 1829; emphasis added). Although he may have produced it out of sequence, Smith more likely dictated the Title Page after he reached the end of the book proper (probably Ether) but prior to dictating the replacement text and possibly Moroni. This would have occurred in late May 1829, making the Title Page readily accessible by 11 June.