tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post4920750287600758126..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Mormon's Editorial Methods - and Insights to Headnotes in the Book of MormonJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-84328560371677441912009-02-05T00:21:00.000-06:002009-02-05T00:21:00.000-06:00Whoops. I should have read more carefully. Brant n...Whoops. I should have read more carefully. Brant notes Mormon's first visit to the hill Shim is recorded in Mormon 2:16-17. <BR/><BR/>If Mormon was 11 in A.D. 322 (Mormon 1:6), and it was about A.D. 345 when he first dug them up (Mormon 2:16-17) he was, though, late getting there. Ammoron had instructed him to get them when he was 24, not 33 or 34.<BR/><BR/>I kind of like the idea he didn't do it on time. In a perfect world, things might all get done as planned, but not always so in a real world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-68603678710924634062009-02-04T23:28:00.000-06:002009-02-04T23:28:00.000-06:00Wow, for Brant. I haven't read the whole article, ...Wow, for Brant. I haven't read the whole article, but does he ever come up with some interesting points. He buries one in his footnotes, that being that in the original manuscript, 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi are each just called "The Book of Nephi." I checked a copy of the 1830 Book of Mormon, and Brant is right, 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi are each titled just "The Book of Nephi," with 3 Nephi having the additional note, "The Son of Nephi, which was the Son of Helaman," and 4 Nephi having a note in the heading saying, "Which is the Son of Nephi, One of the Disciples of Jesus Christ." So, with the name of each book being identical, as you thumb through a copy of the original 1830 Book of Mormon, at the top of each page, it simply says "Book of Nephi," for both 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi, giving no distinction as to which is which. <BR/><BR/>And, the significance of it all is pointed out by Brant: 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi came from the Small Plates, but the Large Plates probably did not have had a 1 Nephi and a 2 Nephi, but rather a Book of Lehi. So, obviously, by the time the Large Plates reached 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi, they could not have been called by those names, 3 Nephi and 4 Nephi. That they are each just called "Nephi" is surely one of the internal evidences of the Book of Mormon that you, Jeff, refer to.<BR/><BR/>But the most interesting thing Brant mentioned (from the part of his article that I did read) was his pointing out that in every single case, the names of the books from the Large Plates follow the change in the rulers who possessed and wrote upon them. And if a Book of Mormon writer was not a ruler, his writings went into the book named after the last writer who was a ruler. Wow on that. I find it fascinating.<BR/><BR/>And, Brant points out that 3 Nephi probably didn't come from the large plates (referring to 3 Nephi 5:8-10 to show as much). I had missed that.<BR/><BR/>I also hadn't considered that Mormon might have dug up the plates when he was 24, just as Ammaron told him to. On my last reading through the Book of Mormon, I noticed he would have been much older when he sallied his way to the hill Shim to retrieve the plates (Mormon 4:23). Brant says that was the second time Mormon took some plates from the hill Shim, assuming he also dug up plates at age 24, as he was instructed by Ammaron.<BR/><BR/>Cool article.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com