Contradiction in the Book of Mormon?

[_Drifting]

I don't understand this, can you shed any light on it or expand on it any?

Cheers

This is not my area of expertise, I am afraid.

I think the article itself, which deals primarily with the chronology of Book of Mormon translation, gives clues as to some parts of the Book of Mormon that can be pinpointed (with some degree of speculation) to different times and different locations.

Because the article doesn't deal primarily with the "Mosiah first" theory, it relegates it to a footnote with other sources.

I have none of the books on the list, though I did once have (and read) Bushman's Beginnings of Mormonism. My understanding is that he incorporated pretty much all of that book, dealing with Joseph Smith's early years, into the first part of his Rough Stone Rolling, which I do have.

If you want, I can try to remember to pull it off the shelf when I get home this evening and take a look.

Let me know.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

If you get a chance that would be great, cheers.

[_consiglieri]

If you get a chance that would be great, cheers.

Surprisingly, I actually remembered to bring RSR to work with me.

Bushman addresses this on page 74, where he states:

In late May or June (1829), probably after the rest of the book was done, he (Smith) and Cowdery began work on 1 Nephi.

Here there is a reference to footnote 63, which goes into lots of detail and which I won't transcribe word for word here.

He says "the order of translation has been established through analysis of the handwriting of the original manuscript." The reasoning as I understand it is that documentary evidence shows that Emma acted as scribe for Joseph Smith during January/February of 1829, and her handwriting would be expected to be on the part of the original Book of Mormon manuscript immediately upon Joseph's resumption of translation after the 116-pages were lost.

But we don't find Emma's handwriting in 1 Nephi, rather we find Oliver Cowdery's (and some of what looks like John Whitmer). We know Oliver wouldn't have been writing until after April 6, 1829, when he met Joseph for the first time, so this is suggestive. As Bushman puts it, "There is no evidence of Emma Smith's hand, as would be expected had Joseph begun with 1 Nephi after the loss of the first 116 pages. . . . Thus it is unlikely that Emma and Joseph began work on 1 Nephi in the winter (Jan/Feb) of 1829 when they resumed translating."


Bushman continues in the footnote, "Work on 1 Nephi probably began in late May."

Then another interesting clue.

"It also appears that the Book of Mosiah in the current Book of Mormon is not complete. It begins abruptly without the introduction that Mormon affixed to all the other books he abridged. Possibly the first pages of Mosiah were among the 116 that were lost. The evidence implies Joseph and Oliver began work on Mosiah when they began translating together in April 1829, finished the book to the end, and then went back and translated 1 Nephi up through Mosiah."

The footnote concludes with an interesting analysis of the dating of D&C 10, its content and how it interplays with the translation of the Book of Mormon, specifically 1 Nephi. This part gets technical, because it was originally dated May of 1829, but the church changed the date to summer of 1828 because whoever changed the date thought 1 Nephi would have been translated first after the plates were returned. But the May 1829 date is correct, which is why Bushman says they probably didn't start translating 1 Nephi until May of 1829.

So I think those are the primary reasons Bushman has concluded that the "Mosiah first" theory is correct.

Hope this helps.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Drifting]

Consig, thanks.

The dilemma though, still exists.

If we accept the Book of Mormon as what it is claimed to be, and we accept the Mosiah first theory; we are still left with question of why God told Nephi that the land had been 'kept from all other nations' when we know (and the Book of Mormon itself confirms this in the Jaredite record) that it wasn't?

Nor at any point dies Nephi appear to go "hey God, who are all these other people if you've kept this land hidden pending our arrival?".

[_Themis]

Consig, thanks.

The dilemma though, still exists.

If we accept the Book of Mormon as what it is claimed to be, and we accept the Mosiah first theory; we are still left with question of why God told Nephi that the land had been 'kept from all other nations' when we know (and the Book of Mormon itself confirms this in the Jaredite record) that it wasn't?

Nor at any point dies Nephi appear to go "hey God, who are all these other people if you've kept this land hidden pending our arrival?".

I brought this up before but it seems to have been missed. If I recall Lehi's group would have been in an area the Jaredite nations were not in. Now of course from a LGT Nephi would have noticed all these other nations whether in Meso-America or the NE US.

[_Drifting]

Consig, thanks.

The dilemma though, still exists.

If we accept the Book of Mormon as what it is claimed to be, and we accept the Mosiah first theory; we are still left with question of why God told Nephi that the land had been 'kept from all other nations' when we know (and the Book of Mormon itself confirms this in the Jaredite record) that it wasn't?

Nor at any point dies Nephi appear to go "hey God, who are all these other people if you've kept this land hidden pending our arrival?".

I brought this up before but it seems to have been missed. If I recall Lehi's group would have been in an area the Jaredite nations were not in. Now of course from a LGT Nephi would have noticed all these other nations whether in Meso-America or the NE US.

Hi Themis, sorry if I missed your comment.
I'm not sure the Book of Mormon distinguishes the Jaredite settlement as a different location. In fact, doesn't the Hill Cumorah feature as the place of the Jaredite and Nephite last stands?

[_Themis]

Hi Themis, sorry if I missed your comment.
I'm not sure the Book of Mormon distinguishes the Jaredite settlement as a different location. In fact, doesn't the Hill Cumorah feature as the place of the Jaredite and Nephite last stands?

True, but at a much later date and in another area. The Book of Mormon has Nephi in another area. They later move to get away from the Lamanites and then find our other group from the middle east. It was they who found the last Jaredite. No where in this whole narrative do we see mention of any group that did not originate from the Old world around the middle east. Even the Bible mentions many other groups, even if not accurately or in positive ways(which is to be expected). The Book of Mormon really is presented in a more HGT.

[_Drifting]

Hi Themis, sorry if I missed your comment.
I'm not sure the Book of Mormon distinguishes the Jaredite settlement as a different location. In fact, doesn't the Hill Cumorah feature as the place of the Jaredite and Nephite last stands?

True, but at a much later date and in another area. The Book of Mormon has Nephi in another area. They later move to get away from the Lamanites and then find our other group from the middle east. It was they who found the last Jaredite. No where in this whole narrative do we see mention of any group that did not originate from the Old world around the middle east. Even the Bible mentions many other groups, even if not accurately or in positive ways(which is to be expected). The Book of Mormon really is presented in a more HGT.

I agree, and the books description of the lands 'nothward' and 'southward' seem to best fit the Americas as a whole rather than a small bit where, to make it fit, north means west etc.

[_Themis]

I agree, and the books description of the lands 'nothward' and 'southward' seem to best fit the Americas as a whole rather than a small bit where, to make it fit, north means west etc.

The story was created in the 19th century with the thinking that Noah's flood was global. This explains why no mention of other groups. The Jaredites were essentially dead when Nephi arrived. His group and the other from the middle east had to populate the whole of the America's. This was the thinking back then, so it makes sense that people even before Joseph were coming up with the basics of the Book of Mormon narrative to explain where all these natives came from.

[_consiglieri]

Consig, thanks.

The dilemma though, still exists.

If we accept the Book of Mormon as what it is claimed to be, and we accept the Mosiah first theory; we are still left with question of why God told Nephi that the land had been 'kept from all other nations' when we know (and the Book of Mormon itself confirms this in the Jaredite record) that it wasn't?

Nor at any point dies Nephi appear to go "hey God, who are all these other people if you've kept this land hidden pending our arrival?".

To the extent that Lehi believed in 2 Nephi 1 that there were no other nations that had "as yet" been brought to the same land, he was obviously mistaken.

What makes it strange to me is why Joseph Smith would have Lehi say something like that when Joseph Smith had already delineated the existence not only of the Mulekites (in Mosiah) but the Jaredites (in Mosiah and detailed in Ether).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_gdemetz]

Weren't the Jaredites extinct, and couldn't the Mulekites be considered of the same nation?