In response to questions people have asked, here are some observations on the
BYU Studies article about the two sets of plates by Don Bradley, titled "Were Nephi’s Small Plates Contained in Mormon’s Gold Plates?" (See links to two versions of the article below.)
1. Excellent article. This is an outstanding article that I hope every Latter-day Saint around the world eventually reads. I applaud BYU Studies for publishing it.
There are some details that are problematic, as I'll discuss below, but I encourage multiple working hypotheses so that's all good.
The article is a wonderful introduction to the topic. Interested readers can find additional information on mobom.org, in Whatever Happened to the Golden Plates? and other references.
2. The Mary Whitmer account.
One of the recurring questions people ask me is why Moroni appeared to Mary Whitmer as an old man. That's the narrative in Saints, as discussed here. This is also the narrative missionaries at the Whitmer farm have related (although hopefully they've finally stopped doing that).
Hopefully this article will make progress in correcting the historical narrative because Bradley quotes the actual source instead of the Saints narrative.
That Mary Whitmer named the messenger “Brother Nephi” may echo the name of Nephi’s small plates that the messenger showed to her.
This Moroni meets Mary narrative is a prime example of how historical narratives are created and perpetuated, even when they contradict the historical record and basic logic and theology. It's also a fascinating example of how difficult it is to correct narratives. We all understand that the printed Saints books cannot be recalled, but there is no good excuse for not correcting the digital versions, which are by far the most read, especially internationally.
The Moroni narrative is problematic because, among other things, it (i) contradicts what Mary herself said, (ii) contradicts Oliver Cowdery's description of Moroni, (iii) contradicts David Whitmer's accounts of his conversations with both Moroni and the messenger with the plates, and (iv) alters our understanding of the resurrection, because the Moroni narrative frames resurrected beings as shape-shifters who can assume alternative identities and appearances, contrary to the restoration explanation of Alma 11:44.
Bradley's Note 33 is important.
That Nephi was involved at some point in the reception or transportation of plates is suggested by Joseph Smith’s conflation of Nephi and Moroni in the earliest draft of his 1838 History. “History Drafts, 1838–Circa 1841,” 222. (See also discussion of this variant in “History Drafts, 1838–Circa 1841,” 223n56.) Were Nephi not involved in some such way, it is difficult to understand why both Mary Whitmer and the Prophet Joseph employed the name Nephi as that of a messenger involved in the coming forth of the book of plates.
For a more complete analysis, see https://www.mobom.org/moroni-and-nephi
3. Illustrations: Text vs .pdf version.
If makes a difference if you read the text version or the .pdf/print version.
Text version: https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/were-nephis-small-plates-contained-in-mormons-gold-plates
pdf/text version: https://website-files-bucket.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/issues/issue_pdfs/64-4final.pdf
The text version omits the graphics. Let's discuss those.
4. The two categories of plates.
The page facing the start of the article features this delightful illustration by Ben Crowder.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
This illustration, titled
By the Gift and Power of God, offers a useful distinction between the original plates of Nephi and the abridged plates. This is an excellent depiction of the distinction made in the article between the plates Joseph translated in Harmony, PA (the abridged plates) and the plates Joseph translated in Fayette, NY (the plates of Nephi).
However, the caption is a little misleading, so I offer some corrections.
|
Original caption
|
Corrected caption
|
|
The rectangles
in the left column represent the books written on the small plates of Nephi.
|
The rectangles
in the left column represent the books translated from the plates of Nephi
(D&C 10) [We only have what Joseph translated.]
|
|
The
rectangles in the right column represent those on the large plates.
|
The
rectangles in the right column represent those translated from the abridged
plates. [The "large plates" were the original sources for the abridged plates.]
|
_____
5. The SITH debacle.
The next graphic, embedded on page 40, is Anthony Sweat's infamous SITH illustration that contradicts everything Joseph and Oliver ever said about the translation. This illustration of the SITH narrative from Mormonism Unvailed has become ubiquitous.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
The article claims that
"artistic depictions, and therefore common Latter-day Saint visualizations, have often portrayed Joseph translating by simply reading from the plates with the naked eye--not using a sacred seeing implement (fig. 1)."
That is a good point, in a way. There are some illustrations of Joseph translating plates that do not show the Urim and Thummim, but there are others that do show the Urim and Thummim. Most show Joseph studying the plates, not dictating the translation.
Below are some well-known visualizations, including one on the cover of the Ensign. But note that the Ensign cover, as well as several of the others, depict Joseph looking on the plates as if studying the characters. That is what Joseph explained. "I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim I translated some of them..." (Joseph Smith—History 1:62)
The illustration in the upper left shows Joseph presumably dictating as Oliver writes, with no evidence of the Urim and Thummim. The one in the center bottom shows the Urim and Thummim. The one in the center depicts SITH. Multiple working hypotheses, etc.
When we reviewed the existing artwork about the translation, we were unable to find a single illustration of Joseph using the Urim and Thummim while engaging with the plates by turning them. That's why we commissioned the artwork on the cover of our book.
Bradley's point is valid. Illustrations of Joseph translating the plates without showing the Urim and Thummim contradict what Joseph and Oliver said just as much as Anthony Sweat's SITH illustration.
Then Bradley writes, "Scholarship offers a corrective to this faulty visualization. 4"
Instead of correcting any "faulty visualization," scholarship has compounded the problem, as we can see by consulting the references in Notes 3 and 4. One weakness of this article is the citations to these references without critical analysis.
 |
| (click to enlarge) |
The documentary content of the Joseph Smith Papers is exceptional and world-class. It is better than any other comparable collection of papers I've seen.
However, there is a big problem with the explanatory notes, such as the "Seer Stone" entry in the Glossary that Bradley cited here. That entry and related notes are biased in favor of promoting the SITH narrative, as I discussed here:
For another example, see
Note 4 quotes the Wentworth letter ("Church History"), but then references From Darkness Unto Light, a highly problematic book that simply omits historical references that contradict its authors' theories and ignores fundamental problems with the SITH narrative.
Anthony Sweat's SITH illustration in that book compounds the problem of "faulty visualization" instead of fixing it. Let's look at it again.
Figure 1 enshrines the
Mormonism Unvailed narrative by rejecting what Joseph and Oliver always said. It supports Royal Skousen's claim that Joseph and Oliver
deliberately misled everyone about the translation, a claim that many other LDS scholars have embraced.
Figure 1 contradicts the entire point of this article--which hopefully is what was intended.
If, as Sweat depicts, the plates were always covered, there was no reason for the messenger (Nephi) to bring the small plates to Fayette. There was no point in the Lord instructing Joseph to "translate the engravings which are on the plates of Nephi" (Doctrine and Covenants 10:41) because all Joseph had to do was keep reading what appeared on the stone-in-the-hat (SITH).
The problem with SITH has been summarized in a well-known meme:
I trust that readers will spot the juxtaposition of Sweat's SITH illustration and the two sets of plates, but sometimes images prevail over text, and that might be the case here.
I would have liked to see an illustration of what Joseph and Oliver taught, with Joseph translating the plates by means of the Urim and Thummim. That would enliven the Lord's instruction in D&C 10:41.
6. The Mary Whitmer illustration.
It was good to see a new illustration of the Mary Whitmer account instead of the more common one titled "Moroni shows the plates."
7. The map.
The map provided in the article is clear and useful, but a little misleading because it relates the old narrative.
The annotation at Harmony says "Most of the Book of Mormon translated (April-May 1829)." To be more accurate, it should have said "The abridged plates translated (Nov 1828-May 1829)." Joseph related that he began to translate again after the plates were returned to him in Sept 1828 (after the 116 pages had been lost). David Whitmer said it took 8 months to translate (Nov 1828-Jun 1829). Documentary evidence indicates that Oliver was not the scribe for most or all of Mosiah. The annotation could also refer to the 116 pages being translated there, but that would complicate matters and that translation was also from the abridged plates anyway.
The annotation at Fayette says "Translation completed (June 1829)." To be more accurate, it should have read "Plates of Nephi translated (June 1829)."
_____
Summary. This is an outstanding article that will hopefully generate more discussion and understanding among Latter-day Saints everywhere.
Hopefully it will lead to some corrections in the Saints book, the Joseph Smith Papers, and the works of other LDS scholars.
