Were Nephi’s Small Plates Contained in Mormon’s Gold Plates?

Our present Book of Mormon text was translated from records known to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the plates of Mormon and the small plates of Nephi. Joseph Smith translated Mormon’s plates first and (after the first part of this translation was stolen1) later translated Nephi’s small plates. To fill the gap at the beginning of Mormon’s narrative, Joseph substituted the small plates of Nephi’s account for the missing part of Mormon’s account. Given that Joseph Smith described this substitution in the original preface to the 1830 Book of Mormon, Latter-day Saints have always known that the Book of Mormon’s extant text comes from the translation of both Mormon’s plates and Nephi’s small plates.2 In this article, I will posit the possibility that we have not, however, visualized the relationship of those two sets of plates correctly.

Accurately visualizing what we know from the historical record can be surprisingly difficult. Early historical sources describe Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon text via interpreters or a seer stone.3 But 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). Scholarship offers a corrective to this faulty visualization.4

Latter-day Saints have generally visualized the relationship of Mormon’s plates and Nephi’s small plates as two segments of a single record, bound together into one book by a shared set of rings. I will argue in this article that this visualization may also be faulty—that Mormon’s plates and Nephi’s small plates were not bound together into a single book but were utilized separately and sequentially by the Prophet Joseph Smith in translating the Book of Mormon. Evidence pointing to the model that the small plates and Mormon’s plates were separate records may be found in the Book of Mormon text and in sources from the early history of the Church.5

Although Mormon’s description in the Words of Mormon has been read to say that the two sets of plates were bound together, no text actually says this—and, as we will see further below, Mormon in fact indicates the opposite. Mormon wrote, “I shall take these plates, . . . and put them with the remainder of my record” (W of M 1:6). This verse is generally interpreted to mean that the two sets of plates were bound together. I will show that the verse more naturally implies that the two sets remained separate. Further, the title page of the Book of Mormon (and thus of Mormon’s completed set of plates) describes a record lacking the small plates of Nephi, further implying that the two plate sets were separate.

In addition, the timeline of the Book of Mormon’s translation and the associated exchanges of plates between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni similarly suggest that Joseph used two distinct sets of plates in succession to translate the Book of Mormon. I will argue from historical sources that when Joseph completed his work with Mormon’s set of plates at the end of May 1829, Joseph returned Mormon’s plates to the angel before leaving Harmony, Pennsylvania. Joseph’s remaining translation work, carried out in Fayette, New York, was exclusively from Nephi’s small plates, with no need for him to further access the plates of Mormon that he had returned to the angel. This article will argue that the model of two separate sets of plates best accounts for both the textual and the historical data.

The Small Plates of Nephi are Absent from the Book of Mormon Title Page

Readers of the Nephite record are told on its title page what they are about to encounter: Mormon’s abridgment of Nephi’s large plates—“The Book of Mormon: An Account Written by the Hand of Mormon upon Plates Taken from the Plates of Nephi”—followed by Moroni’s “abridgment taken from the Book of Ether” (Title Page of the Book of Mormon).6 But, skipping the modern front matter, readers plunge immediately from the title page’s introduction of Mormon’s record into “The First Book of Nephi,” narrated in the voice of Nephi (“I, Nephi,” 1 Ne. 1:1) and written by him on his “small plates” (Jacob 1:1). The reader must wait until 145 pages into the modern English edition to encounter the promised abridgment from Mormon, at the book of Mosiah.

Although the reader plunges from the title page into the 145 pages of Nephi’s small plates, the title page makes no mention of the small plates.7 Why would Moroni, who composed or completed the title page,8 fail to mention Nephi’s record of the small plates if he had included it with his ringed book of plates? How should readers understand a title page announcing Mormon’s record but followed instead by Nephi’s? One might wonder if this discontinuity is explained by the fact that the manuscript translation of the first four-and-a-half centuries of Mormon’s narrative (the lost 116 pages) was stolen, and Joseph Smith replaced it with Nephi’s small plates.9 The lost pages do account for why Joseph Smith later turned to Nephi’s small plates as a replacement, but they do not explain why Moroni omitted any mention of Nephi’s small plates on his title page, if they were in fact in his record.10

Although the title page fails to mention Nephi’s small plates, it does introduce the book of Ether, which was contained in Moroni’s ringed set of plates. Moroni’s mention of the book of Ether on the title page implies that the title page was intended to include the principal source divisions within the bound plates set he curated. So, given that the book of Ether comprises just under six percent of the published Book of Mormon text, Moroni’s omission from the title page of the much more substantial small plates of Nephi—comprising almost twenty-seven percent of the extant text—calls out for explanation.11

Why, then, does Moroni omit Nephi’s small plates in his introduction to the stack of plates he hid in the Hill Cumorah?12 The answer proposed here, based on several converging lines of evidence, is that the small plates were not in that stack. Despite common opinion that the small plates were bound together with the plates of Mormon, I suggest that evidence in the Book of Mormon text and in historical sources points to another model: These sets of plates were kept separate by their Nephite authors and remained separate when used by Joseph Smith.

“Put Them With”: Evidence from the Text

It has been conventionally assumed that Mormon added Nephi’s small plates to his own plates by binding the two sets of plates together with the same rings to form a single stack of golden plates, and that Joseph Smith translated the entire extant Book of Mormon from this single bound volume that he obtained from the Hill Cumorah in 1827.13 This assumption rests on one verse: “I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations [the small plates], and put them with the remainder of my record [the plates of Mormon]” (W of M 1:6).

But Mormon does not here indicate that he bound the small plates with his own plates, only that he “put them with” his plates. Given the primary meaning of the word “put” in English at the time the Book of Mormon was translated—“To set, lay or place”—Mormon likely meant that he set, laid, or placed the two sets of plates together.14 The phrase “put them with” appears in the Book of Mormon only twice, both times in the Words of Mormon, just a few verses apart. In verse  10, Mormon uses the phrase again, this time to describe what King Benjamin had previously done with the small plates after having received them from Amaleki: “Wherefore, it came to pass that after Amaleki had delivered up these plates into the hands of king Benjamin, he took them and put them with the other plates, which contained records which had been handed down by the kings” (W of M 1:10, emphasis added).

Mormon’s parallel use of “put them with” to describe what he and Benjamin both did with the small plates illuminates what that phrase did—and did not—mean to Mormon. It appears that in Mormon’s understanding, whatever Benjamin had done with the small plates in “put[ting] them with” the large plates, Mormon himself did with the small plates in “put[ting] them with” his plates of Mormon.

So, what did Benjamin do and not do with the small plates? Fortunately, Mormon revealed this a few verses earlier, showing that Benjamin did not bind the small plates to the large plates but merely placed them together in the same repository. Mormon reported, “After I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake [in Omni 1:23–25], I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates, which contained this small account of the prophets, from Jacob down to the reign of this king Benjamin, and also many of the words of Nephi” (W of M 1:3). Had the small plates been bound together with the large plates by King Benjamin before Mormon abridged them, Mormon would have had both records within the same bound set, with no need to “search among” other records to find the small plates.

Thus, when Mormon wrote that King Benjamin took the small plates and “put them with” the large plates (v. 10), he most likely again used the phrase in its face-value sense—“placed them with,” rather than “bound them with.” Mormon applied the same phrase, “put them with,” to his own curating of the plates a few verses earlier (v. 6). Nothing in his language suggests binding two sets of plates together. Absent any idea in the Book of Mormon text that Nephi’s small plates and Mormon’s plates were bound together, Moroni’s omission of the small plates from the title page seems natural.

The Evidence of Nineteenth-Century Historical Sources

If Nephi’s small plates and Mormon’s plates were not bound together, this suggests the possibility that our present Book of Mormon text was translated from two independent sets of plates—that is, from two distinct records that were not ringed together into a single set.15 External evidence from historical sources suggests how these separate plates were translated and transported. Having separate sets of plates explains an intriguing series of events in the translation of the Book of Mormon—namely, that Joseph Smith concluded the translation of Mormon’s plates in Harmony, Pennsylvania at the end of May 1829, returned those plates to the angel (in line with the angel’s own earlier instruction to return them when he was done translating them), and then relocated to New York before beginning the translation of Nephi’s small plates.

Scholarship concurs that after the manuscript forepart of Mormon’s abridgment was stolen, Joseph Smith did not immediately translate the small plates he would replace it with. Rather, he resumed translating where he had left off in the plates of Mormon, at the book of Mosiah. He translated those plates through their conclusion with the book of Moroni and title page. (The title page, which describes Moroni’s completed record and does not mention the small plates, was reportedly placed at the end of Moroni’s record.)16 When he finished with Mormon’s plates, Joseph translated the small plates of Nephi.17 Consequently, once Joseph had translated through the book of Moroni, he no longer needed the plates of Mormon but could exclusively employ Nephi’s small plates.

So, if Mormon’s plates and Nephi’s small plates were part of a single set, bound together with the same rings, we might expect Joseph to retain the set of plates given him by the messenger at Cumorah until he finished translating the whole set, including the small plates. On the other hand, if Mormon’s plates and Nephi’s small plates were separate sets, individually bound, we might expect Joseph to surrender Mormon’s plates back into the angel’s care after he translated these to their end (the book of Moroni) but before he acquired and translated Nephi’s small plates. And this, per the scholars and sources cited below, is exactly what he did.

David Whitmer, a participant in Joseph’s move from Harmony, Pennsylvania, to Fayette, New York, reported—as we shall examine further—that Joseph described returning the plates he had been translating to the messenger prior to this move. Examining the chronology of translation and Whitmer’s report, we will see that Joseph returned the plates given him at Cumorah immediately after concluding his translation of the plates of Mormon and before beginning to translate the small plates—just as we might expect if these two sets of plates were separate.

Translation Chronology

Four scholars independently producing translation timelines have all converged on the same timing for when Joseph completed the plates of Mormon. These chronologists agree partly because of two revelations given to Joseph in Harmony, Pennsylvania, at the end of May 1829, just before he moved to Fayette, New York.18 These two revelations (D&C 11 and 12) allude to and employ language from the final chapters of the plates of Mormon (Moro. 7–10), placing the translation of those concluding chapters just before these revelations and thus just before the move.19

John W. Welch, for instance, notes that the phrase “deny not” (repeated several times in Moroni 10) was used in a revelation for Hyrum Smith in Harmony at the end of May 1829 (D&C 11:25). For instance, Moroni 10:7 states, “And ye may know that he is, by the power of the Holy Ghost; wherefore I would exhort you that ye deny not the power of God,” connecting God’s power with his Spirit. Doctrine and Covenants 11 reads, “Deny not the spirit of revelation, nor the spirit of prophecy, for wo unto him that denieth these things” (D&C 11:25), paralleling the content of Moroni 10. Several such correlations between Moroni 7 and 10 and Doctrine and Covenants 11 and 12 can be found. Since the use of these phrases in the book of Moroni is a probable prompt for their clustered use in Doctrine and Covenants, Moroni 7 and 10 were likely received before or around the same time that Joseph relocated to Fayette from Harmony.20

The beginning of the small plates’ translation can be pegged with similar precision to just after this move, enabling us to test the expectation that Joseph began translating the small plates only after returning the plates of Mormon to the messenger. In late May, David Whitmer arrived in Harmony to transport Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to the Whitmer residence in Fayette. If Joseph had just finished with the plates of Mormon at Harmony, he would have begun translation of the small plates in Fayette, starting at 1 Nephi. And this is precisely what he did. The handwriting of a new scribe (now identified as John Whitmer, who was then in Fayette) appears in the original manuscript of the first chapter of 1 Nephi, demonstrating that this text was translated there.21 Thus, there was a clean break between Joseph’s completion of translating the plates of Mormon in Pennsylvania and his resumption of translation with the small plates of Nephi in New York.

Whitmer’s Report

Why the coincidence of Joseph simultaneously switching plates and states? David Whitmer offers a clue. Whitmer reports that “the messenger who had the plates . . . had taken them from Joseph just prior to our starting from Harmony.”22 Thus, after completing the plates of Mormon, Joseph promptly surrendered the plates he had been given at Cumorah—a particularly fitting action if the plates he had been given at Cumorah were exclusively the plates of Mormon.

Along the road to Fayette, according to Whitmer, they encountered a man whom Joseph afterward identified as the messenger carrying the plates: “Said he [the messenger] I am only going over to Comorah—& Suddenly disappeared—they stop[p]ed the team—amazed at the Sudden disappearance of the fine looking stranger he [Whitmer] says that they all felt so strangely—that they asked the Prophet to enquire of the Lord who this stranger was. Soon David said they turned around & Joseph looked pale almost transparent & said that was one of the Nephites and he had the Plates of the Book of Mormon in the knapsac[k].”23

Perhaps Joseph returned the plates he had translated to the messenger so the messenger could ferry them to Fayette for him. Yet this explanation comes up short for multiple reasons. First, the messenger was understood to be taking these plates back to Cumorah rather than to Fayette. Second, Joseph relates in his 1838–1839 history that once the messenger delivered the plates of Mormon into his hands, Joseph was responsible for them until he returned them to angelic care. He wrote, “the same heavenly messenger delivered them up to me with this charge that I should be responsible for them. That . . . if I would use all my endeavours to preserve them untill <he> (the messenger) called should call for them, they should be protected. . . . [W]hen I had done what was required at my hand, he would call for them.”24

What Joseph reported by his words, he confirmed by his deeds. He behaved as if it were his responsibility to protect the plates until his work with them was done and the angel called for them. When thieves came for the plates in New York, Joseph took the plates to Pennsylvania. He also cut “a good cudgel” (a type of club) to protect the plates from the thieves who waylaid him on the journey.25 Based on past attacks by multiple robbers—who “struck him with a club,” “shot at” him, and searched his wagon “very carefully,”26—if Joseph had the option of a secure angelic courier carrying the plates to Pennsylvania, why would he choose to endanger them by carrying them himself? Joseph’s actions imply precisely what the angel instructed—that these plates were to remain in his care until translated. Continuing his narration, Joseph related that he did precisely as the messenger had charged him to do—protected the plates himself until he was done translating them and the messenger called for them: “multitudes were on the alert continualy to get them from me if possible but by the wisdom of God they remained safe in my hands untill I had accomplished by them what was required at my hand, when according to arrangement the messenger called for them, I delivered them up to him and he has them in his charge untill this day.”27

The logic of the messenger’s instructions to Joseph, and of Joseph’s consequent actions, suggest that when he returned the plates to the messenger in Harmony, it was not to have them ferried to Fayette; rather, Joseph returned the plates to the messenger because he “had accomplished by them what was required” of him and the messenger “called for them.” He was done translating those plates.

Why was Joseph’s move to Fayette, New York, simultaneous with the messenger’s journey to Cumorah? Fayette was just twenty-seven miles from Cumorah, far more convenient than the 130 miles from Harmony. If Mormon’s plates and the small plates were separate sets, then after finishing with Mormon’s plates, Joseph would have anticipated needing to return to Cumorah to acquire the small plates. So, rather than leaving Joseph’s simultaneous change of plates and states as mere coincidence, the model of two discrete sets of plates predicts and accounts for Joseph moving when he did—upon the completion of Mormon’s plates—and where he did: to New York (fig. 3).28

How, then, did Joseph acquire the small plates?29 Did he return to the Hill Cumorah as intended, perhaps visiting the “cave of records” spoken of in mid-nineteenth century sources, to acquire the small plates before he began translating again?30 No historical sources describe him making a trip to Cumorah when he arrived at Fayette and before translating the small plates. And, as events played out, it appears there would have been no need for him to do so after all.

Mary Whitmer’s Witness

David Whitmer reported that on arriving at the Peter and Mary Musselman Whitmer home, Joseph, Oliver, and David felt a spiritual impression that the person they had met on the road with the plates was there. This messenger promptly made another appearance. “The next Morning,” David recalled, his mother Mary Whitmer “saw the Person at the Shed and he took the Plates from A Box & Showed them to her.”31 What plates did he bring? The plates Joseph needed at this point were those he had not yet translated—the small plates of Nephi. The messenger, who had been headed to Cumorah, brought these plates from Cumorah to Fayette. The messenger would thus have brought the small plates right when they were needed—just in time for Joseph to translate them.32

That Mary Whitmer named the messenger “Brother Nephi” may echo the name of Nephi’s small plates that the messenger showed to her.33 Mary Whitmer’s encounter with the heavenly bearer of the plates has typically been interpreted as a purely personal experience given to her for her own comfort and edification but with no spiritually substantive role in the Book of Mormon’s coming forth. Yet Mary Whitmer’s experience appears to have had just such a role. Mary’s experience of the angel coming to the Whitmer farm with plates showed that the needed plates arrived there without Joseph having to get them from Cumorah. Her experience thus also accounts for why Joseph immediately resumed translating without returning to Cumorah first.

In this light, Joseph’s realization that he did not need to return to the hill to get the small plates may have come, not by revelation to himself, but by revelation to Mary Whitmer. And it was a momentous revelation. Amy Easton-Flake and Rachel Cope have noted, “When Mary was shown the plates, she became the first known individual to see them besides Joseph Smith. Within the month, all of the male members of her family, except for her husband, would join her in witnessing the physical reality of the plates.”34 As Mary Magdalene saw the risen Lord before the Twelve disciples and testified of this to them, Mary Musselman Whitmer saw the plates and the messenger before the formal witness experiences of the twelve (Joseph Smith, the Three Witnesses, and the Eight Witnesses) and testified of this experience to them.35 Though the roles of others besides Joseph in the Book of Mormon’s emergence have historically tended to be minimized, this is especially true of women, whose important roles are only recently beginning to be recognized and documented.36

Conclusion

While interpreters of the Book of Mormon have sometimes read into the Words of Mormon that Nephi’s small plates were bound with the plates of Mormon, the text does not say this. Indeed, the textual data of the Words of Mormon and the title page are at least as well explained—if not much better explained—on the model that Nephi’s small plates were simply placed with, rather than bound with, the plates of Mormon. Historical sources and the Book of Mormon’s translation timeline also align with this model, indicating that Joseph Smith returned the plates to the angel just when we would expect if those plates contained only Mormon’s record, not Nephi’s small plates.

Recognizing that the Book of Mormon text as we have it was likely translated from two sets of plates rather than one has significant implications for understanding the Restoration. The Restoration has sometimes been depicted as a kind of one-man show in which Joseph played all the spiritually significant parts. Yet, if the Book of Mormon was translated from two sets of plates, with the angelic “Brother Nephi” as courier of the small plates and Mary Whitmer as a witness and recipient of a substantive visitation, this points to a richer story in which some of Joseph Smith’s ministerial coworkers have previously unacknowledged revelatory roles.37

Recognizing that the Book of Mormon was likely translated from two distinct sets of plates (the plates of Mormon and the small plates of Nephi) reveals a God who brought Joseph more than one record, by more than one messenger, and witnessed by more than one gender. This view is supported by textual and historical evidence as well as Mary Whitmer’s witness. By expanding our vision of that sacred work in the past, we gain insights that can enrich our vision of God’s work in the present.