The modern LDS readership of the Book of Mormon is familiar with Mormon and the large and small plates. We know that Mormon is the abridger/editor of our Book of Mormon and that he took most of his account from what we call the large plates of Nephi. In this verse Mormon refers to “that which I have written.” The antecedent for that statement is all Mormon has written to that point. Mormon did not write any of the material we have as 1 Nephi through Omni. Nevertheless, he makes this statement in the context of linking the small plate material to his own abridgment. He assumes the understanding that we know of our experience with the text, but this is not information that is available in the text itself as it exists in the printed edition.
Clearly, Mormon must have explained at the beginning of his record (the lost 116 pages, or book of Lehi) who he is and what he is doing. He assumes that his relationship with the reader is so clear that he sometimes does not even identify himself in his continued editorial explanations. For example, in Mosiah 8:1, he states: “And it came to pass that after king Limhi had made an end of speaking to his people, for he spake many things unto them and only a few of them have I written in this book, he told his people all the things concerning their brethren who were in the land of Zarahemla.” He does not explain who “I” is or provide any information about his creation of the book.
As another example:
Now this account did cause the people of Mosiah to mourn exceedingly, yea, they were filled with sorrow; nevertheless it gave them much knowledge, in the which they did rejoice.
And this account shall be written hereafter; for behold, it is expedient that all people should know the things which are written in this account.
And now, as I said unto you, that after king Mosiah had done these things, he took the plates of brass, and all the things which he had kept, and conferred them upon Alma, who was the son of Alma; yea, all the records, and also the interpreters, and conferred them upon him, and commanded him that he should keep and preserve them, and also keep a record of the people, handing them down from one generation to another, even as they had been handed down from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem. (Mosiah 28:18–20)
Mormon’s editorial insertion here indicates a foreknowledge of what will come later in the book, assuming that the reader will know that Mormon will record it. And again, he does not identify who “I,” is, his typical pattern.
One exception comes at 4 Nephi 1:23, a transition from Mormon’s abridgment to his own holographic record: “And now I, Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ.”
Another exception, and the most interesting one, is 3 Nephi 5:12–19:
And behold, I am called Mormon, being called after the land of Mormon, the land in which Alma did establish the church among the people, yea, the first church which was established among them after their transgression.
Behold, I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life.
And it hath become expedient that I, according to the will of God, that the prayers of those who have gone hence, who were the holy ones, should be fulfilled according to their faith, should make a record of these things which have been done—
Yea, a small record of that which hath taken place from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem, even down until the present time.
Therefore I do make my record from the accounts which have been given by those who were before me, until the commencement of my day;
And then I do make a record of the things which I have seen with mine own eyes.
And I know the record which I make to be a just and a true record; nevertheless there are many things which, according to our language, we are not able to write.
And now I make an end of my saying, which is of myself, and proceed to give my account of the things which have been before me.
To this point, Mormon has simply assumed that we know who he is. In fact, even Words of Mormon was likely written after this statement in 3 Nephi. (See Words of Mormon 1:2.) Thus, at this very late point in the abridgment comes the most complete introduction to the man, Mormon. I argue that this may not have been Mormon’s first introduction but simply the first that has been preserved. Obviously, he assumes that the reader knows who he is and what he is doing, which logically suggests that he made an initial introductory statement that was lost with the 116 pages. All of the writers on the small plates began by identifying themselves. It seems logical that Mormon would have followed this convention, especially since he would have had to clarify his role and simultaneously explain that the record was an abridgment.
As the Words of Mormon show, when Mormon needed to make a textual transition, he attempted to smooth it out by providing linking and explanatory material. Mormon probably used a similar technique when he began his record in the initial 116 pages. Mormon could not assume that the reader would understand who he was and how he produced the text (especially when he made editorial comments without further self-identifications) unless he had previously introduced himself, describing his divine call to abridge the records and his purpose in so doing.
Given this requirement, then, 3 Nephi 12:19 seems somewhat aberrant. If Mormon had previously introduced himself, why does he do it again? As I read the text, it is governed by the unusual text that comes next: the record of the Atoning Messiah’s appearance to his people. By its very content, this was Mormon’s most sacred text. Not only that, but “I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I have been called of him to declare his word among his people, that they might have everlasting life” (3 Ne. 5:13).
Mormon prefaces this section by declaring himself as an apostle, a witness for the Savior. Mormon is not introducing himself as an editor but as an apostle, a special witness to the Messiah.
Redaction: Words of Mormon concludes the small plates and provides a transition to the abridgment of the large plates. As Mormon explains, he has already seen the near-destruction of his people, which occurred soon before Mormon’s death (Morm. 6), and is about to give the record to his son (W of M 1:2). Clearly, he does not anticipate writing much more on the plates.
His statement, “I speak somewhat concerning that which I have written” (v. 3), raises the question: what has he written? This must be his abridgment of the large-plate material: “After I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of… Benjamin,… I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates” (v. 3). This surprisingly vivid little description tells us that Mormon did not work with a single set of records in chronological order. Even if each ruler produced only a single set of plates, they were not compiled into a single group. If Mormon had been looking only for the very next record, he would have simply moved to the next volume on the shelf (or whatever the Nephite storage system was). The fact that he had to search tells us that there were numerous sets of records, and they were not in chronological order. Mormon had to impose physical as well as literary order on them as he extracted their most salient facts.
Individual books were named for specific dynasties, a designation system that Mormon retains, but the entire set of records had a collective name: “the plates of Nephi.” The use of this consistent designation for what was demonstrably multiple sets of records indicates that, regardless of the specific content of any single record, they all were part of the “plates of Nephi.” (See Behind the Text: Chapter 3, “Mormon’s Sources.”)
Mormon found the small plates when he was searching for the next set of the large plates to abridge. Mormon did not know about these small plates, was not looking for them, and was surprised when he found them. Probably he interrupted his larger task to read them and determine what he had discovered. Finding that they were actually in the hand of the original Nephi would have been irresistible for any man with a historical interest, and abridging the plates surely gave Mormon such an interest even if it were not natural to him. This distinctive version of the story Mormon had already abridged would be as interesting to him as reading Mormon’s account of that time period would be to us today.
Mormon labels this a “small account.” Jacob 1:1 calls them “small plates” (see also Jarom 1:2, 14), thus leading to the LDS tradition of calling them the “small plates of Nephi.” As already discussed in Behind the Text: Chapter 6, “The Physical Plates,” Nephi probably used the brass plates as his model in determining the physical size and shape of his two sets of plates: the “small” and the “large.” Almost certainly all of the individual sheets were the same size. The “small” plates were fewer in quantity and the “large” plates were more numerous.
Incidentally, the term “large plates” never appears in the Book of Mormon. Nephi himself says that he made “a full account of my people” on “the plates of Nephi” but that “these plates”—meaning what we would call the “small plates”—also are called the plates of Nephi (1 Ne. 9:2). This distinction may be momentarily confusing for modern readers, but it was certainly clear to Nephi.
It also seems reasonable that Mormon made a new set of plates for his abridgment with sheets of the same size as Nephi’s. Modern descriptions of the plates describe them as held together with rings, but no one mentions that a group of them were smaller in shape. Since Mormon included these holographic plates in the abridged set, then Mormon’s own plates resembled Nephi’s in size and shape, just as sheets of store-bought paper are of a standard size today. In addition to the convenience and logic of following an existing size and shape, the sacred nature of the records would also encourage conformity. (See Behind the Text: Chapter 3, “Mormon’s Sources.”)
Another interesting fact is that Mormon apparently had no difficulty reading what Nephi wrote. True, there was enough difference that what had once been “Egyptian” is now “reformed Egyptian” (Morm. 9:32). But aside from this mention, Mormon could obviously read Nephi’s record and assumed that anyone able to read his record could also read Nephi’s. This is probably an indication of his training as a scribe.
Text: Because the Book of Mormon itself makes no distinction between what we call the “large plates” (political record) and the “small plates” kept by Nephi through Amaleki, the internal reference to both sets and their relationships between the various source materials is important to understand.
First, the internal references to sources are typically to the “plates of Nephi,” without any other modifier. When Mormon refers to both sets, he uses “plates of Nephi” to mean what we would term the large plates. He gives no name to the “small plates.” In verse 4, he simply refers to “these plates” (v. 4) and contrasts them to the better known set, the “plates of Nephi.”
Two specific references to the (large) “plates of Nephi” merit particular examination:
And now, the city of Jashon was near the land where Ammaron had deposited the records unto the Lord, that they might not be destroyed. And behold I had gone according to the word of Ammaron, and taken the plates of Nephi, and did make a record according to the words of Ammaron.
And upon the plates of Nephi I did make a full account of all the wickedness and abominations; but upon these plates I did forbear to make a full account of their wickedness and abominations, for behold, a continual scene of wickedness and abominations has been before mine eyes ever since I have been sufficient to behold the ways of man. (Morm. 2:17–18)
Mormon, like Nephi, has made two records, the first, more complete account, written directly on the “plates of Nephi” and the second, his abridgment, on “these plates.”
And it came to pass that when we had gathered in all our people in one to the land of Cumorah, behold I, Mormon, began to be old; and knowing it to be the last struggle of my people, and having been commanded of the Lord that I should not suffer the records which had been handed down by our fathers, which were sacred, to fall into the hands of the Lamanites, (for the Lamanites would destroy them) therefore I made this record out of the plates of Nephi, and hid up in the hill Cumorah all the records which had been entrusted to me by the hand of the Lord, save it were these few plates which I gave unto my son Moroni. (Morm. 6:6)
Mormon specifies that his source material for the abridgment was the “plates of Nephi,” the political and social history begun by Nephi and called by that name by the generations of writers who continued the record. However, the plates of Nephi were not Mormon’s only primary source material. The Nephite records included, at the very least, the brass plates, the twenty-four plates that contained Ether’s record (Mosiah 8:9), and what we call the “small plates of Nephi.” In 3 Nephi 5:9–11, Mormon describes other records: “But behold there are records which do contain all the proceedings of this people; and a shorter but true account was given by Nephi. Therefore I have made my record of these things according to the record of Nephi, which was engraven on the plates which were called the plates of Nephi. And behold, I do make the record on plates which I have made with mine own hands.”
Mormon’s description of “a shorter but true account… given by Nephi” (this Nephi is Nephi3, who was contemporary with Christ’s visit) contrasts with “records which do contain all the proceedings of this people” (3 Ne. 5:9). For his abridgment, Mormon, no doubt after reviewing the lengthier record, decided that Nephi3’s shorter record would better serve his purposes and therefore abridged this “book of Nephi” which is found on “the plates which were called the plates of Nephi” to produce his own record. The large-plate tradition is not an edited record such as the one that Mormon produces, but one that may contain not only the official record but subsidiary records. Not only do we find this smaller account of Nephi3 but also the record of Zeniff (preserved in Mosiah 9–10) and the record of imputed records of the people of Alma, the sons of Mosiah, and Ammon.
As Mormon indicates, he is writing on plates “which I have made with mine own hands” (v. 11). This note reminds us that producing plates was a prerequisite to writing on them. One reason that the record on the small plates ended was because all of the sheets were full of writing (Omni 1:30) and that Amaleki either could not or did not choose to make more (most likely could not).
In summary, then, the context of Mormon’s records makes it clear that the “plates of Nephi” were not a single continuously “bound” set of plates. The collected set of records that constituted the “plates of Nephi” included multiple records from multiple writers. There were likely separate records such as the official records of Zeniff’s people. It is also probable that some perishable records such as the letters Mormon includes in the book of Alma had been copied onto the non-perishable plates. The entire set was collectively called the “plates of Nephi.”