Mormon 1:6–7 Textual Variants

There are several ways to deal with the original fragment in this passage. One would be to change the initial participial phrase (in verse 7) into a finite clause by replacing having with had (the decision that was made for the 1920 LDS edition). But this results in a rather abrupt beginning for a main clause. Another possibility would be to interpret the following and- clause as a Hebraism (that is, as a main clause following a present participial phrase). Under Alma 16:21 and 3 Nephi 18:20, I list a few more examples of such Hebraisms involving present participial phrases. So if this interpretation is correct, then the appropriate emendation in the standard text would be to delete the unexpected and:

• Mormon 1:7 (proposed grammatical emendation)
  • the whole face of the land having become covered with buildings the people were as numerous almost as it were the sand of the sea

One problem with this interpretation is that the main clause is not a consequent of the participial phrase, which is what we normally expect from such constructions in English (as in “having done his homework, John was allowed to watch TV”). Presumably a lot of buildings implies a lot of people, but this implication is a logical one, not a resultive one.

Another possibility would be to change the punctuation so that the original participial phrase is attached to the end of the preceding verse:

• Mormon 1:6–7
  • and it came to pass that I being eleven years old was carried by my father into the land southward even to the land of Zarahemla the whole face of the land having become covered with buildings and the people were as numerous almost as it were the sand of the sea

The 1830 printer placed a colon after “even to the land of Zarahemla”; the 1837 edition replaced the colon with a semicolon; and the 1920 LDS edition changed the punctuation to a period. The 1830 colon does allow some connection between verse 6 and the original participial phrase at the beginning of verse 7. David Calabro (personal communication, 17 March 2006) has suggested the participial phrase could be explaining why Mormon’s father brought him into the land southward: namely, the land northward had become overbuilt. But, as Calabro also suggests, the participial phrase could be simply describing what Mormon observed during his move.

Since the Hebraistic construction does not work well here, the most satisfactory decision would be to emend the punctuation by attaching the present participial phrase to the preceding text. Of course, the original and should be maintained.