🍽 The Plates¶
Estimated time to read: 4 minutes
Acquiring the Plates¶
Was it Moroni, or Nephi?¶
Not only was his robe exceedingly white but his whole person was glorious beyond description, and his countenance truly like lightning. The room was exceedingly light, but not so very bright as immediately around his person. When I first looked upon him I was afraid, but the fear soon left me. He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Nephi. That God had a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations kindreds and tongues. or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people. He said there was a book deposited written upon gold plates, giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent and the source from whence they sprang.
From https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/history-circa-june-1839-circa-1841-draft-2/5
There is a footnote on Nephi’s name mentioned here: in short, under Brigham Young’s leadership, folks noticed discrepancy in JS’ account of these visits, and so leaders had to pick a side. I’d want to know why there was discrepancy in the first place- if this was a memorable thing that actually happened, wouldn’t JS know the messenger’s name? Did that not leave an impression?
The above quote is corroborated in Lucy Mack Smith’s account. Looks like a direct quote from the above.
Above quote is also draft #2; how worried should I be that this mis-naming was written twice?
Draft #1 is also available. I don’t know what “fair copy” means, but here it is a third time.
Maybe it was both?¶
John Taylor, 1877¶
Who was it that administered to Joseph Smith? Moroni and Nephi, men who had lived upon this continent. Who from the other continent? John the Baptist for one; Peter, James, and John for others; Moses and Elias again for others, who revealed certain principles that God designed they should reveal, and imparted unto him the powers of the Priesthood which existed in the heavens, that it might be again conferred upon men on the earth, and that the blessings of the everlasting Gospel might be again restored.
— God’s Purposes Unchangeable, Etc; John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 19:81)
John Taylor, 1879¶
Afterwards the Angel Moroni came to him and revealed to him the Book of Mormon, with the history of which you are generally familiar, and also with the statements that I am now making pertaining to these things. And then came Nephi, one of the ancient prophets, that had lived upon this continent, who had an interest in the welfare of the people that he had lived amongst in those days.
— How a Knowledge of God is Obtained, Etc; John Taylor, Journal of Discourses 21:161)
Looks like JT differentiated them, said both had visited independent of each other.
Apologist explanations¶
It’s claimed that JS didn’t write that himself, but a scribe did, so blame the scribe. Then everyone else quoted that scribe’s account, so really blame that scribe. JS did nothing wrong. It was Moroni the whole time.
Honestly, I see both sides as compelling. JS may not have always had facts straight. Maybe a scribe did goof up. But for those three drafts of the same document claiming a pivotal moment in JS’ divine authority to escape scrutiny… I think that’s a bad look.
What happened to the plates?¶
Moroni took em idk lol
Now that the translation was over and he had witnesses to support his miraculous testimony, Joseph no longer needed the plates. After the men left the woods and went back to the house, the angel appeared and Joseph returned the sacred record to his care.
— Chapter 7, Fellow Servants, Saints, Volume 1
After the witnesses returned to the house the Angel again made his appearance to Joseph and received the the plates from his hands.
— Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1844–1845, Page [2], bk. 9, p. [2], bk. 9, The Joseph Smith Papers, accessed July 22, 2024, https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/lucy-mack-smith-history-1844-1845/106
😐 k
We've already read some disagreements in the past about who, exactly, "the angel" could refer to. Neither of these accounts specify.