The small plates of Nephi appear to have been lost to writers in the Book of Mormon after the time of King Benjamin. Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

ABSTRACT: The small plates of Nephi were preserved through Jacob’s lineage, entrusted to King Benjamin, and later discovered by the prophet-historian Mormon among other Nephite records. This essay explores the possibility that the small plates were no longer known to later Nephite recordkeepers and that this loss helps explain certain recurring doctrinal and narrative patterns in the text. Focusing on the timing and signs of Christ’s birth and death and also on prophecies of the Nephite nation’s destruction, the author discusses how teachings in the small plates are later presented as new revelation. This pattern also provides internal evidence that the Book of Mormon reflects a multigenerational recordkeeping tradition.

KEYWORDS: Book of Mormon, Mormon, recordkeeping, small plates, Book of Mormon translation

The Book of Mormon, excluding the book of Ether, is a record of the Nephites and Lamanites that was compiled by the prophet Mormon. Mormon made his book by abridging the history begun by Nephi a thousand years earlier. Nephi, son of Lehi, had two sets of records: one called the large plates, covering the history of his people, and the other called the small plates, reserved for sacred writings. This essay examines information in the small plates that appears to have been lost to subsequent writers in the Book of Mormon. Taken together, this evidence highlights a consistent narrative arc in which the small plates were lost, later rediscovered by Mormon, and then added in full to complete his record. That pattern provides internal evidence that the Book of Mormon is an authentic, multigenerational work of translated history.

As will be shown, the Nephites after King Benjamin did not seem to have knowledge of the small-plates record. Joseph Spencer, Rebecca Roesler, and others have made this observation as well and have drawn on some of the same examples discussed below to argue that knowledge known to the early prophets of the Book of Mormon was lost to its later prophets.[1] On the other hand, the same examples used here to claim consistency in the Book of Mormon have been used by critics to argue for inconsistencies in the text and for modern authorship.[2] My purpose here is not to rebut such arguments since excellent scholars have already done so.[3] Rather, I will discuss evidence suggesting that the small plates were lost from Nephite awareness and that this pattern remains consistent throughout the text. This point of consistency, as with so many others noted by scholars and careful readers over the years, reveals a depth and richness in the narrative of the Book of Mormon that is often overlooked by readers.

The polarized arguments for consistency aligned with ancient recordkeeping and inspired translation and for inconsistency suggestive of modern authorship cannot both be correct. My contention is that close analysis of textual evidence indicating loss of the small plates brings to light a level of complexity in the Book of Mormon narrative that validates its claim to be a work of translation.

Joseph Smith started his translation process with the large plates of Nephi. There is strong evidence that after the first 116 pages of the manuscript were lost,[4] Smith resumed the translation process from where he left off in the book of Mosiah and continued through the book of Moroni. He then translated the small plates and the Words of Mormon.[5] This so-called Mosiah-first theory is the dominant view among Latter-day Saint scholars.[6] It is important to recognize that my findings are not diminished if future research shows that Joseph resumed translation with the small plates rather than with the book of Mosiah. Consequently, the critics’ claims based on the Mosiah-first theory are not germane to my central argument. In fact, they discuss pursue different questions and offer final assessments 180 degrees apart from mine.

Consider what the layered complexity of the translation process poses for those who view the Book of Mormon as a fabrication. Joseph Smith started his translation in 1828 with the large plates. Martin Harris took the first 116 pages with him back to Manchester, New York, where they went missing. When Smith began translating again in April 1829 (with Oliver Cowdery acting as scribe), he continued through Moroni before translating the small plates. If the Book of Mormon were a creative work of imagination, as the critics noted earlier contend, and not a translation of an ancient record, then Smith would have had to invent the small plates, leave clues that they were lost from Nephite knowledge for about 450 years, and finally provide details in the small plates that validate the clues he had left earlier in the dictation process. Furthermore, he would have had to do this while dictating the text without using notes or editing the text. Such a scenario strains credulity.

Brief History of the Small Plates

Nephi began keeping the large-plates record of his people soon after they arrived in the promised land.[7] He was later commanded to create the small-plates record. Nephi recorded, “Thirty years had passed away from the time we left Jerusalem. And I, Nephi, had kept the records upon my plates, which I had made, of my people thus far” (2 Nephi 5:28–29). Then he informed his readers:

And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are good in my sight, for the profit of thy people. Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the Lord, went and made these plates upon which I have engraven these things. And I engraved that which is pleasing unto God. And if my people are pleased with the things of God they will be pleased with mine engravings which are upon these plates. And if my people desire to know the more particular part of the history of my people they must search mine other plates. (2 Nephi 5:30–33)

The first 470 years of Nephite history were lost from Mormon’s abridgment of the large plates when Joseph Smith allowed Martin Harris to take the translation manuscript back to Manchester, New York, to show to his wife and a few other people. Church members are fortunate to have the content of the small plates as a replacement covering most of the same period, although that new material is presented largely from a spiritual rather than a historical perspective. Thus, Nephi’s account of the journey from Jerusalem to the promised land contains very little history of the Nephites as they grew into a nation from a small family group. Fewer than twenty precious verses (all in the book of Omni and the Words or Mormon) give any history of the people besides a few passing mentions of warfare between the Nephites and Lamanites.

The small plates were kept by the descendants of Jacob, with each passing generation adding fewer and fewer details to the record until Amaleki finally records, “And it came to pass that I began to be old; and, having no seed, and knowing king Benjamin to be a just man before the Lord, wherefore, I shall deliver up these plates unto him” (Omni 1:25).

It appears that sometime between when King Benjamin received the small plates (before 130 BC) and the time Mormon was working on his abridgment (AD 334 at the earliest), the small plates were lost to Nephite awareness. Supporting this idea is Mormon’s statement “I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these [small] plates” (Words of Mormon 1:3).

The best clue that the small plates went missing is from King Benjamin himself. When he was preparing to pass the crown to his son Mosiah, he spoke reverently while instructing his sons about the records in his charge. “He caused that [his sons] should be taught in all the language of his fathers, that thereby they might become men of understanding; and that they might know concerning the prophecies which had been spoken by the mouths of their fathers” (Mosiah 1:2). He further explained that the brass plates preserved the commandments and mysteries of God and that the Nephites would have “dwindled in unbelief, and we should have been like unto our brethren, the Lamanites, who know nothing concerning these things” (v. 5). We know that the brass plates were a sacred record that helped the Nephites pass down their gospel teachings and knowledge of the law of Moses and likely contributed to the preservation of their language (Omni 1:17–18). He stated that the plates of Nephi “contain the records and the sayings of our fathers from the time they left Jerusalem until now, and they are true” (v. 6). In this same chapter Benjamin gave Mosiah charge of the brass plates, the plates of Nephi, the sword of Laban, and the Liahona (v. 16).

Perhaps “plates of Nephi” here refers to both sets of plates, but throughout his record Mormon consistently used the term “plates of Nephi” to refer specifically to the large plates (Words or Mormon 1:3; Alma 37:2; 44:24; 3 Nephi 26:7; 4 Nephi 1:19; Mormon 1:4). That Bejamin did not specify which plates of Nephi he was referring to suggests he was aware of only a single set—the large plates. It is unlikely that Benjamin, when instructing his sons, would have grouped the two sets of records together given the specificity of the list in Mosiah 1:16. It seems more likely that when he received the small plates from Amaleki early in his reign, he put them in the archives, where they slipped from consciousness over time. Mormon suggests as much: “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, from generation to generation until the days of king Benjamin” (Words of Mormon 1:10).

The Book of Mormon shows that the Nephites were good recordkeepers. Mormon was told that when he reached the age of twenty-four he should “take the plates of Nephi unto [him]self, and the remainder . . . leave in the place where they are” (Mormon 1:4). Mormon adds this clarifying statement: “Behold, there are many books and many records of every kind, and they have been kept chiefly by the Nephites” (Helaman 3:15). Thus it appears likely that the small plates were only a single set of records among many, facilitating their slipping from awareness.

Although Mormon was initially unaware of the small plates, when he read them he was inspired to “put them with the remainder of [his] record” (Words of Mormon 1:3–6). It is not known how far Mormon was into his abridgment work when he became aware of the small plates. On the one hand, Mormon wrote the Words of Mormon when he had nearly completed his abridgment (v. 1). On the other hand, he seemed to hint that he became aware of the small plates from something in King Benjamin’s writings. This is seen when Mormon records, “After I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates” (v. 3). It is possible that Mormon became aware of the small plates during his abridgment of King Benjamin’s writings and began a search for them then and either did not find them until near the end of his work or did not decide to include them until prompted by the Spirit when he had completed his abridgment. He tells the reader:

I shall take these plates, which contain these prophesyings and revelations, and put them with the remainder of my record, for they are choice unto me; and I know they will be choice unto my brethren. And I do this for a wise purpose; for thus it whispereth me, according to the workings of the Spirit of the Lord which is in me. And now, I do not know all things; but the Lord knoweth all things which are to come; wherefore, he worketh in me to do according to his will. (Words of Mormon 1:6–7)

Regardless of when Mormon found the small plates, the record shows that key doctrinal issues taught by Nephi and other small-plates prophets seem to be unknown to later authors of the large plates and had to be re-revealed. Three cases support this idea: (1) the timing of Jesus’s birth and certain details about his life, (2) Christ’s visit to the Nephites and signs and events surrounding his death, and (3) prophecies of Nephite destruction and its timing.

Jesus’s Birth

Nephi repeatedly recorded in the small plates that Jesus would be born six hundred years after Lehi left Jerusalem (e.g., 1 Nephi 10:4; 19:8; 2 Nephi 25:19). Combine that prophecy with the chronological dates that have been included in the Book of Mormon since 1888 and readers have a clear understanding of the chronology of events taking place in the text. But when the text is read carefully, there is evidence that the Nephites either lost track of their chronology or lost the knowledge of when Christ would be born—or both. Strong cases can be made for either scenario, but both arguments point to a loss of knowledge that was readily available in the small plates. Rebecca Roesler points out, “Despite Nephi’s several exhortations to his posterity to ‘preserve these plates and hand them down’ (Jacob 1:3) and ‘that the things which were written should be kept for the instruction of my people’ (1 Nephi 19:3), his posterity seem unaware of their existence.”[8]

Consider the hypothesis that the Nephites lost track of their chronology. The small plates repeatedly record the number of years that had passed since Lehi left Jerusalem. Most recorders were diligent about giving these dates (e.g., 2 Nephi 5:34; Jacob 1:1; Jarom 1:5; Omni 1:5). The passage of years was rarely given in the abridgment of the large plates until they began recording the reign of the judges. Only twice does Mormon record the number of years since Lehi left Jerusalem before the birth of Christ. Mormon records, “Mosiah began to reign in his father’s stead. And he began to reign in the thirtieth year of his age, making in the whole, about four hundred and seventy-six years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem” (Mosiah 6:4). He also gives the number of years again when Mosiah₂ ends his reign: “Mosiah died also, in the thirty and third year of his reign, being sixty and three years old; making in the whole, five hundred and nine years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem” (29:46).

Mormon could have given these dates because the chronology was known and recorded in the large plates, or he could have added the dates editorially by doing the math. He knew Mosiah₂ reigned thirty-three years and what year in the reign of the judges Christ was born. He could have worked backward from there.

It would be inconsistent of Mormon if dates were given in the large plates and he decided not to include them very often in his abridgment. Later in the record he was extremely diligent in recording the years of the reign of the judges and the passage of years since Christ’s birth. It seems unlikely he would change his style so dramatically. For example, the one-chapter book of 4 Nephi covers more than 285 years, and Mormon records the date more than twenty-five times in that chapter. In short, it is logical to assume that Mormon would have reported the passage of years, as he did later in his abridgment, if that information was found on the large plates.

Turning to Nephi’s prophecy about Jesus’s birth, it is important to remember that the Nephites had strong faith in Christ and his mission. One example is sufficient to demonstrate this. When King Benjamin gave his final address to his people, he promised to give them a new name. After his powerful address the people covenanted to do God’s will.

And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters. (Mosiah 5:7)

Despite Christ being the central focus of the Nephites’ faith, nowhere in Mormon’s abridgment is Nephi’s prophecy of Christ being born six hundred years after Lehi’s departure from Jerusalem mentioned until Mormon himself addresses it when providing commentary about the birth of Christ: “Now it came to pass that the ninety and first year had passed away and it was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem” (3 Nephi 1:1). Book of Mormon readers do not find Mormon’s mention of this date surprising since they are aware of Nephi’s repeated prophecy. But lacking the context from the small plates, Mormon’s comment about the number of years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem would be new information. Indeed, Mormon’s abridgment suggests that the Nephites did not know when Christ would be born until after Samuel the Lamanite prophesied of Jesus’s birth.

There are further indications that prophets writing in the large plates before Christ’s birth were unaware of Nephi’s prophecy. During his ministry, Alma gained increasing knowledge about Christ’s birth, mission, and visitation to the Nephites. This is seen in Alma’s teachings to the people of Gideon in 83 BC:

The time is not far distant that the Redeemer liveth and cometh among his people. Behold, I do not say that he will come among us at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle; for behold, the Spirit hath not said unto me that this should be the case. Now as to this thing I do not know. (Alma 7:7–8)

At that point in his ministry, Alma did not seem to know when Christ would be born or when he would appear to the Nephites. As Roesler observed, “Alma’s brooding contemplations indicate that these prophecies [Nephi’s prophecies on the small plates] are unknown to him.”[9] Alma did say that Christ’s birth was “not far distant,” but eighty-three years was several generations away. In referring to Christ’s mortal ministry, Alma resorts to noncommittal language, saying, “I do not say that he will come among us at the time of his dwelling in his mortal tabernacle” and “As to this thing I do not know,” but he did learn this detail later.

The next year Alma tells the people of Ammonihah about the coming of Christ: “And now we only wait to hear the joyful news declared unto us by the mouth of angels, of his coming; for the time cometh, we know not how soon. Would to God that it might be in my day; but let it be sooner or later, in it I will rejoice” (Alma 13:25). What Alma meant by “his coming” can be debated. Was he referring to Christ’s birth or his appearance to the Nephites? Regardless of his meaning, Alma was talking about Christ’s “coming” and hoped that “it might be in [his] day.” When Alma gave this address, Christ’s birth was more than eighty years in the future and his appearance to the Nephites was more than a century away. This suggests that Alma, and the Nephites in general, had either lost track of how many years had passed since Lehi left Jerusalem or lost the knowledge of Nephi’s prophecy—or both.

A few years later, having gained more knowledge through revelation, Alma wrote, “The Lord did pour out his Spirit on all the face of the land . . . to prepare [the people’s] hearts to receive the word which should be taught among them at the time of his coming” (Alma 16:16). By this time the question of when Christ would appear to the Nephites was clarified:

[Priests taught the Nephites,] holding forth the coming of the Son of God, his sufferings and death, and also the resurrection of the dead. And many of the people did inquire concerning the place where the Son of God should come; and they were taught that he would appear unto them after his resurrection; and this the people did hear with great joy and gladness. (Alma 16:19–20)

Earlier, when Alma taught the people of Gideon details about Christ’s birth and mortal mission, he specified that he learned this information from the Spirit (Alma 7:9–12). Thus it is plausible that the Nephites in general did not know when Christ would be born nor when he would appear to their civilization. However, the small-plates account of Nephi’s vision of the tree of life taught that Christ would be born and live in Israel, be baptized, teach the people, heal the sick, call his disciples, be crucified, and be raised from the dead (1 Nephi 11; 2 Nephi 25). Additionally, they clearly state that Christ would appear to the Nephites after his resurrection: “And after Christ shall have arisen from the dead he shall show himself unto you, my children, and my beloved brethren” (2 Nephi 26:1). But this knowledge had to be re-revealed to Alma over time.

Further clarity was provided decades later when Samuel the Lamanite taught, “Behold, I give unto you a sign; for five years more cometh, and behold, then cometh the Son of God to redeem all those who shall believe on his name” (Helaman 14:2). Samuel gave several signs that would appear when Christ was born. These signs are specific and detailed enough that five years later the wicked Nephites use them as a threat against the believers: “There was a day set apart by the unbelievers, that all those who believed in those traditions should be put to death except the sign should come to pass, which had been given by Samuel the prophet” (3 Nephi 1:9). Note that the unbelievers, in arguing “the time was past for [Samuel’s] words to be fulfilled” (v. 5), were choosing to use the signs and prophecy given by Samuel to terrorize the believers, and not the six-hundred-year date from the time Lehi left Jerusalem.

Signs of Jesus’s Death

In addition to not knowing when Christ would be born, the Nephites apparently lacked understanding of the signs that would occur at the time of his death. Samuel the Lamanite stood on the wall of Zarahemla and prophesied, in detail, about the events that would take place before Jesus’s birth and following his death. Some of the same signs were given by Nephi in the small plates as well. Nephi, synthesizing prophecies found on the brass plates, wrote that Christ

yieldeth himself . . . to be lifted up, according to the words of Zenock, and to be crucified, according to the words of Neum, and to be buried in a sepulchre, according to the words of Zenos, which he spake concerning the three days of darkness, which should be a sign given of his death unto those who should inhabit the isles of the sea, more especially given unto those who are of the house of Israel. For thus spake the prophet: The Lord God surely shall visit all the house of Israel at that day, some with his voice, because of their righteousness, unto their great joy and salvation, and others with the thunderings and the lightnings of his power, by tempest, by fire, and by smoke, and vapor of darkness, and by the opening of the earth, and by mountains which shall be carried up. And all these things must surely come, saith the prophet Zenos. And the rocks of the earth must rend; and because of the groanings of the earth, many of the kings of the isles of the sea shall be wrought upon by the Spirit of God, to exclaim: The God of nature suffers. (1 Nephi 19:10–12)

Samuel the Lamanite prophesied similarly:

In that day that he shall suffer death the sun shall be darkened and refuse to give his light unto you; and also the moon and the stars; and there shall be no light upon the face of this land, even from the time that he shall suffer death, for the space of three days, to the time that he shall rise again from the dead. Yea, at the time that he shall yield up the ghost there shall be thunderings and lightnings for the space of many hours, and the earth shall shake and tremble; and the rocks which are upon the face of this earth, which are both above the earth and beneath, which ye know at this time are solid, or the more part of it is one solid mass, shall be broken up; yea, they shall be rent in twain, and shall ever after be found in seams and in cracks, and in broken fragments upon the face of the whole earth, yea, both above the earth and beneath. And behold, there shall be great tempests, and there shall be many mountains laid low, like unto a valley, and there shall be many places which are now called valleys which shall become mountains, whose height is great. (Helaman 14:20–23)

It is tempting to assume that Samuel was perhaps quoting from the brass plates as Nephi was or that perhaps he had access to Nephi’s prophecy—especially since the signs given and their order are similar. This example has merit only because Samuel makes clear that his knowledge came to him from an angel (Helaman 14:26). Although quoting a direct revelation from an angel does not mean Samuel was unaware of previous prophecies, it is certainly a strong appeal to authority that served the Lord’s purpose.

As with Christ’s birth, the Nephites at the time of Christ’s death did not look to Nephi’s prophecies but were looking “with great earnestness for the sign which had been given by the prophet Samuel, the Lamanite, yea, for the time that there should be darkness for the space of three days over the face of the land” (3 Nephi 8:3). The consolidated information given by Nephi in 1 Nephi 19 is clear and concise. Because of the vision he had of Christ’s birth and resurrection and the signs that would take place among his descendants, he was able to see how the prophecies of the various brass-plates prophets all tied together—something that was not as apparent to subsequent large-plates authors who were without Nephi’s small plates.

Prophecies of Nephite Destruction

In the small plates, Nephi, Enos, and Jarom all prophesied that the Lamanites would destroy the wicked Nephites. Many prophets in the small plates employed the threat of Lamanite destruction like the sword of Damocles hanging over the Nephites’ heads by the thinnest of threads. As Jarom stated, “The prophets of the Lord did threaten the people of Nephi, according to the word of God, that if they did not keep the commandments, but should fall into transgression, they should be destroyed from off the face of the land” (Jarom 1:10).

In the large plates this same threat is not as prevalent. There is talk of destruction from time to time in the teachings, and there are specific warnings given to the people of Ammonihah by Alma, but the idea of the Nephite nation being annihilated for wickedness seems to have been lost—at least regarding the specifics of how and when their civilization would end. Nephi was very specific about the destruction of his people, having seen it during his vision of the tree of life:

I beheld and saw that the seed of my brethren did contend against my seed, according to the word of the angel; and because of the pride of my seed, and the temptations of the devil, I beheld that the seed of my brethren did overpower the people of my seed. (1 Nephi 12:19)

Nephi later returned to the same theme at the end of his record. He stated that after Christ appeared to his people following his resurrection,

they shall have peace with him, until three generations shall have passed away, and many of the fourth generation shall have passed away in righteousness. And when these things have passed away a speedy destruction cometh unto my people; for, notwithstanding the pains of my soul, I have seen it; wherefore, I know that it shall come to pass; and they sell themselves for naught; for, for the reward of their pride and their foolishness they shall reap destruction; for because they yield unto the devil and choose works of darkness rather than light, therefore they must go down to hell. (2 Nephi 26:9–10)

Enos knew these prophecies and pleaded with the Lord that he would preserve the small plates after the destruction of the Nephites to help bring the Lamanites to Christ. Enos reported that the Lord “covenanted with [him] that he would bring them forth unto the Lamanites in his own due time” (Enos 1:16).

Contrast these prophecies about Nephite destruction, which are prevalent in the small plates, with the prophecy that Alma makes Helaman promise to keep secret:

Behold, I perceive that this very people, the Nephites, according to the spirit of revelation which is in me, in four hundred years from the time that Jesus Christ shall manifest himself unto them, shall dwindle in unbelief. Yea, and then shall they see wars and pestilences, yea, famines and bloodshed, even until the people of Nephi shall become extinct. (Alma 45:10–11)

These are the same details that Nephi gave—even listing the same number of generations (Alma 45:12). Alma presented this to Helaman as new knowledge, saying, “I have somewhat to prophesy unto thee”— knowledge that Helaman should “not make known, even until the prophecy is fulfilled” (v. 9). But why keep this prophecy secret if the information was readily available on the small plates, as cited above? A few years later Samuel the Lamanite openly shared this same information with the Nephites, prophesying that

because of the hardness of the hearts of the people of the Nephites, except they repent I will take away my word from them, and I will withdraw my Spirit from them, and I will suffer them no longer, and I will turn the hearts of their brethren against them. And four hundred years shall not pass away before I will cause that they shall be smitten; yea, I will visit them with the sword and with famine and with pestilence. Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your utter destruction. (Helaman 13:8–10)

Like the other examples given earlier, the same information found in the small plates is given as new information to the Nephites generations later. No record in the Book of Mormon gives better evidence that the small plates were lost than the book of Alma.

Alma and the Small Plates

Alma is the largest book in the Book of Mormon but covers only about forty years. It provides a lot of Alma’s teachings as head of the Church of Christ and allows the reader to map Alma’s developing understanding about the mission of Christ. A few details about Alma that are relevant to the small plates follow:

• Alma was the high priest and the chief judge. He was the recordkeeper, and he continued to keep the records even after he resigned from being the chief judge, because Nephihah “refused Alma to take possession of those records and those things which were esteemed by Alma and his fathers to be most sacred; therefore Alma had conferred them upon his son, Helaman” (Alma 50:38). This means that Alma could have had access to the small plates throughout his ministry, had he known they existed.
• Alma was a scriptorian and historian and often quoted from the brass plates during his sermons. When teaching in Ammonihah, he took pains to “establish the words of Amulek, and to explain things beyond, or to unfold the scriptures beyond that which Amulek had done” (Alma 12:1). He went into detail about the prophet Melchizedek and declared, “Behold, the scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them it shall be to your own destruction” (13:20). He was so effective in proving his point from scripture that, in an attempt to counter him, the wicked people of Ammonihah “brought forth their records which contained the holy scriptures, and cast them into the fire also, that they might be burned and destroyed by fire” (14:8). Later, when preaching to the Zoramites, Alma witnessed of Christ by quoting, in detail, from the prophets Zenos, Zenock, and Moses, who were found in the brass plates (chap. 33). But he did not quote from Nephi’s writings on the small plates even though they provide an extremely powerful testimony of Christ.
• As was pointed out earlier, Alma’s knowledge of Christ’s mission and birth increased throughout his ministry. In 82 BC he did not know when Christ would be born but hoped it would be in his lifetime (Alma 13:25). He had to receive revelation to learn that Christ would not appear to the Nephites until after his resurrection (16:20).
• Finally, when he passed the records to his son Helaman, Alma talked in detail about the importance of the brass plates and the plates of Ether. He spoke of the Liahona and the promises made about future generations. But he never mentioned the small plates (Alma 37).

The Narrative Arc of the Small Plates Being Lost

Because of how the Book of Mormon was organized during its translation, we read the small plates first, then move into the remainder of the large-plates record that was not lost along with the missing 116 pages. The transition is smooth to the reader thanks to the short bridging book called the Words of Mormon. I have argued that key doctrines and other information in the small plates were lost to the recordkeepers of the large plates from the time of King Benjamin to Mormon. Because the reader is aware of these doctrines from the small plates, their absence in Mormon’s abridgment of the large plates can go unnoticed. Of particular interest here is how the evidence for this loss reflects a pattern—a consistent arc throughout Mormon’s abridgment consisting of several clues that the small plates went missing during King Benjamin’s reign. As Roesler observes, that evidence “supports the premise that the Nephites living after Amaleki (and perhaps before) are unaware of the small plates of Nephi until the day that Mormon finds them among the records.”[10]

It is impossible to prove a negative. Just because later recordkeepers did not quote from the small plates does not prove they did not have access to them. Furthermore, Nephi notes that some information found in the small plates—specifically some teachings of Lehi—also appears in the large plates. Of those teachings, he explains to the reader that there are “many more things which I do not write in this book; for I have written as many of them as were expedient for me in mine other book” (1 Nephi 10:15). This further muddies the waters. Because Nephi states there is duplicate information in both sets of plates, we must limit our investigation to identifying key information in the small plates that seems to have been lost to later recordkeepers. The examples I have considered here focus on specific information and questions that prophets between King Benjamin and Mormon were concerned about, and had to receive revelation about, that were addressed in detail in the small plates. This approach cannot prove that later recordkeepers did not have the small plates, but its findings may be seen as accruing to the point where they plausibly if not definitively support a thesis that the small plates went missing. That said, there are counterarguments that will now be reviewed.

Arguments That the Small Plates Did Not Go Missing

We know from the Words of Mormon that the small plates were lost or forgotten at some point because Mormon specifically mentions finding them. Although I posit that the small plates went missing at the time of King Benjamin’s reign, perhaps they were lost sometime later. If so, that might have happened as late as Ammaron, who hid up all the records and instructed Mormon, “Behold, ye shall take the plates of Nephi unto yourself, and the remainder shall ye leave in the place where they are” (Momon 1:4).

In any event, some Latter-day Saint scholars have suggested that later Nephite prophets appear to have had access to the small plates. John Hilton III of BYU’s Department of Ancient Scripture has conducted extensive studies supporting this claim. In “Jacob’s Textual Legacy,”[11] he argues that Nephi and Jacob were quoted by King Benjamin and Moroni. He presents further evidence in a study comparing the teachings of 2 Nephi 2 to Alma 42, reasoning, “If we can assume that some version of 2 Nephi 2 was part of the canon with which Alma was familiar, it makes sense that Alma would turn to it when talking to Corianton, because Lehi directly addressed the concern that plagued Corianton.”[12] In another study, “Samuel and His Nephite Sources,”[13] Hilton and colleagues use textual analysis to assert that Samuel the Lamanite quoted extensively from the small plates.

Joseph Spencer, a BYU professor of ancient scripture, presents an interesting assessment showing the similarities between Nephi’s story of his family’s journey to the promised land and Zeniff’s account of his people’s migration back to the land of Nephi. Spencer conjectures that Zeniff borrowed from Nephi’s account to add credibility to his own passion to return to the land of Nephi.[14]

The thesis that the small plates were lost during King Benjamin’s reign is impossible to prove. My own assessment supporting that claim is the result of years of grappling with subtle textual clues whose cumulative effect I find persuasive. Plausible explanations exist for why later prophets did not quote from the small plates, ranging from not remembering certain teachings in the small plates to finding them irrelevant to their immediate purpose in writing. The ambiguity on this topic may be impossible to resolve. John Hilton III’s observations illustrate the insufficiency of clear evidence on either side: “It is not clear at what point this [small-plates] record might have disappeared from the view of the recordkeepers. It does seem that at some point in time, Nephite prophets may not have been fully aware of the material on the small plates.”[15] But as shown above, Hilton also presents several compelling arguments that the small plates may have been quoted by later prophets. So genuine ambiguity persists. It is hoped that future scholarship will shed more light on this issue.

Summation

This essay argues that the Book of Mormon recordkeepers after the time of King Benjamin were unaware of the existence of the small plates. The evidence comes from details found in the plates themselves and is unaffected by the order of dictation. This throughline comes to the reader via Mormon’s abridgment of the writings of a long string of recordkeepers spanning hundreds of years. It is telling when Mormon specifically explains, “After I had made an abridgment from the plates of Nephi, down to the reign of this king Benjamin, of whom Amaleki spake, I searched among the records which had been delivered into my hands, and I found these plates” (Words of Mormon 1:3). It would strain credulity to essentially argue that Joseph Smith planted hints of the small plates going missing into a dictated narrative—clues hidden so well that most readers are oblivious to them. If Joseph had cleverly crafted this subplot while dictating the text, why would he ruin its effect by putting the small plates at the beginning of the Book of Mormon, which blinds the reader to the small plates going missing? Mormon tells us specifically that he “chose these things [the small plates], to finish my record upon” (v. 5). Therefore it was a conscious effort, by someone, to move the small plates to the beginning of the Book of Mormon.

Speaking on the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, acclaimed Latter-day Saint fiction writer Orson Scott Card noted how several clues in the text that seem unimportant offer evidence of Mesoamerican culture. The same principle holds true for evidence of the small plates being lost. Card makes this thoughtful observation:

Why do these elements [in the Book of Mormon] escape the notice of most critics? Because the text doesn’t emphasize them in any way. You only get them by implication. There are, of course, those who argue that because they’re only found by implication, they’re not there at all, but I think that when you compare them with documents from other alien cultures, we can see that these cultural difference are definitely real. All that’s missing is the stuff that should have been there if Joseph Smith made it up.[16]

As has been shown, a significant line of evidence supports the likelihood that the small plates were unknown to later Nephite recordkeepers. This is remarkable when considering that the Book of Mormon’s present compilation is complex enough to warrant an explanation of the various collections of plates (see “Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon” in the front matter of that book). And complex enough that Mormon felt the need to explain it as well (Words of Mormon 1:6).[17]

As numerous articles and books attest, the Book of Mormon presents many other internal evidences of its ancient character. The findings presented here further support the book’s claim to be an abridgment of records spanning centuries.

Conclusion

While students of the Book of Mormon know that Mormon discovered the small plates among other records and attached them in full to the end of his own record, the questions of when they went missing and the consequences of their loss are rarely discussed. I take up those questions by tracing how important doctrines and teachings from the small plates appear to have been lost to subsequent generations of Nephites.

As pointed out by many historians, the Book of Mormon was dictated by Joseph Smith in about ninety days.[18] It is highly doubtful Joseph Smith would have been able to produce such a long, complex history in so short of time, with no drafts, while including a subtle, consistent arc like the small plates being lost and the effect that loss had on Nephite doctrine. A quick contrast will demonstrate this point. Compare the translation of the Book of Mormon to the creation of Kurt Vonnegut’s masterpiece, Slaughterhouse-Five. Vonnegut was an experienced writer who had spent years tinkering with this story, yet he created the novel with its complicated timeline in about ten months.[19] The novel has fewer than fifty thousand words, and Vonnegut had to create a detailed graph to keep the time-traveling timeline of its main character, Billy Pilgrim, straight:

The best outline I ever made, or anyway the prettiest one, was on the back of a roll of wallpaper.

I used my daughter’s crayons, a different color for each main character. One end of the wallpaper was the beginning of the story, and the other end was the end, and then there was all that middle part, which was the middle. And the blue line met the red line and then the yellow line, and the yellow line stopped because the character represented by the yellow line was dead. And so on. The destruction of Dresden was represented by a vertical band of orange cross-hatching, and all the lines that were still alive passed through it, came out the other side.[20]

Joseph Smith was a young, poorly educated, inexperienced writer who dictated more than 260,000 words of an even more complex and detailed work than Vonnegut’s in ninety days—and that time frame included all the pressures of supporting a family, avoiding persecution, dictating several revelations, receiving both the Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, and a move from Harmony, Pennsylvania to Fayette, New York. Additionally, Joseph dictated the work straight through without editing or notes of any kind. It strains credulity to believe he decided to throw a complex subplot about the loss of the small plates into an already-complicated narrative timeline. Such a move, aside from being needless, would have required a degree of laser-focused attention that his rapid dictation of the Book of Mormon could not have permitted.

Notes

[1] Joseph M. Spencer, An Other Testament: On Typology, 2nd ed. (Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2016); and Rebecca A. Roesler, “Plain and Precious Things Lost: The Small Plates of Nephi,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 52, no. 2 (2019): 85–106, https://doi.org/10.5406/dialjmormthou.52.2.0085

[2] For example, Brent Metcalfe and Jerald and Sandra Tanner argue that Joseph Smith was changing doctrine and history in the Book of Mormon as he dictated it. Brent Lee Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Signature Books, 1993), 395–444; and Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon (Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990). Metcalfe concludes, “The question is no longer whether Smith influenced the content of the Book of Mormon, but how much. Engaging in the reinterpretive task promises to disclose a charismatic seer who was more than a mere copier or puppet but an imaginative prophetic author” (434).

[3] For example, Matthew Roper, “A More Perfect Priority?,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 6, no. 1 (1994): 362–78; and Alan Goff, “Positivism and the Priority of Ideology in Mosiah-First Theories of Book of Mormon Production,” FARMS Review 16, no. 1 (2004): 11–36; and John A. Tvedtnes, “Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book Mormon,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 3, no. 1 (1991): 188–230.

[4] A detailed explanation of the lost 116 pages is available in Don Bradley, The Lost 116 Pages: Reconstructing the Book of Mormon’s Missing Stories (Greg Kofford Books, 2019).

[5] For a thorough look at the translation timeline, see John W. Welch, “Timing the Translation of the Book of Mormon: ‘Days [and Hours] Never to Be Forgotten,’” BYU Studies Quarterly 57, no. 4 (2018): 10–50.

[6] For example, Royal Skousen has addressed this topic repeatedly in studies such as “How Joseph Smith Translated the Book of Mormon,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 7, no. 1 (1998): 22–31, as well as in his The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text (Yale University Press, 2009). Grant Hardy has also discussed the Mosiah-first translation theory in his Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford University Press, 2010) and The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, Maxwell Institute Study Edition (Neal A Maxwell Institute, 2018). Brent Metcalfe accepts this position as well (“Priority of Mosiah,” 398–99).

[7] For an excellent summary of the recordkeeping practices among the Nephites, see Noel B. Reynolds, “The Last Nephite Scribes,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 53 (2022): 95–138.

[8] Roesler, “Plain and Precious Things Lost,” 86.

[9] Roesler, “Plain and Precious Things Lost,” 93.

[10] Roesler, “Plain and Precious Things Lost,” 104.

[11] John Hilton III, “Jacob’s Textual Legacy,” Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scriptures 22, no. 2 (2013): 52–65.

[12] John Hilton III, Voices in the Book of Mormon: Discovering Distinctive Witnesses of Jesus Christ (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2024), 190n4.

[13] John Hilton III, Sunny Hendry Hafen, and Jaron Hansen, “Samuel and His Nephite Sources,” BYU Studies Quarterly 56, no. 3 (2017): 115–39.

[14] Spencer, An Other Testament, 125–31.

[15] Hilton III, Voices in the Book of Mormon, 190n4.

[16] Orson Scott Card, “The Book of Mormon—Artifact or Artifice?,” speech given at a BYU symposium in 1993, Nauvoo: A Gathering Place for Latter-day Saints (online forum), http://www.nauvoo.com/library/card-bookofmormon.html.

[17] Clifford P. Jones wrote an interesting study on the Words of Mormon showing that even this short transitional work might not be as clear-cut as it appears, demonstrating just how complex the compilation of the Book or Mormon really is. See “That Which You Have Translated, Which You Have Retained,” Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 43 (2021): 1–64.

[18] Welch, “Timing the Translation.”

[19] Tom Roston, “What Early Drafts of Slaughterhouse-Five Reveal About Kurt Vonnegut’s Struggles,” Time, November 11, 2021.

[20] Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Slaughterhouse-Five, or The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death (Delacorte, 1969), 4–5.