DiscussMormonism.com

I’ve been tugging at the grammar at the end of Helaman 2, specifically verses 12–14, and thinking through the implications.

2 Helaman 13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi.

14 Behold I do not mean the end of the book of Helaman, but I mean the end of the book of Nephi, from which I have taken all the account which I have written.

One part of this situation is the mechanics implied by the correction in verse 14. If you take the text at face value, the clarification only becomes necessary because the phrase “the end of this book” could be misunderstood by the reader, and suggests the author is aware at the moment of engraving of how the larger book will eventually conclude.

Within the redactor’s own explanation, this creates an awkward implication. Either he is reading ahead in the source record he’s abridging in order to understand it’s ending first, and then returning to insert a correction, or the correction is being added at a later time, once the structure of the book is already known. Maybe there are other possible explanations, but those are the two I’ve landed on.

The first possibility is feasible, but it’s mechanically clumsy, while the second seems to fit more naturally with a process where material is being organized as the text takes shape, which seems less like a smooth abridgment of a record and more like continuity being managed in real time.

Any thoughts on the implications here? Does the need for correction provide insight into the mechanics of composition? Is it enough to notice the awkwardness and dismiss it, or could insight be gained into the origins of the book?

I would guess that the author is familiar with the contents of all of the then available scriptures, including the material he is abridging. in my opinion, there should be no need for him to read ahead to understand it’s ending first. He already knows.

malkie wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:15 am

I would guess that the author is familiar with the contents of all of the then available scriptures, including the material he is abridging. in my opinion, there should be no need for him to read ahead to understand it’s ending first. He already knows.

That’s fair malkie, and I’m fine putting this into an “awkward and interesting” box. But it’s also the kind of small redactional detail that biblical scholars would linger over (for centuries even!). That sort of analysis just isn’t very common in Book of Mormon studies. I searched for scholarly work on the passage but found nothing at all.

Put simply, it’s a head scratcher—why was that insertion necessary?

It’s also a potential data point for inclusion (or rejection) of the theory that Joseph and Oliver used previously developed texts as sources.

When considered alongside other errors or abrupt insertions in the text, and also with the evidence that instructions that directed the reuse of previously written material, the Helaman 2 self-correction is at least a minor marker—if prior texts were used, this is the type of minor error you’d expect to see. I acknowledge that by itself this marker is insufficient to determine a conclusion about dependency, but it does seem to align. So, no “smoking gun,” but maybe another grain of sand.

Use of the word “book” is anachronistic. Someone in the ancient world engraving on plates would likely have referenced the collection as a “record” or “tablets”.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:24 am

Use of the word “book” is anachronistic. Someone in the ancient world engraving on plates would likely have referenced the collection as a “record” or “tablets”.

That makes sense. I’m wondering what that might imply—does it mean Joseph was referencing a book as a source? In a naturalistic origin view it could.

As an experiment, I wondered what it would feel like if true story skipped from Alma 62 straight to Helaman 3. The plot line holds, with war resolution and subsequent decline.

In that experiment, Alma 63 and Helaman 1–2 read less like necessities and more like bridging between two separate documents. Or books as the redactor says. “Filler” to establish a continuous story line about plates and the authority that comes with their possession.

Limnor wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:11 pm

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 8:24 am

Use of the word “book” is anachronistic. Someone in the ancient world engraving on plates would likely have referenced the collection as a “record” or “tablets”.

That makes sense. I’m wondering what that might imply—does it mean Joseph was referencing a book as a source? In a naturalistic origin view it could.

For me it dates the Book of Mormon to the 19th Century and further undermines the claim that it was written anciently.

As an experiment, I wondered what it would feel like if true story skipped from Alma 62 straight to Helaman 3. The plot line holds, with war resolution and subsequent decline.

In that experiment, Alma 63 and Helaman 1–2 read less like necessities and more like bridging between two separate documents. Or books as the redactor says. “Filler” to establish a continuous story line about plates and the authority that comes with their possession.

As if more than one 19th century person was working on the various plot lines?

Limnor wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:35 am

Put simply, it’s a head scratcher—why was that insertion necessary?

It’s also a potential data point for inclusion (or rejection) of the theory that Joseph and Oliver used previously developed texts as sources.

Why is that? I agree that the mention seems clumsy, like the modern author is putting something in that the character wouldn't have said, but why developed source texts?

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:35 pm

Limnor wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 15, 2025 1:11 pm

That makes sense. I’m wondering what that might imply—does it mean Joseph was referencing a book as a source? In a naturalistic origin view it could.

For me it dates the Book of Mormon to the 19th Century and further undermines the claim that it was written anciently.

As an experiment, I wondered what it would feel like if true story skipped from Alma 62 straight to Helaman 3. The plot line holds, with war resolution and subsequent decline.

In that experiment, Alma 63 and Helaman 1–2 read less like necessities and more like bridging between two separate documents. Or books as the redactor says. “Filler” to establish a continuous story line about plates and the authority that comes with their possession.

As if more than one 19th century person was working on the various plot lines?

Yes.