More Comments from Readers-Part IV

Here are more comments and questions from readers of this blog:
Comment #1 “I tend to agree with Ludlow that it is unclear if Moroni translated and abridged the book of Ether, or just abridged it from an earlier translation when it was first discovered” erichard.

Response:  The scriptural record states: “Therefore he took the records which were engraven on the plates of brass, and also the plates of Nephi, and all the things which he had kept and preserved according to the commandments of God, after having translated and caused to be written the records which were on the plates of gold which had been found by the people of Limhi, which were delivered to him by the hand of Limhi” (Mosiah 28:11); “And now he translated them by the means of those two stones which were fastened into the two rims of a bow.” (Mosiah 28:13); “Now after Mosiah had finished translating these records, behold, it gave an account of the people who were destroyed, from the time that they were destroyed back to the building of the great tower, at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people and they were scattered abroad upon the face of all the earth, yea, and even from that time back until the creation of Adam. 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“ (Mosiah 28:17-1).   
    Later, we find that “Now behold, all those engravings which were in the possession of Helaman were written and sent forth among the children of men throughout all the land, save it were those parts which had been commanded by Alma should not go forth” (Alma 63:12).
    After Mosiah had done all that he had accomplished, he “took the plates of brass, and all the things which he had kept, and conferred them jupon Alma, who was the sons of Alma; yea ,all the records, and also the interpreters, and conferred them upon him, and commanded 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 28:20).
    The question whether Moroni re-translated Ether’s writings or simply abridged the earlier translations of Ether’s writings are unknown to us as far as Iwe know; however, two things are important here. First, when Mormon hid up the records in the hill Cumorah before that last battle, he kept out “these few plates which [he] gave unto my son, Moroni” (Mormon 6:6).
    For Moroni to have translated the Ether record, he would have had to have been given the 24 gold plates of Ether from his father at this time; to have abridged a copy of an earlier translation by Mosiah, he would have had to have been given that translation which was on what? Metal plates or Parchment of some type? When Mosiah translated it by the interpreters, he does not say upon what he wrote, or upon what he caused to be written, the Ether record (Mosiah 28:11-13).
    In addition, we find that “all those engravings which were in the possession of Helaman were written and sent forth among the children of men throughout all the land, save it were those parts which had been commanded by Alma should not go forth” (Alma 63:12).

Parchment or Plates?

Again, we are not told what these records were written upon. If it was a choice between Mormon giving 24 gold plates to his son in the vicinity of the final battle with the Lamanties, and some parchment type of writing, it would seem that he would have hidden up the plates and given Moroni the papers, scroll, etc., if for no other reason that the preservation of the records. The weight of 24 gold plates may also have played a part in this. However, other than an intellectual exercise, I think the question and the point is moot.
Comment #2: “You talk a lot about a land being sandwiched in between the land of Zarahemla and the land of Bountiful (3 Nephi 3:23), but I do not have that in my scriptures—it talks about a line” in between Zarahemla and Bountfiul, not a “land.” Where did you get that from?” JoAnne W.
Response: The original translation had: “And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land Zarahemla and the land Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation” (3 Nephi 3:23, emphasis added). Somewhere along the line, a typesetter missed the second line in this and skipped to the last line, eliminating the “land in between,” and, as it appears in my 1977 edition, it simply reads:
    “And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation. However, in the 1979, 1980 editions, it was restored to its original statement: “And the land which was appointed was the land of Zarahemla, and the land which was between the land Zarahemla and the land Bountiful, yea, to the line which was between the land Bountiful and the land Desolation” (emphasis added).

This 3 Nephi 3:23 statement is the only place in the scriptural record where a land in between the Land of Zarahemla and the Land of Bountiful is mentioned—however, there is another scripture that might give some verification to this land and it is found in Helaman, which states: “And in the fifty and seventh year they did come down against the Nephites to battle, and they did commence the work of death; yea, insomuch that in the fifty and eighth year of the reign of the judges they succeeded in obtaining possession of the land of Zarahemla; yea, and also all the lands, even unto the land which was near the land Bountiful” (Helaman 4:5, emphasis added).
How large or small that land was, and in what configuration it was, we are not told, only that it existed. The fact that it seems to have been isolated, perhaps by rugged and obvious topography like mountain ranges is a possible reason why it seems to have served as an obstacle, i.e., “To the line land which is between,” “to the line between.” Usually, suh language is associated with borders that were anciently marked by some obvious topographical feature, such as a large river, canyon, mountain range, etc.
    For some unstated reason, Mormon wanted us to know that a land existed there of some prominence to be mentioned, and was not a part of the greater lands of Zarahemla or Bountiful, but a separate land. Perhaps that land played a significant role in the defense of the Nephite gathering against the Robbers—we do not know, but for some reason, Mormon mentioned it. Which should give us some pause when we start saying how big or how far lands were apart—our knowledge of the lands is really limited.
Comment #3: “I heard once that the Lord was crucified on Nisan 15, what day is that in our calendar?” Marsha B.
Response: First of all, Nisan is our April/May in the Gregorian Calendar, which is what we use today. Secondly, while the Bible is vague about the date of the Savior's birth, it is so precise about his death that the day Friday, 1 April A.D. 33, seems to be definitely indicated." In his book, The Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ, Harold Hoehner concludes persuasively that "the A.D. 33 date for the death of Christ best explains the evidence of both sacred and secular history." 
     He noted that the fact that the law of Moses specifically required the lamb to be sacrificed on 14 Nisan argues against a 15 Nisan crucifixion for any other Hebrew calendar date. Of
the possible proposed crucifixion years from A.D. 28 to A.D. 34, the only year in which 14 Nisan fell on the required day of Friday was A.D. 33. This, along with the fact that the Hebrews were strict followers of the letter of the law shows that 14 Nisan would be the correct date—April 1, 33 A.D. However there is some credence to a April 6 crucifixion according to Neal A. Maxwell (19 Nisan).