A Non-bull's-eye In The Book Of Mormon

[consiglieri]

A long-noted issue in the Book of Mormon has to do with the timing of Jesus' appearance to the Nephites, because some verses make it look like he appeared at the beginning of the 34th year, and other parts indicate the end of the 34th year.

1. Beginning of the 34th Year

3 Nephi 8:5 states that the great storm began on the fourth day of the first month of the 34th year; and the record goes on to mention the 3-hours of destruction, followed by three-days of darkness.

3 Nephi 11:1 states that a great multitude Nephites gathered around the temple at Bountiful, and "they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place."

3 Nephi 11:1 happens immediately before the appearance of the Savior to the Nephites, of course, and it makes sense that the Nephties would be marveling "one with another" shortly after the great destructions had taken place. After a full-year had passed, it seems less likely that any "marveling and wondering" would still be going on.

2. At the end of the 34th year

In contrast to the above references, the Book of Mormon seems clear that Jesus did not appear to the Nephites until the end of the 34th year.

3 Nephi 10:18 And it came to pass that in the ending of the thirty and fourth year, behold, I will show unto you that the people of Nephi who were spared, and also those who had been called Lamanites, who had been spared, did have great favors shown unto them, and great blessings poured out upon their heads, insomuch that soon after the ascension of Christ into heaven he did truly manifest himself unto themâ??

19 Showing his body unto them, and ministering unto them; and an account of his ministry shall be given hereafter. Therefore for this time I make an end of my sayings.

This is one of the long-standing chestnuts with regards to the Book of Mormon. Did Jesus appear to the Nephites at the beginning of the 34th year or at the end? No matter which answer we decide upon, there are passages that appear to conflict.

Last night while reading these passages in preparation for gospel doctrine class next week, something occurred to me that helps to answer this question, while at the same time evincing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Before I get to that, however, I would like to know what others think of this issue, and how they resolve it.

(I know this seems coy, and I apologize for that, but my experience has been that if I just put out my thoughts at the outset, it usually ensures a rather short-lived and infrequently attended thread. Rather than have that happen, I would like to see what others think and have a good discussion on the issue, if there is enough interest.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[The_Monk]

Close to a year, IMHO.

See 1. S. Kent Brown and John A. Tvedtnes. â??When did Christ appear to the Nephites?â? These are two different papers with different conclusions, combined in one with comments by John Welch, who concludes that Jesus visited the Nephites at least several months later. (FARMS# BTW-89).

2. S. Kent Brown, expanded version of above. "When did Jesus Visit the Americas?" From Jerusalem To Zarahemla, 146-156.

[maklelan]

S. Kent Brown has an excellent article on this question in his book From Jerusalem to Zarahemla. He concludes it happened after almost a year. I agree with the conclusion, although I think some of his supporting evidence is a little tenuous.

EDIT: Blast!

[emeliza]

I believe it happened near the end of the year, probably about 6 months later. Christ came to the old world first and the new world next.

In 3 Nephi 9 it talks of how Christ called out to them.

"Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen! "

My guess is that the destruction all happened when Christ was dying and such. Then once the people had sort of pulled themselves together and the destruction had ended, that is when Christ talked. I would gather it was well after the people had calmed themselves. It wouldn't make sense for Christ to cry out to them while it was happening or shortly after because we know He went to the spirit world and we know He then went to the old world.

Personally I think it was after they heard Christ calling out to them that in 3 Nephi 11 they gathered to talk of the strange things that had happened.

[cdowis]

Anyone who has experienced similar destruction would know that it would take many months, if not at least a year for them to recover from the damage and to be in any condition to accept the appearance of Christ.

And for large groups of people to travel, overnight, to the temple.

I go with what the BOM says, at the end of the year, almost a year after the destruction.

[consiglieri]

Thanks everybody for your comments so far.

The fact that Brown and Tvetdnes reach different conclusions indicates that this is indeed an issue for the student of the Book of Mormon.

Here is what occurred to me last night while reading:

We don't know when Christ appeared to the Nephites.

The reason we don't know is because, more importantly, Mormon did not know.

In abridging the records, Mormon came upon this conflict in the timing of Jesus' appearance. Part of the record indicated the first part of the 34th year, but another part of the record indicated the end of the 34th year.

Mormon faced the dilemma of what to do. It appears that, in light of the fact that he did not know which record was correct, and in light of the fact that he thought the timing of Jesus' appearance to be an important fact to include in his abridgement, he decided to include both.

If this is correct, it would help to explain why it is that Mormon goes to such lengths to qualify the date on which the great tempest arose:

3 Nephi 8:1 And now it came to pass that according to our record, and we know our record to be true, for behold, it was a just man who did keep the recordâ??for he truly did many miracles in the name of Jesus; and there was not any man who could do a miracle in the name of Jesus save he were cleansed every whit from his iniquityâ??

2 And now it came to pass, if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time, the thirty and third year had passed away;

3 And the people began to look 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.

4 And there began to be great doubtings and disputations among the people, notwithstanding so many signs had been given.

5 And it came to pass in the thirty and fourth year, in the first month, on the fourth day of the month, there arose a great storm, such an one as never had been known in all the land.

The question must be asked as to why Mormon equivocates so much on this date and the keeping of the chronology. He seems for all the world to be saying that the record is true, but is allowing for an incorrect chronology. In other words, Mormon knows the event happened, but it is not certain that it happened on the date provided in the record he is abridging: "f there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time."

This is the only place in the Book of Mormon to my knowledge where such qualifiers are placed upon the timing of an event.

This indicates that Mormon is aware of a problem; and in fact that he is aware of the precise problem under discussion.

He is going to give all the information that indicates an appearance of Jesus at the beginning of the 34th year as well as at the end of the 34th year, but he does it in such a way as to indicate his questioning of the date the tempest began. He does this because he is aware that if the tempest began on the fourth day of the first month of the 34th year, it would seem that Jesus appeared only a few days later. And yet, he is also going to include the flat-out statement that Jesus appeared at the end of the 34th year.

I think that, in this way, Mormon hints to us that he is aware of the problem, but has no ready solution, and is therefore going to include all the information, even though it indicates different times for Jesus' appearance to the Nephites.

While this understanding of the text makes good sense if we view Mormon as the abridger, it makes little sense if we view Joseph Smith as the author.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hashbaz]

I don't see any fudging on the dates by Mormon, and I disagree that they wouldn't be marveling and wondering a year later. I think faithful Nephites from across the land were gathered at the temple of Bountiful for the one year anniversary of the destruction. If we use a Mesoamerican calendar of 360 days, and subtract four days (since the destruction began on the fourth day of the first month), and the gathering was at the "ending" of the year (which is a day before the beginning of the next, or "seating" of the new year in Maya terminology) - it's exactly 360 days, and would return you to the same named and numbered day on the Mesoamerican calendar.

Just my two cents (and that's all I will be adding here - my dissertation demands the rest of my cents).

-Mark

[consiglieri]

I don't see any fudging on the dates by Mormon, and I disagree that they wouldn't be marveling and wondering a year later. I think faithful Nephites from across the land were gathered at the temple of Bountiful for the one year anniversary of the destruction. If we use a Mesoamerican calendar of 360 days, and subtract four days (since the destruction began on the fourth day of the first month), and the gathering was at the "ending" of the year (which is a day before the beginning of the next, or "seating" of the new year in Maya terminology) - it's exactly 360 days, and would return you to the same named and numbered day on the Mesoamerican calendar.

Just my two cents (and that's all I will be adding here - my dissertation demands the rest of my cents).

-Mark

Dear Hashbaz,

Thanks for your two-cents, which are generally worth more than my 100-dollars!

If a year to the Nephites was 360-days (or 365-days or 300-days, for that matter), the beginning of the year is a different time than the end of the year.

It would seem that, for your interpretation to work, there has to be an overlay at some point of a 365-year calendar onto the 360-year calendar. In other words, either Mormon or Joseph Smith has to be using a 365-year calendar to make it work. I am not sure that seems very plausible to me.

And if Mormon is not fudging at all, what do you make of all the apparent fudging he does at the beginning of 3 Nephi 8? Why does Mormon even consider the possibility that the person keeping the record might have made a "mistake" in the "reckoning of our time"?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Hashbaz]

If a year to the Nephites was 360-days (or 365-days or 300-days, for that matter), the beginning of the year is a different time than the end of the year.

It would seem that, for your interpretation to work, there has to be an overlay at some point of a 365-year calendar onto the 360-year calendar. In other words, either Mormon or Joseph Smith has to be using a 365-year calendar to make it work. I am not sure that seems very plausible to me.

And if Mormon is not fudging at all, what do you make of all the apparent fudging he does at the beginning of 3 Nephi 8? Why does Mormon even consider the possibility that the person keeping the record might have made a "mistake" in the "reckoning of our time"?

I don't see what you're seeing. In chapter 8 I see the 33rd year ending, then four days into the 34th year the destruction begins, then at the end of that year the Nephites gather together on the anniversary. As for Mormon's aside that he trusts the dates are correct, it is common for dates on the calendar to vary from site to site, and each site had its own ajk'in ("daykeeper" or calendar priest). As for the 360/365 day year, the Maya recognized both. The year was composed of 18 days that cycled with 20 numbers, zero through 19. 19 was the "ending/completion" (tzutz) of one cycle and zero was the "seating" (chum) of the next. To correct for the solar year, there was a 5 day period at the end of the year that was considered to be very unlucky. As for the 360 day cycle, it seems I misspoke. It would indeed take 365 days to return to the same named and numbered day, but for all intents and purposes they considered 360 days to be the true year, with the 5 unlucky days tacked on to the end just to make it fit the solar year (which it ultimately failed to do since they didn't correct for leap years). I still think that if we subtract the four days from the beginning of the 34th year and accept that the word "ending" of the 34th means it was the day before the "seating" of the next year, we have the 5 days accounted for and thus have the 360 day and the 365 day Mesoamerican calendars attested to here at this anniversary reunion.

[cdowis]

I agree that Mormon was somewhat uncomfortable with the dating and had the same questions, but I don't see the contradiction. I think he was just being overly cautious.

[Thinking]

The question must be asked as to why Mormon equivocates so much on this date and the keeping of the chronology. He seems for all the world to be saying that the record is true, but is allowing for an incorrect chronology. In other words, Mormon knows the event happened, but it is not certain that it happened on the date provided in the record he is abridging: "if there was no mistake made by this man in the reckoning of our time."

...

While this understanding of the text makes good sense if we view Mormon as the abridger, it makes little sense if we view Joseph Smith as the author

Interesting, however it also makes sense if Joseph Smith is the author and not the translator. The timing of Christ's visit to America must fit with the account in the bible. If Joseph wasn't sure about the timing, it makes sense to put two accounts in the book with a qualifier. And the BoM already has a qualifier in the title page, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men. Another qualifier in the text would be natural especially if it's in a place where the timing could be checked.

[SolarPowered]

To muddy the discussion, I'll throw in the fact that if you count back the date that Sir Isaac and others have calculated is the likely date of the Crucifixion, April 3, 33D, from the "forth day of the 34th year", using 365-day years (no leap years), you arrive at April 6, 1 BC.

[LeSellers]

Hashbaz has introduced the anomaly of the dual calendar system, so I needn't bring it up again. However, let's suppose that the faithful Nephites were still celebrating Passover according to the Jewish (lunar) calendar but Mormon was using the civil (solar) calendar, passover could easily have been, and probably was, at both the beginning and the latter end of the same civil year. The lunar calendar is several days shorter than the solar year.

There is no indication that the Law of Moses had been done away for them until Jesus' appearance. These faithful Nephite Saints (who had repented following the destruction of the previous Passover) would be gathering at the Temple for the primary Israelite celebration of the release from Egyptian bondage.

At least that's a possibility as I see it. (Another option is the Feast of the Trumpets, but that's a bit too early for "the latter end" of the year, as far as I can tell.)

Lehi

[alter idem]

Is it possible it was on the anniversary of the destruction? It must have been a special day since so many of the people were assembled at the Temple when it happened.

One thing I think is clear, it wasn't immediately following the three days of darkness, which is probably the most common belief. The people were not prepared to meet the Savior. IMO, they needed some time to repent and be ready to receive him and the things he was going to teach them.

[SolarPowered]

Is it possible it was on the anniversary of the destruction? It must have been a special day since so many of the people were assembled at the Temple when it happened.

We know that Jesus was Crucified during Passover. Therefore, the one-year anniversary of the destruction (on the Jewish, lunar calendar) would also have been during Passover.

[justinmartyrjr]

A long-noted issue in the Book of Mormon has to do with the timing of Jesus' appearance to the Nephites, because some verses make it look like he appeared at the beginning of the 34th year, and other parts indicate the end of the 34th year.

1. Beginning of the 34th Year

3 Nephi 8:5 states that the great storm began on the fourth day of the first month of the 34th year; and the record goes on to mention the 3-hours of destruction, followed by three-days of darkness.

3 Nephi 11:1 states that a great multitude Nephites gathered around the temple at Bountiful, and "they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place."

3 Nephi 11:1 happens immediately before the appearance of the Savior to the Nephites, of course, and it makes sense that the Nephties would be marveling "one with another" shortly after the great destructions had taken place. After a full-year had passed, it seems less likely that any "marveling and wondering" would still be going on.

2. At the end of the 34th year

In contrast to the above references, the Book of Mormon seems clear that Jesus did not appear to the Nephites until the end of the 34th year.

This is one of the long-standing chestnuts with regards to the Book of Mormon. Did Jesus appear to the Nephites at the beginning of the 34th year or at the end? No matter which answer we decide upon, there are passages that appear to conflict.

Last night while reading these passages in preparation for gospel doctrine class next week, something occurred to me that helps to answer this question, while at the same time evincing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Before I get to that, however, I would like to know what others think of this issue, and how they resolve it.

(I know this seems coy, and I apologize for that, but my experience has been that if I just put out my thoughts at the outset, it usually ensures a rather short-lived and infrequently attended thread. Rather than have that happen, I would like to see what others think and have a good discussion on the issue, if there is enough interest.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I think that Jesus was busy appearing & re-appearing to different groups of people all over the world during his post resurrection manifestations. The early Christians' writings, art works, legends, traditions are also interesting to consider too. Here's a few cases in point.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=4018288

[Glenn101]

A long-noted issue in the Book of Mormon has to do with the timing of Jesus' appearance to the Nephites, because some verses make it look like he appeared at the beginning of the 34th year, and other parts indicate the end of the 34th year.

1. Beginning of the 34th Year

3 Nephi 8:5 states that the great storm began on the fourth day of the first month of the 34th year; and the record goes on to mention the 3-hours of destruction, followed by three-days of darkness.

3 Nephi 11:1 states that a great multitude Nephites gathered around the temple at Bountiful, and "they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place."

3 Nephi 11:1 happens immediately before the appearance of the Savior to the Nephites, of course, and it makes sense that the Nephties would be marveling "one with another" shortly after the great destructions had taken place. After a full-year had passed, it seems less likely that any "marveling and wondering" would still be going on.

2. At the end of the 34th year

In contrast to the above references, the Book of Mormon seems clear that Jesus did not appear to the Nephites until the end of the 34th year.

This is one of the long-standing chestnuts with regards to the Book of Mormon. Did Jesus appear to the Nephites at the beginning of the 34th year or at the end? No matter which answer we decide upon, there are passages that appear to conflict.

Last night while reading these passages in preparation for gospel doctrine class next week, something occurred to me that helps to answer this question, while at the same time evincing the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.

Before I get to that, however, I would like to know what others think of this issue, and how they resolve it.

(I know this seems coy, and I apologize for that, but my experience has been that if I just put out my thoughts at the outset, it usually ensures a rather short-lived and infrequently attended thread. Rather than have that happen, I would like to see what others think and have a good discussion on the issue, if there is enough interest.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

The problem that we have is that we expect some sort of indication of a passage of time. Our Book of Mormon authors glossed over these very often. Just look at the differences of opinions on the times of the Old World trek.

However I do not really see a problem, a conflict there. The great destruction is given a very definite date, 34th year, first month, fourth day. And Christ's voice was heard, but he did not appear at that time.

He had not appeared at the end of chapter ten when the information was given that Christ appeared near the end of the 34th year.

If you read the 3 Nephi Chapter 11 verse one carefully, you may note something.

"1 And now it came to pass that there were a great multitude gathered together, of the people of Nephi, round about the temple which was in the land Bountiful; and they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place.

2 And they were also conversing about this Jesus Christ, of whom the sign had been given concerning his death."

The part that I emphasized can very well indicate that the people that were gathered at the temple were from many different area and had been making their several ways to the temple in Bountiful. As one other poster has mentioned, it probably took some time for people to get to the temple from outlying areas because of the great destruction and maybe also because much of the landscape had changed with roads broken up and possibly just finding Bountiful was a major chore for many.

It does not seem strange to me that a group of men would get together thereafter and compare notes about what had happened in their respective home areas and maybe marveling at the destruction they saw all around them in Bountiful. Although not noted in the text, it seems that the temple escaped destruction and that was something else to marvel at anew.

Mormon does give a bit of a caveat though about the reckoning. However, the exact timing is not as important as the fact that it happened.

Glenn

[hagoth7]

A long-noted issue in the Book of Mormon has to do with the timing of Jesus' appearance to the Nephites, because some verses make it look like he appeared at the beginning of the 34th year, and other parts indicate the end of the 34th year.

....3 Nephi 11:1 states that a great multitude Nephites gathered around the temple at Bountiful, and "they were marveling and wondering one with another, and were showing one to another the great and marvelous change which had taken place."

3 Nephi 11:1 happens immediately before the appearance of the Savior to the Nephites, of course, and it makes sense that the Nephties would be marveling "one with another" shortly after the great destructions had taken place. After a full-year had passed, it seems less likely that any "marveling and wondering" would still be going on.

....I would like to know what others think of this issue, and how they resolve it.

To reconcile the passage of time, is it possible that the great and marvelous change they were marveling over was something more substantial than changes in the landscape, or in damaged buildings, but perhaps a mighty change that the destruction-driven humility brought about among the people?

Where they were previously divided, the wicked were now gone, and the people had united in faith?

Passages that come to mind:

And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.

And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.

And now behold, I ask of you, my brethren of the church, have ye spiritually been born of God? Have ye received his image in your countenances? Have ye experienced this mighty change in your hearts?

Alma 5: 12-14

And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.

Mosiah 5: 2

The passage of several months after such destruction would allow for an inward change to visibly transform the more righteous portion of a people, their activities, and their temple attendance. It seems a fitting way to reconcile the passage of time, the proximity to the temple, and the great and mighty change mentioned. Thoughts?

[hagoth7]

Also, two chapters prior to the great change commented on in 3 Ne 11, the Nephites were told to modify their worship, and that the shedding of blood was no longer necessary per 3 Ne 9:19:

"And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings."

That great change was associated with the temple. Thus 3 Ne 11:1 could also be a comment on the modified form of temple worship - which would have been quite striking and profound to their generation. Such a change in form could have been a catalyst in the "mighty change" of spirit among the people worshiping there.

Again, just exploring outside the box for a minute.