Mosiah Priority and the Advent of Jesus

I mentioned in my last post that the loss of the 116 pages resulted in a number of narrative discontinuities. Here's a great example of that, from Brent Metcalfe's essay in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon:

[...] early in the [Book of Mormon] narrative Nephi relates that Lehi (1 Ne. 10:4), an angel (19:8), and "the prophets" (2 Ne. 25:19) had all predicted that Jesus would be born 600 years from the time Lehi left Jerusalem. However, subsequent Book of Mormon prophets seem unaware of these extraordinary oracles.

At a Nephite revival king Benjamin comments that "the time cometh, and is not far distant … [that the Lord] shall come down from heaven … and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay" (Mosiah 3:5). This comment is surprising since the scriptures he possessed presumably told him this would not occur for over 120 years. [...] Alma sincerely hopes "that it might be in [his] day" (v. 25). His reticence or inability to disclose Jesus' birth date is explicable in his admission, "we know not how soon" [v.25].

When Samuel the Lamanite subsequently enters the scene, in contrast to Benjamin's and Alma's imprecision, he boldly specifies "for five years more cometh … then cometh the Son of God" (Hel. 14:2). Absent is any indication that Samuel merely echoes the inspired utterances of his forebears, Lehi and Nephi, or other prophets, including an angel. This particular point is paramount, for the potency of Samuel's oracle lies in its absolute uniqueness. [...]

The enveloping is obvious: Lehi and Nephi explicitly preach the date of Jesus' birth; Benjamin and Alma speak only in generalities; Samuel, like Nephi, is explicit. But when we analyze the passages in the order they were dictated, the enveloping pattern is replaced with a linear pattern. Prophets in the earliest part of the dictation lack specific knowledge of Jesus' birth date. However, with Samuel a date of five years is given. At the expiration of the allotted time, the signs appear as prophesied. In this context the narrative explains: (1) that "father Lehi … Nephi … almost all of our fathers … have testified of the coming of Christ" (Hel. 8:22); and (2) that the year Jesus was born "was six hundred years from the time that Lehi left Jerusalem" (3 Ne. 1:1).

Passages such as these paved the way for the next stage of thematic development. What started as an editorial remark that 600 years had elapsed is transformed into a literal prophecy from the lips of Lehi, Nephi, an angel, and unidentified prophets. These prophecies were not dictated until the 600-year date had been firmly established in 3 Nephi.

[New Approaches, pp. 416-7, brackets added.]

Another instance of "enveloping" Brent identifies is the shift from Christocentric to penitent baptism. In 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon, baptism is performed in the name of Christ. From Mosiah to Christ's advent it is a baptism of repentance, similar to that of John in the New Testament. After the resurrection it is Christocentric again. The development is linear according to a Mosiah priority dictation sequence, but not according to their supposed historical chronology. The very Christian flavor of 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon-- books ostensibly written long before Christ's birth, death, and resurrection-- has been a longstanding objection of critics against the Book of Mormon. If it weren't for the loss of the 116 pages and Mosiah priority, that Christian flavor might not be there, and the Book of Mormon might be a much more plausible fiction.