Nephi-ception

[Limnor]

Does the lack of engagement from Moroni, with faith stories that he supposedly had in his possession, count as an anachronism?

I don’t think it counts as an anachronism by itself. It’s an internal literary inconsistency or an argument from unexpected silence. But when other anachronisms are considered, cumulatively, it’s another piece of evidence that exposes the composition method.

A while ago, I offered that the Benjamin/Mosiah error was more than a scribal error. If Moroni’s material was composed before 1–2 Nephi, or reflects an earlier source that Moroni assumed was still in existence (one that contained additional details about Mulek, Zenos, and Zenock), then the silence about Nephi’s defining episodes becomes more understandable. If the Small Plates were added later—after Moroni conducted his edit—then reference to Benjamin becomes more important because it could reveal where 1/2 Nephi was stitched onto the earlier source.

The “Benjamin” error (Mosiah 21:28 and Ether 4:1 mentioning King Benjamin where the narrative context otherwise points to Mosiah) then becomes more than a simple scribal slip. It becomes evidence that the opening history and the Mosiah narrative were not originally composed as a single, seamless work.

The best part is Rigdon’s reaction. His daughter said that after reading for about an hour he threw the book down and said he “did not believe a word of it.” He also called it a “silly fabrication.” After time, he experienced what Parley P. Pratt called a “great struggle of mind” before deciding to accept the book and be baptized. I think his reaction can be attributed to his surprise at not seeing what he expected.

Interestingly, Brent Metcalfe wrote that the Book of Mormon contains a shift in the use of “therefore” and “wherefore,” though he interpreted that as evidence that Joseph Smith’s dictation style evolved over time.

Another possibility emerges, however seen in light of the lack of reference by Moroni to 1/2 Nephi acts of faith. Mosiah through Mormon favors “therefore,” whereas Moroni’s personal edits favor “wherefore.” Ether, which contains both the underlying Jaredite story and Moroni’s editorial comments, occupies an interesting middle ground, raising the question, “does the shift not only reveal dictation chronology, but to a change in author?

If Moroni consistently employ “wherefore” while the underlying story retains “therefore,” the pattern could align more naturally with separate authors. An initial look reveals that Moroni’s editorial asides (Ether 1; 3–4; 8; 12) coincide with the portions using wherefore, whereas the underlying story retains the therefore usage.

Just a hypothesis, but would appreciate critique to identify the holes in my thinking here.

So that was disappointing. Moroni’s direct commentary does seem to favor wherefore, but so but wherefore is used in other places within Ether as well. I seem to have arrived at where Metcalfe now is…Ether appears to reflect an chronological or evolving-diction explanation more strongly than a simple division between Moroni’s interjections and the underlying Jaredite story.

[I Have Questions]

So that was disappointing. Moroni’s direct commentary does seem to favor wherefore, but so but wherefore is used in other places within Ether as well.

I seem to have arrived at where Metcalfe now is…Ether appears to reflect an chronological or evolving-diction explanation more strongly than a simple division between Moroni’s interjections and the underlying Jaredite story.

As Moroni was being pulled together, Joseph will have been occupied with thinking about how to replace the accounts lost 116 pages. Metcalfe is very much in the Book of Mormon is fiction camp.

[Limnor]

I understand Metcalfe reads the book as fictional, and agree with him, though I’d say that with a caveat. I think the fictional nature is that the book is not ancient, but it does represent true actions that occurred in Joseph’s lifetime. So it’s “true,” but not ancient. I do agree with Metcalfe that the replacement material was dictated last, and proceeded from approximately Mosiah through Moroni, and only afterward returned to the Small Plates—1 Nephi through Words of Mormon.

What I find interesting is the loss of the 116 pages enabled Joseph to design—or redesign—the Book of Mormon around himself. I speculate that Joseph intentionally caused that loss for that reason.

Why do I think that? It is suspicious to me that Joseph insisted on letting the only manuscript leave despite repeated warnings, and after its disappearance he produced a replacement that significantly changed the opening of the Book of Mormon and foretold Joseph’s prophetic authority. I also think it is suspicious that the Small Plates repeatedly insist that Nephi did not originally understand why he was commanded to create a second record, leading to the “Black Hole” the Tanner’s identified.

I don’t think the original Book of Mormon opening was the present Nephi story in a longer form. In my reading, it probably emphasized a different and more developed Mulekite history, different more details about Zenos, Zenock, and Neum, and in my estimation pointed to a different figure as fulfilling the role that Joseph assumed—in my view that was supposed to be Sidney Rigdon.

Don Bradley has argued that the manuscript was almost certainly taken intentionally, and I agree with him, though there isn’t enough evidence to identify the thief with confidence. Once that theft occurred, Joseph had opportunity to replace that opening with 1–2 Nephi, which made Nephi the prototype of Joseph, and resulted in explicit prophecies of Joseph Smith as the latter-day seer who would bring forth the book. that's suspicious to me—those parts were produced only after Joseph had already become the “translator” of the book it predicts.

I’ve also noted that Moroni, especially in Ether 12, provides examples of faith but omits the most faith examples from 1 Nephi—getting the plates, the liahona, the exodus across the sea, and Lehi’s dream and the iron rod. These seem to be important instances that Moroni seems to know nothing about.

I'd need to explain why Joseph was distressed upon learning of the loss, but a staged emotional response seems to fall within Joseph’s performance methods.

While counting wherefores and therefores, however, I did find this, and think it’s interesting. In Ether, Moroni writes that “whosoever shall find” the first part of the gold plates of Ether would bring forth more insights—and would essentially be looking at the brass plates that Nephi went to retrieve from Laban.

Could these together refer to the Book of Moses that Joseph and Rigdon later worked on? It’s interesting that there were no “plates” to work from when Joseph and Rigdon were working on the Book of Moses and revision of what could be seen as Laban’s brass plates and first part of the 24 gold Jaredite plates.

I guess at that point props weren’t required, at least temporarily, until Chandler arrived with his mummies.

I’m not sure how much interest there is in my hobby/study of the book, but I really don’t have another outlet for this “burning” I have about its origins, so I’m typing it up here.

“The Before”’s comments on another thread got me thinking about “faith” and “knowledge” in Alma 32. The episode doesn’t seem particularly applicable to Joseph and the plates, angels appearing to him, or much else along those lines. It seems instead to point toward faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But Alma 33 adds something interesting. Alma repeatedly refers to writings by “Zenos” and “Zenock”—asking whether his audience has read them and believes “those scriptures which have been written by them of old.”

Wouldn’t it be interesting if those references are remnants of an actual source document in the form of Rigdon-styled pseudo-scripture from around the 1820s, and the Alma story serves as a record of a real person using that document to persuade a real audience?

[Gabriel]

I’m not sure how much interest there is in my hobby/study of the book, but I really don’t have another outlet for this “burning” I have about its origins, so I’m typing it up here.

I have been reading both your stuff and Shulem’s with interest. It seems, of late, that you have both been converging on Ether 12/Hebrews 11.

Hebrews 11:34 -- Quenched the violence of fire -- As in the case of the three faithful Hebrews, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-nego, who, for their steady attachment to God's worship, were cast into a fiery furnace, in which they were preserved, and from which they escaped unhurt.

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries ... ws-11.html

Ether 12:17 And it was by faith that the three disciples obtained a promise that they should not taste of death; and they obtained not the promise until after their faith.

Is it a coincidence that the Three Nephites were also thrown into a fiery furnace, in which they were preserved, and from which they escaped unhurt? (In fact, I think that they were thrown into a couple of furnaces.)

[Limnor]

I agree, Gabriel, and see it like this: Daniel presents three faithful men who are miraculously saved; 3 Nephi 28 “likens” three chosen men through the spiritual eye who are miraculously saved—from multiple furnaces, no less, as you point out. As an aside, there seems to be an obsession with exaggeration, for example when people see Jesus, everyone puts their hands in His side!; and then Ether 5 specifically identifies three witnesses to the “foretold” work, who of course are Cowdery, Whitmer, and Harris.

These “three” are repetitive and fit the theory that real people are coded into the book, and this episode fits that pattern. In fact, I think part of the method was to convince people through flattery that they held or hold positions described in the book—recasting them into an ancient setting, which stories are heavily influenced by external systems or texts.

The abrupt mention of the three witnesses by Moroni in Ether made me think of something I hadn’t really explained before, but is a key part of my analysis regarding the equally abrupt mention of the Zeniff story in Mosiah.

The 24 plates/interpreters story does not align to Ether as cleanly as it seems at first glance. There are several seams that I think are worth exploring.

First, Mosiah 8 mentions two separate artifacts, with Limhi explaining that “twenty and four plates which are filled with engravings” had been found, but no one could read them. Ammon says the king can translate them because he possesses “interpreters,” two stones fastened into rims. In Ether, we’re told that the interpreters were sealed with the plates, which introduces the first problem of “so how did the interpreters get separated from the plates?” as well as the Benjamin/Mosiah error, at least raising the possibility that an earlier underlying storyline had Benjamin filling the interpreter role.

Secondly, we eventually settle on Mosiah translating the gold plates, and we”re essentially told his translation is that of what we find in Ether—the story of the Jaredites.

From Joseph’s perspective, he’s resolved the 24-plates problem. Except Moroni doesn’t seem to be working from Mosiah’s translation. It reads like he is making the account himself, apparently making his own translation.

Moroni doesn’t say things like “I take my account from Mosiah’s translation of the 24 plates” or “I have before me the translation made by Mosiah.” But notice something else; in Mosiah 8, Ammon explains what interpreters are, but Ether, dictated considerably later, provides the backstory.

And I think there’s an even more interesting thought here. If you read Ether 1–6 as a stand-alone document. The 24 plates, interpreters, sealed record, future translator, and Three Witnesses storyline makes sense without having seen anything in Mosiah. My hypothesis is these are the fingerprints of a final abridgement/edit by Rigdon, who didn’t see any of Mosiah until post-publication, and expected something much different in the final form.

“I never saw a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never penned a sentence of the Book of Mormon, I never knew that there was such a book in existence as the Book of Mormon, until it was presented to me by Parley P. Pratt, in the form that it now is.” - Sidney Rigdon

Why Rigdon? Because of the bulk of Moroni’s theology and church government alignment to Rigdon’s own views.

Some additional thoughts on “threes”:

Initially I thought the “three witnesses” idea emerged from Martin Harris asking for corroboration. But when seen in light of the “Mosiah Priority” dictation sequence, the three already exist in the story—only under different names.

That sequence looks like this:

1. Before 1829, we read of Benjamin, who has three sons: Mosiah, Helorum, Helaman; Helaman inherits the records.
2. Alma also has three sons: Helaman, Shiblon, Corianton; Corianton inherits the records.
   
   At this time, these sets of three are participants in the story, specifically in relation to transfer of the records. So the number three doesn’t need to have originated as a solution to Harris’ request to see the plates. It could have been an innovation introduced post-lost 116 pages to lend credibility to claims. The existing story can provide three participants who can serve as witnesses.
   .
3. In March 1829 we get D&C 5, which doesn’t just promise Harris that someone else will see the plates, it specifically calls for “the testimony of three of my servants” and “the testimony of three witnesses”
4. Then we see Ether 5, where Moroni suddenly addresses the Joseph, “unto three shall they be shown” and “in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established.”
5. Returning to 1/2 Nephi as the finishing dictation, we start to see references to three witnesses—these are the small replacement plates from the end of dictation, but now it’s something Nephi supposedly knew centuries earlier the Moroni: “three witnesses shall behold it”
6. Finally, we get D&C 17, June 1829, where the “three servants” are specified by name.

[I Have Questions]

Some additional thoughts on “threes”:

Initially I thought the “three witnesses” idea emerged from Martin Harris asking for corroboration. But when seen in light of the “Mosiah Priority” dictation sequence, the three already exist in the story—only under different names.

That sequence looks like this:

1. Before 1829, we read of Benjamin, who has three sons: Mosiah, Helorum, Helaman; Helaman inherits the records.
2. Alma also has three sons: Helaman, Shiblon, Corianton; Corianton inherits the records.
   
   At this time, these sets of three are participants in the story, specifically in relation to transfer of the records. So the number three doesn’t need to have originated as a solution to Harris’ request to see the plates. It could have been an innovation introduced post-lost 116 pages to lend credibility to claims. The existing story can provide three participants who can serve as witnesses.
   .
3. In March 1829 we get D&C 5, which doesn’t just promise Harris that someone else will see the plates, it specifically calls for “the testimony of three of my servants” and “the testimony of three witnesses”
4. Then we see Ether 5, where Moroni suddenly addresses the Joseph, “unto three shall they be shown” and “in the mouth of three witnesses shall these things be established.”
5. Returning to 1/2 Nephi as the finishing dictation, we start to see references to three witnesses—these are the small replacement plates from the end of dictation, but now it’s something Nephi supposedly knew centuries earlier the Moroni: “three witnesses shall behold it”
6. Finally, we get D&C 17, June 1829, where the “three servants” are specified by name.

Do you think this repetition of threes is indicative that there were three main people supporting the production of the Book of Mormon?

[Limnor]

Do you think this repetition of threes is indicative that there were three main people supporting the production of the Book of Mormon?

In part, yes. When read as a 19th century setting, the three (and sometimes more) become intermediaries between three factions, including Palmyra/Smith/Nephites, Whitmer/Amulek/Ammonihah, and Kirtland/Rigdon/Zarahemla.

I was toying around with Alma 36, thinking about whether its vision of God on the throne might have some relationship to the later First Vision story, when I noticed something that sent me in a different direction. Alma 36:22 says, “methought I saw, even as our father Lehi saw, God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels.” Compare that with 1 Nephi 1:8: Lehi “thought he saw God sitting upon his throne, surrounded with numberless concourses of angels.”

The nearly identical wording raised an initial question for me. Why does it say “he thought he saw” and “methought I saw?” That phrasing introduces uncertainty about what was actually seen.

But that led me to something else. Mosiah priority creates an interesting problem here. Alma was dictated before what we now see as 1 Nephi, yet Alma 36–37 already knows Lehi’s throne vision, the Liahona, perhaps most interestingly, the idea that records are being preserved for a “wise purpose.” Moroni doesn’t seem to know about any of this, but Alma does. Later, 1 Nephi uses that same “wise purpose” language to explain why Nephi was to create the second set of plates, the “Small Plates.”

There’s another detail I hadn’t really considered before. Alma 36–37 isn’t simply part of a continuing story. Alma gathers his three sons and gives each his charge separately, “according to his own record.”

The writing most similar to 1 Nephi is found in the record from Alma to Helaman, the document that describes the transfer of the plates. So here’s the question I’m now wondering about: Could the distinct Alma to Helaman record have contributed to the construction of the Small Plates? Perhaps after the 116 pages disappeared, Joseph resumed dictation with Mosiah while concurrently developing the replacement opening that would eventually become the Small Plates. Or perhaps those elements came from the earlier Book of Lehi/116 pages and were being included independently into both documents.

Either way, I’m noticing these things and wonder what they mean to composition.

You know who else doesn’t seem to know about 1/2 Nephi? Alma the Elder. Why does Alma the Elder show no apparent awareness of the Small Plates, but Alma the Younger suddenly knows things near verbatim? Notice also that Alma the Elder tends to write down things others say while Alma the Younger is a custodian, interpreter, and revelator.

Thought experiment: place Alma the Elder and Oliver side by side, and Alma the Younger and Joseph side by side, then compare roles without trying to force matches.

[Gabriel]

Limnor,

I find this all fascinating but I still haven't quite got the lay of the land. If I understand you right, the original story outline is of Rigdonite construction. Joseph dictates the first 116 pages at the Harris home, under less than ideal conditions. Lucy is mistrustful from the get-go and is probably watching Joseph like a hawk. The 116 pages are "lost."

9 months later, Joseph Smith begins to dictate again with Emma, then Oliver Cowdery. Rather than start with Nephi, Joseph Smith continues the narrative from Mosiah, and then composes Nephi 1/2 afterwards.

Given that Nephi 1/2 is a uniquely Joseph Smith production, as you understand things right now, what parts of the narrative belong to Sidney Rigdon?

[Limnor]

My hypothesis has Rigdon providing an early draft, much but not all of which has been replaced by material Joseph, Oliver, and others created through a Roman a clef model.

Whatever earlier Rigdon material existed, namely the 116 pages lost, was largely eliminated and replaced. My proposal is remnants from Rigdon include traces of Zenock, Zenos, Neum, Mulek, and perhaps other traces within Benjamin and Mosiah. I see the bulk of Rigdon’s theology preserved in Moroni’s theological voice and other inserts in the “Moroni” character.

[Limnor]

One bit of evidence that I think supports the possibility that the 116 pages were deliberately lost is found in the verbiage of D&C 10, where we are told that Joseph had “retained” some portion of what he had already translated. This appears to be the first time we hear of such a retained portion, and I think the wording may represent a “slip.”

D&C 10 mentions two things, translated material that went out of Joseph’s hands and translated material that Joseph retained.

Those aren’t the same. “Retained” suggests that Joseph retained them through some sort of choice. If the D&C said something like “Martin took the entire manuscript Joseph gave him and lost it,” it would be different altogether. It raises the question, what then did Joseph retain, and why? What and why was he willing to risk a portion over the entirety?

The Mopologetic response is: “Probably because it was written in the next gathering of manuscript pages, which, at the time, was only partially filled.”

The Mopologist speculates that five “gatherings” totaled 116 pages, which makes sense, but also speculates there was an incomplete sixth gathering that Harris did not receive. There is no evidence of this second sixth gathering offer.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/byusq/vol51/iss4/10/

So in a “deliberately “lost” them” scenario, Joseph deliberately determined what Harris was allowed to take, and then was enabled to replace his own portion.

This is a testable hypothesis. If 1 Nephi through Words of Mormon was constructed after the loss as a replacement opening, then material reflecting Joseph Smith’s post 1828 circumstances should be found there, while Mosiah through Moroni should reflect corresponding absences or traces of an earlier story. Which they do.

Edited to add a caveat: it’s more the characters who seem to know or not know certain things rather than an all-encompassing blanket.