Nephi-ception

[Limnor]

Methinks, he doth protest too much. He says Book of Mormon three times. Shooting from the hip here: Following Shulem's convincing argument that Mormon (son of Mormon) is a Joseph Smith self-insert, what do you think of the possibility that the Book of Mormon had a different working title in Sidney Rigdon's first draft? The Book of Moroni, perhaps?

What about The Book of Lehi? We are actually told that is the name of the lost portion.

I’ll have to look into the Lectures on Faith. Thanks!

Well this is interesting. In the below linked paper, there is an argument presented that Rigdon and Cowdery made the decision to insert the Lectures into the 1835 D&C while Joseph Smith and the apostles were away from Kirtland.

https://scholarsarchive.BYU.edu/cgi/vie ... ext=facpub

As you will recall, I’ve proposed that Alma is Oliver Cowdery, based on several correspondences I’ve pointed out before, with the Articles of the Church of Christ being one example.

I’d like to further propose that Helaman represents Joseph Smith, because something very interesting happens when Alma hands the records to Helaman. What is written as an ancient succession of Nephite record keepers looks like a transfer of source material from Oliver to Joseph.

Notice the sequence in Alma 33–37. Alma first invokes Zenos and Zenock presumably as already existing written examples. Then, in Alma 36, there is a description of Lehi’s throne vision that will not actually be dictated until 1 Nephi, under Mosiah Priority. Afterward, Alma 37 hands the records to Helaman, who is commanded to continue writing upon the plates, and is told that what he is given is being preserved for a “wise purpose” known to God. We’ll see that language again, but this is the first time under Mosiah Priority.

Helaman is given detailed instructions, some material is to be preserved but other material is to be withheld.

If Helaman represents Joseph, that becomes interesting in light of the lost 116 pages. Joseph would not have needed, nor in fact have found it advantageous, to reconstruct the earlier Book of Lehi verbatim. After receiving material from Oliver, he could preserve some things, omit others, and expand through inclusion of previously unknown material. Including projecting himself as the seer and translator to come.

Alma’s transfer to Helaman becomes ironic. Oliver has now contributed to what he may believe is a genuine project and willingly gives his writings to Joseph because he believes Joseph really is the translator/prophet. In this reconstruction, Oliver is inside the belief system while Joseph knows how to manipulate his surroundings.

Another explanation why Oliver would “give over” the work could be seen in the story of Seantum, which I see as a “frame.” Joseph demonstrates his “prophethood” by revealing something Oliver has done.

There is another implication in Alma 37. The Book of Ether has apparently already been written, which alters Mosiah Priority somewhat. Alma told Helaman that he is giving him the “twenty four plates which were found by the people of Limhi, which are called the book of Ether.”

[Gadianton]

what is it that Oliver gave Joseph?

[Limnor]

What Oliver gave Joseph is told to us directly in Alma 37.

The “records”: the record of Nephi, which Joseph is supposed to continue by adding his own record ( and he does, so far as to insert himself into it); the “plates of brass,” which seem to correlate to an original genealogy and what I see as the original Book of Lehi, containing expanded material from Zenos, Zenock, Mount Zerin, and other Rigdon-inspired writings; and the twenty-four “plates,” the Jaredite material whose story includes the experiences of the brother of Jared, who is Alvin in my reconstruction. I also suspect those twenty-four “plates” originally contained the Zeniff story.

Alma 37 is practically a confession and inventory.

Alma 37:1–3

1 And now, my son Helaman, I command you that ye take the records which have been entrusted with me;

2 And I also command you that ye keep a record of this people, according as I have done, upon the plates of Nephi, and keep all these things sacred which I have kept, even as I have kept them; for it is for a wise purpose that they are kept.

3 And these plates of brass, which contain these engravings, which have the records of the holy scriptures upon them, which have the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning—

And then:

Alma 37:21

And now, I will speak unto you concerning those twenty-four plates, that ye keep them

Edited to add:

I realize that sounds like a hell of a leap, so here is how I got there.

I started with Alma 36–37 because Alma is giving Helaman what reads like a separate autobiographical record. But then I noticed that chapter 37 isn’t merely advice about keeping records. Alma actually inventories what he gives to Helaman.

First are the “records” already entrusted to Alma, which Helaman is commanded to continue “upon the plates of Nephi.” That caught my attention because in my reconstruction Joseph does exactly that: he takes an existing Nephite narrative and eventually writes himself into its beginning as Nephi.

Second are the “plates of brass.” Alma tells us what is on them: holy scriptures and “the genealogy of our forefathers, even from the beginning.” This is where I think we may be seeing the remains of an earlier source collection, which I think are probably connected with the original Book of Lehi, which contained the genealogy and expanded information about Zenos, Zenock, Mount Zerin, and other material I suspect came through Rigdon.

Third are the twenty-four plates. These contain the Jaredite source material that eventually becomes Ether. In my reconstruction the central brother of Jared figure reflects Alvin. I also believe, due to its placement and abrupt entry into the story, the Zeniff narrative originally belonged somewhere in this source material before being inserted into Mosiah.

So I didn’t start with “Alma 37 is secretly Oliver giving Joseph documents” and work backward. I started by asking what records Alma 37 says are actually being transferred.

With apologies to the moderator who has cleaned up my posts recently, I want to add some additional context.

Why Oliver = Alma? In the roman a clef model, Alma seems to share several characteristics with Oliver that make him the most plausible historical counterpart.

For example: Alma and Oliver perform similar functions.
In Mosiah 18, Alma is seen as the organizer of the church. Alma teaches privately, baptizes, and creates what the text calls the “church of Christ.”

Oliver independently produced his own church organization through the June 1829 Articles of the Church of Christ. This reads similarly to the Book of Mormon style and establishes instructions for the church.

The baptism. Alma baptizes Helam and himself in Mosiah 18 and then baptizes the others. Oliver and Joseph baptise each other. The official rendering is they read about it first but I don’t believe that. Additionally, the order changes. Alma baptizes Helam first but Joseph baptizes Oliver. I see that as a usurpation by Joseph.

Alma “wrote all the words which Abinadi had spoken” and then we are told where Alma established the church, and then we read an independent history. I think those “records” represent actual source documents contributed by Oliver.

In this reconstruction, Oliver takes already existing source material, adds to it, and then helps Joseph continue the project. Similar to Alma handing off to Helaman.

[Gadianton]

Oliver independently produced his own church organization through the June 1829 Articles of the Church of Christ. This reads similarly to the Book of Mormon style and establishes instructions for the church.

I forgot about this, but what are you saying? I'm trying to understand the causal arrow. Did Oliver's experience as a scribe influence his "articles" -- was Alma foreshadowing what Oliver would do in the future? Shaping Oliver? Or is Alma based on what Oliver had already been doing in conjunction with the restoration charade?

[Limnor]

The latter. I see the causal arrow as running from Oliver into Alma, not from Alma into Oliver.

My thought is that Oliver had already been performing essentially the same function that Alma performs.

The June 1829 Articles aren’t something I think Oliver wrote and then Alma was based on them. It’s more that Oliver had already performed those functions, they were captured and reflected in Alma, and then Oliver committed them to paper later. I see the Articles as evidence of what Oliver understood his own role to be.

So it’s: Oliver was already doing this stuff, that stuff was captured and reflected in Alma, and then Oliver formally wrote down what he had been doing in the Articles.

[Gadianton]

The latter. I see the causal arrow as running from Oliver into Alma, not from Alma into Oliver.

My thought is that Oliver had already been performing essentially the same function that Alma performs.

The June 1829 Articles aren’t something I think Oliver wrote and then Alma was based on them. It’s more that Oliver had already performed those functions, they were captured and reflected in Alma, and then Oliver committed them to paper later. I see the Articles as evidence of what Oliver understood his own role to be.

So it’s: Oliver was already doing this stuff, that stuff was captured and reflected in Alma, and then Oliver formally wrote down what he had been doing in the Articles.

How was it captured and reflected in Alma, is this Joseph Smith putting it in there? If so, is it intentional or is he so clueless, stuck in the amateur author habit of writing his life into his fiction? we've probably talked about this before I just don't recall.

[Limnor]

I think it’s intentional. In fact, I think the book even tells us how it was done.

Look at the Brother of Jared. He has an experience and then is told to write it down. Alma does it too. He hands Helaman the records and tells him to keep a record “according as I have done.”

So, the order is, experience happens, participant is told to record it, and then I see that experience as being backwards cast as ancient history.

How is it backwards cast? Joseph tells us a few times in the book that he “did liken all scriptures unto us,” which I suppose is normally read as something like “take ancient scripture and apply it to ourselves.” But I see that line differently. For example, D&C 103 says: Verily, verily I say unto you, that my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., is the man to whom I likened the servant to whom the Lord of the vineyard spake in the parable which I have given unto you.

I think that revelation is additional evidence of the method. What’s also interesting to me is when the code words were used in the D&C no one encoded batted an eye. They all seemed to be aware of the method. Joseph even called himself Enoch.

You asked if Joseph did that backwards casting—I think it was a combination of Joseph, Rigdon, Oliver, and probably Whitmer, Pratt and Harris at the center, with the other witnesses being aware, and all of them having an understanding that what was being written down was the “truth.”

Deconstruction thought: Amalickiah and Jared represent what Joseph truly wanted. Power and authority. To be king. Nephi, Helaman, Alma the Younger, and the other “good guys” represent the performative roles he played to get there. The reluctant prophet, chosen, not acquired through force. Underneath that is revealed the true motive. Joseph wanted he kingdom.

[Gadianton]

participant is told to record it, and then I see that experience as being backwards cast as ancient history.

I think it needs to happen this way, and it doesn't surprise that it does, it's a matter of the precision, is Joseph really creating this much material based on experiences and being consistent about roles and so on? And then, what is the motive for it? Is it celebrating their assumed importance, is it to rope in his followers more?

something like “take ancient scripture and apply it to ourselves.” But I see that line differently.

You have to be right on this part. Since it's not ancient history, you would have to make up things that you think might apply to real life. The question is do you make up stories from broader experience and literature or go the narrow route that you are suggesting. The bonus is fake scripture is more relatable than real scripture, the deeper in the past, the more life outside of very broad strokes has to do with life today.

The reluctant prophet, chosen, not acquired through force. Underneath that is revealed the true motive. Joseph wanted he kingdom.

"The greatest of all is the servant" is a good deconstructive line. It accidently acknowledges the importance of being the best, which is one of those "other the side of the coin" selling points, while ostensibly selling servitude to those you wish to gain control over.

[Limnor]

I think it needs to happen this way, and it doesn't surprise that it does, it's a matter of the precision, is Joseph really creating this much material based on experiences and being consistent about roles and so on? And then, what is the motive for it? Is it celebrating their assumed importance, is it to rope in his followers more?

Yes, I think Joseph is doing just that. Sometimes I think of it like scenes in a play, with a recurring character playing different roles, but the people in one scene don’t know what happened in Scene 1 because they weren’t part of it. As for Joseph, he tells us at least twice that he wants the kingdom and resultant power.

So Joseph can be Amalikiah around some people to gain their trust but has to be Nephi around others. There is a scene in which Nephi/Joseph “ponders” what had happened after revealing Seantum that I find interesting from that point of view. Seems almost like a realization of how he can use that power and that servitude helps to gain it.

Motive for others? The motivations seem to be varied to me, but from one point of view, Joseph ultimately is showing his followers how they can become gods too, through performative service to ultimately gain what they really desire. Some might have sincere motivations and want to service becuase they think it is good and right. Still others, like Seantum, might have been coerced into followership through threatened exposure of crimes, secret combinations, and the like. Might not be all that different from personal motivations today.

[Gadianton]

participant is told to record it, and then I see that experience as being backwards cast as ancient history

this is the order...

Still others, like Seantum, might have been coerced into followership through threatened exposure of crimes, secret combinations, and the like

This is the part I'm not clear on. If it goes like you said above, then Joseph threatens a follower directly that he will expose crimes. Then the person who was threatened, or I suppose Joseph, records the threat as "Joseph threatened to expose me today in the following circumstance..." and then a story of coercion pops up in the Book of Mormon. To me it seems like Joseph would make up the story for the Book of Mormon and then will translate the part about Seantum getting exposed (I don't recall the story), and then, the scribe, who Joseph wants to threaten, will be shaking in his boots, realizing if Seantum got exposed then so could he.

Now that doesn't mean it would be useless as a threat if the scripture about the threatening happened after the threat, it could be used for future incidents as threating to expose others could be a monthly occurrence. However, it wouldn't be useful in general to navigate immediate situations as they crop up. It also seems questionable that criminal experiences would be recorded straightforwardly first, and then later cast into scripture later. It seems pretty risky to be recording ones crimes, though it's possible.