Concerning the Missing “Interpreters”

[Limnor]

In Mosiah 15, Alvin—through the voice of Abinadi—articulates a daring theology: that Jesus is both the Father and the Son, and that the Father possesses a tangible body. This is not an abstract metaphysical claim but a revelation of divine embodiment—God is a man, just like us, enthroned in yonder heavens.

After Abinadi’s death, Alma—standing in the allegorical role of Oliver Cowdery—flees with the sealed portion of the record, beginning with the words “I, Zeniff.” This portion preserves Alvin’s hidden theology in narrative form: the testimony of one who claimed direct experience with the embodied God. Alma’s escape mirrors Oliver’s quiet withdrawal following Alvin’s death, both carrying away the inner record of the revelation that the public could not receive. It is this act of preservation—rescuing the unseen portion of the text—that ensures the survival of Alvin’s core doctrine, even as it is removed from view.

When Parley P. Pratt, reflected in Ammon, later arrives to read the recovered record, he finds that the writings directed by Rigdon/Mosiah are present but the “interpreters” are gone. In Mosiah, the physical record remains—the brass plates, the written testimony—but the instruments of divine perception, the seer stones or Urim and Thummim, are missing. This absence signifies the loss of the original means by which Alvin’s revelation could be fully apprehended. Pratt can only read the unsealed text that lies before him; the deeper portion, carried away by Alma/Oliver, is beyond his reach. The scene dramatizes a partial inheritance: the words survive, but the vision that once animated them—the knowledge of a tangible, embodied Father—has been withdrawn, sealed in the hands of those who fled with it.

[drumdude]

Fascinating stuff, I’ve always loved seeing these.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive list of all known parallels between the contents of Mormon scripture and the corresponding events in the lives and ideas of early Mormons?

[Limnor]

I like these kinds of threads too. I doubt it matters much but it’s an interesting hobby.

Most of my sourcing comes from Uncle Dale’s page but it isn’t easy.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/

[Moksha]

In Mosiah, the physical record remains—the brass plates, the written testimony—but the instruments of divine perception, the seer stones or Urim and Thummim, are missing.

The disappearance of the imaginary holds much religious significance.

[Limnor]

In Mosiah, the physical record remains—the brass plates, the written testimony—but the instruments of divine perception, the seer stones or Urim and Thummim, are missing.

The disappearance of the imaginary holds much religious significance.

Agreed. Typically, it seems that once the imaginary disappears, it is renamed as doctrine.

[MG 2.0]

I like these kinds of threads too. I doubt it matters much but it’s an interesting hobby.

Most of my sourcing comes from Uncle Dale’s page but it isn’t easy.

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/

You've taken Book of Mormon fantasies to a whole new level. I suppose you've heard of Orson Scott Card. He took the Book of Mormon and made it into a futuristic story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homecoming_Saga

Folks have done all sorts of things looking for alternative visions/views/explanations/amplifications on the Book of Mormon narrative. The book has definitely not been ignored.

And then there is the view/explanation that members of the church who have a testimony hold as being the 'true vision/amplification'. Makes for a lot of controversy, doesn't it?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

That’s fair. The book has resulted in a wide range of interpretations.

Rather than within the fantasy genre, I’d actually place my approach into the category of literary-historical analysis, exploring how the book’s voices and settings reflect the cultural setting of the 1820s.

Where Card projected the story forward into a sci-fi future, I’m looking backward into possible creative and cultural origins, seeing the text as an encoded record of its own creation.

[MG 2.0]

That’s fair. The book has resulted in a wide range of interpretations.

Rather than within the fantasy genre, I’d actually place my approach into the category of literary-historical analysis, exploring how the book’s voices and settings reflect the cultural setting of the 1820s.

Where Card projected the story forward into a sci-fi future, I’m looking backward into possible creative and cultural origins, seeing the text as an encoded record of its own creation.

In skimming your posts lately, it seems as though you see Joseph Smith and Co. as being rather creative and somewhat in the realm of 'genius' in putting/cobbling the Book of Mormon narrative. You seem to be pointing towards there being more than one voice that comes through. I would suppose you've spent some time over the years looking at the various word print studies that have been performed on the Book of Mormon. How do you see these studies fitting in with some of your conclusions as far as Book of Mormon authorship goes? Too many voices? Too few? Etc.

https://wheatandtares.org/2020/04/23/bo ... s-in-2020/

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

My proposal is what could be called a multiple source adaptive composition.

Joseph Smith Jr. performed the following:

- Authored a large portion of 1/2 Nephi, tracing his own early life, his father’s dreams, adapting Isaiah, and describing how he acquired writings that his brother Alvin had begun (as the brother of Jared and Zeniff)
- Served as compiler and redactor of Rigdon’s writings (Moroni)
- Adapted additional biblical segments as appropriate to his situation (Isaiah, Judges, and others)
- Adapted and used Alvin Smith’s lost or early writings (Ether, Zeniff, Abinadi record)
- Adapted letters and material from other associates, including Pratt, Cowdery, and Whitmer, which were encoded as voices like Ammon, Alma, Amulek, Gideon, and so on.

The framing is compatible with Jockers’ broad conclusion that the text reflects multiple nineteenth-century stylistic signatures.

Where it differs is interpretation. The Jockers’ theory sees those stylistic matches as direct authorial fingerprints, but I view them as source layers “translated” through Joseph’s adaptation and redaction. He performed a similar function when he worked on the Joseph Smith translation of the KJV.

My explanation is consistent with Jockers’s study, but it interprets those stylistic clusters not as proof that Rigdon or Pratt directly authored chapters, but were adapted by Joseph during the composition process. Rigdon was once heard to exclaim that he had never seen the Book of Mormon “in the form that it now is.” I believe he was telling the truth. What he had provided had been adjusted and adapted - “translated” if you want - by Joseph. It was no longer Rigdon’s direct writing.

Further, I propose the lost 116 pages were intentionally lost - Joseph deliberately wanted to expunge an earlier version created by Rigdon and replace it with Joseph himself as the main character Nephi.

[Limnor]

In skimming your posts lately, it seems as though you see Joseph Smith and Co. as being rather creative and somewhat in the realm of 'genius' in putting/cobbling the Book of Mormon narrative. You seem to be pointing towards there being more than one voice that comes through. I would suppose you've spent some time over the years looking at the various word print studies that have been performed on the Book of Mormon. How do you see these studies fitting in with some of your conclusions as far as Book of Mormon authorship goes? Too many voices? Too few? Etc.

https://wheatandtares.org/2020/04/23/bo ... s-in-2020/

Regards,
MG

I do tend to see Joseph Smith and those around him as creative - and highly imaginative - in how the Book of Mormon took shape. But I see it less as a single spontaneous burst of genius and more as a layered, adaptive project over an extended period of time, perhaps as long as 6 years. Something like a living text - even a log of travels and events - being shaped over time by multiple voices, influences, and revisions.

Also, I wouldn’t say “too many voices” or “too few.” It’s more that the voices are layered. But, I’d like to see inclusion of David Whitmer, and Alvin Smith’s writing, were any available.

Thank you for your consideration of my offerings - I really appreciate you taking the time to review and provide feedback.