Nephi-ception

[Limnor]

So when you combine the apparent lack of engagement with the stories from 1/2 Nephi, there is an indication of a distinct compositional source.

If that source—Moroni—also consistently aligns to Sidney Rigdon’s pre-1830 views, which it seems to, then that combined evidence supports the hypothesis of Rigdon’s authorship, or at least influence.

Again, my thought is that Joseph purposefully “lost” the 116 pages and replaced them with his own story.

Things I think were partially retained, but clumsily only in part, include a longer exposition of Mulek, back stories about Zenock and Zenos, and a more complete story about the Mount of Zerin.

[I Have Questions]

So when you combine the apparent lack of engagement with the stories from 1/2 Nephi, there is an indication of a distinct compositional source.

If that source—Moroni—also consistently aligns to Sidney Rigdon’s pre-1830 views, which it seems to, then that combined evidence supports the hypothesis of Rigdon’s authorship, or at least influence.

Again, my thought is that Joseph purposefully “lost” the 116 pages and replaced them with his own story.

Things I think were partially retained, but clumsily only in part, include a longer exposition of Mulek, back stories about Zenock and Zenos, and a more complete story about the Mount of Zerin.

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

[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.

[Limnor]

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.

[Limnor]

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.

[Limnor]

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.

[Limnor]

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.

Id 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.