Why do you suppose Joseph Smith used the concept of an abridgement?

[_Scottie]

I wonder what purpose Joseph Smith had in saying that the plates were an abridgement of different records?

If he made it up, why not simply say that these are the writings of the prophets of Ancient America? Why go into a whole other level of detail with a story of Mormon abridging the plates? Was this just a creative stroke on his part, or do you think he suspected it would add a layer of obfuscation?



.

[_Trevor]

Was this just a creative stroke on his part, or do you think he suspected it would add a layer of obfuscation?

If the new study by Jockers, Witten, and Criddle is correct, then probably the latter is the case. When you know you will have multiple authors already (Spalding, Rigdon, et al.), then multiple fake authors divided in a different way muddies the waters. Just an off the cuff guess.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I s'pose he didn't.

[_Sethbag]

With the idea of an abridgement of works from multiple authors, mopologists get the best of both worlds. In some ways the work may well reflect the work of a single author, and then they can explain it as the influence of Mormon, and in some ways it may well reflect the work of multiple authors, and then that supports the claim of multiple Nephite prophets writing it.

I'm not saying Joseph Smith contemplated that line of apologetic argument in advance, but it is pretty handy nonetheless.

[_The Dude]

Good question, Scottie. I doubt it was done just to create an obfuscation tool for himself and for apologists. lol

The most straightforward explanation would accept the abridgement as real, in that there really was an consolidation of writings from multiple authors, abridged by Mormon (if the Book of Mormon is real history) or by Joseph Smith (if Joseph Smith worked from other material produced by Rigdon, Spaulding, the Illuminati, etc).

Alternatively, if Joseph Smith devised the Book of Mormon himself, then he might have settled on an abridgment of ancient writings in order to simulate the Bible, which he knew to be a collection from multiple authors abridged by unknown hands in the ancient past. He didn't want to invent something like a single book from the Bible with just one author, but a multi-book history from several authors living at different times. Such a project has to look like an abridgment, with an identified or unidentified editor. Joseph could have left that person unnamed as is the case for the Bible, but instead he chose to make that person a central character, Mormon, which strengthens the narrative considerably.

I s'pose he didn't.

You mean you suppose the abridgment was a real event by the hand of Mormon? Why?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Biblical critics at the time had attacked the Pentateuch as being the abridged and redacted work of many authors. If Joseph Smith was aware of this, maybe he was looking to add some plausibility to his record's history (or some complexity in case the text critics ever went after it).

But this is a great question, Scottie, and something I've wondered myself. I don't really have the answer.

[_CaliforniaKid]

By the way, if you want to pursue this, I'd recommend looking for the concept of (biblical) abridgment in Tom Paine's The Age of Reason. We know Joseph Sr. had a copy, given to him rather unceremoniously by Asael.

[_bcspace]

I wonder what purpose Joseph Smith had in saying that the plates were an abridgement of different records?

If he made it up, why not simply say that these are the writings of the prophets of Ancient America? Why go into a whole other level of detail with a story of Mormon abridging the plates? Was this just a creative stroke on his part, or do you think he suspected it would add a layer of obfuscation?

I think Mormon really did make an abridgement. Therefore, non sequitur.

[_Trevor]

Therefore, non sequitur.

You mean, your answer?