Concerning the Missing “Interpreters”

[MG 2.0]

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.

The Jockers study was discredited. Why did you focus on or pick that one?

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.

The Jockers study was discredited. Why did you focus on or pick that one?

Regards,
MG

It was the first one that jumped into my head, I haven’t really looked at any others.

I will say that I believe there were multiple authors and an editor/redactor. I just believe the editor/redactor was Joseph, likening himself to the scriptures.

Please note how I differ with the Jockers study above.

[Limnor]

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

Just read through the link, and this caught me eye:

2016 Three Voice N-S-L Model

1. The Book of Mormon was carefully thought out over the time period prior to 1829. Going into the spring of 1829, there existed the Book of Mormon (most likely not written out but existing in Joseph’s mind in near-final-draft format) which likely ended with the Savior’s visit to the Nephites or included a short wrap up from Mormon but not including the Book of Ether or Moroni. This was likely created by one author (Joseph–or Mormon for traditional believers) intentionally creating a stylistic difference between the narrative and the sermons. The N Voice S Voice split was intentionally created to mimic different authors or speaking style. I believe it’s very skillfully done, but not outside the plausibility of one author. ie now I’m doing narrative, I use N Voice phrases, I’m in third person passive voice, I’m trying to sound very official ancient style copying a style like The Late War. Now I’m doing sermon. I speak in first person and use a lot of rhetorical questions, and I’m riffing on a 19th century revival preacher speaking in KJV language.

2. Then as Joseph and Oliver were in the middle of the translation project, Joseph’s updated vision of the Book of Mormon took over and the L Voice shows Joseph Smith breaking from this original text he had in his mind and breaking into new themes (House of Israel themes, covenant, metadata (ie the book talking about itself) and shifting his vocabulary usage into what he thought was more appropriate sounding or simply stylistic drift at a subconscious level.

This is helpful to my thinking, thank you.

What do you make of it?

[Limnor]

I’ve completed my explanation of Mosiah 18-22, but stuck on who the voice of Amulon represents…. Candidates: David Whitmer or Joseph.

I’m ready to move on, because the angel appearing to the sons of Mosiah is my favorite part, and more clear to me “who’s who.”

[MG 2.0]

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

Just read through the link, and this caught me eye:

2016 Three Voice N-S-L Model

1. The Book of Mormon was carefully thought out over the time period prior to 1829. Going into the spring of 1829, there existed the Book of Mormon (most likely not written out but existing in Joseph’s mind in near-final-draft format) which likely ended with the Savior’s visit to the Nephites or included a short wrap up from Mormon but not including the Book of Ether or Moroni. This was likely created by one author (Joseph–or Mormon for traditional believers) intentionally creating a stylistic difference between the narrative and the sermons. The N Voice S Voice split was intentionally created to mimic different authors or speaking style. I believe it’s very skillfully done, but not outside the plausibility of one author. ie now I’m doing narrative, I use N Voice phrases, I’m in third person passive voice, I’m trying to sound very official ancient style copying a style like The Late War. Now I’m doing sermon. I speak in first person and use a lot of rhetorical questions, and I’m riffing on a 19th century revival preacher speaking in KJV language.

2. Then as Joseph and Oliver were in the middle of the translation project, Joseph’s updated vision of the Book of Mormon took over and the L Voice shows Joseph Smith breaking from this original text he had in his mind and breaking into new themes (House of Israel themes, covenant, metadata (ie the book talking about itself) and shifting his vocabulary usage into what he thought was more appropriate sounding or simply stylistic drift at a subconscious level.

This is helpful to my thinking, thank you.

What do you make of it?

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Some of the other studies put more stock in other 'voices' in the Book of Mormon other than Joseph, Sydney, or Oliver.

Your theory seemingly paints a Joseph who was a genius. In this talk given by Tad Callister at BYU at around the 13:00 minute mark (link below) he points out that one of the arguments critics give (#5 in the list he's going through) is that Joseph was beyond his years and a genius. But then we have Alexander Campbell (compatriot of Sidney and well known critic) saying this:

[Joseph was] as ignorant and as impudent a knave as ever wrote a book.

Campbell goes on to say:

There never was a book more evidently written by one set of fingers, nor more certainly conceived in on cranium...than this book...I cannot doubt for a single moment that Joseph Smith is the sole author and proprietor of it.

Word print studies and the age/environment/educational achievements of Joseph do not paint a picture of someone that would have had the ability to come up with the Book of Mormon.

Tad Callister passed away a few days ago. He (a General Authority emeritus) gave one of the most powerful talks on the Book of Mormon at BYU that I believe has ever been given. I would encourage you and/or anyone else to listen to the full talk and still come away with a solid disbelief in the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVmvWA12qU

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

...Tad Callister passed away a few days ago. He (a General Authority emeritus) gave one of the most powerful talks on the Book of Mormon at BYU that I believe has ever been given. I would encourage you and/or anyone else to listen to the full talk and still come away with a solid disbelief in the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVmvWA12qU
...

We had a lengthy discussion here about this talk. No one was persuaded by Callister's deeply flawed logic and incoherent thought processes. Even people sitting in the audience, primed to believe, were apparently deeply disturbed by his horrible arguments. It was an embarrassment all around, and an affront to thinking minds. Only the mentalgymnast, who just believes, thinks Callister's talk was convincing.

[Limnor]

...Tad Callister passed away a few days ago. He (a General Authority emeritus) gave one of the most powerful talks on the Book of Mormon at BYU that I believe has ever been given. I would encourage you and/or anyone else to listen to the full talk and still come away with a solid disbelief in the provenance of the Book of Mormon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVmvWA12qU
...

We had a lengthy discussion here about this talk. No one was persuaded by Callister's deeply flawed logic and incoherent thought processes. Even people sitting in the audience, primed to believe, were apparently deeply disturbed by his horrible arguments. It was an embarrassment all around, and an affront to thinking minds. Only the mentalgymnast, who just believes, thinks Callister's talk was convincing.

Thank you Marcus!

And here I spent an hour and a half watching it and coming up with this response:

If I understand you correctly, you have determined my explanation as falling into the “Joseph was a genius” category, and therefore can be dismissed because Callister has identified this category of “alternate theorists” as dismissible.

I’ll reiterate: I don’t see Joseph as a genius so much as someone with a knack for synthesizing stories; weaving familiar voices, sermons, and scripture into something cohesive.

I also find it odd that Callister demands evidence when addressing critics, but does not apply that same approach to issues with the Book of Mormon.

He treats missing evidence, whether DNA or archaeological anachronisms, as problems that will one day resolve in favor of the book, whereas I see them as corroborating the internal evidence that reflects its 19th-century origin.

After watching the video, my summary takeaway from Callister is: “since the precise mechanism for the creation of the book is unknown, the official explanation by Joseph of its origin must be true.”

I disagree with that conclusion, because it turns uncertainty into confirmation. It becomes an argument from ignorance, plastered over by faith. “We don’t know exactly how it happened” isn’t evidence that Joseph’s story must be right. In fact, it should drive deeper inquiry, not less.

[Kishkumen]

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.

I love this approach. For a long time, I have believed that Alvin was a much bigger deal than is currently recognized by most students of Early Mormonism. I could go on about this, but I even suspect his presence in the LDS endowment.

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.

Could you expand on this a bit? That seems chronologically unlikely, but then there may be facts that I am simply unaware of.

After watching the video, my summary takeaway from Callister is: “since the precise mechanism for the creation of the book is unknown, the official explanation by Joseph of its origin must be true.”

I disagree with that conclusion, because it turns uncertainty into confirmation. It becomes an argument from ignorance, plastered over by faith. “We don’t know exactly how it happened” isn’t evidence that Joseph’s story must be right. In fact, it should drive deeper inquiry, not less.

Well said. It is a common apologetic tactic, it seems to me. "If you can't explain it to my personal satisfaction, then the received narrative is true."

By the way, have you written up your hypothesis in long form?

[drumdude]

MG,

I think for your genius argument to work, the Book of Mormon itself must be widely accepted as a work of genius.

I think you’d find that, while believing Mormons certainly believe the book is exceptional - non-Mormons tend to have a more middling opinion of the quality of the book.

Much of the Book of Mormon is copied, repeated, rephrased, and as go the original topic - drawn heavily from the lives of the people around Joseph and ideas already prevalent in his area.

The Book of Mormon isn’t miraculous enough to make Joseph into a genius for writing it, in my opinion. Unless you dumb down Joseph to below average intelligence…

[MG 2.0]

After watching the video, my summary takeaway from Callister is: “since the precise mechanism for the creation of the book is unknown, the official explanation by Joseph of its origin must be true.”

Fair enough.

I disagree with that conclusion, because it turns uncertainty into confirmation.

Not necessarily. What it does do is leave one with the necessity/responsibility of determining its truth through study and also by faith...which includes seeking after inspiration/revelation from God. It's not a done deal simply because its origins cannot be fully explained through secular/naturalistic means. Not to say there haven't been a bunch of theories, including your own.

It becomes an argument from ignorance, plastered over by faith. “We don’t know exactly how it happened” isn’t evidence that Joseph’s story must be right. In fact, it should drive deeper inquiry, not less.

I agree.

Regards,
MG