Abstract: The Codex Project

[Limnor]

What parallels? I can see the parallels between Nephi and what Joseph sees when he looks in the mirror. What he's aspiring to. I can also see the anti-Christ characters as a deeper psychoanalysis of Joseph, or as the other side of the coin of transparently righteous characters. I suppose if that's what you mean, I can see that. But what do you mean by parallels?

The parallels between Joseph and Nephi and Mormon, and the parallels between Moroni’s theology and Rigdon. I think Alma and Amulek line up to Oliver and Whitmer. I’ll pull up my notes and add them here later for further discussion.

[Limnor]

From my notes:

When I read David Whitmer’s Address alongside Alma’s narrative, I hear the voice of the Amulek figure looking back over a long, painful lesson. In Alma 10–11, Amulek admits he “was called many times” and refused to listen until an angel finally stopped him in his tracks and sent him to feed Alma. From that point on, Amulek’s job is to stand next to Alma and say awkward things out loud: to tell Zeezrom, “O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me?” when power and money dress themselves up in religious language.

In an allegorical framework, Alma represents Oliver and Amulek represents Whitmer—the two-man team whose partnership supports the emerging story. Zeezrom and other dissenters, of course, represent Joseph and Rigdon, specifically over this theological tension.

When expanded, it looks like the Book of Mormon deliberate sets up that struggle between two models: the priestcraft of Nehor and others and the seeds of Joseph/Rigdon’s hierarchical priesthood in 3 Nephi, and Oliver/Whitmer’s anti-priestcraft, anti–clergy model in Alma. Those aren’t just theological tensions—they mirror the real-life split between those men.

A reconstruction of Oliver Cowdery’s letters to David Whitmer reflect the Alma–Amulek relationship in the Book of Mormon: a receptive outsider (Cowdery/Alma) joins a dissenting movement after rejecting a corrupt system, and his work depends on a local householder-witness (Whitmer/Amulek) whose home and loyalty legitimize the new record. Cowdery cites Whitmer as the protector of the translation, just as Alma depends on Amulek for support.

Whitmer plays a similar role in his old age. He still insists that the Book of Mormon came from God, but he uses Joseph’s own stone-revelation—“Some revelations are of God; some … of man; some … of the devil”—to argue that the later priesthood system and polygamy belong in the man/devil column, not the God column. Christ, for Whitmer, is the last great high priest “after the order of Melchisedec,” and the Book of Mormon + New Testament are the fixed covenant; everything that contradicts that covenant is, in Alma’s terms, the work of the adversary rather than the Spirit.

So Whitmer’s Address to All Believers in Christ reads like Amulek’s testimony after the fact: a witness who once trusted the wrong authority structures, then turned back to the earlier Christ-centered message and started warning others that not every “revelation” or “priesthood office” that comes in the name of God actually passes the Alma–Amulek test.

Whitmer never says outright “this book is about our lives,” but everything he does say points toward that conclusion without him ever naming it.

[Gadianton]

From elsewhere you said:

“Laban” is an Abel figure in my mind. I mean there are a lot of Cain and Abel references in Smith’s historical record. Ever wonder why?

How could Nephi put on Laban’s clothes and people confuse him with Laban?

Because it was his brother.

While I'm interested in the details of what makes Joseph Nephi and Mormon, I don't see a lot of reason to resist the suggestion. I mean, I'm inclined to see it even without much evidence because a narcissistic founder of a religion would obviously make up scripture that puts himself as the hero of every story he tells.

I'm more interested in the connection to the darker characters. I can imagine it in the form of psychoanalysis or literary deconstruction, even Grant Hardy went there with Moroni (a self-righteous despot and murderer), but I'm interested in how you make the connection.

Laban ~ Abel (?)
Nephi ~ Joseph Smith (grounded)
Cain = Abel's brother (grounded)
Nephi ~ Cain (?)
Nephi ~ Laban's brother (grounded)

With the information I have so far, and I could be missing something, I feel like the suggestion that Nephi is Cain and Laban Abel is circular. If we ground one of those two, then the other will also be grounded, but with the information I have, they seem to be free variables.

(I was writing and finished this before I saw your latest post)

[Limnor]

While I'm interested in the details of what makes Joseph Nephi and Mormon, I don't see a lot of reason to resist the suggestion. I mean, I'm inclined to see it even without much evidence because a narcissistic founder of a religion would obviously make up scripture that puts himself as the hero of every story he tells.

Frankly my thinking was that most, if not all, who post here had seen the connection between Joseph and Nephi and Mormon. Shulem has covered the Mormon similarities in depth.

I’ll respond with more later ref the Cain and Abel connection as I see it.

[Limnor]

I think the key is that Cain and Abel aren’t my starting point, but the story eventually plays out through the Book of Moses. The Book of Mormon repeatedly shows a witness, a chosen one, one who holds authority, who is rejected or killed, and a successor inherits his place, or inherits the authority and plates or records that establish that authority. That’s how the Cain parallel shows up in my interpretation—not because I’m forcing it, but because there is a pattern that almost demands attention.

In the Book of Moses, Cain’s act isn’t just murder, it includes secret oaths, killing for gain, and the transfer of what the victim had, and the blood “cries” as testimony. This also shows up in the Book of Mormon in the Nephi/Laban story, again in the Abinadi/Alma story, sometimes as a group in the Gadianton robbers.

If Joseph is Nephi, then from the very beginning of the there is a story about a person killing the record holder, taking his identify, and walking away with the plates.

Ref Abel and Laban, I don’t think the Abel/Laban similarity carries much weight on its own. Where it becomes interesting is alongside the demonstrated use of coded names in the D&C, where phonetic and letter-pattern shifts are demonstrated. If a naming system is operating, then partial cognates wouldn’t be unexpected, and are even somewhat predictable as you move across the LDS canon.

[Limnor]

Gad I’ve been thinking about this from another point of view, from a different interpretation of the book as a whole.

What if the text is working through not one, but two composite victims—each eliminated in different ways by a combination of assassins?

On one side, the exposing voice: Abinadi, Laban, the person who is directed to be removed by a figure in authority because he was going to expose something, and the keeper of that thing that is not to be exposed. On the other, the legitimate holder of power, Seezoram or Lehonti, people who are in the way of succession.

What changes across the stories is this each character acts. Nephi justifies his anctions. Seantum tries to hide his involvement. Kishkumen and Amalickiah develop strategy and organizes the plot. Also different is the means, (poisoning/beheading) which could represent the method each conspirator used against a single victim.

So instead of isolated events, the text could be describing a process with two kinds of victims and multiple ways of removing them.

[Gadianton]

If Joseph is Nephi, then from the very beginning of the there is a story about a person killing the record holder, taking his identify, and walking away with the plates.

that is true. And he be revisiting the Genesis stories after developing this other world.

Ref Abel and Laban, I don’t think the Abel/Laban similarity carries much weight on its own. Where it becomes interesting is alongside the demonstrated use of coded names in the D&C,

Were the coded names found prior to the supposition that Abel ~ Laban or after? I assume after since Nephi would lock in the Cain spot. by the way, Cain was a tiller of the soil, like Joseph.

Also different is the means, (poisoning/beheading) which could represent the method each conspirator used against a single victim.

I assume there are no beheaded victims from the time period. Is there someone though you had in mind who conveniently disappeared?

[Limnor]

If Joseph is Nephi, then from the very beginning of the there is a story about a person killing the record holder, taking his identify, and walking away with the plates.

that is true. And he be revisiting the Genesis stories after developing this other world.

Ref Abel and Laban, I don’t think the Abel/Laban similarity carries much weight on its own. Where it becomes interesting is alongside the demonstrated use of coded names in the D&C,

Were the coded names found prior to the supposition that Abel ~ Laban or after? I assume after since Nephi would lock in the Cain spot. by the way, Cain was a tiller of the soil, like Joseph.

Also different is the means, (poisoning/beheading) which could represent the method each conspirator used against a single victim.

I assume there are no beheaded victims from the time period. Is there someone though you had in mind who conveniently disappeared?

I honestly can’t remember how I arrived at the Cain and Abel understanding. I think I was already looking at the pattern of the slaying of brothers within the book. I can’t remember if I learned about the encoded names before thinking of the assassinations in the book, but I’m sure I didn’t start with “Laban is a “type” of Abel” as an interpretation.

When thinking about all of the information in the aggregate, Cain and Abel become a potential focal point for interpretation. The information includes thinking about a priesthood held by a brother, with potential Masonic implications as inferred from the secret combinations within the text, and the position Alvin held in his family—he was “a youth of singular goodness of disposition,” and “a good and faithful servant.”

Part of the intrigue is we really don’t know how Alvin was killed. There are stories, but no official autopsy or forensic report. In fact it isn’t even clear who the doctor was. I realize my view is unprovable, but again I’d say if Joseph is Nephi, someone was beheaded.

I think you may have already guessed who I think is the person who “conveniently disappeared”—William Morgan, someone who was seeking to print an expose of freemasonry. He’s my candidate for Seezoram and also the potential source of the copper printing plates.

[I Have Questions]

I thought this was interesting and relevant to this thread.

There’s a reason, of course, that Alma did not want the people to simply take him at his word. He knew how to recognize a fraud when he saw one because had formerly been one himself. He had spent his youth peddling lies. Before repenting and becoming a political and religious leader, the scriptures explain that he was a “man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people.”

Alma thus was suspicious of charismatic leaders seeking personal gain and followers. In his first year as judge, he encountered Nehor, who was preaching false doctrine. The Book of Alma draws our attention to these facts about Nehor: He sought popularity. He dismissed the consequences of moral wrongdoing. He took the people’s money for his personal use and began to wear “very costly apparel.” We can consider these same factors when assessing the voices we hear today.

The parallels are obvious and striking.

The irony of this paragraph wasn't lost on me...

Asking how people make money gives us important clues about whether they have our interests at heart and value accurate information. Credible content creators should be fairly paid. Our failure to pay for quality journalism has contributed to the increase in clickbait, misinformation, data mining and the attention-grabbing algorithms we all bemoan. It is also appropriate for the church to reasonably compensate the people tasked with running it. We should, however, be skeptical when people use their positions primarily to generate personal wealth and promote themselves. We should be especially skeptical when their content stirs up anger, creates divisions and rationalizes immoral behaviors.

[Limnor]

I thought this was interesting and relevant to this thread.

There’s a reason, of course, that Alma did not want the people to simply take him at his word. He knew how to recognize a fraud when he saw one because had formerly been one himself. He had spent his youth peddling lies. Before repenting and becoming a political and religious leader, the scriptures explain that he was a “man of many words, and did speak much flattery to the people.”

Alma thus was suspicious of charismatic leaders seeking personal gain and followers. In his first year as judge, he encountered Nehor, who was preaching false doctrine. The Book of Alma draws our attention to these facts about Nehor: He sought popularity. He dismissed the consequences of moral wrongdoing. He took the people’s money for his personal use and began to wear “very costly apparel.” We can consider these same factors when assessing the voices we hear today.

The parallels are obvious and striking.

Sometimes it’s so obvious to me that I can’t believe they don’t know.