Nephi-ception

[Limnor]

My point was that clusters of similar names appears in the Bible and appears to be a practice within dynasties in Hebrew society. Finding such a practice in the Book of Mormon could be Joseph mimicking the style of the Bible, but it could also be viewed as “a hit” in terms of historicity.

This is a good point that could fall either way without specific evidence.

El, Yah, Abi, and Jeho are common in the Old Testament. The Cor- names, however, don’t seem to point to a grounding element. Maybe “Korah?”

Yeah, he learned how to invent names as he went along and in the case of Cori he did so beginning with Alma's (Corianton) and packing more in Ether:

Corianto - n
Corianto - r
Coriant - um
Coriant - umr
Cori - hor

Is there any parallel for such a developing naming convention in the Bible? Or is this use of the base "Cori..." unique to the Book of Mormon?

Corianton
Coriantor
Coriantum
Coriantumr
Corihor
Corom

There's also Korihor of course.

There are a few such clusters of names in the Book of Mormon:

Cori - Corianton, Coriantor, Coriantum, Coriantumr, Corihor.
Mor - Mormon, Moroni, Morianton, Moriancumer.
Neph - Nephi, Nephihah, Nephi, Nephites.
Am - Amaleki, Amalickiah, Amaron, Aminadab, Ammon, Ammoron.

The Bible also has clusters of names like that. For example: Elijah, Elisha, Elihu, Elimelech.

I think it would be interesting to pursue making a case for these naming clusters to be evidence that the Book of Mormon is legitimately ancient, has an apologist done such a study?

So I conducted research and came across several apologetic onomastic studies. But those studies generally concentrated on the origin and meaning of individual names, not on the naming system.

One of the studies described onomastic study as “informed guesses punctuated with uncertainty.” There is no claim that etymologies prove the Book of Mormon is ancient. Further, the apologists expects future evidence to settle things.

Maybe most telling is the conclusion: the papers are intended to “help to create a sense of wonderment,” and “thereby foster a climate of belief.”

That is a statement about the intended effect of the research rather than what the research has demonstrated. It’s quite different from concluding, “Therefore, these names establish an ancient origin.”

[I Have Questions]

Is there any parallel for such a developing naming convention in the Bible? Or is this use of the base "Cori..." unique to the Book of Mormon?

Corianton
Coriantor
Coriantum
Coriantumr
Corihor
Corom

There's also Korihor of course.

There are a few such clusters of names in the Book of Mormon:
Cori - Corianton, Coriantor, Coriantum, Coriantumr, Corihor.
Mor - Mormon, Moroni, Morianton, Moriancumer.
Neph - Nephi, Nephihah, Nephi, Nephites.
Am - Amaleki, Amalickiah, Amaron, Aminadab, Ammon, Ammoron.

The Bible also has clusters of names like that. For example: Elijah, Elisha, Elihu, Elimelech.

I think it would be interesting to pursue making a case for these naming clusters to be evidence that the Book of Mormon is legitimately ancient, has an apologist done such a study?

So I conducted research and came across several apologetic onomastic studies. But those studies generally concentrated on the origin and meaning of individual names, not on the naming system.

One of the studies described onomastic study as “informed guesses punctuated with uncertainty.” There is no claim that etymologies prove the Book of Mormon is ancient. Further, the apologists expects future evidence to settle things.

Maybe most telling is the conclusion: the papers are intended to “help to create a sense of wonderment,” and “thereby foster a climate of belief.”

That is a statement about the intended effect of the research rather than what the research has demonstrated. It’s quite different from concluding, “Therefore, these names establish an ancient origin.”

That’s true. In fact, it’s tantamount to an admission that their research has not concluded the Book of Mormon naming conventions and clusters show it to be ancient.

[Limnor]

Has anyone ever wondered why Moroni never made mention of the slaying of Laban, or Lehi’s dream, or even the Nephite exodus from Israel to the Americas? (I mean, aside from “it’s all fictional”)

[I Have Questions]

Has anyone ever wondered why Moroni never made mention of the slaying of Laban, or Lehi’s dream, or even the Nephite exodus from Israel to the Americas? (I mean, aside from “it’s all fictional”)

Please can you elaborate on that point?

[Limnor]

Has anyone ever wondered why Moroni never made mention of the slaying of Laban, or Lehi’s dream, or even the Nephite exodus from Israel to the Americas? (I mean, aside from “it’s all fictional”)

Please can you elaborate on that point?

In Ether 12, Moroni is looking for examples of faith, but he never says, “By faith Nephi obtained the brass plates,” “By faith Nephi followed the Liahona,” or “By faith Nephi held fast to the iron rod.” Those examples seem relevant to his argument, but he doesn’t use them. He never mentions Laban, Lehi’s dream, or even the exodus from Jerusalem. There are possible explanations, of course: limited space, or maybe he assumed readers already knew those stories so he didn’t need to mention them.

Another possibility is that the opening Nephi story was not part of what Moroni had available to him. Maybe the omission of early Nephite stories by Moroni is more than an argument from silence. Maybe it’s a clue about composition.

I’ve stated before that I think Joseph purposefully “lost” the 116 pages, and that after they were lost, Joseph reset the opening of the Book of Mormon, pointing towards his fulfillment as the coming “translator” and featuring himself as Nephi. Outside that perspective, references to figures like Zenock, Zenos, Neum, or places such as Mount Zerin are difficult to explain. The book seems to reflect that readers should already know who or what they are. If an earlier narrative once featured Zenock, reference to him would be easier to account for.

If Moroni (Rigdon, in my theory) had never seen the replacement 116 pages, he wouldn’t know how Nephi got the plates, or Lehi’s dream, or the iron rod. Instead, he only inserts commentary within the Jaredite record about the brother of Jared, Christ’s ministry, and other unexplained examples of faith.

[I Have Questions]

Please can you elaborate on that point?

In Ether 12, Moroni is looking for examples of faith, but he never says, “By faith Nephi obtained the brass plates,” “By faith Nephi followed the Liahona,” or “By faith Nephi held fast to the iron rod.” Those examples seem relevant to his argument, but he doesn’t use them. He never mentions Laban, Lehi’s dream, or even the exodus from Jerusalem. There are possible explanations, of course: limited space, or maybe he assumed readers already knew those stories so he didn’t need to mention them.

Another possibility is that the opening Nephi story was not part of what Moroni had available to him. Maybe the omission of early Nephite stories by Moroni is more than an argument from silence. Maybe it’s a clue about composition.

I’ve stated before that I think Joseph purposefully “lost” the 116 pages, and that after they were lost, Joseph reset the opening of the Book of Mormon, pointing towards his fulfillment as the coming “translator” and featuring himself as Nephi. Outside that perspective, references to figures like Zenock, Zenos, Neum, or places such as Mount Zerin are difficult to explain. The book seems to reflect that readers should already know who or what they are. If an earlier narrative once featured Zenock, reference to him would be easier to account for.

If Moroni (Rigdon, in my theory) had never seen the replacement 116 pages, he wouldn’t know how Nephi got the plates, or Lehi’s dream, or the iron rod. Instead, he only inserts commentary within the Jaredite record about the brother of Jared, Christ’s ministry, and other unexplained examples of faith.

According to the historical sequence of Joseph Smith's dictation of the Book of Mormon, he produced what is now the Book of Moroni before he dictated the First Book of Nephi. Although 1 Nephi appears first in the published Book of Mormon, it was dictated near the end of the translation process, after Moroni.

I think you have pointed out a significant smoking gun.

[Limnor]

I think there are a couple of possible explanations:

1. Joseph dictated Moroni before dictating the present Small Plates. Therefore, Moroni naturally lacks dependence on stories that had not yet been composed in their present form and the omissions reflect the order of dictation.

Or:

1. Reliance on the original large-plates. The Moroni material reflects an earlier story corresponding to the large plates (or the Book of Lehi tradition), not the later Small Plates replacement. So Moroni knows the broader founding history but not the distinctive stories—particularly those of lehi’s dream and the liahona, among other things—unique to the present Small Plates.

In my theory, this represents Rigdon (Moroni) editing what he thought was still based on the large plates, but Joseph had replaced what Rigdon provided with his own story—and especially the identification of Joseph as the “coming translator.”

[I Have Questions]

I think there are a couple of possible explanations:

1. Joseph dictated Moroni before dictating the present Small Plates. Therefore, Moroni naturally lacks dependence on stories that had not yet been composed in their present form and the omissions reflect the order of dictation.

Or:

1. Reliance on the original large-plates. The Moroni material reflects an earlier story corresponding to the large plates (or the Book of Lehi tradition), not the later Small Plates replacement. So Moroni knows the broader founding history but not the distinctive stories—particularly those of lehi’s dream and the liahona, among other things—unique to the present Small Plates.

In my theory, this represents Rigdon (Moroni) editing what he thought was still based on the large plates, but Joseph had replaced what Rigdon provided with his own story—and especially the identification of Joseph as the “coming translator.”

As I understand it, Moroni was supposedly the keeper of the record, and so in possession of the (small?) plates on which the story of Laban etc was inscribed. He had the examples at his fingertips but didn’t use them. This certainly adds significant credibility towards your theory.

[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?