John L. Sorenson

[Daniel Peterson]

I'm pleased to announce that the second biennial Book of Mormon Lecture, sponsored by Brigham Young University’s Laura F. Willes Center for Book of Mormon Studies, will be given by John L. Sorenson on Thursday, 8 September 2011, in the Assembly Hall of the Gordon B. Hinckley Center on the BYU campus. The lecture is free and begins at 7:00 pm.

John L. Sorenson is one of the most prolific contributors to Book of Mormon publications. The title of his lecture is “Mormon’s Sources.” Sorenson is an emeritus professor of Anthropology at Brigham Young University and was closely involved with the Foundation of Ancient Research and Mormon Studies for twenty-eight years, including five years as editor of the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. He has published more than two hundred books and articles, including Mormon’s Map and Images of Ancient America, both published by FARMS at BYU. But perhaps his most widely known book, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, set forth for the first time the criteria that cannot be ignored when searching for the geographic setting of the Book of Mormon.

[Robert F. Smith]

John L. Sorenson, “Mormon’s Sources,” paper presented as theSecond Biennial Willes Center Book of Mormon Lecture, Sept 8, 2011, at the BYUHinckley Center Assembly Hall.

R. F. Smith Notes:

After a humorous but accurate introduction by Anthropology Professor John E. Clark (the SRO crowd was delighted), Professor Sorenson began by noting that his "final" book is currently in pre-publication stage -- "Mormon's Codex' -- which is around 800 pages. He then went on to deliver a short version of his paper: The Maxwell Institute will publish the lecture with full documentation.

Mormon edited his summary or abridgment of the archival sources available to him during the four-year preparation for the final battle with the Lamanites, after which he buried those sources, and now had a portable set of plates for him and his son, Moroni.

-- Mormon did not simply “remember” traditions or employ folklore, and he may not have had time to read all of the archival material available to him – even in four years.

-- he depended primarily on the Plates of Nephi (Jacob 3:13 “larger plates”), a set of annals (yearly summaries) begun by Nephi, and kept and added to by subsequent record keepers. Information or records from the periphery of Nephite civilization may often have been lacking.

-- like Nephi before him, Mormon likely used temporary, perishable materials for initial drafts before inscribing the plates.

-- because of the compressed meaning of logograms (often used in hieratic Egyptian), the script used by the Nephites resulted in a lack of clarity, which an alphabetic script like Hebrew would not have been subject to. Citing John Gee, Sorenson noted that Egyptians often had a difficult time reading and understanding their own script. The title page of the BofM may reflect this as one human factor leading to some imperfections in the book – along with occasional slips of the stylus.

-- Mormon’s main aim was to insure that the descendants of Lehi (Lamanites) would know their history and descent, a tribal history. His compilation was intended as a moral history.

[cdowis]

As I remember, he was perhaps the first who wrote an extensive article on the "others". It certainly changed my view of the BOM.

[mapman]

Here are the somewhat coherent notes that I took:

Size of plates had to be severelyrestricted to be portable

Physical product had to be able tosurvive for centuries

Only reformed Egyptian was conciseenough

Mormon must severely limit hiseditorial plan

Work schedule was short (little morethan 3 years)

Might not have had had time to readthrough all his records or edit his record much

Depended largely on large plates, alarge collection

Final format is that of annals (yearlysummaries)

Annal entries usually succinct (avg.few verses per year)

Sometimes go into great detail withobscure scenes

Relied on memory, archives

We deserve to know about the humanfactors in the editing process

Primary source was large plates

Scriptures never use the phrase “largeplates”

Original plates crafted by Nephishortly after arrival in New World

Nephi drew account from papyrusaccounts made by Lehi & Nephi

Nephi originator of annals format andcommanded successive rulers to continue record

Plates eventually moved to religiousleaders

More plates of metal must have beenadded but the name “plates of Nephi” kept

Books within large plates collectioncalled Book of so and so

Books would include some of thedescendants until plates filled up and another book of plates added

Dominance of annals format indicateslarge plates in this manner

Writers always had problems of gettingtheir point conveyed:

Jaredite writing system was better

Script system was part of the problem

Mormon's writing would have the sameproblem

Some things they couldn't write at allbecause they were not using the Hebrew script

Based on Anthon transcript they werenot based directly on hieroglyphics but on hieratic

Lehi learned reformed Egyptian so hecould read the Brass Plates not for practical reasons

Hieratic more concise but moreambiguous

Meaning of each symbol had to bememorized and some had more than one meaning

This ambiguity led to “problem of ourplacing of words” spoken of by Mormon

Brass Plates were hard for Nephites tounderstand

Only the rich could learn the systembecause of leisure time

Grant Hardy: Mormon misunderstood earlyNephite history

Minor slips of hand could result inmisreadings

They had difficulty obtaininginformation far from capital

Depended on rumors from merchants, etc.

Captain Moroni only got informationfrom other part of war when Helaman sent letter

Other sources:

Unclear if physically separate platesor different sections on plates of Nephi

Benjamin's discourse to long to havebeen on plates of Nephi

Plates of Zeniff

Alma's first-person preaching

Alma and Amulek's experience

Ministry of sons of Mosiah

Alma's discourses to sons

Ether's history of the Jaredites

Sometimes there are oddly detaileddescriptions

Such as Lehonti in Alma 47

3 Nephi 19

Sometimes there are sweeping assertionsthat Mormon couldn't have known for sure

Assumed what Jacob (Lamanite leader)did

How reliable were original scribes?:

Often recorded from memory

Did they have reliable sources forevents far away?

Scribes were subjective in whatinformation to include

Typos inevitable

Capture of Nephihah is a discrepancy

Metal records ensured preservation

Metal plates not easy to manufacture sothey were limited in supply

Mormon had divine assistance

Mormon sometimes told not to includesomething but no indication that he was given extra information fromGod

Mormon appointed by previous scribeAmmaron

Mormon could only include a fraction

Audience Lamanites and modern people

Message was that if you don't keepcommandments you will perish in the land

This theme directed for him what tochoose to include

So he only told briefly about Nephite'shappy times like after Savior came

Different people interpret eventsdifferently

Mormon's coloring can be seen by “andthus we see”

Mormon's editing job was very complex

Where lengthy specific details enterMormon went looking for information on events he was interested in

Summary of sources:

He was forced to rely on officialarchives or the plates of Nephi

Plates of Nephi engraved by officialscribes in successive books

Most documents Mormon had were inreformed Egyptian

Basic format was annals

Source of information (personreporting) always unidentified

Some information came from lengthierrecords in the plates of Nephi

Some information from other records

Lamanites didn't keep many records

Some records on perishable materials

Mormon probably wrote his book first onperishable material before daring to put it on metal

Mormon had limited time

Mormon entered his own remarks aboutthings

No reason to suppose that he made uphistory

Some data has no sources that can beidentified

Had to study records, conceptualize hisvolume, decide what to include, go look for more information onimportant events to his story, compose, and then write it on metalplates

Impressive that he was able to do itwith all the stuff he had to do at the same time

Just as miraculous as Joseph'stranslation

Not primarily a history, but a storywith a message

All the people involved did their bestand have Sorenson's “profound thanks”

[Calm]

Thank you all.

[cdowis]

A few thoughts and observations:

Brass plates were written both in Egyptian and Hebrew. The Egyptian part of the Brass Plates were probably the record by Joseph and Moses.

Reformed Egyptian was not a language but a writing system. I see no evidence of Reformed Egyptian in the Brass Plates.

We find some differences between the Bible and the Brass Plates because the former is a record of Judah, the latter from Joseph. We do not have the record of Joseph because.... well, Nephi took it. So we are left only with Judah's record. Joseph's record gives us more detailed prophecies regarding Joseph and his descendents.

[volgadon]

Might not have had had time to read through all his records

Not too sure on that, I think we might be overlooking an oral, recitative element.

[cdowis]

Not too sure on that, I think we might be overlooking an oral, recitative element.

I have a hunch that the book of Mosiah is based in part on oral tradition, such as the escape of the people of Limhi. There are some oddities in the details of their escape. I asked the question several years ago, is it possible that the BOM contains some heroic mythology?

[Robert F. Smith]

Brass plates were written both in Egyptian and Hebrew.

I know of no indication that the Brass (Bronze) Plates were written in anything but ancient Egyptian.

Reformed Egyptian was not a language but a writing system. I see no evidence of Reformed Egyptian in the Brass Plates.

I don't know what you mean by doubting that there is "reformed Egyptian" in the Brass Plates. Are you suggesting hieroglyphic Egyptian therein? What language do you imagine was expressed by whatever Egyptian writing system you are suggesting? Are you aware that modern scholars now claim that professional Hebrew scribes knew and used Egyptian language and script on a regular basis in Classical Israel and Judah?

During his lecture, John Sorenson pointed out (citing John Gee) that the BOM description of "reformed Egyptian" indicates an abbreviated, even logographic form of Egyptian cursive which could be used to save space on the Plates. This is a well-known feature of some hieratic and demotic Egyptian writing. It is certainly conceivable that the Egyptian cursive used among the Nephite scribes underwent significant changes over the thousand years they spent in the New World. What is remarkable is that the current Book of Mormon translation expresses many Egyptianisms which cannot be paralleled by known Hebraisms -- suggesting that the BOM was composed in Egyptian language.

The Egyptian part of the Brass Plates were probably the record by Joseph and Moses. . . .

We find some differences between the Bible and the Brass Plates because the former is a record of Judah, the latter from Joseph. We do not have the record of Joseph because.... well, Nephi took it. So we are left only with Judah's record. Joseph's record gives us more detailed prophecies regarding Joseph and his descendents.

If Nephi took the sole and only copy, then why does the Bible still contain the record of Moses? I know of no reason to suppose that only one copy of such records existed, and scholars are well assured that our current Old Testament includes combined records of both Ephraim (Joseph) and Judah, in addition to work by the Holiness and Deuteronomistic Schools. Most such records were kept on papyrus and vellum, being recopied as needed.

[Danite3459]

I know of no indication that the Brass (Bronze) Plates were written in anything but ancient Egyptian.

I don't know what you mean by doubting that there is "reformed Egyptian" in the Brass Plates. Are you suggesting hieroglyphic Egyptian therein? What language do you imagine was expressed by whatever Egyptian writing system you are suggesting? Are you aware that modern scholars now claim that professional Hebrew scribes knew and used Egyptian language and script on a regular basis in Classical Israel and Judah?

During his lecture, John Sorenson pointed out (citing John Gee) that the BOM description of "reformed Egyptian" indicates an abbreviated, even logographic form of Egyptian cursive which could be used to save space on the Plates. This is a well-known feature of some hieratic and demotic Egyptian writing. It is certainly conceivable that the Egyptian cursive used among the Nephite scribes underwent significant changes over the thousand years they spent in the New World. What is remarkable is that the current Book of Mormon translation expresses many Egyptianisms which cannot be paralleled by known Hebraisms -- suggesting that the BOM was composed in Egyptian language.

If Nephi took the sole and only copy, then why does the Bible still contain the record of Moses? I know of no reason to suppose that only one copy of such records existed, and scholars are well assured that our current Old Testament includes combined records of both Ephraim (Joseph) and Judah, in addition to work by the Holiness and Deuteronomistic Schools. Most such records were kept on papyrus and vellum, being recopied as needed.

Nephi said the brass plates were needed to preserve the language of their fathers (1 Nephi 3:19)

Benjamin said that because he had been taught in the language of the Egyptians he could read what was on the brass plates (Mosiah 1:4)

[William Schryver]

Nephi said the brass plates were needed to preserve the language of their fathers (1 Nephi 3:19)

Benjamin said that because he had been taught in the language of the Egyptians he could read what was on the brass plates (Mosiah 1:4)

In several past threads on the FAIR and MAD boards, I argued extensively that the language on the plates of brass must have been Egyptian. In the period immediately preceding the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom, we know that many from Manasseh and others of the northern tribes relocated to Egypt, and that a significant Jewish presence persisted in Egypt from that time forward.

I have also previously argued that Lehi's and Laban's ancestors were very likely among these Jews who relocated to Egypt prior to the Assyrian conquest, and therefore when Nephi speaks of preserving the language of their fathers, he is speaking of Egyptian, not Hebrew. I do not believe there is persuasive evidence to support the proposition that the plates of brass were written in Hebrew, but using an Egyptian script. In my judgment, the entirety of the evidence tends to the conclusion that the plates of brass were written in conventional Egyptian, presumably utilizing a hieratic or demotic script. No doubt Lehi and his family were also fluent in Hebrew. It could very well have been Nephi's primary language. But when he speaks of the "language of my fathers" in 1 Nephi 3:19, he is speaking of Egyptian. Indeed, I think he explicitly states as much:

1 Nephi 1:2

... I make a record in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.

1 Nephi 3:19 [speaking of the plates of brass]

... it is wisdom in God that we should obtain these records, that we may preserve unto our children the language of our fathers;

If the language of his fathers had been Hebrew, it makes no sense, in my opinion, for him to value the plates of brass as a tool to preserve the knowledge of Hebrew, since we know the plates of brass were written in Egyptian. In order to preserve the language of his fathers unto his children, it would not be logical to use a Hebrew/Egyptian hybrid, as some people have proposed.

Benjamin, speaking of the plates of brass, also seems to confirm this conclusion:

Mosiah 1:3-4

3 ... My sons, I would that ye should remember that were it not for these plates, which contain these records and these commandments, we must have suffered in ignorance, even at this present time, not knowing the mysteries of God.

4 For it were not possible that our father, Lehi, could have remembered all these things, to have taught them to his children, except it were for the help of these plates; for he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they could teach them to their children ...

[mapman]

If I'm not mistaken, since Egyptian isn't an alphabet it isn't actually possible to write in Egyptian script but in the Hebrew language. If I understand correctly Egyptian scripts conveyed ideas not sounds.

[William Schryver]

If I'm not mistaken, since Egyptian isn't an alphabet it isn't actually possible to write in Egyptian script but in the Hebrew language. If I understand correctly Egyptian scripts conveyed ideas not sounds.

You're mistaken. Egyptian is very much a phonetic alphabet, although it does contain ideograms as well.

[mapman]

Well there is more than one kind of Egyptian script right? I think John Sorenson mentioned that reformed Egyptian would have been something like the heiratic script. When John Sorenson was talking about reformed Egyptians he was talking logograms (I think that was the word) and he made it sound like that each symbol would stand for an idea. Unfortunately I don't know very much about Egyptian at all, and I may have misunderstood what brother Sorenson was saying.

[William Schryver]

Well there is more than one kind of Egyptian script right? I think John Sorenson mentioned that reformed Egyptian would have been something like the heiratic script. When John Sorenson was talking about reformed Egyptians he was talking logograms (I think that was the word) and he made it sound like that each symbol would stand for an idea. Unfortunately I don't know very much about Egyptian at all, and I may have misunderstood what brother Sorenson was saying.

All three Egyptian scripts (hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic) are phonetic alphabets. I'm sure Sorenson would not have suggested that any of them are exclusively logographic in nature. They are not. They all contain logograms (ideograms), but hieroglyphic contains the most (several hundred, in fact). Nevertheless, all Egyptian scripts; all Egyptian words are primarily phonetic in nature. Even a word represented by a logogram can be written using the appropriate alphabetic characters.

Interestingly enough, it was once thought that Mayan script was exclusively logographic. It is not. It is also primarily phonetic--very similar to Egyptian in terms of its mixture of the phonetic with the logographic.

[Robert F. Smith]

All three Egyptian scripts (hieroglyphic, hieratic, and demotic) are phonetic alphabets. I'm sure Sorenson would not have suggested that any of them are exclusively logographic in nature. They are not. They all contain logograms (ideograms), but hieroglyphic contains the most (several hundred, in fact). Nevertheless, all Egyptian scripts; all Egyptian words are primarily phonetic in nature. Even a word represented by a logogram can be written using the appropriate alphabetic characters.

Sorenson was making the point, well known to Egyptologists, that one could write with Egyptian logograms or determinatives (without phonetic signs) in order to save space on the plates. So you are quite correct.

Interestingly enough, it was once thought that Mayan script was exclusively logographic. It is not. It is also primarily phonetic--very similar to Egyptian in terms of its mixture of the phonetic with the logographic.

Which is why it took an Egyptologist (a Russian, Yuri Knorozov) to decipher Mayan.

[cursor]

Note that a YouTube video of this lecture is available here:

.

A transcript of the lecture can be found here: Mormon's Sources.