A New(?) Idea About 2 Nephi 12-24/Isaiah 2-14

[tagriffy]

I am currently reading the Book of Mormon specifically to make a list of passages that speak to inspiration. I'm hoping to turn into a work that discusses the Book of Mormon's theory of inspiration. I'm also concurrently reading Earl M. Wunderli's An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us About Itself. Perhaps this combination sparked this idea, which I would like to throw out for discussion.

Something that has puzzled me for literally decades is why the Book of Mormon copied Isaiah 2-14. It never made that much sense to me, either from a historicist or a Smithian perspective. Yes, there are differences between the BoM version and the KJV, but most of the changes are minor and usually don't significantly affect the meaning. Even collectively, the changes don't amount to much. Nephi doesn't really comment on the passages, instead explaining his people don't understand Isaiah because he didn't teach them "after the manner of the Jews" (2 Ne. 25:6) and instead proceeds with his own prophecy. While his prophecy does pick up on certain threads, especially Isaiah 13-14, it's not enough to justify all the work he'd have had to do to engrave it.

Wunderli proposes Joseph made the changes between BoM and KJV to give the appearance of an independent translation of the passages, but that still wouldn't explain why we have this large chunk of Isaiah copied into 2 Nephi.

But an idea occurred to me when I realized 2 Nephi 29 needs a commentary all on its own: What if the point is the changes?

I don't know where to take it from here, though.

Comments?

Edited October 10, 2023 by tagriffy

[Pyreaux]

One of the best scientific pieces of evidence for the Book of Mormon is the linguistic evidence. Apart from the chiasmus, the changes to Isaiah also shows the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as it shows it came from a much older translation of Isaiah than the KJV Isaiah. He somehow restored the original poetic patterns lost in the KJV.

[Dario_M]

I just readed the Book of Mormon without making any list. Otherwise it will take me so much time.

I had finist the book in 1 month. 📘😇

[tagriffy]

5 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

One of the best scientific pieces of evidence for the Book of Mormon is the linguistic evidence. Apart from the chiasmus, the changes to Isaiah also shows the authenticity of the Book of Mormon, as it shows it came from a much older translation of Isaiah than the KJV Isaiah. He somehow restored the original poetic patterns lost in the KJV.

It doesn't really do that. About ten years ago, there was a protracted discussion on this board about what could or could not be shown about the variant readings of BoM Isaiah. Check it out.

Edited October 10, 2023 by tagriffy
clarification

[tagriffy]

4 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I just readed the Book of Mormon without making any list. Otherwise it will take me so much time.

I had finist the book in 1 month. 📘😇

I will typically read the Book of Mormon without making any lists. In this case, I had specific questions I wanted to answer. However much it slows my reading down, making a list of the relevant passages is the first step.

[Benjamin McGuire]

9 hours ago, tagriffy said:

But an idea occurred to me when I realized 2 Nephi 29 needs a commentary all on its own: What if the point is the changes?

I don't know where to take it from here, though.

You can find my take on it here. You will want to look at pages 68-71. And you can find some discussion of it here. In the second link, I make this observation:

Quote

We could extend this idea even further. If we follow what the text of the Book of Mormon seems to suggest, then the Isaiah passages that Nephi quotes come from an Egyptian text, which was translated from a Hebrew original. That Egyptian text is then translated into the language on the gold plates, which is then translated into English in the Book of Mormon into a nearly exact copy of the King James translation. Is this really likely?

The Book of Mormon text isn't likely to be a direct translation of the gold plates in these longer quotes. But to produce such a translation wouldn't be helpful to the Book of Mormon's readers either. The Book of Mormon frequently uses material from the King James text - but not always (consider, for example, the citation of Deuteronomy 17 in Jacob 2). The Book of Mormon's use of the King James translation is a way of connecting the modern reader to the text (especially the modern reader in 1830 - for whom there isn't another widely used or available translation of the Bible yet). The Book of Mormon text actually responds to the King James text rather than to some original version from the gold plates. The minor changes we see in the Isaiah material have little to do with the original Hebrew text of Isaiah (there isn't any notion of real corrections there - if there were, we would see certain changes that have been widely adopted in more recent translations correcting problems in the KJV translation).

On the other hand, 41% of all of the italicized words in the quoted Isaiah texts from the KJV translation are omitted from the Book of Mormon (in the earliest manuscript).  This isn't always helpful when looking at the meaning of the text. Consider the following passage from 2 Nephi 13:14 -

Book of Mormon original manuscript: for ye have eaten up the vineyard and the spoil of the poor in your houses

KJV: for ye have eaten up the vineyard, the spoil of the poor is in your houses

Royal Skousen, in his Analysis of Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon Vol 2, lists in his discussion of this verse a large number of passages where the italicized be verb is omitted. He notes this (p. 667):

Quote

In each of these examples, the original reading without the be verb will, of course, be retained in the critical text. Even though the result is strikingly ungrammatical for English, the fact that the omission is quite consistent implies that these cases in the original Book of Mormon text without the be verb are definitely intended despite their unacceptability for English speakers.

This verse (2 Nephi 13:14) is relatively unchanged in the current edition. But others have been adjusted to remove the illegibility - which also makes it less easy to see the differences put into the original translation. Consider another of Skousen's examples in 2 Nephi 16:5 -

Book of Mormon manuscript: Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone because I a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips for mine eyes have seen the King the Lord of Hosts.

KJV: Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts.

Book of Mormon today: Then said I: Wo is unto me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips; and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of Hosts.

Here, Skousen notes that the "is unto" is introduced in the 1837 edition.

I think that Wunderli is wrong in the details. In the second link I provide above, I discussed why I think that the Book of Mormon uses the King James language. It isn't to give the text a sense of being an independent translation. That is far more nuance than would be necessary at the time. Wunderli suggests (as reflected in your comments) that Joseph is presenting a 'new translation' in a time in which we are starting to see new translations. But, it is hard to see how the somewhat random loss of italicized words creating text that has lost meaning could be understood as an improved translation (especially given the number of instances that are later corrected). My take is somewhat different:

Quote

In other words, had Joseph Smith been the translator, and had he prepared a completely fluent translation, it would have seemed far more likely to his intended audience that it was an original work, and not ancient scripture. ... The point though is that it is also quite possible to see the Book of Mormon’s lack of fluent style as a deliberate part of creating the modern text of the Book of Mormon as a communicative act. In contrast to Carmack’s view, this approach suggests that the archaic language isn’t intended to convey a text written in Early Modern English, but rather, that it intended to incorporate what might be labeled “translationese”. Part of its impact is created when we understand the text as a translation of [an] ancient work, and so this becomes part of the rhetorical strategy of the text in translation. The fluency that Venuti values has been given up to an extent to keep the text from sounding too original, and to help its audience identify the text as scripture.

In other words, the changes that we observe are not all that important. For these omitted words, they aren't omitted because they don't exist in the Hebrew text - such an idea is meaningless when we discuss the contents of the Book of Mormon, which wasn't written in Hebrew. If the Book of Mormon were to be translated today, it seems to me that its translator today would simply use as the base text whatever translation they were most familiar with (which ever translation would help the first readers connect the text to the biblical text to which it is connected). By duplicating large chunks of the KJV nearly verbatim, the Book of Mormon frees us to substitute better translations should we choose to - and we can do so without losing anything. And, as I point out in that first linked article, Nephi himself provides us with a way to interpret the text of Isaiah by replacing its context:

Quote

In using Isaiah to interpret his own text, Nephi has given them an entirely different framework for understanding Isaiah — one based on the premise of likening the scriptures unto themselves. And this happens not in a rather simple way but in a radical repurposing of Isaiah’s text. What Nephi does in this narrative unit is to give us an example of reading, both by likening the scriptures unto himself and by invoking the spirit of prophecy.

To add to your sense of puzzlement, not only is Nephi's quoting all of this material a bit odd, Nephi is even apologetic about it:

Quote

When we arrive at his final beginning, it comes as no surprise that he first apologizes to us: “And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people” (2 Nephi 33:1). After all, more than two thirds of his text, following his statement about the ministry of his people, has been filled with the writings of Isaiah and Nephi’s interpretations and reading strategies for those writings. And despite having once again gone a bit off course, he tells us: “I, Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great worth.”

And this is, I think, a confirmation that we shouldn't have been expecting it given what he wrote earlier. I would argue that the point isn't the changes - it is about how we read scripture (and how Nephi reads scripture) and how this model of reading makes Isaiah more relevant to us than it could ever be in its original context three thousand years ago. And the reason for the absence of some of this other material is that Nephi has realized (and come to terms with) the fact that we won't be able to understand his writings in their original context either - that we (the modern audience) have to read Nephi in the same way that Nephi reads Isaiah. And because of this, a lot of what Nephi originally wanted to say - isn't as relevant anymore. So I write this:

Quote

In the end, Nephi’s writings go from being “the record which I make [that] is true” to “the words which I have written in weakness.” I find a related theme in Jacques Derrida’s discussion of Le Livre des Questiones by Edmond Jabès. Jabès writes: “Little by little the book will finish me.” Derrida replies:

Quote

This movement through which the book, articulated by the voice of the poet, is folded and bound to itself, the movement through which the book becomes a subject in itself and for itself, is not critical or speculative reflection, but is, first of all, poetry and history. For in its representation of itself, the subject is shattered and opened. Writing is itself written, but also ruined, made into an abyss, in its own representation.

Derrida’s words, written of another text seem to apply equally well here to Nephi. As Nephi writes about his writing, as Nephi explores in his text the meaning of his experiences — his visions and his reading, he shatters the subject of his writing. But Nephi also finds a way to save it, just as he found a way to save Isaiah. If God has a purpose for Nephi’s writings, then what is left — after we take away Nephi’s truth, after we strip out Nephi’s desire, after we remove Nephi’s intentions — what is left is that purpose of God. And while Nephi writes in weakness, in reading with the Spirit, the text is made new:

And I know that the Lord God will consecrate my prayers for the gain of my people. And the words which I have written in weakness will be made strong unto them. (2 Nephi 33:4)

Anyway, that's my two cents ...

Edited October 10, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[Dario_M]

4 hours ago, tagriffy said:

I will typically read the Book of Mormon without making any lists. In this case, I had specific questions I wanted to answer. However much it slows my reading down, making a list of the relevant passages is the first step.

Are you going to post the questions on here? Or are you keeping it a little private? 

[tagriffy]

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

You can find my take on it here. You will want to look at pages 68-71. And you can find some discussion of it here. In the second link, I make this observation:

Quote

We could extend this idea even further. If we follow what the text of the Book of Mormon seems to suggest, then the Isaiah passages that Nephi quotes come from an Egyptian text, which was translated from a Hebrew original. That Egyptian text is then translated into the language on the gold plates, which is then translated into English in the Book of Mormon into a nearly exact copy of the King James translation. Is this really likely?

Interestingly enough, your "Nephi: A Postmodernist Reading" has something of direct relevance to the project I was working on when I had the idea. I hope you don't mind if I use it.

 

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I think that Wunderli is wrong in the details. In the second link I provide above, I discussed why I think that the Book of Mormon uses the King James language. It isn't to give the text a sense of being an independent translation. That is far more nuance than would be necessary at the time. Wunderli suggests (as reflected in your comments) that Joseph is presenting a 'new translation' in a time in which we are starting to see new translations. But, it is hard to see how the somewhat random loss of italicized words creating text that has lost meaning could be understood as an improved translation (especially given the number of instances that are later corrected). My take is somewhat different:

Your "The Book of Mormon as a Communicative Act" actually confirmed basically what I was thinking of his chapter three, though I was using a slightly different angle. Proposing the changes were a way of giving a sense of an independent translation is the least of the problems I see with that particular chapter.

6 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

To add to your sense of puzzlement, not only is Nephi's quoting all of this material a bit odd, Nephi is even apologetic about it:

Quote

When we arrive at his final beginning, it comes as no surprise that he first apologizes to us: “And now I, Nephi, cannot write all the things which were taught among my people” (2 Nephi 33:1). After all, more than two thirds of his text, following his statement about the ministry of his people, has been filled with the writings of Isaiah and Nephi’s interpretations and reading strategies for those writings. And despite having once again gone a bit off course, he tells us: “I, Nephi, have written what I have written, and I esteem it as of great worth.”

And this is, I think, a confirmation that we shouldn't have been expecting it given what he wrote earlier. I would argue that the point isn't the changes - it is about how we read scripture (and how Nephi reads scripture) and how this model of reading makes Isaiah more relevant to us than it could ever be in its original context three thousand years ago. And the reason for the absence of some of this other material is that Nephi has realized (and come to terms with) the fact that we won't be able to understand his writings in their original context either - that we (the modern audience) have to read Nephi in the same way that Nephi reads Isaiah. And because of this, a lot of what Nephi originally wanted to say - isn't as relevant anymore. So I write this:

You are right that it adds to my sense of puzzlement. Most of the block quotations of the Bible make sense becuase usually the person reading is going to go on to comment/preach about the reading. If there were simply the sermon without the quote, we would be missing something vitally important. However, this doesn't seem to be the case with the quotation of Isaiah 2-14. One could eliminate 2 Nephi 12-22 (Isaiah 2-12) without a sense that anything is missing. The inclusion of Isaiah 13-14 makes sense because Nephi's subsequent prophecy picks up on it, even if does go an entirely different direction as you noted. But since Nephi says nothing about, e.g., Isaiah's call, it's difficult to see how he is reading it or how that reading would make it more relevant.

Then there are practical problems. Space on the plates was limited; Nephi could have given more information about the things he taught. Engraving plates is difficult. That's something I could already imagine without other Book of Mormon narrators complaining about it. But he's going to waste that space on time? Why?

Edited October 10, 2023 by tagriffy
clarification

[tagriffy]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

Are you going to post the questions on here? Or are you keeping it a little private? 

The question that sparked the idea of the OP was, What is the Book of Mormon's view on inspiration?

[Benjamin McGuire]

2 hours ago, tagriffy said:

That's something I could already imagine without other Book of Mormon narrators complaining about it. But he's going to waste that space on time? Why?

Perhaps at some point, Nephi may have believe that he could recontextualize all of Isaiah. And he doesn't succeed - he is left with half a project ... In any case, that he attempts to do so is rather amazing to me.

[Kenngo1969]

This may be off-topic.  If so, forgive me, and pardon the intrusion.  Anybody read Gileadi on Isaiah?  Worthwhile?  Meh?  If you do think it's worthwhile, where should one start?

[manol]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This may be off-topic.  If so, forgive me, and pardon the intrusion.  Anybody read Gileadi on Isaiah?  Worthwhile?  Meh?  If you do think it's worthwhile, where should one start?

I read "The Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah" many years ago and loved it.  I would characterize is as a more "meaning-for-meaning" translation, with the King James being arguably more of a "word for word" translation.   My opinion of the book may have been colored by my high regard for Avraham Gileadi, as I was one of his students nearly forty years ago.

On 10/10/2023 at 8:33 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Nephi has given [us] an entirely different framework for understanding Isaiah — one based on the premise of likening the scriptures unto [ourselves].  And this happens not in a rather simple way but in a radical repurposing of Isaiah’s text. What Nephi does in this narrative unit is to give us an example of reading, both by likening the scriptures unto himself and by invoking the spirit of prophecy...

I would argue that the point isn't the changes - it is about how we read scripture (and how Nephi reads scripture) and how this model of reading makes Isaiah more relevant to us than it could ever be in its original context three thousand years ago.  [emphasis manol's] 

 Yes!

Imo Nephi's approach of "likening the scriptures unto [ourselves]" is an extremely valuable approach to how we read scripture, and arguably opens the door to God communicating with us through his Spirit with the scriptures acting as catalyst.  Sort of like young Joseph Smith's engagement with James Chapter 1 verses 5 and 6. 

Edited October 12, 2023 by manol

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, manol said:

d "The Apocalyptic Book of Isaiah" many years ago and loved it.  I would characterize is as a more "meaning-for-meaning" translation, with the King James being arguably more of a "word for word" translation.   My opinion of the book may have been colored by my high regard for Avraham Gileadi, as I was one of his students nearly forty years ago.

His early work I understand is good. His more recent  stuff may be going more fringe. I can’t remember where I hear the caution from, if interested, let me know and I will try and track it down. I don’t want to share specifics unless I have something to base it on. 

[mfbukowski]

On 10/10/2023 at 6:33 AM, Benjamin McGuire said:

Anyway, that's my two cents ...

Oh, come ON! That's worth at least a nickel! 

 

[manol]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

His early work I understand is good. His more recent  stuff may be going more fringe.

You say that like it's a bad thing...

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, manol said:

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Yeah, what I heard was.  And you know I am very relaxed about speculation.  I will try and find it.

[Calm]

6 hours ago, manol said:

You say that like it's a bad thing...

My understanding is that the Isaiah Institute is his baby.  The way this video of theirs starts out may give a clue as to what is problematic.

https://youtu.be/VeW_TnASF_Q?si=oKzpgQ0CmjUF7MFd

Another concern is where he spends much of his time presenting and who produces his videos (I need to double-checked this, but a trustworthy friend who follows these movements informed me about that connection when I ask how long had Gileadi been presenting at Preparing a People conference; it shocked me given the usual quality of presenter) .  
 

As far as I know he hasn’t said what his own beliefs are in regards to the apostate teachings that are being spread around him, but he was a frequent presenter at Preparing A People (now called Hope for Heaven, Latter-day Media is the same company under a new name after the Daybell scandal) and since he is intelligent, he must be aware of how many there were using his teachings as a springboard to not only go looking for the Davidic Servant outside of the Church, but to proclaim themselves one (such as Julie Rowe and Chad Daybell, supposedly some others have hinted at it, but I can’t remember their names).  He has had years to disavow the more extreme beliefs that are using his works as justification for their claims and it hasn’t happened.  He was also a good friend of “Spencer” of Visions of Glory and apparently a fan of the book, which imo is nonsense, racist, elitist, possibly nationalistic (not the good kind), but I may be mixing it up with its knock offs, Rowe’s stuff.

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Calm

[manol]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My understanding is that the Isaiah Institute is his baby.  The way this video of theirs starts out may give a clue as to what is problematic...

 Yeesh.  I had no idea.  "Fringe Mormon" used to have a very different connotation to me, but that was twenty years ago. 

[tagriffy]

8 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

This may be off-topic.  If so, forgive me, and pardon the intrusion.  Anybody read Gileadi on Isaiah?  Worthwhile?  Meh?  If you do think it's worthwhile, where should one start?

Never had the chance. It's been on my list for some time, however.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Gileadi was big when I was young (like some of the other oldsters here). I would say this -

Anything that encourages us to engage scriptural texts in a way that is outside of our normal experience is a good thing. Part of the process of reading though isn't just to try and understand the text, it is to learn how to understand the way that we are reading the text. As I have mentioned in other places, when we read, we often build hierarchies of meaning - some meanings are more important to us than others.

Having said that, I have found Gileadi less and and less useful. The most recent work of his that I have is his 2012 edition of Isaiah Decoded. Once he started getting into encryption in the text and developing complex models of interpretation, it stopped having any relevance at all for me. He has become a proponent of finding hidden codes in the text, and in using technology to discover "subliminal content". For me, this is a problematic issue on so many levels.

There is in this sort of thing a claim that only with the special knowledge of the current interpreter, the real truth of the text can be revealed. There is an assertion that the text that we have is the most important text (that any earlier versions or iterations were not important - or not intended). Gileadi, under the description of literary interpretation, rejects most higher criticism of the text. And for Gileadi, the real message of the text is one that, of necessity, was simply not available to most readers over the course of its several thousand year history. In a very real way, Gileadi likens the text to his own experience but then does what I try to suggest is bad - he argues that his reading is exactly what Isaiah (and God) intended in the text all along.

So older Gileadi is ok. Newer Gileadi isn't helpful at all (in my opinion). I think that if you really want to sink your teeth into Isaiah, I would recommend starting with a volume that provides a historical context for the work - and not something that tries to translate it into Christian interpretation or apocalyptic prophecy.

Edited October 13, 2023 by Benjamin McGuire

[theplains]

3 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

I would recommend starting with a volume that provides a historical context for the work - and not something that tries to translate it into Christian interpretation or apocalyptic prophecy.

Former President Gordon B. Hinckley, in his October 2000 talk, borrows the prophecy about 
Judah and Jerusalem and re-interprets it to his circumstances.

As I contemplate this marvelous structure, adjacent to the temple, there comes to mind the 
great prophetic utterance of Isaiah:

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lord’s house shall be 
established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations 
shall flow unto it.

“And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to 
the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: 
for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. …

“O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the Lord” (Isa. 2:2–3, 5).

I believe that prophecy applies to the historic and wonderful Salt Lake Temple. But I believe 
also that it is related to this magnificent hall.

Isaiah 1:1 has similar verbage.  "The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning 
Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah."

Isaiah is not talking to Americans nor about the western United States.

[BlueDreams]

On 10/9/2023 at 10:09 PM, tagriffy said:

I am currently reading the Book of Mormon specifically to make a list of passages that speak to inspiration. I'm hoping to turn into a work that discusses the Book of Mormon's theory of inspiration. I'm also concurrently reading Earl M. Wunderli's An Imperfect Book: What the Book of Mormon Tells Us About Itself. Perhaps this combination sparked this idea, which I would like to throw out for discussion.

Something that has puzzled me for literally decades is why the Book of Mormon copied Isaiah 2-14. It never made that much sense to me, either from a historicist or a Smithian perspective. Yes, there are differences between the BoM version and the KJV, but most of the changes are minor and usually don't significantly affect the meaning. Even collectively, the changes don't amount to much. Nephi doesn't really comment on the passages, instead explaining his people don't understand Isaiah because he didn't teach them "after the manner of the Jews" (2 Ne. 25:6) and instead proceeds with his own prophecy. While his prophecy does pick up on certain threads, especially Isaiah 13-14, it's not enough to justify all the work he'd have had to do to engrave it.

Wunderli proposes Joseph made the changes between BoM and KJV to give the appearance of an independent translation of the passages, but that still wouldn't explain why we have this large chunk of Isaiah copied into 2 Nephi.

But an idea occurred to me when I realized 2 Nephi 29 needs a commentary all on its own: What if the point is the changes?

I don't know where to take it from here, though.

Comments?

Last year (or the year before...time isn't my strength) I decided to listen to the book of mormon to get an overarching view of the work. When I did that 2 Nephi really stuck out to me. FTR I usually take a historicist view, limited geography, and that there were existing populations already there. What struck me is that in aggregate it can be read as a guide/ordering for how they would engage as a people and with others around them. Nephi would have seen these as the passages most applicable to their new and completely foreign situation. The commentary from him intermixed was filling in/adding revelation to how this would apply. It was in a sense moving old world wisdom into new world application and linking the two to help maintain relevance in a situation that it would be easy to lose it. 

The cultures they came from would have intermingled and held similar assumptions about the world, gods, etymology, etc. They wouldn't have been the same but they would have been familiar. This new place would have had no similar culture to work within. It would have been a concern how to engage with this new world, new context, and new population with old scripture, old assumptions and unknown context to the newer generations. They wouldn't know their ancestral culture beyond what the old generations could give them and describe well enough to them. That means a LOT would have been lost in generational transmission. Much would have been basically irrelevant. So Nephi could have been giving them a means to maintain the most important aspects of their traditions as a guide to how to engage with a new context completely removed from their past. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[Dario_M]

How interesting. So what are you planning to do with TBOM right now then? 

[tagriffy]

7 hours ago, Dario_M said:

How interesting. So what are you planning to do with TBOM right now then? 

I have no idea yet. I thought I found the key in 2 Nephi 29, but it turns out I misread the passage. So I'm continuing the reading and making a list.

[Kenngo1969]

Is there only one "theory of inspiration" in the Book of Mormon?