© 2023 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
Given David Calabro’s excellent work showing that the Book of Moses is a post Christ version, it makes more sense that any correlations you may be seeing are because both the Book of Moses and the Book of Mormon utilized a brass plates version as opposed to a pre-brass plates version of the Book of Moses. Any thoughts?
Jerry Grover, you ask the authors of this essay for either one’s (or both of their) “thoughts” on YOUR thoughts.
Clearly, I’m neither of them but will still leave MY thoughts anyway: I STRONGLY disagree with your – and David Calabrio’s (IF he even said it, which I CAN’T find – ergo, reference[s]?) – statement “that the Book of Moses is a post Christ version.”
By implication, your well-meaning (but historically-driven [“post Christ,” etc.]) comment seems to apply to the Book of Mormon as well. And that theory takes us on an entirely different journey.
I’m not sure these authors – or even David Calabrio – are making any historical/”post Christ” claims for the Book of Moses and/or the Book of Mormon, at least not as I read them in this and other venues.
In fact, to use their paradigm here (e.g., p.1 [Abstract]) as a template, their personal perspectives on “post Christ” visi-a-vis pre-Christ history for both books may well be “the other way around.”
Dave’s paper and presentation from the Book of Moses should be out soon if it isn’t already, so you can read his arguments there for yourself. I don’t know what you are getting at on the Book of Mormon. Of course a good portion of the Book of Mormon was written post-Christ. Not sure if you are disputing that or not?
Yeah, my bad (kinda’) on the Book of Mormon ‘post Christ’ part; clearly, in the ORIGINAL (originally) the last 420-some years of the Book of Mormon’s history was ‘post Christ,’ right? But NOT SO for the first 600-some years – that was all PRODUCED ‘pre Christ’ (IMHO)!
My comment above still may apply to your post, as I’m not exactly sure of your position on the ‘pre Christ’ versus the ‘post Christ’ Book of Moses.
I was assuming – which is not always wise on one’s part – that you (and ‘Dave’) are proffering a ‘post Christ’ ORIGINAL production of the Book of Moses by Joseph Smith (et al.), through personal experience, intellect, vocabulary, and glyph-study, etc., versus a ‘pre Christ’ Moses-himself ORIGINAL.
A ‘post Christ’ ORIGINAL timeline (such as yours?) seems to be what Terryl Givens [and Brian Hauglid) are positing in “Terryl Givens with Brian M. Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2019), and which John Thompson is rebutting in John S. Thompson Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 41 (2020): 1-48 https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/we-may-not-understand-our-words-the-book-of-abraham-and-the-concept-of-translation-in-the-pearl-of-greatest-price/.
Again, I’m assuming you are taking the “historical route” of a 19th century Book of Moses ORIGINAL – hence your ‘post Christ’ comment – versus a “revealed/Seeric/’metaphysical translation’” by Joseph similar to the Book of Mormon’s original coming forth. I for one reject the “historical route” that Joseph Smith originally PRODUCED the Book of Mormon by himself (et al.) from whole cloth, out of thin air; no gold plates, no Moroni, no gift of seership/seerhood, etc. – nothing, just POOF – in 75 days! Joseph did not PRODUCE the Book of Mormon, he TRANSLATED it only (e.g,, Jared Hickman “’Bringing Forth’ the Book of Mormon [chapter 3], and Samuel M. Brown, “Seeing the Voice of God” [chapter 6] in a recent volume; see especially, Brown’s “Joseph Smith’s Translation, The Words and Worlds of Early Mormonism,” [New York: Oxford University Press, 2020], where Brown states that both he and Hickman “agree about the importance of metaphysics to translation. We disagree about the metaphysics.”).
I personally believe the Book of Moses was brought forth EXACTLY the same way, somehow, somewhere, and somewhen.
(Sorry for all the caps; the Interpreter’s Comment format doesn’t allow for italics and/or bolding).
[Editor’s note: per Dan’s request, references to “Morris” were changed to “Brown” to correctly reference Samuel Morris Brown.]
I do not challenge Book of Mormon historicity. In fact I have written many books showing that it is historical. They are all free for anyone to download at http://www.bmslr.org
Thanks for sharing. In my personal Book of Mormon study, I’m currently reading 2 Nephi 2. Your research suggests one specific source (perhaps among others) for Lehi’s reference to “the things which I have read” (2 Nephi 2:17) from which he came to understand so many things about Satan, the Fall, and the Atonement. Because of your paper, I’ve gained a greater understanding of such things myself as I’ve studied 2 Nephi 2 in light of Moses 4. Thanks again.
I should have mentioned that verse! Yes, you raise an important point. Lehi indicates that his knowledge of Satan is being expanded by what he has read, but the Old Testament gives us very little on that mysterious figure. But now that he has the brass plates to study, he seems to be gaining new (for him) knowledge on that topic. A subtle but important point. Thanks!
I believe I know, but (uncritically) I must ask: The terms/pronouns “his,” “he,” and “him” all clearly refer to Lehi, although the referent “that mysterious figure” is in fact NOT Lehi, but SATAN, correct?
I just noticed that Abraham is mentioned 28 times in the Book of Mormon and is quoted several times.
The Brass Plates also contained the writings of Joseph (see 2 Nephi 3), so these plates would have come through Joseph, who was the patriarch of the family of Israel after the passing of his father, Jacob. Surely Joseph would have had the writings of his great-grandfather Abraham, and surely those writings would also have been in the Brass Plates. Further research might establish a similar connection between the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.