More seriously, feel quite free to go in whatever direction you would like. I’m personally more excited about the paper topic you two were talking about earlier, but I do think this post would make a good paper. :)

Which raises the following question: why does this book (texts in general) result in the reversal?

“Why does God say “touch” not the things that are sealed? I think H/G’s point that these verses are unique because it is actually God’s voice. So why the emphasis on the materiality of the sealed portion rather than the content?”

I’m wondering if we can see a parallel between the emphasis on the materiality of the sealed portion and the emphasis on textuality in Isaiah 29, i.e., Isa. 29 contrasts two forms of seeking revelation: mystical and textual. Those who follow the “familiar spirit” route and those who follow the textual route.

Perhaps the materiality implied in “touch” says something similar about the nature of the sealed text? In other words, an acknowledgment that God gives literally physical texts? That revelation without some sort of physical touchstone is open to misappropriation? (And, of course, this would then tie into revelation as well as ordinances in the temple—we have the temple in part to press upon us a physical consciousness of God?)

Kim – For us, reading the Book of Mormon as the work of Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni–distinguishing the characteristic styles, strategies, and concerns of the three major narrators–was a major breakthrough in helping us to better understand the text. You’re asking exactly the right sorts of questions (even though we’re not sure we have all the answers yet).

Julie – It does seem like Nephi is doing something special in these chapters. Perhaps 1 Ne. 22 is similar in how it reworks key terms and phrases from Isaiah into a new prophecy, but 2 Ne. 26-27 offer a particularly focused interpretation and expansion of of a single chapter of Isaiah. We wonder if this isn’t something that is fairly unique to Nephi’s life-circumstances. Nephi knows and loves the scriptures, but there is no indication that his children feel the same way. Indeed, Nephi explicitly says that “they know not the manner of prophesying among the Jews” and that he deliberately chose not to teach them “concerning the manner of the Jews” (2 Ne. 25:1-2). He is keenly aware that an entire tradition of Jewish exegesis will die with him. (He tries to get Jacob involved [2 Ne. 6:4] and sees some success at 2 Ne. 6-10, but we have to wonder whether Nephi helped Jacob with that talk; after Nephi is gone, Jacob never produces anything like it in his own book). Abinadi and Jesus do some creative readings of Isaiah 52-54, but this mode of midrashic interpretation is quite rare in the Book of Mormon. Mormon never does anything like it and neither does Moroni.

Joe – It does seem like Mormon’s project changes when he discovers the small plates. He had originally envisioned a straight-through abridgment of the large plates. When he decided to add the small plates as an appendix, his history would have both started and ended with an account of the first generations of the Lehites. It would have been wonderful to get two versions of the origin story–one in a primary source and the other secondary, but Martin Harris ruined that the book-ends format that Mormon came to adopt.

A few more random responses to questions Joe raised:

1) Regarding the distinction between the words and the book, it’s interesting that Moroni (again) addresses the topic directly, referring to an otherwise unspecified “commandment of the Lord”–”the plates thereof are of no worth, because of a commandment of the Lord (for he truly saith that no one shall have them to get gain), but the record thereof is of great worth…” (Morm. 8:14). Book of Mormon authors regularly distinguish “the records” from “the plates,” with the former being “engraven” on the latter, even though we might assume that you can’t really have one without the other.

2) The centrality of readers’ faith with respect to the Lord’s making particular revelations available in text form is similarly substantiated in his conversation with Mormon reported in 3 Ne. 26:6-12, summarized in vs. 11: “I will try the faith of my people.”

3) We’re intrigued by your formulation of “Nephi’s Theory of Reading,” as embracing the words without requiring the book itself. Is it possible that the distinction also encompasses the notion that the Lord repeatedly refers to the words as his own, that is, the words of the book shall proceed forth out of his own mouth (2 Ne. 3:21; 29:2; cf. 27:20–”the words which I shall give unto thee”)?

You comment as well that “for Nephi, faithful reading is not something we undertake in a quest for knowledge but a quest for revelation” is appealing–but we’re still thinking about it! Oddly enough, when the Spirit asks Nephi what he desires after seeing the tree his father had described from his dream, Nephi defies our expectations. We might assume that he would say “I want to taste of the fruit; I want to be happy.” This, after all, was fruit that would bring “exceeding great joy” (1 Ne. 8:12). Instead, Nephi’s request is, “to know the interpretation thereof” (1 Ne. 11:9-11). His own quest for knowledge results in a Pandora’s-box of lifelong grief (1 Ne. 15:4-5; 2 Ne. 26:7).

4) You ask if Joseph Smith was told the words of 27:20-26 in some instance separate from his translation/reading of the text. JS-H 1:19 indicates that Jesus Christ himself quoted at least a phrase of Isa. 29 to Joseph in the First Vision. And it seems possible that Moroni may have quoted some of the first statement in his Sep 21, 1823 visit, though this account is rendered in paraphrase (JS-H 1:34-35). When Joseph was translating, did he recognize the “unlearned man” as himself? Did he remember the words the Lord had spoken to him several years earlier in the sacred grove: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; they teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (followed by a quotation from 2 Tim. 3:5). Or did Joseph borrow familiar words from Isaiah to communicate his experience when he was recalling in in 1838. [One more odd note--the paraphrase of Isa 29:13 at JS-H 1:19 substitutes "they teach for doctrines the commandments of men" for Isaiah's "their fear towards me is taught by the precepts of men." This new variant appears to match the reading of the Septuagint (in a footnote to the NIV): "Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men" (Masoretic Text) vs. "They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men" (LXX)]