NOTE: If you are looking for the Cultural History of the Book of Mormon, go here
Description
Finally, the Book of Mormon is uncorrelated, and the results are surprisingly fruitful.
Ever wonder how Mormon and Moroni put the book together? Can such a thing be recovered from a translated text?
The record translated and published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon was composed in some sequence, right? In an original approach relying on textual analysis, this book re-arranges, according to their sequence of composition, the familiar books from that unique record. In so arranging, it gives us a new way to read the Book of Mormon, recovering the order of writings composed by Mormon and other authors. Vivid prophets, despairing war chiefs, wandering clans; behind them all, discover the author as he composes amid the calamitous, crashing fall of a civilization.
The sequence of composition, moreover, reveals surprises within the text itself. The biography of Mormon composed over three decades shapes the historical narrative; an original introduction to the earliest (and lost) abridgment is recovered from what is now called 3 Nephi; and a groundbreaking revision of the received tradition regarding the Small and Large Plates of Nephi is brought forward. And happily, the text has been freed from the constraints of column and verse, and oriented to the epic and historic genres more appropriate for its wingspan and tragic grandeur, for appreciating the complexity of its composition.
Additional essays by the editor introduce evidence for the proposed order of composition by Mormon, Moroni, and others. Material is presented that 1 Nephi was added in June 1829, and compiled from additional plates recovered from Cumorah. Other essays give new insights into the role of lineage in the transmission of records, speculate on an alternate history of the “lost leaves” of 1828, and introduce a theory of translation essential for scholarly study of the Book of Mormon.
these mystry woods 
Hi. Could you give an overview of the theory of translation you propose? Thanks.
Could you share which version of the Book of Mormon text did you use for your formatting? 1830, 1842, 1981, 2010 Skousen, others, or some unique combination of the them?
1981, primarily, though changes from other editions are introduced, and indicated in the text.
I was enjoying reading when a couple massive octopi overwhelmed the words. My suggestion: Get rid of the back art. make it easy to read. Black letters on white backdrop. easy system.
sorry, I can’t control the octopus, and making it easy is often what I attempt, with generally the opposite result.