A Linguistic Approach to the Authorship of the Book of Mormon
Abstract
Mormonism is founded on the Book of Mormon. The architect of the Mormon faith, Joseph Smith Jr., claimed that the Book of Mormon is a divinely inspired text written in “Reformed Egyptian” by ancient prophets, which he translated into English. Disputes among Smith’s contemporaries concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon began with its 1830 printing, and this issue has extended into modern academia. Some have argued that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text but rather that Smith authored it. Both detractors and promoters of Smith’s role as translator have used linguistic methods to analyze this text. Promoters including Parry and Tvedtnes claim to have discovered linguistic features such as chiasmus, and similarities to Egyptian and Hebrew that Smith was unlikely to have known about. Detractors including Persuitte and Jockers et al argue that the promoters’ evidence is based on conjectural hypothesis and Mormon oral tradition, and that anachronisms in the text indicate a 19th century origin.
Following a review of both sides of the literature, this study shows how modern linguistic evidence has been used in the dispute over the Book of Mormon’s authorship. Taking the skeptic’s position that it is a 19th century production, linguistic anthropological theory is applied to show how the text answered metalinguistic expectations of Smith’s contemporaries. W. F. Hanks’ framework provides an innovative approach to the authorship question. This study found substantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century text. Further research using a comparative approach to other early-19th century American religious texts could provide additional insight into the Book of Mormon’s authorship.
Key words: Book of Mormon, chiasmus, anachronisms, authorship, metalanguage, Joseph Smith, “Reformed Egyptian”
Introduction
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (the Mormon Church) holds that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century translation performed by its founder and first prophet Joseph Smith Jr. of an authentic collection of writings of the ancient inhabitants of the American continent (Persuitte, 2). According to the Mormon Church, the Book of Mormon was originally inscribed on golden plates in a language that Joseph Smith identified as “Reformed Egyptian” (Gallacher, 23). Smith received the golden plates in 1827 from the angel Moroni and was instructed to translate them into English and then return the plates to the angel (Book of Mormon, The Testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Preface, xvii). The Book of Mormon claims that it is an “ORIGINAL TRANSLATION FROM THE PLATES INTO ENGLISH BY JOSEPH SMITH JUN” (Book of Mormon, first introductory page). The text was first published in 1830. For Mormons it is heavenly-inspired scripture and an accurate historical record (Book of Mormon, Introduction), written in a personal style by a divinely guided prophet (Book of Mormon, A Brief Explanation about the Book of Mormon, xix). The Book of Mormon is also the theological foundation of the Mormon Church (Toscano, 14), the very core of Mormonism (Holmes 1992:91). Persuitte (1985), who has written extensively on this text, explains, “The key to Mormonism is The Book of Mormon” (Persuitte, vii). Joseph Smith himself stated “The Book of Mormon is the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book” (Book of Mormon, Introduction). Smith’s critics, however, characterized the Book of Mormon as a “grotesque monstrosity” and “a menace to the world” (Pierce, 694), signaling a critical attitude towards the authorship and the origins of the Book of Mormon which began with its publication (Bullough, Foreword to Persuitte, 1985). Critics argued that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient text, that there is no proof that Joseph Smith translated it (Persuitte, 18), and also that the text may have been plagiarized from various works that were available in Joseph Smith’s time (Persuitte, 2; Rees, 84).
Linguistics is a discipline that provides tools in the attempt to clarify the origins of controversial texts such as the Book of Mormon. Both detractors and promoters of the Book of Mormon have used linguistic methods to analyze this text. Promoters claim to have discovered linguistic features such as chiasmus, and similarities to Egyptian and Hebrew that Smith was unlikely to have known about. Detractors argue that the promoters’ evidence is based on conjectural hypothesis and Mormon oral tradition, and that anachronisms in the text indicate a 19th century origin consistent with Joseph Smith's life experience (Persuitte, 104-114), thus the text is not an ancient work. Following a review of both sides of the literature, this study shows how modern linguistic evidence has been used in the dispute over the Book of Mormon’s authorship. This paper argues that Joseph Smith (possibly helped by some of his collaborators) authored the Book of Mormon on the basis of the Bible. Taking the skeptic’s position that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century production, linguistic anthropological theory deriving from W.F. Hanks’s work is applied to show how the text answered metalinguistic expectations of Smith’s contemporaries. The idea that the Book of Mormon answered the metalinguistic demands of Smith’s contemporaries is considerered an argument that the text has 19th century origins.
Hanks’ framework constitutes an innovative approach to the authorship question and provides substantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century text. His Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross (2010) discusses historical, linguistic and anthropological aspects in the emergence of colonial Mayan language after the Spanish conquest. In studying the history of the Yucatec Maya language Hanks’s framework integrates metalanguage, social organization, linguistic form (speech genres and phonology) and conscious experience (Bauman in Hanks, 2010). The present paper will focus especially on one component of Hanks’s framework-metalanguage. Metalanguage is essentially language ideology; it is “cultural beliefs or attributes about language or about forms of language that words take or should take”(S. Chrisomalis, personal communication). Hanks’s framework is a composite approach to the world of the Yucatec Maya that exceeds traditional linguistic, historical and philological perspectives (Bauman in Hanks, 2010). Hanks studied the mechanisms behind the adoption of colonial Maya by native writers, the ways in which colonial Maya became the language of indigenous literature and the language of missionization and religious conversion. He discusses the ways in which the Spanish conquest was enhanced by using the metalinguistic expectations of the Yucatec Maya in the process of their conversion to Catholicism. Hanks shows how the Spaniards exploited the forms of discourse that were appealing to the conquered Mayan population. I argue that similarly to the Spaniards, Joseph Smith was able to answer the metalinguistics demands of his time related with “the word of God” and be successful in converting some of his contemporaries to Mormonism. Since “Joseph Smith was the chief architect of the Mormon religious structure” (Persuitte, 21) and was indivisibly involved with the publishing of the Book of Mormon, a brief examination of the historical Smith is absolutely necessary.
Joseph Smith
Joseph Smith’s controversial character is suggested by the astonishing amount of religious and nonreligious literature that has been published about him during the past century and a half. Some of these writings argue that Smith was an honest man who had upon him the Spirit of the Lord (Givens, 4:2009; Christensen, 6; Pierce, 681). Others however believed that “Satan possessed him and he was no better than an impostor” (Persuitte, 2). Newspapers such as The Palmyra Reflector in the 1830s claimed “the elder Smith declared that his son Jo[seph Smith] had been the spirit [that authored the text] …It will be borne in mind that no divine interposition had been dreamed of that period” (Persuitte, 56-57).
Although the literature about Joseph Smith contains many contradictory opinions there are, however, some certitudes: “one cannot separate Joseph Smith from the Book of Mormon” (Whittaker, 102). The idea that Smith was a personality seems also to have been the case. A 1830s newspaper labeled Smith “undoubtedly one of the greatest characters of the age” (Persuitte, 1). The difficulty in understanding Smith’s role in the composition of the Book of Mormon is accentuated when considering Smith’s complex personality. The controversy related with Joseph Smith’s person has extended upon the Book of Mormon also. Some have argued that the Book of Mormon began as a profane (non-religious) book and that Joseph Smith was no prophet. It was later, after Joseph Smith conceived himself as a revelator and a “prophet,” that he “converted” the Book of Mormon into a “revealed” text (Persuitte, 33). Therefore when considering the authors that have argued for the Book of Mormon’s human origins (Shook, Persuitte, Green, Barlow, Matthew, Adams, Olum, Christensen, Gallancher, Hilton) we must acknowledge the possibility that Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon rather than its divinely inspired “translator.” The controversy concerning Smith and the Book of Mormon has become for the Mormon Church and for scholars a historic debate (Palmer, vii-viii). It is in the interest of the present paper to provide a concise summary of this debate.
Historical Summary of the Debate over the Authorship of the Book of Mormon
Joseph Smith has always claimed that he was the “translator” and not the author of the Book of Mormon (Persuitte, 95). Among the first “witnesses” of the text’s authenticity were Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris (Persuitte, 95). Cowdery and Harris would become essential to the development of the Mormon Church, holding high priesthood functions (Book of Mormon- The Testimony of Three Witnesses). The presence of “witnesses…named prominently” in religious text (Hanks, 100) is an important aspect (see also “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses” -Book of Mormon). Hanks explains that in the case of texts which claim authority (like the Book of Mormon) the witnesses provide a “check on its [the text’s] accuracy and truth” and are a “part of the legitimating apparatus of the document” (Hanks, 100-101). The Book of Mormon’s “witnesses” are not the only ones that defended the authenticity and the legitimacy of the text. Early 19th century Mormon newspapers such as The Deseret News (Salt Lake City-Utah) defended the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and Smith’s claims. After Smith’s death in1844, influential Mormon leaders including Brigham Young, Sidney Rigdon and Orson Pratt defended both the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and Smith’s role as translator, claiming that the text was antique (see D. W. Evans, Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered in the New Tabernacle, Oct. 8th, 1868. The Deseret News Weekly p. 290-291).
The first to claim significant evidence concerning the antiquity of the Book of Mormon were Mormon scholars such as Adams (1844) and Pratt (1850). Other Mormon scholars continued this tradition. Among the arguments promoted by these scholars for the authenticity of the text were the Book of Mormon’s internal complexity (supposedly indicating multiple authors) and the fact that the various books within the text differ from each other in historical background, characteristics and style, while still being accurate and consistent in “minute details” (Anderson and Wirth: 2001).
Outside Mormonism, there is not much support for Smith’s role as a “translator” of the text and for its authenticity. Smith’s detractors are numerous going as far back as the 1830s. Abner Cole, aka Obadiah Dogberry (Hamlin, 261-262), is one of Smith’s earliest adversaries. Cole (the editor of The Reflector, a “free thought” newspaper that circulated between 1829 and 1831) thought himself to be an “opponent of intolerance, hypocrisy and fanaticism” outraged by the uncontrolled intensity of religious emotionalism resulting from the Second Great Awakening (Barnes: 1974), a Christian religious revival movement that led to the appearance of new Christian denominations in the United States (Gordon, 19). Cole’s virulent reaction against Joseph Smith was expressed as follows: “Every imposter since the creation has owed his success to the ignorance of the people, and the propensity inherent in their natures, to follow everything absurd or ridiculous. It is well known that Jo Smith never pretended to have any communion with angels, until a long period after the pretended finding of his book” (Palmyra, New York, “Gold Bible, No. 5”. The Reflector Volume II. [Palmyra, February 28, 1831.] Series I. -- No. 14.). Cole accused Smith of deception, indolence, and lack of morals—recurrent themes in later non-Mormon writings.
The interest in the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith continued with other publications throughout the 19th century. Journals of the time described him in unflattering terms, claiming that the Book of Mormon was a deception. For instance during the 1830s, in an atmosphere of ridicule and public astonishment The Wayne Sentinel (Palmyra, New York), published excerpts from the Book of Mormon with the preface: “The Book of Mormon, an account written by the hand of Mormon, upon plates, taken from the plates of Nephi by Joseph Smith Jr. Author and Proprietor, the above production, containing about 600 pages, is now for sale” (The Wayne Sentinel Vol. VII. -- No. 29. Palmyra, N. Y., Friday, March 26, 1830.) Persuitte emphasizes that the words “Joseph Smith, Jr. the Author and Proprietor” in the 1830s edition of the Book of Mormon were “amended” to read “Joseph Smith, Jr. the translator” in subsequent editions of the text (Persuitte, 95). However others have claimed that this is debatable, since this language came from the federal copyright statutes and legal forms in use in 1829 (Anderson and Wirth 2011).
The Fredonia Censor (Fredonia, New York) explicitly accused Smith of lack of morals and fraudulent behavior: “The Book of Mormon has been placed in our hands. A viler imposition was never practised [sic]. It is an evidence of fraud, blasphemy and credulity, shocking to the Christian and moralist. The ‘author and proprietor’ is one ‘Joseph Smith, Jr.’—a fellow who, by some hocus pocus, acquired such an influence over a farmer of Wayne county, that the latter mortgaged his farm for $3,000, which he paid for printing and binding 5000 copies of this blasphemous work” (Vol. X. Fredonia, N. Y., June 2, 1830. No.10). The New-Hamphsire Sentinel (Keenee, New Hamphsire) qualified the Book of Mormon as plagiarism and false:
We have hitherto given some accounts of this IMPOSITION…. The principal personage in this farce, is a certain Jo. Smith, an ignorant and nearly unlettered young man, living at or near the village of Palmyra; the second, an itinerant pamphlet pedlar [sic], and occasionally a journeyman printer, named Oliver Cowdry; the third, Martin Harris, a respectable farmer, at Palmyra… In due time, a divine command came to Harris, through Jo, to devote his property, and all that was his, to the project. Harris’ farm was mortgaged, and the printing of the Bible executed. It is a book of over [500] pages, and is entitled “Book of Mormon.” Of the book, it is only necessary to say that it is a ridiculous imitation of the manner of the Holy Scriptures; and in many instances, a plagiarism upon their language. (New-Hampshire Sentinel-Vol. XXXIV. Keene, N. H., Thurs., November 8, 1832. No. 45.
Earlier newspapers such as the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (Utica, New York-1831) went even further in its accusations against Smith, describing him as a “miserable impostor” (The Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate, February, 5, 1831). Accusations against Joseph Smith appeared in newspapers even after his death in 1844: “Mr. Hyde lectured…exclusively to an exposition of the impostures, inconsistencies and contradictions—flagrant and absurd in the extreme—of the book of Mormon (The Mountain Democrat, Vol. IV. Placerville, March 7, 1857.No. 49; Pierce, 694). While early 1830s newspapers published extensively on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, it was Eber D. Howe’s 1833 book “Mormonism Unveiled” that set the precedent for many future anti-Mormon works (Persuitte, 35). Jesse (1979) argues that almost any significant non-Mormon study of Joseph Smith from 1834 to the present has used Howe’s framework to approach Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Howe’s book included several statements about Smith’s moral character based on testimonies collected from residents of the Palmyra area: “We, the undersigned, have been acquainted with the Smith family, for a number of years…and have no hesitation in saying, that we consider them destitute of that moral character, which ought to entitle them to the confidence of any community…Joseph Smith, Senior, and his son Joseph, were in particular, considered entirely destitute of moral character, and addicted to vicious habits” (Howe, 261). Besides Howe’s book other later works question the authorship and origins of this text. The dispute continues in the 20th century with books such as Tanner & Tanner 1980’s The Changing World of Mormonism.
Currently there are two main non-Mormon theories on the authorship of the Book of Mormon. The first is summarized in W. L. Cowdrey, H. A. Davis and A. Vanick’s 2005 work, Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon?: The Spalding Enigma, which attributes the Book of Mormon to Solomon Spalding, a well educated 19th century Christian minister from Connecticut. Spalding wrote a fictional work that tells the story of the settlement in the New World of Jews who were the “Lost Tribes of Israel,” a theory that was popular in the 1800s. After Spalding’s death in 1816 the manuscript disappeared. Cowdrey et al claim that Joseph Smith was able to obtain Spalding’s book by unknown means, and that he plagiarized the text of A Manuscript Found into what became the Book of Mormon. Newspapers of the 1830s support this idea (Pierce, 682). For instance the Chardon Spectator and Geauga Gazette (Painesville, Ohio) states: “The story of the Book of Mormon was taken from a manuscript romance, written by one Spalding…who died before publication” (Chardon Spectator and Geauga Gazette-Mormon Trial- N. S. Vol. III. No. 38. Chardon, Geauga Co., Ohio, Sat., April 12, 1834.Whole 385).
Cowdrey et al explain that in 1826 Smith had been arrested and convicted of con-artistry and that he had told his contemporaries three very different stories about the Book of Mormon’s origins (Persuitte, 42-55). The authors argue also that the person who brought A Manuscript Found to Smith’s attention was Sidney Rigdon, who had previously known Spalding. Rigdon became one of the most important figures in early Mormonism and was himself suspected to be the true author of the Book of Mormon: “Rigdon the preacher knew well how to work upon the credulity of a people already excited to religious enthusiasm…This ex-parson is no doubt the author of the book” (Bennett: 1831). In addition a different newspaper stated, “Although Joseph Smith signs himself author and proprietor of the work, a man who a few years since lived in this city, and was known to many of our citizens under the appellation of Elder Rigdon, is suspected of being the author” (Philadelphia-Pennsylvania, The Philadelphia Album, Vol. VIII. Philadelphia, Saturday, February 1, 1831.No. 5).
The second theory concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon belongs to D. Persuitte (1939). Persuitte introduces the idea of multiple authorship of the Book of Mormon (Persuitte, 19). He argues that it is very possible that Smith had collaborators while writing the Book of Mormon. However, Persuitte states that if Smith had “some collaborators”, then those collaborators were used by Smith as “scribes,” Joseph being the one that due to his “story-telling ability…dictated the book” (Persuitte, 19). The use of “scribes” and collaborators in these types of enterprises would be neither unusual nor unprecedented since Hanks (2010) mentions that in the production of “legitimate [forms of] discourse,” the Yucatec Maya used persons other than the authors themselves (Hanks, 100). Persuitte underlines that in spite of the clues that Smith might have had collaborators in the process of creating the Book of Mormon, proving beyond any doubt that such collaboration existed is impossible (Persuitte, 19). Nevertheless, Persuitte argues that it is not ultimately essential wheter Smith had collaborators or not, because the evidence that the Book of Mormon derived from “early certain nineteenth century sources” is “valid regardless of whether Joseph Smith had any collaborators” or not (Persuitte, 19-20). Persuitte argues that the Book of Mormon is an early 19th-century production and that it is very similar to Ethan Smith’s 1823 “View of the Hebrews: or The Tribes of Israel in America” (Persuitte, 7). In addition, Persuitte claims that Ethan Smith’s work “appears to have been the most important source of material for Joseph Smith’s Gold Bible” and that although there is no direct evidence that Oliver Cowdery authored the Book of Mormon, this possibility should not be eliminated, especially since the “literate” Cowdery was Ethan Smith’s parishioner and lived in the same city in which the View of the Hebrews was published (Persuitte, 7). In arguing his theory Persuitte engages in an extensive linguistic comparative study between the View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon (Persuitte, 138-207).
Authorship of the Book of Mormon before Modern Linguistics
Persuitte’s linguistic enterprise in relationship with the Book of Mormon is not new. For over a century scholars have used linguistic evidence to provide further answers concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon, either refuting or supporting Joseph Smith’s theory and the official position of the Mormon Church. Not surprisingly, Mormon scholars for the most part used the tools provided by linguistics to support Smith’s claims, stating that he was the “translator” of the Book of Mormon and that this is an ancient text (Persuitte, 2).
The first attempts related to a linguistic understanding of the Book of Mormon go back to Joseph Smith’s time, even before Linguistics existed as a unique discipline. Unaware of linguistic features within the Book of Mormon, some of Smith’s contemporaries were nevertheless preoccupied with what they sensed to be problems of language as related to the Book of Mormon’s text. Several 19th century American newspapers expressed their opinions regarding the language of the Book of Mormon. For instance the 1833 Jamestown Journal article “The Mormonites,” published three years after the release of the Book of Mormon, states: “This singular sect… now number about four or five hundred…Their Prophet, Smith, is now busy in restoring the present Bible to its primitive purity, and in adding some lost books of great importance… As a curiosity, we have carefully examined the Golden Bible…Every page bears the impress of its human authorship. -- Though free from vulgar obscenities, it is an absurd collection of dull, stupid and foolishly improbable stories, which no person, unless under the influence of powerfully excited feelings can mistake for truth and inspiration. With its authors, the Book of Mormon cannot survive this generation” (“The Mormonites”). Another publication of the time, the Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (1831) stated,
The miserable impostor who publishes this book…translated a part of the ancient record contained on the golden plates…The whole book is filled with blasphemous nonsense…with unnumbered profanations.…It is a most bungling attempt to imitate the ancient English and Bible phraseology. Much of the language is borrowed from the Bible, and inserted in the book, after murdering the English of it: and the Almighty, by the sentences ascribed to him, is made out a most miserable grammarian; insomuch that some have sarcastically remarked that, ‘if the Deity ever indi[c]ted the language here ascribed to him, it must have been in his younger days, before he had become much acquainted with the proper analogy of language!’ (Persuitte, 90)
Other publications such as the Boston Recorder (Massachusetts) and the New- Hampshire Sentinel (New Hampshire) claimed that the Book of Mormon plagiarizes the Bible, and noted that Smith was illiterate. One article stated,
The principal personage in this farce is a certain Jo Smith, an ignorant and nearly unlettered young man… About two years since, Smith pretended to have been directed, in a dream, or vision, to a certain spot located between the village of Palmyra and Manchester. A slight excavation of the earth, enabled him to arrive at this new revelation, written in mysterious characters, upon gold plates… It is a book of over 500 pages, and is entitled "Book of Mormon." Of the book, it is only necessary to say that it is a ridiculous imitation of the manner of the Holy Scriptures; and in many instances, a plagiarism upon their language. (Willis, 1832).
The Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate (1835) wrote constantly on the issue and provides further details about the language of the Book of Mormon: “Jo. Smith…never found any golden plates, as he pretended, from which to translate the book of Mormon—the whole was sheer fabrication or forgery…And, at all events, if the Deity ever indited such a book as that, he must be mentally as weak as any of his worshippers, and could never have studied grammar in all his life, or he would never have thus horribly murdered language!” (Persuitte, 90). In 1838 another newspaper, The American Sentinel, made further observations concerning the language of the Book of Mormon: “The style and language of this new Bible are an awkward imitation of those of the Old Testament. The book abounds in grammatical blunders and Yankeeisms…There is hardly a glimpse of meaning in many passages of it and the whole is put together in a rambling, unconnected manner, which plainly evinces it to the work of a person or persons wholly unaccustomed to literary composition” (“Mormonism”).
In 1842, the linguistic controversy over the Book of Mormon seems to have been as fiery as when first started in the 1830s. The Rural Repository describes the Book of Mormon as “a duodecimo volume, containing 590 pages, and [it] is perhaps one of the weakest productions ever attempted to be palmed off as a divine revelation. It is mostly a blind mass of words, interwoven with scriptural language and quotations, without much of a leading plan or design” (Rural Repository, Vol. XIX. Hudson, N. Y., November 5, 1842. No.11). Between 1842 and the 1920s the press of the time continued to publish on various aspects of Mormonism, showing a constant interest in the Book of Mormon. This interest of the American public in the Book of Mormon and Mormonism was permanent, especially due to the Mormon practice of unorthodox doctrines such as the baptism for the dead, justified by the Mormons at least partially based on the Book of Mormon (Wagoner, 155). In addition, polygamy –“the practice of plural marriage” “revealed” to Joseph Smith in 1831, caused enormous friction between the Mormons and the United States (Wagoner, 105-114). The American non-Mormon public perceived polygamy as a very offensive Mormon practice. Though condemned in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 1:15, Jacob 2:24, Mosiah 11:2), polygamy was supported by other fundamental Mormon texts authored by Smith such as Doctrine and Covenants (132: 61-62). Polygamy and the contradictory nature of various Mormon scriptures such as the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants draw the American public’s constant interest on the Mormons and on their sacred texts (Gordon, 260). Up to Utah’s statehood in 1896 and the imposed renouncing of polygamy in 1890 (Gordon, 220-221), the American people showed an almost “obsessive interest” towards Mormonism and Mormon writings (Gordon, 58). As in the past, one of the central themes (other than polygamy) of the public’s interest with the Mormons was to prove that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarized text and a fabrication (Persuitte, 93-128).
The arrival of the Modern Era did not eliminate the interest in linguistic investigations on the Book of Mormon. By the contrary, in the 1920s—possibly due to the development of a more sophisticated (even though not yet attested to have been used on Mormon texts) apparatus of linguistic inquiry—the newspapers of the time continued to publish more on the issue:
J. H. Gilbert, the [Book of Mormon] printer, testified that the Mss. [manuscript] brought to them was so full of errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation that they were compelled against the protests at first of those who brought the copy, to make many corrections…Would the Lord inspire a prophet to misspell words, to butcher the King's English and to mispunctuate sentences? An error in grammar appears on the title page of that work, as follows: “I make a record of my proceedings in my days; yea, I make a record in the language in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians,” and it is decidedly bad grammar to say, “I know that the record which I make to be true.” Good grammar is not a characteristic of the published utterances of the Mormon prophet. (Burlington Daily Times, Vol. X Burlington, North Carolina, June 27, 1930. No.82).
The same newspaper elaborates further on linguistic aspects of the Book of Mormon:
… careful scrutiny shows one that, though purporting to have been written about 400 A. D., the latter parts of the book were composed to support the pretensions of Joseph Smith ..Its writers betray, not prophetic prescience, using language which oftentimes they did not understand, as was the case with the prophets of the Old Testament… large portions from the Psalms and from the Jewish prophets are quoted in the Book of Mormon, in particular a very large part of Isaiah, together with extracts from the Sermon on the Mount and many other passages from the New Testament. Now the peculiarity of these alleged quotations of the Bible by prophets who never saw an English Bible is this: that though alleged to have been independent translations by the power of God from the "reformed Egyptian" language -- no such language being known to Egyptologists -- there is not only general agreement, save in certain phrases evidently altered by an ignorant reviser, with King James’ version, but whole verses and sections are given in the very words of our English Bible. If it be a translation, as alleged, of the Scriptures quoted from independent sources, this is the only instance known among all the many translations done of the Bible, in which such remarkable identity of verbage was achieved by two different translators ages apart. The conclusion …is that the “prophet Joseph Smith” had a Bible before him when pretending to dictate those portions to Cowdery, and was not translating but reading. (Burlington Daily Times, Vol. X. Burlington, North Carolina, August 9, 1930. No.?)
Beyond newspaper articles, Brigham Henry Roberts (1857-1933) conducted extensive research on linguistic aspects of the Book of Mormon. His work is a key component of the authorship debate (Anderson and Wirth, 2011; Palmer, 39). Roberts thought that Mormonism had to either “stand or fall” to his examination. He felt that the problems within the Mormon text would haunt the Church “both now and also in the future” (Roberts, 47). Some authors argue that after performing his comparative study between the Book of Mormon and Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, Robert lost his trust in the authenticity and antiquity of the Mormon text (Edwards, 684). In the 1920s the First Presidency of the Mormon Church (the supreme authority in Mormonism) asked Roberts to develop an apologetic approach that would explain discordances and inaccuracies within the Mormon scripture. The University of Illinois Press finally published Roberts’s manuscripts in 1985 under the title Studies of the Book of Mormon. Due to the fact that Roberts was himself a Mormon, he was “torn by an internal struggle between his faith and a desire to be honest with himself” (Lindsey, 187 and Shepherd, 273). While Roberts cannot be called a “linguist” in the modern understanding of the term, he was nevertheless a skillful philologist and a keen erudite (Lindsey, 187). In spite of the fact that linguistics as a discipline did not (yet) exist in Roberts’s time, linguistic evidence did and Roberts, an excellent philologist (Palmer, 41), was determined to find evidence for or against the antiquity of the Book of Mormon. Because Joseph Smith had argued that Native Americans were the descendants of the “lost tribes of Israel” (Jews who left Israel and colonized the Americas), of specific concern for Mormon leaders was the absence of Hebrew or Egyptian “language vestiges” in the Native American languages. Roberts’s study, however, did not find the desired “vestiges” (Lindsey, 187). The most important part of Roberts’s work considers the similarities between Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. The main conclusion of his study was that Joseph Smith Jr. authored the text and that the text is not ancient (Lindsey, 187). Roberts concluded that the View of the Hebrews was published prior to the Book of Mormon, that there were many similarities between the works and that the possibility that Smith had access to it was “a very close certainty” (Roberts, 235). Robert’s study appreciated that Joseph Smith though “uneducated” was “brilliant” and that he possessed the intellectual ability and “creative influence” to have produced the Book of Mormon inspired by the Bible. For instance, when comparing the Mormon text with the Bible, Roberts concluded “where the Book of Mormon speaks of miracles, they seem reminiscent of those we read about in the Bible, only that they are more spectacular-surpassing the miracles of the Bible” (Palmer, 40). Lastly Roberts concluded that the histories of the two (supposedly) ancient civilizations mentioned in the Book of Mormon-the Lamanites and the Jaredites-are not “real history” but the product of Smith’s “pious but immature” mind (Palmer, 41). The hierarchy of the Mormon Church ignored Roberts’ findings.
Modern Linguistics and the Book of Mormon
The rise and development of historical linguistics in the late 19th century (Robins, xii, 189-199) and its progress in the United States especially in the 1970s provided the necessary tools for a better understanding of the origins and authorship of the Book of Mormon. In addition, the use of modern technology and computational analysis (from which Roberts and his predecessors did not benefit) led to interesting, yet contradictory, results concerning the Mormon scripture. The studies that were enhanced by the tools provided by modern Linguistics made the case for or against Smith as the author of the Book of Mormon and the antiquity of the text. An important characteristic of modern studies that disprove the antiquity of the Mormon text is the analysis of anachronisms—chronological misplaced elements. Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon belong to several categories: historical, technology related, flora and fauna, and linguistic (Parry, 56). For instance, examples of historical anachronisms are related with the mention of the practice of baptism in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 11:25-26). Since baptism is associated with the rise of Christianity and was instituted by John the Baptist hundreds of years after the events described in the Book of Mormon, the mention of this practice in the Mormon text is questionable. Technological anachronisms refer to the mentioning in the text of technologies known to be nonexistent in the New World prior to the arrival of the Europeans. Such technologies are chariots or wheeled vehicles (3 Nephi 21:14), the use of smelted metal (Alma 32:3), the use of the compass (Alma 37:38; Alma 37:44). Flora and fauna anachronisms are related with the mentioning in the Book of Mormon of horses (Ether 9:19; 3 Nephi 6:1), elephants (Ether 9:19), swine (3 Nephi 14:6; Ether 9:18), cows (Ether 9:17-19; Enos 1:21; 3 Nephi 3:22), and these animals did not exist in North America in ancient times. The mention of figs (3 Nephi 14:16), barley and wheat, which were introduced to the New World by the Europeans, all point to the problematic nature of the Mormon text (Anderson and Wirth, 2011). Of particular importance to the present study is the presence in the Book of Mormon of linguistic anachronisms. The Book of Mormon describes the two nations, the Jaredites and the Lamanites, as having their language and writing system deriving from Egyptian and Hebrew (1 Nephi 1:2). This claim conflicts with the archaeological evidence, which shows that the only people who developed a writing system in the Americas were the Olmecs and Mayans (Boewe, 165). In addition, these languages and writing systems have no resemblance to Hebrew or Egyptian (Boewe, 165). The use of specific words in the Book of Mormon such as “Christ” and “Mesiah” are also questionable. Both words mean “the Anointed One” and are used in the Bible to refer to Jesus Christ. The Book of Mormon uses both these terms in an identical manner with the Bible (see Halman 5:12; 1 Nephi 10:10) whereby it does not matter which of these words is used, because they mean the same thing. In addition the use of the word “Christ” (derived from Greek) questions the authenticity of the Book of Mormon due to the fact that Joseph Smith claimed that “there was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which, I through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon” (Smith 1843). The words “church” (1 Nephi 4:26) and “synagogue” (Alma 16:13) are other linguistic anachronisms that appear in the Book of Mormon. The significance of the word “church” in the Book of Mormon resembles the manner that is used in the Bible. The word “synagogue” is also problematic since synagogues did not exist at the time when the actions in the Book of Mormon claim to have taken place, between 600 B.C. and 130 B.C. (Nibley, 285). Beside anachronisms in the Book of Mormon, the modern linguistic studies investigated in the Mormon text several additional linguistic elements such as chiastic structures, stylometric features, statistical analysis and parallels (word print studies), and the choice of words in translation of the Book of Mormon. Other features such as word substitutions and grammar issues, proper names in the text (Hebrew, Mesoamerican, Egyptian and Greek), and excessive or improper use of parallels in exposing a text (parallelomania) were also examined (Parry, 6-22 and Hilton, 89-108). Several suggestive modern linguistics studies concerning the Book of Mormon must be mentioned here.
Herbert Guerry’s 1979 computer investigation concluded that “no clear results about the authorship of the Book of Mormon have yet emerged…except perhaps, that it was not written by Solomon Spalding or Sidney Rigdon…the study has shown nothing yet about Smith's relationship to the Book of Mormon” (Tanner and Tanner, 1979). In spite of Guerry’s claims, Elinore H. Partridge argued that the Book of Mormon is impossible to study using computer techniques because it had been massively plagiarized by Smith from the King James Bible (Tanner and Tanner, 1979). To illustrate her claims, Partridge offered a suggestive example, one of the many that she believed raised questionable similarities between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This fragment, almost identical in the two writings, states: "...there arose a great storm...the wind ceased, and there was a great calm." (Mark 4:37-39-King James Bible) and"...there arose a great storm...the winds did cease...and there was a great calm." (1 Nephi 18:13, 21- Book of Mormon). Partridge points to another intriguing inconsistency - the storm in the Book of Nephi (Book of Mormon) is supposed to have occurred 600 years before the storm recorded in the Gospel of Mark. Partridge concluded that the only logical explanation for the similarity between the two texts is that “the author of the Book of Mormon lived in the 19th century and borrowed from the King James Version of the Bible” (Tanner and Tanner, 1979).
Tanner and Tanner in “Mormonism-Shadow or Reality” (1972) and “The Changing World of Mormonism” (1980) argue that a large amount of material has been plagiarized from the King James Bible without any acknowledgement of the source. In addition, another study conducted by Tanner and Tanner, “The Case Against Mormonism” (1967), lists 400 parallels between the New Testament and the Book of Mormon. They argued that computer analysis would reveal many more similarities between the two texts and that if a computer could be programmed to sort out writing styles, it would show more than twenty-four different authors such as Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Job, etc. (i.e. the authors of the books of the Bible). They concluded that it would be very difficult to make an accurate stylistic analysis of a book that plagiarizes from so many different sources (Tanner and Tanner, 1972:500-576).
The dispute concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon continued in the 1980s. One study discussed not only preexisting theories related to possible authors of the Book of Mormon such as Solomon Spalding, but also another important work that was contemporary with Joseph Smith Jr. which could have served as the basis for the Book of Mormon: the Walam Olum, a narrative poem telling the story of the creation and wanderings of the Delaware Indians through multiple generations (Boewe, 101). In his “A Note on Rafinesque, the Walam Olum, the Book of Mormon, and the Mayan Glyphs” (1985), Boewe attempted to clarify a widespread hypothesis that attributed the Walam Olum, preserved by C. S. Rafinesque in 1833, as the main source of inspiration for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. The main question of Boewe’s study is if Joseph Smith “profited from the Walam Olum as…reordered by Rafinesque” (Boewe, 1985). The author concludes that Smith could not have been able to plagiarize Walam Olum and that the Book of Mormon is ultimately Smith’s creation (Boewe, 105). In addition to his conclusions, Boewe also invalidated the hypothesis that the Book of Mormon was plagiarized by Smith based on Solomon Spalding’s A Manuscript Found (Cowdrey et al, 2005).
In the 1990s several studies argued that the Book of Mormon was an ancient record. Donald W. Parry’s work, “The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted According to Parallelistic Patterns” (1998) examined linguistic aspects of the text. In this unique and linguistically well-accomplished study, the author’s intention (himself a Mormon) was to prove that the Book of Mormon’s authorship should be attributed to a number of “ancient writers,” thus confirming the idea that Joseph Smith’s was the “translator” not the author of the disputed text. In arguing the case Parry examines linguistic elements from the Book of Mormon’s fifteen constituent chapters, such as synonymous, alternate, antithetical exergasia, chiasmus climactic and antimetabole parallelisms. Additionally, Parry includes a comparative analysis of repetitious linguistic forms (anaphora, polysyndeton, paradiastole, epibole, cycloids, epistophe, and amoebaeon), connecting linguistic elements (forms) existent in the Book of Mormon with ancient Hebrew poetic forms like chiasmus in an attempt to prove that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text authored by Hebrew writers and not by Joseph Smith. Parry claims that chiasmus can be found extensively in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon. This argument was shared by other scholars such as Welch, Tvedtnes, Radday Flusser and Givens (Tvedtnes, 2001). Nevertheless, this argument also supports the claim of plagiarism of the Bible. Almost unknown in the 1800s (excepting the Bible), this literary form creates inverted parallelism such as is found in the Bible and from the Book of Mormon (Parry, 5-22):
He that killed any man… Good for that which is good
He that killed any man… Righteous for that which is righteous
He that killed a beast … Just for that which is just
If a man cause a blemish… Merciful for that which is merciful
(Leviticus 24:17-21). (Alma 41:13-14)
Anderson and Wirth (2011) state that chiasmus can appear in almost any language or literature, however it was prevalent in the biblical period around the early 7th century B.C., the time of the Book of Mormon prophets Lehi and Nephi. Several beautifully-written Book of Mormon texts deliberately and methodically follow ancient literary conventions; this is in clear contradiction with the idea that Smith could have been the author of such work. Additionally, various stylistic studies examined the frequency of Hebrew root words (Hebraisms), idioms, names, and syntax in the Book of Mormon (Tvedtnes, 2001; Nibley, 281-310; and Skousen: 1993). Some Book of Mormon names that have no English equivalents do have Hebrew cognates (Nibley, 281-310). For instance, Tvedtnes and others showed that the English text of the Book of Mormon was influenced by Hebrew, of which Smith had no knowledge at the time the book was published (Reynolds, 157). According to Reynolds this Hebrew influence can be observed in places where the English expression is “awkward and unexpected,” but nevertheless makes good sense when seen as literal translation from Hebrew or another Semitic language. In Hebrew, Reynolds explains, a possessive pronoun is added to the end of the noun it modifies; conversely in English the possessive pronoun typically comes before the noun. In this sense the English expression “my book,” would literally read in Hebrew “the book of me.” Reynolds argues that this “Hebraic usage” is contained in several Book of Mormon passages, such as “the nations of the Gentiles shall be great in the eyes of me, saith God” (2 Nephi 10:8). Subordinate clauses are another example of this Hebraic usage and influence: biblical Hebrew begins with a preposition and a word that translates as “that.” The use of this type of “that” in English is rare and strange. However, it appears frequently in the English translation of the Book of Mormon in phrases such as “because that they are redeemed from the fall” (2 Nephi 2:26) and “because that my heart is broken” (2 Nephi 4: 32).
Extensive statistical studies, including stylometry and wordprinting have been conducted on the Book of Mormon (Reynolds, 157-188) in the attempt to prove its ancient origins. Blocks of writing were analyzed in order to identify the Book of Mormon authors’ “near-subconscious tendencies to use non contextual word patterns in peculiar ratios and combinations” (Anderson and Wirth: 2011). Wordprinting revealed that the word patterns of the Book of Mormon differ significantly from the personal writings of Joseph Smith, Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery, contesting the results of Roberts, Partridge, Persuitte, Cowdrey et al, Boewe, Holmes, and Jockers et al. The results of measuring word patterns within the Book of Mormon and the low rate of new vocabulary introduction into the text (consistent with Smith’s role as a translator) showed a very low statistical probability that one author could have written the Book of Mormon (Anderson and Wirth: 2011). Conversely, the extensive analyses done by Holmes (1991, 1992, and 1994) involved a multivariate approach to the corpus of Mormon texts, measuring vocabulary complexity in literary texts as linked with the attribution of authorship including the Book of Mormon, the King James Bible, and the Book of Abraham, and concluded that Smith was the author of the Book of Mormon (Holmes, 118:1992).
Christiansen (2001) dedicated an extensive study to anachronisms in the Book of Mormon. For instance in his Does the Book of Mormon Contain Anachronistic Language (2001) he addresses what Book of Mormon critics claim to be the presence of Shakespearean writings in the Mormon scripture in sentences such as Shakespeare’s “the undiscovered country from whose bourne no travelers returns” (Christiansen, 2), that the critics claim was translated in the Book of Mormon as “From whence no traveler can return” (2 Nephi 1:14). However, Christiansen argues that this type of sentence “fits nicely into an ancient Near East context “ and therefore the critics’ argument is not valid (Christiansen, 2). In addition to this type of anachronism related to Shakespeare, detractors of the Book of Mormon argue that the text cannot be a translation from an ancient writing because it contains 19th century elements in the text (Christiansen, 1). Christiansen argues that the claims against anachronisms in the Book of Mormon are founded on assumptions of what adequate research and translation means. Identifying anachronisms beyond any doubt means assuming that “nothing has been overlooked…misunderstood…lost and forgotten about a certain time and place” (Christiansen, 1); the author claims that this is not the case with the Book of Mormon. Christiansen argued that the Book of Mormon was often researched by detractors outside of its proper historical and temporal context. These researchers consistently failed to consult other early ancient Jewish and Christian writings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls or even the Bible. Christiansen’s argument assesses the significance of what seems anachronistic in an inspired translation. Arguing that the Book of Mormon is not authentic because it contains English words that did not exist between 600 B.C. and 400 A.D. (the time when the text was supposedly written) is nonsense since the Book of Mormon is a translation from one language and culture to different cultural and linguistic settings. Even Joseph Smith’s own cultural background must be a part of the translation. An adequate context of the translator and the ancient context cannot be ignored. If the Bible reflects the personal style of the authors who wrote it then it is not surprising that the Book of Mormon contains evidence of the ancient prophet Mormon and angel Moroni working as “editors,” and of Joseph Smith as the translator of the Book of Mormon (Christiansen, 1).
Nibley (1988) offers additional linguistic arguments for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon in his “An Approach to the Book of Mormon.” To support the authenticity of the Mormon text, he discusses peculiar proper names in the Book of Mormon, which have Hebrew and Egyptian roots that could not have been known in Joseph Smith’s time. Nibley observes a combination of the name Laman and Lemuel, the absence of Baal names (names compounded with the theophoric Baal element), a predominance of names ending in –iah, and mimation (ending with –m), nunation (ending with -n), which he believes are powerful evidence on behalf of the Book of Mormon (Nibley, 281). A “theophoric name” (translated from Greek as “carrying a deity’s name”) contains in its structure the name of a god, invoking and meanwhile displaying the protection of that deity. For example, a theophoric name deriving from the name Baal is Baalam- prophet and diviner in the Bible (Numbers 22-24). Nibley also claims that there are many names in the Book of Mormon that begin with “Pa,” names that can be matched to Egyptian beyond doubt. The “theophoric” element that is very common component in names in the Book of Mormon’s is Ammon. Nibley claims that it is the same concerning Egyptian names. In addition, the most common formative element related with names in the Book of Mormon is a combination of Mor-, Mr- which according to Nibley is the same in Egyptian. Nibley argues that Egyptian names and the ones in the Book of Mormon are both compound and are formed according to the same rules of formation (Nibley, 283). The name Lehi (one of the presumed ancient authors of the Book of Mormon, a Jewish prophet) is a real Semitic name that was unknown in Smith’s time. Lastly a significant number of names in the Book of Mormon end in –iah and –ihah, an aspect that is common to the Book of Mormon and ancient Palestine; the names in the Book of Mormon that are neither Egyptian nor Hebrew are Arabic, Hittite or Greek in concordance with the claimed origins of the text (Nibley, 283).
With the advancement of more sophisticated standardized and computerized technologies, Jockers et al (2009) brought into discussion further aspects concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon. In their study Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centoid classifications, Jockers et al reexamined Smith’s claims that a significant number of ancient authors (such as Nephi, Mormon, Alma, etc. that lived between 2200 B.C. and 421 A.D.) authored the Book of Mormon and that Smith translated their inscriptions in English. Jockers et al’s conclusions are substantially different from Smith’s claims. Through their analysis of selections of the Mormon text (that employed two classification techniques –delta- used to determine probable authorship- and nearest shrunken centoid NSC -a general applicable classifier) (Jockers et al, 465:2009 and Jockers M.L.: 2009), the researchers concluded that the Book of Mormon had multiple authors. These multiple authors are not the “ancient prophets” from which Smith claims to have “translated,” but his “less prophetic” contemporaries- Solomon Spalding, Sidney Rigdon and Oliver Crowdery (Jockers et al, 465). Furthermore, the author’s findings certify previous 19th century hypotheses (see Salem Gazette, ns Vol. IX. Salem, Mass, Tuesday, December 6, 1831. No.71) which claimed that the main author of the Book of Mormon was Sidney Rigdon, who “fabricated the book by adding theology to the unpublished writings of Spalding” (Jockers et al, 465).
Metalinguistic Expectations of the 1830s and the Book of Mormon
As discussed in this paper, previous scholars on the Book of Mormon have long exercised their academic skills on an impressive number of linguistic and nonlinguistic aspects of this text. The Book of Mormon has captured the interest of theologians, historians, philologists and linguists for significant time. In terms of linguistics, the research that has been performed so far concerning this text covers significant linguistic aspects such as anachronisms, chiasmus, stylometry or wordprint studies, translation methods, word substitutions and grammar issues, names in the text, and parallelomania. To the best of my knowledge none of the mentioned scholars have examined the Book of Mormon from a more theoretical framework, using the toolkit provided by linguistic anthropological theory. Previous studies focused on a strictly linguistic examination of the Book of Mormon, paying particular attention to issues of authenticity and origins of the Mormon scripture. In this section I argue that a more extensive and inclusive examination of the Book of Mormon is needed; one that would examine this text not only in the context of language forms (grammar, morphology, lexicon, syntax, phonological structures) and language meanings (semantics and pragmatic structures), but especially in terms of language in context from a sociolinguistic perspective. It is of major importance to examine what effect various societal aspects (cultural norms, expectations, cultural context) had on the appearance and evolution of the Book of Mormon. Based on the literature I reviewed on this topic, I consider that linguists have given relatively little or no attention to the Mormon text from this angle.
Previous linguistic approaches and theories “continue to raise as many questions as they try to answer” concerning the Book of Mormon (Anderson and Wirth: 2011); therefore new approaches to this text are justifiable. One such sociolinguistic approach is investigating and explaining in what ways the Book of Mormon answered main metalinguistic demands and expectations of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries; in other words, to analyze the cultural beliefs about language that would lead them to accept the authenticity of Smith’s message embodied in the Book of Mormon. Metalanguage then, is an essential component in the present study’s investigative schemata. Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) provide several definitions for metalanguage and metalinguistic expectations relevant when examining the complexity of 19th century American society from a linguistic viewpoint. The two authors claim that metalanguage can be defined as “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use; having a greater social emphasis as self evident ideas and objectives a group holds concerning roles of language in the social experiences of members as they contribute to the expression of the group…the actual systems of ideas about a social and linguistic relationship together with their loading of moral and political interest…shared bodies of common sense notions about the nature of language in the world” (Woolard and Schieffelin, 56-57). Hanks (2010) defines metalanguage as “vocabulary of types…kinds of language and linguistic practice” (Hanks, 97). Hanks explains that the “vocabulary of types” provides “precious clues as how speakers of the language categorized linguistic works and language itself” (Hanks, 98). In sum, metalanguage can be defined as “language ideology; cultural beliefs or attributes about language or about forms of language that words take or should take” (S. Chrisomalis, personal communication).
The investigation of metalinguistic expectations in relationship with subject matters connected to the Anthropology of Religion is not unique. Precedents exist. For instance, W. F. Hanks’ “Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross” (2010) addressed historical, linguistic and anthropological aspects in the emergence of colonial Maya language after the Spanish conquest. He studied the mechanisms behind the adoption of colonial Mayan by native writers, the ways in which colonial Mayan became the language of indigenous literature and the language of missionization and religious conversion and how this language developed and became the language of rebellion against the very system that produced it (Bauman in Hanks, 2010). Hanks provided a framework for thinking about the language history of the Yucatec Maya in reference to the first 200 years of the Spanish colonization of the Yucatan Peninsula. History of language, linguistic forms, social organization and the everyday lives of the Yucatec Maya are major components of Hanks’s inclusive study. Hanks’s “Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross” (2010) must be perceived in light of metalanguage (language ideologies), due to the fact that it covers not only linguistic aspects concerning the Maya but also historical, political and cultural aspects after the arrival of the Spaniards in Mexico. Similarly to Hanks’s, Woolard and Schieffelin (1994) claim that language ideologies exceed the sphere of a purely linguistic interest. Metalanguage links language to group (and personal) identity, aestetics, morality and epistemology (Woolard and Schieffelin, 55-56). The role of metalanguage is first and foremost social, being at the core of social institutions within a society. In order to understand how the Book of Mormon answered the metalinguistic demands of 19th century Americans, it is helpful to review how the Maya’s “linguistic conversion” (Hanks, 5) took place. Hanks shows that there were two ways in which the conquista pacifica (peaceful conquest) of the Yucatec Maya and their conversion to Catholicism was enacted: policia cristiana and reduccion. Policia cristiana implied the process of “reduccion.” Reduccion meant Maya’s “bringing to [the conqueror’s] order” (Hanks, 4), and it had three separate objectives: building space, everyday social practice and language: “the reduccion, with its threefold focus on social space, human conduct and language, was central” (Hanks, 7). The final purpose of reduccion was the conversion of the Maya to Christianity through the mentioned means, especially by “speaking a language apt as a medium of Catholic practice” (Hanks, 5). The ultimate target of reducction was the “linguistic conversion” of the Maya (Hanks, 5), the transformation of the Mayan language from “pagan” into the “revised and reordered” language of a Christian community (Hanks, 7). This transformation entailed the formation in the Mayan language of “powerful discourse markers such as the cross” (Hanks, 7). Hanks explains that the Franciscan missionaries learned the Mayan language to the best of their abilities and had much reverence for its extraordinary “expressive power” (Hanks, 7). However in order to eliminate the “false words of idolatry and superstition” and the “vomit of idolatry” (Hanks, 3), part of the Maya’s religious and cultural identity, the Spaniards “reused the remaining language to build cathedrals of meanings around their triune god” (Hanks, 3). Hanks argues that the “conversion” process was based on the “disassemblage” and the “reordering” (at least in part) of preexisting forms in the Mayan language and society: “the ideal was to reorder, prune down, supplement, and reorient what already existed”(Hanks, 4).
Several parallels can be made in relationship with the ways that the Spaniards converted the Yucatec Maya and Joseph Smith’s activity of converting 19th century Americans to Mormonism. Similar to what the Spaniards did, Joseph Smith also based his teachings embodied in the Book of Mormon on a preexistent Christian stratum within American society (Wagoner, 1-2). Smith’s intention was not to eliminate existing bodies of Christian literature (such as the Bible that Mormonism considered as one of its scriptural fundaments), or to eradicate previous forms of Christian speech (such as Christ, Gospel, baptism, salvation, Eucharist), but to “convert” them and give them new meanings that could be easily assimilated within Mormonism without however altering his message. This process of language reduccion, seams to be quite similar to what Hanks has remarked in his work: “the linguistic reduccion was wrapped up in the concerted attempt to transform the Indian languages” (Hanks, 4). The concept of reduccion as “linguistic conversion” and discourse markers (used in Hanks) can be applied to Joseph Smith and his ministerial activity. Smith’s message was a radical one. He claimed that Mormonism was not any faith but THE true faith and that his church was the only true church, the “Restoration” of primordial Christianity (Knopf, 107). Smith intended to “restore” American society according to the rules of the new faith and ultimately the installation of Mormon theocracy (the Nauvoo Expositor, Nauvoo, June 7,1844). Smith’s intentions of building his ideal theocratic society based on the language of the Book of Mormon become a reality in Nauvoo briefly between 1839-1844 (Wagoner, 17 and the Nauvoo Expositor -Nauvoo, June 7,1844). In 1842, Smith revealed his plan to establish the millennial “Kingdom of God” with the purpose of establishing theocratic rule over the whole earth. During the Nauvoo years, the redduccion (transformation) of a segment of the American society that chose to follow Smith became a reality. Similarly to what Hanks discusses in reference to the conversion of the Maya, the “bringing to [the new] order” of the Mormon converts was orchestrated by Smith in three directions. First, Smith built a space- (see Hanks, 7)-the city of Nauvoo, Illinois. This city was intended to be the “Mormon’s own” city, the New Jerusalem (Sachs, 1984: 131). The center of Nauvoo’s social and spiritual live was the Mormon temple dedicated by Smith (Knopf, 114-129). Secondly the everyday social practice and life in Nauvoo gravitated around the temple and its newly revealed rituals (Gordon, 22-24). Thirdly, the everyday language of Nauvoo’s Mormon population was reshaped to correspond to the demands of Mormonism. At the very core of this “converted language” were core concepts of the new faith: the Book of Mormon, the temple, Jesus Christ: overall a religious language resulted from the new theocratic reality. Lastly the process of “bringing to order” included the creation in 1840 of the Mormon Militia (the Nauvoo Legion) led by Joseph Smith who also held the office of mayor of Nauvoo (Knopf, 348-366), an important social position. After examining some of the possible parallels between the “linguistic conversion” of the Yucatec Maya and Nauvoo’s Mormon community, using Hanks’s framework and focusing (preponderantly) on metalanguage, the present paper discusses several ways in which Joseph Smith answered the metalinguistic demands of his contemporaries.
An important way in which Smith answered the metalinguistic expectations of 19th century Americans is related with speech genres. Hanks (1987) in his Discourse Genres in a Theory of Practice discusses the social importance of speech genres (“kinds of discourse” Hanks, 2010: 97), components of linguistic habitus constituted by stylistic, thematic and indexical schemata on which the “actors” improvise in the course of linguistic production. Discourse genres are an important part of every society (Hanks, 1987). Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon were able to “fit” within the discourse genre of the 19th century American society due also to the fact that the Book of Mormon responded to the exigencies of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries concerning the concept of scripture as genre. In this sense, the Book of Mormon satisfied the demands of 19th century Americans in relationship with sacred texts: it contained Hebraisms, it was divided in chapters and verses and it preserved the mystical nature of the Bible. In addition what is probably the most important [besides the “complex apparatus of approvals and licensees” (Hanks, 101), namely the author(s) (the ancients), a scribe (Smith or perhaps someone else), and the witnesses (Cowdery, Whitmer and Harris)] is that the Book of Mormon additionally claimed what Hanks defines as “the power in whose name or by whose authority the work is produced” (Hanks, 101). In the case of the Book of Mormon the legitimating power was claimed to be God himself. The features of the Book of Mormon constituted a “scriptural genre” that was appealing to Joseph Smith’s contemporaries and above all it was “legitimized” by the divinity. To answer this “scripture as genre” demand, the Book of Mormon was organized “using the Old Testament as a model” (Sachs, 1986:509), an aspect also signaled by various authors and newspapers of the time (Howe; Lockport Balance; Burlington Daily Times). This organization is based on chapters and verses (1st and 2nd Book of Nephi, the Books of Jacob, Enos, Jarem, Omni, Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, Nephi, Mormon, Ether and Moroni). The publication of the Book of Mormon created a double effect: on one hand it led to Joseph Smith’s rejection, and virulent accusations of plagiarism and falsehood (Persuitte, 2; Rees, 84). On the other hand, it led to significant conversions to the Mormon faith that increased over time (Persuitte, 81-150). Another similarity to the Bible is that the Book of Mormon has a fundamentally Christian-oriented message addressing the salvation of humankind; its central message is related to Jesus Christ (Wagoner, 1-2). Like the Bible, the Mormon text kept a significant number of the events and names that were familiar to Joseph Smith’s contemporaries. Joseph Smith’s ability to combine specific genres and to satisfy the metalinguistic demands of his contemporaries is beyond any doubt. Smith’s “power of synthesis” is discussed by Palmer (2002), which argues, “Smith synthesized material from various sources in a way that was relevant to people of his day. Some of the sources he drew from included the King James Bible, evangelical Protestantism, Masonry, and American antiquities” (Palmer, 135).
Another significant way in which Joseph Smith answered the metalinguistic expectations of his contemporaries is related with two defining 19th century terms: Orientalism and Egyptomania. The first term, Orientalism is a very broad term coined by Said (1979), which (among others) addresses the fascination of the West (fueled by imagination and preocupation with exoticism) with the Orient. Egypt was an important component of the West’s geography of (the) imagination (Davenport 1997), perceived as a place of mystery and magic. Orientalism was a component of the “psychological makeup” of 19th century Westerners and had a strong influence in arts, architecture and philology (Said: 1979). The second term, Egyptomania coined by Iversen (1993), was the product of Orientalism (Said: 1979). Egyptomania channeled the powerful effect of the “myth of the Orient” and "myth of Egypt" (especially through Egyptian hieroglyphs) on European philosophy, literature, religion, and art and became an extensive source of inspiration for Europeans from ancient times, through the medieval and Renaissance periods and the Baroque Era (Iversen, 81). Egyptomania was a constant theme in Renaissance iconography but also in later intellectual history. It was based on the European (mistaken) idea that hieroglyphs were allegorical constituting a “sacred inscription of ideas” (Iversen, 81). The “Egyptomaniac” conception that Egypt was the venerable home of “true wisdom,” of “occult and mystic knowledge,” was a result of the “orientalist” mentality (Said, 89). In his “The Myth of Egypt and its Hieroglyphs” (1993), Iversen discusses how European intellectuals thought about hieroglyphs and how they misinterpreted them conceptually (before J. F. Champollion deciphered the hieroglyphs in 1822). Iverson says that the Europeans did not realize that hieroglyphs were primarily phonetic and they assumed that their meaning was based entirely upon a connection between the pictures and the objects they represented graphically. As a result of this misconception the Europeans constructed a vast imaginative (but nevertheless false) mythology of how the Orient and Egypt was and what wisdom it could give to a seeker. Based upon this misconception (since they were not able to decipher the real meaning of the hieroglyphs), these European thinkers developed sophisticated theories about the “allegorical significance” of the hieroglyphs. When they came to the New World, the Europeans brought with them their fascination and preoccupation with the Orient and Egypt (Persuitte, 75, 195, 197; Palmer, 12).
Joseph Smith and the appearance of the Book of Mormon are closely related with both-Orientalism and Egyptomania as reflected in the article Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, hieroglyphs, and the pure language of Eden (Brown 2009). Joseph Smith’s close implication and fascination with both the Orient and Egypt were directed to respond to his contemporaries’ metalinguistic “Egyptomaniac” demands. That Smith was himself an “Egyptomaniac” and that he had an (almost) obsessive interest in hieroglyphs and “mysterious” writings is beyond any doubt; some of his actions are a clear proof in this sense. For instance, it is known that Smith purchased Egyptian papyri (Palmer, 12), that he hired a professor to teach him Egyptian (Persuitte, 75), and that in the process of “translating” some of his writings such as the Book of Abraham Smith used papyri (Palmer, 12) and had contact with one of the “Egyptologists” of that time, Charles Anthon (Persuitte, 74-77). In addition, it is known that Smith used “magic” devices such as seer stones in his treasure-hunting career (Howe, 261) and also in the process of “translating” the Book of Mormon (Persuitte, 81-92; Brown, 2009; 54, Palmer, 2). Of particular importance in the context of Smith’s fascination with Egypt are the “golden plates” (sometimes called the “gold plates” or the “Gold Bible”), from which Smith “translated” the Book of Mormon (Palmer, 1). These plates were inscribed in what Smith called “Reformed Egyptian,” containing the writing of an ancient Hebrew civilization that crossed the Atlantic into the New World. It is significant to mention that in Smith’s time Hebrew (the language of the Israelites), did not possess the same allure of mysticism, metalinguistic power and fascination as Egyptian, nor the Hebrew alphabet the same fascination as Egyptian hieroglyphs (S. Chrisomalis, personal communication). In other words Hebrew did not satisfy Joseph’s contemporaries’ thirst for sensationalism as Egyptian did. There is no doubt that Smith realized his contemporaries’ “weakness” for Egypt and its “mysteries.” It is not an accident that Smith’s “gold plates” and “Reformed Egyptian” language reflects another set of metalinguistic ideas of 19th century Americans, related to the interest in Egyptian and Egypt at that time (Parkinson, 1999). The simple fact of having a language inscribed on gold plates (similar to Moses in the Judeo-Christian tradition) might have contributed to the acceptance of Smith’s message (S. Chrisomalis, personal communication), since the precedent for such a situation existed in the Bible (Exodus20: 2–17; Deuteronomy 5:6-21).
Joseph Smith knew very well how to answer his contemporaries’ expectations concerning their fascination with magic, mysterious writing systems and ancient “lost” civilizations. For instance the Deseret alphabet (the Honeybee alphabet), developed in 1858 under the direction of Brigham Young and designed as an alternative to the Latin alphabet for writing the English language (Erickson: 2011), seems to fall into the same 19th century metalinguistic beliefs related with “enigmatic” writing systems. This interest in mysterious alphabets of the time could also explain a possible connection between Brigham Young’s Deseret alphabet and Joseph Smith’s “Reformed Egyptian” (S. Chrisomalis, personal communication). It must be additionally considered that religious beliefs are connected with writing systems, in this case the “mysterious characters” inscribed on the golden plates. Writing systems are often seen as originating in a dream or vision granted from a higher power. This gives those writing systems legitimacy (Hanks, 101); it empowers them and grants them divine authority over the crowds. This was the case of the Book of Mormon; written in a sacred language, handed to Joseph Smith by the angel Moroni and authored by God himself, the text was meant to be unquestioned and authoritative. The “golden plates” and “Reformed Egyptian” scenarios presented by Joseph Smith fit very well in the 19th century American society marked by an extraordinary spiritual fervor, a tendency towards mysticism and openness towards unorthodox religious beliefs (Gordon, 19). Lastly, the simple fact that the Book of Mormon was considered a holy text (scripture) was a metaliguistic value that led to its acceptance.
A particular metalinguistic characteristic in Joseph Smith’s time (related with Egyptomania, mysticism, occultism and sensationalism) that Smith knew how to fulfill, was a type of speech developing around an illegal activity that he was engaged in: treasure hunting (Hamlin, 264). In spite of the fact that digging for money was illegal in the 1800s it was an occupation quite extensively practiced (Persuitte, 39). Smith’s contemporaries claim that he was particularly skillful at this activity, and the Smith family “spent much of their time in digging for money which they pretended was hid in the earth; and to this day, large excavations may be seen in the earth, not far from their residence, where they used to spend their time in digging for hidden treasures” (Howe, 261). In 1826, Smith was put on trial because he was caught treasure hunting and was subject to intense public attention (see Cole). Treasure-hunting caused public fascination and discussions about hidden treasures, gold, seer stones and other divinatory devices. Aware of the public interest and fascination with magic, Smith satisfied this metalinguistic aspect of the time by claiming that the text of the Book of Mormon was inscribed on golden plates in Reformed Egyptian, which he dug out at the command of the angel from the Hill Cumorah (New York State). In addition he said that in order to translate the Book of Mormon from the golden plates he used the Urim and Thummim, ancient divinatory devices used in the Old Testament (Persuitte, 81-92 and Brown, 2009:54). The fact that Smith claimed the plates were written in Reformed Egyptian (an unknown foreign language) probably satisfied another metalinguistic expectation of his contemporaries rooted in the Bible: speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues under the influence of the Holy Sprit (the gift of tongues or Glossolalia) was subject to public interest and discussions, and was part of the teachings of the New Testament (Sachs, 1984:130 and Sachs, 1984:131). The gift of speaking in tongues was specifically addressed in the Book of Mormon: “And again, I exhort you, my brethren, that ye deny not the gifts of God…And there are different ways that these gifts are administered…and they are given by the manifestation of the Spirit of God unto man, to profit them…And again, to another, all kings of tongues…And again, to another, the interpretation of language and of diverse kinds of tongues” (Moroni 10: 15-18). Furthermore, Smith himself appears to have had a constant preoccupation in learning foreign languages (Brown, 2008:29-31).
A different metalinguistic expectation of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries is reflected in the manner in which Joseph Smith chose to deliver his message, to organize and to name his church. The rise of Mormonism must be analyzed and understood in the large context provided by the Second Great Awakening (1780-1860), which claimed that every person can be a seeker of truth and can be saved through conversion (Wagoner, 2). This phenomenon involved an impressive number of people across the United States and led to extreme religious fervor that was materialized in spiritual movements such as the Shakers, Mormons, Baptists and Harmonists (Wagoner, 2). Freedom of religion and individual pursuit of the divine were main characteristics of the time: “If you want to think about the fertility of religion and the early 19th century, think of mushroom soil—the richest stuff you can imagine, that will grow almost anything—and there you have what it was like to be a believer in the early 19th century. Things were sprouting up all around you, and you could stick your own shovel in, and it might grow roots. It was incredible! That's the atmosphere, this supercharged fertility, in which Mormonism was born. It's a very exciting period” (Gordon, 19). In this context, it was not unusual that a prophet like Joseph Smith claimed that he had a unique heavenly message to deliver and he was believed by many. Smith decided to deliver his message using the power of the press by publishing the Book of Mormon. It was to be expected that a man that claimed to be God’s prophet would be subjected to the attention of the media, and Joseph responded to his contemporaries’ demand for sensationalism. Lastly, it was a time in which preachers of different denominations thought about personal salvation and the possibility of becoming a saint (Wagoner, 1-14). Direct contact with the Sacred was believed to be possible (Eliade, 1957). Talking about religious matters was one of the most commonly discussed topics of the day (Wagoner, 1-5). In answering his contemporaries’ preocupation with the Sacred, Smith named his movement “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (Wagoner, 1).
Religious metalanguage was a major preoccupation of the society in which Smith lived. This religious metalanguage reflected a millennial orientation, focusing on several major themes such as the second coming of Jesus Christ, the end of the world and the restoration of the New Zion (Sachs, 1984:130). Joseph Smith answered his contemporaries’ millennial expectations (Wagoner, 1) and intensively engaged himself in the religious metalanguage of his time. He saw Mormonism as a restoration of ancient Christianity, and he claimed that he would restore the Biblical Zion. Delivering messages from God and claiming prophetic gifts were parts of the religious metalanguage of those days (Wagoner, 2) and Joseph Smith fulfilled the expectations by engaging in both. Smith knew well how to answer these expectations. It was also not uncommon to be a prophet, a divine revelator or a seer, and Joseph Smith claimed to be all these.
Additionally, he had a unique message for his contemporaries printed in the Book of Mormon, a palpable object that could not be ignored. Among other things Smith announced that the end of days was coming and his was the One Church that could guarantee salvation. Smith’s answer to this millennial metalanguage of his time was effective. Although initially Smith’s message scandalized members of different Christian denominations of the time, it eventually converted many. Lastly, by naming his church the “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints” (Wagoner, 1) Smith responded to the metalinguistic demands of his time related to the second coming of Christ and the teachings about the Millennium (Wagoner, 1).
In addition the Book of Mormon established commonalities of rhetorical forms, which fulfilled further metalinguistic demands of the time. Smith’s contemporaries, generally open to God’s messengers, expected that the Word of God would have a Judeo-Christian form. It was expected that a divine message or text would have Christian content and the deliverer of the message would speak a “Christian tongue”; otherwise the message would not have had the effect that it had on the masses. Because the Second Great Awakening led to the mushrooming of new Christian denominations in the United Sates (Gordon, 19) and had a Christian substratum, Joseph Smith delivered his message in a form that was compatible with the spiritual exigencies of his time. Smith was probably aware of these exigencies and knew how to address them within the Book of Mormon. Commonalities of rhetorical forms between the Book of Mormon and the Bible are related with names of places common to the Book of Mormon and the Bible (Waters of Mormon-Waters of Jordan, Garden of Eden, Edom, Egypt, Land of Desolation, Babylon, City of Aaron). In addition, Smith refers to personages that are common to the Bible and the Book of Mormon, such as Aaron, Amaleki, Benjamin, Enos, Isaiah, Jonas, Noah, and Samuel. The semantics, the syntax and the phraseology of names in the Book of Mormon are very similar and often identical to the Bible. They have Semitic valences (Hebrew), creating the appearance of a Judeo-Christian sacred text. In addition, the use of long and complex chiasmic structures and anaphora are also common to the two texts, as well as the use of negative rhetorical questions. For instance two examples of such negative rhetorical structures (one from the Bible and one from the Book of Mormon) are relevant in the argument that the Book of Mormon imitates the structure of the Bible: “And Deborah said unto Barak, Up; for this is the day in which the Lord hath delivered Sisera into thine hand: is not the Lord gone out before thee? (King James Bible, Judges 4:14; Spackman 2011) and "From whence cometh this blood [on your cloak]? Do we not know that it is the blood of your brother?" (Book of Mormon, Helaman, 9 in Spackman 2011).
Lastly Joseph Smith’s Book of Mormon had a powerful social impact, attracting converts due to the fact that Smith knew how to respond to another expectation of his time. This expectation had to do with the social unrest and precarious economic conditions of Smith’s contemporaries. Though this expectation is a cultural expectation and not a metalinguistic one (S. Chrisomalis, personal communication), perhaps its significance should not be totally dismissed since Kroskrity (1994) argues that metalanguage is a “bridge between linguistic and social theory, because it relates the microstructure of communication to political economic considerations of power and social inequality, confronting macro social constraints of language behaviors” (Kroskrity in Woolard and Schieffelin, 72). When considering this “bridge between linguistics and social theory” (Kroskrity in Woolard and Schieffelin, 72), and matters of political economy and social inequality in Joseph Smith’s time, several aspects should be considered. For instance in 19th century America, times were turbulent and life was harsh (Wagoner, xi) In such conditions, religion was an important refuge for the impoverished masses (Simon Worral in Whitney). A significant part of the Book of Mormon’s message addresses hope for a better and eternal life in the Kingdom of Heaven. Like the first Christian apostles, the message of the Book of Mormon addressed the whole society, yet poor people were the first ones attracted to the message of the Book of Mormon (Knopf, 67-113). Not only did the Book of Mormon promise the masses eternal life in a celestial New Jerusalem, but Joseph Smith, since the beginning of his ministry, also promised the erection of a terrestrial Zion, on the settings of the old Garden of Eden, which Smith thought to have been in Missouri. The New Zion, the New Jerusalem, the City upon the Hill, “creating the world anew” (Sachs, 1984: 131), were recurrent themes in the religious speech of New-Protestant 19th century America (Sachs, 1984: 131).
Conclusion
Disputes over the authorship of the Book of Mormon started as soon as it left the printing press. Investigations into the authorship of the text began in 19th century newspapers. Later the authorship of the Book of Mormon raised interest especially due to the fact that the text claimed to be an amalgamated work of ancient authors. Joseph Smith’s detractors rejected the claims that he translated the book through divine power and argued that Smith or one of his contemporaries authored the text (Persuitte, 2; Rees, 84). Diverse arguments have been crafted to support or discount these conflicting positions.
The first linguistic attempts concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon started within philological circles, before the birth of linguistics as an independent discipline. In the 1920s B. H. Roberts, a philologist, provided one of the most detailed and thorough examinations of the Book of Mormon. The rise of linguistics as a discipline in the 20th century (Robins, xii, 189-199) and its advancement especially through the1970s provided more sophisticated linguistic instruments used by Mormon and non-Mormon scholars when attempting to find answers concerning the authorship of the Book of Mormon. These scholars advanced multiple theories, however none of these theories was able to give the ultimate answer concerning the dispute (Anderson and Wirth: 2011). 181 years after the publication of the Book of Mormon the debate about its authorship continues.
After the assassination of Joseph Smith Jr., the church he founded based on the Book of Mormon became one of the most important religions in the United States, shifting from the embodiment of the ultimate outcast to the embodiment of the mainstream (Ken Verdoia in Whitney). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints maintains its original position concerning the Book of Mormon: the text is the foundation of the Mormon faith, a divinely inspired translation of an ancient text performed by the prophet Joseph Smith (Oaks 1994).
Given that the question of the authorship of the Book of Mormon still demands answers, I proposed in this paper (based on the evidnce resulted from applying Hanks’s framework to the Book of Mormon) that this text is a 19th century production authored by Joseph Smith and inspired from the Bible. In addition I suggest that new approaches to the Book of Mormon are necessary: more inclusive, resulting from a comparative process rather than an exclusivist one. For instance, scholars may wish to explore ways in which Mormonism is similar or different to other 19th religious movements such as the Shakers or the Harmonists (Wagoner, 2). Further investigations can be applied regarding ways in which the Book of Mormon relates or differs from other religious literary productions of the 19th century like pamphlets or religious newspapers. Such analyses could allow not only a linguistic or historical approach to the issue of the authorship of the Book of Mormon but also an anthropological one. Applying Hanks’s model to the Mormon text and investigating ways in which the Book of Mormon answered some of the main metalinguistic expectations of Joseph Smith’s contemporaries resulted in a fresh approach. I consider that here lies largely unexplored ground in respect to a more complete, fruitful and future analysis of the Book of Mormon.
Bibliography
Anderson, D. Brent and Diane E. Wirth. “Authorship of the Book of Mormon”. In To All the
World: The Book of Mormon Articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism by S. Kent Brown, Daniel H. Ludlow, and John W. Welch (n.d.). Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute. Retrieved March 28, 2011 http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=51&chapid=343.
Associated Press. “Writing from angel’s plates found, Mormons say.” Tri-City Herald, Pasco,
Richland, Kennewick Washington, Tues April 29, 1980. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from Google Newspapers, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kXsuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=r4cFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1387,9045399&dq=writings+from+angel's+plates+found+mormons+say&hl=en.
Barlow, Philip L. “Before Mormonism: Joseph Smith’s Use of the Bible, 1820-1829.” Journal of
the American Academy of Religion 57, no. 4 (1989): 739-771.
----------. “Why the King James Version?: From the Common to the Official Bible of
Mormonism.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 19-42, 1989.
Barnes, Joseph W. “Obediah Dogberry: Rochester Freethinker.” Rochester History 36 no. 3 (July
1974). Retrieved March 28, 2011 http://obadiahdogberry.org/v36i3.pdf
Bennett, James G. “Mormonism.” Salem Gazette Vol 9 No 71. (Dec 6, 1831) Retrieved March
30, 2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne01.htm#120631
Boewe, C. Rafinesque anthology: Constantine Samuel Rafinesque. North Carolina: McFarland &
Company, 2005.
The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith Jr., trans. New York:
Doubleday, 2004.
Brown, S. “The Translator and the Ghostwriter: Joseph Smith and William Phelps.” Journal of
Mormon History 34, no. 1 (2008): 26-62.
----------. 2009. “Joseph (Smith) in Egypt: Babel, Hieroglyphs, and the Pure Language of Eden.”
Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 78, no. 01 (2009): 26-65. Retrieved
March 28, 2011 from Academic One File.
Bruford. “More on Appleton & Co.: The Three Witnesses.” The Deseret News (Jan 29,
1878):828. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from Google Newspapers http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cMVLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=OjEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4429,4954341&dq=more+on+appleton+%26+co+the+three+witnesses&hl=en.
Christensen, Kevin. “Does the Book of Mormon Contain Anachronistic Language?” The
Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research Defending Mormonism, 2001.
Cole, Abner. “Gold Bible, No. 5.” The Reflector Vol II, Ser I, No 14. Palmyra. Feb 28, 1831.
Retrieved March 30, 2011
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm#022831.
Cowdrey, Wayne L., Howard A. Davis, and Arthur W. Vanick. Who Really Wrote the Book of
Mormon?: The Spalding Enigma. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005.
D. S. “Reply.” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate Vol. 6 No 36. (Sept 5, 1835.)
Retrieved March 30, 2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSb.htm#090535
Davenport, Guy. The Geography of the Imagination: Forty Essays. Non Pariel Book, 78. David
R Godine publisher, 1997.
Edwards, Paul M. “Review of Studies of the Book of Mormon.” Christian Century 103, (August
6, 1986): 684.
Eliade, Mircea. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Orlando: Harvest Books,
1987. Retrieved from Google scholar Books
http://books.google.com/books?id=zBzzv977CLgC&pg=PA3&dq=the+sacred+and+the+profane&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false.
Erickson, Joshua. “Joshua Erickson’s Deseret Alphabet Pages” website. Accessed April 29, 2011 from http://copper.chem.ucla.edu/~jericks/index.html. 2009.
Evans, David W. David W. Evans, Discourse by President Brigham Young, delivered in the New Tabernacle, Oct. 8th, 1868. The Desert News Weekly pages 290-291-Google Scholar Newspapers).
Ford, Clyde D. “Modernism and Mormonism: James E. Talmage's Jesus the Christ and Early
Twentieth-Century Mormon Responses to Biblical Criticism.” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 41, no. 4 (2008): 96-120.
Forsberg, C. R. Equal rites: the Book of Mormon, Masonry, gender, and American culture.
Columbia Univ Press, 2004.
Gallacher, S. A. “Mormon: An Example of Folk Etymology.” Western Folklore 8, no. 1 (1949):
22-24.
Givens, Terryl. The Book of Mormon: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2009.
“The Gold Bible.” Lockport Balance. (May 31, 1831) Retrieved March 30, 2011
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYS1.htm#053131.
Green, Dee F. “Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and the Alternatives.” Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought 71-79.
Griffith, Michael T. Refuting the critics: evidences of the Book of Mormon's authenticity.
Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1993.
Hamlin Cannon, M. “Contemporary Views of Mormon Origins (1830).” The Mississippi Valley
Historical Review, Organization of American Historians. 31 no 2 (Sept 1944): 261-266. Retrieved March 28, 2011: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1893428.
Hanks, William F. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross (The Anthropology of
Christianity). London: University of California Press, 2010.
----------. “Discourse Genres in a Theory of Practice.” American Ethnologist 14, iss 4 (Oct
2009):668-692. Retrieved April 29, 2011 from Wiley Online Library
http://blackboard.wayne.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_41_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_920918_1%26url%3D
Hanson, Paul M. Jesus Christ Among the Ancient Americans in Relation to the Book of
Mormon. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing, 2004.
Hilton, John L. 1991. “On verifying wordprint studies: Book of Mormon authorship.” BYU
Studies 30 no 3 (1991): 89-108.
Holmes, David I. “Authorship Attribution.” Computers and the Humanities 28, no. 2 (1994): 87-
106.
----------. “A Stylometric Analysis of Mormon Scripture and Related Texts.” Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society 155, no. 1 (1992): 91-120, www.jstor.org.
----------. “Vocabulary Richness and the Prophetic Voice.” Oxford Journals 6, iss. 4 (1991): 259-
268.
Howe, Eber D. Mormonism Unvailed [sic]: or, A Faithful Account of that Singular Imposition
and Delusion, from its rise to the Present Time with Sketches of the Characters of its Propagators, and A Full Detail of the Manner in Which the Famous Golden Bible was Brought before the World. Painesville, Ohio: E. D. Howe publication, 1834. Retrieved March 28, 2011 from Google Books: http://www.mormonismi.net/pdf/Mormonism_Unvailed_Howe.pdf
Independent. “‘Independent’ on the Book of Mormon.” The Deseret News (May 28, 1879):261.
Retrieved March 28, 2011 from Google Newspapers http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=eJ8EAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CDEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6625,4113543&dq=independent+on+the+book+of+mormon+1879&hl=en.
Iversen, Erik. The Myth of Egypt and its Hieroglyphs. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1993.
Jesse, D. “Joseph Smith’s Reputation—Among Historians.” Ensign (Sept 1979): 57-61.
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=68bd615b01a6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1
Jockers, Matthew L. “Testing Authorship in the Personal Writings of Joseph Smith using NSC
Classification.” Stanford University. 2009(?) http://www.stanford.edu/~mjockers/pubs/SmithNSCAnalysis.pdf.
Jockers, Matthew L., Daniela M. Witten and Craig S. Criddle. “Reassessing Authorship of the
Book of Mormon using Delta and Nearest Shrunken Centroid Classification.” Literary
and Linguistic Computing 23 no. 4 (2008):465-491. Retrieved from Google Scholar March 19, 2011 http://llc.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/4/465.short.
Krajewski, Walter. “Voice from the Dust: A Literary Analysis of the Book of Mormon.” Master
Thesis, Concordia University, 1996.
Lindsey, Robert. A Gathering of Saints: A True Story of Money, Murder and Deceit. New York:
Simon and Schuster, 1988.
Metcalfe, Brent Lee. New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology. New York: Signature Books, 1993.
Moon, Todd K., Peg Howland, and Jacob H. Gunther. “Document Author Classification using
Generalized Discriminant Analysis.” Proceedings from workshop on text mining. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2006.
“Mormon Trial.” Chardon Spectator and Geauga Gazette. Vol. 3. No. 38. (Apr 12, 1834).
Retrieved March 30, 2011
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/OH/chrd1831.htm#041234.
“Mormonism.” The American Sentinel Vol 23 No 4897 (Nov 26, 1838) Retrieved March 30,
2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/PA/Phil1830.htm#112638.
“The Mormonites.” Jamestown Journal Vol 7 No 346. (Feb 13, 1833). Retrieved March 30,
2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYS2.htm#021333
Nauvoo Expositor newspaper. William Law, publisher. Nauvoo, Illinois: Fri June 7, 1844.
Retrieved April 29, 2011 from http://www.solomonspalding.com/docs/exposit1.htm.
Nibley, Hugh. An Approach to the Book of Mormon Third Edition. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book
Company, 1988.
Oaks, Elder Dallin H. “Another Testament of Jesus Christ.” Ensign (March 1994). Retrieved
April 29, 2011 from http://lds.org/ensign/1994/03/another-testament-of-jesus-
christ?lang=eng&query=statement+book+mormon.
Parkinson, Richard. Cracking Codes: the Rosetta Stone and Decipherment. Berkeley: University
of California Press, 1999.
Parry, Donald W. The Book of Mormon Text Reformatted According to Parallelistic Patterns.
Provo, Utah: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1998.
Persuitte, David. Joseph Smith and the Origins of The Book of Mormon. Jefferson, North
Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 1985.
Pierce, P. B. “The Origin of the ‘Book of Mormon’.” American Anthropologist 1, no. 4 (1899):
675-694.
Rees, Robert A. “Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the American Renaissance.” Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought 83-112 (2002).
Reynolds, Noah B, ed. Book of Mormon authorship revisited: The evidence for ancient origins.
Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1997.
Roberts, B. H, ed. Studies of the Book of Mormon. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.
----------. Studies of the Book of Mormon Second Edition. Edited by Brigham D. Madsen. Salt
Lake City: Signature Books, 1992.
Robins, R. H. A Short History of Linguistics. London: Addison Wesley Longman, 1997.
Rochester Republic. “Blasphemy—‘Book of Mormon,’ alias The Golden Bible.” The Geneva
Gazette, and Mercantile Advertiser. Vol 21 No 47 (Apr 28, 1830). Retrieved March 30, 2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/wayn1830.htm#042830.
S. “Editorial Correspondence.” Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate Vol. 2 No 6 (Feb 5,
1831). Retrieved March 30, 2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NY/miscNYSe.htm#020531
Sachs, V. “The occult language and scripture of the New World.” Social Science Information 23,
no. 1 (1984): 129.
———. “American identity, the Bible and the scripture of the New Cosmogony.” Social Science
Information 25, no. 2 (1986): 507.
Shepherd, Gordon. Review of Studies of the Book of Mormon, by B. H. Roberts. Sociology of
Religion (1986): 273-275.
Shook, Charles A. American Anthropology Disproving the Book of Mormon. Cleveland: Utah
Gospel Mission, 1930.
----------. The True Origin of the Book of Mormon. Cincinnati: Standard Publishing
Company, 1914.
Skousen, R. “Hebraisms in the Original Text of the Book of Mormon.” In Proceedings of the
Deseret Language and Linguistics Society symposium (1993), 189. Deseret Language and Linguistics Society.
http://www.centerplace.org/history/ts/v4n13.htm.
Spackman Ben. Negative Questions in the Book of Mormon. The Foundation for Apologetic
Information and Research Defending Mormonism. Website retrieved March 28, 2011 http://www.fairlds.org/Book_of_Mormon/Negative_Questions_in_the_Book_of_Mormon.html
Talmage, James E. The Book of Mormon, Two Lectures: An Account of its Origin, with
Evidences of its Genuineness and Authenticity. Independence, Montana: Press of Zion’s Printing and Publishing, 1924.
investigation into Discourses of Power.” SUNSTONE MAGAZINE (July 2004) https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/133-14-22.pdf
Tvedtnes, John A. “Hebrew Names in the Book of Mormon.” The Foundation for Apologetic
Information and Research, 2001. www.fair-lds.org.
Uncle Dale’s Readings in Early Mormon History From Old Newspapers Etc online database.
Accessed March 28, 2011http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/artindex.htm#NY.
Walters, Wesley P. “Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians: An examination of the source of
Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 16 (Winter 1973): 25-45.
Whitney, Helen, prod. “The Mormons” Part I and II. American Experience: Frontline. PBS,
2007. Retrieved March 1, 2011 from http://www.pbs.org/mormons.
Whittaker, David J. “That Most Important of All Books: A printing History of the Book of
Mormon.” Mormon Historical Studies 101-134, 2002. mormonhistoricsitesfoundation.org.
Willis, Nathaniel. “Mormonism.” Boston Recorder Vol 16. (Oct 10, 1832) Retrieved March 30,
2011 http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/NE/miscne01.htm#101032.
Wirth, Diane E. A Challenge to the Critics: Scholarly Evidences of the Book of Mormon.
Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Pub & Dist Inc, 1986.
Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi B. Schieffelin. “Language Ideology.” Annual Review of
Anthropology 23 (1994): 55-82. Retrieved April 29, 2011 from http://blackboard.wayne.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab_id=_41_1&url=%2Fwebapps%2Fblackboard%2Fexecute%2Flauncher%3Ftype%3DCourse%26id%3D_920918_1%26url%3D.
