Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Part of a series on the
Book of Mormon
Origin
Peoples
Persons
Books
Geography
Analysis
Objects
Adaptations
Other

According to most adherents of the Latter Day Saint movement, the Book of Mormon is a 19th-century translation of a record of ancient inhabitants of the American continent, which was written in a script which the book refers to as "reformed Egyptian".[1][2][3][4][5] Mainstream modern linguistic evidence has failed to find any reliable evidence of a language matching this description - or indeed, any evidence of Old World linguistic influences in the New World whatsoever.[6][7][8][9][10]

Promoters of the Book of Mormon have published claims of stylistic forms that they think Joseph Smith and his contemporaries were unlikely to have known about, in particular things they think are similar to Egyptian and Hebrew. However, the Book of Mormon includes language that is anachronistic and reflective of its 19th-century and English-language origins consistent with Smith's upbringing and life experience, as well as the books and other literature published just preceding the time that the Book of Mormon was published.[6]

Native American language[edit]

See also: Indigenous languages of the Americas
Pre-contact distribution of North American language families north of Mexico

In 1922, LDS Church general authority B. H. Roberts (1857–1933) conducted a review of the research regarding language development and dialects among the Native American peoples; the University of Illinois Press published Roberts's study posthumously in 1985 as Studies of the Book of Mormon.[11]

Roberts based his discussion on the assumption that the majority of Native Americans descend from the peoples described in the Book of Mormon - as is implied by the hemispheric model of Book of Mormon geography, which was the prevailing view among Mormons at the time. Roberts noted that linguistic evidence among the Native American peoples does not support the Book of Mormon narrative, inasmuch as the diverse language stocks and dialects that exist would not have had enough time to develop from a single language dating from A.D. 400 (the approximate date of the conclusion of the Book of Mormon record). Roberts noted:

The facts ... developed up to this point seem to be—

1. That there are a large number of separate language stocks in America that show very little relationship to each other.

2. That it would take a long time—much longer than that recognized as "historic times"—to develop these dialects and stocks where the development is conceived of as arising from a common source of origin—some primitive language.

3. That there is no connection between the American languages and the language of any people of the Old World. New World languages appear to be indigenous to the New World.

4. That the time limits named in the Book of Mormon—which represents the people of America as speaking and writing one language down to as late a period as 400 A.D.—is not sufficient to allow for these divergences into the American language stocks and their dialects.[12]

The fragmentation of language into many groups in the pre-Colombian Americas is at odds with a hemispherical geography model of the Book of Mormon’s peoples - and indeed with the Book of Mormon’s narrative of agricultural Nephites coming to the Americas and building a large-scale society. In Guns, Germs, and Steel, anthropologist Jared Diamond writes that “had any food-producing Native American peoples succeeded in spreading far with their crops and livestock and rapidly replacing hunter-gatherers over a large area,[a] they would have left legacies of easily recognized language families, as in Eurasia,” which did not occur.[13]

Mainstream investigations hold that there is no known special similarity between Native American languages and ancient Egyptian.[14][15]

Linguistic anachronisms[edit]

Main article: Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

A variety of linguistic anachronisms exist in it which show that it is the product of nineteenth century American authorship. These anachronisms include words that represent concepts that did not exist in the Americas between 2500 BC and AD 400, or in ancient Israel and Judah.

"Christ" and "Messiah"[edit]

The words "Christ" and "Messiah" are used several hundred times throughout the Book of Mormon. The first instance of the word "Christ" occurs in parts of the narrative that many Mormons attribute to between 559 and 545 BC.[16] The first instance of the word "Messiah" occurs in the narrative that Mormons believe happened around 600 BC.[17]

"Christ" is the English transliteration of the Greek word Χριστός (transliterated as Christós); it is relatively synonymous with the Hebrew word משיח, pronounced [maˈʃi.aχ] and rendered "Messiah". Both words have the meaning of "anointed", and are used in the Bible to refer to "the Anointed One".[18] In Greek translations of the Old Testament (including the Septuagint), the word "Christ" is used for the Hebrew "Messiah", and in Hebrew translations of the New Testament, the word "Messiah" is used for the Greek "Christ".[19] Any passage in the Bible that uses the word "Christ" can substitute the word "Messiah" or "the Messiah" with no change in meaning (e.g., Matthew 1:1, 16, 18).

The Book of Mormon uses both terms throughout the book. In the vast majority of cases, it uses the terms in an identical manner as the Bible, where it does not matter which word is used:

And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation". (Helaman 5:12).

And after he had baptized the Messiah with water, he should behold and bear record that he had baptized the Lamb of God, who should take away the sins of the world." (1 Nephi 10:10).

Richard Packham argues that the Greek word "Christ" in the Book of Mormon challenges the authenticity of the work[20] since Smith clearly stated that "there was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of the Lord, translated the Book of Mormon."[21]

"Church" and "synagogue"[edit]

The word "church" first occurs in 1 Nephi 4:26, where a prophet named Nephi disguises himself as Laban, a prominent man in Jerusalem whom Nephi had slain:

And he [Laban's servant], supposing that I spake of the brethren of the church, and that I was truly that Laban whom I had slain, wherefore he did follow me (1 Nephi 4:26).

According to the Book of Mormon, this exchange happened in Jerusalem, around 600 BC. The meaning of the word "church" in the Book of Mormon is more comparable to usage in the Bible than Modern English. The concept of a church, meaning "a convocation of believers", existed among the House of Israel prior to Christianity. For instance, Psalms 89:5 speaks of praising the Lord "in the congregation of the saints"; the Septuagint contains the Greek word ecclesia for "congregation", which is also translated as "church" in the New Testament.

A similar question regards the word "synagogue", found in Alma 16:13:

And Alma and Amulek went forth preaching repentance to the people in their temples, and in their sanctuaries, and also in their synagogues, which were built after the manner of the Jews (Alma 16:13).

Synagogues did not exist in their modern form before the destruction of the temple and the Babylonian captivity. The oldest known synagogue is located in Delos, Greece, and has been dated to 150 BC.[22] Mormon apologist William J. Adams cites archaeologist Lee I. Levine in suggesting that synagogues did in fact exist before the Babylonian captivity, though in a different form.[23]

Other anachronisms[edit]

Craig L. Blomberg has pointed out several verses in the Book Mormon apparently similar to biblical verses in the King James version of the Bible. According to Blomberg, 2 Nephi 31:13 includes overt references to Acts 2:38, Matthew 3:11, 1 Corinthians 13:1, and were most likely written with their direct influence in mind. Furthermore, Blomberg claims that 2 Nephi 31:21 contains allusions to Acts 4:12. Blomberg summarizes his overall position on Book of Mormon anachronisms as follows: "Indeed, the entire Book of Mormon abounds with explicit references to Christ, to his life and ministry and to the three persons of the Godhead long before New Testament times ... even though none of these concepts or terms ever appear in these forms in the Old Testament or any other ancient Jewish literature."[24]

Chiasmus[edit]

Supporters of the Book of Mormon have argued that examples of chiasmus can be found in the Book of Mormon, and that such chiasmus is evidence of the text's historical authenticity, suggesting it reflects the Semitic background of Nephi and other authors of the Book of Mormon. They claim that such findings support claims of Hebrew origins in the text on the basis that chiasmus is often found in Hebrew texts such as the Bible.

In 1969, John W. Welch discovered a variety of instances of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and along with his discovery came attention to the phenomenon.[25] The most commonly cited example of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon is the prophet Alma's religious experience, as recorded in Alma 36. Welch claims that it is unlikely, although not impossible,[26] that Smith knew about chiasmus at the time of the Book of Mormon's publication,[27] which implies that chiasmus could only be present in the text if indeed the text is a translation and not a fabrication.

Critics argue that chiasmus is not necessarily evidence of Hebrew origin.[28]

Still others disagree on the extent to which chiasmus occurs in the text. With regard to the Alma chapter 36 chiasmus, one critic alleges that Welch "fashioned a chiasm by selecting elements from repetitious language, creatively labeling elements, ignoring text, pairing unbalanced elements, and even including asymmetrical elements".[29]

Welch himself offers the following caution regarding a tendency of enthusiastic readers to see chiasmus where it is not actually present:

Some people, of course, have gone overboard with this search, and caution must be employed; otherwise, it is possible to find chiasmus in the telephone book, and the effort becomes meaningless . ... One must be careful in this quest, however, to avoid the problems of the 'hammer syndrome'—to the person holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the person who knows only chiasmus and no other form of literary composition, everything may start looking like a chiasm.[30]

Occurrence in other LDS scriptures[edit]

Some claim writings in the form of chiasmus can also be found in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, two other works of scripture in the LDS canon that were dictated by Smith.[31] Critics believe this supports their claim that Smith knew about chiasmus, and that it may have been a characteristic of his personal writing style.[citation needed]

Charles G. Kroupa and Richard C. Shipp are notable for publishing arguments for chiasmus in the Doctrine and Covenants in 1972.[32] In 1975, Shipp affirmed that writings found in the Doctrine and Covenants also had literary patterns similar to chiasmus.[33] In 2004, a study was published by LDS researchers which used statistical analysis to determine the likelihood that a chiastic structure in LDS works appeared by chance as opposed to being created deliberately.[34] The authors concluded “that the likelihood is high that chiastic structure appeared by design in the Pentateuch and in the Book of Mormon. Our estimates do not support such a conclusion for the Doctrine and Covenants [or] the Book of Abraham ... indicating instead that chiasms could have appeared in these works by chance.”[35]

Other works containing chiasmus[edit]

Chiastic patterns have also been found in the Book of the Law of the Lord,[36] a purported translation of an ancient text by James J. Strang. This book is not considered authentic by the LDS Church, the Community of Christ or any Latter Day Saint sect other than the Strangite church.

Critics point out that the presence of chiasmus in Strang's writing as well as in the literature of other cultures implies that the source could be non-Hebrew. Additionally, that the presence of chiasmus is not necessarily indicative of ancient origins.[37][38]

Stylometry[edit]

In 1980, researchers at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University used stylometric techniques they called "wordprint analysis" to examine possible Book of Mormon authorship, through statistical analysis of the occurrence of specific words and phrases. They concluded that none of the Book of Mormon selections they studied resembled writings of any of the suggested nineteenth-century authors, including Joseph Smith.[39] Jerald and Sandra Tanner challenged these findings on various points, most notably questioning the reliability of the data sources used and the methodology of the "wordprint analysis".[40] Additionally, D. James Croft wrote in Sunstone that there were several flaws in the methodology that were vulnerable to criticism.[41]

A later stylometric study was undertaken by Mormon researcher John Hilton and his non-LDS colleagues at Berkeley,[42] who "went to great pains to immunize the methodology from criticism" through the use of control tests.[43] Hilton concluded that, if wordprinting is a valid technique, then this analysis suggests that it is "statistically indefensible" to claim that Smith, Oliver Cowdery, or Solomon Spalding wrote the 30,000 words in the Book of Mormon attributed to Nephi and Alma.[44]

In a peer-reviewed study using a traditional authorship method and a new pattern-classification technique, several researchers at Stanford University concluded that Sidney Rigdon, Solomon Spalding, and Oliver Cowdery were more likely to have written the book out of a pool of authors that also included Parley P. Pratt and two statistical control authors (Henry Wadsworth Longfellow and Joel Barlow). Smith was not included in the pool of authors because a set of original works written by Smith alone could not be identified with confidence.[45] However, this study only examined the relative likelihood of the five above-mentioned authors writing the Book of Mormon, not the possibility of an author or authors outside the five-person pool.[46] Another study was published in the same journal that critiqued the methodology used in the earlier study and, using Smith's personal writings written in his own handwriting, concluded that stylometric evidence supports neither Smith nor a Spalding–Rigdon authorship.[47]

In a 1991 study for the journal History and Computing, non-Mormon David Holmes used a multivariate technique to analyze the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine of the Covenants. He concluded that they were from the same author, Joseph Smith. He noted that “the style of [Smith’s] 'prophetic voice' as evidenced by the main cluster of the textual samples studied, differs from the style of his personal writings or dictations of a personal nature.”[48]

Proper names[edit]

Supporters have argued that apparent similarities between proper names found in the Book of Mormon, and names from known ancient civilizations (which presumably Smith would not have known about) can be an argument for the book's ancient historicity. Conversely, critics have pointed out the appearance of names in the Book of Mormon which appear to be anachronistic.

Language specialists discourage the use of small non-random lists of words to compare two separate languages.[49]

Hebrew names[edit]

Critics have pointed out that many of the names in the Book of Mormon that are not drawn from the King James Bible are found in the local environment around Palmyra, New York, and would have been known to Smith.[50][51] Richard Packham has pointed out that several Biblical Hebrew names, including "Aaron",[52] "Ephraim",[53] and "Levi"[54] are listed as Jaredites in the Book of Ether. He argues that these are anachronisms, since the Jaredites are supposed to have originated from the time of the Tower of Babel, and presumably did not speak Hebrew.[20] In addition, Packham has pointed out that while "Isabel" is derived from the ancient Hebrew Elizabeth, the name Isabel did not exist until 12th century Spain, which he argues is evidence against the authenticity of the Book of Mormon.[20]

Mesoamerican names[edit]

Mormon archaeologist Bruce W. Warren has noted that some Jaredite names may have become a part of later Nephite culture, suggesting that there may have been survivors or refugees of the great Jaredite battle besides Coriantumr. He cites the names "Kib", "Kish", "Shule", and "Com" as examples of Jaredite names that are similar to names found in ancient Mesoamerica.[55]

Egyptian names[edit]

In his book Lehi in the Desert, Mormon apologist Hugh Nibley compares names found in the Book of Mormon with ancient Egyptian names from Upper Egypt. The comparisons allegedly show that many names in the Book of Mormon are similar to names in a certain region and era of ancient Egypt. [56]

Smith, in a letter written in 1843 to the Mormon publication Millennial Star, wrote that the name "Mormon" came from "the Egyptian Mon, hence with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon, which means, literally, more good."[57] Benjamin Urrutia suggests the name "Mormon" is derived from Egyptian "mor" ("love") and mon ("firmly established"), rendering "Mormon" as "love is firmly established."[58] Packham criticizes Smith's interpretation, stating that the English word "more" or "mor" is out of place in an Egyptian name.[59]

Greek names[edit]

In 1843, Smith stated publicly "there was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I... translated the Book of Mormon."[21] Richard Packham has pointed out that the Book of Mormon contains some Greek and Latin names, some of which are hellenizations of Hebrew names (e.g., "Antipas", "Archeantus", "Esrom", "Ezias", "Judea", and "Zenos") and some of which are Greek or Latin.[60]

Word choice in translation[edit]

The mechanics of the method by which the Book of Mormon was claimed to have been translated have been examined by various scholars in order to determine how words were chosen. Various accounts from witnesses to the translation process exist, including David Whitmer and Martin Harris, two of the Three Witnesses. Statements of the exact methods used in translation vary depending upon the account. A number of these accounts were written many years after the events occurred.

Method of translation[edit]

LDS Church authorities do not claim to know the exact method by which translation and word choice was accomplished. In an address given in 1992 at a seminar for new mission presidents at the Missionary Training Center, church apostle Russell M. Nelson stated that "[t]he details of this miraculous method of translation are still not fully known." In order to illustrate this, Nelson quoted the words Whitmer, who wrote regarding the use of a seer stone in the translation process over 50 years after it had occurred,[61]

Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man.[62]

Nelson also noted statements made by Smith's wife Emma, who gave her account of the translation method in 1856:[61]

When my husband was translating the Book of Mormon, I wrote a part of it, as he dictated each sentence, word for word, and when he came to proper names he could not pronounce, or long words, he spelled them out, and while I was writing them, if I made any mistake in spelling, he would stop me and correct my spelling although it was impossible for him to see how I was writing them down at the time. Even the word Sarah he could not pronounce at first, but had to spell it, and I would pronounce it for him.[63]

Martin Harris (as quoted by Edward Stevenson in the Deseret News in 1881) described the translation process as follows:

By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet . ... [W]hen finished [Smith] would say "Written," and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used.[64]

Word substitution[edit]

Some Mormon scholars have theorized that when words are found in the Book of Mormon that seem anachronistic, or that refer to items not known to have existed in the pre-Columbian Americas during the period of time covered by the Book of Mormon (e.g., horse, elephant, chicken, cattle, swine, barley, bull, calf, and hilt), these words could be an approximation "in translation" to things that did exist in pre-Columbian America.[65]

One common criticism of the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is the belief that, if the accounts of the translation process are accurate, then there is very little room for error in the word choices used in the translation of the Book of Mormon (since each word was believed to be divinely approved and could not be written incorrectly). In other words, "steel" must mean steel, "hilt" must mean hilt, "elephant" must mean elephant, and so forth. However, as Whitmer was never directly involved in the translation and Harris was involved for only a brief period of time, Mormon apologists consider it unlikely that either of these accounts is as accurate as the accounts of Smith and Cowdery.[66]

Grammar[edit]

Several critics have pointed to grammatical errors in the Early Modern English style of the Book of Mormon and made the argument that because the original manuscript, the printer's manuscript, and the first edition of the Book of Mormon appear to have contained hundreds of grammatical errors, the book was therefore fabricated by Smith and not divinely inspired.[67][68][69] Examples include (standard citations given):

  • "Adam and Eve, which was our first parents" (1 Nephi 5:11)
  • "And this he done that he might subject them to him" (Alma 2:10)
  • "that they did not fight against God no more" (Alma 23:7)
  • "thou remembereth the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (1 Nephi 12:9)
  • "and I have not written but a small part of the things I saw" (1 Nephi 14:28)
  • "therefore they did not look unto the Lord as they had ought" (1 Nephi 15:3)
  • "and the words of Amulek which was declared unto the people" (Alma 9 (preface))
  • "Now the object of these lawyers were to get gain" (Alma 10:32)
  • 2 Nephi 1:30–32, Lehi speaks to Zoram: "And now, Zoram, I speak unto you: Behold, thou art the servant of Laban ... if ye shall keep the commandments of the Lord, the Lord hath consecrated this land for the security of thy seed with the seed of my son." You/ye are plural pronouns and thou/thy are singular pronouns, but the text switches back and forth between them.
  • 2 Nephi 3:1, Lehi says: "And now I speak unto you, Joseph, my last-born. Thou wast born in the wilderness of mine afflictions ..." You is incorrectly used when addressing a single individual.
  • Mosiah 2:19–20, King Benjamin says: "O how you ought to thank your heavenly King! ... if you should render all the thanks and praise". You is the object form of the second person plural pronoun; ye is the subject form, but the object form is incorrectly used in subject position here and also in dozens of other places throughout the text.

LDS Linguistic researcher Stanford Carmack has responded to this issue by providing evidence of Early Modern English usage of the above forms: "many ostensibly defective forms reflect usage from earlier stages of the English language. Most of these are clearly attested in the textual record of EModE and even late ME—some frequently, some rarely. ... BofM language is, generally speaking, only nonstandard from our standpoint, centuries after the Elizabethan era, which appears to be the epicenter of the book's syntax."[70]

LDS Church apostle George A. Smith responded to this issue by affirming that when "the Lord reveals anything to men He reveals it in language that accords with their own," using grammatical structures they know and recognize.[71]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ As Diamond established earlier throughout Guns, Germs, and Steel, this has been the established pattern throughout history; hunter-gatherer societies are typically displaced by agricultural societies, due to the larger populations (population densities) which can be supported by farming than by hunting/gathering.

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Mormon 9:33
  2. ^ Dallin H. Oaks, "The Historicity of the Book of Mormon" Archived 2013-10-06 at the Wayback Machine
  3. ^ "Book of Mormon/Historicity - FairMormon". en.fairmormon.org.
  4. ^ Orson Pratt (1850). Divine authenticity of the book of Mormon.
  5. ^ Mormon Truth and Book of Mormon Evidences: Not Proof, But Indications of Plausibility Archived January 11, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
  6. ^ a b The Book of Mormon: Ancient or Modern.
  7. ^ Simon G. Southerton, Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church (2004, Signature Books).
  8. ^ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? (1972, Modern Microfilm Company).
  9. ^ Statement of Smithsonian Institution regarding Book of Mormon.
  10. ^ A Linguist Looks at Mormonism.
  11. ^ Brigham D. Madsen, ed., B. H. Roberts: Studies of the Book of Mormon, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1985.
  12. ^ Roberts, B. H. Studies of the Book of Mormon. Signature Books, Inc. Salt Lake City. 2nd Edition. 1992. pp. 91–92.
  13. ^ Guns, Germs, and Steel, pg. 370
  14. ^ Setting the Record Straight About Native Peoples: Lost Tribes of Israel. Native Languages of the Americas. N.d. Accessed April 1, 2024
  15. ^ Southerton, Simon G. (2004). Losing a Lost Tribe: Native Americans, DNA, and the Mormon Church. Signature Books. p. xv. ISBN 9781560851813. OCLC 55534917. Anthropologists and archaeologists, including some Mormons and former Mormons, have discovered little to support the existence of [Book of Mormon] civilizations. Over a period of 150 years, as scholars have seriously studied Native American cultures and prehistory, evidence of a Christian civilization in the Americas has eluded the specialists... These [Mesoamerican] cultures lack any trace of Hebrew or Egyptian writing, metallurgy, or the Old World domesticated animals and plants described in the Book of Mormon.
  16. ^ See 2 Nephi 10:3.
  17. ^ 1 Nephi 1:19.
  18. ^ "MESSIAH - JewishEncyclopedia.com". www.jewishencyclopedia.com.
  19. ^ BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 50 versions and 35 languages Archived June 30, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
  20. ^ a b c Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism". April 30, 2007.
  21. ^ a b Times and Seasons, vol.4, no. 13 (May 15, 1843) p. 194.
  22. ^ The Oldest Original Synagogue Building in the Diaspora: The Delos Synagogue Reconsidered," Monika Trümper Hesperia, Vol. 73, No. 4 (Oct. - Dec., 2004), pp. 513–598
  23. ^ William J. Adams Jr. (2000). "Synagogues in the Book of Mormon". Journal of Book of Mormon Studies. 9 (1): 4–13. doi:10.2307/44758902. JSTOR 44758902. S2CID 164542582. Lee I. Levine, a leading scholar on the history of the synagogue, has suggested that synagogues did exist before the Babylonian captivity in the form of chambers in the city gates. Such gates have been excavated by archaeologists at such important Old Testament sites as Beersheba, Gezer, Lachish, and Megiddo
  24. ^ Blomberg, Craig L. (1997). How Wide the Divide?. InterVarsity Press. pp. 48–49. ISBN 978-0-8308-1991-1.
  25. ^ Welch 1969
  26. ^ John W. Welch, "How Much Was Known about Chiasmus in 1829 When the Book of Mormon Was Translated?," FARMS Review 15/1 (2003): 47–80.
  27. ^ Welch 2003
  28. ^ For a satirical take on the issue, see Robert Patterson, "Hebraicisms, Chiasmus, and Other Internal Evidence for Ancient Authorship in Green Eggs and Ham", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33, no. 4, Winter 2000, p. 163.
  29. ^ Earl M. Wunderli, "Critique of Alma 36 as an Extended Chiasm", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought.
  30. ^ Welch 1997, pp. 200, 202
  31. ^ Possible chiasmus in other LDS scripture: Doctrine and Covenants 88:34-38, Doctrine and Covenants 18:-38, Doctrine and Covenants 132:19-26, and Abraham 3:16-19.
  32. ^ Kroupa & Shipp 1972.
  33. ^ Shipp 1975.
  34. ^ Edwards & Edwards 2004, p. 107.
  35. ^ Edwards & Edwards 2004, p. 123.
  36. ^ "Chiasmus".
  37. ^ Chiasmus and the Book of Mormon
  38. ^ Edwards, Boyd F.; Edwards, W. Farrell (2010). "When Are Chiasms Admissible as Evidence". BYU Studies. 49 (4): 135. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  39. ^ Larsen, Rencher & Layton 1980
  40. ^ Tanner & Tanner 1993
  41. ^ D. James Croft, "Book Of Mormon 'Wordprints' Reexamined", Sunstone, March 1981, vol. 6:2, pp. 15–22.
  42. ^ Reynolds 2002
  43. ^ Kevin L. Barney, "Reflections on the Documentary Hypothesis", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, vol. 33, no. 1, Spring 2000, p. 85.
  44. ^ Hilton 1990.
  45. ^ Jockers, M. L., D. M. Witten, and C. S. Criddle, 2008. "Reassessing authorship of the Book of Mormon using delta and nearest shrunken centroid classification". Literary and Linguistic Computing (2008) 23(4): 465–91.
  46. ^ Life On Gold Plates: A New Book of Mormon Wordprint Analysis.
  47. ^ Schaalje, G. Bruce, Paul J. Fields, Matthew Roper, Gregory L. Snow. "Extended nearest shrunken centroid classification: A new method for open-set authorship attribution of texts of varying sizes", Literary and Linguistic Computing (2011).
  48. ^ Holmes, David (1991). "A multivariate technique for authorship attribution and its application to the analysis of Mormon scripture and related texts". History and Computing. 3: 12–22.
  49. ^ Setting the Record Straight About Native Languages: Linguistic Relationships (Page Section 5). Native Languages of the Americas. N.d. Accessed April 1, 2024. To make a valid comparison, “you need to examine at least three languages to make a valid comparison, and you need to use vocabulary items that have not been hand-selected as the one word in the language that bears some vague resemblance to the other.”
  50. ^ Abanes 2003, p. 72.
  51. ^ A Linguist Looks at Mormonism, More on Book of Mormon Names
  52. ^ Ether 1:15-16
  53. ^ Ether 7:9
  54. ^ Ether 1:20-21
  55. ^ Warren, Bruce. "Surviving Jaredite Names in Mesoamerica". Meridian Magazine. Archived from the original on December 14, 2005.
  56. ^ Lehi in the Desert, p. 25-31.
  57. ^ Gallacher, Stuart A, "Mormon: An example of folk etymology", Western Folklore, vol. 8, no. 1, January 1949, p. 23.
  58. ^ Benjamin Urrutia, "The Name Connection," New Era, June 1983, p. 39.
  59. ^ Packham, Richard. "A Linguist Looks at Mormonism: Notes on linguistics problems in Mormonism".
  60. ^ A Linguist Looks at Mormonism, More Greek Names.
    A Linguist Looks at Mormonism, Lucifer.
  61. ^ a b Nelson 1993, p. 61
  62. ^ David Whitmer, "An Address to All Believers in Christ", Richmond, Missouri: n.p., 1887, p. 12.
  63. ^ (Edmund C. Briggs, "A Visit to Nauvoo in 1856", Journal of History, January 1916, p. 454.)
  64. ^ Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses," reprinted from Deseret News, 30 November 1881 in Millennial Star, 44 (6 February 1882): 86–87.
  65. ^ Sorenson 1985, pp. 293–294
  66. ^ Ricks 1986
  67. ^ Abanes 2003, p. 73.
  68. ^ Perry Benjamin Pierce, 1899, "The Origin of the 'Book of Mormon'", American Anthropologist n.s. 1:675–94.
  69. ^ "Linguistic Problems in Mormonism". packham.n4m.org.
  70. ^ Carmack 2014, p. 213
  71. ^ Journal of Discourses 12:335 (15 November 1868).

Sources[edit]

External links[edit]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics_and_the_Book_of_Mormon

Leave a Reply