This is a copy of a paper I wrote a number of years ago. I had intended it as a prolegomena for future studies, but life got in the way. I'm leaving the text as I wrote it except for linking to appropriate sources and minor formatting. Some of the information is probably outdated and there are some things I would change if I were rewriting it today.
Book
of Mormon studies have evolved in two different directions. The
historicist approach sees the work as ancient, even if addressed to a
modern audience. The environmentalist approach sees the work as
modern.
Over the years, these distinct approaches have evolved as both sides
placed the Book of Mormon in their perceived contexts. The basic
approaches are irreconcilable. Occasionally, the opposing sides can
learn something from the other, but their starting positions force
them to look in different places for evidence. Their ideas about
what constitutes evidence clash, so borrowing from each other rarely
happens. Usually, both sides vigorously argue for the validity of
their approach and the inferiority of the other.
So,
environmentalist scholars produce data they believe points to a
modern origin for the Book of Mormon. Historicist scholars take
issue with the data and its meaning. They also produce information
they believe points to an ancient origin for the Book of Mormon.
Environmentalists respond, and the cycle begins again. Convinced the
other side is wrong, both sides up the ante. Sometimes it seems Book
of Mormon scholars are more interested in destroying their opposition
than they are in Book of Mormon studies.
Environmentalists
have a special onus to produce what Todd Compton calls “holistically
positive treatment[s] of the environmental Book of Mormon.”
The environmentalist position is traditionally a position taken by
anti-Mormons and used to attack Mormonism. This is why we need to
show our “purpose and intent is basically positive.” Religious
environmentalists need to display “their reverence and affection
for the book.” All environmentalists who do not wish to be classed
as anti-Mormons should “address the constructive side of their
task.”
Arguing with historicists may have its place, but mostly it just
produces friction. We need a better way to move ahead.
Historicist
Kevin Christensen may have given us a way. He has been invoking
Thomas Kuhn’s work on scientific paradigms for at least fifteen
years. Christensen uses the idea both to describe the authorship war
and to defend his position. He argues the divide between
environmentalists and historicists is a paradigm debate involving two
theories vying for superiority.
Dan Vogel has questioned Christensen’s application of Kuhn’s
work while arguing for the superiority of the environmentalist
paradigm.
However, Christensen’s suggestion does provide an idea for
approaching Book of Mormon studies.
Environmentalists
have looked at Joseph Smith’s background, examined the Book of
Mormon text, looked at American archaeology, consulted biblical
scholarship, surveyed DNA studies, and considered population models.
All these studies purport to show a modern origin for the Book of
Mormon. However, most studies look at a single aspect of the book or
are incidental asides where the focus is on Church history. Linking
these studies together will allow us to take stock and act more
constructively.
Systematically
synthesizing environmentalist work will help Book of Mormon studies
in several ways. The environmentalist position derives from a
network of interconnected assumptions, hypotheses, and information;
no single argument is essential, and that is a point we must stress.
Tit-for-tat argumentation fragments the discussion and requires
environmentalists to continually reinvent the wheel. Armed with a
synthesis of our work, interested parties can better assess our
position.
Clearly
stating our position will also help guide our studies. We might
concentrate on areas where our argument is weak. Some conclusions
are based on initial studies in a given topic; further study in these
areas will ensure the results are not mere anomalies. A stated
theory might suggest new avenues and approaches to the Book of
Mormon. Our theory will guide us in assessing various critiques,
concentrating our responses on those that have some validity. If a
critic presses an irrelevant issue, we have good justification for
ignoring them.
Finally,
a positive Book of Mormon theory allows us to move forward with our
own agenda and engage the work in a “warm, convincing way.”
Currently, environmentalist scholarship is focused on showing Joseph
Smith wrote the Book of Mormon. Such work has its place, but this is
merely the “constant reiteration of fundamentals.”
Apologetics also move the Book of Mormon away from the spotlight.
If we are to do constructive work on the Book of Mormon, then we had
better focus on the Book of Mormon. Stating a theory about the Book
of Mormon will shift the spotlight where it belongs. We could do
more important work while leaving apologists to debate the
fundamentals.
My
goal is to systematically develop the environmentalist position.
I will state the environmentalists’ assumptions, hypotheses, and
data as I understand them. Where possible, I connect the pieces to
show how the assumptions, hypotheses, and data fit together. I avoid
debating historicist positions as much as possible. Historicists
have raised a few issues notably impacting this theory, and necessity
demands I respond. Otherwise, I focus on a forward-looking
presentation. If the theory is correct, environmentalists are right
because they presented a better argument, not because they have
refuted the opposition.
This
presentation can only outline the results of different studies.
Instead of citing nearly every study supporting those statements, I
usually only cite representative examples of a given argument. When
discussing the participants, I mostly cite either Joseph Smith –
History or History
of the Church
as convenient sources.
However, witness accounts about the Book of Mormon can be found
throughout Dan Vogel’s impressive primary source collection.
I
emphasize this essay is about the Book of Mormon, not Joseph Smith.
If Smith wrote the text, consideration of his style and intent is
important to interpreting the work. Nevertheless, the text itself
holds the central place in my argument. Therefore, consideration of
the prophet/fraud dichotomy is beyond the scope of this essay. The
goal of Book of Mormon studies should be interpretation, and that is
what I am working toward. Nothing in this work implies my disbelief
either in Joseph Smith as a prophet or in the Book of Mormon as
scripture. Quite the opposite. I believe the Book of Mormon is
sacred text, and my passion for Book of Mormon studies stems from
that fact.
Environmentalists
begin their work with two basic assumptions. We will call the first
assumption the Providence Principle. The Providence Principle states
no overtly supernatural acts were involved in producing the Book of
Mormon. At least one person produced the text, and the result is a
natural product. The Providence Principle suggests we can interpret
the text like any other document, including the application of normal
tests for dating and authorship. God’s involvement is a matter of
faith. If we accept God’s influence, divine involvement does not
replace either the effort or the mistakes of human beings. We stress
that adopting the Providence Principle does not mean denying overt
miracles, but it does mean we cannot take recourse to the miraculous
without compelling evidence. Adopting the Principle says nothing
regarding the ultimate nature of reality. This assumption merely
gives everyone a common base to start working without imposing
theological baggage on anyone; if the theory works, that will
validate the Providence Principle. However, we will avoid rejecting
possibilities based solely on the Providence Principle.
The
other assumption states that, everything else being equal, the safest
course is to read the English text in its normal, natural sense.
Some scholars may call this the plain sense or plain meaning of the
text. We might also call it the literal sense. When we talk of the
plain sense of the text, we do not mean taking each word so literally
that no room for idiomatic or metaphorical usage is left. The
normal, natural sense of a text adjusts for such usage. To avoid
confusion, it might help to have a clear definition of what we mean
by the plain sense of the text.
New
Testament scholar Raymond E. Brown suggested a definition that we
might adapt: The normal, natural sense is that which authors intend
and convey to their audience through their use of language. Brown
unpacked the meaning of his definition; we can only summarize here.
When authors write, they intend for their work to be understood.
What they actually convey might be different, but usually intent and
effect are the same. Writers intend that certain readers receive
their message; these intended readers constitute the audience.
Usually, both writers and audiences have a similar background.
Language usage includes both the content and context, literary and
cultural.
This
kind of reading is approved by the Book of Mormon itself. When we
turn to the text, we find it wants us to understand it. The Book of
Mormon repeatedly declares that its prophets spoke clearly. Their
plainness was occasionally irritating to others (e.g., 2 Ne. 1:26;
Alma 14:2). Nephi argued that God himself speaks clearly to people
“according to their language, unto their understanding” (2 Ne.
31:5). The Book of Mormon came forth to restore lost parts of the
gospel so the restored knowledge could settle conflicts (1 Ne. 13:34;
2 Ne. 3:12). The book was written with an eye toward easy
understanding.
We
have good reason to believe the plain meaning of the English text is
sufficient for understanding the Book of Mormon. As we have noted,
the plain sense of a text encompasses both the writer and the
intended audience. Both must be reckoned with. Though its
authorship may be in dispute, the Book of Mormon itself is fairly
clear about whom its intended audience is. Though purporting to
narrate ancient history, its narrators declare they are writing to an
audience living when the text was published (e.g., 2 Ne. 25:8). The
material was selected with an eye toward modern readers (e.g., 3 Ne.
23:4). Ideas and trends recorded therein would ring true to its
readers (e.g., 2 Ne. 26:16). Occasionally, a narrator directly
exhorts his audience, explicitly identified as those living when the
work came forth (e.g., Morm. 8:34-41). We have already mentioned the
text’s fondness for simple language. According to the Book of
Mormon, the original text was written in an extinct tongue (Morm.
9:34), but the interpretation was dictated by God (2 Ne. 27:20),
insuring the authenticity of the resulting translation (2 Ne.
3:18-21). Thus, trying to decide what concepts have carried over
correctly into English needlessly complicates our task. After
recording the English text, the original was to be sealed up again (2
Ne. 27:22). The Book of Mormon expected the world to end shortly
afterward (2 Ne. 30; 3 Ne. 21, 29:1-5; Ether 4:15-17). Urgently
getting the message out in such a short time seems to preclude
translation into other languages; at least, the possibility is not
mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
From
this material, we can make some conclusions about the intended
audience. Its anticipated readers were living at the time of
publication. However, the text did not anticipate that the world
would be around several generations after it was revealed. We cannot
say how long the text expected the world to last, but we should not
give it much more than a generation or two.
Otherwise, the book’s immediate significance starts getting lost.
More tentatively, we might also suggest the intended audience was
primarily made up of English speakers.
In
practice, knowing the intended audience guides us as we interpret the
Book of Mormon. We must understand that those of us living in the
twenty-first century are not
the
primary audience intended by the text. Usually we can take the words
in their ordinary sense as suggested by the cultural context and
general tenor of the work. But since the book was published nearly
two hundred years ago, we must be alert for shifts in usage and
meaning. Knowing the historical background at the time of
publication will help us understand its “familiar spirit” (2 Ne.
26:16). The central importance and plain meaning of the English text
cannot be set aside if we are to understand the Book of Mormon.
With
these assumptions in place, environmentalists start asking more
questions. One natural question is to ask about the type of writing
the Book of Mormon represents. Its overall form is that of a
narrative; that is, the book is telling a story. It follows the
normal narrative format of developing a storyline from beginning to
climax and then resolution. We should also note the Book of Mormon
contains other forms, such as poetry, religious discourse, prophecy,
letters, midrash, homily, and apocalyptic literature. All these
different forms help develop its themes. When we come across these
different types of literature, we have to adjust our interpretations
according to its category within the narrative framework. For now,
it is the apocalyptic form that will most concern us.
The
historic apocalypse as a literary genre is a narrative form usually
marked by several characteristics. These characteristics include
pseudonymity, reports of visions, surveys of history framed as
prophecy, and exhortations directed at the audience. Sometimes the
revelation is couched as a farewell address. The prophet often prays
for answers to his questions. Heavenly guides are often needed to
explain the strange symbols the visionary sees. The revelation is
astonishingly specific in predicting historical matters. However,
the specifics of the prophecy usually start becoming fuzzy, usually
saying the current age will end soon. Scholars often date
apocalypses at the point where the prophecies start losing their
focus. Sometimes, the revelation is said to be sealed until the time
of the end is near; this explains why the book only recently became
available. In the Bible, this genre is best represented by the books
of Daniel and Revelation. Such works were meant to reassure the
faithful that God is in control and they need only endure for a
little while longer before God decisively intervenes.
The
Book of Mormon resembles the apocalypse in several respects. It was
written for the future, which it predicted with great specificity.
We have already noted the narrators sometimes directly exhort its
audience. When the narrators’ society collapsed, the book was
sealed in the earth, to come forth again when the end of time was
near. An angel revealed the existence of the text, and its
interpretation was accomplished through the power of God. Finally,
the appearance of the Book of Mormon meant that God was already
decisively intervening in history. These aspects about the text
might cause us to wonder if the Book of Mormon should be considered
an apocalypse.
Though
tempting, the Book of Mormon probably should not be categorized as a
modern apocalypse. In certain passages the apocalyptic form
dominates (e.g., 1 Ne. 8:1-16:6), but like the other forms contained
within the book, the revelatory portions are integrated into a
conventional narrative framework. The primary function of the
narrative is not to entertain its readers. As we have seen, the Book
of Mormon exists for specific purposes, most especially to restore
lost knowledge to the people. The Book of Mormon exists to settle
disputes about a variety of subjects. If the narrative also
entertains the reader, then that is a special bonus. For the overall
literary form, we will identify the Book of Mormon as a didactic
narrative.
Recognizing
the Book of Mormon is a narrative still leaves us with an important
question. Does this narrative have a historical basis? Did the
Lehites, Mulekites, and Jaredites really exist? If so, then
producing the Book of Mormon would require an overtly supernatural
act. To stay consistent with the Providence Principle, we must rule
out a historical basis for the narrative. However, we will require
additional support.
One way to test for
historicity is by attempting to fix the time when the text was
written. If a text reflects a time later than that which is claimed
for it, we can confidently date the work to the later period.
Internally, the text claims it is based on records written by several
authors over the span of at least a thousand years. These writers
represent civilizations described in the work. The authors of the
books of First Nephi through Omni identified themselves. In Words of
Mormon, the main narrator identifies himself; his work extends
through Mormon 8. Moroni abridges the Jaredite history and completes
the Book of Mormon. Later still, Joseph Smith translated the record.
So
far, we cannot independently verify the existence of the
civilizations described in the Book of Mormon. Book of Mormon
scholars have attempted to place these civilizations in the real
world. Currently, the dominant theory places them in a limited
geographic area centered in Mesoamerica.
The proponents of such theories rarely claim anything beyond
plausibility for their models. Nevertheless, a plausible model is no
substitute for independent verification of the claims made by the
Book of Mormon. We will not say our inability to independently prove
the Nephites existed positively means they did not. But unless such
confirmatory evidence appears, we will focus our attention elsewhere.
A
similar problem confronts us when we consider the text as a
translation. Again, if the English text is a translation, most
likely this would involve an overtly supernatural act, violating the
Providence Principle. The only evidence we have for a foreign
language original is the testimony of the text and a few people. No
text in the original language is extant, so we cannot verify their
word. Some scholars have discovered Hebraisms in the text that could
point to a Hebrew original.
Usually, they do not claim anything more for their discoveries and
have not shown the Hebraisms are anything more than either imitation
of the King James Version or bad English grammar. Again, our
inability to confirm the translation does not prove the English text
is the original. But until such confirmatory evidence appears, we
will focus our attention elsewhere.
The
earliest verifiable evidence suggests the Book of Mormon did not
exist until the 1820s. Joseph Smith learned about the Book of Mormon
through visions he experienced in 1823. His accounts strongly
suggest he was the first person to learn about its existence (e.g.,
JS-H 1:27-54). None of the other witnesses dispute this. One theory
proposed the base text was plagiarized from a novel written by
Solomon Spaulding, but this theory lost credibility years ago.
So far, no other external evidence suggests the text existed before
Smith dictated it.
Indeed,
the Book of Mormon is comfortable in an early nineteenth-century
environment. This is to be expected from a text translated using
nineteenth-century English and addressing a nineteenth-century
audience. Nevertheless, in some respects the Book of Mormon is too
comfortable in this environment. The best example is the use of
evangelical revivalist patterns of preaching and conversion.
Revivalism
began in the early eighteenth century; by Joseph Smith’s time, the
basic pattern and the accompanying biblical hermeneutic were well
established. Typically revival sermons were delivered by itinerant
preachers, and were meant to convince sinners of the need to repent.
Revival meetings were highly emotional affairs. Evangelists
described sinners with a variety of metaphors, including being
blinded by a cloud of darkness; the preachers intended to pierce the
souls of his listeners and produce intense feelings of guilt and
fear. Under such pressure, sinners might call out “What shall we
do?” For the sinner, it might seem as if the ground were shaking.
They may tremble or simply be frozen with fear. Sinners would cry
out for mercy praying for prolonged periods until their spiritual
darkness was lifted. Conversion meant coming into the light, and
sometimes the converted would see light encircling themselves and
others. Profound feelings of peace and joy replaced their terror.
Conversion might be accompanied by divine manifestations pronouncing
forgiveness and calling the converted to spread the word.
Helaman
5:20-52 provides an exemplary example of the process. Nephi and Lehi
are itinerant preachers who come to the land of Nephi to preach to
the Lamanites. The prophets are thrown in jail, but God protects the
two from execution by surrounding them with fire. When the Lamanites
saw this, they were frozen with fear. An earthquake followed, and a
cloud of darkness fell upon them. A voice from above, presumably
God’s voice, preached repentance to the Lamanites. One person in
the crowd, Aminadab, noticed Nephi and Lehi conversing with angels.
The Lamanites ask “What shall we do?” Aminadab answers they
should pray to the voice until their faith allowed the cloud to
dissipate. Darkness was replaced with pillars of fire similar to the
ones surrounding Nephi and Lehi. The converted Lamanites were filled
with joy, and the voice whispered peace to them. After angels
ministered to them, they went forth preaching to their own people.
Revivalist
language pervades much of the Book of Mormon.
Unlike other nineteenth century language patterns, evangelical
expressions in the Book of Mormon cannot easily be explained as
translation language. If Joseph Smith had recast the conversion
stories in the Book of Mormon into revivalist language, we would
expect more literary seams alerting us to that fact. However, the
narrative flows too smoothly. Moreover, Helaman 5:20-52 literalizes
the metaphorical terminology used in typical revivalist conversion
stories.
Nor
can the use of revivalist terminology be easily explained by appeals
to the universality of conversion or the use of biblical language.
Conversions are universal, and the conversion stories found in the
Book of Mormon do use biblical language. These points are not
contested. The problem is the particular revivalist methodology and
the particular biblical hermeneutic undergirding the pattern. These
patterns did not exist much more than a hundred years before the Book
of Mormon was published, and thus point to a modern origin for the
work.
A
modern origin for the Book of Mormon is also suggested by current
biblical scholarship. The sermon Jesus gave at the temple (3 Ne.
12-14) follows the format of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7).
This fact would seem strange to mainstream biblical scholars. They
believe the author of Matthew drew upon already existing sources for
the sayings contained on the Sermon on the Mount.
It was Matthew that put these sayings together in the order found in
the Sermon on the Mount. Though Jesus may have taught the points
contained in the Sermon, he probably did not give this Sermon as
Matthew presents it. We leave it to the reader to compare the
placement of similar sayings in the gospels of Mark and Luke. For
the Book of Mormon we should therefore expect the sayings would be
presented in a much different form and order.
Mainstream
scholars also believe much of Isaiah was written during or after the
Babylonian exile, while Lehi and his company left before the conquest
of Jerusalem. If these scholars are correct, then the Book of Mormon
could not quote anything from Isaiah 40-66.[note] Yet the Book of
Mormon fully quotes Isaiah 48-51 and 53 (1 Ne. 20-21; 2 Ne. 7-8;
Mosiah 14). Jesus quoted Isaiah 54 (3 Ne. 22), which would have been
available to him, but it may seem strange the Nephites showed no
confusion.
Modern
biblical scholarship may be dismissed, but block quotations of the
Bible in the Book of Mormon present another problem. Book of Mormon
scholars generally concede the quotations come from the King James
Version (KJV), though the excerpts have been modified. The
modifications follow some general patterns. A disproportionate
number of the changes occur where the KJV italicizes words, sometimes
at the expense of clarity. The Book of Mormon retains errors found
in the KJV, and its modifications often do violence to the underlying
languages. Even when adapting to a different setting, the modified
readings are most easily explained as reactions to the King James
Version. All these patterns suggest dependency on the King James
Version rather than adaptation to an underlying language, requiring a
minimum dating of the KJV’s appearance.
The
prophecies concerning its publication provide the best evidence for
dating the Book of Mormon. Nephi predicted Columbus’ voyage to the
New World, to be followed by other Gentiles who would displace the
natives, and then the American Revolution (1 Ne. 13). Lehi predicts
the appearance of Joseph Smith, who was named after his father, and
his connection to the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 3). Drawing on wording
from Isaiah 29, Nephi further predicts the Anthon incident in
February 1828 (2 Ne. 27, cf. JS-H 62-65). At the time the Book of
Mormon is published, many different churches would be competing with
each other (2 Ne. 28, cf. JS-H 5-6). These prophecies are so
specific and detailed it is hard not
to think of them as prophecies made after the fact. Indeed, unlike
ancient apocalyptic literature, we have indisputable evidence the
text was created after the events it foretells.
These
points also suggest the narrative is ahistorical. Since the best
dating for the Book of Mormon is after February 1828, we can safely
discount the narrators’ claims that they were writing in an ancient
period. In turn, this probably means its narrators did not exist and
the events they narrate did not happen. Most likely, the real author
claimed an ancient basis for the text as a literary device
establishing the setting of the narrative. Unless we find
independent verification for the claims made by the narrators, we
have little choice but to conclude the narrative is fictitious. We
now modify our hypothesis to say the Book of Mormon is a fictitious
narrative written after February 1828.
Much
of the information gleaned from dating the text also points to Joseph
Smith as the sole author. The biographical information about Smith
in the text shows that if the author is not Smith himself, very few
other candidates are possible. Participants producing the work all
agree Joseph Smith dictated the words written by scribes (JS–H
1:67). Oliver Cowdery apparently attempted to contribute to the
text, but failed (D&C 9). As far as we can tell from the
external evidence, Smith is the only person responsible for the text.
Smith’s dictation is the only constant in the text’s production;
different scribes wrote his words, as shown by witness accounts and
handwriting analysis.
Available evidence provides little opportunity for another human
agent to direct Smith’s work. Most notably, once Oliver Cowdery
began acting as Smith’s scribe, the work was finished with little
time to spare. Introducing another human agent defies the rule of
parsimony. No one else has claimed credit for helping with the plot
or the ideas expressed in the Book of Mormon. If Smith collaborated
with others, it did not affect the actual writing of the text.
Some
literary structures in the Book of Mormon may point to a single
author. For example, John W. Welch contended that the book of Mosiah
follows a chiastic structure.
This is despite the fact Mosiah can claim four to six authors
and features two extended, extemporaneous sermons.
It seems unlikely the individual units can follow their own logical
progression and still fit the chiasm correctly. Mosiah, despite its
own claims, was probably composed by one author.
Several
attempts have been made to establish the number and identity
author(s) through computerized stylometry (i.e., wordprints). Not
surprisingly, the results have lined up with the positions taken by
the people doing the tests. Stylometry may prove useful for
identifying the authors of the Federalist papers, where the issues at
stake are not so sensitive.
When it comes to the Book of Mormon, I doubt computerized stylometry
will do anything besides prove the GIGO principle–garbage in,
garbage out.
Another
type of study gauges the frequency in usage of otherwise
interchangeable terms. When lined up with the dictation sequence, we
find changes in the frequency these terms are used. Preferences in
usage cut across the lines of internal authorship, suggesting the
predilections for the given word do not reflect any underlying text.
These studies also suggest the entire text has only one author; at
least, nothing other than the Bible has been copied into the text.
In at least one case, a preference for certain words links the Book
of Mormon to Smith’s other revelations dating to the dictation
period.
Only a few word preferences have been studied so far; additional
studies are needed. However, we may tentatively say the Book of
Mormon is linked to Smith through these preferences.
More
generally, we also note that when Smith recorded material coming
directly from a divine source, he adopted a King James style. His
other writings except recorded prayers drop this style. Even when he
mixes the two styles in the same document, the different styles
usually distinguish Smith’s voice from God’s. These
characteristics mark Smith’s works with remarkable though not
ironclad consistency. Like many writers trying to imitate a certain
style, Smith’s revelations are marked by phrases used excessively
compared with the King James Version. He also had trouble
distinguishing singular and plural forms of the second person
pronoun, along with its nominative and accusative cases.
We
can also see that Smith continued these patterns with his narrative
expansions of Genesis (i.e., the book of Moses). Smith started
working on our present book of Moses soon after he published the Book
of Mormon.
When we compare the two, we see similarities in style and thought.
King James style language is overdone. Some of Smith’s
modifications usually make little sense in Hebrew, and seem to be
reactions to the King James text. Italicized words become a focus
for the modifications throughout the Inspired Version.
In the Book of Moses, prophets possess and preach explicit, detailed
information about Christ long before Jesus was born. Both identify
Jesus as the model for human bodies (Ether 3:14-16, Moses 2:27). The
Fall, explicitly set up by the devil,
was a necessary step for humanity’s progress (2 Nephi 2:18-25,
Moses 4:6, 5:9-12). “Secret combinations” started with Cain
(Ether 8:15, Moses 5:51). Continuing this exercise is unnecessary;
we may conclude both narratives have the same author, Joseph Smith
being the common link.
The
internal links of common authorship and the external evidence
provided by the participants give us good reason to believe Joseph
Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon.
Recognizing
the Book of Mormon is a didactic narrative and postulating Joseph
Smith as the author, we would expect to find the author’s
environment has influenced the work. In other words, we can expect
to find Joseph Smith’s “sources.” Our expectation also comes
from the text itself. Its purpose is to address the concerns of the
intended audience and solve their disputes (e.g., 3 Ne. 11:28). The
reader is invited to apply the scriptures to their world (e.g., 1 Ne.
19:23; 2 Ne. 11:8). We might say the book fulfills its purpose only
if the intended audience understands it within their cultural
context.
Thus, we can probably identify the background of the Book of Mormon.
Knowing
the intended audience and purpose gives us another reason to search
for sources. We propose that if knowing the background of the text
is essential to interpret it, the text’s background also suggests
the identity of its author. However, we have to invoke a couple
assumptions to make this connection. Our first assumption is that
the background of both the author and the audience have enough in
common that the readers can understand the work. However, the
author’s environment is peculiar enough to narrow the search for
his or her identity. The first part of the assumption seems sound;
as we have seen, the author wants the audience to understand the
work. Defending the second assumption is not as easy. If the
author’s background is too peculiar, the work would cease to make
sense to anyone else. Identifying the author is impossible if we are
unable to make sense of the text.
We
take this risk because our proposition suggests another test for Book
of Mormon authorship. Our proposition first predicts we can find
background sources for the text. It also predicts the author knows
the sources well enough to use them in his or her work. By combining
these predictions, we may say the author’s environment will provide
the sources for the text. The more sources we find, the greater the
probability a given candidate wrote the Book of Mormon. We test
these predictions by examining the life and times of a potential
author. Since Joseph Smith is already our prime candidate, we will
test his environment for the text’s sources.
Proposing
a test is one thing, determining how we should conduct the test is
another. Sources for the Book of Mormon may or may not be written
works. Even strictly searching for written sources poses some
uncertainties unless the author has cited or obviously copied the
source. Proposed parallels between the given text and other possible
phenomena may be coincidental. Identifying potential sources
requires interpreting both text and background material, which
partially makes the process subjective. Authors adapt their material
to suit their own purpose, even distorting their source when
necessary; this fact means we might misidentify or overlook potential
sources.
Luckily,
the task is not hopeless. We can test a proposed source using
certain criteria. Establishing the author knew or could have known
about the source is essential. A parallel becomes more convincing
with the likelihood the author knew the source. Convincingly
establishing the author could hardly avoid contact with the source is
a reasonable approach. Source and text should resemble each other as
closely as possible. If the intended audience makes a connection, it
would favorably point to the proposed source. Explaining how the
author may have used the proposed source suggests the significance of
the text and strengthens the argument. In short, we can judge the
best proposals by asking three questions. What is the likelihood the
author knew about the source? How closely does the source coincide
with phenomena described in the text? How does the source suggest
the meaning of the text? These criteria do not eliminate subjective
judgments, but peer review can eliminate the wildest proposals.
Environmentalists
have identified many potential sources. Unfortunately, they have
identified too many to list. Among environmentalists, the King James
Version of the Bible is the only undisputed source. However, they
have achieved a great deal of consensus on the anti-Masonic movement,
the Mound Builder myth, and revivalist culture. Ethan Smith’s View
to the Hebrews
remains a favorite possibility for environmentalists.
Environmentalists have noted parallels between the text and
biographical information about Smith. Environmentalists continue to
see sources and argue over them, both with other environmentalists
and with historicists. We need to evaluate each proposal
individually.
Whatever
the merits of any single argument, it is clear Joseph Smith’s
environment provides enough sources for the Book of Mormon. The
information we have gleaned so far continues to point toward Joseph
Smith’s authorship.
Knowing
how much planning Smith put into the text could have some
interpretive value. Some scholars have suggested the Book of Mormon
is the product of some form of automatic writing.
Others have suggested Smith poured out the words as they came to him
in a stream-of-consciousness.
Yet others believe that with careful planning and the use of stock
formulae, Smith could have easily dictated the text in a short time.
Some even believe Smith somehow used notes.
Closer study of the text, including its literary structures, the
presence of any seams, and other features may prove helpful in
establishing the level of planning. However, we need not know the
methodology Smith used to begin interpreting the result.
Though
more work needs to be done, we can confidently say environmentalists
have fashioned a comprehensive theory explaining the Book of Mormon.
The Environmental Theory states the Book of Mormon is a fictitious
work written by Joseph Smith. This theory is the result of
formulating and testing hypotheses initially suggested by two basic
assumptions. Testing these hypotheses yielded data that separately
and collectively point to the Environmental Theory. We can now
consider the strengths and weaknesses of the theory. Our criteria
are adequacy, internal coherence, external consistency, and
fruitfulness.
Adequacy.
The Environmental Theory answers some very significant questions.
It primarily answers questions regarding who wrote the Book of
Mormon, when it was written, and what type of narrative it is.
Issues relating to the work’s purpose need more work, but the
Theory does answer the basic question of intent. The theory provides
a basis to look for Smith’s sources and has uncovered some.
Smith’s writing method needs further examination. We require more
textual and literary studies to nail down some environmentalist
conclusions. Unfortunately, the Environmental Theory does not
adequately account for the plates; however, their importance to Book
of Mormon interpretation is an open question.
Internal
coherence.
The assumptions, hypotheses, and data connect with each other
rationally. None of the components contradict each other, even where
those factors are weak. We made very few assumptions. Of these
assumptions, we need to take only the Providence Paradigm on faith;
the others are reasonable, defensible, and necessary. We rejected no
possibility solely based on these assumptions. Hypotheses flow
naturally from the assumptions. Subsequent testing pointed to the
validity of the hypotheses and suggested new avenues for research.
Inadequately answered questions pose no significant challenge to the
theory. The Environmental Theory is simple while connecting and
explaining a broad range of data.
External
consistency.
The Environmental Theory poses no conflict with other relevant
theories. It is consistent with biblical scholarship regarding the
authorship, date, and redaction of the quoted biblical passages.
Archaeology poses no problem for the Theory; in fact, the Theory
explains why text does not match what we currently know about ancient
American civilizations. Likewise, the Theory does not conflict with
known DNA evidence regarding the origins of the American continents’
aboriginal inhabitants. We used methodology borrowed from other
scholarly fields, and the Theory confirmed the utility of those
methods by producing useful results. External consistency is the
theory’s greatest strength.
Fruitfulness.
The search for sources has already proven the most fruitful aspect
of the Environmental Theory. Further work will produce more sources
and pare the list down to the most striking ones. Studying the
text’s literary structures will help provide information about
Joseph Smith’s methods and goals for the text. More textual
analysis will have the same result. Environmentalists have done more
work analyzing quoted biblical texts than interpreting their function
within the text; this situation needs correction. More work has been
done about Joseph Smith’s role than in interpreting the text
itself; the Theory suggests certain directions for Book of Mormon
interpretation. Finally, the Environmental Theory links the Book of
Mormon with Joseph Smith’s other works, suggesting even more new
avenues for research.
Constructive
environmentalist approaches to the Book of Mormon are possible.
However, if Book of Mormon studies remain mired in debates about its
origin, such work is unlikely. Environmentalists need to move beyond
continued debate over these first principles. The Environmental
Theory provides a framework that allows us to move forward from a
position we can take for granted. We can now focus on Book of
Mormon interpretation, which in turn will give the Theory more
articulation and depth.
As environmentalists continue their studies, the Environmental
Theory will continue to bear ever more fruit.
