Connecting Some Scattered Book of Mormon Dots

who enjoy puzzles, mysteries, and conspiracy theories might find some
aspects of the Book of Mormon to be more rewarding than The Da Vinci Code or other modern thrillers. With a complex web of
internal and external clues to decode, the mystery of Book of Mormon
evidences can yield impressive results when one does the work to connect
the many dots before us.

Here’s an example of some recent
random dots mostly linked to Alma 17-19 that I considered recently. There may be interesting connections,
though not all of the leads end up being meaningful.

Let me begin with an exciting breakthrough just announced at the Book of Mormon Archaelogical Forum, See “Excerpts from the 400-page book Exploring the Explanatory Power of Egyptian and Semitic in Uto-Aztecan.” Linguist Brian Stubbs has greatly extended his early work that identified connections between Hebrew and Uto-Aztecan languages,
a family of New World languages that extend from the Western United
States down into southern Mexico and El Salvador (Mayan, by the way, is
not part of that family). Now Stubbs has produced a new book with
numerous correlations between Uto-Aztecan and three Old World languages,
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Egyptian. (The book will be available on Amazon shortly.) For each of these languages, he offers
several hundred correlations.

While false cognates can
occur between any two languages just due to chance, significant numbers
of apparently related words can be used by linguists (not necessarily
amateurs) to identify language groups. Stubbs points out that many
Native American language groups were established with around 100 or so
correlations, so the finding of 400 to 700 correlations each for three
Old World languages in Stubbs’ latest work should merit attention.
Stubbs recognizes that some of the proposed correlations may be a
stretch, but the majority appear noteworthy.

The linkage
to three different Semitic languages could have come from two or more
infusions from the Old World, such as one migration from Israel with
speakers of a Phoenician-like Northwest Semitic and an Aramaic-like
Northwest Semitic, with one or both groups of speakers also bringing
some knowledge of Egyptian. If Stubbs’ work withstands further scrutiny
and leads to even more insights and solved mysteries when applied by
other scholars, it could prove to be a monumental advance in Book of
Mormon studies. Of course, demonstrating strong Middle Eastern
influences in New World languages does not prove anything divine in the
Book of Mormon, but rather increases the case for plausibility and may
help overcome some common objections.

Stubbs’ earlier work
has received the attention of other non-LDS scholars. For example,
Roger Williams Westcott, Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and
Linguistics at Drew University, New Jersey (Ph.D. in linguistics from
Princeton, a Rhodes scholar, founder of Drew’s anthropology program and
author of 500 publications, including 40 books, and past president of
the Linguistic Association of Canada and the United States) speaks
positively of Stubbs’ work in his article, “Early Eurasian Linguistic
Links with North America” in Across Before Columbus?, ed. by
Donald Y. Gilmore and Linda S. McElroy, Laconia, New Hampshire: New
England Antiquities Research Association (NEARA), 1998, pp. 193-197. Dr.
Westcott writes:

Perhaps the most surprising
of all Eurasian-American linguistic connections, at least in geographic
terms, is that proposed by Brian Stubbs: a strong link between the
Uto-Aztecan and Afro-Asiatic (or Hamito-Semitic) languages. The
Uto-Aztecan languages are, or have been, spoken in western North America
from Idaho to El Salvador. One would expect that, if Semites or their
linguistic kinsmen from northern Africa were to reach the New World by
water, their route would be trans-Altantic. Indeed, what graphonomic
evidence there is indicates exactly that: Canaanite inscriptions are
found in Georgia and Tennessee as well as in Brazil; and Mediterranean
coins, some Hebrew and Moroccan Arabic, are found in Kentucky as well as
Venezuela [citing Cyrus Gordon].

But we must follow the evidence
wherever it leads. And lexically, at least, it points to the Pacific
rather than the Atlantic coast. Stubbs finds Semitic and (more rarely)
Egyptian vocabulary in about 20 of 25 extant Uto-Aztecan languages. Of
the word-bases in these vernaculars, he finds about 40 percent to be
derivable from nearly 500 triliteral Semitic stems. Despite this
striking proportion, however, he does not regard Uto-Aztecan as a branch
of Semitic or Afro-Asiatic. Indeed, he treats Uto-Aztecan Semitisms as
borrowings. But, because these borrowings are at once so numerous and so
well “nativized,” he prefers to regard them as an example of linguistic
creolization – that is, of massive lexical adaptation of one language
group to another. (By way of analogy, . . . historical linguists regard
the heavy importation of French vocabulary into Middle English as a
process of creolization.)

Of the various Afro-Asiatic languages
represented in Uto-Aztecan vocabulary, the following occur in descending
order of frequency:

  1. Canaanite (cited in its Hebrew form)
  2. Aramaic
  3. Arabic
  4. Ethiopic
  5. Akkadian (usually in its Assyrian form)
  6. Ancient Egyptian

the many Semitic loan-words in Uto-Aztecan, the following, listed by
Stubbs, seems unexceptionable as regards both form and meaning:

Hebrew baraq lightning > Papago berok lightning
Aramaic katpa shoulder > Papago kotva shoulder
Hebrew hiskal be prudent > Nahua iskal be prudent
Hebrew yesïväh sitting > Hopi yesiva camp

sceptics should attribute these correspondences to coincidence,
however, Stubbs takes care to note that there are systematic
sound-shifts, analogous to those covered in Indo-European by Grimm’s
Law, which recur consistently in loans from Afro-Asiatic to Uto-Aztecan.
One of these is the unvoicing of voiced stops in the more southerly
receiving languages. Another is the velarization of voiced labial stops
and glides in the same languages.

One of the examples showing possible links to Egyptian involves the crocodile: Egyptian
sbk / *subak “crocodile” appears related to Uto-Atecan *supak / *sipak
“crocodile.” (The asterisk “marks a proto-form or original sound or word
as reconstructed by linguists.) This example follows a pattern seen in
many apparent Hebrew-UA connections in which the Hebrew b is changed to a
p in UA). Many of you seeing Egyptian sbk/subak might immediately think
of the Egyptian crocodile god Sobek, which I discussed in my previous
post “Of Crocodiles and Kings.

Sobek is of interest in the Book of Abraham since Joseph Smith’s
identification of a crocodile in Facs. 1 as the “idolatrous god of
Pharaoh” can be considered as one of the many interesting evidences of
authenticity for that work. When I saw that this Egyptian root had a
cognate in UA, I wondered if the name Sebus in the Book of Mormon, as in
the waters of Sebus, might be related to the crocodile. Could there
have been a crocodile infested watering hole? But that conjecture is
easy to dismiss since the final “s” really doesn’t fit the “k” of Sobek
and I don’t think final “k” sounds are likely to morph into aspirants.

the crocodile-Sebus hypothesis was a false lead, my question led me to a
new tangent and more dots to connect as I reviewed review some valuable
work from others related to the place named the waters of Sebus.

way of background, one of my favorite scenes in the Book of Mormon
involves Ammon defending a Lamanite king’s flocks at the waters of
Sebus. The king’s name is Lamoni, a name which corresponds well (yes,
here’s another tangent) with one of the few ancient place names in
Mesoamerica whose ancient pronunciation has survived. Most ancient sites
in the region are known by Spanish names like La Venta, with little to
go on regarding how the name was known anciently. But in Belize, the
ancient place name Lamanai
has been preserved. This is an ancient city with impressive
fortifications around it, similar to those described in the Book of

You can learn more about the ancient Mayan city of Lamanai in a Youtube video. You might also enjoy the video that refers to the ancient Mayan city Pan cha’lib’,
which literally means “Bountiful.” This may be a coincidence, but it’s
possible that the city was named after the ancient New World place
called Bountiful in the Book of Mormon (which may have been named after
the Old World Bountiful discussed above). Watch the text call-outs on
the video in the first couple of minutes. The video is a re-enactment of
an ancient ritual related to one that told of a warrior who visited
Bountiful (Pan cha’lib’).

The name Sebus is somewhat
unusual for both Book of Mormon and Hebrew names, which usually don’t
begin and end with the same letter. It’s the only example of such a name
in the Book of Mormon. Paul Hoskisson in “What’s in a Name? Sebus” in the Maxwell Institute’s Insights,
vol. 32, no. 1 (2012), p. 3, explores some possible Semitic
connections. He finds a plausible fit with an ancient Semitic root that
could give this word the meaning of “to be gathered,” which would be an
appropriate name for a watering hole where animals are gathered. The
potential for Semitic wordplay is then present in Alma 17:26, where we
learn that Sebus is where the Lamanites drove their flocks (i.e.,
gathered or assembled them). Naturally, there is the contrast with the
scattering that routinely occurred there as Lamanite troublemakers
scattered the king’s flocks–and seemed to get away with it time and
again. Relying on divine power and some great combat skills, Ammon tells
his fellow servants not to lose heart regarding the scattered flocks,
for “we will gather them together and bring them back unto the place of
water” (Alma 17:31). The waters of Sebus is mentioned twice more in Alma
19, verses 20 and 21, and in both cases that name is juxtaposed with
the word “scattered.”

It’s fascinating how many times
Semitic wordplays occur in the Book of Mormon. Not bad for a book
allegedly fabricated by an unschooled conman years before he had a
chance to actually study Hebrew.

One of the most recently
discovered apparent wordplays involves the name Abish, a Lamanite
servant woman who plays a role in the aftermath of Ammon’s victory and
successful gathering (both of flocks and arms) at the waters of Sebus,
which resulted in the gathering in of many Lamanites to the fold of
believers. See Matthew Bowen, “Father is a Man: The Remarkable Mention of the name Abish in Alma 19:16 and Its Narrative Context,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, 14 (2015): 77-93. And brace yourself for another tangent.

a text that rarely reports woman’s names, rarely reports Lamanite
names, and almost never reports the names of servants, to have the name
of a female Lamanite servant given is highly unusual. Yet Bowen points
out how well the name fits the context and reinforces important themes
in addition to providing a classic Hebrew wordplay. The name can be
interpreted as Hebrew for “Father is a man,” which relates well to
Abish’s status as a believer in God due to a “a remarkable vision of her
father” (Alma 19:16). Bowen’s abstract suffices for this tangent, but
his case is greatly strengthened by the details he explores in his
thorough article:

As a Hebrew/Lehite
name, “Abish” suggests the meaning “Father is a man,” the midrashic
components ʾab- (“father”) and ʾîš(“man”) being phonologically evident.
Thus, the immediate juxtaposition of the name “Abish” with the terms
“her father” and “women” raises the possibility of wordplay on her name
in the underlying text. Since ʾab-names were frequently theophoric —
i.e., they had reference to a divine Father (or could be so understood) —
the mention of “Abish” (“Father is a man”) takes on additional
theological significance in the context of Lamoni’s vision of the
Redeemer being “born of a woman and … redeem[ing] all mankind” (Alma
19:13). The wordplay on “Abish” thus contributes thematically to the
narrative’s presentation of Ammon’s typological ministrations among the
Lamanites as a “man” endowed with great power, which helped the
Lamanites understand the concept of “the Great Spirit” (Yahweh) becoming
“man.” Moreover, this wordplay accords with the consistent Book of
Mormon doctrine that the “very Eternal Father” would (and did)
condescend to become “man” and Suffering Servant.

the potential Semitic wordplay is cool, but what’s going on with a king
who couldn’t stop a persistent threat at the waters of Sebus? And how
can several of the surviving bad guys, drawn in by news from Abish in
her attempt to get others to be witnesses of the miracle taking place
with Ammon, the king, and the queen, dare to show up in the king’s court
and even attempt to slay the unconscious Ammon (see Alma 19)? It’s the
kind of security gap and cluelessness that might be par for the course
for certain modern governments, but would seem to be a stretch in the
presumably more sane ancient world. Brant Gardner has shown that the
many seemingly ridiculous elements in the story of Ammon become quite
plausible once we important Mesoamerican culture into the background.
See his presentation at the 2004 FAIRMormon Conference, “The Case for Historicity: Discerning the Book of Mormon’s Production Culture.”

explains that we may be looking at a family feud in which one
Mesoamerican family is at odds with another powerful group, and
can’t simply kill off the trouble makers who roam his courts and slay
his animals. To save face, he makes servants take the blame, and to
upset the balance of power, he cleverly throws in a Nephite wild card
with surprising results. This is one of many examples in the Book of
Mormon where a knowledge of Mesoamerica helps fill in mysteries in the
text. (Also see the related discussion of Gardner’s hypothesis at Book of Mormon Notes, Feb. 2010).

Looking to Mesoamerica culture helps us appreciate what’s happening in the Book of Mormon.

at least part of Abish’s name, the Hebrew word for man, may be found in
Uto-Aztecan. One of the finds reported by Brian Stubbs in his latest
work, is correlation #572: Hebrew ’iiš “man, person” > UA *wïsi
“person”. But I’m not aware of “ab” or “abba” from Hebrew being proposed
as a source for anything in UA. If Brother Stubbs sees this, perhaps he
might have something more to say on the topic of possible linkages
between Old World and New World names.

Coming back to the waters of Sebus, we’ve looked at the name Sebus and its role in a
possible Semitic wordplay, the ensuing court scene and the whole
scenario as a Mesoamerican intrigue, and interesting linguistic issues
involving the name Abish. Now what about the “waters” aspect of the
waters of Sebus?

The Book of Mormon Resources blog examines the many uses of the term “waters”
in the Book of Mormon, and finds remarkable consistency with the way
that term was used in–here we go again–Early Modern English (EModE).

way of background, one of the most perplexing but data-rich and
evidence-driven discoveries about the original Book of Mormon text is
that much of what we thought was just bad grammar or imitation of KJV
language is actually good English that predates the KJV substantially.
There appears to be a strong current of obsolete grammatical patterns in
the Book of Mormon that derive from roughly a century before the KJV
was begun, adding a perplexing factor to Book of Mormon studies that at
least helps us demonstrate that the Book of Mormon cannot be readily
explained as a product based on copying KJV language and plagiarizing
from contemporary sources or even relying on secret teams of
contemporary writers trying to imitate KJV language. It’s not clear why
this would be the case and what mechanism would lead to the results, but
the data demand to be considered and not just dismissed with an eye
roll, or with mere assumptions about pockets of archaic grammar
persisting as the frontier language of Joseph Smith’s community.
Something more than just bad grammar from Joseph himself is going on
here, and Carmack offers abundant data to support that claim.

discoveries in this vein began when Royal Skousen, the scholar most
familiar with the intricate details of the earliest Book of Mormon text,
noted that some of the grammatical structures in the early Book of
Mormon manuscripts that looked like bad grammar and often were corrected
out of the Book of Mormon actually were good grammar in Early Modern
English from around 1500 AD. See Royal Skousen, “The Archaic Vocabulary of the Book of Mormon,” Insights
25/5 (2005). The initial discovery came after Christian Gellinek
suggested to Royal Skousen in 2003 that “pleading bar” may be a good
reading for the problematic “pleasing bar” in Jacob 6:13. “Pleading bar”
is not found in the KJV and is obsolete in modern English, but was a
term used in EModE. This surprising observation led Royal Skousen to
open-mindedly examine other aspects of the text, connecting more dots
and pursuing more puzzles, until he came to the conclusion that EModE
somehow played an important role in the original text. (Also see “Early Modern English” at the Book of Mormon Resources blog, Sept. 2014.)

observations and discoveries were greatly strengthened by a linguist,
Stanford Carmack, who has provided extensive data and statistics for
certain aspects of the Book of Mormon further strengthening the case for
EModE influence in the dictated text from Joseph Smith–an impossible
feat for Joseph Smith on his own or I think anyone he had access to. See
A Look at Some ‘Nonstandard’ Book of Mormon Grammar” in Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, vol. 11 (2014): 209-262, and “What Command Syntax Tells Us About Book of Mormon Authorship,” Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, vol. 13 (2015): 175-217. A third article on this topic should be published any day now (possibly this Friday) at
I look forward to digesting that new contribution, and congratulate
Stanford Carmack for his detailed analysis and investigative work. This
is a vein rich in data and filled with surprises.

I think
it’s hard to argue that Joseph Smith was deliberately trying to add
EModE elements to impress anyone (what, nearly two centuries later, when we finally noticed?)
since he took pains to edit out some of the awkward sounding phraseology
that resulted.

Now, coming back to the waters of Sebus, Book of Mormon Resources in Sept. 2014 had this to say about an EModE connection, after listing the many verses using the plural “waters” in the Book of Mormon:

passages show the pervasive Book of Mormon characteristic of duality.
Waters are either associated with life, peace, righteousness and
deliverance or they connote death, peril, sin and captivity. All of
these ideas are found commingled in the single verse 1 Nephi 4:2.

unambiguous passages refer to either a) a salt water ocean b) a flowing
stream or c) symbolic spirituality, life and healing. The OED [Oxford English Dictionary] confirms that during the Early Modern English era (see the blog article “Early Modern English“)
“waters” plural referred either to a) water moving in waves [the
ocean], b) flowing water [rivers] or c) healing water from medicinal,
thermal or therapeutic springs. In this case, the OED strikingly
corroborates what we find in the text….

So, evidence from
the text and the OED suggests the waters of Mormon, Sebus and Ripliancum
are all streams or rivers as in Joshua 3:13. Fountains are generally
considered springs as in Deuteronomy 8:7. The fountain mentioned in
Mosiah 18:5 is almost certainly a spring feeding a flowing stream. Trees
grow along stream beds as in Numbers 24:6 which explains the thicket
near the water in Mosiah 18:5. The fountain/tree connection was part of
the Nephite worldview 1 Nephi 11:25. The image of waters that flow and
gush associated with the actions of a prophet is attested in the text 1
Nephi 20:21 citing Isaiah 48:21. River Jordan was the quintessential
baptistery in the New Testament Matthew 3:6, Mark 1:5. The most noted
baptistery in the Book of Mormon is probably a flowing stream as well.
In the land of Zarahemla, Alma1 probably baptized in the river Sidon as
his son did decades later Alma 4:4. Alma1’s baptisms in Zarahemla were
expressly “after the manner” of his iconic baptisms earlier in the
waters of Mormon Mosiah 25:18.

Most LDS Mesoamericanists
who deal with the Book of Mormon correlate the waters of Ripliancum with
the extensive wetlands at the mouth of the Papaloapan River in
Veracruz. Our analysis confirms this correlation as highly likely. [The
author then explores several geographical correspondences with the Book
of Mormon and offers further examples from EModE texts.]

know the “waters of Sidon” refers to a large river. The “waters of
Ripliancum” probably refers to a large river. The “many waters” in land
Ramah-Cumorah probably refer to multiple rivers. This makes it likely
the “waters of Mormon” refers to a flowing stream of water since as
Royal Skousen frequently reminds us, the original text is very
consistent in its usage patterns (See the Editor’s Preface to the Yale
Edition, page xxxix). In the 1981 LDS edition, Mosiah 18:8 reads “here
are the waters of Mormon” which in modern English could potentially
refer to any body of water. The Yale edition restores this phrase to its
original “here is the waters of Mormon” which in Early Modern English
implied a flowing stream.

So what of
the waters of Sebus? Perhaps it was a watering hole that was part of a
stream or river. Nothing too surprising there, but I do like the way
Book of Mormon usage of “waters” fits well with EModE usage. However,
I’m not sure that treating “waters” as a singular noun was common in
EModE or signals a pre-KJV connection. While the consistency in meanings
for “waters” between the Book of Mormon and early English is
interesting, I don’t think any of those meanings are obsolete today,
making this less interesting than the highlights of Carmack’s and
Skousen’s finds.

Finally, turning back to Brant Gardner’s insights
about Mesoamerican culture and royal intrigues in the story of Ammon, I
am interested in the Book of Mormon insights we may obtain from
examination of ancient Mesoamerican royal courts. The Book of Mormon’s
brief information about kings and royal households among the Lamanites
in the story of Ammon and the sons of Mosiah shows a hierarchical system
of kings under a top king. We also learn of royal household and courts
that appear to offer broad public access. Compare that to the following
information from Wikipedia’s entry, “Maya Civilization” under the section on “King and Court”:

A typical Classic Maya polity was a small hierarchical state (ajawil, ajawlel, or ajawlil) headed by a hereditary ruler known as an ajaw (later k’uhul ajaw).
Such kingdoms were usually no more than a capital city with its
neighborhood and several lesser towns, although there were greater
kingdoms, which controlled larger territories and extended patronage
over smaller polities. Each kingdom had a name that did not necessarily
correspond to any locality within its territory. Its identity was that
of a political unit associated with a particular ruling dynasty….

have been increasingly accepting a “court paradigm” of Classic Maya
societies which puts the emphasis on the centrality of the royal
household and especially the person of the king. This approach focuses
on Maya monumental spaces as the embodiment of the diverse activities of
the royal household. It considers the role of places and spaces
(including dwellings of royalty and nobles, throne rooms, temples, halls
and plazas for public ceremonies) in establishing power and social
hierarchy, and also in projecting aesthetic and moral values to define
the wider social realm.

Spanish sources invariably describe even
the largest Maya settlements as dispersed collections of dwellings
grouped around the temples and palaces of the ruling dynasty and lesser
nobles. None of the Classic Maya cities shows evidence of economic
specialization and commerce of the scale of Mexican Tenochtitlan.
Instead, Maya cities could be seen as enormous royal households, the
locales of the administrative and ritual activities of the royal court.
They were the places where privileged nobles could approach the holy
ruler, where aesthetic values of the high culture were formulated and
disseminated and where aesthetic items were consumed. They were the
self-proclaimed centers and the sources of social, moral, and cosmic
order. The fall of a royal court as in the well-documented cases of
Piedras Negras or Copan would cause the inevitable “death” of the
associated settlement.

To me, the passage of time
since Joseph Smith’s day has made the Book of Mormon far more plausible,
when placed in a Mesoamerican setting, than it was in light of common
knowledge about Native Americans in Joseph’s day. Looking for
Mesoamerican cultural clues, linguistic clues, and other internal and
external clues in the text can point us to many rich and long-buried
treasures in this precious volume. There are many more dots to connect
and puzzles to solve or resolve. Keep on sleuthing!

Update, Feb. 26: As I rushed to prepare this post, I had the persistent feeling that I needed to find and add one more interesting connection to these meanderings around Alma 17, so I wondered if the Mayan word for crocodile might be relevant. That was actually the question on my mind as I awoke early this morning after returning to China from the U.S. last night, but the online resources I found did not include crocodile or alligator. Out of time, I posted this, but then moments later heard back from Kathy Kidd, editor of the Nauvoo Times where I am cross-posting this. She mentioned that a Mesoamerican tour guide had told her that Lamanai means crocodile in Mayan. OK, there’s my missing connection, and it has slightly more authority than hearsay since I just noticed Wikipedia identifies the ancient place name Lamanai as meaning “submerged crocodile” in Yucatan Mayan. Of crocodiles and kings indeed!

Author: Jeff Lindsay

13 thoughts on “Connecting Some Scattered Book of Mormon Dots

  1. I was surprised by Prof. Westcott's casual references to Canaanite inscriptions and Hebrew coins being found in the Americas. Coins and inscriptions are the kind of hard evidence that many archaeologists can only dream of finding. If such finds were genuine, pre-Columbian contact between Old and New Worlds would be established fact.

    I'd never heard of these inscriptions or coins before, so I googled. The inscriptions in question would seem to be "the Bat Creek stone" and the "Bar Kohkba coins". Scholarly consensus seems to be that the Bat Creek stone was a hoax and that the Bar Kohkba coins found in Kentucky are 19th century replicas that were distributed to advertise tours to the Holy Land or something like that.

    My quick impression is that these negative judgements are pretty compelling. Someone turned up an image extremely similar to the Bat Creek inscription in a Masonic periodical from just before the stone was found. The actual Bar Kohkba coins were re-stamped Roman coins whose original inscriptions were not perfectly obliterated but the Kentucky coins have no trace of re-stamping.

    So what's an apparently distinguished academic like Westcott doing, casually mentioning these finds as if they were uncontroversial? Maybe a responsible scholar could personally believe them to be genuine, but a responsible scholar just would not omit to acknowledge the controversy in such cases. This is bizarre.

    Stubbs's work sounds interesting, but I'm far from convinced. A hundred correlations might suffice to group native American languages, in the sense that it's pretty clear these languages must have been somehow related and the question is which links were closest. A small sample might be enough to show those patterns. That doesn't mean that a few hundred correlations, out of lexicons that are probably at least ten thousand words, are smoking guns for trans-Pacific contact.

    There's also the question of which hundred words are similar in two languages: half of the words most commonly used in daily life, or 1% of the entire lexicon?

  2. A little of this, a little of that. An artifact from Tennessee; a word from Belize, one from Egyptian, and another from Canaanite or Akkadian or whatever — mix vigorously, filter through a non-peer-reviewed work by a group of amateur antiquarians (the New England Antiquities Research Association), then serve it up with a side of Early Modern English….

    Also, of course, play up any correlations between BoM language and ancient languages but dismiss the much, much more numerous and much, much stronger correlations between the book and its 19th-century context….

    This isn't serious work. It's dilettantish game-playing; Jeff's allusion to the Da Vinci code is quite apt. (Given Mormonism's millennialist origins, a reference to the nineteenth-century's amateur date-setting numerologists would have been even more appropriate.)

    One can see the problem clearly when Jeff writes things like this:

    If Stubbs' work withstands further scrutiny and leads to even more insights and solved mysteries when applied by other scholars, it could prove to be a monumental advance in Book of Mormon studies.

    But wait — if this kind of work is really legit, why frame it solely as a matter of Book of Mormon studies? Why keep it within the fold? Why shouldn't people like Stubbs be striving to make "monumental advances" in the wider, secular fields of linguistics, anthropology, and history?

    Of course, we all know the answer: peer review by non-LDS academic experts.

    Apparently, it's better to avoid the risk of getting shot down in peer review by keeping one's "monumental" findings safely in the fold of Book of Mormon studies (by which Jeff really means "LDS apologetics"). This serves the cause of apologetics, at the cost of never achieving anything "monumental."

    We also see this here:

    Of course, demonstrating strong Middle Eastern influences in New World languages does not prove anything divine in the Book of Mormon, but rather increases the case for plausibility and may help overcome some common objections.

    In other words, the aim of this work is not to prove anything to the world at large, nor to discover actual evidence of BoM historicity, but to blow a little smoke around BoM problems and thus make it easier for doubters to keep their testimonies. This works because believers mistakenly place the burden of proof on the skeptics, but that's another story.

    I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have to keep asking: What are LDS scholar-apologists so afraid of? If their work is so good, why not submit it to those who can validate it? If their light is truly light, why hide it under a bushel?

  3. I really need some help wrapping my head around this Early Modern English thing. I just don't get it. Seriously, help me out. I get it that it suggests Joseph Smith didn't write it. (I don't buy it, but I get it.) But let's say that it does prove Smith isn't the author. Then it only raises far more questions than it answers. It even causes real problems for Book of Mormon historicity, in my opinion, because rather than showing that it is of ancient origin, it shows that someone with experience in Early Modern English wrote it.

    So, apart from proving Smith isn't the author, what is the point?

    If I were Skousen, and I suddenly found EModE in the Book of Mormon, wouldn't my first impression be that this is damning! But it apparently wasn't his first impression.

    Let's say I find a book that claims to be by Ovid, translated by a Harvard scholar in 2013. No one can prove if it is authentic Ovid or not. And the original manuscript used in the translation not longer exists, because the professor's dog ate it or something.

    Upon inspection, it is found that this English translation uses a form of English that Mr. Harvard wouldn't have known to use. Is this therefore evidence that the text is most definitely Ovid? Isn't it rather evidence that someone else who knew this form of English translated the book? And it is therefore not what it claims to be?

    See what I mean. I assume that Skousen and Carmack are smart enough to realize this, and therefore I am just missing something. So what is it that I am missing?

  4. I figured the argument was just that the diction of the Book of Mormon is so peculiar, that any possible explanation for the text would have to be something really strange; and hence no stranger than the orthodox Mormon theory of divine revelation.

    It's kind of like Christian apologists saying that early opponents of Christianity would surely have produced Christ's body if they could have done so, so why didn't they? They're pointing out that the episode is at least somewhat strange no matter how you look at it, so maybe resurrection isn't much stranger than any other viable explanation. I'm not saying you have to buy this argument, just showing how it runs, as I understand it.

    In the case of Book of Mormon diction, I don't really see the strangeness, though. The language of the Book of Mormon isn't like the English of the King James Bible, or the English of Joseph Smith's place and time; but to me it sure sounds a lot like an overdone imitation of King James English, by someone from Smith's place and time. Scholarly analysis of historical dialects just doesn't consider that kind of imperfect imitation.

  5. Orbiting Kolob,

    You'll have to read the paper that Brian Stubbs authored and let us know what you think. There are certainly enough modern examples of languages adopting vocabulary of other languages and most likely enough statistical analysis of languages and false cognates to come to a proper conclusion of Stubbs' work, because right now you come off sounding like a disgruntled ex-mo. You'll probably have to bone up on linguistics 101 to better appreciate the work that Stubbs has done. Maybe even linguistics 102 too.


  6. Steve, as soon as Stubbs publishes this kind of work in a peer-reviewed linguistics journal, I'll read it.

    What in the world is wrong with my insisting that this kind of stuff be taken out of the realm of apologetics and into the realm of serious academic research? It's not peevish, nor does it peg me as disgruntled. It's a perfectly reasonable request. By impugning my motives for making it, you're actually enabling bad research and bad apologetics.

    If you want the truth, you should be with me on this one. I shouldn't be alone in this. Mormons themselves should be insisting on the highest quality research. Unless, of course, they see their apologetics merely as a form of faith-enhancing recreation. If that's the case, then fine — everyone needs a hobby.

  7. I have known this for many years. I spent nearly all my mission with the Papago tribe (now Tohono Odem). Their word for God was particularly interesting. It was Jee-osh. They talked of coming across the sea and landing on the west coast of South America. When talking of the teachings of the Book of Mormon they were offended and said white people could not talk of such things.

  8. @everythingbeforeus. The main idea that I get from the different EMODE bits of grammar found in the book of Mormon is not to prove the the Book of Mormon is the book of Mormon but rather to show that it is something that Joseph Smith, nor any of his contemporaries would likely have used in speech or writing.

    @Orbiting Kolob. Of course you can ask for a peer review. However, it does not require a peer review to check some of Carmack's assertions, such as the percentage of such grammar in the Book of Mormon as compared to the Bible and in texts from the middle to late 1500's. You can do your own homework and show that such grammar was actually common in Joseph Smith's day. After all, there are plenty of freely available texts to consult and computer programs to use. It should be a trivial task for someone with you intelligence and education.
    (I am not being sarcastic.)


  9. How much "did" is too much "did?" Because I have been doing a very brief and amateurish analysis of the writings of Samuel Hopkins and Moses Stuart, late 18th, early 19th Century theologians. Alexander Campbell apparently often quoted Stuart. And Stuart's writings are apparently full of quotes by Hopkins. And I am finding this EmodE did syntax quite a bit.

    …did entertain…did become…did contribute…did send…did sin…did connect…did carry…did bring…did die…did suffer…did much abate…did hate…did permit…did say…did acquiesce…did harden…

    I am by no means a linguist. What do I know? Seriously.

    I should also point out that in Stuart's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans published in 1832, we find these teachings:

    1. The fall of Adam brought us into a probationary state.

    2. We are in a better situation to secure final happiness now in mortality than Adam was in the Garden.

    3. All men are punished for their own sins. Not for Adam's sin.

    Sure, this commentary's publication date post-dates the Book of Mormon, but still…And considering this guy's influence on Alexander Campbell, and thus Ridgon…

    Like I said I am not a linguist, nor a historian. I teach art at the college level. I'm a painter. But I have a decent head on my shoulders. And when I start seeing this kind of stuff, it makes me wonder.

    Also, I found a book called The Gospel Standard, Or Feeble Christian's Support Vol. VI, published in the British Isles in 1840 that includes this teaching:"punishment as eternal as the life of the soul."

    Sounds a lot like this: "Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul." Alma 42:16.

    Again, it postdates the Book of Mormon. But LDS missionary work didn't begin in the British Isles until 1837. This was published in 1840.

    So, either the British theologians who published this were quite fast to incorporate BoM doctrines into their framework,…or these ideas were percolating throughout Christianity in the 19th Century, being preached in sermons long before they started getting published. And it was through this preaching that it made its way into Joseph's consciousness.

  10. My Husband Cheated and i put a STOP using Magick
    Powerful Love Spells, Revenge Of The Raven Curse,Break Up Spells,

    Do Love Spells Work ? Try my powers to heal from where you are………

    Fertility Spell
    Pregnancy Spell
    Revenge/Death Spell
    Magic Spells
    Protection Spells
    Curse Removal,
    Remove Negative Energy
    Removing Curse Spells.
    Witch Doctor,
    Spiritual Cleansing,
    African Witchcraft

    Mobile: +27618183112

  11. Hello I am CHIZZY PEACE ,I am out here to spreed this good news to the entire world on how I got my ex love back.I was going crazy when my love left me for another girl last month, But when i meet a friend that introduce me to DR ADAGBA the great messenger to the oracle that he serve,I narrated my problem to Dr Adagba about how my ex love left me and also how i needed to get a job in a very big company.He only said to me that i have come to the right place were i will be getting my heart desire without any side effect.He told me what i need to do,After it was been done,In the next 2 days,My love called me on the phone and was saying sorry for living me before now and also in the next one week after my love called me to be pleading for forgiveness,I was called for interview in my desired company were i needed to work as the managing director..I am so happy and overwhelmed that i have to tell this to the entire world to contact DR ADAGBA at the following email address and get all your problem solve..No problem is too big for him to solve..Contact him direct on: and get your problems solve like me….. ONCE AGAIN HIS EMAIL ADDRESS IS:


    Fertility Spell website
    Pregnancy Spell website
    Love Spell website
    Marriage Spell website
    Revenge/Death Spell website
    Magic Spells website
    Protection Spells website
    Curse Removal website
    Remove Negative Energy website
    Removing Curse Spells. website
    Witch Doctor, website
    Spiritual Cleansing, website
    African Witchcraft website Phone: +2348067268474

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.