I am grateful for the invitation to tell youabout a variety of important research proj-ects related to the Book of Mormon. Scholarsfrom many disciplines at BYU and elsewhereare turning their academic expertise to studiesof the Book of Mormon that are expanding ourappreciation for this great book and theprophetic messages it contains.

Although my primary teaching responsibil-ities during my 27 years at BYU have revolvedaround courses in legal and political philoso-phy, I have frequently enjoyed the opportunityto teach Book of Mormon classes as well. Afteryears of rereading and teaching this book, Ibegan to collect insights that developed intoresearch interests and eventually publishedarticles and books.

Enthused by this involvement and by theresearch of numerous other scholars, I acceptedan invitation from the Religious Studies Centerat BYU to edit a volume of papers by differentscholars that would address the question ofBook of Mormon authorship. That book wasfirst published in 1982, and a new printing wasreleased last year by FARMS (the Foundationfor Ancient Research and Mormon Studies).

Over the subsequent 15 years many newstudies have been completed, and earlier oneshave been significantly updated. As a result, a

second volume of studies on Book of Mormonauthorship will be released within a month,providing the occasion for my presentationtoday. Most of the studies I will describe todayare reported in detail in one or the other ofthese two books.

Since the early 1970s there has been a dra-matic increase in general interest in the Book ofMormon, particularly among Latter-day Saints.In less than two weeks there will be a confer-ence on Ancient Scriptures in the Restorationsponsored by FARMS and the Smith Institutefor Church History at BYU. At that time I willpresent a wide variety of evidence to show thatthe LDS community is reading and writingmuch more about the Book of Mormon inrecent decades than ever before. The Book ofMormon is playing a greatly expanded role inChurch education, in Sunday School curricula,in missionary work, and in Church speakingand instruction generally. Even more impor-tant, understanding and appreciation for thedivine origin and mission of this restoredscripture is much clearer and stronger amongChurch members than ever before.

BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY 1

The Authorship of the Book of Mormon

NOEL B. REYNOLDS

Noel B. Reynolds was a BYU professor of political -science when this forum address was given on 27May 1997.

speechessecretaryTypewritten Textspeeches.byu.edu

Many Book of Mormon research projectshave implications for the continuing issuessurrounding the authorship of the Book ofMormon. Most Latter-day Saints are aware of aminor industry in certain religious circles in theUnited States devoted to refuting Mormonismand to criticizing the Book of Mormon.

It may be of interest to you to hear whattwo young evangelical scholars recently toldtheir own colleagues in comparing evangelicalcriticisms to the research published by faithfulLDS scholars in recent years. In a paper thatthey hope to publish in a major theologicaljournal, they pointed out that certain evangeli-cal beliefs about Mormons are nothing morethan myths or wishful thinking. For example,their research categorically refutes the follow-ing three myths that evangelicals frequentlytell each other about Mormons:

Myth #1: There are no traditional (faithful)Mormon scholars with training in academicdisciplines related to biblical studies or religion.

Myth #2: Mormons who seriously studybiblical languages, theology, and philosophyabandon belief in the historicity of the Book ofMormon and Joseph Smiths prophethood.

Myth #3: Mormonism is crumbling becauseliberal Mormons have shaken the foundationsof LDS belief.

These same evangelical scholars then wenton to draw several conclusions from theirstudy of the debate between Mormons andevangelicals, much of which focuses on theBook of Mormon:

Conclusion #1: There are many qualifiedMormon scholars.

Conclusion #2: Mormon scholars and apol-ogists have answered most of the evangelicalcriticisms.

Conclusion #3: There are no evangelicalbooks that interact responsibly with contempo-rary LDS scholarly and apologetic writings.

Conclusion #4: At the scholarly level,evangelicals are losing the debate with theMormons.

Conclusion #5: Evangelicals involved in thecounterculture (anti-Mormon) movement lackthe skills and training necessary to answerMormon scholarly apologetic.

They went on to explain, and I quote:

Having read an immense amount of the schol-arly literature published by LDS intellectuals; havingread a great deal of apologetic material produced bythe Foundation for Ancient Research and MormonStudies (FARMS); and having read or examinedmost evangelical works on Mormonism, we feel thatwe are justified in our conclusions. [Unpublishedmanuscript in the authors possession]

In the time allotted to me today, I wouldlike to cite a small selection of examples of thekind of work that LDS scholars have beendoing, particularly with respect to the author-ship question. In the process, I hope you willgain a new appreciation for the great complex-ity of the Book of Mormon, for the mountingevidences of its truly ancient origins, and forthe creative work being done by faithful LDSscholars here and elsewhere.

In his recent study of the Book of Mormontranslation process, Richard L. Bushman,professor of history at Columbia University,presents the details and evidence from the per-spective of the original participants, includingJoseph and Emma Smith, Oliver Cowdery, andother scribes and family members. Withoutreferring directly to critical accounts, Bushmanshows why alternative explanations of thisprocess do not work and why the story told bythe original participants should be takenseriously.

Joseph Smith and his scribes ground outseven to nine pages of translated text each dayfor about 63 days. All accounts agree thatJoseph never paused to review even the previ-ous page or sentence, and he used no notes,books, or other reference materials. Joseph andhis scribes clearly realized that they couldnever have produced such a book on their

2 Brigham Young University 199697 Speeches

own. The words were given to Joseph one lineat a time through divine power and themedium of interpretive instruments like theseerstone, much like we today might read linesoff a computer screen. For any mortal to dictatea 500-page book in this way, off the top of hishead, would inevitably lead to wandering, rep-etition, contradiction, non sequiturs, and point-lessness. But the Book of Mormon has none ofthese failings. It is full of themes and stories,characters and events, and accumulatingpoints and teachings that reward repeatedrereading. The internal complexity and consis-tency of the resulting book is itself strong evi-dence that it could not have originated withJoseph and his scribes working in this manner.

Richard L. Anderson, professor emeritus ofancient scripture at BYU, continues his histori-cal investigations of the 11 men who were wit-nesses of the plates from which the Book ofMormon was translated. In spite of the fact thatmost of them eventually had serious differ-ences with Joseph Smith or even left theChurch, all maintained the veracity of theiroriginal witness of the truth of the Book ofMormon and its divine origins.

One dramatic incident gives us the essenceof their experience. David Whitmer was one ofthe Three Witnesses who disagreed with theway the Church was going, and he settleddown permanently in Missouri, letting theSaints go their way to Nauvoo and then on toUtah. He once became deeply annoyed by per-sistent rumors that he had recanted his wit-ness. Desperate for a means of quelling thesefalse rumors, he purchased advertising spaceand published a proclamation in numerousnewspapers, even as far away as Chicago. Inthis proclamation, he reaffirmed the originalexperience of seeing the plates as shown to himby an angel and of hearing the voice of Godcommanding him to bear public witness of thesame. In spite of every incentive to recant thiswitness, neither Whitmer nor any of the other10 witnesses ever did modify their original

story. They rather chose to maintain their testi-monies firmly to the end of their lives.

Royal Skousen, professor of English at BYU,has been studying the original manuscript ofthe Book of Mormon and related documentsfor several years. After minute examination ofthese manuscripts with all their corrections andother physical features, Skousen finds the eye-witness accounts of the translation process tobe wholly credible and precise in their details.

As Joseph dictated without the aid of notes,papers, or even the plates themselves, relyingsolely on the Urim and Thummim or the seer-stone, the scribes carefully recorded everyword. The manuscript shows that Joseph dic-tated word groups of the same length ratherthan sentences. This may explain why the orig-inal manuscript had no punctuation. Josephwould spell out strange names the first timethey occurred, and the scribes would correctthem in-line if they had misspelled them. Butthen they would sometimes revert to mis-spelled versions when those names occurredagain in the dictation. Many errors were caughtwhen scribes read each transcribed line back toJoseph. If it was wrong, he would dictate theline again, and the scribe would make appro-priate corrections above the line. Once it wasrecorded correctly, the line would disappear inthe stone, and the next line would appear. Thistranslation process, as described by the partici-pants and substantiated by Skousens examina-tion of the original manuscript, did not seem toallow Joseph Smith much freedom in wordchoice. The Book of Mormon was not an ordi-nary translation.

The complicated pr