I have been working my way through a recent book critical of Latter-day Saint Scripture:
Arthur Chris Eccel, Mormon Genesis (Hilo, Hawaii: GP Touchstone, 2018)
While critical of Book of Mormon historicity, Eccel, both directly and indirectly, refutes many arguments against the Book of Mormon.
For instance, David Persuitte in his Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon (2d ed.; 2000) argued that “Great Spirit” is an anachronism in the Book of Mormon and was only introduced after Columbus. Notwithstanding, Eccel, in discussing the concept, shows that it pre-dates the arrival of Columbus to the New World
The Great Spirit. It is not easy to know exactly what North American pre-Columbian beliefs were about deity prior to European missionary contact. The information is oral, and usually rather late, even at times, related by European colonists. Yet some concept of a Great Spirit seems to have existed among many. Some names or the Great Spirit, or its equivalent follows: 1) Sioux: “Wakan Tanka,” Great Mystery than organizes the spirits or deities, as every object was spirit, or “wakan;” 2) the Shoshone: “Tam Apo,” Our Father (although the religion involved various legendary spirits and ghost spirits); 3) Chickasaw: “Ababinili,” spirit of fire and manifest in fire and the sun, and giver of life, light, and warmth; 4) Many Algonquian speaking tribes of the Great Plains, such as Ojibwe: “Gitchi Manitou,” Great Spirit (translated as “God” in missionary translations of scripture), along with other spirits pictures above doorways; 5) Blackfoot: “Apistotoke,” Our Creator, a formless spirit (translated as “God” in Christian scriptures); Arapaho: “Chebbeniathan,” Spider-above, the creator-god; 6) Abenaki: “Gici Niwaskw,” Great Spirit; 7) Huron: “Ha-Wen-Neyu,” the creator god, rendered Great Spirit in English, but meaning “Great Voice” of “Great Ruler”; 8) Cheyenne: “Maheo,” Great One, creator, but figured in a pantheon including “Wihio” (spider trickster), “Nonoma” (spirit of thunder), “Mehne” & “Axxea” (water monsters) and other legendary beings; 9) Seminole: “Hisagita Misa” (Creek: “Hisagita-imisi”), Breth-maker, associated with the Milky Way. (p. 137)
Additionally, discussing the problems with Brent Metcalfe’s study of “wherefore” and “therefore” in the Book of Mormon, Eccel writes:
. . . the procedure is fatally flawed, largely because the BOM books vary so much in length, and the data were not standardized for this variable. Alma has 85,073 words. Moroni only 6,142 and Jarom 733. The problem seems obvious, but can be exampled in this manner. Assume that you and I engage in a bit of friendly gambling. We will throw a single indian-head nickel. Every time I get a head, you owe me a dollar, and vice versa. So after a hundred throws, on average neither of us should be out more than a dollar or two, if the nickel is honest. But here is the catch. For every throw you get, I get ten. On average, for every dollar I owe you, you will owe me ten. Well, no one in Vegas would play such a game, not even the most well lubricated at 3 AM. Putting the gross tally of 1 Nephi on an equal basis with Alma is just this sort of game.
A simple way to standardize for length is to calculate incidence per 5,000 words. But there is another factor. The major premise of the argument is that these word pairs are functional equivalents. So when the author needs a word with the function of wherefore/therefore or whoso/whosoever, which of the two words does he choose? As it turns out, wherefore has two meanings. It occurs twice with interrogative meaning, once in 1 Nephi and once in 2 Nephi. Since these do not correspond semantically to therefore, they need to be omitted from the count. Of far greater import, the BOM uses another expression corresponding to whoso and whosoever. This is he that (occurring in alternate forms, lumped together here: he that, him that, they that and them that). Due to the strong preference for using the word that in the BOM, we find he that rather than he who, which at least visually corresponds better to who so. In BOM parlance, when the writer needed a word with this meaning/function, he could have chosen whoso, whosoever or that that. The interchangeability of these in actual BOM usage is illustrated in the following passages:
And now, whoso readeth, let him understand; he that hath the scriptures let him search them (3 Nephi 10:14)
whoso shall hide up treasures in the earth shall find them again no more and he that hideth not up his treasures unto me, cursed is he, and also the treasure (Heleman 13:18-19)
He that can also be used with a referent, in which case it is not indefinite and so not equivalent to whoso or whosoever. When this occurs, it cannot be added to the tally for this research. Moreover, in addition to whosoever, it is necessary to also count whomsoever. (pp. 352-53)
