Explaining “Wherefore” And “Therefore”

One argument sometimes raised by critics makes use of what is, on its own, a fascinating scholarly appraisal. The argument interprets that scholarship in a way that creates the appearance of authorship problems for the Book of Mormon.

However, upon investigation of the facts themselves, this actually turns into remarkable evidence of Joseph Smith's authenticity as translator. The facts center on the location and frequency with which some words appear in the Book of Mormon. For instance, a shift between the interchangeable words “wherefore” and “therefore” occurs in the Book of Mormon [1] (and at the same time  in the Doctrine and Covenants, which bolsters my point although I don’t dive into it here). The books of Ether, Moroni, 1 Nephi, 2 Nephi, Jacob, Enos, Jarom, Omni and Words of Mormon display a strong preference for the word “wherefore,” while the books of Mosiah, Alma, Helaman, 3 Nephi, 4 Nephi and Mormon display a strong preference for the word “therefore.”

Here are the books, in the most likely order of translation:

		Wherefore			Therefore
Mosiah		1	1%		123	99%
Alma		3	1%		291	99%
Helaman		0	0%		63	100%
3 Nephi		3	3%		97	97%
4 Nephi		0	0%		5	100%
Mormon		0	0%		22	100%
Ether		63	70%		24	30%
Moroni		38	100%		0	0%
1 Nephi		97	88%		13	12%
2 Nephi		137	83%		28	17%
Jacob		52	98%		1	2%
Enos		6	100%		0	0%
Jarom		3	100%		0	0%
Omni		6	100%		0	0%
Words of Mormon		4	100%		0	0%

      Essentially, some critics cite this as evidence against Joseph’s claim to have translated the Book of Mormon, saying it shows evidence of multiple English authors.

     I can understand why it would look that way. I don’t expect to see sudden shifts in people’s use of words. It’s not as though Joseph suddenly discovered the word “wherefore” and decided to start using it.

     But let’s look deeper, for hidden evidence.

     The argument against Joseph implies that the shift in wording began at the very beginning of the Book of Ether. This creates the illusion that the shift corresponds with a new book starting, and not with the substance of anything being said in the text.

     In reality, the first few chapters of Ether show a preference for the word “therefore.” The shift doesn’t happen until after some very significant verses at the end of chapter 4 and through chapter 5.

     To understand the significance of these verses, let’s back up for a moment and treat Joseph’s story of the plates as objectively true. The reason for doing this is to help us ascertain the implications of his story if it is indeed true.

    Joseph says he was introduced to the Book of Mormon by Moroni, who had lived on the earth hundreds of years ago. It was Moroni who instructed Joseph in the specifics regarding the work he was to perform. Before Joseph ever began translation of the plates, he went through a process of preparation which we don’t know much about. Moroni was Joseph’s friend and mentor.

     Now imagine when Joseph was translating and reached Mormon chapter 8 and finally began the part written by his mentor. If I was in Joseph’s shoes, I would have thought that was pretty neat. But it gets even more significant, because Moroni was writing directly to us in our day. He wasn’t keeping a record to be handed down, he was writing something to be hid away and saved for us.

     Now consider Ether 4:17-18, which is a message from God being quoted by Moroni from memory. These verses state that because we have received the record we may know the work of the Lord has commenced in our day and we are thus commanded to repent and be baptized. Unlike the previous times when baptism was mentioned in the Book of Mormon, this is not merely a record of other people in a past age being commanded to be baptized, but is a commandment being issued directly to us in our day.

     If there was any doubt in Joseph’s mind that this commandment was being issued to him, that doubt should have been wiped away by the time he finished the next few verses. In them, Moroni speaks directly to Joseph himself about what he can translate and who he can show the plates to.

     Prior to the commandment to be baptized, Ether contains 13 instances of the word “therefore” and 7 instances of the word “wherefore.” After the commandment, Ether contains only 11 instances of “therefore” but has 54 instances of “wherefore.”

     Now consider the words of Joseph’s mother:

     One morning … they sat down to their usual work when the first thing that presented itself to Joseph was a commandment from God that he and Oliver should repair to the water and each of them be baptized.

(From The Revised and Enhanced History of Joseph Smith By His Mother, Chapter 27)

     The only verse in the Book of Mormon which directly fits this description is Ether 4:18, and that fits the timeline of where Joseph would have been in translation at the time of his baptism.[2]

     Now consider the impact Joseph says his baptism had on him:

     Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings … Our minds now enlightened, we began to have the scriptures laid open to our understandings, and the true meaning and intention of their more mysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of.

(From Joseph Smith History, 1:73-74)

     Joseph explains his eyes were opened. He had a new reverence and understanding.

     This is key: before Moroni commanded Joseph to be baptized, in Ether, each time Joseph used the word “wherefore,” sacred subject matter was being addressed in the Book of Mormon. In particular, God speaking to man. But after that commandment to be baptized, Joseph expands the use of “wherefore” dramatically, as if he now realizes that it is unnecessary.This matches the claim that he saw the scriptures in a totally new light after being baptized. 

     Thus we see that the shift from “therefore” to “wherefore” is not at all problematic for the Book of Mormon, and actually lends powerful credibility to Joseph’s story. Especially since the evidence was hidden and obviously not intended as subterfuge.

---

[1]    The distribution of the words is a scholarly appraisal made by Brent Metcalfe, which is not in itself anti-Mormon, of course. There are two instances in the Book of Mormon where “wherefore” is used to pose a question. Other than those instances, the words are interchangeable in meaning.

[2]    Elden Watson constructed a thorough timeline, in which he readily admits he wanted Joseph’s baptism to correspond with a verse in 3 Nephi after Christ visited America – thus Watson adjusted the estimated number of pages translated per day in order to make that fit. Removing Watsons’ adjustment places Joseph in Ether. Watson's timeline is available on the internet at eldenwatson.net/BoM.htm

Broken Chiasmus

     Many people have discussed the significance of chiasmus in the Book of Mormon, and this discussion is primarily for readers who are already familiar with the basic ideas. If you aren't familiar, chiasmus is a relatively simple yet elegant writing style in which words or themes are presented and then repeated in reverse order. Using letters, an easy example would be: “a-b-c-c-b-a.” Another example would be “(a)Mary (b)had (c)a little lamb, (c)a little lamb (b)had (c)Mary.”

     Ancient Hebrews used this literary device frequently, to highlight themes. So, the fact that it is found extensively in the Book of Mormon is evidence of authenticity. Someone went to a lot of effort to put chiasmus in the Book of Mormon (yet this fact was never cited by Joseph Smith or early Mormons as evidence).

     Unfortunately, both the critics and the chiasm hunters are missing something important. The real test of authenticity is the hidden evidence – what was destroyed, what became imperfect when the target language was imposed on the original source language.

     For instance, 2 Nephi 9:28 is a chiasm, beginning with “O the vainness and the frailties and the foolishness of men!” That is a well-crafted line in English. However, it breaks the chiasm so as to avoid the awkward English phrase, “O the perishability and the vainness and the foolishness of men!” The word order and the root were changed to create the delightful triad we have today. Something Hebrew readers appreciate was sacrificed to make way for something comparable that English readers appreciate and are able to remember. Notice the first word, “vainness,” shares “ai” with the second word (creating assonance) as well as number of syllables, and shares “ness” with the third word (end rhyme), while the second and third words share “f” at the beginning (alliteration). This is similar to the well known triad, “healthy, wealthy and wise.” Triads like that are constructed intentionally, just as chiasmus is.

2 Nephi 9:28

A. O the vainness

            B. and the frailties

                        C. and the foolishness of men

                                    D. When they are learned

                                                E. they think

                                                            F. they are wise

                                                                        G. and they hearken not unto the

                                                                            counsel of God

                                                                        G. for they set it aside

                                                E. supposing

                                    D. they know of themselves

                                                            F. wherefore their wisdom

                        C. is foolishness

A. and it profiteth them not

            B. And they shall perish

     The first thing we note is that the F element is seemingly out of place in the inverted half, and so is the B element. The F element is in exactly the right place however, as this is a profane chiasm. Since chiasm is considered sacred, authors acknowledge subject matter dealing with unholy things by putting a standard flaw or mark in the chiasmus, which is moving the element immediately after the pivot and reinserting it after two intervening elements.

     The precise placement of the F element is evidence that the chiasm is carefully crafted by someone who knew what they were doing. That initially makes the placement of the B element all the more curious, as does the fact the words in the B element are not from the same root. Until, that is, one realizes the changes necessary in order to create the triad in English. The exact synonym was replaced by a less exact word having the desired sounds to make the triad work. Two elements switched places in order to put the right sounds in adjacent words.

     The Book of Mormon abounds with chiasmus, but critics have long complained that Mormons ignore missing or out of place elements. Yet critics have not stopped to seriously consider where these broken chiasms came from. What we have is what we should expect to find in an authentic translation.

     Critics, for their part, could attempt to explain broken chiasmus as a result of multiple authorship, wherein one person wrote the book and then another person came along later and changed it without realizing they were disturbing well-ordered chiasmus. The downside for critics is they would then be tied-down to a multiple authorship theory, which can get complicated very fast.

     As for me, I would like to see future study of broken chiasms to determine how many of the changes   are attributable to a shift from Hebrew to English grammar - something which cannot be explained away by proposing multiple English authors.

     For instance, 2 Nephi 9:23-24 has nine matching pairs of elements for a chiasm, but many of them   are out of order. It’s as though the order was changed to represent the subject matter better in English.                                         

    Now here’s the most interesting part: one of the matching elements is the phrase “in his name,” but it appears three times instead of only twice. However, in Hebrew grammar the phrase “in his name” would have only been used twice, once in the top portion of the chiasm, and once in the bottom portion. That’s because in Hebrew grammar a single word or phrase would have been used to state that both “believe” and “be baptized” are “in his name.” In English, it was necessary to repeat the phrase and thus repeat that element of the chiasm one too many times.

2 Nephi 23-24

A. And he commandeth all men

            B. that they must repent

                        C. and be baptized

                                    D. in his name

                                                E. having perfect

                                                            F. faith

                                                                        G. in the Holy One of Israel

                                                                                    H. or they cannot be saved

                                                                                                I. in the kingdom of God

            B. And if they will not repent

                                                            F. and believe

                                    D. in his name

                        C. and be baptized

                                    D. in his name

                                                E. and endure to the end

                                                                                    H. they must be damned

                                                                                                I. for the Lord God

                                                                        G. the Holy One of Israel

A. has spoken it.

This chiasm is badly broken, but with enough elements, divided perfectly between the top and bottom half, to indicate that it started out as a chiasm. We must not make the mistake of assuming that only the last half is broken. The top half is only the order in which we have imposed letters, so most likely both halves have been distorted to accommodate English preferences.