From time to time the missionaries come by my house. They mostly have heard of that old Jewish guy who is so interested in Mormonism, but is not a member. I guess I'm a bit of a mystery to them. As expected, they ask the same questions: "Have you read the Book of Mormon?" "Have you prayed about it?" "What do you think about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith?" "Do you think the Book of Mormon is true?" Those last two questions are just unanswerable, and frankly, I wish they'd stop asking them.

Every so often I get something like this: "But there's a mountain of evidence to support the Book of Mormon as an ancient document." Without debating the merits of the statement, I like to ask, "Okay, name one." They then mostly stumble about a bit, sputter a little, and then, I can almost bet on it, one of them will say, "But what about chiasmus?"

I look a little puzzled and ask, "What is that? Give me an example." Forget it. They know it exists; there's been plenty written about it. But I've yet to have a single young man be able to explain to me that which he presented as proof of the Book of Mormon.

I am of the opinion that "chiasmus" has become something of a fail-safe, a talismanic expression of faith in the Book of Mormon. Some think that the presence of chiasmus in the text of the Book of Mormon proves something. Of course, it doesn't prove anything. It may suggest antiquity, but it is no proof. No linguist would support this idea.

This lack of understanding among many in the Church is one reason why the current title is so important. The author holds several postgraduate degrees, including a Ph.D. from UCLA. Duke is no slouch. But he is also not a professional linguist, a fact he himself makes clear at the outset. So why is he writing a book on a subject that is not his field of study?

My fondest wish would be that the present book would advance the recognition of the greatness of the literature found in the Book of Mormon. (p. 5)

And there it is, one side of the coin that represents his interest. He acknowledges the widespread study of the Bible as literature in Universities; he bemoans the fact that no one has thought to include the Book of Mormon as a sacred text worthy of study as literature. The other side of the coin is his passionate love for the book. His affection comes through on every page. Here is a man who loves the Book of Mormon very much.

A question that bears answering -- should we leave it to an amateur to write such a book? Wouldn't a professional linguist be a better choice? Prior to reading this book, I would have opted for the professional over the beginner. But now that I've read Duke's labor, I am compelled to confess that, at least in this instance, this beginner is the perfect author for such a book.

Duke succeeds in laying out the various kinds of literary types, along with an abundance of examples from the Book of Mormon. Throughout the book, he demonstrates a real understanding of the needs of the Mormon community -- a basic grasp of the concepts; lots of examples. His prose is very spare; you're done with a chapter before you know it. He relies largely on examples and cites from recognized linguists to present the subject matter.

It must be said that very little new ground is broken here. His diagram of 3 Nephi 29 (p. 57) may be considered new, but the essence of his point is available elsewhere. His lists are likely also available elsewhere (for example, his listing of the names of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon spans pages 233-236). What sets this book apart is its accessibility and completeness. Duke wants you to understand the rudiments of linguistic studies without having to plunge into a detailed, college-level course.

This is a book I would actually recommend to young men and women preparing to go on their mission. It will not only equip them with valuable information as they go door to door, but it will fill them, as it did the author, with a love for the Book of Mormon, and that love will be evident in their missionary work.

I gladly recommend this book.

-----------------------------------

Jeff Needle
January 15, 2005