All of us upon our birth are given a name. This naming is often accompanied by a ritual such as a blessing or a christening along with being recorded in civil records. The process in which a name is chosen is often agonising, and most parents don’t chose any old name at random; no parent that I know chose their name by throwing darts at a book of names. The name that a child is given is often a thought out process and endowed with significance. In the Book of Mormon Nephi and Lehi are told they are given their names as a reminder of their ancestors so their name would remind them of their righteous acts. We can look at countless times in the scriptures where the name has been significant, Abram has his name changed to Abraham, Jacob to Israel to show significant changes in their life, and many other examples could be found in the scriptures to show how God has used names for important reasons. For most people, however, the significance that our name had when it was chosen is lost. Our name simply becomes a way of identifying who we are, no one ever says ‘that’s Jake, who is called that because his mum liked the name and it reminded her a person who had helped her during difficult times.’ Or, in the case of Victoria and David Beckham’s child Brooklyn, nobody really says ‘that is Brooklyn named after the place in which he was conceived’. Sometimes we will recall the significance of the name as part of anecdotal conversation, but for the most part our name simply is for identification, most of us don’t think to much about why other people are called by certain names. In the case of books the name of a book is not simply for identification. In fact the title and name of a book has a great deal of impact upon the way in which we understand and read it. The significance always remains and has a functional role, even if it is often over looked.
To demonstrate this lets consider the title of one of our books of scripture The Book of Mormon. The current full title of the text is The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ. On a basic level it is called this because Mormon was the compiler of the records, and the subtitle was added later to clarify and inform a certain approach (the significance of this will be seen later). However, it could equally be called The Book of Joseph Smith: A 19th Century historical text this is because it was dictated/translated/interpreted by Joseph Smith, and it was written in the 19th century and is of a historical nature. Both of these titles would be valid as a name but in changing the title it radically alters the way in which we read the text. Reading it in terms of the latter would possibly cause us to miss the theme of testifying of Jesus Christ and instead focus on the 19th century elements that exist in the text. On the other hand the first would cause us to look more at the christology within it, and miss perhaps the 19th century elements embedded in the text. If the title of the text is important as to how we read the text it leads us to ask the question why is it called The Book of Mormon and why was the subtitle added to it?
The purpose of the title of the book usually informs us into what the subject of the book is about. A reader of Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone knows instantly that the subject of the book is Harry Potter and that it will involve a philosophers stone. It is providing a structure around which we can build our expectations and oriantate the information we gain as we read through the text. Likewise Mormon Doctrine, with its title Bruce R. Mcconkie makes it clear that he wants his readers to understand that subject inside is what the title claims it is: the doctrine of Mormons. As debatable as it is regarding if the contents are actually Mormon Doctrine at all, and not just his own interpretation and opinions, he in chosing that title wants the reader to read it as if it is Mormon doctrine. This follows common protocol for books to use titles as a guide for what it contains then, but it highlights the fact that in guiding it influences and imposes upon how we read the text. If we take this notion of using a title as a guide to what its about, it doesn’t really fit with the Book of Mormon, as the prophet Mormon isn’t the subject of the Book, in fact there is no clear subject of the Book Of Mormon. It is impossible to understand what the title even refers to if one has not read the book already. This makes the title semantically empty, there is nothing in it that really conveys anything to the general public (who would know nothing about Mormon prior to encountering the book) about what the book is about. Perhaps, more can be understood when we consider its full title as it should be remembered that the authorial title, that is the one that was given it by Mormon was: The Book of Mormon: An Account written by the Hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the Plates of Nephi, and not the title that we know it by The Book of Mormon: Another testament of Jesus Christ. The initial title was reduced to the Book of Mormon when it was printed on the cover of the book. This was common practice when books where published at that time, most books had extensive titles that would be reduced when it was printed on the spine of the book. For instance Gulivers Travels was initially called Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World, in Four Parts. By Lemuel Gulliver, First a Surgeon, and then a Captain of Several Ships, which when printed was reduced to its current title simply to save space on the cover and to clarify what the book was about. 
Even when we consider the full title of the Book of Mormon (with the subtitle). The title is still rather enigmatic and tells us little about what to expect from the book. It tells us nothing about what the account is of, simply that it was written by Mormon and that its source was the Plates of Nephi. It does tell us that it is an account, but it tells us nothing about what it is an account of, or what type of account it is. After all, a financial report from a company would be called an account as well as a persons story about their trip to the shops, or a fictional narrative such as Guliver’s Travels. It is possible then to infer from the title that it could be a financial report in the Book of Mormon on the basis of it being an account. The fact then that the title has no clear subject in its title reflects the lack of a clear subject within the text. Whilst, it is possible to say that it presents a narrative of some of the religious events of a population of people that resided in America this raises the question of why is it not called the Book of the Nephites and Lamanites? This could be because it isn’t just about either of these groups, as it also contains other populations such as the Jaredites and the Amalekites. It seems then to make sense to call it after the person who compiled the records, but this is not what we do with our other scriptures, we do not call the bible the Book of Constantine, as it was under his instruction that the canon was produced. In fact the title of the Book of Mormon seems to direct us away from the book as a abridgement and compilation of book’s. Despite the fact that the text is broken up into individual books, it is not presented to us as a Biblia or Library of books, but as a whole text that has been edited by Mormon. It is not the Books of Mormon, or Books of the Nephites but simply a singular book.
Even more bewildering is if we take the title The Book of Mormon, to denote possession, that it is the book that Mormon owns. Like the house of God, or the car of Jake. If it is in this case that we take it, then why didn’t Mormon bring the book which is his to Joseph Smith, and in that case why wasn’t it called the Book of Moroni as he was the one who wrote the last sections, and gave it to Joseph Smith and is linked to the stewardship of the plates. These questions are all relevant and in considering the decision that was made in its name, and if it can help us understand more about how we can read the Book of Mormon, or how Mormon and Moroni wanted the book to read. For we could also make the case for it being called the Book of Joseph Smith, or the Book of the Latter-day saints, on the basis of ownership and possession. The fact then that the title gives nothing away about what it is about, and due to the rise of the term Mormon to apply to a members of The Church of Latter-day saints, has caused the relevance of the name Mormon in the title to be lost, and simply cause bewilderment. It is more often read as being the Book of The Mormons and not the Book of Mormon by those outside of the church. In order to prevent this confusion in 1982 the church added the subtitle ‘Another testament of Jesus Christ’ the purpose of this was to highlight the role of the Saviour in the book. It also indicates who they were aiming the book towards. It was aimed at a Western Christian audience. As the terms testament and Jesus Christ would only be understood by those in western christian nations, who were familiar with the language of christianity, and would have understood the reference to the old and new testament. This also helps us to understand that the book should be read in relation to these two texts. As Boyd K. Packer said:
“The Book of Mormon has been misunderstood. With the subtitle, it takes its place where it should be– beside the Old Testament and the New Testament.”
Packer makes it clear that it needs to be read in relation to these texts. Likewise Ezra Taft Benson explained the function of the new subtitle:
“With the subtitle added to the Book of Mormon, the purpose of the book, ‘to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that JESUS is the CHRIST,’ will become immediately apparent to all who hereafter receive the Book of Mormon,”
If the role of Christ is how it should be read then why didn’t Mormon name it the Book of Jesus Christ, or an account of Christ? Maybe it was because this would have been misleading, as it wasn’t written by him, or about him, even if he features significantly within the text. The intrusion by the Church redefines how the Book of Mormon is perceived, and in turn how we read and understood the text. With the subtitle our reading experience is structured around the concept of what we are reading being related to the Bible, and in a framework that testifies of Jesus Christ.
It is certainly good to read the book in this way, but, perhaps the fact we have overlooked the title and its significance means we have missed out on the way in which Mormon features in the book as its narrator and compiler. It is possible that really it is a book that is all about Mormon and that is why it is called the Book of Mormon. That the way in which he appears in the text is at the level of editor and compiler, that it is on the meta-analysis of the text that we can see his hand throughout the text, and it is indirectly about him. It should be remembered that as a writer of history the account he gave us of the Nephites is not the only account he could have given us of the Nephites and Lamenites. There are an infinite number of combinations and variations of other stories that he could have picked and chose from the 1,000 years of history he had access to, to form the Book of Mormon. The fact that he chose certain stories, books, and narratives to tell, reflect upon what was important to him, and what he thought would be important to his future readers.If then we look at the Book of Mormon and consider the historiography of its composition from the perspective of Mormon the prophet and the series of choices he made in the composition we will read it in the way in which the author intended it to be read. The post-humous addition of the extra subtitle ‘Another testament of Jesus Christ’ has caused us to focus on reading the book in terms of one looking for testifying of Jesus as the Christ, and in seeing it in relation to the old and new testament, this is surely an important way in which we can read the text. However, it is also interesting to see it as the prophet Mormon’s story, for the book represents the way in which he understood the narrative of his people, the series of events that he thought were significant enough to explain where he was in a war-torn country on the brink of utter destruction. This raises questions such as why did Mormon pick certain stories for inclusion? What does his narrative tell us about the time in which he was writing and his struggles? In what ways can we see the influence of Mormon on the narrative? and what sources was Mormon using to construct his narrative? Maybe when we look at the book in this way it will be seen that the Book of Mormon really is a book all about Mormon the prophet and in looking at it from this perspective we will gain a new set of lessons from the rich structure of the Book of Mormon.
Wheat & Tares 
Minor quibble/fix: “Perhaps, more can be understood when we consider its full title as it should be remembered that the authorial title, that is the one that was given it by Mormon was: The Book of Mormon: An Account written by the Hand of Mormon upon the Plates of Nephi, and not the …”
You left out three words:
The Book of Mormon: An account written by the hand of Mormon upon plates taken from the plates of Nephi.
The 1830 and current editions give that in all caps, so I’m not sure how to capitalize it in mixed case.
I have a gut sense that there is an implied punctuation mark after the first “plates.” “Taken from” seems, to me at least, to modify “an account” and not the first “plates”. IE., the account was taken from the plates of Nephi. Without a comma after the first plates, it seems to imply that the plates upon which Mormon wrote were recycled from Nephi’s actual plates, “erased” somehow (gold is soft enough you could do that, or melted down and reformed), and Mormon’s words written upon the same pieces of metal.
I suppose Mormon could have written his draft on a cheaper media, recycled some of the “large plates” that had been handed down for a thousand years, then copied his final edition from the temporary media onto the recycled gold plates.
However, given the generations of reverence attributed to both the large and small plates of Nephi, I doubt Mormon would have destroyed any of the originals in order to make new writing material.
Thanks, I’ve changed it. As you say it is a significant point in the construction of that sentence. The fact that they had no punctuation when Mormon wrote it means its difficult to know how he intended it.
If it was the case that he reused some of the old plates to recycle and write upon. I think it is a very interesting idea. It makes the Book of Mormon into a palimpsest and adds a new dimension to the text. Given the fact that the large plates contained a 1,000 years of history, I think that it must have been more then just one volume, and most likely contained lots of irrelevant information. So I think that Mormon could very easily have taken out some pages of what he thought were less important things to write his account on. Rather, then construct his own plates.
I don’t think that Mormon wrote first on cheaper media then copied it onto the plates. I think it must have been straight onto the plates. There are a couple of verse where he makes a mistake then corrects himself after such as Alma 43:38: where he says that ‘they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body’ which doesn’t make much sense so he corrects it with ‘or, the more vital parts of the body being shielded from the strokes of the Lamanites.’ Alma 24:19, and Alma 32:16 also contains examples of mistakes then amended in the following sentence. These passages seem to infer that he was writing an material that made it difficult to correct mistakes. If he was transferring from another media to plates he could have rectified the error rather then alter it next sentence. But if he was writing on plates it would be easier to correct it after, then erase and rewrite the page.
I can see your point about the reverence attached to the plates being a reason why he might not have recycled old plates. With our scriptures that doesn’t stop us from rearranging their structure, and writing over them with footnotes, and highlights. If Mormon didn’t reuse plates, then he must have found a source of a lot of gold in order to make new plates, unless there were existing unused plates that he used.
I’ve also wondered about the corrections embedded in the text. I didn’t pick up on those until after I had read the BoM several times. Personally, I think it reflects more on the mechanics of writing on thin metal plates, more than whether or not he used cheaper temporary media for a first draft. One can still make mistakes when copying. Look at all the errors in the Bible, and minor variations between codices. Or Oliver Cowdery’s printer’s manuscript, which had many discrepencies from the original.
I suppose that the plates were written on double-sided, meaning that erasures as you’re writing on the first side would be easy, but erasures on the 2nd side would be problematic, as any pounding on the metal to smooth out (erase) the inscription would also tend to erase whatever is on the reverse too.
Mormon’s use of, or references to, antecedants, also does not quite jibe with our modern English usage. He often inserts a qualifying or relative clause, which sometimes causes me to go back and re-read the sentance without the embedded “side note.” Since the original didn’t use punctuation, it would take a degree of discernment or judgement as to how to punctuate many places. A parenthetical remark or clause usually has an obvious starting point, but the end of the remark is not always obvious without punctuation.
Another related point:
I’ve sometimes wondered if the sub-title “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” might eventually be made the title, and “The Book of Mormon” made into the sub-title. I’ve always thought that the title per se has been a stumbling block to people that prevents many from investigating the church. It seems to give the impresion we believe in Mormon or follow Mormon or worship Mormon. I don’t think Mormon would mind if the church gave the Savior top billing on the cover page at some point in time.
I think it’s named after the hit broadway musical.
The corrections embedded in the text are strong evidence for me of the historicity of at least Mormon, and Moroni. It is likely that they do reflect more about the mechanics of writing on plates. Especially if we consider he was writing on both sides of the plates, which as you point out would make correcting on the second side problematic.
This made me think of another point. I have always thought that gold was used to show the value, but it seems likely that it was just an easier medium to engrave, and recycle old plates then brass, or copper. I am inclined to think he reused old plates, for where else would he get such an abundant amount of gold to use for them? This does assume that gold was rarer then it is now.
I don’t think the church will ever change the title and I hope that they don’t. I actually have issues with the introduction of the subtitle. I can see its value for propaganda and advertising the book of Mormon to non-LDS people, but I am not sure if I think the Book of Mormon really is fundamentally a testament of Jesus Christ. It speaks of him, but really it is just the witness of Mormon and Moroni and the teleological narrative they made of their civilisation. It is interesting that it is not just another testament, but a testament *of* Jesus Christ, neither the old or new has this extra stipulation, in order to clarify what it is. I just think the Book of Mormon is so different to the bible that to compare them results in misreading both texts and distracts us from seeing the many ways in which they are very different books.
I like this post. I think there is a lot in a title. I think the title of the Book of Mormon actually says less about the contents of the book and more about the goals of the organization.
In Joseph Smith’s day, the Church was presented as something “new”, something different from the many sects of his time. The “Book of Mormon: An Account…” fits the bill for the early days of the Church. It ties the Church into historical events and gives it a “weightiness” that might otherwise be lacking in a new religion. And the uniqueness of the Church was emphasized at that time, with a certain pride in being a peculiar people.
The more modern Church instead wants to seem more part of the mainstream. It wants to be seen worshiping the same Christ that other Christians do (although some of them have an issue with that). Our prophets downplay many of the more unique aspects of Mormonism (ie. President Hinckley shying away from the doctrine that God was once like us, and we can be like Him, or polygamy, or whatever). So in this regard, The Book of Mormon is presented as “merely” a companion to the already accepted Bible.
Regarding the plates, I don’t think recycling gold was a concern at all. There are many official accounts of a room full of many, many plates that Mormon used to abridge the record. If he did recycle anything, I’m sure it was some minor thing. (Although this does raise the question of how Moroni wandering alone could have transported literally TONS of plates to upstate New York)
Jake:
I think that from a 21st Century believer’s perspective — whether that belief is in historicity or in metaphor or some combination of the two — the question should be “why were these understandings the ones Mormon wished to convey to us”. You’ve done an excellent job of pointing out that he could have chosen many things (and he does, for example, love to discuss military tactics and strategy well beyond its theological content).
I’ve recently found this theme interesting. It was brought to my attention as I followed Josh Madson’s work on a non-violent reading of the Book of Mormon. In his Claremont speech he raises an interesting point about how some items were specifically excluded while Nephi engraved.
Madson stated this:
Perspectives matter, and it does make me wonder about the perspectives implied in the BOM…
I’ve begun reading Hardy’s book Understanding the Book of Mormon, and he’s done an excellent job of pointing out just how much this book is from Mormon’s perspective. Whether someone believes Mormon was a historical person or not, Mormon the narrator clearly has a flawed perspective that a close reading of the text reveals.
It’s one thing I’ve always disliked about the BOM. To Mormon, everything is attributable to God’s higher plan, even when other factors (e.g. political and personal decisions and agendas) are clearly at play. Everything has a moral lesson to it, even when the facts presented are morally ambiguous – and if the facts don’t fit, Mormon has no qualms about speechifying his way into a moral point. But it does add a dimension that Mormon the compiler of records would do that – if it’s single-layered didactic fiction, surely JS could come up with more black & white examples that really do illustrate his points rather than trying to shoehorn morally gray stories into neat little black and white lessons. I recommend Hardy’s book for both believers and non-believers alike, a tough feat to pull off.
Oh, and in the US it’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. To the point of your post, titles should engage readership, not merely be descriptive. Many titles that appealed in one cultural context may need to be modified to appeal in another (hence, Jaws was called “Les Dents de la Mer” in France – the much more poetic “Teeth of of the Sea.”)
Calling the BOM the Book of Mormon is an honest and straightforward approach. I wonder if Mormon Doctrine shouldn’t have been titled The Book of Bruce R. McConkie. As BRM doubtless knew, it would not have sold nearly as well.
Mike S,
I agree I think the change in the title reflects the churches attempt to become more inline with mainstream Christianity by focusing on the commonalities and portraying the Book of Mormon as being a continuation of the already accepted Bible. I have just been reading By The Hand of Mormon, and its really interesting to see how the role of the Book of Mormon has changed as the church has developed and changed over the years.
I have always been puzzled by the accounts of rooms full of plates. I have always taken them to not be literal but symbolic visions. It seems easier then suggesting Moroni carried rooms full of plates around America.
Firetag,
I think that is a really good question, but that assumes that Mormon was writing for us. We don’t know his authoral intentions and even though he tells us he is writing for his latter-day audience which period is he referring to Joseph Smith, post-manifesto, pre-1978, mainstream mormons, fringe members? There is such a massive diversity in the latter-day saints that I think it would be difficult to work out which of all the possible periods and groups he was trying to convey things to.
George,
That is a really interesting point. I have always been troubled by the amount of war that goes on in the Book of Mormon, so Josh Madson’s reading of it seems to make a lot of sense, that we have missed the point about why the wars are included inside them.
Hawkgrrl,
I hadn’t thought about those perspectives of Mormon and his dedication to attributing everything to part of God’s plan, I think that Nephi is also guilty of doing this in the part that he narrates. I am going through the book of mormon again now, so I am going to be looking out for them.
Hawkgrrl can you think of any times which fit when Mormon forces a moral point on a morally grey area?
Grant Hardy’s book is on my ever growing list of books to read. From your recommendation it has just been moved up 20 books on the list.