Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Kishkumen]

It is nonsense to suggest that the Book of Mormon was "not all that unusual" for its time. There is nothing else like it. Whatever its source(s), it is an extraordinary work.

I agree. The Book of Mormon remains a remarkable text.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

It is nonsense to suggest that the Book of Mormon was "not all that unusual" for its time. There is nothing else like it. Whatever its source(s), it is an extraordinary work.

I agree. The Book of Mormon remains a remarkable text.

How so? I find it boring, repetitive, and banal. When I was a Believer I had to convince myself it was something special all the while being more inspired by various other authors.

The Book of Mormon is ****, to put it charitably.

- Doc

[_Chap]

It is nonsense to suggest that the Book of Mormon was "not all that unusual" for its time. There is nothing else like it. Whatever its source(s), it is an extraordinary work.

I agree. The Book of Mormon remains a remarkable text.

How so? I find it boring, repetitive, and banal. When I was a Believer I had to convince myself it was something special all the while being more inspired by various other authors.

The Book of Mormon is ****, to put it charitably.

- Doc

Radically diverging viewpoints here ...

I wonder how many readers of this board find that they still profit from reading the Book of Mormon, even though they no longer believe it to be either historically true or divinely inspired?

Please signify.

(Note the condition: I am hoping for opinions from former Mormons, not those who still believe that the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text rather than a 19th century fiction.)

[_Nevo]

The Book of Mormon is ****, to put it charitably.

Here are some more appreciative appraisals from non-believers:

• "[W]here View of the Hebrews was just bad scholarship, the Book of Mormon was highly original and imaginative fiction . . . [the product of] an audacious and original mind. Joseph Smith took the whole Western Hemisphere as the setting for his book and a thousand years of history for his plot. Never having written a line of fiction, he laid out for himself a task that would have given the most experienced novelist pause. . . . Its structure shows elaborate design, its narrative is spun coherently, and it demonstrates throughout a unity of purpose" (Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. [New York: Knopf, 1971], 49, 69).
  
  
• "Those who have made sport of Joseph Smith's attempt to imitate the English Bible have often failed to note the intellectuality of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing obscure or unclear in its doctrine. Even the notion of prophecy and revelation, so central to it, leads to intellectual clarity. The revelation of the Book of Mormon is not a glimpse of higher and incomprehensible truths but reveals God's words to men with a democratic comprehensibility. 'Plainness' of doctrine—straightforwardness and an absence of subtle casuistries—was for its rural audience a mark of its genuineness. . . . The intellectuality of the Book of Mormon is to be seen in its recognition of currents of thought other than and antagonistic to its own point of view, and especially in its awareness of current skepticism and rationalism" (Thomas F. O'Dea, The Mormons [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press], 30).
  
  
• "Taken as a whole, the Book of Mormon . . . shows cohesiveness, structure, and purpose to such a degree that a certain kind of learning and a considerable measure of imagination (or inspiration) must be attributed to its author" (Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 503.
  
  
• "The Book of Mormon is an extraordinary work of popular imagination and one of the greatest documents in American cultural history" (Gordon S. Wood, "Evangelical America and Early Mormonism," New York History 61, no. 4 [1980]: 381).
  
  
• "The Book of Mormon is the masterpiece of a most uncommon common man. Despite its awkward writing style, wooden characters, and tediously chronic warfare, Joseph Smith not only voiced the protest of his less articulate countrymen but provided them with comprehensive and purportedly divine answers to their problems" (Kenneth H. Winn, Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830–1846 [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989], 20).
  
  
• "Mormon detractors . . . have attempted to reduce the [Book of Mormon] to an inert mirror of the popular culture of New York during the 1820s, thus overlooking elements that are unique and original. More problematic, however, is sheer neglect due the work's unusual complexity and presumed dullness. . . . The Book of Mormon is a document of profound social protest, an impassioned manifesto by a hostile outsider against the smug complacency of those in power and the reality of social distinctions based on wealth, class, and education" (Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989], 115–116).
  
  
• "True or not, the Book of Mormon is a powerful epic written on a grand scale with a host of characters, a narrative of human struggle and conflict, of divine intervention, heroic good and atrocious evil, of prophecy, morality, and law. Its narrative structure is complex. The idiom is that of the King James Version, which most Americans assumed to be appropriate for a divine revelation. Although it contains elements that suggest the environment of New York in the 1820s (for example, episodes paralleling the Masonic/Antimasonic controversy), the dominant themes are biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal, not democratic or optimistic. It tells a tragic story, of a people who, though possessed of the true faith, fail in the end. Yet it does not convey a message of despair; God's will cannot ultimately be frustrated. The Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature, but it has never been accorded the status it deserves, since Mormons deny Joseph Smith's authorship, and non-Mormons, dismissing the work as a fraud, have been more likely to ridicule than read it" (Daniel Walker Howe, What God Hath Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 314).

[_why me]

The Book of Mormon is ****, to put it charitably.

Here are some more appreciative appraisals from non-believers:

• "[W]here View of the Hebrews was just bad scholarship, the Book of Mormon was highly original and imaginative fiction . . . [the product of] an audacious and original mind. Joseph Smith took the whole Western Hemisphere as the setting for his book and a thousand years of history for his plot. Never having written a line of fiction, he laid out for himself a task that would have given the most experienced novelist pause. . . . Its structure shows elaborate design, its narrative is spun coherently, and it demonstrates throughout a unity of purpose" (Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith, 2nd ed. [New York: Knopf, 1971], 49, 69).
  
  
• "Those who have made sport of Joseph Smith's attempt to imitate the English Bible have often failed to note the intellectuality of the Book of Mormon. There is nothing obscure or unclear in its doctrine. Even the notion of prophecy and revelation, so central to it, leads to intellectual clarity. The revelation of the Book of Mormon is not a glimpse of higher and incomprehensible truths but reveals God's words to men with a democratic comprehensibility. 'Plainness' of doctrine—straightforwardness and an absence of subtle casuistries—was for its rural audience a mark of its genuineness. . . . The intellectuality of the Book of Mormon is to be seen in its recognition of currents of thought other than and antagonistic to its own point of view, and especially in its awareness of current skepticism and rationalism" (Thomas F. O'Dea, The Mormons [Chicago: The University of Chicago Press], 30).
  
  
• "Taken as a whole, the Book of Mormon . . . shows cohesiveness, structure, and purpose to such a degree that a certain kind of learning and a considerable measure of imagination (or inspiration) must be attributed to its author" (Sydney E. Ahlstrom, A Religious History of the American People [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972], 503.
  
  
• "The Book of Mormon is an extraordinary work of popular imagination and one of the greatest documents in American cultural history" (Gordon S. Wood, "Evangelical America and Early Mormonism," New York History 61, no. 4 [1980]: 381).
  
  
• "The Book of Mormon is the masterpiece of a most uncommon common man. Despite its awkward writing style, wooden characters, and tediously chronic warfare, Joseph Smith not only voiced the protest of his less articulate countrymen but provided them with comprehensive and purportedly divine answers to their problems" (Kenneth H. Winn, Exiles in a Land of Liberty: Mormons in America, 1830–1846 [Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989], 20).
  
  
• "Mormon detractors . . . have attempted to reduce the [Book of Mormon] to an inert mirror of the popular culture of New York during the 1820s, thus overlooking elements that are unique and original. More problematic, however, is sheer neglect due the work's unusual complexity and presumed dullness. . . . The Book of Mormon is a document of profound social protest, an impassioned manifesto by a hostile outsider against the smug complacency of those in power and the reality of social distinctions based on wealth, class, and education" (Nathan O. Hatch, The Democratization of American Christianity [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989], 115–116).
  
  
• "True or not, the Book of Mormon is a powerful epic written on a grand scale with a host of characters, a narrative of human struggle and conflict, of divine intervention, heroic good and atrocious evil, of prophecy, morality, and law. Its narrative structure is complex. The idiom is that of the King James Version, which most Americans assumed to be appropriate for a divine revelation. Although it contains elements that suggest the environment of New York in the 1820s (for example, episodes paralleling the Masonic/Antimasonic controversy), the dominant themes are biblical, prophetic, and patriarchal, not democratic or optimistic. It tells a tragic story, of a people who, though possessed of the true faith, fail in the end. Yet it does not convey a message of despair; God's will cannot ultimately be frustrated. The Book of Mormon should rank among the great achievements of American literature, but it has never been accorded the status it deserves, since Mormons deny Joseph Smith's authorship, and non-Mormons, dismissing the work as a fraud, have been more likely to ridicule than read it" (Daniel Walker Howe, What God Hath Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815–1848 [New York: Oxford University Press, 2007], 314).

This was a WWE smackdown. Good work Nevo!

[_Chap]

The Book of Mormon is ****, to put it charitably.

Here are some more appreciative appraisals from non-believers:
...

It would be astonishing if no non-believers had ever said anything about positive about the Book of Mormon. (Mark you, any positive opinion that includes a reference to "its awkward writing style, wooden characters, and tediously chronic warfare" is 'nuanced' (Oh word of power!) in its praise, to say the least.

What I would like to hear is the views of the book from former Mormons on this board. Anyone still find it worth while turning back to the book you once thought was of divine origin?

[_Always Changing]

I find two amazing things about this. No ex-mormons have taken you up on this.

The other thing is that Mormons are so obsessed with discovering the literal historical truth in the Book of Mormon, but are unable to extract any moral truths form the book, and apply them to their own lives. Point: Alma 1:26-33. But if anyone preached on that, they would soon be kicked out. what to do? what to do?

[_Madison54]

What I would like to hear is the views of the book from former Mormons on this board. Anyone still find it worth while turning back to the book you once thought was of divine origin?

I have not opened my Book of Mormon since I stopped believing (honest answer). I was heart broken when I finally accepted that the church was not what I'd loved, believed, followed and diligently served my entire life. It's not that I hate the church or that I'm angry or that I find no value in the Book of Mormon now, it's just not in me to open it up and start reading again.

It's been the same for my husband.

[_Chap]

What I would like to hear is the views of the book from former Mormons on this board. Anyone still find it worth while turning back to the book you once thought was of divine origin?

I have not opened my Book of Mormon since I stopped believing (honest answer). I was heart broken when I finally accepted that the church was not what I'd loved, believed, followed and diligently served my entire life. It's not that I hate the church or that I'm angry or that I find no value in the Book of Mormon now, it's just not in me to open it up and start reading again.

It's been the same for my husband.

I'm truly sorry to hear that it has been like that for you both.

I think the problem with abandoning fully committed Mormon belief and practice is that the sunk costs of time and even money can be huge. Scientology seems do do something similar. I wonder whether those who leave the Jehovah's Witnesses experience the same sense of having wasted themselves for ... well, in the end, nothing important?

[_Uncle Ed]

I wonder how many readers of this board find that they still profit from reading the Book of Mormon, even though they no longer believe it to be either historically true or divinely inspired?

Please signify.

(Note the condition: I am hoping for opinions from former Mormons, not those who still believe that the Book of Mormon is a genuine ancient text rather than a 19th century fiction.)

I have not bothered to read the Book of Mormon in the last nine years. Previously, I would read it c. once a year and racked up well over two-dozen cover to cover readings. Since accepting that it is nothing more than inspiration via fictional mechanism I no longer have any interest. Too many books and not enough time. I will read passages from scripture when engaged in discussion, but that's it....