DiscussMormonism.com

One of the things that caused me to question the LDS gospel was the us vs. them mentality that was taught in church so often.

While we were studying the scriptures in Sunday School class it seemed that nearly every week the answers or comments revolved around how the good guys in the scriptures were representing "us" or the Mormons and the bad guys in the scriptures represented "them" or non-Mormons, the wicked people.

This really got to me and as I studied the scriptures more than ever before it occured to me that the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with "other" at all. The entire book is about the Mormons. Every story, every character, everything.

It also became apparent that the heroes were not all that fantastic afterall. The villians often were not deserving of their fates.

It is strange that being taught to interpret a story a certain way your whole life can make you not really process the story properly. If the manuals and lessons at church would not tell us what the stories are saying and what god is saying through them I wonder how many new and enlightening interpretations would be discovered.

I could give a lot of examples of stories in the Book of Mormon that are so much deeper than what is taught at church.

It starts right off with Nephi. Because it is assumed he was a prophet he is given a free pass for all his bad behavior. It is assumed that he is giving an accurate account of his life and that when he says god endorsed him that he telling the truth and interpreting his promptings correctly.

At church, at least, we aren't able to really dig in to the story and pick it apart and apply consistant critical thinking to everything. Instead we are told what it means and how to apply it to ourselves and those around us. By doing so I believe that the message of the Book of Mormon is left between the pages.

just me wrote:By doing so I believe that the message of the Book of Mormon is left between the pages.

You raise a number of good points, just me, but I have time to respond to only a couple.

I agree that the "deep" stories are overlooked by most Mormons who seem trained to view it as a Primary-level text.

Lehi's Dream of the Tree of Life is an excellent example. The Journal of Book of Mormon Studies published a paper 20-years ago showing it more profound than generally understood. (I can look up the link if you want.)

Noel Reynolds did a piece a few years back showing that the early chapters of the Book of Mormon (with Nephi as super-hero) were likely written by later authors as a political testament to demonstrate why it was that the fourth son (instead of the first) was chosen to be the king.

A great story I had never appreciated before I taught it in GD class three years back was when Alma and Amulek have to go to the husbands and fathers of the women and children that were immolated because of accepting the gospel Alma and Amulek had taught them, and on top of that explain how it was that God saw fit to release the two of them from prison by a miracle but couldn't seem to find an extra miracle to keep their wives and children from being incinerated. That story is led up to in the text and the silence of the actual encounter is deafening.

Finally, I have long thought it interesting that the Book of Mormon good guys are starchy and the bad guys get the best lines; like the correspondence between Moroni and Ammaron (?) where threatens to send him to hell unless he acquiesces to Moroni's demands, and Ammaron coming right back by saying he doesn't know if there is a hell, but he supposes God will send Moroni there for killing Ammaron's brother. (I am paraphrasing and Ammaron actually says it better.)

Anyway, gotta run!

Great thread topic, though.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

just me wrote:One of the things that caused me to question the LDS gospel was the us vs. them mentality that was taught in church so often.

While we were studying the scriptures in Sunday School class it seemed that nearly every week the answers or comments revolved around how the good guys in the scriptures were representing "us" or the Mormons and the bad guys in the scriptures represented "them" or non-Mormons, the wicked people.

This really got to me and as I studied the scriptures more than ever before it occured to me that the Book of Mormon had nothing to do with "other" at all. The entire book is about the Mormons. Every story, every character, everything.

Well, JM, I have to point out that the entire Book of Mormon is written in an apocalyptic style - every story details the struggle of god's will and satan's will; it is classic good vs. evil with the purpose of teaching a moral lesson. In the end, God's will prevails.

I could give a lot of examples of stories in the Book of Mormon that are so much deeper than what is taught at church.

The problem, though, is that the story is not deep nor can it ever be deep. One has to co-opt Jewish history to give the Book of Mormon any historical context, and even then you end up grasping at straws. The Book of Mormon people - namely the Lamanites and Nephites, have no cultural history to speak of, no supporting texts that tell us what it might have been like to be a Lamanite or Nephite, and thus there can be no cultural depth to their stories. What is left is possibly moral depth, but even then it is hard to find. Take for example the account of the good Samaritan found in the New Testament. There is depth to that story beyond the surface, namely because of the religious and cultural context that the main players are situated in. But, in the Book of Mormon, it is nearly impossible to situate the characters in any type of cultural, religious, political, or social setting, and thus, I feel it's fairly difficult to attribute any depth to the book itself.

H.

LDSToronto wrote:But, in the Book of Mormon, it is nearly impossible to situate the characters in any type of cultural, religious, political, or social setting, and thus, I feel it's fairly difficult to attribute any depth to the book itself.

It is easier when the characters are translated to an early 1800s setting.

But even then there is little depth.

LDSToronto wrote:The problem, though, is that the story is not deep nor can it ever be deep. One has to co-opt Jewish history to give the Book of Mormon any historical context, and even then you end up grasping at straws. The Book of Mormon people - namely the Lamanites and Nephites, have no cultural history to speak of, no supporting texts that tell us what it might have been like to be a Lamanite or Nephite, and thus there can be no cultural depth to their stories. What is left is possibly moral depth, but even then it is hard to find. Take for example the account of the good Samaritan found in the New Testament. There is depth to that story beyond the surface, namely because of the religious and cultural context that the main players are situated in. But, in the Book of Mormon, it is nearly impossible to situate the characters in any type of cultural, religious, political, or social setting, and thus, I feel it's fairly difficult to attribute any depth to the book itself.

H.

QFT.

When most members read the Book of Mormon, they read themselves and their values into the text. That's fine if you need a self-esteem boost or you want to reiterate what you already believe. In fact, I think when the church suggests to its members to read the scriptures, this is really what they have in mind; just remind yourself that what you already believe is just great and that you have all the truth as a Mormon. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I realized about 4-5 years ago that my spiritual life was in the crapper and that this was the reason, that scripture study had become an exercise in self-congratulation and masturbation. So, I began a long and arduous process of trying to see the texts in context as much as I could. I had lots of surprises along the way, but the most shocking one was to discover that the Book of Mormon has no context, at least not one that members are allowed to speak about. Thus, there was never any way to read the Book of Mormon as anything other than autobiography and self-congratulations, because there was no way to put the text into a context other than the one I already had. In a nutshell, I came to the same conclusion as LDST.

I might add there is a perfectly valid context for the Book of Mormon, upstate New York during the 2nd great awakening. In that context the book makes perfect sense. The Book of Mormon really makes sense as a slight deviation from early 19th century American Methodism, hardly surprising since by his own admission and by the historical record we know that Joseph Smith was most interested in and knew the most about Methodism. by the way, I don't necessarily think this is such a bad thing, since now I'm a Methodist.

AlmaBound wrote:It is easier when the characters are translated to an early 1800s setting.

:-)

I wasn't initially thinking about the context. LDS rip all scripture from context. The Bible is not read within context hardly ever. A great deal of insight and understanding could be gleaned by learning the context of the sacred writing.

I guess I'm not sure how to articulate my feelings which is why I have not posted to this thread for a few days.

The Book of Mormon is used as a sacred text no matter the origin. I think that looking at the stories without bias towards "the good guys" would teach even better lessons about ourselves and maybe even the writers.

just me wrote:
The Book of Mormon is used as a sacred text no matter the origin. I think that looking at the stories without bias towards "the good guys" would teach even better lessons about ourselves and maybe even the writers.

I recall this being a frequent theme of Hugh Nibley; that the Book of Mormon is anything but Lamanite (bad guy) versus Nephite (good guy).

Grant Hardy's recent An Introduction to the Book of Mormon, takes an in-depth look at the Book of Mormon (despite its title). I highly recommend it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri