The Book of Mormon is a literary masterpiece??

[_Runtu]

Everyone always says that the Isaiah sections of 2 Nephi are the hardest part to get through, but I discovered something in rereading this part the other day. What you have are a couple of postexilic deutero-Isaiah chapters (which just happen to align with KJV chaptering) followed by a jumble of New Testament phrases that are a mess to read. Contrary to popular belief, it's not the Isaiah stuff that's hard to read: it's Nephi's attempt to "clarify" Isaiah that is a hopeless mess. Then you get some pre-exile Isaiah followed by the same repetitive junk.

Check out 2 Nephi 9. It makes perhaps 3 or 4 points but drags them out over 54 repetitive and verbose verses.

[_Inconceivable]

I still contend that after 22+ reads myself, Joseph Smith lost his memory of it's contents early on or never read it at all.

The Book of Mormon was not a part of his life. Otherwise he would have understood how blatantly he became a poster boy for so many evils the book spoke out against: the evils of secret oaths, destroying the hearts of wives and children, seeking riches before seeking the kingdom of God, grinding the faces of the poor to build great and spacious buildings and the wairing costly apparel among other things.

The Book of Mormon has much to do with honesty, honor, integrity, loyalty, fairness, repentance and even being born again as penecostals speak of it, developing charity, humility, meekness. Broken down more deeply, it teaches what we ought to do with our treasure and why and when to seek it, how to treat those less fortunate, reasons to preserve ourselves and family, unconditional love even for an enemy. I would be a lesser person for not having studied it.

Joseph Smith and the God that spoke to him made a mockery of the good that the book taught me.

When I read it, I learned a great deal of wisdom from it. But like all reads, I have now learned that it is not infallible.

[_Some Schmo]

I was never able to get through it. It's a piece of crap.

[_Sethbag]

Don't know if you guys saw or paid attention to my exchange with Dr. Hamblin in the "mythic iron" thread over there.

Hamblin did something I thought was incredible. He basically admitted, or perhaps asserted, that Joseph was essentially copying "bow of steel" from the Old Testament in describing Nephi's bow of being made of fine steel. Hamblin asserted that this was an example of Joseph being influenced by King James English, and since we know that the "steel" in the Old Testament was actually an alloy of copper, that means we don't actually even know whether Nephi's bow was really made of "steel" or not.

Of course, that's a more tortured explanation. The simpler one is that Joseph Smith did indeed copy "bow of steel" from the Old Testament when he gave Nephi a steel bow, but he did it thinking it really was an iron alloy and that steel bows were a plausible thing to come across in pre-New Testament Israel, and got pwned because the KJV translators had used a word which, by 1828, had a more specific meaning.

Personally I find the Book of Mormon to be a very awkward read. I'm sure I liked some parts better than others, and there are probably parts I'd describe as somewhat interesting. Unfortunately, all the KJV baggage, crap like "must needs be", and "it came to pass", and all that jazz, just ratchet up the tedium. I don't think I can take another "must needs be". by the way, "must needs be" is found quite a few times in the Old Testament, but by 1828 in English literature, can anyone point me to where it was actually used? I don't think I've ever run across it outside of the KJV and the Book of Mormon. I think it's transparently obvious that Joseph Smith, or whoever wrote, or helped him write the Book of Mormon was aping the KJV to make it all seem more "scriptural".

[_Mister Scratch]

Ernest Hemingway---a Nobel Laureate---never went to college, and, I guess, can therefore be considered "uneducated." Likewise, William Faulkner and John Steinbeck---also Nobel Winners---failed to complete college, and, unless I'm mistaken, Steinbeck spent time working on a farm. I daresay the work of any of these authors is far more engaging, compelling, and readable than the vast bulk of the Book of Mormon.

[_antishock8]

I was never able to get through it. It's a piece of crap.

It's a masterpiece of crap.

[_Sethbag]

I will say this: I was a lot more engaged by the Book of Mormon when I believed it was actually true. But now that I know it isn't, when I hear it read I find myself appalled by how boring and insipid it really is. And as I said before, the KJV baggage just adds to the tedium, and dare I say it, pretentiousness of the whole thing.

[_krose]

I'm of the opinion that stripping the book of the KJV-style language would make it seem even less impressive as a literary work.

Does anyone know what became of the project to translate the Book of Mormon into modern English?

I will say this: I was a lot more engaged by the Book of Mormon when I believed it was actually true.

Might we call that "believer goggles" (like "beer goggles"), which make it look more attractive?

[_BishopRic]

I will say this: I was a lot more engaged by the Book of Mormon when I believed it was actually true. But now that I know it isn't, when I hear it read I find myself appalled by how boring and insipid it really is. And as I said before, the KJV baggage just adds to the tedium, and dare I say it, pretentiousness of the whole thing.

(in my best mopologist tone...)

Huh, that's what happens when you lose the Spirit!

(wink smilie)

[_Some Schmo]

I will say this: I was a lot more engaged by the Book of Mormon when I believed it was actually true. But now that I know it isn't, when I hear it read I find myself appalled by how boring and insipid it really is.

It's sort of how it goes with a woman you've fallen in and out of love with. When you're in love, she's the most beautiful woman in the world, but once that goes away (in other words, reality pushes aside the fantasy you have about her), she becomes nowhere near as good looking. Sometimes, she's even a downright ugly bitch, but often, it's just a matter of inevitable indifference for her. She's no longer "special."

(Ladies can replace "woman" with "man", "she" with "he", and "bitch" with "a-hole" in the above statements... after all, I'm sure it goes both ways).