Is the Book of Mormon Divinely Inspired?

[I Have Questions]

I have to laugh. Using the Annotated Book of Mormon is ‘apostate’ in Gadianton’s view. Sheesh. The Book of Mormon is there word for word with study commentary.

Right, it's not official commentary ratified by the Brethren. You can use his commentary AFTER you first finish your 1/2 hour of reading.

I find it interesting that Hardy allows for the Book of Mormon to be fictional. Here’s a comment from an interview with Jana Riess about the Annotated version of The Book of Mormon…

I tend to treat the Book of Mormon as historical (I was invited by Oxford to edit the volume from a believer’s point of view), but I also point out anachronisms and try to keep in mind the perspectives of those who regard it as religious fiction.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2024/01 ... Mormon-is/

Is belief that the Book of Mormon is faithful fiction an apostate position?

A person commentating on his Readers Guide version puts it this way “From the outset, Hardy asks his readers to suspend their beliefs about whether the Book of Mormon is true so that we can analyze it as a work of literature.”

That’s a pretty subversive suggestion from Hardy. Once you start suspending belief in the Book of Mormon, it’s not a stretch to suspend belief in a literal Jesus. And then where does the veracity of Mormon claims end up? Hardy might be an unwitting (witting?) wolf in sheep’s clothing. Hardy helpfully points readers towards things which may give them cause to doubt…

There are, to be sure, anachronisms and implausibilities in the Book of Mormon, and even passages where the Nephites and their prophets do not always live up to their ideals, yielding instead to what we might regard today as materialism, militarism, racism, and sexism.

https://www.wayfaremagazine.org/p/is-500-pages-too-much

I’m slightly intrigued as to what anachronisms he identifies and how he treats them.

In addition, the regular interactions with the King James Bible seen in 2 Nephi 25–30 make these chapters something of a biblical commentary.

Which is interesting as Nephi died a thousand years before the King James Bible was even conceived.

Hardy also includes twelve essays that each offer different ways of thinking about and approaching the Book of Mormon—as literature, as an ancient record, as fiction, as world scripture, etc. These brief essays concluded with a bibliography for further reading, guiding the interested reader to some portion of the wealth of resources available for thoughtfully engaging with the Book of Mormon.

https://www.associationmormonletters.or ... or-hilton/
Offering readers the idea that the Book of Mormon can be viewed as pure fiction seems about as apostate as it gets.

[Marcus]

Lol. Sometimes I really wonder about your Mormon upbringing, mg. You seem to have missed quite a bit.


Huckelberry, like Gadianton, I grew up with that commandment as well. Here's a source:

Harold B. Lee was President of the LDS church July 1972 to December 1973.

The link fills in more history about it if you are interested.

Marcus, thanks for the clarification. I admit I would hear that as counsel instead of commandment thought those are closely related I suppose. Spring of 1967 was the last time I went to an LDS church service. (with the exception of a few funerals in more recent years) I have heard in a general way that the church increased emphasis on reading the Book of Mormon in the years after I left. (I had parents and siblings who remained active in the church.)

I see your point, but it wasn't treated as just counsel in my family. My Dad was bishop from when I was 8 until I went to college, and my Mom was even more devout. (And she loved Harold B. Lee. I still remember finding her in tears the day he passed away.) When a prophet said things like that, they took it seriously, and instituted measures to make it happen. We started reading scriptures as a family in the early morning every day, and ended with family prayer on our knees. (And not sitting down on your behind, but sitting up tall on your knees, out of RESPECT.)

Sometimes I really wonder about your Mormon upbringing, mg. You seem to have missed quite a bit.

I’m not at all sure why you are saying this. Mine was a fairly typical upbringing as far as church activity was concerned...

Probably similar to your upbringing if you were raised in the church.

Apparently not, given how you post here so disingenuously and frequently dishonestly, and how uneducated you seem to be with respect to LDS teachings. That is in direct contrast to what was part of my upbringing.

Also, that passive aggressiveness that seeps into every post you make seems to be unique to the Wasatch Front. I was raised elsewhere.

[I Have Questions]

Marcus, thanks for the clarification. I admit I would hear that as counsel instead of commandment thought those are closely related I suppose. Spring of 1967 was the last time I went to an LDS church service. (with the exception of a few funerals in more recent years) I have heard in a general way that the church increased emphasis on reading the Book of Mormon in the years after I left. (I had parents and siblings who remained active in the church.)

I see your point, but it wasn't treated as just counsel in my family. My Dad was bishop from when I was 8 until I went to college, and my Mom was even more devout. (And she loved Harold B. Lee. I still remember finding her in tears the day he passed away.) When a prophet said things like that, they took it seriously, and instituted measures to make it happen. We started reading scriptures as a family in the early morning every day, and ended with family prayer on our knees. (And not sitting down on your behind, but sitting up tall on your knees, out of RESPECT.)

I’m not at all sure why you are saying this. Mine was a fairly typical upbringing as far as church activity was concerned...

Probably similar to your upbringing if you were raised in the church.

Apparently not, given how you post here so disingenuously and frequently dishonestly, and how uneducated you seem to be with respect to LDS teachings. That is in direct contrast to what was part of my upbringing.

Also, that passive aggressiveness that seeps into every post you make seems to be unique to the Wasatch Front. I was raised elsewhere.

I was present in a very small group of people in a meeting with an Apostle. The Stake President had a decision to make that wasn’t clear cut and we were discussing options. The Apostle in the room (he’d invited himself to the meeting) made a comment which he prefaced with “If I might make a suggestion…”. The Stake President listened to the suggestion and said he’d consider it alongside the other options. We continued the discussion. I was in the middle of a suggestion when I was interrupted mid-sentence. The Apostle interjected with “I’m sorry, you’re misunderstanding me. When an Apostle makes a suggestion, it’s not a suggestion…”. Those phrases are verbatim as I wrote them down immediately after the meeting. That Apostle is still alive and an Apostle today.

What was it Bednar said? Something along the lines of that whatever he says at General Conference is to be considered scripture. And we’ve had “When the Prophet speaks, the thinking has been done…” etc. It’s absolutely the case that when a Prophet says to do something, it’s not take it or leave it counsel. It’s a hard instruction.

[ceeboo]

I see your point, but it wasn't treated as just counsel in my family. My Dad was bishop from when I was 8 until I went to college, and my Mom was even more devout. (And she loved Harold B. Lee. I still remember finding her in tears the day he passed away.) When a prophet said things like that, they took it seriously, and instituted measures to make it happen. We started reading scriptures as a family in the early morning every day, and ended with family prayer on our knees. (And not sitting down on your behind, but sitting up tall on your knees, out of RESPECT.)

After you went to college, did your Mom and Dad remain devout Mormons? Are they still devout Mormons today? If so, does (did) this create family issues?

Thanks in advance for answering.

[PseudoPaul]

]PseudoPaul, Your statement about John is both clear and on target. It is a good summary for why one would not find actual saying of Jesus in John. I think the author of John is constructing statements which he understands to reflect Jesus's teaching and explaining their meaning. Of course there would be influence of ideas of the Christian followers after Jesus death on the result. To try and disentangle Jesus teaching before his death from post death ideas of Christians the synoptic gospels would be where to look as you point out.

Considering the current topic in last pages here I remember a critical scholar deciding that the Lords prayer would not count as reliably Jesus because it was too regularly Jewish. I certainly see it as Jewish as with most of Jesus teachings. The desire to find the real historical Jesus invites a sifting with excludes things both too Jewish on the one hand or on the other hand not Jewish enough. There is a bit of danger of reducing Jesus to some rural running up and down the street proclaiming the end is nigh.

Thanks! The search for the historical Jesus is probably the most difficult area in New Testament studies, and some of the criteria of authenticity have been criticized in more recent years, I think in particular the criterion of dissimilarity. I think that one needs to be applied very carefully. It's certainly likely that Jesus would have said things that were right in line with strains of Jewish thought in his own day, particularly apocalyptic Judaism. On the other hand it would be easier for a later write to simply "copy and paste" popular Jewish and Christian sayings onto Jesus' lips too.

The parable of the mustard seed is one saying that is often listed among the most likely sayings going back to Jesus himself, and certainly that one paints Jesus as an eschatologist but not necessarily a "crash and burn" apocalypticist in the same sense as John the Baptist. In the parable of the mustard seed the kingdom of God comes gradually through the actions of its members, not as sudden action by God.

The teaching against divorce in Mark is often singled out as another authentic saying. It clearly causes Matthew some discomfort as he feels compelled to modify it to allow exceptions for infidelity, but he doesn't feel comfortable removing it altogether.

At the end of the day there might be 1/3 or so of the synoptic sayings that might plausibly go back to Jesus. But it will always be about probability, never certainty. And probably none of the sayings are a good word for word retelling of Jesus' sayings.

[Gadianton]

As I said earlier, this seems to be common among those that leave the church.

You call a lot of things after the fact, like we're all atheists or secular humanists, and that explains why your latest point wasn't taken seriously. There are plenty of people who leave the Church who weren't fundamentalists and plenty of people in the church who are fundamentalists and stay strong -- such as most of the Brethren and their wives. Believe it or not, most members have no idea who Grant Hardy is and they are not in danger of becoming like me. It was, in fact, my non-fundamentalist exploration of Hugh Nibley and later postmodernism to rescue the Church that probably put me on the path to leaving. It's tough to say for sure, as life isn't explained that simply. But my guess is that those were outsized contributing factors. Had I walked the walk of the precepts of the Brethren and followed the instruction of my Bishop and my mission president, I would have stuck with the scriptures with no commentaries. I would put a big bet that those young people who got into Nibley were at a much higher risk of leaving than those young people who commit to the narrow reading list the Church recommends.

Is belief that the Book of Mormon is faithful fiction an apostate position?

A person commentating on his Readers Guide version puts it this way “From the outset, Hardy asks his readers to suspend their beliefs about whether the Book of Mormon is true so that we can analyze it as a work of literature.”

I mentioned Grant is a postmodernist, or at least he's exceptionally familiar with postmodernism, specifically, Jacques Derrida. As a deconstructionist, he can suspend history because in deconstruction, there really isn't a such thing as history, only intertextuality. It's fortuitous that a fictional believer can appreciate "the text" of the Book of Mormon and join Grant in a "close reading" (deconstruction) of it. Independent of fictional believers, he would need to abstract it from historical commentary in order to do what he's going to do. Is that apostate? Probably. Even worse, he comes to conclusions like, Moroni was basically a war criminal. I've been very generous with MG in NOT calling his work apostate outright, because though I believe it probably is, since the Church hasn't said one way or an other officially, I can withhold my opinion on the matter and point out that his sin is a general one of taking the Book of Mormon lightly, and not spending 30 minutes a day reading it (which means reading without any commentaries or at best the official Institute study guide). If he wants to spend another half hour with Hardy fine.

Maybe he should take the matter up with his Bishop? Let his bishop read those excerpts and if his bishop says that it's okay for MG to read Hardy's book for his daily Book of Mormon reading, then I would respect the authority of the Bishop to make that exception.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

A commandment to read Book of Mormon 30minutes a day? Really?

...No. You’ve got to remember huckleberry, this fellow is an apostate. He’s going to come up with stuff...

Lol. Sometimes I really wonder about your Mormon upbringing, mg. You seem to have missed quite a bit.


Huckelberry, like Gadianton, I grew up with that commandment as well. Here's a source:

We, ourselves, must be studying the scriptures and have a daily habit.19

The way you build spirituality [is] by study of the gospel.20

"Strive in your homes, and teach others, to take some time of each day to have a quiet hour, meditation.

Let there be study of the scriptures at least thirty minutes of each day...”

[Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: President Harold B. Lee]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... 7?lang=eng

Harold B. Lee was President of the LDS church July 1972 to December 1973.
The link fills in more history about it if you are interested.

I too grew up under the mandate to read the Book of Mormon every day - I vaguely recall various exhortations to read it daily for 30 minutes to keep my testimony strong. Like others here and elsewhere, I read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover many times, and then studied it fairly intensely throughout my time as a member. Frankly speaking, it was awful and boring to a fault.

We also prayed on our knees, both individually and as a family - core memories of being in a circle, on our knees, holding hands are still easily recalled. I assumed all Mormons did this in the 70’s and 80’s? After that, in the 90’s personal prayer was done on the knees bedside, or at the table on our butts, but I don’t remember praying on my knees with my then wife and toddler. Heads bowed, arms folded, and eyes closed were otherwise normal praying behavior?

- Doc

[ceeboo]

I too grew up under the mandate to read the Book of Mormon every day - I vaguely recall various exhortations to read it daily for 30 minutes to keep my testimony strong. Like others here and elsewhere, I read the Book of Mormon cover-to-cover many times, and then studied it fairly intensely throughout my time as a member. Frankly speaking, it was awful and boring to a fault.

We also prayed on our knees, both individually and as a family - core memories of being in a circle, on our knees, holding hands are still easily recalled. I assumed all Mormons did this in the 70’s and 80’s? After that, in the 90’s personal prayer was done on the knees bedside, or at the table on our butts, but I don’t remember praying on my knees with my then wife and toddler. Heads bowed, arms folded, and eyes closed were otherwise normal praying behavior?

- Doc

Interesting post, Cam - Thanks for sharing.

(for what it's worth: Thought it would be fair, due to the times I offer my opinion that your posts contribute no value, to recognize and appreciate when I think you do add value)

[Morley]

Putting aside the inexcusable and horrific persecution of Jewish people at the hands of Christians (putting it aside because I do not dispute it) - How does this "Jewish community" determine who belongs to it and who doesn't? Is everyone in except those who follow Jesus? Other than ethnicity and religion, what else is in play to make this determination?

Two thousand years of pogroms by Christians are not something that can be, as you say, '"put aside."

Earlier, you said that there are "many Jews who are secular, or who practice Talmudic Judaism, or are Muslim, or are Hindu, or are Atheist." Generally speaking, folks of Jewish descent who've converted to another religion do not call themselves Jews, but refer to themselves as Hindus of Jewish descent, or Muslims of Jewish descent. Converts to Islam are considered Muslims in both the Jewish community and in islam. My Mormon grandmother who was of jewish descent didn't call herself a Jew; she was a Mormon. Until recently, Jews who converted to Christianity didn't call themselves Jews, either. This is a recent phenomenon, related mostly to Evangelicals. The Jews I know tend to see the Messianic Jew movement as fraudulent and manipulative.

As to what you call secular or atheistic Jews, this is generally something that bothers Christians much more than it bothers most Jews. Reform Jewish Congregations, for example, don't police their members according to their individual beliefs, which can range from orthodox, to conservative, to liberal, to atheistic. All are welcome. Why should they not be?

For the most part, I would agree with you as it relates to a religious community. Where I am struggling is when we take two things (in this case, religion and ethnicity) and treat them as one in the same. They are not.

You're wrong when you say ethnicity and religious affiliation are always two different things. Sometimes they're not. In the most of the Near East, if you run into an Armenian, you will know that they will also be a Christian. In Egypt, the Coptic Christians are often considered to be a separate ethnicity, despite sharing the same DNA as their Muslim neighbors. Their religion and perceived ethnicity are interwoven.

Though by practice, you might never know it, my wife identifies as both an ethnic Iranian and an ethnic Muslim. She sees the two seemingly distinct identities as inseparable. (As an aside, she considers herself to be more ethnically American than many who were born here. And she's right.)

[I Have Questions]

I mentioned Grant is a postmodernist, or at least he's exceptionally familiar with postmodernism, specifically, Jacques Derrida. As a deconstructionist, he can suspend history because in deconstruction, there really isn't a such thing as history, only intertextuality. It's fortuitous that a fictional believer can appreciate "the text" of the Book of Mormon and join Grant in a "close reading" (deconstruction) of it. Independent of fictional believers, he would need to abstract it from historical commentary in order to do what he's going to do. Is that apostate? Probably. Even worse, he comes to conclusions like, Moroni was basically a war criminal. I've been very generous with MG in NOT calling his work apostate outright, because though I believe it probably is, since the Church hasn't said one way or an other officially, I can withhold my opinion on the matter and point out that his sin is a general one of taking the Book of Mormon lightly, and not spending 30 minutes a day reading it (which means reading without any commentaries or at best the official Institute study guide). If he wants to spend another half hour with Hardy fine.

Maybe he should take the matter up with his Bishop? Let his bishop read those excerpts and if his bishop says that it's okay for MG to read Hardy's book for his daily Book of Mormon reading, then I would respect the authority of the Bishop to make that exception.

Hardy’s back story on these Book of Mormon rewrites is interesting. The way he tells it, basically his wife refused to read the Book of Mormon because it was boring and contained only snippets of value. She was getting nothing from it because of how it was written. That’s what started him of supposedly.

My wife, Heather, is an astonishingly good reader. I was teaching at the time, and I came home from work one day, and she said, “Oh, I read 100 pages in the Book of Mormon today.” Something like—certainly first and second Nephi—this morning. And she said, “It’s just not . . . there’s not that much there.” She said, “I went to Seminary. I went to Sunday School. I’ve read it a bunch of times. I know the stories. I know the basic doctrines. It’s really repetitive, and it’s awkward.” And she said, “I think I’ve gotten pretty much what I can get out of it.” She tossed it across the room. And I said, “Let me get you a Book of Mormon you can read. I think there’s more there. Let me see what I can do.”

https://ldsperspectives.com/2019/01/16/ ... ant-hardy/

He’s looked at the way it’s currently presented - Books, Chapters, Verses and has deemed it a poor effort. Remember that isn’t how it was originally presented. So he’s attempted to make it more readable by changing the format in paragraphs with more sensible breaks, and then attempted to make it an academic reference guide with footnotes and linkages etc. In some respects is an open criticism of Orson Pratt (who conjured up the current format) and a less direct criticism of the more modern Apostles who haven’t changed it.

I get the impression he’s trying to present the Book of Mormon as valuable for all - stalwart believers, non believers who think it’s a piece of fiction, and all points in between. He also tries to make the case that the Book of Mormon can be of academic value to people with no interest or association with Mormonism as a religion. Non member historians etc.

He even appeals to the female side of things (more prompting from his wife maybe?) and has added a 12th Witness - Emma Smith. He asserts it’s of more value because she’s a first hand eye witness and her testimony has a not a bland group statement. It’s a personal recounting of her witness.

I’m tempted to acquire the Annotated version so I can see for myself how he treats what he points out as anachronisms, racism etc.