[net.religion] An objective discussion of the Book of Mormon

ecn-pc:alexande@pur-ee.UUCP (06/30/83)

Well, I must confess that I have not finished the book of Mormon:
I got through a big chunk of it and put it aside for later (I do
intend to go back to it).  But what I read of it has these features:

	1) It has more of the feeling of a story, and is therefore
	   in some ways easier to read than the Bible, which has
	   long sections of history, lots of repitition, lots of
	   commentary by the writers.  The first third of the Book
	   of Mormon has none of this; it is just the story of a
	   people coming from one culture to another.  

	2) The writing is far from exciting.  What the original
	   text may have looked like (if there was such a thing)
	   I cannot guess, but the "translation" by Joseph Smith
	   is marred by an imperfect use of the English language.
	   There are no grammatical mistakes (at least no more 
	   than in anything else) but the language is not strong
	   like the language of the Bible, and the translation is
	   lack-lustre and tedious.

	3) The story itself is contrary to the large body of 
	   anthropological research done on the American Indians,
	   and thus has little to recommend it to the scientific
	   or learned community.

Other than these things, I found the book itself fascinating.  It
fails to do what I hoped it would do, that is to tell me why
Mormons are the way they are.  Many of their beliefs do not seem 
to come directly from the Book of Mormon, but from some sort of 
shenanigins at the time of the founding of the Latter Day Saints 
Church and later.  This bothers me somewhat, as it then becomes
possible to separate the Church's practice from its doctrine, which
leaves the seeker no firm place to turn for guidance about how God
has shaped the religion, and thus no good reason to join.

				Alan Alexander-Manifold
				Purdue Library Systems Dept.
				pur-ee!ecn-pa.alexande