Reddit Reddit reviews Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide

We found 11 Reddit comments about Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Books
Christian Books & Bibles
Mormonism
Other Christian Denominations & Sects
Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide
Check price on Amazon

11 Reddit comments about Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide:

u/josephsmidt · 6 pointsr/latterdaysaints

> Is the book of Mormon peer reviewed?

Start with By the Hand of Mormon by Terryl L. Givens, Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide by Grant Hardy and The Book of Mormon: The Earliest Text by Royal Skousen.

These are three independent works, all published by reputable academic presses (Oxford and Yale) by scholars whose scholarly credentials have landed them academic positions at accredited institutions of higher education.

If you want the real deal, start here and learn and see academic scholarship at it's finest painting a majestic picture of this incredible text.


u/stillDREw · 5 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I want to second /u/amertune's motion for the LDS Institute manuals and /u/lispbliss's suggestion of Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon.

To those I would add both of the Mormon-related contributions to Oxford's A Very Short Introduction Series. There is one about The Book of Mormon and another about Mormonism generally.

u/nocoolnametom · 5 pointsr/IAmA

> Why are there no pictures of the tablets or other evidence? Cameras existed at the time the tablets were discovered.

Perhaps I can help a bit (but I'm not trying to take away from the OP; he can probably answer these as well; just noticed it had taken a while to get to this one and I was raised LDS, though I should announce here that I really do not have much trust in the Church's faith claims anymore; however, I'm trying to be factually accurate here and present factual answers; let me know if you have problems with it). Cameras (daguerreotypes) indeed had been invented around the early 1800s, but they certainly were not popular enough to warrant photographing a backwoods farm hand and his divine golden book. Instead, Joseph Smith got together some of his family and friends (and, in turn, their family members) (and one highly influential farmer who ended up losing his farm and his marriage over the whole deal) as witnesses to the plates. The two pre-prepared statements described how an angel showed three of them the plates and that later another eight were given the plates to handle by Smith. However, while everyone signed, a few were uncomfortable at signing something they had not themselves written. Many of these witnesses later left the LDS Church and a number of them either attempted to start their own churches or joined other split-off movements and became witnesses for scriptures and artifacts produced by other prophets. Almost none of them supported Brigham Young in any way as Joseph's Smith successor. However, none of them ever retracted the entirety of their statements in support of the Book of Mormon.

> Also why do Mormons believe that Native Americans are Jews who now have dark skin as a punishment? DNA testing has proven that Native Americans are not Jews but from Siberia.

Mormons believe that because that is what the Book of Mormon teaches, although nowadays it's quite popular to talk about a "nuanced" view of the cursing such that the dark skin is the sign of the cursing and that the actual curse is to be removed from being influenced by God's spirit. This particular nuanced view developed quite recently (probably within the past fifteen years or so). In the Book of Mormon, the first major author is Nephi, the youngest son of a family which lived in Jerusalem around the early 500s BCE. They are inspired by God to leave before the destruction in 587 BCE. His brothers, Laman and Lemuel, are described as wicked, though Nephi, who writes autobiographically for the first section of the book, is unable to ever explain exactly why his brothers are wicked or what their actual sins are apart from "rudeness" at one point and later trying to kill Nephi because they're tired of him, as the youngest brother, attempting to usurp leadership of the group. They cross the Arabian peninsula, Nephi is taught by God how to build a boat, and finally, completing years of travel, they arrive in the New World. Eventually the family splits into two groups of people, Nephites and Lamanites, and the Lamanites soon get cursed by God and receive a "skin of blackness". God explicitly tells Nephi that the purpose of the skin of blackness is so that the Nephites will not find the Lamanites "enticing", and God tell Nephi "I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities." (You can read all of this in 2 Nephi 5.) (EDIT: And, if you're interested, there's a fascinating book just published that attempts to study the Book of Mormon from a literary perspective instead of a historical or theological one that goes into far more analysis of the Nephi character, both as narrator and as dramatis personæ. It doesn't always succeed in avoiding historicity, but it's a fun read nonetheless. And I say that as a disaffected Mormon.)

As for the DNA testing, apologists have tried to show for nearly the past three decades that the text of the Book of Mormon implies the presence of other peoples in the Americas besides the described tribes of the Book of Mormon (Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekties, and Jaredites). Technically, though, this view requires a very careful reading of a text which is never really that clear about describing other peoples already in the Americas. A few years ago the LDS Church changed the wording in the book's introduction from saying that the Book of Mormon was an account of the "principal ancestors" of the Native Americans to saying that it was an account of people who are "among the ancestors" of the Native Americans. It's usually pointed out that the introduction is not part of the revealed text and can thus receive occasional improvements and fixes, and it is also usually argued that the text, which chronologically ends in the early 5th Century CE, doesn't make any explicit claims as to the ancestors of modern Native Americans (though I find this personally untrue; the Book of Mormon seems, to me, to give a strong indication that Native Americans are Lamanites). Even so, many Mormons still hold to this view of Native Americans being principally Lamanite in origin, which even extends to the idea such ancestry among Polynesians. And while many LDS apologists also love pointing out the difficulties of dealing with American populations before the cataclysmic arrival of Europeans, nowadays you'll find that most educated Mormons in genetics and anthropology accept the DNA findings as accurate and either simply assume that the Book of Mormon peoples comprised very small populations that were absorbed completely by the larger surrounding populations or explore other options for appreciating the Book of Mormon beyond a historical approach.

> Is this why Mormons actively tired to keep Blacks out of any high position in the church until the 1960s?

Actually, no, that's a different skin-blackening and/or cursing. Mormons view the mark given to Cain in Genesis 4:15 as black skin (though, again, you'll find modern Mormons differing from the majority of historical Mormons in emphasizing that the mark is described as being given to prevent Cain from being killed and is thus a positive thing). This mark was preserved through the flood by Ham, one of Noah's sons, and by Ham's son Canaan who is himself cursed by Noah in Genesis 9:20-27. This belief wasn't solely a Mormon belief, but was quite common among 19th Century Christian churches. However, Mormon scriptures add to this doctrine extensively from a different record, the Book of Abraham, which is supposed to have been written by Abraham himself. Abraham describes how the Egyptians are descendants of Ham and that through this lineage "the curse" was preserved through the flood (Abraham 1:21-24). He also describes how Pharaoh (which is an anachronistic term to be used in Abraham's time of around 1800 BCE), while being a pretty cool guy, is cursed as to having the Priesthood (the authority of God, in Mormon-speak) (Abraham 1:26-27). So, from these scriptures most Mormons of the 19th and 20th Centuries assumed that black people could not be ordained to the Priesthood. Prophets such as Brigham Young spoke about this and proclaimed that black people would never receive the Priesthood until Jesus Christ returned at the end of this world. The Church felt that, since this cursing from the Priesthood was governed by lineage, nobody with any amount of black heritage was allowed to be ordained to the Priesthood, which automatically invalidated them from holding any leadership position in the Church from the local levels up. Even when historians in the 20th Century rediscovered that Joseph Smith apparently had no problems ordaining black men to the priesthood, the LDS Church continued to point back to Abraham as the source of its doctrine. Then in 1978, after years of public outcry and on the verge of a new Temple about to be opened in Brazil with little to no Mormons able to attend (people with black ancestry of both genders, as well as white women who married black husbands, could not attend the Temple for ordinances that Mormons consider essential to achieving their fullest potential in the worlds to come), the Church announced in June that ordination to the Priesthood was now available to all worthy males (the Temple restrictions also went away, but without any fanfare). In later retrospection, most of the authorities involved in the decision describe the "good feelings" they had in considering removing the ban, but the change did not involve anything stronger for revelation (no visions, no angels, no audible voices from heaven). Most Mormons view the announcement as proof of continuing revelation, and the letter written to announce the change was eventually placed into Mormon scriptures, though there is no actual "Thus saith the Lord" revelation for the change.

Hope this helps. I tend to write long because context can be very useful in answering these sorts of questions.

u/KURPULIS · 2 pointsr/lds

I think it is Grant Hardy's book that talks a lot about the necessary opposition that Nephi writes into the Book of Mormon. About the importance of that opposition to the overall importance in teaching the doctrine contained. That Lamen and Lemuel and very 'flat' characters because their depth of personality and character is unnecessary to the goal's of Nephi's writing, to bring its readers unto Christ.

But, it is unlikely it was really that simple. Lamen and Lemuel were not really that unreasonable outside a few occurrences in their reactions and which of us haven't acted quite unreasonably at times. That it's more possible they were traditionally obedient Jews and saw their father as out of line (I mean, even Nephi needed to come to terms).

I haven't watched the episode yet, but your comment alone has me pulling it up right now.

Edit: u/atari_guy, apparently this video link is unavailable.

u/lamsiyuen · 2 pointsr/latterdaysaints

May be it would be helpful to point you to some honest source that seeks to give a non subjective and fair evaluation for the claims of the church.

  1.   A book that provides a general view on how to go about thinking about hard church issues. It is really good. Entitled the Crucible of Doubt by Teryl Givens: https://www.amazon.com/Crucible-Doubt-Reflections-Quest-Faith/dp/1609079426/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=crucible+of+doubt+givens&amp;amp;qid=1561524835&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;sr=1-1<br />


  2. My favorite book to start thinking very thoughtfully and from an academic perspective on the book of Mormon. Incredible stuff. Entitled “Understanding the BOM” by Grant Hardy: https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Book-Mormon-Readers-Guide/dp/0199731705/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_1?_encoding=UTF8&amp;amp;psc=1&amp;amp;refRID=KBX8MX63A88H3GCBCHYR

  3. My favorite book on early church history focused around the life of Jesus Christ. Written by the renowned Columbia U History Professor Richard Bushman. Entitled Rough Stone Rolling: https://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Smith-Rough-Stone-Rolling/dp/1400042704/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=richard+bushman+rough+stone+rolling&amp;amp;qid=1561524690&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;sr=1-1

  4. My favorite book on modern day church history. It is a careful look at the David O McKay era with incredible source material. It completely changed my view of how the upper echelons of church governance works, but somehow at the same time strengthened my faith in our very fallible leaders. Entitled The Rise of Modern Mormonism by Greg Prince: https://www.amazon.com/David-McKay-Rise-Modern-Mormonism/dp/0874808227/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+rise+of+modern+mormonism&amp;amp;qid=1561524807&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;sr=1-1
u/eternigator · 2 pointsr/latterdaysaints

I believe that they are referring to The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition by Grant Hardy. His other book, Understanding the Book of Mormon is highly recommended by other redditors. /u/Karl_Marxxx

u/ldsracer · 2 pointsr/lds

If you want a new perspective on the Book of Mormon, I suggest Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon. In it he looks at the three narrators (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni) and why they included what they did.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Book-Mormon-Readers-Guide/dp/0199731705

u/everything_is_free · 1 pointr/mormon

No but it is on amazon. Could also probably be found in most large public and university libraries.

https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Book-Mormon-Readers-Guide/dp/0199731705

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/AcademicBiblical

&gt;certain claims by prophets that it is the most correct of any book.

That's J.S. claiming it's the most true on principle, not like, the most historically / scientifically accurate. "“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461.)"

The archeology and geological aspects are pretty disappointing. Mormon's Codex by Sorenson is encouraging, but I mean, he claimed to have gold plates given him by an angel that the angel took back. There's only so much you can do with that.

Academic studies in general as well as work on the text is much better.

Oxford press (I recommend both these authors):
http://www.amazon.com/Wrestling-Angel-Foundations-Thought-Humanity/dp/0199794928/
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Book-Mormon-Readers-Guide/dp/0199731705/

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/ (including http://publications.maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/periodicals/jbms/ )

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/

http://www.gregkoffordbooks.com

BYU's philosophy department professors

I do not recommend FAIR.

That should be a good start : )

u/ScruffyLookingNerfHe · 1 pointr/latterdaysaints

I enjoyed Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon. It gave me some interesting things to think about while reading the Book of Mormon.

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Book-Mormon-Readers-Guide/dp/0199731705


u/JustJivin · 1 pointr/mormon

I have heard good things about Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon