(Part 2) Top products from r/mormon

I've found that I've really enjoyed some books that address topics that are interesting to Mormonism without being related to it at all.

Karen Armstrong (comparative religion/religious history), Bart Ehrman (biblical textual criticism), Timothy Keller (I really loved "The Reason for God"), Joseph Campbell (mythology), have all helped me gain a greater understanding of religion in general.

Other books that cover science and history have been excellent as well. I had what could be called a spiritual experience learning about the magnitude of life and how it exists when I read Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea". I would also suggest learning a bit about the origins of modern civilization by studying about Mesopotamia. I found a bit of interesting American history (that also briefly mentions the 19th century "burned over district" and Joseph Smith) in "Occult America: The Secret History of How Mysticism Shaped Our Nation."

My current read is "This is my Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology" by Charles R. Harrell, a BYU professor. It seems like the type of book that many Mormons would find offensive, while many Mormons would find it inspired.

I also enjoy reading scripture and seeing what it says without trying to make it fit what I think it should say, especially the New Testament. Honestly, I think that the New Testament inspires fewer wtf moments than any of the other books of scripture :)

Hang in there, man. Your story is a common one, and one I’m all too familiar with.

My wife’s reaction was almost identical. We are in a good place now, but it took us almost 4 years to get here.

Here are some resources that have helped:

• Natasha Helfer Parker’s book, One Family, Two Views: How to Fortify your Mixed-Faith Mormon Marriage
  
  
• Jon Ogden’s book, When Mormons Doubt: A Way to Save Relationships and Seek a Quality Life
  
  
• The “Mormon Mixed-Faith Marriage” Facebook group (good for both the believing and non-believing spouse)
  
  
• Natasha has her own virtual counseling practice, Symmetry Solutions - we have used their services and they are really good at understanding the Mormon mixed-faith paradigm and helping both spouses approach the marriage from a healthy standpoint.
  
  Best of luck, feel free to ask me any questions, I’m happy to discuss further.

Finding Darwin's God is an introduction to evolution by a Christian scientist. It's a great option.

Richard Dawkins is also very good. He's a militant atheist, but his writings on evolution are wonderful, clear, and beautiful. The Selfish Gene or The Greatest Show on Earth are both very good options.

I suggest starting with the book The Experience of God by David Bentley Hart (here). It's a book that attempts to show what the major religious traditions traditionally meant by "God." It's extremely different from Mormon God and very eye-opening.

I remain chiefly interested in Christianity. I also have difficulty saying what I believe is "factually true" about Christ's life, but I find myself drawn toward Christ as a person: his wisdom, humility, and love. In short, I continue to desire to be a disciple, even if I operate with less certainty than I used to. Christ, as the archetype of the Good Man, resonates with me. For now, for me, that's enough.

As with the history, a rigorous approach to the Bible threatens some dearly-held doctrinal interpretations and thus is avoided because it's uncomfortable.

I wish the author would have persevered and enhanced the OT curriculum rather than just quitting and leaving somebody less informed to teach the class. There are many wonderful resources available for the Bible, why not bring some into the classroom?

It's not a full commentary, but there is a pair of volumes, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, and Jesus Christ and the World of the New Testament, put out by some BYU ancient scripture professors who actually seem to know stuff about the ancient world. They have their "eyes open" a bit more than the average LDS volume, even confronting hairy issues like the golden calf representing Jehovah, the documentary hypothesis, etc.

In general though, I think Mormons avoid a more robust approach because their theology is not yet robust. The naive acceptance of various prophetic statements on the bible over the centuries---combined with what amounts to belief in prophetic infallibility---has created a minefield that sustained inquiry will inevitably set off. The authors of the books I mentioned seem aware of the trap the church is currently in. They are fairly responsible in trying to introduce difficult topics. But on some of them, there's just no sugar-coating it. Either the modern revelation is wrong, or the best biblical scholarship is wrong, take your pick, is often what it comes down to.

For example, Jehovah and the World of the Old Testament, p. 27, has an infobox titled "Flood Stories" which compares the Bible and Epic of Gilgamesh versions of the flood story. At the end they say,

>Scholars noting the similarities between the biblical flood story and those extant in Mesopotamia have suggested two possibilities to explain this phenomenon: (1) both stories derive from a common, ancient source; (2) the Israelites adopted the story from the Mesopotamians. Most scholars accept proposition two as the more likely explanation, suggesting that the Isaraelites became familiar with the story during the Babylonian captivity and inserted it into their scriptures. Because the flood story is also alluded to in the book of Moses, Latter-day Saints tend to accept the first proposition.

Because Mormons are defending unique doctrinal commitments such as that Moses composed the flood story, they end up isolated from good commentaries because the best Christian commentaries out there will take option (2) rather than the less satisfying option (1). My own Study Bible ("NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible: Bringing to Life the Ancient World of Scripture") does this.

Taking a more complex approach to Joseph Smith's revelations makes it possible to access a world of great information about the Bible. But right now that's not on the table for the mainstream church, so they will have to continue to rely on their own resources for biblical commentary, which means compared to what's available they will always kinda suck.

That said, they can be so, so much better than what's currently in the manuals.

It's truly a whole new world to explore. I read the book Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy by Simon Blackburn last year as a starting point. Great stuff. I'd recommend it if you'd like to dip your toes into philosophy a bit more. It's pretty cheap on used book sites as well.

Mormonism: A Very Short Introduction by Richard Bushman. Part of a series by Oxford University Press that tries to concisely summarize a variety of complex topics.

For something more in depth, but hitting all the bases you described quite well, I highly recommend the The Oxford Handbook of Mormonism. Seriously if you read that, you will come away with a very in depth understating of Mormon history, theology, culture, practice, and experience. But it is very long.

Oxford has also published a great book on the development of LDS theology called Wrestling the Angel.

Matthew Bowman's The Mormon People is also very good and has been used as a textbook in university religious studies introduction to Mormonism courses.

> Can you think of any parts of the Smith narrative that don't fit with the sex-and-power idea, outside of trivialities?

Have you ever read anything about Joseph Smith from a sympathetic perspective? I don't mean apologist literature. I mean work that is actually trying to understand Joseph Smith, rather than to support a preexisting thesis. Things like Rough Stone Rolling, In Heaven as it is on Earth, American Crucifixion, Mormonism: The Story of a New Religious Tradition, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, etc. When the events of Joseph Smith's life are put into their full, rich historical context, it quickly becomes apparent that J.S.'s motivations were complex and variegated. Certainly sex and power played a role, but so did sincere, intense religious belief, a desire to unite and redeem his family, and a firm conviction that God was working through him. For instance, the money digging events can only be understood when put into the context of early 19th century folk religion, as Quinn does in Early Mormonism. This is not an avaricious Joseph Smith, but someone who is trying to help lift his family out of poverty using methods of folk religion that were ubiquitous in the region.

Oh, I completely agree. I guess to clarify, I meant that the KJV is a fine translation for church purposes, e.g. taking them to church and using them for Sunday School. One of my biggest wishes is that the church will adopt the NRSV and replace the KJV (though, that will never happen).

The worst part about the KJV for us today is the archaic (for today's standards) english employed in the translation. Though I would still maintain that the KJV is a fine translation for more common purposes for most people. But man, when you get into Isaiah or Galatians or Romans...KJV is so hard to understand.

This is hands down my preferred, and favorite English Bible and the one I recommend to anyone who is interested in another translation: http://www.amazon.com/HarperCollins-Study-Bible-Student-Edition/dp/0060786841/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1410800242&sr=8-1&keywords=harpercollins+study+bible+nrsv

> Truth is verifiable claims, I consider anything else fiction along the lines of harry potter

How about that claim itself? Is the idea that truth is only things that are empirically verifiable itself empirically verifiable? That's logical positivism which is empirically non-verifiable.


> I also reject metaphysical and supernatural claims

I can honestly respect that. It bothers me when people think that those who don't believe in God or the existence of supernatural things are somehow just ignorant. They may be (since there are convincing reasons to believe in God), but it's not something to hang someone's intelligence on (since there are reasons not to believe in God). And the same goes for the belief in metaphysics, belief in it does not imply ignorance.

As for metaphysics/supernatural things, I've found a lot of insight on the topic from these resources:

• John Lennox - Is the belief in the supernatural irrational?
  
• NT Wright - What Gods do we believe in now?
  
• The Sacred Emergence of Nature (pdf)
  
• Praveen Sethupathy - Are we more than our genes?
  
• Thomas Nagel - Mind and Cosmos - BTW, he's an atheist.
  
  It's a very deep and rich debate with no one side being objectively right. As a moral statement about the world, ultimately one can only stand on the ground of non-objective reasons to justify their theism or atheism.

I am about to start:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345384563/ref=oh_details_o00_s00_i01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

Heard a really good review on it, then I'll likely read the book you linked me.

You should also check out The Book of Mormon: A Reader's Edition. It doesn't offer a ton of new scholarship, but reformats the book to make it more accessible. Reading this version I got a whole new insight into the book.

I don't. I believe the figures were coming from the book linked from the article

EDIT: I'm unclear which study /u/curious_mormon was talking about. The study referenced in the Jana Riess article - with the "small number of Mormons" - apparently is taken from this book linked in the same article.

The study described in the UPenn article I've been referencing can be found here.