To my knowledge, every sect that traces back to the religion founded by Joseph Smith Jr. claims the Book of Mormon (BOM) as one of its standard books of scripture. The variance lies in how it’s regarded; some positions stated officially and otherwise. I hope this will pique your interest enough to accept a challenge I will present later.
In 1988 I took a home-correspondence study course on the BOM available through the RLDS church. The following year I was qualified to teach it in a class setting. Students were asked to select one of 4 “Views” of the BOM as closest to their own.
A. The Historical View Real people/places/events etc.
B. The Inspired Fiction View Allegorical, but with degrees of inspiration
C. The Canonization View Retained as scripture for its contribution in church history, heritage, etc.
D. The 19th Century View A product of Pioneer-American culture and of questionable worth today.
And of course, there was the optional Other View
I was surprised by the class majority selecting B. Personally, I was an “Other”. But as a teacher, I respected their choices as long as they continued to read it to confirm their viewpoint.
Making your preference known within the church could cause problems. If you’re LDS and relate to View B or D (and maybe C), things could get uncomfortable. If you’re RLDS (CofChrist) and ally with View A, ditto.
I’ve read 4 versions of the BOM that are all currently available.
1830 Replica I love imagining I’m in 1830 being handed this book by a traveling Elder.
1908 RLDS Edition My first BOM to read at age 18. Instead of praying for the truth after reading it, I prayed before. Glad I did.
1966 RLDS Edition This, like the 1830 and 1908 versions, has VERY LONG chapters, but the text is modernized somewhat. The best feature is the print differentiation whenever a prophet is quoting another prophet back and forth.
1981 LDS Edition Much shorter chapters, lots of references, and illustrations in some copies.
So here’s my challenge as we near 2016. With the LDS version, a person could read just one chapter per day (2-3 pages) and still have over 100 days in the year to skip for whatever reason. So, get a new copy (they’re Free) and a highlighter (they’re not Free) and as you read, mark the verses that appeal to you for future review.
What are your thoughts on this “very strange book”? Do you agree with any of the categorized Views?
Wheat & Tares 
I think that view C is perfectly fine for LDS. If the Book of Mormon is accepted as part of the Canon, then you are fine.
My favorite edition of the BOM is my LDS Hardback large type that was made as, I believe, a ‘seminary edition. in the late 60s or early 70s’. It has the standard Freiberg paintings plus some of the less common ones including Alma at the waters of Sebus. I love those and my kids love to look at them as I read. It also has some pictures of central American artifacts and ruins–which is not something that increases the value of the book for me, but is ok.
Rigel, I grew up with the hardback large print as a child. They were good. I wish there was still hardback available for the large print editions now. The paperbacks all curl.
Why do people believe in fictional scriptures. You mean they aren’t livable? I wonder if Gethsemane was real to them. I wonder if none of this was real, if anything really happened. How long will it take for our lives to become unreal? Is our genealogy real?
I guess I hover somewhere between B and D. I don’t seem to find the B of M as inspiring as most of my fellow church members, perhaps because I don’t really buy the whole narrative surrounding its production. And I don’t like the fact that its chief teaching seems to me to be that it’s a real possibility that we will destroy ourselves because of our innate tendencies towards violence and aggression. Not the most inspiring message, IMHO. Really like 3rd Nephi and the Book of Ether, though. And I love the New Testament. Maybe I’m just more of a Bible guy than a Book of Mormon guy.
I think God is happy with all 5 views because any discussion/argument/interest beats none.
My personal view is that it is valuable inspired fiction deliberately written via God’s dictation to appear to be a historical view to give early “show me” saints something that appeared more tangible to hang their faith on. Later they graduated to accepting the D&C as Joseph revealed it. Literal belief requires magical thinking and magical thinking is a child’s mental venue, so like the varied meanings of a parable different views allow us to to grow with it (assuming the legalists with allow us to!).
In the church today, if someone mentioned their view as B or D in a gospel doctrine class for example, they would be looked upon as an apostate. In the church today, there is only a limited view of the book that is acceptable. It is unfortunate but true.
Inspired. I don’t have any problem with thinking it’s entirely possible that everything in all the world’s “holy” books are true and given to different cultures intentionally like languages. Quantum physics indicates parallel universes are possible as is time shifts and burps.
Brother Sky:
“And I don’t like the fact that its chief teaching seems to me to be that it’s a real possibility that we will destroy ourselves because of our innate tendencies towards violence and aggression.”
If the possibility that we will destroy ourselves is a fact than it doesn’t make any difference what you feel about it. It’s very possible it’s going to happen anyway.
Getting ready for it is the best view unless, of course, you don’t believe God will, or can, help you. After all, God might be a story also.