Gospel Doctrine is the worst book club ever. As an English major, I think this is what hell must be like: endlessly discussing non-insights about a book of self-justifying two dimensional characters with a plot that doesn’t contain any of the subtle human dramas the Bible does. I usually can’t tell if that’s the fault of the book or the other members of the book club. I know it’s the latter. As to the former, I’ve been reading two new books released by BCC Press. One of them reminds me of how awful the Book of Mormon is in terms of character development, and the other reminds me that it has theological complexity that bears reflection. Maybe it’s not so bad after all. Maybe it’s just the reading most Church members give it (to say nothing of the terrible manuals) that’s the problem.
The Women’s Book of Mormon
Mette Harrison has written a fanfic version of the Book of Mormon from the perspective of its mostly unnamed female characters. It reminds us of two things: 1) that the Book of Mormon is a total unapologetic sausage fest, and 2) that we are really missing out on something when we never hear from women. The story is at times quite moving, particularly as we explore the life of Nephi’s unnamed sister Miri for whom there is no husband among the sons and daughters of Ishmael. She helps build the boat, but is not recognized for her work. Later, when she later tries to kill herself, Nephi shrugs because he really sees no value in her (go ahead and say that’s overstating his views on women, but I’ve read what he wrote, and you can’t convince me he is even aware women exist), but her mother Sariah performs a miracle to save her. This is a bit heavy handed, but for the love of all that is holy, there’s nothing so heavy handed as Nephi’s self-justification and self-aggrandizement in the original, and instead of seeing him as insufferable, he’s lauded like a Heisman trophy winning quarterback every time anyone at Church opens their mouth. So I get it. I totally get where Mette is coming from.
Another element of her book that is sure to have any of the old biddies clutching their pearls is that the women frequently refer to the Mother God. Their worship is centered around her as she provides the example for them as women. This is not some anachronistic invention, though. This is far more likely to have been the case (and unsurprising if the men, who were invested in the patriarchal structure, weren’t focused on it). In his book Did God Have a Wife?, archaeologist William Dever discusses his findings in ancient Hebrew cities, that within the domestic sphere, a Mother God was worshiped. His findings coincide with the timing of Lehi’s family’s exodus in the Book of Mormon. We also see this evidence in the Bible, as the male Church leaders were often warring with the women’s worship of a female deity. The female deity protected women in childbirth and helped to heal sick family members. She blessed their efforts to keep home and hearth safe. She was relatable for the women’s limited roles, but seen as being fully a God.
Because I’m generally not a fan of the Book of Mormon, I was surprised that I found this book moving at times. Mette is able to spin characters in a way wholly lacking in the book itself. I found her characters more relatable, admirable, and understandable on the whole. Which brings me to my deeper question: does the book merit fanfic? This is no Pride & Prejudice, after all. I struggle to get jazzed about the fate of these folks. Switching to a female perspective, particularly in a book that completely ignores the experience of women, goes a long way to redeeming the character problems. There’s little to constrain the writer in taking this approach since the book barely has any women in it. Even Nephi’s wife isn’t spared a name, and this is a guy who drones on forever about his Feelings and the wrongs done to him.
For those who never noticed the lack of women in the Book of Mormon, reading this may help you see why it’s problematic. If I’m honest, though, I can only imagine those who most need to read this won’t.
Buried Treasures
Michael Austen knocks it out of the park with his book Buried Treasures: Reading the Book of Mormon Again for the First Time. As the title hints, his approach is not to have the same damn discussion we’ve had every 4 years for our entire life until we want to gouge our eyes out: Nephi’s courage, Lehi’s visionary nature, Laman and Lemuel’s murmuring and sibling rivalry, Moroni’s righteousness, Alma’s repentance, the Sons of Mosiah as rock star missionaries, etc.
Michael brings a few things to the table that I seldom hear in a Gospel Doctrine class: textual criticism, an understanding of literary devices, and a willingness to engage with the text as it is (not as we say it is) and to engage with its critics at face value (not dismiss them with smug superiority). He doesn’t side with the critics, but he acknowledges the reasonableness of their criticisms, then explains additional ways to view the passages they found problematic. This is a thoughtful approach that should render the Book of Mormon freshly interesting to even the most jaded reader (even me).
Like all good literary discussions, these bite-sized chapters refer to other literature to illuminate new ways of understanding this book. Toward the end of his book, Michael makes what I assume is a veiled reference to a line from Battlestar Galactica, “All this has happened before, and all this will happen again.” This is in reference to the odd structural choice to include the epic of Ether toward the end of the Book of Mormon. In essence, given that the Book of Mormon is a third testament of Jesus Christ (after the Old and New), the entire book is another witness of the same story of humanity, one that contains wars, exoduses, family dysfunction, racism, socio-economic strife, anger management issues, Pauline (or Almine?) miraculous conversion stories, etc. Does that make it a Biblical rip-off or does that illustrate that all scripture is designed to show us the lather-rinse-repeat nature of being a human? Michael’s book allows for either, but believes the latter.
If you are tired of the same old discussions of the Book of Mormon, I highly recommend either of these books. If you want a narrative that shows you these threadbare stories from new eyes, Mette’s book is for you. If you love literary criticism and enjoy comparative studies in literature, Michael’s book is right up your alley. Both are available on Amazon and wherever BCC Press books are sold.
Obviously, your views on the Book of Mormon may differ from my own. I’ve seldom met anyone who dislikes it to the degree I do, but I appreciate these new perspectives on it.
- How is the discussion in your ward’s Gospel Doctrine class?
- Do you enjoy the Book of Mormon? Why or why not?
- Which of these books appeals to you more? Are you likely to read one or both of them?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
I nominate “Gospel Doctrine is the worst book club ever” for Mormon Internet Phrase Of The Year. It will forever color my view of Gospel Doctrine class. As for the three questions:
1 – In my ward, it was pretty good when I taught class. Because I worked hard to ask the right questions: those that would prompt non-shallow conversation. Lately, I don’t know; I’ve gone into voluntary exile (Primary teacher).
2 – I confess I enjoy reading the Book of Mormon, but as discussed in an earlier post, I read it not for moral guidance or parsing out the will of the Lord (one type of reading) but testing it as a sign of Joseph’s calling (the other type of reading, which the Church itself often endorses). The questions I ask as I read tend to be “Do I really believe this?” and “Does this make sense?” and “Could this have been written by anyone in the 6th century BC?”
3 – No, I refuse to choose. I want to read them both. Austin does great posts, so he must do good books. And I have read a couple of Mette’s Bishop’s Wife series. Maybe we can call this on the Nephi’s Wife series. If she writes the next installment as the Book of Mormon from a child’s point of view, I’ll use it in Primary.
1. Bored!! — would consider shooting the wall (BBC’s Sherlock, not Urban Dictionary) but for the fact that I don’t have a handgun. (Why let a little thing like rules against bringing guns to Church get in the way?)
But not always boring. Depends greatly on the teacher (preparation, skill in asking meaningful questions, and guiding a non-standard discussion), the club members, and the facility (we’re currently stuck in the noisy gym where music, videos, projection of pictures for a group our size, are all too difficult or would inappropriately disrupt the sacrament meeting going on in the chapel — it has not always been so).
Maybe I’ll look for ways to pull the gospel according to Sherlock into the GD discussion (the BBC series — not its primary protagonist or Doyle’s very flat version of the character).
2. No. I don’t like self-righteous, self-justifying, know-it-all authoritarians, with no sense at all of when preaching hell-fire and damnation cannot persuade “by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned” or when “reproving betimes with sharpness [may not be a result of being] moved upon by the Holy Ghost” and without any apparent “showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy.” (Can you tell I’m still reading in 1 Nephi?) But anyway the writing/translation is terrible; the characters are almost entirely flat (there are exceptions – or a least glimpses of exceptions, e.g. in the “psalm of Nephi” or in Captain Moroni’s angry letter). The binary classifications (heaven/hell, good/evil) don’t work for either post-D&C Mormon theology or for the experienced and observed complexity of humans.
But I like it better when I succeed with the approach Michael Austin has taken. Unfortunately, I’m neither as educated nor as clever as he in doing so.
Still, I can read it for moral guidance (sorry, Dave B.) when I drop the assumption that its prophets adequately and accurately express the Lord’s will, and allow it instead to function as a catalyst (apologies to various BoM and BoA translation theorists) to my own spiritual awareness of morality or of the Lord’s will. Of course, being me, I have an easier time doing that with the Bible, or Shakespeare, or BBC’s Sherlock, or maybe even (heaven help me) the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
3. Austin’s is probably more appealing/useful to me. I’ve imagination enough of my own to flesh out the threadbare stories of the BoM, but I’ve appreciated insights in Harrison’s books I’ve read. I expect she has insights I have not had; she certainly has a viewpoint I do not. I plan to read both.
For those worst-ever-book-club members who can’t handle BoM fanfic or more-than-traditionally-obvious-literal readings, maybe I’ll bring up:
“… if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.” “Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. (Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, July 13, 1862. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT.)”
If true in 1862, maybe truer (is that a concept?) now.
JR,
Out of curiosity, is there another Prophet or Apostle who has said the same thing G.D. Watt reported?
As for the questions…
This year the discussion has been much better then when I taught the class 16 years ago. The class members have read the material and have given a good deal of thought to the topic.
Yes I have always enjoyed reading the Book of Mormon. It makes me feel closer to Christ and helps me change to be come more like him.
I’m not likely to read the books. There are too many other books on my read list.
I haven’t read Austen’s book but from what you describe it sounds a little like Grant Hardy’s “Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide” When I read that it forever changed the way I understand the BofM, it literally opened my eyes to a new way of seeing that book of scripture. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a new view of what may be a very old and tired subject.
Markamarsh, I dunno. I also dunno just what things BY had in mind. But in any event, any translation is affected by the the language skills and cultural understanding of the translator (of both original and target languages and cultures) so, of course, a re-writing/re-translation would be different now than what was done in the early 19th century (and tinkered with thereafter) — to say nothing of the question how much of what we have may have been JS’ or the translator’s midrash on whatever text was original. (I distinguish between JS and the translator because I don’t know who made those words appear on the seer stone to be read out by JS. Gosh, I don’t even know who a lot of the people are whose words appear on my smart phone by text or email!)
Yeah, after I leave Nephi behind, parts of the BoM can help me feel closer to Christ and to be motivated to become more like him.
Great recommendations, I would like to check both out. My wife was just called to teach GD and she has done a fantastic job of trying to make the class interesting and relevant to people at all ends of the belief spectrum. She does the following: 1. Talk about what is going on in the narrative in the chapters covered; 2. Raise some interesting questions that lead to class discussion, how we relate to the characters, what is going on theologically, etc. This has led to some interesting class discussions and been uplifting for the true blue orthodox old folks and the younger people with more nuanced views and some people who don’t believe the BOM is historical.
The challenge is that some of the BOM lends itself to this kind of discussion and other parts are very two dimensional and black and white. I see these as more of the anti-Universalist strains of the narrative and theology and seems to be attacking nuanced views. It’s hard to tackle these sections without expressing disagreement with what is in the text (there seems to be some tolerance for that for the Bible but zero for the BOM).
There are also internal theological contradictions in the BOM and theology that contradicts modern LDS theology. We had an interesting discussion about God knowing all things from the beginning (more of a predestination view) vs. free agency.
I’ve been in Primary the last 13 months so I wouldn’t know about Gospel Doctrine. My wife says it’s kind of a mixed bag right now. Some of my primary kids, however, have shown intelligence and insights that would be frightening in any other setting. I used to think it was maybe my generation that was reserved for the latter days. Now I’m not so sure.
I love the Book of Mormon. I find it so much easier to comprehend than the Bible and I’ll admit I’ve read it many more times. I do not think it is a rehash of the Bible since it offers greater clarification on the pride cycle, the resurrection, agency, and the reality of secret combinations. It sometimes scares me how much even members disregard that last one. I also feel closer to the Savior.
I think I’d be more likely to read the literary criticism. Until relatively recently, I stayed clear of LDS fiction, and even now I’m rather picky. That may be why I’ve had a copy of “Tennis Shoes” for decades but still haven’t read it. I believe there is a small but growing movement of even non-LDS who are looking at the BoM for its worth as literature.
I used to be annoyed by those who seemed to go out of their way to read between the lines in the Book of Mormon. I had a mission companion who had an Institute class once spend an entire hour on “And my father dwelt in a tent.” More and more though, I think the Lord welcomes it, at least to an extent. Only so much can be packed into the scriptures. When I start pondering things implied between the lines I’ve found the Spirit does offer some interesting insights. I think many things we wished were discussed more in the Book of Mormon can become more manifested with enough pondering. At the other extreme, I think it can be a source of false doctrine if people start confusing their own ideas with it. It can be a hard line to straddle. Because of that, I’m a little more sympathetic and understanding of the generally more conservative nature of discussion in Gospel Doctrine.
Thank you for this post. I’ve always found Nephi to be cocky, some of Ammon’s actions appalling, etc. Sometimes reading the Book of Mormon makes things worse when I struggle and I know that is an incredibly unpopular opinion. You could have heard crickets the Sunday I pointed out that it isn’t just the actions of those in the “great and spacious building” that pull people away from the Gospel, sometimes it’s the words and actions of those supposedly holding on to the “iron rod” that push people away. Thank you for letting me see I’m not alone and for these book recommendations.
How is the discussion in your ward’s Gospel Doctrine class? Great! Our GD Teacher is big fan of Brad Wilcox and the Ostlers. He tries to get in front of issues people have had with the BOM so people don’t feel like the history is being twisted.
Do you enjoy the Book of Mormon? Why or why not? Yep, I love the teachings and applying them to our day. Watching Nephites grapple with their racism of the Lamanites while Nephi says that God loves all his children and all are equal before him is a very real struggle and one that we see in our society today.
Preemptive war and the secret combinations also hit home.
1. A lot of the same old comments that I’ve heard since I was a child in the 80s. Very rarely do I hear a comment that reflects the most recent online discourse about the Book of Mormon. I gather that most people in the pews don’t follow the bloggernacle. They carry on in traditions they’ve maintained for decades. I don’t say anything in Gospel Doctrine class and barely pay attention to the comments. The attendees don’t want to hear what I have to say (at least not within the setting of the church classroom), and quite frankly I could care less about what they have to say.
2. I haven’t taken the time to sit down and read the BOM in quite a while. In fact, I only read it in the context of online discussions I’m having. I think it is a sui generis fascinating book. But I don’t read it in the same way that many believers do. I see it as a window into Joseph Smith’s mind. To inform myself of what shaped the stories, I think the only historical context that is relevant is Joseph Smith’s immediate environment. He truly was a sort of creative genius. Few people in human history could have pulled off what he did. Nonetheless, as mentioned, I think the story lines are a bit odd and off in some parts. The characters aren’t well developed. The history is weird (Lehi’s grandson Enos is alive in 420BCE, 180 years after they left Jerusalem, so Jacob had him when he was 90 or something?).
3. I think both books are interesting. I like Austen’s take on things, so I would start with his. Although, anyone who writes about the Book of Mormon and is trying to cater to a believing audience is walking on eggshells, and they know this, and have to proceed with great caution. Yet Austen is pretty good at this. I don’t think he believes the BOM is historical (although he has expressed this lack of belief in a very vague and circuitous way, at most he rejects the traditional Nibleyesque/Book of Mormon Central arguments about BOM historicity as facile and unsupportable and rightly so (their reasoning would be eaten alive if put to the real test of trying to convince a wider non-Mormon academic audience)), yet he tries his darnedest to find literary value in it. He is an incredible thinker. I would be interested to read a book about the Book of Mormon from someone who grew up Mormon, believes that Joseph Smith wrote it, but is neither angry at the church nor worried about reactions from the believing community. It is pretty hard to find such a person. I think Austen’s is the closest we can get. And Austen is a liberal (kudos to that). His book That’s Not What They Meant! Reclaiming the Founding Fathers knocks it out of the park politically.
Personally, I actually get more out of reading The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The friendship, love and support of the key characters (particularly Sam & Frodo) are uplifting and endearing. Can you imagine how great a class would be if we focused on the aspects of good and evil as discussed in these books? Wow! The Book of Mormon is horribly written, incredibly boring….and really a grinding read. That, and the fact that I believe it to be entirely fiction/mythology….makes me want to do ANYTHING other than attend and LDS Sunday School!
Never thought I’d hear myself say this but I’m happy to be teaching 5-year olds in Primary this year. Those 20 minutes go pretty quick! 😂
Thank you, Hawkgrrrl! A very engaging post, made me think.
My Gospel Doctrine experiences studying the Book of Mormon have ranged from awful to wonderful—not surprising, given the lay structure of our church.
I too am an English major, having graduated from a Presbyterian College that required me to take religion classes, so even when I was investigating the Church, my familiarity with the Bible made me well aware of the BOM’s peculiarities. I was even aware before my baptism that Mark Twain claimed that the BOM was “smouched” from the King James Bible, with no credit given. He also called it “chloroform in print,” and said that the writing of it was a miracle—Joe Smith staying awake while he wrote it.
All very clever. And I will cheerfully acknowledge Hawkgrrrl’s’s many points and frustrations: lack of women, two-dimensional characters, the smugness of the good guys, etc.
But, to paraphrase Juanita Brooks’ famous statement to Fawn Brodie about the Church: there is SOMETHING there, that cannot be explained away, pro or con. I personally find it more interesting to read the NT, but my life has been blessing by my readings of the BOM.
Like it or not, believe it or not, the existence and content of the BOM are like a lump that cannot be digested (or analyzed, or dismissed). It has to be taken on its own terms. I do enjoy reading it, and there are parts of it that are genuinely moving, but the OT and the NT are to me more exciting and engaging. Reading the BOM is a bit like exercise: I used to swim laps—somewhat boring at times, but rewarding. I am grateful for the BOM.
I personally lean toward the BOM being a mixture of divine inspiration, with Joseph Smith inserted into the mix to an unknown degree. I can accept it being a historical account, and can also accept it coming from God working through Joseph Smith’s mind, or a combination of both. Either way is fine, because whatever my frustrations with it, I accept it as the word of God, filtered through a man or men. I think that the more we try to understand it (I am not referring to its religious messages, here), the more frustrated we will become. It is simply THERE for us to react to. Something that has to be dealt with on its own terms.
I enjoyed the BY quote from the Journal of Discourses. And I also enjoyed Grant Hardy’s, ”Understanding the BOM.”
Try to spice up GD with “The Book of Mormon Made Harder” by Faulconer or “Understanding the Book of Mormon” by Heather and Grant Hardy.
Thanks for these recommendations. I think I’ll give them both a go. Per my wife, since I haven’t been attending, discussion in gospel doctrine has been robust, if not shallow and repetitive of the same ideas repeated many times before. Great for those looking to reaffirm the same ideas but leaves something to be desired for those looking for more.
My gold standard for Book of Mormon commentary has been the collection of essays put together by Brent Metcalfe, “New Approaches to the Book of Mormon.” Now almost 3 decades old, it is still as new and fresh as when it was first published and is available online for free from Signature Books.
Reading these essays and then re-reading the Book of Mormon in the light shed by them has been refreshing for me. I enjoy reading the Book of Mormon for what I see it as, a 19th century production that has been deeply meaningful for millions. It no longer carries the same magic for me as when I was a literal believer in its historicity but I still find it fascinating and sometimes surprisingly insightful, although I prefer to find my insights in other literature these days.
We discussed Nephi’s “I will go and do … the Lord will prepare a way” with his brothers’ understanding that the people at Jerusalem were doing what the Lord wanted and expected him to prepare a way for them, just as had happened in the past.
From the text it is obvious that both sides feel their faction is righteous and entitled to the blessings of God. So, what distinguished the people who were preserved from those whose city was destroyed? How do we distinguish between when we are just self-righteous rather than righteous and when we are on the Lord’s errand vs. on our own?
That gave some thought.
J.R. — that quote is part of the “God communicates to us in our own language and context” series of quotes and sermons.
{b}“… if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation.” “Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 9:311. (Remarks by President BRIGHAM YOUNG, made in the Bowery, Great Salt Lake City, July 13, 1862. REPORTED BY G. D. WATT.)”[/b]
That really gets to the core of just what translation was, how limited it was, and what filters existed on the translation of the book.
As does “When Joseph Smith referred to the Book of Mormon as the “most correct book” on earth, he was referring to the principles that it teaches, not the accuracy of its textual structure.”
More fully on the Brigham Young quote:
“When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities…. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings” (with some of the quote not included).
Also:”When the Lord reveals anything to men, he reveals it in a language that corresponds with their own. If you were to converse with an angel, and you used strictly grammatical language he would do the same. But if you used two negatives in a sentence the heavenly messenger would use language to correspond with your understanding.” George A. Smith, Journal of Discourses 12:335. [15 November 1863].
The bottom line on the Brigham Young sermon: “Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little.”
That has some fascinating implications which we generally ignore.
Yes, Stephen.
A week or so ago I was again made aware of how little understanding some of our people have of translation issues. One comment in SS class was to the effect that there are no translation issues with respect to the English Book of Mormon like there are with the Bible and its Hebrew and Greek sources. It would seem that commenter is unaware of the development of English or the BoM’s incorporation of Biblical translation issues by its use of the KJV, etc.
It may also be important to some to note that G.D. Watt was an unreliable reporter. From the Church history department’s expert on shorthand who has been re-transcribing many of the shorthand reports of early conferences:
There was a man named George Watt,
Who could improve Brigham Young, so he thought.
So he took out words here,
And he added words there,
And his accuracy was not what it ought.
LaJean Purcell Carruth©
I also understand that the shorthand for the quotation I posted is not extant. Accordingly, no one can confirm whether Watt in this particular case as in others added or removed words.
I am in the middle of Grant Hardy’s Understanding the Book of Mormon, and, no shade to Michael Austin, but Hardy basically takes all of the things that the OP likes about Buried Treasures and ramps them up to a whole different level. Austin’s book is definitely more bite-sized, but the flip side is that it’s like tapas, just little bites of flavor, whereas Hardy’s book is a feast. And it is a surprisingly accessible read.
Hardy’s main approach is to analyze the text as a narrated text, dealing with the fact that most of the Book of Mormon is filtered through the narration and personalities of Nephi, Mormon and Moroni, and recognizing that they constantly bring their own personalities, agendas and baggage to the text. There is so much that is implied by their choices of what to present and what to leave out, sometimes whole stories that seem evident in the lacunae.
Before I started reading the Book of Mormon again last year, my feeling had been the same as hawkgrrrl’s, i.e., that the Book of Mormon is “a book of self-justifying two dimensional characters with a plot that doesn’t contain any of the subtle human dramas the Bible does.” But after reading Hardy, I do not think that at all. Which is not to say that the text itself isn’t partly responsible for the weakness of our Sunday school discussions–taken at face value, the text lends itself to some pretty weak sauce analysis. But decades of Primary takeaways and shallow readings and a cultural pressure to perform orthodoxy don’t help either. There’s some really fascinating stuff buried in there, and I think there is a lot we can do in our Sunday school discussions to push the conversation in those directions.
I also devoured Mette Harrison’s Women’s Book of Mormon and just absolutely loved it. This was the review of it that I posted on Amazon:
I guess if someone in the future were to read my journal and family history, they’d find it ‘grindingly boring’ and lacking serious character development as well. 🙂