The Challenge of Reading Let’s face it. The Book of Mormon can be difficult to read. It is written in an older form of English, the stories are sometimes complicated, and there are dozens of names to keep straight (including four different Lehis, four Nephis, and four Jacobs). Indeed, it may take years of seminary or gospel doctrine classes before Latter-day Saints are familiar with the basic structure of the Nephite record-knowing, for example, which books are from which plates, or that Moroni was the author of Mormon 8-9 while Moroni 7-9 was actually composed by Mormon. And all too often non-members are simply lost and bewildered. It is certainly possible to feel the Spirit even when we don’t exactly grasp all the details, and important gospel principles are manifest in individual verses or favorite stories, but the Book of Mormon is a carefully-constructed, inspired whole, even though it is easy to miss the larger structures, historical contexts, and interconnections. Here’s a quick test of your scripture knowledge: 1. How old was Nephi when he wrote the book of First Nephi? The answers will appear in the paragraphs below, but for now it is enough to note that each of these questions has to do with how the Book of Mormon was written. If we can learn to see the scriptures as the products of authors who wrote from their individual circumstances and personalities, we will be able to read more comprehensively and with greater understanding. Perhaps surprisingly, this is also true for non-members. A few years ago I edited The Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Edition as a way to make the sacred text more accessible to both Latter-day Saints and outsiders. Without changing any of the words, I reformatted them into paragraphs (something like those in the 1830 edition) with quotation marks, poetic forms, indications of inserted documents, clearly identified biblical quotations, topical headings, and multi-chapter headings. The goal was to make it obvious on nearly every page who was speaking, in what context, and on what subject. I found that there were important literary units larger than single chapters. For instance, the book of Alma-which is very long and can sometimes just seem like one battle after another-actually divides rather neatly into seven major sections:
Once you are accustomed to seeing Alma in this way, it is easy to remember where particular sermons or conflicts fit in. [There was the answer to question #2, but you can really impress your fellow ward members if you casually observe that the last of the Amalickiahite Wars was fought on two fronts simultaneously-Alma 52-55 and 59-62 take place in the east with Captain Moroni, while Alma 56-58 follows events on the western front with Helaman2 and the stripling warriors.] The most striking discovery that I made in the ten years I was editing the Reader’s Edition (it’s a bit embarrassing that it took me a decade to reformat a book that Joseph Smith translated in less than ninety days) was the central role played by the narrators-Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni. The Book of Mormon is not simply an account of Nephite history; rather, it is Nephite history as seen through three particular individuals who were writing for readers many centuries in the future. The far-reaching implications of this insight are the subject by my new book Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader’s Guide, which has just been published by Oxford University Press. Understanding the Book of Mormon is a general introduction for both Latter-day Saints and non-members. It takes readers through the basic events, characters, and teachings of the text, but always from the perspective of the narrators. Ever since the Reader’s Edition, I have been interested in how the Book of Mormon operates-how it makes its points and communicates its messages. Unlike the Hebrew Bible, where the narrators are anonymous, the writers of the Book of Mormon openly identify themselves and tell us often of their ambitions, their editorial labors, and their personal lives. Clearly we are meant to imagine them wrestling with how to put their spiritual insights into words and how to tell their stories in the most persuasive way possible. Like all authors who tell stories (including people writing family histories), Nephi could choose from a number of different narrative techniques. For instance, he had to decide when to quote directly-that is, by providing exact words that today would need quotation marks-and when to quote indirectly through paraphrase. In the first part of his record, direct discourse is rare and allowing individuals to speak in their own voices gives those opinions tremendous weight, particularly when a character speaks for the very first time. In fact, psychologists tell us of the “primacy effect” whereby we privilege first impressions over later data. When do we first hear Nephi’s voice? (I know the answer because I put in the quotation marks.) Of course, we have been listening to Nephi from the opening words of “I, Nephi, having been born of goodly parents . . .”, but that’s the mature, middle-aged Nephi speaking. [Answer to question #1: in 2 Nephi 5:26-34 we learn that the account we now know as First Nephi was written some thirty to forty years after his family left Jerusalem. If Nephi had been a teenager at the time-as seems likely-he is now writing in his forties or fifties.] When does Nephi first quote his teenage self? As you may have guessed, this is at 1 Ne. 3:7 – “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded . . .”, which is a stirring, memorable declaration of faith. By contrast, the first directly quoted words of Laman and Lemuel appear at 1 Ne. 4:31 – “How is it possible that the Lord will deliver Laban into our hands?” Even though we have already heard of their murmuring (1 Ne. 2:11), this quotation still comes as something of a shock. Not only are the brothers characteristically complaining and doubting, but they also are shown dismissing the words of an angel, apparently within minutes of his leaving. Laman and Lemuel seem to be hardened skeptics indeed. The Book of Mormon is sometimes criticized as being didactic, with flat characters. This is true to some extent, but if Laman and Lemuel are flat, two-dimensional, entirely predictable figures, it is only because Nephi, as the narrator, has made them so. And that makes Nephi a more rounded character. Remember that by the time Nephi composed the Small Plates, he was doing so in the full knowledge that life in the Promised Land had soured, that there had been an irreparable breach with those brothers, and that his closest relatives had spent years trying to kill each other. He wants to make it as clear as possible to his readers why things turned out the way they did, and he therefore simplifies what were undoubtedly many years of complex family interactions (note that he treats Laman and Lemuel almost as if they were a single person, even though siblings are always quite distinct). As a result, his readers are never in doubt as to who was right and who was wrong. Each chapter in Understanding the Book of Mormon focuses on a specific compositional issue or technique that is characteristic of a particular narrator. So for Nephi I examine characterization and scriptural interpretation. Mormon is represented by chapters on competing agendas, embedded documents, parallel narratives, and the pattern of prophecy and fulfillment. And Moroni’s books are approached through his sense of audience and his use of allusion. [Answer to question #3: Mormon incorporated six letters into his abridgment, all but one of them within a block of eight chapters at the end of the book of Alma (chaps. 54-61); in my own book I come up with a hypothesis about why that happened. Extra credit if you remembered that Moroni also included two letters from his father Mormon.] History and Literature Latter-day Saints treasure the Book of Mormon as an actual historical record, so it will make sense to them to read the book from the perspective of the ancient prophets who wrote it. In fact, my approach is intended to encourage Mormons to take the Nephite record even more seriously as history, constantly asking them to reflect on the events behind the stories, why they are told in particular ways, what is included and omitted, and how the backgrounds of the narrators color the way they perceive specific incidents. Where, though, will that leave non-Mormons, who almost by definition reject the historicity of the Book of Mormon? Mormons are good at talking to each other. Publications from Deseret Book and the Maxwell Institute can be very persuasive to those who share our basic assumptions but we sometimes are at a loss as to how to explain our beliefs to skeptical outsiders. Because believers see the Book of Mormon as ancient history and outsiders generally view it as religious fiction from nineteenth-century America, it is often difficult for the two sides to communicate with the other. It is almost as if they have been reading two different books. This is unfortunate since both parties can agree that the Book of Mormon is one of the most significant texts in American religious history, yet they tend to see different things: Joseph Smith, revivalism, and anti-masonry on the one hand, as opposed to prophecy and the gospel of Jesus Christ on the other. In Understanding the Book of Mormon, I suggest that it might be useful to bracket the question of Joseph Smith temporarily and instead concentrate on the text itself. Regardless of what one assumes about the origins of the book, all readers can analyze its structure and literary techniques in similar ways. For instance, a close reading of the Book of Mormon reveals that Mormon and Moroni have somewhat different perspectives-Mormon is a conscientious historian who believes that the facts themselves can persuade his readers, while Moroni tends to think that historical evidence is less important than the witness of the Spirit-and these observations hold whether one believes (as I do) that they were actual historical individuals, or whether one sees them as fictional narrators. [Answer to question #5: the record of the Jaredites was discovered by Limhi’s people at Mosiah 8 and then translated by King Mosiah (Mosiah 28). At that point in the narrative (28:19), Mormon promised that he would eventually provide a synopsis, but apparently he found it difficult to fit the Jaredite material into the overall scheme he had for his history of the Nephites (remember, the Jaredites were not even from the House of Israel). Mormon died before the task was completed and left it to his son, Moroni, who had a somewhat less rigorous conception of history. Moroni included the book of Ether as a sort of appendix to his father’s work. There is more on this in Understanding the Book of Mormon.] I sometimes hesitate to describe my approach as “literary” because that leads to two misunderstandings. The first is that “literature” means “fiction.” It does not. While literature includes the genre of creative writing, it also incorporates history since historians take pains to make their narratives coherent, pleasing, and persuasive. The second mistaken assumption is that literary qualities are frills and bows-attractive but not really necessary. Although there are many possible approaches to the Book of Mormon, unless you read it as a narrative, you’re not really reading it. It’s not Gospel Principles (though that is also a fine book). Every sermon and every story in the Book of Mormon is embedded in a larger historical context and was deliberately chosen and edited by prophetic narrators. Coming to know Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni as individuals is essential to understanding their work. As Brigham Young once asked, “Do you read the Scriptures, my brethren and sisters, as though you were writing them a thousand, two thousand, or five thousand years ago? Do you read them as though you stood in the place of the men who wrote them? If you do not feel thus, it is your privilege to do so . . . You may understand what the Prophets understood and thought-what they designed and planned to bring forth to their brethren for their good” (Journal of Discourses 7:333). The more we learn to recognize the voices and handiwork of Nephi and his successors, the more engaging and inspiring their testimonies are. At least that has been my experience.
Talking to Outsiders Of course, ideally, we want all readers of the Book of Mormon to approach it with a spiritually-open heart and pray about its truth, just as Moroni urges in Moro. 10:4. Yet there are some who are simply curious or interested for academic reasons; not everyone is at a point in their life when they are ready for a dramatic conversion. I don’t think that this should bother us. The Church has become more attuned in recent years to the difference between missionary work and public affairs, and my book falls into the latter category. At my own university, where I am one of only two LDS faculty members, I regularly have opportunities to teach about Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. I try to do so accurately and sympathetically, and because my own faith is so important to me, I want to be respectful to the beliefs of others. There are many who have the same attitude toward Mormonism. If some people want to read the Book of Mormon as fiction or as world scripture, I welcome that. I think that the book is impressive from any perspective and I’m delighted when anyone wants to study it seriously, for whatever reason. (And who knows when the Spirit will touch someone’s heart.) My work argues that it is important for even non-believers to take the book on its own terms, at least initially, and that it is time for scholars who regard it primarily as literature to apply to it the tools of literary criticism, which can enrich the understanding of outsiders and saints alike. The increasing interest in Mormonism in the field of religious studies is an encouraging development. Sometimes teachers of literature have assumed (wrongly, in my opinion) that the Book of Mormon is a primitive, rather unsophisticated work, and some historians have been eager to analyze it in nineteenth-century terms, but scholars of religious studies are trained to bracket their own beliefs and enter sympathetically into the worldview of believers. The Book of Mormon has much to offer such readers, even if they are not investigators. I end my book by repeating a story told by John Welch of BYU: “After Professor David Noel Freedman [a prominent biblical scholar] and I had read through Alma 36 with chiasmus in mind, he remarked to me, ‘Mormons are very lucky. Their book is very beautiful.'” The Book of Mormon could use more readers of this sort. I hope that my introduction can help readers both inside and outside the Church make better sense of the Book of Mormon’s rather complex structure, and if I can get them to see the narrators as compelling, evocative figures, that’s even better. Understanding the Book of Mormon recently received a starred review in Publisher’s Weekly (my editor at Oxford tells me this is a big deal) in which the anonymous reviewer observed that “in Hardy’s hands, the Book of Mormon begins to come alive as a kind of Shakespearean tragedy.” Of course, it’s best to gain a testimony of the Book of Mormon as the word of God, but if outsiders would rather view it as Shakespeare-like literature, that’s not bad either. One of the lessons of Third Nephi is that scholarship and faith are not necessarily at odds with each other. In 3 Ne. 23:6-14, Jesus emphasized the importance of keeping full, accurate records by making sure that certain prophecies by Samuel the Lamanite were included. Yet at 3 Ne. 26:11, when Mormon, the meticulous historian, was about to write a full account of Jesus’ words to the Nephites, the Lord forbid it and told him that it was also important for his readers to exercise faith. [If you’ve made it this far, here is the answer to question #4, which was something of a trick. Even though Mormon tells us that Jesus taught the people “for the space of three days” (3 Ne. 26:13), he never gives us any Christ’s teachings from the third day; this was just at the point when he was told not to pass on a full account. So instead, at 3 Ne. 27-28 Mormon substitutes some instructions that the resurrected Christ gave to the Nephite twelve at some later, unspecified date. Fortunately for us, they included information about the name of the church and one of the clearest definitions of the gospel in all of scripture.] The main point of my new book is not to prove that Joseph Smith couldn’t have written the Book of Mormon or to try convince non-members of its historical claims; rather, I simply argue that the book is much more interesting than many people have assumed, and that a close reading of its form and content can yield insights that will be valuable in a variety of approaches. Sometimes even as Latter-day Saints, reading from a position of faith, we have not always been aware of all the strengths of our scriptures. Missionary work and public affairs, faithful seeking and academic interest, doctrinal exposition and narrative analysis, history and literature-each can play a role in studying the Book of Mormon. No Comments | Post or read comments FEATURES |
May 28, 2026
May 28, 2026
