Scholars, Media, and the Book of Mormon

“Let me review parts of this discussion of the purpose of the Book of Mormon and draw out some obvious but important implications in anticipation of devising a test of its authenticity. First, the Book of Mormon anticipates that the Bible will be corrupted partly because it has been transfigured by the interpretations of men. Second, the Book of Mormon presents itself as a second witness in this situation and reaffirms the original word in its purity. The implication is that the Book of Mormon and the transfigured word are at odds. And third, it will fulfill its purpose by being brought forth in the form of an ancient text that contains the holy word of God.

These three points cannot be separated in a consideration of the nature of the Book of Mormon. If it had no purpose to fulfill, there would be no point to its being an ancient text. But if the Book of Mormon is not an ancient, sacred text, then it cannot fulfill its self-declared purpose. And if the historical situation for fulfilling its purpose did not materialize, then its purpose would be stillborn and its existence as an ancient, sacred text would be somewhat of an anomaly. For the Book of Mormon to be true as claimed, these three conditions must exist together. They constitute key parts of the book's explanation of itself.

Those who argue against the claims of the Book of Mormon must give an alternative account of why the Book of Mormon exists. They must explain away one or more of the three points of the Book of Mormon's purpose.”

            -A. Don Sorenson, “The Problem of the Sermon and the Mount and 3 Nephi,” FARMS Review 16:2, 117-148.

So, since the media seems to be paying a lot more attention to Mormons and the Book of Mormon these days, it needs to be pointed out that they still aren't doing it justice.  Similarly, scholarship (meaning largely from the side of non-Mormon religious scholars, there is plenty of stuff already out there from the LDS side, here and here for starters) has yet to catch up to it.  It may be possible that the current "Mormon moment" (if it may be termed as such) may provide some impetus for both the media and scholars to do so. 

It can already be seen that this might be the case to some degree.  One article from the Huffington Post about Romney's Mexican heritage/roots at the very least actually quotes from the Book of Mormon. Yet for all that, what it does quote is a pretty lousy proof text meant to embarrass Romney by making it seem like his stance against illegal immigration doesn't jive with his holy book because "according" to the BoM anyone who comes to the USA (legally or illegally) is being led by God.   But at least some writer actually went out and opened the book, right?  Maybe next time, he can put more effort into it than just searching the LDS scriptures online and pulling out a single verse to support his criticism, without considering the scriptural context, what else the book might have to say about the topic, and any commonly accepted exegesis.  

Another possible prompting factor for taking the BoM seriously, could be the highly-acclaimed musical storming Broadway with its simultaneous irreverent blasting of religious naivety and pseudo-praising of religious experience (inasmuch as it fits in with the worldly idea of religion serving solely a social purpose of placating and "helping" people deal with "reality" by being the "opiate of the masses").  I would hope that this play could in some way prompt someone to look further into the Book of Mormon.  I don't know if that's possible though.  Satire doesn't usually increase sincere desires for truth. Rather, it seems only to set people in their cynical ways.  When was the last time the Daily Show or the Simpsons caused someone to go out and learn more about an issue?  Most people just assume they get the joke, when really it goes over their head.  Personally, I don't care if the play does well or not, but it will probably do more harm than good when it comes to people thinking they know what the Mormons believe, rather than what we do.  In that sense, I fully agree with this. (On a more spiritual note: I know any publicity is good publicity, especially RE the Church [insert Brigham Young quote about kicking the Church up the stairs], but I have to wonder how it can really be considered "good" or even seen in a positive light if the Church, its missionary activities, and one of its books of scripture, are placed in a lewd, anti-religious context filled with blasphemy and 4-letter words rhyming with 'duck'?  Seems like a hard place to feel the influence of the Spirit.  But then again, the Lord moves in mysterious ways and by small and simple things...)

As the quote at the beginning shows though, it seems that most people still aren't ready to engage with the Book of Mormon on the merits of even what says about itself and claims its own purpose is.  Note that this is slightly different than what the Church, its members, or even what Joseph Smith say its purpose is- while those are different categories, and no less true, valid, and important in a religious/personal spiritual point of view, from a scholarly/intellectual POV, it is important to know what the text considers itself to be.  People (read: non-Mormons largely) still fall prey to believing the rumors that have abounded since Joseph first started talking about the plates in believing it to be a "golden Bible" or misunderstand its place alongside the Bible (and other works of canon in the LDS tradition).  Case in point- this article.  While I won't even begin to touch the authors main assumptions and interpretations of the Bible in general (something I think he gets wrong in almost all cases), his presentation of the Book of Mormon as an attempt to create a new Bible belies a strong misunderstanding of both what the BoM says about itself and what the Church and its members claim it to be.  His faulty assumptions about what the book says about itself and its relation to the Bible show that at most he seems to have skimmed the Wikipedia article on the Book of Mormon and then just invented his own interpretation along the way.  Sadly, this seems to be the way that most people engage the BoM.  The odd thing about it is that they can still get stuff published with shoddy methodology and inaccurate source materials.  I guess that's why things like FAIR and the FARMS Review exist.