What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide
Mark Twain once derided the Book of Mormon as "chloroform in print." Long and complicated, written in the language of the King James version of the Bible, it boggles the minds of many. Yet it is unquestionably one of the most influential books ever written. With over 140 million copies in print, it is a central text of one of the largest and fastest-growing faiths in the world. And, Grant Hardy shows, it's far from the coma-inducing doorstop caricatured by Twain. In Understanding the Book of Mormon, Hardy offers the first comprehensive analysis of the work's narrative structure in its 180 year history. Unlike virtually all other recent world scriptures, the Book of Mormon presents itself as an integrated narrative rather than a series of doctrinal expositions, moral injunctions, or devotional hymns. Hardy takes readers through its characters, events, and ideas, as he explores the story and its messages. He identifies the book's literary techniques, such as characterization, embedded documents, allusions, and parallel narratives. Whether Joseph Smith is regarded as author or translator, it's noteworthy that he never speaks in his own voice; rather, he mediates nearly everything through the narrators Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni. Hardy shows how each has a distinctive voice, and all are woven into an integral whole.As with any scripture, the contending views of the Book of Mormon can seem irreconcilable. For believers, it is an actual historical document, transmitted from ancient America. For nonbelievers, it is the work of a nineteenth-century farmer from upstate New York. Hardy transcends this intractable conflict by offering a literary approach, one appropriate to both history and fiction. Regardless of whether readers are interested in American history, literature, comparative religion, or even salvation, he writes, the book can best be read if we examine the text on its own terms.
369 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 1, 2003
154 people are currently reading
689 people want to read
About the author
Grant Hardy
14 books45 followersDr. Grant Hardy received a Ph.D. from Yale University in Chinese Language and Literature and a B.A. from Brigham Young University where he studied Ancient Greek.
He is Professor of History and Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Ashville. Below is a quote by Dr. Hardy taken from the "Faces of UNC" web page:
“I am interested in how people use literature to make sense of their experience, whether that be historical, personal or religious."
He is Professor of History and Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Ashville. Below is a quote by Dr. Hardy taken from the "Faces of UNC" web page:
“I am interested in how people use literature to make sense of their experience, whether that be historical, personal or religious."
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews
February 16, 2020
I've had this book on my shelf for something like 10 years, and I've only finally gotten around to reading it. For a faithful member of the Mormon community, or at least anyone who chooses to give the primary distinctive scripture used within the Mormon church, I can't recommend this book more highly. I've known all my life, as someone who was raised with readings of the Book of Mormon, that the book on its own terms is to be understood as the product of a set of ancient American prophet-editors who were compiling records for a latter-day audience. Hardy uses the tools of literary analysis to discover, assuming what the book itself presents on its own terms, what we can really know about those prophet-editors (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni), and what their choices in regards to embedding other documents, making use of allusion and parallels, and much more can tell us about the world they were describing. The result, particularly the first two-thirds of the book (for a variety of reasons, trying to pull any kind of internally consistent understanding of Moroni's portion of the overall book strikes me as much harder sell), is incredibly eye-opening, or at least it was to me. In fact, I found parts of it downright faith-promoting, which is not something I expected from the book at all. Anyway, an important book for Mormons; hopefully, somehow or another, its critical take on the Book of Mormon will filter down to the ordinary faithful, one way or another.
January 17, 2012
Saw Jacob Walley reading this and he recommended it. Initial response (after ~50 pages): my gads, a thoughtful examination of the Book of Mormon that is accessible to believers and nonbelievers alike. Too early to rate, but my mind and my spirit have needed a dose of something like this! I have to buy my own copy and return the public library's copy because I need to scribble in the margins!
********
Having now finished the book, I can say it lived up to my hopes and expectations. It was thoughtful, not preachy, gave me new insights into the Book of Mormon and will color how I read it for the rest of my life. I will also dip back into the book again and again to remind myself of Grant Hardy's ideas about Nephi, Mormon and Moroni. Hardy had to do some things to make the book accessible to non-believers, that I could have dispensed with, but I do understand the need for that so the book could reach a wider audience--and be subjected to wider scrutiny. I bogged down in the analysis a few times, but I think that is because of my own shallow acquaintance with some of the Book of Mormon (despite years of reading it). This has made me want to know it better. No small feat.
********
Having now finished the book, I can say it lived up to my hopes and expectations. It was thoughtful, not preachy, gave me new insights into the Book of Mormon and will color how I read it for the rest of my life. I will also dip back into the book again and again to remind myself of Grant Hardy's ideas about Nephi, Mormon and Moroni. Hardy had to do some things to make the book accessible to non-believers, that I could have dispensed with, but I do understand the need for that so the book could reach a wider audience--and be subjected to wider scrutiny. I bogged down in the analysis a few times, but I think that is because of my own shallow acquaintance with some of the Book of Mormon (despite years of reading it). This has made me want to know it better. No small feat.
November 2, 2015
Born and raised a Mormon, I've been on that inevitable intellectual and spiritual journey of my mid-twenties to deeply analyze the doctrines, beliefs, and scriptures of the religion of my youth, as well as to find a comfortable stance as to what I believe and where I want to situate my life and devotion.
Grant Hardy is a really good guide for looking at what the Book of Mormon really says, does, and signifies. His excellent scholarship and insightful literary connections make Understanding the Book of Mormon a comfortable read for believers, non-believers, and ambivalent truth seekers (like me) alike. He is direct and unbiased, though a devout Mormon himself, and, as such, gives the book perhaps a gentler treatment than many before him have.
Overall, Hardy makes the point that whether or not one sees the Book of Mormon as divinely translated scripture, it is much more complex and rich than a shallow or quick reading would suggest. Despite clear historical anachronisms and sometimes painfully redundant and derivative language, the Book is worthy of deep consideration and discussion, especially as a landmark nineteenth century text. Referencing Mark Twain's tongue-in-cheek comment that Wagner's music is "better than it sounds," Hardy ends the afterword with the conviction that "Whether Joseph Smith worked by craftiness, by genius, or by revelation, the Book of Mormon is a remarkable text, one that is worthy of serious study. It is better than it sounds" (273). And, after being guided along by Hardy, I certainly agree.
Grant Hardy is a really good guide for looking at what the Book of Mormon really says, does, and signifies. His excellent scholarship and insightful literary connections make Understanding the Book of Mormon a comfortable read for believers, non-believers, and ambivalent truth seekers (like me) alike. He is direct and unbiased, though a devout Mormon himself, and, as such, gives the book perhaps a gentler treatment than many before him have.
Overall, Hardy makes the point that whether or not one sees the Book of Mormon as divinely translated scripture, it is much more complex and rich than a shallow or quick reading would suggest. Despite clear historical anachronisms and sometimes painfully redundant and derivative language, the Book is worthy of deep consideration and discussion, especially as a landmark nineteenth century text. Referencing Mark Twain's tongue-in-cheek comment that Wagner's music is "better than it sounds," Hardy ends the afterword with the conviction that "Whether Joseph Smith worked by craftiness, by genius, or by revelation, the Book of Mormon is a remarkable text, one that is worthy of serious study. It is better than it sounds" (273). And, after being guided along by Hardy, I certainly agree.
February 2, 2017
I've been a sloppy reader of scripture. Grant Hardy taught me how I should have been reading the BOM this whole time. He reads between the lines, against the grain, and just pays good attention, and his hard work is richly rewarded. Here's a handful of random insights to serve as teasers from the first 1/4-or-so of the book:
1) Laman and Lemuel can be read much more sympathetically. In fact, in some senses they may have been more "orthodox" in their Jewish faith than Lehi or Nephi.
2) Lehi and Nephi, even though they saw the same vision of the Tree of Life, interpreted that vision very differently.
3) Nephi may have had some disagreements with Lehi on a number of matters, including Nephi's disposal of Laban.
4)Nephi was most likely son-less, and may have experienced marital strife.
5) How the BOM deals with the old archetype of knowledge vs. happiness.
6) Many more gems.
This book will forever change the way I read scripture (i.e. it will prevent me from reading it lazily.)
1) Laman and Lemuel can be read much more sympathetically. In fact, in some senses they may have been more "orthodox" in their Jewish faith than Lehi or Nephi.
2) Lehi and Nephi, even though they saw the same vision of the Tree of Life, interpreted that vision very differently.
3) Nephi may have had some disagreements with Lehi on a number of matters, including Nephi's disposal of Laban.
4)Nephi was most likely son-less, and may have experienced marital strife.
5) How the BOM deals with the old archetype of knowledge vs. happiness.
6) Many more gems.
This book will forever change the way I read scripture (i.e. it will prevent me from reading it lazily.)
August 7, 2010
When it comes to scripture, I am devoutly skeptical. However, I generally appreciated Dr. Grant Hardy’s scholarly work Understanding the Book of Mormon. He reads the way I love to read. Hardy digs deep and buries himself in the text. He engages in thorough cross-referencing and rigorous comparing and contrasting.
To get the most out of Hardy’s analysis, I reread the Book of Mormon while reading his book. In particular, I found his assessments of Captain Moroni and the Book of Ether innovative. I also like how he takes both believers and non-believers to task for cherry picking passages they like and essentially dismissing the rest of the book. Still, I have serious concerns with Understanding the Book of Mormon.
Implicit in every chapter, and often explicit, is Dr. Hardy’s adoration of the Book of Mormon. This bias leaks into his textual analysis. Where the Book of Mormon exhibits literary weakness--as everyone from Moroni to Mark Twain agrees it does--Hardy backs away from his touted strategy of close textual reading. He even boasts of working from “gaps” and “omissions” in the text to beef up Nephi’s simplistic characters and one-sided storytelling.
It’s important to point out that Dr. Hardy focuses on the Book of Mormon’s narrative elements, not its theology. That is to say he primarily explores characters, events and, above all else, the narrative voices of Nephi, Mormon and Moroni. Hardy would have us believe that each narrator has a distinct voice. Certainly on a rudimentary level they do. As Hardy ably demonstrates, each narrator displays a basic awareness of his political and social surroundings.
But as Dr. Hardy points out, Mormon’s narration incorporates close to 200 “phrases he has picked up.” Hardy suggests this might be intentional use of “phrasal allusion.” The opposing argument, every bit as reasonable, is that the Book of Mormon narrators aren’t especially distinct. What is more, Hardy grudgingly admits that Moroni’s voice is even less distinctive than Mormon’s. He states that Moroni’s writing contains “…an unusually high proportion of phrases borrowed from previous Book of Mormon authors.”
Dr. Hardy seems to want it both ways. He digs deep to find textual evidence of unique voices. Yet elsewhere he confesses that “it is not always clear whether these kinds of verbal echoes are deliberate or whether Moroni is simply relying on common tropes….” Hardy buries one of his frankest confessions in the End Notes: "Latter-day Saints have long been wary of acknowledging just how much of the language of the Book of Mormon is derived from the Bible...."
Frankly, at the core of my criticism of Understanding the Book of Mormon is a suspicion. As Dr. Hardy makes clear in his Afterword, he doesn’t just want us to “understand” the Book of Mormon, he wants us to like it. Even if we don’t believe it, he wants us to hold it in high literary esteem. In short, Dr. Hardy wants learned skeptics like me to give the Book of Mormon more respect than it gives us. For the Book of Mormon narrators unmistakably promise stern eternal consequences to those who remain in unbelief.
Dr. Hardy rightly assesses the Book of Mormon as stubborn. Indeed, the Book of Mormon’s narrators demand nothing less than spiritual allegiance. So I find it foolhardy at best—and covertly evangelical at worst—that Hardy attempts to build a bridge between Lehi’s tree of spiritual fruit and that great and spacious building where worldly folk like me are said to dwell.
To get the most out of Hardy’s analysis, I reread the Book of Mormon while reading his book. In particular, I found his assessments of Captain Moroni and the Book of Ether innovative. I also like how he takes both believers and non-believers to task for cherry picking passages they like and essentially dismissing the rest of the book. Still, I have serious concerns with Understanding the Book of Mormon.
Implicit in every chapter, and often explicit, is Dr. Hardy’s adoration of the Book of Mormon. This bias leaks into his textual analysis. Where the Book of Mormon exhibits literary weakness--as everyone from Moroni to Mark Twain agrees it does--Hardy backs away from his touted strategy of close textual reading. He even boasts of working from “gaps” and “omissions” in the text to beef up Nephi’s simplistic characters and one-sided storytelling.
It’s important to point out that Dr. Hardy focuses on the Book of Mormon’s narrative elements, not its theology. That is to say he primarily explores characters, events and, above all else, the narrative voices of Nephi, Mormon and Moroni. Hardy would have us believe that each narrator has a distinct voice. Certainly on a rudimentary level they do. As Hardy ably demonstrates, each narrator displays a basic awareness of his political and social surroundings.
But as Dr. Hardy points out, Mormon’s narration incorporates close to 200 “phrases he has picked up.” Hardy suggests this might be intentional use of “phrasal allusion.” The opposing argument, every bit as reasonable, is that the Book of Mormon narrators aren’t especially distinct. What is more, Hardy grudgingly admits that Moroni’s voice is even less distinctive than Mormon’s. He states that Moroni’s writing contains “…an unusually high proportion of phrases borrowed from previous Book of Mormon authors.”
Dr. Hardy seems to want it both ways. He digs deep to find textual evidence of unique voices. Yet elsewhere he confesses that “it is not always clear whether these kinds of verbal echoes are deliberate or whether Moroni is simply relying on common tropes….” Hardy buries one of his frankest confessions in the End Notes: "Latter-day Saints have long been wary of acknowledging just how much of the language of the Book of Mormon is derived from the Bible...."
Frankly, at the core of my criticism of Understanding the Book of Mormon is a suspicion. As Dr. Hardy makes clear in his Afterword, he doesn’t just want us to “understand” the Book of Mormon, he wants us to like it. Even if we don’t believe it, he wants us to hold it in high literary esteem. In short, Dr. Hardy wants learned skeptics like me to give the Book of Mormon more respect than it gives us. For the Book of Mormon narrators unmistakably promise stern eternal consequences to those who remain in unbelief.
Dr. Hardy rightly assesses the Book of Mormon as stubborn. Indeed, the Book of Mormon’s narrators demand nothing less than spiritual allegiance. So I find it foolhardy at best—and covertly evangelical at worst—that Hardy attempts to build a bridge between Lehi’s tree of spiritual fruit and that great and spacious building where worldly folk like me are said to dwell.
February 2, 2019
Though the Book of Mormon is didactic with mostly two-dimensional and superficial characters, Hardy shows a way to recognize some of the greater complexities of the text by dipping below the surface of the words to observe the complex narrative structures developed by the internal narrator(s). He shows how the narrative structures, with all the interweavings, complex and convoluted turnings, still pull together into a cohesive text.
Hardy brings a lot of new and novel insights to the text (though perhaps occasionally too creative, but he's forgiven because of his other insightful observations). He has picked up on numerous details that lifelong Mormons have probably missed. Whether people believe the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American-Israeli prophets, or a composition by Joseph Smith, Hardy's work clearly demonstrates that the text is much more sophisticated than past critics have been willing to admit, and it deserves much more attention than it has received.
Hardy brings a lot of new and novel insights to the text (though perhaps occasionally too creative, but he's forgiven because of his other insightful observations). He has picked up on numerous details that lifelong Mormons have probably missed. Whether people believe the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American-Israeli prophets, or a composition by Joseph Smith, Hardy's work clearly demonstrates that the text is much more sophisticated than past critics have been willing to admit, and it deserves much more attention than it has received.
February 8, 2012
UPDATE: Having read Robert Alter's The Art Of Biblical Narrative and having learned that Grant Hardy idolizes Alter, I think Hardy's volume would have been strengthened by a discussion of Leitwort in the Book of Mormon, as Alter has done with the Bible. Hardy's analysis is more narrowly focused on narrator analysis (no, not a Hebraism). But because the only Hebrew and Egyptian present in the English Book of Mormon lie in proper names, Leitwort and wordplay would have been applicable in narrator analysis. For instance, wordplay on the name Nephi, on Enos, on Alma and Leitwort on Noah.
This Oxford publication is a must-read for anyone with a literary interest, especially those outside the Mormon faith if they are to understand this fast-growing movement. Using narrator analysis, Hardy treats the Book of Mormon as a literary piece and uncovers the rich complexity underlying the text.
This Oxford publication is a must-read for anyone with a literary interest, especially those outside the Mormon faith if they are to understand this fast-growing movement. Using narrator analysis, Hardy treats the Book of Mormon as a literary piece and uncovers the rich complexity underlying the text.
As a believer, I've used aids to read the Book of Mormon my entire life. When I was nine, I had trouble grasping the language of the Book, so sister missionaries had me read the Book of Mormon Reader cartoons along with the Book itself. I gained further light and understanding in seminary when the CES materials analyzed every single verse, allowing me to extract meaning from the entire text, and not just the "meat" verses. Only on my mission did the Book come alive without the help of aids. And now, as a college grad, this Hardy's guide provides a scholarly, non-devotional perspective on the Book.
Hardy dismantles the black-and-white message of the Book of Mormon by examining closely each author's motives. My moral development owes to reading the Book at face value the first eleven times. But Hardy's guide put more color into the characters.
November 8, 2020
I can't recommend this book enough. It took me over a year to inch my way through it sporadically while reading alongside the Book of Mormon itself. It's dense and at times beyond my reading comprehension. So it's not for everyone. You could be forgiven for reading a few particularly enlightening chapters and skipping some of the minutiae that is necessary to fully flush out the author's arguments. And one more disclaimer - Hardy does appear to reach at times in his conclusions, even as his findings and insights are almost always impressive. This is inevitable for a literary interpretation of any text, especially one that makes claims that it is historically accurate.
All that said. After reading this book I feel like my view of the Book of Mormon exists on an entirely new plane of understanding. Drudging through Hardy's painstaking detail about each of the three major narrators of the Book of Mormon will fundamentally change the way you read it. I believe that anyone who is serious about studying the message of the Book of Mormon on a deeper level should read this book. I now hold a greater respect for and fascination with the complexity and depth that the Book of Mormon has. And I must say, while Hardy does not take a position on whether the Book of Mormon's claims about its historicity are true - as a member of the LDS church who has a vested interest in these claims, I must say this book made it much easier for me to believe that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American prophets. So at the very least if that sort of insight is interesting to you, definitely try picking this book up.
All that said. After reading this book I feel like my view of the Book of Mormon exists on an entirely new plane of understanding. Drudging through Hardy's painstaking detail about each of the three major narrators of the Book of Mormon will fundamentally change the way you read it. I believe that anyone who is serious about studying the message of the Book of Mormon on a deeper level should read this book. I now hold a greater respect for and fascination with the complexity and depth that the Book of Mormon has. And I must say, while Hardy does not take a position on whether the Book of Mormon's claims about its historicity are true - as a member of the LDS church who has a vested interest in these claims, I must say this book made it much easier for me to believe that the Book of Mormon was written by ancient American prophets. So at the very least if that sort of insight is interesting to you, definitely try picking this book up.
February 22, 2012
This is a complicated book that examines the Book of Mormon as one would examine a work of literature. Rather than seeing it as a jumble of odd stories,difficult and disjointed, the author offers a detailed guide to the contents that meets the needs of both believers and outsiders. By focusing on the narrative, he shows that there is an organizing principle at work. I read this to try to get some understanding of what Mormons are all about. I am not sure I know yet, but it was fascinating reading.
June 3, 2020
I am blown away by this analysis and feel both grateful it was recommended to me and ashamed at how my meager my understanding of the Book of Mormon was before starting this. The careful analysis of the three main authors within the text are honest and revealing.
Vladimir Nabokov's quote that Hardy includes in the last chapter is appropriate here: “... one cannot read a book: one can only reread it". I'll need to reread Understanding the Book of Mormon because while I'm admittedly in awe, I need to truly understand what's written within it.
Vladimir Nabokov's quote that Hardy includes in the last chapter is appropriate here: “... one cannot read a book: one can only reread it". I'll need to reread Understanding the Book of Mormon because while I'm admittedly in awe, I need to truly understand what's written within it.
Read
July 18, 2019I wish we had more Grant Hardys in the church. Such a delight to read about the authors of a book I've read a dozen times and realize I've never thought about them in this light. This sort of deep-dive
into narration and authorship is not something I will likely ever tackle on my own, so to have someone do it for me is greatly appreciated. Absolutely worth the time.
into narration and authorship is not something I will likely ever tackle on my own, so to have someone do it for me is greatly appreciated. Absolutely worth the time.
July 16, 2025
Wow. Perhaps the most comprehensive (yet accessible) exegesis of the Book of Mormon out there. Not only does Hardy do an incredible job of analyzing the Book of Mormon's narrative/narrators, but he makes a strong argument for why both believers and non-believers should feel comfortable applying the lens of biblical criticism to this work. That said, while I loved it as a believer, I do not know that non-believers will be completely convinced - it's difficult to accept the Book of Mormon as a highly intricate work *and* consider it a work of fiction by a 24-year-old farmhand.
I think this should be required reading for all members of the church. Put this bad boy in seminary and institute classes. Once we accept that there are competing theological claims in the Book of Mormon from the various authors (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni), we can engage in some pretty wholesome conversations about the often inscrutable complexity of God. Until then, we'll struggle against being largely shallow, easily confounded, and sadly illiterate believers, relying on platitudes instead of scripture and holding onto a theology that maintains comfortable cohesion but is filled with holes - holes poked by our own sacred texts.
I'll definitely reference this book again and again.
I think this should be required reading for all members of the church. Put this bad boy in seminary and institute classes. Once we accept that there are competing theological claims in the Book of Mormon from the various authors (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni), we can engage in some pretty wholesome conversations about the often inscrutable complexity of God. Until then, we'll struggle against being largely shallow, easily confounded, and sadly illiterate believers, relying on platitudes instead of scripture and holding onto a theology that maintains comfortable cohesion but is filled with holes - holes poked by our own sacred texts.
I'll definitely reference this book again and again.
October 5, 2023
Judge Griffith is a champion of this book and so am I!
February 9, 2024
Everyone that reads the Book of Mormon should read this book at least once. It provides so many tools to closely read the text of the BofM. Refreshed by reading this book again this year, and it was still valuable second time through.
December 13, 2024
I had similar feelings about this book as I did with Sterling McMurrin's The Theological Foundation of Mormon Doctrines, which is to both praise and criticism.
First, the issues: there is a "have your cake and eat it too" attitude here, with Hardy wanting to both leave open the question of the Book of Mormon's authorship and historicity, but also have the secular literary intelligentsia validate the BOM's status as a landmark work in American literature. As such, the BOM felt like it was being sold, as much as explicated, though the conflicting goals are not so easily hidden as with McMurrin's work. You get the sense that Hardy is dancing around the issue of authorship, desperately twisting the narrative to avoid a confrontation, and while he is never completely successful in avoiding the issue, you have to admire his gymnastic prowess.
The main issue here is that the BOM is not, as Hardy and many others have maintained, a strictly modern or post-modern text; it is more like an anti-modern text. Certainly the framing devices are radical departures from (some) pre-modern literary forms (the New Testament gets very little consideration as a counterexample), and Hardy is right that it increases the literary texture of the book to examine the very subjective, fourth-wall-breaking narrations, but it seems to me that the purpose of these forms are to refute modern and postmodern themes, not validate them.
The BOM was a product, divine or not, of the Second Great Awakening, a religious revival responding to the increasing rationalism of the American Enlightenment. The text is certainly subjective, but the subjects are positioned as prophetically inspired seers, completely justified in their assertions, and borderline inerrant in their heightened proximity to God. Unlike the Bible, who's omniscient narrator and antiquated textual audience had left the door open for postmodern literary and philological criticisms, the BOM sets up a set of transitive assertions that cannot be individually refuted without bringing the whole edifice into question. This rigorous systemic interdependence of causation is cast as a rebuttal to the modern/postmodern and its unreliable subjective form. If Joseph Smith translated this book by the power of God from Egyptian glyphs on gold plates delivered by an angel, then we question the divine providence of prophetic narrators speaking to our day, both ancient and modern, at our peril. With such an authorship and origin, the text actively and strongly resists a reading that does not take the words of the prophets at their divine face value.
Hardy attempts to duck this issue by treating the narrators as "inspired, but flawed," a strategy also employed by modern Mormons when dealing with their current leadership's prophetic announcements. In both instances, your mileage may vary. For example, Hardy questions the choices of Nephi, the first narrator of the BOM, in what he includes and doesn't include when recounting the inception of his divine exodus to the Americas. This is a valuable question, but when thoroughly done it requires us to examine the truthfulness of Nephi in constructing the narrative. In attempting to portray his brothers in the least flattering way possible, is Nephi being completely honest or self-reflective (as a good prophet should be) in his descriptions of his divine communications? Did God really rebuke Laman and Lemuel when they were at cross conflict with Nephi, or did Nephi just say/feel like God did because God is clearly on Nephi's side? Did Nephi really have the same vision as his father, or is he recounting an experience he never had as his own to lend himself divine credibility? How can we be sure that God is on Nephi's side at all if it's possible that Nephi is taking liberties in the narrative participation of God? These are the kind of questions you ask when you assert that your narrator may not be reliable, but they're not questions that Hardy is willing or able to ask because they are at cross-purposes to the mission of the Book as purportedly delivered by an angel. When truthfulness is the key feature of your text, these considerations go too far.
Which brings us to the divine elephant in the room, the question of historicity of the text that Hardy is unwilling to address. Hardy is an active member of the LDS church, and I am sympathetic to his attempt to provide a complex analysis that can be used by both believer and skeptic alike. I am suspicious, however, with an attempt to read postmodern themes into a book who's resistance to modernism is of a distinctly different kind. The postmodern "death of the author" literary analysis treatment seems less than tenable when one explanation for the text's origins is that one of the ancient author/narrators appeared in resurrected form to Joseph Smith. If this is true, the author is very not dead, and their divine provenance cannot be excluded from the conversation. How do you study a text through a naturalist lense when one purported origin for the text is decidedly supernatural? The didacticism of the text is not a feature of human narrators in a postmodern text; it is the central core of a divine anti-modern manifesto.
All this said, I must commend Hardy for his thorough analysis in this book. His study of the central narrators of the BOM is brilliant, even with his limitations. I agree with him that the BOM is a pillar of the American literary landscape, and that it deserves this kind of analysis. Modern and postmodern analysis can be conducted on anti-modernist texts because their differing goals are in conversation, but I remain convinced that this cannot be thoroughly done without a ruling on the supernatural province of the text. I think Hardy fails to measure up to his own stated goals for fear of commitment to this question of authorship, and that it may not be tenable to have one unified analysis for both insider and outsider.
This is the enduring conflict of liberal analysis inside of a deeply conservative (if often heterogenous and innovative) tradition: how far can you go before something important will break? I can only hope that both believer and sceptic will continue this project in the future, even if they must go their separate ways.
First, the issues: there is a "have your cake and eat it too" attitude here, with Hardy wanting to both leave open the question of the Book of Mormon's authorship and historicity, but also have the secular literary intelligentsia validate the BOM's status as a landmark work in American literature. As such, the BOM felt like it was being sold, as much as explicated, though the conflicting goals are not so easily hidden as with McMurrin's work. You get the sense that Hardy is dancing around the issue of authorship, desperately twisting the narrative to avoid a confrontation, and while he is never completely successful in avoiding the issue, you have to admire his gymnastic prowess.
The main issue here is that the BOM is not, as Hardy and many others have maintained, a strictly modern or post-modern text; it is more like an anti-modern text. Certainly the framing devices are radical departures from (some) pre-modern literary forms (the New Testament gets very little consideration as a counterexample), and Hardy is right that it increases the literary texture of the book to examine the very subjective, fourth-wall-breaking narrations, but it seems to me that the purpose of these forms are to refute modern and postmodern themes, not validate them.
The BOM was a product, divine or not, of the Second Great Awakening, a religious revival responding to the increasing rationalism of the American Enlightenment. The text is certainly subjective, but the subjects are positioned as prophetically inspired seers, completely justified in their assertions, and borderline inerrant in their heightened proximity to God. Unlike the Bible, who's omniscient narrator and antiquated textual audience had left the door open for postmodern literary and philological criticisms, the BOM sets up a set of transitive assertions that cannot be individually refuted without bringing the whole edifice into question. This rigorous systemic interdependence of causation is cast as a rebuttal to the modern/postmodern and its unreliable subjective form. If Joseph Smith translated this book by the power of God from Egyptian glyphs on gold plates delivered by an angel, then we question the divine providence of prophetic narrators speaking to our day, both ancient and modern, at our peril. With such an authorship and origin, the text actively and strongly resists a reading that does not take the words of the prophets at their divine face value.
Hardy attempts to duck this issue by treating the narrators as "inspired, but flawed," a strategy also employed by modern Mormons when dealing with their current leadership's prophetic announcements. In both instances, your mileage may vary. For example, Hardy questions the choices of Nephi, the first narrator of the BOM, in what he includes and doesn't include when recounting the inception of his divine exodus to the Americas. This is a valuable question, but when thoroughly done it requires us to examine the truthfulness of Nephi in constructing the narrative. In attempting to portray his brothers in the least flattering way possible, is Nephi being completely honest or self-reflective (as a good prophet should be) in his descriptions of his divine communications? Did God really rebuke Laman and Lemuel when they were at cross conflict with Nephi, or did Nephi just say/feel like God did because God is clearly on Nephi's side? Did Nephi really have the same vision as his father, or is he recounting an experience he never had as his own to lend himself divine credibility? How can we be sure that God is on Nephi's side at all if it's possible that Nephi is taking liberties in the narrative participation of God? These are the kind of questions you ask when you assert that your narrator may not be reliable, but they're not questions that Hardy is willing or able to ask because they are at cross-purposes to the mission of the Book as purportedly delivered by an angel. When truthfulness is the key feature of your text, these considerations go too far.
Which brings us to the divine elephant in the room, the question of historicity of the text that Hardy is unwilling to address. Hardy is an active member of the LDS church, and I am sympathetic to his attempt to provide a complex analysis that can be used by both believer and skeptic alike. I am suspicious, however, with an attempt to read postmodern themes into a book who's resistance to modernism is of a distinctly different kind. The postmodern "death of the author" literary analysis treatment seems less than tenable when one explanation for the text's origins is that one of the ancient author/narrators appeared in resurrected form to Joseph Smith. If this is true, the author is very not dead, and their divine provenance cannot be excluded from the conversation. How do you study a text through a naturalist lense when one purported origin for the text is decidedly supernatural? The didacticism of the text is not a feature of human narrators in a postmodern text; it is the central core of a divine anti-modern manifesto.
All this said, I must commend Hardy for his thorough analysis in this book. His study of the central narrators of the BOM is brilliant, even with his limitations. I agree with him that the BOM is a pillar of the American literary landscape, and that it deserves this kind of analysis. Modern and postmodern analysis can be conducted on anti-modernist texts because their differing goals are in conversation, but I remain convinced that this cannot be thoroughly done without a ruling on the supernatural province of the text. I think Hardy fails to measure up to his own stated goals for fear of commitment to this question of authorship, and that it may not be tenable to have one unified analysis for both insider and outsider.
This is the enduring conflict of liberal analysis inside of a deeply conservative (if often heterogenous and innovative) tradition: how far can you go before something important will break? I can only hope that both believer and sceptic will continue this project in the future, even if they must go their separate ways.
March 2, 2019
I love this book! It is a difficult scholarly read, for me at least, but the pay off is substantial. It has helped me read the BOM in a different way and I can't stop sharing what I learn to see what other people think of it. I don’t necessarily agree with many of grant hardy’s opinions, not only on the people but on many of the circumstances and at times the opinions are a bit annoying when they’re written like mind reading but in all I really enjoyed his thoughts and it definitely expanded mine and made me realize many possibilities I had never thought of before. I borrowed from the library but I will definitely buy.
May 29, 2025
I am a fan of Grant Hardy's philosophy of trying to understand the Book of Mormon in its own terms: to uncover its internal logic by analyzing its narrative structure, textual allusions, etc. Hardy's study edition of the Book of Mormon—a separate volume informed by this philosophy—has made a big difference for my scripture study. So I had high hopes for this book.
But after two or three attempts to get through this book I am shelving it again. Beyond the intro and first chapter it gets very dry. There are a few interesting high-level ideas—for instance, about Nephi's tendency to spin the narrative (chapter 2) or Mormon's competing agendas (chapter 4)—but these tend to get lost in the weeds of minute details of word choice and repetition. The haphazard organization of chapters and sections doesn't help with tracking the high-level ideas.
But after two or three attempts to get through this book I am shelving it again. Beyond the intro and first chapter it gets very dry. There are a few interesting high-level ideas—for instance, about Nephi's tendency to spin the narrative (chapter 2) or Mormon's competing agendas (chapter 4)—but these tend to get lost in the weeds of minute details of word choice and repetition. The haphazard organization of chapters and sections doesn't help with tracking the high-level ideas.
March 6, 2024
A bit repetitive in parts, much like the Book of Mormon itself, but also like the Book of Mormon, some very interesting insights.
November 18, 2020
While the subtitle to this book is “A Reader’s Guide,” I think it would be more appropriate to call it “An Academic’s Guide.” This book is dense. It took me almost two years to get through, partially due to the writing style, but mostly because of the many issues that Grant Hardy mentioned, which I sometimes spent weeks researching.
From the outset, Hardy asks his readers to suspend their beliefs about whether the Book of Mormon is true so that we can analyze it as a work of literature. While I liked this approach, I’m beginning to think that a fully neutral analysis isn’t possible. Hardy himself believes the Book of Mormon to be true, and he often points out that the narrative complexity seems to point to a real history, rather than an invented fiction. On the other hand, he also mentions anachronisms in the text, especially in the way it borrows from the Bible. For both of these cases, he usually gives a footnote to another academic’s work, rather than fully explaining the argument. Honestly, it was like reading an analysis of Shakespeare’s work that said, “Some of the evidence in the text has led scholars to believe Shakespeare was a time traveler from the future. On the other hand, other scholars don’t think there is enough evidence that Shakespeare was a real person.” Reading something like that would make you want to look into the footnotes!
I think these historical questions distract from the points Hardy is trying to make, so I wish he had left them out. His best explanation is this: if you believe the Book of Mormon was written by men in the 1800’s, then none of the features of the book will be enough to convince you otherwise. Likewise, if you believe God inspired its authorship, then any apparent error can be explained as the way God wanted or allowed it to be translated. While I think most people reading the Book of Mormon have already decided about its veracity, if you are still on the fence, this book will not help.
Now, with that out the way, I do want to discuss the things I enjoyed about Hardy’s analysis of the individual narrators. Even having read the Book of Mormon dozens of times, we usually study the book as one entity, so we don’t notice the differences between the narrative styles and themes. Here are some of the things I learned about each section:
NEPHI
It is important to remember Nephi is not writing this as a teenager going through the journey in the wilderness. He is writing it decades later, after seeing the entire story unfold. He may also be writing to legitimize himself as the king and prophet for his people, despite being the younger brother. He clearly compares his experience to Moses, but I never realized how similar he is to Joseph of Egypt. It’s also noteworthy that he never compares himself to the most famous Jewish King, David, which has its own implications.
Understanding Nephi’s purpose explains some of the more difficult parts of the text. Why are Laman and Lemuel, who seemed to be fairly observant priesthood holders, portrayed as such flat characters (or even as a single character)? Because Nephi needed to tell his story that way. This may also explain why Sam is given such a small part. Later, when Nephi and other narrators seem to have serious biases against the Lamanite people, we can acknowledge that there may be natural, human reasons for that portrayal, even if it may seem racist in our modern lens. Hardy notes that Nephi intentionally left out any mention of his children (and rarely talks about his wife) because he may not have had any, or because he was disappointed in the ones he did have, seeing as his brother was the one who had to take over his responsibilities.
Nephi and Jacob both focus heavily on the gathering of Israel, so much so that we may not realize that it is hardly mentioned in the other sections of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps this is due to Nephi’s disappointment in his current situation, and the prophecies of Isaiah give him hope for his later descendants. Hardy shows that Nephi and Jacob do not simply copy Isaiah’s words thoughtlessly, they provide commentary that intricately combines ancient words with their own new prophecies. I had previously assumed that 2 Nephi 27 was a “more correct” translation of Isaiah 29 (like the JST). Now I see that it is Nephi’s way of reinterpreting those prophecies for his own purposes.
MORMON
Mormon is quite distinct from Nephi, in that he gives hardly any personal background, and he mentions few prophecies. The prophecies he does share are almost completely related to the coming of Christ and the future of his people. Mormon prefers to teach his lessons through repetitive patterns and contrasts. We see a righteous king followed by a wicked king. Almost every event is followed by another similar one to provide comparison--martyrdoms, natural catastrophes, escaping from bondage, missionary journeys, battles, etc.
The most complex repetitions that Hardy discusses are the 3 types of sermons Alma gave to his 3 cities (Alma 5-14) and 3 sons (Alma 36-42). The first message is the most prominent one for someone (Zarahemla/Helaman) who has great potential but needs to do serious introspection. The second is a simple message for someone (Gideon/Shiblon) who is steady and just needs encouragement to continue forward. The third is an extended struggle with someone (Ammonihah/Corianton) who has committed serious mistakes and is unwilling to acknowledge them.
Mormon uses many “embedded documents” to tell these stories. While he doesn’t always signify them, it explains the sudden shifts in and out of 1st person. Hardy shows that Mormon often repeats the same phrases with these repetitions, showing their intentionality. He does not use symbolism like Nephi (though we often add that in, especially for the war chapters), but he does clearly state the lesson that should be learned.
The events Mormon chooses to narrate are not usually happy ones. He completely skims over the 200 year period of peace after Christ’s coming. It is clear his purpose is to warn us of the consequences of pride and disobedience. On a lesser scale, Hardy explains that Mormon, who is not directly descended from the prophets, may also be trying to legitimize himself as a leader and record-keeper. This might be why he spends so much time on the church Alma founded at the Waters of Mormon, and the battles led by Captain Moroni (after whom he named his son).
It should also be pointed out that the chapters of Jesus’ visit to the Americas are distinct from the rest of Mormon’s history. Here we see many prophecies about the House of Israel, and Mormon himself seems to speak as a representative of the Lord, rather than just a historian. There is obviously quite a bit of material borrowed from the New Testament, but as always, it is done in complex ways that fit the new circumstances.
MORONI
I think most readers can tell that Moroni was a reluctant narrator who took several tries to end his father’s record. One important thing Hardy pointed out is that while Mormon believed he could convince his readers to follow God through histories, Moroni does not share that hope, as he has seen his father fail to save the Nephites in their time. Instead, Moroni believes that only the Spirit of God can persuade us to change.
Moroni also skips quickly through the book of Ether, which covers hundreds of years. He focuses on the two parts of the Jaredite story that parallel the Nephites--the voyage to the Promised Land and the final destruction through warfare. This, as Hardy explains, is meant to universalize the story of the Nephites beyond the house of Israel. The skipping may also have to do with the fact that only two prophets, Moriancumr and Ether, seem to prophesy of Christ, which is one of the main purposes of Mormon’s entire record.
Hardy shows that Moroni also writes very little of his own material, instead preferring to quote from past prophets. This is done deliberately, as evidenced by the chapters Moroni quotes from. It also gives two final demonstrations of the conundrum of historicity that Hardy does not resolve. Moroni’s first farewell, Mormon 8, borrows heavily from Joseph of Egypt’s prophecy. However, the corresponding Book of Mormon chapter, 2 Nephi 3, had not been transcribed yet! On the other hand, Moroni’s longest “sermon” in Ether 12 has several elements from Hebrews 6 & 11, which were not in any Nephite records Moroni had. As explained previously, whether you believe this book was a divine inspiration or a human invention, there is an explanation to support your belief.
In any case, I’m glad I took the time to read this book, as it made me think more deeply about each of the Book of Mormon’s narrators, including their purposes, biases, and styles. I’m sure that will help me in my future studies.
From the outset, Hardy asks his readers to suspend their beliefs about whether the Book of Mormon is true so that we can analyze it as a work of literature. While I liked this approach, I’m beginning to think that a fully neutral analysis isn’t possible. Hardy himself believes the Book of Mormon to be true, and he often points out that the narrative complexity seems to point to a real history, rather than an invented fiction. On the other hand, he also mentions anachronisms in the text, especially in the way it borrows from the Bible. For both of these cases, he usually gives a footnote to another academic’s work, rather than fully explaining the argument. Honestly, it was like reading an analysis of Shakespeare’s work that said, “Some of the evidence in the text has led scholars to believe Shakespeare was a time traveler from the future. On the other hand, other scholars don’t think there is enough evidence that Shakespeare was a real person.” Reading something like that would make you want to look into the footnotes!
I think these historical questions distract from the points Hardy is trying to make, so I wish he had left them out. His best explanation is this: if you believe the Book of Mormon was written by men in the 1800’s, then none of the features of the book will be enough to convince you otherwise. Likewise, if you believe God inspired its authorship, then any apparent error can be explained as the way God wanted or allowed it to be translated. While I think most people reading the Book of Mormon have already decided about its veracity, if you are still on the fence, this book will not help.
Now, with that out the way, I do want to discuss the things I enjoyed about Hardy’s analysis of the individual narrators. Even having read the Book of Mormon dozens of times, we usually study the book as one entity, so we don’t notice the differences between the narrative styles and themes. Here are some of the things I learned about each section:
NEPHI
It is important to remember Nephi is not writing this as a teenager going through the journey in the wilderness. He is writing it decades later, after seeing the entire story unfold. He may also be writing to legitimize himself as the king and prophet for his people, despite being the younger brother. He clearly compares his experience to Moses, but I never realized how similar he is to Joseph of Egypt. It’s also noteworthy that he never compares himself to the most famous Jewish King, David, which has its own implications.
Understanding Nephi’s purpose explains some of the more difficult parts of the text. Why are Laman and Lemuel, who seemed to be fairly observant priesthood holders, portrayed as such flat characters (or even as a single character)? Because Nephi needed to tell his story that way. This may also explain why Sam is given such a small part. Later, when Nephi and other narrators seem to have serious biases against the Lamanite people, we can acknowledge that there may be natural, human reasons for that portrayal, even if it may seem racist in our modern lens. Hardy notes that Nephi intentionally left out any mention of his children (and rarely talks about his wife) because he may not have had any, or because he was disappointed in the ones he did have, seeing as his brother was the one who had to take over his responsibilities.
Nephi and Jacob both focus heavily on the gathering of Israel, so much so that we may not realize that it is hardly mentioned in the other sections of the Book of Mormon. Perhaps this is due to Nephi’s disappointment in his current situation, and the prophecies of Isaiah give him hope for his later descendants. Hardy shows that Nephi and Jacob do not simply copy Isaiah’s words thoughtlessly, they provide commentary that intricately combines ancient words with their own new prophecies. I had previously assumed that 2 Nephi 27 was a “more correct” translation of Isaiah 29 (like the JST). Now I see that it is Nephi’s way of reinterpreting those prophecies for his own purposes.
MORMON
Mormon is quite distinct from Nephi, in that he gives hardly any personal background, and he mentions few prophecies. The prophecies he does share are almost completely related to the coming of Christ and the future of his people. Mormon prefers to teach his lessons through repetitive patterns and contrasts. We see a righteous king followed by a wicked king. Almost every event is followed by another similar one to provide comparison--martyrdoms, natural catastrophes, escaping from bondage, missionary journeys, battles, etc.
The most complex repetitions that Hardy discusses are the 3 types of sermons Alma gave to his 3 cities (Alma 5-14) and 3 sons (Alma 36-42). The first message is the most prominent one for someone (Zarahemla/Helaman) who has great potential but needs to do serious introspection. The second is a simple message for someone (Gideon/Shiblon) who is steady and just needs encouragement to continue forward. The third is an extended struggle with someone (Ammonihah/Corianton) who has committed serious mistakes and is unwilling to acknowledge them.
Mormon uses many “embedded documents” to tell these stories. While he doesn’t always signify them, it explains the sudden shifts in and out of 1st person. Hardy shows that Mormon often repeats the same phrases with these repetitions, showing their intentionality. He does not use symbolism like Nephi (though we often add that in, especially for the war chapters), but he does clearly state the lesson that should be learned.
The events Mormon chooses to narrate are not usually happy ones. He completely skims over the 200 year period of peace after Christ’s coming. It is clear his purpose is to warn us of the consequences of pride and disobedience. On a lesser scale, Hardy explains that Mormon, who is not directly descended from the prophets, may also be trying to legitimize himself as a leader and record-keeper. This might be why he spends so much time on the church Alma founded at the Waters of Mormon, and the battles led by Captain Moroni (after whom he named his son).
It should also be pointed out that the chapters of Jesus’ visit to the Americas are distinct from the rest of Mormon’s history. Here we see many prophecies about the House of Israel, and Mormon himself seems to speak as a representative of the Lord, rather than just a historian. There is obviously quite a bit of material borrowed from the New Testament, but as always, it is done in complex ways that fit the new circumstances.
MORONI
I think most readers can tell that Moroni was a reluctant narrator who took several tries to end his father’s record. One important thing Hardy pointed out is that while Mormon believed he could convince his readers to follow God through histories, Moroni does not share that hope, as he has seen his father fail to save the Nephites in their time. Instead, Moroni believes that only the Spirit of God can persuade us to change.
Moroni also skips quickly through the book of Ether, which covers hundreds of years. He focuses on the two parts of the Jaredite story that parallel the Nephites--the voyage to the Promised Land and the final destruction through warfare. This, as Hardy explains, is meant to universalize the story of the Nephites beyond the house of Israel. The skipping may also have to do with the fact that only two prophets, Moriancumr and Ether, seem to prophesy of Christ, which is one of the main purposes of Mormon’s entire record.
Hardy shows that Moroni also writes very little of his own material, instead preferring to quote from past prophets. This is done deliberately, as evidenced by the chapters Moroni quotes from. It also gives two final demonstrations of the conundrum of historicity that Hardy does not resolve. Moroni’s first farewell, Mormon 8, borrows heavily from Joseph of Egypt’s prophecy. However, the corresponding Book of Mormon chapter, 2 Nephi 3, had not been transcribed yet! On the other hand, Moroni’s longest “sermon” in Ether 12 has several elements from Hebrews 6 & 11, which were not in any Nephite records Moroni had. As explained previously, whether you believe this book was a divine inspiration or a human invention, there is an explanation to support your belief.
In any case, I’m glad I took the time to read this book, as it made me think more deeply about each of the Book of Mormon’s narrators, including their purposes, biases, and styles. I’m sure that will help me in my future studies.
August 10, 2017
I was interested in the narrators of the Book of Mormon and started reading with anticipation, and there were definitely some interesting insights which caused me to look at the situation differently; however when I finished reading, I felt slightly dirty. Hardy represented some scripture heroes in a strange and kind of negative light and made some leaps on what the Narrators were thinking as though he were reading their minds. Here's a little spoiler on Mormon as narrator ** He indicated that Mormon loved Captain Moroni as a fellow military commander, implied that Mormon was biased and that he tried to prop up/justify how a battle-hardened soldier could be righteous. He indicated that Mormon, who also had been a battle-hardened soldier, inserted the verses "...if all men had been and ever would be like unto Moroni, the powers of Hell would be shaken forever" (off the top of my head so may have quoted it incorrectly - but you get the idea - Alma 46-ish) to make a warrior seem righteous. This ticked me off as a veteran to hear Hardy refer to military leaders as trying to justify being righteous while they were killing the enemy during war and caused me to wonder whether Hardy had ever seen anything close to combat and had to kill someone who was trying to take away his rights and then come home where judgy people whisper about whether he was able to be righteous after killing or not. Grrr. This was one of the quite a few issues I had with Hardy's interpretation of motivation. I give it a three (3) because not everything was faulty reasoning and got me to thinking. I'm going to read a rebuttal of Hardy's book by Duane Boyce found here for some perspective: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/a-le...
January 28, 2011
I gave this book 4 stars because I was so pleasantly surprised at how much I appreciated Hardy's exhaustive treatment of the three narrators, Nephi, Mormon and Moroni. But then, I usually do not go far wrong in taking Deja's book recommendations. A brief example:
By evaluating the text, Hardy reveals so much more about these three prophet/historians we might not so readily uncover ourselves. In examining the extensive use of parallel and allusion, we see the connections between these prophets and others whose material they draw on so heavily. We also see the great care these editors took to instruct readers.
I particularly enjoyed the connections he drew to Isaiah. Isaiah continues to be quoted and applied throughout the entire Book of Mormon, more in fact, that we would think.
Not all of Hardy's assumptions are strong. I would not agree that this book might be so appealing to a non-Mormon. He makes a case for the Book of Mormon as literature, but when he constantly tries to point out its powerful meaning whether one imagines the author as Joseph Smith or Mormon, I doubt that this analysis would hold much interest. His real audience is believers, and he would have been better served if he had not tried to make his appeal so broad. This is not a book to read before you read the Book of Mormon.
Even believers who have read the Book of Mormon once or twice without digging deep would be lost here. Few will follow or recognize the many references back to the scriptural text.
If however, you are an avid student, and regular reader of the Book of Mormon and are looking for a fresh perspective to gain a new appreciation for its power and depth, this will be a breath of fresh air. You will experience many "aha moments" whether you agree with each of Hardy's conclusions or not.
The narrators provide a controlling perspective that can bring together diverse incidents, voices, and documents in the service of major themes such as the nature of faith, the reliability of prophecy, and the role of Israel in God's providence. Indeed, it is through the narrators that we are most likely to ascertain the primary message of the Book of Mormon. Nevertheless, the meaning of the text is neither unitary nor static. The editors/historians are portrayed as living, thinking individuals who develop as characters over the course of their writings. In addition, there are differences of approach between the narrators. Mormon and Moroni, in particular, appear to have quite distinct ideas about how to best persuade their readers.
By evaluating the text, Hardy reveals so much more about these three prophet/historians we might not so readily uncover ourselves. In examining the extensive use of parallel and allusion, we see the connections between these prophets and others whose material they draw on so heavily. We also see the great care these editors took to instruct readers.
I particularly enjoyed the connections he drew to Isaiah. Isaiah continues to be quoted and applied throughout the entire Book of Mormon, more in fact, that we would think.
Not all of Hardy's assumptions are strong. I would not agree that this book might be so appealing to a non-Mormon. He makes a case for the Book of Mormon as literature, but when he constantly tries to point out its powerful meaning whether one imagines the author as Joseph Smith or Mormon, I doubt that this analysis would hold much interest. His real audience is believers, and he would have been better served if he had not tried to make his appeal so broad. This is not a book to read before you read the Book of Mormon.
Even believers who have read the Book of Mormon once or twice without digging deep would be lost here. Few will follow or recognize the many references back to the scriptural text.
If however, you are an avid student, and regular reader of the Book of Mormon and are looking for a fresh perspective to gain a new appreciation for its power and depth, this will be a breath of fresh air. You will experience many "aha moments" whether you agree with each of Hardy's conclusions or not.
May 30, 2015
Grant Hardy managed to get a book about the Book of Mormon published by the prestigious Oxford Press. That alone should draw attention and help potential readers ignore the terribly generic title and stock photograph decorating the book's cover.
I suspect there may not be a person in the course of history (including Joseph Smith himself) more obsessed and devoted to the Book of Mormon than Grant Hardy, so in some ways that uniquely qualifies him to write this book. Refreshingly, though, he is brutally honest in dealing with the text's shortcomings as well.
Hardy divides his book up into three parts, mirroring the three main narrative characters of the Book of Mormon (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni). He then engages in extensive literary analysis, leveraging his unparalleled efforts in reading the text deeply (including "reading against the grain", as he would put it).
So to start with the good, the section on Nephi is five-star material. Brilliant, engaging, and ingenious. I loved it. Because Nephi (whether he be a historical person or not, Hardy repeatedly asserts) narrates in memoir form, it allows for a lot more interesting opportunities to climb inside his mind and tease his story apart. I'd eat up any similar literary masterpieces like this section were they to be published.
Now on to the bad. I'd give Hardy's other two sections (on Mormon and Moroni) two stars. There are occasional insights that kept me reading the book until the end, but so much of these sections involves agreeing with Hardy about patterns and allusions he has discovered in the Book of Mormon. Any reader who thinks he's finding patterns where there are none is bound to find this boring and tedious. I wasn't sold on his central argument that the text's "narratological strategies are of more than just a passing interest." Where Hardy finds intentional, deliberate repetition, I imagine that most readers instead will find a mere lack of vocabulary and/or ideas.
With this book, I think Hardy will persuade some non-believers that the Book of Mormon is "better than it sounds" and unsettle some unprepared believers who stumble into its frank treatment of anachronisms. But hopefully it paves the way for more work like his analysis of Nephi.
I suspect there may not be a person in the course of history (including Joseph Smith himself) more obsessed and devoted to the Book of Mormon than Grant Hardy, so in some ways that uniquely qualifies him to write this book. Refreshingly, though, he is brutally honest in dealing with the text's shortcomings as well.
Hardy divides his book up into three parts, mirroring the three main narrative characters of the Book of Mormon (Nephi, Mormon, and Moroni). He then engages in extensive literary analysis, leveraging his unparalleled efforts in reading the text deeply (including "reading against the grain", as he would put it).
So to start with the good, the section on Nephi is five-star material. Brilliant, engaging, and ingenious. I loved it. Because Nephi (whether he be a historical person or not, Hardy repeatedly asserts) narrates in memoir form, it allows for a lot more interesting opportunities to climb inside his mind and tease his story apart. I'd eat up any similar literary masterpieces like this section were they to be published.
Now on to the bad. I'd give Hardy's other two sections (on Mormon and Moroni) two stars. There are occasional insights that kept me reading the book until the end, but so much of these sections involves agreeing with Hardy about patterns and allusions he has discovered in the Book of Mormon. Any reader who thinks he's finding patterns where there are none is bound to find this boring and tedious. I wasn't sold on his central argument that the text's "narratological strategies are of more than just a passing interest." Where Hardy finds intentional, deliberate repetition, I imagine that most readers instead will find a mere lack of vocabulary and/or ideas.
With this book, I think Hardy will persuade some non-believers that the Book of Mormon is "better than it sounds" and unsettle some unprepared believers who stumble into its frank treatment of anachronisms. But hopefully it paves the way for more work like his analysis of Nephi.
January 3, 2011
A decade ago there were few scholarly books written for the non-Mormon audience about the Book of Mormon, and in another decade there will probably not be many more. However, within those twenty years I doubt that there will be a book that approaches the depth and complexity in regards to the text as Dr. Hardy's volume. The approach to the characters and editors of the story of the Book of Mormon will, undoubtedly, infuriate some members of the LDS Church. Dr. Hardy's aim is not to produce a summary of a sacred history, but rather to puzzle out the human biases and contexts of the Book of Mormon editors. Laudably, he tries to walk a fine line in asking the reader to set assumptions of historicity aside as they explore the text; how well he personally succeeds at following his own advice as he guides the reader through the Book of Mormon is debatable. Personally, I found that Dr. Hardy occasionally cannot resist the urge to point out what he feels are inconsistencies of the presentation of the text against Joseph Smith as author. All that aside, the book is fascinating as it takes the risks of humanizing sacred stories with human flaws as well as asserting, on occasion, that perhaps the Mormon story behind its production deserves a closer look. I should also note, of course, that this is a book interested in looking at *narrative*, not theology.
Personally, I do not believe in the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical work, but that lack of belief certainly did not prevent me from enjoying this amazing work. For anyone interested in having a deeper and richer understanding of one of the foundational books of scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement and the myriad of churches that accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, do not pass up this exploration.
And, truth be told, simply to have some state in black and white that Nephi is almost certainly unfair in his treatment of his brothers, that Captain Moroni is not really the paragon of Christian virtue described in Alma 48:11-13, and that the Jesus in 3 Nephi can often be overly verbose and confusing in his speech patterns: that is something amazing to read from an LDS author!
Personally, I do not believe in the Book of Mormon as an ancient historical work, but that lack of belief certainly did not prevent me from enjoying this amazing work. For anyone interested in having a deeper and richer understanding of one of the foundational books of scripture of the Latter Day Saint movement and the myriad of churches that accept the Book of Mormon as scripture, do not pass up this exploration.
And, truth be told, simply to have some state in black and white that Nephi is almost certainly unfair in his treatment of his brothers, that Captain Moroni is not really the paragon of Christian virtue described in Alma 48:11-13, and that the Jesus in 3 Nephi can often be overly verbose and confusing in his speech patterns: that is something amazing to read from an LDS author!
March 1, 2016
So I began reading this as my "Sunday Novel" but being 3 months shy of reading it a full year I had quit that notion as I often didn't take the time to pick it up on Sundays. This is not my usual fluff I tend to gravitate to. This is a book you need to invest time into to understand. Not an easy peasy read. That being said once I did focus my time on completing the book it was enjoyable and enlightening. Great book for believers and nonbelievers a like. I feel the author did a good job at laying down the facts even if it may shake someones world. All in all it makes you think and realize just how much "nonthinking" I have been doing all these years while reading and rereading The Book of Mormon.
December 14, 2016
Oh my goodness, what an excellent study of the Book Of Mormon! I enjoyed this book way more than expected even though it comes to the topic from a spiritually agnostic point of view. I really feel like I understand so much more now!
This is an indispensable volume for the casual religious reader as well as the devout member of the LDS faith.
This book is a study of a religious text as if it were only a literary work, which provides insights that might otherwise be unachievable if "bound" to the idea of a scriptural canon.
When reading it, allow yourself to wonder what if, and you should be just as pleased as I was!!
5 stars!!!!!
This is an indispensable volume for the casual religious reader as well as the devout member of the LDS faith.
This book is a study of a religious text as if it were only a literary work, which provides insights that might otherwise be unachievable if "bound" to the idea of a scriptural canon.
When reading it, allow yourself to wonder what if, and you should be just as pleased as I was!!
5 stars!!!!!
January 5, 2012
A very interesting read. Some parts were better than others. Hardy manages to straddle the line, almost successfully, between believers and non-believers by treating the Book of Mormon as literature (and actually redeeming its literary qualities to some extent, no small feat). It was worth a read and I would recommend it, although I'm not sure I'll read it again.
June 23, 2013
I heard a radio interview w/ Grant Hardy and his wife. They compared the Book of Mormon to V. Nabokov’s Pale Fire. That alone made me want to read it. And I did, and I'm in the middle of reading it again. This book will transform your understanding of the book -- that description's vague, I'll add more to it later.
04/2013: read it again.
04/2013: read it again.
November 16, 2018
Honestly, the book was very tedious at times and a slow read, but I'm glad I finished it. Hardy has proved, through detailed literary analysis, that the Book of Mormon is a "remarkable text, one that is worthy of serious study" and far more complex than many of its readers have supposed. A fascinating take on the BofM.
December 31, 2018
Recommended to me by Richard Bushman himself! (long story.) This book looks at the book of Mormon from the perspective of each of its narrators in a way I've never seen before. Fascinating and refreshing, especially for a wannabe writer.
March 30, 2020
Brilliant insights. Learned a ton. Made me feel intellectually lazy for not noticing some of these themes and patterns on my own.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 136 reviews