What do you think?
Rate this book
Joseph Smith: The Architect of Mormonism: A Topical Biography
The modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims the Book of Mormon and the church institution are inseparable.
History proves they’re in tension.
This groundbreaking biography uncovers the stark divide between the text Joseph Smith produced in 1829 and the religion that exploded—and imploded— by 1844.
Meticulous research reveals how Smith’s early idealism collided with the chaos of building a radical new faith, leading to innovations, schisms, and ultimately, his martyrdom. From Smith’s impoverished roots to his meteoric rise as an American prophet, this book traces the evolution of his genius and the unintended consequences of his vision.
Why did the Book of Mormon’s egalitarian promises clash with later doctrines?How did Smith’s charisma and contradictions shape a global movement?And what does this reveal about the birth of most religions?
More than a biography, this is an investigation of how ideas transform and distort under pressure.
For scholars and seekers alike, this study offers a revelatory lens on Mormonism’s founder and the messy, miraculous alchemy of faith.
How much Mormon history have you missed? Investigate now!
"I think it may be the most important book written on the development of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism itself."
Radio Free Mormon
History proves they’re in tension.
This groundbreaking biography uncovers the stark divide between the text Joseph Smith produced in 1829 and the religion that exploded—and imploded— by 1844.
Meticulous research reveals how Smith’s early idealism collided with the chaos of building a radical new faith, leading to innovations, schisms, and ultimately, his martyrdom. From Smith’s impoverished roots to his meteoric rise as an American prophet, this book traces the evolution of his genius and the unintended consequences of his vision.
Why did the Book of Mormon’s egalitarian promises clash with later doctrines?How did Smith’s charisma and contradictions shape a global movement?And what does this reveal about the birth of most religions?
More than a biography, this is an investigation of how ideas transform and distort under pressure.
For scholars and seekers alike, this study offers a revelatory lens on Mormonism’s founder and the messy, miraculous alchemy of faith.
How much Mormon history have you missed? Investigate now!
"I think it may be the most important book written on the development of the Book of Mormon and Mormonism itself."
Radio Free Mormon
931 pages, Kindle Edition
Published June 18, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 27, 2025
Amid the overwrought amount of research Mr. Cherian's volume contains (and paradoxically, while it is overwrought, there probably should have been twice the amount of the 1355 footnotes in the volume), his conclusions are speculative and under-developed. Indeed, a large portion of the arguments being made for the Book of Mormon being a product of the nineteenth century are repeats, echoes, and reassertions of past arguments ranging from the modern to the very beginning in the late 1820s and early 1830s. Having said that, Mr. Cherian has my respect for producing a volume which collects these many arguments in one place, in a cohesive whole. It is clearly a labor which he has put enormous amounts of effort into and which matters a great deal to him. My review is broken up into two parts. First, I share the basic style of the book and why I think it is severely lacking. Because this structure lacks rigorous analysis, context, or even basic discussion of the evidence beyond conclusory statements, the primary thesis of the book (that the Book of Mormon is a product of Joseph Smith and his time) is underdeveloped and underwhelming beyond a Gish Gallop. Second, I examine the last chapter on Joseph Smith’s mindset and why it is assumptive and conclusionary.
(0) A Preliminary Note:
To begin, I note that I accept the claim that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. I accept the account Joseph Smith gave of its coming forth. I find the witnesses (the three, the eight, and the ten or so informal) to be persuasive. However, I only believe these things. I find it reasonable to believe these things based on the primary and secondary evidence. But, I ultimately believe it because the Holy Ghost has made its truth manifest unto me. These experiences with the Holy Spirit are valid to convince me and only me of the truth. They DO NOT stand as evidence which should (or even can) be convincing to other people. While I read, pondered, studied, and considered this book from the perspective of a believer, I am open to the evidence undermining the reasonableness of the primary and secondary evidence, and making the naturalistic case.
(I) The Basic Structure
Mr. Cherian's book follows a basic three-step formula for each topic discussed. First, the worldview of the nineteenth century is presented (often briefly or not rigorously). When appropriate, the life and experiences of Joseph Smith, his family, or his friends in the 1820s is given. Second, vast amounts of text is quoted from the Book of Mormon (mainly without context). Occasionally, the author will summarize and comment on the quotations in a paragraph before continuing on with his quotations. Third, Joseph's (and the Church's) later writings and teachings are compared to the Book of Mormon to either show a contradiction or a doctrinal development that is so dissimilar from the Book of Mormon that it becomes a contradiction.
The primary issues with this approach is the author's brevity in developing the nineteen century position/debate, the lack of analysis in any form of the Book of Mormon passages quoted, and the conclusory assertions on Joseph's later thought. When the author slows down and provides any nuance (which is rare), the position succeeds. This is a rare occurrence in this book. Far more often, the author is conclusory without justification (i.e. the conclusion is often presupposed [for example, when discussing Doctrine and Covenants Section 8-9 and the Oliver's failure to translate, it is assumed that the revelation is Joseph Smith cleverly getting around that there is no inspired means to the translation and that it is all coming from himself] or asserted with minimal discussion).
The lack of context to the Book of Mormon is especially noticeable. The clearest example of this is in the author's discussion of the Godhead in the Book of Mormon. The author asserts (while quoting Charles R. Harrell's book "This is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology"; as an aside, this book has a lot of similarities with the present volume, in that it is attempting to do too much by providing too little in analysis and synthesis),
The Book of Mormon makes the forceful 'modalist' case that Christ is God the Father in human form. 'Christ is generally referred to God or the Father prior to his birth, but then called the Son of God after he is born in the flesh' It is a definitive statement in the text, referenced over two dozen times, across the whole Book of Mormon . . ." (309, Kindle Edition).
The author then proceeds to quote verses from the Book of Mormon (beginning with Mosiah to follow Mosiah Priority) which state that Christ is the Father or where Christ is identified as God (e,g,, Mosiah 15:7, Alma 42:15, 3 Nephi 1:14, Ether 3:14, 2 Nephi 31:21). The author, I think, attempts to address a common counterargument when he states, after a list of quotations, "[t]he Book of Mormon treads a middle ground between Christ being the Father, yet Christ having some autonomy" (313, Kindle Edition).
This analysis is accomplished over the course of five pages. This brevity does not allow time for (a) putting the Book of Mormon verses into their context, (b) justifying the forceful thesis that the “Book of Mormon makes [a] forceful ‘modalist’ case” (309, Kindle Edition), or (c) providing a rationale for why the statement on Christ’s independence is included. Additionally, the author makes a mistake Cicero warned about he stated, “Omne enim, quod ratione tractatur, ad caput suum referri debet, ut inde quid de quoque dicatur appareat” (For everything which is rationally discussed ought to be referred to its beginning, that it may be clear what is being said about each thing). Cicero is saying start with a definition and let everything else follow. Here, the author doesn’t provide a clear definition of what modalism is (or, at least, provides one which is not simply his own opinion). The author may mean to suggest that modalism means "Christ is God the Father in human form” (309, Kindle Edition), If that is the definition, then the Book of Mormon does not teach that. In 3rd Nephi (which is why I believe the author included that strange comment that there was some autonomy between Christ and the Father), Christ is very clearly not the Father in human form. In both First and Second Nephi, the Son is clearly distinguished from the Father. In Ether, the Son has a premortal body and is named Jesus Christ, not God the Father. Even when the title Father applies to Jesus Christ, it never means that the Father Himself has come down to Earth in “human” form. If the author wanted to make that argument, the author needs to present the evidence that is the case and explain away the contradictory evidence. For almost every verse cited without context in the text, the author needed to show how the title Father, when applied to Christ, is actually referring to God the Father. There are countless studies on the Godhead in the Book of Mormon. Who and by what titles the Nephites (or Joseph Smith if one believes him to be creator of the story) called Jesus Christ matter. Modalism, if it is to be found in the Book of Mormon, is not forceful. This lack of rigorous (or even any) analysis is the usual method of analysis for the author, and undercuts both his primary thesis (that the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith and his environment) and his many sub-thesis (mainly that some theological or cultural point from the nineteenth century is found in the Book of Mormon). Indeed, the book often feels like an outline full of research, whose purpose is to guide the process of writing the actual arguments supporting the thesis, not the polished draft synthesizing that research into comprehensible arguments. Again, these arguments are clearly important to the author, and the footnotes are useful to dissect the original sources of the author’s assertions. Those footnotes (representing that research) alone are not enough to make valid arguments, and they are not supporting well-developed arguments. That is not to say that the arguments espoused here are not well-developed elsewhere. But, they are not developed here.
Having covered the first two phases, we move onto the third phase. I spend less time here simply because the same problems still abound. The author’s underlying message that “The Book of Mormon is a snapshot of Joseph’s beliefs in 1829, beliefs he changed dramatically as he endeavored to implement them in a real-world setting,” (538, Kindle Edition), follows the same pattern as before. However, it is the most interesting part of the book because it is where the author spends the majority of his own analysis in. However, the author provides little support that his conclusions for why Joseph did something, or how the section from a letter, or an antagonist source, or the Doctrine and Covenants is actually a contradiction. Again, the author’s lack of nuanced discussion and non-contextual introductions to the majority of the quotations dooms his persuasive power. At times, I think that the author wants the quotations to stand for themselves with minimal historical introduction or commentary. I think that is simply bad arguing - those quotations should provide the source for your argument. But you still have to make the argument as sound and persuasive as possible. That does not mean that these are not valid contradictions (although there are certainly a lot which are not even with the quotations provided). It simply means that the argument is not convincing for why those are actually contradictions. A great example of this is when the author asserts that Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 was given to stop Martin Harris from not providing funding. The author writes “After querying Joseph, and maybe threatening to pull his funding, Joseph received the Doctrine and Covenants section 19 which said that God uses damnation language, but He doesn’t really mean what He says.” (808, Kindle Edition). I think this could actually be one of the author’s stronger arguments, especially his discussion of what the revelation specifically tells Martin to do (see pgs. 809-811, Kindle Edition), but there is no discussion on why this is a contradiction. Maybe it's obvious - if so, then the argument should write itself. Instead, the author resorts to speculation, underlining specific passages, and moving on to another point to fail the uncareful reader. For an uncareful reader will not notice that there is no discussion on how this is a contradiction from the Book of Mormon’s use of damnation and Section 19’s use of the idea. They will simply accept the assertion. This is bad argumentation.
(II) Getting into Joseph’s Mind: Not Letting the Text Stand For Itself
Instead of letting the record speak for itself (or perhaps because the analysis is so spotty), the last chapter is a masterpiece of conclusionary assertions and impossible to verify arguments. For example, the author claims that the Book of Mormon was “Joseph [seeking] to reverse his family’s fortunes and to especially unite them in salvation.” (779, Kindle Edition). The author supports this by quoting (without providing context or analysis) Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Like other places, this assertion is not accompanied by any real argument to support it. Indeed, while it may be a fair view of young Joseph’s circumstances, it is not supported by the analysis offered here (and while I would say even when such an argument is developed by analysis and synthesis, it remains unconvincing, that doesn’t mean it won’t be for other people).
This occurs again and again. For example, on pg. 782, Kindle Edition the author proposes that Joseph Smith possessed an incredible storytelling ability and the incredible [and rather unbelievable] gift to convince others that what he imagined was real. No supporting analysis or evidence. Next, consider the example on pg. 795 that “[a]dherents had to suspend their logical, cause and effect experimentation and act in belief first, to secure a manifestation of truth.” The quotation is provided but no examples are furnished of this in action. Indeed, it feels almost contradictory to the Book of Mormon itself in Alma 32. Or consider on pg. 791, where the author writes, “[l]ikewise the entire Book of Mormon and the foundations of the Church from Joseph’s point of view, could be a giant parable and still teach much truth. A fabrication could be beneficial and justifiable because it builds faith in Christ.” The author is building on the point made earlier that because the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ, “it must be true!” (790, Kindle Edition). Again no real work is done beyond making this assertion and providing some quotations to “back” up the claim. Regardless, the author is consistent in wanting to assert, not argue.
The author’s concluding point is exhausting and conclusionary.. “Joseph lied, he misrepresented, fabricated, and misled. … He did all this because he and his family were desperate. He did it as an act of public service for a world he thought was in decay. Along the way he did it to maintain and increase his power. He continued to do it even when it hurt others. This is incredibly problematic.” (816, Kindle Edition). Since the author did not lay the necessary foundation to make these claims, I can only read his own feelings. I feel them. Joseph (through the Church he restored [or made up for the author]) has hurt and continues to hurt. But, those feelings don’t replace the hard work of actually making the case. Indeed, while I would hope that the case is made by addressing some of the counters, it doesn’t even have to do that. It can be a straight argument from the naturalistic perspective, one that believes the Book of Mormon, the revelations, the claimed theophanies and angelic administrations, are “all explainable.” (819, Kindle Edition). This book doesn’t do that. The author provides a brief note at the end where he states, “I hope that this thesis has compellingly evidenced that Joseph Smith imprinted his 1829 worldview into the Book of Mormon and the text reflected his motivations as they happened in real time.” (820, Kindle Edition). I did not. While I come as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who believes the Book of Mormon to be a translation of an ancient text by the gift and power of God, I can be persuaded by the evidence and arguments. Indeed, while I find Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith and the Making of a Prophet to be wrong, Mr. Vogel’s naturalistic take is much more grounded in analysis, evidence, and synthesis than the author here. Indeed, even though I find the theories proposed by Dr. Ann Taves or Dr. William Davis to be far-fetched, they are rigorous. This book is not. It is not compelling. It reads like a gish gallop of a soup of ideas, quotations, and assertions.
That being said, the research is enormous. The author is clearly invested in his thesis. He wants it to be true. Perhaps it is true. But, the purpose for this book is not really to make the case that the Book of Mormon was the product of Joseph Smith and his ever-shifting worldview. No. The thesis of this book is that “our present is heavily underpinned by Joseph’s past creation. This needs to be admitted and addressed. We need to evaluate if this is reasonable and make amends when it is not.” (820, Kindle Edition). Yes, the real thesis is that Joseph made it all up, that the current church needs to admit this, so that the Church can be transformed into something else. That the author correctly notes that the Book of Mormon is the keystone holding this all together, and that if it falls, the Church falls, is not new. On this point, I would agree: if the Book of Mormon is made up, then the current church doesn’t even need to exist at all. That is the real point of this book.
I would encourage readers to read this book to understand Mr. Cherian's point of view (and gain access to a wide list of sources). I would look elsewhere (e.g., Dan Vogel, Ann Teves, and most especially, to the New Approaches to the Book of Mormon from 1993) for the actual analysis of why these types of arguments should be preferred. But, beyond that, I would actually just read the Book of Mormon yourself. So, yes, as the author concludes, “[The Book of Mormon and the Church’s truth claims are] all explainable.” (819, Kindle Edition). But, they are explainable by God and His matchless power.
(0) A Preliminary Note:
To begin, I note that I accept the claim that the Book of Mormon is an ancient text. I accept the account Joseph Smith gave of its coming forth. I find the witnesses (the three, the eight, and the ten or so informal) to be persuasive. However, I only believe these things. I find it reasonable to believe these things based on the primary and secondary evidence. But, I ultimately believe it because the Holy Ghost has made its truth manifest unto me. These experiences with the Holy Spirit are valid to convince me and only me of the truth. They DO NOT stand as evidence which should (or even can) be convincing to other people. While I read, pondered, studied, and considered this book from the perspective of a believer, I am open to the evidence undermining the reasonableness of the primary and secondary evidence, and making the naturalistic case.
(I) The Basic Structure
Mr. Cherian's book follows a basic three-step formula for each topic discussed. First, the worldview of the nineteenth century is presented (often briefly or not rigorously). When appropriate, the life and experiences of Joseph Smith, his family, or his friends in the 1820s is given. Second, vast amounts of text is quoted from the Book of Mormon (mainly without context). Occasionally, the author will summarize and comment on the quotations in a paragraph before continuing on with his quotations. Third, Joseph's (and the Church's) later writings and teachings are compared to the Book of Mormon to either show a contradiction or a doctrinal development that is so dissimilar from the Book of Mormon that it becomes a contradiction.
The primary issues with this approach is the author's brevity in developing the nineteen century position/debate, the lack of analysis in any form of the Book of Mormon passages quoted, and the conclusory assertions on Joseph's later thought. When the author slows down and provides any nuance (which is rare), the position succeeds. This is a rare occurrence in this book. Far more often, the author is conclusory without justification (i.e. the conclusion is often presupposed [for example, when discussing Doctrine and Covenants Section 8-9 and the Oliver's failure to translate, it is assumed that the revelation is Joseph Smith cleverly getting around that there is no inspired means to the translation and that it is all coming from himself] or asserted with minimal discussion).
The lack of context to the Book of Mormon is especially noticeable. The clearest example of this is in the author's discussion of the Godhead in the Book of Mormon. The author asserts (while quoting Charles R. Harrell's book "This is My Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology"; as an aside, this book has a lot of similarities with the present volume, in that it is attempting to do too much by providing too little in analysis and synthesis),
The Book of Mormon makes the forceful 'modalist' case that Christ is God the Father in human form. 'Christ is generally referred to God or the Father prior to his birth, but then called the Son of God after he is born in the flesh' It is a definitive statement in the text, referenced over two dozen times, across the whole Book of Mormon . . ." (309, Kindle Edition).
The author then proceeds to quote verses from the Book of Mormon (beginning with Mosiah to follow Mosiah Priority) which state that Christ is the Father or where Christ is identified as God (e,g,, Mosiah 15:7, Alma 42:15, 3 Nephi 1:14, Ether 3:14, 2 Nephi 31:21). The author, I think, attempts to address a common counterargument when he states, after a list of quotations, "[t]he Book of Mormon treads a middle ground between Christ being the Father, yet Christ having some autonomy" (313, Kindle Edition).
This analysis is accomplished over the course of five pages. This brevity does not allow time for (a) putting the Book of Mormon verses into their context, (b) justifying the forceful thesis that the “Book of Mormon makes [a] forceful ‘modalist’ case” (309, Kindle Edition), or (c) providing a rationale for why the statement on Christ’s independence is included. Additionally, the author makes a mistake Cicero warned about he stated, “Omne enim, quod ratione tractatur, ad caput suum referri debet, ut inde quid de quoque dicatur appareat” (For everything which is rationally discussed ought to be referred to its beginning, that it may be clear what is being said about each thing). Cicero is saying start with a definition and let everything else follow. Here, the author doesn’t provide a clear definition of what modalism is (or, at least, provides one which is not simply his own opinion). The author may mean to suggest that modalism means "Christ is God the Father in human form” (309, Kindle Edition), If that is the definition, then the Book of Mormon does not teach that. In 3rd Nephi (which is why I believe the author included that strange comment that there was some autonomy between Christ and the Father), Christ is very clearly not the Father in human form. In both First and Second Nephi, the Son is clearly distinguished from the Father. In Ether, the Son has a premortal body and is named Jesus Christ, not God the Father. Even when the title Father applies to Jesus Christ, it never means that the Father Himself has come down to Earth in “human” form. If the author wanted to make that argument, the author needs to present the evidence that is the case and explain away the contradictory evidence. For almost every verse cited without context in the text, the author needed to show how the title Father, when applied to Christ, is actually referring to God the Father. There are countless studies on the Godhead in the Book of Mormon. Who and by what titles the Nephites (or Joseph Smith if one believes him to be creator of the story) called Jesus Christ matter. Modalism, if it is to be found in the Book of Mormon, is not forceful. This lack of rigorous (or even any) analysis is the usual method of analysis for the author, and undercuts both his primary thesis (that the Book of Mormon is the product of Joseph Smith and his environment) and his many sub-thesis (mainly that some theological or cultural point from the nineteenth century is found in the Book of Mormon). Indeed, the book often feels like an outline full of research, whose purpose is to guide the process of writing the actual arguments supporting the thesis, not the polished draft synthesizing that research into comprehensible arguments. Again, these arguments are clearly important to the author, and the footnotes are useful to dissect the original sources of the author’s assertions. Those footnotes (representing that research) alone are not enough to make valid arguments, and they are not supporting well-developed arguments. That is not to say that the arguments espoused here are not well-developed elsewhere. But, they are not developed here.
Having covered the first two phases, we move onto the third phase. I spend less time here simply because the same problems still abound. The author’s underlying message that “The Book of Mormon is a snapshot of Joseph’s beliefs in 1829, beliefs he changed dramatically as he endeavored to implement them in a real-world setting,” (538, Kindle Edition), follows the same pattern as before. However, it is the most interesting part of the book because it is where the author spends the majority of his own analysis in. However, the author provides little support that his conclusions for why Joseph did something, or how the section from a letter, or an antagonist source, or the Doctrine and Covenants is actually a contradiction. Again, the author’s lack of nuanced discussion and non-contextual introductions to the majority of the quotations dooms his persuasive power. At times, I think that the author wants the quotations to stand for themselves with minimal historical introduction or commentary. I think that is simply bad arguing - those quotations should provide the source for your argument. But you still have to make the argument as sound and persuasive as possible. That does not mean that these are not valid contradictions (although there are certainly a lot which are not even with the quotations provided). It simply means that the argument is not convincing for why those are actually contradictions. A great example of this is when the author asserts that Doctrine and Covenants Section 19 was given to stop Martin Harris from not providing funding. The author writes “After querying Joseph, and maybe threatening to pull his funding, Joseph received the Doctrine and Covenants section 19 which said that God uses damnation language, but He doesn’t really mean what He says.” (808, Kindle Edition). I think this could actually be one of the author’s stronger arguments, especially his discussion of what the revelation specifically tells Martin to do (see pgs. 809-811, Kindle Edition), but there is no discussion on why this is a contradiction. Maybe it's obvious - if so, then the argument should write itself. Instead, the author resorts to speculation, underlining specific passages, and moving on to another point to fail the uncareful reader. For an uncareful reader will not notice that there is no discussion on how this is a contradiction from the Book of Mormon’s use of damnation and Section 19’s use of the idea. They will simply accept the assertion. This is bad argumentation.
(II) Getting into Joseph’s Mind: Not Letting the Text Stand For Itself
Instead of letting the record speak for itself (or perhaps because the analysis is so spotty), the last chapter is a masterpiece of conclusionary assertions and impossible to verify arguments. For example, the author claims that the Book of Mormon was “Joseph [seeking] to reverse his family’s fortunes and to especially unite them in salvation.” (779, Kindle Edition). The author supports this by quoting (without providing context or analysis) Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Like other places, this assertion is not accompanied by any real argument to support it. Indeed, while it may be a fair view of young Joseph’s circumstances, it is not supported by the analysis offered here (and while I would say even when such an argument is developed by analysis and synthesis, it remains unconvincing, that doesn’t mean it won’t be for other people).
This occurs again and again. For example, on pg. 782, Kindle Edition the author proposes that Joseph Smith possessed an incredible storytelling ability and the incredible [and rather unbelievable] gift to convince others that what he imagined was real. No supporting analysis or evidence. Next, consider the example on pg. 795 that “[a]dherents had to suspend their logical, cause and effect experimentation and act in belief first, to secure a manifestation of truth.” The quotation is provided but no examples are furnished of this in action. Indeed, it feels almost contradictory to the Book of Mormon itself in Alma 32. Or consider on pg. 791, where the author writes, “[l]ikewise the entire Book of Mormon and the foundations of the Church from Joseph’s point of view, could be a giant parable and still teach much truth. A fabrication could be beneficial and justifiable because it builds faith in Christ.” The author is building on the point made earlier that because the Book of Mormon testifies of Christ, “it must be true!” (790, Kindle Edition). Again no real work is done beyond making this assertion and providing some quotations to “back” up the claim. Regardless, the author is consistent in wanting to assert, not argue.
The author’s concluding point is exhausting and conclusionary.. “Joseph lied, he misrepresented, fabricated, and misled. … He did all this because he and his family were desperate. He did it as an act of public service for a world he thought was in decay. Along the way he did it to maintain and increase his power. He continued to do it even when it hurt others. This is incredibly problematic.” (816, Kindle Edition). Since the author did not lay the necessary foundation to make these claims, I can only read his own feelings. I feel them. Joseph (through the Church he restored [or made up for the author]) has hurt and continues to hurt. But, those feelings don’t replace the hard work of actually making the case. Indeed, while I would hope that the case is made by addressing some of the counters, it doesn’t even have to do that. It can be a straight argument from the naturalistic perspective, one that believes the Book of Mormon, the revelations, the claimed theophanies and angelic administrations, are “all explainable.” (819, Kindle Edition). This book doesn’t do that. The author provides a brief note at the end where he states, “I hope that this thesis has compellingly evidenced that Joseph Smith imprinted his 1829 worldview into the Book of Mormon and the text reflected his motivations as they happened in real time.” (820, Kindle Edition). I did not. While I come as a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who believes the Book of Mormon to be a translation of an ancient text by the gift and power of God, I can be persuaded by the evidence and arguments. Indeed, while I find Dan Vogel’s Joseph Smith and the Making of a Prophet to be wrong, Mr. Vogel’s naturalistic take is much more grounded in analysis, evidence, and synthesis than the author here. Indeed, even though I find the theories proposed by Dr. Ann Taves or Dr. William Davis to be far-fetched, they are rigorous. This book is not. It is not compelling. It reads like a gish gallop of a soup of ideas, quotations, and assertions.
That being said, the research is enormous. The author is clearly invested in his thesis. He wants it to be true. Perhaps it is true. But, the purpose for this book is not really to make the case that the Book of Mormon was the product of Joseph Smith and his ever-shifting worldview. No. The thesis of this book is that “our present is heavily underpinned by Joseph’s past creation. This needs to be admitted and addressed. We need to evaluate if this is reasonable and make amends when it is not.” (820, Kindle Edition). Yes, the real thesis is that Joseph made it all up, that the current church needs to admit this, so that the Church can be transformed into something else. That the author correctly notes that the Book of Mormon is the keystone holding this all together, and that if it falls, the Church falls, is not new. On this point, I would agree: if the Book of Mormon is made up, then the current church doesn’t even need to exist at all. That is the real point of this book.
I would encourage readers to read this book to understand Mr. Cherian's point of view (and gain access to a wide list of sources). I would look elsewhere (e.g., Dan Vogel, Ann Teves, and most especially, to the New Approaches to the Book of Mormon from 1993) for the actual analysis of why these types of arguments should be preferred. But, beyond that, I would actually just read the Book of Mormon yourself. So, yes, as the author concludes, “[The Book of Mormon and the Church’s truth claims are] all explainable.” (819, Kindle Edition). But, they are explainable by God and His matchless power.
Displaying 1 of 1 review