by

(1) The Book of Mormon is neither history nor literature; it is scripture. It makes historical claims and uses literary devices. The academic study of both history and literature can aid in its interpretation, but employing such tools comes with a price. The price is treating the text like something that it isn’t, which often leads to bad readings of the text itself.

(2) The Book of Mormon is unlike any ancient history that we know anything about. It is also unlike any 19th century work of fiction that we know anything about. It is a lot like other scriptures that we know about, but the textual record that we have access to does not permit the same kind of analyses that are possible with other scriptures. For the purposes of textual interpretation, comparing the Book of Mormon to anything else is full of peril. It is in a genre of one.

(3) The primary function of scripture is to reveal God to the reader. This is what the Book of Mormon claims to do. If it does this, then it ultimately does not matter whether or not it is good history or good literature. If it does not do this, then it ultimately does not matter whether or not it is good history or good literature.

(4) Complexity in the Book of Mormon is not evidence of antiquity. Human beings can and do produce texts of enormous complexity, and their ability to do so seems to have increased over time, not decreased. Arguing that Joseph Smith was a “poor, ignorant farm boy” does not prove that the Book of Mormon is ancient or divine. Logically, pretty much any explanation imaginable is superior to “an angel showed a teenager where the plates were buried, and the teenager then translated them with a rock and a hat and then the plates disappeared.”

(5) Anachronism in the Book of Mormon is not an evidence of fraud. That the Book of Mormon seems designed to appeal to a nineteenth century audience does not mean that it is not an ancient text. The text itself addresses itself to a future people, and claims to know what these people will need by prophecy and revelation. If one accepts the text on its own terms, then it should be specifically relevant to the nineteenth century and to later periods as well.

(6) Proving things about a text is not the same thing as figuring out what a text means. Both of these are legitimate academic operations, but they are different academic operations. There are some worthwhile avenues of critical exploration that can only be pursued by those willing to take a text on its own terms and see where those terms lead.

(7) Taking a text on its own terms means accepting the claims that it makes for itself, some of which, in the case of the Book of Mormon, are historical. One can disagree with these claims, of course, but one cannot logically argue that it does not make such claims (the way one can argue that, say, the books of Job and Jonah do not make historical claims). Completely rejecting an ancient provenance for the Book of Mormon means not taking the text on its own terms, but on terms that you decide for it. There is no way to do this without inflicting a certain amount of rhetorical violence on the text and its believers.

(8) All texts mean things in contexts of reception, and those contexts are not fixed. Studying a religious text like the Book of Mormon, which millions of people still accept as scripture, is different than studying a religious text like the Egyptian Book of the Dead, which is almost entirely a historical artifact. The reception of a text does not entirely control its meaning, but it influences it enough that the critic cannot entirely ignore how a scriptural text functions in the communities that believe it.

(9) The academic study of the Book of Mormon is important for Latter-day Saints who have an academic temperament. It is neither superior nor inferior to other ways of reading the text. Many people find meaning and enrich their lives with straightforward interpretations of the scriptures. The Book of Mormon has much to offer here, but it can also sustain much more complex readings that allow people to engage the text with their intellects. This is a good thing, as it increases the ways that different kinds of people can interact meaningfully with the text. As Rumi says, there are many ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

(10) Lists about scriptural things must always go to ten.