Comments on: 2006 Book of Mormon Roundtable

By: danithew

danithew — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 16:19:30 +0000

I think Mahonri’s comment is pretty accurate. I may have overstated my case a bit as I certainly recognize that concern for the poor is an important Book of Mormon theme. I like Mahonri’s point that the invitation to Christ “eclipses all other messages and every other message is an outgrowth of that.”

Well said.

By: Eric Russell

Eric Russell — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 05:56:09 +0000

danithew, William, Mahonri, I agree. He mentioned how history is usually written by the winners and how the Book of Mormon is special because it is a people’s book. Sounds nice at first, but really, as you all point out, it’s mostly written by religious leaders. So that doesn’t really work.

Dallas, there was no recording that I was aware of. But there could have been.

By: Mahonri Stewart

Mahonri Stewart — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 23:42:51 +0000

I really wanted to go to this! So sad I missed it!
I certainly consider the concern for the poor a defining element of The Book of Mormon. 4th Nephi (the pinnacle triumph of the Nephites’ story), Mormon and Moroni, King Benjamin, plus a myriad of other segments, all make a strong point of this. Whether that makes it “folk literature” is problematic, however, considering that it is written by high ranking religious leaders. But those leaders do, however, have populist concerns, to make it enough of a valid argument in my mind. In voice it may not be folk, but in message, I think there’s a great deal to be said for that.
The invitation to come unto Christ, however, seems to be the pre-dominant theme of The Book of Mormon to me. That eclipses all other messages and every other message is but an outgrowth of that, considering the Book’s intent and pointed invitations.

By: danithew

danithew — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:36:55 +0000

I still think that using terms like “folk literature” or “the voice of the downtrodden” to describe the Book of Mormon is a vivid sign of scholarly jargon bloat. These terms are rather flippant and assumptive and have so very little to do with what the Book of Mormon is or what it is about.

By: danithew

danithew — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 17:14:19 +0000

I didn’t mean to come across as being critical of Eric’s post. It is a very good writeup. I’m just disagreeing with that particular point made by a specific individual being described.

Maybe my image or feel for “folk literature” isn’t quite accurate. I’m not sure what kind of specific works we’d be comparing to the Book of Mormon, that fit into that genre.

I’m looking forward to William’s post on comparison of the Book of Mormon as literature to the Bible or D&C. Sounds like it could be very intereresting.

By: William Morris

William Morris — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 16:58:12 +0000

Thanks for the write-up, Eric.

I kind of see the folk literature point — it is a mixture of of personal and local histories with the history parts being .

It lacks the literary qualities of some of the books in the Bible — or even some of the sections in the Doctrine and Covenants (except for Jacob 5, but that’s the subject of an upcoming post from me).

I don’t know that I’d call it the history of the downtrodden. It really isn’t a people’s history. It’s the history of the religious elite — at times the religious elite were downtrodden; at times they weren’t.

By: danithew

danithew — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:23:39 +0000

Unless it is referring to this verse. But I don't think he meant that in such a literal sense.

By: danithew

danithew — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 15:21:20 +0000

The Book of Mormon is “folk literature” or “the voice of the downtrodden.”

That, as a summary of the Book of Mormon’s contents, sound a bit nutty to me.

By: Dallas Robbins

Dallas Robbins — Thu, 10 Aug 2006 12:03:03 +0000

Thanks for the summary. I wanted to go, but was tied up elsewhere. Do you know if they made a recording?