This shit reads like if you were to ask an AI to generate a piece of Biblical text. I can't explain it, it vaguely reads like one, but there's really nothing to get from it. It has zero quotable or memorable verses like the OT/NT have.
>>18411552Better to read Smith's dry ass mythical tale of Jews in the Americas than read Muhammad telling you that you're gonna burn with the losers every other page, with little story or insight beyond that.But the BoM story as a whole isn't bad. If it was written well, it'd be a decent enough read but the King James style it mimics just plain sucks. "And so it came to pass" ad nauseum is just so tedious.
>>18411574What even is the story? Isn't there a wooden submarine at some point?
I like Mark Twain's "review" of it in his 1872 book "Roughing It">All men have heard of the Mormon Bible, but few except the “elect” have seen it, or, at least, taken the trouble to read it. I brought away a copy from Salt Lake. The book is a curiosity to me, it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so “slow,” so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. If Joseph Smith composed this book, the act was a miracle—keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate. If he, accourding to tradition, merely translated it from certain ancient and mysteriously-engraved plates of copper, which he declares he found under a stone, in an out-of-the-way locality, the work of translating was equally a miracle, for the same reason.>The book seems to be merely a prosy detail of imaginary history, with the Old Testament for a model; followed by a tedious plagiarism of the New Testament. The author labored to give his words and phrases the quaint, old-fashioned sound and structure of our King James’s translation of the Scriptures; and the result is a mongrel—half modern glibness, and half ancient simplicity and gravity. The latter is awkward and constrained; the former natural, but grotesque by the contrast. Whenever he found his speech growing too modern—which was about every sentence or two—he ladled in a few such Scriptural phrases as “exceeding sore,” “and it came to pass,” etc., and made things satisfactory again. “And it came to pass” was his pet. If he had left that out, his Bible would have been only a pamphlet.there's more toohttps://mrm.org/twain-bom
>>18411727>https://mrm.org/twain-bomand so I have learned that in the days of Mark Twain it wasn't public knowledge yet that polygamy was instituted by Joseph Smith himself. Twain blames it on Brigham Young.
>>18411574>Muhammad telling you that you're gonna burn with the losers every other page,I notice Muslims don't really quote the quran all too often either, I never read it myself but I can imagine it's basically just the Arab version of the BoM. You can't capture lightning in a bottle twice
>>18412096the quran is much worse than the BoM. the BoM is about at the level of the bible. the quran is a schizo rant by allah himself:>This is˺ a Book sent down to you ˹O Prophet˺—do not let anxiety into your heart regarding it—so with it you may warn ˹the disbelievers˺, and as a reminder to the believers.>Follow what has been sent down to you from your Lord, and do not take others as guardians besides Him. How seldom are you mindful!>˹Imagine˺ how many societies We have destroyed! Our torment took them by surprise ˹while sleeping˺ at night or midday.>Their only cry—when overwhelmed by Our torment—was, “We have indeed been wrongdoers.”>We will surely question those who received messengers and We will question the messengers ˹themselves˺.those are consecutive verses btw (the beginning of surah al-A'raf, which I randomly chose). the parts between square quotes (e.g. the 'themselves' at the end of the last verse) are missing from the text and are added to lend some semblance of coherence to it. also, about 1/5 of the sentences are grammatically incorrect, which is not visible in a translation.
How come in Judaism and Christianity and Mormonism, in Hebrew (OT), in Greek (NT), and in English (BoM, D&C, PoGP), the Hebrew makes God a plural noun (elohim), and the NT and the creeds declares Father and Son and Holy Spirit as divine in some sense that people argued over but definitely had three person, and Joseph Smith declares a full on tritheist godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and yet in this linear development of Abrahamism where God starts plural, gets more plural, and ends up even more plural, they ALWAYS say "I" even when it's, say, the Son (or Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament) speaking for the Father, etc? The pronoun is consistently singular.And then Islam which consistently denies the divine sonship and even more strongly denies plurality to God than even the Hebraisms of the Old Testament and the Malakh Yahweh (Angel of the Lord) grammar allow for, emphasizing most strongly of the three that God is numerically One...that's the Abrahamic religion that most consistently says "We" every time God speaks???
