In 2011 I was writing at a different blog which is now behind a password. That Christmas I received Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon: A Reader's Guide. I wrote the following review at that time.
Recently I got into a conversation on Facebook on this book and a remarkably lengthy article written by Duane Boyce calling out Hardy (and others) for bad religious scholarship. I find the Facebook format unsatisfactory when someone needs a lengthy, detailed answer. To provide one, I'm copying here my old review and the follow up posts I wrote 6 years ago. Six years ago my goal was to be honest but overall positive, so while I suggest that some parts of his treatment of Nephi (and Helaman) bothered me then, I didn't really go into detail about what exactly or why. In the next post on this blog I will go into a few more specifics about why I find Hardy's treatment of Nephi so unsatisfactory and where I agree and disagree with Boyce's criticism of Hardy's book. I've added a couple comments in [brackets] below.
The tl;dr summary of what I wrote 6 years ago is: "I recommend his book for people interested in treating the Book of Mormon like literature. He does his job and he does it well. I really appreciate insights he helped me see in Mormon and Moroni. Just don't go looking for something that isn't there. ... Hardy's book is not about understanding the messages of the Book of Mormon. There is very little talk about the Atonement or Christianity itself, how Nephite Christianity is different, how the Book of Mormon expounds on and complements the Bible's message of salvation, what the mission of Jesus Christ is or any of the fundamental points the prophets set out to make. ... Of course, given how didactic the Book of Mormon is (one of his favorite words), he may feel it unnecessary: you can't read the Book of Mormon seriously without coming away with its testimony of Jesus Christ. Hardy wants to present something New. This is an intellectual exercise. I like such exercises. The thing is, if this were all anyone read, they would not come away Understanding the Book of Mormon."
Recently I got into a conversation on Facebook on this book and a remarkably lengthy article written by Duane Boyce calling out Hardy (and others) for bad religious scholarship. I find the Facebook format unsatisfactory when someone needs a lengthy, detailed answer. To provide one, I'm copying here my old review and the follow up posts I wrote 6 years ago. Six years ago my goal was to be honest but overall positive, so while I suggest that some parts of his treatment of Nephi (and Helaman) bothered me then, I didn't really go into detail about what exactly or why. In the next post on this blog I will go into a few more specifics about why I find Hardy's treatment of Nephi so unsatisfactory and where I agree and disagree with Boyce's criticism of Hardy's book. I've added a couple comments in [brackets] below.
The tl;dr summary of what I wrote 6 years ago is: "I recommend his book for people interested in treating the Book of Mormon like literature. He does his job and he does it well. I really appreciate insights he helped me see in Mormon and Moroni. Just don't go looking for something that isn't there. ... Hardy's book is not about understanding the messages of the Book of Mormon. There is very little talk about the Atonement or Christianity itself, how Nephite Christianity is different, how the Book of Mormon expounds on and complements the Bible's message of salvation, what the mission of Jesus Christ is or any of the fundamental points the prophets set out to make. ... Of course, given how didactic the Book of Mormon is (one of his favorite words), he may feel it unnecessary: you can't read the Book of Mormon seriously without coming away with its testimony of Jesus Christ. Hardy wants to present something New. This is an intellectual exercise. I like such exercises. The thing is, if this were all anyone read, they would not come away Understanding the Book of Mormon."







































