Does the Book of Mormon have any literary and/theological volume?

>>7537257
it's dumber, for starters

>>7537257
Its basically fan fiction

>>7537257

Does anyone actually read these books in full? I mean besides academics whose livelihoods force them to.

>>7537257
It's an American sci-fi extension of the Bible.

>>7537526
Well yeah, people who believe in the religion that these books come from.

I didn't read the Quran completely until I was 19 but it doesn't really matter at what age you read the holy book of your religion, as long as you understand it.

>>7537257
Hard to say if it has literary value, the King James style can be more easily accessed in the actual KJV. The storyline of the book itself is fairly straightforward, patriarch receives divine instruction, family escapes danger at home by setting off to the high seas, settle there, family divides, and then there's Others on this island for about a thousand years hence.
To your second question, I mean presumably no scripture has theological value outside the tradition it's come from. For a Jew the gospel has no theological value, for a hindu the book of mormon is meaningless start to finish, to an atheist it's all high fantasy. If you're a mormon then obviously the book of mormon has a lot of theological value.

>>7537540
if you're Muslim and have actually read the Quran your level of theological understanding is above like 90% of people following any Abrahamic religion

also obligatory ree mudshit allahu akbar get out reee etc.

>>7537643
What are you on about? Are you just referring to the lack of knowledge people have in Abrahamic religions of the Holy Works or are you calling the Quran superior?

>>7537526
You should know some of OT and NT since they are two of the most influential books in Western culture.

>>7537747
The first one

>>7537747
Well the Quran is the last of them, and I haven't read it, but maybe it incorporates the OT/NT stuff into it?

>>7537752
Well, I agree with you. I was not raised a Christian but I have read the works. But then again, not everybody likes reading and prefers their basic understanding. It goes against the very nature of Protestantism - educating oneself - but that's that. It's all collapsing now anyway so what difference does it make? The Anglican Church is just a left wing mouthpiece now. Most of what they say has very little grounding in the Bible, or it is at best vague. Sometimes it's completely irrelevant. Then people wonder why organised religion is in decline.

>>7537761
From what I know, I believe it does. Or it has its own interpretation. The Quran is much more poetic than the Bible which is why everybody who loves poetry gush about it, so I hear. I'll never know because I won't be learning Arabic anytime soon.

>>7537751
Thank you, when ever I try to say this people assume I'm a wackjob Christian....(Which I actually am BUAHAHAHAHAHAHA)

>>7537773
Go to /his/ Thomas.

>>7537316
So is the NT desu

>>7537781
le edgy faec

ask mummy to wipe your bottom

>>7537761
>Quran
>maybe it incorporates the OT/NT stuff into it?

It does, but with major changes. It mentions many figures from the OT and NT, Jesus more than any other. Some stories are in the Qur'an, but they are significantly changed. The perspective of the Qur'an is that the OT and NT were transmitted imperfectly and that the Qur'an corrects their errors.

>>7537257

It has no theological value outside the Mormon faith. It's seen as totally heretical by everyone else (other than universalists I suppose).

>>7537802
This

and also I beg to differ with this>>7537781
I guess I see where you're coming from but I happen to believe in the New Testament

>>7537802
It's also supposed to be taken unconditionally literally while being demonstrably false, while standard Christians can just handwave 'muh metaphor' around thongs that don't make sense in the Bible.

>>7537835
>You're right but it makes me feel bad :(

>>7538490
He was trying to understand his opponent, his intent was not at all how you presented it. Falsely. You're nothing but a dullard.

>>7539432
Thanks dude, I honestly didn't even get what he was trying to say it was so off base lol. Yeah I was just saying I understand how someone could believe that. The fact that I'm a Christian doesn't mean I'm a retard, c'mon peeps

>>7538487
So presumably you believe every single text should be taken literally?

>>7539498
The Mormon Church champions the BoM as 100% literally true and asserts that the religion is false if it is in any way incorrect.

I'm not sure of all of the theological beliefs of the different Christian sects but it seems to me that many Christians take everything in the Bible literally until it is proven false, after which they are okay with denoting it to 'metaphor'

>>7539636
That's objectively wrong. Even the earliest theologians of the Christian faith have interpreted the Bible figuratively, allegorically and as you say, there are literalists. But not everybody interprets it literally until proven otherwise.