Mormon As A Classic Tragic Figure

[consiglieri]

In Gospel Doctrine class yesterday, we discussed Mormon 1-6, which contains the account of the decline and destruction of the Nephites.

Here, we are introduced to Mormon, who ends up being the classic tragic figure in the Book of Mormon.

Mormon knows that the Nephites are going to be destroyed by the Lamanites because the Nephites will not repent of their wickedness.

When the Nephites go on the offensive against the Lamanites after staving off two Lamanite attacks at the narrow pass, Mormon utterly refuses to lead them anymore, considering this action on the part of the Nephites to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. The Nephites compound the wickedness of their actions by boasting that it has been their own strength that has defeated the Lamanites; in addition, the Nephites swear oaths by heaven and by the throne of God that they will avenge the deaths of their brothers.

I pointed out to the class that the Nephites considered themselves very religious; they took their oaths by heaven and by God's throne. Even though Mormon considers them more wicked than anybody in Nephite history, the view the Nephites have of themselves is the exact opposite.

After Mormon stops leading the Nephites, they have a series of battles, at the end of which it is obvious that they are on the verge of being overrun and destroyed.

It is at this point that Mormon agrees to resume leadership of their armies--when Mormon knows they will be destroyed.

Mormon makes it clear that he has absolutely no faith and no hope for victory. But Mormon is filled with love for his people. (This is an interesting dichotomy, because it is Mormon's sermon in Moroni 7 that teaches about faith, hope and charity being necessary for salvation.) And yet he is clear that though he has charity for his people, he has neither faith nor hope that they will survive. (Perhaps this is a good definition for a tragic figure.)

After all the preaching of repentance that Mormon does to his people, there is only one account of anybody repenting; and that is Mormon who repents; and what he repents of is his own oath that he would not lead the people again.

So Mormon ends up breaking his oath (an oath he should not have been making in the first place) in order to do the right thing; which is to lead his people in battle out of his love for them, in spite of the fact that he knew he would be killed along with them.

In this way, I see Mormon as being not only one of the most interesting characters in the Book of Mormon, but perhaps one of the most heroic, and certainly the most tragic.

Mormon is completely different from Captain Moroni, whom he seems to idolize. I cannot picture Captain Moroni breaking an oath he made for any reason. "Behold, I cannot recall the words which I have spoken."

Well, these are just some thoughts I had about Mormon that I wanted to share with the board.

I think it possible that Mormon should take his place along with King Arthur and Oedepus as one of the true tragic figures of literature.

Any thoughts?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

You might like this Eugene England paper:

Joseph Smith and the Tragic Quest

[Jason]

Except that King Arthur and Oedipus are fictional literary figures. Mormon was the real deal.

I'm a big softy - the first time I read through the entire Book of Mormon in the MTC I left a big tear spot on "Mormon's lament" in Chapter 6 in my quad. It's still there.

[Kevin Christensen]

For appreciating Mormon as a tragic figure, I'd also recommend reading the FARMS Preliminary report on "I Only Am Escaped to Tell Thee: Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon" by Gordon Thomasson, a short summary of which is in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 266-68. If I had to do a top ten Book of Mormon essays list, this one would be on it.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[Analytics]

Should Mormon take a place as a true tragic figure of literature? The very question presupposes that the Book of Mormon has enough genuine literary merit to be properly called literature.

You donâ??t have to be a Christian to recognize the literary merit in, The Confessions of St. Augustine, you donâ??t have to be a pagan to see the literary merit in The Iliad, you donâ??t have to be a Jew to see the literary merit in The Chosen, and you donâ??t have to be an atheist to recognize the literary merit in A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.

In principle, you donâ??t have to be a Mormon to recognize the literary merit in The Book of Mormon. Yet it is rare to find a non-Mormon who thinks the Book of Mormon has significant literary merit.

[LifeOnaPlate]

In principle, you donâ??t have to be a Mormon to recognize the literary merit in The Book of Mormon. Yet it is rare to find a non-Mormon who thinks the Book of Mormon has significant literary merit.

It's actually quite rare to find a non-Mormon who has actually read the Book of Mormon through, specifically one who would be "sophisticated" enough to notice its impressive literary contents. I was just reading Moroni 7 and 8 last night and was again blown away by the literary quality.

[LifeOnaPlate]

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vo...um=1&id=117 here's some nonsense about the Illiad

[consiglieri]

You might like this Eugene England paper:Joseph Smith and the Tragic Quest

Thanks for the link, LOAP!I thought that a good paper the first time I read it earlier this year. England might have added Mormon to the mix, though I know he was focusing on Joseph Smith.After reading Rough Stone Rolling in 2005, I came away with the impression that Joseph Smith's death was tragic in the sense that everything seemed to be working together to bring about his destruction at the end. Of course, Joseph could have run away and avoided it, but when he made preparations to do so, he was called a coward, causing him to say, "If my life is worth nothing to my friends, it is worth nothing to me."Now, that is a tragic comment!All the Best!--Consiglieri

For appreciating Mormon as a tragic figure, I'd also recommend reading the FARMS Preliminary report on "I Only Am Escaped to Tell Thee: Survivor Witness and the Book of Mormon" by Gordon Thomasson, a short summary of which is in Reexploring the Book of Mormon, 266-68. If I had to do a top ten Book of Mormon essays list, this one would be on it.Kevin ChristensenBethel Park, PA

I was thinking of going over this in prepping for Moroni's place at the end of the Book of Mormon, but now that you have recommend the paper so highly, I will be sure to do so!All the Best!--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

In principle, you donâ??t have to be a Mormon to recognize the literary merit in The Book of Mormon. Yet it is rare to find a non-Mormon who thinks the Book of Mormon has significant literary merit.

Good comments, Analytics!

Part of the purpose of my post was to approach the Book of Mormon as literature in order to take a look at the character of Mormon, so that we could invite non-members and critics alike to contribute to the discussion without getting weighed down in the truth claims of the book.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was thinking of going over this in prepping for Moroni's place at the end of the Book of Mormon, but now that you have recommend the paper so highly, I will be sure to do so!All the Best!--Consiglieri

I can't find this paper anywhere's. Advice?

[consiglieri]

I can't find this paper anywhere's. Advice?

Looks like it was published as a FARMS preliminary report back in 1984, but I cannot find a link for it.

I will have to pull my copy of Reexploring the Book of Mormon off the shelf when I get home to consult the abbreviated version.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Would Jesus Christ be viewed as a "tragic figure"?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Looks like it was published as a FARMS preliminary report back in 1984, but I cannot find a link for it.

I will have to pull my copy of Reexploring the Book of Mormon off the shelf when I get home to consult the abbreviated version.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Abbreviated... :[

[consiglieri]

Would Jesus Christ be viewed as a "tragic figure"?

I would certainly think so.

Of course, there are different opinions as to what Jesus really "knew" prior to his crucifixion regarding the surety of his resurrection.

I think the more knowledge we ascribe to Jesus in this regard, the less tragic he becomes.

Regardless of the degree of his knowledge, however, I think his crucifixion must be regarded as a tragedy in the classic sense.

Especially when you throw in God's foresaking him when Jesus was on the cross.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Analytics]

It's actually quite rare to find a non-Mormon who has actually read the Book of Mormon through, specifically one who would be "sophisticated" enough to notice its impressive literary contents. I was just reading Moroni 7 and 8 last night and was again blown away by the literary quality.

That just isnâ??t true. Tens of millions of copies have been published, and the publisher has been actively pushing it for over 175 years. What other book has been pushed so hard for so long?

In 1831 Joseph Campbell published a review of it. He explained why he read it and commented on it:

Such is an analysis of the book of Mormon, the bible of the Mormonites. For noticing of which I would have asked forgiveness from all my readers, had not several hundred persons of different denominations believed in it. On this account alone has it become necessary to notice itâ?¦

That is the same reason why Mark Twain read it a few decades later, and the same motivation has continued to motivate people to read it since then. People do read this book. The reason Uncle Tomâ??s Cabin gets wider readership and respect isnâ??t because by luck scholars noticed Uncle Tomâ??s Cabin and never noticed The Book of Mormon. The reason is, Uncle Tomâ??s Cabin is intrinsically a deep, moving book that touches people and thereby earns great reviews and recommendations. The Book of Mormon, as literature just doesn't touch people that way.

[Analytics]

Good comments, Analytics!

Part of the purpose of my post was to approach the Book of Mormon as literature in order to take a look at the character of Mormon, so that we could invite non-members and critics alike to contribute to the discussion without getting weighed down in the truth claims of the book.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Iâ??ll play ball. Approaching this as literature, I donâ??t find the story very compelling. Mormon is this sober character that had everything figured out by the age of 10, and is just watching society oscillate a little before its ultimate, inevitable fall. God clearly and repeatedly warned them that if they were wicked they would fall. Mormon had a perfect understanding of this and consistently repeated the warning. Society chose wickedness and was destroyed as promised.

Iâ??d see Mormon as a tragic character in the Greek sense if he somehow had the power to save society, but because he incorrectly made a promise, or broke the promise, or didnâ??t have faith or hope, he somehow inadvertently caused the collapse he was trying to avoid and then died knowing that despite his best efforts, societyâ??s doom was his fault.

Making and breaking the promise is an interesting little twist, but whether or not he made or kept the promise was irrelevant to the larger misfortunes. Itâ??s like heâ??s on the Titanic and he promises that he wonâ??t bail water because he knows it wonâ??t help, but then breaks that promise and tries to bail water, still correctly knowing it wonâ??t help. Perhaps that is a little sad or pathetic, but there is no great epiphany, irony, or Achilles heel. In calling the people to repent he did all heâ??or anybodyâ??could do.

The events are simple rather than complex, and Mormon is a victim of the circumstances of his society rather than Godâ??s whimsical will or a fatal character flaw. Good tragedies leave you walking away with a deep sense of empathy towards people who were either dealt a bad hand or somehow screwed up, and you have this profound feeling that there but for the grace of God go I.

This story leaves you without empathy and without connection: it creates a chasm between the smugly righteous and the wailing unrighteous, and shows that one group gets the credit for bringing Godâ??s blessings and the other gets credit for bringing his condemnations. How God deals out rewards and punishments is always clear and straightforward. Mormon was righteous. The Nephites as a whole were wicked. Mormon did all anybody could do; he gave them a clear and accurate warning. With little delay and with no twist or subtlety, God did to the wicked exactly what he said he would. It is one-dimensional and boring.

[John Larsen]

I think it possible that Mormon should take his place along with King Arthur and Oedepus as one of the true tragic figures of literature?

I think you hit the nail on the head there. Mormon appears more like a tragic figure of literature than a historical figure.

But to your point, I think that when one treat it as "mere" literature and apply the normal tools and language one applies to literature, the true believers take it as a front and will label it a form of anti-Mormonism (read hate speech). Most people do not want to touch that with a ten foot pole.

[LifeOnaPlate]

That just isnâ??t true. Tens of millions of copies have been published, and the publisher has been actively pushing it for over 175 years. What other book has been pushed so hard for so long?

In 1831 Joseph Campbell published a review of it. He explained why he read it and commented on it:

That is the same reason why Mark Twain read it a few decades later, and the same motivation has continued to motivate people to read it since then. People do read this book.

That just isn't true. There is simply no evidence that Mark Twain read the Book of Mormon other than tersely checking a few pages and the table of contents in order to get in a few cheap shots.

Further, publishing a book has nothing to do with actual readership.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Iâ??ll play ball. Approaching this as literature, I donâ??t find the story very compelling. Mormon is this sober character that had everything figured out by the age of 10, and is just watching society oscillate a little before its ultimate, inevitable fall. God clearly and repeatedly warned them that if they were wicked they would fall. Mormon had a perfect understanding of this and consistently repeated the warning. Society chose wickedness and was destroyed as promised.

Iâ??d see Mormon as a tragic character in the Greek sense if he somehow had the power to save society, but because he incorrectly made a promise, or broke the promise, or didnâ??t have faith or hope, he somehow inadvertently caused the collapse he was trying to avoid and then died knowing that despite his best efforts, societyâ??s doom was his fault.

Making and breaking the promise is an interesting little twist, but whether or not he made or kept the promise was irrelevant to the larger misfortunes. Itâ??s like heâ??s on the Titanic and he promises that he wonâ??t bail water because he knows it wonâ??t help, but then breaks that promise and tries to bail water, still correctly knowing it wonâ??t help. Perhaps that is a little sad or pathetic, but there is no great epiphany, irony, or Achilles heel. In calling the people to repent he did all heâ??or anybodyâ??could do.

The events are simple rather than complex, and Mormon is a victim of the circumstances of his society rather than Godâ??s whimsical will or a fatal character flaw. Good tragedies leave you walking away with a deep sense of empathy towards people who were either dealt a bad hand or somehow screwed up, and you have this profound feeling that there but for the grace of God go I.

This story leaves you without empathy and without connection: it creates a chasm between the smugly righteous and the wailing unrighteous, and shows that one group gets the credit for bringing Godâ??s blessings and the other gets credit for bringing his condemnations. How God deals out rewards and punishments is always clear and straightforward. Mormon was righteous. The Nephites as a whole were wicked. Mormon did all anybody could do; he gave them a clear and accurate warning. With little delay and with no twist or subtlety, God did to the wicked exactly what he said he would. It is one-dimensional and boring.

Your terse reading appears to have led you to find just what you were looking for. The authors of the Book of Mormon itself were well aware of objections such as yours, apparently. You have presented a stunningly simplistic reading. You have found what you have sought. While the Bom contains some wonderful literature, that isn't the overarching purpose of the book, and never was.

2 Ne. 33: 11

11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge yeâ??for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness.

Ether 12

23 And I said unto him: Lord, the Gentiles will mock at these things, because of our weakness in writing; for Lord thou hast made us mighty in word by faith, but thou hast not made us mighty in writing; for thou hast made all this people that they could speak much, because of the Holy Ghost which thou hast given them;

24 And thou hast made us that we could write but little, because of the awkwardness of our hands. Behold, thou hast not made us mighty in writing like unto the brother of Jared, for thou madest him that the things which he wrote were mighty even as thou art, unto the overpowering of man to read them.

25 Thou hast also made our words powerful and great, even that we cannot write them; wherefore, when we write we behold our weakness, and stumble because of the placing of our words; and I fear lest the Gentiles shall mock at our words.

26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;

27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

28 Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto meâ??the fountain of all righteousness.

29 And I, Moroni, having heard these words, was comforted, and said: O Lord, thy righteous will be done, for I know that thou workest unto the children of men according to their faith;

[Analytics]

That just isn't true. There is simply no evidence that Mark Twain read the Book of Mormon other than tersely checking a few pages and the table of contents in order to get in a few cheap shots.

We know Mark Twain read at least some of it--enough so that he felt he could give an honest review of it. There is no reason not to take him at his word on that point.

Further, publishing a book has nothing to do with actual readership.

Of course most copies of The Book of Mormon never get read. Iâ??m just saying that there is a constant pulse that pushes this book into peopleâ??s awareness. It isnâ??t an obscure book.

Motivated by that constant pulse, some people read it because they want a well-rounded liberal education or simply because of curiosity. If the book had authentic literary merit, some of those people would recognize the literary merit, and they would recommend it, which would lead to more readers and more recommendations, which would eventually lead it to become widely regarded.

The few brave souls who do read it as literature don't recommend it.

[Analytics]

Your terse reading appears to have led you to find just what you were looking for. The authors of the Book of Mormon itself were well aware of objections such as yours, apparently. You have presented a stunningly simplistic reading. You have found what you have sought. While the Bom contains some wonderful literature, that isn't the overarching purpose of the book, and never was.

Reading it â??as literatureâ? implies that weâ??re reading it under the assumption that it is pure fiction. For the purposes of this thread, Jesus Christ and Mormon are assumed fictional characters, just like Zeus and Oedipus. You can come back at me by showing me the sublime literary subtleties Iâ??m disregarding or whatever, but throwing at me threats from one of the bookâ??s characters is out of line.

I have no personal problem whatsoever with calling religious books I disagree with great literature. Iâ??m an atheist, yet I think the Gospels have immense literary merit, and 1 Corinthians 13 is among the greatest prose ever written. Iâ??m the kind of guy who likes to recognize such things. I would absolutely love to say The Book of Mormon was great literatureâ??unfortunately, it just isnâ??t.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Reading it “as literature” implies that we’re reading it under the assumption that it is pure fiction. For the purposes of this thread, Jesus Christ and Mormon are assumed fictional characters, just like Zeus and Oedipus. You can come back at me by showing me the sublime literary subtleties I’m disregarding or whatever, but throwing at me threats from one of the book’s characters is out of line.

I have no personal problem whatsoever with calling religious books I disagree with great literature. I’m an atheist, yet I think the Gospels have immense literary merit, and 1 Corinthians 13 is among the greatest prose ever written. I’m the kind of guy who likes to recognize such things. I would absolutely love to say The Book of Mormon was great literature—unfortunately, it just isn’t.

You are simply and quite conclusively wrong, unless you are redefining "literature" to your own private interpretation. I am not aware of any literary theorist restricting "literature" to "pure fiction."

[LifeOnaPlate]

We know Mark Twain read at least some of it--enough so that he felt he could give an honest review of it. There is no reason not to take him at his word on that point.

Where can this honest review be found? I have read his terse dismissal in Roughing It, but have yet to see the honest review of which you speak.

Of course most copies of The Book of Mormon never get read. Iâ??m just saying that there is a constant pulse that pushes this book into peopleâ??s awareness. It isnâ??t an obscure book.

Knowing the title of a book is so very much different than knowing its contents.

Motivated by that constant pulse, some people read it because they want a well-rounded liberal education or simply because of curiosity. If the book had authentic literary merit, some of those people would recognize the literary merit, and they would recommend it, which would lead to more readers and more recommendations, which would eventually lead it to become widely regarded.

I suspect you're unaware of folks like Margaret Barker and Harold Bloom; non-LDS folks who have praised the Book of Mormon. Further, the BoM is a peculiar book. It is supposed to have come from an angel, and translated by "magick" spectacles, etc. It makes a claim on the reader that isn't necessarily a comfortable one.

The few brave souls who do read it as literature don't recommend it.

Can you name a few? I noted a few who do recommend it. Further, there are Mormon studies programs in colleges throughout the US who read at least portions of the Book of Mormon. Also, the Book of Mormon was just released as part of the "Penguin Classics" series; books published by British publisher Penguin. According to the wiki, "Books in this series are seen by literary critics as important members of the Western canon, though many titles are translated or of non-western origin." One such non-Western book is the Dead Sea Scrolls which is also part of the series. Other books in the series? ****ens, Homer, the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Bhagavad Gita. While we're on the subject of people supposedly not recommending the book, you might be interested to know that the intro essay to the Penguin edition was written by Laurie Maffly-Kipp. She's not a Mormon.

Education:

Ph.D., Yale University, Department of History (1990)

M. Phil., Yale University, Department of History (1986)

M.A., Yale University, Department of Religious Studies (1985)

B.A., Summa cum laude, Amherst College (1982)

More on her here.

Further, as noted above, you show a stunning lack of understanding regarding what literary analysis actually entails especially considering your overconfidence on the subject. Reading your thoughts on literature exposes your lack of familiarity with the subject which from my perspective holds very little water based on your own comments.

[consiglieri]

Because I have yet to figure out how to parse quotes, I will respond below in a different color:

Iâ??ll play ball. Approaching this as literature, I donâ??t find the story very compelling. Mormon is this sober character that had everything figured out by the age of 10, and is just watching society oscillate a little before its ultimate, inevitable fall. God clearly and repeatedly warned them that if they were wicked they would fall. Mormon had a perfect understanding of this and consistently repeated the warning. Society chose wickedness and was destroyed as promised.

First, off, thank you for playing ball with such a detailed and cogent response. I really appreciate it.

You are right that Mormon is a sober character. It is a bit interesting that Ammaron is quoted as saying to him that he is a "sober" lad, but when Mormon describes himself later at age 16, he says he is "somewhat sober." An interesting touch, I think.

I think that Mormon's having everything figured out is a little bit more complicated as I read the text more closely. Mormon is definitely set on the principle that what the people need is not better weaponry against the Lamanites, but repentance. That seems to never waver. What I find interesting is that Mormon is the one who repents; but when he does so, he repents of his oath to not lead the Nephites in battle; an oath which he should not have been making in the first place. In other words, he lambasts the Nephites for vowing to go up to battle for revenge against the Lamanites, and then when this is the straw that breaks the camel's back, Mormon himself makes his own oath to not lead them anymore.

Another interesting thing about Mormon is that after excoriating the Nephites for not recognizing God as the source of their early few victories, Mormon himself takes credit for their three "wins." He says "three times have I delivered you." This is reminiscent of the problem Moses had in taking credit for bringing the water out of the rock, a choice of words that God held against him sufficiently to prevent him from entering the promised land.

Iâ??d see Mormon as a tragic character in the Greek sense if he somehow had the power to save society, but because he incorrectly made a promise, or broke the promise, or didnâ??t have faith or hope, he somehow inadvertently caused the collapse he was trying to avoid and then died knowing that despite his best efforts, societyâ??s doom was his fault.

I think you are right if we expand Mormon's role as tragic figure to include his ability to save all the Nephites, an ability which clearly he does not have, though he does hold the key; a key which despite his best efforts the Nephites are unwilling to use. It seems that Mormon did have the ability to control his own destiny, however, and that as far as his ultimate demise is concerned, it was his choice to sacrifice himself in battle for love of his people, even though he had to violate an oath he took to God in order to do so.

Making and breaking the promise is an interesting little twist, but whether or not he made or kept the promise was irrelevant to the larger misfortunes. Itâ??s like heâ??s on the Titanic and he promises that he wonâ??t bail water because he knows it wonâ??t help, but then breaks that promise and tries to bail water, still correctly knowing it wonâ??t help. Perhaps that is a little sad or pathetic, but there is no great epiphany, irony, or Achilles heel. In calling the people to repent he did all heâ??or anybodyâ??could do.

I hear what you are saying, but if we use the Titanic allegory, Mormon was more the only guy who knew the ship was headed for the iceberg even before it hit; and Mormon had this little lifeboat hidden away; and Mormon could have used that lifeboat anytime he wanted either before or after hitting the iceberg; but chooses to go down with the ship anyway for love of his fellow man.

The events are simple rather than complex, and Mormon is a victim of the circumstances of his society rather than Godâ??s whimsical will or a fatal character flaw. Good tragedies leave you walking away with a deep sense of empathy towards people who were either dealt a bad hand or somehow screwed up, and you have this profound feeling that there but for the grace of God go I.

I think that if we look at Mormon's demise, we could say that his fatal character flaw was his love of his people. It was only because of his love that he agreed to lead his people in a hopeless battle rather than simply recording the demise of his people as a silent witness like Ether does at the end of the Jaredites. Mormon was certainly dealt a bad hand by being born when he was, and he screwed up when he broke the oath he made with God; the fact he broke it for love of his people seems profound to me. He had the choice between love of God (keeping the oath) or love of his people (breaking the oath). He chose his people over God knowing it would result in his death.

This story leaves you without empathy and without connection: it creates a chasm between the smugly righteous and the wailing unrighteous, and shows that one group gets the credit for bringing Godâ??s blessings and the other gets credit for bringing his condemnations. How God deals out rewards and punishments is always clear and straightforward. Mormon was righteous. The Nephites as a whole were wicked. Mormon did all anybody could do; he gave them a clear and accurate warning. With little delay and with no twist or subtlety, God did to the wicked exactly what he said he would. It is one-dimensional and boring.

The interesting thing about Mormon is that he wasn't really that righteous, something I didn't notice until this most recent reading of the text. He takes credit for the Nephite victories; he violates God's command about making oaths, and then breaks the oath he made. In this way, Mormon seems much more three-dimensional to me than many other Book of Mormon characters.

I certainly respect the fact that his story leaves you without empathy and without connection. I have found that, for me personally, I walk away from the story deeply moved.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[LifeOnaPlate]

bump