I'm going to take a page from Bezos and "disagree and upvote". I think the Book of Mormon (which I will hereafter abbreviate as BoM) is worth reading once, even if you are just curious about its contents. But I would not elevate it beyond elaborate fiction as its adherents do. I have been meeting with Mormons from our local ward for several months now, and these are my conclusions after long hours of research into both sides. (Disclaimer: I am a Christian and a staunch advocate of sola scriptura[0]. My opinions are biased.)

First, it is important to approach the BoM knowing that it has many problems. If it is divine truth and "the most correct book ever produced", as its author/"translator" Joseph Smith claimed, then its claims about history should be correct. After all, if the Bible says something about an ancient city like Jericho or Jerusalem, we expect to find archaeological evidence to support or refute this claim. When we apply this test to the BoM, we find that its recording of history has no support in archaeology. The MormonThink website (which claims to be objective but tends toward anti-Mormon positions) does a good job of summarizing these issues.[1] And archaeology is just one of the many irreconcilable problems. There are also the problems of geography (no one knows where the events described in the BoM actually took place), language (no evidence of "reformed Egyptian" has ever been found anywhere), and genetics (mitochondrial DNA shows no evidence for migrations of Semitic peoples to the Americas). Mormons defend these points with elaborate, seemingly plausible explanations, but as time goes on the lack of evidence becomes a louder and louder witness against the BoM.

Second, the BoM has issues with manuscript reliability. With the New Testament, we have approximately 5,800 manuscripts (varying in length) in the original Greek, and when you add in early translations into Coptic, Aramaic, Syriac, and other languages, we have around 25,000 such fragments. A small number of these fragments can be dated to within 50-150 years of the time of the original writing, which is incredible when compared to contemporary documents and does much to establish credibility. The large number of fragments is important for error correction: when textual variants occur (as they always do), you can usually examine multiple sources to determine what was in the original. For the BoM, on the other hand, we have no original manuscript, no "golden plates" inscribed with "reformed Egyptian". Only a few witnesses were supposedly allowed to see these plates, but whether they saw them with their physical eyes or saw them in a "vision" is up to your interpretation of their testimony. There is a very real possibility that these plates never existed or were merely a forged prop. Furthermore, if these plates did exist and there was only one copy, it would be extremely vulnerable to corruption. Without the source manuscript, we can never be certain that the official English translation (which has received at least 3,913 changes[2] since its original publication in 1830) is accurate. Joseph Smith's ability to translate anything by divine power is already in question because of his incorrect translations of Egyptian papyrus scrolls for the Book of Abraham.[3]

Third, and perhaps most importantly, most of what makes Mormons Mormon is, surprisingly, not found in the BoM. Despite being called "the fulness[sic] of the gospel", the BoM fails to talk (in detail or at all) about central Mormon doctrines such as temple ordinances, the celestial kingdom(s), baptism for the dead, and premortal existence. Most of these things are actually found in the later additions, particularly the Doctrine & Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. Certain of these newer doctrines actually conflict with the BoM. The BoM, for example, quite clearly supports trinitarian monotheism[4], a doctrine that has existed in Christianity since its inception and was formalized in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds. Current Mormon doctrine denies this idea of the Trinity, and gives yet more elaborate explanations in an attempt to reconcile this doctrine with the BoM. This ends up creating more holes than it plugs, and reminds one of the attempts to reconcile the geocentric model of the solar system with observational data by simply adding more epicycles. By itself, the BoM makes few doctrinal claims that a typical Baptist or Methodist would take issue with. But after the doctrinal revisions of the 1830s and 1840s, many important members of the early Mormon church, including some of the witnesses to the golden plates, left to join other churches or start their own denominations.

If you do choose to read the BoM, do so with an open mind and with knowledge of the problems listed above and described in detail elsewhere. One certainly cannot deny that the Mormon church today is responsible for much social good, and that Mormons in general are kind, caring, and serving people with high moral standards. Like the Bible, the BoM has had a positive impact on the lives of many. Using this to claim proof of the BoM's divine origin is a logical stretch, but we fortunately live in an age where (in most places) such opinions can be held without fear of persecution.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[1] http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-mormon-problems.htm#archa...

[2] http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/3913intro.htm

[3] http://www.mormonthink.com/book-of-abraham-issues.htm

[4] https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/31.21?lang=eng#p20