A Scholarly Look at Evidence of the Book of Mormon by Daniel C. Peterson The only book that I could think of that may even resemble it in some way (some people have pointed this out) is something like J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.
But we need to remember that Lord of the Rings was produced over a period of about thirty years by a man with a doctorate who taught at Cambridge and Oxford Universities.
It's quite a different thing than a book that was produced in about two months.
So the very existence of the book is an astonishing thing.
It was not something that could just be produced by an upstate New York farm boy just off the top of his head.
There are other things I'll mention in passing.
That only explains why Tolkien is a much better read. Natural story tellers are fantastic at making stories up as they go- I've met some that could probably make up the most of the BOM in a single night if you plyed them with enough food and booze. They'd end the night with a great laugh at the folks who belived them.
The BOM is mostly just a poor imitation of the KJV- with some parts lifted word for word- revised to takeout the inconsistencies over the years. Smith even went so far as to rewrite parts of the Bible to prop up his stories. I found it depressing that people would take this seriously as God's word.