Although this is only the second issue, here you can already
see the Review taking the form for
which it was known for by 2000s. Don’t get me wrong, this issue still consists
mostly of standard, run-of-the-mill book reviews, but I was surprised at how
many I found containing some valuable insight, giving it merit entirely independent
of the book under review. I have recommended here 13 of the 30 articles this
issue contains. While a lot of these are still just short reviews of a book (5
of them are under 5 pages in length), several of them are much more than that.
There is also plenty of good apologetics in here, with a couple lengthy reviews
of anti-Mormon books, or books that seek to explain the Book of Mormon in
naturalistic terms. There are also reviews, primarily of Hugh Nibley books,
that offer important reflections on the methodology for studying Book of Mormon
historicity. A handful of the reviews also cover Book of Mormon geography in a
number of ways. Then a number of random reviews of scripture helps and
“scriptural fiction” and what-not round out the volume.
Recommended Reading
Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction – By What Measure Shall We Mete?” pg.vii-xxvi: The introduction to the inaugural issue was more or less what you
might expect from an editor’s introduction. With this introduction to the
second issue, DCP takes the occasion to opine on matters that he feels are
important or relevant, a practice that would become a hallmark of the Review in years to come, when some would
characterize it as his “bully pulpit.” In this essay, Peterson argues that the
beliefs and teachings of the LDS Church merit consideration, based on the fact
that many intelligent, well-informed people have found those beliefs
compelling. Despite this, Peterson notes the non-LDS scholarly indifference
toward the Book of Mormon (which is beginning to change, but is still more or
less true today), giving particular focus to the fact that opinion can vary on
matters of quality and style of the books writing, just as they have with many
books which have since come to be regarded as “classics.” As Peterson points out,
however, in the final analysis, it is not the beauty of the book, but its truth
that really matters. And truth can be stated well, or poorly, but is still
truth nonetheless.
Richard Dilworth Rust, “Annual FARMS Lecture: The Book of Mormon, Designed for our Day,”pg. 1-23: Rust gives what I believe was the first annual FARMS Lecture,
though I maybe be mistaken on that point. Rust uses the purposes of the Book of
Mormon stated in the title page and analyzes various passages in the Book of
Mormon in light of those stated aims, with particular focus on how the passages
literary structure (i.e., “design”) helps reinforced the intended message. Rust
also works in a short analysis of the Book of Mormon as an epic.
Daniel C. Peterson, “Review of Mormonism: The Prophet, the Book and the Cult, by Peter Bartley,” pg. 31-55: The book
under review is a classic anti-Mormon book, and responding to such polemical
books with equally polemical reviews is likely what served to shape the image
of “classic FARMS.” In this review, Peterson discusses others in the Americas during
Book of Mormon times, Hebrew in Pre-Columbian America, Pre-Columbian
Mesoamerican cities, and weaponry and warfare in the Book of Mormon and
Mesoamerica, and translation issues.
David A. Palmer, “Review of The Land of the Nephites, by Delbert W. Curtis,” pg. 67-73: While the book by Curtis is
not particularly influential today (though, unfortunately, it is not entirely
irrelevant either), Book of Mormon geography is an ever present topic of
debate, and those wishing to enter the foray ought to familiarize themselves
with ground already tread. While not presenting the ultimate “key” to
evaluating Book of Mormon geographies, as Clark set out to do in the first
volume of the Review, Palmer’s review
does provide a useful summary of the criteria he sets out in more detail in his
book, and a short synopsis of the archeology of New York with a brief
explanation as to why it does not fit the Book of Mormon description of peoples
and cultures.
Daniel B. McKinlay, “Review of A Hermeneutic of Sacred Texts: Historicism, Revisionism, Positivism, and the Bible and Book of Mormon, by Alan Goff,” pg. 86-95: McKinlay provides the reader with a
short summary and evaluation of Goff’s master thesis, a much appreciated glimpse
since the thesis is even to this day not widely available. According to
McKinlay, Goff challenges notions of revisionism and positivism and their
naturalistic assumptions, questions the possibility of “objectivity,” and speaks
of the need to be up front about implicit assumptions. Goff also tries to apply
various hermeneutic approaches to the Book of Mormon and yields various
insights into stories like the stealing of the dancing Lamanite daughters
(Mosiah 20), Nephi’s broken bow (1 Nephi 16), and the exodus, flood, and
creation motifs of 1 Nephi.
John Gee, “Review of By Grace Are We Saved,by Robert Millet,” pg. 100-106: Gee gives an overwhelmingly positive review
of Millet’s book, but more fascinating for our purposes is Gee’s exercise in
definitions for the Greek term charis,
commonly translated as “grace.” Gee notes that there is a wide variety of
definitions, and points out over 40 of them. With such wide variance of the
meaning, the common Evangelical arguments about what it means to be “saved by
grace” are seriously undercut. It simply cannot be said that “saved by grace”
means doing nothing in conjunction with that.
William J. Hamblin, “Time Vindicates Hugh Nibley,” a review of Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Mormon, THE COLLECTED WORKS OF HUGH NIBLEY: Volume 6 (Salt Lake City/Provo, UT: Deseret Book/FARMS, 1988), pg. 119-127: Hamblin comments on
a number points in which Nibley proved to be ahead of his time, making claims
about the ancient Near Eastern world during the era in which the Book of Mormon
emerges which were then (the mid to late ’80s)
gaining acceptance among scholars. Hamblin also draws attention to both
the strengths and weaknesses of Nibley’s methodology.
Stephen D. Ricks, “Review of Lehi in the Deseret,THE COLLECTED WORKS OF HUGH NIBLEY: Volume 5, by Hugh Nibley,” pg. 128-142:
Ricks also discusses Nibley’s methodology, focusing primarily on the strengths
of Nibley’s method, and noting the lack of methodological rigorousness of
critics of the Book of Mormon. Ricks discussion transcends the limitations of
simply being a book review, and becomes a very good methodological discussion
in its own right. Ricks also responds to a few criticisms of Book of Mormon
origins, focusing on common arguments he had heard. Among those included is a
great discussion of anachronisms, the question-begging such arguments involve,
and the fact that texts always have more to offer than what archaeology itself
can tell us. Ricks also discusses the fragmentary nature of the archaeological
record.
David B. Honey, “Ecological Nomadism versus Epic Heroism in Ether: Nibley’s Works on the Jaredites,” review of Hugh Nibley, The World of the Jaredites/There Were Jaredites, THE COLLECTED WORKS OF HUGH NIBLEY: Volume 5 (Salt LakeCity/Provo, UT: Deseret Book/FARMS, 1988), pg. 143-163: Honey reviews and
critiques the approach taken by Hugh Nibley in his works on the Ether, though
he still gives Nibley high marks and recommends his work. As such, this review
could be considered as some supplementary reading to go along with Nibley’s
discussions of Jaredite history.
Daniel C. Peterson, “Review of The Prophetic Book of Mormon, THE COLLECTED WORKSOF HUGH NIBLEY: Volume 8, by Hugh Nibley,” pg. 164-174:
Peterson reviews the diversity of the collection, and through Nibley, he
critiques the arguments of the “environmentalists” (those who argue for
naturalistic origins for the Book of Mormon). Peterson notes the methodological
problems with the approaches of “environmentalists,” not withstanding the
elitist attitude they take toward those who argue for the book’s antiquity.
Peterson also argues that the believers approach is actually more
methodologically sound.
John A. Tvedtnes, “Review of Since Cumorah, THE COLLECTED WORKS OF HUGH NIBLEY: Volume 7, by Hugh Nibley,” pg. 175-181:
Like others, Tvedtnes highlights both some strengths and weaknesses of Nibley’s
work and offers supplementary material, focusing on the Olive tree in ancient
sources.
L. Ara Norwood, “Review of Joseph Smith and the Origins of the Book of Mormon, by David Persuitte,” pg. 187-204: Persuitte
argues that the View of the Hebrews
was the ultimate, and primary, source for the Book of Mormon. According to
Norwood, he even makes the most convincing case to date for that theory (and I
have my doubts that a better case has been made since 1990). The problem is, it
is still not very convincing. Norwood points out several of the flaws with
Persuitte’s method and arguments. Most significantly, Norwood points out that
when you count by the number of verses cited as parallels to VotH, Persuitte is only able to account
for 4.5% of the Book of Mormon. So where did the other 95.5% come from,
especially if VotH is the primary source? If that is the best VotH proponents can do, well, then that
ain’t good enough.
Kevin Christensen, “Review of Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon, by Dan Vogel,” pg. 214-257: In the longest
review of volume 2, Christensen provides an absolutely essential discussion of
paradigms and choosing between them, and the issue of adequacy, suggesting that
Vogel does not adequately justify the choice of his paradigm over that of
others. Christensen then reviews 10 non-empirical assumptions made by Vogel (as
part of his paradigm), and points to data that indicate their inadequacy in
explaining the origins of the Book of Mormon. These include topics like: the
pre-1830 intellectual environment as a source for the Book of Mormon, Nephites
and mound builders, the Wentworth letter as a guide to the text, others in Book
of Mormon lands, the priority of tradition when interpreting the Book of
Mormon, the hemispheric geography, the translation process, and anachronisms.
Christensen has valuable thoughts on all of these points. Christensen also
questions Vogel’s mastery of the Book of Mormon text, using his denial of the
existence of the temple ceremony in the Book of Mormon as the prime example.
Christensen then goes on to compare various Book of Mormon passages (mostly
from 3 Nephi) to what non-LDS scholars have said about the ancient Israelite
temple drama. Lots of very interesting and worthwhile stuff is covered on that
topic. Vogel and Christensen end up going back and forth in the wake of this review,
with two more responses from Christensen being published in the Review 5 and 14 years later.
Final Thoughts
Here in this issue we see the beginnings of the classic
FARMS image. Peterson’s review of Peter Bartley’s anti-Mormon polemic was the
first of many polemics to be published in the Review. While it still has lots of “fluff,” much of this volume is
worth reading. In particular, Peterson’s intro and his Nibley review both make
salient points that were rather timely
for me as a reader, with current discussions raging about the so-called
“apologetics of richness” and the strong push, by certain LDS intellectual
elite, against studying the Book of Mormon and other LDS scripture in an
ancient context. I would even go so far as to say these two pieces from
Peterson are must-reads thanks to the remarks he makes on those issues. I also
think Ricks review of Nibley is must-read for its valuable discussion of
methodology (of all the papers that discuss it, his is the best), and
Christensen’s lengthy review is a must-read for the discussion of paradigms.
Christensen has been stressing paradigms ever since, and his thoughts on the
matter are much needed. Far too many are ignoring the significance of competing
paradigms in regard to Book of Mormon historicity and how one weighs the
evidence. Beyond those, Honey’s review should probably be read and taken into
consideration by anyone who reads Nibley’s works on the Jaredites.
Though it still has, as I said, “fluff” in the form of now
pointless book reviews, overall this is a pretty impressive second effort.
Rating: 4/5
Comments
Post a Comment