Overview
This issue has some classic moments in it, but for the most
part is not “must read” material. The rather long, but quite enjoyable, review
essay at the beginning is Daniel C. Peterson at his best. He seems to rarely
write this way anymore, which I think is unfortunate. Reviews by several others
are worth taking a look at, as recommended below, but this, like other issues,
has its share of what I’ve been calling “fluff.” About 7 (out of 19) reviews
dealt substantively with critical arguments (~37%). It seems, then, that from
Volumes 3–5, the Review hovered just under 1/3 of all reviews/essays being
directed at the critics of the Church.
Of note is that two of the reviews recommended here are
critical of pro-LDS work, including one that offers some criticisms of one of
FARMS own publications. I point this out because it has been insinuated fairly
recently that the old apologetics (“classic-FARMS” as it is often called) never
allowed for scrutiny and revision of apologetic positions. Such has not been
the case from the very beginning of the Review.
Recommended Reading
Daniel C. Peterson, “Chattanooga Cheapshot, or The Gall of Bitterness,” a review of John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Mormonism (Eugene, OR), pg. 1-86: This is classic DCP right here.
Devastating arguments in a humorous, enjoyable-to-read style. Yes, some of that
humor comes at the expense of the authors being reviewed (and no, that is not ad hominem), but I would seriously
challenge anyone to read the actual book under review and then come back and
tell me that Peterson is too harsh. Ankerburg and Weldon are dishonest and
deceptive, condescending and nasty, and through all of that, their arguments
are incredibly weak. Peterson’s review is just right, in my opinion. Peterson
briefly explores the authors and their (alleged) credentials, simple errors of
fact, their dishonest and lacking examination of LDS apologetics, deceptive
arguments that LDS are demonic, surveys their condescending tone, and more. Peterson
then discusses issues like archaeology and scripture, including a discussion of
the differences between Mesoamerican and Palestinian archaeology, the
limitations of archaeology in confirming even the Bible, etc. Then Peterson
examines specific issues such as: the Smithsonian Statement, warfare,
transoceanic contact, the translation process, Judeo-Egyptian (my term)
writing, Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, arguments for plagiarism, and
accusations against the witnesses. Peterson then responds to arguments that
depend on fundamentalist assumptions not shared by LDS, including a couple of
issues with the Book of Mormon Isaiah’s dependence on KJV Isaiah. Peterson then
responds to a lengthy list of straw man arguments. Among these are: changes in
the Book of Mormon (and their supposed secrecy), coins in the Book of Mormon, the Thomas
Stuart Ferguson narrative, the “fullness of the gospel” arguments, Jacob’s
condemnation of polygamy, the use of KJV idiom in the Book of Mormon, and
“adieu” in the Book of Mormon. He then addresses “alleged absurdities” raised
by Ankerburg and Weldon, like supposed contradictions between the Book of
Mormon and Bible, most notably the Jesus being born in Jerusalem bit (and
Peterson is quite thorough on this point). As you can see, this review covers
many of the most common issues, and as such can be a good way to get some
general background on Book of Mormon apologetics, and in an enjoyable (albeit
long!) read.
Alan Goff, “Reduction and Enlargement: Harold Bloom’s Mormons,” a review of Harold Bloom, The American Religion: The Emergence of the Post-Christian Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992), pg. 96-108: Goff focuses largely on the
negative, but does point out that there are positive aspects of Bloom’s
portrayal of Mormonism. The key thing that makes this review worth reading is,
as a counterexample to Fawn Brodie’s (and by extension, Blooms) weak reading of
the Book of Mormon, Goff provides a fascinating analysis of the Ammon narrative
as a type of literary allusion called “narrative analogy.” Insightful and well
worth the read. Afterwards, Goff makes an astute point: How is it that Joseph
Smith, if he is the author of the Book of Mormon, consistently proves to be a
better, stronger reader of the Bible than his own, well-educated critics? This
conundrum has, so far as I am aware, yet to be solved.
Daniel C. Peterson, “Review of David Whitmer Interviews, ed. Lyndon W. Cook,” pg. 113-115:
This is a brief, and essentially standard book review. Peterson very much
recommends this valuable resource on one of the 3 witnesses. This is worth
recommending due to the brief rejoinder Peterson provides to the notion that
Whitmer’s leaving the Church and later opinions about the Joseph Smith and the
Church has any negative bearing on the relevancy and power of his testimony of
the Book of Mormon.
Louis Midgley, “Playing with Half a Decker: The Countercult Religious Tradition Confronts the Book of Mormon,” a review of Dean Maurice Helland, “Meeting the Book of Mormon Challenge in Chile,” doctoral dissertation, Oral Roberts University, 1990, pg. 116-171: As usual, Midgley
provides loads of fascinating back story to the work in question, tracing the
origins of thought and the author’s experiences that lead to the work under
review. In the process, Midgley gets off on tangents about Loftus Tryk and Ed
Decker, noting that Hellend only goes “halfway” with such luminaries (hence the
title). Toward the end, Midgley offers some comments about the specific claims
made about the Book of Mormon.
John Gee, “Review of The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 5 vols., ed. Daniel H. Ludlow,” pg. 172-182:
Not a major review of importance, but Gee makes all kinds of little corrections
to the articles, and in the process makes a few worthwhile observations, such
as the fact that most Hebraisms in the Book of Mormon are also Egyptianisms, a
correction to the weights and measures article, and a narrowing of the
timeframe in which Zenos may have lived.
Michael F. Whiting, “Lamarck, Giraffes, and the Sermon onthe Mount,” a review of Clark A. Peterson, Using the Book of Mormon to Combat Falsehoods in Organic Evolution (Springville,UT: Cedar Fort, 1992), p. 209-222: Whiting is not at positive about this
book. He points out many of the flaws in Peterson’s arguments, his sloppy
scriptural interpretations, and shows him to be rather ignorant to actual
science and evolutionary biology in particular. While I personally have no
opinion on evolution (or, at least, no opinion that is likely very coherent to
anyone who really knows much about science…there is a reason I’m a history
major), I do believe that it is important that regardless of whether one
accepts or rejects it, they ought to do so on the basis of sound scientific
reasoning (especially if they are going to publish books on it, and therefore
make some kind of living doing so). As such, I think this review is useful in
that it explains some of the problems with poor scientific reasoning that most
average folks might not pick-up on. Since it was also recently reasserted that
the classic-FARMS approach did not subject apologetic or pro-Mormon arguments
to rigorous criticism, this is but one of many reviews that stands as
counter-evidence to such claims. Having read a fairly substantial amount of the
back issues of the Review, along with the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies,
for that matter, I can say that such notions are completely bogus. (Those who
have been following this series of reviews will know I have made it a point to
recommend many articles critical of apologetic and pro-Mormon sources, and to
point such out, as I have done here.)
Gary F. Novak, “Review of Faithful History, ed. George D. Smith,” pg. 231-249: Novak
ultimately recommends the volume, though he is critical of the Smith’s Ed.
Intro, and several of the essays within the volume. Novak is particularly
critical of the contributions by D. Michael Quinn, Malcolm R. Thorp, and Edward
H. Ashment. Running throughout is an ever present critique of the use of the
“o-word” (objectivity) by such historians, among other things. Like the volume
under review, this is an important contribution to the on-going discussion
about how to navigate faith commitments and sound historical method, a
discussion that flared-up again with the recent changes at the Maxwell Institute.
William J. Hamblin, “Review of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner,”pg. 250-272: While it might seem unfair that Hamblin is reviewing a 20 year
old (at the time, 40 years old now) publication and chiding the authors for not
being “up-to-date,” Hamblin goes to pains to demonstrate that the same
information was at the time (the early 1990s) still being regurgitated by both
the Tanners and others, without any mention of more up-to-date LDS scholarship
on the topic. In any event, Hamblin’s review provides an excellent discussion
of the problems inherent in the ways anti-Mormon’s have long approached the
issue of the Book of Mormon and archaeology. A few of the noteworthy points
made by Hamblin are: that LDS scholars disagreeing and critiquing each other is
not due the weakness of evidence for the Book of Mormon, but merely evidence
that Latter-day Saints take the book seriously and as such will not simply
accept any and all claims made for it without critical examination; the issue
of written language in the Book of Mormon with several different questions
which tend to get conflated, but Hamblin does a nice job untangling them and
provides lots of useful information; Hamblin also offers short, but useful
discussions of Quetzalcoatl and Izapa Stela 5 that are reserved and moderate.
Included in this is an excellent statement on the complexity of interpreting
iconography, which is not only applicable to the Book of Mormon and
Mesoamerica, but also to the Book of Abraham and the Facsimiles.
David Rolph Seely, “Review of Reexploring the Book of Mormon, ed. John W. Welch,” pg. 305-316:
Seely’s review is largely positive, but he does provide some critical comments.
Seely notes the murky way that linguistic arguments tend to be made, often
depending on different understandings of the translation and the relationship
between the English text and the original language. Seely is also critical of
an attempt to show the Isaiah of the Book of Mormon agrees with ancient
versions of Isaiah, and offers some particularly strong criticisms of the
Mulek/Malkiyahu connection (although he remains cautiously optimistic about
that possibility). The critical evaluation of the evidence, to determine its
strength, is as important (if not more so) than the evidence itself, and so
reviews like Seely’s are important. It has recently been insinuated that
classic-style Mormon apologetics did not allow for alternative
voices/criticisms of the work used to defend the faith. Reviews like Seely’s,
and several others (including Whiting’s, recommended above) that have been
pointed out on this blog in the past, effectively demonstrate that such is not
the case. There has always been an element of critical evaluation within the
Mormon apologetic tradition.
L. Ara Norwood, “Ignoratio Elenchi: The Dialogue That Never Was,” a review of James R. White, Letters to a Mormon Elder (Southbridge, MA: Crowne, 1990), pg. 317-354: After discussing the ideological/theological
underpinnings that lie behind Whites arguments, Norwood critiques White on the
matter of epistemology, namely Whites arguments that LDS “feelings” (spiritual
witnesses) are unreliable, but his interpretation of the Bible is
unimpeachable. Norwood eventually focuses on White’s arguments related to the
Book of Mormon. He responds to arguments made by White that Book of Mormon is
historically unreliable (due to lack of archaeological evidence), supposed lack
of material culture as described in the Book of Mormon, horses, coins, and the
alleged connection between the Book of Mormon and the View of the Hebrews. He also responds to several other rather
typical arguments made against the Book of Mormon. An important section is the
part on the change from “Benjamin” to “Mosiah.” He then adds a pretty good
section on grace/works, in response to White, of course. Norwood uses some
strong language as he critiques White, but ultimately shows some respect as he
notes that White, who was just up and coming at the time, may prove to be a
more formidable foe in future years as he develops further as a scholar.
(Unfortunately, this hope never materialized.)
Final Thoughts
As I’ve already say, there is not a lot of “must reads” in
this collection, but by all means if any of these sound interesting to you,
then they are probably worth your time. DCP’s review of Ankerburg and Weldon is
worth reading, even though the arguments are quite familiar at this point,
simply because, as I have said, it is DCP at his best. Goff’s insights into
Book of Mormon narratives are always worthwhile, in my opinion. Hamblin’s
review on Book of Mormon archaeology is still useful, and would be good reading
for anyone trying to background on those issues.
Perhaps the one exception to the lack of “must read”
material is the review essay by Novak on Mormon historiography. This is a
discussion that is not only on-going today, but has flared up as of late with
the some of the changes that have gone on in the last year and a half or so. As
such, I think being familiar with these old debates is very important, and
Novak’s review is as important to that discussion as the book under review there.
So, I would say it is arguably on the “must read” level for anyone wanting to
become a Latter-day Saint historian.
Rating: 3/5.
Comments
Post a Comment