Overview
Early LDS
history seems to take center stage in this issue, with two reviews on Nauvoo
polygamy and a review and an article related to the Mountain Meadows massacre
and the Utah War. It also features articles on the relationship between reason
and faith, scholarship and discipleship, science and scripture. Book of Mormon
geography theories are explored, Hugh Nibley is venerated, and the purpose
behind “debating evangelicals” is explored.
Recommended Reading:
Louis Midgley, “Editors Introduction – Debating Evangelicals,” pg. xi-xlviii: Midgley articulates
why debating with Evangelicals is futile, even though some maybe cordial. I
believe the most important observation Midgley makes is that by focusing on
theology in such debates, Evangelicals manage to sidestep the issue of the
historicity of Joseph Smith’s theophanies and of the Book of Mormon. Doing so
consistently puts LDS on the defensive and gives Evangelicals the upper hand,
but it is a problematic approach; because if Joseph Smith really saw God and Jesus Christ, if the Book of Mormon really is ancient, then theological
quarrels are all moot – such debates are hollow and meaningless. The debates
over theology truly amount to nothing but “he said/she said” affairs, but
something like the authenticity of the Book of Mormon would settle matter. If
God has really spoken to prophets – our prophets,
to be precise – then it doesn’t matter what arguments can be mustered to
counter our doctrinal points of view.
Gregory L. Smith, “George D.Smith’s Nauvoo Polygamy,” a review of George D. Smith, Nauvoo Polygamy: “…but we called it celestial marriage” (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2008), pg. 37-123: First off, don’t get confused by the similarity in names
between author and reviewer. Second, this is a must read. Running on for over
80 pages, GL Smith repeatedly demonstrates problems with GD Smith’s
presentation of history. The most egregious of errors, however, is the blatant
manipulation and misrepresentation that occurs on the very first page, where GD
Smith heavily edits (through ellipses) a letter Joseph Smith wrote to make it
out to be a scandalous letter pleading for a midnight tryst with his plural
wife. In reality, the letter was to the whole family, and there was nothing
scandalous about it. There is a lot of valuable information about early Mormon
polygamy discussed throughout the article and important historical context
which is missing from many other sources that treat this issue (including the
book under review).
Brant A. Gardner, “This Idea: The ‘This Land’ Series and the U.S.-Centric Reading of the Book of Mormon,” review of Edwin G. Goble and Wayne N.May, This Land: Zarahemla and the Nephite Nation (Colfax,WI: Ancient American Archaeology, 2002); Wayne N. May, This Land: Only One Cumorah! (Colfax, WI: Ancient AmericanArchaeology, 2004); Wayne N. May, This Land: They Came from the East (Colfax,WI: Ancient American Archaeology, 2005), pg. 141-162: In the interest of disclosure, it should
first and foremost be pointed out that Goble no longer affiliates with May, and
does not hold the views expressed in
the volume which he co-authored. Gardner notes this, and reproduces an email
Goble sent him in full, without any editing. With that said, Gardner seems to
have become the new “Book of Mormon Geography critic,” filling in the role the
John E. Clark once frequently filled. Gardner points out geographic and
cultural problems with May’s geography, problems which Rod Meldrum has
inherited as he became the new leader (and perhaps even hero) of the so-called
“heartland movement.” He also shows that the Michigan artifacts have been quite
conclusively demonstrated to be forgeries.
Duane Boyce, “Of Science, Scripture, and Surprise,” a review of Trent D.Stephens and D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Evolution and Mormonism: A Quest for Understanding (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books, 2001), pg. 163-214:
Boyce discusses the importance of having a nuanced view of science and it
works, which isn’t always as smooth as the ideal. He uses the work of Stephen
Jay Gould, a paleontologist to illustrate the problems in the practice of
science and stresses the importance of realizing that science gets things right
eventually, not necessarily always or
“constantly.” He concludes by saying that he thinks eventually there will be
another explanation for life that does not invoke evolution, and he thinks the
theistic evolutionists are in for a surprise. Regardless of what one thinks of
his conclusions, the article is a must read for understanding the complex
relationships that exist between science, scripture, and truth.
Robert H. Briggs, “A Scholarly Look at the Disastrous Mountain Meadows Massacre,” a review of Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley Jr., and Glen M.Leonard, Massacre at Mountain Meadows: An American Tragedy (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2008), pg. 215-235: Briggs provides a summary of the contents
of what is currently the definitive work on the Mountain Meadows massacre. He
then offers his evaluation, noting both what he thought were strengths and
weaknesses of the analysis.
William P. MacKinnon, “The Utah War and Its Mountain Meadows Massacre:Lessons Learned, Surprises Encountered,” pg. 237-251: MacKinnon (who I believe is a non-Mormon)
discusses various matters related to the Utah War and the Mountain Meadows
Massacre.
Shirley S. Ricks, “A Sure Foundation,” a review of Ronald V. Huggins,“Hugh Nibley’s Footnotes,” Salt Lake City Messenger 110 (May 2008): 9-21, pg. 253-291: Ricks responds to the accusation’s leveled
at Nibley’s scholarship, particularly regarding his use (or fabrication) of
sources. Drawing on the experience of those to meticulously verified Nibley’s
notes, Ricks argues that all things considered Nibley was pretty darn good.
Final Thoughts
I would venture to
say the GL Smith and Boyce give us the only two must-read pieces in this
collection. The introduction by Midgley, and reviews by Gardner and Briggs also
make for important contributions is their respective fields.
Rating: 3/5
Comments
Post a Comment