In this, the final issue of the FARMS Review (before the name was changed to the Mormon Studies Review), the shifts in
emphasis (which prompted the name change) are quite apparent. Much less
book-review-centric, and not burdened down by any sort of commitment to review everything (which, I think, is the
mentality which produced the much larger volumes of old), this issue offers a
modest collection of essays, most of which are on the Book of Mormon. Rod
Meldrum’s heartland theory remains on center stage as it is scrutinized in two
reviews (recommended together below) by Matt Roper. Other topics in this issue
are LDS apologetics, letters in the Book of Mormon, the promised land covenant
in the Book of Mormon, Book of Mormon historicity, and social trends among
America’s youth.
Recommended Reading:
Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction – An Unapologetic Apology for Apologetics,pg. ix-xlviii: With such a punny title, how could I resist recommending
this one? Here, Peterson addresses the concerns of those who object to the
practice of apologetics, including those who are members of the Church. By the
end, however, this essay morphs into a call to action for all Latter-day Saints
to get engaged online and not let our enemies define who we are on the web.
Having started this blog before this article was published (and before he
presented the bulk of this paper at the 2010 FAIR Conference, of which I was in
attendance), I could give myself the proverbial pat on the back for already
doing my part. (Never mind that this blog is virtually ignored by the world!)
Matthew Roper, “Joseph Smith, Revelation, and Book of Mormon Geography,” and “Losing the Remnant: The New Exclusivist ‘Movement’ and the Book of Mormon,” both
reviews of Bruce H. Porter and Rod L. Meldrum, Prophecies and Promises: The Book of Mormon and the United States of
America (New York, NY: Digital Legend, 2009), pg. 15-85, 87-124: Roper
delves into the background assumptions of Porter and Meldrum, and examines
various of their crucial claims, namely the meaning of the terms “this land,”
“this country” and “this continent,” and the question of whether any revelation
has been provided offering insight into Book of Mormon geography. Roper also
examines the value of various documents, such as the Wentworth letter, Zelph
accounts, etc., and then discusses the additional statements from Joseph Smith
that include Central and South America as a part of the Book of Mormon lands.
Included here is a discussion of the 1842 Times
and Seasons articles and what role Joseph Smith may have played in them.
Roper briefly discusses new wordprint analysis that suggests Joseph Smith as
the principal author of those editorials. Roper then discusses the prophecies
and promises that Porter and Meldrum cite from the Book of Mormon text, and
demonstrates that they are not exclusive to the United States. Finally, Roper
outlines the history of the LDS missionary work to the “Lamanites,” showing
that this has encompassed all of the
Americas, and also cites several dedicatory prayers of Temples throughout the
Americas that make reference to the children of Lehi and the fulfillment of the
Book of Mormon prophecies.
Robert F. Smith, “Epistolary Form in the Book of Mormon,” pg. 125-135: Smith
briefly examines the letters found in the Book of Mormon, illustrating that
they follow the form of ancient Canaanite letters, rather than the later
Hellenistic form, as some have asserted. At the very end he makes some
interesting notes regarding the use of Egyptian by Israelite scribes.
Steven L. Oslen, “The Covenant of the Promised Land: Territorial Symbolism in the Book of Mormon,” pg. 137-154:
Building on the paper published in just the previous issue of the Review, Olsen explores the way “land” is
used in the Book of Mormon to express concepts and realties beyond the mere
geographic realities and holds symbolic significance in the covenants of the
Book of Mormon.
Kevin Christensen, “Hindsight on a Book of Mormon Historicity Critique,” a review of William D. Russell, “A Further Inquiry into the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” Sunstone (September-October,1892): 20-27, pg. 155-194: Christensen uses this old critique of Book of
Mormon historicity to assess the trends in Book of Mormon scholarship.
Christensen discusses paradigms, and how one’s paradigm will typically dictate
how one deals with “puzzles” or “counter-instances.” He then looks back at
Russell’s critique and shows (1) that Russell didn’t even take all present
scholarship into consideration, and (2) that as time has gone on, many of
Russell’s objections have been resolved, while others are trending in a
direction that looks better for the Book of Mormon. Thus, in hindsight,
Russell’s reasons for abandoning faith in the Book of Mormon do not seem to be
well grounded. This, in my view, underscores the problem with the “critical
approach,” namely that it asks (and even sometimes demands) that the we make an absolute determination on the Book of
Mormon’s authenticity on the basis of tentative and incomplete information. It
is no wonder this approach does not fare well nearly thirty years later.
John Gee, “On Corrupting the Youth,” a review of Christian Smith, Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of Emerging Adults, with Patricia Snell (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 2009) and Mark D. Regnerus, Forbidden Fruit: Sex and Religion in the Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press, 2007), pg. 195-228: I ended up enjoying this paper far more
than I thought I would. Gee discusses how Latter-day Saint youth have fared in
comparison with their other religious counter-parts, noting mostly good news,
but also seeing some area’s for improvement. Gee also discusses the negative
impact on society that more secular attitudes toward sex and marriage have had,
expanding beyond the two studies under review. While Gee (who is an
Egyptologist) does a nice job of summarizing the data, the complaint I have is
that they did not enlist someone with more specific expertise in the social
services to comment. Such a person may have been able to offer some additional
insights and/or critiques.
Final Thoughts
All but one
of the essays has been recommended. I think Roper’s reviews of Meldrum and
Porter are must read material, and between him and Greg Smith, I think they
essentially dealt death blows to Meldrum’s theory – which unfortunately
continues to circulate. (Please share these reviews with anyone you can, the
problems need to be known, and if Meldrum is to maintain any credibility they
need to be addressed.) Christensen’s review is very near the must read level,
and Gee’s survey of social trends makes an important contribution as well. In
the end, though I think the review has seen better days, this is without a
doubt a valuable contribution to the studies of Mormon themes.
Rating: 3/5
Comments
Post a Comment