This issue has a great editorial introduction which
discusses the then-current controversies involving FARMS and Signature Books, a
fascinating chapter in Mormon apologetics and even just Mormon studies more
broadly. After this introduction, however, the issue starts slowly, and never
really fully picks up steam. Of the first 12 reviews, only one engages a volume
critical of Mormons, and even that review is relatively short. There are also a
couple more interesting reviews of faithful books, but nothing particularly
noteworthy. Of the remaining 18 reviews, only 6 of them engage critical
material, and most of it is standard sectarian anti-Mormonism, which only 4
volumes in is already getting boring. (I can only imagine what it was like for
those who had to keep reviewing these books.) I nonetheless recommend these
reviews because they tend to have potentially useful material on the Book of
Mormon, and for the sake of some who may not have already gotten over the
standard hurdles of 1990s anti-Mormonism who might find these reviews helpful.
Of interest is the reviews of Charles Larson’s By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus. While most
of sectarian anti-Mormonism was getting stale, the Book of Abraham debates were
just beginning to get interesting. John Gee and Michael Rhodes both review it
here and provide some very interesting information. Altogether, counting the
introduction, there are 8 pieces in this issue which deal seriously with
critical claims, out of 31 total, which is about 26% of the reviews. The rest
isn’t complete fluff, but is for the most part uninteresting and irrelevant
today, with a few minor exceptions. A couple reviews had an interesting insight
once or twice, but were not consistently engaging.
Recommended Reading
Daniel C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction – Questions to Legal Answers,” pg. vii-lxxvi: Some of the critical reviews in the previous
issue generated some controversy, including that threat of legal actions from
Signature Books. Peterson reflects on that controversy, exploring several
questions of a legal, ethical, and even religious nature. In the process, he
responds to many allegations made against him and FARMS and tries to set the
record straight on a number of matters. That such a big deal was made over a
few critical reviews is, frankly, embarrassing (for Signature Books and its
supporters), but Peterson’s analysis and response to the situation is as
enjoyable as it is thorough. A must read for anyone interested not just in
Mormon scholarship, but the history of that scholarship and its conflicts. This
was only the beginning of what became a sort of rivalry between FARMS and
Signature Books.
Louis Midgley, “George Dempster Smith, Jr., on the Book of Mormon,” review Robert Basil, Mary Gehrman, and Tim Madigna, eds., On the Barricades: Religion and Free Inquiry in Conflict (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989), pg. 5-12: The
usually long-winded (or many-paged, if you will) Midgley offers some short
comments on George D. Smith’s contribution to the anthology On the Barricades. Smith is the owner of
Signature Books. As usual, Midgley has more to say in terms of background on
the people and ideas than on the article itself. Still, interesting reading, to
be sure. Midgley talks about the ideological background of Free Inquiry and secular humanism, notes Smith’s connections to
both, and comments on how that background informs Smith’s perspective on the
Book of Mormon and its place in the Church.
Donald W. Perry, “Review of The Book of Isaiah: A New Translation with Interpretive keys from the Book of Mormon, by Avraham Gileadi,” pg. 52-62: Perry is highly
critical of Gileadi’s new translation, concluding (essentially) that the KJV of
Isaiah is actually better. Gileadi’s book and translation are not especially
significant today, but Perry offers some valuable comments on Isaiah and Isaiah
in the Book of Mormon that I don’t want to forget about. While I don’t necessarily
agree with Perry, given his level of expertise I would recommend those
interested in the Isaiah question as it relates to the Book of Mormon be
familiar with his opinions on the subject, which are expressed in this
review.
Matthew Roper, “Review of The Truth about Mormonism, by Weldon Langfield,” pg. 78-92:
Langfield provides the litany of typical anti-Mormon arguments, and Roper
provides apt responses to many of them. Roper responds to claims regarding
Joseph Smith’s character, early Christian teachings, the Spaulding theory of
the Book of Mormon, the notions of proof and evidence, and anachronisms in the
Book of Mormon.
John Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors” (plus an “Addendum” by John L. Sorenson), a review of Charles M. Larson, …By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 93-119:
Larson’s book remains the go to source on the Book of Abraham among many
anti-Mormons. His argument, hinging on the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as
“translation documents”, is ultimately at the heart of every attempt at
discrediting the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. So, John Gee’s
devastating review – demonstrating that the book is seriously flawed both in
fact and logic – remains important reading on the Book of Abraham. Gee points
out the deceptive packaging and marketing of the book, noting that much of the
deception seems deliberate. Gee then gets into the numerous historical and
Egyptological inaccuracies, followed by a response to some of Larson’s
attempted refutations of LDS arguments, showing that Larson spends more time
knocking down straw men than anything else. This leads into some discussion of
the evidence for a missing scroll(s) that Joseph Smith had, and then to the
Kirtland Egyptian Papers. This makes for some very good stuff, though some of
it should be supplemented with more recent reading – especially the part on the
KEP, which have remained enigmatic, though important progress has been made on
them in recent years. Gee closes by pointing out a number of evidences that
come from studying the text of the Book of Abraham, which are avoided by Larson
and often are avoided by critics still today. The end of the paper has an
“Addendum” by John L. Sorenson providing clarification on Thomas Stuart
Ferguson and the New World Archaeological Foundation, since Larson tries to
hold Ferguson up as a poster child. Sorenson points out that Ferguson was an
amateur, and betrayed a naïve understanding of archaeology and “proof.”
Sorenson also provides numerous factual corrections.
Michael D. Rhodes, “The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scripture,” a review of Charles M. Larson, …By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), 120-126: Rhodes
offers another, shorter review of Larson’s book, making some of the same
points. Rhodes review remains valuable in study of the Book of Abraham as it
highlights some interesting evidence, especially relative to Facsimilie 2,
figures 1, 3, 4, and 6.
Matthew Roper, “Review of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? By Jerald and Sandra Tanner,” pg.169-215: Roper tackles the Tanners once again (he previously reviewed their
Covering up the Black Hole). The
Tanners arguments against the Book of Mormon are pretty standard and representative,
so Roper’s response here is a rather handy source for Book of Mormon
apologetics. He addresses arguments related to the Book of Mormon witnesses,
noting the Tanners tendency to misquote Richard L. Anderson on the subject,
alleged 19th century sources, the comparison of King Benjamin’s speech to a
19th century revival, infant baptism, paid ministry, anti-Masonic influences, Biblical
influence, the name Mosiah, and more. Roper makes an interesting point
regarding Josiah Priest, one of the supposed sources Joseph Smith could have
used, and someone who held to the 10 tribes’ origin for Native Americans. Roper
points out that Priest was actually aware of, and critical of, the Book of
Mormon and didn’t seem to think it plagiarized his work. Thus, someone you
would expect to be sympathetic toward the Book of Mormon, if it was
representative of the 19th century cultural milieu, did not think it
represented contemporary thinking at all.
John A. Tvedtnes, “Review of The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon, by Wesley P. Walters,” pg. 220-234: Tvedtnes reviews and responds to Walters arguments
about how well Joseph Smith knew the Bible, the alleged Bible borrowing of the
Book of Mormon, some discussion of the Isaiah passages, and other similar criticisms.
Tvedtnes most unique contribution here is his anecdote about John B. Krueger
not taking his own study seriously and being impressed with the possibilities
on Book of Mormon names that Tvedtnes had raised.
Stephen D. Ricks, “Death Knell or Tinkling Cymbals?” a review of Wesley P. Walters, The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1990), pg. 235-250: In another review of Walters book,
Ricks responds to arguments about style of translation (NT KJV style in the
Book of Mormon), pointing out some of the complexities of translation (for
example, Ricks notes that even the same phrase in an underlying text often is
translated differently each time the translator encounters it). Ricks also
responds to issues like New Testament material in the Old Testament era, the
Melchizedek text in Alma, and the View of
the Hebrews as a source for the Book of Mormon. Here Ricks points out that,
as I have pondered from time to time, it is significant that no one in Joseph
Smith’s day and age – when the ideas of Ethan Smith and others were quite
popular – drew or noticed any kind of connection between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon. Why wasn’t it so
obvious to them that this was the source? Could it be that what looks so
similar to us now, from a distance, really looked nothing like each other up
close to the people living when both books were published? At the time, the
views of Ethan Smith and others who proffered similar theories were widely
accepted, and yet the Book of Mormon, so seriously mocked and ridiculed, seemed
to be something entirely different to the contemporary audience.
Final Thoughts
If I had read this issue at a different time, rather than
right after reading the 3 preceding issues, I might have felt differently about
it. But as it stands, I was largely unimpressed with this issue. Still, there
is enough useful information to make some of these reviews worth the time to
read them. The must reads are Peterson’s introduction and Gee’s review of
Larson. As I have said, if you are interested in a little bit of the back
history of the FARMS-Signature animosity (that lives on today, despite the fact
that one of the organizations technically no longer exists), then you must read Peterson’s fascinating intro
to this volume, and Peterson is always entertaining to read.
The Book of Abraham has, in the last 20 years, become the
major focal point of attack for many critics, and many who struggle tend to
struggle with it rather than the Book of Mormon. Many of those who leave over
criticisms of the Church cite the Book of Abraham as a larger determining
factor than issues with the Book of Mormon. As such, reading up on the
scholarship on the Book of Abraham is increasingly important, and Gee’s review
here remains an indispensible piece of that scholarship. Rhodes review is also
important in this respect.
The second review by Roper and the review by Ricks also
contain some interesting information, particularly in relation to Josiah Priest
and Ethan Smith, two advocates of the 10 tribes theory from Joseph Smith’s day.
Ricks also makes some interesting remarks regarding translation.
In the end, though this issue of the review was somewhat
disappointing, it is also not a terrible issue either, and it makes a few
important contributions to Mormon scholarship.
Rating: 3/5.
Comments
Post a Comment