Overview
This issue is the first “issue 2” in the Review’s history.
After a first issue in 1994 dedicated solely to the review of a single book, I
guess they felt that there were other important publications on the Book of
Mormon that merited attention as well. This issue settles into the standard
pattern seen up to this point. There are 16 reviews of a mix of topics, from
pro-Mormon, anti-Mormon (including the now seemingly mandatory reviews of the
Tanners work from Roper and Tvedtnes), and Mormon fiction. I have recommended 9
out of the 16 reviews/articles, and it is worth pointing out that 8 (one of
which is not recommended) of the 16 reviews dealt with critical claims in some
capacity—that is 50%! Other than the first issue of volume 6 (which was at
100%), this is the highest ratio. We maybe at a turning point, where the Review
starts to find its identity. Still some fluff, of course, but the fluff has been
considerably reduced (two of the none critical reviews are substantive enough
to be recommended here).
Recommended Reading
Daniel C. Peterson, “Editors Introduction: Of Polemics,”pg. v–xi: After the first and (so far as I can tell) the only issue of the review dedicated 100%
to responding to critics, Peterson addresses the question of why they engage
the critics, and why they use polemics. (It should be noted that not all the reviews in 6/1, or previous
issues that responded to critics were polemical, though some were.) Peterson
discusses his rational for engaging in polemics as a means of defending the
faith. Again, for those who have a desire to understand the ideological battles
that have taken place over the years in the scholarly Mormon community, this is
something that ought to be read. Whether one agrees with Peterson’s rationale
(and, for what it is worth, I do), one should seek understand it before
throwing accusations around about how “mean and nasty” the old “classic-FARMS”
approach is (and my experience is that most who make such accusations understand
precious little about the rationale, nor can even substantiate the accusation).
William J. Hamblin, Daniel C. Peterson, and George L.Mitton, “Mormon in the Fiery Furnace: Or, Loftes Tryk Goes to Cambridge,” areview of John L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire: The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644–1844 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pg. 3–58: Not
everything published by reputable presses (like Cambridge) is, well… reputable.
In this case, it appears that the venerable CUP made a major mistake. From the
problematic, slippery use of terminology, to getting all kinds of basic facts
about Mormon history terribly wrong, this review shows that Brooke’s book is a
disappointment. Brooke lacks a solid command of the primary Mormon sources, and
in fact has very little that can support his case. His study is
methodologically lacking, and he tends to blatantly misread his sources.
Hamblin, Peterson, and Mitton discuss these and other issues with Brooke’s
argument, showing that it is Brooke, not early Mormons, who is obsessed with
the occult.
Eugene England, “Orson Scott Card: The Book of Mormon as History and Science Fiction,” a review of Orson Scott Card, Homecoming, vols. 1–5 (New Tork: TOR,1992–1995); A Storyteller in Zion: Essays and Speeches (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1993); “An Open Letter to those who are concerned about ‘plagiarism’ in The Memory of Earth,” privately printed, 1994, pg. 59–78: England provides
a thoughtful review of Card’s Book of Mormon related writings. In the process,
England provides an excellent explanation for why the Book of Mormon is more
powerful as history than as fiction. He also praises Card’s ability to use it as inspiration for sci-fi, and provide rich storylines. England is also quite
impressed on how Card’s sci-fi version of the Book of Mormon story is infused
with lessons on sexism, racism, and understanding for individuals with same-sex
attraction. Some maybe shocked to read England chiding the use of ad hominem, etc. in their defense of the
faith. (What? In the Review?
Unbelievable!) Yet more evidence that the Review
really is not what critics make it out to be.
John E. Clark, “The Final Battle for Cumorah,” a review of Delbert W. Curtis, Christ in North America (Tigare, OR: Resource Communications, 1993), pg. 79–113: Curtis’s
earlier pamphlet was reviewed in an earlier issue of the Review by David A. Palmer. Now the gloves come off and Curtis’s
book gets a thorough review from Clark, who, as I have said before, became
quite the notorious “Book of Mormon geography critic.” Clark is fair, but tells
it like it is. Although Curtis’s theory is basically irrelevant at this point,
this is still very much worth reading. For starters, all of Clark’s reviews are must-read material for anyone interested
in Book of Mormon geography. Clark provides clear and lucid reasoning on method
and evidence in every single one, identifying pitfalls and strengths and
explaining how arguments could be improved. Whether one agrees or disagrees
with him, engaging with Clark’s analysis of this and any other model will
sharpen one’s thinking and reasoning on the subject immensely. In addition,
based on Clark’s review it seems that Curtis employs a set of arguments
grounded on the supposed “prophetic” authority of certain sources external to the
Book of Mormon. While Curtis and his model are irrelevant, these same kind of
arguments are still employed by those who advocate for the so-called
“heartland” model, and thus Clark’s review remains quite relevant to Book of
Mormon geography debates.
Richard L. Bushman, “Just the Facts Please,” a review ofH. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record (Salt Lake City, UT: SmithResearch Associates, 1994), pg. 122–133: This book remains significant in the
realm of Mormon history, and Bushman’s review is evenhanded. The review largely
revolves around the First Vision. Bushman critiques three key arguments made by
Marquardt and Walters: (1) the timing of the move to from Palymra to
Manchester; (2) a contradiction in Joseph Smith’s 1838 account; (3) the
location where the Church was founded. Bushman competently argues the
traditional narrative is sound on each of these points. More important,
however, Bushman offers some significant comments on method and the interaction
between “facts” and interpretation. Brief though it is, Bushman’s thoughts on
this offer some important perspective for grounding one’s approach to Mormon
history.
Matthew Roper, “A Black Hole That’s Not So Black,” a review of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Answering Mormon Scholars: A Response to Criticism of the Book “Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon,” volume 1, (Salt Lake City, Utah: Lighthouse Ministry, 1994), pg. 156–203: Roper, one of the Mormon scholars the Tanners
were “answering” back in 1994, further critiques the Tanners’ central
arguments. Roper comments on their overdeveloped sense of importance and
sensationalism, the difficulties with their theories on how Joseph Smith wrote
the Book of Mormon (namely his supposed plagiarism of the Bible) and the
primary sources on the translation, and several other topics. Roper points out
several modern translations of texts that pre-date the New Testament, but which
use KJV-NT language. There is also some interesting discussion of the law of
Moses and the firstlings as sacrificial offerings. Roper also lists several
parts of Mormon’s abridgement that suggest that the small plates were known
among the writers of the Book of Mormon for most of the history. A lot of other
topics are also covered.
John A. Tvedtnes, “Review of Answering Mormon Scholars, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner,” pg.204–249: Tvedtnes, also one of the scholars the Tanners were “answering,”
adds another lengthy review of their response. Tvedtnes points out the
inconsistency in the Tanners argument that Joseph Smith dictated pages and
pages of the Book of Mormon by memory, and yet could not remember the details
of the 116 pages, could not remember the details from other parts of the Book
of Mormon already dictated, etc. Tvedtnes also offers some useful information
on Isaiah in the Book of Mormon as he responds to the Tanner’s critique of this
earlier work on the subject. He also discusses the “missing” festivals and
reviews evidence that Mosiah 1–6 is a feast of tabernacles, the sacrifices
issue, and “plagiarism.” For this part, he provides an interesting comparison
between the Gettysburg address and the KJV Bible. He also shows that the
Tanners were utterly mistaken about their only being one biblical name in the
Book of Mormon. Several other topics also discussed.
Brian M. Hauglid, “Article Title**,” a review of Margaretand Paul Toscano, Strangers in Paradox: Explorations in Mormon Theology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990),pg. 250–286: I am pretty sure the “title” of this article is a mistake;
something they put in as a place holder on the proofs but then never corrected
or removed before going to printing. The Toscanos are like a cross between Kate
Kelly and Denver Snuffer—Ordain Women meets fundamentalism, if you will. Given
that Kelly and Snuffer, and their accompanying movements, are contemporary
issues for Mormonism (Margaret is a behind-the-scenes force in OW), I think
that there is a lot of value in Hauglid’s review of their book—which was a poor
theological attempt at justifying the ordination of women to the priesthood.
Certainly a timely topic.
Louis Midgley, “A Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy Challenges Cultural Mormon Neglect of the Book of Mormon: Some Reflections on the ‘Impact of Modernity’,” a review of O. Kendall White Jr., Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy: A Crisis Theology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1987), pg. 283–334: As is
typical of Midgley, he takes time to review the history of the ideas being
advanced by White, and also reviews some of the history of White's publication
itself—pointing out that it is only a marginally updated version of his
essentially irrelevant master’s thesis from 1967! Midgley argues that White’s
terminology is poorly defined and both his “traditional Mormonism,” which
supposedly denied the atonement, and the “neo-orthodoxy,” are more figments of
White’s imagination than anything else. Since White's ideas are heavily influenced
by Stirling McMurrin, McMurrin’s work is also given some attention here.
Final Thoughts
While the entire last issue (6/1) was a must read, very
little of this one is. Peterson’s introduction is a must read for those who are
interested in understanding the rationale and thinking behind the use of
polemics by “classic-FARMS” scholars. Clark’s review of Curtis’s now irrelevant
geography is nonetheless a must read for anyone interested in studying the
geography of the Book of Mormon. Bushman’s review is also a must read, for the
portion on method and interpretation (the actual First Vision part offers
nothing particularly unique). Other than that, nothing else is “must read,”
though Hauglid’s review of the Toscanos is close—certainly an important contribution
to the conversation on women in the priesthood, and I would recommend that
those interested in that topic take a look at it. Midgley’s review, also
admittedly repetitive at times (as are nearly all of his writings, to be
honest), provides some important background on various strains of thought within
Mormon intellectualism. The Hamblin, Peterson, and Mitton review provides a
useful contribution to the discussion of the “occult,” and “magical” in early
Mormon history.
Overall, this is another generally mediocre issue of the
Review which does make some important contributions to Mormon scholarship
amidst its many pages.
Rating: 3/5
Oh snap, better Lou doesn't read this :)
ReplyDelete