Overview
It’s been a while since I did one of these. And, to tell the
truth, this one was practically all
written back in 2015, which is also when I actually read this issue. I just
never got around to writing the “Overview” and the “Final Thoughts,” and so
this post languished unpublished. But today, I had to track a quote down in an
old FARMS Review and it reminded me of
how much I genuinely enjoyed it and miss it. I know that these days it’s really
not very cool to in the Mormon Studies crowd to actually like anything the old FARMS crowd did—especially
the FARMS Review—but the truth is
they were a lot of fun and engaging to read. And while they were certainly
polemical at times—which is not inherently a bad thing, in my view—they were
not nearly as mean and nasty and they are frequently made out to be. (And I am
willing to wager I’ve actually read a
lot more of their stuff than most people who complain about how mean they are.)
Anyway, about this
issue. Since its 4 years since I read it, it’s honestly hard to give a good
overview, but by all accounts, it appears to continue in the same vain as all
the previous issues. Not counting the First Presidency Message reprinted in
this volume, there are 16 reviews/essays. Of those, 8 deal with critics or
dissidents, maintaining the ratio of 50% seen in the previous
issue. Furthermore, there really isn’t a ton of “fluff” in this one. Although some of the reviews were
themselves substantive (and thus not recommended here), some of LDS books under
review remain quite relevant today, such as Warren Aston’s In the Footsteps of Lehi and the Book of Mormon Symposium volume.
Other reviews had a little substance, but were of books on niche topics generally
forgotten, and thus went unrecommended. So it’s hard to call a lot of this
volume “fluff.”
So the Review continues along the trajectory toward greater
engagement with substantive material, mostly critiquing the critics, and is spending
less time producing short reviews of books which would soon be forgotten
anyway. I would not quite say the Review has hit it’s stride with this issue—were
still a few years away from what I would consider the “hey day” of the Review—but
it’s getting there.
Recommended Reading
Daniel
C. Peterson, “Editor’s Introduction: Of Implications,” pg. v–xiii: A
relatively short, and pretty lighthearted and fun bit of satire skewering a
couple of especially bad anti-Mormon arguments. One argument he responds to is
pretty idiosyncratic, but the other is the issue of whether Mormons are
Christians. Peterson points out that members of a class need not have all things in common to be in the same
classification, just as not all reptiles have the same features. Read if you
want to have a good laugh. Also, for what it’s worth, I do believe this is the
first issue where Dan Peterson offered his “editor’s picks,” recommending some
of the publications under review, so that is a new feature.
Camille
S. Williams, review of The Easy-to-Read
Book of Mormon, by Lynn Matthews Anderson, and Mormon’s Story, by Timothy B. Wilson, pg. 3–12: As we get
further and further from the translation culture of the Book of Mormon, and as
more and more other Christians move away from the KJV Bible for more
contemporary translations (or, alternatively, more and more people simply do
not grow up reading the Bible at all), the need for getting the message of the
Book of Mormon across in a way that is easier for people to understand
increases. Yet, the Church has expressed concern over individual members
editing and “dumbing down” the Book of Mormon, and I think Williams articulates
some legitimate reasons for the concern. While the need will not go away, any
effort to help make the Book of Mormon understandable should be aware of and
try to navigate concerns like those explained by Williams.
John
Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob,” a review of Edward H. Ashment, The Use of Egyptian Magical Papyri to
Authenticate the Book of Abraham: A Critical Review (Salt Lake City:
resource Communications, 1993), pg. 19–84: In 1991–92, Gee published
two short notices (one in Insights
and one the Ensign), on Egyptian
Papyri which talked about Abraham, one of which included a lion couch scene
(the genre that Fac. 1 falls into), and another that potentially ties Abraham
to the hypocephalus (as the wedjet-eye; the genre Fac. 2 falls into). Ashment
(and the Tanners) responded to these, and this is Gee’s rebuttal. Gee provides
important clarifications of the argument’s purpose (not to prove the Book of Abraham). Gee also discusses the origins of the
papyri collection in question, providing lots of important background. He also
argues that they are Egyptian, not Greek (as was the common position at the
time; since then, I believe the scholars have largely come to agree that the
papyri are Egyptian). Gee also provides an extensive discussion on the use of
the word “magic” in scholarly discourse. He also dissects Ashment’s
idiosyncratic argument that Abraham’s name did not appear on the papyri (a view
undisputed among Egyptologists). This is must read material on the Book of
Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri.
Ross
David Baron, “Melodie Moench Charles and the Humanist Worldview,” review of
Melodie Moench Charles, “Book of Mormon Christology,” in New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical
Methodology, ed. Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City, UT: Signature Books,
1993), 81–114, pg. 91–119: Baron
offers additional response to Melodie Charles’s contribution to New Approaches. Baron starts by pointing
out that it does not actually discuss Christology, but instead offers what he
sees as a superficial proof-texting designed to make it seem like the Book of
Mormon reflects Joseph Smith’s early views on the Godhead. He briefly points
out that there are lots of errors in her footnotes, and also that her
interpretation of Mosiah 15:1–4 is at odds with numerous commentators on the
subject. Baron outlines the four major arguments of Charles, and then goes on
to discuss each in turn. Baron argues that there are other clear,
centuries-before-the-fact prophecies of Christ, and that objection to such
ultimately boils down whether one accepts that prophecy is real or not. Baron
draws on Margeret Barker (the earliest such of Barker by an LDS scholar, I
think) to argue that the Messianic ideas in the Book of Mormon are not
anachronistic, as Charles argues, but are consistent with pre-Christian Jewish
thought. Baron also discusses the supposed contradictions between the Book of
Mormon’s Christology and LDS Christology, and Jehovah as Christ.
Gary
F. Novak, “Examining the Environmental Explanation of the Book of Mormon,” a
review of Robert N. Hullinger, Joseph
Smith’s Response to Skepticism (Salt Lake City, Utah: Signature Books,
1992), pg. 139–154: Novak compares this Signature edition to the
originally published version of Hullinger’s book and notes the deceptive ways
in which it has been edited to seem more “neutral” in this edition. Novak then
notes some methodological issues—namely Hullinger’s dependence on his own
assumptions about Joseph Smith’s motives. Novak then examines the way Hullinger
interprets the Book of Mormon, finding that his interpretations are often
problematic. Novak then critically examines the narrative Hullinger tries to
craft. The best part of this review, however, is at the very end, where Novak
offers an “environmental explanation” of the “environmental explanation of the
Book of Mormon.” Wherein Novak amusingly parodies environmental explanations
about the Book of Mormon to explain why ex-Mormon historians write such studies
of the Book of Mormon/Joseph Smith, with the ultimate purpose being to make a
point about such arguments. Well worth the read.
LeIsle
Jacobson, “Review of Questions to Ask
Your Mormon Friend: Effective Ways to Challenge a Mormon’s Arguments without
Being Offensive, by Bill McKeever and Eric Johnson,” pg. 155–169: Jacobson
illustrates how McKeever and Johnson utterly fail at their own stated aims, and
this is yet another standard anti-Mormon book which promises much but delivers
very little. Some useful arguments for dealing with some standard claims of
Evangelical anti-Mormonism.
Alan
Goff, “Uncritical Theory and Thin Description: The Resistance to History,” a
review of Brent Lee Metcalfe, “Apologetic and Critical Assumptions about Book
of Mormon Historicity,” Dialogue 26/3
(Fall 1993): 153-184, pg. 170–207: As is Goff’s typical modus operandi, Goff goes cuts right
into the ideological foundations of Metcalfe’s arguments, shows that Metcalfe
is in fact a positivist. Goff reviews Metcalf’s discussion of literary and
narrative theory and shows how these actually undercut Metcalf’s arguments. He
reviews positivism in Mormon historical writing and the tendency, manifest by
Metcalfe, to redefine positivism in a way that excludes themselves. Goff
stresses that all writing is ideological, including that of Metcalfe’s (and
that the claim to be ideologically free is a positivist assertion). Goff also
discusses how history writing and literature writing are not mutually exclusive
categories, and in fact history writing can often be literary. Goff then begins
to discuss the Book of Mormon. He talks about narrative repetitions and
intertexuality, and allusion, and then applies this to narratives involving
King Noah to show the complex sophistication of the text. Goff argues that
acknowledging the sophistication of the text and holding it to be a modern book
produced by Joseph Smith is untenable.
Louis
Midgley, “Atheists and Cultural Mormons Promote Naturalistic Humanism,” a review
of George D. Smith, ed., Religion,
Feminism, and Freedom of Conscience: A Mormon/Humanist Dialogue (Salt Lake
City, Utah: Signature Books, 1994), pg. 229–297: In his familiar style,
Midgley outlines the ideological underpinnings of the various contributors to
this volume, showing that there is no real exchange of ideas, or “dialogue”
between Mormonism and humanism because the various Mormons who participated
were merely cultural Mormons who had themselves adopted a brand of secular
humanism, though perhaps cloaked in LDS language. Midgley discusses what is at
stake for the Saints if they adopt such an ideology, and exposes much of the
material in the volume as little more than ideological propaganda. He notes
that the contributors themselves seem unwilling to confront the stakes he
outlines, but quotes extensively from Sterling McMurrin, a Mormon humanist who
was quite candid about the ideology’s incompatibility with the restored gospel
as traditionally understood. Throughout the review, I was impressed at how
relevant each of the topics Midgely discussed were to current conversations
about dissidents and dissent in the LDS faith. 20 years later, these are still
the same conflicts and issues we see arise among those who wish to “change” the
Church.
William
J. Hamblin, “The Return of Simon and Helena,” a review of Paul Toscano, The Sanctity of Dissent (Salt Lake City,
Utah: Signature Books, 1994), pg. 298–316: Toscano’s own brand of
“Mormonism” is so idiosyncratic that it is hard to see it being directly relevant
to the current issues of dissent today. And yet, in very important respects, it
is. Paul and his wife Margaret advocated for the ordination of women, and
Margaret was (based on some reports) involved in Ordain Women (albeit somewhat
behind the scenes). What’s more, Hamblin hits on many of the same general
themes related to dissent, including a great discussion of freedom of speech
and thought and the Church.
Final Thoughts
Having actually read this issue 4 years ago, it’s hard to
say what is and is not “must read” material. I know that John Gee’s review of
Ashment is certainly still must read on the Book of Abraham. Novak has some great
remarks about the importance of Book of Mormon historicity that are worthwhile,
and his “environmental explanation of environmental explanations” is great for the
way it exposes methodological and ideological problems with naturalistic explanations
of the Book of Mormon. But I am not sure the overall essay is “must read”
stuff.
Goff is also always very much worthwhile, but I’d have to go
over it again before deciding if it’s must read, and I just don’t have the time
right now. Ditto on the Midgley review. Overall the rating (which I decided
right after reading this issue, and not just now) suggests to me that I didn’t
think much was “must read” material in this issue. So while there was less
fluff, there was not as much truly memorable material in this issue either. But
I will say this: in glancing back over my notes and some of the reviews in this
issue, I am again struck (as I have been in the past with other issues) as just
how relevant some of these 20+ years old discussions remain today. As such, I
think there is a great deal of value in going through these older essays, if for
no other reason than for better understanding how our conversations got to
where they are today.
Rating: 3/5
Comments
Post a Comment