28 of 31 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Two Wrongs Don't Make a Rite, March 19, 2004
This review is from: Equal Rites (Hardcover)
Every now and then you hear about a book you just have to read. My traditional Latter-day Saint upbringing fostered an abiding interest in Mormon history. Thus, I gratefully accepted an offer from Wendy Lochner, the Columbia University Press editor who sponsored Clyde Forsberg's book, to review a prepublication copy.
My excitement turned to disappointment. Dr. Forsberg's confused views of Mormonism (founded 1830) and Freemasonry do disservice to both. For example, he asserted that the Scottish Rite's philosophy was "the inspiration for the Book of Mormon and the rationale of the Mormon faith." He supported this view by referencing Morals and Dogma (which actually expresses the post-1857 philosophical meanderings of Albert Pike). Forsberg did not understand that post-1830 sources do not necessarily reflect earlier Masonic ideas.
Dr. Forsberg's errors were rampant. He claimed that Mormon founder Joseph Smith Jr. was a 33° Mason (he was not), that there is no reference to Hiram Abif in the Hebrew Bible (there is, in 2 Chronicles 4:16, "_ganash huram abiv la-melech shlomoh_"), that there were three Degrees in Masonry in 1717 (there were two), that the Chevalier Ramsey invented a system which included the Royal Arch Degree and a "fanciful tale of Enoch's Golden plates." All this is wrong.
He also claimed Benjamin Franklin abandoned Freemasonry and its "macabre business of secret suicide pacts." In fact, Franklin was an active Mason from about 1730/31 (when he joined Old Tun Tavern Lodge) to the end of his life, and there are no such "suicide pacts." Forsberg called the Scottish Rite "a decidedly Christian application" (it isn't), and asserted there are "religious tests" in Freemasonry, which include a belief in the "resurrection...of Hiram Abiff" (both are untrue).
Dr. Forsberg's occasional sarcasm is forgivable, and even amusing. However, it does his book no service when he suggested that Freemasons are awaiting the discovery of documents to testify to the truth of allegorical legends. In another place, while discussing the Knights Templar, he wrote, "...according to the Masons...." Sadly, the reference is to a book almost universally dismissed by serious Masonic scholars.
In a prepublication conversation, Dr. Forsberg admitted to me that he didn't have any authentic pre-1830 Scottish Rite documents or rituals to support his opinions.
I informed Ms. Lochner that I read the prepublication copy cover-to-cover. I expressed my dismay with the book, stating that I was not *at all* persuaded by its arguments, as they revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of Freemasonry's history, rituals, and purposes. Dr. Forsberg's superimposed (and seriously flawed) views subsequently do disservice to both Mormonism and Freemasonry. In brief, I have *no confidence* in Dr. Forsberg's "thesis."
After receiving a copy of the published book, I was further disappointed to discover that he "corrected" the errors I observed above by simply altering the book on a point-by-point basis. This was inadequate and the book remains fundamentally flawed; it cannot be fixed with a masking-tape approach. My advice is to save your money.
Arturo de Hoyos, 33°
Grand Archivist and Grand Historian
The Supreme Council, 33°, S.J.
Washington, DC
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
A Craftily-Written Shipwreck, March 23, 2006
This review is from: Equal Rites (Hardcover)
Forsberg's book advances the thesis that Mormonism is a reformist Masonic movement, intended to reverse the tide of evangelical Christian advances in early American society. In the service of this thesis, Forsberg offers a reading of the Book of Mormon that downplays the seeming parallels to evangelical religion within the book's narrative and theology -- and that also disregards texts that seem anti-Masonic in nature. Forsberg further posits a version of early Mormon history in which Joseph Smith had a grand design, including a vision of Nauvoo temple ritual as developed in 1843 and 1844, from the very beginning of the Book of Mormon project in the late 1820s.
Forsberg's prose is often pleasant and well-crafted, making clever use of puns and wordplay. Unfortunately, the argument is not equally well-designed. Does it matter to Forsberg that the primary sources reveal no evidence of the hypothesized careful advance planning of theology and ordinance on Joseph Smith's part? Does Forsberg care that primary sources show no evidence that early Mormon converts read the Book of Mormon as a Masonic text, as his argument requires? Does Forsberg find it relevant that primary sources indicate that at least some readers in the 1830s saw the Book of Mormon as actively anti-Masonic? Evidently not. After all, why should a historical study allow something as trivial as primary-source evidence to get in the way of a good (conspiracy) theory?
Readers interested in questions about early Mormonism and its relationships with other early-19th-century American movements would be better served by Mark D. Thomas's work in the journal Dialogue on parallels between evangelical revivalism and the Book of Mormon, Richard L. Bushman's two books about Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, or D. Michael Quinn's Early Mormonism and the Magic World View.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
No one takes this book seriously, March 26, 2006
This review is from: Equal Rites (Hardcover)
This book exhibits deep flaws and methodological failings. The author advances his argument--that Mormonism is some sort of Christian/Masonic populist movement--through speculation, a dubious and selective reading of historical sources, and "cherry-picked" parallels. I have no idea how this work made it through the peer review process at Columbia University press, although Forsberg mentions that one of the reviewers was John Brooke, whose own speculative work on Mormon origins has come under fire. Still, at least Brooke's speculations were interesting and consistent with existing literature. By contast, Forsberg's "examples as evidence" approach will convince no one (LDS or otherwise) who knows Mormon history. This book should not have been published, least of all by a press like Columbia.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
