Customer Reviews

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Although the "Book of Mormon" is a fascinating and important piece of 19th century literature which has had a place in American history that should not be dismissed, it seems that very little serious work has been done on the book itself. Certainly, rivers of ink have been spilled on the question "Is the book truly an ancient document?" -- a proposition that is not really in question for anyone except certain devout followers of those Mormon churches which take the book as holy writ.

"New Approaches to the Book of Mormon" moves beyond this question. This is no "Anti-Mormon" tract which is attempting to "disprove" the "Book of Mormon" -- this is a series of articles by scholars who want to look more deeply into the book and pull out the implications.

As with any book that is a compilation of articles, some have more appeal to me than others and so I'm giving the book only 4 stars. I especially recommend the articles: (1) "Multiply Exceedingly..." -- which is a thoughtful analysis of the population figures given in the "Book of Mormon"; (2) "Anti-Universalist Rhetoric..." which puts some of the theology in the "Book of Mormon" -- which now seems obscure -- back into the context of the theological controversies of the early 19th century; (3) "A Record in the Language of my Father..." which discusses the "Book of Mormon" and its (non-)relationship with ancient languages; (4) "The Priority of Mosiah..." which brings up some compelling points about the order in which the "Book of Mormon" was written; and (5) "Does the Shoe Fit?" which successfully counters the theory advocated by FARMS (the Utah Mormon apologetic group) that the ancient Mayan culture generally fits the "Book of Mormon" Nephite people.

If you're interested in the "Book of Mormon", this book will surely be very thought provoking for you. As each article is rather specialized, this probably shouldn't be your first introduction to the "Book of Mormon" -- but for those who already have some familiarity with the "Book of Mormon", I heartily recommend "New Approaches..."

This book really changed my views about the Book of Mormon. The writers (mostly LDS) contend that the Book of Mormon looks more like a 19th century work of "inspired fiction" than like a genuine ancient document. Some writers argue that it isn't important for the Book of Mormon to be historical; most focus their energies on the archaeological, linguistic, and historical questions raised by the book. Since I'd read a lot of Hugh Nibley and John Sorensen's writings, and was exposed to a lot of mainstream LDS apologetics at Brigham Young University, I had some idea of what the arguments in favor of historicity were. This collection took solid swipes at many of them. I'm sure that future research will modify many of the conclusions presented here, but this work is the best collection that I know of bringing together well-researched liberal Book of Mormon scholarship.

Contrary to the incorrect information provided by the reviewer below, this book was not written by ex-Mormons. It was written by Mormon scholars who are more concerned with truth than continuing to perform the Mormon practice of "Lying for the Lord". For writing an honest book based on evidence--rather than faith--several of the authors were excommunicated from the Mormon church (against their wishes). If you are interested in the Book of Mormon's historicity you need to read this book and the FARMS review.

Having read the book and the FARMS review I did get a bit puzzled. In some way the FARMS review was a bit patronising - I mean which one of their review isn't? - but at the same time behind all the ad hominen-attacks FARMS did have a point. For those who don't know about FARMS, it is a unit in the Brigham Young University, which does research confirming the historicity of the Book of Mormon (BoM). Metcalfe et al are on the other side of the "battle" challenging the historicity of the BoM thru the historical critical method, the same that is used for any book thru history, be it Bible or the Bagavad Gita!

The essays written do make a point too I may say. The researchers are grand names of Mormon history, belonging to both the Utah and Missouri-based branches of the Joseph Smith movement. They do not agree with traditional Mormon scholars when it comes to the question of historicity. Every essay treats - implicitly though - the BoM as a modern 19th century scripture written by Joseph Smith. This is not a new understanding of the presumed authorship of BoM, but it is done in a new way. Every essay tries to let the BoM-text speak for itself, then it compares it to other scriptures in the 19th century and finally concludes that the book is modern. Other essays try to respond to the growing research on the BoM as an ancient historical document (research mainly coming from FARMS).

The authors give an insight of the BoM, they show the complexity of the scripture, its deep theological questions - called it what you want: anti-universalistic, modalistic, midrashic - and therefore contribute to the on-going discussion of the sacred, the profane, the factual, the mythical etc. The article about BoM geography by Matheny is done in a superb academic way. Matheny deduces - hypothetically - potential artefacts that should have been left from the civilisations in the BoM. Then she compares it to actual artefacts and concludes what was concluded about the Bible in the late 18th century, that there is no proof. This thorough investigation is counter-argued by Sorensen in his FARMS review, with the same detailed analysis.

Hutchinson discusses in an absolute way the sacredness of the scripture being more important than its historicity. How convincing it may sounds, in a traditional belief faith is history, there is no myths, but one true myth. I agree fully with Hutchinsin, being myself liberal and so.

Vogel brings up the BoM's message to the 19th century America, which seems to put in question the universalism of those days, ie the teaching that Christ saved us all whether we believe in it och not. Vogel does not say that Joseph copied the different books, but argues that the anti-universalistic discourse in BoM captures the tone of those days. Same goes for Thomas in analysing the sacramental prayer of Moroni and in comparing it with the sacramental prayers of 19th century America.


Ashment tries to see how the original language of the BoM could have been and what sort of sources there are for confirming it. Good general discussion, some smaller flaws, but who's perfect. Kunich goes thru the population growth of BoM as the 19th LDS understood it, that from the small Hebrew colony sprang millions of Nephites and Lamanites.

Wright treats the interpretation of Melchisedek in Alma as a midrash on Hebews chapter 7 and gives us a picture of how Joseph mastered this skill, which is impressing. I mean how old was Joseph, 25? By midrash Wright means the art of taking a story from the Bible and deriving from it a new understanding, which the original writer had not intended. In Joseph's case he is expanding thru Alma the priesthood of Melchisedek to every Christian and correct minor inconstencis in Hebrews.

Charles has written a detailed overview of how the BoM-people viewed god, Jesus and the spirit and concludes that it differs a lot from the theology of LDS today - both the Utah and Missouri branch. It is natural for every movement to interpret past events from a new understanding and it seems that as older and wiser bro Joseph got, the more god changed. The same evolution can be seen in the Bible, god in Torah is rather demanding but compared to Amos, s/he changes 180 degress, so if the old Hebrews got to understand god as time evolved, so could Joseph.

Metcalfe ends the book by describing how the BoM was written chronologically and that Joe's understanding of the book's structure changed while he translated/wrote. This is called the Mosiah priority. He makes an interesting point: the coming of Jesus to the New world in 3 Nephi is rarely mentioned between Mosiah - Helaman. Could the silence be understood as absence of knowledge?

Larson compared the sermon of the mount with the sermon at the temple. Lots of Greek words and linguistical stuff, so ignore it. I mean it is such a pity that he goes thru all the texts to prove that the temple sermon is a copy of King James Bible and not original ... FARMS seems to believe that none of the texts could be seen as a proof for anything, cause the BoM-text is prima stuff and that an original in reformed Egyptian cannot be exactly like the Greek one. Hm. I support Larson though!

The book is easy to read, but one gets bored of all the quotes, some more figures could be added. In all, read the book: it doesn't threat one's belief, the worst thing that can happen is that one starts doubting, but religious people have always solved doubt by prayer and meditation. For the BoM-believer this book will give a lot of insight about the book and its coming forth - the conclusions can always be forgotten! Read also "American Apocrypha" and "Word of God"!

The editor writes in the Preface to this 1993 book (published by Signature Books, publisher of many pathbreaking works regarding the LDS/Mormon church), "Fresh intellectual and spiritual vistas have been opened by viewing sacred literature from the vantage of these methods. Similarly (this book) attempts to expand appreciation of Mormon scripture through critical analysis... Contributors to (the book) address a variety of methodological, historical, and theological concerns in the belief that readers will come away better for having approached the Book of Mormon from these new perspectives."

Here are some quotations from the book:

"Similarly descriptions of the 'plates' given by (Joseph) Smith and his close associates vary enough to suggest that the plates themselves were objects seen in visions, by the eye of faith, having deep symbolic and religious meaning for Smith and his followers... Again their visionary character does not necessarily make them less real or mere 'hallucinations.' But it does mean that experiences are subject to a greater deal of prior cultural and religious conditioning and subsequent reinterpretation..." (Pg. 7)
"It was perhaps the strong anti-Universalist stance of the Book of Mormon which accounts for some of the adverse reactions Smith received in response to his February 1832 vision of the three degrees of glory... This revelation was easily recognized as a modified Restorationist position and to some appeared to be a major reversal in doctrine." (Pg. 47)
"The Book of Mormon's extensive, specific detailing of events hundreds of years in the future is without parallel in verifiable, before-the-fact prophecies. For Book of Mormon people so far removed from Jesus' life on earth, many of these details would be only trivia." (Pg. 90)
"(Sidney B.) Sperry went on to argue that if the Book or Mormon should fail to make such corrections (of the KJV Bible) and instead copy corruptions or errors which accumulated over the centuries, then it 'should be thrown out of court' because this 'would be plain evidence that Joseph Smith did not translate from a really ancient text.'" (Pg. 116)
"This, by the way, shows that conclusions made here about the Book of Mormon cannot be used to funnel Mormons into fundamentalist Christiantity. It is the height of methodological inconsistency to think that critical method of study can be applied to the Book of Mormon and that its results can be accepted while leaving the Bible exempted from critical study." (Pg. 212)
"Some argue that a limited geographical setting is acceptable based on statements of early Mormon leaders. The limited geographical models have been advanced in many cases because a close examination of the Book of Mormon suggests that time and distance figures implied between localities are too limited to encompass both North and South America." (Pg. 271)

This is perhaps one of the most sophisicated books critical of the Book of Mormon's historicity I have come across in my readings. The authors of the essays have a better grasp of the volume than most critics. Notwithstanding, some of the conclusions are not accurate by a mile. To be brief, I will present only a few -

Metheny's critique of the limited geography model, and more specifically, Sorenson's "An ancient American setting for the Book of Mormon," is etnocentric for the most part. She makes the claim that modern minerological deposits would be where ancients would have discovered their metal, notwithstanding the hypothesis of many that there were surface deposits of metals in ancient times. Speaking of being etnocentric - Hutchinson ignores the historical and linguistical precedent of anicnets giving Old World names to new animals and crops they came across (e.g. in French, it is _earth apple_, not _potatoe_).

Mark Thomas makes the claim that the "contentions" in 3 Nephi were about the sacrament. However, in context, such contentions were about Church membership. Moreover, he ignores the evidence that the sacrament prayers evolved throughout the history of the Nephites, such a thing militating against the theory that Joseph Smith authored the Book of Mormon.

Kunich ignores the fact the Book of Mormon peoples incoperated others into the groups, as the text supports (e.g. Jacob 7). Thus, his arguments about population growth are based on a weak reading of the text.

Finally, although David P. Wright's essay was interesting and one I liked, a lot of his arguments on a textual depdence on Hebrews by Joseph Smith in the compositon of the Melchizedek material in Alma 13 is negated by the Melchizedek material from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls also shows that Jews had an expectation of a Saviour-Messiah, as John Tvedtnes demonstrated in his chapter dealing with the topic in "The Most Correct Book," militating Melodie Charle's argument on the topic.

Overall, a 6 out of 10. This tome was more scholarly and tactful than anti-Mormon literature, but needs more work to be credible.

I love this book wotten for monites. It is an umbiased approach to the Book Of Mormon, froma natural point of view. We need the oft-ignored and negelected persopective.

Brain Metclaff is well known among scholars, and is quit elike Ayn Rand. He is really schoolarship's answer to Elvis.

It is that good.

This is probably the most sophisticated attack on the historicity of the Book of Mormon ever mounted. However, I don't think it succeeds. The various reviews of the book published by FARMS (the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies), coupled with other scholarship that FARMS continues to publish, seems to me to effectively counter much of what Metcalfe et al. put together here. And I don't really see any critics dealing successfully with the testimony of the various witnesses to the Book of Mormon plates. That is a serious gap in their critique.