FARMS Review 20/1 (2008)

[_Ray A]

The Review seems to be getting more and more boring, but then perhaps it's just me. I also have little interest in Sunstone and Dialogue today. Maybe I'm just experiencing total burn-out with these subjects. They interested me when I was going through "cog. diss" turbulence, but now it all seems redundant.

In any case, perhaps the Review needs some peppering up with commentary like Kent Jackon's criticism of Hugh Nibley (unless I missed it).

In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and choose the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient system of religion that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own--precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place. There are serious problems involved in this kind of methodology.

This kind of method seems to work from the conclusions to the evidence--instead of the other way around. And too often it necessitates giving the sources an interpretation for which little support can be found elsewhere. I found myself time and time again disagreeing with this book's esoteric interpretations of Qumran passages. In several places Nibley sees things in the sources that simply don't seem to be there (for example, most of the preexistence references in the Dead Sea Scrolls, cited in chap. 7). This is what inevitably happens when scholars let their predetermined conclusions set the agenda for the evidence. The work in this book is better informed and more sophisticated than the Dead-Sea-Scrolls-prove-the-gospel-is-true firesides and tapes that have been popular around the Church, but the methodology is not much different.

Nibley's wit has made him one of the most sought-after speakers in the Church. But I am dismayed to find in this collection several passages in which his satire tends toward sarcasm and name-calling, which have no place in serious scholarship. A frequent vehicle for this is the straw-man approach. Nibley frequently misrepresents his opponents' views (through overstatement, oversimplification, or removal from context) to the point that they are ludicrous, after which he has ample cause to criticize them. This may make amusing satire, but it is not scholarship. Nibley has made a fine career of responding to those who have either willfully or unknowingly misrepresented Joseph Smith and the gospel. Thus I am troubled that this book would contain the same kind of distortion. If it is unfair when directed against us, is it somehow an acceptable method when directed at our critics?

It is mind-blowing to think that this actually came from a Mormon scholar.
>
>
>
>

[_JustMe]

Not really mind blowing. It certainly refutes the inane contention that all we Mormons think alike and in-breed quote only each other in supportive roles. We certainly *don't* walk lock-step all in line without thinking and merely being "yes men." That's rather nice to know we all are allowed our opinions and ideas and disagreements. I find it rather refreshing that he is free to voice his opinion.

For every bad issue he had with Nibley, I can find 5 who said otherwise. I have my very serious doubts the minority opinion is correct on all counts. It appears to me as professional jealousy more than anything else. He certainly offered no detailed demonstrations, rather hurtled overly broad generalities in a negative tone. That hardly is convincing.

[_Dwight Frye]

He certainly offered no detailed demonstrations, rather hurtled overly broad generalities in a negative tone. That hardly is convincing.

Hi Kerry,

Have you taken a gander at the detailed demonstrations in Ronald V. Huggins's critique of Nibley? If so, did you find any of it convincing?

[_Mister Scratch]

For every bad issue he had with Nibley, I can find 5 who said otherwise. I have my very serious doubts the minority opinion is correct on all counts. It appears to me as professional jealousy more than anything else. He certainly offered no detailed demonstrations, rather hurtled overly broad generalities in a negative tone. That hardly is convincing.

Do you honestly think that Nibley and his acolytes' views represent "the majority", and that K. Jackson and others' are simply "the minority opinion"? What, I wonder, do the bulk of Egyptology scholars think of Nibley's Book of Abraham work?

[_Ray A]

Not really mind blowing. It certainly refutes the inane contention that all we Mormons think alike and in-breed quote only each other in supportive roles. We certainly *don't* walk lock-step all in line without thinking and merely being "yes men." That's rather nice to know we all are allowed our opinions and ideas and disagreements. I find it rather refreshing that he is free to voice his opinion.

I don't believe that all Mormons (witness publications like Sunstone and Dialogue, the latter founded in part by Eugene England) think alike either (and witness the variety of Mormons on this board).

For every bad issue he had with Nibley, I can find 5 who said otherwise. I have my very serious doubts the minority opinion is correct on all counts. It appears to me as professional jealousy more than anything else. He certainly offered no detailed demonstrations, rather hurtled overly broad generalities in a negative tone. That hardly is convincing.

You may doubt minority opinion (within apologetic circles) about Nibley, but when it comes to assessment of Quinn as a historian - you almost worship minority opinion.

[_Tom]

I'm pleased to report that I have in my possession, still steaming from the press, FARMS Review 20/1 (2008)

[snip]

And the contents of the Review should be available on line within a few weeks, as well.

I suppose it's gone cold, but I noticed that the latest FARMS Review is online. The introduction is not online.

[_Daniel Peterson]

the latest FARMS Review is online. The introduction is not online.

I presume that's just an oversight, and will inquire. Thanks for the heads up.

[_Daniel Peterson]

The Review seems to be getting more and more boring, but then perhaps it's just me.

We're definitely much more boring.

In any case, perhaps the Review needs some peppering up with commentary like Kent Jackon's

We've published Kent Jackson several times. I haven't noticed that he's felt any need to depepper his writing for us.

Of course, when we publish critical essays, we're engaged in slander, smearing, character assassination, and the destruction of lives. I suspect, though, that the same parties who depict us as unscrupulous monsters for our criticisms of their heroes -- I use the plural without much real conviction -- would be applauding us had Hugh Nibley been our "target."

[_Ray A]

The Review seems to be getting more and more boring, but then perhaps it's just me.

We're definitely much more boring.

Ah, and I thought it was just me.

[Guest]

the latest FARMS Review is online. The introduction is not online.

I presume that's just an oversight, and will inquire. Thanks for the heads up.

The introduction, penned by George Mitton, is now online here.

For those keeping track at home, here is the list of recommended books from this issue:

*** Terryl L. Givens, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture

*** Frederick Babbel, On Wings of Faith: My Daily Walk with a Prophet

** Daniel A. Keating, Deification and Grace

Here is the Reader's Digest version of the issue's contents:

In his review of The Timechart History of Mormonism: From Premortality to the Present, Don Brugger writes:

Overall, Timechart does a respectable job of distilling fundamentals of Latter-day Saint history, scripture, belief, and culture in a fair-minded and accurate manner....Anyone with a mind avid for Mormon trivia and neatly packaged information-bites will enjoy perusing this book. It could make a nice gift for those who would use it as a study aid or as a tantalizing missionary tool to display in the home for guests. It would seem that many readers, Latter-day Saints or not, will find the external correlations with secular history, as well as some of the cultural trivia, of at least passing interest.

Reviewing Diane Wirth's Decoding Ancient America: A Guide to the Archaeology of the Book of Mormon, Brant Gardner writes:

Decoding Ancient America is short, easy to read, filled with facts that appear to support a connection between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica, and copiously illustrated with line drawings of art relevant to her discussion. The typical Latter-day Saint reading audience will enjoy this book, and the information from its "proofs" may begin to show up on apologetic defenses of the Book of Mormon in Internet chat rooms and blogs....Wirth's book, however, presents some problems. Although much of her information is excellent, aspects of the work decrease the value of the conclusions drawn. One problem is perhaps an issue only for scholars in the field. Either Wirth or the editors have chosen to use bibliographic entries as though they were endnotes. The text has appropriate references where Wirth is citing other scholars, but the endnotes themselves are to entire works and not to specific pages. Thus it is difficult to verify her interpretation of the sources used. Only those who are already very familiar with the sources will be able to check her work.

More important, however, are two problems with the way Wirth uses her broad reading of Mesoamerican materials: her uncritical use of some secondary sources and a flawed methodology that creates false positives rather than firm connections between the Book of Mormon and Mesoamerica.

An editorial note appended to the next essay, "'Common-Sense' Meets the Book of Mormon: Source, Substance, and Prophetic Disruption," written by Terryl Givens, indicates that the essay "originally appeared in Cardell K. Jacobson, John P. Hoffmann, and Tim B. Heaton, eds., Revisiting Thomas F. O'Dea's The Mormons: Contemporary Perspectives (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 2008), 79–98. Reprinted here courtesy of the University of Utah Press, this updated version includes additional documentation and minor editorial adjustments."

Givens concludes:

The Book of Mormon, in terms of origin and production, may still be a conundrum for the majority who approach it. But it may serve much more effectively than it has as a lens to better understand the conceptual universe it both engaged and provoked, and to affect the hearts and minds of those who cannot read it with indifference.

The following essay, "A Brief Survey of Ancient Near Eastern Beekeeping," written by Ronan Head, might be of interest to those interested in ancient Near Eastern beekeeping. Head concludes:

Any study of the possible material culture background of historical Book of Mormon peoples has to make careful use of the interesting data provided by Ether 1–3, including the suggestion that the Jaredites were migratory apiculturalists. This brief study has demonstrated the widespread evidence for beekeeping, including migratory beekeeping, in the ancient Near East. A further discussion of this evidence, and the implications that may arise from it, will be the subject of future research.

Larry Morris then favorably reviews On Wings of Faith: My Daily Walk with a Prophet, a book originally published in 1972 and reprinted in 1998. Morris notes that "[t]hrough a highly readable narrative and an excellent eye for detail, the author tells a compelling story, one that deserves a wide readership."

Cherry Silver praises Terryl Givens' latest, People of Paradox: A History of Mormon Culture, writing:

Terryl L. Givens has written a provocative book. His study is richly textured, full of allusions and comparisons, ideologically penetrating, colorful, and filled with vitality....What would improve Givens's analysis of this world of religion and culture? Updating of sources, I would say, and in several cases more background or accuracy of detail.

Sandra Thorne lauds Kim Clark's Armor: Divine Protection in a Darkening World, writing:

Clark has given us a mature, insightful perspective on Paul's teachings. He does not discuss Paul, his calling, his mission, or the Saints who received this epistle; instead he focuses on the meaning this sermon has for us—the recipients of the restored gospel in the last dispensation....As I read, I underlined passages that were meaningful to me, and there were many. I appreciated the opportunity to read what he learned in his quest for understanding.

Richard Williams' essay, "Faith, Reason, Knowledge, and Truth," is a lightly edited version of his 2000 BYU Devotional address entitled "Faith, Reason, Knowledge, and Truth." There is no indication in the notes of that fact.

Next, John Gee expounds on the topic "Some Puzzles from the Joseph Smith Papyri," an article "based on a presentation given at the 2007 FAIR (Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research) conference in Sandy, Utah." He proposes in his introduction to "look at the papyri themselves and some of the puzzles surrounding them, namely, What papyri did Joseph Smith have? and What do we know about the ancient owners of the papyri?"

James Farmer praises Frank Salisbury's book on ID, The Case for Divine Design: Cells, Complexity, and Creation, as

a sound introduction to most of the topics related to the origin of life. It contrasts the possibilities of spontaneous generation of life with a creationist view. It is written for an intelligent reader who is not necessarily well-grounded in science. I strongly recommend the book to anyone who is troubled by the often acrimonious debate concerning evolution and creation.

Gregory Smith didn't like Sam Harris's The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

Ara Norwood couches his review of Hank Hanegraaff's The Mormon Mirage: Seeing Through the Illusion of Mainstream Mormonism in the form of a letter to Hanegraaff. Norwood writes:

Frankly, I find The Mormon Mirage rather thin, not just in terms of size but in terms of substance. While you treat subjects as diverse as Mormon-Evangelical relations, the Book of Mormon and other Latter-day Saint scriptural records, priesthood, the deity of Christ, original sin, the biblical canon, the Trinity, resurrection, the virgin birth, salvation by grace, the millennium, temple oaths, and plural marriage, your comments on these matters are brief—barely skimming the surface, highly one-sided, and largely inaccurate, as is often the case with this genre of writing.

Tom Rosson likes Daniel Keating's Deification and Grace, concluding that

[b]ecause Keating brings out the message of deification contained in the New Testament and in the writings of the early church fathers, his book, even on this ground alone, is a valuable resource. The Roman Catholic will find a faithful presentation of what it means in that religious tradition for humans to become gods. The Latter-day Saint will find some interesting arguments but will have a different picture of deification in the Bible and the early Christian church.

James Faulconer's essay "The Myth of the Modern; The Anti-myth of the Postmodern" might be of interest to those interested in reading Faulconer's take on "what postmodernism means for thinking about history."

Some book notes--some signed, others not--round out out the issue. Several of the unattributed notes bear the hallmarks of Louis Midgley's style.

Information on the issue's contributors is here.