Abstract: Mike Ash's book "Shaken Faith Syndrome" is reviewed by Stephen O. Smoot of the Mormon Interpreter. Ash can do no wrong while critics can do no right. Smoot uses aggressive rhetoric when speaking about critics, or "anti-Mormons" but paints a picture that strongly implies such insults are unwarrented and gratuitous, leaving us to wonder what the peer reviewer's expectations are for the scholarship the MI produces.
Shaken Faith Syndrome made it through the entire review process, including peer review of Smoot's review, with only thirty-three words of criticism. That's almost as many words of encouragement as Reverend Jackson got for his book on Mormonism. Ash's book is "Outstanding," "excellent," and "succinct," and and we learn all this without even leaving the abstract. Ash may have been worried that an institution saddled with academic letters like the MI would have difficulties with his lack of degrees and failure to publish with Oxford Press. Recall the Interpreter's assessment of Jackson, notwithstanding multiple degrees, he was considered unqualified to write on Mormonism and his book represented a "marketing strategy." Many books by critics and even a few non-scholarly self-publishing faithful had been eyed with suspicion by the Review and considered little more than profit opportunities. Fortunately for Ash, not only is he fully covered under the Nibley "Day of the Amateur" clause, his motives are deemed pure. Smoot says, "Michael R. Ash has taken to heart the directive given in D&C 88:118."
The lines of division are drawn. Smoot uses "anti-Mormon" and "critics" interchangeably, and the word "anti-Mormon" is used no less than 13 times. Anti-Mormonism on the web has become the "wild west" where there are "[no] publication standards or peer review, and with the ability to hide in anonymity.." The critics "get away with saying pretty much anything they please without repercussion, no matter how false, scurrilous, detestable, or putrid the claim may be." I suppose in this scenario then, Ash is the man who puts a star on his vest and calls himself the Sheriff. Smoot belabors the corruption of critics:
Smoot wrote:On one particularly unpleasant message board dedicated to allowing apostates and critics to rant against the Church unfettered, breathtaking examples of (often highly vulgar) personal character assaults against LDS Church leaders and members can frequently be seen with nauseating consistency.
The situation sounds pretty bad, though, I guess the readers must take his word for it since the name of this message board is not revealed and not a single "putrid" claim is referenced or dealt with, as we shall see.
After painting a bleak picture where Anti-Mormons scorch the land as they lie, falsely accuse, and use profanity, Ash doesn't up and mount his horse and give chase in the Smoot narrative, but first turns to lecture his own kin. Check this out, as Smoot gets into the meat of his review:
Smoot wrote:He [Ash] notes that shaken faith may result from unrealistic expectations of prophets or science (or both), and he goes on to describe the danger of “fundamentalist, dogmatic, or closed-minded ideologies about certain facets of the gospel or early LDS historical [Page 112]events
Where are the men with black hats telling bald-faced lies? If Saints are shaken by "unrealistic expectains," doesn't this imply the criticisms of their faith are valid? He continues:
Smoot wrote:The two chapters of Shaken Faith Syndrome that many Latter-day Saints may find the most difficult to grasp are chapter 3 (“Unrealistic Expectations of Prophets,” 19–30) and chapter 4 (“Confusing Tradition with Doctrine,” 31–34). In these two chapters Ash admonishes his LDS readers not to set prophets on a pedestal of perfection and inerrancy nor to confuse folk traditions (even popular traditions) with established doctrine.
How is it a moral fault of critics for showing legitimate problems with "folk traditions" and mistakes made by prophets?
On and on he goes:
Smoot wrote:The prophets do not claim infallibility, but some members unwittingly act as if that is the case and are then disturbed if the prophets do not measure up to that unrealistic standard.
Members hold the prophets up to a certain standard, critics show that the prophets fail to meet this standard, all agree with the failure, but the critics are engaged in deceit?
Smoot wrote:But even though a hemispheric model of the geography of the Book of Mormon has been taught in the past, it has never been official doctrine.
The critics have shown the hemispheric model problematic and the apologists agree. Where then are the lies, deceit, and unbridled profanity?
Moving on, we get into the charge of history suppression, and on this matter Smoot concludes:
Smoot wrote:Although it could be argued that the Church could do more to foster a better cultural environment [Page 115]where Church members feel more safe asking about controversial issues, this is a far cry from the constant refrain of critics that the Church is deliberately suppressing its history
Critics accuse the Church of covering up controversy, Ash argues this isn't the case, and Smoot concludes that the critics have a real point, but it's not as bad as it seems. Sounds to me like per Smoot, the critics bring up fair points, but in the end, the apologists have provided sound answers on this matter.
Moving on to specific issues continues to undermine Smoot's contentions regarding the debased morals and arguments of critics:
Conclusions regarding the Book of Abraham:
Smoot wrote:However, there is much that has been said in favor of the Book of Abraham’s authenticity, and the controversy is by no means settled.22 [Page 117]Latter-day Saint scholars have devoted much effort to defending the Book of Abraham"
Smoot wrote:Considering how complex the issues surrounding the Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Papyri are...
It's a tough issue, a complex one, where, much work has been done by Mormon Scholars, but the matter isn't settled. Doesn't sound to me like the critics Ash confronts are guilty of "half-baked and regurgitated criticisms", lies, and putrid slander. The critics must be bringing tough and honest questions to the table.
The Kinderhook issue is a "perplexing episode"; For plural marriage, "many people, both within and outside the Church, are understandably troubled by the history of Mormon polygamy"; On the first vision, "Many of the criticisms leveled against Joseph Smith’s vision apply equally well to Paul’s vision". Smoot's own demonstrations show the critics have been giving the Church a run for its money with honest criticism that not even Ash has final answers for. For polygamy, Ash, per Smoot is left to "speculate" (Smoot's word). For the First vision, the final assessment is a reductio ad absurdum and secular critics would be happy to extend their logic to the Bible.
Moving on to the conclusion, again, the critics are painted as villains:
[/quote]Smoot wrote:The reality is that most criticisms leveled against Joseph Smith and his revelations rest on dubious allegations, rank fallacies, specious reasoning, or unwarranted assumptions.
And yet, the entire body of his essay seems to argue that critics are an honest force to be reckoned with and have not been fully answered by even the best apologist on the most important issues. Per Smoot, the matters are complex and difficult, and so much in Mormonism have the critics cast legitimate doubt upon, that the members are counseled to not expect so much from their prophets, and abandon their faith on a whole list of issues that are better left for Phds to explain.
I guess you could say that I'm blown away by this fiction the apologists maintain where "anti-Mormons" are these terrible, bad people who can't get anything right and work for suspect motives while apologists are men of faith, God, and impeccable reasoning in every way. The books written by critics are near garbage and those written by apologists can't go wrong. In this case, Smoot doesn't even offer examples to support his strong allegations against "anti-Mormons", yet, all this rhetoric just seems naturally a part of an apologist's essay.
I think the peer review process really messed up here. Either Smoot's essay should adjust its focus and take on the purported lies and nastiness of critics, or drop all the invective against critics, and accurately summarize the case that Smoot actually makes: Critics pose some tough and honest questions, members need to adjust their expectations, and many apologists have offered some good insights into the problematic facts surrounding Mormonism, even if they fall short of fully adequate responses.