It takes only a single reading of the title to convey the purpose of this fascinating collection of essays. "American Scripture" is different from "American Apocrypha." One may accept apocryphal writings as scripture or not; one need not attribute either inspiration or historicity to apocrypha.

Is the Book of Mormon "scripture"? Is it "inspired"? These are, of course, loaded questions, since such words defy common definition. Clearly the editors reject Book of Mormon historicity. In the view of some, this is tantamount to rejecting it as "scripture," as "inspired." However, the editors make the following comment in their introduction:

Is the Book of Mormon pseudonymous? We think so. Apocryphal? Yes. Is it therefore less able to touch people's hearts? No. Our position is that the scriptural tradition includes fiction -- parables, poetry, hyperbole, psalms, historical versimilitude, and other genres -- and that such writing can be as powerful in providing people with spiritual guidance as non-fiction. To acknowledge the obvious fictional quality of the Book of Mormon is not to detract from the beauty and brilliance of the sermons, visions, and other imagery. (Introduction, ix)

What remains unstated here is that most religious literature, including the Bible, while ostensibly reporting historical events, makes no such explicit claims by its authors, outside the narrative itself. The Book of Mormon is unique -- it claims to relate historical events, and buttresses these claims with statements to this effect by the scribe who translated the book. Thus, in any discussion of Book of Mormon historicity, it is not just the veracity of the book that is in question, but likewise the veracity of the author/translator.

Can the contributors to this volume support such a broad, and challenging, agenda as the editors set forth -- to acknowledge the Book of Mormon as a work of fiction, and yet have value in a spiritual sense, while at the same time maintaining the integrity of its author? Or did the editors supply this thought as a token sop to those who will inevitably attack their effort? This remains to be seen.

The first essay is by Edwin Firmage, Jr., and is titled, "Historical Criticism and the Book of Mormon: A Personal Encounter." It details Firmage's journey from true believer to informed skeptic. He utilizes the methodology of Historical Criticism, long a popular apparatus among Biblical scholars.

Citing a noticeable theological evolution within the text (and not always proceeding along strictly canonical-order lines), he proposes an order of writing that differs from the final compilation.

Firmage notes the development of ideas -- such as church government, the administration of the sacraments, etc. -- and shows how this development is more clearly delineated when the text is studied in order of dictation, rather than the order in which the final text was published.

In the end, Firmage maintains his belief that the Book of Mormon is a modern text, but continues to find new insights as he maintains his study.

Next is "Automaticity and the Dictation of the Book of Mormon" by Scott C. Dunn. It is a fascinating survey of literature produced through the process known as "automatic writing," and brought many new ideas to my mind.

In this essay, the term "automatic writing" refers to the ability to write or dictate text in a relatively rapid, seemingly effortless and fluent manner with no sense of control over the content. Indeed, except for sometimes knowing a word or two moments in advance of writing or speaking, the individual is typically not consciously aware of what the content of the writing will be." (p. 18)

He cites such familiar examples as "A Course In Miracles" (while oddly not mentioning a later admission by the author that the work is fraudulent) and "The Urantia Book," but also mentions Charlotte Bronte as claiming something akin to automatic writing in her authoring of "Jane Eyre."

Dunn's essay opens up an interesting possibility in understanding how Joseph Smith was able to produce the Book of Mormon in a mere 90 days, and draws parallels between what Joseph's experience may have been and those reported by other automatic writers.

Thomas W. Murphy contributes the next essay, "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics." As one may infer from the title, this is a largely scientific explanation of the search for Israelite DNA among the American populations said to have descended from Lehi's sons. Murphy discusses how genetic research has failed to show any such connection. A non-scientist like myself will find some parts of the essay bewildering, but Murphy manages to distill the intended lesson from the scientific findings, in hope of satisfying specialist and layperson alike.

Now that quantitative scientific methods can indeed test for an Israelite genetic presence in ancient America, we learn instead that virtually all Native Americans can trace their lineages to the Asian migrations between 7,000 and 50,000 years ago. While molecular anthropologists have the technological capability to identify descendants of ancient Hebrews, no traces of such DNA markers have appeared in Central America or elsewhere among Native Americans. Ultimately, as [John L.] Sorenson noted, these findings may not matter to Latter-day Saints, who have a spiritual witness of the truth of the Book of Mormon. Yet, the discoveries caution against confusing a spiritual witness with scientific evidence. Spiritual witnesses may reach beyond science, but should not be confused with it. (p. 68)

I was dismayed at the final paragraph.

We can continue our impressive genealogical research, and we should utilize the latest genetic technologies to enhance the precision and accuracy of our findings. But I believe that we should avoid a fruitless quest to tie Native American origins to the Middle East. There is as much chance of finding genetic proof of a Lehite civilization in the Americas as there would be of finding the Book of Mormon gold plates. (p. 69)

Two observations:

1. I'm uncomfortable with any scientist who says, in essence, "give it up." Murphy has essentially closed the door on further research and the possibility of discoveries that might verify the Book of Mormon story. However remote one may feel is the possibility of success, I applaud continuing efforts.

2. And I thought his final comment was, well, snide. I can't think of another word to express what I felt.

And speaking of the gold plates . . .

Dan Vogel chimes in next with a heated discussion titled "The Validity of the Witnesses' Testimonies." As is his wont, Vogel doesn't pull any punches. He believes that the evidence, taken in toto, indicates that the plates simply never existed. How, then, to account for the testimonies of the three and the eight? And how to deal with the general reports of the witnesses' reliability in business and social affairs? Vogel makes a case for the irrelevance of such questions when it comes to spiritual things. That is, a person can be an honest, upstanding citizen, and yet be subject to delusion when it comes to things of the spirit.

Vogel suggests several scenarios, none of which will be satisfying to the true believer. And, in fact, none of his scenarios satisfied me as providing a final answer as to whether the plates existed or not. Were the witnesses victims of mass hypnotism? Were they coerced by Joseph Smith to word their testimonies in a way that did not reflect their actual experience?

Vogel explores other visionary experiences of the day, and suggests that Mormonism can produce no compelling reason to believe the testimony of the Book of Mormon witnesses, while at the same time rejecting that of other, non-Mormon accounts.

I found this chapter to raise more questions than it answered. While providing historical and methodological alternatives to the standard accounts, I didn't find any one explanation sufficiently compelling to be especially disturbing.

George D. Smith's "B.H. Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologist and Skeptic," covers no new ground, as far as I could see. But Smith treats Roberts, and his struggle to come to terms with his inability to produce scientific and archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, with great sensitivity and an appreciation for the man himself.

As is well known, Roberts embarked on a quest to answer the questions of a sincere skeptic who, after reading the Book of Mormon, had trouble reconciling some of the historical claims made therein. Roberts discovered that satisfying answers were not forthcoming. In his public life, Roberts continued to serve his Church callings, and defended the Book of Mormon. But privately, he continued to express doubts, and frustration that his colleagues would not engage in serious dialogue about these problems.

During the last twelve years of his life, Roberts spoke with two voices regarding the Book of Mormon. When he could not come up with answers to his questions, he did not find it necessary to abandon his role as a general authority, nor to renounce his faith. But he did share his concerns with colleagues and friends . . .

What significance is there to this dichotomy? That such issues were raised, albeit cautiously, within the highest quorums of the church evokes questions of widespread misgivings about the Book of Mormon within the larger, general membership. Just as we all try to balance our hopes and fears as we confront unfulfilled wishes, more than a few private doubters and public believers must personally share Roberts's questions about the keystone document of their faith. Unfortunately, the taboo against questioning prevents frank discussion of this revered work, although church members, if they were asked, would probably acknowledge that their belief in the Book of Mormon is not measured by the way they view history in general. (p. 145-146)

I appreciated Smith's frank, but sympathetic, review of Roberts, in my opinion one of the great, unappreciated thinkers in Mormonism.

Chapter 6, "Isaiah in the Book of Mormon: Or Joseph Smith in Isaiah," by David P. Wright, examines the evidence that points to Joseph Smith's dependence on the King James Version of the Bible for the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon. While this may be fairly obvious to many, Wright, in the longest and most complex essay in this collection, draws upon his knowledge of linguistics and ancient languages to demonstrate this dependence in a scientific and disciplined fashion.

Ordinary readers, like myself, will find themselves a bit lost in Wright's technical discussion. I sometimes wondered if I really needed to have all the information he was offering. Linguists, of course, will appreciate his detailed treatment.

I was dismayed that he didn't address a question I've had -- if Joseph Smith really used the KJV as his basis for the Isaiah chapters in the BOM, did he have a copy of the KJV open at the time of the dictation? Given the amount of material, is it suggested that he memorized the text, making changes as he went along? I find it difficult to envision such a scenario. I had hoped Wright would have addressed this issue.

As part of his presentation, Wright goes heads-on with John Tvedtnes of FARMS, answering Tvedtnes' claims of BOM-Isaiah antiquity. Taking 36 cases as presented by Tvedtnes, Wright introduces his understandings, countering Tvedtnes' arguments.

I felt nearly as lost in this chapter as I did in a previous chapter on genetics. Since I'm not a Book of Mormon apologist, I feel no need to respond to any of Wright's arguments. I can only observe that the true apologist has, in this chapter, fertile ground for research and debate.

Harking back to Ed Firmage's article on historical criticism, Susan Staker offers "Secret Things, Hidden Things: The Seer Story in the Imaginative Economy of Joseph Smith." Assuming a non-canonical order of dictation, Staker surveys Joseph Smith's understanding of his role as "seer" as compared to the evolving role of the seer in the Book of Mormon and in other revelations received during this time period.

These seer narratives in the Book of Mormon are already laying the groundwork for what will become the most radical and enobling impulse within Smith's religious economy. By the time of his death, he will not only have written into one encompassing plot the old and new worlds, the Old and New Testaments, and biblical and contemporary histories, he will also have written God and man into one interlinking cosmic narrative. As the final revision of his writing and rewriting of biblical narratives, Nauvoo's secret temple rituals will plot the life story of earthly man (and by Nauvoo an earthly woman) becoming king (and queen), priest (and priestess), god (and goddess). Looking backward to Smith's threshold narratives about God's seers in the Book of Mormon and its environing 1829 revelations, it is possible to see man becoming god as the final emplotment of the life story of the seer which preoccupied and fascinated Smith from the beginning: the story of an earthly being who comes near to God, learns his secrets, and wins the possibility of being transformed, pushing beyond the limits circumscribed by the natural world and human mortality. (p. 262)

Central to the role of seer, according to Staker, is the possession of, and ability to translate, sacred records which contain secrets known only to them. As such, they are the custodians of the mysteries of God, foremost among them the message that God will become a man, come to earth, and die for the sins of the world.

Such claims may explain how, for example, the name of Jesus Christ, the name of His mother, Mary, and other details of the incarnation, could be known in the Book of Mormon, and yet not otherwise known in the Hebrew scriptures.

Staker's essay is a fascinating view of the developing role of "seer" in the life of Joseph Smith, Jr. Drawing richly from the early revelations, and correlating non-Book of Mormon writings with those of the Book of Mormon, a picture arises of a prophet gradually coming to an understanding of his role in the cosmic picture.

This is a chapter well worth studying.

We now move on to Dan Vogel's second contribution to this collection, titled "Echoes on Anti-Masonry: A Rejoinder to Critics of the Anti-Masonic Thesis." Here Vogel takes on a disparate quartet of gentlemen who, I fear, would struggle to find much in common: Richard L. Bushman, Blake T. Ostler, D. Michael Quinn and Daniel C. Peterson. (I've met all four men; I'm particularly amused by the pairing of Peterson and Quinn!) Vogel's thesis is simple, and is summed up in his familiar frank, and blunt, style:

Despite the efforts of Bushman, Ostler, Quinn, and Peterson, anti-Masonry remains the probable source of inspiration for the Book of Mormon's Gadianton bands. The declarations of some apologists -- for example, William J. Hamblin's statement that the "supposed Gadianton-Masonry connection has been debunked," or John Gee's assertion that the anti-Masonic thesis has been "conclusively demonstrated to be a mirage" -- are premature and native. (p. 312)

Vogel addresses, in a point-by-point manner, the various arguments used by Bushman and the others in dismissing the idea that the Gadiantons were invented by Joseph Smith as a reflection of the anti-Masonic feeling in early 19th-century America. Whether he achieves his goal will be up to the reader.

The final essay is, in my opinion, the singular gem of the collection. Robert M. Price presents an intriguing piece titled "Joseph Smith: Inspired Author of the Book of Mormon."

You may remember my citing words from the introduction where the editors essentially ask, "Can I decide the Book of Mormon is a fictional account, and still find spiritual value?" Up until this last essay, I found little in the way of answering this key question. Price comes through, in spades. (Which comment, I would add, should not suggest to anyone my own view on the historicity of the Book of Mormon. My evaluation is based solely on the competence of the writer's presentation.)

Allow me, please, a lengthy cite:

One of the chief points of contention and division between the Mormon church and its "separated brethren" ironically harks back to the discovery of the lost Book of Deuteronomy in 2 Kings 22, for today virtually all critical scholars are agreed that the tale of Josiah and Hilkiah tries to hide the very thing it hints at: that the book was not discovered and dusted off but actually created by Hilkiah, Huldah, Jeremiah, and others of the "Deuteronomic School" who thus sought to win the impressionable young king to their religious agenda. What is set forth in 2 Kings as reactionary (restoring the past) was really revolutionary (pressing on into a new future). Though it no doubt contained much traditional material, both from Israel in the north and from Judah in the south, Deuteronomy was essentially a new book, a "modern" revision and updating of previous laws collected in the Yahvist Epic (the "J Source") and the Elohist Epic (the "E" Source"). On the basis of a platform of a newly streamlined monotheism (or at least monolatry) and a humanitarian regard for slaves, animals, and employees, Hilkiah, Huldah, and the others hoped to avert God's wrath for the abuses they had witnessed with increasing disgust for far too long. Thus they penned the book in secret, much like the framers of the United States Constitution, delegates commissioned for one purpose, strengthening the Articles of Confederation, who in act accomplished another, creating the Constitution.

Again, virtually all critical scholars agree that Joseph Smith did not discover the Book of Mormon, but rather created it. His goal would have been as analogous to that of Hilkiah as his methods had been; in response to his confusion over which nineteenth-century version of Christianity to embrace -- none seeming to have any particular advantage over the others, all seeming to be severely in want of something -- Smith tried to make a clean break with the recent past and to go on into a new future by invoking a more distant past. And in so doing he had created something new, an imaginary Sacred Past, the way it *should* have been (p. 323-324)

Price goes on to cite multiple biblical examples of such inspired story-telling and subsequent pseudepigryphal writings, pushing his case for Joseph Smith as an inspired inventor of the Book of Mormon story.

Price takes an interesting view of canonicity, attaching the idea of a closed canon to the Book of Mormon's idea of priestcraft. He sees the closing of the canon as one of the roles of a corrupt priesthood, thus leaving open the incorporation of new writings as they emerged. He also makes a case that the closing of the canon *created the need* for pseudepigrypha. Drawing on the authority of already-acknowledged prophets and inspired writers, how could one ignore these new works?

If Price's hypothesis is true -- if Joseph Smith really did invent the story of the Book of Mormon, used biblical-sounding language, and presented it as true history in order to attach it to an acknowledged authority base -- then, Price argues, Smith is simply following a long, honored tradition.

Price, in essence, wants to demolish the old dichotomy of Joseph Smith as inspired translator vs. Joseph Smith as impious fraud. He sees a middle way, and views the results of critical studies of the Bible as examples.

I have no doubt this entire line of thought will raise the ire of some. I remind you that I am neither endorsing nor rejecting Price's argument, simply reporting it.

Conclusion

The essays contained in "American Apocrypha" were appreciated by me in varying degrees. As a non-scientist, the genetics article was baffling. And as a non-linguist, the Isaiah article left me scratching my head. But as a whole, the thoughts contained herein were stimulating and thought-provoking.

I thought that the few examples of mockery (one is cited above) would have been better left out. If the authors had hoped to gain credibility for their causes, this was, I believe, less likely given the condescending tone of their comments.

"American Apocrypha" should be on the shelf of every serious student of the Book of Mormon. No matter where you come down on the issues, the questions asked in this volume are not likely to go away very soon. Signature Books is to be commended for a fine collection.

-----
Jeff Needle
jeff.needle@general.com
jeffneedle@nethere.net