Friends, I've struggled for about a week with just how to approach this review. I have before me the massive tome from Concordia Publishing House, kindly sent by the publisher, and the latest FARMS Review, kindly sent by a friend. They represent opposite ends of the spectrum -- one an expression of skepticism and concern, the other a strong defense of Mormon orthodoxy. As often happens, I've wondered whether the truth lies somewhere in between.

The fact that I'm neither Mormon nor evangelical can be either an advantage or a disadvantage. Although I have a long-standing interest in, and passion for, all things Mormon, I don't have a horse in this race. However the argument is resolved, I remain on the sidelines.

Having said that, I would like to share a few thoughts about this book, but from a different perspective than that of a critic or an apologist. One may quibble about some of the information presented (and the FARMS review devotes more than 135 pages to its treatment!), I've decided to lay out the book to you and leave it to you to decide whether or not the arguments are persuasive.

Many Mormons will be uncomfortable with some thoughts in the Foreword. In fact, some seem a bit combative, although, in the minds of the authors, justified. Take this as an example: "Mormonism rejects the pure gifts of faith, forgiveness, and salvation that Jesus desires to give to them." (p. 11) "Similar to all other non-Christian religions, Mormonism does not teach that salvation is God's righteous action and not ours." (p. 11) Mormons take great umbrage at being called "non-Christian."

And in a very telling paragraph, explaining why a Christian would want to confront a Mormon neighbor with the information contained in this book:

Why would a Christian want to participate in something that will bring confusion and frustration to a Mormon friend and neighbor? So that the Mormon could finally enjoy the true peace and comfort that the work of God gives to them in complete forgiveness and righteousness. God calls Christians to proclaim His Word in Law and Gospel to the world of unbelievers for their own good and eternal salvation." (p. 10)

Hmmm. Change a few words, and you could use the same argument for Mormon missionary work! Why do missionaries do things that can bring confusion and frustration to their evangelical neighbors? Why, for their own good, of course, and for their eternal salvation. (I wonder if either side ever considers the irony here.)

What follows is a long, sometimes sinewy story of two manuscripts (or were there really two?), claims and counterclaims, suits and countersuits, character assassination, wildly outrageous press and breathless suspense. This is quintessentially early American, wonderfully involved, and hopelessly flawed by conscious or unconscious agendas by all sides in the debate.

Critical to the study is the question: How many manuscripts did Solomon Spalding actually write? The writers state that Mormon scholars claim that the work titled "A Manuscript Found" is one and the same with another called "Manuscript Story -- Conneaut Creek," the latter available for inspection. Critics of the Book of Mormon and the traditional telling of the coming forth of that book, insist that "A Manuscript Found," whose contents were said to be nearly identical to that of the Book of Mormon, is a separate work, and is the basis for Joseph Smith's production.

Along the way we meet a very colorful cast of characters, many of whom are familiar to readers of Mormon history: Sidney Rigdon, Parley P. Pratt, Erastus Hurlbut, Solomon Spalding, etc. Other names will be new to many. But new names bespeak the presence of new ideas, new evidences as presented by the authors that seem to cast doubt on the Church's explanation of the origin of the Book of Mormon. Did Joseph Smith really translate the book from gold plates? Or was it an invention, in league with Sidney Rigdon, based largely upon Spalding's work?

As the authors progress though the book, they present massive amounts of documentation, including newspaper accounts, court transcripts, and other evidence contemporaneous with the events. They also present tables and other aids to help the reader compare Book of Mormon text and ideas with those from other sources.

Along the way we encounter all the arguments we've heard for so many years -- the money-digging, the Masonic elements, the Smith family's reputation, etc. All of these are combined to create a rather unpleasant description of the Smiths, and by extension, doubt that such a one as Joseph Smith, Jr., would be used as a prophet of God. But the authors of this volume go one step beyond, and try to connect the historical evidence with the Mormon story, evaluating it as to reasonableness.

The authors have done a remarkable job of pulling all this together. As interesting as the text is, the appendices are even more so. Here may be found chronologies and other historical data that will be of great interest to many readers.

It is clear that the authors expected a response from the Mormon church, and indeed, the FARMS Review of Books, which I commend to be read alongside this book, covered the perceived problems in this volume quite well. Anticipating objections to the book, the authors write:

To those who will acknowledge that we have presented much new information, but with a distinctly anti-Mormon tone, let it be said that we are not anti-anything -- we are pro-history. Our purpose is to stimulate further inquiry into a subject that has long cried out for attention. As such, this work should be considered a beginning, not an end; and even devout Mormons in search of the truth should welcome it. (p. 368)

I found this to be a remarkable statement. First, no matter how well intentioned, some Mormon readers will see this book as "anti-Mormon." Once Mormons have been branded as non-Christian (as was done in the Foreword), it's hard to come to any other conclusion. In my own case, as many readers of these reviews will recognize, I have a broad tolerance for non-Mormon works, being very reluctant to brand them as anti-Mormon. I don't consider this to be an anti-Mormon book.

Further, I don't know a single "devout Mormon" who would actually read beyond the Foreword, unless he or she is reading with a critical eye. Devout Mormons believe they have already found the truth; searching for it in a book that begins with several pages telling them how wrong their faith is will not, in my view, encourage them to read further. Perhaps this Foreword should have been an Afterword.

And it seemed to me to be a bit disingenuous to say that this is "a subject that has long cried out for attention," as if it hasn't received enough attention already. The bookshelves in Christian bookstores are filled with tomes against Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.

So, why is this book different? In some ways, and at least in my experience, it explores the issues in more depth than I had previously encountered. And it's done in a way that is both accessible and easily digested by most readers. I appreciated the authors' attempts to bring to the fore both events and people whose names were new to me, while adding to my existing knowledge of others.

Mature Latter-day Saints will find this book a challenging work. However, as with any work of advocacy, whether Mormon or otherwise, it should be read with a careful eye. And be sure you get a copy of the FARMS Review to read alongside. Expect lots of conflict, lots of differing opinions, as you compare the two. I won't offer an opinion as to which work is more persuasive, and I don't know whether the parties have compared notes and, if so, they've come to any conclusions.

I suspect no one will be happy with this review. Oh well. My job as reviewer: I report, you decide.

-----------------------------------

Jeffrey Needle
May 10, 2006