Ryan, Debi, and Toren Cragun's Blog

Sides, Hampton. 2002. Ghost Soldiers: The Epic Account of World War II’s Greatest Rescue Mission. Anchor.

Rating:
8

Summary:
Moving account of military heroism

The book is primarily a historical account of the rescue of roughly 500 P.O.W.s in the Philippines during WW2. The rescue is performed by about 120 Rangers, who were apparently a new addition to the military at that point in time. The Rangers are assisted in the raid by several hundred Philippine guerillas and numerous Philippine people living near the camp. I have to admit I was amazed that in the entire rescue, only two rangers died and two P.O.W.s (the P.O.W.s died because they were too frail to escape) while casualties among the Japanese were estimated to be close to 1,000 dead. Incredible!

Additionally, the book summarizes some of the events that took place in the Pacific Theatre during WW2, focusing primarily on the treatment of P.O.W.s and the fall of the Philippines at the beginning of the war, including the Batan (sic?) death march on which thousands of U.S. soldiers died just getting to the P.O.W. camps.

Review:
There two problems with this book. First, it occasionally lost me as it jumped back and forth between the primary story (the rescue attempt) and the other historical events that are recounted. The second problem is that the book tends to demonize the Japanese. While I would never condone the Japanese treatment of P.O.W.s during WW2, I also felt the author could have done more to be objective about both the events that took place and the motivations he attributes to the Japanese for their actions. A more thorough discussion of the cultural influences affecting the Japanese – without demonizing their culture as well – would have led to a better understanding of why they were as harsh as they were and were even as willing as they were to slaughter P.O.W.s.

With the criticisms out of the way, let me talk about some of the good aspects of the book. First, it is very engaging; it sucked me right in and I didn’t want to turn it off (I was listening to it on CD). Second, it is very well-written (with the exception of the bias); the descriptions and writing style are both exemplary.

The book also presents information I didn’t know. Belying my ignorance of WW2, I wasn’t even aware that the Philippines fell at the beginning of the war, so that was informative. But I also didn’t realize just how willing the Japanese were to let their P.O.W.s die or kill them. One fourth of the P.O.W.s in Japanese custody were killed or died during WW2, as opposed to 4% of P.O.W.s in Germany and Italy. That’s a huge difference.While I wouldn’t consider myself a strict pacifist (I do believe in defending myself and intervening when humanitarian), I have to admit that this book brought me close to tears several times. The willingness of the Rangers to risk their lives and the ability of the P.O.W.s just to survive is moving. War sucks… but it also creates the conditions to turn ordinary men into heroes. And, as is the case with the current war (Iraq), I don’t support the war as it was based on a web of lies, but I’ll always support our soldiers. They don’t really have much say in where they go or whom they fight and I wouldn’t want to do what they do. I respect them for their bravery and willingness to do what they are instructed to do, even if it isn’t a popular or just war.

Finally, this book does illustrate perhaps the only redeeming aspect of United Statesians (who are so often jerks to one another) – they take care of their own. While I wish this sense of unity could be expanded to the world as a whole, it was a powerful scene when the author described the reception the P.O.W.s received when they returned to the U.S. There’s nothing like an external threat to muster social solidarity.

Overall, despite its problems, this is a very engaging and well-written book with a powerful message about unity. It left me with the feeling that while war isn’t pleasant, soldiers are often heroes, and meek heroes at that. I recommend this book for aficionados of the military or wars. The book isn’t perfect, but it combines history with engaging story telling to present a powerfully moving story.

Shanley, Mary L. 2002. Making Babies, Making Families: What Matters Most in an Age of Reproductive Technologies, Surrogacy, Adoption, and Same-Sex and Unwed Parents’ Rights. 1st ed. Beacon Press.

Rating:
6

Summary:
Raises a lot of important questions, but the answers won’t satisfy everyone

The book’s aim is to explore some of the current controversies in family policy. The author gives a brief history of families and family policy, focusing on the changes that have taken place in the family that warrant updates in legislation. The topics the author discusses include: open vs. anonymous adoption, unwed fathers and their attempts to gain custody of their children, selling gametes (sperm and eggs), surrogate motherhood, and alternative family structures (e.g., gay, lesbian, etc.) and their resulting complications.

Unlike many academic books that aim to present an objective treatment of the issues without advocating one perspective or another, the author of this text does not hide her biases nor refrain from presenting her opinions on the issues. In fact, the primary goal of the book appears to be to persuade individuals involved in family policy that the author’s views are the correct views. So, what does the author think should be done in many of these situations? The author believes an individual’s right to ‘know his/her origins’ trumps the right of a biological parent to remain anonymous in the case of adoptions; ergo, she advocates open adoptions. In the case of unwed fathers, the author advocates specific guidelines that must be followed by the fathers if they want to be able to claim custody (intent to father or build a relationship with the child must be shown). The author is against the selling of gametes, does not want gamete donors to be anonymous, does not believe surrogacy contracts should be enforceable, and does not believe women should be paid for surrogate motherhood (see quote from pp. 8-10 for the author’s summary of the book contents).

Review:
To begin with, the book addresses engaging and timely topics. I found the book to be very informative and surprisingly insightful at times. I have to admit I often found my mind wandering when the author delved into the intricacies of the arguments, but much of that may have to do with the fact that family policy is not a major interest area of mine (I read the book for a class, not for pleasure). Most people that read this book will likely be specialists in family policy and will probably find the intricacies fascinating. For the family policy novice, you may want to skim the middle parts of the chapters, reading what looks interesting, and focus on the beginnings and ends of the chapter as that is where the author summarizes her arguments.

There were a few additional problems. As noted above, the arguments the author presents can become overly intricate at times, resulting in the novice in family policy getting a bit lost. Additionally, the intricacies of the arguments often involved the author repeating herself two, three, and even four times in a single chapter. She would present a policy claim (her perspective) at the beginning of the chapter, present some history or evidence for that claim in the middle of the chapter after which she would restate the claim, and then restate the claim again at the end of the chapter. The restating of the claim over and over made sure I got the point, but was also redundant and gave me the impression that the book lacked a strong organization.

Perhaps the most serious problem I have with this book is that there was no attempt to illustrate the author’s beginning or underlying assumptions. The author starts with a brief introduction about herself and why she is interested in this topic, but then she moves straight into the history of family policy and an examination of the changes in the family over the last 100 or so years. Because the author is arguing for specific policy changes, it would be nice to know upon what assumptions her perspectives lie. For example, the author could have presented her idea of ‘needing to know one’s origins’ as a starting assumption (though I would like to know the basis for the assumption as well). Admittedly, the author tries to present some of these assumptions in the form of her arguments in the chapters, but whenever someone tries to argue that one perspective or theory is better than another one, one should also recognize that there are fundamental assumptions that are driving the perspective or theory. The author does not share what her assumptions are. Additionally, it would have been nice to know the author’s ideological perspective. Was she arguing from the perspective of a Marxist-Feminist, a Conservative Secularist, an Orthodox Jew, a mainline Protestant, a Roman Catholic, etc.? Though the author’s ideology may not affect her perspective dramatically, it would help illustrate for the reader the underlying assumptions being made by the author.

I applaud the author for admitting she has opinions and perspectives and trying to develop an argument for why her views are correct. She does build somewhat convincing cases for some of her arguments. However, I disagree with a number of the author’s opinions on these issues. Interestingly, because the author does not focus on forcing her opinion on others but is also attempting to fully explore these issues, she also presents some of the counter arguments. I was surprised how often I found myself in agreement with the counter arguments. For instance, the author notes that, “Most professionals associated with assisted reproduction argued that anonymity should be the norm, because it freed the donor from any legal responsibility for the child and any apprehension that the child would seek contact with him in the future” (p. 87). The author argues that individuals have a right to know their ‘origins,’ and that the individual’s right to know their origins trumps the donor’s right to anonymity.

As is the case with many of the author’s perspectives, this is going to reduce the number of willing gamete donors. As I have yet to try to have a child, I don’t know whether I might need gamete services or other adoptive or family services. Nevertheless, I fail to see, in spite of the author’s claims, how it can be beneficial to decrease an individual’s willingness to donate gametes or provide other reproductive services. I do agree with the author that a flat fee should be paid for gamete or other reproductive services so as not to exacerbate the already rampant inequality in our society. But by removing and/or reducing the motivations for individuals to donate reproductive services (a phrase with which the author takes issue), specifically by not paying egg donors or surrogate mothers, the number of people willing to perform these services will drop dramatically. In the case of sperm donation, I can see why this isn’t a particularly big deal; men enjoy giving sperm. But in the cases of egg donation and surrogate motherhood, women should receive some remuneration for the pain and suffering that is involved. I think the author ultimately agrees that the only people that would be willing to undergo such procedures without remuneration would be family members and therefore is willing to allow some leeway here in terms of a flat fee, but she still seems to lean on the side of no remuneration, which is a position I just can’t see as feasible in a society that demands ever improving reproductive technology.

By the time I finished reading the book I found that the author had raised my level of awareness of these issues, which I hope is more her intent than to convince everyone that she is right. I was not convinced she was right, though I do better understand some of the counter arguments to some of these issues. I’m sure this is an invaluable book for experts in family policy, but unless you are an expert or thinking of becoming one, this book may be a bit more complicated than you really want.

2002. Cultural Sociology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Rating:
6

Summary:
reader on cultural sociology

The book is a collection of essays – either written for this book or excerpted from other works – illustrating the different elements of the budding field of cultural sociology. “Cultural sociology is about meaning-making. Cultural sociologists investigate how meaning-making happens, why meanings vary, how meanings influence human action, and the ways meaning-making is important in social cohesion, domination, and resistance.” (p. 1) The essays range from purely theoretical discussions of boundaries to empirically driven studies of social movement culture to postmodern reflections on capitalism.

Review:
This book is expansive enough to provide readings for a variety of cultural sociology approaches. Because it works to fill all of the possible niches, it undoubtedly also includes some essays that will not be appealing to all audiences. For instance, Fredric Jameson’s essay on Postmodernism was not particularly well-received in my class (I read this in a course on cultural sociology). But there are also likely essays included in this reader that will be clear and well-received. In my class, one of these was Eviatar Zerubavel’s essay on making distinctions.

I’m not sure I’m particularly well-suited to critique the book in terms of coverage of the major areas of cultural sociology as this course was my first exposure to this sociological approach. Even so, I found the book useful for introductory purposes and it can certainly serve as a launching point for both further reading and classroom discussion.

Palmer, Grant H. 2002. An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. Salt Lake City: Signature Books.

Rating:
10

Summary:
You may not remember this, but back in December of 2004, Grant Palmer, the author of An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins, was reprimanded by the LDS religion for publishing this book. His punishment was disfellowshipment, which basically means he could only peripherally participate in Mormon worship services. It wasn’t made clear what he was supposed to do in order to return to full activity, but the punishment did make one thing clear: The LDS religion is serious about guarding its dishonest version of its history and is anxiously engaged in keeping its members in check!

I posted some emails I received concerning Grant Palmer’s trial on my blog back in December 2004, but am just finally getting around to reading his book. Well, it’s no wonder the LDS religion wasn’t happy with it – Palmer’s book is, in my opinion, the clearest illustration of how flawed the “official” versions of Mormon history are. What’s more, I think it is the best analysis of the origins of Mormon history that I have yet read, better by far than the quasi-official biography of Joseph Smith by Richard Bushman and the speculative biography by Dan Vogel. But before I speak too highly of the book, let me give a brief summary of the contents.

Perhaps unfortunately, the book doesn’t begin with Palmer’s assertion about the reliability of using the “Holy Ghost” or “revelation” as a means of arriving at truth. But Palmer does give a clear indication of what he thinks of this method on page 132, “American psychologist William James in his classic work, The Varieties of Religious Experience, studied hundreds of people, including religious founders, who claimed to receive inspiration from the Spirit, from revelation, visions of angels, and from face-to-face appearances of God. He included Joseph Smith with Augustine, Bernard de Clairvaux, the Buddha, Fox, Huss, Loyola, Luther, Mohammed, and Wesley. He concluded that while their experiences and feelings were real to them, they could not be a valid source for determining truth because their claims were doctrinally incompatible.” This illustrates that Palmer is working on the assumption that just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling that doesn’t mean something is true. If you throw out that premise, you then open up the possibilities for testing truth claims to other methods, specifically historiography and, where possible, to the methods of science. Palmer’s approach to Mormon history relies on these approaches rather than on warm fuzzies, which probably gives you an indication of what conclusions he will ultimately draw.

Quoting Palmer, the first chapter is a discussion of, “Joseph Smith’s efforts at translation. Chapters 2-4 examine Joseph’s intellectual environment, including the King James Bible, evangelical religion, and American antiquities, all of which influenced the content of the Book of Mormon. Chapter 4 also discusses religious feelings and the Holy Ghost. Chapters 5-6 reveal the impact of folk beliefs on two early claims of Mormonism. Chapters 7-8 investigate priesthood restoration and Joseph’s first vision, detailing the developments and what precipitated the changes in the history of these two experiences” (p. xiii).

While the topics covered are outlined in Palmer’s quote above, his conclusions, all of which I find compelling, are spread throughout the book. Let me highlight a few. As regards Joseph Smith’s ability to translate ancient texts, Palmer concludes, “that a large body of evidence demonstrates that Joseph mistranslated a number of documents,” (p. 36), leading Palmer to conclude that Joseph Smith had no ability to translate. In every instance when he claimed to have translated something that was verifiable – the Kinderhood Plates, Egyptian Papyrii, and a Greek Psalter – he botched it. And almost everyone of his “translations” has been found to be based on existing texts that Joseph Smith was known to have, primarily the King James Version of the Bible.

Palmer also tackles the testimonies of the “witnesses” to the golden plates. He arrives at two compelling conclusions. First, the majority of the “witnesses” claimed to have seen the plates and angel only with their “spiritual eyes and inspected them in the context of a vision, apparently never having actually possessed or touched them. But for them, the spiritual was material; thus, in their official declarations, their experiences sounded more physical than was intended” (p. 207). While I disagree with Palmer’s implied defense of these individuals (i.e., “…than was intended”), I believe his conclusion here is accurate. None of the witnesses actually saw or handled anything physically – it was all in vision. Palmer also notes that, “…all of the living signatories to the Book of Mormon, except possibly Cowdery, accepted Strang’s leadership, angelic call, metal plates, and his translation of these plates as authentic” (pp. 212-213). For those unfamiliar with Strang, he was a follower of Joseph Smith who claimed leadership after Smith died. He also claimed to have translated plates, and almost all of the witnesses to the golden plates also signed on as witnesses for Strang’s translations. The point being, of course, that if these witnesses are supposed to provide “evidence” for the Book of Mormon, then they should also provide evidence for Strang’s writings, none of which the mainstream LDS religion accepts as scripture. Clearly there is a problem there…

In similar fashion, Palmer illustrates that many of the early supernatural visitations Joseph Smith claimed were originally couched as purely visionary or metaphysical encounters but later turned into physical encounters as the needs and theology of the fledgling religion evolved, “The first stories about how Joseph received his authority show that, like other prophets and religious founders throughout history, he and Oliver first received their callings in a metaphysical way. Within a few years, their accounts became more impressive, unique, and physical” (p. 232). In short, Joseph Smith was an expert at making stuff up and revising his earlier claims so they would fall in line with his changing beliefs.

There are a number of additional topics and conclusions that I could address in this review, some of which I’ll touch on in my comments below, but for those interested, I suggest instead that you read the book. It’s well worth it.

Review:
I think part of the reason this book is so compelling and potentially so damaging to the LDS religion is that the author is a 34 year veteran of the religion’s own Church Educational System (CES). He was, in fact, still employed in that field when he wrote and published the book (meaning the LDS religion was actually paying him to write it – snicker ;). As the title of the book implies, the author is an “insider,” which is doubly true in the sense that despite arriving at all of the same conclusions I have regarding the history of the LDS religion, the author remains an active member of the religion. He no longer believes Joseph Smith was much of a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is a literal history of an ancient people, or that much of what Joseph Smith claimed actually happened. Additionally, he is well aware that the leadership of the LDS religion has intentionally and willfully manipulated historical documents or kept them from public sight for years with the aim of presenting a “faithful” history that leaves out all of the evidence that would allow one to arrive at the conclusions Palmer does. Despite all of that, he still believes in Jesus and supports, to some degree at least, the mission of the Mormons. How he reconciles such things is beyond me, but having members of the religion write such scathing exposes of the religion can only be seen as heresy, which explains why he was punished. What’s more, for critics of the church, this is an ideal piece of literature to give to members, since it was written by one of their own. Most critics with this breadth of knowledge leave, which instantly turns them into people who cannot be trusted. Not so in Palmer’s case – ergo, this is potentially one of the most damaging books that exists for the LDS religion.

I think the greatest attribute of this book is that it combines information from a broad swath of references and brings it all together in a very readable and concise format. This is perhaps the clearest and most forthright summary of the historical research into Mormon history conducted over the last 50 or so years. But in addition to recapping the existing information – much of which I had already read – the author introduced some insights and information that I had not heard.

For instance, while I was well aware that Joseph Smith had been tried and convicted of using a peepstone to defraud people, I had never read the excerpts from the proceedings that Palmer includes, “During the trial it was shown that the Book of Mormon was brought to light by the same magic power by which he [Joseph] pretended to tell fortunes, discover hidden treasures &c … Addison Austin was next called upon, who testified, that [he was] … with Smith alone, and [that Austin] asked [Smith] to tell him honestly whether he could see this money or not. Smith hesitated some time, but finally replied, “[T]o be candid, between you and me, I cannot, any more than you or any body else; but any way to get a living”” (p. 8). I had never read this quote elsewhere.

I was aware that Joseph Smith often separated himself from his scribes when “translating” (i.e., dictating) the Book of Mormon, but Palmer extended my understanding of this fact as well. Mormons usually claim that the sheet was to prevent the scribes from seeing the gold plates. But what most Mormons fail to consider is that Joseph never used the alleged plates for translating. He stuck his peepstone (a rock) into his hat and stuck his face over the top of the hat and pretended to be reading from the peepstone. So, if the sheet wasn’t to prevent people from seeing the plates, what was it for? Palmer raises this question and provides a compelling answer, “Since the gold plates were not used during the translation, why the curtain? No nineteenth-century church member mentions that Joseph used notes or books, but scholars have determined that he consulted an open Bible, specifically a printing of the King James translation dating from 1769 or later, including its errors” (p. 10). This is a great insight, combining two elements of Mormon history of which most Mormons are completely unaware to explain an odd behavior – separating himself from his scribes with a sheet.

Another attribute of this book that I absolutely loved was that Palmer is, in my opinion, the first to build a compelling case as to the origins of the Book of Mormon that does not rely on psycho-history or supernatural interference. By combining source material in Joseph Smith’s environment – specifically the KJV Bible, View of the Hebrews by Ethan Smith, The Golden Teapot by E.T.A. Hoffman, and an awareness of the cultural milieu of Smith’s environment – Palmer clearly illustrates the origins of the Book of Mormon. Neither Richard Bushman with his faithful history nor Dan Vogel with his pious fraud/psycho-history have a leg up on Palmer. Palmer’s approach is down-to-earth, simple, and supported by the evidence (a.k.a. sociological). Way to go Grant Palmer!

The other element of Mormon historiography I found insightful in this book was Palmer’s treatment of the “First Vision.” I have to admit that the conflicting accounts of the alleged vision didn’t play a role in my own apostasy. But after having read Palmer’s explanations as to why the multiple versions are so important, I can see why learning about the multiple accounts can lead people to apostatize from the religion. Palmer presents several profound insights regarding the “visions.” First, he notes that Joseph doesn’t talk about the “first vision” during the early history of the religion and only begins talking about it when the credibility of the Book of Mormon is questioned, looking for an earlier and more compelling illustration that he was “called of god” (starting around 1832). Also, his early versions of the vision (1832 and 1835) don’t mention God the Father nor anything about his calling (p. 240). It is only in 1838 that all of the details of the “official version” begin to take shape, many of which fall in line with doctrinal understandings that developed during the intervening years. This leads Palmer to conclude that the historical evidence, “suggests that when he rewrote his history in 1838, he reinterpreted his experience to satisfy institutional needs” (p. 240). Perhaps the clearest indication that Smith made up the “first vision” well after the fact is this insight, “Had Lucy [Joseph's mom] heard her son say that Jesus Christ personally instructed him “to go not after them” and to not “join any” church because “all” of the ministers, creeds, and churches “were an abomination in his sight,” she and her several children certainly would not have joined the Presbyterians and worshiped with them from 1825 until 1828. Nor is it probable that Joseph would have participated with the Methodists between 1820-28” (p. 253). Again, this insight draws upon information that most Mormons do not have – Joseph Smith joined the Methodist religion after his alleged “first vision” in 1820 when he was told that all of the extant religions were false. If he had really had that vision, would he have joined? In all likelihood – no! Clearly he made up the vision and modified it over time to fit institutional needs. If you need any more compelling evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud, you are a prime candidate for blind believer of the year!

The only problem I have with this book is that the author is still a believer – and that really isn’t a very big problem. In all likelihood Mr. Palmer is basically a liberal Christian who doubts numerous aspects of Christianity but maintains a belief in the importance of Jesus’s message of love and peace. It’s hard to find fault with the message, even though the origins have, in my opinion, been shown to be contrived. Even though I don’t share Palmer’s continued belief in the supernatural, I think he has written a magnificent treatise on the origins of Mormonism. This should be mandatory reading for every Mormon. In fact, I believe that strongly enough that I would even be willing to share my copy with others or help them get a copy of their own – it’s that good.

Givens, Terryl. 2002. By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture That Launched a New World Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rating:
3

Summary:
When did Oxford University Press begin publishing religious tracts?

While the book claims to do one thing, it actually does, in my opinion, something else entirely (see my comments below). Because of this, I’ll simply quote here what the author says is the intention of the book, “This study, then, will examine the initial shape and subsequent transformations of the Book of Mormon, how it has been understood, positioned, packaged, utilized, exploited, presented and represented, by its detractors and by its proponents. It will survey its shifting relationship to LDS doctrine and proselytizing, its changing status and reputation among theologians and scholars, and explore what impact its obtrusive presence may have on Christian conceptions of scripture, of revelation, and of the canon” (pp. 6-7)”

Review:
While somewhat enigmatic, the purpose of the book as presented by the author actually sounds intriguing. He claims the book will examine the different ways The Book of Mormon has been viewed over time. I think that would be an interesting study and I’d like to read it. Unfortunately, that study is not this book.

Rather than present an objective treatment of the ways the book has been viewed over time, By the Hand of Mormon is primarily a defense of the authenticity of The Book of Mormon (from here on just BofM) as divinely inspired scripture and literal history of an ancient group of people. When the book focuses on the claimed intent, it actually makes a couple of good points (more on these below). But as the good points are particularly rare, my review will focus primarily on the actual content of the book rather than the alleged content.

Astonishingly, the book begins (even before the table of contents) with the following caveat, “In a history of a religiously controversial subject, of which the Book of Mormon is a premiere example, the disputability of the facts is too obvious to bear repeating on every page. I have therefore avoided constructions like “Joseph Smith’s alleged vision,” or “the purported visit of Moroni,” as they would become tiresome and pedantic if repeated on every page.” I was willing to grant the author this privilege because I thought he might have a good point. Including caveats in every sentence could get cumbersome, though I don’t really believe it is that much harder to write, “Joseph Smith stated he saw an angel,” vs. “Joseph Smith saw an angel.” But it took me only one page of reading before I realized the actual intent of this caveat – to allow the author to disguise the fact that he actually believes in all of the supernatural events that are part of the historical tradition of the Mormons. This was revealed on page 3 (the first actual page of the book) when he says, “Included was a description of the golden plates delivered to him by the angel Moroni…” This is the first of countless examples of the author explicitly describing supernatural events as though they actually happened. I’m perfectly happy to read the writings of people that believe in supernatural events. But when they masquerade as objective, empirical scholars then lace their research with allusions to these events, I find it disturbing. There is absolutely no empirical evidence for any of the supernatural events claimed by Joseph Smith or other members of the Mormon Church! Thus begins one of the most subtle Mormon apologias I’ve ever read…

This is certainly the biggest criticism I have of the book, not because Givens is Mormon – which, in fact, he never admits – but because it influences the way he interprets so many things (see quote from p. 152 for another clear example of this). For instance, Givens attacks Emanuel Swedenborg, a contemporary mystic of Joseph Smith, and does his best to debunk Swedenborg’s claims of visions and visits to different planes of reality (~p. 77). But when it comes to Joseph Smith’s claims, Givens not only gives him a free pass but defends him throughout. His treatment of Joseph’s creation and use of the ‘Urim and Thummim,’ which were the alleged instruments used in translating the BofM (at least in part), is purely defensive. In fact, Givens’ positive and faithful treatment of Smith begins as early as page 4. There is no mention of Smith’s multiple wives, affairs, and other deceits, and even his treasure hunting is dismissed off-handedly as though ‘everyone was doing it.’ In short, this book is best understood as selective, apologetic, supernatural history – history that accepts every supernatural account claimed by the Mormon Church as empirically true.

There are, however, two things that distinguish this book from LDS Church literature (and LDS apologetics): (1) It has references to sources other than scriptures and prior Church publications (though the bulk of the references in this book are to other Mormons, especially researchers associated with FARMS). (2) The book does mention some of the difficult issues involving the authenticity claims of the Book of Mormon (e.g., horses in America). Of course, it doesn’t actually present them as serious drawbacks to the authenticity of the BofM, but it is noteworthy that they are mentioned.

The only clear argument presented in the book has nothing to do with the changing views of the BofM over time but rather that Givens believes the BofM and the anthropological claims of groups like FARMS warrant scientific scrutiny by the objective, empirical scientific community. Of course, this isn’t the intention of the book, but since it is the only clear argument, it will get the bulk of my attention in this review.

One point Givens brings up at least twice (p. 5 and p. 143) to justify his argument is that Mormon apologetics is gaining respect… among evangelical apologists. As Givens describes it, “two scholars at a recent regional meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society praised the professionalism of Mormon apologetics, and reproached their religious colleagues for the dearth of scholarly, sophisticated, and informed critiques of the book” (p. 5). Am I wrong in finding this laughable? I mean, if paleontologists or archeologists or anthropologists or botanists or any real scientists were seriously considering the work of Mormon apologists and groups like FARMS, that may actually be noteworthy. But to find value in praise from people whose job is to defend supernatural beliefs doesn’t really lend to legitimacy in my mind. Givens does mention three or four actual scientists who have commented on the authenticity of the BofM in the past, but all of his references are pre-1980. Admittedly I’m biased, but this seems to indicate that the authenticity claims of Mormon apologists were dismissed three decades ago. Does Givens really want scholars who have legitimate things to study to spend time re-proving that Native American Indians came from Asia and not from Jerusalem? How many times do you have to prove to people that the Earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa?

Despite the fact that most non-Mormon scientists have dismissed the authenticity claims of the BofM, much of By the Hand of Mormon is actually made up discussions of the efforts of Mormon anthropologists to prove the authenticity. Amazingly, Givens spends dozens of pages discussing these issues, only to finally admit on page 155, “The conundrum of the Book of Mormon is that, on the one hand, as Mormons readily admit, not one single archaeological artifact has been found that conclusively establishes a direct connection between the record and any actual culture or civilization of the Western Hemisphere.” After reading page after page of defenses of the BofM, this statement was a welcome reprise, despite the fact that it isn’t entirely accurate. The ‘not one single archaeological artifact’ part is accurate. The ‘as Mormons readily admit’ part, unfortunately, is not. Though you’d never guess it from Givens’s book, most Mormons still believe in the hemispheric model (i.e., The BofM took place in all of North and South America), not the limited geography model. This view is bolstered by the introduction of the BofM (i.e., “It is a record of God’s dealings with the ancient inhabitants of the Americas…”). What’s more, many Mormons believe the BofM’s authenticity is bolstered by all sorts of evidence. Though I don’t have hard data on this, I would speculate that most Mormons are even less-informed than the people at FARMS, in large part because they are getting information from two poor sources – conspiracy-theorist Mormons who propose bogus theories and ‘more-informed’ members of FARMS who present bogus theories.

But perhaps the biggest problem with Givens’s argument that the BofM be taken seriously as an archeological guidebook is that the research derived from the BofM (FARMS, etc.) is increasingly making it impossible to falsify their alleged ‘hypotheses.’ Basically, apologists of the BofM started out claiming that the BofM represented a hemispheric model – that the events took place in all of North and South America. As actual scientific inquiry illustrated that the native inhabitants of the Americas came from Asia over a known land bridge, apologists of the BofM began to alter their model. This lead John Sorenson (and his followers) to propose a ‘limited geography’ model of the BofM; rather than taking place in all of North and South America, the events depicted in the book were now proposed to have taken place in just a small portion of Central America.

This idea is absurd for numerous reasons. First, not unlike creation scientists (an oxymoron if there ever was one), BofM apologists are unable to admit that their story is wrong, so they either dismiss new evidence that does not support their belief (it’s not a hypothesis) or revise their understanding of the belief. The limited geography model follows the latter approach. The evidence for an Asian origin of native Americans is so substantial that maintaining a hemispheric model became entirely unfeasible. BofM apologists were forced to modify their belief – an astonishing notion considering it undermines both what the BofM says and the understandings of the BofM held by the majority of members and all of the early leaders of the religion. Of course, in this process, BofM apologists are also doing their best to re-write early understandings of the BofM as well as convince current members that the limited geography model is accurate. (You can now go on trips to ‘The BofM Lands’ – i.e., Guatemala – sponsored by Mormon tour groups.)

The second reason the limited geography model is absurd is because it is increasingly non-falsifiable. I have yet to read a paper considering the non-falsifiability of the limited geography model by an apologist, as they seem to have completely overlooked this fact. Basically, what the apologists are doing is situating the events of the BofM in smaller and smaller geographic locations as actual evidence continues to refute their broader models. As the location gets smaller, it becomes more and more difficult to actually present falsifiable (meaning provable or disprovable) hypotheses. For instance, after DNA evidence came out supporting the Asian origins of native Americans, BofM apologists commented to the effect, “Well, the people in the BofM made up such a small percentage of the native population that it is no wonder there are no genetic markers of a Jewish origin. They easily could have disappeared over time through cross-breeding.” In short, they are saying there is no way to test whether the BofM account actually took place by arguing against the social, cultural, biological, linguistic, and genetic influences of the Nephites and Lamanites on ancient America. As a result, their models are no longer falsifiable. When BofM apologists move out of the realm of falsifiability, they move into the realm of unsubstantiated belief. If Givens really wants the claims of BofM apologists to be taken seriously, he’ll need to present some falsifiable hypotheses for scientists to test (e.g., that Native Americans are displaced Jews, which was proven false). Until BofM apologists are able to present such hypotheses, their work will be relegated where it belongs – in the field of religious apologetics and not in the field of empirical science.

Since there are no other broad arguments presented in By the Hand of Mormon, the rest of this review will focus on some of the smaller points the author makes. I will eventually point out a couple good points made by the author, but, you probably won’t find it surprising that most of what I have to say about the book isn’t very positive.

Rather than meticulously refuting every one of Givens’s claims about the authenticity of the BofM, I’ll just touch on a few of them. For instance, Givens argues that “…statistics for pre-industrial growth rates are notoriously conjectural (though certainly marked by sporadic eruptions), and in any case, it is likely that Book of Mormon populations would include any number of annexed groups as well, throwing all statistical projections into irrelevance.” While pre-industrial growth rates are conjectural in the sense that there is no way to absolutely confirm them like we can with populations today, they are also grounded in archeological evidence. In my introduction to demography textbook (Peters, Gary L.; Larkin, Robert P. 2002. Population Geography.), the historic annual rate of growth of .1 percent (a doubling time of about 700 years) is presented on page 5. This rate basically an assumption at this point in demography; no one questions it because it is rooted in evidence.. As is the case with most of the claims made by Givens, basic, fundamental science has shown him to be absurdly wrong! Applying this growth rate to the BofM population that arrived in the Americas around 600 B.C.E. would indicate that by the end of the book (~531 C.E.), there would have been close to 300-400 people in that community, not the millions claimed in the BofM. Advocates of the Limited Geography Model are going to dismiss this point in my review because they believe there were already people in the Americas. Unfortunately for them, the BofM disagrees with that notion (as Earl Wunderli has pointed out). That Givens dismisses this internal argument against the population growth outlined in the BofM so off-handedly clearly illustrates he is wholly uninterested in science and the study of human populations.

Another interesting point made by Givens is that he doesn’t believe the scientific community takes BofM apologetics seriously because they have a specific agenda (see quotes from pp. 148 and 149). Givens claims that science is unwilling to consider alternative theories for the peopling of the Americas and alleges that scientists conspired with the Clinton administration to prevent continued excavation near the site where the Kennewick Man was discovered. There are two serious problems with his argument here. First, the prevention of further excavation at the site was spurred by politicians and Native American Indians who wanted to limit excavations in an ancient Indian burial ground (see for more details on this). Apparently Givens could care less about the desires of Native American Indians if they are limiting his ability to pursue apologetic research. Second, as it just so happens I caught a show on the National Geographic Channel just after reading this book. The show was billed as scientists debating different theories on the peopling of the Americas based on the Clovis spearpoint and Clovis settlements. Not surprisingly, the debates were focused on migrations that took place between 16 and 20 thousand years ago and there was no mention of gold plates, Jews, or anything else that would corroborate the BofM story. I bring this up because it shows that scientists are very open to alternative theories, which flies in the face of Givens’s accusation to the contrary. Also, it shows that scientists are studying the origins of Native Americans, but the BofM is playing no part in that research… except for apologists.

Another point that I found annoying throughout this book is that Givens refers to the gold plates as an ancient artifact, “…this continual, extensive, and prolonged engagement with a tangible, visible, grounding artifact [the gold plates] is not compatible with a theory that makes him an inspired writer reworking the stuff of his own dreams into a product worthy of the name scripture” (p. 178). Once again, Givens’s biases are revealed – he believes in the existence of these alleged gold plates. Unfortunately, reason sides against him. Joseph Smith is 0 for 2 on translating with verifiable sources – The Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri (a fact not mentioned or even discussed in this book) and The Kinderhook Plates (which Givens weakly defends). To try to bolster his argument for the authenticity of the BofM by referring to the gold plates as an authentic argument is simply wrong-headed. Where is the alleged ‘artifact’? If it is, in fact, an artifact, why doesn’t it actually exist? There is a simple solution to this dilemma: either produce the artifact and let objective scientists verify its authenticity or admit the artifact never existed. As is the case with all supernatural beliefs and outlandish claims, the burden of proof rests on those making the claim. Until BofM apologists produce the gold plates, they have no argument here. Just by claiming they existed doesn’t make it so. And just by claiming they are an ‘artifact’ doesn’t make it so.

My final point involves a summary quote from Givens that is nothing short of ‘over-the-top’ proselytization, “The naked implausibility of gold plates, seer stones, and warrior-angels finds little by way of scientific corroboration, but attributing to a young farmboy the 90-day dictated and unrevised production of a 500-page narrative that incorporates sophisticated literary structures, remarkable Old World parallels, and some 300 references to chronology and 700 to geography with virtually perfect self-consistency is problematic as well” (p. 156). Only one of the claims in this quote is accurate. Joseph Smith was 25 when the BofM was published; that hardly makes him young. He had written a rough draft (the lost 116 pages) and had rehearsed his stories for a number of years before finally penning the book, which is pointed out by Givens. To say he wrote the whole thing in 90-days and without revisions is a patent lie. It does have 500+ pages in its current incarnation, so that’s true. The sophisticated literary structures (chiasmus) are hooey. Pretty much any book you look through will have these. This is the worst argument for BofM authenticity there is. The Old World parallels aren’t surprising considering Joseph Smith plagiarized the Bible for much of the book and was obviously familiar with it. Finally, the references to chronology and geography aren’t shocking. There are a few mistakes in there (which Givens conveniently overlooks for this quote), but even if there were no mistakes, there are innumerable examples of coherent novels, even from Smith’s day (e.g., Charles Dickens). Just because someone writes a semi-coherent work of fiction doesn’t mean they were inspired.

Having pointed out just a few of the problems with this book, let me briefly highlight two of the good points it makes. First, it does, at one point, return to the alleged aim of the book long enough to illustrate that the BofM was primarily used during the early days of the religion not for its literary or doctrinal value but for its existence, “The reality of the plates and their angelic courier, in other words, not the cogency of Nephi’s writing, was the point” (p. 85). I have to admit some amazement that Givens is willing to criticize the content of a book that contains ‘sophisticated literary structures,’ but he makes a good point. Much of what now constitutes Mormon doctrine (e.g., polygamy, godhood, distinct gods, etc.) is not found in the BofM at all. I had never really considered the idea that the BofM’s existence was more highly valued than its content. This doesn’t say much about the literary quality of the BofM (as Twain put it, ‘choloroform in print’), but it does make sense.

The second noteworthy point made by Givens involves the LDS leadership’s approach to Mormon apologetics, “So the church maintains its position of cautious support, recognizing that the discovery of corroborative evidence may be no less problematic than the failure to build a convincing scholarly case” (p. 154). Givens’s point here is that, while the LDS Church’s leadership would love to find evidence to support the claims of the BofM, they are skeptical that such evidence will be forthcoming and therefore discourage this avenue for bolstering faith. Of course, this overlooks the idea that faith is belief and not knowledge based on evidence, but it is a good point nonetheless.

In conclusion, unless you are an apologist (Mormon or otherwise), I highly doubt you’ll find much use in this book. Mormon apologists will likely find the book useful as a summary and collection of their ‘findings’ and a bibliography for those findings. Non-Mormon apologists may find it useful as a resource for future attacks against Mormons. As for the actual goal of looking at the changing role of the BofM over time, other than the first good point I noted above, I fail to see how this was really addressed by the book. There may be some comments of value in chapters 7 & 8 on the theology of the BofM, but I found myself wading in very unfamiliar territory and have to admit I was mostly lost while reading them. I’m still amazed University of Oxford Press published this book, as its glaring flaws are far more apparent than its minor contributions to the study of Mormonism. For social scientists interested in the study of Mormonism, I don’t believe this book makes any substantive contributions; you can safely avoid it.