Reviews 197 cause it is one of the most homopho- thrilling iconography of America's bic religions," said Kushner, who most successful indigenous religion. claims that his play was deeply influ- Regardless of what one considers to enced by Fawn Brodie's No Man be the quality and endurance of a play Knows My History as well as works by like Angels in America the lesson may Harold Bloom. be that playwrights and others inter- Mormon dramatists whose im- ested in developing a Mormon theat- pulse is to write about their religion rical literature had best get cracking. and culture have clearly been up- That such a play has issued from a staged by a self-proclaimed agnostic non-Mormon playwright might say as gay Jew from Brooklyn. His imagina- much about the failure of Mormon tion has, among many other things, dramatists to transcend the self-con- and despite some unfair demonizing sciousness of their own social and cul- of Joe near the play's end, aptly cap- tural boundaries—to position them- tured much of the essence of contem- selves in the world—as it does about porary Mormon character and the Kushner's ample talent.

"Critical" Book of Mormon Scholarship

New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: text. It should, however, be ap- Explorations in Critical Methodology. proached as a piece of generally solid Edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt scholarship which contributes to a Lake City: Signature Books, 1993). better understanding of the nature and origin of this book of scripture. Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, While many of the conclusions Volume 6. Edited by Daniel C. Peter- reached are not new, the methodologi- son (Provo, UT: Foundation for An- cal rigor brought to bear in the study cient Research and Mormon Studies, of the Book of Mormon certainly justi- 1994). fies the title of the volume. Reviewed by Stephen E. Thomp- An impressive array of topics are son, Ph.D., Research Assistant, De- dealt within the book, and those inter- partment of Egyptology, Brown ested in textual criticism, Book of University. Mormon geography, demography, language, and ideational context will NEW APPROACHES TO THE BOOK OF find material of interest. Given the Mormon will undoubtedly be per- number of contributions to the vol- ceived as another salvo in the war of ume (ten), and the limited space allot- words between those who believe the ted for this review, it is not possible to Book of Mormon is best understood summarize all of the articles and then as a nineteenth-century product of Jo- offer critical remarks. I will offer only seph Smith and those who adopt the a few remarks on particular essays. more traditional understanding of the In "The Word of God Is Enough: book as a translation of an ancient The Book of Mormon as Nineteenth- 198 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

century Scripture/' Anthony Hutchin- mon Christology," Melodie Charles son states that "my thesis is simple,... states that in order "to give the Book we should accept that [the Book of of Mormon's idea a context this essay Mormon] is a work of scripture in- will show some of what the Book of spired by God in the same way that the Mormon says about Jesus Christ and Bible is inspired, but one that has as its will compare that with what the Jews human author Joseph Smith, Jr." (1). at the time of Jesus' birth were expect- He then fails, however, to discuss the ing the Messiah to be, with what extremely complex nature of biblical Christians after his death believed he inspiration. was, and with current Mormon be- I find the author's discussion of liefs." Her treatment of these four top- how one can hold that the Book of ics is very uneven, however. Her Mormon is scripture, but not histori- discussions of what the Book of Mor- cal, unsatisfying. He states that he ac- mon says about Christ, and of current cepts the Book of Mormon as the Mormon beliefs, are adequate. She ar- "word of God" because he is moved gues that the Book of Mormon is by the stories it contains, as well as by "largely modalistic" and makes "no "the story of Joseph Smith . . . and [of explicit distinction between the identi- the] people brought together by its ties of the Father and the Son" (103). coming forth" (7). He seems to be say- This contrasts with the trithestic view ing that he accepts the Book of Mor- of the Trinity found in Mormonism af- mon as scripture because of his ter the 1840s. Her discussion of who emotional reaction to the text, but is Christians believed Jesus to be after such a reaction sufficient reason to his death focuses almost exclusively consider a book "scripture"? Hutchin- on post-325 C.E. theology, and gener- son tells us that "understanding the ally omits a discussion of who first Book of Mormon as a fictional work of generation Christians thought Jesus to nineteenth-century scripture has real be. Charles's treatment of messianic advantages. The book opens up for in- expectations at the time of Jesus' birth terpretation when read this way. The is simply inadequate and ignores re- stories take on an added dimension cent scholarship on the subject, in far beyond, I find, any that were lost which it is argued that in the Palestine when I stopped believing in historical of Lehi's day there was no messianic Nephites" (17). Unfortunately for the expectation (the term "Messiah," de- reader, Hutchinson fails to provide ex- noting an eschatological figure, is first amples of the "advantages" of his attested during the first century suggested method of interpretation. I B.C.E.), and that one cannot state that would have liked to have seen how there was ever a messianic expecta- the stories take on an "added dimen- tion, but messianic expectations. See, sion." Hutchinson places great em- for example, J. Neusner, W. Green, phasis on the stories of the Book of and E. Frerichs, eds., Judaisms and Mormon but seems to neglect the ex- Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Chris- pository discourse of the book. In tian Era (Cambridge University Press, what ways, if any, should this material 1987), and J. Charlesworth, ed., The be reinterpreted in light of the nine- Messiah: Developments in Earliest Juda- teenth-century context of the book? ism and Christianity (Fortress Press, 1992). The latter appeared too late to In her article on "Book of Mor- Reviews 199 have been used by Charles, but the tion of the Book of Mormon into He- former should have been. brew (what form of Hebrew?) does not In his article "A Record in the reflect such constructions does not Language of My Father/' Edward prove anything about the nature of the Ashment discusses the question of the language of the Hebrew Bible. Simi- original language of the Book of Mor- larly, Ashment's "biblical" text which mon and the statistical methods he creates from Genesis 1:1 to "help which have been employed to find ev- make clear" that the "unusual syntax idence for multiple authorship in the of the Book of Mormon is not charac- book. I find myself in general agree- teristic of Hebrew" (365-66) also ment with Ashment's conclusions— proves nothing about the Hebrew Bi- i.e., that there is insufficient evidence ble, since the text is purely a creation of available from the English "transla- Ashment. His demonstration that tion" to support claims that the Book such constructions are not limited to of Mormon was written in Egyptian, the Book of Mormon but can be found Hebrew, "reformed" Egyptian, or in in other writings of Joseph Smith for Hebrew using Egyptian characters. which there is no postulated Hebrew Ashment's article provides the needed Vorlage is sufficient to establish the methodological corrective to studies point that these constructions cannot which try to point out "Hebraisms" in serve as evidence of an underlying He- the text of the Book of Mormon. Any brew text of the Book of Mormon. In a construction which has a parallel in footnote (365n42), Ashment notes that the King James Version of the Bible the unusual syntactic construction un- cannot serve as evidence of Hebrew as der discussion is not "representative the language underlying the Book of of Egyptian" and quotes from Gar- Mormon. diner's grammar of Middle Egyptian, While I am largely in agreement which notes that "involved construc- with Ashment's conclusions, I cannot tions and lengthy periods are rare." concur in all the particulars of his argu- This statement does not represent the ment. In arguing against a suggestion current understanding of the Egyptian by Brian Stubbs that "long strings of language; lengthy, involved construc- subordinate clauses and verbal expres- tions are not at all rare in Egyptian. See sions [found in the Book of Mormon]... the remarks of E Junge, "How to Study are acceptable in Hebrew, though un- Egyptian grammar and to what pur- orthodox and discouraged in En- pose. A Summary of sorts," Lingua Ae- glish," and therefore provide evidence gyptia 1 (1991): 398, and M. Collier, of Hebrew influence on the text of the "Predication and the Circumstantial Book of Mormon, Ashment uses meth- sdm(=f)/sdm.n(=f)," Lingua Aegyptia 2 ods of argumentation which border on (1992): 18n5. the nonsensical. He maintains that if To conclude on a technical note, such constructions were "acceptable" due to limitations imposed by the Hebrew syntax, the 1981 text from the publisher, the authors were unable to modern selections from the Book of make use of any of the standard sys- Mormon in Hebrew "should readily tems used to transliterate the Hebrew, reflect the literally-translated Book of Egyptian, and Greek alphabets. In or- Mormon text. In fact, it does not" der to make use of transliterations, (364). The fact that a modern transla- David Wright had to devise a new 200 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought method involving an unsightly mix it was only a matter of time until of upper and lower case letters to ren- FARMS trained its guns on what they der characters not found in the En- perceived to be the latest attack on the glish alphabet. To make matters Book of Mormon. worse, this transliteration system was In the current issue, RBBM editor not used consistently throughout the Daniel Peterson has assembled a book, and at times the same letter is team of thirteen reviewers to aid him transliterated in different ways. If Sig- in evaluating New Approaches. They nature Books plans to continue pub- are Davis Bitton, John Tvedtnes, John lishing the type of scholarship Gee, Royal Skousen, John Welch, Rob- represented in this book, I hope that it ert Millet, Louis Midgley, James will develop the capability to repro- Smith, John Sorenson, Matthew duce any of the accepted translitera- Roper, Richard Anderson, Martin Tan- tion systems currently in use. Such ad ner, and William Hamblin. Two re- hoc creations as found in this volume viewers (Bitton and Tvedtnes) are not acceptable. provide considerations of the book as Since its first appearance in 1989, a whole, while others respond to one Review of Books on the Book of Mormon or several of its essays. Some review- (RBBM), published by the Founda- ers (Welch, Midgley, Sorenson, Ander- tion for Ancient Research and Mor- son) respond to criticism of their mon Studies headquartered at earlier work by authors in New Ap- Brigham Young University, has proaches, while Hamblin responds to evolved from simply providing re- an article by Brent Metcalfe which ap- views of books dealing with the Book peared in Dialogue (Fall 1993). While of Mormon to being a vehicle for pub- Metcalfe's essay was not part of New lishing responses to what are per- Approaches, nor a book about the Book ceived as attacks on traditional of Mormon, apparently the editor felt Mormon attitudes to scripture. Ac- that the contents of this article justi- cording to the title, the journal is dedi- fied a response in RBBM (xi). cated to dealing with books about the One of the first things that I no- Book of Mormon, but when the need ticed about this book was the tone in arises, its scope can be extended to which the articles are written. This is books dealing with the Book of Abra- not merely an attempt to evaluate the ham and to books dealing with Mor- essays presented in New Approaches, monism in general. For example, but an effort to discredit totally the ar- volume 3 included reviews of Rodger ticles and authors. This is attempted Anderson's Joseph Smith's New York by the frequent use of a sarcastic (e.g., Reputation Reexamined (Signature 483) and condescending tone, and by Books, 1990) and Dan Vogel's The comments about the authors in Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scrip- New Approaches. Peterson tells us that ture (Signature Books, 1990), and vol- he does not "advocate the use" of "in- ume 4 reviewed C. M. Larson's By His sulting or abusive language," but then Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look he allows such bald, unsupported at the Joseph Smith Papyri (Institute for statements as Midgley's referring to Religious Research, 1992). (Appar- Mark Thomas as "inept" (217n42) to ently RBBM will review whatever its stand. We are repeatedly reminded editor feels inclined to include.) Thus that Brent Metcalfe is only a high Reviews 201 school graduate, that he is an agnos- when he notes that the real point of tic, and was a close associate of Mark dispute "between defenders of the Hofmann (78n92, 211n36, 520, 522, Book of Mormon . . . and those who 545, 556). We are informed that Mark would revise or redefine those truth Thomas is a banker, and that Edward claims ... is ... a clash of opposing Ashment is an insurance salesman world views." This is particularly ap- (54, 79, 526n9). While all of this infor- parent in the differing approaches to mation may be true, I wonder what its the Bible evident in the two publica- relevance is to the strength of the ar- tions. The approach to the Bible guments put forward by the respec- adopted by several contributors to tive authors. Apparently, some RBBM has much in common with that contributors to RBBM feel that the fact of Protestant fundamentalists who that some contributors to New Ap- see the Bible as largely inerrant and proaches lack advanced degrees is sig- historical. For example, in his re- nificant in evaluating their work. sponse to Mark Thomas's discussion Credentials are interesting things. of the account of Jesus' institution of When one lacks them but one's oppo- the sacrament among the Nephites, nent does not, then they are of little Richard Anderson relies heavily on value. (As Hugh Nibley noted, "What discourses which the gospel of John on earth have a man's name, degree, attributes to Jesus. He also tells us that academic position, and of all things, he uses "all four Gospels as responsi- opinions, to do with whether a thing is bly quoting the Savior, whether or not true or not" ["A New Look at the Pearl word-perfect" (396). When one adopts of Great Price," Improvement Era, Jan. this approach, Anderson claims, then 1968].) When one has them however, "each phrase in the Nephite prayers and one feels that an opponent does correlates with New Testament teach- not, then they are of great importance. ings of Christ on the sacrament" Hamblin presents a lengthy list of as- (ibid.), and that "the Book of Mormon sociations at whose meetings some sacrament teachings ... fit our Bible FARMS writers have presented pa- as written" (384). Anderson never re- pers, publishers who have published ally defends this approach, or the sub- their books, and journals in which stantial reliability of the gospels, but they have published articles (445). But, simply asserts it. The closest he as Hamblin well knows, giving a pa- comes is when he argues that because per is one thing, giving a good paper Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp, who (or publishing a good book or article) supposedly knew John, states that is quite another. The relevance of this John was an eyewitness to Jesus' min- impressive list of scholarly output is istry, then the book can be taken as also questionable. How does having historical (403). On the other hand, an article in The Encyclopedia of Islam when he refers to Mark Thomas's qualify one to write on the Book of more critical approach to the gospel Mormon? I suspect that the contribu- record, he refers to it as scrambling tors to RBBM are hoping to discredit the integrity of the gospels, or as wit- New Approaches to such an extent that ness tampering (387), or as the work others will not take their arguments of "individualistic scholars" (384). seriously. If Anderson is going to accept Daniel Peterson is correct (525) John as historical, then he has to ex- 202 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought plain how his eyewitness saw things courses in John were not delivered by vastly differently from the other gos- Jesus, then Anderson's argument ac- pel authors, one of whom was also tually works against Book of Mormon supposedly an "eyewitness." The historicity. If Joseph Smith was work- Jesus of John's gospel displays a ing with the King James Version of the vastly different teaching style and con- Bible (KJV) as his basic source of in- tent from the Jesus of the Synoptic formation, then one would expect ex- Gospels. In the Synoptic Gospels, actly what Anderson finds in 3 Nephi, Jesus teaches by means of short pro- i.e., that the material on the sacrament verbial sayings and parables. In John, in 3 Nephi is found scattered through- however, we find Jesus delivering out all four gospels and includes ma- long, involved discourses. The subject terial that does not come from the matter of these discourses also differs. historical Jesus. Melodie Charles In the Synoptics, Jesus teaches about (New Approaches, 89) notes a similar the kingdom of God and rarely says phenomenon concerning the informa- anything about himself. In John, Jesus tion about Jesus' life in the Book of speaks primarily about himself and al- Mormon. She points out that all the most never about the kingdom of details provided by the Book of Mor- God. Differences such as these have mon concerning the life of Jesus are led scholars to view the discourses of contained in the New Testament, Jesus in John as later creations and not which could also indicate Joseph speeches given by the historical Jesus Smith's use of the New Testament as (see J. D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for his source of information. Jesus [Westminster Press, 1985], 32-43; The results of the critical study of E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of the Synoptic Gospels is not the only Jesus [Penguin Press, 1993], 66-73). field whose results and methods are Anderson makes no attempt to sup- rejected by contributors to RBBM. port his assumption that the apostle John Gee (69) and Royal Skousen John supposedly known by Polycarp (122-24) maintain that the whole field is the author of the fourth gospel. Ray- of New Testament textual criticism is mond Brown points out that Irenaeus filled with practitioners who employ is not an entirely trustworthy witness faulty methodology and whose results and can be shown to have been wrong are unreliable. John Sorenson's argu- in certain instances, as when he said ment is not so much with Deanne Ma- that Papias heard John, which contra- theny's article in New Approaches as dicts Papias himself (The Gospel of John with established scholars in the field I-XII [Doubleday, 1966], lxxxix-xc). E. of Mesoamerican archaeology (300), P. Sanders has noted that from the whom he derisively refers to as BS (for present available evidence, the gos- Big Scholars, 303). The reviewers in pels circulated without titles (or au- RBBM ask one to reject the work of thors) until the second half of the many more scholars than just those second century and that authors were contributing to New Approaches. assigned to them beginning about The contributors to RBBM could 180, not based on long-standing tradi- have benefitted greatly from reading tion, but on clues found within the Matthew 7:3 (NRSV): "Why do you gospels themselves (Jesus, 64-65). see the speck in your neighbor's eye, Once one accepts that the dis- but do not notice the log in your own Reviews 203 eye?" All of the errors and faults the Book of Mormon and its original which reviewers in RBBM point out in Hebrew text, and that the use of a par- New Approaches are also to be found in ticular English word in the Book of RBBM itself. Note the following exam- Mormon indicates that the original ple. On page 52 John Gee tells us that record contained the Hebrew word for New Approaches is filled with "decep- which the English word served as a tive and specious claims." But so is translation equivalent in the KJV. Gee's article. As an example, I call at- Tvedtnes argues that because the KJV tention to Gee's statement (68) that mistranslates the Hebrew word for "any attempt to reconstruct the origi- copper or bronze as brass, then when nal text of Matthew which fails to take brass appears in the Book of Mormon, [the text of Hebrew Matthew] into ac- it should also be understood to mean count may justly be said to be defec- copper or bronze (31). In attempting tive." This is hardly the case. In fact, to determine what is meant in the one reviewer of the publication of He- Book of Mormon by the word brew Matthew has stated just the op- "sword," Sorenson maintains that posite, that the "interesting readings" one should take into consideration in Hebrew Matthew may be consid- "the Hebrew language meanings of ered "primitive when and only when the word translated 'sword'" (325). I corroborated by ancient witnesses" fail to see the justification for this (W. L. Petersen, book review in Journal methodology, and I am not sure how of Biblical Literature 108:725; see also S. Tvedtnes and Sorenson understand Cohen, book review in Bible Review, the idea of translation. We do not have June 1988, 9). Rather than being an in- the "original language" of the plates, dependent witness to Matthew, He- but only Joseph Smith's translation of brew Matthew is derivative from late them. The key to the meaning of the versions of canonical Matthew. (In words in the Book of Mormon is not fact, the author of the book being re- some hypothetical Hebrew substra- viewed by Petersen and Cohen, tum, but how Joseph Smith under- George Howard, has informed me stood the words in his day. Sorenson that a second edition of his book on uses a methodology which allows him Hebrew Matthew, The Gospel of Mat- to convert the English text of the Book thew according to a Primitive Hebrew of Mormon into whatever he pleases. Text [Mercer University Press], will For him, east means north, horse appear shortly and that in it he argues means deer (unless, of course, he can only that the text is "pre-fourteenth find evidence of horses in Mesoamer- century." Gee's confidence in Hebrew ica contemporaneous with Book of Matthew as a "primitive" text which Mormon civilizations), and ox means is to be equated with the text referred tapir (344-47). Apparently God and Jo- to by Papia is misplaced.) seph Smith were poor translators. At Another charge Gee levels against the very least we could have hoped to New Approaches is that it contains have, in these instances, a few of the "shoddy methodology" (52). As an ex- words which Welch finds elsewhere in ample of such in RBBM, note the fol- the Book of Mormon were added dur- lowing. John Tvedtnes and John ing the translation "for clarity" (158). Sorenson both operate on the assump- (In fact, Sorenson's comment tion that the KJV forms a link between [346-47] that Aztecs referred to the 204 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought

Spanish horses as "deer-which-car- in a postmortal punishment for cer- ried-men-upon-their-backs" actually tain individuals would have been works against his suggestion that deer plain to Tanner if he had read the pas- were ridden in Mesoamerica. If this is sage by Eric Hornung which Gee the way Aztecs referred to horses, quotes on page 108 of RBBM. then obviously the major difference Other errors include John Tvedt- between deer and horses was that nes's reference to an Aramaic text horses carried men, while deer did written in "Coptic" (read Demotic) not. The statement quoted by Soren- script, and John Welch's claim that the son in no way provides evidence that prefix apo in Greek apodidomi is suffi- "there is nothing inherently implausi- cient to indicate that "the openness of ble in the idea [of men riding deer in the reward is implicit in the verb it- Mesoamerica].") self" (161). Actually, apodidomi means Daniel Peterson seems to con- "to make a payment, with the implica- sider it a weakness of New Approaches tion of such a payment being in re- that the contributors are not in total sponse to an incurred obligation" (J. P. agreement with one another (553; see Louw and E. A. Nida, et al., Greek-En- also Gee, 74, Welch, 183), yet he refers glish Lexicon of the New Testament based to disagreements among contributors on Semantic Domains [UBS, 1989], to RBBM as "relatively minor" (vii). 1:575). Welch cites no examples in This is quite an understatement. What support of his contention that in apodi- William Hamblin calls (451n36) the domi "the openness of the reward is presentist fallacy, Robert Millet tells us implicit in the verb itself," and until must be the preferred method used to he can do so, his argument against interpret the Book of Mormon and all Stan Larson's examples 5-7 showing scripture, and if it is not then "we that Joseph Smith relied on the KJV [LDS] have little or nothing to offer for the text of the Sermon on the the world in regard to religious un- Mount in Nephi 3 has no merit. derstanding" (189). If this is a minor (In an earlier work, The Sermon at disagreement, I would like to see the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount: what Peterson considers major. A Latter-day Saint Perspective [Deseret Errors of fact are not infrequent in Book Co. and FARMS, 1990], Welch RBBM. Contrary to John Sorenson's stated only that apodidomi "may con- claim, there is no Egyptian word ss vey . . . the idea of being rewarded .. . meaning horse (345, the word is ssmt), openly." Apparently Welch has now shs is not the Egyptian word for ante- become more sure of this point, to lope (which is ss3w), and there is no judge by the tone of his statement in etymological relationship between RBBM.) the two Egyptian words. Martin Tan- The most bitter irony of RBBM is ner completely misunderstands the that its contributors frequently accuse Egyptian text he quotes (432) as evi- contributors to New Approaches, and dence of the concept of "universal sal- its publisher Signature Books, of try- vation" among Egyptians. The text ing to "impose their world view and refers to the fact that everyone will understanding of the past on the eventually end up in the cemetery, i.e., Church as a whole" (461, cf. 210). dead, and not that all will achieve From what position of power do these "salvation." That Egyptians believed individuals seek to impose their views Reviews 205 on the rest of the church? Their only church (Jae Ballif to David Wright, 13 "power" comes from the force of per- June 1988) to last year's failure to re- suasion. It is rather the LDS church new the contracts of some scholars be- that attempts to impose its view of cause of their controversial views on these issues on its members. Two con- issues deemed sensitive by the tributors to New Approaches were church (see "BYU Fires Two Contro- called in by their church leaders and versial Faculty Members," Sunstone questioned about their contributions, 16/5:74-77) and the "purge" of Sep- and one was told never to publish tember 1993 (see "Six Intellectuals with Signature Books again. David Disciplined for Apostasy," Sunstone Wright was excommunicated in large 16/6:65-73), the church has shown measure because of his contribution to that the intellectual freedom of its em- New Approaches. The only "force" be- ployees is considerably circumscribed. ing applied in this debate is by the in- Now it may be true that Hamblin is a stitutional church, and its activities virtuous, courageous individual, who have a bearing on the extent to which could come to conclusions unaccept- much of FARMS scholarship can be able to his employer and then resign considered "critical." his position. But without knowing William Hamblin includes a Hamblin, a reader cannot judge the lengthy discussion of the "critical" extent to which he, or any church em- method and asks, "In what element of ployee, is truly "free" when it comes the critical method have I failed?" to matters of LDS scholarship. Per- (438, see 438-44) There is one impor- haps through no fault of their own, tant ingredient which Hamblin lacks, the work of many FARMS researchers which makes one consider that his does not qualify as "critical" because work on the Book of Mormon is not they lack the essential ingredient of critical, and that is freedom. James freedom. Barr has noted that freedom is an es- While RBBM is seriously flawed, sential element in any scholarly en- it is not wholly without merit. New deavor which hopes to be truly Approaches does have its faults, and critical. He states that "criticism im- RBBM points these out. Unfortunately plies freedom, and there is much one has to wade through far too much scholarship which feels itself bound dross and bile to find the worthwhile to reach the results required by this portions of RBBM. Hamblin (506-20) or that religious tradition and which is correct when he points out that in this sense is not critical" (Barr, those who consider the Book of Mor- Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criti- mon nineteenth century in origin cism [Westminister Press, 1983], 107- should make some attempt at explain- 108). ing the numerous accounts of "wit- Eight of the contributors to RBBM nesses" to the plates. Brent Metcalfe, are employed by BYU, as are many of in his Dialogue article, made a begin- the frequent contributors to FARMS's ning by discussing the testimony of other publications. Beginning with the three witnesses, but there are other David Wright's dismissal from BYU in testimonies, some of which are 1988 for holding attitudes about scrip- pointed out by Hamblin, which also ture which "differ so significantly need to be considered. Scholars who from those generally accepted" by the view Mormon scripture as non-histor- 206 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought ical need to go beyond arguing the tions, their purposes, and the degree case against the traditional under- to which their conclusions are based standing of Mormon scripture and be- on various forms of evidence or de- gin to develop an interpretation of pendence on various theoretical pre- Mormon scripture and events from dilections" (146). It is especially hoped early Mormon history from such a that FARMS authors will take to heart perspective. One can only hope that Welch's plea for scholars to maintain all scholars will heed John Welch's call "a posture of good will and openness for those who write on the Book of toward each other and to the subject Mormon to "become more explicit matter" (186). Unfortunately, the con- about their methods, their assump- tributions to RBBM fail to do so.