Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint scriptures

by Paul Y. Hoskisson

248 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2001

Reviews

[Jared · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's difficult to be objective about a book written for a Latter-day Saint audience when I'm an ex-Mormon atheist. But I'll try.

Historicity and the Latter-Day Saint Scriptures is a half-hearted attempt to defend Mormon scripture against modern textual criticism. While I would say all the authors used an apologist's approach, only two do so in a manner resembling scholastic writing: Robert L. Millet and John S. Tanner. The rest of the essays created straw man arguments or relied on obfuscation, "bearing testimony" (a Mormon term for stating ones beliefs in an unflinching manner), and sidestepping the criticism entirely. Interestingly, many of these apologetic attacks were aimed at moderate LDS scholars rather than non-Mormons. The underlying and repeated message seemed to be fundamentalist: 1) The Church is true, 2) scriptures are historical, 3) and you can only prove scripture through revelatory knowledge. What the authors seem to forget is this could be a generic argument for proving all scripture--including the Qur'an, Bhagavad Gita, etc.

There's a second underlying message in this book--one mentioned by Dallin H. Oaks (an LDS Church apostle) in the book's closing arguments. He cites the late Neal A. Maxwell (a former apostle and key LDS apologist) who said:

Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief... Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

That seems to be the underlying motive for this book: Create enough doubt about scholarly arguments that LDS believers can feel good continuing to believe. But they make this argument in a sophistic way: Almost nowhere in this book do the authors actually confront scholarly criticisms against Mormon scripture. They don't explain the technical definitions or problems of proving historicity, or whether Mormon scripture stand up to these evidences. Instead, they address critics by making veiled allusions to their criticisms without mentioning them, and then merely cite the authors in the references--leaving the reader to go look up the actual sources or to know offhand what they're talking about.

This book is not a sober reflection on the historicity or non-historicity of scripture. It is 247 pages of the same message: Do not look behind the curtain.

[Joe Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

This entire book is worth it for the one article, "Scripture as Incarnation." No question.

[Carol]

find it online at RSC: https://rsc.byu.edu/out-print/histori...