The principles for understanding history he provides in chapter two are fine (read history in its own context, don’t impose presentist ideas and morals onto the past, etc) but it’s clear he is an apologist, and I’m not sure apology and critical historiography are compatible in any way whatsoever.
Well, to be clear, he does disavow critical historiography on page two. “In the hands of modern historical criticism, the founding stories of (religious traditions) have all been robbed of their miraculous elements.” This is simply not true and shows that he pits apology and critical thinking against each other. The joy, and struggle, of being a historian of religion in this post-modern age is considering new meanings or theories for where the divine is located within the world.
Whereas he could have engaged with critical theory more, he simply advocates for believing the words of those who have lived before and placing emphasis on faith and not doubt. He recalls McConkie’s call to “[get] in line and [believe] in a living, modern prophet” rather than raise questions over why changes occur (62). Yes, submission to prophetic authority is necessary for LDS members, but McConkie’s line was used in place of an apology for getting the priesthood ban wrong. How can one have faith in the leaders who got something so critical to salvation so incredibly wrong? Apparently just submit yourself and get in line!
Furthermore, he recalls Elder Holland’s plea to “hold fast to what knowledge you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes” but what about when that additional knowledge contradicts what you think you know? (65) That contradiction is, after all, why such a book as this needed to be written but rather than address “new knowledge” he argues we should basically only heed the “new knowledge” inasmuch as it aligns with old knowledge. Apologetics 101.
I only recommend if someone has never picked up a history book because the principles in chapter two are fine principles, but his arguments are often disappointing. I also recognize that I am coming from the background of being a scholar of religion, which is not the case for all.