In any case, the argument is a typical, nitpick-y smear piece that targets Givens for not adhering to the Mopologists' definition of orthodoxy. Plus, Hauglid is attached to the project, and the Mopologists hate him, so of course one would expect an article like this. To Thompsons credit, he at least takes some time to heap some praise on Givens:
Note the passive-aggressive swipe at Hauglid: "some" assistance. And I think that Thompson is also owed some credit for his restraint: I didn't catch any instances of him harping on the fact that the authors use the term "Mormonism" or that they label the Book of Abraham "controversial." Recall how apoplectic the Mopologists were over Grant Palmer's use of the term "insider." At least Thompson has maintained his composure.Recently, the popular and gifted writer Terryl Givens (with some assistance from Brian Hauglid) addressed some of the controversy surrounding Joseph Smith’s translation of the Book of Abraham in his [Page 3]commentary on the Pearl of Great Price, a Latter-day Saint scriptural collection containing, in part, a few of Joseph Smith’s revealed translations.4 As is typical of Givens’ works generally, the book makes accessible some of Joseph Smith’s cultural and theological contexts and provides balanced textual and reception histories of the Pearl of Great Price’s various components. His writing style is approachable and engaging and gives readers much to ponder.
But the review is undeniably nitpicky, and you can easily see why the Mopologists would have a problem with the book:
In other words, Givens and Hauglid have adopted a stance that is totally contrary to Gee's. I have no doubt that they see this as a grave threat: it's one thing if Hauglid--a borderline apostate, in their view--has gone "rogue" on this issue, but Givens? That puts them in a very tough spot. Thompson spells the problem out rather explicitly:Thompson wrote:As will be shown, Givens’ attempt at a balanced portrayal of some of the difficulties and controversies surrounding the Book of Abraham eventually gives way to his ultimate conclusion that, at least in this case, it does not appear that Joseph Smith provided an English translation of an ancient text written by Abraham after all. Rather, for Givens, the evidence demonstrates that the Prophet mistakenly thought he was translating an ancient writing of Abraham from characters that were actually part of an ancient Egyptian text known as a Book of Breathings, while simultaneously creating a modern story of Abraham in his own fertile, if not divinely inspired, mind.
Well, hey: at least this is nicer than insinuating that they are apostates. And Thompson forges ahead with criticisms like this:However, due to his and Brian Hauglid’s associations with Brigham Young University and because of the high consumption of Givens’ works in the Latter-day Saint faith community, it is important to raise awareness of the evidence that contradicts their attempt to alter the language of that community in this moment. This is not to cast a shadow over everything else these fine scholars have done, but it is important to demonstrate that the conclusions that these and other scholars make with respect to the Book of Abraham translation are not as inevitable as they portray.
Weird, right? And to think: Thompson is accusing *Givens* (there is scarcely any additional mention of Hauglid--I wonder why?) of "glossing over" evidence?? I doubt there is anyone familiar with the history of the production of the Book of Abraham who would debate the proposition that "collaboration" was involved. Thus, it seems like Thompson is splitting hairs.Thompson wrote:Since Givens assumes that the EA and the GAEL are an integral part of Joseph Smith’s effort to produce the original Book of Abraham manuscript, he stresses that “the process by which [Joseph Smith] produced the Book of Abraham was of a different category altogether from that of his 1829 production of the Book of Mormon.”31 The Prophet “wrestled with the Book of Abraham, using seer stones or not, on and off for seven years,”32 and “his approach was one that combined prolonged and collaborative intellectual effort along with ‘direct inspiration of Heaven,’ as one transcriber noted.”33
[SNIP!]
As the only scribal witness reporting how Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham, Parrish’s testimony should not be so glossed over. Writing down the translation “as” Joseph Smith received it “direct” from heaven does not sound like there was any “prolonged and collaborative intellectual effort” in this process. Contrary to Givens’ belief that the Book of Abraham translation “was no spontaneous channeling of a finished product by any stretch,” Parrish’s testimony, one of the principal sources that really matters, does indeed sound like the Book of Abraham was produced in much the same way Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon — by simply dictating, or spontaneously channeling, the translation as he received it from heaven.
Later, Thompson takes issue with the fact that the others refer to the Book of Abraham as a product of "bricolage":
Boy, Givens is really rubbing it in. Thompson is far more polite than the typical Mopologist, but you can tell that he doesn't appreciate this kind of stuff. Here he just stops short of accusing Givens of calling Joseph Smith a liar:Thompson wrote:Givens likens Joseph Smith’s effort to “translate” the Book of Abraham to bricolage. Bricolage is the art of repurposing objects into a new interpretation or new creation of the present — a modern example is the genre of art known as “junk art” or “found art.” As such, bricolage abandons any effort to understand the used object’s original setting or purpose. Such is not necessary, for bricolage is an appropriation and new creation, an improvisation loosely based on the shape or color of the object, not what the object actually is. Givens declares that bricolage “was the very basis of [Joseph Smith’s] methodology of Restoration.”48
Since the original setting and purpose of objects are of no concern in bricolage, Givens proposes that the Book of Abraham may have been a sort of improvisation based on what the papyri merely suggested, not what they really were.
(italics ibid)Givens is proposing in this section that the Egyptian papyri and their vignettes may have inspired Joseph Smith to produce a modern work that he falsely attributes (the meaning of the term pseudepigrapha) to Abraham.
Later, Thompson puts Givens in the same category as David Bokovoy, and insinuates yet again that there is a whiff of apostasy in the whole thing:
The good old "faithful fiction" idea, eh? And now it has gained traction with Teryl Givens of all people! How will the Mopologists respond? The answer seems to be: "they won't" or "their answers will be lame," as in this paragraph from the closing section of Thompson's review:Thompson wrote:Beyond the facsimiles, Givens goes much further with this term and suggests to his readers that the entire Book of Abraham text can be viewed as bricolage as well. He admits that this amounts to calling the Book of Abraham a modern pseudepigrapha as David Bokovoy has done. In other words, the Book of Abraham is a modern, thus fictional, creation of Joseph Smith’s own mind, and “falsely attributed” to Abraham.
LOL! "currently trendy"? When was Mopologetics *ever* 'trendy'? And remember: this whole thing about undermining what the prophets said is *exactly* the same tactic that Meldrum, Neville, and the other Heartlanders have used against the Mopologists. In that respect, the Mopologists and the Mormon Studies crowd share something in common: they are both willing to follow the evidence in such a way that it undercuts things that Joseph Smith et al. actually said.Thompson wrote:In order to fully engage the academy, historians and theologians in the field of Mormon Studies, like Givens, must write under the premise that Joseph Smith’s revelations reflect his own natural understanding, creativity, and development. The Book of Mormon and Bible expansions, for example, can only be indicative of the Prophet’s own 1829–1831 theological understanding and culture (the time period when he produced these texts) and thus are to be examined and interpreted within that specific period to ascertain meaning. The idea that some of Joseph Smith’s revelations might actually be, as he claimed, divinely-aided translations of records from ancient prophets who may have had a more complex [Page 43]theology than his own, or that his revelations might actually be, as he claimed, the words of a divine being whose ways and thoughts are higher than his own are not admissible. To work within any of these parameters is deemed “apologetic,” and it is currently trendy to simply dismiss or ignore such approaches, even among scholars within the Church.
In any case, the article concludes with an epic outpouring of butt-hurt, complete with Thompson quoting from Elder Holland's alleged "spanking" speech to the Maxwell Institute. And yet again, he stops just short of accusing Givens of apostasy:
All of this is quite stunning, when you think about it. The Mopologists are taking quite a huge risk here in going after Givens in this way. True: this article doesn't contain anywhere near the vitriol that it would have if it had been written by Gee or Midgley or Smoot. Still, you can pretty clearly see where this was aimed, and the perspective it's coming from. If the Mopologists lose Givens as even a half-hearted "ally," then who do they have left?In a natural and gradual way, Latter-day Saints examining Joseph Smith’s translations from a Mormon Studies perspective, in contrast to other approaches, such as ancient studies, will eventually define and understand the same words in the text so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling questions by an appeal to the sources. Like the Brother of Jared feared, we are arriving at a point where “we may not understand our words.”
In any case, it will be very, very interesting to see what unfolds in the wake of this admittedly quite vicious "review."