The Role of Amateurs in Book of Mormon Studies
Melvin J. Thorne
This FARMS review is an attempt to put the "amateurs" in their place. To put them in the sphere for which they were created. A limited sphere, as entirely dictated by the "in-crowd" apologists. This review by Melvin follows the well-documented "ABA" format where the TBM reviewee is patronized, then ridiculed for most of the essay, and finally patronized again at the end. Now "to his credit" (a favorite way to put it by the apologists), Melvin takes a step back, and rather than simply grabbing a hatchet and begin to slaughter his brethren, he takes a less bloodly, though equally telling route. He takes the fatherly approach to temper the youthful "ameteur enthusiasm" which strays from the sage wisdom of the elder brethren.
The criticism of the books under review, or rather, under the fatherly guidance of Melvin, begins with a familiar,
For one thing, both books are written as if in an intellectual vacuum—a vacuum of knowledge about what has been written by others. Both books could have been much stronger if their authors had drawn on the large body of research that has been published on the topics they address.
Hmmm. What research would that be?
Melvin continues to lead in with this questioning,
What is the place of amateurs in the field of Book of Mormon studies?
He illustrates the answer to his question with a story of an "amateur" medical professional that he is acquainted with. And the paternalistic lecturing begins:
The case of one very sincere student of the scriptures seems particularly instructive. He is a medical professional. He has devoted considerable time and energy to a study of a certain aspect of Book of Mormon studies and has published books on the subject. He and I have had several discussions about his books. When the FARMS Review of Books published a review criticizing one of his books for the same kind of weaknesses I have pointed out in this review, he came to me to discuss the criticisms made by the reviewer.
Are we seeing the beginning of the apologetic version of Thomas S. Monson here? "A young man came into my office, heartbroken, for he had committed sins of a serious nature. He wished to know what he could do to make his sins right in the eyes of God".
He asked how he could obtain the knowledge and tools that the reviewer criticized him for not using. When I suggested that he take a portion of the large amounts of time and energy he was currently spending on his studies and invest them in pursuing a good graduate degree from a reputable university, he didn't see the point.
Wow, so much like the story of the young man or young woman who goes to the bishop, gets some solid fatherly counsel, but then the young person in his or her spiritual immaturity doesn't grasp the weighty recommendations of his elder advisor.
(As an aside, one might not see the point when there is no graduate degree from a reputable university that has anything to do with the Book of Mormon, nor is there any serious, peer reviewed body of literature surrounding the Book of Mormon.)
Amateurs who try to address these kinds of questions (like Enslen and Partridge) without obtaining and employing the knowledge and skills of scholarship are at a distinct disadvantage. They publish books (frequently self-published, like both Enslen's and Partridge's books) and expect them to receive the same serious attention as books published by scholars
It sounds to me like many of these books receive more attention than what FARMS publishes. Remember the envious decrial of the Three Nephite book that was gearing up for another 22,000 copies to the dismay of the apologists? Since the "amateurs" have access to the writings of prophets of God, one wonders how they are at a disadvantage over the secular academics.
But we know however, that not even testimonial and doctrinal exegisis are allowed, as both turn on "scholarship" according to Louis Midgley. We also know that credentials don't mean anything unless the party line is towed, as we saw with professor Huack. Most telling about this expected conformity comes from Melvin's final fatherly ancedote, where he notes an exception to the rule. A case where an amateur in fact was able to make a meaningful contribution:
A good case in point is the work that Warren Aston has done in the Arabian Peninsula in search of Nephi's Bountiful...His persistence in examining likely candidate areas has been matched by his care to learn what others have done on the subject (for example, he contacted FARMS to learn what had been published on the subject before beginning any personal explorations and he has kept FARMS apprised of his progress so that others who might be interested in doing research on the subject could learn what he had so far discovered). And when he thought that he had identified the best candidate, he asked FARMS to help him enlist professional scholars who could verify and extend his work.
Ah yes. A fine counterexample indeed. This man was able to do his work without the requisite education, provided he first bowed to the authority of FARMS. And provided that at every step of his journy, he reported dutifully to FARMS and got their controlling nod of approval before daring to take his next.
Notice how well this last example (the bold) follows the format for prayer. "He prayed", "He told the Lord of his struggles", and "He asked the Lord for help".
An interesting development in the engagement tactics of the apologists. From "bad cop" to the ever-concerned "big brother".