Joseph Smith, Jr.: Reappraisals After Two Centuries
edited by Reid L. Neilson, Assistant Professor Church History and Doctrine, Brigham Young University , and Terryl L. Givens, Professor of Religion and Literature Department of English, University of Richmond
This is one of those books you are allowed to look inside to see if you want to buy it. In the introduction, I found this passage:
One challenge in assessing the historical importance and relevance of Joseph Smith's though has been related to the difficulty of moving beyond the question that arrests all conversation - the question that asks whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud. These essays are rich evidence that a variety of interpretative strategies can bypass this question in order to explore Smith's influence, historical impact, parallels with literary figures, and situatedness in new religious contexts.
The question that occurs to me is simply this: why on earth, in making a collection of scholarly studies about Joseph Smith, would one want to "bypass" "the question that asks whether Smith was a prophet or a fraud"?
Does that have no relevance to the study of the early history of the CoJCoLDS? Is it irrelevant to consideration of Smith's life and work, and of his influence on 19th century American religious life? Is not the question of how far the origins of new religions may depend on fraud or self-deception an interesting one, one which the quite recent and well-documented origins of the CoJCoLDS give us an excellent opportunity to investigate?
Other things seem to be missing in this book too, at least to judge from the index: "plural marriage" is mentioned once in the introduction, and gets just one page reference elsewhere: "polygamy" is absent. But have a look for yourself.
Again. why would one want to "bypass" that particular question?