Salt Press Books On The Book Of Mormon

[David T]

Has anyone here checked out any of the new books by Salt Press?

I've already read one and a half of them, and I'm going to consider myself a 'subscriber'. All the books are available as free pdfs, but I've found myself ordering the hardcopies for my library - they're that fascinating.

• An Other Testament: On Typology
  
• Reading Nephi Reading Isaiah: 2 Nephi 26-27
  
• An Experiment on the Word: Reading Alma 32
  

An Other Testament, by Joseph M. Spencer, was particularly fascinating for me, with his discussion of the tension and contrast between Nephi's reading of Isaiah and Atonement theology, and Abinadi's re-vision (and different approach) of that material, and how the visit of Christ in 3 Nephi re-adjusts and refines the two. It alone caused me to begin a new read through of the Book of Mormon. Fascinating and great companion read to Grant Hardy's Understanding the Book of Mormon.

Anyone here read any of these yet, and had any particular insights from reading them?

[Robert F. Smith]

I have to agree with you about Joe Spencer and Grant Hardy. Taken together with recent work by David Bokovoy and Don Bradley, they provide an exciting and breathtaking new dimension in Book of Mormon studies. I especially like the way that they all seem able to combine literary and structural analysis with theology. Hugh Nibley used to tell me that he was clowning around until some real scholars came along. Maybe the time is now. Maybe this is the dawn of a new era.

[DavidC]

I'm just reading the latest of Joe Spencer's articles on Believing Christ at Feast Upon the Word. Interesting stuff.

[DonBradley]

I have to agree with you about Joe Spencer and Grant Hardy. Taken together with recent work by David Bokovoy and Don Bradley, they provide an exciting and breathtaking new dimension in Book of Mormon studies. I especially like the way that they all seem able to combine literary and structural analysis with theology. Hugh Nibley used to tell me that he was clowning around until some real scholars came along. Maybe the time is now. Maybe this is the dawn of a new era.

Robert, mark me down as endlessly flattered by this comment. =)I wish Brother Nibley could read (and provide feedback on) my book! I've realized in writing it how much he anticipated some of its content (like on narrative of Mosiah I and on the temple in the Book of Mormon), and that has made me increasingly aware of how great his insight was and how in some ways he was so far ahead of the rest of us.Don

[Cobalt-70]

I had high hopes when I started reading the Reading Alma 32 book, and I must admit that the work contains some interesting ideas. However, overall, I was not very impressed. I had previously read a little about the Mormon Theology Seminar, and I thought this was going to be a theological analysis of Alma 32 in the traditional sense of the word theology. It is nothing of the sort. I realized that this group has a rather odd definition of "theology"--one that is allegedly unrelated to history, doctrine, or devotion, and which has as its end the goal of "charity." It is apparently supposed to be a charity-focuses exegesis in a near-vacuum, comprising the goal of "looking for charitable patterns." The work is remarkably devoid of reference citations other than to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures.

The compilation, or at least what I read of it before losing interest, does not meet its own goals. It is impossible to read anything, especially theology, without making at least implicit judgments about history and doctrine. And it is impossible to read for "patterns of charity" in a way that is not devotional. The authors are ruled, from beginning to end, by doctrine, history, and devotion, but they allow these to operate within their blind spots, where they actually end up undermining their theses. The articles in the book are conventional LDS sermons that deny they are sermons. And in claiming to have de-historicized and de-doctrinalized their readings, they have promoted anachronisms. For example, the act of referring to the Book of Moses or Smith's Nauvoo theology in order to interpret Alma 32 promotes the idea that the author of Alma 32 was familiar with the Book of Moses and with Joseph Smith's teachings from the 1840s. Thus, the authors are indeed reconstructing history. Moreover, if the authors have, from the beginning, disclaimed any "questions beyond what the Brethren have settled," then they are indeed making judgments about institutional normativity. It is difficult to judge a work favorably when it fails to meet its own criteria of success.

[Robert F. Smith]

I had high hopes when I started reading the Reading Alma 32 book, and I must admit that the work contains some interesting ideas. However, overall, I was not very impressed. I had previously read a little about the Mormon Theology Seminar, and I thought this was going to be a theological analysis of Alma 32 in the traditional sense of the word theology. It is nothing of the sort. I realized that this group has a rather odd definition of "theology"--one that is allegedly unrelated to history, doctrine, or devotion, and which has as its end the goal of "charity." It is apparently supposed to be a charity-focuses exegesis in a near-vacuum, comprising the goal of "looking for charitable patterns." The work is remarkably devoid of reference citations other than to the Book of Mormon or other LDS scriptures.

The compilation, or at least what I read of it before losing interest, does not meet its own goals. It is impossible to read anything, especially theology, without making at least implicit judgments about history and doctrine. And it is impossible to read for "patterns of charity" in a way that is not devotional. The authors are ruled, from beginning to end, by doctrine, history, and devotion, but they allow these to operate within their blind spots, where they actually end up undermining their theses. The articles in the book are conventional LDS sermons that deny they are sermons. And in claiming to have de-historicized and de-doctrinalized their readings, they have promoted anachronisms. For example, the act of referring to the Book of Moses or Smith's Nauvoo theology in order to interpret Alma 32 promotes the idea that the author of Alma 32 was familiar with the Book of Moses and with Joseph Smith's teachings from the 1840s. Thus, the authors are indeed reconstructing history. Moreover, if the authors have, from the beginning, disclaimed any "questions beyond what the Brethren have settled," then they are indeed making judgments about institutional normativity. It is difficult to judge a work favorably when it fails to meet its own criteria of success.

Who are the contributers to Adam Miller's book? I haven't yet seen it.

What were a couple of the interesting ideas which you found, and who authored them? On balance, was the book wholely without redeeming value, so that you would not recommend that I buy it?

[Cobalt-70]

Who are the contributers to Adam Miller's book? I haven't yet seen it.

What were a couple of the interesting ideas which you found, and who authored them? On balance, was the book wholely without redeeming value, so that you would not recommend that I buy it?

The contributors are James E. Faulconer, Adam S. Miller, Jenny Webb, Joseph M. Spencer, Julie M. Smith, and Robert Couch. I don't mean to condemn the book, or the effort that was put into creating it. It's just not what I expected, and I don't think it lived up to its premises. But it could be of immense value for some purposes, such as devotional reading, or preparing for a Sunday School lesson on Alma 32 or its themes.

From my perspective, the best part I could see was the article of Jenny Webb, which touches on things like the Fall, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, and ideas about faith vs. knowledge. If it were not constrained by the format, and she were freer to use other parts of the Book of Mormon (which she does anyway, to some extent), other works of Smith, and references to the 19th century theological background which this subject is begging to reference, this could have been a very important article.

Julie M. Smith's discussion of Isaiah 55 (Deutero-Isaiah) parallels in Alma 32 is also interesting, but not very convincing. But these parallels are framed in a postmodern way that allows them to be solely in the eye of the beholder.