|
Spotting an Anti-Mormon Book
by
Davis Bitton
It would be
more than a little ridiculous to think of all who are not members
of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as anti-Mormons.
It might induce some needed humility to discover how many throughout
the world’s population don’t even know we exist, or if they know,
think of us on a superficial, inaccurate level. Those good folks
are not anti-Mormons.
On the other
hand, the "street preachers," as they identify themselves,
who have decided to devote their lives to disrupting the peace
of Latter-day Saints as they gather for pageants, dedication of
buildings, and even temple worship–these people I do not mind
calling anti-Mormons. Many of us have in our minds an indelible
picture of one of these preachers, standing outside the entrance
to the Salt Lake Temple, shouting insults through a bullhorn at
the worshipers, refusing a polite request to desist out of "common
decency" while a young bride emerged on her wedding day.
But what about
books, pamphlets, and articles that discuss the Church, its people
today, its history, its doctrines, its scriptures? Do any of these
deserve the title of anti-Mormon? The answer is an emphatic yes.
Even before
looking at a specific work, we have some preliminary indications
based on publisher. I shall return to a closer evaluation of a
book’s content, but many busy people appreciate a broad indication
to guide their choices.
Books published
by Deseret Book Company, Horizon, and other companies, as well
as articles appearing in BYU Studies, Church magazines,
and Meridian Magazine can safely assumed to be not anti-Mormon.
The explanation is quite simple: the editors who make decisions
whether to publish in these venues reject manuscripts that trash
the Church. This list of friendly publishers and periodicals is
by no means complete.
"Oh, sure,
what you get from these sources is a lot of syrupy pro-Mormon
drivel." Was it my imagination or did I hear that statement
come from someone? My answer includes a concession and a proclamation,
both based on extensive sampling. Everything published in Latter-day
Saint books and periodicals is not of the same quality or intended
for the same age-level. But anyone who refuses to read such material
is depriving himself of some excellent, important work of very
high quality.
When someone
tells me that she never reads material put out by FARMS (the Foundation
for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies), I conclude that she
is less interested in Mormons than in cultivating her prejudice.
Occasionally I have been disappointed, but on certain subjects,
FARMS has published the only articles or the best yet produced.
For someone to read the attack literature and refuse to examine
the responses in the FARMS publications betrays a closed mind.
Am I suggesting
that works produced by other publishers or appearing in other
periodicals are necessarily anti-Mormon? No. They may or may not
be. Several university presses and non-Church publishers have
brought out important works that deserve a respectful reading.
Some of their books are the best treatment of their subject. Examples
from a long list of publishers could be cited. Some presses have
a very good record of publishing solid, reliable treatments of
Mormon subjects. Others have a mixed record or lean strongly toward
the negative.
To be sure,
the identity of the publisher is not the final determinant of
whether a book is anti-Mormon, but it can be a preliminary indicator.
We can assume that publications of the Utah Gospel Mission and
Jerald and Sandra Tanner, for example, are anti-Mormon at least
in intent. When those who see it as their life’s mission to tear
down and destroy give speeches or produce writings, their words
are in whole or in part predictably anti-Mormon.
Moving past
the publisher, here are some things to look for in books about
the Latter-day Saints.
Inaccuracy. Start reading at the beginning. Or
turn to a chapter about which you already know something. If you
come across statements that are simply inaccurate or leave a misleading
impression, start counting. One or two of these on nonessential
matters can perhaps be condoned. But if they accumulate, if you
find yourself saying, "Oh, no" or "What?"
or "Oh, no," time after time, the chances are that the
book is anti-Mormon. It is amazing how some of these writers think
they can get away with falsehood and inaccuracy. Preferring to
believe them sincere, we are left with the explanation that they
are careless and have not bothered to have their pages checked
by someone in the know.
Telling us
what we believe.
The ground rule here should be to let each person say what he
believes. You may speak for yourself. I will speak for myself.
All too often, our enemies like to state our beliefs for us. If
they quote from past sermons or writings, they do so without regard
for context. They find a quotation of the 1870s, or the 1850s,
or the 1830s and try to hang it around the neck of people who
have never heard of it. To suggest that something is part of the
fabric of current Mormonism when it is never mentioned and never
advocated is a deliberate smear. Yet these charming critics are
anxious to tell us what we think. How often have we heard that
we don’t believe in grace? Or that we don’t believe in the Jesus
of the Bible? Excuse me, but such people are not interested in
a conversation and not in accuracy. They are anti-Mormons.
Principle
of selection. Since it is impossible to include
everything, any author selects what he wishes to include. If a
book about Latter-day Saints shows a strong preference for negative
information, I don’t mind considering it anti-Mormon. This does
not mean that only syrupy, positive narratives are allowed. The
best histories are true to the complexity of life. While not excluding
problems and misbehavior, they do not try to impugn a whole people
by examples that are rare and unrepresentative. Is the reported
incident typical or is it unusual and exceptional? One who wanders
down the street of Mormon history picking up an empty beer can
here, a piece of decaying garbage there, whose whole interest
is in such things, who shows no interest in goodness or dedication
or courage or achievement–this is your typical anti-Mormon writer.
Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Hindus–many groups have reason to be
concerned about how they are portrayed. Mormons are no different
and can fairly raise the same questions.
Interpretation. After deciding what to include, writers
explain what it means. Or by the way they tell the story they
imply an interpretation. I am not so tender-eared that the Church
must always be presented pure as the driven snow. Situations could
be complicated. Individuals with tempers and poor judgment sometimes
said things or did things we are not proud of. The point of view
of outsiders, even if skewed, itself becomes part of the historical
reality and should be recognized and, if possible, understood.
But if a book misses no opportunity to cast Mormons as villains,
if it always shows the Church, its leaders, its people, and its
beliefs in the worst possible light, it deserves the anti-Mormon
label.
Private life
of the author.
Since good books can be written by bad people and bad books by
good people, I prefer to evaluate a book in its own terms. But
if the author participates in anti-Mormon activities, denounces
the Church, or engages in behavior defiantly contrary to Church
standards, his portrayal of Mormons and their history will probably
not be warm and friendly. If he presents himself as a Latter-day
Saint when in fact he has not set foot inside a sacrament meeting
for twenty-five years, if he pretends to be in the know because
he comes from pioneer stock, we have a right to be suspicious.
If he indulges in snide, disrespectful, cruel comments about the
Saints and those they sustain as prophets, we should not be surprised
if his book is anti-Mormon. I am always happy to be proved wrong
in such expectations, but when an author makes no effort to hide
his contempt of Mormons and what they stand for, his predisposition
is hard to ignore.
I have learned
much from conscientious scholars who are not Latter-day Saints.
Many of their works are friendly, or neutral, or probing, willing
to recognize complexity, willing to grant sincerity even when
they might disagree with the religious faith of their subjects.
Such publications are not anti-Mormon. I thank many of these good
people who have a sincere interest in Mormons as a subject of
historical or sociological investigation and who have made important
contributions. Others of like mind are always welcome. The outside
perspective can be illuminating.
But illumination
is not the word for the deceit and distortions of the anti-Mormon.
A book that is clearly anti-Mormon should have a sticker on the
dust jacket: Caveat lector–let the reader beware. I say
this not because I wish only simple, saccharine works about the
Church but because it is always regrettable when people are misinformed.
Anti-Mormon works demonize their subjects. They leave a flawed,
tainted picture. They mislead.
Some people
cannot believe there is such a thing as an anti-Mormon book. Others
think that only anti-Mormon literature can be relied upon. After
all, if this material tells them what they want to hear and tears
down the Church they wish to tear down, why would they not read
it and recommend it? I wonder if they turn to the abhorrent anti-Semitism
in such works as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for
their information about Jews.
My remarks here
are tentative and preliminary. Each of the suggested earmarks
is worthy of discussion. Other indicators could no doubt be added.
In the meantime, if you haven’t done so or if it has faded from
your memory, give yourself the pleasure of reading Hugh Nibley’s
"How to Write an Anti-Mormon Book." It is found in volume
11 of Nibley’s collected works, the volume entitled Tinkling
Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales about Joseph
Smith and Brigham Young.
Click here to sign up for Meridian's FREE email updates.
© 2003 Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
| 
