What do you think?
American Apocrypha: Essays on the Book of Mormon
A fine line divides scripture from non-scripture, writes Robert M. Price in American Apocrypha. There are books that are not in the Bible that are as powerful and authoritative as anything in the canon. At the same time, much of the Bible was written centures after the events it narrates by scribes using fictitious names. Clearly, the hallmark of scripture is not historical accuracy but rather its spiritual impact on individuals; exclusion from the canon is not reason to dismiss a book as heretical. Consider the Book of Mormon, first published in 1830. The nature of this volume—in particular its claim to antiquity—is the theme of nine ground-breaking essays in American Apocrypha. Thomas W. Murphy discusses the Book of Mormon’s view that American Indians are descendants of ancient Hebrews. In recent DNA tests, Native Americans have proven to be of Siberian ancestry and not of ancient Jewish or Middle Eastern descent. Nor is the Book of Mormon a traditional translation from an ancient document, writes David P. Wright, as indicated by the underlying Hebrew in the book’s Isaiah passages. Other contributors to American Apocrypha explore the evolution of ideas in the Book of Mormon during the course of its dictation. Editors Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe have chosen essays by authors who represent a wide range of disciplines and Robert Price edits the Journal of Higher Criticism; Thomas Murphy chairs the anthropology department at Edmonds Community College; David Wright teaches Hebrew Bible at Brandeis University. They are joined by Scott C. Dunn; Edwin Firmage, Jr.; George D. Smith; and Susan Staker—all of whom explore what can be reasonably asserted about the Book of Mormon as scripture.
288 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2002
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 8, 2026
A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS QUESTIONING ‘APOLOGETIC’ PERSPECTIVES ON THE BOOK OF MORMON
Editors Dan Vogel and Lee Metcalf wrote in the Introduction to this 2002 book, “The essays in this collection question apologetic views of Book of Mormon historicity or respond to its proponents. While it is impossible to answer every argument and issue, our contributors cut a deep and wide furrow through this ever-growing apologetic.” (Pg. xiii)
Edwin Firmage Jr. wrote, “Nephi… tells us that his work was written ‘in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Neph 1:2)… The plain sense of this statement is that the Book of Mormon was written in Egyptian while its theology derived from Judaism… Lehi is at pains to preserve this linguistic heritage … Soon after leaving Jerusalem, Lehi asks his sons to return and get the plates of brass from Laban ‘to preserve unto our children the LANGUAGE OF OUR FATHERS’… Both the brass plates and the Book of Mormon were written, according to Lehi, in the Egyptian language and not just Egyptian characters. Despite Hugh Nibley’s efforts to make this extraordinary notion palatable, it is wildly improbable. Is one seriously to believe that for several generations Lehi’s family was at home in the Egyptian language?” (Pg. 3-4)
Dan Vogel reports, “The testimony states that the witnesses were shown the plates by an angel. But in subsequent comments by the witnesses themselves, we learn… that the three men did not experience the vision together, that Martin Harris’s vision occurred separately. Both Harris and David Whitmer later testified that they also saw in their visions a table upon which rested a breastplate, the urim and thummim… and brass plates---an interesting detail missing from the official testimony. The statement also fails to mention that the angel spoke, although it does refer to the voice of God.” (Pg. 81-82)
Later, he continues, “Harris… told several residents of Palmyra, New York, that he had seen the plates with his ‘spiritual eyes.’ ...When pressed about his vision, Harris also told John A. Clark: ‘I saw them with the eye of faith.’ According to Stephen Burnett, Harris told an Ohio congregation that ‘he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination,’ adding that the witnesses had seen the plates ‘spiritually or in visions with their eyes shut.’” (Pg. 86)
He adds, “all contact with the plates at Fayette was strictly visionary. If the witnesses were shown an empty box or if their experience with the plates was purely visual and did not feature a box, it seems probable that at the signing of the testimony only some of the witnesses had handled them, that what was true for the group was not necessarily true for each man. [Also] Smith may have produced a box containing the plates or perhaps something of similar weight. The witnesses were permitted to lift the box, but their view of the plates was visionary. In other words, they may have seen the plates through the box. Thus, each man could claim that he had both seen and handled the artifact.” (Pg. 104)
George D. Smith says of Mormon historian B.H. Roberts, “During the last 12 years of his life, Roberts spoke with two voices concerning the Book of Mormon. When he could not come up with answers to his questions, he did not find it necessary to abandon his role as a general authority, nor to renounce his faith. But he did share his concerns with colleagues and friends. Fellow defender of the faith Thomas Stuart Ferguson followed a similar path after decades of disappointing archeological research. Ferguson would express private views that contrasted with his public pronouncements.” (Pg. 145)
David P. Wright says of the Book of Mormon’s use of the King James Bible: “the KJV has serious deficiencies. Biblical scholarship has grown and advanced considerably since the early 17th century through the benefit of new archaeological, textual, and linguistic evidence and through improved methods of study and analysis… the KJV has been superseded, like many of the scientific theories of its age. The BOM conserves unacceptable translations of the KJV now clearly recognized as such from the stance of modern research. If the former were a translation from an ancient text, one would expect it to transcend the limitations of the KJV and even the limitations of modern scholars who still find a number of the noted passages insoluble.” (Pg. 173)
Robert M. Price states, “I have tried to indicate that, far from being a mischievous or malicious hoaxer, Joseph Smith was simply doing what the authors of the various biblical and extra-biblical pseudepigrapha were doing. If we still wish to dismiss Smith as a hoaxer and a liar, or, to put it another way, if we feel entitled to decree that God could never sink to inspiring pseudepigraph… then we have no option but to dismiss the BIBLICAL pseudepigraphs along with the Book of Mormon… This point hardly escaped the literalist biblicists of the past who used to defend the historical genuineness of 2 and 3 Isaiah, 2 Zechariah, Deuteronomy, Daniel and the Pastoral Epistles just as zealously as they sought to debunk the Book of Mormon.” (Pg. 333-334)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying critical perspectives on the Book of Mormon.
Editors Dan Vogel and Lee Metcalf wrote in the Introduction to this 2002 book, “The essays in this collection question apologetic views of Book of Mormon historicity or respond to its proponents. While it is impossible to answer every argument and issue, our contributors cut a deep and wide furrow through this ever-growing apologetic.” (Pg. xiii)
Edwin Firmage Jr. wrote, “Nephi… tells us that his work was written ‘in the language of my father, which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians” (1 Neph 1:2)… The plain sense of this statement is that the Book of Mormon was written in Egyptian while its theology derived from Judaism… Lehi is at pains to preserve this linguistic heritage … Soon after leaving Jerusalem, Lehi asks his sons to return and get the plates of brass from Laban ‘to preserve unto our children the LANGUAGE OF OUR FATHERS’… Both the brass plates and the Book of Mormon were written, according to Lehi, in the Egyptian language and not just Egyptian characters. Despite Hugh Nibley’s efforts to make this extraordinary notion palatable, it is wildly improbable. Is one seriously to believe that for several generations Lehi’s family was at home in the Egyptian language?” (Pg. 3-4)
Dan Vogel reports, “The testimony states that the witnesses were shown the plates by an angel. But in subsequent comments by the witnesses themselves, we learn… that the three men did not experience the vision together, that Martin Harris’s vision occurred separately. Both Harris and David Whitmer later testified that they also saw in their visions a table upon which rested a breastplate, the urim and thummim… and brass plates---an interesting detail missing from the official testimony. The statement also fails to mention that the angel spoke, although it does refer to the voice of God.” (Pg. 81-82)
Later, he continues, “Harris… told several residents of Palmyra, New York, that he had seen the plates with his ‘spiritual eyes.’ ...When pressed about his vision, Harris also told John A. Clark: ‘I saw them with the eye of faith.’ According to Stephen Burnett, Harris told an Ohio congregation that ‘he never saw the plates with his natural eyes, only in vision or imagination,’ adding that the witnesses had seen the plates ‘spiritually or in visions with their eyes shut.’” (Pg. 86)
He adds, “all contact with the plates at Fayette was strictly visionary. If the witnesses were shown an empty box or if their experience with the plates was purely visual and did not feature a box, it seems probable that at the signing of the testimony only some of the witnesses had handled them, that what was true for the group was not necessarily true for each man. [Also] Smith may have produced a box containing the plates or perhaps something of similar weight. The witnesses were permitted to lift the box, but their view of the plates was visionary. In other words, they may have seen the plates through the box. Thus, each man could claim that he had both seen and handled the artifact.” (Pg. 104)
George D. Smith says of Mormon historian B.H. Roberts, “During the last 12 years of his life, Roberts spoke with two voices concerning the Book of Mormon. When he could not come up with answers to his questions, he did not find it necessary to abandon his role as a general authority, nor to renounce his faith. But he did share his concerns with colleagues and friends. Fellow defender of the faith Thomas Stuart Ferguson followed a similar path after decades of disappointing archeological research. Ferguson would express private views that contrasted with his public pronouncements.” (Pg. 145)
David P. Wright says of the Book of Mormon’s use of the King James Bible: “the KJV has serious deficiencies. Biblical scholarship has grown and advanced considerably since the early 17th century through the benefit of new archaeological, textual, and linguistic evidence and through improved methods of study and analysis… the KJV has been superseded, like many of the scientific theories of its age. The BOM conserves unacceptable translations of the KJV now clearly recognized as such from the stance of modern research. If the former were a translation from an ancient text, one would expect it to transcend the limitations of the KJV and even the limitations of modern scholars who still find a number of the noted passages insoluble.” (Pg. 173)
Robert M. Price states, “I have tried to indicate that, far from being a mischievous or malicious hoaxer, Joseph Smith was simply doing what the authors of the various biblical and extra-biblical pseudepigrapha were doing. If we still wish to dismiss Smith as a hoaxer and a liar, or, to put it another way, if we feel entitled to decree that God could never sink to inspiring pseudepigraph… then we have no option but to dismiss the BIBLICAL pseudepigraphs along with the Book of Mormon… This point hardly escaped the literalist biblicists of the past who used to defend the historical genuineness of 2 and 3 Isaiah, 2 Zechariah, Deuteronomy, Daniel and the Pastoral Epistles just as zealously as they sought to debunk the Book of Mormon.” (Pg. 333-334)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying critical perspectives on the Book of Mormon.
March 31, 2009
A modern critique of the Book of Mormon. I remember that it verified my views (Book of Mormon is NOT a historical document – it is not ‘true’) but I suspect it won’t really shake the faith of any true believer. (Though, honestly, ‘facts’ will never shake the faith of any true believer.)
November 9, 2024
I'm sure this is good scholarship, but I've opted to not finish reading it.
For similar reasons, I set aside Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins recently. See my review there if you care to. (There's not much to it. I'm just tired of this topic, which goes nowhere but generates never-ending streams of documents filled with arguments pro and con. And to what end? None that I find useful or relevant in my life.)
For similar reasons, I set aside Grant Palmer's An Insider's View of Mormon Origins recently. See my review there if you care to. (There's not much to it. I'm just tired of this topic, which goes nowhere but generates never-ending streams of documents filled with arguments pro and con. And to what end? None that I find useful or relevant in my life.)
July 30, 2015
I heard about this book by listening to an Ex Mo Conference presentation podcast given by one of the editors, Brent Metcalfe. I was listening and thinking, "Geez, if this guy is anti-Mormon--this thoughtful, brilliant, super smart, calm guy--if HE'S anti-Mormon, I guess I just don't know what that means any more." Seems to me the guy was just following truth where it led him and being pretty nice about it. On top of that, he's something of a genius and I have loads of respect for him after listening to his presentation.
So I decided to read the book he mentioned, American Apocrypha, which was a bit of a challenge for me to track down. It also wasn't cheap to purchase.
I can't rate the book on how it's written, since the authors changed every essay. Some of the essays are easier to read than others (one author's essay was painful to read - very choppy. Another's essay was just way, way too long (but extra points for thoroughness!)), but all of them were insightful and compelling. In fact the very last essay in the book is one I'm going to ask my True Believing Mormon husband to read. I think his perspective on the Book of Mormon is a great place for him and I to find middle ground, namely: Of course the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, but does that make it any less great?! What's a religious genius to do when all of the scripture has already been written? Write some new stuff and claim it's old stuff, of course! That's what lots of people did, even in the Old Testament. ... Brilliant.
I appreciated all of the perspectives contained in this book. I don't know if I ascribe 100% to any of the theories put out on the various topics, but I know that I'm a more informed person for having read them. Turns out these guys make some REALLY good points.
I haven't been deep into "anti-Mormon" stuff, but if this book is typical for anti-Mormon fare, I guess anti-Mormon = truthful / thoughtful / critical / analytical. That's something of a strike against Mormonism, I would say.
So I decided to read the book he mentioned, American Apocrypha, which was a bit of a challenge for me to track down. It also wasn't cheap to purchase.
I can't rate the book on how it's written, since the authors changed every essay. Some of the essays are easier to read than others (one author's essay was painful to read - very choppy. Another's essay was just way, way too long (but extra points for thoroughness!)), but all of them were insightful and compelling. In fact the very last essay in the book is one I'm going to ask my True Believing Mormon husband to read. I think his perspective on the Book of Mormon is a great place for him and I to find middle ground, namely: Of course the Book of Mormon was made up by Joseph Smith, but does that make it any less great?! What's a religious genius to do when all of the scripture has already been written? Write some new stuff and claim it's old stuff, of course! That's what lots of people did, even in the Old Testament. ... Brilliant.
I appreciated all of the perspectives contained in this book. I don't know if I ascribe 100% to any of the theories put out on the various topics, but I know that I'm a more informed person for having read them. Turns out these guys make some REALLY good points.
I haven't been deep into "anti-Mormon" stuff, but if this book is typical for anti-Mormon fare, I guess anti-Mormon = truthful / thoughtful / critical / analytical. That's something of a strike against Mormonism, I would say.
July 14, 2009
The tedious outweighs the brilliant in this collection. The slight majority of the essays are unsympathetic and calculating. Several sacrifice factual objectivity (or at the very least, credibility) for poorly hidden agendas, and those that do, fail to be academically endearing in any way. At the same time, there are some essays that treat their subjects, who surround the myth/history of the Book of Mormon, with understanding and compassion. I could immediately tell who wrote from a sincere interest in Mormon studies and who wrote from a penchant for revenge. And, to be honest, there was one essay (maybe two) that I couldn't finish from the boredom.
In no other religious discourse, from anywhere in the world, is any "secular" (for lack of a better term just now) viewpoint taken seriously if it is compromised with bitterness and anger. Why then, is it embraced so often in Mormon studies? I look forward to the day when editors like Metcalfe don't simply try to balance their selections between "anti-Mormon scholars" and "sympathetic-to-Mormons scholars" but rather make selections based solely on the viability of the research.
So, briefly, some of the essays I enjoyed: George D. Smith's "B.H. Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologetic and Skeptic" and Susan Staker's "Secret Things, Hidden Things: The Seer Story in the Imaginative Economy of Joseph Smith" increased my understanding of issues regarding the Book of Mormon. Thomas Murphy's "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics" was also well-written and thought-provoking.
In no other religious discourse, from anywhere in the world, is any "secular" (for lack of a better term just now) viewpoint taken seriously if it is compromised with bitterness and anger. Why then, is it embraced so often in Mormon studies? I look forward to the day when editors like Metcalfe don't simply try to balance their selections between "anti-Mormon scholars" and "sympathetic-to-Mormons scholars" but rather make selections based solely on the viability of the research.
So, briefly, some of the essays I enjoyed: George D. Smith's "B.H. Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologetic and Skeptic" and Susan Staker's "Secret Things, Hidden Things: The Seer Story in the Imaginative Economy of Joseph Smith" increased my understanding of issues regarding the Book of Mormon. Thomas Murphy's "Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics" was also well-written and thought-provoking.
February 14, 2010
This book addresses various components of the B of M. I especially enjoyed the chapters on historical criticism, automaticity, anti-masonry, and pseudipigraphia. Price's chapter on pseudipigraphia was probably the most enjoyable chapter. J.S.'s BofM can certainly be seen as fitting within an American tradition and a Christian tradition of developing a theology that is more Christian than its predecessors.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews