The intro for Vol. 2, Issue 1 was published clear back in 1990 (Rodney Stark's theories on the growth of Mormonism are treated as plausible), and is entitled, "By What Measure Shall We Mete?" The essay begins by arguing, more generally, the Mormonism is worth studying and worth taking seriously, but it eventually becomes a more specific argument on the reasons why the Book of Mormon shouldn't be dismissed. Over the course of the essay, Dr. Peterson disagrees with roughly a dozen different individuals, but for the most part, he directs his criticism at Paul Quiring, whom the author describes as, "a non-Mormon doctoral candidate at the Claremont Graduate School." (Peterson also engages in some speculation about Quiring's training and motives: "(Although I suspect that it was not people like Mr. Quiring that Pres. Hinckley had in mind when he remarked that "we don't need critics standing on the sidelines.")19 His perspective as a "pluralist"--and perhaps (I am guessing) as a student of John Hick--is extremely interesting.))
As far as scoring per the Graham scale is concerned, I think that this essay probably falls somewhere in between 3 and 4. Dr. Peterson says that he takes "strong exception to some of his observations" (and the like-minded observations of others), but it's not always evident that Quiring even holds the views that Peterson ascribes to him, as in this remark:
Quote:
Quiring is simply mistaken if he thinks that reader reactions to his Penguin canon have been uniformly awestruck or reverential, and the case of the Qur'an provides abundant illustration of that fact:
(emphasis mine)
It would probably be better to rely on what Quiring actually said than to speculate on what he might think.
Some of the counter-argument in "By What Measure Shall We Mete?" is also quite strange. The underlying premise is that the Book of Mormon is a "good" book--that it deserves to be taken seriously, that it's not "boring" (multiple passages that describe the book unfavorably are quoted), and that it's "true" scripture. This argument is developed via the following tactics:
1) Pointing out that criticism of the Book of Mormon's "dullness" is invalid because lots of people also think that the Bible and Qur'an are "dull." If these works of scripture have been panned in this manner, and yet are still canonical, then why shouldn't we regard the Book of Mormon in the same way? Peterson quotes Quiring: "To Quiring, the "narrative material" of the Book of Mormon "seems flat, monotonous, imitative of the King James Version of the Bible, and lacking in vitality in contrast to the Bible itself and other scriptures of Penguin Classics stature," but he (Peterson) does not say anything about the "narrative material" of the Bible or the Qur'an (or the Book of Mormon, for that matter); instead, he chooses to focus on the fact that people throughout history have said critical things about both the Book of Mormon and other works in the Penguin Classics canon. It might have been interesting to see the author of this editorial engaging with the question of the Book of Mormon's seeming imitation of the KJV, but this isn't addressed in a substantive way.
2) Arguing that poor opinion of the Book of Mormon is due to lack of familiarity, context, or belief. Comparing the Book of Mormon to the Qur'an, he writes "In coming to such evaluations of the scripture of Islam, these Western orientalists have simply begun to approach a bit more closely to the attitude which has always characterized believers," though he also acknowledges that, "t would be wrong to suppose that a knowledge of Arabic, coupled with a freedom from the hostility of earlier generations of Western Christian scholarship, leads necessarily to appreciation of the Qur'an as literature."
3) Arguing that Quiring's point about "originality" doesn't matter, or, at least, that it's not enough of an issue to concern oneself with: "Quiring's allegation of a "derivativeness" in Joseph Smith's revelations reminds me somewhat of Fawn Brodie's complaint that Mormonism offered "no new Sermon on the Mount, no new saga of redemption."36 I had thought the old ones good enough! Quite seriously, though, I believe that both Mr. Quiring and Mrs. Brodie underestimate the presence of original elements within Mormonism and its scriptures, and that Quiring overestimates the originality of the Qur'an."
4) That the literary merits of the book are "irrelevant," or, to put it another way, that the Book of Mormon is "true," and therefore opinions about it don't matter:
Quote:
"Its literary or artistic qualities," Hugh Nibley has remarked, "do not enter into the discussion: it was written to be believed. Its one and only merit is truth. Without that merit, it is all that nonbelievers say it is. With that merit, it is all that believers say it is. And we must insist on this truism."37 It would be foolish, would it not, to disregard a warning that your home was on fire simply because that warning had not been couched in iambic pentameter? In a very real sense, our house is on fire, and the prophets are warning us. If they can do so in literarily appealing ways, well, so much the better. But the message itself is the important thing.
5) That the question of whether or not the Book of Mormon is "dull" is irrelevant (how this really differs from some of the previous subsections of the essay is unclear). He quotes Elder Holland:
Quote:
Jeffrey R. Holland, referring to Aristotle's Poetics, has expressed his opinion that "by Aristotle's standard the Book of Mormon is not only a good book; it is a classic . . . unified, whole, verses fitting with verses, chapters fitting with chapters, books fitting with books, and always that strong beginning."
Though for anyone who's read the
Poetics, this comment is, to say the least, quite bizarre.
6) That people will appreciate the Book of Mormon more if they learn more about it (essentially a reiteration of 2).
* * * * *
The Graham scale is tuned specifically to disagreements, and "By What Measure Shall We Mete?" is primarily focused on disagreement with Quiring, and in that regard, I say once again, the essay merits something like a 3.4. All too often, the essay seems concerned more with what Peterson
assumes or
guesses what Quiring thinks, rather than what he has actually said, e.g., in this passage:
Quote:
(Quiring places the Bible above the peculiarly Latter-day Saint canon--but surely he is only referring to certain parts. Is Exodus 37, say, demonstrably superior to Doctrine and Covenants 88, or to Moses 7, or to 2 Nephi 4?)
The essay argues that the Book of Mormon deserves more attention, but, of course, it's filled with evidence of the Book of Mormon having received all kinds of attention. There is thus a conflict at the center of the argument: a desire to get more attention for the Book of Mormon (and Mormonism as a whole), but also a hope/insistence/desire that that attention be overwhelmingly positive and accepting. The way that this basic conflict is negotiated is the main reason why I assess it overall as a 3.4.