For the second part of this review, (see first part here) I want to talk about the ways that Davis and Brown attempt a kind of middle ground between the larger secular scholarly field and those who believe in Joseph Smith operating under divine guidance while he translated. Both make attempts at explaining what Smith did in terms of translation, and this brings up the old religious-studies question, “Does explaining supernatural experiences mean explaining them away?”

Indeed, Davis’s theses certainly makes an attempt to explain the process of the Book of Mormon translation in terms of Smith’s abilities to draw on mnemonic speaking devices in order to dictate the Book of Mormon. Davis goes so far as to propose that Smith could have had a short, written outline of the book that he could have occasionally referred to throughout the process.  

Yet Davis in his introduction claims that he’s not trying to debunk the Book of Mormon but only challenging “some of the unofficial, nondoctrinal traditions and theories surrounding the text.” (ix). Davis explains that “in order to avoid bogging down the work with constant clarification for the differences between nineteenth-century textual elements attributable to Smith and elements that believing scholars attribute to ancient Book of Mormon authors, I will often streamline the discussion by referring to the work as the result of Smith’s individual creative efforts.” Davis insists, “This positioning, however, does not represent a tacit commentary on the validity of Smith’s assertions about the divine origin of the text, nor does it aim to engage in polemical discourse regarding dispute claims” (xi).

Yet Davis’s s “streamlining” of presenting the whole process “as the result of Smith’s individual creative efforts” certainly creates the impression of Davis being on a particular side of the debate. That isn’t a critique so much as questions: should scholars attempt to remain neutral on the issue? Can they?

In Brown’s article in Producing Ancient Scripture he notes that descriptions of Smith’s translation tend to fall between “theistic and nontheistic camps” (137) though in the article and book Brown seems to attempt to transcend this divide. In Joseph Smith’s Translation, Brown focusses on the intent of Smith’s language quest: to recover the pure language of heaven so as to lead humans to divinity. In doing so, Brown avoids the question of “what really happened?” in line with the religious-studies method of epoque or “bracketing.”

Brown gets a little more specific about “what really happened” in his Producing Ancient Scripture article where he argues that instead of interpreting Smith as translating off the plates, his Book of Mormon translation was more like a “panoramic” historical vision like the Nephite prophets have.

Yet that move suggests removing the plates as the source material and seems to leave different interpretations and questions open to the reader: what kind of vision was this? Divine or simply Smith’s creativity? Were there in fact Nephites who wrote on golden plates?

How important those questions are will vary from reader to reader, but for the purposes of this review I’m curious how such readers have taken and will take Davis’s and Brown’s attempts to transcend divisions between believers and critics.