Susan Easton Black Rips Benjamin Park a New One
Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2020 12:36 pm
Since the Brian Hauglid RFM interview, I've been reading Dan Peterson's resurrected FARMS journal Intepreter waaaay more that I have ever intended to. Not only did I re-read Gee's hit piece on Hauglid/Jensen volume, but the responses that the editors of the JS papers project made to said hit piece, as well as Jeff Lindsay's contributions and another Gee rebuttal. I particularly enjoyed Dan Vogel's responses in the comments to Lindsay's article, it was clear that Lindsay just didn't want to get what Vogel was saying; it was priceless.
In any event, in the course of my reading, I came across this gem of a review, written by Susan Easton Black just a few days ago about Benjamin Park's new book The Kingdom of Nauvoo:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... more-35972
Now, to be fair, I haven't read Park's book yet. I'm going to buy it for my birthday, but discretionary spending during a pandemic dictates that I need to wait, or Sis M will retaliatory spend on something I find useless!
So I haven't read it, but I will. But because I still have library privileges when I was teaching a few years ago (and I'll be very sad when they decide to take it away) I have read some of his articles, including his great piece called "Joseph Smith's Kingdom of God" that he wrote for Church History. Which probably was an introduction to the longer book. So I can't wait to buy and read the larger book.
I have worked in academe for nearly two decades, and I have never seen such an unprofessional, more unengaged with the source material review of a very important book than what Black did. It was embarrassing, that a scholar would put into print such a lazy, petty, uninformed review. Even the John Gee piece on the Hauglid book at least engaged with the material, and showed that he actually read the book under review, and so it was better than this drivel. Not much, but a little. Black should be ashamed to have that part of her CV. I'll just give ya'll a taste of what she wrote in her last paragraph. It's ridiculous.
"No matter the talent of the author, historians know their writing is only as good as the facts presented. Like the works of all historians, this author’s work will be surpassed. But in the end will the reader view Benjamin Park as a scholar? Truth edifies the writer and the reader. On which page should I have been edified in Kingdom of Nauvoo? Where is the author’s knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Lord revealed his words to him? To take out faith, a belief that God speaks to his prophet, and the sacrifice of thousands of early Latter-day Saints to build up Nauvoo (and their reason why) is to miss the mark. May this author present truth in his next work. Anything less will not serve him or his readers well."
Unbelievable. That a "scholar" would write these things about a scholarly book is just crazy - how can you allow Black to review any Mormon book by a non-Mormon author if she feels this way? That anybody writing about frontier America in the 19th century has to believe that Joseph was a prophet before they can write about it? Absolute nonsense. I feel much better about humanity, that apart from Brian Hales, who also slammed Park's book (probably another thing in its favour), about 80% of the comments ripped Black for her review. Maybe the day of the unanswered apologist is over, and we all need to celebrate that fact.
In any event, in the course of my reading, I came across this gem of a review, written by Susan Easton Black just a few days ago about Benjamin Park's new book The Kingdom of Nauvoo:
https://journal.interpreterfoundation.o ... more-35972
Now, to be fair, I haven't read Park's book yet. I'm going to buy it for my birthday, but discretionary spending during a pandemic dictates that I need to wait, or Sis M will retaliatory spend on something I find useless!
So I haven't read it, but I will. But because I still have library privileges when I was teaching a few years ago (and I'll be very sad when they decide to take it away) I have read some of his articles, including his great piece called "Joseph Smith's Kingdom of God" that he wrote for Church History. Which probably was an introduction to the longer book. So I can't wait to buy and read the larger book.I have worked in academe for nearly two decades, and I have never seen such an unprofessional, more unengaged with the source material review of a very important book than what Black did. It was embarrassing, that a scholar would put into print such a lazy, petty, uninformed review. Even the John Gee piece on the Hauglid book at least engaged with the material, and showed that he actually read the book under review, and so it was better than this drivel. Not much, but a little. Black should be ashamed to have that part of her CV. I'll just give ya'll a taste of what she wrote in her last paragraph. It's ridiculous.
"No matter the talent of the author, historians know their writing is only as good as the facts presented. Like the works of all historians, this author’s work will be surpassed. But in the end will the reader view Benjamin Park as a scholar? Truth edifies the writer and the reader. On which page should I have been edified in Kingdom of Nauvoo? Where is the author’s knowledge that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Lord revealed his words to him? To take out faith, a belief that God speaks to his prophet, and the sacrifice of thousands of early Latter-day Saints to build up Nauvoo (and their reason why) is to miss the mark. May this author present truth in his next work. Anything less will not serve him or his readers well."
Unbelievable. That a "scholar" would write these things about a scholarly book is just crazy - how can you allow Black to review any Mormon book by a non-Mormon author if she feels this way? That anybody writing about frontier America in the 19th century has to believe that Joseph was a prophet before they can write about it? Absolute nonsense. I feel much better about humanity, that apart from Brian Hales, who also slammed Park's book (probably another thing in its favour), about 80% of the comments ripped Black for her review. Maybe the day of the unanswered apologist is over, and we all need to celebrate that fact.