Difference between revisions of "Criticism of Mormonism/Books/The Lion of the Lord"

But it is perhaps unfair to ignore the rule that the reviewer should not stray beyond the bounds set by the intentions of the author. Even by these limited standards, however, Hirshson does not come off very well. Claiming to be "one of the few non- Mormons of this century to deal seriously with Young's religion," he has adopted a tone of almost mocking condescension, standing in sharp contrast to those non-Mormon scholars like Thomas F. O'Dea, P.A.M. Taylor, Mario DePillis, and Jan Shipps, whose serious intent--obvious in the work itself--needs no reaffirmation in introductions. If Mr. Hirshson has read his anti-Mormon literature he cannot have missed the almost obligatory professions of serious and scholarly intent gracing the prefaces of even the most blatant diatribes and exposés….

…unfortunately Professor Hirshson has not yet learned that it takes more than clever phrases and a racy topic to write a lively book. As a result, Hirshson's book is not only poor history, but incredibly dull. If, as a reviewer, I had not had the obligation to read it to the bitter end, I don't believe I could have finished it for boredom. — Klaus Hansen, "review of Lion of the Lord," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 5 no. 2, 109.