Negative Positive
Title: Uncritical Acceptance of any Documentary source
Review: Michael Quinn is an amazingly complex and enigmatic figure--as with most of his work, this book reflects his own often-skewed view of Mormonism and its history. Had the Salamander Letter of Mark Hoffman not been proven a forgery, the book's thesis MIGHT hold some water, but without it . . . Well, it crumbles without it. Lots of research here, but the conclusions do not appear to follow from the evidence-- rather, this is a case where Quinn yet again brought certain presuppositions to the "evidence" and thus reached conclusions that a) need not follow from his premises, and b) have little to do with what Mormonism is all about, today or in its early history.
Is the review positive or negative? 