It's not possible to write a history without a viewpoint. The trick is to choose the right one. Of course, when the subject of the history is a schismatic religion, there may be disagreement about what is the right one.

That is definitely the issue with this short, readable history. It is a history of Mormonism told very much from the Mormon standpoint. How did Mormonism come to be? It of course began with the... proclamations... of Joseph Smith. The questions about those gives us a good perspective on the book. The foremost biographer of Smith, Fawn M. Brodie, who was herself a Mormon, came to the agonized conclusion that Smith was engaged in a get-rich scheme. Alternately, Smith's revelations began when he was about the age when schizophrenics start to experience the symptoms of their horrid illness. Or, of course, Smith could have been the recipient of a genuine revelation.

This matter is not really discussed. Revelation is basically assumed. For readers who are members of the Saints, this will obviously be desirable. For readers who are not, it leaves glaring holes. And this tendency continues. For a book whose primary author is a woman, it seems surprisingly sympathetic to polygamy: it was doctrine, so it must have been right.

Also, it is worth noting that, when Joseph Smith died, Mormonism fractured. Brigham Young gathered by far the largest faction of the denomination, and took it to Utah -- but the other various sects are all Mormons, they just aren't "the" Mormons. But all we read is a brief mention of the Reorganized Church of the Latter-Day Saints. It is not wrong, but it is parochial and not what I would consider a complete history.

I would also say that the interesting part of the sect's history is the time from when Smith had his revelation until they abandoned polygamy in the 1890s. After that, although the Mormons were still extremely schismatic in theology, they were basically just another separatist sect in an America full of peculiar sects, large and small. But the book still devotes half its length to this relatively dull period.

Bottom line: If you are a Mormon, this is probably a good brief history. But if you are not, it raises far more questions than it answers, and it leaves out a lot of the good stuff to focus on the routine. A bad book? Not really. But one with a viewpoint that I find neither particularly interesting nor particularly useful. ( )