Brown's Charge No. 5: The Tanners knew of Nelson's false
credentials ... the Tanners had the most to gain from pushing
Nelson into the forefront with regards to the Book of Abraham,
and little to lose if Nelson crashed (p. 154, 160-163, and
elsewhere).
What the Browns are implying here is that the Tanners (and other
"anti-Mormon elements") found Nelson to be such a desirable part
of their "false case against the Book of Abraham" that they
would have hated to see anything come up that would "weaken"
that case for them. (This, of course, reflects their own belief
that the credibility of any challenge to the Book of Abraham
somehow rests upon the credibility of Nelson.) But in making
reference to Nelson, the Browns point out there was one way in
which the Tanners had always been different from everyone else.
Under the headline DID THE TANNERS SUPPRESS THE TRUTH ABOUT DEE
JAY NELSON? they write:
While this author was reading all the information about Dee Jay
Nelson, it occurred to me that the Tanners were the only
anti-Mormon propagandists that didn't refer to Nelson as 'Prof.'
or 'Dr.' Nelson. We thought it quite strange that with all the
publicity surrounding Nelson, they would be the only ones not to
fall for his phony credentials. Every other writer referred to
Nelson as 'Dr.' or 'Prof.' Nelson when quoting him (p. 160).
A letter from Sandra Tanner is then shown that is dated January
3, 1981 -- well after Nelson's false credentials had been
exposed -- in which she wrote, "By the way, we never claimed he
was a Ph.D .... all he claimed to us was he was self-taught."
The Browns are unable to view this situation as a case of the
Tanners having merely made a successful effort to be accurate.
Instead, they see their failure to make use of Nelson's false
credentials as incriminating evidence that they were aware of
them, and that they attempted to cover up the entire matter in
order, presumably, to continue using the "strength" of Nelson
for their "false case." The Tanners could hope, perhaps, that
the subject would never be noticed or become an issue, but if it
ever did they could blithely state that "we never claimed he was
a Ph.D." -- thus letting themselves off the hook. The Browns
then demand:
Sandra, why did you keep it a secret from everybody? For the
past three years [as of the Browns' writing in July, 1981], all
over the country and especially in Utah, Nelson has been
advertising his false degree as well as his other false
credentials. Have you never heard his wild claims? (p. 161)
Following this they observe that "putting a little pressure on
the scales of checks and balances helps make people honest," and
point out that Tanners' book Changing World of Mormonism, which
had gone through two printings in 1980, had been revised for its
third (1981) printing. Nelson's use of false credentials was
discovered, the new edition said, following the Tanners' own
investigation, and therefore he was no longer being quoted by
them.
This prompted the Browns to raise another headline question, WHY
ALL OF A SUDDEN DID THE TANNERS DECIDE TO INVESTIGATE NELSON?
which they answer as follows:
In making the above revision, the Tanners also received
encouragement from the Moody Bible Institute which published
their book ... This author, in the latter part of 1980, sent
information about Dee Jay Nelson to Moody Press. A call to Moody
Press indicated that the material had been passed on to Jerald
and Sandra Tanner with the instructions to revise the section
concerning Dee Jay Nelson ... Between the Moody Press and us, it
looks like the Tanners had no choice but to come clean (p. 161).
Again, the Browns emphasize the importance of what they believe
to be their own role in this:
... when Moody Press discovered the truth about Dee Jay Nelson
(with help from this author), they insisted that the Tanners
remove references to him (p. 163).
Thus, according to the Browns, we are asked to see three things:
1. The Tanners knew of Nelson's false credentials, and
deliberately failed to expose them so that they might continue
taking advantage of Nelson as an "authority."
2. The Tanners never used Nelson's false credentials themselves,
so that if they were ever uncovered by anyone they could plead
ignorance.
3. The Browns "put[ting] a little pressure" on the Tanners by
providing information on Nelson to Moody Press in the latter
part of 1980, is what then forced the Tanners to "come clean" in
a "hastily revised" edition of their book.
What is wrong with the above picture? Practically everything!
The first point is clearly totally subjective. The Browns,
caught up in their own bitterness and suspicion towards any and
all so-called "anti-Mormon propagandists," apparently cannot
help but ascribe ulterior motives to the "elements" that they
see as being a part of their "anti-Mormon" conspiracy. The same
is true of the second point; one suspects that if the Tanners
had picked up on and repeated Nelson's self-awarded academic
titles, the Browns would have criticized them for doing so --
just as they criticized other non-Mormons (but never Mormons!)
throughout their book for falling for them. Moreover, the Browns
fail to take into account the simple fact that the Tanners'
writings about Nelson were all pretty much completed with their
1972 edition of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? at least six years
before Nelson began claiming to have earned a Ph.D. In it they
generally referred to him as ''the Mormon Egyptologist, Dee Jay
Nelson.'' Since the Browns take at least as great exception to
Nelson's unwarranted use of the title ''Egyptologist'' (which
turns out to be one of the points their book does an effective
job of demonstrating) as they do to ''Dr.'' or ''Professor,''
should they not in fairness be able to concede that the Tanners
evidently did, in fact, fall for his phony credentials, just as
others had?
The third point, though is an objective claim that can be
examined and tested. Did the Tanners suddenly decide to
investigate Nelson, and subsequently disassociate themselves
from him, as a result of the Browns having contacted Moody Press
in the latter part of 1980?
Again, material that can be found in the Browns' own book proves
otherwise. Furthermore, as we shall see, there were also other
materials, both in the Browns' possession or available to them,
to establish the fact that the Tanners were responsible for
initiating their own investigation into Nelson's credentials,
and that, in fact, they were the first to prove that Nelson had
received a bogus Ph. D. from a diploma mill.
Let us begin by looking at ''the latter part of 1980.''
On Saturday, November 1, 1980, the Mesa Tribune (Mesa, Arizona)
ran a full page paid advertisement that was placed by a group
called ''Concerned Christians of Mesa.'' This advertisement
(reproduced in the Brown's book on pp. 250-252) attempted to
establish among other things, that Nelson's papyri translations
and overall treatment of Egyptian were valid, and that therefore
the question of Nelson's academic credentials ''had no bearing
on his ability to speak as a witness to and a translator of the
papyri in question.''
Robert Brown prepared a rebuttal to this article, which also was
published in the Mesa Tribune (though no date is given), and
which is shown in the Brown's book on pages 254-263. Here he
chided the ''Concerned Christians'' group for continuing to
appeal to Nelson's work (though he did note that they had
stopped referring to him as ''Dr.'' Nelson) since Jerald and
Sandra Tanner, ''the most outspoken of the anti-Mormon groups in
the U.S., were suddenly prompted to disown Nelson because he
could not prove his credentials'' (p. 255). To underscore his
point, Mr. Brown then went on to explain:
The Tanners had written a six-page, single spaced letter to
Nelson asking him to explain his credentials. If the Tanners
have chosen to disassociate themselves from Nelson, it would
seem logical that the people of this area should also question
the validity of his statements. A copy of their letter was
voluntarily sent to me by the Tanners. Excerpts are shown below
... (Ibid, emphasis added)
Mr. Brown reproduces on pages 256-258 of his book some five
pages of this six-page letter from the Tanners, along with a
second one-page letter (from Jerald Tanner), as he had prepared
them to appear in his Tribune article.
While it is interesting, in light of the Browns' persistent
allegation that the Tanners were involved in a conspiracy to
suppress the whole Nelson affair, that Mr. Brown admits that "a
copy of their letter was voluntarily sent to me by the Tanners,"
the letter itself is even more revealing. First, the letter is
dated March 11, 1980. This is less than three weeks after
Nelson's lectures were given in Arizona, during which the Browns
first decided to investigate him. This does very little to aid
the Browns' contention that the Tanners were forced to act on
the basis of something the Browns did "in the latter part" of
that same year. Rather, it indicates that the Tanners, with no
outside pressure from anyone (including Moody Press or the
Browns), acted on their own initiative to investigate Nelson's
claims as soon as it came to their attention -- just as the
Browns themselves did. It is no more appropriate to insinuate
that the Tanners should have become suspicious of Nelson earlier
than they did, than it would be to charge that the Browns should
have noticed his false claims earlier than they did.
Second, contrary to any "conspiracy" notion of the Browns,'
Jerald Tanner is quoted as bringing up repeated instances of
discrepancies to Nelson regarding his experiences and
credentials, particularly in regards to his "Ph.D." and the
school from which he supposedly obtained it, and insisting upon
receiving some satisfactory answers from him. At one point in
the letter, Tanner writes:
It is now March 12 as I finish the last part of this letter. As
I indicated at the beginning, it now appears that you do not
have a legitimate doctoral degree. Even if you have a piece of
paper making such a claim it apparently does not amount to
anything.
I must confess that I feel disappointed and sad because of this
whole matter . . . In any case, I feel it is my obligation to
make this information available to the public. I will,
therefore, probably be printing hundreds or even thousands of
copies of this letter to distribute to the general public. I am
convinced that our case against the Book of Abraham is
absolutely devastating, and I would not want to weaken it in any
way by trying to cover up or remain silent concerning such an
important matter.
... Even though I still believe in the general accuracy of your
translation and conclusions concerning the Joseph Smith Papyri,
I will not be reprinting any of the books. (letter by Jerald
Tanner dated March 11, 1980, as shown on pp. 257-258 of Browns'
book, emphasis added.)
All of this hardly supports the Browns' theory that the Tanners
were trying to "hide" things for their own benefit. The copy of
this letter which Mr. Brown received, and which he admits was
"voluntarily sent" to him, was part of the "hundreds or even
thousands" of copies that the Tanners distributed in their
effort to "make this information available to the public."
A third interesting point is shown in the second, one-page
letter the Browns reproduce on page 258, which shows that the
Tanners' investigation was already close to being completed by
March 20, 1980. This letter (bearing that date) was also among
the material that the Tanners "voluntarily sent" to Brown, and
which was being freely distributed by the thousands. In it
Tanner told Nelson:
On the 18th we received the certificate which purports to be
your diploma ... After examining the diploma and the other paper
you included, we became suspicious that this was not a genuine
university. Sandra contacted a noted educator from the
University of Utah, who in turn called the Executive Secretary
of the Northwestern Association of Schools and Colleges in
Washington. He learned from him that Pacific Northwestern
University was only a 'diploma mill' which the Federal
Government had investigated for mail fraud ...
In conclusion it appears that your claim to a doctor's degree in
anthropology cannot be substantiated ... (Ibid., dated March 20,
1980)
The Tanners did much more than merely write and distribute these
letters, though. By the first part of April, 1980, they had
written an article exposing Nelson's false credentials,
published it beginning on page 7 in their newsletter Salt Lake
City Messenger for that month, and mailed out approximately
10,000 copies of that paper -- including a copy sent to Moody
Press, publishers of their book Changing World of Mormonism.
With some adaptations, this article became the basis of the
revision that appeared in the 3rd printing of the book the
following year.
Thus, if the Browns "forced the Tanners to come clean" by
sending material to Moody "in the latter part of 1980," as they
claim, how is it that the Tanners were declaring to Nelson their
intention to print and distribute "hundreds or thousands" of
copies of letters exposing him as early as March; or how is it
that by the end of March the Tanners had already discovered the
truth behind Nelson's "diploma" and "school" if they were "all
of a sudden" prompted to investigate several months later by the
Browns; and how is it that the Tanners' newsletter exposed
Nelson in April, in the early part of 1980, if the Browns were
responsible for "putting a little pressure on the scales of
checks and balances" to "make them honest" late in the year?
That the Browns could even make such a claim is altogether
incredible, especially when they could so easily check the date
on the letter the Tanners provided them!
It is also quite likely that the Browns had at some point prior
to this obtained their own copy of the Tanners' expose of Nelson
in the April issue of Salt Lake City Messenger, as well, since a
portion of that article read:
... We contacted a noted educator from the University of Utah
who checked with Dr. James Bemis, Executive Director of the
Higher Commission of the Northwest Association of Schools and
Colleges, and found that Pacific Northwestern University was
only a 'diploma mill of the worst kind.' We confirmed this
report by calling the U.S. Postal Department in Seattle and the
King County Attorney's Office. (Salt Lake City Messenger, April,
1980, p. 7. More information concerning this matter will be sent
to the reader by the publisher free by upon request.)
The "information sent free upon request" which the Tanners
mention, included the letters the Browns partially reproduced in
their book. The only way the Tanners would have been able to
send them was if the Browns had requested them, and the most
obvious way for the Browns to have found out how to request them
would be through the Tanners' April Messenger. If the Browns
were aware of this early exposure, to suggest that the Tanners
did nothing about Nelson until forced to by Moody Press at the
instigation of the Browns is nothing less than an outright
misrepresentation.
Going back to these letters for a moment, or more particularly
to the longer one, the one dated March 11, the reader will
recall that we mentioned the Browns reproduced approximately
five pages of material from what was originally a six-page
letter. What about the portion they did not include? Was it
merely a repetition of areas already covered, innocuously left
out to conserve space? Or was there another reason the letter
was trimmed?
Material the Brown's Withheld
A look at the omitted portion of Jerald Tanner's letter (see pp.
214,215), though, shows that the Browns apparently have
practiced what amounts to a double standard when it comes to
withholding information. Note that virtually everything
mentioned in the portion of this letter which the Browns
withheld, is damaging to the view of things their book presents.
For instance:
First, it makes detailed reference (in paragraphs 1-5) to "Dr.
Webb," the man with the bogus Ph.D. that for many years LDS
authorities endorsed and supported for his "defense" of Joseph
Smith's work. The Brown's entire premise loses its moral force
when we learn that "a disreputable man with false credentials"
defended the Book of Abraham, and that he was hired to do so on
behalf of the LDS Church authorities, who were fully aware of
the deception!
Second, it demonstrates that Hugh Nibley went on record as
defending "Webb" (paragraphs 6, 7) on the basis of the position
that not only his credentials, but even his true name was
completely irrelevant in relation to what it was he said. Again,
this argument is exactly opposite the one used by the Browns to
justify their condemnation of Nelson's views of the papyri.
Third, it spells out in very precise terms (paragraphs 8, 9) the
fact that Nibley considered Nelson's initial work with the
papyri to be "usable and reliable," a point which the Browns did
mention on page 111 of their book but which is here placed in a
context that is much more difficult for them to obscure.
Fourth, the letter emphasizes the point (in paragraph 10) that
the Tanners consider any work by Nelson to be quite incidental
to the case against the Book of Abraham, and that others --
including Baer, Wilson, and Parker -- have all the "authority"
necessary to use as evidence in that case. While each of these
points represents an area that the Browns either failed to
address successfully in their book or else neglected to deal
with at all, the first one would seem to be by far the most
damaging to them. Thus, by omitting the portion of Tanner's
letter that mentions "Webb," the bogus Ph.D. that defended the
Book of Abraham, the Browns are not only free to attack Nelson,
the phony Ph.D. that was critical of it, they are also free to
create an image of "anti-Mormon" deception and cover-up as well.
In order to do this convincingly, however, their readers must be
kept ignorant of the entire matter. To do this, it was necessary
to suppress this particular portion of Tanner's letter to
Nelson, which included statements like the following:
If I were to overlook misrepresentation on the part of
non-Mormon writers I would be operating on a double standard.
You will no doubt remember what we wrote about 'Dr. Webb' -- the
great defender of the Mormon faith ... (Tanner to Nelson, first
paragraph of omitted portion of March 11, 1980 letter)
And,
If it turns out that you do not have a Dr.'s degree, honesty
would demand that I make a public statement to that effect.
Otherwise, I would find myself in the same position as the
Mormon leaders who concealed the true identity of 'Dr. Webb' ...
(Ibid., paragraph 5)
And,
I doubt that the Mormon Church leaders will ever have the
courage to directly attack you concerning the issue of
credentials because of their use and support of 'Dr. Webb.' Even
Dr. Hugh Nibley defended 'Dr. Webb' ... (Ibid., paragraph 6)
Also,
At any rate, even though the Mormon Church will probably remain
silent concerning your credentials,* I feel that my conscience
will not allow me to keep silent if there is a problem ...
(Ibid., paragraph 8)
And, as we have seen, Tanner did not keep silent. Within two
weeks of writing this letter, enough proof of Nelson's
fraudulent credentials had been gathered by the Tanners to
expose him fully -- a point which the Browns have not only
overlooked, but have obscured and misrepresented.
There are still other instances where the Browns have used their
book knowingly and deliberately to suppress information that
would otherwise discredit their own representations -- and one
in particular is even more flagrant than the one we just
discussed. It too goes back to one of the statements that
appeared in the "Concerned Christians" article we mentioned
earlier, and can be found in the Browns' book on page 251:
"Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a Mormon lawyer and founder of the New
World Archaeological Foundation, has lost faith in the Joseph
Smith translation [of the Book of Abraham] and Mormonism ... ''
(excerpt from Concerned Christians of Mesa article)
Brown's Claim No. 6: Ferguson remained a convinced Mormon until
his death. Robert Brown took exception to this point due to the
fact that Nelson had made a similar comment during his lecture
in Mesa several months earlier, but since that time the Browns
had come up with something which they believed to be proof to
the contrary. In his rebuttal, Brown wrote:
We contacted Mr. Ferguson and in a letter to us dated October
23, 1980, he states: 'I do not recall ever meeting Dee Jay
Nelson or ever corresponding with him. I am an active member of
the Mormon Church and always have been.' (from Brown's undated
rebuttal in the Mesa Tribune, as shown on p. 261 of his book)
On the surface this letter does give one the impression that Mr.
Ferguson was still a "believer" since he described himself as an
"active Mormon." The fact remains, however, that Thomas Ferguson
no longer believed the cardinal truths of Mormonism, as his
letters on pages 178-183 of this book reveal. It would be wrong
to fault the Browns on this point, however, because when Robert
Brown responded to the "Concerned Christians" article it is
unlikely that they had ever seen Ferguson's other letters.
At just about the same time -- in the "latter part of 1980" --
the Browns also sent their material about Nelson to Moody Press,
and included a copy of their letter from Ferguson, since the
Tanners had also been among those who had previously mentioned
his lack of belief in Mormonism.
Contrary to what the Browns indicate in their book, Moody Press
did not become alarmed about the "Nelson affair" at this point
and subsequently insist the Tanners produce a "hastily revised"
section for their own book. The Tanners, after all, had already
provided Moody with a copy of their own expos?of Nelson several
months earlier, and at that time the revision was well along, if
not already completed. Moody did forward the Browns' concerns to
the Tanners, though, and included what was then to them a new
objection -- the letter from Ferguson.
The Tanners responded by sending to both Moody Press and to the
Browns, on December 8, 1980, copies of a number of Thomas Stuart
Ferguson's personal letters to close friends or acquaintances
that they had collected over the years (see pp. 178-183 of this
book) .
By the second week in December of 1980, then, the Browns had in
their possession information showing that the Tanners,
"Concerned Christians" -- and even Nelson -- had all been
telling the truth about Thomas Stuart Ferguson no longer
believing that the Mormon religion was true or of God. How did
the Browns respond to this information?
When the first edition of their book was published in July,
1981, the Browns printed a full-page copy of their letter from
Ferguson on page 228, and on the page immediately preceding it
they made this statement: THOMAS STUART FERGUSON IS OFTEN
REFERRED TO BY JERALD & SANDRA TANNER AND OTHER ANTI-MORMON
WRITERS AS A STALWART MORMON, DEFENDER OF THE BOOK OF MORMON,
AUTHOR AND LECTURER OF THE LDS CHURCH, THAT HAS LOST HIS FAITH
IN MORMONISM AND JOSEPH SMITH. DOES THIS LETTER SOUND THAT WAY
TO YOU?
Ferguson's other letters, the ones sent to Browns by the
Tanners, are ignored completely, as though the Browns had no
knowledge of them, or they had never existed.
This same example of what is thus characterized as an
"anti-Mormon lie" is emphasized two other times in their book,
as well -- once in a comment they make upon a remark by Nelson
from his lecture on page 149, and again on page 261 when they
reprint Robert Brown's response to the "Concerned Christians"
article.
Why would the Browns -- or anyone else -- do this? What real
difference could it possibly make to them what one man happens
to believe or not believe? Were they simply so intent upon
discrediting the claims of "anti-Mormons" that they did not care
if there was actually validity to those claims? Perhaps part of
the answer lies in just what Thomas Stuart Ferguson represented,
and continues to represent, in the eyes of many Latter-day
Saints.
The reader will recall that Ferguson was, among other things, an
LDS writer, and that the major focus of his writing was his
effort to link ancient American legends, prehistory, and
archaeology to the themes of the Book of Mormon.
One of the more successful subjects he helped to popularize
involved the sixteenth-century legends of Ixtlilxochitl, and the
"feathered serpent" of Aztec lore, the mythical god Quetzacoatl.
This Quetzacoatl, he attempted to demonstrate, was actually
Jesus Christ during his visit to the Americas following his
crucifixion -- a prominent Book of Mormon theme. There have been
other LDS writers who have used the same treatment of
Quetzacoatl, but Ferguson did so more convincingly than any of
them, and his writings, though they are no longer in print, were
eagerly accepted. The concepts he presented became enormously
useful to the Church's missionary effort, as well as being
helpful in establishing or strengthening the "testimonies" of
members.
Though Ferguson's own letters show that he privately rejected
such ideas later on, the LDS Church certainly never has. In the
minds of many Latter-day Saints, Quetzacoatl is a tangible link
between something recognized by the world and something
appreciated only by themselves. A visitor to Salt Lake City
today can go to Temple Square and view a film presentation of
"Christ in America" which features the legend of Quetzacoatl as
sober fact.
Where does this leave the Browns? Though their book is primarily
an attempt to defend the Book of Abraham, they have also made an
effort to provide at least a few tantalizing bits of "evidence"
to support the Book of Mormon, as well. Thus, when reviewing and
commenting upon their transcription of some of the points raised
during Nelson's Mesa lecture, they end up discussing and
promoting Ixtlilxochitl and Quetzacoatl, along with other
sources that Ferguson had written about. And since Ferguson was
so closely associated with these particular "intellectual
approaches" to creating credibility for the Book of Mormon, and
could even be considered an expert regarding them, the Browns
must have realized that it would be disconcerting to many
Latter-day Saints who felt that their testimonies had been
strengthened by such things, to discover that the man who had
helped popularize them no longer believed them himself.
So Ferguson's letter to the Browns is prominently displayed and
hailed as "proof" of his belief in what the Browns believe, and
the other letters -- the ones the Tanners provided that show
otherwise are never mentioned by the Browns.
We could go on and on giving further examples of the types of
flaws that are so prevalent throughout They Lie in Wait to
Deceive, but we feel our point has been made. Many of these
faults can be passed off as fairly innocent mistakes, the result
of poor and often inadequate research; while others are
reflections of the writers' unavoidable bias against any but
their own view, an intolerance repeatedly expressed through
bitterness, hostility, suspicion, and sarcasm. But while neither
of these first two conditions are particularly commendable,
they, unlike a third, are at least to some degree excusable. The
other, the use of deliberate and intentional misrepresentation,
is not. The frequent resort to such measures within They Lie in
Wait to Deceive could easily suggest to the reader that the
Browns' title was autobiographical.
Is there anything good that can be said about the book? As a
matter of fact there is. In spite of their tendency at times to
go overboard and leap to false conclusions, the Browns have
nevertheless provided a convincing demonstration that fraudulent
claims have been made by Dee Jay Nelson, a demonstration that is
both appropriate and useful.
In what way do we mean appropriate? And just how is this
information useful, and to whom? It must be remembered that
Nelson was primarily a professional lecturer. During the two
lectures the Browns attended in Mesa early in 1980, they admit
that though they disagreed with his message they were impressed
by his ability to entertain an audience. He had apparently made
the greatest part of his living for quite some time doing
lectures, and could have successfully presented almost any
subject he chose that was of interest to him.
His involvement with the Metropolitan Papyri, including his
association with Hugh Nibley and his arrangement with N. Eldon
Tanner, are a matter of record. He also managed, based largely
upon his own abilities and resources, to produce and have
published the first reasonably accurate translations and
interpretations of those papyri. These conditions alone would
have qualified him to speak with authority and from experience
on the subject of the Book of Abraham if he had chosen to do so.
Unfortunately, those qualifications alone were not what he used.
From the very beginning of the papyri affair (and apparently for
quite some time prior to that), it appears that Nelson purposely
inflated his personal and professional image. Why he did this is
unclear, and does not really matter at any rate. The fact is, it
had become a habit, and once begun it was apparently impossible
to break. Furthermore, the evidence that the papyri presented
against the Book of Abraham was impressive in and of itself, and
could easily be used to add credibility to his growing list of
claims about himself. The temptation to do this -- whether it
was originally intended or not -- existed, and in the end Nelson
exploited the LDS Church's vulnerability over the issue for his
personal gain.
It is appropriate that Nelson's false claims should have been
exposed, then, because an issue is often judged on the basis of
the person who presents it. The case against the Book of Abraham
deserves to be recognized and examined on its own merit, and,
particularly since the issue of people's faith is involved, it
should never become a thing to be exploited for anyone's
personal benefit.
Moreover, this information is useful in that it helps to place
Nelson's entire involvement with the papyri in a proper sense of
perspective to the case against the Book of Abraham. It
demonstrates that nothing is ever achieved by making false
claims; any "advantage" thus gained is really only an illusion,
and is usually more than offset by the damage done to one's
credibility when the truth comes out.
Yes, it is true that the Tanners exposed Nelson, and that they
did so early on of their own accord and at considerable expense
and effort. It is also true that at least some of the research
the Browns take credit for was provided or inspired by leads
originally developed by the Tanners (Nelson's "diploma" from
"Pacific Northwestern University," for example, which is twice
shown so triumphantly in They Lie in Wait to Deceive, was
reproduced by the Browns from a copy that had been sent to them
by the Tanners!). The Browns, however, have gone beyond the
Tanners in many ways. While the Tanners exposed only the false
claims made by Nelson regarding his association with the Book of
Abraham controversy, the Browns made it a point to expose every
claim that they could, even to the point of reproducing his high
school transcripts!
There are, as we have mentioned, instances where their
conclusions have been faulty or oversimplified (as with Nibley's
letter, the meeting with N. Eldon Tanner, the canopic jar
identifications, etc.), but in many cases they have shed light
upon aspects of Nelson's misrepresentations that would have
otherwise remained unknown. His self-proclaimed "mathematical
ability" in personally calculating the weight of King Tut's gold
coffin (which it turns out he developed from a misprint in a
book!), his "gifts" from King Farouk, his alter-ego "business
manager" (who was actually himself), and several other claims
are very convincingly demonstrated to be false. The Browns' file
of response letters from various institutions, foundations, and
professionals in the field of Egyptology who have never heard of
Nelson and cannot verify any of his purported achievements
should alone put to rest his claim to be a well-known
professional in that field.
And actually, there is a certain value to their having done
this, a value which the Browns probably failed to recognize
themselves. By clearly exposing as many aspects of Nelson's
fraud as possible, others -- be they writers, lecturers, or
investigators -- will be prevented from ever again allowing him
to "represent" the case against the Book of Abraham. Nelson can
rightfully be regarded as a footnote, and never again be
confused as an "originator."
If the Browns had only set out originally with such an intent,
if they had been able to avoid the false conclusions that
colored their work and led them to present their own
misrepresentations, their work could have been an effective, and
admirable contribution to those seeking to learn the truth.
NOTES
Part I
Chapter One - How It All Began
1 Book of Mormon, 2 Ne. 28; Morm. 8:28, 31-33. Pearl of Great
Price, JS H 1:18, 19 (This is a portion of the popular version
of Joseph Smith's First Vision account).
2 Ibid., JS H 1:30-34, 42.
3 Book of Mormon -- The Testimony of Three Witnesses;
Introduction.
4 Ibid., Introduction.
5 Ibid., 2 Ne. 26:15, 16. This corresponds to Isaiah 29:4, and
by shifting the passage to refer to America rather than
Jerusalem (even ignoring the meaning of the term "familiar
spirit"), LDS are able to regard this as a "Biblical proof" for
the Book of Mormon.
6 Ibid., Morm. 9:32.
7 History of the Church, Vol. 1, p. 64, 77.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., p. 124, 125.
10 Ibid., p. 181-183.
11 Ibid., p. 189. Doctrine and Covenants -- sec. 57.
12 Ibid, sec. 103:11-36, especially vv. 13, 18-20, 26, and 34.
13 History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 106, 107.
14 Doctrine and Covenants, sec. 105:1-9.
15 Pearl of Great Price, JS H 1:60.
16 The following excerpts are from a letter written by David
Whitmer (one of the original Three Witnesses) to the RLDS
periodical Latter Day Saints Herald, which was published
February 5, 1887: "Some of the revelations as they now appear in
the Book of Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and added
to. Some of the changes being of the greatest importance as the
meaning is entirely changed on some very important matters; as
if the Lord had changed his mind a few years after he gave the
revelations ... But in the winter of 1834 they saw that some of
the revelations in the Book of Commandments had to be changed,
because the heads of the church had gone too far, and had done
things in which they had already gone ahead of some of the
former revelations. So the book of 'Doctrine and Covenants' was
printed in 1835, and some of the revelations changed and added
to."
17 History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 235.
18 Ibid.
19 Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ( New York:
MacMillan, 1992), Vol. 1, s.v. 'Book of Abraham -- Origins of
the Book of Abraham,' p. 132; History of the Church, Vol. 2, p.
236.
20 Ibid.
21 Letter written by Oliver Cowdery to Wm Frye dated December
25, 1835, as published in the early LDS periodical Messenger and
Advocate, December, 1835, p. 235.
22 Ibid., p. 236.
23 History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 238, 318, 320, etc.
24 Ibid., p. 350, 351.
Chapter Two - The Book of Abraham: A Timely Document
1 History of the Church, Vol. 2, p. 236 (commencement of first
phase); Vol. 4 p. 518 (commencement of second phase). These were
first published in two installments in the Times and Seasons in
March, 1842. See note on p. 42, this book.
2 This view is well demonstrated in the following observation by
Sidney B. Sperry in his book Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus
and Stone, p. 83: "... the authors or editors of the book we
call Genesis lived after the events recorded therein [in the
Book of Abraham] took place. Our text of Genesis can therefore
not be dated earlier than the latest event mentioned by it. It
is evident that the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt,
of which our printed Book of Abraham is a copy, must of
necessity be older than the original text of Genesis."
3 Diary of Wilford Woodruff, Feb. 19, 1842 (see quote on p. 170
of this book).
4 David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ
(Richmond, Missouri: 1887), p. 59-65. Whitmer writes: "This
manner of 'priesthood,' since the days of Sidney Rigdon, has
been the great hobby and stumbling block of the Latter-day
Saints ... This matter of the two orders of priesthood in the
Church of Christ, and lineal priesthood of the old law being in
the church, all originated in the mind of Sidney Rigdon." ( p.
64)
5 Ibid., p. 56, 57.
6 For Joseph Smith's denials see -- Times and Seasons, Vol. 3,
p. 909 (1842); ibid. p. 939; ibid., Vol. 5, p. 423 (1844). Hyrum
Smith, Ibid., Vol. 3, p. 871 (1842); ibid. Vol. 5, p. 474
(1844).
7 The issue of Joseph Smith's teaching a doctrine of plurality
of gods was one of the three main charges leveled against him by
the Nauvoo Expositor in June, 1844. Smith ordered the paper and
its press destroyed as a "public nuisance," and was subsequently
arrested and brought to jail at Carthage, Illinois, where he was
killed. (The other two charges made by the Expositor dealt with
polygamy and Joseph Smith's land schemes.) Cf. note on p. 80
this book. (An exact reproduction of the Expositor is available
on request from the publisher of this book.)
8 Steven L. Shields, Divergent Paths of the Restoration, 3rd ed.
(Bountiful, Utah, 1982) It has been estimated that well over one
hundred different groups have claimed to have sole authority
over the "Restoration" since Joseph Smith's death.
9 Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, (Salt Lake City, Utah,
1966) p. 564.
Chapter Three - Charges and Rebuttals: The Challenge Begins
1 See Egyptian Grammar, Being an Introduction to the Study of
Hieroglyphics, by Sir Alan Gardiner, 3rd ed. (by London: Oxford
University Press, 1964)
2 William E. Berrett, The Restored Church, 14th ed., 1969, p.
107.
3 In Dr. Hugh Nibley's book Abraham in Egypt (Deseret Book Co.,
1981) -- The text of the original 1842 heading was erroneously
assumed by Nibley to lack the words "that have fallen into our
hands." Nibley then charged that it was the 1851 Pearl of Great
Price editor, Franklin D. Richards, who originated the idea that
"actual possession of the (Egyptian) records is what made
translation possible," -- in this way attempting to build a case
for a "translation" of the Book of Abraham without having to
account for Smith's papyri turning out to be merely common
funeral texts (cf. The ''Catalyst Theory", p. 132ff, this book).
See also the review of Dr. Nibley's book by H. Michael Marquardt
in The Journal of Pastoral Practice, Vol. V, No. 4, p. 113-116.
4 Dr. Arthur Mace, Assistant Curator, Metropolitan Museum of
Art, New York, Dept. of Egyptian Art.
5 Dr. A. H. Sayce, Oxford, England.
6 James H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University
of Chicago.
7 Dr. W. M. Flinders Petrie, London University.
8 Improvement Era, Vol. 16, February 1913, p. 343.
9 New York Times, Magazine Section, December, 1912.
10 Improvement Era, Vol. 16, February 1913, p. 321.
11 B. H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. 2,
p. 139.
12 At the Pearl of Great Price Conference held at Brigham Young
University on December 10, 1960, Dr. Sperry, speaking of "Webb,"
stated, "He wrote a wonderful book, Case Against Mormonism,
under the name of Robert C. Webb, Ph.D. I regret that the
Brethren let him put down Robert C. Webb, Ph.D., because he was
no Ph.D." Sperry gives his name as J.C. Homans, introducing some
confusion as to his middle initial.
13 William E. Berrett, op. cit., p. 107.
Chapter Four - The Papyri Rediscovered: A Timely Opportunity?
1 Dr. Atiya's full account of his part in the rediscovery of the
papyri appeared in the January 1968 issue of Improvement Era.
There is evidence, however, that their existence was known much
earlier -- see interview with Dr. Henry G. Fischer of the
Metropolitan Museum in the Winter, 1967 issue of Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought.
2 Dr. Hugh Nibley, Brigham Young University Studies, Winter,
1968 p. 171.
3 The back of Papyrus Joseph Smith II, for example, contains a
map of the Kirtland area in Ohio, and is shown on p. 25 of the
January, 1968 Improvement Era.
4 Walter Whipple, et al, From the of the Dust Decades (Salt Lake
City, 1968) p. 116.
5 Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 65-67 -- sermon by LDS
Apostle Orson Pratt.
6 LDS Apostle John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations,
Vol. 1, p. 203.
7 Bruce R. McConkie, op. cit., pp. 700, 701.
Part II
Chapter Five - An Identification and the Critical Link
1 Up to the time when photographs of the papyri finally appeared
in the February 1968 Improvement Era, they were generally not
available to the public -- even though the Church had had sets
of photographs for nearly a year-and-half prior to that time.
See the discussion of this matter in the appendix, of this book.
2 There is also evidence, from Dr. Sperry's account, that the
Grammar's existence was already known of, at least by some
members of the Church Historian's Office.
3 See, for example, Jay M. Todd's The Saga of the Book of
Abraham, p. 364. Todd writes: "Outside of a few associates, Dr.
Clark had kept the fragment [contained with the Grammar
material] a matter of confidence, under instructions from the
Historian's Office, for over 30 years."
4 Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968, p. 91.
5 William E. Berrett, op. cit., 1956 ed., p. 133, 134.
6 Dr. Sidney B. Sperry, December 10, 1960, Pearl of Great Price
Conference.
7 See speech by Reed Durham, LDS Institute of Religion,
University of Utah, March 7, 1972.
8 Letter of I. E. Edwards, Keeper of the Department of Egyptian
Antiquities, dated June 9, 1966.
9 James R. Clark in Progress in Archaeology, Brigham Young
University, 1963, writes: "These symbols [on the Book of Abraham
translation manuscripts included with the Grammar material],
judging from their translation, were a highly specialized type
of ideograph where a few strokes of the pen or brush conveyed an
entire concept." See also similar remarks by Clark at Pearl of
Great Price Conference, December 10, 1960.
10 Though later apologists have attempted to reverse this
conclusion, there was no disagreement with it when first
discovered (before the damaging implications had fully set in).
See discussion of this point in LDS Reactions, this book.
Chapter Six - The Beginning of Disappointment
1 Among Nibley's numerous published works were the books
Sounding Brass and The Myth Makers, both satirical and sarcastic
denunciations of "anti-Mormon" writers and writings.
2 Dr. Nibley subsequently studied under Klaus Baer, as well.
3 For lack of preparedness within the Church, see Nibley's
comments in BYU's Daily Universe, December 1, 1967; Brigham
Young University Studies, Winter 1968, pp. 171-172. Nibley never
seems to have been suspicious of Nelson's extravagant claims,
but apparently accepted them at face value, as did many others
both in and out of the LDS Church.
4 For context of this letter, see the discussion in the Appendix
of this book.
5 See discussion of this matter in the Appendix of this book.
6 Improvement Era, February, 1968, p. 40-H.
7 This is Nelson's account as he related it to Jerald and Sandra
Tanner.
8 It is significant that these professionals were approached by
"private" individuals. The LDS Church never did officially seek
an expert and impartial verdict regarding the papyri. In a
letter dated December 4, 1967, Fischer (of the Metropolitan
Museum) wrote: "We have not been commissioned to translate the
papyri, nor do I know of anyone else who has been asked to do
so."
9 See Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, 1982 ed., p. 309.
10 Improvement Era, May 1970, pp. 82,83 .
11 The disqualifying of Nelson's "credentials" has become a
chief basis for "vindicating" the Book of Abraham to some LDS
minds. See discussion of the red herring technique on pp. 138ff
of this book.
Chapter Seven - The Evidence of the Papyri
1 John A. Wilson in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Summer 1968, p. 70.
2 Dr. Klaus Baer, ibid., Autumn 1968, p. 111.
3 Hugh Nibley has assigned a date of 60 A.D. to the Hor Sensen
Papyrus, placing it firmly within the Roman period. While other
scholars have perhaps been slightly more liberal with the time
frame they have allowed for the production of the papyrus, there
is no particular reason to reject to Dr. Nibley's date.
4 Ibid., p. 116, 117.
5 History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 518, under the date of
February 23, 1842: Wednesday, 23 --"Settled with and paid
Brother Chase, and assisted in the counting room in settling
with Ebenezer Robinson, visiting the printing office, and gave
Reuben Hedlock instruction concerning the cut for the altar and
gods in the Records of Abraham, as designed for the Times and
Seasons."
6 Richard A. Parker in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Summer 1968, p. 98.
7 Wilson, op. cit., p. 71-85
8 Baer, op. cit., p. 111.
9 This was the basis for the article in the February, 1968
Improvement Era, p. 40-A through 40-G, in which the full set of
photographs of the papyri first appeared.
Chapter Eight - The Book of Joseph?
1 History of the Church, Vol. 2. p. 236.
2 William E. Berrett, op. cit., p. 106, 107.
3 Wilson in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1968,
p. 68.
4 As appears in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar,
Modern Microfilm Co., 1966; and in The Joseph Smith Egyptian
Papers, compiled by H. Michael Marquardt, 1981, p. 109. 6 Bruce
R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1979), p. 97.
Chapter Nine - Translating Egyptian: A Comparison
1 An excellent, illustrated explanation of the rudiments of
Egyptian grammar can be found in the book Egyptian Hieroglyphics
by Patrick F. O'Mara, Ph. D.
2 Egyptian hieroglyphics could be written to read in any
direction -- left to right, right to left, up, or down,
depending on the direction the pictographs were facing. Hieratic
writing, on the other hand, was virtually always written and
read from right to left.
3 Except when vowels are known through sources dating from
Classical times.
4 From the "Wentworth Letter," a letter of Joseph Smith to John
Wentworth published in Times and Seasons on March 1, 1842, as
recorded in History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 537.
5 See note no. 9, Part Two, Chapter Five, above.
6 See photocopies in Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar,
p. 1; also The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, p. 6
7 See p. 127f. of this book.
8 Several of these are listed on pp. 124, 125 of this book.
9 See p. 125, 126 of this book; also remarks by Josiah Quincy
and others as recorded in The Saga of the Book of Abraham.
10 Daniel Ludlow, ed. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York:
MacMillan, 1992), Vol. 1, s.v. 'Book of Abraham -- Translation
and Publication of the Book of Abraham,' p. 134.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., p. 132.
13 The 1992 equivalent figure in U.S. dollars is based on
inflation data in The Economist magazine, "Economic Brief: A
Short History of Inflation," (February 22, 1992), p. 68.
Chapter Ten - A Close Look at the Facsimiles
1 This explanation is more detailed (though in the same context)
than the one initally given by Dr. Klaus Baer in Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, p. 118.
2 James R. Clark, of Brigham Young University, in his book The
Story of the Pearl of Great Price, evidences this traditional
view when he writes: "Another thing to be noticed about the Book
of Abraham is that the Facsimiles are intended to serve as
illustrations of the text . . .'' "But he, Abraham, wanted to
make sure that his reader would clearly understand what the
altar actually looked like so he 'drew a picture' for his
reader. That picture or illustration is Facsimile No. 1." -- p.
119, See, Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:12, 14.
3 M. Theodule Deveria in A Journey to Great Salt Lake, Vol. 2,
as quoted in Deseret News, January 4, 1913, writes: "It is
evident to me that several of the figures to be found in these
various manuscripts have been intentionally altered."
4 Translation of hieroglyphics as by Michael Dennis Rhodes,
Brigham Young University Studies, Spring, 1977, p. 265;
translation of hieratic by Richard A. Parker (note no. 6, Part
Two, Chapter 7, above).
5 Explanation and translation by Dr. Klaus Baer, op. cit., p.
126, 127.
6 Originally Nibley, Improvement Era, February, 1968, p. 20;
more recently Ed Ashment in Sunstone, December, 1979, pp. 33ff.
Part III
Chapter Eleven - The Intellectual Approaches
1 Statement by Hugh Nibley, as quoted by Ian Barber in his
booklet What Mormonism Isn't -- A Response to the Research of
Jerald and Sandra Tanner.
2 Brigham Young University Studies, Spring 1968, p. 249.
3 Nelson pointed this out in his booklet The Joseph Smith
Papyri, Part 2, p. 14; the same thought was also expressed by
Professor Richard A. Parker in a letter to Marvin Cowan dated
January 9, 1968.
4 Newsletter and Proceedings of the Society for Early Historic
Archaeology, October 25, 1968, pp. 1-4.
5 Ibid., June 2, 1969, pp. 11, 12.
6 Nibley in Brigham Young University Studies, Autumn 1968, p.
101, 102.
7 As quoted in Jay Todd's book The Saga of the Book of Abraham,
1969, p. 386.
8 Sidney B. Sperry, op. cit., p. 68.
9 Ibid., pp. 68, 69.
10 Hyrum L. Andrus, Doctrinal Commentary on the Pearl of Great
Price, 1967 (1970 ed.), p. 25.
11 See the article "Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham,"
by Dr. Hugh Nibley (undated) as published in They Lie in Wait to
Deceive, by Robert and Rosemary Brown, pp. 236-245.
12 Ibid., p. 241.
13 Ibid., p. 239.
14 Ibid., p. 242
15 Ibid, p. 239.
16 Ibid.,. p. 238.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid., p. 241.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid.
21 The Voice of Truth (1844), p. 16, 17, as quoted in No Man
Knows My History, p. 292.
22 As to the authenticity of Brodie's source, she was writing in
1945 and would have had no way to determine whether or not
Joseph Smith's "Egyptian" phrase had ever been recorded in any
other place than in the 1844 pamphlet she quoted from. The
publishing of Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar in 1966
verified her source as authentic more than 20 years after she
quoted from it.
23 Times and Seasons, Vol. 4, p. 373.
24 Nibley, op. cit., p. 240.
25 Ibid., p. 242.
26 Today, the above article is circulated primarily through the
book They Lie in Wait to Deceive, and also through the F.A.R.M.S.
(Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies)
organization.
27 This theory is also described in the article by Nibley
referenced in note no. 11, above.
28 Harris' theory was contested by Larry C. Porter, who felt
that there was evidence to indicate that the blessing referred
to was not actually written down in the Patriarchal Blessing
Book until September, 1835, as mentioned in Joseph Fielding
Smith's Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 3, p. 99.
29 All of Barber's quotes in this section are from the work
referenced.
30 Dr. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 1981, p. 4.
31 Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Encyclopedia of Mormonism (New York:
MacMillan, 1992), Vol. 1, s.v. 'Book of Abraham -- Origins of
the Book of Abraham,' p. 134.
32 Ibid.
33 Remark made in a speech by Hugh Nibley at the University of
Utah on May 20, 1968, as recorded on p. 317 of Mormonism: Shadow
or Reality, 1982 ed.
34 Letter by Richard A. Parker to Marvin Cowan dated March 22,
1966.
Chapter Twelve - All is Well: Creating an Appearance
1 This is the "promise" of Moroni 10:4 (Book of Mormon) and is
used extensively by LDS missionaries during the proselytizing of
others to their faith.
2 See, for instance, Todd's Saga of the Book of Abraham.
3 An interesting omission of material from The Restored Church
in The Latter-day Saints is Berrett quoting Oliver Cowdery's
1835 letter about the Book of Joseph scroll as it appeared in
The Latter-day Saint's Messenger and Advocate (See pp. 80ff.,
this book). Berrett quoted a great deal of Cowdery's letter in
The Restored Church and made proud reference to the "Book of
Joseph" scroll; but after the rediscovery and examination of the
Ta-shert-Min Book of the Dead fragments, Berrett entirely
omitted all remarks concerning such material in The Latter-day
Saints.
4 "Do Not Spread Disease Germs" -- address by Apostle Boyd K.
Packer given on August 22, 1981, as published in Brigham Young
University Studies, Summer 1981, p. 259, 262-278 (esp. p. 264).
5 Ibid., pp. 267,271.
6 This term was used following LDS historian and scholar D.
Michael Quinn's strong reaction to Elder Packer's speech (see
article that appeared in the now defunct independent BYU
newspaper The Seventh East Press, November 18, 1981) in a paper
by Quinn entitled "On Being A Mormon Historian."
7 Response to Ashment's article by Hugh Nibley, Sunstone,
December 1979, p. 49.
8 Ibid.
9 Browns, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, statement on front cover.
10 Ibid., p. 154.
11 New York Times, Magazine Section, December 29, 1912.
12 See note no. 8, Part One, Chapter 3, above.
13 That is, Nibley's article "Judging and Prejudging the Book of
Abraham."
14 Browns. op. cit., p. 172.
15 I have frequently heard the book They Lie in Wait to Deceive
endorsed and recommended by well meaning people, who have also
candidly admitted they have read or heard about "very little"
else relating to the subject.
Chapter Thirteen - The Criteria for Rationalization
1 The Reorganized LDS Church (RLDS), headquartered in
Independence, Missouri, could be said to have been established
on April 6, 1860, when Joseph Smith III, son of the Mormon
leader Joseph Smith, Jr., became its first president. This group
never embraced many "Mormon" doctrines, such as polygamy, and
while in its early years it accorded the Book of Abraham limited
use as a sort of semi-scriptural work, it publicly rejected the
notion of the Book of Abraham being scripturally binding shortly
after the rediscovery of the papyri in 1967.
2 This subject, along with many others, is well covered in
Jerald and Sandra Tanner's The Changing World of Mormonism,
Moody Press, 1980; cf. also, the Tanners' Major Problems of
Mormonism, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1989.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
Part IV
Chapter Fourteen - Facing the Truth
1 Early LDS Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, pp. 15, 16.
2 McConkie, op. cit., under the heading Seers, p. 701, states:
"The President of the Church holds the office of seership.
(D.&C. 107:92; 124:94, 125.) Indeed, the apostolic office itself
is one of seership, and the members of the Council of the
Twelve, together with the Presidency and Patriarch to the
Church, are chosen and sustained as prophets, seers, and
revelators to the Church."
3 Though polygamy was developed and practiced only secretly
during Joseph Smith's lifetime, by 1852 the doctrine was being
taught and practiced openly in the territory of Utah.
Chapter Fifteen - Moving Beyond Rationalization
1 Commonly known as a "Fast and Testimony" meeting and held on
the first Sunday of the month, members abstain from food (fast)
for two of their three daily meals prior to sharing their
testimonies with each other in the meeting.
2 McConkie, op. cit., under Testimony, p. 785, writes: "A
testimony of the gospel is the sure knowledge, received by
revelation from the Holy Ghost, of the divinity of the great
latter-day work."
Chapter Sixteen - Does All This Really Matter?
1 Jerald and Sandra Tanner have quoted portions of these letters
in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, both 1972 and 1982 editions,
and in The Changing World of Mormonism, 1980; also Wesley P.
Walters in Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians, 1973, and others.
2 The following observations by a Mormon writer named Klaus
Hansen, which were made during the height of the papyri
controversy, appeared in the Summer 1970 issue of Dialogue: A
Journal of Mormon Thought, p. 110, and offer some insight into
Ferguson's remarks: "To a professional historian, for example,
the recent translation of the Joseph Smith papyri may well
represent the potentially most damaging case against Mormonism
since its foundation. Yet the 'Powers That Be' at the Church
Historian's Office should take comfort in the fact that the
almost total lack of response to this translation is uncanny
proof of Frank Kermode's observation that even the most
devastating acts of disconfirmation will have noeffect whatever
upon true believers. Perhaps an even more telling response is
that of the 'liberals,' or cultural Mormons. After the Joseph
Smith Papyri affair, one might well have expected a mass exodus
of these people from the Church. Yet none has occurred. Why?
Because cultural Mormons, of course, do not believe in the
historical authenticity of the Mormon scriptures in the first
place. So there is nothing to disconfirm."
End of Notes section for By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus.
THE END