From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: Joseph as a prophet (ULM-2)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:01:59 GMT


The following is part two of the three part article of Thomas
Ferguson.  Again, the subject line above relates to a discussion
about Smith as a prophet.  The BoM, etc.
This article contains relevant information.

-- Glenn

                              ***


EVIDENCE NOT FOUND

        Although many important archaeological discoveries were made,
the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did
not turn up. In response to a letter Hal Hougey wrote in 1972 which
reminded him that he had predicted in 1961 that Book of Mormon cities
would be found within 10 years, Mr. Ferguson sadly wrote: "Ten years
have passed... I sincerely anticipated that Book-of-Mormon cities would
be positively identified within 10 years--and time has proved me wrong
in my anticipation." (Letter dated June 5, 1972)

        At first it had all seemed so simple; since the Book of Mormon
told when the Nephites were in Mesoamerica, all one had to do was find
archaeological sites that dated to the period and the Book of Mormon
would be established by the evidence. The fact that archaeological
research failed to provide the confirmation which Mr. Ferguson expected
to find must have weighed very heavily on his mind. The most serious
blow to Ferguson's faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith's
Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very
papyrus from which Joseph Smith "translated" the Book of Abraham. The
Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the
four standard works of the Mormon Church.

        After Mr. Ferguson obtained photographs of the papyrus
fragments, he consulted Professors Lutz and Lesko of the University of
California. Both these Egyptologists agreed that the papyrus Joseph
Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham was in reality the Book of
Breathings, an Egyptian funerary text made for a man by the name of Hor
(Horus). Ferguson learned that this papyrus had nothing at all to do
with the patriarch Abraham or his religion. It was in its entirety a
pagan text filled with the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses.

        Thomas Stuart Ferguson was shaken to the core by this discovery.
When the church's noted apologist, Dr. Hugh Nibley, began defending the
Book of Abraham, he wrote a letter to another member of the church in
which he stated:

                "Nibley's articles on the Book of Abraham aren't worth a
   tinker--first, because he is not impartial, being the commissioned
   and paid defender of the faith. Second, because he could not, he
   dared not, he did not, face the true issue: 'Could Joseph Smith
   translate Egyptian?'... By study of the GRAMMAR [Joseph Smith's
   Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar], the recovered papyrus, and the
   illustrations, it is perfectly obvious that we now have the oringinal
   [sic] manuscript material used by Jos. Smith in working up the Book
   of Abraham. Prof Klaus Baer of Univ. of Chicago, Prof Lutz of U.C.
   (Berkeley), Prof. Lesko (U.C. Berkeley) and Egyptologist Dee Jay
   Nelson, all agree that the original manuscript Egyptian text
   translates into the Breathing Permit of Hor (Egyptian God).... The
   work of the two UC professors was done at my request and is
   unpublished. All 4 agree with each other, and without having
   conferred or collaborated. (My UC men did not, and still do not, know
   that there is any relationship of the manuscript material to the
   Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham-- or whatever....

                "Joseph Smith announced, in print (History of the
  Church, Vol. Il, page 236), that 'one of the rolls contained the
  writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt...' Since
  4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that
  the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph-- and since the 4
  reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say -- I must
  conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things
  Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest of officials
  in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very
  statement to him on Dec. 4, 1970--privately in one-to-one
  [c]onversation....


                "The attempts, including Nibley's, to explain away and
  dodge the trap into which Joseph Smith fell when he had the audacity
  to translate the Chandler texts, and keep the original Egyptian texts
  around, are absurd, in my view....

                "My views are not for publication or spreading abroad. I
  am like you--maintaining membership because of the many fine things
  the Church offers. But facts speak for themselves. I offered the data
  available to my Stake Pres. recently and he walked away without
  it--saying he didn't want to read it. They can hardly execommunicate
  [sic] us when they won't look at the evidence.

                "Of course the dodge as to the Book of Abraham must be:
  'WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FROM WHICH THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
  WAS TRANSLATED. I conclude that we do have it and have translations of
  it." (Letter by Thomas Stuart Ferguson, dated March 13,1971)

VISITS THE TANNERS

        The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his
faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith's Egyptian Papyri were
rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were "doing a
great thing--getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham." This was a
significant statement since we were presenting evidence that the Book of
Abraham was not a correct translation of the papyri. Later we heard a
rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, but this
hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr.
Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of
Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was
not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. Ferguson felt that our
work was important and that it should be subsidized. He told us that he
had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally
come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in
vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh
evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely
devastating and could not be explained away.

        Speaking of Joseph Smith's First Vision, Ferguson commented that
when Cheesman and Brigham Young University Studies published the strange
accounts of the vision they completely destroyed his faith in it. He
felt that instead of helping the cause, the Mormon scholars had shot the
bird, plucked out all its feathers and left it "dead and naked on the
ground." He referred to Dr. Hugh Nibley's defense of the Book of Abraham
as "nonsense," and told us that just before coming to visit us he had
discussed the Book of Abraham with Hugh B. Brown (Brown served as a
member of the First Presidency under President David O. McKay).
According to Mr. Ferguson, Apostle Brown had also come to the conclusion
that the Book of Abraham was false and was in favor of the church giving
it up. A few years later Hugh B. Brown said he could "not recall" making
the statements Thomas Stuart Ferguson attributed to him. Ferguson,
however, was apparently referring to the same incident in the letter of
March 13, 1971, when he stated: "I must conclude that Joseph Smith had
not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise
one of the highest officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that
conclusion... privately in one-to-one [c]onversation."

        That Ferguson would have discussed the matter with Apostle Brown
seems very likely since earlier in the letter Ferguson noted that he had
received "enlarged photos" of the Joseph Smith Papyri "directly from
Hugh B. Brown." While there is always the possibility that Mr. Ferguson
misunderstood Apostle Brown, we seriously doubt that this could have
been the case. At any rate, when Ferguson visited with us he seemed to
be absolutely convinced that Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham.
He was very stirred up over this matter, and we felt that the
conversation he had with Apostle Brown probably disturbed him to the
point that he decided to make contact with us.

        From what we know from other sources, Hugh B. Brown had a very
difficult time accepting the anti-Black doctrine--i.e., the teaching
that Blacks could not hold the Mormon priesthood. Since this doctrine
was chiefly derived from Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham, it is very
possible that Brown acquired serious doubts about the book even before
the papyri were rediscovered. Many people believe that when Brown was
serving in the First Presidency he tried very hard to convince President
David O. McKay to have a revelation which would allow Blacks to receive
the priesthood. When Joseph Fielding Smith became president of the
church in 1970, Hugh B. Brown no longer found himself in the First
Presidency. It was not until 1978 that President Spencer W. Kimball
claimed to receive a revelation which removed the curse off the blacks.
At any rate, we have evidence to show that Thomas Stuart Ferguson
continued to tell the story concerning his conversation with Hugh B.
Brown up until the time of his death.

        Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon
Church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on
the archaeological research of the New World Archaeological Foundation.
He felt, however, that this foundation was doing legitimate
archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue the research.
He realized that the organization he had founded to establish the
authenticity of-the Book of Mormon was now actually disproving the Book
of Mormon by its failure to turn up anything concerning a Christian
culture existing in Mesoamerica prior to the time of Columbus.

        One matter which we discussed with Mr. Ferguson was the
possibility that he might write something about his loss of faith in the
Book of Mormon. He was deeply grieved by the fact that he had wasted
twenty-five years of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon. We
indicated to him, however, that this time would not be wasted if he
would go public with what he had found. He could, in fact, prevent many
others from wasting twenty-five years of their lives trying to prove the
Book of Mormon. He informed us that he had been thinking of writing a
book about the matter and that it would be a real "bombshell."

        A few months after Thomas Stuart Ferguson revealed to us that he
had come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a spurious
production, he wrote us a letter in which he said: "I think I will be in
SLC in June--and if so, I'll call on you again. I enjoyed my visit with
you.... I certainly admire you for the battle you are waging--virtually
single handed." (Letter dated March 13,1971) On a number of occasions
when people wrote to him, Mr. Ferguson recommended that they read our
publications on Mormonism.

        Unfortunately, Thomas Stewart Ferguson seems to have had a very
difficult time communicating his loss of faith to those he was close to.
He told us, for instance, that he did not dare tell one of his sons the
truth about the Book of Mormon because the shock would cause him too
much emotional trauma. He felt that he may have to put the matter off
until the situation changed. While he no longer believed in the divine
authenticity of the Book of Mormon, he continued to attend the Mormon
Church.

        Joseph Smith claimed that Jesus Himself told him that he should
"join none" of the churches which were in existence in his day, for "all
their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors
were all corrupt;..." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith 2:19) This
false concept has led many Mormons to believe that if the Mormon Church
is not true, there is nowhere else to turn. Consequently, when they lose
faith in Mormonism they are likely to completely lose faith in the idea
of a personal God. Unfortunately, this is what happened to Thomas Stuart
Ferguson. In a letter to James Still, dated Dec. 3, 1979, Mr. Ferguson
frankly stated: "I lost faith in Joseph Smith as one having a pipeline
to deity--and have decided that there has never been a pipeline to
deity--with any man." Since he had many friends and members of his
family in Mormonism and apparently felt comfortable there, he decided to
remain in the church. In the same letter Ferguson stated that he still
attended Mormon meetings, "sing in the choir and enjoy my friendships in
the Church. In my opinion it is the best fraternity that has come to my
attention..." With regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon, Mr.
Ferguson wrote: "...I give Joseph Smith credit as an innovator and as a
smart fellow.... I think that Joseph Smith may have had Ixtlilxochitl
and View of the Hebrews from which to work."

        Even before our meeting with Mr. Ferguson in 1970, some Mormon
scholars were beginning to face the truth with regard to Book of Mormon
archaeology. Dee F. Green, who had worked with Ferguson's New World
Archaeological Foundation, was one of the first to openly criticize
"Book of Mormon archaeology." His criticism is very significant because
he was at one time deeply involved in archaeological work at the Mormon
Church's Brigham Young University. In 1958-61 he served as editor of the
University Archaeological Society Newsletter. In his article, published
in _Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought_, Dee Green made it plain that
archaeological evidence did not prove the Book of Mormon:

                "Having spent a considerable portion of the past ten
   years functioning as a scientist dealing with New World archaeology,
   I find that nothing in so-called Book of Mormon archaeology
   materially affects my religious commitment one way or the other, and
   I do not see that the archaeological myths so common in our
   proselytizing program enhance the process of true conversion....

                'The first myth we need to eliminate is that Book of
   Mormon archaeology exists. Titles on books full of archaeological
   half-truths, dilettanti on the peripheries of American archaeology
   calling themselves Book of Mormon archaeologists regardless of their
   education, and a Department of Archaeology at BYU devoted to the
   production of Book of Mormon archaeologists do not insure that Book
   of Mormon archaeology really exists. If one is to study Book of
   Mormon archaeology, then one must have a corpus of data with which to
   deal. We do not. The Book of Mormon is really there so one can have
   Book of Mormon studies, and archaeology is really there so one can
   study archaeology, but the two are not wed. At least they are not wed
   in reality since no Book of Mormon location is known with reference
   to modern topography. Biblical archaeology can be studied because we
   do know where Jerusalem and Jericho were and are, but we do not know
   where Zarahemla and Bountiful (nor any other location for that
   matter) were or are. It would seem then that a concentration on
   geography should be the first order of business, but we have already
   seen that twenty years of such an approach has left us empty-handed."
   (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1969, pp. 76-78)

        In 1975 Thomas Stuart Ferguson finally mustered up his courage
and prepared a 29-page paper in response to papers written by Mormon
apologists John Sorenson and Garth Norman. It was entitled, _Written
Symposium on Book-of-Mormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to
the Norman & Sorenson Papers_. In this response, p. 4, Mr. Ferguson
wrote: 'With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established
factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his
finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon
geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out
by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated." Ferguson
pointed out in his paper that the text of the Book of Mormon makes it
very clear that certain items should be found in archaeological
excavations and that these items are not present in the sites proposed.
He noted, for instance, that "Thousands of archaeological holes in the
area proposed have given us not a fragment of evidence of the presence
of the plants mentioned in the Book of Mormon..." (p. 7) On page 29 he
concluded by saying: "I'm afraid that up to this point, I must agree
with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon
geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong."

        In a letter to Mr. & Mrs. H. W. Lawrence, dated Feb. 20, 1976,
Thomas Stuart Ferguson made very plain the reason why there is "no
Book-of-Mormon geography":

                "Herewith is a copy of my recent (1975) paper on Book of
   Mormon matters.... It was one of several presented in a written
   symposium on Book of Mormon geography [sic]. (My thesis is that Book
   of Mormon geography involves a lot more than playing with topography
   and terrain.) The real implication of the paper is that you can't set
   Book of Mormon geography down anywhere--because it is fictional and
   will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say
   --what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book."

        We felt that Thomas Stuart Ferguson's manuscript on Book of
Mormon archaeology was so important that we published it under the
title, _FERGUSON'S MANUSCRIPT UNVEILED_. It is available from Utah
Lighthouse Ministry for &3.00 a copy (mail orders add $1.00 minimum
postage charge).


                                ***

Stay tuned for part 3.

-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com         =
= Evans and Sutherland Computer Corp.  |  My opinions are my own, but then  =
= Salt Lake City, Utah  (801) 582-5847 |  that's my opinion.                =