From: gclapp@javelin.sim.es.com (Glenn Clapp)
Subject: BoA Papyrus (SLCM-9/92-6/7)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Corp.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:26:05 GMT


-------------
ROPER ATTACKS Mormonism--Shadow or Realty?

        In a new publication by the Foundation for Ancient Research and
Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.), the Mormon scholar Matthew Roper shows deep
concern over the effect our book _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ has had
upon the public:

                "The first edition of _Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?_
   was published by the Tanners in 1963 under the title, _Mormonism: A
   Study of Mormon History and Doctrine_. Since that time the Tanners'
   Magnum opus has been published in no less than five editions, the
   most recent being in 1987. In 1980, in an attempt to facilitate wider
   distribution of their work, they published a condensed version [The
   Changing World of Mormonism] through Moody Press. Since their debut
   as vocal anti-Mormons in the early 1960s, the Tanners have produced
   and distributed numerous other works attacking various aspects of
   Mormon history scripture, and doctrine.

                "There are several reasons why this book merits review.
   First, the Tanners are considered by their fellow critics to be among
   the foremost authorities on Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Their
   arguments are central to most anti-Mormon attacks on the Book of
   Mormon today. One recent critic describes _Mormonism: Shadow or
   Reality?_ as 'the heavyweight of all books on Mormonism.' Even some
   of the more sophisticated Book of Mormon critics will often repeat
   methodological errors exemplified in the Tanners' work.... This
   review will focus only on the Tanners' criticisms of the Book of
   Mormon in chapters five and six of _Mormonism: Shadow or Reality?_
   (pp. 50-125)." (_Review of Books on the Book of Mormon_, vol. 4,
   1992, pages 169-170)

THIRTY YEARS OF SILENCE

        The reader will notice that in the quotation above Matthew Roper
said the book _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ "merits review." This is
in sharp contrast with what church officials have said in the past. A
spokesman for the church's Deseret Bookstore wrote: "We do not have a
specific response to the Tanner book. Perhaps it does not deserve the
dignity of a response." (Letter written Jan. 19, 1977) A man who talked
to Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards claimed that Richards "told me to
quit studying materials put out by the Tanner's.... I told him 'surely
some day there will be an answer to these questions.' He told me there
never would be an answer and I should stop my inquiries."

        There was an anonymous rebuttal to _Mormonism--Shadow or
Reality?_ printed in 1977 (see our response in _Answering Dr.
Clandestine: A Response to the Anonymous LDS Historian_), but the church
itself has never put forth an official response. Since we began
publishing material on Mormonism in 1959, we have waited in vain for the
church itself to make a response to our work. Although a large number of
people have left the Mormon Church because of our publications and many
others have been very concerned because their church has not published a
rebuttal, Mormon leaders seem to feel that their best policy is silence.

TRIPPING AT THE FIRST HURDLE

        While _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ contains over 600 pages of
material, Matthew Roper's response deals with only pages "50-125."
Unfortunately for Mr. Roper, he stumbles and comes crashing to the
ground on the very first hurdle (page 50). He boldly asserts that we
have suppressed part of a statement by Brigham Young to "mislead" our
readers:

                "The Tanners state, 'The Mormon Church claims that the
   witnesses to the Book of Mormon never denied their testimony. There
   are, however,... statements in Mormon publications which would seem
   to indicate that the witnesses had some doubts" (p. 50). They then
   quote a statement by Brigham Young: 'Some of the witnesses of the
   Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels
   of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had
   ever seen an angel.' Unfortunately the Tanners have left out the rest
   of the statement, giving the false impression that Brigham Young had
   reference to the three or eight witnesses. The full quote reads as
   follows:

                "'Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who
   handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were
   afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an
   angel. One of the Quorum of the Twelve--a young man full of faith and
   good works, prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the
   angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw the
   angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends;
   but after all this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostasy,
   and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in
   a similar condition.'

                "The Tanners would mislead their readers by using this
   quotation as evidence against the Book of Mormon witnesses. But none
   of the eleven were ever members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
   Brigham Young was referring to one of several other early Mormons who
   had similar experiences, but not to one of the official Book of
   Mormon witnesses as the Tanners clearly imply." (Review of Books on
   the Book of Mormon, vol 4, 1992, pages 171-172)

        Matthew Roper's accusation concerning this quotation by Brigham
Young raises a serious question with regard to the superficiality of his
review. If Mr. Roper had examined the very next page (page 51), he would
have found a photographic copy of not only the quotation but also the
entire page of Brigham Young's sermon! In the caption below the
reproduction we stated: "A Photograph of the _Journal of Discourses_,
Vol. 7, p. 164. In this sermon Brigham Young claims that some of the
witnesses were left to disbelieve that they had seen an angel."

        Now, this certainly raises a question with regard to Matthew
Roper's claim that we were trying to "mislead" our readers. Why would we
include a photograph of the document if we were trying to deceive
people?

        Even if we had not included the photograph of Brigham Young's
statement, there would be no reason for Roper to attack us in the way he
did. We, in fact, fail to see how we have misused the quote.

        A careful reading of Brigham Young's statement reveals that he
was referring to different cases of apostasy. First he spoke of some of
the Book of Mormon witnesses having doubt and disbelief concerning the
gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been
translated and also regarding the angel who showed them the plates.
President Young then claimed that a member of the "Quorum of the Twelve"
also had an experience in which an "angel of God came and laid the
plates before him," but he later "was left to doubt, and plunged into
apostasy." Young then concludes with the statement that "hundreds" had
likewise fallen into a state of unbelief.

        The reader will notice that Brigham Young indicated there was
more than one witness of the Book of Mormon who had grave reservations
about the book. Young, in fact, stated that "Some of the witnesses...
were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen
an angel." We know, therefore, that President Young felt that two or
more of the witnesses had fallen into disbelief at some point in their
lives.

        It would appear that Mr. Roper would like his readers to believe
that none of the original witnesses ever had seasons of doubt with
regard to the Book of Mormon. He seems to be trying to redefine Brigham
Young's statement about "some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon" so
that it does not refer to any of the original eleven witnesses whose
names appear in the book. While there may be some exceptions to the
rule, we believe that almost all Mormons would think of these eleven men
when they read Brigham Young's words, "the witnesses of the Book of
Mormon." (There are actually two separate statements by the witnesses of
the Book of Mormon. The first contains the "Testimony of Three
Witnesses"--Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris. These men
claim that an angel of God showed the plates to them. The second
statement is by eight men who said they saw the plates, although they
did not claim that an angel showed the plates to them.)

        It is interesting to note that on April 6, 1855, Brigham Young
gave another sermon in which he stated that "most of the witnesses of
the Book of Mormon have died..." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page
249) The reader will notice that President Young used exactly the same
words as he did in the quotation cited in _Mormonism--Shadow or
Reality?_ It is obvious that he was referring to the eleven men whose
names appear in the Book of Mormon because he said that most of these
witnesses were dead. Research shows that Brigham Young was correct about
this matter; by 1855 only four of the eleven witnesses were still alive.
Just above the portion we cited, Young indicated that "Martin Harris"
was probably still alive, but "Oliver Cowdery has gone to his long
home..." Harris and Cowdery, of course, were among the witnesses whose
names appear in the Book of Mormon.

        Although none of the witnesses ever gave a written statement
repudiating the Book of Mormon, some of them did seem to have seasons of
skepticism about the authenticity of that work. In our book, _The Case
Against Mormonism_, vol. 2, page 16, we give photographic proof that
after Oliver Cowdery (one of the Three Witnesses) was excommunicated
from the Mormon Church, he joined the Methodist Church. Mormon writer
Richard Anderson admits that Cowdery was affiliated with the Methodists,
but he claims that Cowdery did not deny his testimony: "The cessation of
his activity in the Church meant a suspension of his role as a witness
of the Book of Mormon. Not that his conviction ceased but he
discontinued public testimony... he logically affiliated himself with a
Christian congregation for a time, the Methodist Protestant Church at
Tiffin, Ohio." (Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 1981, page
57)

        In 1885, G. J. Keen, who was a member of the Methodist Church
which Cowdery joined, gave an affidavit in which he stated:

                "We... submitted his name to the church, and he was
   unanimously admitted a member thereof.
                "At that time he arose and addressed the audience
   present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was
   sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.
                "He continued his membership while he resided in Tiffin,
   and became superintendent of the Sabbath School, and lived an
   exemplary life while he resided with us." (Affidavit quoted in _The
   True Origin of the Book of Mormon_, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati,
   Ohio, 1914, pp. 58-59)

        On July 15, 1841, the Mormon Church's official publication
_Times and Seasons_, printed a poem which made it clear that the
Mormons believed that Oliver Cowdery had denied his testimony
to the Book of Mormon. The following appeared in the poem:

   "Amazed with wonder! I look round
       To see most people of our day,
    Reject the glorious gospel sound,
       Because the simple turn away.
    ....
    Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
       Because that Peter cursed and swore?
    Or Book of Mormon not his word
       Because denied, by Oliver?"
(Times and Seasons, vol. 2, page 492)

        Martin Harris, who was also one of the Three Witnesses of the
Book of Mormon, was excommunicated from the church. Even the noted
Mormon apologist Richard Anderson had to admit that his life showed
"religious instability." Professor Anderson also revealed the following:
"The foregoing tendencies explain the spiritual wanderlust that
afflicted the solitary witness at Kirtland. In this period of his life
he changed his religious position eight times, including a rebaptism by
a Nauvoo missionary in 1842. Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with
some Mormon group, except when he was affiliated with the Shaker
belief..." (Improvement Era, March 1969, page 63)

        Martin Harris' involvement with the Shakers raises some serious
doubts regarding his belief in the Book of Mormon. We feel that a
believer in the Book of Mormon could not accept these revelations
without repudiating the teachings of Joseph Smith. The Shakers, for
example, felt that "Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a
chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as
our blessed Mother in the work of redemption." (Sacred Roll and Book,
page 358)

        The Shakers, of course, rejected the Book of Mormon and all of
the revelations received by Joseph Smith. They had their own book which
they claimed came from heaven. It was entitled, _A Holy, Sacred and
Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of
Earth_. More than sixty individuals gave testimony to the "Sacred Roll
and Book." Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of
them tell of many angels visiting them--one woman told of eight
different visions. On page 304 of this book we find the testimony of
eight witnesses: "We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the
holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing
declaration, holding the Roll and Book."

        Joseph Smith only had three witness who claimed to see an angel.
The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they
saw angels and the book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony
from "Living Witnesses."

        The evidence clearly shows that Martin Harris accepted the
Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book"as a divine revelation. Clark Braden made
this revealing statement about this matter:

                "Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence
for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon." (The Braden and
Kelly Debate, page 173)

        There is a Mormon source which indicates that Martin Harris even
claimed to have a greater testimony to the Shakers than to the Book of
Mormon. In a thesis written at Brigham Young University, Wayne Cutler
Gunnell stated that on December 31, 1844, "Phineas H. Young [Brigham
Young's brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization" wrote a
letter to Brigham Young in which they stated:

                "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin
   Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater
   than it was of the Book of Mormon." ("Martin Harris--Witness and
   Benefactor to the Book of Mormon," 1955, page 52)

        The fact that Martin Harris would even join with such a group
shows that he was unstable and easily influenced by charismatic leaders.
We feel, therefore, that his testimony that the Book of Mormon was of
divine origin cannot be relied upon. How can we put our trust in a man
who was constantly following after strange movements like the Shakers
and the Strangites?

        David Whitmer, the last member of the group known as the Three
Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, was also excommunicated from the Mormon
Church and never returned. While we know of no evidence that he
repudiated the Book of Mormon, he rejected the _Doctrine and Covenants_,
believed that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and claimed that God
himself told him that he should leave the Mormon Church: "If you believe
my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us
three witnesses by his own voice then I tell you that in June, 1838, God
spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to
'separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to
do unto me, so should it be done unto them.'" (An Address to all
Believers in Christ, 1887, page 27)

        Mormons cannot accept this testimony by their own witness
without destroying faith in Joseph Smith. In _Mormonism--Shadow or
Reality?_ page 57, we present evidence showing that David Whitmer gave a
revelation from the Lord which strongly condemned Mormonism.

        At any rate, Mr. Roper has also accused us of using
"underhanded" tactics when citing from Richard Anderson's work. In a
response we are preparing we will demonstrate that this is not the case.
Roper has, in fact, made the same type of error as he did when he
accused us of suppressing part of Brigham Young's quotation. If he had
carefully read all of Chapter 5 of our book, he would not have fallen
into this serious error. The rebuttal we are now working on will deal
with two different attacks on our work by Matthew Roper and also
articles by John A. Tvedtnes and L. Ara Norwood.

        Since this is the first time that F.A.R.M.S. has attempted to
respond to _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ we felt that it would be an
excellent time to have a sale on this book. When our book, _Covering Up
the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon_, was reviewed by F.A.R.M.S., we
had a similar type of sale to get the book "into the hands of as many
people as possible." Mormon apologist Daniel C. Peterson, however,
responded as follows: "But maybe the real idea was to make a sale on the
old car before the wheels and doors fall off and the customer discovered
what a lemon he was looking at." (Review of Books, 1992, Introduction,
p. lxxv) In a footnote on the page before Peterson said that he accepted
Roper's attack against _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ because he
"thought it made a number of important points, and because most
contemporary anti-Mormon writers depend heavily upon the Tanners.
Attending to the roots seemed an efficient way of dealing with the
branches."

        Despite the ridicule we may receive from Daniel Peterson, we
sincerely believe that _Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ will continue to
provide very good transportation for those who want to tour the hidden
sites of Mormonism and learn the real truth about the church. While many
church members believe the F.A.R.M.S. vehicle gives a good tour of these
areas, it actually skirts around some very important areas so that it
can stay on the smoother roads of Mormonism.

        In any case, we have been working on the largest printing of
_Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ we have ever done and should have it
completed by the time most people receive this issue of the Messenger.
_Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?_ normally sells for $13.95 (softback) or
$16.95 (hardback). If, however, it is ordered before November 30, 1992,
the price will be only $11.95 (softback) or $14.95 (hardback). Please
add $1.50 minimim for postage and handling.
-- 
=============================================================================
= Glenn Clapp                          |  gclapp@thunder.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.                =