From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (willard.smith)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Joseph as a prophet (ULM-1)
Summary: A little more perspective on Ferguson please
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:18:27 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T


For years Thomas Ferguson's "archeology" books on the Book of Mormon were
dismissed by Anti-Mormons as being the work of an amateur. Indeed, most of
the criticisms which even professional Mormon anthropologists expressed
over the "archeology" books were directed at Ferguson, Hunter, Cheesman, etc.

But since Ferguson lost his faith, he is now elevated by Anti-Mormons to the
status of a great intellectual who "having sought after truth became
disillusioned with his faith." Sheer polemics, nothing else.

This change of heart (Anti-Mormon heart that is) sort of reminds me of a
joke I heard several years ago. A young boy asked his politician father
about an individual who had left his father's party for the other party.
"Why he's an infidel of the worst sort," retorted the father. "What about
this other person, who left the other party and joined your party?" the son
asked. "Why," said the father, "He's a CONVERT!"

Last year, Larson, in his pamphlet, "... By His Own Hand" Tried to use
Ferguson's defection as ammunition against Mormons. Dr John Sorenson, a
professional anthropologist who worked occasionally with Mr Ferguson, penned
the following response. After three 300+ line postings, I think that this
relatively short evaluation of Mr Ferguson's work is quite relevant.

-=-=-

"A recently published book by Charles M. Larson, _... By His Own Hand upon
Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri_, contains references to Thomas
Stuart Ferguson (p. 180) which demand that I correct the record.

In the first place, the writer makes a number of errors which show, at least,
lack of rigor in prepartion of this book:

1. Ferguson established the New World Archaeological Foundation as a private
organization, not "at Brigham Young University." After problems arose in
administering its work, under funding from the Latter-day Saint Church, the
Church insisted that the Foundation be brought under the administrative and
financial cognizance of Brigham Young University if support was to continue,
whereupon Ferguson's role became advisory and limited.

2. The Society for Early Historic Archaeology was independent, not "BYU's."
Ferguson briefly had a nominal connection with the SEHA but in fact opposed
most of what the SEHA undertook.

3. Milton R. Hunter, coauthor with Ferguson of the book _Ancient America and
the Book of Mormon_, was not an apostle but one of the First Council of
Seventy.

4. Ferguson himself never "received substantial grants from the LDS Church."
The Foundation he originated did, but the money was to fund professional
archaeologists, about half of them non-Mormons, and was never for his
individual use.

The early history of the Foundation has been sketched by J. Alden Mason,
non-LDS professor emeritus of anthropology at the University of Pennsylvania
in his Foreword to "Research in Chiapas, Mexico." Dr. Mason referred to the
Latter-day Saint Church's funding of the work in this way: "The world is much
indebted to this Church for its outstanding contribution to the advancement of
archeological [sic] research and the increase of scientific knowledge," and
"The stated purpose of this Foundation is *not* to seek corroboration of the
Book of Mormon account, but to help to resolve the problem of whether
civilization in Middle America developed autochthonously or as a result of
diffused or migrated  influence from some are of the Old World, and to shed
light on the culture and way of life of the ancients during the formative
period." (J. Alden Mason, foreword to "Research in Chiapas, Mexico," Papers of
the NWAF, No 1 (1959), iii, the first of a distinguished series of professional
monographs now running through No. 65)

Larson implies that Ferguson was one of the "scholars and intellectuals in
the Church" and that "his study" was conducted along the lines of reliable
scholarship in the "field of archaeology." Those of us with personal
experience with Ferguson and his thinking knew differently. He had an
undergraduate law degree but never studied archaeology or related disciplines
at a professional level, although he was self-educated in some of the
literature of American archaeology. He held a naive view of "proof," perhaps
related to his law practice where one either "proved" his case or lost the
decision; compare the approach he used in his simplistic lawyerly book _One
Fold and One Shepherd_. His associates with scientific training and thus more
sophistication in the pitfalls involving intellectual matters could never draw
him away from his narrow view of "research."

For example, in April 1953, when he and I did the first archaeological
reconnaissance of central Chiapas, which defined the Foundation's work for
the next twenty years, his concern was to ask if local people had found any
figurines of "horses," rather than to document the scores of sites we
discovered and put on record for the first time. His role in "Mormon
Scholarship" was largely that of enthusiast and publicist, for which we can
be grateful, but he was neither scholar nor analyst.

Ferguson was never an expert on archaeology and the Book of Mormon (let alone
on the book of Abraham, about which his knowledge was superficial). He was not
one whose careful "study" led him to see greater light, light that would free
him from Latter-day Saint dogma, as Larson represents. Instead he was just a
layman, initially enthusiastic and hopeful but eventually trapped by his
unjustified expectations, flawed logic, limited information, perhaps offended
pride, and lack of faith in the tedious research that real scholarship
requires. The negative arguments he used against the Latter-day Saint
scriptures in his last years display all these weaknesses.

Larson, like others who now wave Ferguson's example before us as a case of
emancipation from benighted Mormon thinking, never faced the question of which
Tom Ferguson was the real one. Ought we to respect the hard-driving younger man
whose faith-filled efforts led to a valuable major research program, or should
we admire the double-acting cynic of later years, embittered because he hever
hit the jackpot on, as he seems to have considered it, the slot-machine of
archaeological research? I personally prefer to recall my bright-eyed,
believing friend, not the aging figure Larson recommends as somehow wiser.

[Taken from _Review of Book on the Book of Mormon_, vol 4, pp 117-119]
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc