The question arises from time to time in this forum as to whether any of the General Authorities of the LDS Church may have harbored personal doubts about the truthfulness of certain official claims made by the LDS Church.
Based on what is known and available, evidence strongly suggests that such has been the case with at least two prominent General Authorities involved in their own personal and private struggles with the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon.
_____
--Hugh B. Brown on the Book of Abraham: Joseph Smith Unable to Translate Ancient Egyptian
When it came to the supposed truthfulness of LDS scripture, Mormon Apostle and First Presidency counselor Hugh B. Brown reportedly admitted to Mormon amateur archaeologist Thomas S. Ferguson that Joseph Smith lacked the ability or understanding to translate ancient Egyptian.
Regarding Ferguson's prominence in the history of efforts to scientifically authenticate the Book of Mormon, authors Richard K. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, in their work, “Mormon America: The Power and the Promise,” describe Ferguson as “[t]he father of LDS Mesoamerican research"--who ultimately “concluded that the [B]ook [of Mormon] was a piece of fiction."
(Ostling and Ostling, "Mormon America," Chapter 16, "The Gold Bible" [San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999, p. 272)
Brown clearly seems to have been burdened with privately-held and -expressed doubts concerning Joseph Smith's supposed power to decipher ancient Egyptian.
As an indicator of that, Jerald and Sandra Tanner point to a letter Ferguson wrote to another member of the Mormon Church, James Boyack, on 13 March 1971, in which Ferguson described a closed-door meeting he had with Brown:
"According to Mr. Ferguson, Apostle Brown had [along with Ferguson] also come to the conclusion that the Book of Abraham was false and was in favor of the [Mormon] 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.'"
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Ferguson's Two Faces,” in “Salt Lake City Messenger,” Issue #69, September 1988; included in the article is a copy of Ferguson's actual letter, at:
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no69.htm)
Ferguson's fatalistic doubts about the authenticity of Mormon scripture--and how those doubts were privately shared by him with a sympathetic Brown--is chronicled in telling detail by Stan Larson, curator of the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah, as found in his book, “Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon."
Larson reports how Ferguson's growing disbelief in the truthfulness of Mormonism's canonized scripture led him in December 1970 to make a “pivotal trip to Salt Lake City . . . for a very important purpose":
"Ferguson first paid a visit to ['the liberal LDS apostle'] Brown in his office at LDS Church headquarters and reviewed with him the translations of the Egyptologists had made of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri.
"During this conversation Ferguson emotionally exclaimed to Brown that Joseph Smith did not possess 'the remotest skill' in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs.
"Ferguson reported an unexpected response from Brown: 'To my surprise, one of the highest officials [Hugh B. Brown] in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very statement to him.'"
"['Ferguson, letter to James Boyack, 13 March 1971, in Ferguson Collection, University of Utah. For a reproduction of this letter, see Charles M. Larson, 'By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri' [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), pp. 182-83]'"
Stan Larson references an additional source that lends credence to Ferguson's description of Brown's expressed reservations about Joseph Smith's professed ability to translate ancient Egyptian. It came in the form of an interview conducted with Ferguson by LDS Church Historical Department employee Ronald O. Barney on 4 January 1983.
(The interview was typed on 19 April 1984 and is located in Box 77, Fd 13, Marquardt Collection, at the University of Utah).
Barney's account of his interview with Ferguson reads as follows:
“Ferguson said the thing that first led him to seriously question the [Mormon] church was the papyri purported to be the source of the Book of Abraham. He said he took he took a photograph of the papyri to a couple of friends of his that were scholars at Cal., Berkeley. They described the documents as funeral texts. This bothered Ferguson in a serious way!
"Later he said that he took the evidence to Hugh B. Brown. . . . After reviewing the evidence with Brother Brown he [Ferguson] said that Brother Brown agreed with him that it was not scripture. He did not say or infer [imply] that it was his evidence that convinced Brother Brown of this conclusion. But nevertheless, he did say that Hugh B. Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham was what the [Mormon] church said it was.”
Larson then notes that the door to closer examination of Ferguson's assertions has been slammed shut by the Mormon Church:
“Brown's harsh indictment [as expressed to Ferguson] of the official position of the LDS Church--the the Book of Abraham is not 'what the church said it was'--cannot be either confirmed or disproved by the Hugh B. Brown papers in the LDS Church archives, because they are closed to researchers."
Larson does mention, however, the release of a carefully-worded and selectively-edited non-denial denial made by Brown regarding his (Brown's) conversation with Ferguson:
“The following is the only available paragraph of a photocopy of a letter purportedly dictated by Brown and sent to Robert Hancock:
"'I do not recall ever having said anything to Mr. Ferguson which would have led him to think I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true. This is certainly not the case, for I know, even as I live, that Christ is directing this Church and that Joseph Smith was His prophet chosen to restore His Church in its fullness.'
"([Hugh B. Brown]. Letter to [Robert Hancock], [partial photocopy], 26 September 1974, in Box 77, Fd 13, Marquardt Collection).
Larson points out what is noticeably missing from Brown's partially-released correspondence:
“It should be noted that Brown did not address the central question of whether he and Ferguson discussed Joseph Smith's inability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics.”
Larson further notes that “[d]uring this meeting [with Brown], Ferguson 'seemed to be absolutely convinced that [Hugh B.] Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham,' that is to say, did not believe that the Book of Abraham was a translation from Egyptian. Since it is assumed that Brown believed that it was inspired scripture, this seems to indicate that Brown held a non-historical, 'mythic interpretation' of the Book of Abraham,” as suggested by Edgar C. Snow, Jr., in his article, “One Face of the Hero: In Search of the Mythological Joseph Smith.”
(Stan Larson, “Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Freethinker Press, in association with Smith Research Associates, 1996, pp. 132, 138-39, 165fn12, 166fn14, 166fn15 and fn16, 212]; see also, Edgar C. Snow, "One Face of the Hero: In Search of the Mythological Joseph Smith, in “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought” 27, Fall 1994, p. 247n39).
In summary:
Ferguson reported that Hugh B. Brown personally told him in a meeting with Brown in Salt Lake City, Utah, that:
--Brown did not believe Joseph Smith could translate ancient Egyptian; and
--Brown did not believe that the Book of Abraham was what the Mormon Church claimed it was.
Larson reports that:
--Ferguson's account of meeting with a confessing Brown was backed by an employee of the LDS Church' Historical Department who interviewd Ferguson about the meeting;
--Brown acknowledged having met with Ferguson but insisted in a partially-released letter that he did not recall making any such assertion about the Book of Abraham to Ferguson; and
--the Mormon Church has refused to allow researcher access to Brown's papers in order to further investigate Ferguson's version of events.
_____
--B.H. Roberts on the Book of Mormon: Joseph Smith Made It Up
Member of the Quorum of the First Council of the Seventy, B.H. Roberts, had his own significant problems and privately-harbored doubts regarding Mormon scripture.
Specifically, and following exhaustive research, Roberts came to the opinion that Joseph Smith concocted the Book of Mormon.
Roberts, it should be noted, has been aptly described as “one of the most respected and well-known LDS historians” whose “in-depth studies of Book of Mormon origins led him to doubt the authenticity of the book.”
Roberts' comprehensive personal study of the Book of Mormon (initially prompted by questions sent to him from a Mormon missionary in the field), led Roberts to conclude that the Book of Mormon was a plagiarized invention of Smith's underdeveloped mind.
Roberts' assessments in that regard are found in his landmark work, "Studies of the Book of Mormon" (which remained unpublished in book form until decades after his death). They reveal Roberts' apparent determination that Smith wws quite capable of pulling the Book of Mormon out of a hat, so to speak:
Roberts asks:
“. . . [W]as Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the proceeding chapters?"
Roberts answers his own question:
"That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question."
Roberts then proceeds to suggest how Smith may have produced the Book of Mormon:
“In light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet--an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are found in the ‘common knowledge’ of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s 'View of the Hebrews' [published in Palmyra in 1825], it would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is.”
To Roberts, the central question surrounding the questioned legitimacy of the Book of Mormon was this:
"Is this all sober history . . . or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history?"
(B.H. Roberts, “Studies of the Book of Mormon,” Brigham D. Madsen, ed., in “The Imaginative Mind of Prophet Joseph Smith: Evidence of Its Existence--Example of Its Force,” Chapter XIV [Urbana and Chicago, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1985, pp. 243, 250]; see also, “Mormon Think,” under “Mormon Quotes: B. H. . Roberts,” at:
http://mormonthink.com/QUOTES/bhroberts.htm)
Roberts had good reason for his severe reservations regarding the veracity of Smith's assertions that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin, as noted in a summation of his views authored by Wesley P. Waters, entitled, "A General Authority's Own Findings":
" . . . [T]wo manuscripts [were] written about 1922 by the Mormon General Authority and apologist Brigham H. Roberts.
"It is startling to find this defender of the Mormon faith arguing relentlessly that Joseph Smith could well have authored the Book of Mormon himself. Roberts' family has now allowed serious examination of these two manuscripts that have been in their possession since his death in 1933.
"They have been published by Mormon scholars in a book titled 'Studies of the Book of Mormon' (University of Illinois Press, 1985).
"Roberts makes four major points in the 375-page study. He observes in his first manuscript, 'Book of Mormon Difficulties,' that the book's account of the ancient Americans is in conflict with what is known about them from recent scientific investigation. The Book of Mormon represents them as having an Iron Age culture, while archeology has shown them to have advanced only to a polished Stone Age level at the arrival of European ('Studies,' pp. 107-112).
"The situation, he found, was further complicated by the Book of Mormon's declaration that the original settlers came to the New World when it was uninhabited. The Jaredites came 'into that quarter where there never had man been' (Ether 2:5) and fought themselves to extinction. The Nephites likewise came to a land 'kept from all other nations' (II Nephi 1:9-11).
"Since the latter group's arrival is placed at about 600 B.C., it would not allow sufficient time for the development of the 169 known New World language stocks, each with its varying dialects. Roberts confessed he had no answers to such discrepancies. 'The recent accepted authoritative writers,' he says 'leave us, so far as I can at present see, no ground of appeal or defense--the new knowledge seems to be against us' ('Studies,' p. 143). Archeology to this day has uncovered nothing to overturn his findings.
"Having shown the book is at variance with recent scientific knowledge, Roberts shows in his second manuscript, 'A Book of Mormon Study,' that the book agrees with the "common knowledge" believed about the American aborigines in the early nineteenth century.
"This agreement included even the erroneous ideas that the Indians were descended from the 'Lost Tribes' of Israel and that they had once enjoyed a high degree of civilization.
"The 'common knowledge' was well summarized in 'almost hand-book form' in a book by the Rev. Ethan Smith. That work, 'View of the Hebrews,' was in print in its second, enlarged edition five years before the Book of Mormon was published.
"Moreover, it was published in the same small town where Oliver Cowdery was living. Cowdery was a cousin of Joseph Smith, Jr., and his assistant in producing the Book of Mormon. In an analysis running nearly 100 pages, Roberts shows that Ethan Smith's book contains practically the 'ground-plan' of the Book of Mormon ('Studies,' p. 240; 151-242).
"Both books present the natives of America as Hebrews who journeyed here from the Old World.
"Both claim a portion broke away from the civilized group and degenerated into a savage state. The savage portion completely destroyed the civilized one after long and terrible wars.
"Both books attribute to the civilized branch an Iron Age culture.
"Both represent these settlers of the New World as once having had a 'Book of God,' an understanding of the gospel, and a white messianic figure who visited them.
"Both regard American Gentiles as having been singled out by prophecy to preach the gospel to the Indians who are the remnant of those ancient American Hebrews.
"Roberts hauntingly asks concerning these and the other parallels he found, 'Can such numerous and startling points of resemblance and suggestive contact, be merely coincidence?' ('Studies,' p. 242).
"As his third main point, Roberts establishes the fact (using Mormon sources exclusively) that Joseph Smith had imaginative powers of mind sufficient to have produced the Book of Mormon.
"He describes Smith's creativity as being 'as strong and varied as Shakespeare's and no more to be accounted for than the English Bard's' ('Studies,' p. 244).
"Roberts rounds out his case for the human origin of the Book of Mormon with a 115-page discussion of the errors that result from Joseph Smith's untrained, though creative, mind.
"Roberts points to the impossibility of Lehi's three-day journey from Jerusalem to the shores of the Red Sea — a 170-mile trek on foot, with women and children along.
"He cites their arrival in America, the land 'kept from all other nations,' where they unaccountably find domesticated animals--'the cow and the ox [oxen are neutered bulls], and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat' (I Nephi 18:25).
"Roberts finds an amateurish repetition of the same plots with only the character changed. The book, he notes, attempts to outdo the Bible miracles and presents some incredible battle scenes. In one instance, 2060 'striplings' fought wars over a 4-5 year period without one being killed (Alma 56-58). This leads Roberts to ask:
"'Is all this sober history . . . or is it a wonder-tale of an immature mind, unconscious of what a test he is laying on human credulity when asking men to accept his narrative as solemn history?' (Studies, p. 283).
"The question appears to need no answer. Roberts also points out how typical of the revivalism of Smith's time are the swoonings and religious 'falling' found over and over in the Book of Mormon.
"At this point Roberts' manuscript breaks off, but not before he has made us conscious of how heavily the Book of Mormon depends upon the culture of its day for its content and style ('Studies,' p. 308)."
(Wesley P. Walters, "The Book of Mormon Today: Challenges to Its Relevance And Authenticity," under "A General Authority's Own Findings," 1992, in "Mormons in Transition," at:
http://www.irr.org/mit/book-of-mormon-today.html)
Of course, once published, Mormon apologists rushed, in a concerted effort, to explain away Roberts' obvious closet doubts about Book of Mormon origins. Richard and Joan Ostling report that when Madsen released Roberts' “Studies of the Book of Mormon,” LDS spinmeisters reacted with obvious alarm:
“Roberts could not be dismissed as an outsider or an anti-Mormon, so FARMS went into high gear: Roberts must have been playing devil's advocate; he had continued to testify to the truth of the Book of Mormon right up to his death; . . . Brigham Madsen . . . [and Sterling M. McMurrin, who wrote a biographical essay on Roberts featured in the book] had misrepresented Roberts's final views about the historicity of Moron scriptures. 'BYU Studies' and FARMS churned out responses.”
Such defensive denials, of course, were to be expected from the Mormon Church's hired apologists. However, as the Ostlings further and tellingly note, when “McMurrin and Madsen suggested a public panel discussion with their critics," they "declined to appear."
In summary:
Regarding Roberts' damning assessment of Joseph Smith's invented Book of Mormon and the reaction of faithful Mormons to bad news of this sort, the Ostlings write:
“Most Mormons are either unaware of these scholarly finds or unperturbed by them. To them the final decision is one of faith, of accepting the {Mormon] church's authority, of committing one's life to a book one chooses to accept as sacred scripture.
"As the FARMS review editor Daniel C. Peterson has written, in words substantially repeated by every Mormon child in his first ward testimony and by every General Authority at the end of each General Conference talk:
"'Most importantly, the evidence of the Spirit is available to those who seek it. I, for one have received the witness of the Spirit, and I bear testimony that the Book of Mormon is what it claims to be, and that the gospel is true.'”
(Ostling and Ostling, "Mormon Anerica," Chapter 16, "The Gold Bible," pp. 276-77)
*****
In other words, when push comes to shoving down your doubts about the authenticity of LDS scripture, the Mormon Church's command is simple and stern:
Fly by your gut--no ifs, ands or buts.
Put another way, damn the evidence; full faith ahead.
Edited 33 time(s). Last edit at 10/26/2011 02:35PM by steve benson.