By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
Sales on our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? have now mounted to over 27,000 copies, yet the Mormon leaders have still made no official response. The LDS Church Historical Department did become involved in a secret plot to destroy the credibility of our book, but, as we shall show, the plan turned into a complete fiasco which brought great embarrassment to the Church.
A Real Cover-Up
In December 1977 a 63-page booklet mysteriously appeared for sale at Zion Bookstore in Salt Lake City. It was an attack on our book and was entitled, Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?
The first thing we noted was that it was written anonymously—the author is listed only as a “Latter-day Saint Historian.” A careful examination of the pamphlet revealed that even the name of the publisher had been suppressed. When we tried to trace the source of the pamphlet we found a cover-up that reminds us of the Watergate episode. The whole matter, in fact, had all the earmarks of an intelligence operation mounted by the CIA or the KGB. “Deniability” seemed to be the name of the game. It was obvious that Zion bookstore was the distributor of the booklet. The name of the store might suggest that it is owned by the Church, but it is actually owned by Sam Weller. Although Mr. Weller has sold copies of our books for years, he has always been careful to keep them in such secluded places that very few people manage to find them. However this may be, when we asked Mr. Weller where he was getting copies of Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism, he replied that he did not know! He said that it was all a very secret operation. He claimed that he had received a letter giving details of how he could handle the pamphlet, but that the writer was not identified. When we asked Mr. Weller to show us the letter, he replied that he would not because it was his own “personal property.”
It seemed logical to us that he must pay someone for the pamphlets, but when we asked him about the matter he replied that he had received them absolutely free. Since Mr. Weller received 1,800 free copies of the pamphlet we reasoned that they must have been donated by an organization or individual who had a great deal of money to spend.
So far we have been unable to trace exactly how Zion Bookstore received the pamphlets. According to one report, the books were first mailed anonymously to a post office box. From there they were transported to a publishing company near Redwood Road and were subsequently picked up by an employee from Zion Bookstore. Wilfrid Clark, who works for Sam Weller, maintained that he did not know anything about a publishing company picking up the books from a post office box. He said that all he knew about the matter was that Zion Bookstore received on anonymous letter containing a key to a room in a self storage company on Redwood Road. He claimed that he personally went to the company and picked up the booklets.
As we followed the tracks of this conspiracy to destroy our work, we found that they led right into the Mormon Church Office Building. Actually, it was more than a year ago when we first heard that something was afoot. We had a visit with a young Mormon singer who had some questions regarding Church history. He told us he held an appointment with a woman or the Church Office Building who claimed she had been part of a committee which was organized to evaluate our research. The committee worked on our material until they received an order From the Prophet—i.e., the President of the Church—that they were to desist from the project. We were unable to learn anything more about this purported committee, but one of the top Mormon historians did tell us in a telephone conversation in Dec. 1976 that a manuscript had been prepared to refute the allegations contained in our work. He was not sure if the Church would actually publish it, but the writing had been done.
One of the major clues which led to the discovery of the source of the pamphlet Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism was an unpublished thesis by Richard Stephen Marshall. We were absolutely amazed at its contents. Three of the top historians in the Mormon Church are cited as making very candid statements concerning our work and other matters relating to the history of the Church. These three men were all assigned to write volumes in the Church’s new “sixteen-volume sesquicentennial history of the Latter-day Saints.” Two of them subsequently found themselves in trouble with the Church and were called in to answer for the statements attributed to them. At any rate, one of these historians really “spilled the beans” when he told that the Mormon Church Historical Dept. had assigned a scholar to answer our work and that his manuscript would probably have to be published anonymously. We cite the following from Mr. Marshall’s paper:
Recent years have seen the emergence of a new kind of anti-Mormon literature which uses Mormon historical records . . . to try to show that the Church was more human than divine. This new kind of literature is best typified by Jerald and Sandra Tanner and their Modern Microfilm Publishing Company. . . . They have been prolific since 1961 and have, at present, a world-wide reputation. This writer encountered materials published by them while living in Australia several years ago. Max Parkin, of the LDS institute of Religion at the University of Utah calls them “publishers extraordinary,” and notes that one of their most recent volumes, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? is the finest, most comprehensive and hard-hitting anti-Mormon book in history. . . .
Many prominent Mormons have expressed a high regard for the work the Tanners have done. . . . T. Edgar Lyon, a Mormon historian and long-time teacher at the Institute of Religion at the University of Utah told this writer he thought the Church should subsidize the Tanners, although he said it tongue-in cheek.
Reed Durham using virtually the same words as Lyon said that he thought the Church should subsidize the Tanners because of all the historical research they do for it. He teaches a class at the Institute of Religion at the University of Utah on the problems of Mormon history called “Special Studies in Mormon History.” He uses the Tanner’s book, Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? as the text for the class. Formerly he would purchase copies of the book in quantity from Modern Microfilm through the Institute. Because it did not look very good for the Institute to be purchasing quantities of an anti-Mormon work, he now encourages his students to go down to Modern Microfilm and buy the book on their own.
Durham said he would like to write a book answering the accusations of the Tanners point by point. To do so, however, would require certain admissions that Mormon history is not exactly as the Church has taught it was, that there were things taught and practiced in the nin[e]teenth century of which the general Church membership is unaware. He said that the Church is not ready to admit that yet. He also said that due to the large number of letters the Church Historian’s Office is receiving asking for answers to the things the Tanners have published, a certain scholar (name deliberately withheld) was appointed to write a general answer to the Tanners including advice on how to read anti-Mormon literature. This unnamed person solicited the help of Reed Durham on the project. The work is finished but its publication is delayed, according to what Leonard Arrington told Durham, because they can not decide how or where to publish it. Because the article is an open and honest approach to the problem, although it by no means answers all of the questions raised by the Tanners, it will be published anonymously, to avoid any difficulties which could result were such an article connected with an official Church agency. (The New Mormon History, by Richard Stephen Marshall, A Senior Honors Project Summary, University of Utah, May 1, 1977, pages 57, 61 and 62)
[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]
The fact that an anonymous rebuttal appeared just seven months from the time Mr. Marshall wrote his paper seems like more than just a coincidence.
Unfortunately, Mr. Marshall’s paper does not give the name of the author, referring to him only as “a certain scholar (name deliberately withheld) . . .” We did, however, remember our telephone conversation with the Mormon scholar (see above) and thought that he might have told us that D. Michael Quinn was the historian assigned to write the rebuttal. We began to do research in Dr. Quinn’s writings and found a number of things in his M.A. thesis which led us to believe he was the author of the rebuttal. We thought that in light of the evidence he would surely confess his involvement. To our great surprise, however, he emphatically denied any connection with it. We were somewhat taken back by his firm and unyielding denial, and therefore decided to do further research. We spent some time examining Quinn’s dissertation written at Yale University, a copy of which is found at the University of Utah library.
Stonewalling
After examining Dr. Quinn’s writings, we were rather certain that he wrote the rebuttal. Still, we did not want to be too hasty in rushing into print. His vigorous denials were still ringing in our ears, and we felt that it was unfair to accuse a man of such a cowardly act unless we had very good evidence.
The reader will remember that Richard Steven Marshall’s paper gave information that indicated Leonard Arrington, Mormon Church Historian, was involved in the project even before May 1, 1977. We had a number of phone conversations with Dr. Arrington, and in every conversation he emphatically declared he did not know who the author of the rebuttal was and had absolutely no foreknowledge of the matter.
Everywhere we turned we met with the same response—an absolute stonewall. We knew that we had circumstantial evidence that Quinn was the author and that the project came through the Mormon Church Historical Department, but since everyone contacted denied the accusation our confidence was somewhat shaken. Then an unbelievable thing happened: while searching through a drawer for some samples of typewritten material we came upon a handwritten note we had made over a year before concerning the phone conversation we had with the Mormon scholar. Our note, written on or before December 12, 1976, confirmed that the author was “Michael Quin[n] and that the work was written “For Historians Office.” The note also indicated that the Church “May not publish it.”
The handwritten note also contained what proved to be a very significant item—i.e., a statement that a man by the name of “David Mayfield” said the paper “had been done.” We decided to call Mr. Mayfield and ask him concerning the matter. After all the stonewalling we had encountered we really expected to learn very little from Mr. Mayfield. To our great surprise, however, he turned out to be very honest about the matter.
Our first question to Mr. Mayfield was whether he worked for the Mormon Historical Department. He replied that he had worked there but was not working there at the present time Then we asked him if he had seen Michael Quinn’s paper in the typed form before it was published as Jerald and Sandra Distorted View of Mormonism. After hesitating slightly, he replied: “Yes.” Then we asked if he was sure that it was the typed copy he had seen. The reply: “Yes.” The third question we asked was whether it was about a year ago when he saw it. Mr. Mayfield also replied “yes” to that question. Then he began to get uneasy and asked to whom he was speaking. (He apparently thought he was talking to a Mormon who had been initiated into the secret.) Needless to say, he was not too happy when he learned who it was, although he was still very polite. He went on to say that he was told not to reveal the identity of the author because it was supposed to be an anonymous publication. We reminded him, however, that in his answer to an earlier question, he had already revealed the identity of the author. He had replied “yes” to the question of whether he had seen the typed copy of Michael Quinn’s paper before it was published.
As soon as we had terminated the conversation with Mr. Mayfield, we called Dr. Arrington, Church Historian, and asked him if he was still going to stand by his story in the light of David Mayfield’s admission. He emphatically replied that he knew absolutely nothing about the project and that the charges were completely untrue. Later that day Dr. Arrington called us and said he had checked with Mayfield, and that Mayfield told him he had made a mistake; it was another document that he had seen. We, of course, could hardly believe that Mr. Mayfield could have made such a serious mistake. In light of the handwritten note and the telephone conversation confirming the note, we could only believe that the Historical Department was behind the whole project. Nevertheless, Dr. Arrington continued to deny the whole matter. Later we called David Mayfield and asked him if he held told Dr. Arrington that he had made a mistake about the document. Mr. Mayfield did not support Dr. Arrington; he simply replied that he was “not going to comment” about the matter.
With this new evidence in hand, we called Michael Quinn. The reader will remember that Dr. Quinn had strongly denied the accusation when we first called him. This conversation was entirely different from the first. When we asked him if he was the author of Jerald and Sandra Tanners Distorted View of Mormonism, he replied that he would “neither affirm nor deny” the allegation. He explained that only a small number of Mormon historians were capable of writing the rebuttal. To affirm or deny the allegation would help us to limit the field, and since the author wished to remain anonymous he would not help us in any way. This, of course, was a long step from his original position. He had moved from an absolute “no” to the compromised position that he would “neither affirm nor deny” authorship. Now, if he had taken the position of refusing to affirm or deny at the first, he would have been in far better shape. As it is, Dr. Quinn has put himself and the Church in a very embarrassing position.
In an article entitled, “Doctrinal Cloak and Dagger,” David Merrill told of talking to Michael Quinn about the rebuttal. He claimed that Mr. Quinn would “neither confirm, nor deny involvement or knowledge of the manuscript’s origins” (Utah Holiday, February 1978, page 7). Gary James Bergera also talked to Quinn about the matter:
While neither affirming nor denying the charge that he wrote the attack, Quinn adds, “If they want to arrtibute [attribute?] me as the author, they’re free to, just as long as they spell my name right.” (“Jerald and Sandra Tanner,” unpublished paper by Gary James Bergera, page 7)
The Utah Historical Quarterly for Winter 1973, page 70, informs us that Dr. Quinn has served as “a historical assistant with the Historical Department, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” The Ensign for August 1977, page 37, says that Quinn is “an assistant professor of history at Brigham Young University.” BYU is of course owned by the Church. Since the whole operation was carried out in such a clandestine manner, we were not surprised to learn that Quinn has served as a “Special Agent, U.S. Military Intelligence, Washington, D.C. and Munich, Germany, 1968- 1971.” (“Organizational Development and Social Origins of he Mormon Hierarchy, 1832-1932: A Prosopographical Study,” M.A. thesis, University of Utah, 1973, page 311)
Although we are convinced that Michael Quinn played the major role in preparing the rebuttal, others could have contributed. The reader will remember it was reported that a committee had been set up to examine our work. One Mormon scholar told us he was informed that an answer to anti-Mormon criticism was being prepared by the Church. He was taken into a room where “they picked my brain” for answers to the problems. He admitted that Dr. Quinn was involved in the project but did not identify the others.
Be this as it may, the fact that the rebuttal was published anonymously tends to destroy its credibility. We do not believe that most Mormons would approve of such a cowardly method of attack. In 1903, the noted Mormon historian B. H. Roberts publicly condemned an adversary for remaining anonymous:
Editor Tribune:—. . . when the challenge was accepted, the courtesy of debate would certainly require that the acceptance of the challenge should be otherwise than from ambush. I mean that I am entitled to know the name of my opponent, that I may judge somewhat of his character and standing. And why should the gentleman remain in cog? Is he ashamed to be known as engaging in such a discussion? Or is it a precaution he takes so that if his argument does not rise to the expectation of his friends, he may remain unknown behind the mystery of a single initial. . . . I need say nothing of his courage. (Defense of the Faith and the Saints, Salt Lake City, 1907, vol. 1, page 328)
Like B. H. Roberts, we feel that any challenge to our work “should be otherwise than from ambush.” Chad Flake, a longstanding critic of our work, seems to agree about the matter:
“Here’s a man who’s writing to evaluate the Tanners, yet he doesn’t have enough gumption to put his name on it. The credibility of the pamphlet, as far as I’m concerned, is nill,” remarks Chad Flake, associate professor of library science and Director of Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, BYU. (“Jerald and Sandra Tanner,” unpublished paper by Gary James Bergera, pages 6-7)
That the Church Historical Department would publish the rebuttal anonymously is bad enough, but even worse is the fact that those responsible (Church Historian Leonard Arrington and Michael Quinn) would emphatically deny any connection with it. In the rebuttal we have been accused of dishonesty, yet those responsible for its publication will not admit their connection with it. In February, l978, we challenged “Leonard Arrington, D. Michael Quinn and everyone else who was involved in this surreptitious plot to come forth and meet us in a public debate. We will even pay to rent the hall.” So far all of the participants have remained silent about the matter.
Not only has the rebuttal been put forth in a dishonest manner, but also it contains serious errors and misrepresentations. We have written a response to it entitled, Answering Dr. Clandestine: A Response to the Anonymous LDS Historian. This 22-page pamphlet demonstrates how Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism was traced back to Michael Quinn and the Church Historical Department and shows some of the glaring errors that it contains. We feel that our pamphlet has completely destroyed the credibility of the LDS Church Historical Department’s response to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?
One man who read the rebuttal to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? wrote us a letter in which he stated: “If that pamphlet is the best the church has been able to come up with in the 6 years since Shadow or Reality was published, the church must be really desperate.” The Mormon historians apparently believed they were going to deal us a serious blow with this rebuttal, but it has turned out to be an incredible blunder. In fact, if they were to have sat down and planned a method to promote our work they could have hardly come up with a better idea. It has only tended to increase sales of Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? and now that we have sold over 27,000 copies many people are asking why the Church has not prepared an official rebuttal. We believe it is because the Church leaders have no real answers to the problems and that any publicity that they give would only work to their disadvantage. In a letter written January 19, 1977, a spokesman for Deseret Bookstore wrote: “We do not plan a specific written response to the Tanner book. Perhaps it does not deserve the dignity of a response.” In a letter dated November 2, 1977, Francis M. Gibbons, Secretary to the First Presidency, dismissed Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? with this terse comment: “I have been asked to acknowledge your letter to Church Headquarters received October 27, 1977, and to explain that the book by Jerald and Sandra Tanner referred to in your letter is apostate material and has no basis in fact.”
We feel that the Mormon leaders will eventually be forced to come to grips with Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? In the pamphlet Answering Dr. Clandestine: A Response to the Anonymous LDS Historian we pointed out that “a representative of a major publishing company has written us a letter in which he said his firm is “vitally interested in being the publisher of your materials.” If an arrangement is worked out, we should have a distribution which is almost beyond our imagination.” Since that time we have signed a contract with Moody Press to publish a condensed version of our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? Although it may take a year or two to actually get the book into production, it should get our work into the hands of thousands of people who would otherwise never hear about it.
Originally appeared in: