By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
Most of our readers are aware of the fact that for a number of months we have been involved in a disagreement concerning the question of whether the Mormon temple ceremony came from witchcraft and Satanism. The conflict centered around William Schnoebelen, a man who participated in both witchcraft and satanic rites. Mr. Schnoebelen asserted that the Mormon temple ceremony had been taken from these rites. Those who supported Schnoebelen maintained that his works were a reliable guide in helping to determine the truth about the relationship between Mormonism and witchcraft/Satanism. While our research shows that William Schnoebelen actually participated in these evil ceremonies, we concluded that his major documents and evidence did not hold up under critical examination. We felt, in fact, that he had given such a distorted picture of the relationship between witchcraft and Mormonism that we had to take a public stand against his work.
After doing some careful research with regard to the matter, we published our findings in the booklet, The Lucifer-God Doctrine. Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen responded to this publication in a paper entitled The Lucifer-God Doctrine: Shadow or Reality? On page 4 of their rebuttal, Decker and Schnoebelen state that we are not qualified to deal with the temple ceremony, witchcraft or Masonry because we are “armchair scholars” who are “relatively ignorant of such things.” In response we prepared a new and enlarged edition of The Lucifer-God Doctrine. In this publication we presented evidence against the claims William Schnoebelen set forth in the booklet, Mormonism’s Temple of Doom. We demonstrated that modern witchcraft, Satanism and Mormonism have borrowed from Masonry, and therefore parallels which Mr. Schnoebelen pointed out between Mormonism and witchcraft/Satanism only demonstrated that these three groups had borrowed from Masonry.
Although the great majority of people who have contacted us on the issue have shown support for our position, a small but vocal minority felt that we made a great mistake in bringing these matters to the attention of the public. Until just recently there seemed no way to settle this matter. Fortunately, as it turned out, Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen appealed to the Christian Research Institute for help. In a letter to us, dated December 7, 1987, Ed Decker wrote:
I have spoken to Dr. Walter Martin regarding the matter and he has agreed to let Christian Research Institute (CRI) arbitrate this matter for Saints Alive. CRI and Dr. Martin have an internationally accepted and well earned reputation . . . Whatever correction this ministry receives from them will be fully and immediately acted upon, to their satisfaction. I can also assume that whatever correction you might need will be just as quickly given. How you act upon any such correction is your own business. I am not asking for your permission in this matter.
In another letter, Mr. Decker explained that he was not really speaking of arbitration: “The one error I made was to make reference to arbitration which is not what we were talking about. This was more in the form of bringing a brother with you when you couldn’t resolve a difference.” (Letter to Wesley P. Walters, dated February 9, 1988)
Since we were not consulted as to how or by whom the issue would be resolved, we could hardly be accused of controlling the outcome of the investigation. This was made very clear in a letter Ed Decker wrote to us on Jan. 28, 1988:
. . . we have the Christian right to bring in a third party, such as DR. Martin and CRI. . . . Earlier in the letter, I reiterated our decision and need for an reputable organization such as CRI to act as intermediate in this serious matter dealing with our ethics and reputation. . . . We still stand firmly by this decision . . .
Although we did not believe that Mr. Decker had a right to force us to submit to his own plan regarding a settlement of the dispute, we felt that he did have every right to put his own ministry under CRI’s authority. In any case, we were treated very well by people at CRI. Marian Bodine, for instance, was very kind and helpful to us. When we completed the 1988 enlarged and revised edition of the The Lucifer-God Doctrine, we provided the Christian Research Institute with a copy. This booklet undoubtedly had a great deal to do with the decision which was finally reached.
At the time of the 1988 Capstone Conference we heard that the Christian Research Institute had decided to no longer sell the booklet Mormonism’s Temple of Doom. We felt that this was a step in the right direction. This was soon followed by the release of a three-page statement by Walter Martin printed on the letterhead of the Christian Research Institute. The statement lamented the fact that there had been
needless misunderstandings, corresponding frustrations, and “less than charitable” comments by persons involved in this issue towards those of a different opinion. This is a sad state of affair for the Church at any time, but especially with the Mormon Church watching us. The Scripture clearly demands that we steadfastly avoid sowing such discord among our brethren (Prov. 6:19).
While the statement was written in a very tactful manner and noted that CRI did “not wish to either explicitly or implicitly impugn the character, motives, sincerity, or integrity of any one individual or the collective ministries that are primarily involved in this disagreement” it did not dodge the real issue. The statement made it very clear that William Schnoebelen’s work on the relationship between witchcraft and the Mormon temple ceremony must be rejected:
The following is an open letter regarding the Saints Alive in Jesus and Utah Lighthouse Ministry’s ongoing dialogue concerning issues stemming from the publication of the booklet, Mormonism’s Temple of Doom. Herein is our position pertaining to some of the views advanced in the booklet.
First, it should be noted that the Christian Research Institute highly values the efforts and contributions that both of the above ministries have made in sharing the Gospel with those trapped in Mormonism . . . We firmly believe that the above organizations are dedicated to sharing the Gospel with those who are lost, particularly Mormons. Thus, we shall not make pronouncements upon anyone’s motives, but only upon the validity of the major claim in question. In short, our only concern is with the overall accuracy of the claims put forth in the formerly mentioned booklet.
Second, we believe that this whole issue has been clouded by a lack of clarity and precision in writings and lectures on this topic. . . . we agree with Mr. Schnoebelen (and Utah Lighthouse Ministry for that matter), that there are similarities and parallels among Mormonism and some forms of modern Witchcraft and Satanism.
However, as Utah Lighthouse Ministry and others have correctly pointed out, what similarities there are stem not from Mormonism borrowing directly from Witchcraft or Satanism, but the commonality that all three have in being heavily influenced by Free Masonry through people who were quite conversant with it, such as Aleister Crowley, Jerald Gardner, Joseph Smith etc.
We understand how and why Mr. Schnoebelen arrived at his conclusion, especially if one grants the key premises to his arguments. We however cannot endorse his premises, nor the overall conclusion as represented in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom. Unfortunately he appears to believe some of the theories put forth by many of those involved with Witchcraft and other types of occultism relating to their alleged longevity. But, these myths have been thoroughly refuted and denied by competent scholars and even many occultists themselves . . .
In conclusion, we pray that all those who have been directly involved in this disagreement will endeavor to keep the bond of Christian unity by the Spirit of God (Eph. 4:3). Finally, let us keep in mind that irrespective of any truth or falsity of the claims espoused in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom, the preponderate weight of Scripture itself is sufficient in and of itself to deem Mormonism a non-Christian cult.
[Click here to see the CRI statement.]
The CRI statement makes very clear the reason CRI decided to discontinue selling Mr. Schnoebelen’s book. It is summed up in one sentence: “We . . . cannot endorse his premises, nor the overall conclusion as represented in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom.” Fortunately, both Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen have agreed to go along with any decision made by CRI. In The Lucifer-God Doctrine: Shadow or Reality? page 3, they wrote:
Ed spoke to Dr. Walter Martin, Director of Christian Research Institute . . . We fully submitted ourselves and this ministry to them in the matter. We agree to submit to their findings and take whatever action they deem necessary. . . . It is our firm commitment to see this thing dealt with according to Christian principles. We pray that Mr. Tanner will be of the same mind.
We really count the statement by CRI and the agreement by Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen to abide by it as an answer to prayer, and we want to thank all those who joined with us in seeking the Lord about this matter. Although we have really felt the Lord’s help, this whole incident has not been easy on us. We would still appreciate prayer with regard to this matter that there will be complete unity and that tens of thousands of Mormons will come to know the Lord in the near future. We feel, however, that those who have taken an opposite position need a special amount of prayer. They have some very difficult decisions to make, and we should all pray that they will not become discouraged and will deeply seek the Lord at this critical time.
Since this controversy appears to be over, we are now devoting our time to finishing a new book on Mormonism which we have been working on for some time.
In the new edition of The Lucifer-God Doctrine, which is four times as large as the first edition, we detail the errors which have greatly distorted the views of a number of Mormon critics. In addition, we answer the various charges that have been leveled against us during the recent disagreement.
Although it is not specifically mentioned in the CRI statement, both Decker’s and Schnoebelen’s work on Freemasonry is seriously marred by the inclusion of erroneous material on the subject. Wesley P. Walters has demonstrated that the most important quotation from Albert Pike “depended upon” by both Decker and Schnoebelen “to establish the Luciferian nature of Masonry” is a 19th century forgery. (We have printed an article by Pastor Walters concerning this subject in the new edition of The Lucifer-God Doctrine entitled, “A Curious Case of Fraud.” This article presents evidence that the notorious Pike lecture containing the statement that “Lucifer is God,” really came from an anti-Masonic hoax “that grew out of the mind of one Gabriel Antoine Jogand-Pages who had a vendetta both against the Masons and the Roman Catholic Church.” This is truly an amazing story regarding “a gigantic hoax” which fooled the public for many years.)
Originally appeared in: