By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
When the Apostle Paul wrote to the churches of Galatia, he asked this question: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16) Paul was painfully aware of the fact that his stand for true Christianity was costing him a great deal. Many of those who are engaged in Christian work today are faced with this same problem. The truth does not always make everyone happy. In fact, it can make some people extremely angry. We found this out over thirty years ago when we left the Mormon Church and began publishing material questioning its authenticity. Because of our stand, many people began to proclaim that we were either possessed by the Devil or at least working through his power. We realize the position these people are coming from and continue to love and pray for them in spite of what they might say about us.
Recently, however, we have encountered the same type of charges from critics of the Mormon Church who feel that we are being too soft on the Mormons. Because we have taken a strong stand against sensationalism and inaccurate statements concerning Mormonism, we have found ourselves under attack. Like the Mormons, some of our critics have come to believe that we are demonized and are actually being used by the Mormon Church. In November 1988, we received a letter which contained the following: “I . . . am led to the conclusion that . . . You have never been ‘Set Free’ from the demonic spirit of Mormonism . . . You are, in fact, a plant of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints.”
On August 6, 1990, Ed Decker published a paper in which he suggested that his readers write to “Saints Alive . . . Brigham City, Utah, 84[3]02, and ask . . . for a copy of a report . . . prepared for the Body of Christ in Utah regarding the Tanners. . . . I agree that Jerald and Sandra stepped over the line of error into sin . . .” In the report recommended by Mr. Decker, we are charged with being in “demonic” bondage and with having “been used by the LDS Church”:
We accuse the Tanners of doing major damage to the outreach to the Mormon people for Jesus Christ. . . . The Tanners are being used mightily of Satan in this attack to quench the Holy Spirit of God. . . . We could not understand why Jerald would not accept Bill’s [Bill Schnoebelen’s] thorough answers—then we saw why. He raised up, his body shaking, and in a different sounding voice, and with his finger pointed at Bill, he shouted, “Take all that occult material and burn it!” . . . Jerald’s eyes were fixed and piercing. We looked at one another, recognizing what this was—a demonic manifestation. We offered ministry to the Tanners to break this spiritual bondage, but they refused . . .
In the past two years, we have heard comments and rumors from independent sources that the Tanners may have been used by the LDS church. We refused to believe such rumors at first . . . Then we read a thesis, in 1989, by Loftes Tryk . . . Mr. Tryk presented a very good case, and his conclusion on the Tanners was, “The Tanners were surely supplied with the selected documents by the church authorities themselves.”. . . the material the Tanners have written is critical and embarrassing, but not very damaging to the LDS church. The evidence is mounting, and it would seem that the Tanners have indeed been used by the LDS church to provide a controlled criticism of the church. (The Tanner Problem, pages 1-2)
We feel that these charges are as serious as any that have ever been leveled against us. At any rate, immediately after we received the document mentioned above, James Spencer, coauthor of Mormonism’s Temple of Doom, issued an attack on our work. In this response, he cited the following from a letter he had written: “The Tanners have been used by our Enemy to sow division. They are loose cannons, firing indiscriminately at their own army” (The Attack on Mormonism’s Temple of Doom, page 20). On pages 31-32 of the same booklet, James Spencer wrote: “Jerald, in resisting us, may well find himself fighting against God . . . What Jerald has done is not only ungodly, it is clearly libelous.” In a letter dated July 20, 1990, Ed Decker supported James Spencer’s accusations against us and suggested that his publisher had “every right to seek legal redress against the Tanners for trade libel.”
James Spencer seemed to be especially upset with us because of some questions we had raised in our last newsletter concerning a letter by the late Walter Martin (dated January 6, 1989) which gave some support to the booklet Mormonism’s Temple of Doom—a book which we had criticized. Mr. Spencer finally released a photocopy of the entire letter. An examination of the document reveals that our questions were justified. The first sentence of the letter, which we had not seen before, shows that the statement was originally authored by Spencer himself and sent to Walter Martin: “Dear Jim, After reading the statement you sent, I made some amendments to it.” While Walter Martin’s signature at the end of the letter does make him responsible for its contents, Mr. Spencer undoubtedly found it somewhat embarrassing that he had to compose the statement for Martin. It seems reasonable to believe that this is the reason that photocopies of the original letter were not circulated.
This previously undisclosed portion of the letter plus other evidence we now have suggests that James Spencer had been pressing Martin and Christian Research Institute very hard for a statement supporting Mormonism’s Temple of Doom. Martin was very reluctant to contradict the official CRI statement which he himself had approved for distribution. The CRI statement, of course, strongly supported our position on the book. In a letter dated July 27, 1988, Spencer pleaded with Walter Martin to soften his stand. He even accused Martin of being cowardly in the face of spiritual warfare:
When I saw your letter . . . I was shocked, hurt and saddened. You, dear brother, after having convinced us to fly in the face of “nonrockaboatis” have chosen the easy path at our expense. . . . The resulting “chicken soup” is worse than no statement at all. . . . The old quote . . . applies: “If we don’t hang together, it is certain we shall all hang separately.” I call upon you to be courageous in the defense of the brethren in this matter. (Letter from James Spencer to Walter Martin, dated July 27, 1988)
Four months passed without any helpful response from Walter Martin. Finally on November 3, 1988, James Spencer prepared his own statement and sent it to Martin with a letter in which he stated: “My proposal is that you authorize me to insert the accompanying statement on the book. . . . I would ask that you sign one of the statements and return it to me immediately, please.”
Even after all this, Martin did not deal with the matter “immediately.” He, in fact, waited another two months (January 6, 1989) before sending the statement back to Spencer! In any case, Martin’s statement does not replace the official CRI statement which is unfavorable to the book. This is very important because Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen had agreed to submit themselves to the decision of that organization. The official CRI statement, which has Walter Martin’s name at the end, has never been repudiated by CRI. It plainly states:
We understand how and why Mr. Schnoebelen arrived at his conclusion . . . We however cannot endorse his premises, nor the overall conclusion as represented in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom . . . overall we cannot approve the booklet and all of its conclusions.
At the time of its investigation, CRI appointed Craig Hawkins to research the charges regarding the book because he “was the expert in these matters.” Mr. Hawkins answered questions on the CRI radio program “The Bible Answer Man” both before and after Martin’s death. James Spencer, however, questions Mr. Hawkins’ ability in his response to us. We feel that his attack on Hawkins’ expertise is not based on facts. In the pamphlet recommended by Ed Decker, the attack against Craig Hawkins is carried much further. While the authors do not go so far as to say he is demonized, they claim that his opinion with regard to the origin of the temple ceremony “was apparently clouded by his own involvement in the occult.” Hawkins is also accused of working “behind Dr. Martin’s back” in preparing his report (The Tanner Problem, p. 3).
Craig Hawkins, however, claims that he has evidence to prove that Walter Martin fully supported his findings concerning the book. With regard to Hawkins “involvement in the occult,” the charge stems from the fact that at one time he practiced martial arts. It appears that anyone who takes a strong stand against the unfounded claims of these people is liable to be accused of being influenced by the occult or of being in league with the Devil. In any case, Craig Hawkins is preparing a response to the charges made against him.
In his critique of our July 1990 newsletter, James Spencer claims that “Walter Martin never told me ever to change one word in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom” (page 8). While Martin or CRI may not have prepared a specific list of changes to be made, common sense should have shown Spencer and Schnoebelen that major changes would have to be made in the booklet if they were to continue printing it.
On page 8 of his attack on us, James Spencer maintained that he “was of the mind that if anybody, at any time, found an important mistake of fact in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom, I would be glad to change it.” In the interview which we had with Spencer and Schnoebelen and in our publication, The Lucifer-God Doctrine, we pointed out major problems in the book. For example, in Mormonism’s Temple of Doom, pp. 12-13, Mr. Schnoebelen made a serious misrepresentation concerning his trip through Freemasonry. Both Spencer and Schnoebelen acknowledged in the tape-recorded interview that the facts were not correctly stated in the book and discussed how the wording would have to be changed to correct this very serious problem. In view of their own statements, which are preserved on tape, we expected that they would correct this misstatement of the facts which appeared in the first edition. To our surprise, however, when we obtained the new printing, we discovered that there was absolutely no attempt to correct the false claims!
Even more important than the flaw in the book which we mentioned above, James Spencer and William Schnoebelen have refused to alter the erroneous information given concerning the relationship between Mormonism and witchcraft (see The Lucifer-God Doctrine, pp. 41-55). How can we reconcile this with Spencer’s statement that he would be “glad to change” any serious error found in the book?
While we do not have room to discuss these matters at length in this newsletter, we are preparing a booklet dealing with them entitled, Serious Charges Against the Tanners. In order to have a good grasp on what is going on in this controversy a person also needs to read our booklet, The Lucifer-God Doctrine.
Was Ed Decker Poisoned?
In the July 1990 issue of our newsletter, we commented concerning a claim by Ed Decker that he was “poisoned in Scotland” in 1986. Although he was supposed to have been given a dose of arsenic poison which was seven times stronger than that required to kill a person, he claimed that God had healed him. We stated that a man who was with Mr. Decker at the time of the alleged poisoning had “called us from Scotland and expressed his disbelief in Decker’s story.” The man mentioned in the article was Sam Burton, an American pastor who is doing missionary work in Scotland. We noted that, “If the ‘Scotland poisoning’ really did occur, there should be some witnesses available or evidence in hospital or police records which would verify the story. If Mr. Decker has any evidence to that effect, we would be willing to print it in our next newsletter.”
Ed Decker has faulted us for not asking him for the information we desired before going to press. He has apparently forgotten that the last time we asked for data, he would not send it and told us not to contact him any more: “Please don’t write us any more. If you have something to say, say it to Dr. Martin and CRI or just issue another special edition of the messenger.” Since we had no reason to feel that Mr. Decker had changed his mind about not providing information to us, we took his advice and published our doubts in the next “edition of the messenger.”
It is now clear that Mr. Decker was never hospitalized in Scotland, never contacted the police and did not even consult a doctor until his return from that country some “4 or 5 days” after the incident. Ed Decker has distributed copies of letters from two American pediatricians who give information concerning the purported arsenic poisoning incident. The most important letter comes from Dr. Keith A. Rodaway. He frankly stated his opinion that, “This was arsenic poisoning, which nearly claimed this man’s life.” While the major portion of the letter merely gives facts concerning the poisoning which Mr. Decker “related” to Dr. Rodaway after his return from Scotland, he does claim that he examined Decker and conducted tests:
I interviewed, examined and tested this man on his return to Seattle, from Scotland and Ireland, in March 1986. . . . Blood and urine test[s] were run demonstrating hematocrit of 32, Wbc. 3,700, urinalysis showed +3 blood, +4 protein. Toxic screen revealed arsenic of 27 µg/dl. (normal 0-20 µg/dl.) He developed pustular skin eruption and parethesias. After appropriate treatment and many prayers Ed has made a full recovery (Letter from Dr. Keith A. Rodaway, July 19, 1990).
This letter by Dr. Rodaway does indicate that Ed Decker had some kind of a physical problem when he came into his office and a somewhat elevated level of arsenic in his body. Mr. Decker, however, has completely misunderstood the information regarding the arsenic. He seems to feel that the reading of “27 µg/dl” is a fatal dose. In a letter to Jerald, dated August 31, 1990, he made it clear that a person who drank “27 units” would undoubtedly die or at best “become deathly ill like I did and still live.” A doctor in Salt Lake City who examined Dr. Rodaway’s letter, however, pointed out to us that that level of arsenic is not sufficient to prove that Decker was poisoned. Two other doctors have also given that opinion.
It is clear from Mr. Decker’s letter that he does not realize that “27 µg/dl” is a relatively small amount of arsenic. The “µg” in Dr. Rodaway’s letter is not referring to a milligram (mg—i.e., one-thousandth of a gram) but rather to a microgram (a millionth part of a gram). It takes 1,000 µg (micrograms) to equal 1 mg (milligram). The lethal dose of arsenic trioxide, an extremely deadly poison, is given as “about 120 mg” in Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis & Treatment, 1987, page 221. In Courtroom Toxicology, 1981, vol. 3, Arse-11, we read that the “acute ingestion of only 200mg of arsenic trioxide may be fatal to an adult . . .” When these figures are converted to micrograms by multiplying by 1,000, we have from 120,000 to 200,000 µg.
We have already cited Dr. Keith A. Rodaway’s statement that in Ed Decker’s case “Toxic screen revealed arsenic of 27 µg/ dl. (normal 0-20 µg/dl) In Courtroom Toxicology, however, we read that, “Urine arsenic concentrations of unexposed persons may range from 0.01-0.30 mg/L.” (vol. 3, Arse-9) When the higher reading is converted to micrograms (0.30 x 1,000 = 300 µg) and adjusted to deciliters (300 µg ÷ 10 = 30 µg) we find that Mr. Decker’s reading fits within the range of “unexposed persons.” Therefore, according to Courtroom Toxicology, instead of being a fatal dose, 27 µg seems to be 3 µg under the 30 µg limit for “unexposed persons.”
We all have some arsenic in our bodies and the amount can be elevated in a number of ways. Wally Tope pointed out to us that in the book, Courtroom Toxicology, it was stated that just “a seafood meal” could greatly affect arsenic readings in urine samples. We suggested that this should be put to the test. Mr. Tope, therefore, ate a good deal of seafood and submitted to urinalyses. On October 19, 1990, the Nichols Institute Reference Laboratories reported that he had an arsenic concentration of “546” µg/L. When this is adjusted to the amount of arsenic in a deciliter (546 ÷ 10), we find that he had twice as much arsenic in his urine sample as Ed Decker—i.e., 54.6 µg! As we have already shown, Mr. Decker had only 27 µg! Wally Tope suffered no bad effects from what Ed Decker felt was well over the lethal dose.
However this may be, Ed Decker has actually claimed that he was “poisoned twice” in 1986. We have contacted Mr. Decker and asked him to provide documentation concerning this second attempt on his life, but he has refused to do so. The most information we have been able to find concerning this incident appears in a tape-recording of a speech he gave on June 29, 1987. On that occasion Mr. Decker revealed the following:
They can’t kill me. . . . those of you who know me know I got poisoned twice last year—came close to dying both times—shouldn’t of lived.
This account of a second poisoning attempt raises a number of important questions. For example, if Mr. Decker came “close to dying,” why is so little information given concerning it? Where and when did it occur? Are there any witnesses to this poisoning? Was Mr. Decker hospitalized or treated by a physician? It would seem that if there was any evidence regarding this attempted murder, Mr. Decker would have used it in his response to us. It is also interesting to note that both of the doctors who prepared statements for Decker were completely silent about this matter. It seems very difficult to believe that Ed Decker was poisoned twice and “came close to dying” on both occasions, yet was apparently never admitted to a hospital where tests would have verified the poisonings.
Although the details are scanty, Ed Decker has given some information concerning his first poisoning in Scotland. In the Saints Alive In Jesus Newsletter, April-May, 1986, he revealed:
On March 24th, I was in Northern Scotland where I was to do two television specials on Mormonism and Masonry. The television crew was set up to videotape my meetings for rebroadcast. That day, during a luncheon, I was slipped a lethal dose of arsenic in a soft drink. I spent the next six hours in terrible convulsions, yet Jesus protected me from its killing power and gave me the strength and a special anointing to do the meetings.
One question immediately arises: if Ed Decker was “in terrible convulsions” for “six hours,” why was he not rushed to a hospital for treatment? In the book, Poisoning: Toxicology—Symptoms—Treatments, page 190, we find that in cases where a massive dose of arsenic is given, “Convulsions and coma are the terminal signs and death is from circulatory failure.” If Mr. Decker was in convulsions and at the point of death itself, one would think that someone would have had the presence of mind to seek medical help.
Since Ed Decker did not go to a hospital in Scotland to verify the first poisoning and since the urinalysis which was taken “4 or 5” days later does not reveal the large amount of arsenic we would expect for someone who had received a lethal dose, we have to rely on the testimony of witnesses who were in Scotland at the time the incident took place. A great deal hinges on whether he was actually in convulsions and as sick as he claims he was during the period following the poisoning. Fortunately, Wally Tope, of Frontline Ministries, has made a very thorough investigation of the matter and has shared his private notes with us. Mr. Tope had telephone interviews with all of the witnesses who were present at the luncheon with Mr. Decker as well as people he associated with during his trip. A number of these people, who lived in Scotland and Ireland, allowed Mr. Tope to tape-record their statements.
Wally Tope’s work concerning the Scotland poisoning seems to be a very significant contribution to our understanding of the incident. In two telephone conversations with us Pastor Sam Burton, who was present at the time of the purported poisoning, has confirmed the important details concerning his statements which appear in Mr. Tope’s notes (in the material which follows we will refer to these notes as TN).
To begin with, Mr. Tope has found some evidence to indicate that Ed Decker had some physical problem after attending a luncheon on the day he claimed he was poisoned. At that time Mr. Decker was staying with Mr. and Mrs. James Eglinton in Inverness, Scotland. According to Mr. Tope’s notes of a telephone conversation with Mrs. Eglinton (p. 59), she remembered that after Decker returned from the lunch he was sweating and seemed to be in pain. She thought that she remembered him saying that he had eaten a pizza pie which did not agree with him. Mr. Decker’s friend, Eric Clarke, who was present with him at the time, said that they “had lunch at a Pizza Parlour” and that as they were leaving it was clear that Mr. Decker “was in pain and very unwell. We took him back to the home where we were staying and immediately put him to bed” (Statement of Eric Clarke, dated July 20, 1990).
While the evidence shows that Ed Decker did become ill, a serious problem with his story began to surface when Tope tried to verify Decker’s claim that he “spent the next six hours in terrible convulsions.” Mrs. Eglinton could not remember anything about Mr. Decker having convulsions while he was at her house. (TN, p. 59) Like his wife, Mr. Eglinton had no recollection of convulsions. (Ibid., p. 57) The Eglintons seemed to remember that Mr. Decker was only in bed 3 or 4 hours, yet, according to Mr. Decker, the convulsions were supposed to have lasted “six hours.”
There is another element which makes the problem even more serious: Mr. Decker’s doctor, Keith A. Rodaway, mentioned that “Mr. Decker related the sudden onset of severe vomiting and diarrhea following a meal . . . he had severe abdominal cramps, heart burn and started rucurrent [sic] vomiting. Soon watery diarrhea ensued” (Letter dated July 19, 1990). Now, it seems obvious that if Ed Decker did indeed have six hours of “convulsions” together with “severe vomiting and diarrhea,” the family with whom he stayed would have been aware of the problem. Mr. or Mrs. Eglinton, however, could recall neither the “terrible convulsions” nor the “severe vomiting and diarrhea” (TN, pp. 57-60).
In a statement Ed Decker published on August 6, 1990, he claimed that Eric Clarke was “the one man who was with me continually before, during and after my poisoning.” Although Eric Clarke is very supportive of Mr. Decker in a statement he prepared for him on July 20, 1990, the statement itself raises serious questions. In this document, Mr. Clarke said he “travelled to all the meetings with Mr. Decker and stayed in the same homes.” We would expect, therefore, that if the poisoning story were true, there would be some mention of the serious nature of Ed Decker’s illness. As we have already shown, Eric Clarke did mention that Decker was “in pain and very unwell.” Significantly, however, Mr. Clarke mentioned neither the “terrible convulsions” nor the “severe vomiting and diarrhea.” Since Clarke was staying at the same home as Decker, the absence of this important information is highly significant. Moreover, Eric Clarke makes a very revealing observation which seems to indicate that at the time he was with Ed Decker in Scotland he did not believe that Decker was at the very point of death or even in very serious condition. He, in fact, says that it was only when Decker called him from America and informed him of the doctor’s diagnosis that he understood the gravity of the situation:
Before we left the room I prayed for him to be well enough to take the meeting that had been arranged for that evening. . . . In the light of his doctor’s later diagnosis this may appear to have been a selfish attitude on my part, but we just didn’t realise how ill he might have been. . . . I was shocked to learn of the Doctor’s diagnosis when Mr. Decker phoned me a few days after he had returned home.
Amazing as it may seem, immediately following the “convulsions,” Ed Decker arose from his bed and gave two speeches (one on Mormonism and the other on Masonry) which were preserved on video tapes. Fortunately, Wally Tope was able to obtain a video tape of the second message. Mr. Tope has provided us with an audio tape of the same sermon. When we listened to the tape-recording of Mr. Decker’s speech, we found absolutely no evidence to support the claim that he was having the problems which the doctors’ letters would lead us to believe. In fact, the tape revealed that Ed Decker’s voice was very strong and there was nothing to indicate that he was suffering pain or having any problem at all. It was actually a powerful sermon that he delivered the night of the “poisoning.”
Besides making the video tapes on the day he was poisoned, Mr. Decker spoke publicly on at least three more occasions on that trip. Eric Clarke related that there was another meeting in Scotland: “. . . we just didn’t realise how ill he might have been. He had one more meeting to take before I took him to the airport in Edinburgh” (Statement dated July 20, 1990). The plane Mr. Decker boarded in Edinburgh, however, was headed for Ireland, not America. He had two more speaking engagements there (TN, p. 36).
Dr. Charles Sweigard, who never actually treated Ed Decker, claimed in his letter that, “The Scottish brethren sent him to Ireland where a veterinarian friend said his symptoms resembled arsenic poisoning.” There is an element of truth in this story. Ed Decker did, in fact, visit a veterinarian in Ireland, and this man did give him some type of a remedy. In 1988, Wally Tope was able to track down this veterinarian and question him at great length about Decker’s claim regarding arsenic poisoning. The veterinarian was James McCormick. Mr. McCormick has since passed away, but before his death he allowed Wally Tope to tape-record their conversations.
Mr. McCormick, who had picked up Mr. Decker at the airport, did not seem to know anything about him having recurrent vomiting and diarrhea. McCormick said that Decker did complain of being unwell in a general sort of way and noted that he was lethargic and was not eating well. He felt that Mr. Decker may have had some kind of a bug (TN, pp. 33, 34, 36). The statement that James McCormick claimed that Ed Decker’s “symptoms resembled arsenic poisoning” is not supported by the tape-recorded conversation Wally Tope had with him. On the contrary, James McCormick clearly stated that he was a veterinarian surgeon and was well acquainted with the effects of arsenic poisoning. He did not have any reason to believe that Mr. Decker had been poisoned and the treatment which he gave him had nothing to do with the effects of arsenic (TN, page 36). Wally Tope played part of this tape for us, and we can verify that James McCormick completely dismissed the idea of arsenic poisoning.
Pastor Sam Burton, who was present at the luncheon where Mr. Decker was supposed to have received the arsenic, emphatically denied that Decker was poisoned. He felt that the whole thing probably grew out of paranoia (TN, p. 85). Leslie Jappy, who was also at the luncheon, also asserted the story was false (TN, p. 93).
Some people who were close to Ed Decker at the time of the “poisoning” have suggested that it is possible that the symptoms he had were really the result of a bad reaction to a prescription drug he was taking known as Indocin. We will have more concerning this matter and also other important information on the poisoning story in the pamphlet we are working on entitled, Serious Charges Against the Tanners.
Wally Tope is preparing a report on the same subject which will contain photocopies of documents and give actual quotations from those who were with Mr. Decker in Scotland and Ireland and allowed him to tape-record their conversations. His paper on the subject will be published under the title, The Strange Case of Ed Decker’s “Arsenic Poisoning,” and will be available from Frontline Ministries, PO Box 1100, La Canada, CA 91012.
Wally Tope has already brought other important information to light. For example, in our last newsletter we reported that Ed Decker claimed that Mormon Apostle M. Russell Ballard gave a speech in which he admitted that ex-Mormons and “specifically” the film, The God Makers, had caused the church to have “a 3 million member shortfall.” Although we were suspicious of this claim when we first heard it in May 1990, we found that Wally Tope had been working on this question since March when he began examining Mr. Decker’s January 1990 newsletter. Mr. Tope provided us with a photocopy of that issue. Tope, in fact, had already initiated research which led to the discovery that there was a tape available of Ballard’s speech. In addition, he had obtained a photocopy of the Nov. 14, 1989, issue of the Provo Herald which he sent to us. All of the evidence combined to disprove the Ballard story, and Ed Decker and William Schnoebelen finally admitted it was erroneous (see Saints Alive In Jesus Newsletter July 1990).
Originally appeared in: