By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
In our book, Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled, we presented a great deal of evidence showing that the noted Mormon scholar, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, became a complete unbeliever in the Book of Mormon during the last 12 or 13 years of his life. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a collection of letters to a number of different people in which Ferguson declared his disbelief in Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, his son, Larry Ferguson, continues to maintain that he was a true believer.
After Thomas Stuart Ferguson passed away in 1983, Larry Ferguson decided that his father’s book, One Fold and One Shepherd, a work which was written before he lost his testimony, should be revised and republished to the world. He talked Dr. Bruce W. Warren, of Brigham Young University, into working on the revision, and in 1987 it was published under the title, The Messiah in Ancient America. In the Preface, page xiii, Dr. Warren wrote the following: “The Ferguson family wanted the new book to be a tribute to Thomas Stuart Ferguson and his abiding testimony of the Book of Mormon and the divinity of the Messiah, Jesus the Christ.” Warren also revealed that “the driving force behind the book was Larry Ferguson . . .”
Fortunately, Stan Larson, one of the top scholars in the Mormon Church, has made a serious study concerning Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s beliefs during the last years of his life and has reached the same conclusion that we came to—i.e., Ferguson was not a believer in the Book of Mormon nor in the divine authenticity of the Mormon Church. Larson has written a 38-page article concerning this matter entitled, “The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson,” which is published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990.
Stan Larson has gathered photocopies of many letters written by Thomas Stuart Ferguson which are now available to researchers at the University of Utah in the H. Michael Marquardt Collection, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library. Although Larson could find a great deal of evidence in letters Ferguson wrote after 1970 that he had completely lost faith in Joseph Smith and the historicity of the Book of Mormon, he found no letters written during this period which supported the divine claims of Mormonism. He, in fact, noted:
When the Thomas Stuart Ferguson papers arrived at the Lee Library at Brigham Young University after his death, they contained absolutely no letters after 1967 that indicate his views on the Book of Mormon, the Book of Abraham, or Joseph Smith. . . . As far as the present collection at BYU is concerned, the fifteen-year period before his death is a blank. In contrast with his publication record in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s, Ferguson published no new articles or books after 1967, nor did he reprint any of his previous work. If it were not for letters he wrote [i.e., the letters in the Marquardt Collection at the University of Utah], the last years of his life would remain unknown. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, pp. 71-72)
In addition to the letters which clearly show Ferguson’s unbelief, Larson has brought to light some extremely important extracts from the journal of Mormon scholar, Ronald Barney, which demonstrate conclusively that just before his death, Ferguson was working on research which he felt discredited Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. We will have more to say about this matter later in this article.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, who was born in Pocatello, Idaho, on May 21, 1915, devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and was considered by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He wrote at least three books on the subject. His book, One Fold and One Shepherd, was recommended to one of the editors of this newsletter as containing the ultimate case for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. On the jacket of that book (1962 edition), we find this information about Ferguson:
Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A. V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952 . . . He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.
The Mormon Church provided hundreds of thousands of dollars to Ferguson’s New World Archaeological Foundation in the hope that it would find evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. This organization was eventually “attached to and administered through BYU.”
From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time he founded the New World Archaeological Foundation. He really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. For a number of years he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold And One Shepherd, page 263, he stated: “The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions . . . referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon.” In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that “Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating.”
Although many important archaeological discoveries were made, the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did not turn up. At first it had all seemed so simple; since the Book of Mormon told when the Nephites were in Mesoamerica, all one had to do was find archaeological sites that dated to the period and the Book of Mormon would be established by the evidence. The fact that archaeological research failed to provide the confirmation which Mr. Ferguson expected to find must have weighed very heavily on his mind. The most serious blow to Ferguson’s faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very papyrus from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church.
After Mr. Ferguson obtained photographs of the papyrus fragments, he consulted Professors Lutz and Lesko of the University of California. Both these Egyptologists agreed that the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham was in reality the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian funerary text made for a man by the name of Hor (Horus). Ferguson learned that this papyrus had nothing at all to do with the patriarch Abraham or his religion. It was in its entirety a pagan text filled with the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses.
Thomas Stuart Ferguson was shaken to the core by this discovery. When the church’s noted apologist, Dr. Hugh Nibley, began defending the Book of Abraham, Mr. Ferguson wrote a letter to another member of the church in which he stated:
Nibley’s . . . articles on the Book of Abraham aren’t worth a tinker—first, because he is not impartial, being the commissioned and paid defender of the faith. Second, because he could not, he dared not, he did not, face the true issue: “Could Joseph Smith translate Egyptian?” . . . it is perfectly obvious that we now have the oringinal [sic] manuscript material used by Jos. Smith in working up the Book of Abraham. . . .
Joseph Smith announced, in print (History of the Church, Vol. II, page 236), that “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt . . .” Since 4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph—and since the 4 reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say—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 when I made that very statement to him on Dec. 4, 1970—privately in one-to-one [c]onversation. . . .
The attempts, including Nibley’s, to explain away and dodge the trap into which Joseph Smith fell when he had the audacity to translate the Chandler texts, and keep the original Egyptian texts around, are absurd, in my view. . . .
Of course the dodge as to the Book of Abraham must be: “WE DON’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FROM WHICH THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM WAS TRANSLATED. I conclude that we do have it and have translations of it.” (Letter by Thomas Stuart Ferguson, dated March 13, 1971)
The first indication we had that Mr. Ferguson was losing his faith in Mormonism was just after Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered. In 1968 he wrote us a letter saying that we were “doing a great thing—getting out some truth on the Book of Abraham.” This was a significant statement since we were presenting evidence that the Book of Abraham was not a correct translation of the papyri. Later we heard a rumor that he had given up Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham, but this hardly prepared us for his visit on December 2, 1970. At that time, Mr. Ferguson told us frankly that he had not only given up the Book of Abraham, but that he had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. Ferguson felt that our work was important and that it should be subsidized. He told us that he had spent twenty-five years trying to prove Mormonism, but had finally come to the conclusion that all his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away.
He referred to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s defense of the Book of Abraham as “nonsense,” and told us that just before coming to visit us he had discussed the Book of Abraham with Hugh B. Brown (Brown served as a member of the First Presidency under President David O. McKay). According to Mr. Ferguson, Apostle Brown had also come to the conclusion that the Book of Abraham was false and was in favor of the 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.” When Ferguson visited with us he seemed to be absolutely convinced that Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham.
In any case, Ferguson found himself faced with a dilemma, for the Mormon Church had just given him a large grant ($100,000 or more) to carry on the research of the New World Archaeological Foundation. He felt, however, that this foundation was doing legitimate archaeological work, and therefore he intended to continue the research. He realized that the organization he had founded to establish the authenticity of the Book of Mormon was now actually disproving the Book of Mormon by its failure to turn up anything concerning a Christian culture existing in Mesoamerica prior to the time of Columbus.
A few months after Thomas Stuart Ferguson revealed to us that he had come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon was a spurious production, he wrote us a letter in which he said: “I will be in SLC in June—and if so, I’ll call on you again. I enjoyed my visit with you . . . I certainly admire you for the battle you are waging—virtually single handed” (Letter dated March 13, 1971). On a number of occasions when people wrote to him, Mr. Ferguson recommended that they read our publications on Mormonism.
Unfortunately, Thomas Stewart Ferguson seems to have had a very difficult time communicating his loss of faith to those he was close to. He told us, for instance, that he did not dare tell one of his sons the truth about the Book of Mormon because the shock would cause him too much emotional trauma. (Although we cannot prove it, we suspect that this may have been Larry Ferguson). Ferguson felt that he may have to put the matter off until the situation changed. While he no longer believed in the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon, he continued to attend the Mormon Church.
In a letter to James Still, dated December 3, 1979, Mr. Ferguson frankly stated: “I lost faith in Joseph Smith as one having a pipeline to deity—and have decided that there has never been a pipeline to deity—with any man.” Since he had many friends and members of his family in Mormonism and apparently felt comfortable there, he decided to remain in the church. In the same letter Ferguson stated that he still attended Mormon meetings, “sing in the choir and enjoy my friendships in the Church. In my opinion it is the best fraternity that has come to my attention . . .” With regard to the origin of the Book of Mormon, Mr. Ferguson wrote: “. . . I give Joseph Smith credit as an innovator and as a smart fellow. . . . I think that Joseph Smith may have had Ixtlilxochitl and View of the Hebrews from which to work.”
In 1975 Thomas Stuart Ferguson finally mustered up his courage and prepared a 29-page paper in response to papers written by Mormon apologists John Sorenson and Garth Norman. It was entitled, Written Symposium on Book-ofMormon Geography: Response of Thomas S. Ferguson to the Norman & Sorenson Papers. (We have published Ferguson’s paper in our book, Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled.) In this response, page 4, Mr. Ferguson wrote:
With all of these great efforts, it cannot be established factually that anyone, from Joseph Smith to the present day, has put his finger on a single point of terrain that was a Book-of-Mormon geographical place. And the hemisphere has been pretty well checked out by competent people. Thousands of sites have been excavated.
Ferguson pointed out in his paper that the text of the Book of Mormon makes it very clear that certain items should be found in archaeological excavations and that these items are not present in the sites proposed. On page 29 he concluded by saying: “I’m afraid that up to this point, I must agree with Dee Green, who has told us that to date there is no Book-of-Mormon geography. I, for one, would be happy if Dee were wrong.”
In a letter to Mr. & Mrs. H. W. Lawrence, dated February 20, 1976, Thomas Stuart Ferguson made very plain the reason why there is “no Book-of-Mormon geography”:
Herewith is a copy of my recent (1975) paper on Book of Mormon matters. . . . The real implication of the paper is that you can’t set Book of Mormon geography down anywhere—because it is fictional and will never meet the requirements of the dirt-archeology. I should say—what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book.
As we indicated earlier, Stan Larson, who studied the matter at great length, reached the same conclusion we did with regard to Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s loss of faith. He stated:
In the middle years of his career, he organized archaeological reconnaissance and fieldwork in the area of Mesoamerica. But in the last years of his career, he concluded that the archaeological evidence did not substantiate the Book of Mormon, and so he reduced (in his mind) the geography of the book to nothing at all in the real world. . . . He had lived his life as a Latter-day Saint expecting to be the instrument of verification, believing that he would find the physical proof that would not only justify his faith in the Book of Mormon but that would convince the world as well. . . . In the end, he was theologically shipwrecked less by his failure to find persuasive archaeological support for the Book of Mormon than by his encounter with the translations of the newly discovered Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri. But though his ship ran aground and floundered, it did not sink, and he managed to salvage what he felt were worthwhile essentials. . . .
Ferguson’s excitement about authenticating the Book of Abraham turned into a nightmare. His former belief system could not withstand the shock of this disillusionment. Not only did Ferguson’s views of the Book of Abraham radically change, but also, domino-like, his belief in the prophetic status of Joseph Smith and the historicity of the Book of Mormon. . . .
Early in December 1970 . . . Ferguson bared his soul to people at opposing ends of the theological spectrum—on the one hand, the liberal apostle, Hugh B. Brown, and on the other hand, the anti-Mormons, Jerald and Sandra Tanner. . . .
Ferguson’s skepticism became public a year and eight months later when the Tanners published an account of his visit with them in the revised edition of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality. . . .
Ferguson never issued any kind of retraction or revision to this account. He frankly discussed his new views in answer both to letters sent to him and to direct questions. . . . Tom Ferguson, in a sense, identified himself as a closet doubter—though one who was willing to write letters from his closet. . . .
Ferguson was a man of contrasts. His early enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon . . . changed in the last decade and a half of his life into a skeptical view that placed the source of all Book of Mormon activities in the creative mind of Joseph Smith. After many years of archaeological investigations, Ferguson, disappointed by not finding the long-hoped-for confirmation of the Book of Mormon, concluded that the book was ‘fictional’ and that “what is in the ground will never conform to what is in the book” (Ferguson 1976b). (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, pp. 57, 71-73, 85-86)
As we indicated earlier, Stan Larson brought to light some extremely important material from the journal of Ronald O. Barney, Senior Archivist at the Mormon Church Historical Department. Barney had a very revealing interview with Thomas Stuart Ferguson about two and a half months before his death. Barney had his interview with Ferguson on January 4, 1983, and he recorded the matter in his journal on February 15, 1983. Ferguson died the following month (March 16, 1983). On April 19, 1984, Ronald Barney made a typed copy of the information he had recorded in his journal and added some additional recollections regarding the visit he had with Mr. Ferguson on January 4. According to Barney, Thomas Stuart Ferguson confided in him that he was working on a project which he felt would show that the Book of Mormon was in reality a 19th century production.
Stan Larson gives this information concerning the interview:
On 4 January 1983, a little more than two months before his death, Ferguson met Ronald Barney at the LDS Historical Department. Barney told Ferguson he knew of his various publications and asked if he knew how Jerald and Sandra were using his 13 March 1971 letter to James Boyack. This letter contains Ferguson’s earliest known denial of the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. Barney recorded in his journal that Ferguson “began to shift in his chair, got pale and acted as if I was a General Authority that had caught him committing adultery. He apologized all over the place, said the Tanners were creeps, etc.” After Barney expressed his concern for open discussion, Ferguson disclosed his current beliefs: “After having once been once [sic] a defender of the faith he now totally rejects the divine intervention of God in the workings of the affairs of men” (Barney 1983).
A few days later on 10 January 1983, Ferguson wrote to Barney, providing the details of his historical investigations into possible connections between Oliver Cowdery and Ethan Smith, author of View of the Hebrews, a suggested possible source of influence on Joseph Smith . . . (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 83)
Ronald Barney claimed that Ferguson was also trying to link Joseph Smith with Sidney Rigdon prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon. It is clear, then, that as Mr. Ferguson entered the last months of his life he was still engaged in a project which he felt would prove that the Book of Mormon was not an ancient document. As late as February 1, 1983, about six weeks before his death, Ferguson wrote Barney a letter in which he indicated that he was still pursuing his critical research into the true origin of the Mormon Church: “‘I am continuing my research. It is fun and stimulating. I will look forward to meeting with you on my next trip to Salt Lake City’ (Ferguson 1983b)” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 84).
It is also interesting to note that Mr. Ferguson told Ronald Barney the same story concerning Apostle Hugh B. Brown repudiating the Book of Abraham that he told us some twelve years earlier. In the typed material which Ronald Barney prepared on April 19, 1984, he wrote:
Beyond what is in my journal entry concerning my visit with him on January 4, 1983 I should include these things. Ferguson said that the thing that first led him to seriously question the church was the papyrii [sic] purported to be the source of the Book of Abraham. . . . he took the evidence to Hugh B. Brown . . . he said that Brother Brown agreed with him that it was not scripture. . . . he did say that Hugh B. Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham was what the church said it was. I felt as Ferguson was telling me this that he was not making up the story. It appeared that he really believed what he was telling me. (Photocopy of statement by Ronald O. Barney, dated April 19, 1984)
Concerning the material Ronald Barney has brought to light, Stan Larson observed:
“These final two letters, together with Barney’s journal and reminiscence, confirm Ferguson’s critical views just two months before his death. This crucial testimony functions like a kingpin to tie the last fifteen years together and is comparable to the Wesley P. Lloyd diary, which reports the non-historical view of the Book of Mormon held by B. H. Roberts just two months before he died (Roberts 1985, 22-24)” (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 84).
In spite of the strong evidence that Thomas Stuart Ferguson completely lost faith in Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, his son, Larry Ferguson, cannot allow himself to face the truth.
He continues to promote the sale of The Messiah in Ancient America—a book which continues to proclaim Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s “abiding testimony of the Book of Mormon and the divinity of the Messiah, Jesus the Christ.”
In a letter published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Fall, 1990, page 9, Larry Ferguson made this claim: “A few years before my father passed away, he, my mother, and I met with a publisher about revising, updating, and publishing One Fold and One Shepherd. The year or so before his death, my father cut back on his law practice and began that revision.” One would think that in a “year or so” of working on the project, Thomas Stuart Ferguson could have completed a fairly good sized manuscript. Stan Larson became curious about this manuscript and asked for permission to examine it. To his surprise, he discovered there was no such manuscript:
At the time of his death Ferguson had not written a single word in a manuscript of revision. His only work on the contemplated revision was about twenty ideas for updating, jotted on small 3M “Post-it” notes. One of these notes suggested including the influence of Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews on the text of the Book of Mormon, but this controversial subject is never mentioned in Warren’s revision, The Messiah in Ancient America, even though Ferguson’s radical view on this point was independently supported by Ron Barney. So, while the new book contains thousands of Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s words, they represent his position when One Fold and One Shepherd was published in 1958 or 1962, not his ideas in 1983. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1990, p. 85, footnote 6)
In the same footnote (pages 84-85), Stan Larson makes it clear that The Messiah in Ancient America is a “gross misrepresentation” of Ferguson’s true feelings:
. . . since the title page presents Thomas Smart Ferguson as a coauthor with Bruce W. Warren one must examine this posthumous attribution of authorship . . . Since the clear evidence in his letters indicates that Ferguson denied the historicity of the Book of Mormon and the divinity of Jesus, it is deceptive for Warren to speak of his “abiding” testimony. . . . Warren’s total association with Ferguson during the last fifteen years of his life consisted of a five-minute conversation in 1979. . . .
If the book were intended to be a tribute to Ferguson, it should have been dedicated to his memory, rather than have his name printed on the title page as a coauthor. Wishful thinking and fond memories do not change the way things had changed in Ferguson’s thinking. The Messiah in Ancient America attributes fresh authorship to Ferguson, and this kind of an attempted reinstatement of the pre-Book-of-Abraham-papyri Ferguson is a gross misrepresentation of his real views.
Those who are interested in Stan Larson’s definitive article, “The Odyssey of Thomas Stuart Ferguson,” which was published in the Spring 1990 issue of Dialogue, can find further reading at: https://www.dialoguejournal.com/issues/spring-1990/
In bringing out a book by his father which is favorable to the Book of Mormon, Larry Ferguson had to side-step a great deal of evidence which appeared in letters written by his father. In addition, there are a number of people who could testify concerning Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s complete rejection of the Book of Mormon. The journal of Ronald Barney is especially hard to disregard. The reader will remember that Barney is a Senior Archivist at the Mormon Church’s Historical Department. It seems highly unlikely that someone in his position would make up a false story concerning the last weeks of Ferguson’s life.
That Larry Ferguson was unable to produce an actual manuscript written by his father, Thomas Stuart Ferguson, certainly throws a great deal of doubt upon the claim that The Messiah in Ancient America represented his true feelings. Moreover, a manuscript which Thomas Stuart Ferguson wrote which demonstrated that “there is no Book-of-Mormon geography” and a “paucity of specific support” for the Book of Mormon in the findings of archaeologists in the New World has been deliberately ignored in The Messiah in Ancient America.
As we indicated earlier, we have photographically reproduced Thomas Stuart Ferguson’s manuscript criticizing the Book of Mormon in our book, Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled. Ferguson himself said that this manuscript was written to prove the Book of Mormon “fictional.”
Originally appeared in: