By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
In a new publication by the Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (F.A.R.M.S.), the Mormon scholar Matthew Roper shows deep concern over the effect our book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? has had upon the public:
The first edition of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? was published by the Tanners in 1963 under the title, Mormonism: A Study of Mormon History and Doctrine. Since that time the Tanners’ Magnum opus has been published in no less than five editions, the most recent being in 1987. In 1980, in an attempt to facilitate wider distribution of their work, they published a condensed version [The Changing World of Mormonism] through Moody Press. Since their debut as vocal anti-Mormons in the early 1960s, the Tanners have produced and distributed numerous other works attacking various aspects of Mormon history, scripture, and doctrine.
There are several reasons why this book merits review. First, the Tanners are considered by their fellow critics to be among the foremost authorities on Mormonism and the Book of Mormon. Their arguments are central to most anti-Mormon attacks on the Book of Mormon today. One recent critic describes Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? as “the heavyweight of all books on Mormonism.” Even some of the more sophisticated Book of Mormon critics will often repeat methodological errors exemplified in the Tanners’ work. . . . This review will focus only on the Tanners’ criticisms of the Book of Mormon in chapters five and six of Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (pp. 50-125). (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4, 1992, pages 169-170)
Thirty Years of Silence
The reader will notice that in the quotation above Matthew Roper said the book Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? “merits review.” This is in sharp contrast with what church officials have said in the past. A spokesman for the church’s Deseret Bookstore wrote: “We do not have a specific response to the Tanner book. Perhaps it does not deserve the dignity of a response.” (Letter written January 19, 1977) A man who talked to Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards claimed that Richards “told me to quit studying materials put out by the Tanner’s. . . . I told him ‘surely some day there will be an answer to these questions.’ He told me there never would be an answer and I should stop my inquiries.”
There was an anonymous rebuttal to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? printed in 1977 (see our response in Answering Dr. Clandestine: A Response to the Anonymous LDS Historian), but the church itself has never put forth an official response. Since we began publishing material on Mormonism in 1959, we have waited in vain for the church itself to make a response to our work. Although a large number of people have left the Mormon Church because of our publications and many others have been very concerned because their church has not published a rebuttal, Mormon leaders seem to feel that their best policy is silence.
Tripping at the First Hurdle
While Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? contains over 600 pages of material, Matthew Roper’s response deals with only pages “50-125.” Unfortunately for Mr. Roper, he stumbles and comes crashing to the ground on the very first hurdle (page 50). He boldly asserts that we have suppressed part of a statement by Brigham Young to “mislead” our readers:
The Tanners state, “The Mormon Church claims that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon never denied their testimony. There are, however, . . . statements in Mormon publications which would seem to indicate that the witnesses had some doubts” (page 50). They then quote a statement by Brigham Young: “Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” Unfortunately the Tanners have left out the rest of the statement, giving the false impression that Brigham Young had reference to the three or eight witnesses. The full quote reads as follows:
“Some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who handled the plates and conversed with the angels of God, were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel. One of the Quorum of the Twelve—a young man full of faith and good works, prayed, and the vision of his mind was opened, and the angel of God came and laid the plates before him, and he saw the angel, and conversed with him as he would with one of his friends; but after all this, he was left to doubt, and plunged into apostasy, and has continued to contend against this work. There are hundreds in a similar condition.”
The Tanners would mislead their readers by using this quotation as evidence against the Book of Mormon witnesses. But none of the eleven were ever members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. Brigham Young was referring to one of several other early Mormons who had similar experiences, but not to one of the official Book of Mormon witnesses as the Tanners clearly imply. (Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4, 1992, pages 171-172)
Matthew Roper’s accusation concerning this quotation by Brigham Young raises a serious question with regard to the superficiality of his review. If Mr. Roper had examined the very next page (page 51), he would have found a photographic copy of not only the quotation but also the entire page of Brigham Young’s sermon! In the caption below the reproduction we stated: “A Photograph of the Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, page 164. In this sermon Brigham Young claims that some of the witnesses were left to disbelieve that they had seen an angel.”
Now, this certainly raises a question with regard to Matthew Roper’s claim that we were trying to “mislead” our readers. Why would we include a photograph of the document if we were trying to deceive people?
Even if we had not included the photograph of Brigham Young’s statement, there would be no reason for Roper to attack us in the way he did. We, in fact, fail to see how we have misused the quote.
A careful reading of Brigham Young’s statement reveals that he was referring to different cases of apostasy. First he spoke of some of the Book of Mormon witnesses having doubt and disbelief concerning the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon was supposed to have been translated and also regarding the angel who showed them the plates. President Young then claimed that a member of the “Quorum of the Twelve” also had an experience in which an “angel of God came and laid the plates before him,” but he later “was left to doubt, and plunged into apostasy.” Young then concludes with the statement that “hundreds” had likewise fallen into a state of unbelief.
The reader will notice that Brigham Young indicated there was more than one witness of the Book of Mormon who had grave reservations about the book. Young, in fact, stated that “Some of the witnesses . . . were afterwards left to doubt and to disbelieve that they had ever seen an angel.” We know, therefore, that President Young felt that two or more of the witnesses had fallen into disbelief at some point in their lives.
It would appear that Mr. Roper would like his readers to believe that none of the original witnesses ever had seasons of doubt with regard to the Book of Mormon. He seems to be trying to redefine Brigham Young’s statement about “some of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon” so that it does not refer to any of the original eleven witnesses whose names appear in the book. While there may be some exceptions to the rule, we believe that almost all Mormons would think of these eleven men when they read Brigham Young’s words, “the witnesses of the Book of Mormon.” (There are actually two separate statements by the witnesses of the Book of Mormon. The first contains the “Testimony of Three Witnesses”—Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer and Martin Harris. These men claim that an angel of God showed the plates to them. The second statement is by eight men who said they saw the plates, although they did not claim that an angel showed the plates to them.)
It is interesting to note that on April 6, 1855, Brigham Young gave another sermon in which he stated that “most of the witnesses of the Book of Mormon have died . . .” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, page 249). The reader will notice that President Young used exactly the same words as he did in the quotation cited in Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? It is obvious that he was referring to the eleven men whose names appear in the Book of Mormon because he said that most of these witnesses were dead. Research shows that Brigham Young was correct about this matter; by 1855 only four of the eleven witnesses were still alive. Just above the portion we cited, Young indicated that “Martin Harris” was probably still alive, but “Oliver Cowdery has gone to his long home . . .” Harris and Cowdery, of course, were among the witnesses whose names appear in the Book of Mormon.
Although none of the witnesses ever gave a written statement repudiating the Book of Mormon, some of them did seem to have seasons of skepticism about the authenticity of that work. In our book, The Case Against Mormonism, vol. 2, page 16, we give photographic proof that after Oliver Cowdery (one of the three witnesses) was excommunicated from the Mormon Church, he joined the Methodist Church. Mormon writer Richard Anderson admits that Cowdery was affiliated with the Methodists, but he claims that Cowdery did not deny his testimony:
The cessation of his activity in the Church meant a suspension of his role as a witness of the Book of Mormon. Not that his conviction ceased, but he discontinued public testimony . . . he logically affiliated himself with a Christian congregation for a time, the Methodist Protestant Church at Tiffin, Ohio. (Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 1981, page 57)
In 1885, G. J. Keen, who was a member of the Methodist Church which Cowdery joined, gave an affidavit in which he stated:
We . . . submitted his name to the church, and he was unanimously admitted a member thereof.
At that time he arose and addressed the audience present, admitted his error and implored forgiveness, and said he was sorry and ashamed of his connection with Mormonism.
He continued his membership while he resided in Tiffin, and became superintendent of the Sabbath School, and lived an exemplary life while he resided with us. (Affidavit quoted in The True Origin of the Book of Mormon, by Charles A. Shook, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1914, pages 58-59)
On July 15, 1841, the Mormon Church’s official publication, Times and Seasons, printed a poem which made it clear that the Mormons believed that Oliver Cowdery had denied his testimony to the Book of Mormon. The following appeared in the poem:
Amazed with wonder! I look round
To see most people of our day,
Reject the glorious gospel sound,
Because the simple turn away.
………..
Or prove that Christ was not the Lord
Because that Peter cursed and swore?
Or Book of Mormon not his word
Because denied, by Oliver?
(Times and Seasons, vol. 2, page 492)
Martin Harris, who was also one of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, was excommunicated from the church. Even the noted Mormon apologist Richard Anderson had to admit that his life showed “religious instability.” Professor Anderson also revealed the following:
The foregoing tendencies explain the spiritual wanderlust that afflicted the solitary witness at Kirtland. In this period of his life he changed his religious position eight times, including a rebaptism by a Nauvoo missionary in 1842. Every affiliation of Martin Harris was with some Mormon group, except when he was affiliated with the Shaker belief . . . (Improvement Era, March 1969, page 63)
Martin Harris’ involvement with the Shakers raises some serious doubts regarding his belief in the Book of Mormon. We feel that a believer in the Book of Mormon could not accept these revelations without repudiating the teachings of Joseph Smith. The Shakers, for example, felt that “Christ has made his second appearance on earth, in a chosen female known by the name of Ann Lee, and acknowledged by us as our blessed Mother in the work of redemption” (Sacred Roll and Book, page 358).
The Shakers, of course, rejected the Book of Mormon and all of the revelations received by Joseph Smith. They had their own book which they claimed came from heaven. It was entitled, A Holy, Sacred and Divine Roll and Book; From the Lord God of Heaven, to the Inhabitants of Earth. More than sixty individuals gave testimony to the “Sacred Roll and Book.” Although not all of them mention angels appearing, some of them tell of many angels visiting them—one woman told of eight different visions. On page 304 of this book we find the testimony of eight witnesses:
We, the undersigned, hereby testify, that we saw the holy Angel standing upon the house-top, as mentioned in the foregoing declaration, holding the Roll and Book.
Joseph Smith only had three witness who claimed to see an angel. The Shakers, however, had a large number of witnesses who claimed they saw angels and the book. There are over a hundred pages of testimony from “Living Witnesses.”
The evidence clearly shows that Martin Harris accepted the Shaker’s “Sacred Roll and Book” as a divine revelation. Clark Braden made this revealing statement about this matter:
Harris declared repeatedly that he had as much evidence for a Shaker book he had as for the Book of Mormon. (The Braden and Kelly Debate, page 173)
There is a Mormon source which indicates that Martin Harris even claimed to have a greater testimony to the Shakers than to the Book of Mormon. In a thesis written at Brigham Young University, Wayne Cutler Gunnell stated that on December 31, 1844, “Phineas H. Young [Brigham Young’s brother] and other leaders of the Kirtland organization” wrote a letter to Brigham Young in which they stated:
There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was of the Book of Mormon. (“Martin Harris—Witness and Benefactor to the Book of Mormon,” 1955, page 52)
The fact that Martin Harris would even join with such a group shows that he was unstable and easily influenced by charismatic leaders. We feel, therefore, that his testimony that the Book of Mormon was of divine origin cannot be relied upon. How can we put our trust in a man who was constantly following after strange movements like the Shakers and the Strangites?
David Whitmer, the last member of the group known as the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, was also excommunicated from the Mormon Church and never returned. While we know of no evidence that he repudiated the Book of Mormon, he rejected the Doctrine and Covenants, believed that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet and claimed that God himself told him that he should leave the Mormon Church:
If you believe my testimony to the Book of Mormon; if you believe that God spake to us three witnesses by his own voice, then I tell you that in June, 1838, God spake to me again by his own voice from the heavens, and told me to “separate myself from among the Latter Day Saints, for as they sought to do unto me, so should it be done unto them.” (An Address to all Believers in Christ, 1887, page 27)
Mormons cannot accept this testimony by their own witness without destroying faith in Joseph Smith. In Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? page 57, we present evidence showing that David Whitmer gave a revelation from the Lord which strongly condemned Mormonism.
At any rate, Mr. Roper has also accused us of using “underhanded” tactics when citing from Richard Anderson’s work. In a response we are preparing we will demonstrate that this is not the case. Roper has, in fact, made the same type of error as he did when he accused us of suppressing part of Brigham Young’s quotation. If he had carefully read all of Chapter 5 of our book, he would not have fallen into this serious error. The rebuttal we are now working on will deal with two different attacks on our work by Matthew Roper and also articles by John A. Tvedtnes and L. Ara Norwood.
Since this is the first time that F.A.R.M.S. has attempted to respond to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? we felt that it would be an excellent time to have a sale on this book. When our book, Covering Up the Black Hole in the Book of Mormon, was reviewed by F.A.R.M.S., we had a similar type of sale to get the book “into the hands of as many people as possible.” Mormon apologist Daniel C. Peterson, however, responded as follows: “But maybe the real idea was to make a sale on the old car before the wheels and doors fall off and the customer discovered what a lemon he was looking at.” (Review of Books, 1992, Introduction, page lxxv) In a footnote on the page before, Peterson said that he accepted Roper’s attack against Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? because he “thought it made a number of important points, and because most contemporary anti-Mormon writers depend heavily upon the Tanners. Attending to the roots seemed an efficient way of dealing with the brunches.”
Despite the ridicule we may receive from Daniel Peterson, we sincerely believe that Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? will continue to provide very good transportation for those who want to tour the hidden sites of Mormonism and learn the real truth about the church. While many church members believe the F.A.R.M.S. vehicle gives a good tour of these areas, it actually skirts around some very important areas so that it can stay on the smoother roads of Mormonism.
Originally appeared in: