By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

Although a great deal of evidence against Joseph Smith’s claims was presented during the 19th century, the most devastating evidence has come to light within the last few years.

Since Joseph Smith claimed that an angel took the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and since both the Kinderhook plates and the Book of Abraham papyrus were lost, it appeared that Joseph Smith’s ability as a translator could not be tested. As to Joseph Smith’s claim that the moon was inhabited, very few people living in the 19th century would have believed that some day it would be possible for men to go there. In fact, as late as 1958 Joseph Fielding Smith (who recently became President of the Mormon Church) made these statements:

In relation to the present trend of science in the development of synthetic planets which, for a season revolve around the earth and the trend of science in developing guided missiles, or even the sending of passengers to the moon and other planets, you need not to be troubled in the least. . . . Naturally the wonders in the heavens that man has created will be numbered among the signs which have been predicted—the airplanes, the guided missiles, and man-made planets that revolve around the earth. Keep it in mind however, that such man-made planets belong to this earth, and it is doubtful that man will ever be permitted to make any instrument or ship to travel through space and visit the moon or any distant planet.

The Lord will permit men to go so far and no farther; and when they get beyond the proper bounds, he will check them. . . .

When man was placed on this earth it became his probationary, or mortal home. Here he is destined to stay until his earth-life is completed, . . . Here we are, and here we should be content to stay. All this talk about space travel and the visiting of other worlds brings to mind vividly an attempt long ago made by foolish men who tried to build to heaven . . . wise men will be content and will wait until the time comes when this earth is cleansed and purified from all sin for heavenly visits, and in that day they will come. (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 2, pages 189-192)

Although astronauts have now shown that Joseph Smith’s statements about the moon are not correct, a more serious problem faces the Church. In 1967 the original papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham was discovered. Egyptologists translated it and found that it has nothing to do with Abraham or his religion. In other words, Joseph Smith’s translation was proven to be completely incorrect. This was a devastating blow to the Church because the Mormon leaders had canonized the Book of Abraham and had made it the very basis of the anti-Negro doctrine.

In spite of the fact that the papyrus absolutely proves that the Book of Abraham is spurious, the Mormon leaders have decided that they cannot give it up without undermining the whole foundation of Mormonism:

The First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints accepts the Book of Abraham as “scripture given to us through the Prophet (Joseph Smith),” President N. Eldon Tanner said Sunday night.

President Tanner, second counselor in the church’s First Presidency, made the statement in response to an article saying the translation of the Book of Abraham was the product of Joseph Smith Jr.’s “imagination.”

The article appears in a publication of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints . . . Author of the article is Richard P. Howard, historian for the RLDS. (Salt Lake Tribune, May, 4, 1970, page 12B)

In a letter to the Editor of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, page 8, Naomi Woodbury suggested that the translation of the papyri by Egyptologists could “free us from our dilemma about excluding Negroes from the Priesthood. Perhaps our Father in Heaven intended the papyri to come to light now for just this purpose.” Unfortunately, in an organization where “the thinking” is done from the top, it is almost impossible for the ordinary member to oppose decisions made by the Church leaders. Jim Brield, a student at Brigham Young University, made this very clear in a statement regarding the anti-Negro doctrine of the Church:

“Most students are unconcerned. They look at it as a matter that the Church will have to decide. You have to understand we are taught unquestioning obedience,” said Jim Brield, a BYU junior. (Salt Lake Tribune, November 30, 1969, page 12D)

The Mormon writer Klaus Hansen makes these interesting observations in an article recently published in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:

To a professional historian, for example, the recent translation of the Joseph Smith papyri may well represent the potentially most damaging case against Mormonism since its foundation. Yet the “Powers That Be” at the Church Historian’s Office should take comfort in the fact that the almost total lack of response to this translation is an uncanny proof of Frank Kermode’s observation that even the most devastating act of disconfirmation will have no effect whatever on true believers. Perhaps an even more telling response is that of the “liberals,” or cultural Mormons. After the Joseph Smith papyri affair, one might well have expected a mass exodus of these people from the Church. Yet none has occurred. Why? Because cultural Mormons, of course, do not believe in the historical authenticity of the Mormon scriptures in the first place. So there is nothing to disconfirm. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Summer 1970, page 110)

The reader will remember that Dr. Hugh Nibley wrote a letter to the Mormon Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson in which he stated: “I don’t consider myself an Egyptologist at all, and don’t intend to get involved in the P.G.P. business unless I am forced into it . . .” (Letter by Hugh Nibley dated June 27, 1967). In the Improvement Era for August 1968, page 56, he admitted that he was “anything but an Egyptologist.” Several years ago Dr. Nibley took some classes in the Egyptian language at the University of Chicago under John A. Wilson and Klaus Baer, but it now appears that Dr. Nibley feels he knows more about the papyri than his tutors! In a letter dated December 11, 1970, Dr. Nibley wrote:

The evidence supporting the Book of Abraham is simply overpowering. In a series of articles in the Era that ended last June I brought up a few important points necessary to laying a foundation for serious study of the subject . . . Joseph Smith or anyone else could not possibly have faked the Book of Abraham, which I am perfectly convinced is a true record. Some of our ideas about it may call for rectification from time to time, but of the authenticity of the book there can be no doubt. . . . I have studied with both Prof. Baer and Wilson, who translated some of the Mss.; they are splendid men but they have no idea of what these particular manuscripts are about. . . . Before long you will see that the Book of Abraham furnishes some of the best evidence for the divine mission of the Prophet Joseph. . . . I must ask you to be patient until this can be demonstrated more fully. (Letter from Hugh Nibley, dated December 11, 1970)

It is really hard to believe that a man could go to such great lengths to keep from facing the truth about the Book of Abraham. How long do the Mormon leaders think they can continue this deception?

The Mormon Church has already had serious trouble with Negroes over the doctrine found in the Book of Abraham that Negroes cannot hold the priesthood. Instead of facing the truth with regard to this matter and giving the priesthood to Negroes, they are trying to pacify them in other ways. Negroes have been added to the Tabernacle Choir and the football team at Brigham Young University, and on June 13, 1970, the Deseret News reported the following:

The bonds of brotherhood between members of the Church and a Negro congregation in Salt Lake City were fastened this week with a plea “to let all America see that blacks and whites can live peacefully together.”

Some 500 persons representing the leadership of the Church, including President Joseph Fielding Smith, and of the Church of God in Christ participated in a banquet Wednesday night, climaxing the month-long “Operation Good Samaritan.”

The project started when Rev. M. A. Givens Jr., minister of Deliverance Temple, Church of God in Christ, asked officials of the LDS Church to assist his congregation in raising funds to complete construction of their church building in Salt Lake City.

The Presiding Bishopric accepted the opportunity as a challenge to the Mormon youth to raise at least $30,000 for the building. Youth in 566 wards of the 71 stakes in the Salt Lake and Bountiful areas accepted the challenge and went to work on a variety of fund-raising projects. . . .

Presiding Bishop John H. Vandenberg told the banquet-goers that with 14 more stakes to report, the youths have already raised $32,949. He said that 28,000 young men and women participated in the project. . . .

Music for the banquet was provided by Mrs. Jessie Evans Smith, wife of President Smith, who sang two solo numbers, and the all-Negro Utah Community Choir, which also preformed two selections. (Deseret News, Church Section, June 13, 1970)

Although we feel that this was a good move and that many members of the Mormon Church participated in this project in a sincere effort to help the Negroes, the deed would have been more impressive if it had been performed ten or twenty years ago. Even some members of the church felt that their leaders were trying to buy off the Negro people. In a letter to the Editor of the Salt Lake Tribune, Bill Morrison stated:

Editor, Tribune: I noticed with incredulity an article in the Salt Lake Tribune (June 10) entitled “Negro Faith, LDS Join In ‘Deliverance’ Fund.” The substance of the article was that the LDS Church was aiding the construction of the Deliverance Temple, a building owned by the Church of God in Christ, a Negro denomination.

Since I am LDS and take my religion seriously, I question the wisdom of my church leaders giving material or other aid for the purpose of building up another church. A fundamental concept of any religion is that the reason for its existence is that it, and it alone, harbors the truth necessary for salvation. The Mormon Church adheres to this, but is engaging in support of the growth of another religion . . . the LDS Church should focus on consolidating its position rather than being concerned with building up the congregations of other churches. The money raised for building Deliverance Temple could have gone to a nonsectarian use such as aid for the mentally retarded or those physically unable to help themselves.

The question appears to be one of aiding the Negro rather than one of aiding a different religion. Would the Mormon Church give $32,000 for construction of a Catholic cathedral? A Jewish synagogue? Probably not.

Why the Negro? The Mormon Church has discriminated against the Negro since its inception. Let’s drop all the rhetoric excusing this and admit it. The aid therefore appears to be a case of LDS Church leaders, in their weakness, attempting to placate the Negro.

If the purpose of this aid isn’t tacit support of another religion but rather an expression of guilt or an attempt at placation, does this mean that the general authorities believe God has erred in not allowing the Negro to hold the priesthood in the LDS Church? (Salt Lake Tribune, June 23, 1970)

Regardless of the motives of the Mormon leaders in performing this deed, we feel that it is a step in the right direction.

---

---