LDS Historian Caught Red-Handed
By Jerald and Sandra Tanner
In our last issue of the Salt Lake City Messenger we made some very serious charges concerning the pamphlet Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? by an anonymous Mormon historian. We stated that the secret production of this booklet “had all the earmarks of an intelligence operation mounted by the CIA or the KGB.” We asserted that Michael Quinn, of the Mormon Church’s Brigham Young University, was involved in the project. We presented evidence showing that the response came out of the Church Historical Department and that Church Historian Leonard Arrington was deeply entangled in its production. We indicated that there was a real cover-up involved and that Dr. Arrington emphatically denied any connection with the rebuttal. In spite of his denials we maintained that Arrington was involved. Some of our readers felt we were going out on a limb in making this accusation. Finally, on August 3,1978, we received a letter that completely shattered Dr. Arrington’s entire defense. In this letter we found this startling information:
I have a typewritten copy of “Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?” by a Latter-day Saint Historian. It was sent to me with a cover letter from Leonard Arrington dated Sept 6, 1977. If this means anything to you I would appreciate my name not being used, . . . Leonard showed an interest in keeping me in the Church. I must say the arguments he and other historians used actually pushed me out faster. I was amazed that such scholars as these men would resort to the illogical arguments and untenable positions they presented to me. . . . I could not maintain membership in an organization assuming the position the Church is in now. I . . . wrote a letter asking to have my membership removed.
Since the rebuttal was not published until December, 1977, we knew that if Dr. Arrington sent a typed copy of the article together with a “cover letter” on Sept. 6, 1977, he would have had to have been implicated in the project. We asked the person who made this accusation to furnish us with photographs of the documents. We received a copy of both the typewritten manuscript and Arrington’s cover letter. The reader will find a photograph of Dr. Arrington’s letter in the new “Enlarged Edition” of our book, Answering Dr. Clandestine: A Response to the Anonymous LDS Historian, page 24. In this letter Arrington stated:
A historian friend of mine the other day brought me this copy of a letter he had sent to one of his friends who had been reading some of the Tanner materials. I thought you might be interested in reading this as well, and I asked him for permission to xerox a copy for you. He kindly consented. I thought this would be particularly appropriate for you to read because it helps to put some perspective on the principal publication of the Tanners.
This letter proves beyond all doubt that Leonard Arrington was deeply involved in the whole matter and tends to confirm the statement in Richard Steven Marshall’s paper that
Durham . . . said that due to the large number of letters the Church Historian’s Office, is receiving asking for answers to the things the Tanners have published, a certain scholar, (name deliberately withheld) was appointed to write a general answer to the Tanners . . . The work is finished but its publication is delayed, according to what Leonard Arrington told Durham, because they can not decide how or where to publish it. Because the article is an open and honest approach to the problem, although it by no means answers all of the questions raised by the Tanners, it will probably be published anonymously, to avoid any difficulties which could result were such an article connected with an official Church agency (“The New Mormon History,” pages 61-62).
Rebuttal Altered
The typed copy of the rebuttal tends to verify the accusations we made in the first edition of Answering Dr. Clandestine, page 6. The reader may remember that Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism purports to be a copy of a letter written by an anonymous Mormon historian to a friend. We pointed out, however, that since the printed version contains information which was not published until September or October of 1977, it could not be identical to a copy seen by a Mormon scholar in the later part of 1976. We demonstrated for instance, that a footnote on page 61 of the rebuttal which refers to the September 1977 issue of the Ensign would have to be an interpolation. The typed copy reveals that we were correct in this assumption. Not only was the footnote added, but 19 words were inserted into the text of the purported letter just before the footnote number appears.
In Answering Dr. Clandestine we also noted that in Footnote 67 (page 58 of the published rebuttal) BYU Studies, Spring 1971, is cited. We pointed out, however, that the distribution of this issue was delayed until October 1977. The typed copy again confirms our allegation. It does not refer to BYU Studies but only to “a paper” by Michael Rhodes which was “delivered at the Welch Lecture Series.” The footnote goes on to state that “hopefully . . . Rhode’s work will become available in print.”
A very interesting change in the text of the letter appears just above the footnote number. In the earlier typed copy, it is claimed that Dr. Hugh Nibley (probably the most well-known Church apologist) has only “limited experience” in the Egyptian language, whereas Michael Rhodes and Eric Olson have “extensive experience”:
. . . the work of Hugh Nibley (who has limited experience in the Egyptian language}, Michael Rhodes, and Eric Olsen (both of whom have had extensive experience with the Egyptian language) on the Joseph Smith papyri have indicated some valuable insights . . .
In the published version, page 58, nineteen words have been deleted so that Dr. Nibley seems to achieve equal status:
. . . the work of Hugh Nibley, Michael Rhodes, and Eric Olson on the Joseph Smith papyri have indicated some valuable insights . . .
In comparing the typed copy of Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism with the printed version we find many changes have been made. We estimate that at least 400 words were deleted and over 600 added. These changes were made in spite of the fact that Dr. Clandestine claims to be a “professionally trained historian.” On page 42 of his booklet, Clandestine charges that “James Madison made extensive changes in his own notes of the Constitutional Convention twenty years after they were originally written, and his ‘contemporary’ Notes were published as he had changed them rather than as he had originally written them; . . .” He goes on, however, to tell of the “present standards concerning plagiarizing, footnoting, and editorial adherence to the original manuscript . . .”
If Dr. Clandestine is really a “professionally trained historian” and is familiar with the present standards in professional historical writing, why did he fail to follow them in this piece of work? He purports to give us a copy of a letter which apparently saved a Mormon convert from apostasy, yet extensive changes have been made in the text of the “letter” without any indication. While most of the changes are not very important, some of them are significant. For instance, in one place in the typed copy (page 22) Dr. Clandestine charged that we used incessant repetition and that this characteristic of our work reminded him of “hypnotism, the Nazi approach to propaganda, and other mind-control efforts.” In the published version this has been entirely deleted without any indication. For a study of other changes see the enlarged edition of Answering Dr. Clandestine, pages 25-26.
As we pointed out earlier, we estimated that over 1,000 words were either added or deleted from Dr. Clandestine’s booklet. Now, if it were not for the fact that he put his work forth as a copy of a “letter” which he prepared “for a friend” who was troubled after reading our book, we would have no objection to the changes. Every author has the right to change his own manuscript. We certainly do not feel, however, that a “professionally trained historian” should make changes in the contents of a letter. It appears, then, that Mormon apologists who would defend the rebuttal are faced with a serious dilemma. If the letter was genuine, then the printed version is a falsified copy. On the other hand, if they admit that it was never really a “letter,” they will have to explain why it was published as such. Neither alternative seems very attractive.
When we first published our response to the anonymous rebuttal, some people accused us of making too much of the Watergate-like way it was produced. They felt we did not spend enough time answering the specific charges which it contained. In the enlarged edition of Answering Dr. Clandestine more space is devoted to answering the allegations. In addition, Wesley P. Walters, a scholar noted for his work on Mormon history, has also written an attack on the anonymous historian’s rebuttal which we have included in Answering Dr. Clandestine.
Benson vs. Arrington
One thing we deal with at some length in our new edition is the growing rift between Mormon scholars and some of the General Authorities. Ezra Taft Benson, for instance, is very opposed to some of the things that Church Historian Leonard Arrington is doing. (Benson is President of the Twelve Apostles and is next in line to become President of the Church.)
Arrington’s problems began just after his appointment to the office of Church Historian when he announced the formation of a group known as “Friends of Church History.” When about 500 people showed up for the first meeting, the General Authorities apparently became fearful that such a large group studying history might uncover things which would prove embarrassing to the Church. Orders were given to hold up the project, and no meetings have been held since November 30, 1972 (see, Answering Dr. Clandestine, page 41). Although no official announcement has been made, it is reasonable to assume that “Friends of Church History” is now defunct.
Some of Dr. Arrington’s other projects seem to be endangered by the attitude of the General Authorities. One of Arrington’s dreams was to have the Church publish a one-volume history. This dream seemed to become a reality in 1976 when James B. Allen and Glen M. Leonard produced the book The Story of the Latter-day Saints. In the Foreword to this book, Dr. Arrington said that “two of our finest historians” had been assigned to the project—James B. Allen is, of course, Assistant Church Historian. Dr. Arrington went on to state that he had personally approved the manuscript for publication. Although most Mormons would consider this a harmless publication, President Benson felt that it was too humanistic and it is rumored that he wanted it shredded. In a letter dated June 23, 1978, President Benson stated: “The book, The Story of the Latter-day Saints, will not be republished.” It appears, therefore, that as far as Mormon history is concerned, the views of Leonard Arrington and Ezra Taft Benson are diametrically opposed. While Benson seems to believe that anything unfavorable to the Church should be suppressed, Arrington seems to be somewhat more scholarly in his approach.
Although the rebuttal to our work is disappointing in many respects, it does make some admissions that tend to verify our accusations. It seems, in fact, to contain a thinly-disguised attack on Benson’s view of Mormon history (see Answering Dr. Clandestine, page 43), and some scholars feel that it was published anonymously to hide its true origin from President Benson and other conservatives in the Church. One Mormon historian asked us not to expose the role of the Historical Department in the rebuttal lest it cause unsurmountable problems for Leonard Arrington. We feel, however, that Benson was probably aware of Arrington’s involvement before we brought it to the public’s attention. There is reason to believe that Benson wants to remove Arrington from his position as Church Historian. Some feel that he will gradually be “phased out.” It is also reported that it is becoming increasingly difficult for Mormon scholars to get access to documents in the Historical Dept. If Dr. Arrington should survive under the leadership of President Spencer W. Kimball, it is very unlikely that he will remain Church Historian if Ezra Taft Benson becomes President.
In any case, in the enlarged edition of Answering Dr. Clandestine we have some interesting information concerning the confrontation between Mormon scholars and the General Authorities of the Church. We also deal with the Nag Hammadi texts. Mormon scholars contend that these ancient documents support the Church’s doctrines. Our examination of these texts, however, reveals that although they are important documents, they are of little value when it comes to supporting the unique claims of the Mormon Church.
Originally appeared in: