The Impact of Mormon Critics on LDS Scholarship

It is reported that Hugh Nibley once said: “We need more anti-Mormon books. They keep us on our toes.”¹ At the 2001 FAIR Conference Ross Baron mentioned Neal Postman’s recently coined word, Columbusity. While serendipity means finding something of value by accident, Columbusity is the opposite; it means having found something of value and not knowing it.² “We’ve hit some ‘Columbusity’ with regards to anti-Mormons,” Baron said. “They’re a great thing for us. Do you realize the scholarship of the Church, the convert baptisms, the strengthening of the members, as a result of anti-Mormons? …They’ve been one of the greatest blessings.”³

In my paper I’ll attempt to demonstrate that despite an impediment to Gospel growth (and we most certainly do experience some apostasy because of anti-Mormonism), critics fill a necessary role as part of the gospel plan and often times positively influence Latter-day Saint scholarship.

Can Opposition be Beneficial?

More than two and a half millennia ago, the prophet Lehi said:

For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so…righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness⁴ nor misery, neither good nor bad. (2 Nephi 2:11.)

While we hold no love for the devil, Satan (and evil) are necessary for man’s free agency and hence, progression (D&C 29:39). As Lehi explains, without opposition, there would be no need for mankind’s creation. Lack of opposition, he notes “must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.” (2 Nephi 2:11-12).

In a strange but very real way, Satan is part of the Gospel plan. If it were not for Satan, Adam and Eve would not have progressed with their fall in the Garden. If not for Satan we would not have the opportunity to choose righteousness and happiness over wickedness and misery. Although we are at a constant battle with Satan, and we should avoid his temptations like the plague, he is a necessary evil to help us move forward.

Which brings me to the topic of this paper–our relationship with anti-Mormonism or other LDS critics. I don’t mean to imply that all critics are satanic or evil (although there are a few anti-Mormons which seem to display such characteristics), but rather that opposition appears to be necessary for intellectual as well as spiritual growth. If not for the critics, some of the fascinating LDS scholarly studies may not have been noticed. Mormon-critics have actually strengthened LDS scholarship. “Every time you kick ‘Mormonism,'” said Brigham Young, “you kick it up stairs: you never kick it down stairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it.”⁵

Now just as it would be irresponsible to recommend yielding to Satan so that growth can be gained in overcoming temptation, it would likewise be irresponsible to praise or encourage anti-Mormonism to promote LDS scholarship. Ezra Taft Benson once said:

We are far removed from the days of our forefathers who were persecuted for their peculiar beliefs. Some of us seem to want to share their reward, but are ofttimes afraid to stand up for principles that are controversial in our generation. We need not solicit persecution, but neither should we remain silent in the presence of overwhelming evils, for this makes cowards of men.⁶

Satan’s opposition can bring spiritual death. It can also, however, bring spiritual strength. Likewise, anti-Mormonism has brought spiritual blindness to some Latter-day Saints and investigators, but critics have also enhanced our understanding of Mormon issues and scriptures. Occasionally, even the critics are right and point out details from a different perspective, which in turn launches new LDS studies. And often, when tackling difficult issues, positions are clarified, new insights are gleaned, new perspectives are identified, and new appreciations are gained. As John Sorenson explained, the critics often push “LDS scholars to phrase in fuller, clearer, and better-documented ways what we already have known and said briefly incompletely.”⁷ Likewise, Brigham Young once said:

Let us alone, and we will send Elders to the uttermost parts of the earth, and gather out Israel, wherever they are; and if you persecute us, we will do it the quicker, because we are naturally dull when let alone, and are disposed to take a little sleep, a little slumber, and a little rest. If you let us alone, we will do it a little more leisurely; but if you persecute us, we will sit up nights to preach the Gospel.⁸

Another time he said,

Every time they persecute and try to overcome this people, they elevate us, weaken their own hands, and strengthen the hands and the arms of this people. And every time they undertake to lessen our number, they increase it… Righteousness and power with God increase in this people in proportion as the Devil struggles to destroy it.⁹

The balance of this paper is a list of just a few of the areas in which the critics have helped LDS scholarship.

Bible Studies

The Joseph Smith Translation

The critics have never, of course, accepted the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) as a restoration of lost passages or teachings of the Bible. LDS apologist Kevin Barney, while not responding to a specific critic, has recognized that the traditional LDS members’ perception–that the JST is a pure textual restoration¹⁰–is fraught with difficulties. His articles in Dialogue¹¹ attempt to forestall the charges of the critics while providing a more solid footing for Latter-day Saints by demonstrating that the JST can be more accurately thought of as a redaction–that is that Joseph, armed with new insights gleaned from the restored Gospel, may have modified Biblical passages by applying this new understanding, rather than restoring actual passages which existed in the original manuscripts and were lost.¹²

Barney has also written on Joseph Smith’s emendation of the Hebrew text of Genesis 1:1. His article was an indirect response to criticisms made by a non-LDS Hebrew teacher who, in conversation with a pair of sister missionaries, pointed out some difficulties with Joseph’s treatment of the Hebrew in Genesis 1:1 as noted in the King Follet Discourse. The sister-missionaries, troubled by the difficulties, sent a letter to Salt Lake City which was then forwarded to Keith Meservy, Kevin Barney’s Hebrew teacher at BYU.¹³ “In a sense,” notes Barney, “my article is a reply to that anonymous critic, explaining how the traditional presentation of Joseph’s treatment had been garbled by John Taylor, editor of the Times and Seasons (where the KFD [King Follet Discourse] first appeared), and showing that it is possible to read Joseph’s treatment in a way that works in Hebrew.”¹⁴

New Testament Definition of Christianity

For many years now, a number of anti-Mormon writers–generally Protestant evangelicals–have claimed that Latter-day Saints are not Christian. In direct response to this charge we have been blessed with a more clear understanding of how the New Testament defines Christians as well as a more accurate picture of Christianity in the first two centuries A.D. Daniel Peterson and Stephen Ricks, in their Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints,¹⁵ Stephen Robinson’s Are Mormon’s Christian,¹⁶ and Stephen Robinson and Craig Blomberg’s How Wide the Divide¹⁷ are direct results of the anti-Mormon accusation that Latter-day Saints are not part of Christianity.

Deification/Theosis

While LDS critics have often decried the Mormon doctrine of deification, in recent years–perhaps as a result of the horrid God Makers book and movie of the same title–many anti-Mormons have joined in the mudslinging by charging Latter-day Saints with contra-Christian theology for their belief in the deified potential of mankind. Thanks to the accusations of these critics, however, we now have such wonderful studies on the Biblical and early Christian belief in deification, or Theosis. Peterson, Ricks and Robinson, for example, in their works defending the Christian status of Latter-day Saints, and Peterson’s recent article, “Ye Are Gods,”¹⁸ explore this topic because of anti-Mormons accusations. Their research, along with Roger Cook’s 2002 FAIR Conference presentation¹⁹ on this often-criticized distinctively LDS teaching, adds considerably to our understand of an authentic early Christian doctrine.

Baptism for the Dead

As with our increased understanding of Christian deification, the currently unique LDS practice of baptism for the dead has often come under assault by the critics. In 1948 and 1949 Hugh Nibley wrote several articles in the Improvement Era on the ancient Christian provenance for vicarious baptisms for deceased love ones.²⁰ While Nibley does not state that his research was the direct result of anti-Mormon charges, he does conclude his article by noting:

Work for the dead is an all-important phase of Mormonism about which the world knows virtually nothing. Not even the most zealous anti-Mormon has even begun to offer an explanation for its discovery, which in its way is quite as remarkable as the Book of Mormon. The critics will have to go far to explain this one.²¹

In more recent years, the doctrine has received additional discussion and research–as direct response to anti-Mormon charges–by John Tvedtnes²² as well as Peterson and Ricks, just to name a few. We know more about the early Christian practice of vicarious baptisms thanks to research sparked, in part, because of anti-Mormon accusations.

Martin Luther and the Apostasy

For many years some Latter-day Saints, in support of the belief in an apostasy, have repeated this quote from Martin Luther:

I have sought nothing beyond reforming the Church in conformity with the Holy Scriptures. The spiritual powers have been corrupted not only by sin, but absolutely destroyed; so that there is now nothing in them but a depraved reason and a will that is the enemy and opponent of God. I simply say that Christianity has ceased to exist among those who should have preserved it.²³

This quote was apparently first referenced in an LDS pamphlet on the apostasy. In July 2001, however, LDS critic Bill Barton, posting on Zion’s Lighthouse Message Board, demonstrated that this quote is an amalgamation of three unrelated statements by Martin Luther and does not accurately reflect what Luther was expressing. Barton was correct. The person responsible for the LDS pamphlet was sloppy and the quote should never have been constructed. Kevin Barney wrote an article for the FAIR Web site detailing this issue and requesting the cessation of further reference to this inaccurate quote.²⁴ Sometimes, the critics are right. Sometimes, they can help point out our errors.

Book of Abraham Studies

In 1879 Reynolds and Sjodahl observed that while the Pearl of Great Price had been “vigorously attacked” by opponents, the Saints had “written little in its defense.”²⁵ Little seemed to change for a number of years. In 1912 the critics again made some virtually uncontested charges against the Book of Abraham.²⁶ Nibley complained that the Saints, “frankly admitted their ignorance, and pleaded that they had been caught by surprise.”²⁷ But again, nothing changed. The Saints had opportunities to fortify their Book of Abraham scholarship, but they had failed to do so. So in 1967 when things heated up after the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York presented the recently rediscovered Joseph Smith papyri to the Church,²⁸ Nibley regretted that LDS scholars had been “caught flat footed” by the discovery.²⁹ He lamented the Saints’ lack of response in 1912 and their disregard for the stimulus such criticisms might have provided for deeper Book of Abraham scholarship, and now he complained that “non-Mormon scholars” would raise questions about the papyri “which will be hard to answer because of lack of scholarly knowledge on the subject.” “‘Worldly discoveries,'” Nibley noted, would “‘bury the Church in criticism,'” if members didn’t educate themselves on the issues.³⁰ Elsewhere Nibley observed:

Faced by a solid phalanx of PhD’s [the Egyptologists who were critical of the Book of Abraham] the Mormons were properly overawed; they had no David to go against these Goliaths, and for that they had only themselves to blame… The Mormons…would have done well in undertaking some study of Egyptian on their own.³¹

Nibley remarked that Joseph and Brigham pleaded with the Saints to use their brains and to prepare themselves for just such eventualities. The leaders had advised “the Elders to get up schools, that all… might be taught in the branches of education, and prepare themselves, that the least might be fully competent, to correspond with the wise men of the world.”³² But when the critics attacked in 1912, the Saints had not turned such stumbling blocks into stepping-stones. They had bypassed an opportunity to learn more about the Book of Abraham. “The Mormons,” Nibley criticized, appeared to “have gone all out for the gimmicks and mechanics of education, but have never evinced any real inclination to tackle the tough, basic questions of evidence raised by the Pearl of Great Price.”³³ “A few faded and tattered little scraps of papyrus,” Nibley warned,

…may serve to remind the Latter-day Saints of how sadly they have neglected serious education. …the precious papyri… are greeted with abashed silence. …Not only has our image suffered by such tragic neglect, but now in the moment of truth the Mormons have to face the world unprepared, after having been given a hundred years’ fair warning.”³⁴

Nibley also shared some advice that is, perhaps, still insightful today: “One should not enter the arena unless one is willing to meet more formidable opposition than the gullible student and tractable layman.”³⁵

It behooves us to understand the opposition, to know where they are coming from, the strengths of the arguments, and why they take the positions they take. “We must know and understand the opposition that is in all things,” Brigham Young said, “in order to discern, choose, and receive that which we do know will exalt us to the presence of God.”³⁶ We must be cognizant of the issues raised by our critics in order to know if such criticisms have merit, as well as what we must learn in order to strengthen our defenses.

With the rediscovery of the Joseph Smith papyri, Dialogue published some translations of the facsimiles as well as articles by Jerald Tanner, Hugh Nibley, and others who were researching the Book of Abraham. Some of the critical questions raised in this issue of Dialogue are still being researched today.

Through the past few decades, the Book of Abraham had seen increased attention by LDS and non-LDS scholars and researchers. Nibley produced several early works on the subject and hopes to have his decades-long project, One Eternal Round, published in the near future. The critics have helped us sharpen our pencils along the way.

At a 1979 Sunstone symposium, for example, when LDS critic Ed Ashment pointed out some supposed errors in Nibley’s assessment of the Book of Abraham, Nibley, recognizing that constructive criticism leads to better scholarship, remarked:

Three cheers for Brother Ashment! I am glad to see we are making progress. He has very correctly titled his paper “A Reappraisal of the Facsimiles.” We need it all the time… What Brother Ashment has shown us is that we do not look with care and we do not read with care…

That is the whole idea; this is an ongoing process, and I have some interesting examples of that.

…One of Brother Ashment’s good contributions here is the reminder that the state of mind of the people–both ancient and modern–who produced the Book of Abraham must be taken into consideration when evaluating it…

Since hearing Brother Ashment I have to make some changes in what I have said already. Do I have to hang my head and go hide or something like that because I have been discredited? These things are being found out all the time. There are lots of things that Brother Ashment pointed out that I should have noticed; but I notice I could point out a lot of things that he has not noticed.

…the main thing is to move on into unexplored territory, and go into it with the careful, meticulous examination that he has. Thank you, Brother Ashment!³⁷

Book of Abraham as Penned by Abraham

Evidence suggests that most early Latter-day Saints believed that the Egyptian papyri were actually penned by those authors who were linked to the documents. In 1841, for example, William Appleby observed that “there is a perceptible difference” between the writings of Joseph of old and Abraham. “Joseph,” wrote Appleby, “appears to have been the best scribe.”³⁸ Such a statement suggests that he believed that Joseph of old and Abraham actually penned the papyri that Joseph Smith possessed. Critics, however, have pointed out that the papyri are far too recent to have been actually written by Abraham.³⁹ If the Book of Abraham was not actually penned by Abraham, then why is it named after him? John Gee explains that there is a major “difference between the date of a text [the information contained on the papyri] and the date of a manuscript [the papyri itself]. (For example, Paul’s letter to the Galatians was written in the first century, but most of the manuscripts date to much later.)”⁴⁰

The current state of Book of Abraham scholarship is voluminous and exciting. In the past few years we have seen more than one FARMS conference devoted to the topic, we have seen the republication of Nibley’s Abraham in Egypt,⁴¹ Gee’s A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri,⁴² the recently published Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham,⁴³ as well as FARMS new hot-off-the press The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary.⁴⁴

With the possibility of critical publications on the Book of Abraham in the works from Metcalfe, Ashment and company–perhaps something along the lines of New Approaches to the Book of Abraham⁴⁵–I’m sure our understanding of Book of Abraham will only continue to get better.

Book of Mormon Studies

The two areas which I believe have been impacted the most by the charges of the critics are 1) Book of Mormon Studies and 2) Studies of LDS history.

It is important to understand that for the major part of the Church’s history, the Book of Mormon has not really received a great deal of attention by members as an object of study. Until just recently, the main focus on the Book of Mormon has been on its aspect as a vehicle through which personal revelation could be gained, rather than a text that should be studied for spiritual and intellectual insights.⁴⁶ With the exception of a few notable LDS intellectuals, the Church as a whole did not devote a lot of attention to a real study of Book of Mormon histography. BYU, for example, didn’t require students to study the Book of Mormon until 1961, and the Church Sunday School Curriculum didn’t include the Book of Mormon as a course of study until 1972.⁴⁷ Some of the critics, therefore, noticed things before the Saints did.

Anachronisms

Among the earliest anti-Mormons we find LaRoy Sunderland, a Methodist minister who, in 1838, wrote a book attempting to discredit Mormonism. He noted what he believed to be grammatical errors, plagiarisms and supposed anachronisms–such as records being engraved on brass plates.

In 1857 former Mormon John Hyde wrote an anti-Mormon book⁴⁸ wherein he expressed amusement with a number of Book of Mormon items. His critique is laced with descriptive words such as “contradict,” “pretends,” “imposture,” “inconsistency,” “ridiculous” and “ignorant.” Among the many items that Hyde saw as sure “proof of imposture”⁴⁹ would be included the horse, elephant, sheep and swine,⁵⁰ Nephi’s compass, his ship and temple building, the Jaredite barges, the brother of Jared’s shining stones, and Lehi’s odd habit of renaming rivers and valleys.⁵¹ Hyde criticizes the Book of Mormon for copying the King James Bible “verbatim”⁵² as well as the use of the words “church,” “cimeter,”⁵³ and “glass.”⁵⁴ In his chapter dedicated to analyzing the Book of Mormon, he concludes:

The Book of Mormon consists of two parts. One is stolen, and the other original. Its copied part consists of plagiarisms, culled from the commonest books, collected without knowledge, and combined without skill. Its original part is a mass of contradictions, and miracles sublimed into absurdities. To attempt to palm the whole on human credulity, as a revelation from God, is folly and fraud.⁵⁵

Many LDS critics have not moved past these old chestnuts and canards, whereas LDS scholarship has grown by leaps and bounds. LDS scholars have dealt with virtually all of Hyde’s accusations and have demonstrated that the Book of Mormon’s supposedly anachronistic and absurd terms are neither anachronistic nor absurd. In many cases the arguments have backfired and turned from impugning the Book of Mormon to supporting the Book of Mormon. At the 2001 FAIR Conference Matt Roper presented a paper entitled, “Boomerang Hits and the Book of Mormon,” which discussed the many ways in which the Book of Mormon has been vindicated against the critics and actually strengthened because the Nephite scripture described very real things which were contrary to what the most informed people of Joseph Smith’s day erroneously believed.

A more recent charge of anachronistic language is the Book of Mormon use of the term “tents” when tents were supposedly not known in Book of Mormon times and lands.⁵⁶ This accusation prompted John Sorenson to do a little in-depth homework, which he detailed in an issue of FARMS Review of Books. “In the course of my response,” Sorenson informed me, “I looked up and spelled out a certain amount of ‘new’ information–new in the sense of its not having been utilized in any previous discussions of the Book of Mormon–about the occurrence of ‘tents’ in prehispanic Mesoamerica… So my rebuttal to her [Matheny’s] critique made a substantive, though minor, contribution to Book of Mormon scholarship on the point about ‘tents.'”⁵⁷

In 1887, Rev. M.T. Lamb, a Baptist minister, wrote an anti-Mormon book decrying not only what he saw as anachronisms (such as wheat and barley,⁵⁸ iron and steel,⁵⁹ and records on golden plates⁶⁰), but what he also saw as incongruities in the Saints perception of Book of Mormon lands and the realities of population growths and travel distances.⁶¹

In 1909 B.H. Roberts noticed the critics and took measures to find answers. He wrote a three-volume work entitled New Witness for God, which dealt directly with some of the anti-Mormon charges of his day.⁶²

Geography

For most of the Church’s history, the majority of Latter-day Saints have believed in a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography–that is, they believed the Book of Mormon lands comprised both North and South America with the Panama Canal being the “narrow neck.” Such a view suggested that the Nephites were exterminated in upstate New York. A number of Latter-day Saints pointed to the many Indian artifacts in New York as evidence for this Nephite extermination. Critics like Lamb, and later others, questioned travel distances and population sizes necessary for a hemispheric Book of Mormon geography. The critics also charged that the Book of Mormon could not be true–based on the popular LDS belief–in its claim that all American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites (more on this later).

In New Witness Roberts referred to Lamb’s criticism of the Book of Mormon’s supposed rapid population growth as well as problems regarding long distance travel within a hemispheric model for Book of Mormon geography.⁶³ While Roberts continued to favor a hemispheric model, he acknowledged some validity to this criticism and recognized the possibility of a limited geography for the Book of Mormon.⁶⁴

While there is some debate of whether or not Lamb influenced Roberts who influenced other Latter-day Saints on this issue,⁶⁵ it is certain that the current scholarly view of Book of Mormon geography is quite different from the traditional view.⁶⁶ It seems likely that the questions raised by critics, and pursued by Roberts, sparked an interest among other LDS scholars until a closer reading of what the text actually said led to a more consistent model for Book of Mormon geography.

Environmental Influences

In 1921 a young member by the name of W.E. Riter wrote to apostle James E. Talmage concerning his religious discussions with non-Mormon chemist James Couch⁶⁷ who, after studying the Book of Mormon, had drawn up a list of five (not necessarily original⁶⁸) criticisms.

1. How could there be such a diversity of Native American languages in such a short time if the Lehites were the ones who populated the Americas?
2. Why does the Book of Mormon mention the horse when they hadn’t been introduced until the arrival of the Spanish?
3. Why does the Book of Mormon mention a steel bow in 600 B.C. Jerusalem when there is no record of steel being known that early among the Jews?
4. How could Book of Mormon warriors have “cimiters” when they were not known until the rise of Mohammedan power many centuries later?
5. From where did the Nephites obtain “silk” if silk was unknown in the ancient New World?⁶⁹

Roberts sent a response to Riter with the best answers he could muster,⁷⁰ but he was not completely satisfied with the answers himself. Writing to the Brethren, Roberts expressed his intent to study the “difficulties” in the Book of Mormon from a critical perspective.⁷¹ Roberts wrote:

I am most thoroughly convinced of the necessity of all the brethren herein addressed becoming familiar with these Book of Mormon problems, and finding the answer for them, as it is a matter that will concern the faith of the Youth of the Church now as also in the future, as well as such casual inquirers as may come to us from the outside world.⁷²

Roberts recorded his research “for those who should be its students and know on what ground the Book of Mormon may be questioned, as well as that which supports its authenticity and its truth.”⁷³ Roberts wrote to his friend Richard Lyman that a “thorough digest” of such difficulties would be advantageous to “our future Defenders of the Faith.”⁷⁴ This digest resulted in the Studies of the Book of Mormon, which wasn’t published for general use until 1985.⁷⁵

When Roberts wrote his New Witness series, he quoted from Ethan Smith⁷⁶ and Josiah Priest⁷⁷ in support for Hebrew migrations to the New World. Now with Mr. Couch’s criticisms fresh on his mind, he began an in-depth investigation into a study of the Book of Mormon from a critic’s point -of view. Playing devil’s advocate, Roberts now looked to the writings of Ethan Smith, Priest, and Adair as sources that critics might claim influenced the Book of Mormon.⁷⁸

Roberts (who maintained his testimony of the Book of Mormon throughout his life)⁷⁹ raised more questions than answers in his studies, but these questions gave future LDS scholars food for thought, as well as fuel for the skeptics

FARMS

In 1979 FARMS was born, at least in part because of the lack of good defense against the critics. John Welch, the founder of FARMS, wrote in a review of an anthology hostile to the Book of Mormon, “I, for one, began my work on the Book of Mormon at a time when hardly anything positive had been written–from a scholarly point of view–about its antiquity. I believed the balance needed to be tipped back by looking for, finding, and saying things in favor of the book.”⁸⁰ While currently only a small part of FARMS is apologetic in nature, much of Nibley’s works–reprinted by FARMS–and many of the articles in FARMS Review of Books has been motivated by accusations of the critics.⁸¹

On the flip side, we’ve recently seen a mixed bag of attacks on the Book of Mormon. While most of the anti-Mormon rhetoric has added very little by the way of new arguments or additional insights, other LDS critics (not always lumped into the same category as typical “anti-Mormons”) have, at times added fuel or insights to the discussions. With the emergence of liberal or not-your-typical-anti-Mormon critical writings, such as those published in Dialogue, Sunstone, and books such as Metcalfe’s New Approaches, we have been privileged to discussions and investigations into Book of Mormon issues.

LDS anthropologist John Sorenson, who authored An American Setting for the Book of Mormon, once noted that from the time he began publishing on Book of Mormon topics he has “urged” his colleagues to “criticize and thus to improve” his work. When some criticisms were raised, he found that they had “a beneficial effect.” He explains that these challenges have sent him back “for a fuller look” at his own work. After which he has come away “confirmed” in his view that his original theories were sound.⁸² Likewise, John Welch noted that he was “grateful to the authors of New Approaches” for making some valuable points.

I am happy to entertain new possibilities that help me to understand the full text and its ancient and modern contexts better. Even the good branches of the olive tree need to be trimmed periodically. By the same token, where I find errors of fact, method, or judgment in the works of others, I will not hesitate to point them out or to call them into question. While the wheat and the tares are allowed to grow together in the field of the world, within the House of Israel a different metaphor applies: branches that produce bad fruit are cut off and cast into the fire.⁸³

Which Book Came First?

LDS scholars have been split on which Book of Mormon book was dictated after the loss of the 116 pages. Some have suggested that 1 Nephi came first, others claimed the priority of the Words of Mormon and still others have suggested the priority of Mosiah. LDS-critic Brent Metcalfe, who authored an article endorsing the priority of Mosiah (for reasons which support his naturalistic assumptions of the Book of Mormon), noticed an apparent pattern in the usage of the terms “wherefore” and “therefore” in the Book of Mormon, which affirms his claims. This pattern suggests Joseph had a tendency to move from one form of a word to an alternate version of the same and it can also be found in parts of the D&C. This suggests that the pattern was due to a shift in Joseph Smith’s usage of the words.⁸⁴ In reviewing this article, John Tvedtnes, while disagreeing with Metcalfe’s conclusions for the significance of the priority of Mosiah, nevertheless noted that Metcalfe provided “valuable insights into the order in which the books comprising the Book of Mormon were dictated.”⁸⁵

Royal Skousen, whom Metcalfe claims favored a 1 Nephi priority based on personal conversations,⁸⁶ was also intrigued by Metcalfe’s observation and noted so in his review of Metcalfe’s article.⁸⁷ Likewise, he noted that on occasion some studies of the critics have “been beneficial” to LDS scholarship and noted the interesting lexical pattern found by Metcalfe. “So sometimes,” Skousen wrote in answer to my queries, “more academic approaches, even if antagonistic, can bring up issues that need to be researched.”⁸⁸ While Skousen explains that more research is still needed, and that he has not reviewed all of the evidences available, he currently appears to lean toward the priority of Mosiah based on the information available.⁸⁹

Nahom

With the recent rediscovery of the ancient-world site NHM, the critics have rebutted the idea that this supports the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. S. Kent Brown’s presentation at the 2001 FAIR Conference was, to some degree, initiated by these criticisms. Brown admits that these criticisms sent him back to the library for additional research. This research added to his understanding of the NHM issue and simply strengthened his acceptance of NHM as the plausible candidate for the Book of Mormon Nahom and that this information was likely not available to the Joseph Smith.⁹⁰

Plagiarism from the KJV

From early on, some critics have found fault with the Book of Mormon because of its usage of the King James language and supposedly King James passages in the Book of Mormon.⁹¹ Two targets of this accusation have been the most common: Isaiah and the Sermon on the Mount.

In the 1960s a critical article was circulating which attempted to show that Joseph purposefully injected variants into the early Isaiah passages in the Book of Mormon but wearied of the task by the time he dictated the later Isaiah passages. The article caused Tvedtnes to research the issue, the results of which were printed in the Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon.⁹² Tvedtnes’ research (which yielded a different conclusion) has given us new insights into the differences between the two scriptures’ Isaiah passages.⁹³

Some critics, as early as Rev. Lamb and more recently Stan Larson, have claimed that Joseph plagiarized the Sermon on the Mount.⁹⁴ In 1990, four years after Larson printed his accusations, John Welch responded to Larson in his The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount.⁹⁵ In 1998 Welch updated his book with even more information.⁹⁶ There is no question that Welch’s research contributed to Book of Mormon insights by directly dealing with issues raised by the critics. To give one example, Welch–in a separate article responding to the criticism of the Book of Mormon’s sermon at the temple–noted how one critic charged the Book of Mormon with error for quoting Jesus as saying that the righteous “shall be filled with the Holy Ghost” (3 Nephi 12:5). This critic claimed that the Book of Mormon was wrong because the Greek word chortazo refers to filling “the stomach” so it couldn’t mean to be filled “with the Holy Ghost.” For more than a decade Welch kept this criticism in the back of his mind but was unable to provide a good response. Then, one day he found in the Septuagint the use of the same Greek chortazo with the meaning of being “filled with the spirit, being satiated with the likeness of God.”⁹⁷

DNA

This is one of the newest criticisms against the Book of Mormon. As noted earlier, the one-time popular view among Latter-day Saints was that all American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites. Some critics, such as Rev. Lamb, pointed out that such a claim was untenable. B.H. Roberts suggested that there might have been other groups, simultaneously inhabiting the Americas with the Lehites, despite the Book of Mormons silence on the issue.⁹⁸ Within the last few decades, other LDS scholars have come to conclude that not only were there others here when the Lehites arrived, but also that the Lehites were a very small group which made very little–if any–impact on the surrounding native cultures. If anything, the Nephites and original Lamanites were influenced more by their surroundings than the other way around.⁹⁹

With the advent of DNA studies we find that such a position must be correct. In fact, it demonstrates that the traditional LDS view is most definitely in error and that the current LDS view (possibly influenced to some degree by the charges of early critics) is the most likely possibility. Current critics, however, use the DNA evidence against the strawman of the traditional LDS view, rather than the current LDS view (which preceded the DNA evidence by several years).

Some critics, however, go a step further and claim that DNA studies demonstrate that there is no evidence of any Israelite infusion (even from a small group) into ancient America.¹⁰⁰ When no LDS geneticists initially wrote rebuttals to the criticisms, John Sorenson became one of the first LDS scholars to respond to the “premature” and “dogmatic statements about the lack of ‘Jewish’ genes” among Amerindians.¹⁰¹ The ensuing debate soon gathered the attention of other LDS DNA experts. Scott Woodward, in fact, delivered a paper on this very topic at the 2001 FAIR Conference in direct response to the charges of the critics.¹⁰² The debate is continuing and has stimulated LDS scholars to further understand the relationship between DNA findings and the infusion of Lehites into ancient America. The ongoing research from this debate should be interesting.

History

LDS historical studies seems to be the other area that has benefited the most because of critics.

Fawn Brodie

In the 1946 David O. McKay’s niece, Fawn Brodie, wrote a book, entitled No Man Knows My History,¹⁰³ which is still hailed by some non-LDS reviewers as the definitive work on Joseph Smith. Brodie was one of the first critics to continue where B.H. Roberts had left off with the supposed Ethan Smith connection to the Book of Mormon.¹⁰⁴ She attempted to demonstrate that Joseph sponged information from his environment when he authored the Book of Mormon. Nibley responded by poking fun at Brodie, but he also delved deeper into his own Book of Mormon studies. And while most LDS historians ignored her book, Louis Midgley notes that it did have “an impact on the Brethren. They had by and large ignored the Book of Mormon until she published that book.” The Book of Mormon had not received a lot of attention by the Church in the 1930s and 1940s until the Saints began to see it in a more serious light.¹⁰⁵

Jerald and Sandra Tanner

Among the most prolific LDS critics are Jerald and Sandra Tanner. While they have criticized virtually all aspects of Mormonism, only their dealings with LDS historical issues have really impacted LDS scholarship. Probably the most notable area in which the Tanners have contributed to LDS scholarship is in their reprints of early LDS documents.¹⁰⁶ In the 1960s when primary LDS documents were difficult to secure, the Tanners were busy reproducing–at times by less than ethical means and most certainly for polemical purposes¹⁰⁷–many hard-to-get early LDS documents. In 1961, for instance, in their fist venture into reprinting early LDS texts, the Tanners reproduced the complete edition of the 1833 A Book of Commandments.

Following this printing they reproduced several other early LDS works including all six volumes of The Times and Seasons, two volumes of The Evening and Morning Star and 1851 edition of The Pearl of Great Price, three volumes of The Messenger and Advocate, seven volumes of The Millennial Star, an 1853 reproduction of Lucy Mack Smith’s Joseph Smith’s History by his Mother, David Whitmer’s An Address to All Believers in Christ, Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, E.D. Howe’s Mormonism Unvailed, Parley P. Pratt’s Key to the Science of Theology, several pamphlets by Orson Pratt, as well as excerpts from Clayton’s diary of Joseph Smith and many other works.¹⁰⁸ Many of these publications were unavailable to the general public until the Tanners began their reproductions. Their reproductions in turn stimulated other publishers–including the Church itself–to reprint these early LDS texts.¹⁰⁹

“The larger impact of such publication efforts,” notes Lawrence Foster, “has been to help some Mormons become more aware of their rich heritage and to encourage scholarly attention to the fascinating early days of the Mormon movement.”¹¹⁰ While the Tanners’ own works in Mormon history are lacking, their publications nevertheless “helped stimulate historical studies” and that they “have highlighted issues which need to be resolved.”¹¹¹

Some LDS historians privately expressed appreciation for the availability of these hard-to-get texts, despite the fact that they came by way of anti-Mormons.¹¹² More than one LDS historian has supposedly stated–with tongue firmly planted in cheek–“The Church should subsidize the Tanners because of all the historical research they do for it.”¹¹³ Reed Durham, former director of the LDS Institute of Religion at the University of Utah, gave a speech in 1972 wherein he acknowledged that along with the threat of harm that the Tanners pose to the Church, they have done more to put together sources for research than anyone else outside of the Church. “They’ve become very important in understanding our Church history.” Durham went on to explain that he purchased the reproductions from the Tanners because he wanted the “primary sources” that were part of his “heritage” and the Tanners were “the only ones producing” them. Quoting Lehi’s statement of “opposition in all things,” Durham said:

“I can’t help but think that when they raise these issues it does something to us to have to defend… When I see something that counters what I’ve been taught or what I know or what I understand or what I feel, the way to counter research…unpleasant to me is not by sticking my head in the sand like an ostrich, but by more research. I may have to revamp, and knowledge sometimes is a dangerous thing. But I will revamp, and I will understand better my heritage. …what I’m trying to say is that they have become, in a sense, catalysts to sharpen our own historical understanding. We’ve had to get on the stick and do some study, and do some homework that sometimes we haven’t done.”¹¹⁴

Apparently Durham’s speech sparked some notice among the Brethren. A few years following Durham’s speech (possibly when copies of the speech were being circulated), Apostle Ezra Taft Benson delivered a talk to religious educators in Salt Lake City wherein he said:

It has come to our attention that some of our teachers, particularly in our university programs, are purchasing writings from known apostates, or from other liberal sources, in an effort to become informed about certain points of view or to glean from their research. You must realize that when you purchase their writings or subscribe to their periodicals, you help sustain their cause. We would hope that their writings not be on your seminary or institute or personal bookshelves. We are entrusting you to represent the Lord and the First Presidency to your students, not the views of the detractors of the Church.¹¹⁵

Benson, of course, had a legitimate gripe. It seems inappropriate for Church educators to use Church funds to purchase materials that have drawn people out of the Church. And even if such purchases were made with private funds, anti-Mormon materials in the hands of young and often naive and spiritually immature minds–such as might be found among seminary and institute students–can be spiritually dangerous.

I do not believe, however, that Benson’s advice is aimed at scholars who mine critical material in the hopes of gleaning possible insights or perspectives not previously pursued, or to apologists who are attempting to defend the faith for those whose testimonies may be weakened by such material. Obviously it is impossible to respond to accusations unless you know what those accusations are, and while the Church does not often publish apologetic works officially, they have–at times–suggested or encouraged apologetic writings.¹¹⁶

While the Tanners have made numerous unsupported or erroneous charges against the Church, they have occasionally been correct in some insights pertaining to supposedly early LDS documents. For instance, Jerald denounced one early pamphlet attributed to Oliver Cowdery as a forgery. He was correct. And as Foster notes, this is “only one example of research and analysis which would do credit to any professional historian.”¹¹⁷

The Tanners were also among the first to question the authenticity of Hofmann’s “Salamander Letter” in the face of experts who claimed it was authentic.¹¹⁸ Jerald claimed that it sounded too much like the early anti-Mormon book, Mormonism Unvailed by E.D. Howe.¹¹⁹ “Few people took notice of Jerald’s concerns,” notes LDS historian Scott Faulring, “and in the end he [Jerald Tanner] was right (as Mark Hofmann later confessed that he lifted ideas and phrases from Howe’s book).”¹²⁰

The Tanners have also seen fit to denounce some of the more outlandish anti-Mormon distortions such as those imparted in the horrific God Makers II.¹²¹

Seerstones and Treasure Digging

When the Tanners accused Joseph of “glass-looking,” digging for treasure by way of a “seer stone” and with being charged for his activities in an 1826 trial,¹²² most LDS apologists disregarded the charges as coming from the anti-Mormon contemporaries of Joseph’s day. “LDS church historians,” wrote Marvin Hill, “have responded over the years with accounts which minimize or deny any money-digging connections.”¹²³

New discoveries (and supposed discoveries) reopened the debate. The first was the discovery of an 1826 court document referring to charges against Joseph as a “glass looker.”¹²⁴ Prior to the discovery of this presumably authentic document, most LDS apologists, including Widstoe, Kirkham, and Nibley, denied that such a court case had ever happened.¹²⁵

With the emergence of the Hofmann forgeries, especially the “Salamander Letter,” the Saints saw a renewed interest in Joseph Smith and his early seer-stone activities. LDS scholars began to seriously study the issue and new conclusions were the result–some of which were not far different from what the critics were claiming.

Marvin Hill pointed out, “both sides have seemingly assumed, until very recently, that if Joseph Smith believed in and practiced magic to find buried treasure then his story of the inspired discovery of the plates of the Book of Mormon may be suspect.”¹²⁶ Now, however, we understand that treasure digging and divining was simply part of Joseph Smith’s culture.¹²⁷ For instance, Quinn’s Early Mormonism and the Magic World View was most likely influenced by Hofmann’s forgeries and thus based on false premises.¹²⁸ However his “chapter on seer-stones and treasure digging,” notes Richard Anderson, “has validity.”¹²⁹

Hofmann’s forgeries also sparked BYU Studies to devote an entire issue to Joseph’s treasure-digging days.¹³⁰ The combination of Hofmann forgeries and old anti-Mormon arguments forced LDS scholars to dig in and research, which resulted in additional light being shed on early LDS cultural traditions as well as the early seer-stone days of Joseph Smith.

The Smith Family

At times, the critics have opened other windows into the early life of Smith and his family. Tvedtnes, for instance, noted that he found some interesting, yet unfamiliar details about the religious turmoil in Joseph’s time when reviewing one critic’s work.¹³¹

When Quinn wrote about the timing of Joseph’s marriage to Emma and how Joseph brought Emma with him to get the plates because Alvin–whom the angel had originally requested–had passed away,¹³² Anderson remarked that “Quinn is on to a legitimate body of material here, and puts it all out fairly well–however, with his own interpretation.”¹³³

Richard L. Bushman notes that through years of research, LDS-critics Marquardt and Walters have dug up tidbits of information to help us understand life among the Smiths. Their studies, Bushman observed, have added “new material to the record of Joseph Smith.”¹³⁴ He points out, however, that they are also often in error in their conclusions.

First Vision

In 1967 LDS critic Wesley P. Walters wrote a tract entitled New Light on Mormon Origins, which challenged the traditional LDS account of Joseph’s events leading to the First Vision by questioning if there really was a religious revival in 1820 Palmyra, as Joseph claimed.¹³⁵ If there was no 1820 revival, Walters argued, then there was no First Vision.

This tract stimulated a host of activity including the creation of a BYU group that went back to Palmyra to research the First Vision. In 1969 an entire issue of BYU Studies was devoted to their research.¹³⁶ This issue, notes Bachman, “almost single handedly (along with the discovery of the papyri) rejuvenated BYU Studies.” Milton Backman’s books on the First Vision and restoration¹³⁷ “were direct outgrowths of that group’s effort.” The controversy also prompted research and publications by LDS historian Larry Porter.¹³⁸ Such research might not have arisen had it not been for the Walters’ article. Bachman believes that “the influence of Walters and the BYU group still influence historical research today.”¹³⁹

Lou Midgley observes:

We are almost always a step behind our critics. The initial serious look at the Palmyra materials and the so-called issue of whether there was a revival that got JS [Joseph Smith] started, and a host of similar issues were originally motivated by our desire to have a reasonable response to our critics.¹⁴⁰

Two years later Dialogue published a revised and enlarged version of Walters’ article as well as a response by Richard L. Bushman. While Bushman had some disagreements with Walters’ conclusions, he also recognized that Walters’ article had “set us back because Mr. Walters took an entirely new track and followed it with admirable care.”

Were there revivals in 1819-20 in the vicinity of Palmyra as Joseph said? Everyone up until now had assumed that of course there were. Walters said no, and the sources of his answer were impressive. They stood apart from the biased materials on which most anti-Mormon work is based. They were contemporaneous with the event, and they were right to the point. Our consternation was a genuine compliment to the quality of Mr. Walters’ work.

While Mr. Walters has put us on the spot for the moment, in the long run Mormon scholarship will benefit from his attack. Not only was there an immediate effort to answer the question of an 1819 revival, but Mormon historians asked themselves how many other questions about our early history remain unasked as well as unanswered… Without wholly intending it, Mr. Walters may have done as much to advance the cause of Mormon history within the Church as anyone in recent years.¹⁴¹

Even more recently, Bushman has written of the ongoing research into the Palmyra revivals:

Can we reconcile all of the conflicting evidence and get back to the actual chronology of events from 1816 to 1824? At this point, I think we must acknowledge the possibility of an error somewhere in Joseph’s chronology, simply because of the internal contradiction. On the other hand, we are well-advised to take care in overthrowing the report of a person who was on the scene merely because circumstantial evidence raises doubts.¹⁴²

Research sparked by Walter’s tract has demonstrated that there really were Methodist camp meetings, or revivals, in Josephs Smith’s vicinity in 1820.

Other Historical Issues

Other interesting historical studies which have surfaced because of the charges of the critics–some of which are still being discussed–include Richard Anderson’s important work on the Book of Mormon witnesses¹⁴³ Joseph Smith’s possible ownership of a Jupiter talisman,¹⁴⁴ and the involvement of LDS women in blessing the sick,¹⁴⁵ to mention just a few.

Conclusion

Nearly all LDS apologists with whom I have conversed on the topic of my paper tell me the same thing: The accusations of critics have often prompted them to greater research, which resulted in a clearer understanding of the issues. Scott Faulring has estimated–in response to my queries–that about 25 to 30 percent of his research has been “motivated by the inaccurate or warped interpretation/presentation by our religious opponents.” And, he notes, “it is a sad fact that sometimes our critics do ‘get it right’ but we ignore their findings because of who they are (Marquardt, Vogel, Tanner, etc.).”¹⁴⁶

Stephen Ricks replied to my query: “I can say that my insights have been sharpened by responding to implicitly or explicitly anti-Mormon statements.”¹⁴⁷ And as Kevin Barney expressed to me:

I think we need a certain level of outside criticism. We’re not very tolerant of “in-house” criticism, but we need some sort of criticism to cause us to rethink and reevaluate what we do, our literature, our doctrine, and so forth. Without such critiques, we could get mired in iconoclastic, provincial thought and practices. The best disinfectant is sunshine, as they say. If it were just Mormons in Utah, if the railroad never came, and we were left totally to our own devices, you and I would have multiple wives, we would believe Adam is our God, and blacks would not hold the priesthood.¹⁴⁸

If it were not for the critics, FAIR would not exist, and the research which has resulted from the FAIR organization, as well as other LDS apologetic Web site and discussion boards, would never have come about. While I can’t say I look forward to more stumbling blocks any more than I look forward to other character-building trials in my personal life–no one wants to be like Job–I can say that by turning stumbling blocks into stepping-stones, we have the opportunity to grow spiritually and intellectually.

Stumbling blocks can stub toes, twist ankles, trip up weak or careless travelers and hinder or halt forward progression. When turned into stepping-stones, however, slippery paths are easier to climb. With stepping-stones we can help each other ascend up the path of knowledge and understanding of Mormonology. To quote Orson Pratt:

Convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds.¹⁴⁹

Notes

¹ Hugh Nibley, Nibley on the Timely and the Timeless (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), xii.

² See http://marylaine.com/il2000.html and http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:KS_5i5zcaMoC:www.uahc.org/oh/oh007/Window/tbs_window_apr_2002.pdf+%22neal+postman%22+columbus&hl=en&start=2&ie=UTF?8

³ Ross Baron, “Feeding the Multitudes: Being Fishers of Men,” 2001 FAIR Conference.

⁴ It is probable that the original Book of Mormon manuscript read, happiness and misery rather than “holiness and misery.” See Royal Skousen, “History of the Critical Text Project of the Book of Mormon,” Uncovering the Original Book of Mormon Manuscript, edited by, M. Gerald Bradford and Alison V. P. Coutts (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002), 16.

⁵ Brigham Young, “Necessity of Trials, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 22 May 1859, Vol. 7 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1860), 145.

⁶ Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 396.

⁷ John Sorenson, personal e-mail, February 28, 2002; emphasis in original.

⁸ Brigham Young, “Utah Delegate to Washington, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 17 June 1855, Vol. 2 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1855), 320.

⁹ Brigham Young, “Restoration-Resurrection, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 21 October 1860, Vol. 8 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1861), 225-226.

¹⁰ The Words of Joseph Smith, edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980), 256 and Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976), 327; all referenced in Kevin L. Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” Dialogue 19/3 (Fall 1986), 86.

¹¹ Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” 85-102 and Kevin L. Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” Dialogue 30/4 (Winter 1997): 103-135.

¹² Kevin L. Barney, personal e-mail, June 30, 2002 and Barney, “The Joseph Smith Translation and Ancient Texts of the Bible,” 85-102.

¹³ Barney, “Joseph Smith’s Emendation of Hebrew Genesis 1:1,” 103-104.

¹⁴ Kevin L. Barney, personal e-mail June 30, 2002.

¹⁵ Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks, Offenders for a Word: How Anti-Mormons Play Word Games to Attack the Latter-day Saints (Salt Lake City: Aspen Books, 1992).

¹⁶ Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1991).

¹⁷ Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and An Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, Illlinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997).

¹⁸ Daniel C. Peterson, “‘Ye Are Gods:’ Psalm 82 and John 19 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind,” Disciple as Scholar: Essays on Scripture and the Ancient World in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, edited by Stephen D. Ricks, Donald Parry, and Andrew H. Hedges (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 471-594.

¹⁹ Roger Cook, “Early Christian Theosis,” 2002 FAIR Conference.

²⁰ See Hugh Nibley, “Baptism for the Dead in Ancient Times,” Improvement Era 51 (1948): 786-788, 836-838; 52 (1949): 24-26, 60, 90-91, 109-110, 112, 146-148, 180-183, 212-214; reprinted in Hugh Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1987).

²¹ Nibley, Mormonism and Early Christianity, 149.

²² John A. Tvedtnes, “The Dead Shall Hear The Voice,” a review of Luke P. Wilson’s “Does the Bible Teach Salvation for the Dead? The Evidence, Part 1,” and “Did Jesus Establish Baptism for the Dead?” Both reviewed by Tvedtnes in FARMS Review of Books 10:2, 184-199.

²³ An on-line version of this pamphlet can be found at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/8413/RESTORATION.HTM

²⁴ Kevin L. Barney, “Did Luther Think He Lived During a Time of Apostasy?” http://www.fair?lds.org/Pubs/LutherQuote.pdf

²⁵ George Reynolds and Janne M. Sjodahl, Commentary on the Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1965 [originally 1879]), 238.

²⁶ Bishop Franklin S. Spalding’s Joseph Smith, Jr. As a Translator (Salt Lake City: The Arrow Press, 1912).

²⁷ Hugh Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price,” The Improvement Era (January 1968), 24.

²⁸ John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2000), 9.

²⁹ Daily Universe, Brigham Young University, December 1, 1967, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?, Fifth Edition (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), 294.

³⁰ Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?, 294-297.

³¹ Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price,” 23; quote from Brigham Young History, December 15, 1844 (manuscript in the Church Historian’s Office, Salt Lake City.)

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ Hugh Nibley, “Prolegomena To Any Study of the Book of Abraham,” BYU Studies 8:2 (Winter 1968), 171.

³⁵ Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price,” 23.

³⁶ Brigham Young, “Exchange of Feeling and Sentiment, Etc.,” Journal of Discourses, reported by G.D. Watt 28 June 1857, Vol. 4 (London: Latter-Day Saint’s Book Depot, 1857), 373.

³⁷ Hugh Nibley, “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham: A Response,” Sunstone 4:5-6 (December 1979), 49-51.

³⁸ William I. Appleby, Biography and Journal, LDS archives, as quoted in Edward H. Ashment, “Reducing Dissonance: The Book of Abraham as a Case Study,” The Word of God: Essays on Mormon Scripture, edited by Dan Vogel (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1990), 229; my thanks to Brent Metcalfe for referring me to this information.

³⁹ See Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?, 320-322. That LDS scholars agree for a late date for the papyri, see Hugh Nibley, “Phase One,” Dialogue 3:2 (Summer 1968), 103-104; John Gee, “A History of the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham,” (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1999), 15.

⁴⁰ Gee, “A History of the Joseph Smith Papyri and Book of Abraham,” 15.

⁴¹ Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, Second Edition (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000).

⁴² John Gee, A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri.

⁴³ Traditions About the Early Life of Abraham, edited by John A. Tvedtnes, Brian M. Hauglid, and John Gee (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001).

⁴⁴ Michael D. Rhodes, The Hor Book of Breathings: A Translation and Commentary (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2002).

⁴⁵ This tentative title was given to me in personal conversation with Brent Metcalfe, 28 July 2002, for a probable project of writings critical of the Book of Abraham which may be compiled sometime in the future.

⁴⁶ Terryl L. Givens, By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 236, 238.

⁴⁷ Ibid. 241; see also 85.

⁴⁸ John Hyde, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs (New York: W.P. Fetridge, 1857).

⁴⁹ Ibid., 216.

⁵⁰ Ibid., 224, 226.

⁵¹ Ibid., 223.

⁵² Ibid., 234.

⁵³ Ibid., 235.

⁵⁴ Ibid., 231-232.

⁵⁵ Ibid., 236.

⁵⁶ Deanne G. Matheny, “Does the Shoe Fit? A Critique of the Limited Tehuantepec Geography,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology, edited by Brent Lee Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 297-300.

⁵⁷ John Sorenson, personal e-mail, February 28, 2002.

⁵⁸ Rev. M. T. Lamb, The Golden Bible, or, The Book Of Mormon Is It From God? (New York: Ward & Drummond, 1887), 304.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 301.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 11.

⁶¹ Ibid., 309.

⁶² B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909).

⁶³ Dan Vogel, Indian Origins and the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1986), 85 n. 68; see also Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, 110, 277 n. 38 and B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 93, 252-253.

⁶⁴ B.H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God, Vol. 3, Chapter 46, 502-503.

⁶⁵ Sorenson disagrees with Vogel’s assessment that the limited geography model for the Book of Mormon began with Roberts’ review of Lamb’s critique; see John L. Sorenson, The Geography of the Book of Mormon Events: A Source Book (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1992), 19.

⁶⁶ Sorenson, The Geography of Book of Mormon Events.

⁶⁷ George D. Smith, “B.H. Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologist and Skeptic,” American Apocrypha, edited by Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 125.

⁶⁸ Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, 109.

⁶⁹ Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 36.

⁷⁰ Ibid., 51-55.

⁷¹ Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 46.

⁷² Ibid., 46-47.

⁷³ Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 58.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 60.

⁷⁵ B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon.

⁷⁶ Roberts, New Witness for God, 49, 167, 169-171.

⁷⁷ Ibid., 3 n. 6.

⁷⁸ Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, 152.

⁷⁹ Truman G. Madsen and John W. Welch, “Did B.H. Roberts Lose Faith in the Book of Mormon?” (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 1985).

⁸⁰ John W. Welch, “Approaching New Approaches,” FARMS Review of Books 6:1 (1994), 150.

⁸¹ Danel Bachman, personal e-mail, June 2, 2002 and Noel Reynolds (former President of FARMS), personal e-mail, March 1, 2002.

⁸² John L. Sorenson, 331-335 on Deanne G. Matheny, 297.

⁸³ Welch, “Approaching New Approaches,” 152.

⁸⁴ Brent Lee Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” New Approaches to the Book of Mormon: Explorations in Critical Methodology (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1993), 395-444.

⁸⁵ John Tvedtnes, review of New Approaches in FARMS Review of Books, 6:1, 40-41.

⁸⁶ Metcalfe, “The Priority of Mosiah: A Prelude to Book of Mormon Exegesis,” 397 n. 4.

⁸⁷ Royal Skousen, “Critical Methodology and the Text of the Book of Mormon,” FARMS Review of Books 6:1, 140-143.

⁸⁸ Royal Skousen, personal e-mail, March 1, 2002.

⁸⁹ Skousen informed me that he currently leans towards a possible acceptance for the priority of Mosiah based on an aggregate of evidences-Metcalfe’s example of “wherefore” being just one of many. He notes, however, that he has not carefully gone over all the evidences so he is not firm in his leanings until he is able put it all together. (Royal Skousen, personal e-mail, August 5, 2002 [a & b]; see also The Original Manuscript of the Book of Mormon: Typographical Facsimile of the Extant Text, edited by Royal Skousen (Provo, Utah: FARMS, 2001), 5-6.)

⁹⁰ S. Kent Brown, personal conversation; see also “Nahom/NHM,” Zion’s Lighthouse Message Board (2-26-2001) posted in Critical Canon (copy in author’s possession) and “Lehi and Sariah in the Desert,” 2001 FAIR Conference.

⁹¹ Hyde, Mormonism: Its Leaders and Designs, 234.

⁹² John A. Tvedtnes, “Isaiah Variants in the Book of Mormon,” Isaiah and the Prophets: Inspired Voices from the Old Testament (Provo, Utah: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1984), 165-177.

⁹³ John Tvedtnes, personal e-mail, June 3, 2002.

⁹⁴ Lamb, The Golden Bible, iii, 187-188, 212; Stan Larson, “The Sermon on the Mount: What Its Textual Transformation Discloses Concerning the Historicity of the Book of Mormon,” Trinity Journal N.S. (1986), 23-45.

⁹⁵ John Welch, The Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1990); that Welch wrote Sermon at the Temple in response to Larson, see FARMS Review of books 6:1, 152.

⁹⁶ John Welch, Illuminating the Sermon at the Temple and the Sermon on the Mount: An Approach to Matthew 5-7 and 3 Nephi 11-18 (Provo, Utah: BYU University, 1998).

⁹⁷ Welch, “Approaching New Approaches,” 150-151.

⁹⁸ Smith, “B.H. Roberts: Book of Mormon Apologist and Skeptic,” 133.

⁹⁹ John L. Sorenson, “When Lehi’s Party Arrived in the Land, Did They find Others There?” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 1:1 (Provo, Utah: FARMS, Fall 1992), 1-34.

¹⁰⁰ For the latest critical argument see Thomas W. Murphy, “Lamanite Genesis, Genealogy, and Genetics,” American Apocrypha, edited by Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002), 47-77.

¹⁰¹ John L. Sorenson, personal letter, February 28, 2002. For Sorenson’s published response, see John L. Sorenson, “The Problematic Role of DNA Testing In Unraveling Human History,” Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 9:2, 66-74.

¹⁰² Scott Woodward, “DNA and the Book of Mormon,” 2001 FAIR Conference.

¹⁰³ Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History: The Life of Joseph Smith (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1946).

¹⁰⁴ Robert N. Hullinger, Joseph Smith’s Response to Skepticism (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 183; see also Brodie, No Man Knows My History, 46-48.

¹⁰⁵ Louis Midgley, personal e-mail, June 2, 2002.

¹⁰⁶ Thanks to Kevin Barney for reminding me of this.

¹⁰⁷ Lawrence Foster, “Career Apostates: Reflections on the Works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Dialogue 17:2 (Summer 1984), 47-48; 39.

¹⁰⁸ Ibid., 39.

¹⁰⁹ Ibid., 47.

¹¹⁰ Ibid., 39.

¹¹¹ Ibid., 47.

¹¹² Ibid., 39 n. 9.

¹¹³ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, Fifth Edition (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), iv.

¹¹⁴ Speech by Reed Durham, Director, Salt Lake Institute of Religion, March 7, 1972 quoted in Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?, 572.

¹¹⁵ Ezra Taft Benson, “The Gospel Teacher and His Message,” Religious Educators, Salt Lake City, Utah, 17 September 1976, as reprinted in Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 316.

¹¹⁶ Two LDS apologetic works which immediately come to mind are: (1) Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s Distorted View of Mormonism: A Response to Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? By a Latter-day Saint Historian (Salt Lake City: self published, 1977) (Many people believe that D. Michael Quinn is the author of this anonymous tract [see for example, Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality, iii-iv.]) and (2) Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth About “The God Makers” (Salt Lake City: Publishers Press, 1986) [That Scharffs was asked in 1985 by the Communications Department of the Church to respond to the anti-Mormon book and movie, see Gilbert W. Sharffs, The Missionary’s Little Book of Answers (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, 2002), 1.]

¹¹⁷ Foster, “Career Apostates,” 47.

¹¹⁸ See http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no60.htm

¹¹⁹ See Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Is It Authentic?” Salt Lake City Messenger (March 1984), 1-4. Hofmann was seriously troubled by the Tanner’s challenge of authenticity and insisted that they “of all people, should not be attacking this letter.” [Linda Sillitoe and Allen Roberts, Salamander: The Story of Mormon Forgery Murders (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1989), 287-288.]

¹²⁰ Scott Faulring, personal e-mail, July 20, 2002.

¹²¹ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Problems in the God Makers II” (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighhouse Ministry, 1993); also at http://www.helpingmormons.org/problems.htm

¹²² Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality?, 32-38.

¹²³ Marvin S. Hill, “Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism: an Interpretative Suggestion,” BYU Studies (1984) 24:4.

¹²⁴ Wesley P. Walters, “Joseph Smith’s Bainbridge, NY, Court Trials,” Westminster Theological Journal 36:3 (Winter 1974); see also Russell Anderson, “Joseph Smith’s 1826 Trial,” 2002 FAIR Conference.

¹²⁵ Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America: The Book of Mormon, Vol. 2.(Independence, Missouri: Zion’s Printing and Publishing, 1951), 87; Hugh Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass: The Art of Telling Tales About Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, edited by David Whittaker (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1991), 137 (In the “foreward” to this book, the editor notes: “Recent work has been done on the more recently available accounts of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, as well as on money digging and his 1826 trial, topics addressed by Nibley in several essays. ÖSuch new research has strengthened Nibley’s arguments in many cases; it has corrected him in several others” [14]. The footnote to this last sentence references several articles-including those from BYU Studies [12 {Winter 1972}, 223-233 and 30 {Spring 1990}, 91-108]-which provide updated information on the 1826 trial.); John Widtsoe, Joseph Smith: Seeker After Truth, Prophet of God (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1951), 74-80.

¹²⁶ Hill, “Money-Digging Folklore and the Beginnings of Mormonism.”

¹²⁷ See D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984) and BYU Studies 24:4 (Summer 1984).

¹²⁸ Stephen E. Robinson, review of D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View in BYU Studies 27:4 (Fall 1987), 94.

¹²⁹ Richard L. Anderson, personal letter, February 7, 1988.

¹³⁰ BYU Studies 24:4 (Summer 1984). This issue didn’t actually go to press until April 1986 at which time the Hofmann issues (including charges of fraud) were just becoming to come to light. The editors of this issue note the happenings in their introduction but print the issue anyway because “the underlying historical issues deserve close study commensurate with the extensive publicity given the problem of Mormon origins.”

¹³¹ John Tvedtnes, review of New Approaches, in FARMS Review of Books 6:1, 8; John Tvedtnes, personal e-mail, July 30, 2002.

¹³² D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1984), 134, 139.

¹³³ Anderson, personal letter, February 7, 1988.

¹³⁴ Richard L. Bushman, “Just the Facts Please,” review of H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, FARMS Review of Books 6:2, 123.

¹³⁵ Wesley P. Walters, “New Light on Mormon Origins from Palmyra (N.Y.) Revival,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 10 (Fall 1967), 227-244.

¹³⁶ BYU Studies (Spring 1969) v 3; Danel Bachman, personal e-mail, June 2, 2002.

¹³⁷ Milton Backman, Jr., Joseph Smith’s First Vision: Confirming Evidences and Contemporary Accounts (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980) and Eyewitness Accounts of the Restoration (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1983).

¹³⁸ Larry Porter, “A study of the Origins of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the States of New York and Pennsylvania, 1816-1831,” (Ph. D. dissertation, Brigham Young University, 1971). Thanks to Craig Ray for alerting me to this information.

¹³⁹ Danel Bachman, personal e-mail, June 2, 2002.

¹⁴⁰ Louis Midgley, personal e-mail, June 2, 2002.

¹⁴¹ Richard L. Bushman, “The First Vision Revived,” Dialogue, 4:1 (Spring 1969), 83.

¹⁴² Richard L. Bushman’s review of H. Michael Marquardt and Wesley P. Walters, Inventing Mormonism: Tradition and the Historical Record, FARMS Review of Books 6:2 (1994), 128.

¹⁴³ Richard Lloyd Anderson, Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981). While much of Anderson’s book is calculated to fend off criticisms against the witnesses, most of the apologetic material can be found in his chapter, “The Case Against the Witnesses” (151-174) which deals directly with these criticisms.

¹⁴⁴ See Reed C. Durham, Jr., “Is There No Help For the Widow’s Son?” Presidential Address, Mormon History Association, 20 April 1974. Unofficial transcript in Mervin B. Hogan, An Underground Presidential Address (Salt Lake City: Research Lodge of Utah, F.&A.M., Masonic Temple, 1974) referenced in Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 249. While Reed Durham, a faithful LDS, might have been among the first to make this observation, it was the critics such as the Tanners (Mormonism-Shadow or Reality, 49-C-49-D) and Quinn (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 68-71) who brought it into the limelight and prompted other LDS researchers to investigate the claim. Quinn was LDS when he wrote Early Mormonism, but his book is certainly antagonistic to central LDS beliefs.

¹⁴⁵ D. Michael Quinn, “A Gift Given, a Gift Taken: Washing, Anointing and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women, a Response.” Sunstone 6 (September-October 1981), 26-27, and D. Michael Quinn, “Mormon Women Have had the Priesthood Since 1843,” Women and Authority, edited by Maxine Hanks (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1992), 365-409. Quinn claims it was this article that caused him to be excommunicated. [See “Michael Quinn Investigated for Apostasy,” Sunstone 16:4 (March 1993), 69; “Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy During September,” Sunstone 16:6 (November 1993), 65; Lavina Fielding Anderson, “Ecclesiastical Abuse,” Sunstone 16:6 (November 1993), 70.]. Other scholars, with whom I have spoken, doubt that this article was the nail in the coffin.

¹⁴⁶ Scott Faulring, personal e-mail, July 20, 2002.

¹⁴⁷ Stephen Ricks, personal e-mail, April 10, 2002.

¹⁴⁸ Kevin Barney, personal e-mail, February 24, 2002.

¹⁴⁹ Orson Pratt, The Seer, 1:1 (January 1853), 15-16.