Criticism of Mormonism/Books/One Nation Under Gods/Use of sources/Advertising for the Tanners

FAIR Answers—back to home page

Advertising for the Tanners?

Most accurate history in all the world

A FAIR Analysis of: One Nation Under Gods, a work by author: Richard Abanes

The LDS as Mindless Followers

Author's Claims

One Nation under Gods, page 408 (hardback and paperback)

Another tactic utilized by Mormon leaders has been to revise Smith's revelations so as to make the church's history more palatable. Some of the most drastic alterations to the authoritative writings--e.g., paragraphs added/deleted, words added/deleted, wording changes to alter a meaning, phrases added/deleted--can be found by comparing sections of Smith's Book of Commandments with the text of the 1835 re-publication of these same revelations as the Doctrine and Covenants (Figure 18.1, 18.2, 18.3). Hundreds of changes were made to these revelations. In response to the discrepancies, famous Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley blithely stated: "Revelations have been revised whenever necessary. That is the nice thing about revelation--it is strictly open-ended."28

Author's Sources

Endnote 28, page 608 (hardback); page 606 (paperback)

28. Hugh Nibley, letter to Morris L. Reynolds, May 12, 1966. Quoted in Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Case Against Mormonism (Salt Lake City: ULM, 1967), vol. 1, 132, This three-volume work is available for purchase online from ULM:

Detailed Analysis

Superfluous references

The author lists a primary source for the citation, in this case personal correspondence between Hugh W. Nibley and Morris L. Reynolds, and then calls the reader's attention to two secondary sources. However, he crowns this endnote with what amounts to an advertisement for three books published by Jerald and Sandra Tanner's anti-Mormon Utah Lighthouse Ministry, only one of which actually contains the quote he mentions. The inclusion of the additional titles in the endnote has nothing whatsoever to do with the citation.

Context and source of the quote

There is nothing wrong with the author's use of personal correspondence as a reference; it's done fairly often. The only drawback for the reader is that it is sometimes difficult to access the original document to check up on the author's sources. The author of ONUG tells the reader that Jerald and Sandra Tanner quote the letter online. The Tanner's website does indeed show the Nibley quote, couched amongst commentary:

Strange as it may seem, Dr. Hugh Nibley, who at one time wrote that Mormon teachings are "FREE OF REVISIONS," has now written a letter in which he admits that Joseph Smith's revelations have been changed, In this letter he stated:

"1. REVELATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED WHENEVER NECESSARY. That is the nice thing about revelation--it is strictly open-ended."

(Letter from Dr. Hugh Nibley to Morris L, Reynolds, dated May 12, 1966)

Without the entire letter written by Brother Nibley, or a fair portion of it, it is impossible to tell if the author has drawn the quote out of context, or if he merely repeats the Tanner's conclusions. He doesn't provide enough of the letter to make it possible to connect it to the Book of Commandments revisions, if there is any connection to be made. Was Hugh W. Nibley commenting on the Book of Commandments to Morris L. Reynolds, or is the phrase "REVELATIONS HAVE BEEN REVISED WHENEVER NECESSARY" something originally written by Morris, to which Nibley was simply responding?