Understanding the Anti-Mormon Movement

#A Brief Review of the Great Apostasy and Restoration

Fundamental to understanding the anti-Mormon movement is an understanding of the history of the apostasy and restoration of the Lord’s Church and gospel.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints boldly proclaims that the gospel of Jesus Christ and the sacred authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel were taken from the earth shortly after the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ. The apostasy, or “falling away” (2 Thessalonians 2:3), from the true teachings of Jesus Christ is a matter of biblical prophecy and historical record (James E. Talmage, The Great Apostasy and B. H. Roberts, The Falling Away). It is an accepted matter of history that all the apostles ordained by Jesus Christ, with the exception of John the Revelator, were killed by enemies of the Church. Once these appointed servants were gone, no person on the earth could speak in the name of Christ, nor did anyone have the authority to administer the ordinances of the gospel. Without the benefit of continual revelation from God to his appointed apostles and prophets (Amos 3:7), the children of men struggled to interpret and administer a correct theology. As a result, many doctrines and practices entered into the church of Jesus Christ that were not in concert with the gospel of Jesus Christ as he established it. For example, baptism by immersion was changed to baptism by sprinkling. The doctrine of “original sin” and the practice of the baptism of infants was introduced. The church organization was eventually altered to facilitate a “politically correct” theology. Simple principles of the gospel were mixed with pagan philosophical movements of the day. Thus, the church of medieval times, which resulted from these changes in doctrines and ordinances, became less and less like the church that Jesus Christ established during his earthly ministry.

The Christian church became a political tool during the reign of Constantine the Great. Because of divisive controversy in the church regarding fundamental doctrines, Constantine called more than three hundred bishops together at Nicea (now in Turkey) in AD 325 to reach, through discussion and rhetoric, some theological and doctrinal conclusions. One purpose of this general council was to define who or what God is. There were differing ideas presented and many disputes between the bishops. In the end they arrived at a compromise, known as the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed was slightly modified by another council held at Constantinople in AD 381. The restatement of the Nicene Creed that came out of this second conference has been attributed largely to Athanasius. It has become known as the “Creed of Athanasius” and it persists as a declaration of belief professed by some Christian sects today. It is used today, for example, by the Church of England:

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, is all one: the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreate, the Son uncreate, and the Holy Ghost uncreate. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated; but one uncreated, and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty, and the Holy Ghost Almighty; and yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet they are not three Gods but one God.

This creed became the standard for the church of that day and is the basis of the traditional, or orthodox Christian, understanding of the nature of the Godhead even today.

Soon afterwards, the philosopher Augustine (AD 354-430), while studying the philosophies of the Neoplatonists, was impressed to become a Christian and to work at defining and refining Christian beliefs. The ideas of “original sin” (and, therefore, the ordinance of infant baptism) and being saved wholly by the grace of God—at God’s “good pleasure”—and not by any works of man were not the contributions of Jesus Christ, but of Augustine.

With the invention of the printing press in the mid-1400s, the Bible became available to many people who previously had been denied it. Until then it was forbidden for anyone but a Catholic priest to have or to read the Bible. As a result, people began to note distinct differences between Bible teachings and the doctrines and practices of the established church. People began to form their own ideas of how the gospel ought to be administered and interpreted. This became the foundation of the Reformation (AD 1500s), a “protest” (hence Protestant) movement that started with great reformers, especially Martin Luther (Lutheran) and John Calvin (Presbyterian and Puritan).

Amidst this spirit of Protestant reform, King Henry VIII formed the Church of England in AD 1534 when the Pope refused to grant the king a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. In retaliation, Henry coerced Parliament to pass the Act of Supremacy, which made the king head of the Church in England and denounced the Pope. This act allowed people other than the Pope to reform the church’ s teachings and was the catalyst for further reformation by splinter groups attempting to restore the New Testament church. Later, in AD 1559, after many disputes as to whether the Church of England should be primarily Protestant or Catholic, Queen Elizabeth I effected a political compromise between the two prominent theologies and reinstated the Church of England.

Within the various Protestant groups, there began to be widespread disagreement over points of doctrine, the form of liturgy, church government, and other issues. These disagreements led to the formation of many splinter denominations. For example, the Anglican Church broke away from the Church of England. Then a group of people called Separatists, eventually called Congregationalists, broke away from the Anglican Church, because they did not think they could reform the church from within. Another group of Separatists went to the Netherlands under the direction of John Smyth and became known as the Baptists. Later, in the 1700s, John Wesley, unable to reform the Anglican Church to his satisfaction, began the movement known today as the Methodists.

Some churches seemed to begin spontaneously. Pentecostal churches, for example, originated at revivals in 1901 at a Bible college in Topeka, Kansas, where people spoke in a language they had never learned (that is, they spoke “in tongues”). Today individual Pentecostal denominations differ greatly in interpretations of matters of faith and prophecy. As a result, there are now more than thirty separate Pentecostal denominations in the United States and Canada, each believing in its own approach to worship and evangelism!

Other churches were formed by government acts. For example, the United Church of Canada, established in 1925 following an act of Canadian Parliament, was originally a conglomeration of three theologies: Methodism, Presbyterianism, and Congregationalism. Another church, the Evangelical United Brethren Church, later joined the United Church of Canada.

The above examples are only a small representation of the fragmenting and dividing of churches through reform. By the early 1800s, literally hundreds of churches had been organized to express the individual religious desires and biblical interpretations of the people. As these churches spread to other countries, further reformation produced groups that were markedly different from their parent religious groups. Even through the 1800s and into this century, religious division has continued. This division is a fulfillment of the prophecy in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 that there would be a “falling away” from the church Christ himself established during his mortal ministry.

It is informative to review the attitudes and positions of the great reformers in relation to the movements their protestations founded. Did they seek to establish the one “true church”? They did not. Did they think they had the power to act in God’s name and to administer the ordinances as clearly manifest by the apostles in the New Testament? They did not.

Martin Luther was surprised and disappointed to find that his efforts to reform the Roman Catholic Church had instead founded a new church. Moreover, he did not want his name on any church because he felt that the church should take its name only from

Christ, yet this new church was named after him! Luther simply stated in his writings that he wanted to reform the church according to the Holy Scriptures and that the Catholic Church had failed in its responsibility to preserve Christianity.

First an Anglican priest, then a Puritan sympathizer, Roger Williams, founder of the state of Rhode Island and of the Baptist Church in the Americas, was at heart, a separatist. He firmly believed that the authority to act in the name of God was taken from the earth and that none in his day held that sacred right. Williams had great faith in Jesus Christ and knew that he would not withdraw himself from the world completely, but would, in time, send “new apostles to recover and restore all the ordinances and churches of Christ out of the ruins of anti-Christian apostasy” (Donald Skaggs, Roger Williams, Dream for America, 43). He urged his followers to establish an environment that would permit God to “pour forth those fiery streams again of tongues and prophecy in the restoration of Zion” (Ibid. 49).

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was an ordained priest in the Church of England who tried to reform the church in accord with biblical principles. His Methodist societies were mere study groups within the Church of England until 1784 when Wesley was forced to begin his own sect in order to provide ministers to the Methodist societies in New England. Like Luther, Williams, and others, Wesley recognized that divine administrative authority had indeed been taken from the earth through apostasy. In his writings, Wesley states:

It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries. We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian. The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other heathens. This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian church—because the Christians were turned heathens again, and had only a dead form left (Albert C. Outler, ed., “Sermon 89: The More Excellent Way,” in The Works of John Wesley, Sermons 71-114, 3:263-4).

After the passing of these and other reformers, their churches were left in much the same state in which they were founded; nevertheless, to preserve and perpetuate their philosophies, each of these religious organizations eventually established colleges where those choosing a career in the ministry could be trained. In these special universities, students were taught the religious dogma of their own faith—doctrines based on a mixture of biblical scripture and the philosophies of men. Once they had been trained for the ministry, these new pastors went forth to expound their individual interpretations and to win converts to their unique brand of religious philosophy.

#Truth Versus Philosophy

It is important to understand the distinction between truth and philosophy. There are many religious philosophies in the world. The universe of Christian churches encompasses widespread differences on doctrinal points, ideas concerning worship, and requirements for salvation. Each of these churches presents a separate religious philosophy. For example, most popular Christian churches believe that accepting Christ is essential to personal salvation, but some do not. Some churches believe that infants as well as adults should be baptized. Others say baptism is necessary only for adults. Still others profess that baptism itself is unnecessary. The list of philosophical differences, even within mainline Christian churches, is extensive.

When any religious group or individual attacks another, it is a war of philosophy, not a war of, or for, truth. Claims that Mormon doctrine does not conform to the established Protestant “orthodox” Christian doctrines are true. This is because the LDS Church is the restored Church of Jesus Christ and did not break-off from another church as did the Protestant churches. Its doctrines are not based upon the philosophies of men, but are God’s revealed truths. Keep in mind that a truth seeker is interested in gaining truth and wisdom. He or she does not seek a contest of religious opinion. The apostle Paul said: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Colossians 2:8).

#Truth Restored

In 1820 in the midst of the aforementioned religious confusion, Joseph Smith Jr., a fourteen-year-old farm boy in up-state New York, was searching among all the popular churches of the day in an effort to find out which was the true church of Jesus Christ. He visited many revivals and other meetings, but he was confused at the contradictions he heard declared as doctrines. While studying the Bible one evening, Joseph was impressed by a passage in James 1:5 that says wisdom may be obtained from God through prayer. After some considerable preparation, he decided he must “ask of God.” Near the Smith family home was a large and beautiful grove of mature trees. Joseph went into this grove, alone, with a single and simple purpose—to gain wisdom from God our Heavenly Father. In answer to his humble prayer, Joseph received a marvelous vision in which God the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Their answer to him was clear: All the churches were wrong, and he should join none of them, for, in the words of the Savior, “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof” (JS-H 1: 19). Joseph was also told that if he remained worthy, he would be instrumental in restoring and therefore establishing the true church of Jesus Christ upon the earth again.

A few days after Joseph Smith received this vision, he was in the company of a Methodist minister and, while discussing religion, told the minister about his prayer and the vision he received. The cleric responded “with great contempt, saying [that the vision] was all of the devil, that . . . visions and revelations . . . [and] all such things had ceased with the apostles, and that there would never be any more of them” (JS-H 1:21).

Joseph was treated harshly by all the religious leaders in his community because of his testimony of his vision. In his history, Joseph explained:

It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy? . . .

My telling the story had excited a great deal of prejudice against me among professors of religion, and was the cause of great persecution, which continued to increase; and though I was an obscure boy, only between fourteen and fifteen years of age, and my circumstances in life such as to make a boy of no consequence in the world, yet men of high standing would take notice sufficient to excite the public mind against me, and create a bitter persecution; and this was common among all the sects-

all united to persecute me (JS-H 1:20, 22).

The persecutions described by the Prophet Joseph Smith in the early days following his wondrous vision grew in number and intensified as the work Joseph had been given went forth. He was beaten, tarred and feathered, and jailed under hideous circumstances for long periods of time. He was unjustly accused, tried, and condemned by false witnesses and driven from town to town and from place to place. Above all, he was forced to stand by and watch as the people who believed in the restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ through him were treated in like manner—all in the name of religion. Finally, he was murdered, along with his beloved brother Hyrum, by a mob of over one-hundred rifle-bearing, blacken-faced men, while the two men were supposedly under the protection of the law at the city jail in Carthage, Illinois.

News of the prophet’s death traveled throughout the world. To his suffering followers, this news was received with disbelief and intense mourning. To his enemies, the prophet’s death was a signal that “Mormonism” had been defeated. One prominent East Coast newspaper reported an account of Joseph’s death and concluded the article with the statement, “And thus ends Mormonism.” However, the Lord’s latter-day restoration would press on.

After the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith, the sacred authority to act as the mouthpiece of God and chief administrator of the kingdom of God on earth was immediately transferred to Brigham Young, the next senior apostle of the Church. At Brigham Young’s death in 1877, the keys of authority were passed instantly to the next senior apostle, John Taylor, and so on. So, since the moment Joseph Smith was ordained a prophet of God and president of the Church, there has been a prophet on the earth to give divine guidance to the children of men.

#A Basic History of the Anti-Mormon Movement

One of the major reasons for hostility against the Church has been the Church’s belief in modern revelation. The theological foundation of the Church rests on the claim by Joseph Smith that he received, in answer to humble prayer, visits from God the Father, Jesus Christ, and angels who instructed him to restore a dispensation of the Lord’s gospel.

Those who opposed Joseph Smith and this restoration of Christ’s gospel on theological grounds did so because of what they believed about the Bible. They believed that the Bible was the only word of God—that God had spoken, and that he need speak no more. Hence, there was no need for a modern-day prophet or a restoration. The philosophy of these anti-Mormons was, and is, that any theological teaching must conform to their interpretation of the Bible, and that any teaching not fitting their exact rendering of biblical thought must necessarily be rejected—much like the Pharisees and Sadducees in the meridian of time rejected Jesus Christ as the Savior because he failed to live up to their preconceived ideas of the promised Messiah as taught in their scriptures. This concept of doctrines having to conform to myopic interpretations of Bible teachings exists today and forms the basis for much anti- Mormon activity directed from sectarian clergy.

Skepticism about Joseph Smith and his testimony that he’d had a vision was understandable. At the time of Joseph’s vision there was much religious excitement in America, and many were claiming new ideas and even visions from God. However, Joseph had not only claimed communication from God and Jesus Christ, but he had produced the Book of Mormon as well, which was evidence of his sacred experiences. Those who opposed the prophet Joseph found Joseph’s testimony of receiving this book of “golden” plates—from an angel!—an astonishing claim. However, the book existed and had to be explained in some way. Accordingly, the first anti-Mormon activity was to try to explain away the Book of Mormon and to discredit Joseph and other early Church leaders.

The founder of the Disciples of Christ Church, Alexander Campbell, wrote the first published anti-Mormon pamphlet in 1832. In that pamphlet Campbell concluded: “I cannot doubt for a single minute that [Joseph Smith] is the sole author and proprietor of [the Book of Mormon].” Two years later he withdrew that statement and accepted the newly proposed theory that Joseph Smith had somehow collaborated with Sidney Rigdon, an early church convert and leader to produce the Book of Mormon from a lost manuscript written by Reverend Solomon Spaulding, a theory asserted by Eber D. Howe in his book Mormonism Unvailed (sic), published in 1834. This was the original anti-Mormon book. Howe was a newspaper editor and printer in Painesville, Ohio, who published anti-Mormon writings, among other things (Stanley B. Kimball, BYU Studies 10/3 [1970], 343). Mormonism Unvailed was produced largely from a manuscript originally written by “Doctor” Philastus Hurlbut. Hurlbut’s reputation was so bad that even those who were anxious for his book to be published were not eager to have Hurlbut’s name associated with it. Hurlbut was once a Methodist but was excluded for immoralities. Then he joined the LDS Church but was excommunicated for immorality. Incidentally, Hurlbut’s title of “doctor” came from his being the seventh son in his family, not from a legitimate, qualifying education. In American folklore such titles were commonly given because of a superstition that the seventh son would possess supernatural qualities. Hurlbut was hired by an anti-Mormon committee to gather signatures on an affidavit attesting to the “laziness” and “indolence” of the Smith family and on the connection of the Book of Mormon to the Spaulding Manuscript. It is interesting to note that the letters Hurlbut produced in support of the connection between Spaulding and the Book of Mormon contained no signatures from the authors or from any authenticator, and all were written in the same style!

In a book entitled Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? published in 1977, the three authors (Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. David, and Donald R. Scales) produce an unsigned letter from Spaulding’s widow, Mrs. Solomon Spaulding Davison. The letter was published in the Boston Recorder in 1839. In this letter Mrs. Spaulding tells a long story about how she and her husband met, about early sicknesses and problems, and about how her husband wrote a historical romance, which she is sure is the foundation of the Book of Mormon. Sidney Rigdon, a former Disciple of Christ minister who had substantial religious training, had “ample opportunity . . . to copy it if he chose” (Robert L. Brown and Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, 2:229). “Thus, a historical romance, with the addition of a few pious expressions and extracts from the sacred scriptures, has been constructed into a new Bible, and palmed off upon a company of poor deluded fanatics as divine” (Ibid., 230).

So eager to publish and broadcast such a juicy piece of “history,” anti-Mormon writers failed to disclose an article from the Quincy, Illinois, Whig that appeared shortly after the Boston Recorder article. The Whig article exposes the Davison letter as a fabrication of D. Austin, of Monson, Massachusetts. Mr. Austin interviewed Mrs Spaulding Davison, then he wrote the letter the way he wanted it written. In a subsequent interview with the former Mrs. Spaulding, the interviewer asked, “Did you, Mrs. Davison, write a letter to John Storrs, giving an account of the origin of the Book of Mormon?” She replied, “I did not.” “Did you sign you name to it?” Mrs. Davison responded, “I did not, neither did I ever see the letter until I saw it in the Boston Recorder, the letter was never brought to me to sign” (Ibid., 232).

Later, when Hurlbut and Howe finally located Spaulding’s manuscript, they discovered that it had no demonstrable connection with the Book of Mormon. The two men then concocted the theory that Sidney Rigdon had written the Book of Mormon using another Spaulding manuscript, which no one has ever produced.

Of further interest is the fact that Mrs. Spaulding Davison stated that Mr. Hurlbut took her husband’s manuscript from her. He told her he would have it printed and give her “one half of the profits” (Robert L. Brown and Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, 2:229). Later, he wrote to her and told her the manuscript would not be printed. Why? Mrs. Spaulding Davison explained: “I received a letter stating that it did not read as he expected, and he should not print it” (Ibid.). Clearly, the manuscript did not prove to be the origin of the Book of Mormon after all. Therefore, it had little commercial value to Hurlbut. In a sworn affidavit by D. P. Hurlbut himself on January 10, 1881, he stated:

In the year [1834] . . . I went from Geauga County, Ohio, to Munson, Hampden County, Massachusetts, where I found Mrs. Davison, late widow of the Reverend Solomon Spaulding, late of Conneaut, Ashtabula County, Ohio. Of her I obtained a manuscript, supposing it to be the manuscript of the romance written by the said Solomon Spaulding, called the “Manuscript Found,” which was reported to be the foundation of the “Book of Mormon.” I did not examine the manuscript until I got home, when upon examination I found it to contain nothing of the kind, but being a manuscript upon an entirely different subject. This manuscript I left with E. D. Howe . . . with the understanding that when he had examined it, he should return it to the widow (Ibid., 234).

Hurlbut became an anti-Mormon when he was rejected by the Church because of his repeated immoral actions. A proud man, “Doctor” Hurlbut did everything in his power to refute the Church and its founder. His clear motive was to make money from his “insider information” about the Church.

Howe’s book formed the basis for much of the anti-Mormon writing of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

I. Woodbridge Riley claimed, in his 1903 book The Founder of Mormonism, that Joseph Smith was an epileptic. Riley was also the first to suggest that the books View of the Hebrews (Ethan Smith) and The Wonders of Nature and Providence Displayed (Josiah Priest) were the sources of the Book of Mormon. In 1930 American historian Bernard DeVoto asserted, in the American Mercury, that “unquestionably, Joseph Smith was a paranoid.” He admitted later that the article was a “dishonest attack.” In 1931 Harry M. Beardsley, in Joseph Smith and His Mormon Empire, published in 1931, asserted that Joseph’s revelations, visions, and the Book of Mormon itself were simply by-products of Joseph’s subconscious. For further discussion of the suggested association of Ethan Smith’s book View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, see chapter , The Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews in this volume.

Fawn Brodie, in her 1945 book No Man Knows My History, portrayed Joseph Smith as a “myth-maker” who absorbed his theological ideas from his rural New York environment. Brodie repudiated the Spaulding theory and revived the original Alexander Campbell thesis that Joseph Smith alone was the author of the Book of Mormon. Then, in 1977 a book entitled Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon? was published by three anti-Mormons (Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. David, and Donald R. Scales) who asserted that the Book of Mormon has its roots in a second Spaulding manuscript that no one has produced. Hence, after 170 years, anti-Mormon writers have come back to where they started, with nothing to show for the journey.

#Techniques Utilized by Anti-Mormon Writers

These techniques are often utilized alone or in combination:

1. They make statements that are false. Who would knowingly publish a lie except as they are guided by the father of lies? It is pitiful that these authors often sink to combating truth with error, misstatements, and lies.

2. They make statements that contain some minor element of truth, often half truths, but they also contain major elements of distortion and sensationalism. In this category, the anti-Mormon writers may use rumor or opinion mixed with proven facts or truth. The truth is often hidden, however, by the distortions, misrepresentations, and half truths.

3. Statements that are basically true, but may contain some element of sensationalism and distortion. These are often highly sacred doctrines. The anti- Mormons’ knowing about them and writing of them constitute an application of the principle of “neither cast ye your pearls before swine” (Matthew 7:6).

4. Occasionally they will use statements that are accurate representations of the truth. Somehow they expect these statements to call forth a negative response from their readers.

If you read the bibliography of anti-Mormon books, you will find that the authors often make reference to other anti-Mormon writings without regard to how vulgar or unsubstantiated the referenced writings may be. This interrelated and inbred recycling of untruth and prejudice simply tends to preserve their own flawed philosophies. If you wanted to know about the character of Christ, would you accept the statements of the Roman guard at the sepulcher? Or of the Pharisee who rejoiced at the death of the Savior? Or of the anti-Christians? I think not. Why, then, do anti-Mormon writers consistently accept the testimonies of those who murdered the prophet, or of those who are apostates or bitter enemies of the Church or both? Usually those who heed these anti-Mormon authors’ lies are simply not interested in the truth.

#A Parable for Critics of the Book of Mormon Written by Dr. Hugh Nibley

The following parable was written by Dr. Hugh Nibley and first publish in Lehi in the Desert and The World of the Jaredites (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co. and FARMS, 1988), 121-22).

A young man once long ago claimed that he had found a large diamond in his field as he was plowing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well known form of delusion. Historians showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and have been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area, but only quartz. The young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a wary tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds. He was, therefore, simple speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of a hundred and seventy-seven florist assistants in four major cities believed that the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man, but someone else who had found the stone.

Finally, an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination, the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it or whether the founder was honest or sane; or who believed him; or whether he would know a diamond from a brick; or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields; or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass; but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well known tests for diamonds. Experts in diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond—very skillfully made; but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 157 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.

#Biographical Facts About Some of the Better-Known Anti-Mormon Authors

Eber D. Howe and “Doctor” Philastus Hurlbut. See the notes above regarding these two men.

“Doctor” Walter Ralston Martin. “Doctor” Walter R. Martin was the founder and director of the Christian Research Institute in San Juan Capistrano, California. His books The Maze of Mormonism and The Kingdom of the Cults have been common sources for the sectarian world to turn to when seeking knowledge about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Martin’s books appear well documented, and his style of writing is to expose the “serious threat” of the Mormon Church to Christian society. His books make entertaining and compelling reading until you go beneath the surface and investigate his claims and credentials.

“Doctor” Martin’s only doctorate was from a non-accredited correspondence school in Southern California. He also claimed a master’s degree in Comparative Religion. For years prior to getting his “doctorate,” Martin was referring to himself as “Doctor.” On both of his most popular books, Martin claimed to have four degrees. His “degrees” are from Stony Brook School (a high school), Adelphi University (which he attended for only one semester), the Biblical Seminary of New York (where he attended a summer session), and New York University (where he received a master’s degree in Philosophy, not Comparative Religion). He does not hold a valid doctorate degree.

Martin commonly claimed to be an ordained Baptist minister of the Southern Baptist Convention and the American Baptist Convention. However, Martin’s only valid ordination was revoked in 1953. Yet, in a 1973 court document relating to his second divorce, Martin claimed, under oath, to be “an ordained Minister of the American Baptist Convention in good standing” (Brown and Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, 3:8). In a letter from the executive director of the American Baptist Churches USA, Reverend Linda C. Spoolstra, she stated: “Walter Ralston Martin is not listed in the American Baptist Churches’ Professional Registry, nor is he listed in our Directory of Professional Church Leaders. This means that he has no standing in our denomination” (Ibid., 9). In a letter from the Southern Baptist Agency, Barbara Denman wrote: “We have searched our . . . personnel records for the name of Walter Martin, but are unable to come up with anything. Evidently, he is not Southern Baptist, nor is he ordained” (Ibid., 17).

Martin repeatedly claimed in his books, in his lectures, and on radio shows that he was a descendant of early Mormon leader Brigham Young. In a taped lecture in 1977, he made this statement to his audience:

Wayne Cowdrey [another anti-Mormon] and I are very close because he is a descendant of Oliver Cowdery, who allegedly wrote down the Book of Mormon that Joseph dictated. He is now a reborn Christian. I am a descendant of Brigham Young—successor to Joseph Smith, ruler of the Latter-day Saints’ Church—a born again Christian.

Wayne Cowdrey, as it turns out, was not a descendant of Oliver Cowdery (note the difference in the spelling of the surnames). Oliver Cowdery’s only surviving child was a daughter who died childless! Nor was Martin a descendant of Brigham Young. That was proven in a public setting in 1984, whereupon Martin changed his claim (Ibid., 69-91). He then said he was related to one of Brigham’s brothers—another false claim.

Martin claimed to be an authority on the doctrines and the finances of the LDS Church. In the preface of his book The Maze of Mormonism, he stated: “The facts herein contained must be sound and reliable if the conclusions arrived at are to be considered valid. . . . [I] have made every effort to accomplish this goal of accuracy.” His claims have proved to be wholly inaccurate. He illustrates “the Mormon threat,” by claiming that Mormons own or control major businesses in the United States and have enormous wealth and holdings to create a position of power. These claims have been proven to be erroneous (Ibid., 3:135-78). Martin seemed to depend on the hope that the sensationalism of his claims would prevent his readers from checking his references and disputing his conclusions. The specific claims he made have been shown to be false through a review of the records of the public corporations involved and by a search of widely published industrial statistics.

Martin’s Christian Research Institute (CRI), once a small rented suite in a modest business complex, showed $12,000,000 in gross income from 1979 to 1982. Since it was registered as a “religious” organization, CRI paid no taxes. His book The Kingdom of the Cults sold over 300,000 copies at $14.95 per copy. Obviously Martin’s attack on the Church has been profitable for him.

J. Edward Decker. Ed Decker, a former Mormon, is the founder of an organization in Issaquah, Washington, named Saints Alive in Jesus Christ, or Ex- Mormons for Jesus, a group of “reformed” Mormons.

Decker has written a few crude pamphlets about the Church that make sensational statements about Mormonism, Church leaders, doctrines, and so on, but his best known works are the film productions The God Makers, Temple of the God Makers, and The God Makers II. In these documentary-style films, Decker and cohort Richard Baer claim to “reveal” the so-called evil empire of the LDS Church to the curious or the unknowing. Decker has stated publicly that controversy and dispute are a part of his nature. The major themes of The God Makers are: (1) that the Church’s strong family image is false and that the Church actually destroys families and promotes divorce; (2) that the Church is a powerful non-Christian cult that teaches and practices blasphemy and performs occult rituals; and (3) that members work their way to godhood while neglecting Jesus Christ and worshiping Joseph Smith.

Decker’s sequel, The God Makers II is just as evil and false as the first, representing religious bigotry at its worst. In this latter film, Decker attacks Church leaders, making groundless accusations of sexual immorality. Decker then accused the Church of misuse of Church funds. The Arizona Republic, a major newspaper in

Arizona, sent a team of reporters to investigate Church finances, and they concluded that such finances were managed honestly and judiciously.

Decker moved on to “expose” the Church as a seed bed of Satanic worship and child abuse! Finally, Decker took on the Brigham Young University Jerusalem Center, saying it is being used as a center for proselyting against a carefully worked out relationship with the State of Israel.

Decker’s deception is clear to those who know the truth. Though it would seem unnecessary to answer his claims, some have taken the time to do so. See, for example, Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth about The God Makers; James A. Carver, The New Mythmakers: A Reply to the Film “The God Makers”; and Brown and Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, 4 volumes.

Dee Jay Nelson. While Dee Jay Nelson never wrote an anti-Mormon book, he is well-known as an “expert” on Latter-day scripture. He is quoted in numerous anti- Mormon works, including books by Walter Martin, Wayne L. Cowdrey, and Jerald and Sandra Tanner.

Nelson’s primary activity and livelihood for twelve years was giving anti-Mormon lectures to various Christian churches. He primarily focused on the book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Nelson alleged that Joseph Smith’s translation of the papyri from which the book of Abraham was translated was incorrect, which allegedly proved that Joseph was not a prophet of God. He also claimed that the LDS Church asked him to study and translate the book of Abraham in the Joseph Smith Papyri and agreed to publish his works.

“Professor” Dee Jay Nelson was never a professor, doctor, or Egyptologist. Nelson was a high school and college dropout who forged his credentials or bought them from a degree mill in Seattle, Washington (Pacific Northwestern University). Pacific Northwestern University was shut down by the state of Washington Attorney General’s office in 1980 (see Brown and Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, volume 1 for more information about Dee Jay Nelson’s credentials). He claimed to have been employed by King Farouk, the last monarch of Egypt, and that King Farouk was so impressed with his work that he awarded him “a small collection of Egyptian antiquities” (Ibid., 1:97). Nelson also claimed to have been asked by the Egyptian government to calculate the weight of the inner coffin of Tutankhamen.

Dr. El Zeini, an Egyptologist living in Cairo who was closely associated with the Cairo Museum, was asked about Dee Jay Nelson and his connection to the Museum and to King Farouk. Zeini replied, “It is a well established fact that the late King Farouk was an astute collector. It is quite impossible to think that he would consult a freelance Egyptologist or confide in him his voluminous collection when he could have at hand the expert advice of the top notch Egyptologists of the time.” In the same letter, Zeini writes, “I have inquired from all the veteran Egyptologists who were working in the Antiquities Department in Egypt about the identity of Mr. D. J. Nelson. No one seems to remember this name or to recollect having seen him participate in any known excavation” (Ibid., 98).

In a lecture in Mesa, Arizona, on February 22, 1980, Nelson said:

Now, before I begin the lecture, I want to say something about my credentials. Since I have been in the valley, there has been much said against me in that respect. . . . You can check my credentials. I make my living as an Egyptologist. I’m paid for it. I’m either an Egyptologist or I’m fooling a lot of people. . . . Well, I think that will be enough on that topic, but if you doubt that I have my degree, and my degree is in Anthropology, not Egyptology, you remember then, write these people that I mentioned, and you will find out the truth of the matter!

Robert L. and Rosemary Brown of Mesa, Arizona, took Nelson’s challenge and put him out of business. They examined carefully Nelson’s credentials in their book They Lie in Wait to Deceive. The information they unearthed unravels a remarkable story of deception. While he is no longer in demand as a lecturer or as an expert on Mormon scripture, his works live on in the spurious publications that continue to tout his wisdom, experiences, and credentials.

Jerald and Sandra Tanner. The Tanners are hailed by enemies of the Church as scholars and truth seekers. Their attacks on the Church have mostly focused on differences between various historical accounts of early Church events and on changes to LDS scriptures. Their first published book, The Changing World of Mormonism, is virtually contained in their later, more exhaustive publication Mormonism—Shadow or Reality? This latter work is nearly six hundred pages long and requires a formidable effort just to wade through it. Brother Richard Winwood, who took the time to read it commented:

Those who take the time to read Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?

(as I have) will find that the bulk of the material contributing to the volume is simply the same information repeated over and over in different sections of the book. Much of the Tanners’ argument would not be an argument at all if it weren’t for the creative conclusions they put forth and for the imaginative and unethical way they extract material from LDS History and scripture. In the preface to their book . . . the Tanners write: “The fact that [the LDS Church] would allow 65,000 copies to be published without an official response seems to show that there are no real answers to the questions we have raised.” Later in the same paragraph they add: “The truth of the matter is that the Church leaders do not mind controversy if they feel they can come out ahead. We believe, however, that the Church has too many secrets to hide to come out in open opposition to [this book].”

The truth of the matter is that LDS Church leadership will not officially comment on anti-Mormon claims or arguments because expending Church resources and energy in that way would detract from the Church’s objective to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Tanners repeatedly use this policy to their advantage, sowing doubt in the hearts of those who are unaware of the Church’s policy (Take Heed That Ye Be Not Deceived [Richard I. Winwood: Salt Lake City, Utah] 1995).

Brother Winwood commented that he found the Tanners’ book to be full of quotations purposefully taken out of context to manipulate and mislead the reader.

Lawrence Foster, a non-Mormon scholar (associate professor of American history at the Georgia Institute of Technology), who has spent many years of work on Mormonism and its history, in his article “Career Apostates: Reflections on the Works of Jerald and Sandra Tanner,” (Dialogue 17 [summer 1984]: 51) wrote:

Jerald and Sandra Tanner have read widely enough in the sources of LDS history to provide that [larger] perspective, but they do not. Although the most conscientious and honest researcher can overlook pertinent sources of information, the repeated omissions of evidence by the Tanners suggest an intentional avoidance of sources that modify or refute their caustic interpretation of Mormon history.

Foster also wrote:

The Tanners have repeatedly assumed a holier-than-thou stance, refusing to be fair in applying the same debate standard of absolute rectitude which they demand of Mormonism to their own actions, writings, and beliefs.

The Tanners seem to be playing a skillful shell game in which the premises for judgment are conveniently shifted so that the conclusion is always the same—negative (Ibid.).

The Tanners are career anti-Mormons. Slandering the Church is how they make their living. They have published numerous writings based on their “impeccably accurate” research and on the research of other associates, which even a non-scholarly review reveals as biased, misinterpreted, and imaginatively distorted.