Liahona Irreantum Rabbanah deseret

[_Mittens]

The statements of Tom Ferguson cited in that inaccurate "Mormon Handbook" are the statements of a yokel who had no conception of what archeology might entail.

Interesting that a guy who was very smart, a lawyer, and took a lot of time learning archeology is now a yokel who had no concept of what archeology might entail.

He was financied by BYU and the Mormon Religion also

[_Robert F Smith]

The statements of Tom Ferguson cited in that inaccurate "Mormon Handbook" are the statements of a yokel who had no conception of what archeology might entail.

Interesting that a guy who was very smart, a lawyer, and took a lot of time learning archeology is now a yokel who had no concept of what archeology might entail.

Ferguson may very well have been a very smart lawyer, but I have never seen any evidence to indicate that he had the foggiest idea what archeology was or what it could be used for. I never met the man (though I did date his daughter when she visited Jerusalem), but all Mesoamerican archeologists should be grateful that he had a special knack for raising money since so much good dirt archeology was funded thereby. Perhaps he wanted to raise all that money for the wrong reasons. Won't be the first time that someone has done something for the wrong reasons.

[_Robert F Smith]

He was financied by BYU and the Mormon Religion also

Tom Ferguson was a California attorney who did fundraising for the NWAF on the side. He wasn't raising funds for himself. I know of no reason to believe that he was ever financed by BYU or the "Mormon Religion" -- whatever that means.

Perhaps you'd like to cite the sources for your off-the-wall statements.

[_Mittens]

Interestingly enough, in December 1970 Ferguson was considering writing a book on the Book of Mormon that would be, he said, "a real bombshell." He worked on the project through the 1970s and into the early 1980s. His premise was that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century work and that Mormonism was a made-up religion with Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery as the perpetrators. On his last trip to Mexico in February 1983, Ferguson told archeologist Pierre Agrinier Bach that he was working on an almost-completed manuscript that "would (according to him) expose Joseph Smith as a fraud." Yet, as Larson writes, "Ferguson's unexpected death in 1983 stopped his efforts, and inexplicably, his final manuscript has to date never surfaced." One can only wonder if this manuscript has been suppressed by his family, which has publicly maintained that Ferguson was a faithful Latter-day Saint to his death.

A valuable part of Larson's book is chapter 5 ("Book of Mormon Archaeological Tests") and Appendix A ("Thomas Stuart Ferguson on Book of Mormon Archaeology"). In these chapters Larson shows Ferguson's list of problems with the Book of Mormon, including the Book of Mormon's mentioning of plants, animal life (including horses and elephants), and metals that were not indigenous to the Americas. As Larson writes on page 213, "While the absence of archaeological evidence can never disprove the Book of Mormon, it does cast some suspicion on it, especially since the plant, animal, technological, and literary evidence during the Preclassic time period in Mesoamerican paints a clearer picture year by year."

[_Robert F Smith]

Interestingly enough, in December 1970 Ferguson was considering writing a book on the Book of Mormon that would be, he said, "a real bombshell." He worked on the project through the 1970s and into the early 1980s. His premise was that the Book of Mormon was a 19th century work and that Mormonism was a made-up religion with Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Oliver Cowdery as the perpetrators. On his last trip to Mexico in February 1983, Ferguson told archeologist Pierre Agrinier Bach that he was working on an almost-completed manuscript that "would (according to him) expose Joseph Smith as a fraud." Yet, as Larson writes, "Ferguson's unexpected death in 1983 stopped his efforts, and inexplicably, his final manuscript has to date never surfaced." One can only wonder if this manuscript has been suppressed by his family, which has publicly maintained that Ferguson was a faithful Latter-day Saint to his death.

There may be something to such claims, and the family was opposed to his heterodox views. However, having myself received an assemblage of his views (directly from him) on the Book of Mormon in early 1975, I can say with great assurance that he took a very unprofessional, even ignorant approach to the question of Book of Mormon historicity. I was frankly surprised at the shallowness of it -- something which would not be surprising from a high school sophomore.

A valuable part of Larson's book is chapter 5 ("Book of Mormon Archaeological Tests") and Appendix A ("Thomas Stuart Ferguson on Book of Mormon Archaeology"). In these chapters Larson shows Ferguson's list of problems with the Book of Mormon, including the Book of Mormon's mentioning of plants, animal life (including horses and elephants), and metals that were not indigenous to the Americas. As Larson writes on page 213, "While the absence of archaeological evidence can never disprove the Book of Mormon, it does cast some suspicion on it, especially since the plant, animal, technological, and literary evidence during the Preclassic time period in Mesoamerican paints a clearer picture year by year."

Dr. Stan Larson is a very nice guy (I have met him and discussed matters with him on several occasions over the years), but he is not an archeologist, and completely misunderstands the application of archeology to the Book of Mormon. For a correct approach to that issue, one should see John Sorenson's Mormon's Codex, which will be out shortly from the Maxwell Institute.

[_Yahoo Bot]

He was financied by BYU and the Mormon Religion also

Untrue. He and a general authority helped to form the New World Archaeology Foundation, which is BYU's archaeology arm for mainstream New World studies.

He was merely a Santa Barbara attorney with a hobby of trying to find on the ground support for the Book of Mormon. There are plenty of Mormons interested in doing so, and have done so -- so they assert -- such as Dr. Sorenson. There are are plenty of Mormons who think that is not necessary and is contrary to the direction of the Church's authorities.

[Guest]

Then how did he get his money for his work ?

When I first started studing Mormonism in the early 1970s the Mormons were pushing his works and books. I noticed "Marvelous Work and a Wonder" by LeGrand Richards
has been edited and his references to these books has been redacted


This is what it says today without mentioning Hunter and Ferguson like my copy from the 70s

Supplementory reading
It is not the writer's purpose to attempt to consider in detail the archaeology and ethnology of the Americas that contribute so much corroborative evidence in support of the Book of Mormon. For a study of such evidences as (1) that this land has been occupied by different peoples at widely separated periods; (2) that the traditions found among the native races of America, seeming to come from common stock, are closely allied to, if not identical with, traditions of the Israelites; (3) that the ancient inhabitants of the American continents had a knowledge of such major biblical events as the creation, the building of the tower of Babel, the flood, the life and crucifixion of the Savior, the second coming of the Redeemer, the administration of the sacrament, etc., the reader is referred to Articles of Faith by James E. Talmage as well as numerous articles in Church magazines and other publications that should be available in local meetinghouse libraries. page 78

I have Gospel link so I can compare todays books with 70s

if Mormon god was omniscience like Christian God there wouldn't be so much redacting and changing in Mormonism. Just think Christianity is almost 2000 years old and hasn't been changed like Mormonism which got started around 1830s

[_Yahoo Bot]

Then how did he get his money for his work ?

When I first started studing Mormonism in the early 1970s the Mormons were pushing his works and books. I noticed "Marvelous Work and a Wonder" by LeGrand Richards
has been edited and his references to these books has been redacted

I am not aware that he did any archaeological work of his own outside of forming NWAF, going along on its digs and urging its funding. He was not a trained archaeologist.

I've read some of his stuff. He was hopelessly naïve and not familiar with prior official church statements about the importance (there is none) of archaeology in the Church. It is conceivable that the Book of Mormon is parabolic, and there are good members of the Church who so believe, and akin to Jesus'a parabolic story of the rich man and Lazarus. I don't believe that way, but people like Ferguson and Dr. Sorenson do more damage in the long run to the mission of the Church than they provide support.

Regarding your reference to LeGrand Richard's use of Ferguson's work, so what? There are many people in the Church who find comfort in the works of people like Ferguson and Dr. John Sorenson. I don't. I'd never quote Sorenson except to be critical.

[_Tobin]

Then how did he get his money for his work ?

When I first started studing Mormonism in the early 1970s the Mormons were pushing his works and books. I noticed "Marvelous Work and a Wonder" by LeGrand Richards
has been edited and his references to these books has been redacted

I am not aware that he did any archaeological work of his own outside of forming NWAF, going along on its digs and urging its funding. He was not a trained archaeologist.

I've read some of his stuff. He was hopelessly naïve and not familiar with prior official church statements about the importance (there is none) of archaeology in the Church. It is conceivable that the Book of Mormon is parabolic, and there are good members of the Church who so believe, and akin to Jesus'a parabolic story of the rich man and Lazarus. I don't believe that way, but people like Ferguson and Dr. Sorenson do more damage in the long run to the mission of the Church than they provide support.

Regarding your reference to LeGrand Richard's use of Ferguson's work, so what? There are many people in the Church who find comfort in the works of people like Ferguson and Dr. John Sorenson. I don't. I'd never quote Sorenson except to be critical.

That is very accurate. If one wishes to seek God, and God shows you where this occurred and asks you to bring forward evidence, that is one thing. If you want to go off half-cocked, with no idea in the world where any of this occurred, it is not only a colossal waste of time, but damaging as you pointed out.

[_Themis]

Ferguson may very well have been a very smart lawyer, but I have never seen any evidence to indicate that he had the foggiest idea what archeology was or what it could be used for. I never met the man

So you were being unfair in attacking him instead of dealing with what he said and why you think it is wrong.

Won't be the first time that someone has done something for the wrong reasons.

He didn't do it for the wrong reasons. Nothing wrong with wanting to find evidence about a book he believed at the time was about a real people. I suspect while he saw the lack of evidence as well as mounting against the Book of Mormon as very troubling, I suspect the papyri being found and the Book of Abraham issue may have done even more damage to his testimony. The Book of Abraham really is the smoking gun, and when you look at the whole picture it only gets worse.