Thomas Furgeson Set out to prove the Book of Mormon is true

[SirThomasMore]

but, somewhere along the way…

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was born in “Pocatello, Idaho, on 21 May 1915.” (The Messiah in Ancient America, 1987, p. 248) He “received degrees in political science and law from the University of California and practiced law in Orinda, California.” (Ibid.) Mr. Ferguson also worked with the F.B.I., but his first love seemed to be trying to prove the Book of Mormon through the study of Mesoamerican archaeology. In 1983, J. Willard Marriot wrote a letter in which he commented concerning Ferguson’s dedication to establishing an archaeological base for the Book of Mormon: “‘We spent several months together in Mexico looking at the ruins and studying the Book of Mormon archaeology. I have never known anyone who was more devoted to that kind of research than was Tom. I remember when he was with the F.B.I., he would arise at 4:30 or 5:00 AM and read the Book of Mormon and information he could find pertaining to it’” (Ibid., p. 250) His wife, Ester, recalled that “during their courtship that she was sometimes piqued by his passion for the Book of Mormon and once complained to her mother, ‘I think I’m going out with the Book of Mormon.’… Throughout their married life she staunchly supported her husband’s efforts.” (p. 250)
On page 251-52 of The Messiah in Ancient America, we read that "Tom Ferguson first approached the President of Brigham Young University, Howard S. McDonald, about establishing a Department of Archaeology… Tom Ferguson was able to convince officials of BYU of the benefit to the University of having such a department…

“The new Department of Archaeology (now Anthropology) sponsored its first field trip in 1948 to western Campeche, a state in southeastern Mexico… Tom Ferguson,… participated in that first of many expeditions…”

Mr. Ferguson devoted a great deal of his life trying to prove the Book of Mormon by archaeology and was considered by the Mormon people as a great defender of the faith. He wrote at least three books on the subject. His book, One Fold and One Shepherd, was recommended to one of the authors of this work (Jerald) as containing the ultimate case for the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. On the jacket of that book, we find this information about Ferguson: “Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 47, President of the New World Archaeological Foundation, is a distinguished student of the earliest high civilizations of the New World. He, with Dr. A.V. Kidder, dean of Central American archaeologists, first planned the New World Archaeological Foundation in 1952… He raised $225,000 for the field work, incorporated the Foundation (being an attorney), assisted in the initial explorations in Central America and Mexico and has actively directed the affairs of the Foundation since its inception.”

 

[SirThomasMore]

Thomas Ferguson worked hard to get the Mormon Church interested in helping with the organization he envisioned. In a letter to Mormon President David O. McKay, dated Dec. 14, 1951, Ferguson wrote: “If the anticipated evidences confirming the Book of Mormon are found, worldwide notice will be given to the restored gospel through the Book of Mormon. The artifacts will speak eloquently from the dust.” (The Messiah in Ancient America, p. 257) Although church leaders claimed that they were interested in archaeological studies with regard to the Book of Mormon, they declined to provide any financial help. On Jan. 12, 1952, Ferguson wrote again and promised the First Presidency that he would “take an active part in the Foundation to the end that the Church receives the full benefit of any discovered evidences relating to the Book of Mormon. I anticipate that many important artifacts will be discovered confirming the Book of Mormon.” (Ibid., p. 259) Joseph Anderson, secretary to the First Presidency, responded that “The Brethren feel that it may be that no discovery will be made which shall establish the historical value of the Book of Mormon. They incline to feel that the faith now required to accept the book is a very considerable factor in the faith of the Restored Gospel, belief in which is the result of faith therein.” On April 9,1953, Ferguson wrote a letter in which he again urged the Brethren to financially support the organization: “The source of our income and support for the work can be kept strictly confidential if it is desired… the Church cannot afford to let all of the priceless artifacts of Book of Mormon people fall into other hands. We can make wonderful use of them in missionary work and in letting all the world know of the Book of Mormon.” (Ibid., p. 263)

On pages 263-66 of the same book we find the following:

"…Ferguson’s persistence and persuasiveness paid off,… Ferguson appealed to his good friend J. Willard Marriott for assistance. The following day Ferguson had an appointment with President McKay which Marriott had arranged… President David O. McKay listened to Tom Ferguson’s proposal and asked the specific amount he was requesting. Ferguson replied, ‘Only about the amount that it would take to build a chapel.’

“President McKay gave him a penetrating glance. ‘We build $50,000 chapels and $250,000 chapels. Which did you have in mind? Tom Ferguson promptly replied, ‘A $250,000 chapel.’ That was the amount granted, sufficient to underwrite five years’ work in a generous way (1955-1959)… It was during this period that Ferguson spent approximately half of his working time away from law, devoting this time to administering the affairs of the NWAF, giving speeches, studying and writing about the archaeology and history of ancient America and their relationship to the Book of Mormon.”

It was agreed that the New World Archaeology Foundation would not “discuss direct connections with the Book of Mormon, but rather to allow the work to stand exclusively on its scholarly merits.” (Ibid., p. 276) The church provided financial support for this organization for many years. It was eventually “attached to and administered through BYU.”

 

[SirThomasMore]

In a paper entitled, “Thomas Stuart Ferguson, 1915-83,” Fred W. Nelson wrote the following: “Thomas Ferguson has either directly or indirectly influenced thousands of people’s thinking on archaeology… He has had a great influence on professional archaeology through the Department of Archaeology at Brigham Young University, the Gates Collection, and the New World Archaeological Foundation… Ferguson’s legacy in the founding of the Archaeology Department at Brigham Young University, the obtaining of the Gates Collection, and as founder of the New World Archaeology Foundation stands as a shining example to us all.” (As cited in The Messiah in Ancient America, pp. 282-83)

From all that we can learn, Thomas Stuart Ferguson was a dedicated believer in the authenticity of the Book of Mormon at the time he founded the New World Archaeology Foundation. He really believed that archaeology would prove the Book of Mormon. In a letter dated April 23, 1952, Mr. Ferguson said the “the archaeological data now available is entirely inadequate” for testing the Book of Mormon. He predicted, however, that the “next ten years of excavations in Mexico and Guatemala should enable us to make the archaeological tests.” For a number of years he was very excited about the progress of the work and seemed certain that the Book of Mormon would be vindicated soon. In his book, One Fold And One Shepherd, p. 263, he stated: “The important thing now is to continue the digging at an accelerated pace in order to find more inscriptions dating to Book-of-Mormon times. Eventually we should find decipherable inscriptions… referring to some unique person, place or event in the Book of Mormon.” In 1962 Mr. Ferguson said that “Powerful evidences sustaining the book are accumulating”

 

[SirThomasMore]

EVIDENCE NOT FOUND

Although many important archaeological discoveries were made, the evidence he had desired to find to support the Book of Mormon did not turn up. In response to a letter Hal Hougey wrote in 1972 which reminded him that he had predicted in 1961 that Book of Mormon cities would be found within 10 years, Mr. Ferguson sadly wrote: “Ten years have passed… I sincerely anticipated that Book-of-Mormon cities would be positively identified within 10 years–and time has proved me wrong in my anticipation.” (Letter dated June 5, 1972)

At first it had all seemed so simple; since the Book of Mormon told when the Nephites were in Mesoamerica, all one had to do was find archaeological sites that dated to the period and the Book of Mormon would be established by the evidence. The fact that archaeological research failed to provide the confirmation which Mr. Ferguson expected to find must have weighed very heavily on his mind. The most serious blow to Ferguson’s faith, however, came just after Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papyri were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. This collection, which had been lost for many years, contained the very papyrus from which Joseph Smith “translated” the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price, one of the four standard works of the Mormon Church.

After Mr. Ferguson obtained photographs of the papyrus fragments, he consulted Professors Lutz and Lesko of the University of California. Both these Egyptologists agreed that the papyrus Joseph Smith claimed was the Book of Abraham was in reality the Book of Breathings, an Egyptian funerary text made for a man by the name of Hor (Horus). Ferguson learned that this papyrus had nothing at all to do with the patriarch Abraham or his religion. It was in its entirety a pagan text filled with the names of Egyptian gods and goddesses.

Thomas Stuart Ferguson was shaken to the core by this discovery. When the church’s noted apologist, Dr. Hugh Nibley, began defending the Book of Abraham, he wrote a letter to another member of the church in which he stated:

"Nibley’s articles on the Book of Abraham aren’t worth a tinker–first, because he is not impartial, being the commissioned and paid defender of the faith. Second, because he could not, he dared not, he did not, face the true issue: ‘Could Joseph Smith translate Egyptian?’… By study of the GRAMMAR [Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar], the recovered papyrus, and the illustrations, it is perfectly obvious that we now have the oringinal [sic] manuscript material used by Jos. Smith in working up the Book of Abraham. Prof Klaus Baer of Univ. of Chicago, Prof Lutz of U.C. (Berkeley), Prof. Lesko (U.C. Berkeley) and Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson, all agree that the original manuscript Egyptian text translates into the Breathing Permit of Hor (Egyptian God)… The work of the two UC professors was done at my request and is unpublished. All 4 agree with each other, and without having conferred or collaborated. (My UC men did not, and still do not, know that there is any relationship of the manuscript material to the Mormon Church, Joseph Smith, Book of Abraham-- or whatever…

 

[SirThomasMore]

"Joseph Smith announced, in print (History of the Church, Vol. Il, page 236), that ‘one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt…’ Since 4 scholars, who have established that they can read Egyptian, say that the manuscripts deal with neither Abraham nor Joseph-- and since the 4 reputable men tell us exactly what the manuscripts do say – I must conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest of officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very statement to him on Dec. 4, 1970–privately in one-to-one [c]onversation…

"The attempts, including Nibley’s, to explain away and dodge the trap into which Joseph Smith fell when he had the audacity to translate the Chandler texts, and keep the original Egyptian texts around, are absurd, in my view…

"My views are not for publication or spreading abroad. I am like you–maintaining membership because of the many fine things the Church offers. But facts speak for themselves. I offered the data available to my Stake Pres. recently and he walked away without it–saying he didn’t want to read it. They can hardly execommunicate [sic] us when they won’t look at the evidence.

“Of course the dodge as to the Book of Abraham must be: 'WE DON’T HAVE THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPT FROM WHICH THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM WAS TRANSLATED. I conclude that we do have it and have translations of it.” (Letter by Thomas Stuart Ferguson, dated March 13, 1971)

 

[Tmaque]

The Book of Abraham is more troublesome for LDS than the BOM is. The indisputable fact is that the “Book of Abraham” scroll is nothing more than an Egyptian burial text. It’s clear from history that Smith claimed to translate the scroll. The excuse now is that he received the Book of Abraham through revelation and the scroll was some sort of catalyst for the revelation. The problem is Smith’s own words. He claimed the scroll was Abraham’s. As Smith claimed, it was written by Abraham “in his own hand upon papyrus”.

Bottom line:
*The scroll is no older than 2500 years old, far too new to be written in Abraham’s own hand.
*The scroll is not any sort of Abrahamic writing or history…period
*Joseph Smith did not translate it
*He said he did
*He was lying or delusional

 

[MJE]

Interesting. This scroll was an authentic scroll of egyptians? Where would a guy like J. Smith have gotten this and @ what $$?

 

[Tmaque]

In 1835 a traveling show came through Kirtland, Ohio with several Egyptian mummies and various artifacts. Among these artifacts was the “Book of Breathings” scroll which Smith was invited to look at, and subsequently purchased. He claimed this was the Book of Abraham and commenced “translating” it.

 

[Terry_McCann]

Such a sad tale of Smith’s delusionary mind.

 

[why_me]

I think that tom plucked his information from Living Hope Ministries. However, we do have mormon responses:
Examination: This is a short enough statement that we must attempt to put some meaning behind it. No matter what happened with Ferguson, he certainly found something. When we look, we always find something. We may not find what we are looking for, but we find something. Clearly Wilson does not mean to say that Ferguson failed to find anything at all. What Wilson must mean is that Ferguson did not find what he was looking for. What Wilson never tells us is whether Ferguson was looking for the right things.50 While the film intends that Ferguson’s example demonstrate the futility of comparing the Book of Mormon to archaeology, it really does more to compare Book of Mormon archaeology to biblical archaeology. Both went through more naive phases. Dever describes the earlier biblical archaeology:

In retrospect, the demise of biblical archaeology was probably inevitable. The reasons are many. First, what may be called internal weaknesses of the movement were numerous: its reputation for amateurish fieldwork, naïve or biased scholarship, and poor publications; its parochial character, related as it was largely to the conservative (if not Fundamentalist) character of so much of American religious life; its reactionary nature, locked into dated theological issues, which left it unable to respond creatively to new developments in or outside the field; its resistance to growing trends toward specialization and professionalism, which made it extremely vulnerable; and, above all, the fact that it failed to achieve its own major objective, i.e., the demonstration of the “historicity” of the Bible (at least as it was seen at the time).51

Ferguson was a lawyer, not an archaeologist. His contributions should not be minimized, but they were significantly related to the beginning push to create the New World Archaeological Foundation and are not related to any archaeological expertise.52 As with the biblical archaeology movement Dever describes, Ferguson appears to have been looking for the wrong things with the wrong models. His case is very comparable to that of certain biblical archaeologists. His experience no more proclaims the Book of Mormon ahistorical than do the parallel experiences of the practitioners of early biblical archaeology. As with so much of this film, the editors avoid telling the entire story.

While it remains true that we will never find a “Nephi slept here” sign from Mesoamerica, it is not true that we cannot find evidence linking Mesoamerica to the Book of Mormon.53 In this section of the film the shot pans to several books written about the Book of Mormon, including Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Clearly those at Living Hope Ministries have access to the book, although apparently they have done no more than film the cover.

fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html

 

[SirThomasMore]

Actually, I got it from the Stanford study. But, nice try.

And the scholars seemed to do a good job, despite your cut and paste from those fighting hard to hold onto a dream.

Is this the side of the fence you are picking today?

 

[why_me]

Actually, I got it from the Stanford study. But, nice try.

And the scholars seemed to do a good job, despite your cut and paste from those fighting hard to hold onto a dream.

Is this the side of the fence you are picking today?

The stanford study is not exactly unbiased either since it is made up of exmormons on a mission. Ferguson is just one guy. But critics attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The thing is sirtom is that there is always a comeback from the mormon side.

By the way, I give my souces. You can do the same.

 

[why_me]

Such a sad tale of Smith’s delusionary mind.

I don’t know about that. The book of abraham is pretty interesting and rather well written. Joseph had no reason to attempt a translation, especially since it all could be verified by experts eventually if he was afraid of being exposed as a con.

Joseph Smith lived for what he believed. He is perhaps one of America’s greatest religious thinkers. It does not matter if you like him or not…he has no comparable.

 

[SirThomasMore]

The stanford study is not exactly unbiased either since it is made up of exmormons on a mission. Ferguson is just one guy. But critics attempt to make a mountain out of a mole hill. The thing is sirtom is that there is always a comeback from the mormon side.

By the way, I give my souces. You can do the same.

Iforgot, to Mormons, anyone who is not
Mormon must be dishonest and biased. Hogwash. Prove it false. If you can, prove it false. And yes, Jim jones always had comebacks, too. Right to the grape flavor aide. Be carefule riding the fences.

And I have no dea what souses are.

 

[LongJourney]

A souse is a drunkard. Ask the Google god. Sources are easy to find on the internet. Just try it. Rather fun, I’d say.

 

[SirThomasMore]

lol

 

[lax16]

I think that tom plucked his information from Living Hope Ministries. However, we do have mormon responses:
Examination: This is a short enough statement that we must attempt to put some meaning behind it. No matter what happened with Ferguson, he certainly found something. When we look, we always find something. We may not find what we are looking for, but we find something. Clearly Wilson does not mean to say that Ferguson failed to find anything at all. What Wilson must mean is that Ferguson did not find what he was looking for. What Wilson never tells us is whether Ferguson was looking for the right things.50 While the film intends that Ferguson’s example demonstrate the futility of comparing the Book of Mormon to archaeology, it really does more to compare Book of Mormon archaeology to biblical archaeology. Both went through more naive phases. Dever describes the earlier biblical archaeology:

In retrospect, the demise of biblical archaeology was probably inevitable. The reasons are many. First, what may be called internal weaknesses of the movement were numerous: its reputation for amateurish fieldwork, naïve or biased scholarship, and poor publications; its parochial character, related as it was largely to the conservative (if not Fundamentalist) character of so much of American religious life; its reactionary nature, locked into dated theological issues, which left it unable to respond creatively to new developments in or outside the field; its resistance to growing trends toward specialization and professionalism, which made it extremely vulnerable; and, above all, the fact that it failed to achieve its own major objective, i.e., the demonstration of the “historicity” of the Bible (at least as it was seen at the time).51

Ferguson was a lawyer, not an archaeologist. His contributions should not be minimized, but they were significantly related to the beginning push to create the New World Archaeological Foundation and are not related to any archaeological expertise.52 As with the biblical archaeology movement Dever describes, Ferguson appears to have been looking for the wrong things with the wrong models. His case is very comparable to that of certain biblical archaeologists. His experience no more proclaims the Book of Mormon ahistorical than do the parallel experiences of the practitioners of early biblical archaeology. As with so much of this film, the editors avoid telling the entire story.

While it remains true that we will never find a “Nephi slept here” sign from Mesoamerica, it is not true that we cannot find evidence linking Mesoamerica to the Book of Mormon.53 In this section of the film the shot pans to several books written about the Book of Mormon, including Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon. Clearly those at Living Hope Ministries have access to the book, although apparently they have done no more than film the cover.

fairlds.org/Bible/Bible_vs_the_Book_of_Mormon_Video.html

whyme - Ask your apologists over at fairlds why the Mormon church is spending billions of dollars on a mall in downtown SLC but not on archaelogical digs to prove the BoM.

Let me know their answer.

 

[why_me]

whyme - Ask your apologists over at fairlds why the Mormon church is spending billions of dollars on a mall in downtown SLC but not on archaelogical digs to prove the BoM.

Let me know their answer.

Well, I haven’t heard much about the shopping mall in a while. The critics of the lds church were usually writing about tithe money going to help support the mall project. But it came out that tithe money is not being used.

I have no idea if its billions of dollars for the mall. But I do know that the lds church has an interest in keeping salt lake vibrant and looking good. And that is what the mall project is all about in my opinion. Salt lake does not want to look like detroit or any other major city that may look a little worn out.

 

[lax16]

Well, I haven’t heard much about the shopping mall in a while. The critics of the lds church were usually writing about tithe money going to help support the mall project. But it came out that tithe money is not being used.

I have no idea if its billions of dollars for the mall. But I do know that the lds church has an interest in keeping salt lake vibrant and looking good. And that is what the mall project is all about in my opinion. Salt lake does not want to look like detroit or any other major city that may look a little worn out.

From the Deseret News -

SALT LAKE CITY — It won’t be completed for another two years, but the **multi-billion-****dollar City Creek Center project **still provides those attending general conference quite a sight.

It’s been more than six years since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced its plans for the project, but visitors to Salt Lake City for the semiannual event will have to wait a couple of more years to see the completed project.

whyme - I didn’t think you would have the answer to my question. That’s why I asked you to ask the apologists at fairlds, or anywhere else for that matter, why they are spending billions of dollars for the downtown mall and not on archaelogical digs.

It says it will “provide those attending general conference quite a sight” but I bet some archaelogical ruins to prove the BoM true would be quite a sight as well. Anyway, the point is, the Mormon church is definitely spending money to spruce things up downtown, but have long forgotten the works of the devout Mormon who spent his life trying to find the ruins of the BoM to prove it true.

Let me know if someone gives you an answer to my question.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Lol