Jan. 9, 1922.

President Heber J. Grant,

Salt Lake City, Utah.

Dear Brother:-

At the close of your remarks following the long day's conference had on the Book of Mormon problems, I arose to make some remarks in relation to what I had listened to throughout the day. But realizing that the hour was late and that everybody was tired, I desisted and concluded to let matters go. Thinking of it since, however, and of the probability of a record being made of the hearing I concluded that I would not like that record to be made without having included in it my impressions of what was said and the suggestions that were made—hence this note which I limit to the very briefest space that will express my view in relation to the results of our consultation.

Permit me to say, then, but in the utmost good will and profound respect for everybody else's opinion, that I was very greatly disappointed over the net result of the discussion. There was so much said that was utterly irrelevant, and so little said, if anything at all, that was helpful in the matters at issue that I came away from the conference quite disappointed. All the facts and arguments that were proposed, outside of the matter of linguistics, I had already made the utmost use of in the third volume of my "New Witness for God," as may be determined by reference to the part dealing with "Objections to the Book of Mormon." While on the difficulties of linguistics nothing was said that could result to our advantage at all or stand the analysis of enlightened criticism. You perhaps may think differently because of what was said by President Ivins. Referring to that I shall make bold to say, though I trust without giving offense, for that is farthest from my purpose, that what he said, so far as it had any bearing upon the problems before us, was most disappointing of all, because I had come to believe from what I had heard of him, that he had so specialized in the Book of Mormon and literature bearing upon it, that one could confidently expect something like substantial help from his contribution of comment. It was this perhaps that made his contribution so disappointing.

You will perhaps remember that what Bro. Ivins chiefly relied upon to satisfy his mind so completely, with reference to our linguistic difficulties was Dr. LePlongeon's "Maya Alphabet," published in his "Sacred Mysteries Among the Mayas and Quiches," and reproduced, photographically, by me in the third volume of New Witnesses, (p. 507). If I were now writing my New Witness with the larger knowledge of Dr. Le Plongeon's standing as an investigator of and writer upon American Antiquities I would not quote his work even in the very incidental way in which I then used it; much less to use it as Bro. Ivins does to satisfy himself completely in relation to Book of Mormon linguistic difficulties. I am glad he limited the application of Le Plongeon's Alphabet to the complete satisfying of himself, also that even that statement was made where it would not be open to the comment of unfriendly critics who would so easily turn it to ridicule. The facts are that even while Le Plongeon's investigations were in progress and reported from time to time they were discredited by authorities who are certainly accepted as reliable in this field of research. John L. Short, author of "North Americans of Antiquity," Harper Bros. N. Y., 1880, writes of him—and this before some of his wildest notions were known—: "We cannot refrain from expressing regret that Dr. Le Plongeon's enthusiasm is so apparent in his reports. A judicial frame of mind as well as calmness which accompanies it are requisites both for scientific work and the inspiration of confidence in the reader." (Above work, p. 396-7).

Commenting on Le Plongeon's statements respecting languages, Short says: "He does not hesitate to say that the Maya, containing words from almost every language ancient and modern is well worth the attention of philologists," etc. Referring to its antiquity he (Le Plongeon) says: "I must speak of that language which has survived unaltered through the vicissitudes of the nations that spoke it thousands of years ago, and is yet the general tongue in Yucatan, the Maya.***It was used by a people that lived at least 6,000 years ago." "With Mr. Bancroft," says Mr. Short, "we agree that no value can be attached to these speculations, until impartial comparisons are made by scholars who have no theory to substantiate." (Ibid, p. 276).

Mr. E. A. Allen, author of Pre-historic Races also criticizes much to the same effect, and more in his computation of time, and supplies the evidence that throws doubt upon the speculations of Le Plongeon (see above work, p.658-666). Mr. Allen's standing in this field of knowledge may be judged in part by the list of highly learned men to whom various parts of his work was submitted; which list is published on the title page of his book.

Desire Charnay, writing in the North American Review for October, 1880, is perhaps the most pronounced in the condemnation of Le Plongeon. He quotes two native Mexican (or Spanish) writers in refutation as to his interpretation of statutes which afford Le Plongeon his chief characters of Queen Moo—saying in conclusion—"We hold ourselves to be justified in rejecting as absolutely erroneous and baseless, the name Chac-Mool given by Le Plongeon to the Yucatan Statue." And with the rightfulness of Le Plongeon's interpretation of that statue gone, falls all the fabric of his speculations. Charnay himself commenting on both the Abbe Bourbourg and Le Plongeon, in this same article, says: "Some of these writers comment with deserved severity upon the mad theories of the Abbe Bourbourg, who finds in one of the codices ( native books) evidence that the current geological theory was originated by the Mayas 100,000 years ago. Others hardly deign to notice the childish fancies of Le Plongeon who finds that the electric telegraph was in use among the Mayas".

When I visited "Dr." Le Plongeon in Brooklyn, many years ago, I think in 1896, I found him living in very unhappy circumstances of wretchedness. His sole companion then in his forbidding lodgings was a half witted woman—what their relations were I do not know, but she was evidently the sorcu woman—for such was her work on my arrival—and was, as he informed me, his medium in receiving spirit communications under his direction. He proposed for me a seance, which, of course, I declined. My visit to the "Dr." and learning then and through him how impossible it was for him to get any recognition for his views from any source of scientific standing, led me to doubt of the value of his investigations.

I think Bro. Ivins, too, will find it necessary to change his views respecting the extent of Nephite literature. While of course no one assumes that the Nephites had a literature in the modern sense of that term, and since the printing press, but they had a literature equal to that of the Jews, previous to the Babylonian captivity, in comparison with their numbers; or the Egyptians, or the Babylonians under the same limits, i.e. according to their number. I think Bro. Ivins must have omitted from consideration in presenting his views on the limitations of Nephite literature, Helaman iii: 13-16; and Alma 13: 20; 14: 1 and 8. If the conditions existed as to scriptures in Ammonihah as there represented, there is no reason why they would not so exist in other cities.

This letter is becoming much longer than I intended. I just wanted the brethren to know that I was quite disappointed in the results of our conference, but not withstanding that I shall be most earnestly alert upon the subject of Book of Mormon difficulties, hoping for the development of new knowledge, and for new light to fall upon what has already been learned, to the vindication of what God has revealed in the Book of Mormon; but I cannot be other than painfully conscious of the fact that our means of defense, should we be vigorously attacked along the lines of Mr. Couch's questions, are very inadequate.

Very truly your brother,