| HERESY | Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints MORMONS |
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
|
| HERESY | Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints MORMONS |
| THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM |
| A Spurious and Fraudulent Translation |
|
THE HISTORY OF THE PAPYRI When the expedition of Napoleon entered Egypt in 1798, there precipitated an interest in Egyptian antiquity that began to sweep across Europe and eventually into the United States. Scientific and historic curiosity was aroused, and expeditions and individuals poured into Egypt, each one hoping to find hidden secrets, forgotten knowledge and various degrees of wealth. As the tombs were opened and looted, artifacts too numerous to mention began flowing back to Europe and eventually across the Atlantic and into the American market. The favorite item was a mummy, and it was profitable for itinerant hucksters to go from town-to-town, showing Egyptian mummies (some real and some fake) that they had obtained, either on the open market or had been discovered by themselves. Grand stories of their discovery and the history of the mummy were told, which, for the most part, were all a fabrication. Into the town of Kirtland, Ohio came one such itinerant showman in 1835. He brought with him 11 mummies and various papyrus manuscripts which he had been exhibiting for the price of admission and had obtained through an inheritance from his deceased uncle. Apparently, Michael H. Chandler had met Benjamin Bullock III, a relative of Heber C. Kimball who was part of the Mormon group, and he told Chandler about Joseph Smith, the prophet, and his ability to translate ancient documents, especially those written in Egyptian. That information precipitated Chandler's appearance in Kirtland and was the reason that he wished to make the acquaintance of Joseph Smith. The following history of the mummies and papyri is recorded in Joseph Smith's History of the Church, vol. 2, pp. 348-349: "The records were obtained from one of the catacombs of Egypt, . . . by the celebrated French [Italian] traveler, Antonio Sebolo [Lebolo], . . . he made a will of the whole, to Mr. Michael H. Chandler. . . . On opening the coffins, he discovered . . . two rolls of papyrus . . ."Joseph Smith found the manuscripts to be interesting and he said he could translate a portion of one of them. Retiring into his "translating room," he returned later and presented the "translation" to Mr. Chandler, the record of which has been lost. Even though he was totally unlearned as to what the manuscripts said and had no means to verify the accuracy of what Joseph Smith claimed was a translation, Mr. Chandler was so impressed by Joseph Smith's work that he wrote the following recommendation: "Kirtland, July 6, 1835Joseph Smith wished to buy the manuscripts, but Michael H. Chandler refused to sell unless the mummies were included. The two eventually agreed on a price of $2,400.00 for the package, and the transaction was completed, an event that would portend a great change in Mormon church doctrine. THE CLAIMS OF JOSEPH SMITH After Joseph Smith obtained the papyri, he made an astounding claim; that the manuscripts contained the actual hand-written writings of Abraham, and others were the writings of Joseph. The papyrus manuscripts were remarkable, since Abraham lived around 2,000 BC, they had to be some 3,800 years old, but were in a remarkable state of preservation. Seemingly, God had smiled on Joseph Smith and given him a gift of an absolutely miraculous discovery. Since Joseph Smith claimed to be a seer, with an extraordinary gift of translation given to him by God, which he said he had used in translating the Book of Mormon from the golden plates, he proceeded to affirm that he could do the same with the papyrus manuscripts. ". . . I commenced the translation of some of the characters or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt, etc. . . ."Joseph Smith undertook his translation of the papyri, and gladly showed his collection of mummies and papyri to the curious. Since there were very few scholars in the world, and none within the population around Joseph Smith, who could read the Egyptian writing, he had no apprehensions that there would be someone in his audience who could actually translate the meaning of the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics or would contradict what he stated about them. Josiah Quincy wrote the following account of his visit to Joseph Smith at Nauvoo, Illinois: The prophet referred to his miraculous gift of understanding all languages. . . . "And now come with me," said the prophet, "and I will show you the curiosities." . . . "These are mummies," said the exhibitor. "I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!" Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. . . . "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis." . . . We were further assured that the prophet was the only mortal who could translate these mysterious writings, and that his power was given by direct inspiration."So, Joseph Smith not only claimed that there were manuscripts written by the actual hands of Abraham and Joseph, but Aaron and Moses as well. He claimed to have had the original creation account, written by Abraham, from which the Genesis account was transcribed by Moses. It was a truly astounding collection of manuscripts, and at least one of the mummies was important as well, being the body of an actual Pharaoh! Perhaps it was even one of the Pharaohs Necho mentioned in the Bible, Jeremiah 46:2, 2 Kings 23:29, at least that was the implication understood by Josiah Quincy. Joseph Smith continued his translation and it was first published in the church paper, Times and Seasons, from March 1 to May 16, 1842. Remarkably, not only the writing of Abraham was included in the papyri, but his art work as well. A drawing of a medallion and a sacrificial scene, both supposedly drawn by Abraham, and noted in the translation, were also part of the papyri. Joseph Smith claimed to have translated the information from the medallion and interpreted the sacrificial scene and identified the characters who were portrayed in it. THE DOCUMENTS LOST It was two years after the first installment of the Book of Abraham was published, that Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob on June 27, 1844, while he was in the Carthage jail. The writings published in 1842 were only a portion of what Joseph Smith promised to translate in the future. There were the writings of Joseph, Aaron and Moses that were to reveal their secrets also. Yet, in a somewhat unusual comparison, the entire Book of Mormon was translated in only a few months, while the writings of Abraham, Aaron, Joseph and Moses could not be completed in almost nine years. In fact, the only translation completed in that period was the Book of Abraham which consisted of only 5,470 words and was not completed for almost seven years. President Joseph F. Smith recalled seeing his uncle Joseph Smith working on the Egyptian papyri in the Mansion House [www.boap.org/LDS/critic.html titled "JSCOM Appendix V, Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham"], but if he was working on further translations, his manuscripts have been lost and none were ever said to have existed. Soon after Joseph Smith's death, the church split and his mother, Lucy Mack Smith, took possession of the mummies and the manuscripts. Eventually, the Mormons under Brigham Young left and moved west to Utah, taking with them the translation of the Book of Abraham, but having to leave the original Egyptian papyri behind with Joseph Smith's family. When Lucy Mack Smith died in 1855, Emma, Joseph Smith's widow, and her son, Joseph Smith III, sold the mummies and the manuscripts to Mr. A. Coombs. Sometime later, the papyri appeared in the St. Louis Museum and then in 1863, they were catalogued in the Chicago Museum. It was presumed that they were destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, but that was not the case, which was a fortuitous circumstance for history. There were only some handwritten facsimiles of the papyri written by Joseph Smith that went along with the church to Utah, at least that was what was claimed. Actually, there was a fragment of one of the papyri that survived and also made its way to Utah and was eventually placed in the vault of the Mormon church. The very piece of history that could possibly prove or disprove the validity of Joseph Smith's claim to be a translator, lay quietly hidden from the world and the controversy that would surround the Book of Abraham for the next 124 years. THE TRANSLATION CHALLENGED The first major challenge to the authenticity of the Book of Abraham was mounted by Egyptologist M. Theodule Deveria in 1860, when the facsimile copies of the Book of Abraham and the drawings that had been done by Joseph Smith were submitted to him. "Deveria not only accused Joseph Smith of making a false translation but also of altering the scenes shown in the facsimiles. Deveria's work on the Book of Abraham seemed to have little influence on the Mormons."In 1912, the Right Reverend F.S. Spalding also mounted an attack on the validity of Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham in his book, Joseph Smith, Jr., As A Translator. In his book he quoted Dr. A.H. Sayce of Oxford, England as follows: It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith's impudent fraud. . . . Smith has turned the Goddess into a king and Osiris into Abraham," p. 23.The Mormon church survived Rev. Spalding's attack, mainly through the publication of a book by Robert C. Webb, which most of the leadership, and others who might have been interested, believed answered any objections. Robert C. Webb claimed to be a Ph.D., but he was writing under a pen name. His actual name was J.E. Homans or J.C. Homans, and he did not have a Ph.D. THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS FOUND The subject seems to have faded into obscurity until it was announced by the Deseret News that the original papyrus manuscripts owned by Joseph Smith had been located in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. It was believed that within the collection were the very same manuscripts that he used in order to translate the Book of Abraham. "NEW YORK—A collection of pa[p]yrus manuscripts, long believed to have been destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, was presented to The Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints here Monday by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. . . .Could there be any better news for the Mormon church? Joseph Smith had to translate by revelation from God, but 120 years had passed and scholars could now read ancient Egyptian languages without having to consult the Deity. Would not a translation vindicate Joseph Smith as a miraculous translator? What about the fragment of original papyrus that was silently waiting in the vaults of the Mormon church? Would it also make an appearance? Apparently so, but its existence was not acknowledged by the church until February 1968, when a photograph was published in Improvement Era, p. 40-H. WHO CAN TRANSLATE? Mormon doctrine states that the leader of the Mormon church is a president, prophet, seer and revelator, having the ability to translate any record of ancient date, and the Book of Mormon is used as the source for that claim: "Now Ammon said unto him: I can assuredly tell thee, O king, of a man that can translate the records; for he has wherewith that he can look, and translate all records that are of ancient date; and it is a gift from God. And the things are called interpreters, and no man can look in them except he be commanded, lest he should look for that he ought not and he should perish. And whosoever is commanded to look in them, the same is called seer."In the Mormon church, the "interpreters" mentioned in the above quoted verse are called the Urim and Thummim and are claimed to have been given to Joseph Smith by God and used to interpret the Book of Mormon from the golden plates. The church claims that the Urim and Thummim are still in the possession of the presidency of the church. "Apostle John A. Widtsoe stated that if 'records appear needing translation, the President of the Church may at any time be called, through revelation, to the special labor of translation'"When the papyri were presented to the Mormon church by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it would have been the perfect moment for the president of the church to use the Urim and Thummim to translate the documents in order to prove the validity of Joseph Smith's translation. However, that was not the case and the presidency apparently tried to distance itself from contact with the documents by authorizing the transfer of the manuscripts into the possession of Dr. Hugh W. Nibley, the top linguist and scholar at Brigham Young University. Dr. Nibley had taken some classes in the ancient Egyptian language, but he was far from qualified as an expert in that field, and there were others in the world who were much more qualified than he and capable of making a precise and correct translation of the manuscripts, but a translation was not immediately forthcoming. NO TRANSLATION AND SCHOLARLY DIFFICULTIES The presentation of the manuscripts to Dr. Nibley revealed the fact that the presidency of the church really did not have the ability to translate all ancient documents, because no attempt was made at a translation of one of the most important historical discoveries since Joseph Smith claimed to have found the golden plates that contained the Book of Mormon written in the reformed Egyptian language. It could only be assumed that the majority of persons in the church believed that the manuscripts contained the original papyri from which Joseph Smith made his translation and that a current translation would reveal that to be the case. Even if the papyri revealed only a part of the Book of Abraham, it was believed that Joseph Smith would be vindicated in his claims to be a translator, his critics would be immediately silenced and he would be forever confirmed as the Prophet of the Restoration. Had the events gone as everyone wished, that probably would have been the case. Even with his limited ability to deal with the Egyptian hieroglyphics, Dr. Nibley immediately realized that the papyri brought with them great trouble, not only for himself, but for the church and the reputation of Joseph Smith as well. Dr. Nibley's comments were reported on December 1, 1967, in the Daily Universe, published at Brigham Young University: "'The papyri scripts given to the Church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true,' Dr. Nibley said . . . Wednesday night. 'LDS scholars are caught flat footed by this discovery,' he went on to say.Seemingly very candid at the beginning of his research, Dr. Nibley also realized that he had to not only provide a defense of Joseph Smith's translation, which would not stand the scrutiny of a modern translation or scholarly analysis of the papyri, but he had to keep a translation from view as long as possible. A TRANSLATION WOULD BE MORE HARM THAN GOOD In January, 1968, Dr. Nibley began a series of articles in the Mormon publication Improvement Era, in which he was to reveal "the meaning of the hieroglyphics." The articles were begun prior to the discovery of the lost papyri, but as time went on, it became necessary to include information about the discovery and an attempted defense of the translation claimed by Joseph Smith. The last article appeared in May, 1970, and none of the articles ever contained a translation of the manuscripts. When asked previously why a translation had not been forthcoming, Dr. Nibley stated: "We have often been asked during the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a translation of the papyri the moment they came into our possession. Well, for one thing others are far better equipped to do the job than we are, and some of those early expressed a willingness to undertake it. But, more important, it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm."How could an accurate translation of the manuscripts do less good than harm, unless a translation would reveal that what was claimed to be the Book of Abraham was not contained in the manuscripts? Dr. Nibley knew that to be the case, but he needed time to find a way to make a defense of Joseph Smith's translation that did not require the manuscripts to actually say what Joseph Smith claimed they did. That was going to be an immense task which he would try to accomplish by writing an 800 page book, which was not published until 1975 and was titled, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, Deseret Book Company. Eight years and 800 pages after the discovery of the papyrus manuscripts, surely the translation would be forthcoming. This was certainly not to be the case. There were eleven fragments of papyri that were originally discovered and ten of those had writing that could be translated. Only two fragments were presented in Dr. Nibley's book and translated. The original fragment of "Facsimile No. 1" which was included in the Book of Abraham was also not included. THE ORIGIN OF THE Book of Abraham DISCOVERED In February, 1968, the Mormon publication, Improvement Era, had printed sepia tone photographs of the papyri, but no translation had been made. Was it possible that the papyrus from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham was not included in those found in the Metropolitan Museum? That certainly would have solved many problems for Dr. Nibley and the Mormon leadership, but that was not to be the case. The Mormon church is in possession of a document titled, Joseph Smith's Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar. ". . . there are in existence today in the Church historian's Office what seem to be two separate manuscripts of Joseph Smith's translations from the papyrus rolls, presumably in the hand writing of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. . . . One manuscript is the Alphabet and Grammar. . . . Within this Alphabet and Grammar there is a copy of the characters, together with their translation of Abraham 1:4-28 only. The second and separate of the two manuscripts contains none of the Alphabet and Grammar but is a manuscript of the text of the Book of Abraham as published in the first installment of the Times and Seasons March 1, 1842."What this Alphabet and Grammar document shows, are Egyptian characters down the left had side of the paper and to the right of each one is the English translation of each single character or hieroglyph. When the document was compared with the Improvement Era photographs published in 1968, it became immediately apparent that the hieroglyphic characters running down the left side of the Alphabet and Grammar document corresponded with the characters in the last photograph of the papyri, noted as: "XI. Small 'Sensen' text (unillustrated)." The Mormon church historical department also had another document similar to the Alphabet and Grammar document which also had Egyptian characters running down the left side of the manuscript with their corresponding English translation to their right. This document was a translation of the Book of Abraham, chapter 1, verse 1 to chapter 2, verse 18. All of the Egyptian characters also corresponded to those found in the photograph noted as: "XI: Small 'Sensen" text (unillustrated)." Dr. Nibley was caught in a difficult position and originally had to admit that the small "Sensen" papyri provided the source for Joseph Smith's translation of the Book of Abraham. "Within a week of the publication of the papyri students began calling my attention, in fact, within a day or two, I think it was Witorf [?], called my attention to the fact that, the very definite fact that, one of the fragments seemed to supply all of the symbols for the Book of Abraham. This was the little 'Sensen' scroll. Here are the symbols. The symbols are arranged here, and the interpretation goes along here and this interpretation turns out to be the Book of Abraham. Well, what about that? Here is the little 'Sensen,' because that name occurs frequently in it, the papyrus, in which a handful of Egyptian symbols was apparently expanded in translation to the whole Book of Abraham. This raises a lot of questions. It doesn't answer any questions, unless we're mind readers."Below is a comparison of the SENSEN papyri and Joseph Smith's Egyptian ALPHABET and GRAMMAR: There were a number of questions answered by the finding, not the least of which was the fact that an actual translation of the text did not produce the Book of Abraham. What Joseph Smith did was not a legitimate translation. He took each Egyptian character and from each singular character he "translated" numerous English words. "A careful examination of this manuscript reveals that Joseph Smith used less than four lines from the papyrus to make forty-nine verses in the Book of Abraham. These forty-nine verses are composed of more than 2,000 English words! In his book, Ancient Records Testify in Papyrus and Stone, page 79, Dr. Sperry informs us that there are '5,470 words' contained in the text of the Book of Abraham. If Joseph Smith continued to translate the same number of English words from each Egyptian character, then the text for the entire Book of Abraham is probably contained on this one fragment of papyrus."What can one conclude when a translation does not yield the actual translated document, and the individual characters of the original manuscript are used to create many corresponding words, far in excess of the original word used? Perhaps the original papyri represented something more than just a translation? Perhaps it was actually a text with a secondary or hidden meaning. Dr. Nibley tried that approach when he stated: "'. . . you very often have texts of double meaning . . . it's quite possible, say, that this ""Sensen"" papyrus, telling a straight forward innocent little story or something like that, should contain also a totally different text concealed within it. . . . they [the Egyptians] know what they're doing, but we don't. We don't have the key."Another approach used by Dr, Nibley was to deny that the papyrus has any connection to the Book of Abraham, even though the characters from it are used in Joseph Smith's Alphabet and Grammar. The papyrus contains only ". . . the directions for wrapping up the Joseph Smith papyri with the mummy," The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, p. 6. But, if the "Sensen" papyri is the source document for the Book of Abraham, why is it only the directions for placing the papyri with the mummy and why does it not translate to the Book of Abraham claimed by Joseph Smith? It is quite true that the Sensen papyrus contains the instructions for wrapping a papyri with the mummy, but Joseph Smith claimed that it was the Book of Abraham, not a funery text. What the Sensen text actually is in reality was the very difficulty which Dr. Nibley was unable to explain. TRANSLATION OF THE "SENSEN" PAPYRIIn an attempt to explain how the characters from the papyri made their way onto the Alphabet and Grammar manuscript, Dr. Nibley proposed a fantastic theory, that they were mistakenly copied there by Joseph Smith's scribes who were trying to determine how the translation was done. "Is the Book of Abraham a correct translation of Joseph Smith Papyri X and XI? No, the Book of Breathings is not the Book of Abraham! . . . Doesn't the text of the Book of Abraham appear in a number of manuscripts in columns running parallel with characters from the Book of Breathings? Yes, the brethren at Kirtland were invited to try their skill at translation; in 1835 the Prophet's associates, . . . made determined efforts to match up the finished text of the Book of Abraham with the characters from the J.S. papyrus No. XI . . .JOSEPH SMITH THE DECEIVER Dr. Nibley dropped his scholarly facade in the very beginning of his monumental book, only to reveal that he was trying to rewrite history according how he wished it to be rather how it actually was. Preferring a fantasy theory to fact, he adopted a fanciful creation to explain the difficulties, but, in the process he had to admit to the fact that the little Sensen papyrus was actually the Book of Breathings, and that finalized the downfall of the Book of Abraham. "The Book of Breathings is an outgrowth of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. It did not appear until the later stages of Egyptian history—just a few centuries before the time of Christ."The identification of the Sensen papyri as part of the Book of Breathings proved the claims of Joseph Smith to be totally false. Within the papyri itself is a reference to the Book of Breathings, and its identification with the Egyptian Book of the Dead places its origin some 1,800-2,000 years after the death of Abraham. Unless Abraham rose from the dead to write the document, it could not have been written by him. Even Dr. Nibley would not attempt to explain how a second century B.C. funery text could have been created by Abraham in the twentieth century B.C. The trouble is compounded, because the papyri could have been written as late as the second or third centuries A.D. Joseph Smith's claim that Abraham actually wrote the document himself is proved to be an untruth and Joseph Smith as a translator is revealed to be a fraud. DAMAGE CONTROL The Mormon church was caught off guard by the discovery of the Joseph Smith papyri and Dr. Nibley's criticism of Mormon scholars for not doing serious research on the Pearl of Great Price, and specifically the Book of Abraham, was quite correct. Had Mormon scholars been prepared, perhaps they could have at least blunted the attack that came after the papyri were discovered and translated. However, to their credit, previous attacks had been deflected and no one seriously considered the possibility that the papyri were still in existence, including the critics. Perhaps the critics should have been more prepared also, however more research had been done by them than the Mormon scholars, which was why the initial reaction to the papyri was so devastating. In the intervening years Mormon scholars have tried valiantly to reconstruct the broken character of the esteemed prophet and translator. They have done much research in an attempt to find data that would support the reality of an actual Joseph Smith translation of the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyri and validate his interpretations of the various facsimile images that accompanied his claims. The foundational claim is basically one that Dr. Nibley also attempted to present as a hypothesis; namely that the Book of Abraham was not translated from the Sensen papyrus, or any other papyrus now known, but was translated from papyri that are now missing. It is claimed that the facsimiles may have been part of the Sensen papyrus, but the actual papyrus used in the translation was from a much longer roll of papyri which has since been lost. Taking this position, Mormon scholars wish to discard, as not important to the issue, the papyri that have been discovered, which would essentially return the discussion back to the point before the papyri were revealed. In effect, only the translation would be subject to scrutiny, since the original documents are assumed to be missing. This would certainly be a benefit to the Mormon position, however critics are unwilling to accept that as a valid posture to take. The following is stated: "Hugh Nibley cites a personal reference to scrolls clearly different from the recovered papyri. In 1906, while visiting Nauvoo, President Joseph F. Smith related to Preston Nibley his experience as a child of seeing his Uncle Joseph in the front rooms of the Mansion House working on the Egyptian manuscripts. According to president Smith, one of the rolls of papyri 'When unrolled on the floor extended through two rooms of the Mansion House. . . . The Joseph F. Smith account, while not contemporary, was not given under duress (there was no pressure from critics about what sort of papyri Joseph Smith had), was clearly impressive to the then boy . . . that he recalled such details without prompting and clearly supports the fact that long scrolls were intact after 1842.It is not entirely true that Joseph F. Smith was not in a position of some duress. He was the president of the church, and as such was quite familiar with the criticism that had been presented against the Book of Abraham from the earliest days. By his position, he was a party to the fact that it had been included in the Pearl of Great Price as scripture, and by the claims of the leadership of the church, he was supposed to be able to know by revelation or inspiration whether the document was false. Joseph Smith, Jr., had been able to "translate" by "inspiration" directly from the English text of the Phinney version, 1828, of the King James Bible in order to create his Inspired Version of the Bible, which he claimed was the corrected version. Joseph F. Smith should have been able to do the same with the Book of Abraham by using the Urim and Thummim in order to verify and correct any errors that had been included in the translation, but it had never been done by any president of the church, including any president to the present time. As a child, Joseph F. Smith had no knowledge of whether the scrolls he saw were the ones used in the translation of the Book of Abraham or whether they were even legitimate Egyptian documents. He certainly had no ability to read them, ascertain their contents or determine whether they were part of the papyri purchased from Michael H. Chandler. Dr. Hugh Nibley was under some great duress, charged with the responsibility of defending the Book of Abraham which included one of his theories that it was translated from papyri that were missing. In an article, an example is noted regarding an account by Charlotte Haven of a visit to the Smith home in 1843: ". . .in 1843, a non-Mormon named Charlotte Haven visited Joseph Smith's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, and wrote a letter to her own mother about it.The source cited as a confirmation that there were additional manuscripts is a woman who knew nothing about manuscripts, could not verify that the manuscripts were indeed genuine and did not even know if what was being read by Mother Smith was from the Bible. In addition she identified the language as Sanskrit (an Indic language and not Egyptian) and Hebrew, something Joseph Smith never mentioned. In addition, Mother Smith is stated to have translated the writings by inspiration through her son, who was not even present. So, not only is Joseph Smith a translator, but his mother as well, a fact not found in any other place. The difficulty with Charlotte Haven is, she was the perfect person to have been the subject of a hoax which she was unable to detect. Supporters of her testimony, would then reject the testimony of Josiah Quincy in relation to the statements he recorded regarding an actual conversation with Joseph Smith in which Joseph Smith made a claim about the papyri, stating: "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the Creation, from which Moses composed the First Book of Genesis."Attempting to discredit Josiah Quincy by making a statement against his veracity and character, supporters of Charlotte Haven say, "However it is clear that Quincy was exaggerating for effect,"The attempt to discredit Josiah Quincy in that manner is without foundation and unworthy of consideration. Josiah Quincy's testimony is very damaging to the Mormon position, because he says that Joseph Smith specifically identified the writing on the papyri as being the handwriting of Abraham and other writing as the autograph (meaning written with one's own hand) of Moses and other lines written by Aaron. Since none of the papyri can possibly date from the time of Abraham or Moses, then the writings cannot be the actual hand written records created by Abraham or Moses. Mormon apologists attempt to circumvent the problem in two ways: 1. They state that Joseph Smith never claimed that the writings on the papyrus were in the actual handwriting of Abraham, but said they were "purporting to be the writings of Abraham. . ," Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, March 1, 1842. However the difficulty created by holding this position is obvious. If Joseph Smith did not know if the writings were the actual handwriting of Abraham, then what kind of a prophet does that make him out to be? To hold that position is to assume that Joseph Smith was not truly a prophet, and was willing to translate and claim those documents to be scripture when he did not actually know that to be the case. To hold the position is ludicrous, because Joseph Smith published the "translation" with the full intent that people should believe that they were the writings of Abraham, and that was the position adopted by all the future presidents, prophets, seers and revelators of the Mormon church, which resulted in the Book of Abraham being canonized as Mormon scripture. Another difficulty in the matter is that the papyri cannot even be copies of the writings of Abraham, since they were the products of a later religious system of belief that did not even come into existence until just prior to the birth of Jesus Christ. The Egyptian religious system represented in the papyri could not have been known by Abraham in his day, and as a consequence they could not be representative of his writings. 2. They state a new definition of the phrase "written by his own hand," as noted in the preface of the Book of Abraham, redefining it to mean that: "They were copies from the land of copyists."Mormon apologists state that Josiah Quincy's statement about Joseph Smith claiming the writing on the papyri was the "handwriting of Abraham" and the "autograph of Moses" was not confirmed by another person who was at the same meeting. However, this is not the case, as the record of Charles Adams, who was the person also present stated, "'This,' said he, 'was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so. If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary.'"Charles Adams can only be said to say something different from Josiah Quincy if the phrase "written by the hand of Abraham" is defined to mean something different than the "handwriting of Abraham" or the "autograph of Moses." This is precisely what the Mormon apologists attempt to do, and claim that Josiah Quincy said something different than what was actually the case and Charles Adams stated what was the reality, as conforming to the definition provided by the Mormon apologists. Mormon apologists are still attempting to adopt Dr. Hugh Nibley's assertion that the Egyptian characters written on the Alphabet and Grammar document are the attempt of Joseph Smith's scribes to try their hand at translating by matching characters to the finished translation. This idea is inserted into the argument in a most oblique manner, Making Joseph Smith responsible for this Grammar is tenuous and no scholar with genuine credentials supports it. For the most part the chief object of critics has been KEPA#1, the ms most critics believe to be Joseph Smith's effort to show that the text came from the breathing permit of Hor. But KEPA#1 actually appears to be the attempt of Joseph's associates to understand the materials they had, including the already translated text.If one holds this view, then it is apparent that Joseph Smith's scribes believed the characters found in the Sensen papyri were the source of the translation, so they used them in an attempt to match them in a manner that would yield a translation. So, whether Joseph Smith wrote the characters or his scribes wrote the characters, the Sensen papyrus still becomes the source for the Book of Abraham. Mormon apologists would defend the depiction of Facsimile No. 1 in the Book of Abraham by stating that a "Copy is Better Than an Original." They would support this position by stating, "However, although there have been several suggestions by critics concerning how the papyrus 'ought' to look, none of these fit the state of affairs better than what exists in Facsimile No. 1."—www.boap.org/LDS/critics.html "JSCOM Appendix V, Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham"So, the reasoning is that since they claim no other alternative reconstructions of the missing areas of the papyrus are satisfactory, according to their standards and not those of Egyptologists worldwide, the correct reconstruction noted on Facsimile No. 1, and accomplished by Joseph Smith, is the best choice and is as good as the original, since it is assumed that Joseph Smith copied it from the original which was damaged. It might be claimed that a copy is almost as good as an original, if the copy conforms faithfully to that which was the original. However, in relation to Facsimile No. 1, that is not the case and that is the core of the whole difficulty. All of those areas that have been reconstructed in Facsimile No. 1 are missing in the original papyri. For Mormon apologists to claim that Facsimile No. 1 is as good as the original is simply not correct, because there is no original by which to compare the copy. Also, Facsimile No. 1 does not contain any of the hieroglyphic writings found on the original papyri. When translated, none of those hieroglyphics mention Abraham or any of the events portrayed in the Book of Abraham. When the original papyri containing the scene found in Facsimile No. 1 is compared with the Sensen papyri, it is found that the edges of both papyri match perfectly, so the scene of Facsimile No. 1 was originally part of the Sensen papyri and is connected with the events in that papyrus and not connected with other papyri rolls that are claimed to be missing. CONTAINING THE "SENSEN" PORTION AND FACSIMILE No. 1
The ORIGINAL PAPYRI, The JOSEPH SMITH "RECONSTRUCTION" and a PROPER REPRESENTATION
The JOSEPH SMITH "RECONSTRUCTION" and an EXPLANATION of the OBJECTS by JOSEPH SMITH and EGYPTOLOGISTS
One of the claims of Mormon apologists has been the following: "David Cameron discovered an Egyptian lion couch scene much like Facsimile No. 1 explicitly mentioning the name Abraham."
This example is used quite often to make a connection with Facsimile No. 1 in the Book of Abraham to what is claimed as a confirmation of the accuracy of that depiction. However, the truth of the matter is quite different. The lion couch scene found by David Cameron [Leiden Papyrus 1 384] shows a WOMAN on the couch instead of a man, and the priest standing over her does not have the face of a man as in Joseph Smith's depiction, but the jackal-headed face of Anubis, which virtually all Egyptologist claim should have been the depiction on Joseph Smith's rendition. In addition, the scene is from the 3rd century A.D. which is some 2,300 years after the time of Abraham. The "specific" name of Abraham is only one of 95 names invoked. The difficulty for Mormon apologists is the fact that the original papyrus containing Facsimile No. 1 in the Book of Abraham and the lion couch scene found by David Cameron are contemporary with each other, both having been created around the 3rd century A.D. The claim that Facsimile No. 1 represents a scene from Abraham's time is an impossibility. The following explains the difficulties in the claim by David Cameron. "One of the more desperate attempts to save the Book of Abraham is the attempt to link it to late magical papyri. John Gee, the Mormon apologist who has criticized Charles Larson's book, has been trying very hard to promote this view. On page 116 of his rebuttal to Larson, John Gee reported: "David Cameron discovered an Egyptian lion couch scene much like Facsimile 1 explicitly mentioning the name Abraham." Mr. Gee has provided research on this subject for an article published by F.A.R.M.S. and has also prepared an article for the church's magazine, The Ensign.REACTION TO REDACTION One of the criticisms against the veracity of the Book of Abraham, has been in regards to terms and words used that cannot be placed within the time frame of the period in which Abraham lived, approx. 2,000 B.C. Since all of the papyri in question date from after 100 A.D., and possibly as late as 300 A.D., it is impossible to claim they are originals from the time of Abraham and equally impossible that they represent actual copies of original documents, since they incorporate religious systems that did not come into existence until at least 2,000 years after Abraham. However, Mormon apologists still make the claim that they are copies from 2,000 years earlier, stating: "Finally, there is another import and rather obvious explanation for the use of terms which seem anachronistic. This rests on the idea that the text was redacted [redact means to edit or change the original —Ed.] in the second temple period, an idea which is quite reasonable in light of many points already discussed."Attempting to support this view, the following is stated. These [ideas] include the evident acknowledgement of Joseph Smith himself that the text "purported" to be the writings of Abraham (not Joseph Smith), the dating of the P. JS and the linking of the text with second temple period documents including the DSS. Issues and traditions important to an editor in this period would naturally surface in the text. None of the claimed anachronisms would be out of place in a text from this time. Indeed their very presence may bolster such an idea."Again, the difficulty in appealing to Joseph Smith's statement, that the writings were "purported" to be those of Abraham, is apparent. If Joseph Smith did not actually know who was the source of the writings, then his claim to be a prophet is suspect. It is incredible that it could be claimed that Joseph Smith presented the Book of Abraham as a translation of some ephemeral document, the source of which, validity of and authorship of, was unknown to him. The reality is, he presented it as originating with Abraham, he led people to believe that was the case, and he presented it as additional scripture with its own inclusion of doctrines which had not been presented before and were subsequently adopted by Joseph Smith and the church. In addition, it is stated that Joseph Smith did not claim that the writings were his own, so that must give them some credibility. But that begs the question that is being discussed as to authorship. Of course Joseph Smith would not claim that the writings were his own creation. That would have destroyed the foundation and authority by which they were claimed to be legitimate. It was their association with and authorship by Abraham that made them authoritative, not any personal creation by Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith had to claim that he had an authority that was separate from his own personal belief, and as such, he declared authority by claiming revelations direct from God, i.e. the First Vision [See: First Vision Accounts ], and by claiming to translate documents that were authorized by God, i.e. the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Additionally, it is claimed that the difficulties in the text, which are the result of later additions and changes to the text, do not call into question the validity of authorship, but actually provide support for the claim that the text is of more ancient origin. Once again, Joseph Smith's claim to be a prophet is called into question, because if he actually translated the text as it stood, he was unable to detect the additions, changes or subtractions from the original and unable to translate the text into its original form, but then presented the translation as being that of the original documents. Not only was he unable to detect the changes of words and terms, he was unable to detect whether there was anything in the documents that existed from their original creation, or whether any additions that might have been part of a "redaction" did not conform to the original message of God, the intent of Abraham in writing the narrative or the reality of the historical events portrayed. Claiming that an answer to the difficulty is that the original text had been subject to redaction, then it must also be admitted that Joseph Smith translated a corrupt text which he did not detect, and it was then placed into the Pearl of Great Price as canonized scripture, which all later presidents, prophets, seers and revelators of the church were unable to detect as corrupted. Joseph Smith and the modern Mormon apologists use the same argument, only reversed, against the authority of the Bible, claiming that it has been changed, added to and subtracted from, by corrupt Catholic priests. However, in the case of the Bible, it is claimed that those "redactions" or changes, discredit the veracity and authority of the biblical text, while in the case of the Book of Abraham, those "redactions" or changes, give support to its validity. The argument cannot be used both ways in order to selectively support one view and discredit another. In their haste to save the character of Joseph Smith, Mormon apologists are willing to sacrifice the claimed integrity of the Book of Abraham by claiming that parts of the text are actually illegitimate. In doing so, they call into question the legitimacy of the entire document, because they can provide no method by which the reality of the original text can be ascertained or whether there ever was an original document penned by Abraham. Joseph Smith himself was unable to detect the difficulties and even God did not do his part in the method of "inspiration" provided to His prophet and translator through the instrument of the Urim and Thummim. The attempt to push the controversy solely into the realm of the academic and restrict it only to questions by those who have "credentials" rather than the validity of the issues raised, reveals that the Mormon apologists are not concerned as to what the affect of a false translation of the Book of Abraham would do to Mormon belief and doctrinal foundations. The Book of Abraham is not just an academic exercise, but it is also a book regarding the teaching of religious concepts which the Mormon church has accepted as scripture. Joseph Smith himself removed the Book of Abraham from the purely academic and placed it in the realm of the mystic, by claiming a miraculous ability to translate by "inspiration" directly granted to him by God, through the means of the Urim and Thummim, what was unknown to any other person. The religious realm is part of the Book of Abraham and the implications as to the validity of a claim to a part of that realm is inherent in the book also. All academic questions aside, the Book of Abraham reveals a system of polytheistic belief, while the Book of Mormon, also translated by Joseph Smith, reveals a monotheistic God. Not only are Mormons faced with a defective translation of the Book of Abraham, they are also faced with the possibility that the major contradictions between the Book of Abraham and the Book of Mormon could reveal that both translations must be considered equally suspect. For whatever reasons that Mormons may adopt their specific system of belief, at least one thing is certain in relation to the controversy; the nature and character of God is claimed to be different in The Book of Mormon from that in the Book of Abraham and Mormons should understand the difficulty. The God of the Book of Mormon condemns those who lie, while the God of the Book of Abraham creates, approves of and participates in lies. This is an issue that is infinitely more serious than any consideration as to whether Abraham was the author of the Book of Abraham, and Mormons should understand the true nature of the difficulty. DOES IT REALLY MATTER? To the vast majority in the Mormon church, the controversy regarding the Book of Abraham may actually be unknown to them, because the issue has been pushed to the level of the academic and removed from the practical implications to their religious belief. To others, treating the controversy as an academic issue removes it from the realm of a religious issue affecting the ultimate destiny of the soul, which many would not like to consider. The difficulties raised by the downfall of the Book of Abraham and the revelation that Joseph Smith fabricated the events regarding its creation, raise profound and serious questions about the previous claims of Joseph Smith and questions the validity of any religious proclamation that he ever made, not the least of which was his claim to have translated the Book of Mormon from golden plates. Dr. Nibley realized the difficulty when he tried to discredit the criticism of the Book of Abraham by Rev. F.S. Spalding. In one of the articles in the Improvement Era, Dr. Nibley attempted to circumvent the criticism and ignore the core reality of what the criticism represented, as if it didn't really matter. "We are further asked to believe that if Joseph Smith could have made a wrong translation on one occasion, it would follow inevitably that he had never at any time had a true gift of translation. But as an editorial in the Deseret News pointed out, 'If a mistake should be proved in the translation of the Egyptian documents, that would not in any way affect the translation of the Book of Mormon."However, that is precisely the main issue involved in the alleged translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith. The claim that Joseph Smith could have mistakenly translated what he considered to be the Book of Abraham is a straw man argument. The issue is not whether Joseph Smith mistakenly translated the Egyptian papyri, but whether a translation was done at all. By admitting that a mistake could have been made in the translation, Dr. Nibley created for himself a very difficult position. If Joseph Smith made a mistake in the translation, then his claim to be a prophet is not only suspect, it is a false claim. If Joseph Smith used the Urim and Thummim to translate the documents, then the inspiration from God involved in the undertaking was false also and perhaps God makes mistakes the same as his prophet. "Spalding insisted, as Professor Pack noted, under what is termed the spirit of fairness, that Joseph Smith be declared a false prophet if he makes a single failure: all his successes must be repudiated. Pack further observed that 'the Latter-day Saints should not, and for that matter do not, maintain that Joseph Smith was infallible.' And J.M. Sjodahl explained that the Prophet like any other mortal was free to make 'mistakes in the translation of the Egyptian documents.'Dr. Nibley made a serious error by assigning the difficulty to the "sectarian world," implying that the difference is simply one of belief or position, which is not the case at all. The book of Deuteronomy, in the Bible, which predates the Book of Mormon by 800 years, specifies the standards to be applied against a person who claims to have given a prophecy from God. "But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?' When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him."Dr. Nibley and the Mormon apologists compound the difficulty by claiming that the revelations and prophecies that Joseph Smith gave could have errors. If that is the case, then how are they to determine which parts are in error? Are there errors so great that the destiny of their eternal souls will come into question? Are the errors so great that everything said by the prophet is in error? By dealing with the issue solely in the academic realm, the real issues at stake are ignored and the academicians claim for themselves the authority to determine what is relevant to Mormon religious belief rather than the living prophets of the church. Additionally, the living prophets have failed to see that their authority has been undermined by the academicians in their own university. 1. The first issue is Joseph Smith's character and claim to be a translator Joseph Smith made the identical claim regarding his ability to translate the Book of Mormon from the golden plates as he did the Book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri and the Kinderhook translation from the metal plates. He also made the identical claim, that he actually did translate all three items. In the instance regarding the Book of Abraham, the original manuscripts are available, and in the case of the Kinderhook plates which were created to trap Joseph Smith into claiming a translation, some of those originals are also available, so the claims of Joseph Smith could be verified and his claims were proved to be false in both cases. In the case of the Book of Mormon, no original golden plates are available, so no comparison can be made. The claim that there were witnesses that attested to the validity of his translation of the Book of Mormon not withstanding, the testimony of those witnesses is actually worthless, since none of them could read the reformed Egyptian writing that Joseph Smith claimed was written on the golden plates, and none of them could translate in order to verify that what Joseph Smith claimed was an actual and valid translation. Joseph Smith was practiced in the art of deception and has been caught in a deception on more than one occasion. A. He stated falsely that he translated the Book of Abraham. B. When confronted with the charge that Mormons were teaching and practicing polygamy, he denied the charge, even though he had been engaged in the practice for several years and taught the practice to the leadership of the church. C. He stated falsely that he translated the "Kinderhook Plates" when they were fakes designed to trap him into making a claim as a translator. D. He deceived his wife, Emma, stating that he did not have other wives with whom he had relations. The issue of Joseph Smith's duplicity is serious, because in two out of three instances when he claimed to have translated ancient text, those claims are found to have been false. The third instance is still under debate, because conveniently the original sources were claimed to have been taken by an angel from God. However there are a few facsimiles of the "reformed Egyptian" characters from the golden plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated, and they cannot be attributed to any known form of the Egyptian language either reformed or otherwise. This does not necessarily disprove Joseph Smith's claim, but the question of whether there was an actual translation or not looms very large. 2. The second issue is the claim of leadership that they will never lead the church into error. Can it be stated that the general authorities of the Mormon church have never led the membership into doctrinal error or have never adopted doctrinal error themselves? The claim is that they will never lead the church into error, but is that the actual case? "The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray . . ." "Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or opposes, whether actively of otherwise, any plan or doctrine advocated by the 'prophets, seers, and revelators' of the Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. . . . Lucifer . . . wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to 'do their own thinking." . . . When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done. When they propose a plan—it is God's plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is sage. When they give direction, it should mark the end of controversy." "Have we not a right to make up our minds in relation to the things recorded in the word of god, and speak about them, whether the living oracles believe our views or not? We have not the right. . . . God placed Joseph Smith at the head of this Church; God has likewise placed Brigham Young at the head of this Church. . . . We are commanded to give heed to their words in all things, and receive their words as from the mouth of God, in all patience and faith." "God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me to be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it." ". . . learn to do as you are told, . . . if you are told by your leader to do a thing, do it, none of your business whether it is right or wrong."In a church where the doctrinal position is that mankind is responsible solely for their own sins and not for the those inherited through the fall of Adam, it is a contradiction to assume that sins committed while engaged in the practice of false doctrine are the responsibility of the teacher and not the student, when those false doctrines can be clearly known through the scriptures of the church. The first difficulty, regarding the claims that the general authorities are the preservers of doctrinal purity in the church, concerns Brigham Young. Brigham Young, the second president and prophet of the Mormon church, while claiming that a follower could ". . . sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray . . ," never admitted to his own participation in the matter of teaching false doctrine. Brigham Young originated and taught the doctrine that Adam was the father in heaven [also known as the Adam-God Doctrine] and, as a result, the teaching was the official belief of the church from 1852 until it was declared heresy by President Spencer W. Kimball in 1976. Never declaring Brigham Young a heretic, lest the authority of the Presidency be undermined, President Kimball admitted that the doctrine was taught for over 120 years. Generations of the faithful were led into error through the teaching of Prophet Brigham Young and the Prophets of the church who followed him never corrected the error until 1976. Not only was Brigham Young part of the heresy, but all Prophets of the church until Spencer W. Kimball were part of the heresy as well, never detecting or dealing with the issue. The second difficulty regarding the claims that the general authorities are the preservers of doctrinal purity in the church, concerns Joseph Smith and relates directly to the doctrines taught in the Book of Abraham. Persons of black skin have always been denied the priesthood in the Mormon church and in its earliest days, Black people were denied entrance and membership in the church. "Having learned with extreme regret, that an article entitled, 'Free People of Color,' in the last number of the Star, has been misunderstood, we feel duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the church." "I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue (sic) of the posterity of Michal (sic) and his wife receive the blessings.. and hold the keys of the priesthood... In the kingdom of God on the earth the affricans (sic) cannot hold one partical (sic) of power in government." "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity." "Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. . . . Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned . . ."There are certain teachings regarding persons of color in the Book of Mormon and in other teachings of the Mormon church, but there is no prohibition against a person of Black skin from joining the church or being granted the priesthood, except in one place - that place is in the Book of Abraham. "I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life." "It is true that the Negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation in the Doctine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible".The difficulty in relation to Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham is quite obvious. Joseph Smith did not claim the Book of Abraham to be a new revelation from God, stating a new teaching about Black people, but he claimed it to be a translation of preexisting material, which was known from at least the time of Abraham. Since the Book of Abraham was not a translation but was a fabrication of his own creation, and Joseph Smith did not use the "seer stone" or the Urim and Thummim to accomplish the "translation," then God was not involved, God never spoke the words in the Book of Abraham, Abraham never wrote the words in the Book of Abraham and the doctrine regarding the prohibition of the priesthood in regards to Black persons derived from the Book of Abraham was false. From the day of its publication in 1842, Mormon followers were deliberately, with pre-meditation, led astray by their founder, first president, first prophet, seer and revelator Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith introduced false teaching into the doctrine of the Mormon church, and later Mormon leaders, in spite of their claims to the contrary, were unable to discern the error and God failed to reveal the heresy to them for 136 years. It was only after the Book of Abraham was shown to be a fraud that Mormon leadership changed its position regarding Black persons holding the priesthood and even that was done 10 years after it was known that the Book of Abraham was a fraud. Since there never was any revelation from God withholding the priesthood from persons of Black skin, and the only authority for doing so was in the false Book of Abraham, it should have been easy to change the church doctrine and admit persons of Black skin to the priesthood. However, it took ten years to make the change, and instead of admitting to the false nature of the doctrine, it was still claimed that God was the source of the prohibition, but finally changed His mind and gave a revelation to change the policy. So, instead of Joseph Smith being the false prophet, the blame is assigned to God who never made the prohibition in the first place. ". . . we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.President Spencer W. Kimball stepped around the obvious difficulty, by stating that the change in doctrinal position in relation to Black persons was not a new course, but was in fact a fulfillment of a previous promise by God (which just happened to coincide with the revelation that the Book of Abraham and its prohibition against Black persons holding the priesthood was false): ". . . that the long-promised day has come. . ."Joseph Smith placed his own belief about withholding the priesthood from Black persons, into the Book of Abraham, masquerading that belief as a revelation from God through Abraham. He found no difficulty in passing off his own personal ideas as those of God and he had no regret that persons would believe the deception that he created and stake the eternal destiny of their souls on those ideas. The same difficulty in the Book of Abraham is found, not only in relation to the claim that Black people cannot obtain the priesthood, but in all of the other teachings, doctrines and supposed historical facts presented in the "translation." Since there was no translation, and what was written was created only by the mind of Joseph Smith, then those things that are claimed to be fact, are false. Chapter 1 claims to give a history of Abraham, while living in Ur, that predates the narrative that is found in the Bible in Genesis 11:24-32 through Genesis 12:1-28. There are events and statements entered into the narrative that do not appear in the biblical record and are attributed directly to a record by Abraham. However, Abraham did not write what is claimed in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham, so it cannot be claimed that what is written there was a revelation from God through Abraham, and then by a translation by Joseph Smith. What was attempted to be shown as new knowledge was, in fact, the imagination and false claim of Joseph Smith and not the truth of Scripture. The rest of the Book of Abraham follows in the same character as the first chapter, in that it claims to reveal events, doctrines, teachings and historical narratives as if they were being written directly from the pen of Abraham, when they were only fabrications from the mind of Joseph Smith. It is no wonder that what is written in the Book of Abraham differs radically from the narrative in the Bible. Joseph Smith was attempting to present the precepts of a religious structure that had been created from his own mind, and revealed just how far he was willing to go in order to present his own religious claims at the expense of the integrity and holiness of God, when he claimed that God creates lies, approves of lies, promotes lies and as a consequence is a party to a lie. The Book of Abraham 2:22-25 states the following: And it came to pass when I was come near to enter into Egypt, the Lord said unto me; Behold, Sarai, they wife, is a very fair woman to look upon; therefore it shall come to pass, when the Egyptians shall see her, they will say—She is his wife; and they will kill you, but you will save her alive; therefore see that ye do on this wise: Let her say unto the Egyptians, she is they sister, and thy soul shall live. And it came to pass that I, Abraham, told Sarai, my wife all that the Lord had said unto me—Therefore say unto them, I pray thee, thou art my sister, that it may be well with me for thy sake, and my soul shall live because of thee."The god of Joseph Smith is revealed not only to be a hypocrite in the Book of Abraham, but a cruel and unreasoning judge. God commands what he condemns and by that act, he commands human beings to participate in lies for which they are judged, 2 Nephi 9:34, Book of Mormon. There is no escape for the person who lies at the command of God, because they are condemned if they lie and they are condemned if they refuse to obey the command of God to lie, Alma 9:13, Book of Mormon. Had not the original papyri been discovered from which Joseph claimed to have translated the Book of Abraham, it would still have been revealed to be a false and spurious document, because it reveals a god who is just like Joseph Smith, rather than the holy and righteous God that He actually is. The Bible reveals the true character of God when it states: "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent; has He said, and will He not do it?" "Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind." ". . . in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago. . ." ". . . so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us." "You shall not steal, nor deal falsely, nor lie to one another." "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal faithfully are His delight."By impugning the character and nature of God, Joseph Smith revealed himself to be a false prophet because he claimed to say that which God did not say, and claimed the character of God was something that it is not, and his actions in the matter are revealed in Deuteronomy and Jeremiah: "But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak. or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die." "Then the Lord said to me, 'The prophets are prophesying falsehood in My name. I have neither sent them nor commanded them nor spoken to them. they are prophesying to you a false vision, divination, futility and the deception of their own minds. Therefore thus says the Lord concerning the prophets who are prophesying in My name, although it was not I who sent then—yet they keep saying, ""There will be no sword or famine in this land""—by sword and famine those prophets shall meet their end!'" FIRST PRESENTED IN THE BOOK of ABRAHAM
The difficulties with the doctrines taught in the Book of Abraham are not confined to just a comparison with those taught in the Bible. It should be understood that there are major and contradictory differences in comparison to core Mormon scriptures. 1. The first difficulty in the Book of Abraham is in regards to the nature of God. By 1844, Joseph Smith was teaching a doctrine of a plurality of gods (polytheism), and the concept that all Mormon believers had the potential to become gods themselves: "First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. . . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. . . . God himself; the Father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did. . . . You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves. . . . No man can learn you more than what I have told you."Not only did Joseph Smith teach a doctrine of multiple gods, but there was an infinitude of gods already in existence and an infinitude of gods still to come in the future because of the Eternal Progression, which had been going on from eternity past and would continue through eternity future. Not only were there an infinity of gods, each one of those gods had as their origin an existence as one time being a man. As a consequence, this teaching was carried over into the doctrine taught in the Book of Abraham where it is stated, ". . . that is the Gods organized and formed the heavens and the earth,"The difficulty with this teaching, is that it is claimed that Abraham knew about this plurality of Gods and was specifically stated by him in the creation account written by him in the Book of Abraham 4:1-31; 5:1-22. Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon, which was written beginning some 1,400 years after the life of Abraham, reveals a monotheistic (singular) God. The Book of Mormon which was a record of Mormon teaching in the Americas, was translated by direct "inspiration" from God by means of the Urim and Thummim given to Joseph Smith by God, yet God reveals Himself to be only one person and not one of many as found in the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith said of the Book of Mormon: "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."The Book of Mormon is quite clear regarding its claims about the godhead: "And he said to me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh." "And the angel said unto me: Behold the lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?" ". . . and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make know to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they can be saved." [Emphasis added. —Ed.] "Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have light, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters." "And because he said unto them that Christ was the God, the Father of all things, and said that he should take upon him the image of man, and it should be the image after which man was created in the beginning; or in other words, he said that man was created after the image of God, and that God should come down among the children of men, and take upon him flesh and blood, and go forth upon the face of the earth— "And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of god, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—The Father, because he was conceived by the power of god; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth." "And Zeezrom said unto him: Thou sayest there is a true and living God? And Amulek said: Yea, there is a true and living God. Now Zeezrom said: Is there more than one God? and he answered, No."The revelation about the nature of God that was originally known by Abraham around 2,000 B.C., must have become corrupted by the time the golden plates were created containing the Book of Mormon, beginning around 600 B.C.. What was originally revealed as many gods, became a revelation about only one god. So, when Joseph Smith claimed to be a prophet regarding the restoration of the original gospel that was corrupted in the Bible he must have also been the prophet of the restoration of the original knowledge of God that was corrupted in the Book of Mormon. God failed to maintain a true revelation of himself in the Book of Mormon and failed to correct the error when his prophet, Joseph Smith, made the translation. If the Book of Abraham is true, how can any other conclusion be made, but that the teaching of the Book of Mormon was corrupted from the teaching in the Book of Abraham which predated the events in the Book of Mormon by 1,400 years? However, there is another conclusion which is obvious. While the Book of Mormon reveals a monotheisitc god, Joseph's Smith's later definition of God was based on polytheism or radical polytheism, in which there is an infinite number of gods. The obvious conclusion is that Joseph Smith took his later beliefs and incorporated them into what he claimed was a document created earlier than the Book of Mormon. Rather than the Book of Abraham being the foundation for the Book of Mormon, it was the later beliefs of Joseph Smith developed after the writing of the Book of Mormon that provided the foundation for the Book of Abraham and contradicted what was written in the Book of Mormon and the words of god that are claimed to be found there. 2. The second difficulty in the Book of Abraham is in regards to the character of God. In the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith reveals a fickle God; a God who commands and says one thing, but does just the opposite. He reveals more of the character of humanity, since he was once only just a man, rather than that of deity. He is a God who deliberately creates and participates in lies, and as a consequence he is a changeable God, who cannot be trusted as to the truthfulness of anything he says. The Book of Mormon claims the character of God to be something quite different than that found in the Book of Abraham. "For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." "For he is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever; and the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world, if it so be that they repent and come unto him." "And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a god of miracles. . . . And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles."The conclusion is inescapable. Either the Book of Mormon is not the ". . . most correct of any book on earth . . .", or the Book of Abraham is seriously defective in its theology. The question has been presented as to, Does it really matter? and one can only point to the reality that the God of the Book of Abraham is different than the God of the Book of Mormon. The questions are whether which one is the true God or whether either one is a true God. If Joseph Smith presented a false translation of one book, can the God of the other book be true, or did he present a false translation of both books, in which case both Gods are false? It does make a difference. And all Mormons should be deeply concerned as to the implications of a false translation of the Book of Abraham and the implications of a prophet who would perpetuate falsehood as a translation of revelations from God. "For I, the Lord, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." "Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." SOURCES Scott, Latayne Covert, The Mormon Mirage, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1979 Tanner, Jerald & Sandra, The Changing World of Mormonism, Moody Press, Chicago, 1981 Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Jerald & Sandra Tanner, Salt Lake City, Utah - www.utlm.org www.boap.org/LDS/critics.html "JSCOM Appendix V, Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham" NOTE REGARDING THE "BOAP" ARTICLE CITED: Book of Abraham Project, from A Joseph Smith Commentary On The Book of Abraham by W.V. Smith, 1993, www.boap.org/LDS/critics.html JSCOM Appendix V, "Criticisms of Joseph Smith and the Book of Abraham" A personal attack as an offense is apparently the best defense against people who do not have "genuine credentials," whatever those may be defined to be. That seems to be the means for devaluating the importance of questions and answers given by people who do not meet the standards of acceptability defined by the author of the article. It is quite difficult to understand why a person's academic credentials have any relationship to questions that they might ask or even to answers they might give, when they are legitimately presented with an intelligent foundation. There is an expression of personal superiority frequently expressed in the article, through numerous put-down references, directed to those who would oppose the position taken by the author, such as:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 COPYRIGHT
© 2001-2009 by ON DOCTRINE & ONDOCTRINE.COM, All Rights Reserved
|
| HOME | WRITINGS | ORGANIZATIONS | Q & A | NEWSLETTER | FAQS | CONTACT | ABOUT | BELIEFS | LINKS | ARCHIVE | FREE BIBLE | STORE |
