Part 3: When the Story Changes: Faith,
History, and Moving Targets
A Careful Examination of How Religious Communities Handle Historical Difficulties
One of the key ways that we learn—not only here at BYU
but throughout life—is by asking questions.
– Cecil O. Samuelson
First Quorum of the Seventy
October 1, 1994 – October 1, 2011
Have you ever noticed how a theory can sometimes change so dramatically over time that it barely resembles its original form—while insisting it has remained fundamentally the same?
This is a phenomenon familiar to philosophers of science, historians, and anyone who has watched a political position evolve through successive news cycles. We might call it the problem of moving targets: when an explanation shifts so substantially to accommodate new evidence that one begins to wonder whether the original claim ever meant anything at all. The Book of Mormon’s Lamanites were once identified as the “principal ancestors” of Native Americans; after DNA evidence complicated this claim, the phrase quietly became “among the ancestors”—a retreat presented as mere clarification.
Today, I want to explore this question through a specific case study—not to attack anyone’s faith, but because I believe serious questions deserve serious examination. And I extend this invitation particularly to thoughtful Latter-day Saints who value intellectual honesty as deeply as their spiritual commitments. The question is not whether Mormonism is true or false, but rather: what does intellectual integrity look like when historical evidence challenges cherished beliefs?
The Virtue of Revision and Its Counterfeit
Before examining any particular case, we must acknowledge something important: legitimate scholarly revision is not only acceptable but essential. When new evidence emerges, responsible thinkers adjust their conclusions. This is what distinguishes science from ideology, genuine faith from fundamentalism.
The philosopher Karl Popper helpfully distinguished between two types of theoretical adjustment. The first is the legitimate introduction of auxiliary hypotheses—modifications that generate new, testable predictions and advance our understanding. Popper’s famous example involves astronomers who, finding anomalies in Uranus’s orbit, hypothesized an unseen planet rather than abandoning Newtonian mechanics. This hypothesis led to Neptune’s discovery—a triumph of scientific reasoning.
The second type of adjustment Popper identified is the ad hoc hypothesis—a modification introduced solely to save a theory from falsification, without generating new testable predictions. Ad hoc hypotheses do not advance knowledge; they merely immunize a position against disconfirmation. Popper noted that such “immunizing stratagems” effectively render a theory unfalsifiable and thus non-scientific.
This distinction matters profoundly for faith communities facing historical difficulties. The question is not whether explanations can evolve—of course they can—but whether the evolution represents genuine intellectual progress or defensive rationalization.
Case Study: The Book of Abraham
Perhaps no topic illustrates this dynamic more clearly than the Book of Abraham, one of Latter-day Saint scripture’s most distinctive texts. For those unfamiliar with the history: In 1835, Joseph Smith acquired several Egyptian mummies and papyrus scrolls. He declared that one of the scrolls contained writings of the biblical patriarch Abraham and proceeded to produce a “translation” now canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price.
The original claims were straightforward. The Pearl of Great Price introduction long stated that the Book of Abraham was “translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith.” Joseph himself wrote that the scrolls contained “the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” His contemporaries understood him to be claiming actual translation of an ancient text authored by the patriarch Abraham.
For over a century, this explanation sufficed. Most of the papyri were presumed lost in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 while stored in Chicago’s Wood Museum, making verification impossible. But in 1967, several fragments were rediscovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art and returned to the Church—the very fragments associated with Facsimile 1 in the Book of Abraham.
What followed was a test case in how communities handle disconfirming evidence.
What Egyptologists Found
When trained Egyptologists—both Latter-day Saint and non-LDS—examined the papyri, they reached a consensus that has not substantially changed in the subsequent decades. The papyri date to the Ptolemaic or early Roman period (roughly 50 BC to AD 50), about two thousand years after Abraham’s lifetime. They contain standard Egyptian funerary texts, primarily the “Book of Breathing” (Shait en Sensen), related to the more familiar Book of the Dead.
Most significantly, the papyri contain no mention of Abraham whatsoever. Robert Ritner, a leading Egyptologist at the University of Chicago (and the doctoral advisor of LDS Egyptologist John Gee), concluded that the source was simply a funerary document unrelated to Abraham. Even the LDS Church’s own Gospel Topics essay acknowledges that “none of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.”
The facsimiles present additional difficulties. Joseph Smith’s explanations of the figures in these illustrations—identifying Egyptian deities as Abraham, Pharaoh, and various other biblical figures—contradict standard Egyptological understanding entirely. Ritner noted that what Smith identified as Abraham on the altar was actually the deceased being presented to Osiris according to standard Egyptian funerary practice.
The Evolution of Explanation
Here is where our philosophical question becomes concrete. How did Latter-day Saint apologetics respond to these findings? The evolution is instructive.
The Missing Scroll Theory: Initially, some apologists proposed that Joseph Smith translated from a portion of the scrolls that no longer exists—a “long scroll” theory suggesting the recovered fragments represent only part of what Smith possessed. This hypothesis has certain attractions: it acknowledges that the papyri we have are not the source text while preserving the claim of actual translation.
However, this theory encounters significant problems. The Book of Abraham itself (Abraham 1:12, 14) describes Facsimile 1 as appearing “at the commencement” of the record—precisely where we find it on the recovered papyrus. Joseph Smith’s translation manuscripts show his characters drawn from the surviving papyri margin. Moreover, early Egyptologist Gustavus Seyffarth examined the complete scrolls in 1856 and described only the Hor text and Facsimile 3, with no indication of any additional Abrahamic content.
The Catalyst Theory: More recently, a “catalyst theory” has gained prominence. This view suggests the papyri served merely as a spiritual “trigger” or “catalyst” for revelatory inspiration, not as the actual source text. On this view, Joseph Smith received genuine revelation about Abraham’s life, but not through translation of the papyri in any conventional sense.
The Church’s Gospel Topics essay appears to embrace this direction, stating that “Joseph’s study of the papyri may have led to a revelation about key events and teachings in the life of Abraham.” The essay draws an analogy to Smith’s “translation” of the Bible, which involved receiving revelation while reading existing scripture rather than translating from original manuscripts.
The Philosophical Questions
This is where I invite readers—particularly thoughtful Latter-day Saints—to consider some philosophical questions with me. I do not raise these questions hostilely, but because they seem to me genuinely important for anyone committed to intellectual honesty within faith.
First: What would count as disconfirmation? If the original claim was that Joseph Smith translated Abraham’s actual writings from ancient papyri, and we now know the papyri contain standard Egyptian funerary texts with no connection to Abraham, what evidence could falsify the revised position? If “translation” can mean “inspiration triggered by looking at an unrelated document,” has the term retained any meaningful content?
Consider Popper’s insight: a theory that cannot be falsified is not necessarily false, but it has ceased to make contact with empirical reality in any testable way. When Richard Bushman, perhaps the most respected Latter-day Saint historian, acknowledges that “scholarship seems to show that what was on the scrolls we actually have is not what’s in the book of Abraham,” and that the scrolls are merely “present, but they are not really containing the message,” we have moved very far from the original claim.
Second: Does the catalyst theory create new problems? If Joseph Smith believed he was translating Abraham’s actual writings but was instead receiving unrelated revelation, several difficulties emerge. Joseph’s own statements suggest he understood himself to be translating actual hieroglyphics. The “Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language“ documents show him attempting character-by-character translation. If the catalyst theory is correct, was God responsible for allowing Smith to be fundamentally mistaken about what he was doing?
Moreover, the facsimile interpretations present a distinct problem. Joseph Smith provided specific identifications for figures and symbols that directly contradict Egyptological understanding. The catalyst theory explains the text, but not these concrete, falsifiable identifications.
Third: How do we distinguish legitimate revision from ad hoc rationalization? This is perhaps the most important question. Legitimate scholarly revision typically has certain characteristics: it acknowledges the force of the disconfirming evidence, generates new testable predictions, and does not require redefining key terms beyond recognition.
Ad hoc hypotheses, by contrast, are introduced solely to protect a conclusion from falsification. They tend to involve special pleading, unfalsifiable additions, or redefinition of terms. When Bushman notes that the scrolls functioned as “some kind of stimulus or provocation or something that starts the revelatory process,” we are entitled to ask: Is this a genuine theoretical advance, or is it a rationalization?
A Broader Pattern?
The Book of Abraham is not an isolated case. Similar patterns emerge in other areas of LDS historical apologetics.
Plural marriage narratives have undergone significant revision. The original understanding emphasized divine command and eternal blessings. When historical research revealed the ages of some of Joseph Smith’s plural wives, the coercive elements of certain proposals, and the deception involved even toward Emma Smith, apologetic explanations shifted. The Church’s Gospel Topics essays now acknowledge uncomfortable facts that were previously downplayed or denied, while offering contextual frameworks that soften their implications.
Richard Bushman himself noted, “I think that for the Church to remain strong, it has to reconstruct its narrative. The dominant narrative is not true; it can’t be sustained.” This is a remarkable admission from a faithful historian, and it raises important questions about the relationship between faith and historical accuracy.
The epistemological retreat deserves particular attention. When historical claims face difficulties, there is often a move from objective historical assertion to subjective spiritual testimony. The Gospel Topics essay on the Book of Abraham concludes: “The book of Abraham’s status as scripture ultimately rests on faith in the saving truths found within the book itself as witnessed by the Holy Ghost.”
This is a significant rhetorical move. The essay presents substantial historical argumentation, then retreats to spiritual witness when that argumentation proves insufficient. But if the ultimate warrant is subjective testimony, why offer the historical arguments at all? And does this move effectively immunize the position against any possible historical evidence?
Toward Intellectual Honesty
I want to close with some observations about what intellectual honesty might look like in matters of faith and history.
First, honesty requires acknowledging the force of contrary evidence. It is not intellectually honest to present only evidence favorable to one’s position while ignoring or minimizing difficulties. Terryl Givens and Richard Bushman have both been critical of FAIR (formerly FAIR Mormon) apologetics for this tendency. As Bushman noted, “The work of the great apologetic organizations, FARMS and FAIR, is less effective because they only give one side of the picture.”
Second, honesty requires consistency in methodology. If we would reject certain explanatory moves in other contexts—claiming hidden evidence, redefining key terms, retreating to unfalsifiable positions—we should not accept them merely because they serve conclusions we favor.
Third, honesty requires distinguishing between faith and apologetics. Faith may choose to persist despite evidential difficulties; that is its prerogative. But apologetics presents itself as a rational defense. If apologetic arguments would not be accepted in peer-reviewed historical journals—and they would not be—we should be clear about their actual epistemic status.
An Invitation to Think
I write as someone who respects Latter-day Saint commitment, family focus, and community. I have known individuals within the LDS community whose faith I admire, even where I cannot share it. This examination is not intended as an attack but as an invitation to honest reflection.
For those wrestling with these questions, I offer no easy answers. Faith is not reducible to historical argument, and people of good conscience may weigh evidence differently. But if you have felt uncomfortable with apologetic explanations that seemed to shift constantly—explanations you may have absorbed since childhood as simply “how things are”—you are not alone. If you have wondered whether the answers you were given served truth or merely protected conclusions you were taught to accept before you could evaluate them, your wonder is justified.
The fundamental question remains: when a story changes dramatically to accommodate new evidence, at what point does honest faith become rationalization? That question deserves better than it has often received.
These are questions worth asking.
—————
For Further Reading
Primary Sources:
• LDS Church Gospel Topics Essay: “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham” (churchofjesuschrist.org)
• The Joseph Smith Papers Project, Book of Abraham documents (josephsmithpapers.org)
• Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham
LDS Scholarship:
• Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (2005)
• Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid, The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture (2019)
• Hugh Nibley, The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment (1975)
Egyptological Assessment:
• Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: A Complete Edition (2013)
• Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (PDF): Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham
Philosophy of Science:
• Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959)
• Imre Lakatos, (PDF) “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” (1970)
This is part of a series inviting thoughtful reflection on Latter-day Saint truth claims. The author holds no animosity toward the LDS community and welcomes respectful dialogue. Questions and responses may be directed through the usual channels.
This article was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence tools, which have proven to be valuable research assets across numerous academic disciplines. While AI-generated insights informed portions of this work, all content has been carefully reviewed and edited by the author to ensure accuracy and relevance.