Letters To A Mormon Elder: Chapter 8

Letter 8 — The Book of Mormon
and the Book of Abraham Vision
Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White

Thursday, July 5

Dear Elder Hahn,

I received your note yesterday morning. I have considered just how to respond, and feel that I should indeed continue on and address the topic of the Book of Mormon. But I will do so in such a way as to answer your request. You wrote,

Mr. White, I appreciate all the study you have done on these issues, and I admit that I am not a Bible scholar, and cannot give you an answer for each topic you have presented. However, I ask you, I strongly urge you, to pray about the Book of Mormon. I have done this, and though I can’t explain all of it to you, I know that it is true. Before you write to me and attack that book, please pray about it and ask God, in accordance with Moroni 10:4 — 5, if it is true.

I hope you understand, Elder Hahn, that I have heard the same plea from innumerable LDS individuals over the past number of years. It is probably the single most consistent comment made by those who would seek to defend your faith, and, of course, it is something that every single LDS missionary in the field urges prospective converts to do. And, on the surface, it seems quite innocent, quite simple. Who wouldn’t be willing to pray to God and ask if something is true? I wouldn’t. Why? Many, many reasons. Let’s start with a real obvious example and go from there. Would you pray and ask God if the The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey is true? No, I am not making a direct comparison of the two, I am just asking you if you would pray about such a book? I know that I would not. Why? Because it is obviously not from God — it is blatantly false. So to come to God and say, “Lord, I know that you have already revealed that this is in error, but I’d like to ask again, just in case,” is to test God. Now, if an angel came to you and told you to go murder someone, would you pray about this? I wouldn’t, and for the same reason. God has said that murder is wrong, and I am not going to get “a second opinion” on the matter. [remember all too well what happened to the Israelites when they didn’t believe what God said about entering into the promised land. That generation wandered in the wilderness for forty years until a new generation came along, one that would take God at His word. Testing God is not a wise procedure. He has revealed His truth, and expects to be believed on that basis. If someone came to me and said “pray about this new teaching that says that Jesus really didn’t rise from the dead, but rather was re-created as a spirit-creature,” I wouldn’t so much as begin to bend my knees — such a teaching is directly opposed to scriptural truth, and I will not question God’s truth by praying about it.

So, Elder, I believe that God has revealed His truth in the Word of God, the Bible, and I will not question His truth by praying about the truth of something that is opposed to biblical teaching. To do so would not only be an act of unbelief, but of rebellion against God, and could have dire results. Those who question God may just be left open to all sorts of falsehoods and errors.

Now in reference to your plea for me to pray about the Book of Mormon, my main reason for refusing to do so is simply because I have read and studied the Book of Mormon, and have found it to be in contradiction to clear biblical teaching. So, though it may not teach what The Satanic Bible teaches, it is still in opposition to God’s truth. I will not disbelieve God to pray about it. I shall enumerate my reasons for feeling the Book of Mormon is in error below. I do want to make a comment on the passage you cited above, Moroni 10:4-5. It reads,

And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

This passage is used more often by LDS people than any other passage of which I am aware. But if you examine it closely, you see that it is a “no win” proposition that is presented here. In other words, if a person does not feel that the Holy Spirit testifies that the Book of Mormon is true, then the Mormon has a ready answer, provided by the passage itself — such a person must not have a sincere heart, or have real intent, or have faith in Christ. If a person were sincere, honest, and believed in Christ, then that person would have to know, by the power of the Holy Spirit, that the Book of Mormon is true. That makes things quite easy, for everyone who doesn’t believe in the Book of Mormon must be dishonest at heart, lack the proper intentions, and certainly does not have faith in Christ. I reject this kind of concept — any group (and many of them have done so in the past and continue to do so today) can construct such a “test” about the truthfulness of their teachings. They would look at you, if you do not believe them, and say “Well, you didn’t ask in proper faith.” What would you say to them, Elder? You’d have nothing to say, since you are doing the same thing every time you ask someone to follow the council of this passage.

I do not question the sincerity of your testimony to the Book of Mormon, Elder. I am sure that you feel that you have received a testimony. But as I mentioned in my very first letter, your feelings do not make the Book of Mormon true. Your feelings could quite simply be wrong. I have feelings as well, and my feelings are that the Book of Mormon is wrong. So we obviously have to look to other sources for a determination of the truth or falsity of that book.

I said that I would not pray about the Book of Mormon, and I told you why such would be testing God. What I would like to do is give you five reasons why I do not feel that anyone should pray about the Book of Mormon. Each of these items I bring up is discussed further in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality, pages 50-125J.

Reason #1: The Book of Mormon is historically inaccurate. This can be seen in a number of ways, but [will limit my points to two areas: first, the concept of “Book of Mormon archaeology” and second, the close relationship between Ethan Smith’s book View of the Hebrews and the plot of the Book of Mormon.

In the summer 1973 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Dr. Michael Coe, Professor of Anthropology and Curator in the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale University, author of many books on Meso-American archaeology and history, such as Mexico, The Maya, In the Land of the Olmec, and The Maya Scribe and His World, made the following comments:

Mormon archaeologists over the years have almost unanimously accepted the Book of Mormon as an accurate, historical account of the New World peoples between about 2000 B.C. and A.D. 421. They believe that Smith could translate hieroglyphs, whether “Reformed Egyptian” or ancient American . . . Let me now state uncategorically that as far as I know there is not one professionally trained archaeologist, who is not a Mormon, who sees any scientific justification for believing the foregoing to be true, and I would like to state that there are quite a few Mormon archaeologists who join this group.¹

The bare facts of the matter are that nothing, absolutely nothing, has ever shown up in any New World excavation which would suggest to a dispassionate observer that the Book of Mormon, as claimed by Joseph Smith, is a historical document relating to the history of the early migrants to our hemisphere. (pp. 41 — 42,46)

You have, no doubt, heard otherwise. I can’t tell you how many Mormons have an uncle who is friends with an archaeologist who has discovered what he thinks is the city of Zerahemla (or Bountiful, or Zeezrom, etc.). [remember talking with one of the tour guides at Temple Square in Salt Lake City. We had just watched a film on the subject of supposed archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, and I was asking questions and pointing out a number of inconsistencies in the filmlike showing a structure that looks just like the famous Mayan temple at Tikal in the background of a picture of Jesus Christ as He visits the Nephites. With great honesty, he assured me that he knew of specific archaeological evidence that proves the Book of Mormon to be true. He could not give me any specifics — few ever do but I could tell he was real honest about it. I know of no reason why the statement made by Mormon anthropologist M. Wells Jakeman thirty years ago is not still valid today:

It must be confessed that some members of the “Mormon” or Latter-day Saint Church are prone, in their enthusiasm for the Book of Mormon, to make claims for it that cannot be supported. So far as known to the writer, no non-Mormon archaeologist at the present time is using the Book of Mormon as a guide in archaeological research. Nor does he know of any non-Mormon archaeologist who holds that the American Indians are descendants of the Jews, or that Christianity was known in America in the first century of our era. (The Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 135 — 36)

About seven years later John L. Sorenson seemed to hold the same view as Jakeman:

Various individuals unconnected with these institutionalized activities have also wrestled with the archaeological problem. Few of the writings they have produced are of genuine consequence in archaeological terms. Some are clearly on the oddball fringe; others have credible qualifications. Two of the most prolific are Professor Hugh Nibley and Milton R. Hunter; however, they are not qualified to handle the archaeological materials their works involve. . .

. . . As long as Mormons generally are willing to be fooled by (and pay for) the uninformed, uncritical drivel about archaeology and the scriptures which predominates, the few L.D.S. experts are reluctant even to be identified with the topic. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1966, pp. 145, 149)

Eleven years after the statements by Dr. Coe quoted above, in August of 1984, a Sunstone symposium was held in Salt Lake City. The topic was “Book of Mormon Archaeology.” One of the speakers was Dr. John Carlson from the University of Maryland; the other two speakers were from Brigham Young University — Ray Matheny and Bruce Warren, both professors of Anthropology. Taking my information from a typewritten copy of notes recorded at the seminar, I note that Dr. Carlson, who is not a Mormon, pointed out that basically there is no such thing as “Book of Mormon archaeology” in the true sense of the term. To have “Book of Mormon Archaeology” one needs a base of data to examine, and there is none. He said,

“The Book of Mormon itself has not made a significant contribution to New World archaeology. Ask any New World archaeologist. . . . To the best of my knowledge there are no non-LDS archaeologists who are influenced by the Book of Mormon or who use it in their work. I don’t know of a single soul.”

His words are strangely reminiscent of Dr. Coe’s words, are they not? Dr. Carlson also discussed what he called “picture books.” I believe he was referring to the numerous publications available today that really make a mockery out of true archaeology by showing a pit and saying it is a baptismal font, or showing a painting of a Mayan temple and saying that the people who built it were Nephites or Lamanites, or by talking about a certain stele and saying it is Lehi and the Tree of Life. As he said himself,

They are a wealth of misinformation and a disservice. . . . I will just tell you in my reading of some of those older books that purport to deal with Book of Mormon archaeology, they are making errors on the level of someone saying, oh yeah, Salt Lake City, that’s in Wyoming. Now if you read a book that said that, Salt Lake City, Wyoming, you’d say, “This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about!” And believe me, . . . that is the level of scholarship. . .

Even the Church leadership has made comments about the common claims made by Mormons regarding the Book of Mormon and archaeology. In the Church Section of the Deseret News of July 29, 1978, we read,

The geography of the Book of Mormon has intrigued some readers of that volume since its publication. But why worry about it?

Efforts to pinpoint certain places from what is written in the book are fruitless because the record does not give evidence of such locations in terms of modern geography.

Attempts to designate certain areas as the Land Bountiful or the site of Zarahemla or the place where the Nephite city of Jerusalem sank into the sea “and waters have I caused to come up in the stead thereof” can bring no definitive results. So why speculate?

To guess where Zarahemla stood can in no wise add to anyone’s faith. But to raise doubts in people’s minds about the location of the Hill Cumorah, and thus challenge the words of the prophets concerning the place where Moroni buried the records, is most certainly harmful. And who has the right to raise doubts in anyone’s mind?

Our position is to build faith, not to weaken it, and theories concerning the geography of the Book of Mormon can most certainly undermine faith if allowed to run rampant.

Why not leave hidden the things that the Lord has hidden? If He wants the geography of the Book of Mormon revealed, He will do so through His prophet, and not through some writer who wishes to enlighten the world despite his utter lack of inspiration on the point.

Some authors have felt “called upon” to inform the world about Book of Mormon geography and have published writings giving their views. These books, however, are strictly private works and represent only their personal speculations.

It is not exactly accurate to say that there is “no data” relevant to the Book of Mormon’s representation of life on this continent between, say, 600 B.C. and A.D. 42l — such information exists. The problem is, on the matters of material culture, it is by and large contradictory to the Book of Mormon. Let me explain.

The main reason I feel the Book of Mormon is not what it is claimed to be is that there is such a mountain of evidence that it is not an “ancient record” but is rather a modern production, produced in upstate New York around the year 1830. The description of the material culture given by the Book of Mormon is an example of just this. The description of the Nephites and the Lamanites is, quite obviously, a depiction of an Old World culture, and it is contradictory in many important points to the facts that we know of the New World cultures.

Here are some examples: Relevant to the warfare presented in the Book of Mormon, we note that the Nephites and Lamanites supposedly had such items as bows and arrows with quivers, swords, javelins, daggers, metal armor and shields, and horse-drawn chariots.²

Historically speaking, this continent did not see a horse until the Spanish brought some over from the Old World; so, horse-drawn chariots would be a little difficult to build. The New World cultures lacked any kind of advanced metallurgy during the “Book of Mormon” period, so they lacked iron, steel and brass, and therefore did not have armor or swords. Alma chapter 11 describes a complex system of coinage, including such items as a “senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold” (Alma 11:5) along with a “senum of silver, an amnor of silver, and ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver” (11:6). Needless to say, Elder, no such coins have ever been found. The people who lived on this continent did not use a system of coinage — gold, for example, was so common that it was not considered particularly precious with reference to barter and trade. Instead, we know from our historical studies that jade and cocoa beans were prized highly and used widely as a form of currency in trade. Both items are conspicuous by their absence from the Book of Mormon. The description of the culture of the Book of Mormon peoples with reference to metal objects and objects of warfare is very similar to the Old World cultures with which Joseph Smith would be familiar — yet, the actual fact of the New World cultures is found to be contradictory to the Book of Mormon story.

The Book of Mormon also betrays its modern origin in what it says about other aspects of the life of the culture of its time. The agricultural “scene” in the Book of Mormon is remarkably like that of 1830 in New York State — crops such as corn, barley, cows, oxen, asses, sheep, and swine are said to have been part of the food and animal scene of Nephite and Lamanite culture, yet the actual inhabitants of this hemisphere did not have these things during the “Book of Mormon period.”

Most of those Mormons who hazard a guess at the basic area in which the Book of Mormon story took place point to Central America as the prime candidate. The large majority of Book of Mormon research has taken place in Central and northern South America, and the films shown in the Church’s visitors’ centers unashamedly show Mayan ruins as being the actual creations of the Nephites and Lamanites.³ If this is so, then we can be more specific about the culture that we know existed between B.C. 600 and A.D. 421.

Certain aspects of the real culture of Meso-America would not have been known to Joseph Smith, such as their usage of jade and cocoa beans mentioned above. Another aspect has to do with the impact of weather upon the native peoples. Drought and flood were the expected norm of the times. Entire cultures disappeared due to climatic changes. Yet, in the Book of Mormon, only two droughts are mentioned.

The religions of the inhabitants of Central America bear no resemblance whatsoever to Christianity. Oh, yes, I know, I have read entire articles about supposed parallels between native religions and Christian belief — and each one was so obviously strained to the limit of rational belief that it made me wonder how such individuals, who are obviously well trained and learned, could produce such material. Have you ever wondered, Elder, why the only material that is produced seeks to find even the smallest point of contact rather than dealing with the real issue that being the incredible differences between the religions of the native peoples of America and Christianity

But I see I am going long — there is so much that could be said about this subject. Let me add one more thing concerning the obvious modern nature of the Book of Mormon. A book was published in 1823 and then reprinted in 1825 entitled View of the Hebrews. It was written by Ethan Smith. Mormon scholar and General Authority, B . H. Roberts, possibly the greatest scholar Mormonism has ever known, upon reading View of the Hebrews, recognized the many parallels between this book and the story of the Book of Mormon. The book suggests (five to seven years before the Book of Mormon) such things as the concept of the American Indians being the offspring of the Hebrews; it utilized the book of Isaiah in the Bible in seeking to establish the story’s basis (over seventeen chapters of Isaiah’s prophecy are to be found in the Book of Mormon). It even spoke of a book preserved by the Indians for a long period of time and then buried! Roberts found eighteen parallels between the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews. It is very likely that the subject matter of the book would be at the very least familiar to Joseph Smith, even if he himself did not read the book. What is certainly true is that the concept of the Indians being Hebrew in origin was known in upstate New York prior to the publication of the Book of Mormon.

Joseph Smith would have had access to plenty of sources of information and speculation upon which he could have based the story of the Book of Mormon.

In other studies done later in his life, B.H. Roberts continued to struggle with the Book of Mormon. Most Mormons today are not aware of the fact that Roberts came to some very interesting conclusions. For example, many LDS today argue that Joseph Smith could not possibly have written the Book of Mormon himself, due to his lack of schooling. Yet Roberts wrote,

One other subject remains to be considered in this division of the “study” here conducted, viz. — was Joseph Smith possessed of a sufficiently vivid and creative imagination as to produce such a work as the Book of Mormon from such materials as have been indicated in the preceding chapters from such common knowledge as was extant in the communities where he lived in his boyhood and young manhood; from the Bible, and more especially from the View of the Hebrews, by Ethan Smith? That such power of imagination would have to be of a high order is conceded; that Joseph Smith possessed such a gift of mind there can be no question. (B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, University of Illinois Press, 1985, p. 243)

And how did Roberts conclude this section of his study?

In the light of this evidence, there can be no doubt as to the possession of a vividly strong, creative imagination by Joseph Smith, the Prophet, an imagination, it could with reason be urged, which, given the suggestions that are to be found in the “common knowledge” of accepted American antiquities of the times, supplemented by such a work as Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews, would make it possible for him to create a book such as the Book of Mormon is. (Studies of the Book of Mormon, p. 250)

Indeed, when reviewing a particular aspect of the Book of Mormon text, Roberts made these startling statements:

There were other Anti-Christs among the Nephites, but they were more military leaders than religious innovators, yet much of the same kidney in spirit with these dissenters here passed in review; but I shall hold that what is here presented illustrates sufficiently the matter taken in hand by referring to them, namely that they are all of one breed and brand; so nearly alike that one mind is the author of them, and that a young and undeveloped, but piously inclined mind. The evidence I sorrowfully submit, points to Joseph Smith as their creator. It is difficult to believe that they are the products of history, that they come upon the scene separated by long periods of time, and among a race which was the ancestral race of the red man of America. (Studies in the Book of Mormon, p. 271, emphasis added)

So when I suggest to you that Joseph Smith did indeed have the ability to write the Book of Mormon and that he drew from contemporary sources to do so, I am only coming to the same conclusions that one of the greatest minds in LDS history presented many years ago.

Reason #2: The Book of Mormon contains false doctrine. The second reason that I will not disbelieve God by praying about the Book of Mormon is the fact that the book contains false doctrine — teachings that are directly opposed to biblical truth. The Book of Mormon does not teach the vast majority of the distinctive LDS doctrines such as the plurality of gods, exaltation to godhood, the priesthood concepts, temple endowments, ordinances, and so on. Why not? Joseph Smith did not believe in these things at the time he wrote the Book of Mormon. But, despite this, the work still contains teachings that are opposed to biblical truth. Let me list two examples:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

The key phrase, Elder, is “. . . it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” While I wish to hold the whole discussion of salvation and God’s grace for the proper time, I would like to point out that we are not saved by grace “after all we can do,” but we are saved by grace in spite of all we have done! The concept put forth here by Joseph Smith is directly opposed to the teachings of Paul in the books of Romans and Galatians. Some have tried to soften the teaching presented here, but the task seems impossible in light of the comments made in the Bible dictionary in the back of the LDS version of the Bible under the topic of “grace”:

This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts.

Divine grace is needed by every soul in consequence of the fall of Adam and also because of man’s weaknesses and shortcomings. However, grace cannot suffice without total effort on the part of the recipient. Hence, the explanation, “It is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” (2 Nephi. 25:23)

The same false concept of God’s grace can be found in Moroni 10:32 as well. I hope to address this passage at a later time.

The next example of false doctrine in the Book of Mormon is found in Mosiah 15:1-4:

1. 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.

2. 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

3. The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son

4. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5. And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

It is evident that, at the time of the writing of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith did not believe in a plurality of gods at all. He was still, technically at least, a “monotheist.” The presentation of the Father and the Son here in Mosiah 15 is a common misconception among untaught people regarding the Trinity. If Joseph Smith had attended revival meetings with his parents, he would have come away, had he not had further specific instruction, with just the concept that is put forward in this passage and it is a blatant misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, which he is here attempting to put forward. The Book of Mormon is filled with statements about there being “one God” (1 Nephi 13:41; 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:28, 35, 14:5; Mormon 7:7; “The Testimony of the Three Witnesses”), and just how the Father and the Son are related, then, is what Smith addresses here in Mosiah 15. In the process, he manages to present an ancient heresy of the Church known as modalism or Sabellianism. In any case, it is not the proper teaching that is found in the Bible concerning the nature of God, especially with reference to the Father and the Son. Instead, this shows that it is out of harmony with the Bible, and therefore does not find its origin with the Holy Spirit. Rather, it is clearly the production of Joseph Smith.

Reason #3: The Book of Mormon was given by a false prophet. I have already provided my reasons for believing this in our previous correspondence. Smith qualified as a false prophet under both of the tests set forth by the Bible and therefore a book of “scripture” that he would introduce to the world would not come from God. And let me note in passing here as well the fact that Smith’s belief in magic and occultic practices since they appear in the Book of Mormon as well, would further disqualify the book as a revelation of God.

Reason #4: The Book of Mormon has grave textual problems. Again, here, one could write a book just about this topic there are so many items that could be addressed. As I’ve said, the Book of Mormon betrays itself as a modern composition in a number of ways, and one of the most obvious is the presence of anachronisms in the text.

During the Middle Ages, it was common for people to assume that things had always been the way they were then. If you’ve looked at paintings done in Europe during that time you may have noted that even biblical characters such as David or the apostles lived in castles and dressed just like the people of the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. The Renaissance dispelled this concept from people’s minds, and they were able to see that things had indeed changed a good bit over time.

Sometimes, however, people are not aware just when a particular item was invented or came into use. In Joseph Smith’s case, he inserted a number of items into the Book of Mormon in such a way as to make them anachronistic; either they were not to be found in the culture of that time, or they simply had not yet been invented. Though they might have been common to Joseph Smith, they would not have been known to the real ancient inhabitants of this hemisphere. I have already mentioned, with reference to archaeology and the Book of Mormon, some of these items. For example, a horse in the New World is an anachronism there were no horses here prior to the arrival of the Spanish. If the Book of Mormon was actually written by a scribe living nearly two thousand years ago, he would not have been discussing horses, as he would never have seen one.

In 1 Nephi 11:33 (and elsewhere) the “cross” is mentioned. The cross upon which Jesus died would have had no meaning to the Nephites or Lamanites, as crucifixion was not a practice in and around Jerusalem when Lehi and his family supposedly left that place. It was Persian in origin, and became widely used under the Romans, five centuries after Lehi landed in the New World. The word would have meant nothing to someone who lived on this continent two millennia ago.

The “Bible” is mentioned in 2 Nephi 29:3. Again, this was a common term to Joseph Smith, but what would it have meant to an inhabitant of this hemisphere long ago? Nothing at all. The term was not applied to the Scriptures until long after Lehi left the Old World.

In 1 Nephi 18:12 we read of a “compass” being used by Nephi on the trip across the ocean to the “promised land.” The compass was not invented till some time later. You might say that this was simply a “miracle,” but why do we not find examples of compasses among the descendants of these people?

Joseph Smith claimed that there was “no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 299). Yet, we find numerous Greek terms in the Book of Mormon. For example, “synagogues” are mentioned in Alma 16:13. The term synagogue comes from the Greek term sunagoge. This is also a historical anachronism — that is, the concept of synagogues did not exist when Lehi left Jerusalem — it developed at a later point. So how did the term, and the concept, end up in the Book of Mormon? We also find Greek in 3 Nephi 9:18: “I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.” Alpha is the first letter of the Greek alphabet, omega is the last. But what would a Nephite have made of this? It would be like my saying, “I am the drummon and the lophar.” Doesn’t communicate much, does it? In fact, the final words of the Book of Jacob (7:27) must have struck the Nephites a little strangely, “Brethren, adieu.” I doubt many of them knew French.

I mentioned above the fact that sections of the New Testament are quoted in the Book of Mormon how could this be? How can Acts be quoted before it is written? Do you really think that Peter was actually quoting the Book of Mormon when he gave his speech in Acts 3:22-26 (in comparison with Deuteronomy 18:15, 18-19/3 Nephi 20:23-26)? The Tanners have provided many, many examples of the obvious plagiarism of the King James Version of the Bible (also known as the “Authorized Version” or AV) in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? on pages 74-79. Not only is the Old Testament copied, but the New Testament as well.

When Jesus comes to the New World in 3 Nephi, He quotes the “Sermon on the Mount” from the King James Version of the Bible (3 Nephi 12-l4) with a few rather intriguing additions and changes. But, quite interestingly, He quotes a number of sections from the KJV that are not a part of the earliest and best texts of the New Testament (such as 3 Nephi 13:13), and he also cites Matthew 5:22 that uses the term Raca. If these people were using “reformed Egyptian” or “reformed Hebrew,” what would the Aramaic term Raca mean to them?

This brings us to another question: Is the fact that Joseph Smith obviously used the King James Version of the Bible a problem? I have pointed out problems with the text that would be problems only if Joseph Smith had received the words of the Book of Mormon from God himself. In other words, if God just “gave the thoughts” to Joseph Smith and allowed him to express those thoughts in his own words, a number of the above problems would be circumvented (though certainly not all of them — this would not explain, for example, why Jesus would quote from Acts rather than from Deuteronomy). Many modern Latter-day Saints take just this view, and it is obvious why anyone who has read the 1830 Book of Mormon knows that if the very words were given by God, then God is unable to speak decent English. So it is easier to say that God gave Joseph “inspired concepts” and left the expression of those concepts in English to Smith who then did the “best he could.”

David Whitmer, one of the “Three Witnesses” to the Book of Mormon, described the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated in his work An Address to All Believers in Christ:

I shall now give to you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man. (p. 12)

You will note as well that Cowdery uses the term translate with reference to the work, just as Smith did above on page 299 of Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. Both the “Testimony of the Three Witnesses as well as “The Testimony of Eight Witnesses” use the term translate as well. Translation is a process of rendering one language into another — it is not done by “inspiration” in the same way that Scripture is originally written down. Of course, it is said that Smith could not actually translate the characters on the plates, written, supposedly, in “reformed Egyptian” (Mormon 9:32), but had to depend upon God to show him how to do this. At the same time, when God “inspires” someone to translate, will they then translate or will they simply get “inspired thoughts or concepts” that they are then left to render into their own language?

In the Documentary History of the Church, Volume 1, page 55, we read of an encounter between Joseph Smith, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and an angel who is supposedly holding the golden plates. The angel speaks and says,

These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God. The translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear.

This “vision” took place in June of 1829. Even the angel uses the term translation with regard to the plates, and then says that the translation of them which they had seen was correct. We will return to this fact when we address the issue of the many changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon since that time. The point is that the angel said they were “translated” by the power of God. Nothing here suggests that only the concepts of the Book of Mormon are inspired, while the actual words are not. Certainly, David Whitmer, who was one of those who saw the angel, did not understand the angel’s words to refer to anything other than a correct translation of the Book of Mormon.

The “Journal of Oliver B. Huntington” also provides us with further insights into early Mormon belief about the “translation” of the Book of Mormon. Here, from 1881, Huntington describes the teachings of Joseph F. Smith (who later became the president of the LDS Church) relevant to the translation of the Book of Mormon:

Saturday Feb. 25, 1881, I went to Provo to a quarterly Stake Conference. Heard Joseph F. Smith describe the manner of translating the Book of Mormon. . . . Joseph did not render the writing on the gold plates into the English language in his own style of language as many people believe, but every word and every letter was given to him by the gift and power of God. . . . The Lord caused each word spelled as it is in the book to appear on the stones in short sentences or words, and when Joseph had uttered the sentence or word before him and the scribe had written it properly, that sentence would disappear and another appear. And if there was a word wrongly written or even a letter incorrect the writing on the stones would remain there . . . and when corrected the sentence would disappear as usual. (p.168 of typed copy at Utah State Historical Society, as cited in The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 132)

You will note that Joseph F. Smith’s teaching is remarkably similar to the statements of David Whitmer on the same subject. Obviously, this concept of the method of “translation” was widely held at the time, and was promulgated by at least one of the “Three Witnesses” as well as by an apostle who became the president of the LDS Church. The modern concept that Joseph used his own language to express “inspired thoughts” certainly allows the Mormon to avoid a number of embarrassing problems with the text of the Book of Mormon, but it does great injustice to the term translation with reference to the “plates” (indeed, why would he need the plates at all), and it certainly causes one to wonder when Smith claims that the “Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth.” (Documentary History of the Church, 4:461).

But other Mormons take a slightly different track. Some say that Smith was indeed translating the text, but he utilized the King James Version when it was “close enough” to that which was found on the plates. This defense allows the Mormon to explain at least some of the obvious plagiarisms of the KJV, but it doesn’t explain why the plates themselves would quote the New Testament (as seen above) or why items such as swords, horses, or Greek and French words end up in the Book of Mormon. Were these words on the plates as well?

So, as you can see Elder Hahn, there are many problems with the text of the Book of Mormon, the vast majority of which point to a modern date of composition for the work.

Reason #5: The text of the Book of Mormon has been purposefully changed (edited) in thousands of places. I’m sure you have heard this objection before, Elder Hahn, and perhaps I can anticipate a very common answer: “All the changes in the Book of Mormon are changes in spelling and punctuation only.“ Yes, a large number of changes have been made in the Book of Mormon relevant to spelling and punctuation but the changes in that book go beyond this to matters of doctrine and history itself.

Now before I examine a few of the changes (edits) that have been made in the Book of Mormon, let me say right up front that the vast majority of the story of the Book of Mormon is not affected by the changes that have been made. In fact, in comparison with the major changes made in the D & C as well as in Joseph Smith’s History of the Church, the changes in the Book of Mormon are rather minor. You won’t find chapters of the Book of Mormon completely overhauled after publication so as to change the entire doctrinal slant of the work. However, the changes are significant and are part of my reasons for rejecting the Book of Mormon as a divine revelation.

Mormon Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith (who became the president of the LDS Church) served for a long period of time as the Church Historian. With reference to the question of changes in the Book of Mormon, he wrote:

In the case of the Book of Mormon, your attention is called to the fact that the publisher of it was unfriendly to the Church. It required the utmost care on that account. Being unfriendly, it would have been a natural thing for him to permit some errors to appear. A careful check of the list of changes submitted by these critics shows there is not one change or addition that is not in harmony with the original text. Changes have been made in punctuation and a few other minor matters that needed correction, but never has any alteration or addition changed a single original thought. As it appears to us, the changes mentioned are such that make the text clearer and indicate that they were omitted. I am sure that the mistakes or omissions in the first edition were in large measure the fault of the compositor or the printer. . .

Some of the original manuscript of the Book of Mormon is still with the Church, and some of it was destroyed. Copies of the first edition of the Book of Mormon are in the Historian’s Office library, and it bears witness that no drastic changes have been made.

There have been thousands of changes in the Bible in recent years, but people do not seem to complain about that. (Answers to Gospel Questions, Volume 2, p. 200)

I have already pointed out to you the error of Joseph Fielding Smith’s final comment about “changes” in the Bible. It is common for Mormons to attempt to deflect the criticism of the Book of Mormon by trying to point out differences in various translations of the Bible. Aside from the fact that such differences are normally simply a matter of translation, not a matter of the underlying text, the changes that have been made in the Book of Mormon are of a very specific kind — they are evidence of blatant purposeful editing of the text. Let’s look at a few of these changes below. Emphasis is added to illustrate the changes.

The 1830 Book of Mormon, on page 25 says:

Knowest thou the condescension of God? And I said unto him, 1 know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, 1 do not know the meaning of all things. And he said unto me, Behold the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.

The modern editions read like this in 1 Nephi 11:16-18:

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God

17 And 1 said unto him: 1 know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, 1 do not know the meaning of all things.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

The confusion as to just who Jesus is (God, Son of God, Father, Son of the Father, etc.) is seen in more than one of the changes in the Book of Mormon that are doctrinal in nature. Note the two examples below:

1830 Book of Mormon, page 25:

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?

Modern edition, 1 Nephi 11:21:

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

1830 Book of Mormon, page 26:

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying, look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God, was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

Modern edition, 1 Nephi 11:32:

And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! and [looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and 1 saw and bear record.

It is difficult to understand how Joseph Fielding Smith could say that “never has any alteration or addition changed a single original thought” in light of this change and the modern LDS belief that the Father and the Son, while they may be “one God in purpose” are also two separate and distinct beings and separate and distinct Gods, one of which has existed as a God prior to the other. Beyond this, I point your attention to Joseph Fielding Smith’s statement that there is “not one change or addition that is not in full harmony with the original text.” With reference to the last of the above-mentioned changes, the one that occurs at 1 Nephi 11:32, we can find out if the former Church Historian (who was certainly in a position to know) spoke the truth. The handwritten manuscript of the Book of Mormon exists for 1 Nephi 11:32, and it reads just as the 1830 edition as opposed to the modern editions. When we also take into consideration the angel’s words recorded in the Documentary History of the Church 1:55 where he says that the “translation which you have seen is correct,” we are forced to wonder why Joseph Smith would be forced to “edit” this section at a later date. Could it be that his evolving theology forced him to do so?

Changes of a historical nature have been made as well. Seemingly Joseph became confused as to which king was which, and who was supposed to be alive at what time while dictating the book of Mosiah. On page 200 of the 1830 Book of Mormon, we read,

And now Limhi was again filled with joy, on learning from the mouth of Ammon that King Benjamin had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon did also rejoice.

This passage is to be found in the modern edition in Mosiah chapter 21. The problem is fairly obvious, for Mosiah 6:5 reads, “And king Benjamin lived three years and he died.” Fifteen chapters later, however, he is alive and well in the 1830 Book of Mormon. The modern edition reads,

28 And now Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.

Who had this gift, Elder Hahn? Was it Benjamin or Mosiah?

The process of editing the text of the Book of Mormon has continued on since the days of Joseph Smith. Mormon scholars such as B. H. Roberts and James Talmage had a hand in this, with Talmage doing a good deal of work on the text itself in the 1920s. One of the more interesting changes made in the text of the Book of Mormon can be seen by comparing 2 Nephi 30:6 in the 1979 and 1981 editions:

1979:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people.

1981:

6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.

The 1830 Book of Mormon reads the same as the 1979 edition with reference to the change of “white” to “pure” (p. 117). It is my understanding, Elder, that this is not the first time this passage was “edited” in this way. But the fact that it was put into this form (a physical quality being replaced with a moral or a spiritual one) after the “revelation” giving the priesthood to the blacks (June 8, 1978) seems to be more than just a “coincidence.” Mormon leaders like Bruce R. McConkie and Spencer W. Kimball had cited this passage in its original form and applied it to the physical property of a dark skin. Seemingly their “interpretation” was proven in error by the new “revelation” that changed things around.

Some Mormon apologists have alleged that the timing of this change was coincidental, and had nothing to do with the priesthood issue. There is some plausibility to this, for another passage teaching the same doctrine (2 Nephi 5:21) was not changed in the 1981 edition, even though it uses the very same kind of language, and plainly teaches that the “skin of blackness” was placed upon sinful people as a curse. In any case, the text of the Book of Mormon is seen to have undergone purposeful editing with reference to doctrinal and historical subjects. While the extent of the editing is not nearly as large as that seen in the Doctrine and Covenants, it is nonetheless important.

In light of all this (and there is more that could be said … much more), it is impossible for me to do as you ask, Elder, and pray to God and say, “God, I know that this book is historically inaccurate, and I know that this book contains teachings that are contrary to those doctrines taught in your Word, and I know that Joseph Smith fails the test of a true prophet, and I know that there are many problems with the text showing it to be a modern composition and not an ancient record, and I know that the text of this book has undergone a good deal of editing and changing, but, despite all of that, is it true?” To do so would require me to deny the Christian faith, Elder. I know you probably have not thought of it in that way, but that is the truth. Prayer is vitally important so important, in fact, that I will not abuse the privilege of prayer, (which I believe to be an act of worship that is to be undertaken in solemn adoration), in order to test God and question the revelation of His truth. And may I suggest to you, sir, that it would be wise to question the wisdom of taking a “feeling” that you have gotten by uttering such a prayer and use that as a basis upon which to dismiss all the information I have presented to you

I would like to talk about one more item with reference to the Book of Mormon. It has to do with the common LDS belief that the Bible actually prophesies the coming forth of that book. The two primary passages that are cited are Ezekiel 37:15-17 and Isaiah 29:1-4. Let’s look at Ezekiel first:

15 The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying,

16 Moreoever, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel, his companions; then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions;

17 And join them one to another into one stick, and they shall become one in thine hand.

The common LDS interpretation of this passage is that the two sticks represent “scrolls” or “books,” the stick of Judah being the Bible, and the stick of Joseph being the Book of Mormon (see, for example, LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, p. 66). The two sticks becoming “one” would symbolize the unity of the Book of Mormon and the Bible in their teaching and testimony.

The problem with this kind of interpretation is that it can be used to prove anything. Arbitrarily asserting that the “stick of Joseph” means the Book of Mormon is a great error, for the text itself defines and interprets this symbolic action by Ezekiel. First, the word “stick” that is used here means, “stick.” I’m not trying to be profound, but if Ezekiel had wished to speak of a scroll, he could have done so quite easily, as there is another Hebrew term that means “scroll” and Ezekiel used it in his book (Ezekiel 2:9,3:1-3). Often in the prophecy of Ezekiel, God instructs His prophet to enact some symbolic gesture that he is then to explain to the people. A great example of this is in Ezekiel 4:1 — 5:17, where Ezekiel is to build a little model of the city of Jerusalem and then go through various actions that have symbolic meaning for the city. Here in Ezekiel 37 we have the same thing — Ezekiel is to take two sticks and write upon one of them “Judah” and upon the other “Joseph.” He is to put them together in his hand, and they would become one stick. Then, as so often in this book, Ezekiel was to explain to the people the meaning of his symbolic action, which he does in 37:18-22:

18 And when the children of thy people shall speak unto thee, saying, Wilt thou not show us what thou meanest by these

19 Say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his fellows, and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.

20 And the sticks on which thou writest shall be in thine hand before their eyes.

21 And say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will take the children of Israel from among the heathen, whither they be gone, and will gather them on every side, and bring them into their own land:

22 And I will make them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king to them all: and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all.

Remember that after the death of Solomon, two nations existed: Israel to the north, and Judah to the south. Ezekiel often prophesies the reunification of the people of God, Israel, and Judah together again as one nation. This is what this prophecy is about. If we allow the Bible to define its own terms for us (rather than forcing our own ideas upon it), we see that the two sticks are just that — sticks that represent the nations of Judah and Israel (Ephraim). The significance of Ezekiel’s action is explained in verses 21 and 22 as a symbol of the future restoration of the one nation of Israel, the rejoining of Judah and Israel in the last days. The Bible itself identifies the sticks as representing two nations, not as representing two different records of two nations. There simply is no reason to accept the LDS interpretation of this passage.

The second biblical reference commonly referred to in support of the Book of Mormon is Isaiah 29:1-4:

1 Woe to Ariel, to Ariel, the city where David dwelt! add ye year to year; let them kill sacrifices.

2 Yet I will distress Ariel, and there shall be heaviness and sorrow: and it shall be unto me as Ariel.

3 And I will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, and I will raise forts against thee.

4 And thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust.

In a tract entitled The Mormons and the Jewish People (which was written by Mormon Apostle LeGrand Richards and published by the LDS Church), we read the following interpretation of this passage:

It would appear from these words that Isaiah looked far into the future, “add ye year to year,” and beheld the destruction of a people like unto the people of Jerusalem, and that after their destruction, they would “speak out of the ground.” Obviously, this could only be possible through a written record. The prophecy stated that the voice of this people would have “a familiar spirit.” When the prophets of the Lord speak, they always have “a familiar spirit.” This prophecy will be better understood when it is known that the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated were deposited in a stone box in the Hill Cumorah.

Note that Richards said that “When the prophets of the Lord speak, they always have ‘a familiar spirit.’ “ Then, in his book A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, pages 67-68, he cites the same passage from Isaiah and says,

They would be brought down and would speak out of the ground. Their speech would be “low out of the dust”; their voice would be as one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground; and their speech would whisper out of the dust. Now, obviously, the only way a dead people could speak “out of the ground” or “low out of the dust” would be by the written word, and this the people did through the Book of Mormon. Truly it has a familiar spirit, for it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel.

So, according to LeGrand Richards, who claimed to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, “When the prophets of the Lord speak, they always have ‘a familiar spirit’ “ and also the Book of Mormon has a familiar spirit, because “it contains the words of the prophets of the God of Israel.”

Now, Elder, any beginning Bible student knows what a “familiar spirit“ is — but it doesn’t seem that LeGrand Richards knew. A familiar spirit is a demonic spirit, a demon. Notice Deuteronomy 18:10-12:

There shall not be found among you anyone who maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For all that do these things are an abomination unto the Lord.

Here are the other occurrences of the Hebrew term ob (translated by the King James Version as “familiar spirit” — check them out for yourself:

Leviticus 19:31⁴, 20:6⁵, 20:27⁶; 1 Samuel 28:3⁷, 28:7-9⁸; 2 Kings 21:6⁹, 23:24¹⁰; 1 Chronicles 10:13¹¹; 2 Chronicles 33:6¹²; Isaiah 8:19¹³, 19:3¹⁴, 29:4¹⁵.

Clearly, this passage has nothing whatsoever to do with the Book of Mormon. It is speaking about the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and nothing else. We not only see this, but in examining the words of a man who claimed to be an apostle of Christ we find that he knew very little about basic Bible teachings, including the meaning of the term familiar spirit. He said that the Book of Mormon has a familiar spirit. Obviously, he was not attempting to say that the Book of Mormon has a demonic spirit, but that is what he ended up saying. This “apostle” was completely wrong about this passage and its meaning — if you cannot trust him on this, what other teachings, that are based solely upon such “apostolic authority,” are in error as well?

The Book of Abraham

I remember encountering two Mormon missionaries outside the Mormon temple in Provo, Utah, a few years ago. My companion and I began to talk with them, and in the course of the conversation, the topic of the Book of Abraham came up. They had no idea what we were talking about — they did not know what the Book of Abraham was. Seemingly, they are not alone in their ignorance of this small book in the Pearl of Great Price. Many LDS today have no idea what the Book of Abraham is about, much less how this one book, more clearly than any other, shows the error of believing in Joseph Smith as a prophet.¹⁶

Many others have taken great time and effort to fully discuss the issue of the Book of Abraham. Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s discussion in Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? (pages 294 — 369) is extensive. I will not even attempt to summarize all the material that is available on this topic. With the “discovery” of the original papyri fragments upon which Joseph Smith based his “translation” of this little five-chapter book, whole volumes have been published discussing this or that aspect of the issue. Unfortunately, the majority of those volumes had only one purpose — to obscure the fact that Joseph Smith, though he claimed to be able to translate the Egyptian characters from the papyri, most obviously could not. Mormon apologists have done everything in their power to keep this information from the average Latter-day Saint. Some have latched on to completely unrelated issues in a hopeless attempt to save Joseph Smith from exposure on the basis of his complete mistranslation of the Egyptian language — all to no avail.

There is no need to go into the actual papyri that were turned over to the LDS Church in the late 1960s — anyone who has a copy of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price has all the information he or she needs to discover that Joseph Smith utterly misunderstood the meaning and significance of the Egyptian papyri that had come into his possession in July of 1835. Here is the story from the Documentary History of the Church, 2:235-36:

On the 3rd of July, Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation . . .

Soon after this, some of the Saints at Kirtland purchased the mummies and papyrus, a description of which will appear hereafter, and with W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes, 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 . . .

It is important to note that Smith claimed to translate these items, in the same way he had claimed to translate the Book of Mormon. If, upon examination, it is discovered that Smith could not translate the Egyptian characters that he claimed resulted in the scant dozen pages of the Book of Abraham, how can we believe that he was able to translate the more than 500 pages of the Book of Mormon from “reformed Egyptian”

The modern editions of the Pearl of Great Price include this information at the beginning of the book:

A Translation of some ancient Records, that have fallen into our hands from the catacombs of Egypt. — The writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

If indeed these were the actual writings of Abraham, they would constitute the greatest archaeological and historical find of all time. They would pre-date the earliest manuscripts of the Bible by a thousand years and more. The introduction claims that what follows is a translation of these records — I keep emphasizing that because, in light of the discovery of the actual papyri themselves, some have attempted to escape the meaning of the word “translate” and have attempted to substitute some other idea to explain Smith’s “translation.”

Is it very likely that Smith would have found such an incredible treasure in the possession of a traveling showman and his mummies? Probably not, but it is certain that Smith was convinced that he had the writings of Abraham. His “translation” was safe at the time — if there were five people in the United States who could have challenged his “translation,” I would be surprised. The study of Egyptian was in its infancy at the time, so claiming to give “translations” by supernatural power was something that could not be tested. Of course, today things are different. We can read Egyptian now, and, as I’ve mentioned, with the original papyri in our possession, we can find out just how well Joseph Smith did in his “translations.” Without getting into all the battles about the papyri, I will give you the translation of the segment thereof that is identified as being the specific portion used by Smith as the basis of the Book of Abraham. Please remember that the Book of Abraham is five chapters long. Smith “translated” those five chapters from the following:

Osiris shall be conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons — and likewise Osiris Hor, justified, born to Tikhebyt, justified — after his arms have been placed on his heart and the Breathing Permit (which [Isis] made and has writing on its inside and outside — has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left arm near his heart; the rest of his mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it. The man for whom this book has been copied will breathe forever as the bas of the gods do. (Klaus Baer, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1968, pp. 119 — 20)

What Joseph Smith thought was the writing of Abraham was in fact a common artifact of Egyptian burial ritual — hundreds of examples of this kind of literature are to be found in museums around the world.

But I said I wasn’t going to go into the papyri, as that is a rather complex issue. I said that anyone who had a copy of the Pearl of Great Price had enough data right there to see that Joseph Smith did not have the slightest idea about what was before him on the Egyptian papyri. This data is to be found in the “facsimiles” that are printed as part of the Book of Abraham. These pictures include an explanation below them, supposedly providing us with Smith’s interpretation of what we see in the graphic. By examining these and comparing Smith’s explanation, we will see that he was completely in error in his idea of what the Egyptian papyri represented. And, in fact, this is just what some individuals did around the turn of the century — they tried to point out to the LDS people that Joseph Smith, based only on the explanations of the facsimiles in the Book of Abraham, had made many gross blunders in his identifications of the figures in the pictures. However, while the original pamphlet printed on the subject created quite a stir in Utah, it was quickly answered by a Mormon “scholar” and the whole issue sort of “went away.” Only later was it discovered that the “scholar” was not a scholar at all, and had faked his doctoral degree.

Here is Facsimile #1:

Here is how Smith explains the main characters in this facsimile:

Fig. l. The Angel of the Lord.

Fig. 2. Abraham fastened upon an altar.

Fig. 3. The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.

If you were to take this facsimile to any expert familiar with Egyptology and Egyptian magic and folklore, and were to ask him to identify the same figures, this is what you would discover:

Figure 1 is actually the soul of Osiris (it should have a human head, but the papyri shows that this section was damaged, and both the bird’s head and the human head on the black, standing figure were “drawn in” and that in error).

Figure 2 is Osiris lying upon a funeral bier. Egyptians believed that Osiris had been killed by his brother, named Set and that his body had been discovered by Isis (whom we will meet in a moment) and was embalmed by Anubis, who is Figure 3. Smith made Osiris’ soul into the angel of the Lord, turned Osiris into Abraham, and changed Anubis into “the idolatrous priest of Elkenah.” The scene depicted here, as I said, is a common one in Egyptian funerary literature.

Let’s skip to the third of the three facsimiles. Here is what it looks like:

How does Joseph explain this? Here are his words:

Fig. l. Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood, as emblematical of the grand Presidency in heaven; with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 3. Signifies Abraham in Egypt as given also in Figure 10 of Facsimile No. 1.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

In reality, this scene (which is found again in other Egyptian funerary texts) shows the god Osiris enthroned toward the left of the picture (figure 1), before whom a man (figure 5) is being led by the goddess Maat (figure 4) and the god Anubis (figure 6). Isis stands behind the throne (figure 2). So, Smith has identified the Egyptian god Osiris as Abraham, the female goddess Maat as a man (the prince of Pharaoh), another female goddess Isis as a male (Pharaoh), and another god, Anubis, as a slave belonging to the prince! It is rather embarrassing to note that the femininity of figures 2 and 4 is rather obvious — how could Smith have missed it? But this may have been one of the only examples of Egyptian drawing he had ever seen, which would explain his missing such an obvious fact. The “Explanation” claimed that the figures above the scene identified various of the people — they do not. They identify the man for whom this papyrus, known as the “Book of Breathings,” was made — a man named Hor. The symbols along the bottom read, “O gods of . . ., gods of the Caverns, gods of the south, north, west and east, grant well-being to Osiris Hor, justified . . .

While it may be embarrassing to see Joseph Smith’s mistakes in identifying the people who are part of these facsimiles, try to remember, Elder Hahn, that these facsimiles are referred to in the body of the text of the Book of Abraham. In Abraham 1:12-14 we read,

12 And it came to pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as they did those virgins upon this altar; and that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

13 1t was made after the form of a bedstead, such as was had among the Chaldeans, and it stood before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and also a god like unto that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.

14 That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is called by the Chaldeans Rahleenos, which signifies hieroglyphics.

If the facsimiles are not what Smith claimed they were, then the text of Mormon Scripture itself is shown to be in grave error, as he connects the text of the Book of Abraham quite obviously with the illustrations we are here examining. How can one believe that the teachings of the Book of Abraham are correct when that text itself refers to false and disproven “interpretations” of these facsimiles? And, by extension, if Smith was able to make errors of this kind in 1835, why not in 1829 when working on the text of the Book of Mormon or later when supposedly receiving “revelation” from God that is in today’s Doctrine and Covenants? All of Mormon Scripture, then, stands or falls together. These blatant errors in the Book of Abraham reflect on all of Smith’s writings.

Here is the second facsimile from the Book of Abraham:

The second facsimile in the book is, to me, the most serious, in that the explanation asserts that it contains very sacred, very secret items that “are to be had in the Holy Temple of God” or “ought not to be revealed at the present time.” The explanation is very long, so I will only give relevant sections:

Fig. 3. Is made to represent God, sitting upon his throne, clothed with power and authority; with a crown of eternal light upon his head; representing also the grand Key-words of the Holy Priesthood, as revealed to Adam in the Garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and all to whom the Priesthood was revealed.

Fig. 7. Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.

Fig. 9. Ought not to be revealed at the present time.

Fig. 10. Also.

Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 will be given in the own due time of the Lord.

The above translation is given as far as we have any right to give at the present time.

The object pictured in Facsimile 2 is actually a hypocephalus, a common item of Egyptian funeral literature. It was placed under the deceased person’s head, and was said to aid them in making their journey through the netherworld by bathing their bodies in light. Many examples of this kind of hypocephalus are to be found. Rather than explaining the “principles of astronomy” as Smith alleged, this object comes directly from the pagan religions of Egypt. Mormon Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhoades provided a translation of parts of this facsimile in BYU Studies, Spring 1977, page 265. His translation of the edge of the hypocephalus is as follows:

I am Djabty in the House of the Benben in Heliopolis, so exalted and glorious. [I am] a copulating bull without equal. [I am] that Mighty God in the House of the Benben in Heliopolis . . . that Mighty God . . .

Figure 8 is supposed to contain writings that “cannot be revealed unto the world but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God,” yet Rhoades translates this section (including figures 9, 10, and 11, the entire left middle section) as follows:

O God of the Sleeping Ones from the time of the creation. O Mighty God, Lord of Heaven and Earth, the Netherworld and his Great Waters, grant that the soul of Osiris Sheshonk may live.

The bottom section, which contains figures that Smith claimed “will be given in the own due time of the Lord,” actually reads,

May this tomb never be desecrated, and may this soul and its possessor never be desecrated in the Netherworld.

Egyptologists (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) tell us that the deity seen in Figure 7 is in reality the god Min. Min is an ithyphallic deity, that is, a sexually aroused male deity, as the picture clearly indicates. Min is the god of the procreative forces of nature. The sexually explicit nature of this god has caused embarrassment to Mormon leaders. While the original printing of this hypocephalus appears just as the modern version (Joseph Smith oversaw the restoration of the hypocephalus, which had been damaged, and the preparation of its printing in the Times and Seasons of March 15, 1842, as you can see in the Documentary History of the Church, Volume 4, pages 519 and 543), beginning at the end of the last century an “edited” version of the Min figure appeared in LDS Scriptures. Note a comparison between the 1966 edition of the Pearl of Great Price and the 1981 edition:

The modern edition is the accurate one, and shows clearly the pagan origin of these materials. What is Min doing in Facsimile 2? Joseph Smith tells us that he is revealing the grand keywords of the priesthood, with the sign of the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove before him. In reality, he is holding up the “divine flail” in one hand, while being approached not by the Holy Ghost, but by yet another pagan god. The hypocephalus that Joseph had in his possession was damaged at the border so that only the head of the “dove” was visible. So, Joseph had to restore the picture. Did he do so correctly? No, he did not. Below I reproduce for you the same section from another hypocephalus, designated Leyden AMS 62, a hypocephalus that is almost identical in form to the one Joseph Smith utilized:

The being that is approaching Min is not the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove. Rather, it is another ithyphallic figure, specifically, a serpent, probably the Egyptian god Nehebka, presenting to Min the wedjat-eye, the symbol of good gifts.

The single LDS scholar who has written the most on the Book of Abraham, Dr. Hugh Nibley, has written of Min:

As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature . . . His sacred plants are aphrodisiacal . . . and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem . . .

The hymns, or rather chanting, of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing . . . to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrem-shaking damsels. (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210)

It must be remembered that Joseph Smith said that this figure represented God sitting on His throne! Incredible as it may seem, intelligent, well-read LDS are fully aware of the true nature of the hypocephalus, including the presence of Min and Nehebka. How do they explain this? Mormon Egyptologist Michael Dennis Rhoades, whose translation of the hypocephalus I cited above, said with reference to the Min figure:

Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God “revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood.” The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with the blessings of the Priesthood in one’s posterity eternally. (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273)

In other words, since the God of Mormonism is sexually active, begetting children in the spirit world, and Min is obviously sexually active as well, this, then, is the “connection.”

May I suggest, Elder, that Joseph Smith was utterly ignorant of what was represented in the Egyptian papyri that lay before him? Incapable of translating the language, or understanding the significance of the figures, he made things up as he went along, claiming God’s direction and inspiration as his guide. In the process, he demonstrated his own inability as a “prophet, seer and revelator,” for he grossly misidentified each of the items not only in this facsimile but in the other two as well.

Joseph Smith’s defenders today seek to find any connection whatsoever between LDS belief and Egyptian religion, even to the point of seeing in the sexually aroused Min a picture of God upon His throne. But to grasp at this straw is to ignore the biblical testimony to the one true God. Isaiah saw God upon His throne in Isaiah 6:1-10, but instead of an incestuous god, surrounded by lewd dancing girls, the angels surrounded His throne and cried, “Holy, holy, holy.” God describes the gods of Egypt as “idols” that tremble before Him (Isaiah 19:1); these false gods will literally be captured by God in His wrath (Jeremiah 43:12). God reveals the worship of these gods to be an abomination that brings His judgment (Jeremiah 44:8) and mentions one Egyptian god by name in speaking of the punishment he will bring to pass against Egypt (Jeremiah 46:25 in any modern translation). Those who worship such gods are “defiled” in God’s sight (Ezekiel 20:7-8). The Bible has nothing but utter contempt for the gods of Egypt, which would include the abominable figure of Min, identified by Joseph Smith as his God.

Elder Hahn, I can imagine it is difficult for you to believe what you are reading — but it is just as vital that you remember that at the very beginning, I explained to you that I was going to address the topic of Joseph Smith and his claims only because I desire to share the gospel with you, and I must refute Smith’s claims and his teachings because they are standing in the way of your acceptance of the truth. Please do not engage in a frantic search for some kind — any kind — of “explanation” for Smith’s obvious blunders and errors. Rather, recognize the reality of the facts and seek the truth not from Joseph Smith or the system he founded, but from the Word of God, the Bible.

I hope to hear from you soon, Elder. I await your response.

Concerned and praying,

James White

Return to Table of Contents –––> Next Chapter

Letters To A Mormon Elder is available on Amazon.

Footnote

1
What Mormon archeologists say.

The lay Mormon is told by the Mormon Church that archaeology continues to confirm the Book of Mormon, while Mormon scholars who actually study archaeology for a living have something quite different to say.
2
Why is there an absence of archaeological or anthropological evidence supporting the Book of Mormon?

Is it reasonable to conclude that during the 2600 years that the Jaredites, Nephites, and Lamanites supportedly occupied the Americas, that they could not have done so without leaving some evidence of their existence. Yet the reality is that they did not leave so much as a helmet, tool, weapon of war or any Hebrew or ‘Reformed Egyptian’ inscriptions.
3
Smithsonian archeologists see no direct connection between the archeology of the New World and the subject matter of the [Book of Mormon].

The Smithsonian Institute issued a formal statement in May 1980 detailing their complete disavowal of the work as anything but fiction. No reputable Egyptologist or other expert on Old World archaeology, and no expert on New World prehistory has discovered or confirmed any relationship between archeological remains in Mexico and archeological remains in Egypt.”
4
Do not turn to [a]mediums or spiritists; do not seek them out to be defiled by them. I am the Lord your God.
5
As for the person who turns to mediums and to spiritists, to play the prostitute with them, I will also set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people.
6
Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist must be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; they have brought their own deaths upon themselves.
7
Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned him and buried him in Ramah, his own city. And Saul had removed the mediums and spiritists from the land.
8
Then Saul disguised himself by putting on different clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, “Consult the spirit for me, please, and bring up for me the one whom I shall name for you.” But the woman said to him, “Behold, you know what Saul has done, that he has eliminated the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why are you then setting a trap for my life, to bring about my death?”
9
And he made his son pass through the fire, interpreted signs, practiced divination, and used mediums and spiritists. He did great evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger.
10
Moreover, Josiah removed the mediums, the spiritists, the household idols, the idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, so that he might fulfill the words of the Law which were written in the book that Hilkiah the priest found in the house of the Lord.
11
So Saul died for his unfaithfulness which he committed against the Lord, because of the word of the Lord which he did not keep; and also because he asked counsel of a medium, making inquiry of her…
12
He also made his sons pass through the fire in the Valley of Ben-hinnom; and he practiced witchcraft, used divination, practiced sorcery, and dealt with mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger.
13
When they say to you, “Consult the mediums and the spiritists who whisper and mutter,” should a people not consult their God? Should they consult the dead in behalf of the living?
14
Then the spirit of the Egyptians will be demoralized within them; And I will confuse their strategy, So that they will resort to idols and ghosts of the dead, And to mediums and spiritists.
15
Then you will be brought low; From the earth you will speak, And from the dust where you are prostrate Your words will come. Your voice will also be like that of a spirit from the ground, And your speech will whisper from the dust.
16
How The Book Of Abraham Exposes The False Nature Of Mormonism.

The document is not the writing of Abraham in Egypt, but is instead the opening portion of an Egyptian Shait en Sensen, or Book of Breathing, a late funerary text derived from the earlier and more complex Book of the Dead.

Letter 8 — The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham Vision Letters To A Mormon Elder by James R. White

Footnote

Share this:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Letter 8 — The Book of Mormon
and the Book of Abraham Vision
Letters To A Mormon Elder
by James R. White