CHAPTER TWELVE
"All Is Well'' -- Creating An Appearance
Just as the level of exposure to the subject of the Joseph Smith
Papyri varies among Latter-day Saints, so also do their
responses to the controversy. Most know little about it, some
have come across a few conflicts, yet choose not to think about
them, and still others find themselves considering one or more
of the various "intellectual" approaches discussed previously.
It is interesting that it seems to matter little to Mormon
belief which of these categories the individual member falls
into.
Simple ignorance of the whole papyri issue helps perpetuate the
traditional understanding of the Book of Abraham's origins.
Confusion, on the other hand, can be a highly effective means of
preventing questions from becoming too critical when problems
are encountered. A person who finds a topic very confusing will
often suspend judgment and keep right on believing in whatever
he hopes is true. Over time, his questions lose urgency, and
though not resolved, cease to become bothersome. Trust in a
system will also help sustain a person through confusion until
he reaches the point of no longer caring whether an answer is
reasonable or not, or indeed, whether an answer even exists.
It is not surprising then, that the LDS Church heavily stresses
the absolute necessity of trusting its system and leadership.
Members are taught, for instance, that praying to know the
truthfulness of a matter1 is a more sure way of determining its
validity than thoughtful examination of the evidence. But in so
doing, the very evidence God has provided to steer us to truth
may be ignored. Contributing to the confusion is the fact that
there is no "official" answer from the LDS Church that addresses
the issues raised by the discovery of the Joseph Smith Papyri.
Nor has there ever been. All approaches, theories, and defenses,
including those proposed by Hugh Nibley and others in Church
publications, have been offered solely at the author's own
initiative, and as his own opinion. (In fact, the works of
Mormon apologists almost universally include a disclaimer to the
effect that the author does not write as an official
spokesperson for the LDS Church.)
In the absence of official answers from LDS authorities, those
with questions are left with only the efforts of the various
apologists to provide solutions. Under these circumstances it is
not surprising that occasional contradictions occur when a
variety of approaches are used to give the impression that "all
is well." A good case in point is the way the subject of the
Joseph Smith Papyri have been treated in various LDS books and
periodicals.
The "LDS Book"
It appears that the primary reason most LDS articles of an
apologetic nature are written is to paint, at all costs, a
favorable picture of the Mormon faith -- one that is "faith
promoting." Accuracy and credibility seem to be distinctly
secondary matters.
The following examples illustrate three techniques typically
found in LDS apologetic writings: "Nothing has changed." This is
the approach the casual reader of Mormon apologetic literature
on the Book of Abraham is most likely to encounter. It is
calculated to create the impression that the traditional
viewpoint remains intact, almost as though the Metropolitan
papyri collection had never come to light, and no questions or
problems have ever arisen as a result.
This technique is especially common in the popular, non-academic
books that are intended to present a favorable overview of
Mormonism. These books generally contain a great deal of fluff,
but little substance, and are often marked by serious
inaccuracies and misrepresentations, as well as the omission of
controversial details. Specific mention of newer material likely
to challenge traditional perceptions is studiously avoided, and
older works undergo only minor revisions, or none at all.
An excellent example of this is the book The Latter-day Saints:
A Contemporary History of the Church of Jesus Christ, by William
E. Berrett (Deseret Book Company, 1985). In Chapter 12, "Other
Scriptures Come Forth," Berrett discusses "The origin of the
Book of Abraham:"
In July 1835 Joseph Smith came into possession of some ancient
records, the value of which is not even yet fully appreciated.
Sometime in 1828 a French explorer named Antonio Sebolo secured
permission to make a certain excavation in Egypt. Three years
later, having secured the proper license, he employed 433 men
and began excavating a catacomb or tomb near the site of ancient
Thebes. The tomb contained several hundred mummies, of which
Sebolo took eleven, still encased. En route back to Paris, he
put in at Trieste, where he died after a brief illness. The
mummies were left by will to a nephew named Michael Chandler,
who lived in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Some two years later
Chandler took possession of them in New York. When he opened the
caskets, he was disappointed to find no jewels or precious
ornaments. But attached to two of the bodies were rolls of
well-preserved linen, and within these coverings were rolls of
papyrus bearing a perfectly preserved record in carefully formed
black and red characters. When he could find no one in New York
or Philadelphia who could translate the characters, Chandler
began touring the country with the mummies. On July 3, 1835, he
reached Kirtland, Ohio, where he sought an interview with Joseph
Smith, who, he had been told, might be able to help translate
the characters (op.cit., p. 105).
Almost every statement of fact in the foregoing, though adapted
directly from the pages of Robert's History of the Church, is
entirely inaccurate. This material is essentially unchanged from
its appearance in Berrett's 1961 book The Restored Church (which
for many years was used as an LDS high school Seminary
textbook). This despite the fact that for nearly twenty years it
has been well known among LDS researchers and historians that
the explorer's name was Lebolo, not Sebolo (an error originally
created long ago by someone mistaking a handwritten "L" for an
"S"); that he was a Piedmontese (Italian) licensed through a
French office, not a Frenchman; that he did his digging in Egypt
in the early 1820's, not in 1831; and that he died not in
Trieste, but at his home in Castellamonte in 1830.2 LDS
genealogical researchers have long admitted that no record of a
family connection between Lebolo and Chandler seems to exist,
and when BYU's H. Donl Peterson reported his discovery of
Lebolo's will in 1985, it made no mention of either Chandler or
the mummies.
Although these errors are peripheral and have no real bearing on
the true identity of Joseph Smith's papyri, Berrett's failure to
correct mistakes in his book when more accurate information
became available does point out a tendency of some LDS writers
to persist in maintaining a picture of things exactly as they
have "always been," regardless of whether that picture is
correct. About the only item here that seems to apply to present
concerns is the reference to "rolls of papyrus bearing a
perfectly preserved record in carefully formed black and red
characters." Of the "Missing Black and Red Scroll" theory,
though, we have said enough already. The article continues:
When the Prophet was able to interpret some of the characters,
Chandler responded with a letter of certification ...
Friends of the Prophet in Kirtland later purchased the four
mummies together with the rolls of papyrus. Joseph Smith,
assisted by W. W. Phelps and Oliver Cowdery as scribes,
subsequently began to study ancient languages and to translate
the papyrus ... it would appear that considerable translating
had been done before the end of 1835, but the difficulties that
faced the Church and the Prophet during the years immediately
following prevented him from completing the work. In addition,
no grammar of the Egyptian language had appeared in America by
1835. Thus the results of his labor become the more remarkable
...
The Prophet completed only part of the scrolls dealing with the
life of Abraham. One of the rolls of papyrus containing the
writings of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt, was apparently
never translated sufficiently for publication. Publication of
the Book of Abraham began in the newspaper Times and Seasons in
March 1842 at Nauvoo, Illinois, along with facsimiles of certain
portions of the papyrus" (Ibid., pp. 105-107).
All of this is a very traditional viewpoint in that it assumes a
direct translation of a physical record that could actually be
laid out on a table or held in the hand, not some intangible
impressions received from seeing a scroll in a vision, or some
such thing. And while the phrase "scrolls dealing with the life
of Abraham" can be understood by the naive traditionalist to
mean something that was actually penned by Abraham "by his own
hand, upon papyrus," such an interpretation is not required. A
reader knowing something of the theories that attempt to deal
with the first-century date of Papyrus Joseph Smith I could
interpret this as meaning something that was written on papyrus
after Abraham's lifetime by someone else. The author provides no
information that would clarify the matter or upset either view.
Berrett did make one concession to the 1967 rediscovery of the
Joseph Smith papyri. Back in 1961, a statement inThe Restored
Church read:
For years after the publication of the facsimiles, the original
documents remained in existence. They were considered as the
property of the Smith family and, after the Prophet's martyrdom,
were retained by his wife, Emma. They were later sold by her to
a museum at St. Louis, from whence they found their way into the
Museum of Chicago. In the great Chicago fire, the museum was
totally destroyed and with it the precious ancient manuscripts.
(pp. 107, 1969 edition)
In the 1985 book, The Latter-day Saints, this material was
placed in the back of the book as a footnote, and was changed to
read:
For years after the publication of the facsimiles, the original
documents remained in the possession of the Joseph Smith family.
After the Prophet's death, they were retained by his widow,
Emma. She later sold them to a museum at St. Louis, and they
were subsequently found in the Museum of Chicago. In the great
Chicago fire of 1871 the museum was destroyed, as were most of
the precious ancient manuscripts it housed (p. 395, 1985
edition).
It is remarkable what the author leaves unmentioned here. If his
readers are to learn that some of Joseph Smith's papyri
survived, have been discovered, and have since become a source
of controversy, they will not do so through Berrett's book.3
The Latter-day Saints is by no means a unique example of this
type of presentation, nor is the Church's recent heavy emphasis
on promoting such literature incidental.
Not long ago certain General Authorities, in particular Apostle
Boyd K. Packer, criticized a number of prominent Mormon writers
and historians for what he termed an "exaggerated loyalty to the
theory that everything must be told."4 Packer felt that an
objective approach to Church history "may unwittingly be giving
'equal time' to the adversary" since it "may be read by those
not mature enough for 'advanced history,' and a testimony in
seedling stage may be crushed."5 Elder Packer went on to insist
that the role of Mormon historians ought to be mainly to
demonstrate and affirm that "the hand of the Lord [has been] in
every hour and every moment of the Church from its beginning
till now." In effect, LDS writers were being told that they
should produce only an accommodation history6 that would exclude
anything not "faith promoting."
Even the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie's widely respected
Mormon Doctrine continues to withhold any information that might
threaten the simplicity of a traditional view of the Book of
Abraham, or lead to controversy. First published nearly a decade
before the papyri were rediscovered, McConkie's Book of Abraham
entry under the Pearl of Great Price heading still has not been
revised or updated in the twenty years since their discovery.
And of course, this perpetuation of known inaccuracies can also
be found in preface to the Book of Abraham, which still reads
just as it has since 1878:
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM
TRANSLATED FROM THE PAPYRUS, BY JOSEPH SMITH.
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.
''Incredible New Insight.'' This is a second available approach
LDS apologists resort to in attempting to defend things like the
Book of Abraham. Here writers feel quite free to admit as much
information as they feel comfortable with in order to intimate
that now the reader has been exposed to an understanding of
matters that probably everyone should have realized in the first
place. Exposures of this sort serve a two-fold purpose. First,
by proposing a way in which this new information justifies
belief in the LDS system; second, by laying to rest any fears
among Latter-day Saints that anyone in the Church should be
concerned about such information.7 After all, many will reason,
if the "best minds in the Church" have resolved matters and show
no concern, why should the average member?
The best examples of this technique can be seen in the books and
articles that have come about as a result of the "intellectual
approaches" discussed earlier. As has been shown, these authors
can take widely divergent and even contradictory positions, and
yet each is equally dogmatic. In addition, many of these
concepts are so elaborate and complex that many readers are
probably unable to judge their worth or validity because they
are so difficult to understand. Confused, the reader can only
fall back on his trust in the system.
Many Latter-day Saints have an especially high regard for Hugh
Nibley's writings, for example, and are impressed with his
direct, pragmatic-sounding style. On the subject of the Joseph
Smith Papyri Nibley has been especially prolific, setting forth
his positions and pronouncements in the pages of Improvement
Era, Dialogue, and BYU Studies, as well as authoring numerous
other articles, books, and talks about them over a period of
many years. There are probably few Latter-day Saints who would
presume to question his conclusions -- which were invariably
favorable to the Church -- yet this is exactly what Edward H.
Ashment of the Church Translation Department finally did.
In a sixteen-page article in the December 1979 issue of Sunstone
magazine, Ashment refuted, point by point, in scholarly detail,
the greater part of Dr. Nibley's most basic contentions in
defense of the Book of Abraham over the years. In a number of
major areas, such as the question of the damaged condition of
the papyri in Smith's day, the erroneously restored material on
both Facsimile No. 1 (see pp. 101,102) and Facsimile No. 2 (see
pp. 104-108), and Smith's involvement with the Egyptian Alphabet
and Grammar material, Ashment's frank admissions sided squarely
with the charges that critics of the Book of Abraham have
leveled throughout the controversy.
In his response to Ashment's article in the same issue of
Sunstone, Dr. Nibley was not only forced to admit that he had
been in error, but stated, "I refuse to be held responsible for
anything I wrote more than three years ago. For heaven's sake, I
hope we are moving forward here. After all, the implication that
one mistake and it is all over with -- how flattering to think
in forty years I have not made one slip and I am still in
business! I would say that about four-fifths of everything I put
down has changed, of course."8
Unfortunately, this tongue-in-cheek acknowledgement was probably
read by only a fraction of those who read Nibley's Improvement
Era articles. Sunstone magazine is one of only a handful of
LDS-oriented publications that have attempted to discuss the
Book of Abraham controversy in any depth. However, such
publications are generally read only by the Church's
intelligentsia. The controversial issues it raises are seldom
encountered by the average Latter-day Saint because of its
limited circulation. The "Red Herring" technique. This is the
third, and most widely used method apologists have employed in
responding to papyri difficulties. It is a diversionary tactic
which consists of focusing attention on peripheral matters in
order to "draw the scent away" from the real issue (as a herring
is dragged across the trail of a fox to distract the pursuing
dogs).
Much of Dr. Nibley's writing on the subject of the Book of
Abraham papyri employs the "red herring" strategy. Good examples
include his early series of Improvement Era articles stressing
the "Any Egyptian Connection" theory and more recently his
emphasis on the "Nobody Really Understands Egyptian Anyway"
theory. The basic intent of these articles is to lead the reader
away from the damaging evidence and on to inconsequential
matters. For the novice, his efforts appear to have been quite
successful; toward professionals, somewhat less so.
Another good example of the "red herring" technique is found in
the 1981 book by Robert L. and Rosemary Brown entitled, They Lie
in Wait to Deceive (Brownsworth Publishing Co.). Within just a
few years of its appearance it had become a veritable mainstay
for bishops, missionaries, priesthood leaders, home teachers,
and anyone else needing a quick, simple "answer" to the
complicated problems of the papyri controversy.
Billed as "a study of anti-Mormon deception," They Lie in Wait
to Deceive proposes to tell "the amazing story of how 'Dr.' or
'Prof.' Dee Jay Nelson, Jerald and Sandra Tanner, and other
anti-Mormons work to obstruct and distort the truth."9 Actually,
the work focuses on the series of false claims and
representations made by Dee Jay Nelson during the years he
lectured against the authenticity of the Book of Abraham. It
shows that he used fraudulent background information to promote
himself, including a spurious Ph.D. (a certificate purchased
from a "diploma mill" for one hundred and ninety-five dollars).
Nelson is rightly portrayed as an opportunist of questionable
character, bent on exploiting the LDS Church's vulnerability
over the Metropolitan Museum papyri for his own profit. Others,
especially the Tanners, are also condemned for their part in
promoting Nelson's conclusions, and thus lending legitimacy to
his reputation.
As an expose of Nelson, this work appears to be both appropriate
and commendable. It is now well established that Nelson made a
number of false and misleading statements about himself over a
period of several years. This was very unfortunate, for in doing
so he not only exploited the weakness of the Mormon position for
personal gain, but also took advantage of the good faith of a
great many people who had come to respect him, including a large
number of non-Mormons and former Mormons. The Browns, however,
did not stop with simply exposing an impostor. They went on to
try to establish a kind of "anti-Mormon conspiracy," in which
"lies, deception, partial truths, and misrepresentation" were
the primary tools used whenever a challenge was made concerning
the Book of Abraham's validity.10 Moreover, (and here is the red
herring) they make it appear that the entire case against the
Book of Abraham is dependent on the work and claims of a phony
Dee Jay Nelson, thereby drawing attention away from the true
facts of the case. They write, for example:
Mormons and non-Mormons alike need to be aware of the tactics
used by the adversary ... This book contains a thorough
investigation of the fraudulent credentials of 'Dr.' and 'Prof.'
Dee Jay Nelson, 'World Renowned Egyptologist' -- this century's
most outspoken foe of the Book of Abraham (and thus Joseph
Smith) . . . Nelson has long been the No. 1 witness against the
Book of Abraham according to Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Walter
Martin, and other leaders in the anti-Mormon movement (Preface,
p. i).
And:
This man, Dee Jay Nelson ... has been busily engaged
perpetrating his false credentials and a false story against the
Book of Abraham ... His denunciation of the Book of Abraham is
extensively quoted in nearly all anti-Mormon books
(Introduction, p. iii).
And:
It soon became obvious to this author that Jerald and Sandra
Tanner had the most to gain from pushing Dee Jay Nelson into the
forefront with regards to the Book of Abraham ... [this is
followed by some speculation by Brown as to how much money the
Tanners make]. Is this the reason why the Tanners were not eager
to expose Nelson, their No. 1 witness against the Book of
Abraham? (p. 162)
And:
Do you think you can find out the truth about the Mormon church
by asking people like Dee Jay Nelson or Jerald and Sandra
Tanner? If you do, you have missed the point of this whole book!
(p. 172)
So, according to the Browns' thinking, if Dee Jay Nelson can be
discredited, then the entire file of evidence against the Book
of Abraham should be stamped "case closed" as far as any Mormon
is concerned. Since a disreputable man has attacked the Book of
Abraham, the Book of Abraham must therefore be a reputable work.
The faultiness of such reasoning is obvious. To begin with, the
"case against the Book of Abraham" is not something "discovered"
or "established" by Nelson. It was spelled out long before the
Metropolitan papyri ever surfaced, and the basic direction of
the charges have changed little since the criticism of Deveria's
time, when the study of Egyptology first advanced to the level
where Joseph Smith's own drawings could be read and shown to
have no relation to his translation.
Furthermore, the actual findings concerning the papyri -- what
they were, when and why they had been written, and what they
said -- which Nelson reported on, were not simply his own
opinions or guesses. Whenever qualified people have studied the
papyri, including such undisputed experts as Baer, Wilson, and
Parker, they have always reached the same conclusions that
Nelson did. However he may have misrepresented himself, the fact
remains that Nelson's identification of the papyri was quite
correct, and his descriptions of them were reasonably accurate.
Nor was it Nelson who was responsible for applying the papyri
information to the issue of the questionable authenticity of the
Book of Abraham. This application was universal, and inevitable.
Back during the 1912 controversy Dr. Albert Lythgoe had
commented upon the desirability of examining the original
papyrus,11 and the following year LDS apologist John Henry Evans
had insisted the original papyrus would have to be available
before scholars or critics "would be warranted in saying that
the entire Book of Abraham was not properly translated."12
Dee Jay Nelson, then, did not create the arguments being used to
challenge the authenticity of the Book of Abraham, nor has his
work ever, in any way, been an exclusive part of that challenge.
What he did do was use the case against the Book of Abraham as a
soapbox to gain attention for himself , and in the process made
inflated and false claims about his credentials. This is quite
different from what the Browns portray; they have tried to show
him as using his false claims and credentials to give
credibility to the case he presented against the Book of
Abraham.
But what of the real issue, namely, the credibility of the Book
of Abraham itself?
Only a minimal effort is made by the Browns in their book to
deal with what they call "the truth about the Book of Abraham,"
and even this is done by merely falling back on a few of Hugh
Nibley's more popular writings on the subject. Thus their
"truth" turns out to be nothing more than an updated rehash of
the "Scribes Did It" theory, followed by the "Missing Black and
Red Scroll" theory.13 Both of these views had already largely
fallen into disrepute even before the Browns' book was
published.
In some cases, in fact, the Browns have mentioned works in which
at least one of the above theories has been clearly shown to be
based on faulty assumptions, though they appear to be unaware of
this. H. Michael Marquardt's Book of Abraham Papyrus Found, for
example, which is listed on the back cover of the Browns' book
among "some anti-Mormon publications which have been endorsing
Dee Jay Nelson," contains a very plain refutation (pp. 1,2) of
the premise upon which Dr. Nibley developed his "Missing Black
and Red Scroll" theory (see pp. 129-134 of this book). Still,
the Browns -- who apparently failed to read the very books they
list -- have rather blindly followed Nibley into this error,
accepting his writings as unqualified fact.
There are a surprising number of similar instances. At one point
a list of five LDS works is provided in order to "enlighten the
reader on the subject of the Book of Abraham:"
1. Abraham in Egypt, by Dr. Hugh Nibley.
2. The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, by Kirk Holland Vestal and
Arthur Wallace.
3. Improvement Era articles from January 1968 -- June 1970, by
Dr. Hugh Nibley.
4. The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: an Egyptian
Endowment, by Dr. Hugh Nibley.
5. BYU Studies, vol. 17, Spring 1977, article by Michael D.
Rhodes.
The Browns caution the reader that the above "are scholarly
books and are well-referenced. Scholars do not seem to write in
easy, novel form. Therefore, the price for finding out the truth
about the Book of Abraham may be to read and study these books
more than once."14
This is good advice; but one could fairly ask if the Browns have
followed it themselves. If they had, they would have known that
Dr. Nibley's two books propose theories that contradict each
other; that the Rhodes article confirms the identification of
Facsimile No. 2 as a hypocephalus and makes no Abrahamic
connection at all; that Hugh Nibley's Improvement Era articles
(prepared back when, he admits, he was "skirmishing and sparring
for time") all contain an abundance of outdated concepts and
disproven contentions; that the Vestal-Wallace book relies
heavily upon the writings of Dee Jay Nelson as an "authority" to
help support its views!
It is disappointing to find that people claiming to be
responsible researchers are apparently not on a familiar basis
with the books and articles to which they refer others. It is
possible that the Browns were so convinced their position was
correct that they felt such precautions would not be necessary.
Failing to check carefully into their sources has led the Browns
to use faulty approaches and reach flawed conclusions. Much of
this is probably due to the difficulty they have in being
objective. Their writing expresses continuous and undisguised
hostility toward anyone threatening their image of Mormonism,
and this attitude often colors their understanding of the
subject matter about which they write. Rather than presenting a
reasonably thorough account of Dee Jay Nelson's use of false
credentials and exaggerated claims, they go to extremes in
attempting to discredit the man from every imaginable angle. As
a result of this approach their contentions are often seriously
flawed, even to the point of being refuted by their own
arguments elsewhere in the book.
Though their efforts may be dismissed by some as generally
uninformed or perhaps even intentionally deceitful, Robert and
Rosemary Brown nevertheless appear to be motivated by a genuine
sincerity in their desire to defend the Book of Abraham.
However, they also demonstrate that they are not above using
omissions, misrepresentations, errors, partial truths, and
obscuring of facts to present their case -- the very methods
they accuse their "anti-Mormon conspiracy" of using.
Sadly, They Lie in Wait to Deceive amounts to little more than a
superficial "defense of the faith" in which readers are expected
to accept its statements at face value. It is this exploitation
of the reader's trust which plays a major role in establishing
the credibility of such works. The book is usually endorsed and
recommended by Latter-day Saints who are unfamiliar with the
actual facts behind the Book of Abraham controversy, a category
of Mormons which seems to include even a great many in Church
leadership positions, including Bishops, stake Presidents, LDS
Seminary and Institute Instructors, etc.15
Because of its widespread influence among Latter-day Saints,
some of the charges and claims found in They Lie in Wait to
Deceive deserve to be examined in more detail than can be done
here. A review of these issues can be found in the Appendix of
this book.
A Faith Promoting Display at BYU
Besides the use of published sources, other methods have also
been used to lend the impression that "all is well" regarding
the Book of Abraham-Joseph Smith Papyri matter, and that
everything has been dealt with satisfactorily as far as the LDS
Church is concerned.
Faith promoting displays, similar to the one shown below and on
the following pages, are a common sight on the campus of Brigham
Young University.
BYU's 1983 Pearl of Great Price exhibit consisted of a large,
four-sectioned display case filled with mounted photographs,
notes, and letters. A final section displayed several books on
this subject produced by various LDS authors over a period of
several years.
The most striking portion of this display can be seen in the
center of the photograph above, a comparison of Facsimile No. 1
from the Book of Abraham to the Papyrus Joseph Smith I drawing
from which it was adapted. A casual viewer -- especially a young
student -- unfamiliar with what Papyrus Joseph Smith I actually
represents (a standard pagan funeral text dating from about the
time of Christ) cannot help but be impressed by the points of
superficial similarity. There is no mention here at all of the
fundamental points of difference between the two drawings due to
Joseph Smith's incorrect restoration of the missing areas (see
chapter 10 of this book).
As a matter of fact, in the photograph at the top of this page,
the small drawing set between Facsimile No. 1 and Papyrus Joseph
Smith I shows a hieroglyphic figure (standing man with both arms
raised) that was taken directly from Alan Gardiner's Egyptian
Grammar, and which can be interpreted as "pray." The character
is then turned sideways so that it resembles the figure in
Facsimile No.1, and is pasted beside an underlined portion of
the Book of Abraham, chapter 1, verse 15, in which Abraham
"lifts up his voice unto the Lord his God." This incorrectly
(yet, it seems, intentionally) gives the impression that Joseph
Smith's "translation" must be correct -- in spite of the fact
that the figure in Facsimile No.1 was never correct to begin
with (see the discussion of Papyrus Joseph Smith I on pp. 62-65
for details of the discrepancies).
The most flagrant misrepresentation made here is found on the
information card below Papyrus Joseph Smith I (see close-up
photograph at the top of p. 157). The last sentence reads:
''ONLY ONE FRAGMENT OF THE ELEVEN HAD ANY OBVIOUS TIE TO THE
BOOK OF ABRAHAM (I.E. THE ORIGINAL FROM WHICH FACSIMILE ONE WAS
COPIED).''
However, as was demonstrated in chapter seven, there is at least
one other fragment from the Metropolitan Museum which has a very
close tie to the Book of Abraham, namely, Papyrus Joseph Smith
XI -- the "Small Sensen'' text. Not only does this fragment
connect directly to Papyrus Joseph Smith I, as shown in the
picture at the bottom of the next page (see also the color
foldout on p. 33), but its characters were used to supply the
''translated from'' figures on three separate translation
manuscripts when the Book of Abraham was initially produced by
Joseph Smith and his scribes. The fact of this connection
between Papyrus Joseph Smith I and Papyrus Joseph Smith XI was
not merely overlooked in this display; it was deliberately
obscured. Papyrus Joseph Smith I (the Facsimile No. 1 papyrus)
is shown standing alone (as can be seen in the photograph on p.
155) with a placard beneath it assuring the viewer that it is
the "only" fragment of the eleven with "any obvious tie" to the
Book of Abraham.
No hint is provided to suggest in any way that the "Small Sensen"
fragment (Papyrus Joseph Smith XI) connects to, and is a part of
the Facsimile No. 1 fragment (Papyrus Joseph Smith I); that in
fact, it is the source of the Egyptian characters in the Book of
Abraham translation manuscripts. Even if the originators of this
display were to fall back on their use of the word "obvious" as
a justification, such remarks must still be regarded as
intentionally misleading.
The "Small Sensen" fragment is shown in this exhibit, however.
Look carefully at the photograph on the top of page 158: to the
right, on a shelf just below the prominent, impressive Facsimile
No. 1 display, is a plain card bearing two small photographs of
papyri fragments. The close-up of these two fragments at the
bottom of page 158 shows that they are labeled simply "SENSEN
PAPYRI," with "X LARGE SENSEN PAPYRUS" and "XI SMALL SENSEN
PAPYRUS" being the only identification or explanation offered
for the two fragments.
Look carefully again at the photo on the top of page 158. The "Sensen
Papyri" are not only out of scale to each other, but both are
shown much smaller in proportion to the Facsimile No. 1 fragment
than they actually are. Moreover, the photograph of the "Small
Sensen" fragment used is overexposed, making its tone, shading,
and overall appearance (as well as its size) very dissimilar to
the Facsimile No. 1 fragment. It seems fair to conclude that
producers of the display deliberately masked the connection
between Papyrus Joseph Smith I and Papyrus Joseph Smith XI
because it was known to be damaging to the Mormon Church's
version of how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham. It has
long been popular for Latter-day Saint writers to accuse the
Church's critics of resorting to "omissions, misrepresentations,
partial truths, and obscuring of facts" -- yet these appear to
be the very methods used by Brigham Young University in this
"faith promoting" display.
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
The Criteria for Rationalization
At this point one might easily wonder how any Latter-day Saint
can be aware of these things and still manage to maintain belief
and trust in the Book of Abraham, and through it, the entire
Mormon belief system.
The key word here, of course, is aware. As has been noted
earlier, many Mormons are relatively uninformed of any
controversy concerning the validity of the Book of Abraham; or
if they become aware controversy exists, will tend to fall back
on the trust they have in their system, and avoid further
investigation.
Of course, there are some LDS members who are more active, and
there are various reasons why members become active. Commitment
to any group or cause can be inspired by any number of personal
factors which may have little or nothing to do with having a "
testimony" that the cause is true. These factors usually come
down to vested interests, such as cultural preference, a sense
of appreciation for tradition, family relationships, economic
advantage, a desire to exercise authority, or even a feeling of
superiority brought on by being part of a select group (these
are certainly significant values, but they should never cause us
to compromise eternal truths). Given enough vested interests, we
often simply do not care whether an objection is valid or not.
They have what they want, are comfortable with it, and do not
wish to be disturbed. This can hold true within any group; it is
an altogether human condition.
One would hope, though, that the primary reason we are actively
committed to something is because, above all else, we are
sincere. In their commitment to Mormonism, Latter-day Saints may
develop this sincerity in one of two ways: (1) there are those
who, because they are convinced the LDS Church is true, feel a
need to dedicate themselves to God, (2) there are others who,
because they already feel a strong dedication to God and are
Mormons, believe the LDS Church must therefore be true.
In the first case, confidence in the system leads to trust in
God; in the second, trust in God causes faith in the system.
Either will produce sincerity, but in both cases what makes this
sincerity valid and vital is the person's trust in God. This
trust in God needs to be recognized as a matter that is separate
from the issue of whether or not the LDS Church is true. Until a
Latter-day Saint grasps this distinction, he will usually be
reluctant to question the validity of the Church as an
organization, for fear of threatening his relationship with God.
But to respond constructively to issues that challenge our
existing views, we must meet three conditions:
1. We must be knowledgeable of the objective evidence in the
controversy. Fortunately, most of the topics dealing with
Mormonism, including the Book of Abraham controversy, are not as
complicated as they are made to appear by some apologists. A
person does not need to become an Egyptologist to understand
what a funeral papyrus is. Any person of average intelligence is
capable of understanding such things without great difficulty.
But since we sometimes allow feelings and emotions to overrule
incontestable facts, a further quality is necessary.
2. We must be reasonable enough to consider the implications
involved. God has given us the faculty of reason as a means of
discerning truth and error. An examination of the facts is not a
threat to true faith. A person who closes his mind to issues he
is uncomfortable with and refuses to allow for the existence of
any possibility other than his own attitude of "I am right --
what I want to be so is so,'' is running roughshod over the
God-given gift of human reason. Such a person cannot expect
others to respect his position. More importantly, he runs the
risk of being deceived by counterfeit spiritual claims. But
there is also a final ingredient.
3. We must be honest enough with ourselves to care about what
the truth really is, even if it goes against what we want. The
desire to accept and act upon this truth must outweigh any
vested interests.
Those who do not apply these standards to investigating
controversy must resort to rationalizing, rather than facing
reality. Many Latter-day Saints seem willing to accept whatever
rationalizations will permit their continued faith in the Book
of Abraham.
So just what rationalizations are available? Stripped of all
their excess verbiage, there remain only about a half dozen
avenues open for the Latter-day Saint that will still allow
Mormonism to be in some sense true. On a scale of the
traditional to the increasingly radical, they are:
1. Joseph Smith did just exactly as he said he did and as it has
always been held: he obtained the actual, original writings of
Abraham and did accurately translate them by the gift and power
of God. Either modern Egyptology is completely wrong, or else
God has allowed Satan to alter the materials we now have,
perhaps to separate the truly loyal Saints from among the less
sincere.
2. Joseph Smith did have Abraham's original writings and
properly translated them, but the originals have not been
recovered. Either the true text of the Book of Abraham was from
a different (lost) portion of the Book of Breathings scroll, or
the Facsimiles were always on a different scroll, separate from
Abraham's text, and Abraham's statements about them have been
misunderstood. It is also possible that Satan has confused the
world's scholars about Facsimile No. 1, and even altered the
"Small Sensen" papyrus to make it look like it was once attached
to it, though it never really was. Satan could also have altered
the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar to make Joseph Smith look bad,
and done the same with Facsimile No. 2, Facsimile No. 3 and the
rest of the material.
3. The papyri we have, as well as the Facsimiles, are what the
Egyptologists say they are, but they are also the Book of
Abraham --technically speaking. There is a deeper meaning to
them, somewhat like a code, which has not yet been discovered by
the world. Joseph Smith could determine this meaning by the gift
and power of God, but he did not know about or simply did not
mention the other more "common" meaning of the papyri. Joseph
Smith may have even been mistaken about them having been penned
by Abraham himself, but that is all right because the important
thing was the coming forth of the inspired text encrypted within
the originals and handed down in them as they were copied over
and over again through the ages.
4. Joseph Smith only thought he was translating Abraham's record
from the papyri. Actually, some ordinary funeral papyri from
Egypt functioned as a sort of spiritual catalyst to Joseph
Smith's mind, so that he received the Book of Abraham as a
result of direct revelation -- and God allowed him and everyone
else to believe he was translating. God also allowed Joseph
Smith to believe his Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar was authentic
and worthwhile, when actually it was useless. Or perhaps Joseph
only considered it a hobby and all the statements he made
concerning it have been misunderstood. And, though Joseph never
said so, his clerks were the ones responsible for stupidly
placing the characters from the "Small Sensen" fragment (Papyrus
Joseph Smith XI) on three of his translation manuscripts.
5. The Book of Abraham is not an ancient scriptural
contribution, but a modern one that has simply been placed in an
ancient setting. As a modern revelation to Joseph Smith, its
lessons, teachings, and values still apply, naturally, but it is
a mistake to try to fit it into an historical context, such as
the lifetime of Abraham. Better to just accept it for what it
says, and not be concerned over what is said about it.
6. The Book of Abraham is not really scripture at all, but
merely the "speculative writing" of Joseph Smith. Again, perhaps
he thought he actually was translating and producing authentic
scripture, perhaps not. If he did, he was mistaken. Joseph was
still capable and worthy of being a prophet in other areas.
(This is largely the view of the Reorganized LDS Church,1 which
is not affiliated with the larger, Utah-based LDS Church.)
It is remarkable that amid all the different suggestions
proposed by LDS apologists (Nibley, Browns, Ashment, Crapo,
Vestal, Barber, etc. ) virtually any position is acceptable and
yet not one of them is "official." A person can be considered a
good Mormon and hold to practically any variation of the first
five views mentioned -- and even switch back and forth from one
view to another -- as long as the end result is feeling good
about the Church. LDS authorities, meanwhile, remain silent
about the entire controversy.
This same grasping for rationalizations is a typical response to
many other problem areas within Mormonism, whether it be the
Book of Abraham, discrepancies between archaeology and the Book
of Mormon,2 the Adam-God teachings of Brigham Young,3 the
historic origins of the LDS movement,4 or the magic and occultic
practices of Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and others.5 There
always seems to be a superficial popular view, plus a range of
increasingly radical approaches available to those who have come
across things others do not know about yet. Gather a group of
Latter-day Saints together and compare their respective views on
any one of these subjects. It is disheartening to see the wide
disparity that exists among the "true" positions offered to
explain the "One True Church." There is, of course, one other
alternative explanation: that Joseph Smith did not produce
legitimate scripture by translation through the gift and power
of God or by any other means; he only pretended to do so. He
lied, in other words, to justify the new doctrines and teachings
he had been introducing among his people, and to uphold the
image of a prophet of God he had created for himself. The
methods of deception he used in doing this were more or less
typical of all he professed to do in the name of God, for he
never was a genuine prophet of God. Thus, the Mormon Church,
which he founded on his calling as a prophet, is in reality a
man-made organization; it cannot be God's "one true Church"
restored to earth as it claims to be.
This conclusion is further reinforced when one considers the
very essence of God's nature as revealed in the Bible. God took
great pains throughout the Old Testament to dissuade the
children of Israel from any contact with the false gods and
idolatrous practices of their pagan neighbors. He ordered the
Israelites to destroy the inhabitants of Canaan when they
conquered the land, lest they should mingle His holy name with
pagan deities, and so pollute the truth of divine revelation.
Likewise, God admonished His people through Moses to repudiate
and completely forsake the gods of Egypt, to whom they had been
exposed during their years of captivity there. And the Old
Testament records that every time the children of Israel fell
into pagan idolatry, they experienced God's chastening.
Since the Joseph Smith Papyri have been identified with absolute
certainty as prayers to pagan Egyptian gods, it is
inconceivable, given God's holy nature and character as revealed
throughout the Bible, that He would associate Himself or His
revelation in any way with these pagan religious documents.
Regardless of which of the above views of the Book of Abraham
one holds, it is surely inconceivable that the God of the Bible
would compromise his exclusivity as the one, true God by
co-mingling His revelation with the idolatrous pagan teachings
and rites of Egypt as expressed in the Joseph Smith Papyri.