Did Joseph Smith Get The Book Of Abraham Cosmology From ‘Philosophy Of A Future State’?

This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.

“There’s a book published in 1830 by Thomas Dick entitled The Philosophy of the Future State. Joseph Smith owned a copy of the book and Oliver Cowdery quoted some lengthy excerpts…” (CES Letter)

CES Letter quotes anti-Mormon Klaus Hansen as saying there are four similarities between this book and Joseph Smith’s Book of Abraham:

• Eternal Matter – “Dick’s lengthy book, an ambitious treatise on astronomy and metaphysics, proposed the idea that matter is eternal and indestructible and rejected the notion of a creation ex nihilo.”
   
  False. This is 100% incorrect. Take a look at Philosophy of a Future State, it teaches the creatio ex nihilo doctrine, in contradiction with the Book of Abraham. “None but that Eternal Mind which counts the number of stars, which called them from nothing, into existence, and arranged them in the respective stations they occupy, and whose eyes run to and fro through the unlimited extent of creation, can form a clear and comprehensive conception of the number, the order, and the economy of this vast portion of the system of nature.” “What successive creations have taken place since the first material world was launched into existence by the Omnipotent Creator? What new worlds and beings are still emerging into existence from the voids of space?” It teaches that laws and truth are eternal, and that resurrection will be a physical restoration, but there is nothing about Joseph Smith’s and Abraham’s doctrine of eternal matter.
• Innumerable Stars – “Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of innumerable stars spread out over immeasurable distances.”
   
  This is directly from the bible. CES Letter is cherry-picking a biblical theme between the Book of Abraham and some other book to try to insinuate some causation relationship–the same game CES Letter played with the Book of Mormon and random books that Joseph Smith might have read. But this kind of correlation is to be expected if both books relate to the bible. Lots of 19th century books talked about the immensity of the firmament. Hebrews 11:12: “Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.” Hey look at that, the bible talks about innumerable stars, and you want to know what else? That verse is talking about Abraham! Look at any of the vast library of ancient books about Abraham and you will find them talking about innumerable stars. So, does that mean the Apocalypse of Abraham was based on this random book Philosophy of a Future State? I don’t find anywhere in the book that mentions stars spread over innumerable distances. This appears to be a false claim. It says the distances are “immense” but that’s it.
• Life Among Other Stars – “Dick speculated that many of these stars were peopled by ‘various orders of intelligences.’” The book refers to “various orders of intelligences” in terms of evolved or unevolved animals: “the number of species which diversify the ranks of superior intellectual natures.” Again, a biblical and ancient theme. But the Book of Abraham only speaks of an “order” referring to the hierarchy of stars or glories, some being greater than others. A totally different context. Abraham does not describe orders of “intelligences.” He only says some were “noble and great,” which we see in other ancient scripture, such as the Book of Enoch. Abraham also never mentions intellegences existing at other stars or worlds. Maybe it is shocking to read another religious book that talks about “intelligences” in cosmology? Well it shouldn’t be. A quick Google search comes up with 360 books that talked about “intelligences” published prior to the Book of Abraham translation. It was a common way of referring to incorporeal life, not unique to these books. The early 19th century dictionary defined “intelligence” as a “spirit being.” You can’t hold it against the Book of Abraham that Joseph Smith translated it with common definitions of words for his day rather than modern times. But the book actually defines “intelligences” differently than the Book of Abraham. It says intelligence and soul is the same thing:”And the Creator is under no necessity to annihilate the soul for want of power… or for want of space to contain the innumerable intelligences that are incessantly emerging into existence.” Joseph Smith taught intelligence is organized into spirit, not the soul, and that it always existed.
• Orders Of Intelleligences – “…and that these intelligences were ‘progressive beings’ in various stages of evolution toward perfection.”
   
  The book defines the “first states of improvement” for man as starting out “like Adam after his creation.” The book describes it as evolution from a totally primitive state. This is nothing like the doctrine of our eternal progression from a “first estate,” described by Abraham. Adam started out as the godly figure Michael, a doctrine that CES Letter later rakes Brigham Young over the coals for. Now suddenly CES Letter thinks we believe Adam was primitive? The book’s philosophy of progression is similar to LDS doctrine, which is not surprising considering stages of progression is a popular and widespread ancient concept. But the book sounds more like Hinduism’s doctrine of reincarnation. LDS scripture does not describe Adam as a lower form of intelligence, but rather one of the “noble and great.” The general idea of eternal progression or development was widespread and is also found in the bible.
  
• Populating Numerous Stars – “In the Book of Abraham, part of which consists of a treatise on astronomy and cosmology, eternal beings of various orders and stages of development likewise populate numerous stars.” The Book of Abraham never said intelligences populate other stars. Doesn’t say it. Matt Stone and Trey Parker may think Mormons believe this, but that doesn’t make it true.
• Universe Revolves Around Throne Of God – “Dick speculated that ‘the systems of the universe revolve around a common centre…the throne of God.'” This is a misquote. The book actually says “all the systems of the universe revolve round one common centre.” CES Letter and this anti-Mormon author misquote this to hide the massively different cosmology. Where did Abraham say anything about the universe revolving around something? The qualities of Kolob, which Joseph Smith actually attributed to Egyptian belief and not Abraham, sound more like modern cosmology than what this book is speculating. Abraham never said the entire universe rotates around a central “throne of God,” and Mormons never believed this. The Kolob figure in Facsimile 2 was interpreted as “the first creation, nearest to the celestial,” and a governing glory. That’s it! Nothing about revolving around it or even about it being a star. The only similarity here is the phrase “throne of God” and the idea of a cosmological body governing other bodies, which is a common concept. But it’s nice that CES Letter finally admits that the Kolob figure in Facsimile 2 means more than just “the residence of God!”
• Hierarchy Of Stars From Center Of Universe – “Other stars, in ever diminishing order, were placed in increasing distances from this center.” This is totally different than the cosmology described by Abraham. Abraham’s cosmology is geocentric, with the earth in the center, and it talks about Kolob’s revolutions alongside with the other glories. So the only parallel here is that both books talk about some kind of cosmological hierarchy. CES Letter Logical Fallacies Falsehood CES Letter misquote Philosophy of a Future State to make it sound closer to LDS cosmology. It reads “around one common centre” not “around a common centre.” CES Letter incorrectly claims the book teaches eternal existence of matter. Actually it teaches the opposite. CES Letter incorrectly claims the book teaches an innumerable distance between stars. CES Letter incorrectly claims the Book of Abraham teaches intelligences populating stars, the universe revolving around the throne of God, and a hierarchy of stars around the universe’s center. Shifting Goalposts Later, CES Letter claims Mormons believed Adam was God–the so-called Adam God theory. But suddenly now they claim Mormons believed this book’s progression of existence, which includes Adam starting out in a primitive state. Earlier, CES Letter claimed figure 1 of Facsimile 2 was “Kolob, the residence of God” according to Joseph Smith. They ignored the part of Joseph Smith’s interpretation about “nearest to the celestial… first in government” because that actually paralleled the Egyptian context for that figure. But now suddenly Kolob is “nearest unto the throne of God.” Cherry-picking Just like their ridiculous parallels with the Book of Mormon and random books, CES Letter cherry-picks and skews a handful of similarities. Confirmation Bias Hundreds of books talked about “intelligences.” There is no logical case for causation rather than mere correlation in this case. Etymology Fallacy The Philosophy of a Future State defines “intelligences” differently than the Book of Abraham. But CES Letter claims “eternal beings” are “too, are called ‘intelligences'” in the book. Actually, “souls” are called intelligences, not “spirits.” Strawman Argument CES Letter totally misrepresents LDS cosmology and what the Book of Abraham says. Burden Of Proof How are we supposed to disprove this argument? The burden lies on CES Letter to demonstrate that Joseph Smith copied modern ideas into the Book of Abraham, not rely on coincidences and circumstantial evidence. Guilt By Association CES Letter adds the bit about alien stars being populated by various intelligences in order to peddle the popular myth about Mormons, that we believe people get their own planet after they die. Big Lie Tactic – Like previous arguments, the reader thinks, “Maybe Jospeh Smith read this philosophy book and it influenced him, maybe not. Who knows?” The point of this argument is not to convince us that Joseph Smith ripped off ideas for the Book of Abraham, but to associate Joseph Smith with hokey 19th century metaphysics. That is what really makes this argument effective. Even if you walk away shaking your heads at the claim that Joseph Smith stole ideas, you still associate him now with hokey unscientific ideas. Thus, CES Letter establishes their narrative that Mormons are superstitious. This is how CES Letter operates: through innuendo. They push the Big Lies, they wrap them in a veneer of science, and this convinces the weak-minded members of their audience that science is a superior alternative truth to Mormonism. This is what is known as superstition. Not science. This is like saying Joseph Smith was visited by an ancient alien in his First Vision at Cumorah, rather than God and angels. It is unscientific, goofy, and erases all faith. The first Big Lie that CES Letter told was that Joseph Smith’s source for the Book of Abraham was a 1st century AD papyrus that had nothing to do with Abraham. This one singular lie leads to further lies that attack one’s testimony of the gospel. Using the same tactic as in previous arguments, CES Letter builds a narrative for how Joseph Smith got the language, style, themes, and story-line for the Book of Abraham. One of the Book of Abraham’s strengths is its consistency with other ancient books about Abraham–books that Joseph Smith couldn’t have known about. CES Letter undermines this strength by lying about the Book of Abraham’s teachings, claiming that they are based on 19th century science and 19th century cosmology. In previous arguments, CES Letter demanded that Mormons validate every single thing mentioned in the Book of Abraham with plentiful physical evidence, or our narrative must be false. But now, CES Letter shifts the goalposts and cherry-picks a few loose parallels to some other random book. Why shouldn’t CES Letter have to validate every single comparison in their argument right now, if that narrative is true? Wouldn’t that be scientific? CES Letter thus begins to set a frame for how Joseph Smith produced the Book of Abraham, which by all appearances is a miracle. How did an uneducated young man come up with such imaginative themes, themes that happen to match ancient Abraham books so exactly? Easy. He stole it from this wacky book on metaphysics. CES Letter cherry-picks a few bits of evidence and frames it in a way that almost sounds plausible, by ignoring tons of inconvenient facts to support their wild and complicated narrative. See also: CES Letter Marxist Contradiction Strategy Contradiction Strategy – The human mind is trained to find patterns and dissimilarities. It is easy–lazy really–to cherry-pick a few vague similarities between two random books, dress up the language to sound more similar, and build a narrative that one book derived from the other. This is the same argument that Leftists use against the bible. They say it was ripped off Babylonian, Sumerian, and Egyptian legends. The human brain is trained to look for discrepancies and patterns, so this trick is common. Pareidolia is why people see the Virgin Mary in breakfast cereal and figures on Mars. It is confirmation bias. When it comes to history, there is so much we don’t know and will never know. All we have are some fragments of bones in the ground and some texts that claim to be ancient. Fools jump to conclusions. Followers of Satan are easily tricked when it comes to pareidolia and history, because they are lazy and do not care to use critical thought. If there is vague evidence for something but we mostly don’t know what really happened because it is ancient history, followers of Satan will jump to lazy conclusions, whatever narrative is hyped on the History Channel and dressed up in emotional language. It is easy to manipulate Satan’s followers when it comes to history because they rely only on what they can see and put no true faith in anything. What does CES Letter believe in? What tenant of faith do hold that we can verify or discredit with these kinds of comparisons? Global warming? Human evolution? Give us something! Why don’t anti-Mormons discuss their alternative belief to the beliefs of the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, and bible, and talk about physical evidences? Instead, they nit-pick and tear down an entire belief system with unscientific appeals to fake science. This Marxist propaganda technique is especially insidious as it defines Mormons in a constrained and unfair frame, and it rallies non-Mormons or anybody who was sitting on the fence in solidarity against Mormons and their beliefs. Use Opponent As Authority Tactic – This is a popular Marxist tactic that anti-Mormons use. They use Mormonism’s own authorities to discredit the faith, such as an alleged Mormon scholar. What makes this argument powerful is:
  • Deceptively discredits the vast libraries of study on Book of Mormon theology by LDS professionals.
  • Gives more focus to a phony frame that attacks the Mormon church.
  • Divides the ranks of the church.
  • Establishes a frame that demands a clear, modern explanation in the Book of Mormon for every religious issue in existence, and that it be exactly corroborated by every other Mormon source.