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.
“The Church conceded in its July 2014 Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham essay that Joseph’s translations of the papyri and the facsimiles do not match what’s in the Book of Abraham.” (CES Letter)
| No – The church’s essay admits that the recovered papyri fragments do not match the Book of Abraham. But this is not a concession. Skepticism of the Book of Abraham hinge on a recovered fragment of papyrus and the claim that it was the source for Joseph Smith’s translation, which is false. The fact is, the source perished in a fire in Chicago. The church never conceded that the recovered fragment was the source. Almost a century of vast research by LDS scholars have documented evidence for the Book of Abraham and the Abrahamic context of the facsimiles. |
Joseph Smith made clear in his writings on the facsimiles that the Egyptian and Abramic contexts were different. Yet CES Letter insists on that he meant to give a straight word-for-word translation of the Egyptian words. The Egyptian meaning is closely related, but Abraham’s context is different.
What was Joseph Smith’s Modus Operandi?
“It is the issue that I’ve spent the most time researching on because it offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi as well as Joseph’s claim of being a translator.” (CES Letter)
| They use this term Joseph Smith’s “modus operandi” three times. What exactly do they mean by that? According to Hugh Nibley, the term was started by Richard P. Howard, historian of the RLDS Mormon splinter-sect, the same splinter-sect that created the myth of Joseph Smith translating with a rock in a hat. He said, the rediscovered papyrus fragment “discloses the modus operandi of Joseph Smith in determining its context.” Well it doesn’t. But neither he nor CES Letter ever tell us what that process was. How did he do it? Why would he go to so much trouble dealing with hieroglyphics when he could just make something up out of nothing? Why make claims of what Egyptian hieroglyphics say or how the cosmos work if any reasonable person would assume scientists would soon figure those things out and expose him as a fraud? Joseph Smith himself said hieroglyphics would one day be deciphered. Why carelessly sell the papyri to friends instead of destroying the evidence? |
Anti-Mormons point to Joseph Smith’s notes of his studies of the Egyptian papers. Well, why did he go to all that work? How did he produce the magnificent Book of Abraham from those notes? How did his Book of Abraham just happen to match non-biblical details in a vast library of ancient Abraham books that were discovered after Joseph Smith died? How did he do that? What was his modus operandi?
Skeptics’ Modus Operandi?
We don’t know Joseph Smith’s modus operandi, but let us take a look at CES Letter‘s modus operandi for how they attack the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham:
- Contradictions with the bible
- Contradictions with other LDS scripture
- Contradictions with science
- Anachronisms
- Explanation for how Joseph Smith produced it
- Mormons post-rationalize evidence of a fraud
For both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, CES Letter starts with a big first lie that trickles down to further lies as they establish their narrative. With the Book of Abraham, the first lie was that Joseph Smith based his translation on papyri fragments that were recovered and found to have nothing to do with Abraham. This branched to further lies, that the facsimiles have nothing to do with Joseph Smith’s interpretations for them, that the Book of Abraham perpetuates anachronisms in the bible, that it adopts an “out of vogue” model of science, etc.
Smoking Gun – CES Letter says the Book of Abraham “is the smoking gun that has completely obliterated my testimony.” I agree it is a smoking gun, but not of a fraud. It is physical proof that Joseph Smith was a prophet. The list of archaeological evidences is staggering, and CES Letter does not even bother addressing any of them.
The parallels with other ancient Abraham books, books that were discovered after Joseph Smith and which he could not have had access to, is staggering. How did Joseph Smith know that Abraham’s father created idols, that the king tried to sacrifice Abraham on an altar for opposing idolatry, that a heavenly messenger appeared to deliver Abraham, that the people died in an earthquake instead of Abraham, that Abraham attained the records of his forefathers, that Abraham wrote records of his own and passed them down to Joseph? None of those details are in the bible or any literature that Joseph Smith could have had access to.
Why do skeptics just ignore all of this?
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Strawman Fallacy | Joseph Smith did not translate the recovered papyri into the Book of Mormon and the church never claimed he did. CES Letter misrepresents what the church says in their essay. |
| Big Lie Tactic – How does the Book of Abraham turn into the smoking-gun evidence that Joseph Smith is a fraud. It starts with the big lie that the recovered fragment is what Joseph Smith claimed to use for his translation. From there, everything falls apart. It is a big lie that compounds with further investigation of the Book of Abraham and leads to other lies. This lie is easier for the CES Letter reader to believe after all those earlier arguments that attached the same narrative about the Book of Mormon. |  |
It is like a magician making a rabbit disappear. First, they show the empty box, and then they take a rabbit and put it in a new context, the magic disappearing box. CES Letter takes a fragment of parchment that was not the Book of Abraham source material, they say that it is the source but the date shows it was written later and not about Abraham. Then they open the door of the box, but the rabbit is behind a mirror so that it looks as if the box is empty. They say the names or modern inventions even though they are correct for Abraham’s Mesopatamian context. So now it looks like the papyrus fragment was definitely the source but had nothing to do with Abraham. Then they sneak the rabbit out of the back of the box out a secret door. They point out what Joseph Smith “misidentified” in the facsimiles and call the whole thing gibberish. Before we know it, we went from a book of scripture that was translated from a scroll that was burned in the Chicago fire to strictly the Egyptian names of gods in funerary documents, as they appear in the Book of Breathings. Presto! The box is empty!
People fall for this illusion because it is the easier path. All you have to do is make this assumption that the recovered fragments are the Book of Abraham source, and then you are led to further logical assumptions that bolster your decision. The other path is the lengthy task of answering every single nit-picked question that anti-Mormons throw at you. Often, the answer cannot be known because it is lost history. Either make the easy assumption or be forced to back up every detail of your beliefs from attack. That is your choice.
The author of CES Letter apparently made the easy decision, and that is why they expect members of the church to answer every single little challenge instead of discovering the truth for themselves. They want easy beliefs. Of course, they do not say what it is they belief in so we can’t return challenges in kind to their faith. They never say “instead of this we believe in this.” I think this is why anti-Mormons typically don’t bring up the real reasons why they left the church when they ask their “questions.” No mention of gay marriage, feminism, or the other social issues they typically complain about. They want to snipe from a safe position where they don’t have to talk about their own beliefs.
What actually obliterates a person’s testimony of the gospel? Is it the groundbreaking discovery that the Egyptian-looking facsimiles are actually Egyptian? No, I think there is a lot that leads up to a lost testimony. Perhaps there was a priesthood blessing that they feel went unfulfilled or the divorce of parents. Of course it is difficult to open up and discuss these throbbing painful experiences, but I wish anti-Mormons would talk about it instead of making up these justifications for what they have decided about the gospel. I don’t think it is coincidence that CES Letter appeals to science so often. I don’t think it is coincidence that they attack patriarchy in the church, in subsequent arguments. Anti-Mormon arguments develop from past experiences and real issues which I certainly am not qualified to judge but which I would be happy to empathetically listen to.
The first step of spiritual development is humility, and that begins with gratitude. Maybe the priesthood blessing was fulfilled in a way you didn’t expect. Maybe with a change of attitude we can see miracles where before we saw deception. Maybe the answers that never came were answered before you asked.