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)
Different Cosmology – Joseph Smith may have been influenced by this book. There are similarities with some of Joseph Smith’s ideas, yes, but there are also important differences. When it comes to the Book of Abraham, there are two very important differences:
- This book teaches creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing), while Abraham indicates matter is eternal.
- This book teaches God has no “visible form” and is “incomprehensible.” The Book of Abraham teaches the God is a visible, physical person.
Common Ancient Ideas – This book gets much of its philosophy from ancient sources, so why shouldn’t an ancient book about Abraham have some similar ideas? As for Joseph Smith, even if he did get some ideas from reading this book, which we don’t know whether they did or not, why shouldn’t he get inspired by reading an interesting book, and then get further inspiration about which ideas are true and which are false?
CES Letter gives four similarities:
Creatio Ex Nihilo
“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.”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
False. This is 100% false. Take a look at what Philosophy of a Future State actually says. It teaches the creatio ex nihilo doctrine, in stark 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?”(Philosophy of a Future State)
CES Letter incorrectly claims this book teaches an eternal nature of matter. It teaches that laws and truth are eternal and that resurrection will be a physical restoration, yes, but it does not teach that matter is eternal. Earlier, CES Letter attacked the Book of Abraham for not teaching creatio ex nihilo. They incorrectly said it is modern science. So, CES Letter is just all over the place with their lies.
Innumerable Stars
“Much of the book dealt with the infinity of the universe, made up of innumerable stars spread out over immeasurable distances.”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
Talk of “innumerable stars” comes directly from the bible. CES Letter is cherry-picking common biblical themes to try to insinuate some causation relationship–this is the same game CES Letter played to debunk the Book of Mormon. But this kind of correlation is to be expected if both books relate to the bible.We would expect this kind of similar language, as the bible tells the same story and same narrative that we find in the Book of Abraham. Many books talk about innumerable stars. So, does that mean Apocalypse of Abraham was based on this 19th century book? Because it talks about the same thing, but it was only recently uncovered by archaeologists.
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 New Testament also 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.
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.'”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
Different Context – Philosophy of Future State refers to “various orders of intelligences” in terms of evolved or un-evolved animals: “the number of species which diversify the ranks of superior intellectual natures.” Again, a biblical and ancient theme. But the Book of Abraham does not speak of ranks or orders of creatures. It 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 (which Joseph Smith didn’t know about).
Abraham Doesn’t Mention Alien Life – Abraham never mentions intellegences existing at other stars or worlds.
Common 19th Century Term – Maybe it is shocking to read another religious book that talks about “intelligences” in cosmology? Well it shouldn’t be, because 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 two books. The early 19th century dictionary defined “intelligence” as a “spirit being.” You can’t hold it against Joseph Smith that he translated it with common definitions of words for his day rather than modern times.
But Philosophy Of Future State 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.
Eternal Progression
“…and that these intelligences were ‘progressive beings’ in various stages of evolution toward perfection.”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
Philosophy Of Future State defines the “first states of improvement” as starting out “like Adam after his creation.” It says this was a totally primitive state, and we evolve from there. 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.) Wait, so now suddenly CES Letter thinks we believe Adam was primitive? Which is it?
Philosophy Of Future State‘s idea 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.”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
The Book of Abraham never said alien intelligences populate other stars. It doesn’t say it. Maybe Matt Stone and Trey Parker 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.'”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
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 closer to modern cosmology than this. 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 or even about it being a star. The only similarity here is the phrase “throne of God,” which is a very common phrase, 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.”
(CES Letter quoting Klaus Hansen)
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.” The books used a common dictionary definition. There is no logical case for causation rather than correlation. |
| Etymology Fallacy | The Philosophy of a Future State defines “intelligences” differently than the Book of Abraham. But CES Letter claims “eternal beings” “too, are called ‘intelligences'” in the book. Actually, no “souls” are called intelligences in the book, 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 appears to add 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.
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. Fools jump to conclusions. Anti-Mormons 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, Anti-Mormons will jump to lazy conclusions, whatever narrative is hyped on cable television and dressed up in emotional language.
It is easy to manipulate Anti-MormonsAnti-Mormons 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 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 Abraham 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 Abraham for every religious issue in existence, and that it be exactly corroborated by every other Mormon source.
There are some interesting concepts in this book Philosophy Of A Future State that may have sparked Joseph Smith’s interest and got him pondering issues and receiving revelation which we read about in the Doctrine & Covenants. Joseph Smith published excerpts from this book to show a basis for some of his peculiar revelations. I don’t think he would have published these excerpts if he meant to plagiarize ideas and then cover it up. But to compare the book to the Book of Abraham? They don’t compare! They are totally different. The Book of Abraham is filled with remarkable cosmology that fits what archaeologists have recently discovered about the ancient world and Abraham. It fits details of Abraham’s life and closely parallels recently-discovered texts, details from ancient texts that Joseph Smith could not have known about and which are not found in Genesis. It is a miraculous book. It teaches true doctrine and empowers the Spirit of God, and brings us closer to the Savior Jesus Christ.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: