top of page

Joseph Smith Said He Did, in Fact, Possess Abraham's Literal Autograph and the Papyri Were Writt

A brief note first is in order. I am in the process (a long slow one to be sure) of writing a book about why I don't see the Book of Abraham is authentic and how the apologetic defense of it just fails. This was to be the Preface and the First Chapter. I am at this point wondering if it is worth the effort to worry about. I will share the first chapter here for those interested. It is a Loooooooong article because I present the actual references to ALL the evidence from so many sources in the appendices. If you decide you want to print this, it is approximately 71 pages. It is my sincere effort to get to the bottom of the faulty apologetic about Joseph Smith claiming he had the actual 3,500 year old autograph. The evidence is all in probability that he did make that claim and believed it, which upsets apologists. I am trying my gosh danged best to be as honest and realistic with it as I can be. It does not look good for Joseph Smith. I'll leave it at that. This chapter has been reviewed by several people and I have benefited immensely from all their suggestions which I incorporated into it. (June 21, 2017)

The Joseph Smith Papyri Book of Abraham

Why Apologetics Leads Us Astray

Preface

“Science is simply a set of agreed-upon processes used to make sense of the world.” – Steven L. Peck, BYU Biologist

My 20 year world of LDS apologetic life came crashing down around me in increments, although, it was the reading of three books (I discuss them later) which jarred me into realizing cognitive dissonance had gotten the better of me through the years. It was time to face the music so to speak. My tergiversation is based on real evidence, not faith anymore. It actually came about rather innocently, yet the changes in my thinking and beliefs certainly did occur.

I actually grew weary, as a FAIR polymath, after 15 years or so, of peddling the same old answers to the same old arguments critics were coming up with on the internet. Neither the two ends will meet because of vehement disagreements and disregard of evidence. Acrimonious disputations led nowhere. I felt I was just spinning wheels and getting dizzy on the Merry Go Round of apologetics imagining I was increasing in my knowledge after a decade of futile arguing and divarication. I co-found FAIR with Darryl Barksdale, Juliann Reynolds, and Scott Gordon (the current president of FAIR) in 1990. I participated in several of the early symposiums and write ups as well as contributing to the website and message board we had developed. After several years of being on the private email list discussing strategies, coming up with stronger answers to the critics, it dawned on me I had ceased learning much, and the answers were not all that convincing to me either. Through time various differences of philosophy had arisen within the ranks, and I just felt it was better for me to disengage and do my own thing.

I made manifold videos as “The Backyard Professor” (my wife had called me that since I was always taking my books with me everywhere I went, and, well, the name sort of stuck, not because I was falsely claiming to have a Ph.d, something I never got around to doing, with some not little regret on my part) sharing what I felt were very good evidences for the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham and in favor of Joseph Smith. It was a pleasant and ambrosial time in my life. I don’t regret it at all. It was a new period of growth for me. It was also when my reading became more all-encompassing and I became omniligent with books of more numerous subjects. I therefore began seeing things in a different light developing into a stronger scrutator of evidence and reasoning about what scripture, science and history taught. The pellucid difficulties grew. As they accumulated in my soul, the impressions to myself was I really wasn’t all that well informed after all. And it made me wonder why, if so much made Joseph Smith and the LDS scriptures look so authentic, why more of the world didn’t join in and come around to our way of thinking? If it’s so liminal, why aren’t more accepting the apologetic claims and changing their minds? Surely people want truth? Where is the actual evidence and why isn’t what we have robust enough to convince?

I had taken a love for Hugh Nibley’s writings like nothing else, but the problem was my intellectual scientific, historic and religious reading was superficial other than the FARMS materials, which was an expansion of Nibley’s methodology and philosophy. Yes, I dabbled in reading popular science, popular philosophy, and some history, but usually from within the paradigm that Nibley had adapted which I eupeptically adopted. I truly felt he had his finger on the pulse of how to arrive at truth, whether historically, or philosophically, religiously, and intellectually, and I strove to emulate him. After all, having come from my youth through the anti-intellectualism of Joseph Fielding Smith and his son in law Bruce R. McConkie, Nibley was a gigantic spot light of enlightening investigation into the mystery of exciting evidence in favor of the scriptures. I dabbled in German, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic. I gathered as many sources as Nibley himself had used and used them myself, finding what I considered gems in those sources that Nibley had decided not to use in his own materials. I used them in mine and produced a website to share the excitement, potency, and convincing evidence as I fathomed then. I also read Widtsoe, Roberts, and England, among other intellectuals in Mormonism.

The mistake, I now believe on serious introspection, I made as an apologist, was that, I began with the answer (everything Joseph Smith said and the church supported is the answer), and then simply started agglomerating evidences to show Joseph Smith was correct. I was justifying my faith through cherry-picking the only pieces and parts of scholarly articles and books that supported my own understanding of reality and ignoring it if it differed from my favorite LDS scholar, Hugh Nibley, and my favorite apologetic group, FARMS. I came to realize that my research was derivative merely using Hugh Nibley and FARMS assumptions, methods, and conclusions.

I have learned to ask questions I should have queried about decades ago. Now it is not so much defending to see who is right, but in asking the much more interesting question “how probable is this?” And based on evidence, how probable is that conclusion compared to this other conclusion? I had never before realized how serious it is to assess probability. I had simply assumed that Nibley’s approach with possibilities was all that was needed.[1] Probability, however, is the only thing that matters. I could now see I can, and seriously need, to check how probable Joseph Smith’s translations and interpretations are, and how probable the apologetics of Book of Abraham authenticity are. It’s never just a blunt it is true or it is false dichotomy as I was assuming all along. If it is probable, just how probable appears to me now to be fairly important to find out. If something is improbable, just how improbable? Enough to discard believing it, or can we hold on? These matters are what are necessary to ascertain.

When I got into the biblical scholarship of non-Mormons, trying to round out my education and be the most informed I could be, as well as honestly looking at all sides, I noticed the biblical scholars were vastly more helpful with the language, culture, and exegetic tradition than were the Mormon scholars, who appear perfectly satisfied to simply regurgitate and support the LDS interpretations. That bothered me, and I said so many times to other apologists. The LDS scholarship just seemed too “flat” to me, when I knew they were trained better. Many have Ph.d’s and never use their educational excellence they acquired to write about LDS views of the Bible and other scriptures. Where were all the Hugh Nibleys?

The FARMS materials were pretty good, but the other LDS scholars whom everyone else were referring to just didn’t seem to want to explain the ancient Hebrew or Greek backgrounds or explain exegetical matters of the Bible, which, for me, were some of the best parts. I began to suspect the LDS were being told not to do so. I later found out I was more or less correct. The LDS should be the ones writing the in-depth exegetical materials and be in the forefront of biblical scholarship that Raymond Brown was doing, as well as many others.[2] There is a poverty to LDS biblical scholarship, propounding simply anemic explanations. FARMS certainly gets credit for attempting their best work on the Dead Sea Scrolls, not to mention the Book of Mormon, certainly, but overall, Mormon scholarship on the Bible has been clearly second rate, something that is askew to me.

Mormon women in biblical scholarship are virtually non-existent as well. While non-LDS women I can read were numerous.[3] This to me looks more and more odd. Mormon scholarship, as it were, just doesn’t seem to contribute to the biblical scholarship and appear to be far more interested in just circling the wagons and holding hands singing “Come, Come Ye Saints,” than in interacting with and exchanging ideas with biblical scholars around the world.

Through time I noticed the apologists periodically taking the atheists to task, though vaguely, nothing specific and detailed, more along the lines of “Oh, the atheists arguments have already been refuted, they are so weak!” I was so involved in making my videos, I never bothered to get worked up about it much. But I suspected, in order to be the best and most honest apologist I could be, I would have to include all sides, so the day had to come that I begin refuting atheists as I was doing with critics. Unfortunately, in my apologetic days critics had now also become other Mormons who didn’t grasp the significance of the evidences I had found, not to mention our old nemesis’s the Christians, who were, as all opponents were so labeled – “Anti-Mormons.” My entire world was in what I will dub as “Mormon think.” If other Mormons didn’t think the way we did, then they as well, were critics, and needed to be corrected and refuted. That ended up being the demise, in the long run, of FARMS as well.

One day in the bookstore, I noticed a book by a former preacher who had become an atheist. Now that was interesting! So I read the book blurbs, and read the preface. I purchased it and Dan Barker’s book “Godless” was the very first atheist book I bought and read, in the honesty and interest of being a well rounded apologist. It literally knocked me off my horse. In my Mormon naivete I had no idea atheist arguments were this strong, this logical and well put together. It dawned on me the other apologists who claimed the atheist arguments were weak hadn’t been honestly reading anything by them. I then began to read a little more earnestly because I realized here was an entire untapped dimension I had no idea actually existed before.

So Dan Barker was the first book I read, which I alluded to earlier, while Thomas Riskas “Deconstructing Mormonism,” was the second one that caused my entire paradigm to shift dramatically. This text took the strongest of the atheist arguments and applied the critiques of atheists to Christianity, onto Mormonism with devastating effect to me. I vibrated for months after that. I simply cannot see Mormonism in the same light anymore that’s all. Charles Harrell, a BYU professor wrote the third book that just amazed me, “This is My Doctrine.” It demonstrates in really good detail that there is fundamentally nothing Biblical in Mormonism. It is all read back onto the Bible. Every single unique doctrine or idea in Mormonism that is claimed to be biblical actually isn’t so. It’s a mind opening read!

I continued my readings finding truly remarkable materials in more of Dan Barker’s research as well as many others.[4] Perhaps the single most biblical scholar who shook my rose-colored glasses off my apologetic world, concerning the Bible, was Bart Ehrman, former Bible believer, now turned agnostic. His biblical manuscript analysis and exegesis as well as background research into the Bible definitely has a trend towards completely manmade with precious little inspiration or revelation to any of it, in any manner. It was Ehrman’s work, most of all, so far, that is, that demonstrated to me that the LDS biblical scholarship is truly biased without question, so dramatically so as to make it highly suspect, at best. It is designed to make Mormonism look biblical, not worrying about what the Bible actually says or means for the most part. The Bible’s own context is seldom cared for with LDS scholarship. LDS scholarship wants to make the Bible conform to Joseph Smith’s views. The majority of their scholarship is used for that purpose above all it seems to me, but especially in relation to Abraham and Moses, Adam, Enoch, Melchizedek, Nimrod and the “Patriarchal Traditions.” And as such, it is quite important to pay particular attention to seeing the confirming biases that appear in the LDS research. Again, it’s not a matter of being right or wrong, but how probable is the actual meaning given by LDS scholarship, based on the known background we have?

And then there’s the Book of Abraham and the Egyptian papyri Joseph Smith acquired in 1835. This opens all kinds of dimensions of historical and probabilistic inquiry. And that is what this book is about. There are endless gyrations of apologetic evidences defended on the one side, refuted by other LDS scholars on the other, and don’t even get started with the non-LDS criticisms! But, on the other hand, everyone has a voice in this fascinating topic. The question actually comes down to just who do you believe, and why do you? Who do you disbelieve and why? Based on what evidence? And how much do you believe or disbelieve? Is the evidence justified to make complete belief valid? Is complete disbelief valid? And how do we find out? That’s what this book is about, except with a different tool than others have used.

Bayes Theorem, or what I will be utilizing of it is the Bayesian inference is a tool for finding out what the probability is and on what actual probability one can have warranted belief in. I will explain more about the Bayes Theorem kind of thinking in the main text, but for here, let me just say what I find the most important about thinking in terms of Bayes Theorem. The math isn’t necessary, but the thinking certainly is. It formalizes our thinking and makes us confront our own subjective views and can dramatically help eliminate confirmation bias. The fact that everyone is subjective is actually handled and controlled by using Bayes Theorem, because “…subjectivity does not prevent us from producing conclusions that are as objective as can possibly be, given the limits of our knowledge and resources. Because subjectivity does not mean arbitrary. You must have reasons for your subjective estimates, so you must confront what those reasons are. And in defending your conclusions to anyone, you must be able to present those reasons to them, and those reasons had better be widely convincing. If they aren’t, you need to ask why they ever convinced you.”[5] It forces us into being more honest about all aspects of whatever subject we are researching. That is what is most helpful about it.

I focus on two themes.

  1. The probability that Joseph Smith had Abraham’s actual handwriting and actually translated the papyri into the Book of Abraham under inspiration from God, including arguments for and against.

  2. The probability of the main apologetic arguments defending the Book of Abraham, which will include the 5 foremost apologist’s arguments of Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, Michael Dennis Rhodes, and Kevin Barney.

This book is not about proving the Book of Abraham false or true. It is not about defending or refuting arguments both for and against the many variegated nuances of historical data we have accumulated through the years since Joseph Smith was shot to death at Carthage Jail in June 1844. It is about finding out whether it is probable or not to currently accept what is being claimed about it all. Bayes Theorem is conditional probability, that is, it is conditional on what we know today. Probabilities change as new information is acquired.[6] This is not the last answer, but it can set us in the right direction of what to actually believe is most probable.

There is a lot of historic ground to cover to acquire our background knowledge, which is essential in making sure our probabilities are as accurate as we can make them. I will review the different evidences for and against the claims, and compare which is more probable, and which we can discard, for now. If and when new material and information come about, we can update then. What I wish to find out is how warranted is our belief or else our disbelief in all these things concerning this intriguing subject. I am not dealing with what is possible. I am dealing with what is probable. I want to responsibly find out the probabilities and when is enough evidence to warrant either belief or disbelief, not prove what is true or what is false.

When using Bayes inference thinking, we don’t ask how we can explain all the evidence with our theory. We start by asking how likely our theory is in the first place. Then we ask how probable is all the evidence (both what we have and don’t have), and how probable is the evidence on some other theory. Only then do we work out if our theory is the most probable, i.e., the best theory. “If we instead just look to see how well the evidence fits our theory, then anything we can make fit is what we end up believing. But we can do that with numerous theories that aren’t true. Just because the evidence we select (and ignore) fits our theory, doesn’t mean we’re right.”[7] We need to rationally also ask what evidence should exist if our theory is false (whatever theory we are examining).

We are testing our theory in ratio with all other theories using our commonly understood background about the culture, science, religion, history, politics, how the world actually works, etc. It is our theory in ratio to all other theories.[8] We eliminate fallacious and circular reasoning, as best we can, check assumptions and make sure evidence and background knowledge of what we know about the world and how it works, as well as what we know historically, warrant our beliefs or else our disbeliefs. This is how, ideally, all historical inquiry ought to be performed. This is quite a bit different than what I was doing in apologetics, and what I see being done in religious scholarship whether Mormons or Christians, Muslims, whoever is doing religious studies.

I will first see how probable it is that Joseph Smith actually claimed to have the actual personal written autograph of Abraham the biblical patriarch on the papyri. Then I will explore the apologetic materials of 5 main LDS apologist/scholars in successive chapters. Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, Michael Dennis Rhodes, and Kevin Barney. I will explore the assumptions of apologetics as well as the various arguments used in order to attempt to save Joseph Smith from the Egyptological evidence which demonstrates, he genuinely was far more naïve than has been supposed. Welcome to the jungle.

Preface Endnotes

  1. One can see it best in his encapsulating though flawed book, Hugh Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham, edited by John Gee, Deseret Books/FARMS, 2009: Chapter 12, “Conclusion, Taking Stock.” This chapter was originally in the LDS magazine, Improvement Era, May, 1970.

  2. Some of my favorites are Joseph Fitzmyer, John J. Collins, Frank Moore Cross, Jr., C. H. Dodd, Bruce M. Metzger, Lawrence H. Schiffman, James D. G. Dunn, Mark S. Smith, William G. Dever, Oscar Cullman, F. F. Bruce, William R. Farmer, William F. Albright, Emanuel Tov, James H. Charlesworth, Richard Elliott Friedman, James C. Vanderkam, and hosts of others who really sink their teeth into it.

  3. Such powerhouses as Elaine Pagels, Dagmar Winter, Elyse Goldstein, Jane Schaberg, Amy-Jill Levine, Devorah Dimant, Karen L. King, Violet MacDermot, Esther A. De Boer, Merlin Stone, to name just those off the top of my head.

  4. John W. Loftus, David Eller, Michael Martin, Richard Carrier, James A. Lindsay, Robert M. Price, Hector Avalos, Anthony Flew, George H. Smith, David Ramsey Steele, Graham Oppy, Michel Onfray, Massimo Pigliucci, A. C. Grayling, Victor J. Stenger, Michael Shermer, Nicholas Everitt, Steven Weinberg, Kai Nielsen, Stephen Hawking, J. L. Mackie, Quentin Smith, Bertrand Russell, Matt McCormick, J. L. Schellenberg, William L. Rowe, and yes, the three horsemen, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchins. I would propose Vic Stenger as the fourth horseman of the apocalypse of atheism. The so-called “New Atheism” is not the only atheism, nor even the representative of what atheism says and does either. There is hundreds of thousands of pages of careful, logical, reasoned, and amazing arguments I had no idea even existed! But I do now, and continue exploring it as I have time.

  5. Richard Carrier, Proving History, Bayes Theorem and the Quest for a Historical Jesus,Prometheus Books, 2012: 82.

  6. See the discussion of John Earman, Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, MIT Press, 1992, especially chapter 8, “Normal Science, Scientific Revolutions, and All That: Thomas Bayes Vs. Thomas Kuhn.” One may also profitably read the excellent discussion in James V. Stone, Bayes’ Rule, A Tutorial Introduction to Bayesian Analysis, Sebtel Press, 2013, especially pp. 119-128. The most complete explanation of Bayes and how it can be applied to history is the text of Richard Carrier, Proving History, Bayes Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, Prometheus Books, 2012.

  7. Richard Carrier, Proving History, p. 61.

  8. Richard Carrier, Proving History, p. 50.

Chapter 1

Bayesian Inference Applied to Abraham’s Historical Autograph on the Joseph Smith Papyri: Written Literally “By His Own Hand”?

I have no fear of the outcome when Joseph Smith is subjected to scientific study – but the study must be the honest search after truth – John A. Widtsoe (LDS scientist and Apostle)

Before they would be warranted in saying that the entire Book of Abraham was not properly translated, they would have to examine the original papyrus, or a copy of it, from which the Book of Abraham was translated – John Henry Evans (1912)

Joseph Smith appears to have believed that he actually possessed the literal handwriting and autographs of Abraham and other biblical Patriarchs on the papyri that he purchased from Michael Chandler in June 1835. LDS apologists, in general, and many specifically, almost scoff at this type of naivete in Joseph Smith, and they come up with all kinds of ingenious ways of avoiding the implications of Joseph Smith’s thinking this literally. By interpreting the evidence, in favor of a more palatable and convincing theory and one in which Joseph Smith simply didn’t share; we shall see that they appear to save Joseph Smith from his own ignorance. Now that may be a noble gesture, but it doesn’t get us to what Joseph Smith probably believed, but instead reflects what today’s apologists believe. It is important to note that it is fine if all we are interested in doing is apologetics, but if we are interested in examining history, then we need to present the evidence in light of what Joseph actually believed.

Why does this “Abraham autograph” issue irk apologists and believers? Because believing he literally had Abraham’s 3,000 year old signature shows Joseph Smith could not possibly have understood the reality involved with the papyri. The papyri don’t date to Abraham’s day, they are far younger than that. We know that now today, but Joseph Smith couldn’t possibly be aware of how wrong his literalism was. Hence, defending Joseph Smith is getting seriously difficult. There is also no possible way Abraham could or would have written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, let alone possibly be literate, something else Joseph Smith could not possibly have known, though we do today. There is also no way the papyri would or could have been anything remotely close to discussing anything about Abraham, which Joseph Smith, again, could not possibly have understood. So, in order to save Joseph Smith from real knowledge, apologists have to attempt to distance him from his own words of literally having Abraham’s signature on the papyri. But none of this excuses us from finding out exactly what Joseph Smith probably believed and said. It is time to set the record straight on Joseph Smith’s claims, using the evidence and background knowledge we possess today.

I believe using Bayesian Inference thinking can give us enough probability on this claim to set us in the right direction about what to accept until and unless further evidence comes in that changes the probability. It is not about proving something true, but in finding how probable the evidence is on any given claim. Is the kind of evidence we have, the kind of evidence we would expect to have with Joseph Smith’s putative claim? That is what I am investigating. That is what I mean by Bayesian Inference thinking. Allow me to explain why I use this kind of thought analysis to test the historic claim that Joseph Smith believed he had Abraham’s actual handwriting on the Egyptian papyri he purchased and translated.

Bayes Theorem is not just using a mathematical gimmick or Jedi mind trick to use in order to justify one’s favorite pet theories, though that has been the impression implied by some. As James V. Stone, a reader of Computational Neuroscience at the University of Sheffield in England, has so aptly described it, “Bayes Theorem is a rigorous method for interpreting evidence in the context of previous experience or knowledge.”[1] As the Bayesian scholar John Earman has noted, “It is fundamental to science that opinions be evidence-driven.”[2] He further elaborates that Bayes Theorem is “the best hope for a comprehensive and unified treatment of induction, confirmation, and scientific-inference.”[3] “We ask ourselves how plausible the information is, i.e. how expected it is given our background beliefs, and we ask ourselves how reliable the source to be.”[4] Bayes Theorem is not about guessing or haphazardly arriving at already believed in conclusions because we desperately want to believe those conclusions, and thereby cherry pick the evidence to support our presuppositions. No, it is “not a matter of conjecture. By definition, a theorem is a mathematical statement that has been proven to be true.”[5] Richard Carrier has demonstrated this with a comprehensive, rigorous proof, logically establishing this.[6]

Bayes Theorem and using it for our inferences about our theories is a useful control for our subjectivity. We no longer get to pick and choose only what sits best with us, what “feels right,” or fits our theory, or what strengthens our testimony. Rather, it allows us to assess how likely our theory is to be true when compared to another theory that differs from ours with the same background and evidence. We ought truly to get all the evidence and acknowledge the background knowledge of what we know at this time. Because the probability we deduce using Bayes Theorem is conditional. It’s conditional on what we know today. New evidence, testing, and knowledge can change our own knowledge which changes the probability.

True, Bayes Theorem can get quite complex, but for historical inquiries one needs no more than 7th grade math, even though it can get quite complex and sophisticated as when archaeologists use it.[7] It is simply establishing a ratio, a ratio of all background and evidence of our own theory against all other theories on that same background and evidence to find out which is most probable. For my purposes in this book however, the math is not necessary. What is necessary is to get used to asking the right questions correctly and more accurately inferring where the evidence leads us as to what is justifiable to believe. This leads us to viewing the background and evidence correctly and helps approach a more realistic answer that can be validly warranted.

Bayes inference helps us confront our own assumptions which can dramatically help eliminate confirmation bias. The fact that everyone is subjective is actually handled and controlled by using Bayes Theorem, because “…subjectivity does not prevent us from producing conclusions that are as objective as can possibly be, given the limits of our knowledge and resources. Because subjectivity does not mean arbitrary. You must have reasons for your subjective estimates, so you must confront what those reasons are. And in defending your conclusions to anyone, you must be able to present those reasons to them, and those reasons had better be widely convincing. If they aren’t, you need to ask why they ever convinced you.”[8]

We become more honest about all aspects of whatever subject we are researching. That is what I find most helpful about it. As Luc Bovens, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder so aptly remarks, “To determine whether we are willing to believe new information, we weight the reliability of the source against the plausibility of the information.”[9] And, “We have to seriously look for, and seriously consider, alternative explanations of the evidence.”[10] Because Bayes Theorem thinking can be abused which caused E. T. Jaynes, the great scientist and author, to say “The essence of ‘honesty’ or ‘objectivity’ demands that we take into account all the evidence we have, not just some arbitrarily chosen subset of it.”[11]

Far too many critics and apologists have simply chosen subsets of the evidence and reason unjustified conclusions with the Book of Abraham and the papyri. The methodologies being used are dismal and usually either self-refuting, or merely confirming what someone wants to be true, instead of what actually probably is. It’s time to use a more reliable method, one which controls our bias and helps determine probability not plausibility. I think Bayes Theorem inference thinking is that method.

The coherence of all the information and analysis of the historical situation in Joseph Smith’s day, along with the actual evidence, gives strong probability that Joseph Smith really did believe he literally had Abraham’s personal handwriting. The strength of coherence is “the very fact that the set of information items that we acquire through various avenues coheres so well gives us a reason to believe that the information is likely to be true.”[12] John W. Loftus has succinctly put it the best. “Getting to the truth requires checking your beliefs mercilessly against reality.”[13]

First I begin by assessing the background of Joseph Smith’s overall attitude in regards to the Bible, since Abraham was a biblical personality. Was Joseph Smith a literalist? Did he employ more symbolism and metaphor as opposed to other kinds of possible ways to interpret? Did he spiritualize everything or even anything as say, Philo of Alexandria did anciently? Were his spiritualization’s more prominent than say, a literalist take on things? Is anything he used in the Bible during sermons, or in his letters, acknowledged by him as myth and just story, or did it happen as indicated by the biblical record? These are the kinds of general background questions we have to look at in order to get a proper assessment of how probable his claim was.

Also we need to look at Joseph Smith’s day, and how the scriptures were being understood within early Mormonism as part of the background study. I will look at how Joseph Smith’s followers used his teachings to share their newfound knowledge, such as did they agree with what Joseph Smith taught? Did they teach what he taught and share in his information and exegesis? Did they go off on their own tangents of spiritually or metaphysically interpreting what Joseph Smith taught as supposed to be literal, if he was literal? Did any of his closest associates and followers say what they found in the Bible was myth and wasn’t real or didn’t actually happen? All of this is vital to getting a correct background assessment, provisional upon what we know today.

If something or many things are found that vitiate and dismantle, or even just change this background, Bayes Theorem inference is developed such that it can and does take new information into account, and we can certainly and should, change the probabilities to reflect this new information. Again, the flexibility of Bayes Theorem inference working with probability is its singular most valuable strength. After I finish with a background check, I begin amassing the evidence both for and against the claim (we do not get to subjectively just pick what supports our theory, but we must include all evidence from both sides, i.e., this is decidedly not apologetics being working in).

In our day an interesting thing has been occurring on many fronts. The retreat from literalism has been taking place. Both in Christianity, popularly engaged in and elucidated by John Shelby Spong[14] and on the Mormon side, noted by William D. Russell,[15] to name just a couple representatives of which many hundreds, if not thousands exist writing the same thing, that Biblical literalism is not nearly so sacrosanct as it was in Joseph Smith’s day. The retreat from literalism is a trend today in many parts of the world, but what was it like in Joseph Smith’s own teachings as background to our inquiry? That is what is vital to get to our probability. Because we cannot logically or justifiably read back our understanding and use our 20/20 hindsight onto Joseph Smith and pretend he also saw things our way with our knowledge of history. This is one major flaw of all of Hugh Nibley’s apologetics in the Book of Abraham and papyri issues, which I will return to. Many other apologists also make this fatal error as we shall see.

According to Charles Harrell, a BYU professor, in his youth, Joseph Smith was not as literal as he was later, where we are informed “…he seems to have favored a more literal interpretation.”[16] So that is part of the background to Joseph Smith. He ended up being quite a bit more literal in his scriptural exegesis, at least according to Harrell. Lets take a closer look and see.

Here is what Joseph Smith taught, and the church has taught the members for 180+ years what Joseph Smith taught:

  1. It was literally two embodied men, God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ who appeared to him in his First Vision, and actually spoke to him and gave him instructions.

  2. The very same John the Baptist who lived in Jesus’s day, and had baptized Jesus, according to the Gospels in the New Testament, where they both literally got wet in the waters of Jordan bodily, also appeared to Joseph Smith. The Baptist gave him the Aaronic Priesthood by the literal, physical laying on of his physical flesh and bones hands on the head of Joseph Smith.

  3. Peter, James, and John, who lived in Jesus’s day and were personally chosen by Jesus himself to be some of his Apostles, also appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. They physically laid their physical flesh and bones hands on their heads and gave them the Melchizedek Priesthood as resurrected beings.

  4. A living physical Angel Moroni appeared as a man physically in a shaft of light through his bedroom roof at night, and appeared to him and talked with him several times.

  5. This same Angel Moroni, who used to be one of the living ancient Nephites, who lived somewhere on the American continent, now resurrected with his actual body, living in a literal heaven, gave Joseph Smith metal golden plates on which the historical record of the Nephite civilization was recorded in Reformed Egyptian. It was a real language, though unknown for millennia by anyone, for over 1,000 years in America. In this same record there is an account of a much earlier people, the Jaredites, who came from a literal tower of Babel when languages were said to have literally diverged from that point, and built eight submarine like boats to cross the mighty waters to get here to the Americas. They had light in the water tight ships from shining stones. They also took many animals and people with them on the journey.

  6. Joseph Smith had divine help by seeing English words from Reformed Egyptian characters literally on a rock which he called the seer stone, that glowed the words as he looked into his hat to see them on the stone in the bottom of his hat. God used this medium to help Joseph Smith translate the Book of Mormon as a real and actual history of ancient inhabitants on the ancient American continent.

  7. Three of the ancient Nephites have not died yet, but are wandering around in their very real bodies helping humanity where and how and when they see fit. They are by now thousands of years old without using any prescription drugs, so far as we know.

  8. That Jesus’s literal church he was supposed to have started in his day, was lost for 1800 approximate years, and then, through Joseph Smith, that church was brought back into existence with Joseph Smith as its first prophet. The church has literally 12 Apostles just like Jesus’s original church is said to have had. It is taught that it is the same structure concerning officers, their number, their station, and their priesthood authority.

And all of this is just in the first part of his adult life! If someone were to teach that this literalism is not to be actual, and that it was meant as sort of a spiritual symbolism, or else some kind of metaphorical meaning pointing to something else entirely, say our own inner psyches, they could face church discipline and be excommunicated from it, so literal is the literalness taken. It was the literalness that made Joseph Smith’s claims so powerful, so attractive to so many thousands of new converts in Joseph Smith’s day. To Joseph Smith literal physical meant real. To him even spirit is not the opposite of matter, but just a more refined matter! “There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned with purer eyes.” (D&C 131:7). Now that’s pretty cotton-pickin literal.

Further, Joseph Smith believed there was an actual first man and woman who kick started the human race, Adam and Eve. He believed the Garden of Eden where they lived was in Missouri in the United States. He believed there was a literal altar of stone that a literal Adam himself had built and that he had found in Missouri at Adam Ondi Ahman. He believed there was a literal Enoch, Cain and Abel, Methuselah, Melchizedek, Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and yes, a literal Abraham, living flesh and blood human beings. He believed in a literal Tower of Babel as well, not to mention an original Adamic language which became corrupted after the Tower.

There was a literal Israel, and literal 12 tribes, ten of which became literally lost from history, and will yet again be literally found. There were numerous prophets in ancient times giving out prophecies and warnings, of which he was in line with them for today. He believed in a literal gathering of Zion from the four quarters of the world, and a literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, as well as a physical city of the New Jerusalem that will be built in Jackson County Missouri in the United States of America, as well as a millennium of 1,000 years of peace.

There has to be a literal baptism in water to enter into the church, which is God’s actual Kingdom, which He rules. There will be a destruction of the wicked by God, and a literal judgment, just as there are literally three degrees of glory in a three-tiered heaven. He believed and practiced literal polygamy, having many wives, and taught the same to many leaders of early Mormonism which they then practiced. He also believed men and women will become literal gods and goddesses, though not replacing God the Father, yet having all his powers, knowledge, and abilities, making their own planets and universes for their immortal and eternal seed, i.e., children, just as Heavenly Father has done so, and His Father before Him, and His Father before Him, and so on as far back into infinity as you want to imagine.

Must I actually provide actual documentation on all this literalness that is literally saturated in Joseph Smith’s life and restoring of the literal church of Jesus Christ that multiple millions have been taught since they attended primary as wee little children? It is well known and consistently, constantly taught and believed by any good and faithful Latter Day Saint and every single missionary on missions around the world. It is precisely those who deny these truths, that end up getting excommunicated. There is no spiritualizing of these “truths” allowed, or mystically pigeon holing them into vague meanings of hidden dimensions accessible only to some sort of contact from hidden alien races, let alone taught in any of the Wards or Stakes of Zion as official church teaching. (Well, not entirely accurate, you can and many do, you just can’t openly express it) It’s not a gigantic metaphor we are seeing that means something else either. And it is never allowed to be labeled as mythology. No, this is all literal historical and real. Jesus Christ is not a metaphor for something or someone else, anymore than the Book of Abraham papyri are. They are what they are to any believing Latter Day Saint, literally real.

From this angle alone, without any further ado, we can sum up nicely: The probability that Joseph Smith believed he had the literal writings of Abraham is almost certain, at least an astonishingly high probability that he thought so. When we look at how his followers taught, as well as how his enemies reacted to his teachings, this probability is only reinforced.

All of the literalness, however, is precisely the kind of evidence we would expect to see which conforms to Joseph Smith’s belief that he was also literal about having Abraham’s own handwriting from thousands of years ago. It would be quite a rare thing if for this one mere item, among thousands of literal other ones in the Prophet’s life, that Joseph Smith didn’t mean something literal about a biblical personality, many of which (well over a dozen at minimum, from both the Old and New world anciently) he claimed he actually knew because they appeared to him and talked, shared, and interacted literally with him.[17] Those claims are far more difficult to believe than this mere autograph claim, and yet many LDS scholars are so squeamish about it. I shall examine why after I cover the background, evidence, and calculations of the probability.

Background

For assessing the background my method is this. I went through several of the most complete main sources of compilation and editing of Joseph Smith’s letters, sermons, diaries, journals and talks in order to find the character background of Joseph Smith’s attitude about literalness. I will look at “evidence” of direct claims about the autograph of Abraham after we ascertain what kind of background there is. These are the two factors (background and evidence) that show the probability that Joseph Smith literally believed he had the actual writing of Abraham is very high. First I look at background.

  1. The Joseph Smith Papers ( I had access and researched in to 10 volumes, The “Journals,” the “Documents,” the “Histories,” the Revelations and Translations,” and the “Administrative Records of the Council of the Fifty.”)

  2. The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith by Dean Jessee

  3. The Words of Joseph Smith, by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook

  4. The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith

  5. An American Prophets Record, the Diaries & Journals of Joseph Smith by Scott Faulring

I looked for Joseph Smith’s attitude when it came especially to biblical themes, persons, events and places, as this is the background necessary to give as objective a probability as possible with this literal Abraham autograph theme I am investigating, since Abraham is a biblical personality. How did the Prophet treat the various and numerous subjects he discussed? I will give the page number of several books as I ran across the theme, and a brief description. When I say “literal Bible” at each location I enumerate, it means that Joseph Smith simply accepted the Bible as it spoke, as if it happened just exactly like it describes in the Bible. He never once mythologized or spiritualized anything away from the Bible in his revised translation of it that I can find. It also means the conversation of various characters, their experiences, good or bad, where someone went, etc., happened just like we find it described in the Bible. If Joseph Smith says differently than this, I note it. I also include what or who he is being literal about, such as “Literal Bible, Adam in the Garden of Eden,” etc. When I find something symbolic, or metaphorical that is also noted, as it occurs with something in the Bible, not with other people’s experiences he interacted with in his day.

Joseph Smith, of course, as we all do, spoke in symbolic terms of people he interacted with in Kirtland, Nauvoo, and elsewhere, such as a particular person’s “mind was darkened,” and other expressions like that. That’s perfectly natural. It is the emphasis to the Bible views I keep track of far more carefully. The reason I emphasize the Bible is because by far and away Joseph taught from the Bible more than from any other book throughout his life. And it is the biblical patriarch Abraham Joseph Smith believed he had the handwriting of. At least that is the claim of which we are seeing what the probability is if it is true, as opposed to it being false.

It dawned on me when beginning this project that the Doctrine and Covenants in its entirety is considered literal revelation from the biblical Jesus Christ or God the Father to Joseph Smith, other than the specific sections which say they are his actual writing. This is the same literal Jesus Christ of the New Testament as found in the Bible, alive and talking to Joseph Smith almost incessantly. I put that up as display number 1 as an entire book of evidence for Joseph Smith’s literality, remembering such astonishing sections of literalness as how to detect an angel who is resurrected from the spirit of a just man made perfect by offering to shake his hand, (D&C 129). That is the essence of literal! God having a body of flesh and bones is another concrete literality that is described at D&C 130:22. The earth will literally become clear like crystal, a sea of glass, and become a Urim and Thummim (D&C 130:7-9). Missouri being the literal place of building Zion, and gathering, where the Garden of Eden was, and the literal city of New Jerusalem was to be built (D&C 57:1-5; 84:3-4). The light of Christ literally in and throughout all space, the sun, all the stars, the moon, literally covering all space and distance (D&C 88:7-14).

Every section, other than those described as his, or someone else’s writing, is literal revelation in the spirit of biblical revelation of God speaking directly to the ancient biblical prophets as Joseph Smith understood and taught it, and aligned himself with. I used the gorgeous edition of The Joseph Smith Papers, Revelations and Translations, Manuscript Revelation Books, edited by Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodward, and Steven C, Harper, The Church Historian’s Press, 2009 Facsimile Edition. The astonishing beautiful color plates and outstanding editing and work is a testament to preserving many of Joseph Smith’s revelations as they originally were written. The editors are to be heartily congratulated on producing such stellar work, as well as all other volumes in The Joseph Smith Papers. With this amazing amount of volume, the probability increases with ease.

Now the reading of the actual enumeration of what page in these sources I looked through is quite boring reading really. So all the tabulations are put into appendix 1, specifying each source and the places in that source where Joseph was literal or metaphorical, or spiritual when commenting on or about the Bible. That way all the background evidence is in one place for you to check for yourselves. The background is astonishingly full, even overly saturated with literality. And this significantly weighs on the probability in favor of Joseph Smith being literal about having Abraham’s personal handwriting and autograph on the very physical papyri he possessed, the ones that Abraham himself actually touched while drawing the facsimiles and writing his story so long ago. In other words, it makes sense that Joseph Smith would have been literal about having Abraham’s actual hand writing because he was just that literal with everything else having to do with the Bible. This is a coordinating background with good coherence exactly the kind we would expect in such an one literal as this as Joseph Smith obviously is.

Another angle on the background which helps determine proper probability on this issue would be how Joseph Smith’s closest followers and associates used his teachings, whether they accepted his literalness or went off on their own views of a more mythological, spiritual, or metaphorical interpretation. In other words, how did the early Mormons respond to Joseph Smith’s literalist thinking? Did they accept it, challenge it, refute it? Repudiate it? Is it the kind of evidence we would expect if they accepted his literalist bent? Does the evidence we have fit if they taught something different?

There are literally (no pun) several dozens I could utilize and in a more detailed work would do so, (it can take hundreds of pages!) but I can for now establish an honest trend here with several prominent examples. Brigham Young, is of course, the very first choice. Orson and Parley P. Pratt are obvious second choices. William Clayton and Oliver Cowdery are other obvious choices. Eliza R. Snow is a good one as is Wilford Woodruff. George Q. Cannon is an outstanding choice as is Lucy Mack Smith, his own mother, William W. Phelps, Newell K. Whitney, John Taylor, Sydney Rigdon and Heber C. Kimball. It is a virtual smorgasbord of obvious choices.

For the purposes of this chapter, it is unnecessary to exhaust the various discourses, letters, epistles, sermons, lessons, diaries, etc. of each and every one of these. In fact, we have a really good group of writings and sermons that can act as a valuable and accurate barometer on Joseph Smith’s followers with the Journal of Discourses, a 26 volume set of sermons recorded for years after Joseph Smith’s death. Do his followers align with his literalism, and what’s more, did they while he was alive? The evidence is completely overwhelming that they did. Again, the enumeration and details of where to find this would make truly boring reading, so I give a small sample in appendix 2 about what various of his followers taught and what they thought of Joseph Smith’s literal teachings.

The trend with Joseph Smith’s followers easily extends the probability of his literalness, and their accepting it, relishing in it, and re-teaching it advances yet again, the probability of the literal background. In other words, is it likely they also said to others they knew what Joseph Smith taught them about the papyri, that they possessed Abraham’s literal writing and autograph? This background evidence I found throughout the JD’s is exactly the kind of background we would expect from followers of Joseph Smith who emulated his teachings, lived by them, and taught them as he did, always in the literal and physically real sense.

You can and will find the exact same results from consulting Orson Pratt’s Works or Masterful Discourses, P. P. Pratt’s Key to the Science of Theology, the Brigham Young Discourses, John Taylor’s Mediation and Atonement, Wilford Woodruff’s Journals, William Clayton’s Journals. You will find it so in the Diaries of Hosea Stout, or the diaries of John D. Lee. All of this demonstrates a literalist background in Mormonism from the start, and never lagging, of prophecies, heavenly visitations, healing, and gifts, the further cause of a literal Zion they are part of, polygamy, the second coming of Christ and the living in the millennium, and later in the Celestial Kingdom with the Father’s eternal family, all of us, his children. It also demonstrates conclusively that they adumbrated, elaborated and taught what they had learned from Joseph Smith.

Is there even a single sermon or discourse repudiating any of this or spiritualizing it or saying it is only metaphysical, not supposed to be as literal as Joseph Smith taught it? Not that I can find. Whether Joseph Smith or his numerous followers, there is just no metaphysical spiritualizing in or with anything Joseph Smith ever taught, or that his followers taught. They steadily repeat and teach the Joseph Smith literalism they had come to relish and share with everyone they came into contact with.

This has important bearing on what they also taught others when they discussed the papyri, because they taught what they had learned from Joseph Smith, with the papyri, as with every other subject (no matter how odd or weird it was to any one else) they discussed that originated with Joseph Smith. After all, he was the one receiving all the revelations from heaven about truth and reality. They did this with everything Joseph Smith taught them, (did, or has, anyone in Mormonism, then or now, ever taught Adam Ondi Ahman was, to illustrate a quick example, after all, a mistaken teaching of Joseph Smith, and the Garden of Eden wasn’t really in Missouri, but it is supposed to be only in our hearts? And where else did they get this except from Joseph Smith?) so it is quite probable with this background they also believed and taught what Joseph Smith taught them when it came to their understanding of the mysteries surrounding the papyri. Their teachings of God being literally flesh and bone with spirit circulating in His veins instead of blood was as brazenly kooky to their neighbors as anything they ever said about the papyri, yet they kept on teaching what Joseph Smith had taught them.

And finally, as one last different focus on the background of Joseph Smith’s literalness, we can look at his enemies and their reasons for not accepting him. What was it that drove the anti-Mormons to their angriest about Joseph Smith? It was his literalness. It was his followers insistence that their prophet had taught them the truth, and they literally believed what the Bible taught, and in fact, lived many of the same facts the early Bible people lived, such as miracles, literal speaking in tongues, and they belonged to the literal Kingdom of God. Their God was the only true God, a man of holiness in bodily form in the heavens. Real living embodied angels visited them, and their temples were literally the House of God on earth. And Joseph Smith was a literal Bible prophet in line with Enoch, Abraham, Noah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Paul. This and more is what they taught because Joseph Smith taught them these truths.

J. Spencer Fluhman shows this time and again in his nifty little study of anti-Mormonism. What stumped the critics the most when they debated the Mormons in Joseph Smith’s day was they accepted the Bible to the very letter, while the Christians were the ones, with their spiritual interpretations who were finding it difficult to refute the Mormons using the Bible![18]

A famous apostate from Joseph Smith, William E. McLellin, described in his papers later in his life, the reason why he no longer accepted Joseph Smith. The vast majority of cases was his rejection of Smith’s literal claims concerning the scriptures, revelation, and miracles as Joseph Smith described them having happened to himself and the church.[19] The vast majority of criticisms against Joseph Smith and the Mormons of his day was their literalist views as elaborated humorously in Hugh Nibley’s writings.[20]

Orson Pratt and his brother Parley P. Pratt made their names legendary by astounding and stumping opponents against Mormonism with their literalist and careful reading of the Bible and interpreting it with a profound literalness concerning baptism, the Kingdom of God, the restoration of ancient Israel, Bible prophecies of the Book of Mormon, and many other subjects, especially Bible prophets and polygamy. Literal materialism was their creed and motto. They simply thrashed others less literal views.[21]

Evidence

Now having discerned what kind of background Joseph Smith and the early Mormons had, (See both appendixes at the end of the book) we can turn to specific evidence of what was believed, and specifically taught, concerning Abraham’s actual handwriting and autograph in the papyri the saints had acquired, as announced by both Joseph Smith and others who showed the papyri to visitors and strangers. Is it a faulty assumption of our understanding of what Joseph Smith thought as the LDS scholar Kevin Barney says?[22] He is not alone of LDS apologists who find fault, imagining it’s all just an assumption in thinking Joseph Smith thought he had the actual handwriting and autograph of the biblical patriarch Abraham himself. Hugh Nibley, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and Michael Dennis Rhodes are others who also disagree that Joseph Smith believed he had Abraham’s own handwriting on the papyri.[23]

Because so many apologists and critics alike use the eyewitnesses of Joseph Smith’s day concerning Joseph Smith and other early Mormons, who showed the mummies and papyri to so many who wanted to see them, and who got lectured about who the mummies were, and what the papyri said, it is critical to get a good understanding of who said what, and what they meant, when they mentioned the papyri. There has yet to be an in-depth careful analysis of the eyewitnesses. I will attempt to do so here, since it is the Prophet’s voice and their voices that consist of the primary evidence of what Joseph Smith himself thought and taught about both Abraham’s “autograph” and the Books of Abraham and Joseph and facsimiles from the papyri.

The first thing I note is the discomfort of apologists when they see Joseph Smith actually saying “There, that is the signature of Abraham.” Joseph Smith really probably did tell a visitor that, which we will examine. The reasons why apologists are so uncomfortable with Joseph Smith believing and saying this will be discussed later. There are definitely reasons because of our own hindsight into reality today. A hindsight Joseph Smith was not privy to, even under “inspiration.” Because of this he made some incredibly fascinating, if not faulty statements, as did many of his early followers and fellow scribes.

In short, Joseph Smith’s literalness puts him in a difficult bind which apologists scramble to help him out of, but, ultimately, to no avail. They haven’t relieved him of that bind as of yet. The evidence and background will demonstrate that ultimately the probability of whether Joseph Smith did believe he had Abraham’s actual, personal handwriting, literally on the very papyri he possessed and translated into Abraham’s own book, “written by his [Abraham’s] own hand upon papyri,” or if he didn’t. I, again, am not out to prove anything, but to find what is more probable that Joseph Smith said and believed it, or if he didn’t.

One issue that people in Joseph’s day wanted to know, even while Joseph Smith was showing the papyri to curious and bemused visitors, was, did Joseph Smith really have the actual writings of Abraham personally penned by himself, and did Joseph translate that papyri accurately? It is a logical thought that Joseph Smith’s divine calling of being a seer rests upon whether the Book of Abraham was correctly translated or not, since, there is some indication by some early Mormons he translated it with the Urim and Thummim as revelation from God.

D. Michael Quinn stated Joseph translated with his white stone.[24] Of course, this same process was how he also produced the Book of Mormon, a fitting pattern as many of the early Mormons recognized and said so. Therefore it follows that if his translation is incorrect, then he is a fraud. And this was an issue in Joseph’s day as we shall see. There were those, such as Charles Adam in his diary, who said after Joseph showed them the mummies and explained the papyri were written by the hand of Abraham, that felt it was all too silly – “The impudence of this imposture amused me very much.”[25]

On the other hand, on February 19, 1842 Wilford Woodruff recorded that the truly impressive thing about the papyri and Joseph Smith having them is that “The Lord is blessing Joseph with power to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; to translate through the Urim and Thummim Ancient records & Hyeroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam, which causes our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious truths opened unto us. Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand, but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God.”[26] Where else would he get that information except Joseph Smith whom he closely worked with?

Just before he helped set the type to publish the Book of Abraham in the Times & Seasons, Willard Richards original version of Smith’s editorial noted “In the present No. [number] will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt, some time since, as penned by the hand of Father Abraham in Egypt, which I shall continue to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed…”[27] Here Joseph Smith is quite explicit, even though this comment was not put into the article, it was dictated by Joseph to Richards.

It is at that literalness that the critics smirked, but which Joseph Smith’s faithful followers thrilled over. Bayes Thinking would get us to ask the question is this the kind of evidence we would see if Joseph Smith literally claimed he had original Abraham writings from Abraham’s own hand? Yes, as a matter of fact, it makes sense from both sides, the faithful excitement and the critical bemusement of it all. Therefore, the probability is higher on the claim Joseph Smith made, having Abraham’s actual writings than the claim he didn’t say or teach that.

His literalness enhanced his reputation as a prophet, when he asked to pay for the papyri, he had to deliver, and he did. The actual physical writing and record of Abraham was claimed, Abraham whom the Mormons had ties with through the priesthood, had almost literally come home! It helped their testimonies, as God brought the papyri and literally connected them with Abraham. The Prophet believed he had the autograph of that venerable priesthood holding patriarch. And the saints were enthralled about it all as per Woodruff, Pratt, Adams, and others.

I am well aware of the controversy today due to Joseph Smith and the early Mormons believing Abraham himself wrote the Book of Abraham, but that is how they understood what Joseph Smith said, and that is what Joseph Smith claimed. There was no scholarly controversy in the Prophet’s day because no one in North America knew enough of anything about Egyptian or papyri, or language, to suggest anything otherwise.

Joseph Smith is the primary source for this idea of having Abraham’s actual literal handwriting on the papyri. What many of his closest followers and believers said and believed shows what he taught them in regards to Abraham and the papyri as well. If today we disregard Joseph Smith as not being credible in order to forestall embarrassment due to our much more correct assessment of reality concerning ancient Egyptian, then where does this kind of subjectivity on our part stop? Yes, today’s knowledge is seriously problematic against Joseph Smith’s claim, so we want to cover it up, change it or disregard it. But can we? Ought we?

Many apologists are now saying the Abraham autograph is merely an unwarranted assumption and we ought not to hold it. But it’s Joseph Smith’s assumption as well as his followers, not ours. It is Joseph Smith being tested for making the claim, not us for taking him seriously to see if it pans out for accuracy. Since Joseph Smith is the primary source the weight of his view is certainly larger than all secondary considerations combined. If we have the primary source and can use it, it is a step down to merely rely on any secondary or tertiary sources in historical investigation. But all sources, when used together, present a consistent and convincing view and give us a credible probability. Notice again, this is not about proving anything, but in finding whether it is more probable Joseph Smith claimed an Abraham autograph or more probable that he didn’t. Probability, not possibility, is what matters. Apologists only have ever dealt with possibility (following Hugh Nibley’s lead, for the most part), but the more weighty and significant probability is what is needed, since most anything is merely possible, but not most anything is probable. Probable is of much more important weight to getting us to what reality is.

Henry Caswell described his visit to Nauvoo in 1842 where a gentleman showed him the papyri. “Having introduced me, together with several Mormons, to this sanctum Sanctorum, he locked the door behind him, and proceeded to what appeared to be a small chest of drawers. From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions, and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. [John Gee, the LDS Egyptologist consistently stops using Caswell’s testimony at this point, never continuing so we get Caswell’s actual context, which we shall see a little bit later] By some inexplicable mode, as the store keeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written in his own hand while in Egypt. Pointing to the figure of a man on a table, he said, ‘That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed.”[28]

Why were so many of Joseph Smith’s friends and followers saying these were Abraham’s actual writings? It stands to reason that it is because he said so himself to them. On the first time examining the rolls Chandler had brought, the one roll contained “the writings of Abraham,” and another roll contained “The writings of Joseph.” Several of his followers proclaimed the simple truth as they learned it from Joseph Smith when he exhibited the papyri to so many of them as his history more than aptly demonstrates. He displayed them numerous times through several years, both to his closest associates, and to complete strangers, young and old alike.[29]

John Whitmer says because Joseph Smith could translate the papyri, “…these records which gave an account of our forefathers, much of which was written by Joseph of Egypt…”[30] William W. Phelps in a letter to his wife Sally noted “…the rolls of papyrus contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh’s court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham… These records of old times, when we translate and print them in a book, will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon.”[31] Oliver Cowdery said “Upon the subject of the Egyptian records, or rather the writings of Abraham and Joseph…”[32] Jonathan Crosby, an early convert to Mormonism described (as Joseph Smith himself recounted) ‘…among other writings found on the mummies were the Books of Moses, Enoch, and Abraham; also the Book of Jacob which gave an account of the Ten Lost Tribes, the journeyings, the present location, the return and manner of their coming to Zion.”[33] I find no evidence Joseph Smith ever disagreed or tried to correct any of this if it’s a false impression of Crosby’s.

Benjamin F. Johnson in 1835 in his life review described “In looking upon the bodies of those who 4,000 years ago, were living princes and queens. And when the writings of Abraham upon papyrus, which accompanied them were taken from its ancient casket, it seemed marvelous indeed.”[34] We are clearly left with the impression that those writings of Abraham came from him in antiquity. Joseph Smith never corrected that impression if it was wrong. Wilford Woodruff in his journal commented “…the writings that was said to be written in Abraham’s day…”[35] It is obvious it was Joseph Smith saying this as he was one of those, among others he allowed, who constantly showed the papyri to any who called upon him to see the mummies and papyri. William Foote said Joseph Smith Sr., described to him the records as being “the writings of Abraham and Joseph.”[36] Obviously whoever was allowed or asked to show the relics were telling people what Joseph Smith had taught them, and there is no retracting, or correcting of what they were telling people about what the papyri were about. The entire stash of relics were the talk of the state, with all manner of people wanting to see them and hear about them.[37]

The new Joseph Smith Papers project also holds a tantalizing clue as to how we are to understand the description “the writings of Abraham with his own hand upon papyrus.” Under the entry for 14 December, 1835 Monday, after a description of Joseph Smith showing the Egyptian records to “a number of brethren from New York,” there is a line that Joseph Smith wrote – “To day I received a letter form [sic] Elder Orson Hyde from his own hand” but it has a line all the way through it. Notice the language. A letter “From his own hand” similar to what he described of Abraham’s record, “written by his own hand.” It’s not understood to be a later copy of a copy but written by Abraham himself, just as Orson Hyde’s letter was “written from his own hand.” This strike through phrase is not found in J.S. History vol. 2 (1834-1837), p. 332.

Reading further on page 123 of the Joseph Smith Papers, to solidify this interpretation, the next day (Dec 15) Joseph said “Orson Hyde handed him a personal letter he had written to Joseph to read to the quorum of brethren whom he was disputing with, but Joseph admitted in the entry for Dec 16 that he lost it (unless this was a 2nd letter Hyde had personally penned?). It was a letter Orson Hyde had personally written the night before and then gave it to Joseph Smith which Smith described quite closely as he described the writing of Abraham, “written by his own hand.”

In an interview with a gentleman from 1840, when Joseph Smith himself presented the papyri he said “These ancient records, said he [Joseph Smith] throw a great light upon the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care… I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.”[38] Notice Joseph’s language here. He had unrolled and preserved the papyri, preserved them as sheets under glass slides as other witnesses indicated they were shown. Joseph is showing him the preserved sheets under glass here of the Book of Abraham and showing the signature of the patriarch on the papyri. This makes sense since Abraham wouldn’t have signed Joseph’s book, but his own.

William Appleby in his journal recorded upon seeing the mummies and the records that they consist of “having some of the writings of ancient Abraham and of Joseph… there is a perceptible difference between the writings. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe.”[39] Clearly the information says it was their actual handwriting! Appleby further says something even more interesting. “The male mummy was one of the Ancient Pharaohs of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue extended, representing a speaker. The females were his wife and two daughters, as a part of the writing has been translated, and informs us, who they were, also whose writing it is, and when these mummies were embalmed which is nearly 4,000 years ago.”[40] And whose writing was it if not Abraham’s? That is what was always taught and told.

In a different, though equally interesting vein, the anti-Mormon Tyler Parsons sneered that “He read, or attempted to read, a part of a letter purporting to be an extract from the Abrahamic letter, that was found with the mummy.”[41] He appears to be mocking the very thing Joseph Smith and the Saints believed in, that is, they had the actual, literal writing of Abraham in their possession! He didn’t believe it for a minute and so threw in “purporting to be an extract” instead of being the literal writing of Abraham himself. The elder also taught, as did John Whitmer, (unless it was John Whitmer debating Tyler), we now have two early Mormons who make this claim, that “this letter would be of great value to the cause of the Book of Mormon.”[42] That is, from the anti-Mormon side of things, those silly Mormons think they have the actual writings of Abraham, but we anti-Mormons see they can only be “purporting” to have it, they don’t actually have it, because that’s too silly for words. This attitude only makes sense if the early Mormons actually believed Joseph Smith had the literal writings of Abraham, not some copy. It neatly explains why critics responded the way they did. It is too improbable that Joseph Smith had the actual handwriting of Abraham from their skeptical point of view. Vastly improbable. It’s what made them skeptical.

And again, Wilford Woodruff, an extremely close confidant of Joseph Smith, ever faithful and not wittingly or willing to say anything contrary to anything Joseph Smith ever taught or believed, said in his journal, at February 19, 1842, “The Lord is blessing Joseph with power to reveal the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; to translate through the Urim and Thummim ancient records and hieroglyphics as old as Abraham or Adam… Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years…”[43] H. Donl Peterson exclaimed “Why should they not thrill at having the writings of the prophet Abraham in their possession…?”[44] A storekeeper according to Henry Caswell, on April 28, 1842 noted to him that, “By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that there sheets continued the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt.”[45]

Parley P. Pratt, another one of Joseph Smith’s loyal followers claim “The record is now in course of translation… and proves to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph when in Egypt.”[46]

And Charlotte Haven’s testimony of visiting Mother Smith who had the relics in her house in 1843, noted Mother Smith claiming the writings were written by “Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit.”[47] Haven also noted it sounded like what Mother Smith was saying was a bunch of Bible stories from the Old Testament. Other witnesses, including Joseph Smith claimed the papyri were all about stories of various biblical patriarchs and their sundry adventures. That part of Haven’s account sounds authentic. The part about Mother Smith saying it was written in Hebrew and Sanscrit has caused some discussion. Could she and did she actually know anything about Hebrew and Sanscrit? Notice though Lucy Smith claimed what she was saying was “through the inspiration of her son Joseph.” It’s doubtful, because of lack of evidence, that Joseph ever taught the scrolls or fragments were written in either language, however, the parts about the biblical characters seems to gel with other witnesses and the descriptions they heard about the serpent tempting eve, Jacob’s ladder, etc. This propensity for biblical literalism is better understood when we recognize that Joseph Smith claimed to have seen, conversed with and shared priesthood keys with Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Nephi, John the Baptist, Peter, James, John, the Three Nephites, Paul, Mormon, and Moroni![48] In this background regard, it is hardly surprising Joseph Smith believed he had the literal writing of Abraham himself. It’s just what we would expect him to claim.

Again, in keeping with our Bayesian Analysis working of the evidence here along with the literalist background of Joseph Smith, we look at the evidence that exists now. “What could have brought that evidence into existence? Tautologically what most likely brought it about is what most likely happened. Then [we] infer what other evidence could be found if it is likely or not, and what couldn’t if the theory is true.”[49]

Josiah Quincy’s description of his visit is intriguing as he described Joseph Smith saying to him about a particular parchment “That is the handwriting of Abraham, the father of the faithful. This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron.”[50] Interestingly, later as Henry Halkett related the details of his visit with the prophet to him, he repeated the same information, which lends credibility that it was Joseph Smith who said what he said to Quincy.[51] In fact, Charles Francis Adams also reported this incident as Joseph Smith saying “this was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so…”[52], again confirming that Joseph Smith himself was the one teaching they had the actual and literal handwriting of the patriarch on the papyri.

Also noteworthy, Theodule Deveria, one of the very first Egyptologists who took issue against Joseph Smith’s translations in 1855 said that the papyri “are considered by the Mormons as autobiographical memoirs of Abraham.. the Mormons regard as writings from the hand of Abraham.”[53]

Hugh Nibley struggled mightily to attempt to interpret everything ever said as being mere copies as opposed to the literal writing of Abraham in his research. His fatal flaw is assuming Joseph Smith could have known what Nibley himself knew.[54] We cannot pretend the Prophet had the understanding we do today. For the inspiration of heaven to the Prophet, he had the actual handwriting of Abraham and his signature. Some things are exaggerated, especially concerning more books of Enoch, Jacob, Aaron and everyone else on the papyri. Or is this also an assumption on our part? Joseph Smith said they were there! And one of the anchoring themes from everyone who was displaying the antiquities was the biblical themes they elaborated on, whether Kings, pharaohs, or prophets, and biblical events in the sacred ancient records.

It’s clear that from our perspective today the Prophet didn’t understand the true nature of the papyri, especially what information was on it. Literally every single Egyptologist who has ever looked at the papyri (actually many dozens now) have indicated this, some more forcefully than others. What we can be fundamentally certain of however, is Joseph Smith couldn’t have had the scholarly knowledge of how things actually worked as Hugh Nibley did. How is it that apologists accept wildly weird claims of physical resurrected people showing up and interacting with the Prophet, but say this mere little detail of a literal autograph is a mere if not stupid assumption? Which is the more improbable event? Other claims of literalism by Joseph Smith are far more weird and improbable, but apologists don’t like this one instance of literalness. This is inconsistent on their part, to take Joseph Smith literally in some things he said, and ignore his literalness, when he meant it, in others in order to avoid problems his literalness cause us today. But, then again, this is the most singular claim made by Joseph Smith that can be scientifically tested, which is the cause of the discomfort. In all his other claims, faith can safely be invoked to overcome the difficulties, but not this one. This is an empirical claim and can be tested, and has been, with empirical evidence.

Joseph’s knowledge was said to have come through the Urim and Thummim. “The brother apostles Orson and Parley P. Pratt relate separate accounts of the Urim and Thummim being used to "translate" the book of Abraham from the Egyptian papyri. Parley was quoted in 1842 as having said: "The Pearl of Great Price is now in course of translation by means of the Urim and Thummim and proves to be a record written partly by the father of the faithful, Abraham, and finished by Joseph when in Egypt." Orson added in 1878: "The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said, is contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham. Thus you see one of the first gifts bestowed by the Lord for the benefit of His people, was that of revelation, the gift to translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim."[55]

Richard Bushman describes it this way – “When Chandler arrived with the scrolls, Joseph saw the papyri and inspiration struck. Not one to deny God’s promptings, the Prophet said what he felt: the papyri were the writings of Abraham and Joseph.”[56] Both those in the church and not, were told by those showing the papyri that they were 3500 – 4000 years old, and Abraham wrote them by his own hand. All evidence points to this. The criticisms are the Mormons claim they have the actual writings of Abraham. Where did they get that idea? From those showing them the papyri and relics. If it bothers us today, it didn’t bother the early Mormons and their converts. Critics probably elaborated on this and made it more ridiculous, so we have to be careful, but the Mormons gave them their base of ridicule by claiming they had very special manuscripts, namely the actual writings of Abraham and Joseph... and Moses, and Aaron in some accounts!

John Gee, one of the excellent editors of some of Nibley’s works in the “Collected Works of Hugh Nibley” noted once in regard to a specific issue Nibley had discussed and was incorrect about – “his [Nibley’s] predilections sometimes led him astray.”[57] We found more of the same in regard to the Abraham autograph that is important to correct also.

Nibley contended “If the Mormons really believed them [the papyri] to be the very handwriting of the patriarch Abraham, they would have made a good deal of that in their preaching and missionary work.”[58] But they didn’t do so when it came to Joseph Smith’s First Vision, as Nibley noted elsewhere, even Joseph Smith wouldn’t have said anything about it except he was virtually forced to, and that only after many years had passed after the event.[59] Why would they with Abraham’s handwriting? If, as Nibley noted, it was proper to keep things secret in early Christian times, and the Mormons emulated them in their secrecy, why on earth is he taking them to task on this “secret” issue?[60] But, Nibley’s rhetorical question is meaningless and quite problematic when we consider the evidence.

They actually did make a big deal about it, and constantly talked about it when they were showing the relics to anyone who wanted to see them. And those visitors were then publishing the conversations about being told the Mormons possessed the actual writings of Abraham. The newspapers from all over the area were harping about it as well. It is odd Nibley pretended to be unaware of this, at least in this instance. If he thought he was making a strong point in favor of Joseph Smith, he erred significantly. Nibley quotes J. M. Sjodahl from the Improvement Era, in 1913, in his [Sjodahl’s] attempt of giving an answer to the Reverend Spaulding’s attack on the Book of Abraham in 1912 that the Mormons up to that point in time seemed to have believed the papyri were Abraham’s own personal writings, but they were unjustified.[61] Apparently Sjodahl was as uninterested in the evidence as Nibley since there is actually incredibly good and published evidence Joseph Smith and the Mormons taught exactly that and with great energy.

The Missouri Whig wrote “The Mormons have a new book called the Book of Abraham. It purports to have been written by that patriarch.”[62] Where did they get that from if not the Mormons talking about it to someone somewhere? A Mormon Elder Freeman Nickerson debated Tyler Parsons an anti-Mormon antagonist in the Boston area in June 1841 about the Book of Abraham and Parsons published it in his book Mormon Fanaticism Exposed.[63] Henry Caswell was told the Book of Abraham was written by Abraham himself while he was in Egypt, and on the very papyri he was shown which were in glass slides, and he wrote about it in his published article “The Mormons” in The Visitor One Monthly Instructor for 1842.[64] Parley P. Pratt published his comments that Abraham began writing on the papyri and Joseph finished the record in the Millenial Star for the Saints in Europe.[65] It was a huge issue and many hundreds of people from all over were gathering themselves to Joseph Smith’s hometown to get a gander at the relics as the History of the Church so amply documents.[66]

It’s simply incorrect for Nibley to have made this argument. Who isn’t aware of John Quincy Adams, no less, and Josiah Quincy’s visit where they were told “That is Abraham’s handwriting,” and “Moses’ signature, and Aaron’s writing” published in Quincy’s Figures from the Past from the leaves of Old Journals, Boston, 1883?[67] Even after Joseph Smith’s death, Lucy Mack Smith kept exhibiting the papyri and the Warsaw Signal for Sept 10, 1845 tied in the Book of Mormon with the significance of the Book of Abraham papyri. Jay Todd after describing the evidence of the publishing of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons (The Title and Preface is another evidence they certainly did teach it was Abraham’s writings!), he says “the ideas that Abraham and Joseph actually wrote these records were widespread among members of the church.”[68] Charles Francis Adams was told by Joseph Smith himself that “this was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so…” which was published in Henry Adams, ed., Charles Francis Adams Visits the Mormons in 1844 (Boston: 1852).[69]

William S. West after his visit with Joseph Smith and seeing the mummies and papyri and having been told about them by the Prophet wrote in his published book in 1837, A Few Interesting Facts Respecting the Rise, Progress and Pretensions of the Mormons, that “it is more likely that the records are those of the Egyptians.” And what was he responding to in saying that? Joseph Smith had told him, what he asked his readers to believe in his book – “Is it possible that a record written by Abraham, and another by Joseph, containing the most important revelation that God ever gave to man, should entirely be lost by the tenacious Israelites, and be preserved by the unbelieving Egyptians…” That is what Joseph Smith had told him, and to which he replied skeptically in the negative.[70]

Again, Nibley quoted Sjodahl as saying Joseph Smith thought he had a copy of the Book of Abraham, but neither Joseph Smith, nor any of his scribes ever said it was a copy. It was the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus. How on earth can that be any plainer?[71]

“The early LDS church leaders repeatedly claimed that the Egyptian text contained the actual writing of Abraham. When William W. Phelps, as a scribe for Joseph Smith, was writing in the latter part of 1835, he recorded that the record was a ‘Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt.’ These words formed a preface in the Phelps manuscript to the opening portion of Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham (1:1 to 2:18) and clearly assert that the text that followed was Abraham's own writing.”[72] There is just nothing ever mentioned of copies of anything.

Jay Todd apparently misunderstood what “purporting to be” meant, as did Hugh Nibley. Todd said “Of tremendous interest is the word ‘purporting.’ Did the Prophet really mean that he was a translator only, that he was not sure of the identity of the actual writer of the papyri? Perhaps he knew that Abraham personally may not have written the rolls of papyri in his possession. Perhaps he knew that they were copies of copies of copies of copies. Whatever, it certainly frees the Prophets from the claims that many others have wanted to make for him: that he had Abraham’s actual and personal signed record. Instead the Prophet uses the word ‘purportedly.’ Amazing!”[73]

First, the Prophet did not use the word “purportedly.” The record says “purporting to be.” Now, when one purports something what is one doing? One is making a “claim,” purport is to “profess,” “contend,” “aver,” “assert,” “declare,” and “proclaim,” “announce,” “mean,” “signify,” etc.[74] Nibley made a big issue about the words “purporting to be” being dropped and a dash to replace them.[75] It is irrelevant what the ancient Egyptian scribes meant, as Nibley assumed, it is about what Joseph Smith meant. It didn’t change the meaning, it got rid of any confusion in case someone was thinking what Todd and Nibley imagined purporting was supposed to mean, namely, “pretending, or supposing.” And Todd completely misapprehends the situation. It frees Joseph from the claim? He relished in making the claim! It wasn’t his burden of difficulty, it was his sharing joy for fame and glory, for the benefit of his fellow Saints!

All of Todd’s and Nibley’s questions and concerns can be laid firmly to rest with the actual evidence and background we have been elaborating on. The church purports to do baptisms for the dead. Joseph Smith purports the Book of Mormon is the most correct book and we can get closer to God by following its precepts. Joseph Smith purported that we existed in a premortal existence, first as eternal intelligences, then we had a spirit birth. Joseph Smith purported that the Garden of Eden was in Jackson county, Missouri, in the United States. Purporting means to declare. So it is being declared that this is Abraham’s personal book he wrote by his own hand upon papyrus. “Purport verb, to ‘state’, ‘mean.’”[76] It just can’t be said any plainer.

There are multiple attestations and records and witnesses correlating and intersecting with each other showing what exactly Joseph Smith and his scribes and early followers understood and said. This papyri was Abraham’s personally “penned” [Joseph Smith literally said that!] record “from his own hand upon papyrus,” which is what made it so electrifying to them. The context is literal. The background is literal. The evidence is literal. Their words are literal. “This is the signature of Abraham.” “This is the writing of Abraham.” Everything we have in print points to the probability of that meaning. Joseph Smith never said otherwise, and he never corrected anyone else who said it was the writings of Abraham, and they put that in their own actual title of the Book of Abraham. It is why Wilford Woodruff wrote it was so marvelous and caused their hearts to burn in testimony. I’ll let Jay Todd take it up from here:

“…to translate through the Urim and Thummim ancient records and hieroglyphics old as Abraham or Adam which has caused our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious truths opened unto us. Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years.” (our emphasis). Todd understood this as “…the records had their origin in one fashion or another with Abraham or Adam.”[77]

Sjodahl, Nibley, and any others who want to put words into the Prophet’s mouth and pretend this was merely a copy do violence to literally all the background, evidence, and words of everyone who were directly involved with the papyri. There was no “copies of copies of copies of copies.” The record was hid for the last four thousand years according to Woodruff. Where did he get that information from if not Joseph? Parley P. Pratt said the record was “written by Abraham, then finished by Joseph who was in Egypt.”[78] Paul Y. Hoskisson, an LDS Assyrologist, wrote “The content of the Book of Abraham did not pass through numerous revisions, the hands of countless scribes, and does not rely upon material and information available only during or after the Babylonian exile.”[79] H. Donl Peterson demonstrates that it was Willard Richards who added the phrase “purporting to be the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt.” “If one will notice the change is not questioning whether Abraham is the writer of the text; the question is whether Abraham wrote the material while he was in Egypt or later in the land of Palestine. The 1842 Times and Seasons heading published by Joseph Smith as editor faithfully preserved the original entry that Abraham was the author and that Abraham wrote the account ‘by his own hand upon papyrus.’”[80]

Besides Henry Caswell’s description of the glass slides of covering papyri fragments, there is an account of another who was talked to by Joseph Smith himself, not a storekeeper, as in Caswell’s case. This gentleman described how Joseph Smith took several slides of papyri that were under glass for protection and told him “These ancient records throw a great light upon the subject of Christianity… but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There, said he, pointing to a particular character, that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.”[81] Joseph Smith on another occasion recorded in the Daily Evening Transcript (Boston Jan 20, 1844) told the strangers that as they told it “also showed us some hieroglyphics which he said formed the record and signature of Joseph when in captivity.”[82]

Interestingly, on a closer look at what Wilford Woodruff wrote reveals something else. Not only does he say Abraham wrote the papyri they possessed, but “not only the hieroglyphics but also many figures that this precious treasure contains.”[83] These appear to be the facsimiles that Woodruff is saying Abraham drew. Abram O. Smoot also in his journal recorded “…the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand in hyrogliphics.”[sic] Which is yet another testimony of so many before saying Abraham wrote the book on the papyri in hieroglyphics himself.[84]

The great biblical scholar W. D. Davies in his discussion of the Mormon scriptures also understood the description of the Book of Abraham as “written by Abraham with his own hands in characters of hieroglyphics (HC 2:236)”[85] The Egyptian hieroglyphics in other words were written by Abraham. He also labeled the Book of Abraham as a work of pseudepigraphic characteristics and tendencies.[86] That may not be such a good thing.[87] It will be best to save that discussion and the relationship with the Book of Abraham for a later chapter, as it’s too far afield from what I am doing here.[88]

The LDS Egyptologist John Gee in his review of Charles Larson noted something in Caswell’s testimony of his seeing the mummies and papyri. But what is more important is what he left out of Caswell’s description. Gee said Caswell “being shown a number of glazed slides , like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus…” and then uses the description of the man lying on a table, which is facsimile 1, of course. What Gee left out is Caswell saying the papyrus in these glass slides were the Book of Abraham fragments. “These sheets were the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand on papyrus while in Egypt.”[89] And the description of the man lying on the lion couch Caswell was being told about was physically a part of the papyri (the Sensen text, J.S. Pap. XI, X), that Caswell said was the Book of Abraham. It is these fragments of papyri we now have since 1967, contra Gee. Gee is, apparently, reluctant to let Caswell, or others, give the full description so we can find out if we have the papyri Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from. Gee is a proponent of “the missing scroll theory.” And that means if those sheets of papyrus under the glass slides are the Book of Abraham, his scroll theory is wrong. But using this carefully selective methodology Gee uses, we could never arrive at a good and sound probability, therefor his method we would label as “flawed.” And so far, as I have been able to discover, Gee never uses any of the descriptions of visitors who saw the papyri who say the glass slide covered sheets have to do directly with Abraham, let alone when they say they were told the papyri writings were actually Abraham’s personal drawings and scribbling.

Gee relies heavily on Charlotte Havens letter to her mother because she talks about rolls instead of glass covered slides.[90] Gee uses Caswell’s description but stops short before he identifies those slides of sheets as the Book of Abraham, more than once.[91] Gee apparently, due to his not attending to the full evidence we have, misunderstands with this comment “And there seems indeed to have been two long rolls, even after the present fragments of the Joseph Smith Papyri were mounted. If there were only two rolls it is important to note that Joseph Smith I-XI were not on them.”[92]

The reason Gee is attempting to persuade us that papyri I-XI are not on those slides is because the little Sen-sen fragments we have now, as of 1967, are connected to the Book of Abraham in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers of Joseph Smith and his various scribes. It is in his “working papers” as they have been called by some, that the evidence is that he actually did try to translate the Sen-sen text into the Book of Abraham, so it is those fragments of papyri that we now have, along with the Abraham text, that Gee wants to keep separate so as to be able to say we don’t have the original text of the Book of Abraham. It is claimed to be lost in one of those other long rolls, presumably destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, along with the original of facsimile 3. And the reason why is because it is the JS Pap XI and X that are thought to be the original Book of Abraham papyri. Therefore, they are enemy number 1 to today’s apologists.

We can truly say, based on direct evidence and description of the papyri by Joseph Smith himself, if there was a long missing scroll, Pap Joseph Smith XI, X was not on it! They were part of the many sheets preserved under glass slides of protection as Joseph continually showed them as his translation of the Book of Abraham. Joseph Smith valued the Sen-sen papyri most of all of them and worked with it and from it by far, for longer stretches of time than any other piece of papyri he possessed. It is from the Sen-sen he took characters and lined them up with the Abraham text, which he was translating giving us the book as we we find it in the Pearl of Great Price. He never got to the Book of Joseph (the other fragments we have), but all his attention was on the Book of Abraham, the Sen-sen text, Papyrus Joseph Smith XI, X as all evidence points to it.

Dr. Gee then uses Horne’s description of the papyri being written in black and red ink, yet that description matches the fragments we have today, (J. S. Pap. XI, XI) similar to Oliver Cowdery’s description which Nibley misunderstood in his book The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. But the critical assumption that is perhaps causing a ragged dialogue between Mormon scholarship and Egyptological work is the LDS assumption, as Gee words it, the critics “assumes that we have all the material Joseph Smith had.”[93] But no one has ever argued that so far as we can find. What is argued is scroll lengths and connections between the fragments we do have since 1967 and the Kirtland Egyptian Papers of Joseph Smith and his scribes and the Alphabet and Grammar relationship to the Book of Abraham. Everyone understands there are materials missing, which isn’t the issue. The issue is what are the parts that we possess? That is what is at center stage. Kevin Graham, a former Mormon apologist, has been saying this for years on various message boards on the internet, interacting with Mormons, and Mormon apologists, as well as all kinds and types of scholars on this issue.

“When the papyri were recovered by the Church, it was immediately evident that the Hor scroll [J.S. Pap. XI, X] was the source of Facsimile 1. There are also several 1835 manuscripts in the handwriting of Joseph Smith’s known scribes that juxtapose the translated Book of Abraham text with sequential characters from the scroll’s extant instructions column, ostensibly as the source from which the translation was derived.”[94] This is what all the fuss is about.

Remember, the facsimile no. 1 is said by Joseph Smith to be taken from the Book of Abraham. The provenance of facsimile No. 1 is that it was taken from the Sen-sen fragment we now have, the same fragment whose characters are used in the Joseph Smith Alphabet and Grammar alongside of verses of the Book of Abraham. If Joseph Smith said facsimile No. 1 is from the Book of Abraham, and the facsimile No. 1 is from the Sen-sen text, (J.S. Pap., XI, X) then Joseph Smith clearly identified the Book of Abraham as the Sen-sen text. It’s simple logic here. Joseph Smith actually did clearly identify the Book of Abraham text. It’s the Sen-sen document and the key to knowing this is knowing where facsimile no.1 came from. It came from the Sen-sen text. There’s the Book of Abraham original then, just as Joseph Smith identified.

The various confused and lengthy arguments back and forth concerning missing scrolls, lengths, translations, etc. are beyond the scope of this chapter and will be dealt with later in the book. What I are interested in this chapter is acquiring the probability of Joseph Smith believing and teaching he had Abraham’s autograph, and noting that it is the witnesses of the time, who saw the mummies and papyri which we are attempting to examine to help us determine what was said along these lines.

Another LDS Egyptologist, Kerry Muhlestein, has incorrectly followed John Gee in saying the eyewitnesses in Joseph Smith’s day describe the “long roll” (utilizing Charlotte Havens letter to her mother, since it was her description) as the source of the Book of Abraham.[95] Only because Muhlestein apparently accepts Gee’s use of the witnesses where he stops short of them describing the “signature of Abraham,” and “the writings of Abraham,” in those fragments which were under the glass slides, i.e., the Book of Abraham fragments, which we possess today as J.S. Pap. XI, X, I, can he say this. The witnesses from Joseph Smith’s description himself, or from other “shop keepers” describe the sheets under the glass slides in this way, clearly showing the covered fragments were the Book of Abraham. Muhlestein says Dr. Gee also has done the most accurate math on determining how long the scroll was that the supposed missing Book of Abraham roll was, but perhaps he didn’t have access to Andrew Cook and Christopher Smith’s response to Gee. Their response did come out in the winter of 2010, Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought,[96] so Muhlestein’s information is now dated, and incorrect.

Gee did make a response to Cook and Smith “Formulas and Faith,” in Journal of the Book of Mormon and Other Restoration Scriptures, but was far too careless with the mathematical rigor Cook and Smith used in their rebuttal against a putative “missing long roll” of papyrus, and Cook gave a thorough response in return, in Dialogue (2012) and there the matter has rested, with no justification for postulating any missing scrolls the Book of Abraham is on. The fact is there is no mathematical, let alone Egyptological, or any witnesses justification for positing any kind of long missing scroll which is the presumed Book of Abraham.

Dr. Gee continued to incorrectly describe the witnesses in his response to Cook and Smith, as saying the Book of Abraham was on a long scroll when in fact Caswell and others described the little fragments under glass slides as the Book of Abraham, something Gee has never used properly when discussing Caswell’s witness, nor recognized properly in Joseph Smith’s own description of them as being “preserved” and “unrolled.” True, Joseph never said they were cut, but saying they were the unrolled and preserved ones, and the only ones we know being preserved were kept under glass slides, then we can properly infer that description of Joseph Smith’s fits the Book of Abraham fragments kept under the glass slides and preserved.[97]

But there is one study that University of Chicago Egyptologist Robert Ritner refers to that is the most reasonably argued analysis of the evidence for Abraham’s literal writing on the papyri to date. I suspect the reason this has rarely been referenced is because it comes from what would be labeled, as a means to discourage anyone from reading it, “anti-Mormon.”[98] Whatever genre we are using is irrelevant when finding evidence to calculate probability, because we need all evidence to properly assess accurate as possible probability. So to Luke Wilson’s analysis I now turn. There is enough independent evidence of witnesses to check for his accuracy and find it quite credible. He doesn’t appear to be doggedly anti-Mormon, but simply presenting the evidence and reasoning through it as best he can.

By using reason and deductive logic and Bayesian inference, I think the assembly of materials Wilson presents is useful. During this era of time Joseph Smith had four fairly close associates, Wilford Woodruff, Parley P. Pratt, W. W. Phelps, and Oliver Cowdery. It is also necessary to see what William Appleby had to say. It was in 1836 that Warren Parrish, Joseph’s scribe for the Book of Abraham showed Wilford Woodruff the mummies and papyri over which he (Woodruff) ululated.[99] Now it is entirely reasonable to believe Parrish got his information from Joseph Smith, and between these men, these friends, who associated and worked closely with Woodruff, taught him and gave him the information he accepted and then used and taught concerning them having Abraham’s literal writing by his own hand on the papyrus.

Woodruff was one of the great recorders of so many of Joseph Smith’s sermons as demonstrated by Ehat and Cook in their collections of the Prophet’s sermons and teachings in The Words of Joseph Smith, of which I have utilized for background checking for probability. Woodruff was one of the 12 apostles in a trusted leadership position, a good friend to Joseph, a very active missionary, esteemed associate as well as occupying a place in the Council of Fifty.[100] It was Parley P. Pratt who originally instructed Woodruff because he was so impressed with him to get to Kirtland and join Zion’s Camp which Woodruff did. His association with Joseph Smith was always a positive one according to Matthew Cowley.[101]

We know Parrish was closely associated with the Prophet as his scribe from Oct. 1835.[102] Joseph Smith had such a trust in Parrish, he says he instructed Parrish to conduct an exhibition of the mummies and explain the papyri to the folks who had come to see and learn about them.[103] We know Joseph was privately instructing many of the close associates such as Brigham Young, William E. McLellin and Jared Carter, among many others.[104] As the Saints well understood Joseph’s stance, “Friendship is one of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism.”[105] Parrish along with Cowdery and several others were anointed with oil in the President’s room on Thursday 21 of 1836, sharing many glorious moments together as they had for the years previous according to Oliver Cowdery’s Ohio “Sketch Book.”[106] The close associations were involved in every part of their lives.

Richard L. Bushman brings this out quite nicely. “Almost immediately after Oliver’s arrival in Harmony in 1828, Joseph gave him a chance to try his hand at translating. He did not say ‘This is my gift alone, and only I can exercise it.’ Presumably he handed the Urim and Thummim over to Oliver and said, in essence, ‘Try it for yourself.’ The incident reminds us of the likelihood that William W. Phelps, Warren Parrish, and Frederick G. Williams, along with Oliver, were invited to help with the translation of Abraham. Joseph wanted to bring his brethren in as much as he possibly could.”[107] Actually, as the evidence clearly indicates, they weren’t translating, Joseph Smith was, and said so many times. They were his scribes and were writing down what Joseph Smith dictated to them.

Twice the Prophet, in his diary mentioned how much he enjoyed the company of his scribe (Parrish) while they were involved with the Abraham papyri. “Spent the day in reading Hebrew at the council room in company with my scribe which gave me much satisfaction on the account of his returning health, for I delight in his company.”[108] It was Wilford Woodruff who contended after hearing Joseph teach “Light, Principle and virtue… came forth out of the heart and mouth of the Prophet JOSEPH… such evidence… ought to drive into oblivion every particle of unbelief and dubiety from the mind…” (capital emphasis in the original)[109] Obviously he loved hearing Joseph teach, and there can be little doubt Joseph taught everyone who would listen, hence when Woodruff says the record of Abraham had been hidden from Abraham’s day to ours, he learned it from Joseph Smith is an entirely justified and probable inference.

Once again, is this the kind of evidence we would expect to find if Joseph Smith was constantly teaching that he had Abraham’s handwriting on the papyri? It is. It makes perfect sense that Woodruff, Pratt, Quincy and many others also reported it is what they were told when they saw the papyri and mummies and recorded Joseph’s explanations to them. They taught what Joseph taught them. They were close and trusted allies during the translation process, contra Nibley. Their apostasy of some of them was not until later. And Woodruff was personally involved in setting the type for the publication of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons as well. And Joseph worked closely with them as he attested in his own diary. As Wilson so logically inferred “Woodruff’s work would have brought him into personal contact with Joseph in the specific context of the Book of Abraham project.”[110]

There is no mind reading or guessing going on with understanding what Joseph Smith thought, he left us with plenty of evidence of that as did his followers, along with their own thoughts, which they aligned with Joseph Smith’s. Wilson brings up the letter of Joseph to James Arlington Bennett in 1843, given in the History of the Church. He tells Bennett something interesting. “…the art of embalming human bodies and preserving them in the catacombs of Egypt, whereby men, women, and children, as mummies, after a lapse of near 3,500 years come forth among the living, and although dead, the papyrus which has lived in their bosoms, unharmed, speaks for them, in language like the sound of an earthquake.”[111]

Wilson points out three details that is more probably than not tying this to the Book of Abraham and papyri.

  1. He assigned a specific age, 3,500 years old to the papyrus he had in mind.

  2. The phrase “the papyrus which has lived unharmed in their bosoms.”

  3. Just two paragraphs earlier Joseph had quoted (its not in the History however) a series of putative Egyptian words which equate very near with the “explanation” printed in Facsimile 2 (Figs 1,5) in the Book of Abraham: “Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is.” This same series of words also appear in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian language.

All this points, as Wilson notes, to the Book of Abraham as the context for Joseph Smith saying the papyrus was nearly 3,500 years old.[112] Mary Winters corroborates this when she mentioned in her own Autobiography Joseph told her when she was visiting that “they were thousands of years old.”[113] And William Appleby recorded after being shown the mummies and papyrus, “and when these mummies were embalmed which is nearly four thousand years ago…”[114] Woodruff put the time of both the mummies and papyrus “as old as Abraham or Adam,” as we have already seen. Benjamin F. Johnson also said “Great was our wonder in looking upon the bodies of those who 4,000 years ago were living princes and queens.”[115]

Joseph also told Josiah Quincy one mummy was Pharaoh Necho, and the parchments under the glass slides he handled with great respect (makes sense if they are the book of Abraham he translated) but also described them as “the handwriting of Abraham, autograph of Moses, and lines written by Aaron.” But he went further and said as well “the earliest account of creation.” Note also his adroit literalness that the snake had legs before the fall and walked on them like chickens! That had to have brought a smile on Quincy’s face.[116]

Indeed, that they were saying these relics were quite ancient is also evident in the gossip of the newspapers, something we certainly would expect, and fortunately have that evidence to examine. The literalness, though mistaken information is what caused them to make merry of the situation, again, perfectly in line with the expected literalness of Joseph Smith’s thinking and teachings. The Cleveland Whig (July 31, 1835) reported the Mormons had the very body of Joseph! And King Abimelech. The Pittsburgh Chronicle (August 13, 1835) said the mummies were the bodies of Joseph and King Abimelech and his daughter. The Painesville Telegraph (Sept 4, 1835) repeated the misinformation. It was to this misinformation that Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery attempted to correct, but not to anything he had said about having the actual handwriting of Abraham. Remember as well Jonathan Crosby’s claim. He actually says as he spent some time with Joseph he was “friendly, cheerful, agreeable man, I could not help but like him.” Crosby was no antagonistic enemy of Joseph Smith. Joseph told Crosby “they were written in language of the Book of Mormon on the plates.” He then said that Joseph Smith told him the papyrus also had “…other writings found on the mummies were the books of Moses, Enoch, and Abraham; also the book of Jacob which gave an account of the lost Ten Tribes, the journeyings, their present location, their return and manner of coming to Zion.”[!][117] Was it the entire Old Testament story in the papyri for crying out loud?

It’s always put into the ancient time, very early Old Testament ancient times. Lest some think Caswell was just cooking things up (some apologists follow Nibley’s method which ended up as far too much ad hominim) when he said he was told Jacob’s ladder was also on the papyri, we also have the testimony of Sarah Leavitt who was told “the writing that was said to be written in Abraham’s day, Jacob’s ladder being pictured on it, and lot’s more wonders…”[118] Knowing all this, it makes William West’s claim much more probable even though when we first read his explanations of what he was told we are dubious. They were told all that? Yes, indeed, we have several testimonies already showing that. West said he was told “…they say the records are those of Abraham and Joseph, and contain important information respecting the creation, the fall of man, the deluge, the patriarchs, the Book of Mormon[!?] the lost tribe[s], the gathering, the end of the world, the judgment, etc., etc.”[119] This is starting to be familiar.

And in turn, Henry Asbury said Lucy Mack Smith told him when she showed him the relics that “in substance they amounted to an assertion that one or more of the mummies was one of the Pharaohs or kings of Egypt, and that there belonged to him some hieroglyphics or writings upon papyrus, which she said in some way proved the truth of Mormonism…”[120]

What all the witnesses attest to at this point is the literalness of explaining the writings on the papyri as being very old, the actual handwriting of both Abraham and Joseph, and others, and having to do with antique themes from the Bible, beginning at the very beginning, and literally understood from the Bible point of view. And it continued when the relics were kept by Lucy Mack Smith, the Prophet’s mother.

H. Michael Marquardt has gathered together the times witnesses describe being shown the antiquities by Lucy Mack Smith and the conversations that is very valuable for us.[121] All of the information from Marquardt below can be found on the website I cite at footnote 121. I intersperse more ideas into the description as we go along, because some of this is utterly astounding what they are saying they were told!

Now with all the foregoing we have examined and seen, Lucy Mack Smith’s descriptions appear far less outlandish when we come to realize her son Joseph had been telling visitors more or the less the same kinds of things about the papyri and what kind of history and information was on them. The repeating patterns betray the underlying reality, not mere invented hearsay so their witness is worthless. The various different testimonies cross check each other and support each other.

To Charlotte Haven Lucy had said the leg that appeared to Charlotte as “a club wrapped in a dark cloth,” was the very “…leg of Pharaoh’s daughter, the one that saved Moses.” Then after pulling out “a long roll” Lucy told her that one scroll had “…Mother Eve being tempted by the serpent…” It’s always about information that was about 3,500 to 4,000 years ago they are talking about.

Another very interesting report was that of Rev. Adiel Sherwood in 1843, “the mummies were some 4,000 years old…” which corresponds remarkably with the earlier analysis of many other testimonies of the same kind of age. Again, this is the kind of evidence we expect if Joseph Smith was literally believing and saying he had Abraham’s own handwriting on the papyri.

LaFayette Knight (1843) visited the Smith’s, and Joseph let Lucy take over the conversation and Lucy said the mummy was “King Onitas.” And Joseph never corrected her.

And, once again, in the Spring of 1844, “The Mormons” was published in two newspaper, Buffalo Daily Courier and Economist, 3:(June 15, 1844) and published in the Evening Gazette, (May 16, 1844). Herein we again see they were being told the mummies when living were walking around 4,000 years ago. And further that the glazed slides are read from and they contain “Important and highly interesting incidents in the lives of the Patriarchs of Israel and the monarchs of Hebrew history…” And notice again, it is this literality that evinced the snide comment “The absurdity of the chronicles being deposited with the Pharaohs for safe keeping, never seeming to have occurred to any concerned.” But notice what was just said. The records have not been handed down and “copies of copies of copies of copies” being made as Todd guessed, is not the narrative that Joseph Smith or Lucy Mack Smith ever said to anyone. These records lay hidden, not handed down, which is also how Woodruff and Pratt understood the true nature of the situation. This is the actual evidence helping us eliminate our guessing and seeing the real literality involved with having Abraham’s personal handwriting on this very papyrus.

Another utterly fascinating witness is Mary Ann Hubbard who said that while Lucy was telling her all about the information in the papyri that she, Lucy, was “all the time committing murder (of the King’s English)” So Caswell’s testimony of the Smith talking weirdly or awkwardly may not be Caswell merely lying and attempting to make the Smith’s look stupid. Perhaps there is more truth in Caswell’s recounting of his visit than apologists have allowed him to have. It is we, today who have cleaned up Joseph Smith’s language and style into something that causes us to lose part of the genuine Joseph, as the well known LDS historian Dean C. Jessee has described. His own scribes in the process of preserving Joseph Smith for us have also obscured him in some ways. They could not “preserve the one essential ingredient in their work that would have been in his own writings [had he written instead of dictating so much to them], his own personality.” Jessee points out examples of the marked different style of one entry that Joseph Smith himself wrote, and his scribe Willard Richards wrote. The two are not the same![122]

The Cleveland Herald 11 (Sept 13, 1845) expressed something astonishing as well. Lucy Mack Smith told the visitor that the same figures that were on the gold plates are the ones Joseph interpreted on the papyri! And therefor because Joseph could translate the papyri the inference is the Book of Mormon is true! And “she tells that to every visitor.” Notice the Book of Mormon tie in here. It was certainly in some early Mormon thinking in some quarters, even those who were quite close to Joseph Smith himself.

Now this is something worth noting because some of today’s apologists jump all over anyone who says if the Book of Abraham translation is wrong, then that impugns the Book of Mormon. But apologists say this is naïve. However, if Lucy was told by Joseph Smith (who was with her several times showing off the relics, but letting her talk, and never correcting her while he was alive. Would he have let her say oh just anything at all about these papyri?) that the Egyptian of the papyri was the same characters as on the gold plates, then the claim of critics holds, if Joseph Smith actually couldn’t translate the Book of Abraham papyri from the Egyptian correctly, then neither could he have from the Gold Plates.

So it does turn out after all, that some of the early Mormons because of what Joseph Smith had told them, did believe and think the Book of Abraham translation would be a good witness for the Book of Mormon. Some of the apologists have been too quick to dismiss this as mere hearsay. If it was hearsay, it was started by Joseph Smith who under “inspiration” did claim to translate both records, and several of his followers say it was translated using the exact same instrument, the Urim and Thummim, from the same type of Egyptian language.

More to the point, LDS author, Samuel Morris Brown, has shown that Oliver Cowdery took the idea of the Book of Mormon being supported by the translation of the papyri into the Book of Abraham further than W. W. Phelps who declared straight forwardly it “will make a good witness for the Book of Mormon.” Cowdery “reported that extracts from the reformed Egyptian of Smith’s original gold plates matched hieroglyphs on the Chandler papyri. ‘The history of the Nephites was inscribed in the same script as the papyri. In a fraught cultural exchange a half decade later, Mormons made a gift of papyrus fragments to Pottawatamies. They seem to have believed that this gift brought the papyri full circle, returning hieroglyphic relics to their rightful heirs, the Book of Mormon peoples.”[123]

So was Lucy just being batty, or was she actually describing what the knowledge was then? It appears that some eager, enthusiastic LDS are too eager to try and help Joseph Smith out by assuming all this has nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. Brown also indicates and shows “Smith grappled with hieroglyphs metaphysically, religiously.”[124] His entire analysis of the way Joseph Smith used the Alphabet and Grammar is fascinating in that regard. The more we learn of Joseph Smith’s background and religious assumptions he himself held, the most understandable it becomes that today’s Egyptological scholarship are at odds with his interpretations. We are going to have to face the music, probably sooner than later as we grapple with the issues of the Book of Abraham and the papyri.

And again, from the same visitor he was told about all sorts of Bible stories and personalities on the papyri, Noah, the Ark and the flood, Abraham and Melchizedek, Joseph and Pharaoh, etc. And this corroborates many other testimonies of having been told the same things. Lucy even says Joseph used to put his face in his hat and read the papyri like he did the gold plates! Even the gaps in the papyri were revealed to him in that manner. This is quite amazing! Many early Mormons tied the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham together, but today’s apologists want the processes separated. She isn’t near as extravagant as it has been said by some who contend it’s just stupid to imagine the Book of Abraham translation has any similarities to the Book of Mormon. That might not now be as accurate a way of seeing it as we have been led to believe.

And, with Joseph Smith being physically with her, in her presence, Lucy more or less showed the records and said the same thing she was saying after Joseph was dead, and this time he was with her and just let her talk. She told a visitor that the papyri were all about “a rehearsal of Bible history of the creation and end of man, and the subsequent history of the Israelites…” This was an article in the New York Daily Times (Sept 28, 1852) a reminiscence of an earlier visit.

Robert Horne’s account recounts, again, as others had, that the leg of the mummy was the pharaoh’s daughter’s, the same one who had rescued Moses.

Endocia Baldwin Marsh said the mummies were described as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and the goings on from 3,000 years ago. Again, the very ancient time frame, into biblical times. This is exactly the kind of evidence we would expect if Joseph Smith was so literal about having the actual autograph and handwriting of Abraham and Joseph. This is the one over-arching theme of the majority of witnesses, that they are being told about very ancient real people in the Bible. It is but a small step for Joseph to say he had some of their actual handwriting, which is not nearly as dramatic and eye-popping as his claim to having been visited by many of them in person during nocturnal visits, or broad daylight temple visits. All these accounts fundamentally shape the probability in favor, and quite strongly in favor, of Joseph Smith believing and saying he had Abraham’s personal handwriting on the papyri. It all makes far less sense if Joseph Smith did not literally believe it.

All of the above descriptions and experiences can be found on the website cited in footnote 121 above, and ought to be consulted. None of this material has been carefully looked through by apologists and explained, or the implications of it all spelled out by many Mormons, if at all. All of it, I see as evidence of Joseph Smith’s literalness and this kind of evidence is precisely the kind we would expect to have and not be surprised at having if Joseph Smith was so literal as to think he had the handwriting of Abraham. After all, according to many visitors he and his associates described so much more than that, and all as having really happened just like the Bible says it did.

Finally, lets take a quick glance at Kevin Barney’s ideas that line up with our theme, as there is still more revelations to discover on how some apologists have been incorrect, and sometimes surprisingly very wrong and misled on assumptions they themselves have held and yet criticized others based on those assumptions. The background and evidence can set things straight.

There is no question to those who want to actually grasp just what is going on in all of this Joseph Smith Papyri puzzles and enigmas that Kevin Barney has written one of the more interesting and credible pieces of guess work about how it all might have happened. I don’t say guess work disparagingly, I am simply saying what it is as he himself agrees in his article, with the full understanding that possible does not mean probable. That is a fallacy Barney skirts awfully close to in this article. But, I am not in need of guessing blindly anymore, even though far too much of blind guessing is continuing in this field.

We have come a long way since Hugh Nibley’s defenses in the Dialogue a Journal of Mormon Thought and the Improvement Era and the BYU Studies in the 1960’s and 70’s. It appears that apologists are simply too blindly and deafly limping along behind Nibley’s flawed method, merely refining it, even with all its defects and incongruities. We need a seriously improved and better method, and I believe Bayes Thinking fits the bill.

I have not discussed all apologetic arguments and evidence concerning all issues in this chapter. My focus has been a tight one in order to lay a proper foundation for all later work in the coming chapters. For now, I have made it imperative to find out how probable it is that Joseph Smith took literally that he had Abraham’s personal hand writing upon the papyrus. So, I have, so far, ignored an enormous amount of fascinating defenses of John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, Michael Dennis Rhodes, even Hugh Nibley, and now I will only touch what is necessary in Kevin Barney concerning this one issue, leaving aside the rest of his ingenious, though faulty, theory for later chapters.

For our generation, Hugh Nibley got to Bishop Spaulding from 1968-1970 first. But Kevin Barney does a much more succinct and good job showing the issue as well. What is critical for us to begin to grasp, based on all the background and as much primary evidence as I have mustered to this point in this discussion since Joseph Smith’s day, is, Spaulding’s so-called “assumptions” were not all incorrect! Hear me out.

Barney sums it up well in his article on page 111.[125] Lets take his first point first, the logical place to start.

Barney says the Mormons accepted the assumptions which Spaulding labored under at the time and that’s what caught attention to his attack against the Book of Abraham. Here they are, with my responses.

  1. “The papyrus from which the Book of Abraham was taken was an original autograph of Abraham and was penned by the great patriarch himself (that is, Abraham’s own hand had touched the very papyrus that came into Joseph’s possession, as opposed to the papyrus being a later copy of a text written by Abraham.”

To the early Mormons and to Joseph Smith this appears to be exactly what was believed, taught, and shared with anyone who would listen and who visited to see the relics. And the published responses of newspapers and books easily show this also, which makes sense on the claim of what Joseph Smith believed. If it is an assumption, it is entirely on the shoulders of Joseph Smith himself, as he is the one who taught it to one and all, so far as the evidence demonstrates. The literalist background checking I have done using every single available source of Joseph Smith’s own writings, diaries, letters, correspondence, etc., also show the probability is very high that this is indeed what Joseph Smith himself taught and believed. In his day, it was no assumption, as it is in ours, with our much sharper and improved hindsight.

All Joseph Smith had to get him his knowledge was either the Urim and Thummim, or else the seer stone, we have the actual two hundred year hindsight of valid historical knowledge to base our judgments on. One has to literally ignore everything Joseph Smith said or taught, and everything everyone else said about it in order to proclaim it was an “assumption.” This ignores Joseph Smith and does not take anything he says about the papyri seriously.

To Joseph Smith, and he said so, as did others, it was revelation from God and heaven. That is what he went with. This very claim is precisely what elevated him into Rockstar fame of the 1830’s and 1840’s. It electrified the believers into making their hearts burn with testimony and truth, and it made the disbelievers shake their heads in wonder at such imbecile gullibility. Both reactions are exactly what we would expect if Joseph Smith literally believed that and taught it. They wouldn’t make nearly as good of sense if he didn’t take it literally. The records show he did. It’s that simple.

  1. “The papyri from which the facsimiles were taken were part and parcel with the Book of Abraham and similarly autographic documents (that is, they were drawn by Abraham’s own hand).”

Yes, because Joseph Smith said the facsimiles (and they certainly are labeled precisely as such) are “from” the Book of Abraham. They are literally described in the plainest of language, “taken from the Book of Abraham.” Occam’s Razor says the easiest explanation to account for the Book of Abraham referring the reader back to the illustration (Facsimile 1) in the actual text of the story in chapter 1:14 is Abraham indicating he wanted his reader to look at the illustration he had drawn to show what he was talking about, because he put it there and it’s in his book and therefore when seen separately is “from” his book. This is the easiest way to read and understand what the text meant, as University of Chicago Egyptologist Robert Ritner has shown.[126] Witnesses also indicate that they were told the marvelous writing and figures were in Abraham’s own handwriting and were his illustration, and he wrote in Egyptian hieroglyphics. All of this rests squarely on Joseph Smith’s shoulders.

  1. “Since all these papyri had been written by Abraham himself, it necessarily follows that Abraham originally composed them in the Egyptian language.”

Correct. That is precisely what Joseph Smith said and other witnesses actually said the writing was also done and “finished” by Joseph while he was in Egypt. So, both Abraham and Joseph did the writing and drawing, all in Egyptian hieroglyphic and picture. And it all had to do with real flesh and blood Biblical personalities, events, and religious precepts as well. There is no other way on how to read Joseph Smith directly saying “That is the signature of Abraham,” and “that is the writing of Abraham.” One looks at any and all of the papyri and see nothing but Egyptian hieroglyphic or hieratic, therefore, Abraham wrote in it if Joseph Smith saw his signature. And Ed Ashment has shown directly, based on the actual documents of translation evidence we have that Smith owned and worked on with his scribes, exactly which hieroglyph Abraham signed as his signature.[127] One witness described Joseph’s handwriting as being better than Abraham’s, which means the hieroglyphs were obviously considered to be Abraham’s and Joseph’s directly on that very papyri they possessed.

  1. “Accordingly, there was no textual transmission of these documents in antiquity.”

Correct, that is, if Joseph Smith’s revelation was real, and if we choose to believe him. Many close to him believed (based, probably more so than not) the record had lain in the mummies arms for all those thousands of years and said so, of which we actually have their evidence in words for what they thought they received from Joseph Smith who received it through either the Urim and Thummim or the seerstone, or more indirectly, by God’s “inspiration.” So, do we take Joseph Smith seriously or not?

  1. “Therefore, as purely Egyptian documents, the facsimiles could properly be tested without any reference at all to the Book of Abraham (to which they purport to relate).”

This is also entirely correct, and it has been done so, innumerable times. Joseph Smith made exact and direct empirical claims about what the hieroglyphics in the facsimiles meant as “is said by the Egyptians,” and “called by the Egyptians,” and “which is called by the Egyptians,” and “in Egyptian signifying,” and “as understood by the Egyptians,” and “the Egyptians meant it to signify,” and “King Pharaoh whose name is given in the characters above his head,” and “as given also in figure 10 of facsimiles No. 1,” and “Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above his hand,” and “as represented by the characters above his hand,” etc.

There is no reason to even glance at the Book of Abraham in order to either verify with a good probability these ideas are accurate, or verify with good probability that they are not. These claims are directly related to Egyptian language and translation and culture and religion, on the facsimiles themselves, not in the Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith directly said his translation will be correct, (HC, Vol. 2: 351) well, as correct as practiced by the ancients, and as such they can be tested against that exact same knowledge. They are simply stated as connecting with ancient Egyptian, and therefore it is to ancient Egyptian we logically go to in order to see if the probability supports or refutes the claims made by Joseph Smith through “inspiration” from God.

Barney in the next paragraph describes some of the effects of, whether he knows it or not, actually taking Joseph Smith seriously at his “inspired from God” word. This is where things get utterly fascinating for one and all to see where the actual issue lies.

What this does (and he is entirely accurate and correct here) in Spaulding’s favor for his test against Joseph Smith, is it helped Spaulding “establish an early baseline for claims of historical anachronisms. Since Abraham is generally believed to have lived in the twentieth century B.C., give or take a few centuries, if documents of the type represented by the facsimiles could be shown to date only to a substantially later period, the facsimiles could not, in fact, have been derived from Abraham.”[128]

Correct. Either Joseph Smith’s revelation knowledge is correct that these papyri are old as Abraham, or the Egyptologists scholarly knowledge is that the papyri are simply nowhere near that old.

Barney continues: “Second, if the papyri were penned by Abraham himself in Egyptian, then the Egyptian content of the facsimiles must have been fully intended by Abraham, and the facsimiles could be judged as ordinary Egyptian documents, just like any other Egyptian proffered explanations without taking into account the English Book of Abraham…”

Correct. Do we take Joseph Smith’s revelation seriously or the Egyptological knowledge seriously? That is the issue all right.

Barney then says: “While the autographic assumptions seem to have been commonly accepted among the Saints of the day, that was only because they had been unexamined.”

Correct. There was no reason to examine the so-called assumption, because that knowledge (knowledge that we term “assumption”) was revealed either through the Urim and Thummim, the seerstone, Jesus Christ himself, or from God’s “inspiration” to Joseph Smith and he taught the Saints of his day, and they rejoiced in that revelation of “truth” to them from God through their true prophet Joseph Smith. How do you examine a revelation from God’s prophet from Jesus Christ? John Whitmer said straight forwardly – “Joseph the Seer saw these records and by the revelation of Jesus Christ could translate these records…” Why would you examine such direct knowledge? They looked for those divine revelations, Joseph promised them, then delivered, and they didn’t examine, they rejoiced instead. Rejoiced in the glorious light and knowledge they received, and it did, to quote Wilford Woodruff “cause our hearts to burn within us while we behold their glorious truths opened unto us.” What’s to examine? They had the truth and it was glorious.

It seems like apologists want to have their cake and eat it too. Do you take Joseph Smith and what he says seriously or do you take the Egyptologists and their knowledge seriously? Because Joseph Smith’s Egyptological “knowledge” is not the scholar’s Egyptological knowledge, and they cannot mix. Both cannot and are not right. It’s that simple. If you want to believe in Joseph Smith and his truth, then do so. If you want to believe in the Egyptologists and their truth, then go for it. But do not pretend you can redefine what Joseph Smith said when we have the actual words from him and his followers, and do not imagine that your assumptions and knowledge was his and you can squeeze his knowledge into ours today or worse yet, ours into his, and make it work with what we know today about historical truth. You do not get to do that to either Joseph Smith or the Egyptologists. The two are not on the same path, the same level, or have the same truth.

If we say Joseph Smith didn’t mean it was a literal autograph, then one has every right to ask sincerely, based on what evidence from Joseph Smith can you present this is so? Did Joseph Smith, and do apologists, believe Moses parted the Red Sea, Noah build the Ark, and Joseph become Pharaoh and save Egypt? Yes. Did he, and do apologists, believe the 2nd coming with destruction of wicked? Yes. Did he, and do apologists, accept Jesus as the literal First born Son of God? Yes. Did he, and do apologists, believe Abraham literally obeyed God and attempted to sacrifice Isaac? Yes.

All of Joseph Smith’s thinking of biblical personalities is literal. Can apologists find one place in any of his teachings, sermons, diaries, letters, documents where he gives any other kind of interpretation other than literal in the hundreds, if not thousands of times he expounded on the scriptures, including “Abraham writing the Book of Abraham “by his own hand, upon papyrus,” as the heading of the Book of Abraham plainly has said for over 180+ years and running? His enemy’s reactions make perfect sense at such a literalistic view. Their criticisms would bewilder us because they wouldn’t make sense if Joseph Smith didn’t believe he had Abraham’s autograph or if he didn’t believe in what the Bible said literally. His fellow Saints responded exactly how we would expect if they believed his literal interpretation, with wonder and awe, calling it “glorious!”

Did Joseph Smith ever teach anywhere that anything in the Book of Abraham was mere mythology and not actually historical events that happened to Abraham? Did he, and do apologists, really think it was literal that Abraham did not bow down to dumb idols and hence his life was threatened? O.K. Did he, and do apologists, think it’s literal that Abraham’s personal description of himself at 1:2-4? Yes? O.K., Did he, and do apologists, believe and do you think Joseph Smith literally believed the three virgins were sacrificed in an evil world of his day? Do you think Joseph Smith literally believed the land of Egypt discovered by a woman when it was under water, or did he ever teach it otherwise? Did he literally teach a council of the Gods, or a premortal existence of souls, and that we were intelligences that are eternal with God before this earth life? Do you think he literally believed Abraham actually left Ur of the Chaldees to escape the wickedness engulfing their lives? Do you think Joseph Smith literally believed Abraham was a polygamist? Do you think Joseph Smith literally believed an angel came down and saved Abraham? Do you think Joseph Smith literally believed Abraham possessed the Urim and Thummim? Do you actually really and honestly think Joseph Smith literally thought there was truth when God told Abraham that there are two spirits one more intelligent than the other, but the Lord was the most intelligent of them all? So, if you believe Joseph Smith literally believed all this, how is it you can’t believe he literally believed he had a mere physical autograph of Abraham’s own handwriting? That simply makes no consistent sense. Joseph literal about it all except the autograph?

So it’s fine that Joseph Smith literally believed a dead man from thousands of years ago came back to him in 1823, now resurrected alive, and helped him acquire some literal golden metal plates that the man had “inscribed with his own hand upon metal” purporting to be the story of his people and wrote and edited the story on the plates, and literally gave those exact same plates his own hands had touched and “inscribed” thousands of years ago to Joseph Smith? But it’s too much to think Joseph Smith was being literal about Abraham “writing upon papyrus with his own hand” purporting to be the Book of Abraham and Joseph possessing the actual papyrus Abraham wrote on…? Is the one more probable than the other? If so, how would we come to know it? On what basis of evidence and background is the one declared actual, the other not actual?

Brigham Young said when he heard Joseph Smith say the Garden of Eden was in Missouri in the United States he responded “I am as much bound to believe it as much as I am to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.” Wilford Woodruff is the one who recorded this in his journal.[129] That is the kind of evidence we have of these people’s attitude about believing and teaching what Joseph Smith taught them, including the idea that Abraham personally wrote his book on the very papyri he possessed. He said it and told them, and they in turn said it themselves as the evidence clearly shows time and again. As the LDS historian James B. Allen has reminded us on how seriously the early Mormons took Joseph Smith, “I might have said, second only to Christ, for there, in a nutshell, was an expression of the role of Joseph Smith in the religious life of the Mormons.”[130]

In this chapter, the working hypothesis is Joseph Smith believed he had the literal actual handwriting of Abraham on the papyri he had written upon the papyrus Joseph Smith had and translated. The hypothesis we are testing this against is that Joseph Smith did not believe that. And we are using the same background and evidence to see if one hypothesis makes more sense on the evidence/background we have rather than the other hypothesis. Which hypothesis is more probable based on what we know so far? This is how Bayesian inference works, by asking a comparison of competing hypotheses and seeing which makes more sense. Notice, it’s not about which one is true and which one is false.

So lets reason through what we have found so far concerning the hypothesis that Joseph Smith believed and said that he had Abraham’s very own personal handwriting on the papyri he had acquired.

If he really believed he had Abraham’s actual signature and writing, then the evidence we have seen and have, from all sides, him and what he said, his associates and believing followers and adorers, and what they said, and his enemies and what they said, is the kind of evidence we actually would expect to have, if Joseph Smith was literally believing that.

H. Michael Marquardt has gathered a handy group of eyewitness accounts together, seven different descriptions from several different people on Joseph Smith telling them he literally had signature and writings of several of the biblical patriarchs actually! Obviously, Joseph Smith thought it important to say so and kept repeating the information as did others who showed off the mummies and papyri as we have seen. This definitely increases the probability. True there are several generalized accounts as well, but when we get to those that shared details, one of the details consistently showing up is the idea of having the literal handwriting, whether it was said from friend or foe of Joseph Smith. It’s a testament that Joseph Smith said it and meant it.[131]

The odds we’d have so much literal biblical interpretation of Abraham, Moses, Aaron, King Abimelech, the creation, the fall of man, the gathering of Israel, Christianity itself of the papyri by all parties who showed them off, if Joseph Smith believed it all literally physically from Abraham’s own hand are actually much higher, than if he didn’t believe it literally, and had said so. The consistent interpretations we have seen from everyone showing off the papyri and always having a biblical explanation (nothing is learned whatsoever about the Egyptians!) raises the probability Joseph Smith did believe literally he had the autograph of Abraham, and the papyri were entirely concerned with Israel and the ancient biblical patriarch. Notice, it’s not about whether Joseph Smith’s interpretations were right, it is about the probability of his belief as opposed to not having believed it. It has nothing to do with whether the Bible is true either.

The absolute absence of any kind of correction from Joseph Smith to anyone else who explained the papyri in the manner they were explaining it, also enhances the probability that he believed it. This is evidence we don’t have (but would if he didn’t believe it) that again, strengthens the probability that Joseph Smith believed it, as his followers did. If we had the corrections it would lower the probability against Joseph Smith’s literal belief, but we don’t. Because if he had constantly corrected those who said Abraham’s own writing was on the papyri, that wouldn’t jive with the theory that he believed he had that exact same handwriting he was telling others wasn’t actual or on the papyri! Therefore, the probability raises with the lack of such corrections of others saying it from the Prophet.

The fact that he took pains to correct the rumors of who the bodies of the mummies were, but never corrected that the writings were Abraham’s personal penmanship also adds to the probability in favor of Joseph Smith believing it. He was trying to stop unfounded rumors, but Abraham’s own handwriting upon papyrus wasn’t among the rumors.[132]

“The one things Bayes inference adds to the mix is an exposure of all our assumptions and how our inferences derive from them. Instead of letting us get away with vague verbiage about how likely or unlikely things are, Bayes Theorem forces us to identify exactly what we mean. It thus forces us to confront whether our reasoning is even sound.”[133]

All the evidence we have and evidence we would have but don’t, pushes the probability higher that Joseph Smith believed he had Abraham’s actual literal handwriting on the papyri he was working with and translating. How typical would this evidence be if the hypothesis Joseph believed he had Abraham’s handwriting be if it was true? Well, it’s quite typical. It makes perfect sense. It’s not at all unusual which means it’s not at all improbable. It would be many more times unusual if no one had ever given any biblical interpretation to the papyri, or we never had anyone whether publicly or privately say the handwriting was Abraham’s that they were reading on the papyri. If no one had believed Joseph Smith’s teachings and revelations. But that’s not what we have. In other words, what most likely generated the evidence we actually do, in fact, have, is that Joseph Smith believed he had the literal handwriting of Abraham on the papyri. It was his literalness that generated the evidence we have from himself and others who agreed with him and said so. Something generated all that evidence we see, and that something lands squarely and firmly on Joseph Smith’s shoulders.

Again, this is the power of Bayes inference. We don’t work out how well the evidence fits our theory (whatever theory we are working on). We first ask how likely our theory is given what evidence and background knowledge we have today. Is the evidence more probable on our theory? Less probable? Is it more probable on another theory? Less probable on another theory?

“If we instead just look to see if our theory fits the evidence, we will end up believing any theory we can make fit. And since that will inevitably include dozens of theories that aren’t actually true, ‘seeing what fits,’ is a recipe for failure. In fact, its worse than failure, since we will have deceived ourselves into thinking our method worked and our results are correct because ‘see how well the evidence fits!’ That’s the result of failing to take alternative theories of the evidence seriously… this ‘see what fits’ approach is a slave to confirmation bias (where we only see or remember data confirming our hypothesis and overlook or forget data disconfirming it…”[134] This was Hugh Nibley’s major flaw in all of his work on the Book of Abraham, unfortunately, and it devalues his work tremendously, no matter how cool or good the parallels are. Some of his very own religious colleagues said so, and showed so.[135]

So, I have ascertained that the probability is much higher on Joseph Smith believing a literal Abraham writing than if he didn’t believe and say it. But now we have to ask and reason, how much higher? Well, to find that out, look at the evidence again. How many times did he show the papyri? At least 10? Probably more, really. 20? 100? How many times did he say he had Abraham’s literal handwriting or Joseph’s? We have several times where he claimed that. It is literally written as the heading to the Pearl of Great Price and has always remained there. How many times did he say he didn’t believe he had Abraham’s own handwriting? Or correct anyone else who said it was Abraham’s handwriting on the papyri? How many times did anyone else say to anyone that Joseph Smith didn’t believe it that we have in evidence? How many times do we have anyone else saying they didn’t believe it either?

Can we find once in every ten conversations where Joseph Smith was talking about the Bible or Abraham that he did not believe he had the handwriting of Abraham? Or did he repudiate any rumor that he did? I literally cannot find once this ever happened.

Is the background understanding of Joseph Smith’s attitude about the Bible inaccurate? How is it inaccurate? Is there evidence showing what his attitude was, rather than as woodenly literal as we discovered, (see the appendixes) when it comes to the Bible or Abraham? It’s materials like that which can change the background probability. Have I missed an enormous amount of information of Joseph Smith’s background thinking of scripture, or of his converts, that might change the probability? Richard Bushman puts it right out there – “What distinguished Mormonism, was not so much the Gospel Mormonism taught, which in many respects resembled other Christian teachings, but what they believed had happened – to Joseph Smith, to the Book of Mormon characters, and to Moses and Enoch… the core of Mormon belief was a conviction about actual events.”[136] The literality was so intense, that in the “Quorum of the Anointed,” “Brigham Young explained that the group first assembled in ‘a little side room’ to be washed, anointed to become kings and priests, and receive a new name …”[137] The newest (to date) Joseph Smith Papers says “John Taylor met with the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who could attend a special council wherein he was anointed and ordained ‘a King over the House of Israel.’ On that occasion Taylor recounted that he had helped anoint and ordain Joseph Smith and later Brigham Young to this same office.”[138]

That’s quite literal. Joseph was able to secure his coronation as king and that the proof of it is the degree to which the people obeyed his orders, no matter what the requisition made of them, that his actions and conduct belie his coronation.”[139] The went straight literal and never let it alone. And like Abraham, they put themselves on the same path to exaltation as Joseph called it. Kingship acquired here, Godhood acquired in the next life (D&C 132:37). It was a step by step process in Joseph Smith’s vision for himself and his followers. Through the ancient patriarchs the saints were lined up getting ready for the gods. It was one reason that Adam, Abraham, Enoch, Noah, Moses and the patriarchs were so important to Joseph Smith’s vision. It’s little wonder they showed up so often in his scriptures he was involved in.

Is there enough information about literality that says otherwise than I have found to actually make a difference in the voluminous materials we have today? For instance, just one or two converts if they are discovered to have taught a spiritualized metaphysical teaching instead of literal is not going to affect the background probability much, if any, since there are literally hundreds if not thousands who accepted Smith’s literalism and taught it as the truth. Now if we found 100, that would change the probability significantly enough we could recalculate. These are the types of evidences and background I are talking about.

On evidence, are there any witnesses we have missed who said something other than what I have found that will change the probability? In other words, anything that contradicts what the witness evidence we have today says? That would change the probability and what we could then infer. How much change would depend on discussing how strong the evidence is, and how voluminous. One witness contradicting all the ones we have wouldn’t be nearly as strong as finding say 15 others or 28, or 72 who say differently than Joseph and his followers said what they were told about the papyri. These are the kinds of things we need to ask and look for if we are to attempt to justifiably change the probabilities.

We certainly can and ought to dialogue since this is not set in stone, but this is as objective a probability as I know of in existence for now. Because this probability matters. It is from this base that we can now move forward into a more realistic and objective manner of figuring out the mysteries of the Joseph Smith Papyri and Abraham’s connection with them, and Joseph Smith’s beliefs. But lets quit pretending and ignoring what Joseph Smith said and meant because of what we know today, (and we don’t like it) that he couldn’t possible know back then, and is in serious hot water now because of it. Yes, Joseph Smith’s credibility is in serious jeopardy, but it’s responsible scholarship to have realistic probability and knowledge about what is actually the state of affairs, instead of imagining our wishes were what is real and thinking it is valid to use them. This is what Milan D. Smith reminded Karl Sandberg of so many years ago when Sandberg wanted to take it to the arena of “inspiration” for Joseph’s translation instead of actual translation, which all the evidence leads us to, and continues to do so today.[140] The Sandberg approach, unfortunately, is attempting to move forward from a shaky foundation, and is actually thought to be valid even today. I believe the foundation laid on Bayesian inference is the better way to go, and so I have done so. The probability that Joseph Smith literally believed he had Abraham’s actual handwriting upon papyrus over 3,500-4,000 years ago is truly and objectively as I can make it, very powerful. From this basis we need to begin figuring out what to do next.

Endnotes

  1. James V. Stone, Baye’s Rule, A Tutorial Introduction to Bayesian Analysis, Sebtel Press, 3rd Printing, 2013: 1. Cited as Baye’s Rule hereafter.

  2. John Earman, Bayes or Bust? A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory, MIT Press, 1992: 201.

  3. Earman, Bayes or Bust? P. xi.

  4. Luc Bovens, Stephan Hartmann, Bayesian Epistemology, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2003:1.

  5. Stone, Baye’s Rule, p. 2.

  6. See Richard Carrier, Proving History, Bayes Theorem and the Quest for a Historical Jesus, Prometheus Books, 2012: 106-109. Hereafter cited as Proving History.

  7. Carrier, Proving History, p. 49.

  8. Carrier, Proving History, p. 82.

  9. Bovens, Hartmann, Ibid., p. 1. Cf. Cecil O. Samuelson, Jr., “The Importance of Meekness in the Disciple-Scholar,” where he correctly defines science as a process – “In science, to use the term broadly, truth is usually accepted tentatively with the expectation that we are always waiting for a ‘better answer.’ Today’s theory while perhaps the best explanation we currently have, will give way to tomorrow’s hypothesis, which incorporates new data not now available.” As found in Learning in the Light of Faith, edited by Henry B. Eyring, Bookcraft, 1999: 38.

  10. Carrier, Proving History, p. 53.

  11. E. T. Jaynes, Probability Theory, The Logic of Science, Cambridge University Press, 14th printing, 2005: 86.

  12. Bovens, Hartmann, Bayesian Epistemology, p. 1.

  13. John W. Loftus, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice from an Atheist, Pitchstone Publishing, 2015: 9.

  14. John Shelby Spong, Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, HarperSanFrancisco, 1991. His Jesus for the Non-Religious, HarperCollins First Paperback, 2008, is also in this vein of investigation. Profitable also for this angle is his text Why Christianity Must Change or Die, HarperSanFrancisco, 1998.

  15. William D. Russell, “Beyond Literalism,” in The Word of God, edited by Dan Vogel, Signature Books, 1990. Brian D. Birch has an intelligent discussion of the various ways scripture is being interpreted for our day as opposed to that which was done in Joseph Smith’s day in his article “Theological Method and the Question of Truth,” in Discourses in Mormon Theology, Philosophical and Theological Possibilities, edited by James M. McLaughlan and Lloyd Ericson, Greg Kofford Books, 2007: 103-125.

  16. Charles Harrell, This is My Doctrine, The Development of Mormon Theology, Greg Kofford Books, 2011: 22. In footnote 102, (on page 29), he describes how the LDS author Grant Underwood’s studies demonstrate that Joseph Smith did not like the spiritualizing tendencies of the Millerites, and hence became more of a literalist as a sort of reaction to their views. Samuel Morris Brown, In Heaven as it is on Earth, Oxford University Press, 2012, said of some of the Bible prophecies of Isaiah, concerning Isaiah 29, of the unlearned man and learned man not being able to read a sealed book, “Smith’s interpretation drew on a marvelously literal reading of Isaiah.” (p. 124); He further says “There is an audacious literalism in Smith’s instructions for identifying angels, clasping hands with their supernatural brethren.” (p. 189); he further shows how Joseph Smith in interpreting the Bible, even in the New Testament, gave a “marvelously literal reading of Paul.” (p. 260); “In another marvelously literal interpretation of the New Testament, Smith proclaimed that Jesus did only ‘what he seeth the Father do. To Smith, this meant that God, as Christ, had once been a mortal being.” (p. 262); “Smith preached a female deity who was the married companion of the male God rather than the Shaker dyad or Swedenborg’s essential unity or Bohme’s Virgin.” (p. 277).

  17. Joseph Fielding McConkie, His Name Shall Be Joseph: Ancient Prophecies of the Latter Day Seer, Hawkes Publishing, 1980: 212-213, with the chart on page 213 shows the literal dozens of personalities that Joseph Smith personally, and literally, not just in spirit or as a metaphor, saw, heard, touched, and spoke to and learned from, such as Peter, James, and John, Nephi, Jesus Christ, Jon the Baptist, Adam, the Three Nephites, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Elijah, Paul, Mormon, and Moroni to name most of them! See also Brian L. Smith, “I Have a Question,” in Ensign, October, 1994: 62-63. The literalism again, raises the probability very strongly with this background.

  18. J. Spencer Fluhman, ‘A Peculiar People’ Anti-Mormonism and the Making of Religion in Nineteenth-Century America, University of North Carolina Press, 2012: 66-69. The Book of Mormon is no less being continually debated about literalness concerning all facets of its origin and writing and authenticity and background. A good overview is Terryl Givens, By the Hand of Mormon, The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion, Oxford University Press, 2002.

  19. The William E. McLellin Papers, 1854-1880, Edited by Stan Larson, Samuel J. Passey, Signature Books, 2007:380-429.

  20. Hugh Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, Edited by David J. Whittaker, Deseret Book/FARMS, 1991; See also his series of articles in the Improvement Era, “Kangaroo Court,” (March-April 1959); “Just Another Book?” (May-July, 1959), “The Grab Bag,” (July, 1959); “What Frontier, What Camp Meeting?” (August, 1959); “The Comparative Method,” (October-November, 1959).

  21. Orson Pratt, “A Series of Pamphlets,” Liverpool, Published by Franklin D. Richards, 1852, republished by Jerry Burnett and Charles Hope, Orson Pratt Writings of an Apostle, Vol. 2, Mormon Collector Series, Mormon Heritage Publishers, SLC, Utah, 1976. Parley P. Pratt, “Plain Facts, Showing the Falsehood and Folly of The Rev. C. S. Bush,” and “An Answer to Mr. William Hewlitt’s Tract Against the Latter Day Saints,” Manchester, 1840; “A Reply to Mr. Thomas Taylor’s ‘Complete Failure’ and Mr Richard Livesey’s ‘Mormonism Exposed,’” Manchester, England, 1840; Key to the Science of Theology, A Voice of Warning, Classics in Mormon Literature, Deseret Book, 1979.

  22. Kevin Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in John Gee, Brian Hauglid, compilers, editors, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, FARMS, 2005: Chapter 8.

  23. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 2nd edition, edited by Gary P. Gillum, Deseret Book/FARMS, 2000: 4-9; An Approach to the Book of Abraham, edited by John Gee, Deseret Books/FARMS, 2009: Chapter 1 “As Things Stand”; John Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors,” in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, FARMS, (1992): 93-119; Kerry Muhlestein, “The Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith, Revelation and You,” Devotional Speech at BYU-Hawaii, Nov. 12, 2013; Michael Dennis Rhodes, “The Book of Abraham, Divinely Inspired Scripture,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Vol 4 (1992): 120-126.

  24. D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, Origins of Power, Signature Books, 1994: 623, “…Smith who begins to translate them [the papyri] with his white stone…” Wilford Woodruff also said "The Lord is blessing with power to reveal the mysteries of the kingdom of God; to translate by the Urim and Thummim ancient records and hieroglyphics old as Abraham or Adam." in Journal of Discourses, 25 Aug. 1878, 20:65. 67. See also B. H. Roberts, The Truth, the Way, the Life, BYU Studies, 1994: 220, where he states Abraham received his knowledge from the Lord also through the Urim and Thummim. Cf. John L. Brooke, The Refiner’s Fire, The Making of Mormon Cosmology, 1644-1844, Cambridge University Press, 1994:211. Milton V. Backman, Jr., The Heavens Resound, A History of the Latter-Day Saints in Ohio, 1830-1838, Deseret Books, first paperback, 2002: 219, also describes how he thinks the process that produced the Book of Abraham was revelation – “thus through revelation or inspiration from God, he dictated to a scribe the writings of ancient prophets.” David Whitmer described how only true revelations from God only ever came from the seer stone, none other were valid, according to Brant Gardner, Translating the Book of Mormon, Greg Kofford Press, 2011: 104. Joe Sampson indicates it was by gazing through the stones of the ancient Urim and Thummim that heavenly knowledge was received, in Written By the Finger of God, Wellspring Publishing, 1993: 5. Hugh Nibley, One Eternal Round, Deseret Book, 2010: 457-462 finds several ancient traditions and legends about the use of stones for revelation and divination in ancient cultures, and shows parallels with the “Stone of Truth” in the Joseph Smith Papyri. John A. Widtsoe, Joseph Smith as Scientist, Original copyright 1908, Eborn Books, 1990:123, claimed “The doctrine of the use of the Urim and Thummim is in perfect harmony with the established law of modern science, that special media are necessary to bring the unknown world within the range of man’s senses.” Both Orson and his brother Parley Pratt said Joseph Smith translated the Egyptian papyri by the means of the Urim and Thummim, according to Richard S Van Wagoner, Steven C. Walker, “Joseph Smith: the Gift of Seeing,” in Bryan Waterman, editor, The Prophet Puzzle, Signature Books, 1999: 101. Kent Jackson gives what is perhaps the typical Mormon understanding – “the Book of Abraham is a revelation from God and it’s translation was revealed to bless the world with Gospel light.” In From Apostasy to Restoration, Deseret Book, 1996: 211.

  25. Diary of Charles Adams as found in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Vol LXVIII, 1952, p. 285, quoted from H. Michael Marquardt, The Book of Abraham Papyrus Found, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1975: 19.

  26. As found in H. Donl Peterson, “The History and Significance of the Book of Abraham,” in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, editors, Studies in Scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, Vol. 2, Randall Books, 1985: 169. Also in H. Michael Marquardt’s article “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers: A History,” in Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, Signature Books, 2013: 56.

  27. As found in H. Michael Marquardt, ““Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers: A History,” in Ritner, p. 57.

  28. Reverend Henry Caswell, The City of the Mormons or Three Days in Nauvoo, J. G. F. & J Rivington, 2nd edition, enlarged, 1843: 22-23. Can be seen online.

  29. The Joseph Smith Papyri and the Book of Abraham 1835-1856, Basic Historical Information, Preliminary Draft September 19, 1998, Compiled by Matthew Roper (a scholar employed by FARMS). In possession of the author. This conveniently puts most of the eyewitness descriptions together in one place and is a tremendously useful source. Hereafter cited as Basic Historical Information.

  30. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 4.

  31. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 5.

  32. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 11.

  33. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 13. Cf. Bruce R. McConkie, “The Doctrinal Restoration,” in Monte S. Nyman, Robert L. Millet, eds., The Joseph Smith Translation, the Restoration of Plain and Precious Things, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1985: 15 for the same spirit of all inclusion of the biblical view that originated with Joseph Smith, even from the ancient Egyptian papyri he had – “Of what will the Bible consist when it is perfected? Surely it will contain the writings of Adam and Enoch and Noah; of Melchizedek and Isaac and Jacob; and certainly Abraham wrote much more than the Prophet found on the Egyptian papyrus. The Book of Abraham in our Pearl of Great Price is obviously a restored record.”

  34. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 13.

  35. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 15.

  36. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 16.

  37. This is easily seen in Joseph Smith’s own history as well as the Joseph Smith Papers, where all people, Mormon or not, are allowed to see the relics. Joseph Smith History, Period 1, Vol. 2, Deseret Book, 1978: 316, 322, 327, 329, 331, 334, 344, 364, 388, 390, 394, 396. In the Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Vol 1, (1832-1839), Church Historian’s Press, 2008: 73, 76, 105, 109, 113, 120, 122, 123, 135, 147, 178, 180, 184, 186.

  38. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 20.

  39. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 21.

  40. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 22.

  41. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 24.

  42. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 24-25.

  43. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 25.

  44. H. Donl Peterson, “The History and Significance of the Book of Abraham,” p. 172-173.

  45. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 28.

  46. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 29. Roper says Pratt was recorded in the Millenial Star as saying this, but doesn’t have the exact issue.

  47. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 29.

  48. Joseph Fielding McConkie, His Name Shall Be Joseph, Ancient Prophecies of the Latter Day Seer, Hawkes Publishing, 1980: 212, and see the chart on page 213.

  49. Richard Carrier, Proving History, p. 47.

  50. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 32. Cf. Wesley Walters, Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1973: 27.

  51. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 33. See also Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates,Freethinker Press, 1996: 94-95.

  52. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 34. See also Jay M. Todd, The Saga of the Book of Abraham, Deseret Book, 1969: 256. Hereafter cited as Saga.

  53. D. J. Nelson, Facsimile No. 3, Modern Microfilm Company, 1969: 28-29.

  54. Hugh Nibley, “A New Look at the Pearl of Great Price,” in Improvement Era, February, 1968. Reprinted, re-edited by John Gee in An Approach to the Book of Abraham, Deseret Books/FARMS, 2009: 62-68. Cf. same book pp. 7-14 where Nibley attempts to show ancient parallels. But it’s not about ancient parallels it’s about what Joseph Smith and the early Mormons thought, and they thought they had the actual handwriting of Abraham himself, as the evidence clearly shows.

  55. Richard Van Wagoner, Steven Walker, “Joseph Smith: ‘The Gift of Seeing' In Dialogue A Journal of Mormon Thought, p. 60.

  56. Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith, Rough Stone Rolling, Vintage Books, 2005: 292.

  57. John Gee, “Editor’s Introduction,” to An Approach to the Book of Abraham, Deseret Book/FARMS, 2009: xxxv.

  58. Hugh Nibley, “As Things Stand at the Moment,” in An Approach to the Book of Abraham, p. 6. Originally in BYU Studies, 9/1 (Autumn 1968): 72. Hereafter cited as Approach to BofAbr.

  59. Hugh Nibley, “Censoring the Joseph Smith Story,” in David J. Whittaker, editor, Tinkling Cymbals and Sounding Brass, Deseret Book/FARMS, 1991: 61. Hereafter cited as Tinkling Cymbals.

  60. Nibley, Tinkling Cymbals, p. 61.

  61. Nibley, Approach to BofAbr, p. 6, note 9.

  62. Jay M. Todd, Saga, p. 240.

  63. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 25.

  64. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 29. See also Todd, Saga, pp. 237-238.

  65. Todd, Saga, p. 241.

  66. This is easily seen in Joseph Smith’s own history as well as the Joseph Smith Papers, where all people, Mormon or not, are allowed to see the relics. Joseph Smith History, Period 1, Vol. 2, Deseret Book, 1978: 316, 322, 327, 329, 331, 334, 344, 364, 388, 390, 394, 396. In the Joseph Smith Papers, Journals, Vol 1, (1832-1839), Church Historian’s Press, 2008: 73, 76, 105, 109, 113, 120, 122, 123, 135, 147, 178, 180, 184, 186. See also H. Michael Marquardt, in Ritner, Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, p. 31-33. See also H. Donl Peterson, “The History and Significance of the Book of Abraham,” in Studies in Scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, Millet/Jackson, eds., pp. 164-172.

  67. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 32-34. Todd, Saga, pp. 256-257.

  68. Todd, Saga, p. 326.

  69. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 34.

  70. H. Michael Marquardt, “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers, a History,” in Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition, Signature Books, 2013: 30.

  71. Nibley, An Approach to the Book of Abraham, p. 64.

  72. H. Michael Marquardt, “The Book of Abraham Revisited,” https://user.xmission.com/~research/about/abraham.htm See also H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers, Printing Service, 1981: 148; H. Donl Peterson, “The History and Significance of the Book of Abraham,” in Millet/Jackson eds, Studies in Scripture, The Pearl of Great Price, p. 175 for a second scholars’ analysis of this interesting situation, both Marquardt and Peterson are in agreement on this.

  73. Todd, Saga, p. 231.

  74. J. I. Rodale, The Synonym Finder, Warner Books, 1978: 965.

  75. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, 2nd edition, edited by Gary P. Gillum, Deseret Book/FARMS, 2000:4-9.

  76. The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, Oxford at the Clarendon Press, C. T. Onions, editor, reprint, 1983: 725.

  77. Todd, Saga, p. 221. Cf. George Q. Cannon, The Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet, Covenant Communications, 1st print, 2005: 172 – “This book was written by the hand of Abraham while he was in Egypt, and was preserved by the marvelous dispensation of Providence, through all the mutations of time and dangers of distance, to reach the hands of God’s Prophet in this last dispensation.”

  78. See the interesting discussion in S.E.H.A., Society for Early Historic Archaeology, March 1, 1968: p. 7, between Sydney B. Sperry and Ross T. Christensen, where they noted Pratt’s comments in the Millenial Star, July 1, 1842. Also Walter L. Whipple, An Analysis of Textual Changes in ‘The Book of Abraham’ and in the Writings of Joseph Smith, the Prophet, in the Pearl of Great Price, MA Thesis, BYU (1959): 8.

  79. Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?” in H. Donl Peterson, Charles D. Tate, Jr., editors, The Pearl of Great Price: Revelations from God, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 1989: 130. See also Paul Y. Hoskisson, “Where Was Ur of the Chaldees?” in The Ensign, July, 1991: 62-63. Cf. Stephen Thompson, “Egyptology and the Book of Abraham,” Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28/1 (1995): 152-153.

  80. H. Donl Peterson, “The History and Significance of the Book of Abraham,” in Robert L. Millet, Kent P. Jackson, editors, Studies in Scripture: The Pearl of Great Price, Randall Book Co., 1985: 175-176.

  81. H. Michael Marquardt, “Mummies Shown by Joseph Smith,” on Mormon PDF Website.

  82. Marquardt, “Mummies Shown by Joseph Smith.”

  83. Marquardt, “Wilford Woodruff on Mummies and ‘Book of Abraham,’ 2013, Mormon PDF Website.

  84. Marquardt, “Wilford Woodruff on Mummies and ‘Book of Abraham,’ 2013, Mormon PDF Website.

  85. W. D. Davies, “Reflections on the Mormon Canon,” in Harvard Theological Review, 79:1-3 (1986): 50.

  86. Davies, “Reflections,” p. 56.

  87. See James H. Charlesworth “Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon,” in Truman G. Madsen, editor, Reflections on Mormonism, Judaeo-Christian Parallels, BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978: Chapter 7. Krister Stendahl in the same volume, “The Sermon on the Mount and Third Nephi,” shows the Book of Mormon has pseudepigraphic tendencies of adding in ideas to all the gaps of knowledge missing in scripture, and sees the Book of Mormon, and especially 3rd Nephi of Christ’s visit to the Americas, as especially fulfilling that role.

  88. The argument about what kind of description pseudepigrapha belong to can get complicated, as for instance Bart Ehrman in his book Forged calls them forgery, while David Bokovoy calls them scripture, more or less, or at least sides with those who try to make pseudepigrapha as close to canonical scripture as they can. This does have bearing on the Book of Abraham and will be explored in the book.

  89. John Gee, “A Tragedy of Errors,” in Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, Volume 4, 1992: 106-109.

  90. Gee, “Tragedy of Errors,” p. 107. Cf. the gaffe Gee commits in his otherwise fine article “The Role of the Book of Abraham in the Restoration,” where he says that by the time Joseph Smith acquired the papyri, “…there were at least three rolls…” (p. 2). The description was to two rolls. Even B. H. Roberts realized this from the official description – “…some of the Saints purchased the mummies and the two rolls of papyrus, one of which proved to be the writings of Abraham, and the other of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt.” In The Seventy’s Course in Theology, First Year, Grandin Book Company, 1994: 154. In the History of the Church it does say “…some two or more rolls…” (HC, 2:235), and on the next page (page 236) Joseph Smith described how his translation of the characters revealed only the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph. They never did actually describe any third roll. A missing third roll doesn’t help the missing roll theory anyway once you recognize the math problem. If there is a missing “third” roll, that means we still either have the Book of Abraham or else the Book of Joseph. And neither book was found in the papyri we have since returning to the Church in 1967, therefore, since neither book is found in the papyri, Joseph Smith still has not been vindicated. Since two rolls were claimed, and if a missing scroll is really the situation, we still have one of those books Joseph Smith claimed existed in the papyri. Neither one is found by Egyptologists, whether LDS or not. Also see Charles Larson, BY His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, Institute for Religious Research, Revised ed., 1992: pp. 133-134, for Oliver Cowdery’s description in the LDS newspaper, The Messenger and Advocate, of only ever two rolls of papyri. It was while reading the Tanners article “Solving the Mystery of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in their Salt Lake City Messenger, No. 82 (Sept. 1992): 8, that I saw their sharp eye detect Gee mishandling Caswell, and Rhodes simply copying Gee, or Gee simply copying Rhodes. They couldn’t decide, and I don’t need to for the point to be made, there is far too sloppy of research going on in LDS circles with these issues. And far too many assumptions bandying about.

  91. Gee, “Tragedy of Errors,” p. 107-108. See also his discussion in “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in The Disciple as Witness, Essays on Latter-Day Saint History and Doctrine in Honor of Richard Lloyd Anderson, Stephen D. Ricks, Donald W. Parry, Andrew H. Hodges, editors, FARMS, 2000: 185-186 where Gee’s prejudice against Caswell is especially prominent, and he yet again, leaves out the all important description of the glass slides and frames being the Book of Abraham in Caswell’s account. On page 195, Gee says Quincy has also taken liberties with wording, but Gee nowhere indicates a familiarity with H. Michael Marquardt’s work, The Book of Abraham Papyrus Found, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1975: 18-19, showing many different times Joseph Smith described having the “handwriting of Abraham,” and the “Signature of Abraham,” to different people at different times. Gee also has been accused of never having used Wilford Woodruff’s testimonial on the age of the papyri, which does seem rather odd, considering how much importance he puts on eyewitness testimony in his article in the Anderson Festschrift, and its critical importance of provenance for the papyri.

  92. Gee, “Tragedy of Errors,” p. 107-108.

  93. Gee, “Tragedy of Errors,” p. 108, 111.

  94. Andrew W. Cook, Christopher Smith, “The Original Length of the Scroll of Hor,” in Dialogue, a Journal of Mormon Thought, 43, no.4 (winter 2010): 3.

  95. Kerry Muhlestein, “Egyptian Papyri and the Book of Abraham: Some Questions and Answers,” in Religious Educator, 11 No. 1 (2010): 92-93.

  96. See John Gee, “Formulas and Faith,” p. 61 where he continues wrongly citing the evidence that the Book of Abraham was on a long scroll. Cf. Marc Coenen, “The Ownership and Dating of Certain of the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition, Signature Books, 2013: 82, where he agrees there is probably some text missing, but when compared to other papyri of the same kind, the missing hieroglyphics never amount to anything about the Book of Abraham, so what little is missing could not be the Book of Abraham. Dr. Ritner himself says, based on the available evidence, (and he is using Occam’s Razor here, the obvious choice) that the text of the Book of Abraham itself refers back to the illustration of Facsimile 1, and “there can be no question of any ‘lost’ section of the papyrus that contained an ancient text composed by Abraham, since the author of the supposed pre-existent Book of Abraham both claims and depicts the Ptolemaic vignette as his own addition (Facsimile 1) to the tale.” Ritner then references an article that shows Joseph Smith himself claimed Abraham wrote the now recovered papyrus. (p. 118).

  97. Robert Ritner, Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, p. 118.

  98. Robert Ritner, Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, p. 118.

  99. Luke Wilson, “Did Joseph Smith Claim his Abraham Papyrus was an Autograph?” on the website Mormons in Transition. Hereafter cited as “Autograph?”

  100. The Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, Council of Fifty Minutes, March 1844-January 1846, Church Historian’s Press, 2016: 45-46. Cf. Robert Bruce Flanders, Nauvoo, Kingdom on the Mississippi, University of Illinois Press, 1965: 293. See Glen M. Leonard, Nauvoo, a Place of Peace, a People of Promise, Deseret Book/BYU Press, 2002, “Wilford Woodruff, William Clayton, and Willard Richards were especially diligent in recording the spoken word.” (p. 207). See Autobiography of Parley P. Pratt, Revised and Enlarged by Scot Facer Proctor, Maurine Jensen Proctor, Deseret Book, 2000: p. 355 for the impressions and friendship of Parley with Joseph and of Smith healing Elijah Fordham. See note 6 on p. 368 for Woodruff’s take on it. See Dean C. Jesse, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, pp. 480ff for a warm letter of Joseph Smith to the brethren. See also D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy, Origins of Power, Signature Books, 1994: 66-67 for important assignments to the brethren and Woodruff as well. Obviously he was in a trusted position and well used and reliable.

  101. Matthias F. Cowley, Prophets and Patriarchs of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and Cowley’s Talks on Doctrine, Published by Ben E. Rich, 1902, Kessinger Reprint, n.d.,: 70.

  102. The Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 1, Journals 1832-1838, Church Historian’s Press, 2008: 76.

  103. Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 1, Journals, p. 120 (entry for 12 Dec., 1835). P. 120.

  104. Joseph Smith Papers, Vol. 1, Journals, p. 120 (entry for 16 Dec, 1835): p. 123.

  105. Mary Ellen Edmunds, “ A Friend Loveth at All Times,” in A Light Shall Break Forth, Talks from the 2005 BYU Women’s Conference, Deseret Book, 2006: 160.

  106. John W. Welch, Larry E. Morris, editors, Oliver Cowdery, Scribe, Elder, Witness, Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, 2006: 248.

  107. Richard L. Bushman, “Oliver’s Joseph,” in Alexander L. Baugh, Editor, Days Never to Be Forgotten, Deseret Book/BYU, 2009: 1-2.

  108. Scott Faulring, An American Prophet’s Record, p. 93. He said on another occasion “My scribe is included in this covenant and blessing with us, for I love him for the truth and integrity that dwelleth in him.” (p. 111).

  109. As found in Karl Ricks Anderson, The Savior in Kirtland, Deseret Book, 2012: 89. See also Mark Lyman Staker, Hearken, O Ye People, the Historical Setting of Joseph Smith’s Ohio Revelations, Greg Kofford Books, 2009: 521-522; Cf. Richard Bushman, “Whenever they felt uncertainty, people came to Joseph wanting a revelation.” The Rhetoric of Revelation, Ancient and Modern Models, FARMS, 1997: 8.

  110. Wilson, Autograph?, on the website Mormons in Transition.

  111. History of the Church, 6: 76-77. Samuel Morris Brown, In Heaven as it is on Earth, Oxford University Press, 2012: 133, concurs with this interpretation as well, though not specifically discussing Wilson’s argument as we are.

  112. Wilson, Autograph?, on the website Mormons in Transition.

  113. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 15.

  114. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 22.

  115. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 13.

  116. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 32.

  117. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 12-13.

  118. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 15. See Robert Ritner’s description and enumeration of the utterly embarrassing constancy that Nibley made personal attacks against the Egyptologists and scholars of the 1912 affair in The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition, p. 4 and 5, and notes 12, 13.

  119. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 16.

  120. Roper, Basic Historical Information, p. 19. It is profitable to consult Wesley P. Walters, Joseph Smith Among the Egyptians, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1973: 26-29.

  121. H. Michael Marquardt, “Lucy Mack Smith on Mummies and Papyri,” https://user.xmission.com/~research/central/lucymacksmith.pdf

  122. Dean C. Jessee, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, p. xiv-xv.

  123. Samuel Morris Brown, In Heaven as it is on Earth, Oxford University Press, 2012: 85.

  124. Brown, In Heaven as it is on Earth, p. 129.

  125. Kevin Barney, “The Facsimiles and Semitic Adaptation of Existing Sources,” in John Gee, Brian M. Hauglid, editors, Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant, FARMS, 2005: 111. Hereafter cited as “Semitic Adaptation.”

  126. Robert K. Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition, pp. 115-119.

  127. Ed Ashment, “Joseph Smith’s Identification of ‘Abraham’ in Papyrus JS 1, the ‘Breathing Permit of Hor’” in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 33/4, (winter,): 121-126.

  128. Barney, “Semitic Adaptation,” p. 111.

  129. H. Michael Marquardt, “Joseph Smith’s Egyptian Papers: A History,” in Ritner, The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri, A Complete Edition, 2013: p. 50, note 6.

  130. James B. Allen, “Second Only to Christ, Joseph Smith in Modern Mormon Piety,” in The Disciple as Witness, p. 3.

  131. H. Michael Marquardt, The Book of Abraham Papyrus Found, Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1975: 18-19.

  132. Compare Hugh Nibley, “Challenge and Response,” in An Approach to the Book of Abraham, p. 65, and notice he can’t find anything about the literal handwriting issue, because there wasn’t anything. Joseph Smith never corrected it because he actually did believe it, and he said so numerous times, all of which Nibley completely ignored. Notice also John Gee, “Eyewitness, Hearsay, and Physical Evidence,” p. 194, discusses how Joseph Smith let others speculate about who the mummies were, but again, there is no discussion about the issue of literal handwriting, because there was no argument there from Joseph Smith. He didn’t have to correct what he had always taught, that the handwriting and signatures were literally Abraham’s and Joseph’s, and in some witnesses, he even said Moses and Aaron’s! He never did say who he thought the mummies were, and didn’t care nearly as much as he did that the handwriting was literally Abraham’s, as the evidence clearly shows.

  133. Richard Carrier, Proving History, p. 60.

  134. Carrier, Proving History, p. 62.

  135. The most damaging review was by fellow BYU professor Kent P. Jackson, BYU Studies, 28, No. 4 (Fall, 1988): 115-116 – “In most of the articles Nibley shows a tendency to gather sources from a variety of cultures all over the ancient world, lump them all together, and then pick and chooses the bits and pieces he wants. By selectively including what suits his presuppositions and ignoring what does not, he is able to manufacture an ancient religious system that is remarkably similar in many ways to our own – precisely what he sets out to demonstrate in the first place.” And that’s just one of his points. Unfortunately, Nibley never repented of this fatal defect, and went all out in his final book One Eternal Round, which we will examine in much greater detail in our forth coming book. Others lamented the same problem in many of Nibley’s works, thus showing his fatally flawed method was used throughout his work. He harped against method, in order to justify using a faulty confirmation biased method, that in the end, removes anything he ever wrote as having any value for finding out what really happened. And that is quite sad. See also the further critiques of Robert K. Ritner against Nibley’s method in “The Breathing Permit of Hor Among the Joseph Smith Papyri,” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 62, no. 3 (2003): 162 and note 7. The devastating critique of Nibley’s method by Douglas F. Salmon, “Parallelomania and the Study of Latter-Day Scripture: Confirmation, Coincidence, or the Collective Unconscious?” in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 33/2 (2000): 129-155. Stephen Thompson, “Egyptology and the Book of Abraham,” in Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 28/1 (1995): 143-160; H. Michael Marquardt, The Book of Abraham Papyrus Found, An Answer to Dr. Hugh Nibley’s Book ‘The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment,’ As It Relates to the Source of the Book of Abraham, Utah Lighthouse Ministries, 1975; Stan Larson, Quest for the Gold Plates, Freethinker Press, 1996:85-132; John W. Welch’s discussion of Cenez/Zenos in the allegory of the olive tree in the Book of Mormon, and Nibley’s treatment of it, suggests Nibley was far too hasty and over-zealous, finding a superficial parallel to support the Book of Mormon in The Allegory of the Olive Tree, FARMS/ Deseret Books, 1994: 313; See also Ed Ashment, “The Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham,” in Sunstone, nos. 5,6 (Dec 1979): 33-43; Rodger I. Anderson, Joseph Smith’s New York Reputation Re-examined, Signature Books, 1990: 11-26 against Nibley’s methods are echoed by Jackson in his review of Nibley; Todd Compton’s review of Nibley in Farms Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, no.1 (1989): 117, On Nibley’s conclusions – “sometimes he certainly seems to act as if his conclusions are proven.”; Bill Hamblin’s review of Nibley, Farms Review of Books on the Book of Mormon, no. 2 (1990): “… his presentation contains some methodological weaknesses…” “Nibley’s method does contain some weaknesses…”(p. 123), Nibley’s case weakened by using marginal parallels, but more significantly, “Nibley often ignores equally significant differences…” (p. 124), “Nibley’s methodology consists more of comparative literature than history,” “he is in error when he then seems to assume that there were extensive socioeconomic parallels (e.g., horse and sheep nomadism) as well.” “I feel Nibley’s case would be strengthened if he had paid more careful attention to the historical characteristics of his evidence such as the chronological, geographical, and cultural details of the parallels he analyzes.” (p. 125). This last criticism is certainly echoed by Stephen Thompson and Douglas F. Salmon! David B. Honey’s review of Nibley’s World of the Jaredites, There Were Jaredites, is quite devastating as he shows Nibley was so much more anxious to even make parallels of the Book of Ether concerning the Jaredites with ancient Epic Literature, that he missed the entire point of epic! He got nothing correct because he was doing apologetics instead of real historical investigation. There is fundamentally nothing epic in Ether as Honey demonstrates, and laments. Again, Nibley’s methods of parallels from anywhere ancient to confirm his pet theory was soundly refuted by Honey. We are aware of the reviews of Salmon by other FARMS scholars, and in our forth-coming book will deal extensively in detail with all such reviews, both pro and con, as well as interact much more with Nibley’s materials. For now, we just notice that his flawed method has not gone un-noticed by either his own LDS scholars, or non-Mormons who simply cannot accept such a weak method. And he, unfortunately never changed it for over 50 years.

  136. Richard L. Bushman, Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, University of Illinois Press, 1984: 187-188.

  137. Devery S. Anderson, Gary James Bergera, editors, Joseph Smith’s Quorum of the Anointed 1842-1845 ,Signature Books, 2005: xxi-xxii.

  138. The Joseph Smith Papers, Administrative Records, Council of the Fifty Minutes – March 1844-January 1846, Church Historian’s Press, 2016: 96, n. 259. “Elder G. J. Adams spoke of some things he had thought of during the day. He would like to have a king to reign in righteousness, and inasmuch as our President is proclaimed prophet, priest, and king. He is ready when the time comes to go and tell the news to 10000 people.” (p. 105). “A correspondent to the Missouri Republican wrote form Nauvoo that Joseph Smith was a ‘Mormon King’ and ruled over his people through ‘his triune function of Prophet, Priest, and King.” (p. 133, n. 403). In March 1845, “The question was asked, Do you receive Pres. B. Young as successor of Pres. Joseph Smith and prophet, priest, and king to his kingdom forever after, the vote was unanimous.” (p. 256).

  139. Jedediah S. Rogers, The Council of Fifty, Signature Books, 2014: 4, n. 10. Rogers also noted that “John Taylor, Young’s successor, revitalized the Council in 1880 and had himself anointed king in early 1885.” (p. 13).

  140. Milan D. Smith, “That is the Handwriting of Abraham”, Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, 23.4 (Winter 1990): 167-169.

APPENDIX 1

Joseph Smith’s Literalness as found in Primary Sources

The Papers of Joseph Smith, Vol 1, Journals, 1832-1839, Church Historian’s Press, 2008

p. 16-18. Stars falling from heaven on Nov. 13, 1833, he said “a literal fulfillment of the Word of God, as recorded in the holy scriptures, and a sure sign that the coming of Christ is close at hand.”

p. 21. believed in the literal resurrection of the House of Israel.

p. 26. Believed in a literal Zion.

p. 31. literal prophecies and revelations of the Gathering of Zion.

p. 40. A literal House of the Lord (Kirtland Temple), a real building of wood, stone, glass, etc, not a spiritual house within each person’s bosom.

p. 47. A literal Christ crucified for our sins.

p. 51. Believed in a literal “Voice of the Spirit” which communicated with him verbally.

p. 64. A literal “Voice of the Spirit of the Lord” communicating with him.

p. 67. Creating a literal alphabet of the Egyptian Grammar.

p. 77. Believed in literal angels.

p. 79. Believed in the literal building up of Zion.

p. 88. Literal Father and Son persons in his First Vision, and many angels.

p. 89. A literal Moroni and literal gold plates.

p. 98. A literal ordinance of washing of feet, not a symbolic gesture.

p. 103. A literal omniscient and omnipresent Jehovah, sits on a throne fashioner of all existing things.

p. 104. God literally speaks instruction from heaven.

p. 109. Literally “translated some of the Egyptian records.”

p. 111. Missouri, the literal land of Zion will be built on.

p. 120-121. It is literally necessary for God to reveal Himself to man, in order for their happiness.

p. 123. Egyptian papyri literally taught a formation of a planetary system.

p. 142. A literal Satan who they could foil attempts to destroy him and the church.

p. 153. Literally tries to emulate and “patronize all the institutions of heaven.”

p. 160. Believed the Spirit of the Lord rushed in on the council and they literally obtained the gift of tongues.

p. 166. Believed in literal baptism in order to literally receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

p. 167. Blessed to be like Moses and literally lead Israel into the Latter Days.

p. 167. Literally saw the literal Celestial Kingdom, the blazing throne of God, saw Adam, Abraham, and Michael, and some of his deceased family.

p. 168. In vision of a literal Celestial Kingdom, he also saw the literal redemption of Zion, literal angels, and the armies of heaven.

p. 172. Visions of God and angels attending him throughout the night.

p. 174. Vision of Robert Orton, saw a mighty angel riding a horse of fire with a flaming sword in his hand. Saved the group from a literal Satan and his host of evil spirits.

p. 177. Believed in a literal Book of Life.

p. 178. Showed the record of Abraham to his Hebrew professor Seixas in the School of the Prophets.

p. 179. Scriptures, Stick of Joseph, Stick of Judah, law of Ephraim aside from that of Moses, all literally understood. The literal Spirit told them the Lord was pleased.

p. 181. Spirit of the Lord literally flowed with some of the brethren, but not with others.

p. 182. Various members saw the Lords host in vision. Visions showing them literal reality.

p. 186. Believed Hebrew literally the original language.

p. 204. Leaders sustained as literal prophets, seers, special witnesses to the nations.

p. 211. During prayer of dedication of Kirtland Temple, angels entered the window and sat with the congregation.

p. 215-216. Jesus appeared to some in Kirtland, angels to others.

p. 219. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery see the Lord, then Moses, then Elias, then Elijah, all literal persons with flesh and bone from heaven come to earth to visit them.

p. 239. Literalness of Bible on stem and rod of Jesse and identifications of real people. Nothing is spiritualized or turned into metaphors.

p. 258. A literal restoration of the church Jesus started in his own day.

p. 271. A literal Adam.

p. 283. A literal Kingdom of God.

p. 284. A literal gathering physically of Israel into Zion, a bodily group gathering.

p. 289-290. Missouri constantly called literally the Land of Zion.

p. 293. The Danites (which were built on the ancient Israelite organization in the Bible).

p. 297. Going to specific places because that’s what the revelation of God told them to do. These are real physical geographical locations they go back and forth to.

p. 306. Talks of people literally leaving where they lived and physically gathering into Zion geographically. Nothing spiritual or inner light kind of mysticism involved, just plain physical literal doing what Joseph Smith interpreted the Bible saying.

p. 308. The literal destruction of the wicked. This is the time God has ordained for all things to be gathered into one, i.e. Joseph Smith’s day.

p. 309. Literal revelation.

In order to save space, we have found more of the same style of assumptions, and literal interpretations and expositions in all the volumes of The Joseph Smith Papers Project; in the 2nd volume of the Joseph Smith Papers Journal, the Revelations and Translations (both volumes), in both volumes of Histories, and all three volumes of the Documents, which include letters, discussions, meetings, counsels, etc. There is precious scarce evidence of anything other than literalism in the mentality of Joseph Smith when it comes to the Bible, whether of personalities, places, events, concepts, or philosophy. What we have discovered is a fundamental literalist in the truest sense of the word. His “metaphysics” is pure physical, pure literal.

His “Inspired translation” of the Bible never once intimated, hinted, or described anything in the Bible as being unreal, or having not actually occurred, or metaphysical and ethereal. He added much to the Bible which he believed was missing, all of it in a literal vein or elaborating on what really happened as opposed to what was taken out by designing scribes from antiquity who damaged the Bible’s message. He never questioned the occurrences of anything or anyone in the Bible, he added to their literalness in each and every change he ever made. So, we would add the Joseph Smith Translation to the great corpus of available Joseph Smith primary sources for our background calculations for determining what probability to use.

An American Prophet’s Record, Diaries and Journals of Joseph Smith, Scott Faulring, Signature Books, 1989

p. 3. Literal Church of Christ.

p. 4. Literal Bible.

pp. 6-7. Literal angel.

p. 8. Literal work of the Lord.

p. 10. Literal revelations.

p. 11. Literal guiding of the Spirit of the Lord.

p. 13. Literal spirit utterance.

p. 14. Literal Gift of Tongues.

p. 16. Literal Zion.

p. 17. Literal restore Israel from its ancient scattering.

p. 17 “Then [we] proce[e]ded to bow down before the Lord and dedicate the printing press and all that pertains thereunto to God by mine own hand…” Interesting indication of how he understood that phrase!

p. 18. Literal God of the Bible.

p. 20 Literal scriptures.

p. 22. Literal gathering of Israel.

p. 26. Literal Lord’s House.

p. 27. Literal laying on of hands.

p. 30. Literal tithing.

p. 31. Literal prophecy.

p. 31. Literal Jesus.

p. 33. Literal Holy Spirit.

p. 35. Literal Spirit.

p. 35. Literal astronomy from papyrus.

p. 36. Literal creation.

P. 37. Literal Power of God with them.

p. 38. Literal translating the records of papyri.

p. 38. Literal God speaking.

p. 38. Literal healing.

p. 40. Literal land of Zion.

p. 40. Literal tongues.

p. 41. Literal revelation.

p. 45. Literal revelation.

p.46. Literal revelation.

p. 47. Literal revelation.

p. 48. Literal revelation.

p. 49. Literal revelation.

p. 51. Literal Joshua the minister, literal 1st Vision experience, Joseph Smith back at him.

p. 51. Literal angel and plates telling Joshua the minister.

pp. 51-54. Literal Joshua and Joseph Smith trying to out-literal each other!

p. 56. Literal Jesus Crucified and darkness.

p. 57. Literal House of God.

p. 57. Literal Christ return.

p. 58. Literal healings.

p. 58. Literal Destroying Angel.

p. 58. Literally see Jesus.

p. 59. Joseph Smith is the Lord’s literal Seer.

p. 59. Joseph Smith’s religious experiences are literal, not symbolic.

p. 63. Literal revelation on behalf of another who submitted to Joseph Smith’s revelation as literal truth for them.

p. 64. The literal work they had to do for the Lord in the earth, now.

p. 66. Translating literally from Egyptian papyri.

p. 67. Literal marriage in the Garden of Eden. Also a literal Adam and Eve.

p. 68. Literally transcribing Egyptian characters.

p. 68. Literal healing.

p. 69. Literal mocking from enemies about his literal revelations.

p. 74. Literal healing.

p. 75. Literal exhibiting of literal ancient mummies.

p. 77-78. Showing the literal records of Abraham and Joseph to visitors. Literal formation of planetary system in the papyri.

p. 86. Literal Satan.

p. 88. Literal Bible.

p. 89. Literally his doctrines are true.

p. 90. Literal Bible.

p. 91. Exhibited the literal ancient papyrus.

p. 92. Literal revelation.

p. 93. Joseph Smith delights in the company of his scribe, Warren Parrish. Cf. p. 111.

p. 94. Literal devil.

p. 98. Literal Voice of the Spirit to him.

p. 105. Literal drinking of wine because the Savior did, so they literally copy him in his actions.

p. 112. Literal Gift of Tongues come on them like a mighty rushing wind.

p. 115. Hebrew the literal original language.

p. 117. Literal Bible, do it.

p. 118, 119. Literal Bible. Literal Celestial Kingdom as a literal place. Literal Bible, literal redemption of Zion.

p. 120. Literal angels. Literal armies of heaven. Literal visions.

p. 121. Literal angels ministered to them.

p. 123. Literal pillar of fire on their heads seen by some.

p. 124-125. Literal host of evil spirits seen. Literal Satan.

p. 126-127. Literalness in several Patriarchal Blessings.

p. 127. Literal visions and angels descending.

p. 127. Showing Hebrew teacher Seixas the literal papyri and discussing the literal teachings in them to him.

p. 128. Literal Bible.

p. 129. Literal Holy Spirit like fire in their bones.

p. 130. Literal Tongues.

p. 131. Showing literal papyri.

p. 133-134. Showed literal Egyptian manuscripts.

p. 136. Literal healing.

p. 145. Literal Prophets and Seers of all the Presidency.

p. 146-151. Dedicatory Prayer of Temple at Kirtland, literalness throughout.

p. 152. Literal angels. Zion a literal place.

p. 153. Literal washing of feet because Jesus did so. They emulate him literally.

p. 155. Literally speaking in tongues all night until 5 a.m., Jesus and angels literally show up and visit them.

p. 156. Joseph Smith’s favorite theme is the literal Redemption of Zion.

p. 157-158. Literal Savior literally visits them. Literal Moses too, literal Elias, literal Elijah all visit them in one night.

p. 161-162. Questions on Bible, literal answers of many Bible passages.

p. 175. Literal building up the place of Zion and the House of God. Not people, a literal building.

p. 180. Literal astronomy in the papyrus.

p. 181. Literal destruction of the wicked.

p. 184. Literal Nephite altar they found.

p. 186. Literal House of the Lord corner stones set.

p. 191- 195. Literal revelations.

p. 196. Literal land where Adam dwelt, the same land they were gathering to, literally, physically where Adam himself walked.

p. 200. Literal God speaks often unto us, meaning them, the group associated with Joseph Smith.

p. 206. Literal revelation.

p. 208. Literal destruction of the wicked.

p. 210. Literal Zion shelters the righteous from the destruction of the wicked.

p. 218. Literal Bible.

p. 226-227. Literal Bible.

p. 238. Literal Book of Mormon and Bible.

p. 240. Literal coming of the Son of Man.

p. 244-245. Literal Bible, different kinds of spirits, etc.

p. 253. Literal Satan.

p. 255. Literal physical resurrection.

p. 257. Literal Zion and Jerusalem and Priesthood.

p. 262. Literal Christ and resurrected Saints shall reign over the earth.

p. 266. Literal Bible.

p. 296. Literal John the Baptist.

p. 300. Literal Jonah, Literal Bible.

p. 303-304. Literal against the Millerites.

p. 306. Literal dirt and water earth to become a literal Urim and Thummim.

p. 327. Literal Gog and Magog.

p. 332. Literal sign in the heavens, God on his throne.

p. 335-336. Literal signs of the times in the heavens.

p. 338. Literal Jesus shall appear as a warrior on the white horse.

p. 339-341. God as a man literally

p. 349-350. Literal God of flesh and bones. Literal Second Coming and when. Literal Bible.

p. 353. Literal Ancient of Days, a literal person.

p. 355-356. Literal beasts in heaven.

p. 357-358. Literal Daniel.

p. 359. Literal 2nd Coming.

p. 363. Literal Bible.

p. 365-367. Literal Bible, many parts of the Bible discussed in these pages.

p. 378-379. Literal Bible.

p. 383-386. Literal Council in Heaven, and priesthood, and gathering of Israel. Spirits in prison, Jesus, Paul, God and angels, Moses, baptism, etc.

p. 395-396. Literal Elohim. Literal Bible.

p. 398-399. Literal resurrection. Literal Bible.

p. 404-405. Literal Bible.

P. 409-410. Literal Bible.

p. 418-421. Literal Bible. God, angels, Spirits of just men, Patriarch Adam, Flesh and bone quickened by spirit in heaven, Noah, resurrection, etc.

p. 463. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is literally the church of God.

p. 464. Kingdom of Heaven is a literal government supposed to be on earth.

p. 465-468. King Follett Discourse, literal throughout.

p. 482. Literal record of their own people, i.e. the Book of Mormon, given to an Indian chief.

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Books, 22nd print, 1973

Again, though a highly edited book of so much of Joseph Smith’s teachings, there is nothing of mythologizing in Joseph Smith’s teachings in this collection either. There is never any question about whether Moses was an actual historical person, or if King David actually said what the Bible records, etc. There is no spiritualizing any doctrine no matter how trivial or grand, into anything other than a literal occurrence or saying or place. There are hundreds and hundreds of examples of literality contained in this masterful collection that has been used by millions through the decades. Yet, another book we present in toto of the background literality of Joseph Smith’s overall mental acumen. And he kept his literal thinking throughout his entire life. There is no evolution of his thinking into some vague sort of higher spiritual mentality or some such as New Age gurus pontificate on in our day. If any evolution occurred in Joseph Smith’s thinking, it went from literal to even more literal, to almost ridiculous proportions. And once again, this book is yet again, added to the growing pile of background which definitely influences the probability of the background concerning our investigation into Joseph Smith believing he had Abraham’s autograph in those papyri he possessed. This book, in other words, helps make a difference.

The Words of Joseph Smith, compiled and edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, Religious Studies Center, BYU, 2nd printing, 1981

We will save you an enormous amount of time, and space here as well. Through the various journals and diaries kept by Wilford Woodruff; Joseph Smith Diary by James Mulholland; McIntire Minute Book; Jonathan Dunham Diary; Nauvoo Relief Society Minutes; William Clayton Journals; Franklin D. Richards Scriptural items; Willard Richards Diary, etc., that Ehat and Cook utilize, there is never found anything other than accepting the Bible as it states what happened, or what happened to who, or who said what, who went where, with who, if anyone, etc. It is literally all literal in the most complete sense of understanding that term. We encourage one and all to read this for yourselves. There is nothing explained away as meaning something else metaphysically than what actually was said or done according to the Bible. There is never any discussion or question about whether this or that biblical person actually existed, or if there is any question about any geographical locality, etc. In other words, there is simply no Higher Criticism at all in Joseph Smith’s thinking. We present, yet again, this book, as another entire many hundred paged book of evidence as we do with the entire D&C as background material for Joseph Smith’s actual literality, nothing metaphysically vague, of which there is an astonishing abundance of it. We can truly say he is saturated with it. Joseph Smith did not start out literal and then through time become more vague, spiritual or symbolic. The doctrines remained literal throughout his life. Joseph Smith was no Philo of Alexandria.

The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, by Dean C. Jesse, Deseret Book, 1984

p. 3 Literal revelation.

pp. 4-14. Everything in his history is literal.

p. 17. Literal revelation.

p. 18. Literal.

p. 20. Literal, and literal gift of tongues, literal Bible, etc.

pp. 20-21. Literal 2nd coming.

p. 22. Literal land of Zion.

p. 23. Literal restoration of Israel. Literal bow God set in the sky.

p. 24. Literal God and Satan.

p. 25. Literal God of Israel. Literal Kingdom of God. Literal land of Zion.

p. 26. Literal gathering of Zion.

p. 29. Literal prophesying.

p. 33. Literal House of the Lord.

p. 34. Literal land of inheritance. Literal Kingdom. Literal Holy Ghost.

P. 36. Literal.

p. 37. Literal tithing, literal Bible (Jacob).

p. 38. Literal Christ crucified. Literal voice of the Spirit.

p. 58. Literal land of Missouri, the land of Zion.

p. 59. Literal redemption of Zion.

This kind of literalness of so many themes, Creation of God, angels, the Book of Mormon, prophecy, The Word of the Lord, Voice of God, Celestial Kingdom, healings, etc., etc., is on so many pages, there is really no reason to show them. It is found on pp. 60-163 with almost two literal events on each page, for instance. Again, even in his personal writings that Joseph Smith in no wise ever thought would be published, letters, his personal diary, etc., there is no other kind of Joseph Smith but the literal Prophet, Seer, and Revelator of the literal living God. The most prominent, indeed, the only discussion, in over 700 pages, is the literality of everything Joseph Smith believed about the Bible, God, angels, and mankind’s future in heaven and here on earth. Again, to save space, we present this entire book collection, magnificently edited by Dean Jesse as yet again, another entire primary evidence book of hundreds of items showing the background of Joseph Smith in all its literality. And, properly asking is this the kind of evidence we would expect in Joseph Smith’s background if he actually was so blatantly literal as to imagine, believe, think, call it what you want, that he had an autograph of the Biblical Abraham? Yes, it most certainly is what we would expect to see, and do see. Again, this helps establish probability, it is not a final answer. But it is essential background that must be included in our calculations of probability on this issue of Joseph Smith believing he had Abraham’s actual handwriting and autograph.

APPENDIX 2

Literalness of Joseph Smith’s followers and believers who repeat what he taught them

We will use the Journal of Discourses as an excellent example as they are conveniently collected for us in one place, and are given by numerous followers of Joseph Smith, not just one or two people. We also have here a collection of hundreds and hundreds of sermons and talks demonstrating the power of Joseph Smith’s literalness on his followers, who continued teaching what he had taught them. We have not anywhere nearly exhausted the literalness in them in the upcoming indications, just given a limited number of page selections of what is available, which can be multiplied over a hundred times per volume, easily.

Not once in several hundreds of sermons do we find even one denial of any biblical personality of being mere myth or not having lived or did as the Bible recounts their actions, reactions, etc. And in several instances, we find truly unique doctrines from Joseph Smith that his followers continued preaching for decades after his death. They repeated what he taught them in as literal a sense as he depicted originally when it came to biblical persons and their actions, words, and experiences with God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost and with each other. We found the same with the Book of Mormon though far less frequently than their Biblical elaborations.

Journal of Discourses Vol. 1

p. 2. Intelligence is eternal in its nature as God’s is.

p. 11. Literal spirit world.

p. 21. Literal baptism and Gift of the Holy Ghost, a literal being.

p. 37. Jesus literal and lives right now.

p. 50. God is literally the Father of our spirits.

p. 70 When one is full of the Holy Ghost one can see behind him without ever turning his head he is so full of light and intelligence.

p. 93. The Supreme God is in every one of us. The actual elements in our bodies are of the Supreme deity.

p. 114. All kingdoms, principalities, power, holiness, and thrones is for us, whether in heaven or hell.

p. 170 a Literal Devil to tempt Eve otherwise her eyes would not have been opened.

p. 203 Literal millennium and literal devil literally bound so there will be peace.

p. 257. Literal Bible and intelligences independent in their own spheres. (pure literal Joseph Smith doctrine).

p. 300 Literal Biblical dispensations and people in them.

p. 342. Literal Bible, literal creation of God.

p. 369. Literally millions of spirits waiting to inhabit our physical bodies form a premortal existence.

VOLUME 2

p. 20. Literal Almighty God.

p. 68. Saviors on Mount Zion.

p. 108. Literal Father in heaven, prophets, Apostles, High Priests, etc.

p. 153. We be one literally as the Father and Son are one. Uses literal Bible as the model.

p. 219. Literal House of God in the tops of the mountains.

p. 246. Literal revelation.

p. 309. Literal Kingdom of God to literally be on this earth.

VOLUME 3

p. 8. Literal speaking in tongues.

p. 9. Literal spirit helping a lost person find his way.

p. 30. Literal Daniel gave literal prophecies about literal nations, all literally fulfilled.

p. 46. Literal Jesus literal healings in his day.

p. 94. Literal Bible.

p. 95. Literal Devil.

p. 144. Literal Bible, literal Jesus, Literal Holy Spirit.

p. 177. Literal Bible on Jesus says it exactly as it happened. What it says is what happened at his birth, life and crucifixion.

p.205. Literal miracles performed by Jesus.

p. 259. Literal Gold Plates, literal Book of Mormon.

p. 282. Literal earthly Zion will be beautiful.

p. 309. Book of Mormon stories of ancient prophets literally fulfilled.

p. 342. Literal Bible, literal Adam and Eve, literal fall.

p. 371. Spirits are just refined matter. (Literally Joseph Smith’s unique doctrine). And believed and taught here as well.

VOLUME 4

p. 5. Literal Celestial Kingdom, with literal Peter, Paul, Adam, Noah, Job, Daniel, and all other prophets and apostles of the Bible will be there.

p. 72. Literal angels and literal Jesus.

p. 133. Literal resurrection of spirits and body, united forever and have great power.

p. 187. Literal God and Holy Ghost, have literally chosen the Saints.

p. 240. Literal Jesus and Peter conversation happened as Bible tells it.

p. 273. Literal Father, literal Son, literal Holy Ghost and their respective roles, powers, and abilities.

p. 320. Literal angels observing their acts, as is God.

p. 360. Literal restoration of all things which prophets of old spoke about in the literal Bible.

VOLUME 5

p. 88. Mormonism literally the Kingdom of God on earth.

p. 190. Literal Kingdom of God on earth, literal Celestial Kingdom in heaven.

p. 216. Literal revelation from Jesus Christ giving sure knowledge.

p. 240. Literal Bible and Literal Book of Mormon both teach the same thing.

p. 257. The glorious and glory of the Spirit World literally awaits us.

p. 287. Literal Israel under a literal prophet Moses.

p. 312. Literal eternal worlds.

p. 346. They know the will and work of God for he has literally told them what it is.

p. 372. Mormonism is the literal Kingdom of God.

p. 375. The Lord will literally fight their battles.

p. 376. Literal coming of the Son of Man very soon.

VOLUME 6

p. 1-11, King Follett Discourse, all quite literal.

p. 39-40. The spirits in us are literal and are for receiving glory and power and priesthood and happiness.

p. 54. Literal Heavenly Father.

p. 99. We are literally sons of God and will be crowned literally.

p. 136. A literal Celestial Kingdom.

p. 138. A literal city of Enoch.

p. 141. The Kingdom of God is theirs, right here, right now.

p. 207. Literal temples, literal Zion in Salt Lake.

p. 253. Literal angels and miraculous healings, prophesies, etc.

p. 261. The Spirit of the Lord is what prepares the way for missionaries.

p. 289. Literal Bible and promise to Abraham seed as numerous as the stars.

p. 312. Literal Godly judgment.

p. 335. Spirit of the Savior poured out upon all people.

p. 352. Gospel preached to Abraham, literal Bible, Paul, etc.

p. 376. The Spirit of God discloses the knowledge of science.

VOLUME 7

p. 7. Literal God and Jesus as flesh and bones.

p. 17. Literal Joshua and literal Bible. History as it tells it. It says it, what it says happened.

p. 76. Literal Bible, Malachi, etc.

p. 120. Literal Bible.

p. 140. Literal God, literal hell.

p. 170. Literal Bible, literal Jacob, Literal Joseph.

p. 197. Literal God, literal Satan.

p. 251. Literal Adam.

p. 299. As Jesus was a literal man, so the Father in Heaven is a literal man.

p. 325. A literal Holy Ghost and its influence.

p. 362. Literal Bible, the Gospels.

VOLUME 8

p. 152. Literal visions, literal eternal intelligence in us.

p. 174. There is a literal spirit in all of us.

p. 205. God is literally the source of all intelligence.

p. 231. We are saviors on Mount Zion.

p. 247. Literally the last days, a literal Kingdom of God. Literal Daniel, Literal Bible.

p. 293. Literal Kingdom of God here on earth, Literal God, Literal angels.

p. 313. Literal Holy Ghost.

p. 349. Literal Kingdom of priests and priestesses. We are them. Literal Bible.

p. 375. Literal Devil.

VOLUME 9

p. 11. Guided by the literal gift of the Holy Ghost.

p. 53. Literal Bible, ark of the covenant, Moses.

p. 75. Literal Bible, James, faith without works is dead.

p. 96. Literal Bible, literal revelations to them.

p. 122. Literal God, literal Devil.

p. 159, Literal Book of Mormon, Jaredites, Nephites, Lamanites.

p. 181. Literal Bible.

p. 221. Literal Bible, literal Paul.

p. 254. A literal Almighty.

p. 288. Literal revelation.

p. 319. Literal Bible, Abraham a polygamist.

p. 321. God the Father of our Spirits, the Great Ruler of the universe.

p. 329. Literally the Father and God of the universe.

p. 343. Literal Bible, Psalms.

p. 376. Literal Bible, Jesus, Peter, James, and John.

VOLUME 10

p. 4. Literal Bible, God, Joseph of Egypt.

p. 9 Literal Bible, literal Savior.

p. 36. Literal revelation shedding light on people.

p. 68. Literal thrones to inherit and gain thrones and dominions.

p. 132. Being one literally with God and Christ. Literal Bible.

p. 196. Literal charity, feed the hungry and poor.

p. 211. Literal Bible literal Daniel prophecy.

p. 235. Literal Bible, literal God literal Adam.

p. 264. Literal Kingdom of God.

p. 279. Literal Lord and Father of them all.

p. 300. Literal Bible, Adam and Eve story.

p. 316. Literal Jesus, literal Devil.

p. 344. Literal Bible, literal revelation as a stream, has not stopped because Joseph Smith was dead.

p. 355. Literal Garden of Eden, Adam, Michael.

p. 365. Literal Bible, literal Zion.

VOLUME 11

p. 13. Literal Jesus, literal Satan.

p. 48. Literal Bible, literal apostles.

p. 92. Joseph Smith literal prophecy.

p. 93. Literal Bible, Nicodemus.

p. 124. Literal Bible, John the Baptist, Jesus.

p. 145. Literal Bible, Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

p. 210. Literal Bible, Jesus, Pharisees.

p. 237. Literal Power of the Spirit.

p. 262. Literal God who rules over his children.

p. 319. Literal scriptures. Lessons from them for today.

VOLUME 12

p. 53. God literally has his eye on everyone.

p. 73. Literal Bible, baptisms for the dead.

p. 93. Literal last days.

p. 108 Literal revelation enlightens our minds literally.

p. 131. Literal Moses, literal Jesus.

p. 142. Literal Bible, literal Joseph the Pharaoh of Egypt.

p. 197. Literal Book of Mormon.

p. 210. Literal scriptures, literal Jesus Christ.

p. 324. Literally the offspring of God. We are this.

VOLUME 13

p. 16. Literal Bible, literal Peter.

p. 38-39. Literal Bible, literal polygamy.

p. 72. Literal Bible people.

p. 104. Literality of Joseph Smith got him persecuted.

p. 140. Literal Jesus teaching literal people in his day. Literal Bible.

p. 185. Literal Bible. Literal God created people, literal polygamy.

p. 234. Literal God interacts with people on earth.

p. 271. Christ is literally the light of this planet.

p. 306. Literal God is the Supreme Being.

p. 337-338. Literal Bible, literal James and his teachings.

p. 355. Literal Bible, literal prophecies we believe in.

VOLUME 14

p. 2. Literal return of Jesus Christ, but Millerites are wrong about the time.

p. 10. Literal Book of Mormon.

p. 24. Literal Bible, literal last days, right now. Bible shows it.

p. 60. Literal New Testament, literal Christ events occurred as told.

p. 96. Literal Bible, literal Jesus baptism, literal Holy Ghost, what the dove was, etc.

p. 126. Literal Bible. Jesus cleansing the temple.

p. 170. Literal Bible, literal revelation.

p. 200, the doctrine we teach is the Bible doctrine, period.

p. 236. Literal Bible. Earth our literal inheritance.

p. 272. Literal Bible, literal Paul.

p. 299. Literal Zion fulfills prophecy in Bible being in the mountain tops.

p. 321. Literal Bible, literal John the revelator.

p. 346. Literal Zion in Bible times, and now in ours.

VOLUME 15

p. 1. Literal Lord and angels.

p. 21. Literal revelation.

p. 51. Literal Bible, literal Paul.

p. 72. Literal Bible, literal Daniel prophecy fulfilled.

p. 100. Literal revelation directly from God.

p. 125. Literal Bible, literal New Testament.

p. 133. Build literal Zion already! Taking way too long.

p. 162. Literal heaven, literal angels.

p. 180. Literal Book of Mormon.

p. 192-193. All scriptures of LDS literally true, real revelation.

p. 216. Literal ancient Israel, literal modern Israel.

p. 273. Literal New Jerusalem to be built in America.

p. 300. Literal Peter.

p. 327. Literal Adam.

p. 354. Literal New Jerusalem to be build in Jackson County, Missouri.

p. 365. Literal Bible, Literal Moses, Literal Aaron, Literal Priesthood.

VOLUME 16

p. 25. Literal Bible inspired by literal God.

p. 52-53. Literal Bible, literal Book of Mormon.

p. 74. Literal Bible.

p. 105. Literal tithing from the Bible,

p. 138-139. Literal Bible, literal Paul.

p. 178. Literal Bible, marriage, etc.

p. 226. Literal Bible, literal Order of Enoch.

p. 261. Literal Urim and Thummim.

p. 285. Literal Old Testament.

p. 300. Literal Bible, Moses, Elijah, Paul.

p. 333. Literal resurrection.

VOLUME 17

p. 2. We are doing things like they did in the Bible.

p. 19. Literal Bible, literal baptism.

p. 25. Literal Abram.

p. 81. Literal Bible, literal Malachi, literal tithing.

p. 100. Literal Old Testament, literal New Testament.

p. 143. When Adam fell, the earth literally fell out of its original orbit and “fell” also.

p. 173. Literal old Israel, literal Moses.

p. 223. Literal Bible, Moses, and polygamy.

p. 266. Literal angels.

VOLUME 18

p. 4. Literal Bible, literal Elias, literal Elijah.

p. 17. Literal Bible, Isaiah, Book of Mormon.

p. 22. Literal Bible, Zion, Jeremiah, ten tribes.

p. 37. Literal Bible, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Adam, Enoch, heavenly Father.

p. 54. Literal Savior, Peter, New Testament, salvation for the spirits in prison.

p. 122. Literal resurrection of our literal bodies.

p. 163. Literal Bible prophecies of a literal Book of Mormon.

p. 185. Literal gathering of Israel, literal Paul, literal Bible.

p. 240. Literal priesthood restored by literal people, Peter, James, John, John the Baptist.

p. 315. Literal Isaiah, literal David.

p. 332-333. Literal Paul, resurrection, Christ.

VOLUME 19

p. 12. Literal Bible, literal Zion.

p. 33. Literally related to Adam.

p. 64. Literal God, literal Jesus appointed by God.

p. 99. Literal Jesus and Peter conversations.

p. 153. Literal Bible, John in New Testament.

p. 173. Literal Book of Mormon.

p. 190. Literal baptism.

p. 205. Literal Book of Mormon.

p. 226. Literal Daniel, literal Bible.

p. 251. We are literally eternal beings.

p. 267. Literal Supreme Being.

p. 282. Literal Bible, Paul.

p. 314. God literally a being of flesh and bones.

p. 338. Literal Jesus and Father in Heaven.

VOLUME 20

p. 11. Literal Zion literal Jerusalem.

p. 49. Literal Bible, Book of Revelation.

p. 65. Literal translation of Book of Abraham through Urim and Thummim.

p. 114. Literal Abraham.

p. 143. Literal Urim and Thummim.

p. 152. Literal Bible, literal Tower of Babel.

p. 176. Literal Bible and Book of Mormon.

p. 201. Literal creation.

p. 212. Literal Bible, John the Revelator, Another angel with the Gospel.

p. 222-223. Literal Bible.

p. 259. Literal Bible.

p. 282. Literal Holy Ghost.

p. 310. Literal New Testament.

p. 330. Peter literal.

VOLUME 21

p. 5. Literal Bible.

p. 27. Literal Jesus, literal Satan.

p. 33. Literal Zion.

p. 60. Literal Kingdom of God.

p. 86. Literal Bible, literal baptism.

p. 111. Literal Bible.

p. 125. Literal Zion, literal Kingdom of God.

p. 142. Literal Peter.

p. 156-157. Literal Bible.

p. 178. Literal Bible.

p. 191. Literal Zion.

p. 203. Literal Adam and Eve, premortal existence.

p. 221. Literal Bible correlates to what we are doing today.

p. 244. Literal Abraham and Melchizedek Priesthood.

p. 259. Literal Moses.

p. 319-320. Literal Bible and Book of Revelation.

VOLUME 22

p. 6. Literal church anciently.

p. 70. Literal prophets and apostles anciently, literal ones today as well.

p. 84. Literal Holy Ghost, literal comforter.

p. 109. Literal Zion.

p. 124. Literal Bible, be perfect as God is perfect.

p. 171. Literal Bible, Book of Mormon, Tower of Babel.

p. 206. Literal Bible.

p. 254. Literal angel.

p. 304. Literal Noah.

p. 343. Literal Bible.

VOLUME 23

p. 4. Literal Bible, literal New Testament.

p. 29. Literal Bible, Literal John the Revelator.

p. 48. Literal Bible, Book of Mormon.

p. 79. Literal Bible personalities.

p. 112. Literal Bible, Peter, James, John, priesthood.

p. 156. Literal Bible.

p. 181. Literal Bible.

p. 201. Literal Garden of Eden.

p. 225. Literal Bible.

p. 248. Literal Bible, Literal Jesus, Literal Thomas.

p. 292. Literal Bible, John the Revelator.

p. 307. Literal Satan.

p. 317. Literal Moses.

p. 340. Literal New Testament, Literal Peter.

VOLUME 24

p. 4. Literal Bible.

p. 13. Joseph Smith had literal contact with God.

p. 29. Literal Bible.

p. 59. Literal Abraham and Enoch.

p. 94. Literal Jesus performing literal healings.

p. 117. Literal Bible.

p. 137. Literal prophets, apostles, and Holy Ghost.

p. 164. Literal Nephites.

p. 195. Literal Adam, Cain, and Book of Mormon.

p. 206. Literal Bible, Amos.

p. 228. Literal Bible, and other scriptures.

p. 255. Literal Satan.

p. 291. Literal Bible, literal Enoch.

p. 339. Literal Bible, Moses.

VOLUME 25

p. 40. Literal Bible.

p. 67. Literal church of God and Kingdom.

p. 98. Literal Satan.

p. 137. Literal gifts of the Spirit.

p. 184. Literal Bible.

p. 222. Literal God the Father, literal Jesus.

p. 275. Literal New Testament.

p. 318. Literal Bible.

p. 331. Literal Bible.

VOLUME 26

p. p. 15. Literal Bible.

p. 36. Literal Bible, Old Testament.

p. 76. Literal Bible, Elijah.

p. 83. Literal Bible.

p. 109. Literal Enoch, literal Zion.

p. 115. Literal Adam, literal Bible. Polygamy.

p. 124. Literal Bible.

p. 141. Literal God and Kingdom.

p. 160. Literal Jesus Christ.

p. 184. We are here on earth fulfilling God’s literal plan.

p. 233. Literal Bible, literal Father in Heaven.

p. 263. Literal Bible, apostle John.

p. 298. Literal Bible.

p. 337. Literal Bible.


bottom of page