The first question one should ask when investigating Mormonism and the claims made by its founder and so-called "prophet" is, “To what
sacred literature do Mormons hold?” If you ask a Mormon personally, they will
inform you to take a look at verse 8 of a document entitled The Articles of
Faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated
correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Now, about
the Bible, that seems like a fair thing to say. But here’s the catcher; they don't believe that the Bible, as the verse reads, “is
translated correctly" because of it supposedly being corrupted over the
last 2,000 years. Spoilers: their argument is easily refuted. As that
refutation is a post for another day, let's keep our focus on the
literature that Mormons do hold
sacred (the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great
Price) – as they believe that they
are the actual word of God.
As we continue in our investigation of Mormonism, we'll
rely heavily on historian Dr. Michael Licona’s book: Behold, I Stand At The Door And Knock ((double parenthesis will be
given to highlight additional cited sources)).
First, let’s examine the Book of Mormon to see how it holds up to the historical test.
The Mormons at your door will tell you that many findings
within archaeology have confirmed the Book of Mormon time and time again. Is
this true? What does the historical data tell us about the events
recorded in the Book of Mormon?
A.
What Mormon archaeologists say.
Brigham Young University (BYU) is owned by the Mormon Church and has a
department of professional archaeologists who are dedicated to archaeology as
it pertains to the Book of Mormon. These professionals, who are practicing
Mormons, are to be applauded for their honesty. What many of them have to say
will be a shock to the lay Mormon who is unaware that archaeology and the Book
of Mormon are completely at odds with one another. The lay Mormon is told by the Mormon Church
that archaeology continues to confirm the Book of Mormon, while Mormon scholars
who actually study archaeology for a living have something quite different to
say:
"[It appears that the Book of
Mormon] had no place in the New World whatsoever ... [It] just doesn’t seem to
fit anything ... in anthropology [or] history. ... It seems misplaced." ((Dr.
Ray Metheny, Professor of Anthropology, BYU. Address at the Sixth Annual
Sunstone Theological Symposium, Salt Lake City, 8/25/84.))
"The first myth that we need
to eliminate is that Book of Mormon archaeology exists." ((Dr. Dee Green, Former Editor of the University
Archaeological Society Newsletter “Book of Mormon Archaeology: The Myths and
the Alternatives,” in Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 4, No.2, 1969), pg77-78.))
'"What I would say to you is
there is no archaeological proof of the Book of Mormon. You can look all you
want. And there’s been a lot of speculation about it. There’ve been books
written by Mormon scholars saying that “this event took place here” or “this
event took place here.” But that’s entirely speculative. There is absolutely no
archaeological evidence."' ((Dr. David Johnson, Professor of Anthropology, BYU, 7/23/97.))
'"Now,
I’m an archaeologist,
and I work in Mexico where some people think that . . . events
occurred. So a lot
of Mormons ask me every week if I find any evidence. And I tell them,
“No.” ... [T]he question of how to translate what the Book says in terms
of real evidence
that we can grab in our hands, archaeologically, is still a huge
problem."'
((Dr. John Clark, Professor of Anthropology, BYU, 7/25/97.))
B.
What non-Mormon archaeologists say.
There is a document made by The Smithsonian Institution entitled, in all
caps, “STATEMENT REGARDING THE BOOK OF MORMON.” For time's sake, here are just a few of those statements:
"Smithsonian
archaeologists see no direct connection between the archaeology of the New
World and the subject matter of the book." ((http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter2.htm))
On April 26, 1989, the National Geographic Society states of the
relationship between the Book of Mormon and archaeology:
"Although many Mormon sources claim that the Book
of Mormon has been substantiated by archaeological findings, this claim has not
been verified scientifically."
Similarly, on April 5, 1989, the Department of Archaeology at Boston
University states:
"Over the past 30 years The New
World Archaeological Foundation, located at Brigham Young University … has
conducted numerous scientific excavations in Mesoamerica, originally with a
view to confirming the claims in the Book of Mormon. They have discovered no
evidence that supports the Book of Mormon in any way. Nonetheless, they have
published in full detail the results of their excavations in Papers of the New
World Archaeological Foundation volumes 1-55, 1959 and following ... They are accepted
by the Institute of America and the Society of American Archaeologists as
legitimate scientific investigations and the New World Archaeological
Foundation is to be commended for [publishing] the results of their work that
essentially refutes the basic beliefs of the Mormon on which the Foundation is
based."
Therefore,
professional archaeologists, both Mormon and non-Mormon alike, agree that there
is no relationship between the Book of Mormon and archaeology.
2.
A couple choice examples displaying the lack of
archaeological evidence in the Book of Mormon
A. The Book of Mormon claims that the ancient
inhabitants [those living in the Americas before 1492] spoke and wrote in
“Reformed Egyptian” and Hebrew. ((Mosiah 1:4; Mormon 9:32-33; also see Joseph
Smith, History 1:64)). If this were the case, we would expect to find many artifacts
with writings in these languages. However, the Smithsonian Institution’s statement regarding the Book of Mormon says:
"Reports of findings of
ancient Egyptian, Hebrew, and other Old World writings in the New World in
pre-Columbian contexts have frequently appeared in newspapers, magazines, and
sensational books. None of these claims has stood up to examination by
reputable scholars." ((http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/smithsonianletter2.htm))
B. In A.D. 385, prior to the final battle with the
Lamanites, the “prophet-historian”, Mormon, buried a number of golden plates
that contained the written record of his people, the Nephites ((Mormon 6:6)).
It is the “few plates” he left his son, Moroni, who added to the record, that
"the prophet" Joseph Smith translated as the Book of Mormon. Both Mormon and Moroni, at
separate times before and after this battle, supposedly buried their plates in Manchester,
New York, at a place that's still referred to as Hill Cumorah. It is at this
hill that at least 230,000 men supposedly lost their lives in the battle: “Their flesh,
and bones, and blood lay upon the face of the earth, being left by the hands of
those who slew them to molder upon the land, and to crumble and to return to their
mother earth” ((Mormon 6:10-15)). In other words, the bodies were left at the
hill.
There's a major problem with this
account: it's been over 1,600 years since
this battle supposedly happened and, keeping in mind that 230,000 men, with
weapons in hand and armor equipped, lost their lives, not a single bone or
single artifact of any type has ever been found at Hill Cumorah to prove its
existence in history. University of Rochester paleontologist, stratigrapher,
and professor of geology, Carl Brett, has observed the area of Hill Cumorah and
is considerably familiar with its geologic conditions. Brett states that if
hundreds of thousands were slaughtered at the Hill, there would
still even be skeletal remains on the surface
to this day!
As
areas
should be ripe with relics, archaeology doesn't show a
single thread of evidence that events within the Book of Mormon are at
all true. Smith also claims that he gave the golden plates back to the
angel, Moroni, and therefore
we can't observe whether they're actually real or not (how convenient!).
As damaging as these facts may be, the ultimate challenge for Mormonism
involves a publication within the Pearl of Great Price; the Book of Abraham.
1.
There are major problems with the Book of
Abraham as well
As we continue in our investigation
of Mormonism, we'll rely heavily on the documentary The Lost Book of Abraham: Investigating a Remarkable Mormon Claim.
((Again, double parenthesis will continually be given to highlight additional cited
sources)).
On July 3, 1835, by means of donations
from the Mormon church, Smith purchased four mummies that
had recently been discovered in Egypt. Included with the mummies were a number
of papyrus scrolls, having ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic writings and drawings.
At that time, no one in America
could read anything of the sort. But Smith himself claimed to be able to
translate them, since they were supposedly written in the same language as Moroni’s golden
plates: “Reformed Egyptian.” As he "translated" the manuscripts, he announced
that they contained an unknown book, supposedly written by the Old Testament prophet
Abraham. Smith states, “I commenced the translation of some of the characters
or hieroglyphics, and much to our joy found that one of the rolls contained the
writings of Abraham. … Truly we can say, the Lord is beginning to reveal the
abundance of peace and truth” ((History of the Church, vol. 2, pg 236)).
Upon this process, Smith
incorporated into the text of the Book of Abraham three drawings from these
scrolls, labeling them “Facsimiles No. 1, No. 2, No. 3”, and gave explanations as
to what they were supposedly depicting.
Above
is facsimile number one. According to Smith, this depicts an idolatrous priest
(labeled as figure 3) attempting to slay Abraham (figure 2), who is fastened
upon an alter (figure 4), as a sacrifice. Abraham states: "And it came to
pass that the priests laid violence upon me, that they might slay me also, as
they did those virgins upon this alter; and that you may have a knowledge of
this alter, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this
record" ((Abraham 1:12)).
This is
facsimile number two. The Mormon church says that the majority of these figures
“cannot be revealed to the world” and that only high-tiered members can gain
knowledge (again, how convenient!). But, they do “reveal” enough of Smith’s "translation" for us to
continue our investigation. Figure one is said to be a depiction of Kolob, the
nearest star to the presence of God ((Abraham 3:2-3)), and where time
passes the slowest in the universe ((Abraham 3:4)). Figure two is a star,
called Oliblish, which is second closest to the presence of God, which holds
the key of power pertaining to all of the stars. Figure three is a crown of
eternal light upon God’s head. Figure four is a bird named Raukeeyang,
signifying the expanse of the heavens. Figure five is a star, called
Enish-go-on-dosh, which borrows its light from Kolob and its power through the
stars Kli-flos-is-es and Kah-ko-kau-beam (depicted as figures 22 and 23). And
figure six depicts Earth in four quarters.
And, finally, this is facsimile
number three. According to Smith, this depicts Abraham (figure 1), seated upon
the throne of Pharaoh, lecturing to the royal court on astronomy: “The learning
of the Egyptians, and their knowledge of astronomy was no doubt taught them by
Abraham . . . who received it from the Lord” ((Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.251.)). This royal court includes King
Pharaoh (figure 2), the prince of Pharaoh (figure 4), Shulem, a waiter to
Pharaoh (figure 5), and Olimlah, a slave who was owned by the prince (figure
6).
Soon after Smith’s "translation" of
the Book of Abraham as a whole, the papyri were lost soon afterwards and
thought to have been destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire of 1871. Therefore,
there was no way to validate Smith’s translation (yet again, how convenient!).
And then . . .
. . . in 1966, a
discovery was made in New York at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Dr. Aziz
Atiya, Professor of Arabic Studies from the University of Utah, was there doing
research and was approached by Henry G. Fischer, the curator of the museums
Department of Egyptian Antiquities. Fischer informed Dr. Atiya the museum had
in its archives the 11 papyri that had once belonged to Smith. Soon
after, negotiations between the museum and the Mormon church proceeded and, on
November 27, 1967, the museum presented the scrolls as a gift. Included with
the scrolls was a letter from 1856, signed by Smith’s widow, Emma Smith,
certifying that the documents were, in fact, the originals
Now with the original papyri
rediscovered and Egyptian hieroglyphics easily decipherable since the late 1800's, it
would then be an easy task for Egyptologists to, once and for all, prove or
disprove the truth of the Book of Abraham and Smith’s status as a "prophet" of
God.
Dialogue:
A Journal of Mormon Thought asked three prominent Egyptologists: John
Wilson and Klaus Baer (both professors of Egyptology at the University of
Chicago), and Richard Parker (professor of Egyptology at Brown University), to translate
the papyri. The Mormon church believed they had no need to fear, since the
contemporary translation would be the same as Smith’s. The stakes were high: either Smith was a true prophet or a true quack. Furthermore,
if he was wrong in his translation of the Book of Abraham, it follows that he
can't be trusted to have produced an accurate translation of the Book of
Mormon, which he himself claimed was in the exact same language.
Quack;
Smith was now shown to have been a deceiver and a fraud all along; the
type of guy that Buddy the Elf would refer to as a, “cotton headed
ninny muggins!"
Wilson, Baer, and Parker all state that the text
Smith used to "translate" the Book of Abraham was actually a mortuary text of
late times; the Book of Breathings. This was an ancient Egyptian document,
which was buried with the dead in order to provide guidance in the afterlife
(which also explains why the papyri were found with the mummies Smith purchased)
((Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Vol.III, No.2 & 3, pg 68.)). Not only did
Egyptologists translate the original text which Smith used, they also did so
with the original drawings.
The picture above is what the original “facsimile
number one” looked like when Smith purchased the mummies. When viewing the
picture we discussed earlier, you can clearly see where Smith used his
translation to “finish” drawing in the missing sections himself. While the picture
below illustrates what Egyptologists say it should actually look in its
completed form.
Smith horribly misidentified the figures and scene. The
priest attempting to slay Abraham with a knife was supposed to be the Egyptian
god Anubis, who’s assisting the resurrection of a deceased Egyptian. Anubis was
drawn incorrectly also; he should have been pictured with the head of a jackal and
not of a man. The scene, "depicts the mythical embalming and resurrection
of Osiris, Egyptian god of the underworld. Osiris was slain by his jealous
brother Set, who cut up his body into 16 pieces and scattered them. The
jackal-headed god Anubis is shown embalming the body of Osiris on the
traditional lion-headed couch so that he might come back to life” ((Improvement
Era, Jan. 1968, pg 102)).
Note the hieroglyphics to the right side of both the
original and the professional reconstruction. You’re looking at the
hieroglyphics from which Smith derived the beginning of the Book of Abraham. He
writes: "In the Land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my father, I,
Abraham, saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of
residence" ((1:1)). In reality, they translate: "Osiris shall be
conveyed into the Great Pool of Khons -- and likewise Osiris Hor, justified,
born to Tikhebyt, justified -- after his arms have been placed on his heart and
the Breathing permit has been wrapped in royal linen and placed under his left
arm near his heart; the rest of the mummy-bandages should be wrapped over it.
The man for whom this book was copied will breathe forever and ever as the spirit
of the gods do."((Baer, Dr. Klaus The Breathing Permit of Hor:
A Translation of the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham, pg
119-120)).
In
regards to “facsimile number two,” Egyptologists again disagree with Smith’s translation.
Instead of being a piece on astronomy, "It is actually a rather
common funerary amulet termed a hypocephalus, so-called because it was placed
under (hypo) a mummy’s head (cephalus). Its purpose was to magically keep the
deceased warm and to protect the body from desecration by grave robbers”
((Improvement Era, Jan. 1968, pg 102)). While there are way too many to list, Smith
didn't translate a single figure on this amulet correctly.
And, finally, “facsimile number three.”
Instead of Abraham lecturing about astronomy, this actually depicts another
common Egyptian burial scene of a deceased man, “being led before Osiris, god of
the [underworld], and behind the enthroned Osiris stands his wife Isis”
((Walters, Wesley P., Joseph Smith among the
Egyptians, 1973)). Smith also wrongly translated the names of the
remaining figures, which are written in hieroglyphics above their heads.
Dr. James H. Breasted, from the
University of Chicago, writes: “These three facsimiles of Egyptian documents in
the 'Pearl of Great Price' depict the most common objects in the Mortuary
religion of Egypt. Joseph Smith’s interpretations of them as part of a unique revelation
through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was . . . absolutely
ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.” In fact, as
Dr. David K. Ritner, also from the University of Chicago, states: "Abraham
is not mentioned once."
1.
Conclusion
So, why does investigating any of
this really matter? Well, "Central to Mormonism's religious claims is the
claim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. If that follows, then
everything that he says must be true. If that falls, then nothing that he says,
necessarily, is true" ((Dr. Craig L. Blomberg, Professor of New Testament
at Denver Seminary)). And "When it comes right down to it, the real
question is: ". . .the truth claims that Mormons make about God, about
human beings, and how a human being can be right with God. . . . Are those
claims credible? Are they the kinds of things that we ought to bet our lives
on?" ((Dr. Richard J. Mouw, President of Fuller Theological Seminary)). Here’s a quick answer to that question: No.
