The Parallel Books of Nephi

Andrew Norman shared with me a very interesting observation he made, and he has granted me permission to post his thoughts here on my blog, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.  

The Parallel Books of Nephi

By Andrew Norman

What's a bifid structure?

In order to understand a bifid structure you have to understand parallelisms in Hebrew.

Hebrew will use two statements in order to convey more meaning or a different meaning than what each statement alone would mean.

Consider the following:

Mosiah 3:25-26

therefore they have drunk damnation to their own souls. 

Therefore, they have drunk out of the cup of the wrath of God

Some Hebrew prophets would take this even further by writing their book and then halfway though writing a second half that mirrors ideas and concepts in the first half.

Consider the Book of Ezekiel

Chapters 1-23

The Vengeance of the Lord against his People 

The name of Ezekiel 1:3 

His commission 3:25-27 

Dumbness 

Devine glory forsakes the temple 8-11

Chapters 24-48

The vindication of the Lord through his People 

The name of Ezekiel 24:24 

His commission 33:1-9 

Release from Dumbness 

Divine glory returns to sanctify the land 43:1-5

(RK Harrison Introduction to the Old Testament 848-49)

Here is an example of why Nephi would use this style of writing. Compare 1 Nephi 21 with 2 Nephi 30.

In 1 Nephi 21, Nephi is quoting Isaiah who uses powerful imagery of people imprisoned in the dark and then being liberated. By writing a parallel chapter in 2 Nephi 30, he's able to build off Isaiah's imagery when describing the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and it's helping the Gentiles and House of Israel being restored.

A final note before getting started is that Nephi does a great job using mile markers of two verses that use almost identical words or themes to help you keep pace between the two books.

Below is the pairing of theme in First Nephi (1N) coupled with the matching theme in Second Nephi (2N).

In some cases I use the notation with verses using a .5 e.g. 1N1:19.5 which is used to indicate that it's in the second half of the verse.

Nephi's Bifid Structure:

1N1:1 Nephi highly favored of the Lord, having had a great knowledge of the goodness and the mysteries of God

2N1:1 Rehearsed unto them, how great things the Lord had done for them in bringing them out of the land of Jerusalem.

1N1:6-18 Lehi’s Vision and Destruction of Jerusalem

2N1:4 Lehi’s Vision of destruction of Jerusalem

1N1:19 Testified of Wickedness and Abominations (repent)

2N1:13-32 Tells sons to Repent

1N1:19.5 Expounded of …the things which he saw and heard, and also the things which he read in the book, manifested plainly of the coming of a Messiah, and also the redemption of the world.

2N2 Explanation of the need for Christ

1N2:1 Lehi commanded to depart

2N3 Joseph taken to Egypt and blessed by Lord

1N2:16, Nephi Prays and heart softened

2N12:12 Lehi spoken according to the feelings of his heart and spirit of the Lord

1N2:18.5-20 Brothers anger Nephi, Prays and is given blessings of the lord

2N4:13-35 Brother angry at Nephi, psalm of Nephi

1N2:21-24 Brothers will be cut off for not keeping commandments

2N5:6 Nephites leave and take all religious artifacts

1N3 Goes to get Brass Plates & Sword of Laban

2N5:10, 14 Teaches from Law of Moses from Brass plates and makes Swords from Sword of Laban

1N6 Describes what’s on his plates

2N5:30 Makes new plates

1N7:13-15 Jerusalem will be destroyed and why

2N6:1-15 Jacob tells of Jewish history and Babylonian exile.

1N7:16-18 Nephi bound and released

2N6:16 Lawful Captive delivered

1N8 Lehi’s dream

2N7:10-11 Walk in darkness (because of pride)

2N8 Isaiah talking about leaving sins behind and turning to God and being clothed in glory and enthroned

1N9:3 Small plates for the ministering unto the people

2N9:1 Jacob’s speech to the Nephites

1N10:3 Jews taken captive and brought back

4 Jesus

7-10 John the Baptist and Baptism

11 Resurrection and purpose of Gentiles (12 Olive Tree Branches)

13 scattering

14 Gathering of Israel/ Grafting

2N9:2 Jews restored

5 Jesus

23 Baptism

10:3 Crucifixion

8 Gentiles gathered and counted with House of Israel

1N10:17 Nephi desires to see

11:2 Nephi Sees

I went in depth on comparing 1N11 with 2N12 because the number of parallels was so striking.

1N 11

• (a) 1n11:1 High Mountain
• (b)Tree of Life (Asherah found in Ephriamite temples) is love of Christ (could imply an equivalence of the temple with the love of Christ)
• (c) 24 People worship of Christ
• (d) 25 Iron Rod
• (e) 26 Condescension of God
• 27 Bapt by John
• (f) 28 Ministers to people
• (g) and I beheld that they cast him out from among them.
• Twelve Followers
• Angels administering to men
• (h) People afflicted with Devils and disease being healed by Christ
• 32: Christ judged by man
• 33 Crucified (could this be because you sacrifice humans to idols?)
• 34: Fight against the apostles
• (i) 35: Large and Spacious building Wisdom
• (i) 36:  And it came to pass that I saw and bear record, that the great and spacious building was the pride of the world; and it fell, and the fall thereof was exceedingly great. And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Thus shall be the destruction of all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, that shall fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

2N 12

• 2N12:2 (a)High Mountain
• (b)Lord’s House
• (c) 3:And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord…
• (d) and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for out of Zion shall go forth the law

Law = Scriptures

• (e) and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem

John 1:1 … and the word was God (The implication here is that the scriptures from Zion/America and that Christ is from Jerusalem

• (f) 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people and [Swords to plowshares or peace]
•  (g) 5 O house of Jacob, come ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord; yea, come, for ye have all gone astray, every one to his wicked ways
• (h) 6:Turning to false gods
• 7-8:Idolitry
• (i) 9-22 Vanity-Humbling by Lord

1N12:2 Wars and slaughter

2N3&4 War torn and remnants left behind

1N12:3 Numerous Cities

2N15:8 Wo to join house to house (huge cities)

1N12:5 Destruction of the land

2N5 Destruction of Vineyard but vs 24 and 25 mention destruction of the people

1N12:10 The twelve are cleansed through Christ and sent out

2N16 Isaiah ritually cleansed and sent out

1N12:11-12 The four generations after Christ and then destructions

2N7 Ahaz is told his kingdom would be safe but destruction would come (see vv 18-25) which was four kings from sign of the virgin birth

1N12:19 Nephites destroyed by not relying on Lord

2N18 Rely on the Lord to be safe. Ephraim wiped out.

1N13 Start of the Gentiles Kingdoms and church

2N9:11-12 Lord raises up Syria and Philistines ready to devour Israel

1N13 Gentiles to new world, scatter the Lamanites

2N10 Assyrian Conquests

1N13:12-36 Gentiles Humble Themselves, Mercy to Gentiles, BoM with Bible

2N11 Sprig of Jesse, peace, Righteous Ruler

1N13:33-37, Zion Blessed

2N12 Song of the return to Zion

1N14:3 Pit filled with those that dug it

2N14:15 Lucifer put in the pit

1N14:1-2 Gentiles numbered with House of Israel, blessed in promised land forever, no more to be confounded

2N13:3 Sanctified and Mighty called out before destruction of Babylon.

1N14:16 Wars and Rumors of Wars

2N14:29 More war with Palestine

1N15:2 Brothers can’t understand Lehi’s revelations

2N25:1 Nephi’s people can’t understand Isaiah

1N15:12 Lehi compared Israel to Olive tree by Spirt of the Lord

2N25:11 Nephi: And now I speak because of the Spirit which is in me

1N15:12 House of Israel Restored by Gentiles, Wicked rejected (VV 7 olive tree branch)

2N25:12 And notwithstanding they have been carried away they shall return again, and possess the land of Jerusalem; wherefore, they shall be restored again to the land of their inheritance.

1N15:13 Lehites dwindle in unbelief

2N25:12.5 Reject Christ because of hard hearts

1N15:13.5 -20 Lehites receive gospel from Gentiles and Jews restored

2N25: 17 And the Lord will set his hand again the second time to restore his people from their lost and fallen state. Wherefore, he will proceed to do a marvelous work and a wonder among the children of men.

& 2N25: 18 Wherefore, he shall bring forth his words unto them, which words shall judge them at the last day, for they shall be given them for the purpose of convincing them of the true Messiah

Note: I can’t find parallels in the text in order that allows the following two examples in 1Nephi so I paired them with what I could find that seemed logical and was before the mention of Moses and the serpents since that was a direct mile marker for me:

1N16 Travel through wilderness and call to build boat

2N25:9 God warns before destruction

1N17:23-40 Recalls God’s power with Exodus

2N25:10-19 Exiled, Christ, Scatter Restored

1N17:41 Moses and Serpents

2N25:20 Moses and Serpents

1N17: 45 Ye are swift to do iniquity but slow to remember the Lord your God. Ye have seen an angel, and he spake unto you; yea, ye have heard his voice from time to time; and he hath spoken unto you in a still small voice, but ye were past feeling, that ye could not feel his words; wherefore, he has spoken unto you like unto the voice of thunder, which did cause the earth to shake as if it were to divide asunder

2N25: 28 And now behold, my people, ye are a stiffnecked people; wherefore, I have spoken plainly unto you, that ye cannot misunderstand. And the words which I have spoken shall stand as a testimony against you; for they are sufficient to teach any man the right way; for the right way is to believe in Christ and deny him not; for by denying him ye also deny the prophets and the law.

1N17:  55 And now, they said: We know of a surety that the Lord is with thee, for we know that it is the power of the Lord that has shaken us. And they fell down before me, and were about to worship me, but I would not suffer them…

2N25:29.5 wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out.

1N17:55.5 and honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee.

2N25: 30 And, inasmuch as it shall be expedient, ye must keep the performances and ordinances of God until the law shall be fulfilled which was given unto Moses.

1N17:42 And they did harden their hearts from time to time, and they did revile against Moses, and also against God; nevertheless, ye know that they were led forth by his matchless power into the land of promise.

1N25:24-26 Moses points us to Christ who gives us a remission of our sins.

1N18:11 Nephi Bound

2N26:10 Destruction of Nephites by brothers

1N18:16 Nephi prays and is released

2N26:15 Prayers of the faithful are heard

1N18:23-1N:19 Land in promised land and makes plates

2N26:16,17 Restauration to Lamanites, Sealed book

1N19 Nephi commanded to build a book and put more important doctrine in it

2N27 Coming forth of the Book of Mormon and sealed portion

1N20 Apostasy

2N28 Conditions of churches in apostasy

1N21 Light to gentiles and House of Israel

2N30 Gentiles converted and counted with House of Israel

1N22:2 Manifest by Spirit

2N31 How to get Holy Ghost

1N22:29 for I durst not speak further

2N32:7 the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance

1N22:30-31 I would that ye should consider that the things which have been written upon the plates of brass are true; and they testify that a man must be obedient to the commandments of God.

2N33:11 And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye—for Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words

Don't Be Overwhelmed By "Big List" Arguments

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things."

2 Nephi 2:11

"Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he 

was enticed by the one or the other."

2 Nephi 2:16

     So, we find ourselves on a spinning rock, racing through space around a giant, exploding ball of gas. And we try to figure out the meaning of it all. We debate, we philosophize, we observe, we hypothesize.

     Some of us believe that being on earth is part of a plan. We believe the earth was prepared for us to live on, and that we chose to come here. We believe that we came here to have experiences, some of which would be difficult, and also to make choices... some of which would likewise be difficult. And we believe that in order to truly make choices for ourselves, and to have an opportunity to choose the right, we need to be enticed to do things which are wrong and which we would not otherwise do.

     Fortunately, God entices us to have faith, hope, and charity. The opposition however entices us to doubt, to fear, and to look at other people as either objects to be used or as creatures of no importance, instead of looking at others with charity. 

     Sometimes opposition comes in the form of appetites. Sometimes it comes in the form of pride. Sometimes it comes in the form of intellectual puzzlement. 

     All of this opposition is to be expected. As a matter of doctrine. 

     Unfortunately, some people fall into the trap of feeling overwhelmed in the face of large aggregate opposition. And, once overwhelmed, people can lose sight of the divine concepts of faith, hope and charity. For instance, the fact that there is so much suffering in the world might cause some people to struggle with hope (see this post on the problem of evil). Or, the prevalence of loose moral standards in the world can cause confusion about how God wants us to view each other. 

     Of particular interest to this post however is the fact that the large aggregate number of "big list" concerns, or lengthy compiled lists of concerns regarding Church leaders and doctrines, can seem overwhelming, even when each individual concern has plausible answers which fit within a consistent paradigm. 

     The fallacy which makes such big lists seem overwhelming comes in not recognizing that the gospel requires opposition, and therefore the sheer number of arguments which critics have come up with neither proves nor disproves anything. 

     Here the critic may cry foul, claiming that I am dismissing the strength of the individual arguments on their lists. But clearly I am not doing that. Each argument should be taken on it's own merits, and their arguments usually do involve some inductive evidence, which they are welcome to try to connect to build a case, but their interpretation of that evidence usually relies on assumptions which are deductive in nature. In other words, the inductive evidence they present does not clearly point where they want it, so they typically make deductive assumptions. Keep in mind that the plausible answers put forth by apologists need not be proven in order to effectively counter critical deductive arguments (see the Apologetic Proof Paradox). 

     The fallacy typically manifests when a critic realizes a given argument on a big list is not as strong as they had thought, and then resorts to pointing out how big the aggregation of all critical arguments against the Church is, trying to use the number of arguments as a reason for invoking Occam's Razor, while supposing that if the Church were true then it wouldn't be possible for so many critical arguments to exist. Again, the fallacy is in not realizing that the existence of such opposition is expected and even required in the very gospel paradigm which they suppose the existence of the aggregation disproves.

     What this means is that God intentionally allowed history to unfold in such a way that enough uncertainty and confusion would exist to allow the adversary to formulate a wide variety of clever arguments against the Church. Were it not so, where would the opposition be? 

     The doctrine of opposition in all things is not an ad-hoc formulation or in any way spurious. It is integral to the plan of salvation and runs throughout all of scripture, from Lehi's dream to Joseph Smith in the Liberty Jail; from Adam exiting the Garden of Eden, to Pharisees contending with Jesus himself, and ultimately Christ's very atonement, crucifixion and overcoming of all things. 

     Pointing to the amount of opposition does not constitute a viable argument. Yet critics resort to this quite often. 

Abraham, Human Sacrifice, and Conspiracy

Human Sacrifice: What Did Abraham Say?

Some controversy has surrounded Abraham's claim about human sacrifice. Critics point out that most scholarship indicates human sacrifice was not known in Egypt during Abraham's lifetime.

But let's look a little more closely at what Abraham said about human sacrifice.

Now, at this time it was the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, to offer up upon the altar which was built in the land of Chaldea, for the offering unto these strange gods, men, women, and children. 

Abraham 1:8

At first, it might look like Abraham is calling human sacrifice a widespread practice throughout Egypt. But that's not what he said. Let's consider a couple questions.

First, is Abraham talking about the office of "priest of Pharaoh," and thus referring to a line of different people who have occupied that position, or is Abraham instead referring to a specific individual person who was "the priest of Pharaoh?"  I would argue that Abraham is referring to a specific individual - the individual whose death is accounted for in verse 20. And since that priest was dead by the time Abraham wrote this in his memoir, Abraham does not tell us that it "is" the custom of the priest of Pharaoh, but instead tells us that it "was" the custom of the priest of Pharaoh. Abraham is speaking of human sacrifice in past-tense, implying it is no longer an issue.

If it was still an issue at the time of his writing, we would expect Abraham to introduce human sacrifice by saying, "Now, it is the custom..." instead of "Now, at this time it was the custom..."

Second, why does Abraham refer to it as a custom "of" instead of "for" the priest? If human sacrifice was a custom of Egypt, and the priest was merely performing his duties, we should expect Abraham to say it was a custom "for" the priest of Pharaoh, not "of" the priest of Pharaoh. But Abraham specifically tells us it was the custom of the priest, i.e. the priest's own personal custom or modus operandi. For instance, we would say it is customary that the President of the United States lives in the White House. But whose custom is it? It is a custom "of" the United States, and a custom "for" the President to do. But if a particular President has something they do which is not otherwise customary, we would call it a custom of their own. For instance, Ronald Reagan liked to give jars of jellybeans to visitors, so we could say "it was the custom of the President to give out jellybeans," but that does not imply that other Presidents gave out jellybeans.  

Now, it's true that in verse 11 Abraham says that the priest performed human sacrifices "after the manner of the Egyptians." However, this seems to be a reference to the ritualistic details involved, and not a reference to the fact that humans were the ones being sacrificed. Most likely, this means the priest performed the human sacrifices in a manner ceremonially similar to Egyptian animal sacrifice.

A Conspiracy Theory: Searching For Onitah

22 And it came to pass that they did have their signs, yea, their secret signs, and their secret words; and this that they might distinguish a brother who had entered into the covenant, that whatsoever wickedness his brother should do he should not be injured by his brother, nor by those who did belong to his band, who had taken this covenant. 

 23 And thus they might murder, and plunder, and steal, and commit whoredoms and all manner of wickedness, contrary to the laws of their country and also the laws of their God. 

 24 And whosoever of those who belonged to their band should reveal unto the world of their wickedness and their abominations, should be tried, not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness, which had been given by Gadianton and Kishkumen. 

Helaman 6:22-24

From what Abraham has told us, this priest of Pharaoh was a particularly bad person. What more do we know about him? There's a good chance that the title "priest of Pharaoh" refers to the position of vizier. The vizier basically ran the government. He could command forces and he could travel far and wide.

And, of course, Abraham tells us the priest of Pharaoh was also the priest of Elkenah. And in verse 7 it appears that it was in his capacity as priest of Elkenah that he was sought after to take away Abraham's life. But if we are talking about the vizier, then it's difficult to see how he could have any additional functioning positions in the government, since they would all be irrelevant in comparison with his vizier position.

And this is where the conspiracy theory comes in. What if the priest of Elkenah was part of a secret combination? What if the name "Elkenah" is one of the secret words, as described in Helaman 6:22? What if Abraham was tried, "not according to the laws of their country, but according to the laws of their wickedness," as described in Helaman 6:24?

Let's hold that thought.

Who was Onitah? He is described in verse 11 as "one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham." Yet, despite him being a royal figure, his daughters were killed by the priest of Pharaoh. Or, perhaps they were killed precisely because Onitah was a royal figure, which made them a threat.

If Abraham is telling us that Onitah was a previous Pharaoh, we can conceivably find him by his name. He was contemporary with Abraham, which places him at about 2000 B.C. As we look through the list of Pharaohs, we see throne names like "Sehetepibre," "Kheperkare," "Sankhtawyef," etc. None of those names really resemble "Onitah." But one name on the list is harder to rule out, and that is Nebta (a short form of Neb-tawy-re, also knows as Mentuhotep IV). Nebtawy means "Lord of the two lands," and is a title which can be applied to all of the Pharaohs, however Mentuhotep IV used it not merely as a title but as his actual name. In fact, as a Pharaoh he had five names, and he used "Nebtawy" for three of his five names! And, interestingly, the fourth name, "Netjeru nebu," is also harder to rule out, which gives pause when one considers how easily the other Pharaohs can be ruled out.

If we drop the O in Onitah for the sake of comparison, we get Nitah vs. Nebta (or Nitah vs. Netje, if we use the Golden Horus name), which is actually pretty close, although not a guaranteed match. However, we have some leeway, considering how much is still not known about the pronunciation of Middle Egyptian language and how much is not known about the methods Joseph Smith and his scribes employed when rendering a word into English as "Onitah." We can't rule out Joseph Smith dropping the b arbitrarily, or the existence of unwritten vowels and other unknown sounds inherent in the Egyptian name (which might not be an exact match for the "O" sound, but O might have been a decent rendering of the sound in English).

Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) reigned from 1998-1991 B.C., which is the right timeframe.

Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) is thought to have died childless, which is consistent with Onitah's daughters being killed by the priest of Pharaoh.

Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) is assumed by some Egyptologists to have been killed and deposed by his vizier, Amenemhat.

This vizier, Amenemhat, was not of royal lineage, even though he obtained the throne. If he is the same vizier whom Abraham referred to as the priest of Pharaoh, it makes sense that Abraham continued referring to him only in his role as vizier ("priest of Pharaoh") instead of as Pharaoh, since as Abraham explains, in verse 20, "Pharaoh signifies king by royal blood," and Amenemhat had no royal blood. Notice Abraham does not say there was mourning on the part of Pharaoh, the king, but only in the “court” of Pharaoh. This reference to those of the court, without mentioning the king specifically, is consistent with the idea that the king himself, Amenemhat I, was the one killed. Abraham goes on to state that while "this king of Egypt" was descended from Ham, he was in the same category as "all the Egyptians" and of Canaanite blood (verses 21-22), as opposed to Abraham's description of Onitah being "one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham."

Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) has never been found, neither his mummy nor burial place, which is consistent with him being killed and deposed.

Nebtawy-re (Mentuhotep IV) was not memorialized and was not included on the official king lists in Abydos, which is also consistent with him being killed and deposed.

Amenemhat was also killed, unexpectedly, which is consistent with Abraham 1:20 ("and smote the priest that he died").

Amenemhat moved the capital of Egypt far to the north, where he sought to restore the "old ways" of Egypt, and to link himself to the early rulers.

"Purporting to be the writings of Abraham"

The header for the original 1842 printing of the Book of Abraham reads:

A TRANSLATION
Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

     First, we need not suppose that the word "translation" confines Joseph Smith to what is literally on the papyrus. It is well known that Joseph used the word "translation" in a much broader sense than we typically do today.
     Second, the word "purporting" indicates there is more going on than meets the eye. Here we have a situation where the words “purporting to be” are inserted to indicate something, yet the word “purporting” has negative connotations. That word was only used in the Times and Seasons in reference to things that had not been verified as true, and usually it was used as a means of denying the authenticity of the items in question.

     For instance, the December 1, 1842 edition contains the following excerpt, which uses the word to cast doubt on a “lost book,” which parallels the Book of Abraham:

We have lately seen a pamphlet, written, and published by James C. Brewster; purporting to be one of the lost books of Esdras; and to be written by the gift and power of God. We consider it a perfect humbug, and should not have noticed it, had it not been assiduously circulated, in several branches of the church.

     Another example (out of several which exist) is found in the September 2, 1844 edition:

Whereas Elders James J. Strang and Aaron Smith have been circulating a "revelation." (falsely called) purporting to have been received by Joseph Smith on the 18th of June, 1844: and through the influence of which they have attempted and are attempting to establish a stake, called Voree, in Wisconsin Territory, thereby leading the saints astray: therefore, the said James J. Strang and Aaron Smith are cut off from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this 26th day of August, 1844.

     So, what should we make of the use of the word “purporting” in the Book of Abraham header? Well, we know Joseph is not trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of Abraham's writings which he translated. But he does seem to be casting doubt on the idea that the ancient records in his possession are themselves the plain writings of Abraham. 

Regarding the Alleged Handwriting of Abraham

     The Book of Abraham puzzle is cluttered with a lot of assumptions. One of these is the idea that Joseph Smith claimed Abraham personally held and wrote on the papyrus which Joseph Smith had in his collection. 
     Most LDS apologists seem content with just chalking it up to Joseph Smith not knowing any better, and attributing it to Joseph Smith's secular efforts to understand the papyri's relationship to the inspired Book of Abraham translation.
     That's all well and good if it's true. But I don't think we should just assume that it's true. Such an assumption, if false, could taint our overall understanding of the Book of Abraham issues, possibly making it more difficult for us to find real answers to Book of Abraham challenges.
     So, let's have a look at the cases where Joseph allegedly claimed that Abraham personally wrote on the papyrus.

     I know of five such cases. One is in the handwriting of Willard Richards, possibly dictated by Joseph Smith, and the others include Josiah Quincy, Charles Adams, an anonymous person referenced in the National Intelligencer, and someone referenced in Supplement to the Courant. Let's look at these individually, starting with the most well-known example.

Josiah Quincy

"And now come with me," said the prophet, "and I will show you the curiosities." So saying, he led the way to a lower room, where sat a venerable and respectable-looking lady. "This is my mother, gentlemen. The curiosities we shall see belong to her. They were purchased with her own money, at a cost of six thousand dollars;" and then, with deep feeling, were added the words, "And that woman was turned out upon the prairie in the dead of night by a mob." There were some pine presses fixed against the wall of the room. These receptacles Smith opened, and disclosed four human bodies, shrunken and black with age. "These are mummies," said the exhibitor. "I want you to look at that little runt of a fellow over there. He was a great man
in his day. Why, that was Pharaoh Necho, King of Egypt!" Some parchments inscribed with hieroglyphics were then offered us. They were preserved under glass and handled with great respect. "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful," said the prophet. "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." The parchment last referred to showed a rude drawing of a man and woman, and a serpent walking upon a pair of legs. I ventured to doubt the propriety of providing the reptile in question with this unusual means of locomotion.

     This account of a visit to Nauvoo, which took place shortly before Joseph's Martyrdom, was published in 1883 and compiled from Quincy's journal entries and letters written in 1844. Quincy was certainly not acting as a scribe for Joseph during the visit, and it is doubtful that, by the time Quincy sat down to compose his journal entries and letters concerning the variety of experiences he had at Nauvoo, that he actually recalled the words which Joseph had said. Rather, he seems to be caricaturing the types of things which were said, in order to convey the general spirit of his experience. For instance, he says Joseph Smith's mother purchased the papyri, which is not true, and that the price was 6,000 dollars, which is also not true. Here it looks like Quincy combined two separate ideas - that the papyri had been purchased and that Joseph's mother owned them – into a single claim. And, he did so without attention to the finer details.  

     Quoting Joseph's exact words was evidently not Quincy's concern, since, in his words, "the blasphemous assumptions of Smith seemed like the ravings of a lunatic."
     Are the "ravings of a lunatic" significant enough to remember word-for-word? He even compared Smith to inmates at an insane asylum, "victims of the sad but not uncommon delusion that each had received the appointment of vicegerent of the Deity upon earth." Quincy does not seem to hold this against Smith personally, but rather is taking pity on him, while at the same time marveling that such a man could accomplish all that Joseph Smith had accomplished.

     Moreover, Quincy's journal entry is less reliable because it was apparently rewritten decades later to make it more suitable for publication. In his introduction, Quincy states:

... a friend, who had read my journals with interest, offered me his most valuable aid in what may be called the literary responsibilities of the undertaking. My narratives have gained in grace of expression as they passed beneath the correcting pen of my obliging critic, and I am confident that a stern exercise of his right of curtailing reflections and omitting incidents has been no less for the reader's advantage.

     We might reasonably suppose that any of Joseph Smith's detailed, clarifying remarks, which Quincy may conceivably have originally written down, would have been edited out as part of that "stern exercise of his right of curtailing reflections and omitting incidents..."  

     In further support of this view is the included statement, "This is the autograph of Moses, and these lines were written by his brother Aaron. Here we have the earliest account of the creation, from which Moses composed the first book of Genesis." Since this was May of 1844, Joseph had long since already translated both the Book of Moses and the Book of Abraham. But Quincy and his friend appear not to realize that the Book of Moses had in fact come from a translation of the Bible, not from a translation of the papyri, so in print it ended up in a narrative of the papyri - and this is perhaps the type of liberty which Quincy calls the “grace of expression” in the introductory excerpt to his book, cited above.

Charles Francis Adams

He [Joseph Smith] then took us down into his mother's chamber and showed us four Egyptian mummies stripped and then undertook to explain the contents of a chart or manuscript which he said had been taken from the bosom of one of them. The cool impudence of this imposture amused me very much. "This," said he, "was written by the hand of Abraham and means so and so. If anyone denies it, let him prove the contrary. I say it." Of course, we were too polite to prove the negative, against a man fortified by revelation.

     Perhaps the most telling words in the Adams account are “so and so.” Like Quincy, Adams is clearly not interested in what Smith was saying, but is “amused” at what he calls an “imposture.” Adams believes that he (and Quincy) could have proven the “so and so” wrong, but were simply too polite to do so – and yet he still declines to do so in even his journal entry, where politeness is no longer at issue, which perhaps means that he had forgotten what the “so and so” was. In any event, it appears Joseph simply explained how  the Book of Abraham came down to us, and that Adams took away very few of the details.

Joseph Smith

A considerable quantity of the matter in the last paper was in type before the establishment came into my hands.— Some of which went to press without my review or knowledge and a multiplicity of business while entering on the additional care of the editorial department of the Times and Seasons must be my apology for what is past.—

In future I design to furnish much original matter which will be found of inestimable advantage to the saints,—& all who desire a knowledge of the kingdom of God,—and as it is not practicable to bring forth the new translation of the Scriptures & various records of ancient date & great worth to this generation in the usual form by books I shall permit specimens of the same in the Times & Seasons as fast as time and space will admit,—so that the honest in heart may be cheered and comforted and go on their way rejoicing,— as their souls become exposed.—& their understanding enlightened by a knowledge of God's work through the fathers in former days as well as what He is about to do in latter days to fulfill the words of the fathers.— 

In the present no. will be found the commencement of the Records discovered in Egypt some time since as penned by the hand of Father Abraham which I shall outline to translate & publish as fast as possible till the whole is completed and as the saints have long been anxious to obtain a copy of these records those [who] are now taking this Times Seasons will confer a special favor on their brethren who do not take the paper by informing them that they can now obtain their hearts.

      This was a rough draft of a statement which was in the process of being prepared for the Times and Seasons, in the handwriting of Willard Richards on behalf of Joseph Smith. This unpublished statement was written before the publication of the Book of Abraham, when Joseph was perhaps still deciding how to explain the relationship between the record of Abraham and the papyri without detracting from the message of the scripture. 

     One of the routine duties of Joseph's scribes was to adjust his grammar and phraseology to conform to professional standards. In the process of them performing that duty, some meaning can however be lost. 

     Richard Bushman illustrates how William Clayton as scribe was “more alert to doctrine” than Willard Richards, citing differences in how they recorded a statement made by Joseph Smith on April 2, 1843:

Richards recorded one famous epigram as “The earth in its sanctified and immortal state will be a Urim & Thummim for all things below it in the scale of creation, but not above it.” Clayton elaborated the sentence to read “The earth when it is purified will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim & Thummim whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom on all kingdoms of a lower order will be manifest to those who dwell on it.”

     We might contrast the unpublished statement written by Richards for Joseph Smith, with the introductory note which ended up on the Book of Abraham when it was finally published. The note does not say the papyrus Abraham wrote on was the same papyrus Joseph Smith purchased, or even a papyrus roll that still exists, or anything of the like.

     The header for the original 1842 printing reads:

A TRANSLATION
Of some ancient Records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the BOOK OF ABRAHAM, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.

     First, we need not suppose that the word "translation" confines Joseph Smith to what is literally on the papyrus. It is well known that Joseph used the word "translation" in a much broader sense than we typically do today.
     Second, the word "purporting" indicates there is more going on than meets the eye. Here we have a situation where the words “purporting to be” are inserted to indicate something, yet the word “purporting” has negative connotations. That word was only used in the Times and Seasons in reference to things that had not been verified as true, and usually it was used as a means of denying the authenticity of the items in question.

     For instance, the December 1, 1842 edition contains the following excerpt, which uses the word to cast doubt on a “lost book,” which parallels the Book of Abraham:

We have lately seen a pamphlet, written, and published by James C. Brewster; purporting to be one of the lost books of Esdras; and to be written by the gift and power of God. We consider it a perfect humbug, and should not have noticed it, had it not been assiduously circulated, in several branches of the church.

     Another example (out of several which exist) is found in the September 2, 1844 edition:

Whereas Elders James J. Strang and Aaron Smith have been circulating a "revelation." (falsely called) purporting to have been received by Joseph Smith on the 18th of June, 1844: and through the influence of which they have attempted and are attempting to establish a stake, called Voree, in Wisconsin Territory, thereby leading the saints astray: therefore, the said James J. Strang and Aaron Smith are cut off from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this 26th day of August, 1844.

     So, what should we make of the use of the word “purporting” in the Book of Abraham header? Well, we know Joseph is not trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of Abraham's writings which he translated. But he does seem to be casting doubt on the idea that the ancient records in his possession are themselves the plain, uncorrupted writings of Abraham. 

        

National Intelligencer

To the disgrace of the age this wicked imposture flourished. As a specimen of its grossness, we may mention a fact, stated by an extremely respectable gentleman of this city, as one within his personal knowledge. Being on a tour to the West, he visited Nauvoo from curiosity. In the temple he was shown a collection of curiosities, and among them were one or two mummies, which had been imported from Egypt by Joe Smith. The attention of the visitor was called by Smith to the mummy clothes and the writing upon them. "There," said Smith, "that's the hand writing of the patriarch Abraham, and I am the only man that can read it," which he then proceeded to do!

     This article was a piece of anti-Mormon propaganda, arguing against statehood for “Deseret.” Aside from that, the article may have simply been referring to Josiah Quincy:

     Quincy: "That is the handwriting of Abraham, the Father of the Faithful,"”

     Intelligencer: "that's the hand writing of the patriarch Abraham...”

     Quincy fits the description of an “extremely respectable gentleman,” who had been “on a tour to the West,” and “visited Nauvoo from curiosity.” He was also “of this city,” meaning Washington, D.C., where the Intelligencer was published, in the sense that his father, Josiah Quincy III, became a United States Congressman two years after the younger Quincy was born, and served for eight years in Washington, D.C. 

Supplement to the Courant

The embalmed body that stands near the centre of the case, said he, is one of the Pharaohs, who sat upon the throne of Egypt; and the female figure by its side, was probably one of his daughters. It may have been the princess Thermutis, I replied, the same that rescued Moses from the waters of the Nile. It is not improbable, answered the prophet; but my time has not yet allowed me fully to examine and decide that point. Do you understand the Hebrew language, said he, raising his hand to the top of the case, and taking down a small Hebrew Grammar of Rabbi Sexias. That language has not altogether escaped my attention, was the reply. He then walked to a secretary, on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyp-tian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted. These ancient records, said he, throw great light upon the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has hitherto been too much taken up to translate the whole of them, 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. It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts hand-somely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place. Yes, replied the prophet, and the translation hung up with them.

     The first thing I want to address is a recurring theme, an example of which we find here, of Joseph telling people that one of the mummies was a “pharaoh” or a “king.”

     The details of the accounts differ and provide contradictory information, but among these accounts is even an 1846 statement attributed to Joseph's mother, Lucy Mack Smith, by someone known as “M.”

[Lucy Mack Smith] produced a black looking roll (which she told us was papyrus) found on the breast of the King, part of which the prophet had unrolled and read; and she had pasted the deciphered sheets on the leaves of a book which she showed us.

     It's possible that “M” could be relying on someone in addition to Lucy for this information, but it sounds like Lucy is talking about the Book of Breathings papyrus, and that she explained something about it being found on the breast of “the king.” It was, in fact, found on the breast of Hor, who was a priest but not a king. The only way Hor could be called a king is either by mistake or in the context of the Book of Breathings content, which tells Hor that he has become Osiris (a king and god) and tells him, “you are on the throne of Osiris.”

     Osiris was believed by Egyptians to have been the first king/pharaoh of Egypt, as well as a god and king of the afterlife. We wouldn't expect people to understand or remember a detailed explanation from Joseph regarding these matters, but they would certainly remember the word “king,” leading to people thinking, “Joseph said the mummy was a pharaoh.” 

     And it's important to keep in mind that Joseph and his mother were showing people the Egyptian papyrus, not the English translated Book of Abraham. So in that context, it would be natural for Joseph to speak of the Book of Breathings in a similar fashion as how he addressed it in response to William Clayton's questions on the plates found in Kinderhook, Illinois, according to my theory on the Kinderhook Plates.

     The second, but primary, issue I wish to discuss here is the word “signature,” in this visitor's reference to Joseph mentioning the signature of Abraham.

     Webster in 1828 defined “signature” in the first entry as:

1. A sign, stamp or mark impressed. The brain being well furnished with various traces, signatures and images. The natural and indelible signature of God stamped on the human soul.

     The relevant definition for “mark,” is “any note or sign of distinction.”

     The relevant definitions for “stamp” are:

3. To impress; to imprint; to fix deeply; as, to stamp virtuous principles on the heart.
4. To fix a mark by impressing it; as a notion of the Deity stamped on the mind.

     All of these are useful to us, but the first word Webster used, in the first definition for “signature,” is “sign.” In turn, the first definition he gives for “sign” is:

1. A token; something by which another thing is shown or represented; any visible thing, any motion, appearance or event which indicates the existence or approach of something else. Thus we speak of signs of fair weather or of a storm, and of external marks which are signs of a good constitution.

     Joseph, then, was perhaps not pointing to any instance of Abraham having actually personally written on the papyrus, but instead to something on the papyrus which signifies Abraham, i.e. “something by which another thing is shown or represented.”
     Most likely, Joseph's reference to a signature was part of a larger explanation, as it seems unlikely that Joseph would have just out of the blue pointed to a certain character and said it was the signature of Abraham, but the image of him pointing at the papyrus is what stood out in the visitor's memory.

    Of course, the visitor goes on to call it an “autograph,” indicating the visitor's own, perhaps limited, understanding of Joseph's explanations. Joseph evidently declined to comment on the visitor's use of the word “autograph,” but focused on the visitor's remark about the external beauty of the papyri, using it as an opportunity to turn the conversation towards the English translation of the Book of Abraham: “Yes, replied the prophet, and the translation hung up with them.”

     It's hard to imagine what it must have been like to be in Joseph's shoes, having a great understanding of heaven and God, and so many other things, yet leading people who themselves have great variance in their levels of understanding. I am reminded of the scriptures:

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now (John 16:12).

0 Behold, ye are little children and ye cannot bear all things now; ye must grow in grace and in the knowledge of the truth (D&C 50:40).

The Critic's Chair

A number of years ago, my dad shared with me a parable about a grandfather. It goes something like this.

Many centuries ago, a certain young man was visiting his grandfather for the summer. After a few weeks had passed, the boy grew restless and asked his grandfather if they could go into town. The grandfather thought it was a fine idea, so off they went, with the old man on his donkey and the young man walking alongside.

As they passed some strangers, they heard whispers... "Can you imagine a grown man making a child walk while he rides comfortably on a donkey? That poor boy."

Feeling embarrassed, the grandfather switched places with his grandson.

Soon, they passed another group of strangers. "What a spoiled child. That old man is trudging along while a perfectly healthy lad rides a donkey!"

Once again embarrassed, the grandfather decided there was room for both of them on the donkey.

They passed another group of strangers. "Look! That donkey is carrying two people! Are they trying to kill it? That poor thing."

At his wits end, the grandfather decided they should both just walk alongside the donkey.

Soon, a group of strangers was pointing and laughing. "A perfectly good donkey, and neither of them has the good sense to use it!"

The moral of the story here is that you can't please everyone. I would also add: You can't always be pleased. At least, as long as we live in an imperfect world and we have imperfect knowledge, we will always be able to find fault with others.

In particular, I think of the countless criticisms engineered against Church leaders.

Do we not realize that Church leaders also live in this imperfect world, and their options are limited like the rest of us?

For example, some people are offended that the LDS Church built a mall (using investment funds only, not tithed funds), on it's property to the south of temple square. Personally, I see it as a great way to prevent inner city entropy, to beautify the area and to engage the public and tourists. That's in addition to it being a good investment. But to anyone offended, I would ask what the Church should have instead done with that property which it owns? Should the land just be a field for antelope to roam?

I'd like to see a criticism-proof idea, complete with cost/benefit analysis demonstrating with certainty that something else would have been a better use of the property.

This is the problem with many critics. They are like children throwing a fit over adult concerns that they don't understand. "But I want to have ice cream for dinner!" "You are mean because you won't buy me that toy!"

Which brings me to another example. From time to time, I hear someone complain about a Church leader flying First Class on an airplane. But what is the cost/benefit breakdown? First, the cost. General Authorities preside over a worldwide Church and spend a great deal of their time traveling. What arrangement do they have with the airline? And then, benefits. General Authorities have security and privacy concerns. They have heavy workloads, and limited time. They also need rest, to allow them to perform their duties in the many areas to which they travel.

No critic can deny that first class airfare offers greater opportunity for work and productivity during a flight, for resting as needed and for more security and privacy.
And critics don't know the cost, because we don't know what arrangement the Church has with the airline (although critics call that a lack of transparency, it is really none of their business).

These are practical concerns, in the real world. The critics might as well criticize themselves for owning cars - paying for gas,  repairs, insurance, etc. - despite the option of public transportation. Why not get rid of their cars and donate the saved money to the charity of their choice? Do the critics not realize that people are starving in the world, while they drive their air conditioned vehicles?

Brain Games and Gay Questions: On the Children of Gay Parents

The above rectangle represents a set of facts. The facts are given on their own, without any prejudice. 

An example of such facts could be changes in policies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Recently, such a change occurred regarding children in households run by gay couples. 

Different people have reacted to the change in very different ways. Some people see the change as a clear act of hatred and spite. Others view the change as an act of love and compassion. Both sides are looking at the same objective facts. Why do they see them so differently? 

What people see is not necessarily a choice. Rather, it may stem from a large set of choices and influences which have accumulated over the course of their lives, which has produced a worldview by which they interpret the facts presented to them. 

People may see their interpretation as being crystal clear and might be annoyed when others disagree - even accusing the others of being disingenuous. 

But remember the grey square, above. Look at the following image from the TV show Brain Games:

The grey shape above the horizon looks darker than the grey shape below the horizon. But they are actually the same color, and we only perceive them differently because of the larger view, which prejudices our interpretation of the facts. We might think that the bottom shape is clearly lighter, and we might even falsely classify what we see as being an objective fact. But it is not.

If we make a slight adjustment to the context in which we are viewing the shapes, we can then see the colors for what they are... the same shade of grey. 

From an LDS perspective, this example could illustrate the different between seeing the world with the influence of the Holy Ghost and seeing the world without the influence of the Holy Ghost. 

It's important to remember that the way we view the colors is not a conscious choice. Even after having it explained logically, we can't make ourselves see the color accurately. 

In one environment, we can see it correctly, and in another environment, we cannot see it correctly. 

This brings me to the issue of the children of gay parents. 

It's easy to say that any child can see the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints plainly. But only God knows how the environment in which someone exists influences their interpretation of the teachings. 

We cannot control all the factors which influence our worldview. I believe for children this is particularly true. And, the issue of family is particularly central to the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Teaching the gospel is not just about memorizing data, but is much more about shaping the context by which one views the teachings.