By Jerald and Sandra Tanner

---

In our three-volume work The Case Against Mormonism, we have presented a great deal of evidence which demonstrates that the Book of Abraham was a work of Joseph Smith’s own imagination and that the anti-Negro doctrine contained in its pages must be abandoned.

Fawn M. Brodie has recently come out with a “Revised and Enlarged” edition of her book, No Man Knows My History. In this new edition she makes these interesting comments concerning the Book of Abraham problem:

From the standpoint of the church which survived him, the Book of Abraham was the most unfortunate thing Joseph ever wrote. By outliving the Civil War, which forever banished slavery as an issue between Mormon and gentile, its racial doctrine preserved the discrimination that is the ugliest thesis in existing Mormon theology.

Moreover, the book laid Joseph open to the ridicule of future scholars, for his papyri were almost certain to be examined at some later date by experts in the Egyptian language. Unlike the golden plates, which had been whisked back into heaven, the mummies and papyri were kept exhibit in both Kirtland and Nauvoo. The actual papyri escaped scholarly examination for many years. So after Joseph’s death they were sold . . . and were thought to have burned in the great Chicago fire. Such a disaster might have ended all chance of exposing Joseph’s mistake had he not preserved three facsimiles of the papyri, which he published in 1842 with elaborate interpretations.

These interpretations were first challenged in 1860, . . . to examine the facsimiles agreed that they were ordinary funeral documents such as can be found on thousands of Egyptian graves. The discovery in 1967 that eleven fragments of the papyri had found their way to the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art led to fresh interpretations by scholars which confirmed the earlier appraisals. (No Man Knows My History, New York, 1971, pages 174-175)

On pages 422-425 of the same book, Mrs. Brodie states:

. . . when the eleven fragments were given to the Latter-day Saints in Salt Lake City, many of the devout thought confidently that they would prove to be scientific evidence of the divine claims of their prophet.

Translation of the fragments by Egyptologists John S. Wilson and Klaus Baer of the University of Chicago Oriental Institute and Richard A. Parker of Brown University, indicated, however, that some of the fragments were Book of the Dead scrolls . . . and that others were from the Egyptian Book of Breathings, . . .

A remarkable compilation of the documentation on the papyri appeared in 1968 in two issues of Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought, a scholarly Mormon publication not subject to censorship by the church leadership. . . . Professor Hugh Nibley of the Brigham Young University wrote defensively: “So far everything that has appeared in print about the newly found papyri has been written either by hysterical opponents of everything Mormon or by people innocent of any bias in favor of Joseph Smith. . . . we have seen some of the papyri that were in Smith’s possession but there is no evidence that we have seen them all, and it is apparent that only one small piece among them has any direct bearing on the Book of Abraham.”

The controversy over the papyri was further heightened in 1968 by that acquisition and publication by Jerald Tanner of a filmed copy of Joseph Smith’s “Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar.” Formerly unknown save to Mormon archivists, which proved to be at least as damaging to Joseph Smith’s claims as a translator as the translations of the papyri by the Egyptologists. Tanner, together with Grant Heward, in commenting on the specific explanations Joseph Smith gave for numerous Egyptian characters, pointed out that “The characters from fewer than four lines of the papyrus make up forty-nine verses of the Book of Abraham, containing more than two thousand words.” Their study indicates that the Book of Abraham did in fact come from a portion of the papyri now under scrutiny by scholars, and that Professor Nibley’s suggestion that the Book of Abraham was translated from papyri not yet found is without foundation.

What makes for an intolerable complication to the Book of Abraham controversy is the fact that several lines in the sacred book constitute the theological basis for the Mormon Church’s long-standing discrimination against the Negro. . . .

From this “scriptural precedent” the Mormon Church over the years developed an elaborate Jim Crow system in regard to black converts. Though all white and Oriental males were granted the right to “hold the priesthood,” this right was denied to all blacks. . . . the Mormon leadership now faces a dilemma of peculiar complexity. To heed the Egyptologists means repudiation of the Book of Abraham, which could make all of Joseph Smith’s holy books suspect. To give the blacks the priesthood without a new revelation or “manifesto” also means implicit repudiation of the Book of Abraham. But to continue to deny blacks the full privileges or membership in the Church on the basis of a book that is manifestly suspect as history seems to an increasing number of Mormons an immoral process, alien to the ideas of the Declaration of Independence and to the fundamental injunction of Christianity about loving one’s neighbor as oneself. . . .

If the Mormon Church does not modify its racist practices, it seems likely that its future converts in large part will continue to come, as they have been in recent years, from right-wing groups who are hostile to black people under any circumstances. If so, the alienation of the intellectuals from the Church will continue. . . . As a social organization the Church is a dynamo of inexhaustible energy. It remains to be seen if Mormon leadership now seriously impeded by its failure to retire before they become aged the men at the peak of the pyramid, can continue to direct this dynamo in the direction of social betterment and racial understanding. (No Man Knows My History, pages 422-425)

In an article entitled “What is ‘The Book of Breathings’?” Dr. Hugh Nibley now frankly admits that the facsimiles for Joseph Smith’s “Book of Abraham” were taken from the Book of Breathings papyrus. He admits that the Book of Breathings is an Egyptian funerary text, but he is still unwilling to admit that the Book of Abraham is spurious:

Upon their publication in 1967, the Joseph Smith Papyri Nos. X and XI were quickly and easily identified as pages from the Egyptian “Book of Breathings.” . . . the Book of Breathings is before all else, as Bonnet observes, a composite, made up of “compilations and excerpts from older funerary sources and Mortuary formulas.” . . . The Book of Breathings is the great time binder; it comes towards the end of Egyptian civilization and so wraps everything up, right from the beginning . . .

The lateness of the “Breathing” documents, instead of detracting from their value actually enhances it. For it not only gives them a chance to embrace the entire funerary literature of the past, but places them in that crucial moment of transition in which they are able to transmit much ancient Egyptian lore to early Jewish and Christian circles. . . .

Of particular interest to us is the close association of the Book of Breathing with the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham. It can be easily shown by matching up the fibers of the papyri that the text of Joseph Smith Pap. No. XI was written on the same strip of material as Facsimile Number 1, the writing beginning immediately to the left of the “lion-couch” scene . . . Thus our “Sensen” Papyrus is closely bound to all three facsimiles by physical contact, putting us under moral obligation to search out possible relationships between the content of the four documents.

As a “packaging job” the Book of Breathings is a most remarkable performance, “an attempt to include all essential elements of belief in a future life in a work shorter and more simple than the Book of the Dead.” . . .

The Book of Breathings is the end-product of a long process of abbreviating and epitomizing which was characteristically Egyptian . . . the Book of Breathings . . . contains the essential elements of the Egyptian funerary rites from the earliest times; . . . The Book of Breathings is not to be dismissed as it has been, as a mere talisman against stinking corpses; it is a sermon on breathing in every Egyptian sense of the word. (Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1971 pages 153, 158-160, 162-164 and 166)

It would appear that Dr. Nibley still has no real answers to give his people and that the authenticity of the Book of Abraham has been disproven by the translations of the Egyptologists.

In our Case Against Mormonism we not only show that the Book of Abraham is spurious but also that the Book of Mormon is a product of the 19th century and that Joseph Smith’s revelations have been changed. In a review of the first two volumes of this work Kenneth Kantzer, Dean of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, made these statements:

These books represent no ordinary polemic against Mormonism. This is the definitive, fully-documented, utterly-devastating case against the divine authority and truthfulness of the foundational documents upon which the Mormon religion is based. . . . It is difficult to see how the Mormon church can survive the devastating destruction of its foundations as presented in these volumes. (Evangelical Beacon, Minneapolis, Minn., vol. 42, no.1, October 8, 1968, page 7)

[Bold in quotations is added for emphasis and does not appear in originals.]

Marvin S. Hill, who teaches history at Brigham Young University, seems to feel that the Church can survive almost any attack on its scriptures by appealing to the fact that it is led by revelation at the present time:

While Mormons venerate their sacred books, . . . the final word comes not from any scriptural passage but from the living oracles. The Saints hang more upon the words of their prophets than upon the canons of the written law. This is one reason it may make little difference to them if they are told that some of the divine books have been altered, or even that the accepted view of the origin of one of their books might have to be revised.

. . . Yesterday’s mistakes and revisions seem insignificant when compared with the advantage of social stability which derives from waiting upon the word of the Lord. (Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Autumn 1970, page 96)

In The Case Against Mormonism, vol. 3, we show that even though the Church claims to be led by revelation the evidence clearly shows that it is not. Joseph F. Smith, the sixth President of the Mormon Church, testified as follows in the Reed Smoot Investigation:

Senator Dubois.— Have you received any revelations from God, which has been submitted by you and the apostles to the body of the church in their semiannual conference, which revelation had been sustained by that conference, through the upholding of their hands?

Mr. Smith.— Since when?

Senator Dubois.— Since you became President of the Church.

Mr. Smith.— No, sir; none whatever.

Senator Dubois. — Have you received any individual revelations yourself, since you became President of the Church under your own definition, even, of a revelation?

Mr. Smith.— I cannot say that I have.

Senator Dubois.— Can you say that you have not?

Mr. Smith.— No; I cannot say that I have not.

Senator Dubois.— Then you do not know whether you have received any such revelations as you have described or whether you have not?

Mr. Smith.— Well, I can say this: That if I live as I should in the line of my duties, I am susceptible, I think, of the impressions of the Spirit of the Lord upon my mind at any time, just as any good Methodist or any other good church member might be. And so far as that is concerned, I say yes; I have had impressions of the Spirit upon my mind very frequently but they are not in the sense of revelations. (Reed Smoot Case, vol. 1, page 483-484)

On page 99 of the same volume Joseph F. Smith stated: “Mr. Smith. I have never pretended to nor do I profess to have received revelations.” From this it is plain to see that just because a man is ordained a “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator,” it does not necessarily mean that he is. If Joseph F. Smith was only as susceptible to the impressions of the Spirit of the Lord as “any good Methodist,” then why should his word be trusted above that of a good Methodist?

Although the Mormon Church is supposed to be led by revelation the evidence of this revelation is very hard to find. No new revelations have been added to the Doctrine and Covenants since the Manifesto of 1890.

We are told that revelation is found in the Conferences of the Church, when the leaders of the Church speak under the inspiration of the Lord, but how can we know when they are speaking under the Spirit of the Lord? Obviously, much of what has been said at the conferences of the church down through the years was not spoken under the inspiration of the Lord.

Today the Mormon Church is faced with some very serious problems, and these problems are complicated by the fact that some of the Mormon leaders are very old. Wallace Turner made these statements:

In 1966, I attended the April conference in Salt Lake City and was able to watch the almost casual way this disposal of power is reaffirmed. President David O. McKay was then greatly enfeebled by age and a stroke. He sat in the top row of the tiers of seats for the General Authorities while his first counselor, Hugh B. Brown, spoke, explaining that President McKay was “presiding” while Brown was “conducting” the meeting. Then the ninety-two old man slowly moved two or three steps to the rostrum, so aged and frail that one’s anxiety was increased lest he fall. He spoke slowly and indistinctly and with great effort. Since his stoke at age ninety his once-powerful voice had faded. But he was still handsome and straight as he stood erect at the rostrum, . . . (The Mormon Establishment, pages 52-53)

David O. McKay lived to be 96 years old, but he was in very poor health toward the end of his life and was hardly in any condition to function as Prophet, Seer and Revelator for the Church.

Instead of appointing a younger man to lead the Church, they chose Joseph Fielding Smith who is now 94 years old. He is the son of Joseph F. Smith—the man who testified that although he was the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the Church, he had never received a revelation.

---

---