Conference tecrus::mormonism

Leza's new installment concerns quite a few very interesting topics of
discussion.  Many of those topics are already being discussed.  I am posting
this reply to give a correlation of 38.4 with other notes that concern the
scriptures that are unique to the LDS Church.

    4.1   The Godhead
    4.6   The Bible as a source of truth
    4.7   Answers to prayer
    4.15  Visitations of the Angel Moroni
    4.16  The Book of Mormon, Another Testament of Jesus Christ
    4.17  Jesus Christ appeared in ancient America
    4.18  Why another book of scripture?
    4.19  Biblical prophecies of the Book of Mormon
    4.49  We are adopted to Jesus Christ

   31     Evidences of the Book of Mormon
   33     He walked the Americas
   44     Christ after His resurrection
   58     Validity of the Book of Mormon
   62     Translation of the Book of Mormon
   64     Evidence and Parallels
   69     Evaluating historical documents
   73     Articles of Faith
   80     Refutation of the Book of Mormon
   81     Replies to Note 80
   84     How perfect do prophets have to be?
   88     Principles vs. Policy
   90     The Kinderhook plates
   95     The Spalding theory
   97     The Godhead
  104     Wordprints: An objective look at the Book of Mormon

Leza,

In making your claim that the Book of Mormon was given word for word by
the Lord, you referred to a statement by David Whitmer.  As I have already
discussed in note 62, that that statement has very weak historical substance.
The statement itself is a secondary record.  David himself is a secondary
source because he never participated in the translation.  Merely because
David was a contemporary of Joseph Smith and one of the Church leaders
before his excommunication does not mean that his statement is necessarily
correct.

I explained in note 62 that the primary record concerning the translation
of the plates is D & C 9:7-9 which indicates that the Lord did not give
the English translation as David stated.  The Lord very plainly said that
the translator (Section 9 was given to Oliver Cowdery but applies in
general to Joseph as well) had to study the meaning of the characters in
his mind and pray to know if the meaning was correct; if so, the warm
feeling from the Holy Ghost occurred, while if not, a stupor of thought
from the Holy Ghost occurred.  

Many of your arguments about the Book of Mormon in 38.4 are conditioned
on your belief that the Book of Mormon was given word for word by the
Lord.  As soon as one realizes that the translation was given as meaning
but not as specific words, then many of your arguments lose their basis.

Allen

Leza,

You gave four examples of changes that have been made in editions of the Book
of Mormon.  Two of them have already been discussed note 62.0 and 62.1.  I'm
a bit confused why you are bringing up questions that have already been
answered.

The other changes you gave were page 25 of the 1830 version/Nephi 11:18
and page 26/1 Nephi 13:40, the change being the addition of the words
"the Son of".

These changes are the same type of change as I discussed in note 62.  I
explained in notes 4.1 and 97 that it is proper to call individual members
of the Godhead "God".  It is also proper to refer to them collectively as
"God".  I explained in note 4.49 that it is proper to call Jesus Father because
we are adopted to him and become his sons.

The Nephites lived under the Law of Moses.  They had a narrow viewpoint of
God.  To them God was Jehovah.  He was their Father, their God.  Their
narrow viewpoint did not imply that God the Father and the Holy Ghost did
not exist.  Their narrow viewpoint was a result of the limited knowledge
of the Hebrews under the Law of Moses.  Because of this they referred to Jesus
(Jehovah) as Father, as God.  Today we have a broader perspective of God
because we live in a different dispensation and have more revealed truth.
Today we emphasis the three members of the Godhead instead of the narrow
perspective of the Nephites.

The four changes you gave are not doctrinal changes but changes for
clarification.

Allen

Leza,

You referred to the use of King James English in the Book of Mormon.  This
is being discussed in great detail in notes 62, 80, and 81.

Allen

Leza,

You referred to Section 101:4 in the 1835 D & C (the statement on Polygamy).
The addition of that statement to the 1835 edition and the subsequent
removal of it in later editions was explained in note 25.25.  See also
note 88 (Principles vs. Policies) for background information.

Allen

>And now I, Nephi, do not make a full	For what man knoweth the things
>account of the things which my fat-	of a man, except the spirit of
>ther hath written...Behold, I make	of man which is in him?
>an abridgement of the record of my
>father...(1 Nephi 1:16,17)		(1 Corin. 2:11-13)

I don't understand at all, Leza, what you are getting at in comparing those
two scriptures.  Nephi is talking about the written record that was kept by
his father (I'm going to use the word "journal" to put it in our context).
Lehi had kept a journal of his activities.  Nephi was starting to keep his
own journal and said that he was not going to copy everything that his
father had written into his journal, but that he would abridge or summarize
his father's writings in his own book.  He is talking about how much information
to put into his journal since he has limited space for writing.

The verses from Corinthians are talking about enlightenment from the Holy
Spirit (if you read them in context).

Perhaps you will kindly elaborate on what you were getting at?

Allen

>Nevertheless, I do not write anything	Knowing this first, that no
>upon plates save it be that I think	prophecy of the scripture is
>they are sacred And now, if I do err,	of any private interpretation.
>even did they err of old;...I would	For the scripture came not any
>excuse myself (1 Nephi 19:6)		time by the will of man, but 
>					holy men of God spoke as they were
>					moved by the Holy Spirit
>					(2 Peter 1:20,21)
>
>Prophets of the Old Testament never made excuses for themselves, for they 
>did not speak their own words but God's.  When God says something is 
>correct, it will come true. We must not make 'abridgements' of His Word.

We have to be careful, Leza, that we don't read things into scriptures that
aren't there.  The verses from 2 Peter say two things: (1) prophecies should
not be interpreted via man's wisdom, and (2) the men who made the
prophecies were inspired by the Holy Spirit.  That is all those verses say!

The verses say *nothing* about prophets making errors or not making them.
The verses do *not* even imply that prophets do not make errors.  The
verses only say that the men spoke under inspiration.

The error that Nephi referred to in verse 6 was not concerning prophecies
being fulfilled.  Verse 7 explains that he was referring to his decisions
about what to record in his journal.  He was concerned that he might omit
some sacred things from his journal or perhaps put things in which were not
sacred, and in verse 7 he brought out that different people have different
ideas about what is sacred.

If you or anyone wishes to continue the topic of prophets making mistakes,
the discussion should be moved to note 84.

Allen

>*  2 Nephi 1:3 cites America as the "land of promise" for these Israelites.  
>But the Bible informs us that for the children of Israel the land of Canaan 
>was the promised land. (See Genesis 13:14-18)

Genesis 13:14-18 describes the covenant made between the Lord and Abraham in
that the land of Canaan would be given to the seed of Abraham.  2 Nephi 1:1-3
refers to the land of america which was given to the family of Lehi because
they heeded the command of the Lord to flee Jerusalem.

In giving bringing Lehi's family to a new land of promise, the promise made
to Abraham was still in effect--the land of Canaan was still a land of promise
to Abraham's seed.  The covenant made with Lehi did not affect or cancel the
covenant made with Abraham.  Certainly the Lord has the right to give lands
since He created the earth and all things are his.  

It is important to note that the Lord did not say nor imply that other lands
would be not given to Abraham's seed.  In fact Genesis 13:14-18 also states that
Abraham's seed would become as numerous as the dust of the earth, an implication
that other lands could be involved since the dust of the earth is so numerous
that it covers the whole earth.

We have to be careful that we don't read things into the scriptures that are
not there.  In this case we have to avoid reading into Genesis a condition that
only the Land of Canaan would be given to Abraham's seed.  In Genesis, the Lord
said that the Land of Canaan would be given and left unanswered the question
about other lands.

Allen

>*  2 Nephi 10:7 (verse 3 states this is speaking of the Jews) "...When the 
>day cometh that they shall believe in me, that I am Christ then have I 
>covenanted with their fathers that they shall be restored in the flesh, 
>upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance."  THIS IS A FALSE 
>PROPHECY!!  The Jews ARE back in their own land and they do NOT believe 
>that Jesus is the Christ.  Someday they will believe when they see Him, but 
>that was not a condition for their restoration, which is clearly evident 
>since they DO occupy the land of their inheritance once again.
 
We have to be careful, Leza, that we don't limit the Lord to the narrow vision
we have of things.  In 2 Nephi 10:7, the Lord said that when the time would
come that the Jews would believe in Him, they would be restored "unto the lands
of their inheritance."  In verse 8, He described that the Jews would be
"gathered in from the isles of the sea, and from the four parts of the earth;"
and brought to the "lands of their inheritance."

That gathering has begun and there are Jews living in Palestine.  However, I
would not want to be so bold as to say that the gathering of the Jews has been
completed.  I would not want to be so bold as to say that the Jews have been
"restored in the flesh, upon the earth, unto the lands of their inheritance."
The Lord, not us, will decide when these events have been completed.

Allen

>*  2 Nephi 25:19 says,..."and according to the words of the prophets and 
>also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son 
>of God."  "Christ" was not His last name.  It means the "Annointed One' or 
>"The Messiah".  The name 'Jesus' was not foretold in Old Testament times by 
>an angel to anyone in reference to the "Son of God".  The first time an 
>angel revealed what His name would be was when Gabriel appeared to the 
>Virgin Mary as recorded in Luke 1:31, "and thou shalt call His name Jesus."

You are right, Leza, that "Christ" is not a name; it is a title.  The
proper reference to Jesus is "Jesus the Christ".  However, it is common for
people to use "Christ" as a name.  For example, Paul uses it as a name.

    For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ,
    and him crucified.  (1 Corinthians 2:2)

    And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
    the glory of God the Father.  (Philippians 2:11)

The scriptures seem to use names and titles interchangeably.

It is true that our present versions of the Old Testament do not mention the
name of Jesus.  However, this does not imply that the Old Testament prophets
did not know he would be called Jesus.  They certainly knew of his mission
as the Messiah and details of his life.  This raises the question whether or
not the Old Testament as we have it today contains everything which the Old
Testament prophets knew; this is, of course, a topic for another note.

The claim of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is that the
Lord has revealed a new dispensation of the Gospel, the dispensation of the
Fulness of Times.  In this dispensation the Lord has revealed truths to the
earth that are not found in the Bible.  The Book of Mormon contains many
such truths, one of which is the information that Old Testament prophets
did know that "Jesus" would be the name of the Messiah.

Allen

    First, Allen, I hope that this isn't the last of what you will reply
    to my latest section because you barely scratched the surface of
    answering some of the major problems with the Mormon doctrines.
    Also, you must realize that you missed the entire point of this
    section.  The doctrines and comments brought out in this section
    are as a result of the changes made to the books.  That is the point
    of the section.  The books have had major changes!!!  (I have added
    more below).  However, let me reply to your comments before I go
    onto to the changes.
    
    I.  Below is a major change in regards to how the BOM was translated.
    Maybe I am narrow minded, but these changes in text are too great
    of a gap.  This is only part of the reason I feel the books of the
    Mormon faith are NOT divinely inspired.
    
    In the 1830 Doctrine and Covenants, chapter 9, page 22:
    
    Now behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up so many
    writings, which you had power to translate, into the hands of a
    wicked man, you have lost them, and you also lost your gift at the
    same time.
    
    In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, chapter 36, page 163:
    
    Now behold I say unto you, that because you delivered up those writings
    which you had power given unto you to translate, by the means of
    the Urim and Thummim, into the hands of a wicked man, you have lost
    them; and you also lost your gift at the same time.
    
    This chapter reads the same today.
                                                              
    Lets think about this:
    
    1.  the Book of Mormon was first released in 1830.  Joseph should
    have known how it was translated.  The doctrine and covenants was
    first released in 1830 as well.  So, in 1830, the Book of Mormon
    was NOT translated by the Urim and the Thummim. (No mention is made
    of the Urim and Thummim anywhere in this section.)  
    
    2 .  In 1835, this was changed to read that the BOM WAS translated 
    by the use of the Urim and Thummin (which supports David Whitmers
    testimony).  Five years have passed, and Joseph can't seem to decide
    how the BOM was translated.                       
    
    No matter how the BOM was or was not translated, one thing is for
    sure, if God was the author (whether it was word for word or idea
    for idea or whatever you chose to use to excuse the errors) then
    the BOM need not have been changed.
    
    II.  You ask me why I repeat things that you have covered.  Well,
    I am not writing this report, Allen, based on your information.
     This report is from my viewpoint.  And since I disagree with your
    stand on many things, then I will use the scriptures and other
    information as I feel led.  The topics I cover include many things
    that flow together.  Although some things are a repetition of what
    your report says, it is from a different viewpoint and therefore
    left in.
    
    III.  Also, I am not trying to bring out specific doctrines or subjects
    (polygamy, false prophets, etc).  Again, the point is that major
    changes have been made in the Mormon scriptures.
    
    IV.  The word abridgements means to abbreviate.  How did Nephi know
    what to abbreviate from his fathers writings?  That is the meaning
    behind the scripture comparisons.  Nephi made cuts from his fathers
    work to mesh with his.  How do we know that he did not leave out
    some "precious" information?  We don't.  Also, he is allowing himself
    the room to make a major error.  And by making this statement, he leaves
    himself open for future falsehoods.  He either had no power to be
    a prophet, or did not trust God to give him the power.
    
    V.  In regards to Israel - is it a nation or not?  When the prophecy
    was originally made, Israel was no longer a nation.  Now it is.
     Because EVERY Jew on the face of the earth does not live there,
    does not make it any less so.  As far as I am concerned, the prophecy
    has been fulfilled.  Israel IS a nation, the land has been restored
    and her people are being gathered together - and they do NOT believe 
    in Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
                         
    
    Now, lets look at some other major changes in the Mormon documents.
    
    The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants also has the lectures of faith as
    part of it.  This is important to note because before the lectures
    of faith could be included - everyone had to agree that they were
    worthy.
    
    "..Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the high council in Kirtland
    bore record that the revelations in said book [D & C] were true,
    and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and
    were profitable FOR DOCTRINE; whereupon the high council of Kirtland
    accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of
    their faith, by a unanimous vote."
    
    These lectures of faith included the section that talks about the
    men having only one wife - that was later removed.
    
    But moving along from that, lets look at a very interesting statement
    found in the lectures of faith:
    
    Lecture Fifth of Faith
    Section V
    
    "In our former lectures we treated of the being, character, perfections
    and attributes of God.  What we mean by perfections, is the perfections
    which belong to all the attributes of his nature.  We shall, in
    this lecture speak of the Godhead:  we mean the Father, Son and
    Holy Spirit.
    
    There are two personages who constitute the great, matchless, governing
    and supreme power over all things--by whom all things were created
    and made....--They are the Father and the Son:  The Father being
    a personage of SPIRIT, glory and power; possessing all perfection
    and fulness:  The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father, a personage
    of tabernacle...  and is called the Son because of the flesh--
    
    Possessing the same mind with the Father, which mind is the Holy
    Spirit, that bears record of the Father and the Son, and these three
    are one, or in other words, these three constitute the great,
    matchless, governing and supreme power over all things:  "
    
    Lets look at this again:
    
    The Father is a spirit?  But I thought Father was an exaulted man
    of flesh and bones?  This definately contradicts what is being taught
    today.
    
    Unfortunately, I must close for now.  But I will show further proof
    of the changes and contradictions made in the Book of Mormon, Doctrine
    and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price later.  However, probably
    not until I have completed my next section of the report.
    
    Leza
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    As you mention changes that have been made, please keep in mind
    that J. Smith did not have the fullness of the Gospel in one fell
    swoop.  Rather he received it line upon line, growing in his knowledge
    and understanding.  Secondly, key to Mormonism is the concept of
    revelation and growth which means that as the individual is ready
    he or she will receive more and more of God's truth.  These revelations
    will correct or add to a person's full understanding of the truth.
    
    Joseph Smith, too, grew in that knowledge.
   
    One reply about your Israel as a nation idea, remember the Sioux
    Indian Tribe was and is still referred to as the Sioux Nation, and
    they never were a nation either.
    
    Your attention to detail and desire to "prove all things" are very
    noteworthy.  One of the basic tenets of the Gospel is that of personal
    testimony, which we are all advised to acquire through whatever
    means we need.  Like you, I have studied and queried.  Only in my
    case I applied my research to Traditional Christianity and decided
    that Christ's Church, that is the one identical to the way he established
    it, was nowhere on the earth.  Then I discovered the LDS Church.
    It is the only one that can show how it is like the Church Christ 
    established. Of course there is always Rome which also makes that
    claim.
    
    I hope at some time you will apply to your research skills to a
    study of Christianity.  I think you would be surprised to learn
    how unlike Christ's original church today's Christianity is and
    how it got to be that way.
    
                             
    I enjoy your notes. Dialogue, discussion, research and openness
    are wonderful.  Through it I have grown in my testimony and
    understanding of the Gospel.
    
    Thank you for your contribution,
    
    Paul

    Re: 105.11 

    Hi Leza, 
    
    I, too, have enjoyed your notes. They have caused me to research and to
    reflect, and they have resulted in strengthening my testimony of the
    truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
    
    A few thoughts: 

    You say that, since the use of the Urim and Thummim was mentioned in a
    later edition of the Doctrine and Covenants but not in the earlier
    edition, there has been a change in belief in how the translation of
    the Book of Mormon took place. 
    
    It is well documented that Joseph translated using the Urim and
    Thummim, by his own accounts, by those that acted as scribes in the
    translation process, and by Joseph's family. One good place to read
    more about this is in "A Comprehensive History of The Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-day Saints" by B.H. Roberts, particularly Volume One,
    where there are many references too numerous to include here. This does
    not amount to a change in belief about how the translation was done,
    but just a clarification of things already known to be true. 
    
    You imply that God was the author of the Book of Mormon, and so there
    is no excuse for making changes in the Book of Mormon. First, God was
    not the author of the Book of Mormon, but His prophets were, as
    inspired by God. 
    
    Second, prophets are subject to human errors. 
    
    Third, the changes in question overwhelmingly amount to corrections in
    the use of grammar and punctuation. Your examples do not illustrate a
    change in the doctrines contained in the Book of Mormon, especially
    when you consider them in the context of the entire Book of Mormon, and
    not just a few isolated words. 
    
    You imply Nephi had no right to "abridge" his father's record. I
    suggest that he did have the right, if God inspired him to do so. Nephi
    wrote as he was commanded:
    
         And it came to pass that the Lord God said unto me: Make other
         plates; and thou shalt engraven many things upon them which are
         good in my sight, for the profit of thy people. 

         Wherefore, I, Nephi, to be obedient to the commandments of the
         Lord, went and made these plates upon which I have engraven these
         things. 

         2 Nephi 5:30-31 
         
         And after I had made these plates by way of commandment, I Nephi,
         received a commandment that the ministry and the prophecies, and
         the more plain and precious parts of them, should be written upon
         these plates; and that the things which were written should be
         kept for the instruction of my people, who should possess the
         land, and also for other wise purposes, which purposes are known
         unto the Lord. 
         
         Nevertheless, I do not write anything upon plates save it be that
         I think it be sacred. And now, if I do err, even did they err of
         old; not that I would excuse myself because of other men, but
         because of the weakness which is in me, according to the flesh, I
         would excuse myself. 
         
         For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to
         the body and soul, others set at naught, and trample under their
         feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their
         feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other
         words - they set him at naught and hearken not to the voice of his
         counsels. 
         
         1 Nephi 19:3,6,7     
    
    You ask, what if Nephi left out some precious things? Yes, there
    are many precious things that have been written that we do not have.
    The Book of Mormon refers to other records that shall come forth
    that will be of great worth. But it also teaches that we must accept
    this before we are to receive more.

    It is my witness that the Bible contains the word of God, and also that
    the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great
    Price contain the word of God. I know this, not because of the proofs
    of men, but by the witness of the Holy Spirit. Those who would fight
    against the word of God, and seek to find fault with it, are free to do
    so, but in the end, we shall all know if these things are true. Nephi
    wrote: 
    
         And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the
         earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye
         believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall
         believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the
         words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach
         all men that they should do good. 
         
         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, at the last day; and you and I shall stand face to face
         before his bar; and ye shall know that I have been commanded of
         him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness. 
         
         And I pray the Father in the name of Christ that many of us, if
         not all, may be saved in his kingdom at that great and last day. 
         
         And now, my beloved brethren, all those who are of the house of
         Israel, and all ye ends of the earth, I speak unto you as the
         voice of one crying from the dust: Farewell until that great day
         shall come. 
         
         And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect
         the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which
         shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I
         bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you
         at the last day. 
         
         For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the
         judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must
         obey. Amen. 
         
         2 Nephi 33:11-15
         
    In Christ's Love,
    Rich

Re .11

>    2 .  In 1835, this was changed to read that the BOM WAS translated 
>    by the use of the Urim and Thummin (which supports David Whitmers
>    testimony). 

The question concerning David Whitmer's testimony is not whether Joseph
Smith used the Urim & Thummim but whether the Lord revealed the meaning
of the characters word for word or or not.

In his testimony, David said that the Lord did reveal word for word; David
wrote his testimony many years after the Book of Mormon was published and
did not participate in the translations, making his testimony a secondary
record.

In recording Section 109 of the D & C, Joseph Smith wrote that he (the
translator) had to study the characters and form an interpretation in his
mind and then ask the Lord if that interpretation was correct; this was
recorded prior to the Book of Mormon being published and is a primary
record.  The Urim & Thummim was (I assume) used to help Joseph form the
meaning in his mind, but Section 109 is very plain that he had to form
the meaning and then go to the Lord in prayer to learn if he had the
correct meaning.

Allen

    RE: 105.12
    
    The Mormon scriptures are full of comments about how God does not change.
     He is the same yesterday, today and forever.  D & C 20:11-12 says,
    "Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that
    God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age
    and generation, as well as in generations of old; thereby showing
    that he is the same God yesterday, today and forever. Amen"
    
    This is a very important scripture because it shows that God stated
    (we have to remember that the revelations given to Joseph were of
    God and not of himself) the holy scriptures (We would have to assume
    the Bible because this revelation was given before BOM, D & C and
    Pearl of Great Price were published) were TRUE.  That further
    revelations would be inspired just as the men of old were inspired.
     That he is the same yesterday, etc.  Therefore, what ever he would
    inspire would be in complete agreement with what he said in the
    past.  Otherwise, God would be a liar.  For example, God said "thou
    shalt not kill".  It would be incorrect to have him say years later,
    "thou shalt now kill."  The first was issued as a commandment, and
    he instructed Moses that there can be no changes made to his 10
    commandments.
    
    So, in the examples I gave in regards to the changes made in the
    D & C, in 1830, God gave the revelation to Joseph Smith.  Joseph
    only wrote down the revelation.  Therefore, it is God, not Joseph
    who did not include the Urim and the Thummin.  In 1835, the same
    revelation (which was already given by God) was changed to include 
    the Urim and Thummin.  Which is now considered the way the translation 
    was given.  But why, in 1830, couldn't God remember to include this
    important part of the translation of the BOM?
    
    RE:105.13
    
    Again, in relationship to any translations, it was through the power
    of God, not of Joseph that the translation was given.
    
    Yes, prophets of old did supposedly write on the plates that were
    then saved for posterity.  But lets look at this again:
    
    Joseph found plates that he could not translate for himself.  He
    did not know reformed Egyptian.  He would have no way of knowing
    if what the prophets of God wrote down were true or not.  This is
    how God helped him.  God gave him the translation (or at least the
    meaning of the translation).
    
    Now imagine this:  God, who created the world, who created man,
    who watched all the goings on of his children throughout the centuries
    has told Joseph how to translate the BOM.  God, who knows all things,
    would know if there were some in the plates.  Would
    you not suppose that God, when he reached a spot in the plates that
    was incorrect, would give Joseph the actual account that that section
    of the plate was referring to?  God wanted his church restored.
     He wanted to show the actual account of the Nephites.  Since Joseph
    would not know the difference.........
                   
    You make up for yourselves a God that is stupid, cannot remember
    one thing from the next, and who changes his mind continually. 
    You make up a God who can't even give a correct translation of a
    book supposedly written by his prophets, who can't even give Joseph
    proper grammer, who said he would put a burning in the bosom if
    it was correct - yet you say God couldn't even given the burning
    correctly.  You accept prophets who continually make errors because 
    they are "human".
    
    You have not addressed the fact that the book of Abraham has been
    found to be a fraud; you have ignored the fact that Joseph taught
    at first, that God was a personage of Spirit, not of flesh and bones.
    
    In my next report I am dealing with the salvation issue, but the
    one following will be on God.  You will see that my God is not stupid,
    He knows everything, He is everywhere, He is all knowing, He is
    powerful and He will not be mocked.  You will also see that He is
    One God, that there are no other gods before, after or beside him.
    
    I have studied Christianity.  I know that there are alot of things
    that have been done in the name of Christ, that are not what Christ
    wanted in the past.  You keep referring to the true Church of Christ.
     You misunderstand.  The church of Christ is not a religious body,
    such as catholics or mormons.  The true church of Christ are those
    that accept Him as Lord and Saviour, as king of kings, as the Great
    I am.  The true church of Christ are those who believed that he
    suffered an died - that His shed blood atones for ALL of our sins.
      
    As you will see in the next few sections these things have not always
    been taught in the Mormon church.  I have a problem with any religion
    that is man centered and not God centered.
    
    "As man is, God once was.  As God is, man can become."
    
    God was never a man, and a man shall never become God.  This is
    the main difference between what I believe and what you believe.
    
    I am thankful that you have found my notes interesting (maybe even
    a little humorous to you?).  Because I too have had a strengthening
    of my faith through this.  I have learned more about the scriptures
    and the gospel.
    
    And the Holy Spirit, who dwells in me, who speaks to me, still tells
    me that the Mormon church has taught a false doctrine, a false
    God, a false gospel.  You probably gasp, "How can that be?"
    
    Lets look at the BOM:
    
    Moroni 7:16
    
    "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he
    may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge;
    for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe
    in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; where
    ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."
    
    I try to witness Christ to as many people as I can.  I try and live
    by the lifestyle set before me by Christ in the Bible.  I am not
    always perfect, but I strive to be as good as I can.  Therefore,
    according to the BOM, I have the Spirit of Christ, it is of God.
       
    I bear witness that I follow the Christ who is the son of God, who
    is God.  We will discuss this further in the remaining sections
    of my report.
    
    Thanks for listening.
    
    Leza
                     
    
    

    Re: Note 105.15 by FIDDLE::LEZAS 

    Leza,    
                   
>   You make up for yourselves a God that is stupid, cannot remember
>   one thing from the next, and who changes his mind continually. 
>   You make up a God who can't even give a correct translation of a
>   book supposedly written by his prophets, who can't even give Joseph
>   proper grammer, who said he would put a burning in the bosom if
>   it was correct - yet you say God couldn't even given the burning
>   correctly.  You accept prophets who continually make errors because 
>   they are "human".

    God is perfect. He knows all things. He is all powerful. But God often
    chooses to use imperfect men to accomplish his purposes. The Bible
    abounds with examples of how God's servants make mistakes and have
    weaknesses. A few examples that come to mind include Moses, Jonah, Eli,
    Peter, and Paul. A study of the Bible shows that each of these great
    men of God made mistakes. 
    
    While God is *able* to prevent his servants from making mistakes, he
    usually lets them make the mistakes and then lets them grow from them.
    He tests them to see if they will be humble and faithful, and repent
    when they sin. 
    
    I think God also tests *us*, to see if we will accept His servants,
    in spite of their weaknesses. 
    
>   You keep referring to the true Church of Christ. You misunderstand.
>   The church of Christ is not a religious body, such as catholics or
>   mormons.  The true church of Christ are those that accept Him as Lord
>   and Saviour, as king of kings, as the Great I am.  The true church of
>   Christ are those who believed that he suffered an died - that His shed
>   blood atones for ALL of our sins. 

    The Bible teaches that the Church of Christ *is* a religious body. It
    teaches that Christ did organize a church, with twelve apostles,
    ordained and given authority to administer in God's name over the body
    of believers. It teaches clearly that to become a member of this body
    one must be baptized by one who has the authority to do it. It teaches
    that these authorized leaders made decisions and received revelations
    pertaining to church doctrine and practice. Your statement does not
    conform with the teachings of the Bible. 
    
>   Lets look at the BOM:
>   
>   Moroni 7:16
>   
>   "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he
>   may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge;
>   for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe
>   in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; where
>   ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."
>   
>   I try to witness Christ to as many people as I can.  I try and live
>   by the lifestyle set before me by Christ in the Bible.  I am not
>   always perfect, but I strive to be as good as I can.  Therefore,
>   according to the BOM, I have the Spirit of Christ, it is of God.
    
    But Moroni also went on to say:
    
         But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in
         Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a
         perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth
         the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one;
         neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto
         him. 
         
         And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye
         may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not
         judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye
         shall also be judged. 
         
         Wherefore, I beseech of you, brethren, that ye should search
         diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil;
         and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not,
         ye certainly will be a child of Christ.  Moroni 7:17-19 
    
    
    To the extent that you witness of Christ, your witness of Christ is of
    God. But, if the Book of Mormon *does* contain the words of Christ, and
    you persuade men *not* to believe it, then your witness is not of God.
    If Christ *did* restore his church, and you persuade men *not* to
    believe it, then your witness is not of God. In this case, you are
    witnessing against Christ. 
    
    By the same token, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    *does* invite all people to do good, and it persuades all people to
    believe in Christ, to come unto him, and to serve God. Is it of
    God? Each person must judge for himself.
                         
    Witnessing of Christ,
    Rich
                              

    Yes, it is true that men make mistakes.  The Bible gives many a
    story of the failures of some of God's chosen men.  Joseph Smith
    made many mistakes which are also mentioned in the Doctrine &
    Covenants.  God warns Joseph several times about his waywardness
    - that he needs to repent.  The changes being refered to are not
    as a result of a "mistake".  
    
    Doctrine and Covenants 1:17-39
    
    "Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the clamity which should come upon
    the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith,
    Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments...
    
    The weak things of the world shall come forth and break down the
    might and strong ones, that man should not counsel his fellow man,
    neither trust in the arm of flesh--
    
    ....Behold I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of
    ME [emphasis mine], and were given unto my servants in their weakness,
    after the manner of their language, that they might come to
    understanding...
    
    Search these commandments for they are true and faithful, and the
    prophecies and promises which are in them shll all be fulfilled.
     What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;
    and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not
    pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice
    or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.  For behold, and
    lo, the Lord is God, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record
    is true, and the truth abideth forever and ever."
    
    Interestingly enough, God said he would reveal his revelations in
    the language of the day, (why the BOM then is mostly in 1600's King James
    is still a question to me) and that the words in the commandments
    are true.
    
    In the 1830 D & C, chapter 1 God says:
    
    Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants,
    and my Preface unto the Book of my Commandments, which I have given
    them to publish to you....Behold, I am God and have spoken it: these
    commandments are of me....
    
    So, in 1830, the published Book of Commandments (which became in
    1835 the Doctrines and Covenants) was of God.  They were not of
    men.  Therefore, the major changes in the 1830 edition did not need
    to be made.  Additions - maybe - but not complete doctrinal changes!
    
    In 1835 the same preface still applies.  The lectures of faith were
    directed of the Lord to be published and included in the D & C.
     They were considered worthy of doctrine.  The fact that they
    contradict some of the teachings today is the actual reason why
    they were removed.  After all, Joseph taught that God was a personage
    of Spirit and that Jesus was a personage of tabernacle and that
    the Holy Spirit is the mind of God.  This is not taught today!
    
    The fact that in 1830 Joseph only had the gift to translate the
    book "for I [God] will grant him no other gift" now reads in D &
    C section 5: "...and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon
    you;" shows you that God could not have directed the changes because
    in the 1830 edition God makes no allowance for future things.
    
    Time does not permit me - but I will leave the scripture references
    to the fact that the church of Christ is made up of believers, but
    one I will enter for it is very plain:
    
    1 Corin. 3:9: "For we are laborers together with God: ye are God's
    husbandry, ye are God's building"
    
    Col. 1:24:  "Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill
    up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh
    for his body's [the people] sake, which is the church:"
    
    Read also 1 Peter 5:2; Hebrew 3:6, 1 Peter 2:5, Eph. 1:22-23 and
    1 Corin. 12:12.
    
    Yes there is an assemblence of ourselves in a physical building,
    and there are things that have to be done orderly and in fashion
    inside the church, but the body of Christ, the church, can function
    outside of a physical building, outside of ordinances.
    
    I would like to reply further, but I must sign off.  I will finish
    this reply soon.
    
    Thanks, Leza
    

	Some of the following information is a repeated in earlier notes,
    but it is necessary in order to make the point.

    
      There are times when it becomes necessary to use secondary documents
    in understanding or explaining primary documents.  Such is the
    case with D&C section 9 which states:
    

    	Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it
    	unto you [i.e.  without prayerful thought and study], when you took
    	no thought save it was to ask me.

    	But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out [the meaning of
    	the characters on the plates] in your mind; then you must ask me
    	if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom
    	shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.

	...you cannot write that which is sacred save it be
 	given you from me.


    This revelation is to OLIVER COWDERY.  It is only natural that
    God would give Oliver a different method for translating since
    there was only one URIM and THUMMIM, and that was given to Joseph
    for his use in translating the plates.
    
    This revelation does not say that a person is to receive IDEAS
    instead of SPECIFIC MEANINGS.  Therefore it is necessary to use secondary
    documents for clarification.
    
    There are numerous secondary documents that point out that Joseph
    Smith did indeed translate the plates word for word, including
    a book in which Rich Kotterri has quoted from:
    
    		"...and reading off the translation which appeared in
    the stone by the POWER OF GOD."
    (A New Witness for Christ in America, vol 2, p.417)
    
    There are many, many secondary documents, written by people that
    were very close to Joseph Smith that can help us to better understand
    how Joseph Smith translated, and help us to define what God meant
    when he said in D&C 9:10
    
    		"...you cannot write that which is sacred save it be
    		given you from me."
    
    Now it is very difficult to alter a manuscript that has been
    hand-written.   Even so, Satan felt it necessary to convince some
    men to alter the 116 page manuscript that Martin Harris lost, even
    before the expected re-translation of the document.  And according
    to God, Satan, was pretty cunning in this plan to steal and alter
    the manuscript.   Now if Joseph Smith was using his own words, and
    his own mistakes then there was no need to alter the stolen
    manuscript, because Joseph would have made different mistakes the
    second time around and he would have used different words.  You
    have got to remember that the problem wasn't that the manuscript
    was stolen, but that it had been altered.

    As you can see there is no evidence that solidly says
    that the translation was of IDEAS - but rather there are many
    documents that say just the opposite.
    
    So I have to ask you, why is it necessary to cling to the assertion
    that it was a translation of IDEAS rather than SPECIFIC WORDS?
    
   

Re .11 & .17

I have opened up note 109 for a discussion of the Lectures on Faith.  109.8
gives the full text of the fifth lecture, and my comments are in 109.9.

Allen

>*  Mosiah 2:3 gives the instruction, "...offer sacrifice and burnt 
>offerings according to the law of Moses."  In the BOM the 'Nephites' and 
>'Lamanites' were from the tribe of Manasseh (Alma 10:3).  No descendent of 
>Manasseh could give attendance at the altar according to the law of Moses.  
>Numbers 3:7, Nehemiah 7:63,65 and Hebrews 7:12-14 tells us only the tribe 
>of Levi and particularly the sons of Aaron could give attendance at the 
>altar.

It is very clear from reading the Book of Mormon that the Nephites had the
Melchizedek Priesthood not the Aaronic Priesthood.  With the Melchizedek
Priesthood they were empowered by God to perform the ceremonies of the Law
even though they were not Levites.

In understanding why the Nephites had the higher Priesthood, we have to
realize that they lived under a different dispensation than that given to
the Jews.  Through their righteousness they were given the higher priesthood
while the Jews still languished under their dispensation of the Aaronic
Priesthood.

>*  Alma 7:10 tells us that Jesus was to be born at Jerusalem.  The Bible 
>tells us in Micah 5:2 and in Luke 2:4 that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  
>Jersualem is a city.  Bethlehem is also a city.  The Mormon argument is 
>that "Jerusalem" referred to the general vicinity, but in 1 Nephi 1:4 
>Jerusalem is called a city.  If, as a Jew, you knew where Jerusalem was, 
>you would also know where Bethlehem was for the two cities are not far 
>apart.  The Holy Spirit would not make an error like this, but maybe Joseph 
>Smith?

Even though Joseph Smith had not had a lot of formal education by the time
the Book of Mormon was published, he was basically a literate person.
In addition, Oliver Cowdery who assisted with the translation as scribe
was a school teacher.  The insinuation that they didn't know that Jesus
was born in the town of Bethlehem is ridiculous.

The passage in Alma 7:10 is pretty plain that Alma used the word *Jerusalem*
in a general sense to refer to the area rather than to the city.

    And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the *land*
    of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel,
    who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost,
    and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

The word "Jerusalem" is used many times in the Book of Mormon, and the
context will tell if the word is referring to the city or to the area.

>*  Alma 46:15 tells us there were people known as "Christians" in 73 B.C.  
>The Bible contradicts that in Acts 11:26, they "were called Christians 
>first in Antioch."

It is common for people to call themselves after their leader.  Acts 11:26 and
Alma 46:15 give us two examples of such practice.  The book of Acts is an
account of the followers of Christ in the mid-East.  According to Luke, the
disciples in that area were first known as "Christians" in Antioch.  The Book
of Mormon, of course, is a separate record telling of people in a separate land.
Mormon tells us that the disciples of Christ in his area  took upon themselves
the name of Christ and were known as Christians, "because of their belief in
Christ who should come."

    
    re .22
    
>Mormon tells us that the disciples of Christ in his area  took upon themselves
>the name of Christ and were known as Christians, "because of their belief in
>Christ who should come."

    In other words, Biblical Judaism. After all, the Jews believed in
    Christ in this sense, although they would not have used the word
    Christ as that is a derivative of the Greek for Messiah.
    It seems odd to me that these people should give another name to
    the same belief. Was there a need to call themselves Christians?
    After all, every Jew believed in "he who comes". 
    
    Paul V

>*  The story in Ether 1:34-37 tells us there was a group of people at the 
>tower of Babel who did not want their language confounded and so, they 
>said, God decided not to confound it.  This contradicts Genesis 11:9 where 
>it says the language of ALL the earth was confounded.

The Bible is full of poetic and picturesque language that should not be taken
literally.  For example, Malachi refers to the "windows" of heaven, but I don't
think he literally meant that heaven has "windows" as we think of such things.
In interpreting the Bible, we have to look at context to understand what is
being said.

Genesis says that "the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth:".
Obviously, the Lord did not confound the language of the earth itself, so we
can't take a completely literal interpretation of that verse.  I don't think
the word "all" refers to every last living person on the earth.  I think it
refers to the scope of the Lord's influence.  Moses is saying that the Lord
confounded the language of the people living over the whole earth, and he isn't
implying that the language of every last living person was changed.

It is interesting that that same verse in Genesis speaks of the Lord scattering
the people "abroad upon the face of all the earth", and the story in the book of
Ether tells of one group that was scattered at that time.

>God, however, told them they were to travel across the ocean in total darkness.

In reading Ether this morning, I couldn't find where the Lord told the
Jaredites to travel in total darkness.  After completing the barges according
to the directions from the Lord, the brother of Jared reported back to the Lord
that he had finished his work.  The brother of Jared recognized that the
barges would be dark inside, and he asked the Lord about this.

    And he cried again unto the Lord saying: O Lord, behold I have done even
    as thou hast commanded me; and I have prepared the vessels for my people,
    and behold there is no light in them.  Behold, O Lord, wilt thou suffer
    that we shall cross this great water in darkness?

    And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should
    do that ye may have light in your vessels?  For behold, ye cannot have
    windows, for they will be dashed to pieces; neither shall ye take fire with
    you, for ye shall not go by the light of fire.  (Ether 2:22-23)

Of course, the Lord knew that the barges would be dark inside, because he had
directed that the ships be built tight "like a dish".  Rather than tell the
brother of Jared how to obtain light, he let him discover for himself that
there would be no light.  The Lord wanted him to find the best solution for
the problem and bring the solution to the Lord for confirmation.  The brother
of Jared proposed a solution which the Lord which the Lord accepted, and the
Jaredites did not travel in darkness.

This story is a beautiful example of how Christ is the great teacher, an
example that we would do well to emulate with our children.

Re .23

Hi Paul,

The belief in Christ of the Nephites wasn't Biblical Judaism.  It was what
Biblical Judaism should have been but wasn't due to the wickedness of the Jews.
The Book of Mormon makes it very clear that the Nephites living before the
birth of Jesus were in the literal sense Christians.  They knew Christ would
be born, they understood his atonement, and they were baptized in his name.

Allen

>Lets look at a few of my favorite ABSURDITIES in the BOM:

Be sure that you include a few of the absurdities from the Bible that my
agnostic friends point out.  Sun and Moon standing still; come on, you
must be kidding!  If the earth stopped rotating (sun standing still) there
would be 1000 MPH winds that would wreak havoc with everything.  If the
moon stopped rotating around the earth, it would be pulled into the earth
by the earth's gravity.  The earth completely covered by a flood?  Let's
be reasonable.  That would be an ocean 30,000 feet deep, several times deeper
than our present oceans.  Just think of the erosion that would occur, to say
nothing of giant tidal waves with all that water moving about.  We can only
speculate what the extra weight would do to the earth's orbit.  The one that
is really ridiculous is death coming into the world because some guy ate a
piece of fruit.

The point that I am making, Leza, is that persons who are negative and
criticize can find things in both the Bible and the Book of Mormon that
are absurd to them.  Likewise, persons who have faith in God can find much
in both books to strengthen them against the wickedness that is rampant in
the world and to bring them closer to Christ.  You find what you are looking
for.

I don't know how the Lord caused the sun and moon to stand still.  I don't
know how he buried the earth in a flood.  I don't know how Adam brought
death into the world.  I don't know why the Lord told the brother of Jared
to put a plug in both the top and bottom of the barges (it obviously wasn't
to let water come in and sink the ships).  I don't understand what Moroni
was trying to say when he described the death of Shiz.  I don't know how
the Lord caused a plague of serpents (it doesn't seem any more unrealistic
to have a plague of serpents than a plague of rodents or locusts).  I accept
all of these things on faith, and I spend my time and energy trying to glean
from the Bible and the Book of Mormon spiritual truths that will help me become
closer to God.

Allen

>1833 Book of Commandments		1982 Book of Covenants
>-------------------------		-----------------------
>
>Church is called "Church of Christ"	Church is called "the Church of the
>					Latter Day Saints

The full name of the Church wasn't revealed until 1838.

    For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of
    Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  (D & C 115:4)

Re changes in D & C 4:2/5:3-4 and 28:6-7/27:5-18

One of the nice things about being a living prophet is one can not only
receive information via revelation from God but can also be inspired in
clarifying the written record containing the revelations to more accurately
present the information.

The question whether prophets take dictation from God or form their own wording
in recording revelations is being discussed in notes 62, 80, and 81.

    
    I know that I am not an expert in church history, but I have never
    heard of the existence of the articles of faith as an accepted doctrine
    prior to being published in the Wentworth letter in 1842.  If you can tell
    me where you found your information, I would be interested.
    
    Note that nothing you have stated with regard to their supposed content
    is in any way controversial, nor does it disagree with the churches
    present teachings.  The articles of faith as they presently
    exist were not accepted as scripture until some time after 1842
    as I recall, so your reference to them as being scripture of any
    sort (if they did in fact exist) doesn't fit with your topic.  If
    you want to discuss LDS scriptures, be sure that what you are talking
    about was considered and accepted as such for the time period that
    you are discussing.  Some people may not know the difference, but
    it does matter if you want to be accurate.
    
    Don.

Hugh Nibley has written about the Jaredite barges and stones used to
light them.  F.A.R.M.S. (see note 125.1) has a small booklet available
by Nibley called "Strange Ships and Shining Stones".  It is cat # N-STR
and costs $1.00.

Allen

    First:  I do not know the date that the 14 Articles of Faith I have
    was written.  It is bounded in-between the 1830's Book of Commandments
    and the 1835's Doctrine and Covenants.  It says, "The Articles Of
    Faith in this volume are the most complete of the seven that have
    been found in the old published records."  It is signed by Wilford
    C. Wood, the Mormon gentlemen who combined these two books together.
    
    The Title says: The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ
    of Latter-Day Saints and is concluded with the name "Joseph Smith".
    Since the name of the church has been changed twice, this particular
    name wasn't given until 1838.  We would have to conclude, then,
    that these Articles of Faith were written after 1838.  However,
    the point remains the same:  These Articles of Faith are not the
    same Articles of Faith as taught today.  They have been changed
    and altered to reflect the changes made in Joseph's theology.  There
    are major differences:  1.  Article #3 to be saved you had to be
    obedient to the laws and ordinances which are in Article #4, Faith
    in Christ, Repentance, Baptism by immersion for the remission of
    sins and the laying on of hands for the gift of the holy Spirit
    and the Lord's supper.  Today that reads: in Article #4 that the
    first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are....  This denotes
    that there are more principles.  The original Articles of Faith,
    did not mention this.  The change was made AFTER 1851 (after it
    was made scripture).
    
    The other major change is in Article #8:  we believe in the Word
    of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe the Word of God
    recorded in the Book of Mormon and in all other GOOD books.  Today
    it reads:  We believe in 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.  This is a MAJOR difference.
    
    Also, the original article #11:  We believe in the literal resurrection
    of the body and that the dead in Christ will rise first, and that
    the rest of the dead live NOT again until the thousand years are
    expired - is now deleted from the Articles of Faith.  One wonders
    why.  If I remember correctly, this contradicts todays teachings
    that all go to some level of heaven after they die.  But this teaches
    that the dead (not in Christ) live not again until after Christ's 
    thousand year reign.
    
    Let me give you a little background on Wilford C. Wood:  he was
    a devout Mormon who had managed to obtain original copies of the
    1833's Book of Commandments (D & C), 1835 D & C (which included
    the Lectures of Faith and the original 1830's Book of Mormon.  
    He was so proud of these treasured documents, that he combined them 
    into the work titled, "Joseph Smith Begins His Work."  
    
    Unfortunately, he did not know all the major changes made in these
    books after 1835, so when he published this work in 1963, people 
    began discovering the errors.  The Mormon church, rather
    than try and explain away or defend this problem, quit publishing
    the volumes.  Today, I have the volumes printed in 1963 by the Deseret
    Publishing Company.  They were certified authentic.
    
    In Allens reply that isn't is good to have a living prophet who
    can receive revelation as well as be inspired to clarify - may cover
    the clarifying concept of the changes in the Doctrine and Covenants.
     But it nowhere begins to cover the total change of meaning, deletions
    and additions (of large scale) in what God says are his truths.
    
    D & C Section 1:37-39 states (and remember, it is God speaking)
    "Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and
    the prophecies and promises which are in them shall ALL be fulfilled.
     What I the Lord have spoken, I HAVE SPOKEN, and I excuse NOT myself;
    and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not
    pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice
    or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.  For behold, and
    lo, the Lord IS GOD, and the Spirit beareth record, and the record
    is true and the truth abideth forever and ever."
    
    I say, isn't it scarey to think that a man, who received revelations
    directly from God, would have the courage to add to and remove from
    the very word of God - without making any mention that God gave
    him further understanding of these revelations and that is why they
    were changed.
    
    
    
    

Leza,

I'm wondering if you would do us a favor and type in the Articles of Faith from
your book?  This will allow us to compare them with the present version.  Note
73 is discussing the Articles of Faith, and it would be best to put them there.
I know that you are quite busy at work, and if you don't have time to do this,
I'll be glad to do it if you send me a photo copy of them.

I have Bro. Wood's reproduction of the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon and
would like to get the rest of his set, except my budget objects...

Allen

    Re: .32 
    
    Hi Leza, 
    
    To me, it's a matter of perspective. You say the changes amount to
    major changes in doctrine, but to me they don't. But even if they did,
    it wouldn't matter to me. 
    
    Why, you may ask? 
    
    I'll give an example. In the Bible, the apostles were convinced that
    the gospel was only to be preached to the Israelites. Peter received a
    revelation that made it clear that the gospel was to be preached to the
    Gentiles, as well. This could be viewed as a major change in doctrine.
    Something similar happened with respect to the doctrine of
    circumcision. A conference was held by the apostles, and the Lord
    revealed that circumcision was not necessary. 
    
    These could be viewed as major changes in church doctrine. However, the
    point to not miss here is the principle of ongoing revelation. Man does
    not know all that God knows. Prophets do not know all that God knows.
    They only know what God has deigned to reveal to them. As God reveals
    more, their knowledge is increased, and it results in changes in man's
    understanding of true doctrine. 
        
    Some say, "Look at the changes, Mormonism must be false!". But rather,
    I rejoice in the changes! It means that God continues to reveal His
    will, just as He did to Peter and the other apostles in Bible times. 
    
    To me, the real question is not, have there been changes, but rather,
    was Joseph Smith a prophet of God? Did God really appear to him and
    command him to restore the fulness of the gospel? Did the angel Moroni
    give him the gold plates to translate, and did Peter, James, and John
    restore divine authority to him? Are Joseph Smith's successors prophets
    of God? 
    
    To know the truth of these things, one must ask of God. If they are
    true, the changes you mention are inconsequential. If they are not
    true, the changes don't matter anyway. 
    
    If changes are the issue, then I would also raise the issue of changes
    in the Bible. Look at the myriad of versions of the Bible that exist.
    The Catholic church has a Bible that contains additional books that are
    not in Protestant Bibles. Various translations render important
    passages very differently in meaning. Many of those who criticize
    small, inconsequential changes in latter-day scriptures fully accept
    the Bible, in spite of such changes. If changes are really the issue,
    as you suggest, then let's apply the same issue to traditional
    Christianity. 
    
    To me, the issue is not the changes, but the source of the changes. If
    God has called living prophets and apostles today, then they have the
    authority to clarify such things, as directed by God, just as they did
    in Bible times. If these men were not authorized apostles and prophets
    then the changes are just a meaningless footnote to a huge fraud,
    anyway. 
    
    Each person must judge for himself, with the help of God, whether
    these things are true. As for me, my witness is that they are true.
    
    Rejoicing in Christ,
    Rich

    I'm in the same boat as Rich.  So far, the differences pointed out
    seem to be trivial.
    
    Steve

   RE: 105.34 <RIPPLE::KOTTERRI>

   >I'll give an example. In the Bible, the apostles were convinced that the
   >gospel was only to be preached to the Israelites. Peter received a
   >revelation that made it clear that the gospel was to be preached to the
   >Gentiles, as well.  This could be viewed as a major change in doctrine.

       I don't think that this is a valid example, Rich, because the
   revelation that Jesus gave to Peter was not a NEW revelation.  Yes that
   apostles were only preaching to Jews, but that is not because God wanted
   them to preach to only Jews, it was because they didn't understand
   fully that God wanted the gospel preached to all men.

       In the new testament, Jesus makes many reference to the apostles
   preaching to men of all nations, not just Jews.  Jesus, Himself, came to
   preach to the house of Israel, but He clearly told His disciples while He
   was with them to preach to all nations.  Matt 28:18-20 is one verse that
   comes to mind.

       I'm not trying to make an issue; just voicing my disagreement.

   Tony
    

    Re: .36
    
    Nice to hear from you, Tony.
    
    I see your point, and I agree. I think the Lord had made it fairly
    clear earlier that the gospel should go to all nations. However, the
    apostles did not seem to fully understand this, and so God gave the
    revelation to Peter, so that they would clearly understand. 
    
    Perhaps they thought that He had meant for them to take the gospel to
    the Isrealites scattered among all nations, or perhaps they were just
    blinded by their Jewish traditions of avoiding unnecessary contact with
    gentiles. 
    
    I have just read again the account in Acts 10 and 11. It is clear that
    the leaders of the church were astonished by the revelation that the
    gospel should go the gentiles. I wish I had time to enter some of it
    here. The revelation was needed to 'clarify' the Lord's earlier
    instructions to them. 
    
    Which is exactly my point. If the church gets going in one direction,
    and it is contrary to what the Lord intended, then ongoing revelation
    is needed to keep the church in line with what God wants. Without this
    ongoing revelation, men go off in all kinds of different doctrinal
    directions, which is exactly the reason why there are so many divergent
    Christian churches. It is also the reason why the role of living
    apostles in the church is so important, to be authorized men to receive
    such revelation and to keep the church on track. 
    
    You made the point that this was not a 'new' revelation. The Church of
    Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints makes a very similar point. We
    believe that, the doctrines of the church are simply 'restorations' of
    things that have been previously revealed, and in many cases lost from
    men's understanding. Thus, few, if any, claimed revelations by the LDS
    church are regarded as 'new' revelations, either, but rather they are
    provided to increase men's understanding of God's truth, which is the
    same throughout the ages. 
    
    Regards,
    Rich
                                     

	I cannot think of any new revelation, or 'clarification' where
    God 'deleted' or 'took back' what HE had said earlier - but...

    the original article #11:  We believe in the literal resurrection
    of the body and that the dead in Christ will rise first, and that
    the rest of the dead live NOT again until the thousand years are
    expired - is now deleted from the Articles of Faith.  One wonders
    why.  
        
    
    

As I have already explained in note 73.1, the article on the resurrection
was added by Elder Orson Pratt who was President of the British Mission
at the time.  For a number of years, versions of the articles were published
by various church leaders, and some versions had 13 articles and some
had 14.  In 1878, Elder Pratt prepared the articles for publication,
and they were canonized in Conference in 1880 as part of the standard
works of the church.  My guess is that the church leaders in canonizing
the articles decided to use only the ones originally written by Joseph
Smith.

I don't know, Roger, of anyone in church history who claimed that God
dictated the articles of faith word for word to Joseph Smith.  Joseph
was asked by John Wentworth for a statement of LDS beliefs, and he 
included the 13 articles as a statement of part of our beliefs.  Joseph
never claimed that they gave all of our beliefs.  Apparently Elder Pratt
in writing his "Mormonism Triumphant" pamphlet decided to add our belief
about the resurrection to the articles.  He could have added even more
articles if he had wanted to, because there were still other beliefs that
were not described in the 14 articles.  The concepts given in the extra
article are still part of our beliefs (see note 4.59 on the resurrection).

Allen

     I don't believe I stated that the articles of faith were word for
    word.  But is or is not the article that was deleted a part of Mormon
    belief or not.

    The article was deleted, but it is still a Mormon belief.  If it
    makes you feel more comfortable, go with the older version.  It
    is still valid.  Perhaps one reason it was taken off was because
    on of the purposes of the Articles of Faith is to present a quick
    synopsis of Mormon beliefs.  Tagging more stuff on tends to defeat
    that purpose.
    
    Steve

Hi Roger,

>     I don't believe I stated that the articles of faith were word for
>    word.

You are right, you didn't state that the articles were given by God word
for word.  However, your title to your reply was "Did GOD say OOPS?", and
I felt that you were implying that God had dictated the articles and that
in changing the wording and adding a 14th article, the church leaders were
in error.  If I misinterpreted the meaning behind your title, I apologize.

Allen

Joseph Smith ended his letter to John Wentworth with 13 statements of Mormon
belief.  It is quite obvious that he did not intend the 13 statements to be
a complete list of Mormon beliefs.  He did not name them or give them any
special significance--they were just a statement of some of our beliefs.

Several years later the articles were used in missionary tracts published
by church leaders in the mission fields, and it was in this context that
Orson Pratt added the 14th article and changed the wording of seven of the
articles.  Elder Pratt was also the first to give the articles a title.  Thus,
until that time, the articles did not have a separate identity of their own.
Elder Pratt added the 14th article and changed the wording so they would better
fulfill his needs in expressing our beliefs to non-members. In doing this, he
was not trying to change doctrine or to cover up mistakes made by Joseph Smith.
He was merely trying to find a way to more clearly express our beliefs to those
investigating the church.  As I mentioned in note 73, various church leaders
involved in missionary work published the articles of faith in various
missionary publications, some of them using 13 articles and some 14.  We might
ask, why did some use 13 and some 14, but unless we understood the specific
context in which they were preparing missionary literature, we have no way
in answering that question.  Nor does the question need an answer, because it
is not a significant question--people writing missionary tracts use words
and phrases to accomplish their goals in preaching the Gospel, and we expect
that different authors will have different styles of writing, will use
different words, and will vary the content of their booklets according to their
needs.

Millet and Jackson give a brief overview of the various editions of the articles
of faith that were published prior to the canonization of the 13 articles.  They
mention Orson Pratt changing the wording to seven of the articles, but they
don't say what the changes were.  Their book is "Studies in Scripture
Volume Two: The Pearl of Great Price", edited by Robert L. Millet and Kent P.
Jackson.

In canonizing the articles of faith, the church went back to the "older version"
of 13.

Allen

Re .32

>    Also, the original article #11:  We believe in the literal resurrection
>    of the body and that the dead in Christ will rise first, and that
>    the rest of the dead live NOT again until the thousand years are
>    expired - is now deleted from the Articles of Faith.  One wonders
>    why.  If I remember correctly, this contradicts todays teachings
>    that all go to some level of heaven after they die.  But this teaches
>    that the dead (not in Christ) live not again until after Christ's 
>    thousand year reign.

First, that article on the resurrection was not an original article.  It
was added by Orson Pratt in 1849, eight years after Joseph Smith wrote the
Wentworth letter that contained the "original" 13 statements.

As you have quoted it above, that article states that we believe

  o in a literal resurrection.
  o those who follow Christ (dead in Christ) will be resurrected first.
  o those who don't follow Him will be resurrected after the Millennium.

Those were Mormon beliefs when Joseph Smith wrote the Wentworth letter,
they were Mormon beliefs when Orson Pratt added them to the 13 statements, and
they are Mormon beliefs today.  There is no contradiction between them and
Mormon beliefs.  There is, however, confusion in the minds of those who do not
understand our beliefs!

Please read the following replys to note 4 in which Mormon beliefs about
life after death (including theresurrection) are explained.

  4.57  The Spirit World
  4.58  The Resurrection of Jesus Christ
  4.59  The Resurrection of Everyone
  4.60  The Judgment
  4.61  Many Mansions
  4.62  Latter-day Revelation: Salvation for the Dead
  4.63  Latter-day Revelation: The Three Degrees of Glory
  4.64  Latter-day Revelation: Outer Darkness
  4.65  Hell

>    Unfortunately, he did not know all the major changes made in these
>    books after 1835, so when he published this work in 1963, people 
>    began discovering the errors.  The Mormon church, rather
>    than try and explain away or defend this problem, quit publishing
>    the volumes.  Today, I have the volumes printed in 1963 by the Deseret
>    Publishing Company.  They were certified authentic.
    
The Church did not publish Wood's books and hence did not "quit publishing
the volumes."

Allen

Leza,

Part of your 38.4 dealt with the Book of Abraham. I don't think this has
been answered yet. 

>The Book of Abraham is a complete fraud.  

>The alleged translation by Smith known as the Book of Abraham, contained in 
>the POGP, was claimed to have been written in an Egyptian language by the 
>hand of Abraham when he was is Egypt.  Smith was so certain that he had 
>uncovered a document of importance that he wrote a volume on Egyptian 
>grammer (History of the Church 2:238) and in 1842 published his 
>translation.  He was deprived of the use of the Urim and Thummin but still 
>maintained that he was guided by the power of God.

>For years the hand written copy has been available by photo reprint, but 
>the original Egyptian papyrus was lost.  It was supposedly destroyed by the 
>great Chicago fire of 1871.  But in 1967 the papyrus was found and 
>presented to the Mormons by the Metropolitan Museum of Art of New York.  
>Thinking that Joseph Smith couldn't possibly have made a mistake, or lied, 
>the church allowed it to be photographed and published in Dialogue 
>Magazine.  Three different Egyptologists each claimed that Joseph Smith 
>came nowhere close to the meaning.  Their translation came to about 70 
>words, yet Joseph had used over four thousand words in his translation.

I hesitate to add any commentary of my own because I feel that all I have to
say may easily lead to contention, but I must say that I question your method
of research on this point. I trust you when you say you are sincere, but the
apparent lopsidedness of the material you choose to resource for your "report"
tends to weaken that trust.

That said, I give you Hugh Nibley (who you quoted extensively in 38.4 on this
same topic) to rebut your above assertion. I read it first in Nibley's book
"The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Eqyptian Endowment," and have
copied parts of it here from Studies in Scripture Vol. Two.

********************************************************************************
  Under a reproduction of the first column of the Joseph Smith manuscript of
  the Book of Breathings (usually designated as J.S. Pap. No. XI) appearing in
  the journal Dialogue, two eager investigators published the simple and damning
  statement: "Joseph Smith used this as the basis for the Book of Abraham."[1]
  Impressively direct and uncompromising, but also stimulating to the mind:
  Joseph Smith used it? *How* did he use it?  That is, or should be, the first
  question occurring to anyone whose wandering eye compares two damaged lines
  of hieratic writing (only eighteen characters in all) with the five teeming
  chapters of the Book of Abraham.  How would anyone go about employing those
  18 characters as the "basis" for that remarkable book?  What does "basis"
  mean anyhow?  Our authors have insisted loud and long that they know *exactly*
  how Joseph Smith did the trick,[2] and yet they have never had the good grace
  to tell the public how he did it--it remains a secret locked in their own
  bosoms.

  How easily the best of scholars may fall into such a trap appears from the
  title of Professor Klaus Baer's indispensable study labeled "A Translation of
  the Apparent Source of the Book of Abraham."[3]  There would be nothing wrong
  with Dr. Baer's title if he had been good enough to explain to his readers why
  it is apparent to him that his text is the source of the Book of Abraham.  Yet
  aside from the heavily loaded title itself, he never mentions the issue that
  he has raised and that indeed was bound to become the main interest of his
  article.  Neither he nor his fellow polemicists have bothered to ask the most
  obvious and unavoidable questions their accusation raises.  How on earth could
  Joseph Smith or anybody else have derived a condensed and detailed account of
  50 pages from less than 20 hieratic signs?  How could such signs have suggest-
  ed a history, let alone contain it?  Why must a hard-working author derive his
  whole book from less than two-dozen signs, when thousands were at his dispos-
  al?
********************************************************************************

At this point, Dr. Nibley goes into some commonly asked questions and miscon-
ceptions about the papyri discovered in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.  For the
sake of brevity, I have omitted these questions and answers and will move on to
his discussion of the proof that the discovered papyri are not the source for
the Book of Abraham.

********************************************************************************
  ..the Prophet Joseph himself has supplied us with the most conclusive evidence
  that the manuscript today identified as the Book of Breathings, J.S. Papyri X
  and XI, was *not* in his opinion the source of the Book of Abraham.  For he
  has furnished a clear and specific description of the latter: "The record of
  Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is (1) beautifully written on
  papyrus, with black, and (2) a small part red, ink or paint, (3) in perfect
  preservation."[4]  Consider the three points in order.

  First, the Abraham document was beautifully written, and some of the surviving
  Joseph Smith papyri are indeed nicely and clearly written and accompanied by
  well-drawn vignettes.  Such are fragments II through VIII as classified in the
  Improvement Era reproductions published in 1968.[5]  If the Book of Breathings
  text was the only manuscript Joseph possessed, it is just possible that the
  thrill of having such a treasure could have carried him away to the extent of
  regarding it as a thing of beauty.  But he had a sizeable collection of hand-
  some Egyptian documents compared with which the hastily written and clumsily
  retouched characters of the Breathing text, in their crowded and uneven lines,
  can by no stretch of the imagination be called beautifully written.  Even the
  reserved Professor Wilson, while noting that some of the Joseph Smith papyri
  were rather prettily written, commented on the coarse appearance of Nos. X and
  XI, the Book of Breathings.[6]

  In the second place, the text which Joseph Smith relates, directly or inirect-
  ly, to Abraham contained the rubrics or brief notations in red ink common to
  Egyptian manuscripts.  He is plainly describing a real manuscript and a rather
  typical one; and since no one could read it, there is no reason why he should
  not have described it correctly.  Hence the fact that there is not the slight-
  est indication of rubrics in the J.S. Papyri X and XI--not so much as a speck
  of red ink, though such rubrics are common in the other Joseph Smith manu-
  scripts--is alone enough to disqualify it as a candidate for the Abraham
  source.  This is no mistake of preservation, moreover, for the longest of all
  Books of Breathings, one closely associated with this one, is also free of
  rubrics--apparently an intentional omission.[7]

  Third, "the record of Abraham and Joseph" was in a state of "perfect preserva-
  tion," while our Book of Breathings is the most badly damaged of all the papy-
  ri.  That it was already damaged in Joseph Smith's day is indicated by a num-
  ber of things.  For example, four large pieces are missing; they are not parts
  destroyed by the process of minute and gradual flaking which is still going
  on, and which leaves marks on the glue of the mounting-paper, but chunks con-
  taining sizeable portions of several lines each, such as could have broken off
  only before the document was mounted.  If they had broken off after the mount-
  ing, why were not the precious pieces returned to their proper place?  Instead
  of that, they were used to fill in gaps in another damaged papyrus, J.S. No.
  IV, three of them being glued in upside down!  Obviously they were not recog-
  nized as parts of our Breathing text.  Yet the paper on which the latter was
  mounted bears the handwriting of Joseph Smith, and the drawings, maps, and
  texts on the back of the mounting papers of all the papyri surviving clearly
  indicate that the work was done in Kirtland, where Wilford Woodruff reports
  in 1836 the papyri were on display in the temple as its greatest treasure. How
  could anyone fail to identify the four broken-off pieces unless they were al-
  ready broken off and jumbled up at the time the document was found?  The dam-
  age could have been done during Chandler's frantic search for "diamonds or
  valuable metal" in the New York Customs House.  A study of the mounted manu-
  scripts shows that there are places where bits of papyrus fibers have flaked
  off, leaving either filaments of fiber or the imprint of such in the glue,
  while there are other gaps in the manuscript where the backing paper has al-
  ways been blank, with no papyrus glued to it, showing that these parts of the
  text were missing at the time of the mounting.

  When in 1835 the brethren made attempts to "translate" the first two lines in
  terms of the Book of Abraham (if that is what they were doing, though it is
  exceedingly doubtful), they had the characters copied out for them by a single
  scribe in a bold and rather skillful hand, thus sparing wear and tear on the
  original; it is significant that when this scribe came to those places in the
  manuscript which are today a blank, he also left a blank in his copy which has
  been filled out by another hand with thin and awkward characters which are far
  too many for the spaces indicated and definitely the wrong characters.  This
  is another indication that the text was damaged from the first.  Indeed, un-
  like the other Joseph Smith papyri, this one contains clumsy ancient retouch-
  ings over places where the papyrus fiber flaked off centuries ago.  In short,
  if there is any of the papyri which is *not* in a state of "perfect preserva-
  tion," the Book of Breathings is it.

  Then too, it is significant that Joseph Smith in his description of the
  Abraham text failed to mention what would have been the most striking thing
  about it had it been the same as the Book of Breathings, namely, the full-page
  drawing immediately adjoining the text.  Since this is an illustration to the
  Book of Abraham, it has naturally been assumed that the text that follows the
  drawing could only be that of Abraham--even the brethren at Kirtland assumed
  that.  But that fails to take into account the common Egyptian practice of
  cross-matching vignettes with texts in general and with Book of Breathing
  texts in particular.  In an edition of the Book of Breathings Pap. Louvre N.
  3279, J.C. Goyon warned the student that the vignettes that accompany the text
  "have often only a very remote connection with the substance (le developpe-
  ment) of the writing."[8]  For example, Tableau ii of this Breathings text
  actually belongs "to the illustrations of the Chapters of the Gates of Hades,
  in the Book of the Dead," and it is only "as an exception" that "the title of
  the text [under Tableau iv] corresponds to the drawing that adorns it."[9]

  Following a well-known Egyptian practice (most conspicuous in th Amduat), our
  Book of Abraham twice refers its readers back to an illustration of some
  ritual object it is talking about.  When we read, "and that you may have a
  knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the com-
  mencement of this record" (Abr. 1:12), or, "That you may have an understanding
  of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the beginning" (Abr.
  1:14), the language clearly implies that the reader does not have the picture
  before him, but must be referred back to "the commencement of this record," to
  "the figures at the beginning."  The Abraham text may have belonged on the
  same roll as the Book of Breathings and Facsimile No. 1, or have been placed
  differently in the original document by Abraham, but if so, it must be sought
  in the section that has obviously been cut off from the Book of Breathings.

  For a demonstration of the strange practice of putting the isllustrations of
  one story with the test of another, we need look no further than the Joseph
  Smith Book of Breathings itself, where the scene depicted so vividly in the
  Facsimile is nowhere mentioned in the text that immediately follows.  Only by
  matching up the fibers of the writing and the drawing is it possible to show
  that the two presentations, which at first glance have nothing to do with each
  other, were actually side by side on the same strip of papyrus.

  Since Joseph Smith actually possessed quite a number of perfectly preserved,
  beautifully written Egyptian manuscripts adorned with rubrics, there is no
  reason to doubt that he was describing such a document as the source of "the
  record of Abraham and Joseph."  And there can be no doubt whatever that the
  manuscript he was describing was and is an entirely different one from the
  badly written, poorly preserved little text, entirely devoid of rubrics, which
  is today identified as the Book of Breathings.  One cannot insist too strongly
  on this point, since it is precisely the endlessly repeated claim that the
  Book of Breathings has been "identified as the very source of the Book of
  Abraham" on which the critics of Joseph Smith have rested their whole case,
  oblivious to the howling absurdity of insisting that the book was produced in
  a manner in which, as they tirelessly demonstrated, no book could possibly be
  produced, ever!
********************************************************************************
Notes

1. Grant S. Heward and Jerald Tanner, "The source of the Book of Abraham
	Identified," Dialogue 3.2 (Summer 1968):93; Illust. no. 1.

2. Discussed by Hugh Nibley in "The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers,"
	BYU Studies 11.4 (Summer 1971):350-54.

3. Klaus Baer, "The Breathing Permit of Hor: A Translation of the Apparent
	Source of the Book of Abraham," Dialogue 3.3 (Autumn 1968):109-34.

4. HC 2:348.

5. Improvement Era, February 1968, pp. 40a-40g.

6. John A. Wilson, "The Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri: Translations and
	Interpretations, A Summary Report," Dialogue 3.3 (Autumn 1968):68.

7. Jean-Claude Goyon, "Le papyrus du louvre n. 3279," Bibliotheque detude 42
 	(Cairo: L'institut Francais d'archeologie orientale, 1966),p.3.

8. Goyon, pp. 2, 6.

9. Ibid., pp. 3, 7.


Smiles,

Dave H.

    First, it has been a while since I have been able to get on notes
    so I am alittle behind.
    
    First, Allen, I will be glad to enter the 14 Articles that I have.
     Give me a little bit of time.  Second, the Mormon church did publish
    the books that I have by Wood and I will give supporting evidence
    of that.
    
    Last, I will put together further evidence of the Pearl of Great
    Price.  But some food for thought:  The book of Mormon states:
    
    Mormon 9:32-34:  "...But the Lord knoweth the things which we have
    written, and also that NONE other people knoweth our language; and
    because that none other people knoweth our language, therefore he
    hath prepared a means for the interpretation thereof."
    
    So no one knew how to read reformed Eygptian.  The only reason Joseph
    could was because GOD gave him the means of translation.  Therefore,
    Joseph did not do it because of his knowledge of Eygptian, but because
    God gave him the translation.  I will discuss this further as soon
    as I finish putting it together.
    
    Last; yes, we can accept some changes in doctrine and theology today
    due to many things - changes in language, new evidence, etc.  But
    God made it very clear that HE DOES NOT CHANGE.
    
    Therefore, if God has clearly said something, such as thou shalt
    not commit adultary, then he is not going to change that to be -
    ok you can commit adultary because you're special.  If God made it
    clear, no prayer or request for "further" revelation needs to be
    made.  Yet, as you will see in my conclusion, Joseph Smith DID commit
    adultary (sex with other mens wives, not his own multiple wives).
    
    If God clearly states he is ONE GOD (supported by the Bible and
    the Book of Mormon), and there are NONE other beside
    him, we can assume that anything to the contrary is NOT OF GOD.
    
    But what makes the changes in the Mormon documents so serious is
    that in most cases, they are NOT documented.  They just happen.
     Unlike in the Bible, changes and errors are documented thoroughly
    so people can trace what happened.  There is not a suggestion of
    coverup.  But when Mormon documents are changed - without so much
    as an explaination why - it practically shouts coverup.
    
    Anyway, I will follow up with this soon.
    
    Thanks for your patience, Leza
    

    NOTE PRECEEDING THE ARTICLES OF FAITH:

"The Articles of Faith in this volume ar the most complete of the seven 
that have been found in the old published records... This volume is printed 
to help bring back to life the great work of the Prophet Joseph Smith in 
the foundation of the Church so that it can be understoond today as though 
it happended yesterday and continue to live through the eternities of 
tomorrow."  Wilford C. Wood


                         THE ARTICLES OF FAITH OF 
                        THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST
                           OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS


1.  We believe in God the eternal Father, and his son Jesus Christ, and in 
the Holy Ghost.

2.  We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for 
Adam's transgressions.

3.  We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be 
saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4.  We believe that these ordinances are:  1st, Faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ; 2nd, Repentence; 3rd, Baptism by immersion for the remission of 
sins; 4th, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Spirit; 5th, The 
Lord's Supper.

5.  We believe that men must be called of God by inspiration, and by laying 
on of hands by those who are duly commissioned to preach the Gospel, and 
administer in the ordinances thereof.

6.  We believe in the same organiation that existed in the primitive 
church, viz., apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, etc.

7.  We believe in the powers and gifts of the everlasting Gospel, viz., the 
gift of faith, discerning of spirits, prophecy, revelation, visions, 
healing, tongues, and the interpretation of tongues, wisdom, chrity, 
brotherly, love, etc.

8.  We believe in the Word of God recorded in the Bible; we also believe 
the Word of God recorded in the Book of Mormon, and in all other good 
books.

9.  We believe all that God has revealed; all that he does now reveal; and 
we believe that he will yet reveal many more great and important things 
pertaining to the Kingdom of God, and Messiah's second coming.

10.  We believe in the literal gathering of Isreal, and in the restoration 
of the ten tribes; that Zion will be established upon the western 
continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth a thousand 
years; and that the earth will be renewed, and receive its paradisaical 
glory.

11.  We believe in the literal resurrection of the body, and that the dead 
in Christ will rise first, and that the rest of the dead live not again 
until the thousand years are expired.

12.  We claim the privilege of worshipping the Almighty God according to 
the dictates of our conscience unmolested, and allow all men the same 
privilege, let them worship how or where they may.

13.  We believe in being subject to kings, queens, presidents, rulers and 
magistrates, in obeying, honoring and sustaining the law.

14.  We believe in being honest, true, chaste, temperate, benevolent, 
virtuous, and upright, and in doing good to all men; indeed we may say that 
we follow the admonition of Paul, we 'believe all things' we 'hope for all 
things', 'we have endured very many things' and hope to be able to 'endure 
all things.'  Everything virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy, and of good 
report, we seek after, looking forward to the 'recompense of reward.'

                               JOSEPH SMITH




It is clear that these Articles of Faith WERE written after 1835.  The 
church was still called the Church of the Latter-Day Saints.  Yet, the 
title on these articles is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  
In the 1950's (when the work was originally put together) it was verified 
that this particular version was the most complete - AFTER the 1840's.

If you compare this to the current Articles of Faith:

Article #4:  the Lords Supper as being an ordinance is removed

Article #5:  man now is called of God by prophecy, rather than by 
inspiration (prophecy denotes someone else telling that person he is 
called, rather that by inspiration which is God himself calling that 
person), and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority rather 
than someone who is duly commissioned.  [This gives a totally different 
meaning]

Article #8:  The Bible was originally considered (as is) to be the word of 
God, as was the Book of Mormon and all other good books.  (This to mean 
anything written.)  Now the bible is only the word of God as far as it is 
translated correctly, and ALL OTHER GOOD BOOKS, has been removed.

The Origional #11:  is missing

The new #11 (the old #12):  has added, let them worship how, where OR WHAT 
they may.

Now, I don't have a problem with more articles of Faith being added, 
because God could reveal new things.  BUT to remove and totally alter the 
meaning of the others, without DOCUMENTATION, causes one to wonder:  did 
they change the articles of faith to meet God's standards, or to fit into a 
new doctrine that contradicts another?


THE PRINTING OF JOSEPH SMITH BEGINS HIS WORK

The work titled, "Joseph Smith Begins His Work" Vol. I and II were printed 
by the Deseret Press (the church press) in the late 1950's early 1960's.  
Apostle Thomas S. Monson was the Assistant Plant Manager for the Church's 
Deseret Publishing Company and signed affidavits stating that these books 
were photographically reproduced from the originals.

However, when Mormons started comparing the works of the 1830's to the 
current editions, they found that many changes (undocumented) had been 
made.  On October 10, 1964, Sandra Tanner went to the Deseret Bookstore and 
asked the clerk concerning these books.  The clerk, supposing she was a 
Mormon, said:  "President David O. McKay won't let us sell that anymore.  
We've had several people leave the Church because of those books."

When they wrote the Deseret Bookstore requesting copies of Joseph Smith 
Begins His Work, they were told that the books were no longer available.  
When they informed Wilford Wood of this fact, he said that "there were 
plenty of books, both volumes and always will be and anyone who is hurt 
from the original story of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the foundation of 
the Church upon which it is built will have to pay the consequences for 
pretending to love the Prophet and work against him."

Wilford Wood later met with the President of the Church, but was 
unsuccessful in his attempt to get the ban removed from his reprints.

So the original volumes were published through the Church Publishing 
Company signed as being authentic by an Apostle and then later banned from 
the bookstores by David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith.  The reason?

    

    Deseret Book Company is NOT the CHURCH PUBLISHING COMPANY, but just
    another bookstore.  Anything OFFICIALLY published by the Church 
    must go through review committees and usually represents policy,
    and guidelines, or for its  Church Educational System, educational
    and reference materials with Church Doctrines and Explanations.
    Books from Deseret Book Company, written by Mormon authors, are
    just that and nothing more.  They are not official Church anything.
    
    To identify OFFICIAL Church Publications, a code is printed on the
    back page. Books published by Deseret Book do NOT have this code.
                                                               
                                                           

My copy of Wilford Wood's reproduction of the 1830 first edition of the
Book of Mormon has the following information:

    Copyright, 1958 by
    Wilford C. Wood, Publisher
    in the United States of America

    All Rights Reserved

    No reproduction of pictures, statements,
    or printed matter is permitted without the
    written consent of the publisher.

    Printed by 
    Deseret News
    In the United States of America

    1958.

Over a few pages, the following statement is given.

    We the undersigned of the Deseret News Publishing Company certify
    that the printing of the Book of Mormon as contained herein was re-
    produced by photo-offset method from uncut sheets bearing the data
    1830.  These sheets, according to Wilford C. Wood, are from the
    original First Edition of the Book of Mormon printed in Palmyra,
    New York in 1830.  The page has been enlarged from 4 1/2 X
    7 1/4 to 6 X 9 page for easier reading.

   /s

   Preston Robinson
   General Manager

   Louis C. Jacobsen
   Plant Manager

   Thomas S. Monson
   Assistant Plant Manager 
   and Sales Manager.


So it is there in black and white: Wilford C. Wood not the Church published
the book and the Deseret News contracted for the printing.

I don't remember specifically when I purchased my copy, but it would have
before August 1962 when I moved from Utah to Maryland after graduating from
College.  I expect it was the summer of 1959 or 1960, because the book was
widely advertised at the time as a new book.  I purchased it from a local book
store in my home town of Cedar City.

Allen

    
    
    You are mincing words here guys.  Who is the Mormon Church's Publisher?
    
    THE DESERET PUBLISHING COMPANY
    
     Who controls said publishing company?  
    
     THE MORMONS
    
    Who tells said publishing company what and what not to print?  
                                                                           
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE MORMON CHURCH 
    
    When people starting seeing the differences between the origional
    documents and the new books, they began to question what was going
    on.  Why were the changes made?  Who authorized the changes?  And
    no one was giving them answers, except the Tanners.  So what does
    the Mormon church do?  They tell the bookstores, NOT to sell Mr.
    Woods books anymore - tell the people they are not available.  
    Who authorized this?  Joseph Fielding Smith and President McKay.
                         
    Wilford Wood had nothing but good intentions when he printed those
    volumes showing the 1830's BOM, the 1833 and 1835 D & C.  He had
    no idea that they would be so radically different from the ones
    being printed in the 1950's and 1960's.  He did it as an act of
    faith that this would provide Mormons with a deeper sense of stability
    in their religion.  Instead, it showed that there was so consistency,
    that was the Word of God in 1833 was no longer the same Word of
    God in 1835 (let alone today).  If you saw whole chapters of a book
    missing or re-written, WITH NO DOCUMENTATION AS TO WHY - wouldn't
    you wonder what was going on?
    
    Instead of the Mormon church explaining why there were such major
    descrepencies - they chose to ban the Volumes by Mr. Wood.  Even
    his personal plea to the President made no difference.  How can
    the Mormon church, who supposedly didn't "publish" this work, have
    so much power that they could BAN it?  They can't tell a publishing
    company, that they supposedly DON'T OWN, not to print something.
    
    Unless they controlled the organization.  Thus, in the over all
    picture, they okayed the original printing but once they received
    flack from people - had it banned.  I'm sorry, but you won't be
    able to convince me otherwise.
    

     re: 105.50

    >Who tells said publishing company what and what not to print?  
                                                                           
    >THE PRESIDENT OF THE MORMON CHURCH 

    >                                                So what does
    >the Mormon church do?  They tell the bookstores, NOT to sell Mr.
    >Woods books anymore - tell the people they are not available.  
    >Who authorized this?  Joseph Fielding Smith and President McKay.
                         
     Where are your sources for these charges ?  Is there any evidence,
     or is the an unsubstantiated accusation ?


    >Instead of the Mormon church explaining why there were such major
    >descrepencies - they chose to ban the Volumes by Mr. Wood.  Even
    >his personal plea to the President made no difference.  How can
    >the Mormon church, who supposedly didn't "publish" this work, have
    >so much power that they could BAN it?  They can't tell a publishing
    >company, that they supposedly DON'T OWN, not to print something.
    
     Isn't it possible that the book went out of print for other reasons ?
     If so, what proof is there that Church officials prevented printing ?


    >I'm sorry, but you won't be able to convince me otherwise.
    
     You're probably right, and I only see one person in these notes who
     seems to be trying to convince you to change your views.  However, I
     don't think you'll convinve me that the above charges are true without
     some evidence that they stopped selling the book because the president
     of the Church ordered them to stop printing it.

    Leza, 
    
    Your are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, about the Desert Book PUblishing
    Company.  How do I know?  I worked for the Church for 5 years
    (something you have not done!!!!!!!!!!) and I can tell you that
    when the Church publishes something it has its own easily identified
    code showing not only that it is a church publication but which
    deparment of the Church has published it.
    
    I know this fact having had to secure these codes for Church
    Publications myself.  So, please be aware of your error!
    
    

The two replies by Gary and Paul on media control have been moved to a new
note so the general topic of media control can be discussed there.  The
new note is 140.

Comments concerning the publishing and distribution of Brother Wood's books
should continue to be placed here because they are part of the discussion of
Leza's report.

Allen

 -- moderator

Re .47

It seems to me there are two points to the discussion: Who published
the two "Wood volumes", and Leza's claim that the LDS church suppressed
the distribution of them.  In .49 I showed that the books were published
by Brother Wood and that Deseret Publishing was only involved, under contract
to Wood, as the printer.  I also showed that Elder Monson's statement
did *not* say that the first of the "Wood books" was printed from the
original edition of the Book of Mormon; Elder Monson said that Wood
claimed that the uncut sheets were from the original edition.

Let us focus on the second and more important question concerning the
distribution of the books.

>On October 10, 1964, Sandra Tanner went to the Deseret Bookstore and 
>asked the clerk concerning these books.  The clerk, supposing she was a 
>Mormon, said:  "President David O. McKay won't let us sell that anymore.  
>We've had several people leave the Church because of those books."

Let us keep in mind that we are discussing a historical event that
supposedly happened 24 years ago.  We need to study the evidence provided
by Leza to see if her claims of the LDS Church's banning of the books is
supported by her evidence.  I suggest that persons who have not already read
note 69 concerning "Evaluating Historical Documents" do so as a background.
The points from that note that I am going to use in my comments in this
reply concern the value of historical records (primary vs secondary
information) and the bias of the persons providing the information.

Sandra Tanner has provided primary evidence that she went to Deseret Book
and inquired about the books.  She claims she made the trip and I think
we have no reason to say she didn't.  Likewise, Sandra has given primary
evidence that she received a particular message from the clerk.  However,
the accuracy of that message is another matter that we need to study.

The message from the clerk said that "President David O. McKay won't let
us sell that anymore."  Even though Sandra Tanner gave primary evidence
that she received the message, the message itself is secondary, and I
feel not necessarily a very accurate secondary message.  The message
is secondary because the clerk was not President McKay, and as far as
we can tell from the information presented by Leza, the clerk did not
show Sandra Tanner a letter or other document signed by President McKay.

In fact, not only is the message from the clerk secondary, but I would
classify it as rumor.  We do not know the source of the clerk's information.
Had the clerk seen a memo from the store management stating that President
McKay had stopped the distribution of the books?  Or, was the message just a
story being circulated among the employees of the store?  We do not know.
The only conclusion about the message that we can make from the information
presented by Leza is that the message was rumor being passed on by the
clerk.  

>When they [Sandra Tanner and her husband] wrote the Deseret Bookstore
>requesting copies of Joseph Smith 
>Begins His Work, they were told that the books were no longer available.  

The claim by the Tanners that they wrote to Deseret Book and were told that
the books were not available is primary evidence that the books were not
available because they are the ones who wrote the letter.  However,
that is primary evidence only that the books were not available; it is not
evidence of any kind as to the reason the books were not available.

>Wilford Wood later met with the President of the Church, but was 
>unsuccessful in his attempt to get the ban removed from his reprints.

Leza did not say who was the source of her claim that Brother Wood met
with the President of the Church.  Unless more details are given, such as
a statement from Brother Wood, we have to classify this as secondary evidence
consisting of only the claim of someone not identified by Leza.  I would guess
that Leza's source of information was the Tanners.

>So the original volumes were published through the Church Publishing 
>Company signed as being authentic by an Apostle and then later banned from 
>the bookstores by David O. McKay and Joseph Fielding Smith.  The reason?

That statement by Leza has three parts, the Church publishing the books,
an apostle stating the books were authentic copies of the original edition
of the Book of Mormon, and the books being banned by the First Presidency.

This reply has shown that the first two parts are false: the books were not
published through the "Church Publishing Company" but were only printed under
contract.  This is an important point, because Leza is trying to show that the
Church published and then banned the books, i.e. the Church approved the books
and then withdrew them.

I don't recall when Elder Monson was first called as a General Authority, but
the fact that he was an employee of Deseret Publishing when the books were
printed indicates he was not a General Authority at that time, and Leza's
statement that an apostle stated the Wood books were authentic is not correct.
Monson did not certify that the books were authentic copies of the first
edition; he did certify that the books were copies of sheets provided by Brother
Wood and that Brother Wood claimed the sheets were from the first edition.

The third part of Leza's statement that the books were banned is based on
what was likely rumor passed on by a clerk in the bookstore.

Let's return our attention to the Tanners for a moment.  They are former
members of the LDS church who are very active in publishing anti-Mormon
literature.  They have a very strong bias against the church.  As I 
explained in note 69, the bias of persons providing historical information
is important, because that bias can cause persons to make an interpretation
or judgment about historical events that might not be justified by the
historical data available.  Based on the information provided by Leza, I
feel this is the case concerning her claim that the Mormon church banned
the books.  I do not doubt Sandra Tanner's claim that she went to the
store and was told by the clerk that the books were banned by President
McKay, but I do question the accuracy of the clerk as a source of
information.  I do not question that the books were not available during
the 1960s.  I bought mine on the open market shortly after they were
published, but the Tanners received a letter in the early 1960s from Deseret
Book stating the books were not available from that bookstore.  However, we must
be very careful that in trying to determine *why* the books were not available
we use accurate and reliable information.  In this case, I do not consider the
statement of a store clerk to be reliable information.

One possibility is that the books were banned by the First Presidency.  We
must keep in mind however, that there are many bookstores carrying LDS books
that are not part of Deseret Book Company and hence not owned by the Church
(e.g. the store from which I purchased my copy).  Especially important from
this viewpoint is the fact that there are book stores that are not friendly
to the LDS Church and which would jump at the chance to distribute books
banned by the LDS Church.  Even if the First Presidency did ban the books, I
don't believe that *all* bookstores would meekly remove the books from
distribution.

I would like to know if the Tanners have primary evidence from bookstores
not connected with Deseret Book that the books were not available.

Another possibility is that the management of Deseret Book decided to not
distribute the book as a decision of its own and not under direction from
the Church.

Another possibility is that the books were not carried by Deseret Book
for some technical or legal reason not involved with the religious
reasons discussed by Leza.

Based on the information provided by Leza, we do not know what happened or
why.  I do feel that the Tanners presented a mixture of primary and secondary
evidence in a biased perspective that is not justified without additional
historical evidence.

Allen

Re 38.4

>*  Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry in the 
>BOM.  In Hebrew Alma means a betrothed virgin maiden - hardly a fitting 
>name for a man.

In chapter 22 of his book "An approach to the Book of Mormon", Hugh Nibley
briefly mentions that the name 'Alma' is a common name on inscriptions in the
mid-east.  That chapter is concerned with proper names in the Book of Mormon.

In a footnote to the chapter, Nibley gave the following concerning variations
in the spelling of 'Alma' as found on the inscriptions.

    Thus in Jaussen, op. cit., No. 277, 'Alim; No. 475 'Alman from 'ALM;
    No. 622 'Almah (a man's name); Littman, 'Safait. Inscrs., Nos. 394, 430,
    984, 1292, all have the name ALM, also found in the diminutive form
    'Ulaim, and in the Greek transliteration Olaimou, 'Allam, "Allum (ibid.,
    p. 335), M. Noth, in 'Ztschr. d. Dt.-Morgenl. Ges., 81, p. 29, notes from
    an inscription the Phoenician-Canaanitish form of 'I'm (pronounced Alam)

    

Why doesn't the translation of the Egyptian papyri found in 1967 match the
text of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price?

By Michael D. Rhodes, researcher in ancient scriptures, BYU, Ensign, July,
1988, pp. 51-53

The papyri in question are a part of the collection of Egyptian mummies and
papyri that the Prophet Joseph Smith bought from Michael Chandler in 1835.
After the Prophet's death, the papyri were lost to the Church.  But in
1966, Dr. Aziz S. Atiya, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the
University of Utah, discovered some twenty-two separate papyri fragments in
the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, which were clearly part of
Joseph Smith's original collection.  The papyri were acquired by the Church,
and they are now located at Brigham Young University.

Perhaps the most famous of these papyri fragments is the one depicted in
the book of Abraham as facsimile number one.  It is said to represent
Abraham being sacrificed on an altar by the priest of Elkenah.  This picture
can be connected with several of the other papyri fragments that relate to the
text of an ancient Egyptian religious document known as the "Book of Sensen"
or "Book of Breathings."  Abraham refers to a picture in the text of the book
of Abraham (Abr. 1:12), and this picture is presumed to be the one we call
facsimile one; therefore, some people have concluded that this Book of
Breathings must be the text Joseph Smith used in his translation of the
book of Abraham.

However, there are some serious problems associated with this assumption.
First of all, from paleographic and historical considerations, the Book of
Breathings papyrus can reliably be dated to around A.D. 60--much too late
for Abraham to have written it.  Of course, it could be a copy--or a copy
of a copy--of the original written by Abraham.  However, a second problem
arises when one compares the text of the book of Abraham with a translation
of the Book of Breathings; they clearly are not the same.  Enemies of the
Church have noted this and, without considering any other facts, have
assumed that this proves the Prophet's translation to be a hoax.

Actually, there are two possible explanations why the text of the recently
discovered papyri does not match the text in the Pearl of Great Price.

One explanation is that it may have been taken from a *different* portion of
the papyrus rolls in Joseph Smith's possession.  In other words, we don't 
have all the papyri Joseph Smith had--and what we do have is obviously not
the text of the book of Abraham.  The Prophet described the papyrus he
used in translation in these words: "The record...found with the mummies,
is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or
paint, in perfect preservation." (History of the Church, 2:348.)  The Book
of Breathings papyrus has no writing in red ink and is in an extremely poor
state of preservation.  It must have been in much the same condition in
Joseph Smith's day when fragments of it were glued haphazardly to other
totally unrelated papyri.  In fact, part of the outer border of facsimile
two in the Book of Abraham has some of these unrelated fragments inserted
in it.

Although the picture found as facsimile one in the book of Abraham stands
at the beginning of the Book of Breathings, this does not necessarily mean
that it belongs to the text.  The Egyptians often placed vignettes next to
texts that bore no relationship to them.  J. C. Goyon, in his study of the
Louvre papyrus number 3279 (a Book of Breathings text, incidentally), says
that the vignettes of religious papyri often have only a very distant
connection with the subject of the accompanying text.  ('Bibliotheque D'Etude',
Vol. XlII, "Le Papyrus du Louvre N. 3279," Cairo, 1966, p. 2)  Edouard
Naville, in his invaluable publication of the Theban version of the Book
of the Dead, also notes that the vignettes of many Book of the Dead papyri
have absolutely nothing to do with the text they accompany and are clearly
not meant to illustrate that text.  ('Das Aegyptische Totenbuch der XVIII,
bis XX, Dynastie, Einleitung', Berlin, 1886, p. 39)  Thus, the text that 
gave rise to the book of Abraham could have been located elsewhere on the
same papyrus or even on another.

But if the text were on the same papyri, what is a text written by--or
attributed to--Abraham doing with a bunch of pagan religious texts some
two thousand years after his time?  This is really not as unlikely as it may
seem.  The Egyptians had a mania for things of the past.  It is not 
unreasonable to suppose that Abraham's ancient record could have been
copied many times through the generations and treasured for its antiquity
centuries later.  Perhaps it was just such a multigeneration copy that finally
ended up with the mummies and documents that came into Michael Chandler's
possession, a text that we do not now have.

A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by
the word 'translation'.  While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the
Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of the language.
Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process
than using the tools of scholarly research.

Section seven of the Doctrine and Covenants provides us with a good example
of that process.  It is a revelation given to the Prophet through the Urim
and Thummim of a translation of a "record made on parchment by John [the
Revelator] and hidden up by himself." (See section heading to D&C 7.)  In
other words, the document being translated wasn't even in the Prophet's
possession; yet by means of the Urim and Thummim he was able to translate
it.

His translation of the Bible, parts of which are in the book of Moses
in the Pearl of Great Price, was also done without having the original text
before him.  Instead, while he was using the King James Version of the Bible,
the correct meaning or content was revealed to him, including extensive
revelations of both Enoch and Moses that are not found in the King James
Version.

We can envision a possible similar process taking place in Joseph Smith's
translation of the papyri he got from Michael Chandler.  Instead of making
a literal *translation*, as scholars would use the term, he used the Urim
and Thummim as a means of receiving revelation.  Even though a copy of
Abraham's record possibly passed through the hands of many scribes and had
become editorially corrupted to the point where it may have had little
resemblance to the original, the Prophet--with the Urim and Thummim, or
simply through revelation--could have obtained the translation--or, as
Joseph Smith used the word, he could have received the *meaning*, or
*subject-matter content* of the original text, as he did in his translation
of the Bible.  This explanation would mean that Joseph Smith received the
text of our present book of Abraham the same way he received the translation
of the parchment of John the Revelator--he did not even need the actual text
in front of him.

In reality, the actual method Joseph Smith used is far less important than
the resulting book of scripture he produced.  But here the Prophet's critics
prefer to ignore the evidence of the text itself.  The book of Abraham should
be evaluated on the basis of what it claims to be: a record of Abraham.
A wealth of material on Abraham has come to light since the Prophet's text
was published, and the book of Abraham compares *astoundingly well with these
documents*.  (Hugh Nibley has discussed in detail the correlations between
the book of Abraham and the subsequently discovered texts on Abraham.  See
'Abraham in Egypt', 1981, and 'The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri, An
Egyptian Endowment', 1975, both published by Deseret Book Company.)

In the final analysis, however, the proof of the truth of the book of 
Abraham does not come by human means.  As with all aspects of the restored
gospel, "by the power of the Holy Ghost [we] may know the truth of all
things." (Moro. 10:5)  I have studied the book of Abraham, and the truth
of it has been made known to me in a way I can't deny.  I know that anyone
who earnestly wants to know if the book of Abraham is true can also
receive this same witness and knowledge from God.

> A second explanation takes into consideration what Joseph Smith meant by
> the word 'translation'.  While translating the Book of Mormon, he used the
> Urim and Thummim rather than dictionaries and grammars of the language.
> Translating with the Urim and Thummim is evidently a much different process
> than using the tools of scholarly research.

Where are the Urim and Thummim now? Are they in possession of the current 
LDS Church President?

Ed

Hi Ed,

I don't expect that anyone in this conference has an answer to your
question.  I can't recall any statements from Church leaders in my lifetime
about having or not having the Urim and Thummim.  

At a general conference of the Church held on October 6, 1844, Brigham
Young spoke on the theme of revelation, and he mentioned the Urim and
Thummim.

    This church has been led by revelation, and unless we forsake the Lord
    entirely, so that the priesthood is taken from us, it will be led by
    revelation all the time.  The question arises with some who has the
    right to revelation?  I will not ascend any higher than a priest, and
    ask the priest what is your right?  You have the right to receive the
    administrations of angels.  If an angel was to come to you and tell
    you what the Lord was going to do in this day, you would say you had
    a revelation.  The president of the priests has a right to the Urim
    and Thummim, which gives revelation.  He has the right of receiving
    visits from angels.  Every priest then in the church has the right of
    receiving revelations.  Every member has the right of receiving 
    revelations for themselves, both male and female.  It is the very
    life of the church of the living God, in all ages of the world.
    (History of the Church, VII, p. 285)

Taken at face value, that statement seems to say that the Church presidents
do have the Urim and Thummim.  However, it isn't clear to me if he was
speaking of the Urim and Thummim as a physical device, or if he was using the
term as a metaphor.  I think we would need corroborating statements from other
leaders before we could say that the Church presidents do have the Urim and
Thummim as a device.

Allen

Re 38.4

>In the Book of Abraham 2:6-8 the Lord is talking to Abraham:
>
>"...My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning, therefore my 
>hand shall be over thee."
>
>The name Jehovah was not known to Abraham, so its use in the BOA is 
>fraudulent.  Second, there is no name "Jehovah" -- it is our improper 
>transliteration of the Hebrew consonants YHWH, the vowels being 
>interpolated from the Hebrew word "Adonai" (Lord).  [Which I confirme with 
>a Hebrew speaking friend]  In Exodus 6:3 God states to Moses that His name 
>"Jehovah" (YHWH) was NOT known to Abraham. 
>
>"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac and unto Jacob by the name of God 
>Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not know to them."
>
>Either God could not remember how he appeared to Abraham (which is 
>impossible) or the Book of Abraham is a complete fake (which is not only 
>possible but probable).

Hi Leza,

We are all familiar with the story of Abraham being commanded to sacrifice
his son on Mt. Moriah as a test of faith.  After Abraham and Isaac had
completed the sacrifice using the ram that was caught in a thicket, Abraham
gave a name to that place.  The name given by Abraham was significant, because
it indicated his reverence and love of God.  The name given by Abraham was
'Jehovah-jireh', which means 'Jehovah will see (to it)'.

    And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said
    to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.  (Genesis 22:14)

'Jehovah-jireh' is listed in Strong's dictionary as word # 3070 and, according
to the dictionary, came from word #3068.  Word #3068 is 'Yehovih' or Jehovah
and is the *same* word as used for Jehovah in Exodus 6:3.

It seems clear to me that Abraham *did* know the name 'Jehovah' because he
used it in giving a symbolical name to Mt. Moriah!

This situation is a good example of an error that crept into our present
versions of the Bible.  Through latter-day revelation from God, the Prophet
Joseph Smith was inspired with the correct meaning for Exodus 6:3.

    And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob.  I am the Lord God
    Almighty; and the Lord JEHOVAH. And was not my name known known unto them?
    (JST)

Allen

Re 38.4, 105.21

>*  Alma 7:10 tells us that Jesus was to be born at Jerusalem.  The Bible 
>tells us in Micah 5:2 and in Luke 2:4 that Jesus was born in Bethlehem.  
>Jersualem is a city.  Bethlehem is also a city.  The Mormon argument is 
>that "Jerusalem" referred to the general vicinity, but in 1 Nephi 1:4 
>Jerusalem is called a city.  If, as a Jew, you knew where Jerusalem was, 
>you would also know where Bethlehem was for the two cities are not far 
>apart.  The Holy Spirit would not make an error like this, but maybe Joseph 
>Smith?

Hugh Nibley discussed this in his "An Approach to the Book of Mormon".

******************************

The land of Jerusalem is *not* the city of Jerusalem.  Lehi "...dwelt at
Jerusalem in all his days..." (1 Ne. 1:4), yet his sons had to "...go down
to the land of our father's inheritance,..." to pick up their property.
(1 Ne. 3:16,21)  The apparent anomaly is readily explained by the Amarna
Letters, in which we read that "a city of the land of Jerusalem, Bet-Ninib,
has been captured."  It was the rule in Palestine and Syria from ancient
times, as the same letters show, for a large area around a city and all the
inhabitants of that area to bear the name of the city.  It is taken for granted
that if Nephi lived at Jerusalem he would know about the surrounding
country: "...I, of myself, have dwelt *at* Jerusalem, wherefore I know
concerning the regions round about...." (2 Ne. 25:6)  But this was quite
unknown at the time the Book of Mormon was written--the Amarna Letters were
discovered in 1887.  One of the favorite points of attack on the Book of
Mormon has been the statement in Alma 7:10 that the Savior would be born
"at Jerusalem which is the *land* of our forefathers."  Here Jerusalem is
not the city "in the land of our forefathers," it is the land.  Christ was
born in a village some six miles from the city of Jerusalem; it was not
in the city, but it was in what we now know the ancients themselves designated
as "the land of Jerusalem."  Such a neat test of authenticity is not often
found in ancient documents. (pp. 85-86)

	In order to be able to investigate this, let me inquire:
    
	What are the AMARNA letters?  Who wrote them, who discovered
    them and where might I find more information regarding them?

To save me typing-time, I've been omitting Nibley's footnotes.  The footnote
in question is #16 for lesson 8.

     (Footnote 16) J. A. Knudtzon, 'Die El-Amarna-Tafeln' (Leipzig, 1915),
     II, 876-877.  The Amarna Letters are the actual documents of the
     official correspondence between the Egyptian Government and the rulers
     of the various principalities of Palestine and Syria about 1400 B.C.,
     at the very time the Hebrews were entering Palestine.  They were found
     on clay tablets at El-Amarna on the middle Nile in 1887.

Two other footnotes that I omitted and which pertain to the question are #17
and #18.

     (Footnote 17) 'Ibid', I, pp. 864-867.

     (Footnote 18) As a matter of fact, there is "a striking disagreement
     between the cannon and the apocryphal literature" regarding the exact
     birthplace of Jesus, the latter sources, which are often very old, placing
     it at a point half-way between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.  W. Foerster,
     "Bemerkunger und Fragen zur Statte der Geburt Jesu," 'Ztschr. d. Dt.
     Palestine Vereins', 57 (1934), 1-7.  Foerster thinks that the disagreements
     are so clear, so persistent and so old that the misunderstanding on the
     subject goes right back to the beginning, e.g. some sources favor a cave,
     others a stall.  The only thing that sources agree on is that the birth
     took place "in the land of Jerusalem."  So serious are the differences on
     the subject that they have been the subject of at least one entire (and
     quite shallow) book, W. J. Ramsay, 'Was Christ Born at Bethlehem?' (London
     3rd Ed., 1905), which defends the credibility of the Gospel of Luke.

Jared's Ships:
--------------

Since the story of Jared's barges and the shining stones with which he
illuminated them has been the subject of much mockery and fun among the
critics of the Book of Mormon, they are all the more convincing evidence
if they can be shown to have a genuine archaic background.  The key to the
barges is found in the declaration that they were built on conventional
lines and yet in their peculiarities patterned after Noah's Ark.  The
discovery of a number of Babylonian texts has given rise to a good deal
of speculation as to just what the ark of Noah may have been like.  According
to Babylonian versions of great antiquity which add some important items to
the brief Biblical account without in any way contradicting it, Noah's ark
must have had certain peculiar features which had never been noted by Biblical
scholars, even though the Bible hints at some of them.  These peculiar features
are precisely those that have beguiled and amused the critics of the Jared
story.  Both Noah's and Jared's boats were designed from conventional lines
but, "according to instructions of the Lord," both were made water tight above
as well as below, were peaked at the ends, had a door that could be sealed
tight, had a special kind of air-hole, were designed to go under the water,
containing all sorts of animals as well as men, were driven by the wind without
the use of sails, and were designed to resist the force of unusually violent
weather, especially hurricane winds.

The Luminous Stones:
--------------------

But the Babylonian texts do not tell us how the Ark was lighted and the Bible
mentions only a 'tsohar', about the nature of which the Rabbis could never
agree.  Jared's shining stones have been held up to ridicule as a remarkable
piece of effrontery and the invention of a diseased imagination.  Yet it can
now be shown beyond any dispute:

1) That there existed throughout the world in ancient and medieval times the
report of a certain stone, the 'Pyrophilus', that would shine in the dark.
This stone, it was believed was a pure crystal and could only be produced and 
made luminous by the application of terrific heat.  It had the miraculous
quality of enabling its possessor to pass unharmed through the depths of the
water.

2) The story is not a folk-tale but is found only in the recondite writings
of the most celebrated scholars in the East and West, who passed the tale
around among them.  The wonderful shining stone is found only in the
possession of a Cosmocrator, like Solomon, its most famous owner being
Alexander the Great.

3) The Alexander accounts of the stone are actually much older than Alexander,
and have easily been traced back to the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic, in which
the stone appears as the Plant of Life which Gilgamesh seeks from Utnapishtim,
the Babylonian Noah.  The Pyrophilus legend wherever it is found has accordingly
been traced back ultimately in every case to the story of Noah.

4) The most wonderful object in the inmost shrine of the great cult center of
Aphek, in Syria, where the deeds of Noah and the story of the flood were
celebrated in word and ritual, was a stone that shone in the dark.

5) One of the explanations of the 'Zohar' given by the ancient Rabbis was that
it was a polished jewel which Noah hung up in the ark so that he could tell
night from day; the source of this seems to be a very brief, obscure, and
little-known remark in the Palestinian Talmud and attributed to R. Ahia ben
Zeira, to the effect that "in the midst of the darkness of the Ark Noah
distinguished day from night by the aid of pearls and precious stones whose
lustre turned pale in the daylight and glittered at night."  This is far from
the Ether account, which could hardly have been inspired by it, even if the
writer of the Book of Mormon had known of this still untranslated passage from 
the 'Talmud Jerushalmi'.  But it is obviously an echo of the old account of the
shining stones, the association of which with Noah no one suspected until the
discovery of the Gilgamesh Epic.  It was that discovery which put scholars on
its trail at the end of the last century.

Now whether the ark of Noah was actually lit by shining stones or not is beside
the point, which is that the idea of stones shining in the darkness of the
ark was not invented by Joseph Smith or anybody else in the 19th century, but
was known to the ancient Rabbis in an obscure and garbled version, was clearly
indicated in the properties of a very ancient shrine dedicated to the Syrian
Noah, and was mixed in among the legends of the very ancient Alexander cycle by
means of which scholars quickly and easily ran it down to its oldest visible
source, namely the old Sumerian Epic of the Babylonian Noah.  However,
ridiculous the story of the shining stones may sound to modern ears, there is
no doubt that it is genuine old stuff, going back to the proper sources as far
as Ether is concerned.

(Hugh Nibley, "An Approach to the Book of Mormon, pp. 295-297, his references
omitted)

Re 38.4

>Dr. Nibley was and is not an Egyptologist and cannot read hieratic 
>Egyptian.  In a letter to the Mormon Egyptologist, Professor Dee Jay 
>Nelson, he stated:

Leza, Dee Jay Nelson is a fake!  Robert and Rosemary Brown have documented
this in their book, "They lie in wait to deceive", Volume 1, revised 1985,
(Brownsworth Publishing Company, P.O. Box 2671, Mesa, Arizona 85204, $11.95).
Their book contains 283 pages of very detailed information about Nelson, 
including photo copies of the many letters and documents uncovered by their
research.

Because of the quantity of information about Nelson given by Brown, I am
going to post several replies to this note.  Each reply will cover a different
topic of Nelson's claims.

This reply concerns Nelson's academic claims.

Nelson has a very active speaking schedule and is billed as a "renowned
Egyptologist", "Prof. Nelson", "Dr. Nelson", etc.  He claims a B.S. in
Biology from Pacific Northwestern University (Seattle, WA), a M.S. in
Egyptology from the University of California at Berkeley, a Ph.d from
Pacific Northwestern, and a Ph.d from the Oriental Institute at the University
of Chicago.

Pacific Northwestern University is a "diploma mill" and was closed down
by the Attorney General's office in Washington state.  An advertising flier
from that "school" said, "Pacific Northwestern University will award you a
college diploma  No classes...no studying...no exams..."  For a certain fee,
you would receive a diploma signed by appropriate officials of the school.
You also would receive a transcript of credit listing each class you "took"
and the "grades" received.  You could also receive a parking decal for your
car window.  Records of the Attorney General's office indicate that the school
was the work of one man, Mr. Archille Bourque, who signed all the names on the
diploma.  So much for two of his four degrees....

Robert Brown called the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and
was told by the secretary of the Director "that Dee Jay Nelson had never
attended the Oriental Institute, not even for a single course."  He then
checked with the Registrar's office at the University "and found that Nelson
had never been registered and was never issued a degree of any kind.  We
also checked with the Alumni office and found nothing."  He later talked with
Dr. Klaus Baer of the Oriental Institute (one of the names flipped around by
Nelson) and was told "Dr. Baer said that he had been on the faculty at the
Institute since 1965, and he knew that Nelson had never attended during that
time.  Dr. Baer had also checked all the records that day and found that
Nelson was never a student, nor an alumni, and although the University of
Chicago grants degrees, the Oriental Institute does not (but may in the future).
Dr. Baer had never met the man.  However, in 1968, Nelson had sent Dr. Baer
his translation of The Joseph Smith Papyri and had asked for his comments.  He
also included his resume.  In that resume, there was no mention of ever
attending the Oriental Institute." (pp. 36-37)  So much for his second Ph.d....

A letter dated November 5, 1980 from the Office of Admissions and Records
at the University of California, Berkeley, said, "In response to your inquiry of
October 27, 1980, we wish to inform you that from the information given, we are
unable to identify the name, DEE JAY NELSON, in the list of students who have
ever attended the University of California, Berkeley, in regular or summer
sessions." (p. 39).  So much for his last degree....

Robert Brown researched Nelson's true academic record and found that he
attended high school for two years at Billings (Montana) High School and
dropped out to join the army.  He later received a G.E.D.  He also attended
Eastern Montana College for one quarter but dropped out before the term
ended and received grades of Withdrawal and Incomplete.

Re 38.4

Continuing with information from "They in wait to deceive", Volume 1.

This reply concerns Nelson's claim to have "some skill" as a mathematician
and to have weighed the coffin of King Tutankhamen.

Nelson said the following in a lecture given on February 22, 1980 in Mesa,
Arizona.

    The greatest single treasure in the Cairo Museum is the coffin of
    King Tutankhamen in a glass case.  Tutankhamen was a rather unimportant
    king because his treasure was intact when it was found by Egyptologists.
    Almost all other tombs in Egypt had been looted in ancient times.  This
    coffin is made of solid gold, somewhere between 20 and 22 karat gold; and
    in 1960, the Egyptian government asked me to calculate its weight.  I
    have some skill as a mathematician, so I measured it from all aspects
    and spent weeks trying to work out this Pythagorean calculation and that
    one.  Finally, I humiliated my mathematical prowess by putting it on
    two grain sack scales.  I built an oak scaffolding so that one end of
    it would sit on each of the two scales, then using a fire hose as a
    sling, we jacked it up with hydraulic jacks and weighed it.  It took
    me nearly three weeks thereafter to calculate the error of the scales,
    and then I was confident that its weight was 2,448 pounds and 4 ounces
    of solid gold.  Imagine what it would be worth at the present price
    of gold!  (p. 46)

It isn't clear where Nelson obtained "some skill" as a mathematician,
because he received a "F" and a "C" grade in his general math class in
high school and a "W" (withdrawl) grade in his Elementary Algebra class in
college.  In his lecture, Nelson said he calculated "this Pythagorean
calculation and that one" in determining the weight of the coffin.  In
communication with Brown, Dr. Louis C. Barrett, Professor of Applied
Mathematics, Montana State University said the following:

    It [the Pythagorean theorem] is not suited to the problem of computing
    weights of irregular solids, such as a casket.  Anyone who would
    suggest that it is has no skill as a mathematician and dangerously
    little knowledge of the subject.  (p. 46)

Concerning Nelson's claim to have been commissioned by the Egyptian government
to weigh the coffin.  One would assume that the Egyptian government would
commission a person who is a qualified Egyptologist, and in fact Nelson did
claim to have completed four "digs" in Egypt.  However, Mr. James Allen,
Director of the American Research Center in Cairo said the following about
Nelson:

    The Egyptian Antiquities Organization apparently has no concession in
    his name (they license all digs in Egypt), and the Egyptian Museum is
    not familiar with him or his project.  (p. 46)

More will be given in a later reply about Nelson's reputation among other
Egyptologists.

The key statement in this matter is Nelson's statement that the coffin
weighed 2,448 pounds and 4 ounces.  That figure is incorrect and came from
a misprint in a book!  Peter F. Dorman, Curatorial Assistant, Egyptian
Department, Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York said the misprint is in
a book called "Tutankhamen" by Desroches-Noblecourt and occurred when the
book was translated from French to English.

    The innermost solid gold coffin of Tutankhamen weighs 110.4 kilograms,
    which comes to around 296 pounds troy ... the measurement of 2,000+
    pounds is a widespread error arising from a misprint in
    Desroches-Noblecourt's 'Vie et mort d'un pharoan', page 74, where the
    weight was mistakenly given as 1110.4 kilos; when the book was
    translated into English, the misprint was not caught and ... the coffin's
    weight was erroneously given as 2,448-1/8 pounds ... Unfortunately, the
    2,448 pounds weight has been widely repeated in popular books, magazines,
    and newspapers.  (p. 47)

A reply to Brown from N. B. Millett, Curator, Egyptian Department, The Royal
Ontario Museum in Toronto, Ontario, Canada gave the weight of the coffin
as 296 pounds troy or 110 kilograms.  Millett said

    Much higher weights have, however, been published by careless writers
    and one of those may well have been the source of the figure cited by
    Nelson.  (p. 47)

Re 38.4

Continuing with information from "They in wait to deceive", Volume 1.

This reply concerns Nelson's claim to be a professor.

On February 22, 1980, Nelson lectured in Mesa, Arizona.  His appearance
was sponsored by Concerned Christians, Inc.  Mr. Jim Robertson introduced
him and included the following statement:

    In 1968, Mr. Nelson, as a professor at the Rocky Mountain College....

During that talk, Nelson said

    I ah, teach at a small college, at Rocky Mountain College in Billings,
    Montana; and if you want to check on that, write to Mrs. Lori Keck.
    She is the head of the New Horizons Department at Rocky Mountain College.
    Now there are ... I teach night time courses at that college, 2 hours each,
    and I receive a check for it.  Now you can be sure the college has checked
    on my credentials or they wouldn't let me teach.  This is the custom.
    (p. 186)

Nelson's advertising lists him as a professor.  An advertisement distributed
in Phoenix said

               Mystery of the Pyramids
                    Presented by
                Prof. Dee Jay Nelson

And, in the Billings, Montana telephone directory, he is listed as

     Nelson Dee Jay Prof

Robert Brown contacted Lori Keck and was told that "Nelson lectures a non-credit
continuing education class and was not a regular faculty member, or professor,
there.  She described him as being somewhat different, and said that he says
'strong' things about himself, such as calling himself a world authority....and
that he is a strong believer in 'pyramid power'".  She added "that non-credit
courses are taught on a volunteer basis--the teacher is not on the payroll;
therefore, the credentials of these volunteer teachers, including Nelson's, are
not checked." (p. 59)

Brown also contacted R. Dean Boswell, Dean of Rocky Mountain College and
was told

    Mr. Dee Jay Nelson has never held the rank of professor here at Rocky
    Mountain College; in fact, he has never taught any courses in our
    regular program.  He has taught a number of courses in our New Horizon
    program, a program of non-credit courses on topics of interest to the
    community.  People who teach these courses hold no official title or
    rank at the College.

    I don't know where he acquired the title of "professor," but he does
    list himself with that title in the Billings telephone directory.

Re 38.4

Continuing with information from "They in wait to deceive", Volume 1.

This reply concerns Nelson's claim to be an author in Egyptology.

In a press release furnished by Nelson, the following statement occurred:

    He [Nelson] has written 8 books and large booklets on various aspects
    of Egyptology and has published nearly 150 scientific papers and
    articles, many of them on Egyptology. (p. 211)

Nelson co-authored a book on pyramid power.  A sales brochure for the 
ATLANTIS RISING TOUR of Egypt (1980) [he was a guest speaker on the tour]
described Nelson's credentials as follows:

    Dr. Dee Jay Nelson holds a Doctor's degree in Anthropology, Archaeology
    with specialization in Egyptology.  He reads Hieroglyphic, Hieratic,
    and Demotic Scripts.  His book, co-edited with David H. Coville, LIFE
    FORCE IN THE GREAT PYRAMID, is a unique study of the human body and Inner
    Pyramid science. (p. 72)

The forward to that book says the following about Nelson.

    Dee Jay Nelson is Professor of Egyptology at Rocky Mountain College,
    Billings, Montana, and a nationally known explorer-naturalist. (p. 73)

Robert Brown asked renown Egyptologists about their feelings regarding
pyramid power and received the following responses:

    "Pyramid Power" is not included in the field of Egyptology because it
    is a pseudo-scientific diletante.  The drive to attempt to see mysteries
    in ancient Egypt has its beginnings in the 5th Century B.C. and is happily
    continued at the expense of a gullible public....To put it as briefly as
    possible, "Pyramid Power" is peddled by charlatans who know nothing about
    ancient Egypt and is happily picked up by people who would rather believe
    in mysteries than cope with life.  I hope this will clarify your questions.
    -- Hans Goedicke, Johns Hopkins University.

    In response to your query about pyramid power I would say that, in general,
    Egyptologists do not include that area of study within the field of
    Egyptology. -- Leanna Gaskins, University of California, Berkeley.

    Neither "pyramid power" nor "pyramidology", the belief that the Great
    Pyramid can predict the future, is included in this field.  Egyptologists
    have been known, however, to use the term "pyramidiot" on occasion.
    -- Richard A. Parker, Brown University.

    Most Egyptologists, including myself, regard the theories of "pyramid power"
    as lying wholly outside our field and within the half-lit world of
    occultism.  Most of us believe that whatever may be the truth in the 
    much-debated question of the properties of a pyramid, it is clear that the
    Egyptians themselves did not hold any such beliefs. -- N. B. Millet,
    Egyptian Department, Royal Ontario Museum.


If Nelson really did author eight books and nearly 150 scientific papers,
Robert figured he should be well-known by other Egyptologists.  In response
to his query about Nelson's reputation, he received the following:

    Nelson may very well have measured the Great Pyramid in 1959, but he
    has left no scholarly record of it.  As for the Eastern Cemetery at Giza
    [Nelson claimed to have measured the pyramid and the cemetery], this was
    excavated for Harvard University and the Boston Museum of Fine Arts by
    George A. Reisner between 1902 and 1939; it is Reisner's map, in THE
    HISTORY OF THE GIZA NECROPOLIS I (Cambridge, 1942) that is in general use
    by Egyptologists. -- Peter F. Dorman of the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
    New York, letter of April 15, 1980.

    I am not aware of any recent resurvey of the Great Pyramid or the Giza
    plateau, but it is of course perfectly possible. No published map is in use
    among Egyptologists dating to the time you mention of ascribed to the person
    you mention, at least to my knowledge. I do know of the discovery of
    a tomb assignable to a Princess Neferkara in the year you mention [another
    of Nelson's claims] -- N. B. Millet, Royal Ontario Museum.

    I'm not acquainted with, nor have I ever heard, to the best of my
    knowledge, of Mr. Dee Jay Nelson. -- Mr. William Kelly Simpson, Curator
    Egyptian/Ancient Near Eastern Art, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, MA

    I have never heard of the man and I have no idea what his qualifications 
    may or may not be.  He is not listed in the International directory of
    Egyptology nor have I been able to find any publications by him.  The
    field of Egyptology, particularly in North America, is not large.  Most
    of the people involved in it are known to others in the field at least
    by reputation.  It would be curious that a person with the background he
    advertises is completely unknown to me but I am sure that there are some
    "Egyptologists" that I don't know. -- Mr. William H. Peck, Curator of
    Ancient Art, The Detroit Institute of Arts, Detroit, Michigan.

    I have no information concerning Mr./Dr. Dee Jay Nelson.  His U.S.
    credentials are not in my capacity to check.  The Egyptian Antiquities 
    Organization (that licenses all digs in Egypt) apparently has no
    concession in his name, and the Egyptian museum is not familiar with
    him or his project. -- Mr. James Allen, Director, American Research
    Center, Cairo, Egypt.

    The list of Mr. Nelson's achievements makes very amusing reading.
    -- Mr. Jaromir Malek, Griffeth Institute/Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, England

    This letter confirms our telephone conversation of March 11, 1980, in
    which I stated that I have never previously heard of D. J. Nelson, or
    of any connection he may have had with the Oriental Institute, where I
    studied for three years under Dr. Klaus Baer and others. -- Mr. Peter
    F. Dorman, Curatorial Assistant, The Metropolitan Museum of Art,
    New York.

    I have not otherwise heard of Professor Nelson, and as I mentioned to you,
    our field is rather small. -- Dr. David P. Silverman, Ph.D, University
    Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    
Nelson did translate the Joseph Smith papyri, and this will be discussed in
a later reply.

Re 38.4

>Dr. Nibley was unable to translate the papyri (labeled 22:309) and asked 
>Nelson to do it.  Dr. Nibley told N. Eldon Tanner, (first counselor to the 
>president of the church) that "Nelson is best qualified to do the job."
>Tanner agreed.  However, when Dr. Nelson found the "cracks" in the 
>foundation, the Mormon Church tried to supress them.  Tanner conveniently 
>forgot that he was to publish Nelsons findings.

In their book MORMONISM:SHADOW OR REALITY, 1972 version, Jerald and Sandra
Tanner said the following (p. 310 of their book):

    On Jan. 4, 1968, Dee Jay Nelson visited with Dr. Nibley at Brigham
    Young University and examined the original papyri.  Dr. Nibley agreed
    that Nelson should translate the papyri, and he sent a note to N. Eldon
    Tanner, a member of the First Presidency, stating that "it would be a good
    idea to let Professor Dee Jay Nelson have copies of the papyri."  This
    was before the Mormon leaders allowed photographs of all the papyri to
    be published. (They lie in wait to deceive, vol. 1, p. 112)

The text of the note referred to by the Tanners was published by Concerned
Christians of Mesa (an anti-Mormon group) in the Mesa Tribune, Saturday,
Nov. 1, 1980.

                         Provo
                         Jan 4, 1968

            I think it would be a
            good idea to let Prof.
            Dee J. Nelson have
            copies of the "Metro-
            politian" Papyri, inclu-
            ding Fac. #1.

            /Hugh Nibley   (They lie..., p. 112)


President Tanner's name does not appear anywhere on the note.  Nothing in the
note indicates it is an introduction to President Tanner.  However, anti-Mormon
literature refers to this note in defense of Nelson's claim that he was
commissioned by Tanner to translate the manuscripts.  As can be plainly seen,
the note gives no introduction to anyone.  The note gives no recommendation 
that Nelson translate anything.  The note only states that Nibley felt that
Nelson should receive photographs of the papyri and gives no information
about who would provide the photographs.

Robert Brown asked President Tanner if he had commissioned Nelson to translate
and received the following telegram.

            A565   Salt Lake City, Ut. 2-20-80   3:08PM
            Robert L. Brown
            Mesa, Ariz. 85203

            In reply to your inquiry I say that I have never authorized
            D. J. Nelson to translate the Pearl of Great Price Papyrus

                      N. Eldon Tanner   (They lie, p. 108)
    

From another viewpoint, Nelson's claim that he was commissioned by President
Tanner to translate is strange, because such commissions, if they were to be
given, would come from the full First Presidency itself not from just a
counselor.  The facts of the matter are that the Church made photographs
available to any interested scholar, and several men did respond and
investigate the documents.  Each man had to publish his findings himself.

Another statement by Nibley to Dee Jay Nelson has been used by anti-Mormon
writers in their claims that the Church commissioned Nelson.  In a letter
dated June 27, 1967, Nibley in writing to Nelson said "I see no reason in
the world why you should not be taken into the confidence of the Brethren..."

Nibley was impressed with Nelson's claims to be an Egyptologist, and he was
corresponding with Nelson about various aspects of the Book of Abraham.
In that letter, Nibley and Nelson were not discussing the papyri at all.
They were discussing the question why hypocephalus from the Egyptian Book of
the Dead were contained in the Book of Abraham (as facsimile #2).  His comment
about Nelson being "taken into the confidence of the Brethren" had nothing
to do with Nelson translating the papyri, because the letter was written five
months before the Church acquired the manuscripts.  The comment was an
expression of Nibley's understanding of Nelson's background and experience.
Nibley began the letter with the statement "Brother you have been around!"
Apparently, Nibley accepted at face value Nelson's claims to being an
Egyptologist.  Nibley then said that he felt that Nelson had reached premature
conclusions about the hypocephalus and went on to elaborate.
(They lie..., p. 112)


>"I don't consider myself an Egyptologist at all..."

This statement by Nibley and given by Leza in 38.4 was not concered with the
translation of the papyri.  The statement came from the letter referred to
above about the hypocephalus.  However, Leza (actually her anti-Mormon
sources) gave the statement in the context of the translation of the papyri
as a reason why Nibley would recommend someone else to President Tanner as the
man to do the translation.

Re 38.4

>Dr. Nelson and his entire family subsequently had their names removed from 
>the membership rolls of the Latter Day Saints Church because (in a letter 
>dated Dec. 8, 1975) "following my translation (the first to be published) 

That comment about being first to translate the papyri seems strange, because
in a lecture given on February 22, 1980 in Mesa, Arizona, Nelson said in
reference to the original fragment of facsimile #1 in the Book of Abraham

    This was first translated, not by me, but by Dr. Klaus Baer of the
    University of Chicago. (They lie in wait to deceive, Vol. 1, p. 207)

The facts of the matter are that when the papyri was turned over to the LDS
Church and made available to the public, Egyptologists and anyone else
interested were invited to translate it.  Three eminent Egyptologists (Dr.
Klaus Baer, Dr. Richard A. Parker, and Dr. John A. Wilson) published their
translations of the papyri in Dialogue *before* Nelson published his.

Nelson's translation of the papyri is one of the positive things he did and
for which he should receive proper credit.  In a letter to Rosemary Brown, Dr.
Baer said the following about Nelson's work as a translator.

    (3) I am quite prepared to believe that he has been to Egypt and has spent
    some time there.  He certainly devoted some effort to learning Egyptian,
    of which he has a good amateur knowledge (let's say at the level of a solid
    undergraduate major).  I have copies of three of the pamphlets he published
    at the Modern Microfilm Company (JOSEPH SMITH'S "EYE OF RA"; THE JOSEPH
    SMITH PAPYRI - A TRANSLATION AND PRELIMINARY SURVEY; THE JOSEPH SMITH
    PAPYRI, Part 2).  All of these appeared in 1968.  My evaluation of his
    competence in Egyptian is largely based on these.  By the way, considering
    the auspices under which the pamphlets appeared, I think it unlikely that
    he was commissioned to work on the papyri by the Mormon authorities.
    (They lie..., p. 37)

Baer then discussed his correspondence with Nelson about Nelson's translations
and, and he mentioned that he had suggested certain corrections to Nelson.

Hugh Nibley, in BYU Studies, Spring, 1968, p. 247, praised Nelson's work.

    Nelson has been careful to consult top-ranking scholars where he has found
    himself in doubt.  He has taken the first step in a serious study of the
    Facsimiles of the Pearl of Great Price, supplying students with a usable
    and reliable translation of the available papyri that once belonged to
    Joseph Smith.  (They lie..., p. 111)

Re 38.4

>Dr. Nelson's (as well as others) translation showed to be a representation 
>of a funeral.  It depicted the preparation of someone for burial.

Dee Jay Nelson, in his February 22, 1980 lecture in Mesa, Arizona made
the following statement.

    In the early days of January of 1968, I visited Dr. Hugh Nibley at
    Brigham Young University for the purpose of reviewing the papyri.  In
    company with Dr. Nibley, I examined the colored reproductions of the
    papyri and was quick to notice that they were the "BOOK OF THE DEAD".
    I mentioned my discovery to Dr. Nibley, and he agreed with me.
    (They lie in wait to deceive, Vol. 1, p. 167)

Nelson makes it seem like he was the first to discover that the papyri were
a funeral text and that Dr. Nibley gained new knowledge by that discovery.

However, in the January 1968 issue of The Improvement Era magazine, an article
by Jay M. Todd discussed the newly acquired papyri and identified them as
funerary texts, not the text of the Book of Abraham.  The timing involved in
the publication of that article shows that the LDS Church knew right from the
beginning and made that knowledge public that the papyri were funeral texts.
The Improvement Era was a monthly magazine for general use among the Saints,
much as the Ensign is today.

The Church received the papyri on November 27, 1967.  Todd wrote his article
and submitted it for publication by the deadline of December 10-11, 1967.  The
magazine was submitted for mailing by December 26-31, 1967, and the issue was
in the hands of the LDS members by the first week or so of January, 1968.
(They lie..., p. 166)

Dr. Klaus Baer wrote in Dialog, No. 3, Autumn, 1968, p. 110 that

    The speed with which the photographs of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri
    were published once they came into the possession of the Church of Jesus
    Christ of Latter-day Saints is a gratifying contrast to the secrecy with
    which their previous custodians [the Metropolitan Museum in NY] surrounded
    them.  (They lie..., p. 167)

The LDS Church has always agreed that the papyri were from the BOOK OF THE
DEAD and were not the source documents for the Book of Abraham.  In note 105.45,
Dave Hansen gave material from Hugh Nibley explaining why the papyri are *not*
the manuscripts for the Book of Abraham.

Some references for further study (admittedly from LDS authors) are the
following (They lie..., p. 172-173):

1.  ABRAHAM IN EGYPT, by Dr. Hugh Nibley, published by Deseret Book, 1981.  Dr.
    Nibley spent three years gathering research for this book.  It discusses,
    among other things, facsimiles #2 and #3.  Dr. Nibley says that so much
    material has been discovered and translated lately that it is hard to stay
    current. 

2.  THE FIRM FOUNDATION OF MORMONISM, by Kirk Holland Vestal and Arthur
    Wallace, Ph.D.  Published by LL Company, 1647 Manning Avenue, Los Angeles,
    CA, 90024, (213) 474-5185.  It contains, among other things -- The Book
    of Abraham, the Book of the Dead Papyrus, and the meaning of the temple;
    Archaeology and the Book of Mormon; Hebrew Prophecies of the work of
    Joseph Smith; The prophecies of Joseph Smith; The 75-day translation of
    the Book of Mormon; The development of scripture and the Doctrine and 
    Covenants; The Primitive Christian Church and the Restored Church of
    Jesus Christ; The language of the Book of Mormon, chiasmus, Hebrew,
    idioms, "And it came to pass", Reformed Egyptian.

3.  "Improvement Era" articles from January 1968 -- June 1970.  (Dr. Nibley
    has written a long series of articles on the Book of Abraham.  The first
    part answers the critics of the Book of Abraham, and the second part deals
    with Facsimile #1.)

4.  THE MESSAGE OF THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPYRI, AND EGYPTIAN ENDOWMENT, by Dr.
    Hugh Nibley, Published by Desert Book Company, 1975.

5.  BYU Studies, by Michael D. Rhodes, Vol. 17, Spring 1977, #3, p. 259-274.
    (It includes the translation and commentary of the Joseph Smith
    Hypocephalus).

This reply concludes my information on Dee Jay Nelson.  If anyone has questions,
I'll be glad to look in "They lie in wait to deceive" to see if Robert
Brown gives answers.

Allen

Re 38.4

>Smith was so certain that he had 
>uncovered a document of importance that he wrote a volume on Egyptian 
>grammer (History of the Church 2:238) 

Hugh Nibley has discussed the Egyptian grammar.  The following is from
"Judging and Prejudging the Book of Abraham", by Hugh Nibley, as reprinted
in "They lie in wait to deceive", Vol. 1, pp. 236-245.  Because of its
length, I am only giving parts of the article.

****************************

1) Joseph Smith never produced an Alphabet or Grammar of the Egyptian language.
What was repeatedly and falsely put forth as "Joseph Smith's Original Alphabet
and Grammar" was an enterprise in which a number of men engaged.  The leader
of this project was W. W. Phelps, and by far the greatest part of the writing
is in his hand.  Phelps had an ambitious plan for methodically working out
an Egyptian grammar and Alphabet, but it quickly became apparent that the
approach was not a fruitful one, and it was dropped for good.

But wasn't Smith in on it?

He was indeed, sharing his ideas with the others, for both works (the Egyptian
Grammar and the Alphabet) were purely speculative and exploratory.

How do you know that?

Because, of the six men participating, each makes his own contribution; no
two of their interpretations are identical.  The whole thing is quite fluid.
The men are admittedly exploring and interpreting.  Most importantly, the
project never got off the ground.  The most ambitious version of the grammar,
that of Phelps, ground to a halt after a single page, and his equally ambitious
alphabet was given up after a page and a half, before the second letter was
completed.

Then what is behind it?

Obviously they were doing what they explicitly stated they were doing, i.e.,
trying to produce an Alphabet and Grammar of the Egyptian language--nothing
was said about a project of translating the Book of Abraham.  Their interest
in such an enterprise was perfectly legitimate and understandable.  They had
priceless Egyptian manuscripts in their possession and were irresistibly drawn
to search for clues.  The decipherment of Egyptian was a problem which excited
many at the time, and the School of the Prophets had a legitimate and honest
interest in the study of Biblical and related languages.  At the time Phelps
made independent attempts at translating parts of the Bible, Oliver Cowdery,
one of the group, had eagerly sought some years before to translate "the
engravings of old records which are ancient" (D&C 8:1).  The instructions given
Cowdery in the matter are extremely important: he is not to expect the power to
translate to come to him as a gift, but must first "study it out in your mind,"
and only "then you must ask me if it be right" with no guarantee of acceptance
(D&C 9:7).  This is the process we see going on in the Egyptian exercises.

The critics say that the "Grammar" proves that Joseph Smith did not know
Egyptian.

Nobody ever said he did.  His translations were "given to him", as the
expression went, by direct revelation [not implying it was given to him word
for word, but rather given to him as meanings].  If he did know it, why would
he be sweating over a grammar and alphabet?

Then Joseph Smith did write an Egyptian Grammar?

He did not.  He would very much have liked to as the subject intrigued him
to the end of his life when he suggested the possibility of such an undertaking
in the future.

But why should he have been so interested in Alphabets and Grammars if not to
help him translate?

This brings us to our second point which is that:

2) The Alphabet and Grammar were not used in any translation.  It is important
to note that the Prophet had a real interest in ancient languages and studied
them the hard way; but only after he had completed all his inspired
translations.  Thus, he studied Hebrew and German along with the brethren
and looked about for a teacher of Greek, but that lively interest in languages
blossomed in Kirtland only after he had finished his new translation of the
Bible, translating the Book of Abraham at the same time.  Greek and Hebrew
dictionaries and grammars were available for their studies, but what about
Egyptian?  They would have to do what students of exotic languages have always
done, what the scholars of the 16th century did when confronted by strange
Greek, Syriac, or Coptic texts--they would have to make their own dictionaries
and grammars.  Joseph Smith's translation of the Old Testament was one thing;
his Hebrew and German lessons long after were something else entirely.
Likewise, his translation of the Book of Abraham was one thing; while his
discussions and speculations and intellectual flights with the brethren in
Kirtland were again something else.

You mean they were interested only in making a grammar?  Wouldn't they need it
for translating the Book of Abraham?

That suggestion is the wildest of all in view of the evidence.  Just look at
those documents [the grammar and alphabet]; could anyone possibly use them for
anything?  Just try it.  The opposition have loudly proclaimed that the
"Grammar" and "Alphabet" shows exactly how Joseph Smith did his translation, the
precise modus operandi he followed, as they put it.  Well, let someone show us
how the modus operandi works.  To date no one has tried to turn the key--
understandably, since it won't fit into any lock.  Aside from the wild nature
of the stuff we have seen, there isn't nearly enough "Alphabet" or "Grammar"
to be of use to anyone; they didn't really get started on them before they gave
them up.  But aside from that, the characters that meet us in the "Alphabet"
and "Grammar" never turn up in the attempts at fitting Egyptian characters to
the Book of Abraham.  The 125 proper names and numerals in the Alphabet and
Grammar nowhere appear in Abraham's book.  Even if the Alphabet and Grammar
could have been used as an aid to translation, it was not so used.

This brings up the matter of those other documents that do look very much
like an attempt at translation; that is, where Egyptian characters appear in
a margin on the left side of the page while the rest of the page is filled with
writing from the Book of Abraham.

At first glance it looks as if it may have been a translation, but a second
glance wipes out even the remotest possibility of such a thing, as the critics
themselves have been at pains to point out.  A certain Mr. Heward went to the
trouble of passing out handbills on Temple Square at a General Conference,
asking the Mormons to accept as sacred truth from him, that the juxtaposition
of Egyptian characters and English text proves that the one could not possibly
by any stretch of the imagination be a translation of the other.  The
disproportion between the characters is staggering: "How could one dot tell the
whole story of Little Red Ridinghood in all its harrowing details?", Mr. Heward
asked.  There is only one answer.  Everything shows that this was not a
translation and was not viewed as such.

Even when the two texts are found side by side?

If the juxtaposition made sense translation-wise, then it might be used as
evidence that this was intended as a translation.  As it is, the juxtaposition
effectively refutes the thesis.  First, there is the absurd disproportion 
between, for example, three short strokes of a scribe's brush and a whole
paragraph of English text including parenthetical remarks and at least a dozen
proper names--all in three strokes and a dot!  Along with that, there is the
meaningless spacing of the characters opposite the English Abraham text: 
characters where none should be, intruding in the middle of a phrase or word;
no characters where such are indispensable, as at the beginning of a new
paragraph or episode; characters placed squarely between lines so that no one
can tell which line they are supposed to go with.  Then there is the sloppy and
indifferent drawing of the characters; though each tiny detail is supposed to
contain whole sentences of meaning, each of the researches draws his own
symbols, putting in or leaving out lines and dots with easy abandon.

All of this is understandable only if the characters are treated as expendable,
consulted in the process of trying out various possible clues to help in the
composing of an Egyptian grammar, and abandoning them when they fail to work.
We know they were considered expendable because they were dispensed with
four-fifths of the time.  Of the three "translation" texts, one of them has no
Egyptian characters whatever, though like them it is labeled "Translation of
some ancient records," etc., as is the present-day Book of Abraham, showing
that the word "translation" does not refer to those particular characters.
Even in the two manuscripts in which they appear, those of Phelps and Parrish,
the Egyptian characters put in an appearance only part of the time: both
these exercises dispense with them and preempt their margins when they become
a nuisance.  In all, there are only 18 Egyptian words employed in the
"translation", all taken from the first two lines of the text of 45 lines.

We do not have here the process of deriving one text from another, but simply
that of placing two completed texts side by side for comparison.

Completed?

Certainly.  The Egyptian characters are copied from a Book of Breathing text,
and the Abraham passages from a completed text of the Book of Abraham, as is
perfectly apparent from the state of the manuscripts.  The Abraham sections
are found in three manuscripts and are the same in all three, copied out each
time in a fair hand without erasures, corrections, substitutions or alterations,
without the slightest indication of the laborious business of translation--there
is nothing here but the simple mechanical task of neatly copying out a finished
text.  The margins should also be noted: they are drawn in before either text
was written down.  The English was easily accommodated to them, but the Egyptian
was not.  If any attempted translation was going on, the English side of the
ledger would have been messy indeed instead of a model of tidiness.  There is
one notable exception to the obvious lack of any rational attempt to match up
the English and the Egyptian.

What is that?

Phelps made a bold and ambitious start with his copy: beginning with the top
line he starts out by placing numbers beside the Egyptian characters, matching
each one by the same number marking an English word opposite.  This looks like
business--Phelps is determined on a systematic study even as he was working
away at the Alphabet and Grammar.  And that is what makes this so significant,
for Phelps never got any further than the number three--after the first three
characters he gives up, while the neat four columns of classification into
which he has divided the page are abandoned at the same time--the whole thing
collapses before our eyes before it has even gotten properly started.  It was
a nice try, but Phelps could see that it was getting nowhere.

Can we be sure of that?

We can.  If the men of Kirtland knew they had a real thing going in this
operation, they would have stuck with it; if they were getting anywhere at all
with their exciting project, they would have carried on for more than a mere
two pages of Alphabet and Grammar and ventured beyond barely two lines of
Egyptian characters from a text containing 45 lines.  If their studies were 
making progress, they would have continued them; and if they had hit upon
something valid, they would have announced it.  As it is, nothing is more
impressive than the promptness and finality with which the Alphabet, Grammar,
and "translation" projects were dropped the moment it became apparent that they
were up a blind alley.  The state of the manuscripts makes that perfectly
clear.  Equally significant, however, is the care that was taken to avoid
misleading anyone, raising false hopes, or giving false impressions.  The
whole business was strictly confidential in nature; these speculations and
probings never got out of a closed academic circle.  Again, it is the
opposition who make this clearest when they play up their own role in bringing
to light "hidden documents," as they put it, writings "suppressed for 130
years."  Well, they were suppressed and forgotten, for they were never
publicized or circulated.  No claims were ever given for them.  It was not
the Prophet's habit to suppress anything he felt was true and relevant to
the Gospel.  On the contrary, his calling was to make everything known.  He
translated and published the Book of Mormon to the world in the face of
universal opposition and contempt, and he told everyone just how he got it
and how he translated it.  He was not one to hold anything back.  If the 
Kirtland Papers were thought of as inspired or even reasonably helpful they
would have been expanded, used, and their worth announced to the world.  The
strictly confidential nature of the work tells us just what kind of an
exercise it was--never circulated, never given out to the members of the
church or the general public--no one was corrupted by it.  Now, if the
brethren had continued after they saw they were going nowhere, then we might
charge them with deceiving themselves if not others.  But they did not.  They
were pursuing the same trial-and-error course that scholars and scientists must
needs follow.  And the results were not more fantastic than the speculations
of some eminent scholars of the world in their early efforts to decipher
Egyptian.  Nay, they are not a whit more extravagant and bizarre than many
explanations, translations, and interpretations of the Facsimiles brought forth
by students inside the church and outside of it to this very day, and that in
an environment of graduate study and large university libraries such as the men
of Joseph Smith's day never dreamed of.

The behavior of the participants in the philological exercises of Kirtland
after the project was abandoned is also not without significance.  At the very
time the work on the Alphabet and Grammar and Translation came to a halt, all
but one of the five men engaged in it with Joseph Smith turned against the
prophet, denounced him in the strongest germs and were cut off from the church.
Why?  Mostly because they were jealous of him; especially Phelps who was far
better educated than the Prophet, had studied Classical languages and at that
time tried his own hand at translation.  All but one of these men returned to
the church and begged the prophet's forgiveness, which he freely granted.  But
though these temporary renegades told every manner of lie to make the prophet
seem ridiculous and deluded in the eyes of the world, they never mentioned his
indiscretions in the matter of the Book of Abraham....

Then what is the connection between the Book of Abraham and the Book of
Breathings, from which all are agreed it cannot possibly have been derived?

It was an exploratory and experimental exercise.  The men of Kirtland, when
they wanted to know more about Egyptian, did what any scientist or scholar will
do to solve a difficult problem; that is, he must try any and every approach
to the problem.  If he is completely in the dark, every possibility and
suggestion, no matter how absurd it may appear, must be considered.  You cannot
make a grammar or alphabet of any language if you don't have at least one
example of a translation--without a Rosetta Stone you will get nowhere.  And
the Book of Abraham offered the brethren the only examplar of a sure translation
from the Egyptian.  they compared it with various texts, trying it on for size.