The Church Essays in a Nutshell Part Two

     Let's look at two more Church essays called: Book of Mormon Translation and Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham.  I'm trying to keep my analysis of the Church's essays brief, but  there are excellent thorough analysis of them here and here and here and many other places. 

Translation of the Book of Mormon
    
     Growing up in the Church, and still to this day, as far as I know, we are taught that Joseph Smith translated the golden plates by the use of the "Urim and Thummin", which were two clear stones bound together with a metal rim.  I recall being taught in Seminary that there was a table with a curtain that divided it, and Joseph Smith sat behind the curtain on one side of the table, and the scribe sat on the other side of the table.  Joseph Smith had the golden plates on the table as he translated them out loud to the scribe who sat on the other side of the curtain, and wrote down what Joseph Smith said.  The curtain was to keep the scribe from seeing the golden plates, as they were not to be viewed by anyone else but Joseph Smith.  I was taught that it was a matter of faith and that's why the plates were not allowed to be seen by anyone.  And also that they were of great monetary value and needed to be kept hidden from others.  This same scenario is portrayed in various Church pictures that are in our books and in our chapels. You are taught the story and then the pictures are a visual confirmation of what you are taught.  Any small child in the Church could tell you this same story.

Seer Stone

     So what a surprise it is to learn from the Church's essays that, ..."Joseph Smith discovered in the ground years before he retrieved the gold plates, a small oval stone, or 'seer stone'.  As a young man during the 1820's, Joseph Smith, like others in his day, used a seer stone to look for lost and buried treasure.  As Joseph grew to understand his prophetic calling, he learned that he could use this stone for the higher purpose of translating scripture."  Excuse me, this is news to me!  When did this seer stone become part of the narrative?  When were we taught that Joseph Smith found a stone and used it to look for buried treasure?  Never, ever, never, that's when.  I was taught that people tried to accuse Joseph Smith of looking for buried treasure but they were just trying to slander his name,   that they were lying. Now the Church is saying he did hunt for buried treasure.  Did you know that our Prophet and founder of our church was a treasure hunter?  The same person that found the gold plates, was also a treasure hunter.  Boy, you just don't learn this stuff in Seminary, do you? 
     According to the essay, "Apparently for convenience, Joseph often translated with the single seer stone rather then the two stones bound together to form the interpreters.  These two instruments--the interpreters (Urim and Thummim) and the seer stone--were apparently interchangeable and worked in much the same way such that, in the course of time, Joseph Smith and his associates often used the term 'Urim and Thummim' to refer to the single stone as well as the interpreters."  Come on!  Are you kidding me?  This stone that Joseph found as a youth, which he used to look for treasures buried in the ground, is now going to be interchangeable with the Urim and Thummim that was carefully stored away and preserved by the Lord for 1,500 hundred years.  Fifteen hundred years, it sat waiting for the time of the restoration of Jesus Christ's gospel on the earth, and now for convenience sake, it will be interchangeable with a rock. Really?  This man who will be tarred and feathered and persecuted, and will know all kinds of hardships, can't be inconvenienced enough to use the Urim and Thummim, that was reserved specifically for the translation of the gold plates? 

Rock in a hat

     But here's the real kicker! ..."Joseph placed either the interpreters or the seer stone in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out the extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."  Is that news to you?  I sure haven't seen any pictures in the chapel of Joseph Smith putting his head in a hat and reading from his rock that he found as a youth to translate the golden plates, have you?  The essay says Emma described, "Joseph 'sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us'."  What happened to the curtain? What happened to the gold plates? Why is Joseph burying his head in a hat and translating from a rock he found, when all the pictures show him with the gold plates open on a table and studiously translating from them?

Translation of the Book of Abraham

     This one should be short and sweet.  Well maybe not sweet, but short.  If you are new to all of these issues about the Church, as I was, you will not even know that there are any questions concerning the Book of Abraham.  But this one is huge, it's the issue that caused my husband to completely loose his testimony of the Church. Let's begin with what we were taught.  I learned that Joseph Smith had been shown some Egyptian mummies and papyri from a traveling salesman, of some kind.  As Joseph examined the hieroglyphics he realized that one of the rolls was the writings of Abraham.  The Church collected enough money to buy the ancient records and from them Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham.  It says in the introduction to the Book of Abraham, that it was "translated from the papyrus by Joseph Smith" and that it is "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus."  
     The original papyri had been sold by Joseph Smith's family.  In 1967, the Church was given what is left of the remaining fragments of the papyri. According to the Church essay, "The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith's explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings...None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name of any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.  Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham...Scholars have identified the papyrus as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.  These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived." 
     And that's why this is going to be short, what more can I say?  The essay says it all.  The papyri were not written by Abraham; they are not about Abraham; they are not from the time period of Abraham.   They are common funerary texts and that's most likely why they were found along with mummies!  End of story.  Like I said short, but not sweet.

What we learn from the essays

     Joseph Smith used a seer stone, that he found in his youth to look for buried treasures, to translate the gold plates, by placing the stone in a hat. He often used the stone that he found, instead of the Urim and Thummim that had been preserved for that exact purpose.  Joseph Smith's translation of the papyri which constitutes our book of Abraham, which is part of our scriptures, does not match any of the fragments of the papyri.  The papyri are common funerary texts that were buried with a body.  We have the fragment with facsimile 1 on it,  which is shown in the Book of Abraham, along with Joseph Smith's explanation of it; but Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that characters on the fragment do not match the explanation.   These were not written in Abraham's hand as claimed by Joseph Smith, and they are not from Abraham's time period.

So in other words, everything we were taught about the translation of the Book of Mormon is different from the way it was actually translated, according to the Church's essay.  And in the Book of Abraham, which Joseph Smith was supposed to have translated from the papyri, none of the Egyptian Hieroglyphics match Joseph Smith translation,  He said they were about Abraham and written in his hand.  They turn out to be ordinary funerary texts.   

I really want to believe, but the Essays won't let me!

I don't believe that this church is what it says it is; I want to, I really do, but their own essays (essays the church put out this year to explain some of the problems with its history, who knew, huh?)  won't allow that, because the church is saying in them, it's not what it says it is.  I can't help that, I didn't write them, they did; at least I think they did, the essays are not signed by the author(s), but they are posted on the Church's website.  So going back and pretending everything is the same as the way I was taught in Primary, Sunday School and Seminary just doesn't work.  It's not my fault, I was the faithful spouse, I always remained true and never lied, I was faithful, always working in behalf of, supporting, and defending my "spouse" (the Church).  I didn't know my "spouse" had a dubious past, I didn't know it covered up and changed it's history, I didn't know, I swear I didn't know!!  And just as an unfaithful spouse will tear your world apart, cause you to fall to your knees in tears, rip at your very heartstrings, cause angst and threaten your family structure, so do you dear church "partner, spouse."  You have caused tears, sleepless nights, confusion, anger, regret, distrust, confusion, and confusion, more confusion, did I mention that already? I don't know I'm a little confused!

In my youth, attending Seminary, I was just a little "sponge" absorbing all the wonderful things that were being taught, like:

Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon using the golden plates and Urim and Thummim.  I was told it occurred just as the church's pictures show, Joseph reading from the plates to the scribe, translating through the power of God with the use of the Urim and Thummim, that was "kept and preserved by the hand of the Lord" for this very purpose.   From the Church's essay I learn that Joseph found "in the ground...a small oval stone or 'seer stone'..." which he used "to look for lost objects and buried treasure." Joseph "often translated with the single seer stone...placed...in a hat, pressed his face into the hat to block out extraneous light, and read aloud the English words that appeared on the instrument."  Emma "described Joseph 'sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stones in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."  There was no mention of a hat in the lessons I was taught, or that Joseph used his own seer stone that he had found years earlier and which he used to look for buried treasure.  Why would the Lord go to so much trouble to hide away the Urim and Thummim for this purpose, just to have Joseph opt to use at times, his own stone? I didn't get to ask that question in Seminary because this scenario was never taught. Why do the pictures show Joseph translating from the golden plates, and not from a seer stone in a hat?  This good and faithful spouse would like to know, so I won't be so confused. 

I was taught that the Book of Abraham was translated by Joseph Smith from ancient Egyptian papyri, which the church bought, that was written by the hand of Abraham himself.  In the Church's essay on the translation and historicity of the Book of Abraham it says, "None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham's name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.  Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do no match the translation given in the book of Abraham...Scholars have identified the papyrus fragments as parts of standard funerary texts that were deposited with mummified bodies.  These fragments date to between the third century B.C.E and the first century C.E., long after Abraham lived."  But I was never taught that in Seminary, so I couldn't ask how Joseph Smith could have claimed the papyrus were written by the hand of Abraham since they are from the wrong time period, and why the characters on the fragments do no match the translation in the book of Abraham. This good and faithful spouse would like to know so I won't be confused.

In Seminary I remember being taught the reasons for blacks being denied the priesthood. They had been less valiant in the preexistence, and they were from the lineage of Cain, who was cursed with a black skin after killing Abel, and that this was doctrine from God.  From the Church essays I learn: "During the first two decades of the Church's existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood...There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith lifetime."  "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood...Even after 1852, at least two black Mormons continued to hold the priesthood. When one of these men, Elijah Abel, petitioned to receive his temple endowment in 1879, his request was denied.  Jane Manning James...similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestor, but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances." The essay goes on the say that,"Today the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else." Wow, that's quite a lot to absorb!  This good and faithful spouse (me) believed my untruthful spouse (the Church) when he said that blacks could not hold the priesthood because they were less valiant in the preexistence and were from the linage of Cain, which had a curse on it disallowing them to hold the priesthood. What about the revelation? I was told it was doctrine from God and we get our doctrine from God through revelation.  When Brigham Young publicly announced in 1852 that blacks can't hold the priesthood, did he just come up with that on his own?  My untruthful spouse didn't explain to me that blacks had been given the priesthood by Joseph Smith, my "spouse" withheld that information from me.  So I didn't know to ask, how that could have been?  It's all very confusing. 

I remember learning about polygamy, oh thank heaven, I do remember being told about that!  This can't be a cover up, I know I learned about that, and there were really, really good reasons for it, I remember that.  Maybe because I'm a woman and had a vested interest in knowing that there was a really good reason for polygamy (just in case there was a day when I would be asked to share my husband with another woman) I would only want to do that if God really, really needed me to.  And there were really, really good reasons for it. And there were lots of reasons I learned in Seminary, such as, the Church had to grow so there needed to be lots of children. Also, there were a lot more women then men, something to do with women being more righteous, so of course there would be more of those people in the Church.  And this was the fullness of times, so everything had to be restored, including polygamy, even though the men really didn't want to do that, really they didn't!  But Joseph asked about it, and if the Lord told him, he was then bound to obey it (That concept really lodged in my teenage spongy brain, don't ask God anything unless you are seriously going to live it) In fact, Joseph was so hesitant to marry another woman that an angel had to come and threaten his life with a sword. And not only that, if that weren't enough, their entire salvation was at stake!  Okay, I get it! Death, salvation, God is very serious about this, this is the Mother of all doctrine, no pun intended. You just can't be sleeping with all these women and be in God's good graces unless he told you. Which he did in D&C 132. Of course, in D&C 132 it says the women have to be virgins, which would mean they had never been married before, and that wasn't the case in many of the plural marriages, and that the first wife had to consent, which didn't always happen, especially in Joseph's case, where Emma didn't know about most of his wives until long after the marriages.  So again I turned to the Church's essays  to clear up my confusion.  It says "During the years that plural marriage was  publicly taught, all Latter-day Saints were expected to accept the principle as a revelation from God"  That's a bit toned down from what Joseph experienced, the angel threatening him with a sword and all.  They don't mention that part. But they do mention there was a revelation, so there you go, even though they don't quote from it.  But hey, its sourced once in the footnotes, so I know they know about it.  And even though sharing your husband with other women is a really big deal, the essay does offer this warm comfort: "Church leaders recognized that plural marriages could be particularly difficult for women. Divorce was therefore available to women who were unhappy in their marriages..."  Oh that's good, because divorce certainly wasn't a difficult circumstance to endure, especially in the 1800's, out in the West away from everyone, yeah, it's a good thing that was available. And the fact that the Church's main identity is 'families are forever', divorce really cuts at the heart of that, I'm glad the Church made divorce "available" for women, that makes polygamy so much less confusing. 
.