© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
I never cease to be amazed at the “idiot savant” theory which seems to plague so much of Joseph Smith historicity. Especially so, when the conclusion comes from practicing members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
For instance, do these “scholars” really expect us to believe that Joseph Smith, a rural farm-boy, could conceivably somehow “believe” that he was “translating” ancient Egyptican hieroglyphics? I mean, the absurdity of this situation is beyond belief. What I think most academicians tend to do is to forget how they were prior to their training. If they were to think back to those days, they would remain convinced that they knew that they could not translate ancient Egyptian with a standard grade-school education. They just weren’t “dumb” enough to actually believe that they could do it. And yet they expect us to believe that Joseph Smith was “dumb” enough to believe that he could.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that God couldn’t help the young man translate. It seems to be one of those exact things (translating with God’s help) which the young Prophet did feel so inclined to think that he could do. Not only that, but to rely on Brian Hauglid’s help, (a person who doesn’t believe in Joseph’s capability as a seer to begin with, nor the ability of any Latter-day Saint apologist to get things right unless they happen to agree with him,) means that Brother Givens was probably already somewhat compromised by Hauglid’s hermeneutics to begin with. I mean, these inferences are ripe for academic overkill and it is precisely that which Brother Givens appears to have fallen victim to.
On the other hand, let’s just say for the moment that Brian Hauglid’s proposal (for that is where Given’s theory most certainly attributes from,) let’s say that his proposal is accurate. Let’s say that Joseph Smith was incorrect in his translation efforts of the Book of Abraham. Let’s say that he truly believed, incorrectly, that he could translate Egyptian from papyrus. If that is the case, then why stop there? If you already accept that premise then the logical conclusion is that he was mistaken in his other beliefs. If he was mistaken in his translation of the book of Abraham, then you must assume that the odds are that he was mistaken when he “translated” the Book of Mormon” as well.
I just don’t see how you can have it any other way. The man had two “basic” translations from ancient text to modern English: The Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. If one is suspect, then ergo, so is the other. If one is divinely interpreted, then ergo, so is the other. Why would there be any difference in authenticity between the two translations regardless of the differences between the two translated manuscripts. If as Given’s insists, the Book of Abraham was a product of his “fertile … mind” and an exercise between him and his scribes, then why wouldn’t he have just stated that? Why pass it off as scripture and an authentic history if he didn’t believe it to be so. I mean, Teryl Givens knows that Joseph Smith knew the difference between his own imagination and when God directed inspiration to him. Why Brother Givens ever would have gone down that path is beyond me.
Which brings up another point. Either Joseph lied about the Book of Abraham and likewise the Book of Mormon, or he didn’t. You can’t have it both ways. There’s just no escape from one or the other, you just can’t be half-and-half when it comes to Josephs claims.
I personally believe that Joseph Smith was one of the most truthful, honorable men in history. In fact far more honorable and truthful than most other men that I’ve ever been introduced to from the historical record.
On the other hand, if you believe otherwise, then you’re probably of the opinion that he was a liar. Most detractors and anti-Mormons believe that he was a liar. One thing’s for certain, though: he wasn’t both. He was either a liar from the beginning or he was an honorable, truthful man. There’s no room in this kitchen for him to be both: a liar some of the time and honest the rest of the time; or honest some of the time and a liar the rest of the time. He was one or the other, and he couldn’t have been both. It is expressly for this reason that the angel said his name would be had for both good and evil throughout the world.
Finally, here’s the kicker. If Joseph Smith was savvy enough to translate reformed Egyptian to the tune of 500 some-odd pages of the Book of Mormon, then why-oh-why would he ever think that one Egyptian character equaled a sentence or a paragraph or more in Hieratic Egyptian??? The imbecilic interpretation and leap of intuition from the former to the latter is mind-staggering, mind numbing and mind boggling. He either lied about both or he was truthful about both, and there’s really no other interpretation.
I have but two questions (each with a part “b.” sub-question):
1. Didn’t Joseph Smith at one time possess papyri other than “The Book of Breathings” papyrus referenced here by Givens and Thompson? (I’m thinking of the papyrus/i lost in the Chicago museum fire.)
Question 1.b. Might such a papyrus/i be the source for the Book of Abraham translation (linguistically, as a real-time, nineteenth century work)?
2. If the answer to 1.b. above is “no” – EITHER because Joseph never possessed such artifact(s) OR he had neither the skill nor time to translate (linguistically) such a document into English – then (and this is my personal theory and witness) might not the “Book of Breathings” papyrus serve the same role of “catalyst” for Joseph Smith’s “translation” of the Book of Abraham as did the Urim and Thummim/seer stone(s), deep in Joseph’s hat, catalyze the Book of Mormon “translation”?
Question 2.b. If so, might not such papyrus and seer stone “catalysts” have functioned (as Professor/Brother Jared Hickman has very masterfully portrayed [https://faithmatters.org/new-perspectives-on-joseph-smith-and-translation/]) to “translate” Joseph “across the veil” into the vast, all-encompassing expanse of full seership (see Mosiah 8:13-18) to produce BOTH records as modern-day, though yet ancient, scripture?
I simply ask the questions (although I most assuredly do have my own witness of both “translations”).
What do you mean by the catalyzing of the Book of Mormon text? The fact that Joseph somehow saw or understood the translation to dictate via the seerstone does not imply anything other than a translation of a real text on ancient gold plates, though it was done by revelation rather than skill in reading reformed Egyptian. The imperfections from human error in engraving revealed by inline corrections using the word “or” (e.g., Alma 24:19: “they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war, for peace”) came through this translation process. What we read is directly connected to the real plates, not something merely “catalyzed” by the existence an artifact, as the word is often used with respect to the Book of Abraham based on the theory that there was no text in Joseph’s possession with anything related to Abraham. That theory is, however, not necessary, for there very well could have been an account about Abraham on the missing scrolls. But it was certainly not translated based on linguistic skills — and the record clearly shows that the short-lived project to create some kind of Alphabet to understand Egyptian was based on using the translation as the tool, not the utterly impossible other way around.
Jeff,
“What do you mean by the catalyzing of the Book of Mormon text?”
My (believer’s) use of “catalyzing” in a Book of Mormon context “is a person [Joseph Smith] or thing [the gold plates] that precipitates an event or change” (www.dictionary.com),
The terms “catalyze” and “catalyzed” appear 7 times in this essay; four uses define/critique Givens’ explanation of the Book of Abraham’s provenance, while three (I’ve added a fourth, implied one) sustain Thompson’s, [the Church’s (see #1, below)] and my personal explanation: [Page 46] “However, the Church’s [Gospel Topics] essay . . . says that ‘Joseph’s translation was not a literal rendering of the papyri as a conventional translation would be. Rather, the physical artifacts provided an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation [just as you, Jeff, and William Schryver (noted in “References” below), and others have stated]. They [#1] catalyzed a process whereby God gave to Joseph Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even if that revelation did not directly correlate to the characters on the papyri.’114
The author continues using the term (correctly, in my view): “Most adherents of the [#2] “catalyst theory” suggest . . . the papyri inspired the Prophet to miraculously perceive the actual ancient text of Abraham, which he revealed in English . . . Consequently, this version of [#3] the catalyst theory still qualifies as a translation (an ancient text was rendered into English, even if by the gift [Page 47] and power of God) and it does not [quoting Givens] ‘bracket [sic] the questions of historicity and accuracy altogether.’ Since it assumes the Book of Abraham was a real ancient writing that the Prophet revealed in its English translation by the gift and power of God, applying ancient studies to test its historicity and explore its meaning is still fair game. While there are historical problems with this theory, given Joseph Smith’s and his contemporaries’ claims that he translated the Book of Abraham from characters on the papyri he possessed,115 nevertheless, adherents of this [#4. catalyst] theory still assume the text is ancient” (emphases mine).
I am an adherent to such a “catalyst theory,” in regards to both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham – and perhaps ALL of Brother Joseph’s revelations; I originally “subscribed” to it after spending many days and weeks in viewing and re-viewing, pondering, reading and studying the earlier referenced essay by Jared Hickman. Again, I recommend it – and the other essays in the seminar – to you and others (clearly few in numbers) – who might read this valuable and valued essay and Comments.
My best.
[References:]
114. “Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham,” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (website), https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham.%5D
115. To be clear, Joseph Smith did claim 1) that he was providing a “translation of some ancient records,” the “writings of Abraham,” “written by his [Abraham’s] own hand,” “Book of Abraham and Facsimiles, 1 March-16 May 1842,” p. 704 and 2) that he had learned specific things mentioned in the Book of Abraham “by translating the papyrus now in my house” (Smith, Words of Joseph Smith, 380). Noted in Gee, An Introduction to the Book of Abraham, 923). Additionally, the Book of Abraham itself claims to be a first-person record written by Abraham, not a third person story from the mind of Joseph Smith: “I [Abraham] shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me” “Book of Abraham and Facsimiles, 1 March-16 May 1842,” p. 705 [Abraham 1:31] [sic]).
[Insertion] “The evidence also strongly suggests that the text of the Book of Abraham must have been translated by Joseph Smith in the same way he had produced the text of the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the translated parchment of John known as D&C 7: by revelation” (William Schryver, “The Meaning of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, Part 1. FairMormon Conference 2010, https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2010/the-meaning-of-the-kirtland-egyptian-papers-part-i).
“In order to fully engage the academy, historians and theologians in the field of Mormon Studies, like Givens, must write under the premise that Joseph Smith’s revelations reflect his own natural understanding, creativity, and development.” Isn’t this the same thing as saying that Joseph Smith’s revelations must be a product of his “frenzied mind?” Joseph’s Smith’s spiritual gift is so remarkable that even brilliant scholars can explain it. So his gift must be continually discounted. I remember Hugh Nibley saying something to the effect that, “… there is only one thing that interests me about JS… how does he do the things he does!” Nibley’s many books and lectures, especially his BoM lectures constantly highlight JS jaw-dropping prophetic brilliance.
I loved reading your response to the Givens / Hauglid book. And I loved reading Kent P. Jackson’s response (in Journal 40) to the Adam-Clarke Wayment / Wilson-Lamont charges.
Your efforts are very much appreciated by me. I’m sure preparing your response was very time-consuming.
I first learned about Terryl Givens in 2005 during the Worlds of JS Smiththonian conference. His presentation there was awesome. His BYU speech “Lightning from Heaven” is awesome. “By The Hand of Mormon” / “When Souls Had Wings…” / His other talks & research on Pre-Mortal Existence have (for me) all been awesome. His many other YouTube presentations including his recent 4-part Maxwell lectures are … yes… awesome.
I’m not quite sure whether my current high opinion of Terryl Givens should be modified based on your book review. I’ll purchase / read it / decide for myself…. but your review raises some important concerns.
Thanks goodness we still have faithful LDS scholars who are not embarrassed by the “apologetics” label!
Thank you Brother Thompson!
I want to say something clearly and for the public record: Terryl Givens is a believing Latter-day Saint. He is also prodigiously talented. I don’t always agree with him, but I always find him worth reading and hearing. I consider him a friend.
Thank you for your article. The Book of Abraham Is a blessing to me today and I am grateful to the Prophet Joseph for revealing it. The words and truths contained therein invite the Spirit and open me to contemplating God and His will and plan for His children. To attempt, even in good faith, to transform the Book from an inspired revelation from Abraham of ancient origins to an 18th century contextualized work strikes me as, at the least, potentially harmful to members of our faith. If that is where the facts were to take us, so be it; God will provide. But, as shown in the article, the facts do not take us to that premise. Unless and until there is more, then, why publish such?
Thanks everyone for your comments so far. I do want to be clear for my part: While I disagree with Givens’ use of and neglect of several sources pertaining to the Book of Abraham, I still hold him in high regard as a scholar, a person of faith, and I am grateful for many things he has done to help us see the beauty of the gospel.
Yes, I agree. He’s done a great deal to strengthen appreciation of our faith and of the scriptures. But in this case, it’s reasonable to respectfully disagree. Thank you, Dr. Thompson!
John,
As pleased as I am with your paper, I cannot agree with your comment. The scriptures, including The Pearl of Great Price/Book of Abraham are of too great worth to us to let them be devalued to the point of fiction (your word) by anyone, no matter how charitable we might feel. So is the restored gift and power of seership/translation, which we must not allow to be sullied by scholars.
In what I have read of Givens’ writings, I struggle to find truth as taught by the prophets and apostles (and CES), but instead much mixture with the philosophies of men. Sam’s comment stated well my own experience and resultant views. Elder Cook’s Tuesday BYU Speeches address counseling us to shun the philosophies of men does also. I find no “beauty” in falsehood. BofA issues are but a part of his departures from long-settled gospel truths.
Givens believes Joseph Smith went to the churches and worldly organizations (like masonry) of his day to locate and borrow what became the Restoration. See the final pages of Kent Jackson’s piece from several weeks ago to read his refutation of that notion. And I could go on and on.
To paraphrase your expression, if you find disagreement and neglect within one subject/area, are you not likely to find it in others (as I have)? How much more effort ought we spend sifting Givens when others (like yourself) present no such troubling mixtures?
Mr. Horne-Can you honestly say you have read this book? You have said in your blog you don’t follow Givens so I already know the answer. You also say ” in what I have read of Givens’ writings”. Which means you don’t read his books but these reviews and comments. Your opinion is of him and his work is worthless. You say that I need to “proofread and reason” can YOU please tell us what “less illiterate” means? How can something be less than nothing? It also helps to actually read what people write and not read into what they write. For example Givens never says, “scriptures are fictional” YOU say that he says. It helps to not make claims about others that they don’t make. It is called a strawman argument. Finally Mr. Horne, you also say that, “I am no one’s judge” then stop being one. You don’t get to decide if someone is dissenting, you have never been sustained as a common judge in Israel, I would throw it there that you have never even met Givens. People who have are saying he isn’t a dissenter so stop judging him. It isn’t your place. Contrary to your book, you don’t determine doctrine. You never have and you never will. Trust in the leaders of the Church to worry about the doctrines. We look to them and not to “it looks to me”. They were sustained, not you.
Givens’ work is a real-time example, in my opinion, of how the Great Apostasy took hold anciently. For by rejecting the historically authentic claims of the BOA as well as the book’s divine origin in modern times, he is undeniably “[taking] away from the (restored) gospel . . . many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord . . .” (1 Nephi 13:26).
In essence, by denying the divine & ancient origins of the BOA, Givens’ is also denying the singular doctrines and covenants revealed in the BOA, and presenting such faithless conclusions as facts. His words will undoubtedly further undermine and ultimately overthrow the faith of some in the prophetic calling & ministry of Joseph Smith and, by extension, the apostolic authority of the Brethren.
I don’t care if that’s not his intent, because that is the outcome. And the fact that he’s draped in the sheep’s clothing of being approved by BYU/the Church makes his writings all the more spiritually dangerous. I personally wish he wouldn’t be allowed to publish such spiritual dribble anymore under the guise of BYU/Church sanction, so that not one more member would get caught in his snare thereby having their faith undermined and ultimately overthrown.
Thank you John Thompson for calling out Givens’ apostate theories to hopefully prevent others from accepting them as gospel.
John, thank you for a very carefully reasoned response. I suspect that the chapter on the Book of Abraham was largely written by or guided by Brian Hauglid, who has disappointed many with his shift toward more naturalistic origins of the Book of Abraham. I hope Givens will be able to consider the thoughtful and well supported opposing views you have presented and be able to reconsider his acceptance of such views, for there is significant evidence that Hauglid is wrong and that many of the standard arguments against the Book of Abraham are based on errant assumptions.
Thanks for bring so much clarity to the issues you raised here.
Dennis. Try reading the book, it helps. What is wrong is with being a “protestant” in the Church? I have counted over ten prophets and apostles who were ministers for other religions, there is one who was Muslim. God does not seem to care. Does it bother you that Elder Taniela Wakolo was baptized in 1994 and later serving as a Stake President, Mission President, Area Seventy and now General Authority and you have never and with your attitude will never serve as any of those callings? What were you doing in 1994? I hope you were reading the October 1994 Ensign that has the Elder Oaks BYU talk about, “Our Strengths can our downfall” I, and others, have come to believe that your extreme self righteousness is your undoing. You have even claimed you would leave the church if one obscure interpretation was adopted at large. You can’t be that spiritually stable yourself. Elder B.H. Roberts said, ” “I find my own heart strengthened in the truth by getting rid of the untruth, the spectacular, the bizarre, as soon as I learn that it is based on worthless testimony” (Madsen, p. 363) Personally speaking I would rather read Givens than be ever read Dennis’ worthless opinion.
Whiz,
First, I suggest you proofread and reason out your comments before posting them so you can come across less illiterate.
Second, you are welcome to agree with Givens that the scriptures are fictional. Most dissidents and dissenters do.
And we are taught not to aspire to high office in the church.
Lastly, I ask this rhetorical question of anyone who cares to ponder it: is unbelief in the scriptures as the word of God–a belief that any of the four standard works (scriptures) are fiction–a step onto the road to apostasy? I know how I answer.
And thanks again John and Interpreter for the highly useful piece.
For all interested in commenting. Please be civil in your discussions. These are becoming comments about commenters and no longer about the article.
I don’t know who John Thompson is, but I strongly commend his review of Givens’ writings, and Interpreter for publishing it. John was much more diplomatic than I would have been in his critique, but still made the right points–using scripture and quotations from the Prophet to do so, accompanied by sound logic and reasoning.
I have come to believe that Terryl Givens is probably the best Protestant in the Church and possibly the best teacher of the philosophies of men also. As John noted in several places, I also fear the consequences of Givens’ theories on his readers–especially those that are unsuspecting and unsophisticated members. This material could well blindside them and diminish their faith in what they hear from President Nelson on this subject.
From my reading of this review, it looks to me like Givens is providing the church’s critics (anti-Mormons) with the fodder they seek to use as weapons to cause members to doubt the divine authenticity of the standard works, the scriptures. They will eat his stuff up as they are Wayment’s and Wilson-Lemon’s:
“Givens goes much further with this term and suggests to his readers that the entire Book of Abraham text can be viewed as bricolage as well. He admits that this amounts to calling the Book of Abraham a modern pseudepigrapha as David Bokovoy has done. In other words, the Book of Abraham is a modern, thus fictional, creation of Joseph Smith’s own mind, and “falsely attributed” to Abraham.”
Was Hauglid a good source for help in these writings of Givens’? Hauglid has publicly stated he does not believe the Book of Abraham is scripture. I say to Givens: it is not fiction, but eternal truth.
On occasions in past decades the First Presidency has officially asked members of the Church to sustain The Pearl of Great Price as the “Word of God” in General Conference, by the formal raising of the right hand. I am no one’s judge, but I ask myself, given the quotations from Givens’ writings shared in this review, would Givens be able to raise his hand to sustain The Pearl of Great Price (which includes the BofA) as the “Word of God” if he believes it to be fiction? His views are contrary to those of the church and its leaders.
Can you write one thing in “Mormon Studies” and believe its opposite in your personal / church associations?. Givens is not the only scholar/academic to whom this entirely appropriate question may be put. John quoted Elder Holland’s counsel to NAMI, which this review indicates they are not following.
Tithing-paid scholars should be writing papers/books that strengthen faith in the divine mission of Joseph Smith; strengthening the faith of members that he did indeed translate the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham by the gift and power of God; that he did not know the ancient languages of the texts he translated; that he needed the power of the Holy Spirit and the interpreters to translate; that he was given the English words by these means–God was deeply involved in all of it.
In contrast to Givens’ theorizing, the prophets and apostles have born witness and raised their hands in formal sustaining of the scriptures as the word of God in the plain and simple meaning.
I have had the Holy Spirit come upon me in intense, all-consuming power to reveal to me that the Book of Mormon is just what it says it is and that Joseph Smith translated it just as he said it did.
Despite any scholarship from anyone, I therefore know Givens is wrong and the prophets are right. And I again commend and thank Interpreter for posting this review and also the one written some weeks ago by Kent Jackson.
Critics were stretching out their hands to grab unproven theories about the JST relying on and plagiarizing Clarke’s commentary, and as they closed their fists Kent Jackson stole their hopes; now John has done that same thing to Givens. Well done and thank you.