From: wcsa@iwtdx.att.com Subject: Mormon FAQ, Part 2 of 2 GRACE AND THE PROCESS OF SALVATION For sources on the the Process of Salvation (termed Plan of Salvation), one can find very simple descriptions in almost any LDS book. If one wants detail, then the first ten chapters of _Articles of Faith_ will probably fill most persons' needs. In the context of the network, I think that most readers will find Blake Ostler's "The Development of the Mormon Concept of Grace" (_Dialogue_ 24:57-84) to be a delightful summary. Free Will and the Fall ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mormons believe that mankind was innocent **Before the Fall** and, in contrast to Augustine, unable to exercise free will, because they did not have alternative choices. God gave them that freedom when he provided opposing commandments (2 Ne 2:15-16): Multiply and Replenish the Earth *and* Do Not Eat of the Tree of Knowledge. If the conflict is not obvious, then consider that unawareness of one's nakedness (Gen 3:7) denotes a sense of innocence concerning how babies are made and (to put it delicately) the inability to be sufficiently aroused in order to physically make babies. LDS do not believe that The Fall is the result of a *sin*, because Mormons believe that one cannot *sin* unless one has a knowledge of good and evil (2 Ne 2:13). Sin is an act which violates law, has a moral culpability attached, and is deserving of punishment. Sin cannot be derived from a state of being which one inherits. Since the knowledge of good and evil was not possessed by Adam and Eve until after the Fall (2 Ne 2:22), their actions are not seen as a *sin*, rather as a *transgression* which is a violation of law without moral culpability. As a result of the Fall, mankind became subject to physical and spiritual death. Moreover, mankind **would have been** in a state contrary to the state in which God had created them: naturally evil (Mosiah 3:19; Alma 41:11; 42:10), captive angels to the devil (2 Ne 9:8-9), and unable to choose good because of their subjection to the devil (Mosiah 16:3); **except** for one thing: the atonement (2 Ne 9:6-7; Alma 42:14-16). Since the atonement of Jesus Christ was foreordained before the foundation of the world, power was given Christ to give light to every human born into the world (John 1:9). In other words, because of the atonement, *all* persons are delivered from their servitude to the devil and evil natures and are made free to act for themselves (2 Ne 2:26-27). Although there is a sense of a hypothetical "Original Sin," it does not actually afflict anyone unless they reject the atonement. In other words people become evil as a result of the evil choices freely made after they become capable of sinning and refraining from sin (unlike little children), rather than as a result of inheriting an "evil" state from Adam (Moroni 7:16-19). If people freely choose evil then they become "Natural Men." All persons are free to choose among alternatives and therefore free to accept or reject God's grace, but the choice is ultimately made possible only by God's grace. One *enters* the way leading to Eternal Life "by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save" (2 Ne 31:19). Nevertheless, **once on the path**, the burden is on human agency to persist in faith by God's grace (2 Ne 31:15-16). There is no guarantee of salvation by virtue of a persevering grace (through which one is supposed to resist sin, see D&C 20:32). Moreover, Mormonism rejects every form of irresistible, efficient, and operative grace as an invention of man. In addition, Mormonism also rejects reprobation, arbitrary election, and predestination. Mormonism does have a notion similar to predestination, termed foreordination, but it differs significantly in several ways: it does not have a sense of elitism, one may choose not to fulfill what they were forordained to do, and it *always* implies work (i.e., one is foreordained to "build up the kingdom", one is chosen to perform a task). Light and Grace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mormon scripture essentially adopts a different model of grace. They describe God's saving activity using the metaphors of "light and darkness" rather than using "Pauline" terminology. This paradigm has been adopted because salvation is viewed as an ongoing and internal process involving participation in God's own divine attributes through grace. The light of Christ is not merely equated with the knowledge of good and evil, the quickening of one's understanding, or simply one's conscience. This divine light: "proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space --The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God" (D&C 88:12-13). The relationship of Light as a specific manifestation of Grace is easily shown in LDS scripture. Compare Grace/Light and Truth: 2 Ne 2:6; 1 Jn 1:14,17; Alma 13:9; Moses 1:6; D&C 93:36; D&C 88:6-13; D&C 93:40. Grow Grace/Light: 2 Pet 3:18; D&C 93:13; D&C 50:24. Fall From Grace/ Sin against Light: Heb 10:26; D&C 20:32; D&C 76:31,79; 2 Pet 2:20-21; D&C 82:3. Mormon scriptures acknowledge a notion similar to prevenient grace but differs significantly in that it does not entail God moving the human will to faith. Actual manifestations of faith are left up to individual agency. Mormonism also expresses a notion that grace assists the human will in making proper decisions. Accepting the divine light - or divine power and knowledge - empowers the human will in a way that involves grace as both concurring and sufficient. The process of Salvation is that one grows in grace or receives more light through obedience to the spirit of the laws, sacraments (Mormons use the term "ordinances"), and covenants of the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that one is imbued with God's Grace/Light (see for example, Alma 19:6). This synergistic view of grace is more concerned with man's alienation from God then being regenerated from a sinful state. One is cleansed from one's sins because nothing filthy can dwell in the presence of God. One returns to God's presence (and complete happiness) by participating in the divine life. Grace Through Ordinances ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To this end ordinances, priesthood authority, and knowledge were restored. Through vicarious participation in the same experiences that Jesus Christ underwent, God's divine power becomes manifest in our lives (D&C 84:19-22). For example, one experiences the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and is born anew through baptism. One learns to navigate mortality through the temple experience. The covenants attached (in every case) to each of these ordinances emphasize this synergistic grace. Many Mormon terms explicitly equate ordinance with grace. For example, the Mormon temple ceremony is called "The Endowment," and Mormons who have gone through the Temple are those who have "received their endowments." Graded Degrees of Glory and Punishment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Several years ago someone posted significant portions of the 76th section of the D&C, which contains an account of a vision received by Joseph Smith concerning the next life, and denounced it as unChristian. The poster's behavior was understandable, he knew nothing of the context. This account sharply contradicts the traditional model of an afterlife based simply on heaven or hell. Instead it describes graded degrees of glory which it compares to the light of the Sun, Moon and Stars. Simply stated, one's final state in the next life depends upon the degree of divine Light which they received in this life or are able to receive in the next life. In the resurrection one's body is quickened (given life) in accordance to the Light that they have received. As a result, Mormonism sees no tension between being saved by Grace and being judged according to one's works. Rewards are based upon the level of Light offered and accepted by a person's free will. Mormons view Hell as a place where people dwell who have become subject to the devil as a result of the choices that they have made, and where they pay the price for their choices until they have received sufficient Light to escape and be judged (D&C 76:81-85). It is very vivid: For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit (D&C 19:16-18). Moreover, the process by which this punishment is accomplished is described: Wherefore, I command you again to repent ... lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit (D&C 19:20). In summary, if one is not filled with Light (or Grace), then one has Hell. The most extreme form of punishment is reserved for those who commit the unpardonable sin and thus are never redeemed. The unpardonable sin is committed by one who has had the Savior revealed to him and unquestionably knows the truth [through the power of the Holy Ghost]; but then denys it, crucifying Christ unto themselves, and putting him to open shame [thus denying the Holy Ghost] (Heb 6:4-6; 2 Pet 2:20-22; Alma 39:6; D&C 76:34-38). We really do not know what is in store for them, but their fate, again expressed in terms of light and dark, is described as being cast into outer darkness. These individuals, termed Sons of Perdition, are what Mormons are referring to when they say that someone has fallen from Grace. An important note: ex-Mormons do *not* generally fall into this category. Since Mormons reject persevering grace, they do not see salvation as a one- time event. Hence, a Mormon will probably react awkwardly to a question such as "Are you saved?" or "When were you saved?" This is because Mormons do not accept the underlying assumption of many "orthodox" Christians about what "salvation" means or how it works. Salvation is viewed as a process rather than an event. This leads to the problem of what Mormons mean when they say one is "saved." There are several different opinions: At one extreme, there are Mormons who believe "saved" refers to those who have been saved from the effects of all their sins, which means that only those individuals who eventually reach the highest degree of glory in the next life are "saved." The other views are variants on "saved" meaning "saved from the pains of Hell" OR "saved from Natural Man." I personally equate "saved" with "those who are imbued with God's Grace." OBJECTION: Mormonism's view of salvation as a process involving human works rather than a progression of states goes against all known Christian traditions. RESPONSE: On the contrary, the Eastern Christian theologians didn't necessarily accept Augustine's doctrinal revamping to the extent that the Western Christian church did. William Placher, _A History of Christian Theology_ (Westminster Press, 1983), explains why: Augustine's claim that we are saved by the grace of God alone, without regard to our works ... would have seemed too extreme to most Eastern theologians. It is not that the two halves of Christianity disagreed on specific issues so much as that they thought about these matters in different ways. Western theologians thought in terms of states. With Adam's initial sin, humanity had fallen into a state of sin. Christ redeems us, bringing us to a state of grace. The emphasis falls on the moment of conversion, in which one moves from one state to another. Eastern theology, on the other hand, tended to think in terms of processes. We gradually move toward deification. Since Western theologians thought of salvation as occurring at the moment of conversion, they could say that human works had no part in it and still leave an important place for human efforts after conversion in response to God's grace. Eastern theologians ... thought of deification as a process that continues throughout one's life. Therefore they had to build human works into that process. (p.96-97) OBJECTION: Works and grace are contrary to the scriptures which state that one is justified by one's faith, not by one's works, specifically "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16). RESPONSE: I think the issue is really over what each side means by being Justified. It is my understanding that many Christians believe that Justification means that one is declared "not guilty" by God, and that one is Justified if one has been regenerated from the effects of original sin. Mormon view of Justification is similar, but still significantly different. Justification is how one is judged Guiltless/Blameless before God, and one is Justified if one is acceptable to God when entering into (and continuing in) a covenant relationship with Him. In this context, Mormons will approach the epistles to the Romans and the Galatians in this manner: During Paul's time, "Judaizers" were claiming that one had to obey the Law of Moses (such as undergoing circumcision) before one could become a Christian. Paul taught that one's covenant relationship to God was not offered on conditions -- it has *always* been offered unconditionally (it is a grace). One entered that relationship only on the basis of their faith in Jesus Christ. However, once in that relationship, one was still required to observe the terms of the covenant relationship. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea we establish the law. (Romans 3:28-30) One is Justified, i.e. enters the covenant relationship with God, through faith in Jesus Christ. Paul also taught that one could violate that covenant relationship by rejecting Christ, by failing to trust in him, or by conduct inconsistent with the law of love - such as murder, fornication, or sodomy (see for example, Gal 5:5-6, 19-21). This view harmonizes Paul and James in this manner: Although Paul and James use the same term, "justification," they seem to be using it differently. When Paul refers to Justification he is speaking about how one enters the covenant relationship with God through faith in Jesus Christ. When James refers to Justification, he is apparently using it in its legalistic sense: how a person is finally judged righteous. When James states: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (James 2:24), he is talking about the final judgment where individuals are judged according to their works. In this Paul is fully in agreement: the final judgment is "according to deeds" and that the Christian is expected to "run the race" if they expect to win. (Rom 2:6-7; 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:12-17; 9:23-27; 11:29-32; 2 Cor 5:8-10; 6:1; Phil 2:12; 3:8, 14). In summary, Paul is talking about entering the relationship (being Justified) and James is talking about continuing in the relationship (also being Justified). The issue is, If Paul and James are using the same terms exactly the same way, then you have serious consistency problems: resolved either by ignoring one or the other (as Luther once implied when he called James the epistle of Straw), or by "forcing" one to agree with the other. IMHO, most of the attempts to force agreement seem to ignore the effects: either one has to ignore other specific passages that contradict the harmonization, or one ignores the free-will/no free-will implications, or one trivializes the Final Judgment [being judged according to one's works becomes an inside joke :-)]. OBJECTION: Mormonism's rejection of "Salvation by Grace Only" is contrary to Biblical teachings, specifically: "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast" (Eph 2:8-9). RESPONSE: Mormons believe very strongly in salvation by grace. The difference is that they do not believe that all persons who are saved are going to receive the same reward. Everyone will be judged according to their works. One enters into a relationship with God through grace (it is a gift that cannot be earned), one continues in the relationship through grace and works: respectively, progressing from grace to grace and receiving grace for grace. Outside of Grace (or Light) there is no salvation, but once "on the path", one must exercise their free will so as to be filled with Grace or Light (2 Ne 25:23). One *enters* a proper covenant relationship with the Father only through the saving action of Jesus Christ. This unconditional loving relationship is a grace that was not and could not be earned by any works. The only condition to *entering* the relationship was faith in Jesus (Rom 5:1-2;11:6). The relationship could not be earned by obeying (for example) the Law of Moses. In fact trying to *earn* the relationship through such works only showed that one had betrayed Christ and transferred one's loyalty elsewhere (Gal 5:2-5). It is also clear that while Paul disapproved of reliance on works of the Law of Moses, he did not denigrate all works or all laws. In fact, Paul taught that there are conditions to **remaining in** the covenant relationship with Christ Jesus (Rom 11:22). The conditions were observance of the "law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:2); or "the law of Christ" (Gal 6:2); or "Christ's law" (1 Cor 9:21); or "the law of faith" (Rom 3:27). The only faith that was justified was "faith which worketh by love" (Gal 5:6,13; cf Gal 6:4; 1 Cor 13:2; 2 Cor 9:8; Eph 4:16-17; Col 3:5-7). In short, Paul expressed disapproval of "works" or "law" when these terms referred to the Law of Moses, but he also expressed approval of the terms "works" or "law" when they referred to the law of Christ and the works of love. One last note, Mormons have found their views of synergistic grace and Justification to be very compatible with the New Testament, not with the views of Augustine, Luther, or Calvin. In this respect, each side could correctly accuse the other of filtering the scriptures through their own agenda. To this end, may I point out that the Mormon view is very consistent and also eliminates the tension between being justified by faith, being saved by grace, being judged by one's works, and still allowing freedom of will. OBJECTION: If one can get "another chance" to receive the gospel in the next life, why bother with Mormonism now. I can get "saved" on the other side. RESPONSE: First, Mormonism views salvation as a process. Second, you will keep your character with all its attributes. If you were addicted to sin, doubts, and cynicism on this side, you will still be addicted to them on the other side. Third, faith plays a significant part in the salvation process. On the other side faith will be mighty hard to develop if one had little tendency to live by faith on this side. Since salvation is neither simple or automatic, if you had little tendency to be "saved" on this side, then it will be all the more difficult to be "saved" on the other side. Since Mormons believe that individuals are judged according to their works, even if it is possible to be "saved" on the other side after having had a fair chance in mortality to receive the gospel (only God would know what a "fair chance" was) but had still rejected it, your reward would be significantly different. OBJECTION: Mormons believe that humans become gods. RESPONSE: Yes, this is true, but before one starts throwing stones please consider the following: First, It is a well documented fact that the early Christians (from the second through the fifth centeries after Christ) described the resurrected physical body as being deified as well as immortalized, so that the redeemed and sanctified Christian was glorified with Christ and thus attained godhood. The early Christian theological basis for man's deification was the belief that God, through the incarnation of Jesus Christ, had united the human and divine natures of realms and thus made it possible for us to bridge the gap in the opposite direction. The tradition of divinization fell out of favor with the later Christians as it conflicted with their developing philosophies and was eventually absorbed into the mystical tradition of the Church. By early Christians I am identifying specifically: Irenaeus (177-202), who wrote: "And how shall man pass into God, if God [Christ] had not been caused to pass into man?" _Against the Heretics_ IV.33.4, cited in Norman, p 16. See also III.18.7; IV.20.5-6; IV.38.4. "For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, than at length gods." cited Ostler, p 23. Clement of Alexandria (c 190-215), "... the Logos [word] of God had become man so that you might learn from a man how a man may become God." _Exhortation to the Greeks_ I.8.4, cited in Norman, p 16. And "the soul [which is kept pure], receiving the Lord's power studies to become a god." _Stromata_ VI.14, cited in Norman, p 16. Origen, "many become gods by participation in God; we should flee with all our power from being men and make haste to become gods." _On the Gospel of John_ 11.3.19, cf. 20.29, cited in Norman, p 16. And "... From Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only believe, but enter upon the life which Jesus taught ..." _Against Celsus III.28, cited in Norman, p 17. Athanasius (295-373), "He was made man that we might be made God." _On the Incarnation of the Word_ 65, cf. Oration Against the Arians I.11.38-39, II, 119.47, and throughout his writings. cited in Norman, p 17. See especially Pelikan, p 206. "The Son of God became son of man so that the sons of men, that is, of Adam, might become sons of God ... partakers of the life of God ... Thus He is Son of God by nature and we by grace." Cited in Kelley, p 352. Basile of Caesaria (c. 330-379), [The Holy Spirit aids us in] "being made like to God -- and highest of all, being made God." _On the Holy Spirit_ IX.23, cited in Norman, p 17. Gregory of Nazianus (c.329-389), "I may become God to the same extent as He became man." _Orations_ XXIX.19, cited in Norman, p 17. Cyril of Alexandria (Bp. 412-444), "We are made partakers of the divine nature and are said to be sons of God, nay, we are actually called divine, not only because we are exalted by grace to supernatural glory, but also because we have God dwelling in us." cited in Kelly, p 352. Even Augustine subscribed to deification although he broke with the traditional view, best described by Irenaeus, concerning how it was achieved: from a process of maturing to simple adoption. Commenting on Psalm 49, Augustine quoted, "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are the children of the Highest. But ye shall die like men: and fall like on the princes ...", then explained: "It is clear that He calls men Gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of His substance ... Now he who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes [them] sons of God. 'For them gave he power to become Sons of God.' If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is done by grace of adoption, and not by generation." Cited Ostler, pp 26-27. For more detail on early Christian views of deification see: J.N.D. Kelly, _Early Christian Doctrines_, rev. ed., (1978); Jarosalv Pelikan, _The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition_ (1971); Keith Norman, "Divinization: The Forgotten Teaching of Early Christianity" _Sunstone_ 1: (Winter 1975), pp 15-19; Blake Ostler, "The Concept of Grace in Christian Thought", _Dialogue, a Journal of Mormon Thought_ 23: (Winter 1990), pp 13-43 (specifically pp 22-27). Second, Mormons do not believe that one becomes a god in their own right or by merely keeping commandments, they become gods to the extent that they participate **as one** in God's glory and his experience. One does not become a god and go off and "do their own thing." Their labors will be as one with the Father. Third, where Mormons differ from the early Christians (and from traditional Christians for that matter), is that they reject the assumption that Man is a created subspecies of God. They view all mankind as uncreated. The basis for this position can be derived from a careful examination of the 93rd section of the D&C. To say that Mormons believe that mankind is of the same nature as God can be misleading. Most Mormons would say instead that mankind has the potential to have the same nature as God to the extent that they receive his nature. MISC OBJECTIONS OBJECTIONS: Mormons believe that Adam is God the Father. RESPONSE: The simple response is Yes and No. The more complex answer requires us to consider exactly what is meant by "Adam" and what is meant by "God the Father." Along the way we have to consider also what Brigham Young taught, how that compared to what was taught before and after his time, and consider exactly how binding Brigham Young's remarks are. The "orthodox" Mormon position on Adam can be stated briefly: Adam, like all inhabitants of the earth including Jesus Christ, was spiritually created by God the Father prior to the creation of the earth. He was selected to come to the earth and become the common father of all mankind. Adam's relationship to Christ is subordinate as set forth in modern revelation: And the Lord [meaning Jesus Christ] appeared unto them, and they rose up and blessed Adam, and called him Michael, the prince, the archangel. And the Lord administered comfort unto Adam, and said unto him: I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever (D&C 107:54-55). But there is a twist. "Adam" is not just a name, it is also a title and a type (see Rom 5:14 and 1 Cor 15:45-46). Moreover, anyone acquainted with Biblical Hebrew will also be aware that the word translated as "Adam" can be, and often is, translated in the Old Testament as "man." Since God the Father gives life and is the Spiritual Father of us all, it would be correct to call him "Adam." That is the official Mormon position. This view of Adam was taught by Joseph Smith during the later and most theologically significant years of his life, and, for the most part, it has taught this way throughout the history of the LDS church. There is an exception. Between 1852 and 1877, Brigham Young made remarks that departed significantly from this position. These remarks are often misrepresented by critics of Mormonism as an "official" doctrine, or they are used to show how "stupid" Brigham Young was, or they are used to show inconsistencies in Mormon theology. We have a pretty accurate and complete record of Brigham Young's sermons both private and public. The vast majority of his remarks would be considered standard fare by most Mormons, but a very small number of his remarks would be considered "strange" or "wierd." Dr. Reed Durham, a prominent Mormon historian, once told me that on average, out of about 100 sermons by Brigham Young, maybe 2 or 3 could be classified as part of this "weird" set. Of this small set, Brigham Young's remarks on Adam-God is an even smaller subset. In short, we are talking about a number of *public* statements that could be counted on one's hand. My point is that given the problems that relate to his remarks, this is not enough material to construct any definite LDS doctrine on. For years LDS weren't even sure of what BY was talking about, whether or not he was misunderstood, or even what kind of a logical paradigm could be constructed around his remarks. It has only been through the efforts of LDS historians, who have been digging around in diaries and whatnot, that we have been able to construct some type of logical framework in which to consider the context of his statements. The result of all this digging is that Brigham Young apparently held a very unorthodox view of the relationship of Adam to the Godhead and especially to Jesus Christ. BY believed that the individual most people think of as Adam was actually God the Father, and that Christ and all the inhabitants of the earth were the spiritual offspring of Adam. This view makes Christ subordinate to Adam. Reaction to BY's remarks was mixed. Many LDS were skeptical, and some, such as Orson Pratt - one of the senior members of the Twelve, openly hostile. Pratt raised a number of problems that demonstrated BY's views could not be reconciled with biblical scriptures, modern revelation, or with remarks made by Joseph Smith. BY's reaction to this criticism is interesting. He publically "dug in" and insisted his remarks were logical and correct. However, he made some very subtile changes in his views. One of those changes involved altering the meaning and roles attached by most Mormons to the names Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael. This allowed BY to make statements that sound orthodox to Mormons, but actually reflected his unorthodox views. Instead of confronting the differences and trying to reconcile his views with scripture or JS's teachings, BY tried to go around it. As a result, when BY died, for the most part, his views on Adam died with him. This leads to the question, how binding are BY's views? Should they be accepted as official doctrine, as anti-Mormons claim? No, according to BY they are not binding. I do not design to go into any mysteries or to take up worldly sciences to any great extent, but suppose I were to take up a few of them, I should be like the rest of you: tell what I know according to what I understand and believe. And then if I am wrong I would be glad if God or some man upon the earth would correct me and set me right and tell me what it is and how it is ... BY went on, expressed his views on Adam, and then continued: I tell you this as my belief about that personage who is called the ancient of days, the prince and so on. But I do not tell it because that I wish it to be established in the minds of others ... (see Buerger, "The Adam-God Doctrine," _Dialogue_ 15:23) Other remarks by BY also indicate he was not presenting his views on Adam as official doctrine (See JD 5:331-332 and JD 4:215-219). OBJECTION: All kinds of different charges brought against the Book of Abraham including the evaluations of Egyptologists, the Tanners, etc. RESPONSE: Rather than try to handle all these objections without any sense of context, let me present a chronological summary of the Book of Abraham controversy, including where it came from, who said what, when they said it, and the LDS point of view on each matter. In 1835, Joseph Smith was approached by one Michael Chandler, who had inherited certain Egyptian artifacts from an "uncle" who had worked as an archeologist (read modern grave robber) in Egypt. He sold to Joseph Smith the mummies and papyrus scrolls which he owned. In 1842, Joseph Smith published a record which he called the Book of Abraham and which he said that he had taken from one of the papyrus. Accompanying this record were reconstructions of some of the facsimiles (which appear to have been damaged even before Joseph Smith owned them) found on the scrolls along with an interpretation of those facsimiles. There is just enough ambiguity in Joseph Smith's statement of where he got the BoA to raise the question among Mormons, did he actually take the account directly off the papyrus or did he reconstruct through revelation a record whose corrupted version was contained on the papyrus? In 1845, the majority of Mormons were forced to leave Illinois. JS's mother, who was allowed to remain in Illinois, retained possession of the scrolls. The next thing we know, the papyrus were on display at the Chicago Wood Museum. Exactly how they got there is anyone's guess - maybe Lucy Mack Smith sold them to Col. Wood, we just don't know. In any case, the Wood Museum, and its contents were destroyed by the great Chicago Fire. The first major criticisms on the BoA were made in 1912. The Bishop of the Salt Lake Episcopal Church, Franklin S. Spalding, enlisted the services of eight prominent Egyptologists and asked them for their opinion of the "prophet's" interpretation of the reconstructed facsimiles. These Egyptologists were unanimous in their condemnation of JS's interpretation of the facsimiles; However, despite the fact that all eight experts assured us that the facsimiles were common and well known, none of them could agree on what they meant. For example, of facsimile #1 the following interpretations were made: James Breasted: Osiris rising from the Dead Eduard Meyer: Body of the dead with a priest approaching it. Albert Lythgoe: A mummy with the God Anubis leaning over it to protect it. On not a single point did all the authorities agree, and no two of them agreed on all points. What to some is just a dead man is to another Osiris himself; what to some is an ordinary priest or embalmer about to cut open a cadaver is to others Anubis himself leaning over the body to protect it; what to some is a body being laid away is to others a man rising from the dead; what to some is a man's soul flying away is to another the Horus hawk approaching and to yet others the lady Isis. The Mormons of 1912 asked for two things: examples of these common facsimiles and a reconciliation of the different interpretations. They got neither. Basically, the experts avoided the problems arising from their discrepancies by waving their degrees and credentials and condemning all Mormons for being fanatical because they would not take their word as final. (see Nibley, _Imp Era_, Jan-Aug 1968). Searching on their own, the Mormons discovered that there were significant differences between the facsimiles in the BoA and the Book of the Dead (see Clark, _Story of the PGP_, pp 117-123). The Mormons also discovered that experts were arguing among themselves concerning the meaning of ancient religious text such as the Book of the Dead. Transliterating texts was one thing, determining their meaning was another. These differences introduced a great deal of latitude into the translation process. More than one Mormon, with a degree in Egyptology, has demonstrated that significant portions of the JS's interpretations are reasonable. One of the most curious things that came out of this first confrontation was a statement by Budge, that JS's creation of the Book of Abraham was a fabrication clearly lifted from apocryphal literature. Mormons quickly pointed out that the apocryphal literature available to Budge in the London Museum of Natural History in the 1910's was unavailable to JS in any form in 1835 thru 1842. What Nibley and others have done, is attempted to identify possible apocryphal sources available to JS to see if they explain the presence of many apocryphal elements found in the BoA. So far they haven't come up with any likely sources or explanations and neither has the non-Mormon community, who seem to *ignore* the significance of apocryphal elements. For examples of the extensive parallelisms and lack of sources see: Anderson and Haag, _Imp Era_ 1:707-13, 793-805; Nibley, _Imp Era_ Jan-July 1969, Oct 1969-Apr 1970; Nibley, _Abraham in Egypt_. Late in the year 1967, Dr. Aziz Atiya rediscovered eleven fragments of the papyri owned by JS in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The connection with JS was established by the donor records, indicating that it came from one of the members of the Bidamon family, Mrs. Alice Heyser (Emma Smith's second husband was a Bidamon). The curators of the Museum sold the small collection to the LDS church that winter and photographs of the set were published shortly thereafter. The fragments included facsimile #1, portions of the Book of the Dead, and portions of a rather unusual version of the Book of Breathings. In 1969, Jerald Tanner, a professional anti-Mormon, presented evidence that he thought would completely discredit the BoA. Tanner obtained a copy of a 1935 archive film of a collection of papers dealing with Egyptian Writing and the Book of Abraham that are stored in the LDS Church's Historical Department. Among the works photographed was a bound notebook, which was labeled "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar" and a collection of related manuscripts. Some manuscripts had a portion of the Book of Abraham on one side and a series of Egyptian symbols opposite each passage. The symbols apparently were lifted from the portion of writings attached to the same papyrus as facsimile #1 (in other words, from the Book of Breathings). Here, claimed Jerald Tanner, was positive proof that Joseph Smith deluded himself into thinking that he was translating the Book of Abraham from Egyptian papyrus, but that his translation was obviously incorrect, since the passage from the Book of Breathings has nothing to do with Abraham. The Tanners claim that the "Egyptian Grammar" shows what JS used to produce the BoA and that it shows the manner of "translation." The Tanners' theory fails for four reasons: 1- The Grammar was produced in the wrong time period. We can date, fairly closely, the periods of time that JS personally labored with the translation of the BoA. We can determine these times through his diary and through the diaries and journals of the people who were working with him at the time. We can also determine the individuals who worked on the Grammar through their handwriting. We know that Joseph Smith did his initial work on the BoA from July 19, 1835 to end of September, 1835 and then set the work aside until October 1840. We know the approximate end point because of a complaint expressed in a letter by W.W. Phelps (JS's scribe) to his wife, that the work was being set aside just as it was getting interesting. Now look at the handwriting of the people who wrote the Grammar. The handwriting of W.W. Phelps and Warren Parrish (JS's other scribe) make up 99% of the entire work. Here's the catch: Warren Parrish did not begin acting as a scribe to JS until *after* 21 January 1836 (four months after the project had been shelved) and worked for him until December 1837. 2- JS Translation Already Completed. The Grammar shows evidence that the first chapters of the BoA had already been completed by JS before the anyone had even begun working on the Grammar, because the BoA text was copied down in its entirety BEFORE any Egyptian characters were inserted in the margins! FIRST, note BoA Mss #1, at the end of the first page, the Egyptian characters protrude over the margin and ON TOP of the English text on the left hand side. SECOND, the margins are always accommodating the English text, but not vise versa. Far too much room is allowed for the Egyptian symbols on the left hand side. THIRD, note the English text on all the manuscripts. There are no breaks, corrections, hesitations, no words crossed out or changed. The English text flows too smoothly to be a composition of any type. It is clearly being copied down from another source. FOURTH, BoA Mss #2 and #3, the margins and Egyptian characters disappear altogether. #2 begins with the the last part of BoA Mss #1 (without the Egyptian characters) and continues until it finally ends about half way thru the second chapter of the BoA. 3- The Grammar was Not a Translation from Egyptian to English When the Tanners obtained a copy of the 1935 archive film of the Grammar they were not aware of any additions made to the collection since the film was exposed. When it was pointed out, by James Clark, that Wilford Wood, an enthusiastic collector of early Mormon manuscripts, had made a donation in 1945 that ended up in the collection, and that the significance of that document changed the entire picture, the Tanners were caught flat footed. The Wood acquisition shows that the Grammar is going in the wrong direction: instead of a translation from Egyptian to English, the process seems to be trying to relate the English text back to Egyptian characters. Subscripts are added to the Egyptian characters and to the text opposite it. In the bound notebook, one finds an a whole series of "different" shades of meaning that are supposed to be related to the characters subscripted. However the effort seems to peter out as quickly as it began because there is no association between the remaining characters and the text, as though the author "hoped" to discover some type of one to one relationship. Everything, the Wood acquisition and the "dictionary," is in W.W. Phelps' handwriting. The Wood acquisition presents other problems to the Tanners' thesis. About page 7 and 8, the BoA text is *altered* FROM its *final* form into a form in which phrases and words are moved so that there is a different word order much as you would see in a Semitic language. The word ordering strongly suggests that the writer was attempting to recreate the literal word order that one would see in a Semitic language before translating it to English. Many Mormon historians now consider this "Grammar" to be a private project pursued by W.W. Phelps who was attempting to figure out "how JS did it" and "where he did it from" and had nothing to do with the actual production of the BoA. 4- Descriptions of Papyrus do not match up The last stumbling block to the Tanners' model is that JS supplied a physical description of the portion of papyrus that contained the BoA and it doesn't match the papyrus fragment (a portion of the Book of Breathings) which the Tanners' claim JS used. JS stated: "The record of Abraham and Joseph, found with the mummies, is beautifully written on papyrus, with black, and a small part red, ink or paint, in perfect preservation." HC 2:348 The fragments of the Book of Breathings that were discovered in 1967, don't even come close. First, it is not beautifully written. The text is crowded, uneven, and some characters look as if they had been (rather clumsily) retouched. If the Book of Breathings text was the only manuscript that JS had, then maybe one could argue that the thrill of owning it would have carried him away to the extent of thinking that it was a thing of beauty, but he had a sizeable collection of handwritten Egyptian documents that were more impressive than the Book of Breathings material. JS indicated that the BoA had small notations in red ink or paint. Such notations, called rubrics, are quite common in Egyptian manuscripts, yet there are no rubrics in the JS Book of Breathings documents. Apparently not only is JS's copy of the Book of Breathings free of rubrics, but all existent copies of the Book of Breathings seem to be free of rubrics as well. Last of all, JS states that the record was in a state of perfect preservation. The copy of the Book of Breathings was certainly not in a perfect state of preservation at the time of JS. The manuscript was clearly damaged at the time that JS owned it: four pieces were broken off and missing. When the material was mounted the four pieces were not only mounted in the wrong place, they were mounted upside down, suggesting that the material was a jumbled mess when JS received it. OBJECTION: Former Mormon and Egyptologist, Dee Jay Nelson, demonstrated that the BoA could not be derived from the papyri recovered in 1967. RESPONSE: The only reason I included this objection is that so many materials, critical of Mormonism, have repeated it. At this point it should be clear why Dee Jay Nelson's observations are irrelevant. Mormons have never believed that the papyri recovered in 1967 was supposed to contain the BoA. Actually Dee Jay Nelson's role is very minor and not all that supportive of the anti-Mormon position. After years of portraying himself as an Egyptologist, it was discovered, in 1982, that his degree did not come from an accredited school, rather from a diploma mill in Washington State, and that the schools where he claimed to have done graduate work had no record of him. There is some *circumstantial* evidence that his main supporters, the Tanners, knew his true educational background for many years but choose to portray him as a "real" Egyptologist because it supported their cause. When Nelson's true background became public knowledge, the Tanners published a condemnation of his behavior. OBJECTION: Reliable Egyptologists, such as Dr. Klaus Baer, have also stated that the BoA facsimiles simply represent common funeral scenes. RESPONSE: When this FAQ was being evaluated by other Mormons on the net, Jay Windley raised this issue and provided a response. It might also be worth noting that Egyptology was, during this time (late 1960s to early 1970s), materially re-evaluating its position on the funerary texts and illustrations. Dr. Klaus Baer, who also evaluated the Joseph Smith papyri, was decidedly of the old school. Nibley reviewed Baer's evaluation in _BYU Studies_ in 1970. I recall that Nibley's arguments were based on a cadre of German Egyptologists which argued that Egyptian authors borrowed heavily from each others works and illustrations for inclusion in irrelevant material. The implication here is that the old school applied the common sense test that if something looked like a funeral scene, then it WAS a funeral scene. The newer conventional wisdom allowed that something which resembled a funeral scene didn't have to be so interpreted; but that the author just stole the picture. It used to be thought that individual variations in illustrations had no importance, but now we realize that minor differences have major implications. The example with which I am familiar is the raised leg of the reclined figure in Facsimile 1. The old school would have looked at it and said "So his leg is raised. So what?" The new school, paying a bit more attention to Egyptian iconography, sees this as a symbol of regeneration or deliverance. In no case is it used when the reclining figure is a corpse being prepared for burial. Hence, Baer's conclusions are not incorrect, according to Nibley, merely outdated. Nelson would have fallen into the same trap, regardless of the validity of his credentials. The Tanners' newer edition of their book starring Dee Jay Nelson tends to downplay Nelson's role. Rather than portray Nelson as an expert who disagrees with the church, they try to visualize him as a victim of LDS propaganda -- that the church tried to suppress his viewpoint and denounce him publicly. Then they launch into three or four pages of published commentary from other sources on the Book of Breathings, which they conclude, on the evidence of the "Grammar," MUST be the contents of the entire fragment library. I think it is sufficient to say, beyond Nelson's fraud, that most published commentary -- even by respected Egyptologists -- must be read knowing that it was written when Egyptology took a much more simplistic view of funerary texts and Egyptian literature in general. Willard C. Smith Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnewsc!iwtdx!wcsa Because I Might have to Eat all of Them. | wcsa@iwtdx.att.com