. . . because Joseph Smith didn't know a damn about ancient Egyptian. Which means that not only is the Book of Abraham bigoted, it was translated bogusly.
When it comes to the inauthenticity of Joseph Smith and his Book of Abraham, LDS apostle and member of the First Presidency Hugh B. Brown was on to something. Brown is said to have admitted his assessment to Mormon amateur archaeologist and eventual LDS non-believer, Thomas S. Ferguson. Ferguson played a prominent role in 20th-century efforts to scientifically authenticate the Book of Mormon. Authors Richard K. Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, in their work, “Mormon America: The Power and the Promise,” describe Ferguson as “[t]he father of LDS Mesoamerican research"--who ultimately “concluded that the [B]ook [of Mormon] was a piece of fiction."
(Richard and Joan K. Ostling, "Mormon America," Chapter 16, "The Gold Bible" [San Francisco, California: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999, p. 272)
As to the nature of Brown's opinions that he is said to have shared with Ferguson, Brown reportedly did not accept Smith's claims of having translated ancient Egyptian--with Brown going so far as to also acknowledge that the Book of Abraham itself was not genuine. Mormonism researchers Jerald and Sandra Tanner point to a letter Ferguson wrote to another member of the Mormon Church, James Boyack, on 13 March 1971, in which Ferguson described a closed-door meeting he had with Brown:
"According to Mr. Ferguson, Apostle Brown had [along with Ferguson] also come to the conclusion that the Book of Abraham was false and was in favor of the [Mormon] church giving it up.
"A few years later, Hugh B. Brown said he could 'not recall' making the statements Thomas Stuart Ferguson attributed to him.
"Ferguson, however, was apparently referring to the same incident in the letter of March 13, 1971, when he stated: 'I must conclude that Joseph Smith had not the remotest skill in things Egyptian-hieroglyphics. To my surprise, one of the highest officials in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion . . . privately in one-to-one [c]onversation.'"
(Jerald and Sandra Tanner, “Ferguson's Two Faces,” in “Salt Lake City Messenger,” Issue #69, September 1988; included in the article is a copy of Ferguson's actual letter, at:
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no69.htm)
Ferguson's fatalistic doubts about the authenticity of Mormon scripture--and how those doubts were privately shared by him with a sympathetic Brown--is chronicled in telling detail by Stan Larson, curator of the J. Willard Marriott Library at the University of Utah, as found in his book, “Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon." Larson reports how Ferguson's growing disbelief in the truthfulness of Mormonism's canonized scripture led him in December 1970 to make a “pivotal trip to Salt Lake City . . . for a very important purpose":
"Ferguson first paid a visit to ['the liberal LDS apostle'] Brown in his office at LDS Church headquarters and reviewed with him the translations of the Egyptologists had made of the Joseph Smith Egyptian papyri.
"During this conversation Ferguson emotionally exclaimed to Brown that Joseph Smith did not possess 'the remotest skill' in translating Egyptian hieroglyphs.
"Ferguson reported an unexpected response from Brown: 'To my surprise, one of the highest officials [Hugh B. Brown] in the Mormon Church agreed with that conclusion when I made that very statement to him.'"
"['Ferguson, letter to James Boyack, 13 March 1971, in Ferguson Collection, University of Utah. For a reproduction of this letter, see Charles M. Larson, 'By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri' [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), pp. 182-83]'"
Larson references an additional source that lends credence to Ferguson's description of Brown's expressed reservations about Smith's professed ability to translate ancient Egyptian and about the Book of Abraham as a supposedly divinely-translated work. It came in the form of an interview conducted with Ferguson by LDS Church Historical Department employee Ronald O. Barney on 4 January 1983. Barney's account of his interview with Ferguson reads as follows:
“Ferguson said the thing that first led him to seriously question the [Mormon] church was the papyri purported to be the source of the Book of Abraham. He said he took he took a photograph of the papyri to a couple of friends of his that were scholars at Cal., Berkeley. They described the documents as funeral texts. This bothered Ferguson in a serious way!
"Later he said that he took the evidence to Hugh B. Brown. . . . After reviewing the evidence with Brother Brown he [Ferguson] said that Brother Brown agreed with him that it was not scripture. He did not say or infer [imply] that it was his evidence that convinced Brother Brown of this conclusion. But nevertheless, he did say that Hugh B. Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham was what the [Mormon] church said it was.”
(Barney's interview was typed 19 April 1984 and is located in Box 77, Fd 13, Marquardt Collection, University of Utah)
Larson then notes that the door to closer examination of Ferguson's assertions has been slammed shut by the Mormon Church:
“Brown's harsh indictment [as expressed to Ferguson] of the official position of the LDS Church--that the Book of Abraham is not 'what the church said it was'--cannot be either confirmed or disproved by the Hugh B. Brown papers in the LDS Church archives, because they are closed to researchers."
Larson does mention, however, the release of a carefully-worded and selectively-edited non-denial denial made by Brown regarding his (Brown's) conversation with Ferguson:
“The following is the only available paragraph of a photocopy of a letter purportedly dictated by Brown and sent to Robert Hancock:
"'I do not recall ever having said anything to Mr. Ferguson which would have led him to think I do not believe the Book of Mormon to be true. This is certainly not the case, for I know, even as I live, that Christ is directing this Church and that Joseph Smith was His prophet chosen to restore His Church in its fullness.'
"([Hugh B. Brown], letter to [Robert Hancock], [partial photocopy], 26 September 1974, in Box 77, Fd 13, Marquardt Collection, University of Utah)
Larson points out what is noticeably missing from Brown's partially-released correspondence:
“It should be noted that Brown did not address the central question of whether he and Ferguson discussed Joseph Smith's inability to translate Egyptian hieroglyphics.”
Larson further notes that “[d]uring this meeting [with Brown], Ferguson 'seemed to be absolutely convinced that [Hugh B.] Brown did not believe the Book of Abraham,' that is to say, did not believe that the Book of Abraham was a translation from Egyptian. Since it is assumed that Brown believed that it was inspired scripture, this seems to indicate that Brown held a non-historical, 'mythic interpretation' of the Book of Abraham,” as suggested by Edgar C. Snow, Jr., in his article, “One Face of the Hero: In Search of the Mythological Joseph Smith.”
(Stan Larson, “Quest for the Gold Plates: Thomas Stuart Ferguson's Archaeological Search for the Book of Mormon" [Salt Lake City, Utah: Freethinker Press, in association with Smith Research Associates, 1996, pp. 132, 138-39, 165fn12, 166fn14, 166fn15 and fn16, 212]; see also, Edgar C. Snow, "One Face of the Hero: In Search of the Mythological Joseph Smith, in “Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought” 27, Fall 1994, p. 247n39).
To summarize:
Ferguson reported that Hugh B. Brown personally told him in a meeting with Brown in Salt Lake City, Utah, that:
--Brown did not believe Joseph Smith could translate ancient Egyptian; and
--Brown did not believe that the Book of Abraham was what the Mormon Church claimed it was.
Larson reports that:
--Ferguson's account of meeting with a confessing Brown was backed by an employee of the LDS Church' Historical Department who interviewd Ferguson about the meeting;
--Brown acknowledged having met with Ferguson but insisted in a partially-released letter that he did not recall making any such assertion about the Book of Abraham to Ferguson; and
--the Mormon Church has refused to allow researcher access to Brown's papers in order to further investigate Ferguson's version of events.
_____
And thus, we close the book on the Book of Abrasham.
Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 12/16/2013 04:04AM by steve benson.