Book of Abraham

In 1835, a traveling roadshow of Egyptian mummies and ancient scrolls arrived in Kirkland. Upon cursory inspection, and to everyone’s astonishment, Joseph Smith declared that the scrolls contained the literal writings of Abraham “by his own hand” while he was in Egypt; while the other contained the writings of Joseph of Egypt. Smith instructed members to pool precious resources to purchase the scrolls, then spent the next seven years translating them into the Book of Abraham, accepted by the LDS Church as revealed scripture.

The discovery of the Rosetta Stone in 1799 facilitated extremely accurate translation of the previously indecipherable Egyptian language. Numerous Egyptologists of varying pedigree, both member and non-member, have inspected Smith’s papyri, and each has consistently declared them not to be what the Church claims them to be. Yale University carbon dated the papyri and conclusively determined them to not be of Abrahamic age. Joseph’s hand-embellished drawings, on what are referred to as the facsimiles, have also been proven incorrect.

The LDS Church now acknowledges in its Gospel Topics Essay that “none of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham.” The scrolls are mere funerary text, regularly encased with Egyptian mummies. This acknowledgement prompted the church to alter the wording of the Pearl of Great Price introduction in 2013, to create room for an inspired narrative, disconnected from the actual papyri Joseph clearly used.

More than any single item, the Book of Abraham stands as the most significant stumbling block to Joseph Smith’s claim as prophetic translator. Of the numerous items Joseph claimed to translate, the Egyptian papyri are the only remaining physical object which can be reliably evaluated.

Given Abraham’s prominence in Muslim and Jewish faiths, one might think that the Book of Abraham would be of great interest; yet both global religions totally disregard Smith’s work. Dr. Robert Ritner, Ph.D., Egyptologist, University of Chicago concisely sums up the LDS dilemma, “Except for those willfully blind, the case is closed.” Once again, Mormonism stands in proud isolation.



In July of 1835, an Irishman named Michael Chandler brought an exhibit of four Egyptian mummies and papyri containing Egyptian hieroglyphics to Kirtland Ohio, then the home of the Mormons. Hieroglyphics remained unreadable in 1835, as the recently discovered Rosetta Stone was still a work in progress. As Prophet and Seer, Joseph Smith was permitted to examine the scrolls, whereupon to everyone’s shock, he revealed that “one of the rolls contained the writings of Abraham, another the writings of Joseph of Egypt.” (History of the Church, Vol. 2: 236). As instructed by Smith, members pooled their precious resources to purchase the papyri and mummies for $2,400. ($75,000 in 2018 dollars)

“The air of mystery and romance that has always surrounded things Egyptian has never failed to attract swarms of crackpots, cultists, half-baked scholars, self-certified experts, and out-and-out charlatans.” (Collected Works Of Hugh Nibley: An Approach To The Book Of Abraham, Vol. 18)

Funerary texts, commonly referred to as Books of Breathing, were regularly included in the burial of wealthy Egyptians to enable the deceased to continue to exist in the afterlife. The texts were laboriously copied by hand onto scrolls and often included the Breathing Permit of Hôr and abbreviated versions of Book of the Dead. The earliest known copy dates to about 350 B.C., nowhere near Abraham’s era.

It is important to understand the routine nature of Egyptian funerary texts as one explores the various apologetics advanced to make the pieces fit. Notably, it would be completely unworkable for a scribe to insert expanded Abrahamic language into the middle a longer scroll. The language and religious structure would not even remotely align; it would be akin to inserting a large section of the Koran into the Bible.



In July 1835, Smith recorded in his journal, via scribe W.W. Phelps, “I was continually engaged in translating an alphabet of the Book of Abraham, and arranging a grammar of the Egyptian language…” (Book B-1, 597; History of the Church, 2:238)

After about 7 years, Joseph completed his translation of the scroll he claimed was a “translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the CataCombs of Egypt.” Smith again declared the papyrus to be the literal writings of Abraham, as reported in the Church newspaper, and he continued showing the relics until his death. Later, Smith identified (incorrectly) the male mummy as King Onitas, and a female mummy as his daughter Princess Katumin.

It is interesting to note that Joseph used the white seer stone to translate the Egyptian papyri into the Book of Abraham, as opposed to the brown stone he used for the entire Book of Mormon.  (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, p. 244) The Book of Joseph was never translated.



Egyptologists agree that the papyri are common funerary text, and that almost none of Joseph’s interpretations are correct. The official LDS Gospel Topics Essay, Translation and the Historicity of the Book of Abraham, confirms that “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 not 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.”

The fragments have been dated to between the third century B.C.E. and the first century C.E., post-dating Abraham by around 2,000 years. These are not matters of opinion, they are established facts.

  • “Joseph Smith’s interpretations of [the documents] as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.” (Dr. James H. Breasted, University of Chicago)
  •  ”It may be safely said that there is not one single word that is true in these explanations.” (Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University)
  •  “It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud… Smith has turned the goddess [Isis in Facsimile No. 3] into a King and Osiris into Abraham.” (Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford University)


When the Church asked Hugh Nibley to look into the rediscovered papyri, he sought the opinion of self-declared Egyptologist Dee Jay Nelson. Nibley went on to praise Dee Jay Nelson’s work in the spring 1968 volume of BYU Studies: “This is a conscientious and courageous piece of work…Nelson has been careful to consult top-ranking scholars…” Unfortunately, Nelson promptly informed Nibley that the papyri were standard funeral scripts.

“We have often been asked during the past months why we did not proceed with all haste to produce a translation of the [Book of Abraham] papyri the moment they came into our possession. Well, for one thing others are far better equipped to do the job than we are, and some of those early expressed a willingness to undertake it. But, more important, it is doubtful whether any translation could do as much good as harm.” (Hugh Nibley, BYU Studies, Spring 1968, page 251)

As evidence compounded against the Book’s authenticity, the Church later threw Nibley’s faithful efforts under the bus, denouncing his endeavor as self-directed, while focusing their attention on discrediting Dee’s questionable credentials. Never mind that every other Egyptologist to review the papyri agrees they are neither of Abraham or ancient.


Additional Translation Problems

Joseph Smith also claims to have retranslated sections of the Bible. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the mid 1940s provided the world with Hebrew manuscripts for the entire Old Testament that are 1,000 years earlier than any previously known. None of Smith’s changes have been supported by the numerous Old and New Testament manuscript finds since 1833.

Given this context, and what we now know about the papyri’s lack of Abrahamic authenticity, is it possible that Joseph merely wrote himself into LDS scripture? “And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.” (JST, Gen. 50:27, 30–31, 33.) That self-aggrandizing text is not in the Bible’s Genesis, yet conveniently bolstered Joseph’s authority.

Lest we rely solely upon the opinions of prior generations, prominent modern LDS apologists, like Richard Bushman, have resorted to calling Joseph’s work Pseudepigrapha – falsely attributed works, texts whose claimed author is not the true author.



In its Gospel Topics Essay: Historicity of the Book of Abrahamthe Church suggests “The relationship of these documents to the book of Abraham is not fully understood.” In reality, we now know there is no relation whatsoever. Thus, the Church introduces a ‘catalyst theory’ to hypothesize how the now discredited physical artifacts merely provided Joseph an occasion for meditation, reflection, and revelation. It suggests a process whereby God provided Smith a revelation about the life of Abraham, even as that revelation did not correlate to the characters on the papyri in front of him.

This catalyst argument is exceedingly faulty, as Smith clearly believed them to be authentic, relied upon them for many years to execute whatever “translation” process he attempted, and displayed the papyri and mummies for visitors to examine.

A similar argument is proposed for the translation of the Book of Mormon, in which the plates were never used. The argument presents several significant challenges, diminishing the standard of evidence to a degree that could be equally applied to other scriptural texts. For example, the epileptic trances and channeling of scripture through Ellen G. White of the 7th Day Adventists could be equally validated by such an assertion. Similarly, the writings of L. Ron Hubbard and Dianetics would hold up equally as scripture, lacking source text or authentication.

The greatest challenging to the catalyst theory is that it directly contradicts Joseph’s own prophetic words. “Joseph the Seer has presented us some of the Book of Abraham which was written by his own hand but hid from the knowledge of man for the last four thousand years but has now come to light through the mercy of God.” (Journal of Wilford Woodruff)

Walking Back Authenticity Claims

In its 2013 update of the standard works, the Church altered the introduction of the Pearl of Great Price. The previous description of the Book of Abraham read:
“A translation from some Egyptian papyri that came into the hands of Joseph Smith in 1835, containing writings of the patriarch Abraham.”

The updated description intentionally creates ambiguity regarding the origin and nature of the text:
“An inspired translation of the writings of Abraham. Joseph Smith began the translation in 1835 after obtaining some Egyptian papyri.”

Book of Abraham from 1939

The original heading from the Phelps and Parrish copy of the manuscript clearly stated, “Translation of the Book of Abraham written by his own hand upon papyrus and found in the Catacombs of Egypt.” The heading in the Book of Abraham as it stands today, has been altered to separate “translation of some ancient records…the catacombs of Egypt” from ”The writings of Abraham.”

Most would agree that “translation of some ancient records” is neither what Joseph repeatedly proclaimed, nor equivalent to a “translation of the Book of Abraham.” Church apologists are understandably attempting to obfuscate Smith’s originality claim of the papyrus which he had in his possession.

LDS apologists assert that the description in the Phelps and Parrish manuscript was merely their personal understanding of the papyrus, not Smith’s. They reference the 1842 Times and Seasons publication of the heading which is much closer to what’s published today, which reads: ”A translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands, from the Catecombs of Egypt, purporting to be the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” They argue that Joseph Smith approved the Times and Seasons description, but not necessarily the more clearly worded statement in the Phelps and Parrish manuscript.

So to an LDS apologist, “A translation of some ancient records that have fallen into our hands”, somehow morphs into “A [revelation] of [a catalyst] that have fallen into our hands.” But if one reads farther into the Times and Seasons description, we see that this apparent “catalyst” is still identified as “the writings of Abraham.” In summary, the way the wording has evolved over the decades helps apologists exploit an already confusing rabbit hole, creating the false impression that they have a case to make.

Another argument advanced by LDS apologists is that the original papyri scrolls must have been much longer than existing fragments, and must surely contain the text Joseph translated. The theory lacks both evidence and credibility.


The content of the Book of Abraham, which Joseph worked on for seven years, is essentially 100% accounted for by his use of five 19th Century sources. The books were readily available to Joseph in the Nauvoo library. Perhaps this is also why the Book of Abraham espouses a view of astronomy suitable to his time, rather than what we now know to be true today.

The evidence is thoroughly detailed in An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, Chapter 1.

  •  Abraham 1; Facsimile #1, 3:
    Abraham’s biographical information in Abraham 1 and Smith’s claim of what these two Facsimiles portray comes from The Works of Flavius Josephus. Smith owned an 1830 edition of this book. Smith’s detailed explanations for the individual Egyptian characters on these two Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham have been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists.
  •  Abraham 2, 4-5:
    Eighty-six percent of the verses in these three chapters came from Genesis, 1, 2, 12, and 11:28-29. The scribal errors indicate that this material came from a 1769 or later printing of the KJV Bible.
  •  Abraham 3; Facsimile 2:
    This text shares a remarkable resemblance to the astronomical concepts, phrases, and other motifs found in Thomas Dick’s, Philosophy of a Future State. Smith owned an 1830 copy of Dick’s book.
  •  Abraham 3; Facsimile 2:
    Thomas Taylor’s 1816 book, The Six Books of Proclus on the Theology of Plato, especially volume 2, contains most of the motifs in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Dick and Taylor both contain a number of exact phrases found in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2. Importantly, Smith’s Newtonian astronomy concepts, mechanics, and model of the universe that he borrowed from these Newtonian books have been thoroughly discredited by Einstein’s twentieth-century model of the universe.
  •  Strange Names:
    The few Hebrew names and phrases found in the Book of Abraham reflect Smith’s study with Hebrew scholar Joshua Seixas during the winter of 1835-36, in Ohio.
    (An Insiders View of Mormon Origins, Grant Palmer)

Emanuel Swedenborg

In 1758, Swedish mystic Emanuel Swedenborg wrote Heaven and Hell. Heaven and Hell is the common English title of a book, while the full title is Heaven and its Wonders and Hell From Things Heard and Seen. Swedenborg claimed numerous visions and wrote prolifically. His work describes 3 degrees of glory, even the “Celestial Kingdom” and how the three heavens correspond to the sun, moon and stars – naming them celestial, spiritual, and natural.

Michael Quinn makes a strong case that Smith knew all about Swedenborg’s ideas, while also demonstrating that his book was available in Smith’s hometown library since 1817. Quinn demonstrates that “Nine miles from Smith’s farm, in 1826, the Canandaigua newspaper advertised Swedenborg’s book for sale…for as little as 37 cents.” Joseph himself is known to have received a letter from faithful member Isaac Galland in 1839 which repeatedly mentions Swedenborg’s theology and influence at the time.

  • 3 levels of heaven, 3 heavens in the Celestial Kingdom
  • The 3 kingdoms are like sun, moon, stars
  • One must be married in heaven to inherit the highest heaven
  • The spirit world is a place of preparation for either heaven or perdition
  • The world of spirits is a preparation for either heaven or perdition
  • There are angles who communicate between heavens
  • The church that Christ established has passed from the Earth
  • The Lord will establish a New Church on the earth once more
  • Little children who die, Christian or not, go directly to heaven, and are not culpable
  • Opposition in all things
  • Man is not saved by faith alone but must show works from a changed heart
  • One way to qualify for perdition is to know the truth and deny it
  • Celestial beings incorporate the law of consecration into their lives
  • All things in the physical world exist due to existence of a spiritual quality
  • God is man
  • Christ redeems the world, but there is no vicarious payment for the sins of others
  • Swedenborg witnessed marriage ceremony in heaven, husband wore robes like those of Aaron, wife was arrayed as a queen


Origin of Telestial

The word telestial exists only in Mormon theology and is not found anywhere else. Like many words found in the Book of Mormon, it is a made up word lacking origin and context. Smith wrote D&C 76 in 1832 as the budding Church was exploring new theologies, in similar fashion as the numerous new churches of the period.

Smith likely relied upon 1st Corinthians 15:41, wherein Paul speaks about the sun, moon, and stars, when creating the unique Mormon doctrine of differing degrees of heavenly glory. Following Swedenborg’s well known theology, he needed three levels of heaven and only had two. Smith no doubt noticed the words celestial and terrestrial from the preceding Bible verse, prompting him to combine the two words into telestial.

The problem is that even a cursory reading of 1 Cor 15:40 reveals that the verse has nothing to do with degrees of heaven; it merely speaks to the difference between heavenly (celestial) bodies and earthly (terrestrial) bodies. This is further evidenced by the fact that only the KJV Bible uses the words celestial and terrestrial, while every other English translation uses heavenly and earthly. The verse is simply stating that angels and mortals have different degrees of splendor.

Paul attempts to emphasize this difference by comparing it to the splendor of the sun, moon, and stars. He arguably should have used a different analogy incorporating only two kinds of splendor. Paul elaborates on the difference in the next verse by describing how the mortal body will be resurrected from an earthly splendor into a heavenly splendor. All the context surrounding 15:40 clearly deals with how heavenly bodies differ from earthly bodies, while having nothing to do with degrees of heaven.

In summary, fundamental aspects of Mormonism’s Plan of Salvation hinge upon heavily borrowed ideology and a made up word taken out of context.


The Book of Abraham constitutes the theological basis for the LDS Church’s long standing racial discrimination against blacks, now admitted by the Church to be error and mere policy – even though it was considered doctrine until 1978. The lifting of the race ban, as well as the Church’s Race and The Priesthood essay, effectively repudiate standing Book of Abraham doctrine.


The LDS essay Historicity of the Book of Abraham presents a number of problematic arguments and citations taken out of context. Above all, many take particular exception to this seemingly positive citation from Warren Parish, Smith’s trusted scribe: “I have set by his side and penned down the translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphics as he claimed to receive it by direct inspiration of Heaven…” Well that seems straightforward and supportive enough doesn’t it – a loyal scribe recounting his faithful labors?

But what are we to make of what Parish was actually saying in that letter to the Editor of the Painesville Republican in February of 1838? Read the full William Parrish letter for yourself HERE.  William was very clearly chastising Smith and Rigdon for “Their management in this place has reduced society to a complete wreck.”  He is not ambiguous in stating that “…having a knowledge of their private characters and sentiments, I believe them to be confirmed infidels, who have not the fear of God before their eyes, notwithstanding their high pretensions to holiness.” Parish further asserted that “For the past year their (Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon) lives have been one continued scene of lying, deception, and fraud, and that too in the name of God.”

Why would the LDS Church select this particular quote for their apologetic essay to defend the already crippled Book of Abraham? Are they so desperate to find anything positive about the historicity of the Book that they must scrape content from Parrish’s completely derogatory letter? Are we to believe that they understand their own history so poorly as to not comprehend the true context of their selected quote; or is it more likely that they’ve grown so comfortable in their authoritative positions that they know hardly any believing member will ever seek the fullness of the original source?

The sad truth is that the Brethren’s gamble paid off, as few members have even read the essays, and far fewer are aware of the true history surrounding Joseph’s Book of Abraham.


Q: How does one reconcile the Church’s changing Book of Abraham narrative?

Q: If the Book of Abraham were remotely what it claims to be, wouldn’t Muslims and Jews exhibit extreme interest in Abraham’s original work?

Q: Are we to assign any credibility to the catalyst theory – is Joseph allowed to pull “translations” of ancient documents out of thin air and his hat?

Q: Why does the Church present citations so glaringly out of context?

Q: Did Smith ever actually “translate” anything, or did he merely aggregate ideas from available sources of his day?

Q: If Smith meant revelation when he said translation, what did he mean when he said revelation?

Q: Are Swedenborg’s writings too similar to dismiss as coincidence?

Q: If the Book of Abraham is a product of revelation, not an actual translation, and the papyri are neither ancient or of Abraham, why were cash strapped settlers asked to donate so much scarce money to acquire pagan documents in the first place?

Q: Are you aware of Joseph’s GAEL / Kirtland Egyptian Papers, how the characters match the order on the papyri, and their importance in demonstrating the translation fraud?