A Review of the Mormon Canon

Part I: The Scriptures of the LDS Church

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (hereafter referred to

as the LDS Church) is known for enlarging the Christian Canon to
include works that were composed in the United States during the
nineteenth century. The members of the LDS Church are called
Latter-day Saints, and accept the nickname Mormons. These look to
the nineteenth century man Joseph Smith, Jr. as a prophet and
revelator who initiated this expansion. The scope of this article will
consider what these additions initiated by him to Christian Scripture
are, as well as briefly consider their origin. This series investigating
the Mormon Canon will also tend to serve as an exploration into the question of an open
or closed Christian Canon.
The LDS Church has an open scriptural canon. Its most noteworthy volumes of
scripture are termed the “Standard Works,” which consists of the following:

• The Holy Bible (King James Version)

• The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ
• The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
• The Pearl of Great Price

Interestingly, these four have been collected into one binding

called the “Quadruple Combination.” (See the accompanying
figure.) Additionally, the last three have been combined into a
“Triple Combination” binding. It is these last three that will
now occupy our attention.

Book of Mormon
Joseph Smith confidently declared that “the Book of
Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, . . . and a
man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than
any other book.” (History of the Church, 4:461) First published
in March 1830, this foundational book of the LDS Church
represents the primary puncturing of the closed Christian
Canon to include other books. Divided into smaller books, with
chapters and verses, it contains claimed history of migrations to
the New World. Most noteworthy of these is that of two
Israelite groups of people before the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, that of Lehi and
his family, and a son of King Zedekiah. It also relates a much earlier migration of peoples
dispersed by the Tower of Babel incident. (Genesis 11:1-9) Thus, at this point, its history
portion clings onto biblical historical accounts for its source of departure. The remainder
of its claimed history relate to the development and, in some cases, the extinction of these
New World civilizations, and their interaction with each other. The most important
historical claim is the visitation of the resurrected Jesus Christ to these New Word
Israelite descendants. Aside from these claimed historical accounts, it also contains
original and defining commentary on biblical subjects such as the Fall of Adam and Eve
and the nature of sin and transgression, as well as discussions on other biblical topics,
including theology and prophecy.
Perhaps even more noteworthy than its contents is its claimed origin. Smith
claimed he was directed by an angel, a resurrected descendent of Lehi and Book of
Mormon character called Moroni (who is depicted as beardless), to recover an archive
buried in a hill in his locality. This archive consisted of a stack of metal plates that
appeared to be gold bound by three metal rings. The writing on these plates was
described as “Reformed Egyptian,” writing that was more compact than the Israelite
language Hebrew. (Book of Mormon: Mormon 9:32-331) These “golden” or gold-like
plates were returned to Moroni upon the completion of this book.
Part II of this series will explore the credibility of the Book of Mormon.

Doctrine and Covenants

This book supporting an open Christian Canon is itself an open canon, subject to
additions when the need arises. This was first published in 1835 as a later version of the
Book of Commandments, which had been partially printed in 1833. (Wikipedia, “Doctrine
and Covenants”) Unlike the other Standard Works, this book does not claim to be a
translation, but a modern revelation.
This work of the LDS Church, not considering versions of other smaller LDS
movements, currently has 138 sections divided into verses, and two Official Declarations
at the end. These sections are dated with introductory explanations. Of interest is a
comparison of section 132 by Smith dated July 12, 1843 with Official Declaration 1,
dated October 6, 1890. While section 132 provides “laws governing the plurality of
wives,” Official Declaration 1 renounces polygamy.
Another curious section is 7, which claims to be an actual translation of a record
made on parchment by the Apostle John. This claimed parchment was not saved.
Official Declaration 2 is dated September 30, 1978, and is famous for allowing
the ordination of black people of African descent to the LDS priesthood.

Pearl of Great Price

This last work of the Quadruple or Triple Combination is itself a combination, in
this case of five works. These are:

• Selections from the Book of Moses

• The Book of Abraham
• Joseph Smith—Matthew
• Joseph Smith—History
• The Articles of Faith

1
These verses read: “32 And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the
characters which are called among us the reformed Egyptian, being handed down and altered by us,
according to our manner of speech. 33 And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written
in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold,
ye would have had no imperfection in our record.” (italics added)
The material in the first and third titles derive from the incomplete Joseph Smith
Translation of the Bible (began in June 1830 and never finished). The Book of Abraham
is unique as it is the only work of Smith to have pictures, called facsimiles 1 to 3. It
claims to be a translation of hieratic (Egyptian cursive hieroglyphics) on Egyptian papyri
Smith purchased in 1835. Surviving papyri from this collection have been identified as
parts of the Book of the Dead, an ancient pagan Egyptian funerary document. This is the
most widely known book of the Pearl of Great Price, and another part in this series will
examine its credibility. Regarding the final two titles, the Joseph Smith—History is a
first-person narrative of Smith’s life before the founding of his church, and the Articles of
Faith is a concise listing of thirteen fundamental doctrines of Mormonism composed by
Smith.
The Pearl of Great Price was first published in 1851 and was canonized by the
LDS Church in October 1880. Its table of contents today is considerably different than in
its first edition of 1851.

In Summary
This review of the Mormon Canon has introduced the main supports of their open
scriptural canon, produced largely by Joseph Smith, Jr. Even though his gold-like plates
for the Book of Mormon are unavailable for inspection, a test of his translation acumen is
still possible, and will be explored in later parts of this series.
 A Review of the Mormon Canon
Part II: An Evaluation of the Book of Mormon’s Source Language

The objective of Part II in this series is to determine if the Book of

Mormon should be considered a translation of an ancient text or
simply a religious composition that deceptively claims to be a
translation. If it is a translation, it would be a remarkable testimony
to an open Christian Canon. But if it is the latter, then its credibility
as an accretion to the Christian Canon is crushed. This examination
and potential consequences concerning its truth or falsity harmonizes
with the challenge declared by Mormon Apostle Orson Pratt (1811-
1881), who acknowledged in 1850:

This book must be either true or false. If true, it is one of the most important
messages ever sent from God to man, affecting both the temporal and eternal
interests of every people under heaven to the same extent and in the same degree
that the message of Noah affected the inhabitants of the old world. If false, it is
one of the most cunning, wicked, bold, deep-laid impositions ever palmed upon
the world, calculated to deceive and ruin millions who will sincerely receive it as
the word of God, and will suppose themselves securely built upon the rock of
truth until they are plunged with their families into hopeless despair.
The nature of the message in the Book of Mormon is such, that if true, no
one can possibly be saved and reject it; if false, no one can possibly be saved and
receive it. Therefore, every soul in all the world is equally interested in
ascertaining its truth or falsity. (italics original, underscore added)1

Therefore, it would be prudent to first consider the nature of the source language
this potentially “most important” translation is derived from. Regarding this, it must be
understood that even though the claimed original documents, the “golden” plates,2
containing the source language are unavailable for inspection, an evaluation may still be
conducted. This is the case because the Book of Mormon text fortunately provides us with
enough information or clues to form a sound conclusion. One such clue is found in 1
Nephi 1:2, which declares: “Yea, I [Nephi] make a record in the language of my father
[Lehi], which consists of the learning of the Jews and the language of the Egyptians.”
(italics added) Thus, the Hebrew Lehi adopted the Egyptian language with its
hieroglyphics in place of his cultural language of Hebrew. A similar statement is made in
Mosiah 1:4, “our father, Lehi, … he having been taught in the language of the Egyptians
therefore he could read these engravings, and teach them to his children, that thereby they

1
Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon. Liverpool, 1850: 1. The Pearl of Great Price was to be
published the following year (and canonized in 1880), as it and the Book of Abraham it contained were not
yet part of the Standard Works (refer to Part I).
2
Some have hypothesized that the material of the alleged plates was not gold per se, but actually tumbaga,
an alloy of gold and copper that would have been lighter than pure gold, with a “23-carat gilded surface of
.0006 of an inch.” (Putnam, Read H. “Were the Golden Plates made of Tumbaga?” The Improvement Era.
September 1966, Vol. 69, No. 9: 788) This article is also on the SHIELDS website: <http://www.shields-
research.org/Scriptures/BoM/Tumbaga.htm> (August 19, 2009).
could teach them to their children, and so fulfilling the commandments of God, even
down to this present time.” (italics added) Thus these New Word Israelites adopted the
Egyptian language in place of their Hebrew language, and this was done to facilitate
“fulfilling the commandments of God.” As briefly considered in Part I, the text found in
Mormon 9:32-33 reveals the claimed source language for the Book of Mormon, being
designated rather nebulously as “reformed Egyptian” that was more compact than
Hebrew, which it adds was “altered.” Additionally, Joseph Smith, Jr. himself described
the original language this way: “I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics; the
knowledge of which was lost to the world.” (Times and Seasons 4 [1 Nov. 1843]: 373).
Herein lies a fatal problem. It is unthinkable that Israelites would adopt the Egyptian
language with its hieroglyphic script and use that in place of their cultural, national, and
Abrahamic language of Hebrew.3 Adding to this dilemma is that the reverse is true
regarding the linguistic claim in Mormon 9:32-33: Hebrew is more compact than
Egyptian, not the other way around. Both languages can be reformed or altered, and
Hebrew would still have the edge, as can be seen by comparing modern (“altered”)
Hebrew to known examples of “reformed” Egyptian text like Hieratic and Coptic. This is
because Hebrew is consonantal, whereas the Egyptian writing system was a combination
of phonetic and ideographic signs. (See appendix.) Therefore the Book of Mormon’s
more-compact-than-Hebrew Reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics is a fictional language.
Thus, at this point, we can see rather quickly that the Book of Mormon contains
misinformation regarding the nature of Egyptian and Hebrew. Moreover, it emphatically
misrepresents the linguistic and cultural mindset of the Israelites. Therefore it cannot be a
translation, but rather a religious composition that deceptively claims to be a translation,
in this case, of a fictional language. But there is also an inescapable sense of a cover-up
on Smith’s part in the use of his fictional language, as one author puts it:

Joseph’s choice of “reformed Egyptian” was a calculated move. At the time,

Egyptian was generally believed to be indecipherable, as the grammar worked out
from the Rosetta Stone would not be published until 1837 [sic: 1836]. Therefore,
who was to say Joseph’s [translation of] Egyptian characters were not accurate?4

Additionally, one linguist, after explaining how Egyptian hieroglyphics and Hieratic are
“not more space-saving than Hebrew,” stated this regarding the sense of a cover-up on
Smith’s part:

Why then, did the [Book of Mormon Israelite] Nephites choose to write in a form
of Egyptian? The obvious answer seems to be that Joseph Smith felt he was less
likely to be exposed if he showed plates with engravings in a still-undeciphered
language (Egyptian) than in a relatively better-known language (Hebrew). To add

3
Based on the above verses, the Book of Mormon evidently gives the appearance that its Israelite characters
wrote their records in Egyptian and used that as their primary language, but still used Hebrew for other
purposes. Interestingly, the word “Hebrew” is only mentioned three times between its covers, and all in one
verse: Mormon 9:33 (refer to Part I, footnote).
4
Gerkin, Kyle J. Three Strikes, You’re Out!—The Quick and Dirty Case Against Mormonism.
<http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=367> (July 29, 2009)
 an additional degree of safety, he claimed that the Egyptian had been “altered
[and reformed].”5

This seems to be correct. Adding the qualifications of “reformed” and “altered” to the
Egyptian and “altered” to the Hebrew would only serve to further the cover-up of having
the then-unreadable Egyptian text be the source language. This is comparable to claiming
to translate an important document written in “reformed Minoan,” a language that is
currently indecipherable, and a fictional “reformed” version of it at that! Further, this
cover-up is datable to the early nineteenth century, predating the published decipherment
of Egyptian hieroglyphics.
Egyptian hieroglyphics were decoded by Jean-François Champollion (1790-1832)
with the help of the Rosetta Stone, which was discovered in 1799. By 1824, Champollion
published Primer of the Hieroglyphic System of the Ancient Egyptians, six years before
the Book of Mormon was published. So progress was being made toward a successful
decoding of the language. However, it was not until 1836 that Champollion published his
Egyptian Grammar, six years after the Book of Mormon was published, and it was not
until 1841 that his Egyptian Dictionary was published, both posthumously. Thus,
unbeknownst to Smith, he chose the last time anyone could safely employ the ignorance
of Egyptian, for it was now at last being decyphered.
Part III in this series will explore to what extent Smith utilized the people’s
ignorance of Egyptian with another book of his, the Book of Abraham, published in 1842,
as well as his translation acumen.

Additional comments by Orson Pratt on the Book of Mormon

Above we considered the challenge and acknowledgement by Orson Pratt in 1850
regarding the truth or falsity of the Book of Mormon, and how clear and significant the
ramifications for both are. Additionally, in the same work he made further
acknowledgements regarding the Book of Mormon, and stated criteria for exposing
fallacies:

If, after a rigid examination, it be found an imposition, should be extensively

published to the world as such; the evidences and arguments upon which the
imposture was detected, should be clearly and logically stated, that those who
have been sincerely yet unfortunately deceived, may perceive the nature of the
deception, and be reclaimed, and that those who continue to publish the delusion,
may be exposed and silenced, not by physical force, neither by persecutions, bare
assertions, nor ridicule, but by strong and powerful arguments—by evidences
adduced from scripture and reason. Such, and such only, should be the weapons
employed to detect and overthrow false doctrines—to reclaim mankind from their
errors, to expose religious enthusiasm, and put to silence base and wicked
impostors. (underscore added)6

5
Packham, Richard. “Reformed Egyptian” A Linguist Looks At Mormonism.
<http://packham.n4m.org/linguist.htm#REFORMED> (July 29, 2009)
6
Supra note 1.
As Pratt was an ardent believer in the Book of Mormon, he made these comments with an
air of confidence that a “rigid examination” of it would demonstrate that it was divinely
authentic. However, a “rigid examination” has indeed ‘detected an imposture’: the claim
regarding its source language. Thus, according to his challenge, the entire work is
exposed as an “imposition” and an imposture or sham: as a false translation of a fictional
language. Therefore, it appears that the negative consequences he postulated are closer to
reality than he thought.
Notice too his criteria for exposing fallacies, which are underlined above. He
declared that “evidences and arguments upon which the imposture was detected, should
be clearly and logically stated…by strong and powerful arguments—by evidences
adduced from scripture and reason.” This is certainly good advice, but even the best
arguments for what is true can still be a pill too bitter to swallow, as one can only wonder
how Orson Pratt privately responded to the challenges Mormonism faced before he died.
Publicly though, he appears to have dismissed them offhand, which may mean that he
was either ignorant of their very existence, or simply immune to them. Interestingly, he
“acted as [LDS] Church Historian and Recorder from 1874 until his death. He edited
many church periodicals and helped divide editions of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine
and Covenants into verse format and provided appropriate cross references.”7
Considering his high level of involvement with the LDS Church then, it seems unlikely
that he remained unaware or ignorant of the serious challenges Mormonism encountered
during his later years.
Remarkably, just a decade after he wrote his “true or false” treatise, dark and
ominous storm clouds gathered over the credibility of Joseph Smith’s translation
acumen—and therefore the Book of Mormon’s claimed source language as well—with
the first professional non-LDS appraisal of the Book of Abraham. Part III in this series
will explore this episode in Mormon history.

Appendix: Translating Egyptian

The following comes from chapter nine of the book By His Own Hand Upon
Papyrus, which is about the history of the Book of Abraham:

[T]he ancient Egyptian language was a virtually unbroken code to all but a
handful of scholars in Joseph Smith’s day. Half a continent and an ocean away
from the Mormon prophet, a painstaking effort was underway that would unlock
the secrets of the Rosetta Stone (a trilingual Egyptian-Greek inscription
discovered in 1799 which played a key role in the deciphering of ancient
Egyptian), and rediscover the grammatical elements of hieroglyphic language. As
the decades passed and scholars persisted in their efforts, the understanding of the
ancient Egyptian language took on more precise definition. ...
Ancient Egyptian writing is composed of both phonograms (“sound-
signs”) and ideagrams (signs that convey their meaning pictorially). In this
language a word was usually expressed by using one or more phonograms,
followed by an ideagram. In this arrangement the ideagram is called a
determinative, because it “determines” the meaning of the foregoing sound-signs
and defines their meaning in a general way. ...
7
“Orson Pratt.” Wikipedia. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Pratt> (8/20/2009)
 While some Egyptian words need no determinative, many have more than
one; some words even require as many as three determinatives to express a single
thought. Egyptian writing was thus cumbersome to use, and lacked any true depth
of abstraction. That it was able to survive for more than three millennia was due
more to its use within a stagnant society, than to any special merit of its own.
Eventually its vast inferiority to other forms of writing, such as Greek or Hebrew,
led to its disuse and ultimate disappearance.
But no one realized any of this in Joseph Smith’s time.8

Thus, Joseph Smith chose a cryptic language to translate from. Unfortunately for him,
this unlockable, lost language did not remain that way for much longer. Therefore, it soon
became possible to check his translation acumen with science and reality. Furthermore, in
the process of unlocking Egyptian, it became known that Hebrew was a more efficient
writing system, contrary to the reverse linguistic claim in Mormon 9:32-33.

8
Larson, Charles M. Institute of Religious Research, Grand Rapids. 1992: 88-89.
 A Review of the Mormon Canon
Part III: Egyptian and the Book of Abraham

In May of 1843, an article signed by Joseph Smith appeared

in the LDS Church periodical Times and Seasons. In this
article, he responded to the claim that the name “Mormon”
is derived from the Greek word mormo. He said that
“Mormon” is not Greek but Egyptian, and that it is derived
from the Egyptian word mon, meaning “good.” He
concluded: “Hence, with the addition of more, or the
contraction, mor, we have the word MOR-MON; which
means, literally, more good.”1 Thus we see an example of
Joseph Smith’s translation abilities, and in this particular
case, of an original word engraved on his “golden” plates
for the Book of Mormon. However, it is acknowledged that
“Mormon” does not mean that, and that he was wrong about
the Egyptian language for “good.” Thus, Smith fabricated an etymology that took
advantage of the people’s ignorance of Egyptian. In fact, this etymology is so blatantly
false that the LDS Church historian B. H. Roberts (1857-1933) concluded that it must be
a forgery! (He said that the etymology was “based on inaccurate premises and was
offensively pedantic.”2) However, claiming that it is a forgery only exacerbates the
problem, for that would tend to corrode the credibility of the entire periodical, and would
make one wonder why Joseph Smith did not protest this imposture! As he evidently
accepted this article as truthfully ascribed to him, it is rather disingenuous and incredible
to claim that someone else wrote it, for it appears that the sole motive for doing so is to
save Joseph Smith’s credibility as a sensible translator. Furthermore, it must be noted that
in 1841, Joseph Smith himself was the chief editor of the paper, assisted by John Taylor
who became the principal editor in November 1842 (with an assistant editor) and later the
third president of the LDS Church.3 Additionally, the motto of the paper was “Truth will
prevail”! It would be most ironic then if someone wrote that translation gibberish in
Joseph Smith’s name and had that imposture slip under their noses undetected!
Therefore, it appears that the only honest conclusion to draw is that Joseph Smith
seriously thought that “Mormon” found its etymology in an Egyptian word that he
evidently invented, as no such word exists. (Refer to Figure 1 and to Appendix 1.)

1
“Correspondence,” Vol. 4, No. 13 (May 15, 1843): 194. (italics original) A scan of the page is located at
this URL: www.irr.org/mit/wdist/images/tsv4p194.gif (8/11/2009). Refer to Figure 1.
2
Madsen, Truman G. Defender of the Faith: The B. H. Roberts Story. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1980:
291-92. More recently, LDS Church President Hinckley (1910-2008) did not deny Joseph Smith’s
authorship, and even said that “of course” Mormon does not literally mean “more good.” However, while
not mentioning the obvious and uncomfortable ramifications of this glaring mistranslation, he focused on
how he thinks it retains that meaning outside of etymology. (Hinkley, Gordon B. “Mormon Should Mean
‘More Good.’” Ensign, November 1990: 51). Additionally, this mistranslation is included in the
compendium Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Smith, Joseph; Joseph Fielding Smith [ed.]. Salt Lake
City: Deseret Book, 1938: 299–300), where its authorship is unquestionably attributed to Joseph Smith.
3
“Times and Seasons.” Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_and_Seasons> (8/11/2009)
 What makes this situation even more remarkable is that about a year earlier, the
March 1, 1842, issue of Times and Seasons published Smith’s translation of Egyptian
papyri called the Book of Abraham! “Facsimile 1” from this book, a claimed reproduction
of a scene on the papyri, even appeared on the cover of the paper, under its motto “Truth
will prevail” (see the image above). Was his translation of those Egyptian papyri of the
same caliber as his translation of the Reformed Egyptian word Mormon the following
year? Truth would indeed prevail.

Figure 1: The erroneous translation of “Mormon”

These papyri were purchased on July 3, 1835, from a traveling dealer in Egyptian
antiquities. They were found in a crypt with mummies which were purchased along with
their associated papyri. In the above mentioned March 1, 1842, issue of Times and
Seasons, Joseph Smith stated that the Egyptian catacomb papyri were “purporting to be
the writings of Abraham, while he was in Egypt, called the Book of Abraham, written by
his own hand, upon papyrus.”4 Thus, in accord with his erroneous view that Egyptian was
more efficient, more space-saving, than Hebrew, he claimed that Abraham did not write
in the language of his birth but chose instead to write in the more cumbersome language
of the Egyptians. This is problematic, and is also inconsistent with Moses who knew
Egyptian and yet wrote in Hebrew which is more efficient. Additionally, the script on
those papyri is Hieratic and therefore far removed from Abraham’s time period. Again, it
is clear that Smith was ignorant of both the nature of Egyptian and its chronological
development, for Hieratic is a later cursive version of Hieroglyphics. Yet, this sweeping
ignorance did not hamper the translation of those cryptic papyri, for this new book came
to have five chapters and three labeled facsimiles.
“Nearly forty years were to pass from the time Joseph translated the Book of
Abraham until it was officially recognized as sacred Scripture of the [LDS] Church,”
researcher Charles Larson states. He continues: “However, during this period something
occurred which neither Joseph nor any of his contemporaries could have foreseen. After
many years of dedicated work on the Rosetta Stone and other sources, scholars were able
to decipher the ancient Egyptian language. It was now possible to translate accurately
Egyptian texts with virtually the same degree of comprehension as Greek or Latin texts.”5
4
Vol. 3, No. 9: 703. (italics added)
5
By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus. Institute of Religious Research, Grand Rapids. 1992: 24.
Thus, reality was destined to collide with the Later-day Saints sooner than later, as
Egyptian could no longer be an intellectual playground for them. The mindset—that it
was indefinitely indecipherable to any individual but their prophet—would soon be
indefensible. No more could just any claim be made regarding it and no more could a
translation of it be made and be received uncritically.
As stated in Part II of this series, a decade after Orson Pratt’s 1850 “true or false”
treatise a serious problem arose, one more serious than the LDS Church would initially
acknowledge. What occurred was this: 1851 saw the printing of the Pearl of Great Price
which included the Book of Abraham from the above mentioned 1842 issue of Times and
Seasons. The LDS Church in England however published the Book of Abraham as a
pamphlet. Unbeknownst to them, this made it easier for it to pass under some erudite
noses where the ancient Egyptian language was being deciphered in France. Larson
explains:

“It was sometime during the year 1856, about five years after the Pearl of Great
Price had been printed in England, when one of the small pamphlets found its way
to the Louvre in Paris. There the facsimiles6 from the Book of Abraham, together
with Joseph’s accompanying explanations, were brought to the attention of M.
Theodule Deveria. As one of the pioneers in the field of Egyptology, Deveria was
asked to offer any comments on them he cared to make. … Deveria dismissed
Joseph’s explanations as rambling nonsense. His comments first appeared in
French in a two-volume work by Jules Remy entitled Voyage au Pays des
Mormons [Travel to the Country of the Mormons] (Paris, 1860).”7

Thus, per Part II, it was only a decade after Orson Pratt’s “true or false” treatise that
serious trouble arose, one that threatened to satisfy his challenge. Why Pratt never
publicly acknowledged this dilemma may never be known, but time proved to be no
friend of his:

“[T]he following year an English translation of Remy’s work appeared, published

in London under the title A Journey to Great Salt Lake City. Perhaps it was
through this account that certain Church leaders first became aware of the results
of Deveria’s investigation, though no deliberate effort appears to have been made
at that time to answer his charges.”8

It appears then that the LDS Church, with its bearded President Brigham Young at the
helm, felt it was immune to alternate interpretations outside of its influence. If that was
the case, it soon discovered that ignoring the dilemma was ineffectual, for it continued to
surface. In fact, twelve years later in 1873, there appeared a serious book that returned

6
These three facsimiles, a funerary scene, a throne room scene with Egyptian hieroglyphics, and an
ignorant restoration of a hypocephalus (a circular table containing Egyptian hieroglyphics and scenes), with
their explanations are displayed on the LDS Church’s website at this address:
scriptures.lds.org/en/abr/contents.
7
Supra note 5: 25-6.
8
Supra note 5: 26.
Deveria’s study to the fore. This book, The Rocky Mountain Saints: A Full and Complete
History of the Mormons, juxtaposed Smith’s and Deveria’s translations of the facsimiles
to two columns. It concluded:

“In all probability, many of the Mormons will be staggered by the translation of
M. Devéria, but many more will treat it with indifference. Those who devote
some consideration to this subject will be very apt to carry their thoughts to the
translation of the Book of Mormon, where their confidence in its divinity and
truthfulness is not likely by this circumstance to be much increased.”9

This prediction was reasonable, and pressure continued to mount for the LDS Church to
acknowledge this burning issue. The Rocky Mountain Saints continued with this pointed
revelation: “Brigham Young has been in possession of the two translations for several
years, but the Mormon press has been silent on the opposition of science to inspiration.”10
Thus the highest powers of the LDS Church, including its President, certainly were not
ignorant of this contradiction, and apparently chose to ignore it.
The book then quoted some perceived insight into the character of Joseph Smith
himself in a footnote:

“[T]he Author has received the following communication from a gentleman who
has been about thirty years associated with Mormonism, and who personally
knew well the Prophet: ‘Joseph Smith was no more and no less than a ‘spirit-
medium’—more impressional than clairvoyant or clairaudient.’”11

Similarly, another professional Egyptologist who examined Smith’s translation efforts

stated in 1966 that his translation of the papyri reminded him of “the writings of psychic
practitioners which are sometimes sent to me.” He also summarized the sentiments of all
non-Mormon Egyptologists by saying that it was “largely a piece of imagination and
lacking in any kind of scientific value.”12
Therefore, it can be seen that the translation quality of the Book of Abraham is on
par with the translation of the word Mormon: glaringly unscientific. These were just
fantastic propositions lacking any lasting value. It is not surprising then that Mormon
historian Grant Palmer wrote: “My conclusion is that a large body of evidence
demonstrates that Joseph mistranslated a number of documents. I know of no substantial
evidence to support his claim to have ever literally translated any document.”13 Thus his
claim to have contributed to the Christian Canon is equally unsupported.

9
Stenhouse, Thomas B. H. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1873: 519 (underscore added)
10
Ibid.
11
Supra note 9: 520. (italics original)
12
Supra note 5: 43. Letter of I. E. Edwards, Keeper of the Department of Egyptian Antiquities, dated June
9, 1966.
13
An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002: 36.
 Part IV in this series will examine the hamartiology of the Mormon Canon to see
if it presents a “different gospel” in line with the exhortation expressed in Galatians 1:8-
9.

Appendix Table of Contents

Appendix 1: More on Mormon
Appendix 2: Orson Pratt delivers another challenge to the world
Appendix 3: Sources for the Book of Abraham
Appendix 4: Resources for additional research and understanding

Appendix 1: More on Mormon

In the May 1843, Times and Seasons article where Joseph Smith translated
“Mormon” from his fictitious Egyptian word mon, he also reminded his readers of the
text in Mormon 9:32-33, stating:

There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates which I, through the grace of God,
translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself. …
“And now, behold, we have written this record according to our knowledge, in the
characters which are called among us the Reformed Egyptian, being handed down
and altered by us, according to our manner of speech. And if our plates had been
sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew; but the Hebrew hath been
altered by us also; and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have
had no imperfection in our record.” (italics and capitalization original)

Thus, he insisted that the source language was Reformed Egyptian that was more
efficient than their “altered” Hebrew. (Refer to Part II in this series for an appraisal of
that claim.) Additionally, as he stated that there was no Greek on his plates, refuting the
erroneous Greek etymology of Mormon, it is then most ironic that we find the Greek
name Timothy in the Book of Mormon at 3 Nephi 19:4, brother of Nephi and one of
Jesus’ twelve Nephite Disciples in 34 CE (refer to 3 Nephi 19 header). “Timothy is
relatively unusual in the Book of Mormon for having a Greek name,” states one
Mormon-edited article.14 As his name appears only once and no explanation is provided
for this Greek-name anomaly, as in Jesus renaming him or providing him with a Greek
nickname,15 this may be seen as either a mistranslation or as an anachronous mistake.

14
“Timothy, son of Nephi.” Wikipedia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy,_son_of_Nephi>
(8/27/2009) Actually, Timothy is the brother of Nephi, but the wording of this verse may lend to that
confusion. The name Timothy is derived from the Greek words teemay (“honor, precious”) and theos
(“god”), which conveys the meaning “Dear to God” or “One Who Honors God.” Even if this name was
written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, it would still be anachronous as the Book of Mormon characters were
unacquainted with Greek and therefore were incapable of naming their children in Greek.
15
It should be noted that the Biblical Jesus gave his disciple Simon the Aramaic nickname Cephas, known
in Greek as Peter, which also served as a surname. (John 1:42; Mark 3:16) In this case though, it is
specifically stated that Jesus gave him this cognomen, and one in a language Simon was familiar with, and
not in one unknown to him.
Since Part II has shown that it is a religious composition and not a translation, it must be
the latter.
It is also ironic that, after insisting that only Reformed Egyptian was on his plates,
he apparently prefixes the English word “more” to his invented word mon. Or, if he
meant an Egyptian word more meaning “more,” he was wrong again about the Egyptian
vocabulary, as no such word exists.
What may have been an important impetus behind Smith’s rejection of the
erroneous Greek etymology is the inappropriate meaning of mormo, which signifies a
scary mask! Furthermore, mormo marks Greek mythology as a name (Μορµώ or
Μορµών, Mormo or Mormon) of a vampirical female demon used to scare children, a
bogeywoman.16 Thus, rather than liken Mormons to fanged bogeywomen (assuming he
was aware of this), Joseph Smith moved quickly to have them be likened to “More-
gooders.” This was a wise move, even if he was ignorant of the meaning of mormo, yet it
was also fundamentally flawed as he invented a garbled etymology in the process, one
that hinged on the people’s ignorance of Egyptian.

Appendix 2: Orson Pratt delivers another challenge to the world

Orson Pratt was an intellectual who delved into
logic and astronomy, even serving as an instructor for a
time at the Mormon university in Nauvoo, Illinois. He
was also an accomplished mathematician: he was a co-
inventor of an odometer in 1847, and in 1866 he
published a math book entitled New and Easy Method of
Solution of the Cubic and Biquadratic Equations. He
also operated in the highest levels of the LDS Church,
being an original member of its Quorum of Twelve
Apostles.17 Considering his intellectual prowess and contributions to society, it may seem
surprising that after he failed to publicly acknowledge Deveria’s contrary translation that
effectively answered his “true or false” challenge vis-à-vis the Book of Abraham, that he
saw fit to challenge the world on the subject of divinely inspired translation using the
very Book of Abraham as a basis! In 1878 he declared in one of his sermons: “Have any
of the other denominations got this gift among them? Go and inquire through all of
Christendom and do not miss one denomination. … ‘Can you translate ancient records
written in a language that is lost to the knowledge of man?’ No … the universal reply of
the Christian denominations, numbering some 400,000,000, would be that they have not
the power to do it … you must give us credit,” he rebuked, “of at least professing to have
these great and important gifts.” Frankly, it’s rather sad to see how Mormonism made the
otherwise intellectual Pratt into such a fool, as his 1878 challenge was out of touch with
reality, and was declared in a fantasy world hermetically sealed off from the real world he
evidently chose to ignore. This time his challenge was totally irrelevant, one that was
already answered before it departed from his lips.
What follows is the complete text of his challenge dated August 25, 1878,
preserved for posterity in the prestigious Journal of Discourses volume 20, pages 65-66:

16
Refer to the plays of Aristophanes (ca. 446-ca. 386 BCE), Archanians, 582ff and Peace, 474ff.
17
“Orson Pratt.” Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orson_Pratt> (9/21/09)
 “The Prophet translated the part of these writings which, as I have said is
contained in the Pearl of Great Price, and known as the Book of Abraham. Thus
you see one of the first gifts bestowed by the Lord for the benefit of His people,
was that of revelation—the gift to translate, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim,
the gift of bringing to light old and ancient records. Have any of the other
denominations got this gift among them? Go and inquire through all of
Christendom and do not miss one denomination. Go and ask the oldest Christian
associations that are extant; go to Italy, headquarters, and ask the man that holds
the greatest power and authority in the Romish Church, “Can you translate
ancient records written in a language that is lost to the knowledge of man?” “No,”
he would say, “we cannot, it is out of my power to do it.” Go to Russia and
inquire of the heads of the church of Greek Catholics, if they can do this; and they
will give you, substantially, the same answer. Then try the later, and the present
day denominations, inquire of every one of them, beginning with the Lutherans
and the Calvinists, and the Church of England, and then put the same question to
all of the branches that have sprung from them; as well as to those that have come
into existence by other means; and the universal reply of the Christian
denominations, [page 66] numbering some 400,000,000, would be that they have
not the power to do it. Ask them if they pretend to possess supernatural power
from God, to accomplish a work of this nature; and they will all tell you that God
have never bestowed such power upon any of their ministers. And then, if it were
possible, ask the 400,000,000 of the Christians, scattered throughout Asia,
Europe, America and the islands of the seas, if a man can be found among them
endowed, as ancient seers were, with the gift to see, or as ancient revelators were
who told future events, what should befall men and nations and their final destiny;
and the universal reply will be, O, no, such things are all done away. Here then
the very first gift that the Lord set in his church, is a peculiar gift so far as the
religions of the world are concerned, not peculiar so far as the Church of Christ is
concerned, but so far as the religious world in the four quarters of the earth is
concerned, we have something which they have not got, and something that is in
accordance with the Bible. What man, I would ask further, among all the religions
of the earth, for the last seventeen centuries, that has possessed the Urim and
Thummim, the gift that would constitute him a seer and a revelator? There may
have been some seventeen thousand million of people that have passed off from
our globe without such gifts being among them; and they were gifts given to the
people of God before the advent of the Savior, and that were enjoyed by his
servants that lived contemporary with him and with those who lived after he had
performed his mission to the earth, and ascended to heaven. Then, in speaking to
strangers, I would say, you must give us credit of at least professing to have these
great and important gifts, gifts which all the other religions of the world do not
even profess to be in possession of.” (underscore added)

Since his famous 1850 challenge had been answered with him evidently ignoring the
rebuttal, as he did not even publicly mention Deveria at all, an unavoidable conclusion is
that Joseph Smith and the LDS Church never had the gift of divinely inspired translation
to begin with, hence making this challenge irrelevant and obnoxious, an absurdity. It is
analogous to chiding Christendom for not having the gift of resurrection of the dead,
which is also “in accordance with the Bible,” and claiming that you have it when it has
been conclusively proven previously to Christendom that you do not.
This refuted challenge was also used to defend the related doctrine of an open
Christian Canon. However, as the argument was based on ignorance and ignoring
consuming contradictions, instead of bolstering that belief, in reality it only amounted to
a mockery of it. Additionally, it in effect turned the tables on that doctrine and became a
bristling argument against it.

Appendix 3: Sources for the Book of Abraham

Some may be surprised to learn that the Book of Abraham appears to have a
number of sources—that it appears to derive from more than just a fanciful translation of
the catacomb papyri that it is supposed to be. From Joseph Smith’s translation notes, it is
discerned that he used the papyri for only chapter one and the first eighteen out of
twenty-five verses of chapter two, leaving the remaining seven verses and chapters three
to five unaccounted for. The actual source of this material has been traced to Genesis 1,
2, 11, and 12, as well as the following secular sources: Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius
Josephus, its astronomical descriptions have been traced to The Six Books of Proclus on
the Theology of Plato, Volume 2 (1816) by Thomas Taylor, its cosmology and theology
to Philosophy of a Future State, second edition (1830) by Thomas Dick, early nineteenth
century Bible commentaries, and possibly a copy of the fictional Jewish Book of Jasher.
These works were readily available in a local library or located on a nearby book shelf,
and a number of them were used outside of the Book of Abraham project as well.18 Thus,
if the Book of Abraham is to be admitted to the Christian Canon, it seems appropriate to
add these other secular sources. As that notion is absurd, so is the notion of including the
Book of Abraham. Significantly, the second largest Latter Day Saint denomination, the
Community of Christ,19 does not recognize it as scripture.

Appendix 4: Resources for additional research and understanding

• Two books referred to here are recommended: By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus
(1992) by Charles Larson and An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins (2002) by
Grant Palmer.
• The documentary video The Lost Book of Abraham, Investigating a Remarkable
Mormon Claim (2002). See the website by the same name:
<www.bookofabraham.info>. This production “visits prominent Egyptologists
and other scholars—both Mormon and non-Mormon.” It also features
reenactments of historical events involving the Book of Abraham, along with a

18
Palmer, Grant. An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2002: 12, 13,
16-19, 21-25. Regarding the Book of Jasher (Sefer haYashar midrash) influence, Joseph Smith wrote in
reference to Abraham: “the book of Jasher, which has not been disproved as a bad author, says he was cast
into the fire of the Chaldeans.” (Times and Seasons Vol. 3, No. 21 [September 1, 1842]) Thus he had
access to this and used it outside of his Book of Abraham.
19
Known as the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS Church) from 1872 to
2001.
 visible narrator to guide the audience though this complicated yet fascinating
situation.
• The Awake! journal of November 8, 1995: “A Young Man’s Search for Answers”
(pages 17-18) and “The Mormon Church—A Restoration of All Things?” (pages
19-25), including the box on page 20, “Mormon Holy Writings.”
 A Review of the Mormon Canon
Part IV: Mormon hamartiology: a “different gospel”?

“But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to

you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he
is to be accursed!” This is what the Apostle Paul famously
declared at Galatians 1:8. In line with his directive, the
objective of Part IV in this series is to determine if the
hamartiology1 presented in the Mormon Canon and in
teaching derived from it constitutes a new and “different
gospel.” (Galatians 1:6)2 In so doing, we will also see if
Mormon hamartiology is contradictory and problematic or
not.
First, a presentation of Biblical hamartiology is in
order. Succinctly, it is the following: Adam was created as
a sinless, perfect soul in the Garden of Eden, the garden of
“Pleasure,” that he was given. (Genesis 2:7, 8) He
transgressed when he ignored divine warnings and joined his wife in steeling a symbol of
divine sovereignty, the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.
Consequently, they lost access to the “Tree of Life,” a physical representation of eternal
life. By losing eternal life, they died and spread death to their offspring. (Genesis 2:16,
17; 3, 5:5; Romans 5:12, 14) In accords with King David’s words at Psalm 51:5, the
passing on of sin from Adam to succeeding generations is a result of the recognized law
of heredity. (Job 25:4; Romans 3:23) According to divine justice as expressed in the Law
of Moses, soul was to be given for soul. (Exodus 21:23; Leviticus 24:18) Since Adam
was created as a sinless soul, another sinless soul had to be given in exchange as a
ransom: this ransomer would have to correspond to Adam by being a sinless man.
Therefore, the Apostle Paul at 1 Timothy 2:6 used the word literally meaning
“corresponding ransom,” antilutron. The ransomer would have to voluntarily surrender
what Adam lost by his disobedience in Eden, perfect human life. Nothing more, nothing
less is required to avoid upsetting the soteriological balance. Thus, it was Jesus as the
second and last Adam who emptied himself of divine glory (Philppians 2:7) to become
what Adam lost: a sinless, perfect human life. (1 Corinthians 15:45) This, his sinless
perfect human life, he voluntarily surrendered and sacrificed. Thus Biblical hamartiology
is seen to be lucid and free of contradiction.
We will now consider and evaluate Mormon hamartiology.
It must be stated at the outset that there is nothing succinct about Mormon
hamartiology, as its very nature defies brevity. Fortunately, the LDS Church is very
public regarding its hamartiological views. For instance, its official website lds.org has a

1
“Hamartiology” is the theological term for the study of the doctrine of sin. It derives from the Greek
words hamartia, “missing the mark” or “sin,” and logia, “discourse.” Conversely, “soteriology” is the
theological term for the study of the doctrine of salvation. It derives from the Greek soterion, “salvation.”
2
The Holy Bible: New American Standard Bible. Anaheim: Lockman Foundation, 1995.
Bible Dictionary3 which has an entry defining the “Fall of Adam.” Here it commences its
definition rather innocently, and in apparent harmony with the Bible, by stating: “The
process by which mankind became mortal on this earth. The event is recorded in Gen. 2,
3, 4; and Moses 3, 4 [in the Pearl of Great Price]. The fall of Adam is one of the most
important occurrences in the history of man.” However, the next sentence presents a
concept that the uninitiated may find astonishing: “Before the fall, Adam and Eve had
physical bodies but no blood.”4 This is astonishing because it is a physical contradiction
of the highest order. Put bluntly, it is unbelievable that physical creations lacked this vital
liquid tissue, blood. It must be simply stated that blood supplies nourishment and oxygen
to tissues and vital organs. This is axiomatic. Without a circulatory system, without
blood, the first human couple could not live. Thus we are left with a fatal physical
contradiction. This bloodless Adam doctrine also seems to contradict the meaning and
etymology of Adam, which the Bible Dictionary does not include in its definition of
Adam. Adam means “ruddy” and derives from dam, meaning “blood.” Thus, both the
meaning and etymology of Adam may be used as evidence that he was indeed created
with blood and a beating heart, since these would naturally give him a ruddy complexion.
This Bible Dictionary is not the only source for this astonishing bloodless
teaching. In fact, the tenth president of the LDS Church, Joseph Fielding Smith (1876-
1972), taught it. Read his following words very carefully: “‘Adam had a spiritual body
until mortality came upon him through the violation of the law under which he was
living, but he also had a physical body of flesh and bones. … Now what is a spiritual
body? It is one that is quickened by spirit and not by blood. … When Adam was in the
Garden of Eden, he was not subject to death. There was no blood in his body and he
could have remained there forever. This is true of all the other creations’ (Joseph Fielding
Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:76–77).”5 Thus, this physical contradiction was not
limited to Adam and his wife, but was extended to the entire Animal Kingdom.
Admittedly, Adam had a physical body with organs and bones. But these were nourished
not by blood, but “by spirit.” According to Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8, “all spirit is
matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes; We cannot
see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.” Thus, humans
and the Animal Kingdom were nourished by ‘spirit blood,’ a “pure” form of matter. This
explanation pushes credulity to its limits as it lacks a scientific basis, defies the dictionary
definition of “spirit,” and merely substitutes blood with some fantastic “pure matter”
spirit element. It is therefore flawed and unconvincing, as the following quotes will show.

3
The following qualification is provided regarding this dictionary: “It is not intended as an official or
revealed endorsement by the [LDS] Church of the doctrinal, historical, cultural, and other matters set forth.
Many of the items have been drawn from the best available scholarship of the world and are subject to
reevaluation based on new research and discoveries or on new revelation.”
<scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/contents> (February 5, 2010)
4
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2 (February 5, 2010) (italics added)
5
Quoted in: Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 8 – The Fall
<institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/doc-gosp-01-10-8.asp> (February 5,
2010) (italics added)
 This pre-Fall bloodless doctrine has been published in an
official periodical of the LDS Church: The Ensign of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In it, a member of the Quorum of the
Twelve Apostles, Russell M. Nelson (see figure to the left), a renowned
medical doctor specializing in cardiovascular and thoracic surgery,6
contributed these declarations: “While I do not fully understand all the
biochemistry involved, I do know that their physical bodies did change;
blood began to circulate in their bodies. Adam and Eve thereby became
mortal.”7 Three years later he wrote: “The Fall of Adam (and Eve)
constituted the mortal creation and brought about the required changes in their bodies,
including the circulation of blood and other modifications as well. They were now able to
have children.”8 As blood is a vital liquid tissue, the absurdity of these comments is self-
evident. Without blood, humans and animals would be quite mortal: they would be dead.
To associate blood with mortality, while conceding ignorance of biochemistry, is
alarmingly unscientific and irresponsible. (This is especially so considering his
distinguished medical career.) Apostle Nelson’s presentation is thus found to be
extremely unconvincing. Interestingly, he did not say that Adam’s body was nourished by
spirit, but merely admitted that he failed to “fully understand all the biochemistry
involved.” It appears then that he too found the spirit-blood doctrine to be unconvincing,
or was at least wrestling with it to some degree. Yet, in accords with Mormonism, he
confidently wrote that “[o]ur Heavenly Father has a glorified body of flesh and bone,
inseparably connected with His spirit. (Footnote: See D&C 93:33; D&C 130:22.)”9 This
harmonizes with the bloodless, spirit-blood nourished humans and Animal Kingdom
doctrine, for he stated that Adam and Eve were people and therefore “were different from
the plant and animal life that had been created previously. Adam and Eve were children
of God. Their bodies of flesh and bone were made in the express image of God’s.”10

6
Johnson, Page and Stahle, Shaun. “‘My home base.’ Military service in Korea basis for distinguished
medical career.” Church News. April 24, 2009. <www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/57195/My-home-
base.html>
7
“Constancy amid Change,” November 1993, 33.
<www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=b37a425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d
82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD> (February 5, 2010)
8
“The Atonement,” November 1996, 33.
<www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=0c1ddbdcc370c010VgnVCM1000004d
82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD> (February 5, 2010) (italics
original)
9
Supra note 7. “D&C” stands for Doctrine and Covenants. 93:33-34 states: “For man is spirit. The
elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness [sic] of joy; (34) And
when separated, man cannot receive a fulness [sic] of joy.” 130:22 states: “God is a glorified and perfected
man, a personage of flesh and bones. Inside his tangible body is an eternal spirit.” Thus, according to the
Mormon Canon, God and the pre-Fall Animal Kingdom and Adam and Eve had flesh, bones, and a life-
sustaining spirit element—no blood included. One must wonder if the Mormon God with a bloodless
“tangible body” of “flesh and bones” has the organs that are specific to blood, like a heart and liver.
10
Ibid. (italics added)
Thus, like their Creator, they had spirit-blood. Additionally, this spirit-blood doctrine
appears to be principally derived from a Mormon application of Leviticus 17:11,11 which
says “for the life of the flesh is in the blood,” (King James Version) where “flesh” is
defined as mortality in the Mormon Bible Dictionary: “Since flesh often means mortality,
Adam is spoken of as the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth, meaning he was the first mortal on
the earth, all things being created in a nonmortal condition, and becoming mortal through
the fall of Adam.” This definition is also applied to Jesus Christ, as its next sentence
declares: “Jesus is the ‘Only Begotten of the Father’ in the flesh, meaning he is the only
one begotten of the Father into mortality.”12 Like the word “spirit,” this definition also
defies the dictionary. It is another word that has been re-defined and modified for
Mormon hamartiology. Remarkably, it also contradicts or convolutes President Joseph
Fielding Smith as quoted above, that Adam was created with “a spiritual body…but he
also had a physical body of flesh and bones.” (italics added) Thus Adam as the mortal
“first flesh” was created with nonmortal flesh! The same puzzling situation exists with
Apostle Nelson as quoted in the Ensign articles above, where he declared that the
“Heavenly Father has a glorified body of flesh and bone,” and that Adam and Eve had
“bodies of flesh and bone.” (italics added) If flesh is “often” mortal, even with Jesus
Christ, then we have a striking contradiction that makes the Mormon immortal Heavenly
Father mortal, as well as the nonmortal Adam and Eve mortal. The only way out of this
glaring contradiction or searing confusion, this puzzling predicament, is to accept the
standard dictionary definition of “flesh” consistently. This solution would eliminate the
need for circular special explanations.
Curiously, the appeal to Leviticus 17:11 does not take into account verse 14,
which twice adds that blood is the life of “all flesh.” This could reasonably apply to the
flesh of the Mormon Heavenly Father, the pre-Fall Mormon Adam and Eve, and the
Mormon Animal Kingdom, unless of course a circular special explanation is used that
this “all flesh” is constrained in meaning to after the Fall only with earthly flesh and is
not a physical principle.
Returning to the definition of the Fall in the Mormon Bible Dictionary, it
continues with another astonishing concept: “There was no sin, no death, and no children
among any of the earthly creations.” (italics added) No death or offspring among the pre-
Fall Mormon Adam and Eve and animals. Apparently, fossilized dinosaur eggs are not
seen as a contradiction on both counts, for these present dead offspring of creatures that
must have lived in their own environment antedating Adam.13 Regarding the prospect of
now being able to reproduce, the Mormon Eve is depicted as rejoicing over her
transgression, as recorded in the Pearl of Great Price, “And Eve … was glad, saying:

11
Supra note 8. Here he stated that Adam and Eve “were further instructed” about Leviticus 17:11. As that
book of the Bible was written long after them, that claim is anachronistic and therefore impossible to
support.
12
“Flesh.” <scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/20> (February 5, 2010)
13
The reasons forcing this conclusion fall outside of the scope of this series on the Mormon Canon.
However, I will state that dinosaurs included monstrous and colossal forms that are incompatible with
human habitation. Also, the Mormon teaching that dinosaurs or their bones were transferred to earth from
another planet is circular and fanciful.
Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed.” (Moses 5:11, compare
Moses 5:10) The Bible Dictionary continues: “With the eating of the ‘forbidden fruit,’
Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death
became a part of life. Adam became the ‘first flesh’ upon the earth (Moses 3:7 [in the
Pearl of Great Price]), meaning that he and Eve were the first to become mortal. After
Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam’s fall brought both physical
and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind (Hel. 14:16-17 [in the Book of
Mormon]).”14 Another Mormon commentary confirms: “In Mormon theology, Adam and
Eve were created with no blood in their veins.”15 Thus, from these definitions we are left
to conclude that Adam and Eve were crafted with empty blood vessels and each had a
non-beating heart, until they transgressed, whereupon their blood vessels and hearts
became functional and filled with blood. Further, Adam’s fall also brought death to all
animal creation as well, yet it allowed them and themselves to procreate. Prior to that, all
animal creation and the human couple would never die and never bear offspring even
though both they and the animals were created with the organs to procreate. This may be
seen as another physical contradiction. It also introduces an ignored judicial dilemma:
that of denying animals everlasting life for a transgression they did not commit. (Young-
Earth Creationism also ignores this same judicial dilemma, so Mormon hamartiology is
not alone in this glaring omission.)
Included with these physical contradictions and dilemmas is praise for Adam and
Eve, as the Book of Mormon declares: “Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that
they might have joy.” (2 Nephi 2:25) Elaborating on this is an LDS Church Sunday
School teaching manual: “The Fall was necessary for us to progress toward exaltation.
We have to experience mortality to become like our Father in Heaven, and Adam and
Eve fulfilled their mission to make this possible. ...Their choice did not come from a
desire to disobey the Lord, but from a desire to gain wisdom. Because of this choice, we
have the opportunity to come to earth and learn, as Adam and Eve did, how to choose
good over evil. Express your gratitude for Adam and Eve and the choice they made.
Encourage class members to follow Adam and Eve’s example and choose good over
evil.”16 This applauding praise and standing ovation for the Fall is unique, even
surprising. What makes this more understandable though is a passage in the Pearl of
Great Price: “And the Lord said unto Adam [or “Mankind,” Adam and Eve17]: Behold I

14
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/f/2 (February 5, 2010) (italics added)
15
“Adam and Eve.” LDS Learning. <www.ldslearning.org/adamandeve.htm> (February 5, 2010)
16
Curriculum of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Sunday School: Preparing for Exaltation
Teacher’s Manual, Lesson 3 – The Fall of Adam and Eve.
<library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/sunday%20school.htm/preparing%20for%20exaltation.htm/les
son%203%20the%20fall%20of%20adam%20and%20eve.htm> (February 5, 2010) (underscore added)
17
Supra note 7, endnote 26. There, Apostle Nelson correctly pointed out that in Genesis 5:2 the couple was
called “Adam.” (The New World Translation has “Man,” and points out in a footnote the alternate
translations of “Adam” or “Mankind.” The New English Translation has “humankind.”) He then uses this
to identify this Adam in Moses 6:53 as being the couple. What may confuse the reader however is that in
Moses 6:53, Adam speaks to the Lord as a man, but when answered by the Lord, Adam refers to the couple
per Genesis 5:2.
have forgiven thee thy transgression in the Garden of Eden.” (Moses 6:53). (italics
added) Thus in Mormon hamartiology, Adam and Eve were pardoned. This is in accords
with the introductory picture, a painting by Lowell Bruce Bennett, which depicts them in
a Mormon hamartiological setting leaving the Garden in peace. It must be noted though
that this painting does not include the famous cherubs and the spinning flaming sword of
Genesis 3:24 mentioned in Moses 4:30 of the Pearl of Great Price.
Two additional points of Mormon hamartiology essential to this review are
Pelagianism and an expanded distinction between “sin” and “transgression.” Pelagius (ca.
AD 354-ca. AD 420/440), the author of Pelagianism, argued that humans enter life
essentially tabulae rasae (“blank slate”). According to him, the Fall that occurred when
Adam and Eve disobeyed God affected humankind only minimally. Accordingly,
Mormon hamartiology holds that “the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the
heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world” (Moses 6:54)
and “men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”18
Regarding the choice of the word “transgression,” it must be noted that this is
deliberate and not interchangeable with “sin.” It is believed that Adam “transgressed,”
but technically did not “sin.” Says the Mormon Bible Dictionary under “Adam”: “his
transgression in the garden of Eden, although designated as a ‘fall,’ was necessary to the
advancement and spiritual progress of humanity on this earth, and Adam rightly should
be honored, not denigrated.”19 Further, the Book of Mormon at 2 Nephi 2:21b-23, 25
states:

“For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men
that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. 22 And now,
behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have
remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have
remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they
must have remained forever, and had no end. 23 And they would have had no
children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no
joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. … 25 Adam
fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.” (underscore
added)

So Mormon scriptures call the fall a transgression, but do not call it a sin—a subtlety that
is not to be overlooked. Summarizing the Mormon position succinctly are these quotes:
“This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin in the strict sense, for it was something
that Adam and Eve had to do!”20 “The decision of Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden
fruit was not a sin, as it is sometimes considered by other Christian churches. It was a
transgression—an act that was formally prohibited but not inherently wrong.”21

18
The Articles of Faith:2, Pearl of Great Price. See also: “Transgression and Fall.” Mormon Beliefs.
<www.mormonbeliefs.org/articles_faith/trangression_and_the_fall_1> (February 5, 2010)
19
<scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/a/30> (February 5, 2010)
20
Smith, Joseph F. Doctrines of Salvation: 115. (underscore added)
21
Supra note 16. (underscore added)
 Additionally, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks (see figure to the left), contributed further
insight into this distinction. As an American attorney, jurist, former
professor of law at the University of Chicago Law School, and former
justice of the Utah Supreme Court,22 he is indeed qualified to elucidate
this Mormon judicial matter. He declared:

“When Adam and Eve received the first commandment [to have
children (Genesis 1:28)], they were in a transitional state, no longer in the spirit
world but with physical bodies not yet subject to death and not yet capable of
procreation. They could not fulfill the Father’s first commandment without
transgressing the barrier between the bliss of the Garden of Eden and the terrible
trials and wonderful opportunities of mortal life.
For reasons that have not been revealed, this transition, or “fall,” could not
happen without a transgression—an exercise of moral agency amounting to a
willful breaking of a law (see Moses 6:59). This would be a planned offense, a
formality to serve an eternal purpose. The Prophet Lehi explained that “if Adam
had not transgressed he would not have fallen” (2 Ne. 2:22), but would have
remained in the same state in which he was created.”

Thus, this legal expert does not see sense in the Mormon doctrine of blessing via falling,
and is therefore forced to call the Adamic transgression a formality. (Notice he said “for
reasons that have not been revealed,” meaning that he does not know and therefore finds
the doctrine bewildering and unsatisfying in its present state.) After quoting 2 Nephi
2:23-4, he continues, somewhat confusingly:

“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the
conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression
but eternally a glorious necessity to open the doorway toward eternal life. Adam
showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and “Adam fell that men
might be” (2 Ne. 2:25).
Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her
daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by
revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great
episode called the Fall (see Bruce R. McConkie, “Eve and the Fall,” Woman, Salt
Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1979, pp. 67–68). Joseph Smith taught that it was
not a “sin,” because God had decreed it (see The Words of Joseph Smith, ed.
Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook, Provo, Utah: Religious Studies Center,
Brigham Young University, 1980, p. 63). Brigham Young declared, “We should
never blame Mother Eve, not the least” (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder
Joseph Fielding Smith said: “I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a
sin, nor do I accuse Adam of a sin. … This was a transgression of the law, but not
a sin … for it was something that Adam and Eve had to do!” (Joseph Fielding

22
“Dallin H. Oaks.” Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallin_Oaks> (February 5, 2010). “Oaks, Dallin
H.” Historical Dictionary of Mormonism. 3rd edition. 2008.
 Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1954–56, 1:114–15).” (underscore added)

Notice how he revealed a state of cognitive dissonance, calling a transgression a

“glorious necessity.” One would think that this is alarmingly inconsistent and
unprofessional for a law expert. Yet, this is what Mormonism is influencing him to be.
He summarizes:

This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the

careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be
punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added).
It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes
because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license,
are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the
act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—
wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to
denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the
circumstances of the Fall.” (italics original)

Here he attempts to apply a legal subtlety of “inherently wrong” versus “formally

prohibited” to the Fall, as was used above (see footnote 21). What this comparison does
not take into account though is the principle behind what is “formally prohibited” in his
example, that is, theft, which is also “inherently wrong.” Indeed, violating a legal statute
may be viewed as theft, that is, steeling space on a road one has no right to without a
license, steeling fish for not having a fishing license, etc., thus also “inherently wrong.”
Both examples he sites above would be viewed as “inherently wrong” as well as
transgressions and sins. Thus, this judge’s attempt to save Mormon hamartiology by
sustaining the expanded distinction between transgression and sin is unsatisfactory, even
disturbing for failing to view theft as “inherently wrong.” Further, treating the Fall as “a
formality” and not inherently wrong is contrary to Pauline hamartiology, and would
consequently be anathematized per Galatians 1:8.
Apostle Oaks continues, revealing what is influencing his sense of justice as
applied to Mormonism:

“Modern revelation shows that our first parents understood the necessity of the
Fall. Adam declared, “Blessed be the name of God, for because of my
transgression my eyes are opened, and in this life I shall have joy, and again in the
flesh I shall see God” (Moses 5:10).”23

23
Oaks, Dallin H. “The Great Plan of Happiness.” Conference Report. October 1993, 98 <
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1993.htm/ensign%20november%201993.htm/the%20gre
at%20plan%20of%20happiness.htm?fn=document-frame.htm$f=templates$3.0> (February 5, 2010); and
Ensign, November 1993, 73 <
lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=3c4b425e0848b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a
____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD> (February 5, 2010)
As there is no manuscript evidence for this verse, including the other Mormon alterations
to Genesis, outside of Mormonism, we can see that circular reasoning—reasoning that the
Mormon Canon must be divine revelation on the basis of Mormon affirmation alone—is
causing him to see a descent as an ascent.
Additionally, and remarkably, although Mormonism has gone to great lengths
arguing for the distinction between “transgression” and “sin” as seen above, the LDS
Church’s website glossary of Mormon words appears to make them synonymous, for it
defines the critical word “transgression” as: “Violation or breaking of a commandment or
law; sin.”24 Thus, as has been demonstrated throughout Part IV, Mormon hamartiology is
cacophonous and contradictory. An act that is a transgression is a sin. If it is not a sin,
then neither is it a transgression.
Thus far, we have seen how different Mormon hamartiology is from the Old
Testament, the Genesis account in particular, and the New Testament. We have also
observed it contradict biology, biochemistry, paleontology and physics. Surprisingly, it is
also at odds with the Mormon Jesus because it is correctly believed that he had blood,
which according to Mormon hamartiology is the product of the Fall! Mormonism teaches
that Jesus “made a perfect atonement for the sins of all mankind by shedding of his blood
and giving his life on the cross.”25 If blood is the product of their transgression, then it
may be asked: How could the redeemer have that coursing through his veins? It would
only be reasonable to have Jesus be born on earth without this product of the Fall, and
have him willfully surrender his “nonmortal” life and spirit-blood in order to be the “last
Adam,” and thus buy back what Adam lost instead of offering a ransom that does not
match with what Adam lost. Therefore Mormon hamartiology is left with another
unacknowledged contradiction, and a ransom with no legal value—as it makes Adam
superior to Jesus (refer to Table 1).26 Its hamartiology and soteriology are therefore
presented as cacophonous, convoluted contradictions that are far removed from the lucid
presentation of the Bible. Mormon hamartiology and its attendant soteriology may be
called “a different gospel” at the very least. Indeed, it is both reasonable and responsible
to conclude that the Mormon gospel is a horrific contradiction of stupendous magnitude,
one that falls outside of the Christian Canon.

Table 1
Biblical (Pauline) Hamartiology Mormon Hamartiology
Both Adam and Jesus were perfect, sinless Adam was nonmortal with spirit not blood
humans. and unable to reproduce, Jesus was mortal
with blood and able to reproduce.
Soteriological scales are balanced. Soteriological scales are unbalanced.

24
<www.mormon.org/glossary/0,10233,1445-1-T,00.html> (February 5, 2010) This official glossary is for
informing the uninitiated, as it states: “This glossary defines words used by members of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that might not be familiar to those who are not members.”
25
“Jesus Christ.” Guide To The Scriptures. <scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/j/22> (February 5, 2010)
26
By way of comparison, it must be noted that Trinitarian hamartiology does the exact opposite, making
Jesus superior to Adam—thus also having an unbalanced and invalid soteriology.
 Appendix Table of Contents
Appendix A: A Dissenting Apostle
Appendix B: Respect for Science
Appendix C: Additional Reading

Appendix A: A Dissenting Apostle

It is interesting to note that an LDS Church apostle dissented from the teaching
“Adam and Eve Kneeling
at an Altar” by Del Parson
that there was no animal death prior to the Fall. He was James E.
Talmage (1862-1933), a geologist who was a member of the Quorum
of the Twelve Apostles from 1911 until his death. He pointed to a pile
of stones in Spring Hill, Missouri that Joseph Smith, Jr. had identified
as an altar Adam had built, the Garden of Eden being located in
Missouri according to Joseph Smith, Jr. Of this altar, Talmage wrote
in a letter to his son: “I had personally examined those stones and
found them to be fossiliferous, so that if those stones be part of the
first altar, Adam built it of stones containing corpses, and therefore
death must have prevailed in the earth before Adam’s times.” (James
Talmage to Sterling Talmage, 21 May 1931, S. Talmage Papers.)
Thus, Apostle Talmage used one Mormon teaching about Adam to
refute another Mormon teaching about Adam.

Appendix B: Respect for Science

After considering what may be seen as a blatant disregard for science in Mormon
hamartiology, that is, associating blood with mortality and death, “spirit” being a life-
sustaining refined form of matter, and no death or reproduction in the Animal Kingdom
prior to the Fall, thus contradicting biology, biochemistry, paleontology and physics, it
may seem surprising that Mormonism has an historic respect for science. It may also be
seen as yet another dissonant voice adding to the existing Mormon cacophony. Notice the
respect for science seen in the following quotes, all taken from the volumes of the
Journal of Discourses.
President Brigham Young stated on May 14, 1871: “Our religion will not clash
with or contradict the facts of science in any particular.” (Volume 14, page 116) The
following year he stated on August 11, 1872: “Our religion embraces chemistry; it
embraces all the knowledge of the geologist, and then it goes a little further than their
systems of argument, for the Lord Almighty, its author, is the greatest chemist there is.”
(Volume 15, page 127)
Lastly, consider what Apostle Orson Pratt stated over a decade prior on February
12, 1860: “The study of science is the study of something eternal. If we study chemistry,
we study the works of God. If we study chemistry, geology, optics, or any other branch of
science, every new truth we come to the understanding of is eternal; it is a part of the
great system of universal truth. It is truth that exists throughout universal nature; and God
is the dispenser of all truth – scientific, religious, and political.” (Volume 7, page 157)
These select quotes are admirable, even if they ring hollow, and offer a refreshing
contrast to the quotes from the later LDS Church leaders considered above.
Appendix C: Additional Reading
• “The Fall” by Mormonism Research Ministry. Available online at:
<www.mrm.org/fall>

• “Original sin” available at <www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Original_sin>

• The November 8, 1995 Awake! magazine article “The Mormon Church—A

Restoration of All Things?” pages 21-22, “As God Now Is, Man May Become.”

• The following entries in the encyclopedia Insight on the Scriptures: “Sovereignty

(Jehovah’s Sovereignty Challenged)” (Volume 2, pages 1009-12), “Adam (1)”
(Volume 1, pages 44-6) and “Sin, I” (Volume 2, pages 962-71).