MC Mormons Are Not Christians
Menu

deep reliability

The Book of Abraham problem

The Book of Abraham matters because Joseph Smith presented a text as Abraham's writings translated from Egyptian papyri. The surviving evidence does not support that claim in the ordinary translation sense.

Archival source folders, reference books, and index cards on a reading table

What the book claims to be

The Book of Abraham is published in the Pearl of Great Price as a translation from papyri that came into Joseph Smith's possession. That claim makes Joseph's role as translator central, not incidental.

If the text is not what it claims to be, the issue is not a side controversy. It bears on prophetic reliability and on scripture introduced by Joseph Smith.

Timeline and surviving fragments

Joseph Smith acquired Egyptian papyri in 1835. The Book of Abraham was published in 1842. Later, surviving fragments were identified and studied. Those fragments are ordinary Egyptian funerary material, not Abraham's own writings.

LDS responses note that only fragments survive, so a missing-scroll theory remains possible in principle. Others argue for a catalyst or revelatory translation model.

Why LDS responses return to authority

The official LDS essay acknowledges the mismatch between surviving fragments and the Book of Abraham text while offering broader ways to understand translation.

But once ordinary translation is set aside, the argument returns to private revelation: Joseph Smith produced scripture because God revealed it. That is exactly the authority claim that must be tested by Scripture and by prophetic reliability.

Strongest formulation

The available evidence does not support the published translation claim in its ordinary sense.

A doctrine that already departs from biblical Christianity becomes less credible when one of its foundational translation claims must be rescued by theories that no longer look like translation.

The missing-scroll answer does not solve the authority question

A missing-scroll theory can say the Abraham text was on a portion of papyrus no longer surviving. That answer is possible only because the complete original collection is not available.

But the surviving fragments, the published facsimiles, and the Egyptian papers keep the problem public. The case does not need to prove every historical detail. It needs to show that the ordinary translation claim is not supported by the evidence we have.

The catalyst answer changes the claim

A catalyst model says the papyri prompted revelation rather than supplying the translated text. That may protect a revelatory theory, but it moves away from the plain meaning of translation from Egyptian papyri.

Once the defense becomes revelatory production rather than translation, Joseph Smith's authority is again the thing being tested. It cannot be allowed to redefine Christianity and then exempt itself from public testing.

Primary references

The argument rests on public Scripture, official LDS material, and Christian sources.