Why I Joined the Mormon Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

I was born on the 17th of April, 1965, in the French Hospital of San Francisco, California.

I do not possess a particularly acute memory, though a few early memories have always remained with me.

• I remember when I was a newborn and could not talk. I had no speech. I loved being held by my mother and only by her. On one occasion several women had gathered around as my mother held me. By the broad smiles and the excited, high tones of their voices I knew what was coming: My mother would hand me over to them to be held. Sure enough, I felt my mother's shoulder angle forward and her hands cup me to pass me over. I thought: "Oh no! No! I don't want to be held by others. I know! As soon as she (the other person) holds me I will start wailing until she hands me back to my mother." The woman who took me was so happy and tender in her address of me, but none of that mattered at the time. I sucked in hair, puckered my lips, then let a huge wail out with tears streaming down my cheeks. Stunned she quickly passed me back to my mother and, once I was back in my mother's arms, I immediately ceased all howls and tears, thinking: "Good! That'll teach them. I only want my mommy." 

(I'm the tyke on the right.)

I remember when I was maybe 4, my father sat us four kids down in the small room that my brother and I shared, a room taken up largely by two small twin beds (my brother and I are twins). My older sister and younger sister were present. My father asked us:

"Do you know who Jesus Christ is?" 

We sat still, afraid to answer. I had heard His name before, at the Baptist Church my father took us to every Sunday, but I was not really clear on who Jesus was.

My father continued and said something simple that instantly became the bedrock of my life:

Jesus Christ is The Son of God. Jesus is your Savior. Jesus came to earth to die for your sins, and for my sins, and for the sins of the whole world. He loves you, and so you have to love Him back. 

To myself I said: "Okay." And immediately I fell in love with Jesus. That love has never died.

(Again, I'm the tyke on the right. This is actually my sisters' room.)

But there was another memory that shaped the foundation of my life choices.

• At some early point, maybe at age 5 or 6, certainly no later than age 7, I recall already being in the habit of waking up every morning and recounting what I called to myself, "My Ten Things." This was a list of ten things that were important to me and meant to guide me through my life. 

I would often wake up and feel, not physically, but emotionally or spiritually cold inside. I felt a sense of sadness, a sense of loss and, just when I would feel despair coming on, I would light up with the recollection of "My Ten Things". I would recite them from number 10 on down to number 1. Reciting them made me feel good, and I would feel great hope. Then I would spring out of bed and get on with my day. I even recall once riding in the Thunderbird car that my parents had, and that feeling of loss and despair was coming on me. There, in silence, among my siblings but in my own concentration, I rehearsed "My Ten Things", and even there I felt relief.

Maybe because I was somewhat shy, introverted, and maybe in part because I already had the sense that my well-meaning yet overbearing father would somehow disapprove of my having this list and would mock me for it (sadly he had mocked me repeatedly for being "a strange boy", which for him meant unmanly and girly, which mocking he meant to "make me a man", but which only hurt me and served to make me guard against anything that would invite that sharp hurt), I never mentioned any of this until I was about age 21 or 22. My revelation was met with some disbelief. 

I never mentioned any of this to anyone in my childhood. When I was seven years old, and now in second grade at Mission Dolores Grade School, an all-boys Catholic school, and I now knew how to write, I began feeling an urging to "write the ten things down", that I was soon going to forget them. I balked at the urging: "I go over this every morning. How could I ever forget?" In part my fear was that if I wrote "My Ten Things", somebody might find them, and then I would be mocked for it. Worse, the ten things could be made public. I kept them to myself.

One morning I tried to rehearse "my ten things" as I did every morning, from number 10 on down to number 1, but I could no longer remember 10 through 8. I did not worry as the items from 10 through 4 were not terribly important, I thought. Still, the fear of having a written list fall into the wrong hands was greater than the fear of forgetting more of the lesser points. 

Then one morning I could not remember items 7 and 6. Still, I did not panic, and I suppressed my sense of urgency to write the remaining points down. 

Then I could only remember items 3 through 1. Even here I did not feel great angst as these were the really important items and how, I thought, could I ever forget these? 

Then one morning I woke up and these items were now gone from my memory. I was now almost in a panic. What was I going to do? These points were meant to guide me through life, and they were very specific items. I would be lost. Distraught I did something I have often relearned to do, despite my innate recalcitrance: Ask The Lord. I prayed fervently to The Lord. I remember saying this or something like this:

Lord, please help me remember "My Three Points", the most important of "My Ten Things". I will be lost without them. Please, I am scared. What am I going to do without them? Please let me remember them!

Right then and there they started coming back into my memory. As I recall I thought that they did not return in the full detail or exact wording as I had previously known them, but essentially they were back. Even here I did not write them, but unlike before, I now felt I would never lose my memory of them. To the best of my recollection, these were they:

• #3: "You have something really important to do in life, and it is focused on Jesus Christ."
• #2: "You will find it between the ages of 17, 18 and 19. You must accept it then. If you do not, it will be many years before you get another chance to accept it."
• #1: "You will know it when you find it."

As I grew older I found myself reciting the list less often, not every day, sometimes maybe not for several weeks, but probably on average at least once a week, sometimes more. That nagging sense of loss or absence, a sadness verging on despair, a sensation that something was wrong, something was missing, seemed always to hover around me. But when I would rehearse my list of "Three Points" as I know called them to myself, I would feel hope.

By age 11 I had come to understand the list somewhat differently. The list was the same, only the "it" was defined by the a noun phrase. When I made the change, I am not sure. Just like I cannot remember where I got "My Ten Things" from, only that by a certain age I already had the list, I cannot remember when I made the change in wording, but I remember why: I had suddenly received an insight as to what the "it" was. So here are "My Three Points" from age 11 on:

• #3: "You have something important to do in life, and it is focused on Jesus Christ."
• #2: "You will find the true Church of Jesus Christ between the ages of 17, 18 and 19. You must accept it then. If you do not, it will be many years until you get another chance to accept it."
• #1: "You will recognize it, the true Church of Jesus Christ, when you find it."

(All that hair.)

When I was 16 years old, I entered Sacred Heart High School, a Catholic all-boys school, in San Francisco. When I was a sophomore, in 1981, I was taking an American History class. The instructor held our interest and stirred in me a love of history. When we were discussing the period known as "The Great Awakening", he told us about the Mormons. I had heard the name here or there, but as I had never known a Mormon, this was a new subject. I had a sense that "Mormonism" was weird, or at least, the name sounded odd enough. He told us the following:

Mormonism was founded by a man named Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith taught that when God created the world, Adam and Eve disobeyed him and ruined the plan he had for this world. Finally God decided to send his Son, Jesus, to save the world, but Jesus failed in this mission. [The class gasped in horror at this heresy.] Almost two thousand years went by and then God decided to do something about this. He appeared to Joseph Smith and told him that it was time for him, God, to call a new messiah, and that messiah was Joseph Smith. Unlike Jesus, Joseph Smith succeeded in his mission. Mormons believe that Joseph Smith is their savior. 

I was enraged. This was an outrage. I loved Jesus, and how dare, I thought, anyone say that Jesus failed and that some mortal, sinful man is the savior of the world! But the teacher continued:

Mormons believe that God did not want Blacks to hold their priesthood. They say that God did not want Blacks to be priests in the Mormon Church. Finally in 1978 (just 3 years prior), their prophet claimed that God came to him and told him that it was now okay to let Blacks be Mormon priests.

I was even more enraged. They are racists, I thought, and they take cover for their racism by claiming that God is a racist and they were only following him. Right then and there I decided never to have anything to do with this heretical and evil sect called "the Mormons". And I was further distressed to know that they actually called their church, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I thought that using the name "Jesus Christ" was a ploy to lure people in--their messiah was Joseph Smith.

When I was 17, at the (inspired) instigation of my mother, I enlisted in the United States Army Reserves. So in the summer of 1982 I went to Fort Dix, New Jersey, for boot camp. I was doughy, weak, and bitterly homesick. It was literally by my faith in Jesus Christ and by The Lord answering my prayers that I made it through Basic Training. When all hurdles had been successfully engaged, we were in the winding down days, just taking care of odds and ends until our graduation day and jubilant return to our families and civilian life. In basic training the army assigns each soldier a "ranger buddy", and you are to be with your ranger buddy at all times except for bathroom and bathing breaks. My platoon was cleaning our M16's to prepare to return them to the armory. My ranger buddy, Kevin Dagrava, told me, "I need to get more pipe cleaners. I'll be right back." I agreed. The pipe cleaners were only about ten feet away. After some time I noticed Dagrava was still gone. Our drill sergeant was around, and we could get punished for not being with our ranger buddy. I stood and began looking for Dagrava. I saw him off maybe 40 feet away. Feeling huffed but trying to suppress my anger I walked up to Dagrava. He was talking to two soldiers I did not know, but I only really focused on Dagrava. I said, "Dagrava! I've been looking for you. Sergeant First Class Lane's around!" Dagrava said, "Oh, I'm sorry! I was just talking to these soldiers from the next company over. They're Mormons from Utah."

(James Weller on the left, and Vincent Kevin Dagrava on the right.)

Immediately I felt a sick sense of panic: These are the guys that worship Joseph Smith and that hate Blacks. But when I looked at the two soldiers, what I saw made me think, to use the phrase from the sixties' television show, "Lost in Space": "This does not compute." Their faces seemed to beam light. They looked holy, and beautiful. Immediately I felt a draw to them. My mind was telling me they were from an evil organization, but my spirit felt like leaping towards them. As Dagrava and I walked away I wished that these Mormons had been in my company so that I could get to know them and get more information.

The following year, 1983, when I was 18, I went to Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana, to complete my AIT, Advanced Individual Training. When I arrived I was informed that my training class was delayed for about 3 weeks. This meant that I would miss nearly 3 weeks of my first semester of college at San Francisco State University. I was offered the choice to remain and complete my training, at the cost of delaying college by a semester, or return the following year. I opted to return the following year.

But while I was out there for almost two weeks, I met a soldier by the name of Leah Day. Leah stood out from everyone else in our company, and from anyone I had ever met. Others also mentioned that Leah was different, quirky, but a good person. She was the most level-headed person I had ever met, good head on her shoulders, genuinely kind, and grounded. Leah was also Mormon and Black. I remember thinking: "Well, I'm chucking everything I was ever taught about Mormons out the window. If Leah is Mormon, then all that stuff I was taught cannot be true because Leah is a good person, and Leah is nobody's fool."  Leah told me that she attended Mormon services on Sunday. I told her, "I'd probably like to go with you sometime." She guardedly say okay, as if she wasn't sure I was serious. I was at the training only during one Sunday, as I recall, and I saw her going off to Church. She looked back at me, and I was too shy to ask to come along, but had she invited me, right then and there I would have hurried to join her. The occasion was lost, and within days I returned home. I planned on completing this training a year later.

I loved San Francisco State University. However, I had an inner struggle: I had resolved not to act out on homosexuality, but the urges in me were growing stronger. All around me there were gay men who were "out" and flaunting their pride and freedom. Never before had the option of joining the gay lifestyle been so accessible. I remember struggling a lot over this issue. On one occasion, it was a Sunday, I was returning from my monthly weekend drill at Oakland Army Base. As I drove my Toyota Tercel onto the Bay Bridge, I began to wonder whether I should just embrace my sexuality and "come out." I was lonely and never dated, and if I chose to embrace the gay lifestyle, I would finally know be able to kiss, date, hold hands, make love. I decided I would do so--I would come out and at long last experience intimacy, sex and love, with men. Immediately a weight was lifted from my shoulders, oddly, not just as an expression, but I felt as if a burden was actually lifted. At the same time I felt strange, like something dark or distorted was coming over my eyes. At this moment a quiet, light thought graced over my mind:

What about Jesus?

I thought to myself: "That's right. I love Jesus. I cannot do this. I know this goes against His commandments." Immediately I felt the burden return to my shoulders, and the veil of distortion I had felt coming over my eyes dissipated.

Now  I felt panicked. I was 19 and I was nowhere near finding the true Church of Jesus Christ. And according to my "Three Points" if I did not find the true church by age 19, and accept it, it would be many years until I got another chance to accept it.

I considered dropping out of college to devote myself to a full-time search for this church. But then I considered how absurd such an action would be. Where would I go? How would I go about searching? [The pre-computer age.] My eyes turned toward my upcoming Advanced Individual Training. I began praying to The Lord asking Him please to put a Mormon in my company so that I could associate with him, ask him questions, nonchalantly tease the truth out of him. There was something there, something about the Mormons, but I didn't know what.

When I went back to Fort Benjamin Harrison in the summer of 1984, at age 19, I kept my ears open, attuned to any mention of Mormons. To my delight there was a Mormon assigned to my class, and he was in the next-door dormitory room to me, so we were hall-mates as well. His name was Robin Dickerson. Robin was from Utah, a returned missionary, married in the Temple, father of two daughters. He was a strong fellow, buff, blond (like so many Utahns, it seemed), and different. For one thing he wore odd white underclothing under his military issued clothes. I actually liked the design and meant to ask him how I could get some, though I never worked up the nerve to ask.

Robin was friendly, engaged, deeply Christian, but different in a good sense that I could not explain how, only perceive. I would plug him with questions about societal events, world events, philosophical questions, none of which was overtly religious, but all of which for me spoke of the sincerity of his or anybody's religious conviction. These matters also spoke to me of the truthfulness of their faith. My thinking was, "If you really love Jesus and you have the truth, you would believe X and not Y." Robin always believed X, whereas most of the other Christians in class generally believed Y.

(Robin Dickerson, just as I remember him.)

When we were only days from graduating, when we had passed all of our exams and were now just working on practice modules and such, we were all busy at our electric typewriters (pre-computer age technology), and I remember pausing for a moment and looking over my left shoulder toward Robin Dickerson. I thought, "What makes Robin so different? He is confident. He knows who he is and where he is going. He even has The Holy Ghost with him! I can see that in him. But how did Robin do it? How did he get this way?"

Maybe two days before our graduation and return home, my roommates, giddy with the news that we all had permission to go off post and eat at a (non-military) restaurant, like Burger King, asked me to come along. I waved them off saying I was tired and wanted to read and rest. That was a lie. I wanted time alone to ponder and pray. Once alone, I began my musing:

What makes Robin this way? 

Why is Robin so confident of who he is and so sure of his life?

Why is Robin happy? 

How did Robin get this way? I wish I could figure this out.

At that moment a thought graced across my mind with a notion so powerful that I was lifted from perplexity to excited hopefulness: It is because Robin is Mormon.

Never had it occurred to me that it was Robin's faith and his Church that had made him who he was. I thought Robin was just smarter than me, that he had somehow figured life out. But now I was running with this thought:

"If Robin is that way because he is Mormon, then if I become Mormon, I could become the same way! That's it! I will become a Mormon!" 

Then I began to be pelted with doubts. These doubts, it truly seemed, were not arising from me but where coming at me from some unseen force:

• What if they don't like you?
• What if they reject you?
• What if they're racist?
• What if they're a cult?
• What would your father say? He would not approve.
• Just go back home and back to what you were doing. You can be Christian alone. You don't need a church.

I was being filled with fear and dread at every thought that came at me. But when the concern came about my father's disapproval I seemed to snap out of this state and said, "Wait! That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing!" I continued, "What's going on with me? A minute ago I was happy, I was thrilled, I felt that I had finally found the true Church, and now I am filled with doubt. I don't want to go back to the way things were; I was miserable. I always do this, second guess myself. I'm not going to do that this time! I will ask The Lord. The Lord knows. If He tells me to join the Mormon Church, I will do it, because The Lord knows the truth." I prayed quietly in my mind:

"Lord, a minute ago I thought I found the true Church, your true church, but now I just don't know. If you tell me that the Mormon Church is true, I will accept it. I will embrace it. I will join, be baptized, and be the best Mormon I can be. I don't even know if they accept converts, but if they don't, somehow I'll convince them to let me in. I just need you to tell me it is right. I am afraid of getting caught up in a cult, of getting brainwashed, or of making a mistake. I have been looking for it, [the true Church], all my life. You know this. If this is it, and if you tell me that this is it, I will accept it, and I will let them reteach me everything, because maybe I have been mistaught a lot of things. As long as there is one thing that I was not mistaught--that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world, the only Savior, and that there will never be another savior besides Jesus--as long as the Mormons believe this, I can join them, if you tell me this is it."

(This is the very spot where I prayed, taken possibly the very next day.)

Immediately I felt joy and happiness come over me. I was alone, but I said out lout: "I found it! I found it! I have found the true Church of Jesus Christ, and it is the Mormon Church! I am going to become a Mormon!" Giddily, like a school child, I began practicing introducing myself as a Mormon: "Hello, nice to meet you. I am James. I am a Mormon."

Within minutes I knocked on Robin's door. Just a day or two before we had had a disagreement over whose room deserved recognition as the cleanest, and I had been quite rude to him. At first he thought I had come to bother him, but I apologized, and he responded very kindly. I then told him that I wanted to become a Mormon, but I needed to hear from him that Mormons believe in Jesus Christ, that He alone is their Savior. He confirmed my requirement. We exchanged addresses and phone numbers.

Two days later, on Friday, August 31, 1984, I flew back to San Francisco. On Sunday, September 2, I looked up The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the phone book (pre-Google days), dialed up the Bishop's office and told him that I wanted to become a Mormon. He let me know that services started at 4 PM. Nervous and shy, I showed up and was met by a silver-haired elderly couple who were serving a mission. They offered to teach me, and I accepted. That Sunday they taught me about Jesus Christ, familiar Christian beliefs, only they taught me to pray to Heavenly Father. There I began a new relationship, as I had hitherto only prayed to Jesus. A week later, on September 9, 1984, they taught me the First Vision. Immediately I knew it was true. I was so buoyant as I raced home, feeling like I was on a cloud. Joseph Smith had seen The Father and The Son! There had been an apostasy but a Restoration as well!

On September 30, 1984, at the age of 19, I was baptized and confirmed a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, baptized and confirmed by Elder Earl Funk, taught also by Sister Mona Funk. I had told my twin everything the Funks had taught me, and the day of my baptism, before I even went to Church, my brother told me that he too wanted to get baptized.

And that is how an inspiration given to a little boy came true, that by age 19 I would find and accept "it", the true Church of Jesus Christ. And that, dear readers, is how I became a Mormon. And now that I have blogged about my experience I can actually say my experience is actually textual.

(I joined the Church in 1984. In 1986, at age 20, I was on a mission in Guatemala.)

(And thanks to The Lord continuing to assist me, at age 51 I am still and ever will be a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)

On The Book of Abraham

A few years ago two Elders who were serving in a town north of Columbus, Ohio, approached their Zone Leader with a question. It so happened that their investigator had certain doubts about The Book of Abraham. The Elders did not believe they could adequately respond to his concerns, hence they had turned to their Zone Leader. He in turn referred them to me, and so it was that I came into contact with these Elders.

Immediately I discerned that there was more at stake here than the concerns of a skeptical investigator: The Elder's own testimony was in need of a confirmation, or at least some affirming support. Regardless of what the investigator would do with whatever I would share, my paramount concern was building up my brother's faith.

I will go through this as I did with the Elders and their investigator that night. As it happens, this topic is one I have meant to expound upon, and this is not that exposition, but an overview is helpful. What I will share is what I have learned largely in my own prayerful discussions with The Lord, and if anyone has paid any attention to what I share, I do not rely on traditions or other's so-called expertise, but on study as inspired by The Holy Ghost, and in what The Lord tells me therein. I have academically honed intuition (ergo, a Master of Arts in Slavic linguistics), tens of thousands of hours of Scripture study in over a dozen languages, but most importantly, I trust in The Lord and rely on His guidance through His Spirit. With this in mind, I will share.

However...

If we approach the topic of "translation" without defining what translation is in general, and without outlining what translation is to God Himself, we may have such divergent views that achieving understanding may prove overly challenging. 

Let us begin with the obvious: 

What is "translation" in the common usage of the word, the meaning that the American Translators Association (ATA) offers? Here I quote:

Translation is the communication of the meaning of a source-language text by means of an equivalent target-language text.

Said more plainly, translation is converting a text written in one language to a text written in another language. That conversion process involves taking the "meaning" in the source-language text and conveying that same meaning (as closely as is possible) in the target language. 

I assume that the average person would agree that an honest and reliable translation should say no more or no less than what the source-language text says. I believe we would all press for a standard where omissions and additions as well as distortions would be considered unprofessional and unethical.

HOW GOD TRANSLATES: TIER 1, ATA-ACCEPTABLE

Let us see how the servants of The Lord who worked under His direct inspiration and guidance rendered translations. 

Would it surprise you to learn that there are several examples of translations being made within The Bible, and that those translations demonstrate how God works to convert messages from one language to a target audience who speaks a different language?

Let us briefly examine 2 straightforward Biblical examples of translations.

John 1:41

He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.

John 1:42

And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

1. John 1:41, Messias is translated "the Christ". This is a direct translation, perfect equivalent. In Hebrew "Messiah" means 'Anointed', "Messias" is how Greeks adapted the Hebrew word to their language, and "Christ" in Greek literally means 'Anointed.' This is an ATA-acceptable translation.
2. John 1:42, "Cephas" is the Greek adaptation of "Cepha" which is an Aramaic name that means 'stone', and here it is translated as "a stone". Again, this is a clear ATA-acceptable translation.

HOW GOD TRANSLATES: TIER 2, BROADER UNDERSTANDING CONVEYED

Those first two examples are simple enough. After all, how hard can it be to translate a single word?

Let us now look at 3 more examples of what should be simple one-word translations. Just as with the previous examples these are single words, but rather than give a straightforward translation, these Apostolical writers give translations that are not direct, that is, these translations appear to be deviations, but the deviations allow the target-language reader to grasp how that word was perceived in its source-language culture. The ATA would likely disagree with this process since these "translations" are more "explanatory".

Acts 4:36

And Josas, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and one of the country of Cyprus.

Acts 13:8

But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.

Matthew 2:23

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

1. Acts 4:36, Barnabas is a Greek adaptation of an Aramaic name, "Bar-Nabha". In Aramaic "Bar" means 'son' and "nabha" means 'prophecy.' The direct translation, the ATA-acceptable translation of Barnabas would be 'Son of Prophecy', but Luke (per tradition Luke wrote Acts under Peter's direction) instead gives us 'the son of consolation'. So here the straightforward conversion "son of prophecy" was swapped out for a translation that conveyed the manner in which Aramaic speakers viewed the name. The connection between "prophecy" and "consolation" might have been that of "a prophecy not of doom but of hope", hence, consolation.
2. Acts 13:8, the name Elymas is a Greek adaptation of what may be an Arabic name, Elima, a name which has "El" or 'God' as its root. The name was understood as 'the wise one' or 'Godly man (in the sense of possessing God-given wisdom)'. However, based on the activities Elymas took part in Luke tells us that "Elymas" meant 'sorcerer'. Elymas manifestly does not mean 'sorcerer', but since Elymas was a sorcerer, Luke (possibly as directed by Peter) opted to have target-language readers associating ungodly sorcery with the name Elymas.
3. Matthew 2:23, here Matthew tells us that it was "spoken by the prophets" (likely meaning "revealed in the Books of Moses and affirmed by all prophets since Moses") that Jesus would be called a Nazarene. There are two ways to view this prophecy: Either (a) there is a lost prophecy of Jesus being called a "Nazarene", a prophecy often repeated, but lost in all such instances, or (b) the prophecy is from Genesis 49:26, "...[the blessings] shall be on the Head of Joseph, and on the Crown of the Head of Him that was Separate from His brethren." The Hebrew word for "Separate" in this instance is "N'zir", and it can denote a 'prince' in the sense of someone who was 'separated, dedicated, consecrated' to a high purpose. This name, N'zir, resembles "Nazarene" which in Hebrew is "Natsri", but technically speaking, is not Nazarene. Nevertheless, if Matthew (by inspiration) connected Genesis 49:26 with Jesus, then Matthew made a translation that some may say is willful and deliberate rather than exact. That said, if Genesis 49:26 is the source of the prophecy in Matthew 2:23, then we see how God can translate, and He is not limited to how we normally understand the translation process to work (directly connecting the source language text to an equivalent target language text, neither omitting nor adding).

HOW GOD TRANSLATES: TIER 2, BROADER UNDERSTANDING CONVEYED, LARGER TEXTS

So far we have seen single-word translations. One more examination is warranted: How did Prophets of God approach the translation of a larger text, even of a lengthy Book? The reader may be wholly unaware, but God actually did have two Old Testament translators (and in The New Testament, the Gospel writers were translators since Jesus spoke Aramaic, but all of our source-texts of the Gospels are in Greek, a topic for another day). Who were these two Old Testament Prophet-Translators? They were Daniel and Ezra, plus one quick example from Mark.

Mark 5:41

And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise.

"Talitha cumi" is two words directly from Jesus' dialect of Aramaic. "Talitha" means 'little girl', but unlike English which uses two words to say "little girl", Aramaic could say it with one. "Cumi" is rise, and it is in a familiar form for addressing a female.

Notice how Mark rendered "Talitha cumi": 'Damsel, I say unto thee, arise'. Jesus clearly did not say "I say unto thee", but Mark inserted these words into the translation perhaps to convey the gentle and tender tone with which Jesus spoke to the little girl. This example of translation is now showing us that in divine translation the target-language text is not limited the source-language text; the inspired translator may, if moved upon by God, expand the text to broaden the manner in which the target-language audience understands the message.

Daniel 5:25-28

5:25 And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN,

5:26 This is the interpretation of the thing [lit. 'of each word']: MENE God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.

5:27 TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.

5:28 PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Now, this brief text appeared on a wall as a message written by the Hand of God (Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin), and apparently this divine message was in a script that nobody seeing it was familiar with. We are not told whether the script was in a known language but a language that the audience did not read, or whether the script was entirely unknown. However, Daniel or "Belshazzar" already had a reputation as having powerful interpretive gifts of God, and Daniel could read it. Daniel saw that unknown text and read out the 4 words (actually 5 since the "U" of "Upharsin" means 'and').

What is not clear is whether Daniel converted the heavenly message to Aramaic out loud, or whether the heavenly message was written in Aramaic using this script that the target audience did not know.

 

What follows is of greater importance: Daniel proceeds to convert Mene, one word which was the name of a specific 'measure (of weight)' to 7 Aramaic words (8 in English), 'God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it.' "Mene" clearly does not contain the name God, but in Daniel's interpretation, that one word was used by God to convey an entire message that the word normally did not convey. That is, even though the Babylonian Aramaic speakers used "Mene" on a daily basis as a weight for measuring (a type of coinage), the Babylonian Aramaic speakers never used Mene to denote "God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it", yet God used Mene to convey that idea. Mene was said twice, so technically 2 words became 14 words in Aramaic (16 in English).

Tekel, likewise, is one Aramaic word that means 'weigh', but Daniel divinely interprets it to 6 Aramaic words (10 in English), "Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting." Tekel was an everyday Aramaic word, "weigh", and by itself had no sense of "thou art found wanting/lacking", but God used Tekel to convey that sense as well as "Thou art weighed in the balances".

Peres, is interesting as the original message on the wall was Upharsin (lit. 'and Persians'), but Daniel states it differently the second time he discusses it, and here it is "Peres" 'divided'. Daniel then takes this second reading of the original word on the wall and converts it to 9 Aramaic words (11 in English), "Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians." If anything Peres 'divided' resembles the name Persians but does not mean Persians, but Peres certainly does not signify Medes let alone "thy kingdom...is given to the Medes and Persians", but God used that one word to convey that entire message. 

Daniel's example where 5 Aramaic words become 29 Aramaic words (35 in English) show that as a Translator God is supremely superior to anything we know on earth, and source texts mean what God says they mean rather than what the words normally convey in their usual usage.

The final example (that I will examine here) of translation does not supply the text, only the process. 

Before their captivity in Babylon, the Jews spoke Hebrew and wrote in a special script that they had fashioned by taking about two dozen Egyptian hieroglyphs and reinterpreting or reforming them to be phonetic letters. Their Scriptures were written in this script that scholars now call "Paleo-Hebrew". Here is a reconstruction of what the first verses of Genesis 1 looked like prior to the Babylonian captivity:

In Babylon the Babylonians spoke Aramaic and wrote in a script that although related to the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet was considerably different. When the Jews returned from Babylon they now spoke only Aramaic and wrote only in the Babylonian letters, an alphabet that we now call the Hebrew Alphabet. 

More importantly, when the Jews were carried captive to Babylon, they took no Scriptures with them, their ancient repository either having disappeared or having gotten plundered and/or destroyed. 

When the Jews rebuilt the Temple, a discovery was made of a Book of the Law of Moses. However, that Book would have been written in the Hebrew language using the Paleo-Hebrew letters. The average Jew no longer understood Hebrew, and few if any could read Paleo-Hebrew. So how did the message of an entire lengthy text (likely the Five Books of Moses) reach the understanding of the people?

Eventually the text was transliterated (the Paleo-Hebrew letters were converted to the Babylonian alphabet now known as the Hebrew alphabet) and Hebrew was taught to those who could afford such learning. However, at the time that the Book of the Law had been rediscovered, these steps were not feasible. For comparison, here are the first verses of Genesis 1 in the script we now associate with Hebrew:

 

Now, as for how the Prophet Ezra and his fellow servants delivered the message of a lengthy book written in both a script and language that the people no longer knew, this is what Nehemiah records:

Nehemiah 7:65, 8:1-2, 7-8

7:65 And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood  up a priest with Urim and Thummim. [This was soon to happen, Ezra.]

8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel.

8:2 And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Keilta, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Ezra, bearing the Urim and Thummim, read presumably the Hebrew message off of the ancient Book of the Law of Moses, written in Paleo-Hebrew, and those who could understand Hebrew understood what he read. Then Ezra had some 13 men and an unspecified number of Levites provide the rest of the people a distinct reading that the people could understand, presumably an oral reading in Aramaic of the Hebrew message.

In this final example we do not have the text of what was read out, but we see that a Prophet, Ezra, bearing the Urim and Thummim, delivered an oral reading of a text few now could read, and then under Ezra's presiding authority and likely guidance several men were prepared to deliver an Aramaic translation (possibly an oral translation) to the general audience so that they could understand.

In short, God can take even lengthy texts and convert them to the language of the people, even orally if need be, by having a Prophet with seer stones read and prepare others to read (possibly to relay Ezra's translation).

A SUMMARY OF TRANSLATION IN THE BIBLE

When God translates or has His servants translate, God may deliver what we generally consider to be precise word-for-word (or rather sense-for-sense) conversions of the source-language text to the target language. However, God may greatly expand our understanding by adding a considerable amount of additional information such that the source-language text may be merely a vehicle for beginning to deliver a revelatory message. This Godly form of translating thereby differs from general translation because in general translation the target-language text should convey no more nor any less than what the source-language text conveys. For God, the target-language text can be a revelation to which the source-language text simply served as an introduction.

With this introduction to how God delivered translations anciently, let us return to the encounter with the Elders and their friend:

Question 1: Is The Book of Abraham a translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, and by translation I mean the American Translators Association definition, where the Egyptian characters or hieroglyphs are simply converted to their usual ancient significations albeit in English?

The answer is no. In fact, The Book of Abraham source scroll is an Egyptian funerary text. When scrutinized this particular copy of an Egyptian funerary text actually has unique features making it peculiar among the myriad of such texts, but the actual source text we have is by and large a common Pagan text which probably dates to the the fourth century AD, give or take a century. In fact, it appears that Egyptians began using this specific text now known as "The Book of Breathings" about four centuries B.C.

Question 2: But didn't Joseph Smith say it was written by the hand of Abraham?

Yes, Joseph Smith did say that. Bear in mind that "by the hand of" means 'by authority of', and does not obligatorily imply that the document is an autograph, that is, "by the hand of" does not necessarily mean, though it may, that Abraham penned this very scroll with his own hand, quill and ink. 

Let us take some aspects of the source text of The Book of Abraham into consideration--consider the gold plates upon which Mormon and Moroni etched The Book of Mormon:

1. The gold plates, actual autographs (an autograph is the actual very first original of any text), were guarded by the power of God.
2. Moroni handed the plates over to Joseph Smith after Joseph, a newly called Prophet of God, prepared with an Angel of God for several years to receive them.
3. Joseph Smith endured numerous attempts to deprive him of the plates, but never allowed anyone to see them except for 11 other witnesses, as authorized by God Himself to do.
4. Then Joseph Smith returned the plates to Moroni.

Now compare how The Book of Mormon autographs were handled to how the scrolls on which The Book of Abraham (Egyptian funerary text) is written were handled:

1. The scrolls were found, transferred and sold to Joseph Smith by a series of dealers (grave-robbers in the first instance).
2. Joseph Smith showed the scrolls to just about anyone who inquired about them. It is reported that Joseph would display them at his house on a table where visitors could examine and handle them.
3. After The Book of Abraham was translated, Joseph Smith held onto the scrolls. After Joseph's death the scrolls changed hands, were considered lost in the great Chicago fire of 1871, but fragments of the scrolls were rediscovered in 1966, gifted to The Church of Jesus Christ in 1967, and published by the Church in 1968 in their entirety for all to see.

Clearly we see that Joseph Smith treated the scrolls very differently from the gold plates. If actual bona fide autographs are Sacred items that will be safeguarded by the power of God, as with The Book of Mormon plates, then the actual Book of Abraham scrolls, though doctrinally priceless, were not considered to be of the same spiritual value as the Book of Mormon autograph/plates.

Question 3: So how did Joseph Smith go from an Egyptian Pagan funerary text to a book containing an important revelation given to Abraham?

Joseph Smith saw the scrolls; he saw that they were ancient, that they were Egyptian, and Joseph Smith was stirred to inspiration. As Joseph saw the hieroglyphs Joseph began to discern thoughts, ideas, the very message that Abraham had received and conveyed to his posterity. As Joseph looked at each individual hieroglyph on the scroll, Joseph understood, not what that hieroglyph would eventually be deciphered to mean by later Egyptologists (this was not the concern), but what (and here the revelation takes place) Abraham later post-Babylonian descendants used that hieroglyph to mean. 

Let me be clear: Abraham wrote. The Book of Abraham asserts that Abraham wrote,

Abraham 1:31

...I shall endeavor to write some of these things upon this record, for the benefit of my posterity that shall come after me.

Abraham 1:12

...that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

Therefore, Abraham used writings similar in shape and format to what much later on would evolve into The Book of Breathings (so called by modern Egyptologists, the Pagan funerary text based on which Joseph Smith received The Book of Abraham), a type of text, as we shall soon see, ancient Post-Babylonian Jews were using to recount ancient revelations received by Abraham and Joseph.

Abraham had received a revelation from God. In that revelation Abraham was taught about the premortal world and creation. Abraham, now having dwelt among the Egyptians, used their writing system to tell his own story. To accomplish this Abraham may have altered the hieroglyphs of his Egyptian slightly, but in essence Abraham commandeered a Pagan hieroglyphic system to convey his own story. 

Centuries later, perhaps in a spirit of restoration, Jews began using The Book of Breathings as though it were a picture book. These descendants of Abraham then used the pictures in that text (the hieroglyphs) to tell his story as they had preserved it (or as it had been restored to them). 

More than this, Abraham's descendants continued this practice of using an Egyptian Pagan text's pictures to tell the story of Abraham's vision for the better part of a millennium. Let me be clear: It appears that Abraham's descendants continued using an Egyptian funerary text to tell of Abraham's vision, independent of what an educated Egyptian would have read upon seeing the exact same papyri.

I am saying that Joseph Smith, by the gift of God, understood what would have been impossible to grasp otherwise: What an ancient Patriarch and a righteous line of his descendants had reinterpreted Egyptian hieroglyphs to mean, and not to mean in all cases, but to mean for the purpose of relating Abraham's sacred vision. Joseph Smith, the Prophet of the Restoration, restored, by the power of God, this ancient Jewish practice.

Question 4: If Joseph Smith got a revelation that restored a long-lost revelation given to Abraham, why did Joseph need the scroll at all? Why not just get the revelation? Why bother with an Egyptian Pagan text even if ancient Jews had used similar Egyptian Pagan texts?

Good questions. In fact, Joseph Smith had already experienced this very process. In April of 1829, by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith saw a parchment written by the Apostle John, and Joseph translated the parchment. His translation is now Section 7 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

But as regards a lengthy work, one where Joseph had to work, break, resume, over a period of time (Section 7 is rather brief), a "hard copy" source text was required. I put it forward for consideration that, as regards getting in the mindset to receive a powerful outpouring of inspiration from God, Joseph Smith was "tactile". That is, that by handling an actual old document and seeing its ancient images, Joseph Smith's mind became more receptive to receiving a great outpouring of the mind of God. I might say, in my own *small* way I am tactile. To connect with a text, to get in "the zone", I have to have the right text. The right text for me is often old, with thick but yellowed pages, heavy and cracked leather cover, and archaic (old and no longer used) script. When I have this type of text I can become engulfed in my reading of the book.

There was another prophet who was tactile. Joseph of old who, per Genesis 44:1-5, used a silver cup to divine. Why a silver cup, why not just pray and discern? I put it to the reader that Joseph of old was tactile, that by handling a specific object Joseph of old became more receptive to great outpourings of the Holy Ghost.

Question 5: Realizing that this assertion seems fantastical, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I arrived in two steps. First of all, there are the Facsimiles. In Facsimile 3 the image numbered 2 is said to be Pharaoh, but when you look at image 2 you will see that what is represented is clearly a woman. In the same Facsimile 3 the images numbered 4 and 5 are said to represent the Prince of Pharaoh and Shulem his (male) servant, but the images are clearly of a man and woman holding hands. Now, either Joseph was unobservant of such details or Joseph was relaying, not what the symbols meant to Egyptians of old and would mean to modern Egyptologists, but what they meant to Abraham and his righteous descendants who kept the sacred story alive by using the hieroglyphs as visual cues or prompts.

I realized (and here my linguistics background comes into play) that what we members of The Church of Jesus Christ are dealing with in The Book of Abraham papyri is not a direct translation of what those hieroglyphs normally were used to mean, but rather we members of The Church of Jesus Christ are dealing with a modern transcribing of the meaning values that Abraham's righteous descendants (and possibly in some earlier form what Abraham himself) anciently reassigned to each hieroglyph. Some of these meanings may have been whole ideas, phrases, sentences even. The translation in English is Abraham's bona fide message, but the Egyptian papyri are what his much later righteous posterity were using to convey Abraham's very sacred and largely private revelations. These much later papyri may bear much in common with what Abraham actually quilled anciently, but the papyri that are now normally called The Book of Breathings had their meaning values reassigned anciently. The reassigned values are what we have in English as The Book of Abraham.

Question 6: Have you ever heard of The Apocalypse of Abraham?

Let me share something that is relevant. In the year 1863 a German translation of a Slavonic translation of a now lost Greek translation of an even older and lost Hebrew translation of a book attributed to Abraham was published. The text bears the name "The Apocalypse of Abraham". 

As much as anyone is able to reconstruct of the history of this book, the following is a sketch:

1. In the tenth and eleventh centuries AD, early in Russia's conversion to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, probably itinerant (traveling) monks visiting Constantinople came upon a manuscript, probably in Greek (translation) that, though not in The Bible (a fourth century AD compilation of Holy Writ), was still in use among Greek scribes. This book was called "The Apocalypse of Abraham." 
2. Though all source Greek texts of The Apocalypse of Abraham have since been lost, these monks translated their Greek text to Slavonic. When the text was read in Russian Churches, the text became enormously popular. Even as The Apocalypse of Abraham fell into obscurity in Europe, the Apocalypse continued enjoying some popularity in Russia.
3. Eventually the Russian Orthodox Church insisted that liturgies (religious worship texts) be drawn primarily from The Bible, and the Apocalypse fell into obscurity in Russia. The last copies appear to have been made in the sixteenth century, and from there they stood unused on shelves in monasteries, until a text was edited and published by Professor N. Tikhanravov in 1863. It was first published in English translation in 1898 by members of The Church of Jesus Christ. 
4. You may obtain a free pdf from the following website with a scholarly introduction: https://www.marquette.edu/maqom/box.pdf 

Question 7: So what does The Apocalypse of Abraham tell?

The Apocalypse of Abraham, I wish to be clear, is not The Book of Abraham. In fact, the Apocalypse starts out with a background story of Abraham's upbringing that is not dealt with in The Book of Abraham at all. The Apocalypse has whole interactions between God and His Angel that are not described in The Book of Abraham, but which bear similarities to what The Book of Abraham teaches. That said, if one reads The Apocalypse of Abraham in its entirety, there are points of enormous interest.

1. The book explains that Abraham's father, Terah, was a polytheist.
2. The book explains how Abraham was led, step by step, to shun his father's idolatry and believe in the true and living God. During this process Abraham mentions that he cannot call the earth "god" because the earth itself is subject to the sun.
3. God sends an Angel to Abraham whose name is "Jah-oh-El", which is Hebrew for "Yahu is El" or 'The Lord is God'. In the Apocalypse the name "Jehovah" is strongly suggested but not printed outright.
4. Abraham prays to God saying, El-El-El-El "Jah-oh-El", which is the strongest suggestion of saying "Jah-oh-eh" or "Jehovah", though by adding "l" to make "Jahoel" or "Yahu is God", the writer of the Apocalypse avoided using the sacred name of Jehovah.
5. Abraham is shown that his posterity had lived before and were ordained to be born as the people of God.
6. In the Apocalypse God has Abraham taken to a fiery world of His. There Abraham looks below his feet and sees a vision of the world at its creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall of Adam. As Abraham speaks with God Abraham speaks of this scene of the world as being represented in this writ as a "picture". 
7. The Temple and Priesthood are revealed to Abraham in this vision.

For anyone familiar with The Book of Abraham, The Apocalypse of Abraham is fascinating. In The Book of Abraham Facsimile 2 Abraham mentions that the Egyptians called the earth "Jah-oh-eh", which is amazingly similar to "Jahoel". Facsimile 2 also states that the Temple and Priesthood were revealed to Abraham. The Book of Abraham goes into detail about the Creation and the Premortal lives of the Prophets and all people. 

Question 8: So tell me again, what is this Apocalypse of Abraham?

Some scholars believe that The Apocalypse of Abraham was preserved after the Jewish Temple was destroyed. The belief is that the book once had pictures, the very pictures referred to in the text, but that only the text has remained. The first version of The Apocalypse of Abraham may have been written in Hebrew, possibly Aramaic, then translated to Greek, and finally to Slavonic. Only the Slavonic texts were preserved (or have been discovered).

Question 9: Have you heard of the discovery of an Egyptian Facsimile similar to Facsimile 1?

Now, thousands of Egyptian papyri that are essentially Facsimile 1 (and 2 and 3) have been found. In and of itself finding another version of Facsimile 1 is no big deal. What was peculiar about this Facsimile is (1) it was found in a Jewish burial site in Alexandria, Egypt, and (2) the name "Abraham" was penned anciently beside the figure on the sacrificial altar. 

Question 10: Are there any "proofs" within The Book of Abraham or The Bible itself?

Yes, there are many proofs or interesting correspondences, but I shall limit myself to two that The Lord revealed to me. 

In Abraham 2:25 Abraham asks Sarai, his wife, to say that she is his sister (not untrue, as she was his half-sister). Immediately after this Abraham receives his vision, from Chapter 3 on. From Abraham 4 on Abraham then refers to God in the plural, "The Gods", which in English translation is rendered as "they/the Gods said/called..." The reason the English translation has to phrase plurality as "they (the Gods) said..." is because English has no clearly plural form in the past tense (except for "be", as in "I was" but "we were"). "He said" is only different from "they said" in the choice of pronoun. In Hebrew not only is the pronoun different but the form or ending of a plural verb is different from a singular verb. "He said" is "amar" but they said is "amru". 

Now, remember that Abraham asks his wife to say that she is his sister, then Abraham receives his vision, and then Abraham refers to Gods in the plural. In The Bible "Elohim" is used as God's Name-Title. Elohim is, technically speaking, plural, but the verb forms used with Elohim are singular. To use English in a hypothetical example of how Hebrew uses Elohim, we could say "Gods commands you". Here "Gods" is plural in form, but "commands" is singular in form ("he commands" not "they commands"). There is one point in the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, where Elohim is used in the plural, and that is Genesis 20:13. Here Abraham explains that he had asked his wife to say that she was his sister. By this point, in The Book of Abraham, Abraham had already received his vision. Abraham then says, in the Hebrew, if we use the same convention or construction, the following:

"And it came to pass, when they, the Gods, caused me to wander from my father's house..."

I have never found a translation of Genesis 20:13 that renders the Hebrew correctly. All the translations write "when God caused me to wander" rather than the more correct (in English): "they, the Gods, caused me..." The only other example of Gods plural in Hebrew is 2 Samuel 7:23, David's dedicatory prayer regarding the Temple and at the Temple. Is it coincidence that the first point in our preserved Hebrew text that "they the Gods" is preserved is in the mouth of Abraham after the point of discussing why he asked his wife to say she was his sister, just as in The Book of Abraham?

The next is a smaller but more interesting point. In Genesis 18:19 The Lord, while blessing Abraham, says the following:

"For I know him [Abraham], that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of The Lord, to do justice and judgment; that The Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 

How exactly could Abraham instruct his children and household after his death to keep the way of The Lord unless there was a written mechanism for preserving those instructions? The existence of a Book of Abraham was not a luxury but a necessity.

As time goes on I will add to this post because there are numerous proofs that support The Book of Abraham, but time is of the essence. so I will allow this somewhat emaciated overview to suffice.

So what happened with the Elders when you taught the investigator?

That was interesting. The investigator really thought he had the Elders over a barrel on The Book of Abraham, that scholars had pounded the nails into the coffin, at least as regards Joseph Smith being an inspired translator. When I said that The Book of Abraham was in fact not a literal translation and that the scroll was an Egyptian Pagan text, the one Elder's face went pale in fright. But as we walked through these points, step by step, as I did here, the Elder came to life. In the end he was almost overcome by The Spirit of God. He said, as I recall, in a voice nearly consumed by faith, tears, and joy: 

"My testimony of Joseph Smith is now more powerful than ever. I know he was a prophet of God and that he was inspired to translate The Book of Abraham." 

I was very pleased. I had been the instrument for helping a good brother strengthen his testimony at a time when conspiring minds, via linguistic shell games and slight of hand, had sought to undermine pure and innocent testimonies such as his.

Conclusion:

So in conclusion it appears that ancient Hebrews would use Egyptian Pagan texts as cues, prompts or talking-points to relate the story of a powerful vision that Abraham had received and recorded in Egyptian hieroglyphs. Especially after the Temple of Solomon was destroyed the second time, changes were made to the story, and multiple versions may have emerged. One such version may be The Apocalypse of Abraham. When Joseph Smith, through the sacrifice of faithful members, obtained Egyptian papyri and proceeded to reveal a revelation that Abraham had received anciently and which his righteous posterity had continued telling by using Egyptian hieroglyphs as the vehicle for telling the sacred story (reassigning values to the hieroglyphs), Joseph Smith restored an astonishing, some might say absurd yet nevertheless actual and true practice of the ancient covenant people, that is, using an Egyptian Pagan text's hieroglyphs as a vehicle for relating a powerful revelation that Abraham had received. As far as scholars can tell, Jews and Christians continued telling Abraham's story via the Egyptian Pagan texts till about the fourth century AD, which is the approximate age of our Latter-day Saint Abraham scroll. 

As I always say, fiction is fantastical, but there is nothing stranger than the truth. And this oddity, The Book of Abraham and The Apocalypse of Abraham, is actually textual. 

On The Book of Abraham

A few years ago two Elders who were serving in a town north of Columbus, Ohio, approached their Zone Leader with a question. It so happened that their investigator had certain doubts about The Book of Abraham. The Elders did not believe they could adequately respond to his concerns, hence they had turned to their Zone Leader. He in turn referred them to me, and so it was that I came into contact with these Elders.

Immediately I discerned that there was more at stake here than the concerns of a skeptical investigator: The Elder's own testimony was in need of a confirmation, or at least some affirming support. Regardless of what the investigator would do with whatever I would share, my paramount concern was building up my brother's faith.

I will go through this as I did with the Elders and their investigator that night. As it happens, this topic is one I have meant to expound on, and this is not that exposition, but an overview is helpful. What I will share is what I have learned largely on my own, and if anyone has paid any attention to what I share, I do not rely on traditions or other's so-called expertise, but on study as inspired by The Holy Ghost. With this in mind, I will share.

Question 1: Is The Book of Abraham a translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, and by translation I mean the American Translators Association definition, where the Egyptian characters or hieroglyphs are simply converted to their usual significations in English?

The answer is no. In fact, The Book of Abraham source scroll is an Egyptian funerary text. When scrutinized this particular copy of an Egyptian funerary text actually has unique features making it peculiar among the myriad of such texts, but the actual source text we have is by and large a common Pagan text which probably dates to the the fourth century AD, give or take a century.

Question 2: But didn't Joseph Smith say it was written by the hand of Abraham?

Yes, Joseph Smith did say that. Bear in mind that "by the hand of" means 'by authority of', and does not obligatory imply that the document is an autograph, that is, "by the hand of" does not necessarily mean, though it may, that Abraham penned this very scroll with his own hand, quill and ink. Let us take some things into consideration. Consider the gold plates upon which Mormon and Moroni etched The Book of Mormon:

1. The gold plates, actual autographs, were guarded by the power of God.
2. Moroni handed the plates over to Joseph Smith.
3. Joseph Smith endured numerous attempts to deprive him of the plates, but never allowed anyone to see them except for 11 other witnesses.
4. Then Joseph Smith returned the plates to Moroni.

Now compare the scrolls on which The Book of Abraham (Egyptian funerary text) is written:

1. The scrolls were found, transferred and sold to Joseph Smith by a series of dealers (grave-robbers in the first instance).
2. Joseph Smith showed the scrolls to just about anyone who inquired about them. It is reported that Joseph would display them at his house, and visitors could examine and handle them.
3. After The Book of Abraham was translated, Joseph Smith held on to the scrolls. After Joseph's death the scrolls changed hands, were considered lost in the great Chicago fire, but were rediscovered and given to the LDS Church.
4. The scroll's images were published in their entirety for all to see.

Clearly we see that Joseph Smith treated the scrolls very differently from the gold plates. If actual, bona fide autographs are Sacred items that will be safeguarded by the power of God, as with The Book of Mormon plates, then the actual Book of Abraham scrolls, though doctrinally priceless, were not considered to be of the same spiritual value as the Book of Mormon autograph/plates.

Question 3: So how did Joseph Smith go from an Egyptian Pagan funerary text to a book containing an important revelation given to Abraham?

Joseph Smith saw the scrolls, he saw that they were ancient, that they were Egyptian, and Joseph Smith was stirred to inspiration. As Joseph saw the hieroglyphs Joseph began to discern thoughts, ideas, the very message that Abraham had received and conveyed to his posterity. As Joseph looked at each individual hieroglyph on the scroll, Joseph understood, not what that hieroglyph would eventually be deciphered to mean by later Egyptologists (this was not the concern), but what (and here the revelation takes place) Abraham used that hieroglyph to mean. 

Abraham had received a revelation from God. In that revelation Abraham was taught about the premortal world and creation. Abraham, now having dwelt among the Egyptians, used their writing system to tell his own story. To accomplish this Abraham may have altered the hieroglyphs of his chosen Egyptian text slightly, but in essence Abraham commandeered a Pagan hieroglyphic text as though it were a picture text. Abraham then used the pictures in that text (the hieroglyphs) to tell his own story. More than this, Abraham's descendants continued the practice of using an Egyptian Pagan text's pictures to tell the story of Abraham's vision for almost two thousand years. Let me be clear: It appears that Abraham's descendants continued using the same Egyptian funerary text to tell Abraham's vision, independent of what an educated Egyptian would have read upon seeing the exact same scroll.

I am saying that Joseph Smith, by the gift of God, understood what would have been impossible to grasp otherwise: What an ancient Patriarch and a righteous line of his descendants had reinterpreted Egyptian hieroglyphs to mean, and not to mean in all cases, but to mean for the purpose of relating Abraham's sacred vision.

Question 4: If Joseph Smith got a revelation that restored a long-lost revelation given to Abraham, why did Joseph need the scroll at all? Why not just get the revelation?

Good question. In fact, Joseph Smith had already experienced this very process. In April of 1829, by using the Urim and Thummim, Joseph Smith saw a parchment written by the Apostle John, and Joseph translated the parchment. His translation is now Section 7 in the Doctrine and Covenants.

But as regards a lengthy work, one where Joseph had to work, break, resume, over a period of time (Section 7 is rather brief), a "hard copy" was required. I put it forward for consideration that, as regards getting in the mindset to receive a powerful outpouring of inspiration from God, Joseph Smith was "tactile". That is, that by handling an actual old document and seeing its ancient images, Joseph Smith's mind became more receptive to receiving a great outpouring of the mind of God. I might say, in my own *small* way I am tactile. To connect with a text, to get in "the zone", I have to have the right text. The right text for me is often old, with thick but yellowed pages, heavy and cracked leather cover, and archaic (old and no longer used) script. When I have this type of text I can become engulfed in my reading of the book.

There was another prophet who was tactile. Joseph of old, per Genesis 44:1-5, used a silver cup to divine. Why a silver cup, why not just pray and discern? I put it to the reader that Joseph of old was tactile, that by handling a specific object Joseph of old became more receptive to great outpourings of the Holy Ghost.

Question 5: Realizing that this assertion seems fantastical, how did you arrive at this conclusion?

I arrived in two steps. First of all, there are the Facsimiles. In Facsimile 3 the image numbered 2 is said to be Pharaoh, but when you look at image 2 you will see that what is represented is clearly a woman. In the same Facsimile 3 the images numbered 4 and 5 are said to represent the Prince of Pharaoh and Shulem his (male) servant, but the images are clearly of a man and woman holding hands. Now, either Joseph was unobservant of such details or Joseph was relaying, not what the symbols meant to Egyptians of old and would mean to modern Egyptologists, but what they meant to Abraham and his righteous descendants who kept the sacred story alive by using the hieroglyphs as visual cues or prompts.

I realized (and here my linguistics background came into play) that what we LDS are dealing with in The Book of Abraham scrolls is not a direct translation of what those hieroglyphs normally were used to mean, but rather we LDS are dealing with a modern transcribing of the values that Abraham anciently reassigned to each hieroglyph. Some of these meanings may have been whole ideas, phrases, sentences even.

Question 6: Have you ever heard of The Apocalypse of Abraham?

Let me share something that is relevant. In the 1800's a Russian-born German Protestant theologian, Gottlieb Nathanael Bonwetsch, while searching through medieval manuscripts at a monastery came upon a manuscript written in Church Slavonic and bearing the title "The Apocalypse of Abraham". Having never heard of this book he took an immediate interest, translated the book to German, and published it. 

As much as anyone is able to reconstruct of the history of this book, the following is a sketch:

1. In the tenth or eleventh century AD, early in Russia's conversion to Eastern Orthodox Christianity, probably itinerant (traveling) monks visiting Constantinople came upon a manuscript, probably in Greek (translation) that, though not in The Bible (a fourth century AD compilation of Holy Writ), was still in use among Greek scribes. This book was called "The Apocalypse of Abraham." 
2. Though all source Greek texts of The Apocalypse of Abraham have since been lost, these monks translated their Greek text to Slavonic. When the text was read in Russian Churches, the text became enormously popular. Even as The Apocalypse of Abraham fell into obscurity in Europe, the Apocalypse continued enjoying enormous popularity in Russia.
3. Eventually the Russian Orthodox Church insisted that liturgies (religious worship texts) be drawn primarily from The Bible, and the Apocalypse fell into obscurity. The last copies appear to have been made in the sixteenth century, and from there they stood unused on a monastery shelf, until their rediscovery by Bonwetsch. 

Question 7: So what does The Apocalypse of Abraham tell?

The Apocalypse of Abraham, I wish to be clear, is not The Book of Abraham. In fact, the Apocalypse starts out with a background story of Abraham's upbringing that is not dealt with in The Book of Abraham at all. The Apocalypse has whole interactions between an Angel of God and Abraham that are not described in The Book of Abraham, but whose teachings bear some similarities to what The Book of Abraham teaches. That said, if one reads The Apocalypse of Abraham in its entirety, there are points of enormous interest.

1. The book explains that Abraham's father, Terah, was a polytheist.
2. The book explains how Abraham was led, step by step, to shun his father's idolatry and believe in the true and living God. During this process Abraham mentions that he cannot call the earth "god" because the earth itself is subject to the sun.
3. God sends an Angel to Abraham whose name is "Jah-oh-El", which is Hebrew for "Yahu is El" or 'The Lord is God'. In the Apocalypse the name "Jehovah" is strongly suggested but not printed outright.
4. Abraham prays to God saying, El-El-El-El "Jah-oh-El", which is the strongest suggestion of saying "Jah-oh-eh" or "Jehovah", though by adding "l" to make "Jahoel" or "Yahu is God", the writer of the Apocalypse avoided using the sacred name of Jehovah.
5. Abraham is shown that his posterity had lived before and were ordained to be born as the people of God.
6. In the Apocalypse God has Abraham taken to a fiery world of His. There Abraham looks below his feet and sees a vision of the world at its creation, the Garden of Eden, and the Fall of Adam. As Abraham speaks with God Abraham speaks of this image under his feet as a "picture". 
7. The Temple and Priesthood are revealed to Abraham in this vision.

For anyone familiar with The Book of Abraham, The Apocalypse of Abraham is fascinating. In The Book of Abraham Facsimile 2 Abraham mentions that the Egyptians called the earth "Jah-oh-eh", which is amazingly similar to "Jahoel". In effect, in Facsimile 2 Joseph records the Egyptians as doing what Abraham discerned he should not: Call the earth "god". Facsimile 2 also states that the Temple and Priesthood were revealed to Abraham. The Book of Abraham goes into detail about the Creation and the premortal lives of the Prophets and all people. 

Question 8: So tell me again, what is this Apocalypse of Abraham?

Some scholars believe that The Apocalypse of Abraham was preserved after the Jewish Temple was destroyed. The belief is that the book once had one or more pictures, the very imagery referred to in the text, but that only the text remained. Scholars believe that one of the "pictures" was round and represented the Creation and humanity. The reader will recall that Facsimile 2 of The Book of Abraham is round and that one of its glyphs represents the four quarters of the earth, at least in the values ascribed by Abraham.

The first version of The Apocalypse of Abraham may have been written in Aramaic, possibly Hebrew, then translated to Greek, and finally to Slavonic. Only the Slavonic texts were preserved (or have been discovered).

Question 9: Have you heard of the discovery of an Egyptian Facsimile similar to Facsimile 1?

Now, thousands of Egyptian papyri that are essentially Facsimile 1 (and 2 and 3) have been found. In and of itself finding another version of Facsimile 1 is no big deal. What was peculiar about this Facsimile is (1) it was found in a Jewish burial in Alexandria, Egypt, and (2) the name "Abraham" was penned anciently beside the figure on the sacrificial altar. 

Question 10: Are there any "proofs" within The Book of Abraham or The Bible itself?

Yes, there are many proofs or interesting correspondences, but I shall limit myself to two that The Lord revealed to me. 

In Abraham 2:25 Abraham asks Sarai, his wife, to say that she is his sister (not untrue, as she was his half-sister). Immediately after this Abraham receives his vision, from Chapter 3 on. From Abraham 4 on Abraham then refers to God in the plural, "The Gods", which in English translation is rendered as "they/the Gods said/called..." The reason the English translation has to phrase plurality as "they (the Gods) said..." is because English has no clearly plural form in the past tense. "He said" is only different from "they said" in the choice of pronoun. In Hebrew not only is the pronoun different but the form or ending of a plural verb is different from a singular verb. "He said" is "amar" but they said is "amru". 

Now, remember that Abraham asks his wife to say that she is his sister, then Abraham receives his vision, and then Abraham refers to Gods in the plural. In The Bible "Elohim" is used as God's Name-Title. Elohim is, technically speaking, plural, but the verbal forms used with Elohim are singular. To use English in a hypothetical example of how Hebrew uses Elohim, we could say "Gods commands you". Here "Gods" is plural in form, but "commands" is singular in form ("he commands" not "they commands"). There is one point in the Torah, the Five Books of Moses, where Elohim is used in the plural, and that is Genesis 20:13. Here Abraham explains that he had asked his wife to say that she was his sister. By this point in The Book of Abraham, Abraham had already received his vision. Abraham then says, in the Hebrew, if we use the same convention or construction as in The Book of Abraham translation, the following:

"And it came to pass, when they, the Gods, caused me to wander from my father's house..."

I have never found a translation of Genesis 20:13 that renders the Hebrew correctly. All the translations write "when God caused me to wander" rather than the more correct (in English): "they, the Gods, caused me..." The only other example of Gods plural in Hebrew is 2 Samuel 7:23, David's dedicatory prayer regarding the Temple. Is it coincidence that the first point in our preserved Hebrew text that "they the Gods" is preserved is in the mouth of Abraham after the point of discussing why he asked his wife to say she was his sister, just as in The Book of Abraham? It is not interesting that the point where Abraham in The Bible refers to Gods Plural is when, per The Book of Abraham, Abraham had received his vision, which is the very point where, in The Book of Abraham, Abraham starts referring to Gods Plural too?

The next is a smaller but more interesting point. In Genesis 18:19 The Lord, while blessing Abraham, says the following:

"For I know him [Abraham], that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of The Lord, to do justice and judgment; that The Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." 

(Q11) How exactly could Abraham instruct his children and household after his death to keep the way of The Lord unless there was a written mechanism for preserving those instructions? The existence of a Book of Abraham was not a luxury but a necessity.

As time goes on I will add to this post because there are numerous proofs that support The Book of Abraham, but time is of the essence, so I will allow this somewhat emaciated overview to suffice.

Question 12: So what happened with the Elders when you taught the investigator?

That was interesting. The investigator really thought he had the Elders over a barrel on The Book of Abraham, that scholars had pounded the nails into the coffin, at least as regards Joseph Smith being an inspired translator. When I said that The Book of Abraham was in fact not a literal translation and that the scroll was an Egyptian Pagan text, the one Elder's eyes widened and his face went pale in an expression of horror. But as we walked through these points, step by step, as I did here, the Elder came to life. In the end he was almost overcome by The Spirit of God. He said, as I recall, in a voice nearly consumed by faith, tears, and joy: "My testimony of Joseph Smith is now more powerful than ever. I know he was a prophet of God and that he was inspired to translate The Book of Abraham." I was very pleased. I had been the instrument for helping a good brother strengthen his testimony at a time when conspiring minds, via linguistic shell games and slight of hand, had sought to undermine pure and innocent testimonies such as his.

Conclusion:

So in conclusion it appears that ancient Hebrews would use Egyptian Pagan texts as cues, prompts or talking-points to relate the story of a powerful vision that Abraham received. Especially after the Temple was destroyed, changes were made to the story, and multiple versions may have emerged. One such version may be The Apocalypse of Abraham. When Joseph Smith, through the sacrifice of faithful members, obtained Egyptian papyri and proceeded to reveal a revelation that Abraham had received anciently and which his righteous posterity had continued telling by using Egyptian hieroglyphs as the vehicle for telling the sacred story (reassigning values to the hieroglyphs), Joseph Smith restored an astonishing, some might say absurd yet nevertheless actual and true practice of the ancient covenant people, that is, using an Egyptian Pagan text's hieroglyphs as the vehicle for relating a powerful revelation that Abraham had received. As far as scholars can tell, Jews and Christians continued telling Abraham's story via the Egyptian Pagan texts till about the fourth century AD, which is the approximate age of our LDS Abraham scroll. 

As I always say, fiction is fantastical, but there is nothing stranger than the truth. And this oddity, The Book of Abraham and The Apocalypse of Abraham, is actually textual.