Criticism of Mormonism/Books/Becoming Gods/Chapter 3

Response to claims made in "Chapter 3: Thus Saith Joseph"



Chapter 2
A FAIR Analysis of: Becoming Gods: A Closer Look at 21st-Century Mormonism, a work by author: Richard Abanes
 		Chapter 4
Claim Evaluation
Becoming Gods

Response to claims made in Becoming Gods, "Chapter 3: Thus Saith Joseph"


Jump to Subtopic:


Response to claim: 84, 370n9-11 - The revelations in the Book of Commandments were modified because they were "showing their age"

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

The revelations in the Book of Commandments were modified because they were "showing their age," "contained outdated information," "included erroneous statements" and "abandoned doctrines." Some of the revelations "revealed too much information about LDS beliefs."

Author's sources:
  1. Karl F. Best, "Changes in the Revelations, 1833-1835," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1992), vol. 25, no. 1, p. 90.
  • H. Michael Marquardt, The Joseph Smith Revelations: Text & Commentary, p. 17.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The revelations were "showing their age" between 1833 and 1835? They "revealed too much information about LDS beliefs"? The arguments put forth by the author are absurd.


Response to claim: 85, 371n14 - Mormons view divine truth as "not absolute or fixed; it is changeable, flexible"

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Mormons view divine truth as "not absolute or fixed; it is changeable, flexible."

Author's sources:
  1. Richard N. and Joan K. Ostling, Mormon America: The Power and the Promise, (New York:HarperCollins Publishers, 2000), 249. ( Index of claims )

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

Latter-day Saints realize that their understanding of divine truth may grow and be enhanced, but this does not mean that the truth is changeable or flexible. Once again, only a hostile author is cited; there are no quotes from LDS sources used to explore their supposed view.


Response to claim: 87, 370n23 - Joseph received a "false revelation" through his seer stone to go to Toronto, Canada to sell the Book of Mormon copyright

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph received a "false revelation" through his seer stone to go to Toronto, Canada to sell the Book of Mormon copyright.

Author's sources:
  1. David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

David Whitmer, a non-participant in the trip to Canada, claimed many years later that the revelation was false. Newer data, however, has shown that the participants in the effort did not consider the revelation to be false.


Question: After receiving the revelation to attempt to sell the Book of Mormon copyright in Canada, did Joseph Smith later claim that the revelation was false?

David Whitmer, years after he left the Church, claimed that Joseph said that the revelation did not come from God

David Whitmer claimed that Joseph Smith received a revelation and prophesied that Oliver Cowdery and Hiram Page should go to Canada where they would find a man willing to buy the copyright to the Book of Mormon. When they failed to sell the copyright, Whitmer states that Joseph admitted that the revelation had not come from God.

David Whitmer was not a participant in the trip to Canada

The primary evidence supporting the negative aspects of the Canadian Mission story comes from David Whitmer, who was not a participant in the event, and who had left the church many years before. With the discovery of the Hiram Page letter of 1848 showing that the actual participants involved in the trip felt that Joseph Smith delivered an accurate revelation of what would transpire on the Mission, and in fact even found the event uplifting rather than negative, it is evident that no individual contemporary to the event felt that this represented a false prophecy by Joseph Smith. What we do see is excellent evidence in fulfillment of the teachings of Deuteronomy 12 and 18 that Joseph Smith was perceived as a true prophet of God by those involved in the Mission to Canada in early 1830.


Response to claim: 89, 372n28 - After translating the Book of Mormon he was not supposed to become a prophet or organize a Church

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph modified the revelation now found in D&C 5:4 to add additional gifts. After translating the Book of Mormon he was not supposed to become a prophet or organize a Church.

Author's sources:
  1. Karl F. Best, "Changes in the Revelations, 1833-1835," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Spring 1992), vol. 25, no.1, p. 98.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The author's conclusion is ridiculous. The revelations were modified as new revelation was received "line upon line."


Question: What are the reasons for the changes to the Doctrine and Covenants?

The Doctrine and Covenants was changed in order to correct errors or mistakes due to the human process of writing down revelations, as well as integrate new revelatory material

Wrote Elder Marlin K. Jensen in 2009:

One of Joseph Smith’s tasks in reviewing the manuscripts prior to their publication was to “correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit.” Joseph knew from experience that the human process of writing down revelations, copying them into manuscript books, and then passing them through various hands in preparation for publication inevitably introduced unintentional errors. Sometimes changes were required to clarify wording. Occasionally, later revelations would supersede or update previously received revelations, necessitating the editing of documents to alter previous versions. Various other changes were also made from time to time. Most of these, such as dividing the text into verses or clarifying meaning, did not involve substantive corrections.

Joseph seemed to regard the manuscript revelations as his best efforts to capture the voice of the Lord condescending to communicate in what Joseph called the “crooked, broken, scattered, and imperfect language” of men." The revealed preface to the published revelations also seems to express this principle: “I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language” (D&C 1꞉24).

Joseph and his associates were appointed by the actions of Church conferences to prepare the revelations for publication by correcting the texts. Recent analysis of both manuscript revelation books reveals how and when many of the changes were made. For example, some changes were made before selected items were published in Missouri, while others were made in Ohio before the 1835 publication of the Doctrine and Covenants.

One common example involves changes made by Sidney Rigdon. He often changed the language in the revelations from the biblical “thee,” “thy,” and “thine” to the modern “you,” “your,” and “yours.” Many of these changes were later reversed. He also corrected grammar and changed some of the language to clarify and modify words and meaning.

In a few cases, more substantive changes were made as revelations were updated for the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. For example, section 20 was originally received in 1830, before much of the leadership structure of the Church as we know it today was revealed to Joseph Smith. By 1835 Joseph had organized many offices and quorums by revelation. To include this newly revealed ecclesiastical order, several text changes and additions were incorporated into section 20. Our current verses 65–67 on ordaining men to priesthood offices, for instance, had been revealed after the 1833 publication and were subsequently added to the 1835 publication.

Joseph Smith reviewed many of his associates’ editorial changes and made slight alterations in his own hand before A Book of Commandments was published in 1833. He made additional changes, including adding surnames to individuals mentioned in the revelations, just before the Doctrine and Covenants was published in 1835.

Sometime around 1834–35 in Kirtland, Ohio, Revelation Book 2 was used for the preparation of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, and all but eight items in the manuscript book were published in that 1835 volume. In contrast, just three of the revelations copied into the book were published in A Book of Commandments in 1833. Two of the manuscript book’s revelations were first published in the 1844 Doctrine and Covenants.

Subsequent editing changes through the 1981 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants involved occasional word changes, but the major substantive changes occurred under the Prophet Joseph’s guidance for the 1835 edition.[1]


Response to claim: 89, 372n29-30 - Joseph modified what is now D&C 8:6-9 to hide Oliver Cowdery's use of a divining rod

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph modified what is now D&C 8:6-9 to hide Oliver Cowdery's use of a divining rod.

Author's sources:

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

It appears that Sidney Rigdon was responsible for the initial alteration of this text, with the entire First Presidency involved in the next revision.

Doctrine and Covenants | Oliver Cowdery's "Rod of Nature"

Oliver Cowdery and the "Rod of Nature"

Summary: Early versions of Doctrine and Covenants 8 referred to Oliver Cowdery's "rod of nature," while later editions use the phrase "gift of Aaron." The original wording likely referred to a divining rod, a tool some people in the early nineteenth century believed could help them receive divine guidance or locate hidden objects. Historical evidence suggests that Oliver Cowdery may have used such a rod before joining the Church. The revelation did not condemn Oliver's beliefs but instead taught that God could communicate with him through means he already understood. Later wording changes were made to avoid confusion as the Church moved away from the cultural practices associated with divining rods.

Revelations in Context on history.churchofjesuschrist.org: "Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod"

Revelations in Context on history.churchofjesuschrist.org:

Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as an instrument for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.[2]

Question: Was Oliver Cowdery a "treasure hunter and 'rodsman'?

Although there is evidence that Oliver possessed a divining rod, there is no evidence that he or his father were involved in "money digging"

The book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (page 179) makes the following claim:

Oliver Cowdery came from a similar background. He was a treasure hunter and "rodsman" before he met Joseph Smith in 1829. William Cowdery, his father, was associated with a treasure-seeking group in Vermont, and it is from them, one assumes, that Oliver learned the art of working with a divining rod. (emphasis added)

The author cites Barnes Frisbie, The History of Middletown, Vermont (Rutland, VT: Tuttle and Co., 1867), 43-64; rptd. in Abby Maria Hemenway, ed., Vermont Historical Gazetteer (Claremont, NH: Claremont Manufacturing Co., 1877),3:810-19 quoted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:599-621.

Here's what the source actually says:

Because Joseph Smith, Sr., and William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers, Frisbie's late account must be approached cautiously. (p.600)...Quinn states, "From 1800 to 1802, Nathaniel Wood's 'use of the rod was mostly as a medium of revelation.'...Thus, a connection between William Cowdery and the Wood Scrape would help to explain why his son Oliver had a rod through which he received revelations" before he met Joseph Smith in April 1829" (1987, 32). Yet, there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery's rod to his father. (p. 604) (emphasis added)

Oliver's father cannot be linked to the Vermont "money diggers," and there is no evidence that Oliver received his divining rod from his father

The author states that Oliver Cowdery was a "treasure hunter and 'rodsman'" and that his father was associated with the treasure-seeking group as if these were facts, and uses the Barnes Frisbie account to support this. Yet, Dan Vogel, the editor of the source being used by Palmer, clearly states:

  1. that "William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers,"
  2. that the Barnes Frisbee account "must be approached cautiously" and
  3. that "there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery's rod to his father." [3]

This does not mean that Oliver Cowdery did not use a rod—it simply means that the author interpreted his source in a way which was unjustified

The author presents his conclusions based on circumstantial evidence as fact, leading to the quotation of his "facts" in other articles. (See the Wikipedia articles "Three Witnesses" and "Oliver Cowdery" for examples of how the author's conclusions are considered "facts").

Question: What if the "rod of nature" was indeed a physical object such as a divining rod?

God allowed Oliver to use the rod as a tool to receive spiritual guidance

If we presume that the Book of Commandments revelation of 1829 did refer to a physical rod, it is useful to consider just what Oliver was told:

Oliver Cowdery's first revelation commanded him to lay aside the world and build the restored kingdom: "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich" (D&C 6:7). Whatever prior use Oliver made of his "gift of working with the rod," this revelation directed him to heavenly treasure. Indeed, this first commandment names but one special power: "Thy gift" is "sacred and cometh from above." It is defined as the ability to "inquire" and "know mysteries which are great and marvelous." Thus Oliver is commanded to "exercise thy gift, that thou mayest find out mysteries, that thou mayest bring many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, convince them of the error of their ways." Thus his gift of knowledge of salvation will lead to the "greatest of all gifts," the "gift of salvation" (D&C 6:10-13).

Oliver's initial revelation closes with the command to seek heavenly "treasures" by assisting "in bringing to light, with your gift, those parts of my scriptures which have been hidden because of iniquity" (D&C 6:27). The revelation on the gift of the rod probably followed within a week. It continued the theme of learning ancient truth through translating: "Remember, this is your gift" (D&C 8:5). And it could be exercised by believing "you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records" (D&C 8:1). Then a second promise was made:

Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod. Behold, it has told you things. Behold, there is no other power save God that can cause this rod of nature to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. And therefore whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, will I grant unto you, that you shall know.

But there were strict limits to this promise: "Trifle not with these things. Do not ask for that which you ought not. Ask that you may know the mysteries of God, and that you may translate all those ancient records."

So the "rod of nature" in Cowdery's "hands" would be a means of gaining revelation on doctrine. [4]

Thus, the alteration which describes the "rod" as "the gift of Aaron" clarifies the Lord's intent, and explains how Oliver and Joseph understood the matter. Aaron's rod was an instrument of power, but only insofar as God revealed and commanded its use. Such a perspective is a far cry from the "occult" links which the critics attempt to create:

D&C 8 approves a rod only for sacred information. It also suggests the rod that displayed God's power in the Egyptian plagues, in striking the rock for life-giving water or in calling down strength on Israel's warriors. That rod was a straight shaft, the shepherd's staff possessed by Moses at his call (Ex. 4:2-4). Used by both Moses and Aaron, it was foremost the "rod of God," also Moses' rod, but formally called the "rod of Aaron." It functioned as a visible sign of authority, just as Judah's "scepter" was a sign of divine kingship in Jacob's blessing or Elijah's staff held by the servant who went in his name. Thus the rod of Aaron was a staff of delegated agency, and the 1835 revision to "The gift of Aaron" suggests Oliver's spiritual power to assist Joseph Smith as Aaron assisted Moses. [5]

Question: Did Joseph Smith attempt to "cover up" Oliver Cowdery's work with a divining rod by changing the wording of the revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–8?

The edits to this portion of the revelation were actually performed by Sidney Rigdon, likely with Joseph's approval

A revelation received by Joseph praised Oliver Cowdery's gift for divining. The revelation was published in the Book of Commandments in its original form, then subsequently modified in the Doctrine and Covenants. We do not know why Sidney Rigdon chose to alter the wording of the revelation, but he is the one who changed it to "rod of nature."

We know, based upon the text of the revelation, that Oliver possessed a gift of working with something alternately referred to as a "sprout," "thing of nature," or "rod of nature." We also know that the Lord approved of Oliver's use of this gift. The reference was later changed to the "gift of Aaron," but we can only speculate on the exact reason. According to the Church History website, the "rod" Sidney Rigdon referred to when editing the revelation was likely a divining rod. It is possible that "gift of Aaron" was substituted as the revelatory device because it carried fewer negative connotations than "divining rod." However, a "cover-up" is not usually carried out by committee, and it is clear that multiple individuals assisted in editing the revelations before they were published in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is also difficult to claim a "cover-up" since "rod of nature" was to be published in the Book of Commandments in 1833, only two years before the change to "gift of Aaron" was published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

We do know that Oliver's gift involved receiving revelation, and that Oliver attempted to employ it during the period when the Book of Mormon was being translated. We also know that Oliver's experience in attempting to translate produced one of the lasting lessons that continues to be taught in Church even today—the knowledge that one must study things out in their mind to know the truth of something.

Question: How was the wording of the "rod of nature" revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–8 altered over time?

The revelation was edited by several individuals, including Sidney Rigdon

The original wording of the revelation, along with revisions performed by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and another unidentified editor, is recorded in the REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]). The original revelation reads as follows:

...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands. [6]

Sidney Rigdon edited the passage to read like this:

...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands. (emphasis added)

In the Book of Commandments (the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants), the revelation underwent an additional revision by a publication committee of the First Presidency (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Frederick G. Williams). The Book of Commandments stated:

Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. (emphasis added)

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, this was revised to read:

D&C 8:6–8—Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God. (1921 edition, 8:6–8.) (emphasis added)

Thus, "working with the sprout" and the "thing of Nature" were changed to "the gift of working with the rod," which was again later revised to "the gift of Aaron." It has been assumed, based on this, that Oliver Cowdery was a "rodsman," or someone who used a divining rod to search for hidden treasure, water, or other objects.

Evidence supporting this assertion is that in 1801, a religious sect led by the Wood family enjoyed brief popularity and sought treasure with divining rods. [7] The Wood group was reportedly taught this skill by a counterfeiter/forger named either Winchell or Wingate. Winchell/Wingate had been a guest at Oliver's father, William's, home. Attempts have been made to tie William Cowdery to the Wood group, but there is no evidence that he had any connection with them aside from knowing Winchell/Wingate. As Richard L. Anderson observed:

An 1828 newspaper history of the Wood episode refers to neither the mysterious counterfeiter nor Cowdery. The main group of Middletown survivors of the 1800 period--"more than thirty men and women"--were interviewed up to 1860, and they said nothing of a counterfeiter or of Cowdery. The 1867 recollections of a minister who visited the group in the final weeks of their movement include mention of the counterfeiter but not Cowdery--when a disciple was asked where the criminal stayed, he answered: "He keeps himself secreted in the woods." Frisbie's own claims about the Cowdery connection to the Wood group are both unclear and unsupported. This is the patchwork of folklore, not tightly woven history. [8]

It is therefore not clear whether Oliver used a rod for treasure seeking. The critical association of Oliver's possible use of a rod with the activities of local "rodsmen" seeking treasure is used to imply that Oliver was also a treasure seeker.

Gospel Topics: "the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva"

Gospel Topics on churchofjesuschrist.org:

Some people have balked at this claim of physical instruments used in the divine translation process, but such aids to facilitate the communication of God’s power and inspiration are consistent with accounts in scripture. In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva to heal the eyes of a blind man.[9]

Dallin H. Oaks (1987): "It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times"

Dallin H. Oaks:

It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers. [10]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Marlin K. Jensen, "The Joseph Smith Papers: The Manuscript Revelation Books," Ensign (July 2009): 46–51. off-site
  2. ↑ Jeffrey G. Cannon, "Oliver Cowdery's Gift," Revelations in Context on history.lds.org
  3. ↑ Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Signature Books, 1996–2003),1:600, 604.
  4. ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
  5. ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
  6. ↑ Revelation, April 1829–B [D&C 8], in Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Stephen C. Harper, eds., Manuscript Revelation Books, vol. 1 of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Church Historian’s Press, 2009), 17. (emphasis added)
  7. ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:599–621.
  8. ↑ Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (1984). PDF link
    Caution: this article was published before Mark Hofmann's forgeries were discovered. It may treat fraudulent documents as genuine. Click for list of known forged documents.
    Discusses money-digging; Salem treasure hunting episode; fraudulent 1838 Missouri treasure hunting revelation; Wood Scrape; “gift of Aaron”; “wand or rod”; Heber C. Kimball rod and prayer; magic; occult; divining lost objects; seerstone; parchments; talisman
  9. ↑ "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on churchofjesuschrist.org (2013).
  10. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," Ensign (October 1987): 63.

Doctrine and Covenants | Oliver Cowdery's "Rod of Nature"

Oliver Cowdery and the "Rod of Nature"

Summary: Early versions of Doctrine and Covenants 8 referred to Oliver Cowdery's "rod of nature," while later editions use the phrase "gift of Aaron." The original wording likely referred to a divining rod, a tool some people in the early nineteenth century believed could help them receive divine guidance or locate hidden objects. Historical evidence suggests that Oliver Cowdery may have used such a rod before joining the Church. The revelation did not condemn Oliver's beliefs but instead taught that God could communicate with him through means he already understood. Later wording changes were made to avoid confusion as the Church moved away from the cultural practices associated with divining rods.

Revelations in Context on history.churchofjesuschrist.org: "Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod"

Revelations in Context on history.churchofjesuschrist.org:

Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as an instrument for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.[1]

Question: Was Oliver Cowdery a "treasure hunter and 'rodsman'?

Although there is evidence that Oliver possessed a divining rod, there is no evidence that he or his father were involved in "money digging"

The book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (page 179) makes the following claim:

Oliver Cowdery came from a similar background. He was a treasure hunter and "rodsman" before he met Joseph Smith in 1829. William Cowdery, his father, was associated with a treasure-seeking group in Vermont, and it is from them, one assumes, that Oliver learned the art of working with a divining rod. (emphasis added)

The author cites Barnes Frisbie, The History of Middletown, Vermont (Rutland, VT: Tuttle and Co., 1867), 43-64; rptd. in Abby Maria Hemenway, ed., Vermont Historical Gazetteer (Claremont, NH: Claremont Manufacturing Co., 1877),3:810-19 quoted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:599-621.

Here's what the source actually says:

Because Joseph Smith, Sr., and William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers, Frisbie's late account must be approached cautiously. (p.600)...Quinn states, "From 1800 to 1802, Nathaniel Wood's 'use of the rod was mostly as a medium of revelation.'...Thus, a connection between William Cowdery and the Wood Scrape would help to explain why his son Oliver had a rod through which he received revelations" before he met Joseph Smith in April 1829" (1987, 32). Yet, there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery's rod to his father. (p. 604) (emphasis added)

Oliver's father cannot be linked to the Vermont "money diggers," and there is no evidence that Oliver received his divining rod from his father

The author states that Oliver Cowdery was a "treasure hunter and 'rodsman'" and that his father was associated with the treasure-seeking group as if these were facts, and uses the Barnes Frisbie account to support this. Yet, Dan Vogel, the editor of the source being used by Palmer, clearly states:

  1. that "William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers,"
  2. that the Barnes Frisbee account "must be approached cautiously" and
  3. that "there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery's rod to his father." [2]

This does not mean that Oliver Cowdery did not use a rod—it simply means that the author interpreted his source in a way which was unjustified

The author presents his conclusions based on circumstantial evidence as fact, leading to the quotation of his "facts" in other articles. (See the Wikipedia articles "Three Witnesses" and "Oliver Cowdery" for examples of how the author's conclusions are considered "facts").

Question: What if the "rod of nature" was indeed a physical object such as a divining rod?

God allowed Oliver to use the rod as a tool to receive spiritual guidance

If we presume that the Book of Commandments revelation of 1829 did refer to a physical rod, it is useful to consider just what Oliver was told:

Oliver Cowdery's first revelation commanded him to lay aside the world and build the restored kingdom: "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich" (D&C 6:7). Whatever prior use Oliver made of his "gift of working with the rod," this revelation directed him to heavenly treasure. Indeed, this first commandment names but one special power: "Thy gift" is "sacred and cometh from above." It is defined as the ability to "inquire" and "know mysteries which are great and marvelous." Thus Oliver is commanded to "exercise thy gift, that thou mayest find out mysteries, that thou mayest bring many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, convince them of the error of their ways." Thus his gift of knowledge of salvation will lead to the "greatest of all gifts," the "gift of salvation" (D&C 6:10-13).

Oliver's initial revelation closes with the command to seek heavenly "treasures" by assisting "in bringing to light, with your gift, those parts of my scriptures which have been hidden because of iniquity" (D&C 6:27). The revelation on the gift of the rod probably followed within a week. It continued the theme of learning ancient truth through translating: "Remember, this is your gift" (D&C 8:5). And it could be exercised by believing "you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records" (D&C 8:1). Then a second promise was made:

Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod. Behold, it has told you things. Behold, there is no other power save God that can cause this rod of nature to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. And therefore whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, will I grant unto you, that you shall know.

But there were strict limits to this promise: "Trifle not with these things. Do not ask for that which you ought not. Ask that you may know the mysteries of God, and that you may translate all those ancient records."

So the "rod of nature" in Cowdery's "hands" would be a means of gaining revelation on doctrine. [3]

Thus, the alteration which describes the "rod" as "the gift of Aaron" clarifies the Lord's intent, and explains how Oliver and Joseph understood the matter. Aaron's rod was an instrument of power, but only insofar as God revealed and commanded its use. Such a perspective is a far cry from the "occult" links which the critics attempt to create:

D&C 8 approves a rod only for sacred information. It also suggests the rod that displayed God's power in the Egyptian plagues, in striking the rock for life-giving water or in calling down strength on Israel's warriors. That rod was a straight shaft, the shepherd's staff possessed by Moses at his call (Ex. 4:2-4). Used by both Moses and Aaron, it was foremost the "rod of God," also Moses' rod, but formally called the "rod of Aaron." It functioned as a visible sign of authority, just as Judah's "scepter" was a sign of divine kingship in Jacob's blessing or Elijah's staff held by the servant who went in his name. Thus the rod of Aaron was a staff of delegated agency, and the 1835 revision to "The gift of Aaron" suggests Oliver's spiritual power to assist Joseph Smith as Aaron assisted Moses. [4]

Question: Did Joseph Smith attempt to "cover up" Oliver Cowdery's work with a divining rod by changing the wording of the revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–8?

The edits to this portion of the revelation were actually performed by Sidney Rigdon, likely with Joseph's approval

A revelation received by Joseph praised Oliver Cowdery's gift for divining. The revelation was published in the Book of Commandments in its original form, then subsequently modified in the Doctrine and Covenants. We do not know why Sidney Rigdon chose to alter the wording of the revelation, but he is the one who changed it to "rod of nature."

We know, based upon the text of the revelation, that Oliver possessed a gift of working with something alternately referred to as a "sprout," "thing of nature," or "rod of nature." We also know that the Lord approved of Oliver's use of this gift. The reference was later changed to the "gift of Aaron," but we can only speculate on the exact reason. According to the Church History website, the "rod" Sidney Rigdon referred to when editing the revelation was likely a divining rod. It is possible that "gift of Aaron" was substituted as the revelatory device because it carried fewer negative connotations than "divining rod." However, a "cover-up" is not usually carried out by committee, and it is clear that multiple individuals assisted in editing the revelations before they were published in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is also difficult to claim a "cover-up" since "rod of nature" was to be published in the Book of Commandments in 1833, only two years before the change to "gift of Aaron" was published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

We do know that Oliver's gift involved receiving revelation, and that Oliver attempted to employ it during the period when the Book of Mormon was being translated. We also know that Oliver's experience in attempting to translate produced one of the lasting lessons that continues to be taught in Church even today—the knowledge that one must study things out in their mind to know the truth of something.

Question: How was the wording of the "rod of nature" revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–8 altered over time?

The revelation was edited by several individuals, including Sidney Rigdon

The original wording of the revelation, along with revisions performed by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and another unidentified editor, is recorded in the REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]). The original revelation reads as follows:

...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands. [5]

Sidney Rigdon edited the passage to read like this:

...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands. (emphasis added)

In the Book of Commandments (the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants), the revelation underwent an additional revision by a publication committee of the First Presidency (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Frederick G. Williams). The Book of Commandments stated:

Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. (emphasis added)

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, this was revised to read:

D&C 8:6–8—Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God. (1921 edition, 8:6–8.) (emphasis added)

Thus, "working with the sprout" and the "thing of Nature" were changed to "the gift of working with the rod," which was again later revised to "the gift of Aaron." It has been assumed, based on this, that Oliver Cowdery was a "rodsman," or someone who used a divining rod to search for hidden treasure, water, or other objects.

Evidence supporting this assertion is that in 1801, a religious sect led by the Wood family enjoyed brief popularity and sought treasure with divining rods. [6] The Wood group was reportedly taught this skill by a counterfeiter/forger named either Winchell or Wingate. Winchell/Wingate had been a guest at Oliver's father, William's, home. Attempts have been made to tie William Cowdery to the Wood group, but there is no evidence that he had any connection with them aside from knowing Winchell/Wingate. As Richard L. Anderson observed:

An 1828 newspaper history of the Wood episode refers to neither the mysterious counterfeiter nor Cowdery. The main group of Middletown survivors of the 1800 period--"more than thirty men and women"--were interviewed up to 1860, and they said nothing of a counterfeiter or of Cowdery. The 1867 recollections of a minister who visited the group in the final weeks of their movement include mention of the counterfeiter but not Cowdery--when a disciple was asked where the criminal stayed, he answered: "He keeps himself secreted in the woods." Frisbie's own claims about the Cowdery connection to the Wood group are both unclear and unsupported. This is the patchwork of folklore, not tightly woven history. [7]

It is therefore not clear whether Oliver used a rod for treasure seeking. The critical association of Oliver's possible use of a rod with the activities of local "rodsmen" seeking treasure is used to imply that Oliver was also a treasure seeker.

Gospel Topics: "the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva"

Gospel Topics on churchofjesuschrist.org:

Some people have balked at this claim of physical instruments used in the divine translation process, but such aids to facilitate the communication of God’s power and inspiration are consistent with accounts in scripture. In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva to heal the eyes of a blind man.[8]

Dallin H. Oaks (1987): "It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times"

Dallin H. Oaks:

It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers. [9]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Jeffrey G. Cannon, "Oliver Cowdery's Gift," Revelations in Context on history.lds.org
  2. ↑ Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Signature Books, 1996–2003),1:600, 604.
  3. ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
  4. ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
  5. ↑ Revelation, April 1829–B [D&C 8], in Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Stephen C. Harper, eds., Manuscript Revelation Books, vol. 1 of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Church Historian’s Press, 2009), 17. (emphasis added)
  6. ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:599–621.
  7. ↑ Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (1984). PDF link
    Caution: this article was published before Mark Hofmann's forgeries were discovered. It may treat fraudulent documents as genuine. Click for list of known forged documents.
    Discusses money-digging; Salem treasure hunting episode; fraudulent 1838 Missouri treasure hunting revelation; Wood Scrape; “gift of Aaron”; “wand or rod”; Heber C. Kimball rod and prayer; magic; occult; divining lost objects; seerstone; parchments; talisman
  8. ↑ "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on churchofjesuschrist.org (2013).
  9. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," Ensign (October 1987): 63.

Doctrine and Covenants | Oliver Cowdery's "Rod of Nature"

Oliver Cowdery and the "Rod of Nature"

Summary: Early versions of Doctrine and Covenants 8 referred to Oliver Cowdery's "rod of nature," while later editions use the phrase "gift of Aaron." The original wording likely referred to a divining rod, a tool some people in the early nineteenth century believed could help them receive divine guidance or locate hidden objects. Historical evidence suggests that Oliver Cowdery may have used such a rod before joining the Church. The revelation did not condemn Oliver's beliefs but instead taught that God could communicate with him through means he already understood. Later wording changes were made to avoid confusion as the Church moved away from the cultural practices associated with divining rods.

Revelations in Context on history.churchofjesuschrist.org: "Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod"

Revelations in Context on history.churchofjesuschrist.org:

Oliver Cowdery lived in a culture steeped in biblical ideas, language and practices. The revelation’s reference to Moses likely resonated with him. The Old Testament account of Moses and his brother Aaron recounted several instances of using rods to manifest God’s will (see Ex. 7:9-12; Num. 17:8). Many Christians in Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery's day similarly believed in divining rods as an instrument for revelation. Cowdery was among those who believed in and used a divining rod.[1]

Question: Was Oliver Cowdery a "treasure hunter and 'rodsman'?

Although there is evidence that Oliver possessed a divining rod, there is no evidence that he or his father were involved in "money digging"

The book An Insider's View of Mormon Origins (page 179) makes the following claim:

Oliver Cowdery came from a similar background. He was a treasure hunter and "rodsman" before he met Joseph Smith in 1829. William Cowdery, his father, was associated with a treasure-seeking group in Vermont, and it is from them, one assumes, that Oliver learned the art of working with a divining rod. (emphasis added)

The author cites Barnes Frisbie, The History of Middletown, Vermont (Rutland, VT: Tuttle and Co., 1867), 43-64; rptd. in Abby Maria Hemenway, ed., Vermont Historical Gazetteer (Claremont, NH: Claremont Manufacturing Co., 1877),3:810-19 quoted in Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 1:599-621.

Here's what the source actually says:

Because Joseph Smith, Sr., and William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers, Frisbie's late account must be approached cautiously. (p.600)...Quinn states, "From 1800 to 1802, Nathaniel Wood's 'use of the rod was mostly as a medium of revelation.'...Thus, a connection between William Cowdery and the Wood Scrape would help to explain why his son Oliver had a rod through which he received revelations" before he met Joseph Smith in April 1829" (1987, 32). Yet, there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery's rod to his father. (p. 604) (emphasis added)

Oliver's father cannot be linked to the Vermont "money diggers," and there is no evidence that Oliver received his divining rod from his father

The author states that Oliver Cowdery was a "treasure hunter and 'rodsman'" and that his father was associated with the treasure-seeking group as if these were facts, and uses the Barnes Frisbie account to support this. Yet, Dan Vogel, the editor of the source being used by Palmer, clearly states:

  1. that "William Cowdery cannot be linked unequivocally to the Vermont money diggers,"
  2. that the Barnes Frisbee account "must be approached cautiously" and
  3. that "there is no evidence which directly attributes Cowdery's rod to his father." [2]

This does not mean that Oliver Cowdery did not use a rod—it simply means that the author interpreted his source in a way which was unjustified

The author presents his conclusions based on circumstantial evidence as fact, leading to the quotation of his "facts" in other articles. (See the Wikipedia articles "Three Witnesses" and "Oliver Cowdery" for examples of how the author's conclusions are considered "facts").

Question: What if the "rod of nature" was indeed a physical object such as a divining rod?

God allowed Oliver to use the rod as a tool to receive spiritual guidance

If we presume that the Book of Commandments revelation of 1829 did refer to a physical rod, it is useful to consider just what Oliver was told:

Oliver Cowdery's first revelation commanded him to lay aside the world and build the restored kingdom: "Seek not for riches but for wisdom, and behold, the mysteries of God shall be unfolded unto you, and then shall you be made rich. Behold, he that hath eternal life is rich" (D&C 6:7). Whatever prior use Oliver made of his "gift of working with the rod," this revelation directed him to heavenly treasure. Indeed, this first commandment names but one special power: "Thy gift" is "sacred and cometh from above." It is defined as the ability to "inquire" and "know mysteries which are great and marvelous." Thus Oliver is commanded to "exercise thy gift, that thou mayest find out mysteries, that thou mayest bring many to the knowledge of the truth, yea, convince them of the error of their ways." Thus his gift of knowledge of salvation will lead to the "greatest of all gifts," the "gift of salvation" (D&C 6:10-13).

Oliver's initial revelation closes with the command to seek heavenly "treasures" by assisting "in bringing to light, with your gift, those parts of my scriptures which have been hidden because of iniquity" (D&C 6:27). The revelation on the gift of the rod probably followed within a week. It continued the theme of learning ancient truth through translating: "Remember, this is your gift" (D&C 8:5). And it could be exercised by believing "you shall receive a knowledge concerning the engravings of old records" (D&C 8:1). Then a second promise was made:

Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod. Behold, it has told you things. Behold, there is no other power save God that can cause this rod of nature to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. And therefore whatsoever you shall ask me to tell you by that means, will I grant unto you, that you shall know.

But there were strict limits to this promise: "Trifle not with these things. Do not ask for that which you ought not. Ask that you may know the mysteries of God, and that you may translate all those ancient records."

So the "rod of nature" in Cowdery's "hands" would be a means of gaining revelation on doctrine. [3]

Thus, the alteration which describes the "rod" as "the gift of Aaron" clarifies the Lord's intent, and explains how Oliver and Joseph understood the matter. Aaron's rod was an instrument of power, but only insofar as God revealed and commanded its use. Such a perspective is a far cry from the "occult" links which the critics attempt to create:

D&C 8 approves a rod only for sacred information. It also suggests the rod that displayed God's power in the Egyptian plagues, in striking the rock for life-giving water or in calling down strength on Israel's warriors. That rod was a straight shaft, the shepherd's staff possessed by Moses at his call (Ex. 4:2-4). Used by both Moses and Aaron, it was foremost the "rod of God," also Moses' rod, but formally called the "rod of Aaron." It functioned as a visible sign of authority, just as Judah's "scepter" was a sign of divine kingship in Jacob's blessing or Elijah's staff held by the servant who went in his name. Thus the rod of Aaron was a staff of delegated agency, and the 1835 revision to "The gift of Aaron" suggests Oliver's spiritual power to assist Joseph Smith as Aaron assisted Moses. [4]

Question: Did Joseph Smith attempt to "cover up" Oliver Cowdery's work with a divining rod by changing the wording of the revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–8?

The edits to this portion of the revelation were actually performed by Sidney Rigdon, likely with Joseph's approval

A revelation received by Joseph praised Oliver Cowdery's gift for divining. The revelation was published in the Book of Commandments in its original form, then subsequently modified in the Doctrine and Covenants. We do not know why Sidney Rigdon chose to alter the wording of the revelation, but he is the one who changed it to "rod of nature."

We know, based upon the text of the revelation, that Oliver possessed a gift of working with something alternately referred to as a "sprout," "thing of nature," or "rod of nature." We also know that the Lord approved of Oliver's use of this gift. The reference was later changed to the "gift of Aaron," but we can only speculate on the exact reason. According to the Church History website, the "rod" Sidney Rigdon referred to when editing the revelation was likely a divining rod. It is possible that "gift of Aaron" was substituted as the revelatory device because it carried fewer negative connotations than "divining rod." However, a "cover-up" is not usually carried out by committee, and it is clear that multiple individuals assisted in editing the revelations before they were published in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is also difficult to claim a "cover-up" since "rod of nature" was to be published in the Book of Commandments in 1833, only two years before the change to "gift of Aaron" was published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

We do know that Oliver's gift involved receiving revelation, and that Oliver attempted to employ it during the period when the Book of Mormon was being translated. We also know that Oliver's experience in attempting to translate produced one of the lasting lessons that continues to be taught in Church even today—the knowledge that one must study things out in their mind to know the truth of something.

Question: How was the wording of the "rod of nature" revelation that became Doctrine and Covenants 8:6–8 altered over time?

The revelation was edited by several individuals, including Sidney Rigdon

The original wording of the revelation, along with revisions performed by Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, John Whitmer, and another unidentified editor, is recorded in the REVELATION BOOK 1 (April 1829-B [D&C 8]). The original revelation reads as follows:

...remember this is thy gift now this is not all for thou hast another gift which is the gift of working with the sprout Behold it hath told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this thing of Nature to work in your hands. [5]

Sidney Rigdon edited the passage to read like this:

...remember this is your gift now this is not all for you have another gift which is the gift of working with the rod Behold it has told you things Behold there is no other power save God that can cause this rod to work in your hands. (emphasis added)

In the Book of Commandments (the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants), the revelation underwent an additional revision by a publication committee of the First Presidency (Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery, and Frederick G. Williams). The Book of Commandments stated:

Chapter 7:3—Now this is not all, for you have another gift, which is the gift of working with the rod: behold it has told you things: behold there is no other power save God, that can cause this rod of nature, to work in your hands, for it is the work of God. (emphasis added)

In the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, this was revised to read:

D&C 8:6–8—Now this is not all thy gift; for you have another gift, which is the gift of Aaron; behold, it has told you many things; Behold, there is no other power, save the power of God, that can cause this gift of Aaron to be with you. Therefore, doubt not, for it is the gift of God; and you shall hold it in your hands, and do marvelous works; and no power shall be able to take it away out of your hands, for it is the work of God. (1921 edition, 8:6–8.) (emphasis added)

Thus, "working with the sprout" and the "thing of Nature" were changed to "the gift of working with the rod," which was again later revised to "the gift of Aaron." It has been assumed, based on this, that Oliver Cowdery was a "rodsman," or someone who used a divining rod to search for hidden treasure, water, or other objects.

Evidence supporting this assertion is that in 1801, a religious sect led by the Wood family enjoyed brief popularity and sought treasure with divining rods. [6] The Wood group was reportedly taught this skill by a counterfeiter/forger named either Winchell or Wingate. Winchell/Wingate had been a guest at Oliver's father, William's, home. Attempts have been made to tie William Cowdery to the Wood group, but there is no evidence that he had any connection with them aside from knowing Winchell/Wingate. As Richard L. Anderson observed:

An 1828 newspaper history of the Wood episode refers to neither the mysterious counterfeiter nor Cowdery. The main group of Middletown survivors of the 1800 period--"more than thirty men and women"--were interviewed up to 1860, and they said nothing of a counterfeiter or of Cowdery. The 1867 recollections of a minister who visited the group in the final weeks of their movement include mention of the counterfeiter but not Cowdery--when a disciple was asked where the criminal stayed, he answered: "He keeps himself secreted in the woods." Frisbie's own claims about the Cowdery connection to the Wood group are both unclear and unsupported. This is the patchwork of folklore, not tightly woven history. [7]

It is therefore not clear whether Oliver used a rod for treasure seeking. The critical association of Oliver's possible use of a rod with the activities of local "rodsmen" seeking treasure is used to imply that Oliver was also a treasure seeker.

Gospel Topics: "the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva"

Gospel Topics on churchofjesuschrist.org:

Some people have balked at this claim of physical instruments used in the divine translation process, but such aids to facilitate the communication of God’s power and inspiration are consistent with accounts in scripture. In addition to the Urim and Thummim, the Bible mentions other physical instruments used to access God’s power: the rod of Aaron, a brass serpent, holy anointing oils, the Ark of the Covenant, and even dirt from the ground mixed with saliva to heal the eyes of a blind man.[8]

Dallin H. Oaks (1987): "It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times"

Dallin H. Oaks:

It should be recognized that such tools as the Urim and Thummim, the Liahona, seerstones, and other articles have been used appropriately in biblical, Book of Mormon, and modern times by those who have the gift and authority to obtain revelation from God in connection with their use. At the same time, scriptural accounts and personal experience show that unauthorized though perhaps well-meaning persons have made inappropriate use of tangible objects while seeking or claiming to receive spiritual guidance. Those who define folk magic to include any use of tangible objects to aid in obtaining spiritual guidance confound the real with the counterfeit. They mislead themselves and their readers. [9]

Source(s) of the criticism
Critical sources


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ Jeffrey G. Cannon, "Oliver Cowdery's Gift," Revelations in Context on history.lds.org
  2. ↑ Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. (Signature Books, 1996–2003),1:600, 604.
  3. ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
  4. ↑ "Mature Joseph Smith," 235.
  5. ↑ Revelation, April 1829–B [D&C 8], in Robin Scott Jensen, Robert J. Woodford, and Stephen C. Harper, eds., Manuscript Revelation Books, vol. 1 of the Revelations and Translations series of The Joseph Smith Papers, ed. Dean C. Jessee, Ronald K. Esplin, and Richard Lyman Bushman (Church Historian’s Press, 2009), 17. (emphasis added)
  6. ↑ Dan Vogel (editor), Early Mormon Documents (Salt Lake City, Signature Books, 1996–2003), 5 vols, 1:599–621.
  7. ↑ Richard L. Anderson, "The Mature Joseph Smith and Treasure Searching," Brigham Young University Studies 24 no. 4 (1984). PDF link
    Caution: this article was published before Mark Hofmann's forgeries were discovered. It may treat fraudulent documents as genuine. Click for list of known forged documents.
    Discusses money-digging; Salem treasure hunting episode; fraudulent 1838 Missouri treasure hunting revelation; Wood Scrape; “gift of Aaron”; “wand or rod”; Heber C. Kimball rod and prayer; magic; occult; divining lost objects; seerstone; parchments; talisman
  8. ↑ "Book of Mormon Translation," Gospel Topics on churchofjesuschrist.org (2013).
  9. ↑ Dallin H. Oaks, "Recent Events Involving Church History and Forged Documents," Ensign (October 1987): 63.


Response to claim: 90, 372n34, 375n35 - Apostle William E. McLellin left the Church because he was "shaken by the changes made in the revelations"

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Apostle William E. McLellin left the Church because he was "shaken by the changes made in the revelations."

Author's sources:
  • "The Early History of the Saints and Their Enemies," Sept. 28, 1875, Salt Lake Daily Tribune, Dec. 5, 1878
  • William McLellin, Saint's Herald, vol. 17, pp. 556-557.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

McLellin had previously been excommunicated for spending time with "a certain harlot" while on a mission. His claim that he left because of changes in the revelations came long after the fact. This explanation (as shown by the dates of the material cited) came long after the fact. The author does not tell us that McLellin said at his excommunication hearing that:

he said he had no confidence in the presidency of the Church; consequently, he had quit praying and keeping the commandments of the Lord, and indulged himself in his sinful lusts. It was from what he had heard that he believed the presidency had got out of the way, and not from anything that he had seen himself.[1]

McLellin had previously been excommunicated for spending time with "a certain harlot" while on a mission.[2] He had also been out of fellowship for "writing a letter which "cast…censure upon the [first] presidency."[1]


Response to claim: 94 - Joseph Smith turned the "Book of Breathings" into the "Book of Abraham"

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Joseph Smith turned the "Book of Breathings" into the "Book of Abraham." Joseph claimed that the "Book of the Dead" had been written by Joseph of Egypt.

Author's sources:
  1. No source provided.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

The Church discussed the nature of the papyri back in 1968.


Gospel Topics on LDS.org: "Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham"

"Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics on LDS.org:

The discovery of the papyrus fragments renewed debate about Joseph Smith’s translation. The fragments included one vignette, or illustration, that appears in the book of Abraham as facsimile 1. Long before the fragments were published by the Church, some Egyptologists had said that Joseph Smith’s explanations of the various elements of these facsimiles did not match their own interpretations of these drawings. Joseph Smith had published the facsimiles as freestanding drawings, cut off from the hieroglyphs or hieratic characters that originally surrounded the vignettes. The discovery of the fragments meant that readers could now see the hieroglyphs and characters immediately surrounding the vignette that became facsimile 1.

None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Mormon and non-Mormon Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Mormon scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.[3]—(Click here to read more)


Question: What is the relationship of the Joseph Smith Papyri to the Book of Abraham?

Pearl of Great Price Central, Insight #37: What Egyptian Papyri Did Joseph Smith Posess?

In July 1835, Joseph Smith purchased a portion of a collection of papyri and mummies that had been discovered in Egypt and brought to the United States

Believing that one of the papyrus rolls contained, "the writings of Abraham while he was in Egypt," and "purportedly written by his own hand, upon papyrus,"[4] Joseph commenced a translation. The Book of Abraham was the result of his work.

The translated text and facsimiles of three drawings were published in the early 1840s in serial fashion in the LDS newspaper Times and Seasons. The entire work was published in 1852 in England as part of The Pearl of Great Price, which was later canonized as part of LDS scripture.

Joseph Smith had in his possession three or four long scrolls, plus a hypocephalus (Facsimile 2). Of these original materials, only a handful of fragments were recovered at the Metropolitan Museum. The majority of the papyri remains lost, and has likely been destroyed. Critics who claim that we have all, or a majority, of the papyri possessed by Joseph Smith are simply mistaken.

Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham

The Egyptian characters on the recovered documents are a portion of the "Book of Breathings," an Egyptian religious text buried with mummies that instructed the dead on how to successfully reach the afterlife. This particular Book of Breathings was written for a deceased man named Hor, so it it usually called the Hor Book of Breathings.

Other than the vignette represented in Facsimile 1, the material on the papyri received by the Church, at least from a standard Egyptological point of view, does not include the actual text of the Book of Abraham. This was discussed in the Church publication, the New Era in January 1968.


Question: What happened to the papyri after Joseph's death?

The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871, but some fragments were discovered in 1966

After Joseph's death, the collection was eventually sold and split up. The original papyri were thought to have been completely destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. Fragments, however, including the illustration represented in Facsimile 1, were discovered in 1966 in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City, who gave them to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in November 1967.


Question: What do the Joseph Smith papyri fragments consist of?

There are eleven fragments of the original papyrus owned by Joseph Smith. The initial labels given the fragments came from Hugh Nibley's work.

The fragments that exist and their source are described in the table below, as are other materials of interest to students of the Book of Abraham:

Fragments Source Comments
  • The Hor Breathing permit
  • Facsimile 3 was part of this text; the original is not extant.
  • Sometimes called "Horus" instead of Hor.
  • N/A
  • The Hypocephalus of Sheshonk
  • II
  • V
  • VI
  • VII
  • VIII
  • IX (Church Historian's Fragment)
  • Most of IV
  • The Book of the Dead belonging to the lady Tshenmin.
  • Fragment IX was not in the papyri returned to the Church by the Metropolitan Museum of Art; it was discovered in the Church Archives and is sometimes called the "Church Historian's Fragment."
  • IIIa
  • IIIb
  • The Book of the Dead belonging to the musician of Amon Re, Neferimub.
  • This is a single vignette, but has been cut into two pieces; hence the designation as (a) and (b) fragments.
  • N/A
  • Another copy of Book of the Dead.


Response to claim: 94-98 - The restoration of the missing portions of Facsimile 1 were "terribly wrong"

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

The restoration of the missing portions of Facsimile 1 were "terribly wrong."

Author's sources:
  1. Charles M. Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus: A New Look at the Joseph Smith Papyri, 2nd ed., (Grand Rapids, MI: Institute for Religious Research, 1992), .

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The Charles Larson "restoration" of Facsimile 1 is "terribly wrong."


Question: Does Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 show a hand, or does it show the wing of a second bird?

The high-resolution photos of the papyri clearly show that it was a hand, not a wing

The Larson restoration presumes that the upper hand represented in Facsimile 1 is instead the wing of a bird. There are several elements which disprove this.

  • It is clear that the Egyptian artist drew wings in a specific manner, as can be observed by the wing of the bird on the right.
  • The two hands have distinct thumbs.
  • The assumption that ink spots on the hand represent spots on the birds wing is disproven by close examination of the original, which shows ink traces that indicate that the lines were originally connected.
  • It is also clear that the missing ink correlates with cracks in the papyri. Note that the cracks extend across all fingers, and that the ink has flaked off along the cracks.
  • Note that the index finger (the one next to the thumb) is continuous in the original, but was broken into two parts in the Larson restoration.


Bell: "the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand"

(non-Mormon) Egyptologist Lanny Bell

Let me state clearly at the outset my conviction that the questionable traces above the head of the Osiris figure are actually the remains of his right hand; in other words, Joseph Smith was correct in his understanding of the drawing at this point. Ashment 1979, pp. 36, 41 (Illustration 13), is very balanced in his analysis of the problem, presenting compelling arguments for reading two hands; Gee 1992, p. 102 and n. 25, refers to Michael Lyon in describing the "thumb stroke" of the upper (right) hand; cf. Gee 2000, pp. 37-38; and Rhodes 2002, p. 19, concludes: "... a careful comparison of the traces with the hand below as well as the tip of the bird's wing to the right makes it quite clear that it is the other hand of the deceased."...An important clue is provided in the orientation of the thumbs of the upraised hands toward the face. This is the expected way of depicting the hands of mourners and others when they are held up to (both sides of) their heads or before their faces.[5]


Question: Should the restoration of Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 include a phallus?

The Larson restoration adds a phallus on the reclining figure, something that is never seen on a clothed Osiris figure

The Larson restoration adds a phallus on the reclining figure, something that is never seen on a clothed Osiris figure.

  • The assumption appears to be that the hash marks on the legs represent breeches. One can also observe this assumption on the Hedlock restoration contained in the Book of Abraham. However, an examination of the original papyrus shows that the legs of the figure were drawn, and that a wraparound Egyptian kilt was then drawn over them. The clothing is not a pair of breeches. This detail is not even in the Larson image, as the two lines distinguishing the legs and the kilt are merged into a single, fat line.
  • It can be seen in the closeup detail that the hash lines of the kilt extend beyond the lines of the leg, intersecting the outer line of the kilt.
  • It can also be seen that the kilt is curved, whereas the legs are straight.
  • The Larson restoration adds a phallus (which we have chosen to obscure) in the location of the figure's navel, based upon the location of the intersection of the legs and an estimate of where the top of the kilt would appear.


Bell: "there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis"

(non Mormon) Egyptologist Lanny Bell:

[T]he representation of an ithyphallic figure wearing a kilt would not be unparalleled. However, judging from the position of the erect phallus of the reclining kilted earth god Geb in a cosmological scene on Dynasty 21 Theban coffins now in Turin and Bristol, there would not be enough available space to restore the hand of Anubis, the erect phallus of the Osiris, and the body and wings of Isis in P.JS I: Anubis would have to be grasping the phallus himself and assisting Isis in alighting on it—which is unimaginable. . . .In this area, I believe the Parker-Baer-Ashment reconstruction (with its "implied" erect phallus) is seriously flawed.[6]


Question: Was the original head of the priest in Book of Abraham Facsimile 1 actually the jackal head of Anubis?

The high-resolution photos show evidence that the head of the priest was originally the jackal-head of Anubis

The head of the priest in the Hedlock restoration appears to simply copy the head of the reclining figure. An examination of the papyrus, however, shows evidence that the head was originally that of Anubis. In this case, the Larson restoration appears to be correct. Theologically, it would not matter to scenes such as this one. Ancient art depcting religious situations such as this frequently had other people impersonating other Gods. Thus, even if this is an incorrect restoration, it would not matter to the overall message of the scene portrayed.

The priest of Elkenah likely could have been wearing an Anubian headdress while performing this scene and the interpretation would still be, for all intents and purposes, correct. Those performing rituals often donned a mask impersonating a particular god for theological effect.[7]

John Gee has written:

The discussion about figure 3 has centered on whether the head should be that of a jackal or a bald man. Whether the head is a jackal or a bald man in no way affects the interpretation of the figure, however, since in either case the figure would be a priest.

His footnote here reads as follows:

The argument for the identification runs as follows:
(1) Assume for the sake of argument that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is correct. What are the implications of the figure being a bald man? Shaving was a common feature of initiation into the priesthood from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period. Since “Complete shaving of the head was another mark of the male Isiac votary and priest” the bald figure would then be a priest.

(2) Assume on the other hand that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is that of a jackal, as was first suggested by Theodule Devéria. We have representations of priests wearing masks, one example of an actual mask, [and] literary accounts from non-Egyptians about Egyptian priests wearing masks. . . . Thus, however the restoration is made, the individual shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest, and the entire question of which head should be on the figure is moot so far as identifying the figure is concerned. (John Gee, “Abracadabra, Isaac, and Jacob,” Review of Books on the Book of Mormon 7/1 [1995]: 80–82)[8]

Gee gives an example of this of a bald priest donning the head of Anubis at the temple of Dendara. The first image is an actual drawing created during the Ptolemaic period from Dendara of the priest putting on the mask. The second is an example of such a mask that would be placed on them.

An actual drawing from the Temple at Dendara of a priest putting on an Anubian mask
An actual Anubian mask


  • Note that there is a portion of the back of Anubis's headdress visible in the original.
  • It is more likely that the back of the headdress showed hair rather than a solid as represented in the Larson image.


Response to claim: 99 - LDS apologists' main purpose is to explain away "any and all criticisms that might damage the validity of Smith's writings"

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

LDS apologists' main purpose is to explain away "any and all criticisms that might damage the validity of Smith's writings."

Author's sources:
  1. Author's opinion.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: This claim contains propaganda - The author, or the author's source, is providing information or ideas in a slanted way in order to instill a particular attitude or response in the reader

This is simply the author's opinion.


Response to claim: 100 - One or two words in Egyptian were expanded to entire paragraphs in English

The author(s) of Becoming Gods make(s) the following claim:

Documents show how the hieroglyphs from the papyri were matched to the Book of Abraham text. One or two words in Egyptian were expanded to entire paragraphs in English.

Author's sources:
  1. Richard L. Bushman, "Joseph Smith as Translator, in Waterman, p. 81.

FAIR's Response

Fact checking results: The author has stated erroneous information or misinterpreted their sources

The author assumes that the Kirtland Egyptian Papers were created prior to the dictation of the Book of Abraham, when the opposite is actually true.


Question: In the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, why is each Egyptian character matched to an entire paragraph of English text?

The KEP may have been an attempt to "reverse engineer" the Book of Abraham translation against the Egyptian papyri

Once the Book of Abraham translation was complete, a unique opportunity existed to use the completed translation in an attempt to match it against the Egyptian characters on the papyri and produce a correlation between English and Egyptian. The Church addresses this possibility on LDS.org:

Some evidence suggests that Joseph studied the characters on the Egyptian papyri and attempted to learn the Egyptian language. His history reports that, in July 1835, he was “continually engaged in translating an alphabet to the Book of Abraham, and arrangeing a grammar of the Egyptian language as practiced by the ancients.” This “grammar,” as it was called, consisted of columns of hieroglyphic characters followed by English translations recorded in a large notebook by Joseph’s scribe, William W. Phelps. Another manuscript, written by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, has Egyptian characters followed by explanations.[9]

The reverse engineering hypothesis gains traction once we see that the translation of the Book of Abraham (as some have supposed are demonstrated by the characters in the margins of the translation manuscripts) and the characters in the GAEL:

Yet some have supposed that the Egyptian Alphabet was the tool used to create the translation. In order to assess whether this could be the case or not, I conducted research to test the assumption. First, I located all of the phrases in the Egyptian Alphabet that also appear in the Book of Abraham. I then compared the Egyptian characters next to those phrases to the Egyptian characters adjacent to the matching lines in the early Book of Abraham manuscripts. Of the twenty-one times I found text in the Egyptian Alphabet that matched text in the Book of Abraham, I found only one time that the corresponding Egyptian characters matched, four times when part of the characters matched, and sixteen times in which there was no match whatsoever. Clearly the Egyptian alphabet was not used to translate the papyri, nor is there any demonstrable relationship between the characters on the papyri and the text of the Book of Abraham. This is not surprising since the characters come from fragments of papyri that eyewitnesses noted were not the source of the Book of Abraham.[10]

Even further evidence of this is the presence of Hebrew in the GAEL. This is further explicated by Jeff Lindsay[11]


Notes (click to expand)
Back to Top
  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 "History of William E. McLellin," Millennial Star 26 (1864), 808.; see also Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. Brigham H. Robers, 7 vols. (Deseret Book, 1957), 3:31. Volume 3 link
  2. ↑ D. Michael Quinn, The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power (Signature Books, 1994), 44.
  3. ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics (8 July 2014)
  4. ↑ Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, ed. Brigham H. Robers, 7 vols. (Deseret Book, 1957), 2:235, 236, 348–351. 236, 348 Volume 2 link
  5. ↑ (non-Mormon) Egyptologist Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,' the Mormon 'Book of Abraham,' and the Development of Egyptology in America," Egypt and Beyond: Essays Presented to Leonard H. Lesko upon his Retirement from the Wilbour Chair of Egyptology at Brown University June 2005, (ed. Stephen E. Thompson), Department of Egyptology and Ancient Western Asian Studies, Brown University, 2008, p. 28.
  6. ↑ (non Mormon) Egyptologist Lanny Bell, "The Ancient Egyptian 'Books of Breathing,'", p. 29.
  7. ↑ See Robert K. Ritner "Osiris-Canopus and Bes at Herculaneum". As Ritner writes herein: "Although the Herculaneum dancer probably represents a masked participant impersonating the god, the matter is theologically unimportant. The British Museum Bes statue, noted above, has been assumed to be a masked man because of his kilt, moderate belly and flattened face, but no clear cords or fittings indicate that the face is a mask. A Middle Kingdom mask of Bes does survive from Kahun proving the existence of Bes—masked priests, but statue ary of masked humans is more problematic than masked figures in religious scenes. A potentially more relevant sculpture derives from a far earlier period in Egyptian history, on a Fifth Dynasty relief also in the British Museum. Defying the general taboo on representing gods in Old Kingdom tombs, this relief (EA 994) includes a leonine Bes in profile carrying a wand within a scene of the 'd‘ance of the youths.' As in the Herculaneum fresco more than two millennia later, a priest masked as Bes performs at a ritual dance."
  8. ↑ John Gee, "A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri" (Provo, UT: FARMS, 2000) 36-9, 66
  9. ↑ "Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham," Gospel Topics (8 July 2014).
  10. ↑ Kerry Muhelstein, '"The Explanation Defying Book of Abraham" in A Reason For Faith: Navigating LDS Doctrine and Church History (ed.) Laura Harris Hales (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 2016) 85.
  11. ↑ Jeff Lindsay, “A Precious Resource With Some Gaps” Interpreter: a Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 33-2 (2019) pp. 35-58 off-site



Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Becoming_Gods/Chapter_3&oldid=236683"