Theological Questions Regarding the Book of Abraham

Home > Book of Abraham Sandbox > Theological Questions Regarding the Book of Abraham

Theological Questions Regarding the Book of Abraham

Summary: Critics have raised several theological issues with the Book of Abraham. These include questions about race, lying, the inclusion of a God with an erect phallus in Facsimile 2, its inclusion of multiple gods instead of a singular god, and its relationship to science.

---

Lying

Some have asked why God commanded Abraham to lie in Abraham 2:24. In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:34 says, "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell." Why would God command Abraham to do something that would throw him down to hell?

There are two ways of approaching this issue.

Approach #1: Lying is Not Okay

The first approach to this question would start from the assumption that lying is not good. From there, it would seek evidence that Abraham actually did not lie to Pharaoh about Sarai being Abraham's sister instead of hish wife.

There is a case to be made that Abraham did not lie. Stephen O. Smoot, John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson have laid out some evidence that might support this view:

One important thing to keep in mind is that Genesis 20:12 identifies Sarai as Abraham’s half-­sister. “So it is at least possible that Sarah belonged to Abraham’s extended family and was thus considered to be his ‘sister’ in the sense of a near blood relative.” With this in mind, Abraham appears to have been using somewhat ambiguous terminology and not necessarily making an outright false statement. This ambiguous language may also have been playing on Mesopotamian legal definitions, but this point is debated.

Whether or not this tactic would have played well in a Mesopotamian context, it would have worked in ancient Egyptian, since in that language “a wife was often called the ‘sister’ (snt) of her husband, but not because they had the same parents: instead, the term was one of affection, indicating that the family relationship between husband and wife by marriage was as close as that between real brother and sister.” This appears to reinforce the point that Abraham could be viewed as taking advantage of an ambiguity that would have worked especially well in thwarting the murderous intentions of the Egyptians. “The custom of referring to one’s wife (hm.t) as one’s sister (sn.t)” in ancient Egyptian culture therefore takes on deep significance for this passage. “For an Egyptian audience, Abram’s calling Sarai his sister would not have precluded her being his wife.”

Finally, it is noteworthy that a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls called the Genesis Apocryphon depicts Abraham being warned in a dream of the danger he faced when traveling into Egypt because of Sarai’s beauty. This in turn prompted his equivocation with Pharaoh. While this text does not overtly say that God told Abraham to “lie” about his relationship with Sarai, it heavily implies that he was divinely forewarned of the situation. This harmonizes nicely with the account in the Book of Abraham.

Approach #2: Lying is Not Wrong in Some Circumstances

The other approach would be under the assumption that lying is not wrong under certain circumstances such as when one puts themselves or others in grave danger without the misrepresentation of truth. Abraham's story would naturally fit into that worldview.

One interesting note that might support this view is that Joseph Smith's definition of lying likely differed from a modern one. This is important because we know that God speaks unto men after their language so that they can come to understanding (Doctrine & Covenants 1:24) and He would have given the translation of the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith, including passages like 2 Nephi 9:34, with his definitions in mind.

"Lying" today would be defined as "misrepresnting the truth." Joseph Smith's definition, however, likely differed from the modern one. The 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary defined lying as follows:

1. To utter falsehood with an intention to deceive, or with an immoral design.

Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. Acts 5:3.

2. To exhibit a false representation; to say or do that which deceives another, when he has a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just representation.

Lying is only such when morality requires that you tell the truth, according to Webster's. Under this definiton of lying, scriptures like 2 Nephi 9:34 can be easily reconciled with Abraham 2:24.

Mention of Plural Gods

Some critics have taken issue with the fact that certain scriptures in The Church of Jesus Christ's canon seem to portray only one God being responsible for the Creation of the earth (2 Nephi 2꞉14; Jacob 4꞉9; Moses 2). Others, like the Book of Abraham, portray multiple gods creating the earth (Abraham 4, 5).

Latter-day Saints believe that God is one, but accept the Biblical witness that this is a oneness of purpose, intent, mind, will, and love, into which believers are invited to participate (see John 17꞉22-23). Latter-day Saint doctrine views God as one, but not in the same sense as Nicene trinitarianism. Nicene trinitarianism sees God as a singular substance rather than three separate and distinct beings like Latter-day Saints. This is not a contradiction. It merely demonstrates that Latter-day Saints do not accept Nicene Trinitarianism.

Min as God with an Erect Phallus

Some critics have taken issue with Joseph Smith's explanation of Facsimile 2, Figure 7. Critic Jeremy Runnells wrote:

One of the most disturbing facts I discovered in my research of Facsimile 2 is figure #7. Joseph Smith said that this is “God sitting on his throne…” It’s actually Min, the pagan Egyptian god of fertility or sex. Min is sitting on a throne with an erect penis (which can be seen in the figure). In other words, Joseph Smith is saying that this figure with an erect penis is Heavenly Father sitting on his throne.

Runnells' concern displays an immaturity about sexuality and a lack of sophistication as to why God would be portrayed this way.

This attitude, reflected by some, is a good example of how our modern, sexually-obsessed society can easily misinterpret religious art. We see an erect penis in a drawing and think "pornography," whereas an ancient Egyptian would have seen one and thought of fertility, virility, and life. Hence, the depiction of Min with an erection was a sign of his life-giving ability. We have analogies in Northwest Semitic depictions of God. (El is both called and depicted as a virile bull in the Ugaritic texts, both because of his procreative powers and his greatness over the other gods.)

Another thing to keep in mind is the remarkable prevalence of syncretism between Near Eastern cultures, particularly in the exchange of religious ideas and iconography. We know ancient Hebrews and other Near Eastern people used a phallic God to depict “the God of the Bible” all the time. The Canaanite god Baal, for example, shares the same epithet with Yahweh ("cloud rider") in Psalm 68:4.

This concern, again, lacks sophistication and maturity about sex and ancient religion.

Race

One of the most troubling aspects to readers of the Book of Abraham is its apparent support for the The Church of Jesus Christ's historical restrictions on Black individuls from receiving the priesthood and entering Latter-day Saint temples.

Book of Abraham and the Historical Priesthood and Temple Restrictions

The Book of Abraham contains a passage in which the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh is described as being “of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,” because of a “curse … pertaining to the Priesthood” associated with his descent from Ham (Abraham 1:26–27). Historically, some in the Church referenced this passage in efforts to justify the mid-19th- to late-20th-century policy that prohibited men of Black African descent from priesthood ordination and Black men and women from temple ordinances.

However, contemporary scholarship and historical analysis show that the Book of Abraham cannot be accurately cited as a doctrinal foundation for those racial restrictions:

Historical Use vs. Textual Content

While the Book of Abraham mentions a lineage lacking the right to priesthood, the text does not mention race, skin color, or Black Africans, nor does it provide any explanation for why that lineage was barred beyond its own ancient narrative context. The specific reasons for the priesthood exclusion in the policy are not found in the scripture itself.

Ancient Context of “Curses” and Inheritance

According to John S. Thompson’s analysis, the Book of Abraham reflects an ancient legal-cultural concept of cursing as disinheritance, not racial inferiority. In ancient Near Eastern legal language, being “cursed” could mean being cut off from inheritance — including priesthood rights — due to violation of covenant-related legal norms, and this status could affect descendants simply because they could not receive what an ancestor no longer held. This model, Thompson shows, was common in ancient legal traditions and is applied in the Book of Abraham without any reference to modern racial categories.

Lack of Original Doctrinal Application

Significantly, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith used the Book of Abraham to institute or justify a race-based priesthood restriction in his lifetime, nor that early Church leaders immediately applied it to policy in that way. An article on the topic notes that even Brigham Young and other early administrators who supported the historical ban did not explicitly cite this text as the doctrinal source for the policy.

Modern Interpretations and Disavowals

Scholars and the Church’s own historical essays have clarified that the priesthood restriction was not formally rooted in a revealed, canonical doctrinal basis that is clearly articulated in the Book of Abraham. Interpretations tying the passage to Black Africans and racial characteristics emerged later under the influence of broader nineteenth-century racial theories, rather than from the scripture itself. Contemporary Church statements have disavowed past explanations that linked race to divine curse or inferiority.

Textual, historical, and contextual analyses indicate that the Book of Abraham does not support the historical exclusion of people of Black African descent from priesthood ordination or temple ordinances. Its ancient narrative about lineage and inherited blessings was later misappropriated by some as a justification for racialized policy, but objectively, the text does not articulate a racial priesthood ban nor provide the doctrinal grounding that such a policy would require.

Further Reading

• Shannon, Avram R. "'That Lineage': Rival Priesthood Claims in Abraham 1." In Abraham and His Family in Scripture, History, and Tradition: Proceedings of the Conference Held May 3 & 10, 2025 at Brigham Young University, ed. Jeffrey M. Bradshaw, John S. Thompson, Matthew L. Bowen, and David R. Seely, 2 vols. (Interpreter Foundation; Eborn Books, 2025), 1:207–39.
• Smoot, Stephen O., John Gee, Kerry Muhlestein, and John S. Thompson. "The Priesthood Ban and the Book of Abraham." In BYU Studies Quarterly 61, no. 4 (2022): 56–64.
• Thompson, John S. "'Being of That Linage': Generational Curses and Inheritance in the Book of Abraham." Interpreter: A Journal of Latter-day Saint Faith and Scholarship 54 (2022) : 97–146.

Science

Two interesting questions were posed by Jeremy Runnells, author of the CES Letter, a document that is critical of the Church.

Newtonian Physics?

The first assertion from Runnells is as follows:

The Book of Abraham teaches an incorrect Newtonian view of the universe. These Newtonian astronomical concepts, mechanics, and models of the universe have since been succeeded and substantially modified by 20th century Einsteinian physics.

What we find in Abraham 3 and the official scriptures of the LDS Church regarding science reflects a Newtonian world concept. Just as the Catholic Church's Ptolemaic cosmology was displaced by the new Copernican and Newtonian world model, however, the nineteenth-century, canonized, Newtonian world view has since been displaced by Einstein's twentieth-century science.

Keith E. Norman, an LDS scholar, has written that for the LDS Church:

It is no longer possible to pretend there is no conflict.

Norman continues:

Scientific cosmology began its leap forward just when Mormon doctrine was becoming stabilized. The revolution in twentieth-century physics precipitated by Einstein dethroned Newtonian physics as the ultimate explanation of the way the universe works. Relativity theory and quantum mechanics, combined with advances in astronomy, have established a vastly different picture of how the universe began, how it is structured and operates, and the nature of matter and energy. This new scientific cosmology poses a serious challenge to the Mormon version of the universe.

Grant Palmer, a Mormon historian and CES teacher for 34 years, wrote:

Many of the astronomical and cosmological ideas found in both Joseph Smith’s environment and in the Book of Abraham have become out of vogue, and some of these Newtonian concepts are scientific relics. The evidence suggests that the Book of Abraham reflects concepts of Joseph Smith’s time and place rather than those of an ancient world.

This charge was adequately addressed by Sarah Allen, quoted at length below:

The Book of Abraham does not teach a Newtonian view of the universe. It teaches a geocentric one. This means that the ancient cultures believed that the Earth was the center of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around it instead of the other way around. There are numerous articles written about this concept, demonstrating how and why Jeremy is wrong in his assertion. As we know, Heavenly Father teaches us new concepts according to our own understanding and language. This is what He was doing here with Abraham.

Jeremy appears not to have even read his own cited source, an article published in Sunstone Magazine in 1986. The article was written by a man named Keith Norman (whose expertise is in early Christianity, not science) who admits in the article that, when it comes to theoretical physics, “I am still struggling with books on the subject written for the layman.” Most importantly, the article isn’t even about the Book of Abraham or its cosmology. It argues that Einsteinian physics point toward “creation ex nihilo” as being the truth over the Latter-day Saint view that matter is eternal. Norman only cites the Book of Abraham one time in the entire article, when quoting a line about Kolob while speculating about a possible “solution” to his self-created dilemma:

Precisely because Mormons believe in a plurality of gods, we are logically led to speculate as to their locations or spheres of dominion. The astronomical assertions in the Pearl of Great Price may indicate that God rules within our own galaxy, the Milky Way: “Kolob is set nigh unto the throne of God, to govern all those planets which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest” (Abr. 3:9; cf. facsimile 2, esp. fig. 5). Does each God have his and her own galaxy or cluster of galaxies? The Milky Way galaxy alone has over 100 billion stars, quite enough to accommodate the phrase “worlds without number.” And ours is just average-sized as galaxies go, one of 100 billion. In other words, there are as many galaxies in the universe as there are stars in our galaxy.

The problem is, theoretical physics doesn’t support creation ex nihilo as proposed in this article. Now, physics is not my forte, so if I misstate anything here, I hope someone will correct me. But Stephen Hawking, easily the most brilliant scientific mind of our generation, stated this:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe after the Big Bang will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang are simply not defined, because there’s no way one could measure what happened at them.

Dense matter existed before the Big Bang, according to Hawking, and because we can’t observe what happened prior to that event, it’s simply not defined in the theory. The Big Bang Wikipedia page states that, “The model describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, and…as an event [it] is also colloquially referred to as the ‘birth’ of our universe since it represents the point in history where the universe can be verified to have entered into a regime where the laws of physics as we understand them…work.”

So, the universe existed in an initial state before the Big Bang happened, just like Hawking said. Because scientists can’t measure time and space prior to the Big Bang, some scientists say that it was “nothing,” but they don’t mean that word the way that Norman interprets it. They mean it the way that Hawking interprets it.

This theory Hawking was describing is called the “initial singularity” theory. Other theories have been proposed, like the "M-theory”/multiverse theory or the “loop quantum gravity”/LQG theory. Regardless of which theory you support, however, they all suggest that something existed before the Big Bang and thus, the universe was not created from nothing. It’s just that it was immeasurable and unobservable, so we don’t have the resources yet to fully understand it. It’s hard to define it accurately, so some scientists don’t bother to try.

Norman seems to have misunderstood what those other scientists were saying, and his article is a theoretical one based on that misunderstanding. The Big Bang theory does not support creation ex nihilo as Norman posits, and therefore, science does not disprove Latter-day Saint cosmology.

However, the main point is, none of that has anything to do with the Book of Abraham’s view of the universe. The article does not claim what Jeremy says it does…or what Grant Palmer says it does. Palmer was a former CES employee who lost his testimony, then published an anti-LDS book after he retired. One of his main sources for his assertion that the Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view of the universe is this exact article, using this exact same quote that Jeremy does. This tells me that Palmer’s book is likely Jeremy’s true source for this claim, as it did not come from the article itself. The article never makes the claim that the Book of Abraham’s cosmology is Newtonian.

Moreover, ancient cultures, like the Egyptians and the Israelites, also believed that creation came from something already existing, just like Hawking and other modern physicists do. The account of the creation given in the Book of Abraham aligns perfectly with that view, while the belief in creation ex nihilo was highly prominent in the 1800s. Rather than support the trending view in Joseph’s day as claimed, the Book of Abraham actually counters it.

Kolob Getting Light from Kae-e-vanrash?

Runnells articulated another problem with the Book of Abraham's supposed presentation of science:

Facsimile 2, Figure #5 states the sun receives its “light from the revolutions of Kolob.” We now know, however, that the process of nuclear fusion is what makes the stars and suns shine. With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists learned that the sun’s source of energy is internal and not external. The sun shines because of thermonuclear fusion. The sun does not shine because it gets its light from any other star or any other external source.

Sarah Allen's next blog post, responding to Runnells, answered aptly:

No, Facsimile 2, Figure 5 states that it “is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from the revolutions of Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash…the governing power….” Joseph didn’t state that “the sun receives its light from the revolutions of Kolob.” He wasn’t making any kind of grand, prophetic, cosmological declaration about the way the universe works. He stated pretty clearly that those words were said by ancient Egyptians. That was their way of describing the universe according to their understanding. It was not Joseph’s. While he was teaching them astronomy, Abraham was likening gospel truths to concepts that the Egyptians already understood. It doesn’t have to be accurate to our understanding today to have made sense to them.

And, as Jim Bennett points out, we don’t know what “the medium of Kae-e-vanrash” is. Who are we to say that doesn’t involve thermonuculear fusion? Why can’t Kae-e-vanrash be God setting in motion the process of hydrogen atoms combining to create energy? Just because ancient Egyptians had no concept of nuclear reaction doesn’t mean they were completely wrong about everything. There is much we don’t know yet about how the universe works and what God’s role is in governing it. What we do know are just drops in the bucket compared to the light and knowledge we’ll gain in the eternities. Dismissing this concept out of hand as nonsense—especially when you don’t seem to understand the actual point being made about God channeling His power through various mediums in order to govern the universe—is shortsighted.

Take into consideration that Kolob is a metaphor for Jesus Christ. Joseph essentially stated that the sun borrows or obtains its light from the Son. D&C 88:6-13 teaches us that the Light of Christ is in the sun and the light of the sun and the power by which it was made, and in the moon, and stars, and earth, and all of us and all things, filling the immensity of space, giving life to all things, governing all things, and is the power of God who sits on His throne in the midst of all things and in the bosom of eternity. It’s Priesthood power. Since Jesus Christ is Jehovah, and Jehovah is the one who formed the universe under God’s guidance and direction, through the power of the Priesthood, of course the sun got its light from Christ. That doesn’t mean it can’t also get its light from thermonuclear fusion. That is simply the means through which Christ provided the sun with its light. All things are governed by the power of God, including nuclear reactions.

In Abraham 3, the discussion begins with Jehovah teaching Abraham about the governing order, using astronomy as a metaphor. Kolob is the greatest of all, and then the power gradually lessons as it descends down the line. The sun is greater than the moon, which is in turn greater than the stars, etc. It’s the same gradation we see in the Three Degrees of Glory: the Celestial Kingdom has a higher glory than the Terrestrial Kingdom, which in turn has a higher glory than the Telestial Kingdom. The Kingdoms are defined by their proximity to Christ and the Father, just like the description of the universe Jehovah gives Abraham.

It’s here that “[t]he conversation between Abraham and the Lord shifts from a discussion of heavenly bodies to spiritual beings. This reflects a play on words that Egyptians often use between a star (ach) and a spirit (ich). The shift is done by means of a comparison: ‘Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; … as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other’ (Abraham 3:17–18). In an Egyptian context, the play on words would strengthen the parallel. … The Egyptian play on words between star and spirit allows the astronomical teachings to flow seamlessly into teachings about the preexistence which follow immediately thereafter.”

The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual sums all of this up nicely:

Abraham learned that wherever there are two stars one will be greater than the other, and that there are other stars greater than those two, until Kolob, which is the greatest of all. He learned that it is not size that makes one star or planet greater than another, but rather its proximity to Kolob. So it is with the children of God—their greatness and glory will depend upon their proximity to the Creator, Jesus Christ, who is “nearest unto the throne of God,” “the great one,” “the first creation,” and is “set to govern all those which belong to the same order.” Thus the great star, Kolob, is a symbol of Jesus Christ.

As we draw nearer to Christ, the more of His power will reach us and the greater we can become. This was the concept that Joseph was teaching us, using the facsimile as an illustration, and what Abraham was trying to teach the Egyptians. Neither of them was giving us a physics lesson.

Notes

BACK TO TOP