Mormon Civil War: John Gee vs. the Joseph Smith Papers Project - 1397

The Silent Divide: John Gee vs. the Joseph Smith Papers Project

In the realm of Mormon history, the Book of Abraham presents a persistent and fascinating controversy. This debate has recently taken a contentious turn between John Gee, a prominent LDS scholar known for his defense of the Book of Abraham as an ancient document, and the Joseph Smith Papers Project, a rigorous historical initiative aimed at providing verified and transparent insights into Joseph Smith's works. The clash hinges on differing interpretations of the papyri used by Joseph Smith, revealing fault lines between traditional apologetics and modern scholarship. Understanding this conflict matters because it illustrates the broader struggle within Mormon scholarship over reconciling faith with historical evidence.

Historical Context of the Book of Abraham Controversy

The origins of this conflict date back to 1967, when fragments of the Joseph Smith papyri were rediscovered at the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. These fragments, connected to the Book of Abraham, were once assumed to be lost. Joseph Smith's claims of translating ancient Egyptian texts into scripture stand at the heart of this debate. For decades, arguments supporting the authenticity of these translations as ancient documents have polarized scholars, with John Gee leading the charge in favor of Smith’s translations through the "Missing Papyrus Theory."

Gee's Assertions and Project's Responses

John Gee, an Egyptologist with deep ties to Mormon apologetics, argues passionately for the existence of a now-lost section of papyrus that could substantiate Joseph Smith’s translation. In stark contrast, the Joseph Smith Papers Project, with editors such as Brian Hauglid and Robin Jensen, emphasizes the historical context and physical evidence available, which suggest the surviving papyri do not justify the Book of Abraham’s translations as authentic ancient documents.