This is an archived copy of a post written by Conflict Of Justice (conflictofjustice.com). Used with permission: Conflict Of Justice may not agree with any alterations made.
Egyptian Context Is Different
Skeptics say Joseph Smith provided a meaning for the Facsimiles that do not match their Egyptian meanings. These are Egyptian illustrations, skeptics say, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with Abraham. Well, I don’t know why anyone would be shocked that the Facsimiles are Egyptian. They certainly look Egyptian to me! They were found with an Egyptian mummy. Why wouldn’t they be Egyptian?
Joseph Smith and church leaders said they were “characters such as you find upon the coffins of mummies–hieroglyphs,etc.” CES Letter holds the Facsimiles to an Egyptian context, while Joseph Smith provided a different context. Joseph even explained that the Egyptian meaning was different than the Abrahamic meaning. Qne figure, he said, was “also a numerical figure, in Egyptian.” Another figure was “said by the Egyptians to be the Sun.” Joseph Smith focused not on an Egyptian translation, but how the Facsimiles related to Abraham.
What would be the correct translation for a five-pointed star? Well, it depends on the context. A five-pointed star on the American flag means something very different than a five-pointed Egyptian Duat star which represents the afterlife. When you see a cross at a cemetery do you assume it is a symbol of Christian worship or do you see it as a symbol of someone’s burial? Likewise, the symbols in the Facsimiles were presented in an Egyptian context, but the symbols also had different Abrahamic meanings.
Facsimile 1 Shows Abraham In The Sed-Festival
The cross at the cemetery may mean something specific, but isn’t it at least related to the original Christian meaning. Of course. Likewise, we should expect the Facsimile’s Egyptian meaning to be similar to Joseph Smith’s Abraham meaning. After all, why assume that the symbolism in “Pagan” is incongruent with the gospel? Chapter one of the Book of Abraham describes how Abraham acted as a substitute sacrifice for the king in what is known today as the Sed-Festival, and Facsimile 1 illustrates the same kind of scene.
Researchers have found the lion couch scene sometimes references this Sed-festival ritual which goes back to early Egyptian times. The king ritually “died” on the New Years and was “resurrected” to reclaim his kingship. The king played out the character of Osiris in this Egyptian ritual: “In the Sed-Feast the king assumed the costume of Osiris and impersonated the life of the resurrected god. The king then became identified with Osiris, and was assured of a like resurrection and similar privileges.” Researchers have also found that animals and even humans were sacrificed as substitutes for the king’s ritual “death.” It sounds like Abraham as a child was one of these substitute sacrifices for the king. This explains how Joseph Smith found an Abrahamic context for this vignette.
Resurrection Scene
Skeptics say this is a funeral scene. Sure, the lion couch vignette can sometimes be a funeral scene. But if this is supposed to be a funeral scene, why is the deceased character on the bed kicking up his legs and lifting his arms? Bodies don’t tend to do this during funerals. Also, we don’t see this in any of the other funeral bed scenes presented by CES Letter, because Facsimile 1 is a totally different Egyptian context than any of these scenes. This is not a funeral lion couch scene. Egyptologists agree this is a scene about resurrection, which relates nicely to Abraham as he was delivered from death in the same fashion. The Sed-festival sacrifice died so that the king would be resurrected.
CES Letter provides these examples of “similar funerary scenes,” but actually these are all sarcophagus scenes with deceased people in coffins. Facsimile 1 shows no coffin, no sarcophagus. He is alive and dynamic. That’s because it shows “the union of the sun god Amen-Re, as an ithyphallic bird, with Osiris,” not a funerary scene. In fact, while this does show Osiris in the Egyptian context, Facsimile 1 is the only lion couch scene ever discovered with the deceased wearing ritual sacred garments and anklets, along with several other unique symbols of the Sed-festival.
The kicking legs were a symbol for departing to “foreign lands” to Egyptians. His arms are raised in the a symbol of prayer, with “arms raised in front of face.” This matches perfectly the Book of Abraham imagery of Abraham on the altar, where “as they lifted their hands upon me… I lifted up my voice unto the Lord my God, and the Lord hearkened and heard.”
Notice how the Anubis character to the left stands between the lying figure and the lion couch. This suggests the lying figure is being violently placed onto the lion couch. Or, Dr. Hugh Nibley suggests, the lion couch is actually a stone altar, many of which have been found in Egypt. The artist drew it like this because otherwise the priests standing body would be conceiled behind the base of the stone altar. The arrangement thus shows that this lion couch was more than just a bed. It was an altar.
When we dig into the symbolism and name definitions, we find that there are close similarities between this Egyptian and Abraham contexts, and that the Egyptian names mean almost the same things as the Babylonian or Near Eastern names which Joseph Smith provided.
Egyptian vs. Abraham Meanings
1.  Joseph Smith: “The Angel of the Lord.” |  In the Egyptian funeral context, the falcon represents the ba spirit of the deceased. But the falcon is also a symbol of Horus, a god similar to Jehovah in Egyptian theology (a star in the East heralded his birth, baptized in the River Jordan, walked on water, healed the sick, etc.). The falcon was also a messenger bird sent from Horus in Ptolemaic Memphis. In one story, the falcon-god Nectanebo “thoughtfully sends a falcon as a dream messenger.” In this particular lion couch vignette, the falcon is a messenger Horus. In the Book of the Dead, which is where Facsimile 1 and the Book of Breathings derives: “The messenger quotes the command of Horus: Horus as command of Horus: Horus has commanded: Lift up your faces and look at him; he has made his appearance as a divine falcon.” Egyptian texts peak of the Horus falcon as an angelic messenger: “The messenger speaks: I grew and waxed mightily… and appeared as a divine Falcon.” The Egyptian falcon is an angel of Horus, just like it is the angel of the Lord in the Abrahamic context. Doesn’t this angelic messenger match the bird in Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic context, the angel of Jehovah? |
2.  Joseph Smith: “Abraham fastened upon an altar.” |  Skeptics say this figure is “the deceased” person who the Book of Breathings was made for. But if this figure is supposed to be a deceased mummy, why isn’t he dressed like a mummy? Why are his arms and legs moving up? Doesn’t look very deceased to me. This is Osiris, who acts as a metaphor for the deceased being resurrected. This same character (without the ritual garments) is found in a scene from the Opet temple at Karnak: “Osiris as a young man lying upon a lion couch.” This was a scene of Osiris’ “union” with the messenger Horus bird, which was “a central mythos in the concept of the divine kingship,” and was “a key to understanding the pyramids as sites ‘that allowed the king to unite with the ba of the sun god.'” The Book of Breathings is all about the afterlife, and its “accompanying text” to this scene “mentions not only Osiris, but also his protection.” So, Osiris takes the place of Hor in this Facsimile, to unite with the Lord and give his protection. If the deceased gets to analogously fill the role of Osiris, why can’t Abraham as well? In each Facsimile, Abraham is the same character as Osiris and fulfills the same role. In the Book of Abraham, the messenger tells him: “Behold, I will lead thee by my hand, and I will take thee, to put upon thee my name, even the Priesthood of thy father, and my power shall be over thee.” The messenger gave Abraham divine authority and united him with the Lord. Both the Egyptian context and Abraham context therefore show basically the same thing. In the Sed-festival, Abraham acted as proxy for the king in this figure to ensure his united with the Lord and resurrection. |
3.  Joseph Smith: “The idolatrous priest of Elkenah attempting to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice.” |  In each of the funerary scenes provided by CES Letter, this figure is a human priest acting in the role of the god Anubis, wearing his mask, preparing the deceased body for burial. But this is a scene of resurrection and exaltation, not a funeral. That’s why this figure doesn’t show up in the Osiris resurrection scene at the Opet temple at Karnak. So who is he in this Egyptian ressurrection context? At the Dendera Temple, Horus stands at this same position and commands Osiris to rise from his bier. It refers to Horus sacrificing his eye so that Osiris would be revived: “Horus sacrifices his eye and with it awakens the dead god to life.” At the Bruce’s Tomb in Thebes, we see a similar scene where “Anubis and Horus sacrifice to Osiris; figures with knives… The act of the opening of the mouth.” Anubis acts with the authority of Horus to make this sacrifice. In the ritual text, we read of Anubis performing the sacrifice for Osiris, as well the four sons of Horus and other figures seen in Facsimile 1: “”Ra goeth out from the tomb of the god, and Horus of the gods cometh to sacrifice to Osiris… ‘Raise thyself up! Anubis standeth there… Osiris Khenti Amenti, thou art the Eye which Ra-Atum loveth, thou art his Ka. Hail to thee, O Osiris Sept in the heavens, who arrivest happily in his lands, when he travelleth among the stars. Raise thyself up… ‘I come, O Osiris, and I glorify thee, the Four Gods (i.e. the sons of Horus) carry thee on their arms… Nephthys comes as protectress of the bier of Osiris.”(From Fetish To God Ancient Egypt) The father/son relationship of Horus and Osiris reminds us of Jesus and God the Father. The bible tells us the sacrifices of Abraham were also a type for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ: “Horus’ sacrifice of his eye for his father Osiris became symbolical of all sacrifice, and the Horus-eye became one of the holiest symbols of the Egyptian religion. Except the scarab the Horus-eye is the commonest symbol known to ancient Egypt. But, by a strange mixture of myths, it was not the left eye (that is, the moon) of Horus that became the powerful symbol of sacrifice, but the right eye, that is, the sun.”(Journal of the Society of Oriental Research) Horus’ right eye is the symbol of sacrifice, remember. Which eye faces us in this scene? The right eye. It is all about sacrifice. In similar lion couch scenes, this figure is also often Hathor, the goddess of life and death. Again, both life and death ply into this ritual sacrifice for resurrection. It is significant that this figure stands opposite the libation sacrifice table (figure 10). It is also significant that this figure stands opposite the falcon Horus messenger (figure 1), and that they are facing each other. Like the right eye and left eye of Horus oppose each other, this priest of Canaan, this sacrificing bringer of death, opposes the deliverance bird of resurrection. In the context of Abraham, this is the true God of Abraham standing in opposition to the idolatrous god of Canaan. |
4.  Joseph Smith: “The altar for sacrifice by the idolatrous priests, standing before the gods of Elkenah, Libnah, Mahmackrah, Korash, and Pharaoh.” | The lion couch was a bier for funerals, and it also served as the setting for the Sed-festival sacrificial resurrection ritual. The Egyptian funeral couch, shown in figure 4, is the couch of Hathor. She was the god who knew the birth and death of every person, so it was appropriate to use her couch in this scene of sacrifice and resurrection. We now know human sacrifice was practiced in ancient Egypt. It was also practiced in ancient America, and in both cases it was sometimes performed on lion couches. The Hathor couch was used to carry the body of King Tutankhamen to his burial chamber. Now, that particular couch had three heads: Hathor (representing exaltation), hippopotamus (representing final judgement), and lion (representing the king’s access to heaven.) But in Facsimile 1 we only see the head of a lion on the couch, the king’s access to heaven. This illustrates a passage from the Book of the Dead: “May I be granted power over the waters… I am the Lion of Re, I am the Slayer.” In Facsimile 1, we see how the lion couch literally stands over sky-waters (figure 12), and we see Abraham indeed being granted the power of deliverance from death, like the Egyptian lion who delivered the sun through the waters of the night sky. We see the figure lying on the couch kick up, being granted the power of deliverance. The connection between the lion couch and sacrifice is even more pronounced in Mayan altars: The jaguar throne at Chichen Itza, found inside the burial chamber of the king, shows a jaguar chair with the exact same design as the Hathor lion couch. It is blood-colored, exactly like the Egyptian lion couch of Sekhmet the lioness, who was frequently painted red, red like the sun. Altar 4 at La Venta also shows a jaguar forming the body of the altar, with the eyes, mouth, and face forming at the cornice, exactly like the lion couch in Facsimile 1. The water-sky beneath is even patterned with the same diagonal lines as Facsimile 1! But note the idol statue sitting under the altar, with a rope-like pattern underneath him, just like the idols sitting under the couch in Facsimil1 . A very close copy. |
5.  Joseph Smith: “The idolatrous god of Elkenah.” | Figure 5 under the lion couch shows Nekheny, the falcon god of Horus. How does Nekheny relate to the name Joseph Smith gave, the god Elkanah? A late Hittite tablet told of “El-Creator-of-the-Earth (El-qone-ersi, writeen El-ku-ni-ir-sa, pronounced Elkoners.) This name Elkoners sounds very similar to Elkanah. So this name for diety definitely existed. What does the name Elkanah mean? El means “God,” either the God of Israel or some other god. Khanah is short for Khani-rabbat or Kheni-rabbat, and land in Assyria which “formed part of the kingdom of Mitanni or Aram-Naharaim.” The kingdom of Mitanni existed between 1500 and 1300 BC, the time of Abraham, and they were “in peace” with Egypt, according to letter B. 22,17. The name “Canaan” comes from a very similar Egyptian name for that land, Kinahhi. So it makes perfect sense for Egyptians to call the priest of Canaan or Mitanni, north of Canaan: “El-Kanah,” and it correctly matches up with the compass direction Nekheny associated with. Khana and Kheni are short for the same name, therefore “El-kanah” is the same as the god “Ne-kheny.” In various lion couch scenes, a variety of things show up under the couch: crowns, plain jars, animal jars, serpents, people, hieroglyphs. It depends on who is helping the ritual happen. Their location under the couch suggests that they support the weight of the couch, or help with what is going on. This aligns with Joseph Smith’s claim that these gods were involved in the ritual. They represented the glory of the king spreading across the four quarters of the earth. |
6.  Joseph Smith: “The idolatrous god of Libnah.” | This is Duamutef, born from the white lily flower out of the primeval ocean. Duamutef wears a white crown. He was Lord of the East, which is called in the Book of the Dead the divine land full of bright light, where “thou risest on the horizon and sheddest thy beams of light upon the lands.” Joseph Smith calls this figure Libah. Libnah translates as “white,” which is also the symbol for the Egyptian context, Duamutef. A direct bullseye.  |
7.  Joseph Smith: “The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah.” |  This figure in the Egyptian context is Hapi the divine baboon. In the Book of the Dead, Hapi the baboon fights as champion for the deceased/ Osiris: “I have smitten down for thee thine enemies beneath thee. I have given to thee the head forever, twice, O Osiris Ani.” Joseph Smith identified this idol as Mahmackrah. How does Hapi relate to Mahmackrah? Both symbolize the north compass direction. Mh means “north”, and the Book of the Dead associates the Egyptian god Hapi with the north. Secondly, both names mean pretty much the same things. Let’s divide it into three parts: Ma-Mack-rah. Mah or Mhr means “champion,” which makes sense because Hapi was the champion of the North who fought on behalf of the king to achieve resurrection. Next part of the name: Mackrah. In Eastern language, Maha means “great, illustrious.” In modern Arabic, maha translates as “a kind of baboon.” It also gets a glutteral sound on the “h” that sounds similar to “mackah.” This is interesting because Hapi is a baboon. The Hebrew word macha sounds the same, and it translates to “clapping for joy.” This word also indicates baboons, because: “Egyptians worshipped the baboon because every morning when the sun rose, the baboons all clapped their hands for joy, applauding the reappearance of the sun.” We have already seen how Ra, the god of the sun, exits briefly to allow the sacrifice of Horus to take place. A vignette in the Book of the Dead of Osiris adoring Hapi includes the chant: “Stand up, gods,” a command which is spoken “by the god Ra.” Hapi thus performs the same function as the name Mah-mack-rah suggests: ushering in the reviving of the king as the sun Ra. Hence, the name gets put together: “Mah-Maha-Ra” or Mahmackrah. This kind of name conjugation is not unusual for Egypt, and in fact, there are similar conjugations for the words which translate as burning and lion, which also figure in to this Facsimile. |
8.  Joseph Smith: “The idolatrous god of Korash.” |  This is Imset in the Egyptian context. This name Imset means “the kindly one.” Imset was associated with “human emotion” and portrayed as a young human. How does Imset relate to Korash? The Mesopotamian name Kuras translates as “to bestow care” during Abraham’s time. It was derived from an Iranian name that meant: “the young one, child.” Another direct bullseye: Kindness, human, and young child. |
9.  Joseph Smith: “The idolatrous god of Pharaoh.” |  This shows Sobk, a crocodile god who consumed the sacrifices offered at the Sed-festival. Joseph Smith identified this as “god of Pharaoh.” Indeed, the king of Egypt was sometimes associated with the crocodile. In Utterance 317, which has the Sed-festival as its “backdrop”, King Unas of Egypt is himself referred to as the crocodile god: “Unas has come today from the overflowing flood, Unas is Sobk [crocodile god], green-plumed, wakeful, alert… Unas has come to his streams.” The king, remember, is being given rejuvenating life through proxy sacrifice. Why would he be identified with Sobek? Because he is the one consuming the sacrifice and benefiting from it, the crocodile in the river receiving the meat. He is also the one putting on the whole event. At Karnak we find “Sobek and Horus, who are not specifically named but are simply called ‘the great god presiding over the Sed-festival’… or ‘the great god, lord of the Sed-festival.'” Also, look at where Sobek is in the facsimile, in the chaotic waters of the sky between heavenly afterlife and this holy ritual. Sobek blends in to the striations of the watery waves, almost camouflaged. Yet his eye is positioned exactly midway between the facsimile horizontally, as if this is all about him yet he doesn’t want to be noticed. Together with the Horus/Anubis priest, he faces towards to four gods and the messenger bird of Horus, part of the antagonism. Joseph Smith was correct to identify this figure with the Egyptian king who put on the Sed-festival events and benefiting from it. |
10.  Joseph Smith: “Abraham in Egypt.” | This shows the offering libation table, a symbol for sacrifice. It does not show up in any other lion couch scenes in all of Egypt, so Egyptologists can’t know exactly what it means in this context. The libation table, with its ritual offering jars and holy flowers, were a common symbol for sacrificial offering in Egypt to the gods, but completely unique in this context. The Book of The Dead lists a series of sacrifices to gods as part of the overall resurrection process: “an offering of a libation of one vase upon earth by Osiris…. the soul that hearkeneth unto the words of the gods… a libation of one vase upon earth by Osiris…. may his limbs live and may his limbs be sound forever.” Isn’t it interesting that Joseph Smith called out the only lion couch scene to ever include a symbol for sacrificial offering as being all about sacrifice? But Joseph said this figure means “Abraham in Egypt.” This raises a few questions. First, why would this facsimile of an event that Joseph Smith knew occurred in Chaldea include a figure that means “Abraham in Egypt?” Which is it, Chaldea or Egypt? Why would Joseph Smith make this kind of obvious contradiction? This further indicates to us that the Facsimile was never intended to be an illustration of the Abraham story. Why don’t Joseph Smith’s descriptions and symbolism match up to the Book of Abraham text? Abraham said himself: “That you may have an understanding of these gods, I have given you the fashion of them in the figures at the beginning, which manner of figures is… hieroglyphics.” So Abraham wrote down hieroglyphic words, not the images we see in Facsimile 1. The purpose was to give some kind of explanation of who the false idols were involved in this story, so a few hieroglyphics arranged in a diagram would tell the story; no need for an entire couch scene drawing. Joseph Smith understood that there was an Egyptian sacrifice ritual being shown here, and discerned that this figure was a symbol for sacrificial offering. Abraham’s Sed-festival sacrifice was performed “after the manner of the Egyptians.” It was performed by a “priest of Pharaoh, the king of Egypt.” This was an intersection of Abraham and Egypt, much like Abraham’s later intersection with Egypt which was see in Facsimile 3, which also includes this figure. Joseph Smith saw this figure as a marker for the entire context of the lion couch scene: Abraham’s involvement with Egypt, which was all about sacrifice. |
11.  Joseph Smith: “Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.” | Pillars of Heaven – Figure 11 in the Egyptian context is a Serekh: the “representation of the town or city where the king or Pharaoh lived as an incarnation of the sky god, Horus.” The Serekh was usually drawn together with the Horus falcon (figure 1) to indicate the spiritual implications of whatever is going on. The American Research Center in Egypt writes: “The serekh suggests that Egyptian kings served as a bridge between heaven and earth, concretely illustrated by the king’s name written between the divine falcon, designating the realm of the gods, and a palace facade, representing the earth.” Gee, that sure sounds like heaven to me! This Serekh with the Horus bird was indeed heaven in the Egyptian context. The Serekh pillars (earth) held up the firmament of heaven (which Joseph Smith correctly attributes to figure 12), which indicates that Osiris in this scene is interacting with deity from heaven: “Whatever Deity surmounts the serekh, that Deity stands for the world of the Gods, the heaven that arches over all the world. The palace facade represents the earth.”  CES Letter Misplaces – CES Letter‘s diagram misplaces where figure 11 is in the facsimile. CES Letter locates figure 11 at the diagonal lines rather than the vertical lines below them. That’s where I see the number 11, anyway. Why does CES Letter lie about where figure 11 is? Innocent mistake? Perhaps, or maybe because figure 11 is the strongest evidence of correlation between the Egyptian context and what Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic context. CES Letter locates figure 11 in the zig-zagged lines to cover up this figure’s strong correlation.  CES Letter calls Figure 11 a “palace facade.” Well, just from that we can see Joseph Smith correctly called this figure “pillars,” which would kinda be a shot in the dark if he were just guessing about everything. But was he correct to call them “pillars of heaven?” Also consider, why would Joseph Smith place “pillars of heaven” at the bottom of an event that happened on earth? Abraham’s sacrifice ritual didn’t happen in heaven, did it? So it’s kinda random to locate pillars of heaven below them, isn’t it? Well, Joseph specified that this figure was “as understood by the Egyptians”–as in, this figure is entirely drawn in an Egyptian context and has nothing to do with the Abrahamic context. Again, the Facsimile that we see here copied out of the Book of the Dead was not drawn to show Abraham, but includes the same symbols and same ritual in a different context. Joseph made it clear that these Facsimiles were Egyptian and drawn for an Egyptian purpose, but that he was telling an Abrahamc event from an Egyptian context. The Serekh heavenly structure and the implied connection with the spiritual realm fits both the Egyptian context and Joseph Smith’s explanation perfectly. Another perfect bullseye. If Joseph Smith were guessing, why would he call these”pillars of heaven” under a scene of something happening on earth? They even look like pillars. |
12.  Joseph Smith: “Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads; but in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.” |  These zig-zagged lines are the chaotic waters of the sky, and also represent the starry sky path to the afterlife. Sobek the crocodile (figure 9) swims in these waters like some kind of terrestrial figure in limbo between this world and the next. CES Letter calls this figure: “just the water that the crocodiles swims in.” Oh yeah? Why would Egyptians take the time to draw some water for crocodiles to splash around in if it didn’t mean anything? What, did the artist get bored and decide to draw a cute little crocodile splashing in water? No, Egyptologists agree that there is important symbolism behind the crocodile and the water, and like the rest of the figures, it closely aligns with what Joseph Smith gave as the Abrahamic context. The crocodile Sebek passes through the waters of Nun like the sun passing through the expanse of the sky: “…the crocodile-headed Sebek, who made the passage of the Nun by night as sun god in the solar mythos. The fish-man was at first the crocodile of Egypt, next the crocodile-headed figure of Horus who is called ‘the crocodile god in the form of a man’ (Rit. ch. 88). The deceased assumes this form to cross the waters in the nether-world, because it had been a figure of the solar god in the mythology.”(Gerald Massey)  Yes, this figure is the “firmament over our heads” or as “the Egyptians meant it,” “the heavens” like Joseph Smith said. A perfect bullseye for Joseph Smith. Egyptologists agree figure 12 shows: “Above the firmament were the waters, the ‘ocean of heaven’… The Babylonian name for this ocean was anum or anun, and in a still shorter form nun.” But as Egyptians meant it: “If now we turn back again to Egypt we shall find that in the early pyramid texts there were three chief gods venerated: Nun, heaven’s ocean…” (Gerald Massey) Zig-zag lines indeed referenced waters of the sky, and the vertical serekh lines indeed referenced the “pillars of heaven,” as told in the Book of Abraham. “It is always assumed that the flat slab of iron which formed the sky, and therefore the floor of the abode of the gods, was rectangular, and that each corner of it rested upon a pillar. That this is a very ancient view concerning the sky is proved by the hieroglyphic which is used in texts to determine the words for rain, storm, and the like; here we have a picture of the sky falling and being pierced by the four pillars of heaven.”(E.W. Budge) |
.jpg){kind=link}
Every single figure in this facsimile shows a very close correlation to Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic meanings, proving the relationship between the Abrahamic and Egyptian contexts. How did Joseph Smith know about any of these meanings, before the Rosetta Stone unlocked the Egyptian language and allowed us to know anything about the Egyptians? How did he know about this Egyptian Sed-festival, the sacrifices, or the idols of gods? How did he know about the other ancient texts that describe the same sacrificial events, texts that have only recently been discovered? All coincidence?
CES Letter Logical Fallacies
| Falsehoods | CES Letter misplaces where figure #11 is, the “pillars of heaven,” in order to cover up the obvious correctness of Joseph Smith’s interpretation for this figure. CES Letter dismisses this as “a common funerary document.” Actually, the lion couch scene was used in literature besides funerary documents. The full significance of this particular lion couch scene is actually impossible to tell, because many parts of this particular Facsimile are not to be found among any any other Egyptian literature–including the deceased figure dressed in ritual garments, the figure with raised hands, the crocodile and waters, and the sacrificial table being present. CES Letter calls this a “funerary scene.” Not true. In the Egyptian context this is Osiris being resurrected, not an embalming, which is sometimes shown in a similar lion couch motif. CES Letter incorrectly claims figure 3 is “not human,” but Anubis. Actually, this character was played by a human in Egyptian rituals who wore a mask of Anubis. |
| Argument From Ignorance | CES Letter omits the fact that Osiris in this scene is a role symbolic for the deceased figure 4. CES Letter omits that the serekh in figure 11 is a symbol for heaven, covering up the strong correlation. CES Letter incorrectly assumes the waters in figure 12 are just water for crocodiles to swim in. CES Letter omits the fact that Anubis in figure 3 is played by a human priest in Egyptian rituals. CES Letter claims this figure “Anubis is consistent in every funerary scene,” but this isn’t a funerary scene! CES Letter says figures 5 through 9 are just “canopic jars containing the deceased’s internal organs.” Actually, no. The four Sons of Horus portrayed here with these jars represent the deceased’s victory over death affecting the four directions of the world. Other lion couch scenes show in this location feathers, hieroglyphs, people–whatever aids in the resurrection of the deceased. CES Letter‘s explanations for the figures are very brief, and they avoid details and symbolism behind the names of the gods. Very sketchy. They even misplace one of the numbers. Meanwhile, Joseph Smith provides long, comprehensive, and detailed explanations. So which one is trying to push a con here, Joseph Smith or CES Letter? |
| Circular Argument | CES Letter points out “Anubis is consistant in every funerary scene,” and they show examples of Anubis with a sarcophagus. But this isn’t true. None of the Facsimiles are funerary scenes with sarcophaguses, but with moving living people. In Facsimile 3, which CES Letter doesn’t even pretend to call a funerary scene, CES Letter even points out that a person with a human head is “Anubis.” So which is it, Anubis is consistent with a jackal head in funerary scene, or Anubis is a human priest playing the part? Also, Anubis isn’t consistent in Facsimile 1 at all, as he stands between the moving deceased figure and the lion couch, which does not happen in any other lion couch scene in Egyptian literature. Interestingly, CES Letter locates this illogical argument not at the discussion of how the scene should be filled in but at the part where they discuss what the scene means, which falsely suggests that these figures are the same as these sarcophagus examples. |
| Strawman Argument | CES Letter lists “Joseph Smith’s interpretation” opposite “Modern Egyptological Interpretation,” falsely suggesting they should be the same. Why would they be the same? Joseph Smith did not literally translate most symbols or words but gave their meaning in a different context. In fact, he made it perfectly clear that there was the Abraham context and then there was the Egyptian context: ” in this case, in relation to this subject, the Egyptians meant…” Different case. Different subject. Different meaning. CES Letter calls their interpretations “Modern Egypotlogical”, but then later the only three Egyptologists that CES Letter quotes are White Supremacists from the 1800’s. Modern?? |
| Red Herring | CES Letter titles their diagram “Translated Correctly?” apparently in reference to the eighth article of faith: “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.” But this is a totally different case. Biblical translators were not prophets and did not use a Urim and Thummim. |
| Repetition | “Egyptologists and Modern Egyptology.” Redundant. Smart sounding I guess, but redundant. CES Letter repeats their claims on p. 28: “The names are wrong… scene is wrong… He names gods that are not part of the Egyptian belief system.” This perpetuates the incorrect assumption that Joseph Smith was interpreting the Egyptian context, and ignores the stunning parallels. |
| Appeal To Novelty | “Modern Egyptological.” Actually, these interpretations we see in CES Letter have been around for a very long time. Perhaps if CES Letter didn’t get their information from “>outdated 19th century sources they wouldn’t be pushing such simplistic and incorrect Egyptology. They also wouldn’t end up quoting 19th century White Supremacists to prove their point. In previous arguments, CES Letter set up a phony frame that “modern” discoveries invalidate Joseph Smith’s claims. Anachronisms, bible errors, etc. But CES Letter has not substantiated a single one of these arguments. |
Shifting Contexts – CES Letter misportrays the context to make Mormonism appear false. It is like a magician making a rabbit disappear. First, they show the empty box, and then they take a rabbit and put it in a new context, the magic disappearing box. CES Letter introduces Joseph Smith’s interpretations in the strict context of Egyptian Book of Breathings context. But they cherry-pick Joseph Smith’s interpretations so that they never match, and they omit any meaning behind the Egyptian context. Then they sneak the rabbit out of the back of the box out a secret door. They point out what Joseph Smith “misidentified” in the facsimiles and call the whole thing gibberish. Before we know it, we went from a story about Abraham sojourning in Egypt and participating in some rituals, to merely the names of Egyptian gods in funerary documents, the Book of Breathings. Presto! The box is empty!
Big Lie Tactic – Most Anti-Mormons agree that the Book of Abraham is the “smoking gun” that disproves Mormonism. But that is just because they assume that the recovered papyri fragments are the source for the Book of Abraham. It is a big lie that compounds as we delve into further investigation and leads to other lies. This is why CES Letter frames the discussion where the small fragment is definitely what Joseph Smith claimed to use–not a different scroll or different part of that scroll.
Every argument about the Book of Abraham hinges on the lie that Joseph Smith’s translation was based on the recovered fragment of papyrus.
This lie is easier for the CES Letter reader to believe after all those earlier arguments that attached the same narrative about the Book of Mormon. If Joseph Smith used the same “peep stone” that he used to look for buried treasure to translate the Book of Mormon, doesn’t that make it easier to believe Joseph used a “common funerary document,” as anti-Mormons incorrectly call the fragment, to create the Book of Mormon? CES Letter says in both cases science disproves the claim of prophesy:
“This is a testable claim. Joseph failed the test with the Book of Abraham. He failed the test with the Kinderhook Plates. With this modus operandi and track record, I’m now supposed to believe that Joseph has the credibility of translating the keystone Book of Mormon? With a rock in a hat?”
CES Letter
Creating Superstition – CES Letter reinforces their narrative that Mormons need science to validate every single detail of their faith. Suddenly, they can go back in time and tell us exactly what the artist of this Facsimile was thinking. They frame the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham as a “model” that has no evidence for it–an easy trick for them to play when it comes to ancient history as they discount every piece of evidence as coincidence, forged, or unfounded.
This kind of narrative led the crusaders to seek out physical objects from the holy land to validate the bible, pieces of the cross or the cup of Jesus Christ. It always leads to superstition, because no amount of science can prove without reasonable doubt that a historical object is what it purports to be. The Shroud of Turin? I mean, there is a mountain of evidence that correlates the Book of Abraham. Since the day of Joseph Smith, ancient book after ancient book has been discovered and translated into English that says the same thing as the Book of Abraham. No amount of scientific testing would convince the anti-Mormons. Even if the legitimacy of the claim were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, they would pass it off as coincidence.
After all, that’s what they do with the copy of the Facsimile 1 diagram which was discovered by archaeologists with the name “Abraham” under it. Anti-Mormons reply, “well that doesn’t really say ‘Abraham.’ Just a name very similar to Abraham.” Yeah, uh huh.
Actually, I think it would be detrimental to Mormonism if undeniable evidence were found, because it would shift our narrative away from matters of faith toward unspiritual confirmation of a historical event from physical evidence. And that’s what CES Letter is trying to do. The shift away from faith serves Satan’s intentions because a person who relies on superstition is not practicing personal agency, but being total reliant on others for his beliefs and actions.
CES Letter can get away with this Big Lie claim because it is the consensus among so many people that Abraham did not write this book, and because it takes so long to explain the evidence. It is like claiming that the Library of Alexandria never really existed because we have no physical evidence today, apart from some alleged ancient tales. An archaeologist can give plenty of convincing evidence, but it would take hours.
Contradiction Strategy – In the previous arguments, CES Letter cherry-picked evidence to contradict the Book of Mormon. In this argument they cherry-pick parts of the Egyptian meaning in Facsimile 1 and ignore meanings that are parallel or perfectly match Joseph Smith’s interpretations.
This is how CES Letter works. They frame any discussion in a very narrow context where Joseph Smith must give a completely literal translation and do not allow for a non-Egyptian context. So, they set an impossible standard where Joseph Smith needs to know everything about the Egyptian context and explain it perfectly, even though it is irrelevant to the point he was getting across. By treating Joseph Smith like some kind of wizard who either knows everything about everything or is a fraud, CES Letter sets up an unrealistic standard. Anyone who expects absolute perfection and a perfect magic trick is going to lose their testimony of the gospel.
It is stunning that Joseph Smith hit a bullseye with every single figure in this Facsimile. He couldn’t have known Egyptian, yet he provided a meaning that closely aligns with what we now know is the Egyptian meaning, and proves that one derived from the other. He did this all before the Egyptian language was deciphered with the Rosetta Stone, and very little was known about Egyptians. Modern Mormons take for granted just how much we know about Egyptians and how easy it is for us to see meanings. Nobody knew that in the 19th century, none of it. It is stunning that Joseph Smith told the story of Abraham that is not found in the bible but which appears in ancient texts that have recently been discovered.
CES Letter really poisons the well by using a rigid and unfair frame of what “translating” means to invalidate the facsimiles. Actually, exploration of the Egyptian context brings new and important understanding to the Abraham story. Clearly, one context derived from the other.
CES Letter uses fake science–or in this case a ridiculous assumption–to point out an inconsistency regarding LDS belief, and then presents science as the superior alternative source for truth. CES Letter uses the contradiction strategy by narrowing a physical issue down to a binary context: either this recovered papyri fragment talks about Abraham or the Book of Abraham was made up. No other choices. They then appeal to “science” and deconstruct the outdated Mormon belief.
Anti-Mormons typically present evidence for their binary context as self-evident and irrefutable, with no need for further explanation, and then they rapidly move on to other attacks that bolster the constrained definition. The purpose is not really to discuss Book of Abraham evidences, which would actually be an interesting discussion, but to shift the narrative from faith to binary science, and quickly move on to more effective attacks to strengthen this narrative.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with exploring and critically investigating physical evidence, such as the recovered papyri from Joseph Smith’s Egyptian collection that have survived. It is an exciting opportunity. The danger is when minds use faulty logic and leap to wild, simplistic conclusions.There is a smart and vibrant group of LDS scholars investigating the evidence and making great discoveries, which will increase what we learn from the Book of Abraham. They are careful not to become superstitious and search for holy grails to confirm their faith. They do not replace faith with a dependence on only what we can see.
Invalidating All Ancient Scripture – Oh that thing, it’s just a common Pagan funerary document! CES Letter‘s attack on the Book of Abraham invalidates all ancient writing, which is quite convenient for Anti-Mormons. Archaeology and historical science is only as useful as it can invalidate faith for them and momentarily be twisted to support Marxist ideas, such as the idea that mankind evolved from monkeys without a spark of divinity in them. They hold religions to the highest standards of skepticism, yet place blind faith in Marxism.
The Anti-Mormon substitute for religious scripture is the national-standard science textbook that jumps to wild politically correct conclusions and requires revising every year. It is television show that one day teaches kids that chromosomes determine your sex identity, rather than eternal spirit nature, and then the next day erases that segment and teaches kids that sex identity is totally fluid. For Anti-Mormons, truth is only the narrative, and the narrative changes however it needs to in order to support the ideology in new circumstances.
By invalidating the Book of Breathing as just some common Pagan funerary text, and totally ignoring its sacred and profound spiritual context, CES Letter further pours gasoline on any kind of faith in ancient scripture. Actually, the fact is the Book of Breathing is one of the most important books ever made. It was one of the first Egyptian writings, one of the first translated into English, and was immediately an object of wide fascination. LDS can glean powerful wisdom by pondering why it was deposited alongside the Book of Abraham scroll.Complete answers to CES Letter questions about Mormons: