Did Joseph Smith Correctly Translate Facsimile 2 In The Book Of Abraham?

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.

Different Contexts – I don’t know why anyone would be shocked that the Facsimiles are Egyptian. They certainly look Egyptian to me! Joseph Smith said they contain Egyptian writing: “The characters are such as you find upon the coffins of mummies–hieroglyphs.” They were found with an Egyptian mummy. Why wouldn’t they be Egyptian?

CES Letter holds the Facsimiles to a strict Egyptian context, while Joseph Smith provided a different kind of context. Joseph explained that the Egyptian meaning was different than the Abrahamic meaning. In Facsimile 2, he said one figure was “also a numerical figure, in Egyptian.” Another figure was “said by the Egyptians to be the Sun.” But Joseph Smith focused on how the Facsimiles related to Abraham instead of giving the text translation or the Egyptian meaning.

When you see a five-pointed star on the American flag do you assume it symbolizes the Duat afterlife like it did for Egyptians? Or do you assume it symbolizes the fifty states of the United States? When you see a cross at a cemetery is it a symbol of Christian worship or do you see a symbol of someone’s burial? Likewise, the Facsimiles were obviously Egyptian but included symbolism in a different Abrahamic context.

Egyptian & Abrahamic Meanings Relate – The cemetery cross may hold a different meaning but it derives from the original Christian meaning. Likewise, we should expect the Egyptian meaning to be similar to Joseph Smith’s interpretation for Abraham. After all, why would “Pagan” Egypt be totally incongruent with the gospel? CES Letter says the Facsimile comes from a “common” funerary document. Well, couldn’t this funerary document be derived from an earlier document that involved Abraham? Or couldn’t Abraham have derived a similar scene from the Egyptian document? Or they both derived from a common source? There is plenty of similarity between the literal Egyptian translation and Joseph’s Abrahamic translation to indicate one derived from the other. For example, the four cardinal points represented in figure 6 clearly relate to Joseph Smith’s interpretation, “the earth in its four quarters.”

Min Was Not Originally A Fertility Cult – CES Letter gets hot and bothered because one of the figures involves a sexual reference in the Egyptian context–Min, the god of fertility. They called figure 7 “disturbing.” Could a “pagan” sexual reference possibly relate to a symbol of God? Well, of course. Let’s be adults about this. Pagans turned godly symbols into into sexual references all the time, and Christians even adopt Pagan sexual symbols into faith-building images. (Easter, the Christmas Tree, etc.)

Min became a strict fertility god only later. Originally, he was a symbol of the power of creation: “dating as far back as 3450 B.C. Min was a primordial diety with the responsibilities of a creator god, and by the Middle Kingdom he was associated with Horus as well… Min may have assisted in the rebirth cycle.” But worrying about whether or not the original Facsimile showed the diagram of an erect penis that has CES Letter so upset is rather puerile. Why are they suddenly being so puritan? The point was to illustrate the capability of Creation throughout the eternities.

Egyptian vs. Abraham Meanings

1.		CES Letter misportrays a complex scene involving three figures as simply “the god Khnumu.” Well yeah, the central figure looks like Khnumu. Although, Khnumu looks a lot like the crocodile god Sobek in this Facsimile, which we see represented the “idolatrous god of Pharaoh” in Facsimile 1, and he is exactly in the middle of Facsimile 2 just as Sobek is in the horizontal center of Facsimile 1. At the Temple of Kom Ombo, we see Sobek stand by in the same manner as figure 1 of Facsimile 2, holding the was scepter, wearing the royal kilt, and holding the ankh. Next to Sobek at the temple, we see the two ladies of the Nile giving the king his kingship, like figure 22 and 23 standing on either side of figure 1. Like in Facsimile 1, Sobek is officiating the endowment of divine rule through ritual. by Hedwig Storch– wikipedia/creative commons license) We see the same crowning ceremony scene at the Temple of Esna, and then near it a similar scene as well, only this time it shows Sobek as the one flanked by a character similar to figure 22 of Facsimile 2. The character flanking him is Menhit, the lioness goddess who overcomes the enemies of the gods, like the lion couch in Facsimile 1: by Steve F-E-Cameron– wikipedia/creative commons license) So, immediately we see striking similarities with Facsimile 1. But typically this central character in the hypocephalus is Knum, as CES Letter says. The name Knumu (KHM) is interesting because so many creator gods around the ancient world sound similar: Kamuni in Japan, Karora in Australia, Karusakaibo in the Amazon, Keri in South America, etc. In Egypt, Knum “fashioned the first man and woman out of clay… and breathed air into them… It means shepherd and guardian of life.” He is at the center of Facsimile 2 because “Knum created the primal cosmic egg at his poetter’s wheel. The “X” below Knum represented the sun god to the Chaldeans, and the cross to the Semetics (Messiah/Jesus). The Open Court suggests that the ancient Chaldean tree of life was an origin for the Christian cross: The flanking figures with arms raised are both there, like figures 22 and 23 in Facsimile 2. In the Chaldean tree of life, we see a sun disk with wings hovering above them, much like the sun chariot with four horses that we see on the Shield of Achilles, yet another derivative of the ancient Facsimile 2. But the primordial tree of life makes it clear this is a heavenly scene, a life-giving scene, related to the awakening sun-couch ritual in Facsimile 1. Between figures 22/23 and figure 1 of Facsimile 2, we see the Tsade and Lamad symbols. Tsade is “the archetype of righteousness and humility.” Lamad means “to study, to teach, to learn.” This suggests Knumu the creator gives righteousness and teachings to figures 22 & 23 from the tree of life. The upside-down ankh in Knumu’s hand represents “the key which opened the gateway of the tomb into the Fields of Aalu, the realm of eternity,” and is purposely in “the shape of a key.” Knumu operated the ankh key when it came to creation. “Osiris is depected with his body wrapped like a mummy, as god of the underworld, and with the headdress of Hathor, inserting the ankh, the key of life, through the nostril of Seth I, depicted with the headdress of Khnum.” How did Joseph Smith interpret this figure? “The first creation, nearest to the celestial, or the residence of God.” Bullseye. “Realm of eternity” and “tree of life” sure sounds like the “residence of God” to me. Kolob “the first creation” sure sounds like Knum “the first creator” to me!
2.		This figure, Amun-Re, obviously relates to figure 1 Knumu, as Joseph Smith says it does. Joseph Smith gives the meaning: “Stands next to Kolob [figure 1]… the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham, as he offered sacrifice upon an altar.” Amun-Re shared the attribute of creation with Knum, as “Knum was the soul of the high god Amun-Re.” Knum was “depicted sometimes wearing Amun’s horns as part of his crown,” as we can see here, which gave him power of creation. Amun-Re’s keys of power influenced earthly priests: “Not only was Amun-Re a creator, but he also becomes a ‘father,’ compassionate and solicitous… he who conceived everything, lord of the whole earth, he who made that which exists, sole god who lives in truth… as the god Amun-Re became envisioned as ruling in a cosmic scale, and when the diety’s status was mirrored sociologically by a terrestrial power exercised through a nascent, influential clergy on earth, one can perhaps excuse the ‘lord’s temporal’ for fearing their position.” (Ronald Glassman) As “chief of the gods, Re or Amun-Re” was shown “sailing the skies from east to west,” dominated the other gods which were associated with planets, just “as the planets and smaller bodies circle the sun.” He was explicitly identified as chief of the planets: “As Amun-Re, he became the King of the Gods, and as Zeus-Ammon he survived into Greek and Roman times. ” Notice the offering table in the lower right corner, the same figure that is identified as “Abraham in Egypt” in Facsimiles 1 and 3. This time it is Abraham offering sacrifices upon an alter. So, this gives us more explanation for what Abraham in Egypt is: Abraham offering sacrifices upon an altar while in Egypt. In Facsimile 1, he is the one being sacrificed–and saved–and then in Facsimile 3, he is the one officiating sacrifice to gain knowledge of astronomy. Here, he is sacrificing to gain redemption and priesthood authority. We see these three differing motifs for lotus offering tables frequently in Egypt. Likewise, different offering tables for different gods, for different reasons. As for redemption and priesthood authority, offerings were provided “to ensure the well-being of the deceased in the afterlife.” An offering to Amun-Re, as chief creator, would help assure resurrection. In a relief sculpture for Seti I, we see Re handing down “the was-scepter and in his left hand an ‘ankh’,” the keys of power we know from figure 1, and then “an offering table with a libation pot and a lotus.” Thus, we can deduce figure 1 is an answer to the offering made in figure 2 of our Facsimile 2. In a ritual bowl from early Athens, we see all three of the “Abraham in Egypt” offering tables portrayed one after the other. First, we see “two male figures with spears attack a griffin,” like the sacrifice of a Seth character in Facsimile 1. Next, we see “a seated figure nurses a baby as a standing figure performs a sacrifice before an offering table,” just like the rebirth ritual shown here in Facsimile 2. Finally, we see “a figure sits on a throne before an offering table as another stands and performs a sacrifice,” exactly like in Facsimile 3.
3.		Joseph Smith interpreted this figure as God “clothed with power and authority”–power which we learned in figure 2 was “pertaining to other planets.” Wilhelm Müller and Sir James Scott explained how authority related to other stars in this solar boat figure: “…in a ship (which has perhaps replaced an earlier doubleraft) the sun sails over the sky, conceived as a blue river or lake which Is a continuation of the sea and of the Nile. At the prow of this solar ship we frequently find a curious detail, sometimes represented as a carpet or mat^ on which the god is seated… The deity may either be the only occupant of the boat, which moves by itself or is paddled by him; or he may be accompanied by many prominent gods, especially the nine gods of the Hellopolltan ennead and the personifications of wisdom, etc… The Book of the Gates reverts to an ancient idea by explaining that the never-vanishing stars (I. e. again the elect souls) become the rowers of the sun by day. Then the sun may rest in the cabin as a disk in which the god himself may be enthroned.” In Facsimile 2, we see Re sitting rather than rowing, so we can assume the stars are involved, as Joseph Smith suggested. They hold the “key of power” as well, he explained. So, it turns out Joseph Smith was correct referencing “Seth, Noah, Melchizedek” as persons involved in this figure, “prominent gods,” because “the Priesthood was revealed” to them as well. They are “never-vanishing stars… the elect souls,” which are also called “noble and great ones” in the Book of Abraham. CES Letter points out that this is God “riding in his boat” rather than “God sitting on his throne.” Well, obviously that’s a boat! Who wouldn’t think that looks like a boat? But most solar scenes show Re sitting right on the boat, perhaps on a carpet or mat, while this shows him sitting on a chair rather than perched on the brow. Let me guess, does CES Letter think this is just an ordinary chair? No, in the context of a libation offering, which we see drawn in figure 2, this is the throne of the heavenly Field of Rushes which the deceased hopes to inherit: “Hail thou Horus, Easter Horus and Ba, Horakhty great Neter, I offer to you incense; Thou Neter who ferries over upon two boats of the sky to Re, Horus Great Horizon-Neter, I shall receive my throne in the Field of Rushes, descending to the Field of Offerings when my earthly majesty transforms into the Tuat [afterlife]; Horus, who sails with the Pharaoh in the boat of Re, Bestow the power of controlling the vast Horizons.” (Michael Ford) Joseph Smith is 100 percent correct that this chair is a throne, and it was significant for him to point it out. This portrays God sending Hor’s sacrificial libations to the Tuat afterlife to defeat Seth, the devil. In his hand he holds the “scepter of authority,” according to Plutarch. This is a “was scepter, the symbol of authority.” It is the same scepter that figures 1 and 2 hold, though they don’t look the same in this particular rendering. Somehow, Joseph Smith knew they were all the same scepter. The circle above Horus’ head is the sun disk of “eternal light.” Joseph Smith correctly calls this “a crown of eternal light upon his head.” Gerald Massey explained: “The crown of Horus was the crown of life that was the gift of his father… the eternal diadem that was conferred on those who had attained the mount of glory.” In this Book of the Dead, this character says: “A path is made for me at the head of the Sacred Bark, and I am lifted up as the sun disk; I am bright in its sunshine… let me pass, for I am a mighty one, Lord of the mighty ones; I am a noble of the Lord of Righteousness, whom Wadjet made. My protection is the protection of Re.” The wedjat, which we see above this figure’s head, is a symbol of his power of resurrection, correctly associated by Joseph Smith to the keywords of the priesthood.
4.		Joseph Smith correctly associates the Sokar boat in this figure with the expanse or firmament of heaven: “‘But you shall bathe in the starry firmament, you shall descend upon the iron bands on the arms of Horus in his name of Him who is in the Hnw [Hennu]-barque[boat]… Horus has lifted you up in his name of Hnw-barque; he bears you up in your name of Sokar…’ The entire necropolis of the Old Kingdom, of which the design was largely based on the star constellation Orion, comprised ten main temples.” (Willem Zitman) Joseph Smith was also correct to associate this boat with the measurement 1,000. Here, we see the Sokar boat crossed ten stars in the constellation Orion. This number ten is not just random. The stars of heaven, remember, have already been compared to the “the elect souls” in Facsimile 2, and Sokar is the “route of the sun” that Re figure 3 takes. These supportive stars are like the “morning stars” who “sang together” in Job 38:7. The Book of Abraham explains that these “noble and great ones” fought the primordial war in heaven to gain their first estate. Well, in Babylonian mythology, “the choral band who sang the hymn of praise, one thousand in number, are the sixth thousand of the six thousand” stars. They support the Babylonian sun-god Ashur, “In their room, he, the god of the bright crown (ie. the solar diety), created mankind.” The Book of Enoch likewise refers to them as stars. Ashur results from the revolt in heaven: “The god of holy songs, lord of religion and worship, had seated a thousand singers and musicians, and established a choral band who to this hymn were to respond in multitude.” In the LDS context, we would refer to this as a “dispensation of time.” Exactly like Joseph Smith says: “signifying one thousand; answering to the measuring of the time.” As for the Egyptian context, the Coffin Texts say 1,000 is the size of the Sokar boat: “He takes the ship of 1,000 cubits from end to end, and he sails in it to the stairway of fire.” The princess Anchenneferibre tomb makes reference to “Osiris in his ship of a thousand.” The starry sky of Nut, which this Sokar boat crosses, is written with “the phrase h3-b3… normally considered to mean ‘a thousand are her Ba’s,’ might rather mean ‘a thousand are her twinklers’… the stars are the souls of the dead.”
5.		In this figure, CES Letter intentionally omits Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the Egyptian meaning and presents the Abrahamic meaning as if it were Egyptian. Joseph Smith made it very clear that the Egyptian meanings were different from the Abraham context, but CES Letter insists on lying and presents the Abraham context as what he said was Egyptian. Joseph Smith said this figure is “said by the Egyptians to be the Sun… which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars” Is he right? Well, the Hathor cow in this figure is the sun and associates with Isis, or the planet Venus: “As the celestial cow called ‘eye of the sun (Re)’ in Egyptian funerary text, Hathor was frequently depicted wearing a large solar disk between her horns. Because of her original solar associations and further identification with Hathor… Isis sported the very same crown and also appropriated the cow as a sacred animals.” (Egyptian Religion: The Last Thousand Years…) What does Hathor mean that the sun needs to “borrow its light” from Kolob (identified with Re)? Well, Hathor was born of the sun . The fluid from Re fell “onto the earth from his eye and transformed into the beautiful Hathor.” Joseph Smith also points out that the sun and “planet receives its power” through some kind of medium. As Claas Bleeker points out, Hathor acted as a medium of power in rituals: “Then as cow-goddess she suckles the child. The suckling of the child by Hathor has a deeper meaning… it is only through this divine mother-milk that the young prince becomes a true king… This gesture can be interpreted either as a mark of favour or as a sign that the goddess recognizes the queen and wishes to give her power.” Joseph Smith is correct that we see “governing power” and priesthood authority, just like the the scepter symbols in figures 1, 2, and 3. We don’t see a scepter in this figure, but we do see a bouquet of flowers, and “Egyptians also saw papyrus as a protective symbol, often taking the form of a scepter.” One can take the place of another.
6.		These four figures are the four sons of Horus, which represent the earth’s four quarters. Anybody who knows anything about Egyptology knows this. But of course nobody knew it in Joseph Smith’s day, yet he correctly interpreted these figures as “earth in its four quarters.” Perfect bullseye. CES Letter is certainly not ready to concede that Joseph Smith was right. They petulantly interprets the figures as “The four (4) sons of Horus, they can represent the four cardinal points of earth.” I guess they can kinda, sorta, represent the points on the compass, maybe–but that’s totally different than “four quarters!” Totally different! Uh, no. Actually, they are the exact same thing. Joseph Smith was completely correct. I like how CES Letter even misspells “its” as “it’s” in Joseph Smith’s interpretation in order to add further confusion. Below, CES Letter even highlights figure 6 as apparently one of the biggest discrepancies with Egyptology in Facsimile 2. There, they interpret it as simply “Sons of Horus” and pretend like they the four sons have nothing to do with the earth’s four quarters. Ridiculous! The central figure 1 of Facsimile 2 is always shown with four heads (and very well could have had four heads on the original papyrus) instead of the two we see there, to represent the four quarters of the earth that will be affected by its power. This brings the four sons of Horus to the forefront of the hypocephalus’ significance, and that is interesting because of the significance they play in Facsimile 1. There, they are the four quarters, lands, and peoples who support and help in the sed festival revivification of the king. In Facsimile 2, they appear to be represent the delivering of the power, authority, and governance of god to the four quarters, lands, and peoples–symbolized by the four heads of the River Eden that the Book of Abraham talks about. It also is symbolized in the “four directions” in God’s covenant to “walk the land” that he and his posterity would inherit. We know also, “Abraham’s tent was open in four directions to allow strangers to enter freely into his home.” This is why it is so important that the four quarters of the earth play such a prominent role in these Facsimiles, suggesting their universal significance to the entire world: “Abraham is at a crossroads… people come from the four points of the compass. Similarly in T. Job 8:6-7, they come from all regions, ‘and the four doors of my house were open’… presents Abraham as suprassing Job: the patriarch went looking for wayfarers.” (Dale Allison) Not only did Abraham make himself the center of the four quarters of the earth, he went out and actively sought for people in need. The four-quartered hypocephalus is a perfect symbol for Abraham. The three figures to the right of the four sons of Horus represent the god srpt-m3i-sr. This god is associated with Abraham in the Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and Leiden: “Abraham, the apple (?) of the Eye of the Uzat… srpt-m3i-sr is thy name”. They represent the rising, midday, and setting sun, which relates this figure back to the previous figure of the Sun.
7.		The ba spirit presents the wedjat, correctly called a keyword consistently by Joseph Smith, to the god Min–the reproductive force of nature combined with Horus. On the feast of Horus-Min, the king offered sacrifices “to ensure the fertility of the land and the rebirth of life.” Horus-Min is called the apotropaic “way opener” and repels “all evil from the pharaoh” in order to let rebirth happen. So in the Egyptian context, the god Min is the one receiving offerings through the heaven bird rather than giving keywords. But in the Abraham context it makes sense for Min to be giving the knowledge to Abraham, as the Abrahamic endowment is both a receiving ritual and a giving ritual. Above the throne, the upward arrow symbol is the flail symbol which represents “power to beget or create and sustain life.” In the Pyramid Texts, the powers of Min “seem to give the dead king the power to fly up into the heavens.” Joseph Smith correctly identifies the bird as a communication device for the keywords of power. Below the bird is the ka-sign with a jackal head merged, which represents “words of power” that give “intelligence, essential nature, or life-force of the deceased.” It’s title useru means “strong or mighty.” The symbol is a “badge or insignia of might or potency.” There has been some confusion with this figure about which way the communication is supposed to go, but it looks to me like it is pretty clear: Abraham offers sacrifices for knowledge and God replies with grand keywords of power.
8.		Joseph Smith was correct that these are “writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.” The true meaning of this writing is lost on us and can only be communicated with its full context in the temple. It translates to: “Grant life to the soul of the Osiris Sheshonk.” This is what the hypocephalus and its incorporated funeral ritual is all about, and this ritual can only be correctly performed in the temple. The ankh symbol in this text suggests a binding or covenant, and the two useru symbols suggest words of resurrection power. All of this is meaningless outside of the right time and place.
9-11.		Like Joseph Smith says, the Book of the Dead tells us that these pass-phrases should be kept secret until their intended use: “This is a great and secret book. Do not allow anyone’s eyes to see it!” Joseph Smith said it “ought not to be revealed at the present time.” This shows that Joseph Smith not only understand the fine details of how this diagram explored eternal exaltation, but he knew that the words and symbols outside of their proper context would be misunderstood and useless. Is there any better example of this happening than CES Letter, who tells us Joseph Smith was wrong because figure 6 is the “sons of Horus” rather than the earth’s four quarters? I mean, isn’t CES Letter the perfect example of why such things should be kept quiet from those who aren’t used to using their brains and doing rudimentary research?
12-21.		Joseph Smith said the translation for all of these writings “will be given in the own due time of the Lord.” And he was right. They were. If Joseph Smith expected that people would eventually be able to translate Egyptian, why would he pretend to translate a Book of Breathings scroll that turns out to be completely different than what he translated? Why be so careless? Why wouldn’t he at least try to destroy the evidence? The answer is Joseph Smith clearly did not use the Book of Breathings scroll that was recovered today. You will never see an anti-Mormon admit that Joseph Smith correctly predicted people would one day translate Egyptian.
22-23		CES Letter incorrectly claims there was “no annotation given” for these figures. False. Joseph Smith called them “stars” “receiving light from” Kolob. And Joseph Smith is correct that the raised hands symbolize receiving light of the sun. These are Thoth figures, and Thoth was originally considered “counselor” to Ra the sun god.

CES Letter Logical Fallacies

Falsehoods	CES Letter incorrectly claims no annotation was given for figures 22 and 23. Yes, it was. CES Letter intentionally misspells “its” as “it’s” in figure 6, in order to make Joseph Smith’s interpretation sound confusing and obfuscate its obvious match with the real Egyptian meaning.
Argument From Ignorance	CES Letter quotes only part of Joseph Smith’s explanation for figure 11 and omits “If the world can find out” the literal translation “let it be,” which turned out to be true; it did get translated. CES Letter omits the dove in figure 7, which is the Holy Ghost in both the Egyptian context and Joseph Smith’s interpretation. CES Letter calls out figure 6 as “the four Sons of Horus” in their highlighting of this figure, but don’t mention that the Sons of Horus represent exactly what Joseph Smith said they do. CES Letter omits the Egyptian context Joseph Smith gave for figure 5 as “the sun” which is perfectly true. Instead they give the Abraham context and totally misrepresent Joseph Smith’s interpretation. They omit his explanation of a planet and the borrowing of power, which turns out to be true. CES Letter omits Joseph Smith’s interpretation for figure 4, as the firmament of heaven, apparently because Joseph Smith was once again right. Instead, CES Letter gives his appurtenant explanation of the significance of the number 1,000. CES Letter omits the crown of light and keyword of power that Joseph Smith correctly called out in figure 3. CES Letter omits Joseph Smith’s entire interpretation of figure 2 except the phrase “stands next to Kolob,” which they already poisoned the well for in figure 1. CES Letter omits the main interpretation for figure 1, “first creation, nearest to the celestial” which makes their cherry-picked phrase for figure 2 seem bizarre and out of place. In all their explanations for the figures, CES Letter uses the names of Egyptian gods with very little explanation of what they represent, because what they represent matches Joseph Smith’s interpretation. Essentially, CES Letter is telling us that because these figures are Egyptian they couldn’t possibly mean anything religious, which is of course ridiculously ignorant.
Strawman Argument	CES Letter lists “Joseph Smith’s interpretation” opposite “Modern Egyptological [is that a word?] 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 incorrectly claims figure 7, the Egyptian god Min, “is Heavenly Father” according to Joseph Smith. No, Joseph Smith never said that. Actually, he made it clear the Egyptian context was different, and never calls this figure Heavenly Father.
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.
Dramatic Language	CES Letter pretends to be wildly upset to find out Min was a fertility God to the Egyptians and the diagram shows a penis. They repeatedly call him the “phallic God,” “ithypallic God,” “sexually aroused male diety,” “pagan Egyptian God of fertility or sex,” “with an erect penis.” They call this all “disturbing.” Actually, I would say it is disturbing that they are dwelling on the portrayal of a penis so much. Apparently, they are hyping the fertility aspect in order to prepare us for the real whine-fest that comes when CES Letter starts talking about the church’s history of polygamy.
Repetition Fallacy	Besides repeatedly talking about Min’s status as fertility god, CES Letter repeatedly describes him as sitting on a throne with an erect penis, “which can be seen in the figure.” Uh… isn’t the figure what we’ve been talking about this whole time? Why mention the obvious point that Min can be seen in the figure? Can CES Letter just stop thinking about penis? Juvenile. “Egyptologists and Modern Egyptology.” Redundant. CES Letter repeats their claims on p. 28: “None of the names are correct as each one of these gods does not even exist in Egyptian religion or any recorded mythology… Joseph misidentifies every god.” This perpetuates the incorrect assumption that Joseph Smith was interpreting the Egyptian context, and ignores the stunning parallels. It also assumes that if something is not in the Egyptian religion then it must be “mythology.” Poisoning the well.
Poison The Well	CES Letter suggests because these figures show “pagan” gods and an erect penis, which CES Letter can’t stop thinking about, the Facsimile couldn’t possibly provide gospel related messages. What about the Christmas tree? Easter? Don’t they have pagan origins? CES Letter highlights the strongest correlation between Joseph Smith’s interpretation and modern Egyptology, the four sons of Horus diagram. But they poison the well by omitting what the four sons of Horus represent. CES Letter’s discussion of the Facsimiles are rife with cherry-picking.
Appeal To Novelty	“Modern Egyptological.” Actually, these interpretations have been around for a very long time. And I don’t think Egyptological is a word. 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.

By cherry-picking short phrases from Joseph Smith’s interpretation and providing only the names of the Egyptian gods and not what they represent, CES Letter covers up the stunning correlation between what Joseph Smith interpreted and what Egyptologists give as the Egyptian meanings. CES Letter makes it sound like the gods are just riding around on boats and sitting around on thrones, but really their context closely matches what Joseph Smith said.

They even emphasize a zoomed in view of the four sons of Horus and contrast this with Joseph Smith’s explanation “four quarters of the earth”–which is totally correct! The four sons of Horus are the four quarters of the earth! But CES Letter covers that up. They even misspell “its” as “it’s” in Joseph Smith’s explanation to make it sound confusing.

It’s 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 theology. 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 in 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, as they appear in 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?”

This big lie is very dishonest because CES Letter is approaching from the point of view that Joseph Smith made the whole thing up. So then, how could they logically restrict which document Joseph Smith pretended to translate from? They further frame the discussion that this particular fragment must completely resemble the English translation or it is totally invalid. No in-between; the “pagan” Egyptian book either contains the exact text or it is totally unrelated. This frame allows CES Letter in further arguments to make the ridiculous claim that a hieroglyph of Osiris couldn’t possibly be interpreted to stand for Abraham.

With Facsimile 2, CES Letter puts the Egyptian text translation in red text to emphasize their false characterization that Joseph Smith’s interpretation was meant to be a literal text translation. We walk away thinking he tried to give a word-for-word text translation, but that is totally false.

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.

Joseph Smith explained:

“Mormonism is truth; and every man who embraces it feels himself at liberty to embrace every truth: consequently the shackles of superstition, bigotry, ignorance, and priestcraft, fall at once from his neck; and his eyes are opened to see the truth, and truth greatly prevails over priestcraft. …Mormonism is truth, in other words the doctrine of the Latter-day Saints, is truth. … The first and fundamental principle of our holy religion is, that we believe that we have a right to embrace all, and every item of truth, without limitation or without being circumscribed or prohibited by the creeds or superstitious notions of men, or by the dominations of one another, when that truth is clearly demonstrated to our minds, and we have the highest degree of evidence of the same.”

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 2 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.

They also pass off Facsimile 2 as a mere “funerary amulet” instead of really explaining what a hypocephalus is: a scene of resurrection in the upper and lower realm of the sun. Their shockingly manipulative portrayal of Facsimile 2 completely misrepresents what Joseph Smith said and what the Egyptian meaning actually is according to Egyptologists. The truth is, Joseph Smith was 100% right about each detail of the Facsimile.

CES Letter gives a few bits of incorrect leading evidence; the reader connects to dots in their mind; and CES Letter pushes it to a sweeping generalization. If there were any evidence for the Book of Abraham, why is this Egyptian papyrus talking about Egyptian stuff instead of Abraham? Um, maybe because it’s Egyptian?! People are much more likely to believe CES Letter‘s incredibly insensible string of logic because hey connected the dots out on their own, subconsciously. They are also more likely to believe the evidences for that deduction, which in this case are falsehoods.

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 Marxist 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.

CES Letter‘s attack on the Book of Abraham invalidates all ancient writing, which is quite convenient for Satan’s followers. 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 Satanic substitute for religious scripture is the national-standard science textbook that jumps to wild politically correct conclusions and requires revising every year. It is the Bill Nye Science 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 from Netflix and teaches kids that sex identity is totally fluid. For followers of Satan, 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.