Lights and Perfections posted this video that shows how conclusive the evidence is that the Book of Mormon clearly was compiled by multiple authors.

With AI making it possible for ordinary people to simply and quickly perform detailed studies like this, I decided to run my own as sort of a quadriplegic check to make sure that the Book of Mormon really does identify different authorship thought the text as it claims it does.

I asked Grok to examine the text of the Book of Mormon and run an independent stylometric analysis on the full text of the Book of Mormon. It identified 9 distinct authors and writing styles. I then also added in the Book of Abraham, The Visions of Moses (Moses Chapter 1), Book of Enoch (Moses 6-8) and Joseph Smith History to see if each of these also demonstrated different writing styles and authorship.

Spoiler alert. They do.

Now AI makes mistakes all the time, so I’m not saying these results are perfect, but the patterns are pretty conclusive. Here’s what Groks stylometric Analysis found:

1. Function Word Frequencies

We looked at how often common “connector” words are used (and, the, of, unto, that, behold, came, i/my/me, lord/god, etc.). Different authors naturally use these words at different rates, creating unique stylistic fingerprints.

The results showed clear differences. A few notable outliers:

• Alma the Younger used significantly more “unto,” “that,” “behold,” “Jesus,” and “Christ” — perfectly matching his intense, direct, doctrinal sermon style.
• Mormon (the main abridger) relied heavily on “and,” “of,” “was,” and “came” — exactly what you’d expect from someone summarizing and connecting large amounts of historical material.
• Jacob 5 (the Zenos allegory) stood out sharply from the rest of Jacob’s writings, with higher repetition of “and” and “came” and much lower personal pronouns, supporting that it is a quoted ancient text.
• Moses Chapter 1 has an extremely strong visionary voice — very high usage of “behold,” “i/my/me,” and “lord/god,” giving it a majestic, personal, face-to-face revelation feel.
• Book of Abraham (chapters 1–3) shows a formal, patriarchal tone with elevated “unto,” “i/my/me,” and “lord/god,” while still feeling distinct from both Book of Mormon voices and Moses 1.
• Moses 6–8 (Enoch material) sits comfortably in the ancient narrative/patriarchal range — similar to Nephi and Mormon but with its own balance.

Most notably, Joseph Smith—History is clearly different from all the ancient-style texts. It uses far fewer archaic words like “unto” and “behold,” while showing higher usage of straightforward modern connectors (“and,” “the,” “of,” “in”). This creates a recognizable 19th-century personal history tone that stands apart from the scriptural voices.

2. Average Sentence Length

We measured how long each author’s sentences tend to be.

• Jacob 5 had the longest sentences (34+ words) — fitting for its complex allegory.
• Isaiah also had long, poetic sentences.
• Alma the Younger and Enos used shorter, more direct sentences.
• The longest sentences appear in highly elevated, visionary, or poetic texts: Jacob 5, Moses 1, Abraham, and Isaiah.
• Joseph Smith—History (24.6) is noticeably shorter and more straightforward than most of the scriptural texts — consistent with 19th-century personal writing.
• There is significant variation even among the “ancient” texts, which supports the idea of multiple distinct voices.

This is another way the voices feel distinct.

3. Vocabulary Richness (Type-Token Ratio)

This measures how many unique words each author uses relative to the total number of words.

Key Insights:

• The highest vocabulary richness appears in Moses Chapter 1 and Enos — both highly personal, visionary, and emotionally intense texts.
• Book of Abraham and Isaiah also score very high, showing sophisticated and varied language.
• Jacob 5 remains the lowest — which makes sense because it is a highly repetitive allegory.
• Mormon is also relatively low, consistent with someone doing a lot of historical summarizing and repeating narrative formulas.
• Joseph Smith—History sits right in the middle of the pack (17.9%). It is not extremely rich or poor, which is typical of straightforward 19th-century autobiographical writing.

Jacob 5 is one of the most unique parts of the Book of Mormon. In our analysis, it has the lowest vocabulary richness of any major section. It repeats the same words and phrases instead of using lots of different words. The Book of Mormon claims that it is a brass plates account from a prophet Zenos that is a long allegory about an olive tree (something Joseph Smith would not be familiar with). Instead of trying to sound fancy, it keeps hammering the same ideas and images over and over.

This kind of heavy repetition is more evidence of it being an ancient work. Repetition was not only common, but necessary in ancient times because people didn’t have books or easy ways to write things down. They used repetition to make stories easier to memorize and pass down orally. Many ancient teachings, parables, and prophecies were turned into songs or poems where repeating key phrases were used like the chorus of a song to help people remember them better. This is exactly how ancient Hebrew allegories and parables worked.

The vast differences in this the longest chapter in the Book of Mormon also strengthens the evidence of multiple authors. If Joseph Smith was just making it all up, you’d expect him to write this “impressive” chapter with more varied, flowery language. Instead, it has a completely different feel from regular Jacob or Mormon’s writing. The repetitive, focused style matches ancient writing techniques that Joseph simply wouldn’t have known in 1829. They stylometric analysis demonstrates that Jacob was really quoting a much older prophet named Zenos.

4. “And It Came to Pass” Frequency

This famous phrase appears very differently across sections:

Key Findings:

• Mormon uses the phrase the most (8.9 times per 1,000 words), which fits his role as the main historian and abridger who constantly connects events.
• Jacob 5 (Zenos) is also very high (7.8), showing its repetitive, allegorical style.
• Ancient narrative-style sections (Moses 6–8, Ether, Moses 1, Nephi) all use it frequently — this was a common ancient narrative connector.
• Sermon-style voices like Alma the Younger and King Benjamin use it much less, as they are more direct and exhortative.
• Isaiah almost never uses it (0.8), which fits its poetic/prophetic style.
• Joseph Smith—History has zero occurrences of “and it came to pass.”

This is a very clear distinction. The revealed scriptural texts (Book of Mormon, Moses, Abraham) regularly use this ancient phrase as a storytelling connector, while Joseph’s personal history is written in straightforward 19th-century English without it.

This pattern strongly supports the idea of multiple ancient authors — the phrase appears heavily where the text claims ancient origins, but is completely absent when Joseph is writing in his own natural voice.

5. Overall Visualization

Author / Text	Avg Sentence Length	Vocabulary Richness (TTR %)	“And it came to pass” (per 1k)
Jacob 5 (Zenos)	34.2	14.8%	7.8
Moses Chapter 1	33.8	23.1%	5.9
Isaiah	31.8	22.1%	0.8
Book of Abraham 1–3	31.7	21.4%	4.8
Mormon (abridger)	29.8	15.6%	8.9
Moses 6–8 (Enoch)	28.4	19.7%	7.2
Nephi	28.4	18.2%	5.2
Jacob (general)	26.7	19.5%	4.1
King Benjamin	24.1	18.7%	1.6
Moroni	23.5	17.3%	3.2
Alma the Younger	22.6	16.4%	1.9
Enos	21.8	23.4%	2.4
Joseph Smith—History	24.6	17.9%	0.0

We ran multiple stylometric tests (common word usage, average sentence length, vocabulary richness, and “and it came to pass” frequency) on many different voices in the Book of Mormon, plus the Book of Abraham, Moses Chapter 1, Moses 6–8 (Enoch), and Joseph Smith—History.

The results show clear differences in style between the various ancient voices. Some use long, majestic sentences (like Moses 1 and Jacob 5), others are very personal and word-rich (like Enos), while some are repetitive and narrative-heavy (like Mormon and Jacob 5). These differences line up well with the different roles and personalities the scriptures claim they had.

Most interestingly, Joseph Smith—History stands apart from all the others. It has shorter sentences, more modern wording, and zero use of the common ancient phrase “and it came to pass.” This suggests that when Joseph was writing in his own natural voice, it sounded noticeably different from the ancient records he translated.

Taken together, the data supports the Book of Mormon’s claim of having many different ancient authors rather than one single 19th-century writer trying to imitate them all.

What Does This Mean?

If Joseph Smith had invented the entire book, we would expect one fairly uniform writing style throughout. Instead, the data shows multiple consistent but different stylistic “fingerprints” that match the different prophets the book itself claims wrote it.

Either Joseph Smith was a literary genius who could flawlessly imitate multiple distinct ancient writing styles across hundreds of pages — yet somehow never once mentioned or took credit for this incredible skill — or the Book of Mormon is exactly what it claims to be: a genuine ancient record written by many different prophets, translated by the gift and power of God to testify of Jesus Christ and teach us about the covenants He makes with His children.

Joseph was not known as a polished writer. He had very little formal education, and the surviving examples of his own handwriting show a man who struggled with spelling, grammar, and composition. In one of the rare passages written in his own hand, Joseph described his education this way:

“It required the exertions of all that were able to render any assistance for the support of the Family therefore we were deprived of the bennifit of an education suffice it to say I was mearly instructid in reading writing and the ground rules of Arithmatic which const[it]uted my whole literary acquirements.”

That is not the writing of a trained author. It is elementary, rough, and filled with the kind of spelling and grammatical errors one would expect from a young man with limited schooling on the American frontier.

Emma Smith made the same point even more forcefully. As one of Joseph’s earliest scribes and the person who knew his abilities most intimately, she said that Joseph

“could neither write nor dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, let alone dictating a book like the Book of Mormon.”

That reality created a problem for early critics. If Joseph was a fraud, then where did the book come from? If he was too uneducated to produce it himself, then critics needed another author. Solomon Spaulding became the undisputed author for five decades.

Solomon Spaulding and Manuscript Found

Solomon Spaulding was a former minister, Revolutionary War veteran, Dartmouth graduate, and amateur writer. Around 1812, while living in New Salem, now Conneaut, Ohio, he wrote an unpublished historical romance usually called “Manuscript Found” or “Manuscript Story.”

The story was framed as if it were a translation of an ancient record discovered in a cave near the remains of an old fort on the west bank of the Conneaut River. In Spaulding’s story, a group of Romans from the days of Constantine are blown off course, cross the Atlantic, and arrive in America. The story then describes their interactions, wars, governments, and religion among the ancient inhabitants of the land.

At first glance, the story seems to have some parallels with the Book of Mormon. Spaulding had written about ancient people in America. The Book of Mormon was also about ancient people in America. For those already convinced Joseph Smith could not have produced the book, Spaulding became an attractive explanation for the origins of the Book.

How the Theory Began

In 1833, Doctor Philastus Hurlbut, a former Latter-day Saint who had been excommunicated from the Church for committing adultery while serving a Mission. After being re-baptized, and then was excommunicated again he became bitter and hostile to the church, vowing to wash Joseph Smith’s blood with his own hands. Somehow he heard reports that Solomon Spaulding had written a manuscript that somehow resembled the Book of Mormon. Hurlbut traveled to gather statements from Spaulding’s family, neighbors, and acquaintances.

Hurlbut gathered eight major statements from people connected to Spaulding who claimed that Spaulding’s manuscript resembled the Book of Mormon. These included statements from John Spaulding, Martha Spaulding, Henry Lake, John N. Miller, Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, Nahum Howard, and Artemas Cunningham.

These witnesses claimed to remember similarities between Spaulding’s manuscript and the Book of Mormon, including ancient American peoples, wars, migrations, and even the Book of Mormon names Nephi and Lehi. Some claimed that Spaulding’s manuscript used a biblical style, including phrases like “and it came to pass.”

Those statements became part of E. D. Howe’s 1834 book, Mormonism Unvailed, the first major anti-Mormon book ever published. Howe used Hurlbut’s material to argue that the historical portion of the Book of Mormon had originally been written by Solomon Spaulding more than twenty years earlier and had then somehow been transformed into Latter-day Saint scripture.

To many readers in the 1830s, these statements sounded convincing. Newspapers repeated the claim. Critics promoted it. For decades, the Spaulding theory became one of the most common non-believing explanations for the origin of the Book of Mormon.

But the theory had serious problems from the beginning.

The Problem with the Witnesses

The first problem was memory. The witnesses were not comparing the Book of Mormon to a manuscript sitting in front of them. They were recalling something Spaulding had supposedly read or discussed more than twenty years earlier.

Human memory is especially unreliable when people are asked, decades later, to compare an old unpublished story with a controversial new religious book they already dislike.

The second problem was that Howe and Hurlbut actually obtained a Spaulding manuscript. He found it through Spaulding’s widow and family connections. But when Hurlbut examined it, it was not close to the Book of Mormon. It was a very different kind of story.

The manuscript did not contain Nephi, Lehi, Lamanites, Nephites, Moroni, Zarahemla, golden plates, Christ’s visit to the Americas, prophetic sermons, covenant theology, or the sweeping doctrinal structure of the Book of Mormon. It was a fictional romance about Romans who crossed the ocean and arrived in America.

But for anti-Mormons more interested in destroying Joseph Smith and the Church, the truth didn’t actually matter. What mattered was convincing people that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and with the obvious problem that the actual manuscript did not match the accusations.

So the theory had to be adapted.

The Spaulding Theory Becomes the Spaulding-Rigdon Theory

Neither Howe nor Hurlbut seemed to believe Joseph Smith was educated or competent enough to have produced the Book of Mormon. And Spaulding’s manuscript alone could not explain the book either. It did not have the theology. It did not have the doctrinal complexity. It did not have the scriptural framework.

So critics added Sidney Rigdon.

The revised theory argued that Spaulding wrote the basic ancient-American story, and Sidney Rigdon acquired it through a Pittsburgh printing office. Spaulding had reportedly taken his manuscript to the firm of Patterson and Lambdin, hoping to get it published. Since Rigdon had lived in the Pittsburgh area, critics claimed he must have had access to the manuscript, copied or stole it, added the religious material, and later secretly worked with Joseph Smith to publish it as the Book of Mormon.

This is how the Spaulding theory became the Spaulding-Rigdon theory.

But this version created even more problems. It required critics to prove several things at once:

1. That there was another Spaulding manuscript, different from the one Hurlbut actually found.
2. That this missing manuscript contained the basic storyline of the Book of Mormon.
3. That Sidney Rigdon somehow stole or copied the manuscript.
4. That Rigdon secretly edited or expanded it.
5. That Rigdon had a hidden relationship with Joseph Smith before the Book of Mormon was published.
6. Tthat Joseph Smith was then able to dictate the Book of Mormon in front of witnesses while somehow concealing this manuscript source.
7. That Sidney Rigdon pretended initial opposition to the Book of Mormon and denied that he had never seen or talked to Joseph Smith before 1831.

None of that chain has ever been historically verified.

The Rediscovery of the Manuscript

Despite its reliance on so many assumptions, for decades the Spaulding theory survived partly because people had not seen Spaulding’s actual manuscript. The manuscript disappeared among old papers connected to E. D. Howe.

Then, in 1884, it was rediscovered in Honolulu, Hawaii, by L. L. Rice, who had acquired papers from Howe’s old newspaper office. Rice recognized the importance of the manuscript and sent it to James H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College.

Fairchild and others examined it and concluded that it had nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. Instead of vindicating the Spaulding theory, the rediscovered manuscript completely debunked the theory.

Fairchild said,

“Mr. Rice, myself, and others compared it with the Book of Mormon, and could detect no resemblance between the two, in general or in detail. There seems to be no name or incident common to the two. The solemn style of the Book of Mormon, in imitation of the English Scriptures, does not appear in the manuscript.”

The manuscript was later published, allowing readers to compare it with the Book of Mormon for themselves. The result was devastating for the theory. Spaulding’s story was not a lost version of the Book of Mormon. It was a frontier historical romance with a completely different plot, style, purpose, and religious content.

Spaulding’s story is about a Roman named Fabius, whose record is supposedly found on parchment rolls in a cave near Conneaut Creek. Fabius and other Romans are sailing toward Britain when a storm blows them across the Atlantic and they end up in America. They first meet a people called the Deliwans, then later encounter the Ohians, a more developed mound-building society. The story includes Roman characters Crito, Lucian, and Trojanus, native leaders Lobaska and King Bombal of Kentuck, religious festivals, native songs, courtship customs, ironwork, pottery, architecture, political reforms, a fabricated priesthood, and even a conflict called the War of the Blue Feather.

The witnesses had claimed to remember Book of Mormon names and scriptural language in Spaulding’s manuscript. But the rediscovered manuscript showed that those claims were just not true. It did not contain the Book of Mormon’s distinctive names. It did not read like scripture. It did not use the Book of Mormon’s prophetic voice or contain theology.

That forced defenders of the Spaulding theory into an even weaker position. They now had to argue that the manuscript discovered in 1884 was not the important one. The real source, they claimed, must have been a second Spaulding manuscript that had disappeared.

In other words, after the known manuscript failed, the theory had to depend on an additional unknown manuscript.

The Printing Story Also Works Against the Theory

The publication history of the Book of Mormon also cuts against the idea that Joseph was secretly working from a polished literary manuscript prepared by educated conspirators.

When Joseph sought to print the Book of Mormon, he first approached E. B. Grandin in Palmyra. Grandin refused. Joseph and Martin Harris then approached other printers, including Jonathan Hadley and Thurlow Weed, who also refused. Eventually, Elihu F. Marshall of Rochester agreed to print it. Only after that did Joseph and Martin return to Grandin, who finally agreed after Martin Harris mortgaged part of his farm to secure the cost.

This is not the behavior of someone sitting on a polished fraud with powerful backers and an easy path to publication. The process was uncertain, resisted, and financially risky.

If Joseph, Rigdon, or some secret group had carefully manufactured the Book of Mormon as a literary deception, the publication story is surprisingly clumsy. There was no smooth publishing plan. There was no wealthy sponsor waiting in the background. There was no obvious network of conspirators moving the book into print. There was a young, undereducated Joseph Smith, a manuscript produced by dictation, reluctant printers, and Martin Harris risking his farm to get the book published.

Why the Theory Survived

The Spaulding theory survived because it tried to solve a real problem for critics: Joseph Smith does not look like the kind of person who could naturally produce the Book of Mormon.

He was poor. He had little schooling. He was not a trained writer. His own handwriting shows limited ability. His wife said he could not write or dictate a coherent and well-worded letter, much less produce a book like the Book of Mormon.

So critics looked for someone else. Solomon Spaulding supplied a possible ancient-American story. Sidney Rigdon supplied a possible educated theologian. Together, they seemed to offer an explanation.

But the theory only works if the evidence is missing at every point where evidence is most needed.

The manuscript that exists does not match the Book of Mormon. The second manuscript required by the theory has never been found. The chain of custody from Spaulding to Rigdon has never been proven. The alleged pre-1830 connection between Rigdon and Joseph Smith has never been established. And the theory still has to explain how Joseph dictated the Book of Mormon in the presence of witnesses without using a visible manuscript.

That is why the Spaulding-Rigdon theory creates more problems than it solves.

Conclusion

The simplest historical fact remains: Joseph Smith was an undereducated young man with limited writing ability, yet the Book of Mormon came through him.

Believers explain that through revelation and translation by the gift and power of God. Critics have tried to explain it through stolen manuscripts, hidden collaborators, and elaborate chains of custody. But the Spaulding theory, one of the earliest and longest-running attempts to replace Joseph’s own explanation, has never carried the historical weight required.

It began with affidavits based on decades-old memories. It shifted when the actual manuscript failed to match the accusation. It depended on Sidney Rigdon when Spaulding alone was not enough. And after the manuscript was rediscovered in 1884, the theory was forced to rely on a second, missing manuscript that has never been produced.

The theory exists because critics needed another author. But needing another author is not the same thing as proving one.

Solomon Spaulding Book of Mormon Origins

May 29, 2026

Did Joseph Smith Plagiarize the Late War?

May 29, 2026

Moroni and Cumorah: Did Joseph Smith Copy These Names from Maps?

April 13, 2026

Joseph Smith’s Secret Dartmouth Education

April 3, 2026

Joseph Smith Plagarized Adam Clarke

December 26, 2025

Sources and Related Content:

Doctor Hurlbut Chronology

I had assumed that somewhere along the translation process, either when Oliver and Joseph were translating, when they copied the original manuscript over to the printer’s copy, or when the printer was reading the text and setting the type, they saw that the text was similar and decided to pull the passages from the Bible and use those words.

But as I’ve studied Church history, the record shows that Joseph Smith didn’t even have a copy of the Bible while he and Emma were living in Harmony, where most of the Book of Mormon translation took place. The printer and Oliver Cowdery also claimed that they never looked at a Bible in the scribing or typesetting process.

So how did the text of the Book of Mormon end up in an earlier English language, using almost the exact phrasing of the KJV Bible?

Royal Skousen, who has done extensive study on the text of the Book of Mormon, including the original manuscripts, believes the translation Joseph Smith received was almost as if someone else had already translated it into English, perhaps Moroni, and that Joseph Smith was being revealed that English translation.

But why so close to the KJV?

For a Wise Purpose

The King James Version of the Bible was THE English Bible for three centuries. It was considered by most protestants to be the infallible word of God, and for many sects and religious groups, it was viewed as perfectly inspired. There were no additional English translations of the Bible until the 1880’s and even then, many Christians believed that any variations from sacred KJV text were adding to or taking away from the Bible.

In rural America, many families had only the King James Version of the Bible in the home. This became the book that many people learned to read from, and it and the language it used was an important part of the culture.

With this context, and with the worldview of many Americans in the early days of the Church, it makes sense that the Book of Mormon, especially the scriptural passages that quote the Bible, needed to sound exactly like the Bible version they knew. Otherwise, many potential investigators may have been immediately skeptical.

Multiple Layers of Ancient Meaning

Ancient languages like Hebrew use all kinds of words with multiple meanings. Sometimes, to really understand the text and its multiple layers of meaning, you also have to understand the Hebrew or Greek puns. The reality is that puns rarely translate well into English.

You have to look at the original language. With Google Translate and artificial intelligence, it is now easier for anyone to study different meanings and puns in the original language.

Since we don’t have the original text or even the original language of the Book of Mormon, it makes sense that the shared biblical passages would be almost exactly the same as the Bible version, where we do have the Hebrew and Greek source texts. We can look back at those texts to get greater meaning.

Shortly after my mission, I had two friends who had recently returned from Spanish-speaking missions.

One told the joke, “What is the laziest animal?”

“The fish, because all it does all day long is nada, nada, nada.”

The other friend, who understood Spanish, thought this was hilarious, but it went right by me. I knew from my three years of junior high Spanish that nada meant “nothing,” but I made no connection between nada and fish, so it just wasn’t funny. But they understhood the pun and knew that nada also means “swims,” which made the joke an actual joke.

The pun only makes sense in the original language. In English, “nothing” and “swim” are not related.

This is the same with much of scripture. To understand the deeper meaning, we need to study the original text and its multiple layers.

KJV “Errors” What the Critics Claims Get Wrong

Critics like the CES Letter claim Joseph Smith simply copied Bible passages from the King James Version into the Book of Mormon, including supposed translation errors. The argument is framed as a gotcha: if Joseph was a prophet, why would the Book of Mormon repeat KJV mistakes?

But that argument depends on one major assumption: that these are actually mistakes.

When you look at the original Hebrew meanings and the way English words were used in the 17th century, the claim falls apart. These supposed “errors” actually are valid translations, older English definitions, or reasonable ways to express the meaning of the Hebrew text.

Jeremy Runnells did not originate this argument. The CES Letter repackages earlier critical work about the Book of Mormon’s use of King James Bible language. Stan Larson was making this kind of argument by the mid-1980s, and David P. Wright later made a more detailed academic argument about Book of Mormon Isaiah.

The problem is that the CES Letter presents these earlier claims in a simplified chart and assumes these Biblical interpretations are the undisputed “correct translations.” They aren’t. In several cases, the supposed corrections are modern translation preferences or narrow readings of Hebrew words that had a wider range of meaning.

The chart looks official, but the argument behind it is pathetically weak.

None of these examples prove Joseph Smith copied false KJV translations into the Book of Mormon. In several cases, the KJV wording is directly supported by the original Hebrew. In other cases, the issue is not mistranslation at all, but older English definitions that modern readers may misunderstand.

The Isaiah 2:16 example is especially interesting. The Book of Mormon includes “ships of the sea” in addition to “ships of Tarshish,” a detail not found in the KJV wording but found in the Septuagint. This provides additional evidence that Joseph Smith did translate the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God as this is a detail Joseph would not have known from the King James Bible alone.

The CES Letter argument does not show what it claims to show. Every supposed KJV “error” it brings up is either a correct translation, a defensible rendering, or a misunderstanding of older English and Hebrew meaning.

CES Letter Supposed KJV Errors:

According to Joseph Smith, facsimile 1 shows Abraham at the beginning of his journey. He is on the altar, threatened by false priesthood, surrounded by idolatrous authority, and facing death. Facsimile 2 then expands the story into the heavens, showing cosmic order, governing powers, sacred time, priesthood knowledge, and the residence of God. Facsimile 3 appears to complete that progression. Abraham has progressed from the victim to one with with authority, instruction, divine favor, and a throne.

The progression follows this pattern:

altar → deliverance → heavenly knowledge → divine order → throne

That is also the basic story of the Book of Abraham itself.

The Reversal Between Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3

The connection between Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 3 offer a paradoxical meaning.

Facsimile 1	Facsimile 3
Abraham is placed under the power of Pharaoh’s priest.	Abraham as sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, reasoning upon the principles of astronomy.
False authority tries to kill the rightful priesthood heir.	Abraham is presented as one possessing knowledge, authority, and divine favor.
Abraham is bound to the altar.	Abraham is elevated to the throne.

This makes Facsimile 3 far more than a random image placed at the end of the Book of Abraham. It functions as a visual conclusion to the story that begins in Facsimile 1.

What Facsimile 3 Shows – Different from Other Books of Breathings

But Quenten Barney’s research shows that this scene is much different than any others. Barney compared Facsimile 3 with every publicly known Book of Breathings throne scene, along with broader Egyptian material from Ptolemaic copies of the Book of the Dead, temples, tombs, and funerary stelae. His conclusion was that Facsimile 3 has parallels, but is far from an exact match. It appears to be anomalous among Book of Breathings scenes and among comparable Ptolemaic Egyptian art from Thebes. Barney suggests it was likely a custom-made scene intended specifically for the Hor Book of Breathings, and is not standard stock image inserted into a generic funerary text.

Critics describe Facsimile 3 as a simple Egyptian funerary judgment scene, sometimes connected with Book of the Dead 125. That description only works on the surface level. The Standard judgment scenes normally include major features including the weighing of the heart, the scales, Thoth recording the judgment, Anubis handling the scale, Ammut the devourer, and other judgment-specific elements. Barney notes that the absence of Thoth, Ammut, the sons of Horus, and the judgment scales indicates that Facsimile 3 does not fit as a judgment scene or even as a hybrid judgment scene.

Facsimile 3 compares better with Egyptian presentation scenes, where the deceased is brought before Osiris, but even in those scenes this one has differences. In Book of Breathings presentation scenes, Anubis normally leads the deceased by the hand from the front. In Facsimile 3, the figure in that position is Ma’at, while the dark figure stands behind the presented person. Barney argues that these differences make it improper to classify Facsimile 3 as a standard Book of Breathings presentation scene.

What The Modern Egyptian Scholars Say

Only two scholars have actually published full translations of Facsimile 3, and their readings involve uncertainty, disagreement, and reliance on comparable Book of Breathings texts to determine meaning. The translations offered by Rhodes and Ritner contain challenges that must be considered when deciding how much weight to place on them. Barney points out that some hieroglyphs are ambiguous and undecipherable.

You sure it’s actually Isis? It doesn’t say that.

For example, both Rhodes and Ritner identify one caption with Isis, which is a logical assumption because comparable scenes typically include Isis. But, the first set of hieroglyphs above Figure 2, where the name Isis would be expected, bears little to no resemblance to any known spelling of Isis. The identification the “modern scholars” have made relies on parallels and expected titles, rather than being able to actually read the name itself.

Facsimile 3 is a lot harder to dismiss as “just another funerary scene” than critics make it sound.

While the facsimile has Egyptian presentation-scene parallels, it is not a generic copy of a standard Book of Breathings vignette. It has unusual iconography, uncertain captions, nonstandard placement, and no exact known parallel. That leaves room for a more layered interpretation, including Joseph Smith’s Abrahamic reading.

Is it Really Anubis?

The same caution applies to the dark figure Rhodes and Ritner identified as Anubis. In many Egyptian presentation scenes, Anubis leads the deceased by the hand. But in Facsimile 3 the figure lacks the normal jackal head, pointed ears, and headdress. He is also not positioned in the leading role. Instead, he stands behind the central presented figure and appears to hold or support him differently than Anubis does in any other Book of Breathings scene.

The captions above this figure also contain uncertainty. Rhodes and Ritner both read the name Anubis, but the expected glyph for Anubis is not present. It does not match the straightforward Anubis captions found in other Book of Breathings vignettes. This shows that the identification Rhodes and Ritner used depends on assumed expectation from parallels rather than an obvious reading of the image and text.

Only Image With A Star Canopy

Another striking difference is the starry canopy above the scene. Facsimile 3 includes a canopy with 23 stars, which gives the image a heavenly setting. This feature becomes especially interesting in the Book of Abraham context because Joseph Smith’s explanation says Abraham is “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.” The main Book of Abraham text says Abraham was shown the stars, Kolob, governing bodies, time, and heavenly order. Facsimile 3 then places the throne/presentation scene beneath a star-filled canopy, which fits the astronomy theme in a way critics rarely address.

Another detail that may tie all three facsimiles together is the recurring pattern of 23.

Facsimile 1 may contain a 23-character sequence that functions as a compressed index to the story. Facsimile 2 contains 23 numbered figures, or steps, in the cosmic order. Facsimile 3 appears beneath a canopy of 23 stars.

How This Scene is Different Than Other Judgement Scenes

Facsimile 3 does not fit cleanly as a typical Book of the Dead judgment scene. Many of the defining elements usually associated with the Hall of the Two Truths and the weighing of the heart are absent.

Facsimile 3 does not include:

• the forty-two judges or gods
• the balance scale
• the weighing of the heart
• the heart itself
• the feather of Ma’at being weighed against the heart
• Thoth recording the judgment
• Anubis adjusting or handling the scale
• Ammut, the devourer
• the four sons of Horus on a lotus
• Osiris seated inside a shrine
• the full Hall of the Two Truths setting
• the deceased standing before the scale
• the standard judgment procession leading into the weighing scene

Instead, Facsimile 3 is better described as a presentation or throne scene with judgment-related themes. It has a seated enthroned figure, attendants, a presented individual, and a starry canopy. That gives it connections to Egyptian afterlife imagery, but it does not make it a standard Book of the Dead 125 judgment scene.

This distinction is important. Critics often speak as though Facsimile 3 has already been definitively identified as a common judgment scene, but the major judgment elements are missing. At minimum, the scene is more unusual and more complex than that claim allows. It should be treated as a distinctive presentation scene, not as an obvious copy of the standard weighing-of-the-heart judgment scene.

But Is it Abraham?

And while Facsimile 3 does appear to relate to a presentation throne scene, the question is, could this scene relate to Abraham?

A late Egyptian funerary or presentation layer may exist at the surface. But that does not exhaust the image’s meaning. Egyptian religious images could carry layered associations, especially in a Ptolemaic environment where symbols, names, titles, and sacred imagery were reused and reinterpreted across religious traditions.

Joseph Smith’s explanation identifies Abraham within the scene. That reading becomes much more plausible when Facsimile 3 is placed in the larger Book of Abraham sequence: Abraham begins at the altar in Facsimile 1, receives heavenly knowledge in Abraham 3 and Facsimile 2, and then appears in Facsimile 3 in a setting of throne, judgment, presentation, astronomy, and divine authority. It makes sense in the narrative.

Abraham and Judgment Imagery

After Joseph Smith’s lifetime, an ancient Jewish text known as the Testament of Abraham was discovered and translated. This is a later Jewish pseudepigraphic text, likely written in Greek in Egypt during the early centuries AD.

It shows that Jewish writers in Egypt were still telling expanded stories about Abraham, including stories where Abraham is taken into a heavenly vision and shown the judgment of souls.

In the Testament of Abraham, Abraham becomes a witness to divine judgment. Souls are weighed, examined, and separated according to their works. Divine authority is connected with a throne. Judgment is presented in a way that strongly overlaps with Egyptian judgment imagery.

That is important. Egyptian judgment scenes also centered on moral accountability, weighing, divine authority, and entrance into the afterlife. The Testament of Abraham shows that Jewish authors in Egypt placed Abraham into a judgment framework that was visually and conceptually compatible with Egyptian religious scenes like the Joseph Smith Papyri.

This find of the Testament of Abraham also gives important context for Facsimile 3. Joseph Smith’s association of Abraham with a judgment or throne scene was not just coincidental. It fits an ancient pattern where ancient people connected Abraham with divine judgment, heavenly authority, and the evaluation of souls.

The World of Hor’s Papyrus

Facsimiles 1 and 3 were likely both part of Hor’s Book of Breathings papyrus. Hor was an Egyptian temple priest in Thebes around 200 BC, and the papyrus appears to have functioned as part of his funerary material.

What makes this especially relevant to Abraham is that Thebes had a strong Jewish presence during this period. Egypt was a multicultural world where Jews, Greeks, and Egyptians lived in close contact. Religious stories, symbols, names, and sacred ideas moved across cultures.

In that setting, Egyptian imagery could be read through a Jewish or Abrahamic lens. Judgment and presentation scenes were especially adaptable because they carried themes of accountability, divine authority, vindication, and entrance into a higher realm.

So if Hor’s papyrus preserved imagery that later Egyptians used in a funerary setting, it makes sense that Abrahamic meaning could be attached to it. Abraham had overcome death, learned of the cosmos, received divine knowledge, and was connected with exaltation and enthronement in the eternities. For a priest like Hor, in a culture like this, that kind of imagery would have been highly meaningful.

Facsimile 3 in the Book of Abraham’s Structure

Joseph Smith placed Facsimile 3 after Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2. That order fits the story of the Book of Abraham and follows a recognizable sacred pattern:

altar → heavens → throne

Facsimile 1 begins at the altar. Abraham faces false priesthood, corrupted sacrifice, and death.

Facsimile 2 opens the heavens. Abraham is taught about Kolob, governing powers, sacred time, priesthood knowledge, and divine order.

Facsimile 3 completes the sequence with throne and presentation imagery. Abraham is no longer the threatened victim. He is now connected with authority, instruction, and divine vindication.

This is the perfect visual ending to the Book of Abraham’s central story. Abraham begins surrounded by false gods and counterfeit authority. He ends in a scene associated with throne, judgment, knowledge, and heavenly order.

Assumptions in the Interpretation of Facsimile 3

Their are only 6 brief explanations regarding this image in Facsimile 3, and we don’t know how much of them were what Joseph Smith actually said, versus what a scribe or newspaper editor may have assumed. It is possible that Joseph Smith did say that Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt was written above his hand, but it’s also possible that that was an assumption added by someone else.

Why the Criticism Misses the Point

Criticism of Facsimile 3 assumes that the late Egyptian funerary meaning is the only valid meaning. That assumption ignores how ancient religious images were actually used.

Symbols were reused, layered, and reinterpreted across cultures, especially in a mixed Egyptian and Jewish setting. The Testament of Abraham shows that Jewish writers were already placing Abraham into judgment scenes using ideas that overlap with Egyptian judgment imagery.

So Joseph Smith’s connection between Abraham and Facsimile 3 is not an obvious mistake. It fits an ancient pattern where Abraham was associated with divine judgment, heavenly authority, and the weighing or evaluation of souls.

Modern Egyptologists may describe the scene in terms of Egyptian funerary religion, and they wouldn’t be wrong.  But Joseph Smith was not simply giving a late Egyptian surface reading. He was interpreting the image through the revealed story of Abraham during a time in the Egyptian empire when Ptolemaic encoding was prevelant.

Conclusion

Facsimile 3 is an Egyptian judgment and presentation scene, but it carrys much more meaning than “standard funerary text.” The images in this scene are unique and are not just standard Book of Breathings text.  Later discoveries show that Abraham was associated with judgment imagery in ancient Jewish tradition, especially in an Egyptian setting.

The Testament of Abraham places Abraham directly inside a judgment vision that parallels Egyptian scenes. Jewish tradition could reuse Egyptian imagery to teach Abrahamic theology. Joseph Smith’s placement of Facsimile 3 at the end of the Book of Abraham fits that ancient pattern.

The Book of Abraham begins at the altar, where Abraham is nearly sacrificed by false priests and false gods. It moves through Facsimile 2, where the true heavenly order is revealed. It ends with Facsimile 3, where throne imagery becomes the symbol of reversal, vindication, and divine authority.

Facsimile 3 belongs exactly where Joseph Smith placed it: at the end of Abraham’s movement from altar to throne.

Book of Abraham Facsimile 2

May 14, 2026

How Facsimile 1 Encodes Abraham’s Story

May 7, 2026

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Abrahamic Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

Answering the Questions asked about The Book of Abraham Facsimile 3 in Letter For My Wife

Does Facsimile 3 prove Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian?

No. This criticism assumes Joseph Smith was offering a modern academic translation of late Egyptian funerary labels. Joseph claimed to translate by revelation. His explanations appear to interpret the scene through the Abrahamic story and its sacred themes: deliverance, divine authority, heavenly knowledge, and enthronement.

Only two Egyptologists have actually provided translations of this Facsimile, and the differences between their translation and the inferences they used, the questions they had showing uncertainty, and the differences they had in determining meaning shows that they also don’t really know how to translate it.

Is the seated figure Osiris instead of Abraham?

Not exactly. Egyptologists usually identify the seated figure as Osiris based on visual features and standard Egyptian iconography. But the text above the figure does not clearly function as a simple name label saying “Osiris.” That means critics overstate the case. The standard Egyptian reading may see Osiris, but it is not as simple as saying the hieroglyphs plainly prove Joseph Smith was wrong.

Is Abraham really sitting on Pharaoh’s throne?

Joseph Smith’s explanation fits the larger movement of the Book of Abraham. Facsimile 1 shows Abraham threatened by Pharaoh’s priest at the altar. Facsimile 3 reverses that scene by placing Abraham in a position of authority. Whether the Egyptian surface layer is funerary or royal, the Abrahamic interpretation presents a clear symbolic reversal: from altar to throne.

Does Facsimile 3 mention Abraham or astronomy?

The surviving Egyptian labels do not clearly mention Abraham or astronomy in a simple academic reading. But Joseph’s explanation likely comes from the revealed Book of Abraham framework, not from a basic caption-by-caption translation. Facsimile 1 does appear to connect Abraham to the scene at a Ptolemaic symbolic or coding level, and Facsimiles 1 and 3 appear to belong to the same broader papyrus context. That makes it reasonable to read them together rather than treating Facsimile 3 as an unrelated image.

There are also ancient Abraham traditions that connect Abraham with teaching astronomy in Pharaoh’s court. That makes Joseph Smith’s explanation much more probable than critics admit. Abraham 3 is specifically about stars, governing bodies, Kolob, heavenly reckoning, and divine order. Facsimile 3 fits naturally after that material as a throne or presentation scene where Abraham is “reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy.

Did Joseph misidentify the other figures?

Critics argue that Joseph’s identifications do not match standard Egyptological labels, but even modern Egyptologists are not simply reading clear name labels above each figure. In several cases, they are making identifications based on assumptions from similar Book of Breathings scenes and expected Egyptian iconography.

That matters because the figures are not as straightforward as critics present them. The argument assumes each figure can only mean what it meant in a late Egyptian funerary setting. Ancient images often carried multiple levels of meaning. Joseph’s identifications may be reading the scene through Abrahamic roles rather than merely naming the Egyptian surface figures.

Is Facsimile 3 just about Hor’s afterlife?

Facsimile 3 likely came from Hor’s Book of Breathings papyrus, and Hor’s name appears in the surrounding material. But Hor was an Egyptian temple priest in Thebes around 200 BC, a time and place with strong Jewish influence. A funerary use by Hor makes sense that he would refer to Abrahamic themes about overcoming death and reaching exaltation. For a priest concerned with death, judgment, cosmic order, and divine ascent, Abrahamic imagery would have been meaningful.

Is Facsimile 3 a standard Book of the Dead 125 judgment scene?

That claim is actually really weak when you see all the differences. Standard Book of the Dead 125 judgment scenes include major elements such as the 42 gods, the balance scale, the weighing of the heart, Thoth recording judgment, Anubis handling the scale, Ammit, and the Hall of the Two Truths. Facsimile 3 lacks many of those defining features. So critics are assuming the scene’s identity before proving it.

Does the funerary setting disprove Joseph Smith’s explanation?

No. Egyptian funerary material is concerned with divine judgment, resurrection, sacred knowledge, cosmic order, and entering the presence of God. Those themes overlap with the Book of Abraham. A funerary setting does not make the image meaningless to Abrahamic theology. It may help explain why the image fits the Book of Abraham’s ending so well. Why concern for the plan of salvation would be so relevant.

Why would Abraham be connected to an Egyptian judgment or throne scene?

Later Jewish texts, especially the Testament of Abraham, place Abraham in a judgment setting where he witnesses souls being examined and judged. This shows that ancient Jewish tradition associated Abraham with divine judgment imagery. Joseph Smith’s connection between Abraham and Facsimile 3 fits that ancient pattern better than critics acknowledge.

Abraham was a big part of Jewish and Egyptian history and culture.

But Facsimile 2 is much more than just a funerary object. While other hypocephali have been found, this one is unique in its specific arrangement, its connection to the Book of Abraham, and Joseph Smith’s numbered explanation of its figures.

No exact duplicate has been found. Like other hypocephali, it uses symbols of light, life, creation, divine power, and the afterlife, but Joseph’s interpretation places those symbols into a broader revealed framework of priesthood, heavenly order, sacred time, and return to God’s presence.

Critics assume Joseph was trying to translate Egyptian symbols in a modern academic sense. But that assumption misunderstands both the Book of Abraham and the way ancient religious symbols functioned.

Religious symbols in the Ptolemaic age often had more than one meaning. A hypocephalus could point to burial, the cosmos, temple worship, priesthood, and the journey back to God all at the same time.

That is why Facsimile 2 should be read with the Book of Abraham. The Egyptian symbols give part of the picture, but the Book of Abraham helps explain the deeper religious meaning Joseph Smith was revealing.

What Is a Hypocephalus?

A hypocephalus was a round religious image placed beneath the head of the deceased. Egyptians believed it connected the dead person with divine power and helped them participate in eternal life.

These images were symbolic teaching diagrams. Their figures represented ideas such as:

• creation
• light
• divine authority
• resurrection
• sacred time
• heavenly movement
• cosmic order

The same symbols were reused for centuries across different dynasties and religious traditions. Their meanings could expand, shift, or be reinterpreted depending on the time period and religious setting.

Critics often treat Egyptian symbols as though they only carried one fixed meaning forever. Ancient Egyptian religion did not work that way.

The hypocephalus can be read as a symbolic path rather than a normal paragraph of text. In Joseph Smith’s numbered explanation of Facsimile 2, the sequence begins near the divine center, moves through heavenly order, creation, earth life, sacred knowledge, and governing powers, then points back toward God’s presence.

The upper portion emphasizes the heavens, creation, and divine government, while the lower portion moves closer to earth, mortality, life, and instruction. You actually flip the hypocephalus upside down to see the images representing the earthly or mortality portion.

Read this way, the image presents a complete sacred pattern: humanity begins with God, passes through mortal experience, receives divine instruction and priesthood knowledge, and returns toward God in one eternal round.

How Facsimile 2 Relates to the Book of Abraham

Most people assume Facsimile 2 came from the same papyrus collection as Facsimile 1. That is a reasonable assumption, but it is an assumption and we do not actually know for certain. Only fragments connected to Facsimile 1 physically survive today. Facsimile 2 may have come from one of the missing long scrolls destroyed in the Chicago fire, from fragments later lost, or from a different burial collection entirely.

Joseph Smith taught that the Book of Abraham contained records connected to Abraham and Joseph of Egypt. The surviving fragments belong to an Egyptian priest named Hor from around 200 BC, but those fragments are only small remnants of a much larger collection.

This means modern scholars do not possess the source text Joseph Smith translated from. Their translation assumptions come completely independent of any accompanying text which would help understand a more specific layered meaning.

With an Abrahamic meaning, Facsimile 2 directly reflects the main themes of Abraham 3–5. Abraham is shown the stars, Kolob, governing bodies, divine time, intelligence, and the order of creation. Facsimile 2 presents these ideas visually through heavenly figures, sacred measurements, governing powers, light, and movement around a divine center. It functions as a symbolic diagram of the cosmic order Abraham was shown.

Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2 Work Together

Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2 Work Together

While we do not have physical evidence that Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2 were part of the same scroll, symbolically and using the story of Abraham they appear to function as connected opposites.

Facsimile 1: Corrupted earthly sacred order:

false priesthood
false sacrifice
idolatry
counterfeit authority
a corrupted altar
Abraham under threat of death

Facsimile 2: The true heavenly order:

governing powers
divine authority
sacred time
creation
priesthood
heavenly light
the throne and residence of God

The connection becomes stronger when we notice the direction of the story. Facsimile 1 shows Abraham surrounded by a counterfeit sacred system: a false altar, false gods, false priesthood, and a priest attempting to use sacred forms for idolatrous violence.

Facsimile 2 then answers that counterfeit with the real thing. Instead of a corrupted altar, Abraham is shown the heavenly order above. Instead of false gods, he is taught about governing lights and divine authority. Instead of human sacrifice, he is shown creation, order, light, time, priesthood, and the throne of God.

In sacred-center terms, Facsimile 1 shows what happens when the earthly center is corrupted. The altar, which should be a place of covenant and communion with God, has become a place of idolatry and death. Facsimile 2 restores the true center by placing divine order, sacred light, and the throne of God at the center of Abraham’s vision.

The movement from Facsimile 1 to Facsimile 2 is also Abraham’s own ascent. He moves from being bound on a false altar to being taught the structure of heaven. He moves from counterfeit priesthood to true priesthood. He moves from the threat of death to a vision of eternal order. He moves from chaos below to cosmos above.

That same movement continues directly into Abraham 3, where Abraham is taught about stars, governing intelligences, Kolob, divine reckoning, and heavenly hierarchy. Facsimile 2 also carries creation themes, since hypocephali are tied to divine light, renewal, cosmic order, and rebirth. In that sense, the image fits naturally with the Book of Abraham’s movement from corrupted earthly religion, to heavenly order, to creation.

The Cosmic Structure of Facsimile 2

Joseph Smith explained Facsimile 2 as a system of divine government flowing outward from God.

At the center is the highest governing power. Around that center are ordered heavenly bodies receiving light, power, and authority according to rank and position.

Joseph identified Kolob as the governing creation nearest to God. He connected the image with:

• celestial time
• governing stars
• priesthood authority
• sacred knowledge
• divine light
• heavenly revolutions

This structure closely matches how ancient hypocephali functioned as symbolic diagrams of cosmic order.

Modern Egyptologists also recognize that hypocephali represent:

• divine power flowing through creation
• heavenly order
• resurrection
• cycles of time
• eternal life

The vocabulary differs, but the core concepts overlap, showing that Joseph Smith’s explanations were not random and reflected real themes connected to the symbols and figures within the hypocephalus.

Facsimile 2 and the Plan of Salvation

One of the deepest understandings of Facsimile 2 is how it tells the Plan of Salvation.

The image appears to move outward from the divine center into lower realms and then back again. The figures represent order, movement, instruction, authority, life, and return to God.

Joseph Smith’s explanations describe:

• God ruling from His throne
• heavenly bodies organized by authority
• light flowing downward from higher kingdoms
• sacred knowledge revealed in stages
• eternal progression

The circular structure itself mirrors the idea of beginning with God, passing through mortal experience, and returning again to God through divine law and priesthood order.

Figure 6 and the Four Quarters of the Earth

Joseph Smith explained Figure 6 as representing “this earth in its four quarters.”

Modern Egyptologists identify these figures as the Four Sons of Horus, guardians associated with the four cardinal directions and the organization of the cosmos.

Joseph did not use technical Egyptological terminology, but his explanation correctly captured their symbolic role. His explanation lands in the right symbolic world. Figure 6 is not merely “four odd figures under the throne.” It belongs to a fourfold cosmological pattern pointing to sacred space organized by four directions.

Ancient people often understood the world from a sacred center outward. In temple-centered cosmology, the sacred center was the meeting point between heaven and earth, the place from which divine order extended into the world. The four directions represented the ordered totality of the inhabited earth extending outward from that holy center. In that setting, “earth in its four quarters” means the cosmos made intelligible, bounded, governed, and placed under divine order.

That fits Facsimile 2, because the entire image is concerned with sacred order: a center, governing figures, heavenly hierarchy, sacred time, and the relationship between heaven and earth.

Joseph’s explanation correctly identifies a symbolic reading of the figure’s role within a sacred cosmological diagram.

Figure 7 and Temple Themes

Figure 7 is one of the most openly temple-oriented scenes in the facsimile.

Joseph Smith connected it with priesthood revelation and sacred knowledge. The imagery includes gestures and symbols that resemble later temple symbolism, including:

• sign of compass
• sign of square
• square-like arm positions
• cupped hands
• uplifted hands
• sacred instruction imagery

This becomes difficult to dismiss as coincidence when considering that Joseph published these explanations years before modern scholarship understood Egyptian temple symbolism in greater depth.

It also refutes the idea that these symbols were simply stolen from freemasonry, as these symbols were clearly used in temple like settings thousands of years before modern masons.

Figure 8 and Sacred Temple Knowledge

Figure 8 may be one of the strongest examples of Joseph Smith correctly identifying ancient Egyptian symbols and understanding temple-related concepts beyond what was known in the 1830s.

The Egyptian phrase in Figure 8 centers around the concepts of:

• giving or endowing
• life
• eternal life through Osiris (Jesus)

This phrase and these symbols appear in Egyptian temples near the most sacred spaces, including areas comparable to a Holy of Holies all over Egypt.

Joseph Smith explained this section as:

“to be had in the holy temple of God”
and
“not to be revealed unto the world.”

That explanation aligns with the restricted temple context where these symbols were actually used. This video explains this concept and shows examples of these signs all over egypt.

Abraham and the Wedjat Eye

One of the most important discoveries connected to Facsimile 2 came long after Joseph Smith’s death.

An ancient Egyptian text was discovered containing the phrase:

“Abraham, the pupil of the eye of the Wedjat.”

The Wedjat Eye, or Eye of Horus, is directly connected to the symbolism represented by hypocephali and in ancient Egypt was directly connected to Abraham.

Joseph Smith could not have known this text existed.

Yet the ancient source directly connects Abraham with the same symbolic tradition tied to Facsimile 2, just as Joseph Smith does.

Ancient Temple Cosmology

Critics try and reduce Facsimile 2 to “just a funerary object.”

But ancient temples themselves were cosmic diagrams. Egyptian temples represented:

• creation
• divine order
• heavenly ascent
• sacred kingship
• eternal life

Hypocephali reflect the same worldview in miniature symbolic form. If someone buried in their temple clothes was discovered hundreds of years later, would the discovers describe them as “ordinary burial clothes”?

Joseph Smith’s interpretation focuses on:

• cosmic order
• priesthood
• heavenly government
• sacred knowledge
• divine light
• eternal progression

Those themes fit naturally within ancient temple cosmology and Egyptian understanding of the role of temples and the afterlife.

Why Joseph Smith’s Explanation Is Different

Joseph Smith did not accept Egyptian mythology as literally true, and Egyptian mythology evolved over time.

The Book of Abraham teaches that Pharaoh and Egyptian religion represented corrupted imitations of true priesthood authority.

So Joseph interpreted the facsimiles differently than a modern Egyptologist would.

Modern Egyptologists generally explain what later Egyptians believed the symbols represented inside their religious system.

Joseph Smith’s explanations instead focus on the eternal truths behind the symbols:

• priesthood
• creation
• heavenly order
• covenant
• divine authority
• salvation

Those are two entirely different interpretive frameworks.

Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham by the gift and power of God. He likely did not derive the text from the facsimiles themselves. Rather, the revealed content of the Book of Abraham appears to have provided the framework that helped him interpret the symbolic meaning of the facsimiles through Abraham’s story, including creation, priesthood, heavenly order, and divine instruction.

Conclusion

Facsimile 2 is not random and Joseph Smith’s interpretation of it aligns remarkably well with understanding of Ancient Egyptian temples and understanding of the plan. This hypocephalus centers on:

• creation
• governing powers
• sacred time
• priesthood
• heavenly order
• divine light
• temple knowledge
• eternal life

Those same themes appear throughout the Book of Abraham itself.

Ancient discoveries made long after Joseph Smith’s lifetime continue to align with and provide evidence for major elements of his explanations:

• Abraham is connected to hypocephalus symbolism
• the Four Sons of Horus tied to the four quarters of the earth
• temple-restricted language associated with eternal life
• cosmic order flowing through heavenly governing powers

Joseph Smith published these explanations in the 1840s, long before modern Egyptology understood many of these concepts. This video explains the profound understanding of the Facsimiles and their relationship to the temple.

Through the Book of Abraham and its facsimiles, we better understand the Creation, our role as divine sons and daughters of God, the role of Jesus Christ as our Deliverer, and our eternal potential to become like God.

Book of Abraham Facsimile 2

May 14, 2026

How Facsimile 1 Encodes Abraham’s Story

May 7, 2026

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Abrahamic Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

Answering the Claims Found in Letter For My Wife Regarding Facsimile II

The biggest flaw in Faulk’s argument is that it assumes Egyptological classification equals total meaning. It doesn’t take into account multiple layers of meaning or different symbolism, especially over different evolving periods of time in the long history of Egypt.

With this framing, the target is shifted to somewhere where Joseph Smith was never looking with an agenda to create doubt in what the translation of the divine truths of Abraham actually are.

Facsimile 2 is a hypocephalus, not an Abrahamic record.

A hypocephalus being funerary does not mean it has no creation, resurrection, light, divine-order, temple, or afterlife themes. In fact, those are exactly the themes hypocephali deal with. These are not contradictory terms.

It belonged to Sheshonq, not Abraham.

The claim that Facsimile 2 “belonged to Sheshonq, not Abraham” completely misses what the Book of Abraham actually claims.

Yes, modern Egyptologists identify the surviving hypocephalus as belonging to a man named Sheshonq who lived around 200 BC. That is not controversial. His name appears in the text.

But nobody claims Abraham personally owned the hypocephalus.

Joseph Smith never said Facsimile 2 was Abraham’s autograph drawing. The argument is that the Abraham papyri collection contained Abrahamic material, not that every single attached funerary object originated with Abraham himself.

That would be like finding a medieval Bible stored beside later funeral papers and then claiming the Bible must also have been written in the Middle Ages because the burial papers were.

Ancient texts were copied, preserved, edited, combined, reused, and buried with later owners constantly. That is normal ancient transmission history.

Even secular scholars acknowledge that Jewish stories and traditions were widespread in Egypt during the Ptolemaic period when Sheshonq lived. Egyptian priests in Thebes were incorporating foreign religious traditions, including Abraham and Moses traditions, into Egyptian ritual texts.

The surviving hypocephalus itself is also full of creation, resurrection, heavenly order, divine light, stars, governing powers, and cosmic themes, exactly the same themes found in Abraham 3.

Could an Egyptian priest living in a heavily Jewish-influenced Egypt around 200 BC possess Abrahamic religious material alongside Egyptian funerary texts?

Historically, culturally, and archaeologically, the answer is absolutely yes.

Joseph’s explanations do not match standard Egyptological translations.

A few questions for the Egyptologists:
Which period of Egyptian History are these Egyptologists giving their meaning from? Understanding Ptolemic coding layers, which layer of interpretation are they using?
Why do different Egyptologists interpret different meanings?

Joseph Smith was not giving a modern Egyptology caption. He was giving a revealed interpretation of symbols.

Egyptologists identify the later Egyptian use of the figures: deities, funerary language, afterlife imagery, solar rebirth, divine light, and ritual protection.

Joseph explains the same image through restored doctrine: Kolob, governing powers, priesthood, creation, sacred time, divine order, and return to God’s presence.

Those are not contradictions. They are different interpretive layers.

A symbol can have a conventional Egyptian meaning and still point to an older or higher doctrinal meaning. Ancient religious symbols were reused, adapted, and reinterpreted for centuries. Egyptian religion itself was full of layered meanings, syncretism, and symbolic overlap.

So this claim only works if you ignore how symbols actually work and assume:

1. Symbols have one fixed meaning.
2. Late Egyptian usage equals original meaning.
3. Joseph was trying to write an academic interpretation of what the Facsimile meant rather than its deeper spiritual meaning.
4. Revelation cannot restore a meaning lost or distorted over time.

None of those assumptions are proven.

The facsimiles deal with creation, divine light, resurrection, priesthood-like ritual, cosmic order, sacred knowledge, and the soul’s return to God. Joseph’s explanations fit that symbolic world providine evidence that his interpretations have substance.

Parts of Facsimile 2 were missing and filled in.

Yes, parts of Facsimile 2 were missing and later filled in. That is true. Ancient papyri and hypocephali are often damaged, incomplete, and reconstructed. These Papyrus were nearly 2,000 year old!

Critics treat this like some kind of devastating discovery, but it actually proves something important: the people restoring the missing sections clearly did not fully understand Egyptian.

And Joseph Smith likely didn’t either.

Joseph never claimed to be a trained Egyptologist translating characters through academic study. He said the Book of Abraham came by revelation and the gift and power of God.

That completely changes the argument.

If Joseph had claimed, “I personally understand Egyptian grammar and can academically reconstruct missing hieroglyphs,” then criticism about restoration errors would matter a lot more.

But that was never his claim.

The restoration work around Facsimile 2 appears to have been an attempt by artists or assistants to visually complete damaged areas using nearby Egyptian characters and patterns. In some places, characters were copied from unrelated papyri simply to fill gaps. That actually demonstrates confusion about Egyptian, not mastery of it.

Joseph’s explanations were not dependent on perfectly reconstructing missing hieroglyph. His interpretations focus on the symbolic and doctrinal meaning of the facsimile: creation, governing powers, sacred time, priesthood, divine order, heavenly bodies, and eternal progression.

So the existence of reconstruction errors does not disprove revelation. It only disproves an argument that was never made, that Joseph was claiming to be an academic Egyptologist.

Some missing sections were filled using characters from a different papyrus.

Yes, some missing sections of Facsimile 2 were filled using characters copied from a different papyrus. Egyptologists are correct about that.

But critics massively overstate what this means.

The copied characters were added into damaged gaps by the people preparing the facsimile for printing. This was reconstruction work on missing portions of an already damaged object. It was not Joseph Smith sitting down and producing a line-by-line scholarly translation of Egyptian grammar.

In fact, this actually supports the idea that the reconstruction artists did not fully understand Egyptian. They copied nearby characters to visually complete missing spaces, which was common in early restoration attempts before modern Egyptology even existed.

Joseph Smith’s explanations were not dependent on the literal meaning of those inserted characters. His interpretations focus on the symbolic and doctrinal themes of the hypocephalus itself: creation, governing powers, sacred time, heavenly order, divine light, priesthood, and eternal progression.

Critics assume:
“Wrong reconstructed hieroglyph = Book of Abraham false.”

That logic only works if Joseph claimed:
“I am academically translating every Egyptian character on this image.”

He never made that claim.

The Book of Abraham was produced by revelation. The facsimiles function more like symbolic teaching diagrams tied to the revealed text, not academic Egyptology worksheets.

The copied characters are upside down or out of place.

See point above. Shows the people who filled in the gaps didn’t understand Egyptian. Adding additional points to the same argument that was never made doesn’t make it any stronger.

Joseph called it connected to Abraham, but Egyptologists call it funerary.

“Joseph called it connected to Abraham, but Egyptologists call it funerary” is not the contradiction critics think it is.

Why couldn’t a 200 BC funerary text, describing rites, divine protection, sacred knowledge, resurrection, and the way to receive blessings from God, also preserve reference to a notable ancient figure who had received true knowledge from God, understood the plan, and overcame death through divine deliverance?

That is exactly the kind of figure Abraham was.

“Funerary” does not mean meaningless burial decoration. Egyptian funerary religion was about life after death, divine judgment, sacred knowledge, rebirth, cosmic order, and entering the presence of God.

Those themes overlap directly with the Book of Abraham.

Egyptologists are describing the later Egyptian setting of the object. Joseph Smith was giving a revealed interpretation of the divine truths behind the symbols and how they relate to Abraham.

A funerary context does not disprove Abrahamic meaning. It may actually explain why temples were so important to the Egyptians and why an Egyptian priest would care about Abraham in the first place.

Kolob and the cosmology are invented.

Critics say Kolob is “invented” because modern Egyptologists do not read the Egyptian figure as “Kolob.”

But that assumes Joseph Smith was giving a standard Egyptological label.

He wasn’t.

Kolob comes from Abraham 3, where Abraham is shown stars, governing bodies, divine time, intelligences, and the order of heaven. Facsimile 2 visually presents those same themes: a divine center, governing powers, cosmic movement, light, sacred time, and heavenly order.

So the issue is not whether an Egyptologist would label a figure “Kolob.”

The issue is whether Joseph’s revealed explanation fits the symbolic world of the hypocephalus.

And it does.

Hypocephali are already about divine light, rebirth, cosmic order, heavenly power, and the soul’s return toward God. Joseph’s cosmology is not randomly pasted onto the image. It matches the kind of ideas the image is built to communicate.

Faulk’s argument only works if “standard Egyptological label” equals “the only possible word used.” That is a bad assumption.

Joseph was not claiming to decode a museum placard. He was revealing the Abrahamic and doctrinal meaning behind the symbols, and the meaning he interpreted aligns with the meaning derived by modern scholars.

As we celebrate this year the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, it is important to teach our children that freedom is a sacred gift from God and that protecting it is the work of every generation.

I looked for, but couldn’t find, a good book that would teach my grandchildren about the principles of freedom that guided the American founders and should guide us today. I don’t believe that they are learning many of these basic principles in school.

So, I decided to write a book for teenagers and adults who want to understand their heritage, honor their faith, and defend the principles that have blessed this nation for generations. American Principles of Freedom: A Latter-day Saint Perspective teaches the story of a nation established on God-given rights, moral responsibility, and the power of individual agency. In 90 pages, and in simple language, it teaches about the principles that guided the founders as they wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It explains why they warned against concentrated power, why strong families are essential for a healthy society, and how modern ideologies can affect freedom, responsibility, and faith. Each principle in the book is supported by gospel teachings to show how faith and freedom support each other.

How to access the book

• Read or download a free PDF.
• Purchase on Amazon as a paperback, Kindle, or audiobook
• Purchase on Lulu as a paperback

Related articles:

• Learn how the Church is celebrating America’s 250th anniversary with a special fifth-Sunday meeting on May 31 and a fast on July 5, 2026.

The witnesses were named, known, and accessible to questioning. Their statements were public, repeated, and maintained across decades, including periods when they were separated from Joseph Smith and the Church.

The Testimony of the Three Witnesses

Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris testified that an angel showed them the gold plates, that they saw the engraved characters, and that they heard the voice of God affirming the record. They described physical objects, not symbolic impressions. They also visited and saw the spot on the hill where the plates were recovered from. Their statements remained consistent despite persecution, poverty, and social loss.

From a legal perspective, the strongest indicator of sincerity is testimony maintained against self interest. Each of these men experienced exactly that.

Oliver Cowdery

Oliver Cowdery served as the principal scribe for the Book of Mormon translation. He was educated, legally trained, and deeply familiar with the production of the text. If deception or fabrication were involved, Cowdery would have been among the first to know.

Cowdery later became estranged from the Church following severe financial losses connected to the failure of the Kirtland Safety Society. He believed Church leadership had erred in judgment, and this disagreement contributed to his separation. His estrangement was not casual. It involved personal loss, legal conflict, and public opposition to Joseph Smith.

Despite this, Cowdery never denied his witness of the plates or the angel. Near the end of his life, he reaffirmed his testimony and urged fellow witnesses to remain faithful to what they had seen and heard.

Legally, this matters because his testimony survived both financial harm and institutional separation. He had motive, opportunity, and justification to recant. He did not.

David Whitmer

David Whitmer was widely regarded as a respected and stable member of his community. He held civic responsibilities and was trusted in business and local affairs. His reputation for honesty did not depend on Church membership, and he remained a public figure long after separating from the Church.

Whitmer permanently left the Church and openly rejected Joseph Smith’s later leadership. Yet he repeatedly reaffirmed his testimony of the Book of Mormon. He gave detailed interviews to believers and skeptics alike and never altered his original statement.

Whitmer’s gravestone still bears testimony to the Book of Mormon, declaring his witness of the plates and the angel. This public affirmation, carved in stone, was placed by a man who had no allegiance to the institution and no reason to preserve its claims.

From a legal standpoint, Whitmer’s continued testimony after decades of separation eliminates arguments of coercion, loyalty, or fear of authority.

Martin Harris

Martin Harris was a prosperous farmer before his involvement with the Book of Mormon. His support of Joseph Smith cost him his farm, his savings, and much of his social standing. His marriage suffered severely, and he ultimately lost his relationship with his wife in large part due to his unwavering support for Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.

Harris gained nothing by maintaining his testimony. Recantation would have restored financial stability and family relationships. Instead, he maintained his witness despite poverty, ridicule, and isolation.

Repeated attempts were made to pressure Harris into denying his experience, including legal pressure and public humiliation. He refused. Until his death, he affirmed that he had seen the plates and that they were real, physical objects.

In legal analysis, testimony that persists through personal ruin is considered strong evidence of sincerity.

A Test of Credibility Under Threat

William McLellin, a former apostle who later became a critic of Joseph Smith, applied his own test of honesty after years of observing the witnesses. At a time when the lives of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer were in danger, McLellin directly asked them whether they had truly seen the plates and the angel.

Both men reaffirmed their testimony without hesitation.

This moment is significant because it occurred under threat, without institutional pressure, and in the presence of a hostile questioner. In legal terms, it functions as a contemporaneous cross examination under adverse conditions.

The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses

The case does not rest on the Three Witnesses alone. The Eight Witnesses testified that they physically handled the gold plates. Their statement describes lifting the plates, examining them, and observing the engraved characters directly. They testified to the plates’ weight, shape, and material nature.

None of the Eight Witnesses ever denied their testimony. Some later separated from the Church, yet none claimed the plates were imaginary or fabricated.

Legal Weight of the Witnesses

Legal history treats persistent testimony against self interest as powerful evidence. The witnesses to the Book of Mormon were competent, known, and accessible. Their accounts were specific, consistent, and repeated over decades. They endured financial loss, social isolation, and personal danger without recantation.

This does not compel belief. But under legal standards used to evaluate eyewitness credibility, the Book of Mormon witnesses meet and exceed the criteria typically used to distinguish sincere testimony from fraud.

Testimony of Oliver Cowdery One of Strongest Evidences that Joseph Smith Was A Prophet

If anyone was in position to expose Joseph Smith as a fraud, it was Oliver Cowdery.

Oliver was a young man trying to make his way in the world as a schoolteacher. When he heard about Joseph Smith and the gold plates, he felt impressed to assist in the work. He went to Harmony, Pennsylvania, and became the primary scribe of the Book of Mormon.

He wrote: “These were days never to be forgotten… I continued to write from his mouth, as he translated… the record called the Book of Mormon.” He testified he saw angels. He was there when John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic Priesthood. He testified of receiving the Melchizedek Priesthood from heavenly messengers.

He was one of the Three Witnesses, called to testify the authenticity of the Book of Mormon to all the world. He sacrificed. He served. He faced persecution. He spent long periods away from his wife to do the work.

Then everything fell apart.

Oliver clashed with Joseph and Church leadership. He wrote strongly worded letters, saying the Church was overreaching and trying to control his personal affairs. He pushed back hard, refused to submit, and experienced major frustration and resentment.

In April 1838, formal charges were brought against him:

– For persecuting the brethren with vexatious lawsuits

– For seeking to destroy Joseph Smith’s character – For treating the Church with contempt and not attending meetings

– For declaring he would not be governed by Church authority or revelation in temporal matters – For selling land in Jackson County contrary to church policy

– For writing an insulting letter to Thomas B. Marsh – For leaving his calling for “filthy lucre” and practicing law – For being connected with the “bogus” business

– For dishonestly retaining notes after they were paid

Oliver disputed these charges, rejected the authority of the council to judge him and walked away. If The Restoration was a fraud, this was the moment to expose it. Oliver Cowdery had written the translation. He claimed to have seen the angel. He knew everything. Instead, he never denied his testimony. Even outside the Church, it cost him. He admitted his association with Joseph Smith limited his opportunities, saying without it, “I believe I could rise to the heights of my ambition.”

He still built a life. He became a successful lawyer. He was respected and established. If it wasn’t true, there was no reason to ever come back. But He Did. On October 21, 1848, standing before 2,000 Saints, he testified: “I wrote with my own pen the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and he translated it by the power and gift of God, by means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by that book, “Holy Interpreter.”

I beheld with my eyes and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was translated. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands, the “Holy Interpreters.” That book is true, Sidney Rigdon did not write it; Mr. Spaulding did not write it; I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the Prophet. It contains the everlasting Gospel, to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of Salvation, and if you my hearers, will walk by its light, and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the Kingdom of God.

I was present with Joseph when an Holy Angel from Heaven came down and conferred upon us, or restored the Aaronic Priesthood, and said to us, at the same time, that it should remain on earth while the earth stands. I was also present with Joseph when the Higher or Melchizedek Priesthood was conferred by the Holy Angels from on high. This priesthood was then conferred on each other by the will and commandment of God. This priesthood, as was then declared, was also to remain upon the earth until the last remnant of time.”

Oliver Cowdery was rebaptized came back into the church without asking for position. Just to be received, because he knew the work was true. He knew the Book of Mormon was translated by the Gift and Power of God.

Less than a year later, he died at the age of 43. Those present said he died “the happiest man” they had ever seen, confident he was going to his Savior.

A new book from the Church Historian’s Press features 52 of Eliza R. Snow’s most powerful and timeless discourses. The book Rise Up and Speak: Selected Discourses of Eliza R. Snow shows the breadth of her service and leadership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The book is currently available for purchase from Deseret Book and Amazon. It will become available in 2027 for free access in the Gospel Library.

The Church Historian’s Press has published other books about women, including the following:

• The First Fifty Years of Relief Society: Key Documents in Latter-day Saint Women’s History
• At the Pulpit: 185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women
• Carry On: The Latter-day Saint Young Women Organization, 1870–2024

Learn more in the article “New Book Features 52 of Eliza R. Snow’s Best Discourses.”

The post New Book: “Rise Up and Speak: Selected Discourses of Eliza R. Snow” first appeared on LDS365: Resources from the Church & Latter-day Saints worldwide.
Continue reading at the original source →]]>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 05:00:00 -0800tag:nothingwavering.org,2009-01-12:_80441https://lds365.com/2026/02/27/new-book-the-easter-bunny-shows-us-how-to-follow-jesus/noreply@nothingwavering.org (No Reply)Larry Richman

A new children’s book helps parents explain the true meaning of Easter.

The Easter Bunny is a happy helper who reminds us of new beginnings. But Easter is more than eggs and candy. The Bunny knows the real reason we celebrate is because Jesus rose from the tomb and that is the greatest gift of all. So when you celebrate Easter, remember the Bunny’s message: Jesus is alive! And because He lives, we can have hope forever.

I wrote the book and it is illustrated by my granddaughter. You can read or download a free PDF of the book. You can get printed books in hard or soft cover from Lulu or get it in Kindle format on Amazon. If you like the book, please leave a review on Amazon, as that will help others find it in searches.

In 2026, Easter Sunday will be observed in many parts of the world on April 5—the same weekend as the live broadcast of general conference. As such, sacrament meetings commemorating Easter will be held the previous week, on Palm Sunday, March 29, 2026. (See “Celebrate Easter Sacrament Meetings on Palm Sunday, March 29, 2026.”)

That implication collapses once you slow down and look at what the Rosetta Stone actually did.

The short version is this:
The Rosetta Stone helped solve a language problem.
The Book of Abraham raises a revelation problem.

Those are not the same thing.

The Rosetta Stone Never Translated Complex Egyptian

The Rosetta Stone does not do the work critics claim it does.
Champollion’s 1822 breakthrough identified that Egyptian symbols could function phonetically. That was not the same thing as having a usable grammar, dictionary, or translation system. Those tools did not exist in Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

By the 1830s, scholars could recognize basic names, titles, and some repeated formulaic expressions. The ability to translate extended Egyptian texts depended on grammatical and lexical frameworks that had not yet been developed.

The Rosetta Stone Reads Words, Not Pictures

The Rosetta Stone helped scholars match Egyptian symbols to sounds by comparing the same decree written in three scripts. That allowed Egyptologists to begin reading names, titles, and eventually sentences.

Facsimiles are not sentences. They are images.

Images like Facsimile 1 were meant to communicate meaning symbolically. Ancient Egyptian religious art worked through posture, placement, objects, repetition, and association with myth. That meaning does not come from sounding out words. It comes from interpreting symbols.

So even if Joseph Smith had been standing next to Champollion with a full dictionary, that would not turn Facsimile 1 into a paragraph you could translate word-for-word. That’s not how religious imagery functioned then, and it’s not how it functions now.

This alone makes the Rosetta Stone an irrelevant tool to bring into the discussion. It also shows a basic misunderstanding of how ancient images worked.

Joseph Smith Was Never Doing a Secular Translation

The Rosetta Stone argument only works if you assume Joseph Smith claimed to be doing a modern academic translation. He never did.

Joseph was explicit about how scripture came forth. He said it came “by the gift and power of God.” In the Book of Mormon, he translated without even looking at the plates, receiving the text through revelation using seer stones.

Ironically, Faulk himself spends an entire chapter emphasizing this point. He repeatedly argues that Joseph did not translate the Book of Mormon by reading ancient characters at all.

So this raises an obvious problem:
If Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by revelation, why would the Book of Abraham suddenly require a Champollion-style linguistic method?

Judging Joseph Smith as if he claimed to be doing a university-level language translation holds him to a standard he never claimed to meet. You don’t disprove revelation by showing it doesn’t behave like a language course.

We Don’t Have the Source Text Anyway

There is a more basic problem that makes the Rosetta Stone irrelevant from the start.

We do not have the source text.

Joseph Smith did not have a single scrap of papyrus. He had two full scrolls and several fragments. What survives today is only a small portion of those materials. The scrolls themselves were destroyed in the Chicago fire.

That means we do not have the text Joseph said the Book of Abraham came from.

Facsimile 1 is not the text. It never was. Joseph never claimed it was. The facsimiles are illustrations. The text Joseph referred to was on the scrolls, not in the picture captions.

There is no way to do a word-for-word comparison between the Book of Abraham and its original source because the source no longer exists. That alone should end any claim that the Rosetta Stone somehow “checked” Joseph Smith’s work.

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers Were Not a Rosetta Stone Attempt

Faulk briefly gestures at the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as if they show Joseph trying to build his own Rosetta Stone. That reading does not fit the documents.

Those papers are not a translation project. They do not map to Egyptian grammar. They do not function like a dictionary. They attempt to organize revealed concepts as a coding system using degrees and layered symbols.

Most of this work was likely done by other church members, not Joseph himself, as they tried to systematize material connected to revealed doctrine from the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants.

There is no evidence Joseph believed he was cracking Egyptian linguistics. Treating these papers as a failed decipherment project imports an assumption that simply does not belong there. No Egyptologist would mistake these papers for a linguistic translation attempt.

So Why Is the Rosetta Stone Even a Chapter?

The Rosetta Stone does not translate images.
It does not compare Joseph’s text to missing scrolls.
It does not match Joseph Smith’s translation claims.
It does not address symbolic religious art.

Its presence functions rhetorically, not analytically. It signals that “experts solved this” without explaining what was solved or whether it applies.

A Letter For My Wife uses the Rosetta Stone as a shortcut. It sounds conclusive, it makes it look like Faulk knows his history and did some research, but it is irrelevant to the spiritual translation of the Book of Abraham papyrus scrolls that we do not even have.

Final Thoughts

Joseph Smith never claimed to translate Egyptian the way modern scholars do. The Rosetta Stone does not translate religious images. We do not have the original Book of Abraham scrolls. And the facsimiles were never presented as the source text anyway.

Once those facts are on the table, the Rosetta Stone chapter doesn’t challenge the Book of Abraham at all. It only shows how often critics mistake familiarity for relevance.

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

That implication collapses once you slow down and look at what the Rosetta Stone actually did.

The short version is this:
The Rosetta Stone helped solve a language problem.
The Book of Abraham raises a revelation problem.

Those are not the same thing.

The Rosetta Stone Never Translated Complex Egyptian

The Rosetta Stone does not do the work critics claim it does.
Champollion’s 1822 breakthrough identified that Egyptian symbols could function phonetically. That was not the same thing as having a usable grammar, dictionary, or translation system. Those tools did not exist in Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

By the 1830s, scholars could recognize basic names, titles, and some repeated formulaic expressions. The ability to translate extended Egyptian texts depended on grammatical and lexical frameworks that had not yet been developed.

The Rosetta Stone Reads Words, Not Pictures

The Rosetta Stone helped scholars match Egyptian symbols to sounds by comparing the same decree written in three scripts. That allowed Egyptologists to begin reading names, titles, and eventually sentences.

Facsimiles are not sentences. They are images.

Images like Facsimile 1 were meant to communicate meaning symbolically. Ancient Egyptian religious art worked through posture, placement, objects, repetition, and association with myth. That meaning does not come from sounding out words. It comes from interpreting symbols.

So even if Joseph Smith had been standing next to Champollion with a full dictionary, that would not turn Facsimile 1 into a paragraph you could translate word-for-word. That’s not how religious imagery functioned then, and it’s not how it functions now.

This alone makes the Rosetta Stone an irrelevant tool to bring into the discussion. It also shows a basic misunderstanding of how ancient images worked.

Joseph Smith Was Never Doing a Secular Translation

The Rosetta Stone argument only works if you assume Joseph Smith claimed to be doing a modern academic translation. He never did.

Joseph was explicit about how scripture came forth. He said it came “by the gift and power of God.” In the Book of Mormon, he translated without even looking at the plates, receiving the text through revelation using seer stones.

Ironically, Faulk himself spends an entire chapter emphasizing this point. He repeatedly argues that Joseph did not translate the Book of Mormon by reading ancient characters at all.

So this raises an obvious problem:
If Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by revelation, why would the Book of Abraham suddenly require a Champollion-style linguistic method?

Judging Joseph Smith as if he claimed to be doing a university-level language translation holds him to a standard he never claimed to meet. You don’t disprove revelation by showing it doesn’t behave like a language course.

We Don’t Have the Source Text Anyway

There is a more basic problem that makes the Rosetta Stone irrelevant from the start.

We do not have the source text.

Joseph Smith did not have a single scrap of papyrus. He had two full scrolls and several fragments. What survives today is only a small portion of those materials. The scrolls themselves were destroyed in the Chicago fire.

That means we do not have the text Joseph said the Book of Abraham came from.

Facsimile 1 is not the text. It never was. Joseph never claimed it was. The facsimiles are illustrations. The text Joseph referred to was on the scrolls, not in the picture captions.

There is no way to do a word-for-word comparison between the Book of Abraham and its original source because the source no longer exists. That alone should end any claim that the Rosetta Stone somehow “checked” Joseph Smith’s work.

The Kirtland Egyptian Papers Were Not a Rosetta Stone Attempt

Faulk briefly gestures at the Kirtland Egyptian Papers as if they show Joseph trying to build his own Rosetta Stone. That reading does not fit the documents.

Those papers are not a translation project. They do not map to Egyptian grammar. They do not function like a dictionary. They attempt to organize revealed concepts as a coding system using degrees and layered symbols.

Most of this work was likely done by other church members, not Joseph himself, as they tried to systematize material connected to revealed doctrine from the Book of Abraham and the Doctrine and Covenants.

There is no evidence Joseph believed he was cracking Egyptian linguistics. Treating these papers as a failed decipherment project imports an assumption that simply does not belong there. No Egyptologist would mistake these papers for a linguistic translation attempt.

So Why Is the Rosetta Stone Even a Chapter?

The Rosetta Stone does not translate images.
It does not compare Joseph’s text to missing scrolls.
It does not match Joseph Smith’s translation claims.
It does not address symbolic religious art.

Its presence functions rhetorically, not analytically. It signals that “experts solved this” without explaining what was solved or whether it applies.

A Letter For My Wife uses the Rosetta Stone as a shortcut. It sounds conclusive, it makes it look like Faulk knows his history and did some research, but it is irrelevant to the spiritual translation of the Book of Abraham papyrus scrolls that we do not even have.

Final Thoughts

Joseph Smith never claimed to translate Egyptian the way modern scholars do. The Rosetta Stone does not translate religious images. We do not have the original Book of Abraham scrolls. And the facsimiles were never presented as the source text anyway.

Once those facts are on the table, the Rosetta Stone chapter doesn’t challenge the Book of Abraham at all. It only shows how often critics mistake familiarity for relevance.

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

Publication of Facimile 1

Even though Joseph Smith translated a significant portion of what we now have as the Book of Abraham in 1835, the record was not published until 1842 in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons. This publication occurred around the same time the Nauvoo Temple endowment was being introduced. During the first newspaper publication, Facimile 1 was published along with Abraham 1 – 2:18.

Before 1842, some teachings from the Book of Abraham were shared privately and in small settings. Certain ideas and doctrines also appeared in church conferences and sermons, but the full text and facsimiles were not made publicly available until their publication in Nauvoo.

Joseph Smith commissioned Reuben Hedlock to create an engraved printing plate of this facsimile so it could be published in the Times and Seasons. The image we have printed today comes from that engraved version.

By the time the facsimile was prepared for publication, parts of the original papyrus were already damaged or missing. As a result, some portions of the image had to be filled in to complete the scene. These reconstructed areas may not match exactly how the original Egyptian record from around 200 BC looked.

However, the engraving was produced under Joseph Smith’s direction, and the explanations published with the facsimile were almost certainly his own. Whatever artistic reconstruction occurred in the image itself, the interpretations that accompany the facsimile reflect Joseph Smith’s understanding and intended meaning.

What is the Meaning of Facsimile 1?

More Than One Lens of Interpretation

Critics often argue that Facsimile 1 can only have one correct meaning and that it must be understood strictly through modern Egyptology. That claim assumes far more certainty than the evidence allows. That it is only a “common funerary scene.” Facsimile 1 is not only an Egyptian image, it is an image that passed through many hands, cultures, and belief systems over centuries. Its meaning depends greatly on who is interpreting it, when they lived, and what worldview they brought with them.

Modern Egyptologists do not interpret Facsimile 1 the same way an Egyptian priest like Hor would have understood it in 200 BC. Egyptologists analyze patterns across many texts and time periods using modern academic categories. Hor, on the other hand, lived in a world heavily shaped by Greek rule and Jewish influence. His religious understanding was already a blend of Egyptian tradition, foreign ideas, and inherited ritual practices. Neither perspective necessarily reflects the original meaning of the image when it was first created.

How an Egyptian Priest Like Hor Likely Understood It

Dr. Kerry Muhlestein believes that Egyptologists are correct that Facsimile 1 belongs to what is commonly called a lion-couch or embalming scene. Scenes like this appear throughout Egyptian religious material and are often connected to mummification and preparation for the afterlife. For an Egyptian priest in 200 BC, the image likely functioned as a ritual aid, something that symbolized purification, protection, and hope for resurrection.

To someone like Hor, the scene would have acted as a form of ritual credential. It represented that the deceased had been properly prepared to pass through death and stand in the presence of the gods. By this time period, the image was no longer about preserving a historical narrative. It had become part of a symbolic system used to support Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife.

What Joseph Smith Was and Was Not Doing

Joseph Smith was not trying to explain Egyptian theology, nor was he attempting to give the meaning of Egyptian false gods or their counterfeit religious system. According to the Book of Abraham itself, the Egyptians did not possess the priesthood, even though Pharaoh was described as a righteous man who sought to imitate true ordinances without proper authority.

Joseph Smith’s explanations are best understood as a restoration of original truth, not an endorsement of how Egyptians later understood or practiced religion. This approach is consistent with how he handled the Bible “translation”. He did not limit himself to explaining how later communities interpreted scripture. He claimed to restore earlier meanings that had been lost or altered over time.

Restoring the Original Source Behind the Image

From this perspective, Facsimile 1 may preserve echoes of a much older sacred narrative. Over centuries, that narrative could have been copied, adapted, and absorbed into Egyptian funerary tradition. The image remained because it worked symbolically, even if its original meaning was no longer fully understood.

Egyptologists study how the image functioned in its late Egyptian context. Joseph Smith claimed to reveal what it meant at its origin. These are not competing translations of the same thing. They are answers to entirely different questions.

Unless the earliest form of these texts were ever discovered and clearly tied to Abraham, modern Egyptology would have no tools to evaluate Joseph Smith’s claim. That does not make his explanation false. It simply places it outside the limits of what Egyptology can confirm.

Egyptian Counterfeit Versus Ancient Truth

Egyptian religion in Abraham’s day and especially in Hor’s day represented a corrupted attempt to preserve sacred ideas without priesthood authority. Symbols of creation, sacrifice, resurrection, and divine order remained, but they were filtered through a system of false gods and ritual imitation.

Joseph Smith’s explanations focus on what those symbols originally testified of, not how they were later misunderstood. He was not translating Hor’s beliefs. He was restoring Abraham’s understanding.

When viewed this way, Facsimile 1 is not just an Egyptian funerary image. It is a layered artifact that may reflect centuries of copying and reinterpretation of an original sacred account. Once that possibility is acknowledged, the claim that Facsimile 1 can only mean one thing collapses, and Joseph Smith’s explanation can be evaluated on its own terms rather than dismissed outright.

Correct Understanding from Joseph – Verified by Modern Egyptologists

It does require faith to believe that Joseph Smith’s interpretation of Facsimile 1 is accurate, including the claim that it preserves the story of Abraham nearly being sacrificed and then delivered by an angel of the Lord.

But it also requires faith to believe that Joseph Smith was simply “getting lucky” when explaining the facsimile, especially given how many of his observations align with what modern Egyptologists now recognize about the image and its ritual setting. At some point, repeated accuracy stops looking like coincidence. The question that remains is simple: how did Joseph Smith keep getting so many things right?

The Lion Couch and Abraham in Ancient Sources

One of the strongest external supports for Joseph Smith’s interpretation of Facsimile 1 comes from discoveries made long after his death. In the late nineteenth century, scholars identified a papyrus now known as the Leiden Papyrus, which dates to roughly the third century AD. This papyrus was found in Thebes, the same general region where the Book of Abraham papyri originated.

The image on the Leiden Papyrus is striking. It depicts a lion couch scene with a figure lying on it and a divine figure standing nearby, a composition nearly identical to the core elements of Facsimile 1. What makes this papyrus especially important is the text beneath the image. The Greek writing explicitly names Abraham and associates him with the lion-couch scene.

This is significant because it shows that, in at least some Egyptian contexts, Abraham was directly connected with this exact type of imagery. In other words, the association between Abraham and a lion-couch scene was not invented by Joseph Smith. It already existed in the ancient world. Yet this papyrus was completely unknown in the nineteenth century. Joseph Smith had no access to it, no knowledge of its contents, and no way to anticipate its discovery.

If scenes like Facsimile 1 were never associated with Abraham, it becomes difficult to explain why independent Egyptian material would later make that very connection. The Leiden Papyrus demonstrates that ancient Egyptians and Greek-speaking Egyptians preserved traditions linking Abraham to imagery that closely matches Facsimile 1.

Human Sacrifice by Egyptians

A major objection to the authenticity of the meaning of Facsimile 1 has been the claim that Egyptians did not practice human sacrifice.

Egyptological research now shows that human sacrifice did occur in Egypt, specifically in religious contexts involving rebellion, blasphemy, or offenses against the gods. And these events are documented in periods that overlap with the life of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham describes Abraham being targeted for execution because he rejected the worship of local gods. In light of what is now known, that scenario fits the ancient religious world far better than critics once assumed. Rather than contradicting Egyptian history, the account aligns with practices that were real in the ancient Near East.

Knife, Fire, and Ritual Practice

Some critics argue that ancient traditions describe Abraham being burned, while Facsimile 1 depicts a knife, and they treat this as a contradiction.

In ancient sacrificial practice, execution and burning involved killing the victim, often with a knife, and then burning the body as part of the ritual. Egyptian religious practice followed this same pattern, especially in cases involving offerings or punishments connected to the gods.

The knife in Facsimile 1 does not contradict traditions that speak of burning. It fits naturally within the broader ritual process. The Book of Abraham’s description aligns with how ancient sacrifices were actually carried out, rather than reflecting a misunderstanding of ancient practice.

In addition, the shape of the knife as depicted in Facsimile 1 is the same kind of blade that was used in antiquity.

If Joseph Smith was just making up a knife in the facsimile scene, how did he get that right?

Canaanite Gods Named in the Scene

Joseph Smith identified four specific gods in Facsimile 1 and named them. At the time, critics dismissed these names as invented because they did not appear in the Bible, in Greco-Roman mythology, or in any English reference works available in the early nineteenth century. From a modern standpoint, this would have looked like a bold and unnecessary risk if Joseph Smith were simply making things up.

Later discoveries changed the picture entirely. Subsequent research in ancient Near Eastern texts showed that all four names correspond to real deities worshipped in the Canaanite world. These names come from a cultural and geographic setting connected to Abraham’s background, not from later biblical or classical traditions. Importantly, this information was not available in Joseph Smith’s lifetime. The relevant texts were untranslated, unpublished, or not yet discovered.

This is not a vague parallel or a general similarity. It is a precise match involving specific divine names tied to a specific ancient religious setting. The likelihood of correctly identifying multiple obscure Canaanite deities by chance, without access to the sources that later confirmed them, is extremely small. When details like this repeatedly align with later discoveries, the explanation that Joseph Smith was merely guessing becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.

The Crocodile and Pharaoh

Facsimile 1 includes a crocodile figure beneath the lion couch, which Joseph Smith associated with Pharaoh. For many years, critics dismissed this interpretation as mistaken, arguing that the crocodile had no meaningful connection to Egyptian kingship in standard funerary scenes.

Later Egyptological research has shown that this criticism was based on incomplete understanding. During the Middle Kingdom, the period commonly associated with Abraham, Egyptian Pharaohs were linked with the god Sobek, who was represented as a crocodile. Sobek was not a minor deity. He functioned as a symbol of royal power, authority, and divine kingship, and Pharaohs were often identified with him as an embodiment of their rule.

This association was strongest in the time period relevant to Abraham. Joseph Smith’s interpretation aligns with this earlier context. Once again, the accuracy is not general or symbolic in a vague way. It is period-specific. That makes the explanation that Joseph Smith simply guessed difficult to maintain.

The “Pillars of Heaven”

Joseph Smith describes architectural elements in Facsimile 1 as the “pillars of heaven.” Critics have often argued that these features are simply a palace façade and that Joseph’s description reflects a misunderstanding of Egyptian architecture.

Further Egyptological study has shown that this criticism misses the symbolic function of these structures. Palace façades were commonly used in temple and ritual contexts and carried cosmic meaning. They marked the boundary between the earthly realm and the divine realm. In many temples, these architectural forms supported ceilings painted with stars, visually representing the heavens above.

Within that symbolic framework, referring to these structures as the “pillars of heaven” accurately reflects how Egyptians understood sacred space, cosmic order, and the connection between heaven and earth. Joseph Smith’s explanation aligns with temple symbolism rather than modern architectural labels, again pointing to a deeper and more accurate understanding of ancient religious meaning.

For more examples of things pertaining to Facimile 1 that Joseph Smith could not have known, read this article on by Fair Latter Day Saints. 

Why the Criticism Misses the Point

Most criticism of Facsimile 1 assumes the image must be read only through a late Egyptian funerary lens. That assumption overlooks how ancient symbols were actually used and understood. That misunderstands the original context that Joseph Smith was trying to share and restore.

Well after the Book of Abraham was published, later discoveries show that Abraham was associated with lion-couch scenes in Egypt, that human sacrifice did occur under certain religious conditions, that the gods named by Joseph Smith were real ancient deities, and that the symbolism Joseph described fits the correct historical time period.

When the full ancient context is considered, the claim that Facsimile 1 has nothing to do with Abraham does not hold up.

Dismantling Faulk’s Erroneous Assumptions about Facsimile 1

Before addressing the details, it is important to be clear about what is actually being critiqued here. Referring to this as Faulk’s explanation of Facsimile 1 is somewhat misleading. The arguments he presents are not original, nor are they the product of independent Egyptological or historical analysis. They are largely inherited from the CES Letter and rely on the same assumptions, same interpretive framework, and same misunderstandings about what the Book of Abraham is and how ancient texts and images function.

Like the CES Letter, A Letter For My Wife treats Facsimile 1 as if it were meant to function as a modern academic translation exercise, judged solely by present-day Egyptological conventions. Neither document shows awareness of how ancient religious imagery was reused, recontextualized, layered with meaning, or transmitted across time. With that context in mind, Faulk’s argument collapses under closer scrutiny.

1. Calling Facsimile 1 a “Common Funerary Scene” Proves Nothing

Faulk correctly identifies Facsimile 1 as resembling what modern Egyptologists classify as a lion-couch scene. That point is not disputed. The failure comes in assuming that identifying the type of scene exhausts its meaning.

Lion-couch scenes appear across centuries of Egyptian history and in a wide range of ritual, theological, and symbolic contexts. Egyptologists themselves acknowledge that these scenes can represent embalming, resurrection, purification, divine judgment, protection from violent death, or preparation for execution. They are symbolic images, not literal snapshots of a single ritual. The supposed “similar” Lion Couch scenes from funerary texts all have the figure as a dead sarcophagus, not as a living man like we see in Facsimile 1.

More importantly, Faulk’s argument depends on the false premise that Egyptologists already understood these scenes clearly and definitively in Joseph Smith’s time. That is not the case. Egyptian hieroglyphs were only partially deciphered beginning in 1822, and early work focused on royal names and monumental inscriptions, not funerary papyri or ritual iconography. There was no settled scholarly understanding of lion-couch scenes in the 1830s. Even today, Egyptologists disagree on details.

Calling the image “Osiris embalming” is a modern scholarly label applied long after Joseph Smith. It does not prove how ancient viewers understood the image, nor does it rule out other interpretive layers that may have existed earlier.

2. Faulk Assumes Egyptian Meaning Was Fixed, Singular, and Fully Known

Faulk’s critique assumes Egyptian religious imagery had one correct meaning, shared universally, across all periods. That assumption is historically indefensible.

Egyptian symbols were intentionally multivalent. The same image could serve funerary, cosmological, priestly, and mythological purposes simultaneously. Egyptian priests regularly reused older imagery and applied new meanings without seeing contradiction. This is a basic feature of Egyptian religion.

Joseph Smith was not attempting to catalog Egyptian gods or provide a technical Egyptological translation. He was explaining what the scene represented within a theological narrative tied to Abraham. Faulk treats symbolic interpretation as error only by imposing a modern academic standard that Joseph never claimed to be using.

Faulk also claims that Joseph Smith penciled in missing portions of the image. This claim is misleading. We do not know who restored the damaged sections of the papyrus, when they were restored, or on what basis. The restorations were made in the nineteenth century, likely by artists working from assumptions common at the time, not trained Egyptologists. Some restorations are demonstrably incorrect, including inverted or misoriented characters.

Faulk treats those restorations as authoritative and then faults Joseph Smith for not matching them. That reverses the burden of proof. Joseph was offering an interpretation of the original scene, not of a later reconstruction layered onto a damaged copy of a copy of a copy, adapted for funerary use by Hor centuries after Abraham.

Faulk also insists that the standing figure must have had an Anubis head originally. That is possible. It is not certain. Egyptologists themselves disagree about reconstructions, and there is no surviving original to resolve the question. But even if the figure were Anubis, that does not undermine Joseph Smith’s explanation. In Egyptian art, priests could be depicted as gods, gods as priests, and symbolic figures could represent historical or theological roles. Iconography does not limit meaning.

Joseph was not identifying costumes. He was explaining what the scene represented.

3. Misidentification Claims Confuse Labels with Function

Faulk repeatedly claims Joseph “misidentified” figures because they do not align with modern labels like “Anubis” or “sons of Horus.” This assumes that naming an iconographic type exhausts symbolic meaning. Ancient religion does not work that way.

Symbolic substitution was standard practice. A figure depicted with Anubis-like features does not restrict the scene to one narrative. Joseph Smith’s explanations address function and meaning, not taxonomic classification.

4. Damage and Reconstruction Are Far More Uncertain Than Faulk Admits

Faulk minimizes the damaged state of the papyrus and exaggerates scholarly certainty. The papyrus was already fragmentary when Joseph acquired it. Missing portions were reconstructed later, and those reconstructions are speculative. Egyptologists disagree about what originally appeared in those sections.

Reconstructions are educated guesses, not recovered originals. Treating them as definitive proof against Joseph Smith is unjustified.

5. Faulk’s Argument Implicitly Excludes Ritual Killing Without Justification

Faulk does not explicitly claim that Egypt never practiced ritual killing or human sacrifice. However, his argument depends on treating lion-couch scenes as strictly non-sacrificial embalming imagery, which implicitly excludes the possibility of execution or attempted sacrifice.

That exclusion is unwarranted. Later Egyptological research has documented ritual killing and execution in Egypt under certain religious and legal conditions. This means a knife-wielding figure over a bound individual cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Faulk’s argument relies on narrowing the scene’s function in a way ancient religion does not support.

6. Knife vs. Fire Is a False Objection

Faulk suggests that because some Abraham traditions describe burning, a knife scene cannot represent the same event. This assumes a false choice. In ancient ritual practice, execution often involved killing the victim first and then burning the body. A knife does not contradict a burning tradition. It supports it.

7. Abrahamic Reuse of Egyptian Imagery Is Documented

Faulk ignores evidence that Abrahamic traditions reused Egyptian imagery. A lion-couch scene discovered in Thebes centuries later includes Greek text explicitly naming Abraham beneath the image. This demonstrates that ancient people in Egypt did associate Abraham with this type of imagery. Joseph Smith could not have known about this material.

8. Facsimile 1 Is Not a “Pass or Fail” Test

Faulk treats Facsimile 1 as a decisive failure point. That approach only works if one assumes:

• Egyptian symbols had one meaning
• That meaning never changed
• Modern scholars fully understand it
• Joseph Smith claimed to provide a modern Egyptological translation

None of those assumptions are true.

Final Assessment

Faulk’s Facsimile 1 argument inherits the same flaws found in the CES Letter. It mistakes classification for meaning, reconstruction for certainty, and modern academic categories for ancient religious interpretation.

When the broader historical and ancient context is applied, Facsimile 1 cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to Abraham. The evidence supports layered meaning, symbolic interpretation, ritual violence consistent with the text, and documented Abrahamic association.

Facsimile 1 does not disprove the Book of Abraham. It exposes the weakness of arguments that assume ancient religion was simple, fixed, and already fully understood. It also demonstrates that Joseph Smith understood so many things about ancient Egyptian culture that are now verified by modern Egyptian scholarship.

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

Publication of Facimile 1

Even though Joseph Smith translated a significant portion of what we now have as the Book of Abraham in 1835, the record was not published until 1842 in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons. This publication occurred around the same time the Nauvoo Temple endowment was being introduced. During the first newspaper publication, Facimile 1 was published along with Abraham 1 – 2:18.

Before 1842, some teachings from the Book of Abraham were shared privately and in small settings. Certain ideas and doctrines also appeared in church conferences and sermons, but the full text and facsimiles were not made publicly available until their publication in Nauvoo.

Joseph Smith commissioned Reuben Hedlock to create an engraved printing plate of this facsimile so it could be published in the Times and Seasons. The image we have printed today comes from that engraved version.

By the time the facsimile was prepared for publication, parts of the original papyrus were already damaged or missing. As a result, some portions of the image had to be filled in to complete the scene. These reconstructed areas may not match exactly how the original Egyptian record from around 200 BC looked.

However, the engraving was produced under Joseph Smith’s direction, and the explanations published with the facsimile were almost certainly his own. Whatever artistic reconstruction occurred in the image itself, the interpretations that accompany the facsimile reflect Joseph Smith’s understanding and intended meaning.

What is the Meaning of Facsimile 1?

More Than One Lens of Interpretation

Critics often argue that Facsimile 1 can only have one correct meaning and that it must be understood strictly through modern Egyptology. That claim assumes far more certainty than the evidence allows. That it is only a “common funerary scene.” Facsimile 1 is not only an Egyptian image, it is an image that passed through many hands, cultures, and belief systems over centuries. Its meaning depends greatly on who is interpreting it, when they lived, and what worldview they brought with them.

Modern Egyptologists do not interpret Facsimile 1 the same way an Egyptian priest like Hor would have understood it in 200 BC. Egyptologists analyze patterns across many texts and time periods using modern academic categories. Hor, on the other hand, lived in a world heavily shaped by Greek rule and Jewish influence. His religious understanding was already a blend of Egyptian tradition, foreign ideas, and inherited ritual practices. Neither perspective necessarily reflects the original meaning of the image when it was first created.

How an Egyptian Priest Like Hor Likely Understood It

Dr. Kerry Muhlestein believes that Egyptologists are correct that Facsimile 1 belongs to what is commonly called a lion-couch or embalming scene. Scenes like this appear throughout Egyptian religious material and are often connected to mummification and preparation for the afterlife. For an Egyptian priest in 200 BC, the image likely functioned as a ritual aid, something that symbolized purification, protection, and hope for resurrection.

To someone like Hor, the scene would have acted as a form of ritual credential. It represented that the deceased had been properly prepared to pass through death and stand in the presence of the gods. By this time period, the image was no longer about preserving a historical narrative. It had become part of a symbolic system used to support Egyptian beliefs about the afterlife.

What Joseph Smith Was and Was Not Doing

Joseph Smith was not trying to explain Egyptian theology, nor was he attempting to give the meaning of Egyptian false gods or their counterfeit religious system. According to the Book of Abraham itself, the Egyptians did not possess the priesthood, even though Pharaoh was described as a righteous man who sought to imitate true ordinances without proper authority.

Joseph Smith’s explanations are best understood as a restoration of original truth, not an endorsement of how Egyptians later understood or practiced religion. This approach is consistent with how he handled the Bible “translation”. He did not limit himself to explaining how later communities interpreted scripture. He claimed to restore earlier meanings that had been lost or altered over time.

Restoring the Original Source Behind the Image

From this perspective, Facsimile 1 may preserve echoes of a much older sacred narrative. Over centuries, that narrative could have been copied, adapted, and absorbed into Egyptian funerary tradition. The image remained because it worked symbolically, even if its original meaning was no longer fully understood.

Egyptologists study how the image functioned in its late Egyptian context. Joseph Smith claimed to reveal what it meant at its origin. These are not competing translations of the same thing. They are answers to entirely different questions.

Unless the earliest form of these texts were ever discovered and clearly tied to Abraham, modern Egyptology would have no tools to evaluate Joseph Smith’s claim. That does not make his explanation false. It simply places it outside the limits of what Egyptology can confirm.

Egyptian Counterfeit Versus Ancient Truth

Egyptian religion in Abraham’s day and especially in Hor’s day represented a corrupted attempt to preserve sacred ideas without priesthood authority. Symbols of creation, sacrifice, resurrection, and divine order remained, but they were filtered through a system of false gods and ritual imitation.

Joseph Smith’s explanations focus on what those symbols originally testified of, not how they were later misunderstood. He was not translating Hor’s beliefs. He was restoring Abraham’s understanding.

When viewed this way, Facsimile 1 is not just an Egyptian funerary image. It is a layered artifact that may reflect centuries of copying and reinterpretation of an original sacred account. Once that possibility is acknowledged, the claim that Facsimile 1 can only mean one thing collapses, and Joseph Smith’s explanation can be evaluated on its own terms rather than dismissed outright.

Correct Understanding from Joseph – Verified by Modern Egyptologists

It does require faith to believe that Joseph Smith’s interpretation of Facsimile 1 is accurate, including the claim that it preserves the story of Abraham nearly being sacrificed and then delivered by an angel of the Lord.

But it also requires faith to believe that Joseph Smith was simply “getting lucky” when explaining the facsimile, especially given how many of his observations align with what modern Egyptologists now recognize about the image and its ritual setting. At some point, repeated accuracy stops looking like coincidence. The question that remains is simple: how did Joseph Smith keep getting so many things right?

The Lion Couch and Abraham in Ancient Sources

One of the strongest external supports for Joseph Smith’s interpretation of Facsimile 1 comes from discoveries made long after his death. In the late nineteenth century, scholars identified a papyrus now known as the Leiden Papyrus, which dates to roughly the third century AD. This papyrus was found in Thebes, the same general region where the Book of Abraham papyri originated.

The image on the Leiden Papyrus is striking. It depicts a lion couch scene with a figure lying on it and a divine figure standing nearby, a composition nearly identical to the core elements of Facsimile 1. What makes this papyrus especially important is the text beneath the image. The Greek writing explicitly names Abraham and associates him with the lion-couch scene.

This is significant because it shows that, in at least some Egyptian contexts, Abraham was directly connected with this exact type of imagery. In other words, the association between Abraham and a lion-couch scene was not invented by Joseph Smith. It already existed in the ancient world. Yet this papyrus was completely unknown in the nineteenth century. Joseph Smith had no access to it, no knowledge of its contents, and no way to anticipate its discovery.

If scenes like Facsimile 1 were never associated with Abraham, it becomes difficult to explain why independent Egyptian material would later make that very connection. The Leiden Papyrus demonstrates that ancient Egyptians and Greek-speaking Egyptians preserved traditions linking Abraham to imagery that closely matches Facsimile 1.

Human Sacrifice by Egyptians

A major objection to the authenticity of the meaning of Facsimile 1 has been the claim that Egyptians did not practice human sacrifice.

Egyptological research now shows that human sacrifice did occur in Egypt, specifically in religious contexts involving rebellion, blasphemy, or offenses against the gods. And these events are documented in periods that overlap with the life of Abraham.

The Book of Abraham describes Abraham being targeted for execution because he rejected the worship of local gods. In light of what is now known, that scenario fits the ancient religious world far better than critics once assumed. Rather than contradicting Egyptian history, the account aligns with practices that were real in the ancient Near East.

Knife, Fire, and Ritual Practice

Some critics argue that ancient traditions describe Abraham being burned, while Facsimile 1 depicts a knife, and they treat this as a contradiction.

In ancient sacrificial practice, execution and burning involved killing the victim, often with a knife, and then burning the body as part of the ritual. Egyptian religious practice followed this same pattern, especially in cases involving offerings or punishments connected to the gods.

The knife in Facsimile 1 does not contradict traditions that speak of burning. It fits naturally within the broader ritual process. The Book of Abraham’s description aligns with how ancient sacrifices were actually carried out, rather than reflecting a misunderstanding of ancient practice.

In addition, the shape of the knife as depicted in Facsimile 1 is the same kind of blade that was used in antiquity.

If Joseph Smith was just making up a knife in the facsimile scene, how did he get that right?

Canaanite Gods Named in the Scene

Joseph Smith identified four specific gods in Facsimile 1 and named them. At the time, critics dismissed these names as invented because they did not appear in the Bible, in Greco-Roman mythology, or in any English reference works available in the early nineteenth century. From a modern standpoint, this would have looked like a bold and unnecessary risk if Joseph Smith were simply making things up.

Later discoveries changed the picture entirely. Subsequent research in ancient Near Eastern texts showed that all four names correspond to real deities worshipped in the Canaanite world. These names come from a cultural and geographic setting connected to Abraham’s background, not from later biblical or classical traditions. Importantly, this information was not available in Joseph Smith’s lifetime. The relevant texts were untranslated, unpublished, or not yet discovered.

This is not a vague parallel or a general similarity. It is a precise match involving specific divine names tied to a specific ancient religious setting. The likelihood of correctly identifying multiple obscure Canaanite deities by chance, without access to the sources that later confirmed them, is extremely small. When details like this repeatedly align with later discoveries, the explanation that Joseph Smith was merely guessing becomes increasingly difficult to sustain.

The Crocodile and Pharaoh

Facsimile 1 includes a crocodile figure beneath the lion couch, which Joseph Smith associated with Pharaoh. For many years, critics dismissed this interpretation as mistaken, arguing that the crocodile had no meaningful connection to Egyptian kingship in standard funerary scenes.

Later Egyptological research has shown that this criticism was based on incomplete understanding. During the Middle Kingdom, the period commonly associated with Abraham, Egyptian Pharaohs were linked with the god Sobek, who was represented as a crocodile. Sobek was not a minor deity. He functioned as a symbol of royal power, authority, and divine kingship, and Pharaohs were often identified with him as an embodiment of their rule.

This association was strongest in the time period relevant to Abraham. Joseph Smith’s interpretation aligns with this earlier context. Once again, the accuracy is not general or symbolic in a vague way. It is period-specific. That makes the explanation that Joseph Smith simply guessed difficult to maintain.

The “Pillars of Heaven”

Joseph Smith describes architectural elements in Facsimile 1 as the “pillars of heaven.” Critics have often argued that these features are simply a palace façade and that Joseph’s description reflects a misunderstanding of Egyptian architecture.

Further Egyptological study has shown that this criticism misses the symbolic function of these structures. Palace façades were commonly used in temple and ritual contexts and carried cosmic meaning. They marked the boundary between the earthly realm and the divine realm. In many temples, these architectural forms supported ceilings painted with stars, visually representing the heavens above.

Within that symbolic framework, referring to these structures as the “pillars of heaven” accurately reflects how Egyptians understood sacred space, cosmic order, and the connection between heaven and earth. Joseph Smith’s explanation aligns with temple symbolism rather than modern architectural labels, again pointing to a deeper and more accurate understanding of ancient religious meaning.

For more examples of things pertaining to Facimile 1 that Joseph Smith could not have known, read this article on by Fair Latter Day Saints. 

Why the Criticism Misses the Point

Most criticism of Facsimile 1 assumes the image must be read only through a late Egyptian funerary lens. That assumption overlooks how ancient symbols were actually used and understood. That misunderstands the original context that Joseph Smith was trying to share and restore.

Well after the Book of Abraham was published, later discoveries show that Abraham was associated with lion-couch scenes in Egypt, that human sacrifice did occur under certain religious conditions, that the gods named by Joseph Smith were real ancient deities, and that the symbolism Joseph described fits the correct historical time period.

When the full ancient context is considered, the claim that Facsimile 1 has nothing to do with Abraham does not hold up.

Dismantling Faulk’s Erroneous Assumptions about Facsimile 1

Before addressing the details, it is important to be clear about what is actually being critiqued here. Referring to this as Faulk’s explanation of Facsimile 1 is somewhat misleading. The arguments he presents are not original, nor are they the product of independent Egyptological or historical analysis. They are largely inherited from the CES Letter and rely on the same assumptions, same interpretive framework, and same misunderstandings about what the Book of Abraham is and how ancient texts and images function.

Like the CES Letter, A Letter For My Wife treats Facsimile 1 as if it were meant to function as a modern academic translation exercise, judged solely by present-day Egyptological conventions. Neither document shows awareness of how ancient religious imagery was reused, recontextualized, layered with meaning, or transmitted across time. With that context in mind, Faulk’s argument collapses under closer scrutiny.

1. Calling Facsimile 1 a “Common Funerary Scene” Proves Nothing

Faulk correctly identifies Facsimile 1 as resembling what modern Egyptologists classify as a lion-couch scene. That point is not disputed. The failure comes in assuming that identifying the type of scene exhausts its meaning.

Lion-couch scenes appear across centuries of Egyptian history and in a wide range of ritual, theological, and symbolic contexts. Egyptologists themselves acknowledge that these scenes can represent embalming, resurrection, purification, divine judgment, protection from violent death, or preparation for execution. They are symbolic images, not literal snapshots of a single ritual. The supposed “similar” Lion Couch scenes from funerary texts all have the figure as a dead sarcophagus, not as a living man like we see in Facsimile 1.

More importantly, Faulk’s argument depends on the false premise that Egyptologists already understood these scenes clearly and definitively in Joseph Smith’s time. That is not the case. Egyptian hieroglyphs were only partially deciphered beginning in 1822, and early work focused on royal names and monumental inscriptions, not funerary papyri or ritual iconography. There was no settled scholarly understanding of lion-couch scenes in the 1830s. Even today, Egyptologists disagree on details.

Calling the image “Osiris embalming” is a modern scholarly label applied long after Joseph Smith. It does not prove how ancient viewers understood the image, nor does it rule out other interpretive layers that may have existed earlier.

2. Faulk Assumes Egyptian Meaning Was Fixed, Singular, and Fully Known

Faulk’s critique assumes Egyptian religious imagery had one correct meaning, shared universally, across all periods. That assumption is historically indefensible.

Egyptian symbols were intentionally multivalent. The same image could serve funerary, cosmological, priestly, and mythological purposes simultaneously. Egyptian priests regularly reused older imagery and applied new meanings without seeing contradiction. This is a basic feature of Egyptian religion.

Joseph Smith was not attempting to catalog Egyptian gods or provide a technical Egyptological translation. He was explaining what the scene represented within a theological narrative tied to Abraham. Faulk treats symbolic interpretation as error only by imposing a modern academic standard that Joseph never claimed to be using.

Faulk also claims that Joseph Smith penciled in missing portions of the image. This claim is misleading. We do not know who restored the damaged sections of the papyrus, when they were restored, or on what basis. The restorations were made in the nineteenth century, likely by artists working from assumptions common at the time, not trained Egyptologists. Some restorations are demonstrably incorrect, including inverted or misoriented characters.

Faulk treats those restorations as authoritative and then faults Joseph Smith for not matching them. That reverses the burden of proof. Joseph was offering an interpretation of the original scene, not of a later reconstruction layered onto a damaged copy of a copy of a copy, adapted for funerary use by Hor centuries after Abraham.

Faulk also insists that the standing figure must have had an Anubis head originally. That is possible. It is not certain. Egyptologists themselves disagree about reconstructions, and there is no surviving original to resolve the question. But even if the figure were Anubis, that does not undermine Joseph Smith’s explanation. In Egyptian art, priests could be depicted as gods, gods as priests, and symbolic figures could represent historical or theological roles. Iconography does not limit meaning.

Joseph was not identifying costumes. He was explaining what the scene represented.

3. Misidentification Claims Confuse Labels with Function

Faulk repeatedly claims Joseph “misidentified” figures because they do not align with modern labels like “Anubis” or “sons of Horus.” This assumes that naming an iconographic type exhausts symbolic meaning. Ancient religion does not work that way.

Symbolic substitution was standard practice. A figure depicted with Anubis-like features does not restrict the scene to one narrative. Joseph Smith’s explanations address function and meaning, not taxonomic classification.

4. Damage and Reconstruction Are Far More Uncertain Than Faulk Admits

Faulk minimizes the damaged state of the papyrus and exaggerates scholarly certainty. The papyrus was already fragmentary when Joseph acquired it. Missing portions were reconstructed later, and those reconstructions are speculative. Egyptologists disagree about what originally appeared in those sections.

Reconstructions are educated guesses, not recovered originals. Treating them as definitive proof against Joseph Smith is unjustified.

5. Faulk’s Argument Implicitly Excludes Ritual Killing Without Justification

Faulk does not explicitly claim that Egypt never practiced ritual killing or human sacrifice. However, his argument depends on treating lion-couch scenes as strictly non-sacrificial embalming imagery, which implicitly excludes the possibility of execution or attempted sacrifice.

That exclusion is unwarranted. Later Egyptological research has documented ritual killing and execution in Egypt under certain religious and legal conditions. This means a knife-wielding figure over a bound individual cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Faulk’s argument relies on narrowing the scene’s function in a way ancient religion does not support.

6. Knife vs. Fire Is a False Objection

Faulk suggests that because some Abraham traditions describe burning, a knife scene cannot represent the same event. This assumes a false choice. In ancient ritual practice, execution often involved killing the victim first and then burning the body. A knife does not contradict a burning tradition. It supports it.

7. Abrahamic Reuse of Egyptian Imagery Is Documented

Faulk ignores evidence that Abrahamic traditions reused Egyptian imagery. A lion-couch scene discovered in Thebes centuries later includes Greek text explicitly naming Abraham beneath the image. This demonstrates that ancient people in Egypt did associate Abraham with this type of imagery. Joseph Smith could not have known about this material.

8. Facsimile 1 Is Not a “Pass or Fail” Test

Faulk treats Facsimile 1 as a decisive failure point. That approach only works if one assumes:

• Egyptian symbols had one meaning
• That meaning never changed
• Modern scholars fully understand it
• Joseph Smith claimed to provide a modern Egyptological translation

None of those assumptions are true.

Final Assessment

Faulk’s Facsimile 1 argument inherits the same flaws found in the CES Letter. It mistakes classification for meaning, reconstruction for certainty, and modern academic categories for ancient religious interpretation.

When the broader historical and ancient context is applied, Facsimile 1 cannot be dismissed as irrelevant to Abraham. The evidence supports layered meaning, symbolic interpretation, ritual violence consistent with the text, and documented Abrahamic association.

Facsimile 1 does not disprove the Book of Abraham. It exposes the weakness of arguments that assume ancient religion was simple, fixed, and already fully understood. It also demonstrates that Joseph Smith understood so many things about ancient Egyptian culture that are now verified by modern Egyptian scholarship.

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

We do not know exactly who created the papyri Joseph Smith possessed, how the images were interpreted at different times, or how those meanings may have changed across centuries of copying and reuse by different people with different beliefs.

Because so much is unknown, saying the facsimiles can only mean one thing assumes too much. It treats one interpretation as the only possible option and ignores other reasonable explanations, which is a false dichotomy logical fallacy.

Egyptians Understood Counterfeit Interpretation

It is very difficult to understand ancient Egyptian culture, their priorities, and what their symbolic meanings were intended to convey. In addition, symbols usually have multiple meanings and layers of meaning.

According to Book of Abraham 1:27, the Egyptians did not have the priesthood, but Pharaoh was a righteous king who attempted to mimic the true ordinances that had been practiced by Adam and the ancients. Because of this, their worship appears to have been an attempt to tell the story of Adam, the Creation, and temple ordinances without proper authority. Their religion and practice of worshiping many gods came through a corrupted, counterfeit perspective that was very different from the way Adam and Abraham were taught.

When interpreting the facsimiles through the lens of an Egyptian belief system centered on false gods, it becomes difficult to see them the same way Joseph Smith did. Joseph Smith was interpreting the facsimiles as a restoration of the original meaning held by the ancients.

Joseph Smith’s explanations reflect the correct understanding that Abraham had of these truths, even if the Egyptians themselves only partially understood what they were trying to preserve.

Understanding What the Book of Abraham Facsimiles Are

The Book of Abraham facsimiles are printed images taken from Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith obtained in 1835. These images were published in the Times and Seasons in 1842 and later included with the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. The facsimiles also include brief explanations that scholars believe, though not absolutely certain, were provided by Joseph Smith.

These images are now commonly referred to as Facsimile 1, Facsimile 2, and Facsimile 3.

At a basic level, it is fairly clear that the facsimiles are examples of Egyptian imagery, art, and symbolism that likely date to around 200 BC. What they mean, how old their source material truly is, and how they were understood anciently make understanding these documents far more difficult to determine.

Assumption That Other Facsimiles Have Same Origin

Facsimile 1 is the only facsimile for which a portion of the original papyrus has survived. Egyptologists have identified that this papyrus comes from a funerary context and includes the name of an Egyptian priest named Hor. Some of the surviving papyri were likely prepared for Hor’s burial, but we do not know with certainty which mummy, if any, belonged to him.

Michael Chandler brought multiple mummies and multiple papyrus fragments and scrolls. Originally he had eleven mummies in total. We cannot say with certainty which papyri were originally associated with which mummies, or whether all the papyri Joseph Smith worked with belonged to Hor’s funerary collection. It is possible that some of the scrolls or images referenced by Joseph Smith came from different sources.

Published Images Were Modified

The images we have today are not direct reproductions of intact ancient documents. The papyri were already damaged by the time Joseph Smith acquired them. In Facsimile 1, portions of the papyrus were missing, including parts of the figures.

Since that time, even more of the papyrus has been lost or decomposed, as parts of the original images had been pasted onto backing material. After more than 150 years without proper storage, additional portions of this fragment have disintegrated compared to what Joseph Smith had in 1835.

Facsimile 2, a circular hypocephalus, was also incomplete, with sections broken away or unreadable, especially on the right side of the document labeled as figures 12–15. Because of this, when the facsimiles were prepared for publication, artists reconstructed missing portions of the image by relying on common Egyptian artistic patterns and symmetry. These reconstructions represent educated guesses, not confirmed restorations of the original artwork.

The reproduction process added further distance from the ancient source. The papyri were first copied by hand, then redrawn by artists, and finally engraved onto metal plates for printing in the Times and Seasons.

The artists and engravers involved were not trained in the Egyptian language or hieroglyphics. Their goal was visual reproduction, not linguistic accuracy. As a result, some hieroglyphs and symbols were altered, simplified, reversed, or distorted during the transfer from papyrus to drawing to engraved plate.

This means the facsimiles printed in modern scriptures are several steps removed from the original ancient images. They reflect damaged source material, reconstructed sections, and nineteenth-century artistic interpretation layered on top of ancient drawings. Because of this, precise claims about the original appearance, wording, or intended meaning of every symbol cannot be made with certainty.

What We Actually Have

The Age of the Existing Papyrus

The papyrus connected to the Book of Abraham facsimiles that still exists today dates to around 200 BC. This means it was created long after Abraham lived. It is not an original document from Abraham’s time, but likely a copy of a copy of much older material. Along the way, variations may have been introduced, including changes to names or how figures were understood, reflecting the beliefs of the time in which each copy was made.

A World of Greek and Jewish Influence

By 200 BC, Egypt was no longer an independent Egyptian kingdom. It was ruled by Greek leaders following the conquests of Alexander the Great. Greek officials controlled the government, Greek was widely spoken, and Greek ideas influenced education, science, and religion.

At the same time, Egypt had a large Jewish population. Many Jews had lived there for generations. Jewish scriptures were being translated into Greek, and Jewish stories and beliefs were well known in cities like Alexandria and Thebes. Abraham, Moses, and the God of Israel were not obscure figures in this world.

Because of this, Egyptian religion during this period was not isolated. Egyptian priests lived in a mixed cultural environment shaped by Greek philosophy and Jewish religious ideas. As Dr. Kerry Muhlestein explains in Let’s Talk About the Book of Abraham, priests during this period often reused older religious images, gave them new meanings, combined Egyptian ideas with foreign ones, and collected names and stories from different religious traditions.

Why Meaning Is Difficult to Fix

We know this cultural blending occurred because Egyptian texts from this period sometimes include Jewish names and concepts mixed into Egyptian religious practices.

So when we look at the papyrus owned by Hor, we are not looking at something created in a pure or original Egyptian setting. We are looking at a document produced in a mixed cultural world where meanings had already shifted.

An image that once meant one thing centuries earlier might now carry a different meaning, or even multiple meanings at the same time. Symbols were flexible and were meant to communicate ideas rather than lock meaning into a single, fixed definition.

This is why modern scholars cannot say with certainty what every image was meant to represent. People living in different times and cultures would have understood the same image in different ways.

The papyrus we have comes from a world where cultures overlapped, religions mixed, and symbols changed meaning over time. This makes it very difficult, and often impossible, to claim that there is only one correct interpretation of the facsimiles.

Copies Do Not Equal Origins

Egyptian Religious Images Changed Over Time

Ancient Egypt lasted for more than three thousand years. During that time, religious images and texts were not treated like fixed museum pieces. They were copied, reused, adapted, and given new meanings in different places and different centuries.

The way Egyptians handled religious material means we should not expect symbols to have one permanent, unchanging meaning across all periods of Egyptian history.

What We Can and Cannot Date

We do have surviving papyrus connected to Facsimile 1 from the Joseph Smith Papyri, and Egyptologists date it to the late Ptolemaic period, around 200 BC. However, we do not have the original papyrus sources for Facsimiles 2 and 3 in the same way. Because of that, we cannot say with certainty when their specific source documents were created, who first produced them, or the exact setting they were originally prepared for.

People assume that Facsimiles 2 and 3 must date to the same time period as Facsimile 1 because they were published together and came into Joseph Smith’s collection at the same time in 1835. That is a reasonable assumption, but treating this as fact can lead to conclusions that sound confident but rest on uncertain ground. The safest approach is to separate what can be dated and verified from what can only be inferred.

Copies, Adaptations, and Older Sources

Egyptian priests regularly copied older material onto new papyri, reused imagery for new purposes, layered new meanings onto existing symbols, and adapted religious ideas from earlier periods.

Because of this, a late copy does not rule out an earlier source. If Abraham lived around 2000–2100 BC, then a papyrus from 200 BC could only be a copy of something older, an adaptation of older ideas, or a reuse of imagery whose original meaning had already shifted.

Even if Abraham produced the facsimiles originally, it would be historically unrealistic that those documents would have survived for so long.

The Lens of the Later Owner

The surviving papyrus connected to Facsimile 1 appears to have belonged to the Egyptian priest Hor. That alone tells us something important about how the images should be understood.

Whatever the original meaning of the imagery may have been centuries earlier, what we have today is filtered through:

• the religious worldview of Hor
• the practices of the late Egyptian priesthood
• the multicultural environment of Ptolemaic Egypt

Meaning Was Not Fixed

By this period, Egyptian religion had already absorbed Greek, Jewish, and other Near Eastern influences. Religious meaning was not fixed or frozen in time. Symbols were reused, adapted, and reinterpreted as they were copied into new settings.

So even if a scene or concept originally came from a much earlier period, the version we have today may not reflect it exactly as it was first created.

We Do Not Fully Understand the Facsimiles

Modern Egyptology does not have a single agreed-upon interpretation of these images, a complete understanding of how they were used around 200 BC, or certainty about how different groups understood them. Scholars regularly disagree on details, functions, and meanings, even within the same time period.

Egyptian religious symbols were intentionally flexible. The same image could carry different meanings depending on the time period, the religious or cultural setting, the audience viewing it, and the purpose for which it was used. This is not speculation. It is a basic and well-documented feature of Egyptian symbolic religion, where imagery was designed to teach ideas rather than lock meaning into one fixed definition.

Because of this, insisting that the facsimiles can only have one correct interpretation reflects a misunderstanding of how Egyptian symbols were used and understood.

Joseph Smith’s Explanations and the Limits of Criticism

Critics assume that Joseph Smith attempted to produce a strict, one-to-one Egyptological translation of the facsimiles. The historical record does not support that assumption.

Joseph Smith did not present his explanations as a grammatical translation in the academic sense. He gave explanations of the images, not a line-by-line decoding of Egyptian text as Egyptology would later define it. His meanings, like almost everything he did, was designed to provide a spiritual explanation that would better help us understand the plan of salvation so that we can return to the presence of the Father through Jesus Christ.

What is clear is how Joseph Smith used the images. He connected them to ideas about the stars, divine authority, God’s order of creation, life, and sacred ordinances, using Abraham’s experiences as the framework for understanding them.

These explanations were published in 1842, at the same time Joseph Smith was beginning to introduce the Nauvoo Temple endowment.

Scholarly Disagreement Among Meaning Today

The fact that modern Egyptologists debate these images also does not demonstrate that Joseph Smith was wrong. It shows that the subject itself is complex and that definitive conclusions are difficult, even with greater understanding and modern tools.

The many disagreement among different scholars demonstrates the nature of Egyptian symbolism, and how there is not just one interpretation.

Ancient Ideas, Divine Order

Whether the original Egyptian artists intended these images to function as temple worship in the same way Joseph later taught cannot be stated with certainty.

What can be said is that Joseph Smith used the facsimiles to show that covenants, progression, and movement through a divine order were ancient concepts, not modern inventions.

Conclusion: TL/DR

The facsimiles in the Book of Abraham cannot be reduced to a single, fixed meaning. The original sources are fragmentary, the images passed through centuries of copying and reuse, and the cultural world in which the surviving papyri were produced was complex and mixed. Egyptian religious symbols were designed to be flexible, layered, and adaptable, not locked into one permanent interpretation.

Because of this, confident claims that the facsimiles can only mean one thing go beyond what the evidence allows. They rely on assumptions about origin, function, and meaning that cannot be proven and ignore how Egyptian religion worked. Modern Egyptology itself does not speak with one voice on these images, which demonstrates how difficult definitive conclusions really are.

Joseph Smith did not claim to provide a modern academic translation of Egyptian grammar. He offered explanations that framed the images within Abraham’s experiences and used them to teach ideas about divine authority, the order of creation, the stars, covenants, and sacred ordinances.

Given the fragmentary evidence, the shifting meanings of symbols over time, and the lack of certainty surrounding the facsimiles’ original purpose, it is not historically sound to dismiss Joseph Smith’s explanations outright.

The facsimiles remain far more complex and unresolved than critics acknowledge. When viewed in their full historical and cultural context, the Book of Abraham presents a coherent ancient framework that is impossible to explain as a made up nineteenth-century invention.

The Rosetta Stone – The Ancient Relic Not Related to The Book of Abraham

January 30, 2026

Book of Abraham Facsimile 1

January 29, 2026

Understanding What The Book of Abraham Facimilies Are

January 23, 2026

Book of Abraham – Evidence Joseph Smith Could Not Have Known

January 22, 2026

The GAEL Project – Pre-Temple Doctrine Coding?

January 16, 2026

Doctrine of the Book of Abraham

January 14, 2026

What is the Book of Abraham?

January 6, 2026

Why out of Context “Expert Views” Does Not Prove What Letter For My Wife Thinks it Does

It’s one thing to have views from an expert. It’s another thing to know what questions the expert was asked, the context in which they were asked, and what the full, unedited response actually was. For a detailed breakdown of the Book of Abraham “Expert Views,” read this response. FAIR Book of Abraham Expert Views, response.

The “Expert Views” section in A Letter For My Wife is designed to feel decisive. It lists professors, museums, universities, and sharp quotes to give the impression that qualified experts have proved the inauthenticity of the Book of Abraham.

But when you slow down and examine what is actually being argued, this section is completely worthless. Not because Egyptologists are dishonest, but because their statements are being used to answer questions they were never asked and cannot answer.

What Faulk Is Really Arguing

Faulk’s reasoning follows this pattern:

• Egyptologists say the surviving papyri are common Egyptian funerary material.
• Egyptologists say the facsimiles resemble common Egyptian religious imagery.
• Therefore, Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham.

Do you see the fatal flaw here? That conclusion only works if multiple assumptions are accepted without question. Faulk never proves those assumptions. He simply treats them as settled facts and uses the experts out of context quotes as the proof of those facts.

The Assumptions Faulk Never Establishes

For Faulk’s argument to work, the reader must accept all of the following:

1. The surviving papyrus fragments are the source of the Book of Abraham text.
2. Joseph Smith claimed a modern, word-for-word linguistic translation.
3. That Egyptian religious images have only one fixed meaning across all time periods.
4. That missing source material is irrelevant.
5. That revelatory translation claims must conform to a generalized modern academic understanding.

None of these assumptions are demonstrated. They are simply asserted and then treated as obvious.

The Primary Problem: The Source Text Is Missing

Joseph Smith owned two long papyrus scrolls and several fragments. What survives today are only a few small fragments that were not well preserved over the last 200 years. The two long scrolls were destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire.

This creates an unavoidable fact:
There is no surviving source text that can be directly compared to Joseph Smiths translation of the Book of Abraham.

Because of this, claims that experts have “checked” Joseph Smith’s translation against the papyri are misleading. You cannot compare a book to a source that no longer exists.

Facsimile 1 is not the Book of Abraham text. It is an image. Joseph Smith never said the Book of Abraham came from the picture caption. He said it came from the papyrus records.

This point alone collapses most of Letter for My Wife’s argument.

What Egyptologists Can and Cannot Answer

Egyptologists are qualified to do certain things:

• Identify known Egyptian funerary texts
• Translate Egyptian language where text survives to the best of their ability
• Classify artistic motifs and imagery

They are not qualified to determine:

• Whether missing papyri once contained other texts
• Whether a religious text was produced by revelation
• What a symbolic image meant during an ancient time frame they know nothing about
• What a symbolic image meant in modern prophetic framework
• Whether God revealed doctrine using ancient artifacts as catalysts

Faulk treats Egyptologists as authorities on claims they never attempted to address.

Facsimiles Are Images, Not Paragraphs

Ancient religious images function symbolically. Symbols change meaning based on time, place, and purpose. The same image could be reused for different theological ideas. The same image could have different meanings at different times, and to different people.

Identifying an image as a “lion-couch scene” does not settle what it represents in every context. Knowing that a picture shows a crucifix does not tell you what doctrine is being taught from it.

Joseph Smith’s explanations of the facsimiles were doctrinal and theological, not academic captions. Joseph was determining the modern meaning from the most ancient and original understanding as it would have been to Abraham. Faulk assumes that identifying an image type from thousands of years later resolves the issue. It doesn’t.

Joseph Smith Never Claimed a Modern Translation Method

Joseph Smith never said he translated the Book of Abraham the way scholars translate languages today. He didn’t understand Egyptian. He said scripture came by the gift and power of God. He described revelation, not decoding.

Faulk evaluates Joseph Smith as if he claimed to be an Egyptologist. He did not.

You can reject Joseph Smith’s claims if you choose. But you cannot fairly disprove them by holding him to a method he never claimed to use.

The “Dear Zachary” Emails Are Not Evidence

One of the weakest parts of Faulk’s argument is his reliance on private emails that begin with “Dear Zachary.”

These emails are presented as authoritative expert testimony, yet almost everything about them is unknown.

We are not told:

• We do not know who Zachary is
• We do not know his last name
• We do not know his qualifications
• We do not know whether he is LDS, ex-LDS, a student, a blogger, or a private individual
• We do not know what exact questions he asked
• We do not know how the questions were framed
• We do not know what context he gave the Egyptologists
• We do not know whether he summarized Joseph Smith’s claims accurately
• We do not know whether he provided counter-arguments
• We do not know whether the emails were edited, shortened, or selectively quoted
• We do not even know who sent these supposed emails to Zachary

In short, we have no way to evaluate what the Egyptologists were actually responding to.

These emails are not peer-reviewed. They are not published research. They are not formal statements. They are private replies to an unknown prompt, stripped of context, and dropped into the letter as if they settle the issue.

If this were any historical topic, this kind of source would be dismissed immediately. Anonymous email exchanges do not meet even basic standards of evidence.

Let’s flip the scenario:
Would Faulk accept an anonymous, unattributed email from a second hand source that claimed an angel told someone the Book of Abraham came from God? Of course not. He would rightly dismiss it as unverifiable and meaningless. Yet he is willing to treat anonymous emails from second hand sources that support his conclusion as decisive proof.

The fact that Faulk includes these emails anyway shows how low the evidentiary bar is set when the response aligns with his conclusion. Rather than strengthening his case, these emails undermine it.

A serious argument does not rely on unattributed private correspondence and treat it as proof.

Quote-Stacking Is Not Analysis

Many of the expert quotes Faulk uses are old, dismissive, or mocking. Calling something “nonsense” or “fraud” is rhetoric, not argument. We don’t know what these experts motives were, what they were asked, or what specifically they were referring to.

But Faulk stacks quotes to create emotional weight, not clarity. He never pauses to explain:

• What Joseph Smith actually claimed
• What material is missing
• What assumptions are being made
• What Egyptologists are not addressing

Instead, he jumps from “experts disagree” to “therefore Joseph lied.”

The False Choice

Faulk frames the issue as a forced choice:

Either God lied
Or Joseph lied

This ignores:

• Missing source material
• Non-academic translation claims
• Symbolic use of images
• Revelatory models that do not require text matching

You do not have to accept any particular faith explanation to see that this framing is not only not academic, it’s dishonest.

What This Section Actually Proves

The “Expert Views” section supports one limited point:
The surviving fragments resemble common Egyptian funerary material.

It does not prove:

• That the Book of Abraham came from those fragments
• That Joseph claimed a modern translation
• That symbolic images have only one fixed meaning
• That missing source material is irrelevant
• That revelation must conform to academic translation standards that are constantly changing

Bottom Line

This section looks authoritative because of names and credentials, but it avoids the real issue. It changes Joseph Smith’s claim, ignores missing evidence, relies on weak sources, and applies expert opinions outside their proper scope.

Once those assumptions are exposed, the confidence of the “Expert Views” section turns to distrust and a loss of credibility. What remains is not proof, but a carefully arranged impression built on category errors and unsupported premises.