The CES Letter treats the Book of Abraham as the linchpin of its case against Joseph Smith. If the Book of Abraham collapses, the Letter assumes everything else collapses with it. That confidence depends on a narrow framing, modern assumptions imposed on ancient material, and a refusal to engage with what the evidence actually allows.
At the center of the argument is a simple claim that the surviving papyrus fragments are the source documents for the Book of Abraham. That claim is presented as settled fact. But, the historical record shows that they were not. Eyewitnesses consistently described multiple scrolls and a large collection of papyri. Most of that material was later destroyed in the Great Chicago Fire. What survived did so only because it was not considered important. The fragments we still have were glued into frames, passed through private hands, and given to a maid as a gift. They were not preserved as valuable records. Treating a handful of incomplete fragments from a single vignette as if they define the source of the Book of Abraham ignores the documented history of the papyri themselves.
The CES Letter also misrepresents what Joseph Smith claimed the Book of Abraham to be. He was not attempting to explain how Egyptian priests or modern scholars understood these images centuries after Abraham. He claimed to restore the earliest, revealed account given to Abraham himself. Egyptian religion changed over time. Symbols were reused, altered, and layered with later beliefs. If later priests no longer fully understood what they were preserving, then judging Joseph Smith’s explanations by their late interpretations applies the wrong standard from the start. A restoration claim is not tested by measuring it against later reuse of ancient imagery.
When the evidence is actually looked at, the CES Letter’s argument collapses. Instead of engaging missing documents, transmission history, and the nature of restoration claims, it bypasses them. Instead of resolving questions, it relies on assumptions that only hold if the question of what the Book of Abraham really is is never asked.
Here are questions for the CES Letter to answer about the Book of Abraham.
Why Does the CES Letter Hide How Unsettled Facsimile 3 Translation Really Is?
How Does the CES Letter Ignore the Obvious Altar-to-Throne Pattern in Facsimile 3?
Does the Writing Next to Facsimile 1 PROVE Joseph Correctly Translated Abraham?
How Did Joseph Get So Much Right About Facimile 2?
How Did Joseph Get So Many Things Right About Facimile One?
Why Are You So Certain Facsimile One Is ‘Just Funerary’?
Why Did You Assume That the Grammar Project Was a Translation?
Why Do You Assume the Surviving Papyri Are What He Translated?
What Record Did Joseph Smith Actually Have?
Why Does Book of Abraham Preserve Ancient Meaning?
Answering the CES Letter’s Questions About the Book of Abraham
When Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons, he said it was a “translation of some ancient records… purporting to be the writings of Abraham… written by his own hand, upon papyrus.” Egyptologists date the surviving papyri to around the 1st century BC, nearly 2,000 years after Abraham.
First, this objection assumes a modern publishing model and then imposes it on the ancient world.
That is not how ancient scripture worked.
In antiquity, especially long before the printing press, sacred texts were transmitted by copying. An original record would be written by a prophet or scribe. Later generations would copy that record again and again. Each new copy was still understood to contain the words of the original author, even though the physical material was newer.
This is elementary.
The book of Isaiah in your modern Bible was not physically written by Isaiah. It is a copy of a copy of a copy. Yet it is still called “the words of Isaiah.”
The Book of Mormon you hold today was not written by the hand of Mormon. Yet its title page states it was written by THE HAND OF Mormon.
Why? Because authorship refers to origin, not to the age of the surviving copy.
The Dead Sea Scrolls date to around 200 BC to AD 70. That does not mean Isaiah lived in 200 BC. It means someone copied Isaiah’s writings centuries after he lived.
No one treats that as a scandal.
So when Joseph Smith published the Book of Abraham as “the writings of Abraham… written by his own hand, upon papyrus,” that phrasing fits ancient convention perfectly. It describes authorship of the original text, not the manufacturing date of the physical copy Joseph possessed.
That is how scripture worked.
Second, even the assumption that the surviving fragments represent the entire collection is flawed.
Multiple eyewitnesses described the Joseph Smith papyri as consisting of more than the small mounted fragments recovered in 1967. They referred to long rolls. The fragments we have today are small portions mounted under glass in the 19th century. The large scrolls described by early witnesses were likely destroyed in the Chicago Fire of 1871.
If the text of the Book of Abraham came from a different portion of the collection that no longer exists, then dating the surviving funerary fragments does not resolve the question at all.
This is not speculation. Contemporary descriptions distinguish between long rolls and mounted fragments. The CES Letter simply treats the surviving fragments as though they were the whole corpus.
That is an assumption.
Third, even within Egyptology, the idea that Jewish or biblical figures appear in Egyptian texts is not absurd.
Ancient texts were recopied, redacted, and reinterpreted across centuries. It is not unusual for later manuscripts to preserve earlier traditions.
We see this across the Near East.
Fourth, the argument also assumes Joseph Smith was attempting a modern academic Egyptological translation. There is no evidence that he claimed to be performing a conventional linguistic decoding according to future 19th- and 20th-century standards. His own statements consistently frame his work as revelatory translation.
The Bible itself contains examples of translation that are not mechanical word-for-word renderings. New Testament writers quote the Old Testament in ways that differ from the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That does not make the New Testament fraudulent. It reflects inspired transmission.
The Book of Abraham should be evaluated within that same ancient-revelatory framework.
Fifth, the CES Letter frames the dating of the fragments as though that somehow disproves authorship.
But again, that only works if one assumes:
- The surviving fragments were the only source.
- Authorship must equal the physical date of the manuscript.
- Translation must equal modern academic decoding.
Each of those is an unproven assumption.
Remove those assumptions, and the force of the argument collapses.
This is why serious responses from sources such as Book of Mormon Central, FAIR, and other scholars repeatedly emphasize transmission history, missing scroll portions, and ancient scribal practice. The issue is not mysterious. It is basic textual history.
Ancient texts are copied.
Copies preserve original authorship.
Surviving fragments may not represent the entire source.
Revelatory translation does not require modern Egyptological alignment.
Of course that is how it works.
The more one understands how ancient scripture was transmitted, the less dramatic your question becomes.
Egyptologists say the surviving Book of Abraham papyri are common Egyptian funerary texts and have nothing to do with Abraham.
This objection sounds decisive only if you assume three things:
-
That we possess all the papyri Joseph Smith had.
-
That the Book of Abraham text came from the fragments we currently have.
-
That Egyptology has complete, final certainty about the religious meaning of these documents.
None of those assumptions is secure.
First: we do not have all the papyri.
We only have a small fraction of it.
Multiple eyewitnesses described long scrolls in Joseph Smith’s possession. The fragments recovered in 1967 are small mounted pieces. Contemporary accounts describe large rolls that were never mounted and were likely destroyed in the Chicago Fire of 1871.
So when critics say “these fragments are funerary texts and therefore cannot be Abraham,” they are assuming that these fragments were the source of the Book of Abraham text.
That is an assumption.
If the text came from a different portion of the collection that no longer exists, then translating the surviving fragments tells you nothing about the missing scroll.
Second: even the funerary text claim is oversimplified.
Yes, the fragments resemble known Egyptian funerary documents such as the Book of Breathings. But Egyptian funerary texts were not rigid, standardized, modern documents. They were adaptable religious compositions. Names were inserted. Theological themes were reused. Symbolic imagery was repurposed.
Ancient Egyptians frequently layered meaning into their religious texts. A document could function as funerary literature and still preserve older traditions or symbolic narratives.
We do not fully understand how Egyptian religious syncretism functioned, especially in the Ptolemaic period when Jewish and Egyptian communities interacted heavily.
Third: we know far less than critics imply.
Egyptology is a developing field. Interpretations shift. Meanings of symbols evolve as new discoveries emerge. To present modern Egyptological readings as settled and complete is not responsible.
Egyptian religious images were symbolic, multivalent, and theological. They were not newspaper photographs. Their meaning depended on ritual context, priestly interpretation, and cosmological framework.
When critics say “this is just a common embalming scene,” they are reducing a complex symbolic image to a single narrow reading.
The lion couch scene in Facsimile 1 is a perfect example.
For decades, scholars assumed such scenes depicted routine mummification. But further research into temple iconography, execution rituals, and Denderah parallels has shown that some lion couch scenes represent ritual sacrifice or divine deliverance motifs.
Even more significant, there are ancient Jewish and Christian traditions that connect Abraham with attempted sacrifice in Egypt.
That is not a Latter-day Saint invention.
Ancient texts outside the Bible, such as the Apocalypse of Abraham and other Second Temple literature, preserve traditions of Abraham facing idolatrous priests and attempted sacrifice. These themes align remarkably with the Book of Abraham narrative.
How does a 19th-century farm boy insert Abraham into an Egyptian lion couch sacrificial context that later Jewish traditions also connect to Abraham?
Additionally, Abraham was one of the most significant figures in the ancient Near East. He is foundational to Israelite, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic identity. Traditions about him circulated widely across centuries and cultures.
We have extrabiblical texts that expand on Abraham’s life, covenant theology, opposition to idolatry, and cosmological visions. Some of these were not widely accessible in Joseph Smith’s day.
So when critics say “nothing to do with Abraham,” they are speaking from silence. What they mean is: we do not see Abraham’s name in the surviving fragments.
That is different from proving there was no Abrahamic tradition attached to the broader papyri collection.
Fourth: Egyptian texts often omit narrative framing that would identify a biblical figure directly.
The absence of a name in a small fragment does not disprove the existence of a larger narrative context elsewhere on the scroll.
And again, we do not have the full scroll.
Fifth: the Book of Abraham is not merely claiming that a random Egyptian funerary text is Abraham’s diary.
It presents a theological narrative that fits into broader Second Temple Abrahamic traditions: opposition to idolatry, deliverance from sacrifice, covenant promises, cosmological instruction.
These are not generic themes. They are deeply Abrahamic.
Now ask the obvious question.
If Joseph Smith fabricated the story, why embed Abraham in an Egyptian setting tied to priestly sacrifice imagery that later scholarship has shown fits ancient ritual motifs more closely than critics first assumed?
Why does Abraham’s story in the Book of Abraham intersect with ancient Jewish traditions that were not widely known in 1835 America?
Why do covenant themes, priesthood language, and cosmological structures in the Book of Abraham resemble ancient Near Eastern thought patterns rather than 19th-century American Protestant theology?
Critics assume the papyri must match a word-for-word modern Egyptological translation.
That assumption itself is modern.
Ancient religious texts were layered, symbolic, and fluid. Transmission was complex. Interpretation was priestly. Meaning was theological.
We do not know enough to close the case.
And once you admit that:
– We do not have all the papyri.
– Egyptian religious texts were symbolic and multivalent.
– Abraham traditions circulated widely in the ancient world.
– The lion couch imagery intersects with known sacrificial motifs.
– The Book of Abraham aligns with extrabiblical Abrahamic traditions.
Then the confident dismissal collapses.
The honest position is not “this has nothing to do with Abraham.”
The honest position is: based on the fragments we have, Egyptologists do not see Abraham’s name in the surviving text.
That is a far smaller claim.
And it leaves significant room for the Book of Abraham to reflect an authentic Abrahamic tradition preserved within a complex Egyptian textual and ritual environment.
In other words, the certainty critics project is not supported by the limits of the evidence.
We know less than they pretend.
The Book of Abraham teaches a Newtonian view of the universe, which critics claim reflects 19th-century science rather than ancient cosmology.
This argument only works if you assume:
- The cosmology in the Book of Abraham is uniquely Newtonian and
- Newton invented those cosmological ideas.
Neither assumption is correct.
First, what critics usually mean by “Newtonian” is an ordered universe governed by laws, intelligences, hierarchy, motion, and relative governing bodies. They point to Abraham 3, where stars differ in glory, some are greater than others, and Kolob is described as governing according to order and reckoning.
But hierarchy of heavenly bodies did not begin with Newton.
Ancient Near Eastern cosmology was structured, ordered, and hierarchical long before the 17th century. Babylonian, Egyptian, and Jewish cosmologies all described ordered heavens with governing luminaries. The idea that some heavenly bodies “rule” others is ancient language.
Genesis 1 already speaks of the greater light ruling the day and the lesser light ruling the night. That is hierarchical cosmology.
Egyptian astronomy described stars in ordered systems, with decans and governing cycles. Babylonian astronomy tracked planetary motion with mathematical precision centuries before Newton. Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Ptolemy constructed highly ordered, law-governed models of celestial motion. Medieval Islamic astronomers refined these models further.
By the time Newton wrote the Principia, the idea of a mathematically ordered cosmos had already been developed for over a thousand years.
Newton did not invent order in the heavens. He described gravity mathematically.
Second, the Book of Abraham does not teach Newtonian physics.
There is no law of universal gravitation. No calculus. No elliptical orbital equations. No inverse-square law.
Instead, Abraham 3 speaks in theological terms about reckoning of time, governing order, gradations of glory, and intelligences organized in hierarchy.
That is not physics. That is sacred cosmology.
Ancient Jewish apocalyptic texts frequently describe layered heavens, governing stars, angelic hierarchies, and structured cosmic order. The Apocalypse of Abraham, for example, includes detailed heavenly ascent imagery and cosmological symbolism. These traditions long predate Newton.
In fact, hierarchical cosmology is far more at home in ancient temple and priestly thought than in Enlightenment mechanistic science.
Third, critics assume “Kolob governs” means gravitational dominance.
The text does not say that.
It uses language of governance, order, reckoning, and precedence. That is covenantal and priestly language, not mechanical physics.
In ancient thought, to “govern” meant to preside in order and authority, not to exert gravitational force.
Again, Genesis uses ruling language. So do Mesopotamian texts.
Fourth, the concept of eternal intelligences and ordered existence is not Newtonian either.
Newton did not propose eternal co-existing intelligences organized by glory. That is theological metaphysics, not Enlightenment science.
In fact, the Book of Abraham’s cosmology departs from Newton in major ways. Newton’s universe was fundamentally material and mechanistic. The Book of Abraham presents a cosmos organized around intelligence, covenant, priesthood order, and divine hierarchy.
That is temple theology, not British physics. Which is exactly the kind of thing that Joseph would be interested in.
Fifth, even if Joseph Smith were aware of contemporary scientific ideas, that does not make every structured cosmology “Newtonian.”
The idea that a 19th-century person could not speak of ordered heavens without borrowing Newton is historically naive.
Ordered cosmology predates Newton by millennia.
Egyptians tracked star cycles. Babylonians calculated planetary motion. Greeks formalized celestial spheres. Jewish apocalyptic literature described cosmic layers and governing lights.
The concept of order in heaven is ancient.
Finally, the deeper question is this:
Why does Abraham 3 frame the cosmos in priestly, covenantal, hierarchical terms that resonate with ancient temple worldview rather than with 19th-century Protestant sermons?
It does not read like Enlightenment astronomy. It reads like sacred cosmology.
Critics label it “Newtonian” because it mentions order and governing bodies. But ordered heavens are not a Newtonian invention.
They are ancient.
So the claim collapses once you remove the assumption that hierarchy equals Newton.
The Book of Abraham does not teach modern physics.
It teaches a structured, ordered, covenant-centered cosmos — something far older than Newton and far more theological than mechanical.
Much of the Book of Abraham text repeats, quotes, or paraphrases material already found in the Old Testament and uses King James Bible wording.
Let’s slow this down.
In 1835, the King James Version was not “one translation among many.” It was the Bible. It was the text Americans learned to read from. It shaped vocabulary, religious speech, preaching cadence, and theological imagination. Most people believed it to be authoritative, settled, and essentially beyond question.
If God were revealing ancient material to an English-speaking prophet in 1835, what scriptural language would that revelation naturally resemble?
The only sacred scriptural English available: King James English.
Critics treat resemblance to the KJV as suspicious. But what alternative would they have expected? If the wording had diverged sharply from the Bible Joseph and his audience knew, critics would have objected that it contradicted scripture. If it overlaps, they claim copying.
That is not a consistent standard.
Now consider something even more obvious.
Joseph had already produced a creation account in 1830 as part of the Book of Moses. That text also parallels Genesis and expands it. So by 1835, the creation narrative already existed in:
-
The Bible (Genesis).
-
The Book of Moses (Joseph’s earlier revealed expansion).
Printing was expensive. Publication was laborious. There was no financial incentive to repeat the same story again.
So why “triplicate” the creation account?
If Joseph were fabricating material, there is no reason to rewrite the same narrative yet again. It adds risk, invites comparison, and produces redundancy.
The only logical reason to include another creation account is that it comes from a different record with its own perspective and additional material.
And that is exactly what the Book of Abraham does.
Yes, it overlaps with Genesis. Of course it does. They share patriarchal tradition.
But it also diverges meaningfully:
– It introduces a plural divine council language: “the Gods.”
– It emphasizes organizing rather than creating ex nihilo.
– It frames creation within a larger cosmology already introduced in Abraham 3.
– It embeds governance, hierarchy, reckoning of time, and covenant destiny into the creation narrative.
– It reflects the plural nuance of “Elohim” in Hebrew more directly than the KJV does.
Those are not trivial additions.
In fact, some of these features align more closely with the Hebrew text and ancient Near Eastern thought patterns than with 19th-century Protestant theology.
The plural “Gods” in Abraham reflects a real linguistic feature of Genesis 1 that the KJV smooths into singular English. The organizing language resonates with Hebrew verbs implying structuring and ordering rather than later philosophical categories of creation.
That is not simple copying.
It is expansion.
And expansion is exactly what you would expect if Abraham preserved his own version of creation tradition.
Now return to the practical question.
Why risk publishing a third creation narrative if you are inventing it?
Why invite side-by-side comparisons with Genesis and the Book of Moses?
Why introduce structural differences that critics could scrutinize?
Fabrication seeks efficiency and safety. Redundancy increases exposure.
The far simpler explanation is the one Joseph gave: that this was a separate ancient record.
Overlap between patriarchal accounts is natural. Isaiah and Jeremiah overlap. The Gospels overlap. Chronicles overlaps with Samuel and Kings. Shared narrative heritage does not equal plagiarism.
If anything, multiple witnesses strengthen authenticity.
And again, in 1835, if revelation came in English, it would inevitably be expressed in King James cadence. That was the sacred register of the time. New Testament writers quoted the Septuagint. Prophets speak in the scriptural language their audience understands.
The accusation assumes:
– Overlap means copying.
– KJV language proves borrowing.
– Redundancy implies fabrication.
But once you consider:
– The dominance of KJV English in Joseph’s world.
– The already existing Book of Moses creation account.
– The cost and difficulty of printing.
– The meaningful theological expansions in Abraham.
– The Hebrew-consistent plural and organizing language.
The “plagiarism” claim becomes thin.
The more pressing question is this:
If Joseph was inventing scripture, why create another creation narrative that expands on Genesis in ways that resonate with ancient cosmology and Hebrew nuance rather than simply leaving well enough alone?
That is not how frauds operate.
It is, however, how independent ancient records behave.
Anachronism claim: The facsimiles (illustrations) would not have existed in Abraham’s day.
There you go with assumptions again.
Why assume illustrations did not exist in Abraham’s day?
Why assume that the copies we have today represent the original form of the image?
Why assume that Egyptian religious art remained static across centuries?
Every one of those assumptions collapses under basic historical awareness.
First: illustrated religious texts long predate Abraham.
Egyptian religious iconography stretches back thousands of years before the traditional patriarchal period. Tomb scenes, temple reliefs, ritual imagery, lion couch scenes, priestly figures, offering scenes, star charts, and divine council imagery were already well established.
Abraham’s traditional era falls roughly in the Middle Bronze Age. Egyptian iconography was already sophisticated and symbol-rich long before that.
So the claim that “illustrations would not have existed” is historically indefensible.
Second: the surviving facsimiles are not originals.
They are late copies.
The papyri fragments we possess date to the Ptolemaic period. That does not mean the imagery originated then. Egyptian religious texts were copied for centuries. Symbols were reused, redrawn, updated, and adapted.
That is how ancient transmission works.
Just as biblical manuscripts are copies of copies, Egyptian papyri are copies of copies. No Egyptologist would claim that a Ptolemaic manuscript represents the first moment a symbol ever appeared.
So when critics say, “These facsimiles date too late,” what they really mean is: the copy we have is late.
Of course it is.
Third: Egyptian religious symbolism evolved.
Names of gods changed. Political dynasties rose and fell. Syncretism occurred. Foreign influences entered. Local priestly schools emphasized different theological frameworks.
The same basic iconographic scene could be modified across time — altered names, altered captions, altered theological emphasis — while retaining a recognizable structural core.
We see this across Egyptian history.
Lion couch scenes, for example, appear in different periods with variation in detail and interpretation. Temple art was not frozen in time.
Why would anyone assume that a symbolic scene copied centuries later must look identical to an earlier version?
It wouldn’t.
Fourth: funerary usage does not equal original purpose.
Egyptian religious imagery was fluid. Scenes that originated in temple or royal settings could later be adapted into funerary contexts. Symbolic systems migrate. Ritual meaning shifts.
So even if the surviving facsimiles appear within funerary papyri, that does not prove the image itself originated as a funerary concept.
Religious images get reused.
Fifth: Abraham was a significant figure in ancient Near Eastern memory.
Jewish and later traditions preserved accounts of Abraham interacting with Egypt, confronting idolatrous priests, and being associated with cosmological instruction.
The Apocalypse of Abraham and other Second Temple literature preserve Abrahamic traditions that involve divine throne scenes and cosmic instruction. These traditions are not modern inventions.
So when we see:
– A lion couch sacrificial-type image.
– Priestly figures.
– Divine presence symbolism.
– Astronomical or cosmological imagery.
It is not absurd to ask whether an earlier Abrahamic narrative could have been associated with such imagery before later Egyptian religious reinterpretation layered on its own meanings.
Sixth: critics assume we know everything.
We do not.
Egyptology continues to develop. New discoveries regularly revise earlier conclusions. Interpretations of iconography shift over time. What was once labeled purely “mummification” has, in some cases, been re-evaluated with greater nuance.
Dr. Kerry Muhlestein’s analysis emphasizes that Egyptian images are multivalent. They are symbolic, not photographic. They communicate layered theological meaning. Interpreting them as a single fixed narrative is reductionist.
Seventh: the most fragile assumption of all is that the surviving fragments were the source text Joseph translated.
We do not have the long scrolls described by eyewitnesses. Those were likely destroyed in 1871. If the Book of Abraham text came from a different portion of the collection, then arguments about the date or content of the surviving fragments do not settle the question.
So the “anachronism” claim depends on stacking assumptions:
– That the copies we have represent the original.
– That Egyptian iconography did not predate Abraham.
– That symbols never evolved.
– That funerary usage equals original origin.
– That we possess the full corpus.
Remove those assumptions, and the claim weakens considerably.
What we actually know is far more limited:
We have late Egyptian copies of religious imagery that resemble known iconographic traditions. We do not possess the entire papyrus collection Joseph had. We know Egyptian religion evolved and adapted across centuries. We know Abrahamic traditions circulated widely in the ancient world.
From that, declaring “this could not possibly have existed in Abraham’s day” is overreach.
Ancient religious images evolve.
Copies reflect later scribal environments.
Symbolism shifts across time.
And transmission history is complex.
That is not controversial.
It is basic ancient textual reality.
The Book of Abraham allegedly teaches that the Sun gets its light from Kolob, which critics say contradicts modern science.
First, slow down.
Does the Book of Abraham actually say that the Sun physically receives photons from Kolob?
No.
Abraham 3 speaks about governing order, reckoning of time, hierarchy, and comparative greatness. It uses language like “greater,” “governing,” and “set nigh unto the throne of God.” It describes systems of order and precedence.
That is theological language.
Critics read that language as astrophysics.
That is a category mistake.
Now ask the obvious question:
Do you really think the purpose of the Book of Abraham was to teach 19th-century astronomy?
Or was it teaching spiritual symbolism about divine order, priesthood hierarchy, covenant governance, and eternal intelligences?
The entire chapter is framed as revelatory cosmology tied to Abraham’s prophetic commission. It connects the structure of the heavens to the structure of intelligences and the organization of souls before the world was.
It is temple theology expressed through cosmic imagery.
Ancient religious texts regularly use celestial bodies symbolically. The greater and lesser lights in Genesis are not physics lessons. They are covenantal imagery of rule and order. Daniel and apocalyptic literature describe stars falling, shining, or being cast down as metaphors for spiritual beings and rulers.
Heavenly hierarchy has always been symbolic language.
Second, even if someone insists on reading it cosmologically, the text does not teach that Kolob emits physical sunlight.
It teaches governing order and precedence.
To “govern” in ancient language means to preside in authority, not to transmit electromagnetic radiation.
Genesis says the sun “rules” the day. No one thinks the Bible is teaching astrophysical dominance theory.
Third, critics appeal to “modern science” as if it is fixed, final, and permanently settled.
Do you really think modern science is at the peak of understanding and will never be revised?
The history of science is a history of revision.
The sun was once believed to be a solid body.
Then a burning coal.
Then powered by gravitational contraction.
Then nuclear fusion.
Dark matter and dark energy were unknown a century ago.
Cosmological constants shift as measurements improve.
Models of stellar formation and energy transfer are continually refined.
Scientific knowledge progresses precisely because it is provisional.
Theories evolve. Data changes. Paradigms shift.
So appealing to current cosmological consensus as though it is the final word in human understanding is historically naive.
Fourth, the Book of Abraham’s cosmology is not Newtonian and not astrophysical in structure.
It speaks of time reckoning differences between celestial bodies. That idea — differing orbital periods and relative motion — is not anti-scientific. It is observationally ancient. Babylonians tracked planetary periods long before modern astrophysics.
But again, the purpose of Abraham 3 is not to calculate stellar energy production. It is to illustrate order, hierarchy, governance, and divine proximity.
Kolob is described as “set nigh unto the throne of God.” That is theological symbolism.
Ancient Near Eastern cosmology consistently associated the highest heaven with divine presence. The highest star, the northern pole star, the “mountain of the gods,” all functioned symbolically.
Abraham 3 fits within that ancient pattern far more naturally than within a 19th-century science classroom.
Fifth, critics assume that if a sacred text uses cosmic imagery, it must be making a physics claim.
That assumption is ridiculously absurd and is contrary to everything we know about the ancient texts in the Old Testament.
Ancient people described spiritual truths through cosmic metaphors. Heaven was structured because divine order was structured. Greater lights symbolized greater authority.
The Book of Abraham uses the heavens to teach about intelligences:
“As one star differeth from another star in glory, so also is one intelligence above another.”
That is not astrophysics. That is spiritual anthropology.
Are you reading the text as sacred cosmology or as a NASA technical manual?
If you read it as a temple text about divine governance and eternal hierarchy, the supposed scientific contradiction disappears.
If you insist on flattening symbolic language into literal astrophysics, you create a problem the text never intended to solve.
And finally, the confidence critics place in current cosmological models as permanently correct is unwarranted.
Science refines itself.
Religious texts teach eternal enduring spiritual principles.
The Book of Abraham is about divine order, covenant destiny, eternal intelligences, and proximity to God.
It was never written to compete with astrophysical textbooks.
Parallels are claimed between the Book of Abraham and The Philosophy of the Future State (1829), a book owned by Joseph Smith.
No, we actually do not know that Joseph Smith personally owned The Philosophy of the Future State at the time the Book of Abraham was produced.
What critics usually point to is a later inventory of books associated with Joseph or his household. That tells us a copy may have been in his possession at some point. It does not tell us:
– When it was acquired.
– Whether it was his personal purchase.
– Whether it belonged to someone else in the household.
– Whether he ever read it.
– Whether he read it before 1835.
Those are not minor details. They are the entire case.
The Book of Abraham translation dates to 1835. Unless someone can demonstrate that Joseph owned and studied Thomas Dick’s book before that date, the sourcing argument has no chronological foundation.
And we have no such proof.
There is no journal entry saying he read it.
No letter referencing it in connection with Abraham 3.
No marginal notes.
No citation.
No contemporary witness claiming he used it as a source.
So the claim begins with speculation.
But even if we grant the strongest possible version of the argument — even if Joseph owned it and even if he read it — what exactly are the parallels?
General discussion of astronomy.
General discussion of divine order in the universe.
General acknowledgment that heavenly bodies differ in greatness.
That is not unique to Thomas Dick.
Psalm 19 speaks of the heavens declaring God’s glory.
Genesis describes greater and lesser lights ruling day and night.
Job describes constellations and the foundations of the earth.
Christian natural theology writers for centuries used astronomy to illustrate divine power.
Thomas Dick was not innovating. He was summarizing mainstream Protestant natural theology.
More importantly, Abraham 3 does not simply reflect generic astronomy. It pivots from celestial hierarchy to eternal intelligences, divine council themes, premortal existence, and covenant destiny.
Thomas Dick does not teach eternal co-existing intelligences organized before mortality. He does not present a council in heaven selecting souls. He does not frame cosmology as priesthood order.
Those are major structural differences.
The supposed parallels are broad thematic overlaps common to religious discourse of the time.
Owning a popular astronomy book does not equal literary dependence.
Reading about stars does not explain a theology of premortal intelligences.
So the argument amounts to this:
A book about astronomy existed.
Joseph may have owned it at some point.
Both discuss order in the universe.
That is not evidence of copying.
That is shared participation in a culture that believed God created an ordered cosmos.
Speculation about ownership is not proof.
Thematic similarity is not dependence.
And broad overlap does not equal plagiarism.
-
The Church now concedes that the Book of Abraham text does not match modern Egyptological translations, and critics claim the Church does not know how to respond to the issues.
Wait.
Match what original papyrus?
We do not have the original papyrus Joseph translated.
What we possess today are small fragments recovered in 1967. Those fragments are widely believed to have come from the mounted pieces that were preserved and later sold. Contemporary eyewitnesses, however, repeatedly described long scrolls in Joseph’s possession. Those longer rolls were likely destroyed in the Chicago Fire of 1871.
So when critics say “the text does not match,” they are comparing modern Egyptological translations of surviving fragments to the English Book of Abraham.
But those fragments were never demonstrated to be the source text of the Book of Abraham.
In fact, the Church openly acknowledges that the characters on the surviving fragments do not correspond to the English text of the Book of Abraham.
No one ever claimed that they did.
That concession is not an admission of fraud. It is a statement of fact about the fragments we currently have.
The key issue is this:
We do not have the entire collection Joseph had.
If the Book of Abraham text came from a portion of the papyri that no longer exists, then translating the surviving funerary fragment tells you nothing about the missing scroll.
That is not evasive. That is straightforward.
Second, critics often frame this as if the Church was forced into silence.
The Church has responded repeatedly and consistently.
The position has not changed:
The Book of Abraham was translated or revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God.
That claim has always been revelatory in nature. It was never presented as a conventional academic Egyptological exercise according to modern linguistic standards.
The Gospel Topics Essay on the Book of Abraham openly addresses:
– The dating of the fragments.
– The nature of the Book of Breathings text.
– The possibility that the original source scroll is missing.
– The concept of inspired or revelatory translation.
That is not avoidance. That is engagement.
Third, critics assume a modern model of translation.
They assume translation must mean word-for-word decoding of extant characters. But Joseph used the word “translate” in broader ways throughout his life. The Book of Moses was a translation of Genesis, yet it did not come from an ancient manuscript in his possession. The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible was revelatory expansion.Joseph was able to translate the Book of Mormon not because he understood reformed Egyptian but because he had seerstones that allowed him to receive the translation by the Gift and Power of God.
The term “translation” in Joseph’s usage included revelatory transmission.
That framework has been publicly discussed for decades.
Fourth, the Church does not deny that the surviving fragments are funerary texts. That is openly acknowledged.
What is not conceded is that those fragments represent the entirety of the papyri collection or that they were the textual source of the Book of Abraham narrative.
Those are separate claims.
And again, without the original scrolls, no one can definitively reconstruct what was on the missing portions.
Fifth, the idea that the Church “does not know how to respond” ignores the substantial body of scholarship and apologetic work produced over many years.
Extensive responses address:
– The transmission history of the papyri.
– Eyewitness descriptions of long scrolls.
– The relationship between the facsimiles and ancient iconography.
– The Kirtland Egyptian Papers and their chronology.
– Ancient Abrahamic traditions that align with the Book of Abraham narrative.
Serious engagement exists.
You can explore detailed responses below:
Book of Abraham Evidence and Context
-
Pearl of Great Price Central – Book of Abraham
https://www.pearlofgreatpricecentral.org/book-of-abraham
Focused articles on papyri history, facsimiles, translation models, and restoration context. -
Joseph Smith Papers – Book of Abraham Documents
https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/book-of-abraham
Primary source documents showing what Joseph Smith actually produced, claimed, and worked with. -
FAIR Latter-day Saints – Book of Abraham
https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Book_of_Abraham
Direct responses to common critical claims, including papyri fragments, translation assumptions, and facsimiles. -
Debunking CES Letter – Book of Abraham
https://debunking-cesletter.com/book-of-abraham/
Point-by-point examination of CES Letter assumptions and omissions related to the Book of Abraham. -
Scripture Central – Book of Abraham Evidence
https://scripturecentral.org/blog/40-insights-and-evidences-on-the-book-of-abraham-from-pearl-of-great-price-central
Scholarly but accessible material on ancient context, textual complexity, and restoration parallels. -
Church of Jesus Christ – Gospel Topics Essay: Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/translation-and-historicity-of-the-book-of-abraham
An official overview addressing papyri history, translation models, and scholarly debate. - Answering the Criticts
https://www.answeringldscritics.com/lds-critics-accusations/book-of-abraham
A collection of easy to understand documents and videos about what the Book of Abraham really is. - Anti-Anti Mormon – Abraham
https://antiantimormon.com/what-is-the-book-of-abraham/
A simple breakdown of all aspects of anti-mormon claims against the Book of Abraham. - Divine Code
https://divinecode.page/defense-of-the-book-of-abraham-its-not-funerary-text/