If Facsimile 2 is “just random Egyptian nonsense,” why did Joseph Smith keep landing on themes modern scholars say a hypocephalus was designed to teach?
Dear CES Letter,
You treat Facsimile 2 like an easy win. A weird circular Egyptian disk equals “Joseph guessed,” “Joseph invented,” “Joseph failed.”
But when I slow down and see what Facsimile 2 actually is, what it was used for, and what Joseph actually claimed about it, I keep running into the same problem.
Your argument depends on me believing Joseph got “lucky” over and over, in ways that are strangely specific.
What is Facsimile 2, actually?
Facsimile 2 is the printed version of an Egyptian object modern scholars call a hypocephalus, a disk placed with the dead and packed with cosmic and temple-style symbolism. Even critics usually admit that this genre is about cosmology, divine power, and transformation, not a simple “picture caption” like a children’s book.
So why do you frame it like Joseph took a normal Egyptian diagram, attached random Christian labels to it, and hoped nobody would notice?
If you want the reader to treat this fairly, shouldn’t we start with what scholars say a hypocephalus was for in the first place, and then compare that to what Joseph claimed? (For a quick, sourced overview of hypocephali and Facsimile 2, see Scripture Central’s Pearl of Great Price Central insights list, especially the entries on the hypocephalus and Facsimile 2 figures.)
Why does Joseph’s “big picture” keep matching THE big picture?
Here is what I cannot get past. Even when Egyptologists disagree on details, the general arc of Facsimile 2 in Egyptological terms is often described as a cosmic map tied to divine power, sacred knowledge, and the hoped-for transformation of the individual.
So why does Joseph’s explanation keep returning to:
- governing order in the heavens
- degrees and hierarchy
- keys and knowledge
- a journey toward a more divine state
If Joseph is just free-associating, why does he repeatedly land on the kind of themes modern scholarship expects from this genre?
And if this is all “obvious,” why didn’t the same obviousness produce easy, consistent explanations in Joseph’s world, in 1835, when essentially nobody around him could read these documents?
The “four quarters of the earth” problem
Let’s get specific.
Joseph said Facsimile 2, figure 6 represents “this earth in its four quarters.” That is his claim.
But in standard Egyptological discussion, the four sons of Horus are regularly tied to the four directions and cosmic ordering roles. Pearl of Great Price Central has a focused entry on the four sons of Horus in Facsimile 2, and why figure 6 maps well to that kind of function.
So how does your argument explain that? How does Joseph, with no training and no access to modern reference works, keep making these “lucky guesses” that land in the neighborhood of what specialists say these figures commonly represent?
See the Pearl of Great Price Central material linked through the Scripture Central index above, and the FAIR overview page for additional discussion:
FAIR: Book of Abraham Facsimiles, Facsimile 2
Figure 7 and the Problem “Joseph Was Guessing”
Joseph Smith said Figure 7 shows God sitting on a throne, exercising authority and revealing sacred knowledge. Egyptologists describe the same figure as an enthroned high god, often called “the Great God,” “Lord of Life,” or “Lord of All.” The figure is seated, elevated, and holding symbols of rule such as a flail, with an arm raised in a gesture of power and kingship.
That is not a random guess. Those details match how ancient Egyptians visually represented supreme divine authority. Joseph Smith did not name an Egyptian god or invent a story. He identified the role of the figure, and that role matches how the figure is understood today.
The figure beside the throne offers the Wedjat Eye, which Egyptologists say symbolized life, wholeness, protection, and restoration. This offering was tied to resurrection and divine renewal. Joseph Smith described this scene as God revealing power, priesthood authority, and divine order. That fits the function of the image.
The scene is about life, authority, and restoration, not decoration or mythological filler. Joseph Smith focused on what the figures were doing and what they represented. Modern Egyptology describes those same functions using different language. That alignment is specific, visual, and functional, and it is far more than simply making things up.
Figure 8 is not just “sacred” in general
This is where your framing feels especially thin.
Joseph did not merely say figure 8 is “sacred.” He said something far more restrictive and far more testable:
“Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.”
That is not vague devotional language. That is a claim about controlled access and temple context.
So here are the questions I cannot ignore:
- Had Joseph been to Egypt and studied temple architecture?
- Did he know anyone who had?
- Were Egyptian temple interiors and their restricted spaces even available for detailed architectural study in 1835 America?
- If not, why does he speak the way he does, as if he is pointing to temple-restricted knowledge instead of “general Egyptian religion”?
And if you say, “Well, he was just making a religious point,” then why does he anchor it to “the Holy Temple of God” instead of simply saying “sacred” or “mysterious”?
Temples, ascent, and the plan of salvation
I am not asking you to accept an LDS conclusion here. I am asking you to explain the pattern.
Latter-day Saint doctrine frames mortal life as part of a prepared plan: a premortal life with God, a descent into mortality, separation from God’s presence after the Fall, and then a covenant path back, through Christ, toward the tree of life and the presence of God. It includes gaining light “line upon line,” receiving priesthood order, and entering sacred covenants in temples with keys and signs oriented toward return.
So why do hypocephali, in general, keep showing up in scholarship as objects that deal with cosmic order, divine power, and transformation, the very kind of conceptual space Joseph keeps describing?
Is the claim really that Joseph accidentally built a temple-and-ascent shaped interpretation onto an artifact type that is often described as cosmic, ordered, and transformative?
Or is it at least plausible that Joseph was doing something other than what you keep insisting he was doing, meaning revealing doctrine through an ancient symbol set, in the same way prophets do when they use scripture, parable, ritual, and temple language?
FAIR directly addresses temple themes many Latter-day Saints see in Facsimile 2, including discussion that specifically engages figures and “keys” language:
“Egyptologists say X” is not the end of the story
You argue that if a modern Egyptologist assigns a meaning to each figure, then any deviation from that meaning proves fraud.
But even careful academic treatments acknowledge that these objects and symbols had long lives—changing functions, shifting contexts, and layered interpretations across centuries.
Even the Joseph Smith Papers note that the published explanation of Facsimile 2 reflects multiple strands of interpretation in the Kirtland and Nauvoo document trail, which immediately complicates any simplistic, one-to-one theory of what Joseph thought he was doing.
So why present this as if it were a settled worksheet with fixed answers?
And why insist that Joseph must have been attempting a modern, museum-label translation, when his consistent prophetic pattern was to reveal doctrine, order, and cosmology—often in explicitly temple-shaped ways—even when working with ancient texts and images?
Where I want you to answer plainly
I am not asking you to solve every detail of Facsimile 2. I am asking you to account for the repeated, specific “hits” that keep showing up when you stop treating it like a cartoon.
The problem is the assumption that there must be a one-to-one, fixed meaning for each figure—independent of time period, cultural setting, religious purpose, or audience.
That assumption ignores how these symbols were used across centuries, how their meanings shifted, and how Egyptian imagery was repeatedly reinterpreted by different religious communities, including Jews who rejected Egyptian god worship altogether.
You treat the late funerary use of these images as the final, authoritative meaning, while dismissing the possibility that Joseph was pointing back to an earlier, purer religious framework—one concerned with divine order, premortal life, mortal descent, and return to God.
In other words, you assume Joseph was trying to explain what a Ptolemaic Egyptian priest thought about false gods, rather than what Abraham taught about God’s plan of salvation.
Why is that assumption treated as self-evident, when it is precisely the point under dispute?
Can you just answer these questions for me?
When the symbols themselves predate Ptolemaic Egypt by centuries and carried layered meanings over time, why is Joseph judged exclusively against one late snapshot of Egyptian religion?
If Joseph was not attempting a museum-label translation at all, but teaching the plan of salvation revealed to Abraham, what exactly is your argument proving?