Why Does the CES Letter Ignore the Altar-to-Throne Pattern in Facsimile 3?
The criticism the CES letter makes against facsimile is totally predictable:
“Facsimile 3 is a funerary text, therefore Joseph Smith was wrong.”
That sounds persuasive only if the image is isolated from the rest of the Book of Abraham and stripped of its narrative setting and underlying meaning.
But Joseph Smith did not publish Facsimile 3 by itself.
He placed it after Facsimile 1 and Facsimile 2.
Facsimile 1 shows Abraham at the altar. He is under the power of a false priesthood. He is surrounded by idolatrous authority. He is facing death. This is Abraham at the lowest point of the story, threatened by counterfeit religious power and saved only by divine intervention.
Facsimile 2 then opens the heavens. The story moves into stars, governing bodies, sacred time, priesthood knowledge, Kolob, and divine order. Abraham is no longer only the man rescued from sacrifice. He becomes the prophet taught the structure of the cosmos.
Then Facsimile 3 shows a throne scene beneath a star-filled canopy. Joseph Smith identifies Abraham as sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, reasoning upon the principles of astronomy in the king’s court..
That is the exact sequence of the story of progression told in the Book of Abraham:
altar → heavens → throne
sacrifice → revelation → authority
false priesthood → divine order → vindication
The CES Letter framing completely misses this explanation of temple progression.
Critics want Facsimile 3 to be reduced to “Egyptian funerary scene,” as if that phrase answers everything. But the image does not fit the standard weighing-of-the-heart judgment scene critics often imply. The major judgment elements are missing compared with other Book of Breathings texts:
- There are no scales.
- No heart being weighed against the feather of Ma’at.
- No Ammut waiting to devour the condemned.
- No Thoth recording the judgment.
- No normal judgment procession.
- No four sons of Horus on a lotus.
So why keep calling it a standard judgment scene, when this one is unique?
It is better described as a throne or presentation scene with judgment-related meaning. That distinction matters because Joseph Smith’s explanation is full of throne, authority, judgment, and astronomy language. Those are exactly the themes the image visually presents.
The star canopy is especially difficult for critics to wave away. The Book of Abraham is saturated with astronomy. Abraham is shown the stars. He learns of governing bodies. He is taught divine order, sacred time, and the relationship between heavenly powers. Then Facsimile 3 places the throne scene under stars and Joseph Smith says Abraham is teaching astronomy.
Why is that treated like coincidence?
Oh yeah, and the Bible does not tell the story of Abraham teaching astronomy to the Egyptians. But ancient apocryphal and Jewish historical texts do. Pseudo-Eupolemus says Abraham taught astronomy to Egyptian priests. Artapanus says Abraham taught Pharaoh astrology. Josephus says Abraham brought arithmetic and astronomy from Chaldea into Egypt.
And how did he know this? Those sources weren’t available in English in Kirtland in 1835?
If Joseph Smith was just guessing, why does the final image visually fit the astronomy theme that dominates the surrounding text?
Why ignore how well Facsimile 3 reverses Facsimile 1.
In Facsimile 1, Abraham is under false authority.
In Facsimile 3, he is associated with royal authority.
In Facsimile 1, Abraham is bound to an altar.
In Facsimile 3, he is connected with a throne.
In Facsimile 1, false priests try to destroy the rightful priesthood heir.
In Facsimile 3, Abraham stands vindicated, teaching divine knowledge in the king’s court.
That is not a mistake in placement. That is narrative completion.
The CES Letter argument depends on flattening the image. It works only if the reader never notices the progression. It works only if Facsimile 3 is detached from Facsimile 1 and one accepts that it is exactly the same as other Books of Breathing — which it isn’t! It works only if the star canopy is ignored. It works only if the throne imagery is treated as irrelevant. It works only if Joseph Smith’s explanation is judged by the narrowest possible surface reading rather than by the structure of the Book of Abraham itself.
There is also an ancient Abrahamic context critics rarely deal with. Later Jewish tradition, including the Testament of Abraham, places Abraham in scenes of heavenly judgment, moral evaluation, and divine authority. That means Abrahamic figures and Egyptian-style judgment imagery were connected in the ancient world. How did Joseph Smith know that? How did he get this one right?
Facsimile 3 may have an Egyptian funerary layer. But the problem is pretending that layer exhausts the image’s meaning.
Ancient religious images in the Ptolemaic Egyptian world where Egyptian, Jewish, and other religious ideas overlapped carried multiple meanings. And these meanings tell the full temple progression narrative in different degrees and layers depending on the key used to unlock the additional code.
Somehow Joseph knew exactly where Facsimile 3 belongs. Abraham begins at the altar, receives heavenly knowledge, and ends in a throne scene under the stars. The threatened prophet becomes the teacher of divine order. The victim of false priesthood becomes the bearer of true priesthood knowledge. The story moves from sacrifice to revelation to authority.
If Facsimile 3 completes Abraham’s movement from altar to heavens to throne, why does the CES Letter treat it like a random Egyptian picture instead of confronting the story it visually completes?