The CES Letter claims Joseph Smith was a false prophet because of how the Book of Abraham was “translated.”
But why did you assume the Grammar and Alphabet project was a translation attempt at all?
Dear CES Letter,
Your argument about the Book of Abraham leans heavily on one document set: the so-called Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language.
You present it as a failed translation key.
You treat it as Joseph Smith’s attempt to reverse-engineer Egyptian.
And from that assumption, you conclude fraud.
But your entire conclusion depends on a premise you ignored.
That the Grammar project was meant to translate Egyptian in the first place.
So let’s slow down and look at what the documents actually are.
What the GAEL Kirtland Egyptian Papers Actually Say
The primary document is literally titled:
“Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language”
That title alone has carried your entire argument. Did you even look at the papers? Did you even examine them? They are all published on the Joseph Smith Papers website.
Titles don’t tell us function. Especially if the Title is designed to be a coded message.
Inside the documents, the structure immediately raises problems for a translation theory.
Entries are organized by degrees, repeatedly labeled:
“1st Degree”
“2nd Degree”
“3rd Degree”
“4th Degree”
“5th Degree”
And sometimes further subdivided:
“5th degree, 1st part”
“5th degree, 2nd part”
That is not how languages work.
No known translation system assigns increasing layers of meaning to a single character based on “degree.”
But symbolic and theological systems do.
Translation Does Not Work Like This
If Joseph Smith were attempting to translate Egyptian:
• Why would a single symbol expand in meaning by degree?
• Why would the same character mean vastly different things at higher levels?
• Why would interpretation deepen instead of narrow?
Translation reduces ambiguity.
This system multiplies it.
That alone should have stopped the CES Letter argument. Why did you not pull it from your letter then? But that’s not all, there is so much more.
The Non-Egyptian Characters Problem
Here is something else you never confront.
Many characters in the Grammar project are NOT EGYPTIAN at all.
They are:
- Stylized
- Invented
- Repeated with variation
- Not attested in Egyptian
- Not copied from the fragments
This is undeniable when the documents are viewed side by side.
Joseph Smith actually possessed real Egyptian characters on actual papyri.
If his goal was translation, why invent symbols?
Why not copy directly from the papyrus?
Why construct a system that Egyptologists—then or now—could never recognize?
No translator invents fake letters when the real ones are sitting in front of him.
But someone developing a symbolic or coded teaching system might. Especially if actual Egyptian Characters were a little to complex to use for someone used to our standard alphabet.
The Doctrine and Covenants Problem
Here is a far bigger issue.
The Grammar project is also filled with ideas and complete scripture blocks that do not come from the Book of Abraham at all.
Instead, the concepts align directly with revelations already received, including:
-
Degrees of glory (D&C 76)
-
Light, truth, intelligence, order (D&C 88)
-
Authority, priesthood structure (D&C 107)
Those revelations date to 1832.
If the Grammar was built to translate Abraham’s text, why is it saturated with doctrines revealed years earlier?
Why does it function like a theological index, not a linguistic one?
Why does it organize meaning around cosmic order, authority, light, and progression?
A translation tool does not do this.
A doctrinal framework does.
Degrees Are Not Linguistic — They Are Initiatory
Degrees imply:
- Progression
- Restricted knowledge
- Deeper meaning revealed over time
- Instruction based on readiness
That language is not Egyptian.
Bit it is tied to sacred temple language.
And historically, this project appears to have been started before the first temple was dedicated.
Which raises an uncomfortable possibility for the CES Letter.
What if the Grammar project was not an attempt to decode Egyptian…
…but an attempt to organize, encode, and communicate sacred concepts before a formal ritual system existed?
Your argument assumes:
Grammar = Translation
Failure = Fraud
But if the Grammar was never meant to translate, your conclusion collapses.
An experimental, symbolic teaching system failing at translation proves nothing—because it was never trying to translate.
That makes your argument not just weak, but embarrassingly misclassified—relying on irrelevant information to support a conclusion it cannot reach.
How can Joseph Smith be portrayed as too inept to fake a translation method, yet somehow skilled enough to restore ancient Hebrew creation concepts that the King James Version does not preserve?
The Category Error
This is the core problem.
You treated a theological experiment as a linguistic project.
That is a category error.
It is like criticizing a map for not being a photograph.
Or condemning a temple ceremony for not reading like a dictionary.
The Question You Still Haven’t Answered
If Joseph Smith were attempting to fake a literal translation:
• Why invent non-Egyptian characters?
• Why organize meaning into degrees?
• Why embed earlier revelations from the Doctrine & Covenants instead of just the Abraham narrative?
• Why prioritize theology over language?
But if this was a symbolic, preparatory system for sacred instruction…
Everything fits.
So I’ll ask again, as plainly as possible.
Why did you assume an experimental coding project was an attempt at translation at all?