Jennifer Roach Lees holds a Master in Divinity as well as a Masters in Counseling Psychology. She is a licensed mental health therapist and lives in Utah.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 – Jennifer Roach Lees appeared first on FAIR.

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:

The Interpreter Foundation and Redbrick Filmworks continues to release a new episode of their not-for-profit series of mini-documentaries titled Becoming Brigham each Monday.

Over the past few weeks, they have released the following episodes:

Episode 15: “Did Brigham Young and Emma Smith ever get along?”

How did Emma’s deeply personal, spousal view of Joseph differ from Brigham Young’s reverent, disciple-like view of the Prophet? In what ways did both Emma and Brigham remain deeply loyal to Joseph Smith, even though they expressed that loyalty very differently? Camrey interviews historian Dr. Casey Griffiths about the complex and often misunderstood relationship between Brigham Young and Emma Smith. He highlights trauma, grief, and clashing priorities as central causes of the tension. Emma was a widowed mother trying to protect and provide for her children in Nauvoo, while Brigham felt responsible for leading thousands of Saints safely west. Griffiths emphasizes that there are no clear villains in the story. Both Emma and Brigham were acting from sincere, faithful places amid immense loss and pressure.

Episode 16: “Who was more loyal—Emma Smith or Brigham Young?”

How did Emma’s deeply personal, spousal view of Joseph differ from Brigham Young’s reverent, disciple-like view of the Prophet? In what ways did both Emma and Brigham remain deeply loyal to Joseph Smith, even though they expressed that loyalty very differently?

The hosts reflect on the contrasting ways Emma Smith and Brigham Young related to Joseph Smith and how those differences contributed to tension after his death. Camrey and Johnny discuss how Emma knew Joseph intimately as his young wife — seeing both his prophetic calling and his human weaknesses — while Brigham knew him primarily as a disciple knows a prophet, showing deep reverence and unwavering loyalty to every revelation Joseph taught. And yet, despite their differences, both Emma and Brigham died calling upon the name of Joseph, each cherishing the Restoration in their own way.

Episode 17: “Was Zion’s Camp Formative or a Failure?”

Was Zion’s Camp a failure—or one of the most important experiences in Brigham Young’s life? When does a peaceful people have the right to fight back? The hosts examine the tension between the Latter-day Saint commitment to peace and the violent realities of early American history. The discussion turns to Zion’s Camp, the 1834 expedition to Missouri that Brigham Young went through as a formative spiritual experience under the guidance of Joseph Smith. Though often viewed as a military failure, the discussion turns to how Joseph Smith deliberately chose a peaceful resolution over armed conflict after receiving a revelation that the camp should return home rather than fight.

Watch all the episodes on the Becoming Brigham YouTube channel. If you want to be notified when new episodes are published, just click Subscribe on the Becoming Brigham YouTube channel.

The episodes are hosted by Camrey Bagley Fox (who portrayed Emma Smith in the Interpreter Foundation’s films Witnesses and Six Days in August), John Wilson (who played Brigham Young in Six Days in August), and Daniel C. Peterson (president of the Interpreter Foundation and retired BYU professor of Islamic studies and Arabic). Each episode features footage shot on location in New York, Ohio, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, and Utah, as well as extensive interviews with Latter-day Saint historians who are experts on the subjects being discussed. The series is rooted in scholarship. The list of contributors includes historians trusted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why this docuseries? Many people are aware of Brigham Young as a pivotal figure in American religious and frontier history, but Brigham is also often misunderstood, seen as a larger-than-life caricature rather than as a man. Who actually was Brigham as a man, a father, a husband, and a prophet? The video web series Becoming Brigham debunks fictions and provides surprising new insights into the real Brigham Young. Learn more in the article “Becoming Brigham: The Video Series Premieres.”

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints find themselves in a most unusual position. We believe in God, the Eternal Father. We believe in Jesus Christ, accept his gospel, acknowledge him as Savior, Lord, God, and King. We look to him for forgiveness of our sins and declare that salvation comes in and through his name and in no other way (Philippians 2:9-11). We strive to live our lives according to his example and teachings and are committed to the fact that the depth of our Christianity is most evident, not in theological gymnastics, nor in a received vocabulary, but rather in the way we treat other men and women. We exercise hope in the immortality of the soul, a belief that we will live again after death, because Jesus himself rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:21-22). And yet, interestingly, many in Christendom declare that the Latter-day Saints are not Christian.

Reasons for Exclusion

Non-acceptance of the Doctrine of the Trinity

Perhaps more than any other reason, Latter-day Saints aren’t considered to be Christian because of our non-acceptance of the post-New Testament creeds and theological formulations concerning Christ and the Godhead, beginning with the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Latter-day Saints do believe there are three members of the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that each of the members of the Godhead possesses all of the attributes of Godliness in perfection; and that the love and unity that exist among these three Persons is of such magnitude that they constitute a divine community that is often referred to in the Book of Mormon as “one eternal God” (see 2 Nephi 31:21; Alma 11:44; 3 Nephi 11:27, 36; 28:10; Mormon 7:7). 

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland stated: 

We believe these three divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance, a Trinitarian notion never set forth in the scriptures because it is not true …

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief,” Elder Holland affirmed, “nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect to their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

Were they not Christians?

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints pray to God the Eternal Father, in the name of Jesus Christ, by the power of the Holy Ghost; we acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of our worship (John 5:19, 26; 7:16; 14:28; D&C 20:19) and confess the Son of God as our Lord and Redeemer, our one and only hope for deliverance from sin and death in this world, as well as our glorious hope for  eternal life in the world to come. We teach of the Holy Spirit as the Messenger of the Father and the Son, the Revealer of the mind and will of God, and the Sanctifier, the means by which filth and dross are burned out of the human soul as though by fire. We are encouraged and charged by our leaders to seek the constant companionship of the Spirit, to attend to its promptings, to follow its lead.

We baptize people “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (3 Nephi 11:23-26; D&C 20:73-74). And, for that matter, the highest ordinance or sacrament within our Church, eternal marriage, received only in the temple, is performed in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In short, the Latter-day Saints live and move and have their being by and through the members of the Godhead; ours is a lived rather than a spoken or creedal connection to these holy beings. 

Scripture Beyond the Bible

Another reason for the exclusion of Latter-day Saints from the category of Christian is because we do not believe in the sufficiency of the Bible. In point of fact, to state that the Bible is the final word of God—more specifically, the final written word of God—is to claim more for the Bible than it claims for itself. We are nowhere given to understand that after the ascension of Jesus and the ministry and writings of those first century apostles, that revelations from God that would eventually take the form of written scripture and thus be added to the canon, would cease. As Joseph Smith taught, one would need to have received a modern revelation in order to know for certain that there will be no more revelation beyond the Bible.

So why was the canon of scripture closed? Emeritus Professor Lee M. McDonald, an Evangelical Christian scholar, posed some fascinating questions relative to the present closed canon of scripture. “The first question,” he writes, “and the most important one, is whether the church was right in perceiving the need for a closed canon of scriptures.” McDonald also asks: 

Did such a move toward a closed canon of scriptures ultimately (and unconsciously) limit the presence and power of the Holy Spirit in the church? More precisely, does the recognition of absoluteness of the biblical canon minimize the presence and activity of God in the church today? … On what biblical or historical grounds has the inspiration of God been limited to the written documents that the church now calls its Bible?

While McDonald poses other issues, let me refer to his final question: “If the Spirit inspired only the written documents of the first century, does that mean that the same Spirit does not speak today in the church about matters that are of significant concern?”

Indeed, we might ask: Who authorized the canon to be closed? Who decided that the Bible was and forevermore would be the final written word of God?  Why would one suppose that the closing words of the Apocalypse represented the “end of the prophets”? Latter-day Saints find themselves today in a hauntingly reminiscent position relative to the continuing and ongoing mind and will of God. Is ours not the same basic message that Jesus and Peter and Paul and John delivered to the unbelieving Jews of their day—that the heavens had once again been opened, that new light and knowledge had burst upon the earth, and that God had chosen to reveal himself through the ministry of his Beloved Son and his ordained apostles?

Let’s be clear on this matter: no branch of Christianity limits itself entirely to the biblical text in making doctrinal decisions and in applying biblical principles. Roman Catholics turn to scripture, to church tradition, and to the magisterium or teaching office in the church for answers. Protestants, particularly Evangelicals, turn to linguists and scripture scholars for their answers, as well as to post-New Testament church councils and creeds. This seems, at least in my view, to be in violation of Sola Scriptura, the clarion call of the Reformation to rely solely upon scripture itself. In fact, there is no final authority on scriptural interpretation when differences arise, which of course they do regularly.

 “When [traditional Christians] accuse Mormons of not believing the Bible,” Professor Stephen Robinson has written, “they usually mean that we do not believe interpretations formulated by postbiblical councils. If [traditional Christians] are going to insist on the doctrine of sola scriptura [scripture alone] … then they ought to stop ascribing scriptural authority to postbiblical traditions.”

Would the early Christians who had for decades had access only to the Gospel of Mark (considered by most Biblical scholars to be the first Gospel written) have considered the deeper spiritual realities set forth later in the Gospel of John to be a portrait of “a different Jesus”?  Hardly. Thus the current mantra of “Latter-day Saints worship a different Jesus” is a sad, misguided, and too often malicious misrepresentation of the way things really are. Latter-day Saints clearly worship the historical Jesus, the Christ of the New Testament—the man who was born in Bethlehem, lived and ministered during the reign of Tiberius Caesar, functioned under the oversight of Caiaphas (Jews) and Pilate (Romans), gave his life as a sacrificial offering to atone for the sins of humankind, and rose from the grave in glorious resurrected immortality. That there may be differences on certain points of theology is not unimportant, but it does not merit the misleading concept that Latter-day Saints somehow worship a “different Jesus.” Supplementation of the Bible is clearly not the same as contradiction of the Bible.

One wonders whether modern conservative Christianity may unwittingly have created a type of double standard in terms of (a) what is required to be saved, and (b) what it takes to be a Christian. 

In the New Testament and at the time of Paul’s and Silas’s miraculous release from prison, the Philippian jailer asked the question of questions: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And [the apostles] said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” Paul wrote to the Roman Saints that “if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation … For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” 

Could it be, then, that a Latter-day Saint who professes total faith in and reliance upon Jesus Christ and who seeks in gratitude to keep his commandments, can be saved but at the same time not qualify to be called a Christian? That seems strange at best.

What Kind of a Christian?

Sadly enough, the one feature and facet of Christianity with which too few seem to concern themselves is what might be called orthopraxy—how we act, how we live out our Christian faith. Jesus charged his disciples: “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” In assessing whether a man or woman is a true follower of the Savior, a Christian, we might ask: How does this person treat others, especially those who believe or act differently? Is the manner in which a person presents the gospel message such that the gospel may be perceived as “good news”?

Is this person’s speech and interpersonal relations such that people feel welcomed and appreciated, rather than spurned and rejected? To what extent does this person’s faith community feed the hungry, care for the poor, respond swiftly to natural disaster, or otherwise involve itself and its members in extending and disbursing Christian charity? This is how the first century saints were known and identified, and it is today a pretty persuasive evidence of the depth of one’s Christianity. The age-old question is still poignant and haunting: “If you were arrested and were to be tried for being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?”

The fact is, no mortal man or woman is in a position to judge, to discern and perceive the depths of another human soul. No one of us has within his or her grasp the data, the delicate details, to so determine. C. S. Lewis, the beloved Christian writer and defender of the faith, a man whose focus on “mere Christianity” has made him a favorite of millions, declared: “It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the spirit of Christ. We do not see into men’s hearts. We cannot judge, and indeed are forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense … When a man who accepts the Christian doctrine lives unworthily of it, it is much clearer to say he is a bad Christian than to say he is not a Christian.” 

What Exactly is a Christian?

A Christian is one who is a follower of Jesus. No one of us has the power or right to look into the hearts of men and women and discern the reality of their Christianity or the depths of their commitment to the Son of God. Faith is a personal matter and is really between that person and God. What then are some standard definitions of a Christian, put forward by more traditional Christians?

From the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary: “A believer in the religion of Christ; professor of his belief in the religion of Christ; one who … studies to follow the example, and obey the precepts, of Christ.”

From The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: “A member of a particular sect using this name”; a civilized human being; a decent, respectable person.”

From the Harper’s Bible Dictionary: “Christian’ is the term that was increasingly applied to Jesus’s followers in the late first and early second centuries.”

From the Holman Bible Dictionary: “an adherent of Christ; one committed to Christ; a follower of Christ.”

In the Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms: “a name applied originally in Antioch to followers of Jesus Christ (Acts 11:26) and now used to designate those who believe in Jesus Christ and seek to live in the ways he taught.”

From The Amsterdam Declaration (2000): “The word Christian should not be equated with any particular cultural, ethnic, political, or ideological tradition or group. Those who know and love Jesus are also called Christ-followers, believers and disciples.”

Some friends of other faiths have suggested to me that it appears that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is seeking to move into “the mainstream of Christianity.” To be sure, Latter-day Saint leaders have encouraged members of the Church to get to know their neighbors better; to be more involved in community, civic, and political affairs; to show greater love, acceptance, and tolerance for those of other faiths; and, in general, help the world to better understand us. In addition, our Church is seeking to be better understood, to teach our doctrine in a manner that would (a) allow others to see clearly where we stand on important issues, and (b) eliminate misperceptions and avoid misrepresentations.

To be honest, it would be foolish for Latter-day Saints to stray from their moorings and seek to blend in with everyone else in the Christian world. People are joining our Church in ever-increasing numbers, not because we are just like the Roman Catholics or the Greek Orthodox or the Baptists or the Methodists or the Presbyterians or the Anglicans down the street. These people choose to leave their former faith and be baptized into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because of our distinctives; our strength lies in our distinctive teachings and lifestyle. In that spirit, President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

 Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world’s perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine. We have the same organization. We labor to perform the same good works … They are coming to realize what we stand for and what we do.

Joseph Smith once observed: 

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.

 There is too much at stake in the world today for God-fearing people to spend their time and energies attacking, belittling, or misrepresenting those who choose to believe differently. Jesus certainly called us all to a higher standard than that. What was his plea in prayer for his followers only hours before his sufferings and death? “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”  

The post Latter-day Saints and the Christian World appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

The Church has more than 84,000 full-time teaching missionaries serving in 451 missions in 150 countries worldwide. Thousands of young and senior service missionaries also serve in various capacities.

In July, the Church will open 55 new missions to accommodate a growing number of missionaries already called. The addition will bring the total number of missions to 506 and allow missionaries to better support the growing number of congregations worldwide.

In the October 2025 general conference, Elder Quentin L. Cook reported “a remarkable increase in converts and convert participation.” Nearly 900,000 converts joined the Church in the past three years, he said, constituting nearly 5% of the total Church membership. Conversions in the first half of 2025 also rose by more than 20% over 2024 in Europe, Africa, Asia, the Pacific and Latin America, and 17% in North America.

Related articles:

• “New Video Offers Rare View Into Missionary Training Center“
• “The Church of Jesus Christ Announces the Addition of 55 New Missions in 2026“

The post How The Church’s Missionary Work Is Expanding first appeared on LDS365: Resources from the Church & Latter-day Saints worldwide.
Continue reading at the original source →]]>Mon, 18 May 2026 11:23:00 -0700tag:nothingwavering.org,2009-01-12:_80644https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2026/05/18/come-follow-me-with-fair-joshua-1-8-23-24-part-1-autumn-dicksonnoreply@nothingwavering.org (No Reply)Isaac HolyoakWhy They Marched Around Jericho 7 Times

by Autumn Dickson

The Fall of Jericho is epic for many reasons. There are a lot of details that we could talk about that would teach us about the Savior, but let’s just cover a few.

Jericho was a large city that was meant for the Israelites. The Lord was helping them gain their land one bit at a time. When Jericho saw the Israelites coming, they closed their gates and settled in for a siege. The Lord commanded the Israelites to circle the city every day for six days. Then on the last day, they were to do this.

Joshua 6:15 And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times.

I can’t speak for the whole of the commandment (walking once a day for six days); I would need to study it further. However, I want to talk about the last day. The Israelites were to walk around the city seven times, trumpets would blow, and the people were to start yelling. They did so, and the walls fell. The Israelites flooded in and took the city. No one was spared except for Rahab and her house because she had helped the Israelites.

It is significant that the Israelites had to walk around Jericho seven times. Seven was a symbol of the covenant, and it was also symbolic of fullness or being complete. Jericho was the promised land; the Israelites needed completeness.

In the New Testament, the Lord commands His people to be perfect. Perfect was a translation from the word “teleios,” which has an alternate translation. It also means “end” or “complete.” The Savior might also be commanding His people to reach their full spiritual maturity in comparison to going constantly without error.

I find it beautiful that the Israelites needed to symbolically be “complete” in order to enter the promised land. I also find it beautiful that their completeness didn’t make the walls come down. They needed to keep the commandment to go around the city seven times, but that’s not what brought them into the promised land. Here is another important verse.

Joshua 6:16 And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the Lord hath given you the city.

The walls hadn’t fallen down yet when Joshua said this to the people, and yet, Joshua is speaking as though it already happened. “The Lord has given you this city, so shout!” Joshua knew the promises of the Lord were good for the money. He had no doubt that the city was their’s, and it reflected in the way he spoke to the Israelites.

So what do we learn from this?

The Lord was the one who brought them into the promised land, and He did so after they had become complete.

The Lord is the one who brings us into heaven, and He does so “after” we are complete.

I use quotation marks because “after” is a bit relative. There are many aspects of heaven that we already get to enjoy: family relationships, peace, freedom from past sins, and many more. In some ways, the Lord has already allowed me into heaven. I know that those blessings are a direct result of His atonement, and yet, He still wants me to walk towards completion. It is only when we have become complete, that we can truly enjoy heaven.

For example, in my imperfection, I am still working on fully appreciating the most important things in order to bring more heaven into my life. Because of my insistence on completing tasks, I often prioritize my to-do lists over my relationship with my kids. It is very difficult for me to set aside these tasks that I make monumentally important in my life, and my ability to feel heaven suffers. I inadvertently start to view my kids as obstacles rather than the treasures that they are, and my happiness lessens because of it. I get irritable and don’t treat them as good as they deserve, or I simply don’t go out and be with them.

Becoming complete isn’t about never losing my temper again, though that’s a nice side effect. Becoming complete is about spiritually maturing. It means taking a step back often enough that I change. I change to value my kids the way that Heavenly Father values me, and as I do that, I find more happiness than I could ever find within my completed tasks. It means that I become the kind of person who no longer feels a need to yell; it’s much better than trying the perfectionist route.

As I walk towards completeness, I gain more and more access to the promised land. This is not because I’m taking a hammer to the walls. I just work towards spiritual maturity, and the Savior is the one who actually delivers the promised land. He is the only one who can offer the promised land. We can’t get it ourselves; it has to be given to us. And yet, the Lord still asks us to walk towards completeness. He does this because it’s no use being in the promised land if we’re all keeping ourselves from being happy through our own values and choices.

The Lord asks us to keep His commandments and change towards completeness, but keeping His commandments doesn’t earn heaven. It enables us to appreciate the heaven that He is delivering to us.

The Old Testament is cool. The scriptures are cool. The Lord knows exactly what He’s doing as He tries to teach us about the reality of the Plan of Salvation. The more I study the scriptures, the more I see that He knows what He’s doing.

I testify that the Lord knows us. I testify that He is the One who delivers heaven through His sacrifice. He gives it to us. It’s a gift. He simultaneously pushes us and gives us commandments because He knows our growth is essential for our happiness. We can’t enjoy His gift unless we become like Him. I’m grateful for His sacrifice, His commandments, and His support every step of this process. I’m grateful He loves me enough to work this hard for my joy and benefit.

Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Joshua 1–8; 23–24 – Part 1 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

Download Print-Friendly Version

Dear Mayor Hubbard,

We write to you not as The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor on behalf of it, but as members of that church scattered across the country who have watched the Fairview temple controversy with growing concern. We know municipal leadership is hard. We know neighbors can disagree in good faith. We have often worked with our neighbors to get temples approved in our communities. We know growth can bring friction, and that public officials often inherit tensions they did not create. We also know that the language leaders use can either heal a community or quietly inflame it.

That is why your renewed request that the Church voluntarily lower the Fairview Texas Temple steeple deserves a candid response, not from the Church, but from its people. The town approved a 120-foot steeple more than a year ago; construction is now underway; and your latest appeal asks the Church to reopen what had already been mediated, compromised, approved, and begun.

The Church could have made this a courtroom fight from the beginning. It could have pressed for the original plan, with a steeple reported at roughly 174 feet—nearly 50% taller than the design now approved. Instead, after mediation, it reduced the project to the 120-foot steeple now under construction. The Church also accepted a slew of other concessions as part of a “neighborly” agreement. The concessions were not trivial. They were attempts to recognize your priorities and work with you. 

So when, after all that, you suggest that the “neighborly” thing would be still another reduction, many of us hear something more troubling than a plea for harmony. We hear a public official redefining neighborliness as surrender. We hear an approved agreement treated as merely the latest opening bid. We hear a handshake being turned into a pressure campaign.

That is not a compromise. It is a way of poisoning the well. It says to the public: if the Church builds what your town approved, then the Church has chosen legalism over love, rights over respect, height over harmony. But the Church already compromised. Fairview already approved. Construction already began. At some point, “please compromise” stops sounding like reconciliation and starts sounding like bad faith.

Nor is it serious to argue that because the Church has built smaller temples or steeples elsewhere, it must therefore build this temple smaller too. A smaller building in one city is not a perpetual promise never to build a larger one. Fairview’s own records show that religious-facility heights have historically been handled case by case, including approval of a 154-foot bell tower for Creekwood United Methodist Church. We noticed that distinct treatment. 

We understand that change is hard. Fairview sits in a region that is changing quickly. The Census Bureau reports that Dallas-Fort Worth grew 11% since 2020, with especially significant growth on the metro’s outer edges. Four of the country’s five fastest-growing cities are small cities in the DFW area. Latter-day Saints are part of that growth, too. The Church has tens of thousands of members in North Texas, and we need temples to serve them. Perhaps the character of Fairview that needs to be preserved is how you treat everyone in your city. Perhaps treating your neighbors of different faiths like they belong is the character that should be preserved. We’re not intruders. We’re neighbors. 

You can still be the neighborly one here. You can say, “We disagreed. We debated. We mediated. We both gave a little. We approved. And now we will honor what was approved.” That’s the neighborly thing to do. And mayor, if you don’t stop this passive-aggressive campaign, perhaps it’s you who’s chosen not to be neighborly. 

The Church is building the temple Fairview approved. It is not unneighborly for us to ask you to honor that.

Respectfully,

C.D. Cunningham

The post An Open Letter to the Mayor of Fairview, Texas appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In his April 2026 General Conference address, “Come Home,” Clark G. Gilbert teaches that no matter how far we may feel from God, the Savior is actively and personally inviting us to return.

But that invitation raises an important question: If Christ is calling us back, what is our role in actually coming home?

To those who are struggling to come home, know that it is your Savior who’s the one calling you back.

Common Criticism: “If God wants me back, He’ll just bring me back.”

Some may believe that if returning to God truly matters, it will happen naturally or automatically—that change will come without much personal effort.

Fallacy at Work: Passive Redemption

This belief assumes that spiritual change happens to us rather than with us.

It overlooks a central gospel truth: God invites, but we must choose.

Doctrine: Christ Calls, We Respond

Elder Gilbert teaches that the Savior is the one calling us back—but He does not force our return.

The pattern of the gospel is clear:

• Christ invites
• We act
• He receives

Scripture reinforces this partnership:

• “Draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you” (Doctrine and Covenants 88:63)
• “Return unto me, and I will return unto you” (Malachi 3:7)

The Savior’s role is constant love and invitation.

Our role is to decide to move toward Him.

Elder Gilbert’s Correction

Elder Gilbert emphasizes that coming home is not passive.

It requires:

• A decision
• A turning of the heart
• A willingness to act

Even small steps matter, but they must be chosen.

Solution

The Savior is already calling. The question is whether we will respond.

Living Apologetics: Choosing to Come Home

It’s possible to feel the pull toward God and still hesitate.

• Waiting until we feel more ready
• Waiting until we feel more worthy
• Waiting until circumstances are better

Elder Gilbert’s message is clear: The invitation is now. The decision is ours. Coming home doesn’t require a perfect plan. It requires a willing step.

That step might be:

• Offering a sincere prayer
• Returning to church
• Letting go of something that creates distance
• Simply deciding: I want to come back

The Savior is already reaching toward us. But we must choose to move toward Him.

Practical Apologetic Use 

If someone says: “If God wants me back, it’ll just happen.”
You can respond: “Elder Gilbert teaches that Christ is already calling us—but we still have to choose to respond. Coming home starts with a decision.”

Ways to Apply Today

1️⃣ Make a conscious decision today to move closer to Christ, even in a small way.
2️⃣ Act immediately on a prompting that invites you to reconnect with God.
3️⃣ Stop waiting for the “right moment” and take one step now.

Keep This Talk With You

Elder Gilbert reminds us that coming home is not about waiting—it is about choosing.

The Savior’s invitation is constant. 

He calls in moments of strength.
He calls in moments of struggle.
He calls even when we feel far away.

But He does not force the journey.

He invites it.

This week:

• Recognize the call. Notice how the Savior is inviting you closer.
• Make a decision. Choose to respond, even in a small way.
• Take a step. Act on that decision without delay.

As we do, something powerful begins to happen. Distance begins to close, hearts begin to soften, and direction becomes clearer.

We realize that coming home is not something we wait for; it is something we choose.

What step will I choose today to respond to the Savior’s invitation and come closer to Him?

The Consider Conference series by FAIR offers an in-depth look at recent General Conference talks to help members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints navigate common questions, misunderstandings, and criticisms. Each post provides doctrinal insights, historical context, and practical ways to apply gospel principles in everyday conversations. Through this series, we hope to equip readers with faith-promoting resources that encourage thoughtful reflection, respectful dialogue, and a stronger foundation in gospel truths, fostering both personal conviction and meaningful discussions with others.

The post Come Home appeared first on FAIR.

The Church has released a new video “What It’s Like Inside the Missionary Training Center.” Go inside the MTC for a candid, fun tour of daily missionary life. See how missionaries learn, grow, and prepare to serve around the world.

Watch the video “What It’s Like Inside the Missionary Training Center” below:

Watch more videos from the Church.

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.

by Autumn Dickson

In the chapters this week, Moses is led to the top of a mountain where he is shown the promised land.

Deuteronomy 34: 1, 4

1 And Moses went up from the plains of Moab unto the mountain of Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is over against Jericho. And the Lord shewed him all the land of Gilead, unto Dan…

4 And the Lord said unto him, This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying, I will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither.

Interestingly enough, despite the fact that the Lord led him there to show him the promised land, Moses wasn’t allowed to go into the promised land because of prior disobedience. He had led the Israelites out of Egypt and across the wilderness. It had not been easy. At one point, Moses had even asked the Lord to kill him rather than deal with the Israelites anymore. Moses suffered plenty of hardship, and he learned many great and important lessons.

But despite this, Moses was still not allowed to step foot in the promised land. The Lord held true to Moses’ consequences for disobedience. According to modern revelation, Moses was translated and taken up to the Lord before the Israelites entered the homeland that was meant for them.

Details are always key. One of the details this week is the fact that Moses was taken up into a mountain where he could overlook the promised land that he couldn’t enter. Mountains in scripture are often compared to temples. Holy things often take place on the tops of mountains, and the Lord gives knowledge and power to some of His children in the tops of mountains. Hold that thought.

I wonder how he felt looking over the lands that were meant to be the inheritance of the Israelites. Did it hurt him that he would not be joining them or had he come to terms with the consequences that had been laid out for his disobedience? Did it hurt to see what had been meant to be his inheritance? Did it hurt to see the promises of the Lord that he would not be receiving?

Whether it hurt or not, I can assure you that it no longer hurts Moses. He was translated, and he ended up in a different promised land than he had pictured or seen on the top of that mountain. It was a better promised land. Yes, Moses is just fine.

I have found a surprising pattern in my life. I have multiple friends who dislike the temple, not because they don’t agree with what happens there, but because they can’t see the promises of the Lord being fulfilled for them. I have friends who have faced infidelity or family members who don’t want to participate in ordinances in the the temple. Going to the temple and hearing the promises that were meant to be theirs doesn’t feel particularly good. It is painful to hear about it and desire it deeply and not have current access to it.

I fully recognize that I have not been in their shoes, nor do I understand what it’s like to feel barred from those promises. Even as I share my testimony of these things, I fully own that I dont understand what it’s like to have to come to terms with feelings like that.

But sometimes objectivity is precisely what is needed. Strong emotions can be so overwhelming that it’s difficult to see the end from the beginning.

So let me testify of the end.

Moses did not enter into that promised land here. He could see it. He was so close, but it was something that wasn’t available to him.

I promise you that he’s okay. More than that, I promise that he is far more than okay. The Lord has taken care of Moses beautifully.

There are two specific promises I want to testify of if you are facing the same problem as Moses or my friends. If you feel that there is no happy ending in sight, these are the promises I want you to hold to.

Promise one. There is a promised land available for you even if it feels like mortality is barring you from in it one form or another. Mortality is not strong enough to keep you from your Savior’s ability to give you a joyful existence. He is mighty to save. He can take care of you. You are not actually barred from those promises.

And in all honesty, you don’t even have to wait to step foot in the promised land.

Moses’ disobedience was what kept him from the promised land, and even his own disobedience didn’t ultimately keep him from eternal joy. If you feel innocently barred, then Satan is lying to you. Christ can offer peace and comfort right now. You can go to the temple and listen to the promises and cling to them. Find comfort in them. You don’t have to know the how in order for those promises to take affect in your life. Those promises ARE for you even if you don’t know exactly how they will look.

And if you don’t feel strong enough to cling to those promises, He has the power to bring peace even when it’s illogical. You can go to the temple and call upon the blessings He promised you there. You can tell Him, “I’m here. I came like You asked. Can you help me feel peace?” And then allow Him to offer peace. Allow Him to comfort you.

Unfortunately, sometimes promises of joy feel empty without our loved ones who refuse their own promises.

Which brings me to promise two. The Lord can take care of those around us, just as He can take care of you.

Elder Orson F. Whitney, an apostle, taught this:

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught a more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return.

I don’t believe the sealing power only applies to children. There is a reason we all get sealed together; I believe this likewise applies to spouses who have chosen to stray. The Lord has a plan for everyone who ever lived upon the earth to be sealed together. That sealing power is so strong.

And in the meantime, He will sorrow with you. He knows what it’s like to watch loved ones stray. He cannot force them to come back, but He knows how to succor you in your pain. He knows exactly how you feel, probably even stronger because His love is deeper. Take comfort in the fact that He has found eternal joy and hope. You can too.

Looking at the promised land doesn’t have to feel painful. I testify that if Moses had seen what was coming for him, any sting from being barred from the promised land would have been soothed. It would have had no power because Moses knew what the Lord had in store for him. We can be like Moses. If you could see the end, it would take away much of the sting for you as well.

I testify that as we consciously strive to strengthen our testimonies of His promises, we find the balm He promised us now, not just in the next life. I testify that the Savior can deliver on His promises of eternal joy. I testify that the ending is beautiful. I testify that He knows how to reach our loved ones, and we can trust Him with them.

Autumn Dickson was born and raised in a small town in Texas. She served a mission in the Indianapolis Indiana mission. She studied elementary education but has found a particular passion in teaching the gospel. Her desire for her content is to inspire people to feel confident, peaceful, and joyful about their relationship with Jesus Christ and to allow that relationship to touch every aspect of their lives. Autumn was the recipient of FAIR’s 2024 John Taylor Defender of the Faith Award.

The post Come, Follow Me with FAIR – Deuteronomy 6–8; 15; 18; 29–30; 34 – Part 2 – Autumn Dickson appeared first on FAIR.

As the Church Educational System programs continue to grow, they provide a much-needed antidote to the pessimism and despair many young adults today are experiencing.

Last week at a media event celebrating these achievements, Elder James R. Rasband, a General Authority Seventy and newly appointed Commissioner of the Church Educational System, spoke about the need for and benefits of religious practice among young adults.

He pointed to a recent report from the Wheatley Institute, which analyzed thousands of studies related to the relationship between mental health and faith. The study found that “Across mental, physical, and social domains, the best available scientific evidence consistently shows that religious involvement is associated with improved outcomes for individuals and for society.”

And dosage matters, he explained. A recent analysis of Pew data conducted by political scientist and statistician Ryan Burge shows that people who attend church weekly or more are about twice as likely to report being “very happy” compared to their nonreligious peers. The “happiness gap” is strongest among the youngest cohorts. “There’s no other way to spin this data,” Burge has written.

Providing frequent touchpoints is important at a time when emerging adults are delaying or rejecting traditional markers of adulthood and reporting lower levels of overall well-being. This time in life is typically marked by identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling, and a wide-open sense of possibility. It can be a meaningful developmental season, but when young people lack strong institutions, mentors, shared moral expectations, and real communities, exploration can turn into aimlessness.

In a national poll conducted last year by the Harvard Kennedy School Institute of Politics, 57% of respondents ages 18 through 30 said getting married is important, and only 48% said the same about having children. Fewer than half felt a sense of community, and only 17% reported deep social connection.

It is exactly that kind of belonging that the Church Educational System programs are trying to create. Brother Chad Webb, first counselor in the Sunday School General Presidency and administrator of Seminaries and Institutes of Religion, said much of the increased enrollment in Seminaries and Institutes of Religion is due to the growth of the BYU–Pathway Worldwide program, which requires all students to take institute. But leaders are also intentionally targeting two areas in which students express the most interest: relevance and belonging.

Church education is serving these students’ academic needs as well. The Pathway program, which provides access to affordable certificates and degrees offered in partnership with BYU–Idaho and Ensign College, served nearly 90,000 students in 180 countries last year. This program is for Latter-day Saint students and nonmembers alike. A perhaps lesser-known program for secondary school students called Succeed in School is also providing academic support to students across the globe, with current programs throughout Africa, the Pacific, and the American Southwest, and plans for continued growth. About 96% of students involved in this program pass their respective countries’ high-stakes academic testing.

Seminaries and Institutes of Religion are also responding to students’ practical needs. The newly created Life Preparation lessons in Seminary are designed to help students develop emotional resilience, succeed in school, prepare for future education and missionary service, build healthy habits, become self-reliant, and prepare for temple covenants and family life. The Church’s Life Skills for Self-Reliance course similarly helps young single adults explore education and career options, find employment, develop study skills, prepare for interviews, manage money, create budgets, and avoid unnecessary debt. These are not separate from the spiritual aims of Church education, but rather part of them. Instead of providing yet another way for young people to escape responsibility, these seminary and institute programs teach that discipleship is a way to meet those responsibilities with faith, competence, and hope.

At a recent devotional celebrating Institute milestones, President Dallin H. Oaks, president of The Church of Jesus Christ, emphasized the individual spiritual growth available to students who take Institute classes. 

We live in a day when noise and confusion are common. In contrast, at institute you will learn to distinguish truth from error, build your relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son Jesus Christ, find direction, and discover answers to life’s greatest questions, meet others to help you down the covenant path, and meet people who you may choose to date and marry, and prepare to love and lead like the Savior. … I promise that your time in Institute will bring the Savior’s peace, joy, and divine love.

Despite the excitement for such incredible growth, Webb said, “Ultimately church education needs to be about ministering to the one, whether numbers go up or down.” The numbers are worth celebrating, but the deeper promise of church education is found one student at a time building faith in the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The post A Million Students, One Covenant Path appeared first on Public Square Magazine.

In commemoration of its 20th anniversary, LDS365 has updated its design.

For 20 years, LDS365 has been the go-to place to strengthen Latter-day Saints 365 days a year.

• Resources from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Learn about new or updated Church websites, videos, digital publications, training, music, mobile apps, and other materials for individuals and families.
• News about the Church and about members around the world.
• How to use social media and technology to build families, strengthen faith in Jesus Christ, and share goodness with others.
• LDS resources for living with life’s challenges. Visit our Life’s Challenges page for help with issues such as abuse, depression, disabilities, suicide, mental health, pornography, and same-sex attraction.
• Resource pages with hand-curated lists of the best resources for Latter-day Saints, such as LDS-related websites, scripture translations, mobile apps, and lists of Church social media accounts.

There’s a lot of great stuff out there and we help you find it!

How to Follow LDS365

• Email. Subscribe to our daily email to get articles delivered right to your inbox. See the subscription box at the top right of the LDS365 home page.
  
• Instagram. Go to the LDS365 Instagram page (Instagram.com/LDS365) and click Follow.
• Facebook. Go to the LDS365 Facebook page (Facebook.com/LDS365) and click Following, and then choose See First in your News Feed.
• X (formerly Twitter). Subscribe to the @LDS365 X account and click Follow.
• LinkedIn. Go to Larry Richman’s LinkedIn page and click Connect.
• YouTube. Subscribe to the LDS365 YouTube channel.
• Tumblr. Follow at LDS365.tumblr.com.
• Truth Social. Go to the LDS365 page on Truth Social and click Follow.

History

• On July 5, 2006, Larry Richman launched ldsWebguy.com, with tips on creating LDS websites and blogs, using social networks, keeping your family safe on the Internet, and using other kinds of media in productive ways. Note that Larry Richman has no affiliation with the current website ldsWebguy.com.
• On June 10, 2008, additional authors joined the team and the website was rebranded LDS Media Talk. The focus was to help members and leaders become more aware of the availability and purpose of Church resources. The site had a total reach of over 100,000 from 168 countries. Note that Larry Richman has no affiliation with the current website LDSMediaTalk.com.
• On July 5, 2018 (the 12th anniversary), LDS Media Talk was rebranded LDS365.com.
• On November 4, 2025, we published our 5,000th article on LDS365.com.

LDS365.com is not owned, operated, funded by, or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The views expressed herein are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Church.

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.

But today it has taken on a more bureaucratic feel. The old “UFO” has become the “UAP,” an unidentified anomalous phenomenon. The phrase feels less theatrical, but the fascination is the same. Americans still want to know whether the strange lights in the sky are drones, balloons, sensor errors, secret aircraft, or something stranger.

But while these conversations have historically been sidelined as conspiracy theories that serious people don’t engage in, that has changed. Former President Barack Obama recently made headlines for saying he believes aliens are real. Congress held public hearings on UAPs, including a 2024 hearing titled “Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena: Exposing the Truth,” followed by continued congressional requests for records and video files in 2026. NASA convened an independent UAP study team and concluded that the subject deserves a rigorous, evidence-based scientific approach. Since 2010, up to 70 planets have been discovered that are in the “habitable zones” of their star systems. The 2025 documentary “The Age of Disclosure” included interviews from military pilots, Department of Defense officials, Congressional Representatives and Senators, a Former Director of National Intelligence, and the Secretary of State. And the Pentagon began its release of UFO files. 

The sudden official sheen to this conversation has intensified the cultural imagination. While there have been no likely or definitive conclusions that extra-terrestrials have visited Earth, the question is being taken seriously in a way it never has before.

Aliens and Religion

A 2021 Pew survey found that just over half of Americans said military reports of UFOs were probably or definitely evidence of intelligent life beyond Earth. Religious Americans were somewhat less likely than the unaffiliated to say intelligent extraterrestrial life exists. 

For many, the religious question is obvious: What would happen to faith if we discovered we are not alone?

At the same time, the most careful surveys complicate the popular assumption that religion would collapse under the weight of alien life. Ted Peters’ “ETI Religious Crisis Survey” tested the idea that contact with extraterrestrial intelligence would produce a religious crisis, and found that most religious respondents did not expect their own tradition to collapse. Interestingly, religious people were often less worried about their own faith than secular respondents were about religion in general. In other words, the people most confident that aliens would destroy religion were often people outside religion looking in.

But if intelligent life exists elsewhere, how could aliens and religion fit together? How would faith survive this change to our paradigm of life and creation?

I want to explore that question within the context of my own tradition, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In my view, Latter-day Saints are unusually well-suited to think about the possibility of alien life. That does not mean we should credulously accept every sensational claim or canonize every blurry Pentagon video. Our faith does not depend on crashed saucers, whistleblower testimony, or the latest congressional hearing. But, if extraterrestrial life were discovered—microbial, animal, or intelligent—it would not require Latter-day Saints to rebuild their theology from the foundation up. In many ways, the foundation is already there.

Latter-day Saint scripture has never pictured creation as a small, sealed human stage with Earth alone under the eye of God. It teaches “worlds without number,” heavenly parents, faraway stars, and an infinite atonement. The Restoration certainly did not shrink the Christian cosmos. 

A Cosmos That is Already Full

The first reason Latter-day Saints need not panic over the possibility of extraterrestrial life is simple: our scriptures already teach that God’s creations extend far beyond this earth.

In the Book of Moses, Moses is shown a vision of the earth and its inhabitants and then learns that God has created “worlds without number” through the Only Begotten. The scripture does not explicitly state, but heavily implies, that many of these worlds were inhabited by children of God (and the chapter summary states that). It implies that these many worlds are part of God’s plan to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children.

Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) section 76 is even more direct. In Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon’s vision of the degrees of glory, they testify that by Jesus Christ “the worlds are and were created,” and that “the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God.” This is the most direct reference in Latter-day Saint scripture to inhabitants of multiple worlds. It does not merely say that God made stars, planets, or matter. He made inhabitants. And it places those inhabitants in a familial relationship to God. D&C 93 similarly teaches that worlds were made by Christ. 

D&C 88 describes that Christ is the light that is the sun, moon, stars, and earth, and the light that “fills the immensity of space.” Scripture then teaches that God created other worlds, they have inhabitants, those inhabitants are children of God, and it is Christ’s light that is on all of them.

It doesn’t say what our relationship is or will be with those inhabitants of other worlds. 

Modern Church leaders have repeatedly returned to this theme. Late Church President Russell M. Nelson taught that the earth is only one of many creations over which God presides, and he cautioned that our knowledge of the Creation is limited and will be augmented in the future. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has used the vastness of the universe to emphasize not human insignificance, but divine love; the God who created worlds without number still knows and values His children.

Elder Neal A. Maxwell, who also served in the Quorum of the Twelve, made the same point. He taught that the Restoration explicitly affirms a plurality of worlds and that God’s universal majesty does not make Him less personally involved in our individual lives. He said, “How many planets are there with people on them? We don’t know. There appears to be none in our own solar system, but we are not alone in the universe. … God is not the God of only one planet!”

These scriptural statements, and the interpretation from Church leaders, establish a basic theological posture. Latter-day Saints do not approach the universe assuming that human beings on Earth are the only rational creatures God has ever loved.

Creation is Not Random 

Latter-day Saint theology does not treat these worlds as mere divine trophies. The God of Moses creating these many worlds does not do so merely to display his power. He creates because He is a Father. This is the center of Moses 1. The scale of creation makes divine parenthood feel inexhaustible.

This is crucial for thinking about alien life. If there are living organisms elsewhere, they are not theological clutter. They are part of creation. If there are intelligent, morally accountable beings elsewhere, they are not an embarrassment to Christian doctrine. They would be evidence that God’s family is as large as we imagined.

Abraham 3 gives Latter-day Saints a distinctive vocabulary for this question. It speaks of intelligences, of differing degrees of intelligence, and of God as greater than them all. Whatever else this passage means, it resists the idea that human life is a late accidental spark in a meaningless universe. Intelligence, agency, hierarchy, progression, and divine governance are built into reality. 

But none of these possibilities would make God smaller. 

Are They Children of God?

The hard theological question is not whether extraterrestrial life could exist. In Latter-day Saint thought, it clearly can. The harder question is what kind of life it would be. 

Latter-day Saint theology distinguishes between different forms of life. Plants, animals, mortals, and resurrected beings do not occupy the same moral or salvific category. So if life exists elsewhere, the first theological question would not be “Are they aliens?” It would be, “Are they God’s spirit children?”

D&C 76 provides the strongest reason to believe that at least some inhabitants of other worlds are indeed sons and daughters of God. President Joseph Fielding Smith, a former prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ, similarly taught that the Father, through His Only Begotten, created worlds without number and that these worlds are peopled by His spirit children. 

That does not require us to assume that every organism in the cosmos is spiritually equivalent to human beings, but it implies we should be open to the idea that some are. It also doesn’t answer whether other worlds are populated now, were populated in the past, or will be populated in the future. But it does mean that Latter-day Saints already have a category for non-earthly persons who belong to the family of God. 

This is where Latter-day Saint theology differs from a thin human exceptionalism. We do believe human beings are made in the image of God. We do believe this earth has sacred significance. We do believe Jesus Christ was born, died, and rose here. But we do not believe God’s love is provincial. The fact that He is our Father does not prevent Him from being Fathers to others. 

As anyone who is not an only child knows, a sibling does not reduce the love you receive from a parent. 

One Savior, Many Sheep

One of the more difficult questions about extra-terrestrials and traditional Christianity has often been the Incarnation. If Christ was born on this Earth, does that make Earth cosmically unique? Would He need to be incarnate, suffer, die, and rise again on every inhabited world? Are there multiple falls, multiple redemptions, multiple atonements? 

Latter-day Saint leaders have generally answered by affirming both the local reality of Christ’s mortal ministry and the cosmic scope of His redeeming work. 

Nelson taught that the Atonement of Jesus Christ is infinite, not merely in duration, but in scope, extending to all humankind and to the infinite number of worlds created by Him. This gives Latter-day Saints a powerful doctrinal framework. We do not need to imagine a weak, local Christ whose saving power stops at the atmosphere. Nor do we need to multiply incarnations beyond what has been revealed. We can affirm what scripture and prophetic teaching affirm: Jesus Christ is the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh, the Creator of worlds, the Redeemer, and the Lord of the universe.

That does not resolve every mechanics-of-salvation question. But questions remain even without the addition of extraterrestrial life. If intelligent beings on other worlds fall, how is Christ revealed to them? What ordinances do they receive? Do they have prophets? Do they have scriptures? We don’t know.

The Book of Mormon prepares Latter-day Saints for the idea that God’s dealings with one people are never the whole story.

In 3 Nephi, Jesus tells the Nephites that He has “other sheep” who are not of Jerusalem and not of the Nephite land, and that He must go show Himself to them. I’m not suggesting Jesus was implying he was visiting other worlds, but underlining the idea that there are always more children of God for Christ to minister to. 

Christ’s self-disclosure is not limited to the records we presently possess. There are divine visits not recorded in our canon. Latter-day Saints have an open canon. If God has had dealings with other worlds, that would not offend the structure of our faith. 

Do we know? No, but not being told is not the same as being trapped. Latter-day Saints are comfortable with revealed patterns and unrevealed details. We know enough.

What If They Are More Righteous Than We Are?

Latter-day Saints should be cautious about imagining ourselves as cosmic tourists or missionaries. We have been given commandments, covenants, priesthood keys, and missionary obligations for this world. We do not possess a revealed commission to carry ordinances to hypothetical civilizations in another solar system. If God has children elsewhere, He is capable of revealing Himself to them, calling prophets among them, appointing ordinances suited to His law, and gathering them in His own order.

The aliens say that they love Jesus, and that He comes to visit every few years.

The pope is shocked. “Every few years, but He hasn’t even come a second time yet?”

The aliens feel bad, and try to help, “Maybe He doesn’t like your chocolate.”

The pope confused asks, “Chocolate? What does chocolate have to do with anything?”

“Well,” the aliens explain, “every time he comes we give him a big basket of chocolate. Why, what did you give to Him?”

Jokes aside, another possibility is exactly what the joke posits, that intelligent extraterrestrial beings do exist, and they are not invaders or monsters or lost pagans waiting for us to teach them about God. They might be more obedient, unified, humble or righteous than we are. 

Again, Latter-day Saint scripture leaves room for such a possibility. Abraham 3 teaches that intelligence differ and that God is greater than them all. This should help discipline our imaginations. Much of our alien fiction is really human self-projection. Sometimes aliens are our fears, sometimes our aspirations. Latter-day Saint theology gives as a less sentimental and more serious possibility. Other beings could simply be God’s children. Some wicked, some innocent, some righteous. 

What if There is No Alien Life?

A sound theology must also account for the other possibility: that we may never discover intelligent extraterrestrial life. The current evidence certainly does not prove alien existence, let alone alien visitation. Serious Latter-day Saint thinking should not build spiritual excitement around speculation that may collapse under scrutiny.

If no alien civilization is ever found, however, Latter-day Saint theology remains untouched. “Worlds without number” does not need to mean that human scientists in 2026 can identify, contact, or verify those worlds. God’s creations may be distant in space, separated by time, hidden by limits of observation, or simply beyond our stewardship. 

This helps protect us from two opposite errors. If the skeptic says, “If aliens exist, religion is false,” and enthusiasts say “If UAPs are real, my religion is confirmed,” Latter-day Saints should reject both. Our faith is grounded in Jesus Christ, his covenants, and the witness of the Holy Ghost—not in the newest unidentified object.  

The Restoration gives us a capacious cosmos, but it does not require gullibility. 

A Theology Big Enough for Discovery

So where does that leave us?

No matter what we discover, or don’t discover, the theological center holds. The Latter-day Saint doctrine of creation is already cosmic. The doctrine of God is already parental. The atonement of Christ is already infinite. And our understanding of revelation is already open. 

Not every speculation has, or even needs, an answer. We do not know whether any UAP represents extraterrestrial intelligence. We do not know what they look like, we do not know what their history is, or what their relationship is like to Christ. 

But we know enough that we do not need to fear that a discovery of aliens will upend our theology or understanding of the cosmos. We already know our Earth is small, but important eternally.

The discovery of alien life would not make the gospel any less true. It might just remind us that God’s household is larger than we suppose. That wouldn’t upend our beliefs. In fact, it sounds quite familiar. 

The post Aliens and Latter-day Saint Theology appeared first on Public Square Magazine.