“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:15 am
Your analysis of Lindsay is admirable.
Joseph Smith wrote:Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Image

There are nine characters *IN* which the “NAME” of King Pharaoh may be designated. Jeff Lindsay has focused on just one of those characters, the throne hieroglyph. He hypothesizes that Smith symbolically referred to the person of Fig. 2 as King Pharaoh solely based on the reason that the top right hieroglyphic character is a throne or a seat that is fit for a king, therefore, that designates a king. But what’s the name? That is where Lindsay really comes up short in his excuse to paint a picture other than the one Smith painted. Joseph Smith and Jeff Lindsay are at odds. They simply don’t agree. Smith said there is a “name” *IN* the characters and Lindsay can’t produce or come up with a name by using those characters. All he can do is support the title of kingship due to a king’s throne but no king’s name!

Lindsay is well aware that Fig. 4 is supposed to be the prince and “WRITTEN ABOVE THE HAND” details the appropriate information that designates that prince including his proper name. Lindsay also knows, which disturbs him greatly, that above Fig 5 the name “Shulem” is “represented by the characters above his hand” and there are many characters in which that name may be spelled out in the writing. But in the case of Fig. 2 we have just 9 characters for the name of the king and that name is yet to be produced by Mormon apologetics!

Jeff Lindsay can’t tell us the name and neither can Egyptologists Gee & Muhlestein.

WHY?

Because there is no king’s name given in the characters above the head of Fig. 2. No NAME other than that of Isis, the wife of Osiris.

Hence, Joseph Smith was wrong.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: Jeff Lindsay

Post by Philo Sofee »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:14 pm
Jeff Lindsay wrote:I'm not going to dump the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith because of this gross deception that has been abundantly documented by Shulem and dozens of others an apparent minor error. But if you're looking for a reason to abandon both, this proven deception is as good as any...
Jeff Lindsay failed to mention that you could simply replace the dead horse of the Book of Abraham with a working knowledge of the new movie Dune in order to boost your faith in Joseph's prophecies. Remember what Joseph said about the Gom Jabrar, how Elder Vladimir Harkonnen should receive new Temple building contracts, and how the FAIR Legion of Imperial Sardaukar should debate RFM.
:lol: Always such a joy and a laugh to read. What a fine start to my day. Love you bird!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Conversations with Jeff Lindsay

Post by Shulem »

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

But why did Joseph say Shulem's name is on the Facsimile, when it isn't? I don't know.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Jeff, we agree that the name is not on the Facsimile but what we don’t agree on is why it’s not on the Facsimile. I believe Joseph Smith was lying. You don’t believe he was lying, yet you can’t explain why the name is not on the Facsimile. Doesn’t that indicate that the translator (Smith) might be lying?


What do you mean, “perhaps”? It’s either mistaken or it’s not. Which is it, Jeff? It can’t be both. It’s either right or wrong. I say it’s WRONG! Will you agree with me on that point?

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

Perhaps something has been switched or lost that would clarify things.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

You mean the ole switcheroo? Something got switched? Revelation gone wrong, perhaps? Do recall that Smith had two rolls that he garnered from the mummies, namely, the rolls of Abraham & Joseph, written by their very hands. Recall the commentary by those who described the rolls, one of which was written rather poorly in black ink only and the other much finer in black and red rubrics. I don’t think anything got switched! They carefully cut the papyri in pieces and placed the fragments in frames. Smith planned on hanging them up in the Nauvoo temple. Everything was carefully and meticulously accounted for and nothing got switched.

The name “Shulem” is not found in the characters above the hand of Fig. 5. The registers are full of characters. Nothing is missing. They’re all there. Same goes for the 9 characters above the head of Isis. All the characters are in that single register. Nothing is missing. Nothing got switched. That’s just wishful thinking on your part, Jeff, because you know Joseph Smith got it wrong and you can’t explain why to your readers.

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

Perhaps Joseph was just dozing here, while still getting inspiration on many aspects of the story.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Is that what you really think, Jeff? Seriously? Smith was just dozing while getting revelation? And did he do that for the Explanations of Facsimiles 1 & 2 as well? Did Smith doze while dictating Sections of the D&C and get things wrong there too? I can find things that are wrong in the D&C just as I can in the Facsimiles. There is a clear pattern of error in Smith’s revelations.

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

Could there be some aspect of correctness in what Joseph said about Shulem?
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Like the name “Shulem” actually written in the writing? The answer is categorically, “No”. There are no aspects of what Smith said about Fig. 5 that are correct. The Egyptian writing does not correspond with what Smith said about Fig. 5. It’s really that simple. It’s an open and shut case. Nonetheless, you’re welcome to open the case and explain it if you can.

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

Joseph's comment regarding Figure 5 is "Shulem, one of the king's principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand." What does "represented" mean? Is a symbolic representation of the waiter sufficient, or does it need to literally spell out Shulem? I don't know.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

I think what Smith meant by “represented” was that the hieroglyphic characters above the hand was a combination of characters used by the Egyptians to formulate the name “Shulem”. The same definition would apply to English letters forming a name such as “JEFF LINDSAY” and being placed atop your photo to designate your image with your name. I think that’s what Smith meant. I also think that is what everyone else thought he meant when he published it.

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

I lean toward the possibility that Joseph understood the scene that was meant to be conveyed by the editors of the Book of Abraham with their adaptation of an Egyptian drawing, but that Joseph made a mistake in assuming that Shulem's name was written on the facsimile by his hand.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

You’re making stuff up out of thin air. This is an apologetic magician’s trick to introduce something that does not exist in order to take our eyes off the ball and forget about the original problem at hand. This business about “editors” and “adaptation” is smoke and mirrors in an effort to alleviate the discomfort in knowing Joseph Smith got it wrong. It matters not how much or less Smith may have “assumed” Shulem’s name was written in the writing -- the fact is he DECLARED it by revelation and it has been canonized.

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

However, if subsequent information reveals that there was another drawing that Joseph's comments better fit, or that Shulem's name is somehow represented in other ways on that drawing or on the orignal drawing that went with the Book of Abraham, then I'll be OK.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Subsequent information to prove that Joseph Smith was correct will never come to light. Why? Because Joseph Smith was wrong. You said so yourself. But you’re vacillating on whether to just give up and admit it without trying to justify his error. Jeff, two wrongs don’t make a right. Smith was wrong, period. Nothing is ever going to come along and justify those characters to form or represent the name “Shulem”. The Egyptian scribe who wrote those characters would never agree with Joseph Smith but would deny it and accuse the Mormon prophet of misrepresenting his words. Nobody likes to be misrepresented, not in ancient or modern times!

Jeff Lindsay wrote:Image

For now, in light of abundant evidences that Joseph understood some broad and counterintuitive Egyptian concepts associated with the facsimilies, I'm not going to dump the Book of Abraham or Joseph Smith because of an apparent minor error. But if you're looking for a reason to abandon both, this is as good as any--and yet I think you'd be making a mistake far more serious than Joseph's.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

A “minor error”? What would be a MAJOR error? How big does that error have to be in order for you to dump Smith’s revelation? The bottom line, Jeff, the Explanations tendered by Smith are not true. Who believes them? You? I don’t think you do. What you believe is that Joseph Smith was somehow still a prophet getting revelation even though some of that revelation was wrong and therefore not true.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem

Jeff Lindsay wrote:
Image

Perhaps Joseph was just dozing here, while still getting inspiration on many aspects of the story.
Questions About the Book of Abraham, Part 2: Evidences for Plausibility

Shulem RIGHTLY asks:
Is that what you really think, Jeff? Seriously? Smith was just dozing while getting revelation? And did he do that for the Explanations of Facsimiles 1 & 2 as well? Did Smith doze while dictating Sections of the D&C and get things wrong there too? I can find things that are wrong in the D&C just as I can in the Facsimiles. There is a clear pattern of error in Smith’s revelations.
Jeff Lindsay here really does demonstrate he doesn't have a clue about revelation, let alone demonstrating conclusively he himself obviously has never had one... You are entirely right in calling Lindsay out hard on this piece of skull-duggery. Lindsay ought to hang his head by using this idiotic defense. Yeah if the option is Joseph dozes during revelation, then all of his revelations are worthless. That Lindsay doesn't even recognize that is proof enough his depth of knowledge is about an inch, though his breadth may be a 100 feet wide.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:57 pm
Jeff Lindsay here really does demonstrate he doesn't have a clue about revelation, let alone demonstrating conclusively he himself obviously has never had one... You are entirely right in calling Lindsay out hard on this piece of skull-duggery. Lindsay ought to hang his head by using this idiotic defense. Yeah if the option is Joseph dozes during revelation, then all of his revelations are worthless. That Lindsay doesn't even recognize that is proof enough his depth of knowledge is about an inch, though his breadth may be a 100 feet wide.

Philo,

It must be disconcerting to know that Jeff Lindsay still links to your defunct website using links which are fully accessible through the INTERNET ARCHIVE Way Back Machine. He uses your old apologetic material to help save testimonies!

Maybe you should consider contacting Lindsay and request that he discontinue his links to your defuncted apologetic material.

Mormanity is my LDS blog. wrote:
Image


Also consider the works of Kerry Shirts at his Website (now archived),

"Mormonism Researched."


1) See Kerry Shirts' article, "Abraham 3:13 - Shinehah - the Sun: Joseph Smith Shines Through on This One Also ."

2) Research on the LDS scriptures, including the Book of Abraham, and related topics

3) Kerry Shirts reveals the desperate nature of an argument from Charles Larson Video: Suspecting Joseph Smith for Allegedly Sloppy Restoration of Facsimile 2?

4) Another review of several scholarly sources linking Abrahamic traditions to Egyptian sources is given by Kerry Shirts in his article, "The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham."

Etc.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

QUESTION FOR JOHN GEE

Dr. Gee,

There are a total of NINE characters in the label above the head of Fig. 2. Clearly, the register is full. All characters are present and accounted for. None are missing. This is not a case of missing characters in a missing roll; we see them and know that they are there. Those are the VERY SAME EXACT characters Smith saw when he interpreted or translated the text when he stated by revelation, “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.” We need not refer to the Kirtland Papers, the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, or any of the translation manuscripts in those works. All we need do is refer to the NINE characters in the register in which Smith looked at with his own eyes when he read or gave the translation.

You will note that the 5th character from the top reading down is the Egyptian hieroglyph for a human mouth. I need not tell you about the characteristics of that sign. You know full well how it’s used and employed in the Egyptian language, as do I. So, with that said, I respectfully request that you open your mouth and tell me who the king is whose name is given in the characters of the register which Smith interpreted. What is that king’s name and in which dynasty did he reign?

Sir, if you can’t do that or refuse to do that then you automatically concede the argument that Joseph Smith could not translate Egyptian and the revelation so stated for Facsimile No. 3 is untrue.

Shulem
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 4:48 am
Philo Sofee wrote:
Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:57 pm
Jeff Lindsay here really does demonstrate he doesn't have a clue about revelation, let alone demonstrating conclusively he himself obviously has never had one... You are entirely right in calling Lindsay out hard on this piece of skull-duggery. Lindsay ought to hang his head by using this idiotic defense. Yeah if the option is Joseph dozes during revelation, then all of his revelations are worthless. That Lindsay doesn't even recognize that is proof enough his depth of knowledge is about an inch, though his breadth may be a 100 feet wide.

Philo,

It must be disconcerting to know that Jeff Lindsay still links to your defunct website using links which are fully accessible through the INTERNET ARCHIVE Way Back Machine. He uses your old apologetic material to help save testimonies!

Maybe you should consider contacting Lindsay and request that he discontinue his links to your defuncted apologetic material.

Mormanity is my LDS blog. wrote:
Image


Also consider the works of Kerry Shirts at his Website (now archived),

"Mormonism Researched."


1) See Kerry Shirts' article, "Abraham 3:13 - Shinehah - the Sun: Joseph Smith Shines Through on This One Also ."

2) Research on the LDS scriptures, including the Book of Abraham, and related topics

3) Kerry Shirts reveals the desperate nature of an argument from Charles Larson Video: Suspecting Joseph Smith for Allegedly Sloppy Restoration of Facsimile 2?

4) Another review of several scholarly sources linking Abrahamic traditions to Egyptian sources is given by Kerry Shirts in his article, "The Book of the Dead and the Book of Abraham."

Etc.
No, not disconcerting at all. If that is all he has, then his position sucks. I can use that to make some new videos refuting it myself... good fodder for the updates!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:40 pm
No, not disconcerting at all. If that is all he has, then his position sucks. I can use that to make some new videos refuting it myself... good fodder for the updates!

You’re a real sport, Philo. I’m glad to know you’re not disconcerted over Lindsay’s use of your old apologetic material. I was going to offer to delete those links if that had been the case but will let them stand as a witness. You are welcome to produce videos refuting those materials which is something I’ve been trying to get you do to for a few years now and you’re finally taking it to task. Whoopee! I hope you still find time to play chess and you shouldn’t forget to make a chess video from time to time for those fans.

Hey, I think this thread has turned into a royal slam dunk, wouldn’t you say? I can’t imagine any apologist coming here and attempting to refute my argument which clearly is in favor of what Joseph Smith originally claimed. Nobody can refute it! It’s a slam dunk -- a done deal. Nonetheless, anyone is welcome to come forward and present their case and we shall look at it and consider the evidence. If we do get a visitor, we will engage them in a respectful manner and do everything to make them feel comfortable here in the Celestial Forum of Discuss Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5017
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Philo Sofee »

Agreed. but they will never feel comfortable away from a home turf where they can eliminate something that clobbers their view. I think we both know that by now. The good news is, we can produce really good materials here and they can come and look at it.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Oct 26, 2021 6:06 pm
Agreed. but they will never feel comfortable away from a home turf where they can eliminate something that clobbers their view. I think we both know that by now. The good news is, we can produce really good materials here and they can come and look at it.

I think it’s safe to conclude that DISCUSS Mormonism is a kind of arch nemesis of the apologetic arena and that those who want to defend the Book of Abraham will definitely want to check out what SHULEM has to say here in this forum. The laser sharp arguments produced here coupled with meticulous logical reasoning will certainly not go unnoticed. If they can take down my arguments then they win the game. Fail, and they lose.

What do you think, Philo, should I start a separate thread here in the Celestial Forum about Fig. 6 and his missing nose? I’ve presented plenty of material on that on my website and in other threads on this board but perhaps a Celestial Thread will invite serious inquiry and discussion from apologists. I don’t know how much readers can take of me before they tell me to shut the heck up and quit repeating myself. But I feel I have more ideas and discovery, so I keep talking. And heck, you do the same thing so we are like peas in a pod.
Post Reply