The Mosiah/Benjamin Error, What’s the King’s Name?

[bill4long]

[Shulem]

Dear Readers,

Mormon apologists deflect, deny, and resist uncomfortable facts while making pathetic excuses that are entirely outside the bounds of truth. I hope this thread helps truth-seekers understand how apologists bend and mold certain facts to fit into their paradigm of defending Smith at any cost. But some things are just too obvious and a rational mind will see through the fog of lies the apologists make while pretending to answer the hard questions, and in some cases there simply is no answer, for example:

QUESTION FOR INTERPRETER:

Tell us about “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

What’s the name?

x______Name____________________

Look, there is no king’s name given in the characters and there is no intelligent or rational answer the apologists can provide to excuse Smith’s false translation/interpretation or, whatever you want to call it. It’s a false revelation about what the hieroglyphic characters represent! BYU Egyptologist John Gee is on record for lying and misrepresenting truth in a fundamental way that should be enough to alarm anyone investigating Mormon truth claims. The point about a throne chair hieroglyph that makes up part of the name of Isis does not make a king’s name in any way whatsoever. Here’s another example of dishonest apologetics that references “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand”:

Shulem, One of the King’s Principal Waiters

• (Shulem thus constitutes a Book of Abraham bullseye.)
• So from Shulem’s name and title and we can surmise...
• If we had the entire translation of the Book of Abraham, we might be able to see how Shulem might have fit into the story or know more about him.

If..........might..........might..........

The characters in the registers above the hand of translator Smith’s so-called “Shulem” in Facsimile No. 3 do not represent the name “Shulem” or that of a king’s waiter. Nowhere in all the writing in Facsimile No. 3 will anyone ever find the name Shulem! Period! The person said to represent a servant or a waiter in a dynastic king’s court as Gee tries to make out is false. He is HOR, justified in heaven in the presence of Osiris.

Smith translated/interpreted (whatever you want to call it) the name “Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.” The name (Shulem) is not in the characters or written in the writing anywhere on the vignette (Facsimile). We may safely reason that Smith produced this false revelation by the same spirit in which he translated the Book of Mormon and perhaps with the same seer stone he used to read the name Benjamin in Mosiah 21:28!

[Shulem]

And now Limhi was again filled with joy on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king

B E N J A M I N

had a gift from God, whereby he could interpret such engravings; yea, and Ammon also did rejoice.

6 And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book...

20 ...I am  able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.



Benjamin

Yep, Joseph Smith pulled a fast one. He was a sneaky liar but knew how to run a tight organization based entirely on religious deception.

If you are a Mormon, you have been deceived. If you are an apologist, you are deceiving others. Shame on you!

If you are investigating Mormonism, take heed and beware.

[Shulem]

6 And it shall come to pass that the Lord God shall bring forth unto you the words of a book, and they shall be the words of them which have slumbered.

14 Wherefore, the Lord God will proceed to bring forth the words of the book...

20 ...I am  able to do mine own work; wherefore thou shalt read the words which I shall give unto thee.

Benjamin

Note how the Lord God claims to bring forth the words that are said to be written on the gold plates, thus God proclaims himself as the divine translator, the Editor in Chief -- the buck stops with God! Joseph’s responsibility was to simply read words which God caused to appear and in this case the word was “Benjamin.” Let it be understood that whatever Mormon or Moroni wrote on ancient plates was ultimately edited by the power of God through his Holy Spirit, causing words to appear before Joseph’s own eyes. So, whichever name (Benjamin or Mosiah) that was contained on the plates makes no difference because it was God who in the end caused the name “Benjamin” to appear and that is the very name Joseph Smith read during translation.

Wherefore, when thou hast read the words which I have commanded thee...

Mormon apologists fail to think these matters through and come to the obvious conclusion which is Joseph made it all up and got caught trying to fix a mistake/error of his own making. It’s really rather simple to understand but apologists want to lay the blame at the feet of Mormon or Moroni rather than admit it was God who made the mistake through the pretended translations of Joseph Smith.

I have reasoned this out for myself and bear testimony that I know the Book of Mormon is not what Smith claimed it was. I know that with all the feeling of my heart and the intelligence of my mind that flows through me.

Amen.

[Shulem]

Considering the nature of this textual change, I am a bit surprised our critics have not made more noise than they have....one would think the critics would spend much more time on this particular textual anomaly than they have.

This thread is making plenty of noise and should prove quite a surprise for some people. The “textual anomaly” has become a scandal insomuch as the coverup and lie is the real problem. Will apologists take the time to answer these charges?

As it pertains to our critics, who often believe themselves to be “learned” (or informed) on LDS matters, it seems to suggest that our critics are stuck in a rut.

I am learned and quite informed about LDS matters and concerns. I am not in a rut. This thread proves that!

In other words, our critics are asking the same tired questions over and over again, apparently unaware of the growing body of LDS scholarship that tends to substantiate LDS truth claims. The critics are elegantly, or not so elegantly, tied to a world that no longer exists, a world where substantive answers are becoming more and more available.

The tables have been turned and you are in a rut!

I think this thread is quite elegant, thank you.

[Shulem]

Fatal Apologetic Reasoning:

The change raises an interesting question, Who was responsible for the reading, “king Benjamin,” in the first place? Was it an inadvertent slip of the tongue on the part of Joseph Smith as he dictated the translation to Oliver Cowdery, or did he translate correctly enough an original error on the part of Mormon, the abridger of the Book of Mormon?

The translation/dictation could not have been a so-called “slip of the tongue” because Joseph is said to have read exactly what God wanted him to read in the first place as a testimonial of truthfulness. Sperry attempts to make an apologetic case for blaming the scribe, whether ancient or modern, but it’s never God’s fault!

But God was the Translator and Smith was the Reader. Smith did not translate a single word, he read them!

Psych 101!

The last of these suggestions is probably the correct one, for the fact remains that the reading “king Benjamin” is an out-and-out error, because the king had been dead for some time, and his son Mosiah was his successor with a “gift from God.” (See Mos. 6:4-5; 8:13.)

Sperry admits there was an error made. But who made the error? He wrestles with the idea of blaming Mormon or Smith -- but certainly not God who was said to be responsible for the original modern translation written in stone.

Again, Psych 101!

The apologist continues:

What we have here, Mr. Budvarson, is an example of another human error that Joseph Smith was glad to correct. (See a similar error on page 546 of the First Edition which the prophet didn’t catch in the Second Edition. Cf. Ether 4:1.)

Yes, Joseph Smith was anxious to correct the error in Mosiah that was undoubtedly discovered by his co-workers and this was done by means of a COVER-UP in which Smith would hide/conceal under the guise of false pretenses!

Years later after the prophet’s death, the error in Ether 4:1 would be corrected by a surviving partner in crime (Orson Pratt) who realized another error had been made in translation.

Go figure!

Thank you, Shulem.

You’re welcome, Joseph.