“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.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5033
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Michael D. Rhodes tries to fool his readers

Post by Marcus »

Shulem wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 7:07 pm
Here is a Mormon flop that needs to be mentioned in this thread:
Michael D. Rhodes wrote:I have shown that Joseph Smith correctly interpreted items found on the three facsimiles
Shall we start with the king’s name? Where is the royal Cartouche? Which king of Egypt does Joseph Smith claim this to be and what’s his name? Can you read the hieroglyphs above the head, Mr. Rhodes?

Let me say this as nicely as possible and in keeping with the spirit of the Celestial forum; Mr. Rhodes is not telling the truth! Or in other words, he is lying. Don’t tell me that Joseph Smith got something right in Facsimile No. 3. The only thing he properly alluded to was the astronomy in association with stars that are drawn in the upper frieze -- that is not rocket-science. A child could do it! Joseph Smith got everything wrong about Facsimile No. 3 and the name Shulem is NOT in the writing, anywhere!

Apologetics tendered by Rhodes is a ruse -- shameful and blanketed in deception wholly intended to take the eye off the ball and deny specific things Joseph Smith said about the antiquity of the papyri and mummies. Rhodes cannot be trusted!
Rhodes seems to be arguing that getting a few hits in the face of dozens upon dozens more misses isn't coincidence. I agree absolutely it is "shameful and blanketed in deception wholly intended to take the eye off the ball and deny specific things Joseph Smith said..." Absolutely.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Michael D. Rhodes tries to fool his readers

Post by Shulem »

Marcus wrote:
Mon May 22, 2023 10:25 pm
Rhodes seems to be arguing that getting a few hits in the face of dozens upon dozens more misses isn't coincidence. I agree absolutely it is "shameful and blanketed in deception wholly intended to take the eye off the ball and deny specific things Joseph Smith said..." Absolutely.
Moreover, in the case of Facsimile No. 3, Rhodes has nothing of value or interest to offer anyone who is looking at the vignette in a proper way with respect to the conventions established by ancient Egyptian art with the intent and purpose expressed by the original artist. It’s almost as if Rhodes is saying, “Don’t look at the facsimile and what’s in it, just listen to what I have to say about the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and all those things that concern you will fade away and disappear.”

Rhodes is a conman, a snake oil salesman. He is selling a bill of goods to ignorant readers who care little about the truth other than what they want to be true in their imagination for the sake of having a testimony of Joseph Smith. Rhodes thinks his thoughts and feeling given by the “Spirit”® are above the law -- above truth -- beyond what is and what isn’t. The explanations of the facsimiles are nothing more than fantasies being played out in Joseph Smith’s mind and the Spirit that supports those lies is a spirit of fraud with the intent to deceive. Rhodes is peddling lies for ignorant church members to consume outside the bounds of genuine intelligence. He should be ashamed of that article. I invite him to come to Discuss Mormonism and have a discussion with me whereby I can set the record straight. Let him bring Gee, Muhlestein, and Smoot. I will take them all on at the same time if necessary.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Michael D. Rhodes tries to fool his readers

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 2:48 pm
I invite him to come to Discuss Mormonism and have a discussion with me whereby I can set the record straight. Let him bring Gee, Muhlestein, and Smoot. I will take them all on at the same time if necessary.
To make this offer even more tempting to apologists, we will bind one hand behind Shulem's back.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Michael D. Rhodes tries to fool his readers

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Tue May 23, 2023 8:02 pm
To make this offer even more tempting to apologists, we will bind one hand behind Shulem's back.
I don’t even need my hands. I can simply use my feet and give them a swift kick!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Translation and Historicity of the Book of Abraham wrote:None of the characters on the papyrus fragments mentioned Abraham’s name or any of the events recorded in the book of Abraham. Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint Egyptologists agree that the characters on the fragments do not match the translation given in the book of Abraham, though there is not unanimity, even among non-Latter-day Saint scholars, about the proper interpretation of the vignettes on these fragments.
  • The characters above the head of Fig. 2 do not match the translation given in the explanation. There is no king’s name. Every Egyptologist on the planet will agree that there is no Cartouche and no king’s name.
  • There is total unanimity among scholars that the name “Shulem” is not represented by the characters above the hand of Fig. 5 but says something entirely different.
  • Every Egyptologist knows that proper interpretation of the vignette does not lend any evidence that the person of Fig. 4 is a Prince of Pharaoh.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

It’s over for the Book of Abraham!

Post by Shulem »

Mormon apologists willingly apply the Catalyst Theory to provide what they think is blanket protection for the Book of Abraham. But the Catalyst Theory is fatally flawed and is little more than a temporary ruse to save the Book of Abraham from being rejected by today’s informed Latter-day Saints.

The origin story of how and when Egypt was originally founded as told in chapter one cannot be saved by the Catalyst Theory any more than the name of “King Pharaoh” as given in Facsimile No. 3 or that of Shulem and Olimlah which are not written in the writing therein. The Catalyst Theory cannot justify Smith’s solemn declaration that the papyri in his possession were on the order of 3,500 years old and were original autographs written by Abraham & Joseph, the latter who was the “better scribe.” Joseph Smith and the entire Mormon church in Kirtland and Nauvoo believed by the Holy Ghost that the scrolls were original autographs written by the patriarchs themselves and preserved in the Catacombs of Egypt until discovered intact in modern times. But all of that was false and the lying Spirit uttered from Smith’s lips from the so-called Holy Ghost only made things worse.

It’s over for the Book of Abraham! Nothing can save it. Nothing can justify it.

Amen.
Last edited by Shulem on Wed Nov 01, 2023 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

King Tutankhamun, whose name is given in the characters above his head:

Post by Shulem »

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Image

Image


Blessed forever be the memory of the kings of Egypt. May modern Egyptology forever hold their memory sacred.

AMEN!! 🙏
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 5810
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: It’s over for the Book of Abraham!

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Jul 09, 2023 4:36 pm
Mormon apologists willingly apply the Catalyst Theory to provide what they think is blanket protection for the Book of Abraham. But the Catalyst Theory is fatally flawed and is little more than a temporary ruse to save the Book of Abraham from being rejected by today’s informed Latter-day Saints.
They could also employ the Goldilocks Theory which would require three in absentia porridge-eating bears to disprove.

The wackier the efforts by the LDS apologists, the more tenaciously true blue Mormons will adhere to their beliefs. That is part of the paradox of Mormonism.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: It’s over for the Book of Abraham!

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Wed Nov 01, 2023 8:53 am
They could also employ the Goldilocks Theory which would require three in absentia porridge-eating bears to disprove.

The wackier the efforts by the LDS apologists, the more tenaciously true blue Mormons will adhere to their beliefs. That is part of the paradox of Mormonism.
It’s simply a matter of the left side of the brain arguing with the right. That is what a cult will do to your mind as it sucks its victims into dismal places where nothing makes sense. Just ask the BYP, he knows. :lol:

Poor John Gee. I feel sorry for him. But he made his apologetic bed and stuck it out all those years. The right side of his brain clashed with his left while being totally dependent on the Church to pay his bills.

It’s sad. He is ultimately a victim of the cult in which he willingly surrendered himself and zealously contributed to a pack of lies.

I suppose there is still time for him to repent and come clean.

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

“In the original”

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith wrote:1842
March 4
Friday

Exhibeting the Book of Abraham. in the original. To Bro Reuben Hadlock. so that he might take the size of the several plates or cuts. & prepare the blocks for the Times & Seasons. & also gave instruction concerning the arrangement of the writing on the Large cut. illustrating the principles of Astronomy. (in his office) with other general business


Image
What did Joseph Smith mean by “in the original?” Does it refer to the original document (papyrus) of the Book of Abraham in which he translated or the original manuscript which provides the complete translation to include that of Chapters and Explanations? I think it may imply to both the papyrus he claimed was originally written by the hand of Abraham and the manuscripts which were being readied for publication which serve as a copy to the original. This of course would include the Explanations for the Large cut (Facsimile No. 2) as well as the Explanations for the other cuts, Facsimiles No. 1 & 3. Bear in mind that Abraham is said to be in character sitting atop the throne within the vignette of Facsimile No. 3 and that a king’s name is literally given in the characters above the head of Fig. 2.

Let’s consider an example of what Joseph means when he says “in the original.”
Joseph Smith, 17 February 1836 • Wednesday wrote:Wednesday 17th. attended the school and read and translated with my class, as usual; and my soul delights in reading the word of the Lord, in the original; and I am determined to pursue the study of the Languages, until I shall become master of them, if I am permitted to live long enough; at any rate so long as I do live, I am determined to make this my object, and with the blessing of God, I shall succeed to my satisfaction; Elder Coe called to make some arrangements about the Egyptian mummies, and Records. He proposes, to hire a room at John Johnson’s Inn, and exhibit them there from day to day, at certain hours, that some benefit may be derived from them. I complied with his request, and only observed that they must be managed with prudence, and care especially the manuscripts.
So, it was Smith’s every intention to read and translate the word of the Lord in the original manuscripts penned by the original authors, Abraham & Joseph, respectfully. The mummies and records in possession of the prophet serve as original artifacts in antiquity. The mummies were original just as the records they possessed were originals to those who penned them some “3,500 years” previous.

This simple observation is more proof that Smith claimed to read and translate from an original record penned by Abraham’s own hand.
Imwashingmypirate
Stake President
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2021 1:46 pm

Re: I can see clearly....

Post by Imwashingmypirate »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Oct 01, 2021 4:49 pm
Image

Joseph Smith was 36 years old when he published the Book of Abraham including the Facsimiles in the Times and Seasons in 1842. To my knowledge, there is no indication that Smith ever examined the original vignette of Facsimile No. 3 under a magnifying glass or whether he donned eyeglasses to improve his visibility. Nobody can say that Smith’s vision was 20/20 or how hard it was for him to read. We don’t know! We can only speculate how well Smith was able to visually grasp the character of ISIS; thus, Smith’s ability to visualize the goddess on papyrus could have ranged from poor to excellent but we have no way of knowing how well he was able to actually define the character with regards to sex -- a man or a woman?

It could be argued that Joseph Smith’s vision was not very good even at the age of 23 when he was translating the Book of Mormon. An indicator of this is the alleged use of so-called spectacles Smith used to assist in the translation process of the gold plates. Hence, the miraculous magnification of spectacles would help him clearly see what he needed to see with God’s help! This seems to suggest that Smith had a hard time reading and that eyeglasses was something on his mind even at an early age. Thus, I propose that Joseph Smith needed glasses but we have no evidence that he actually wore devices when he provided the Explanations of the Facsimiles! Therefore, the prophet may have been hindered through shortsightedness or blurriness and unable to clearly visualize subtle nuances or definitive characters of a particular object, person, or thing.

It’s my opinion that Smith believed the personage of No. 2 was male in character as he indicates in the official explanation. The fact that Smith identified that person as “king” is strong evidence that he believed the person was a man. Perhaps unbeknown to Joseph Smith, with very few exceptions (notably famous Cleopatra) in Egyptian history, nearly all the king’s of Egypt were male. The Pharaohs were male and Smith would have rightly assumed that all of them mentioned in the Bible were also males. Therefore, Smith wrongly assumed that Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 (goddess Maat) were males. I strongly suspect this error was derived on account of Smith not having clear vision and not being corrected by others who viewed the papyrus who had good vision.

Image
Even without considering gender, my instinct would be that the seated figure is clearly the leader and the person behind is clearly supporting. Wouldn't someone else have looked at this around that time and pointed out to him this?

But one thing that's stands out to me strongly, and I'm not a fan of Joseph Smith but why would the figure in the first chronological position be called figure 2 when 3, 4, 5, and 6 are chronologically in the correct order.

To me this looks like figure 2 should be the seated person and that the figures 1 and 2 in the image are labelled wrong. Who put the numbers in?
Post Reply