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

[Marcus]

Here is a Mormon flop that needs to be mentioned in this thread:

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.

[Shulem]

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.

[Moksha]

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.

[Shulem]

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!

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.