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

Re: Two Kings in a Pod

Post by Shulem »

Moksha wrote:
Mon Oct 11, 2021 5:58 am
Shulem wrote:
Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:13 pm
Never in my life have I ever heard a member of the Church bear testimony that they know the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are true, moreover, never have I ever heard anyone insist that the figure depicting Isis was the actual king of Egypt in which the Egyptian scribe purposely drew on the papyrus.
I can imagine Hugh Nibley or other LDS apologists bearing their testimony on this point. Of course, if such testimony became problematic, I can also imagine them denying it.

Your use of the word “imagine” serves to make my point. You can only imagine it because Nibley never bore his testimony on that particular point and apologists today sure don’t. The justifications offered by apologists are all so vague and unsure. Nobody bears their testimony that they know Isis in the Facsimile is really the king of Egypt. Members in general only bear their testimony that they know the Book of Abraham is true and all the stuff about the papyrus and the controversies are swept under the rug.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Visual Speculations

Post by Shulem »

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

Smith, upon first viewing the throne scene of Facsimile No. 3, must have made the obvious connection in associating the person on the seat (Fig. 1) with that of an Egyptian monarch or king. It’s obvious the seated man-figure is presiding in a stately manner upon what’s obviously a position of authority, therefore, we acknowledge that Smith was correct in identifying that particular station of the vignette as a king’s throne.

I lean toward the idea that Smith’s eyesight was not very good because he failed to recognize that Fig. 2, (Isis) was female and settled with the idea that this person represented the ruling king who stepped aside in order to allow Abraham to usurp the throne for reasons stated in Explanation No. 1. I base Smith having poor eyesight especially under candlelight on the fact that he misidentifies the sex of Fig. 4, whom I would think most anyone would identify as female. She’s obviously female, but maybe not to someone with blurry vision coupled with a running imagination! Had Smith made the obvious connection it would have been easy to simply say that this person was a Princess rather than a Prince. No harm no foul because what king doesn’t have a princess in his royal house? The whole thing makes little sense from the perspective that Smith could see clearly that Maat was a lady; but he chose to label her a man instead! Why? Because he didn’t make the connection!

Smith probably felt safe in his mind’s eye that the person behind the throne was one of great importance seeing they were next to the person on the throne. Someone who was at the head of the room was also a trusted person in which a king could turn his back. So, it must have seemed safe for Smith to make Isis the king and go ahead and put Abraham on the throne for the purpose of glorifying the Patriarch’s God in the presence of the Egyptian court. Smith wanted his readers to know that the Egyptians apparently had a great deal of regard for Abraham and respected his religion.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Try the spirits

Post by Shulem »

Doctrine and Covenants wrote:24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

Now, with that said, let’s examine the topic on hand and see what truth lies therein:

Facsimile No. 3 wrote:Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
  • King Pharaoh
  • whose name is given
  • in the characters above his head

TRUE OR FALSE

1) Truth is knowledge of King Pharaoh being drawn by Abraham while he was in Egypt, “written by his own hand”, upon papyrus, “that have fallen into our hands”.

2) Truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come, even as the name is given in the characters above King Pharaoh’s head.

3) Anything more or less than the name of King Pharaoh written in the characters above his head is from the spirit of a liar.


By this we may know whether Joseph Smith was telling the truth or not.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

From the very beginning...

Post by Shulem »

Joseph Smith is on record for translating the characters in revealing exactly what they meant. That was Joseph Smith’s claim from the very beginning even before purchasing the papyrus from Michael Chandler. A direct and literal translation of the hieroglyphic language into English was ALWAYS what Smith implied whenever he translated Egyptian hieroglyphics.

Joseph Smith wrote:Joseph Smith, History, p. 595, 596 (HC 2:235)

On the 3rd of July Michael H. Chandler came to Kirtland to exhibit some Egyptian mummies. There were four human figures, together with some two or more rolls of papyrus covered with hieroglyphic figures and devices. As Mr. Chandler had been told I could translate them, he brought me some of the characters, and I gave him the interpretation, and like a gentleman, he gave me the following certificate:

‘This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, showed to the most learned; and, from the information that I could ever learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, Jun., to correspond in the most minute matters.

Michael H. Chandler

Traveling with, and proprietor of, Egyptian mummies’.

So, here we have Joseph Smith translating and deciphering hieroglyphic characters for Mr. Chandler. It was no less a revelation of when he did the same for reformed hieroglyphics from the gold plates. Joseph Smith claimed to translate ancient Egyptian into English.

The Translator did the EXACT SAME THING when he said:

Facsimile No. 3 wrote:Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Whether it’s king Lamoni riding horses in the Book of Mormon or King Pharaoh granting Abraham access to his throne, it’s revelation coming from Joseph Smith the translator! Nobody can deny these historical claims as the FACTS.

I probably sound like a broken record as I continually repeat what Joseph Smith said and claimed. But quoting Joseph Smith is the best way to know what Joseph Smith meant. Apologists like to throw the prophet under the bus and tell their readers what they think Joseph Smith might have meant while looking back in hindsight knowing he couldn’t translate the characters like he claimed to.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Read Egyptian

Post by Shulem »

Egyptologist Kerry Muhlestein wrote:(Assessing the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Introduction to the Historiography of their Acquisitions, Translations, and Interpretations)

There is a key difference with Facsimile Three compared to the other two: the explanations for Facsimile Three label some of the hieroglyphs above the heads of the figures differently than the way I would translate them as an Egyptologist. As an LDS Egyptologist, it seems to me that the most likely explanation for this is that Joseph Smith was teaching either how ancient Jews or a small set of ancient Egyptians would have interpreted the drawings or how we should interpret them, after which he then assumed that the glyphs would translate that way. Again, Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to read hieroglyphs. This particular issue has not yet received much scholarly attention.

Dr. Muhlestein makes this statement because he is unable to justify Joseph Smith’s Explanations given in Facsimile No. 3, namely:

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Philo Sofee wrote:LDS Egyptologist Muhlestein on Facsimile 3 (Terrestrial Forum Rated PG)

And who does he think he is kidding when he says Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to read hieroglyphs??? Smith directly described what the hieroglyphs said and where they were located. What else is this than him being able to read them? Within 3 short days of receiving the papyri Joseph Smith claimed he was reading them and finding entire books in the papyri! You know, the ones he said were the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph? How many hieroglyphs would he have had to have looked at and “read” to acquire that information? He directly says he was translating the papyri. And the real kick in the butt of reality is many of his followers and even his scribes said he did this translating either through the Urim and Thummim, or direct inspiration from heaven. In that case, not even God knows how to read the hieroglyphs correctly. That is the implication that terrifies the LDS Apologists. There is more here on the line than many suppose.

Is Joseph Smith’s English here beyond apologetic scholarly acumen to grasp? Once again, the anti-Mormon who told me what they did is entirely true. All you have to do with the apologists claims is simply quote Joseph Smith back at them. They obviously don’t believe what he said, because he thought it safe back then, and back then it was. But today Joseph Smith is caught in the snare, and so apologists have to lie for Joseph Smith in order to extract him out of his errors. But he talked too much and left too much evidence behind for us to grasp the truth.

Kerry Muhlestein doesn't know what he is talking about...

Shulem wrote:
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:Again, Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to read hieroglyphs.

An eyewitness account says otherwise by quoting Joseph Smith:

“On Mr. Quincy’s return to Joe’s house (which was the hotel or public house), he said they would perhaps like to see his curiosities, on their assenting, he took them down to his cellar, where there were several common pine presses, he opened these and to their astonishment they saw several black corpses. ‘That one,’ said Joe, ‘is the body of Pharaoh Necho.’ Joe it seems had the imported four mummies and having taken off the wrappers, had stood them upright in these presses. He then opened the little boxes which are always found about a mummy and took out some papyrus. ‘This,’ said he. ‘is the handwriting of Abraham, that one is Moses,’ and so on. ‘These are hieroglyphics, nobody can read them but myself. I can read all the writing and all the hieroglyphics’ ― Mr. Quincy pointed to one of them which had a representation of a man, a woman, a tree, and a non-descript animal. ‘That,’ said Joe ‘is the creation of the World. There is Adam, Eve, the Tree of Knowledge, and a serpent’ ― Mr. Quincy asked him how it could be a serpent as it had legs. Joe answered, ‘Oh, you know that serpents originally had legs like chickens, but afterwards God said Upon the belly shalt thou crawl and so he lost his legs.’

Mr. Quincy spoke of Joe having an extraordinary acquaintance with the Bible and hat he was very ready in reply, and clever in supporting his notions by quotations and reasoning.

After the exhibition was closed Joe said, ‘Persons who see my curiosities usually give my mother a quarter of a dollar.’ This mother of his was a fine venerable looking lady.”

Henry Halkett's notes, Clements library, Michigan (The Saga of the Book of Abraham; Jay M. Todd, p. 256,257)

“These are hieroglyphics, nobody can read them but myself. I can read all the writing and all the hieroglyphics”:

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.
Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.
Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.


Regardless of how well Smith claimed he could “read” Egyptian, he certainly claimed to be able to decipher it and call out names from the hieroglyphic writing such as Shulem & Olimlah in Facsimile No. 3. But most important of all is that he is able to point out the very name “ABRAHAM” that was imbedded within the script of the story he was translating:

Joseph Smith wrote:
That is the signature of the patriarch Abraham

The Saga of the Book of Abraham; Jay M. Todd, p. 211
The Story of the Pearl of Great Price; James R. Clark, p. 112

It can be argued how much or how well Smith claimed to be able to “read” Egyptian but the fact remains that he did claim to understand Egyptian and spent countless hours with his brethren working on a Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language. Understanding contractions for many languages was something Smith was proud to assert:

Joseph Smith wrote: Joseph Smith, History

Before I give a definition, however, to the word, let me say that the Bible in its widest sense means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John “I am the good shepherd;” and it will not be beyond the common use of terms to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, God; the Goth, goda; the German gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word Mormon; which means literally more good. Yours. Joseph Smith.

Who in Nauvoo would have argued with Joseph Smith when he declared to the whole world that the name “Shulem” was “represented by the characters” within the very writing he was reading?
Last edited by Shulem on Tue Oct 12, 2021 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
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 »

HA!!! Terrific find Shulem!!! Joseph Smith himself bragging to Quincy that he is the only one who can read the hieroglyphs!!! I would have not thought of that. LOL!!!! You are sensational!
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 12, 2021 2:53 pm
HA!!! Terrific find Shulem!!! Joseph Smith himself bragging to Quincy that he is the only one who can read the hieroglyphs!!! I would have not thought of that. LOL!!!! You are sensational!

:lol:

Well, thank you, PHILO, I wasn’t sure you were reading this thread which is here to serve an important purpose in demonstrating that the prophet Joseph Smith may not have been as much of a prophet as people think. It certainly seems that there are some shortcomings on his part and progressive Latter-day Saints are coming more to terms with realizing that Smith may not have been dealing with a full deck of cards when it came to translating Egyptian. For them, it remains a great mystery in which they cannot explain or comprehend.

I like how this thread is staying on target and although it reaches out to explore other matters of Smith’s expedition into Egyptian translations, it always reverts back to the main point which is:

What’s the king’s name?

Oh that pesky king’s name!

:D
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
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 12, 2021 3:10 pm
Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 2:53 pm
HA!!! Terrific find Shulem!!! Joseph Smith himself bragging to Quincy that he is the only one who can read the hieroglyphs!!! I would have not thought of that. LOL!!!! You are sensational!

:lol:

Well, thank you, PHILO, I wasn’t sure you were reading this thread which is here to serve an important purpose in demonstrating that the prophet Joseph Smith may not have been as much of a prophet as people think. It certainly seems that there are some shortcomings on his part and progressive Latter-day Saints are coming more to terms with realizing that Smith may not have been dealing with a full deck of cards when it came to translating Egyptian. For them, it remains a great mystery in which they cannot explain or comprehend.

I like how this thread is staying on target and although it reaches out to explore other matters of Smith’s expedition into Egyptian translations, it always reverts back to the main point which is:

What’s the king’s name?

Oh that pesky king’s name!

:D
Well all ya hafta do is read it in the hieroglyphs above his head in the facsimile as Joseph Smith said to... :D
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Quoting Joseph Smith

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Tue Oct 12, 2021 6:42 pm
Well all ya hafta do is read it in the hieroglyphs above his head in the facsimile as Joseph Smith said to... :D

Let us for sheer pleasure quote Joseph Smith; a sermon that you never hear over the pulpit and will lift eyebrows and cause a smile to form on anyone’s face -- both the believer and the unbeliever. Pay special attention to the blue text as it authoritatively dictates the context in which is most interesting.

Verily, the mummies and the papyrus in which Joseph Smith purchased were declared by God in the name of Jesus Christ and by the authority of the holy priesthood to be on the order of 3,500 years old.

You may follow and compare at these links, both the handwritten version and the actual publication in the Times and Seasons:

Joseph Smith, History

TIMES AND SEASONS, November 1, 1843

Joseph Smith wrote:
DEAR SIR:-Your letter of the 24th ult. has been regularly received; its contents duly appreciated, and its whole tenor candidly considered; and, according to my manner of judging all things in righteousness, I proceed to answer you: and shall leave you to meditate whether the mathematical problems, founded upon the truth of revelation, or religion as promulgated by me, or Moses, can be solved by rules and principles existing in the systems of common knowledge.

How far you are capable of being ‘a most undeviating friend, without being governed by the smallest religious influence,’ will best be decided by your survivors, as all past experience most assuredly proves. Without controversy, that friendship, which intelligent beings would accept as sincere, must arise from love, and that love grow out of virtue, which is as much a part of religion, as light is a part of Jehovah. Hence the saying of Jesus: ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for a friend.’

You observed, ‘as I have proven myself to be a philosophical divine, I must excuse you, when you say that we must leave these influences to the mass.’ The meaning of ‘philosophical divines,’ may be taken in various ways, If, as the learned world apply the term, you infer that I have achieved a victory, and been strengthened by a scientific religion, as practiced by the popular sects of the age, through the aid of colleges, seminaries, Bible societies, missionary boards, financial organizations, and gospel money schemes, then you are wrong; Such a combination of men and means, shows a form of godliness without the power; for is it not written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the rudiments of the world and not after the doctrines of Christ.’ But if the inference is, that by more love, more light, more virtue, and more truth from the Lord, I have succeeded as a man of God, then you reason truly; though the weight of the sentiment is lost when the ‘influence is left to the mass,’ Do men gather grapes of thorns or figs of thistles?

Of course you follow out the figure, and say, ‘the boldness of my plans and measures, together with their unparalleled success, so far, are calculated to throw a charm over my whole being; and to point me out as the most extraordinary man of the present age.’ The boldness of my plans and measures, can readily be tested by the touch stone of all schemes, systems, projects, and adventures,-truth, for truth is a matter of fact; and the fact is, that by the power of God I translated the Book of Mormon from hieroglyphics; the knowledge of which was lost to the world: in which wonderful event I stood alone, an unlearned youth, to combat the worldly wisdom, and multiplied ignorance of eighteen centuries, with a new revelation; which, (if they would receive the everlasting gospel,) would open the eyes of more than eight hundred millions of people, and make ‘plain the old paths,’ wherein if a man walk in all the ordinances of God blameless, he shall inherit eternal life; and Jesus Christ, who was, and is, and is to come, has borne me safely over every snare and plan, laid in secret or openly; through priestly hypocrisy, sectarian prejudice, popular philosophy, executive power, or law defying mobocracy, to destroy me.

If, then, the hand of God, in all these things that I have accomplished, towards salvation of a priest-ridden generation, in the short space of twelve years, through the boldness of the plan of preaching the gospel, and the boldness of the means of declaring repentance and baptism for the remission of sins; and a reception of the Holy Ghost, by laying on of the hands, agreeably to the authority of the priesthood; and the still more bold measures of receiving direct revelation from God, through the Comforter, as promised, and by which means all holy men, from ancient times till now, have spoken and revealed the will of God to men, with the consequent ‘success’ of the gathering of the saints, throws any ‘charm’ around my being and ‘points me out as the most extraordinary man of the age,’ it demonstrates the fact, that truth is mighty and must prevail; and that one man empowered from Jehovah, has more influence with the children of the kingdom, than eight hundred millions led by the precepts of men. God exalts the humble, and debases the haughty. But let me assure you in the name of Jesus, who spake as never man spake, that the ‘boldness of the plans and measures,’ as you term them, but which should be denominated the righteousness of the cause, the truth of the system, and power of God, which ‘so far,’ has borne me and the church, (in which I glory in having the privilege of being a member,) successfully through the storm of reproach, folly, ignorance, malice , persecution, falsehood, sacerdotal wrath, newspaper satire, pamphlet libels and the combined influences of the powers of earth and hell, I say these powers of righteousness and truth, are not the decrees or rules of an ambitious and aspiring Nimrod, Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, Mahomet, Buonaparte, [Bonaparte] or other great sounding heroes, that dazzled forth with a trail of pomp and circumstances for a little season, like a comet, and, then disappeared, leaving a wide waste where such an existence once was, with only a name, nor were the glorious results of what you term ‘boldness of plans and measures,’ with the attendant ‘success,’ matured by the self aggrandizing wisdom of the priests of Baal; the scribes and Pharisees of the Jews; Popes and Bishops of christendom; or pagans of Juggernaut; nor were they extended by the divisions and sub-divisions of a Luther, a Calvin, a Wesley, or even a Campbell; supported by a galaxy of clergymen and churchmen, of whatever name or nature, bound apart by cast iron creeds, and fastened to set stakes by chain cable opinions, without revelation; nor are they the lions of the land or the Leviathans of the sea, moving among the elements, as distant chimeras to fatten the fancy of the infidel; but they are as the stone cut out of the mountain without hands, and will become a great mountain and fill the whole earth. Were I an Egyptian, I would exclaim Jah-oh-eh, Enish-go-on-dosh, Flo-ees-Flos-is-is; [O earth! the power of attraction, and the moon passing between her and the sun.] A Hebrew; Haueloheem yerau; a Greek, O theos phos esi; a Roman, Dominus regit me; a German, Gott gebe uns das licht; a Portugee, Senhor Jesu Christo e libordade; a Frenchman, Dieu defend le droit: but as I am, I give God the glory, and say in the beautiful figure of the poet;

‘Could we with ink the ocean fill;

Was the whole earth of parchment made;

And ev’ry single stick a quill;

And every man a scribe by trade

To write the love, of God above,

Would drain the ocean dry;

Nor could the whole upon a scroll,

Be spread from sky to sky.’

It seems that your mind is of such ‘a mathematical and philosophical cast, that the divinity of Moses makes not impression upon you, and that I will not be offended when you say, that you rate me higher as a legislator, than you de [do] Moses, because you have me present with you for examination;’ that ‘Moses derives his chief authority from prescription and the lapse of time; you cannot however say, but we are both right, it being out of the power of man to prove us wrong. It is no mathematical problem, and can therefore get no mathematical solution.’

Now, Sir, to cut the matter short, and not dally with your learned ideas, for, fashion’s sake you have here given your opinion, without reserve, that revelation, the knowledge of God, prophetic vision, the truth of eternity cannot be solved as a mathematical problem. The first question then is, what is a mathematical problem? and the natural answer is, a statement, proposition or question that can be solved, ascertained, unfolded or demonstrated, by knowledge, facts of figures, for ‘mathematical’ is an adjective derived from Mathesis (gr.) meaning in English, learning or knowledge. ‘Problem’ is derived from probleme, (French,) or problema, (Latin, Italian or Spanish) and in each language means a question or proposition, whether true or false. ‘Solve’ is derived from the Latin verb, solvo, to explain or answer. One thing more in order to prove the work as we proceed; it is necessary to have witnesses, two or three of whose testimonies, according to the laws or rules of God and man, are sufficient to establish any one point.

Now for the question. How much are one and one? Two. How much is one from two? One. Very well, one question, or problem is solved by figures. Now let me ask one for facts: was there ever such a place on the earth as Egypt? Geography says yes; ancient history says yes; and the Bible says yes. So three witnesses have solved that question. Again, lived there ever such a man as Moses in Egypt? The same witnesses reply certainly. And was he a prophet? The same witnesses, or a part, have left on record, that Moses predicted in Leviticus that if Israel broke the covenant they had made, the Lord would scatter them among the nations, till the land enjoyed her Sabbaths; and subsequently these witnesses have testified of their captivity in Babylon, and other places, in fulfilment. But to make assurance doubly sure, Moses prays that the ground might open and swallow up Korah and his company for transgression, and it was so: and he endorses the prophesy of Balaam, which said, out of Jacob shall come, he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city; and Jesus Christ, as him that ‘had dominion,’ about fifteen hundred years after, in accordance with this and the prediction of Moses, David, Isaiah, and many others, came, saying; Moses wrote of me, declaring the dispersion of the Jews, and the utter destruction of the ‘city;’ and the apostles were his witnesses, unimpeached, especially Jude, who not only endorses the facts of Moses ‘divinity,’ but also the events of Balaam, and Korah and many others, as true. Besides these tangible facts, so easily proven and demonstrated by simple rules of testimony unimpeached, the art (now lost) of embalming human bodies, and preserving them in the catacombs of Egypt, whereby men, women and children as mummies, after a lapse of near three thousand five hundred years, come forth among the living, and although dead, the papyrus which has lived in their bosoms, unharmed, speaks for them, in language like the sound of an earthquake: Ecce veritas! Ecce cadaveros. Behold the truth! Behold the mummies! Oh my dear Sir, the sunken Tyre and Sidon, the melancholy dust where ‘the city’ of Jerusalem once was, and the mourning of the Jews among the nations, together with such a ‘cloud of witnesses,’ if you had been as well acquainted with your God and Bible, as with your purse and pence table, the ‘divinity’ of Moses would have dispelled the fog of five thousand years, and filled you with light; for facts, like diamonds, not only cut glass, but they are the most precious jewels on earth. The spirit of prophesy is the testimony of Jesus.

The world at large, is ever ready to credit the writings of Homer, Hesid, Plutarch, Socrates, Pythagoras, Virgil, Josephus, Mahomet, and an hundred others, but where, tell me where, have they left a line, a simple method of solving the truth of the plan of eternal life? Says the Savior, ‘if any man will do his (the Father’s) will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.’ Here then is a method of solving the ‘divinity’ of men by the divinity within yourself, that as far exceeds the calculation of numbers, as the sun exceeds a candle. Would to God that all men understood it, and were willing to be governed by it, that when one had filled the measure of his days, he could exclaim like Jesus; ‘veni mori, et reviviscere!’

Your good wishes to ‘go ahead’ coupled with Mahomet and a ‘right hand man’ are rather more vain than virtuous. Why, Sir, Caesar had his right hand Brutus, who was his ‘left hand’ assassin, not however applying the allusion to you.

As to the private seal you mention, if sent to me, I shall receive it with the gratitude of a servant of God, and pray that the donor may receive a reward in the resurrection of the just.

The summit of your future fame seems to be hid in the political policy of a ‘mathematical problem’ for the chief magistracy of this state, which, I suppose might be solved by ‘double proposition,’ where the errors of the supposition are used to produce a true answer.

But, Sir, when I leave the dignity and honor I received from heaven, to boost a man into power, through the aid of my friends, where the evil and designing, after the object has been accomplished, can lock up the clemency intended as a reciprocation for such favors; and where the wicked and unprincipled, as a matter of course, would seize the opportunity, to flintify the hearts of the nation against me for dabbling at a sly game in politics; verily, I say when I leave the dignity and honor of heaven, to gratify the ambition and vanity of man or men, may my power cease, like the strength of Samson, when he was shorn of his locks, while asleep in the lap of Delilah. Truly said the Savior, cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet and turn again and rend you.

Shall I who have witnessed the visions of Eternity; and beheld the glories of the mansions of bliss; and the regions and the misery of the damned; shall I turn to be a Judas? Shall I who have heard the voice of God, and communed with angels; and spake as moved by the Holy Ghost for the renewal of the everlasting covenant, and for the gathering of Israel in the last days; shall I worm myself into a political hypocrite? Shall I, who hold the keys of the last kingdom; in which is the dispensation of the fulness [fullness] of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets, since the world began; under the sealing power of the Melchesedek priesthood; shall I stoop from the sublime authority of Almighty God, to be handled as a Monkey’s cat’s paw; and pettify myself into a clown to act the farce of political demagoguery? No, verily no! The whole earth shall bear me witness that I, like the towering rock in the midst of the ocean, which has withstood the mighty surges of the warring waves, for centuries, am impregnable, and am a faithful friend of virtue, and a fearless foe to vice; no odds, whether the former was sold as a pearl in Asia, or hid as a gem in America; and the latter dazzles in palaces, or glimmers among the tombs.

I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the Gordian knot of powers; and I solve mathematical problems of Universities: WITH TRUTH, diamond truth, and God is my ‘right hand man.’

And to close, let me say in the name of Jesus Christ to you, and to Presidents, Emperors, Kings, Queens, Governors, rulers, nobles, and men in authority every where, do the works of righteousness, execute justice and judgment in the earth that God may bless you, and her inhabitants; and

The laurel that grows on top of the mountain,

Shall green for your fame while the sun sheds a ray,

And the lily that blows by the side of the fountain,

Will bloom for your virtue till earth melts away.

With due consideration

and respect, I have the
honor to be your

most obt. servt.,

JOSEPH SMITH.

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

Appeal to Authority

Post by Shulem »

Dr. Robert K. Ritner wrote:
Ph.D. (with honors) in Egyptology from the University of Chicago in 1987

“THE BREATHING PERMIT OF HÔR” AMONG THE JOSEPH SMITH PAPYRI*
ROBERT K. RITNER, The University of Chicago


Image

Gee’s brief rebuttal (A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri, pp. 40 and 67, n. 17) is unacceptable. Reference to a costumed private individual in the Roman procession of Isis is not evidence that the figure of Isis here (no. 2) is “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head,” as published by Joseph Smith. Smith misunderstood “Pharaoh” as a personal name (cf. Abraham 1:25), and the name above fig. 2 is unquestionably that of the female Isis. Osiris (fig. 1) is certainly not “Abraham,” nor is it possible that the altar of Osiris (fig. 3) “signifies Abraham.” Maat (fig. 4) is not a male “prince,” Hor (fig. 5) is not a “waiter,” nor is Anubis (fig. 6) a “slave” (because of his dark skin). Such interpretations are uninspired fantasies and are defended only with the forfeiture of scholarly judgment and credibility.


Aside from Ritner’s authoritative statement which would be fully supported by the world body of Egyptologists, I remind readers that there is no king’s name in the writing above Isis and the royal Cartouche to signify a king’s name is absent. The only Egyptologists who actively support the erroneous concepts given by Joseph Smith are biased Egyptologists who support Latter-day Saint theology and receive a paycheck from Brigham Young University. In other words, these men are paid by the Church to continue a campaign of deception original started by Joseph Smith’s false interpretations.

This needs to stop.
Post Reply