“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: 3323
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 »

Let’s turn our attention back to the apologetic approach given by Pearl of Great Price Central at the beginning of this thread in which they attempt to link Joseph Smith’s explanation of a king’s name with the throne hieroglyph used as one of the glyphs to spell Isis's name. Apologists make a big tadoo about the throne glyph and suggest that it justifies Smith’s explanation and somehow everything is okay and the problem just fades away. They even cite an explanatory statement about Isis given by Egyptologist Geraldine Pinch of Oxford saying, “She was most commonly shown as a woman wearing the throne symbol that helps to write her name. As the ‘throne goddess,’ she was the mother of each Egyptian king.”

Thus, the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3 is therefore given with a single hieroglyph used to help spell the name Isis:

Image


Suddenly it seems the apologists have everything they need to justify Smith’s missing king’s name and dismiss the problem altogether. Pearl of Great Price Central continues with: “Isis’ name in Egyptian literally means “throne” or “seat,” her shared identity with the office of the Pharaoh.” Then they cap it off with Nibley as if it seals the deal: “Accordingly, with the idea of the Great Lady [Isis] actually” personifying the throne, and thereby the Egyptian kingship, “the incongruity of [Joseph Smith’s identification of] figure 2 [in Facsimile 3] as ‘King Pharaoh’ begins to dissolve.”

What we just witnessed is how apologists want their cake and eat it too while playing by their own rules to create whatever they want in making parallels to suit their fancy. But the use of this apologetic does nothing to justify what Smith explicitly expressed in his explanation and it falls flat as a pancake. It’s not really a cake with icing! Let’s take their apologetic and see if there is consistency to the madness of their methods. Let’s move over to the other side of the Facsimile wherein Smith gave another explanation for Fig. 6, “Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.” May we rightly assume that Smith implied the name “Olimlah” was written above his person just as he said the names for the Prince and Shulem were in the writings above them? It’s entirely reasonable to think Smith was consistent in this regard. The persons below labeled with their appropriate names above. So, what of “Olimlah”, is there a glyph to justify the name being labeled as a “slave”? Let’s take a look:

Robert Ritner wrote:Label for Anubis (Fig. 6 of Facsimile 3)
Dd-mdw i(n) inpw ir sA(?) xntii sH-nTr

Nope! I’m afraid the apologists aren’t going to be able to use their method of employing an apologetic parallel in order to turn the name Anubis into a slave like they thought to do with Isis in turning her name into a king. There is nothing slave-like or anything in Anubis’s name to suggest servitude.

WIKIPEDIA wrote:"Anubis" is a Greek rendering of this god's Egyptian name. Before the Greeks arrived in Egypt, around the 7th century BC, the god was known as Anpu or Inpu. The root of the name in ancient Egyptian language means "a royal child." Inpu has a root to "inp," which means "to decay." The god was also known as "First of the Westerners," "Lord of the Sacred Land," "He Who is Upon his Sacred Mountain," "Ruler of the Nine Bows," "The Dog who Swallows Millions," "Master of Secrets," "He Who is in the Place of Embalming," and "Foremost of the Divine Booth."

Here are the hieroglyphs that spell the name Anubis and none of them are indicative of someone who is held in servitude or is owned by a slaveholder:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image



In this same vein the apologists will be hard pressed to plug their apologetic parallelism into the hieroglyphs for Smith’s other persons whom he designated in the Facsimile as a Prince and a waiter. What amazing parallel have the apologists been able to produce in order to turn the goddess Maat into a Prince? Is there a glyph in her name that signifies being a Prince? No, there is not! What about the waiter, Shulem? Is there anything in the hieroglyphs to signify him as a waiter? Let it be plainly understood that the name “Shulem” is NOT in the writing as represented by the characters above his hand.

It goes to show that the apologists have no system of consistency to justify their means in showing Smith knew how to interpret Egyptian. They use what they want and throw away the rest. The method is entirely flawed and baseless. This leaves the apologist back on square one. What to do about the king’s name and what of the Prince whose name is written above the hand?

The problem is not going away. It’s right here, on Discuss Mormonism for everyone to see.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Red writing of the Priesthood

Post by Shulem »

The autobiography of a faithful member of the Church, Warren Foote, records an experience in visiting Joseph Smith for the first time at his home in Kirtland and then met the prophet’s father in the temple. Father Smith was the presiding Patriarch of the Church and at that time was also an Assistant Counselor in the First Presidency.

Warren Foote Autobiography, May 13, 1837 wrote:The rest of our company being somewhat anxious to see the Prophet Joseph, and the Temple, concluded to accompany Father, and myself to Kirtland. We hired a man to take us to that place for $5.00-distant 12 miles. We arrived there about noon. In the afternoon we went into the Temple, and saw the mummies and the records which were found with them (we went to the prophet’s house to see him. This is the first I saw him, and shook hands with him). Joseph Smith Sen. explained them to us, and said the records were the writings of Abraham & Joseph, Jacob’s son. Some of the writing was in black, and some in red. He said that the writing in red, was pertaining to the Priesthood. We were also shown through the Temple.

Terryl Givens and Brian Hauglid in their book “The Pearl of Greatest Price: Mormonism’s Most Controversial Scripture” mention this incident and yet offer little explanation for what it meant or how it is the Patriarch of the Church came to that understanding. It’s just glossed over and they continue on with providing irrelevant parallels offered by Nibley, typical of LDS apologists.

Givens & Hauglid, p. 164 wrote:Red ink, derived from iron oxide, was often used in ancient papyri for titles or headings or to introduce particular sections, interspersed with the more common black ink. That Smith associated these red characters with priesthood is consistent with the connections he believed he was seeing between the text he was working with and the sacerdotal underpinnings of LDS temple theology.

How on earth did father Smith get the idea that hieroglyphic characters in red were associated with things pertaining to the priesthood? Well, he was the ordained Patriarch of the Church and was granted the title of prophet, seer, and revelator. If Joseph Smith Sr. said red writing pertained to the priesthood, then that was just as binding as if his son, Joseph Smith Jr. had said it. Naturally, after father Smith passed in 1840, his son Hyrum was called to assume the position and hold the same sealing blessings of the Church and the keys of patriarchal blessings.

So what does the red writing in the papyri have to do with the priesthood? Has anyone really bothered to take time to explain that? I get the sense that the red writing pertaining to the priesthood is about as meaningless as the missing king’s name and there is nothing in the extant papyri that offers any kind of evidence to support this claim.

Let’s look at some fragments of the extant papyri, prime examples that have red writing (rubrics) and confirm there is nothing in the writing therein or thereabout that has anything to do with the priesthood that pertains to the temple in Kirtland.

Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder of the Church & Assistant to the President, MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, December 1835 wrote:
The language in which this record is written is very comprehensive, and many of the hieroglyphics exceedingly striking. The evidence is apparent upon the face, that they were written by persons acquainted with the history of the creation, the fall of man, and more or less of the correct ideas of notions of the Deity. The representation of the god-head-three, yet in one, is curiously drawn to give simply, though impressively, the writers views of that exalted personage.

Image

Notice the red writing and the magnified image above of the “god-head-three” on the papyrus below which has nothing to do with Mormon priesthood or temple rites in Kirtland. It’s an Egyptian pagan spell for funerary rites!

Image

Joseph Smith Papers, Fragment of Book of the Dead for Semminis–C, circa 300–100 BC

More red writing of the priesthood:

Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder of the Church & Assistant to the President, MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, December 1835 wrote: The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of, and near a female figure, is to me, one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authority of the holy scriptures, and especially that part which has ever been assailed by the infidel community, as being a fiction, as to carry away, with one might sweep, the whole atheistical fabric, without leaving a vestige sufficient for a foundation stone.

Image

Notice the red writing and the magnified image above of the “serpent, represented as walking” on the papyrus below which has nothing to do with Mormon priesthood or temple rites in Kirtland. It’s an Egyptian pagan spell for funerary rites!

Image

Joseph Smith Papers, Fragment of Book of the Dead for Semminis–B, circa 300–100 BC

More red writing of the priesthood:

Oliver Cowdery, Second Elder of the Church & Assistant to the President, MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE, December 1835 wrote: Enoch’s Pillar, as mentioned by Josephus, is upon the same roll. True, our present version of the bible does not mention this fact, though it speaks of the righteousness of Abel and the holiness of Enoch, one slain because his offering was accepted of the Lord, and the other taken to the regions of everlasting day without being confined to the narrow limits of the tomb, or tasting death; but Josephus says that the descendants of Seth were virtuous, and possessed a great knowledge of the heavenly bodies, and, that, in consequence of the prophecy of Adam, that the world should be destroyed once by water and again by fire, Enoch wrote a history or an account of the same, and put into two pillars one of brick and the other of stone; and that the same were in being at his (Josephus’) day.

Image

Notice the red writing and the magnified image above of “Enoch’s Pillar” on the papyrus below which has nothing to do with Mormon priesthood or temple rites in Kirtland. It’s an Egyptian pagan spell for funerary rites!

Image

Joseph Smith Papers, Fragment of Book of the Dead for Semminis–B, circa 300–100 BC

The Egyptian papyri had by Joseph Smith including the red writing on them consisted entirely of pagan Egyptian spells that pertained to Egyptian religion and had nothing to do with the bible or the Mormon priesthood. The same can be said for the so-called king’s name above the goddess Isis in Facsimile No. 3 which has everything to do with the Egyptian religion and pagan rites and absolutely nothing to do with what Joseph Smith translated.

1) The red writing has nothing to do with the Mormon priesthood
2) There is no king’s name in Facsimile No. 3
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 6:41 pm
Then they cap it off with Nibley as if it seals the deal: “Accordingly, with the idea of the Great Lady [Isis] actually” personifying the throne, and thereby the Egyptian kingship, “the incongruity of [Joseph Smith’s identification of] figure 2 [in Facsimile 3] as ‘King Pharaoh’ begins to dissolve.”
This looseness in LDS thinking seems incongruous of a people who have mastered investment funds so well. What gives?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

More Rubrics Please

Post by Shulem »

Philo,

I doubt anyone disagreed with father Smith’s claim about the red writing pertaining to the priesthood. His wife Lucy Mack was all too busy pretending to read from the papyri in front of her guests who toured the relics during her private showings. I trust you’ve read those accounts how mother Smith would put on quite a show in demonstrating her ability to read the hieroglyphic scripts through the inspiration of her son. It seems the mystery of the papyri and the reading therein was a right specifically given to the Smith family -- father, mother, and son. The Smith family Egyptian exhibit and the claims they made were utterly remarkable.

But what of the red writing pertaining to the priesthood? I have an interesting idea and perhaps you’ll agree. Could it be that the red rubrics were exactly what Joseph Smith was eyeballing when he made these famous claims?

  • “That is the handwriting of Abraham”
  • “This is the autograph of Moses”
  • “these lines were written by his brother Aaron”
  • “that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham”

Certainly mother Smith was in on the closely guarded family secrets and she might have even known the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3. Do you think?
User avatar
Bought Yahoo
1st Counselor
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:59 pm

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

Post by Bought Yahoo »

Ptolemy I. Everybody knows that except you. You have no training in Egyptian. At least I have read Coe.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

Bought Yahoo wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:54 am
Ptolemy I.
So, Ptolemy, I was a contemporary of Abraham?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
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 »

Moksha wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 3:07 pm
Bought Yahoo wrote:
Tue Nov 16, 2021 9:54 am
Ptolemy I.
So, Ptolemy, I was a contemporary of Abraham?

Abraham lived during the Middle Kingdom, many dynasties far removed from the late Ptolemaic era. Most everyone who knows anything about Egyptian history and biblical chronology know this to be so. It requires very little training in Egyptology to recognize that the characters in Facsimile No. 3 do not represent a king’s name, let alone that of Ptolemy I. Dr. Ritner said his students learn about these things pretty much on day “1”. The characters needed to form the name of this particular late Egyptian king are not in the register above the head of Fig. 2.

Ptolemy I Soter wrote: Throne name: Setpenre Meryamun, 7 November 305 – January 282 BC

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3323
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

THE PEARL OF GREAT PRICE STUDENT MANUAL

Post by Shulem »

Prepared by the Church Educational System Published by
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints


Image

Student Manual wrote:The Prophet Joseph Smith never communicated his method of translating these records.

That statement lie was published in 2000, but we know better NOW:

The Joseph Smith Papers website has photocopies and transcriptions for all of the Kirtland Egyptian Papers which consists of translations, manuscripts, and copy work from that papyri. Much of the work consists of scribes taking dictation from Joseph Smith and some of those important translations pertaining to the Book of Abraham and appendages to it are in Joseph Smith’s own handwriting.

The manner and method is plainly shown in the manuscripts and Joseph Smith was leading that work through his revelations.

Student Manual wrote:As with all other scriptures, a testimony of the truthfulness of these writings is primarily a matter of faith.

It’s much more than primarily, it’s ENTIRELY! The Book of Abraham is devoid of all evidence to show it’s a genuine historical record. Everything about it is outside of Egyptology. Only the Mormons benefit from the book through their faith in things that simply are not true. There are no universities outside the Church or any museum of prominence that accepts the Book of Abraham. The book has been rejected as a fraud on a worldwide basis.

Student Manual wrote:The greatest evidence of the truthfulness of the book of Abraham is not found in an analysis of physical evidence nor historical background, but in prayerful consideration of its content and power.

There is no physical evidence of the truthfulness of the Book of Abraham and a background check into the historical claims made therein prove it’s a fraud. The Explanations given for the persons in Facsimile No. 3 are absolute proof that one need not waste their time praying to God to determine if those things are true.

Student Manual wrote:Joseph Smith never claimed that the papyri were autographic (written by Abraham himself), nor that they dated from the time of Abraham.

I’m afraid that the authors who wrote this manual are ignorant and don’t know much about Church history and if they do then they are just flat out lying. That does not reflect well on the Church. Do the authors bother to cite what Joseph Smith actually said and published about the dating of the mummies and papyri and whose hands held the ink and pens?
User avatar
Bought Yahoo
1st Counselor
Posts: 450
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 8:59 pm

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

Post by Bought Yahoo »

You make some good points.

But Coe told me personally it was Ptolemy.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2156
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

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

Post by Moksha »

Bought Yahoo wrote:
Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:16 am
But Coe told me personally it was Ptolemy.
Is that the Michael Coe that is mentioned here? https://www.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... gyptology/
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply