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