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

[Shulem]

I would like to take a moment to personally thank everyone who has participated in this thread and for the readers/lurkers who have followed this thread up till this point. THANK YOU! I commend you for wading through this long version of getting to the point and making that point over and over. But guess what? This thread is hardly over, not by a longshot. I do believe that things are beginning to heat up as I move forward in making my case for a much larger argument than the limited scope of what this thread seems to imply. Please, by all means, continue to follow this thread and expect the unexpected! You will not be disappointed! Let me take you on a ride.

I wish to specially thank former Book of Abraham apologist, Philo Sofee, for his participation and interest in these matters and hope that he will continue to follow along and jump in anytime he wants.

Things are going to really heat up and the playing field is going to enlarge and magnify in ways I think readers did not foresee. Are you ready for that?

My friends, in simple terms, the Book of Abraham is on trial, right here on Discuss Mormonism.

Shulem

[Philo Sofee]

You are way too kind Shulem. Although I hasten to add, it is my pleasure to participate and learn at your busy, adroit desk, and share what very little I actually know. I am in the process of continuing on with other angles on the Book of Abraham and facsimiles and the papyri in further of my videos I so very much enjoy making with the group Mormon Discussions Inc. I will have another video or 2 or maybe 3 up by weekend's end. I am bringing up more and more the interesting way in which various Mormon apologists and scholars attempt to use Bayes Theorem and how they inevitably misunderstand what the implications are. So many hints available to actually see the realistic parameters and so many misses by Mormons. In the larger picture, I see this is the power from afar of seeing how brainwash influence is actually very quite real. So, my friend, we continue to chug along, add a little here, add a little there, step by step climb the mountain of knowledge and wisdom, getting blisters on our feet, stopping, pulling boots and socks off, dipping our feet in a cool mountain stream or lake, getting refreshed, eating some wild berries, redressing, and moving upward and onward into the light... it's quite a pleasant trip and hike with you amigo.

[Shulem]

Smith claimed to translate a LITERAL 3500 Year Old Abraham Autograph (RATED PG) as demonstrated by Philo Sofee in a prolonged discussion that took place in the Terrestrial Forum. The thread is not the friendliest (mostly my fault) and passion is evident by rude behavior mostly on my part. I hereby make amends and present a modified statement to succinctly introduce my views on the subject. I apologize if it fails to measure up to those standards and ask that you bear with me in my many moments of passion.

There’s no doubt in my mind that Joseph Smith committed fraud by representing himself as one who could literally translate and interpret the Egyptian language when in fact he could not. I believe Smith was lying and immersed himself in a practice of pious deception. He deceived everyone with his professed ability to divine. The Mormons believed he literally translated Egyptian hieroglyphs. Smith even convinced his own mother that he could read Egyptian. The Church today continues to believe the Book of Abraham is an inspired translation and the original fraud is defended by apologetic arguments that are designed solely to preserve the testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet.

I view the Book of Abraham and the Explanations of the Facsimiles as a pious fraud. The story in the Book of Abraham is a work of fiction. Much of the material therein was borrowed from the Bible and from other sources -- a plagiarized work of fiction not cut from genuine Egyptian cloth. The Explanations of the Facsimiles are ignorant fabrications. The science of modern Egyptology has proven Smith’s work is a fraud. The early Mormons believed the Explanations of the Facsimiles were literal translations from the Egyptian, true and correct transmissions of hieroglyphics converted into the English counterpart. They believed it with all their hearts as much as they believed the Book of Mormon. That was the spirit of Mormonism -- inventions and fabrications from Smith’s own mind.

Several years ago, an apologist by the name of Zerinus visited this board and said, “Before they would be warranted in saying that the entire Book of Abraham was not properly translated, they would have to examine the original papyrus, or a copy of it, from which the Book of Abraham was translated – John Henry Evans (1912).”

But this is NOT an issue when it comes to Facsimile No. 3 and the Explanations. Therein is contained every hieroglyph that the prophet viewed while tendering his translations and interpretations. It’s all there: Lock, stock, and barrel. The Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 have been proven 100% false through modern Egyptology. It’s conclusive, Smith couldn’t read or translate Egyptian.

Former Book of Abraham apologist, Philo Sofee, now a critic, wrote “Joseph Smith appears to have believed that he actually possessed the literal handwriting and autographs of Abraham and other biblical Patriarchs on the papyri that he purchased from Michael Chandler in June 1835.” I agree, but I would discount the use of the word, “appears”. There’s no question that Smith claimed to believe it because his own testimony as well as others involved with producing the Book of Abraham are conclusive proof. Using the word “appears” softens the blow against Smith and tends to suggest that there may be an alternative explanation that justified his pious fraud.

Amazingly enough, Apologist Zerinus said, “I don’t need to know Egyptology to know that the book of Abraham is the word of God; any more than I need to know Hebrew to know that the Bible is the word of God.”

The Mormons aren’t overly concerned with facts or scientific certainty that goes against their cause. Someone who investigates Mormonism starts out by making friends with missionaries and listening to interesting religious discussions and claims, being persuaded to pray and get a good feeling. Once the candidate gets a good feeling and feels a sense of enlightenment -- a testimony is born. It’s based on feelings and impressions in the mind that are entirely subjected to the power of suggestion. Brain chemicals such as dopamine and serotonin influence the birth of a testimony.

Egyptologists deal with facts and determine things by analyzing data. But a missionary uses subjective feelings and spiritual impressions that are influenced by brain chemicals to help induce excitement and a sense of well-being to convert others. Egyptologists can read the hieroglyphic writing in Facsimile No. 3 and have produced an accurate translation that totally differs from Smith’s translation. It’s absolutely conclusive, Smith could NOT read the writing in Facsimile No. 3; he made up explanations out of thin air -- they are not the word of God. Both Facsimiles No. 2 & 3 are accurately read by Egyptologists. They read the writing and know exactly what it says. They correctly interpret the figures just as they do on other papyri, tomb walls, and monuments. They identify the gods with certainty and explain the rites and ceremonies that are written and portrayed on the papyri.

Zerinus said, “I trust that what Joseph Smith taught was true. If your ‘Egyptology’ says that it isn’t, then I mistrust your ‘Egyptology’ rather than Joseph Smith. I don't believe that your ‘Egyptology’ has advanced enough to be able to solve every mystery therein.”

It’s incredible how apologists brazenly deny science and Egyptology which has advanced to the point that reading and interpreting Facsimile No. 3 is child’s play. There is nothing complicated about it. It’s not rocket science! The vignette is easily understood by Egyptologists but was completely misunderstood by Joseph Smith who misrepresented the entire scene in his publication of the Times and Seasons. It’s really, a rather simple vignette expressed in the Book of the Dead and other funerary literature and tomb inscriptions. It’s basic Egyptian religion -- it includes spells, incantations, and praise to the gods of Egypt.

Not surprising, Zerinus digresses further and denies that modern Egyptology is on solid ground: “You are talking nonsense. You know a little bit, and you think you know everything. ‘Science’ proves nothing of the kind. There are many truths that cannot be known by ‘science,’ but by the revelations of God. You can knock your head against that wall forever; but it won't alter that fact.”

Evidently, it’s Zerinus who is knocking his head against the wall because he knows there isn’t a king’s name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 and neither can Mormon Egyptologists produce a royal name. Why? Because it doesn’t exist! It’s not there and never was. Smith’s revelation was proven false by modern Egyptology and he can’t explain that. Zerinus defends his position by discrediting or downplaying Egyptology, saying, “The ‘Egyptology’ that you rely on so much is not as foolproof as you think it is. There is a better way of discovering truth that never goes wrong. ‘Egyptology’ doesn't even come close.”

The apologist can’t possibly convince us that the beautiful goddess Isis is really a man dressed up as the king of Egypt! Neither can he convince us that the beautiful Maat is really a boy or prince. Dare not anyone try and convince me that the mighty god Anubis was really a slave by the name “Olimlah” according to Smith’s reading of the inscription! Mormon Egyptology or, Smithology, perverts funerary religious rites and expressions and makes a mockery of their religion -- the faith that was dear to the heart of countless millions who once lived. The Book of Abraham slanders the ancient Egyptians and mocks their religion.

Zerinus refuses to concede from defending the indefensible: “Again, I question that. There were esoteric teachings which the symbols represented that were reserved for the ‘initiated,’ and were not revealed to everyone. In other words, what you think you have discovered may not be all that is there.”

The nonsense that this apologist pushes is a vain attempt to defend Smith’s false Egyptology and is utterly astounding. It’s a desperate means of using distraction in order to make everything seem mysterious, couching Smith’s so-called revelations in pseudo-science that somehow and mysteriously validates Smith’s Explanations. It is nothing less than an apologetic ruse!

Imagine today’s Egyptologists asking Joseph Smith to identify a royal Cartouche in Facsimile No. 3, a sacred emblem used to enclose a royal name inscribed in hieroglyphic writing. Where is the royal Cartouche? It’s not there! But apologists peddle nonsense while grasping at straws and make claims they can’t substantiate or prove. Like spaghetti, they throw anything up in the air to see if it sticks.

Everyone (believers and unbelievers) should ask themselves the following question:

Is it possible that Joseph Smith believed the Holy Ghost revealed to him that the papyrus used to translate the Book of Abraham was a literal 3,500-Year-Old Abraham Autograph?

[x] Yes [ ] No

Bear in mind, we can differentiate the possibilities of what Smith actually thought -- into two different categories:

1. Smith’s claim
2. Smith’s belief

The two are not necessarily the same. One can make a claim and not believe it -- thus, they are knowingly not telling the truth. Or, one can make a claim and believe it’s true, whether it’s actually true or not remains to be determined. Smith was not sheepish in making literal claims about fantastic things such as angelic visitations or ancient Egyptian papyri that miraculously fell into his hands by God’s divine providence -- more particularly the autographs of the patriarchs, Joseph and Abraham written by their own hands. Smith’s fantastic claims regarding the age and content of the papyri with written signatures of the patriarchs is clearly demonstrated in statements made to that effect. Joseph Smith’s time was a heyday for miraculous Mormon claims. Smith’s ability to translate went completely unchallenged and was uncontested. Egyptology was in its infancy. Years later, when modern science weighed in, Mormon apologists began to offer alternative explanations to justify or excuse what Smith originally tendered.

The Missing Roll theory became a standard apologetic theory for many Mormon apologists and the quest to find parallels to connect Smith’s interpretations with conventional Egyptology was in full swing. The absence of the original papyrus (then missing) would alleviate the strain of answering difficult questions about what actually got translated and allow for mystery to overshadow the answers. Suddenly, out of the blue, in 1967 everything changed when missing Joseph Smith papyri was discovered and returned to the church! Immediately, apologetics went into full swing and the missing papyrus theory had to be changed from, “We don’t have the papyrus” to “We don't have ALL the papyrus.” New ground was broken to allow for all kinds of wild, crazy, and wacko ideas on how to defend Smith’s translations.

But in spite of all this, Smith is on record for pointing at what was supposed to be original patriarchal signatures on the papyri as well as an Egyptian king’s name in Facsimile No. 3. Apologists are forced to deal with these claims and and their excuses are quite dismal! Which statement made by Joseph Smith is harder for an apologist to accept and why?

1. “There, that is the signature of Abraham.”
2. “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

Smith was into literalism and when he wasn’t, he often pointed out the difference by saying things were “symbolic.” Claiming to have the original papyrus penned by Abraham & Joseph was a feather in his cap and increased his ability to maintain power over the church. The payment of a large sum of money for the Egyptian artifacts increased the commitment of church members in sustaining his miraculous ability to translate Egyptian into English.

[Philo Sofee]

I believe your last post here should be reposted as a new thread. It is a highly significant discussion with much of your heady analysis folks ought to see. May I copy it and make a new thread out of it, or would you like to do the honors? You could call it "Joseph Smith's Literal Abraham Autograph Belief" or something like that.

[Shulem]

Philo,

The honor is all yours, feel free to paste the content into a new thread started by YOU. Also, you get to decide whether to put it in Terrestrial or Celestial. Both forums have difference advantages and disadvantages so take a moment to decide where you think it will best fit or post in both forums if you think best. The thread will certainly have the potential to cover a wide range of Book of Abraham aspects, all of which are not something apologists have an easy time defending.

It’s over for the Book of Abraham which is past life support. I think a fair analogy, not to be rude, but critics liken it to a corpse lying on a medical examiners table ready for dissection in preparation for burial. The leaders of the Church have all but abandoned the Book of Abraham and apologists are divided in their arguments like sheep that are scattered among their own flocks. The official Book of Abraham Church Essay allows for division within a house divided in granting allowance for both theories: 1) Missing Roll, 2) Catalyst, in which both are diametrically opposed to each other. But what can the Church do? The Church has no singular answer but is allowing its members to be divided among themselves by picking what answer best fits their current cognitive dissonance needs. This approach however is completely unsustainable in the long run.

[Shulem]

Recall earlier that this thread provided several examples of how Joseph Smith translated hieroglyphs from the gold plates of the Book of Mormon just as he translated hieroglyphs from the papyrus of the Book of Abraham. The only difference between the two records is that one was made of gold inscribed in so-called reformed hieroglyphs and the other consisted of papyrus inked in conventional hieroglyphs. In this next example, unlike the Book of Abraham translation, we are given the name of the king in the Book of Mormon but since the gold plates were taken back to heaven by Moroni, we will not be able to verify the translation. Those reformed hieroglyphs are not available for us to examine. Neither can we verify the other names given that were supposedly etched in gold. What are those other names? They are Nephite coinage! But first, what is the name of the “king” given in the hieroglyphic writing of the gold plates?

Now these are the names of the different pieces of their gold, and of their silver, according to their value. And the names are given by the Nephites, for they did not reckon after the manner of the Jews who were at Jerusalem; neither did they measure after the manner of the Jews; but they altered their reckoning and their measure, according to the minds and the circumstances of the people, in every generation, until the reign of the judges, they having been established by king Mosiah.

Note how “the names are given” for the Nephite gold and silver coins and the name of the king who presided over the Nephite Mint was none other than king Mosiah. The names are NOT Jewish but are given new names according to Nephite mintage designations.

5 Now the reckoning is thus—a senine of gold, a seon of gold, a shum of gold, and a limnah of gold.

6 A senum of silver, an amnor of silver, an ezrom of silver, and an onti of silver.

7 A senum of silver was equal to a senine of gold, and either for a measure of barley, and also for a measure of every kind of grain.

8 Now the amount of a seon of gold was twice the value of a senine.

9 And a shum of gold was twice the value of a seon.

10 And a limnah of gold was the value of them all.

11 And an amnor of silver was as great as two senums.

12 And an ezrom of silver was as great as four senums.

13 And an onti was as great as them all.

So, what is the point I am attempting to make by listing all these coins along with their fictitious Nephite names which Smith made up out of his own mind or otherwise translated from the gold plates? Verse four tells us that “the names are given” and we are given the names because if there are names on the plates then they must therefore be given. Well, the same can be said for the papyrus vignette of Facsimile No. 3 in which a king is designated in the very hieroglyphs by “whose name is given in the characters above his head.”

WHAT *IS* THE KING’S NAME INKED ON THE PAPYRUS? Is it Shum or Limlah? How about Ezrom or Onti? What fictitious name would Joseph Smith had given if he had actually bothered to take the time to give one in this account?

It can’t be Shulem because that was given to Hor. Nor can it be Olimlah because that was given to Anubis.

What is the king’s name? How about King Shiblum? That sound cool.

Am I making my point clear?

[Philo Sofee]

Yes, your point is very loud and clear. Heh... once the inventing occurs, it paves the way for much easier access to potentially new names to come up with and all without much angst to boot! So the Book of Mormon was his warm up... hee, hee......

[Shulem]

Philo,

It’s somewhat odd that Smith did not name the king in Facsimile No. 3. Naming kings was no small task for Joseph Smith because he had lots of practice with that in the Book of Mormon. But one particular king in the Book of Mormon sparks an unusual interest and that’s found in Ether, king Shule. Did you know that in chapter seven the repetitive phrase “Shule the king” is mentioned six times? (4 times with a comma and 2 without) The Book of Mormon is generous when it comes to listing names of kings and it does so repeatedly. So why no mention of a king’s name in Facsimile No. 3? Why a nameless king? I find that somewhat odd. Do you? It’s kind of like a headless horseman on a chessboard.

I find it peculiar that the so-called servant in Facsimile No. 3 is named “Shulem” which of course we know by the hieroglyphs above is totally bogus. How is it that Smith translated the name “Shule” as a king from the gold plates and then gives us “Shulem” for an Egyptian servant from the characters on the papyrus? Something is not right. Do you see borrowings?

This my friend seems to be an example of Smith’s hand caught in his own cookie jar digging for names. Smith *was* a name digger! What to call the king? Can’t use Shule, because that was already taken in the Book of Mormon and the Jaredites weren’t Egyptians. So, how about just leave it open, a mystery, rather than take a chance that someone might question the legitimacy of this particular Egyptian king and just in case some literary historical reference pops up with an actual name that differs with the Facsimile. Play it safe! But surely the king’s servants are a dime a dozen so there should be no risk in naming him. How about add an “m” at the end of the name “Shule” and call him “SHULEM”?

Also, bear in mind that Smith already chopped off Anubis’s nose once he found out the black jackal-head man was someone actually very important to the Egyptians. I explained that thoroughly in RFM's thread Shout Out to Shulem! (RATED PG). Printing the Facsimile No. 3 was the last step and there was no time to lose.

[Shulem]

YOU decide. Take your pick:

1) Which is easier to believe?
2) Which is easier to dismiss?

Facsimile 3 OR Kinderhook Plates translations?

1842
Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

OR

1843
May 1 Monday. I rode out with Lucien Woodworth, and paid him £ 20 for the Nauvoo House, which I borrowed of William Allen.

I have seen insert fac similes of​ the six brass plates of a bell shape, found near Kinderhook, in Pike Co. Illinois, on April 23 by Mr. R. Wiley ​& others​ while excavating a large mound. They had found a skeleton about 6 feet from the surface of the Earth, which must have stood 9 feet high. The plates were found on the breast of the Skeleton, and were covered with ancient characters there being from 30 to 40 on each side of the plates.

I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharoah, King of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the ruler of Heaven and Earth.

Joseph Smith History
Handwriting by Thomas Bullock, Scribe to Joseph Smith

Apologists tend to dismiss the Kinderhook incident by downplaying Smith’s claim to have translated anything from the plates by inspiration. Some may even discredit the historical entry in Smith’s journal. But we can be sure that everyone (including Smith’s scribes) understood and knew the standing law of the Church was that Joseph Smith was the TRANSLATOR and nobody else in the whole Church was up to that particular task. That was Joseph’s mantle and his alone.

Behold, there shall be a record kept among you; and in it thou shalt be called a seer, a translator, a prophet, an apostle of Jesus Christ, an elder of the church through the will of God the Father, and the grace of your Lord Jesus Christ, Being inspired of the Holy Ghost to lay the foundation thereof, and to build it up unto the most holy faith.

And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses - Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.

I give unto you my servant Joseph to be a presiding elder over all my church, to be a translator, a revelator, a seer, and prophet.

Here is an apologetic article in the Ensign for the Kinderhook Plates:

Kinderhook Plates Brought to Joseph Smith Appear to Be a Nineteenth-Century Hoax

The apologists will dismiss the Kinderhook translations by jumping through a series of hoops but they can’t dismiss Facsimile No. 3 which is just as bad.

[Shulem]

YOU decide. Take your pick:

1) Which is easier to believe?
2) Which is easier to dismiss?

Facsimile 3 OR Kinderhook Plates translations?

FULL STOP!

I’m not going to discuss the Kinderhook plates in this thread. I merely brought it up as a comparison because there are things therein that tie directly to what we are told in the Book of Abraham. For those who want to know more about the subject they may refer to WIKIPEDIA or read the apologetic article in the Church Ensign which I linked above, but rest assured the Church will only provide a faithful viewpoint and will withhold (or not bring up) those that are less favorable. That’s how the Church works.

The Kinderhook plates is a sore subject for Church apologists but it is what it is and it is part of Church History, nonetheless.

ALSO, my new thread is available here: Kinderhook Plates and Don Bradley