“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.
Father Francis
CTR B
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:59 pm

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

Post by Father Francis »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Oct 02, 2021 9:22 pm

Do note that apologetic twists and turns do nothing to justify Smith’s mistake in identifying Maat (Fig. 4) as a “Prince of Pharaoh”. Never is Maat called or referred to as a PRINCE of Egypt! She, like Isis, is a woman, not a male. Thus, we see that the apologetic attempt to justify Smith’s mistakes by trying to find obscure representations outside of the historical context of what Smith was originally claiming is a complete failure. They are welcome to ascribe Isis as kingly from a certain point of view if that is what they want but they will have a serious problem with ascribing Maat as prince of Egypt. It’s entirely a losing proposition. MAAT is *NOT* a son.
This is the crux of the issue for me. I left for many reasons (wanting to sin was not one of them by the way). The biggest one was that the history and science I was taught in school just didn't line up with the truth claims of the church. Hypocrisy was also a major factor. After I left the church I studied many religions and didn't get much satisfaction, though I still hold on to the good bits of philosophy I found in each one I studied.

I had a moment where I doubted my doubt.

So I decided the best test would be to see if Joseph Smith properly translated the Facsimiles.

I was always taught he literally translated ancient Egyptian, just as he literally translated the golden plates.

First I read the facts, then I went looking for the (I didn't know the term 'apologist' then) other side of the argument. I have always had an aptitude for logic, math, science, etc. The apologist argument seemed easy to dismantle. This is when my whole world view changed and I honestly can't understand the old mindset I had when I was a believer. That's when I delved into the deeper history. I wrote a song about it many years ago, kind of a blues tribute. This is the final verse. Maybe I'll make a recording for yall, if there's any interest

"Ol' Joe Smith wasn't lookin very slick diggin treasure with his hat and stones,
Then he got clever when he decided they'd be better for makin up sacred tomes,
One came from Abe of the Bible days called the Pearl of Great Price,
Now we know bout the Book of Breathings and Joe's house of lies"
Last edited by Father Francis on Fri Dec 24, 2021 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3557
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 »

Father Francis wrote:
Thu Dec 23, 2021 3:51 am
I was always taught he literally translated ancient Egyptian, just as he literally translated the golden plates.

Let’s put something into perspective, shall we? Belief and testimony in the Book of Abraham, as published in current Latter-day Saint canon, is perceived by members as a whole and perhaps very differently than it was by the Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo when first published in Times and Seasons. Although there are differences between the two eras; I would like to point out that what Latter-day Saints believe or think today about anything pertaining to the Book of Abraham is absolutely irrelevant to what Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo thought or perceived about what the prophet Joseph Smith said back then. So, for the purpose of understanding how the Book of Abraham was first perceived in Mormonism we can completely disregard anything and everything the modern Latter-day Saints think and feel. Modern saints are irrelevant to the discussion. They don’t count! They don’t exist yet!

The saints in Nauvoo trusted the translations of Joseph Smith, and believed he literally translated the Book of Abraham. There was no apologetics or any discussion on how to defend and explain Smith’s translation of the content contained in the chapters or Facsimiles. It was all received as if it was correctly translated from the papyrus just as he did with the Book of Mormon from the gold plates. The Latter-day Saints believed the Explanations of the Facsimiles were literally correct, and an actual restoration of what was anciently expressed in the vignettes. The Church in Nauvoo believed it was a revelation, a restoration, and a divinely inspired work given to the Church from the prophet, seer, revelator, and translator who was the only man on earth having the authority and gift to perform that work.

We can safely conclude that members of the Church in Nauvoo, including the apostles, who would have testified and born witness through the Holy Ghost as a companion to that testimony, that the Explanations of the Facsimiles were literal translations and were correct. We can only imagine that Joseph Smith himself would have born witness to that effect, and certify with his customary authoritative statement “in the name of Jesus Christ” thus given through the divine authority vested in him and by witness of the Holy Spirit of God that the Explanation testifying “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head” is a literal translation of the character and the writing. Members of the Church today who refuse to accept the revelations of Joseph Smith as they did in Nauvoo have strayed from the path.
Father Francis
CTR B
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:59 pm

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

Post by Father Francis »

Shulem, when are you going to get around to the pseudo astronomy in the Book of Abraham? Just as damning as the pseudo translation in my opinion.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 2266
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 »

Father Francis wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:39 pm
Shulem, when are you going to get around to the pseudo astronomy in the Book of Abraham? Just as damning as the pseudo translation in my opinion.
Calm down, the real astronomy is also on the longer roll which John Gee knows all about like the Book of Abraham is. :lol: Welcome to the board!
Father Francis
CTR B
Posts: 156
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2021 12:59 pm

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

Post by Father Francis »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 3:35 am
Father Francis wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:39 pm
Shulem, when are you going to get around to the pseudo astronomy in the Book of Abraham? Just as damning as the pseudo translation in my opinion.
Calm down, the real astronomy is also on the longer roll which John Gee knows all about like the Book of Abraham is. :lol: Welcome to the board!
I'm guessing there's a funeral potatoes recipe in there as well
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3557
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Dan Vogel on Book of Abraham Cosmos

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 3:35 am
Father Francis wrote:
Fri Dec 24, 2021 10:39 pm
Shulem, when are you going to get around to the pseudo astronomy in the Book of Abraham? Just as damning as the pseudo translation in my opinion.
Calm down, the real astronomy is also on the longer roll which John Gee knows all about like the Book of Abraham is. :lol: Welcome to the board!

Well, I guess it would be okay to venture away from the thread just this once in order to advertise and reference Dan Vogel’s new book entitled Book of Abraham Apologetics A Review and Critique. Vogel addresses the astronomy elements found within the Book of Abraham as well as the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papers. Here are a few key points he makes in his book in summing up how Smith was simply borrowing from his immediate surroundings as he was so accustomed to do:

  • “Abraham’s cosmology was not what one would expect from an ancient author. It did not describe the earth as flat. Nor did it mention the dome-like firmament in which stars were set as shining jewels. Rather than luminous spots on the vaulted-canopy suspended above the earth, Abraham’s scheme, according to Smith, was both unique and consistent with what was understood and believed by astronomers and natural theologians in the mid-nineteenth century. The mix of contemporary astronomy and theological concerns resulted in a cosmology that is as foreign to twenty-first century readers of Smith’s texts as ancient Hebrew cosmology was to Smith and his contemporaries.”
  • “In referencing to the sun as both central and moving as well as a planet, Smith reflected the belief in his day, especially among theologians of nature, that the solar system is part of a larger system that moves around other systems, which in turn move around the throne of God. Commenting on the phrase ‘heaven of heavens’ in Deuteronomy 10:14, Bible commentator Adam Clarke wrote that ‘the words were probably intended to point out the immensity of God’s creation, in which we may readily conceive one system of heavenly bodies, and others beyond them, and others beyond them, and others still in endless progression through the whole vortex of space, every star in the vast abyss of nature being a sun, with its peculiar and numerous attendant worlds! Thus there may be systems of systems in endless graduation up to the throne of God.’ In Philosophy of a Future State, first published in Philadelphia in 1825, Thomas Dick commented on the phrase ‘Throne of God’: …”
  • “In addition, Smith’s cosmology also comported, not with ancient Earth-centered models, but with early nineteenth-century understandings of the universe. While LDS scholars have argued that Abraham 3 describes a geocentric universe, their arguments are incomplete and not supported by the evidence . . . . Finally, Abraham 3:5, also dictated in 1842, implies the earth moves when it places the earth in the planetary hierarchy below the slower-moving moon. While a central sun and a moving earth do not support a geocentric model, the description of the sun as a central and moving planet is consistent with the model of a multi-system cosmos proposed by Thomas Dick and other natural theologians in Smith’s day.”

Further reading for those who are interested in Smith/Abraham cosmology:

WIKIPEDIA Kolob
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2426
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Dan Vogel on Book of Abraham Cosmos

Post by Moksha »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Dec 25, 2021 8:25 pm
Further reading for those who are interested in Smith/Abraham cosmology:

WIKIPEDIA Kolob
Due to advanced super technology, Kolob is most likely an immense ring-world stationed around a dwarf star. This might be confirmed by the Webb telescope detecting far-off light in a twinkling of an eye, and determining where time began to be. Or not.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3557
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

QUESTIONS FROM THE YOUTH OF THE CHURCH

Post by Shulem »

Why does the Church continue to publish outdated Egyptian Explanations in the Book of Abraham that falsely describe Egyptian gods who are portrayed therein?

Image


How can I trust Church leaders to tell me the truth and be honest in their dealings when they continue to publish lies about the ancient Egyptian religion?

Image


How can I tell my friends and especially nonmembers of the Church that I believe in the Explanations and expect them to believe them too?

Image
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3557
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 »

Image


Kerry,

What about the evidence you find to the contrary? What do you do with evidence that defies Smith’s revelations? Do you sweep it under the rug and continue to dream up parallels to fit Smith’s version of Egyptology?

Consider dumping Smith’s Egyptology and embrace the truth.

Shulem
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3557
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

The Facsimiles

Post by Shulem »

Mormon Leaks wrote:Image


I feel certain that the brethren have discussed the problems associated with the difficult controversies involving the Book of Abraham, more especially the Facsimiles. There is no doubt in my mind that they are aware of the contradictions and conflicting messages contained in the Explanations and how they do not line up with modern Egyptology. These matters have been left in the hands of scholars and more recently BYU Egyptologists who help foster and promote Latter-day Saint apologetic ideas designed to answer some of the tough questions that General Authorities have never addressed.

Could it be that within the highest councils of the Church, serious questions have been raised about how the Church may be better served if the Facsimiles were removed from the Pearl of Great Price? Perhaps they might be replaced with a footnote stating:

Egyptian mysteries involving Abraham was an ongoing study for Joseph Smith and the early brethren of the Church. Latter-day Saints today faithfully await further light and knowledge which will be given in the own due time of the Lord. In the meantime we can be assured that the Book of Abraham is a restoration of Abraham’s life experiences in Egypt and elsewhere. Valuable teachings of life and the preexistence of man have been given therein to enrich the saints and bring us closer to God through the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.
Post Reply