“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
Hagoth
Nursery
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2021 1:24 pm

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

Post by Hagoth »

I have a feeling that, even if the Facsimilies turned out to be as blatantly phony as the Kinderhook plates (e.g. they translated into a page of the Farmer's Almanac) The Brethren would remain quiet, leave it in the printed text, and task some poor shmuck apologist to come up with a dodge at the risk of losing his BYU employment.

To put it another way, if Joseph had published a translation of the Kinderhook plates I imagine we'd be hearing Henry Eyring III asking his students, "Are you true to the Book of Kinderhook?" and Kerry Muhlestein saying, "I start out with the assumption that the Book of Kinderhook..."

The plates themselves would be gathering dust in the back of the Church History Library alongside the 3-ring binder that the papyri are unceremoniously stuffed into.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2428
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 »

Hagoth wrote:
Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:33 pm
Kerry Muhlestein saying, "I start out with the assumption that the Book of Kinderhook..."
Apologists would argue in favor of there being two sets of Kinderhook plates: The real plates and the phony plates. The real plates being beamed up to Kolob.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Hagoth
Nursery
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2021 1:24 pm

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

Post by Hagoth »

Moksha wrote:
Fri Dec 31, 2021 3:33 am
Hagoth wrote:
Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:33 pm
Kerry Muhlestein saying, "I start out with the assumption that the Book of Kinderhook..."
Apologists would argue in favor of there being two sets of Kinderhook plates: The real plates and the phony plates. The real plates being beamed up to Kolob.
That would certainly fit the pattern, wouldn't it? Book of Abraham apologetics rely on both a lost scroll AND a lost dictation manuscript. Joseph had a seer stone AND the now missing Urim & Thummim. Two Cumorahs. Gold plates. Yup.
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 2428
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:
Tue Dec 28, 2021 7:02 pm
Image
It would be best if Dr. Muhlestein were to get a 12" x 16" glass-enclosed papyrus case so he didn't have to wad it up to make it fit. Maybe a mirrored case to make it easier to see what you want. Fit it with canisters of hallucinogenic gas to mellow the interpretation of hyper-rational individuals who never use their third eye or priesthood antennae.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3558
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 »

I feel a certain degree of sympathy for Muhlestein because he’s stuck in his religion and stuck with being employed by a religion that expects him to lie in order to justify the means. THAT must be frustrating. The professor is not allowed to question the authenticity of what he is supposed to defend even though it has been scientifically disproved by a collective world body of scholars and experts. Poor Muhlestein has been left to his own devices in trying to produce a narrative that doesn’t conflict with Smith’s claims or embarrass the Church in any way. To do so would bring serious repercussions against him and possibly cost his job -- to say nothing of his so-called eternal salvation.

So what can Muhlestein do? Well, one thing he CANNOT do is tell me the name of King Pharaoh written in the writing (nine hieroglyphs) within the hieroglyphic register that serves as the label for the goddess Isis.
Ed1
Deacon
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:43 am

Re: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Ed1 »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:59 pm
Moksha wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 7:24 pm

So with the right amount of science fiction, FAIR could solidify its position and perhaps lay the groundwork for another Orson Scott Card novel.

Sure, FAIR is welcome to consult with Dr. John Gee, Dr. Kerry Muhlestein, and Pseudo-Dr. Ed Goble and come up with some kind of plan to legitimize Joseph Smith’s Explanation that a royal king’s name is given in the characters above Isis’s head.
Well you certainly aren't some kind of credentialed Dr. of Egyptology yourself Paul. You just sit here and try to get legitimacy by spending all your time trashing on apologists and listening to the echos of people who agree with you. And you have no charity for the hard work of others notwithstanding your disagreement with them.

At least I have continually tried to reach out to the likes of you to build bridges until you finally threw enough sand in my face that I realized that trying to be friends with you was stupid. You are not and never will be, and never really have been a friend. I credit you with being one of the last straws that finally drove me away from here.

It isn't foolish to do what I do, as I continually make progress, even when I'm wrong and have to concede to something that I am wrong about. Its only foolish to have anything to do with you. Its only foolish to try to have anything to do with other apologists that are as bad as you on the other side. Apologists don't care about evidence. I do. That is why the word apologist doesn't really fit what I do, because I am a weird place in the middle, eccentric as it may be.

Someday, I will build a group that is faithful and care about evidence at the same time, that will take the best of both worlds from the critics and the apologists, and when that happens, real progress will be made to bridge the two worlds and bring all truth from both sides into one great whole, and leave the nonsense from both sides in the trash bin.

FYI I appeared on Ryan Hinckley's Mormon Theories podcast and that episode should appear today sometime.
Last edited by Ed1 on Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” ― Matsuo Basho
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3558
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 »

Apologists have made a Hail Mary pass in attempting to justify Smith’s false translation. They point out that one of the nine characters in Queen Isis’s name used by Smith to produce his translation is a glyph for a throne and therefore represents “King Pharaoh”. They allude to the idea that this is a bullseye for what I deem as nothing more or less than, Smithgyptology. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated how this apologetic is absolute nonsense and does nothing to help their cause.

  • I can only assume that apologists are still working on ways to interpret the hieroglyphs above Maat in order to justify her as a “Prince” and maybe even determine his name.
  • I can only assume that apologists are still working on ways to interpret the hieroglyphs above Hor in order to justify him as a “waiter” and maybe find a way to make the hieroglyphs spell the name “Shulem”.
  • I can only assume that apologists are still working on ways to interpret the hieroglyphs above Anubis in order to justify him as a “slave” and turn him into “Olimlah”.

CRICKETS ARE CHIRPING!
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 3558
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Shulem »

Ed1 wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 8:55 pm
Shulem wrote:
Wed Oct 06, 2021 9:59 pm



Sure, FAIR is welcome to consult with Dr. John Gee, Dr. Kerry Muhlestein, and Pseudo-Dr. Ed Goble and come up with some kind of plan to legitimize Joseph Smith’s Explanation that a royal king’s name is given in the characters above Isis’s head.
Well you certainly aren't some kind of credentialed Dr. of Egyptology yourself Paul. You just sit here and try to get legitimacy by spending all your time trashing on apologists and listening to the echos of people who agree with you. And you have no charity for the hard work of others notwithstanding your disagreement with them.

At least I have continually tried to reach out to the likes of you to build bridges until you finally threw enough sand in my face that I realized that trying to be friends with you was stupid. You are not and never will be, and never really have been a friend. I credit you with being one of the last straws that finally drove me away from here.

It isn't foolish to do what I do, as I continually make progress, even when I'm wrong and have to concede to something that I am wrong about. Its only foolish to have anything to do with you. Its only foolish to try to have anything to do with other apologists that are as bad as you on the other side. Apologists don't care about evidence. I do. That is why the world apologist doesn't really fit what I do, because I am a weird place in the middle, eccentric as it may be.

Someday, I will build a group that is faithful and care about evidence at the same time, that will take the best of both worlds from the critics and the apologists, and when that happens, real progress will be made to bridge the two worlds and bring all truth from both sides into one great whole, and leave the nonsense from both sides in the trash bin.

FYI I appeared on Ryan Hinckley's Mormon Theories podcast and that episode should appear today sometime.

I wish you well on your journey through life and hope you are enjoying a good measure of health and happiness in all you do. Your association and connection with the Church and all those things that come of it are entirely your choice and you get to decide how long you will stay with it. Only Ed can decide that and only Ed can decide when it’s time to shift and do something different. Or you can stay with it and make faith in Mormonism your life’s mission. It’s all up to you.
Ed1
Deacon
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:43 am

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

Post by Ed1 »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:08 pm
Apologists have made a Hail Mary pass in attempting to justify Smith’s false translation. They point out that one of the nine characters in Queen Isis’s name used by Smith to produce his translation is a glyph for a throne and therefore represents “King Pharaoh”. They allude to the idea that this is a bullseye for what I deem as nothing more or less than, Smithgyptology. I’ve thoroughly demonstrated how this apologetic is absolute nonsense and does nothing to help their cause.

  • I can only assume that apologists are still working on ways to interpret the hieroglyphs above Maat in order to justify her as a “Prince” and maybe even determine his name.
  • I can only assume that apologists are still working on ways to interpret the hieroglyphs above Hor in order to justify him as a “waiter” and maybe find a way to make the hieroglyphs spell the name “Shulem”.
  • I can only assume that apologists are still working on ways to interpret the hieroglyphs above Anubis in order to justify him as a “slave” and turn him into “Olimlah”.

CRICKETS ARE CHIRPING!
You are right. Someday we will crack it, and figure out how some of this will be the case. We've cracked some of it. It's only a matter of time now. And how would it not help the cause to actually crack this?

Answer me how demonstration that Joseph Smith was right on some points in unexpected ways will not help the cause?

This isn't about my expectation that you think it can be done, because I know you think it can't, and I know you have an overconfidence that it can't, and that's precisely where it will bite you. Its the same overconfidence people will have when Christ will show up and burn them, overconfidence that a God that was slain could not be resurrected and actually be in control of things, and how long he actually allows people like these to persist. I think it can be done, and I have faith that it can be done, because I've cracked some key pieces of it, notwithstanding both your rejection of it, and the apologists' rejection of it. Notwisthstanding my initial guess on the name of pharoah was wrong.

What do you plan to do in the unlikely event (as you see it), that someone like me is right in an unexpected way? It is precisely that unexpected way that I have faith in, because I've seen enough to justify the belief that it is only a matter of time that this will be cracked. Just answer what you plan to do in that case because you are so certain of yourself that it is impossible?
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” ― Matsuo Basho
Ed1
Deacon
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2020 7:43 am

Re: Eccentric apologist Ed Goble

Post by Ed1 »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:18 pm
I wish you well on your journey through life and hope you are enjoying a good measure of health and happiness in all you do. Your association and connection with the Church and all those things that come of it are entirely your choice and you get to decide how long you will stay with it. Only Ed can decide that and only Ed can decide when it’s time to shift and do something different. Or you can stay with it and make faith in Mormonism your life’s mission. It’s all up to you.
Thanks I guess for what its worth, but my trajectory for what I will continue to do is already set. If it hasn't changed yet after all I've been through, and after all I have gone through here as a small part of what I have been through, why would it ever change?

If the determination to create a group that will find the middle place and bridge the gap between the truth of the apologists and the truth of the critics persists, why should it not have some measure of success when similarly disgruntled apologists that are disgusted with the state of apologetics like me, who don't leave the Church but seek for apologetic reformation like me, join my cause, and when critics that return and gain some measure of faith again see what I'm doing and have some measure of respect for what I'm trying to accomplish will join me.

To have an actual evidence-based apologetics doesn't mean that my conclusions have to agree with yours, or Dan Vogel's, as another example. It only means that it has to actually deal with the same evidence you do, and not evade it.

It means that I have to have evidence-based conclusions that are somewhat scientific in a certain sense, although being religious in nature, will never qualify as science, because some of the evidence employed is religiously based evidence, evidence that you have no regard for. That's fine.
“Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise; seek what they sought.” ― Matsuo Basho
Post Reply