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

[Shulem]

We have serious problem.

This is Houston. Say again, please.

Ah, Houston, we've got an Egyptian king who doesn’t have a name. Please advise on what to do.

That’s impossible. How can you have an Egyptian king without a name? Check your translation status and confirm.

Ah, my Facsimile says there’s a king’s name overhead but I don’t see one.

If there’s no king’s name then there is no king. Your translation must be faulty.

Okay, Houston, I’ll dump the Facsimile. Out.

[Shulem]

I’ve been crawling around FAC 1 for too long. Now I can’t find the king in FAC 3.

What has Egypt come to?

[Shulem]

Hey, Prince, how’s my name look overhead? Are the characters straight?

[Shulem]

Does the NINE (9) characters add up to a king’s name?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

[Moksha]

Why does Brother Crockett go on about Ptolemy I being included in Facsimile 3?

[Shulem]

Why does Brother Crockett go on about Ptolemy I being included in Facsimile 3?

Brother Crocket’s statements in the Terrestrial Forum about the characters in the register composing the name of Ptolemy of the 30th Dynasty are false. Although, there were several kings of the last Egyptian dynasty to bear that name, none of them are associated with the papyri.

This is an excellent example to demonstrate what is true and what is not. It either IS or it ISN’T and in Crocket’s case, it isn’t. But he chooses to believe a fantasy. His statement is no truer than Smith’s who said there was a king’s name in the writing. Both statements are not true. In fact, all truth can be found in one great whole and all untruth can be found in another whole. Both are conflicting opposites and cannot reside together because they are ultimately incompatible. The scale can only swing in one direction -- towards truth or towards falsehood. Therefore, what is true is on one hand and what is untrue is on the other. They cannot reside together because that is impossible.

Crocket’s case for the king’s name being Ptolemy is a fantasy just as Smith’s case that a king’s name is in the characters is also a fantasy. Both are untrue. Both are false. Neither of them edifies or enlightens.

[Shulem]

This thread provides a unique opportunity to examine a truth claim made by the prophet Joseph Smith. Unlike content within the stories of the Book of Mormon and books of Abraham & Moses, we are given a very specific example of a truth claim that is set out in the open on an examination table to be scientifically tested and probed. The Facsimile serves as a duplicate copy of the original papyrus vignette. For all intents and purposes it’s as good as the original and seeing that it was published in the Times and Seasons along with the Explanations, this makes it perfectly valid in the mind of Joseph Smith and serves as the very evidence that was presented to the world. Not everyone had the privilege to see the original vignette, but that really makes no difference. The published Facsimile is the only evidence we require along with the printed statement of the Explanations because they were presented jointly, together, as a pair.

The truth claim given by Joseph Smith is that there is a king’s name given in the characters as there is also a name of a Prince “written” in characters and the name “Shulem” represented by it’s characters.

These truth claims given by Joseph Smith are untrue. Nothing can make it true. John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein may explain all the parallels they want in order to show that Smith was describing something that can be compared or found elsewhere, but they can never, ever, give us the king’s name from those characters in Facsimile No. 3 or show us how the name “Shulem” is written within the characters designated by Smith.

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith was 36 years old when he published the Book of Abraham including the Facsimiles in the Times and Seasons in 1842. To my knowledge, there is no indication that Smith ever examined the original vignette of Facsimile No. 3 under a magnifying glass or whether he donned eyeglasses to improve his visibility. Nobody can say that Smith’s vision was 20/20 or how hard it was for him to read. We don’t know! We can only speculate how well Smith was able to visually grasp the character of ISIS; thus, Smith’s ability to visualize the goddess on papyrus could have ranged from poor to excellent but we have no way of knowing how well he was able to actually define the character with regards to sex -- a man or a woman?

It could be argued that Joseph Smith’s vision was not very good even at the age of 23 when he was translating the Book of Mormon. An indicator of this is the alleged use of so-called spectacles Smith used to assist in the translation process of the gold plates. Hence, the miraculous magnification of spectacles would help him clearly see what he needed to see with God’s help! This seems to suggest that Smith had a hard time reading and that eyeglasses was something on his mind even at an early age. Thus, I propose that Joseph Smith needed glasses but we have no evidence that he actually wore devices when he provided the Explanations of the Facsimiles! Therefore, the prophet may have been hindered through shortsightedness or blurriness and unable to clearly visualize subtle nuances or definitive characters of a particular object, person, or thing.

It’s my opinion that Smith believed the personage of No. 2 was male in character as he indicates in the official explanation. The fact that Smith identified that person as “king” is strong evidence that he believed the person was a man. Perhaps unbeknown to Joseph Smith, with very few exceptions (notably famous Cleopatra) in Egyptian history, nearly all the king’s of Egypt were male. The Pharaohs were male and Smith would have rightly assumed that all of them mentioned in the Bible were also males. Therefore, Smith wrongly assumed that Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 (goddess Maat) were males. I strongly suspect this error was derived on account of Smith not having clear vision and not being corrected by others who viewed the papyrus who had good vision.

Joseph Smith’s brother Hyrum apparently did NOT have the best vision and used glasses to assist him. It could be argued that Joseph had a similar problem but for some reason isn’t known for wearing glasses. But he sure did have a keen interest in other forms of glasses such as magic spectacles, Urim & Thummim, and seer stones. Could it be that Joseph just relied on those things to make up the difference and accepted blurry vision as a part of life? Maybe Joseph didn’t take to writing and preferred using scribes because writing was too much of chore and his poor vision made it difficult.

Here are some interesting facts that may shed light on the Smith family eyes.

Hyrum Smith's Sunglasses +9 More Treasures in the Church History Museum

Hyrum’s personal pair of prescription sunglasses corrected his farsightedness and could collapse to fit a small case. The glasses are subtly displayed next to the clothes he was wearing the day of the martyrdom and were part of a collection of artifacts formerly owned by Elder Eldred Smith, a direct descendant of Hyrum. A similar pair, owned and used by Brigham Young, are on display in another part of the museum.

[Shulem]

Hyrum Smith’s sunglasses and carrying case

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith’s Letter to Moses Nickerson, 19 November 1833

Since our arrival here, bro. Sidney has been afflicted with sore eyes, which is probably the reason why you have not previously heard from us, as he was calculating to write you immediately. But, though I expect that he will undoubtedly write you soon, as his eyes are considerably better, yet lest you should be impatient to learn something concerning us, I have thought that perhaps a few lines from me, though there may be a lack of fluency in address according to the literati of the age may be received with a degree of satisfaction on your part

Sidney had sore eyes so he wasn’t up to writing a letter. But now we see Joseph who isn’t up to writing a letter himself for Rigdon, is willing to use Oliver his scribe and dictates a letter. Joseph rather apologetically mentions that he’s not the most literate sort and yet will manage to pen a letter by his scribe, nonetheless. I find it telling that Joseph is unwilling to simply write the letter himself but has to get others to do it for him.

Why can’t Joseph just pick up the pen and write himself? Are his eyes sore too or does he have poor vision and depend on others to do the writing for him? It seems that was the story of Joseph’s life, always getting others to write for him!

But the following letter is penned by Joseph to his uncle Silas Smith in 1833 and almost off the bat Joseph is apologizing again for his lousy ability to write or, so it seems:

I take up my pen and seat myself in an attitude to address a few though imperfect lines to you for your perusal

I find it curious how Joseph and Emma had been married for over five years and yet in a private letter to his wife in making an effort to console different matters of interest, Joseph admits he has a hard time writing letters:

I hope you will excuse my warmth of feeling in mentioning this subject and also my inability in convaying my ideas in writing

Joseph Smith used scribes for what may seem like a variety of reasons but could the underlying reason be that he just had a hard time writing because his vision was poor and perhaps felt like he couldn’t connect with the words he was attempting to write because they were blurry?

This is pure speculation on my part. But it seems reasonable. Do you think?