“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
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Reading and writing go together

Post by Shulem »

Shulem,

Don’t you think your argument or suggestion that Smith had poor vision contradicts the fact that Joseph Smith was so well read? Obviously Joseph Smith had read the Bible and many other religious works and was able to fluently cite all kinds of written things. Doesn’t that suggest that he had descent vision?

How can you conclude that Smith had poor vision just because he used scribes and talked a lot about using magic stones and rocks to read?

Shulem
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

If you can read you can see!

Post by Shulem »

First, let it be understood that this message board is a means to explore and pursue ideas and examine the facts in the best light we can. This is a place to think and exchange ideas freely while trying to come to terms in understanding what’s going on. Like Philo said here:

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Nov 06, 2021 1:07 pm
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.

Here’s the deal. Either Joseph Smith wore eyeglasses during certain periods of his life while reading or he did not. Do we even know? Has it been conclusively established one way or the other? I think not! It’s an open case unless evidence can be produced to prove that Joseph never wore reading glasses, ever. We just can’t be sure. It could be argued that he did wear reading glasses on occasion and when he did, he did so discreetly and in private.

So, at this point, unless I learn new information, I think it will be wise to leave it at that. It’s possible that Joseph Smith had poor vision and wore reading glasses on many an occasion in the privacy of his personal studies. On the other hand, it’s possible that he had perfect vision.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
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 »

The only apologetic explanation that offers any measure of relief for the Mormons is in the idea that Smith’s interpretation of the hieroglyphic characters for the Egyptian king is based solely on a principle of representationalism and was not given as a literal reading. But this of course runs into numerous contradictory claims made by the prophet that prove he was speaking on literal terms rather than symbolic suggestion into the imagination.

If Joseph Smith were alive today, he would be forced to admit his claims are incorrect and have been refuted by modern scholarship. He would have to acknowledge that a literal reading was wrong and that his interpretation of the image and writing serve only to suggest an Egyptian king by a kind of symbolic substitution. Smith’s apologetics would evolve into receiving inspiration through Egyptian iconography in order to open his mind to the story of Abraham. He would be forced to concede that the Facsimile was only a prop or visual aid to idealize an ancient setting after the manner of the Egyptians. Therefore, in Smith’s mind, the goddess Isis served to represent the king of Egypt by proxy. But these ideas are a train wreck and contradict his original claims which run in an opposite direction. You can’t have it both ways. It’s one or the other and either way Smith is wrong on all accounts. He got in over his head and dabbled with things and mysteries he knew nothing about and it bit him. He took a chance and he lost. He gambled and lost it all.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Anthon Transcript

Post by Shulem »

The hieroglyphic characters of Facsimile No. 3 as SPECIFICALLY designated in the Explanations were perceived, viewed, and interpreted on a literal basis. The writing on the papyri was understood by everyone to be associated with the literal expressions of what Joseph Smith said they represent. We have a comparison to prove this is exactly what Smith implied. We may defer to the Anthon Transcript in which Martin Harris was involved in attempting to validate characters taken from the gold plates and presented to professor Charles Anthon for an opinion regarding those characters.

Joseph Smith wrote:Sometime in this month of February, the aforementioned Mr. Martin Harris came to our place, got the characters which I had drawn off the plates, and started with them to the city of New York. For what took place relative to him and the characters, I refer to his own account of the circumstances, as he related them to me after his return, which was as follows:

“I went to the city of New York, and presented the characters which had been translated, with the translation thereof, to Professor Charles Anthon, a gentleman celebrated for his literary attainments.”

There is no question that Martin Harris considered Joseph Smith’s translations and interpretations of the so-called reformed hieroglyphs on the gold plates to be literal translations from Egyptian into English. It wasn’t a symbolic translation. It wasn’t a figurative translation. It wasn’t a catalyst translation. IT WAS A LITERAL TRANSLATION FROM EGYPTIAN INTO ENGLISH.

The same can be said for the hieroglyphs on Facsimile No. 3 as represented by the translations and interpretation of Joseph Smith in the Explanations. They were not symbolic translations. They were not figurative. They were not a catalyst. They were literal translations based on Smith’s understanding of the Egyptian characters being converted into the English language.

The Anthon Transcript and the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 work together to show that Joseph Smith never at any time claimed anything less than a literal translation of the Egyptian language into English. Whether the characters are on gold plates or papyri, it is the same. Joseph Smith claimed to translate them, literally.
Last edited by Shulem on Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Black is black and white is white

Post by Shulem »

Recall a statement we examined earlier in this thread about how William Appleby described the scene in Facsimile No. 3 of Abraham in Pharaoh’s court and sitting upon the king’s throne.

Appleby wrote:And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince—a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King.

1) King Pharaoh is standing behind Abraham who is sitting on the throne
2) Prince
3) Waiter
4) Black slave

This is where I want to make it understood that Joseph Smith literally intended his audience to believe that Fig. 2 (Isis) was perceived and understood to be a male character, the very king of Egypt. The same goes for his son, the Prince. Everyone understood those persons to be exactly whom Smith said they were. They were said to be men residing in the royal court. Nothing is said about men dressed up as women as Hugh Nibley and John Gee suggest. Smith presented them as the royal family consisting of the king and his son with Abraham between them sitting on the throne. Nobody is ever reported to having said anything about their feminine qualities. Nobody ever commented on how strange it was that Egyptian men were drawn in that fashion. It simply was perceived to be what Joseph Smith interpreted it to be. Along with this comes a very important clue that reveals Smith was not knowingly substituting women merely to represent characters or persons for his royal court explanations. Taking this important clue in hand and applying it to how the whole scene was perceived, we come to no other conclusion other than Appleby believed Smith was literally revealing the persons in the Facsimile as a literal record made by father Abraham. The all-important clue is the color of the slave!

“a black slave of a king”

Typical to 19th century thinking, a black man in ancient Egypt or anywhere else for that matter might well be typified as a slave in the presence of white people. Everyone knows that slaves are black! Right? It was as American as Appleby pie! In this case we may reason that Smith’s black man was NOT given as a substitute to represent a slave anymore than Isis was a substitute to represent a man! Nor was the slave dressed up in black to appear as a slave! He was by Smith’s revelation designated as the black slave in the king’s court and there is nothing apologists can say to undo Smith’s awful mistake. Everyone believed the black man in the Facsimile was a slave just as much as everyone believed that Fig 2 (Isis) was the king of Egypt.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5015
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

!

Post by Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 3:25 pm
Recall a statement we examined earlier in this thread about how William Appleby described the scene in Facsimile No. 3 of Abraham in Pharaoh’s court and sitting upon the king’s throne.

Appleby wrote:And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince—a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King.

1) King Pharaoh is standing behind Abraham who is sitting on the throne
2) Prince
3) Waiter
4) Black slave

This is where I want to make it understood that Joseph Smith literally intended his audience to believe that Fig. 2 (Isis) was perceived and understood to be a male character, the very king of Egypt. The same goes for his son, the Prince. Everyone understood those persons to be exactly whom Smith said they were. They were said to be men residing in the royal court. Nothing is said about men dressed up as women as Hugh Nibley and John Gee suggest. Smith presented them as the royal family consisting of the king and his son with Abraham between them sitting on the throne. Nobody is ever reported to having said anything about their feminine qualities. Nobody ever commented on how strange it was that Egyptian men were drawn in that fashion. It simply was perceived to be what Joseph Smith interpreted it to be. Along with this comes a very important clue that reveals Smith was not knowingly substituting women merely to represent characters or persons for his royal court explanations. Taking this important clue in hand and applying it to how the whole scene was perceived, we come to no other conclusion other than Appleby believed Smith was literally revealing the persons in the Facsimile as a literal record made by father Abraham. The all-important clue is the color of the slave!

“a black slave of a king”

Typical to 19th century thinking, a black man in ancient Egypt or anywhere else for that matter might well be typified as a slave in the presence of white people. Everyone knows that slaves are black! Right? It was as American as Appleby pie! In this case we may reason that Smith’s black man was NOT given as a substitute to represent a slave anymore than Isis was a substitute to represent a man! Nor was the slave dressed up in black to appear as a slave! He was by Smith’s revelation designated as the black slave in the king’s court and there is nothing apologists can say to undo Smith’s awful mistake. Everyone believed the black man in the Facsimile was a slave just as much as everyone believed that Fig 2 (Isis) was the king of Egypt.
This is really, genuinely, a critically important point, entirely and properly emphasized by Shulem. As I looked into many hundreds of books on church history, I saw that Smith took ALL aspects of the restoration absolutely woodenly literal. The return of the lost ten tribes, priesthood keys being brought back by literally physical resurrected people from ancient times, the gathering of Israel literally in one physical spot (Jackson County, Missouri), literal Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel, Melchizedek, Noah, flood, tower, Abraham, Ur of Chaldees, etc.
It is the modern Mormon who presents abstractions, extra metaphorical adoptions trying to get away from such literal naïvété for the simple fact that Smith's literalism has been surpassed and outdated by the march of discoveries in all fields. He was just wrong, literally. In order to save him, Modern Mormon scholars are now forced to de-literalize and contextually broaden things into metaphor, analogy, and mythologization. It is a remarkable thing to behold! In order to save Smith from himself, they have to entirely disagree with him. What we are left with is the spectacle of Mormon scholarship unable to undo the damage of Joseph Smith's literalism. And every single person around Smith adapted said literalism and pontificated on it, thus making the defense of Smith in our day literally impossible. Utterly remarkable. And we can all thank Shulem for insistently and consistently bringing out each and every single angle of this presenting its problematic situation.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
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 »

Let’s examine Oliver Cowdery’s narrative published in the Church periodical MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE in December of 1835 and see if it doesn’t agree with what I’ve been expressing in this thread.

Oliver Cowdery wrote:While Mr. Chandler was in Philadelphia, he used every exertion to find some one who could give him the translation of his papyrus, but could not, satisfactorily, though from some few men of the first eminence, he obtained in a small degree, the translation of a few characters. Here he was referred to bro. Smith. From Philadelphia he visited Harrisburgh, and other places east of the mountains, and was frequently referred to bro. Smith for a translation of his Egyptian Relic.

The information above provides a few specific points that lead us to understand what Joseph Smith later meant when he said he “translated” the papyrus of the Book of Abraham.

  • Chandler was looking for someone who could give him a “translation” of his papyrus.
  • Chandler was interested in knowing the “translation” of a few characters
  • Chandler was interested in Joseph Smith’s ability to provide a “translation”

Oliver Cowdery wrote:It would be beyond my purpose to follow this gentleman in his different circuits to the time he visited this place the last of June, or first of July, at which time he presented bro. Smith with his papyrus. Till then neither myself nor brother Smith knew of such relics being in America. Mr. Chandler was told that his writings could be deciphered, and very politely gave me a privilege of copying some four or five different sentences or separate pieces, stating, at the same time, that unless he found some one who could give him a translation soon, he would carry them to London.

Note how Chandler was specifically told that the writings could be “deciphered” by Joseph Smith who was also known to have allegedly translated hieroglyphics from the gold plates into the Book of Mormon. It was a simple matter of translating Egyptian INTO English. Chandler permitted Cowdery to copy several sentences of the Egyptian text from the relic in question. Cowdery assured Chandler that Smith could give him a translation of the Egyptian and reveal the mystery.

Oliver Cowdery wrote:I am a little in advance of my narration; The morning Mr. Chandler first presented his papyrus to bro.-Smith, he was shown, by the latter, a number of characters like those upon the writings of Mr. C. which were previously copied from the plates, containing the history of the Nephites, or Book of Mormon.

Being solicited by Mr. Chandler to give an opinion concerning his antiquities, or translation of some of the characters, bro. S. gave him the interpretation of some few for his satisfaction.

In Oliver’s narrative he then explains that Smith had previously provided a preliminary translation back in July. At that time he was given a number of characters and afterward gave Chandler an interpretation of those few characters in question. Chandler was satisfied with the results and gave Smith a signed certificate of appreciation:

CERTIFICATE Kirtland, July 6th, 1835 wrote:“This is to make known to all who may be desirous, concerning the knowledge of Mr. Joseph Smith, jr. in deciphering the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphic characters, in my possession, which I have, in many eminent cities, shown to the most learned: And, from the information that I could even learn, or meet with, I find that of Mr. Joseph Smith, jr. to correspond in the most minute matters.”

Michael H. Chandler.

What is the point I’m trying to make? If you guessed that I’m connecting the dots between this and the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3, then you guessed right! Smith’s translations of the Egyptian were ALWAYS about providing a direct translation into an English understanding and in effect restoring the original content through his ability to translate one language INTO another. This translation process is not the same kind of translation as that of his new translation of the Bible. That was simply a matter of translating English into better English and adding additional content by revelation to help clarify the meaning. It was never about taking an unknown language and converting it into English as he did with the gold plates and papyri. This is where apologists get all hung up on the definition of translation in hoping they can excuse the prophet because they know he couldn’t read Egyptian, let alone translate it in the conventional sense as we see in Facsimile No. 3.

Now, just imagine if those characters that Chandler gave to Smith to decipher were the characters in Facsimile No. 3 in which Smith later said was a king’s name.

Do you see my point? Never at any time was Smith ever right in translating Egyptian into English. Smith was faking it with Chandler and everyone else. If you don’t believe it, just tell me the name of the king in Facsimile No. 3 and we can begin to discuss an alternative viewpoint which I fail to see.
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: !

Post by Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:15 pm
And we can all thank Shulem for insistently and consistently bringing out each and every single angle of this presenting its problematic situation.

And I thank you for that!

As I continue with this thread and shift into expanding the consequences of what it proves, there is a sense of wonder and concern in how it will all play out. I feel moved to continue in this presentation and inch by inch move upward in reaching the apex of this mountain which we climb. I know others are reading this thread because the views are now well over six thousand. I want to acknowledge you readers for taking the time and interest to follow this thread. I’ve mentioned earlier that you won’t be disappointed and hope everyone has gained fresh insight and increased interest in the claim made by Smith about the king’s name. Please, continue to follow along. I do believe there will be some startling observations yet to come and all of this will vibrate across the Internet and demand a response.

Without letting my ego get the better of me, may I humbly just say that the apologists are going to have to get past me if they think they can defend the Book of Abraham as a genuine historical record of how Egypt became a nation state as recorded in chapter one of that book. The apologists are going to have to ignore me and walk on the other side of the road when they see me coming. It’s over for the Book of Abraham. The curtain is coming down on that Act. It’s over.

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Nov 13, 2021 7:15 pm
It is the modern Mormon who presents abstractions, extra metaphorical adoptions trying to get away from such literal naïvété for the simple fact that Smith's literalism has been surpassed and outdated by the march of discoveries in all fields. He was just wrong, literally. In order to save him, Modern Mormon scholars are now forced to de-literalize and contextually broaden things into metaphor, analogy, and mythologization. It is a remarkable thing to behold! In order to save Smith from himself, they have to entirely disagree with him. What we are left with is the spectacle of Mormon scholarship unable to undo the damage of Joseph Smith's literalism. And every single person around Smith adapted said literalism and pontificated on it, thus making the defense of Smith in our day literally impossible. Utterly remarkable.

Very profound, indeed. It will be interesting to see how things play out. You will note that apologists have avoided the hacked out jackal nose from the lead plate with a ten foot pole. Can you blame them? I think the jackal nose is going to come back to haunt them right here in the Celestial Forum. Nightmare on Jackal Street? I’m saving that for later. ;)
Don Bradley
Star B
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2020 2:41 am

Re: Don Bradley and Kinderhook

Post by Don Bradley »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
An apologetic article defending the Church from the Kinderhook dilemma is given by Don Bradly a member of our board. I’ve not read it but will put it on my things to do list. It looks interesting.
Cool, Shulem! It will be interesting to hear your thoughts when you've read it.

The aim of the paper was to provide a comprehensive analysis of all the sources on Joseph Smith and the Kinderhook plates and to figure out what actually happened. That analysis certainly can be used for apologetic purposes, and I guess Mark and I opened the door to that use by how we framed our conclusion. But the chapter itself was written as part of an academic conference and published as part of a book on Joseph Smith's translation projects by the University of Utah Press--i.e., a non-church academic press. It also won the Mormon History Association's 2021 "Best Article" award, having been selected from among hundreds of articles published every year on Mormon history. This--of course--doesn't mean its conclusions are correct. But it does suggest that it has been received as Mark Ashurst-McGee and I intended--as an academic piece.
Although, I’ve not read the article, I’m therefore not qualified to critique it by any means or offer an opinion on the content but permit me if I may to comment on the last part of the article. I think it ties in nicely with Facsimile No. 3 and perhaps Don Bradley will weigh in and give us his thoughts on the matter. Who can say? I don’t know.
Maybe! ;-)
Shulem wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Don Bradley and Mark Ashurst-McGee wrote:Taken together, these sources indicate that Joseph Smith was attempting to translate the Kinderhook plates by ordinary methods of traditional translation.
Joseph Smith is hardly on record for using ordinary means to determine anything.
Joseph Smith studied Hebrew, German, and Greek and attempted to put this secular knowledge of language to use in various ways. This is a good part of what our chapter is about. And it's also a good part of what the larger book it appears in is about--documenting Joseph Smith's various uses of language, both revelatory and secular.

Shulem wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Yes, he was mistaken. Again and again, he was mistaken. Could it be that he was also mistaken into thinking that the papyri were genuine rolls penned by Abraham & Joseph?
Yes.
Shulem wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Could that have been a mistake too? Although he was correct in identifying the characters as hieroglyphic as found on coffins and tombs in ancient Egypt, we know he was not correct in translating those characters. Facsimile No. 3 provides prime examples in showing how he was mistaken. Right?
I agree that Facsimile 3 shows examples of characters for which Joseph Smith rendered meanings that are not the actual Egyptian meanings of those characters.

That said, Book of Abraham discussion has become a giant battle between two different "sides," which is not something that appeals to me. and not (at least as of yet) one where I've given sufficient research that I would want to become part of the larger discussion even if I liked doing my work in a war zone. However, I'm glad there are others who look into it deeply. For instance, I think your discovery re: the snout is an absolute gem.

When it comes to understanding Mormon history, I don't perceive there to be different "sides." As far as I'm concerned, anyone doing research that sheds any light on the subject is ultimately on the same "side" as everyone else, helping to hash out what will ultimately come to be understood on these various questions. This is how science works: even those who advance mistaken ideas are part of the overall process of sifting through the possibilities and making sure they get adequately tested.

Johnny and I had fantastic discussions--here, by email, and by phone--which I miss, about the Kinderhook plates, polygamy, and all kinds of things.

And I've found your own interpretive work on the Book of Abraham interesting all the way from your old myegyptology days to the present. So, regardless of whether we end up agreeing on the Kinderhook plates 'll be genuinely interested in any observations you have when you read the chapter.
Shulem wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Have you any evidence to show that Smith claimed to do-it-alone without the Spirit and tender a translation without God’s help?
Yep!
Shulem wrote:
Mon Nov 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Is that what you’re suggesting? When did Smith ever do anything outside of revelation? I guess I need to read your article to find out.
Yep. =)

Post your thoughts when you do! Just realize that I don't spend a lot of time on the boards these days, since time spent here is time taken away from writing projects, so I may not engage in the discussion as much as I used to.

Don
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: Don Bradley and Kinderhook

Post by Shulem »

Don Bradley wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 7:35 am
Post your thoughts when you do! Just realize that I don't spend a lot of time on the boards these days, since time spent here is time taken away from writing projects, so I may not engage in the discussion as much as I used to.

Don

Don,

Thank you for your informative and friendly response. I feel your approach is genuinely honest which is something I highly value. Yes, it’s on my things to do list to read your paper, but that may be some time from now. The temptation to generate a new thread on that paper here in the Celestial Forum may also be in the works. I think you’d find a discussion on Kinderhook here in the Celestial Forum to be a peaceful exchange consisting of thoughts and ideas in how things are perceived from different perspectives…

Again, thanks for popping in and thanks for expressing your usual complementary style as you are known to be one of the more respectful board members here at Discuss Mormonism. The board needs good people like you to help remind everyone how we should behave when having intense discourse and especially when we disagree.

Again, thanks for popping in and I’ll plan on going over your paper -- could be next year on that one. We have plenty of time and there’s no rush.

Shulem
Post Reply