DiscussMormonism.com

You react the same way that historical geologists react to stories of Xenu and his atom bombs.

Moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:47 am

You react the same way that historical geologists react to stories of Xenu and his atom bombs.

Admittedly, I have no idea what Church run BYU or what their current curriculum has to say about the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. Maybe I would be surprised? I’m of the assumption that their materials are faith promoting and support Joseph Smith in a spiritual way by identifying Isis as king of Egypt and that a king’s name is symbolically within the overhead inscription. I can imagine some Nibley quotes thrown in for good measure. Apologetic videos and articles produced by Church Egyptologists Gee and Muhlestein are diametrically opposed to what other Egyptologists might have to say on this subject.

I’ll state for the record very loudly and succinctly that the Explanation of Fig. 2, has no place in any credible Egyptological book or article and there isn’t a museum in the entire world that would publish that statement in conjunction with the funerary art in which it represents. Do you agree with that?

To date, there are no explanations or solutions given by the Presidents of the Church to settle or remedy the controversial king’s name of Facsimile No. 3. Not since the days of Nauvoo have any of the prophets made a public statement or discourse on the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3. Their mouths have been shut. Modern Egyptology has publicly exposed the incorrect interpretations of Joseph Smith and yet the prophets in succession over the course of the past 100 years have said nothing to counter these scholarly revelations. They don’t confirm or deny -- they remain ever silent. Perhaps of all the past Presidents of the Church, it’s most surprising that the opinionated Joseph Fielding Smith said nothing but opted to allow Church run professor Hugh Nibley to take charge of the matter. It’s as if President Smith retreated to his office and simply closed the door.


What’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3?

President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:
////////////NOTHING FOLLOWS////////////

Google Translation wrote:
平和の王子 イエス・キリスト



Prince of Peace, Jesus Christ, as written above the hand.

Need I say more? With reference to:

Facsimile No. 3 wrote:Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand.

Google Translation wrote:
דאלין ה. אוקס



DALLAN H. OAKS, one of the prophet's principal apostles, as represented by the characters above his hand.

With reference to:

Facsimile No. 3 wrote:Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:40 pm

I’ll state for the record very loudly and succinctly that the Explanation of Fig. 2, has no place in any credible Egyptological book or article and there isn’t a museum in the entire world that would publish that statement in conjunction with the funerary art in which it represents. Do you agree with that?

The Smithsonian may have opened a Nephite exhibit if Mitt Romney had been elected in 2012 and 2016. They would probably borrow that old British convention of labeling the exhibit with a small sign that said, "Believe it or not".

Moksha wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 09, 2021 7:53 pm

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:40 pm

I’ll state for the record very loudly and succinctly that the Explanation of Fig. 2, has no place in any credible Egyptological book or article and there isn’t a museum in the entire world that would publish that statement in conjunction with the funerary art in which it represents. Do you agree with that?

The Smithsonian may have opened a Nephite exhibit if Mitt Romney had been elected in 2012 and 2016. They would probably borrow that old British convention of labeling the exhibit with a small sign that said, "Believe it or not".

The Latter-day Saints in Nauvoo really believed that Smith provided exact translations to the characters in the vignette of Facsimile No. 3. They believed it absolutely and hailed his effort in translating the writing just as he did the gold plates. It was a testament to the prophet’s ability to translate and restore ancient Egyptian languages that had been lost to the world. Even nonmembers of the Church were curious and paid some mind to the prophet’s work. Not that they believed he was absolutely right with what he claimed but there were many that found his work to be interesting and newsworthy. There can be no doubt, whatsoever, all of the brethren of the Quorum of the Twelve believed that the translation of the Book of Abraham papyrus was a literal translation of the Egyptian hieroglyphic language being transformed into the English content which Smith published.

Today, nobody in the Church believes Joseph Smith literally translated Fig. 2, except for very few people, such as perhaps Ed Goble, for example.

I think it can safely be said that the Book of Abraham Facsimile Explanations, moreover the one highlighted in this thread, is a terrible liability for the Church. Nobody joins the Church based on the idea that Joseph Smith correctly translated Facsimile No. 3 or the Book of Abraham for that matter. But it has been shown and there are many that claim that it’s the Book of Abraham that was the catalyst or final straw that broke the camel’s back -- causing their testimony shelf to collapse. I am one those very people and was moved (inspired) to petition the Church to remove my name from the records of the Church.

I bear testimony, solemn testimony, that I know with every fiber of my being in both heart and mind, that the Book of Abraham is a work of fiction and Joseph Smith’s translations are utterly wrong and are not based in historical truth. I know it as surely as I know that I live, breathe, and am alive. It’s a matter of absolute certainly and complete wholeness in my mind. It’s not a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fact and truth based on what I know is correct and right.

I invite members of the Church to learn the truth for themselves. I invite apologists of every stripe and persuasion to come and reason these things for themselves and to listen to the voice of reason within their own souls and in doing so, admit freely, Smith’s Book of Abraham translations are fiction.

Here are what seem like two perfect examples, although not related, they are like peas in a pod in which Smith created stories from his mind with people and events that are not genuine or historical in the scenes of which they are depicted. These are only faith promoting stories served to support the books Smith invented.

1) Lamanite king Lamoni riding about on the American continent using a chariot pulled by horses.
2) Unnamed Egyptian king hosting an Asiatic shepherd within his royal court with servants and slaves.

Who believes in a Lamanite king named Lamoni?

ONLY THOSE who have no physical evidence whether archeological or otherwise -- the only evidence is Smith’s 1830 publication of the Book of Mormon. In other words, one CANNOT have any physical evidence in order to believe in a king Lamoni having ruled the Lamanite nation on this continent. There is no real evidence! Belief in a Lamoni is based on what Smith wrote and a testimony (in-the-mind confirmation) is wholly void of actual real-life evidence or proof. It’s all in the MIND!

Who believes that there were kings on the American continent riding chariots being pulled by horses between 600 BC and 421 AD? As far as I know, the only people that believe this are those who have faith (not evidence or proof) that the Book of Mormon is a genuine and historical book. The question of who believes the Explanation Smith gave for Fig. 2 is an interesting proposition in finding out just how devoted members of the Church really are to the Book of Abraham as a whole or to the parts they find more easy to accept such as the chapters themselves. Never in my life have I ever heard a member of the Church bear testimony that they know the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are true, moreover, never have I ever heard anyone insist that the figure depicting Isis was the actual king of Egypt in which the Egyptian scribe purposely drew on the papyrus.

Shulem wrote: ↑

Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:13 pm

Never in my life have I ever heard a member of the Church bear testimony that they know the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are true, moreover, never have I ever heard anyone insist that the figure depicting Isis was the actual king of Egypt in which the Egyptian scribe purposely drew on the papyrus.

I can imagine Hugh Nibley or other LDS apologists bearing their testimony on this point. Of course, if such testimony became problematic, I can also imagine them denying it.