DiscussMormonism.com

Shulem wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:34 pm

Any Egyptologist worth their salt will adamantly declare the five persons in Facsimile No. 3 from left to right are:

1. Isis
2. Osiris
3. Maat
4. Hor
5. Anubis.

No exceptions!

The above five points are a classic example in defining a genuine and historic representation of depiction, iconography, and captions of ancient Egypt in its finest moment!

Shulem wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 1:34 pm

The following is NOT Egyptology:

1. King Pharaoh
2. Abraham
3. Prince of Pharaoh
4. Shulem the waiter
5. Olimlah the slave

Compliments of Joseph Smith!

The above five points are lies and bad guesses in describing a false narrative of Egyptian iconography and is not historical but are fictional musings from someone who loves to deceive others.

Alphus and Omegus wrote: ↑

Fri Jun 02, 2023 2:31 am

this is another indicator that dark character should be Anubis.

AND, the fact of how the character in question does NOT have a human ear should raise the eyebrows of discerning eyes who truly want to understand how the copy relates to the original.

Where is the ear?

Jawbone wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:15 pm

only one ear

Jawbone wrote: ↑

Thu Jun 01, 2023 11:15 pm

leaving conehead? Because they have a sense of humor?

Your obvious show of disrespect towards the god of another religion is not appreciated here in the Celestial forum. Please take it elsewhere.

Thanks.

Mormonism Live podcast pays respect to Anubis:

Obscure Mormon Artifacts

Listen up, Mormon scholars!

Shulem wrote: ↑

Thu Aug 03, 2023 2:35 am

Mormonism Live podcast pays respect to Anubis:

Obscure Mormon Artifacts

Listen up, Mormon scholars!

Hi, Shulem.

I haven’t seen any examples from ancient Egypt where the snout of Anubis does not protrude straight out from the face. Yet, the part of the printing plate which you propose shows a remaining outline of what once constituted a snout, does not protrude straight out from the face. It is at a downward angle unseen in ancient Egyptian depictions of Anubis.

Would you agree that this is a discrepancy?

If so, do you propose a means by which to reconcile the discrepancy?

Personally, I believe the goddess Bast, rather than Anubis, was depicted in the vignette on the papyrus. Correspondingly, I don’t believe a snout was depicted on the figure in the original. After Egyptologists started saying that the figure should have a dog-like snout, I suspect someone made a sharp cut in order to try to see what such a snout might look like, and gutted into the metal in order to try to create the appearance of famgs, and so forth. I don’t believe they were operating with an image of Anubis in front of them. It seems more likely, based on the appearance of what they left behind, that they were creating a generic snout shape. It is definitely not an Anubis snout. But I’m open to hearing your thoughts, of course.

Your friend,

Ryan

Egyptologist Tamas Mekis on the "slave"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4 ... OJ5qM/edit

Ryan Larsen wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:21 am

I haven’t seen any examples from ancient Egypt where the snout of Anubis does not protrude straight out from the face. Yet, the part of the printing plate which you propose shows a remaining outline of what once constituted a snout, does not protrude straight out from the face. It is at a downward angle unseen in ancient Egyptian depictions of Anubis.

Would you agree that this is a discrepancy?

If so, do you propose a means by which to reconcile the discrepancy?

The hack job was crude and vicious. The sole intent of hacking out the snout was to get rid of it without regard for its original orientation and design. It was a hack job, dice and slice! Exactly how the original snout was aligned or exactly how it originally protruded from the new face can not be determined after the fact based on the hack. The hacking serves to show there was something there originally and was removed without explanation. It was a vicious chop.

Ryan Larsen wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 27, 2023 9:21 am

Personally, I believe the goddess Bast, rather than Anubis, was depicted in the vignette on the papyrus. Correspondingly, I don’t believe a snout was depicted on the figure in the original. After Egyptologists started saying that the figure should have a dog-like snout, I suspect someone made a sharp cut in order to try to see what such a snout might look like, and gutted into the metal in order to try to create the appearance of famgs, and so forth. I don’t believe they were operating with an image of Anubis in front of them. It seems more likely, based on the appearance of what they left behind, that they were creating a generic snout shape. It is definitely not an Anubis snout. But I’m open to hearing your thoughts, of course.

Your friend,

Ryan

Ryan,

The person of Fig. 6 is Anubis, period. He is dressed in male garb and his physique and sex is male in nature. The label above his head is confirmation to the fact that the person is none other than Anubis, himself.

You are entitled to your opinion and if you want to believe the person was Bastet then that is your privilege.

Shulem

hauslern wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 27, 2023 11:24 am

Egyptologist Tamas Mekis on the "slave"
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hy4 ... OJ5qM/edit

Tamás Mekis, Ph.D wrote:Another analogy is offered by papyrus Louvre N 3125, the owner of which is not in relation with Hor’s family, but the gesture of Anubis is the same as on Facsimile 3.

So in my opinion, in Facsimile 3 the human head of the black bodied god is again a modern addition to the ancient papyrus.

The god Anubis, as labeled by the text above his head, was viciously altered on the direct order of Joseph Smith to provide means in converting the jackal headed god into what may appear as a slave to match the explanation he previously tendered. Not only was the headcloth and snout scraped off and the head reshaped as presently constituted, look and see how the upper body was also smoothed out. Poor Anubis was left with no adornments whatsoever -- undoubtedly, he was originally adorned with a collar about his neck and shoulders and that too was smoothed out by the ruthless actions of the engraver in order to make him look less noble. The poor guy was stripped of everything!

Also note that he is left bare chested with only a kilt to dress him. How hardly is that fitting for a god in the court of Osiris! What a mockery the Mormons have made of sacred Egyptian art. For shame! Shame on the Church today!