Facsimile 3

[_Tobin]

It brings up the question of why Joseph included the explanations of the facsimiles if they were just his musings, yet the rest is a translation of some document long lost. Crazy thinking going on here.

If I had to contort myself like this to maintain belief, I would seriously re-examine my beliefs and my spiritual experiences.

Oh please, the only contorting going on are the critics and the Mormon Apologists that think Joseph Smith could actually read Egyptian Hieroglyphics (which is completely absurd). Joseph Smith, was trying to figure out the Egyptian language (and characters) till the day he died. Take two seconds and think about that. IF he already knew the language and characters, why would he do that? Why wonder about any of it or try to piece together the depictions? The answer is obvious. He wouldn't. He'd just translate it and be done - exactly like he did with the Book of Mormon.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is a perfect description of Mormon apologetics in general. Everything they do is evasion, diversion, and misses the obvious stuff. It's an effective tactic and I'm glad you are not letting them get away with it.

It really is their modus operandi if you think about it. The purpose of FARMS was to make sure believers never got their hands on books or papers critical of the faith. They thought that as long as they "reviewed" these works first, then the believers didn't need to read them for themselves. They would do their thinking for them by pointing out whatever flaws they could find (like doing background checks to attack the character of the author or criticize typos and word counts!) while they ignore or misrepresent the hard hitting arguments. I am a victim of that too. I never read Charles Larsen's book because I was a loyalist who understood that reading "anti-Mormon" stuff was bad for my spirituality and that these things needed to be addressed by the super smart/spiritual folks at FARMS. By limiting my reading to John Gee's "reviews" I blinded myself to all the key arguments which Gee conveniently ignored. And it is expected behavior of all believers. Even to this day we see apologists respond to critical arguments with nothing more than a hyperlink to a FARMS review of a book in which that argument was published.

It is an institutionalized effort to instill ignorance and fear into the minds of the sheep. They know perfectly well that when the sheep start opening their minds to other view points and expose themselves to critical information, they gradually begin to realize how full of crap Mormonism really is, and so their first line of defense is to make sure no one gets their hands on such information. Their attitude about this is really insulting if you think about it because they're essentially saying Mormon people in general are too weak and/or stupid because they cannot be trusted to read these things on their own and be expected to maintain faith. It is a foregone conclusion that most of them will see the critical arguments and leave the faith, which is precisely what we've been witnessing over the years as MAD apologists have been dropping like flies.

They also try to focus in on maximizing the effectiveness of scare words like "anti-Mormon," "apostate," etc. They're really in a bad situation because they are forced to defend things that are simply not true. So, because they cannot rely on evidence or logical deductions, they need every rhetorical tool in the shed to fabricate this illusion that in some convoluted sense, Mormon claims are just as "plausible" as any other.

But what has become stunningly obvious to me throughout my transition from apologist to critic, is their willingness to flat out lie, no matter how minor the point. So long as they thing the critics have no way of verifying their truth claims, they'll just lie and chalk it up as justified since loyalty and defending the faith comes first. So when Dan Peterson is accused of getting paid to do apologetics, he knows he can just lie about it and the critics will never be able to prove him wrong - until a future email proving the opposite is leaked to the web.

When the KEP were under tight control of the Church, people like Gee and Schryver felt they could just lie about these documents and get away with it since no one had the means to verify their claims.

Given that their modus operandi has been exposed for what it is, why would anyone ever trust these guys with anything again?

[Guest]

Nobleman or Servant?

An Egyptian presented before Osiris (second figure from the right)

The Joseph Smith explanation says that this is, "Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand."

Well, needless to say; the characters above the hand do NOT signify this information in conventional hieroglyphs. But, at this point, we were not expecting this either. Here we see a blessed man of peace come forth in the resurrection, being ushered in by Ma'at who represents the principles of righteousness and is greeted by Osiris, the Lord of life.

Again, we are taken into the world of representationalism whereby the Lord has used an Egyptian stage prop to illustrate the story of Abraham. Here we also see that this supposed pagan scene is used by the Lord to further his own purposes. The Lord works in mysterious ways!

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Anubis or a Slave?

Egyptian form of the god Anubis (figure at right)

The Joseph Smith explanation says that this is, "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince."

Guess what? Joseph Smith's explanation is exactly what Anubis looks like! All's well, ends well.

Paul O

[_Cicero]

It brings up the question of why Joseph included the explanations of the facsimiles if they were just his musings, yet the rest is a translation of some document long lost. Crazy thinking going on here.

If I had to contort myself like this to maintain belief, I would seriously re-examine my beliefs and my spiritual experiences.

Like I said in my faux apologist post, go and read up on the modern philosophy of science until your head is sufficiently mushy such that you go back to trusting your gut since that's SO much better at discerning truth.

Kevin is absolutely right on this, the apologists have seized the narrative on this point and have thrown up considerable smoke screens to confuse the issue (see Paul's posts above), which is really quite straightforward: IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT JOSEPH SAID!!

At the end of the day though, TBMs will stick to the catalyst theory though because it is essentially untestable.

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin,
Listen to yourself. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God. That means he literally could not read Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Irrelevant, since it does mean he should be able to produce a valid translation "by the gift and power of God," if in fact he has access to the "gift and power of God." Since he could not produce a valid translation in any of his humerous attempts, this proves he was a liar and false prophet. I don't know why you think you have a valid argument by complaining that Joseph Smith didn't "know" Egyptian. This is nothing but a straw man. Please point to a single critic who said Joseph Smith knew, or claimed to "know" Egyptian. Our position has been exactly what Joseph Smith claimed. That he could translate ancient documents by the power of God's revelation. We now know beyond all reasonable doubt that he couldn't. That makes him a false prophet.

How could he have annotated anything if he couldn't read it and didn't know the language? The whole argument is stupid. His annotations are purely him speculating about what the facsimiles were based on his poor assumptions about the papyri (THAT HE COULDN'T READ).

You're desperately trying to frame this situation differently by adding all sorts of qualifiers where they don't belong. In order to give Smith a crack of daylight to escape from this hole he has dug for himself, you have to turn his revelation-inspired translation into a "speculative annotation," which is not supported in anything except your say so. This was Joseph Smith's relevation from God, as supported from his own words and the Church's decision to canonize it. You have not been able to deal with this fact.

[_Shulem]

***WARNING --- SOMEWHAT LONG***



Osiris or Abraham?

Lord Osiris balances the Crook & Flail in his hands

The Joseph Smith explanation of Fig. 1, says, "Abraham sitting upon Pharaoh’s throne, by the politeness of the king... with the scepter of justice and judgment in his hand."

The image of Osiris is hereby made to represent Abraham through the principle of representationalism (Revelation 5:6). This was the vision given to the mind of Joseph Smith as he restored the Book of Abraham.

With regard to the sacred symbols held in the hands of the god Osiris which were likewise held by the pharaohs who sought to imitate the patriarchal order of Adam (Abraham 1:26), I am happy to give my interpretation of symbolic representationalism. The symbols are all powerful and in themselves infinite, seeing that I love to touch upon things that are eternal, for it catches my mind's eye and I love to ponder these things.

The Egyptian god of the resurrection is Osiris (as called in the Greek) but Ausar in the Egyptian. Osiris in Egyptian mythology is the first man to have been resurrected. All Egypt looked to him to receive resurrection in his likeness and glory. I look to Osiris to be the resurrection and the life because he symbolically is really Jesus Christ (John 11:25). The two sacred symbols which I mentioned earlier are held in the hands of Osiris (Christ) and are a representation of the atonement and the very power of the universe. Now I shall begin to explain these concepts.

First, the shepherd's crook, used to gather the sheep (Isaiah 40:11). This royal scepter is usually held in one hand at a 45 degree angle across the front of the body. This symbolizes the mercy of God.

Second, the flail, the instrument or whip (Proverbs 26:3) used by the herdsman to drive the cattle away. This royal scepter is held in the other hand at a 45 degree angle (running perpendicular with the crook) across the front of the body. This symbolizes the justice of God.

These two instruments held in the hands of the herdsman are used to either drive or attract the animals. The crook gathers the sheep and the flail drives the cattle to go wheresoever they are compelled to go. Thus we see that there is opposition in all things (2 Nephi 2:10,11). We know that the crook symbolizes mercy for it brings the lambs lovingly to the shepherd for protection and care (Psalms 23:1,4). We also know the herdsman will drive the cattle where they must go for he is lord of the herd (John 2:15). Therefore, the symbol of mercy in one hand and the symbol of justice in the other. This is the reason why Osiris held these scepters in his hands and so also did the kings who were appointed to rule in righteousness for they sought to imitate the order of God. It is a great calling to be the one who must settle mercy and justice among all the people. We know that king Solomon was great in wisdom and justice.

More importantly, Christ holds them in his hands for it was he who worked out the atonement. It was Jesus who balanced mercy and justice in his arms by the power of the atonement. It may be likened to scales or a balance whereon justice hangs on one side and mercy on the other. When both are equal or satisfied the scales become balanced. This is another example of opposition in all things. The scales are balanced upon a "nail in a sure place" (Isa 22:23) for the two arms which hold the scales are balanced by the pivoting action of the arms that hang on the nail. It is in the power of the nail by which the scales are balanced. Likewise it is by Christ who is the "nail in the holy place" (Ezra 9:8) whose mercy is able to save mankind from the judgment.

Let us consider what Christ did for us with his atonement seeing that it was he who balanced the scales of justice and mercy by the nail in the sure place upon the scale. The word atonement when broken down signifies at-one-ment, which being interpreted means that man may become one with Christ as he is with the Father. This is partially correct but does not carry the full weight of the meaning. I again refer to the scales or the crook and flail held in the hands of Christ by the power of the nail. What did Christ do to the scales? He balanced them. How did he do this? He satisfied the demands of justice (Mosiah 15:9). Why did justice make it's claim? Man sinned and became fallen and justice therefore demands that man pay the price. What is the price for breaking the laws of he who is eternal and Endless is his name? The penalty is everlasting punishment for the principle of justice is an everlasting principle.

We see now that in order to satisfy the demands of eternal justice it becomes expedient that mercy be meted out in eternal weight (Alma 34:14). This was the suffering and sacrifice of the Lamb of God. This is fundamental to our religion for it is the saving power which is able to bring mankind back into the presence of God.

It was the Lamb that balanced the scales through his infinite sacrifice for it must needs be an infinite sacrifice in order to satisfy everlasting justice. Therefore we see that infinite mercy was paid by Jesus Christ. What man could comprehend such things? Only God can comprehend the eternal weight of these things and not man. It was the power and mercy of Jesus Christ that caused the scales to tip into a balanced position. Thereby we may know that the atonement was caused by the balancing of the scales as Jesus satisfied the required weight of mercy making it equal to the weight of justice.

At this point I endeavor to transcend another level regarding the imagery and principles I have discussed. First, let us remember that there is indeed opposition in all things, the very laws of the universe teach us this basic principle. We see light and darkness, sweet and bitter, pleasure and pain, truth and error, good and evil, etc.

There is also opposition in the very physical powers that drive the universe. We know that Abraham reasoned with the Egyptians concerning astronomy and the powers by which the worlds are governed. We have the Book of Abraham and the mysterious interpretations of the Facsimiles given by Joseph Smith which few people seriously study, let alone comprehend. Again I bring to mind the crook and flail which symbolize two eternal principles which I have discussed. How do they apply to the powers of astronomy? Abraham sat upon the throne of pharaoh in Facsimile No. 3 figure 1 and reasoned about the principles of astronomy in the kings court while he was balancing the crook and flail in his hands. He taught the Egyptians about the creation of stars and planets and the forces that drive the universe as detailed in the Explanation of Facsimile No. 2.

Let us first consider the crook. What does the crook have to do with astronomy? First we learned that it represents the mercy of Christ, the power to bring in, the power of attraction, thus to bring man back into the presence of God. This may be likened to the very physical power of gravity which causes the planets to orbit in their set revolutions and the stars to move in their destined courses. Thus we see as the Creator Jesus Christ (via the image of Osiris) holds the crook across his body, it is a representation of his power to govern the planets and stars by the power of gravity.

Let us secondly consider the flail. We learned that it represents the justice of God, the power to force out, the power to compel, thus to drive man away from the presence of God. This is the opposite of attraction, even as the earth has two opposing magnetic poles, one which attracts and another which repels. This physical force is operative throughout the universe as the planets and stars move in their courses being repulsed by invisible forces. We know that the forces of attraction and repulsion are present on planet earth and are likewise the governing forces that move the universe where God desires. Further, the Lord holds the flail across his body because he has in his hand the power to move the elements (Matthew 24:29) .

Great and marvelous are the mysteries of God and his ways are past finding out until we are exalted at his right hand. Only then, in a state of exaltation can we fully comprehend the glorious nature of eternal life. The glory be to God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ who sit upon the blazing throne in the celestial kingdom and have made everlasting life possible for us. We may live forever with them in everlasting burnings which are as circling flames of fire like wheels that roll forth in glorious majesty, high and lifted up, wheels within wheels (Ezekiel 10:10) turning for eternity. I greatly appreciate the prophet Joseph Smith. I have read his teachings carefully with enormous interest. I find his revelations and teachings indispensable in formulating my own understanding of eternal things. Joseph knew something of the language of the Egyptians, seeing he was especially knowledgeable of reformed hieroglyphs and learned them by seeing into Urim, for Joseph was truly a seer (one who sees), a visionary, a foreteller of future events, and a prophet of this dispensation.

I try to learn from the seers and formulate my understanding on what they reveal. The scriptures are the standard truth, but must be interpreted correctly. I know that Gordon B. Hinkley is a seer, a successor of Joseph Smith who was the first seer. I believe that the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are prophets, seers, and revelators

Paul O

[_Shulem]

Mormon Critic Charges:

Joseph Smith confused Egyptian goddess as a prince

Generations of LDS people have mistakenly viewed the goddess Ma'at to be the prince of Egypt because Joseph Smith made a hasty mistake in identifying a key person in Facsimile No. 3. Mormon scripture is hopelessly locked into this incorrect official declaration because modern Egyptology has proven that the feminine looking figure is not a boy prince as Joseph Smith said— but a female goddess who alone wears the feather of truth upon her head!

Tough Questions for LDS Apologists:

1. Why would Abraham draw an Egyptian prince dressed in female attire before the throne of Egypt?

2. Isn't it clear that both the God of the Bible and the God of Mormonism forbid men to wear female clothes?

3. Why is Joseph Smith's prince really a woman?

4. Why can't LDS apologists simply admit that Joseph Smith got it wrong?

My Egyptology responds:

I will admit that perhaps most LDS people do not know that Joseph Smith was using representationalism with the goddess Ma'at who was suppose to be a reflection (idea) of a prince of Egypt. But, I can think of far more important things that the saints do know as they live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith was not incorrect in his restoration of the story of Abraham. The prince just so happens to be Ma'at on papyrus; So what! It is the story that counts!

1. Abraham did not draw the papyrus known as Facsimile No. 3. The LDS church does not have the original 4000 year old papyrus of Abraham as it was probably lost in antiquity. The Lord provided a substitute to bring to pass a restoration of the story by means of Late Period images.

2. We can agree that men should not wear woman's clothing. It is unbecoming.

3. The prince in the papyri scene had by Joseph Smith is really a woman but the prince that was on the original papyrus of Abraham was a man. The important thing is we know there was a prince.

4. Joseph Smith was working with what the Lord provided him, a Late Period Egyptian papyrus. This is the means by which the story of Abraham was restored.

Paul O

[Guest]

Kevin,
Listen to yourself. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God. That means he literally could not read Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Irrelevant, since it does mean he should be able to produce a valid translation "by the gift and power of God," if in fact he has access to the "gift and power of God." Since he could not produce a valid translation in any of his humerous attempts, this proves he was a liar and false prophet. I don't know why you think you have a valid argument by complaining that Joseph Smith didn't "know" Egyptian. This is nothing but a straw man. Please point to a single critic who said Joseph Smith knew, or claimed to "know" Egyptian. Our position has been exactly what Joseph Smith claimed. That he could translate ancient documents by the power of God's revelation. We now know beyond all reasonable doubt that he couldn't. That makes him a false prophet.

Actually, to the contrary, it makes him a revelator (goes with being a prophet - just FYI). The whole premise that Joseph Smith translated pagan Egyptian papyri is ludicrous. As I've pointed out on multiple occasions, the papyri was merely the impetus for this revelation to take place. There is no reason to suspect Egyptian papyri would contain anything about Abraham. They would purely be Egyptian in origin and contain Egyptian myths. The facts bear that out. The mistake apologists (and critics) make is they rely on Joseph Smith's knowledge about the papyri and subsequent statements. There is no reason to do so since he obviously did not have the expertise (or knowledge) to ascertain what the papyri were.

How could he have annotated anything if he couldn't read it and didn't know the language? The whole argument is stupid. His annotations are purely him speculating about what the facsimiles were based on his poor assumptions about the papyri (THAT HE COULDN'T READ).

You're desperately trying to frame this situation differently by adding all sorts of qualifiers where they don't belong. In order to give Smith a crack of daylight to escape from this hole he has dug for himself, you have to turn his revelation-inspired translation into a "speculative annotation," which is not supported in anything except your say so. This was Joseph Smith's relevation from God, as supported from his own words and the Church's decision to canonize it. You have not been able to deal with this fact.

There is nothing desparate about it. It is simply a logical assertion. IF the Book of Abraham is inspired and a true representation of Abraham's writings, then the Egyptian papyri could not possibly be the source. What Joseph Smith must have seen were the long lost original writings of Abraham and revealed them to us. This should be perfectly acceptable to any LDS since they already believe Joseph Smith revealed the Book of Mormon in much the same way.

[_Shulem]

Mormon Critic Charges:

Joseph Smith confused Isis as Pharaoh

Joseph Smith made guesses but missed the marks in Facsimile No. 3 when he identified the love goddess Isis with that of a king. This explanation in Mormon scripture defies modern Egyptology without apology. LDS scholars themselves must be forced to admit that the person really is Isis and not an Egyptian king with his name written in hieroglyphs above his head. Joseph Smith might have been able to fool the people of his day when hieroglyphs were not understood but modern Egyptology has proven otherwise. Clearly— the figure is a woman, not a man.

Tough Questions for LDS Apologists:

1. What is the name of the king written above the head of Joseph Smith's king?

2. Where is the required cartouche or serekh to house the king's name?

3. Why should anyone today think that Mormons in Joseph Smith's day did not believe the king's name was actually written above the head?

4. Why should LDS people still believe in Joseph Smith's explanations when modern Egyptology has proven otherwise?

5. Why won't a modern President of the Mormon church stand up and defend Joseph Smith's explanations in the General Conferences of the church?

My Egyptology responds:

I can understand how critics are irritated with the idea of Joseph Smith identifying Isis as king of Egypt. But the papyrus in question was all he had to work with. Fortunately there were enough figures in the scene to tell the story. Yes, the person really is Isis of Egyptian folklore but Joseph Smith substituted her for a king to illustrate the story. She has served as a good proxy for all these years and I don't think Joseph Smith was trying to fool anyone. It is obvious that anyone who takes a close look at Isis and Ma'at will easily recognize them as females.

1. We don't know the conventional name of the king who befriended Abraham. The hieroglyphs above the head serve as a prop in restoring the story of Abraham. The original artwork had by Abraham undoubtedly had the king's name upon the papyrus.

2. The required icon of sovereignty was had on the original papyrus of Abraham. The papyrus of Joseph Smith was just a prop or a clouded mirror so to speak of that which once was long ago.

3. We cannot be sure exactly what the early Mormons thought. If they really thought that a king's name was written thereon— so be it. It wouldn't be the first time Mormons or non-Mormons alike believed something that was not exactly correct. The important thing is to believe in Christ.

4. LDS can believe in both Joseph Smith's explanations and modern Egyptology. The difference between the two is one is spiritual and retells the story of Abraham while the other is temporal and provides a religious scene of the Book of the Dead.

5. The Lord has not seen fit in his wisdom to have his Church Presidents address the issues regarding the papyri, supposed contradictions, or other mysteries about the subject. Besides, Paul Osborne is doing such a fine job! The bottom line: A conventional translation will prove the prophet was wrong but a nonconventional interpretation that is true will prove the prophet was correct. The prophet translated the original papyrus (lost in antiquity) using a nonrelated (funerary) papyrus as a proxy.

Paul O