DiscussMormonism.com

https://interpreterfoundation.org/blog- ... acsimiles/

Bill Hamblin has demonstrated that Shulem may just simply be wrong about the facsimiles, and Robert F. Smith in the comments to Hamblin's article shows evidence that the facsimile interpretations are correct, and Egyptologists are "scared" to read the facsimiles as true as Joseph Smith interpreted them. Can Shulem rise to the occassion and show this "evidence" for Joseph Smith's "revelation of truth" from antiquity is wishful thinking, or must we all now go back to church and worship Joseph Smith Jesus after all.

If this article by Hamblin has been discussed in the past, I apologize for bringing it up in ignorance. If not, then here is a good case for Shulem to once again show Mormon apologetics on the Book of Abraham is grossly misinforming people about the true nature of the Book of Abraham facsimiles. Of course, Robert F. Smith lambasts Robert Ritner in a generic sort of way without actually engaging in anything Ritner has written. Were Smith confident in his assertions against Ritner, one would think he would be more than willing to publish somewhere where his refutation of Ritner can actually be noticed by the world's Egyptologists and scholars, rather than languishing in a non-descript unknown blog somewhere on the internet.

I'm also curious what Shulem will say to this old 2013 blog post by Hamblin. I liked Hamblin's post. I found it clear, concise, and insightful, and it didn't seem to me to oversell itself. The only significant thing that bothers me about the post is what it doesn't say.

A minor issue at first for me was the line about how the ankh and the crux ansata are both equally Egyptian. I felt as though "Which is the real Egyptian symbol?" was a fake question that no-one would ask, since everyone knows that ancient Egypt and Coptic Christianity are very different cultures. Lumping them together as "Egyptian" seemed like a word game. But then I read Hamblin's later point that ancient Egypt lasted a very long time, and that older ancient Egyptian symbols were re-interpreted in many different ways by later ancient Egyptians. Perhaps just because I'm an Egyptological ignoramus to whom the many dynasties are all just "ancient Egypt", this point seems more legitimate, even though it's really the same point as the ankh-versus-crux one. So okay. Iconotrophy happens. I'm okay with what Hamblin actually says.

I'm also okay with one thing he doesn't say, which is that Hamblin doesn't claim to have any knock-down proof that the Book of Abraham represents ancient Jewish iconotrophy of Egyptian images that were even more ancient. He acknowledges the skeptical hypothesis that the only iconotrophy involved in the Book of Abraham was by Joseph Smith, fitting Biblical stories onto totally unrelated Egyptian text and pictures by crude guesses based on shape. Fair enough, it seems to me, at least as far as this goes. Somebody committed iconotrophy. Abraham and Smith are the two alternative suspects.

So if critics of Mormonism merely point out that the Book of Abraham doesn't line up with ancient Egypt, then Hamblin's short post is a pretty decent rebuttal, I think. The next question, though, is whether any ancient Jews might really have co-opted hieroglyphics and Egyptian imagery for the Book of Abraham. That might sound plausible to someone like me who knows practically nothing about ancient Egypt and not much more about ancient Jews, but I wouldn't be surprised if an actual expert simply burst out laughing at the ludicrous suggestion.

Whether the Book of Abraham could be ancient Jewish iconotrophy of Egyptian originals doesn't sound to me like the kind of question about which we really know nothing. Yet Hamblin doesn't mention anything at all about what scholars of ancient Egypt or ancient Judaism have to say on this point. This silence is the thing that disturbs me about Hamblin's blog post.

If the scholars really had nothing to say on this point, and Hamblin knew that they didn't, then Hamblin ought to have said that, because it would enormously strengthen his apologetic case. If they did have something to say, and he knew it, then he ought to have acknowledged whatever they did say. And if he didn't have any idea what the scholars would say, but had simply swung his iconotrophy bat to deflect the critical ball from the Book of Abraham, then in honesty he should have admitted that he really didn't know where the next part of the discussion would go. He should have been curious about it.

One suspects instead that Hamblin was really just hoping that the whole nasty issue would now go away—and that he was writing for Mormons who were hoping the same.

For starters:

School teacher, Hamblin, does NOT speak for Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. I go by what they said! I go by what they claimed! I take the very statements of Smith and Cowdery at face value. I don't need school teacher Hamblin to tell me what those statements (which they hate to cite) are or what they mean. I have a brain and can think for myself.

The dishonest apologetic tactics of using iconotropy to excuse and justify what Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery SAID demonstrates that the apologists don't believe Smith & Cowdery at their own word and are trying to come up with anything to change the meaning and intent of what they originally said in order to maintain their allegiance to the church cult.

You, Hamblin, can't usurp Smith & Cowdery. I go by what THEY said. Your unbelief in what they SAID is no skin off my back.

Robert F. Smith wrote:Blah, blah, blah.

What's the king's name in Facsimile No. 3, you son of a bitch? What's the name?!

Put up or shut up.

Philo Sofee wrote:Bill Hamblin has demonstrated that Shulem may just simply be wrong about the facsimiles

I'm correct in stating that there is no Egyptian king's name written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 as designated by Joseph Smith in his publication of the Times and Seasons.



Joseph Smith is wrong! There is no king's name. Absent also is the conventional royal emblem to designate such a name as required by the Egyptian religion.

The modern day apologetic trick in appealing to the authority of (blasphemous/disgusting) Jews to vindicate Smith's ridiculous claim that a king's name is written above the head in Fig. 2., is futile and anti-Egyptology.

I will stake my life on this assertion. I hereby will forfeit my life and will jump off the balcony to my death if it can be shown and proved that Joseph Smith's Explanation No. 2., is correct. You'll never hear another word from me again.

Now, will the apologists please step forward and up the ante? Will they jump too? What's the king's name -- you bastards!!!

Physics Guy wrote:If the scholars really had nothing to say on this point, and Hamblin knew that they didn't, then Hamblin ought to have said that, because it would enormously strengthen his apologetic case. If they did have something to say, and he knew it, then he ought to have acknowledged whatever they did say. And if he didn't have any idea what the scholars would say, but had simply swung his iconotrophy bat to deflect the critical ball from the Book of Abraham, then in honesty he should have admitted that he really didn't know where the next part of the discussion would go. He should have been curious about it.

One suspects instead that Hamblin was really just hoping that the whole nasty issue would now go away—and that he was writing for Mormons who were hoping the same.

Righto, mate -- You got it. Hamblin is wildly throwing everything up in the air to see if something sticks and to detract from the main argument which is:

What Joseph Smith SAID is what matters, period. He said what he meant and he meant what he said. That is the power of the HOLY GHOST speaking to the church by the spirit of revelation and is the authority of Mormonism -- the authority of the President of the Melchizedek Priesthood has spoken. There are many statements made by Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery about the Egyptian papyrus which cannot be justified by Mormon apologists.

Hamblin has thrown Joseph Smith under the bus and ran him over himself. He murders the memory of the prophet and trashes his revelations because he knows they are in reality, trash.

Way to go Hamblin, buddy. You're on my side.

After hearing Consiglieri's podcast on the faking going on in Mormonism, that alone sheds an entirely new light on all the apologetic attempts at saving Joseph Smith doesn't it! They don't dare speak the truth that Joseph Smith was wrong, because it damages their image of what they think the church ought to be, so they go through these gyrations of conglomerated and convoluted thinking in order to give the FAKE appearance that Joseph Smith got it right. Amazing new light on apologetics thanks to Consiglieri's podcast.

Shulem not only rises to the occassion, he stabs apologetics in the heart with the sword of truth by sticking with what Joseph Smith HIMSELF said, via revelation from a God who already is supposed to know what actually happened. And what Joseph Smith said and meant is anathema to the very defenders of Joseph Smith. The irony simply cannot get thicker.

Physics Guy wrote:Somebody committed iconotrophy. Abraham and Smith are the two alternative suspects.

Iconotrophy is a distraction from the proof Joseph was the one making things up. Fac 3 has both iconography and text. They ignore telling you we have text which has been translated and that the translations fit perfectly the scene of Hor being brought before his Gods. Then we can look at fac 2 and see again both iconography and text. Again fits perfectly with what Egyptology tell us. How about fac 1? In the Book of Abraham we only see iconography, but back in the 60's the original was found with lots of text with it. Text that tells a story of Hor and nothing about Abraham. You cannot get much better evidence of what the writers of the papyri were saying. The papyri itself has nothing to do with what Joseph claimed. He was complexly wrong and the text proves. It's hard to find LDS apologia that addresses the text which is the best evidence here.

So what's the Mormon line, then?

Joseph Smith got hold of some pages from the Book of Breathings, and the pictures inspired him to receive a revelation ... which he thought was a translation of his pages of hieroglyphics but really wasn't ... because what it really was, was a direct divine transmission of a completely different text that had once been composed by Abraham based on the same pictures that Smith saw, because that's just how old the Book of Breathings is.

Would that be it? To a non-Mormon it sounds far-fetched, all right, but I can imagine it might seem more plausible to Mormons, and also be hard to disprove.

I think Philo is just trying to wind up Shulem's Grand Key to see if he emits high-energy Hah-ko-kau-beams.

Well, my guess is that Shulem will rise to the occasion through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the governing power, and anubitize his so-called "challengers".