DiscussMormonism.com

THIS THREAD HAS BEEN REFINED AND MOVED TO THE NEW DISCUSSION BOARD:

click the link:

Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene









Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Facsimile 1 of the Book of Abraham visually depicts the narrative contained in Abraham 1:12–19. As interpreted by Joseph Smith, this scene depicts Abraham fastened upon an altar before some idolatrous gods. An idolatrous priest is about to sacrifice Abraham, who is protected by the Angel of the Lord.

Everyone can agree that Joseph Smith interpreted the scene in which he claimed the drawing shows Abraham being "fastened" upon an altar. What everyone can't agree with is that the person on the so-called "altar" is actually fastened to the said altar.

First, Egyptologist Robert Ritner, is on record for specifically stating that the furniture depicted in Facsimile No.1, is not an altar but is a lion bed with Osiris upon it. Only Mormon scholars and only Mormon Egypologists deviate and claim that the lion bed is an altar of sacrifice.

Second, the man on the lion bed is NOT fastened to the lion bed. There are no bonds, no shackles, no cords, nothing to fasten anyone. The idea that the man is fastened to an altar is pure imagination. There is nothing in the vignette or in the hieroglyphic writing that supports that idea or suggests the man is fastened for a sacrifice with Abraham upon it.

Lastly, the idea that the bird is a genuine depiction of an angel of Jehovah is beyond absurd. No nonMormon Egyptologist will support that notion. It is a Mormon-biased assertion based on Smith's erroneous interpretation and is completely wrong. If the vignette of Facsimile No. 1 were on display in any museum of the world the description of its content would be described in genuine terms agreeable with conventional Egyptology as portrayed in an authentic matter that conveys the truth about what the scene actually represents.

The Mormons aren't interested in the truth. They are only interested in what Joseph Smith said.

Book of Abraham wrote:that you may have a knowledge of this altar, I will refer you to the representation at the commencement of this record.

I've seen many of these beautiful funerary lion beds depicted on various papyri and tomb walls. The funerary bed is made for those who are ALREADY dead and await resurrection through Osiris. It is a bed whereon the mummy may lie in peace with the promise of receiving blessing and joy in the afterlife.

Book of Abraham wrote:the priests laid violence upon me

I see no violence in Facsimile No.1, none whatsoever. You must be exaggerating? I do see a lovely floral libation stand at the head of the bed -- finely balanced and fully furnished. What a peaceful scene. A lovely lotus flower and a pot wherein to quench one's thirst.

Book of Abraham wrote:It was made after the form of a bedstead,

A beautifully crafted lion bed having 7 knobs on the side -- finely gilded no doubt -- perhaps even gold leaf? I see the god Anubis is attending the sacred ceremony. You surely are blessed. (Sadly the Facsimile No.1 published in the Times and Seasons doesn't maintain the integrity of the side of the bed's motif and the 7 knobs are not defined. Thus, any symbolism in the number 7 intended by the original artist is lost in the poor Mormon reproduction.)

Book of Abraham wrote:And as they lifted up their hands upon me,

They? Who is they?

You must mean Anubis who extends his arm over you with the cup of blessing! Never fear, he will bless you. Your Canopic jars are carefully set under the bed. Please don't knock them over when you rise from the dead to greet your wife, Isis, in sacred bonds of love.

Book of Abraham wrote:that they might offer me up and take away my life,

O Osiris, wake up, you're having a nightmare. You are ALREADY dead. Nobody can kill you. You died at the hands of Set, your evil brother; don't you remember? But now you will rise again from the dead. Anubis blesses you!

Elements of the Book of Abraham sacrifice scene are eerily familiar to that of Abraham sacrificing Isaac in the Bible; a coincidence? Compare key biblical points with the Book of Abraham:

1. It happened by a hill

"In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen"
"upon the altar which stood by the hill called Potiphar’s Hill,"

2. Altar of sacrifice

"Abraham built an altar there"
"you may have a knowledge of this altar"

3. Tied up

"and bound Isaac his son"
"my bands"

4. Reach out to slay

"And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son"
"lifted up their hands upon me, that they might offer me up and take away my life"

5. Saved by the angel

"the angel of the Lord"
"The Angel of the Lord"

6. Twice called

"Abraham, Abraham"
"Abraham, Abraham"

7. Rare utterance of Jehovah's name is evoked

"And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh"
"my name is Jehovah, and I have heard thee"

8. Go forth and conquer

"and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies"
"and from all thy kinsfolk, into a strange land which thou knowest not of"


In addition, Robert Ritner points out that the sacrifice in the Book of Abraham is "largely a carbon copy" of the one in the Bible.

dial in at the 4:30 mark:
Radio Free Mormon: 189: Dr. Robert K. Ritner on the Book of Abraham part 2

Shulem wrote:In addition, Robert Ritner points out that the sacrifice in the Book of Abraham is "largely a carbon copy" of the one in the Bible.

When you think about it it becomes increasingly evident that Smith borrowed ideas and incorporated them into his own story. The apologists will just laugh it off and claim the two stories don't compare, but they do, and the odds of these particular points I mentioned above coming together like they do is very striking.

Consider this: It happened near a hill. Well, there are lots of hills in the world -- hills everywhere, so can we really make a big deal about it? Yes, we can. Because it shows that Smith is trying to make his work look authentic and what better way than to have his sacrifice story have a hill too? I should also note that the name of the hill "Potiphar’s Hill" is an anachronism and Dr. Ritner explains that in his podcast. So, Smith picked a biblical name associated with Egyptian and put it in Abraham's story.

Then we have two things mentioned together that are comparable in both sacrifice stories. The altar and being tied up. It's one thing to mention an altar but it's another thing to detail the account of being bound up and tied to the altar. The Explanation in Facsimile No. 1 is very explicit about that: "Abraham fastened upon an altar." So, both accounts share two-points of interest. Add that with the hill and we now have THREE in counting.

Smith makes sure that his story in Abraham has action. Real action! He certainly wants to keep it on the same level as the biblical sacrifice so add the drama and make it look like a real slaying with a knife and a bad man willing to slash his victim and spill his blood all over that beautiful lion bed. Say nothing about staining the furnishings and the lovely lotus at the end of the bed with all that blood squirting out. I don't think Smith thought that through as he was writing his story. Smith was sloppy. So, we now have FOUR things in counting.

But what about the angel of the Lord? That's pretty common in the Bible, isn't it? But how many times in the Bible does the angel of the Lord come down to stop a human sacrifice? Once! To stop Abraham from slitting his boy's throat. And now we have Smith writing about an Egyptian priest about to slit Abraham's throat so why not pull out all the stops and have the angel of the Lord come down for the rescue! What better way to make the Book of Abraham comparable to the Bible?

So far we have FIVE things to compare the story but the next one is more on an exponential level where the math takes it to a new level! What are the odds? So, when God rescues Isaac from his father's blade, the Lord comes down and says, "Abraham, Abraham!" Not once, but twice, it's like two exclamation marks. That's significant and it's unique to the biblical account. So, when Smith repeats that in his own Abraham story it's deja vu all over again as if to provide credibility to Smith's story. Add that with the other comparisons and we have a sure case of borrowing -- or rather more like, plagiarizing. He took something unique from the Bible and put it in his own similar story in order to make it look authentic. This reminds me of when Smith took KJV material (warts and all) from the writings of the apostles or Isaiah and planted them in his Book of Mormon.

We now have another one to consider. How many times is the name "Jehovah" mentioned in the Bible whether by itself or in conjunction with another word such as "Jehovahjireh?" The name "Jehovah" is mentioned a grand total of 7 times including the account in Abraham's attempt to murder his own son. That's only 7 times in the Bible and it just so happens that the name "Jehovah" conveniently pops up in Abraham's sacrifice story of the Book of Abraham! Coincidence? I don't think so! Smith was following cues laid out in the Genesis story -- trying to make his story match in order to make it appear authentic. Interesting to note that the name is mentioned only twice in the Book of Mormon, one quotes Isaiah, and the other is Moroni rambling on about being judged. So, this means that Smith only introduced the name 1 time of his own accord in the Book of Mormon and twice in the Book of Abraham. So, the use of the name is rare but this comparison makes a clear point that a rare moment is evidence that Smith was copying idea and story from the Bible.

That's pretty much what Smith loved to do. He wrote stories but got idea and content from other sources in order to make his crap up.

Thanks for listening! I hope you got something from this.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Since the mid-1800s, when Egyptologists first began analyzing the facsimiles of the Book of Abraham, Joseph Smith’s interpretation of this scene (sometimes called a lion couch scene, due to the prominent lion couch at the center of the illustrations) has clashed with Egyptological interpretations. In 1860, the French Egyptologist Théodule Devéria interpreted Facsimile 1 as depicting the resurrection of the god Osiris. In 1912, Egyptologists interpreted Facsimile 1 as, variously, “the well known scene of Anubis preparing the body of the dead man,” “a resurrection scene” showing “Osiris rising from the dead,” “an embalmer preparing a body for burial,” “the body of the dead lying” on a funerary bier, and “a dead man . . . lying on a bier” and being prepared for mummification. Similar interpretations of Facsimile 1 have been given in more recent years.

Yes, this statement is correct in that conventional Egyptology most certainly disagrees with the interpretations and translations of Joseph Smith who had absolutely no training or proper understanding of Egyptology.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:From the weight of this Egyptological authority alone, it may seem absurd to associate Facsimile 1 with sacrifice as Joseph Smith did.

Just assuredly as the pope is Catholic he is most qualified to discuss Catholicism. Likewise, a worldwide body of (non-biased) Egyptolgists are qualified to discuss Egyptology and determine whether Smith was correct or not.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:However, more recent investigation has turned up evidence which suggests a connection between sacrifice or sacred violence and scenes of the embalming and resurrection of the deceased (or the god Osiris).

Be it as it may or interpret those findings how you may, BUT the Joseph Smith papyrus of Facsimile No.1 to include the writings have nothing to do with your supposed new evidence to support Smith's original claims which have been proven false by the very evidence at hand. We have Facsimile No. 1 and the writings which Smith interpreted. Egyptologists know what they mean and what they say. Period. End of story.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:In 2008 and 2010, Egyptologist John Gee published evidence linking scenes of Osiris’ mummification and resurrection “in the roof chapels of the Dendara Temple” with execration rituals that involved ritual violence.

This changes nothing for how modern Egyptologists interpret the papyrus of Facsimile No. 1. Nothing has changed. John Gee is making a desperate attempt to upset Egyptology and introduce chaos wherein anything can be applied to anything simply by finding examples that one wants to plug into another set of ideas for the sole purpose of defending Joseph Smith's false claims.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:Other Egyptologists have already drawn parallels between Facsimile 1 and the Dendara Temple lion couch scenes, but, as Gee has elaborated, there is a clear connection with sacrifice and ritual violence in these scenes. “In the Dendara texts, the word for the lion couch . . . is either homophonous or identical with the word . . . ‘abattoir, slaughterhouse,’ as well as a term for ‘offerings.’” This is reinforced in the inscriptions surrounding the lion couch scenes.

John Gee attempts to sow discord and chaos in Egyptology in order to defend Smith's false ideas that the scene of Facsimile No. 1 is a religious ritual of murder and human sacrifice. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is nothing violent about Facsimile No. 1. It cannot be compared to anything that results in violence or horror because the very scene itself is indicative of peace and blessing.

Here is a clear example of Pearl of Great Price Central using a dirty trick in an effort to deceive its readers and leave a desired lasting impression in their minds which really has nothing to do with Facsimile No. 1. It's a trick! They work the reader up with scenes of blood and horror of source material from the vast stores of the Egyptian corpus and do this in an attempt to marry it -- connect it -- make a parallel with Facsimile No.1 in order to vindicate Smith's interpretation of the vignette.

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:“He will not exist nor will his name exist, since you will destroy his town, cast down the walls of his house, and everyone who is in it will be set on fire, you will demolish his district, you will stab his confederates, his flesh being ashes, the evil conspirator consigned to the lion couch/slaughterhouse, so that he will no longer exist.” . . . Furthermore, in the same chapel, we have depictions of Anubis and the sons of Horus (presumably the figures under the lion couch in Facsimile 1) holding knives. Anubis is here identified as the one “who smites the adversaries with his might, since the knife is in his hand, to expel the one who treads in transgression; I am the violent one who came forth from god, after having cut off the heads of the confederates of him whose name is evil.” The human-headed son of Horus is identified above his head as “the one who repulses enemies” and “who comes tearing out the enemies who butchers the sinners.” The baboonheaded son of Horus says: “I have slaughtered those who create injuries in the house of God in his presence; I take away the breath from his nostrils.” The jackal-headed son of Horus says: “I cause the hostile foreigners to retreat.” Finally, the falcon-headed son of Horus says: “I have removed rebellion.”

Then, to top it off, the apologists introduce an image scary enough to incite fear but for the sole purpose to connect Joseph Smith's imagined knife (of the lacuna) which was etched into the printing plate of Facsimile No. 1 for publication. But this knife was never, ever, on the original papyrus. But that thought immediately vanishes when confronted with the following image and subconsciously connecting it to Smith's knife produced in the Facsimile. Please, bear in mind that these sons of Horus are NOT representative of the sons of Horus in Facsimile No. 1. The purpose and functions are NOT the same. Contrary to the apologists intent, it's not a parallel to make it conform to Facsimile No. 1 in order to justify Smith's erroneous interpretation of violence and murder on the lion bed.

---CLICK FOR IMAGE--- The sons of Horus hold knives and proclaim their intent to destroy the enemies of Osiris in the god’s chapel at the Dendara Temple. Line drawing taken from Cauville (1997).

I find this apologetic trickery to be abhorrent and is downright evil. Repent, Pearl of Great Central! You are attempting to deceive.

Peace and blessings from the Four Sons of Horus. May you live forever.



............................................

Let's focus on the knife, shall we? The knife which is portrayed in Facsimile No.1, wherein the Egyptian priest is attempting to slay Abraham. ALL Egypotologists (who are not of the Mormon faith) will agree that there was no knife in the lacuna. The only Egyptologists that entertain the idea that the priest was holding a knife in order to slay the man on the lion bed are Mormon Egyptologists who pervert Egyptology in order to justify Smith as a translator.

Here is a trick, courtesy of Pearl of Great Price Central, wherein they attempt to fool their readers into thinking that Egyptologists are not in general agreement about whether the person in Facsimile No.1 is a priest wielding a knife against Abraham or Anubis blessing Osiris:

Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:This reinforces the likelihood that the knife was original to scene. Second, there is the question of whether Figure 3 originally had a bald human head as depicted in Facsimile 1 or a black jackal headdress, as proposed by a number of Egyptologists. That the figure originally had a jackal headdress seems likely, since traces of the headdress over the left shoulder of Figure 3 can be detected in the surviving papyrus fragment. With these considerations in mind, the question of identifying Figure 3 comes into play. Some Egyptologists have identified this figure as a priest, while others have insisted it is the god Anubis.

1. "as proposed by a number of Egyptologists" This "number" consists of ALL (huge number) of Egyptologists worldwide who do not ascribe to the Mormon faith.

2. "Some Egyptologists have identified this figure as a priest", this "some" are ONLY Egyptologists who belong to the Mormon Church and can be counted on one hand.

3. "while others have insisted it is the god Anubis", the "others" being ALL Egyptologists who are NOT Mormon!

As you can see, the Mormons are trying to skew the numbers and make themselves look like a viable option when in fact ALL the other Egyptologists in the world don't believe Smith's interpretation of Facsimile No.1 any more than they do the Book of Mormon! The Mormons are all alone when it comes to Egyptology in Facsimile No.1! Mormon Egyptologists are perverting the craft and misrepresenting Egyptian history in order to maintain faith and seek converts.

Anyway, we have an eyewitness of the original papyrus of Facsimile No.1, who can shine further light on what Joseph Smith was attempting to present. We have to go back to 1841 which is prior to the publication of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons. We have to go back BEFORE the lead plate for Facsimile No.1 was made!

Shall we? This is going to be fun. Are you ready for a SURPRISE? Are you ready for a new DISCOVERY brought to you by Shulem, live, right here on Mormon Discussions?

(Thank you, Dr. Shades)

Take a seat. It's going to get interesting!

Before I discuss a very important eyewitness account of the original papyrus showing Abraham being sacrificed, I need to explain a few things. In fact, I seriously doubt top scholars (including Hauglid and Gee) have fully considered the ramifications of what I'm going to propose. I think it's gone over everyone's head, even mine.

Recall that *some* papyrus fragments pertaining to the Book of Abraham were kept safe in glazed glass as part of a conservation effort and a means to display important fragments cut from the rolls so vast numbers of people who were interested in seeing the Egyptian relics could see them without harming them. The papyrus was set in frames long BEFORE the Book of Abraham was published in March of 1842.

Quincy Whig newspaper in Quincy Illinois, Oct. 1840 wrote:
He [Joseph Smith] walked to a secretary on the opposite side of the room, and drew out several frames covered with glass, under which were numerous fragments of Egyptian papyrus, on which, as usual, a great variety of hieroglyphical characters had been imprinted.

‘These ancient records,’ said he, ‘throw great light upon the subject of Christianity. They have been unrolled and preserved with great labor and care. My time has hitherto been too much taken up to translate the whole of them, but I will show you how I interpret certain parts. There,’ said he, pointing to a particular character, ‘that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham.’

It is indeed a most interesting autograph, I replied, and doubtless the only one extant. What an ornament it would be to have these ancient manuscripts handsomely set, in appropriate frames, and hung up around the walls of the temple which you are about to erect in this place.

‘Yes’, replied the prophet, ‘and the translation hung up with them’.

Having established that important fragments of the papyrus were set in glass frames, I assert that one of those fragments was the original vignette of Facsimile No.1. Can I prove it? I think so, and at the same time uncover a mystery of that particular fragment which was directly connected to the Book of Abraham and was even specifically mentioned in the Book of Abraham (chapter 1) as a representation wherein the reader was directed to take time to view the lion bed that was drawn at the beginning of the roll.

Now, I want to discuss a highly credible eyewitness that I believe saw the actual vignette of Facsimile No.1 *BEFORE* it was printed and that this person was made aware of at least the first part of the translation of the Book of Abraham that was later published in the Times and Seasons. The first chapter of the Book of Abraham was fully translated long before publication. There has been a sustained debate on what got translated and when but there can be no doubt that there was written text of chapter 1 that stands apart from the working Kirtland manuscripts. Along with that, I believe the papyrus vignette of the lion bed was contained in a glass frame in which the eyewitness account that I wish to discuss offered his own explanation in his personal journal dated at 5 May 1841 -- predating publication of the Times and Seasons.

William Appleby was a faithful Mormon missionary who visited Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. He received instructions from Joseph Smith about the papyrus and toured the Egyptian exhibit on display in May of 1841. He meticulously recorded details about the relics to include the mummy, papyrus, and Book of Abraham translations. On page 72 of of his ruler lined journal he wrote:

William Appleby wrote:The male mummy was one of the Ancient –
Pharaoh’s of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue
extended, representing a speaker. The females were his wife and two
daughters, as part of the writing has been translated, and informs
us, who they were, also whose writing it is, and when those mummies
were embalmed, which is nearly four thousand years ago

Please note, Appleby must have kept his journal current in real time as the details of his journal are quite precise -- therefore, his firsthand information was recorded in Nauvoo during his short visit. It's obvious that Appleby was keeping a record of what happened when it happened. He saw the mummies, papyrus, and translation of the Book of Abraham -- there can be no doubt that he was eyewitness to those thing and recorded his experiences right away, without delay.

Appleyby wrote:Today I paid Br. Joseph a visit, received instruction concerning 'Baptism for Dead.' Read the revelation as given by the Lord last January concerning the same, and recorded in the 'Book of the Law of the Lord' viewed four mummies, one male and three females, brought from ancient Thebes in Egypt, saw the rolls of papyrus, and the writings thereon, taken from off the bosom of the male mummy, being some of the writing of ancient Abraham and of Joseph, that was sold into Egypt. The writings are chiefly in the Egyptian language, with the exception of a little Hebrew, I believe. They give a description of some of the scenes of ancient Egypt, of their worship, their idol gods, and cetera. The writings are beautiful and plain, composed of red, and black ink. There is a perceptible difference between the writings. Joseph appears to have been the best scribe.

Then, amazingly on the next page of his journal (73) there is a written transcription of several verses of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham. Keep in mind, this is prior to official publication 10 months later! Appleby records verses 5-9 almost exactly as it appears in the Times and Seasons. These clips are photographed here for download or you can view them here on Brian Hauglid A Textual History of the Book of Abraham: Manuscripts and Editions.

Now, Hauglid leaves a door open that the verses from the Book of Abraham could have been recorded at a later date as part of a backdating process. But I don't think so and when putting the pieces together and looking at the clues it's obvious to me that Appleby was recording his journal in real time.

Hauglid wrote:William Appleby journal, dated 5 May 1841, contains Abraham 1:15–31 (1-9 Times and Seasons). This pericope is internally numbered according to the Times and Seasons, but may predate it. Even though it is placed chronologically before the Times and Seasons, at present, it cannot be definitively determined whether Washington predates the Times and Seasons or was backdated.

Hauglid wrote:Editorial Note Washington, catalogued as MS 1401 in the Church History Library, contains Abraham 1:15–31; dated 5 May 1841 (but see below); handwriting of William I. Appleby; 3 lined pages in journal. Washington contains the exact paragraph numbering as the first installment in the Times and Seasons, suggesting that Appleby inserted the Abraham text after its publication in 1842. This is quite possible, as Appleby used the word insert here and in other entries in his journal when he provides additional material. Many of the insertions in his journal, including the Abraham text, likely coincide with Appleby’s later efforts to produce his memoirs. Because the text exhibits some minor variation from the Times and Seasons and the Abraham manuscripts, it is included in this study. However, if Appleby backdated the entry and merely copied the text from the Times and Seasons, it would be of negligible significance to the textual history of the Book of Abraham. To give further context to the Abraham material in Appleby’s journal, more of the journal entry is included in appendix 4.

Hauglid details the textual variations but I would like to make a comparison to show that what Appleby recorded in May of 1841 had to have been a different transcript then the final one used for the 1842 publication in the Times and Seasons. In other words, Appleby didn't back date and copy from the Times and Seasons! Although the textual variations I cite are rather minor they do show a marked difference in what Appleby's eyes saw and wrote compared to what came later in the Times and Seasons whereby the final editing was by Smith & Taylor. Interesting to note that Applyby's citation of the Book of Abraham also has multiple examples of using quotation marks which are not used in the publication that came later. So, Appleby either used these quotes by copying them from a transcript he was copying from or he made them up out of thin air according to his own whims. I chose the first.

Appleyby journal compared to printed Times and Seasons:

1. Jehovah vs. JEHOVAH
2. and vs. &
3. and vs. &
4. Father vs. father
5. Altar vs. altar
6. Priest vs. priest
7. Eldest vs. eldest
8. Judged vs. judged
9. Justly vs. justly
10. Records vs. records
11. patriarchs vs. Patriarchs
12. Knowledge vs. knowledge
13. Kept vs. kept

Now, with that all said, I will soon introduce an entirely new description of what William Appleby actually saw in the Joseph Smith papyrus of Facsimile No.1.

Hold on to your seats, folks. It's going to get interesting. Damn the Mormon apologists!

William Appleby was fortunate enough to spend personal time with Joseph Smith and see first hand the Egyptian relics to include the papyrus and translations. Appleby's journal reveals interesting snippets about the Fascimiles which leads us to believe the Explanations for them may have already been produced to some degree and Appleby got a sneak preview of those Explanations.

Hauglid wrote:Appleby visited Joseph Smith on 5 May 1841 and then returned to the Eastern states a few days later where he remained until the exodus west; he may have written his account at a later time. From the above it appears the interpretations for all three facsimiles were known at the time of this visit. It also seems that the creation account Appleby referred to here contains more detail than the biblical account of the creation. This suggests that Abraham 4 and 5 may have been dictated by this time.

We do in fact learn that Appleby had the inside scoop! His time spent with Smith and the relics was quite personal and upfront! Appleby got what might be termed a front row seat. Here are some snips from Wikipedia to help create the setting for Appleby's visit:

Wikipedia wrote:By 1840 the mummies and papyri had made their way to Nauvoo, Illinois. On June 20, 1840, Joseph Smith asked to be relieved of temporal duties to "engage more particularly in the spiritual welfare of the saints and also, to the translation of the Egyptian Records"

Wikipedia wrote:The collection was first located on the second floor of Joseph Smith's log cabin. Elizabeth Clements Kimball was a young girl in Nauvoo, and described seeing them, "The mummies were kept in the attic where they wouldn't be destroyed and in those days there weren't any stairways in the houses such as we have now, and in order to get to the attic one had to climb a ladder which was straight up along the wall."

Up, up, up the ladder to see the mummies we go!

So, what did Applebe actually see when he described Abraham being sacrificed by an Egyptian priest? Now it get's interesting and I quote from Appleby's journal, courtesy of Hauglid's paper, and bold the parts that need emphasizing (I promise not to discuss Facsimile No. 3 in this thread or the bit below of Appleby mentioning the "black slave":

Appleby wrote:There are likewise representations of an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon, and a Priest with a knife in his hand, standing at the foot, with a dove over the person bound on the Altar with several Idol gods standing around it. A Celestial globe, with the planet Kolob or first creation of the supreme Being —a planet of light, which planet—makes a revolution once in a thousand years,—Also the Lord revealing the Grand key words of the Holy Priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also to Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the Priesthood was revealed. Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King’s throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven, with the scepter of Justice and Judgment in his hand. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince—a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King. . . . There is also a vivid description given on the Papyrus, of the creation, far more accurately and minutely, than the account given in the Bible. Likewise where the Idolatrous Priest “Elkenah” attempted to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice to their Idol gods, in Egypt (as represented by the Altar etc. before referred to). But was delivered by the interposition of Almighty power, representing the Dove over the Altar, where Abraham lies Bound, which broke the cords by which he was bound, tore down the Altar, and killed the Priest.

Brethren and sisters, you may now put on your thinking caps.