Notice that Anubis has an ear, the same as a coyote, wolf, and prairie dog.
Smith butchered Freemasonry, stole from its contents, perverted the rites, and made a total mockery of the Egyptian gods. I call upon The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to apologize for this outrage and to make appropriate emends.
Give Anubis his nose back and restore his name and title, NOW!
Take this SPOON and shove it into the mouth of the mutated face of Fig. 6. It proves that Smith's violent mutation of forcing a human mouth into an animal is not compatible with the original jackal head. The false human nose carved into the jackal's face is easily discerned by close examination. The jackal eye is not going to tolerate a spoon in a mouth that does not exist!
Likewise, Smith's translation for the characters of Fig. 6: "Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince" is an abomination and utterly false!
Last edited by Shulem on Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But nobody has devoted more time, expertise and effort over the past quarter of a century to the study of the Book of Abraham in all its aspects than the aforementioned John Gee. Trained in ancient studies at Brigham Young University and Berkeley and equipped with a doctorate in Egyptology from Yale, he holds the William “Bill” Gay Research Chair at BYU. From that position, he has contributed prolifically to international Egyptological journals and conferences while also researching the 19th-century background story to our English Book of Abraham and keeping an eye on the often-intense debates concerning it.
An eye?
So, Daniel, please, tell us about the eye of the character in Fig. 6. Do tell! Feel free to consult with Dr. Gee in ascertaining the true nature of the EYE in the personage of Fig. 6.
Shulem, has Dr. Peterson given an apologetic opinion about Anubis or the snout removed from facsimile 3?
I'm quite confident that Dr. Peterson first learned about the the snout removal from my announcement on the old Mormon Discussion board, December 1st, 2017, in which I was conversing with Philo Sofee and others about the Book of Abraham, see: A few questions for Shulem.
To my knowledge, Dr. Peterson has not formerly addressed this issue and neither has Dr. Gee. It shouldn't be hard for either of these men to come to terms that the personage in Fig. 6 is Anubis and that the snout was removed from the lead plate. The hard part is trying to understand why this happened and what Smith's motives were in a coverup that had alluded Mormon scholars for 175 years until I pulled the cat out of the bag, so to speak.
I'm afraid the situation for these apologists will worsen as I continue to pour fuel on the fire and stoke the flames of truth.
Church members and apologists of every stripe will eventually have to come to terms that the nose of Fig. 6 was indeed chiseled away. The evidence is right before everyone's eyes and there can be no doubt that the original personage was Anubis: Black jackal headed deity of ancient Egypt. Apologists will develop theories and ideas in order to understand the reasoning behind the alteration of the face. Some may reason that Smith was only trying to normalize the person depicted in the scene. But recall that animal-headed persons are also depicted in Facsimile No. 2 and such are ascribed as representations of Abraham's God; therefore, Smith must have had something else in mind other than getting rid of animal headed depictions.
Apologists have a choice; Smith hacked out the jackal nose because he wanted to:
A. Conceal something
B. Reveal something
The idea of concealing something has been expressed quite pointedly in my website and in this forum. I'm convinced that is the only answer that makes sense. But if one wants to postulate that Smith was attempting to reveal something, then they have to have some kind of theory or idea of what it was that he was revealing. That is where they hit the wall and come up empty. There is nothing to reveal in getting rid of the nose and mutating the face. It serves no purpose. It offers no benefit. And Smith never said anything about it publicly or gave a reason for that action.
So, it becomes utterly obvious to any honest thinker: Smith was hiding something and therefore the only real and viable answer is that his actions prove that he was concealing something that he did not wish to discuss. My question for John Gee and Daniel Peterson is this:
