From a 19th century perspective, what are some chief differences Smith and his comrades may have perceived regarding the black personage in the vignettes of Facsimiles 1 & 3? What indicators led Smith to make the interpretations he did? Anubis in Facsimile No. 1, is an imposing figure, whereby an ignorant 19th century observer such as Smith might naturally analyze him as a person of authority and importance. This is exactly how Smith perceived the imposing figure of Anubis who seems to be lording over the entire scene as if he is in control with an overreaching arm of total authority.
Anubis in Facsimile No. 3, however, lacks all of the qualities of the imposing black man of Facsimile No. 1. He lords over nobody. He's at the end of the line, last, and seems to follow his predecessor as if he's fortunate enough just to be on the scene. The curious embrace between Anubis (Fig. 6) and Hor (Fig. 5) seems to suggest a humble sense of submissiveness. It seems natural that a 19th century mindset could easily identify this black man as a slave so long as he has a human head and not the authoritative head of a jackal as revealed through Masonry's Dog-star.
There is the possibility that portions of the original head of the papyrus of Facsimile No. 1, survived and were intentionally removed by Smith in perhaps an effort to clean or prepare the image to receive a new reconstructed head more fitting to what Smith envisioned. It's entirely plausible! Earlier in this thread, I brought up the point that there were what appear to be straight cuts into the papyrus whereby pieces appear to have been cut or torn from the papyrus using a straight edge. But that is speculation on my part and nobody can prove Smith intentionally hacked off bits of the black head to remove remaining fragments which would prove the head was jackal in form rather than human. However, traces of an inked headdress do remain and Smith did not restore a headdress but elected to have a white man's head placed atop the obvious body of a black man or, what could be perceived as a black man like the black man in Facsimile No. 3. Note particularly that the black men of both Facsimiles have solid black arms, legs, feet, and shoulders. The person is BLACK.
So, why neglect to include a black head atop the black man of Facsimile No. 1, like the head atop the black man of Facsimile No. 3? Both bodies are black and should have black heads. Nonetheless, Smith elected to have the authoritative and imposing figure of the first Facsimile bear the head of a white man even though the body is black. How many observers in Smith's time caught this obvious blunder? I don't think it was discussed let along noticed. It's not something that has been discussed in our day until I made a stink about it on my website after making the discovery that the snout had been hacked out of the lead plate.
The white head atop the black body is the worst choice Smith could have ever made in restoring the head of Anubis in Facsimile No. 1. It's an obvious display of white supremacy whereby the white man lords over the black man. It's terribly racist! The Church is under obligation to correct this problem by removing the white man's head and replacing it with a jackal head, respectively. If the Church refuses to do this then it will be held in contempt and the accusation of white supremacy in Mormonism will continue to stand on the basis that the Church refuses to acknowledge its error and refuses to correct it.
In Mormonism, white men rule over black men. Blacks must be submissive to white leadership. The white head in Facsimile No. 1, will ever serve as a reminder of this sad reality.
Last edited by Shulem
on Fri Mar 19, 2021 1:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.