Conflict of Justice: Apologist attacks CES Letter (Book of Abraham)

[Shulem]

My suggestion would be to stick with Facsimile No. 3, and do NOT drift away from talking about Smith's claims and Explanation of the king's name and how he falsely identified Isis as a king of Egypt. The apologist will try and change the subject and move it elsewhere. DON'T! Stick to the king's name and how the Explanation is wrong. Use evidence and proof to keep hammering away at this single point and keep all guns pointed in that direction. Mention other elements of the Facsimile No. 3 to support the case and any quotes from Joseph Smith and eyewitnesses. Bring to the table quotes and information from conventional Egyptology to prove it's really only Isis and there is no justification to make her a king.

Don't allow the apologists to wiggle away and try and change the subject. After wearing him down and making the point several times then it's time to shift gears heavily into another part of Facsimile No. 3.

Trust me. This is how it's done!

It would be interesting if they would come over here and discuss the things they think are right. Instead of ridicule and mockery however, we ought to just simply decimate their ideas with reality, as you are saying about fac 3. We tend to get pretty excited instead of academic when these things pop up. And actually, any of the facsimiles are the weakness, without doubt. Fac 3 is the best because it is so straight forward, as you note. There is no wiggle room.

Indeed. Facsimile No. 3 really is the key into breaking their argument and opening the door to let the light in. I agree, should such a discussion take place with this apologist on this board it should remain cordial and friendly. I don't think this apologist knows how bad he would be beaten in debating these matters here in a free speech zone.

[Shulem]

Fallacy of reverse premise. Just because royal names are included in a cartouche does not mean it CAN’T be without a cartouche. Especially considering Egyptian spanned many thousands of years and underwent many changes.

But regardless, the Royal Horus name wasn’t in a cartouche. A good researcher doesn’t jump to conclusions.

My response:

Royal Egyptian funerary scenes of dynastic Egypt in Abraham’s time and thereafter would include a king’s name contained in the sacred Cartouche. A king of Egypt portrayed in a vignette must be accompanied with the king’s NAME in order to legitimize eternal life and the authority associated with being a king of Egypt. The name therein is required according to royal conventions and the Egyptian religion. The idea of portraying a king outside the standards of Egyptian conventions is inappropriate at best and sacrilegious at worst. It simply was not done. The Facsimile No. 3, does not bear the image of an Egyptian king of any dynasty and the spell therein is not a Pharaonic scene — hence there is no king portrayed therein and no king’s name. All official representations of a king must contain the royal label. That’s rule number #1 when it comes to royal Egyptian art.

[Shulem]

The CES letter is not dedicated to finding contradictions, it’s specifically designed as a list of contradictions as was asked for on the basis answers would be given. That the dude doesn’t understand what the CES letter is and where it came from does indeed mark him down as a loon.

Just about every paragraph in the Conflict of Justice apologetic website is dedicated to slamming conventional Egyptology and finding any creative and elusive idea it can imagine to grant Smith a superior ability to translate and interpret the vignette of Facsimile No. 3.

The tactics used by this website are extremely misleading and bear little regard or respect to ancient Egypt or to the restoration of true Egyptology through modern science and the discipline of countless men and women who have worked to make Egyptology what it is today.

Mormon Egyptology is wrong. Mr. Smith was wrong and his wanton acts against the Egyptians were extremely disrespectful -- a slam on their whole race.

I love that Kerry and Paul are now a team and they're on the other side of Book of Abraham apologetics than say a decade ago. It's like super duo that turned heel. I was also a "believer" when they were defenders of the Church. So crazy to see where we stand now!

I'm sure it is one of Mentalgymnast Weasel's favorite places.

What comes to mind is that this Book of Abraham apologetic website is reminiscent of childhood memories of being at a carnival and witnessing all kinds of strange gimmicks and sideshows. It's like witnessing a freak show filled with lots of jokes. There is nothing there that resembles credible conventional Egyptology in the slightest. The site could be easily ripped to pieces by Egyptologists and historians. There is nothing about that site that honors Egyptology and the ancient Egyptians. It's apologetic nonsense to the extreme and the tactics used to defend the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3, are utterly shameful and would find absolutely no acceptance whatsoever in the professional world of Egyptology. It's all a ploy -- a freak sideshow put on by novices who have little if any appreciation for conventional Egyptology.

Mormon scholars or Egyptologists that endorse that site should be ostracized or at minimum reprimanded by the world body of Egyptology

It is probably so beneath their notice that it will never happen.

I half expect the Facsimiles to be removed from a future edition of the Pearl of Great Price, anytime now. The days are numbered. The church simply has to get rid of them. The Facsimiles are nothing but a liability for the church. There really isn't anything faith promoting from them and all they do is raise further question to the legitimacy of Smith's ability to translate Egyptian into English.

The leaders of the church can't even discuss the Facsimiles. They obviously have a gag order in place. It's probably something they chuckle about when its mentioned in their secret councils. Then there is Holland: He's a dumb do-do bird and a liar for the Lord.

I find it also fascinating that the apologists are simply thrashing about trying to make anything sound credible these days literally ignoring the various Egyptologists materials, but making sure they at least mention their names as if they are so familiar with them, and then simply lamely asking "why do they care?" That, to me, is literally a concession to defeat. Nibley at least had the good sense of being friends with the Egyptologists for hells sake! The younger pups appear to me to have goe out of their way to make enemies where none were needed. But, that is to be expected. I have found the comparison with the early Christian apologists (including the timeline of being about 150-250 years later than the founder of their faith Jesus on the one hand, Joseph today!) and Mormon apologists and their attitudes to be amazingly correlative. In both cases they were jerks for the Lord throwing out vastly more heat than light, and just muddying up the waters. The only difference I can see is that the Early Christian apologists actually won the game. But then, it was because of their team could, for 400 years, destroy everything else except their own writings... :rolleyes:

The following links in WIKIPEDIA are excellent sources worth bookmarking to acquire quick information about the Joseph Smith papyrus and learn more about this controversial subject.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Book of Abraham
Joseph Smith Papyri
Criticism of the Book of Abraham
Joseph Smith Hypocephalus
Kirtland Egyptian papers
Book of Joseph (Latter Day Saints)
File:Facsimile 3 plate anubis.jpg