"Slave On The Path Of Ascension" -- Apologist defend Book of Abraham Facsimile 3 Figure 6!

[Shulem]

Figure 4, Maat, whom Joseph Smith correctly associated with the Prince of Pharaoh holds the hand of Shulem as if attempting to lead him to Figure 2.

That is LIE! The apologist is a liar. Smith INCORRECTLY associated and named the person as a Prince of Pharaoh. Truth be told, there is no Pharaoh in the scene! The personage of Hor is paying homage to Osiris and is not labeled as a prince of the royal house of Egypt. That is Joseph Smith's concoction and the apologist is lying when he says it's correct. Everything Smith said about Fig. 4, is completely INCORRECT:

"Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

No, she is not a prince. She is a goddess by the name of Isis as in the label above. She is not holding the hand of a person named "Shulem". That is a lie. She is female, not male. She has a vagina, not a penis! She is not the prince of any earthly king. Joseph Smith was dead wrong.

As previously discussed, Joseph Smith was correct to identify this Figure 4 as the Prince of Figure 2, but as far as Anubis is concerned this would more appropriately be associated with Nepthys, sister of Isis. The deceased Egyptian frequently is displayed between Isis and Nepthys, as they are the facilitators of the final rebirth of Osiris. The typical lion couch scene, Facsimile 1, frequently shows the recumbent Egyptian mummy laying between Isis and Nepthys–while our Facsimile 1 shows him between Horus (husband of Isis) and Anubis (son of Nepthys). The right side of Facsimile 1 is day, the left side night. Isis, Nepthys, and Anubis are strategically located in our Facsimile 3 diagram according to their roles of ascension and descension.

Hey, how about the apologist submit this statement to a credible academic journal of Egyptology. Let's see just how far it goes. Submit Joseph Smith's Explanations too. Let's see how far they go.

[Shulem]

“Many Greco-Roman temples to Isis and Serapis also acknowledged Anubis, sometimes as a healing deity.. Plutarch, in discussing the division of the day and night between Isis and Nepthys, suggested that Anubis was considered to the horizon line running between day and night, touching both and partaking of their natures.” (The Mysteries of Isis: Her Worship and Magick, DeTraci Rehula)

The apologist is spouting a reference to real Egyptology in an effort to make their apologetic article *seem* credible and somehow make Smith's Facsimile Explanations correct. But the fact is that Smith NEVER said any of the above! Smith Knew nothing of the above! Smith said something entirely different.

Anubis is therefore the horizontal line running directly sideways though the Facsimile 2 circle, dividing upper registers from upside-down lower registers. The boat in the upper right is the ascent from night, the morning sun. Anubis here in Facsimile 3 corresponds with this ascent. Anubis the guide helps the deceased rise and become judge among the gods in the celestial world.

But why did Joseph Smith indicate the deceased is not ascending?

The apologist admits that the person in the Facsimile is ANUBIS. That is all that matters! Everything Joseph Smith said was garbage and doesn't matter. The question of descending or ascending is pointless. The question is designed to distract readers and lead them down a garden path of deception. The deception is: Anubis is a slave by the name of Olimlah!

[Shulem]

The Christian Slaves Of Anubis

If Joseph Smith were making this all up, the names still couldn’t be considered random.

"IF"?

There is no ifs about it, buddy. Joseph Smith made it all up! The names Smith tendered in the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3, are fictitious and entirely made up. Why do I say that? Because they are NOT written in the hieroglyphic writing of the vignette as designated by Smith's Explanation and they aren't even Egyptian! So, we have nonEgyptian names written on a sacred religious document portraying gods of Egypt presiding in heaven.

So, what was that you were saying about "IF" Smith was making this all up?

He made it all up! How so?

Whether Smith's false "revelation" was random or unrandom makes no difference. That is all beside the point. The point is that Smith's revelation was WRONG. I can prove that by what is written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3, as it fails to correspond to what Smith said it said.

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith had recently studied Hebrew when he started to get into the Book of Abraham and translated the Facsimiles. He knew basic ancient Hebrew.

How is studying Hebrew going to help someone be able to "translate" Egyptian hieroglyphics? I've studied the Egyptian language myself very carefully and can't for the life of me figure how an understanding of Hebrew aids in translating Egyptian.

Who the hell cares that Joseph studied Hebrew!

I don't care!

Egyptologists don't care!

[Shulem]

'Shulem' obviously is related to the popular Hebrew word Shalom.

Yep, probably so. Joseph studied Hebrew. But Joseph knew jack-crap about Egyptian!

'Omilah' likewise can be assumed to purposely be related to Hebrew. He must have been well aware of the meaning–not ascending. Perhaps that explains why he said this Figure was a 'slave.' Slave is a pretty strong word.

The apologist is in a dream state making ASSumptions. It doesn't matter to me what Smith assumed! He was wrong. His attempt to mingle the Hebrew language with Egyptian hieroglyphs was an abomination and utterly false. The Egyptian language bares no relation to Hebrew. The Hebrew is NOT written anywhere in the writing of the sacred text of Facsimile No. 3.

Yes, the word "SLAVE" is a pretty strong word. I agree! Anubis is anything but a slave. Anubis is the OPPOSITE of a slave. Joseph Smith was dead wrong. His revelation and his Hebrew terminology being applied to Egyptian pagan spells is utterly 100%, false.

He said Figure 5 was a 'principal waiter' which meant servant. So we already know the deceased was destined to servitude. Now we get a slave? A slave does not ascend–they are stuck in a low position, damned. Perhaps Joseph Smith was describing the state of the deceased as he related to Anubis.

The apologist is spitting and sputtering in a vain attempt to justify Smith's false Explanations of Hor and Anubis. It's very sad to see such intellectual dishonestly at play.

[Shulem]

Slaves As Anubis – If Facsimile 3 indeed relates to some kind of ritual which Abraham experienced in his lifetime, a slave may have served the role of Anubis in the Egyptian ceremony. A slave contract found in the Temple of Anubis describes a “monthly rent for divine protection”:

“I am your servant from this day onwards, and I shall give you 2 1/2 kite [copper pieces] every month for my rent of service before Anubis the great god.” (Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion)

According to H.S. Versnel, this contract “makes a slave free by ‘consecrating’ him to a god or goddess.” Researchers have found “slaves were freed by religious dedication to” gods including “Isis and Anubis.” It could be a slave served this role in order to “ascend” to freedom. This was especially happening later in Hellenistic times, around when the Hor scroll which likely gave us Facsimile 3 dates to.

"IF"

There are no ifs about it. Anubis is NOT a "slave", period!

[Shulem]

The Mormon apologist quotes more material from the vast stores of Egyptology in an attempt to scramble more Joseph Smith rotten eggs:


"Read the writing above me,
I'm a Goddamn slave"

“Caderini, A., Manomissione, 108-113, even-city states of Greece in which slaves were freed by religious dedication to Serapis and Isis… combining the worship of Serapis, Isis, and Anubis.”

Symbol For Christian Redemption From Slavery – But I think the answer is a little more complicated–a darker. Anubis was anciently associated with slavery, and Abraham was considered the one who fought against the practice.

“But Anubis began his journeyings to diffuse benevolence and humanity according to the precedent of Abraham, from Egypt into Ethiopia… But in this ancient institution revived by Anubis, the slave was considered the property of the master and labored at his will and under his superintendence, and was entitled to no more than a plentiful subsistence with the privilege of propagation, the lowest state to which the laborer could be reduced, consequently the chosen-seed was preserved, by this institution.”

I think this idea derives from ancient Egyptian practice, but more especially later Greek and Roman practices of slavery that involved Anubis. Anubis came to be equated among early Christians with forced slavery:

“Note that this voluntary slavery in service of a god is paralleled by voluntary acceptance of slavery in the secular world… Clemens 55:2 tells us that many Christians sold themselves into slavery in order to ransom fellow Christians from prison with the proceeds… In connection with possible Egyptian origins of the phenomenon I would like to mention some curious demotic self-dedications to Anubis published by H.J.Thissen… ‘I am thy servant from this day onwards for ever and I give you 2 1/2 kit every month for my rent of service before Anubis the great god. No daemon, spirit, evil force, no man who is in the underworld, no man on earth will have power over me except you from this day onwards for ever.’... The latter part of this formula returns literally in Greek texts concerning sacral manumissio or aphierosis, which makes a slave free by ‘consecrating’ him to a god or goddess… Deissmann 1923, 270-81, has powerfully argued that the New Testament, especially the Pauline doctrine of Jesus’ death as a ransom for a man’s sins is, at the least terminologically, derived from the pagan sacred manumission.”

Anubis is NOT a slave. Anubis never was a slave.

Anubis in FACSIMILE NO. 3, is NOT a slave, period!

Joseph Smith is wrong and modern apologists that defend him are liars.

[Shulem]

Note that this describes how things were around the time of the Hor scroll.

Time of the Hor scroll?

No, Smith was talking about the time of Abraham. Read WHAT Joseph Smith and his apostles actually said:

Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II, III (By Paul Osborne)

The Book of Abraham account and the Explanations of the Facsimiles have nothing to do with the time of Hor scroll, late Egypt.

[Shulem]

Most slavery in ancient times, despite what you see on the cable television, involved people assuming contracts of servitude because of some debt. People often labored due to a family member who owed something or got in legal trouble. De Germania records that early European barbarians very frequently sold themselves into slavery in order to pay for alcohol or some other vice. Slavery was debt (it sounds like the typical credit system today, really.) But in this case Christians were signing contracts of debt that were permanent. And not just permanent, they were literally selling their souls to a devil. They were agreeing that after they die, a Pagan god would assume ownership, and that Pagan god just happens to have been Anubis.

But there was a manumission to this deal with the devil. Ownership of the soul could be wrapped up into a portfolio and given over to another deity. And it just so happens that the very wording of these contracts is the same as what we read in the New Testament about Jesus redeeming our souls from hell.

And so, we start to look at Facsimile 3 differently, don’t we? Is this dark character Figure 6 assisting the deceased Shulem on his/her way to the exalted realms, or is he dragging him down? Shulem is being pulled from the left by Figure 4 the Prince in the middle of everything (Prince of Peace? Same as Figure 2 in Facsimile 2?), and he is also pulled from the other side by Anubis. It is a literal tug of war for this soul! This describes what judgement is as we approach the Bosom of Abraham and get lifted to heaven or kicked to hell, to eventually be a telestial slave. The Christian who in his lifetime sacrificed himself for the sake of fellow saints will be redeemed. The wicked who signs himself up for slavery to vices for less noble reasons will not.

This is drivel out of the mouth of an apologist. Joseph Smith would have dismissed it.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Shulem]

Animal Head

Lately, scholars have said Figure 6 we see with a human originally was likely carved with a canine head (I’m not going to link to a source on that as all I can find are Anti-Mormon sources.) See for yourself how the chippings around the mouth appear to be in the shape of a snout. The dog ear at the top of the head is still there as some kind of spike thing. Did Reuben Hedlock originally carve it with an animal head? If so, why was it changed? My best guess is that Joseph Smith looked at the finished printing plate and thought it might be confusing to people; he did not want in scripture a fanciful image of a human-dog head man. Perhaps he thought that would confuse and make it harder for the meaning of the Figure to be evident. Indeed, as far as everything discussed in this article is concerned there is no importance of whether the Figure has a canine or human head.

Dear Conflict of Justice,

Why do you suppose that the only links (sources) you can find about the missing snout are on "Anti-Mormon" sites? Why are you afraid to link to those sites? Is it because you know that your readers are going to get additional information that will demonstrate that Joseph Smith used fraud in publishing his Explanations? You, sir (assuming you're a man), are chicken crap.

Let's be clear that the "dog ear" is a JACKAL ear and it's not a mere "spike thing". It's someone's ear! You too have ears? They aren't just "some kind of thing", they are EARS, you dumb ass! You disrespect the god Anubis when you talk that way. You're probably a racist. I'll bet you're a Trump supporter and a white supremacist!

"Did Reuben Hedlock originally carve it with an animal head?"
[X] Yes [ ] No

Obviously you admit that the head was originally animal in nature and we are favored to hear your "best guess"!



Never mind what others (Anti-Mormons) might have to say about the subject, people who know more about the subject matter than you do! You want to hide that from your readers like Smith wanted to hide the jackal head from his readers.