Shout Out to Shulem!

[Lem]

If FIRST came the glue and SECOND came the Pencil:

1. Original papyrus fragments were brought to the table
2. Glue was applied to a large sheet of of paper backing
3. Papyrus was glued to the paper backing
4. The glued dried
5. POSSIBILITY THAT PIECES OF PAPYRUS WERE REMOVED TO FORM MORE LACUNEA
5. The paper backing and papyrus were cut into pieces being readied for frames
6. POSSIBILITY THAT PIECES OF PAPYRUS WERE REMOVED TO FORM MORE LACUNAE
7. Sketches of the priest's head, knife in right hand, and bony Abraham were complete
8. The fragments were set in frames under Joseph Smith's management
9. The doodles of the priest's head and bony Abraham remained safely behind glass
10. It was determined later that the knife would be placed in the left hand

Regarding the first 5 and the 6, wouldn't cut marks show on the underlying paper?

[Shulem]

Regarding the first 5 and the 6, wouldn't cut marks show on the underlying paper?

I can imagine it would have been fairly easy to remove pieces or chunks of papyrus without having to apply much pressure using an instrument to splice and scrape it away. The papyrus is friable and soft. There seems to be cut marks at chest level. They are suspicious to me.

Now that we know that Smith was willing to hack out Anubis's nose in Facsimile No. 3 we can more readily suspect that he may have hacked out the head in the original Facsimile No. 1 fragment.

Lem, someday the original fragment for Facsimile No. 3 may surface. It may be out there somewhere! Who knows? If it does surface, it will show Anubis having a jackal head.

[Lem]

Regarding the first 5 and the 6, wouldn't cut marks show on the underlying paper?

I can imagine it would have been fairly easy to remove pieces or chunks of papyrus without having to apply much pressure using an instrument to splice and scrape it away. The papyrus is friable and soft. There seems to be cut marks at chest level. They are suspicious to me.

Now that we know that Smith was willing to hack out Anubis's nose in Facsimile No. 3 we can more readily suspect that he may have hacked out the head in the original Facsimile No. 1 fragment.

Lem, someday the original fragment for Facsimile No. 3 may surface. It may be out there somewhere! Who knows? If it does surface, it will show Anubis having a jackal head.

No argument there!

Also, I apologize for not being up to speed on your evidence about the 'eyewitnesses' earlier, but now that I've read a little more, I have a question. Why does the mopologist argument not acknowledge the drawn in man with knife sketch? It was clearly there when the pieces were mounted and shown, which would explain why their witnesses said they saw man with knife, but in the fairmormon piece they are not clear about that. They seem to imply that the papyrus showed a knife, right? And how would they know the guy with a knife was a priest, based on papyrus? It doesn't make sense.

[Shulem]

I have a question. Why does the mopologist argument not acknowledge the drawn in man with knife sketch? It was clearly there when the pieces were mounted and shown, which would explain why their witnesses said they saw man with knife, but in the fairmormon piece they are not clear about that. They seem to imply that the papyrus showed a knife, right? And how would they know the guy with a knife was a priest, based on papyrus? It doesn't make sense.

Lem,

I highly suspect that the framed papyrus on display were accompanied with simple placards offering brief explanations or description of what the scenes represent based on President Smith's revelations. The placard for the vignette of Facsimile No. 1, undoubtedly had an explanation of the so-called sacrificial scene and may have even been word for word for what we read in the official Explanations later printed in the Times and Seasons.

Apologists don't want to consider the doodles because the doodles do not result in the final product. Apologists don't want to think that Smith had anything to do with them. Blame the scribes! It was the scribes that were doodling and later trying to make a grammar to figure out how Joseph Smith translated. Apologists NEVER want to hold Smith responsible for any of his misdeeds or consider the idea that he was just flat out lying and cheating.

So goes it.

[Shulem]

HASH MARK INDICATOR

The indicator mark on the paper backing leading to the area where Anubis's left hand is missing from the papyrus is very important. Do understand that the fragment was set in glass and put on display as the Abrahamic sacrificial scene and the KNIFE IS IN THE RIGHT HAND according to the sketch doodling. This leads us to draw a very important conclusion: There never was a KNIFE in the left hand! It was ever a lacuna when Smith unrolled the scroll. Apologists must agree that if Smith had originally seen a knife in the extended left hand then there would never have been a doodling of a knife in the fictitious right hand of the doodle! Hence the lacuna for the LEFT hand was always a lacuna for Smith and Co. The hash mark was an indicator by the doodler that the missing hand was a mystery and would have to be filled in at some point prior to publication.

Was the lacuna that contained the penciled in right hand and missing jackal head always a lacuna? Or was there more content when Smith first got the papyrus? Did Smith tear out a portion of the fragment in order to get rid of the jackal head and supplant it with a priest bearing a knife? Is this possible?

Let me repeat, please. The hash mark on the paper at the left hand is proof that the lacuna was an original and the owner of the document (Joseph Smith) had not yet decided what to make of the hand!

[Lem]

HASH MARK INDICATOR

The indicator mark on the paper backing leading to the area where Anubis's left hand is missing from the papyrus is very important. Do understand that the fragment was set in glass and put on display as the Abrahamic sacrificial scene and the KNIFE IS IN THE RIGHT HAND according to the sketch doodling. This leads us to draw a very important conclusion: There never was a KNIFE in the left hand! It was ever a lacuna when Smith unrolled the scroll. Apologists must agree that if Smith had originally seen a knife in the extended left hand then there would never have been a doodling of a knife in the fictitious right hand of the doodle! Hence the lacuna for the LEFT hand was always a lacuna for Smith and Co. The hash mark was an indicator by the doodler that the missing hand was a mystery and would have to be filled in at some point prior to publication.

Was the lacuna that contained the penciled in right hand and missing jackal head always a lacuna? Or was there more content when Smith first got the papyrus? Did Smith tear out a portion of the fragment in order to get rid of the jackal head and supplant it with a priest bearing a knife? Is this possible?

Let me repeat, please. The hash mark on the paper at the left hand is proof that the lacuna was an original and the owner of the document (Joseph Smith) had not yet decided what to make of the hand!

I think even FAIRmormon admits the lacuna was always there, in reference to the added head. They note that the head look very much like the head laying down, and speculate that the final sketching in just imitated that head. Why imitate another part, if there was something originally there?

[Shulem]

Lem,

To be sure you're on the same page: When I refer to left and right hand it's not according to directional orientation (east & west) of the page but of the body of the person. The right hand and head of the doodle is fictitious and the left hand is the one that's missing or seems chopped off leading to lacuna. The left hand is from the extended arm on the papyrus.

You're clear on that, right? I just want to be sure because it can be confusing. sometimes I even get confused.

[Shulem]

I think even FAIRmormon admits the lacuna was always there, in reference to the added head. They note that the head look very much like the head laying down, and speculate that the final sketching in just imitated that head. Why imitate another part, if there was something originally there?

I don't believe FAIRMormon has ever taken into consideration that Smith may have purposely enlarged or created a lacuna in order to provide space for a doodle consisting of a man's head, a knife, and an upward raised arm holding that knife. I am proposing the idea that the fragment was removed and a lacuna was created by Smith in order to invent his story!

If Smith removed a portion of the papyrus in order to conceal/destroy the jackal head and introduce a human head with an upward drawn knife, then we have a case of deception within the papyrus itself.

[Lem]

Lem,

To be sure you're on the same page: When I refer to left and right hand it's not according to directional orientation (east & west) of the page but of the body of the person. The right hand and head of the doodle is fictitious and the left hand is the one that's missing or seems chopped off leading to lacuna. The left hand is from the extended arm on the papyrus.

You're clear on that, right? I just want to be sure because it can be confusing. sometimes I even get confused.

Yes, I am clear on that. The sketched in (fictitious) right hand up in the air, next to the sketched in forward-facing head, were what the 'eyewitnesses' saw, if they saw glassed over, glued down, papyrus pieces. Right?

[Shulem]

Yes, I am clear on that. The sketched in (fictitious) right hand up in the air, next to the sketched in forward-facing head, were what the 'eyewitnesses' saw, if they saw glassed over, glued down, papyrus pieces. Right?

Just checking to be sure you had that part right. It can get confusing but obviously you're one smart cookie and I shouldn't have doubted you. But I wanted to be sure other readers understood lest they get confused.

And yes, that is what witnesses saw when the papyrus was displayed under glass. They saw the sketch. That was Abraham and the priest -- the knife in the right hand. But, as it was, Smith made some changes and went with the other hand -- the one with the hash mark.