TBMs: How do you Reconcile Facsimile No. 2?

[Guest]

Facsimile No. 2 is a part of the LDS canon of scripture.

The Egyptian hieroglyphic and hieratic characters that appear on this hypocephalus for Sheshonk do not translate into the English text set forth as "Explanation" that immediately follows in the LDS canon of scripture.

Facsimile No. 2 is not in the condition that it was found with the mummies bought from Chandler in Kirtland OH in 1835. What appeared then, has hieroglyphic characters, not hieratic ones. The condition of Facsimile No. 2 in the LDS scriptures is as 'restored' by the restoration prophet, JSJr. All of the additions made by JSJr are hieratic characters, for which there are corrolaries on the sensen papyri (Hor's Breathing Permit). All of these hieratic characters added by JSJr to restore Facsimile No. 2 to the condition it is as included in LDS scripture are upside down.

Did JSJr correctly 'restore' the hypocephalus to its original condition? That would mean that--

(a) the original author(s) of the hypocephalus used two different types of ancient Egyptian characters, both hieroglyphs and hieratics, in the same document,

(b) the original author(s) placed the hieroglyphs upright, but the hieratic characters upside down,

(c) each and every part of the original image that contained upside down hieratic had been torn out before JSJr bought the mummies in 1835, and

(d) each and every part of the original image that contained hieroglyphs arrived in Kirtland OH in 1835 intact.

Mormon apologist Michael D. Rhodes writes: “A careful examination of Facsimile 2 shows that there is a difference between most of the hieroglyphic signs and the signs on the right third of the figure on the outer edge as well as the outer portions of the sections numbered 12-15 (see the illustration below). These signs are hieratic, not hieroglyphic, and are inverted, or upside down, to the rest of the text. In fact, they are a fairly accurate copy of lines 2, 3, and 4 of the Joseph Smith Papyrus XI, which contains a portion of the Book of Breathings. Especially clear is the word snsn, in section 14, and part of the name of the mother of the owner of the papyrus, (t3y-)hby.t, repeated twice on the outer edge. An ink drawing of the hypocephalus in the Church Historian's office shows these same areas as being blank. It is likely that these portions were destroyed on the original hypocephalus and someone (the engraver, one of Joseph Smith's associates, or Joseph himself) copied the lines from the Book of Breathings papyrus for aesthetic purposes.

Michael D. Rhodes, Joseph Smith Hypocephalus Seventeen Years Later http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm

Apart from the lame attempt to distance JSJr from this restoration effort, if aesthetic only what other aspects of JSJr's restorations are aesthetic or for reasons other than god's/religious truth?

For purposes of JSJr's personal involvement, see this post.

Note also that the Explanations were prepared for the Times & Seasons, compliments of the Egyptian Alphabet & Grammar which was created first:

At my office exhibiting the Book of Abraham in the original to Brother Reuben Hedlock, so that he might take the size of the several plates or cuts, and prepare the blocks for the Times and Seasons; and also gave instruction concerning the arrangement of the large cut, illustrating the principles of astronomy, with other writing on the general business.

HC 4:543 (Just three days after JSJr wrote the Wentworth Letter--canonized as the Articles of Faith--that included the declaration that Mormons believed "in being honest, true, ... ."

Recommenced translating from the Records of Abraham for the tenth number of the Times and Seasons, and was engaged at my office day and evening. . . In the afternoon continued the translation of the Book of Abraham, called at Bishop Knight's and Mr. Davis', with the recorder, and continued translating and revising ... .

HC 4:548

As so 'restored', Facsimile No. 2 was first published in Volume III, No. 10 of the Times & Seasons, dated March 15th, 1842.

The Facsimiles have not only been approved to be included in the LDS scripture, but 22 years later they were reapproved as LDS scripture. On 10/10/1880, at General Conference, the Pearl of Great Price including the Book of Abraham and the Facsimiles (and their explanations) were added as the 4th book of LDS scripture. At the General Conference in October 1902, the PoGP after James E. Talmadge's removal of portions that were duplicates of what appears in the D&C, addition of the title "The Book of Moses" and division of the text into chapters and verses, and other editing of the 1880 version was again accepted at GC as part of LDS scripture. The LDS Church as a body approved Facsimile No. 2 as LDS scripture not once, but twice.

Facsimile No. 2 is not the only problem with the BoAbr and the PoGP generally. But these issues of Facsimile No. 2 call into question the validity and veracity of Mormon scripture.

So, TBMs, how do you reconcile these problems with Facsimile No. 2 and its Explanation with your faith in LDS truth claims?

[_Eyepatch]

...crickets...chirping...

**There is no answer**

[_Shulem]

Brothers and sisters of this forum, we welcome President Thomas S. Monson -- the prophet, seer, and revelator of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; President Monson will now address us and add futher light and knowledge to the revelations given by the prophet Joseph Smith regarding the Explanations of Facsimile No. 2 of the Pearl of Great Price.

"Chirp, chirp".

Paul O

[_Sethbag]

They have no freaking clue. They assume that Joseph's Book of Abraham was legit, but the evidence looks like it wasn't, and the modern apostles, prophets, seers, revelators, etc. all haven't a friggin clue what the deal is. They weren't there in 1880, or in the 1840s, they can't peer into the mind of Joseph Smith and ask him what the heck is going on. And, somewhat damning, either they've asked God and he's blown them off, or they haven't asked God and he has declined to bring it up with them. But all is well in Zion, so this really is a sideshow.

When I hold it out at arms length, and squint just a tad, facsimile no. 2 looks a bit like a coffin nail to me. ;-)

[_sock puppet]

They have no freaking clue. They assume that Joseph's Book of Abraham was legit, but the evidence looks like it wasn't, and the modern apostles, prophets, seers, revelators, etc. all haven't a friggin clue what the deal is. They weren't there in 1880, or in the 1840s, they can't peer into the mind of Joseph Smith and ask him what the heck is going on. And, somewhat damning, either they've asked God and he's blown them off, or they haven't asked God and he has declined to bring it up with them. But all is well in Zion, so this really is a sideshow.

When I hold it out at arms length, and squint just a tad, facsimile no. 2 looks a bit like a coffin nail to me. ;-)

What would be core if problems with canonized scripture are a 'sideshow'?

[_bcspace]

TBMs: How do you Reconcile Facsimile No. 2?

Meanings in Egyptian mythos have changed over time. Perhaps something along the lines of the Parthenon Code in which it is postulated that the figures on the Parthenon actually represent the battle between the saints (the children of Seth) and Jeovah and his prophets on one side and Satan (the serpent) and Cain on the other. The figures depict the supremacy of Seth and his children preFlood and the ascendency of the serpent's religion after the Flood; the victories of Hercules/Nimrod/Gilgamesh over the allies and sons of Seth. So instead of Adam and Eve, we have Zeus and Hera. Jehovah = Chronos. Noah = Nereus. Athena is Eve as she should have been, imbued with knowledge of the serpent for man's use. Etc.

One could apply similar to the other facsimiles. The Egyptians are notorious for burying or changing the past, especially when it's unpleasant to the current rulers. The victory of Abraham and his God over the Egyptian system would certainly not be a welcome depiction.

In other words, Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God, gave us the original meaning before they were changed or lost by the Egyptians.

[_Polygamy-Porter]

Fortunately for LDS Inc, most TBMs of the chapel variety are apathetic as they simply do not have the time to deep dive Mormon theology nor the desire to make the time to do so.

Those who do deep dive Mormon theology end up either out of the church or attempt to hold on by becoming an internet Mormon which eventually leads to a life of angry mopologetics.

[_Morley]

TBMs: How do you Reconcile Facsimile No. 2?

Meanings in Egyptian mythos have changed over time. Perhaps something along the lines of the Parthenon Code in which it is postulated that the figures on the Parthenon actually represent the battle between the saints (the children of Seth) and Jeovah and his prophets on one side and Satan (the serpent) and Cain on the other. The figures depict the supremacy of Seth and his children preFlood and the ascendency of the serpent's religion after the Flood; the victories of Hercules/Nimrod/Gilgamesh over the allies and sons of Seth. So instead of Adam and Eve, we have Zeus and Hera. Jehovah = Chronos. Noah = Nereus. Athena is Eve as she should have been, imbued with knowledge of the serpent for man's use. Etc.

One could apply similar to the other facsimiles. The Egyptians are notorious for burying or changing the past, especially when it's unpleasant to the current rulers. The victory of Abraham and his God over the Egyptian system would certainly not be a welcome depiction.

In other words, Joseph Smith by the gift and power of God, gave us the original meaning before they were changed or lost by the Egyptians.

You're kidding me, BC. I am in awe. You're pulling the ridiculous theories that Johnson expounds in The Parthenon Code into this? Does this mean that you're now also a creationist who embraces the idea of a global flood?

I suppose that since you have no trouble at all accepting that the American Indians were Egyptian-writing, Jewish Christians, you can also accept Johnson's ludicrous and twisted version of Greek history. Wow. I say go for it.

And write The Papyrus Code. Oh, wait, Joseph Smith already did that.

[_bcspace]

You're kidding me, BC. I am in awe. You're pulling the ridiculous theories that Johnson expounds in The Parthenon Code into this?

Sure. It's a great example of what I mean even though it's only a hypothesis. I'll bet you never even heard of it till now. lol

Does this mean that you're now also a creationist who embraces the idea of a global flood?

Not in the least.

I suppose that since you have no trouble at all accepting that the American Indians were Egyptian-writing, Jewish Christians, you can also accept Johnson's ludicrous and twisted version of Greek history. Wow. I say go for it.

The American Indians are simply principle ancestors. I am of Mesoamerican LGT bent. Johnson actually makes a very good case. But I mention it merely as an example of what could have happened to Egyptian mythos and it's certainly not out of line with the generally accepted notion that the Gods in various mythologies might actually represent real people who existed and did noteworthy deeds long ago.

And write The Papyrus Code. Oh, wait, Joseph Smith already did that.

Naw. Too much missing papyri. That the Egyptians changed or erased history to benefit the current ruling class is an established fact. So you're being intellectually dishonest by dismissing the possibility I raised. But you do seem to be prone to Fortigurn's Lazy Research as evidence by the fact that you did not read the CERN paper in the other thread even though you said you did.

[_Cardinal Biggles]

When I asked my dear, kind, loving TBM-til-the-day-she-dies mother why Joseph Smith's translations didn't match those that multiple Egyptologists independently produced from the same source, she, in all sweet sincerety, explained to me that all of the Egyptologists simply must have gotten it wrong.

I love my mom. I think that she is a very representative sample of her Mormon generation.