There's an angle, which I have no doubt you've already contemplated which further demonstrates that Joseph Smith claimed his papyrus was an original autograph. Take for example the Egyptian graphic of Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7 wherein Min's phallus cannot be simply ignored. Now, think for a moment -- considering how stupid Joseph Smith was with handling the interpretations of the vignettes as well as mechanically introducing missing hieroglyphic characters upside down, and so forth, what chance in hell do you think Smith could have known that Min was sporting an erect phallus? Seriously, I'm not kidding or trying to be funny about this, because there is no way in hell Joseph Smith knew the seated god was really an ithyphallic god sporting the oversized Egyptian phallus. I don't know what Joseph Smith thought that thing was between his legs, but you can be damn sure he wasn't thinking it was a penis. Had that been the case, it seems hard to believe that Smith would have continued to feign an Explanation that the person was Jehovah/Elohim. Then you have to consider the rest of Fig. 7 in which Smith absolutely failed to restore correctly and had he known what was really going on in that vignette he might have abandoned the whole of Facsimile No. 2.
Where am I going with this? It's simple, Abraham is NOT about to draw a picture of Jehovah sporting Min's phallus. Who in their right mind would think that Abraham is drawing a picture of the Almighty God of the Bible sitting in a throne with a giant hard on? It simply doesn't make sense. It just points to the fact that the person in the throne who is Min is really Min -- NOT Jehovah/Elohim, a rival god of the Egyptian state!
Do you get where I am going with all this, Philo? And this is just one example using Fig. 7. The whole thing from Smith's perspective was a complete disaster -- a can of worms for the future Mormon church.
PS. Zerinus, go to hell.
You are talking utter rubbish and you know it.
If it's utter rubbish, you should have no problem deconstructing it. Let's see your counter argument.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
zerinus wrote:You are talking utter rubbish and you know it.
If it's utter rubbish, you should have no problem deconstructing it. Let's see your counter argument.
There is nothing to deconstruct. It is so ridiculously nonsensical that it is not even worth attempting to do that. For example, he begins his argument with this statement:
Shulem wrote:There's an angle, which I have no doubt you've already contemplated which further demonstrates that Joseph Smith claimed his papyrus was an original autograph. Take for example the Egyptian graphic of Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7 wherein Min's phallus cannot be simply ignored.
That apparently is his argument for claiming that Joseph Smith believed that the Egyptian papyri were Abraham’s original autographs. I hope that made sense to you, because it didn’t to me. Then he continues that with the following:
Now, think for a moment -- considering how stupid Joseph Smith was with handling the interpretations of the vignettes as well as mechanically introducing missing hieroglyphic characters upside down, and so forth, what chance in hell do you think Smith could have known that Min was sporting an erect phallus? Seriously, I'm not kidding or trying to be funny about this, because there is no way in hell Joseph Smith knew the seated god was really an ithyphallic god sporting the oversized Egyptian phallus. I don't know what Joseph Smith thought that thing was between his legs, but you can be damn sure he wasn't thinking it was a penis. Had that been the case, it seems hard to believe that Smith would have continued to feign an Explanation that the person was Jehovah/Elohim. Then you have to consider the rest of Fig. 7 in which Smith absolutely failed to restore correctly and had he known what was really going on in that vignette he might have abandoned the whole of Facsimile No. 2.
Exactly what his point there is I have no idea. The fact that Fig. 7 in facsimile 2 makes use of Egyptian sacred iconography to depict the Deity proves that Joseph Smith was wrong? How?
Where am I going with this? It's simple, Abraham is NOT about to draw a picture of Jehovah sporting Min's phallus. Who in their right mind would think that Abraham is drawing a picture of the Almighty God of the Bible sitting in a throne with a giant hard on? It simply doesn't make sense. It just points to the fact that the person in the throne who is Min is really Min -- NOT Jehovah/Elohim, a rival god of the Egyptian state!
That points to his stupidity and ignorance, not Joseph Smith’s. The fact that facsimile 2 makes us of sacred ancient Egyptian iconography with deeply symbolic meanings which he doesn’t understand does not prove that it could not have originated from a divine source or from Abraham. That is basically what he is saying, which is meaningless nonsense.
Do you get where I am going with all this, Philo? And this is just one example using Fig. 7. The whole thing from Smith's perspective was a complete disaster -- a can of worms for the future Mormon church.
PS. Zerinus, go to hell.
The rubbish that he keeps spouting out are basically not worth replying to.
It's worth noting that it's reasonable to assume that Smith would be embarrassed to learn he didn't know what was between Min's legs. I don't think he would have used the Hypocephallus at all as part of his Book of Abraham had he known the sexual implications involved with fertility gods and would have shied away from attempting to incorporate his bogus translations fearing his flock wouldn't accept it.
It's interesting to note that the LDS hierarchy upon learning the true nature (from modern Egyptology) of the gods in Fig. 7 had to have suffered embarrassment and apprehension over the idea that a large erect penis was hovering out of Jehovah's/Elohim's garb into the air -- in the very face of the Holy Ghost -- not a flattering picture for the Mormons. Undoubtedly, that is why they removed the phallus in the 1902 edition of the Pearl of Great Price and continued with the castration effect in the 1921 edition as well. In the 1981 edition God gets his phallus back, compliments of the Mormon church. It's the now you see it, now you don't trick. Simply amazing!
Anyway, this example (using thought and reason) is just another point to add on the side that Joseph Smith claimed the Hypocephallus was an original autograph. As far as I've been able to tally, there are no points on the side that show Smith didn't claim it was an original -- so Smith is stuck with all the inconsistencies, contradictions, and warts that pertain to the can of worms he opened.
zerinus wrote:You are talking utter rubbish and you know it.
Wow, Z-boy. We are so impressed with the power of your disdain and the strength of your evidence.
Pathetic.
Pretty much the final word was written by one of Zero's reviewers of his weak little self-published screed:
"Instead of those bulky, awkward rolls, this toilet paper comes in a stack that lets you tear off individual sheets one at a time! Just like a pad of writing paper! What could be easier? It’s amazing, simply amazing!"
Joseph Smith was a sneaky liar and a sly dog. Who is to say he didn't purposely rub off the ink from Fig. 7 in order to make it conform to what he wanted to convey? Who is to say that Joseph Smith didn't purposely damage (chop off) the original papyrus of Facsimile No. 1 which likely showed Anubis holding a sacred cup rather than an alleged knife?
Smith was a lying and conniving man who abused the sacred Egyptian papyrus for his own lust and unrighteous purposes. I think there is a chance he did both of the above. But that is pure conjecture on my part.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As you know, whole portions of ink on the original Hypocephallus for Fig. 7 were rubbed off, damaged (see image in earlier post) -- leaving the untrained eye of a novice such as Joseph Smith to wonder how to restore the image. In this case he didn't attempt to restore the image but used the remains and identified it as the Christian dove -- the so-called sign of the Holy Ghost.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, had the section not been damaged and Smith seen the original figure drawn by the hand of the ancient Egyptian scribe, he would have jettisoned the idea that such a work was the handiwork of Abraham. It would have been tossed aside and counted as a mere curiosity from pagan Egypt.
LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS FOR MR. SMITH LEADS TO PLAUSIBLE ANSWERS:
QUESTION
Mr. Smith, it's been reported that the Mormon papyrus contains incredible signatures from biblical characters, are we to understand that the round papyrus which was published in the Time & Seasons is a genuine original created by Abraham himself?
ANSWER
Yes, the Lord in his wisdom has provided the very works of Abraham, written by his own hand and preserved to this day, as I have testified before. The round papyrus was made by the hand of Abraham.
QUESTION
Mr. Smith, are we to understand that Fig. 7 in the round papyrus is a depiction of the God of the Bible and was hand drawn by the patriarch himself?
ANSWER
Yes, it is symbolic of the Lord's glory as he sits upon the throne in heaven drawn by Abraham's own hand and later sealed up in the catacombs and preserved by the power of God until the last days.
QUESTION
Mr. Smith, what do you make of the phallus that protrudes from the loins of God sitting atop his throne?
Yes, I am still here. We have had a massive couple of days at work, so I come home pretty darn exhausted. I shall be able to continue here in a few days. We are in crunch time because of the eclipse coming.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
