A few questions for Shulem

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Regarding the knife concocted by Joseph Smith.

I can't find the reference at this point though I think it was in Bell's essay, but there is no way a knife would be drawn in these vignettes. These drawings were thought to have actual power in the afterlife and whomever was commissioning the scroll for his deceased relative would not have allowed an object like a knife, which could have been used to harm his relative, to be included.

More straws.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Shulem »

Fence Sitter wrote:Regarding the knife concocted by Joseph Smith.

I can't find the reference at this point though I think it was in Bell's essay, but there is no way a knife would be drawn in these vignettes. These drawings were thought to have actual power in the afterlife and whomever was commissioning the scroll for his deceased relative would not have allowed an object like a knife, which could have been used to harm his relative, to be included.

More straws.


I need to read Bell's essay.

And yes, a knife in such a scene seems most dangerous and inappropriate. Some Egyptian funerary scenes were handled with such care that some hieroglyphic animal creatures were actually mutilated or cut in two in order to prevent them from coming to life and harming the benefactor.

The knife on the papyrus paper backing and the one in the woodcut for the Facsimile No. 1 is Joseph Smith's own imagination. It is totally unEgyptian and makes a mockery of the ancient Egyptian religion. It's slander against everything the Egyptians held dear. Mormons today are unapologetic and refuse to own the truth. It's very disheartening and shows the church has little integrity when it comes to confessing their errors.
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Shulem »

ATTENTION:

I, Shulem, have determined that the head on the original papyrus of the so-called Egyptian priest (who is really Anubis) in Facsimile No. 1: Fig. 3, was in fact missing from the original papyrus that the Mormons purchased in Kirtland from Chandler. I now believe there was no head whereby Reuben Hedlock could copy into the woodcut of Facsimile No. 1.

How did I come to this conclusion? The relief wood cut of Facsimile No. 1 proves that the skin of the person thereon was totally black as indicated by the high relief cut in the wood for the skin which transfers solid black ink onto the paper for publishing, areas to include: Feet, legs, back, shoulder, arm.

But notice that the face of the No. 3 personage in Facsimile No. 1 is not black! The relief carving is for a white person whereby when ink is applied to the wood a white face will appear. This contradicts everything whereby the body (feet, legs, arm, back. and shoulder) is a black person but the head is a white person!

I see now that Joseph Smith didn't know what he was doing and that the head really was missing on the original papyrus of Facsimile No. 1. This is another nail in the coffin, folks.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Fence Sitter »

Fence Sitter wrote:Regarding the knife concocted by Joseph Smith.

I can't find the reference at this point though I think it was in Bell's essay, but there is no way a knife would be drawn in these vignettes. These drawings were thought to have actual power in the afterlife and whomever was commissioning the scroll for his deceased relative would not have allowed an object like a knife, which could have been used to harm his relative, to be included.

More straws.


So I found the reference that talks about the possibility of there being a knife as shown in Joseph Smith's version of Fac #1.

It is from Stephen Thompson's 1995 Dialogue article found here.
The relevant quote is:

Stephen Thompson on pg 148-9 wrote:The question never asked in arguments for the original presence of a knife is what would the knife have meant in its original, funerary, context. As stated earlier, Facsimile 1 represents the deceased individual, Horus, lying on a bier undergoing the rites of mummification by the god Anubis. While part of the mummification process did involve evisceration, I am aware of no instance in which this procedure is depicted. Given the Egyptians' reticence in depicting things which might be harmful to the deceased in his tomb, it is unlikely that an Egyptian would ever wish himself depicted being approached by a god with a knife. Knives are usually found in the hands of demons, protective deities such as Bes and Thoeris (who were the Egyptian god and goddess responsible for protecting women during childbirth), the doorkeepers in the afterworld, and the devourer in the scenes of the judgement of the dead. I know of no instance in which Anubis is depicted with a knife. The original context of Facsimile 1 would not seem to admit the possibility of a knife in Anubis's hand, and the restoration of a knife does not, in my opinion, represent the original state of the papyrus.


This is a really good article on Facsimile#1 & #3, full of very interesting information such as this quote and footnote describing the methodology, still used today by the likes of Gee & Muhlestein to defend the Book of Abraham:

Thompson on pg 146 wrote: Every figure in the facsimiles had as its purpose the accomplishing of that goal. While it is possible that some of these figures might appear in other contexts, and take on other meanings in those contexts, in the context of the funerary papyri their interpretation is related to funerary purposes. The approach taken in attempting to support Joseph's interpretations of these figures is to compare them with figures found in other historical and textual contexts. It is simply not valid, however, to search through 3,000 years of Egyptian religious iconography to find parallels which can be pushed, prodded, squeezed, or linked in an attempt to justify Joseph's interpretations.


and footnote below:

Thompson on pg 146 wrote: See, for example, H. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt (Salt Lake: Deseret Book Co., 1981), and "The Three Facsimiles from the Book of Abraham" (Provo, UT: FARMS, n.d.), as well as James Harris, "The Book of Abraham Facsimiles," in R. Millet and K. Jackson, eds., Studies in Scripture, vol. 2, The Pearl of Great Price (Salt Lake City: Randall Book Co., 1985), 247-86, and The Facsimilies of the Book of Abraham, A Study of the Joseph Smith Egyptian Papyri (Payson, UT: by the author, 1990), and M. Rhodes, "The Book of Abraham: Divinely Inspired Scripture," Review of Books on the Book of Mormon (henceforth RBBM) 4 (1992): 120-26. Recently, Daniel Peterson has summarized much of the information found in these works in his "Notes from Antiquity," Ensign 24 (Jan. 1994): 16-21
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Shulem »

Fence Sitter wrote:and footnote below:


Notably that of Hugh Nibley, a man who did more to deceive the church about the Book of Abraham than any other man. Nibley was truly a spider and a master at deception.

I'm sure Philo Sofee could drum up lots of quotes about how Nibley raved about how special and unique Facsimile No. 1 was and how Joseph Smith was spot on with his revelations.

Poor Philo, Nibley took him down the rabbit holes and really did a number on him.

:biggrin:
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:
Fence Sitter wrote:and footnote below:


Notably that of Hugh Nibley, a man who did more to deceive the church about the Book of Abraham than any other man. Nibley was truly a spider and a master at deception.

I'm sure Philo Sofee could drum up lots of quotes about how Nibley raved about how special and unique Facsimile No. 1 was and how Joseph Smith was spot on with his revelations.

Poor Philo, Nibley took him down the rabbit holes and really did a number on him.

:biggrin:


(Philo putting on his very best mostest sunday go ta meetin scientism hat)
Yes he did, but science saved my bacon by presenting actual Egyptological evidence and accurate methodology to pull me outta the hole. :cool:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Maksutov
_Emeritus
Posts: 12480
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:19 pm

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Maksutov »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Shulem wrote:
Notably that of Hugh Nibley, a man who did more to deceive the church about the Book of Abraham than any other man. Nibley was truly a spider and a master at deception.

I'm sure Philo Sofee could drum up lots of quotes about how Nibley raved about how special and unique Facsimile No. 1 was and how Joseph Smith was spot on with his revelations.

Poor Philo, Nibley took him down the rabbit holes and really did a number on him.

:biggrin:


(Philo putting on his very best mostest sunday go ta meetin scientism hat)
Yes he did, but science saved my bacon by presenting actual Egyptological evidence and accurate methodology to pull me outta the hole. :cool:


Redemption is real! Hallelujah!

Image
"God" is the original deus ex machina. --Maksutov
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Shulem »

Certainly [personal attack deleted] has had ample time to examine the woodcut at the Joseph Smith Papers. He's not said a thing so far. Is his testimony shaking in his boots?

[personal attack deleted]

:smile:
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Philo Sofee »

You won't shake his faith, it is impervious to real evidence. That's the point of faith. When evidence is against you, turn to faith, and all will be well in your imaginary thinking. Faith is self deception. What you (Shulem) HAVE done that is invaluable is present evidence that rational people can enjoy and learn from. And for that we ALL thank you.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: A few questions for Shulem

Post by _Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:You won't shake his faith, it is impervious to real evidence. That's the point of faith. When evidence is against you, turn to faith, and all will be well in your imaginary thinking. Faith is self deception. What you (Shulem) HAVE done that is invaluable is present evidence that rational people can enjoy and learn from. And for that we ALL thank you.


The principle of faith in itself can be a very good thing and is instrumental in helping people believe that life really is a good and that everyone needs to believe in themselves and believe that life is wonderful. Unfortunately, in religion, the principle of faith is used for brainwashing and getting people to imagine and believe cult ideas and rituals that are steeped in silly tradition. Faith in Mormonism in my view is a disease on the earth and sickens the minds of millions.
Post Reply