“King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head”

[Shulem]

Everything hangs on a name. Allow me to explain. The gospel of Jesus Christ hangs upon the name of JESUS CHRIST and salvation can only be had through *THAT* name. There is no other name given in heaven or on earth whereby man can be saved. That’s the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Similarly, the translations and interpretations given by Joseph Smith for Facsimile No. 3 hang upon NAMES. We know that the names he gave (Shulem & Olimlah) are NOT found in the writings above and neither is a king’s name inscribed above the head of Fig. 2, let alone anywhere in the hieroglyphs of the entire vignette. Therefore, with regard to the missing king’s name, Smith was wrong on two points:

1) No king’s name above the head
2) No king’s name in any of the registers of the Facsimile

It’s important that both points be made in demonstrating how wrong Smith was in giving his translation and interpretation for Fig. 2. Not only was he wrong about the specific area he designated in the hieroglyphic writings for a king’s name but it is shown that NONE of the writings contain a king’s name. Smith’s interpretation is 100% false across the entire board!

Now, let’s get back to the names. The most important words in the hieroglyphs of Facsimile No. 3 are the names of those persons in whom are pictorially represented in the vignette. All Egyptologists (including the Mormon ones) will agree on that key issue. A name is everything to an Egyptian! What are those names?

1) Isis
2) Osiris
3) Maat
4) Horus
5) Anubis

Just as the gospel of the Son of God hangs on the name of JESUS Christ, so also does the true meaning of Facsimile No. 3 hang on the names of Isis, Osiris, Maat, Horus, and Anubis who are blessed forever. Take away those names and all meaning is lost!

[Philo Sofee]

Aw come on... give brother Joseph a break...

[Shulem]

Aw come on... give brother Joseph a break...

I’m afraid I can’t give Joseph a break or pass on the king’s name because everything rides on it! The whole Book of Abraham translation hangs upon the fact that if there is no king’s name in Facsimile No. 3, then there was no Book of Abraham in all of Smith’s papyri. The missing roll theory does nothing to absolve Smith’s lie about the Book of Abraham any more than the text in Facsimile No. 3 absolves the lie Smith gave for Fig. 2. Do you see my point? And I will continue to capitalize on this point until the cows jump over the moon!

We don’t need a missing roll to prove Smith couldn’t translate and neither can apologists rely on a missing roll to excuse the plethora of negative evidence that points to fraud. All we need is the text above Fig. 2 and it’s an open and shut case. Smith is caught in the act; red handed with his hand in the cookie jar.

Here is another former member who is not happy with fake translations given by brother Joseph:

Of all the issues, the Book of Abraham is the issue that has both fascinated and disturbed me the most. It is the issue that I’ve spent the most time researching because it offers a real insight into Joseph’s modus operandi as well as Joseph’s claim of being a translator. It is the smoking gun that has completely obliterated my testimony of Joseph Smith and his claims.

[Shulem]

Let’s shift somewhat and connect the dots on two (2) specific points to further prove that Smith’s translation of the nine (9) characters in the register above Fig. 2 literally represent, in hieroglyphic writing, King Pharaoh by name and title as if in the flesh.

What are those dots or points?

• 9 (nine) translated characters literally represent King Pharaoh

• 1 (one) of four mummies Smith purchased was literally said to be a King of Egypt

The fact that Smith believed one of the mummies was a royal king is absolutely made clear by many eyewitnesses who attest that Smith declared one of the mummies was a king. Statements are preserved in many accounts and they collaborate together as a combined testimony that it was firmly believed through the spirit of revelation that the Mormons had an Egyptian king in their possession and this king was considered royal in every respect.

Please refer to my website at section Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part II and scroll down to ROYAL MUMMIES. Enjoy!

Documentation to prove that Smith’s mummy was believed to be literally a king of Egypt is indisputable. The exact identity of the king was however somewhat in dispute and was not fully determined but the Latter-day Saints believed they had a king in their midst. This was declared through that same spirit of revelation revealing the rolls of papyri as original autographs of Abraham & Joseph, not copies or reproductions of the original as suggested by modern apologists. The rolls were said to have survived with the mummies, unharmed, and perfectly preserved for thousands of years. They were not copies of originals but authentic autographs of the patriarchs. See the link above and read the testimonials about the royal mummy.

Clearly, a pattern is seen as we connect the dots with Joseph Smith’s revelations about kings whether they are those in the text of the Book of Abraham, Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham, the Kirtland Egyptian Papers, and the MUMMIES. Smith made all kinds of claims about Egyptian kings and all of them are wrong!

[Moksha]

Did Kerry Muhlestein or John Gee ever cite the Bangles song, Walk Like an Egyptian, as proof of the Book of Abraham? Specifically, the wording around the edge of the Facsimile, "Whey oh, whey oh, ay oh whey oh?"

[Shulem]

Did Kerry Muhlestein or John Gee ever cite the Bangles song, Walk Like an Egyptian, as proof of the Book of Abraham?

Mormon Egyptologists are welcome to come to Discuss Mormonism and explain their view of the eyewitness account given by a faithful member of the Church, William Appleby. Their views will certainly generate vigorous cross examination from myself and other members of this board! I’m sure Gee and Muhlestein are familiar with that eyewitness account in which Appleby recorded in his journal when visiting Nauvoo and having examined the Egyptian artifacts first hand in the presence of Joseph Smith. You’ll note that Appleby was not concerned with feminine features of King Pharaoh or the Prince when he described them. Nothing about that was said! Nothing to the effect that they looked like women! Undoubtedly, he examined first hand the very vignette that was on display. The book of Abraham was yet to be published the following year. Members of the Church took at face value whatever Smith said and assumed he was the only person that could correctly interpret Egyptian iconography and read Egyptian writing. Appleby glosses over the descriptions of Facsimile No. 3 vignette as if it was par for the course.

WIKIPEDIA Eyewitness accounts associated with the Joseph Smith Papyri

Abraham also in the Court of Pharaoh sitting upon the King's throne reasoning upon Astronomy, with a crown upon his head, representing the Priesthood as emblematical of the grand Presidency in Heaven, with the scepter of Justice and Judgment in his hand. And King Pharaoh, standing behind him, together with a Prince—a principal waiter, and a black slave of the King. A Genealogy of the Mummies, and Epitaphs on their deaths etc. etc., are all distinctly represented on the Papyrus. Which is called the "Book of Abraham"

I tend to think that if today’s Egyptologists were able to have examined the artifacts in Nauvoo they would have set the prophet straight and assured him that the papyri did not contain the Book of Abraham as later published in the Times and Seasons and that the mummies were not royal. I’m sure that Dr. Gee would have informed the prophet that he did NOT have an Egyptian king in his midst but was mistaken. But how could they have prevailed against the prophet and the testimony of Applyby who sat at the prophet’s feet? The prophet informed the saints that the mummy was a king and that those records were some 4,000 years old!

The male mummy was one of the Ancient –
Pharaoh’s of Egypt, and a Priest, as he is embalmed with his tongue
extended, representing a speaker. The females were his wife and two
daughters, as part of the writing has been translated, and informs
us, who they were, also whose writing it is, and when those mummies
were embalmed, which is nearly four thousand years ago.

In addition: William Appleby journal

[Shulem]

Whenever apologists talk about the missing scroll or talk about a catalyst theory they never ever, never ever, want to get into why neither one of these work. And what I hate, RFM, about apologetics is that there is this game; it’s like playing musical chairs, so what happens is when we get into a conversation with someone trying to defend the Church, you have to keep them on point, otherwise they’ll keep shifting the argument to one of the other potential flawed theories of the Book of Abraham. So they might throw out the catalyst theory the moment you question anything or pushes back they will move to the missing scroll theory, and the moment you push against that, now they’re back to the catalyst theory. You have to ensure that in these conversations you hold them on point and you get them into a place where they have to acknowledge that the evidence we have makes both the long scroll that’s missing as well as a catalyst theory not only implausible but absurd, irrational, illogical, and so far problematic that one has to acknowledge that they’re being irrational and still holding to either one of those two theories.

Dial in at the 1:08:45 mark
Radio Free Mormon: The Book Of Abraham – Missing Scrolls, Catalyst Theories, and Bad Apologetics Part 1

Dear Dr. Gee & Muhlstein,

I will “hold you on point” and no amount of smoke and mirrors will take my eye off the ball when I ask both of you at the same time:

What’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3?

Shulem

[Shulem]

Dear Dr. Gee & Muhlstein,

I will “hold you on point” and no amount of smoke and mirrors will take my eye off the ball when I ask both of you at the same time:

What’s the king’s name in Facsimile No. 3?

Shulem

[Moksha]

What if Dr. Muhlestein claimed that a roll of Scott gold tissue, containing laser imprinted Reformed Egyptian algorithms, proved that the Book of Abraham was the real deal due to previously unknown information on its 1000 sheet length?

Could Chris Smith's analyzing metrics cope with that? (Squeezing the roll to assess its gentleness would be allowed).

[Shulem]

Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–A

Of the three Egyptian Alphabet documents, Egyptian Alphabet–A contains the most complete definitions for the final copied characters, which suggests that it may have been the last document updated before Joseph Smith and his scribes ceased working on the project. The characters in this document were likely written by Joseph Smith, given the similarity of the ink flow between the characters and the sounds and explanations that follow, which are in Joseph Smith’s handwriting.


Handwriting on This Page
Joseph Smith Jr.

Here are examples in Smith’s own handwriting of translating characters with that of a NAME and a royal TITLE, just as he did with characters in Facsimile No. 3. There is no difference! What Smith does here with characters in his Egyptian Alphabet is essentially the same thing he did with Egyptian hieroglyphs in the registers of the facsimile. He translated them. This is Joseph Smith in action! He gave the characters royal names and titles. It can be said that the translations written by Joseph Smith in the Egyptian Alphabet are just as fictitious as those given for Facsimile No. 3. The whole operation and the phony revelation Smith received through seer stones is a pretend show on his part; it’s entirely based in a spirit of deception

• phaloeup​ rolyal family royal blood or pharaoah or supreme power or​ King

• ho up hah​ crown of a princess or queen or Stands for queen

• Kah tou man the name of a royal family in female line

• ho-ee oop hah Crown of a prince or King