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

[Shulem]

King, whose name (Mentuhotep) is given in the characters above his head.

[Shulem]

I’m afraid that I agree with the above translation given by Shulem at Discuss Mormonism. It appears to be a correct translation and given by someone who has an excellent understanding of the Egyptians. I cannot argue against it in good faith lest my conscience be pricked. My previous translations given for Facsimile No. 3 was a preliminary offering based on the understanding I had at that time. I retract those explanations and refer to Shulem’s work on Discuss Mormonism which best represents my current interpretations.

Thank you

[Shulem]

Well, that ties it. I’ve pretty much summed up the argument about the missing king’s name and the original misidentification of Isis by Joseph Smith as accepted by the early Mormons. I feel it’s safe to say that Mormons today don’t believe the Explanation given in the Facsimile and it’s never been read or referenced at the pulpit in General Conference. It’s not something the church believes but ever remains an embarrassing byproduct of a mistake made long ago before modern Egyptology was established as a standard discipline in world scholarship. In 1916, scholars and Egyptologists began to voice serious criticism of Smith’s translations. Since that time, church apologists have remained on the defensive and the leaders say nothing. I think it’s safe to say that EVERYONE knows there is no king’s name in Facsimile No. 3 and Lady Isis is truly the Queen of Egyptian heaven.

[Shulem]

I remind the apologists that their excuses and explanations regarding this subject is woefully inadequate. The apologists in general come up with an array of ideas to satiate their own misgivings and at the same time admit that there are questions that just can’t be answered to the full satisfaction of everyone who wants answers because Joseph Smith is not here to field those questions -- he’s dead. All we have is what he said and eyewitness accounts that provide additional information about what Smith said. Apologists today are left to grapple with the effects of what these conversations entail and how to justify Smith’s claims with Egyptology. With that comes multiple theories and ideas in how to creatively make it all fit within a paradigm that attempts to solve the various conundrums.

The problem with all this, however, is modern apologists are looking at all of this from their modern point of view and all this in order to justify and confirm that Joseph Smith was a prophet and the Book of Abraham, or at least the chapters, are a genuine historical account of Egypt’s making. The apologists need to stop directing these conflicting solutions to the questioning members and focus their arguments directly toward Joseph Smith himself. Assume that he’s right here with us, in this very room, and knowing everything he’s ever said on the subject they need to direct their comments to him. In other words, it’s the responsibility of the apologists to set Joseph Smith straight if they want to change the paradigm to fit their modern viewpoint with justifying what Smith said is not exactly correct but somehow still true.

So, Joseph Smith is NOW in the room. He is right here with us. Let the apologists come forward and tell him what the real deal is. Tell Joseph what he got right and what he got wrong. Only then can the apologists really start to get to the bottom of things and sort out how they would have gotten along with the prophet had they lived in Kirtland and Nauvoo.

[Moksha]

I remind the apologists that their excuses and explanations regarding this subject is woefully inadequate.

The quality of the explanatory material could drastically change if they would admit to it being fictional. No need to make up stuff to justify fiction.

[Shulem]

I remind the apologists that their excuses and explanations regarding this subject is woefully inadequate.

The quality of the explanatory material could drastically change if they would admit to it being fictional. No need to make up stuff to justify fiction.

Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? The moment an apologist admits that something is fictional and is shown to be directly linked to everything else, it becomes evident that the entire chain of events is fictional. The Book of Abraham is like a chain having many links and the whole thing is put together by those links. The king’s name is one of those links and if it breaks then the chain is in pieces, thus it becomes easier to break other links until finally you have of heap of links and the whole thing is shown to be a fraud.

My purpose in making this thread is to show that the Book of Abraham is a fraud and I can prove that conclusively. The apologists may bristle and be annoyed with my presentation. I can understand that. If I was in their shoes, I’d be very defensive and wringing my hands in frustration. This thread demonstrates conclusively that there is no king’s name far better than the apologists can demonstrate that there is one.

[Philo Sofee]

The quality of the explanatory material could drastically change if they would admit to it being fictional. No need to make up stuff to justify fiction.

Well, that’s just it, isn’t it? The moment an apologist admits that something is fictional and is shown to be directly linked to everything else, it becomes evident that the entire chain of events is fictional. The Book of Abraham is like a chain having many links and the whole thing is put together by those links. The king’s name is one of those links and if it breaks then the chain is in pieces, thus it becomes easier to break other links until finally you have of heap of links and the whole thing is shown to be a fraud.

My purpose in making this thread is to show that the Book of Abraham is a fraud and I can prove that conclusively. The apologists may bristle and be annoyed with my presentation. I can understand that. If I was in their shoes, I’d be very defensive and wringing my hands in frustration. This thread demonstrates conclusively that there is no king’s name far better than the apologists can demonstrate that there is one.

A sensational reference for all eternity right here. Your work is greatly appreciated!

[Shulem]

A sensational reference for all eternity right here. Your work is greatly appreciated!

Well, I really do appreciate the compliment and recognition in this matter. Thank you for saying that! It appears that this thread is getting viewed because there are 4,207 views at present and I know they’re not all mine so somebody is looking in. To those lurkers who are reading and benefiting from this thread, I bid you “WELCOME” and invite you to share this link with others whom you feel may be interested in these things. Here at Discuss Mormonism, we are free to discuss our thoughts and explore things in ways that are not permissible in other Latter-day Saint forums. Yes, here in the Celestial Forum we are permitted to be critical and forthright but must hold to high standards and maintain a spirit of respect and wellbeing for everyone even when we disagree.

[Shulem]

Let’s consider the implication of a pair of statements from chapter one and see how those hieroglyphic translations may relate to the hieroglyphic translation given for King Pharaoh in Facsimile No. 3.

Now, this priest had offered upon this altar three virgins at one time, who were the daughters of Onitah, one of the royal descent directly from the loins of Ham.

Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

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

We know EXACTLY what hieroglyphs Joseph Smith viewed when he “translated from the papyrus” to produce the script, “King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.”


QUESTIONS:

1) What hieroglyphs did Joseph Smith view when he translated the name “ONITAH” as a royal name?

2) What hieroglyphs did Joseph Smith view when he translated the name “EGYPTUS” as being the founding queen mother of the Egyptian race?







The funerary roll in which Facsimile No. 1 was a part of contains many of the hieroglyphs that are in the Kirtland Egyptian Papers. Those hieroglyphs were carefully examined by those who took part in that work, including Joseph Smith.


QUESTION:

Is it POSSIBLE (not to suggest any degree of probability, only the possibility) that hieroglyphs on that roll that were directly associated with funerary rites of the Egyptian religion are the very hieroglyphs Smith used to translate and produce the names: Onitah & Egyptus?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

[Shulem]

QUESTION:

Is it POSSIBLE (not to suggest any degree of probability, only the possibility) that hieroglyphs on that roll that were directly associated with funerary rites of the Egyptian religion are the very hieroglyphs Smith used to translate and produce the names: Onitah & Egyptus?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No

I wish to demonstrate in all fairness the correct answer above by responding in kind to the question in reverse to demonstrate that unless a possibility can be positively proven impossible then we must keep an open mind. So, here is a question for me, and I will answer it truthfully as I up the ante in proving my case:

QUESTION:

Is it POSSIBLE (not to suggest any degree of probability, only the possibility) that hieroglyphs on that roll that were directly associated with funerary rites of the Egyptian religion are NOT the very hieroglyphs Smith used to translate and produce the names: Onitah & Egyptus?

[x] Yes
[ ] No

Shulem