Who was Shulem?

[_Nimrod]

From Will Schryver

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__20

I am certainly not bothered at all by the very distinct possibility that Joseph incorrectly assumed that the name he had received by revelation (Shulem) was contained in the characters above the figure. After all, it is the text of the Book of Abraham that was always his primary focus. In my judgment, his work on the facsimiles was secondary in nature, and although he demonstrates definite strokes of inspiration in the process of working with them, I don't consider them of the same stature as the text of the Book of Abraham; I don't believe they were ever intended to be regarded as highly, and they probably should never have been included in the canon along with the text of Book of Abraham. At some point in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see the "facsimiles" removed from the formal canon of the church.

The tap dance here goes full circle, first by proclaiming Joe Smith was inspired and in fact correct, to the point where the Book of Abraham was never intended to be canon and should be modified…? WTF? Once one realizes Joe Smith was supposedly guided by God through his magical seer stones and claimed he could translate ancient languages, one has to accept that God screwed it up as Joe was only inspired. The sad thing is that some people will actually buy this argument as logical, when it contradicts itself and makes no sense whatsoever.

Poor Paul (and all others who fall on account of these kinds of trivialities) is throwing it all away on what is probably nothing more than an honest human mistake by a man who had, via prophetic means, just restored a "pearl" of an ancient text for the benefit of all those with faith sufficient to receive it.

An "honest" human mistake? A pagan papyrus bought for $2400 to dupe people into believing it came from Abraham is not "human" if the argument is that Joe was "inspired" as Will claims. The fact remains this document, which is where Mormon doctrine comes from, is from the pagan book of the dead. Are Mormons ok with pagan doctrine?

Holy crap! That's all the great Will Schryver, knower of all things BoAbr, the 'great white hope' of LDS Inc/FAIR/FARMS that the BoAbr riddle will be solved (even though Yale-PhD Egyptologist John Gee has thrown in the towel) can come up with. Holy crap, I say. Or as Paul Osborne might say, Holy Shulem, Batman!

[_Trevor]

Maybe he was snacking on something crunchy at the moment and the still small voice was drowned out. "Okay, Shulem it is! Huh, I wonder who Shulem is...? Oh well, no bother - it sure sounds cool. Doo dee doo dee doo. Translating is fun! Doo dee doo..."

Or perhaps he was too busy checking out Mrs. Alger's Fanny.

[_zeezrom]

The answer is to get Shulem out of the canon.

Please don't misunderstand my comments above (as others have already done). I am absolutely NOT rejecting the interpretations of the facsimiles as false. I simply don't believe they were ever appropriately placed in the canon. In my opinion, they represent a combination of revelation and very human attempts at understanding. The text of the Book of Abraham is the primary revelation. The interpretations of the facsimiles constitute an insight into the practices of the ancients, and a window into how these kinds of illustrative motifs were utilized. As such, I believe they are valuable. I'm just not so certain that they should be considered "scripture."

Questions about Book of Abraham chapter 1:

It says human sacrifices were performed in Chaldea (Sumeria) by an Egyptian priest after the manner of the Egyptians.

1. Why was an Egyptian priest in Iraq?
2. It appears Egypt was not doing human sacrifices during Abraham's day. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/humansac.htm Is this true?
3. It appears human sacrifices were not big in Sumeria. http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm Book of Abraham makes it sound like human sacrifices were quite popular. Are human sacrifices out of place in this context?
4. Why are Chaldeans relied upon for context of this chapter when this is an anachronism? http://www.bookofabraham.com/boamathie/BOA_8.html
5. Why am I not seeing the gods mentioned in Book of Abraham ch. 1 within the list of gods of Sumeria? http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html

I'm now seeing why Joseph was so defensive about his work.

At about 12 o'clock a number of young person[s] called to see the Egyptian records... One of the young ladies who had been examining them was asked if they had the appearance of Antiquity. She observed with an air of contempt that they did not. On hearing this I was surprised at the ignorance she displayed and I observed to her that she was an anomaly in creation for all the wise and learned that had ever examined them without hesitation pronounced them antient [ancient]. I further remarked that it was downright wickedness, ignorance, bigotry, and superstition that caused her to make the remark and that I would put it on record. I have done so because it is a fair sample of the prevailing spirit of the times showing that the victims of priestcraft and superstition would not believe though one should rise from the dead. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diary_of_Joseph_Smith,_Jr._%281835-1836%29

[Guest]

More from Will in the spin doctoring attempt at changing what he said, into what he meant, which is not what he said, but what he said he meant, if he did if fact say what was said by...

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/ ... ge__st__20

From William Schryver

What I said is that Joseph Smith received, via revelation, the interpretation of the vignette in question. I am inclined to believe that that interpretation is substantially correct, and everything I continue to learn about the meaning of this "stock motif" from antiquity lends credence to my confidence in Joseph Smith's interpretation.

Can Paul O confirm Will's assertion that Joe Smith was substantially correct?

In the context of that interpretation, "Shulem" is the name given to the figure in question. I believe that, within that context, "Shulem" is, indeed, correct. The "honest human mistake" was not in the interpretation of the vignette, but simply in the fact that the Prophet may have incorrectly assumed that the name he received by revelation was written in the characters above the figure in question.

If the "prophet" incorrectly assumed anything, he was not being guided by God, and it's simply a pagan document from the book of the dead... you know, through inspiration. This makes Joe Smith's claim that he was "translating" held to its literal claim, and not what the spin doctors are attempting to paint. The one constant we can all agree on, it that it's wrong, it's not of Abraham, and either God or Joe Smith got it wrong. Is pagan doctrin then Christian doctrine to Mormons?

That does not make him any less of a prophet, nor does it make his interpretation of the meaning of the vignette any less valid.

Why... because you said so? God doesn't make mistakes, and "prophets" speaking for God don't make mistakes. If there are mistakes, then it's a sign of a false prophet.

It merely illustrates the fact that a prophet remains a man even while in the act of producing prophecy.

Not when it's God's idea asshat. Either it's true and of God, or it's false and not of God. The book of Abraham is false.

Thus, "Shulem" is the correct interpretation of the figure, in the context of the application of this particular vignette, notwithstanding the fact that Joseph Smith may have erred in assuming that Shulem's name was written in the Egyptian characters above the figure that represents him

Paul O... comment please on this claim.

[_Paul Osborne]

Give me a moment to rest from my anger. William is a liar and a deceiver. I will break him.

Let the hosts of hell come forth.

Paul O

[_zeezrom]

What I find very interesting is people commenting that the Facsimiles help make the temple experience more meaningful.

Paul,

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth:

Patience, my friend. In time, he will seek you out, and when he does, you must bring him before me. He has grown strong. Only together can we turn him to the Dark Side of the Force... Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.

[_Danna]

Hey Zeez,

Have you discovered Min yet?
Otherwise known as Figure 7 in Facsimile 2



He keeps his legs together, one arm holding a flail aloft, and he has a boner:




"God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood" is more clearly seen in this sculpture. In 3D you get a better idea of what he is doing with his other arm. I have never been through the endowment, but it must be quite exciting!



edit: I understand Min was censored in some printings of the PoGP. He is not intact in my 70s triple combination, but I understand he is uncensored in later versions.

[Guest]

I posted a question about the historical authenticity of Book of Abraham on a History buff forum. You might be interested in the couple of responses I got:

http://www.historum.com/showthread.php? ... post254475

[_zeezrom]

Hey Zeez,

Have you discovered Min yet?

Oh my goodness. Really? Has this been verified by scholars?

I always thought that was his other arm. In fact, I assumed it was temple oriented.

You know, hence the comments we are seeing on MA&D.

[_Paul Osborne]

I propose that, in the context of the use of this "stock motif" by those who prepared these scrolls (presumably Egyptians inclined to syncretize Jewish concepts into their own temple liturgy) Joseph Smith's interpretation is entirely correct.

William, boy, your proposition would also attempt to turn a god into a slave just because he was black and at the end of the line. In light of real Egyptology, only a crackpot like you would dare attempt to make Joseph Smith “entirely correct”. Wow, “ENTIRELY CORRECT”, big words, William boy.

And since about the only thing then well known of Thomas Young's and Champollion's Egyptian decipherment was the fact that proper names were contained within "cartouches" (groups of letters enclosed in an oval ring) I think it is logical to conclude that Joseph Smith assumed that the name he had received "by revelation" was, indeed, written in the characters above the figure of the black man (which, although not a proper cartouche, may have been mistaken as such by the Egyptian-ignorant brethren in Kirtland ca. 1835).

I doubt very much that Joseph Smith even knew what a cartouche was. I doubt he knew anything about the science of Egyptology. He truly was an ignorant instructor when it came to Egyptology. He looked straight at the black man and thought for sure he must be a slave. Joseph was not moved by the Spirit of God or the ghost of Egyptology to connect Anubis with being a slave. It was the pathetic interpretation of an ignorant man of his century making a stupid statement to fools who believed anything he said. Cursed be Joseph Smith for mocking the Egyptian god!

In short, I would argue that the essential interpretation of the meaning of the vignette (in the context of its inclusion with the Book of Abraham) is absolutely correct. Indeed, there is an impressive assemblage of literature on the meaning of this "judgment scene" as it was used by the ancient inhabitants of Egypt and Mesopotamia. With each passing day and each new thing I learn, I am persuaded that the explanations given for these three illustrations (all the "facsimiles" from the Book of Abraham) are much more an affirmation of Joseph Smith's prophethood than evidence against it.

There you go again, William. You dare make Joseph Smith to be “absolutely correct”. He was absolutely wrong. He was wrong about Shulem, wrong about being black, wrong about women being men, wrong about the characters, wrong about the writing, wrong about having anything to do with his made up book of Abraham. Joseph was wrong about just about everything. All the Hugh Nibley tactics in the world will not make Anubis a slave or turn Maat into a man. You William, just like Hugh Nibley, are a liar. You lie to yourself and to everyone else. Worst of all, you lie to the devil who fathered your lie.

I am certainly not bothered at all by the very distinct possibility that Joseph incorrectly assumed that the name he had received by revelation (Shulem) was contained in the characters above the figure.

Liar! You are greatly bothered and it eats at you. But look at the change of what you are now saying. You admit that there is a VERY distinct POSSIBILITY that Joseph Smith INCORRECTLY assumed that a name was above the figure in the Facsimile and by his mistake gave a false revelation. Yes, you confess that Joseph Smith may have assumed that the name he had received by revelation was in the figure when in fact it was not. At no time was God actually giving the pretended prophet a revelation. A revelation from God is something that is true and we both see that this is not the case. Joseph Smith was a liar.

After all, it is the text of the Book of Abraham that was always his primary focus.

Hold on boy. The Facsimiles and their interpretations were presented in the Times & Seasons just as surely as the chapters from the story. Both were concocted out of the proud mind of Joseph Smith. You dare divorce the Facsimiles from the story! Joseph Smith would rebuke you for doing so, William. Joseph Smith was very interested in the Facsimile and gave his revelation as he was able to. Problem is, the revelation he gave was false. That delights me, I mock the prophet and think a little tar and feather would go a long way!

In my judgment, his work on the facsimiles was secondary in nature, and although he demonstrates definite strokes of inspiration in the process of working with them, I don't consider them of the same stature as the text of the Book of Abraham;

Welcome to the world of being an apostate, William. You have taken the big step, brother. Good for you!

I don't believe they were ever intended to be regarded as highly, and they probably should never have been included in the canon along with the text of Book of Abraham.

Indeed you are an apostate. You second guess the First Presidency that placed them in canon. You delight me William! You are an apostate brother! have a drink on me, boy. You fight against the First Presidency of the past and deny them their power. Good.

At some point in the future, I wouldn't be surprised to see the "facsimiles" removed from the formal canon of the church.

You will be out of the church before that ever happens, William. Your apostasy is beginning to take shape. I can see it. God can see it. Satan is delighted and rubbing his hands in glee. Everything about you is taking shape just as I said it would. You are surrounded by unseen beings who know your doings. You are making the big turn.

Poor Paul (and all others who fall on account of these kinds of trivialities) is throwing it all away on what is probably nothing more than an honest human mistake by a man who had, via prophetic means, just restored a "pearl" of an ancient text for the benefit of all those with faith sufficient to receive it.

Poor William, the liar. He is struggling to come out of the Mormon closet of disbelief and learn how to be honest.

Joseph Smith did not present any honest mistakes. His lies about the Facsimile were intentional and he did so with knowledge of what he was doing.

Joseph Smith presented the Book of Abraham to the world through his own mind. He made it up. He made Anubis into a slave. He turned goddesses into boys to suit his fancy. He told everyone that God revealed to him the hieroglyphic characters above the hand said "Shulem", a mere waiter of the king. Joseph Smith would have told you he knew this to be true in the name of Jesus Christ by revelation. He was a liar. Just like you William, a liar, but you’ll come clean. Strip yourself of Hugh Nibley and the liars that support him. Come William, join the truth and deny Mormonism. God wants you to do that.

Paul O