"Facsimile 3 Figure 6 – Slave On The Path Of Ascension" -- Apologists strike back defending Book of Abraham Facsimile!

[Shulem]

Facsimile 3 Figure 6 – Slave On The Path Of Ascension

The notorious LDS apologetic website called CONFLICT OF JUSTICE has just released a new article about the slave in Facsimile No. 3. I have not read it, yet. I'm sure it's easy to demolish as nothing more than Mormon ____.

It appears the apologists are finally addressing the issue of the jackal nose being scraped off the printing plate.



Animal Head

[Shulem]

Opening photo with captions:

Joseph Smith:

Priest of Anubis, assisting in the path of ascension

Egyptian:

Olimlah, a slave of the prince

Right off the bat, the apologist charges out of the gate creating a false illusion and uses deception in order to deceive naïve readers:

Joseph Smith NEVER referred to the character of Fig. 6 as anyone associated with a "Priest of Anubis", nor did he connect the character with "assisting in the path of ascension". Both points are entirely a modern apologetic construct made up in order to fabricate a parallel in which Smith knew nothing. As far as Smith was concerned this was a king's court in which Abraham was visiting. Nothing more.

The apologist then titles "Egyptian" over Smith's Explanation: "Olimlah, a slave of the prince", as if Smith's Explanation is real Egyptology according to the Egyptians. This is utterly false. Smith's Explanation of Fig. 6 is NOT Egyptian and his name is not "Olimlah". Neither is the character a priest of Anubis!

[Shulem]

Now the apologist attempts to build his argument based entirely on a false premise in attempting to apply credibility to the name "Olimlah".

Olimlah: Ascending

The fictitious name of "Olimlah" was something Smith made up. It's not an Egyptian name and you won't find it in the hieroglyphic writing of the Facsimile in which the persons being displayed are labeled with their names and titles according to standard Egyptian custom. The bit about "Ascending" is an apologetic construct fabricated to begin telling a tale about a certain parallel they want to associate with the Facsimile Explanation in order to make it seem Egyptian. But this is nothing but a rabbit hole -- a false undertaking in defending what Smith actually said.

The Facsimile No. 3 scene really has nothing to do with ascension. It's NOT an earthly scene. It's a place where people have already ascended among the gods. Facsimile No. 3 is the afterlife and has nothing to do with men in mortality as Smith claimed.

[Shulem]

The apologist will now attempt to build a case in making the name "Olimlah" special as if it really does belong to Facsimile No. 3:

Morning & Evening Barque – Olim in Hebrew means “ascending, going up.” Lately, it has come to mean a Jewish immigrant to Israel, in reference to the concept that a worshiper goes “up” to the temple to make burnt offerings, which was located in Jerusalem. We see throughout the Book of Mormon and other scriptures that people “go up” to temples. Lah means “not.” That makes Olimlah mean: one who does not ascend.

So, now we get a word game. The apologist wants to talk about the Hebrew language. Please note that he doesn't want to talk about the Egyptian language which is the ONLY language that matters since it's the only language contained in the vignette. Why bring up Hebrew in an attempt to cross compare and find ways to create new stories? That's what the apologist is doing in bringing up the Hebrew, Jews in Israel, Jehovah's cult rituals, and moreover the Book of Mormon. None of that has anything to do with Facsimile No. 3!

"Olim" may indeed mean to ascend in Hebrew. So what! What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the price of papyrus in Egypt? The Hebrew "Olim" is not written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3! Nobody in Facsimile No. 3 is ascending or going up to Jehovah's temple to make an animal sacrifice. That is the last thing the Egyptian gods would ever do. To associate the Egyptian gods with Jehovah's temple and animal sacrifices is an abomination and is utterly blasphemous.

[Shulem]

This speaks to what we learned about Figure 5: the deceased is Shulem, meaning complete and whole–yet Joseph Smith also calls him/her a “waiter” or servant to the king’s prince. He/she seeks the be received into the bosom of Abraham enter paradise but is limited.

The apologist is NOT reading Egyptian. The apologist is NOT interpreting Egyptian. The apologist is attempting to make things up in order to fit Smith's narrative. So, he relies on the Hebrew language which has nothing to do with the Facsimile. Hebrew is NOT on the Facsimile any more than Greek was on Smith's gold plates!

Note that the apologist mistakenly indicates that Smith didn't differentiate the sex of character No. 5, the so-called "waiter" when he said, "Joseph Smith also calls him/her" when the Explanation published in the Times and Seasons clearly establishes the sex of the person as male:

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

[Shulem]

“Waiter” may refer to the deceased’s earthly occupation but more likely is the deceased’s destiny in the heavenly afterlife. The deceased is to be an angelic servant in telestial or terrestrial glory. Olimlah would therefore describe their state: not ascending.

The apologist is spinning a web of deception.

First, Joseph Smith himself said that this was Pharaoh’s court. An earthly place. The character in Fig. 5 was called a "waiter". That is entirely of an earthly nature. Smith NEVER associated the scene with that in heaven. Abraham was supposedly alive on the scene! But the apologist in order to wiggle out of a tight spot attempts to take the scene away from earth and into heaven where it belongs! But that is NOT what Smith said. It's what the apologists say! Why? The apologist knows the true Egyptian meaning of Facsimile No. 3 and is attempting to marry Smith with real Egyptology.

Then the apologist further muddies the water in bringing up different degrees of heaven mentioned in D&C 76 and again try to make the name "Olimlah" sound credible as if by revelation.

[Shulem]

Egyptologists say this Figure shows the god Anubis who assists the deceased on his journey. The role of Anubis in Egyptian judgement scenes, according to Pyramid Texts was to command the deceased to ascend or descend the astronomical heavens:

“…you come forth at the voice of Anubis, he makes a spirit of you like Thoth, you judge the gods, you set bounds to the celestial expanses between the Two Wands in this your spiritualized state which Anubis commanded… I ascend to the sky, my wing-feathers are those of a great bird. My entrails have been washed by Anubis.” (Richey Waugh)

The apologist is now spinning things faster and faster hoping that a naïve person isn't going to catch on to the trick. The apologist is taking elements from conventional Egyptology and Smith's false Egyptology in an attempt to combine the characters of Fig. 5 & 6 in a way to make Smith's Explanations seem credible. So what better than to bring up Egyptian myth and religion and toss it into Smith's salad? Toss it and shake it up!

I remind the apologist what Joseph Smith actually claimed when he printed his revelations in the Times and Seasons:

Fig. 5. Shulem, one of the king’s principal waiters, as represented by the characters above his hand.

Fig. 6. Olimlah, a slave belonging to the prince.

The above statements given by Smith are what the apologist fears most. They cannot be proven true or defended using conventional Egyptology. The apologist knows that.

[Shulem]

The very next line in Joseph Smith’s Facsimile 3 explanation makes it about astronomy: “Abraham is reasoning upon the principles of Astronomy, in the king’s court.” Pyramid texts talk about the deceased in the judgement court of the afterlife arising as Anubis and at the command of Anubis:

“Stand before the two chapel rows!
Arise!
Arise, that they may replace what is against you!
Arise and traverse the [firmament]!
Arise! Arise for eternity!
And arise [as Anubis, master of the] herdsman’s tent.
Arise! Remove yourself from upon your left side.
Stand before the Akhs, just as Horus foremost of the living stands!
May you ascend as the morning star.
Anubis, foremost of the god’s booth, has commended that you descend as a star, as the morning god.
May you ascend to the sky as a star, as the morning god.
May you ascend here as a star, as the morning god.
Thus let him ascend, thus let him rise up to the sky, as the great star in the middle of the east.”
(The organization of the Pyramid Texts Typology and Disposition Vol 1, Harold M. Hays p. 492

Oh how apologists love to spin webs and entangle their listeners in a web of deceit!

So, the fact that Joseph Smith was able to count the 23 STARS in the top register of the vignette and associate that with principles of Astronomy is suppose to impress us? Bear in mind that the STARS depicted in the crude printing of Facsimile No. 3 do not at all represent the clarity and beauty of the STARS that were on the actual papyrus!

Anyone could tell they were STARS! Hello!

So, I grant Joseph Smith 2 points for recognizing the beautiful STARS that were lovingly drawn by the ancient Egyptian artist to pay homage to those persons who were granted the presence to stand before the throne of the god Osiris. May Osiris be blessed forever.

Moreover, cursed be the false Explanations given by Joseph Smith in ignorantly blaspheming sacred Egyptian things and making a mockery of Egyptian gods.

[Shulem]

Division Between Ascent & Descent – Anubis typically served as “guide between worlds… associated with the transitions between states… accompanies the deceased.” Facsimile 2 shows in diagram the ascent and descent of the sun to symbolize the eternal round of the deceased toward rebirth. The two boats represent the solar ascent and descent, with the Amun-Re central figure in the middle of it all, exactly as Abraham describes Kolob. The same kind of symbolism applies here with Anubis’s relationship to the deceased in this judgement scene. Anubis represents the decision that will fate the deceased to paradise or to hell.

Blah, blah, blah. The above is Nibley type garbage. Nothing but distraction.

Figure 2, Isis, whom Joseph Smith correctly associated with Pharaoh, stands behind Abraham the judge as a symbol of paradise, the awaiting royal exaltation that awaits the worthy.

This is an absolute lie. The statement that Smith correctly "associated" Isis with Pharaoh is totally untrue. Smith made no such association! Smith said that the person of Fig. 2 WAS Pharaoh, not "associated" with Pharaoh.

Either the person in Fig. 2 is Pharaoh, an Egyptian king or it is not. It's one or the other. Both can't be true. Either it's a king or it isn't.

Fig. 2. King Pharaoh, whose name is given in the characters above his head.

Well, that ties it. There is no king's name above the head. That person is NOT a king. It's a goddess, a woman who lives in heaven, not earth. The person seated on the throne is an Egyptian god, NOT a vile Asiatic by the name of Abram!

Joseph Smith was dead wrong. The apologist is a liar.

[Philo Sofee]

KUDOS, KUDOS, KUDOS with your Judo against the twit apologist imagining he is a scholar (trying to please Midgley perhaps who confuses the two as well?) Shulem slam dunk massacre against the apologetic clap trap.

[Shulem]

KUDOS, KUDOS, KUDOS with your Judo against the twit apologist imagining he is a scholar (trying to please Midgley perhaps who confuses the two as well?) Shulem slam dunk massacre against the apologetic clap trap.

Philo baby, thanks for that -- I know you understand as much as anyone about this stuff. I also know you often pick stuff up by following my lead and enjoy my quips and nuggets. You and I go back a looooong way with our Book of Abraham stuff. We have been there and done that! lol

Frankly, I feel a little guilty, like I'm beating someone up, mercilessly. I hope, that I don't come across as cruel. I'm passionate about this subject as you know. But I need to remember that the author of that site is human just like I am and is trying to defend what I used to defend myself. I feel somewhat humbled in this regard.

There is more to address in that article. AND, I haven't even addressed the apologetic response about the snout being scraped away from the printing plate. That is when I might really get upset. Will I flip out? I don't want to be cruel but I'm afraid that I might lash out in a cruel manner.

I don't want to do that.

Any advice you want to offer? I'm all ears.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think one of the better cudgels you've developed is how Mormons have disrespected the ancient Egyptian religion by taking Anubis and making him a slave. Not only do they prove themselves insanely disrespectful with their deicide, but you get a two-for with the racism. It's absolutely brilliant what you've done with this.

- Doc

[Shulem]

I think one of the better cudgels you've developed is how Mormons have disrespected the ancient Egyptian religion by taking Anubis and making him a slave. Not only do they prove themselves insanely disrespectful with their deicide, but you get a two-for with the racism. It's absolutely brilliant what you've done with this.

- Doc

Yes, and thanks for that. Indeed, Facsimile No. 3 is really the best place to begin dismantling the whole of the Book of Abraham. We can talk about the thickness of the papyrus until the cows jump over the moon -- to no avail -- or all the silly parallels made up by modern apologists but in the end all that really matters is WHAT Joseph Smith said and claimed.

I'm here to throw Joseph Smith under the bus and run him over, again and again. I love to run the prophet over with the Facsimile No. 3 Bus. It's fun and very satisfying.

Hey, all you apologist out there, bite me!

[Philo Sofee]

KUDOS, KUDOS, KUDOS with your Judo against the twit apologist imagining he is a scholar (trying to please Midgley perhaps who confuses the two as well?) Shulem slam dunk massacre against the apologetic clap trap.

Philo baby, thanks for that -- I know you understand as much as anyone about this stuff. I also know you often pick stuff up by following my lead and enjoy my quips and nuggets. You and I go back a looooong way with our Book of Abraham stuff. We have been there and done that! lol

Frankly, I feel a little guilty, like I'm beating someone up, mercilessly. I hope, that I don't come across as cruel. I'm passionate about this subject as you know. But I need to remember that the author of that site is human just like I am and is trying to defend what I used to defend myself. I feel somewhat humbled in this regard.

There is more to address in that article. AND, I haven't even addressed the apologetic response about the snout being scraped away from the printing plate. That is when I might really get upset. Will I flip out? I don't want to be cruel but I'm afraid that I might lash out in a cruel manner.

I don't want to do that.

Any advice you want to offer? I'm all ears.

Yes, I do have a piece of advice... absolutely totally without mercy decimate, slaughter, destroy, and annihilate the argument......yet be kind to the person making it. Show no mercy for the stupidity of the argument, using evidence to show its weaknesses, silliness, illogicalness, etc., but still remain humane to the person using the argument. They honestly may not know better.

[Shulem]

Figure 4, Maat, whom Joseph Smith correctly associated with the Prince of Pharaoh holds the hand of Shulem as if attempting to lead him to Figure 2.

This is an outright LIE. The apologist is a liar. Smith INCORRECTLY associated and named the person as a Prince of Pharaoh. Truth be told, there is no Pharaoh in the scene! The personage of Hor is paying homage to Osiris and is not labeled as a prince of the royal house of Egypt. That is Joseph Smith's concoction and the apologist is lying when he says it's correct. Everything Smith said about Fig. 4 is completely INCORRECT:

"Fig. 4. Prince of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, as written above the hand."

No, she is not a prince. She is a goddess by the name of Isis as in the label above. She is not holding the hand of a person named "Shulem". That is a lie. She is female, not male. She has a vagina, not a penis! She is not the prince of any earthly king. Joseph Smith was dead wrong.

As previously discussed, Joseph Smith was correct to identify this Figure 4 as the Prince of Figure 2, but as far as Anubis is concerned this would more appropriately be associated with Nepthys, sister of Isis. The deceased Egyptian frequently is displayed between Isis and Nepthys, as they are the facilitators of the final rebirth of Osiris. The typical lion couch scene, Facsimile 1, frequently shows the recumbent Egyptian mummy laying between Isis and Nepthys–while our Facsimile 1 shows him between Horus (husband of Isis) and Anubis (son of Nepthys). The right side of Facsimile 1 is day, the left side night. Isis, Nepthys, and Anubis are strategically located in our Facsimile 3 diagram according to their roles of ascension and descension.

Hey, how about the apologist submit this statement to a credible academic journal of Egyptology. Let's see just how far it goes. Submit Joseph Smith's Explanations too. Let's see how far they go.

[Shulem]

“Many Greco-Roman temples to Isis and Serapis also acknowledged Anubis, sometimes as a healing deity.. Plutarch, in discussing the division of the day and night between Isis and Nepthys, suggested that Anubis was considered to the horizon line running between day and night, touching both and partaking of their natures.” (The Mysteries of Isis: Her Worship and Magick, DeTraci Rehula)

The apologist is spouting a reference to real Egyptology in an effort to make their apologetic article seem credible and somehow make Smith's Facsimile Explanations correct. But the fact is that Smith NEVER said any of the above! Smith Knew nothing of the above! Smith said something entirely different.

Anubis is therefore the horizontal line running directly sideways though the Facsimile 2 circle, dividing upper registers from upside-down lower registers. The boat in the upper right is the ascent from night, the morning sun. Anubis here in Facsimile 3 corresponds with this ascent. Anubis the guide helps the deceased rise and become judge among the gods in the celestial world.

But why did Joseph Smith indicate the deceased is not ascending?

The apologist admits that the person in the Facsimile is ANUBIS. That is all that matters! Everything Joseph Smith said was garbage and doesn't matter. The question of descending or ascending is pointless. The question is designed to distract readers and lead them down a garden path of deception. The deception is: Anubis is a slave by the name of Olimlah!

[Shulem]

The Christian Slaves Of Anubis

If Joseph Smith were making this all up, the names still couldn’t be considered random.

"IF"?

There is no ifs about it, buddy. Joseph Smith made it all up! The names Smith tendered in the Explanations of Facsimile No. 3 are fictitious and entirely made up. Why do I say that? Because they are NOT written in the hieroglyphic writing of the vignette as designated by Smith's Explanation and they aren't even Egyptian! So, we have nonEgyptian names written on a sacred religious document portraying gods of Egypt presiding in heaven.

So, what was that you were saying about "IF" Smith was making this all up?

He made it all up! How so?



Whether Smith's false "revelation" was random or unrandom makes no difference. That is all beside the point. The point is that Smith's revelation was WRONG. I can prove that by what is written in the writing of Facsimile No. 3 as it fails to correspond to what Smith said it said.

[Shulem]

Joseph Smith had recently studied Hebrew when he started to get into the Book of Abraham and translated the Facsimiles. He knew basic ancient Hebrew.

How is studying Hebrew going to help someone be able to "translate" Egyptian hieroglyphics? I've studied the Egyptian language myself very carefully and can't for the life of me figure how an understanding of Hebrew aids in translating Egyptian.

Who the ____ cares that Joseph studied Hebrew!

I don't care!

Egyptologists don't care!

So shut the hell up you liar!

[Shulem]

“Shulem” obviously is related to the popular Hebrew word Shalom.

Yep, probably so. Joseph studied Hebrew. But Joseph knew jack-____ about Egyptian!

“Omilah” likewise can be assumed to purposely be related to Hebrew. He must have been well aware of the meaning–not ascending. Perhaps that explains why he said this Figure was a “slave.” Slave is a pretty strong word.

The apologist is in a dream state making ASSumptions. It doesn't matter to me what Smith assumed! He was wrong. His attempt to mingle the Hebrew language with Egyptian hieroglyphs was an abomination and utterly false. The Egyptian language bares no relation to Hebrew. The Hebrew is NOT written anywhere in the writing of the sacred text of Facsimile No. 3.

Yes, the word "SLAVE" is a pretty strong word. I agree! Anubis is anything but a slave. Anubis is the OPPOSITE of a slave. Joseph Smith was dead wrong. His revelation and his Hebrew terminology being applied to Egyptian pagan spells is utterly 100% false.

He said Figure 5 was a “principal waiter” which meant servant. So we already know the deceased was destined to servitude. Now we get a slave? A slave does not ascend–they are stuck in a low position, damned. Perhaps Joseph Smith was describing the state of the deceased as he related to Anubis.

The apologist is spitting and sputtering in a vain attempt to justify Smith's false Explanations of Hor and Anubis. It's very sad to see such intellectual dishonestly at play.

[Shulem]

Slaves As Anubis – If Facsimile 3 indeed relates to some kind of ritual which Abraham experienced in his lifetime, a slave may have served the role of Anubis in the Egyptian ceremony. A slave contract found in the Temple of Anubis describes a “monthly rent for divine protection”:

“I am your servant from this day onwards, and I shall give you 2 1/2 kite [copper pieces] every month for my rent of service before Anubis the great god.” (Inconsistencies in Greek and Roman Religion)

According to H.S. Versnel, this contract “makes a slave free by ‘consecrating’ him to a god or goddess.” Researchers have found “slaves were freed by religious dedication to” gods including “Isis and Anubis.” It could be a slave served this role in order to “ascend” to freedom. This was especially happening later in Hellenistic times, around when the Hor scroll which likely gave us Facsimile 3 dates to.

"IF"

There are no ifs about it. Anubis is NOT a "slave"!



Edited to be more kind as per Philo's suggestion:

The apologetic attempt to connect Egyptology with Smith's assertion that Fig. 6 is a "slave" is a desperate attempt in defending the indefensible. It's extremely disrespectful to equate the Egyptian god with that of a "slave".

Here is a taste of their own medicine:

1. Christ is a SLAVE.
2. God the Father, is a SLAVE, a negro!

Mormons are negros!

[Shulem]

The Mormon apologist quotes more material from the vast stores of Egyptology in an attempt to scramble more Joseph Smith eggs:


"Read the writing above me,
I'm a ____ slave"

“Caderini, A., Manomissione, 108-113, even-city states of Greece in which slaves were freed by religious dedication to Serapis and Isis… combining the worship of Serapis, Isis, and Anubis.”

Symbol For Christian Redemption From Slavery – But I think the answer is a little more complicated–a darker. Anubis was anciently associated with slavery, and Abraham was considered the one who fought against the practice.

“But Anubis began his journeyings to diffuse benevolence and humanity according to the precedent of Abraham, from Egypt into Ethiopia… But in this ancient institution revived by Anubis, the slave was considered the property of the master and labored at his will and under his superintendence, and was entitled to no more than a plentiful subsistence with the privilege of propagation, the lowest state to which the laborer could be reduced, consequently the chosen-seed was preserved, by this institution.”

I think this idea derives from ancient Egyptian practice, but more especially later Greek and Roman practices of slavery that involved Anubis. Anubis came to be equated among early Christians with forced slavery:

“Note that this voluntary slavery in service of a god is paralleled by voluntary acceptance of slavery in the secular world… Clemens 55:2 tells us that many Christians sold themselves into slavery in order to ransom fellow Christians from prison with the proceeds… In connection with possible Egyptian origins of the phenomenon I would like to mention some curious demotic self-dedications to Anubis published by H.J.Thissen… ‘I am thy servant from this day onwards for ever and I give you 2 1/2 kit every month for my rent of service before Anubis the great god. No daemon, spirit, evil force, no man who is in the underworld, no man on earth will have power over me except you from this day onwards for ever.’… The latter part of this formula returns literally in Greek texts concerning sacral manumissio or aphierosis, which makes a slave free by ‘consecrating’ him to a god or goddess… Deissmann 1923, 270-81, has powerfully argued that the New Testament, especially the Pauline doctrine of Jesus’ death as a ransom for a man’s sins is, at the least terminologically, derived from the pagan sacred manumission.”

Anubis is NOT a slave. Anubis never was a slave.

Anubis in FACSIMILE NO. 3 is NOT a slave!

Joseph Smith is wrong and the modern apologist that defends him is a liar.