FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Dear friends at Mormon Discussions,

I've just put together a new Web Page dedicated to a single interpretation given by Joseph Smith for Facsimile No. 2. Yes, you heard right, "FACSIMILE NO. 2", not "3"!

So, gird up your loins and click the link below and spend 10 minutes getting a fresh look at something you may have not considered in quite some time. I promise, you'll learn something or come away with a new or fresh perspective regarding a certain element of Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7.

So, click the link and enjoy. Share it with whoever you think might benefit from this fresh new idea!

That includes you too, Kerry baby! You better take a peek if you know what's good for ya. lol

And, to the apologists, all I can say is, "You Suck!"

IN THE FORM OF A DOVE

Shulem

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22050
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by moksha »

How damaged was Facsimile #2 that Joseph could not have made out those details? If the Facsimile had been complete and legible, wouldn't this have been interpreted as a powerful message from the past commanding Joseph to take multiple wives?

Image
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

See for yourself, moksha:

The manuscript drawing of the Hypocephalus is quite clear, very exact, in defining the perimeter of the lacuna that extends the distance of the entire register filling the area in which the body of the animal in question was damaged and separated from the papyrus. The mysterious animal was originally drawn in profile but all that remained, intact, was a beaklike head and a single eye. That's it, no more. That is all Smith was left to work with! There really is nothing to debate. Smith's sketch provides all the evidence we need in proving that he could not have known the original animal was actually a snake.

Image

Suppose the original serpent survived intact; how would Smith have interpreted that? In biblical terms the serpent was a representation of Satan. The devil was the form or representation of a serpent in the garden of Eden in opposition to God. Thus, there is God on one hand and the devil in the other. They contradict each other in biblical mythology. In Eden, the serpent was evil and not to be trusted but imagine a dove manifesting as a sign of truth and purity. That's the Holy Spirit! That's the kind of biblical symbolism Smith embraced and included in his teachings. The notion that Smith would have interpreted Abraham drawing a serpent as the manifestation of the Spirit is simply inconceivable. Smith's Holy Spirit being "in the form of a snake" is far outside the bounds of Smith's teachings. The idea of Smith identifying an ithyphallic serpent as the Holy Spirit is even further outside those bounds! Imagine that. But hey, if as you say, the Spirit of the Lord wants Joseph to take more wives then what better way than to expose his own nakedness and really make a showing? But I don't think the saints in Nauvoo would have accepted that idea. Based on everything I know about what was said and who said what, an ithyphallic serpent would NEVER have been identified as the Holy Spirit. Smith would have had to come up with some other explanation. Perhaps Satan in opposition to God?

And there you have it.

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Hagoth »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 10:08 am
Suppose the original serpent survived intact; how would Smith have interpreted that? In biblical terms the serpent was a representation of Satan. The devil was the form or representation of a serpent in the garden of Eden in opposition to God.
And that's how Oliver Cowdery interpreted a similar (albeit bonerless) image in the Ta-Shert-Min (Book of Joseph) papyrus:

Image

“The serpent, represented as walking, or formed in a manner to be able to walk, standing in front of and near a female figure, is to me one of the greatest representations I have ever seen upon paper, or a writing substance; and must go so far towards convincing the rational mind of the correctness and divine authority of the holy scriptures” (Messenger and Advocate, Dec 1835, Vol II No. 3, pg. 236)
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Hagoth wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 2:03 pm
And that's how Oliver Cowdery interpreted a similar (albeit bonerless) image in the Ta-Shert-Min (Book of Joseph) papyrus:
You are correct, Hagoth. Thank you for your comment.

The snake god Nehebkau made an appearance in the Book of Joseph and Oliver Cowdery and others didn't hesitate to make the connection that the snake was a representation of the devil. Although the ithyphallic element isn't featured in that particular funerary spell, it's still, nonetheless, Nehebkau the serpent god.

The Mormons were always quick to identify the serpent with the devil when they actually saw a serpent but in the case of Fig. 7 in Facsimile No. 2, the wool was pulled over their eyes. The Mormons had a false understanding of Egyptian art. It wasn't just Joseph Smith. It was Oliver Cowdery and the whole lot! The Mormons were out to peddle their ideas and in doing so proved just how wrong they really were.

Smith's understanding of the illustrations were not much better than his understanding of the hieroglyphic writing. It was one big failure on his part. Mormon leaders today know this but they refuse to talk about it.

I know the Church is not true. I know it.

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Hagoth »

I like to bring up the Book of Joseph whenever I can because it gets too easily swept under the rug. How is it that the same burial chamber just happened to contain the two most amazing documents of western religion written by Old Testament patriarchs by their own hands? This papyrus is in much better conditoin than the Hor Book of Breathings and associated Book of Abraham documents, so you can't use the missing scroll defense here. It should be pretty straight-forward to translate the Ta-Shert-Min scroll into the Book of Joseph. But nope.

And why is it that these documents are kept hidden on a shelf in the bowels of the Church History Library and not proudly on display in a museum? I was happy to catch them on display for one day only and I was surprised at how little respect they seemed to get by the curators. The leadership of the church obviously does not believe these papyri are anywhere as important and valuable as Joseph Smith claimed they are. They were stuffed unceremoniously into a 3-ring binder. They didn't even have the courtesy to turn the page to any of the Book of Abraham fragments, but I did get a good look at the supposed Book of Joseph.
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22050
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by moksha »

Hagoth wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:47 pm
The leadership of the church obviously does not believe these papyri are anywhere as important and valuable as Joseph Smith claimed they are. They were stuffed unceremoniously into a 3-ring binder.
They probably do not place much stock in Egyptian funerary scripts outside of Joseph owning them. Why make a big deal over fraudulent claims regarding these funerary scripts?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Apologetic offerings over the past 100 years regarding the Hypocephalus being Mormonized by Joseph Smith and his ignorant followers is really, really, bad. The Church just doesn't have a leg to stand on and there are simply no valid points in converting this Egyptian religious document into Mormon doctrine. Doing so, requires dismissing the true nature of the disk papyrus by stepping outside the bounds of truth and making up stories ladled with false concepts and ideas in order to Mormonize the papyrus.

Here, the Church makes a pointed, yet halfhearted effort in defending Smith's original claims that the papyrus was Abraham's workmanship and that his story is told thereon:

“The Book of Abraham,” The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual (2000)
The figures in the facsimiles are symbolic.
Yes, they are symbolic -- symbolic to the EGYPTIANS, being completely associated with their religion and their gods. You can leave the bible out of the Hypocephalus because the author(s) of the bible and their so-called god "Jehovah" condemned the Egyptian gods. So, in a nutshell, the symbols in the Hypocephalus are symbolic to the Egyptian religion, NOT the bible and its invisible man-god.

The article goes on by quoting a good statement by Michael Rhodes, which I have no problem with:
Michael D. Rhodes, The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus … Seventeen Years Later wrote:The type of drawing depicted in facsimile 2 is known among scholars as a “hypocephalus,” which means “under or beneath the head.” “A hypocephalus is a small disk-shaped object made of papyrus, stuccoed linen, bronze, gold, wood, or clay, which the Egyptians placed under the head of their dead. They believed it would magically cause the head and body to be enveloped in flames or radiance, thus making the deceased divine. The hypocephalus itself symbolized the eye of Re or Horus, i.e., the sun, and the scenes portrayed on it relate to the Egyptian concept of the resurrection and life after death”
BUT, then, immediately, the LDS apologetic article shifts into a FALSE GEAR in order to drive its faulty apologetics:
If the hypocephalus represents the eye of God, as explained above, what might be depicted on it?
"IF"? Hold on there, you Mormons! The Hypocephalus represents the eye of the Egyptian god, Re -- NOT the god of Israel, it has nothing to do with Jehovah and his religion. But we see how the Mormons are suddenly wanting to shift everything into their own basket as if the god depicted on the papyrus is really the god of the bible because Joseph Smith said so. Truth be told, Re is not Jehovah! Wrong answer! The rest of the apologetic argument by the Mormons is totally discredited on the very foundation that Re and Jehovah are not one in the same but are separate/different gods, not only by concept, but in religion they were mutual enemies.

If the Mormons could prove that the god depicted on the Hypocephalus really was a depiction of Jehovah, then they might have something to go on from that point. But as it is, the simple fact that the god being displayed is an enemy to the god of the Bible, the Mormons have no choice but to pick up their toys, shut their mouths, and walk away.

Mormon apologetics is DOA. It doesn't have a leg to stand on. It's lies, all lies.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Hagoth wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:47 pm
And why is it that these documents are kept hidden on a shelf in the bowels of the Church History Library and not proudly on display in a museum? I was happy to catch them on display for one day only and I was surprised at how little respect they seemed to get by the curators. The leadership of the church obviously does not believe these papyri are anywhere as important and valuable as Joseph Smith claimed they are. They were stuffed unceremoniously into a 3-ring binder. They didn't even have the courtesy to turn the page to any of the Book of Abraham fragments, but I did get a good look at the supposed Book of Joseph.
The Church makes it clear that it really has nothing further to say on the subject.
The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual wrote:Explanations of the facsimiles other than those provided by the Prophet Joseph Smith, which are printed with the facsimiles in the Pearl of Great Price, are tentative and subject to revision by additional revelation and insight from modern prophets.
Not a single President of the Church has spoken on this subject -- no additional revelation and no further insight on how Joseph Smith misrepresented the Egyptian papyrus.

It's all been hush, hush, especially ever since the lost papyrus fragments were returned to the Church in 1967. Did David O McKay have anything to say on the subject? Nope, just business as usual in running the cult.

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Hagoth »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:53 am
Not a single President of the Church has spoken on this subject --
And that lovely seer stone is just sitting there gathering dust.

Sidetrack: Hey Shulem, I saw some of your old Book of Abraham apologetics. What tipped the scale for you? Was it a single slap-up-the-side-o'-the-head kind of realization or the gradual gnawing of cognitive dissonance?
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Hagoth wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 8:34 am
Sidetrack: Hey Shulem, I saw some of your old Book of Abraham apologetics. What tipped the scale for you? Was it a single slap-up-the-side-o'-the-head kind of realization or the gradual gnawing of cognitive dissonance?
The papyrus is presented (misrepresented) by conniving Mormons in a manner inconsistent with the original use and purpose in which it was made in ancient times. It was never intended for the purpose in which Mormons have placed it. Apologists today, including my old self, defend Smith's interpretations ONLY because they want to preserve their testimony that the Church is true.

Yes, I lied. I was misrepresenting the Egyptian religion by trying to associate and connect it to the Mormon religion. I based everything on the idea that Joseph Smith was a prophet and so his revelations had to be true no matter what.

I was a damn good apologist with a half-baked convincing argument. Basically, my old arguments and apologetic approach has pretty much been adopted by the church today. But in the end, my shelf broke and I had to come to terms that Smith lied and that his successors were not really prophets like they claimed. I came to realize that those so-called feelings of the Holy Ghost are feelings everyone can get about just about anything. It doesn't necessarily mean something is true. It's not a confirmation to truthfulness but rather a feeling about how you're perceiving things and working them out in your own mind.

With that said, here is a link to my old apologetics regarding the DOVE.

Dove of God

Image

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Hagoth »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:01 am
With that said, here is a link to my old apologetics regarding the DOVE.

Dove of God

Image
That is a majestic feat of gymnastics, my friend! I bet you were the go-to guy in your ward.
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Hagoth wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 9:32 am
That is a majestic feat of gymnastics, my friend! I bet you were the go-to guy in your ward.
Ha, yeah, I knew a few things about Egyptology. But this gives me an idea that should be fun. I (Shulem) am going to take on my old self (former apologist Paul) and kick his sorry ass for publishing that nonsense. That will teach him a lesson!

:twisted:
Apologist Paul wrote:The form of a dove in the Joseph Smith hypocephalus is at variance to other similar papyri which feature an ithyphallic serpent-god with legs standing before the throne of God.
You're right about that, Paul. Looking at other photographic samples readily available today on the Internet prove beyond any doubt that Smith's "dove" is at variance to that of a serpent which was original to the disk's magical spell.
Apologist Paul wrote:This section of the original papyrus is thought by many to have been damaged as only the head of the inked image survived through the centuries. This figure in the Joseph Smith hypocephalus is indeed unique.
Let's be honest, Paul. Egyptologists and every specialist familiar with Smith's Hypocephalus knows that the section in question was damaged and became lacuna prior to Smith's copying the Hypocephalus disk. So, your statement "thought by many" is somewhat misleading because it may lead your readers to think that not everyone agrees with that conclusion. I'm sure you see the point that I'm attempting to make. And yes, the dove drawn by Smith or his associate therewith is indeed unique -- being the only one known to exist -- and therefore not seen anywhere else in Egyptian art.
Apologist Paul wrote:Was the original image of the papyri an ithyphallic serpent or did Joseph Smith pencil in the belly of a dove as critics so smugly point out?
Paul, that is somewhat a double-ended question designed to discredit critics without any merit on your part. There is no either "or"! The answer to both questions is affirmative, yes. The original image was a serpent and Smith drew a dove -- therefore, there is contradiction between what the ancient scribe originally drew and what Smith drew.
Apologist Paul wrote:It doesn't matter. God so ordered the form of a dove to be represented on the papyri and the interpretation thereof through the revelation and instrumentality of the prophet Joseph Smith.
Hold on there, Paul. It DOES matter what was originally on the papyrus. Smith claimed that it was original to Abraham, written by his own hand. Right? So it matters what was originally on the papyrus because ABRAHAM is the one who drew it! Don't you think that God would inspire or "order" Smith to reproduce the original, thus proving that God knows all things and can restore all things through a true prophet? I get the feeling, Paul, you'd be more comfortable with the idea knowing that a dove was original to the papyrus but since it isn't, you're creating excuses to cover Smith's error.
Apologist Paul wrote:Therefore, we are obliged to focus on the DOVE who is the Third Member of the Godhead, the Spirit of God, a witness of the New Testament rather than the image of a serpent-deity of the Egyptian pantheon.
Do you realize what you're saying here, Paul? You know that only Mormons are going to feel "obliged to focus on the dove" but the rest of the world is not interested in what Joseph Smith recreated because it's incorrect and the wrong animal! You can't expect the world, people at large, to accept Smith's dove rather than the original serpent regardless of who drew it in ancient times. In affect, Paul, you're saying that Smith's hand trumps Abraham's, but in reality Smith trumped the hand of the ancient Egyptian scribe who originally drew a serpent god. Either way, you lose the argument.

You're not being honest, Paul. Your apologetic reasoning is flawed and not only that you show great disrespect to the ancient Egyptians by allowing Smith to corrupt their sacred documents with all kinds of nonsense that has nothing to do with ancient Egypt.

I think you're just trying to save your testimony at any cost. How can telling lies save your testimony?

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Lest we forget the trickster Hugh Nibley swung his apologetic bat taking a crack at the dove:

THE THREE FACSIMILES FROM THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM Hugh W. Nibley (1980)
Hugh Nibley wrote:The oddest figure in all the facsimiles is certainly that which Smith boldly designated as "the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham in the form of a dove." At this point eager criticism is silenced by the fact that this particular figure appears in the various Hypocephali in a wide variety of forms. Usually it is a serpent standing on two legs, but sometimes it is an ape (Walter Nash Pap.), sometimes a snake with a hawk's head (Leyden Hypoceph.), sometimes a snake with a sheep's head (B.M. No. 8445),. sometimes, an ape with a hawk's head and lion's mane like our Fig.. 3. (Abydos Tomb G50B). Why can this particular picture be almost anything? Were the Egyptians baffled by it? Birch saw on the famous Florentine hypocephalus "a seated hawk-bodied God with the whip, the god in the pupil or of the mystical eyes, adorned by an ithyphallic hawk-headed ape, holding to him an eye by both hands" (Birch). Lefebure compares this scene with others showing "a walking snake who offers the fruit to the ithyphallic man...it is the serpent offering the fruit of the tree of life or the tree of knowledge to Adam." (Lefebure). The key of knowledge and life, the secret of the resurrection, the key to the measure of all things, of science itself, the knowledge of "every gift and endowment," the consummation of every good thing--what comes nearer to "the grand Key-Words of the Priesthood?"
Nibley equates the figure in the Hypocephalus to be "the oddest figure in all the Facsimiles"! Nibley isn't referring to Smith's penciled in dove but what must have originally existed prior to the lacuna. All you have to do is look at various Hypocephali detailing similar magic spells and it's readily apparent that an ithyphallic animal in Egyptian form is typical to the iconographic message bearing a sure sign of fertility.

Nibley admits that varying ithyphallic creatures are found on other papyri such as a hawk-headed ape and alludes to the idea that almost anything goes in Egyptian iconography -- as if, Joseph Smith's dove must also be accepted into the pantheon of Egypt's mysterious creatures. This was Nibley's way of giving Joseph Smith a green light -- sure, it's okay -- anything goes, therefore, Smith's restoration of the lacuna is correct and who can argue with that?

But, Nibley's point against "eager criticism" runs aground and his apologetics in defending Smith's alien dove in Fig. 7 goes nowhere.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

Let's briefly examine the failed apologetics of the Backyard Professor, Kerry Shirts, who loved to stick his hand in the Book of Abraham jar!

Hypocaphalus in "Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar Critically Examined with Joseph Smith Hypocephalus

Kerry Shirts wrote:Image

(EAG Fig. 7) Notice the figure which is presenting the Wedjat eye is harldy drawn, and the EAG artist didn't know what to do with the Wedjat Eye! It doesn't resemble it at all. Compare this with the Joseph Smith Hypo however.
You're right, Kerry baby, the artist who sketched the Hypocephalus undoubtedly didn't know anything about ancient Egypt. But for all we know, Joseph Smith himself may have been the artist. Do we not know? Whether it was Smith or one of his appointed scribes, it's clear that they did a lousy job drawing one of the most sacred symbols of ancient Egypt. For shame! Those damn Mormons! The ignorance is astounding.

But you're correct about them getting it right in the actual woodcut engraving thanks to Reuben Hedlock's artistic ability to visualize and transfer foreign language and images into his plate for mass production.
Kerry Shirts wrote:Image

(Joseph Smith Hypo Fig. 7) Here the bird figure is correctly drawn as a bird's head, and the wedjat eye is also clearly drawn and obvious. This is strictly correct according to the conventions of hypocephali, such as the British Museum 9445a below.
Jesus Christ, Kerry, what in the hell do you mean by the bird figure being correctly drawn as a bird's head?

Hello, McFly! There is no bird in the register. There never was a bird in the register. Joseph Smith took a snake's head and made a bird out of it because he didn't know what he was doing anymore than the artist who sloppily drew an Eye of Horus in the manuscript as you so dutifully noticed.
Kerry Shirts wrote:Image

(British Museum 9445a) So what is the point in all this? For one thing, critics need to analyze the documents much more carefully than they have in the past. Their vague over-generalizations get them nowhere fast, while a critically close look reveals several things.
What's the point? What the hell are you ranting about? Just look! What's that thing in between the serpent's legs pointing upward? Do you figure it should also be in Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7 -- you know, the part where there is a lacuna and only a head with an eye remains?

Jesus.

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Hagoth »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Jun 29, 2020 10:50 am
I (Shulem) am going to take on my old self (former apologist Paul) and kick his sorry ass for publishing that nonsense. That will teach him a lesson!
I hope you didn't upset him. Debating the old Kerry Shirts is pretty funny too.
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

“The Book of Abraham,” The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual wrote:Indeed, facsimile 2 contains figures and explanations relating to the Lord’s plan of salvation. For example, the explanations for figures 3, 7, and 8 establish a clear relationship between the contents of facsimile 2 and the ordinances of the temple.
I've been to the temple countless times and have a good understanding of the Hypocephalus. I fail to see "a clear relationship" between the two. I clearly see the sun-god Re riding upon his bark in the heavens in Fig. 3, but that's Egyptian religion, NOT the religion of the Jews. Fig. 8 is a spell about granting an Egyptian the right to live forever in the presence of the Egyptian gods and the name by which he shall be saved is, "OSIRIS", hence nothing about a Jew's name, Jesus.

More pointedly, I see that the dove isn't really a dove and neither is it a representation of the Holy Spirit written by Abraham's own hand. It's a serpent -- a snake -- a god of Egypt.

What I see clearly in the Hypocephalus is that the gods of Egypt are blessed and that those who have faith in them may be saved in an afterlife. That's what I see, clearly. The Mormon Explanations are false, they are wrong -- having taken sacred elements from another religion and pulled it into their own to pollute it and fill it with all manner of abominations. The Mormons are a shameful people and have no regard for the life and respect of the ancient Egyptians.

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22050
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by moksha »

Apologist Paul, even if misinterpretation had been lost, it has been fully restored in these latter-days.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

moksha wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:38 am
Apologist Paul, even if misinterpretation had been lost, it has been fully restored in these latter-days.
Take a peek at the notorious apologetic website, CONFLICT OF JUSTICE and see how they restore misinformation through lies and deception in defending Smith's erroneous explanation about the so-called dove. In the following statement the apologist is priming his pump with reasonable conversation and it seems well enough:
Sign Of The Dove – The god Nehebkau provides the keyword to the Min deity figure to make this moonrise happen. Nehebkau is the personification of arms raised in prayer, and symbolizes the uniting of a person’s individual essence with the spark of life (the ba with ka). In modern context, we would call this the soul or spirit, delivering the keyword for this night-time re-creative event
But in the very next breath comes a shot of poison straight from the poisoned Mormon well:
This is the same thing as the “sign of Jonah” or “sign of the dove,” as it was known in early Christian times. Jesus equated this sign with resurrection. Joseph Smith was therefore completely correct to interpret this character as God revealing the sign of the dove and grand keywords through the heavens.
This is an outright lie. The apologist is attempting to created a parallel and marry the concept to Joseph Smith. What the apologist does in the above paragraph is outright lies and deceit on his part. It's utterly shameful -- even evil.

The Dove that Smith inserted in the lacuna is NOT the "same" as the Egyptian snake. They are two different animals -- one being a fowl and the other reptile. The dove being represented as the Holy Spirit (especially in Christian religion) and the serpent god Nehebkau is a manifestation of the Egyptian pantheon -- they are nothing alike and neither is their purpose the same.

Joseph Smith was INCORRECT in interpreting the figure in the Hypocephalus as a bird, even worse, a dove -- a Christian dove, for Christ's sake! It's just wrong. There never was a dove there in the first place and you can't restore something that never existed! The Joseph Smith Explanation bears no relation to the Egyptian spell and is a false interpretation. The apologist is a LIAR and is trying to justify Joseptology by creating parallels and imagining connections between the two that never existed in the first place.

The bottom line is that the Hypocephalus is wholly an Egyptian concept for their religion and is used for that very purpose. The Hypocephalus is in effect like an idol. It represents the religion of the Egyptians, their gods, and the afterlife within the scope and sphere of the Egyptian gods. There is no room or place in the Hypocephalus for Jesus or Jehovah. It is inappropriate and wrong to create parallels and attempt to change the true meaning of the Egyptian spells in order to justify Smith's false explanations and teachings regarding the papyrus.

User avatar
Hagoth
Valiant B
Posts: 183
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 9:16 am

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Hagoth »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:01 am
Joseptology
:lol:
"Be excellent to each other." - Bill and Ted
“The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also.” - Mark Twain

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11441
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: FACSIMILE NO 2 "In the Form of a Dove" Web Page will take you for a ride you'll never forget! It has a happy ending!

Post by Shulem »

1. That same spirit which caused Joseph Smith to claim:
“written by his own hand upon papyrus”
2. Is the same spirit that caused Smith to also say:
"that is the signature of the patriarch Abraham"
Smith claimed BOTH of the above and led his followers to believe that he himself believed those things were literally true and that the Spirit revealed it.

HYPOTHETICAL INTERVIEW WITH SMITH:

SHULEM: So, you're saying the Spirit revealed to you that the Abrahamic papyrus here before us was written by the very hand of Abraham and is a genuine artifact of some 4,000 years?

SMITH: Yes, that is what I'm saying.

SHULEM: So, you're also saying that those hieroglyphic characters you pointed to on the papyrus are the actual signature of Abraham, written by his own hand?

SMITH: Yes, that is what I'm saying and the Spirit revealed it to me.

SHULEM: So, are you saying that Abraham, by his own hand, drew the same dove in which you have restored in Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7 and your rendition is the same as the original which was lost in the crumbling of the disk papyrus?

SMITH: That is exactly correct. The Spirit of God revealed to me that the the dove was original to the papyrus which was drawn by the very hand of Abraham himself.

SHULEM: Thank you sir, I have no further questions.

Post Reply