Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

HOLD THE PRESS, SHULEM WAS WRONG!

:redface:

This post was deleted but prior ones with false information have been lined out and furnished with the above link to addional information below. I stand responsible for my errors and hasty shortsightedness.

I had forgotten that Smith, for the most part, was a damn good bible scholar.
Last edited by Shulem on Sun Sep 06, 2020 6:58 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

New Translation vs. Book of Abraham

Post by Shulem »

This is for shizts and giggles:
New Translation of the Bible wrote: Old Testament Revision Manuscript

So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him; and lot went with him. And Abram was seventy & five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Book of Abraham wrote: Book of Abraham Manuscript

I Abram departed, as the Lord had said unto me, and Lot with me, and I Abram was sixty and two years old, when I departed out of Haran.
Which one did Joseph Smith endorse? They both can't be true. The revision of the Genesis account agrees with the KJV. The Book of Abraham account, although a revelation, its submission to the Church via the Times and Seasons was not yet canonized.

75?
62?

Which is it?

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

HOLD THE PRESS, SHULEM WAS WRONG!

Oh how I had forgotten and which will make this the more interesting. I will have to RECANT and adjust my accusations and go back to my earlier posts and repent and post this notice. I confess, this is rather embarrassing. I should be embarrassed!

Evidence does suggest that Smith did in fact equate Melchizedek with Shem! I forgot about that! As it as turned out it's apparent that some of my own Mormon history has become dim. I certainly stand corrected. It only goes to show that what may appear to be isn't so. I'm going to have to turn from some of my early gloating as I have made a fool of myself. I have really made a mess of what I had grew to assume Smith did not know about the history. He was very much acquainted with the succession of the patriarchs and the chronicles in how they were interrelated.
Times and Seasons Vol. V. No. 23. CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. Dec. 15, 1844 wrote:From this definite account of driving the "nations apart, when the ancient hills did bow," all reflecting minds may judge that man was scattered over the whole face of the earth: And with the superior knowledge of men like Noah, Shem, (who was Melchisedec [Melchizedek]) and Abram, the father of the faithful, three contemporaries, holding the keys of the highest order of the priesthood: connecting the creation, and fall; memorising [memorizing] the righteousness of Enoch; and glorying in the construction of the ark for the salvation of a world; still retaining the model and pattern of that ark, than which a great, ah, we may say, half so great a vessel has never been built since; for another ark, be it remembered, with such a ponderous living freight will never be prepared as a vessel of mercy by command of Jehovah: That was so perfectly built as to brave the fury of the elements a year: and with the image of the tower whose peering top reached the sky in daring magnificence; and with that mighty combination of intellect, when the whole earth was of one language, and the plains of Shinar the capitol,-with all these and thousands of others,-where is the man so self biased for his own age, as to wonder who peopled the ruinous cities of the south, or reared the time defying mounds of the north?
Right. I need to get my facts straight. For that, I apologize. Silly me.

:redface:

:sad:

I got off on a bad tangent.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

I woke up this morning in a moment of dread when I suddenly remembered that Smith considered Shem and Melchizedek to be one in the same. How could I have forgotten that? So, I had to apologize for some of my earlier remarks in thinking Smith was ignorant and how he failed to keep up with the calculations of biblical chronology. I won't make that mistake or underestimate Smith again!

Actually, this information can be used to my advantage in showing that Smith did believe in the literal existence of the early Patriarchs and that their long lives as listed in the bible -- Shem/Melchizedek having lived for 600 years was no myth in the mind of the prophet. The Mormons are stuck with the literalism of Old Testament myth and the connections this raises with Shem having lived in Abraham's day and, beyond (by 35 years).

Not to get sidetracked on a tangent but I want to confirm Shem and then connect it to Smith's Book of Abraham to show that it can't possibly coincide with modern Egyptology.
Council of Fifty, Minutes wrote:He contrasted the forms of the government of the different nations with that which God design’d to establish as spoken of by the prophet Daniel. He particularly referred to the idea that the dominion of Japheth is extended over the whole earth and showed that it was destined to be transferred into the hands of Shem and his posterity.
Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 LECTURE SECOND. Of Faith. SECTION II wrote:Q. How many noted characters lived from Noah to Abraham?
A. Ten.
Q. What are their names?
A. Shem, Arphaxed, Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, and Nahor, Abraham’s brother. -[§ ii. ¶ 52.]-
Q. How many of these were cotemporary with Noah?
A. The whole.
Q. How many with Abraham?
A. Eight.
Q. What are their names?
A. Nahor, Abraham’s brother, Terah, Serug, Reu, Eber, Selah, Arphaxed, and Shem.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Smith's roots of Egypt

Post by Shulem »

Here is Egypt's beginnings according to Smith's understanding:

Noah & wife
_____|_____


Ham & Egyptus (Zeptah) [1]
___________|____________
Pharaoh (Mizraim) & Egyptus (Kahtoumun) [2]


Ham: Several definitions have been attributed to this Hebrew name including hot, warm, fervent, sun burnt, dark and black. The earliest Egyptians were darker skinned and called the southern land kemet because of the black soil.

Egyptus: This name is from the Greek Aigyptos derived from the name Egypt (land of the Copt) and signifies the Two Lands.

Mizraim: The Hebrews referred to Egypt as Mizraim a name suggesting duality and signifies the two Egypts. The name Mesraim (Misr meaning red soil of the north) according to Josephus refers to the country of Egypt as the Mestre and the people of Egypt as the Mestreans. Similarly, Smith in his Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language, referred to Egypt as Ahmehstrah and the people as Ahmehstrahans.

Pharaoh: A Greek word which is translated as per-aa in Egyptian and signifies the Great House of the king.

_________________________________________
[1] Zeptah was the name of Ham's wife according to the Book of Abraham Manuscripts and signifies that which is forbidden.

[2] Kahtoumun was the name of Ham's daughter according to the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language and is a distinction of royal female lineage or descent, according to ancient traditions.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Egyptologists Muhlestein & Gee can be reasonable

Post by Shulem »

Innovation, Appropriation, and Reinterpretation in Ancient Egypt wrote:
Edited by Kerry Muhlestein & John Gee, 2012

While it is common to make blanket statements about Egyptian beliefs, characteristics, and tendencies, such characterizations ignore the rich and complex reality that lay behind 3000 years of cultural continuation. Part of the reason Egypt’s culture survived for so long was its ability to adapt, appropriate, reinterpret, and innovate, all within the larger bounds of cultural cohesion, correctness, and decorum.

Surely the beliefs and practices of an Egyptian during the 1st Dynasty were not completely congruent with those of the Twenty-Sixth.

. . . . as Egyptologists, we deal with an enormous expanse of time. It is simply impossible to be a specialist in every era of Egyptian history, nor are any of us able to be intimately familiar with every aspect of Egyptian culture in each phase of its history.
Here we see that Egyptologists Muhlestein & Gee can be reasonable and will title the beginning of ancient dynastic Egypt with the correct chronology established through the science of modern Egyptology which uses various means including astronomical star dating or the Sothic cycle of the heliacal rise of Sirius. These dating points used in conjunction with king's lists are firm and ever fixed! After a long Predynastic epic, the 1st Dynasty was established at about 3,000 BC with the opening stages of the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt through the familiar kingly names of Narmer and Menes.

Isn't that right, Muhlestein? Gee?

The problem for Joseph Smith and his Book of Abraham is it does not harmonize with science and Egyptology. Smith's account uses mythical biblical chronology in order to establish his story of Egypt's Making.

Smith's dating system that relied on biblical myth is at serious odds with Egyptology! This is a problem that Muhlestein and Gee cannot solve and no amount of parallels can change the math. Math is math! This is where the Book of Abraham is fatally flawed and proven false.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Biblical dates for the Flood and Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Today, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees with established biblical chronology as outlined in the scriptures and confirmed by Joseph Smith's teachings (D&C 77) of how long man has been on the earth.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng wrote:
Who Is Abraham and When Did He
Live?


Adam and Eve and the Fall (approximately 4000 BC), Enoch
(approximately 3000 BC), Noah and the Flood
(approximately 2400 BC
), and the tower of Babel
(approximately 2200 BC) preceded Abraham’s time.
Abraham, who was born in about 2000 BC, was the father of
Isaac and the grandfather of Jacob, whose name was changed
to Israel. (See Bible Dictionary, “Chronology.”)
The Church uses common accepted biblical chronology that the Flood occurred at approximately 2400 BC. The Church also accepts a standard biblical dating of 2000 BC for when Abraham was born.

Plug the MATH into the Book of Abraham:
1:1 wrote:In the land of the Chaldeans, at the residence of my fathers, I, Abraham (1938 BC), saw that it was needful for me to obtain another place of residence
1:23-26 wrote:The land of Egypt being first discovered (2400 BC) by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

When this woman (2400 BC) discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh (2400 BC), the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

The Book of Abraham established the founding of Egypt in 2400 BC by Ham's progeny. Muhlestein & Gee, please step forward and account for the previous 600 years leading to the time when you affirm that the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt took place!
Muhlestein wrote:
Gee wrote:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Biblical dates for the Flood and Abraham

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 9:32 pm
The Book of Abraham established the founding of Egypt in 2400 BC by Ham's progeny. Muhlestein & Gee, please step forward and account for the previous 600 years leading to the time when you affirm that the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt took place!
Muhlestein wrote:
Gee wrote:
The 600 year discrepancy between the so-called founding (2400 BC) of Egypt by Ham's progeny vs. the Unification leading to the First Dynasty (3000 BC) is a colossal error of biblical proportion! And it doesn't even take into consideration the absence of the many hundreds of years of Predynastic Egypt and massive prehistoric Egypt!

The Church claims the text of the Book of Abraham is a historical account that contains a genuine history of how Egypt was founded. Nothing could be further from the truth! We KNOW (I bear solemn testimony) backed by science and Egyptology that Egypt's 1st Dynasty occurred some 600 years prior to the time Noah supposedly unloaded his ark with all those animals for the new world to feast on! Smith's accounting is fatally flawed. The math doesn't work. Math does not lie! People lie!

To put into perspective how bad the 600 year discrepancy is -- imagine, if you will, Lehi leaving Jerusalem to hunt in the wilderness for a short time and then returning to discover the Christ child born in Bethlehem!

And there you have it. Go figure. Math doesn't lie, people do.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Historical Genocide

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 11:43 pm
The 600 year discrepancy between the so-called founding (2400 BC) of Egypt by Ham's progeny vs. the Unification leading to the First Dynasty (3000 BC) is a colossal error of biblical proportion! And it doesn't even take into consideration the absence of the many hundreds of years of Predynastic Egypt and massive prehistoric Egypt!
Mormon apologists that stand by the Book of Abraham as a historically accurate account of how Egypt came to be have some explaining to do. Actually, they don't. How can they explain 600 years away? We simply can't ignore 600 years!

Imagine ignoring the last 600 years of our own history? Where would we be? Columbus would never have sailed the ocean blue and America would never have existed. You and I are not! We don't exist because 600 years of history never happened. That is not only denying history but it's historical genocide which is exactly what the Book of Abraham is guilty of.

Shame on Gee and Muhlestein for claiming the Book of Abraham is a genuine historical account of Egypt's Making.

It's time to set the record straight! The Book of Abraham is not an authentic record. Period. End of story.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Historical Genocide

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:36 am
Mormon apologists that stand by the Book of Abraham as a historically accurate account of how Egypt came to be have some explaining to do. Actually, they don't. How can they explain 600 years away? We simply can't ignore 600 years!
This is more than a little discrepancy or a blip on a historical time line -- it's a major disaster of colossal proportion! It doesn't require a great deal of intelligence to realize the enormous error contained in the opening definitive statements pertaining to Book of Abraham history. The very foundation of how Egyptian history is alleged to have begun in the Book of Abraham is proven wrong from the get-go -- the moment the Book of Abraham bull charges out of the pen we can instantly calculate that it's a forgery -- the wrong answer. The math is wrong. It's as simple as that! You cannot fix bad math. You can't explain it away using parallels or symbolic excuses. In the end, math is math, period.

So, I want to make it perfectly clear that this is the SMOKING GUN in proving that the Book of Abraham is not a genuine historical record for how Egypt came to be. Smith's work was another concocted story hatched from his mind in order to fool the world into thinking he was a prophet and Egyptian translator. He was neither!

Smith was dependent on using biblical chronology in both the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham. Smith's hands were tied insomuch as that is all he had to work with and the people of his times automatically accepted the biblical chronology as absolute truth. But we know better today thanks to science and modern methods used to determine dated history. We know that the chronicles of biblical dating is mythical in nature, i.e. Shem lived to be 600 years old is nothing more than myth.

Accepting the Book of Abraham as a genuine historical account is like embracing Newtonian astronomy and rejecting Einstein's great discoveries! It's like insisting that the earth is flat. No amount faith can make the earth flat anymore than faith can make the Book of Abraham true.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

The Church does little if anything to resolve the false historical claims made by the Book of Abraham as it clashes with modern Egyptology. Elder Andrew Jenson served as the Assistant Church Historian for 42 years and had this to say in General Conference:
Elder Andrew Jenson, Conference Oct 1912 wrote:
Years ago I visited the Great Pyramid of Egypt, that grand stone structure standing so bold and beautiful in the Valley of the Nile, and as I stood upon that great structure, looked down upon the site of the ancient city of Memphis, and took in the view up and down the Nile valley, these thoughts came to me. "Who built these great pyramids? Who were the first people in this land?" The Pearl of Great Price tells us a little in regard to this matter, but not enough. We want more revelation before we can know who built the Great Pyramid of Egypt. Learned men may write books like the "Miracle in Stone," but it is not sufficient ; God shall in His own due time open the heavens and tell us more about it. At present we are at sea, figuratively speaking.
The Book of Abraham tells us that Ham's progeny discovered the land of Egypt and that Pharaoh became the first ruler. This occurred after the Flood (2400 BC) and before the confounding of tongues at the tower of Babel which implies that the first Egyptians spoke ADAMIC. Church Historian Andrew Jenson queries with "who built the Great Pyramid of Egypt". Let's appeal to authority and ask an Egyptologist when the Great Pyramid was built. Elder Jenson wants a revelation (futher knowledge) so let John Gee give it to him:

John Gee, please check the box that best dates the building of Kufu's Pyramid as it coincides with biblical history in which the Book of Abraham and the Church ascribe to:

[ ] Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood
[ ] Arphaxad age 35 begat Salah
[ ] Salah age 30 begat Eber
[ ] Eber age 34 begat Peleg
[ ] Peleg age 30 begat Reu
[ ] Reu age 32 begat Serug
[ ] Serug age 30 begat Nahor
[ ] Nahor age 29 begat Terah
[ ] Terah age 70 begat Abram

Hint: Khufu reigned in 2589–2566 BC

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Pyramids of Gizeh

Post by Shulem »

It's time for Church:

THIS WAS ACTUALLY PREACHED AT THE PULPIT IN GENERAL CONFERENCE BY A MEMBER OF THE FIRST PRESIDENCY AND SERVES TO REFLECT COMMON BELIEFS HAD BY THE CHURCH IN HIS DAY:
President Anthony W. Ivins, First Counselor of the First Presidency, Conference Oct 1931 wrote:
I hold in my hand. The title of the book is "Our Bible in Stone." The author is Francis M. Darter of Los Angeles, a member of the Church, in good standing, an experienced engineer and a mathematician of ability. It treats principally the erection, symbolism and prophetic character of the pyramid of Gizeh, or in Greek, Cheops. Various other applications so far as the name is concerned have been applied to this structure. Because of its superiority over all other like structures it has come to be known and referred to as the Great Pyramid of Gizeh. The Great Pyramid of Gizeh is situated in Egypt, about ten miles west of the city of Cairo, and one hundred and twenty-five miles south from the city of Alexandria, which was founded by Alexander the Great 332 B. C. It is bounded on the west by the Libyan desert, and is therefore in the borders of the land. It is one of a group of nine other similar structures, which are known as the Pyramids of Gizeh.

It is a noteworthy fact that while many pyramids are found in Egypt, none is known to exist in other parts of the world except in America, where many such structures are known to have been erected, but no other pyramids can be compared with the unusual structure to which my remarks are to be confined. The orientation of the great pile, as it applies to the points of the compass, and the accuracy with which its proportions are related one to the other, are a marvel to those who have made a study of it.

The relationship of the Pyramid to modern mathematics, by which scholars have endeavored to fix the date of its construction, indicates that in its erection the builders were familiar with and governed largely by the movement of the heavenly bodies, which science the moderns refer to as astronomy. Sir John Herschel, from astronomical calculation, places the construction of the Pyramid at 2160 B. C., and Professor Piazza Smyth at 2170 B. C. Basil Stewart, in his recently published book, "The Witness of the Great Pyramid," after a careful study of the application of astronomy in its construction, says : "The Great Pyramid therefore may be considered the earliest known record in existence wherein is embodied the fact of the immense cycle known as
the precession of the equinoxes."


The magnitude of the structure may be best understood by comparing it with something with which we are familiar. The area covered by the base of the structure is in excess of thirteen acres, or three acres larger than the block upon which this building stands, which is ten acres. The height of the Pyramid is 485 feet above the base, or more than twice the height of the temple to the east of us. The bulk of the building is more than ninety million cubic feet, and sufficient stone was used in its construction to build a wall four feet high and two feet thick, twenty-two hundred miles in length, or which would reach from Chicago to San Francisco.

Who were the builders of the Pyramid no one knows. Khufu (Cheops, in Greek) is given credit for having been the builder. This personage has been identified by some students as Seth, the son of Adam; others give Enoch, the son of Jared, credit for having been the builder ; others Shem, the Son of Noah ; while some believe that Melchizedek, that mysterious personage to whom Abraham paid tithes, and whom some of these scholars identify as the Patriarch Job, was the person who constructed it.

Herodotus, who lived nearly five hundred years before the birth of Christ, and who is referred to as the father of history, knew of the existence of the Great Pyramid, and wrote concerning it. He says that the Egyptians detested the memory of the kings who caused their fathers to erect these structures, and besides compelled them to close their own temples, and for this reason they were not willing to mention their names, but called the two first pyramids erected after Philition, a shepherd who fed his cattle about the place.

Manetho, himself an Egyptian, wrote as follows:

"There came from the east, in a strange manner, men of an ignoble race, who had the confidence to invade our country, and easily subdued it by their power without a battle. All this invading nation was styled Hyksos, that is, 'Shepherd Kings'."

He then relates how they departed for Judea and built a city there named Jerusalem. This he says was long before the exodus of the Israelitish people from Egypt under Moses. It is known that Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, dominated Egypt at the time that Jacob and his family went into that country, during the period when Joseph ruled as vice regent of the reigning Pharaoh, and it was among this people that Joseph chose his wife, Asenath, who became the mother of his sons Ephraim and Manasseh.

The first definite suggestion that the Great Pyramid was other than the tomb of a king, or other merely temporal monument, was in a work written by John Taylor in London in 1859. He conceived the idea that it was a divinely planned and constructed monument, designed to be a witness to the human race, showing in advance the history of mankind from the creation to the period of the second coming of our Lord, who would establish dominion over the earth upon which we dwell and usher in a reign of righteousness and peace.

At a later date C. Piazza Smyth, astronomer royal of Scotland, wrote upon the subject, agreeing with the conclusions reached by Taylor. Sir W. M. Flinders Petrie, Professor John Edgar, D. Davidson, Joseph A. Seiss, Sir John Herschel, Basil Stewart and many other scholarly men, after making a study of the subject, became advocates of the theory advanced by Taylor, that the Great Pyramid has something more than human in its construction and symbolism.

For ages after its construction the interior of the Great Pyramid remained a sealed mystery. Obsessed with the belief that within the great pile hordes of treasure had been concealed, men finally determined to penetrate and explore it. A tunnel was driven into the structure far towards the center, but the work was so difficult that it was about to be discontinued when the workmen unexpectedly broke into the passage-way, and the mystery was solved.

Nothing was found to indicate that the Pyramid had been constructed to be the tomb of a king, as was usually the case with the smaller structures of like architecture. It was discovered that the original builders had constructed a series of passages or galleries in the interior of the Pyramid, the entrance to which had been concealed and so strongly closed that it became necessary to blast around it in order that entrance might be made possible. This entrance is on the north side of the structure, and the first gallery or passage descends from the opening at an angle of about twenty-six degrees to a point far below the floor of the Pyramid into the solid rock upon which it stands, where it terminates in a chamber which is called the Pit.

A short distance from the entrance, at the same angle, another passageway leads upward and communicates with two other chambers, one referred to as the Queen's Chamber, near the center, and the other, higher up, as the King's Chamber.

It is the accuracy with which these galleries are constructed and certain markings and steps which are placed at intervals along the way, that have convinced scholars who have made careful study of the subject that the Pyramid was intended by its builders to represent the history of our race, as has been stated, from the remote past to the
time of the second coming of our Lord.

Discussion of the symbolism of the Great Pyramid is not a new thing in the Church. I well remember that Orson Pratt, during his lifetime, lectured on the subject and made mathematical calculations by which he reached the conclusion that certain measurements of the galleries and markings which were upon them had reference to the opening of the Gospel dispensation in which we live, and the final consummation of the purposes of our Father in heaven, by which peace would come to the world and happiness to mankind.

I remember also that his calculations brought conclusions which differed from others who had made a study of the subject, but were in the main the same. Soon after the World War students of the Pyramid announced that according to their theory, and it is only a theory, the year 1928 would witness the beginning of a period of tribulation which would continue with increasing intensity until 1936, and would bring sorrow and mourning to the inhabitants of the earth. At that date their symbols and measurements bring us to the King's Chamber, and the record of the Pyramid, if it has a record, will cease with the advent of our Lord and the establishment of a period of peace, happiness and good will among men.

The Church has not at any time, nor does it now, accept the conclusions of pyramid students to be definitely correct. In fact there is great doubt that the arbitrary basis upon which their calculations and conclusions are founded is correct.

I do not wish to be understood to say that they are in error. Neither do I say that they are correct. But this much I desire to declare to this congregation : While I have not given profound study to the theories of men regarding the origin and symbolism of this miracle in stone, I have read and studied it in a general way and have found nothing in it to convince me that the record of the Great Pyramid definitely forecasts coming events.

The Church does not depend upon Pyramids of Gizeh nor the conclusions of scientific investigators, however helpful they may sometimes be in the study of these questions, for an interpretation of the scripture which refers to the return of Christ our Lord to earth and the millennium of peace and good-will which is to be enjoyed under his personal administration.
President Ivins makes a final point in stating that the Church does not depend "on the conclusions of scientific investigators" to settle issues about Egyptology as it relates to the scriptures because the Church and their scriptures trump Egyptology.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is two-faced and talks out of both sides of its mouth trying to please both ends of the spectrum -- but both ends can't be true. It's one or the other. The Church is pulling a fast one, trying to have it both ways, and hoping to satisfy everyone. This is deceptive and is evidence that the Church is not willing to take a stand but will juggle balls and move goalposts hoping the members are too stupid to raise objections and demand an answer about whether Egypt predated the Flood or came after according to the Book of Abraham.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/egypt?lang=eng wrote:
Egypt

The great pyramids are the tombs of early kings belonging to what is generally called the Old Empire. The pyramid builders, who reigned at Memphis at least 3,000 years before Christ, were followed by a series of princes who reigned in Thebes. This is known as the Middle Empire.
OR
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual-2018/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng wrote:
The Book of Abraham

Enoch (approximately 3000 BC), Noah and the Flood (approximately 2400 BC), and the tower of Babel (approximately 2200 BC) preceded Abraham’s time.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:43 pm
The Book of Abraham tells us that Ham's progeny discovered the land of Egypt and that Pharaoh became the first ruler. This occurred after the Flood (2400 BC) and before the confounding of tongues at the tower of Babel which implies that the first Egyptians spoke ADAMIC.
That seems to be exactly what the Church taught even before the Book of Abraham was formerly published:
LATTER DAY SAINTS' MESSENGER AND ADVOCATE KIRTLAND, OHIO, MARCH, 1837 wrote:
ANCIENT HISTORY. No. 2.

EGYPT.

The antiquity of this empire is supposed to be very great. The Mosaic writings represent it as a great and flourishing kingdom four hundred and thirty years after the flood. Indeed, from the nature of the country the presumption is, that it was settled and became a flourishing kingdom or empire soon after the deluge.
The Church today has a real problem attempting to place Egyptian history before the flood and maintain a cohesive semblance with the biblical time line and Smith's precious 7,000 year game plan (D&C 77).

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Wed Sep 02, 2020 2:51 pm
John Gee, do you really believe that the first ruler of Egypt was the grandson of Ham? Are you willing to dismiss Smith's D&C 77 and the biblical chronology of when Noah supposedly lived so that Ham's kid can rule Predynastic Egypt? How about you write a paper on that and submit it to your colleagues? Better yet, let me review it first!
How is John Gee going to squeeze Joseph Smith's 6,000 years of human history into a chronology that makes sense? That would be impossible. Gee is stuck and can't justify the historical claims made in the Book of Abraham, chapter 1. I'm afraid for Gee, the work has already been done by Smith and Cowdery so any attempt to squash their precious 6,000 year history would be met with excommunication.
THE EVENING AND THE MORNING STAR Independence, Mo. August, 1832 wrote:
PRESENT AGE OF THE WORLD.

There are so many different opinions upon, as well as various periods to the age of the world, that we fear the truth of the matter will be believed by few. Whether by the commentators upon the sacred writings, or by the clergy, the term of four thousand and four years, was put down as the exact time from the beginning till the birth of the Savior, we shall not pretend to say, but content ourselves by stating, that 4004 years, which is the present Christian calculation, added to the current year of our Lord, makes but 5836 years since the commencement of time in this world. But upon collecting the passed periods that the Lord has been pleased to measure out to his servants, by the prophets, we find a very different amount of years from the beginning. We compute thus:

Chapters. Years.

Gen. 5 & 8 From Adam to the end of the flood, ... 1656

" 11. From the flood to Abram, .............. 292

" 21. From Abram to Isaac, .................. 100

" 25. From Isaac to Jacob, ................... 60

" 47. From Jacob's birth to his entering Egypt, 130

Ex. 12. The children of Israel in Egypt, ..... 430

From their departure out of Egypt till the birth of the Savior.

----------------------------------------------------------------- 1491

Years before Christ, ................. 4159

Since his birth, ..................... 1832

From the beginning till now, ......... 5991

Deduct, .............................. 5836

Difference, .......................... 155

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

7,000 years?

Post by Shulem »

D&C 77:6,7 wrote:
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832.

Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.

Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.
This is the summation of Smith's "REVELATION" of the age of human life on earth beginning with the 1st millennium of Adam as the first man to the end of the 7th millennium when Christ rules the earth.

Members of the Church today have a choice. They may choose to accept Smith's revelation of the age of man in conjunction with biblical chronology and the so-called historical account of the Book of Abraham OR they can reject Smith's revelations altogether and embrace science and modern Egyptology!

John Gee, what say ye?

I reject Joseph Smith and accept science and Egyptology.

:smile:

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Math is math

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sun Sep 06, 2020 7:55 pm
Math is math! This is where the Book of Abraham is fatally flawed and proven false.

Smith understood the absolute principle that math is math and that it's based on cold calculated truths that are ever constant. Unfortunately for Smith, the foundation in which he depended was wrong so the formula he used to solve and reach his conclusion was riddled with error -- fatally flawed!
TIMES AND SEASONS CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. November 1, 1843. wrote: Now for the question. How much are one and one? Two. How much is one from two? One. Very well, one question, or problem is solved by figures. Now let me ask one for facts: was there ever such a place on the earth as Egypt? Geography says yes; ancient history says yes; and the Bible says yes. So three witnesses have solved that question.
Smith relied on his chronology for ancient Egyptian history by using the bible and in doing so he believed it solved the problem. But we know Smith's answer is wrong which the Church to this day continues to believe and is still wrong.

Then in the next paragraph, Smith used his bad math, unreliable information, and so-called revelation in falsely dating his mummies:
TIMES AND SEASONS CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. November 1, 1843. wrote:Besides these tangible facts, so easily proven and demonstrated by simple rules of testimony unimpeached, the art (now lost) of embalming human bodies, and preserving them in the catacombs of Egypt, whereby men, women and children as mummies, after a lapse of near three thousand five hundred years, come forth among the living, and although dead, the papyrus which has lived in their bosoms, unharmed, speaks for them, in language like the sound of an earthquake: Ecce veritas! Ecce cadaveros. Behold the truth! Behold the mummies! .... The spirit of prophesy is the testimony of Jesus.
No, no, and no! Smith's mummies were not 3,500 years old and neither did he have the spirit of prophecy to say such nonsense! He was a false prophet.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:41 am
Now take into consideration the Facsimile No. 1. The rising of Osiris took place on earth where his wife received him in order to conceive Horus. There is no motif of stars because it's not a heavenly scene. The motif is that of the Nile and the niched bricking or carved stones signifies the temple walls adjacent to the Nile where the river crocodiles are ever present.

All glory to Osiris my lord!
And now, to demonstrate that Smith and his comrades were not entirely ignorant about some of the finer matters that were known to educated people of his day. And in doing this it shows that Smith was WRONG in his Facsimile interpretations when he should have known better, especially if revelation was really coming from God. Apologists make a big deal that Smith got the crocodile correct in Facsimile No. 1, which is no big deal seeing it was his only bullseye, per se. But had he not got that right it would have simply meant he was stupid and surrounded by totally ignorant people but neither was the case. Smith was highly intelligent and he had some pretty smart guys to consult with in regards to the vignettes.

Now, with that said, here is a clip from the Times and Seasons which might suggest that Smith should have properly labeled Osiris and Isis in Facsimile No. 3. But as it was, the only thing Smith got right in Facsimile No. 1 was the crocodile and that's a no-brainer! The following is from John Greenhow a faithful member from England who sent a letter to the Times and Seasons editor for publishing in the Church periodical. At least someone in the Church knew who Osiris and Isis were! But Smith had already published the Book of Abraham so it was too late to recant.
TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. FEB. l , 1844. wrote:
For the Time Seasons.

The Egyptians had a number of ideal Gods, to whom they erected temples of prodigious size and architectural splendor. The principal of these deities were Osiris and Isis, which are thought to be typical of the sun and moon. But they also offered worship to various creatures, as the ox or bull, with divers animals, birds, &c. They likewise paid adoration to the Nile, personifying it in the crocodile, to which temples were erected, and priests set apart for its service.

<snip>

We as a church have nothing to boast of, for it is God that has made the difference in raising up a prophet to instruct his people, for of ourselves we know nothing, and should we be left without a man of God to direct us, we should soon become weak as other men; therefore to him be the glory, for now we can sing with the poet:

<snip>

I remain as ever, your affectionate brother in the new covenant, JOHN GREENHOW.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Just for fun a little side tracked

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Tue Sep 08, 2020 2:45 pm

Now, with that said, here is a clip from the Times and Seasons which might suggest that Smith should have properly labeled Osiris and Isis in Facsimile No. 3. But as it was, the only thing Smith got right in Facsimile No. 1 was the crocodile and that's a no-brainer! The following is from John Greenhow a faithful member from England who sent a letter to the Times and Seasons editor for publishing in the Church periodical. At least someone in the Church knew who Osiris and Isis were! But Smith had already published the Book of Abraham so it was too late to recant.
TIMES AND SEASONS. CITY OF NAUVOO, ILL. FEB. l , 1844. wrote:
For the Time Seasons.

The Egyptians had a number of ideal Gods, to whom they erected temples of prodigious size and architectural splendor. The principal of these deities were Osiris and Isis, which are thought to be typical of the sun and moon.
No, I'm not going to get off on a tangent about Facsimile No. 3 because that's not germane to this thread and I promised not to. But, as a matter of reference and to fortify the above quote made by a learned man (John Greenhow) who tendered a written submission to the Church periodical in which he mentions the goddess "ISIS", I think it's important that we assume the brethren of Kirtland/Nauvoo knew about the myth of the Egyptian goddess Isis, although it would have been a basic or crude knowledge that was commonly known in their time.

It's seems clear to me that Joseph Smith did preserve the name "ISIS" in the Grammar and Alphabet of the Egyptian Language and associated the different levels or degrees of understanding of the name Isis with astronomy. This is proof that Smith was trying to maintain some semblance of authentic Egyptian into his mixed bag of revelatory treats.

NOTE also that the name OSIRIS is also incorporated into the wordings.
See also the these manuscripts:
Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–A wrote:Flos-isis.
Kli-flos-isis
Kli-flos-isis
Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–B wrote:Flos-isis (Sun)
Kli-flos-isis.
Veh-Kli-flos-isis
Egyptian Alphabet, circa Early July–circa November 1835–C: wrote:Flos=isis
Kli-flos isis
Veh kli flos-isis

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 11910
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Anubis Back in Black (ACDC) to get back on track -- no more masks (KISS)!

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Sat Aug 22, 2020 10:42 pm

Now, I'm going to take the liberty to edit dishonest statements made by apologists regarding the headdress:
Pearl of Great Price Central wrote:What’s more, the question as to whether the figure is a priest or the god Anubis (or another jackal-headed god), or whether it originally had a bald human head or a jackal head, appears to be (IS NOT) a false dichotomy. “The practice of masking for ritual and ceremonial purposes (FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS BUT NOT THE GODS) seems to have been important in Egypt (FOR MORTALS) from the earliest times and continued to be an element of ritual practice into the Roman period,” and “priestly impersonators of Anubis regularly appear in funerary ceremonies, and are styled simply Inpw, ‘Anubis’ or rmt-Inpw, ‘Anubis-men’ . . . [or] ink Inpw, ‘I am Anubis.’” At the non-funerary Hathor temple of Deir el-Medineh is a depiction of a ritual taken from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead which shows “the king offering incense, and a priest masked as Anubis beating a round frame drum.” (BUT THE VIGNETTE OF FACSIMILE NO.1 IS NOT A PRIESTLY REENACTMENT OF A MORTAL CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE ANUBIS BUT IS THE ACTUAL GOD ANUBIS RAISING THE ACTUAL GOD OSIRIS FROM THE DEAD JUST AS THE GODS PORTRAYED IN FACSIMILE NO.3 ARE THE ACTUAL GODS IN HEAVEN, NOT AN EARTHLY SCENE AS SMITH CLAIMED)
Now to correct John Gee:
The potential significance of this for Facsimile 1 has been explained by Egyptologist John Gee wrote:
Assume for the sake of argument that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is correct (I CAN'T ASSUME THAT BECAUSE IT'S MISSING THE HEADDRESS). What are the implications of the figure being a bald man? (IT WOULD MAKE HIM A MORTAL MAN AND NOT THE JACKAL GOD ANUBIS) Shaving was a common feature of initiation into the priesthood from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period (FOR MORTAL MEN LIVING ON EARTH). Since “complete shaving of the head was another mark of the male Isiac votary and priest” the bald figure would then be a priest (IF HE WAS MORTAL). Assume on the other hand that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is that of a jackal (AS SHOULD BE FOR FIG 6 IN FACSIMILE NO. 3 BUT SMITH HACKED THE SNOUT OFF AND MUTILATED HIM). . . . We have representations of priests (EARTHLY MEN) wearing masks, one example of an actual mask, literary accounts from non-Egyptians about Egyptian priests wearing masks, and even a hitherto-unrecognized Egyptian account of when a priest would wear a mask. In the midst of the embalmment ritual (FOR AN EGYPTIAN DEAD MAN), a new section is introduced with the following passage: “Afterwards, Anubis, the stolites priest (A MORTAL MAN) wearing the head of this god, sits down and no lector-priest shall approach him to bind the stolites with any work.” Thus this text settles any questions about whether masks were actually used (FOR EARTHLY CEREMONIES FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS). It furthermore identifies the individual wearing the mask as a priest (UNLIKE THE GOD ANUBIS WHO IS RESURRECTING OSIRIS IN THE PRESENCE OF ISIS IN FACSIMILE NO.1). Thus, however the restoration is made, the individual shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest (ANUBIS), and the entire question of which head should be on the figure is moot (SETTLED) so far as identifying the figure is concerned. The entire debate (BY APOLOGISTS) has been a waste of ink.

Mask, mask, masks and more masks! I'm sick of the damn mask excuse! Stop this nonsense NOW!

Gee and Muhlestein cite references of mortal priests in Egyptian funerary rituals who wore masks to simulate the god Anubis. It's all well and good that priests wore masks during certain ritualistic rites. But the Facsimile No. 1 is not such a rite. It's the actual depiction of ANUBIS assisting the actual god OSIRIS in rising from the dead and Isis is ever present ready to receive her husband. Gee and Muhlestein's pitiful attempt to marry the masks worn by mortal men with the immortal Egyptian god Abubis as portrayed in Facsimile No. 1 is a pitiful and DISHONEST attempt to justify Smith's false interpretation of the Egyptian vignette.

It's should be readily understandable why I get so upset with these two Egyptologists who continue to make a mockery of the ancient Egyptian religion for the sole purpose of justifying Smith who didn't know what he was talking about and was caught red-handed in falsely interpreting and translating Egyptian.

Yes, I confess, I'm bloody angry with Gee and Muhlestein! They are two peas in a pod -- liars and deceivers. Neither of them are honest in their dealings as they continue to shell out volumes of reprehensible apologetic nonsense that's utterly abhorrent. It's more stain upon stain of the lying ways in which Mormons defend their religion.

I call upon Ritner and 100 Egyptologists worldwide to denounce the apologetic use of the "mask" to defend Smith's wrong interpretation of Facsimile No. 1 and the priest's head.

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6576
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

Post by Philo Sofee »

Soooooo, if I am not mistaken, I think what you are trying to say here is that you have a testimony..... :biggrin:
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

Post Reply