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: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Unconventional historical theories

Post by Shulem »

Shulem wrote:
Mon Sep 14, 2020 8:26 pm

Historical narrative begins in Chapter 1 of the Book of Abraham

EARTH IS FLOODED AND EIGHT SOULS SURVIVE

> The Flood; Noah age 600
> Ark sails away from Jackson County Missouri
> Ark settles in the New World on mount Ararat
> Shem begat Arphaxad 2 years after the flood
> Arphaxad age 35 begat Salah
> Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus
> Salah age 30 begat Eber
> The first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus
In case anyone may be wondering, I'll state for the record, I've even attempted an Immanuel Velikovsky in trying to make Smith's chronology work by attempting to fabricate my own version of an Ages in Chaos by dating the Old Kingdom before the Flood and asserting that the First Intermediate Period beginning with the so-called Egyptian 7th Dynasty, a chaotic anomaly of Egyptian history -- a clear and utter break that can't be properly explained by anyone but was merely a garbled account of First-Egypt coming to an end by Noah's flood when thereafter Second-Egypt sprang to life according to Smith's Book of Abraham account.

The idea of putting the Great Pyramids before the Flood in the days of Enoch and Adam makes for so many problems that it simply defies science and all reality -- you have to put the world in a dream state where the laws of science totally break down and become like a cartoon or a dream wherein reality and unreality are mixed into a a state of chaos. Entertaining that theory was an interesting exercise in abandoning all sense of reality in hopes of making Mormonism come true, all for the cause of defending Joseph Smith's historical Egyptian tale. When I think of how much time I've wasted in attempting to do those things I have to wonder what the hell was wrong with me? Maybe nothing was wrong with me. Maybe that is what I was meant to do so that I could be here today and present this thread?

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Smith's violence

Post by Shulem »

The KNIFE displayed in the Mormon version of Facsimile No. 1 is for all intents and purposes an ACT OF VIOLENCE directly out of the mind of Joseph Smith. Smith had a fascination with violence and this is demonstrated in his Book of Abraham novel wherein countless acts of violence are portrayed in the Book of Mormon, everything from chopping off hands to destroying whole cities full of men, woman, and children.

Smith's introduction of the KNIFE into Facsimile No. 1 was simply more of the violence locked up in his own mind. Smith raped the Facsimile and polluted it with his own violent nature in making something conform to his own imagination. What Smith did to the Facsimile No. 1 could be likened or compared to describing a Christmas card with a manger scene of the Christ child as being a human sacrifice wherein Joseph is about to slit the poor child's throat on a bale of hay after first sacrificing the Virgin Mother to the local gods because she refused to worship them. Hey fair is fair! Live by the sword you die by the sword. If Smith can paint a knife into the hand of an Egyptian god (Anubis) and claim he's attempting to kill the most honorable man (Osiris) who ever lived then why not take the Christmas scene and turn it into a bloody horror story? What Smith did is just as bad!

But we know there was no knife in the papyrus of Facsimile No. 1. No knife means no sacrifice which means the Book of Abraham was an idea dreamed up by Smith's fascination with violence.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Muhlestein loves to exaggerate

Post by Shulem »

Kerry Muhlestein wrote: At the same time there were several things which were not stated in the podcast. For example, the glue marks suggest that the part of the drawing in question, which is missing now, was not always missing. It is quite possible, perhaps even probable, that it was actually in place when Joseph Smith first had the papyri, and that the facsimile was based on what he had actually seen at one point. Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.
Let's return to the asinine statement made earlier by Muhlestein which has already been commented on but deserves more commentary in light of how bad it is. First, we all know that Muhlestein is an EXAGGERATOR such as his "millions" of "mummies" at his Egyptian dig site. Muhlestein loves to exaggerate!

Now look at his statement above: "quite possible" that there could have been a chunk of papyrus in place where there is now lacuna. How about just say, "possible" and leave off the "quite"? Saying "quite" makes it sound like it's really, really, really possible or, "perhaps even probable", which was what came out of his next breath! Kerry want us to think that there is an excellent chance that Smith actually saw a man's head and a knife on the papyrus before it fell apart and Smith had faithfully recorded those details in his restoration. This is Muhlestein's little way (trick up his sleeve) of leading his readers down a garden path of deception.

We know there NEVER was a knife. That's not even possible because it defies all logic and common sense and what would Abubis need a knife for while Osiris is rising from the dead? So, no, it's not possible that there was a knife on the original. The remnants of the headdress wipe out Muhlestein's possibility for a man's head. Smith's restoration of the head and knife shown in the crude sketch drawn on the paper backing is WHAT was original to his mind and was the first attempt in making his restoration of what he never actually got to see in the first place because the lacuna was ever present when he opened the roll. Hence, Smith never saw a knife or a man's head!

Muhlestein has ZERO evidence to support the idea that a knife or man's head was original to the papyrus. Absolutely no evidence whatsoever! Funerary art and design won't hint of any evidence either. Muhlestein's faith in Smith's restoration is all he has to go on. That's all he has, hence his hands come up empty.

User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 5:37 pm

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

Post by Res Ipsa »

That's a pretty amazing attempt to make something out of absolutely nothing.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Sep 15, 2020 10:51 am
That's a pretty amazing attempt to make something out of absolutely nothing.
Which is what apologists do sometimes to make it look like they really do have something to show for. Let's look again at the closing statement Muhlestein made and it becomes obvious he's not overly familiar with what Smith actually said and did.
Muhlestein wrote:Further, we cannot tell the extent to which Reuben Hedlock, the artist, was acting on Joseph Smith’s instruction and how much was his own initiative.
What? The big day of finally getting to publish the first installment of the Book of Abraham including Facsimile No. 1 which features Hedlock's reproduction of the Sacrifice Scene and Muhlestein isn't sure to what extent Smith was involved? Come on, Muhlestein, this was the big day and you can be sure Smith (Editor in Chief) was breathing over the shoulders of everyone working at the press and would have supervised and approved Hedlock's design of the plate. Wilford Woodruff was very excited and recorded the events in his journal.
Woodruff wrote:Joseph has had these records in his possession for several years but has never presented them before the world in the English language until now, but he is now about to publish it to the world, or parts of it, by publishing it in the Times and Seasons for Joseph the Seer is now the Editor of that paper and Elder Taylor assists him in writing while it has fallen to my lot to take charge of the business part of the establishment. I have had the privilege this day of assisting in the setting the type for printing the first piece of the Book of Abraham that is to be presented to the inhabitants of the earth in the last days.
Woodruff wrote:We prepared a plate for making a cut at the commencement of the Book of Abraham which is to be published in the 9 No. of the 3 Vol. of the Times and Seasons.
Smith makes it perfectly clear, there can be no mistake about it, unbeknownst to Muhlestein, Smith was EXTENSIVELY involved in the production of the Facsimile plate of the Sacrifice Scene:
Joseph Smith wrote:During the afternoon I was at my office and the printing office, correcting the first plate or cut of the records of Father Abraham, prepared by Reuben Hedlock, for the Times and Seasons, and in council in my office, in the afternoon; and in the evening with the Twelve and their wives at Elder Woodruff's, at which time I explained many important principles in relation to progressive improvement in the scale of intelligent existence.
How much more clear can it be that Smith supervised and approved the plate which Hedlock crafted for publication?

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

Johnny Cash in Facsimile No. 1?

Post by Shulem »

1) Click the link below to view Facsimile No. 1 in Lucy Mack's portrait:
2) Hover over the Facsimile and click the magnifier (+) to increase the image size

Portrait of Smith in Nauvoo -- and a vignette from the Book of Abraham is on the wall

There can be no doubt about it! Look closely. How did the artist envision the so-called priest?

Is he a black man, a negro? No.

Black as in Anubis? No.

He's a white man dressed in black! Just look at the head and the hand -- the skin is white. The arm, body, legs, and feet are black because they are black CLOTHING! Notice the collar and the kilt are accessories to the clothing. I had never noticed that before!! The man is dressed in BLACK, not unlike Johnny Cash, the man in black. This is how the artist visualized Smith's priest in the publication of the Facsimile. This goes to show just how WRONG the Mormons (including Smith) were in interpreting Egyptian iconography. It's so far off the mark. Everything Smith said about Facsimile No. 1 was far off the mark!

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

GEE wrote:Abraham’s homeland was incorporated as part of the Egyptian empire under the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs Sesostris III and his son, Amenemhet III, but it was then lost to the subsequent pharaohs. This provides a historical date for the events of the first chapter of the Book of Abraham.

At that time Egypt practiced human sacrifice, as historical and archaeological evidence both attest. It was a ritual (Abraham 1:7–11, 15) directed against religious offenders (Abraham 1:5–6) that could take place either in Egypt or in areas Egypt influenced (Abraham 1:1, 10, 20).
Show me an inscription where these so-called human sacrifices were performed using a lion bed and an Egyptian priest who is DRESSED IN BLACK. I want to see the priest wearing a black costume having a human head. Egyptian priests wore white linen and leopard skins about their person. Where are these black dressed priests? There are numerous executions scenes depicted on walls and stone monuments throughout dynastic Egypt and I've yet to see a BLACK clothed priest waving a knife at a lion bed performing a human sacrifice.

The Mormon Egyptologists have NOTHING to back this assertion other than the false restoration of Smith's pseudo-Egyptology of Facsimile No. 1.

John Gee is a liar. Liar, liar, pants on fire!

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

Image

Standing proud underneath the lion bed are four stone vessels in the image of the Four Sons of Horus lined up in their duty as keepers of the mummy's viscera. The Book of the Dead provides the necessary spells to grant resurrection in the afterlife.

Joseph Smith's pseudo-Egyptology assigns fictitious names for the Four Sons of Horus. No Egyptian priest from any dynasty would know these names as divine representations of funerary magic associated with the lion bed.

Elkenah
Libnah
Mahmackrah
Korash

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

Facsimile No. 1 wrote:Fig. 12. Raukeeyang, signifying expanse, or the firmament over our heads
What Egyptian priest from any dynasty calls the sky by Raukeeyang and not pet? This pseudo-Egyptology asserted by Smith is utter rubbish and has no place in modern Egyptology let alone ancient Egypt. The word Raukeeyang is not inscribed on any tomb wall or penned on any papyrus in ancient Egypt. Smith's inventions are a product of his own mind and do NOT speak for the Egyptians.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

Facsimile No. 1 wrote:the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau, to be high, or the heavens, answering to the Hebrew word, Shaumahyeem.
No, the Egyptians did not signify anything by Shaumau or Shaumahyeem. This is more garbage made up by Smith in a vain attempt to connect the ancient Egyptian language to Smith's Hebrew brand of pseudo-Egyptology. The notion is entirely false. Hebrew is not written on tomb walls in Egypt. There is no such thing as Shaumau or Shaumahyeem written or spoken in ancient Egypt.

No nonMormon Egyptologist puts any stock into this garbage. Mormon Egyptologists are paid by BYU to lie and spit out crummy articles to support Smith's pseudo-Egyptology. These articles that contain Smith's pseudo-nonsense are not peer-reviewed or approved by their peers.

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

Another witness beside Robert Ritner

Egyptologist JUAN JOSÉ CASTILLOS
Egyptologist JUAN JOSÉ CASTILLOS wrote: The other item I would like to discuss here is the book, "The Pearl of Great Price" in what concerns egyptology, that is, the three figures that accompany the Book of Abraham and are called "Facsimiles" of such a book.

Number 1 consists of the very common scene of Anubis (which here appears with a human head) embalming the deceased, under the bed there are the four canopic jars containing the organs extracted from the mummy and there is also a bird, which in the normal Egyptian vignettes has a human head and represents the soul (ba) of the dead person.

The detailed interpretation and translation that Joseph Smith made of these common ancient Egyptian funerary scenes is quite absurd, to put it mildly, for instance, in Number 1, the figure is seen as a pagan priest about to sacrifice Abraham and the canopic jars are described as "idols", the ba or soul of the deceased is described as "the Angel of the Lord"

. . . . . . read on to see how Smith is slammed by a modern Egyptologist

User avatar
Shulem
Son of Perdition
Posts: 12065
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm

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

Post by Shulem »

consiglieri wrote:
Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:52 pm
So how does Joseph Smith come up with two absolutely correct Egyptian theophoric suffixes for his ladies?

Ze-PTAH and Katu-MIN?

Were both Ptah and Min known as Egyptian deities by the 1840s?

Asking for a friend.
consiglieri,

I've picked up the pace and am working on Part III of Here comes the Book of Abraham which includes origins of the Book of Abraham and anachronistic terms used in chapter 1. The name Zeptah will be fully examined and I can assure you that I'm going to turn John Gee and apologists on their heads. I've got some real surprises coming out of my canon -- big time advances are being made as I assemble this piece.

It's going to be a game changer and set the apologists back with their head's spinning. There is so much yet to present but by the time I drop my chronological bombs it will spell the end of the Book of Abraham and the apologists aren't going to know what to do. Poor Gee. He's pathetic.

These are exciting times! I'm glad you're a part of it. It doesn't seem very many people here are interested in these things so ____ them. They can miss out on it.

:twisted:

Post Reply