Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

[_Shulem]

Ba of Osiris originally had a human head

Another perversion of Egyptian funerary art made by Smith has to do with the Egyptian Ba which is an aspect of a person's soul represented in bird form but always having a human head. The body of the bird is representative of the ability to move about freely while the soul of the person is contained in the image of the human head.

Joseph Smith likened Fig.1 in Facsimile No. 1 as the "Angel of the Lord". He drew a bird head wherein the human face was missing due to the damaged papyrus. Smith was wrong to do that. The face drawn by the Egyptian artist on the original papyrus was human in form and represented the soul of Osiris rising on the lion bed.

No amount of apologetic obfuscating can justify Smith's restoration of the Ba by adding a bird head and denying what was original to the scene. Smith's bogus restoration was false and the apologists today become liars in defending it because they know better thanks to modern Egyptology and the myriad of images of Bas depicted on authentic ancient Egyptian walls and papyri.

I think it's safe to say that Smith was simply trying to introduce a Christian effect wherein the "Sign of the Dove" (see Facsimile No. 2 Fig. 7) would make his followers believe the papyrus really was from Abraham who foreshadowed the coming of Christ and the dove at his baptism.

[_Shulem]

The so-called "Angel of the Lord" which Smith identifies in Facsmile No.1 may be fully viewed on the original papyrus at the Joseph Smith Papers at this link: Facsimile No.1.

The brethren in Kirtland made a sketch of the "Angel of the Lord" as it appeared in the papyrus in effort to figure out how to restore the original image. The notebook containing this sketch is available in high resolution here: Notebook of Copied Characters

Notice that the Ba and one of the gods under the lion bed has been sketched in the upper right corner together, side by side for a comparison. It's plainly obvious that the brethren are making a clear cut connection between one of the gods under the lion bed which just so happens to have a bird head. Obviously, the brethren were attempting to make a clear and deliberate attempt to morph the images into one as shown in the stylized bird of Facsimile No. 1 of the Times and Seasons.

Here is a cut from my old apologetic website, although a poor quality photocopy, you can see essentially what's now available at the Joseph Smith Papers linked above:




Sketch of the headless bird in the papyrus of Facsimile No.1



Sketch of one of the gods (Fig. 5 far right) under the lion bed:





Sketch compared to the god (No. 5) as shown on the actual papyrus

The end result is the mutation of morphing the surviving body of the bird in the original papyrus with the head of one of the gods under the lion bed:


Smith's mutation of the Ba

[_Shulem]

QUESTION for John Gee:

Aside from the fact that the head is all wrong, and in view of the fact that the original papyrus shows Anubis with his left shoulder and left leg forward in standard pose, why does Smith's reconstruction show the right shoulder and right leg forward and standing on the wrong side of the lion bed?

Take note, RFM, that's a killer question and has follow-ups just as deadly.

[_Shulem]

QUESTION for John Gee:

Will you agree that the elongated back and rear shoulder blade for Smith's priest has an angle that doesn't match the conventional Egyptian pose shown on the papyrus and that the contour of the angular line of the rear shoulder blade inadvertently replaced the flowing outline of a headdress?

[ ] Yes
[ ] No
[ ] Don't know

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

For anyone paying attention check out this scene with Anubis:

https://ancientneareastdotorg.files.wor ... -mummy.jpg

Now go back and look at the ‘Joseph Smith papyrus’, and you can see a corner of the headdress.

Fascinating stuff, Shulem! Without your diligence this whole Book of Abraham affair would’ve been a foggy mystery to someone like myself. You’ve really done us a huge service by bringing into sharp focus the changes made to the Church’s papyri and, really, just how disrespectful the Church has been to Egyptian history by pushing their false narrative.

- doc

[_Shulem]

Thank you Doctor CamNC4Me for your kind regards and for appreciating my contribution to the cause in addressing the Book of Abraham controversies. I'm sure there are others who feel as you do and I thank them for putting up with my antics. There is a great deal more I wish to express and will happily continue to support the cause. I am proud of consiglieri who has stepped up to the plate and is taking the bull by the horns. Philo also is probably working feverishly in putting his own production together and I'm sure it will not disappoint. I have to believe that our collective efforts will help in finally putting an end to the publication of the Facsimiles in Mormon canon.

[Guest]

Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.

This is just so wrong in so many ways. Nothing could be further from the truth. Smith was dead wrong. He was guessing. He was fantasizing. He was making stuff up and creating his own world view of what he thought it should be.

"Pillars of heaven" is not what the series of interconnected rectangles represent. Smith was wrong. He knew nothing of Egyptian architectural motif anymore than he knew the Egyptian language. Smith's claim of so-called "pillars of heaven" is just the opposite of what the symbols represent. This is getting to be quite a habit for Smith in getting everything diametrically opposed to the truth and interpreting Egyptian iconography in opposite to what is factually true. The rectangles aren't pillars in heaven but are bricks (or stone) on earth! Other examples of Smith's blunders are shown in Facsimile No. 3, women are men and a god is a slave -- a vile Asiatic (Abraham) sitting on a god's throne in heaven! Smith's interpretations were almost always the opposite of the truth! It's really rather bizarre. It's a freak show!!!

But I digress. Back to Fig. 11, which is the baseline of the drawing and the foundation upon which the site is geographically located seeing the temple walls or palace facade in which it represents is ever adjacent to the Nile river and the Egyptian crocodile. The scene is in Egypt, period. You can forget about the so-called plain of Olishem. The Egyptian artist was mindful of proximity and convention using art to show the importance and placement of each particular layer or concept. The building is near the Nile, the Nile hosts the crocodile, the crocodile is near the lion bed where Osiris is rising. Proximity and geographic design is part of the message of the papyrus!

Robert Ritner gives an excellent sumnation of fig. 11, in Part I, advance forward to the 1:46:00 mark.

Ritner tells us that the series of rectangular shapes represent a niched bricking motif, a standard feature of Egyptian design that goes back to early Egypt and has interconnections between Egypt and Sumer brick archetecture and is used as a baseline in design for Egyptian art.

Everything Smith said about Facsimile No.1, from top to bottom, was essentially false -- it's just wrong, all of it. The text of the Book of Abraham attempts to take the scene out of Egypt to some fantasized place in Chaldea. That too is wrong. The Facsimile Explanations and the site or location as told in the story of the Book of Abraham is wrong. John Gee can search for the plain of Olishem until the day he dies but he will never find it not even after he dies!

Sorry John, but you're wrong and you can blame Joseph Smith for that.

[_consiglieri]

You have been busy being brilliant, my good friend!

Among other salient points, why indeed does Joseph Smith locate facsimile 1 in Egypt when the text places him in Olishem?

Brilliant!!!

[Guest]

You have been busy being brilliant, my good friend!

Among other salient points, why indeed does Joseph Smith locate facsimile 1 in Egypt when the text places him in Olishem?

Brilliant!!!

Thank you, kind sir.



The anomaly of Smith's geographic contradiction for his story narrative seems to be a rare careless error on Smith's part. He had plenty of practice in writing and arranging the Book of Mormon which has lots of geographic reference for locations and how they are directionally interrelated.

I could speculate why this might have occurred but speculation in this regard is only conjecture; for example: The story was written in stages over the course of years with the first chapter written years before publication and kept only in manuscript form. Details about geography may not have been as fresh on Smith's mind when he was busily working with the press arranging the Facsimile and Explanations for publication.

Here is page Second Amendment which consists SOLELY of the Explanations for Facsimile No.1:

A Fac-Similee from the Book of Abraham—
Explanation of the <​above​> cut.

Now, let me share with you something interesting about the printer's manuscript of the first installment of the Book of Abraham (note page 4 is missing) consisting of 26 pages all in the writing of Willard Richards. Note the format for page numbering and content as follows:

1 Text

1a Blank

2 Text

Second Amendment Explanations of Facsimile No.1

3 Text

3a Blank

Etc.

Notice how text is only on one side of the page (accept for the case of the Explanations!) This keeps the ink from bleeding through the other side of the page. But notice (click link above) that the Explanations of Facsimile No.1 were included on page Second Amendment which is the only time ink is placed on the backside of a page! This can only mean that the Explanations were ADDED LAST after the manuscript was fully completed by Willard Richards. So it was in effect AFTERTHOUGHT material provided for publication at the last minute. (But evidence does show information for the Explanations was known previously as shown in Appleby's testimony but it's curious that they are in this manuscript in the order shown above.)

So, Smith may have felt rushed -- working on the side putting his Explanations together and handing them off to Willard Richards to insert in the manuscript where he wanted them put (they could have been put on p 14a at the end but Second Amendment was near the beginning which is where it was finally published). Smith forgot that the sacrifice setting was way out yonder in Chaldea on his stupid plain of Olishem and inadvertently assigned fig. 10 as representing Abraham in Egypt. But, I've been able to show that it's impossible for the libation stand dressed with a lotus, flowers, and pots, to be anywhere other than Egypt RIGHT NEXT TO THE LION BED which was on the Nile river!

John Gee, you lose -- you're beaten!

[_Shulem]

The Book of Abraham is an insult to intelligence. It insults my intelligence too! It offends me and discredits what I know about Egyptology in an attempt to bamboozle me. Smith's little novel of pretended history is an insult to modern Egyptology and a disgrace in representing the ancient Egyptians. The text of the Book of Abraham is simply awful. The book has no redeeming value and should be discarded by anyone who loves truth. Sadly, the book is embraced by those who choose to continue the fantasy in thinking that Smith wrote a genuine historical account. But nothing could be further from the truth! Smith's story is not genuine and neither is it historical. Anachronisms in the story are sure telltale signs that Smith was ignorantly making things up. Some of these anachronisms are explained at Mormon Think The Book of Abraham and Robert Ritner discussed them in the podcasts. Some of the most common or well known anachronisms in Book of Abraham text include the following names:

1. Egyptus
2. Pharaoh
3. Chaldea
4. Potiphar

Smith peppered his story with a number of fictitious names and made things up as he went along. If the Book of Abraham was truly a genuine historic piece of work it would have included genuine and historic Egyptian terms. It does not! In Smith's writings we plainly see in full view that his story is counterfeit -- a forgery produced by a 19th century conman pretending to translate ancient Egyptian.

Many Mormons today will freely admit that Smith couldn't translate Egyptian but that he nonetheless through revelation restored the story of Abraham. I can only imagine how upset Smith would be if he were alive today to see his fraud uncovered and exposed to the entire world. It would surely be an embarrassment to him and perhaps he'd lose his false testimony and the will to continue to deceive anyone and everyone which was his nature.

Bottom line, there is nothing in Facsimile No.1 to show that Smith's interpretations were genuine and historic. Not a single thing! The idolatrous god of Mahmackrah and Korash under the lion bed? Don't make me laugh! Don't insult my intelligence! I know better than that!

Get behind me Satan! Get behind me you Mormons!