back on the old board read a witness account of the papyri that you posted and found it interesting:
Rev. Henry Caswall wrote:
The storekeeper now proceeded to redeem his promise of obtaining for me access to the curiosities. He led the way to a room behind his store, on the door of which was an inscription to the following effect: “Office of Joseph Smith, President of the Church of Latter Day Saints.” . . . Turning to another of the drawers, and pointing to a hieroglyphic representation, one of the Mormons said, “Mr. Smith informs us that this picture is an emblem of redemption. Do you see those four little figures? Well, those are the four quarters of the earth. And do you see that big dog looking at the four figures? That is the old Devil desiring to devour the four quarters of the earth. Look at this person keeping back the big dog. That is Christ keeping the devil from devouring the four quarters of the earth. Look down this way.
Doesn’t this account support your theory that the extant copy of fac. 3 did have a traditional depiction of Anubis, and that he was altered by Hedlock/Smith?
That particular reference of the "big dog" does not refer to the Book of Abraham or Facsimile No. 3. It is a reference to another papyrus had by Smith and treated with the same sensational BS as the Book of Abraham (Hor) and Joseph (Ta-Sherit-Min) scrolls.
Refer to the zoomed shot below featuring the proposed "Mark of the Square" which I've referenced earlier along with the round notching to the right of the cut. I'm entertaining the idea that an attempt to separate papyrus (remove the jackal head) may have been rudely attempted prior to making those definite cuts. In other words, Smith pulled on the papyrus and pulled it out of alignment on the weak crack shown in the second photo below. Notice how the contour of the leg lines are out of alignment as if the papyrus was pulled out of whack causing it to shift. Hence the legs have been split by the break. Do you see what I mean?
I'm exploring every possibility. Bear with me. Was the papyrus brutally pulled in an attempt to tear out the jackal head?
Look, I'm just trying to get to the bottom of things. I know in my heart and mind that there was a jackal head in the original Facsimile No. 1 papyrus. Whether Smith removed it or not, I honestly don't know for sure. But I want to find out and in doing so the facts have to be carefully examined and every angle has to be considered. I'm not a crackpot. I'm an investigator and if my investigation leads me to believe that the head was removed, then so be it. Just give me the facts and let's look at it.
Retrace the steps. What could have happened? What might have happened. What DID happen?
Thank you for your contribution and feel free to make as many you like. Yes, the Church is moving the Facsimiles away from the narrative. It's long been a matter of speculation that the Facsimiles will eventually be removed from a future edition of the Pearl of Great Price. The days are numbers and they will be gone!
You are correct that the Church refers readers to a modern version of the Sacrifice Scene and NOT to Facsimile No. 1. This is manifest by:
1. CHAPTER 1
2. Scroll down to verse 15
3. Click on the photograph ICON located in the empty margin to the right of the verse
4. The image appears to the far right with the caption written below: An Angel Saves Abraham
Note that Abraham hardly looks a day over 30 and he looks like he was born and raised in Tulsa Oklahoma.
Also note that he doesn't have a beard. Hardly fitting for an Asiatic!
What a joke!
Also note that the priest is wielding the dagger the way the pencil drawing has it as opposed to the final version.
Also note that the priest is wielding the dagger the way the pencil drawing has it as opposed to the final version.
Modern LDS artist Del Parson may have been influenced by the sketch on the paper backing. Surely he had carefully studied the papyrus fragment and took Abraham's handiwork into consideration prior to producing his work that is now touted by the Church as the preferred version. Obviously he chose the sketched version over the official one offered by Reuben Hedlock in the Times and Seasons. It tends to make me think that Mr. Parson doesn't find the final version to be very convincing, certainly not as dramatic.
One very disappointing aspect of Parson's imagined sacrifice scene is the lion head on the altar. That hardly looks like a lion. It looks more like a lamb. In fact, I think that Parson is trying to pull a fast one and incorporate the image of a lamb in what is suppose to be a lion head. How so? The ears flop down just like a lamb's. Lion ears tend to point up, more erect. I just get the impression of a lamb -- like a lamb to the slaughter, perhaps for the purpose of reinforcing the idea that an actual sacrifice is taking place?
Another bit of dramatic license taken by the modern artist is the positioning of the Egyptian jackal-headed god (Duamutef) at center, before the altar. Notice how the statue has come to life and is given the priest a bit of a nod to go ahead and get on with the sacrifice. In opposition to that, an angel (looks life a surfer from LA) comes to the rescue as if to oppose the stone jackal god and stop the priest.
My Gawd. I can't believe the Church gets away with this crap. Its a psychological trick into making something into something that never was. The jackal head does not look up in the original papyrus scene!
Refer to the zoomed shot below featuring the proposed "Mark of the Square" which I've referenced earlier along with the round notching to the right of the cut. I'm entertaining the idea that an attempt to separate papyrus (remove the jackal head) may have been rudely attempted prior to making those definite cuts. In other words, Smith pulled on the papyrus and pulled it out of alignment on the weak crack shown in the second photo below. Notice how the contour of the leg lines are out of alignment as if the papyrus was pulled out of whack causing it to shift. Hence the legs have been split by the break. Do you see what I mean?
A good counter argument to the accusation that Smith pulled on the papyrus and caused the split to tear and pull the figure out of alignment would be that the papyrus was thoroughly tacked down by the glue and therefore couldn't move. That's a pretty good way to counter the argument when ASSUMING that section of the fragment was wholly bound to the paper with good adhesion. Can we not question whether there may have been pockets that were not quite secure, maybe even the fragment had some floppiness?
All this is my conjecture, of course.
THEN, there is another thing to consider, quite reasonable. Can we say that we don't know that Smith tore out the jackal head prior to mounting the fragment to the paper?
I realize these are fantastic accusations but everything has to be taken into consideration and all possibilities must be considered EXCEPT FOR THE POSSIBILITY THAT SMITH KNEW HOW TO TRANSLATE EGYPTIAN INTO ENGLISH. He did not.
Refer to the zoomed shot below featuring the proposed "Mark of the Square" which I've referenced earlier along with the round notching to the right of the cut. I'm entertaining the idea that an attempt to separate papyrus (remove the jackal head) may have been rudely attempted prior to making those definite cuts. In other words, Smith pulled on the papyrus and pulled it out of alignment on the weak crack shown in the second photo below. Notice how the contour of the leg lines are out of alignment as if the papyrus was pulled out of whack causing it to shift. Hence the legs have been split by the break. Do you see what I mean?
A good counter argument to the accusation that Smith pulled on the papyrus and caused the split to tear and pull the figure out of alignment would be that the papyrus was thoroughly tacked down by the glue and therefore couldn't move. That's a pretty good way to counter the argument when ASSUMING that section of the fragment was wholly bound to the paper with good adhesion. Can we not question whether there may have been pockets that were not quite secure, maybe even the fragment had some floppiness?
Hi Shulem, considering the gluing, especially the mismatch area, I posted earlier
In the picture from the Joseph Smith papers site, I notice that a vertical glue break runs up through the headless guy, as though when they were laying down pieces to glue, they put a swipe of glue down vertically, then tried to match up the edges.
Starting at about the guy's knees, the matching up starts to go wrong. Maybe a fold wouldn't flatten out, or they tried to scooch them together and clumped the glue, like the long bubbly seam you get when you use too much glue, but in any case, by the time you get to the body that is between the two legs of the one laying down, the matching of the two pieces is clearly off.
Finally, by the time the two pieces end, it's off by a lot. Right above that, the drawing in starts....
That, plus the bubble of glue that seems to ooze up between the two mismatched pieces at the bottom, is why I don't think the glue was loose enough that a pull, while tearing off a piece, would displace the edges to that extent.
Last edited by Lem on Fri Jan 22, 2021 7:44 pm, edited 3 times in total.
