Kerry Muhlestein wrote:We live in an era of online communications
This environment has provided a plethora of information to communicate with each other.
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:If these online communications have a downside, it is ensuring the accuracy of the information they convey. Many are accurate
I think mine is accurate. I quote Joseph Smith, his associates, and other credible eyewitnesses. Then I provide reasonable, thoughtful, and logical comments about what they said. Do you think that's something you might like to try, Kerry?
Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:I will probably continue to participate in such venues on some occasions in the future. When I do participate, I try to do all I can to make sure that the platform will encourage and maintain an appropriate kind of accurate discourse.
I look forward to Muhlestein making an appearance on Radio Free Mormon. Perhaps this would be a wonderful opportunity for Kerry to express himself and help RFM see the errors of his ways?
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:I will use one example. In one recent podcast Joseph Smith was attacked for what the guest felt was an inaccurate reconstruction of a missing part of a drawing on a papyrus. The debated point is whether a now-missing depiction of a head should have been of a human head or the head of the Egyptian god Anubis. If that part of the papyrus were already missing, then Joseph Smith seems to have directed the engraver of the facsimile to depict the figure with a human head, although we cannot be positive even on that point. In the podcast it was stated that this is not how such depictions were drawn, and thus Joseph Smith was inaccurate.
Please bring your knowledge of Church history coupled with Egyptology to the table and discuss this matter on Radio Free Mormon.
Kerry 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.
President Smith, chief editor for the Times and Seasons made explicit statements about his involvement in making the Facsimile reproductions. He was very much in charge. He wanted things done exactly as he prescribed. He said so. He also said he was responsible for all of it. It's simply a matter of taking what Smith said at face value. That is exactly what I do and I encourage you to do the same.
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:In fact, a good scholarly treatment of this vignette should admit that there are enough unusual things about it that we cannot honestly claim that we fully understand what is going on with it.
How about you appear on Radio Free Mormon and discuss this matter with RFM?
Kerry Muhlestein wrote:Additionally, whether originally the drawing depicted Anubis’s jackal head or the head of a human, it would have been understood that the role being performed would have been performed by a priest. Perhaps it was a priest representing Anubis, but a priest nonetheless.
Here is where you are wrong: Egyptology 101. This is not a scene for an Egyptian
priest who dons a mask. This is a scene depicting the actual god Anubis who needs no mask because he's a jackal although he is in human form rather than his natural four footed jackal form! Hello, Kerry, it's Egypt 101! This is a scene with the actual god Osiris rising on his lion bed. The scene in Facsimile No.3 is not an earthly scene where a priest would wear a mask. It's a scene in heaven. That is really Anubis whom Smith :question: mutilated -- not a man with a mask.
Kerry, let me ask you a simple question. When you see Anubis featured on tomb walls in his full jackal form having four legs and feet; is he donning a mask?
[ ] YES
[ ] NO
What makes you think human form Anubis in heaven is a mortal priest from earth donning a mask? Please explain your reasoning. Please, just answer the above question and let's discuss real Egyptology.