Shout Out to Shulem!

[Moksha]

These three facts do exist:

1) Anubis is BLACK
2) Anubis is FURRY
3) Anubis don't BARK. He talks SMACK with the best of them.

[Physics Guy]

Certain RPG players of my acquaintance years ago had in-game reasons to coin a short name for religious devotion to Anubis, and they spontaneously began speaking of “Anubism”. Kind of catchy, actually.

[Shulem]

Hey Shulem! I've been thinking about this, was there a clear date when Rueben Hedlock was hired or became involved in the process? From the beginning? Or not until the printing was planned?

Lem,

The saints purchased the papyrus in the summer of 1835 and thereafter Hedlock was relatively a new member and to my knowledge had no involvement with the early Book of Abraham translation project in Kirtland. Around the time when interest resumed in publishing the Book of Abraham in Nauvoo, Hedlock was serving a mission in England and didn't return to the states until April 1841. His association with the Book of Abraham took place when Smith resumed the translation project and readied it for publication at the Times and Seasons. At that time, Hedlock was commissioned to fashion the Facsimile plates for the Times and Seasons and did so precisely according to Smith's instructions. So, as you can see, Hedlock came on the Book of Abraham scene rather late in the game and his contribution was to craft the plates.

[Shulem]

These three facts do exist:

1) Anubis is BLACK
2) Anubis is FURRY
3) Anubis don't BARK. He talks SMACK with the best of them.

He may not bark but he most certainly bites and Smith found that out when he discovered his true identity in being associated with the Egyptian Dog-star as passed down in teachings of the Masonic order. Imagine the surprise on Smith's face when he saw for the first time an image of the dog-headed Egyptian god and realized he was the Blazing Star of Masonry and NOT a slave in Pharaoh's court in which he had previously revealed.

The excellent scholarship of the Joseph Smith Papers certainly leads us to believe that Smith had ample opportunities to tell others about the persons artistically drawn into the Book of Abraham vignette featuring Abraham sitting on Pharaoh's throne -- and a black slave taking his place at the back of the room as would any negro of Smith's day.

“The saints,” read an editorial drafted in 1842, “have long been anxious to obtain a copy of these rec[o]rds.” As early as 1835, Joseph Smith and other members of the church had disseminated news of Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the Egyptian papyri. Just days after the initial purchase of the mummies and papyri by Joseph Smith and others, Amasa Lyman, a missionary preaching in western New York, “heard from Kirtland and learned concerning the translating of certain egyptian record.” William W. Phelps explained to his wife, Sally Waterman Phelps, that the papyrus rolls “contained the sacred record kept of Joseph in Pharaoh’s Court in Egypt, and the teachings of Father Abraham.” In August, a newspaper reported that Frederick G. Williams had “commenced travelling about the country” to spread news of the recent acquisition of the Egyptian records. This sharing of the news of recent discoveries continued as interested parties sought a chance to see the mummies, view the papyri, and listen to Joseph Smith speak about those objects.

1. the church disseminated news of Joseph Smith’s interpretation of the Egyptian papyri
2. Pharaoh’s Court in Egypt
3. listen to Joseph Smith speak about those objects

Before publishing the record in 1842, Joseph Smith at times spoke with visitors and associates about the mummies, the papyri, and the Book of Abraham. For example, on 11 February 1836, Joseph Smith “spent the afternoon in reading, and exibiting the Egy[p]tian records to those who called to see me.” A group of missionaries reported in late 1836 that they “viewed four Egyptian Mumies & also the Book of Abram Written by his own hand.” Anson Call recalled traveling to Far West, Missouri, in 1838. He happened upon Vinson Knight opening boxes of records, including the Bible revision manuscript and the “Egyptian Records.” Carrying the boxes to Joseph Smith, the two joined a group of Saints who were invited by Joseph Smith to “sit down and we will read to you from the translations of the Book of Abraham.” In 1841, recent convert William Appleby visited Nauvoo, Illinois, and reported his visit with Joseph Smith: “Viewed four ‘mummies,’ males, and three females, brought from ancient Thebes, in Egypt. Saw the roll of Pappyrus, and the writing thereon.”

1. Joseph Smith at times spoke with visitors and associates about the mummies, the papyri, and the Book of Abraham
2. reading, and exibiting the Egy[p]tian records
3. read to you from the translations of the Book of Abraham

[Shulem]

Certain RPG players of my acquaintance years ago had in-game reasons to coin a short name for religious devotion to Anubis, and they spontaneously began speaking of “Anubism”. Kind of catchy, actually.

Egyptologists John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein will attest that millions of ancient Egyptians lived and died having faith that the jackal headed god Anubis was an important part of their religion and vital to a successful transformation into the afterlife. The Egyptians adored and honored their god, Anubis. He was a standard icon, a sacred and necessary practice in the craft of Egyptian rites and ceremonious performance.

The sacrilegious slander published by the cruel nature of Mormonism today must be confronted and challenged by any and all who love the truth and demand that history be preserved and honored in true light and not kept prisoner in the shadowy corners of Mormonism. The Mormons are in the wrong and will eventually have no choice but to correct the record and disavow Smith's false revelation of Anubis as depicted in Facsimile No. 3. Restitution is hereby demanded!

Ultimately, I hope the criminal nature of this cover-up and long practice of deception will cost the Church billions of dollars and the loss of millions of members who walk away from an organization that constantly lies to its members.

[Lem]

Hey Shulem! I've been thinking about this, was there a clear date when Rueben Hedlock was hired or became involved in the process? From the beginning? Or not until the printing was planned?

Lem,

The saints purchased the papyrus in the summer of 1835 and thereafter Hedlock was relatively a new member and to my knowledge had no involvement with the early Book of Abraham translation project in Kirtland. Around the time when interest resumed in publishing the Book of Abraham in Nauvoo, Hedlock was serving a mission in England and didn't return to the states until April 1841. His association with the Book of Abraham took place when Smith resumed the translation project and readied it for publication at the Times and Seasons. At that time, Hedlock was commissioned to fashion the Facsimile plates for the Times and Seasons and did so precisely according to Smith's instructions. So, as you can see, Hedlock came on the Book of Abraham scene rather late in the game and his contribution was to craft the plates.

Thank you.

[Lem]

WE INTERRUPT THE SHOW TO BRING YOU THIS SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE DESK OF SHULEM

After further consultation with my crystal ball, I've come to the following conclusion:

Smith did NOT remove the jackal snout from the papyrus of the sacrifice scene in the vignette of Facsimile No. 1, while in OHIO. I will no longer entertain that possibility. The list is hereby revised for further refinement. It was the Masonic connection with Anubis the Dog-star that would have led Smith to mutilate the papyrus for the same reason he mutilated the lead plate of Facsimile No. 3.

OHIO (late 1837 or early 1838)
1. Original papyrus fragments were brought to the table for gluing
2. Glue was applied to a large sheet of of paper backing
3. Papyrus was glued to the paper backing
4. The glued dried
5. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
6. The paper backing and papyrus were cut into pieces being readied for frames
7. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
8. The fragments were set in frames under Joseph Smith's management

NAUVOO (summer of 1839 to March 1842)
1. POSSIBILITY the fragment was removed from the frame
2. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
3. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
4. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
5. POSSIBILITY that the jackal head was removed from the GLUED fragment
6. POSSIBILITY the sketch doodles were drawn
7. Later it was determined the knife would be placed in the left hand for publication

Shulem, you asked my opinion about dating the sketches and who might have drawn them, so...

in my opinion the sketch doodles were drawn in the Ohio phase, #5 or #7 above, which would require that IF the jackal head was torn out of the papyrus, it would have to have been torn out in the Ohio phase, NOT in the Nauvoo phase, but in my opinion, the jackal head was always missing, Smith did not tear it out of the papyrus.

Here's my argument, obviously lots of conjecture, please correct me if I have a factual error and I'll be happy to revise my opinion accordingly!

Before Hedlow arrived, Smith had already written the words of the book of Abraham, and described the priest with the knife. So when the papyrus were prepared for display, he needed a priest with a knife in the vignette, so someone sketched it in then, which meant either the jackal head wasn't there, or it was removed to change the head.

This rules out Hedlow being involved in any possible jackal head removal and also any sketch of priest and knife, because he came later.

However, if you argue the plates could have been prepared twice, putting the glass back on a second time in the Nauvoo phase, instill don't think Hedlow was involved, due to your prior post he was only involved for a week, focused on preparation of the cuts for printing.

in my opinion, Hedlow (Nauvoo period) saw this awful, forward facing head and knife sketch, looking very out of character with the papyrus, so when he sketched the papyrus in preparation for his lead plates, he sketched in a head more in keeping with the head on the body laying down.

Also, if you look carefully at the original laying down head in the papyrus, Hedlow's sketch resulting in the lead plate was subtly different (see ear shape, eye shading, back of head going straight into clothing instead of with a clear base of skull curving into the neck, like in the original).

I think Hedlow changed the sketch and added a new priest head, which matched the changes he made in the head laying down (ears similar, no neck going straight into clothing, silhouette of face drawn with similar features). Then, being an artist, he understood better where the knife would be in relation to the priest body, and put it in as it shows in the facsimile.

So in conclusion, in my opinion ONLY, from your chart:

The priest head and knife sketch doodles had to have been drawn in the Ohio phase, or at least were already there when Hedlow arrived. This rules out Hedlow as the one who drew the sketch doodles, more likely Smith or someone close to him.

I also think Smith didn't tear off the jackal head from the papyrus and then put the sketch in, otherwise he would have been more aware of the nose on the other jackal head and maybe removed that whole head also. I think Smith simply didn't know there should have been a jackal head there, and saw an opportunity to tell his story, so he sketched in, or had someone sketch in, a weird modern looking priest with knife.

Then, after the cuts were prepared by Hedlow, Smith saw the jackal snout in the other facsimile, realized he couldn't leave it in (for the reasons stated by Shulem), but it was too late to simply replace it, so he had the nose removed.

It's also possible Hedlow suggested shaving off the nose, if Smith got upset and told him he had to make another one, WITHOUT the jackal head. Hedlow was under severe time pressure, and redoing that whole lead printing plate would have really seemed impossible, given the time constraints. Hedlow knew the attributes of raised images on the templates and may have suggested that by shaving down the raised nose part he could make it look human.

This would also agree with your assertion that the jackal nose was not removed in the Ohio phase.

Anyway, just my two cents.

[Shulem]

Perhaps another look at the cynocephalic aspect of Smith's view of Anubis on the original papyrus is in order -- although it's pure speculation, but it aids in better understanding why Smith hacked out the snout. And that's why I'm here, to get to the bottom of the whole mess. My crystal ball reveals all.

Now, why on earth wouldn't a 19th century pro-slavery white man (Smith) retain the jackal head for the black man he labels a "slave" on an ancient document which nobody else can read other than him? Think about it! Wouldn't a dog-faced man suit the image of a slave in a king's court -- he being the lowest man on the total pole? After all, there is: King Pharaoh, Abraham, the Prince, one of the king’s principal waiters, and LAST and LEAST -- the "slave". Doesn't it seem fitting from a 19th century racist point of view that the slave get stuck with a dog's head? Think about that from a 19th century point of view! Joseph Smith thought about it long and hard.

There is little question in my mind that Smith would have left the snout in place had he not discovered the Blazing Star of Masonry was rooted in the divine myth of the ancient Egyptian Dog-star. If Smith had not learned that, he would have left his poor slave looking like a dog-man and felt perfectly justified in doing so. But knowing what he knew at that time, leaving the snout in place would undercut his revelation of Fig. 6 being a slave when in fact he knew he was a god.

So you see, in many ways and on different fronts, Smith lied about the whole thing. He was a habitual liar.

[Shulem]

Shulem, you asked my opinion about dating the sketches and who might have drawn them, so...

in my opinion the sketch doodles were drawn in the Ohio phase, #5 or #7 above, which would require that IF the jackal head was torn out of the papyrus, it would have to have been torn out in the Ohio phase, NOT in the Nauvoo phase, but in my opinion, the jackal head was always missing, Smith did not tear it out of the papyrus.

I will agree that tearing the jackal head from the vignette is a long shot and there isn't enough evidence to support such a conclusion -- but it remains a theory, and even the apologists love theories every time they say: "it could be" or "it's possible", etc. Apologists love to play the theory game while defending the Book of Abraham and I happily remind them that it works both ways!

Here's my argument, obviously lots of conjecture, please correct me if I have a factual error and I'll be happy to revise my opinion accordingly!

Before Hedlow arrived, Smith had already written the words of the book of Abraham, and described the priest with the knife. So when the papyrus were prepared for display, he needed a priest with a knife in the vignette, so someone sketched it in then, which meant either the jackal head wasn't there, or it was removed to change the head.

This rules out Hedlow being involved in any possible jackal head removal and also any sketch of priest and knife, because he came later.

It's Hedlock, not Hedlow. On some occasions his name is mispelled as Hadlock in written Church archives so you also need to be aware of that.

I will agree that Hedlock did not perform the sketch. He came on the scene too late and he's more artistically inclined than what's offered from the sketch. The freehand sketch looks very unskilled if you ask me. I've always figured it was Smith or Cowdery who did it. Cowdery was Smith's spokesman early on and was very descriptive about the papyrus and was heavily involved in the Kirtland Papers. He being a former school teacher seems most likely to have been the one to have done the doodle. The identifying of the sacrifice scene was likely announced very early on.

However, if you argue the plates could have been prepared twice, putting the glass back on a second time in the Nauvoo phase, instill don't think Hedlow was involved, due to your prior post he was only involved for a week, focused on preparation of the cuts for printing.

in my opinion, Hedlow (Nauvoo period) saw this awful, forward facing head and knife sketch, looking very out of character with the papyrus, so when he sketched the papyrus in preparation for his lead plates, he sketched in a head more in keeping with the head on the body laying down.

I think Hedlock inherited the poor doodle. All he could do was improve upon it! Hedlock being an artist would have examined all the vignettes from the scrolls in the entire collection. He would have soon noticed that Egyptians are drawn in profile not in full frontal like the doodle. That's another reason I can't imagine he drew the doodle. I believe it was Smith or Cowdery. And yes, Hedlock designed the new head after the format of the person (Osiris not Abraham) laying on the lion bed.

Also, if you look carefully at the original laying down head in the papyrus, Hedlow's sketch resulting in the lead plate was subtly different (see ear shape, eye shading, back of head going straight into clothing instead of with a clear base of skull curving into the neck, like in the original).

Indeed, Hedlock practically copied the facial features from Osiris on the lion bed. Note the eye lines, the same jagged nose, and the ear contour is a direct match. One key difference is that Osiris on the bed is wearing a skullcap and the so-called priest is not. I don't think Hedlock realized that a skullcap was defining the head and he made subtle artistic differences for variety sake.

I think Hedlow changed the sketch and added a new priest head, which matched the changes he made in the head laying down (ears similar, no neck going straight into clothing, silhouette of face drawn with similar features). Then, being an artist, he understood better where the knife would be in relation to the priest body, and put it in as it shows in the facsimile.

Hedlock managed to correctly get the head in profile position and insert it into the body. But his overall performance is a complete failure. I believe that has been pointed out quite sufficiently in my Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene, see the thread noted in my signature. I've discussed the knife in quite a bit of detail and have proven my case that the original scene never had a knife. A knife is NOT used or needed by Anubis to raise Osiris from the dead! It is not an embalming scene but a resurrection scene and the only thing in Anubis's hand would be a cup. Moreover, this scene did NOT take place during dynastic Egypt. It precedes the kings! It precedes Egyptian history! It was the time of the demigods who ruled the lands that later became dynastic Egypt. This was a time BEFORE the age of men. Noah's flood had not even been dreamed up by biblical writers.

Ha ha ha ha!

So in conclusion, in my opinion ONLY, from your chart:

The priest head and knife sketch doodles had to have been drawn in the Ohio phase, or at least were already there when Hedlow arrived. This rules out Hedlow as the one who drew the sketch doodles, more likely Smith or someone close to him.

Amen.

I also think Smith didn't tear off the jackal head from the papyrus and then put the sketch in, otherwise he would have been more aware of the nose on the other jackal head and maybe removed that whole head also. I think Smith simply didn't know there should have been a jackal head there, and saw an opportunity to tell his story, so he sketched in, or had someone sketch in, a weird modern looking priest with knife.

All of this is quite reasonable.

Then, after the cuts were prepared by Hedlow, Smith saw the jackal snout in the other facsimile, realized he couldn't leave it in (for the reasons stated by Shulem), but it was too late to simply replace it, so he had the nose removed.

And that was the easiest solution. Redoing the entire plate would have been a major setback and Hedlock might not have taken kindly to the rejection of his work. Hedlock probably figured Smith had inspired reasons for changing the facial appearance of the slave and Smith easily convinced him to make what seemed like an innocent alteration in which nobody would really care or notice.

It's also possible Hedlow suggested shaving off the nose, if Smith got upset and told him he had to make another one, WITHOUT the jackal head. Hedlow was under severe time pressure, and redoing that whole lead printing plate would have really seemed impossible, given the time constraints. Hedlow knew the attributes of raised images on the templates and may have suggested that by shaving down the raised nose part he could make it look human.

This would also agree with your assertion that the jackal nose was not removed in the Ohio phase.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Getting rid of the nose was the easiest solution. It probably took Hedlock a few minutes to carefully scrape the material away and he probably figured nobody would ever know the difference. But lo and behold -- we can see it under magnification and we are sure that Anubis has a jackal nose to go with that jackal ear atop his head.

Isn't that right, John Gee? Anubis always has a jackal nose to go with his jackal ear!

I'm sure John agrees.

[Lem]

It's Hedlock, not Hedlow....

First of all, I''m so sorry about the name thing, Shulem!

Every freaking time I spelled it, auto-correct would change it, it had headlock going for a while, plus every variation known to humankind at least once. I wouldn't be surprised if Radiohead and Heathcliffe pop up in my post.

I'll fix those. But I'm blaming Shades.