“Another note regarding Facsimile Three is in order. It has received the least amount of scholarly study and attention, and thus it has the least debate associated with it. As with the other two facsimiles, some have highlighted incongruences between Egyptological interpretations and Joseph Smith’s explanations as evidence for disbelief in Joseph Smith, and these are similarly based on unsupported assumptions about the Prophet’s intentions…
There is a key difference with Facsimile Three compared to the other two: the explanations for Facsimile Three label some of the hieroglyphs above the heads of the figures differently than the way I would translate them as an Egyptologist. As an LDS Egyptologist, it seems to me that the most likely explanation for this is that Joseph Smith was teaching either how ancient Jews or a small set of ancient Egyptians would have interpreted the drawings or how we should interpret them, after which he then assumed that the glyphs would translate that way. Again, Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to read hieroglyphs. This particular issue has not yet received much scholarly attention.”
Notice how Muhlestein is simply ad hoc excusing away the errors in the Facsimile Three. It’s a little bit too convenient however. Assumptions? No, it is direct Egyptological knowledge that Smith's Egyptian translation is wrong. Speaking of assumptions, notice Muhlestein's. There is no evidence of any kind that Joseph Smith was associating his “translation” of the hieroglyphs in Facsimile Three with some ancient Jews. Where on earth did that come from? Muhlestein’s fantasy, of course. There is no evidence that it was only a small set of Egyptians who interpreted the hieroglyphs that way either. Muhlestein is simply making stuff up to save Joseph Smith from error.
There is a reason Facsimile Three has received the least amount of attention. It is because it is indefensible. Even as an Egyptologist, Muhlestein would refute Smith’s translation! He admits that! Does he not recognize what this means? So If Joseph Smith simply assumed that was how hieroglyphs should translate, how can we be sure he didn’t do this all the way through all the scriptures he ever pretended to translate?! Does Muhlestein not get how stupid this apologetic actually is?!
And who does he think he is kidding when he says Joseph Smith did not claim to be able to read hieroglyphs??? Smith directly described what the hieroglyphs said and where they were located. What else is this than him being able to read them? Within 3 short days of receiving the papyri Joseph Smith claimed he was reading them and finding entire books in the papyri! You know, the ones he said were the Book of Abraham and the Book of Joseph? How many hieroglyphs would he have had to have looked at and “read” to acquire that information? He directly says he was translating the papyri. And the real kick in the butt of reality is many of his followers and even his scribes said he did this translating either through the Urim and Thummim, or direct inspiration from heaven. In that case, not even God knows how to read the hieroglyphs correctly. That is the implication that terrifies the LDS Apologists. There is more here on the line than many suppose.
Is Joseph Smith’s English here beyond apologetic scholarly acumen to grasp? Once again, the anti-Mormon who told me what they did is entirely true. All you have to do with the apologists claims is simply quote Joseph Smith back at them. They obviously don’t believe what he said, because he thought it safe back then, and back then it was. But today Joseph Smith is caught in the snare, and so apologists have to lie for Joseph Smith in order to extract him out of his errors. But he talked too much and left too much evidence behind for us to grasp the truth.
And finally, Robert K. RItner has demonstrated why there should not be any more time wasted on facsimile three It is entirely, in totality wrong. Joseph Smith blew it with that one, entirely. That is the simplest explanation based on clear evidence that apologists attempt to warp. When apologists actually show how Ritner is wrong in his assessment, and the evidence gets him to change his mind because his view is Egyptologically sound, then and only then can we give the LDS Egyptologist a nod of agreement. Until then, no soap bubbles cowboy.
