Pearl of Great Price Central Facsimile 1 as a Sacrifice Scene

[Guest]

The following image is exactly what Appleby was looking at when he copied and narrated Book of Abraham script into his journal. He identified the Priest attempting to sacrifice Abraham bound on the Altar. The fragment was undoubtedly protected behind a glass frame accompanied with Book of Abraham manuscripts to include the Explanations of the future printed Facsimiles.

This is what Appleby saw! This was the preFacsimile No.1, the lead plate was later crafted by Reuben Hedlock for press production at the Times and Seasons.

The actual papyrus and Smith's manuscript is what Appleby based his narrative on!



It's going to get good. Stay tuned. You don't want to miss out on what's to come.

[Guest]

1. "an Altar erected, with a man bound and laid thereon"
2. "Abraham lies Bound, which broke the cords by which he was bound"

Here is where Smith first gets his idea for making the Book of Abraham. See the parallel lines that run across the breeches. Notice Smith even penciled in more lines in the lacuna. Those lines are Smith's cords. See the cuffs at the end of the breeches. Those are Smith's bonds! Notice there are another set of bonds at the ankles. Both legs are wrapped about with cords and the legs are "fastened" to the altar just like it says in the Book of Abraham. Notice the motif or design of the side of the altar, those lines are cords and plenty of them to fasten anyone on the altar. They even have knots!

Abraham is bound. But look! He broke his bonds and the cords have given way. Abraham rises, leans forward, and escapes as the Angel of the Lord suddenly appears!

Hallelujah!



Are you ready to go back to Church now? Not even Robert Ritner can explain this away!



But there's more!

[Guest]

1. "Priest with a knife in his hand"
2. "Idolatrous Priest 'Elkenah' attempted to offer up Abraham as a sacrifice"

Who can miss it? Look what Joseph Smith penciled in the lacuna. Take no thought for a headdress, or a jackal head, or the very idea that the man in black IS black!

This is what Applyby saw. The plain head of a man sketched in with a clean haircut and a nice smile. But look out because his arm is raised and he has a knife! It looks sharp too. But in spite of this first rendition that Smith drew while filled with the Holy Spirit of revelation, he later commissioned Hedlock to redesign the head, arm, and knife as shown in Facsimile No.1.

Appleby had no idea what was in the other hand which disappeared into the lacuna. The knife he referenced was the one that was raised at head level and ready to fall on his intended victim. That is what Joseph Smith represented at that time.

[_consiglieri]

You are right Shulem!

That is the knife! In his RIGHT hand!

Not the left hand. The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.

Bravo!!!

[_Shulem]

You are right Shulem!

That is the knife! In his RIGHT hand!

Not the left hand. The way the knife is drawn currently looks like the idolatrous priest is going to spread butter on the father of the faithful.

Bravo!!!

Thanks for that, consiglieri. It's important to remember that the pencil sketch is an important aspect of Smith's original revelation of what he claimed to see BY THE SPIRIT of enlightenment as he was telling everyone else what he was seeing BY THE SPIRIT. Let me just say that what's so damning about the face sketched in the lacuna -- which had to be Smith's original idea seeing he possessed the papyrus and was the owner. It's totally wrong. When I say "totally", I mean 100%. Aside from the fact that the head should be that of a jackal adorned with a headdress it should be in PROFILE. But here we see Smith in his moment of inspiration has sketched in a head in full FRONTAL position showing both eyes. That is absolutely wrong! It was totally ignorant to recreate the head in that fashion. And the smirk or smile is totally outrageous to say nothing for the haircut which reflects the kind of haircut of men in Smith's era. The sketch was just wrong in every way and in every thought of the imagination in which imagination was in Smith's uninspired head. But hey, that's how Smith operated just like when he rambled off his revelations for the Doctrine and Covenants -- words just spouted out of his mouth and his ideas flowed just like when he penciled in the sketches of the lacuna.

Now, on to the knife and there is plenty to say about that knife. But suffice it to say that they abandoned the upright knife because it was obvious that it was a bit ridiculous seeing Abraham's body was on the other end of the bed and the priest is at the foot. It just didn't work, so Hedlock later fashioned the butter knife in order to get the knife closer to Abraham. Nobody knew what was in the lacuna originally but according to Smith's revelation or vision it had to be a knife. And just look at the arms sketched in to represent Abraham warding off the knife! Ridiculous. The arms and shoulders look like they should be attached to an old man having no muscle and ailing joints. It's just pathetic.

The important point I wish to make and I will be illuminating that point further is that without the KNIFE you have no Sacrifice Scene and the original claim goes unanswered and is invalid.

My question for John Gee regarding the knife in Facsimile No.1 that hovers over the body of the man on the altar is a rather simple question, none of that "we don't know", but a simple yes or no will do:

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS THE KNIFE PUBLISHED IN FACSIMILE NO. 1 OF THE TIMES AND SEASONS A CORRECT RESTORATION OF THE LACUNA SHOWING WHAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL PAPYRUS?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

You see, consiglieri, if you take away the knife then you take away the whole Book of Abraham story that was supposed to be written by Abraham's own hand upon the very papyrus Smith was translating. Take away the knife and they have NOTHING!

Do you see where I'm going with this? It's the sure sign of the nail in the coffin to disprove the Book of Abraham as nothing more than a work of fiction invented by Smith's own imaginative mind. If there is no knife then there is no Sacrificial Scene. So, how is John Gee going to answer the above question? It pins him in a corner. It wrestles him to the ground. It puts him in a full nelson where he can't escape. Just waiting for John to say, "uncle"!

Can you see how John Gee wouldn't last 5 minutes with me in a debate? I would decimate and embarrass him so fast it would make his head spin just like the priest's head drawn by Smith went from frontal to profile in an Exorcist twist. Snap!

[_Shulem]

Mormon apologists can't deny the fact that Smith abandoned the original knife and head that was penciled in on the paper backing of the lacuna for Facsimile No.1. Smith's original inspiration and illustration for the head and knife was completely abandoned. The Mormons gave themselves license to disregard the artist's original depth perception thus changing elements of original artistic composition. The Mormons add or rather invent a knife to support Smith's alleged sacrifice that was supposedly being depicted in the original scene.

These are the facts:

1. Anubis stands in FRONT of the lion bed in the original papyrus but in the Facsimile he stands BEHIND the lion bed! The Egyptian artist intended that ALL of Anubis be portrayed before the bed to indicate his importance and used that convention to convey that idea. Smith disregards the original intent of the artist showing Anubis featured as more prominent than the bed. The legs of Osiris are shown in front of Anubis to indicate his importance in being the central object of the intended funerary message. Although Smith may have been innocently trying to improve the visual composition of the depth and layers he ignorantly changes the original intent drawn by the Egyptian artist. It just goes to show that Smith didn't know what he was doing when he approved the Facsimile for publication. Smith was not able to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs and neither could he comprehend the significance and intricate conventions of Egyptian iconography.

2. The original head envisioned by Smith was changed from frontal to profile. Smith's original vision was just plain wrong. It went totally against standard Egyptian convention which mandates that figure be shown in complete profile. Whatever Smith was thinking while moved upon by the Spirit was wrong. Had his mind been enlightened with truth there would have been a jackal head in profile penciled in the lacuna. The all knowing God in whom Joseph claimed to represent knows at least that much and you'd think he would be able to convey those thoughts in his mind while feeling the Spirit. But not so. Smith was not having a moment of inspiration from God who knows what was on the original papyrus. Smith was just making stuff up out of thin air in order to support his story. The head penciled in the lucuna is proof.

3. The concept of the penciled in right arm, hand, and knife, in combination was abandoned in its entirety. The published version got rid of the right arm, hand, and knife. It's a classic case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing! Smith's confusion is clearly manifest in showing he didn't know what was right when he made his first inspired interpretation. So was his original inspiration RIGHT (pun intended); yes it was! lol

4. The knife was switched to the other hand compliments of the lucana. This was Smith's way of getting the knife closer to Abraham wherein he could slit his throat. Anyone who is familiar with Mormon temple SECRET rituals knows that the act of slitting the throat was something that was definitely on Smith's mind. How could the priest slit Abraham's throat while on the bed? It didn't make sense. So in order to make it seem like the priest was reaching out to slay Abraham he simply used the other arm and magically drew a knife in the hand knowing full well that nobody could prove otherwise as to what may have originally been in the hand.

5. The left arm and hand of the actual papyrus is now become the right arm and hand in Facsimile No.1. Once again, the Exorcist twist is at hand! It's utterly perverted! Smith has taken the left arm and made it into a right arm. Smith couldn't tell the right from the left. That is totally uninspired! It's impossible to defend. The papyrus shows one thing and the Facsimile shows another. They are opposites. It's wrong just like Smith's interpretation of the whole scene is wrong.

6. The original knife was changed by Smith from an upright vertical to a forward horizontal. To repeat, Smith changed his story because he realized his story was ridiculous and he needed to come up with something better to make it work.

Joseph Smith has not fooled me. I'm on to him. I have come to realize that everything he did was intended to deceive. He lived a life of deceiving others just like Donald Trump has lived a life of lying.

Stay tuned folks. This is NOT over.

[_Shulem]

Hold the press!

We have another eyewitness who saw the original papyrus of Facsimile No.1 and described seeing the knife that must have been the penciled version on the paper backing of the papyrus mounted in a glass frame. This event took place just 1 month after the publication of the first installment of the Book of Abraham in the Times and Seasons. I refer to the eyewitness account meticulously recorded by Rev. Henry Caswall of his amazing visit to Nauvoo. Now, I'm not saying that Caswall didn't see a fresh copy of the newly published Facsimile No.1 featured in the Times and Seasons which he may have due to the fact he was admitted into President Smith's personal office where there may likely have been a copy and later visted the Times and Seasons press as detailed in his story, but I think his description of seeing the various fragments of papyrus from multiple scrolls proves he saw the original. Let's look at what he says specifically about the Sacrifice Scene as he examines the actual papyrus:

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." Having introduced me, together with several Mormons, to this sanctum sanctorum, he locked the door behind him, and proceeded to what appeared to be a small chest of drawers. From this he drew forth a number of glazed slides, like picture frames, containing sheets of papyrus, with Egyptian inscriptions and hieroglyphics. These had been unrolled from four mummies, which the prophet had purchased at a cost of twenty-four hundred dollars. By some inexplicable mode, as the storekeeper informed me, Mr. Smith had discovered that these sheets contained the writings of Abraham, written with his own hand while in Egypt. Pointing to the figure of a man lying on a table, he said, "That is the picture of Abraham on the point of being sacrificed. That man standing by him with a drawn knife is an idolatrous priest of the Egyptians. Abraham prayed to God, who immediately unloosed his bands, and delivered him." 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. This figure near the side is Jacob, and those are his two wives. Now do you see those steps?" "What," I replied, "do you mean those stripes across the dress of one of Jacob's wives?" "Yes," he said, "that is Jacob's ladder." "That," I remarked, "is indeed curious."

Here we see Caswall is instructed to examine the "picture" of various scenes ON THE VERY PAPYRUS fragments. The "drawn knife" described by Caswall has to be the one penciled in on the lacuna paper backing behind the glazed (glass) slide. This is very telling and confirms that Smith and his closest associates still endorsed the original knife that was drawn in the lacuna as a revelation but out of neccessity would have to shift to the other knife published in the Times and Seasons seeing that is the one that would be viewed by the masses or the world at large. The papyrus would ever remain locked up in Smith's office inside the chest of drawers.

My question for John Gee:

KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW ABOUT MODERN EGYPTOLOGY, IF YOU WERE WITH CASWALL, WOULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE DRAWN KNIFE SKETCHED ON THE PAPER BACKING IS A CORRECT RESTORATION OF THE MISSING PORTION OF THE VIGNETTE?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

Just answer the fricking question, John. Yes or no, it's as simple as that.

[_Shulem]

Suppose we surveyed every Egyptologist in the world today and asked this simple question:

IS THE KNIFE PORTRAYED IN FACSIMILE NO.1, A CORRECT OR LIKELY RESTORATION OF WHAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL PAPYRUS?

[ ] YES
[ ] NO

I would be willing to bet that every single Egyptologist not of the Mormon faith would answer the question with a resounding, "NO!" Frankly, I think it's high time that the world body of Egyptologists produce a statement about the lacunae of Facsimile No.1, to determine if the head and knife proposed by Joseph Smith's so-called revelation is an appropriate restoration. I think that Egyptologists have a responsibility to stand up and take issue regarding the false reconstruction of Facsimile No.1, and set the record straight. It's not so much a matter of criticizing Smith or a major religion but setting the record straight and standing up for what's right. Stand for the right! Who will stand for the right?

Take away the knife from Facsimile No.1 and you take away the very concept of the so-called Sacrifice Scene. Place the jackal head of Anubis on Anubis and you have a correct restoration of Anubis blessing the god Osiris and the vignette is in full harmony with the actual text written on the papyrus roll. The opening story of the Book of Abraham suddenly vanishes and the entire Book of Abraham falls!

No knife means no Abraham! I testify with everything I know about Egyptology that there was no knife in the lacuna and that Joseph Smith made it up. I defy John Gee and Kerry Muhlestein to prove to their Egyptological colleagues that Smith's restoration is correct.

Take away the knife and you take away Abraham!

Think about that.

[Guest]

My discussion is NOT over yet. There is more to take into consideration regarding the logical reasoning of the lacunae of Facsimile No. 1.

Everyone can agree that Joseph Smith took liberty in filling in the lacunae. Whether you believe the Book of Abraham or not it's a fact that Smith licensed himself through his revelations to restore the Facsimile according to the Spirit of God. It matters not whether you know anything about Egypt or if you are a world class Egyptologist. Smith did what he did and published his results.

There are two matters to discuss:

1. The knife
2. The head

Let's discuss the head, first. Why? Because it's more conclusive to my case that Smith was wrong. Allow me to explain. We cannot say that the knife Smith restored is an impossibility. We must allow believing Mormons the opportunity to say that it's possible there really was a knife and that nobody (not even Egyptologists) can prove otherwise because of the lacuna. Just because there isn't any other known scene anywhere in Egypt doesn't make it impossible that Smith restored a truly unique representation of what was on the original papyrus. Hence, it IS possible there was knife. It's possible, although hardly plausible. We MUST grant the Church the possibility there was a knife although that possibility is extremely small.

So, let's turn to the head before settling the knife. Here is where we can make a positive determination that Smith was wrong. Doing this would be impossible if it were not for high quality photographs the Church has provided. This is where Egyptological forensics comes into play when it can be positively proven that Smith's reproduction was wrong. For reference here is the link at the Joseph Smith Papers:

Original papyrus high resolution

Now, take a peek at this cut-out photo from Pearl of Great Price Central that discussed the point of contention about the missing headdress worn by the jackal god Anubis:

The faint remaining traces of what appears to have been the jackal headdress of Figure 3 in Facsimile 1.

Now, I'm going to take the liberty to edit dishonest statements made by apologists regarding the headdress:

Second, there is the question of whether Figure 3 originally had a bald human head as depicted in Facsimile 1 or a black jackal headdress, as proposed by a number of (ALL NONMORMON) Egyptologists. That the figure originally had a jackal headdress seems likely (CERTAIN), since traces of the headdress over the left shoulder of Figure 3 can be detected in the surviving papyrus fragment.

With these considerations in mind, the question of identifying Figure 3 comes into play. Some (ONLY LDS) Egyptologists have identified this figure as a priest, while others (ALL NONMORMON EGYPTOLOGISTS) have insisted it is the god Anubis. That the figure is Anubis seems plausible (CERTAIN) on account of “the black coloring of the skin” and the faint remaining traces of the jackal headdress over the figure’s left shoulder. However, without a hieroglyphic caption for this figure (SUCH AS THE CAPTION IN FACSIMILE NO.3 THAT POSITIVELY IDENTIFIES ANUBIS DIRECTLY BELOW HIM), this identification should be accepted cautiously (WITHOUT QUESTION), as Anubis is not the only jackal-headed, black-skinned figure attested in Egyptian (FUNERARY) iconography.

What’s more, the question as to whether the figure is a priest or the god Anubis (or another jackal-headed god), or whether it originally had a bald human head or a jackal head, appears to be (IS NOT) a false dichotomy. “The practice of masking for ritual and ceremonial purposes (FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS BUT NOT THE GODS) seems to have been important in Egypt (FOR MORTALS) from the earliest times and continued to be an element of ritual practice into the Roman period,” and “priestly impersonators of Anubis regularly appear in funerary ceremonies, and are styled simply Inpw, ‘Anubis’ or rmt-Inpw, ‘Anubis-men’ . . . [or] ink Inpw, ‘I am Anubis.’” At the non-funerary Hathor temple of Deir el-Medineh is a depiction of a ritual taken from chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead which shows “the king offering incense, and a priest masked as Anubis beating a round frame drum.” (BUT THE VIGNETTE OF FACSIMILE NO.1 IS NOT A PRIESTLY REENACTMENT OF A MORTAL CEREMONY TO COMMEMORATE ANUBIS BUT IS THE ACTUAL GOD ANUBIS RAISING THE ACTUAL GOD OSIRIS FROM THE DEAD JUST AS THE GODS PORTRAYED IN FACSIMILE NO.3 ARE THE ACTUAL GODS IN HEAVEN, NOT AN EARTHLY SCENE AS SMITH CLAIMED)

Now to correct John Gee:

Assume for the sake of argument that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is correct (I CAN'T ASSUME THAT BECAUSE IT'S MISSING THE HEADDRESS). What are the implications of the figure being a bald man? (IT WOULD MAKE HIM A MORTAL MAN AND NOT THE JACKAL GOD ANUBIS) Shaving was a common feature of initiation into the priesthood from the Old Kingdom through the Roman period (FOR MORTAL MEN LIVING ON EARTH). Since “complete shaving of the head was another mark of the male Isiac votary and priest” the bald figure would then be a priest (IF HE WAS MORTAL). Assume on the other hand that the head on Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is that of a jackal (AS SHOULD BE FOR FIG 6 IN FACSIMILE NO. 3 BUT SMITH HACKED THE SNOUT OFF AND MUTILATED HIM). . . . We have representations of priests (EARTHLY MEN) wearing masks, one example of an actual mask, literary accounts from non-Egyptians about Egyptian priests wearing masks, and even a hitherto-unrecognized Egyptian account of when a priest would wear a mask. In the midst of the embalmment ritual (FOR AN EGYPTIAN DEAD MAN), a new section is introduced with the following passage: “Afterwards, Anubis, the stolites priest (A MORTAL MAN) wearing the head of this god, sits down and no lector-priest shall approach him to bind the stolites with any work.” Thus this text settles any questions about whether masks were actually used (FOR EARTHLY CEREMONIES FOR MORTAL EGYPTIANS). It furthermore identifies the individual wearing the mask as a priest (UNLIKE THE GOD ANUBIS WHO IS RESURRECTING OSIRIS IN THE PRESENCE OF ISIS IN FACSIMILE NO.1). Thus, however the restoration is made, the individual shown in Facsimile 1 Figure 3 is a priest (ANUBIS), and the entire question of which head should be on the figure is moot (SETTLED) so far as identifying the figure is concerned. The entire debate (BY APOLOGISTS) has been a waste of ink.

Shame on you John Gee for lying! You are a horrible Egyptologist and I have just kicked your lying ass! You should be stripped of your Ph. D credentials. You do not deserve to be called an Egyptologist. You are a liar. You are a cheat. You are a dishonest man.

For shame!

Damn Mormons!

[_Shulem]

There is more to come. Bring John Gee before me.