Facsimile No. 1

[Mortal Man]

What is this?

The seated figure is ithyphallic and is brandishing a flail. Another figure is in front of him and is presenting the wedjat eye. In other hypocephali , the presenting figure is a bipedal snake.

What did the Egyptians call this figure?

Nṯr ʿɜ, "the great god"(1)

What is the Eye in the hands of the snake?

This is the wedjat eye. "The wedjat eye could represent almost any aspect of the divine order, including kingship and the offerings made to the gods and the dead"(2).

How did the Prophet Joseph Smith explain this figure?

Represents God sitting upon his throne, revealing through the heavens the grand Key-words of the Priesthood; as, also, the sign of the Holy Ghost unto Abraham, in the form of a dove.

What spiritual insights can be gained from these explanations?

The Prophet Joseph explained, "God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret.",(3). God the Father is male in the most common, everyday sense of the word.

"All human beingsâ??male and femaleâ??are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose"(3).

Sources:

A creative explanation to be sure (pun intentional). So how did JS get the female figures correct?

[Olavarria]

A creative explanation to be sure (pun intentional). So how did JS get the female figures correct?

I assume you are reffering to Fac 3, correct?

On a side note,when it come sto "catalyst vs missing papyri" I don't take a side. I don't believe Father Abraham drew Fac 1 , 2 or 3. The facsimilies are 2,000-1,500 years younger than Father Abraham.

If you want to study the facsimilies, here is a nice guide. If you follow this guide then you will avoide alot of the mistakes I made in the past.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=649

[Mortal Man]

I assume you are reffering to Fac 3, correct?

Correct. I found your explanation for Maat on the pundits board, but what about Isis?

If you want to study the facsimilies, here is a nice guide. If you follow this guide then you will avoide alot of the mistakes I made in the past.

http://farms.byu.edu/publications/review/?...um=1&id=649

I read Gee's guide a while back but had a hard time taking it seriously. Let's look at some quotes:

We know that the interpretations of the Egyptologists typically do not match either those of the ancient Egyptians (Z=Y) or Joseph Smith (Z=X) and so they are simply irrelevant to the issue.

And he wonders why his former advisor gets upset with him.

But the unquestioned assumption is that the interpretation of Joseph Smith has to match the interpretation of the ancient Egyptians (X=Y). This assumption is related to assumptions and theories (both formal and informal) about the nature of the facsimiles. Several such theories do not require Joseph Smith's interpretation to be the same or even close to that of the ancient Egyptians. For example, ancient Jewish interpretations for various Egyptian scenes are known that differ considerably from the ancient Egyptian interpretations and to which Egyptological methods give us no clue.11 Before any conclusions can be drawn from any comparisons between the two, one needs to have an answer to the question: why do Joseph Smith's interpretations need to match ancient Egyptian interpretations at all? I do not intend to answer the issue here but merely to raise it. Critics should note that unless they can answer this question satisfactorily they have no case.

This would make for great satire, but sadly, he is dead serious. I think this sort of statement results from the trauma of being backed up tighter and tighter againt the wall over the past several years. Let me paraphrase--If anyone ever points out anywhere where JS translations differ from ancient Egyptian interpretations, it just proves how stupid they are.

Fortunately, his conclusion makes some sense.

If we ignore the ancient Egyptian identifications of the various figures in the facsimiles, we will construct an understanding of the facsimiles that bears no resemblance to the ancient Egyptian understanding. We will, in short, not understand them at all.

On a related note...

Why is it that JS produced an alphabet and grammar for the hieratic Egyptian on the papyri but not for the reformed Eqyptian on the gold plates?

Could it have had anything to do with the fact that the gold plates were kept under wraps while the papyri were already on display to the public?

Put yourself in his shoes. You've just produced a brilliant translation of ancient Egyptian writings and everyone is saying, "Hey! Let's get these papyri to Joseph. He can translate them! Yeah! Joseph can do it!" So your closest friends cobble together the enormous sum of $2400 to buy you the papyri, then what do you say? "Sorry guys, fresh out of Urim's and Thummim's." No, he had no choice but to give people their money's worth, and that included a complete translation of the facsimilies.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Chris Smith]

Why is it that JS produced an alphabet and grammar for the hieratic Egyptian on the papyri but not for the reformed Eqyptian on the gold plates?

Lucy implies in her history that the original purpose of taking some characters to Anthon was to create an alphabet of Reformed Egyptian that could be used to translate the BoM. It should also be noted that there is a fragment of an Adamic alphabet that predates the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland. (We can tell from extant sources that JS considered Reformed Egyptian, Egyptian, and Adamic to be closely related languages.)

[Mortal Man]

Lucy implies in her history that the original purpose of taking some characters to Anthon was to create an alphabet of Reformed Egyptian that could be used to translate the BoM. It should also be noted that there is a fragment of an Adamic alphabet that predates the arrival of the papyri in Kirtland. (We can tell from extant sources that JS considered Reformed Egyptian, Egyptian, and Adamic to be closely related languages.)

Thanks Chris. I didn't know that.

[Ipso Facto]

Funny you should mention that as I am currently making my way through Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. You are absolutely right in that the JSP papyri and similar papyri, are key to understanding our temple rites.

Regarding Joseph Smith. My belief is that he firmly believed in everything he did.

Regarding your avatar, I once thought exactly the same thing as you. Several years back, I pointed out that figure to my brother immediately following a session. In actuality the seated figure is Min and the thing sticking out his front is not his arm.

This is a pro-Mormon link: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm

... the seated figure is Min ...

In a particular context, you are correct. In this one, you are not.

... and the thing sticking out his front is not his arm.

No, it's not. But, if it's true that you once, following a temple session, spoke about this figure in a conversation with your brother, then a phrase containing the words "strength" and "loins" ought to have been fresh in your mind. Funny that when you finally came to understand the meaning of this figure -- at least in this one respect -- that you didn't automatically see how Joseph Smith's explanation of it was so much "on the mark."

[Mortal Man]

First, getting back to Gee.

...why do Joseph Smith's interpretations need to match ancient Egyptian interpretations at all? ... Critics should note that unless they can answer this question satisfactorily they have no case.

I'm not a critic but I'll make a case anyway.

Designed to represent the pillars of heaven, as understood by the Egyptians.

...the Egyptians meant it to signify Shaumau...

...which is called by the Egyptians Jah-oh-eh...

...called by the Egyptians Oliblish...

...also a numerical figure, in Egyptian signifying one thousand...

...Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun

Regarding figure 7,

In a particular context, you are correct. In this one, you are not.

As to whether or not it's Min, you can take that up with Michael Rhodes.

No, it's not. But, if it's true that you once, following a temple session, spoke about this figure in a conversation with your brother, then a phrase containing the words "strength" and "loins" ought to have been fresh in your mind. Funny that when you finally came to understand the meaning of this figure -- at least in this one respect -- that you didn't automatically see how Joseph Smith's explanation of it was so much "on the mark."

I take it you're referring to this? http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backy...ian_minhor.html

I just don't see that it is necessarily "on the mark."

[Olavarria]

Correct. I found your explanation for Maat on the pundits board, but what about Isis?

Dunno.

We know that the interpretations of the Egyptologists typically do not match either those of the ancient Egyptians (Z=Y) or Joseph Smith (Z=X) and so they are simply irrelevant to the issue.

I think he has a point here. We have Mormon people walking around today, yet we constantly see non-Mormons interpreting Mormon texts and rituals in ways that Mormon don't. A better example, just look at how Catholics actually view saints, the eucharist and the Trinity and compare that with how a Muslim, Mormon or Jew think Catholics view the same things.

With the Egyptians all we see is texts, the texts that survived, without any Egyptians to correct us. At best, we understand Egyptian religion as well as Mormons understand Catholic religion; and I seriously doubt our understanding is that "good".

If we ignore the ancient Egyptian identifications of the various figures in the facsimiles, we will construct an understanding of the facsimiles that bears no resemblance to the ancient Egyptian understanding. We will, in short, not understand them at all.

That is why I gave myself an F+ and subtitled the OP of my thread: Im probably wrong.

But the unquestioned assumption is that the interpretation of Joseph Smith has to match the interpretation of the ancient Egyptians (X=Y). This assumption is related to assumptions and theories (both formal and informal) about the nature of the facsimiles.

It is an unquestioned assumption. Why does Joseph's interprestation have to match the ancient Egyptian interpretation?

Several such theories do not require Joseph Smith's interpretation to be the same or even close to that of the ancient Egyptians.

Like Kevin Barney's

For example, ancient Jewish interpretations for various Egyptian scenes are known that differ considerably from the ancient Egyptian interpretations and to which Egyptological methods give us no clue.

I think he refers to the Vignette to Chapter 125 of the Book of the Dead and the Judgement Scene of the Testament of Abraham, Amenemope and Proverbs, Demotic Story of Setna and the Rich Man and Lazarus etc.

Before any conclusions can be drawn from any comparisons between the two, one needs to have an answer to the question: why do Joseph Smith's interpretations need to match ancient Egyptian interpretations at all?

True.

I do not intend to answer the issue here but merely to raise it. Critics should note that unless they can answer this question satisfactorily they have no case.

He has a point.

Why is it that JS produced an alphabet and grammar for the hieratic Egyptian on the papyri but not for the reformed Eqyptian on the gold plates?

Oh boy!! He did? When was it published? Where can I find: "Alphabet and Grammer of the Egyptian Language, by Joseph Smith Jr"? I refer you to Brian Hauglid's paper on the FAIR youtube site.

Could it have had anything to do with the fact that the gold plates were kept under wraps while the papyri were already on display to the public? Put yourself in his shoes. You've just produced a brilliant translation of ancient Egyptian writings and everyone is saying, "Hey! Let's get these papyri to Joseph. He can translate them! Yeah! Joseph can do it!" So your closest friends cobble together the enormous sum of $2400 to buy you the papyri, then what do you say? "Sorry guys, fresh out of Urim's and Thummim's."

Why not? He could have been like some of our critics and scream: "Pagan, pagan, pagan!!!!"

"Since the Joseph Smith Papyri have been identified with absolute certainty as prayers to pagan Egyptian gods that, by biblical definition are ripe with occultism, it is inconceivable, given the holy character of God, that He would associate Himself or His revelation in any way with these pagan religious documents. This fact alone is ample grounds for totally rejecting the Book of Abraham as a revelation from the one True and Living God"( Charles M. Larson).

No, he had no choice but to give people their money's worth, and that included a complete translation of the facsimilies.

You have a gift for mind reading. Maybe you are a Seer

As to whether or not it's Min, you can take that up with Michael Rhodes.

If it is Min, then it should be interesting to note that Min was part of a triade with two Semetic gods, Reshep and Qadesh.

There is good reason to equate Qadesh with Asherah.

Read pgs 47-49 of this book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=teiYbFCsZ...sherah#PPA49,M1

[mfbukowski]

Funny you should mention that as I am currently making my way through Nibley's The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment. You are absolutely right in that the JSP papyri and similar papyri, are key to understanding our temple rites.

Regarding Joseph Smith. My belief is that he firmly believed in everything he did.

Regarding your avatar, I once thought exactly the same thing as you. Several years back, I pointed out that figure to my brother immediately following a session. In actuality the seated figure is Min and the thing sticking out his front is not his arm.

This is a pro-Mormon link: http://www.lightplanet.com/response/BofAbraham/jshypo.htm

I think you missed this in what I said:

But what is not understood is the fact that the papyri include information not found in the text which is relevant to understanding the temple rites.

You are looking at it textually as a hypocephalus. Is a cross the cross of the savior or an ancient phallic symbol? Is a swaztika a navajo symbol or one from Germany? (I do not mention the name of the party lest we get this thread closed for Godwin's law violation)

The answer is "both". It depends on the context and what is intended. The letter "F" is a great example of this in contemporary american usage. It can be used in many words and mean many things.

[mfbukowski]

It is my opinion that when Joseph came into posession of the papyri, he "translated" them by inspiration. It's just that simple. I think he was aware his "translation" was not literal. I think he could have "translated" the wallpaper and have been just as inspired. The results he achieved and what his intentions were for the papyri is what we should be looking at, not some pedantic beancounter's "translation". He was a visionary and inspired man, and though it is not popular here to think of him that way, those of us who do, understand it perfectly. What's that quote? "For those who believe in inspiration, there can be no question, for those who do not believe in inspiration, there can be no answer". Sorry for getting all mormon on everbody!

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 07:59 PM

It is my opinion that when Joseph came into posession of the papyri, he "translated" them by inspiration. It's just that simple. I think he was aware his "translation" was not literal. I think he could have "translated" the wallpaper and have been just as inspired. The results he achieved and what his intentions were for the papyri is what we should be looking at, not some pedantic beancounter's "translation". He was a visionary and inspired man, and though it is not popular here to think of him that way, those of us who do, understand it perfectly. What's that quote? "For those who believe in inspiration, there can be no question, for those who do not believe in inspiration, there can be no answer". Sorry for getting all mormon on everbody!

Can you provide evidence that Joseph was aware his translation was not literal? Maybe he should have translated the wallpaper, that way the church would have less problems today.

You don't have to be religious to believe in inspiration.

[mfbukowski]

Can you provide evidence that Joseph was aware his translation was not literal? Maybe he should have translated the wallpaper, that way the church would have less problems today.

You don't have to be religious to believe in inspiration.

No, but as I said earlier, the Anthon experience should have convinced him not to let out originals that he knew were not literal with their "translations". He wasn't stupid. But we have talked about that before.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 10:04 PM

No, but as I said earlier, the Anthon experience should have convinced him not to let out originals that he knew were not literal with their "translations". He wasn't stupid. But we have talked about that before.

And you never answered that. What was Joseph suppose to learn from the Anthon experience? The only original I know of in regards to the BoM is supposed to be the Gold plates themselves which were never shown to any unbelievers. The papyri didn't matter since the originals had been on tour for some time, and many had already viewed it. If Joseph knew that the translations was not a literal one from the papyri and as you say he must have figured that one day we would be able to read Egyptian I see no reason why he wouldn't have stated such instead of saying fairly clearly that it was a translation from the papyri.

[mfbukowski]

And you never answered that. What was Joseph suppose to learn from the Anthon experience? The only original I know of in regards to the BoM is supposed to be the Gold plates themselves which were never shown to any unbelievers. The papyri didn't matter since the originals had been on tour for some time, and many had already viewed it. If Joseph knew that the translations was not a literal one from the papyri and as you say he must have figured that one day we would be able to read Egyptian I see no reason why he wouldn't have stated such instead of saying fairly clearly that it was a translation from the papyri.

I would think that Joseph would have learned that he could be contradicted in his "translation" if others could see and perhaps translate manuscripts he had already translated.

I guess we could get into the philosophy of signs, but there is a difference between a translation "from" the papyri and a translation "of" the papyri. I don't know what words he used, and it really doesn't matter, but if you have ever translated anything that is poetic- or a song, which is even worse- you know that it can't be too literal, but you really rely on just getting the "spirit" of the original. But Joseph didn't even really care about what the original said, in this case, I am convinced, and surely he would have to read it with spiritual eyes even if he even knew what it literally said. In my opinion, the word "translation" is nearly a misnomer. I am sure he used that word for his reasons, but clearly the purpose of the original is related to the "translation" even if there is not a one to one correspondence between the meaning of each hieroglyph. I really have no problem with this and never had since I discovered the "problem" about 30 years ago right after I joined the church.

Linguistic meaning requires a specific cultural context and there are enormous differences between ancient egyptian culture and 19th century America. Those contexts, in human terms are about as extremely different as any two human contexts can be and still be human.

To me, Joseph "translated", if that word can even really be used, the significance of the book of breathings, not the words, into his new spiritual context, and he knew all along what he was doing. Exactly what he was doing, and doing it with a purpose.

The bottom line is, you either believe he was a prophet or not.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 12:01 AM

I would think that Joseph would have learned that he could be contradicted in his "translation" if others could see and perhaps translate manuscripts he had already translated.

Ah Not sure if he thought Anthon contradicted his translation.

I guess we could get into the philosophy of signs, but there is a difference between a translation "from" the papyri and a translation "of" the papyri. I don't know what words he used, and it really doesn't matter, but if you have ever translated anything that is poetic- or a song, which is even worse- you know that it can't be too literal, but you really rely on just getting the "spirit" of the original. But Joseph didn't even really care about what the original said, in this case, I am convinced, and surely he would have to read it with spiritual eyes even if he even knew what it literally said. In my opinion, the word "translation" is nearly a misnomer. I am sure he used that word for his reasons, but clearly the purpose of the original is related to the "translation" even if there is not a one to one correspondence between the meaning of each hieroglyph. I really have no problem with this and never had since I discovered the "problem" about 30 years ago right after I joined the church.

Linguistic meaning requires a specific cultural context and there are enormous differences between ancient egyptian culture and 19th century America. Those contexts, in human terms are about as extremely different as any two human contexts can be and still be human.

To me, Joseph "translated", if that word can even really be used, the significance of the book of breathings, not the words, into his new spiritual context, and he knew all along what he was doing. Exactly what he was doing, and doing it with a purpose.

Yes it can be hard to understand the meaning of written language when you are not familiar with the culture, etc. Problem is that you can still get a translation even though it may have many inaccuracies, but with the papyri we get a translation that has nothing to do with the BoA. You seem to think maybe the papyri acted as a catalyst for inspiration. I find those theories a stretch. It's also a game you can play with anything you want to.

The bottom line is, you either believe he was a prophet or not.

Belief should be based on sufficient evidence, which I think there is, but unfortunately not in favor of the Church.

[AmorLibertas]

To me, Joseph "translated", if that word can even really be used, the significance of the book of breathings, not the words, into his new spiritual context, and he knew all along what he was doing. Exactly what he was doing, and doing it with a purpose.

It baffles me how anyone can suppose that the Translations weren't intended to be understood as a literal translation of the writings of Abraham (and those of Joseph of which we have no known alleged translation) written on papyrus (of which the actual. The text of Abraham 1:12 as well as the commentary from the History of the Church found in the sub-heading, as well as the testimonies of Joseph Smith's scribe at the time, Warren Parrish, and others indicate a literal translation of the papyrus through divine inspiration and the use of Joseph's seer stone, i.e., the same manner in which Joseph claimed to have translated the Book of Mormon.

Also, if the whole Anthon affair taught Joseph anything, it taught him that few if any people in America could actually read Egyptian.

The bottom line is, you either believe he was a prophet or not.

I let the evidence inform my determination rather than attempting to fit the evidence to my determination.

[mfbukowski]

Ah Not sure if he thought Anthon contradicted his translation.

I didn't say that he did, just that he undoubtedly learned from the experience.

Belief should be based on sufficient evidence, which I think there is, but unfortunately not in favor of the Church.

Well like any statement based on "should" that depends on your beliefs! We all have our religions don't we?

[mfbukowski]

I let the evidence inform my determination rather than attempting to fit the evidence to my determination.

The "evidence" to me that Joseph was a prophet is overwhelming. I joined the church at age 31 after years of searching, atheism and skepticism. You don't do and become that without "evidence".

That was 30 years ago, and today the "evidence" is more powerful to me than ever.

Joseph if anything, was not stupid. He knew precisely what he was doing.

[Bender]

mfbukowski Posted Today, 09:39 AM

I didn't say that he did, just that he undoubtedly learned from the experience.

He probably did learn something, just not sure what you think he did learned from it.

Well like any statement based on "should" that depends on your beliefs! We all have our religions don't we?

Actually no, but it does give some insight in where you are coming from.

You don't do and become that without "evidence".

Sure you can. People do it all the time. People can view evidence differently, and their bias can determine what they consider evidence as well as the value they assign that evidence. Many use the spiritual as evidence, which I think you do as well, but I think that is a very unreliable way of determining objective reality. Many think it is reliable, but seeing that they can't come to any real agreement doesn't support that very well.