Sorry this is late!
Fig. 8. Contains writings that cannot be revealed unto the world; but is to be had in the Holy Temple of God.
Discuss.
- Aaron B.
- About
- About BCC:
- Amri Brown
- Archives
- Author List
- BCC Papers
- Brad
- Cynthia L.
- google7cb0590cb8f68202.html
- J. Nelson-Seawright
- J. Stapley
- John C.
- John F.
- John Hamer
- Karen H.
- Kathryn Lynard Soper
- Kevin Barney
- Kristine
- M. Norbert Kilmer
- Margaret Blair Young
- Mark Brown
- Natalie B.
- Rebecca J.
- RJH
- Russell Arben Fox
- Sam MB
- Scott B.
- Steve Evans
- Steve P.
- Tracy
Your Friday Firestorm #41
April 4, 2008 — Steve Evans58 Responses to “Your Friday Firestorm #41”
LDS Headlines- The Mormon queen of the damned - New Zealand Herald
- LDS temple in heart of historic Philly - Salt Lake Tribune
- Davone Bess: Mormon, Badass - MVN.com
- LDS-gay dialogue - Salt Lake Tribune
- Congrats to LDS - Salt Lake Tribune
- Film documents Mormon role in gay marriage debate - The Associated Press
- Brothers sue Boy Scouts, Mormon Church over alleged abuse - 1590 KLIV Silicon Valley News
- All for the love of the manger - Salt Lake Tribune
- LDS teen Tia Thomas 'performed well' in National Bible Bee - Deseret News
- Why McCain Could Be In Trouble - Race 4 2012 (blog)
Meta
April 4, 2008 at 10:43 am
The phrase in question could be argued to be had in the temple in that it refers to granting life (resurrection) to the individual (di ank ba wsir sshq) who is taking the name Osiris much as people take names in the temple.
April 4, 2008 at 10:45 am
joseph may have understood what was behind the text, its meaning whether it was how the Egyptians understood it or how Jews may have understood it or used it.
April 4, 2008 at 10:54 am
I’m glad you used this “restored” figure, and not the censored one that was printed in the scriptures of my youth. (These figures are meaningless to my darkened mind, but I still feel the wicked thrill of the MIA Maid who can point out the difference …)
April 4, 2008 at 11:01 am
Joshua said what I was going to say.
BTW – Didn’t they find the missing pieces? Apparently some of the hypocephalus was glued in from an other papyri and that papyri was found. I seem to recall some (non-Mormon) Egyptologist coming to BYU and giving a talk on that about 10 or so years ago.
Am I imagining this or has this been addressed in more depth?
To add to what Joshua said, when the name is given there is a symbol of the resurrection although it’s no longer as pronounced as it once was. (If you know the parallels to the masonic symbols it’s even more apparent)
April 4, 2008 at 11:11 am
By the way, I have a really funny story about this particular facsimile which I will share later on.
April 4, 2008 at 11:14 am
#3 Ardis,
I assume you mean figure 7? On my mission my Honduran companion showed me his Spanish edition of the PoGP, which also had the “edited content”.
April 4, 2008 at 11:33 am
#4: Can you elaborate re masonic symbols?
#6: Can you elaborate re what the “edited” version looked like?
April 4, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Yes, MattG, at 7. JimD asked you for an explanation, not me, so I defer to you!
April 4, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Jim, the seated person in figure 7 has a notable “appendage” that is missing in the edited versions. I had always thought it was an arm sticking out…maybe it really is?
April 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm
No youtube? Waaaaaaah. Here’s my suggestion.
April 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm
I suspect that a lot of this relates to the quest for God’s holy name, shared between masonry/heremeticism and Joseph Smith.
April 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Ahh. Your theory being that the “appendage” represents the missing part of Osiris?
April 4, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Should these facsimilies be removed from the next revision of the scriptures?
None of the facsimilies are of any great scriptural value (unless I’m missing something) and it can be somewhat difficult to explain why they don’t translate into anything remotely close to what Joseph produced. Why keep them around?
April 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Excellent video, Sister Blah. Who doesn’t love The Bangles?
re: 7, etc. Maybe he gets a TK smoothie. That ain’t no arm, Matt.
April 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Should Name (required) be removed from the next revision of BCC?
None of its comments are of any great entertainment value (unless I’m missingsomething) and it can be somewhat difficult to explain why its comments don’t translate into anything remotely indicative of Mormon sympathy. Why keep it around?
April 4, 2008 at 12:51 pm
But seriously, back to figure 8, does this imply that to understand these images, you need to understand Egyptian hieroglyphs? Or that the meanings behind them are revealed in the temple? I don’t have a background in Egyptology and I don’t see much correlation between the symbols in Fig. 8 and anything that was revealed in the temple. I appreciate what Josh and Clark have added, and guess that illustrates my point; they can draw conclusions because they know the Egyptian context, whereas I cannot.
April 4, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Michael Rhodes (“The Joseph Smith Hypocephalus…Twenty Years Later”) has given this description of figure 7:
“A seated ithyphallic god with a hawk’s tail, holding aloft a flail. This is a form of Min, the god of the regenerative, procreative forces of nature, perhaps combined with Horus, as the hawk’s tail would seem to indicate. Before the god is what appears to be a bird presenting him with a Wedjat-eye, the symbol of all good gifts. In other hypocephali it can also be an ape, a snake, or a hawk-headed snake that is presenting the eye. This figure represents Nehebka, a snake god and one of the judges of the dead in the 125th chapter of the Book of the Dead. Nehebka was considered to be a provider of life and nourishment and as such was often shown presenting a pair of jars or a Wedjat-eye. As for the bird found in Facsimile 2, this could symbolize the Ba or soul (which the Egyptians often represented as a bird) presenting the Wedjat-eye to the seated god” (internal citations removed).
April 4, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Sister Blah 2, that’s a masterstroke. My kudos to you on a fine pick.
#15 has a point.
And Justin, as usual, is the pro. Although where were you when we were talking PPP, Justin? Hmmm?
April 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm
If you must know, Crawford County, Arkansas.
April 4, 2008 at 1:18 pm
They may not be useful as scripture, but I always had fun as a kid making up stories about the facsimiles during Sacrament Meeting.
April 4, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Jim (#7). I feel somewhat uncomfortable about getting specific since this is one place where the Masonic ceremony and the endowment are so very, very close. (Less so since the changes in the early 90’s but still very similar) Basically there is a symbolic resurrection of Hirum Abiff where there are 5 points of an embrace after given a certain sign and token. These five points of fellowship are tied to five exhoratory moral laws and a five pointed star. It goes back in Heremetic tradition well before Masonry was created. Probably at least to the time of the Rosicrucian movement.
Mormon critics, noting the many changes of the Masonic ceremony often use this criticize the Mormon endowment since the further back in history one goes the less like the 19th and early 20th century form it appears.
April 4, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Justin, nice.
April 4, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I have a copy of a fascinating letter form Hugh Nibley that argues that the Hebrew word translated for the wrestling Jacob did with the Lord may in fact have been an “embrace” much in the tradition of the 5 point embrace. Was it not the hollow of Jacob’s thigh where he was touched? This was the ladder to heaven where Jacob gained a new name and a promise of resurrection.
Clark,
when you refer to the symbol that is less pronounced, are you referring to the facsimile or the temple?
April 4, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Justin,
Rhodes gives a good scholarly definition of facsimile number 7, but the question Egyptologists have yet to answer is how the Egyptians understood this or as Kevin Barney argued I believe, how the Jews understood the symbols. Did Rhodes by chance address the third figure in Facsimile 7?
April 4, 2008 at 2:07 pm
I had a mission companion who liked to go on and on about how spiritual one of his brothers was. One evening, he bore fervent testimony to me, in hushed tones, that he knew his brother had the ability to read all PoGP facsimile hieroglyphs. I was supposed to be impressed. I wasn’t.
AB
April 4, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Joshua, I did some cursory wikipedia research — would it be a stretch to say Osiris was symbolizing Christ then?
April 4, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Am I to be impressed that Aaron Brown’s companion’s story wasn’t impressive, or am I supposed to be impressed that nothing much impresses Aaron Brown?
April 4, 2008 at 3:06 pm
MattG,
When Christianity came into Egypt they actually associated Horus with Christ and not Osiris. Horus if you remember is who helped Osiris come back to life.
April 4, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Rhodes gives a good scholarly definition of facsimile number 7, but the question Egyptologists have yet to answer is how the Egyptians understood this or as Kevin Barney argued I believe, how the Jews understood the symbols. Did Rhodes by chance address the third figure in Facsimile 7?
The third figure in Facsimile 2? FWIW, Rhodes’ discussion is here. (His translation of the Hor Book of Breathings is here.)
April 4, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Justin,
I meant 2, thanks
April 4, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Joshua, Thanks, that just jogged my memory, I remember seeing “Madonna and child”-type images of Isis and Horus. That’s interesting.
April 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm
MattG,
there is also a statue or icon of sorts that has Jesus riding on top of crocodiles which is parallel to the images of Horus riding on crocodiles.
April 4, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Both, John.
AB
April 4, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Joshua (23) I was more speaking of Mason/Endowment parallels and connections. However a lot of this touches upon that block of text in the hypocephalus as well. I think it clear that how Joseph and his scribes viewed the Egyptian texts was highly colored through Masonic eyes. (I suspect Nick’s forthcoming book will give many of the examples I can think of – but there are plenty.)
Now I think much of the Masonry is mere trappings to get Joseph thinking and prepared for revelation. But I think a lot is tied to ancient traditions although not in a straightforward genetic way. (i.e. there’s no way that Masonry is the apostate endowment despite the early brethren thinking that) However those who point out that Masonry was largely developed in the late 16th century and primarily developed in the 17th miss the point. What were the ‘tool’s out of which it was developed.
Plus the endowment we have is preparatory as it itself states. So even if it does have lots of non-essential trappings that originated in the Renaissance or the evolution of Masonry who cares? For all its many flaws Nibley’s work on Abraham shows how much of this is very ancient.
April 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Someone once pointed out to me that the person in Fig. 7 appears to making a temple sign. He obviously was interpreting the appendage as a right arm bent at the elbow. I don’t know about that, but I don’t really have any problem if the figure does depict a phallus. God gave one to half of us, and I see no reason to impose our current sensibilities on ancient cultures.
That said, I’m wondering why people seem so sure that the figure depicts a phallus instead of an arm or something else. No, it doesn’t have a hand, but then it doesn’t have a glans or prepuce either, and none of the other arms in the facsimile have obvious hands. More importantly, it’s nowhere near where actual genitalia are found. Most of us who are equipped with one, keep our penis in the trousers, not on the belly or chest. The appendage in the figure appears to be at least as close to the sternum as to the pelvis. Based on it’s location, a better guess might be that it’s a symbolic representation of an umbilical cord. The fact that it points straight forward is also unlike an actual human penis, which generally points either upward or downward, and is not rectangular.
I actually did a little searching on the internet to see if there was any evidence that ancient Egyptians typically depicted rectangular square-tipped penises pointing straight out from the chest. I could not find any. Everything I found suggested that when they wanted to depict a penis, they knew what it looked like and where it goes.
Other than the fact that it is longer than wide, there is nothing in the shape or location that would suggest phallus to me. Since it doesn’t look like a duck, walk like a duck, or quack like a duck, would it be unreasonable to entertain the possibility that it might not be a duck?
April 4, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Joshua, I’m pretty sure Nibley was familiar with both the ancient exegesis of the as well as its use in European esoterica. Masons will talk of the three names involved in this. (The name of the angel, the name of God, and the name Jacob gets as he is reborn) Masons see this as tied to the name the Master Mason gets which, as I mentions parallels the end of the endowment.
Anyway you’ll find that this story of Jacob gets a lot of milage in Masonry.
The image of Jacob’s Ladder is also very important as well. (And Nibley plays with that as well) I believe Caswall’s account has Joseph tying at least some vignettes in one of the papyri to Jacob and the Jacob’s ladder.
April 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Left Field, that was a common exegesis on my mission as well. You can, without much difficulty, see most of the temple signs in fac. 2. However I’m pretty convinced this is all coincidental and that they are not there.
Regarding fig. #7 I don’t quite see what all the fuss there is about. The real controversial stuff is on the rim. “I am Djabty in the House of the Ben Ben in Heliopolis, so exalted and glorious. [I am] a copulating bull without equal. [I am] that Mighty God in the House of the BenBen in Heliopolis… that Mighty God…May the Osiris Shishaq live forever, with that Mighty God in Heliopolis.”
April 4, 2008 at 5:57 pm
So Steve, are you just going to keep us in suspense, or do you mean “later on” in terms of creative periods of time, rather than a strict interpretation?:)
April 4, 2008 at 6:08 pm
MattG, awesome. All right, here’s the story. Before I went to the temple the first time, I read the scriptures fervently, voraciously, getting all learning I could before the Endowment. I of course came across this
and thought, “all right!”
So I went through the endowment — nothing!
Finally, after it all, in the celestial room there, I kid you not, was my Patriarch. A venerable sage! So I went up to him and said, “hey, what about this facsimile? It says I can get the interpretation here. Now spill!”
He hmmmed and hawwed. Had no answer. I then realized, huh, mr. patriarch has NO CLUE! A paradigm shift occurred that day, my friends.
April 4, 2008 at 6:50 pm
One of the ordinance workers in the LA temple back in the 1970’s took me aside and shared some interesting things, including how #8 relates to temple worship and what Moses would have taught Israel if he hadn’t had to return to God’s presence and come with the Law of Moses instead.
April 4, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Joshua,
“Jesus riding atop crocodiles”
Do you mean this or this?
April 4, 2008 at 7:42 pm
LOL. That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen all week. I can’t believe people actually believe stuff like that. (Which, I’m sure to any non-Mormon dropping in and seeing my beliefs that the sn-sn texts are related to Abraham will seem slightly ironic at best)
April 4, 2008 at 7:44 pm
props on the picture, thats awesome
April 4, 2008 at 7:45 pm
I don’t know what to say, other than this facsimile appears in an annoying place in the current edition of the Pearl of Great Price. As a missionary, when I invited investigators to read aloud Abraham 3:22-25, I resented how this facsimile interrupted the passage. Sometimes I folded the pages together, hoping they wouldn’t notice. Maybe I should have taped them together, like — who was it — Elder Petersen? If we keep the facs, put this one somewhere else!
April 4, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Joanne, I’d love it if all three of them were put at the end of the text. I think the original idea was that the pictures were illustrations of the story. (i.e. fac. 1 was for Abraham’s sacrifice; fac. 2 for astronomy; fac 3 for telling about astronomy)
April 4, 2008 at 8:22 pm
Those pictures in #41 . . . Nice addition to this post – or to any post, any time.
April 4, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Clark, apropos raising Hiram Abiff from the grave, think about BY and HCK teaching about resurrection as a formal ordinance if you want another valence.
April 4, 2008 at 9:05 pm
RE: Facsimiles as illustrations of the story. F #1 has Abraham on the verge of death. #3 has him exalted, crowned and enrobed as a priest/king with glory in the presence of a man/god. #2 represents the transition from the former condition to the latter and is situated within the narrative alongside a story of grand cosmic vision, divine instruction, ontologies shattered, and secrets revealed.
Found in the temple of God indeed.
April 4, 2008 at 9:32 pm
The scholarly term for the state fig. 7 finds himself in is “ithyphallic.” A great word, that.
April 4, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Thanks, Left Field, for taking one for the team. There are just some Google searches I don’t feel adventurous enough to make. “Egyptian penis” is among them.
April 4, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Sam, yeah. Plus think of the extra bit on the endowment before the marriage ceremony.
April 4, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Actually, I wasn’t that quite that adventurous either. I used phallus and ithyphallic. I momentarily thought of the search you suggest, but balked at the thought of what images might turn up.
April 4, 2008 at 11:34 pm
In Fig. 8, from left to right I see a couple of stick-figure trees, an all-seeing eye which I presume is God, an apple, a stick-figure animal on its hind legs, and a stick-figure man. And finally a stick-figure bong, which I take to be Satan, bringing the creation narrative full circle. Yep, I missed my calling as an Egyptologist alright.
April 5, 2008 at 1:26 am
And what of Martha Beck’s claims about her father’s work with the book of Abraham?
April 5, 2008 at 8:00 am
I had up quite a bit on that Patricia. I think Beck’s story is highly problematic even though obviously none of us can know for sure.
April 5, 2008 at 9:55 am
Without reading all of your blog’s links concerning Beck’s book Leaving…, Clark, I don’t see where you address her claim that Abraham is not a translated work AT ALL.
You had lots of links to tributes to Nibley, but I know that not everyone had positive interactions with him.
April 5, 2008 at 10:57 am
Line 11 – Oh God of the Sleeping Ones from the time of the Creation
Line 10 – O Mighty God, Lord of Heaven and Earth, (and)
Line 9 – the hereafter, and his Great Waters.
Line 8 – Grant life to the soul of the Osiris Sheshonk
The text of line 8 is most significant, for it is a plea to the Egyptian god to grant life to the soul of a person who had taken upon himself the name Osiris. This makes what is happening a ritual performance. It is an act of granting life to an initiate.
From – A study guide to the Facsimiles of the Book of Abraham, by Grant J. Fletcher.
I found some of Fletcher’s conclusions a stretch, and some made no sense at all, but some of the translations provided were interesting to think about.
April 6, 2008 at 10:50 am
Patricia, I thought you were talking about her claims about what happened to her. Her claims about the content of the text are no different than those critics – except she’s got less qualification. She makes no arguments for this. And a lot of her claims about her father’s scholarship are demonstrably false. (See the Sunstone review, for instance, if the link still works)