For mature audiences only
In the second part of our series on the facsimiles from The Book of Abraham I would now like to focus our attention on Facsimile No.2. This will be the main focus of our attention from this point on. Let’s look at Facsimile No.2 that comes from the Book of the Dead and is contained in The Book of Abraham.
Facsimile no.2
Just like Facsimile No.1, this has been proven by Egyptologists to be a common funerary amulet called a hypocephalus. It was placed under a mummy’s head to supposedly keep the dead person warm and for protection against grave robbers who might want to desecrate the body. There is no known photograph of the original papyrus of Facsimile No.2. What Joseph Smith had purchased from Michael Chandler had been damaged and contained missing pieces just like Facsimile No.1. In the Egyptian Alphabet and Grammar papers, published in 1966, there was a remarkably good drawing of Facsimile No.2 completed in pen and ink. This drawing showed that much of the right side on the top and bottom were blank due to being missing. Just like Facsimile No.1, this meant that Joseph Smith would have to fill in the missing parts. When Joseph Smith completed his drawings were they close to what actual copies of this common funerary amulet look like? No, they weren’t. For followers of Joseph Smith who didn’t know anything about these amulets they looked genuine. For Egyptologists they aren’t.
Here is a picture of the kind of hypocephalus that is seen in museums around the world:
I would now like to draw your attention to a certain part of this facsimile. Here we have a picture of a man/bird sitting in a chair with an erect penis. The explanation of Figure 7 is listed in the Book of Abraham.
(In at least the 1973 edition of the Church-published Pearl of Great Price, the erection was removed from Facsimile 2.)
When I first saw this character I thought it might have been Horus. In Facsimile No.1 Osiris and Isis procreate and Isis has a son called “Horus” according to Egyptian legend. Their son, Horus, is portrayed as a man with the head of a falcon. Horus is half-man and half-falcon because of his mother, Isis, had taken the form of a falcon and his father, Osiris, who was in the form of a man. However, it’s clear in the picture in Facsimile No.2, Figure 7, that this is not the head of a falcon. However, the character does have the tail of a hawk so it’s similar to Horus in that respect. (Personally, it looks like the head of a penguin, but I doubt that would be in any Egyptian pictures since no Egyptian would have ever seen a penguin anywhere near Egypt!) The bird/man in Figure 7 has the head of a dove. Here is what Horus looks like according to Egyptologists:
Horus
Egyptologists confidently state this character in Facsimile No.2, Figure 7 is the Egyptian god named “Min”. He is the god of fertility and sexuality. He is mostly portrayed as a male with an erect penis as can be seen in the picture above from Facsimile No.2. However, what is different about this picture in Facsimile No.2, Figure 7, is that the only thing visible that Joseph Smith saw with this character was the head of the dove. Joseph Smith had to fill in the rest and he did not do it correctly. The classic and well known rendition of this common scene in the funerary amulet is pictured below and is known as Leyden AMS 62. Compare this photo with the actual amulet of the hypocephalus pictured above in the color photo from a museum. Which does Leyden AMS 62 resemble most?
Leyden ams 62
Here is the pagan god Min. Caroline Seawright explains:
“In Egyptian times, he was usually an ithyphallic bearded mummified man, standing with both legs together, an arm raised holding his symbol or a flail and wearing the same low crown with twin plumes as Amen. (The way he holds the flail forms the V while his upraised forearm seems to thrust inside the V.) The Egyptian paintings and reliefs on tomb walls and temples didn’t show Min’s other arm, but the statues of the god show him with his hand encircling the base of his penis.” (Min, God of Fertility, Power and the Eastern Desert).
Joseph Smith also got the character standing in front of Min wrong. Joseph Smith has a bird being representative of the Holy Ghost while in fact in Leyden AMS 62 it is supposed to be a serpent with legs with an erect penis as well, the Egyptian god Nehebka, presenting to Min the wedjat-eye which is the symbol of good gifts. In addition to being a fertility god, Min was also the god of male fertility giving mankind the ability to procreate. He was also an agricultural god. He was the god of the Eastern Desert. He was a god who would protect those who were traveling including merchants who were involved in trading. He was worshipped by miners and men who worked the stone quarries. Min was also a moon god, but he is mainly known at the fertility god. He was also known for being very destructive despite his creative abilities in the area of fertility. LDS Scholar Dr. Hugh Nibley says this about Min:
“As the supreme sex symbol of gods and men, Min behaves with shocking promiscuity, which is hardly relieved by its ritual nature…His sacred plants were aphrodisiacal [lettuce]…and he is everywhere represented as indulging in incestuous relationships with those of his immediate family; he had the most numerous and varied religious entourage of all the gods, consisting mostly of his huge harem…The hymns, or rather chanting of his worshippers were accompanied with lewd dancing and carousing…to the exciting stimulus of a band of sistrum-shaking damsels” (Abraham in Egypt, p. 210)
After reading all of the above I was curious as to what the LDS Church had to say about figure 7 from Facsimile No.2 in their Church manual called, The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual – Religion 327:
“…the explanations for figures 3, 7 and 8 establish a clear relationship between the contents of facsimile 2 and the ordinances of the temple.” (p. 39)
“Facsimile 2, figures 7-8. Returning to God’s Presence: Egyptologists suggest that the hypocephali contain information to help deceased persons return to the presence of God. Similarly, the Lord has given Latter-day Saints divine help to return to His presence. President Brigham Young taught: ‘Your [temple] endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angles who stand as sentinels’ (Discourses of Brigham Young, 416)”. (p. 40)
That’s it? Where’s the rest of it? Surprisingly enough, that was all this LDS Church manual had to say about figure 7 despite all the other information from knowledgeable Egyptologists on what this figure is all about. Here is what the good professors over at BYU had to say about Joseph Smith’s drawing and explanation of what is taking place in figure 7:
“Joseph Smith mentions here the Holy Ghost in the form of a dove and God ‘revealing through the heavens the grand key-words of the priesthood.’ The procreative forces, receiving unusual accentuation throughout the representation, may stand for many divine generative powers, not least of which might be conjoined with blessing of the Priesthood in one’s posterity eternally” (BYU Studies, Spring 1977, p. 273)
What does all of this talk about Min have to do with the Mormon god? Is there any similarity? Why is the correlation made with the sexually active Min? Mormonism does teach that their god is united in celestial marriage to (at least one) “mother in heaven”:
“God the Father is married and there is a Mother God” (Answers to Gospel Questions, Joseph Fielding Smith, Vol. 3, pp. 143-144).
In the second part of our series on the facsimiles from The Book of Abraham I would now like to focus our attention on Facsimile No.2 and this will be the main focus of our attention from this point on. Let’s look at Facsimile No.2 that comes from the Book of the Dead and is contained in The Book of Abraham.
Andy had told me about this several months ago and it rendered me speechless. There’s really only one of two choices here. Either Joseph Smith knew what he was doing in regards to connecting the god Min with the Mormon god, or he was acting out of total ignorance and had neither an ability to translate the Egyptian language or receiving no revelation from God; Mormons can choose. In any case, it just one more piece of evidence that Joseph Smith was a fraud and a con artist. However if Mormons want to follow the pagan god Min, well that’s their choice. He sounds a lot like the Mormon god and the god they hope to become any way.
Note the pictures and writing on the seal. They do not correspond to the English text of the BoA. We can debate how much of the original cache was recovered, and what was/wasn’t used in the BoA, but Mormons cannot get around that their church published this in the PoG. The “Explanations” of the Egyptian characters are bogus. How is this not a smoking gun?
Falcon is right in that you have two ways to go with this info. Either, Min is God or J. Smith’s a fraud. James White wrote a tract along time ago on this subject; he used to pass it around to folks outside general conference. The title is: Min is Not God!
http://vintage.aomin.org/Mintract.html
Andy, from what I have read Mormons claim that the Egyptian writings (even in their original form) contain elements of truth that JS was able to restore to us. Do they not see the obvious mythological nature of these stories and the fact that they contradict Biblical theology? Impregnating a falcon (sorry Falcon)? Having a child that is half animal, half human? To equate the myths of ancient cultures with the clearly historical nature of the bible is in my mind siding with atheists in an attempt to destroy the Bible’s validity and the nature of God. Sort of like saying, “The Bible is no different than any other ancient myth about a god who became a man.” Even though the elements of one are obviously mythological, and the other obviously rooted in an actual culture in an actual physical geographical area, witnessed by actual human beings who actually lived. I believe it is Ralph (if I’m wrong I apologize in advance) who often compares the Osiris resurrection myth with the clearly historical account of Jesus’ resurrection. Do we see this as a fulfillment of Corinthians 1:18?
Liv4jc,
Well, eve was created out of a rib of adam.
“And God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man”
Why not a half animal, half human? Angels came down and bred with humans to produce nephilim, who were apparently quite tall.
Then there is the talking donkey of numbers 22:28
“Then the LORD opened the donkey’s mouth, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?”
Enki,
How do you come to the conclusion that angels bred with humans? I’m curious to hear your response.
Blessings…
Enki, you’re ex-LDS, right? or, looking that way?
Have you ever done a serious Bible study… you know, listened to someone who DOES believe the Bible, and talks about things like what you have mentioned?
You seem a little bit flippant… but I understand your questions… I used to not believe the “whale of a tale” in Jonah, until one day I realized that Jesus treated it as truth…
Everyone,
I read Olsen’s Gee&al comments on the other page, and it struck me again how far these guys have gone to try to find the one-in-a-million chance for the BoA. And I’m talking about Gee and Nibley, not people like Olsen and Hanksaint who just go with that material now that the “work” has been done.
It is so easy, just by looking at the “pearl of great price”, itself, to see what is going on.
I mean, to start with, the “Pearl of Great Price” is Jesus (Biblically), so right there is the first big clue.
Joseph Smith LOVED to put himself and his “works” in place of Messianic Biblical prophecy. Such a usurper ought to be seen as in league with, or at the very least a victim of… whom, everybody? Who was it that wanted God’s glory for himself???
Setfree, and he even said he has done more than Christ.
He was an amazing guy…
I wonder what people would think about Jim Jones or David Koresh if they had survived…
Andy, I am enjoying this series. Very powerful information. Keep it up!
David,
Thank you very much for posting that link regarding the Egyptian god Min as represented in the facsimile. This is really disturbing stuff but accurate. Mormons should hang their heads in shame, repent by rejecting Joseph Smith and his blasphemous religion and turn to the true and living God.
I’m afraid too many Mormons are like Smith’s buddies who use to continue to go on treasure hunts with him despite the fact that they never found anything. Modern day true believing Mormons can always find an excuse that the “buried treasure” can’t be found. In this case the evidence that there’s no buried treasure is right before their eyes and they refuse to accept it. The delusion continues. It makes them feel good. It’s religious dope. The treasure hunting continues.
joseph smith is a transparent charlatan that believed in the occult. period. he is a liar, a con-man, and has and is ruining the lives of millions of people, whilst condemning his followers to burn in eternal shame and hell.
that being said, please, check out you tube. oh, those clever and silly mormons. type in the following phrase into the search bar: “mormon”. look what appears … yay! a new propaganda campaign entitled “(mormonism) made simple”
oh, it gets better. if you watch a few snippets, you’ll see they bring up the HBO hit series Big Love and refute the idea that these sects of mormonism are different from what mormonism is ultimately founded on. naughty, naughty. fibs aren’t friends. or are they white lies. no matter. when you damn humanity, you damn yourself. have fun worshiping false idols and the BofA, which should be spat on. *not proofread*
Mr. Whitsell,
with a little research I think you will find that your astute Egyptian source, Alpha & Omega Ministries, is WAY oversimplifying the “Min” enthronement hieroglyph, just as Mr. Watson’s blog has. The fact is, both of their “interpretations” are plain anachronistic.
Yes it’s true that in early Egyptian mythology Min was a subordinate deity (“a god”) connected primarily with fertility & licentious sex and dance (just as Nibley’s mis-contexted quote explains), but in the later dynasties Min’s attributes were assumed by Amun, the supreme sovereign of heaven and earth. (In other words, “God Almighty” of the Egyptians, not just a “god,” or angel, of the assembly.)
The enthronement icon interpreted by JSmith as God enthroned in the heavens is indeed enthroned Amun, not Min. And JSmith, in that regard, is right on.
I know many a Evangelical will refuse to accept that the Egyptians worshipped the true God, but the fact is, they did recognize a sovereign in heaven, and he was seen as enthroned in the midsts of heaven, just as the Israelites saw YHWH. And his name was Amun.
Sincerely, mutu.
Mantis, the Romans had a king god, too. His name wsa Jupiter. The Greeks called him Zeus. So, I accept that the Egyptians worshiped a sovereign in heaven. But you’re right, I stop short of calling him the true god.
Michael,
Romans: God = Jupiter, not Mercury, Mars, or Apollo.
Greeks: God = Zeus, not Hermes, Ares, or Apollos.
Egyptian: God = Amun, not Min, Montu, or Thoth.
Israelites: God = YHWH, not Michael, Gabriel, or Raphael.
And as I said, the Hypocephalus icon in question is Amun, not Min as Mr. Watson would have you believe.
Sincerely, mutu.
Mantis,
Regardless of who you say that is, the Romans and Greeks and a host of other societies did worship one god as king of the gods. But they also actively worshipped many other gods. And that is the problem I have with your comment because you make it seem as if the Egyptians were monotheistic like us. They weren’t.
So, if they believed in other gods their system was not ours, so whoever you say that is, it is irrelevant to my point.
Enki, when I was a hater of God I would have been guffawing and high-fiving with you in regard to your last comment to me. The idea of God taking a rib from a man and from it creating a woman sounds suspiciously mythological. Next, we have fallen angels in Genesis 6 who coveted the daughter’s of men and lay with them (Genesis 6:4). How could we forget the unbelievable tale of a talking donkey in Numbers 22:28? But wait, there‘s more: God flooded the earth and Noah was only allowed to take a male and a female from every kind of animal on board? Then how do we have so many species today? God sent plagues on Eqypt? Sure He did! How about the parting of the Red Sea that allowed possibly 2 million Israelites and all of their cattle and sheep to cross before God caused the water to come crashing back down on Pharaoh’s army? Everybody have a good laugh at the God of the Bible and the people who believe in Him.
I have two answers for you. First, I begin with the pre-supposition that there is a God. I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible. This God created the universe out of nothing. Matter cannot be eternally existent, but God can be. This God is the first cause of all things. When you begin with that supposition, the biblical accounts don’t seem all that far-fetched. To a God that can create everything, including an intricately designed Human being (named Adam), then creating a female from Adam’s existing DNA would be child’s play. On to the Nephilim; in 2 Peter 2:4 we find this passage, “For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;” and also we find this passage in Jude verse 6, “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the last day.” The NT saints and Apostles didn’t shrink from believing in the the OT accounts.
(cont) The second answer is that things such as the burning bush, the parting of the Red Sea, Moses getting water from a rock, Manna from heaven, Balaam’s talking donkey, Jesus’ virgin birth, Jesus turning water into wine, Jesus healing lepers, causing the lame to walk and the blind to see, and raising the dead are in the realm of miracles, not mythology. These are not ordinary occurrences, and occur in the midst of actual historical events. Miracles are when an all powerful creator God modifies or suspends the normal rules of nature and natural law to show that He is interceding in human events. However, he does not contradict natural law.
The events that we see occurring in the properly interpreted facsimiles of the BoA reek of mythology, not historical events, or miracles.
Mantis,
Am I getting this right? Are you admitting that the LDS god supreme is the same as the Egyptian god supreme?
Michael,
Do you not accept the LORD YHWH as “King of heaven”? Do you not think that biblical epithet had anything to do with His sovereignty over the other beings in heaven?
We like to lightly throw around the word “gods” when referencing ancient religions’ pantheons, yet keep the word “God” as distinct from “angels” when referencing our good ol’ Judeo-Christian pantheon.
And make no mistake, there’s not a single Old Testament scholar out there that believes that ancient Israel didn’t have a pantheon quite parallel to most other cultures in the ancient Near East. It’s referenced many times right in your Bible.
In the Hebrew language YHWH together with his vast heavenly host were collectively referred to as “elohim.” There was no neat distinction, “God” versus “angel.”
Sincerely, mutu.
Mantis, first, I’d like you to answer setfree’s question.
Second, you paint a broad brush there about there not being a single OT scholar who doesn’t think there is a pantheon of gods. Do you care to share some of your research?
You speak of the reference to the council of gods, mentioned once, and the title elohim. Back to that research, because this is a title of a sinlge God, despite the plural.
One thing Mormons have never really addressed is that if there was an apostasy after Christ, then the Jews got it all wrong, too. This is because they believed there is only one God, too, and not many. If there are indeed many gods, and the council of gods is as you describe, then the Jews got it wrong long before Christ.
I think, though, what you are doing on a bigger scale is acting very loosely with the words and titles given to the heavenly beings. See, God is God. Angels, like men, are not of the same substance as God, and therefore are not even “gods”, unless made so by men, which would be an error on our part.
There is only one God, and God even says so, doesn’t he? Do you care to talk about that? And do not say he is the only God we are to worship, because that is not what the text says.
Jackj,
Liv4jc did a great job of explaining the part about angels producing offspring with humans. I learned of that from some program on a fundmentalist christian station. It was actually a program about UFOS. The idea presented was that these evil spirits appeared and did this, and apparently this was the source for a lot of mythological beasts.
The second idea was that in modern times these same evil spirits just updated their appearance, looking like space aliens, but are supposed to be about their business of raping humans, and doing other weird things to them. The show made the claim that only ufo fanatics see them, or people involved with wicca, or close family members. Another source claimed that Utah is a hot spot for ufo phenomena.
I had even seen something in a little cartoon pamplet from the watchtower on the topic. The first time I saw that I laughed. The LDS understanding of those scriptures are quite a bit different. “Sons of god” and ‘daughters of men’ are just humans. 2 Peter 2:4 in the LDS view are premortal humans that sided with evil before they were born.
The fundementalist and Jvh witness explanation seems a bit more ‘out there’ even though its possible.
setfree, your an interesting fellow.
I’ll answer your laughable question this way: I believe that the God of heaven loved the ancient Egyptians just like he loves you or I. And when they prayed to the God of heaven, I believe that he listened and answered them just as he would you or I.
We’ll all stand with Jesus as our advocate at the Final Judgement throne of the Father, the ultimate King of Heaven. And be judged for all our deeds in the flesh.
That, setfree, is my essential Christian belief about God.
Sincerely, mutu.
Oh, and Mantis, if the BoA is proven to fraudulent, which I think the evidence suggests it pretty much has been, what does that say about Smith as a translator? If he was not a trustworthy translator, what does that mean about the BoM? If we can’t be sure about the BoM, what about him as a propeht? If he’s in doubt as a prophet, what can we say about the LDS faith?
BTW, I know you (Mormons in general) love CS Lewis because you essentially view him as a Mormon, but he created a very believable story, didn’t he? What about The Lord of the Rings Trilogy by Tolkein? And more modernly, Rowling’s Harry Potter? There are hosts of such fantasy stories that have been created through time. All have very vivid accounts of the worlds in which the characters live, don’t they?
Given that there are many, many very creative folks who have lived and given us great stories to read, is it not possible Smith took these parchments and made up some pretty good stories about them? Think about that…
mantus,
You have a very unique fix on things regarding the Jewish religion. Let me get this straight, the Hebrews were polytheists, right? That’s kind of interesting because what set the Hebrews a part from their neighbors was that they had one God. So something is seriously messed-up here. Are you developing this concept of a polytheistic Hebrew religion on your own, or are you getting some help with it? Are Jews today polytheistic? Do they acknowledge many gods. If you have some secret information here, I think you need to reveal it to the world, including to the Jews themselves because I think they think they worship one God. I don’t know how they got it wrong. It’s probably one of those conspiracies the Mormons love to talk about.
In the facsimile we have “a god” of some sort, exposing himself. Is this one of the Mormon gods? It might not be a bad idea for our Mormon friends to look up the book “Leaving the Saints” by Marilyn Beck. It has some interesting things to say about her father Hugh Nibley (did I get his name right?) and what she believes transpired during his studies into Egyptian(ology). By all accounts this was one strange man who had some difficulties when it came to documenting his work (I’m told).
Whatever is going on with this facsimile, we know that Joseph Smith was either way off the bubble with his interpretation or he was providing a description of Mormon gods past, present and future. Given Smith’s sexual proclivities we can only imagine what he was conjuring-up in his very fertile and ungodly, sick mind.
Liv4jc,
What is the point of a talking donkey? Its probably a minor point, as I have never seen or heard any bible believer start a discussion with this passage.
Don’t feel singled out for skepticism. Actually the first time I heard of this was when I expressed doubt about the ‘mythology’ of my own ancestry. Some of the stories tell of conversations of people with animals, and transformations etc… I told this evangelical guy how his religion seems so much more real because it never had these sort of things. (I was thinking of stories in the O.T. which were primarily human to human stori) Thats when he volunteered information that sort of thing actually appeared in the O.T. So that is how I first heard of the talking donkey, how could I have overlooked that? The mule in “Shrek” is said by some to be inspired by this story.
I have expressed some skepticism over someones belief in fairies, someones belief in talking to plants. Even pointing out to a sikh that cotton was one of the most sprayed crop ever! She was advancing the ideal of living an organic, vegetarian life, and mentioned the virtue of cotton. I just pointed out that most of the cotton production in the world isn’t exactly earth friendly.
So there you have it, I guess I really am a scoffer. I scoffed at other mormons when I was LDS. I sometimes couldn’t stand that far off look people had when they were talking about their religion, like they were already in the clouds with their family for eternity. That complete trust of everything without question or doubt, that never resonated with me very much. Going to fundementalist services seemed to have much of the same quality.
I went to a meeting of organized atheists. That was actually quite grounded, it felt real. The only part I found annoying was there were a few vocal people who were very bitter about their experience with religion. The association had expressed some skepticism about any philosophy you can think of, not to single anything out
Yep, here we have the facsimiles and Joseph intentionally wants to cause dissension amongst members of the Church by promoting pornographic figures. Did the same thing when He prophesied the Civil War and all that followed, it became causes for some to leave the church, claiming he was a false prophet. So, as we see with the Civil War and rebellion at South Carolina, Joseph is right on target, it was a cool thing, we most likely will eventually understand the complexities of Egyptology. Ya think?
I don’t see a whole lot of members leaving for this reason though.
170 plus years, can’t prove the BOM is false, completely missed the boat on the BOA, and last I heard, Joseph who married 30 plus women, could not produce any children by them. Interesting little problems that must be frustrating.
Richard.
Mantis said: “The enthronement icon interpreted by JSmith as God enthroned in the heavens is indeed enthroned Amun, not Min. And JSmith, in that regard, is right on.”
WRONG: Egyptologists say that the person in figure 7 in facsimile 2 is Min. The figure in the hypocephalus from the museum is Min. Your a lone voice on this one, Mantis. Egyptologists don’t agree with you. I can say that figure 7 is Bandy the Rodeo Clown, has a feather tail and likes to be a public skin flasher in his free time by sitting on park benches with his shorts off showing off his youthful pride…that doesn’t make it true. Opinions are useless. Referenced facts are worthy of consideration.
Where are your references? Where is your research? Where is the list of Egyptologists outside of BYU that I have asked for? You didn’t look at my references above? That was a short list. Let me know if you’d like more. You’ll get it when you can supply traceable information outside of BYU that substantiates your Amun theory. Joseph Smith didn’t get it right – nothing.
Make up your mind. Is your god Elohim, Min, Amun or some other Egyptian god that likes sitting on chairs with his shorts down at his ankles displaying his “glory”? You have the right to fold your arms in prayer to whatever god you want. I choose not to pray to a figure displayed like this.
I don’t read any account of Abraham in Genesis having this kind of idea of God. The Abraham of the Bible and the Abraham of the Pearl of Great Price appear to be two different people. Abraham recognized only one God. The Abraham of the PoGP in chapters 4 & 5 stated “Gods”. That is not the Abraham of the Bible.
I still want my list. The silence from the LDS faithful is deafening.
When I was 5 years old, I remember coming out of the church building, and bumping into my little friend from school.
We very quickly got into an argument, because both of us had been told that day that ours was the only true church. Since we were in different wards, we assumed that we were in different churches, and thus the others’ church was wrong, and our own was right. We parted enemies.
I never stood up in Sacrament Meeting after that and pronounced that I knew “the church is true”. Probably because I’d figured out that I didn’t know exactly what that meant.
But I was taught to say it, many many times. I know the church is true, I know the prophet is a true prophet.
That the LDS posters are still locked in this brainwash is so desperately sad… I am out here because I care that this is a set up, a deliberate trap.
Mantis very carefully chose his wording, just like the prophets of the church, and everyone in the ranks that knows anything about anything.
But if the Mormon god is the Egyptian one, this is just one more “nail in the coffin”, linking Joe Smith and his religion to Lucifer.
See, in the Bible, God brings His people OUT OF EGYPT. In fact, Egypt is a type for sin.
All the evidence in the world can be amply demonstrated out here on Mormon Coffee, but the LDS, going by the prevailing spirit that started Joe smith et al, will be stuck with the all defeating “I know the church is true”, above all else.
Enki, as for the Balaam’s talking donkey, go to biblegateway.com and do a keyword search of his name. Research those passages, reading them in context, and you will see that he was a real man who lived in the midst of a real ancient civilization. As for his donkey, Numbers 22 tells us that he was a prophet for hire, but he was a false prophet (a diviner) who was hired to curse the Israelites. God told Balaam he could go with Balak, but he could only speak what God told him to, and he would not be able to curse Israel, who God had blessed. When Balaam left on his own with the intention to curse Israel, God sent His Angel, (the Angel of the LORD) who many believe to be the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Balaam’s donkey could see the Angel, which was intended to scare it, causing Balaam to turn back. After this happened three times, Balaam began to beat the donkey. Numbers 22:28 says YHWH opened the mouth of the donkey. Now this was either a miracle, or God speaking through the donkey. Either way it is portrayed as a real event.
As for LDS and their angels. If they are pre-incarnate human beings (and from this theology we get shades of JS King Follet Discourse about spirits being eternal) why are they filled with so much power? Who would leave that to become human? They are depicted as different from humans, serving God perfectly, even having different orders (kinds). As for the demons mentioned in the NT (Matthew 8:29 comes to mind) they seem to know that they are destined for hell. Which is exactly what 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude v. 6 says. They have no salvation. Why did Moroni return as an Angel, and where was his body he gained by being so faithful on earth? As a former LDS I’m sure you’re not surprised by the contradictions, but don’t you see the damage the LDS church did to your faith in God in general? The LDS church is a ruse of Satan. It is a lie and you know that. But if you deny the true Christ of the Bible, Satan wins either way, and you still lose eternal life
Mantis said: “I’ll answer your laughable question this way: I believe that the God of heaven loved the ancient Egyptians just like he loves you or I. And when they prayed to the God of heaven, I believe that he listened and answered them just as he would you or I.”
WRONG: The real God of heaven had no patience with the pagan idol worshippers of Egypt. Read what God had to say about it here: Isaiah 19:1; Jeremiah 43:12; 44:8; 46:25; Ezekiel 20:7-8; These are dumb idols: 1 Cor 12:2. Who do you want to compare God to (Isaiah 40:25)?
God of heaven “listened and answered them” when He displayed His anger against pagan idol worshippers in 1 Kings 18:38. It didn’t stop there. The false prophets met a dismal fate in 1 Kings 18:40. There is nothing laughable about that. What may make Mantis and the Mormons feel good and give them the burning of the bosom in their perceieved Old Testament commentaries and opinions somehow doesn’t match with the written record.
Thank you for these fascinating looks into the BoA and ancient Egypt. I await the next with great anticipation!
-Goldarn
Andy, its obvious you have studied this through and through. I commend you for your hard work. It’s sad that LDS posters on here view this as an attack when its a big-time wake up call and a hand out of the pit that their church leaders have led them into.
Thank God that no one knew anything about Egyptology when Joseph Smith was alive so he couldn’t plagiarize the truth about them. God has shown that he is an awful guesser and the stretching that the LDS posters on here go through to defend that deceiver is heartbreaking.
Mantis said: “We’ll all stand with Jesus as our advocate at the Final Judgement throne of the Father, the ultimate King of Heaven. And be judged for all our deeds in the flesh.”
WRONG: Only those that have received Jesus Christ as Savior have the right/authority to become the children of God (John 1:12) and are adopted into the family of God (Rom 8:15). That doesn’t mean everybody or “all”. This isn’t theosophy or universal salvation. The Father has appointed all judgement to the Son (John 5:22).
Take a guess at what the “sword” coming out of Jesus’ mouth means? (Hint: try applying the LDS spin on Genesis 1:26 to this and see if it fits – it doesn’t – the meaning is something else). Jesus will either know you or He won’t. If He doesn’t, then you’re getting tossed (Matt 7:21-23). Are Mormons doing God’s will (Matt 7:21)? No. Why? LDS, you’ll have to open your Bibles for the answer. BYU lectures today and last week’s “fireside” didn’t cover it. It also wasn’t in last week’s edition of the Church News. Hint: It’s in the book of John.
Again, what Mormons want to think about the events that will take place in eschatology that gives them a warm fuzzy in the navel doesn’t mean it lines up with what is said in the written Word of God (John 17:17) – the Bible.
Hank said: “Yep, here we have the facsimiles and Joseph intentionally wants to cause dissension amongst members of the Church by promoting pornographic figures”
Yep, there it is. Hank/Richard & Crispin (merryjane) said that this was I full of it, it was just my imagination, this picture in Facsimile 2 didn’t exist and that it was just my twisted sexual fanatasies. I say: open your eyes and see it for yourself. Seeing is believing. If the Mormons with seared consciences don’t think that this information has made possible investigators reach for their spiritual barf bag, then they are even under more delusion. Don’t kid yourself – not everyone is blind or likes to spin it.
MORMON LURKERS & LDS INVESTIGATORS: Are you troubled and alarmed at what you see pictured above? You should be. Do you hear the “alarms” going off in your mind saying “abomination, paganism, not of God, wrong”? If so, you can thank the real God that you haven’t totally seared your conscience. This is God-given to mankind (Rom 1:23) to know the basics of who and what God is. To ignore this and accept a false image of God is to put your conscience/brain in a ziploc bag and hand it to the LDS Church for them to pollute it. What was your reaction when you first heard about eternal progression and exaltation (becoming a god)? Horror, disbelief, disgust, rejection? Yes? That was your God-given conscience warning you that what you were hearing was garbage and not of God. Listen to that NOW! Failure to do so will take you further down the road to completely searing your conscience and being spiritually lost forever. Please – stop!
Hank made a good effort at attempted “rabbit trais” with off-topic hopefuls. I’m still looking for my list of Egyptologists outside of BYU that say Joseph Smith got the Facsimiles and BoA right. I’ve asked nicely. Please help Hank with that list that I’ve asked him for. Anyone…anywhere?
Even LDS apologist John Gee agrees that the
sexual scene of the god Min, in Facsmile No.1,
is obscene:
“In his book,’By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus’ page
102, Charles Larson restores the scene according
to the interpretation given by Egyptologists.
Below his restoration, he comments as follows;
‘Isis,meanwhile, has taken the form of a falcon
and hovers over the groin of Osiris who holds his
phallus…in anticipation of the procreative act
which will make Isis pregnant with their son
Horus.’
John Gee argues that the reconstructed drawing
appearing in Charles Larson’s book makes no
sense: ‘ Not only is his restoration of Joseph
Smith Papyrus 1 OBSCENE, it is impossible…’
(Review of books on the Book of Mormon, vol 4
p.101-102) While Mr Gee labels Larson’s recon-
struction as ‘ OBSCENE and impossible’, he
neglects to mention the fact that it was based
on the statements of two noted Egyptologists,
Klaus Baer and Richard A.Parker….”
The above is from the Salt Lake City Messenger’
issue no. 82 p.11
Andy and others,
Thanks for the research and insight into this, er, “scripture”.
Whatever you read from it, it seems that the death-cult of the Egyptians was also a sex-cult.
I don’t know why Mormons (like John Gee) would be so embarrassed at their own scriptures. Surely the idea of a “god’ impregnating his wife through a physical sexual union is wholly in line with the Mormon notions of eternal families.
What’s wrong with an erect penis? God (allegedly) uses one all the time! Where else do his “spirit children” come from?
Instead of trying to spin this “scripture” away, they should be waving it around, like a banner at a pageant, saying “this tells you more about our god than the Bible ever could”.
On the other hand, as Edmund Blackadder famously said, its complete bollocks.
If true, this should be easily corroborated by non-Mormon Egyptologists. But mantis mutu has left this statement unsubstantiated and naked, which is ironic given the content of Andy’s post.
Not to get personal here but I’m finding that mantis mutu is a warehouse of misinformation. Yes, some good solid documentation is indeed called for however that kind of spoils the fun Mormons have with their creative fairytale religion.
All we have to know about Mormonism’s “evidence” is the notion that Mormonism is true…..period. Within that premise anything and everything works and supports the claims of this religion. Even the pagan god Min can make the case for the truth of Mormonism. You see, Mormonism is all about “revealed truth” from ancient sources. Even Free Masonry rituals that have been incorporated into Mormonism is “secret, sacred” super mystical and deeply spiritual stuff. As I’ve pointed out before, only the truly enlightened can comprehend and accept these super deep revealed truths. You have to be special!
So, so-what if the facsimile in the canonized BoA has “a god” with an erection and his profile is that of a Being that is having constant sex. Fits perfect with Joseph Smith’s vision of what heaven would be like. He tried to emulate that ideal when he was living. Bottom line is that the truly indoctrinated Mormon has only a couple of choices and that is to deny this “Min” expose or support it. The denial won’t go far in the reality check department. To ignore it is giving assent to this pagan god and embracing him as the real god from the Celestial mother ship. Star Trek would have loved all of this. “Beam me up Scotty!”
Enki,
Thanks for clarifying your position. You said:
“Sons of god” and ‘daughters of men’ are just humans. 2 Peter 2:4 in the LDS view are premortal humans that sided with evil before they were born.”
I agree with you that they were humans, but respectfully disagree with you on your interpretation of the 2 Peter passage. Angels have always been angels and never intended to be humans. We were never angels, but were created humans from the get-go.
Peace…
Hank,
“So, as we see with the Civil War and rebellion at South Carolina, Joseph is right on target, it was a cool thing, we most likely will eventually understand the complexities of Egyptology.”
At the risk of sounding rude let me tell you about one inner working of my mind. With Mormons, I use the Civil War prophecy as a litmus for assessing the objectivity and fairness of LDS members. Right or wrong I do this. Let me assure you that you failed with flying colors. Joseph Smith got the prophecy wrong as the American Civil War did not ignite a world war, which is what he prophesied. D&C 87:3 did not happen.
Are you really asserting that Joseph Smith was not a polygamist?
Oh man it’s the old “there’s so much we don’t know” routine. I must admit, I really can’t stand that. I’ll tell you why. It’s because there’s so much that we “do know”. And what we do know is that Joseph Smith was totally clueless when it came to Egyptology or any number of subjects including the height of, clothes worn by and the fact of men living on the moon. I know, the more we study the moon the more we will learn about the six foot men who dressed like Pilgrims who lived there…..at one time. Right?
The reasoning power and thought processes of what is produced by Mormonism is beyond belief. I’d think these folks’ personal integrity would at some point kick in. Is it a badge of courage in Mormonism to appear this pathetically vacant? I would guess that most of our Mormon posters have above average intelligence. When will they start to use it? This isn’t faith. This is gullibility on display.
The astute Mr. Watson says:
Mantis said: “The enthronement icon interpreted by JSmith as God enthroned in the heavens is indeed enthroned Amun, not Min. And JSmith, in that regard, is right on.”
WRONG: Egyptologists say that the person in figure 7 in facsimile 2 is Min. The figure in the hypocephalus from the museum is Min. Your a lone voice on this one, Mantis. Egyptologists don’t agree with you. I can say that figure 7 is Bandy the Rodeo Clown, has a feather tail and likes to be a public skin flasher in his free time by sitting on park benches with his shorts off showing off his youthful pride…that doesn’t make it true. Opinions are useless. Referenced facts are worthy of consideration.
Where are your references? Where is your research? Where is the list of Egyptologists outside of BYU that I have asked for? You didn’t look at my references above? That was a short list. Let me know if you’d like more. You’ll get it when you can supply traceable information outside of BYU that substantiates your Amun theory. Joseph Smith didn’t get it right – nothing.
You, sir, have already let your flock down by presenting to them what has all the trappings of an authoritative article, yet you have no better non-LDS reference than a two page online article by a young Australian Egypt afficionado by the name of Caroline Seawright who is by profession a HTML programmer! And then you have the audacity to first demand a “real” source from your me, your simple, anonymous responder & accuser?!
Miss Seawright’s Min page (the source of your quote): http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/min.html
And her Bio page: http://www.thekeep.org/~kunoichi/kunoichi/themestream/caroline.html
(Continued…)
Sincerely, mutu.
Do I really come off as someone so dumb, Mr Watson???
Not to take anything away from Miss Seawright. She is quite obviously a dedicated amateur Egyptian aficionado who has done a great job in presenting much good info about ancient Egypt to a public forum (and w/out a religious/tribal agenda). But she is not an expert, and her info is entirely summary in nature; not the product of critical enquiry, and therefore definitely not the right source to critical investigation.
And if you read her article closely you can see the root of the problem to your Min interpretation from the hypocephalus.
As you quote her:
In Egyptian times, [Min] was usually an ithyphallic bearded mummified man, standing with both legs together, an arm raised holding his symbol or a flail and wearing the same low crown with twin plumes as Amen [Amun]. (Emphasis mine)
Yet she also says in her article:
The fertility god was associated both with Horus the Elder (Min-Horus) in the Middle Kingdom and with Amen (Amen-Min) in New Kingdom times to show the creative force of both gods. At times, even some goddesses have been shown with the body of Min!
In other words, as I explained in my previous post, in many late Egyptian literature “Min” wasn’t Min. In Egyptology these representations are sometimes referred to as “Min figures,” but tht nomenclature itself presents a dilemma tht is not helpful to novices (like you, I, & Miss Seawright). Rather, the iconographic phallus associated with Min was adorned by other gods, and very typically by God Almighty, Amun. As such it represented Amun as father and creator of all: men, gods, and the cosmos itself. In Egyptology these ithyphallic representations are sometimes referred to as “Min figures,” but that nomenclature presents a dilemma tht is not helpful to novices. Like the ones behind all polemical Evangelical literature of the BoA; the real source of all tht you’ve written here.
Sincerely, mutu
I think everyone should stop engaging HankSaint. It is clear that he doesn’t care to listen to reason and the truth. I think deep down inside his heart he knows the Church is not true and that Joseph Smith was a fraud. But he will never admit it and might not even recognize it consciously. By his own admission he has over 50 years of his life invested. He is in it for the long haul, regardless of the consequences. He reminds me of my older brother who says and does things just to get a reaction out of people. He loves the reaction. Loves to get under people’s skin and annoy them. This is how I imagine Hank to be. He spouts off ridiculous comments with absolutely no understanding of the real issues. No interest in reasonable dialogue. I think he (and guys like JasonRae-who has been suprisingly silent on these last couple of posts) does this on purpose to get a reaction out of people. But his arguments are beyond absurd. It’s really quite sad.
(Continued)
Note, Watson, how Seawright emphasizes Min’s typical representation as a standing deity who is adorned with Amun’s regalia in his headdress. Throughout ancient Near Eastern iconography, a standing deity typically representing a subordinate deity, while a seated (enthroned) deity always identified a sovereign. So my question to you Mr. Watson, is what is Min doing on Amun’s throne in the Hypocephalus scene? Can you please provide us with the mythological/theological rationale? He should be standing & acting as Amun’s servant. In late Egypt (and the papyrus in question is from VERY late, hellenistic times), two personages were represented on thrones: Pharaoh and Amun (and maybe their consorts).
As for Jsmith getting “nothing right” from the hypocephalus scene, here are three major things which he got unarguably right:
That the piece itself represents a holistic representation of the Cosmos. (Sorry, Watson, but that’s NOT obvious.)
That its central figure (Figure 1) represents “the first creation.” (It’s the Egyptian primordial hill for pete’s sake! Again, ANYTHING but obvious.)
That the four standing figures (Figure 6) (the Sons of Horus) represent the “four corners of the earth.” Like it or not, the sons of Horus were the four cardinal directions of ancient Egypt. And we’re not talking the “compass” points; we’re talking the idealized representation of cosmic earth—in every direction. (If you, Watson, can see the intuitive rationale in this iconography, then please spell it out for me. Until then, I think you better tone down your emphatically sweeping judgments of Joseph Smith just a tad.)
Sincerely, mutu.
Mr. Mutu,
When you address me as “Mr. Whitsell” it makes me feel like I’m a kid in the principles office 🙂
I think many on this site have addressed your claims, but I will take a crack at it. Many polytheistic societies are henotheistic, like the Egyptians possibly/probably were. However, henotheism is in stark contrast to the worship system of the OT.
Almost every culture had a highest god, or a national deity, but it was the Hebrews who differentiated themselves by claiming their God was the God of all people groups. He created out of nothing and the other “gods” were not really gods at all. The Philistines called Dagon their god but that does not mean El-Elyon honored their worship of Dagon. In fact, the national deity of the Philistines “worshiped” the Hebrew God (I Sam 5). The OT is filled with demonstrations of power by Eloheim over the gods of the nations.
The religion of the Egyptians did indeed evolve. Even you wrote –
but in the later dynasties Min’s attributes were assumed by Amun.
Seeing as how the date for the BoA is pegged anywhere from about the 1st century A.D. to possibly beyond 1,500 B.C., it would be fair to state that we have a moving target. For the sake of argument lets accept your premise(s). If the figure could be Min or it could be Amun then why do you knock me for choosing Min and you automatically choose Amun?
Keep in mind all the sex deity stuff surrounding Min would apply to Amun as they were “assumed” by him. In this way Amun greatly resembles his neighbor gods. The gods of the ANE and the Mediterranean world were horny to say the least and one wonders if the gods resembled the people or the people the gods. Again, this is in stark contrast to the God of the Hebrews. This is why the OT is filled with warnings not to intermingle with the nations. Their sex parties were not right worship of the right god.
Israelites: God = YHWH, not Dagon, Min, Zeus, Amun, Chemosh, or Nehustan.
Mutu,
If you want to call me “Mr. Falcon” you may. I think Andy would get a kick out of it if you referred to him as “Dr. Watson”, kind of like Sherlock Holmes’ side kick although in retrospected that might not be such a good idea since Mr. Holmes did all the sleuthing and Dr. Watson provided the comic relief. Andy is more in the Sherlock mode.
As I read your posts to Dr. Watson I kept thinking that you were actually making the point that Joseph Smith had no idea what he was talking about and that Mormons, in any event, should be shocked and ashamed that they are part of a religion that draws it’s deity from the pagan Egyptians. So if you want to argue what god is really represented in the facsimile the fact remains that it was a pagan god with a sex organ displayed quite prominently. Again, either Smith know what he was doing or he didn’t.
In either respect, this is bad news for our TBMs. What they have to do is resort to the fall back, “We’ll cover that later” used by teachers that can’t answer a question and are stalling for time. This technique, of course, serves the purpose for Mormons of never having to face reality. They can just meander happily down the pathway of life content with the very simplistic concept of letting all this troublesome stuff get shoved into the closet until later. Trouble is that closet gets over-stuffed and eventually it will hold no more as the junk comes tumbling out when finally the door is opened.
They used to call that Fiber MaGee’s closet for those fans of old radio programs. In the case of Mormons, Fiber MaGee is Joseph Smith and his “fibs” were woppers.
I think the following quote sums up our Mormon posters’ perspectives, especially guys like Mutu, HankSaint, and JasonRae. [“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervour about convincing and converting other people to his view. (Leon Festinger, Henry W. Riecken, and Stanley Schachter, “When Prophecy Fails”, (New York: Harper and Row, 1956)]
David Whitsell says, Keep in mind all the sex deity stuff surrounding Min would apply to Amun as they were “assumed” by him.
This is just not true, David. The inter-deity sharing of traits and ideas in ancient times (as in later times) was much more arbitrary and specific than that.
Amun was perceived and worshipped throughout middle and late Egypt as the sovereign of heaven and earth. Much of the associations of Min were too “earthy” and provincial for the greatness that the Egyptians saw in Amun. The historical theory is that in time, Amun assumed some of the hallmark attributes of Min in an effort to draw Min’s popularity to Amun’s cult, but still, these attributes were generally customized to fit Amun’s sovereign nature. (As I explained w/ the phallus.)
In Classic Greece, Hermes was featured as an ithyphallic god, as was Dionysius. But Hermes’ phallus was never associated w/ eroticism nor w/ fertility as Dionysius’ commonly was.
Hermes’ phallus often represented the mystical powers of wisdom & learning that are figured by semen’s power to miraculously bring about procreation. Much as we in the English-speaking world still “conceive” ideas, so the ancient Hermetists made it their business to “conceive” of grand ideas in honor of their divine patron.
Sincerely, mutu.
O, & David, I forgot to address your comments about the “henotheism” practiced in the ancient Near East & beyond versus the “monotheism” practiced in ancient Israel.
Really, that simplistic dichotomy hasn’t been assumed by scholarship for over a century now. At least not outside Bible-belt academia (& I’m not referring to the major Universities tht happen to be located in tht region). Even Vatican scholarship generally acknowledges ancient Israel as henotheistic. The only debate tht remains is when & how Israelite religion gets from pre-exilic henotheism to the Platonic idealisms of God’s oneness we get in places like Philo’s Judaism.
The generally accepted basis of the debate is tht in pre-exilic times YHWH’s place in the pantheon increased substantially by the deuteronomic reformers, & tht He assumed many of the attributes found in other local sovereigns such as El and Baal (sounds familiar, right?). Then the Holiness & Priestly schools further isolated & elevated YHWH, which, as you noted, was typical of many other dynasties in antiquity. The current theory is this was all about political power & cultural survival (Though, personally, as a believer, I’m not entirely sold.)
Then, centuries before Augustine’s well known, full-blown NeoPlatonism, we get the Hellenistic Jews like Philo & the Sadducees (the traitors of the NT). You (like I) was probably taught tht these people sold their religious souls to synchronize their Jewish/biblical faith w/ Hellenistic thought. But tht’s definitely NOT how they saw it. This group was composed of the Priest caste; they were at the center of the temple & Jewish life & faith. Yet they saw in YHWH the immutable, indivisible Ideal of Plato’s Timaeus, & tht is how they justified their faith in the great Roman Empire. And many Romans respected the Jews for it. (Though they didn’t take too well the Jew’s obsene, degrating practice of cutting their phallus. 😉 )
Welcome to the world of biblical criticism.
Sincerely, mutu.
My God is not the god of the Egyptians. My God is the God of ancient Israelites. Call the ithyphallic god Min, call him Min-combined-with-Horus, call him Horus-in-the-form-of-Min, or call him Amun. That is not my God. If pictorially representing the God of the ancient Israelites as a sexual being with an erection is not idolatry and abominable as prohibited by the Ten Commandments, then I don’t know what is.
I thought I might add (as, apparently, no one on the board but I & the moderators know), tht my original expose response to “Doc” Watson has been for some unexplained reason put on hold all day by administrators.
For the record, it was the 1st of three posts sent this morning, preceding the “Do I really come off as someone so dumb, Mr. Watson” post (which sounds regretably hollow w/out its context).
I really hope this isn’t like one of those notorious cases of religious censorship tht Sharon & Aaron are so quick & regular at pointing out in the Mormon Church.
Scary thought. :.)
Regardless, mutu.